A DISCOURSE ABOUT Church-Vnity: BEING A DEFENCE OF Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Unreasonableness of SEPARATION.  
In Answer to several late PAMPHLETS.  
But principally, to Dr. own and Mr. BAXTER.  
By a PRESBYTER of the Church of England.  
London, Printed for Richard Chiswel, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church yard. MDCLXXXI.   

THE PREFACE.  
THE Country Conformist in his Reflections on Dr. Stillingfleet's Book of the Unreasonableness of 
Reflections. p. 22.  Separation, endeavours to excuse Mr. Baxter, from intending the Dean of St. Pauls, in that lewd Character he gave of a most unskilful, proud, partial, obstinate, cruel, impertinent Adversary, by making it the description of such Substitutes, as had neither the candour nor Learning of the Doctor: However any impartial Reader will see cause to believe, that Mr. B. had the Dean in his Eye, tho he had not courage to apply every thing to him, but left his Readers to apply as much as they pleased.  
But suppose he meant this, of such Substitutes, as had neither the candour nor Learning of the Doctor, I reckon a Man may fall many Degrees short of the Doctor, and yet not deserve such a Character, nor be unworthy of Mr. B's notice. As for the former I confess, a very great proportion of that is necessary for any Man, who will treat Mr. B. with any tolerable Civility, when in all his late Writings he casts so much Dirt upon the Church and Church-men; and this Author will not allow the Dean himself any great share of that, tho he has only very sparing, considering the frequent Provocations, and very decently and modestly, considering the occasions he takes for it, rebuked that huffing Disputant. As for the latter, I acknowledge myself to be such a Substitute, as have not the Learning of the Doctor; and Mr. B. might well guess, that if he had any Substitutes at all, it was very likely he would have such Men: but yet a Man, who has not the Dean's Learning, having the advantage of the Ground he has gained, may easily defend it.  
When I sirst undertook this Defence, I designed no more than a short rebuk to some such skulking Pamphleteers, as this Country Conformist, who do not fight with Mens Books, but with their Reputations; and have no other way of answering Arguments, but by picking up some By-Sayings, which with the help of an ingenious Comment may expose the Author, and then there is no need of answering his Book.  
For this Reason I began with the modest and peaceable Inquiry, which, as Mr. B. tells us, was writ by Mr. job. Then Mr. B's search for the English schismatic fell in my way, which I could not avoid considering, because I had a great mind to know him; and here I found, how necessary it was to state the true Notion of Church-Union, which drew me on to answer so much of Dr. Owen's Inquiry into the Original of Evangelical Churches; and Mr. Baxter's Second true defence of the mere Non-Conformists in Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet, as fell within that compass, which are the most material things, they say; and thus I fortook my first Design, which therefore I must briefly reassume in this Preface, having not time now for such a particular Examination of these things, as I intended.  
I shall begin with the Reflecter, who writes himself a Conformist Minister in the Country; and this is the only considerable thing in it, that it is the Testimony of one of our own Church, against the Dean of St Paul's, and for his Adversaries; and for that Reason Mr. Baxter at the end of his Answer refers his Readers to him, that those may receive that from a Conformist, which they will not receive from such a one as he.  
But what is this to the purpose? If there be some such Conformists among us now, as there were in 1643, who raised a Civil War, and pulled down Church and State to set up a Presbyterian Parity, as Mr. B. assures us, that most of the Assembly of Divines were Conformists, and yet blessed Reformers. And such a Conformist our Reflecter is, who vindicates Mr. B's Parochial Episcopacy, which is nothing else but a new 
Reflections p. 7.  Name for Presbytery, as I have proved in the following Treatise. All the difference is, that they are willing to allow that Antichristian Office of Episcopi Episcoporum, to set a Bishop over Bishops, which Primitive Antiquity was a Stranger to; and St. Cyprian expressly condemns, and of which the Pope of Rome is the only great and perfect Example.  
Nay our Conformist does plainly deride the Dean, for thinking he can justify our present Episcopacy. But the Doctor makes no question, but he shall 
P. 6.  confute this fanciful Man, and make it appear, that our present Episcopacy( which Mr. B. opposes) is agreeable to the Institution of Christ, and the best and most flourishing Churches; and easily he may, if Mr. B. be such a pitiful Antagonist.  
He pleads for taking off the Impositions, 
P. 29. ( in general without any limitation) to receive the Presbyterians again into our Church, which before he  told us, were Subscriptions, Declarations, &c. 
P. 17.  and some few alterations besides: that is either a Form of Prayer, or at least our present Liturgy, Ceremonies, and administration of Religious Offices. Now he is an admirable Conformist indeed, who at once grants away the Episcopal Office, and instead of it, sets up a Bishop in every Parish, and either an Atichristian Bishop of Bishops, or an Ecclesiastical Minister of State, to head and govern them; and alters the whole frame of our Worship, and into the Bargain leaves every Man to do as he lists, and all this without injuring our present Constitution: Nay he concludes, That all those that hinder 
Ib. p. 29.  the Union of Presbyterians with this Church, by continuing the Impositions, are Factors for the Pope, tho possibly they may do it ignorantly, at least many of them.  
He pleads for the Indulgence of others, 
P. 17.  particularly the Independents, who, he says, will be satisfied with their own Congregations, and is mightily taken with Mr. Humphry's Project( for so Mr. B. has taught us to call the Author of the peaceable Design) that the tolerated Churches( such as Independents) 
P. 34.  be declared parts of the National Church, whereof the King to be the Head.  
He will not indeed allow of Universal Toleration, tho other Sectaries make equal pretences to Conscience, and have the same Pleas for Indulgence: But what then?( says our Conformist) must all be equally indulged, or equally refused? A Man would think by this kind of arguing, that there are some besides the Non-Conformists, that are not the wisest Men in the World; Yes, Sir, no doubt, some such Country-Conformists. But in the mean time, how does he answer the Dean's Argument, that it is not the way to Peace and Union, and to silence Differences. For upon the Principles laid down by some of our dissenting Brethren, let the Constitution be made never so easy to themselves, yet others may make use of their Grounds, and carry on the Differences as high as ever; which will render all attempts of Union vain, and leave the same Weapons ready to be taken up by others. The Dean says nothing of tolerating one or other, but shows how unlikely it is, if Dissenters pursue those Principles, which they pled for their Separation now, ever to settle the Church in Peace, how easy soever the Constitution be made: our Conformist answers, he hopes, the Governours will be able to distinguish betwixt those that subvert the Christian Religion, and deny the Faith, and those that err in small things, and such as are consistent with Salvation; and that tho they may urge the same Arguments for their Liberty with better Men, yet they shall not have the same Concessions. Thus our Governours have already distinguished, and yet it has not put an end to our Controversies; and if they should distinguish once more, is he sure, that will do? Will not the excluded Parties cry as loud for Liberty of Conscience, and complain of Persecution, as they do now? Either these are good Arguments, or they are not; if they be, they will hold good in all Cases, that Men must not suffer for their Consciences, but be allowed the free exercise of Religion according to their own persuasions; if they be not, let them leave off the pretences of Scruples, and tender Consciences, with that Liberty and Freedom in exercising their Religion, which they challenge as their natural Birth-Right, and demand no more of that than what the merit of their Cause requires. As for what he adds about the Difference between subverting Religion, and some smaller Errors, as a just Foundation for Liberty or Restraint; Suppose our Governours should think Schism as destructive to Religion, and the Souls of Men, as many Heresies are, it would be an unreasonable thing to desire them to establish Schism by a Law, and yet if they did think so, they would not be much mistaken in it.  
This is sufficient to satisfy any Man, what an admirable Conformist this is, who is either grossly ignorant of the Constitution of our Church, or a declared Enemy to it. And now no Man will wonder to observe his great partiality to Dissenters, and the different judgement he passes upon the Dean and his Adversaries; where, if there be any difference in their Cause, the advantage is plainly on the Dean's side. The whole design of this Pamphlet, being to charge him with Pride and Haughtiness, with severe and unjust Reflections upon Dissenters; and to Apologize for their rude and barbarous way of treating so excellent a Person without any other Provocation, than a quiet and calm Discussion of the Principles of Separation.  
The only thing he can fix on in the Dean's Sermon, as raking into old Sores, 
P. 15.  or looking back to the proceedings of former times, is one Passage, which was alleged by him as argumentum ad hominem, That they would not condemn others, for that which themselves have practised, and think to be lawful in their own Cases. And instances, in those out-crys against the Church of England, as Cruel and Tyrannical, for expecting and requiring Uniformity; and yet do not such Men even at this day contend for the Obligation of a Covenant, which binds Men to endeavour after Uniformity in Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship? This I hope is not to rak into old Sores, when he appeals to their present judgement and practise, for which he need go no further than Mr. B's Plea for Peace. But he adds, They want the Ingenuity of Adonibezek, to reflect on the Thumbs and Toes, which they have cut off from others, and think themselves bound to do it again, if it were in their Power: This( our Conformist tells us) in my Opinion is raking into old Sores, and looking back to the proceedings of former times. How tender are some Men! How often might I have red these Words, without taking them to be a History of former Times; wherein no things that were done, no Persons that did them, are once mentioned? And may we not desire Men to reflect upon what is past, to make them modest in their censures of present Affairs, without being thought to rak into old Sores? I would desire this Author honestly to tell me, what he thinks of Mr. B's Historical Accounts of those times, which the Dean must not name, as he finds them lately published in his Plea for Peace. But he adds, the Doctor is not satisfied with looking backward, but he will needs look forward too, and as if he were a searcher of Hearts, undertake to tell what some Men will do hereafter, if it happen to come into their Power. No, Sir, The Doctor pretends to no such Gift, he only concludes this from the Obligation of the Covenant, which they still pled for, which if it still oblige, obliges them to promote Uniformity in Worship, Doctrine and Discipline, which is nothing less than the Resurrection of the good Old Cause; and we have had sufficient Experience already to know what that means, without a Spirit of prophesy.  
This is the sharpest Passage he can pick out of that Sermon, and what usage hath the Dean met with upon so little Provocation! Let any Man who has the Curiofity, and can find any diverting Entertainment in it, red over Mr. B's, Mr. A's, Mr. H's Answers, to name no more, and he shall need no better Instructors in this Polemical Art. And yet when our Arbitrator comes to state the difference between them, he has an excuse at hand for Mr. B. I do confess he is a plain Man, and uses but 
P. 21.  little Ceremony or Courtship in his Writings; some Men have Humours and Ways of their own— which may be very easily conceded to them; but that he wrote his Book in a continued Fit of Anger, or that there are injurious, or spiteful Reflections in it, I do not believe, nor cannot find:( how blind Men are, when they will not see!) he hath a very quick and earnest temper of Mind, and his style is very keen and pungent; but Spite and Anger are other things, and such as I believe Mr. B. a Stranger to. But now if Men revile and reproach without Spite and Anger, as much as other Men can do with it: If a quick and earnest temper of Mind, and a keen and pungent style, make a Man guilty of as unjust Censures, and opprobrious Reflections, as the most envenomed Spirit, what satisfaction is this to the injured Person? Or who but such a kind Apologist could find the difference? Thus he compliments Mr. Humphrey's, pays him his hearty Thanks for his judicious Tractate; for besides, the Apology he hath made for himself, he hath done the learned 
P. 33.  Doctor and Mr. Baxter a great deal of right, for he hath modestly and plainly rebuked the Pride and Haughtiness of the one, and given the other his due and deserved Praise: His Rebukes, I confess, are plain enough, how modest let others judge by a perusal of some few of them.  
The Dean had called Mr. Alsop this learned Man, which was indeed, as Mr. H. says, Ironically spoken, and which he makes an Indication what estimation he hath of himself in his contempt of others. But why so? Cannot he rebuk the pertness and folly of a trifling scribbler, who understands little more than Quibbles or Jests, without having a mighty Opinion of himself? Is it possible to make a more abusive Paraphrase upon such an Expression, than Mr. H. has done. It is all one in good earnest, as if he should more at large speak thus to his Readers; Readers, you may perhaps think that Mr. Alsop is a learned Man; but alas, what is he in comparison of me? 
Answ. to Dr. Stil. p. 9.  I am the Man that have all Learning in me. 'tis I have done such Feats, especially against the Papists. I am the Man that have killed the Philistine. This I confess is very modest, but it is hard that the Doctor cannot escape for writing against the Papists; were those Books as unseasonable too, as the Guild-Hall Sermon, to prevent Mr. H's peaceable Design for the indulgence of Popish as well as Protestant Dissenters?  
In the next page., he quarrels with 
P. 10.  the Dean for pitying Mr. B. which he thus again expounds, that Mr. B. belike, is one scarce worthy of the Doctors Conquest, but fit for his Compassion: whereas the Doctor says no more, but that he pitied him to see him appear with so much Anger and Unbecoming Passion: which I should never have suspected as a sign of Contempt, but as an Argument of a great Mind, and generous Inclination, even to a peevish Adversary. Upon this Mr. H. is in great Wrath, and says, he hopes the Doctor is not so elated, as he is idle: very plain& modest still! Then he runs a Comparison between Mr. B. and the Dean, in defiance of the old Proverb: and thinks it no sign of Modesty in the Dean to compare with Mr. B. for a profound Divine( which one may think here he would be at) that he is one as well 
P. 11.  as others who may be willing to learn( or else he is sure he will have the more need to be taught) of that Man whom he pities: That Mr. B. has as much posed the Doctor, as ever any Boy in the higher Form at School, was posed by his Master. And here he triumphs over the Dean, as a Man, who has red Books indeed, but can go no farther than his Book Learning; if the Doctor had light upon 
P. 16.  it, in some of his Books; and a little after, it is such a raw, injudicious, indigested Conception, as could never have once swum in the Thoughts of so learned a 
P. 22.  Person, if he had a faculty for beating out a Notion, so good as he has for Books, and negligence towards others, that endeavour it. Now how easy were it to make as insolent and haughty a Paraphrase for these Words, as he did for the Dean upon a much less Occasion? for it is all one in good earnest, as if he should more at large speak thus to his Readers: Reader, see here, how ignorant this great scholar is, when you take him out of his Books; he knows nothing at all of the skill of Notion making: But I am the Man, who have not red indeed so much as he, but know how to beat out a Notion better: I can invent middle ways, faster than such dull Men as he can understand them, I can find out a constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England, when this great Church-Man did not know there was any, I can tell how by the virtue of an Act of Parliament, to turn all the Conventicles in England into one National Church; the truth is, I have found out a great many precious Notions, which never were in any Books before, and it is insufferable for a Man who can only red Books, or transcribe out of them, to neglect those who make them; and I do wonder( being so skilled in the art of reasoning myself) how a Man, whose parts are so great, should be so slender in his reasonings, and why he should undertake the resolution of such a 
P. 26.  point, as he is no Body at, at all; as he adds a little after. In another place he continues his Triumphs oversome pitiful Book-Notion he has found of the Dean's: That there is no necessity of a constitutive Head, because a National Consent makes a National Church, and talks it quiter out of Countenance, and yet this Notion has been Fathered upon very ancient Notion-makers, who understood the Trade before our Notion-maker was born; but for all that, he pronounces it such a grave Nothing, such a speaking Nothing with Gravity, and 
P. 23.  pretence of being wiser than his Fellows, that if he do not come to be ashamed before Mr. B. has done with him, or has reason to be so, I will be exposed to shume myself for my speaking thus freely, plainly, and honestly, as another Person perhaps would not do. Well I have interposed for once between the Dean and shane in this Controversy, and if he has any cause to be ashamed upon this Account, I will blushy for him, and let Mr. H. prepare to do his part honestly, as he promises, if it fall to his share.  
This is the usage, which this great Man has met with from Mr. H. which our Country-Conformist calls a plain and modest rebuk, and justifies it with equal Modesty in these Words; And truly a supercilious, haughty, Ironical 
Reflections p. 36.  Contempt of worthy and good Men, is so ill favoured a thing, that nothing but plain and unpolished Words are fit to rebuk it, and such a plain rebuk is much more Christian and worthy of Religion, than an insolent despising, and trampling upon ones Adversaries, which the Doctor doth too too frequently in his Book. This is a good requital from a Church-man, for all that Contempt and Odium the Dean has so generously exposed himself to in the Defence of the Church of England.  
And yet after all, if these Accusations be true, the Dean is very much to blame; and tho he has admirably defended the Church of England, yet has not consulted his own Innocency and Reputation; let us then briefly examine what the Particulars are, whereon these Accusations are grounded.  
And our Reflecter begins with the 
P. 4.  Dean's pitying Mr. B. the Instance produced by Mr. H. which has been already considered. The next is founded on these Words: But whither will not some Mens indiscreet Zeal, and some of their own Fancies carry them, especially after forty years prescription? Our Author says, these last Words look somewhat scornful and sarcastical: Mr. B. belike is a Man of some Zeal, but of very little Understanding: he entertained some Fancies about forty years ago, concerning the unlawfulness of Diocesan Episcopacy, and believes them to this day upon Prescription. But may not Men of very good Understandings, be in some cases transported with an indiscreet Zeal? Does not that deserve the name of an indiscreet Zeal, which so plainly tends to blast the honour of our Reformation and Martyred Bishops, which is the case the Dean mentions? May not very wise and great Men, have some peculiar Fancies of their own? Or can he tell of many great Men, who were wholly free from them? Why should it then be thought scornful or sarcastical to charge Mr. B. with it, especially when the matter of Fact is evident? Unless it be a reproach to Mr. B. to be thought a Man, and subject to the weaknesses and imperfections of human Nature.  
His next Accusation is grounded on these Words: Not long after the same 
P. 9.  Author( Mr. B.) sets forth another Book with this Title;[ The true and only way of Concord of all the Christian Churches] as tho he had been Christ's Plenipotentiary upon Earth, and were to set the Terms of Peace and Concord amongst all Christians.( he says) These Words are very haughty and full of Contempt! That I cannot see, they seem to charge Mr. B. with a very good Opinion of his own Performance; and I Confess, I know no Man, who has more played the dictatory in Religion in this last Age, than Mr. B. has done, and it is fit that he should know that it is taken notice of, and that his bare Authority is not sufficient to pull down one Church, not to set up another.  
But is Mr. B. the only Man, that has proposed his judgement and Opinion for the healing the Breaches and uniting the Churches of Christendom? Have not the 
Reflections Ib.  great Pacificators at home and abroad done the same thing? and were they ever derided under the Notion of Christs Plenipotentiaries? Cannot a Person offer his judgement in this Case, but it must be entertained with scorn and derision, and he exposed as a vapouring Mountebank? I answer, Mr. B. is the first and the only Man, that ever I heard of, that undertook to determine the true and only way of Concord; other learned and excellent Persons, have modestly offered their Opinion in this case, and have interposed as Arbitrators, but no Man ever before passed a final and decretory Sentence, Thus it must be, and it cannot be otherwise; which is to act like a Plenipotentiary, which was all the Dean said; a vapouring Mountebank is the Reflecters, and I think is not the English of Plenipotentiary. But our Author proceeds.  
The Doctor adds, the Book is fraught 
Ibid.  with such impracticable Notions, and dividing Principles, as tho his whole design had been to prove that there is no true way of Concord among Christians; for if there be no other than what he allows, all the Christian Churches in the World at this day are in a mighty mistake. What now is the fault of this, does this savour of Contempt and Scorn too? That I do not find he says; But only says, that the fundamental Principles of that Book are no other than the great Pacificators have laid down. I cannot stay now to dispute this point with him; but sure I am, I never found Mr. B's fundamental Principles in a Pacificator yet. But the 
P. 10.  main Principles thereof are such, as are fitted for the attaining of as much Peace, as can reasonably be expected in this World: That is as much as can be desired, but what is that Peace? Union in practise and judgement is an idle expectation: Men will believe variously, and practise variously too. Now it is out, did not the Doctor say this, that the design seemed to be to prove that there is no true way of Concord among Christians. And this our Apologist confesses; for the true Concord of Churches is one Communion, and that cannot be had, while Men believe variously and practise variously.  
But the Doctor adds. When I looked 
P. 11.  into these two Books, and saw the design of them, I was mightily concerned and infinitely surprised, that a Person of his Reputation for Piety, of his Age, and Experience in the World, and such a lover of Peace as he had always professed himself, and one who tells the World so often of his dying, and of the day of judgement, should think of leaving two such Fire-brands behind him.— Here our Reflecter villainously perverts the Dean's design, and represents him as scoffing at Mr. B. for telling the World of his dying and the day of judgement. I will not attempt to vindicate the Dean from this Slander, which is too gross and notorious to find credit amongst his greatest Enemies. But these Books are Firebrands, so the Dean says, will appear to one, who duly considers them; and I shall leave the Proof at present upon that Trial.  
But the Doctor will have Mr. B. resolved( or at least seem to be so) to leave his Life and Sting together in the Wounds of this Church: These, he says, are venomous Words, and not becoming this worthy Person. But are they true or false? Is not this the natural Interpretation of his Actions? if it be, why should he not be  told so, and admonished by his dying, and the day of judgement, to have a care, lest what he leaves behind him may make great additions to his Account, when he is removed off this Stage, and no longer able to redress the Mischiefs, which he has occasioned?  
This is sufficient to be returned in answer to our comforming Reflecter; for what he discourses about the unseasonableness of the Dean's Sermon, is not worth considering; those who believe it necessary to give some check to a growing and boisterous Schism, will believe the Sermon very seasonable, whatever the Time, Place, or Auditory was; for necessity makes every thing seasonable, and if ever it was necessary to oppose Schism, it is at this Day. Those who are of our Author's Mind, that it is not necessary, that it is more desirable to try Mr. B's way, will never think it seasonable: and as for that dispute about Mr. A. it is so fully answered by the Dean already, that I see no need of adding any thing more.  
As for Mr. Humphrey's Answer, I have considered the Argument of it in the Body of my following Defence, and have now considered his civil usage of the Dean; and there is nothing more remains, than his Vindication of himself with reference to the peaceable Design. The Dean charged him, that in 
Dr. Stil. Pref. p. 25.  the first Edition of that Tractate in 1675, he granted toleration to Papists, as well as other Dissenters; in a new Edition of it in 1680, he denies them the liberty of such Toleration, because they were Idolaters, and only allows them the private exercise of their Religion. The reason of this Difference, the Dean supposes to be, that in 75, they were willing to consent to a Toleration, tho the Papists reaped the advantages of it, as well as themselves; but after the Plot was broken out, they thought it unseasonable to make such a Proposal: Does Mr. H. deny the matter of Fact? By no means, but owns it all. But answers four things.  
1. That it is the Doctors mistake to lay a charge upon the Party; for it was drawn up by one Man, tho put out by others: But this is his Mistake, for the Doctor does not charge it upon the Party, but expressly owns, that some of the Presbyterians did not join with the Papists for a general Toleration, and produces this Instance only to show, that this honour doth not belong universally to them. And yet it seems tho one Man drew it up, yet there were more than one consenting to the publishing of it.  
2. He answers in short, for that this is the substance of it, that he would not justify Toleration without granting it to Papists, as well as other Dissenters. Which shows us what a blessed Doctrine Toleration is.  
3. He says the reason of his altering that Passage in the second Edition, was, that some of his Brethren were offended at it. But how many these were, he doth not say; it is plain some of them were not, nor do we know the reason why others were offended, which possibly might be as much owing to public Scandal, as to private Dissatisfaction. As much as they were offended at it, it was not altered till the second Impression five years after.  
4. He will not own, that he has altered his judgement in the second Impression of his Book, from what it was the first: But People know not Mens Judgments but by their Words, and the Words of his first and second Edition contain a very different and contrary sense, which should suppose some alteration of his judgement. For these Words, Edit. 75. seem to differ from these Edit. 80.  
Edit. 75. Edit. 80. The Papist in our account is but one sort of Recusants, and the conscientious and peaceable among them, must be held in the same Predicament, with those among ourselves, that likewise refuse to come to Common Prayer. The Papist is one, whose Worship is to us Idolatry, and we cannot therefore allow them the liberty of public assembling themselves, as others of the Separation. But as for the common Papist, who lives innocently in his way, he is to us as other Separatists, and so comes under the like Toleration. He is to us in regard of what he doth in private, in the matter of his God, as others, who likewise refuse to come to common Prayer.  
Now if there be any difference between the public and private exercise of Religion, here seems to be a plain alteration of his Opinion. But he says, He explains himself therefore by way of Supply, signifying that what he said at first, 
Answ. to Dr. Still. p. 7,  should be taken in regard to the tolerating the Papist only privately, as his meaning really was then, and is now but fuller expressed. We have no way to disprove him what his meaning was, but by his Words; and if they desired a public Toleration for themselves, they did so for the Papists, who were to come under the like Toleration: And I think Mr. H. might as well have let it alone, unless he could have made a better Defence. And thus I dismiss him.  
It is time now to return to Mr. Lob's modest and peaceable Enquiry, a Title which I suppose he gave this Pamphlet by way of prophesy; for though in itself considered, it is neither very modest, nor very peaceable, as you may see in my first Chapter, yet considering that rude and barbarous Usage the Dean has since met with from other Hands, I begin to think Mr. job a very cool and modest Adversary.  
The principal Design he manages, is to attack that part of the Dean's Preface, which concerns those Advantages the Papists make of our Divisions, and the boisterous and furious 
Enquiry p. 4.  Zeal of our Dissenters against the Church of England. And to expose the Dean to popular Odium and Fury, he says it is evident, that the great end of his History, if not of the whole Book itself, is to represent dissenting Protestants to be but the Jesuits Instruments: Where, if by Instruments he means such as designedly promote a Popish Interest, nothing can be more false; but if he means such as by unreasonable Divisions, and an intemperate Zeal, give Advantages to the Papists to promote their own Cause, the Dean I confess does say it, and proves it too; and that for no other end, that I can perceive, but to reduce our Dissenters to sober Thoughts, that they who express such an Abhorrence of, and Antipathy against Popery, may take heed, lest they themselves bring it in.  
The Dean does not charge the Men, but the Nature and Tendency of their Actions with this Design, which is not to revile their Persons,( as Mr. job, Dr. O. represent it) but to warn them; for I confess, I always made a great difference betwixt what Men did knowingly, or being deluded, till Dr. O. tells us, that it is all one; and if it be 
To the Reader before the Inq. into the Orig. of Churches.  so, I must have worse thoughts of our Dissenters upon this account, than ever I had yet. Dr. own says, That some have reported the Non-conformists, some of them at least, do receive or have received money from the Papists, to act their Affairs, and promote their Interest, which he calls a putid Calumny, a malicious falsehood, afrontless lye; now I confess I never heard of this Story, and do verily believe it to be false, if it be as the Doctor represents it, but possibly he may be mistaken in the Report; for if this money was given only to keep up their Hearts, and encourage their Separation, without any formal Contract to promote the Popish Interest any other ways, this might be thought a very useful Project: He avows, that never any Person in Authority, Dignity, or 
Ibid.  Power in the Nation, nor any that had any relation to public Affairs, nor from them, Papist or Protestant, did once speak one Word to him, or advice with him, about any Indulgence or Toleration to be granted to Papists: But they might for all this do it about Toleration in general, and since he thought fit to take notice of that scandalous Report about some Non-conformist's receiving money, why doth he not as avowedly clear himself from that too? I will only tell the Doctor, we live in a busy pragmatical Age, wherein Men meddle with such things, as do not concern them; and this makes some Men very inquisitive to know the reason, why a Fast was appointed by a certain Independent Pastor at that time on the Fifth of Nov. which we know is no Popish Festival.  
But to return to our Enquiry, Mr. job reduces the Dean's Reasons( as he calls them) to engage the Reader to believe that the Dissenters are a People carrying on the Popish Designs, to six Heads.  
1. The Dissenters have embraced the 
P. 3, 5.  Jesuits Principles about spiritual Prayer, and a more pure way of Worship. Now I have red over the Dean's Preface very carefully, and can find no such thing urged against our Dissenters. All that Mr. job founds this Accusation on is, that 
p. 6.  the Dean says, it is not improbable that the Jesuits were the first setters up of spiritual Prayer in England. This is mighty falsely and imperfectly represented, and therefore it is necessary to acquaint my Reader with the true state of this Matter, which will prevent the trouble of this Dispute.  
The Dean says, that there are strong Probabilities, that the Jesuitical Party 
Preface p. 11.  had a great influence on the very first beginnings of the Separation from the Reformed Church of England: this I hope is no Charge against the Dissenters, but the Jesuits; this the Dean proves, because for several Years in Q. Elizabeth's Reign, neither Papists nor Non-conformists made any Separation from the Church. But the more zealous Priests and Jesuits, fearing the Effect of such a Compliance, first drew off the secret Papists from all Conformity with our Church: and then attempted to draw off Protestants from the Communion of this Church too, under the pretence of greater Purity and Perfection. And one way they took to accomplish this, was by setting up the way of more spiritual Prayer, and greater Purity of Worship than is in the Church of England; which the Dean proves from very credible Testimonies concerning Persons so employed in Q. Elizabeth's days; an account of which has been lately published, with great Authority in a little Pamphlet, called Foxes and Firebrands; so that de facto, the first Men, who cried down our Common-Prayer as a dull, formal, superstitious Worship, and nothing better than the Popish Mass-Book in English, and set up the way of spiritual, free, Extempore Prayer in the room of it, to draw People from our Churches, were Jesuits, who professed to do it with this Design, to cause a Separation from the Church of England, and did effect what they designed, and the Separation is still kept up upon these Pretences, as we see at this day. And if Mr. job would have said any thing to the purpose, he should have disproved these Stories, which he has not so much as mentioned in all his Pamphlet; and yet this is the only thing the Dean insists on, and confirms it with this Observation; That this way of free spiritual 
Ibid. p. 16.  Prayer in public was never known in the Church of England, nor any other reformed Church before this time; and yet all that is passed over in silence.  
The Dean indeed adds, that there is no improbability in the thing, if we consider 
ib. p. 14, 15.  the Suitableness of these Pretences about spiritual Prayer to the Doctrine and practices of the Jesuits: For they are professed despisers of the Cathedral Service, and are excused from their Attendance on it by the Constitutions of their Order; and are great Admirers of spiritual Prayer, and an Enthusiastick way of preaching. Can Mr. job disprove this? no: But he says,( 1.) The Jesuits are not for free 
Inquiry p. 7.  Prayer in public. What is that to the purpose? they will not allow public free Prayer in their own Church, ergo, they did not set it up in ours; they will not suffer their Preachers to rail against the Mass-Book at Rome, ergo, they will not allow this neither at a Conventicle. When we say, that they brought in the use of Extempore Prayers in public, we do not say, they did this, as a thing they thought allowable in public, but as an excellent Contrivance to break, and divide our Church; and they may easily be presumed to do that in our Church, which they would not allow in their own.  
But he answers,( 2.) That free Prayer is not the Jesuits Invention; or rather says, that the Dean suggests, that the Jesuits are for free Prayer in public, and that free Prayer is the Jesuits Invention: whereas the Dean has not said any such thing, nor given the least Intimation of it; and yet he takes this occasion to slander the Dean with treating the holy Spirit at an indecent manner, by ascribing its work, namely spiritual Prayer, unto the Jesuits, as though such are the works of the Spirit, that they cannot be distinguished from the Invention of the Jesuit: But where does the Doctor do this? doth he speak at all of spiritual Prayer under any other notion, than as it is opposed to a form of Prayer? does he any where make free Prayer the first invention of Jesuits? If this free Prayer were the work of God's Spirit( which we are not concerned to dispute now) cannot we say, that the Jesuits brought free Prayer( which at best is fitter for our closerts, and private Devotions) into public Use with an ill Intent, without reproaching the Spirit of God; there are no such malicious Slanders, as those which are begotten between Zeal and Ignorance.  
This is not to dispute, but to fence; not to answer Arguments, but to endeavour to lose them by diverting to another Question. The Dean proves, that the Jesuits had a great hand in the first biginnings of our Separation, and that the way they took to effect this, was by crying down Forms of Prayer, especially the English Liturgy, as no better than the Popish Mass-Book, and by setting up spiritual or free Prayer as a more pure way of Worship; Mr. job and Mr. Baxter take no notice at all of this, but fall a disputing about spiritual Prayer, what it is, and whether it were the Jesuits Invention; and I shall leave them to dispute this by themselves, for the present Controversy is not concerned in it.  
2. According to his way of making Arguments for the Dean, he says his second Argument is, that the Dissenters 
Inquiry p. 9.  have blasted the Reputation and Honour of the Reformation, which is the great thing the Jesuits would be at. Here every thing is misrepresented again; the Dean shows, how very advantageous it would be to the Popish Interest, to overthrow the Constitution of the Church of England; that nothing is more envied and maligned by the Papists than the Church of England; nothing they have more wished to see broken in pieces; nor have used more Arts or Instruments to destroy; that Protestant Bishops have been martyred by their means, who yet had the same Episcopacy, that is now among us, and which some now are so busy in seeking to destroy, by publishing one Book after another, on purpose to represent it as unlawful and inconsistent with the Primitive Institution; is all this done for the honour of our Reformation? is this the way to preserve the Protestant Religion among us, to fill Men's minds with such prejudices against the first settlement of it? &c. So that the Dean's Argument is this: Our Dissenters in undermining the Constitution of the Church of England, and in blasting the Credit of the Reformation, do that, which of all things the Papists desire to see done, as the most effectual way to introduce Popery among us; I do not say( as the Dean adds) such Men are set on by the Jesuits, but I say they do their Work as effectually as if they were.  
To this Mr. job answers two things.  
1. That the Papists do not so much 
P. 10.  envy and malign the Episcopal Government,— neither is it their Principle nor Interest to destroy it, which he attempts particularly to prove; and though it is a Matter capable of a very easy Proof, yet he goes so oddly about it, as would tempt a Man to deny it, to try his skill in these matters. But I shall only show how impertinent it is to the present Inquiry, and dismiss it.  
The Papists( he says) are no Enemies to Episcopacy, but what then? may not they desire the destruction of the Church of England? will he be so hardy as to prove, that the Papists do not design to overthrow the Constitution of the Church of England? The French King is no Enemy to Monarchy, and therefore he has no design upon the Empire of Germany, nor the Kingdom of Spain. What pity is it, the French King had not employed Mr. job to satisfy his Neighbour Princes, that he could have no design against them, because he is no Enemy to Monarchy, for it is against his Principles and Interest, that Monarchy should be destroyed? and yet I suspect his Neighbours would not have been thus satisfied, unless he could give them as plain a Demonstration, that it was neither his Principle nor Interest, to make himself an Universal Monarch. Thus it is neither the Principles nor Interest of the Jesuits to destroy Episcopacy( tho by the way they are none of the greatest Admirers of Episcopacy) but I suppose Mr. job will not prove, that they have no mind to pull down a Protestant Episcopacy, and to set up a Popish Episcopacy in the room of it.  
The more they like Episcopacy in general, the more they dislike it in Protestants, as being the best constituted Government, the most easily defended against their Arguments, and the greatest Security, and the most impregnable Bulwark of the Protestant Cause.  
2. He answers, The Reputation of the first Reformation is not hereby blasted, nor are the first Reformers in the least reproached.  
For, 1. The memory of these Worthies is precious unto the Dissenters, who can distinguish between their Episcopacy, and their Martyrdom, they not being martyred for Episcopacy, but for renouncing Transubstantiation, &c. This is what I said, that the Papists are not against Episcopacy, but against a Protestant Episcopacy. And these Martyrs were Bishops as well as Reformers, and exercised the same Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction, which our Bishops do at this day: and if this Office were Antichristian, and destructive of the Church-order of divine Institution, as our Dissenters generally say, and Mr. Baxter endeavours to prove, then these Martyrs must be Antichristian Bishops, and yet their Memory precious to Dissenters, who now abhor the thoughts of such Antichristian Bishops. Thus I perceive Dissenters they are resolved to be, tho they must dissent from themselves, unless they like none but martyred Bishops.  
2. They honour Reformers for what they did do: It being a wonder, that in less than six Years time they should do more towards Reformation than all the Bishops in England besides have done in 
P. 13.  almost six-score Years; they went as far as possibly they could in that Juncture, and probably would have gone pari passu, with Luther, Calvin, &c. had they Time and Opportunity. And yet after these good Words, what was it they did, which deserves so much Commendation? 
Original of Churches, Preface p. 33.  The Reformation of Doctrine and Worship, says Dr. own. Doctrine I confess in something; but how is our Worship reformed, when there remains such Corruptions still, as make a Separation necessary? that is a wonderful Reformation of a Church indeed, that leaves it still so corrupt, that it is not fit for Christian Communion! some Imperfections and Defects in a Reformation, are indeed tolerable in the beginning, and such Reformers may deserve their just Praises notwithstanding, which was the case of the first Liturgy in Edw. 6. Reign, which was afterwards more perfectly reformed; but when the very Foundations of a Reformation are rotten and corrupt, it is no great Credit either to the Reformers or to the Reformation; when the Reformation consisted in an Antichristian Monarchy, a Popish Mass-book turned into English, Popish Ceremonies, and human Sacraments, and such kind of Popish Trumpery, as it is unlawful for a good Christian to submit to. And as for Mr. Lob's Conjecture, that probably they would have gone on had they had time and opportunity; what probability is there of this, when Arch-Bishop Cran●er at his Martyrdom, owned himself Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and Ridley, owned himself Bishop of London? And at the second Reformation of the Liturgy, when they had opportunity enough, if they had intended any such thing, and perfected their Reformation with the most grave and deliberate Advice, having first consulted Bucer, and other foreign Divines, they left Episcopacy, Liturgy, Ceremonies, much as we now have them; and Dr. tailor, who suffered Martyrdom, declares that the whole Church Service was so perfected in King Edward's second Liturgy, according 
Acts and Monuments. Tom. 3. p. 171.  to the Rules of our Christian Religion in every behalf, that no Christian Conscience could be offended with any thing therein contained. Which does not make it probable, that they thought any further Reformation needful, especially considering that in Q. Elizabeth's Reign, when the Church enjoyed great Peace and Prosperity, and several Persons who fled in Q. Mary's days, and brought some out-landish Scruples home with them, to disturb the Peace of this Church, yet the wise learned, and holy Divines of those days, and the public Wisdom and Authority of the whole Nation, thought fit not to make any new Reformation, but established the Church upon the old Foundations.  
3. Mr. job adds, That William Nixon, in his Examination before the Bishop of London, An. 1567. Says, that Ridley Bishop of London, and Dr. tailor, did recant it( using the prescribed Garments) at their death Ridley acknowledged his Fault to Hooper, and when 
A part of a Register p. 34.  they would have put on the same Apparel upon him, he said they were abominable, and too fond for a 'vice in a Play. It is true, Nixon did say so, but what Proof is this? The Bishop immediately asked him, Where find you that in the Book of Letters of the Martyrs? to which Hawkins replies, It may be shewed in the Monuments of the Church, that many which were burned in Q. Mary's days, dyed for standing against Popery, as we now do. Which was no Answer to the Bishops Question, for indeed the Allegation was false. Dr. Taylor's judgement we have already heard, and the Story of B. Ridley, and B. Hooper, is too well known to be here repeated, and he who wants an account of it, may find it already in Dr. Stillingfleet. 
Unreas. of Separation p. 4.   
4. He adds, That those very Persons, who were so zealous in Q. Elizabeth's days for Episcopacy, were Persons of whom it is recorded, that in time of Persecution they were Men of the same Principles with Dissenters. But where is this recorded? Why he quotes Dr. Wy's Letter for it, written, 1570. and another Letter of A. G. to Mr. Coverdale. Admirable records! of the same Credit and Authority with Nixon: and I know not why Mr. Lob's word should not be taken as well as theirs; especially since they produce no Authority for what they say. We have the same Records now, which they had then, and no such thing appears; and this Fiction is evidently confuted by the History of the Troubles of Francford, of which 
Ib. p. 8. &c.  the Dean has given a brief Account.  
5. He produces a Copy of a Letter from the Queen's Council to bespeak some favour to Dissenters in the execution of Laws against them; but to what purpose I cannot tell. The Queen and her Council were willing to mitigate the execution of Laws against some Dissenters, who did not separate, but condemned Separation,& punished the Brownists, as they declare in their complaint, to which this Letter was an answer; therefore our Dissenters, who 
Part of a Register. p. 128.  separate, do not blast the honour of the Reformation. However since this Letter is produced, I will give an answer to it, by transcribing part of Sir Francis Walsingham's Letter, as I find it recorded in Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation; 
Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation. Part. 2. lib. 3. p. 420.  where Mr. Baxter also might have found, what he so injuriously charges the Doctor with leaving out, had he taken as much care in searching for it, as he does to pick up all little Stories right or wrong to asperse deserving Men.  
The Letter is to give an account of the Rules her Majesty observed in her Proceedings in Ecclesiastical Causes, both against Papists, and Reformers, as they name themselves; concerning the latter the account is this:  
For the other Party which have been offensive to the State, tho in another degree, which name themselves Reformers, and we commonly call Puritans; this hath been the proceeding towards them: A great while when they inveighed against such abuses in the Church, as Pluralities, Non-residence, and the like, their Zeal was not condemned, tho their violence was sometime censured. When they refused the use of some Ceremonies, and Rites, as superstitious, they were tolerated with much connivancy and gentleness: yea, when they called in question the superiority of Bishops, and pretended to a Democracy in the Church; yet their propositions were here considered, and by contrary Writings debated and discussed. Yet all this while it was perceived, that their course was dangerous and very popular; as because Papistry was odious, it was ever in their Mouths, that they sought to purge the Church from the relics of Papistry: A thing acceptable to the People, who love ever to run from one extreme to another.  
Because multitude of Rogues, and Poverty was an Eye-sore, and a dislike to every Man; therefore they put into Peoples Heads, that if Discipline were planted, there should be no Vagabonds nor Beggars, a thing very plausible: and in like manner they promised the People many of the impossible Wonders of their Discipline; besides, they opened unto People a way to Government by their Consistory and Presbytery: a thing tho in consequence no less prejudicial to the Liberties of private Men, than to the sovereignty of Princes; yet in first show very popular. Nevertheless, this, except it were in some few, that entred into extreme Contempt, was born with, because they pretended in dutiful manner to make Propositions, and to leave it to the Providence of God, and the Authority of the Magistrate.  
But now of late years, when there issued from them that affirmed, The consent of the Magistrate was not to be attended; when under a pretence of a Confession to avoid Slander and Imputations, they combined themselves by Classes and Subscriptions; when they descended into that vile and base means of defacing the Government of the Church by ridiculous Pasquils; when they began to make many Subjects in doubt to take Oaths, which is one of the fundamental parts of Justice in this Land, and in all places; when they begun both to vaunt of their strength, and number of their partisans, and Followers, and to use Comminations that their Cause would prevail through Uproar and Violence, then it appeared to be no more Zeal, no more Conscience, but mere Faction and Division; and therefore tho the State were compelled to hold somewhat a harder Hand to restrain them, than before; yet was it with as great Moderation, as the Peace of the State or Church could permit.  
This I suppose is a sufficient answer to Mr. job. But since he has brought us thus far out of our way, before I return, I shall upon this occasion make some Reflections upon Mr. Baxter's History 
Second Defence of Non-Conf. chap. 4. p. 29.  of the case of the old Non-Conformists.  
The Dean had made it appear, that the old Non-Conformists condemned the Principles of Separation, if we may believe their own Words, quoted out of their own Writings: Mr. B. thinks to confute this by opposing that account which was given of them, by Bishop Bancroft, and Dr. Heylen.  
( 1.) Now in the first place, has the Dean cited their Words truly or not? If he has, and they practised differently from their Principles, all that can be made of it is, that they are self condemned, as some Non-Conformists at this day are; which is no great Argument of tender Consciences. And I think Mr. B. was more concerned than the Dean, to reconcile their Principles with their Practices, or to have shown, how Men might writ against Separation, and yet practise it themselves, or at least to have concealed the inconsistency of their practise with their avowed Principles; which had been more for his own, and their Reputation, than to have alleged himself as an Example of such Self-contradiction.  
But( 2.) Wherein does this contrariety appear, between the account Bishop Bancroft gives of the old Non-Conformists, and that which Dr. Stillingfleet gives? That, Mr. B. thinks, is very evident: for Bishop Bancroft in his dangerous Positions, saith, That in Scotland it hath wrought more mischief in 
Ibid. p. 3.  thirty years, than the Pope of Rome had done before, I think in five hundred: But does he say, this mischief was Separation? otherwise he does not contradict the Dean.  
In the second Book he taketh up what rash Words he could, from any indiscreet Men to make them odious: And does the Dean deny, that they used to talk and writ Sedition, and Libel Church and State, or writ holy Common-Wealths?  
In the third he saith, That the first ten or eleven years of the Queen's Reign they so clamoured, &c.( that is a very convenient, &c. if I am not mistaken) that they divided themselves from their ordinary Congregations, and meeting in Houses, Woods, and Fields, kept there disorderly and unlawful Conventicles. But does the Dean deny or conceal 
Umeas. of Separ. p. 20. &c.  this? Does he not expressly own, that at this time they were a running into Separation, and how this was stopped by Beza's Authority, who expressly condemned it. Does he allege any of these Men at this time writing against Separation?  
But the Bishop adds, That they  told the Parliament, that their Discipline was God's Order, and they must in Conscience speak for it: They erected a Presbytery at Wandsworth; drew up a Book of their Discipline; had their Classical, Provincial, Comitial Synods, and Government: That he gives an account of the resolves of their Synods about several parts of Discipline and Government: All this I grant is true, and yet all this was without Separation; as is evident from this, that these Men were all this while Ministers of several Parish Churches, and when a stop was put to that Separation, which at first began to break out, they resolved to set up their Discipline as privately as they could, without forsaking the Communion of the Church: and therefore formed themselves into Presbyteries, had their Classical and Provincial Synods, and as much as they could, exercised their Discipline in their Parishes, made their Church-Wardens their Elders, and accounted none of their Parishioners of their Church, but such as submitted to their Discipline. And I think, I need say no more to show, how Bishop Bancroft's and Dr. Stillingfleet's account of the Non-Conformists may be easily reconciled: and therefore their judgement and practise against Separation does still plainly condemn the present Separation.  
As for Mr. Rathband, I do not find the Dean at all insist on his Authority; but only refers to the Book published by him, containing an account of some Non-Conformists Judgments, in the point of Separation, written some years before: And if his Son thinks it matter of Reputation to his Father to represent him as a schismatic; I know not how any Man is concerned in it.  
Having returned this short but full answer to Mr. B. by the way, before I return to Mr. job. I will very briefly consider what Dr. O. says to this Objection, concerning that Reproach they cast upon the Reformation by their Separation from the Church of England.  
He at first gives them very good Words too, as Mr. job did, but adds, 
Original of Churches. Pref. p. 33.  We are not obliged to make what they did, and what they attained unto, and what they judged meet as to the Worship and Government of the Church, our absolute Rule: and takes some pains to prove this by six Arguments; now I know no Body that ever asserted it: and therefore here he disputes without an Adversary. But is there no difference between rectifying some Defects,( as he observes they themselves did in the review of their Liturgy in King Edward's days) and condemning the fundamental Constitution of a Church as settled and reformed by them? Is there no difference between saying they were infallible, and that it is a Sin to alter any thing they did; and utterly rejecting every thing they did with reference to Church Government, and the administration of Religious Offices, as unlawful for a Christian to submit to? A Church may alter its own Constitutions upon prudent Considerations, as the reason and circumstances of things vary: but to charge any Church with such fundamental Corruptions, as make its Communion unlawful, as those Men do, who separate from it, is to make it such a Reformation as must be essentially reformed, which I take to be no great credit to our first Reformers.  
And yet this is the sum of what Dr. O. pleads in this cause, as will appear from a particular review of what he says.  
1. That they did not think themselves obliged, they did not think meet to abide within the bounds and limits of that Reformation of the Church, which had been attempted before them, by Men wise, learned, and holy even in this Nation. And he instances in the Reformation of wickliff and his Followers, in Testimony whereunto many suffered Martyrdom. 
Ibid.  But did wickliff ever attempt the modeling of a Church, or drawing up a body of Articles of Faith? He spake freely against some abuses in the Church of Rome, which is a different thing from reforming a Church in Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship; and therefore it is no wonder, our Reformers did not confine themselves to his Platform of Reformation, when he had given none.  
2. They( our first Reformers) did not at once make what they had done themselves to be a fixed Rule in these things; for themselves made alterations in the Service-Book which they first composed. They did so; but they did not alter, nor give any reason to suspect, that they thought there was any need of altering the main Principles of their Reformation. They still retained Episcopal Government, the use of a Liturgy, and Ceremonies, but cast out some Ceremonies of less Antiquity, and most liable to abuse, tho the People were most fond of them; the true reason of which we may red in the Preface to our Common Prayer-Book. And those blessed Martyrs thought that second review to have made the Reformation so perfect, that there was no need of any farther change.  
3. The first Reformers, both Bishops and others, both those who underwent Martyrdom at home, and those who lived in Exile abroad, differed among themselves, in their Judgments and Apprehensions about those things, which are now under contest. What those Differences were, the Dean has explained more particularly, in his Preface, which Dr. O. takes no notice of. Bishop Hooper scrupled wearing the Episcopal Habits, but soon submitted to that upon Bucer's Letter, and such other Means, as were used for his Conviction: But surely, he did not think the Episcopal Office to be Antichristian, when he himself was a Bishop, and suffered Martyrdom without renouncing his bishopric: nor the use of Liturgies, nor all Ceremonies, without which in those days he could not officiate. The Troubles of Frankfort give an account of those Differences, which began abroad, which were quiter of another nature from most of our present Disputes; they did not condemn Episcopacy, nor Liturgies, nor all Ceremonies, which are the great Quarrels now against our present Establishment.  
4. They differed in these things from all other reformed Churches, with whom they did absolutely agree in Doctrine, and had the strictest communion in Faith and Love: These things, he says, were the stated Rule and Order of their Church. What is this? Was the Difference about a Form of Prayer? All the foreign Churches retained this, and Dr. O. differs from them all in this Point even to this day. Was it about Ceremonies? The Lutheran Church retained more than our Reformers did, and no other Church did absolutely condemn them. Was it then about Episcopacy? The Lutheran Churches came as near this as they could, in setting up their Superintendents, and neither Calvin nor Beza condemned the Office as Antichristian; but would gladly have submitted to reformed Bishops: as the most learned Divines in the French Church at this day would.  
5. In their Reformation they avowedly proposed a Rule and Measure unto themselves, which was both uncertain, and in many things apparently various, from the Original Rule of these things given by Christ and his Apostles, with the practise of the first Churches. And this was the State and Example of the Church under the first Christian Emperors; as our Author confesseth. But what does the Dean confess? That they overlooked the Scripture, and the example of the first Churches, and followed only the pattern of the Church under the first Christian Emperors? Where does he in the least intimate any such thing? And would there be a better pattern for Reformation than the first Churches. whose example is the best exposition of the Scripture Rule, which otherwise in these matters every Man expounds according to his own Fancy? What Dr. O. thinks the fault of our Reformers, we take to be the great Glory of our Reformation, and an eternal Vindication of it, from the Cavils of our new Reformers.  
6. But they were newly delivered from horrid Darkness, met with great Oppositions and Difficulties. And therefore accommodated things, as much as safely they could, to the Inclinations of People. This is all his own surmise, confuted by the History of our Reformation, and signifies nothing, till he can show us those Corruptions and Defects occasioned by such a compliance. But to return to Mr. job.  
3. The third Argument he makes for the Dean, is this, The Dissenters oppose Episcopacy and Innocent Ceremonies, 
Inquiry p. 17.  notwithstanding their Antiquity. What the Dean says, is only this, that it is great Temptation to People to be reconciled to Popery, when they find the universal practise of the Ancient Church,( which had Episcopal Government, and significant Ceremonies) charged with Popery; for they will not think it credible, that the Primitive Church should so soon degenerate, without any notice taken of it by Friends or Enemies. What does our Inquirer answer to this? not one word, he never so much as taking notice, where the force of the Objection lay, but runs out into other Debates nothing to the purpose.  
Eirst, He says, The non-embracing Episcopacy does not advantage the Papists; but it may do so, if People judge of the rest of Popery, by their rejecting Episcopacy as Popish. For when they find that Episcopacy has always been the Government used in the ancient Church( which Popish Priests may easily convince them of) and yet that it is rejected by our new Reformers under the notion of Popery, it may easily induce them to believe, that what they call by the odious name of Popery was the primitive practise, and then whatever our Author can say against the Authority of Antiquity, will not keep them from turning Papists.  
The rest of his Answer consists in declaiming against Antiquity. 1. That he will allow no Antiquity but the Scriptures; nor do we allow any Antiquity 
Ibid p. 20.  which is contrary to the Scriptures; and we pled even the authority of Scripture both for Episcopacy, and the lawful use of significant Ceremonies. 2. That Antiquity at best is but a human authority, and therefore no foundation for Faith. And yet without the Testimony of Antiquity, which conveys the Scriptures down to us, we can have no divine Faith, and why may we not then allow that a credible Witness of an Apostolical practise? 3. We have but a short account of the Transactions of the first three hundred years: But all the account we have is for Episcopacy and Ceremonies, and the Account is much larger too than I perceive this Author is ware of; and Dr. own who understands these things better, durst not admit the Testimony of the third Century. 4. 'tis certain that those Errors crept in gradually, the Iniquity being a Mystery, that began even in the Apostles days. But 1. He must prove that the Iniquity was Episcopacy and Ceremonies, which is evidently false from the Apostles own account of it. 2. This Mystery of Iniquity, did not work in the Apostolical Churches, but among separating heretics, who were carefully noted and avoided by the Apostles and their successors; and therefore these Apostolical Churches, who yet retained Episcopal Government, and the use of significant Ceremonies, could no more be charged with this Mystery of Iniquity, than the Church of England can with all the Frenzies and Enthusiasms of Schismatical Dissenters.  
But he says, the Plea of Antiquity is the great Argument urged by the Papists, 
Pag. 19.  and he calls it Bellarmine's Thunder-bolt: This we grant, but I would ask our Author, whether the Papists can maintain their Ground upon this Plea of Antiquity? Bishop Jewel, when he made that famous Challenge, did not think they could; and he who finds how our Protestant Writers beat them at this Weapon, and make all their Thunder-bolts recoil upon themselves, will be of the same mind. Our Author had been an admirable Disputant against Bellarmine, who would have answered him in a word, by rejecting Antiquity, as a vain Plea; but our great Champions were so silly as not to think of this way; they allowed Antiquity to be a good Plea, but denied the Popish Pretences to Antiquity; that the early Authorities they insisted on, were counterfeit and spurious, and their latter Authorities had not Antiquity enough to prove a Primitive practise; which is all that Mr. Chillingworth means in those words he has cited from him; for that Mr. Chillingworth never meant to reject Primitive Antiquity, is evident from his Demonstration of the Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy at the end of his Book, which I am willing to hope, our Inquirer never saw; for though Ignorance be a Fault in a censuring Inquirer, yet it is more pardonable than Knavery: The Demonstration Mr. Chillingworth deduces at large, and sums it up in these Words.  
Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been received universally in the Church presently after the Apostles times. Between the Apostles times and this, presently after, there was not time enough for, nor possibility of so great an Alteration; and therefore there was no such Alteration as is pretended. And therefore Episcopacy being confessed to be so Ancient and catholic, must be granted also to be apostolic, quod erat demonstrandum.  
And I hope our Inquirer now will grow so modest, as not to city Mr. Chillingworth any more against an Argument from Antiquity.  
4. The next Argument he makes for the Dean, is this, Our Divisions give great Advantages to the Papists; 
Pag. 21.  and the Dissenters by their Separation, have caused the Division. The first part of this he acknowledges; what he answers to the second Part, who is the Divider, I have considered in the second Chapter of the Defence.  
And as for what he adds to prove, 
Pag. 26.  that it is against the Principles and Interest of the Dissenters to promote Popery, it is nothing to the purpose, for the Dean had no where charged them with such a design; only shows that the way they take is the effectual Course to bring it in.  
But that account he gives, of the Dean's falling in with Bellarmine, entertaining 
Pag. 28.  the same Principles, and arguing from the same topics with him is very pleasant.  
1. That Bellarmine and the Dean are both for Union; but I hope it is not the same Union they are for. Thus Mr. Baxter, and Mr. job are both for Union, and so fall in with Bellarmine.  
2. That Bellarmine, and Dr. Stillingfleet, were both on the imposing side. But still it was not the same side, and thus our Dissenters fall in with Novatianus and Donatus, and other Ancient schismatics, who were on the opposing side,  
3. The Doctor suggests the impossibility 
Pag. 29.  of a limited Toleration, and therefore his Objections are made against an universal and unlimited Toleration, as Bellarmin's are. The Dean shows, that upon the Principles now urged for Toleration it must be universal, and Mr. job should have shown, where they might stop, without injuring the Arguments now urged for Toleration; but to say the Dean suggests a limited Toleration to be impossible, when he himself has given a platform of such a Toleration, does not become the pretended modesty of our Inquirer.  
4. The Doctor asserts the danger of receding from the settled Constitution. Yes; unless it be done with great Care and Prudence, but he does not deny the lawfulness of such Alterations in some Cases; for he makes Proposals himself about it not indeed recede from settled Constitutions, but to make such Alterations as may consist with preserving the Constitution; which every one knows was not Bellarmine's Doctrine, and therefore it is not worth the while to consider his parallel, which savours of so much Ignorance or Dishonesty, that no ordinary Reader, who will compare his Allegations, can be imposed on by them.  
Thus that Calumny, That the Dean does his utmost to prevent a Protestant Union, deserves only to be scorned: He 
Pag. 32.  makes the Dean's opposing the alteration of some Penal Laws against Dissenters, to be an Opposition of an unlimited Toleration, and so he is against a Protestant Union: And to represent the thing odiously, calls a boundless Toleration, an indulging of Drunkenness, Swearing, Felony, Murder, Adultery; and hopes that Penal Laws against Dissenters may be taken away, without allowing a boundless Toleration. But I suppose Mr. job knew better things, that by an unlimited Toleration the Dean meant only a Toleration of all Opinions and Sects of Religion, in which sense it has been opposed by our Dissenters themselves, who when time was, would not tolerate the Church of England, nor the Presbyterian Dissenters allow the Toleration of the Independents; and I would desire Mr. job to tell me, how an unlimited Toleration can be hindered without some Penal Laws, or whether to oppose an unlimited Toleration be to oppose a Protestant Union.  
5. The Dean's fifth Argument, as he calls it, is; That the Dissenters accepted of his Majesties gracious Toleration, given them seven or eight Years ago. This is 
P. 43.  very modestly stated! The Dean shows what Advice has been given by the jesuits to bring Popery again into England; the chief of which was a general Toleration to break us to pieces, which Mr. Coleman owned, was obtained by a Popish Interest. This the Dissenters gladly complied with, notwithstanding the Advantage it gave to Popery, and wrote in the Defence of it, and levied the Toleration of Papists themselves. Mr. job makes nothing of all this.  
1. He cannot understand that a Toleration to Dissenters, unless Popery also be tolerated, can do any Mischief; as if dividing us, which was plainly the Effect and Design of the Toleration, would not weaken the Protestant Interest; as if Papists need any express Toleration, when Dissenters, without any exception, are tolerated; as if jesuits could not easily creep into Conventicles, and seduce our People, and inflame our Divisions, when they are so publicly open for every body. But he says, the knowledge of the Gospel increases by Toleration, and that is the greatest Security against Popery. knowledge I grant is, but I am much mistaken if a Liberty to all Sects and Factions of Religion be the true way to increase true knowledge. But he defies these Maxims of the jesuits introducing Popery by a Toleration; to which I shall only answer, That wiser Men don't. But the Doctor suggests, that jesuits might creep in under the notion of Dissenters; and cannot they rather slide into great Preferments under the covert of a Gown, a Cassock, a Surplice? The Temptation surely is greater, and the way much more easy. This is like his other Mistakes: A regular and well governed Society cannot be so easily imposed on; there are a great many Trials and Tests, which they cannot bear; they are accountable for their Doctrine and Actions by a certain Rule and Standard; and therefore cannot do that Mischief in the Church, which they can in a Conventicle: To get Preferments in the Church, how great a Temptation soever it may be, is not so likely a way to ruin the Church, as to draw away People from the Communion of it.  
2. He answers, as for their accepting the Toleration, it was only Gratitude to their Prince; and whoever is angry at it, yet 'tis the resolve of Protestant Dissenters to be ready on all Occasions to show their Loyalty and Thankfulness to his Majesty for every instance of his Bounty towards his dissenting, but most dutiful and loving Subjects. I am glad to hear this with all my heart, and I wish this Fit of Loyalty and Gratitude, may continue: but suppose the King be not thus bountiful to them, can they be Loyal still? And what is all this to the Question, Whether their accepting such a Toleration was not the way to promote Popery?  
3. He attempts to vindicate their writing in favour of the Toleration of Papists; but I think few People want an answer to this: For if it were justifiable to writ for the Toleration of Papists, I suppose they think it very fit, they should be tolerated, and then who are the Men that promote Popery?  
His sixth Argument is a lewd Calumny, that the Dean charges them with promoting Popery, by an over-fierce opposing the Papists. He founds his Charge upon these Words: Now the 
P. 38.  Dissenters tack about, and strike in with the rage of the People, and none so fierce against Popery as they, whereby they mar a good Business by weeping' it. These last Words are added by Mr. job, to make up the Dean's Argument for him, and the former are designed only to show that wonderful alteration the discovery of the Plot made in them, who from trucking under-hand for toleration with the Papists, now on a sudden will not allow any one to be thought so hearty Enemies to Popery, as they. But I have wasted too much Time and Paper already in answering so mean a Pamphlet.  
And now I was in hope my Trouble had been over for this time, when there comes to my hand a little Pamphlet newly printed, called The History of Conformity, or, a proof of the mischief of Impositions. I have not time at present to give a particular answer to it, and indeed so far as I understand it, it needs but very little answer; and therefore I shall dismiss it only with some short Reflections upon its Design.  
In his Introduction he gives a short account of the Popish Designs, charges the severe Acts against Dissenters, and the universal Toleration as the Fruits of their Counsels; and adds, one would reasonably think, there should not be one Protestant in England, who should not think it high time for our Superiors to unite all Protestants. I am very much of his Mind, and declare that I know not a Man, who does not think so, unless they be among themselves, who have made use of this opportunity to assault the Church of England in the most rude and barbarous manner, without any new Provocation.  
What things he would have abated he does not say, but insinuates something about our Ceremonies and Common Prayer-Book, which he says were retained, and formed in this Method merely to commend our Worship to the Papists, which yet has not attained its Effect.  
I grant this might be one, but not the only true Cause of it, and a very good Cause it was, and the reason of it holds to this day, not to retain any Popish Rites or Ceremonies to humour them, which our Church did not; but not to separate farther from them, or any other Church than necessity required, which is the true Principle of catholic Union.  
The Dean had assigned three other Reasons of retaining those Ceremonies still in use among us, but he says, he had better have said nothing: Let us briefly examine the Reasons of such Confidence.  
1. The Dean's first Reason was a due reverence to Antiquity; but he says, some will say, How have we reverenced Antiquity, in retaining three of their Ceremonies, and leaving out twenty more of greater Antiquity? I answer,  
( 1.) He will be much troubled to show twenty more Ceremonies of greater Antiquity, than those we retain; however this Confession shows the unjustifiable peevishness of our Dissenters in scrupling the use of those Ceremonies, which were used in the Primitive Church, and in clamouring against a Church so much better reformed, than the Primitive Churches themselves were with respect to the number of their Ceremonies.  
( 2.) We know, when Ceremonies were multiplied in the Church, Wise Men in those days complained of it, as St. Austin did, tho the humour of the People was such, That they could not reform it. And therefore we reverence the judgement of Antiquity, both in retaining some ancient Ceremonies, and in lessening their Number.  
( 3.) There were a great many Ceremonies peculiar only to some particular Churches, others of a more general use in the catholic Church; and it is easy to show, that our Reformers had a special Regard to this in their Reformation; and it will be hard to name any Ceremonies of such a catholic practise, as those retained in our Church.  
2. The second Reason for retaining these Ceremonies, is, to manifest the Justice and Equity of the Reformation, to let the Papists see, we did not break Communion with them for things merely indifferent. He answers, What need was there of our keeping two or three Ceremonies, to testify we did not differ from them for mere matters of indifferency, when so many Books, so many Disputations, testified we differed from them because of their Idolatry in many things, and their Doctrine of Justification by Works. I answer, The reason of our Separation is as well discovered by our practise as by our Disputes; and if we had separated farther than we had differed, it had been an unjustifiable and causeless Separation, and had given the Enemies great advantage against us, and might have hindered the Reformation, as the Dean shows, it did in France, from the Testimonies of Thuanus, and Francis Baldwin in his Ecclesiastical Commentaries, and his answers to Calvin and Beza.  
3. The third Reason was, To show our consent with other Protestant Churches, which he says, is of all the most weak; and yet is forced to acknowledge, that the Lutherans did retain the use of Ceremonies, but says, that they were imperfectly reformed, and had peculiar reasons for their retaining them, which with great reverence to those first Reformers he attributes to Pride and Emulation between Luther, Zwinglius and Carolostadius, and to the soft and easy temper of Melancton and Justus Jonas: and yet there is not any one Confession of the Reformed Churches, to the best of my remembrance, which condemns the use of significant Ceremonies. Bucer justifies those now retained by us, in that judgement he passed on the first Liturgy in King Edward's days; and in his excellent Letters to Arch-Bishop Cranmer and Bishop Hooper, de re Vestiarra; and as the Dean has observed, Calvin in his Letter to Sadolet, declared, That he was for restoring the Face of the ancient Church; and in his Book of the true way of Reformation, he saith, he would not contend about Ceremonies, not only those things which are for decency, but those which are Symbolical.  
As for his History of Conformity, he ought to have called it, a History of the Reformation, but he was sensible, that had been an odious Title, considering at what rate he has managed it; for his whole design is to cast Dirt upon our Reformers and Reformation in its several advances, under the name of Conformity and Impositions; for it seems this admirable Reformer would have had the Church settled without any Impositions, as he calls them, that is, without any standing Laws or Rules of Government and Worship, which all Persons should be obliged to submit to; which had been an effectual way to drive out Popery, considering how the People were at that time addicted to it. How partially he has related things, every Body, who is in any measure acquainted with the History of those times, will easily discover: And it is very happy, that Dr. Burnet has so lately published his excellent History of the Reformation, which will convince all Men, with what grave and deliberate Advice and Counsel, and admirable Temper, that whole Affair was managed.  
I should have been greatly out in guessing, what the design of this History had been, had I not found it declared in these Words. From this short and 
History of Conformity. p. 30.  true account of the rise and growth and effects of these Impositions, a good account may be given of a late Authors History of Separation, the smallness of it at first, and the further increase and improvements of it, which indeed did much vary, according as Impositions varied and multiplied. Now two or three short Observations will evidently confute the whole design of 
〈◇〉.  this History.  
1. That when the Impositions were greatest, there were no Non-Conformists but Papists. In the first Common Prayer-Book of Edward the 6th there were a great many more Ceremonies retained, and of a more doubtful Nature, than now we have, and all Ministers enjoined by the Statute to red those Prayers, and all the People to hear them, and yet then he confesses, there were no Non-Conformists to direct that Act against 
P. 4.  but only Papists. But upon the second Edition of the Common Prayer-Book( which was reformed much for the better, and many doubtful Ceremonies left out) there appeared a considerable Party who opposed themselves to it: And it is evident this Party grew for want of keeping Men close to the Rule; the scruples of Hooper, and that favour which was shown to John a Lasco, and the remissness of Discipline, were the true Causes of it.  
2. To satisfy these Scruples, the Liturgy was reformed again; but did that mend the matter? It did silence some Disputes, which were all soon ended here by Queen Mary's coming to the Crown, who restored Popery again. Several of the Protestants fly beyond Seas: there our Author cannot pretend they were under any Impositions, and yet a Party of them at Frankford begin to quarrel about the English Service, and in those foreign Churches, where they were under no Impositions, sucked in those Notions of Discipline, and ways of Worship, as gave so much disturbance to the Church of England, when they returned: so that hitherto Liberty, not Impositions, made Dissenters.  
3. When Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown, the Reformed Religion was restored with very little alteration from King Edward's second Reformation; those who fled in Queen Mary's days, returned, and many of them leavened with other Principles, than they carried away with them. For a time he says, No Subscription was required to 
P. 7.  any thing by any legal Authority, nor was the use of all the Common Prayer-Book, or an exact observance of the Ceremonies generally urged. So that thus far Impositions did not make Men Dissenters, but Liberty did; for by this Favour and Indulgence Nonconformity increased, and Men began to innovate every where, to abound with Scruples, to decry Ceremonies and Forms of Prayer, to decry Episcopacy, and to set up a Presbyterian Parity and Government; and yet he confesses all this while very few Men were Sufferers. But the body of the Nonconforming Ministers and People were much quiet, until not only Arch-Bishop Parker was dead, but Bishop Grindal also, who succeeded him, who died about 1583, about the 25th of the Queen. Which is so plain a Confutation out of his own mouth of his History of Conformity, that nothing could be more; for in this time it was of Liberty and Indulgence, that they so propagated their Faction, and grew so insolent as to threaten both Church and State. This made the Queen take new measures, and keep a stricter hand over them, and exact Oaths and Subscriptions, and make severe Laws against them, as Sir Francis Walsingham relates the Matter, as I before observed; and I can assure him, this did not make new Dissenters, but reclaimed many old ones. King James from his own Experience of the factious restless Humour of those People in Scotland, and from the Experience of the Queen here, pursued the same Method, and kept them in good order; and so did King Charles the first, till necessity of Affairs forced him to such Concessions, as at last cost him his Head. And how they have increased of late Years, he himself has informed us, by severe Laws made against them, and Liberty and Indulgence granted them, as the Fruits of Popish Counsels. From whence it evidently appears that not Impositions and forcible Restraints, but Connivance and Liberty, which gave scope to the wanton and giddy Fancies of Men, were the true Causes at least of the Increase as Dissenters, and therefore his Argument for Union, founded on this Mistake, must fall with it. To conclude all, I shall only observe how Mr. Baxter and Mr. Humphrey have adorned their Title Pages, with suitable places of Scripture; for such Men seldom reproach but in Scripture-language, which sanctifies the lewdest Insinuations. Mr. B's Text is, 1 Tim. 6. 5, 6. Perverse disputings of Men of corrupt Minds, and destitute of the Truth, supposing that Gain is Godliness, from such withdraw thyself. Which is charitably hinted, as a Character of such perverse Disputers as the Dean and his Substitutes, and all Church-men, who must be supposed to comform only for rich Preferments. Mr. H's is this, Against whom hast thou exalted thy Voice, and lifted up thyself on high? What he means by it, every Man must understand, who reads his Pamphlet, the whole design of which, is to represent the Dean as a vain, proud, haughty Writer, and yet nothing at all in comparison to Mr. B. and I doubt such an Application as this has something of Profaneness or Blasphemy in it.   

THE CONTENTS.  


The Preface containing an Answer to 

THe Reflections upon Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, by a comforming Minister in the Country.  
The Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet's Book, as far as it concerns the peaceable Design.  
The modest and peaceable Inquiry into the Design and Nature of Dr. Stillingfleet's Historical Mistakes.  
The History of Conformity, or a proof of the Mischiefs of Impositions.      

The DEFENCE.  

CHAP. I. THe modest and peaceable Inquirer, considered, with a particular Examination of the modesty, and peaceableness of this Inquiry. Pag. 1  
CHAP. II. 

Section 1. Concerning the loud Glamours along Peace and Union. 17  
Section 2. Who is the Divider. The Inquirers Argument, to prove the Church the Divider, examined. 22 

Mr. Baxter's Search for the English schismatic examined. 53  
What Passive Conformists are. 55  
Concerning Sectaries and Separatists. 60  
Of the Active and caconical Conformists. 67  
Who the mere Non-Conformists are. 69  
Mr. B's new way of defending Separation not by reasoning, but by stating Cases. 76  
Different Opinions about some Matters do not make Conformists schismatics. Pag. 81  
Differences about Civil Government do not make schismatics. 86  
Some differing Practices do not make Men schismatics. 88  
Church-Impositions do not make the Church Schismatical. 90  
Concerning the Form of Burial. 36  
Concerning the Rule for finding Easter-day. 104  
Some Imperfections, and Defects not sufficient to justify Separation. 113      
CHAP. III. 

WHat that Union is which is essential to the Christian Church, considered as a Church. 137  
The Union of the Christian Church is a catholic Union. 139  
The Church of Christ but one, proved from Scripture and Antiquity. 140  
What the true Notion of the catholic Church is. 147  
catholic Unity proved from several Parables and Scripture Expressions. 150  
Jews and Gentiles united into one Church. 152  
The Jewish Church considered as a Type proves the Christian Church to be but one, Objections against it answered. Pag. 157    
CHAP. IV. 

The Unity of the catholic Church casiconsists in one Communion, and what one Communion signifies. 164  
The mere Unity of Faith without one Communion not catholic Unity. 172  
Unity of Love and Charity in the Language of the Scripture, and ancient Writers signifies one Christian Communion. 183  
So does Christian Peace. 191  
One Baptism proves one catholic Communion. 193  
The Lord's Supper proves one catholic Communion. 199  
But one Altar in the catholic Church. 206  
The same proved from the Unity of Church-Power and Government. 208  
St. Cyprian no Assertor of the Independency of Bishops. 212  
One catholic Communion proved from Church-Censures. 226    
CHAP. V. 

The use of this Notion of catholic Communion in the Dispute about Schism. Pag. 231  
To be in Communion with a Church, is to be a Member of it; and of oconal Communion. 232  
That's a schismatical Communion which does not make us Members of the catholic Church. Independency a Schism. 234  
Mr. B's Notion of a catholic Church considered. 236  
Personal, Local, Presential Communion not the entire Notion of Christian Communion. 241  
All Christians bound to communicate with that part of the catholic Church wherein they live. 246  
Separation from any particular catholic Church is a Separation from the Universal Church. 247  
Concerning local and mental Separation. 256  
Combinations of Churches determined by human Prudence, may yet be founded on a divine Right. 258  
Concerning Parochial Episcopacy. 260    
CHAP. VI. 

What Communion is essential to Diocesan Churches Pag. 297  
Dr. Owen's notion of presential Communion. 298  
His Proofs for congregational Churches considered. 300  
Whether they be of Christ's Institution. 301  
Whether they agree with the Primitive Pattern of Churches for the first two hundred Years. 344  
Mr. Baxter's Notion of presential Communion. 413  
Whether every part of the Episcopal Office must be performed by the Bishop himself, without any Assistance or Substitutes. 421  
What that Communion is, which is essential to a Diocesan Church. 438  
Whether there were at Rome two distinct and separate Communions of Jews and Gentiles. 439  
Philip. 3. 16. explained, and the Deans Exposition vindicated from the Exceptions of Dr. own. 442  
Mr. B's new Reasons for Non-conformity considered. 456  
Whether the consent of the People be necessary to a Church-Relation between Pastor and People. Pag. 473  
Mr. B's Arguments for the consent of the People considered. 503  
His Historical Account of this matter considered. 527  
The Dean's Historical Account of it vindicated. 544  
In what cases People may insist on a right of choosing their Pastor. 553    
CHAP. VII. 

What Communion is essential to a National Church. 557  
Whether a National Church be properly called a Church. 559  
Whether it be a political Body, and what is the constitutive Regent Head of the Church of England. 561  
The Dean's answer to this Question vindicated. 571    
CHAP. VIII. 

What Communion is essential to the catholic or Universal Church. 593  
The Conclusion. 608       

ERRATA.  
The Author desires the Reader to correct these following Mistakes of the Press, occasioned by his Absence.  
Preface, PAg. 5. l. 22. for fortook, r. forgot. p. 7. l. 24. for Atichristian, r. Antichristian. p. 27. l. 8. deal this. l. 9. f. would, r. could. p. p. 42. l. 16. f. Monarchy, r. Episcopacy. p. 43. l. 21. f. and, r. had. p. 44. l. 6. r. at their death; Ridley, &c.  
Defence. PAg. 5. l. 8. r. equivalent, p. 12. l. 9. for stetling r. setting. p. 42. l. 17, 18. f. any else, r. anything else. p. 63. l. 8. f. it, r. he. p. 76. l. 20. r. into these Words. p. 96. l. 6. r. 3●, 68. p. 106. l. 2. f. assent, r. assert. p. 1●●. l. 22. f. invite, r. unite. p. 195. l. 15. f. Church-baptism, r. Church-Baptism. p. 23●. l. ●5. f. this, as. r. this As. p. 283. l. 3. f. Reflection, r. Reflecter. p. 291. l. 5. r. I know not. p. 333. l. 30. f. where r. whose. p. 347. l. 15. f. discove●, r. Discourses. p. 396. l. 12. f. longer, r. larger. p. 405. l. 3, 4. f. Congregation in forty Years more, r. Congregation; in &c. p. 413. l. 12. f. Church and State, r. Church-state. p. 507. l. 11. f. Ministers, r. Ministries. p. ●●3. l. 21. f. at, r. a. p. 578. l. 11. f. in own, r. in his own.  
Pag. 464. l. 11. for, but our Laws or Canons tolerate such Men, r. but do our Laws and Canons tolerate such Men? l. 15. f. all, r. at all. l. 21. f. was in, r. was not in. P. 483. l. 27. f. that, r. yet. P. 486. l. 22. f. those have, r. those who have. P. 487. l. 4. f. only an, r. only says an. P. 488. l. 17. f. if, r. that. P. 489. l. 21. f. ( i.e. the Reasons to be ordained are the Judges of it) r. ( i.e. the Persons to be ordained) are the Judges of it. P. 494. l. 11. f. did ordain, r. did not ordain P: 560. l. 1. f. is the State, r. is in the State. P. 578. l. 4. f. Republication, r. rebaptisation.   

A DEFENCE OF Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Unreasonableness of SEPARATION.  

CHAP. I.  
The Modest and Peaceable Inquirer considered, with a particular Examination of the Modesty and Peaceableness of this Inquiry, and the Doctor's Historical Mistakes.  
THE Preface to the Modest and Peaceable Inquiry, being little else than a short repetition of what we shall meet with again in the Inquiry, excepting some Expostulations with the Dean, and such a wondering Humour as is common to those men who are either ignorant themselves, or have a mind to impose upon those who are, I shall wholly pass it over, or if any thing appear material in it, I shall bring it in its proper place; and therefore, without any other Introduction, I shall first consider the Title, and then examine the Inquiry itself.  
The Title is, A Modest and Peaceable Inquiry into the Design and Nature of some of those Historical Mistakes that are found in Dr. Stillingfleet's Preface to his Unreasonableness of Separation. I find some men use a great deal of Art in prefixing a specious and flattering Title, to their Books, which serves as well as a Bush and a painted Sign to invite Customers; but then the Title and Book seldom have any relation to each other; and thus it is with our Author, unless he understands these words modest and peaceable, and historical Mistakes, in some other Sense, than what they bear in common Use.  
For, first, let us consider how modest this Inquiry is, and I confess, there are some passages very modest in it, but others, which do not so well deserve that Character. He begins his Epistle to the Dean, with observing, how industrious the Papists have been ever since the Reformation, to ruin England, and the Churches of Christ in it; which he sufficiently proves from their Rebellions and Insurrections in King Edward's days, the Spanish Armado in Queen Elizabeth's, the Gun-powder Treason in King James's &c. and the late Hellish Conspiracy, which was designed for the utter Extirpation of the Protestant Religion, and the universal Destruction of all the Professors thereof, whether Episcopal or Dissenter. But this modest man takes no notice, that King and Kingdom, Church and State, have been once ruined already by such modest Dissenters, and may be in a fair way for it again, if we suffer ourselves to be charmed and lulled asleep by such modest Inquirers: We are ware Sir, what a Popish Zeal would do, and what a Factious Zeal has done, and think ourselves concerned, as much as we can, to countermine the Designs of both: but however, I confess it was very modestly done to pass over this, that while men are zealous against Popery, they may fear no danger from any other Quarter.  
It was very modestly done to charge the Dean with designing to gratify the Roman Faction, by acting so suitably to the 
Inq. p. 5.  Jesuits Measures, as discovered by Mr. Dugdale and some others, which is to revile the Dissenters, as the Dr. hath done, &c. And at the same time, to laugh at the Jesuits and Coleman, their Instrument, 
p. 35.  as great Fools for designing to bring in Popery, by the Toleration of Fanaticks; for, you must know, that they themselves press hard for a Toleration, but would not be thought hereby to gratify the Roman Faction, and to design the bringing in of Popery, according to Mr. Coleman's and the Jesuits Method. But, yet it was not very modestly done, to charge the Dr. with reviling Dissenters, unless by reviling, he means, confuting them; and I dare assure him, that does not gratify the Roman Faction, nor does Mr. Dugdale, nor any one else, say that the Jesuits took these measures of promoting Popery, by confuting Fanaticism: if they had, I would venture to say, that they were much more mistaken in this, than in those other measures they take, of doing it by a Toleration.  
But it neither savours of Modesty nor any great disposition to peace, to insinuate, as he does in this place, that the Dean, by convincing them of the sinfulness of Separation, endeavoured to put a shame Plot upon them, and to expose his Majesties-loyal Subjects( great Modesty still) to the merciless Cruelty of bloody Papists, unless he thinks, that Presbyterians, Dissenters, and Plotters, are equivolent Terms; and then the Dean's design was plainly to deliver them from the least suspicion of Plots, by endeavouring to make them true Church-men and Loyal Subjects.  
He makes the Dean to represent dissenting Protestants to be the Jesuits Instruments 
Inq. p. 4.  to bring in Popery, in which he abuses the Dean; unless, by Instruments, he mean such Tools as are made use of by cunning Artists, to do that which they themselves do not understand. Such kind of passive Tools we confess they are, for they do the Papists work for them, though( as we charitably believe) without knowing that they do so; and this is all that the Dean ever asserted, that their Divisions and Separations were a great inlet to Popery, and fomented by the Papists for that end.  
Now from hence he draws a very modest and peaceable Inference, that the Dean represents them to be men, not worthy of any savour from a Protestant Prince, for surely such are the Jesuits Engines. Now, this being his own Comment upon the Text, I would desire him to consider how to answer it against the next Time; for it is evident, the Dean did not think so, when he made so many kind Proposals for their Satisfaction, nor did our Author believe, he did; but out of great Modesty and Peaceableness, endeavoured to persuade the People that he did, whose good Opinion and Favour, I perceive, he prefers before the favour of any Protestant Prince.  
This was a very peaceable design to persuade the people never to look into the Dean's book, or to ston him, as an implacable Enemy to all Loyal Dissenters: but the next device is better than this, to complain to the Parliament of him, as a man who disparages Their Wisdom, and casts bones of Contention into their House( such Crimes as these, Loyal Dissenters are never guilty of, when Parliaments please them) for so among his Conjectures at the Doctors end and design in all this, he thinks it hard to determine, Whether it was to cast Contempt on the Wisdom of the Parliament, who entertain other Sentiments concerning the Dissenters, or whether it be to cast a Bone of Contention into the Parliament House,( the Supposition of which, 
Inq. p. 4. 5.  seems to me, to argue no great opinion of the Wisdom of the Parliament) thereby to prevent the uniting and strengthening the Protestant Interest, as well for diverting the House from these other Methods, which are most necessary( that, Sir, you should leave to the Wisdom of the Parliament, who, I perceive will not please you long, unless they choose your most necessary Methods) for the impeding the future growth of Popery? And thus the Dean after all his Triumphs over Popery, is grown, on a sudden, a great Friend to it, by endeavouring to divert the Parliament from those Methods, which are most necessary to suppress it; Or whether to raise one of the severest Persecutions against that loyal and truly Protestant Party,( excepting the matter of Uriah) which cannot be weakened or impoverished, but to the advancing of Papal Designs.  
If these be not modest and peaceaable Inquiries, I will give you one more, 
p. 13.  where he very ingeniously insinuates the most effectual way to keep out Popery for ever, by pulling down the Bishops, and distributing their Lands among the Nobility and Gentry: Since the Destruction of Episcopacy may be attended with the Royal Distribution of Church Lands among our Nobility and Gentry, than which a greater Blow cannot be given to the Papal Interest in England, as appears by the heroic Actings of Henry the Eighth in a like case.  
This indeed is home to the Business, and a very modest and peaceable Proposal; for though he brings it in only to show how much it is against the Interest of Papists to pull down the English Episcopacy, of which, more hereafter; yet he so highly commends it, from the heroic Example of King Henry the Eighth, and as the greatest Blow that can be given to the papal Interest, that he must be very dull, who does not understand his meaning.  
For, in short, it is an admirable Address to Lords and Commons, to pull down Bishops, and divide their Lands, which is a very peaceable and uniting design; but then it insinuates such Scurvy reflections on the Nobility and Gentry of England, that, had it not been writ by a Loyal Dissenter, it might have been liable to ill constructions.  
For it supposes, that there is no such security of their zeal against Popery, as their having a good share of the Church Lands; that is, that they do not so much value their Religion, as a good Estate. That they are men who may be tempted to pull down an Excellent Church, in hope to make a prey of it: or else this Writer is none of the wisest nor modestest men to make such a motion.  
And yet never any thing was more foolishly proposed; for, is it not an admirable reason for pulling down Protestant Bishops to keep out Popery, because H. 8, pulled down Popish abbeys and Monasteries, which were the Nurseries of lewd People, the Pope's sworn Vassals, and the Seminaries of Superstition and Rebellion? this is such a method of rooting out Popery, as was never thought on by any of our Protestant Princes( for I do not speak of the Loyal and truly Protestant Party) who, instead of pulling down Bishops, erected several new bishoprics and Collegiate Churches out of the ruins of Popish Monasteries.  
And there is another thing, I doubt, may deter our Nobility and Gentry from such a Design, that when Episcopacy was pulled down, and the Church Lands sold by the Loyal and truly Protestant Party, the Crown Lands and most of their own Estates were sold with them.  
And another thing is to be considered, whether, if ever such a distribution of Church Lands, &c. should come to be made a second time, the old Purchasers, who are as Loyal and true Protestants as any men, would not claim an old Right, and so our present Nobility and Gentry lose the Reward of their Zeal? These are untoward Objections and Scruples, which our Modest and Peaceable Inquirer is concerned to remove, if he hope this Proposal should take.  
I shall give but one Instance more at present, of the great Modesty and Peaceableness of this Inquirer; for to take notice of every thing would be endless, his whole Pamphlet being the most perfect and exact Pattern of true fanatic Modesty and Peaceableness.  
He tells us, the whole of the controversy 
Inq. p. 25.  is this, Whose Honour is mostly to be valued, that of the Episcopal Clergy, or that of our Lord Jesus Christ? for the Episcopal cannot make any abatements of these indifferent things consistent with their Honour; they have once imposed these things, as terms of Union, and cannot now honourably recede the least Iota. This he urges again, p. 23. and refers his Reader to p. 89. of the Dean's Preface, part of which he there transcribes, but I shall transcribe the whole, and leave all men to judge of the Modesty of the man. We do hearty and sincerely desire Union 
Dr. Still. Praef. p. 89.  with our Brethren, if it may be had on just and reasonable terms; but they must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it, so far as to condemn its Constitution, or make the Ceremonies unlawful, which have hitherto been observed and practised in it: if any Expedient can be found out for the ease of other mens Consciences, without reflecting on our own; if they can be taken in without reproach or dishonour to the Reformation of the Church, I hope no true Son of the Church of England will oppose it.  
For this our Inquirer charges the 
Inq. p. 33.  Dean with setting a greater value on the Honour and Reputation of men than on Union, or the relieving tender Consciences, in order to Union. Had he been to deal with Mr. A. he would presently have sent him a Writ for a Melius Inquirendum, but to no purpose; for no man is capable of making Inquiries, who cannot understand plain and familiar Sense, nor carry the Connexion of three or four Sentences in his head together.  
But that every sober Christian may see how maliciously and impudently this modest Inquirer charges the Dean with settling a greater value on the Honour and Reputation of men, than on Union. I would desire my Readers to take notice, that these words, which he thus Burlesques, and which I have transcribed out of the Dean's Preface, are part of a long Discourse, beginning at page. 81. in answer to that more peaceable Inquiry what may be done for the Satisfaction of mens Consciences, and for the Peace and Stability of this Church? where he makes as fair and equal Proposals for the Satisfaction of Dissenters, as any man can desire, who will be pleased with any thing less than a total Subversion of the present Constitution.  
As for the Laity, who allow the use of the Liturgy, but scruple some Rites and Ceremonies annexed to the Administration of the Sacraments, after having declared, that after the most diligent Search, he could find no ground for any scruple of Conscience about such matters, nor for the peoples separation from other Acts of Communion, on account of some Rites they suspect to be unlawful; yet for the Satisfaction of such men, he offers his Opinion, that it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in Governours, if the sign of the across were wholly taken away, or confined to the public Administration of Baptism, or left indifferent, as the Parents desire it: that kneeling at the Lord's Supper might be imposed on none that scruple it, provided, that such persons receive with least offence to others, and rather standing than sitting, because the former is most agreeable to the practise of Antiquity, and of our neighbour reformed Churches: that as to the Surplice in Parochial Churches, it is not of that Consequence as to bear a Dispute one way or other, with some little Alteration in the use of God-fathers, and God-mothers, to remove some Scruples, which have been started of late days about that matter. I have given a brief account of this, that every one may judge of the Modesty and Honesty of our Inquirer, who tells, us as the Sense of the Dean and the Episcopal party, that they have once imposed these things, and cannot now honourably recede from the least Iota: so that it seems, the across in Baptism, kneeling at Sacrament, and the use of the Surplice, which they have made such a horrible Stir and Pother about, and which are the only Ceremonies retained in the Church of England, are now dwindled away into something less than the least Iota, which other people will call nothing; which shows what an admirable controversy this has been, that they have divided the Church, and destroyed the Peace and Unity of Christians, for that which they themselves now think to be less than the least Iota. But this ever was, and ever will be the Temper of these men, mightily to undervalue every thing, which is granted them for Peace sake, till they can overturn the present Constitution of our Church, to say no worse: From whence the Parliament may learn, what Thanks they are like to have for any Comprehension or Indulgence, which does not overthrow the Church of England.  
But to proceed, as for other people, who will not communicate with us upon these Terms, he proposes a limited Indulgence 
Praes. p. 85. &c.  for them, and yet this also is less than the least Iota: for whatever they pretend, it is not Indulgence, but Rule and Empire they desire; not the ease of their own Consciences, but Power to impose upon others, which is then a very good thing, when they have the keeping and exercise of it.  
From hence the Dean proceeds to consider the case of ejected Ministers, 
●. 88.  and proposes, That the bare Subscription of thirty six Articles concerning doctrinal Points, be not allowed as sufficient to qualify any man for a Living, or any Church Preferment; because it is impossible to preserve the Constitution of our Church upon these Terms. And upon this occasion he adds those words, which I before transcribed, We do hearty and sincerely desire Union, &c. The meaning of which is, that we are sincerely willing to make any Condescensions for Peace-sake, which will not overthrow the Church of England, nor insinuate a false and scandalous Accusation of the unlawfulness of our Constitution, and Rites of Worship, which we cannot do with a safe Conscience, because we believe the contrary, that our Worship is lawful, and that our Church ought to be upheld, as the most Apostolical and best Reformed Church in the World, and we are not so charitable as to give ease to other mens Consciences to injure our own, and thereby condemn the Reformation, which, whatever this Inquirer thinks, will give great advantage to Popery, of which more hereafter.  
And, is not our Author a skilful Interpreter, as well as a modest Inquirer, who from these words can prove, that the Dean prefers the Reputation of men before the Honour of Jesus Christ? but I do not much wonder at his mistake, considering, that Honour and Reputation is the great Support of their Schism, which made him so easily suspect it of others, and expound the most innocent words by the Principles of their own Faction.  
Thus much for the Modesty and Peaceableness of this Inquiry. Let us now consider what those Historical Mistakes are, which he has found in the Dean's Preface, Has he mis-cited any Authors, or reported any thing for matter of Fact which is not so? I confess, I was much surprised when I saw this charge in the Title page., which I could not suspect so exact and faithful a Writer as the Dean of St. Pauls to be guilty of; which made me the more scrupulously examine this Pamphlet, to find where those Mistakes were; but I have looked till I have wearied myself, and can find none, nor so much as any pretence that there are any, but onely in the Title page.; though I found Mistakes enough of this Inquirer, of which he shall hear more in due time.   

CHAP. II.  
Sect. 1. Concerning the loud clamours about Peace and Union. Sect. 2. Who are the Dividers.  

Sect. I. Concerning the loud clamours about Peace and Union.  
WHoever judges of the temper and Spirit of our Dissenters, by their loud Out-cries, and passionate Expostulations for Union, must needs wonder to see these Breaches continued, and that they can neither agree among themselves, nor with the Church of England; for, were these men of such Peaceable and uniting Principles, one would think it were no impossible thing, nor very difficult, to reconcile our present Differences, and to unite into one Christian Body and Society. But the truth is, Union will not serve their ends, but talking of Union, and desiring it, when they mean nothing less, does more effectually promote their Designs. Mr. Baxter can at any time give you twenty good and substantial Reasons, and more if you want them, to prove the necessity and advantages of Union, and as soon as he has done, can lay down as many Dividing Principles, which shall make Union absolutely impossible, unless all men will be of his mind.  
This course our Inquirer takes, declames largely and frequently of the necessity of Union, and the mischief of Division: especially at such a time as this, when it is our Interest to unite against a common Enemy, when we are all in such present danger of being destroyed by the Papists, if we do not unite; For, this seeming zeal for Union is a very plausible thing, and begets a great Opinion in the People of them, and a great compassion for them, and reflects a great deal of odium; especially upon the Bishops and Clergy of the Church of England, as if they were the onely men who opposed this happy Union; and this, as far as we can guess, by the tendency of their Actions, and other Discourses, is the only Design of their great noise and clamour for Union.  
And yet this is so thin and transparent a Fallacy, that I wonder every Porter cannot see through it; for if their zealous Out-cries( I had almost said Out-rages) for Union, be an Argument of their great love to Peace and Union, I would give something to see the man who is an Enemy to Peace and Union: for I never met with any man yet but would speak very kindly of it: I am sure there are no men in the World who have appeared more zealous for Peace and Union, both in their Sermons and Writings, than the Episcopal Clergy of this Church; and therefore so far we are equal.  
The Reverend Dean was himself a great Example of this Zeal for Union, in that excellent Sermon, which has been made the occasion of these fierce and unchristian Disputes; and it is very pretty to observe, how this modest and peaceable Inquirer, who pretends so much Zeal for Union, endeavours to prove the Dean a Papist, for this very Reason; for he tells us, That he falls in 
Inquiry p. 28. 29.  with Bellarmine, entertaining the same Principles, and arguing from the same topics with him; and gives this very Instance of it, that as Bellarmine doth, in the general, highly extol Union, Peace, and Concord, in the Church, making it a note of the true Church( and I wish Bellarmine had never given a worse note of the true Church, than Union) even so the Dr.( tho he doth not make Peace and Concord a note of the Church( and therefore it seems, does not fall in with Bellarmine, though I believe the Dr. will not much differ with him on this point) yet he doth speak enough of it's Excellency and Desireableness; for Union is a lovely name, which is in great Esteem, even among such as will not part with a Toy or Trifle for the obtaining the thing. What a dangerous thing is this Union? That a man cannot speak of it's Excellency and Desireableness, unless he be a Papist? What a mighty passionate Admirer of Union is this Inquirer? And yet, methinks, if Union be so lovely a name,( as he adds in the very next Words, without considering how well they agree with the former) a man may at least commend it moderately, without the suspicion of Popery; and he has not proved, that the Dean was immoderate in it's Commendations: he only says, that he has spoken enough, not that he has spoken too much of it's Excellency, and therefore I charitably hope, that he may be no Papist for all this. Though I fear, we cannot bring off Mr. Baxter so well, who, in his late book, entitled, The true and only way of Concord, has spent about seventy pages in describing the Nature, Excellency, Necessity and Advantages of Union; and in his Search for the English schismatic, comes so near Bellarmine, as to assert Unity to be essential to the universal and particular Churches, p. 42. And that which is essential, is certainly a very good and infallible note of a Church: But it is to be hoped, that this is none of the most dangerous points of Popery, or how Popish soever some men may be in these Speculations, there is no apparent danger, that ever they will practise such a piece of Popery.   

Sect. II. Who are the Dividers.  
BUT let us now examine, who is this Divider, and where the schismatic is to be found; for if Union be so lovely a name, as our Inquirer tells us, those must be very ill men, who oppose Union, and make divisions in the Christian Church; and I hope I have so great a Sense of the evil of this, that I would not be found guilty of it, to gain an universal Empire: But this is no more than what all men say, and therefore impute the Schism to the opposite Party. But our Inquirer thinks he has demonstrated the Church of England, and not the Dissenters, to be guilty of the Schism, by a very obvious and popular Argument, which I shall briefly consider. And it runs thus;  
If the Dissenters can, without Offence to 
Preface p. ●.  God and wrong to their own Consciences, comply with the Terms imposed by you for Union, their Non-complyance is a Sin, that in it's Tendencies advanceth Popery; but if the Dissenter cannot comform to your Impositions, as they really cannot, and you can, without Sin, make such easy Overtures for Peace, as may be grateful to Dissenters, your refusing in this case to comply, doth sufficiently convince you to be the Divider and Promoter of the Papacy. As for promoting the Papacy, of that more hereafter; at present I shall consider the Argument, as it relates to the Divider, and shall first examine the Terms of it. He makes doing a thing without Offence to God, and without wronging their own Consciences, to signify the same thing, which yet are of a very different Nature, and very often separated. A man may offend God in doing that wherein he does not wrong his own Conscience, as all those do, who break any divine Law in compliance with the judgement of their own Conscience, as too many, I fear, do; unless we will say, that no man ever followed an erroneous and mistaken Conscience, or that he did not displease God in doing so. And a man may wrong his own Conscience in doing what is, in itself lawful, but judged unlawful by him, and so far sin in doing it, when he does not offend God with respect to what he does; as is plain in the case of those who do a lawful thing against their Conscience. Now our Inquirer is certainly in the Right so far, that whoever cannot comply without both offending God, with respect to the Nature of the Action, and wronging his own Conscience, can be no schismatic; but then his bare saying that they really cannot, is no sufficient Proof of this: if he were sufficiently assured, what the judgement of all the Dissenters is in this point,( which certainly, no one man can be secure of) he might then conclude,( if he knew them all to believe Conformity to the Church of England, to be a Sin) that they could not comply without wronging their own Consciences: but there is something more required, to prove such a compliance to be an offence against God, any otherwise than as it is against their Consciences; but he does not meddle with this, and I suppose will think better of it, before he undertakes it. But this is a pretty Insinuation, that every thing that is against their Consciences, is a Sin against God; that is, that their Conscience is a Rule to God, not the Law of God a Rule to their Consciences; the last of which, I confess, is too true, but I must deny the first, unless we will make the Will and Law of God, as uncertain and various, and contrary to itself, as the Consciences of men are. And the latter part of his Argument is as faulty and precarious as the first; for, he tells the Dean, And you can, without Sin, make easy Overtures for Peace, as may be grateful to Dissenters; your refusing, in this case, to comply, doth sufficiently convince you to be the Divider. Now, how this Inquirer understands this, or ever should, unless he intends to set up a Spanish Inquisition for mens Consciences and secret Opinions, I cannot imagine; I am confident, the Dean never  told them any such thing, and I am apt to guess, that if those Overtures, which he has already made to Dissenters, be not grateful, he can make none, without Sin, that will; that is, without wronging his own Conscience, and offending God, in pulling down the Church of England; and indeed, it is impossible to make such Overtures, as shall please all Dissenters, if you will reckon the Independents, and the good Protestant Dissenters the Quakers, without it.  
But, suppose the Dean, or any other of the Episcopal Clergy, could make such Proposals, and did not, how does this prove them to be the Dividers? If the present terms of Communion are lawful and innocent, those are the Dividers who separate, not those who make no new Overtures, when there is no need of it? And how can he prove that private men are bound to make Proposals which they have not Authority to Enact into Laws, when it can only show their good will, and, it may be, expose them to the Censure of their Superiors, for their sakes who will not thank them for it, but has no more effect than to writ another Eutopian Commonwealth.  
But the Substance of this Argument we find in another Dress afterwards; 
Inq. p. 25.  The Church, without sin, can part with their indifferent Ceremonies, but Dissenters, without sin, cannot comply with them; what then must be done for Union? Must the Episcopal comply in things wherein they can, without Sin? or must the Dissenters sin, and loose their Peace with God for Union? And, a little after, he adds, This is the state of the case, the Dissenters would unite but cannot, the Episcopals can, but will not; the cannot of Dissenters, and the Episcopals will not, doth make the Division; but who is the faulty Divider? If the true reason of our Division lay on the Dissenters will not, when they can, 'twould be easy to conclude them obstinate and perverse, what, not to do what they can for Peace? but since they would, but cannot, without Sin, how can they be the Dividers?  
Now this is all Trick and Fallacy, when he says, the Church, without sin, can part with their indifferent Ceremonies: If by the Church he means any thing less than the King and Parliament, it is false; for all the Bishops and Clergy in England cannot, without Sin, part with these indifferent Ceremonies, till the Law enacting them be repealed: unless he thinks it no Sin to disobey Authority in indifferent things; which, if he does, I can assure him, the Church of England does not; and, if by indifferent Ceremonies he means Episcopacy and Liturgies, as he must, to please Dissenters, since nothing less will please them, the Church of England does not account these indifferent Ceremonies, nor think she can part with them without sin: and when he says, that the Dissenters, without sin, cannot comply with them; if, by without sin, he means without breaking some Divine Law, it is false; for there is no Law to forbid our Obedience to Civil and Ecclesiastical Governours, in indifferent things: if he means, that they must act contrary to their Conscience, that is, their own Opinion and judgement of things, they may be the Dividers and schismatics for all that, unless we will say, that no man, but a profligate Knave, who sins against his Conscience, can be a schismatic.  
The like Answer may serve for his will not, and cannot; if by the Episcopals will not, he means, that they will not do, what they may by Divine and human Laws, and with a just respect to the good Order and Government, and Edification of the Church, and the Regular Administration of Holy Offices, they are faulty in it, but may be no schismatics notwithstanding, so long as they exact no sinful terms of Communion: and, if by the Dissenters cannot, he means their private Opinions, and Persuasions, which hinder their Compliance, they may be the Dividers still, if their persuasions be erroneous.  
And, to convince him how fallacious this way of reasoning is, I will form an Argument exactly like his, which, I believe, he will not be well pleased with. If the Dissenters can without Sin, obey their Governours in indifferent, that is, in lawful things, but will not; and the Episcopal would be content to part with indifferent things for Union, but cannot, who is the faulty Divider? what must be done for Union? Must the Dissenters comply in things wherein they can without Sin, or must the Episcopal sin, and lose their Peace with God for Union? I would desire our Inquirer to think better of it, and answer this Argument, if he can, without showing the Sophistry of his own.  
But my Design is not so much to answer so inconsiderable a Pamphlet, as to take occasion to remove some Popular and prevailing Mistakes; and therefore I shall more particularly examine this Matter: for, if there be any force in this Argument, it consists in these two things. First, That all things, which are, in their own nature, indifferent, may, without Sin, be partend with: And secondly, That the Opinion of Dissenters, that indifferent things are unlawful in the Worship of God, is a just Reason for parting with them: For, if it be not lawful to part with every thing that is indifferent, those who retain the use of some indifferent things, cannot merely, upon that account, be called Dividers, or schismatics; and if the Opinion of Dissenters, that all indifferent things are unlawful, be not a sufficient Reason for parting with them, then there may be no fault in the Episcopals will not, nor a sufficient justification or excuse in the Dissenters cannot.  
Now, as for the First, That all things, in their own nature, indifferent, that is, such things as are neither commanded nor forbid by God, as any parts of Religious Worship, may not, without Sin, be partend with, appears from hence, because there can be no public and Solemn Worship, no Face or Appearance of any Discipline or Government in the Church, without the Use of some such indifferent things; All Actions must be clothed with some such external Circumstances, as though they are not essential to the moral nature of the Action, yet are necessary to the external performance of it, A man who is to remove from London to York, is not bound either to go thither on foot, or to ride on Horse-back, or in a Coach, or in a wagon; each of these ways are in themselves indifferent; but yet if he will travail to York, he must use one or other of these ways of Motion; not any one in particular is necessary, but yet some or other is: A man who is disposed to be charitable, is not con●in'd to any one sort of Charity, but may either redeem Captives, and release poor Prisoners, by paying their Debts, or make provision for Widows and Orphans, or build Schools or Hospitals, according as his Inclination or Ability serves; but if he will be charitable, he must do some good charitable Works.  
Thus we will suppose, that every man, in his private devotions, is at liberty to choose for himself the Time, and Place, and Habit, and Posture of Prayer, and whether he will use mental or vocal Prayers, whether a set Form of words, or extemporary and conceived Prayer; whether he will pray out of a Book, or from his Memory; but yet some time, and place, and posture, and habit is necessary, not to the nature of the Duty, but to the performance of it, and he must pray either with or without a Form, &c.  
We cannot say that any one indifferent thing is necessary and unalterable, for then it would be no longer indifferent, but we must say, that the use of some indifferent and uncommanded things is necessary, especially in public and Solemn Acts of Worship, and in the external Administration of Church-Discipline and Government, unless they can show us, where Christ has, by an express Law determined all the external Circumstances, and Rites, and Modes of Worship, and given us an entire Body of Ecclesiastical Laws for Discipline and Government, or think it possible to perform all the Duties of public Worship, without any external circumstances of Worship.  
Were our Dissenters but so honest, as impartially to consider the several Models and Platforms of their own Churches, and the public Worship in Use among them, they would quickly discover how many things are daily Practised by them, without the least pretence to a Divine Command, and which they themselves alter, as often as they see or fancy a Reason for it.  
Where have they an express Command to build public Places for Religious Assemblies, to be appropriated to such Uses? much less is there any Divine Command to meet, and pray, and preach in Coffee-houses, Play-houses, Bear-Gardens, as we know some of them have done, and do at this day? If the manner and circumstances of Religious worship be so exactly described by our Saviour and his Apostles, how comes it to pass that they differ so much among themselves in these matters? that some begin their Exercises of Religion with Prayer, and reading some part of the Scripture, and then sing a Psalm in English Rhyme,( which is so late an Invention, that certainly it could not be an Apostolical Constitution) and then pray again in the Pulpit, and preach upon some Text of Scripture, and then pray over their Sermon again: but others can find no time for reading the Scripture at all, but begin with a Psalm, and then show their own Gifts in praying and preaching? Where do they find a Divine Command for reading the Scriptures in the Desk, and preaching in the Pulpit? What Command can they show for praying without a Form, any more than for praying with one? for preaching and praying by the Hour-glass, and especially on Fast-dayes, for praying a full hour at least? What Command have they for observing the 5th of November for a Thanksgiving, any more than for observing the 30th of January for a Fast? and why then do they observe the one and not the other? What Command do they find in Scripture for making Pews in Churches, and seating Persons according to their Quality, which seems so contrary to an Apostolical Precept? 
James.  What Command have they for sitting or lolling in their Seats all the time of Prayers, or for the Ministers preaching with their Hats off, and the Peoples hearing with their Hats on? What Command have they for receiving the Communion at Noon, and turning the Lord's Supper into a Dinner? for receiving in the Church, and not in an upper Room of a private house? sitting, and not in a posture of leaning, as our Saviour received?( for Religious Institutions must not vary with the Custom of the Countries.) What Command have they for giving the Lord's Supper to Women, when Christ onely gave it to men, though he had a great many Women Disciples also at that time?  
It were easy to ask a great many more such Questions, but these are enough to convince any honest and impartial man, that he does, and, of necessity, must use, a great many external Circumstances of Worship, which are no where commanded by God, and therefore are, in their own nature, indifferent, and yet that some such indifferent things are absolutely necessary in external Worship: for when men pray, it must be in a form of Words or without it, either kneeling, sitting, standing, or prostrate, or some such like posture, either covered or uncovered, and so it is in other Acts of Worship; and therefore, though we should suppose all Times, Places, Postures, Habits, &c. to be equally indifferent; yet some or other, are necessary, because no external Action can he performed without them.  
Now, if public Worship cannot be performed without some indifferent Usages, then all indifferent things cannot lawfully be partend with, and therefore the Bare not parting with indifferent things, cannot make any man or Church a guilty Divider; for though a Church may part with such, or such indifferent Ceremonies, it cannot part with all, continuing a Church; and therefore, certainly may retain some, and therefore those that she has, if they be decent and comply with the end and nature of Worship, as well as any other. For if the Argument lye against indifferent Ceremonies considered as indifferent,( as it must do here, if it have any sense in it) no Church can possibly, according to these Principles, avoid the Guilt of Schism, unless she alter her Constitutions, as often as every capricious Humorist shall alter his Opinions; and this is as evidently true, as the Experience of forty years can make it. The Presbyterians disliked the indifferent Ceremonies of the Church of England, and therefore pulled it down; but were they ever the nearer Union for this? by no means. The Independents as much disliked the Presbyterian Model, and therefore set up a purer Church of their own, and the Quakers and other Sectaries, neither liked them, nor one another; so that unless we can so model a Church as to please every man's Fancy, who is seldom pleased long with his own; we had as good stay where we are. Indeed this Argument lies equally against all Churches in the World, who retain the use of any indifferent C●stoms or Ceremonies, which other persons cannot, in Conscience, comply with: and thus the Presbyterians, Independents, and all Sectaries, are schismatics to one another; the only Difference is, that the Church of England calls indifferent things, indifferent; but our Dissenters call their indifferent Usages, necessary, and pretend Divine Commands and Institutions, which they could never yet produce. And thus I must confess, the Church is the Divider, and Dissenters, though they separate without Cause, are very guiltless and innocent, if a true understanding of the Nature of Christian Liberty can make a schismatic, and a superstitious and ignorant mistake of indifferent things for necessary, can justify a Separation.  
I can foresee but two Objections, which can be made against this Discourse; the first is, that I confounded indifferent Circumstances of Action, with indifferent Ceremonies of Religion. Secondly, that though some indifferent Circumstances must be acknowledged necessary in the external exercise of Religion, yet no such particular Circumstances ought to be imposed, but to remain indifferent in their use, as well as in their Nature.  
As for the first, that I confounded indifferent Circumstances of Action with indifferent Ceremonies; the Answer is very plain and easy, that there is but one Ceremony enjoined by the Church of England, which cannot be reckoned among the necessary Circumstances of Action, and that is the across in Baptism, which is of such ancient use in the Christian Church, upon a great many other Accounts besides Baptism, that he must condemn all the Churches of the Christian World, which we have any Records of, in Ecclesiastical Writers, who accuses it of Superstition or Popery; not to take notice now, that the ancient Church used a great many other Ceremonies in Baptism, much more liable and obnoxious to fanatic Censures, which are now disused among us: and since it is evident, how little these men will be pleased merely with taking away the use of the across( this Inquirer falling so rudely upon the Dean, after the proposal of taking it away, or leaving it indifferent) we may still keep an ancient and useful Rite, when parting with it will contribute nothing to Peace and Union.  
But, the Surplice and kneeling at the Lord's Supper, which are the two other Ceremonies retained by our Church, and if they please, they may reckon kneeling at Prayers, and standing up at the Hymns, the Gloria Patri, the Creed, and the Gospels, are nothing more than the Circumstances of Action, for they are reduced either to Postures or Habits, which are two necessary Circumstances of religious Actions, unless it be decent to worship God naked, or possible to worship him in no Posture at all.  
And, if they be grieved still, that these particular Habits and Postures are preferred before others, because of their Significancy, and so are turned into symbolical Ceremonies, I would desire them to consider, that there is no other Rule whereby to determine the proper Circumstances of Worship, but by their Significancy; which has often made me wonder, That men, in their Wits, should quarrel at any external Circumstances of Worship, upon account of their Significancy: if they signify nothing but what is good, what is worthy of God, and his Worship, and becomes his Worshippers.  
How shall we know, whether we should pray and praise God, and feast at his Table, sitting, standing, or kneeling, with our Hats on, or off, but by considering, which is most decent and suitable to the Nature of the Action? That is, by considering what the Meaning and Signification of such Postures are, and which of them signify most agreeably to the nature of such religious Actions.  
Why it is thought so undecent to appear in sackcloth and Ashes on days of public Joy, when our work is to praise God for his Goodness and Mercy or to adorn ourselves on days of Fasting and Humiliation? To look Melancholy when we praise God, and to put on very cheerful and pleasant Looks, when we confess our Sins, and deprecate his Judgments? Why does St. Paul take so much Pains to show the Undecency of a man's praying covered, or a Woman unconvered, from the different Signification of them? 1 Corinth. II 4, 5, 6, &c.  
The truth is, it is not so indifferent as some imagine; what the external circumstances of Worship are: for the significancy, or, as others would call it, the symbolicalness of such Circumstances, must determine their suitableness or unsutableness to religious actions; for no Time, nor Place, Habit, or Gesture, or Words can be pleasing to God, which do not signify something worthy of God, and of Religion, and whether the Signification be natural or instituted, it is much at one, so it signify certainly and constantly; to be sure the mere significancy of such circumstances, cannot be a fault, when there is nothing of any value in them but their significancy.  
For we must consider, that the true worship of God consists in the inward devotion of our Minds, which none can know but God and ourselves; but external worship is nothing else but a visible representation of inward and invisible devotion, which must be seen in our external behaviour; and therefore, unless our words and actions, postures and habits do one way or other signify our devotion and reverence for God, they cannot be so much as the external circumstances of Religion, because there is nothing of Religion in them.  
Indeed it is impossible for men, let them do what they can, to strip their actions of all signification, which should make them more modest in blaming any thing that signifies well, and more careful of doing any thing that signifies ill.  
When men sit at public Prayers, and, it may be, with their Hats half on, this will signify, either that they do not believe that God sees them, and that the holy Angels attend our Assemblies, or that God does not matter external honour, that is, public and visible worship; or that they do not owe so much reverence to him, as to their Prince. When they put on their Hats to hear a Sermon, it signifies, that either they do not believe preaching to be a part of God's worship,( and yet those who are most guilty of this, hardly think any else to be a necessary part of public worship) or that they are not in God's immediate presence, while the Sermon is preaching, or that they hear Sermons, not as Disciples and Scholars, but as Masters and Judges. When they sit at the Lord's Table, it is a true symbolical ceremony, which represents a very great familiarity with Christ, but signifies very little distance or worship. When they pray an hour or two together, any thing that comes next, to those who cannot believe that they are all this while inspired, at least, not when they pray nonsense, or Blasphemy, or Rebellion, this signifies, that they neither consider that God is in Heaven, nor they upon Earth; for then, according to Solomon's direction, their words would be wise and few; much, and extemporary talking, used to signify either great boldness and confidence, or great intimacy and friendship, but it never signified worship before. When they celebrate religious Assemblies in Bear-gardens and Play-houses, it signifies indeed, that they believe God is every where, but if a Place can signify any thing, it signifies no great reverence for Divine worship, or that they do not think their prayers or preaching to be the worship of God. And, I suppose, those gentle Sons of the Church of England meant some such Sermons as these, of whom Mr. Baxter reports, that they have been often heard to say, That they can profit 
Mr. B. third defence, 2 part, p. 80.  more by a Play than by a Sermon; and when they fast the 29th of May, and refuse to fast the 30th of January, do what they can, it will signify a Spirit of Rebellion; and let them stretch their Lungs never so much in declaiming against Popery, to fast on the 5th of November is a symbolical ceremony.  
As for the second Objection, That, though some external circumstances are necessary to public worship, yet there is no necessity that they should be determined, but they may be left to every man, or Church, to choose what they please; I shall return two or three short Answers to it.  
First, Unless they can prove, not only that they may, but that they must not be determined, no Church can be accused of Schism for determining such external modes and circumstances of worship, as are of good use and signification in Religion, or for obliging all in her Communion to observe them; for, if there be no necessity of leaving these matters at liberty, every Church may choose for her self, and if she choose well, those are the schismatics who reject her Communion.  
But secondly, This not only may, but must be so, if we will allow that Church-Governours and Christian Magistrates are bound to take care of public worship; for public worship,( as you have already heard) consists in the external and visible expressions of Devotion, in times, places, postures, habits, words, or actions; and if these be not determined, there is no security that God shall be worshipped, that is, shall be honoured; for, if men pretend to worship God in undecent words, places, postures, &c. which are so far from signifying any Honour, that they signify Contempt, how devout soever their minds may be, this is not external and public worship, but a public affront to the Deity; and therefore, at least, some indifferent things, some external circumstances of worship must be determined, if our Civil and Ecclesiastical Governours are bound to take care that God shall be publicly worshipped, and that no public scorn be put upon Religion.  
Thirdly, To leave all the Externals of Religion at liberty, is so far from being the Cure of our Divisions, that it is the true Cause of them; and therefore, he is the true schismatic, not who secures Christian Unity by a settled Constitution, but who leaves every man at liberty to do as he list. For, I suppose, when every man is left to do as he will, he will do, as he will; and thus one man will like one way of worship, and another another, and those who happen to be of the same mind, will unite into one Church, and thus shall we have distinct Churches and distinct Communions without end. This was the Effect of pulling down the Church of England heretofore, and this is that we complain of still; and our wise Author tells us, that the Church is the faulty Divider, because she has confined her Communion within certain Laws and Rules, which others will not comform to, and yet to have no certain Laws and Rules, is the most certain way to have no Union; Union may be preserved where there are fixed and settled terms of Communion, but it can never be preserved without it.  
Thus I have considered the first thing supposed in our Inquirer's Sophistical Argument, That all things, which are in their own nature indifferent, may be partend with, without sin; and proceed to the second, That the Opinion of Dissenters, that indifferent things are unlawful in the Worship of God, is a just and necessary reason for parting with them. The plain sense of which is, That no Church can, without Schism, retain the most innocent and useful Ceremonies in Religion, if any man, especially if any number of men, think them to be neither innocent nor useful, though the Church still judges them to be so.  
Now, could they once gain this point, farewell to all Peace and Unity in the Christian Church; for it is demonstrable, how impossible it is to strip Religion so naked, but there will remain some indifferent Rites and Usages, which some men or other will condemn or scruple: We know what work there has been among the Quakers themselves, about praying with their Hats on, or off; and if this will admit a Dispute, what Religious Ceremonies can be secure? And yet, if this Principle were true, all other Churches must stoop to the rude and slovenly Dispensation of Quakerism, and quit all the modes of Religious worship, which they cannot prove to be expressly commanded in Scripture.  
Nay, if what I have already discoursed, be true, that public Worship consists in such external signs of Honour and Devotion, as are not peremptorily determined by a Divine Law, we must have no public Worship, unless all men can agree in the same Rites and modes of worship; for, if any sort of men set up a peculiar way of worship for themselves, which other men do not like, and cannot join in, according to this Principle they are schismatics, and guilty Dividers: and yet if no Church must set up public Worship, till all men are agreed about the External Rites of worship, I greatly suspect it will take up some convenient time, in such an Age as this to do it; Especially considering, that there is scarce any one thing relating to external worship, but is scrupled or condemned by some or other. There are those who think it a gross piece of Superstition to erect public Places, separated from all common Use, and devoted and consecrated to the worship of God, especially if they be beautiful and magnificent, though they think they can never sufficiently adorn their own houses. Others think it superstitious to hear a Sermon with their Hats off, and others judge it rude and irreverent to put them on; Some think it a Sin to hear a Form of Prayer, others as much condemn extemporary Effusions, when men say what comes next, which is not always so wise and grave, so becoming Creatures and Sinners, and so reverend to Almighty God as good men wish. Some think it superstitious to confine ourselves to kneel at Prayers or Sacrament; others, irreverent to sit. Taking a Text, and raising Doctrines and Uses, and obserwing method and Order, and premeditating before-hand what we have to speak, is thought by some as great a quenching and stifling of the Spirit as praying by a Form. Others think the Christian Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, to be as indifferent and needless, as some do external Order and Decency in Worship: and there want not those, who think the most indifferent and innocent Rites and Usages to be unlawful, when the Observation of them is commanded by our Superiors. While this is the case, as it certainly is at this day, I would desire any man to show me, how it is possible for any Church, of what denomination soever, whether Presbyterian or Independent, &c. to establish any Rules of Worship and Discipline, which shall not be scrupled or condemned by other Persons, and therefore must either have no Visible Church and Worship, or be schismatics, if it make a man or Church Schismatical, to establish any Rules of worship, which some other Persons think unlawful.  
But to bring this matter to a short issue, it is evident, that in itself considered an other man's thinking that to be unlawful, which I believe to be indifferent and lawful, does not make it unlawful to me, any more than my thinking such a thing to be indifferent and lawful, makes it lawful to him, who believes it to be unlawful; and therefore, the Force of the Argument must lye in this; that by imposing such Terms of Communion, as I believe indifferent, but other men think unlawful, I am guilty of Schism, because I force them to separate, by denying them Communion, unless they will do, what they believe to be unlawful, which no honest man can or will do.  
Now the plain Answer to this, consists in these three things; First, that though such and such particular Rites and Ceremonies are, in their own Nature, indifferent; yet public Worship, and the decent and orderly Performance of public Worship, which I have already proved, cannot be done, without some indifferent and uncommanded Circumstances, is not indifferent.  
And secondly, That the way to Union, is not by stripping Religion of all indifferent Circumstances, for that is the way to have no Church, and no public Worship, but by curing mens superstitious Conceits about them; for while men believe that things indifferent are unlawful in the Worship of God, tho you take away some indiffernt Rites, the same Objection will lye against whatever is set up in the room of them, which will cause Divisions and misapprehensions without number; as is evident in those divided Sects, which are now among us, who all cried out( and do so at this day) against the Impositions, and Popish Ceremonies of the Church of England, but could never agree about one way of Worship and Church-Government among themselves: but some refine the Church, till they refine it into Quakerism; and the reason why others do not so, is because they have not Wit or Consideration enough to understand the Tendency of their own Principles.  
And thirdly, It is of greater Conseq●ence to common Christianity, to deliver Religion from such superstitious Conceits, and maintain true Gospel-Liberty, and Freedom, than to receive such men into the Church, by indulging their Superstition. To assert indifferent things to be unlawful and sinful, is as gross Superstition, as it is to make such indifferent things necessary parts of Religion, and meritorious acts of Worship; one is the Superstition of the fanatic, the other of the Papist; and the one places as much Religion in not doing indifferent things, as the other in doing them, both which are great Corruptions of Christianity; one as it destroys Christian Liberty, and is a necessary Cause of Schisms, Confusions, and Disorders in the Christian Church; and both, as they confounded the Notions of Good and Evil, and nourish men in superstitious Conceits of pleasing God, in doing or not doing something, which, considered in it's own Nature, cannot please him: so that this Dispute about indifferent things, is not so trifling, as some men imagine; and if we cannot keep men in, or reduce them to the Communion of the Church, without forfeiting our Christian Liberty, let them go, and( according to their usual Appeals) try it at the last day, who are schismatics, though parting with two or three indifferent Ceremonies, is of no great Consequence; yet to part with the doctrine of the Lawfulness of indifferent things, or to countenance the contrary Doctrine by an unreasonable and fruitless compliance with such men, is to corrupt the Gospel, and to enslave the Consciences of Christians, and this we dare not do for the sake of any man: but this is abundantly enough, in answer to our Inquirers Search for the schismatic. But Mr. Baxter is the most formidable man, a man, who, as a late Author,( I had called him learned, but for fear he should think it an Abuse, a counterfeit epithet, and fleering Expression) tells us, is neither to be pitied nor envied;( and I am very much of his mind, for a Reason I know) a man 
Answer to D. St. as far as concerns the peaceable Design. p. 26. 27.  whose Soul does as much excel Dr. Stillingfleet's Soul as a Flint does Free-stone, because Free-stone is not so sharp and acute, and will not strike Light; that is, Fire and flamme, as Flint does: it is a most admirable Comparison, and I believe that the D. will not envy Mr. Baxter two such Perfections as these, the accuteness of a Flint to divide the Church, and it's striking Fire to burn and consume it; but the D. may comfort himself, that Free-stone is fitter to grow into a Holy Temple than Flint. But he takes notice of another Perfection of Mr. B. which is indeed the most formidable of any, that he has a Pen consequently, that is but turning the Cock, and it will run at any time a Sermon full, or a Book full, as he hath occasion. This I am sure, looks like a very fleering Expression, especially, when two Lines after, he does not look upon this as a Perfection, but tells us, as a Diminution and Qualification of his former Encomium, that he is usually too sudden, that is, that he does not sufficiently consider what he writes; but however, by this means he does his Business effectually, for his Readers know not what it is he writes, but believe it to be very learned and profound, and an unanswerable Confutation of the Church and Churchmen, especially when they see the Acuteness, the Light and flamme of the Flint in it, and he tires his Adversaries, who undertake to answer him, by the number of his Books, or scorches them with the flamme.  
This formidable man has lately published a little Pamphlet, which he calls, A Search after the English schismatic, at the Conclusion of which, he tells us, I determine not in all this, who is the schismatic, 
Search fo● Sch. p. 43.  but make a pair of Spectacles for the purblind to discern it; so that it seems, he has made it so plain, that by the help of these Spectacles, any man who is not stark blind, may see the schismatic: but the mischief is, no Spectacles will give a man the sight of himself, otherwise Mr. B. might have found the schismatic long since.  
However, I have put on these Spectacles, and do find, as Mr. Baxter says, that he, who is not purblind, may see the schismatic; if we do not mean the same man, I doubt his Spectacles are not true; and, I confess, they sometimes represent things double, and sometimes the very same man, if you turn one side of the Spectacles, is a schismatic, but if you turn the other side of the Spectacles, he is none. As for instance, There are, it 
p. 3. 4.  seems, a sort of men, whom he calls passive Conformists, and they are, such as think a Reformation very desirable, but Conformity lawful to escape silencing and ruin( I suppose he means such Conformists, if there be any such to be found now, as he tells us elsewhere, began the last Civil Wars for a Reformation without Bishops or Liturgy, and such as Mr. B. and his Brethren would have been, had they been taken into the Church, and will be, whenever they are) and such as like Conformity for itself, and wish all others did comform, but like not uncharitable Censures, or silencings, or violence against Conscionable Dissenters, nor the Compulsions which have caused our Church-convulsions. I cannot guess who these men are, that can answer every part of this Character. No honest Conformist, that I know of, will approve of uncharitable Censures, nor will exercise any violence against conscionable Dissenters, if he could tell who these are; for, I suppose, he would not have us to mistake those for conscionable Dissenters, who perpetually libel Church and State, and trample upon all Sacred and Civil Authority, and live upon more than the Charity of the People, to disturb public Government: but if there be any such Conformists, who would have no restraint laid upon Dissenters, they may well be called passive Conformists, for it is no thanks to them, if they do not suffer once more all the Furies of a fanatic Rage and Zeal.  
Well, but are these passive Conformists, schismatics, or not Shismaticks? The Answer is plain; So far as they own the Schismatical dividing terms of Communion, that is, so far as they are Conformists, the Nonconformists must needs judge these to partake in Schism, that is, to be schismatics; and this tells us what the Nonconformists judgement is, even of the most moderate, and mere passive Conformists, and consequently of the whole Church of England, that they are schismatics; yet as they reproach not Dissenters as schismatics, so neither are they accounted schismatics by the Dissenters. This is but equal dealing, I confess, one good turn requires another; the Conformists indeed are most generous in this, because they stand in less need of such a Favour; but the Dissenter makes the greatest compliment in excusing those from being schismatics, who, as they themselves say, partake in a Schism, that is, who are guilty of Schism: and hitherto, I always thought, that Schism denominated men schismatics; but he gives a reason why they do not account these passive Conformists schismatics, because they are sound and peaceable brethren, and desire to live, as such, with others, and Schism is not their disposition nor predominant. Sound and peaceable, and yet Conformists? then there is no Heterodoxy in Conformity, nor any schismatical dividing terms of Communion; for if there be, a Conformist, as a Conformist, can neither be sound nor peaceable; and while they compliment these sound and peaceable Conformists, they little consult their own Reputation; for, if Conformists, notwithstanding their Conformity, can be sound and peaceable, Nonconformists can be neither, unless they can show us two distinct sorts of soundness and peaceableness, one peculiar to the passive Conformist, the other to the Nonconformist.  
To say that a Conformist is no schismatic, is to say that a Non-conformist is one▪ unless there may be a Schism, and neither of the Dividing Parties be a schismatic; and to say that some Conformists are sound and peaceable, is to say that all Nonconformists are neither; unless two differing and dividing Parties may be both in the right, with respect to that very thing wherein they differ. But Schism is not their Disposition, nor predominant; but what is that to the purpose, since it is practise, not Disposition, which makes a schismatic? for he is a schismatic who makes a Schism, whether he be disposed to be a schismatic or not; as I suppose none are, but errand Knaves, who design and endeavour to break the Unity of the Church, when they are satisfied, in their own Consciences, that there is no reason for it.  
But however, Schism is not predominant in them; that is strange, that men should be guilty of actual Schism, and yet Schism not be predominant. What he 
Search for a schismatic, p. 5. 6.  means by the predominancy of Schism, I confess, I cannot tell; for I take Schism to be then predominant, when it prevails against Peace and Unity; I find indeed, that he has a very odd Notion of Schism, that it has a great number of degrees, insomuch th●● few Churches on earth are no way guilty of Schism, and yet are not to be called schismatics, where it is not predominant. Now though I will readily grant, that Schism may have different degrees of guilt, according to different circumstances and aggravations, yet Schism being nothing else but a breach of Christian Communion, or dividing ourselves from the Unity of Christ's Body, the nature of it is the same in all, and is not capable of less, or greater degrees, or, as the Logicians speak, non recipit magis& minus: it may be a greater or less Schism, with respect to the number of the schismatics, its duration and extent, or the difficulty of the Cure, but it cannot be more or less a Schism; for where the Unity of the Church is broken by distinct and opposite Communions, there is the full nature of Schism, which is as much Schism as Schism can be Schism; and where this is not, there is either no Schism, or only a partial Schism, which is like a great Wound in the Arm, which yet does not sever it from the Body; as when men refuse to communicate in some parts and offices of Christian Worship, not in all; or if they refuse Christian Communion, yet set up no opposite Church and Communion of their own. It is not every different Opinion, not every Error or Mistake, not every Quarrel or Contention, as Mr. Baxter imagines, which makes a Schism, but the Breach of Christian Communion; and where there is such a Breach, there is certainly a Schism on one side or other.  
The next sort of men Mr. Baxter taxes with Schism, are the Sectaries and Separatists, and by them he means those, who 1. appropriate the Church to some narrow Sect or Party, which denieth all others to be true Churches, or to have true Ministers or Sacraments. Upon this Principle, I remember St. Austin disputes against the Donatists, who confined the Church of Christ to Africa, where their Church was, and to their own Communion, but denied that there was a true Church in any part of the World besides, excepting here and there some few Conventicles of the Donatists. Now, this Argument certainly extends to all times, as well as to all places; for to appropriate the Church to this last Age, and to deny all the Churches of the Christian World, for 14 or 15 hundred years, to be true Churches, is a much greater Confinement of the Church, than it is now to appropriate it to any one Sect or Party; and yet, this all those are guilty of, who condem and separate from the Church of England, upon account of Diocesan Episcopacy, Liturgies, or indifferent Ceremonies, unless they can, for 1500 years after the Apostles, show us a Christian Church, without Bishops, Liturgies, or Ceremonies; for upon the same Reason, that they separate from the Church of England, they are schismatics from the whole Christian Church for so many Ages; for I challenge this admirable Ecclesiastical Historian to show me any one Church since the time of the Apostles, wherein there was no Diocesan Bishops a more reformed Liturgy, and fewer and more innocent Ceremonies, than are now in use in the Church of England: Nay, if to appropriate the Church to some narrow Sect and Party, which denieth all others to be true Churches, or to have true Ministers or Sacraments, be the Character of a schismatic, both Presbyterians and Independents, as well as the Episcopal, who assert the divine Right and Apostolical Institution of their Churches and Ministry against all other Church-forms of Government, are down right schismatics: for he that asserts, that there is but one Church of divine Institution, must deny all other Churches or Ministers to be of divine Institution; that is, to be true Churches or Ministers; unless, when Christ has instituted a Church, and a Ministry, there may be true Churches and Ministers, which are not of Christ's Institution. But of all the schismatics that ever I heard of, Mr. Baxter himself, according to these Principles, did he understand, and pursue any, is the greatest, who sets up such a parochial Episcopacy, which is a compounded Creature of Presbytery and Independency, as never was practised in any Church yet in the World, which, if he dare stand to it, that this is the only true Apostolical Government, must unchurch all the Churches that ever were in the World.  
But Mr. B. is so far out in this Character of a schismatic, that the quiter contrary to what he says, is the true Character of a schismatic, if it will admit any Notion of Schism. For to assert, that there are more true Churches than one,( how large or narrow soever, the bounds of it be) which were not very large in the first Institution of a Church, and may be reduced again to a narrow Compass by a general apostasy) is to justify Schism by a Law; for then there may be distinct Churches, and distinct and opposite Communions without Schism, which is the most schismatical Principle in the World, if Christ have but one Church and one Body, and if breaking the Unity of this Church be Schism; of which more hereafter.  
Hence we see, how little Mr. B. understands the nature of Schism,( I wish he were as ignorant in the practise of it) when he makes it to consist in appropriating the Church to some Sect or Party; that is, to one Communion, which is the only Principle of Christian Union, and the denying of it, a necessary cause of Schisms and Confusions: and yet we may observe further, that though this were a schismatical Principle, yet nothing makes a man a schismatic, but a sinful Separation from a true Church; and this alone will make a man a schismatic, let his Principles be what they will.  
But to proceed, Mr. B's next Character of a Sectarian schismatic, is more strange than this, which is expressed in these Words; 2. And next to those, that though they own others as true Churches or Ministers, yet hold their Communion unlawful, when it is not so, and renounce Communion with them upon these Grounds: If by other Churches, Mr. B. means Parochial, Diocesan, or national Churches, who profess the same Faith, and live under the same Government and Discipline, unless with such Variety as the time and place, and inevitable necessity of Affairs requires and exacts from them; I say, to separate from, or to deny Communion with such true Churches and Ministers, is a Schism; though I believe, no man was ever guilty of it, who held Communion with any Church, unless, Such People as talk through the Windows on the West-side of More-fields, to use Mr. 
Third Defence. p. 87.  B's. elegant Paraphrases, for mad-men: but if by true Churches he means opposite Churches, who set up distinct and separate Communions of their own, which is the Case of the Presbyterian, Independent, and other Sectarian Churches, who are formed in opposition to the Church of England, and to one another, as it is plain, he intends it: if these different Parties think the other Churches true Churches, and their Communion lawful, their very dividing into separate Communions is Schism, and they have no other way of justifying their Separation, but by holding their Communion unlawful: for to renounce a lawful Communion, when we ourselves believe it to be lawful, is certainly a sinful Separation, if there be any such thing as Schism; but to renounce a Communion because we believe it unlawful, though it is a Schism, as Mr. B. truly says, when it is not so,( which should make all our Dissenters more impartially exaamine upon what accounts Communion with the Church of England is unlawful) yet the only Excuse they can possibly make for themselves, is their Mistake, that they did sincerely believe such a Communion to be unlawful, when it was not so, and therefore separated; which, how far it shall be accepted, God, who only knows the hearts of men, will judge at the last day.  
But we must consider, what Mr. B. means by Communion, when he makes it schismatical for those of opposite Churches and Communions, to renounce Communion with each other, especially, upon Pretence of the Unlawfulness of such Communion: for can a man be a member of two different Churches, which have their distinct and opposite Pastors, Government, Rules of Worship and Discipline? A Member suppose, of the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Independent Church, all at one time, what need then can there be, for such distinct Churches? Why do they not all unite into one Church? Separation is certainly causeless and sinful, when we separate from any Church, with whom we can lawfully communicate, and to communicate with such opposite Churches, either signifies that we are of no Church, or that by Turns we are schismatics and Separatists from them all.  
But, I suppose, what Mr. B. means by Communion, is no more but this, That, though men are fixed and settled Members of one particular Church, Presbyterian, suppose, or Independent, yet they may occasionally be present at Episcopal Churches, not as Members, but to join in some parts of Worship, or to hear a Sermon; but such occasional presence is very far from being in Communion with such a Church, as the Dean has already 
Unreas. of Separation, p. 107, &c.  proved, and I shall have occasion to discourse more hereafter: and therefore, if Mr. B. say true, those are all schismatics, who believe Communion with the Church of England to be lawful, and yet renounce her Communion; that is, refuse to be Church-members, and to submit to her Rules of Worship and Government, as if her Communion were unlawful.  
The next sort of men he taxes, are, the Active caconical Conformists, viz. 
Search for Sch. p. 5.  Those that are for the present Form of Ecclesiastical Government, with the Litany and Canons, and the Laws which enforce them( who call usually for the execution of those Laws) these he very civilly calls Diocesan cannoners, by which, I fear he mistakes them for Army Saints. The only difference between these men and the second sort of passive Conformists, is, that, it seems, they are for the Laws which enforce Conformity, and usually call for the execution of those Laws. And be it so, this cannot make a man a schismatic, that he lives in Communion with a true and pure Church, and desires to see it preserved from the rude and barbarous Outrages of Popery and Fanaticism. Is it Schism to approve what our Governours, the King and Parliament, do for the Establishment of our Church and Religion? But, who  told him that these Active Conformists do so often call for the Execution of these Laws? Has he seen any such thing in the Fast-Sermons before the House of Commons, since the King's Return? Will he venture to compare the two last twenty years together, and let them go for the schismatics, who have cried oftenest and loudest for the Execution of Laws, and pulling up root and branch? I will tell Mr. B. a Secret which I have heard, but hope he will not make me prove it, that the Parliament made good Laws, Papists( out of a pretended reverence to tender Consciences) hindered the Execution of them, and some leading Fanaticks had private encouragement, to say no more, to set up a mighty cry of Persecution, to cast all the odium on a persecuted Church, and Diocesan cannoners.  
Let us now consider who his mere 
Search for Schismat. p. 5.  Nonconformists are, whom he endeavours to excuse from Schism; and by them, he tells us, he means such as are guilty of no other punishable errors or Sins, but such as the Act of Uniformity doth eject and silence us for: that is, Disobedience to Civil Government, and Ecclesiastical Constitutions; such little petty matters as cannot make a man a schismatic, especially such a perfect man, as is guilty of no other punishable errors or Sins. But Mr. B. when it will serve his turn, knows a certain distinction between passive and active, which might be much better applied to Non-conformists than to Conformists. A passive Nonconformist is one, who is ejected and silenced, but joins in public Worship as far as he can, but does not set up distinct and opposite Churches, and these are properly mere Non-conformists: such as the ancient Non-conformists were, who left their Livings, but did not leave the Church, but conformed as Lay-men, though not as public Ministers; and if he means such, by mere Non-conformists, far be it from me to charge them with Schism.  
But active Nonconformists are those, who, though they are ejected, yet will not be silenced, but separate from the Church, and set up Schismatical Conventicles, and preach People into Scruples and Factions; and such are the men, whom he describes in the following words, who declared openly their judgments about Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, in 1660. after a common meeting at Sion college, and another at the Savoy, which is published in print: For all these Persons, even Mr. B. himself, have actually separated from the Church of England, if setting up opposite Churches and Conventicles be a Separation; and I could tell him of another meeting, when they secretly declared their judgments, which is not published in print: for, some men, I can assure him, have a public and a private Conscience; But these, he says, are the Reconcilers, or Peace-makers, who then laboured and begged for Peace and Unity in vain; that is, who were very desirous of Union, if they could have had it upon their own terms; And, I think all Conformists and Non-conformists whatsoever, passive or active, are such kind of Peace-makers and Reconcilers as these, though I hope there are not many of them, would writ such Pleas for Peace as Mr. B. has done, who has contended so earnestly for Peace, that he has cast all the Dirt that he could possibly rak together, upon Church and State, that no impartial Judge can discover any thing but a Spirit of Wrath, Reviling, Sedition, and Schism, in his whole Book. Such a Reconciler and Peace-maker is Mr. B. who declares eternal War against the Church of England: he calls the 
Third Defence p. 84. 5.  present Constitution of the Church, A separating Wall, or dividing thorny Hedge in the midst of this part of the Vineyard of Christ, to separate one part of the faithful Ministers and People from the rest; and professes, That he once made it the most earnest Action of his Life, to have prevented the building of this Wall, or Hedge, that is, the Establishment of the Church of England: this was in 1660. when he tells us, they did so hearty beg for Peace; and here he expounds, what their beging for Peace meant, that the Church of England should not be set up; and he adds, that he will, if possibly he can, pull it down again; And that I as earnestly desire to see that Wall or Hedge pulled down, that Christ's Flock among us, may be one, and I will do the best I can, while I live, to pull it down, that there may be no such Separation. Sir, we hearty thank you, for telling us so, and more especially, for telling us the way you will take to effect it, by going on both sides of the Hedge, though by so doing, you be scratched; that is, by sometimes going to Church, and oftener preaching at a Conventicle; so that his coming to our Church, is but like Judas his Kiss, with a Design to betray it, which out of a catholic Spirit, he does only till he can get the Wall down, which at present is beyond his Power, and then farewell the Church of England for ever. But of all men, there are no such dangerous Enemies as those in our Bosoms, as catiline was more terrible and dangerous to Rome, while he was in the City, than when he had drawn his Forces out; which is a mighty Encouragement to all men, who love the Church of England, to make breaches in her Walls for those men to enter, who when they are in, will never leave, till they have laid all level.  
But he proceeds in his Character of 
Search for S●●. p. 5.  these mere Non-conformists, that they tie themselves to the Judgments of none, called Non-conformists heretofore, Presbyterians, Independents, &c. This I confess is true, they have forsaken the Principles of the old Non-conformists, who were true passive Non-conformists, who lived peaceably in the Communion of the Church, and confuted the Separatists of those days, and the mere Non-conformists of our days; and therefore, it was high time to quit their Principles, and if they were honest, they should not glory in their names neither. But I do not see, how this makes them ever the less, but more, schismatics, that they have departed from their Principles, who were mere Non-conformists, but were not Separatists. Indeed, as Mr. B. represents himself and his Brethren, I do not see, that they are in Communion with any Church at all, or have concluded upon any form of Church-Government; but while they pretend to be catholic Christians, are catholic Separatists, for they are neither Presbyterians nor Independents, or at least, not such as the old ones were: Well, are they Episcopal? Their Separation gives us no great reason to think so, and yet they should be so, if what follows, be true; that they tie themselves to the Word of God, and the example of the true Primitive Churches: As for the Word of God, he knows very well, that this is pretended on all sides, right or wrong; the Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independent Churches, all pretend a Jus divinum; but when he adds, And the Example of the true Primitive Churches, if there be no Fallacy in it, he must be ours: for Episcopacy is the only Government according to the Word of God, as expounded by Primitive Practise, as I must believe, till he can show me a Presbyterian, or Independent Church, in the Ages next after the Apostles. For, if by the true Primitive Churches, he means only the Churches in the Apostles days, he does not deal sincerely in distinguishing the Word of God, from the Example of the true Primitive Churches; for there is no way to know what the Churches in the Apostles time were, but by the Word of God; that is, the Historical Account we have of it in Scripture, which, it seems, is not so plain, but the differing Parties can put their own Fancies on it, and wrangle about the Signification of those names, Bishops, Presbyter, and Deacon. But, if we will suppose that Government which the Apostles instituted, was continued and preserved in those true Primitive Churches, which immediately succeeded the Age of the Apostles,( which is but very reasonable to think) then the whole matter is very plain, that Episcopacy is an Apostolical Institution, not a Parochial Independent, but a true Diocesan Canoneering Episcopacy.  
For a Conclusion of this Character of the mere present Non-conformist, he adds, And are not for Concord only with a Sect, or a dividing Party, high or low, but for that catholic Church, and Communion of Saints, which are in our Creed. This is surprising! What he means by Concord, I cannot tell; but, when he speaks of Church Concord, he ought to mean Communion, and then by his own Confession, he and his Brethren are for holding Church-Communion with Sects and dividing Parties; and consequently, if any of these Sects, and dividing Parties are schismatics, he is so too; unless he can communicate in Schism, without being a schismatic: and, it is strange, if none of the dividing Parties should be schismatics, or that he should escape the guilt of Schism, who countenances all, by communicating with all; an admirable way to catholic Unity: here is Latitudinarianism with a Witness.  
But, still they are for the catholic Church, and Communion of Saints, which are in our Creed, and, truly there it must keep according to these Principles; for it is never likely to be seen in the World, where we have such mere Non-conformists among us. It is a wonderful catholic Church, which is made up of a great many dividing Sects and Parties, which hold no Communion with one another, but are tacked together, by such mere Non-conformists, as are Christians at large, Members of no particular Church, but for the catholic Church in the Creed. And thus Mr. Baxter proceeds to the Question, which he puts into these, Our Question 
Search for Schismat. p. 6.  now is of two Parties here, the Canoneer, Diocesan Conformists, and present mere Non-conformists, which are the English schismatics. Now, I must confess, I know not how to deal with Mr. B. here; for, he has, of late days, pitched upon a very cunning way of Writing, not by Reasons and Arguments, and a fair debate of the case in Difference, but by stating Cases, and giving Historical Accounts of their judgement and Opinions, and practices, without drawing any Inference, but leaving his Readers to make Application, according to their own Fancies and Interests; and then if you apply any thing he says, to the Business of Non-conformity, or Schism, and show, that there is no force at all in it, you are presently answered with a Mentiris, in English, you lye Sir, as they say, one confuted Bellarmine of old: that is, he will state a case, as he calls it, by heaping up all the vilest and most spiteful Insinuations, that can be thought on, to bespatter the Government and present Constitutions in Church and State; but these must not be called the Reasons of his Non-conformity, but an History of matter of Fact, which are not his Reasons, till he has formed them into Mode and Figure: and now, whoever goes to answer him, and produces these as his Reasons of Non-conformity, is turned off with a Mentiris, for fear of tiring his Readers, by turning a Mentiris( or an English lye) into a civil long Parenthesis. Thus he has served the Impleader of his Plea for 
Third Defence of the Plea. p. 88.  Peace, and, thus he says, he has served some others, but has forborn it with others far more guilty, least their Reverence and Power, should make truth intolerable, whose Passion or Interest, or Error, had made gross Lies seem true and necessary. We may easily guess, what Reverend Person he means, and I am afraid, his Civility to him has lost his Cause, for he will never be able to give him a more convincing Answer, while his Eyes are open.  
This is really and truly a great piece of Art, and Mr. Baxter ought to have the Glory of the Invention; for by this means, he effectually promotes his Design, which is to load the Church of England with Reproaches, and to justify their Schism among their own Party, who understand their Cant; and if any busy pragmatical scribbler, as I may be at this time, shall venture to answer him, there is nothing to be answered, but his Historical Mistakes: for he will allow no body to turn his History into Arguments, but himself; who will be sure never to do it, or his trusty Friends, who will be sure to like them; and one good graceful Mentiris, or we will allow him twenty or thirty, because he can seldom stop under, shall be an un-answerable Answer to all his Impleaders. And yet this is as arrant a Juggle and Hocus Pocus trick, as ever was played in Bartholomew Fair; for, as the Impleader well urged, if the History be given in Answer to him that demandeth the Reasons, then the History containeth these 
Ibid. p. 92.  Reasons, Negatur sequela, says Mr. B. The matter of Fact must go first; the Bishop demanded of me, an account of our Non-conformity, this is the beginning of an Answer, the Reasons must come next. Now, how the matter of Fact can be so much as the beginning of an Answer, which contains no Reasons, is past my Understanding; unless, it be familiar with them, to writ large books for the beginning of an Answer, which contains no Reasons. When men argue from matters of Fact, the matter of Fact must be one Term in the Syllogism, and if matter of Fact be not part of the Argument, it is impertinent and trifling: As for Instance, if we should frame an Argument thus,  
We must not submit to sinful Terms of Communion, but renouncing the Covenant, owning the Authority of Diocesan Bishops, using the Liturgy, and any symbolical Ceremonies, &c. are sinful Terms of Communion: Ergo, We must not submit to them.  
And therefore, he who gives an Historical Account of the Terms of Communion, and his Scruples about it, &c. as a beginning of an Answer to that Question, Why do you not comform? must be supposed to allege these matters of Fact, as the Basis and Foundation of his Reason, if he will be so nice, as not to call it a Reason; for, if it be no part of his Reason, it is nothing to the purpose, no more than the Adventures of some Knight errand.  
The same Method he has taken in his Search for the English schismatic; he has not determined who he is, but made a pair of Spectacles for the purblind to see it, and this he has done by stating the case of the Diocesan cannoners, and the mere present Non-conformists. No doubt, but he intends to prove the Diocesan cannoners, to be schismatics, for I cannot think, he designs to prove himself to be one, and, therefore he has stated their case, in a hundred and four Particulars, which is the Indictment against them, to prove them to be schismatics; and yet I greatly suspect, that whoever shall examine all these Particulars, and show, that they are either false as to matter of Fact, or that they will not bear the Charge of Schism, shall be answered, as the Impleader was, with a Mentiris; for he has only given an Historical account of their Case, but has not yet given his Reasons to prove them schismatics; for Spectacles are not Reasons, but an artificial Instrument to make invisible Reasons visible to the purblind; and therefore, I shall not pretend to answer them as Reasons, but only show, that his Spectacles are false: and, because I perceive they are of a multiplying, as well as magnifying, Nature, I shall reduce his hundred and four Heads of Accusation, to some few Particulars, and give a very short Answer to them.  
The first Head of Accusation is, That we have a great many different Opinions among ourselves; as 1. About the essentiating Head of our own national Church. 2. Whether Bishops be necessary to the Being of a Church, or only to the Well-being of it: and the annexed Controversies about it, 3, 4, 5, 6. about the Points called ARMINIAN; 12. About Original Sin; 85. About the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness; 86. About God's eternal Decrees; 87. About Universal Redemption; 88. The nature of justifying Faith; 89. Sufficient Grace; 90. Distinguishing Grace; 91. The Perseverance of the Justified; 92. The Religious use of LENT; 96. The Morality of the Sabbath; 97. About subject Presbyters, and the different Sense of the Word PRESBYTER and BISHOP. 8. 9. 102.  
Now, all these he calls Schisms among 
Search for Sch. p. 25.  themselves, which are too many to be here numbered; that is, That all men who differ in their private Opinions, are schismatics from one another, though they live in the same Communion, and preserve the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace. But this is a perfect fanatic Notion of Schism, agreeable to their practise, who divide the Church for every trifling Difference in Opinion, and is a plain Argument, that even such a flinty Soul, as his Encomiast says Mr. B. has, has it's obtuse and blind, as well as it's acute and light-striking side.  
And, therefore I shall first mind him, that his admired Mr. Hales himself, will not allow Schism to consist in differing Opinions, but in the erecting a new Church and Oratory, for the dividing Party to meet in publicly( the exact case of our mere Non-conforming Separatists) as in the late famous controversy in Holland, de Praedestinatione( which Mr. B. instances in, and, according to his dividing Faculty, distinguishes into as many Heads, as he could think on) as long as the disagreeing Parties, went no farther than Disputes; the Schism was unhatched, but as soon as one Party swept an old cloister, and, by a pretty Art, made it a Church,( by putting a new Pulpit in it) for the separating Party to meet in, what before was a controversy, became a formal Schism.  
Secondly, I would desire him to consider, that according to this Principle, there never was a Church in the World, at least, not in these last inquisitive Ages, but was made up of schismatics, not his own beloved catholic spirited Conventicles excepted; for excepting some few Dreams and Fancies of his own,( which never troubled any man's Head, till he put them in) these controverted Doctrines, which he here mentions, have always been disputed, and will be so to the end of the World, and these men, who glory in Conquest, and affect to be the Heads of Parties, or place Religion more in Orthodox Opinions, than in the Virtues of a Christian Life; separate upon this account, and turn formal schismatics. Are not all these Disputes as hotly managed among Dissenters, as among the Episcopal Clergy?( witness the Dispute about Mr. B's. Aphorisms of Justification, John Goodwin's Redemption redeemed, and the late rude Assaults made upon Mr. How) and why then, was not this put into the Case of the mere Non-conformists, as well as the Diocesan cannoners? I will not tell the Reason, but every Body may guess it.  
Thirdly, if he had dealt fairly, he should have  told us, which of these different Parties had been the schismatics; for, if two distinct men, or Parties of men, hold contradictory Opinions, and this is schismatical, both these cannot be schismatics, unless both parts of a Contradiction be true, or Truth itself will make a man a schismatic, if it should happen, that another man holds a contrary Error: this Mr. Baxter did not dare meddle with, least he should have cleared his Diocesan cannoners, and cast the Schism upon his mere Non-conforming Brethren, who are not many of them, of his mind in these matters.  
Fourthly, I fear, according to this Principle, Mr. B. will be found the greatest schismatic in nature; for there are very few men in the World, that agree with him, or he with them: nay, some say, that he has very often been a schismatic to himself, and very seldom agrees long together with his own judgement.  
And fifthly, to take notice at present of no other particular Accusation, his first Charge is very pleasant, They agree not of the essentiating Head of their own national Church, whether it be Lay or Clergy, King or Bishop,( and so are, indeed, of divers Churches) no, nor whether it have any constitutive Head or none. This is a most ridiculous Conceit of Mr. B. as you shall hear more hereafter; but, supposing the thing were true, that we were not agreed about these matters, how does this prove us to be of divers Churches, when we all communicate in the same Church, and in the same holy Offices, and give all that Authority to the King in Ecclesiastical matters, which Christian Kings and Princes have ever enjoyed, and which our Laws grant him, and pay that Reverence and Subjection to Bishops, which is due to them by catholic practise, and Ecclesiastical Canons, and the present Constitutions of our Church? But, because we cannot agree about the meaning of a cramp, metaphysical Term( which it may be, has no meaning) An essential constitutive Head, therefore we must be of divers Churches, which is just like the wise Dispute about the principle of Individuation, which at this rate of arguing, must make Mr. B. as many divers men( setting aside the diversity of his Opinions) as there are different Judgments about it: or, to put a plainer case than this, because there are different Opinions of the Subjects of this Realm, about the nature of it's Government, whether the King, suppose, be one of the three Estates, or a superior Head to them all; therefore the men who differ in their Opinions about these matters, do not belong to the same, but to divers Kingdoms. If Mr. B. will not blushy at this, I will blushy for him; and, how parallel this Case is, will appear from considering his second head of Accusations, which concern the differing Opinions about Civil Government, which he says, were entertained by Church men, above forty years ago, about Prerogative, Laws, and Property, 19. &c. And, from hence he takes occasion to give an account of the Original of our late Civil Wars, which is not my Business at present to consider, but I leave that to those, who are concerned to prevent another. But cannot men differ about Civil Government, but they must be schismatics from the Church, as well as Rebels against the State? If there be different Opinions among Churchmen, about these matters, who live still in the Communion of the same Church, how does this make them schismatics? Is it made a necessary term of Church-Communion, to determine the Dispute about Prerogative, Laws, and Property? Or, is the Church of England schismatical, because it asserts a just Obedience to Government, and has always been Loyal to Princes? I beseech you Sir, tell us, which Party of these differing Diocesan cannoners were the schismatics, and then we may guess, which were the Rebels too; there were indeed, in those days, a great many active Canoneering Diocesans,( if we will believe Mr. B. who says, the War was begun by Conformists) whom now he modesty calls passive Conformists; and I pray God, they may never come to be active again.  
A third Charge, are the differing practices among us in several Churches, which, though we all join in the same Communion, yet, it seems, proves us to be schismatic; That some only, are for bidding Prayer in the Pulpit, others use Prayer there, 93. Some pray in their own Words, and some in the words of the Liturgy, some use the same words, and others vary them. 94. Now, is not this an admirable way of proving men schismatics? if there be one certain Rule for this, some of these men break that Rule, and are liable to the Censures of their superiors, but certainly, they are not schismatics, who own the Authority, and submit to the Discipline, and live in Communion with the Church. But, one is for Altars and Rails, and others against them, and others for Indifferency 98. And is this made a term of Communion or any part of Conformity, or determined either way by the Church? But, in preaching, they use very different Methods; somewhat better I confess, than are generally used in Conventicles; but does the Church confine us to any one? Or, may we not take that Liberty, which the Church gives? And, some Churches of them begin to use new versions of the singing Psalms. 99. This is an Inadvertency or Mistake( to use a civil Parenthesis for once) and a sign, how little they frequent our Churches, or how little they mind what is done there: for he cannot name any one Church, which does so, unless he will call the private chapel of the Charter-house, a Church: but however, singing Psalms itself, is no part of the prescribed Conformity, but only the connivance of Authority. But what a happy case are those men in, who can preach and pray as they list, and sing what Psalms they please, without danger of Schism? if such little things as these can make a schismatic, it is strange to me, that Separation itself should be no Schism.  
But, Their Cathedral Worship much differeth from the Parochial, and some Churches use Organs, and others have none. 95. Wherein does this Difference consist? Have the Cathedral Churches, another Liturgy, than is used in Parochial Churches? Is there any other difference than is allowed of? May not the reading Psalms be either said or sung? Does not the rubric take notice of the Cathedral Hymns, and appoint, when they shall be sung? Is it a different Service, if the Litany be red in the Desk or in the Body of the choir, and the Communion Service, at the Altar? And when the singing English Psalms in metre, is only connived at, not enjoined, does it make a schismatical Difference, to sing with Organs, or without? How vastly do these men differ from themselves! If the Church commands any indifferent Usages in religious Worship, it is so great a Violation of Christian Liberty, that it justifies their Separation: but on the other hand, if she leave any thing at Liberty, and men use that Liberty which is given them, it is so great a Disorder, that it makes those schismatics, who live like Brethren in the same Communion.  
Fourthly, another great Charge against these Diocesan cannoners, are those Church Impositions, which are so heavy and intolerable a burden to tender Consciences, and force those who desire Peace and Unity, to be at least mere Non-conformists; and if this Separation be a Schism, those are guilty of the Schism, who cause the Separation, not those who separate: to this purpose, he heaps together a great many things required in Conformity, and some not required, which make up the greatest part of those hundred and four Particulars, which yet remain to be considered; where we find things so unfairly represented, with such spiteful and disingenuous Insinuations against our Governours and Government, that it is too plain a Proof, how inconsistent a rash, furious Zeal is with moral Honesty; as to take notice of some few things very briefly.  
N. 25. he says, The Convocation cast away the King's Declaration, and drew up the Changes in the Liturgy, which added to our Burden. This was very boldly done, if it were true, and I wonder the King was never heard to complain of the Affront: but, I find this Declaration serves all Purposes; when they have a mind to libel the King, then he flung away his Declaration himself, and is not to be trusted any more; but when they would make the Church schismatical, then the Convocation cast it away, and not only so, but they drew the Parliament to confirm it all: And, what a wise People were they, who choose such a Parliament, as would be thus wheedled by a Convocation? but, the Truth is, that Parliament had a fresh Sense of the miseries of our late Confusions, and the wild and ungovernable Temper of Fanaticism, which made them think it necessary, to restore and establish the Loyal and Suffering Church of England.  
N. 26. As for their next Grievance, the Corporation Oath, that does not concern the Church, but the Security of the State; and it is extremely modest in these men, to quarrel at a Prince, whose Father was murdered, and he himself banished, by virtue of a solemn League and Covenant, that he will not admit such persons into Offices of Trust, who will not renounce it: especially, this was an unseasonable Objection at this time of day, when he sees, that his tender conscienced Dissenters, have learned the Knack of expounding such Oaths, and taking them, to serve some Turn, they best know what: especially, considering, that as sacred as they now think the Covenant, time was, when the Engagement laid it aside.  
His next Objections, or whatever he will call them, concern the across in Baptism, 27. God-fathers and God-mothers, 28. Kneeling at Sacrament, 29. Confirmation by Episcopal Imposition of hands, 30. I hear nothing now of that good old Objection, the symbolical Ceremony of a Marriage-ring, for there are none of them so scrupulous, but they can digest hearing the Common-Prayer, and twenty Ceremonies, rather than not be married; especially, when there is a good Estate, which cannot be made sure in Law, without it; and could they not be legally married, till they were confirmed by the Bishop, and had received the Sacrament kneeling, and engaged to baptize their Children with the Sign of the across, and with God-fathers and God-mothers, the Dispute were at an end. We can remember, since no man, who had a good gainful Office, scrup'led receiving the Lord's Supper kneeling; and, methinks after all their Pretences of Doubts and Scruples, that is a very odd kind of tender Conscience, which will venture to be damned, to get, or to save an Estate, but is extremely fearful and timorous, when any thing is to be done for the Peace and Unity, and good Government of the Church.  
Another great Quarrel he has, is against those Canons, which excommunicate them, who reproach the established Church and Worship, or the thirty nine Articles, or the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, as superstitious, or condemn the Form of making and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, as repugnant to the Word of God: N. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36. And what is the fault of these Canons? Is it not fit for every Church to secure her Government, Doctrine, Worship, from the Lashes of every petulant Tongue? if they do not like these things, yet cannot they forbear to reproach and vilify them? Is this part of that Liberty of Conscience they desire, to burlesque the Church of England, and expose it to Contempt? Yes. This is what they perpetually do, and are angry at the Church, that she will not give them Leave to do it; for, should they only modestly dissent, and not reproach the Church of England, the People would see no Hurt in those things they quarrel at, and then farewell to Conventicles and Fanaticism. But, we must never expect to see Church or State, or the Reputation of the most innocent and virtuous men, secure, till there be a severe Restraint laid upon mens Tongues and Pens.  
N. 64. He says, They excommunicate all Ministers, that voluntarily relinquish their Calling, and use themselves as Laymen, and yet thousands must do both, if the Bishops silence them. And, is there no Difference between deserting an Office, and being deposed by Authority? Between a Servant's running away from his Master, and being turned out of Doors for his ill Manners, Disobedience, and ungovernable Temper? If Mr. B. does not understand this Difference, I hope others will see, what value they are to have for his judgement; and, least he should want Objections, he looks back to those times, which he will not allow us to think on, The new Canons, and Et-Caetera Oath in 1640. brought in without the Parliament, which is all the Objections he makes against them, though that be a popular Cheat; for, had they been brought in with the Parliament, he would have liked them never the better, nor excused the Church ever the more; for then, as we heard above, it had been as great a fault to draw in the Parliament to confirm them all, as to bring them in without them.  
Thus all the Silencings and Prosecutions of Protestant Dissenters in Q. El. and King James's days, are charged upon the Church, and the dancing-book is a good Argument to this day. 396. 8. 69. To what purpose is all this? Do these things, which were done in former Ages, but are not done now, make us schismatics, or justify their Separation? Then he reckons up a great many particular things, which are imposed on those who will comform; and that he may not want numbers, he brings over again the across in Baptism, and kneeling at the Sacrament, &c. as imposed on Ministers in these Administrations, without which, they must neither baptize nor give the Sacrament. N. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51. and in N. 52. to give us a taste of his Honesty, and how impossible it is, for such men to want Arguments, he is guilty of such a Falsification, as, if it be an ignorant mistake, ought to make him less confident another time; if it be wilful, should teach other men to be less confident of him: his Words are these, They must profess Consent and Practise to pronounce all that they bury to be TAKEN TO GOD IN MERCY, WHERE WE HOPE TO COME, &c. ( except only the Excommunicate, unbaptised, and Self-murderers) were they Atheists or profane. Now, if there be any such words in the Office of Burial, as taken to God in Mercy, where we hope to come, I will yield the Cause; but the Fraud is this, he has taken the first part of the Sentence from the words that are pronounced at the interring the Corps, and has made up the other part, not of the words( tho he has put them into the italic Character, as the words of the Common-Prayer) but from the Sense of an Expression in the Collect after the Burial, and has joined them together, as if they were one entire Sentence in the Common-Prayer, and made one entire Sense: whereas, these words which he has thus tacked together, have a very different Sense and Interpretation, as appears from the different manner of speaking used in each. In the first part, the Church is very positive, It has pleased Almighty God, of his great Mercy, to take unto himself, the Soul of our dear Brother here departed; But, in the Collect, it is only matter of Hope, and the judgement of Charity, That when we depart this Life, we may rest in him, as our Hope is, this our Brother doth. Now, if our Church mean the same thing, by God's taking to himself the Soul of our dear Brother in great Mercy, and our resting in him; Why does she in one place peremptorily assert it, without any doubt and hesitancy, and in the other place, express only some hope of it? But, I find Mr. B. is still to learn the Difference between God's taking our Souls to himself in great Mercy, and taking them to his Mercy: The first signifies no more, than that God takes them to his own Tribunal, to be judged by himself, and not to leave them to the unjust Judgments of men or Devils: which we must aclowledge to be great Mercy, to stand before a just, and equal, and most merciful Tribunal, where all the unjust Sentences, which men pass against one another, shall be reversed, and their Cause heard over again. But, to take any man to his Mercy, is to absolve, acquit, and reward him, so that we are not bound to assent, that Atheists and profane men go to Heaven, but to hope charitably of those, who live and die in the Communion of the Church; and if for want of the due Exercise of Discipline, any bad men die in Church-Communion, some men do not think themselves bound to use those words; which suppose the Exercise of Discipline. However, these are different degrees of Hope, and though we can have very little hope of some Persons, yet, unless we are absolutely sure, that they died final Impenitents, which, in most Cases, is impossible for us to know, we are not without all hope of very bad men: at least, we may have as much hope of them, as of Self-murderers, of whom I remember Mr. B. somewhere speaks with great Favour, though they die in the wilful Commission of the most barbarous and unnatural Sin, without Repentance.  
If this, at best, sounds ill at the Funerals of bad men, to say, that God hath, in great Mercy, taken to himself, their Souls, when we know, that according to the Terms of the Gospel, they must be condemned to endless Punishments; we must consider, that there is Mercy, even in judgement, and if we believe, that there are different degrees of Punishment in the other World, proportioned to the Nature of mens Sins, and that God our Judge, will make all favourable Allowances, which any man's case will bear; we must aclowledge it an act of Mercy, for God to judge us himself, and not to leave us to the Will of evil and merciless Spirits: as when David was put to that hard Choice, Shall seven years of Famine come unto thee in thy Land? Or wilt thou fly three Months before thy Enemies, while they pursue thee? Or, that there be three days Pestilence in thy Land? David answers, Let us fall now into the hand of the Lord( for his Mercies are great) and let me not fall into the hand of man. 2 Sam. 24. 13. 14. And if the Mercy of God, even when he punishes so severely, be a just Reason to choose to fall into the hand, the immediate disposal of God, rather than into the hands of men, then we have Reason to bless God, that he will be our Judge, and not leave us to the Will and Lust of cruel and implacable Spirits.  
The Non-conformists Advocate, in Answer 
p. 27, 28.  to this, seems to deny a great Article of our Faith, that Christ is the Judge of the Quick and of the Dead, of good and bad men; that because the Devil takes such men Captive, while they live, therefore he is their Judge after Death too. That the Devil had, and has still, the Power of Death, in respect of all impenitent Sinners, as the Carnifex or Executioner, has Power over all those who are condemned to die: But what before they are condemned man? Then he is judge too, as well as Executioner: but, if as he adds, They be put into his hands, that the Sentence may be actually fulfilled, then it seems, the Sentence is past before they are put into the Devil's hand, and that is as much as we desire; that not the Devil, but God, may have the passing of the Sentence, and the Devil have no Power to execute any other Sentence, than what God passes; and yet he knows not how to believe, That abominable wicked Workers go immediately 
Non comform Adv. p. 29.  after Death into the hands of the great God to be disposed of by him according to the promises of the Gospel-Covenant. But, he might, and must believe this, if he added Conditions too, as he ought to have done, if he intended to represent the Sense either of Dr. falconer, or his Transcriber, as he is pleased to call him; or else he must deny that bad men shall be judged by the Gospel, or that Christ is the Judge of bad men.  
But let this Expression of God's taking the Souls of bad men in Mercy to himself, be never so hard( tho our Church never intended it should be applied to notorious bad men) yet, certainly it is much harder, to affix such a Sense upon it, as is directly contrary to the declared and avowed Doctrine of the Church. If he can find, that the Church of England, in her Articles or Homilies, gives Encouragement to notorious bad men without Repentance to expect Mercy from God, he may then, without breach of Charity, expound her Prayers to this Sense: but if she teaches quiter the contrary, we cannot think, that she has one Rule of Doctrine in the profession of her Faith, another for the exercise of her Devotions.  
The Truth is, this Office of Burial is an excellent Office, supposing the due exercise of Church Discipline, to cast all notorious Sinners and schismatics, out of the Communion of the Church: which the Church supposes to be done, when she commands us to use this form of Words, and enjoins, that then the priest shall say, &c. as this Advocate objects. 
Ibid. p. 30.  And thus we subscribe it, as a proper Office for the Burial of all Christians, who are fit to live in the Communion of the Church; the want of this case in exercising Discipline, raises some Scruples, as to practise, when these words are applied to bad men, who, though they died in the Communion of the Church, yet did not deserve to do so: and, I wish with all my Heart, that some Expressions were altered, to prevent any Scandal to the scrupulous, or to the profane, or, which is more desirable, that Discipline were revived, which would soon answer all these Objections.  
But, yet there is one thing more to be said in this matter, which though it be not ordinarily taken notice of, seems to me to be of great Moment, and justifies what I before said concerning that Liberty, which every Minister may take in omitting such Passages, as our Dissenters except against in the Burial of Papists, schismatics, or incorrigible Sinners.  
By the rubric excommunicate persons are excepted from Christian Burial; now, there are two sorts of Excommunications allowed in our Church, Excommunicatio sub judice, and latae Sententiae; The first is, when men are formally excommunicated by the Ecclesiastical Judge; the second is that which Mr. Baxter so often talks of, the Excommunication Ipso facto, when, by the Canons of the Church, a man who is guilty of such Offences as are there specified, is declared to be Excommunicate, before any judicial Sentence passes on him. Now, the rubric, which forbids the Burial of excommunicated persons, does not confine this to any one sort of Excommunication: and therefore if a Minister, either in visiting the Sick, or by any other means, finds any man under this Sentence, though not actually inflicted on him by an Ecclesiastical Judge, yet he may, by virtue of this rubric, refuse to bury him by that Form prescribed in our Liturgy, because, by the Canons of the Church, he is under the Sentence of Excommunication. This Authority is expressly allowed the Minister, in repelling those from the Communion of the Lord's Supper, who are notorious and open evil Livers; and the same Reason holds in the Office of Burial, but this I submit to the judgement of my superiors.  
But, to proceed, N. 53. They must declare Assent to a false Rule for finding Easter-day, and consent to keep two Easters, often, yea, though it be confessed false. Some Learned men are not so confident, that Rule is false, as Mr. B. seems to be; to be sure it does not often fail, as he insinuates; and others think that we do not give our Assent and Consent to it, because we are not confined to the Use of it, the Church having given another Rule which never fails; and we may use which we please. The thing to be done is, to find out Easter-day; and if we have a certain Rule for that, which is always true, and another which is so generally true, that if there be any Defect in it, it was not discovered till of late dayes, that is a mighty squeamish Conscience that strains at such Gnats as these; and Mr. B. shall have the glory of making a second Paschal Schism in the Church, upon much more trifling Reasons, than occasioned the first. We do not give our Assent to every Saying in the Common-Prayer Book, but to every thing which is contained in, and prescribed by it, that is, what we are bound to use, and there being two Rules given for the finding Easter, without confining us to the Use of either, we may use which we will, and so are not bound to use that which happens to be false, but that which is true. But, to assent, as Mr. B. does, if there be any Force in this Exception, that we are bound to use them both, and hence conclude, that we give our consent to keep two Easters often, when the Church's Design in both their Rules, is, to find out but one Easter,( or else neither of the Rules can ever be false) is an Argument of great Ingenuity, and great Modesty, and a very peaceable Design: and yet, if this be the worst of it, I would rather keep ten Easters every year, than be a schismatic; unless the Church should command me to believe, that Christ, who rose from the dead but once, rose on two or three several dayes: and there is no danger of this, for we do not observe Easter, as the precise time of Christ's Resurrection, no more than the Jews did the Feast of the Passeover. And now I think of it, I can tell Mr. B. a more material Objection than this, from the difference of the Old and New style, by which means, all the Churches, which follow the New style, as Holland, France, Spain, Italy, &c. Protestants as well as Papists, observe Easter ten dayes before our English Easter, and many Merchants, who have come out of France and Holland after their Easter, have come time enough into England, to be guilty of that horrid Sin of keeping two Easters in a year: if Mr. B. will but set his Wits to work about this, he may improve it into as notable a controversy, as that of old was of the Quarto-Decimani, and then let him alone to turn it into a Schism.  
N. 55. He endeavours to put new Scruples into Peoples heads, about that Declaration, That it is not lawful, on any pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against those commissionated by the King. These are his words, for there is no such Sentence in the Declaration which is printed in the Act of Uniformity, the words of which are these; It is not lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against the King; and that I do abhor that traitorous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person, or against those that are commissionated by him. There seems to be some difference between Mr. B's words, and the words of the Declaration; for it is unlawful to take Arms, upon any pretence, against the King, but the Declaration does not say, as Mr. B. does, that it is unlawful, upon any Pretence, to take Arms against those commissionated by the King: If their Commission be legal and good, it is then as unlawful to resist them, as to resist the King; but if, as Mr. B. puts the case, their Commission be illegal, fraudulent, extorted from him, these are reasonable and just pretences, when they are cercertainly known, to resist such men, though it is never lawful to take Arms against the King: and therefore Mr. B. did not do well( for I will at present say no worse of it) to apply those exclusive terms,( on which his whole Objection is founded) upon any pretence whatsoever, to those commissionated by the King, which the Declaration applies only to the King himself. And, methinks, it was not wisely done neither, when the Brethren had set out their Explication of such kind of Declarations, and were in a hopeful way of getting the Power of all Corporations into their hands, which would be greatly serviceable to the Cause, to furbish up some old, outworn Objections, to trouble their Consciences, which may deprive us of godly& well-affected Magistrates for ever after.  
N. 56. Another great Grievance is, that none must preach that subscribeth not, that( there lieth no obligation from the Oath called the Covenant, on him, or any other Person, to endeavour any Change or Alteration of Church-Government) though many hundred thousands took that Oath whom we know not, nor their sense. What then? Truly, I can't tell where the Force of this Objection lies, unless it be in this, that we cannot say, that no man is obliged, by the Covenant, unless we knew his sense, whether he thinks himself obliged or not: as if there were no difference between the obligation of an Oath, in itself considered, and that obligation which a mistaken Opinion and erroneous Conscience lays upon men? as if the Parliament commanded us to declare what mens Thoughts and secret Judgments are, not what they ought to be, considering the intrinsic nature and obligation of such an Oath? as if I could not say, that there lay no obligation upon Herod to cut off John the Baptist's head, because, it seems, he thought there was? But he adds, and so all Reformation of Church-Government is made unlawful and impossible, though vowed. I beseech you Sir, is there no difference between the Change and Alteration of the Government of the Church by Arch-bishops, Bishops, &c. which was the Matter of the Covenant, and the Reformation of any Defects in the Diseipline or Government of the Church? Is there no difference between pulling up the Foundation of a House, and making some such Alterations in particular Rooms and Offices, as may be for the greater Ornament and Use? Was there no obligation to reform the Church before the Solemn League and Covenant? and do not the same Obligations continue, though the Covenant be taken away? How then does the renouncing an illegal Covenant to pull down the Church, make it unlawful and impossible to reform it?  
N. 66. He complains, that the Parish Priest( a name which we are not ashamed of, though often spoken in derision and scorn by him) must publish Excommuncations, though against his Conscience, against godly men, for not comforming. I suppose he speaks of some passive Conformists, for the Diocesan cannoners don't use to act against their Consciences, nor make any scruple of excommunicating godly schismatics, who first excommunicate themselves.  
N. 63. Ordination enableth no man to preach, without farther licence. And thus it was in the Primitive Church, where no Presbyters were allowed to preach, or administer the Eucharist in the Bishop's presence, nor in his absence, without his leave and Licence. Our Ordination( as appears in the Form of Ordination) gives us Authority to preach, which is a general Qualification; the Bishop's Licence determines the Exercise of our Ministry to a certain place; and these are two different things, as those know, who are skilled in the Ancient practise of the Church.  
These are the principal Impositions he complains of, which make them Separatists, and the Church and Church-men schismatics. He mentions some others, without giving the least insinuation, what fault he finds with them, and, of all men I know, I will not undertake to guess at Mr. B's Reasons.  
And therefore, to bring this matter, about Impositions, to a short issue: Impositions signify no more than those terms of Communion, which are enjoined and commanded to be observed by all the Members of our Church; and if it be unlawful in itself to make any Laws and Rules of Communion, and to command the Observation of them; then either there must be no Church-Society, or every 
Extet summaquaedam doctrine ab omnibus recepta, quam inter praedicandum sequantur omnes; ad quam etiam observandam omnes Episcopi& Parochi jurejurando adstring antur; it nemo ad munus Eccle●asticum admittatur nisi spondeat sibi illum doctrinae consensum inviotatum futurum. Extet praeterea communis formula catechismi in usum puerorum. Quod ad formulam precum,& rituum Ecclesiasticorum, valde probo, ut certa illa extet, à qua Pastoribus recedere in functione sua non li●eat; tam ut consulatur nonnullorum simplicitati& imperitiae, quam ut certius ind constet omnium inter se Ecclesiarum concentus: postremo etiam, ut obviam edtur desultori● quorundam levitati, qui novationes quasdam affectant; ●ic igitur statum esse catec●ismum oportet, statan Sacramentorum administrationem, publican item praecum formulam. J. Calv. Angliae Protect. inter Epist. p. 41. ed. Amst. 1667.  Church must be Schismatical, who refuses such Members as will not submit to its peculiar Laws and Rules; and then all the Churches, that I know of, are so: the Presbyterian, who require all men to submit to their mixed Tribunal of their Ministers and Lay-Elders; the Independent, who require an explicit Church-Covenant; and Mr. Calvin himself was a very great schismatic, not only in exacting Conformity to that Discipline which he set up in Geneva, but in exhorting the Lord Protector, in King Edward's Reign, to impose Articles of Faith, and a Form of catechizing, and a Liturgy, upon all the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England, from which it should not be lawful for them to recede( nay, which, as far as concerns matter of Doctrine) they should be bound, by an express Oath, to observe; and no man should be capable of any Ecclesiastical Office, who refused it.  
And, if it be not unlawful for our superiors to impose certain Terms of Communion, it is not enough to discover a schismatic, to say that he is an Imposer, or to reckon up his several Impositions, without proving the sinfulness of them; but, I doubt not, but Mr. B. will rather choose to state Cases, than undertake such a Task.  
And therefore to proceed, Fifthly, He taxes several Imperfections and Abuses, which are accidental to the best constituted Government, and some of which, we would be as glad to see mended as he: only the difference between us is, that we do not think it the best way of remedying abuses, to pull down the Church, when we know not how to set up a better in the room of it. Under this Head, may be reduced N. 40. where he complains of the too great extent of Parishes, where many thousand Parishioners cannot be received in their Parish Church; But the Parliament must reform this, not the Diocesan cannoners, who can neither make Parishes less nor bigger than they are. But why this should be thought a good reason to suffer Non-conformists to draw them from the Church, I cannot tell. It is highly necessary and desirable, that all Persons may have convenient opportunities of public Worship, and public Instructions in the Communion of the Church: but, upon this pretence, to suffer Dissenters to poison our People with Schismatical Principles, and to reproach and vilify our public Worship, and undermine the established Religion, is neither reasonable nor prudent.  
And indeed, this is a mere pretence to justify their Separation; for there was great occasion for these clamours in the late Times, when we heard nothing of them, and yet the Presbyterians did not think this a sufficient reason to suffer Independents, Quakers, Anabaptists, to keep Conventicles in their Parishes, for fear People should, like Savages, forbear all public Learning and Worship of God: They usually keep their Conventicles in such places, where there is least need of their help, where there are Churches enough to receive, and Ministers, of sufficient Abilities, to instruct their People: and, if there do want more Assistance in some Parishes, thanks be to God, we need not go to Dissenters for it. This, certainly, can be no reason of their Nonconformity, for they might do more Service this way by comforming; and, if it be the true reason of their preaching, let them but tell People so, that they do not desire to draw them from Communion with the Church of England, but only to supply the want of Churches, where the Parishes are too large, and I shall, for my part, entertain more favourable thoughts of them, than I have at present. But I abhor hypocrisy, and it is downright hypocrisy for such men as Mr. B. to pretend that a reason for their preaching in Schismatical Conventicles, which is not the reason why they do it,( as appears from their doing it, where this reason cannot be pretended) but only a Popular Excuse for doing it.  
Thus, N. 41. he says, They swear the Church-wardens to present all that come not to Church, and punish them for not coming, when some Parishes have 40000, some 30000, some 10000, that can have no room, and the Church-wardens cannot know them. Now, supposing all this to be true, it is great pity it should be so; but how does this prove the Diocesan Canoneer to be a schismatic? and, as for the Church-wardens, they are not sworn to do that which is impossible, but to discharge their Office according to the best of their skill and knowledge; and yet, if they have a mind to it, those who are so well acquainted with the Parish, as all men are supposed to be, before they come to be Church-wardens, especially in such large Parishes, they may have some competent knowledge, who neglect the Church out of Irreligion and profaneness, and who, out of Schismatical Principles: and indeed, though the Parishes be never so large, there are none, who have a mind to come to Church, but may find some opportunities, in a years time, to get room in it, and hold occasional Communion, as Mr. B. calls it, with other Parochial Churches, when they can't.  
But, N. 42. he tells us, That if they go to other Parishes oft for Communion, they must not be admitted, but forbidden, and sent Home. Here we have another taste of Mr. B's sincere Dealing; he had been complaining of the vast numbers of Inhabitants in many Parishes, who could not have room in the Church, which made it necessary for them to hear and join with Non-conformists, unless, like Savages, they forbear all public Learning, and Worship of God. And, to prevent that obvious Objection, that they may better go to other Parish Churches than to Conventicles, he adds here, that if they go to other Parishes oft for Communion, they must be forbidden, and sent home: by which it is plain, he designed his Readers should understand, that they might not, according to the Orders of our Church, go to other Parish Churches, to hear Prayers or Sermon, when there is no Room in their own: for otherwise, his yet if they go, which joins this Saying with what went before, makes it Non-sense, or Sophistry, if he does not speak of the same thing. But, for fear any man should discover the Cheat, he alters his Word, and calls it Communion, which has a large Signification, and may signify either Communion in Prayers and Preaching, or in Sacraments; for so the 28 Canon, to which, I suppose, he refers, respects only the Lord's Supper, which every man is required to receive at his own Church, among his Neighbours; that their own Ministers may have satisfaction that they do receive it, but they are not commanded to turn such Strangers out of the Church, when they come to hear Prayers, or Sermons. The Canons considered only ordinary Cases; and, when we remember, that it is but of late years, that the Buildings in Out-Parishes have so vastly increased, we may reasonably suppose, that 40 years ago, when these Canons were made, though some Parishes were too large, yet, the disproportion of numbers, above what the Parish Churches can receive, was not near( I may say, not near half) so great: and there never was any Church or Nation, that thought their Laws and Canons so Sacred, as to make no allowance for Cases of Necessity. And yet we may observe, that there is not the same reason for giving People leave to receive the Sacrament at others Churches, as there is to frequent Prayers and Sermons elsewhere, when there is no room for them in their own Church: for 40000 may, with more ease, receive the Sacrament, by the frequency of Communions in such large Parishes, than 10000 can join in Prayer and Sermons in one place.  
N. 44. Though many melancholy Persons dare not communicate in the Sacraments, and many others are secretly conscious of Atheism, Infidelity, or Wickedness, they must be compelled to receive thrice a year. What purpose this serves, I know not, but it contains a very foolish and spiteful insinuation. The case is this; The Canons require, that every professed Christian, should, at least, receive the Lord's Supper three times a year, and be liable to Church-censures, if they neglect so great and necessary a Duty. Is this a fault, for the Church to oblige her Children to observe every part of God's Worship? or is three times a year too often? It may be Mr. B. may think so, who acknowledges, that he did not administer the Sacrament once in 18 years. But, it may be, there are some melancholy Persons, who dare not communicate in the Sacraments, and they must be compelled to it. But how does that appear? They must be returned to the Bishop, who is the ordinary Judge of these Cases, who will not censure, where there is a favourable Excuse, but exhort, and persuade, and convince, and endeavour to cure that Superstitious Melancholy, which, when there is no other apparent cause, is either the effect of bodily distempers, or of Fanaticism, which has made some slight the Lord's Supper, and others, dread it. But, others are secretly conscious of Atheism, Infidelity, or Wickedness, and they also must be compelled to receive: If this be secret, the Minister cannot take notice of it, but must require them to do their Duty, as they are professed Christians, or to give a reason why they don't; and then, if they think fit to confess, that they are Atheists, Infidels, or very wicked Persons, I will undertake, they shall not be compelled to receive, nor censured for not receiving, but for being Atheists, &c. for, the Ministers are expressly commanded to keep such Persons, when they are known, from the Communion, though Mr. B. does fairly insinuate, that our Church forces the most wicked and profligate Wretches to communicate in the Lord's Supper.  
N. 60. He complains again of the largeness of some Parishes, and, that other Parishes( too many) have Priests, that are raw, unskilful men, utterly unfit for such pastoral helps. There is nothing new in this, but the rawness and unskilfulness of some Parish-Priests, too many, he says; and this is true, if there be but two or three in all England, though it insinuates a great number of such men. But I will not take Mr. B's word for this, who, I believe, personally knows very few of them, and is none of the most favourable Judges to Conformists. That there are some, who are no Learned rabbis, is no wonder, considering, how many small vicarages there are, which will not buy Bread for their Families, much less, furnish them with Books: though I am apt to think, there never was a more Learned Clergy in England than there is at this day; and some, whom he accounts raw and unskilful men, are able to discover his Sophistry, and despise all his Religious wheedles.  
N. 61. We have another cast of his Office. If a Parish have a Priest so drunken, that his own Family can scarce live with him, or so insufficient, that he never preaches, because he cannot, or will not, and People scruple encouraging such a one in his ill undertaking of the Ministry, and dare not take him for their Pastoral Guide, they are forbid to go from him, and communicate in the next Parish, and the Minister that receiveth them, or baptizeth their Children, though conformable, is suspended. For this he cites Canon 57. and, I confess, I am amazed to see such a man as Mr. Baxter, print such palpable falshoods, as will not admit of a civil parenthesis. As for drunken Priests, there is not one word of them in the Canon, the whole Design of which is, to cure that Superstitious Conceit, that Baptism and the Lord's Supper were not 
cum quoad eorundem Sacramentorum efficaciam nihil intersit, ulrum à Ministro non conscionatore, an secùs admini●rentur. Quod sique deinceps ha● in re deliquerint, Parochiaeque suae Ecclesias eo intuitu declinantes, &c. Can. 57.  as efficacious, when administered by an un-preaching, as by a Preaching Minister, when the entire Doctrine of the Sacraments, and whatever is necessary to the administration of them, is contained in the public Liturgy, and therefore may as effectually be administered by a Minister who does not preach, as by a Preacher; and therefore, whoever, for this reason, that is, out of this Superstitious Conceit, leave their Parish-Churches, and Baptize their Children, and receive the Lord's Supper, in other Parishes, shall be liable to Ecclesiastical Censures; and the Minister who confirms them in this superstitious persuasion, by baptizing their Children, and receiving them to Communion, shall be suspended.  
How unlike is this to that account Mr. Baxter has given, when the whole scope and reason of this Canon is, to cure People of that superstitious conceit, that the efficacy of the Sacrament depends upon the Administrator, which is a rank piece of Popery, and too much countenanced by Fanaticism; the People imagining, that the Holiness and great Abilities of their Preachers, does, at least, add some virtue to the Sacraments, and their Preachers favouring this Superstition, to gain Proselytes, and to keep them fast; which is the reason why we find their Books so stuffed with compliments to themselves, of Holy, Learned, Pious, Faithful Pastors, when they cannot afford to speak truth of other men, nay, not to forbear unjust Calumnies and Reproaches. Indeed Mr. B. has some reason to be angry with this Canon,( and, I think, he has sufficiently revenged himself upon it) which seems to be leveled against those passive Conformist Preachers, who set up this Trade above forty years ago.  
N. 71. 72. 73. He complains of the manner of advancing men to Rectories and bishoprics, that Bishops are now made without the consent of the People, which is contrary to the ancient Canons of the Church, which say, that he is no Bishop that had not the Peoples Election and Consent. I would willingly see these ancient Canons, for, I confess, I never met with them yet; the People never had an Original Right in the choice of their Bishops, for they are not the proper Judges of their Ministerial Abilities: but they might bear testimony of their manners, as being the witness of their Conversation, and so they may still if they please; and when they do so, let them complain if any bad man be ordained. Thus it was in the dayes of the Apostles, which is the only Primitive Antiquity Mr. B. will own, when he thinks it serves his turn: in after Ages, by degrees, the People pretended to something more in the Election of their Bishops, the inconveniency of which was found so great, that it was restrained by ancient Councils; and Canons were made for the Regulation of such Elections. And in some Churches this was never allowed, as particularly, at Alexandria, where the Bishop was choose by the twelve Presbyters, as Dr. Stillingfleet has largely proved; but the difference 
The unreasonableness of Separat. p. 313. &c.  between these two great men( as Mr. B's late Encomiast insinuates) is, that one is a profound Notion-maker without Book, and the other proves what he says, out of his Books.  
But then he says, they suppose that God hath entrusted the King to choose for all his Subjects, whom they shall commit the conduct of their Souls to, as their Pastors and Bishops. And indeed, all Religious Kings have thought themselves a little concerned, whom they allow to be the public Ministers of Religion in their Dominions, and so it must be, if we will allow them any Power in Religious matters; for nothing tends more to the advantage or injury of Religion, than good or bad Bishops and Pastors; and if the People may have their Vote in the choice of their Bishop, as Mr. B. pleads, certainly the King may have his; not onely for himself, but for his People, who are committed to his care. And that this has been challenged by Christian Princes, and confirmed by the consent of the People, and never denied, or usurped on, but by the Papal power, for several Ages, and of late, by the Fanaticks, is evident from that Learned Account the Dean has given us 
Ibid. p. 325.  of this matter. But( the King) is not entrusted to choose our Physicians, our Wives, our Diet, &c. Truly, he would have a very troublesome work of it, if he were; and yet no man is an allowed Pysician, but by some Authority derived from the King, as from the Power of the Universities, in conferring Degrees, or of the college of Physicians, in granting Licenses, &c. which are originally owing to Royal Charters: and thus the King does choose our Physicians for us. But is there no difference between the King's Power in matters of public Concernment, in the great Affairs of Church and State, and his intermeddling with all the little Intrigues and Amours of private Families? It is an admirable Reason this; Princes must not choose our Wives for us, therefore they are not concerned to take care of our Souls, nor of the public Administrations of Religion; they must not govern our private Families, therefore they must not govern the Kingdom; and yet, let me tell Mr. B. in his ear, that if he mary a Wife, or wear any clothes, or eat any Diet forbidden by the King's Ecclesiastical or Civil Laws, he is accountable for it; that is, our most private, and personal Concernments, as far as they fall under public cognisance, or under the Government of the King; and therefore, their Choice, even in these matters, is not so absolutely free, but that it is confined within certain Laws.  
But, if a Papist, heretic, or a hater of Pastoral Holiness, should ever be King, in how sad a case are the Peoples Souls? Now, I might answer this, as Mr. B. does in a like case about Toleration, that the Magistrate is Judge whom he will 
Search for Schismat. p. 33.  tolerate, but he must judge aright. Thus the King must judge what Bishops and Ministers the people shall have, but he must judge aright; but, if he be a Papist, &c. he is as likely to judge wrong about Toleration, as about the Choice of Bishops; but Mr. B. makes no Objection against this, unless when he says, they must judge aright, he means, that they must not be Judges when they don't judge aright, and then they never are Supreme Judges, if others may judge over their judgement.  
But this is Mr. B's way, common to all, who design to disturb and libel the Government of Church or State, to dispute against wholesome Constitutions from extraordinary Events, which may, or may not happen: we must not submit to two or three innocent Ceremonies, for fear the Church should appoint five hundred; and a Christian, Protestant, Religious Prince, must have nothing to do in the choice of Bishops, because, if we should have a Popish, Heretical Prince, the Peoples Souls were in a sad case. While all sorts of Governments are exercised by men, who are fallible Creatures, and do not always understand their Rule, and, much less, comply with it, no Form of Government can be secure from all inconveniences, and a Popular Government, least of any: and therefore, whatever may happen, the choice of a King is liable to as few Inconveniences, as the choice of the People, who may as soon turn Papists and heretics as Princes; and are as subject to Schism as they are to Faction.  
But this Objection, and many like it, proceeds upon this mistake, that there must be the same Rule for all Cases, ordinary and extraordinary; as if People were equally obliged to submit to a Popish Bishop, promoted by a Popish Prince, as to submit to a Protestant Bishop, promoted by a Protestant Prince. Every Sovereign Prince, whatever his Religion be, will, as far as he can, establish his own Religion; and, though such Princes abuse that Power which God has entrusted them with, when they set up and encourage a false Religion, and persecute the Professors of the true Religion, as they do, when they make unjust and tyrannical Laws; yet certainly, this is no Argument, that a Prince, who embraces the true Religion, ought not to use his Power for the promoting of it; and there cannot be a more effectual way to do this, than by taking care, that the great Ministers of Religion are such as deserve that Honour, and will be faithful in the discharge of so great a Trust: and to argue, that Wise and Religious Princes are not to intermeddle in Religion, because bad Princes are not fit for it, is, as if mens wilful and wicked indispositions would change the Office, and disoblige both them and those that are guilty of no such unfitness, from the obligations laid upon them by the Lord: they may as wisely say, that a sober Physician is obliged to no more than a drunken one can perform, or, that a seeing man may do no more than the blind can do; or, that a Learned Prince may not meddle with Learning, because an Unlearned Prince is not fit for it. Thus Mr. B. formerly reasoned, and very truly, in his Epistle Dedicatory before his five Disputations of Church-Government and Worship. And, as for the Souls of men, they are indeed by this means exposed to great Temptations, when they cannot enjoy the liberty of their Religion without Persecution: but this is nothing but what our Saviour hath taught us to expect, and what God many times permits for the good of his Church. Christianity is the Religion of the across, and therefore the most difficult Cases you can put, with respect to external suffering, can be no Argument against the obligation of any Christian Duty; and yet this is the onely difficulty you can name, for men, who love their Souls better than their Bodies, Lives, or Estates, may save their Souls, whatever be the Religion of their Prince.  
N. 73. But he charges these Diocesan cannoners, that they hold, that Patrons, be they never so ignorant or ungodly, must choose all that shall have the Parochial trust of Souls. And does this make them schismatics, that they will not deny men their legal Estates and Inheritance, as the Right of Patronage is? But he says, ( as to the possession of Temples and tithes we yield it.) Well, what is the Quarrel then, for that is all they pretend to dispose of? Why, he is troubled, that such men must have the cure of Souls, and that the People must choose no other, but what such a drunken Patron chooses for them; that is, he is angry that he cannot separate the Temple and Tithes from the Cure of Souls, and turn all the Livings of England into Sine-cures, that the Parish Priest may take care that no body runs away with the Church, while they run away with the Flock; and then, if ever a Rump Parliament gets up again, this will be an admirable Argument to prove Temples, and tithes, and Ministers, useless; and, in the mean time, it would be an excellent occasion to declaim against unfaithful and unpreaching Ministers and dumb Dogs, when their People are so divided and scattered, that it is impossible to preach to them without the help of the speaking Trumpet.  
But, suppose there be so many drunken Patrons, as Mr. B. intimates, they can present none but ordained Ministers, and, if they be not qualified for such a charge, it is the Bishop's fault who ordains them, not the Patron's, who presents them, and if the Bishop of the Diocese be duly informed, that the Person presented be either so vicious or ignorant, that he is not qualified for such a Cure, he may refuse to grant him institution, or may suspend or deprive him afterwards; and therefore the Patron's Right of Presentation can do no hurt, if other Persons concerned in it do their Duty; and certainly, the Presentation of the Patron, and the Approbation of the Bishop, is as likely a way to prevent any great miscarriages, as the Choice of a giddy, ignorant People, who seldom like what they do themselves long together.  
There are some other pretty notes of a schismatic scattered here and there, which cannot well be reduced under any certain Head; as n. 70. They separate from us and our Congregations, as unlawful to be joined with; that is, those are schismatics, who think it unlawful to join in Schismatical Assemblies: and n. 75. it is a note of a schismatic, to charge the Nonconformists with suspicions of Rebellion: and n. 77. to represent them as intolerable, seditious schismatics. Good men! who were never Rebells, but sometimes followed Providence, and were never schismatics, but onely reformed the Church into Conventicles, and separate Meetings. But the pleasantest charge is, n. 78. that by these means, that is, by thus scandalising the Loyal and Uniting Non-conformists, Families are distracted, Husbands against Wives, Parents against Children. This, I confess, is a very deplorable Case, and whoever is the cause of it is certainly a schismatic: but, I perceive I have hitherto been in a mistake; for I thought that those who reproached an Excellent Church, and drew People from our Communion, occasioned these unhappy Divisions in Families, 
Thus I find Optatus argue against the Donatists, Recordamini quomodo à vobis jamdudum matris ecclesia membra ab invicem distracta sunt, non enim unamquamque demum semel seducere potuistis, said aut ivit uxor,& recedit maritus, aut parentes seducti sunt,& fili● sequi noluerunt, aut stetit frater, sorore migrante, persuasionibus vestris divisa sunt corpora& nomina Pi●tatis. Remember how you have divided and torn the Members of the Church, our common Mother, from one another; for you could not seduce a who'e Family together, but Husband and Wife, Parents and Children, Brethren and Sisters, were divided; some continuing in the Communion of the Church, others falling off to your Schism; and thus, by your persuasions, the one Body of Christ is divided into several Bodies, and different names of Religion. And, a little after, he adds, Hoc verbum seducunt videte, cvi parti competat, nobiscum erant omnes, nobis absentious irruistis,& ut haberetis quas habere desiderastis, non potuistis nisi seducere. Consider to whom this word seducere belongs, for they were all with us, in our absence you thrust yourselves in among us, and could not have those whom you desired without seducing them. Optat. l. 3.  for before this, Husband and Wife, Children and Servants were all of a Religion, but now we many times find as many different Religions in Families, as there are Persons of Age to profess any Religion. But, I perceive now, that that which makes these Distractions in Families, is, that some Schismatical Diocesan cannoners, by preaching against Non-conformists, persuade some Masters of Familes to come to Church, and to bring their Wives, and Children, and Servants along with them, and if they be refractory, and will not obey his commands, he says, some turn them out, if they do but hear a Non-conformist Preacher, while sensuality corrupteth youth, and needeth more restraint: So that those are schismatics, who persuade men to continue in the Communion of the Church, and to govern their own Families, that are under their care, and not to suffer giddy Youth to run after their own Inventions, to be poisoned with ill Principles; or, under pretence of going to Coventicles, take up by the way at Ale-houses, or worse places. Mr. B. very well says, that Sensuality corrupts youth, and this ought to be restrained, and whoever will do so, must keep their Children and Servants under their Eye, especially on the Lord's Day; for I will be bold to say, what constant Experience proves, that more Youth have been debauched this last Age, by the pretence of running to Conventicles, than by any one means besides. But Mr. B. does very finely insinuate, that Parents and Masters should not restrain their Children and Servants from going to Conventicles, but onely to take care of their manners, and let them choose their Religion themselves; Excellent Divinity, and certainly the most effectual way to make Atheists and Fanaticks in the World. Sensuality is a very bad thing, but such Liberty of Conscience as this, is the ready way to bring in Sensuality and all other Evils.  
But, I fear I shall be severely censured, for taking notice of such weak and trifling Suggestions as these; and after what I have said, I think I may trust any impartial Reader, to pass judgement upon the Diocesan Canoneer, who can never be charged with Schism, if this be the worst of his Case; yet I begin to suspect now, that he intended to prove his more present Nonconformist to be the schismatic, for, he has stated his Case too, in eighty three Particulars; and, though some of them seem to be spoken of in favour of him, yet I find nothing that clears him from the guilt of Schism: for, let men tell never so many fine Stories, be they true or false, he is a schismatic who is guilty of a causeless Separation; and if the Dioc●san Canoneer be not the schismatic, the more Nonconformist must be the man. What is material in the case of the Non-conformist, will fall in under another Head, and therefore I shall take leave at present, of this Search, only advising Mr. B. once in his Life, to give us a few Arguments, and leave off stating Cases.    

CHAP. III.  
What that Union is, which is essential to the Christian Church, considered as a Church; wherein it is proved to be a catholic Union, or the Union of the whole Universal Church, as one Body.  
IT is a very different thing, to propose terms of Accommodation, to patch up a Peace between Churches of distinct and separate Communions, and to restore the Church to that Peace and Unity, which is essential to it, considered as a Church. Though it were possible to make a lasting Truce between separate Churches, that they shall not undermine, nor vilify, nor persecute each other( though this is not so easy neither, as some may imagine) which is like the Leagues and Confederacies between Sovereign Princes, who owe no dependence nor Subordination to each other; yet this is not the Unity of the Christian Church, for the Schism remains while there is a causeless Separation; and while there is a Schism, the Church is not one, no more than the natural Body would be, did every Member live and act apart, though they did not quarrel with each other. Such a Confederacy as this, may maintain some Peace and Order in Civil Societies, and make our Lives more easy and pleasant, than when we are engaged in perpetual Quarrels, but it serves no purposes of Religion; it neither removes the Scandal, nor the danger of Schism, which both undermines Christianity, and destroys mens Souls.  
And therefore to let all the World see, how little those men are for Union who talk so much of it, and raise such a mighty noise and clamour to call it back, I shall, as briefly as I can, show wherein the nature of Christian Union consists, what that Union is, which is essential to the Christian Church, and I shall reduce all to these three Heads.  
First, That the Union of the Christian Church, is a catholic Union, or the Union of the Church catholic.  
Secondly, that this Union consists in one Communion.  
Thirdly, to prevent Objections, I shall consider the Difference between that Communion, which is essential to a Diocesan Church, to a national Church, and to the Church universal.  
First, That the Union of the Christian Church is a catholic Union; that is, such an Union as makes the whole Church of Christ one body; for, the Apostle tells us, that there is but one body, as well as one Spirit, and one Lord, and one Faith, and one Baptism, &c. 4 Ephes. 4, 5, 6. Now if Christ have but one Church, which is his Body, and his Spouse, that alone is the true Christian Unity, which unites all the particular Churches in the World into one Body, or which unites any particular Church to the catholic Church.  
It is not sufficient to Christian Union, that the Christians of one Nation or one Congregation, are united among themselves, unless they be united to the catholic Church; for, if there be but one Church, a whole Nation may be Schismatical, as well as single persons, and there can be nothing objected against this, without denying the very Notion of a catholic Church, and asserting, that Christ has not one, but twenty or a hundred several Bodies, according to the number of various Sects and Parties of Christians.  
Now, methinks there should be no need to prove that Christ has but one Church dispersed over all the World; for though indeed we red of several Churches, as the Church of Rome, of Corinth, of Ephesus, of Galatia, and the seven Churches of Asia, yet these are called Churches, only as they are homogeneal parts of the same Body. All these particular Churches having all the Essentials of a Church, as to Faith, Government, Discipline; every one is called a Church, as every drop of Water is called Water, as well as a River, or the Sea; 
{αβγδ}. Cyr. Hierosol. Cath. 18.  the Universal Church consists of all these particular Churches, as similar parts, which have the same Nature, and make up one Body, by a common Union.  
The Universal Church indeed, in the first Beginnings of Christianity, was not so large as many particular Congregations are now; before the day of Pentecost, The number of the names together, were about an hundred and twenty, 1 Acts 15. And to them were three thousand added on the day of Pentecost, who were converted by St. Peter's preaching, 2 Acts 41. Thus the Lord added to the Church daily, such as should be saved, v. 47. And the Gospel was by degrees propagated into other Countries, by the unwearied Labours of the Apostles, and especially of St. Paul; but yet it continued one Church still, as the Apostle assures the Ephesians, after he had planted so many Churhes in different and remote Countries, that there is but one Body, 4 Ephes. 4. and compares the Unity of the Christian Church to the Unity of a Natural Body, 1 Cor. 12. And that we may known, that he does not speak this of the Church of Corinth, in particular, but of the Universal Church, he adds, v. 28. And God hath set some in the Church, first, Apostles, secondarily, Prophets, thirdly, Teachers; after that, Miracles, then Gifts of Healing, Helps, Governments, Diversities of Tongues. Now it is plain, that these several sorts of ministries and Gifts, did not peculiarly belong to the Church of Corinth, nor to any Particular, but to the Universal Church: For Instance, the Apostolical Order was for the Propagation of Christianity all the World over; and therefore this Church, which is one, as the natural Body is one, is the catholic Church.  
This was the sense of the ancient Christians,( of which, more hereafter) as we learn from 
Ecclesia una est, quae in multitudinem latiùs incremento foecunditatis extenditur; quo modo Solis multi radii, said lumen unum,& rami arboris multi, said robur unum tenaci radice fundatum,& cum de font uno rivi plurimi diffluunt, numerositas licet diffusa videatur exundantis copiae largitate, unitas tamen servatur in origine: avelle radium Solis à corpore, divisionem Lucis unitas non capit; ab arbore frange ramum, praecisus arescet; sic& Ecclesia Domini luke perfusa per orbem totum radios suos porrigit, unum tamen lumen est, quod ubique diffunditur, nec unitas corporis separatur, ramos suos in universam terram copin ubertatis extendit, profluentes largiter rivos latius expandit, unum tamen caput est,& origo una,& una matter foecunditatis successibus copiosa. Cypr. de Unitate.  St. Cyprian, whose words are to this Effect. The Church is one, though she fruitfully increase into a multitude, and spread her self far and near; as the rays of the Sun are many, but the Light is one, and a three which hath many Branches, hath but one Stock, upheld by a firm and tenacious Root; and when many Rivers flow from one Fountain, though they divide themselves into different Streams, through the great plenty and abundance of Water, yet they are all but one, as flowing from the same Head and Fountain. Try if you can pluck the rays from the Sun, they will shine no longer than they are united to that Body of Light; cut a Branch from the three, and see whether it will blossom, or bring forth Fruit after such a separation; part a River from that plentiful Fountain which supplies it, and it immediately grows dry; thus the Church, which shines with a Divine Light, and diffuses its rays through all the World is but one Light, which will admit of no decision, but continues still united in one Body; like a fruitful three, it sends forth its Branches on all sides, and, like an overflowing Fountain, divides into different Streams, and waters all the dry and barren corners of the Earth, but yet there is but one Head, one original Fountain, one Mother blessed with a numerous off-spring. From whence it appears, that it was St. Cyprian's judgement( as indeed it was the received Opinion of that Age of the Church, and of several Ages after, and never questioned till this last Age of New Lights) that it was as impossible for a particular Church to retain the nature and privileges and saving virtue and Graces of a Church in a state of Separation from the catholic Church, as it is for the Beams of the Sun to give Light, when they are cut off from the Body of the Sun, or for a River to be replenished with Waters, when it has no communication with the Fountain, or for a Branch to flourish, when it is broken off from the three.  
And, I observe farther from St. Cyprian's words, that the catholic Church, though it consist of all particular Churches, which are contained in it, yet is not a more arbitrary Combination and Confederacy of particular Churches, but is the root and fountain of Unity, and, in order of Nature, antecedent to particular Churches, as the Sun is before its Beams, and the Root before its Branches, and the Fountain before the Rivers which flow from it: that particular Churches are made by the increase and propagation of the catholic Church, not the catholic Church by the combination of particular Churches; and therefore nothing is more familiar in the Writings of the ancient Fathers, than to hear of Ecclesiae Catholicae, and Episcopi Catholici; for those particular Churches and Bishops were called catholic Churches and catholic Bishops, who lived in Communion with the catholic Church; so that particular Churches received their denomination from the catholic Church, and none were accounted true Churches; but as they were considered as Parts and Branches, and Members of the catholic Church, which were plain Nonsense, if the catholic Church were nothing else but an aggregate body, made up of an arbitrary Combination of particular Churches; for then, they must be considered as true Churches, standing by themselves, antecedent to any respect to their Union with the catholic Church.  
This is a matter of great Consequence, which utterly tears up the very Foundations of Independency, and therefore deserves to be more fully explained, and indeed there is some need of it; for, it sounds very oddly, to say that the catholic Church is, in order of Nature, before particular Churches; whereas, if we will allow that Christianity had a Beginning, and was gradually propagated in the World, according to that account we have of it's Rise and Growth in the Acts of the Apostles, we must aclowledge, that the number of Christians was so small at first, that they could make but a very little Congregation, and the Church was first planted in Jerusalem, before the Gospel was preached in other parts of the World, which was first occasioned by the Persecution that was raised against the Christians at Jerusalem, Acts 8. which driven them into other Countries, where they preached the Gospel, and converted men to the Faith of Christ; so that the first Beginning of a Christian Church was a single Congregation, and the particular Church of Jerusalem; But then the Church became catholic and Universal, when the Gospel was preached, and Christian Societies were formed after the first original pattern, in all parts of the World.  
Now this is very true also, that the Kingdom of Heaven( or the Christian Church, and the State of the Gospel) is like to a Grain of Mustard seed, which a 
13 Math. 31, 32.  man took, and sowed in his Field, which indeed is the least of all Seeds; but when it is grown, it is the greatest among Herbs, and becometh a three, so that the Birds of the Air come and lodge in the Branches thereof: that is, that the Beginnings of the Christian Church are very small, but it vastly increases in a short time, and spreads itself over all the World; and therefore, if by the catholic Church, we mean no more, than that Church which is in all parts of the World, it is evident, that that Church of Jerusalem was before the catholic Church, that is, that the Church was planted in Jerusalem before there was a Christian Church in any other Parts, much more, before there was a Christian Church in all parts of the World.  
And therefore, for answer to this, we must observe, that according to the ancient Fathers, there are two things included in the notion of the catholic Church; first, that the Church is but one; secondly, that it is every where; for therefore it is called catholic, because all the Churches in the Christian World, are but one Church. Thus St. Cyprian in his Epistle to Maximus, &c. calls it Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitatem, the 
Epist. 51. Edit. Pam.  Unity of the catholic Church. And Optatus affirms, That besides one Church, which is the catholic Church, the other 

Praeter unam, quae est vera Catholica,( Ecclesia) caeterae apud haereticos putantur esse, non sunt, Opt. l. 1.  
queen sit una Ecclesia, quam Columbam& Sponsam suam Christus appellat. Id. l. 2.   Churches, which heretics seem to have, are not Churches; and that there is but one Church, which Christ calls his Dove and Spouse. And St. Cyprian in his Book of The Unity of the Church, proves at large, from express Scripture, and ancient Types, that the Church of Christ is but one. And St. Augustin 
August. contra Parmeniani epist. Communio Catholica l. 2. cap. 5. Non singular malum esse Schismatis Sacrileglum, fed ad eos omnes pertinere, qui catholicae non communicent unitati. Ibid. Pax Catholica, lib. 3. cap. 2.  calls the catholic Church, the catholic Communion, catholic Peace, catholic Unity; which shows, that the Unity of the Church was the principal thing they regarded in the notion of the catholic Church; for ten thousand Schismatical Conventicles, which have no Union among themselves, cannot make one Church, nor can that be a catholic Church which is not one.  
So that though in the beginnings of Christianity, the true Church of Christ was confined to one small Congregation, yet it was the catholic Church, because it was that one Church of Christ, which was to increase and spread itself over all the World, not by infinite divisions into new Independent Churches, but by multiplying itself into numerous Churches, living in the same catholic Communion and Unity: and therefore we red in Acts 2. 47. when great numbers were daily converted to Christianity, not that they increased into new Churches, but that they were added to the Church; The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved. This is what St. Cyprian says, that, though the Church be never so much increased, yet there is but unum caput, una origo, una matter foecunditatis successibus copiosa, as I observed before; all these Churches proceed from one root and cause, are the Children of the same Mother, which make still but one Family and 
Itaque tot ac tantae Ecclesiae, una est illa ab apostles prima, ex quâ omnes Sic omnes primae& Apostolicae, dum una omnes prob●n● Unitatem. tart. de prescript. haeret. c. 20.  one Church. Thus Tertullian having given an account when the Gospel was propagated, and Churches planted, by the Apostles, beginning at Judaea, and so preaching in all parts of the World, adds, that hence it is, that so many and so great Churches are but that one Church, first planted by the Apostles, from whence all others come: thus all are first and Apostolical, while all together prove that Unity which makes them all one.  
Indeed, nothing can be more agreeable to this notion of catholic Unity, than the Parables of our Saviour, and the familiar expressions of Scripture, whereby the Unity of the Church is described. Thus the Church in this World is compared to a Field, wherein the sour sowed good corn, but the Enemy 
Matth. 13. 3, &c.  sowed Tares; whereby our Saviour means, the mixture of good and bad men in the visible Church, but it is but one Church, one Field still, while they live in the same Communion. Thus, to 
v. 47, 48, 49.  the same purpose, the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a net which was cast into the Sea, and gathered of every kind, both good and bad fish; which must be meant of the Visible Church on Earth, because bad men are not admitted into Heaven; but the Angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from the just, and yet the Church in this World is but one net; thus it is compared to a grain of mustard-seed, which grows into one 
v. 31. 32.  three; to leaven, which a woman took and hide in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened, but it was but one lump 
v. 33.  or Mass still; to a woman clothed with 
12 Rev. 1.  the Sun, and the Moon under her feet; to the Spouse of Christ, which certainly is but one, as the ancient Church did constantly believe, and is as firmly united to Christ, as man and Wife, who are one flesh, which the Apostle calls a great mystery, and makes it an 
5 Eph. 25. &c.  Argument to men to love their Wives, as Christ loved his Church. Thus the Church is the House, the Building, the Temple of God, which must signify Unity; for God has but one Temple and House, whereof the Temple at Jerusalem was a Type, which, by the express command of God, was to be but one.  
But there is one thing more observable, of great Moment in this case, that Christ calls himself a shepherd, and his Church a Sheepfold, and declares, that there shall be but one Fold, as there is but one shepherd; And other Sheep I 
10 John 16.  have, which are not of this Fold, and they shall hear my Voice, and there shall be one Fold and one shepherd. Now, if we consider who these two sorts of Sheep are, of whom our Saviour speaks, and how they are united into one Fold, it will be an evident demonstration of the Unity of the catholic Church. Those first sort of Sheep our Saviour mentions, signify the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, who were his peculiar Care, while he was on Earth, as he tells the Woman of Canaan, 15 Math. 24. I am not sent, but to the lost Sheep of the House of Israel; and to these only he sends his Apostles to preach, 10 Math. 5. 6. His other Sheep were the Gentiles, who were also to be called to the Supper, to be invited 
14 Luke 15. &c.  to the Faith of Christ, and Communion of the Church, as St. Paul and Barnabas  told the Jews, when they contradicted and blasphemed, It was necessary, that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting Life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles; for, so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I 
13 Acts. 46, 47.  have set thee to be a Light to the Gentiles, that thou shouldst be for Salvation to the ends of the Earth.  
Now, the way whereby these two sorts of Sheep become one Fold, is by receiving the Gentiles into the Communion of the Jewish Christian Church; for Christ did not destroy the Jewish Church, no more than he did the Law and the Prophets, but only refine and perfect it into a Christian Church.  
Thus St. Paul tells the converted Gentiles, who were apt to glory over the unbelieving Jews, as unchurched, and rejected by God; If some of the 
●1 Rom. 17, 18.  Branches be broken off,( that is, the unbelieving Jews) and thou being a wild Olive three, wert grafted in amongst them, and with them partakest of the Root and Fatness of the Olive three, boast not against the Branches, but if thou boast, thou bearest not the Root, but the Root thee; so the Gentiles became the Church of God, by being grafted into the Jewish Church. By the Root,* Saint Hierom understands 
Radix Patriarchae(& sic gloss. ordin.) item hoc loco radicem Abraham significat, quoniam propter fidem pater multarum gentium vocatur. Hier. in locum. And to the same purpose, St. Chrysost. upon the 16. v. expounds the Word Root, {αβγδ}. Chrys. in locum.  the patriarches, but especially Abraham, who was the Father of the Faithful; that is, the Jewish Church began in Abraham, and was founded on that promise, which God made to him, That in his Seed all the Nations of the World should be blessed. And when the Apostle teaches the gentle Converts to treat the Jews with all Modesty and Respect from that Consideration, Thou bearest not the Root, but the Root thee; the meaning is, that 
Thus St. Hierom expounds it, Noli de illorum perditione gaudere; alioquin audies, quod non illi per te stant, said tu per illos, nec tu illis vitam pr●estas, said illi tibi.  those privileges which they enjoy in the Communion of the Church, do not originally belong to themselves, but to the Jews: the believing Jews continue still united to their own root, and the believing Gentiles are grafted on the Jewish Root, and enjoy all these privileges by their Union to the Jewish Church. Thus the Apostle 
v. 24.  adds, For if thou wert cut out of the Olive three, which is wild by Nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature, into a good Olive three; which is an evident Proof, that the gentle Converts did not make a new Church, but were received into the Jewish Church, and so became one Fold.  
This St. Paul discourses at large, in his Epistle to the Church of Ephesus, and 
2 Epbes.  represents the Union of Jews and Gentiles, by the pulling down the middle 
v. 14.  Wall of Partition, which is an Allusion to that Partition in the Temple, which separated between the court of the Gentiles, and the place where the Jews worshipped: and thus they became one Church, by admitting the Gentiles to equal privileges, to the same Communion, and to as near an Approach to God as the Jews, which is called reconciling them in one Body, which makes 
v. 16.  those who were Strangers and Foreigners,( that is, the Gentiles, who as he tells them, v. 12. Were Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and Strangers from the Covenant of Promise) to be Fellow Citizens with the Saints, and of the household of God; so that if their being Aliens and Strangers signified their having no Right to the covenant of Promise, and the peculiar privileges of God's People, the Commonwealth of Israel, then their being made Fellow-citizens with the Saints, &c. of the household of God, signifies their being received into the Communion and privileges of God's Israel. And they are said to be built upon the Foundation of the 
v. 20.  Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone; which shows, that it is the same Church still, which is founded on the Prophets, and perfected by the preaching of the Apostles; and Christ is called the chief corner-stone, because he unites Jews and Gentiles into one Building, as the corner-stone unites both sides of the house, and holds them together. For before the appearing of Christ, God himself made a Separation between Jews and Gentiles, But now in Christ Jesus, we who 
v. 13.  sometimes were afar off, are made nigh by the Blood of Christ, who hath abolished, in his Flesh, the Enmity, even the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances, for to make in himself, of twain, one new man, so making Peace. In whom, all the 
v. 15.  Building( Jews and Gentiles) fitly framed 
v. 21.  together, groweth into an holy Temple in the Lord.  
Now nothing can be a plainer Demonstration of the Unity of the catholic Church, than the Gentiles being received into, and incorporated with the Jewish Church; for, all men who understand any thing of these matters, must, and do aclowledge, that the Jewish Church, the Commonwealth of Israel, was but one Church, and one Commonwealth; and if the gentle Converts do not make a new Church, but only enlarge the bounds of the Israelitish Church, it is plain, that the catholic Church continues as much one, as the Jewish Church was before the appearing of Christ, and the Conversion of the gentle World. This the believing Jews themselves understood at the Beginnings of Christianity, that the Gentiles were received into their Church, by believing the Gospel, which made them so vehemently urge the necessity of Circumcision, as judging it impossible, that any man should be incorporated into the body of Israel, without Circumcision, which was the sign of God's Covenant with them, and which separated them from the rest of the World. And this made so many believing Jews so zealous for the Observation of the Law of Moses, because they looked upon Christianity only as an Addition to judaisme, not as a total change and alteration of it.  
I doubt not, but the Unity of the Jewish Church, considered as a Type of the Christian Church, is a very good Argument to prove the Christian Church to be but one, as I am abundantly satisfied from those very mean and slender Objections, made against it by learned men; for though, as some argue, the Christian Church is designed to excel the Jewish Church, and therefore doth not correspond with it in every thing, yet, I hope there is not a greater Excellency than Union, unless it be a more perfect and excellent Union, and that we will grant to the Christian Church; but yet I think this perfection of Union in the Church, does not consist in dividing or multiplying the Church into a great many loose, incoherent, independent Churches, which are nited like a Rope of Sand.  
Much less does it hence follow, That all Christians should annually meet in one place, any more than that they should keep the Feast of the Passover, of Pentecost, or Tabernacles. There are some things peculiar to them as one Nation, others as a Typical Church, others as typical of catholic Unity: and he who knows not how to distinguish these things, shall perplex and entangle himself, but neither satisfy his Reader, nor convince his Adversary.  
Much less does it hence follow, That Christians should have one Arch-Priest on Earth, when the Jewish High Priest was a Type of that great High Priest, who was not so much to exercise his Priest-hood on Earth, as in Heaven, if we will believe the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 7 Heb. and several other places.  
And 'tis as groundless a conceit, from hence to conclude, That we should be all subject to one temporal Jurisdiction, and speak one Language, which was peculiar to them, as one Commonwealth and Kingdom, not as one Church: The Jews continued one Church under the Babylonish Captivity, where they neither met in one place annually, nor, it may be, spoken one Language; and yet, if we consider that the Commonwealth of Israel was a Theocracy under the immediate Government of God, and that Moses, and Joshua, and the Judges, and Kings of Israel, were immediately set up by God, as they who were to govern his People in his name, and by his Authority, and by his Order and Council, so they were Types of the Regal Power of Christ, who governs the Church in God's name, and according to his Will, as Aaron was a Type of his priestly Office. Now this is an odd way of arguing from a typical Dispensation, to prove that the Antitype must be the very same with the Type; it is sufficient, if the Antitype have something that answers the Type, though it be more perfect and excellent in it's kind; as to be of one mind, and to speak the same things, is more excellent than to speak the same Language; and an universal and glorious Head in Heaven, who is both King and Priest, is more perfect and excellent, than a King and Priest on Earth.  
There is a great Difference, I will grant, as it is objected, between a Church of one Nation, and of all the World, and they cannot upon all accounts be united in the same manner; but if the universal Church be united so, as to continue one body, it is sufficient; of which, more hereafter.  
And, whereas it is objected, That before the Law, Christian Religion, and consequently, a Christian Church, did, in substance subsist, but what Unity of Government was there then? It is impossible to give a direct answer to this, because we know not what precise time is meant; if the time before the Flood, we have a very imperfect account of those Ages, and yet have little Reason to doubt, but the antidiluvian patriarches, who preserved themselves from the general Corruptions of the Age, were careful to maintain a public face of Religion, which necessary supposes some kind of Union and Government. When all Flesh had corrupted itself, except Noah, the Church was confined to his Family, and preserved from the Deluge of Waters, in the Ark, which the ancient Fathers make a Type or Emblem of the Unity of the Church, out of which there is no Salvation. After the Flood, no doubt Noah himself was the high Priest, as well as universal Monarch of the new World; and some think, that Melchizedeck, to whom Abraham paid Tithes, was no other than Sem, one of Noah's Sons. And when the Church was confined again to Abraham's Family, I suppose there is no difficulty to discover the Unity of it, even before the Law.  
But this seems to me a new way of reasoning, Christianity was in Substance before the Law, that is contained in some obscure Prophecies, and some good rules of Morality; but there was no Unity of Government, before there was a visible Christian Church, therefore the Unity of the Jewish Church is no type of the Unity of the Christian Church, when it shall be catholic and visible: or there were some seeds of Christianity sown in the World, before the Law, but did not yet appear above ground; therefore there was a visible Christian Church, because there was an invisible Christianity; for no other Church is capable of external and visible Unity and Government: or there was no Unity of Government, before there was a visible Christian Church, therefore there must be none, now there is.  
And what is farther objected, that the temporal Union of the Jews might only figure the spiritual Unity of Christians, in Faith, Charity, and Peace, I grant it readily, if by Charity and Peace, is meant a catholic Communion, which is the only true Charity and Peace of the Christian Church; but if only mutual Kindness, and forbearing Quarrels and Contentions, though men divide into distinct and independent Communions, it seems strange to me, how the Unity of Policy and Government in the Jewish Church, should figure no Unity of a Church, but an Unity of another kind, which does not belong to a Church, as a Church: for, men who are of no Church, nor under any civil or ecclesiastical Government, may love one another, and forbear Quarrels, but to be Members of the same civil or religious Society, certainly signifies some other kind of Union than this. When we inquire after the Unity of the Church we mean an external and visible Unity, which must signify something more than that spiritual and invisible Union of Charity and Peace; for, there may be no great Peace, when men do not publicly fight with one another.  
So that unless there be some more material Objections, than I could ever yet see, the Unity of the Jewish Church considered in it's typical Nature, is a very good Argument to prove the catholic Union in the Christian Church; but, when we consider farther, that the Jewish Church, as perfected by the express Revelations of the Gospel, is still the Root of Union, whereon the gentle Christians are grafted, and so grow up into one Church; if the Jewish Church ever was one, it is so still; for the Jewish Church was not dissolved by Christianity, but enlarged by the Addition of gentle Converts.  
For the Mosaical Law was but Christianity veiled by Types and Figures, and when the veil was taken away, Christianity appeared in it's true Glory and Lustre: but it was the same Church veiled and unveiled; into the Communion of which Church, the Gentiles were received, the partition Wall of typical Ceremonies and Ordinances being taken away, and abolished by the death of Christ; and thus both Jews and Gentiles became one Sheep-fold under one shepherd, which St. Austin upon the place tells us, signifies the Unity of the Church catholic, and condemns the Schism of the Donatists. It were easy to add much more to prove catholic Unity, that the whole universal Church is but one Body and Society of Christians; but this is enough at present, considering, that I shall add greater Light and Strength to it in what follows.   

CHAP. IV.  
That the Unity of the catholic Church consists in one Communion.  
THE second thing to be considered, is, that the Unity of the Christian Church consists in one Communion; catholic Unity signifies catholic Communion, and one Communion signifies one Christian Society, of which all Christians are Members; for so the Church is called, {αβγδ}, a Communion or Fellowship, John 1. 3. To distinguish it from a Sect or Party: and to have a Right to Christian Communion, signifies of Right, to be a Member of this Society, a Member of the Body of Christ, or the Christian Church, to communicate in all the several duties and offices of Religion, with all Christians all the World over, and to partake in all the privileges of Christians, and to be admitted to the freedom of their Conversation, to eat, and drink, and discourse, and trade together. For in the first Ages of Christianity, Excommunication did not only shut men out of the Church, exclude them from their religious Assemblies, from the Communion of the Word, and Prayers, and Sacraments, but driven them from the civil Conversation of Christians; all Christians did avoid and fly from them, as rotten and putrid Members, which must be cut off from the Body, and perfectly separated from the conversation of Christians; no man would talk with them, or receive Visits from them, or entertain them at their Table, or 
Albasp. Obser. l. 1. cap. 1.  call them Brethren, nor pray with them though in a private House, all which was expressly forbid in the Canons of some of the most ancient Councils, as Albaspinus has proved at large. And is very agreeable to the Apostolical Precept 2 thessaly. 3. 14. And if any man obey not our Word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. {αβγδ}. And 1 Cor. 5. 11. I have written unto you not to keep Company, if any man that is called a Brother, be a Fornicator, or covetous, or an Idolater, or a Railer, or a Drunkard, or an Extortioner, with such a one no not to eat; which plainly refers to common Conversation, for it forbids us to keep company with lewd and disorderly Christians in the same sense, as it allows us to keep company with other Sinners who are not Christians; and when he adds, with such a one not to eat, he represents this eating with these men, as a matter, in the Opinion of most men, of no great consequence, for so that phrase signifies, you shall not so much as do such a thing; whereas, the sacramental eating the body of Christ is one of the highest Acts of Christian Communion.  
And therefore, a Right to Christian Communion, signified a Right to be admitted to the Society of Christians, and to join with them in all the parts and offices, whether of a religious or civil Conversation, which is briefly comprehended by Tertullian, in three things, Communicatio pacis, appellatio fraternitatis& contesseratio hospitalitatis, de prescript. cap. 20. in admitting them to the Peace of the Church,( of which more anon) in calling them Brethren, and in the mutual Offices of Hospitality; so that the Christian Church was such a Society, Body, and Community of men, as were strictly associated for all the Ends and Purposes of Religion and human Life; and this was called Christian Communion, which is now most commonly restrained to acts of Worship, or to the Communion of the Lord's Supper.  
And therefore there were several Degrees of Christian Communion, which signified the several Rights and privileges, which some men enjoyed in the Christian Society; such as the Communio Ecclesiastica, which signified the Communion of the Clergy, or that Right, and privilege, and Authority, which they had, which differed according to their several Orders, of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons; and therefore when any of them had been guilty of such Sins as made them unworthy of so holy a Function, they were degraded, and thrust down into the state of Lay-men, but not into the State of Penitents, as Lay-men were, when they 
Preface to the Modest Inquiry.  sinned; and in this Sense it is certainly true, what a late Author has observed, Quis unquam clericum lapsum paenitentem vidit? that, according to the ancient Discipline of the Church,( to which, no doubt St. Chrysost. had respect, in that Passage which is cited from him, without either book or page.) no man ever saw a Clergy-man in the state of Penitents; not as he or his Author expound these words, that no Clergy-man who was fallen into Sin, ever proved a Penitent; that is, did ever repent of his Sins, which are two very different things.  
Thus that Right which Lay-men had of Communion in the Christian Church or Society, was called Communio laica, or Lay-Communion, which consisted in the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments, &c. which they were deprived of, when they lived unworthy of this Communion, either wholly or in part, by Excommunication, or other milder Censures: but this is sufficient to let you understand, what the Ancients meant by Christian Communion, which in a large Notion, signifies the Christian Church or Society, which is called Communion from the Communication which all the Members of it had with each other. And hence we easily learn, what it is to live in the Communion of the Church; viz. to communicate with all the Members of the Church, in all the Duties, for the sake of which, that Society was instituted, such especially as hearing the Word red or preached, Prayers and Praises, and Sacraments, and Discipline; for it is contrary to the very notion of Christian Communion, not to communicate, and excommunication, being nothing else but the shutting men out of such Societies, and denying them the Liberty and privilege of communicating with Christians, Communion must signify actual communicating.  
Now, that Christian Unity does consist in Christian Communion, and is a catholic Communion, as well as catholic Unity, appears to me so plain and evident, both from the Precepts and Historical Accounts of the apostolic Churches in Scripture, and from the best and most ancient records of the Primitive Church, that I confess, I wonder it has admitted of any dispute amongst learned men.  
That the Church of Christ is one, that Christ hath but one Body, which is his Church, is so expressly affirmed in Scripture, that all men must aclowledge it in one sense or other; for it is plain, that this was the design of our Saviour, in the Institution of a Church, that all his Disciples should be one. For, this our Saviour preys, 17 John 11. 20, 21. Holy Father, keep, through thy name, those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also, which shall believe on me, through their Word, that they all may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the World may believe, that thou sent me, and the Glory which thou gavest me, I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the World may know, that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.  
But then all such Expressions are commonly expounded of an Unity of Faith, or Unity of Love, and Charity, and Peace, not of one Communion, that is not of the Unity of a Church or Body, or Christian Society: the Unity of Faith, and Love, and Charity, and Peace, are indeed essential parts of Christian Unity, but do not signify the whole of it. The Unity of Christians consists in the Unity of a Body and Society of men, which necessary supposes the same Faith, and a mutual Love and Charity, as the Bonds and Ligaments of such an Union, but their Union consists in their being incorporated into one Society. The Members of a Body cannot be united without Nerves and Sinews, and other Ligaments which tie them together, and make a Communication of Life and Spirits, from one part and member to another; but let a Body have never so many Nerves and Sinews, if they do not unite the parts to each other, and cause a Communication of Life to the whole, it is not one body; thus, how orthodox soever private Christians are in their Faith, whatever their Love and Charity be, if the same Faith and a mutual Love do not unite them into one Communion, they have not the Unity of a Body, nor of a Church.  
So that the case is plainly this, when our Saviour and his Apostles speak of the Unity of Faith, and Love, and Charity, they include the Unity of Communion too, which ought naturally to follow from them; or else, when they speak of the Unity of the Church, and of a Body, they mean something more by it, than the mere Unity of Faith and Charity, because it is possible, that men who believe the same things, and love one another, should not be Members of the same Body and Church.  
But, to consider these things a little more particularly; The Unity of Faith must be acknowledged, as absolutely necessary to the Unity of Christians, for heretics are no Members of the Christian Church; and therefore we are commanded by the Apostle, To withdraw 
1 Tim. 6. 3, 4, 5.  ourselves from those who teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the Doctrine, which is according to Godliness. For it is impossible, that those who differ in any material Article of Faith, should unite into one Body; and it is as unaccountable, that those who agree in the same Faith, should separate from each other in acts of Worship.  
And yet this very often happens, as the Experience of the present and former Ages too plainly proves, and when the same Faith cannot unite men into 
Thus St. Augustin expressly asserts, Totus Christus caput est& corpus: caput unigenitus Dei filius,& corpus ejus Ecclesia, sponsus& sponsa, dvo in carne una. Quicunque de ipso Capite ab scriptures sanctis dissentiunt etiansi in omnibus locis inveniantur in quibus ecclesia designata est, non sunt in Ecclesia. Et rursus quicunque de ipso capite scriptures Sanctis consentiunt,& unitati Ecclesiae non commanicant, non sunt in Ecclesiâ, quia de Christi corpore, quod est Ecclesia, ab ipsius Christi testificatione dissentiunt. i. e. Whole Christ is Head and Body. The Head is the only begotten Son of God, and the Body is his Church; Husband and Spouse, two in one Flesh. Whoever dissent from the Holy Scriptures, about the Head( that is, who have not a true Faith, do not believe a Right of Christ) though they are found in all those places where the Church was foretold to be, yet they are not in the Church. And on the other hand, those who believe of the Head, what the Scriptures teach,( who have a true Faith) but do not communicate in the Unity of the Church, are not in the Church, because they differ from the Body of Christ, which as Christ himself tells us, is his Church. St. Aug. de unitate Eccles.  one Body, it cannot make them Members of the same Church. St. Paul indeed tells his Ephesians, That they are built upon the Foundation of the Apostles, and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone; but he adds, In whom the whole building, fitly framed together, groweth into an holy Temple in the Lord. Their being built upon the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets signifies, that the Unity of Faith is the Foundation of this spiritual Building, but then there is somewhat more required to a Building, than merely a Foundation, they grow up into a holy Temple; and therefore those, who do not grow up into one Temple, but into distinct and Separate Churches, whatever Union they may have as to the Foundation, do not grow up into one Building, or one Church.  
Indeed St. Paul to the Ephesians supposes, that men may have one Faith, and yet not live in the Unity of the Church, when he persuades them to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of 
4 Eph. 3. 5.  Peace, by this very Argument, because there is one Faith; for, if the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace signifies no more than the Unity of Faith, it is an odd way of arguing, to persuade them to unity of Faith, because they have one Faith, for so one Faith must signify here their believing the same things, and professing the same Faith, if it have any force at all. Many Schisms have been occasioned by Heresies, and there have been many Schisms without them, while the Rule of Faith has otherwise been preserved entire.  
The Novatians and the Donatists both separated from the catholic Church, under a pretence of a more strict and severe Discipline, while one would not communicate with those who fell in the times of Persecution, and defiled themselves with Pagan Idolatries, nor the other with the Traditors: but tho they set up new Churches, they professed the same 
Apud vos& apud nos una est ecclesiastica conversatio, communes Lectiones, eadem fides, ipsa fidei Sacramenta, eadem mysteria. Optat. l. 5.  Faith still; and Montanus his heresy, at least, in the beginning, and as far as Tertullian was a Favourer of it, was not a controversy of Faith, but of Discipline; and of their stationary Fasts; and 
Defuncto Meletio substituitur Flavianus, said quod Paulinus adhuc supererat, qui in Catholicorum semper Societate permanserat, multa ibi jurgia,& multae controversiae saepe commorae, cum utique fidei jam nulla videretur subesse discordia; said& in multis aliis urbibus orientis, hujusmodi confusiones contentio genuit Sacerdotum. ruffian. lib. 11. Ecclesiast. Hist. cap. 21.  Ruffinus observes, concerning the Schism in the Church of Antioch, that when Meletius was dead, and Flavianus put in his room, Paulinus being yet alive, who had always continued in the catholic Unity, there arose great Quarrels and Controversies among them, when there was no apparent and visible disagreement in matters of Faith; and that thus it was in many other Eastern Cities, through the contentions and emulations of their Clergy.  
Nay, this Notion of catholic Communion, was universally owned in the Ancient Church by all sorts of men, even the greatest and most notorious schismatics; The Schism of the Novatians and Donatists did necessary suppose this as the foundation of their Schism: for they asserted, That whoever did communicate with the lapsed, or the Traditors, did defile themselves by such a sinful Communion, and were no better than lapsed and Traditors themselves; and therefore, since the catholic Church did communicate with Cornelius Bishop of Rome, whom the Novatians accused of communicating with the lapsed, and with Caecilianus, Bishop of Carthage, whom the Donatists accused of being ordained by a Traditor, they renounced the Communion of the whole catholic Church, which had been as foolish, as it was wicked, had they denied the necessity of catholic Communion; for Independent Churches cannot be polluted with each others miscarriages.  
And this was the only Argument wherewith the Ancient Fathers opposed those growing Schisms, that there is but one Christian Church, and one Christian Communion all the World over, and therefore, whoever did not live in the Communion of that one Church, and communicate with it in all Christian Offices and Duties, was out of the Church, was guilty of a sinful Separation from the Body of Christ, how Orthodox soever their Faith was; for they had no other way to oppose these Schisms, but by asserting the evil of such Separate Communions: for neither the Novatians nor the Donatists, were ever accused of any other Heresies in Matters of Faith, but what concerned their Schism; they owned the Ancient Creed, and retained the Order of Bishops,( for which reason Mr. B. brands them with that infamous name of Prelatical Donatists; for I confess, there could not well be any Presbyterian or Independent Donatists, before there were any Presbyterians and Independents in the World) and pretended to greater severity in the Exercise of Discipline, than the catholic Church did, which was the reason of their Schism; very agreeable to the pretences of our present Dissenters: and tho St. Cyprian condemns and rejects Novatianus for this reason also, that he was ordained 
Agnoscant atque intelligant, episcopo semel facto,& collegarum ac Plebis testimonio& judicio comprobato, alium constitui nullo modo posse Cypr. Epist. 4. ad Cornil.  Bishop of Rome, when Cornelius was regularly and canonically elected and ordained Bishop of Rome before him; and since no City could have two Bishops at a time, according to the Ancient Practise and Canons of the Church, therefore the second Bishop could be no Bishop, his Ordination being null and voided, 

Nisi si Episcopus tibi videtur, qui Episcopo in Ecclesia à sedecim Co-episcopis facto adulter& extraneus Episcopus fieri à desertoribus per ambitum nititur, &c. Cypr. Ep. ad Anton. 52.  
Episcopatum autem tenere non posset, etiansi Episcopus prius factus, à Co-episcoporum svorum corpore,& ab ecclesiae unitate discisseret. Ibid.   yet St. Cyprian himself does not lay the great stress of the controversy upon this, but asserts, that tho Novatianus had been first ordained, he had not been a Bishop, because he did not continue in the Unity of the Church: for we have Examples in Ecclesiastical Story of two Bishops at the same time in the same See, and yet this was never thought Schismatical, when the second was advanced by the consent of the first. Thus Alexander, a Bishop in Cappadocia, was made Bishop of Jerusalem, while Narcissus was living, but very 
Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 11.  old; and Anatolius at the same time sate in the Church of Caesarea with Theoternus: and this was St. Austin's 
Ibid. l. 7. cap. 32.  own case, who was made Bishop of Hippo, while there was another Bishop living; though he pleads ignorance in the excuse of it, that he did not then know of any Canon which forbade it.  
But the Schism of Novatianus consisted in his opposing himself against his Bishop, and separating from the Communion of the catholic Church, and setting up a new Altar, and new Church of his own, 
Profanum altar erigere,& adulteram cathedram collocare,& sacrilega contra verum Sacerdotem sacrificia offer tentaverit. Cypr. Ep. 67. ad Steph.  which St. Cyprian calls, erecting a prosane Altar, and placing an adulterate Chair, and offering sacrilegious Sacrifices in opposition to the true Bishop; and 

Quisquis ille est, aut qualiscunque est, Christianus non est, quia in Christi Ecclesia non est. Epist. 52. ad Anton.  
Adulterum& contrarium caput extra Ecclesiam fecit. Epist. 42. ad Cornel.   therefore he is so far from owning him to be a Bishop, that he denies him to be a Christian, because he is not in the Church: but is an adulterate and opposite Head, out of the Church. And therefore, in his Book de Unitate Ecclesiae, which was purposely writ in confutation of the Novatian Schism, his whole Design is to prove, that there is but one Church, and that it is absolutely necessary to preserve the Unity of this Church by one Communion.  
For, if the Independency of Churches had been known in those dayes, what fault could the Novatians or Donatists have been charged with, for setting up distinct and separate Churches, only, as they pretended, for the sake of a more pure Communion? for they are charged with Schism only upon account of a causeless Separation, which had been a very wild charge, had all Churches, by the Institution of Christ, been Independent, distinct and separate Communions.  
Nor do I see how it is possible to prove the necessity of Communion with any one particular Church, without acknowledging the necessity of Communion with the catholic and Universal Church; for when the Unity of the Church is once broken and divided, I can see no end of it, but that men may divide into as many separate Churches and Communions as they please. Nothing can make Separation a Sin, but an obligation to preserve the Unity of the Church; but if the Church Universal be not one, there can be no obligation to preserve its Unity; there may then be ten thousand separate Communions as well as two, and every man may communicate with what Church he pleases, and when he pleases; if he can persuade any to join with him, he may set up a new Church, and new Communion of his own, and no hurt done neither, if they continue in the Unity of the Faith.  
And yet St. Austin, in disputing against the Donatists, takes the same Method, which St. Cyprian had done before him in disputing with the Novatians, as appears from his Book of the Unity of the Church, in answer to the Letter of Petilian the Donatist, and several other Treatises; as his Answer to Parmenianus, and the Letters of Petilian, and Cresconius.  
In his Book of the Unity of the Church, he tells us, that the whole controversy depends upon the answering this Question, 
Ubi est Ecclesia, utrum apud nos, an apud illos? quae utique una est, quam Majores nostri catholicam nominarunt, ut ex ipso nomine ostenderent, quia per torum est. Sanct. Aug. de Unitate Eccles.  where the Church is, whether with us or with them( the Donatists?) for the Church is but one, and therefore was called catholic by our Ancestors, that the very name might inform us, that it is Universal, in all Parts of the World. And therefore, the onely Argument St. Austin uses to obtain this Cause, is to prove, that the Church of Christ is but one, dispersed through all the World: and therefore those, who communicate with the Universal Church, have the true Church; those who communicate only with the Sect and Party of Donatus, which is shut up within the narrow bounds of Africa, are out of the Church: and to make good this, produces variety of Testimonies from the Old and New Testament, to prove, that the true Church of Christ is catholic and Universal, and therefore the Sect of Donatus, which did not communicate with the Church of Christ, is no true Church: Now, whether this Argument be true or false, it shows what sense St. Austin had of the catholic Church, and the necessity of catholic Communion; for otherwise, the Donatists, who professed the catholic Faith, might be Members of the catholic Church, as well as their Adversaries, if catholic Communion, as well as a catholic Faith, were not necessary to that end,  
I readily grant, the Ancient Fathers speak much of the Unity of the Faith, as essential to Christian Unity, not as if this alone were sufficient to make a Church one and catholic; for it is plain, it was not thought sufficient in the case of the Novations and Donatists, 
{αβγδ}. Herm. apud Clem. storm. 2.  but because the Unity of Faith is the firmest Bond and Cement of Christian Communion;* that Faith is that Virtue which unites the Church; not that it always does so, but it cannot be done without it.  
But, though Faith alone is not sufficient to Christian Unity, yet Faith, in combination with those other Graces of Love, and Charity, and Peace, makes a firm and lasting Union. This I readily grant, but yet must add this one thing, that Christian Love, and Charity, and Peace, in the Language of the New Testament, and of the ancient Fathers, when they signify Christian Unity, signify also one Communion; that is, the Unity of a Body and Society, which is external and visible, and does not only signify the Union of Souls and Affections, but the Union of an external and visible Communion.  
As for Love and Charity, I need not tell you how frequently this duty is inculcated upon all Christians: our only Inquiry is, what this signifies; and to determine that, let us briefly consider some few places, where we find it mentioned, and very earnestly recommended to us.  
Our Saviour makes this a Badge and 
13 John, 34. 35.  Character of our Discipleship; A new Commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another, as I have loved you, that ye love one another; by this shall all men know, that ye are my Disciples, if ye have love one to another. We must love one another as Christ loved us. How is that? Under what Notion did Christ love us? This Question St. Paul answers, Husbands 
Eph. 5. 25.  love your Wives, even as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it. For no 
29. 30.  man ever yet hated his own Flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church, for we are Members of his Body, of his Flesh, and of his Bones. Christ's Love then to us, is included in his Love to the Church, which is his Body, and his Love to us in particular, considers us, as Members of his Body, for he is only the Saviour of the Body, 
v. 23.  and therefore if we must love one another, as Christ hath loved us, we must love one another as Members of the same Body, that is, must live in Christian Communion and Fellowship with each other.  
Thus Christian Love and Charity must be such a Love, as is visible to all men, and may distinguish Christians from all other Sects and Professions of men. By this shall all men know, that you are my Disciples, if you have Love one to another. Now nothing can do this, but that Christianity which unites all Christians into one Communion; for, those who refuse to worship God together, can never be known to be the Disciples of the same Master, unless you can persuade the World to believe, that Christ instituted as many several ways of Worship, as there are Schisms and Divisions in the Church.  
And whatever other mutual Kindness and Respects they may pay to each other, this is no peculiar Sign of their being Christ's Disciples; for the Laws of our Religion require us to be kind and friendly, and to do all good Offices for all men, to love even our Enemies, and those who hate us. And there are some who are not Christians, who do so excel in all external Civilities, Affability, and courtesy, that if this were the peculiar Badge of Christianity, they might pass for Christians, without believing in Christ; and we see Heathens and Publicans, and the vilest Sinners, love one another, and therefore it cannot be the bare loving one another, which makes men Christians, but loving one another in the Communion of the Christian Church. And that this is true Christian Charity, St. Paul teaches us; That there should be no Schism in the Body, but 
1 Cor. 12. 25. 26.  that the Members should have the same Care one for another, and whether one Member suffer, all the Members suffer with it, or one Member be honoured, all the Members rejoice with it; now ye are the Body of Christ, and Members in particular. This is to love one another, to love like Members of the same Body, to preserve the Body from all Rents and Schisms, and to maintain Christian Sympathy and Charity in the Communion of Christ's Body, whereof we are all Members.  
Thus in another place, the same Apostle represents Christian Love, as the necessary cause and effect of Christian Unity. Speaking the Truth in Love, may grow up into him in all things which 
Eph. 4 15. 16.  is the Head, even Christ, from whom the whole Body fitly joined together, and compacted by that, which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the Body, to the edifying of itself in Love; so that Christian Charity unites us to Christ's Body, and by Charity the Christian Church is more firmly knit together, and is edified in all Christian Graces and Virtues, and grows up into a holy Temple in the Lord; and nothing is Christian Love and Charity, which does not unite us in one Body.  
And this was plainly the Sense of the ancient Church also, concerning Christian Charity, that it united men into one Body and Communion, and that there was no true Christian Charity out of the Church.  
Thus Clemens Romanus a true Apostolical Bishop, in that Epistle which he wrote to the Church of Corinth, in the name of the Church of Rome, to compose those Schisms and Divisions which had broken out afresh among them, uses only this one Argument to assuage their Passions, and to reduce them to a more peaceable and governable Temper; he very highly commends Charity, and condemns Wrath and Strife, and Envyings, and Emulations, and bitter Zeal, as very hateful to God and Christ, and very unworthy of a Christian man: and among other things he tells them, that 
{αβγδ}. Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Corinth.  Love and Charity will cause no Schism, it is not tumultuous and factious, but does all things in Agreement and Concord. And if true Christian Charity be inconsistent with Schism, there can be no true Charity out of the Communion of the Church.  
Much to the same Purpose, St. Cyprian discourses, in his book of the Unity of the Church; 
Quam vero unitatem servat, quam dilectionem custodit, aut cogitat, qui discordiae furore vesanus, Ecclesiam scindit, fidem destruit, pacem turbat, charitatem dissipat, Sacramentum profanat. Cypr. de unitate.  What Unity what Love doth that man keep and preserve, or so much as once think of, who being enraged, and almost distracted with furious Discords and Contentions, divides the Church, destroys the Faith, disturbs the Peace, violates Charity, profanes the Sacrament? And therefore this Christian Charity is by St. Cyprian called Concordia coherens, Such Concord and Agreement as makes men stick close together; and by St. Austin, Unitatis Charitas, or the Charity of Unity, which unites them into one body. 
Nulla igitur est excusatio, quia charitatem illos non habuisse, manifestisfimé constat, sine qua nullum, vel nominari potest, vel esse martyrium; sine qua maxima& imperiosa virtus caret effectu. Videte, an non dicantur martyres, said aliquid alium appellari mereantur, qui charitatis desertores, pro eadem desertione pati aliquid potuerunt. Optat. lib. 3.  And therefore Optatus would not allow those Donatists to be Martyrs, who suffered for their Schism, because there can be no Martyrdom without Charity, which, it is plain, schismatics cannot have.  
And thus all those passages of the Fathers are to be understood, which speak of Christians being united in Love, and knit together in the bond of Union and Charity, as the Members of the Body of Christ; that is, that Charity unites them into one Christian Communion; not that it is sufficient to be united in Charity, without being united in one Body and Christian Society. Men may love one another very well, and yet not be Subjects of the same Prince, nor Members of the same City or Corporation, much less belong to the same household and Family; but we are not Christians, unless we are Members of the Body of Christ; and therefore, nothing is Christian Charity, which does not invite us into one Body, as Christian Charity always does; as St. Austin 
Qui compage charitatis incorporati sunt aedificio supra petram constituto. Aug. de Unitate. cap. 18.  tells us, that by the bond of Charity we are incorporated into that Building which is founded on a rock, that is, the Christian Church: for, that Treatise of Unity being written designedly against the Schism of the Donatists, in answer to the Letter of Petilian, he can mean nothing else by being incorporated into that Building which is founded on a rock, by Charity, but being incorporated into the visible Communion of the Christian Church.  
Christian Charity is the same thing with what, in other places of Scripture, 
Rom. 12. 10. 1 Thes. 4. 9. Heb. 13. 1. 1 Pet. 3. 8.  is called Brotherly love, and loving like Brethren; now this name Brethren was given to none, even in the Apostles dayes, but to those only who lived in the Communion of the Church; and this was religiously observed in the Primitive Church, where the Christian Brotherhood was confined to the Communion of the Church, and neither heretics, nor schismatics, nor excommunicated Persons, nor those who were under Penance, nor the Catechumens, which were not yet baptized, were called Brethren, by the Fideles, or those Christians who were in full Communion, as Albaspin has observed; 
Albasp. l. 1. obs. 19. de fraternitate Christianorum.  and therefore those Evangelical Precepts of Brotherly Love supposes Christians to be Members of the same Communion, and cannot reach further than Christian Communion does.  
Let us, in the next place consider, what is meant by Peace, which Christians are so frequently exhorted to, and which St. Paul calls the bond of peace; 
Eph. 4. 3.  now this also signifies the external and visible Communion of the Christian Church. Thus Christ is called our 
Eph. 2. 14, 15, 16.  Peace, because he has united Jews and Gentiles into one Body or one Church. Thus the Apostle tells us, that God is 
1 Cor. 14. 33.  not the Author of confusion but of Peace, as in all the Churches of the Saints: where peace being opposed to confusion,( {αβγδ}) must necessary signify the peaceable Communion of the Church, where all things are done decently and in order; and thus peace seems to signify in that Apostolical Salutation, which is usually prefixed to St. Paul's Epistles, Grace be with you, and Peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ; for, whatever some men may talk, it is absolutely impossible to maintain Christian Peace, when Christians divide from each other into separate Churches and Communions; for their very Separation signifies an aversion to each other; and while some are zealous to preserve the Unity of the Church, as all good Christians must be, and others are zealous to promote their Separation, as schismatics always are, what hope is there of Peace and Concord in the midst of Disputes and fierce oppositions? there never was a Schism yet, but what disturbed the Peace, as well as broken the Unity of the Church; and, I shall not easily believe it can be, till I see some instance wherein it is so, and that I fear I shall never see in this Age; and therefore, in the mean time, if we will own it our Duty to preserve the Peace of the Church, we must aclowledge it our Duty to live in the Communion of the Church.  
To be sure this was very agreeable to the Language of the Ancient Church; for, in the Writings of the Ancient Fathers and Councils, nothing is more familiar than by the Peace of the Church, to understand the Communion of the Church. Thus, when men were under Excommunications and Censures, they were said to desire Peace, to receive Peace, and the Bishop to give them the Peace of the Church, when they were restored to Christian Communion; and to die in peace, signified to die in the Communion of the Church: and the osculum pacis, the kiss of Peace, which 
Rom. 16. 16. 1 Cor. 16. 20.  St. Paul calls the holy kiss, and St. Peter a kiss of Charity, is by St. Chrysost. as he 
1 Pet. 5. 14. Albasp. l. 1. obser. 17.  is cited by Albaspinus, made a Symbol and Representation, not only of the union of Affections, of Love, and Charity, but of the Unity of an external and visible Communion.  
But, for the farther confirmation of this, That catholic Unity does consist in catholic Communion, let us briefly consider the Nature and Use of the Christian Sacraments, which are the great and firmest bonds of Christian Union: and they are these two: Baptism and the Lord's Supper.  
As for Baptism, St. Paul tells us, that there is but one Baptism, as there is but one Body, and one Spirit, and that by this 
Eph. 4, 5. 1 Cor. 12. 13.  one Spirit, which is bestowed at Baptism, we are all baptized into one Body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free. Baptism makes us Members of the catholic and Universal Church; for we are not baptized into any particular Church, as, suppose the Church of England, or the Church of France, or Holland, but are made catholic Christians, that is, Members of the Universal Church, and have a right to Christian Communion in all true Churches in the World, which cannot possibly be, unless we aclowledge, that there is but one Church, one Body and Society of Christians all the World over, which are bound to live in Communion with each other.  
For Independent Churches are like some little Independent Commonwealths, which have no commerce or intercourse with each other, at least, by being Members of one Commonwealth, they are not incorporated into the Neighbour Commonwealths, nor can challenge any privilege in them but upon courtesy.  
Now, I would desire to know, if Independent Churches, consisting of single Congregations, be the only Churches of Christ's Institution, whether Baptism be our Admission into the Christian Church, or not? if it be not, I would desire to know what it signifies, and in what sense we are said to be baptized into one body? if it be, I would inquire farther what this admission into the Church by Baptism signifies? whether a right and obligation to external and visible Communion in all Religious Duties and Offices, that is, whether Baptism makes us such Church-members as are bound to join in the Worship of God, and our common Saviour? &c. if it does not, I would desire them to tell me, how men can be admitted, into the Christian Church, and yet not be made Church-members, when Excommunication, which shuts them out of the Church, is no more than debarring them the privileges of Christian Communion, which, it seems, according to these Principles, those who are admitted into the Church by Baptism, have no right to, and therefore are not in a much better condition than the Excommunicate? if it does, I would inquire farther, what Church-baptism makes us Members of? the Independents will not allow that it makes any man a Member of an Independent Congregational Church, for that is done by a Church-Covenant; nor will they allow, that there are any other Churches of Divine Institution, but onely Congregational Churches, and therefore Baptism makes men Members of no Church. For, to say that Baptism makes men Members of no particular Church, and yet makes them Members of the Universal Church, if the Universal Church be nothing else but a great number of particular Independent Churches, is as absurd, as it is to say, that a man may be born into the World, and not yet born into any part of the World.  
But the Apostles and the Ancient Fathers always acknowledged but one Baptism, and that for this reason, because there is but one Church, and therefore St. Paul joins one Baptism with one Body; for Baptism makes us Members of one Body, and one Church, which is dispersed all the World over, and in what particular Church soever any man is baptized, unless he afterwards forfeit his Right by heresy or a wicked Life, he is a Christian all the World over, and has a Right to Christian Communion in all Churches.  
We may easily understand the sense of the Ancient Church in this matter, from that hot Dispute about wrong, or rather about the baptizing those who were baptized by heretics; for both Parties were agreed upon this point, that there was but one Church and one Baptism, which made them Members of that one Church, and that it was unlawful to re-baptize any one who had been once baptized.  
St. Cyprian, and the African Bishops, rejected the Baptism of heretics, because there is but one Baptism in the 
Unum Baptisma in Ecclesia scio,& extra ecclesiam nullum, cum non sit Baptisma nisi in Ecclesia unum& verum, quia& Deus unus,& fides una& ecclesia una est. St. Cypr. in Conc. earth.  Church, and no Baptism out of the Church. And it is impossible to divide the Church and Baptism, as we find at large in the Council of Carthage, and in St. Cyprian's Epistles to Quintus, Jubaianus, and Pompeius.  
On the other hand, Stephen, Bishop of Rome, and those Bishops who joined with him, and some time after, St. Austin and Optatus, and those who writ against the Donatists, and condemned their practise of wrong those who were baptized in the catholic Church, would not condemn even the Baptism of heretics,( while it was administered in that solemn form of words, which our Saviour appointed, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost) for this very Reason, because there was but one Baptism in the Christian Church, which implanted us into the one Body of Christ, and received it's Virtue and Efficacy, not from the Worthiness of the Minister who baptized, but from a divine Institution.  
I will not undertake to decide this controversy, but only observe, that though they drew very different Consequences, yet they argued from the same Premises, and all agreed, that there was but one Baptism, because there was but one Church. And if we will allow, as they all granted, that Baptism made us visible Members of the Church of Christ, and gave us Right to visible Communion, the Unity of Baptism proves, not only that there is but one Church, but that there is but one Communion in the catholic Church.  
And it is observable, that St. Cyprian assigns this as the Reason, why Novatianus rebaptized those who came over to 
Nam Novatianus simiarum more, qui cum homines non sint, homines tamen imitantur, vult ecclesiae Catholicae Authoritatem sibi& veritetem vindicare, cum ipse in ecclesia non sit, imò adhuc insuper contra ecclesiam hostis rebellis extiteri●; sciens enim unum esse baptisma, hoc unum sibi vindicat ut apud se esse ecclesiam dicat,& nos Haerecticos saciat. Cypr. in Ep. ad Jubaianum.  his Party and Faction, because he could not appropriate the Church without appropriating Baptism to himself. Novatianus( says he) after the manner of Apes, who imitate men, though they are not men, challenges the Authority and Truth of the catholic Church, to himself, when he is so far from being in the Church, that he is a professed Enemy and Rebel against it: for, knowing that there is but one Baptism, he challenges this one Baptism to himself, thereby to persuade the World, that his Party is the Church, and that we are heretics.  
The Lord's Supper is another Sacrament of the Christian Church, and does so plainly signify one Church, and one Communion, that it is impossible to understand the true nature of this Sacrament without it.  
St. Paul gives us an account of it, in 
1 Cor. 10. 16, 17, 18.  these words, The Cup of Blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? For we being many, are one Bread and one Body, for we are all Partakers of that one Bread; behold Israel after the Flesh, are not they which eat of the Sacrifices, Partakers of the Altar. In which words, there are several things to be observed to our present Purpose.  
As first, the Scope and Design of them, which was to deter Christians from going to Pagan Feasts, where they eat and drank of such things, as were offered in Sacrifice to Devils, and united themselves to those persons, who keep those Feasts in honour of those wicked Spirits, to whom they sacrificed; which the Apostle tells them, was to have Fellowship with Devils, by drinking 
v. 20. 21.  the Cup, and partaking of the Table of Devils. Now the only proof we find of this, must be fetched from the Nature and Institution of the Lord's Supper, and the Jewish Sacrifices, in the words now cited, from whence the Apostle draws this Conclusion; and therefore, when the Apostle calls the Eucharistical Cup and Bread, The Communion of the Blood, and of the Body of Christ, it signifies, that we are in Fellowship with Christ, and with each other, with him as our Head, and with each other, as Members of the same Body; for otherwise, their eating and drinking at Pagan Feasts, could not prove, that they were in Fellowship with Devils and Idolaters.  
Secondly, I observe, that this Eucharistical Feast, in how many distant places soever it be celebrated, is but one Bread and one Cup; for so the Apostle expressly asserts, that there is but one Bread, as there is but one Body, for the Bread represents the Body of Christ, and the Cup his Blood, and therefore is but one, as the Body of Christ is one.  
Thirdly, that this one Bread signifies the Union of all Christians in one Body, for so we are  told, we being many, are one Bread, and one Body, for we are partakers of that one bread: that as this one bread signifies that one Body of Christ which was broken for the sins of the whole World, so it signifies, that all those who partake of this one bread, are united into one Body, whereof Christ is the Head.  
Thus St. Cyprian understood these words, when, speaking of this mysterious Sacrament, he says, that it signifies and declares 
Quo ut ipso Sacramento populus noster adunatus ostenditur; ut quemadmodum grana multa in unum collecta,& commolita,& commixta, panem unum faciunt; sic in Christo, qui est panis coelestis, unum sciamus esse corpus, cvi conjunctus sit noster numerus& adunatus. Cypr. Caeciliano. ep. 63.  the Union of Christian People; for, as many grains put together, and ground small, and well mixed, make one Bread, so we know that in Christ there is but one Body, to which our whole number is united and combined. Where we must observe, that St. Cyprian does not say, that this one Bread does signify, that their number or company, who lived, suppose in the same Church, and actually communicated with each other, is one Body; but that in Christ there is but one Body, to which their number or Society is united, as is signified by their partaking of that one Bread: so that the one Bread signifies that one Body of Christ, which is his Universal Church, to which all Churches are united, as partaking of that one Bread.  
And, by the way, we may hence observe, how the Church of Rome, by her new Doctrine of Transubstantiation, destroys the true mystery and signification of this holy Feast; for, according to this Doctrine, every Christian eats the whole entire Body of Christ, which is in every wafer, nay, in the least part of every wafer; which does not onely contradict the notion of a broken Body, which is represented in the Sacramental bread, but spoils the apostles Argument for the Unity of the Christian Church, that all Chri●●●ns are one Bread and one Body; for, when ten thousand men, and as many more as you please, do each of them eat the whole Body of Christ, it seems difficult to understand how Christ has but one Body, or how this signifies that all Christians are but one Body.  
Fourthly, This one bread signifies one Communion in the Christian Church: Thus the Cup is called the Communion of the Blood of Christ, and the Bread, the Communion of the Body of Christ, {αβγδ}, which signifies, that it is a common Table, and that whoever partake of it, are in Fellowship and Society with Christ, and with one another; for so {αβγδ} signifies in St. John's Epistle, Our Fellowship is with the Father, 
1 Joh. 1. 3.  and with his Son Jesus Christ. And the Lord's Supper is peculiarly called Communion or Fellowship, because it does most aptly signify the Communion of Christians in one Body or Society, of which Christ is the Head, and in the Union of which, he dispenses all the merits of his Death and Passion.  
Thus St. Chrysostom discourses at large 
{αβγδ}. Chrysost. in locum.  upon those words, The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? Why( says he) did 〈◇〉 the Apostle say, the participation( of the Body of Christ) because he intended to signify something greater, and to represent a more close and intimate Union and Conjunction, for we communicate not only by partaking and receiving( the Bread) but by being united; as the Body is united to Christ, so are we united to him by the Bread. And upon those Words, for we being many are one Bread and one Body, he adds, that it is, as if the Apostle had corrected himself in this manner, Why do I speak of Communion when we ourselves are that very Body? For what is the Bread? the Body of Christ; who are they that receive it? the Body of Christ: not many Bodies, but one Body: for, as the bread, which is made of several grains, is so mixed and kneaded together, that you can no longer discern the particular grains, but one lump and mass, thus are we united to each other, and to Christ; for thou art not nourished by one Body and he by another, but all by the same Body; and therefore the Apostle adds, For we all partake of that one bread; and, if we all partake of the same, we are all the same, and why then should we not show the same 
* 
Obiter hoc dicit, ut intelligant Corinthii, externa quoque professione colendam esse illam unitatem, quae nobis est cum Christo; quandoquidem omnes simul convenimus ad sacrae illius unitatis symbolum.  
Calv. in locum.   Love to each other, that we might be all one that way also?  
Thus Mr. Calvin upon these words, there is one bread, tells us, that the Apostle hereby admonishes the Corinthians, that it is their Duty to maintain this Unity they have in Christ by an external profession of it, that is, by an external and visible Communion; for so he adds, That they must all meet together to celebrate that Feast, which is a Symbol of this Sacred Unity.  
And that the Apostle here does intend to signify one Christian Communion, is evident from that Argument he urges, from the Example of Israel after the Flesh, are not they which eat of the Sacrifices Partakers of the Altar: that is, all united and combined in the Worship of that God, at whose Altar those Sacrifices were offered; for though all Israel did not eat of the same Sacrifices, yet they all offered their Sacrifices at the same Altar, which signified, that they were all the Worshippers of the same God, who had but one Altar, and that they were all incorporated into one Body, the Commonwealth of Israel, who alone had Right to offer at that Altar. And it is very agreeable to this, what St. Cyprian tells us of the whole Christian Church, that it has but one Altar; for when he had  told his People to whom he writ, to beware of Felicissimus, who had made a Schism among them, That there is but one God, and one Christ, and one Church, he adds, and but one Altar and one Priest-hood, which must be understood of the Universal Church, and so signifies one catholic Communion, which, by the way, quiter spoils Mr. Baxter's Argument, which he so often repeats, That a bishopric in St. Cyprians time was no larger than one single Congregation, because St. Cyprian asserts, that 
Deus unus est,& Christus unus;& una Ecclesia aliud altar constitui, aut Sacerdotium novum fieri praeter unum altar,& unum Sacerdotium, non potest. Cypr. ad Plebem de quinque Presbyteris Schismat. Ep. 40.  every Bishop had but one Altar, whenas he also asserts the same of the whole Christian Church, and thereby he means not one place of communicating, but one Communion. And for the same reason, St. Austin calls the Communion of the Donatists, altar Schismatis, an Altar of Schism.  
The principle design indeed of the Apostle in this place, is to prove, that the using any religious Rites and Ceremonies( such as feasting upon a Sacrifice, 
Aug. contra Parm. Ep. l. 2.  always was accounted) did signify our Communion and Fellowship with that God, whose Worship it is; and therefore, those who feasted on Pagan Sacrifices, had Fellowship with Devils. But his Argument proves something more, that all the worshippers of the same God, were in Fellowship with one another; that as eating the Sacramental Bread does unite us to Christ, so it makes us all one Bread, and one Body, that is, one external and visible Society and Communion: for, if the Lord's Supper signifies Unity, it must signify one Communion, because the very nature of it requires that it be celebrated in Company, which is the great Argument urged by Protestants, against the private Masses of the Church of Rome.  
But to proceed, as the Unity of the Christian Sacraments proves the Unity of Christian Communion, so also does the Unity of Church Power and Government. Every Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, by his Ordination is made a Minister of the catholic Church, though for the better Edification of the Church, the exercise of his Office is more peculiarly confined to some particular place. Every Bishop and Presbyter receives into the catholic Church by Baptism, as I have already proved, and shuts out of the catholic Church by Excommunication, as I shall prove hereafter, which they could not do, were they not public Officers of the Universal Church.  
And St. Cyprian tells us, that there is but 
Episcopatus unus est, cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. Cypr. de Unitate.  one Episcopacy, part of which, every Bishop holds with full Authority and Power; and 
Episcopatus unus, Episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus. Cypr. ad Antonian. Ep. 52.  that there is one Episcopacy spread over the World, by the consenting Multitude of many Bishops; and therefore he calls it, The Unity and the Peace of the Episcopacy. 
Episcopi nec potestatem habere potest, nec honorem, qui Episcopatus nec unitatem tenere volvit, nec pacem. Id. ib.  Hence we red of the Collegium Episcopale, the Episcopal college, and Bishops were called Collegae, 
Optat. l. 1.  colleagues, who were Members of the same Society, and enjoyed equal Honour and Power, and governed their Churches by a mutual consent, as we often red in St. Cyprian, who never( as far as I can observe) gave the name of Colleague to any but a Bishop: and 
Neque enim de Presbyteris aut Diaconis aut inferioris ordinis clericis, said de collegis agebatur. Aug. Ep. 162.  St. Austin uses colleagues to signify Bishops, as distinct from Presbyters, Deacons, and the inferior Clergy: and 
Quaudo Ecclesia, quae Catholica una est, scissa non sit neque divisa, said sit utique connexa,& cohaerentium sibi invicem sacerdotum glutino copulata. Cyp. Ep. 69. ad Florentium P●pianum.  St. Cyprian makes the Unity of the Church very much to depend upon the Union and Concord of Bishops, That the catholic Church is not rent nor divided, but united and coupled by the Cement of Bishops, who stick close together.  
And in his book of the Unity of the Church, the first Argument he urges to prove the Unity of the Church, is the Unity of the Apostolical Office, and assigns this as the Reason, why our Saviour, in a particular manner, committed the Keys to Peter,( when he gave the same Power to all the rest of the Apostles, 
16 Math. 18. 19.  which he did to Peter) viz. to manifest the Unity of the Apostolical Office and Power, that there is 
Et quamvis omnibus apostles post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat,& dicat, sicut misit me pater.— Tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unam Cathedram constituit,& unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno inciplentem sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc utique erant& caeteri Apostoli, quod svit Petrus, pari consortio praediti honoris& Potestatis, said exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, Primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi Ecclesia,& Cathedra una monstretur,& pastores sunt omnes, said Grex unus ostenditur, qui ab apostles omnibus unanimi consenfione pascatur. Cyp. de Unitate.  but one Chair and one original of Unity, which begins in one; for, the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, had an equal share in the Honour and Power of the Apostolical Office; but the beginning is from Unity, and the Primacy is given to Peter, that it might appear that the Church of Christ is one, and the Chair one, i.e. the Apostolical Office and Power. They are all Pastors, but there is but one Flock, which is fed by all the Apostles with a joint Consent.  
This is the plain Scope and Design of this passage of St. Cyprian,( which has been so often abused, especially by the Romanists) that our Saviour in naming Peter onely, in giving the Apostolical Power, did signify, that the Apostolical Office, though exercised by several Persons, is but one Office and Power, which is not so properly divided among the Apostles, as administered by a joint consent, and therefore, giving this Power to one Apostle, included the bestowing this Power on the whole Apostolical college.  
And therefore, when St. Cyprian says, 
supper illum unum aedificat ecclesiam suam. id. ibid.  that Christ built his Church upon Peter alone, he does not and cannot mean the Person of Peter, or any thing peculiar to him, but that Apostolical Office and Power, which was given to the College of the Apostles in the name of Peter, as the Church is said to be built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. And when he says, that Christ gave the Primacy to Peter, and yet at the same time affirms, that the other Apostles were equal sharers with him in Honour and Power, and were all that which Peter was, it can signify no more, nor no less, than that Christ name Peter first, or rather, instead of all the Apostles, thereby to instruct them; that though they were many, yet their Office and Power was but one, which they must exercise as one man, with one consent.  
And now I cannot but wonder to find some Learned men very zealous Asserters of the Independency of Bishops, and to allege St. Cyprian's Authority for it: for, whatever difficulty there may be in giving an account of every particular Saying in St. Cyprian, certainly, he could never be of this Opinion, who, asserts but one Chair, and one Apostolical Office and Power, which now resides in the Bishops of the Universal Church; for when the same power is in ten thousand hands, it can be one onely by Unity of consent in the exercise of it; and it is very wild to imagine, that any one of these Persons, who abuse this Power, shall not be accountable to the rest for it.  
For we must consider, that all the Apostles had relation to the whole Church, and therefore, though being finite Creatures, they could not be every where at a time, but betook themselves to different places, and planted Churches in several Countries, and did more peculiarly apply themselves to the Government of those Churches, which they themselves had planted, and ordained Bishops to succeed them in their Care and Charge, yet their original Right and Power in relation to the whole Church did still remain, which they might re-assume, when they saw occasion for it, and which did oblige them to take care, as far as possibly they could, that the Church of Christ suffered no injury by the heresy or evil practices of any of their colleagues; and though Equals have no Superiority over one another, yet a college has Authority and command over any of its colleagues.  
Thus Rigaltius has observed upon 
Stillingst. Rational account. p. 300.  St. Cyprian, as the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet has before noted, that St. Cyprian not doubting from the nature of the Unity of 
Itaque ex unitatis ecclesiasticae disciplinâ, Cyprianus solicitudinem omnium Ecclesiarum ad se pertinere non ambigens, etiam Romam se dedisse literas ait ad clerum, eas vero literas per totum mundum missas, h. e. per Ecclesiam Catholicam, cujus Ecclesiae unus est episcopatus, atque hujusmodi Episcopatus à singulis Episcopis pars in solidum tenebatur. Rigalt. observe. ad Cypr. p. 64.  Ecclesiastical Discipline, but the care of all Churches was upon him, dispatched his Letters to the Church of Rome, from whence they were sent through the catholic Church, as an Evidence, that there was but one Episcopal Office in the whole Church, part of which was committed in full power to every Bishop.  
And if we consider the practise of the Ancient Church, we shall find, that they never thought every Bishop to be Independent, but as liable to the censures of their colleagues, as Presbyters and Deacons were to the Censures of their Bishops.  
It were easy to reckon up numerous Canons of ancient Councils, which suppose this Authority in the Church of deposing heretical or scandalous Bishops, and prescribe Rule for the regulating of it.  
And there are too many Examples in Ecclesiastical History of this Nature. The Bishops, who ordained Novatianus, were deposed, so was Paulus Samosatenus, by the Council at Antioch, and Domnus substituted in his room. 
Cypr. Ep. 68.  Thus Basilides and Martialis were deposed, and Felix and Sabinus made Bishops in their stead. The like may be said of Eustathius of Antioch, and another of Sebastia, of Marcellus of Ancyra, and Photinus of Sirmium, and many others: and we never find that those Persons who were deposed did dispute the Power and Authority of the Church to depose Bishops, but justice of the Cause, and therefore many times made their Appeals from Provincial to General Councils, or from one Council to another.  
And indeed, the Independency of Bishops is as inconsistent with Ecclesiastical Unity, which St. Cyprian and others so often mention, as the Independency of single Congregations; only with this difference, that a bishopric is larger, and contains a great many particular Congregations under it, but yet the danger to the Church may be as great from an Heretical and Scandalous Bishop, who may infect his whole Diocese, without any remedy.  
And this very reason St. Cyprian gives, why there are so many Bishops in the christian Church, whom he calls a copious body of Bishops, 
Idcirco enim frater charissime, copiosum corpus est Sacerdotum concordiae glutino, atque unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut siquis ex collegio nostro heresin facere,& gregem Christi lacerare& vastare tentaverit, subveniant caeteri,& quasi pastores utiles& misericordes oves Dominicas in gregem colligant. Cypr. ad Steph. Ep. 67.  coupled by the cement of Concord and bond of Unity, that if any of our college( i.e. any Bishop) should endeavour to broach any new heresy, or to tear and spoil the Flock of Christ, the rest may come in to their help, and, like good and merciful Pastors, gather again the sheep of Christ into the fold.  
This seems sufficient to show what St. Cyprian's Opinion was in this matter, let us therefore now briefly inquire, for what reason some have thought that St. Cyprian did assert every Bishop to be Independent, and accountable to none but Christ, and the reason seems to be a very weighty one, that St. Cyprian says so in express words, though, methinks, it should make men careful how they expounded such words to contradict his avowed Doctrine and Practise, and the practise of the Universal Church; for, if every Bishop be absolutely unaccountable to any but Christ, he cannot be lawfully deposed by all the visible Authority of the Church.  
And therefore to adjust this matter, we must particularly consider, what those cases are wherein every Bishop is at liberty to make Rules for himself, and govern his Church according to his own Prudence and Conscience, without being bound to give an account of his Actions to his Fellow Bishops.  
That this does not extend to heresy or Schism, is evident from those Testimonies which I have already produced, for then the Church would have no power to excommunicate and depose Heretical or Schismatical Bishops, and the like may be said of any great and enormous sin, such as Idolatry, and renouncing Christianity in the time of Persecution, which was the case of Basilides and Martialis, two Spanish Bishops; and St. Cyprian does exhort the People to forsake the Communion of 
Cypr. Ep. 68.  such Bishops, and commends those that did: Not as if he made the People the Judges of their Bishops, or that they were for every fault or miscarriage to leave their Communion, and set up other Bishops, but when they were guilty of such notorious heresy, or wickedness, that, by the judgement and Censure of Neighbour Bishops, or Provincial or General Councils, they were deposed, the People also should withdraw from them; for the onely thing upon such an occasion, that can make any breach in the Church, is, when the People will not forsake the Communion of such Heretical or Schismatical Bishops, though they be very justly deposed, and others ordained in their room. For this was the present case, Basilides and Martialis were actually deposed, and Felix and Sabinus actually ordained Bishops, when St. Cyprian writ to the People to avoid the Communion of those Sacrilegious Bishops: as, upon a like occasion, he writ to his own People of Carthage, to avoid Felicissimus and those factious Presbyters 
Ep. 40.  who were of his Party, when they were first excommunicated by Caldonius 
Ep. 39.  and Herculanus; which I observe by the way, that no man may mistake such Expressions, as we sometimes meet with in St. Cyprian and other ancient Writers, persuading the People to forsake wicked or unsound Bishops, to justify People in making a factious opposition to their Bishop, or upon every capricio, running into a tumultuary Schism.  
The heresy must be very notorious, and the Crime very foul and scandalous, which will justify either Presbyters or People, to withdraw from their Bishop, before a judicial Sentence, or at least, without the Advice of some neighbour Bishops. Thus Nestorius was deserted by several of his Presbyters, and by many of the People, before he was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, and St. Hierom writ a reproving Letter to John, Bishop of jerusalem, but it was after Epiphanius writ to them to beware of his heresy, as being suspected of Arrianism.  
But to come closer to the business in hand, I aclowledge St. Cyprian does assert, that every Bishop has the Liberty of his own choice in governing the Church over which he is Bishop; and that if he differs from others in some matters, yet he is not to be judged or 
Cypr. Concilium Carthag. de haereticis baptizandis ad Anton. Ep. 52. ad Cornel. Ep. 55. ad Steph. Ep. 72. ad Magnum Ep. 76.  deprived of catholic Communion for it; for no one of them pretends to be a Bishop of Bishops, nor can they either judge or be judged by one another; but they must all expect the judgement of Christ, who both gave them this Authority, and is the only proper Judge of their Actions. To this purpose he discourses in several places, as you may see in the Margin, and yet was far enough from owning an absolute Independency of Bishops, as will appear, if we consider these things.  
1. That he allows of this only in some matters of Discipline, and external Administration of Church Affairs, especially when the case was new and undetermined; for he has mentioned but two cases, wherein he has asserted this Liberty to every Bishop: 1. The reconciling those to the Church, and receiving them to Christian Communion, who had fallen in times of Persecution. And 2. Baptizing those when they returned to the catholic Church, who had formerly been baptized by heretics, and he limits and confines this Power to matters of Discipline; That in the Government and Administration 
Quâ in re nec nos vim unquam facimus, nec legem damus cúm habeat in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae liberum arbitrium unusquisque praepositus, rationem actus sui domino redditurus. Cypr. ad Steph. Ep. 72.  of Church Affairs, every Bishop enjoys the Freedom of his own Will, and is to give an Account of his actions to the Lord. And therefore he says, that in such matters they offer no Force, nor give Laws to any man.  
Now in such matters as these, especially when the controversy is first started, the Judgments of very wise and good men, being different and various, and the Church having always allowed different Customs and Usages in different Churches, and having often altered the Rules of Discipline, as the Good of the Church, and the Edification of Christians required; and every Bishop best understanding the Necessities of his own Church, and what is most agreeable to the present state of Affairs, it was highly reasonable, that every Bishop should enjoy this Liberty, without which, he must needs be at a loss upon every new emergent Difficulty, which will not admit such Delays, till he can consult with all his Neighbours, much less with foreign and remote Bishops.  
2. Even in these matters, especially if there be any apparent difficulty, he requires the advice of Fellow Bishops, that, as near as may be, they may all observe the same Laws and Rules of Discicipline; and therefore, in his Epistle to Antonianus, he tells him, that they altered 
Ep. 52.  nothing in the Discipline of the Church, till they met together in Council, and duly weighed and considered the case of the Lapsed, and what was the fittest Temperament of Severity and Mercy to be used at that time: and least it should not be thought sufficient, to advice only with the African Bishops in so weighty an Affair, they sent to Rome to Cornelius, and his colleagues, to acquaint them what they had done, and to desire their Advice and Consent, and the same Method he observed about the controversy of baptizing heretics, which was fully and freely debated in the Council of Carthage, an Account of which, he sent to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, and to other foreign Churches; which plainly shows, that they thought themselves obliged, as far as possibly they could, to do all things with mutual Advice and Consent.  
3. If it so fell out, as it often does in matters of more Prudence and Order, that they differed in their Judgments of things, yet they were bound to preserve the Unity of the Church, neither to deny Communion to others, nor to forsake their Communion upon such accounts. Thus St. Cyprian tells the Bishops, met in the Council of Carthage, about baptizing heretics, 
Superest ut de hâc ipsa re singuli quid sentiamus, proferamus, neminem judicantes, aut à jure communionis, aliquem, fi diverfum senserit, amoventes. Cypr. council. Carthag.  That they should all speak their Minds freely, judging no man, nor denying Communion to him, if he differed from them in this matter. And in his Epistle to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, observes, 
Caeterùm scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberint noll. deponere, nec propositum suum facile mutare, said salvo inter collegas pacis& concordiâ vinculo, quaedam propria, quae apud se semel sint usurpata retinere. Cyp. ad Steph. Ep. 72.  That there are some, who will never lay aside those Opinions which they have once sucked in, nor easily alter what they have once resolved; but retain those peculiar Observances, which have been in use among them, though preserving entire the Bond of Peace and Concord with their colleagues.  
And in his next Epistle to Jubaianus, he says,* He is resolved not to contend with his 
Nos quantum in nobis est, propter haereticos cum collegis& coepiscopis nostris non contendimus, cum quibus divinam concordiam,& dominicam pacem tenemus;— Servatur à nobis patienter& firmiter charitas animi, collegii honor, vinculum fidei,& corcordia sacerdotii. Cypr. Ep. 72.  colleagues and Fellow-Bishops, for the sake of heretics, but if any Difference happens, He will patiently and resolutely preserve true Love and Charity in his mind, the Honour of the college, the Bond of Faith, and the Concord of the Episcopal Office. Methinks this does not sound like an absolute Independency of Bishops.  
In his Epistle to Antonianus, he tells him, That formerly there were some in his Province, who would not receive Adulterers to the Peace and Communion of the Church, nor allow them any place for Repentance, yet did not separate from the college of their Bishops, nor break the Peace of the Church, through their Obstinacy or inflexible Severity of Discipline; and adds, 
Manente concordiae vinculo,& perseverante Catholicae Ecclesiae individuo Sacramento, actum suum disponit& dirigit unusquisque Episcopus, rationem propositi sui domino redditurus. Cypr. Ep. 52.  That while the bond of Concord, and the undivided Sacrament of the catholic Church, is preserved and maintained; every Bishop orders and governs his own Affairs, so as he must give an account to his Lord for it.  
For this Reason, St. Cyprian writes so 
Epist. ad Pompeium, 74.  sharply against Stephen, Bishop of Rome, because he was not contented to enjoy his own Opinion and practise, but threatened to excommunicate the African Bishops, who disowned the Baptism of heretics; and this was the best Excuse St. Augustin could make for St. Cyprian that though he was mistaken in this matter, yet he was no schismatic, but maintained the Peace and Unity of the Church, notwithstanding those different Opinions and Practices.  
Upon a like account Irenaeus reproves Victor, Bishop of Rome, for excommunicating the asiatic Churches, because they adhered to their ancient Custom of observing Easter, very different from the custom of the Latin Churches, 
Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. cap. 24.  whereas they might both retain their peculiar customs without Schism, and so they had done many years, and amicably communicated with one another, and particularly instances in Anicetus and Polycarp, who had some kind dispute about it, and though neither of them could persuade the other to alter the Custom of his Church, yet communicated together with all the expressions of Love and Unity, insomuch that Anicetus allowed Polycarp to consecrate in his own Church at Rome.  
Now, if we lay all these together, we shall easily perceive, what little foundation there is in any thing St. Cyprian has said, for the Independency of Bishops; for it amounts to no more but this, that in matter of Discipline and Ecclesiastical Government, some Bishops may differ from others in matters of less moment, for which they ought not to be deposed nor excommunicated, while they preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church, and maintain Communion with their Fellow Bishops; which necessary supposes, that Ecclesiastical Communion is as indispensible a Duty among Bishops, as Brotherly Communion is among other Christians; which plainly overthrows Episcopal Independency, and proves that there is but one Church, and one Communion, since there is but one Episcopal Office, whereby this one Church is ruled and governed; and that all Bishops are bound to live in Communion with each other.  
I shall briefly urge but one thing more to prove that the Unity of the Christian Church consists in one Communion, and that is from the nature of Church censures. Excommunication casts a man out of the visible Society of Christ's Church, not of this or that particular Church only, but of the whole Christian Church; that as Baptism makes a man a member of the Universal Church, and gives him right to Christian Communion in all the Churches of the World, where he can enjoy it without sin, so Excommunication debats men from Christian Communion in all Churches; he that is cast out of one Church, is thereby cast out of all, and separated from the Body of Christ, which is but one. It is a very dilute explication of Church-censures, to say only, that it was a Law and Custom, in order to preserve Peace and correspondence between several Churches, that no Church should admit to Communion those which were excommunicated by another, or did Schismatically divide: It was indeed forbid by the ancient Canons to receive those into Communion, who had been excommunicated by another Church, which lived in catholic Communion, without satisfaction first given to that Church; but this was not merely an arbitrary term of Concord, as it is among Confederate Princes, that one shall not entertain those who are Rebells to the other, but it is an essential part of catholic Communion, without which Excommunication can have no effect, nor any thing terrible in it. That which makes Excommunication so dreadful a Sentence, is, that it cuts men off from the Body of Christ, which, when duly administered, cuts them off from all communion with Christ, and from all hopes of Salvation; for it was universally acknowledged by the Primitive Church, that out of the Church there is no Salvation; that Christ hath but one Body, and is the Saviour only of his Body, and that the power of the Keys, which Christ committed to his Apostles and their Successors, signifies Authority to receive into the Church, and to cast out; and when men are, for just and weighty reasons, cast out of the visible Communion of Christ's Church, they are separated from Christ; what is thus bound on Earth, is bound in Heaven, and therefore such men are out of a state of Salvation, as a withered branch which is lopped off from the three, receives no longer any Life and nourishment from the Root; and therefore what the Sentence of Death is in the State, that the Sentence of Excommunication is in the Church; Temporal Death cuts men off from the Societies of Mankind, Excommunication cuts them off from the Communion and Society of Christians in this World, and, if duly executed, from all the Rewards of the next, unless by the exercise of a serious repentance they recover the Peace of the Church again.  
But now, unless Excommunication cuts men off from the whole Body of Christians, as well as from that particular Church wherein they dwelled, it is as very a Scare-crow indeed as most Christians in our dayes think it to be: for, if after they are cast out of one Church, they have right to communicate in other Churches, then they are the Members of the Body of Christ still, and have a right to all the privileges of Christians, and Excommunication signifies no more, than for a man to be turned out of one Family upon some pike and quarrel, and immediately received into another, and it may be a better.  
If Excommunication does not cast men out of the catholic Communion of Christians, then men who are cast out of one Church have yet a right to communicate in others, and then those Canons which forbid receiving such who are excommunicated out of a pretence to maintain Peace and Concord among all Churches, encroach upon the Rights of Christians, and deny Communion to those to whom they cannot lawfully deny it.  
Whoever reads Synesius his Excommunication of Andronicus, can hardly imagine, that the debarring the Excommunicate from the Communion of all Churches, as well as of that Church which excommunicated them, should be a more Ecclesiastical Law. He writes a Letter to all Bishops, wherein he first 
Synes. Ep. 58. {αβγδ}.  gives a large account of the barbarous villainies of Andronicus and his Companions, and then adds; For these reasons, the Church of Ptolemais( a small Church where Synesius was Bishop) commands all her Sister Churches, all the World over, that no Church of God shall be open to Andronicus and his Companions, and Thoantes and his Companions; let all Religious Houses be shut against them; there is no place for the Devil in paradise, who, if he privately get in, must be thrust out again. I command all, both private men and public Magistrates, to separate them both from their bed and board, and especially Bishops, who shall neither salute them while they live, nor bury them when they die; and if any one despises the Censures of this little Church, and receives those to Communion, who are condemned by her, as if there were no necessity of obeying a poor Church, let such a man know, that he divides the Church, which Christ will have to be but one, and whether he be Deacon, Presbyter, or Bishop, he shall be to us as Andronicus is, neither will we ever give him our hand, or eat with him, much less, communicate with these in the Sacred Mysteries of Religion, who have any thing to do with Andronicus and Thoantes.  
This is the true Spirit of the Ancient Discipline, and therefore to prevent Abuses of this kind, when any considerable Persons were excommunicated, they sent advice of it to other Churches, and where there was no notice given, they would not receive any Travellers, whether Lay or Clergy, into the Communion of the Church where they came, till they produced their formed or communicatory Letters from the Church from whence they came, that thereby they might know whether they were owned by that Church, and were in Communion with it. But of this more hereafter.   

CHAP. V.  
Wherein is briefly shown the Use of this Notion of catholic Communion, in the Disputes of Schism and Separation.  
HAving, in the former Chapter sufficiently proved, that the Unity of the catholic Church consists in one Communion, to prepare the way, for what follows, I shall make some few Remarks oh what I have already discoursed.  
As first, That to be in Communion with any Church signifies to be a Member of it: for Christian Communion is nothing else but Christian Fellowship and Society; and to be in Church-Fellowship is to be a Member of a Church.  
None were ever allowed Christian Communion but those who were first Christians, that is, received into the Society of Christ's Church, by Baptism made Members of his Body: Christian Communion was confined to the Christian Church, and was not common to Pagans and Infidels.  
And every Member of the Christian Church, who is not under Church-censures, was always thought to have equal Right and equal Obligation to all parts of Christian Communion; there was no such thing as partial, or occasional Communion known in the ancient Church: for men, suppose, to communicate in hearing Sermons, and not to communicate in Prayers or Sacraments, nor submit to Church Order and Discipline, or one day to communicate in one Church, and all the year after to profess themselves Members of a distinct and opposite Church: when was it ever heard of, that a Donatist occasionally communicated in the catholic Church, or a catholic Christian in a Donatist Church? neither the catholics nor nor the schismatics would allow of this, but kept their Communions distinct and separate; for no man has right to any act of Communion in a Church of which he is no Member.  
Mr. Baxter's catholic Christian was never heard of till Mr. B. made the discovery; neither the Ancient Church, nor our old Non-conformists take any notice of those catholic Christians, who can communicate with a Church, and separate from it at the same time; whose Catholicism consists in communicating occasionally( that is, as the toy takes them, or as it will serve an interest) with all the several Sects and Parties of Christians, without living in Communion with any of them; and it is an admirable resolution Mr. B. makes in the name of his more Non-conformists, and we will be members of no particular Church which alloweth us not occasional Communion with others, but take such for 
Search for the Schismat. p. 32.  Sectaries, that is, with other Churches of distinct and separate Communions; so that, according to Mr. B's Principles, those men are Sectaries who allow but one catholic Church, and one catholic Communion in that one Church; and the onely way to avoid being particular Sectaries, is to be catholic Sectaries, not to confine themselves to one Communion, but to take their turns occasionally in all. This Baxterian catholic is nothing else but a Protean Religionist, who transforms himself into all shapes, and differs from the Hobbist only in this, that the Hobbist is for being always of his princes Religion, but he is always for being against it; for if any one Religion be established by public Authority to the disallowing of all others, that must be Sectarianism, and our catholic Christian cannot be a Sectarian.  
Secondly, I observe farther, that that is a Schismatical Communion, which does not make us Members of the catholic Church; for if there be but one Church, and one Communion, then to live in Communion with any Church which is not a Member of the catholic Church, nor makes up one Communion with it, is Schism; and therefore Independency, in the very nature of it, is a Schism; for every Independent Congregation is a distinct Church, and has a distinct Communion of its own: no man is made a Member of all Independent Congregations, by being a Member of one, for their Church-membership depends upon a particular, explicit Church-Covenant between Pastor and People, which can reach no farther than that particular Church to which it was made; nor is their Pastor a Minister of the Universal Church, but of that particular Church which choose him for their Pastor; and therefore, when he preaches to other Congregational Churches, he preaches only as a gifted Brother, and not as Pastor; so that there are as many distinct Communions and Churches, as there are Independent Congregations, which are not Members of each other, and hold no Communion with each other but upon courtesy, and therefore are all schismatics.  
And wherever there are distinct and separate Communions and Churches, which do not own Church-membership with each other, but though they live in the same place, yet divide into several distinct Congregations, under different Governours, and opposite Orders and Rules, there is certainly a Schism on one side or other: where there are two distinct and opposite Communions, one of them must be Schismatical, because there ought to be but one.  
For nothing can be more wild than Mr. B's Notion of a catholic Church, which he every where drives at; that the catholic Church is nothing else but either the whole number of Christians professing the Faith of Christ, all the World over, without any respect to Church Communion; or that the catholic Church is made up of all the several Sects and combinations of Christians, without respect to one Communion. Thus he declares the sense of his more Non-conformist. We hold we must separate from no Church or Christian farther than they separate from Christ, though we must not sin against God for communion with any. We take it for a great sin for 
Search for the Schismat. p. 31. n. 28.  any Party to appropriate the Church only to themselves( but it is no sin to make Parties, so they do not Schismatically appropriate the Church onely to themselves) we own no Church but as part of the catholic( or Universal) Church, that is, all the distinct and opposite Churches and Communions, are parts and Branches of the Universal Church, which, at this rate, can be no better, than a more chimerical notion, one Communion made up of a hundred separate& opposite Communions; a Body made up of several Members, which are at a great Distance from each other, and of such a different Make and Frame, that they cannot possibly be united: Yes, says Mr. B. we are united to all Churches,( and he tells us how) And we hold all our Assemblies as in Union and Communion with all the true Churches on Earth; if it were not for that as, this would be something to the purpose, to clear them from the guilt of Schism, that they hold their Assemblies in Union and Communion with all true Churches on Earth. But I fear, as in Union, may signify as out of Union, but as it were in Union.  
As for Instance, How do our present Dissenters hold their Assemblies, as in union and Communion with the Church of England? Why truly, as if they were out of Communion with her; for I would desire any man to tell me, how we may more perfectly renounce the Communion of any Church, and set up distinct and opposite Communions, than our Dissenters have done. If forming Churches under new and distinct Officers, with new Rules and Methods of Worship and Discipline, without any dependence on the public Constitution, be to live as in Union and Communion of the Church of England, by the magical virtue of this, as they may be said to hold their Assemblies in Union and Communion with the Papists and Quakers, and Independents, whom they formerly accused of Schism and Separation. What invisible kind of Communion he may mean, I know not; but, Church Communion is such a visible Fellowship, as is necessary to make a visible Society, and such Communion we cannot see, no not with the Help of Mr. B's Spectacles.  
But he adds, and( we) put up our Prayers and Praises as in Conjunction with theirs, not owning their Failings( or our own) but their Duties; this, as in Conjunction, is like praising men with a but, which spoils all; for it is an odd kind of Conjunction, when they will not so much as use the same Words in Prayer with us, nor pray in the same place, nor at the same time neither, were it not to prevent all Conjunction. And therefore, what he means by putting up their Prayers, as in Conjunction, with others, I cannot imagine, since Conjunction in Prayers either signifies Praying together, and putting up our Petitions in common for us all, or praying, though at distant places, yet in Unity and Concord, and Christian Communion, that is, in the External Communion of the Church; and thus schismatics, who divide the Church, can never pray in Conjunction with the Christian Church, and let them then make the best they can of their, as in conjunction. But what he adds is the prettiest fetch of all, whereby he would persuade us, that they separate no more from other Churches, than they do from themselves, not owning their failings( nor our own) but their Duties: which words, if they have any sense, must signify, that because they own their Duties, that is, that Prayer, and Preaching, and singing Psalms, and receiving the Lord's Supper, are necessary Duties of Religion, but disown their failings, that is, their manner of performing these Duties, and therefore cannot join in External Worship, yet they put up their Prayers and Praises in conjunction with them: as if Christian Communion consisted in owning Christian Duties, not in joining in them. I am sure St. Cyprian asserts, that those 
Ubicunque enim fuerint dvo aut trees collectae in nomine meo, ego cum eis sum: ostendeus non multitudini, said unanimitati deprecantium plurimum tribui: si duobus, inquit, ex vobis convenerit in terra: unanimitatem prius posuit; concordiam pacis ante praemisit, n● conveniat nobis, fideliter& firmiter docuit. Quomodo autem potest ei cum aliquo convenire, cvi cum corpore ipsius Ecclesiae,& cum universa fraternitate non convenit. Cypr. de unitate.  men cannot be said to pray in Unity and Concord, who divide the Unity of the Church; for, how can he agree with any one, who does not agree with the Body of the Church, and the whole Christian Fraternity; and therefore he did not believe that such men put up their Prayers, as in conjunction, with those from whom they separate.  
The Ancient Christians, who acknowledged the necessity of one Communion, as well as of one Church, found no difficulty in the Notion of Schism, though upon occasion they disputed warmly, which of the dividing Parties were schismatics. St. Augustin makes this the Description of schismatics,* that they are those, who 

Qui Ecclesiae Catholicae non non communicant, said in suis separatim Conventiculis congregantur. St. Aug. contr. Ep. Parm. l. 1.  
Adulterari non potest Sponsa Christi, incorrupta est& pudica, unum domum novit, unius cubiculi sanctitatem casto pudore custodit. Cypr. de unitate.   do not communicate with the catholic Church, but hold separate Meetings in Conventicles of their own. St. Cyprian tells us, that the Christian Church, which is the Spouse of Christ, knows but one house, and preserves the Chastity of one Bed: And the Character of a schismatic is, that he is extra Ecclesiam, foris, one who is out of the Church, without doors: and one 
Qui alibi praeter Ecclesiam colligit, Christi Ecclesiam spargit. ibid.  who gathers People any where besides the Church, and one 

Stare tu& vivere putas posse de Ecclesia recedentem,& alias sibi seeds,& diversa domicilia condentem, Cypr. de unitate.  
Dum conventicula sibi diversa constituunt, veritatis caput& originem reliquerunt. id. ib.   who forsakes the Church, and erects other houses and habitations for himself, that is, new Conventicles and places of meeting in opposition to the Church: And two 
Monet ipse in Evangelio suo,& docet, dicens:& erit unus grex& unus Pastor,& esse posse uno in loco aliquis existimat, aut multos pastores aut plures greges. ibid.  Pastors and two Flocks,( that is, two opposite or separate Churches) when Christ has said, that there shall be but one Shephered, and one Flock, is a state of Schism. But I shall have occasion to discourse of this more in what follows; but this is sufficient at present to show that Schism is a breach of catholic Communion, and that any Church which does not hold Communion with the catholic Church is Schismatical.  
Thirdly, I observe farther, that Personal, Local, Praesential Communion, is not the entire notion of Christian Communion, nor essential to the Notion of a Church. For then there can be no catholic Church, nor catholic Communion all the World over, for the Christians, who are dispersed all the World over: can never enjoy Personal and Presential Communion with each other, that is, cannot all meet together to worship God at the same time, in the same place, and to discharge those other Acts of Christian Communion, which require their personal presence with each other. And yet the catholic Church is more properly a Church, than any particular Churches, which are called Churches, only as they are Branches and Members of the catholic Church; for it is the catholic Church which is the Body of Christ, and particular Churches and particular Christians are the Members of Christ's Body, as they are Members of the Universal Church.  
The entire Notion of Christian Communion, contains all those Duties and Offices which all Christians are bound to perform, whether they respect the Worship of God, or that relation they stand in to each other, as Members of the same Body: some of which we owe to all Christians, all the World over, and therefore may and must be performed, when we are absent from one another; others require the Communion of Christian Assemblies for the Exercise of Religious Worship, others allow of such convenient distance as will admit of the Communion of Discipline and Government: which, in few cases, was to be confined to the next Neighbourhood, or the compass of personal Conversation, and there is as little reason it should be thus confined in Ecclesiastical as in Civil Governments.  
That praesential and personal Communion which is necessary to the Being of a Church, as it is a religious Society for divine Worship, must be performed by parts, in the Assemblies of neighbour Christians, who meet together to worship God and their Saviour, and hold Communion with all other religious Assemblies and Christian Churches. This, as Dr. O. well observes, The very 
Vindication of the Non-conformists. p. 42.  nature of the thing requires, but if Christ hath instituted but one Church, and one Communion all the World over, there is something more than this praesential Communion necessary to the Constitution of the Church, which Dr. O. himself owns, that there is something more required to the Constitution of a Church, than An Assembly for divine 
p. 19.  Worship; though I could never yet see any show of proof, that those Societies 
Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, p. 287.  which have not, or which cannot have Assemblies for divine Worship, are not Churches properly so called, which though he says, need not here be insisted on, was indeed, the only thing which wanted proof: For the Universal Church is much more properly a Church, than any particular Churches, which are but Parts and Members of it; and yet cannot have such an Universal Assembly for Divine Worship; but must have particular Assemblies for that purpose: and then I would desire any man to show me, why particular Churches, which are under one Government or Discipline, may not consist of several particular religious Assemblies, or parochial Churches? If this be contrary to the Notion of a Church, then there cannot be one catholic Church and catholic Communion; if it be not contrary to the Notion of a Church, how does it destroy the nature of particular Churches?  
Were it as impossible, by the care of several parochial Ministers, and the vigilant Inspection and Government of one Bishop, to exercise true Evangelical Discipline in a Diocesan Church, as it is for all the Christians in one Diocese to meet ordinarily together for religious Worship, I would readily yield the Cause; but if it be very practicable to govern a much larger Society than can ordinarily meet for Worship, the Argument will not hold from the necessity of particular Assemblies for religious Worship, to prove that Church Communion must be no larger than a religious Assembly; which, by the way, also shows, how fond that Conceit is, that the Pastor of every particular Congregation, must have all the Powers of Teaching and Ruling by the Word and Keys, and that every single Congregation, must have full Power to reform itself. I grant this Power must be in every Church, in some Measure, but it does not hence follow, that it must reside in every Pastor and single Congregation, because a particular Church may be of a larger Extent than the Bounds of a single Congregation, and then a particular Congregation being not an entire Church, but part of a Church, there is no reason it should be invested with the whole power of the Church; you may as well say, that every Family must have the whole power of the Kingdom for the Government of it's self. The Master of the Family has so much Power over his Children and Servants, as is necessary for the orderly Government of his Family; but such Crimes as fall under the Cognizance of a higher Power, must be referred to their proper Judicatures. Thus the Pastor of particular parochial Churches, has Power to reprove, admonish, instruct, exhort, and to absolve Penitents, who are under no Church-Censures, and in the danger of Death, 
See Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separatino. p. 272.§ 14, 15, 16, 17.  though they are, and to suspend from the Table of our Lord, giving a timely account to his Bishop, why he does so; and this is all the Discipline which is absolutely necessary in a Parochial Church, reserving the Judicial Censures of the Church to the proper Seat of Ecclesiastical Authority.  
4. I observe farther, That it is not at the choice of particular Christians, to communicate with what Church they please, but they are bound to communicate with that part of the catholic Church, wherein they live.  
The Reason of this is very plain; because there is but one Church, and every Christian is bound to communicate with this one Church; and there is no way to maintain Communion with the catholic Church, but by communicating with some part of it; and to separate causelessly from any one part of the catholic Church, is to break the Communion of the whole, which is one by the Communion of all it's Parts and Members: and therefore wilfully or wantonly to refuse Communion with that part of the Church wherein we live, is a Schism from the whole.  
Mr. Baxter has every where in his late Books advanced a great many odd Principles to justify Separation, which( if what I have already discoursed hold good, that there is but one catholic Church, united by one catholic Communion) must of necessity be false; as to name some which fall under this Head.  
He supposes, that men may separate from particular Churches, without separating from the catholic Church. It is one thing to separate from the Universal 
Plea for Peace, p. 38.  Church, and another from particular Churches, or a few only: Now this is true, if those particular Churches be Schismatical, i.e. are not in Communion with the catholic Church, for it is no Schism to separate from schismatics: but if those particular Churches are Members of the catholic Church by a catholic Communion, to separate from such a particular catholic Church, is to separate from the Universal catholic Church; to divide from any part of the catholic Church, breaks catholic Communion; and according to the ancient Discipline, those who Schismatically divided from one Church, were accounted schismatics, all the World over, and denied Communion in all Churches. Thus St. Cyprian denied Communion to Maximus, a Presbyter, and Augendus, a Deacon, and Machaeus and Longinus, who were 
Cypr. ad Cornelium, Ep. 41.  sent to him from Novatianus, an Anti-Bishop, Schismatically ordained at Rome, when Cornelius was before Canonically elected, ordained, and possessed of the Chair; for there can be no catholic Communion, if one Church receive those who separate Schismatically from another.  
Nay, which is more strange than this, Mr. B. says, that a man may separate from all the particular Churches in the 
Plea for Peace, p. 40.  World, as if they were no true political Churches of Christ, and not renounce the Universal Church, as, he says, the Seekers do, who say, that the Ministry, Scriptures, and Churches, are lost in the wilderness: Now indeed, if there be no true Church in the World, a man may separate from all particular Churches, without separating from the catholic Church; for then Communion with the catholic Church does not require External, visible Communion, when there is no visible Church,( if we may suppose any such case) but is maintained by Internal Communion of Faith and Love; but if we will acknowledge these particular Churches, or any of them to be true Churches, he who separates from all particular Churches, must separate from the Universal Church: for, the Universal Church may be notionally, but is not really 
And yet Mr. Baxter goes a note higher than all this.  distinguished from all particular Churches, no more than the whole is from its parts, and may be preserved in any one particular Church, as at first it began in the catholic Church of Jerusalem: and we may as well say, that one of our Members may be separated from every part of the Body, but not from the whole Body, as that a Christian may separate from every particular Church, and not separate from,( which I suppose he means by renouncing) the Church Universal, unless he can find another Body, besides all its parts, and an Universal Church, besides all particular Churches.  
But the fundamental mistake, which runs him into so many other of this nature, is this, that reception into a particular 
The true and only way of concord, p. 135.  Church is no work of Baptism, as such, but a consequent act( in order of nature always, and often of time) the Eunuch, Acts 8. was baptized into no Church but the Universal; and therefore, though he acknowledges, that it is very fit( I perceive he dares not say necessary) that every one that can, be a member of some particular Church; yet Baptism, as such, is no such thing, nor hath such an effect.  
So that, it seems, a man may be a Christian, without being a Member of any Christian Church; or, at least, may be a member of the Universal Church, without being a Member of any particular Church; a member of the whole Body, without being united to any part of the Body.  
But if Baptism be an external and visible Sacrament of our admission into the visible Church, it necessary exacts from us visible Communion, and we cannot have a visible Communion with a Metaphysical Notion of an Eutopian Universal Church, but must communicate with some visible part of it. I would fain know, whether Baptism makes us Members of the Universal Church? if it does, then it obliges us to all the Duties and Offices of Church-members, and they are comprehended in visible Communion, when it can be had, and so makes us members of some Church wherewith we may communicate visibly: If it does not, I would willingly know, what Mr. B. means by being baptized into the Universal Church? Not that I think Baptism makes us members of any one particular Church, contradistinct from all others, but so makes us Members of the Universal Church, that we are bound to communicate with any part of the catholic Church, where we are, that is, with any particular Church which is in catholic Communion: and therefore, for our ordinary Communion, we are bound to communicate with that part of the Church where we live; and in case we travail into Foreign Countreys, where there are any truly catholic Churches, we are bound to communicate with them also, while we tarry there, and have right to it, as we are Members of the Universal Church; for this particular Church-membership is a Schismatical notion, destructive of catholic Communion.  
Upon the same mistake, he leaves it at the free choice of every particular Christian, what Church he will communicate with, and how far. Part of his definition of a single Church, is, a 
True and only way of concord, p. 230. Search for Schismat. p. 30.  Society of Christians associated by consent, and upon this account calls them Volunteers: Now so far he is in the right, that no man can be a Christian but by his own consent; but when a man has consented to be a Christian, and is admitted by Baptism, there is no new consent required to make him a Member of a Church, and to oblige him to Christian Communion, if he resolve to continue a Christian. Christian Churches are not voluntary Associations, but a Divine Institution; and when Christ has instituted but one Church, there is no choice in the case, we must either be members of that one Church, or of none at all. Men ought not indeed, as Mr. B. speaks, be forced into a Temple, not consenting, for then it is a Prison, and they are not a Church; but if they do not join in all those acts of Christian Communion, to which their Baptism and profession of Christianity obliges them, they ought to be thrown out of the Church again, as those who renounce their Christian Profession; which is a much better way to make men sensible of their obligation to Christian Communion, then as Mr. B. says, to make them 
Plea for Peace, p. 71.  take it still against their wills, and, as it were, to cram and drench them with Sacred Mysteries.  
Such another mistake it is, when he founds the Church-relation between Pastor and People, upon the Peoples voluntary choice and consent to take 
Ibid. p. 55. &c. Unreasonableness of Separat. p. 307.  such a man for their Pastor: for not to dispute now what interest the People have in the choice of their Bishops and Presbyters, which the Dean has so largely and learnedly discoursed, it is evident, that the Relation between Pastors and People is not founded on their particular Choice and Election, but on that Authority Christ hath given to his Ministers, to instruct and govern his Church; and when men consent to be Christ's Disciples, they consent to submit to that Authority Christ hath instituted in his Church. Though we should suppose, that no Bishop can regularly be ordained without the Peoples consent, which can never be proved, yet it is not the Peoples consent, but his Ordination which gives him that Authority in the Church. Baptism and the visible Profession of Christianity, without any farther consent makes such men Christ's Flock, and obliges them to obey their Spiritual Guides and Pastors; and Ordination, according to Christ's Institution, makes others Bishops and Presbyters, and invests them with Authority to instruct and govern, and this is the foundation of a Church-Relation.  
But, says Mr. B. in the Person of the mere Non-conformists, we think that all 
Search for the Schismat. p. 32.  Churches should prefer a faithful Pastor before an unfaithful and insufficient one, and a purer Church before a more corrupt: which, if it signifies any thing to justify their Schism, fairly insinuates, that Non-conformists are the most faithful Pastors, and Conventicles the purest Churches; the usual compliments they pass upon themselves, and the Church of England. But to let that pass, no doubt but Christians, when they may, must choose the faithfullest Pastors, and the purest Churches. What then? Why then they may choose Schismatical Pastors, if they judge them the most faithful, and set up Schismatical Conventicles for the sake of a purer Communion. This was the very Argument of the Novatians and Donatists, but not thought sufficient to justify their Schism, either by St. Cyprian, or St. Austin: and that for this reason, because there is but one Church, and we must not go out of the Church to seek for faithful Pastors, or a purer Communion. As far as this may be done with the preservation of catholic Unity and Communion, we may, and ought to do it; but we must separate from no Church where we can communicate without sin, though some Pastors may be less faithful or sufficient; or there may be some less material corruptions in its Worship or Discipline. Christians must preserve themselves as pure as may be in the catholic Communion, but must still be careful to hold Communion with the catholic Church, by communicating with that part of it where they dwell, and to set up distinct Churches merely for some greater degrees of purity, is a Schism from the Universal Church, as it divides and separates the Commun●on of Christians.  
I shall take notice but of one Distinction more, which Mr. Baxter makes to qualify and extenuate the Evil of Separation, and that is between local and mental Separation; It is one thing to separate locally by bodily Absence, and 
Plea for Peace, p. 38. Search for the Schis. p. 6.  another mentally by schismatical Principles. This he urges in several places, and flies to, as a safe Retreat, upon all occasions; and makes it to be no more than what is often, and indeed too often, practised in London, and elsewhere, by those who leave their Parish Churches, and communicate with other Parish Churches. Now I grant there is a Difference between local and mental Separation, but I think it will do Mr. Baxter no great Service to justify his Schism; for if this local Separation be for the sake of a distinct and separate Communion, it is schismatical; if it be not, it may be disorderly, but not Schismatical: As for Instance.  
Mr. Baxter separates locally from the Church of England, when he preys and preaches in Conventicles, and this is schismatical; not because his Conventicle is in one place, and the Parish-Church in another, for so all Parish-Churches are locally distant and separate; but because his Conventicle is a separate Communion, set up in Distinction or Opposition to the Church of England. But those who leave their own Parish Churches, and go to other Parish-Churches in the same Communion, tho they are disorderly in it, unless upon some great Occasions, yet they are not schismatical, because they do not go out of the Communion of the Church. The Difference between these two sorts of men, is like the difference between a soldiers breaking his Rank, and his forsaking his Colours, and revolting to the Enemy; they are both indeed local Separations, as Mr. Baxter says, but yet one is Wantonness or Folly, the other Treason.  
So that this distinction between local and mental Separation, is very illogical and fallacious, because the parts of it are not distinct: local Separation may be mental also, upon schismatical Principles, as all that Separation is, which divides Communion, when men set up distinct and separate Churches or Conventicles: but when men do not break the Communion of the Church, as those do not, who only go from one Parish-Church to another, it is only local and not mental, or upon schismatical Principles. And on the other hand, whatever mental, schismatical Principles men have, if they do not locally separate, that is, if they do not divide into separate Communions, they are not formal schismatics: and though these mental schismatics, who divide upon schismatical Principles, should not always separate locally, but sometimes hold occasional Communion with our Parish-Churches, yet they are nevertheless schismatics for all that.  
Fifthly, I observe farther, that tho the Bonds and Combinations of several Churches are ordered and determined by human Prudence, yet they are founded on a divine Right. The Unity of the Church is as much of divine Right, as any form of Government in it; and when the whole Church must be but one, it may be divided into greater or lesser parts, as may best serve the preservation of Unity, Peace, and Order, and the Edification of Christians.  
When Christ hath instituted a catholic Church, and catholic Unity, it seems strange to me, that a national or patriarchal Church( which is only such a Combination of several Churches into one, as may serve the ends of catholic Unity) should not be thought as much a divine Institution, as any particular Church.  
When Christ and his Apostles have instituted one Form of Government for all particular Churches, and commanded them all to live in Unity, and Peace, and Communion, and amicable Correspondence with each other, the Union and Combination of several Churches into one, according to this Institution, and to serve the ends of catholic Communion, must be thought as much a divine Institution, as the Bounds of particular Churches: for if we will not allow those Churches to be of divine Institution, which have Officers of divine Appointment, and are formed according to the general Directions of Christ and his Apostles, so as may serve the ends of Church Communion, I know not where we can find a Church of divine Institution in the World.  
As for example; Suppose a Church governed by a Parochial Bishop, with three or four Presbyters and Deacons for his assistance, and chapels of ease, according to the number of their Inhabitants, be an Episcopal Church, of Divine Institution, according to Mr. Baxter's Model, and( as he says) the primitive pattern; I would desire to know, if the number of Souls should so increase, or the wants of them be so great, that this Bishop, without enlarging the bounds of his bishopric, instead of four, should need forty Presbyters and Deacons, and as many chapels of ease for his assistance, whether this would be a new species of Churches?  
The Authority of the Bishop over forty Presbyters, and over four, is the same kind of Authority, though of larger extent, and therefore the governing Right and Power of Presbyters, as Presbyters, is as much invaded where there are but four subject Presbyters, as where there are forty: Local and Presential Communion can no more be had in a Parish, which consists of such multitudes of Christians, as require four chapels of Ease, besides the Mother Church, as if there were forty; and as for that new Notion he has started, of present, or presential Communion, 
A second Defence of the No conf. against Dr. Stillingfl. p. 100.  which is not present, where all do not meet at one place at once( as he observes the tenth part of some Parishes, cannot) but as Neighbours and Citizens may have personal converse and meetings, per vices, of some at one time, and some at another. This may be had also were there forty chapels of Ease,( or in the language of our Church, Parishes, with fixed, subject Presbyters to instruct and govern them) if it be thought necessary to the constitution of a Church; and by the vigilancy of one Bishop, and many subject Presbyters, a Church of a much larger extent may be well instructed and governed, as he himself acknowledges it was at Carthage in St. Cyprian's time( a place of greatness, and 
Ibid.  great number of Christians) where the Church was grown very great, but( as he supposes, in favour of his own hypothesis) not beyond the exercise of such Personal Communion.  
So that there can be no specifical difference between Mr. B's Parochial Episcopacy and Diocesan Episcopacy, but only as to the case of present Communion( of which more hereafter) unless he only allow the name of a Bishop without the Authority and Superiority which Bishops have always challenged over Presbyters in the first and purest Ages of the Church, before worldly reasons have made a change, as he always speaks to the reproach of Christianity, even in the purest Ages of it; which he matters not much, so it will but justify his own Faction.  
The plain truth is, Mr. B. talks so uncertainly and variously in this matter, that it is very hard to understand what he would have; if you charge him with opposing Episcopacy, this he denies, for he is for a Parochial Episcopacy, a Bishop over every Parish or Congregation, where they can enjoy present Communion; For thus God hath appointed that there shall be stated Assemblies of Christians, especially on the Lord's Day, where he shall be worshipped, men instructed, and Communion exercised. That these Congregations should have known stated Pastors, to be their Teachers and Guides in Worship and holy living. That 
Search for Schismat. p. 29. 30.  their Pastors, by their Office, have the Power of the Church-Keys, to judge whom to take in by Baptism, and whom to admonish as criminal, to reject as impenitent, and to absolve and receive again as penitent, in their proper charge And thus he has only changed the name, and every Parish Minister is a Bishop, and from Presbyterians, they are transformed into Episcopal Divines.  
Well, But must this Parish Bishop 
Plea for Peace, p. 13§. 10.  have the care of one or more Congregations? But of one sure, wherein all the Members may enjoy present and local Communion, such Assemblies where God may be worshipped, men instructed, and Communion exercised. But how does this agree with the Primitive Form of Episcopacy, when it is evident, from all the Records of Church-history, even in the Apostles times, that there were more Christians in one Church, than could assemble together at one time for acts of Worship, as it was in the Church of Jerusalem and Corinth, to name no more? To avoid this, he enlarges the notion of present Communion, which, he says, does not require, that 
Answer to Dr. Still. p. 100.  all must meet at one place at once, but per vices, some at one time, and some at another: for they must all hold present and personal Communion with their Bishop, and the Congregation of which they are Members; though indeed, according to his own way, they can never communicate in acts of worship with the whole Congregation at a time; and therefore, unless they change their turns prudently, may never, in all their life have present Communion with the tenth part of their Church or Congregation; which yet is as essential to the constitution of a Parochial Episcopacy, as to communicate with their Pastor, or Parish Bishop.  
But what shall those supernumerary Christians do, who cannot meet at the Parish for ordinary and constant Communion? Here Mr. Baxter is a little uncertain what to determine: He allows them other Meetings, like our 
Plea for Peace, p. 13.  chapels of Ease in many Parishes, in dependence on the Mother Church, and under the Government of the Parish Bishop; and therefore, elsewhere, makes a Minister of a large Parish, with several Curates under him, to be a primitive Bishop with his Presbyters.  
But now the difficulty is, what Church-Officers these Curates are: whether they be subject Presbyters or not? if they be, then here is a Diocesan Bishop and his Presbyters: for the Form of Government is the same with four, as with forty subject Presbyters; If they be not,( as I know not how they should be, if there be no such Officer 
Plea for Peace, p. 15. 16.  as a subject Presbyter, of Divine or Apostolical Institution, as he seems to think) they must either be Bishops or Deacons: a Deacon is not sufficiently qualified to be a Bishop's Curate in a distinct chapel or Congregation, where all Acts of Religious Worship must be performed, as well as in the Parish Church; and it is a great encroachment upon the Episcopal Office, to make one Bishop, of equal Power and Authority, Curate to another.  
And therefore, to remove this difficulty, in another place he explains himself either otherwise, or more at large,( for I know not well which it is, and therefore will not affirm either.) His words are these. Were every Church reduced 
Search for Schismat. p. 33.  to such a number, as that all might in season have local, personal Communion, like great Parishes that have chapels; and e. g. every Church of 6000 have six Pastors conjunct, or every Corporation, or market Town( of old called Cities) with the Neighbour Villages, be one Church, and one among these Pastors to be a President Bishop, we should think it most like the ancient Government.  
Now, I would first desire to know, what he would call this Form of Church-Government, and what these conjunct Pastors are? whether a Bishop with five subject Presbyters, or five Bishops, with a President Bishop? if the first, it looks somewhat like the Ancient Government,( and is the same with our Diocesan Episcopacy) excepting the name of six conjunct Pastors; in the Ancient Language, none being called the 
Thus St. Cyprian, writing to Florentius Papianus, tells him, That a Church is a People united to their Bishop, and a Flock to their Pastor. Illi sunt Ecclesia, plebs Sacerdoti adun●ta,& Pastori suo Grex adhaerens. Ep. 69. Thus speaking of Feli issimus, a Schismatical Presbyter of his own Church, he says, that he divided part of the People from their Bishop, that is, Sheep from their Pastor, and Children from their Father; Nunc quoque cum Episcopo portionem plebis divider●, id est, à Pastore oves,& filios& à parent separate, &c. Cypr. in Caldonio& Hercul. Ep. 38.  Pastor of the Church, but the Bishop; if the latter, it is vastly different from the primitive Government, which never acknowledged but one Bishop in a Church; though we should grant him( of which possibly more hereafter) two Bishops sometimes in a City.  
Secondly, I would desire to know, whether these six conjunct Pastors over 6000 Souls, have six particular Churches, with such particular Souls under their proper care, like our Parish-Churches, with a fixed Parish Minister over them? if they have, why are they not six distinct Churches, with their Parochial Bishops, independent on each other, but by mutual consent and confederation? why must the people be bound to run from one Church to another, to enjoy, by turns, present Communion with each other? why should not every particular Bishop have the power of Censures and Excommunication, and all parts of Discipline in his own hands?  
If the Bounds and Precincts, or Parishes( call them what you please) be not divided, but lie in common, in whom does the Power and Authority reside? if equally in all, how can Mr. B. be sure that six will agree in the same thing? Does not this lay a foundation of Schism in the Church? to prevent which( as St. Jerom owns) Episcopacy was first instituted; if the President have a Negative Voice, is not this a Tyrannical Usurpation over his Fellow Bishops, who, by virtue of their Office, have the same inherent Authority with himself? if the mayor number of Votes must determine all Disputes, is it not a kind of sacrilegious desertion of his Ministry, for any Bishop to be over-ruled in matters of Discipline, as it would be to suffer himself to be silenced by his Fellow Bishops? to be a Titular Bishop without the power of Government, but when his Fellow Bishops give him leave; is not such a Bishop as much a carcase of a mortified Bishop, as those Congregations are the carcases of mortified 
Mr. Baxter's Answer to Dr. Still. p. 99.  particular Churches, who have not all Episcopal Power exercised by their particular Pastors?  
Such kind of Arguments as these Mr. B. urges against Diocesan Episcopacy, but they return with greater force upon his new Form of Church-government by conjunct Pastors: for Superiority amongst Equals is liable to more inconveniences, and more objections, than different degrees and Orders of men in the same Church: and the reason is evident, why he rather chooses to have the Church governed by conjunct Pastors and a President, than to set an Independent Bishop over every particular Congregation, because he had a mind to counterfeit the Ancient Government by Bishop and Presbyters,( since he cannot deny that that was the Ancient Form of Government) without owning any distinct Orders in the Church: that those who are not ware of the Fallacy, may believe him to be as much for Episcopal precedency, as any man, till the Church of England were pulled down, and then his new project would be found unpracticable, and they must return to their Presbyterian parity again.  
For the same reason Mr. B. sometimes 
Plea for Peace, p. 17, 18.  pretends to be mightily for such Bishops as Ignatius was, who( he says) was Bishop but of one Congregation; and such Bishops we do not oppose: Now would Mr. B. stand to this, our controversy about Diocesan Bishops were quickly at an end: for every one knows, that Ignatius challenged a Superiority of Order over Presbyters, and does, in all his Epistles, command them to be subject to their Bishops, and to attempt nothing without him: now let him allow but such Bishops as have subject Presbyters, and the Question about the Bounds and Extent of bishoprics will be more easily determined: to be sure, he will never be able to prove that Diocesan Bishops are a new Species of Church-Officers, distinct from the Ignatian Bishops: Blondel and Dallee, and others, were so sensible of this, that they used their utmost skill to prove those Epistles to be spurious, and since they have failed in that glorious attempt, Mr. B. had best try, whether he can make Ignatius his Bishops and Presbyters to be conjunct Pastors with a President Biship.  
Thus we see at last, what Mr. B's Parochial Episcopacy is, and how unlike Primitive Episcopacy, which unriddles that Mystery, why he should think Diocesan Episcopacy a new Species of Government from Parochial Episcopacy; which he every where charges upon the large extent of a Diocese, which, when it is too large, may occasion some defects in the exercise of Discipline, but cannot alter the Species of Government, while we retain the same degrees and orders of Governours in the Church; unless he thinks that a King, who has but a little Kingdom, does specifically differ from a King who governs a great many large and potent Kingdoms; whereas one may be as much a King as the other, though not so great and powerful a King: and the extent of bishoprics being determined by no Divine Law, must be determined by human Prudence, and therefore the Bounds of bishoprics seem to be a very slender pretence to justify a Schism.  
But the plain truth is, Mr. B's Parochial Episcopacy does specifically differ from Diocesan Episcopacy, because a Parochial and Diocesan Bishop and Presbyters agree in nothing but in the Name: A Diocesan( or true primitive Ignatian) Bishop, has a Superiority of Order and Power over his Presbyters, who may advice him, but must be subject to him, and attempt nothing in Church-government without him; for which reason St. Cyprian excommunicated Felicissimus and his Confederates; but Mr. B's Parochial Presbyters have equal Authority with their President Bishop, who have no privilege above them, but to propose and moderate Debates, and number Votes, like the chairman of a Committee.  
This indeed is Mr. B's quarrel at Diocesan Episcopacy, though he lays the blame upon the Extent of a Diocese, which is a Popular pretence; but let us first be agreed about the nature of Episcopacy, and not be cheated again into a Presbyterian parity by an equivocal name, and then it will be time to discourse about the Extent of bishoprics.  
And that I have not injured Mr. B. in representing his Opinion, let him speak his judgement himself in a few words.  
The number and need of the People 
Search for the Engl. Schismat. p. 31.  must determine whether a particular Church shall have one Pastor or more: So that here may be a Parochial Bishop without either Presbyters or Deacons, a thing unknown in the primitive Church; and I need not tell you what kind of Bishop this is, viz. a Presbyterian or Independent Pastor of a single Congregation.  
If one for Concord be President to the rest, and the signior Pastors be guides to the younger, we are not against it. Here is his Description of a President Bishop, who, it seems, may be, or may not be, for there is no great need of him: and when he is made, it is for Concord not for Government, to be a Guide and Tutor to the young Bishops, though it be against the Apostolical Canon, to make such Novices Bishops as need Tutors.  
Nor yet if the Magistrates or Churches, by consent, appoint some of the Graver to to be Visitors of many Churches, and to instruct and keep the younger in peace.  
Nor will we quarrel against the names of Bishops, or Arch-bishops, or their Wealth and Honour, while Faith, Worship, Discipline and Love are preserved.  
These Visitors he sometimes calls Arch-bishops, sometimes Episcopi Episcoporum, Bishops of Bishops, which St. Cyprian, in the Council of Carthage, did reject with such abhorrence, as an injurious Usurpation upon the Office and Authority of a Bishop, and therefore this certainly can be no part of primitive Church-government.  
Sometimes he makes these Arch-Bishops 
Premonition to the only way of Concord.  Successors to the Apostles in the ordinary part of their Work and Office: and so indeed Bishops were always accounted the Apostles Successors, and therefore were said to fit in the Apostles Chairs, but then they were such Bishops as had a Superiority of Order and Authority over their Presbyters and Deacons, without whose direction and allowance nothing might be done in Church-matters by the inferior Clergy; and if he will allow these Arch-bishops to have such an inherent Apostolical Authority over Parish-Bishops, we will not dispute about words, but then he must not give away the full Episcopal power to his Parish-bishops.  
But this will not do Mr. B's business, for this brings a superior Order into the Church, and destroys his darling Presbyterian Parity; and therefore he asserts, that such Arch-bishops as put down all the lower Bishops( i.e. the Parish-bishops) and govern the carcases of the mortified particular Churches, as the lowest Bishops of many score, or hundred such as themselves,( that is, who exercise a true Episcopal Authority over these Parish-bishops, and their Churches) overthrow the Species( of Churches) of God's 
Answer to Dr. Still.  making.  
And therefore the safest way is to make these Arch-bishops, and Diocesans, 
Praemon. to the way of Concord.  and patriarches, the King's Officers, to exercise under him such Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings,( and therefore no proper Episcopal Jurisdiction, which does not belong to Kings) and then they will not quarrel at the name of Bishops or Arch-bishops: but our dissenting Brethren themselves will be contented to be made such Archi-episcopal Officers of the King; and Dr. own and Mr. Baxter are to be the two first, according to a late ingenious Proposal.  
And thus the whole matter is out, and it appears Mr. B's great Art has been to confounded his Readers with the names of Parochial Bishops, President Bishops, Arch-bishops, patriarches; when all that he means by it is this, that those whom we call Presbyters, are, and should be called Bishops, and have all that Authority, which, in primitive times, Bishops challenged, as a superior Order to Presbyters, though, for Concord-sake, five or six of them may be joined together, and act as conjunct Pastors, with a chairman, who shall enjoy the name of President, and Ape the primitive Government of a Bishop with his Presbyters: and these are only proper Church-Officers, but the King, if he pleases, may delegate his Church-power to Church-men( as King H. 8. did to my Lord cromwell, his Vicar-general) and call them Diocesans, Arch-bishops, patriarches, or what he will.  
And yet, under this disguise, he thinks to conceal himself, and to play at Bo-peep with his Readers and Answerers: as to give one plain instance of this:  
The Dean charged him with asserting Congregational-Churches to be so much 
The Unreasonableness of Separat. Second Defence, p. 99.  the Institution of Christ, that any other Constitution above these, is both unlawful and insupportable; for which he alleges his own words.  
Mr. Baxter, in his Answer, cannot deny his own words, but endeavours to qualify them: And first, he says, he did not absolutely assert it, but proposed it with an If: if it holdeth, that God Instituted only Congregational or Parochial Churches, as for present Communion, then none of the rest instituted by man may deprive them of their privilege granted by Christ: I put it but with an( if it be so) because I  told them my own doubt of it. After that, I say,( to device new Species of Churches without God's Authority, and impose them on the World, yea, in his name, and call all Dissenters schismatics, is worse Usurpation than to make and impose new Ceremonies and Liturgies) which are the words whereon the Dean had very justly founded his charge: But Mr. B. thinks unjustly, because it was all qualified with an if, which expressed his doubt of it.  
But at this rate, a man may fairly insinuate all the villainous Accusations against Church and State, and bring himself as fairly off, though he do all the mischief with his If, as if he plainly asserted the thing: for when he first industriously proves, that all Churches, excepting Parochial, are of mens devising, considered as Churches; and though there may be some Arbitrary combinations of Parochial Churches, such as Classical, Diocesan, Metropolitical, Provincial, National, Patriarchal, Papal; yet they ought not to be accounted a distinct Policy, or Church-Form; for, it is perilous to give the same name to such an Assembly or Association, as to a Church of Christ's Institution, lest it seduce men to think that the word is not equivocally used; that is, to think, that these Associations are as true and proper Churches as Parochial Churches: I say, after all this, to argue from such premises with an if, does not signify any doubt of the thing, but only a Form of arguing, and drawing Consequences from it: And thus it is plainly here: for he 
Way to concord, p. 107.  first proves, that Christ has instituted Congregational Churches for present Communion, and there is no other Form of Church-government, wherein present Communion can be had, according to his notion of it, which he every where inculcates, and which is the foundation of his whole Hypothesis; and he disputes at large, that the Presidents of all ranks of Synods, Classical, Diocesan, &c. may be used as Presidents of Councils for concord, not as the 
p. 9, 10.  pars Imperans, or constitutive Head of a distinct Church species: and then comes in his if, very opportunely, which no Body would guess did signify his doubt of it, which he had so industriously proved, nor would any wise man go to draw conclusions, till he were well assured of the premises: and yet that Sentence which the Dean cited has no dependence at all on this If, it following three Sections after it.  
But we will let this pass, as a hasty saying, and take no advantages of it, especially, since, as Mr. B. says, the Dean 
Second Def. p. 99.  plainly confutes himself, and confesses, that he says, the Question is not whether the Arch-bishops should be over the particular Churches, as Successors to the Apostolical and General Overseers of the first Age, in the ordinary continued parts of their Office; nor whether patriarches, Diocesans, Lay-chancellors, as Officers of the King, exercising Magistracy, be lawful, and yet( as Mr. B. complains) he( the Dean) saith, that I suppose the contrary; and well he might, not withstanding all this: for his Arch-bishops have no true Episcopal Authority over Parish Bishops, but are only Presidents of Councils for 
Way to concord, p. 110.  concord, not pars imperans, or the constitutive Heads of a distinct Church-species; and his Diocesans are not Church-Officers, but the King's Ministers in Church-Affairs; and therefore his evasion lies only in the Equivocal use of the name of Arch-bishops and Diocesan Bishops: and he does expressly assert, in the very same place, in answer to the Dean's false Accusation, that such Bishops as the Dean means, that is, such Diocesan Bishops, as the Church of England acknowledges, does overthrow the Church-species of God's making, and is therefore unlawful. He says indeed, that Arch-bishops, which are over the lower Bishops, do not overthrow it, that is, his President Arch-bishops, who only preside for Concord in the Council of Bishops, but have no governing power and Authority: But those( Arch-bishops, by us called Diocesan Bishops) that put them all( the lower, or Parochial Bishops, otherwise called Presbyters) down, and govern the carcases of the mortified particular Churches, as the lowest Bishops of many score or hundred such as themselves; that is, who take away Episcopal power, from the Ministers of single Congregations, and exercise Episcopal Authority over them, who are as good men, and as much Bishops as themselves: these are the men, who overthrow the Church-species of Christ's Institution, that is, Parochial Churches, by setting Presbyters over them instead of Bishops. So that the Dean charged him with nothing but what he himself expressly owns, that the English Diocesan Episcopacy destroys the Church-species of Christ's Institution, and therefore is unlawful, and a worse Usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies.  
The observing this one thing, spoils all the Evasions and Fallacies, which are the great strength and support of his Cause; and it is to no purpose for him to amuse the World any longer with the name of Bishops, Arch-bishops, Metropolitans, &c. when the Dispute is no more but this, whether every Presbyter be a primitive and Apostolical Bishop, the old Pleas for Presbytery or Independency being new furbished up, and recommended with the flattering Title of Parochial Episcopacy; and Presbyterian Classes, and Provincial and National Synods, with their Prolocutors or Presidents, must pass for Arch-bishops; and thus Diocesan Episcopacy must be removed to make room for Presbyterian Episcopacy.  
This also is the occasion of that hot Dispute concerning the ancient extent of bishoprics; that a Bishop had but one single Congregation under his Cure: now, were it possible for Mr. B. to prove this,( which is so contrary to all the Records of Church-history) what Service would it do him? Why then it is plain, that every Parish Minister is a Bishop. But how does this follow? In the first Ages of Christianity, a Bishop had no more Souls under his Care and Government, than are at this day in some Parishes in London, therefore every Parish Minister is a Bishop: but is this a good Argument? Some Generals have had no more Souldiers in their whole Army, than some Colonels now have under their Command, and therefore those colonels were Generals. Whatever the extent of ancient bishoprics was, every Bishop had his Presbyters and Deacons under him; and though a Bishop should entrust a Presbyter now with the particular care of as many Souls, as some Bishops had or have in their whole Diocese, this does not make such a Presbyter a Bishop, for he must act still in the Order of a Presbyter, not of a Bishop; the Episcopal Office includes an Authority over Presbyters, and the inferior Clergy, as well as over the People: and when this is once acknowledged, we will dispute the extent of bishoprics with them, and try whether enlarging or lessening the bounds of bishoprics can make a new distinct Species of Church-government. We aclowledge the retrenchment of Dioceses, by the multiplication of Suffragan Bishops, a thing very reconcilable with the Honour of the Reformation( as a late civil reflection on the Dean, who 
Reflections on Dr. Still. p. 7.  calls himself a Conformist, is pleased to term it) but we deny, that the diminution of the Episcopal Authority, or bringing a Presbyterian parity into the Church, under the notion of Parochial Episcopacy, is so reconcilable with the Honour of the Reformation; a Notion which that wise Author has learned of Mr. B. and either out of ignorance, or inclination to Presbytery, swallows very glibly, and thinks it an admirable Vindication of Mr. B's esteem for Episcopacy, which is such a reduction of primitive Episcopacy, as it was of Regal power, to place the Sovereign Authority of Kings, Lords and Commons, in a Rump Parliament.  
There is one considerable advantage indeed, which the Dean has taken from Mr. B's concession of Arch-bishops, that 
The unreasonableness of Separat. p. 263.  is, Bishops that have oversight of many Churches with their Pastors, as lawful Successors of the Apostles in the ordinary part of their work, for the Vindication of our English Episcopacy, and argues thus; That which is only a continuance of the same kind of Churches, which were in Being in the Apostolical times, is no devising a new Species of Churches, nor hath any thing repugnant to any Institution of Christ: but that is the case, as to our Episcopacy. We intend no quarrel about names: if it be Mr. B' s pleasure to call our Bishops Arch-bishops, let him enjoy his own fancy. It already appears from St. Cyprian, and might much more be made plain from many others, if it were needful, that the Bishops of several Churches were looked on as Successors to the Apostles, in the care and Government of Churches. Now the Office of Mr. B' s Parochial Bishops was only to attend to one particular Congregation; but the Apostolical Office was above this, while the Apostles held it in their own hands; and did not make a new Species of Churches, nor overthrow the constitution of Parochial Churches. It seems then a strange thing to me, that the continuance of the same kind of Office in the Church, should be called the devising a new Species of Churches: and that our Bishops, according 
Ibid. p. 265. &c.  to the Constitution of our Church, do succeed the Apostles in the ordinary parts of their Apostolical Authority, he proves at large in some following pages.  
Now here Mr. B. is taken, and knows not how to disentangle himself, but makes some faint offers at it. And first, 
Second Defence, p. 104.  he endeavours to make some advantage from the Dean's giving him leave to call our Bishops Arch-bishops: which the Dean we see very civilly did to prevent wrangling about words; But now he has leave to call them Arch-bishops, he won't do it, but proves that they are no Arch-bishops, for Arch-bishops have Churches with their proper Bishops under them; but our Bishops say, that there are no such under them; i.e. our Bishops can't be Arch-bishops unless every Parochial Minister be a Bishop. Nor does the Dean say, this is a proper name for them: and, as to humour him, he gave him leave to call Bishops Arch-bishops, so if that will please him, he may call Presbyters Bishops too, so he will but own them subject to a superior Apostolical Authority, now residing in Diocesan Bishops or Arch-bishops.  
But he answers, secondly, I  told you before, that as the mayor General, Quartermaster General, &c. of an Army, constituteth not a distinct body from the Army, and the particular Regiments and Troops, so I am not certain, that Apostles or Evangelists, or any general Preachers, as such, did constitute any Church-Form distinct from the catholic and the particular Bishops Churches: but if they are supposed to have taken their several fixed Provinces( which I never saw proved) I will not contend whether those Provinces may be called Churches; if we agree about the thing, use the name as you see cause. This is very surprising, he dares not deny the Apostolical Authority over Bishops, and was ashamed to deny what he had so lately granted, that the ordinary parts of the Apostolical Authority might still be conveyed to some Churches Officers, to oversee and govern Pastors as well as People: and he had no mind now to dispute, whether that Authority which we ascribe to our Bishops be any other than this Apostolical Authority, and therefore now all that he has to say, is, that he is not certain, that Apostles, or Evangelists, or general Preachers, as such,( but we speak not now of general Preachers, as such, but of superior Governours) did constitute any Church-Form distinct from the catholic and the particular Bishops Churches. Wonderful! He disputes against Diocesan Episcopacy, because this is to make a new Form and Species of Churches, of man's devising; the Dean proves, that this is not making, or devising, a new Church-species or Form, but onely the exercise of that Apostolical Authority, which, he allows, may be lawfully exercised in the Church, and now he will not allow it to be any Church-Form at all: however, if it be none, we gain thus much by it, that it is not a new one, of man's devising; and therefore not unlawful, but such as they ought to submit to, and we will dispute it no farther.  
And yet it is strange, if Ecclesiastical power and authority is so essential to the nature and Being of a Church,( which Mr. B. perpetually insists on, to prove, that we watch all Parochial Churches, by denying them full power of Discipline and Government) that Churches should be formed with respect to an inferior, and not to the Supreme power of the Church; methinks the Argument holds stronger the other way, according to Mr. B's own principles; that, if no Society be a complete Church, which has not all Ecclesiastical power in itself necessary to Church-government, then no Church is a complete and perfect Church which wants Apostolical Authority, which is the highest power in the Church, and can control any inferior degree of Power; and thus his lower Parochial Bishops cannot constitute a complete Church, as not having Apostolical Authority; but a Diocesan Church, which has this Authority, is the first complete and perfect Church.  
And it is stranger still, that the Apostles should be the first Founders of Churches, and the Supreme Governours of them, and yet the Apostolical Authority not constitute any Church-Form: which is as much as to say, that the Supreme Authority in the Church is no part of its Form or Government, that Kingly power is not essential to the notion of a Kingdom.  
But that which has bewildered Mr. B. is, that he cannot find an Apostolical Church distinct from all the particular Churches founded by the Apostles; and I should greatly wonder, if he could: and therefore to unriddle this Mystery to him, and to let him see, how Apostolical Authority goes to the Constitution of a Church, I observe, that the Apostolical Authority did concur to the nature and form of those Churches which were founded by the Apostles, which were not complete Churches without it.  
Though the Apostles did not always reside in one Church, as fixed Bishops, yet they kept the Supreme power of Government in their own hands: they ordained Elders, who were subject to their command, they gave Rules of Discipline, and gave Orders and Authority for executing Church-censures, as they saw occasion; they sent Letters or Evangelists to put their Directions in practise, as is evident from the History of St. Paul, and those many Letters he wrote to the several Churches, founded and governed by him; so that the Apostles were the Supreme Governours of the Churches they founded, which is the reason why it is probable, as the Dean observes, that while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops, or very few, for they managed the Affairs of Government themselves: but as they withdrew, they did, in some Churches sooner, in some later, as their own continuance, the condition of the Churches, and the qualification 
Unreas of Separat● p. 269.  of the Persons were, commit the care and Government of Churches to such Persons whom they appointed thereto. And Mr. B's Exceptions against this are very mean; as first, that then, while they( the 
Second Def. p. 108.  Apostles) lived, there were but twelve or thirteen Bishops in the World, if any: and were there no more Churches in the World that had Governing-Pastors? Yes, they had all Governing-Pastors, as our Churches now have, besides the Bishops, but the Supreme Governing-power was in their own hand. 2. Then if it cannot be proved that the Apostles were fixed Bishops, there were none in the World in their times: that is not said, that there were none during all the Apostles times; for it is evident, St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, was a fixed Bishop from the beginning; but they were planted by degrees, as their absence, or the occasions of the Church required. Thus, when St. Paul went to Rome, Timothy and Titus, and, it is not improbable, many others, were ordained Bishops, and left behind him: And what if there were no fixed Bishops in those dayes, when this want was supplied by the infinite diligence of the Apostles, in traveling, writing, sending Messengers and Evangelists from one Church to another, and by those miraculous gifts with which the Christian Churches were enriched in those dayes.  
He seems to prove something, though I know well what, in what follows; If the Apostles were not fixed Bishops of any single Churches, they have no Successors, as such; if they were, we must have but twelve or thirteen Bishops, as their Successors in the World; and which be those Seats, and how prove they their claim? But did not Mr. B. aclowledge, that the ordinary governing power of the Apostles might lawfully be continued in the Church; to what purpose then does this serve, to prove that there must be none, or that they can be but thirteen such Apostolical Arch-bishops? Our Saviour thought twelve or thirteen Apostles sufficient to plant the Christian Church, but more Apostolical Governours may be necessary for the increase and Government of it, esgecially when those extraordinary Apostolical Gifts ceased, though the ordinary power remained: and therefore, what inconvenience there can be to say, that the Apostles appointed particular Bishops their Successors in the care of particular Churches, not as Successors to their whole Apostolical Office, I cannot imagine.  
By this time, I hope, Mr. B. can tell how the Apostolical authority may constitute a Church Form, without finding a Church distinct from the catholic, or particular Bishops Churches, or dividing the whole Church into Apostolical Provinces. But, the truth is, Mr. B. has granted more than will consist with the Defence of his Cause, in acknowledging such Arch-bishops as are the Apostles Successors in the ordinary parts of Apostolical Authority; for he never designed any more than a President Arch-bishop: but the Dean has unmercifully taken him at an advantage, and proved that an Apostolical Successor is somewhat more than a President, even such very Creatures as Diocesan Bishops, and he can neither go safely forward, nor make an honourable Retreat.  
This possibly will be thought a long digression, though it is more to the purpose than every one may be ware of: for my business was to show, that the bounds and extents of bishoprics not being determined by a Divine Law, while the Church is governed according to the ancient Form, by Church-governours of Divine or Apostolical Institution, such as Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; a small or larger Diocese, whatever other faults it may have, cannot make a new Form or Species of Church-government, as Mr. B. affirms, in contradiction of the sense of mankind, and there was no such effectual way to detect his Fallacies, as by making it appear, that his Quarrel was not so much against the extent of Dioceses, as against the primitive Apostolical Form of Episcopacy itself, though he endeavours to palliate it with an equivocal Use of the names Bishops, Arch-bishops, &c.  
Thus, to proceed, the combination of Neighbour Diocesan Churches, for the preservation of catholic Unity, and the more regular administration of Discipline, by mutual advice and Counsel, into Archiepiscopal, National, Patriarchal Churches, though it be not founded on any express Divine Law, yet is warranted by our obligations to catholic Unity: For, if there be but one catholic Church, and one catholic Communion, all Churches must live in Communion with each other, and therefore more especially Neighbour Churches, whose very Neighbourhood makes them more capable of a mutual discharge of those Christian Offices wherein Christian Communion consists, than those at a greater distance are.  
For this reason, I cannot but wonder, when I hear men demand a proof of the Divine Institution of National Churches, which seems to me, as if they should demand a proof of the divine Institution of catholic Communion: for the common reason of mankind will conclude, that if all Churches are bound to live in Communion with each other, Neighbour Churches ought to unite into as large Bodies, and into as large Bodies, and into as strict Confederacies and Combinations, as will serve and promote the ends of catholic Communion, and that this is not only lawful, but a necessary duty.  
Thus Mr. B. himself distinguishes between human terms of Communion, and 
The only way of concord, cap. 10. p. 100, &c.  human acts, which are onely the circumstantiating a known duty, such as holding Christian love and concord, and upon this account dares not wholly reject those Church-Forms, called Classical, Metropolitical, &c. though he is not willing to call them Church-Forms. Now if it will be acknowledged, that catholic Communion is a necessary duty,( which, I hope, I have sufficiently proved) then the Combination of Diocesan Churches into greater Bodies, for the preservation of catholic Communion, is only the circumstantiating a known duty, by human acts, and therefore not only lawful, but, in some sense, necessary, as being only the application of a divine Law to particular Cases.  
To the same purpose Dr. own discourses at large, concerning the Use of the directive light of nature, in forming Churches, and determining the External circumstances of Worship: and concludes in express words, the things themselves 
An Enquiry into the Original of Churches, chap. 2. p. 14, 15.  being divinely instituted, are capable of such general directions in and by the light of Nature, as may, with ordinary Christian Prudence, be on all occasions applied unto the Use and Practise of the Church. And from this principle he endeavours to prove the divine origiginal of Congregational Churches, of which more hereafter. And from hence I as fairly argue, that if catholic Communion be a divine Institution, it is capable of such directions, as may, with ordinary Christian Prudence, be applied unto the Use and Practise of the Church: and if Archiepiscopal and National Churches will serve the end of catholic Communion, such Confederacies of Churches have as much a divine Institution, as Dr. Owen's Congregational Churches; especially since Dr. O. expressly affirms, that whatever is required by the light of 
Ibid. p. 32.  Nature, in such Societies as Churches, as useful to their Order, and conducing to their end, is a divine Institution; and, if complying with the directions of the Light of Nature, can make a divine Institution in Church-Societies, much more will an express Law of catholic Communion justify the combination of particular Churches into larger Bodies or Church-Societies.  
Upon this Principle, as it is probable, the Ancient Church, instituted Meropolitan 
●●v●●●gii Codex Cano●●m, de Metropolit.  bishoprics, which some derive from the very times of the Apostles, not without some good Appearance of Reason; at least, they were so ancient, that we cannot trace the Original of them: and, I confess, it seems very harsh to me, to attribute the universal Practise of the Church, while it was in a state of Suffering and Persecution, when they renounced all the present advantages of this Life for the sake of their Religion, to no better Original than Pride, and Ambition, and Worldly reasons. But some men care not how they reproach the purest and most Apostolical Churches, and therein, Christianity itself, if they can but be revenged of the Carnal, worldlyminded Church-men of this Age, who stand in the way of their Ambition.   

CHAP. VI.  
What that Communion is, which is essential to particular, or Diocesan Churches.  
IT is time now to apply this Doctrine of one catholic Communion, to the several Forms or distinctions of Churches, and to those particular acts of Christian Communion peculiar to each of them, and I shall confine myself to these three kinds of Churches,( if they may be so called) the particular, or Diocesan Church, the National Church, and the Universal Church.  
I shall begin with a particular, or Diocesan Church; for I must own, that Parochial Congregations have not the complete essence of a Church, because they have not full power of Discipline and Government within themselves, but are parts of the Diocesan Church.  
Dr. own and Mr. Baxter both agree in this, that local, presential Communion is essential to the constitution of a particular Church-state, and they allow no other Church-form to be of divine Institution, but where all the Members of it may enjoy present Communion: there is indeed some little difference between Dr. O. and Mr. B. in stating the Notion of present Communion: Dr. own is for such a Church, wherein all the Members may enjoy Communion in all acts of Worship as well as Discipline, which is the true notion of 
Enquiry into the Orig. of Churches. ch. 4. p. 60.  of a Congregational Church, which is a Church consisting of one worshipping Assembly or Congregation: Mr. B. enlarges the notion of presential Communion; and will allow a Church to consist of several worshipping Congregations, which may by turns communicate with one another, and their Head Bishop or Pastor; if they keep within such numbers and distance, that they may be capable of a Pastoral inspection and discipline, as I observed before: but this has not always been Mr. B's judgement; for he has formerly declared, that he never dissented from those called Congregational in England, in the two great Points from which their Churches are denominated, viz. 1. That regularly they should consist but of so many as are capable of personal Communion, which they call a Congregation. 2. And that this congregation is not, jure divino, under 
Defence of the principles of Love, part 2. p. 162.  the spiritual Government of any superior Church, as Metropolitan, Patriarchal, &c. Now a Congregational, Personal Communion extends but to one Congregation, not to many, as Mr. B. extends his present Communion, being for●'d, it seems, at last, to aclowledge, that, in primitive times, a particular Church did consist of more Congregations than one; and for the same reason, forced to quit a presential, Congregational Communion: though indeed, upon a perusal of Dr. O's Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet, I find he is forced also to allow some such thing, that de facto it was so, though he is not willing to allow the fitness of it, while the thing may be palliated by a slender excuse.  
I shall begin with a consideration of Dr. O's proofs for the divine Institution of such Congregational Churches, wherein all the Members enjoy local, and presential Communion, according to that definition he gives of a Church. And the Dr. argues from three general 
Enquiry into the Orig. of Churches. p. 60.  topics, which, I confess, are of that weight and moment, that if any one of them hold good, I will yield the Cause. 1. From the appointment of Christ: which he disputes at large in chapped. 4. 2. From the state of the first Churches after the Apostles, to the end of the second Century. chap. 5. 3. From the nature of congregational Churches, which alone are suited unto the ends of Christ, in the Institution of his Church, ch. 6. The first and third, as the Dr. has managed them, seem very coincident, but where they are capable of a distinct consideration, they shall have it.  
1. Let us consider how he proves Congregational Churches to be of Christ's appointment and Institution, and he uses three Arguments to this purpose.  
1. His first Argument pretends only to prove, what Christ should have done according to his opinion of the case, not what Christ has done. For thus he argues; Christ appointed that Church-state which is meet and accommodated unto all the ends which he designed in his Institution of a Church; but such alone is that Church, Form, and Order 
Orig. of Churches. p. 61.  we have proposed; i.e. A Congregational Church, for local and presential Communion: and the special ends he assigns of Christ's instituting a Church-State, are, 1. The professed Subjection of the Souls and Consciences of Believers unto his Authority in the Observance of his Commands. 2. The joint Celebration of all Gospel Ordinances and Worship. 3. The Exercise and Preservation of Discipline; 1. For the preservation of the Doctrine of the Gospel, in it's Purity and Obedience unto the Commands of Christ in it's Integrity: 2. To preserve Love entire among his Disciples: 3. That it might be a due Representation of his own Love, Care, Tenderness, Patience, Meekness, in the acting of his Authority in the Church. 4. To be an Evidence and Pledge of the future judgement. And he adds, It is in Congregational Churches alone, that these things can be done and observed; for unto all of them are required Assemblies of the whole Church. This is the whole Strength of his Argument, to prove that Christ has instituted Congregational Churches. To which I answer,  
1. That I do not much like the way of arguing, for, 1. it seems a little too bold and peremptory, to determine what Christ must do, for, whatever his ends were in the Institution of a Church, we cannot say; but the eternal Wisdom of the Father had more ways than one to accomplish those ends: and I would not undertake to prescribe what infinite Wisdom must do, but rather consider what is done.  
2. It gives an endless Scope to every man's Fancy, to model Churches according to their own Humours, and then grow fond of their Dreams, and then think it best at least, that it should be so; and thence conclude, that God who always does what is best, hath appointed, that it shall be so. Thus the Papists conceive it the most effectual way to preserve the Unity of the Church, the Purity of Doctrine, the Exercise of Discipline, &c. that there should be one supreme infallible Head and Monarch of the Church; and thence confidently conclude, that Christ has ordained such a Head, and that the Pope of Rome is the man. This is a way of arguing, that any men may make use of, and though possibly all men may not argue with the same Appearance of Reason, to equal Judges, yet there are so many specious things to be said on all sides, in this way, that every man will be left to judge according to his own Inclinations, which is never likely to end a controversy.  
2. Our Saviour in his own Person instituted no particular Form of Churches at all, but only sent forth his Apostles to convert men to the Faith, and to form them into a Church-Society; so that we cannot pled the immediate Institution or Appointment of Christ one way or other, unless we can spell out any particular Church-form in that general Commission, which Christ gave to his Apostles, and I doubt that will not look very like a Congregational Church.  
3. Dr. O. fails in enumerating the ends for which Christ instituted his Church, for he has left out the principal end of all, which was, to unite all Believers in one Body to Christ, their Head. The great Mystery of Christianity consists in our Union to Christ, whereby we are made partakers of all the Benefits and Blessings which he hath purchased by his Sufferings and Death: now our Union to Christ is by our Incorporation into his Church, which is his Body, and Spouse, which he purchased by his own Blood, governs by his Spirit, and will finally bring to Glory: to be a visible Member of this Church, is necessary to entitle us to the external Communion and privileges of it; and our Lord commands, that all his true and sincere Disciples, should be united in external and visible Communion, which nothing will excuse them from, while it may be lawfully had; so that the Christian Church is founded upon that Covenant, which Christ purchased with his Blood, and administers by the power of his Intercession; and the Reason of instituting this Church, is to give us an Interest in the Merits and Intercession of our Saviour, which none can have any Interest in, but those who are Members of his Body, that is, of his Church; and therefore St. Paul makes the Union between Christ and his Church, to be a very great Mystery, like being made Flesh of his Flesh, and 
Eph. 5. 30. 32.  Bone of his Bone. The nature and Essence of the Church does not consist in religious Assemblies, but in it's Union to Christ, as Head of the body; all the acts of Christian Worship, and holding Assemblies for religious Worship, is a necessary Church-duty, wherein our visible Communion with Christ consists; but it is a Covenant-relation to Christ, which constitutes the Church, and therefore it is unreasonable to deduce a Church-form, merely from the Consideration of worshipping Assemblies, which are a necessary duty indeed of Church-Society, but are consequent to the Constitution of a Church, and do not include the whole nature of it: as to give some plain Instances of this, whereby every one may better understand what I mean.  
This Church which is united to Christ, by a Covenant-relation, is but one Body; for Christ has but one Body and one Spouse, as I have already proved at large, and therefore, particular Churches must be formed not only with respect to the conveniency of religious Assemblies, but to catholic Unity, which is a plain demonstration, that the nature of particular Churches cannot be confined to Independent Congregations, which are distinct, entire, complete Churches in themselves, without any relation to other Churches, but what is owing to voluntary Compacts and Confederations, which any Church may refuse, that pleases; much less can it be thought destructive to the Being of a Church, to be larger than a single Congregation, when the whole Christian Church is but one Body and Society.  
Thus if the Church be united to Christ, by a Convenant-relation, and this Union to Christ makes it a Church, then the nature of a Church does not consist in a Church-Covenant between such a particular Pastor and People, and of one Member with another. If Christ be our Head, the great Bishop and shepherd of Souls, all Church Authority must be derived from him, and the relation of People to their Pastors, must be founded on that Authority they receive from Christ: for none can give Power, but he who has it; none can be a Christian who does not submit to the Authority of Christ, and therefore this Authority is antecedent to the forming of a Church, and not a consequent act of the Church itself; for nothing can be more wild than to think, that the authority of Government resides in those who are to be governed; when the Society does not depend upon any human acts and compacts, but on a divine Covenant, and therefore requires a Divine authority to admit men into this Covenant: Thus we know Christ ordained his Apostles, committed to them the power of the Keys, and gave them authority to preach the Gospel, and to incorporate all Believers into the Church by Baptism, in order to the forming of Church-Society; and that distinction Dr. O. makes between extraordinary Officers( such as the Apostles) 
Orig. of Churches, p. 40.  whose Office and Power is antececedent to the Church, and those ordinary Officers, unto whose Office and Power the Church essentially considered is antecedent, is a more evasion, to render a successive communication of Power from Christ to Church-Officers, needless, and to invest the People with a power of choosing and ordaining their own Pastors.  
The extraordinary Officers, he says, ceased with the Apostles, and nothing is more vain than to pretend any succession 
Ibid. P. 41.  unto them, in the whole, or any part of their Office: If the Apostolical Office, in every part of it, ceased with the Apostles, how does Christ make good his promise to them, Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the 
Matth. 28. 20.  world? Which must refer, not to the Persons of the Apostles, who were to live but a little while, but to them and their Successors in their Office and Ministry, which was to continue alway, if Christ promised to be alway with them.  
But what was that Apostolical Office which is now ceased? He will not surely call extraordinary Gifts and miraculous Powers, and divine Inspiration, the Apostolical Office; for in that Age of Miracles all this was common to others besides the Apostles, and continued in the Church after their decease. Nor is an immediate Commission from Christ an extraordinary Office, but only an extraordinary way of conveying that Office and Power; and as for the extent of their Commission, giving them power towards all the world for their conversion, and over all Churches for their edification, I do not see but that every Gospel Bishop or Pastor has as extensive a Commission; for we are Ministers of the catholic Church, though the exercise of our Ministry be more peculiarly confined to a certain place, for the better edification of that Church: and we have the same Authority, though not the same Command, because not the same Qualifications, to preach the Gospel to Jews, Turks, and Heathens, whom we may still convert to Christianity, and receive into the Church, as we have opportunity to do it: Those indeed who have no other authority but what they receive from the choice of a particular Congregation, are not Ministers of the catholic Church, but those who receive their authority by a Succession from the Apostles are; for they are the Ministers of any particular Congregation. So that nothing extraordinary in the Apostles was the Apostolical Office and Power, but only an extraordinary manner of discharging this Office, suitable to their extraordinary Endowments, and necessary to the first forming of a church: but to preach the Gospel, to baptize those who believe, to consecrate the Eucharist, to govern the Church; in a word, the power of the Keys, to receive in, and to shut out of the Church, is the Apostolical Office and Power which every Bishop enjoys in as ample manner as the Apostles did; and therefore were alway in the primitive Church acknowledged for the Apostles Successors; and to say that this state is ceased, is, in effect, to say, the Church itself is failed; for, as for Dr. Owen's ordinary Officers, who derive not their Power from Christ and his Apostles: but from the Church, that is the Election of private Christians, who take them for their Pastors, they are none of Christ's Officers, nor have Legal Right to Church-authority.  
Two things he urges to prove that the Church does not fail, though the Apostolical Office is ceased; First, That the Offices themselves were of the appointment of Christ: But what Offices are those? It is evident, that Christ, after his Resurrection, gave commission to none but his Apostles to preach the Gospel, this was the onely Office he instituted himself, and if this be failed, he has instituted no other. Yes, the Apostle says, that Christ gave some 
Eph. 4. 11. 12.  Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers. But how did Christ do this, but by such extraordinary Gifts as qualified them for such ministries in the Church, for the exercise of which, they received Rules and Power from the Apostles, who had the Supreme Government of the Church? these were certainly as much extraordinary Officers as the Apostles, and therefore may, with the same reason, be presumed to cease, when extraordinary Gifts ceased, as the Apostolical Office did, if we may take his word for it.  
But, not to dispute about the Appointment of Offices, let us consider who appoints these Officers, and for that he tells us, 2. That Persons were 
Ibid. p. 42.  to be interested in these Offices, by the way and means by him prescribed:( so far we agree, for no man can have any authority conveyed to him, but in such ways as Christ appoints) which were not such as depended on his own immediate, extraordinary actings, as it was with the former sort( this we also grant, if, by extraordinary actings he means an immediate Commission, or miraculous Gifts) but such as consisted in the Churches acting according to his Law, and in obedience to his Commands. This is so generally expressed, that we must learn his meaning what this Law is, from what he declares a little after: For none can communicate this Power 
P. 57.  to others, but those who have received it themselves from Christ. Now this is the whole Church, and not any Person in it, or Prelate over it: look whatever constitutes it a Church, that gives it all the Power and privileges of a Church; for a Church is nothing but a Society of professed Believers, enjoying all Church-Power and privileges, by virtue of the Law of Christ. Unto this Church, which is his Spouse, doth the Lord Christ commit the Keys of his House, by whom they are delivered into the hands of his Stewards, so far as their Office requires that trust.  
How much easier is it to make fine Hypotheses, than it is to prove them? Dr. O. knows it will not be easily granted without a Proof, that the whole Church, and not any Person or Prelate in it,( he should have added Apostle too) has received the Power of ordaining Officers from Christ; and yet here is no other proof assigned, but only a definition of a Church of his own making, that it is such a Society, as has this Power, which was the thing to be proved. St. Paul only tells us, that 
4 Eph. 11, 12.  Christ gave Apostles and Prophets, and other Officers to the Church, to instruct and govern it, not that he gave the Church power to make such Officers. Has Christ given away the Keys to his Spouse, that is, his own Power and Authority? I am sure St. Paul represents the Church a little otherwise, not 
5 Eph. 23, 24.  as a governing, but an obedient Wife. But our Saviour gave the Keys to Peter, and to the rest of the Apostles, and it does not appear, when he took them away again, and gave them to his Spouse: I am sure the Apostles kept them all the time they lived; and if there be any credit to be given to ancient Records, delivered them to their Successors; and thus they have been handed down to our days. And we never heard, till of late, that the Church laid any Claim to the Keys, any otherwise than as in the hands of their Officers; for indeed, the Keys is the Apostolical or Episcopal Office, and to give the Keys to the Church, is to make them all Bishops, and to leave none to be governed; and yet it was never heard yet, that any could give the Keys but those who had them.  
But, suppose Christ has committed the Keys to his Church, it is worth inquiring, what this Church is, to whom the Keys are committed; if by this Church he means Pastor and People, we grant the Church has the Keys, but in their Pastors hands; if only a Company of Believers, about to form themselves into a Church-Society, I would fain know, where such a company of men are called a Church, or have Right to any church-privileges: for what he means by his essential Church, I cannot tell, since it is evident, there is no Church-Society without Church-Officers, nor any Church-power, where there is no Church. Let Church-Officers be ordinary or extraordinary,( I mean such Officers as are essential to the Constitution of a Church) it is evident, that in order of Nature, they are before the Church; for no man can be admitted into the Church, but by a legal Officer, and therefore, though of necessity those bishops and Pastors which are ordained after the Church is formed, must be in order of time, after the Being of the Church, yet the Office is before the Church, and necessary to the continuance of it; which is a plain Proof, that the Church, if by that we mean the body of Christian People, cannot give the Keys, though it may consent in the person to receive them, because Church-power is always antecedent to the Being of a Church.  
Had Dr. O. sufficiently considered these things, he would not have scoffed so profanely at the Conveyance of Church-power by successive Ordinations from the Apostles, without which, I confess I know not how we should have any Church-power, himself acknowledging, that it is to be had only in the way of Christ's Appointment, and he is able to show no other way, that Christ has appointed, or the Church practised, but only this: for whatever Interest the People had in the choice of Church-officers, it was not the Peoples consent, but the Bishops Ordination, that made them so; and I would desire him, as he valves the honour of Religion, not to endeavour to overthrow successive Ordinations by such sceptical Arguments, as will shake Christianity itself; and as he valves the Honour of our common Lord and Saviour, not to burlesque his Institutions, which is the sum of all his Arguments against Succession; at least, if he will, grant that Christ might probably foresee, that there would be bad men at one time or other in the Succession.  
The Sum is this, that the Consideration of the nature of the Church, which consists in an Union to Christ by a Covenant-relation, which unites all Christians into one Body, and is formed by Christ's Authority, undermines the very Foundations of independent Congregations; for it is hence evident, that a Church-Society may be larger than a worshipping Congregation, since all Christians are united to Christ in one Body, and the Formation of a Church does not depend upon a voluntary Church-Covenant, for local and presential Communion, nor an inherent Authority in the People, to ordain their own Pastors, with whom they will live in personal Communion.  
But fourthly, Let us, out of civility, grant Dr. O. his own way of reasoning, and try what advantage he can make of it: He tells us, that all the ends of Church-Society can be observed only in Congregational Churches, because unto all of them there are required Assemblies of the whole Church: now these ends for which the Lord Christ appointed this Church-state, he reduces to three general Heads.  
First, The professed subjection of the Souls and Consciences of Believers unto his Authority, in the observance of his Commands, which, he says, cannot be done in any Church-state imaginable, wherein the Members of the Church cannot meet together for this end, which they can onely do in such a Church as is congregational. And he gives these instances of this professed subjection to Christ: The first, our Baptismal Profession; for so he cites Matth. 28. 18, 19, 20. which refers onely to the Institution of Baptism; now I would desire Dr. own to tell me, whether Baptism be not valid, unless it be administered in the presence of the whole Church, and what then he thinks of private Baptisms, which are now so generally practised, even among those of the Congregational way? or how he can prove that Baptism was always administered in the presence of the whole Church? or, whether Baptism, administered in a Parochial Church, in as frequent an Assembly as a Congregational Church, may not be supposed as public a profession of Faith, as that which is made in a Congregational Church? His second Instance is, that professed subjection to the Gospel, which the Corinthians made by their liberal Contributions for the supply of the necessities of other Churches; for so he alleges, 2 Cor. 9. 13. Now, I suppose, this might have been done, whatever Church-state they had been in: for, I hope Dr. own will not undertake to prove, that a Diocesan Church cannot sand liberal Contributions to the supply of Foreign Churches, and thereby profess their subjection to the Gospel; and yet, if this were well sifted, it would prove no great argument for Independent Churches: for this Contribution to the Saints of other Churches, was founded upon this Principle, that they were but one Body, and one Church, and that they are Members one of another, by a Divine Institution, which is not consistent with the notion of Independent Congregations. His third instance is, of that public profession of Christ, which we are required to make before men, Jews or Heathens, who persecute the Religion and Disciples of Christ; for which he alleges Matth. 10. 33. But surely this Profession of Christ may be made by men of any Church-state; for it is not to be made before the Church, but before Persecutors, as we may see Mark 8. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. which, I suppose, is the other place intended by him, though the Printer has mistaken Matthew for Mark.  
Secondly, Another end( he assigns) of the Evangelical Church-state, is, the joint celebration of all Gospel-Ordinances and worship. Now we will grant him, that Assemblies for public Worship is a necessary Church-duty, but how does it appear, that it is essential to a Church-state, that all the Members of a Church should meet together in the same place for acts of Worship; that it has sometimes been so, when the Members of a Church have been no more than could meet together in one Congregation, we grant; but, that it always was so, and that it is essential to the notion of a Church, we deny, and do not see how he has proved it: the catholic Church is more properly a Church than any single Congregation, and yet cannot worship God all in one place; a consent in the same Worship does more effectually unite the Worshippers than the same place. The exercise of the Gifts and Graces of the Spirit of God, and the mutual edification of the Disciples, which are two reasons he assigns for this, equally extend to the whole catholic Church; and, if this cannot be done in Worshipping-Assemblies, unless the whole Church assemble together, the catholic Church can never exercise its Gifts and Graces, nor edify its Members. And his two other Reasons, if I understand the force of them, quiter overthrow his Notion: As,  
Thirdly, That he( Christ) might hereby testify his promised presence with his Disciples unto the end of the World: for it is in Church-Assemblies, in the performance of his holy worship, that he is present with his Disciples: and proves this from Matthew 28. 20. from Christ's promise to be with his Apostles in the discharge of their Apostolical Office, which is nothing to his purpose, for their Office was not confined to Christian Assemblies: and from Rev. 1. 13. where Christ is said to be in the midst of the golden Candlesticks, that is, the seven Churches of Asia, which he ought first to have proved Congregational Churches, and that he is never in the midst of them, but at the time of their Religious Assemblies, before it will prove what he intends; and yet his conclusion is as weak as his proofs, and indeed recoils upon himself: for Christ is certainly present with the catholic Church, and all the Religious Assemblies in it, even with two or three gathered together, in his name, and therefore there is no need to confine a Church-state to a single Congregation, to engage the presence of Christ with them.  
Fourthly, He adds, In these Churches thus exercised in the holy Worship of God, he gives us a resemblance and representation of the great Assembly above, who worship God continually before his Throne. But, methinks, this is better done by the Worship of the whole catholic Church, though divided into numerous worshipping Assemblies, than by one single Congregation, call it a Church, or what you please: I am sure Learned men conceive that Vision of the Throne of God, encircled by four and twenty Elders, in St. John's Revelation, to be a proper representation of the catholic Church. 
4 Revel. 3, 4, 5: Thorndyke's Right of the Church. p. 93. 94. Orig. of Churches. p. 64.   
But he proves, that Assemblies of the whole Church, at once and in one place for the Celebration of divine Worship is of the Essence of a Church, without which, it hath no real Being, because, that when God instituted such a Church-Form, as wherein all the Members of it could not ordinarily come together every Week, for this end; yet he ordained, that for the preservation of their Church-state, three times in a Year, the Males,( which was the circumcised Church) should appear together in one place, to celebrate the most solemn Ordinances of his Worship. This I confess, is very surprising, and somewhat new: but I have several things to reply.  
First, this necessary unchurches the catholic Church, which I am not willing to do, till I see a fair Answer returned to what I have already said in proof of it; and if there be a catholic Church, the same Difficulties which hindered present and personal Communion in the Jewish Church, from the Extent of the Limits of that Church to a whole Nation, are so far from being removed by the Gospel-state, that they are as much greater, as the whole World is larger than Jury.  
Secondly, Methinks it is a little odd, for the Dr. to argue from an occasional, personal Communion, three times in a year, to prove the necessity of a constant, personal Communion, when one did not infer the other at that very time, when it was made necessary by a Divine Law, but did suppose there was no need of constant personal Communion, to the Being of a Church, by appointing such general Assemblies but three times a year; and I know Dr. O. does not like that Argument from occasional to constant Communion in other cases.  
3. How does it appear, that these general Assemblies at Jerusalem three times a year, were instituted by God, for the Preservation of their Church-State, that they could not continue a Church without it? There is no such reason assigned for the Institution of these Feasts, but quiter other Reasons assigned for them; and if they continued a Church all the year besides without this personal Communion, it is strange, that in the nature of the thing, Personal Communion should be so essential to the Being of a Church, that they could not continue a Church without it three times a year.  
4. That these Feasts were not instituted for the preservation of their Church-state, is evident from this, that no Women were obliged to travail to Jerusalem at these solemn Feasts; and therefore, if personal Communion be necessary to preserve a Church-state, they must of necessity forfeit their Church-state, if ever they had it; for, I find that is some doubt, from what the Dr. adds in a Parenthesis, concerning the Males, that they were the circumcised Church; they indeed only were circumcised: but did Women belong to the Church, or not? If they did, as I believe he will hardly deny, then the whole Church did never enjoy personal Communion, or Women must forfeit their Church-state, and I hope he will not be so unkind to that Sex, who are none of the worst Friends to Congregational Churches.  
5. I add farther, that even at these solemn Feasts, the whole body of Israel could not worship God at once, and in one place, as we may easily guess, if we consider their vast numbers, how many hundred thousand fighting men there were in the days of King David, and no Temple was capacious enough for the receiving of them at once, nor did the nature of these Feasts require it; for the Passover was eaten in private Houses, though offered at the Temple; and their first Fruits and Oblations might be offered to God without the presence of the whole Congregation, &c. and they might worship at the Temple, or in their Synagogues, by Turns, and so may the largest Diocesan Church, and so they do, worship God, and hold Communion with one another, in distinct Assemblies, under the same Rule and Government.  
For, 6. The reason of their appearing at Jerusalem, besides the mystical Signification of those Feasts, was peculiar to that Dispensation, that being the place which God had choose to place his name there; and therefore it is called appearing before the Lord; and when Dr. O. can show us a place of such peculiar Sanctity and Holiness, where God dwells in so peculiar a manner, let our Church-state be what it will, I shall think all Christians bound to resort thither, as Occasion and Opportunity will permit.  
Thus I think the Dr. has failed in proving the necessity of the Assembly of the whole Church at once, and in one place, for the Celebration of the divine Worship, from the Example of the Jewish Church, and so has furnished us with the Example of a Church, divinely instituted to overthrow the necessity of local and personal Communion, to the Being of a Church; for, the Jewish Church had no such Communion, and yet was but one Church, instituted by God himself.  
3. The third end of the Institution of the Gospel Church-state, is the Exercise 
Ib. p. 64.  and Preservation of Discipline. Now Discipline is an act of Government, and I cannot conceive any imaginable Reason, why Government may not be extended to a much larger Society, than can meet together for Acts of Worship. It is evident to the very Sense and daily observation of all men, that one Prince, with his inferior Ministers, may govern a whole Nation, and that very prudently and justly; and though Ecclesiastical Discipline be of a different kind from civil Government, as much as the Keys differ from the Sword, yet I could never learn, what was so peculiar to Church-Government from Civil Government, as should confine the exercise of it to a single Congregation.  
He 1. places Discipline in the preservation of the Gospel in it's Purity, and Obedience unto the Commands of Christ in it's Integrity. Now, why may not a Bishop with a hundred fixed Presbyters, take as good Inspection, and administer Discipline as prudently to a Church consisting of a hundred Parishes, as one Pastor can to a single Congregation? Why may not every Parish-Minister, who acts under the Care and Government of his Bishop, be as diligent in instructing his People, and taking an account of their Faith and Manners, as if he were an absolute Independent Pastor of that Church? Is it not more likely to preserve the Purity of the Faith, when every Presbyter must give an account of his Faith and Doctrine to his Bishop, than when he is an Independent Pastor, and accountable to no body but his Church, that is, his People, whom he is to instruct, who are more easily imposed on, than grave and learned Prelates.  
2. The second end of it( Discipline) 
p. 66.  is to preserve Love entire among his Disciples: But now I have already shewed, that Christian Love, which is commanded by Christ, consists in Christian Communion, and cannot subsist without it, which proves the necessity of catholic Communion in the Universal Church, but is no good Argument to prove the confinement of Communion to an Independent Congregation, which makes a distinct Church by itself.  
As for what he objects, that, for the most part, those who pretend highly to the preservation of Love, by their coming to the same Church, who dwell in the same Parish, have not so much as the carcase, nay, not the shadow of it. I wish it be not too often true among the Congregational Brethren, as it is among those Christians, who worship at the same Parish Church; though we see indeed, that Faction is oftener apt to endear men than common Christianity: but the Question is not, what is, but what ought to be, and what may be, and which is the most effectual way to promote it? Does not this Command of loving one another extend to all Christians, and therefore as well to Neighbour-Christians, as to those of confederate Churches? Ought we not to express this Love by a due and constant discharge of mutual Exhortation, Admonition, Prayer, and watchful care one of another. If Congregational Churches confine this Care to their own Members, they stint and extinguish this Spirit of Christian Charity, which is no longer Christian Charity than it extends to all Christians; if they do not, then this Christian Love may, at least, be as well discharged in larger Churches, as in worshipping-Assemblies, or single Congregations.  
3. The third end of it is, that it might be a due representation of his own Love, Care, &c. in the acting of his Authority in the Church. But this refers to the manner of exercising Discipline, which requires onely wise and prudent, and truly Christian Governours, and then may be exercised with great kindness, tenderness, &c. under any Church-state, which will admit of the exercise of Discipline at all: though, methinks, the larger and more diffusive this Care is, the more it resembles the Care of our Lord, which extends to the whole Church, and is not confined to the narrow limits of a single Congregation.  
4. It is in part appointed to be an evidence and pledge of the future judgement, wherein the whole Church shall be judged before the Throne of Christ Jesus. Now this, I think, overthrows his whole cause, as evidently proving, that true Christian Discipline, according to its original Institution, cannot be exercised in Independent Congregations; for the power of the Keys consists in receiving in, and shutting out of the Church; and when it is exercised according to the Laws of our Saviour, he has promised to confirm and ratify such Censures, Whatsoever ye bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. And, upon this account, Tertullian calls Excommunication futuri Judicii praejudicium, not a representation of the future judgement, as 
p. 67.  Dr. O. translates it, but a prejudging the Cause, a previous Sentence, which will be ratified and confirmed at the last judgement.  
But now Congregational Churches may cast an offending Member out of their particular Independent Communion, but cannot cast him out of the Communion of the whole Church; for, as they are unaccountable in casting out their Members, so other Congregational Churches are as unaccountable in taking them in again, and thus it is only shifting Churches, leaving the Communion of one Church, and being admitted into another, which is nothing like the future judgement, which finally shuts men out of the Kingdom of Heaven,( which answers to the Christian Church on Earth) and leaves no back door to enter in at: but when there is but one catholic Communion, and no possibility for him, who is deservedly cast out of the Church, to be received in again, till, by his Repentance and Reformation, he has given satisfaction to the Church which cast him out; this makes Excommunication truly formidable, and a kind of anticipation of the future judgement; for he, who is cast out of the Church, is cast out of the visible state of Salvation, and, if the Church do not mistake in her judgement, is eternally lost without reconciliation to God and his Church.  
Having thus particularly examined all his Reasons to prove the necessity of Congregational Churches, from the ends for which Christ instituted Churches, I need not trouble my Readers with considering what follows, which can have no force, if his former Reasons are not good, and what seems most popular, will fall under consideration in a fitter place.  
His second Argument to prove particular Congregations to be the only Churches of Christ's Institution, is taken from the notation of the word, which 
Ib. p. 70.  determines the sense of it to a particural Congregation; for so {αβγδ} signifies, according to the use of the Septuagint, to congregate in a Church-Assembly; and {αβγδ} signifies nothing but a Congregation, which assemblies for the Ends and Uses of it, and acts its Duties and Powers; and so it signifies in the New Testament.  
And now, methinks, he plays at a low game, when he founds Congregational Churches on a Grammatical Criticism; and yet it is very ominous, that he stumbles at the Threshold; for he acknowledges that this word Ecclesia, which signifies a Congregation, and, as he says, can signify nothing else, may be sometimes applied unto that, where Essence is not denoted thereby, as the Church catholic invisible, which is only a mystical Society or Congregation: the meaning of which is, that though the Greek word, which we translate a Church, signifies a Congregation, and can signify nothing else, yet, when it is applied to denote the catholic Church, it does not signify a Congregation, because the essence of the catholic Church does not consist in a single Assembly or Congregation, as one would easily guess. But now, may not any man that will, argue the other way? that since this word signifies such a Church as is not a single Congregation, therefore we cannot argue from the notation of the word, that whatever Society, for the exercise of Religion, is called Ecclesia, must be a Congregational Church; for when any word is differently applied, we must learn in what sense it is used at any time, from some other marks than the bare notation of the word.  
And so it must be in this case, especially considering that the catholic Church is most properly called Ecclesia, for this is that Church, which is the Body and the Spouse of Christ, and all particular Churches are called Churches only as they are Members of the catholic Church, and therefore must be called Churches in the same Sense, that the catholic Church is a Church, and therefore not considered, as particular Congregations.  
But he thinks to avoid this, by saying, that the catholic Church is invisible, but let it be visible or invisible, is it truly and properly {αβγδ},( whether you translate that Church or Congregation) or not? if it be not, then there is no such thing in a proper Sense, as the catholic Church, and so we have lost one Article of our Creed; if the catholic Church be properly a Church, of which the particular Churches are Members, then particular Churches are of the same nature with the catholic Church, and so not necessary confined to a single Congregation; but he says, The catholic Church is a mystical Society or Congregation, and are not particular Churches mystical Societies too? Are not they mystically united to Christ, as much as the catholic Church? This then can make no difference. If there be any Church of divine Institution, which is not confined to a single Congregation, then a Church, as a Church is not Congregational.  
But he says, Wherever it is used to denote an outward visible Society, it doth connote their Assemblies together in one. Usually I will grant it does so, for Church-Assemblies are essential to a Church-State; but that is not the Question, whether a Church must have religious Assemblies? but whether a Church must be no larger than one Assembly? And this the Notation of the Word will not prove, for that may be called a Church or Congregation for religious Worship, which is united under one Rule and Discipline, though all the Members of it do not worship God at once, in one place: for thus the catholic Church is a worshipping Congregation, tho it meets by parts; for that the catholic Church is a more invisible, notional Society, I think I have sufficiently confuted already, and shall consider more hereafter.  
And yet if I had a mind to play the critic too, I very much question, whether the Church in the New Testament be called {αβγδ} with reference to Church-Assemblies for Worship, for {αβγδ} signifies to call out, and so refers to their being called out of the World, into a separate State and Covenant-relation to God, upon which Account, Christians are called the {αβγδ}, the called of God, and {αβγδ}, the called Saints, as God stiles his Israel, his called, that is, his chosen people, and is often equivalent to {αβγδ} the Elect people of God, whom he hath chosen to himself; and so Ecclesia signifies no more, but such a Society of men, who are called out of the World into a Covenant-relation to God, in and through our Lord Jesus Christ.  
But he says, our Saviour has instituted such an Evangelical Church-State, 
Orig. of Churches, p 71.  ( i.e. A Congregational Church) in Math. 18. 17. If he shall neglect to hear them, tell the Church. He disputes at large about the meaning of these words, and will not allow it sufficient to weaken their Authority, that they are expounded by all sorts of men, to favour their own Church-State, whether Papal, Diocesan, Presbyterian, Independent; and I grant, this is no good Argument against any Text of Scripture, if there be any certain Marks, whereby to determine them to any particular Sense; but if the words be doubtful and ambiguous, and capable of different Senses, their Authority alone is not a sufficient Foundation to rely on, in any case: and I cannot find, that Dr. O. has alleged any thing to confine the Sense to a Congregational Church. I shall briefly examine what he has said, and leave others to judge.  
1. He says this cannot be meant of 
p. 35.  the catholic Church: this we will not dispute with him.  
2. We have proved, that the first and most proper Signification of the Word, is of a single Congregation; this indeed he has attempted to prove, but has not done it. I grant this may signify so much, that such Censures should be passed on Offenders by the Apostles or Bishops, and their Presbyteries in a public Assembly of Christians; and therefore it is said to be done, {αβγδ} of many, all People having Liberty to c●●se, who pleased; but I do not see that this proves the whole Church to be but one such single Assembly or Congregation.  
3. The Persons intended, offending and offended, must belong to the same Society to whom the Address is to be made. Now, if Dr. O. will allow, that tell the Church, is a standing Law of our Saviour, for the Removal, or Censure of all Offences and Scandals, which may happen among Christians, and will stand to what he has now said, that the Parties offending and offended, must belong to the same Society; it is a most infallible Demonstration, that our Saviour by the Church cannot mean a single Congregation, for there may as many Offences and Scandals happen between Christians of distinct Congregations, as between those who belong to the same Congregational Church; nay, it is most likely to be so, if what he elsewhere affirms, be true, that a Congregational Church is the only effectual means to preserve a fervent Love and Charity among Christians; for then it is more likely, that the Members of several Congregations should quarrel, than the Members of the same: but now according to Dr. O's Acceptation of the Church, for a single Congregation, our Saviour has made no Provision to remove the Scandals which shall arise between two Persons, who are Members of distinct Congregational Churches, for they cannot judge the Members of another Congregation, as according to the Independent Principles they certainly cannot: and yet methinks it is as necessary to remove the Scandals which happen between persons of different Congregations, as between those of the same, and was certainly intended by Christ in that Rule, tell it to the Church; if he intended by this, to preserve Peace and Unity among Christians; which plainly shows, that by the Church here he means a larger Society than a single Congregation, which is not sufficient to remove Scandals and Offences among neighbour Christians, who may dwell very near together, and yet be of distinct Churches.  
4. It is a Church of an easy Address. It is a Church that may be spoken with when it is met together, and so may any other Church as well as a Congregational Church.  
5. It is said, {αβγδ}, tell the Church, not a Church, but the Church, namely, whereunto thou and thy Brother do belong: But I suppose he has enough of this Argument already.  
6. One end of this direction is, that the offending and offended Parties may continue together in the communion of the same Church in love, without dissimulation: and therefore this Church must be larger than the bounds of a particular Congregation; unless he can secure us, that no Christians shall ever quarrel but those of the same Congregation.  
7. The meaning is not, tell the Diocesan Bishop,— for he himself is not a Church: but he is the chief governor of the Church, and therefore the Address may be first made to him. Nor is it,  
8. The Chancellor's Court that our Saviour intended, be it what it will, it is a scandal to all Churches to have that name applied to it. Nor did any one ever say, that the Chancellor's Court was the Church, but an assistant Court to the Bishop, and no more scandalous in its Institution, than a Bench of Lay-Elders to decide Church-Controversies; which yet, I think, is somewhat better than an Ecclesiastical Democracy: at least, it is more like the Government of the Jewish Synagogues, which determined lesser Causes in subordination to their Sanhedrim; not by the Votes of the People, but by the Sentence of the Court, to which possibly our Saviour might have some respect, if we will allow him to speak the Language of those times, so as to be understood by those who heard him.  
Nor, lastly, is it a Presbytery, or the Association of the Elders of many particular Congregations, that is intended; for the power claimed in such associated Presbyteries, is, with respect to what is already in or before particular Congregations, which they have not wisdom or Authority, as is supposed, finally to order and determine. But this supposeth, that the Address in the first place be made unto a particular Congregation, which is therefore firstly, and properly here intended. If by Presbyteries he means primitive Presbyteries of the Apostles and Elders, or the Bishop and Presbyters, who determined matters of difference in the presence of the People, it is most likely this was meant by our Saviour in that Command, Tell it to the Church. For the Apostolical Practise is the best Exposition of our Saviour's words, and that this cannot be confined to particular Congregations, I have already proved from his own Arguments; and yet why there may not be a more general Tribunal, which has a more extensive Jurisdiction, without which many Controversies among Christians cannot be determined, I see not how he proves: for if we must preserve catholic Communion among Christians of distinct, particular Communions, a larger Power and Jurisdiction is necessary to this end, than the inherent Authority of a particular Church, not onely Congregational but Diocesan.  
This is all I need take notice of with reference to this Argument; Several other things he says, which seem to me very weak and unconcluding, and unworthy of Dr. O. had he a good Cause to manage, but I pass them over, as not necessary to our present controversy.  
His third Argument to prove Congregational Churches instituted by 
Orig. of Churches, p. 78.  Christ, is, from the nature of the Churches instituted by the Apostles, and their ends, as it is expressed in the Scripture: this he says but very little of, and therefore I shall join it with his second general Argument for Congregational Churches, from the state of the first 
p. 82.  Churches after the Apostles to the end of the second Century.  
And all the difficulty I can see in answering that Historical Account which he hath given us of the primitive Churches, is, in stating the Question right, which he has with great Art laboured to perplex and confounded.  
The thing to be proved is, that Congregational Churches are the onely Churches of Divine Institution. To prove this, he must show, that, de facto, such Churches alone were instituted by the Apostles, and owned in the purest Ages of the Church: And to do this plainly, he ought distinctly to consider the several parts of a Congregational Constitution, as it is opposed to the Diocesan Constitution of the Church of England; for otherwise he can neither serve his own Cause, nor injure ours, and so there are three things to be distinctly considered: 1. The Offices and Officers of the Church. 2. The bounds and extent of the Church, whether it were confined to one or more Congregations, or worshipping Assemblies. 3. The Power of the People in the Government of the Church. He has given some hints and insinuations of all these, as he goes along, but has never duly stated either. And therefore I shall reduce his Historical Account of this matter to these three Heads, consider how he states these Questions, and how pertinent his Testimonies are to prove what he intends, which, I think, every one will aclowledge to be a fair way of proceeding.  
1. As for the first, the Offices and Officers of the Church; the great Question is, Whether Christ and his Apostles instituted a parity or imparity of Officers in the Church? whether Bishops and Presbyters be equal? or whether Bishops have a superior Power, Office, Order, or Degree, call it what you please, over Presbyters. Now this Question he dares not meddle with, during the Apostles times, for, it is evident, the Apostles, while they lived, had a Superiority of Power over other Church-Officers, and governed the Churches which they had planted, either in Person, when they were present with them, or by Letters, or by sending their Apostles and Evangelists among them, to give directions, and to set things in order which were amiss. So that we can have no Example of a parity of Church-Officers all the Scripture-times, during the Apostolical Age: for, though the Elders, Presbyters, Bishops,( for they are indifferently called by these names in Scripture) who were ordained by the Apostles for the Government of the Churches planted by them, did, under the Apostles, govern with equal Power, yet the Apostles themselves were their Bishops, and had a superior Power over them, and did censure, depose, and excommunicate them, when occasion required it. Thus St. John 
Ep. 3. 9, 10.  threatens to reward Diotrephes, for rejecting those Brethren whom he sent, and neither entertaining them himself, nor suffering others to do it. And thus St. Paul excommunicated Hymenaeus and 
1 Tim. 1. 20.  Philetus, and interposed by his own Authority for the Excommunication of 
{αβγδ} 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. 4. 21.  the incestuous Person in the Church of Corinth, and threatens the Factious, Schismatical Persons in that Church with Excommunication, unless they reformed their manners, and therefore it was wisely and cautiously done of the Dr. not to urge the Apostolical Churches, as a pattern of Congregational parity.  
He manages himself with the same Prudence and caution, as to this matter, in the following History of the Primitive Church; he discovers something in the beginning about the Superiority of one Church over another, and by what means Metropolitical Churches were introduced, which is nothing to this present Business, and has in part been accounted for already, and may be more hereafter; but as for the parity of Officers in the same Church, though he glances at it, as often as he can find any occasion, yet his great business is to fence, and ward off the blow, at which I must aclowledge him to be a great Artist.  
Thus he acknowledges, that in Churches which had many Elders, or Presbyters 
p. ●6.  in them, as apparently most of them had, they might, and some of them did, choose out some one endowed with especial Gifts, that might in some sort preside amongst them, and who had quickly the name of Bishop appropriated unto him;— But this changed not the state of the Church, though it had no Divine Warrant to authorize it. But the Question is not about the Presidency in a college of Presbyters, of equal Authority, which Antiquity is a great stranger to, nor about a distinction of names, which was not presently done, even when the Offices were distinct, but that superior Power and Authority which Bishops challenged over their Presbyters, such as the Apostles had in their time, and such as Ignatius gives the Bishop in his time; and though this be no foundation possibly for Metropolitical Churches, yet it is for Diocesan, which is nothing else but a Church under the Government of his Bishop, and subject Presbyters; and such an inequality as this I think would alter the Church-state, had it first been instituted in a parity of Officers; which is like changing a Commonwealth, governed by a Senate with its President, into a Monarchy.  
At other times, he endeavours to persuade us, that this Dispute about the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters does not concern the present controversy of Congregational Churches: Thus, when he alleged several Testimonies out of Ignatius his Epistles, he adds, We are no way at present concerned in the controversy about that distinction of Bishops and Presbyters, which the Writer of those Epistles does assert.— Although therefore there might 
p. 104, 105.  have been, and probably was, some alterations in the Order of the Churches, from what was of primitive Institution, yet was there as yet no such change in their state, as to make way for those greater alterations which not long after ensued.  
Those greater Alterations he means, is the multiplication and increase of a Church into more Congregations than one under the care of the same Bishop, with his Presbyters, who were increased also, as the increase of the Church required. Now, let any man judge which of these two is the greatest Alteration, the increase of the Church, by the increase of Believers, into more Congregations, or the alteration of the whole Government of the Church, from a parity to an imparity of Officers? How is it possible that such an Innovation as this should be introduced in the whole Christian Church, in an Age of Apostolical men, who conversed with the Apostles themselves,( as Ignatius did) in a time of Persecutions and Sufferings, when the Episcopal Honour and Office had no temporal Advantages to recommend it, but advanced men only to make them a fairer mark, and more exposed to popular Fury, without the least notice taken of it in any ancient Records. We may, with greater reason say, this is very improbable, than Dr. O. has to say it is probable; for it is easy to form fine Schemes of things in a fruitful Fancy, and imagine how that may be done, which first should be proved was done; but this is not to writ a History, but a Romance.  
But it is stranger still to say, that this does not concern the controversy of Congregational Churches; for, have they any thing like a Primitive Bishop and Presbyters? if they have not, then their Churches are not agreeable to the primitive Form, and so have not so good a Plea for a Divine Institution, as Diocesan Churches have, which are still governed by Bishops and subject Presbyters. Yet, says Dr. O. We do maintain, 
Ib. p. 358.  that there ought to be in every particular Congregation, unto the completeness of it, many Elders, or Overseers; that the number of them ought to be increased, as the increase of the Church makes it necessary for their edification: But, if he would have dealt fairly, he ought to have  told us what these Elders are, whether Lay or Clergy, whether they are such as must receive double Honour, that is, be maintained 
Sportulantes fratres, St. Cypr.  at the charge of the Church, or some good wealthy Shop-keepers, who can maintain their Bishop; whether they are such as in the absence of the Bishop can teach and instruct, administer Sacraments and Church-Censures; where shall we find Independent Elders in all primitive Antiquity? Is not this, as the Dr. complains, to wrest Ecclesiastical words to other significations than at 
p. 88.  first they were applied unto, to impose the present state of things among them, on those who went before, who knew nothing of them.  
Nay, this controversy about the Form of Government in the primitive Church, seems to me the most effectual way to determine the Question about Congregational Churches: for Christ having not determined the Bounds of Churches( as it does not yet appear he has from any thing Dr. O. has urged) if he have withall instituted such a Form of Government, as is fitted to take care of a much larger Church than a single Congregation, it is a very probable Argument, that he did not intend to confine a Church-state to a particular Congregation.  
Had the Apostles ordained onely a Presbyter or two in every particular Church they pleased, and when the number of Converts increased, ordained more Presbyters, with their distinct Cures, as it is now in our Parish Churches, it had been a good Argument they intended no larger a Church than a single Congregation, which one or two Presbyters might take care of: but when we find great numbers of such Elders or Presbyters ordained in the Apostolical Churches, who took care of the Church in common, under the Inspection and Government of the Apostles, this argues, that their Work either at present was, or in time was designed it should be, much greater than the care of a single Congregation: And I wonder what Dr. O. means, when he argues the other way, to prove those Churches planted by the Apostles, to be congregational; because, The Apostles appointed in them ordinary Elders 
Orig. of Churches. p. 79.  and Deacons, that might administer all Ordinances to the whole Church; and take Care of all the Poor— Now the Care, Inspection, and Labour of ordinary Officers can extend itself no farther than to a particular Congregation. He should have said to a particular Church; for ordinary Officers, if there be enough of them, may administer all Ordinances to a great many particular Societies united in the Communion of one Church. And what he adds, No man can administer all Ordinances to a Dioeesan Church, is very true; but a great many may, and that I always took to be the Reason of multiplying Elders in the Church, to do that by many which one could not do; and I would fain see Dr. O. demonstrate, that a Church which has many ordinary Officers must be no larger than any one of them can administer all Ordinances to; and indeed, when we consider, that as Christians multiplied within the Precincts of any Bishop's diocese, they were not formed into distinct Churches, under the Care of other Bishops; but the Presbyters were increased to take Care of them, and by degrees, the bishopric divided into distinct Titles or Parishes, with some fixed Presbyters over them, or at least, that some such distinct Titles there were, even as ancient as St. Cyprian's time; and all this done without the least suspicion of any Innovation in the Church-state, or the least notice taken of any Change; the Fathers of the third and fourth Centuries firmly believing, that they retained the same Episcopacy, which was in the Church from the Beginning. I say, the consideration of these things would incline any indifferent man to believe, that though it is possible, that in some places, in the beginning of Christianity, or in the times of Persecution, a Bishop might have no more Christians under his Care, than might meet in a single Congregation; yet this was never thought essential to a Church-state, the Episcopal form of Government being sitted to take care of many Congregations; at least, it is not sufficient to prove Congregational Churches, to show that some Episcopal Churches were no bigger than single Congregations; unless he can prove, that this was standing received Rule among them, that none should be bigger.  
Let us now consider what he hints out of Antiquity, to overthrow this Distinction between Bishop and Presbyters; and he first appeals to Clemens his Epistle from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, which we aclowledge to be a venerable piece of Antiquity, but should much wonder, if there should be found any Passages in that Epistle, against Episcopacy, when, if we will believe the best Records we have of Church History, he himself was at that time Bishop of Rome: but let us consider what he says.  
If there were at this time a Bishop in the Church of Corinth, he was either deposed 
Orig. of Churches. p. 90.  by the People, or he was not; if he were deposed, he was only one of the Presbyters, for they were only Presbyters that were deposed; if he were not, why is he not once called on to discharge his Duty in curing of that Schism, or blamed for his Neglect. How many pretty Hypotheses now might a man of ordinary Fancy invent, to answer this Objection? Suppose we should say, that he was neither deposed, nor yet able to cure this Schism by his Authority, and therefore, neither deserved Blame, nor wanted Exhortations to do his Duty. Suppose there were some Independent Brethren, who are for gathering Churches out of Churches, and for exercising their Sovereign Power over their Pastors, when they do not please them, who had set themselves up against their Bishop and Presbyters; to what purpose had it been to have minded the Bishop in this case of his duty, to cure the Schism? I believe the Bishop of London is as mindful of his Duty, and as hearty desirous to cure our Schisms, as the Bishop of Corinth could be; and Thanks be to God, is not yet deposed: but it would be a ludicrous thing, and a plain Affront, for any other Church or Bishop to blame him for not using his Authority, to reduce Dr. O. and Mr. B. and their Brethren to the Unity of the Church.  
But, suppose their Bishop was deposed, then says the Dr. He was but a Presbyter, for none but Presbyters were deposed; that is, all those who were deposed, are called by the common name of Presbyters, and therefore, having the same Name, there could be no distinction of their Office, which is the same Argument with what he afterwards uses, that Clemens mentions only two Ranks of Officers, Bishops and Deacons— other distinction and difference of ordinary Officers, besides that of Bishops or 
Ib. p. 96.  Elders, and Deacons, the Church of Rome in these days knew not.  
But I wonder learned men will insist upon such Arguments as these, from the promiscuous use of Names, especially in the Writings of Apostolical men; for this very Argument would prove, that there was no difference between the Apostles and other Ministers of the Church in the Apostles days; for the Apostles themselves were called Bishops, Presbyters, Elders, Deacons, and many besides the Twelve, were called Apostles; and so it was in after-ages, though the Offices were distinct, the Names were common: and there is sufficient Evidence, that so it was at this time, from this very Epistle.  
For one Argument he insists on to convince them of the Evil of their Schism, is from that Order our Lord in great Wisdom has appointed in the Celebration of holy Offices, 
Clem. Ep. p. 92. Ed. Ox●n.  that he has appointed what should be done and who should do it, that all things being religiously observed which he has appointed, may be performed in such a manner as is acceptable to him; and therefore, those who make their Oblations in their appointed Seasons and Order, are acceptable and blessed, for those do not offend, who obey the Laws, and Rules, and Institutions of our Master. And then immediately adds, For there are proper Offices allotted to the High Priest, a proper place assigned to the Priests, and proper ministries incumbent on the Levites; and the Lay-man has his Lay-duties also, let every one of us Brethren in our proper Rank and Order, praise God( or celebrate the Eucharistical Feast to which it is most probable he refers in {αβγδ}) with a good Conscience, not transgressing the settled bounds of our Ministry, as it becomes comely Order. Here he makes three distinct Orders in the Christian Church of which he speaks, answerable to the High Priest, the Priests and Levites in the Jewish Church, which was a familiar way among the Ancients, of characterizing and distinguishing the Orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. And this is a plain Argument, that when two pages after, he mentions only Bishops and Deacons; he either uses Bishop as a common name for Bishops and Presbyters, or by Deacons understands Presbyters, as that name is sometimes applied by the Ancients; and I am not without fair probabilities of either of these.  
As for the first, that the name Bishop may be used as a common name for Bishops and Presbyters, when they are spoken of both together( for it is questioned by Learned men, whether more Presbyters 
B. tailor Episcop. asserted. Sect. 23.  were ever called Bishops, when they were spoken of by themselves, though Bishops are often called Presbyters) is probable, because this name was promiscuously used in the apostles times, when Clemens lived, and conversed with them, which makes it likely enough that he might still retain the Apostolical Use of the words. But, besides this, we may easily observe in Ancient Writers, who acknowledged the Episcopal pre-eminence, that they used to denote the Governours of the Church by some common name; for though the Authority of Bishops and Presbyters is very different, yet they both have Authority in the Church, and therefore when they were not concerned to distinguish the different degrees of Power, they included them 
Orig. of Churches, p. 109.  both in one common name, as joint Governours of the Church. Thus, as Dr. O. observes, Justin Martyr, giving an Account of the state of Christian Churches in his time, mentions only two sorts of Officers, {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, Presidents and Deacons, and yet there is one, whom he peculiarly calls {αβγδ} in the Church, to whom the care and Government, and the Administration of Religious Offices peculiarly belongs, by whom, no doubt, he means the Bishop of the Church: for what the Dr. adds, That of the first sort, in the Duty of one of their Assemblies, he mentions but one, {αβγδ}, the President, the Ruler, the Bishop, to whom belonged the administration of all the holy Mysteries; intimating, that in a particular Church there was but one President, or Bishop, or Ruler, with his Deacons, is so contrary to the practise of all Antiquity, that it does not become a modest man to obtrude such a Fallacy upon his Readers; for whether he will allow Bishops to be Superior to Presbyters or not, yet he can show no one instance in primitive Antiquity of any Church that had but one Presbyter, or President, and Deacons in it. And when he acknowledged just before, that besides their general meeting on the Lord's Day, they had frequent lesser Occasional Assemblies of the Brethren, where they met by parts: It is strange that he will allow them but one President, be he Bishop or Presbyter, for all those Occasional Assemblies. Much at the same rate he argues, that he is not called a President with respect to any pre-eminency over other Ministers and Elders, like a Diocesan Bishop, because he terms him only {αβγδ}, He that presided over the Brethren of that Church; as if, when a Bishop is so often styled Episcopus, or Pastor gregis, or Ecclesiae, the Bishop or Pastor of the Church, or Flock, even by those Writers, who own the Bishops Superiority over Presbyters, because he is called only the Bishop of the People or Church, therefore he is not superior to Presbyters. Presbyters are not properly the Bishop's Flock, but subordinate Governours with him of the Church; and therefore his Office is most properly described by his Relation to Christian People, as their Pastor or Shepherd.  
To give but one Instance more, Tertullian, I think, will be acknowledged by all to own the Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters, who appeals to the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles themselves, 
Ib. p. 112.  whose Chairs they possessed, and yet, in that passage which Dr. O. cites, as favouring this equality, when he gives a general account of the Government of the Church, he includes both Bishop and Presbyters in one common name, and calls them all Seniores, which is the latin word for {αβγδ}, Elders or Seniors: president probati quique Seniores, the approved Elders preside or rule in Church-Assemblies. Now, it is sufficiently known, that in Tertullian's time the Bishop was the chief signior or Elder, who governed both the subject Elders, and the Body of Christians, and therefore we cannot think that he would leave out the Bishop, in giving an account of Church-Officers, without whom nothing was done in the Church; and if he does mention him, he must be included in the common name of 
Viduarum& Virginum domos, nisi visitandi gratia juniores adire non est opus,& hoc cum Senioribus, hoc est, cum Episcopo, vel si opus est cum Presbyteris. Ambr. off. 1. 20.  Seniors or Elders. And this St. Ambrose does expressly, who directs, that the young men should not frequent the Houses of Widows or Virgins, unless it be to visit them, and let them do this in the company of the Seniors, that is, of the Bishop, or, if need be, of the Presbyters. So that the Dr's Argument, from such general and common names which were used to include both the Bishop and his Presbyters, as being both, though not equally, concerned in the Government of the Church, is of no force to disprove their distinction in Order and Power.  
Thus, that other Opinion, that when St. Clemens names onely Bishops and Deacons, by Deacons he means Presbyters, is not without some fair probability; for Deacon was not appropriated to that inferior Office, which is now commonly signified by it, but was attributed to the Apostles themselves. Thus Paul and Apollos are said to be the Deacons, {αβγδ}, by whom the Corinthians believed; but the best Argument for this is, that St. Clemens applies an ancient prophesy to this purpose, which uses to be applied by some ancient Writers to Bishops and Presbyters. {αβγδ}. I will give thy Bishops in righteousness, and thy Deacons in Faith.  
Now what he renders {αβγδ}, Bishops, the Septuagint translate by {αβγδ}, Princes, and what he renders {αβγδ}, Deacons, they red {αβγδ}, Bishops: And St. Hierom upon the place, by these Princes understands Bishops, admiring the Majesty of God in appointing such Ministers, whom himself calls Princes; and so it seems Clement did too, by his altering the Text, and reading Bishops instead of Princes: and thus the Bishop is more than once called Princeps Sacerdotum, the Prince, or Chief of the Priests or Elders, in ancient Writers; and then by Bishops, which he reads Deacons, he can understand nothing less than Presbyters, for, though Presbyters may be sometimes called Bishops, it is certain Deacons never are: and when he gives an account of Church-Officers, no wonder he mentions onely Bishops and Presbyters, as the onely Persons who had any Rule and Authority in the Church. I do not urge this from any force I conceive to be in the application of this prophesy, but only as a probable way of understanding what he means by his Bishops and Deacons. These are the most material hints he has given to overthrow the distinction between Bishops and Presbyters; and yet till he has done that, he will in vain seek for an Independent Congregational Church in Antiquity.  
2. But that which he promises himself more Success in, is to prove, that there were no other but Congregational Churches, till the end of the second Century. But before we examine his Proofs of this, it will be necessary to inquire what he means by a Congregational Church.  
The Dean had proved that there were greater numbers of Christians in some particular Churches, such as Jerusalem, Corinth, Ephesus, &c. than could meet together in one Congregation, which is a Demonstration, that a single Church, even in the Apostles times was larger than a single Congregation, Dr. O. himself granting, that there was but one Church in one City, whatever number of Christians may be supposed to be in it: And I do not remember, that ever I saw a man more uncertain what Answer to return to any Objection, than the Dr. is in this case.  
For 1. he is not willing to own, that the Multitude of Christians in any City was greater than could meet in one single Congregation. He is willing to allow, that they had occasional Meetings, which did not consist of the whole Church, especially in times of Persecution— as may be proved 
Orig. of Churches. p. 358.  by a Multiplication of Instances; but yet they continued one Church, and joined together in all Acts of Church Communion properly so called: So that tho they might meet occasionally in parts, yet they used to worship God in one Body and one place, and so supposes, that there never were greater numbers in a Church than could meet together for acts of Worship. How then does he answer that Objection, from the Multiplication of Believers in several Churches, beyond the bounds of a single Congregation? This he says indeed is all the Difficulty, and if he cannot untie the 
p. 359.  Knot, he will cut it. For,  
1. He answers, Whatever Difficulty may seem to be in this matter, yet in point of Fact so it was, there was no Church before the end of the second Century, of any other Species, Nature, or Kind, but a particular Congregational Church only. This is great, to despise 
p. 360.  those Difficulties which he cannot answer. But how does this matter of Fact appear? Suppose he could prove, that de facto in some Churches there were no more Christians than met in one Congregation which no body that I know of, denies: yet here are two other matters of Fact as plain as that, viz. 1. That there was but one Church in a City, how large or populous soever it were. 2. That in some Cities there were more Christians than could possibly meet in one Congregation, for Acts of Worship; and therefore such Churches could not be Congregational Churches, which require local and present Communion of all their Members. We do not oppose some Guesses and Conjectures to a certain matter of ●ast, which is an absurd and foolish way of reasoning, to prove that that cannot be, which we see is; but we oppose matter of ●act to matter of Fact, which certainly destroys the Credit of all, if they cannot be reconciled; and therefore, suppose all the Examples he has given of Congregational Churches, out of Antiquity, were well proved, how does he reconcile these matters? That he can never do in his way, who places the essential form of a Church in a single Congregation; but we can, who assert, that a particular Church must consist but of one single Congregation, when there are no more Christians than can meet in one place, but that it may consist of more when there are; and therefore, if he would prove against us, that the essential Form of a Church consists in a single Congregation, he must either prove, that there never were in any City for two hundred years, more Christians than could meet in a single Congregation, or that where there were, there were more Churches than one in that City, or, that tho there were more Christians than could meet in one Congregation, yet there was but one Congregational Church: but I fear he will complain again of this, as a very unpleasing Labour.  
2. And he does indeed make a very bold attempt, to prove that there was but one Congregational Church in such Cities as had more Christians by half or two thirds than could meet in the same Congregation: For( says he) not all, not, it may be, half, not sometimes a third part, of them who made profession of the truth, and attended unto the preaching of the word; nay, many of whom underwent Martyrdom, were admitted as complete Members of the Church, unto all the parts of its Communion. Hence there were many, who, upon a general account, were esteemed Christians, and that justly, where the Churches were but small. Thus it is, if we will take Dr. O's word for it, for he does not offer at the least proof. But I answer,  
1. If Dr. O. can show me any one Instance, in all Antiquity, of any baptized Christian who was not in complete Communion with the Church, unless he were under Age, or under Censures, I think he will do more towards the proof of an Independent Congregational Church, than has been done yet.  
2. It is very true, in the second Century, every one who professed to believe in Christ, was not immediately baptized, but kept in a probation state, and instructed in the Principles of Religion, and trained up in the practise of it, as long as the Church saw fit, and such Persons were called Catechumens; yet these very men constantly attended the public Congregation, as the Penitents themselves did, though they were not admitted to the Prayers of the Faithful, nor the Supper of our Lord; and therefore these men took up as much room in the Church as if they had been in complete Communion, and so this evasion can do him no Service. And yet,  
3. This part of Discipline was not practised in the Apostles times; then men were baptized as soon as they professed their Faith in Christ, and joined in all Christian Ordinances with the Church, and yet in these dayes we find numbers too big for single Congregations.  
4. Supposing all these Christians had been admitted to complete Communion,( as I suppose he will not deny but they might be, unless he thinks they must take their turns, and stay till there were room to receive them) could they be contained in one Congregation or not? if they could, then he might have spared all this, for it is nothing to the purpose; if they could not, must there be another Congregational Church erected in the same City to receive them? or must they continue Christians at large without constant Personal Communion with any Church?  
But, thirdly, he says, It does not appear, that in the next Age after the Apostles the Churches were any where so increased in number, as to bear the least proportion with the Inhabitants of the Cities and Towns wherein they were. Supposing this, yet if they were larger than to be contained in one worshipping Assembly, it is a sufficient Demonstration against Congregational Churches. As for what he alleges of the Churches of Smyrna, Vienna, and lions, that by their own Epistles they appear to be so small, as that it was scarcely known who or what they were. I can find no such intimation in those Epistles: there were a great many Christians that were not known to be so, such as Vettius Pagatus, a Person of great Nobility and Authority, who was not known to be a Christian till he appeared as an Advocate for the Christians, and being asked the Question, openly owned himself to be a Christian; but this was not owing to the smallness of their numbers, but to their great care in concealing themselves in times of persecution.  
4. As for the Church of Jerusalem, what he says about their coming together in one 
p. 362.  place, I shall consider presently; but as for that Geographical dispute about Pella, though we should allow it to be but a small place,( which yet it does not appear to be, as the Dean has proved) yet we may easily suppose it big enough to receive more than a Congregational Church, and then it is sufficient for our purpose; for he cannot prove from the smallness of Pella, that there was but one Congregational Church at Jerusalem, if it were big enough but to hold three or four Congregational Churches.  
I doubt not but Dr. O. was at least jealous, that he could not by such little Arts defend himself from those clear proofs, that there were more Christians in some Cities, than could meet together in one Congregation for constant Communion, where there was but one Church, which therefore could not be a Congregational Church: and therefore he has another ingenious fetch, which, I confess, I was very much pleased with when I red it. For,  
2. Though he will not own the numbers of Christians to be so great in any City for two hundred years, as to make more Congregations than one necessary for Religious Worship, which had been too plainly to give up his Cause; yet, he says, that 
Orig. of Churches. p. 355.  the multiplication( of a Church) into more Congregations without distinct Officers, will not at all help the Cause he( the Dean) pleadeth for: for his Diocesan Church consisteth of many distinct Churches, with their distinct Officers, Order, and Power, as he afterwards describes our Parishes to do under one Bishop. And therefore, a little after, he acquaints the Dean what he must prove if he would advantage his Cause, viz. that there were in 
p. 359.  one City, or any where else, many, not occasional Assemblies of Christians or Church-members, but many stated, fixed Churches, with Officers of their own, peculiarly related unto them, entrusted with Church-power and Privileges, at least, as much as he afterwards pleads to be in our Parochial Churches, all under the Government of one single Bishop, making up a new Church-state, beyond that of particular Congregations, by their relation unto him, as their common Pastor. If he can keep the Dean to this, I believe truly he has him safe for two hundred years at least after Christ. But I have two things to say to this.  
1. That if the D. can prove, that there were more than one ordinary and stated Assemblies for Worship in one Church or City, he sufficiently overthrows Dr. O's Proofs of a Congregational Church, which by the Institution of our Saviour, and to serve the necessary ends for which Churches were instituted( as he endeavours to prove) must consist only of one worshipping Assembly. Occasional Assemblies I grant do not so plainly overthrow Congregational Churches, because, still all the Members of such a Church, which upon occasion, may sometimes meet a-part for some Acts of Worship; yet, on set and solemn times, as suppose on the Lord's day, may, and must, and do meet together in one place; but if the Church consists of so many Members, that not half, nor a third or fourth part, can worship in the same place, this can be no longer a Congregational Church, because they are not one, but many Congregations; and we must not call these occasional Assemblies,( under which Word, Dr. O. conceals his Fallacy) but fixed and stated Congregations, these supernumerary Congregations upon the Multiplication of Christians, being as perpetually necessary( if he will allow all Christians bound to worship God in public Assemblies) as the first Mother Church or Congregation was. And therefore, when the Dean proves, that all the Christians in a City, and the adjacent parts, made but one Church, and that there were greater numbers of Christians in such a particular City, than could meet in one Congregation: I cannot see what more is necessary, to prove that such a Church was not a Congregational Church; and Dr. O. has no way that I know of, to answer this, but either to prove that there were not more Christians in Jerusalem, Corinth, Ephesus, or any other City, than could meet in one Congregation, which he has not done yet and can never do, or else as the D. desired, That when the Christians in one City 
Unreasombleness of Separation. p. 235.  multiplied into more Congregations, they did make new and distinct Churches. I confess this was an unreasonable desire, but he must not blame the D. but the Unreasonableness of his own Hypothesis for it. And thus the D. might well say, that distinct Churches in the same City was the thing to be proved, and it is a boyish piece of Sophistry, for the Dr. to answer, This was not 
Orig of Churches. p. 357.  the thing to be proved, nor did I propose it to Confirmation, nor assert it, but have proved the contrary unto the end of the second Century. This only I assert, that every Church in one City was only one Church, and nothing is offered by the Dr. to the contrary, yea he affirms the same. Dr. Still. indeed affirms, that there was but one Church in a City, but he does not surely affirm the same with Dr. O. who says, that there was but one Congregational Church in a City, when he ought to have proved, there had been more, if he would prove Congregational Churches. Learned men never betake themselves to such little Arts, but when their cause is desperate, and they resolved not to yield: thus we see the multiplication of Churches into more Congregations without erecting them into new distinct Churches, was sufficient to confute the Dr's Pleas for Congregational Churches.  
2. This is sufficient also, to prove what we now call a Diocesan Church, which is nothing else, but several Congregations under the Care, Government, and Inspection of a Bishop and his Presbyters; no says Dr. O. this is not enough, unless he proves, that there were many fixed Churches with Officers of their own, peculiarly related unto them— all under the Government of one single Bishop, &c. For such our Parish Churches now are.  
In answer to this, let us put the case, that a Diocese were not divided into distinct Titles and Parishes, with their fixed Presbyters,( as we cannot find they were for two hundred years) but throughout the Diocese, at convenient distances, there were chapels or Oratories erected for the exercise of religious Worship; and the Bishop should appoint his Presbyters, sometimes to attend one Cure, and sometimes another, with Authority to preach the Word, to administer Sacraments, and to perform all those religious Offices, which now the fixed Presbyters, or the settled Ministers of every Parish-Church are bound to perform: this is nothing more than a Church consisting of several Congregations, under the Government of one Bishop and his Presbyters; and can it be thought in the judgement of any impartial man to alter the frame and constitution of this Church. If these Presbyters, who supply the whole Diocese by turns, should have their particular Cures allotted, where they should constantly fix, and for which they should be accountable to their Bishop; the only difference is, that this last way is more for the edification of the Church, without altering the nature or species of Government.  
It is time now to consider how he proves both from the practise of the Apostles, and the next Ages, that Christian Churches were only single Congregations: and, 
Ib. p. 78.  as to the Apostles times, he has three Arguments, which will soon be answered.  
1. Because there were many Churches planted by the Apostles in very small Provinces, but they were Provinces in which were several Cities; for we no where find, that the Apostles planted Churches in small Countrey-Villages; but their ordaining Elders, {αβγδ}, and {αβγδ}, in every City, and every Church, is the same thing, as the Doctor well observed, from comparing Acts 14. 22. with Titus 1. 5. And as for what he often urges out of the Epistle of Clemens, {αβγδ}, that the Apostles preaching the Word through Regions and Cities, they appointed the first fruits, or first converts of them for Bishops and Deacons, of them that should afterwards believe: though the signification of {αβγδ} is ambiguous, and there is no need of expounding it of Countrey-Villages; so as a learned man has observed, 
Ibid. p. 114.  there is no necessity of saying that the Apostles appointed Bishops and Deacons in Villages as well as Cities, but that they preached in Cities and Villages; for they did not ordain Bishops wherever they preached. But what Clemens says, that the Apostles appointed Bishops for those who should afterwards believe, is a plain Answer to what he objects, That in four years after the ascension of Christ, there were Churches planted in all Judea, Galilee and Samaria, which was so short a time after the preaching of the Gospel, as that it is impossible they should be conceived to be any other but single Congregations. For though we might reasonably account for this, from that miraculous power which accompanied the preaching of the Gospel in those days, yet we see this Apostolical Writer tells us, that the Apostle laid the foundations of Churches in many places, not with respect only to those who were converted to the Faith, but to those also which should be; and a Church from a small beginning may soon increase beyond the proportion of a single Congregation.  
2. His second Argument for Congregational Churches is, The Apostles appointing in them ordinary Elders and Deacons: But this I have already considered.  
3. He argues, That it is said of most of these Churches expressly, that they respectively met together in one place, or had their Assemblies of the whole Church for the discharge of the duties required of them, which is peculiar unto Congregational Churches. He names several places, which I shall briefly consider.  
Acts 15. 12, 22. The place concerns 
Acts 15. 12, 22.  the first general Council at Jerusalem: In the 12th. Verse we red, that the whole multitude was silent, while Barnabas and Saul declared what signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles by them. Now {αβγδ} does certainly signify, that there were a great many Disciples present, and that all that were present, were silent, and it can signify no more: for though I grant the {αβγδ} or multitude does sometimes signify the whole body of Christian people, as {αβγδ} or Congregation does the whole catholic Church, yet when it is applied to a particular Meeting, it can signify no more than are present at that time; and it does not necessary signify the whole number of Christians, unless it be expressly said, that they were all present, which is not probable at such a Meeting as this was, which was not for Religious Worship, but for advice and counsel; especially when we are so expressly  told, that the first Christians met in distinct Assemblies, for the exercise of Christian Worship, breaking bread from house to house. And 
Acts 2. 46.  though this Meeting is called the whole Church, v. 22. yet it is most probable that {αβγδ} there only signifies an Assembly of Christians, not properly a Christian Church; and my Reason for it is this, That the whole Church in this place is distinguished from the Apostles and Elders, and so only signifies the believing people; and they are not a formal organized Church, when considered by themselves, but only a multitude or Assembly; and therefore the whole Church, v. 22. can have no other signification than all the multitude, v. 12. that is, the whole Assembly of private Christians then present. My other Reason is, Because the whole multitude of Believers were not then present; for this being a Council of the Apostles, to be sure Women were not admitted to these Debates, who yet are Members of the Church, and probably not inferior in number to the men. So that though we should grant, that all the men who then were Members of the Christian Church were met together into one place, it does not hence follow, that the whole Church at Jerusalem was no larger than a single Congregation, because Wives and Virgins, and Widows, Children and Servants, who cannot be presumed present at this Council, must at least be allowed to make another Congregation, as large and numerous as this Council was.  
The second Text he directs us to, is an excellent confirmation of what I have now said: Acts 21. 22. The multitude 
Acts 21. 22  must needs come together; where by multitude he must understand the whole body of Christians, if he will apply it to his purpose. Let us then consider what this multitude is, and that we may learn from v. 20. Thou seest Brother how many 
V. 20.  thousand of the Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the Law; {αβγδ}, which evidently denotes a number too great to meet in one Assembly, to take an account of St. Paul's Preaching and Conversation: And yet this is the multitude which must come together; which is a plain demonstration, that multitude here does not signify the whole body of Christian Jews, but such a number of them as will and can meet together, which are therefore called the multitude, because a great number will meet, and that no particular persons are appointed, but every one comes that will and can; and this is all I allege it for: For I do not suppose, that these vast numbers of Jews which were now at Jerusalem, were all constant Inhabitants there, and fixed Members of the Church of Jerusalem, but a great many of them resorted to Jerusalem at the time of the Feast, from all parts of Judea, and other neighbouring Provinces: But all that I prove from hence is, that a multitude does not always signify the whole body of Christian people, but as many of them as can meet together in one place, though it bear no proportion to the whole.  
Only I shall hence observe two things by the way, which do not very well comply with the Nature and Constitution of Congregational Churches, for which the Doctor now pleads. 1. That these Christian Jews, who were not fixed Members of the Church of Jerusalem, yet when they were occasionally there, thought themselves as much concerned in all public Affairs of the Church, and any public Meetings and Councils, which concerned Church-matters, as the fixed Members of the Church of Jerusalem did; for it was for the satisfaction of those many thousand believing Jews, who were then occasionally at Jerus●●●m, as well as for the fixed Members of that Church, that the multitude must come together. 2. That St. Paul is here bound to give an account of his Doctrine and Conversation, in other Churches of his own planting in remote Countreys, before the Church of Jerusalem; both which suppose, that all Christians then, whatever particular Churches they belonged to, looked upon themselves but as one body; and that they had equal Rights and privileges in any Church where they came, as in their own; and that the greatest Apostles themselves were not independent, but liable to give an account to other Churches of their actions.  
I would desire Dr. O. at his leisure to consider, how like this looks to the Constitution and Government of an independent Congregation. He refers also to acts 5. 11. which mentions the Church 
Acts 5. 11.  indeed, but does not so much as intimate, that the whole Church was then present; for fear might come upon the whole Church, from that dreadful example of Apostolical power and discipline executed on Ananias and Saphira, though not the tenth part of them were present when it was done. Thus Acts 6. 2. it is said, The twelve called the multitude of the Disciples unto them; but we have already seen, that the multitude does not necessary signify the whole body of Christians; here was a general Summons, but no more could come, than could be contained in one place, and yet it may well be called the multitude, when no man is excepted: and this not concerning acts of Worship, such a multitude as could come was sufficient, when the decision of the matter did not depend upon number of Votes, but the Apostolical Authority. The same Answer may serve to the instance of the Church at Antioch, Acts 14. 27. if we will suppose that there were at that time more Disciples at Antioch, than could meet together in one place.  
The last instance he gives, is in the practise of the Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 14. 25, 26. though I suppose it should be the three and twentieth Verse where the great difficulty lies. If therefore the 
1 Cor. 14. 23, 25.  whole Church be come together into one place— when ye come together, every one of you hath a Psalm, &c. So that it seems the whole Church of Corinth did meet together for Acts of Worship in one place, and therefore was but one single Congregation. Now there are two things wherein this whole difficulty consists. 1. Whether the whole Church meeting together, does necessary imply their meeting in one Religious Assembly; for may not the whole Church of England be truly and properly said to meet together for Christian Worship, though they meet in several distinct, but not separate Congregations; for the whole Church meeting together for Worship signifies no more, but that all the Members of the Church do Worship God in the public Assemblies of the Church, though not all in the same Assembly and Congregation. And that the Apostle means no more here, is very plain from that direction he gives about Women, v. 34. Let your Women keep silence in the 
v. 34.  Churches, {αβγδ}, which in the Thirty fifth Verse is immediately called 
v. 35.  {αβγδ} in the Church, which plainly signifies, that there was but one Church in Corinth, thereby signifying the whole Company of Christians united in one Communion, but yet there were several Religious Assemblies, which he calls Churches, wherein this one Church met, and the meeting of the Church in these public Assemblies for Worship, is called the meeting together of the whole Church.  
2. But still there appears to be some difficulty in that Phrase {αβγδ}, which our Translators render in one place, if therefore the whole Church be come together into one place; for certainly this can signify but one single Congregation, or one Assembly. I answer, it is very plain, that {αβγδ} does not always signify one place; as is evident from Acts 4. 26, 27. The Kings of the Earth stood up, and the Rulers were gathered together {αβγδ} against the Lord and against his Christ, for of a truth against thy Holy Child Jesus, both Herod and Pontius Pilate and the People of Israel were gathered together: where being gathered together {αβγδ} must signify no more than an agreement and Conspiracy in one design, not a meeting in one place; For Herod and Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and the People of Israel, never met together in one place for any such Consultation. Another use of the word we find in Acts 2. 44. and all that believed were together( {αβγδ}) and had all things common: which being together, does not refer to their Religious Assemblies, but their common abode, and unless Dr. O. can prove, that there were no more Christians in Jerusalem, after three thousand were Converted by one Sermon, than could live in one House, as well as meet in one Assembly, {αβγδ} must not signify one place, and then certainly the Christian Church may be said to meet {αβγδ} in several Congregations, as dwell {αβγδ} in several Houses. The Christians being together in the same place can signify no more, than that they choose to live together in the same houses without intermixing with unbelieving Jews, not that they all lived together in the same house, which could not be; and thus to meet together in one place, signifies that they all met together to Worship in Christian Assemblies, not that they all met in the same Assembly. The very same Objection he urges from 1 Cor. 11. 17, 20. and the same Answer will serve.  
Let us now consider, what evidence he produces for Congregational Churches, from the Ages next after the Apostles, till the end of the Second Century: and upon the most strict Examination I can make, of his Historical account of the State of the First Churches, I can find but two things he designs to prove by it, and if he can prove them, it is as much to the purpose, as if they were two hundred. 1. That the whole number of Christian People belonging to one particular Church, met together in one and the same place, at the same time for Religious Worship. 2. That the exercise of Discipline, and the management of all Church affairs, Writing Letters or sending Messengers to other Churches, &c. was all transacted in the presence and with the consent of the whole Church, which therefore could be no longer than could meet together in one place.  
As for the first of these, he proves it by those Phrases and Expressions used in Ancient Writers, concerning Church-Assemblies for Worship, that they used to come together in one place, {αβγδ} and put up one Prayer in common, and this was done by those who dwelled in the City and neighbouring Fields or Villages. To this purpose he refers to several passages in Ignatius his Epistles, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, all very credible 
Orig. of Church p. 102, 104 108, 111.  witnesses of Primitive practise.  
Now as for what concerns these Phrases of meeting together in one place, and the like I have already showed, that they do not necessary signify the meeting of the whole Church at the same time, in one and the same place; but only that Christian Worship was performed in Christian Assemblies whither all Christians used to resort, in one if their numbers would permit, or in more if they could not, so it were in the Communion of their Bishop and Fellow Christians. But for a farther confirmation of this we consider.  
1. That Ignatius wrote these Epistles in his way to Rome, after he was Condemned to be carried thither, and thrown to Wild Beasts, which was about the year 107. and it is not credible, that the Churches he directed his Letters to, planted in populous Cities, and founded by the Apostles themselves so long before, should have no greater numbers of Christians than could all meet in one Congregation, especially considering, that not only all the Christians in a City, but in neighbouring Villages, were reckoned but one Church; as to instance in Ephesus, a City of great famed, where St. Paul Preached three years with admirable success, where those who studied 
Acts 19.  curious Arts burnt their Magical Books, and they counted the price of them, and found it Fifty thousand pieces of Silver, so mightily grew the word of God and prevailed: one can hardly imagine, that in St. Paul's time there should be but one Congregation of Christians, when he had Preached so long among them, that all they which dwelled in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks, and with such success, as was admired even in those dayes of Wonders and Miracles. Here St. Paul placed Timothy himself Bishop, who was his Companion and Fellow-labourer, and of the same mind and Spirit with him; and we may reasonably presume, that the Church of God would increase and flourish under his instructions and Government. And therefore Ignatius in his Letter to them, takes notice of their {αβγδ} numerous multitude, and it is strange that this should be no more than one Congregation, after so many years increase and growth. And yet this is the Church, which he exhorts to meet together in one place.  
2. Justin Martyr wrote his Second Apology to the Roman Emperour in the behalf of the Christians, as Dr. O. says, about the year 150. though others assign another time for it: and 
Ibid. 105.  being at Rome, and Writing to the Roman Emperours, we need not doubt but he had that Church in his Eye, in that description he gives of the Order of Christian Worship, and yet there he says {αβγδ}. That on the day called Sunday, all that dwell in the Cities or Countries about, meet together in one place. So that if we will understand this strictly, we must own that in Rome itself, and all the Country about for a hundred and fifty years or more after Christ, there was but one Congregation of Christians, and it is wonderful, that so inconsiderable a number of people, who took so much care to conceal themselves from their Persecuting Enemies, should be thought worth taking notice of in so great and flourishing a City, which was the Seat of the Empire, and yet about this time began the Fifth Persecution, in which Justin Martyr himself suffered.  
Indeed there is no such thing can be concluded from Justin's words, or we must prove more from it, than the Doctor would have, or than any body can grant; for Justin Martyr does not here speak of a particular Church, but of several Churches, planted in several Cities and neighbour-Villages,( for there was but one Church in a City, as the Doctor owns) and yet says, that they all meet on Sunday, {αβγδ}, in the same place; and if he will interpret this so strictly, as to signify one Congregation or Religious Assembly, then not only one, but many Churches, met together in one Congregation; and if he will not allow this, then {αβγδ} does not signify one particular Congregation; and the same Church may be as properly said to meet, {αβγδ}, in distinct Congregations, as many Churches may, which confirms what before I observed of the use of this phrase; and Dr. O. seems to have been so sensible of this, that in citing that passage out of Justin Martyr, he durst not translate {αβγδ}, but puts it only into these general words, On the day called 
Ib. p. 108.  Sunday, there is a Meeting of all that dwell in the Towns and Fields, or Villages about; which I hope may be true, though they do not meet all in one place.  
3. To confirm this, let us next consider the Testimonies produced by him out of Tertullian's Apology: And here I find nothing but gross Prevarication; and it was impossible to find any thing in Tertullian to his purpose without it. Tertullian takes no notice of any particular 
Ib. p. 111.  Church, but gives an account of the general practise of Christian Churches, which he calls the Christiana factio, not the Christian Religion, as Dr. O. translates it, but the Christian Faction, which he so calls in contempt of that opprobrious Name given them by the Heathens; or because Factio was anciently a good Name, to signify an innocent and virtuous Combination, Sect, or Party of men, united for the doing some good and virtuous Actions; and therefore immediately before he tells them, that they ought at least to reckon the Christian Sect inter licitas Factiones, among the lawful Factions.  
Of this Christian Faction or Church, 
tart. Apol. cap. 39.  he tells them, Corpus sumus de conscientia Religionis,& disciplinae unitate,& spei foedere: We are a Body or Society, united in a consent of Religion, unity of discipline, and Covenant of hope. This Tertullian writes of the whole Christian Church, or of all Christians, this being a general Apology for Christians, not for any particular Christian Church; but Dr. O. would have him mean this of a particular Congregational Church, and therefore by the Covenant of hope understands the independent Church-Covenant; and at this rate of dealing with ancient Writers, he may find an independent Church in what Author he pleases.  
Tertullian proceeds, Coimus ad Deuns quasi manu facta precationibus ambiamus; We meet together, that with united force we may obtain the favour of God by our prayers. Here Dr. O. makes use of old Editions of Tertullian, and adds, what is wanting in the latest and best Editions, In Coetum& Congregationem, We meet in an Assembly or Congregation; but the matter is not much, which way soever it be; I am sure he translates or expounds it very false, when from these words he observes, that tart. lays the foundation of Churches 
Orig. of Churches, p. 112.  in their Meetings, in the same Assembly or Congregation: For tart. does not here speak of any particular, but of the universal Church; and though he makes it essential to the Church, that there should be public Assemblies for Religious Worship, yet he no where intimates, that a particular Church must be no larger than a single Congregation. If fondness for a particular Opinion can thus blind mens eyes, there is no hope of ever convincing them; or if it can tempt them with their eyes open, to impose upon others,( who see with their eyes) in so plain a case, there is less hope still.  
I confess it was a bold adventure for any man to call in Tertullian as a Witness for Congregational Churches, to prove, suppose that in the Church of Rome, or the Church of Carthage, where he was Presbyter, there were no more Christians in his time than would make up one single Congregation, when immediately before Tertullian tells them, Though we( Christians) have risen but of late among you, yet we 
Hesterni sumus& vestra omnia implevimus, urbes insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula, c●stra ipsa, tribus, decurias, palatium, senatum, forum sola vobis relinquimus Templa.— Si enim tanta vis homi●um in aliquem orbis remot● sinum abrupissemus à vobis, suffudi●●et utique dominationem vestram tot qualiumcunque amissio civium, imò etiam& ipsa destitutione punisset. Proculdubio expavissetis ad solitudinem vestram, ad silentium rerum,& stuporem quendam quasi m●rtui orbis. tart. Apol. cap. 27.  have filled all places with our numbers, your Cities, Castles, Forts, Councils, Camps, Tribes, Palaces, Senate, Judicatures; we leave only your Temples to yourselves; he tells them, They need not doubt of their courage and fitness for War, who so tamely suffer themselves to be killed; Did not their Religion teach them rather to be killed than to kill?( this is no Independent Principle) nay, that they could revenge themselves on them without rebelling; for if such a vast number of men should but break company with them, and depart into some remote corner of the World, the loss of so many Citizens would confounded their Empire, and punish them only by forsaking them; they would certainly be afraid of their own solitude, and that great silence of all things, and the lethargic stupor, as it were, of a dead World. And would any body now but Dr. O. believe, that in Tertullian's time, there were no more Christians in Rome and Carthage, and other large and populous Cities, than might all meet in one single Congregation, though supposed as large and numerous as in reason may be imagined; five or six thousand people( which is a good large Congregation) could not easily be missed in Rome, where you may reasonably suppose some hundred thousands; and yet the case was the same in the Countreys as well as Cities, in proportion to the number of Inhabitants.  
Tertullian wrote this Apology not above 40 years or thereabout after Justin Martyr wrote his; which is a plain Argument, that the number of Christians was not so small at Rome in Justin's time, as to make but one Congregation; for it is not credible to think, that when the Gospel had made no greater progress at Rome in a hundred and fifty years, than to make up a Church of one Congregation in forty years more, in the heat of persecutions, when miracles were either ceased, or were very rare, it should so prodigiously over-run City and country, as to equal, if not exceed the number of Infidels.  
4. Origen lived and flourished in Alexandria part of Tertullian's time, and to his Testimony now and then the Doctor appeals; and yet it is evident from numerous proofs, that in his days a Church consisted of more Congregations than one. I shall take notice at present but of one place, which the Dean has noted before me, that he compares the Churches of Athens, Corinth and Alexandria, with the Corporations in those Cities,( which 
Orig. c. Celsum, 1. 3.  were not one but many) the number of Presbyters with the Senates of the City, and the Bishop with the Magistrate.  
And now if we should descend to St. Cyprian, who was Bishop of Carthage not many years after Tertullian, and had such a particular reverence for his Memory and Writings, that he called him his Master, and was the most zealous Assertor of the ancient Government and Discipline of the Church, it is hardly credible, that in such an Age of learned and inquisitive men, when their enemies had such a watchful eye over them, they should attempt any Innovation in Government or Worship, and if they did, that no notice should be taken of it either by Friends or Enemies. But Dr. O. dares not descend so low as St. Cyprian, since the Dean has so plainly proved, that he is not theirs, and therefore stops without any reason, and indeed ought to have stopped a great deal sooner, if he had consulted the advantage of his Cause: For there is no show of reason to imagine, that the third Century produced any new Alterations in Church-Government, as the fourth might, when the Empire became Christian, and the Sword was added to the Keys; but the Testimonies of the third Century are too plain in this Cause, and the Records of former Ages not so express and particular, but that a man of w● it may with some Art press them to serve his Cause.  
2. His second Argument to prove Congregational Churches from primitive practise is, That the exercise of Discipline, and the management of all Church-Affairs, writing Letters or sending Messengers to other Churches, &c. was all transacted in the presence and by the consent of the whole Church, which therefore could be no larger than could meet together in one place: And this is coincident with the third thing I observed he endeavoured to prove in this History, viz. the Interest and Power of the People in Church-Government; this he over and over repeats, as the great support of his Cause, and the great thing he aims 
Orig. of Churches, p. 91, 95, 101, 102, 118.  to prove, as you may see in the margin; for I forbear transcribing particular passages to save so much trouble.  
Now if the Right and Power of the People in Church-Affairs were duly stated, I should have no great controversy with him upon that score; for it is certainly agreeable to Apostolical and primitive practise, that the People should at least be present and consenting at the Election of Officers, the exercise of the Keys, or making any new Rules or Orders of Discipline; but as for any inherent Power and Authority to determine these Matters, they had none, as Dr. O. himself acknowledges, who rejects the Democratical Government of the Church, when he was charged with it by the Doctor,( though he had before plainly enough owned it) and tells his Readers, I never thought, I never wrote any such thing: I do believe that the Authoritative Rule and Government of the Church was, is, and ought to be in the Elders and Rulers of it, being an act of the Office-Power, committed to them by Christ himself. Howbeit my judgement is, that they ought not to rule the Church with Force, Tyranny, and corporal Penalties, or without their own consent. And thus he answers the Doctor's Objection, That it is very unlikely that the People would forego their Interest in the Government of the Churches, if ever they had any such thing, without great noise and trouble; for Government is so nice and tender a thing, that every one is so much concerned for his share in it, that men are not easily induced to part with it. To this he answers, No other interest or share in the Government is ascribed by us unto the People, but that they may be ruled by their own consent.— But from any engagement on their minds, from the sweetness of Government, wherein their Concern principally consists in an understanding voluntary obedience unto the Commands of Christ, they had nothing of it. It was very fitting, that at the Election of Bishops, the People who understood their Conversation and Temper, should at least be Witnesses and Judges of their moral qualifications; and if none were to be made a Bishop, but he who had a good report from those who are without,( Pagans and Infidels) it was much more unreasonable to advance any man to that degree, who had not a good report from the Church itself, and those people who were to be governed by him. Thus one design of Church-Censures is to put such persons to public shane, and therefore is most regularly exercised in a public Assembly, in the presence of neighbour-Christians, who must in some sort execute the sentence of Excommunication, which is inflicted by the Bishop, by withdrawing from the Conversation of such men. And thus People will yield a more willing and cheerful obedience to Church-Rules and Orders, when they are established by their consent, which was especially necessary in those days, when there was no external Power to back the Authority of the Church, and which ought to be exercised as sparing as may be, when other more grateful methods will attain the end: But of this more anon. But the Point I part with Dr. O. upon is this, That the presence of the whole Church is not necessary to this purpose, and that much greater numbers may meet upon such occasions as these, when there is need, than can be fixed Members of a Congregational Church, and therefore the right of the People in Church-affairs does not prove the necessity of Congregational Churches; and I have a plain reason and a plain example for the proof of this, which is as much as can be desired in any case.  
My reason is this, because the exercise of Church-Government does not depend upon the Votes of the People( which is to make Church-Government Democratical) for then indeed it were necessary that the whole Church should meet, or at least that they might, if they pleased; but their presence is required not to give Authority to Church-Decrees and Censures, but for their own satisfaction, that all things are managed with due Counsel and Advice, and as may be for the Edification of the Christian Church, and five hundred serve as well for this purpose as five thousand; for in such cases as these, that which will satisfy five hundred men, not picked and culled out to make a Party, but coming occasionally without any particular design, must certainly satisfy all reasonable men, and those who love to see and hear for themselves may come themselves.  
And upon extraordinary occasions, there may be a more numerous Assembly than can meet in a single Congregation, as we know it has often been upon the choice of Bishops, not without great disorders from the heats and Factions of different Parties, which may and often do happen in less meetings; though the inconveniencies of this grew so great, that the Church saw fit to restrain this power, and the true reason of these disorders was, that by noise and tumult they made themselves Electors, instead of being Witnesses, and giving their consent to a wise choice.  
My example of the Exercise of this Discipline out of a Congregational Church, is the Church of Carthage in St. Cyprian's time. I suppose Dr. O. will not now attempt to prove the Church of Carthage in St. Cyprian's time to have been a Congregational Church; for he himself acknowledges, that it is sufficiently manifest from his Epistles, that the Church of Carthage wherein he did preside, was so far a particular Church( a particular Church we grant, but not a Congregational Church) as that the whole body or Fraternity of 
Orig. of Churches, p. 112.  it, was admitted unto all advice in things of Common Concernment unto the whole Church, and allowed the exercise of their Power and Liberty in choosing or refusing the Officers that were to be set over them. He says indeed something more than what is true of the Power of the People of Carthage in Church-affairs, 
Unreas. of Separat. p. 229. &c.  as is evident from that accurate account the Dean has given of this matter, but yet thus much is true, that St. Cyprian did not ordinarily determine any matters of great and public concernment without the advice of his Clergy and the consent of the People, which is a plain demonstration that the rights of the People in Church-affairs may be preserved in a Church, which is not confined to a single Congregation. This I think is sufficient to return in Answer to Dr. O's Second Argument for Congregational Churches, from the Example of the Apostolical and Primitive Churches to the end of the Second Century.  
3. His Third Argument to prove the Divine Institution of Congregational Churches is, that they only are suited unto the ends of Christ in the Institution of his Church, which he pursues at large through the Sixth Chapter, but upon a perusal of it, I find it only a larger Repetition of his first Argument, to prove that Christ hath appointed the Congregational Church and State, because it is meet and accommodated unto all the ends which he designed in his Institution of a Church. And what I have already answered to that, is a sufficient answer to this, which if I understand aright is the very same, and though I could take advantage to discourse some things more largely, as he has done, yet I am contented to have said enough.  
Let us now consider Mr. Baxter's Notion of Praesential Communion, and of all the Writers I know, I can least undertake to tell what Mr. B's opinion is in any thing; for sometimes he seems to say one thing, and sometimes another, and conceals himself under such doubtful and ambiguous expressions, that it is a hundred to one, if he do not charge his Answerer, whoever he be, with false citations, and mistaking his sense, as he has served the Dean more than once, where I believe any Reader would have mistaken, as well as he, if it were a mistake, but this is a secure way to take care for a retreat, if he cannot conquer.  
In his Answer to the Dean, he will 
Second Defence of Non-conf. p. 100.  by no means confine Present Communion to single Congregations, that must all meet at once in one place, but that as Neighbours and Citizens may have Personal Converse and meetings per vices, of some at one time and some at another, but at other times seems to be perfectly of Dr. Owen's mind for Congregational Communion, as I have already observed, and in his Treatise of Episcopacy 
Treatise of Episcopacy, p. 125. c. 10.  expressly chooses that way, and therefore urges the same Arguments which Dr. O. does, and endeavours to answer that Objection of Presbyterians against the independents Congregational Churches ( which, as he says, is the common and strongest Objection against 
Ib. p. 130.  us, including himself in the number) from the multitude of Converts at Jerusalem and Ephesus, that they could not be one particular Church, so as to meet in one place: and one part of his Definition of a single Church, is a competent 
Terms of Concord, p. 230. P. 235.  number of private Christians, as the guided part associated by consent,( which looks like an Independent Church-Covenant) for Personal, Presential, Holy Communion, in Holy Doctrine, Holy Worship of God, Holy Order, and Holy Conversation, the explication of which you may see more at large in what follows, where he endeavours to prove, that the end of Church-Society is for Presential Communion in Worship, which is exactly the Independent Notion, and makes no other exceptions than Dr. O. allows, that they may sometimes assemble apart by reason of Impediments, age, distance, weather, Persecution, &c.  
Many things he urges, are the same we have already met with in Dr. O. and I do not see, but that the same Answers will serve; it is not consistent with my designed brevity, to examine particularly every thing he says, who says a great many things, which I can imagine no other reason for, but to make up in number, what they want in weight; much less shall I examine all his numerous citations out of Ancient Writers, who commonly does abound with such Citations, though with as little skill or Faithfulness as most men I know, some account of which will be given to the World, as I presume, before this discourse sees the Light; and therefore I shall only as briefly as I can consider the main force of his Arguments, whereon the whole hope of his cause depends.  
As 1. That which he designs to prove 
Treatise of Episcopacy, p. 126.  in his Tenth Chapter of the Treatise of Episcopacy is, that the lowest true Political Church, must be neighbours united for Personal Communion, which he proves from Apostolical and Primitive Churches of the first and second Ages, which I have already considered in answer to Dr. O. from the duties of Church-members, which are, 1. To assemble together for Gods public Service. 2. To have the same Pastors that are among them and over them, and Preach to them the word of God, and go before them by the example of a Holy Life. 3. To sand to their Pastors when they are Sick to Pray with them, and to advice them. 4. To admonish a Brother that offendeth, &c. To which I answer.  
1. I readily grant, that neighbour Christians ought to live together in the same Church-Communion, and I think this is no very good Argument for Conventicles, which disturb the Communion of neighbour Christians, and pick up a Church from all parts of Town and Country, whose Members many times live at such a distance, that they never see one another but at their Meetings, much less are they capable of discharging the Offices of Church-Members to each other.  
2. But yet the Duties which Christians owe to each other, do not depend upon their being Members of the same particular Church, but on their common Christianity, or their being Members of the catholic Church, which is the Body of Christ, and of the same Communion; such as exhorting, admonishing, reproving, counseling, comforting, relieving, &c. Neighbourhood gives the opportunity of discharging these duties, but common Christianity lays the obligation on us to do it, and we are equally bound to perform these Offices of Christian Charity and Communion to all Christians, as we have opportunity, as we are to those who belong to that particular Church, whereof we are Members; and therefore there is no reason to confine the Communion of a particular Church to such a neighbourhood as will give us opportunity of such Christian Conversation, because this is not a peculiar duty of a particular Church-Relation, but of common Christianity; and while all Neighbours live in the same Communion, though the Communion of that particular Church extend much farther than the Neighbourhood, these duties may be as well performed, as if the particular Church-Society were confined to the Neighbourhood.  
3. I willingly grant, That Religious Assemblies for Worship are necessary to the Christian Church, but deny, that a Church must be no larger than a worshipping Assembly, as I have already replied to Dr. O. for the duty of public Worship does not depend on a particular Church-Relation, but on common Christianity; and I am equally bound to worship God with all the Christians in the World, wherever I am, who worship our Saviour according to his own Institutions.  
The foundation of this whole Dispute is an opinion which Dr. O. and Mr. B. have embraced, that a Church-Member signifies something more than a Christian, and that the Members of the same particular Church are more nearly related to each other, than they are to the rest of the Christian World; and therefore none can be of the same Church, but those who pray, and hear, and receive the Lord's Supper together. But this is a schismatical Principle, destructive to the very notion of catholic Communion; it is not any distinct duty from catholic Christian Communion, but necessity which forms particular Churches; and if they can show me any one duty, which Christians owe to their fellow-Members of any particular Church by virtue of a Church-Relation, which they do not by the Principles of common Christianity and catholic Communion owe to all the Christians in the World, when they have opportunity to discharge it, I will yield the Cause.  
All the Christians of the World are Members of that one Body of Christ, which is his Church, as I have already proved; but they cannot all worship God in the same place, nor hear the same Preachers, nor live under the inspection and discipline of the same Rulers and Governours; and therefore the Apostles instituted particular Churches, not for the sake of any new Communion or Church-Relation, distinct from catholic Communion, which is Schism, but to comply with the necessity of Affairs, that all Christians may enjoy those opportunities of Worship, Instruction and Discipline apart, which they cannot enjoy all together, and yet continue united to all other Christians in the same Duties and Relations, as they have opportunity of discharging them.  
And therefore if we will argue from Principles of Reason, the bounds of a particular Church must not be confined to worshipping Assemblies, but at least extend as far as the exercise of Church-Government and Discipline can reach; for as necessity requires the Constitution of particular Churches, so catholic Communion requires us not to crumble it into too small pieces, lest the whole do not well cement and hang together. Worshipping Assemblies are not peculiar to a Church-Relation, but a common duty of Christianity; and therefore more Christians may belong to the same Church, than can worship in the same place, or have a particular knowledge and acquaintance with each other.  
4. I grant also, That every worshipping Assembly must be attended with one or more Church-Officers, who have Power and Authority to administer to them all the parts and Offices of Christian Worship, to pray, and red the Scriptures, or preach, and administer Sacraments, admonish and reprove Offenders, &c. Nay, I grant it is very much for the Edification of the Christian Church, that such persons should reside among them, observe their Manners, and be Examples of holy Living to the Flock; but I see no reason, that the Bishop himself, who alone has full Ecclesiastical Power of Censures and Discipline, should be the man: But that is the Subject of our next Dispute.  
11. His next Attempt is to prove, That 
T●eat●se of Epist. part 1. ch. 11. part 2. c. 3.  the nature of the primary Episcopacy,( or particular, if the word primary be cavilled at) is such as cannot be done in absence, nor per alios by Substitutes, in any of its proper parts, but only by a present Bishop or Pastor himself. And here he very warily like a true Distinguisher observes, That a Bishop may plow his Land, or build his House, or saddle his Horse, by another, and may appoint another to toll the Bell to Church, &c. This is some favour however, that the Bishop is not bound to be of all Trades, a ploughman, Mason, Carpenter, Groom, Sexton, &c.  
When he says a primary Bishop, he means a Parochial Bishop, as he elsewhere calls him, that is, every Parish-Minister, who must have all Episcopal Authority; and the way he takes to prove this is, by appropriating all the Duties of the Ministerial Function wholly to the Bishop, that no man else has liberty, no not by the Bishop's licence and Authority,( though he qualifies this with respect to Preaching, making him only the chief Teacher) to preach the Word, to pray for the People, to baptize, to celebrate the Lord's Supper, to receive to Communion, to be the chief public Reprover,( another qualification, because he knows private Christians ought to reprove one another) to be the chief public Excommunicator of the obstinately wicked, and absolver of the penitent, and to give the blessing to the People. If he had but added chief to all this, we had had no Dispute with him.  
Thus as for private Applications, he tells you, The Bishop must do all in person; resolve Doubts, hear Confessions, watch over the Peoples Conversation, look to the ordering their Families, visit the Sick, excite and quicken the dull and backward to their duty, take care of the poor, admonish, reprove, exhort, ungodly persons: Here is work enough for one man, and I confess his diocese ought not to be very large.  
But how does he prove, that the Bishop must do all this in person, and not employ inferior Presbyters in most parts of this Work, and take care that they do their duty? Why to prove this, he 
Ib. part 2. p. 8.  gives a description of the Bishop's Work out of the Scripture, and whatever duty is ascribed to any Church-Governours, Elders, Presbyters, Bishops, or whatever Names they go by; all this he appropriates to the Office of a Bishop, as that which he must do in person. And thus he takes the thing for granted, which is the main Question, whether those Elders and Presbyters, which we red of in Scripture, were Bishops or not. But this he takes for granted upon Dr. Hammond's Authority; and why may not we reject Dr. Hammond's Authority, as well as he does the whole Assembly of Divines, and then I doubt he will want Arguments to prove it?  
The Bishop indeed has the chief Power and Authority of administering all holy Offices; for a superior Order contains all the Power of inferior Orders: But there are some things which more peculiarly belong to him, as Ordination, Confirmation, and the supreme Authority of Church-Censures in his own diocese, and the inspection of all inferior Ministers, and a supervising care of all Congregational and Parochial Churches; that is, the Bishop succeeds into the Apostolical Power with Presbyters under him, to administer all holy Offices by his Order and Direction.  
But Mr. B. very learnedly proves, that a Bishop cannot have any Substitute to do his work for him; for this Curate or Substitute, or Agent, or Official, is either of the same Order with the Bishop, or he 
Ib. part 1. p. 138.  is not; if he be, then he grants all, because it grants him all; that is, if you will but allow every Minister to be a Bishop, you may make Curates, or Agents, or Officials of them, or what you please, and he matters not; though methinks it sounds very harsh, that one Bishop should be Curate to another, that a Bishop should have no bishopric of his own, but should supply another Bishop's Cure. Well, but suppose these Curates or Substitutes be of an inferior Order, either the Bishop giveth him power and obligation to do the proper work of a Bishop, or not; if not, he is not hereby enabled to do it; if yea, then he hath thereby made him a Bishop; for to be a Bishop is nothing else, but to have Authority and Obligation to do the work of a Bishop; but if it be an accidental, or a common work, which another may do, it is not that in question, nor do we need the Office of a Bishop for it.  
As for accidental and common works, we will except ploughing and building Houses, and tolling the Bell to Church, and such like; and speak only of the proper work of a Bishop, such as Preaching, Baptizing, and ministering the Lord's Supper, and those other Religious Offices, which Mr. B. says are proper and peculiar to the Bishop: And in answer to his Dilemma I assert, 1. That most of those Offices he has name, are not so proper and peculiar to the Episcopal Authority, but that they may be performed by others who are no Bishops, without making them Bishops; and he has not yet proved the contrary from Scripture, and I suppose he will not be so hardy as to undertake to do it from primitive Antiquity, though I confess he is a valiant and courageous man. But 2. suppose that all these Offices, which Presbyters are ordinarily entrusted to perform, did primarily belong to the Bishop, yet the Bishop's giving power to Presbyters to discharge them, does not make them Bishops; for as I take it, an inherent and a dependant Power and Authority does make two different Orders of men: Though there are some different Acts of Episcopal Authority, which were never entrusted to Presbyters, such as Ordination, Confirmation, &c. yet if there were not, this one thing would prove them different Orders; that Bishops act by the Authority of their Office, Presbyters by the Authority of their Bishop; and it is not so much the things they do, as the power of doing them, which makes the difference.  
But then says Mr. B. Nothing but commissioning others is the proper work of the 
Ib. p. 159.  Episcopal Order. But how does this follow? All Religious Offices are proper to the Bishop, as performed by his Authority, without whom nothing can regularly be done in his Church, by any inferior Ministers; for I suppose all these acts are proper and peculiar to an Office, which none has Authority to do, but he who is invested with that Office, or derives his Authority from it: But then any Presbyter may in foro interno vel externo, ordinarily exercise the whole power of the Keys upon the Flocks; he may excommunicate and absolve publicly, as an act common to his Flock with the Bishop, if it please the Bishop to give him power, which he may do without making him a Bishop. I grant the Bishop may give an ordinary Power or Authority to do this, but not an independent Power, for that is peculiar to the Episcopal Office; the Bishop must still retain his Power of calling him to an account, and rectifying any miscarriage he is guilty of in the discharge of his Office; for this is the proper Office and duty of a Bishop, which he cannot, which he must not part with: The King cats several Officers and Ministers of State with the discharge and exercise of all the parts of Kingly Power, but he does not give them an absolute and unaccountable Authority, which would be to pains-taking himself, and make his Ministers King.  
But he inquires, Whether God be not the maker of the Presbyters Office? and whether God only( describing it) give not all the power by way of Law, Charter and Institution, and the Bishop give it not only by way of Ministerial Solemnization and Investiture? I grant all this, if he will but add, that God has made the Office of Presbyters in dependence upon and subordination to their Bishop, and that the Bishop does and can grant no other Power to them; and this must be acknowledged, if God have instituted an Order superior to Presbyters in those very acts and duties, which are proper to the Office of Presbyters: The thing will be plain, if we put it in a Case, which is past dispute. The Apostolical Office will be acknowledged to be superior to those Presbyters and Elders, which were ordained by the Apostles: Wherein then did this superior Apostolical Order consist? In Authority to preach, to administer Sacraments, to exercise Discipline, &c. All this belonged to the Office of Elders, Presbyters, and Bishops,( which Names were used promiscuously in those days) as appears from the description of those Offices produced by Mr. B. out of St. Paul's Epistles. What then was peculiar to the Apostolical Office, which Presbyters might not do? Why, excepting Ordination and Confirmation, or giving the holy Ghost, there was nothing peculiar to them, but that supreme Power by which they acted; whereby they could correct what was amiss, and govern all other Ministers of Religion in the exercise of their Office, and appropriate what parts of it they pleased to themselves, when they were present. But now if Mr. B. had been present, when St. John threatened Diotrephes for assuming an uncontrollable Power to himself, and refusing to entertain those whom he had sent; if he had deposed him from his Office, or limited the exercise of it, he might thus have disputed the case with the Apostle, as he proceeds to argue, Whether he, who is duly called to the Pastoral Office, which God only made and described, must not( in season) do all the Works of that Office, whether men commission him or not? But I suppose St. John would have had an Answer ready for him; that men who receive an Office from God independent on any superior Office, must do their duty, without expecting any new Commission and Authority; but if God have instituted their Office in dependence on a superior Office, they must act in dependence and subordination too, and must expect the Directions and Authority of their superiors.  
As for what he adds, or whether at least he any more need the Bishop's Commission for Church-Government, Excommunication and Absolution, than for preaching and celebrating the Lord's Supper, seeing both are now confessed Acts, common to the Order of the Presbyter and the Bishop? I answer, There is much more reason for the Bishop to keep the exercise of Discipline in his own hands, than Preaching and administering the Sacraments, because he can better exercise Discipline over a numerous Flock, than preach in person, and administer the Sacraments to all in his diocese; and Church-Censures is a matter of that consequence, and liable to so many miscarriages, and requires so much prudence, that all Presbyters who are able to preach very piously, and to administer the Sacraments with all due gravity and devotion, are not fit to be entrusted with it: However a Presbyter depends upon his Bishop, as to the exercise of his Ministry in Preaching and administering Sacraments, as well as in all other Ministerial Acts; and therefore there is no difference upon this account, but that the Bishop ordinarily grants Authority for one, but not for the other.  
But is all giving of Power to another proper to the Bishop's Order? No, he cannot make a Constable; but what if it be? Then the Minister cannot give his Clerk power to choose the Psalm or Tune. This, I confess, is a material difficulty, which I did not think of before, and must take some more time to consider it; and if it proves unanswerable, I will hereafter choose and set the Psalm myself, if my Clerk will let me; for I think Clerks pretend to the Bishop's licence too in these Cases.  
But may not a Bishop, if he please, also give power to the Presbyters to ordain, and to give other men power? I know not to what purpose this serves; for if he did so, there would be a great deal more to be said for the Ordinations made by Presbyters, by their Bishop's Authority, than when they ordain in a Schism, and in opposition to their Bishops: But I have two things to say to this: 1. That the Bishop can empower men only to such Acts and Offices, as concern his own diocese, which is his peculiar Sphere for the exercise of this kind of Power; for he cannot give any Presbyter a licence to preach or administer the Sacraments in another diocese; but Ordination respects the whole catholic Church; and therefore the exercise of it must be regulated by the Laws of it, which have not formerly allowed Presbyters to ordain, St. Hierom himself reserving Ordination as the peculiar Act of Episcopal Power; though Presbyters were allowed to lay on hands together with the Bishop.  
2. That which makes me suspect, whether the Bishop can grant this Power of Ordinations to mere Presbyters is, because they having no plenary Power and Authority in themselves, but only in dependence on their Bishop, their Office qualifies them to receive Directions and Power, but not to give it: Though how far the consent of the Bishop may go in this Case, I cannot tell, and don't see, how the present controversy is concerned in it.  
But is not Church-Discipline the exercise 
Ib. p. 140.  of the power of the Keys? If then the power of the Keys may be exercised by the Presbyters, when-ever the Bishops please, it seems it is common to them with him, as well as Sacraments, and therefore belongeth not to him as Bishop, but as a Presbyter. I answer, The power of the Keys may be exercised by both, but the Authority is only inherent in the Bishop; Presbyters are only qualified by their Office to exercise this Authority with the Bishop's consent, but have it not in themselves, as separate from their Bishop; and therefore a Bishop as a Bishop, not as a Presbyter, has the power of the Keys, as that signifies the actual exercise of it. The difference between a Bishop and Prssbyter, with respect to those Acts which may be done by both, is this, that a Bishop has actual Authority to do it, a Presbyter has only a fitness, capacity, or qualification, to do it with his Bishop's consent and leave, as it must be, where there is a superior and inferior Order and Power, with respect to the same Acts and Offices. Mr. B. often says, that he dares not disown Apostolical Officers, whom he calls Bishops of Bishops, to be set over Parochial Bishops; and these are only those very Officers, whom we call Diocesan Bishops; and if he will allow such superior Bishops with Apostolical Power, his Parish-Bishops can be no other than our Subject-Presbyters; for Apostolical power over Ministers, is a superior power, in the exercise of all parts of their Office, to direct and govern, to correct and restrain, to bound and limit the exercise of their power, as he sees fit for the common good and edification of the Church; for to be superior to them in the same Acts, must signify a power to direct, restrain, and govern inferiors, in the proper Acts of their Office and Function.  
But if the commanding another to do an Office-work, be all that is proper to the Bishop, I ask( says Mr. B.) whether any thing there be proper to him? and so whether we must have such an Office? for may not the King command the Minister to do all the Work which belongeth to his Function? may he not appoint Magistrates, and make Laws to command it? &c. But whoever said, that the Episcopal power is only to command another to do an Office-work? for a Bishop may forbid the exercise of that Office, the exercise of which he can enjoin and command; but Mr. B. did not care to mention this, for fear if he took away this suspending and silencing power from the Bishop, he must give it to the King, and he does not like this power in any ones hand but his own.  
But cannot this eternal Distinguisher find some little distinction here? Is the Bishop's licence and Authority nothing but a compulsory Command? A Presbyter has Authority indeed to preach and administer Sacraments, but it is in dependence upon the Bishop; and if a King commands a Presbyter to do his Office, he must command him to obey his Bishop, and exercise his Ministry in subordination to him; and I can easily guess, Mr. B. will pay the same obedience in this case to the Command of his King, as he does to his Bishop.  
But Mr. B. says, that Grotius( to whom we do pay a very just respect, as he deserves) truly says, that that saying, 
Ib. p. 41.  that what a man doth by another, he seemeth to do by himself, belongeth only to those actions, whose nearest efficient cause is not defined by the Law,( that is, which he is not by Law bound to do in his own person, but may do by a Proxy;) but sure when God made the Pastoral Office, he meant, that the Pastors called to it, should do the work, and not only appoint other men to do it. Most sure; and thus a Bishop ought to do the work of a Bishop, and a subject Presbyter of a subject Presbyter; and those who do not must answer for it, such as those Presbyters are, who refuse subjection and obedience to their Bishops in all lawful things. But if by this he means, that every Bishop must preach to his whole diocese, and know every person in it, and take a particular account and inspection over them, I say, this is not the work of a Bishop, and I have a good reason for it, because the Apostles ordained Presbyters as assistants to the Bishop in this work, and therefore are his authorised Proxies, as far as he is pleased to employ them; and there would be no need of this Office, if a Bishop must do all himself.  
But he adds, And I would know, whether the work of a Presbyter, ( as to consecrate and celebrate the Sacraments) may be done per alium, by one that is no Presbyter; if not,( as all say not) then I ask, Whether the Bishop's work or the Presbyter's be most sacred? If the Presbyter's , then his Office is more sacred; if the Bishop's,( or both alike) then that Bishop's work may no more be done per alium than the Presbyter's. This is most admirable Reasoning! but I will get off as well as I can.  
1. Then who taught him to distinguish the Presbyter's from the Bishop's work? when the Presbyter has no work but what is more eminently the Bishop's, and what he does by his Authority and Consent, which undermines the very foundation of his Argument.  
2. Nor is it a very good Consequence, that because God by Apostolical Institution, has made Presbyters subject to Bishops, to minister in holy things by their Consent and Order, that therefore subject Presbyters must have an inferior degree of subject Presbyters under them, to do their work: There is no such Order appointed, and that is a sufficient Argument that there is no need of it; for if there be too few Presbyters to do the work, the Bishop has Authority to ordain more, and such Proxies, Vicars, or Substitutes, must not be subordinate to one another without end, and therefore must stop, where the reason ceases.  
As for what he urges to the same purpose, about the exercise of Discipline and Church-Censures, for confining a Church to a single Congregation, where the Bishop is constantly present, all these pretences have been already so shamefully baffled by Mr. Dodwell, in his Letters to Mr. B. lately published, that no man need concern himself farther in that Cause.  
Thus I have shown, that local, personal, presential Communion, is not essential to the notion of a Church; that a particular Church needs not be confined to the narrow bounds of a single Congregation; and therefore I proceed now to explain what that Christian Communion is, which is essential to the Constitution of a particular Diocesan Church, which I shall briefly do in three Particulars.  
1. That all who live within the Precincts of such a Church, meet together with their neighbour-Christians, at public and solemn times and places for Religious Worship: This will be readily granted by all, that public Worship is an essential Church-duty, wherein the Communion of Christians with each other consists; to be sure our Adversaries will not deny this, who make it essential to the notion of a particular Church, that all the members of it meet together in the same place.  
And that we ordinarily communicate in all the Offices of Religion with our neighbour-Christians, is necessary to Christian Communion, at least that it be within the Communion of the same Church: Common Christianity makes us members of the catholic Church; and this obliges us to Christian Communion, and the place of our Habitation determines our Communion to that particular Church where we dwell; for catholic Communion requires us to communicate with any true Church where we are; and designedly to avoid the Communion of any Church, where we can communicate without sin, is a breach of catholic Unity and Communion; for he who refuses the Communion of any one true catholic Church, does not live in catholic Communion, and therefore is a schismatic.  
And this I take to be the true Reason, why the Apostles planted but one Church in a City and its Territories, though it were never so large, that neighbour-Christians might all live in the same Communion, under the same Discipline and Government, that there might be no Schisms and Emulations occasioned by distinct Communions, which we have too much reason to believe might have happened, when we consider, how apt they were to break out into Sidings and Factions in the same Church.  
Mr. Baxter indeed upon the Authority 
Second Defence of Non-Conf. p. 101.  of Dr. Hammond and Grotius, seems to assert, that there were in the Apostles days two Bishops, at least in some Cities, and two distinct Communions of Jews and Gentiles; that Peter at Rome was Bishop of the Jews, and Paul of the Gentiles. Now though in St. Cyprian's time, it was a fixed Rule, that there should be but one Bishop in a Church; upon which account among others he rejects the Ordination of Novatianus, because Cornelius was elected Bishop by much the Majority of Bishops, Presbyters, and People, and actually ordained and possessed of his Chair, before the clandestine Ordination of Novatianus; and it seems it was then a standing Rule, that after there is a Bishop canonically elected and ordained, there could not be a second: but sometimes it happened, that two Bishops were ordained either by different Factions and Parties, or when the Church was divided by Schisms, as in the time of the Donatists and Arians; and to compose such Differences, it has in some Cases been agreed by Councils, that they should both exercise Episcopal Power, and live in the same Communion, which is the Case Mr. B. mentions at Antioch between Flavianus and Evagrius; in some Churches when the Bishop grew ancient, he ordained his Successor while he himself lived, who governed the Church with a joint Authority; and though they had two Bishops, they had but one Church, which was St. Austin's Case, who was made Bishop in his Predecessor's time. And this is the reason of that observation Epiphanius makes of the Church of Alexandria, as Dr. O. has observed, 
Orig. of Churches, p. 356.  that they never had two Bishops as other Churches had, which he assigns as the cause of that Dispute which was among them, about choosing Meletius Bishop; for their Bishop was dead without any surviving Bishop to succeed him, it not being the custom of that City, as it was in some others, to have a new Bishop choose, before the old one was dead.  
But yet that there were two Churches at Rome or Antioch in St. Paul's days, one of Jews, another of Gentiles, who had their distinct and separate Communions, I must see very well proved, who ever says it, before I will believe it; much less will I believe, that St. Paul was the Bishop of one of these separate Churches, for so indeed two distinct Communions to divide Jews and Gentiles, is no better than a Separation.  
This is that very thing which St. Paul did so earnestly endeavour to prevent in his Epistles to several Churches, where there was any danger of it: For this he reproved St. Peter at Antioch, who by his 
Gal. 2. 12, 13.  compliance had like to have occasioned a Schism between Jews and Gentiles. For this purpose( as the Dean observed in his Sermon, which occasioned all this Dispute) he writes his Epistle to the Galatians, and warns the Christians at Rome of such factious Zealots, who would break Communion with the Gentiles, unless they would be circumcised and keep the Law.  
This, as the Dean truly observed, was the apostles great design in his Epistle to the Philippians, to preserve one Communion among them, both Jews and Gentiles, between whom the Dispute and Difference was; and therefore choose these words, Nevertheless, whereto we have 
Phil. 3. 16.  already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing, as a proper Text against Separation. Dr. O. disputes very warmly about the meaning of the Apostle in these words, and will by no means allow, that the Apostle here had any reference to their observing the same Rules of Worship, and living in the same Communion, which was all the D. designed to prove from them. It would be too tedious, and not much to my present Design, to examine particularly what Dr. O. has objected, and the Dean answered, and the Dr. again replied in this cause; and therefore I shall only briefly prove; that the design of the Apostle in this place is to persuade them to one Communion, to Worship God together, and not to divide into Separate Assemblies of Jews and Gentiles.  
They are both agreed, that the rule the Apostle here gives concerns the differences between the believing Jews and gentle Converts about observing the Law of Moses: Only Dr. O. would 
Orig. of Churches, p. 263.  have the Apostle in the beginning of the Chapter, when he warns them against dogs, and evil workers, and the Concision, to mean the unbelieving Jews, who persecuted the Christian Name and Church, such as he says he describes in the Epistle to the Thessalonians. For ye 
1 Thess. 2. 14, 15, 16, 17.  brethren became followers of the Churches of God, which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered the like things of your Country-men, even as they have of the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own Prophets, and have persecuted us, and they please not God, and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles, that they might be saved; but I confess it seems difficult to me, whom the Apostle means in these words. The latter clause of their Character, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles, seems to infer, that they were Jews who pretended to believe in Christ, but would not allow the Apostles to Preach to the Gentiles, at least not to receive them into the Church without Circumcision, and obedience to the Law, for unbelieving Jews were not particularly concerned about their Preaching to the Gentiles, but opposed their Preaching Christ at all. But then that other part of the Character, that they killed the Lord Jesus and their own Prophets, and Persecuted the Christian Churches in Judea, and the Apostles; seems to point out the unbelieving Jews, as Dr. O. applies them; but there is no necessity of that, since it is sufficiently known, that these hot bigoted Zealots for their Law, did join even with unbelieving Jews, in Persecuting the Jewish Christians, who Communicated with gentle Converts, as Apostates from their Law, and therefore though they pretended to believe in Christ, yet the Apostle reckons them still among Infidels or Apostates; and St. Paul expressly tells us, that he was Persecuted by these men for Vindicating the liberty of the gentle Christians. And I Brethren, if I yet Preach Circumcision, why do I yet suffer Persecution? 
Gal. 5. 11.  then is the offence of the across ceased. Which supposes that he was Persecuted for not Preaching Circumcision.  
And therefore I doubt not but by Dogs, and Evil-doers, and the Concision the Apostle means, as the D. observed those Zealots for the Law, who endeavoured to rend and divide the Church, and Separate believing Jews and Gentiles from each other; those very men, whom in the Epistle to the Galatians, he wishes were cut off. I would they were even cut off which trouble 
Gal. 5. 12.  you, for these were the men they were more in danger of than the professed Enemies to Christianity, whose work it was to Persecute the name of Christ, not to sow dissensions and make parties among Christians, and who could not so easily deceive the believing Jews, while they themselves continued Infidels.  
There were indeed, as Dr. O. observes another sort of Jews, who acquiescing 
Ib. p. 261.  in the Liberty of the Gentiles, declared by the Apostles Acts 15. yet judged themselves, and all other circumcised Jews, obliged to the observation of the Law, and its Institutions. How far they acquiesced in this determination I cannot tell; I am sure there were very hot Disputes among them, and upon this account St. Paul gives that Rule of mutual forbearance Rom. 14. and the Dr. tells us, yea it is judged 
Ib. p. 262.  that according to their different apprehensions of these things, there were two Churches at Rome, one of the Circumcision, the other of the Gentiles, walking in a distinct Communion each by themselves. This I absolutely deny, and this he dares not assert, much less attempt to prove; but he says, however there was a different rule of this kind between the Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch— yet was there no Schism between these Churches, but a constant Communion in Faith and Love; and he ought to have added in Religious Worship, as any of the Members met together, for without this there is no Christian Communion, Jews and Gentiles as the Apostle tells us being now made one body in Christ, that is one Church, and one Communion.  
Against the dividing Jews, who would have made two Churches of the Jews and Gentiles, the Apostle cautions the Philippians in this Chapter: he tells them the perfection of Christianity consists in forgetting those things which are behind, that is the Jewish Law, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, that is the Gospel of Christ, in obedience to which alone, we can obtain the price of our calling, let us therefore as many as are perfect be thus minded, that is, not trouble ourselves about legal observances, which are of no value, but govern our Lives by the Laws of the Gospel, and if in any thing you be otherwise minded, that is, if any of you still think, that you are bound to obey the Law of Moses, God shall reveal even this unto you: wait patiently till you be better instructed without breaking the Peace and Communion of the Church. And then follows that Rule, about which the dispute has been; Nevertheless whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. Now this the Dr. does very well, and very agreeable to the scope of the place refer to one Communion; but there is a very great dispute what the rule is of Christian Communion, by which we must walk, and a great deal of wit, and a great many Criticisms have been bestowed on it: the Dr. plainly proved, that it was but one rule, whereby men of different attainments must walk, that this rule did not concern merely different opinions, but the direction of our practise, and that this rule had an influence upon our pre●ent case; thus he concluded from the ●cope and design of the place, and argues truly; and there is one plain Observation, which has not been expressly taken notice of, which I think will confirm all this and put it out of dispute. And that is this, that {αβγδ} signifies those things wherein they were all agreed whereto we have attained being opposed to those different apprehensions, which they had about the Law of Moses, some having a more perfect knowledge of Christianity, which delivered them from observing the Law, others being otherwise minded, and still retaining a greater veneration of the Law, which kept them in bondage under it; but says the Apostle setting aside these different apprehensions of things, whereto we( all) have attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. Now what was that wherein both Jews and Gentiles agreed? That is easily answered, it was the belief of the Christian Religion, the Faith and Worship of Christ; this they both equally believed, this was that, whereunto all had attained, and therefore in these matters says he, whatever our different attainments and apprehensions may be in other things, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. That is, let us maintain the Communion of the Church in the Faith and Worship of Christ, and not separate from each other, as if we did not believe in, and worship the same God and Christ.  
For we may observe, that the controversies about the Law did not concern the Christian Worship, such as Circumcision and the differences of Meats and Drinks, which related more to private Conversation, than public Worship, and therefore in these matters the Apostle gives the rule of mutual forbearance, Rom. 14. commands them to receive those who are weak in the Faith, that is, to all parts of Christian Communion, as it respects public Worship or private Conversation; but not to enter into doubtful disputes about other matters; and that offence and scandal he warns them to avoid, seems to refer principally to that great temptation of breaking Church-Communion, which the Apostle by all means, so industriously endeavoured to prevent, and therefore tells them, that the Kingdom of God, or the Christian Church, Religion and Worship is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, for he that in these things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God and approved of men: and therefore these disputes about the Law having no influence upon Christian Communion and Worship, they ought not to separate upon this score, nor by an uncharitable use of their liberty to tempt others to separate.  
So that the Apostles Precept here is, that Christian Jews and Gentiles should all unite upon the common Principles of Christian Faith and Worship, and in these matters observe one and the same rule, Worship Christ in the same manner, and with united minds and hearts, and this is a plain justification of all the Dean concluded from these words, that Christians must live in the same Communion, and observe the same rule of Worship, whatever their different attainments might be in other matters.  
For this is not a general rule in all cases, that whereto we have attained we must walk by the same rule; that we must unite only in those things wherein we agree, which will not end any dispute in the Church, nor cure any one Schism; for if we consider, how many different opinions there are in matters of Worship at this day among us, which are so far distant, that there is not any part of Worship, if we consider the modes and circumstances of it, wherein all agree, how can we apply this rule to cure our divisions, it being impossible for all parties to agree in any one standing rule of Worship; but the Apostles rule is, that they should lay aside the disputes about the Jewish law, and agree upon the received rules of Christian Faith and Worship, that they should not divide into distinct and separate Communions, but observe the same rule, and Worship God with one heart and mind, and this Explication suggests several things, which evidently show, how applicable these words were to the Dean's design in opposing Separation. As,  
1. That the rule of Christian forbearance concerns only such different opinions and practices, as might consist with the peace and unity of the Church, and the Communion of Christians in the same acts of Worship; such as the disputes about meats and drinks, and other legal observances were; but St. Paul never thought any mistake tolerable, which made Christians separate from each other; the reason of that rule of Christian forbearance, was not to persuade the differing parties of Christians not to cut one anothers throats, but not to divide the Church, and separate into opposite Communions: and therefore he who treats the believing Jews with too much gentleness, who allowed the Gentiles their Christian liberty, though they themselves observed the law, expresses the greatest indignation and zeal against those Jews, who would not receive the uncircumcised though believing Gentiles into the Church, but persuaded the Christian Jews to separate from them, calls them Dogs and Evil workers and the Concision, which is nothing else but Dividers and Separatists, and wishes that they were even cut off; and therefore Dr. O. and others, who would apply this to forbearing all Christians of different apprehensions, who divide and separate into opposite Churches and Communions, do greatly mistake the Apostles design, who never dreamed of such a forbearance as this, but commands them to exercise mutual forbearance in order to their receiving one another, that is, living in the same Church-Communion and Fellowship with each other, not to their living peaceably in Separate Churches.  
2. That those Christians who live together in the same Church, must observe the same rule of Worship; but says Dr. O. what is this rule? if it reach our case, it must be such as requires 
Ib. p. 270.  things to be observed, as were never Divinely appointed, as National Churches, Ceremonies, and modes of Worship. Now the plain answer is this, that let the rule of Worship be what it will, it must be but one in the same Church; they must all observe the same rule, which is necessary to Communion and Uniformity of Worship; they must not set up distinct and separate Churches with opposite rules of Worship, for this is destructive of Christian Communion. 2. No doubt but the Apostle refers to that rule of Christian Worship, which was then practised among them, which they then knew very well, and which we all know was agreeable to the general rules of the Gospel, though it might vary in several Churches in some modes and circumstances; and this is to be our rule still as the D. well answered, to comform our Worship to the nature of Christian Religion, and the general rules of the Gospel, which is all that can be required of us, when there is no perfect standing platform of Worship in all the parts and circumstances of it prescribed in Scripture, to observe those things which although they be not particularly commanded by God, yet are enjoined by lawful Authority, provided that they be not unlawful in themselves, nor repugnant to the word of God: and Dr. O. may deny this still if he pleases, which is the only answer he gives to it; but will never be able to disprove it.  
3. Another thing I observe in the words is, that at least we must not break the Peace and Communion of the Church, upon account of any differences, which do not immediately influence our Worship. Notwithstanding their disputes about meats and drinks between Jews and Gentiles, the Christian Worship was the same, and therefore herein they must unite, and forbear each other in other matters: and if Mr. B. would have observed this rule, how many Objections against Conformity, or Lay Communion, would it have prevented and answered, with which he has now troubled the World; Indeed according to this rule, no difference should be sufficient for Separation, but what does immediately concern the nature and Administration of Religious Worship; if the Worship be lawful and true Christian Worship, we must observe the same rule, whatever other differences there may be between us.  
That I may not be thought to wrong Mr. B. in this, I shall give some plain instances of it, and leave other men to judge, how well he has observed the Apostolical rule, Mr. B. charges the 
Second Defence of Non-conf. p. 64, &c.  Dean with, saying that there is no other reasons of Separation because of the Terms of our Communion, than what was from the beginning of the Reformation. Though these are not the Deans words, who says, that although the present reasons for Separation would bave held from the beginning of the Reformation, yet no such thing was then practised, or allowed by those, who were then most zealous for Reformation: wherein Mr. B. endeavours to conceal the force and design of the D's Argument from the judgement and practise of former Dissenters, whose names they still glory in, to show the unexcusableness of the present Separation, even upon the Principles of old Non-conformity.  
But let us take it as Mr. B. proposes it, and see what other reasons there are for Separation now, than the Non-conformists had in former times. And they are in number Five.  
1. As to the things imposed now which were not them. And here he reckons. 1. The Vestry Act. 2. The Act of Uniformity. 3. The Corporation Act, all referring to renouncing the Covenant and Obligation of it for themselves and others, which is his 4. Now these indeed were not in being before, because the Covenant was not. But what is this to the Terms of Communion? cannot men join in all the lawful and enjoined Acts of Worship, unless they be Vestry-men, or Ministers, or Schoolmasters, or Aldermen, Sheriffs, and Common-Councilmen? If they scruple renouncing an illegal and sinful Covenant, cannot they worship God without renouncing it? unless they think their Covenant obliges them not to comply with such Church-Administrations, as to endeavour the extirpation of them, when they can.  
5. Re-ordination was not required in former times, and I know not how it should, when there were none to be reordained? But may not they worship as Lay-men,( as some think they are no better) if they cannot act as public Ministers? And what are the People concerned in this Dispute, who are neither required to be ordained nor re-ordained? And how does this justify Mr. B. and many others, who have no need of Reordination?  
But 6. Assent and Consent was not then required: Nor 7. the false Rule for finding Easter-day: Nor 8. the new Doctrine of the undoubted Salvation by God's Word, that baptized dying Infants are saved: Nor 9. the word Pastor, as applied to Parish-Ministers, distinct from Curates, blotted out of most places in the liturgy: Nor 10. the Oxford Act to banish Ministers five miles from all Cities, &c. Nor 11. were Ministers, and Corporations, and Vestries, bound to swear or subscribe, that it was unlawful on any pretence whatsoever to resist any commissionated by the King. Most of these things have been already accounted for, in his Answer to his Search for a schismatic; but all the enquiry is now, how any of these things, though never so truly alleged, can justify Separation, when not any one of them is made a necessary term of Lay-Communion. Was not the Dispute between the Jews and Gentiles, about the obligation of the Law of Moses, much more considerable than any of these, and yet because they did not influence the terms of Communion, the Apostle commands that they should be laid aside, and that they should join together in the same Rule of Christian Worship?  
2. Another difference he makes in the drift and tendency of these Impositions: The plain meaning of which is to charge our Governours with ill Designs, when they command no ill thing; which is a very loyal, peaceable and Christian temper: but if other men command good things with an ill De●ign, why cannot they obey them with a good one?  
3. Another difference is in the Effects. As 1. then( in former times) open Preaching and gathering Assemblies by non-Conformists, would have greatly offended the Prince; but our King by his Declaration at Breda, and his three first Declarations, and by his Licenses and connivance, shewed such wisdom and clemency, as intimated less displeasure at our liberty: And well they have rewarded him for it! But are not his Acts of Parliament of as great Authority as his Declarations? Is the peace and unity of the Church no duty, but as it pleases or displeases the King? Was the Design of his Majesties Clemency to harden them in Faction and Schism? Did Mr. B. consider, what an untoward Argument that was to convince the King of the necessity of executing Laws, to convince them of the necessity of obeying? 2. Separation in former times would have deprived most of the non-Conformists of their hopes of public liberty in the Parish-Churches, which most of them enjoyed; but we had neither possession nor expectation of such a thing. 1. I answer, What does this concern the Peoples Conformity? 2. What does it concern the non-Conforming Ministers Lay-Communion? 3. Does hope or despair of greater liberty, make the terms of Communion more or less sinful in themselves? This is an admirable Casuist, and we learn from him the size and rule of a non-Conforming Conscience: This is foul play, to justify themselves, by bringing a reproach upon the ancient Puritans, many of whom, I hope, were honester men.  
3. In former times Separation would have hindered and hazarded the progress of the Reformation; but our Preaching hath done more to stop the progress of the Syncretism, or of Popery. Pray what new Reformation was needful after the Reformation of Queen Elizabeth, King James, King Charles the I? None that I know of, but the Reformation of 43. and the following years of Reformation, when they reformed Episcopacy into Presbytery, and Presbytery into Independency, and a sober liturgy into a Directory, or Enthusiasm, and 39 Articles into all the wild Freaks of Familism, Anabaptism, Quakerism, and as many monstrous Opinions as were unknown in former Ages, and could scarce be paralleled in Irenaeus or Epiphanius. And if this were the reason, why they did not separate, that they might accomplish this blessed Reformation, we hearty thank Mr. B. both for his Discovery and for his Separation; for we desire to see no more such Reformations as these: though what their Preaching does to keep out Popery, I cannot tell; I am sure their Separation helps to bring it in.  
4. Another Reason why they did not separate formerly, and do now, is this, because few of the most ignorant that needed them, would then have left their Parish-Churches to hear non-Conformists in private,( this was no great Argument of their Ignorance, but that they were good understanding Christians, who knew their duty in preserving Unity and Order in Church-Communion) but now many will come to us that cannot get into Parish-Churches: If he would have shown the difference between these two Causes, he should have added the Ignorant in the latter part too, which whether it be true or no, let him who knows his Hearers best, judge. But the sum is this, they may comform, when they cannot get Hearers in schismatical Conventicles, but Conformity is a very ill thing, when they can.  
4. Another difference is from the aggravation of Conformity, as in the Church that we must communicate with: As 1. That the Pastors and Vestries of our comforming Churches are a company of perjured Villains, viz. for renouncing the obligation of an 
P. 69.  impious Covenant. But is the Dispute about the obligation of the Covenant of greater moment, than about the obligation of the Law of Moses? and yet the Apostle would not allow that a just cause of Separation. 2. That there is no longer any hope of Reformation, since so many bad men are allowed in our Communion; but were there not bad men in former Ages? and were not the Novatians and Donatists to be blamed, who separated upon this account? and do not the old non-Conformists expressly reject this, as a sufficient Reason for Separation?  
3. The Canon now excommunicates, ipso facto, all who profess themselves non-Conformists: but pray what new excommunicating Canons have been made since the King's Return? or is the excommunicating non-Conformists a sufficient Reason to justify non-Conformity?  
4. 2000 Ministers were not before cast out, which now tempts the People to forsake our Communion: but great numbers were before silenced, as they used to complain of old; and the Dispute is not what tempts People to be froward, but what will justify a Separation: though, I fear, it was not the casting out 2000 Ministers, if that was the number, but the 2000 that were cast out, who drew our People to Separation.  
5. Formerly, when one Bishop cast any out, some other usually would endure them; but now it was not so: This is the great grievance, that there are no Puritanical Bishops in these days, to foster such non-Conformists, who when time serves, would be for plucking up root and branch again. But Mr. B. should consider, what has made this Alteration: Those Confusions these men brought upon Church and Nation, have convinced Bishops, that it is a dangerous thing to cherish such Persons, whose whole design is to poison People with Fanatical Principles, and to undermine the present Constitution. Some Bishops saw the tendency of their Principles before they outed them; others were taught by dear-bought Experience; and can they blame the Bishops, that they do not take those for such innocent and well-meaning men, who plucked off their own vizards, and discover a real Enemy, under the flattering disguise of a meek and humble, but scrupulous and tender-conscienc'd Friend.  
6. Some who do not communicate, nor separate, are tolerated among us; and therefore they had reason to hope, that if they did separate, they should be tolerated, which is the substance of his Argument, too long to transcribe; and a wise one it is: but our Laws or Canons tolerate such men; but Discipline is not duly executed upon the careless or profane, and therefore they may separate, as well as not communicate all; and I confess they may; but the neglect of Discipline and Government does neither excuse the sin of those who absent themselves from our Communion, nor of those who separate: but if this be a new Case, which was in the time of the old non-Conformists, we may see what the blessed effects of a fanatic Reformation has been.  
5. His last difference between the Case of former and present non-Conformists, is taken from the things which give them fuller cause for their Preaching and Assemblies, i.e. that they have more reason now to preach in separate Meetings, than there was before. He names some; as 1. We saw the Kingdom, though under Usurpers,( it is well he will own those to be Usurpers now, whom he did not think so in 59.) engaged by vow, practise, and about 16 years possession and custom, to another way; and who could expect, that a Law should presently change them all, and assure them of Absolution. But 1. methinks they might have tried whether it would or no; but this they durst not trust to, but took all possible courses by Libels and Pamphlets, in their private Talk, and farewel-Sermons, to keep up the old humour, and alienate the minds of People from the established Religion, and then pled that necessity, which themselves have made. 2. I hope they will not pled 16 years possession, when no Religion was established, as a sufficient prescription against that, which has been the Religion of this Nation ever since the Reformation. 3. Is Communion with our Church ever the worse, because a potent. Faction and Schism had thrust it out 16 years? 4. Might it not have been as reasonably expected, that People would have returned to the Communion of the Church, as to their Allegiance to their Prince, though they had been engaged by vow, practise, and about 16 years possession and custom, to another way? 5. Did this Vow and Covenant oblige them against Conformity to our Communion, that they needed somewhat besides a Law to assure them of Absolution? 6. Either the People did well in adhering to their old Vows and Covenants, or they did not: If they did, it is not possession and custom, but the merit of the Cause, which is their justification; if not, how could such conscientious men uphold and countenance People in a bad way, because they had been so long in it? Those who had helped to bring them into these ways of Schism, I should have thought, had been more obliged to have helped them out again: but it is no sign of a very tender conscience, to keep People in such dangerous mistakes, rather than own a mistake themselves. Whoever act upon such Principles, value their Credit and Reputation above the Salvation of their own or other mens Souls.  
3. Another difference is fetched from Plague and Fire, which made the Government take less notice of them, and gave them opportunity to poison the minds of discontented People. This is the old fanatic way of expounding Providences; they think that lawful to do, which Providence gives them an opportunity of doing: As for the King's licence, this indeed may excuse them from the sin of Rebellion and Disobedience, in setting up Conventicles, not from the evil of Church-divisions and Separation; but this is a mere pretence, for they kept Conventicles without the King's licence both before and since.  
4. Another difference was those Invitations they had from the People to preach; but every body knows, that they did not stay for the Peoples Invitation, but first invited them to hear. But however methinks this is but a sorry justification of Separation, that they complied with the schismatical Inclinations of People, whom they ought to have taught better.  
Thus you see, how this Rule of the Apostle may be applied to our present controversy, not to break the Peace and Communion of the Church, for the sake of any different apprehensions of things, which do not immediately concern Religious Worship.  
But to return to the Argument which occasioned this Digression: Since St. Paul was so zealous an Enemy to Separation, and made it so much his business to preserve the Jews and Gentiles in the same Communion, let who will believe, that he set up such a distinct and separate Communion of Gentiles at Rome, or that Peter did of Jews, for my part I cannot. When St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, there was but one Church there, consisting of Jews and Gentiles, whom he persuades to forbear, and to receive one another; nor is there any evidence from Antiquity to make it appear that there were two Churches there; the only thing that has inclined some learned men to favour that Notion, is that difficulty there is in Antiquity, how to order the Successions of the first Bishops in the Church of Rome; Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus, at least if these two last be not the same man, as seems very probable. But this was the worst way they could have taken, when it is so plain, that there was nothing St. Paul in all Churches did more earnestly endeavour to prevent; an● I had rather these Successions should remain a difficulty till Dooms-day, than to cut this knot by dividing the Church.  
The result of this whole Discourse is, That to the Communion of a particular Church, it is necessary, that neighbour-Christians meet together for all the Acts of Religious Worship, and that nothing can justify a Separation from the Church wherein we live, but sinful terms of Communion; for what Mr. B. discourses of occasional Communion, and purer Communions, and such kind of Christians as are members of the catholic Church, but are not members of any particular Church, has been considered already.  
II. Another thing essential 
Et illi sunt Ecclesia plebs Sacerdoti adunata,& Pastori suo grex adherens. Unde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse,& Ecclesiam in Episcopo,& si qui cum Episcopo non sit, i● Ecclesia non esse,& frustra sibi blandiri eos, qui pacem cum Sacerdotibus Dei non habentibus obrepunt,& latenter apud quosdam communicare se credant. Cypr. Ep. 69.  to the Communion of a particular Diocesan Church, is to live in Communion with the Bishop of that Church; for the Unity and Communion of a Church consists in the Union be●●een Pastor and People, as I think every one acknowledges, who owns such a thing as an organical Church. St. Cyprian defines a Church to be a People united to their Bishop, and a Flock keeping close to their Pastor. But I need not industriously prove that, which no body denies, the only Dispute here being between the Diocesan and Parochial Bishop,( as Mr. B. calls him) which of them is the proper Pastor of the Flock; but this I have already discoursed at large.  
Nor is there any difficulty in explaining, what it is to live in Communion with our Bishop, which signifies, to worship God in the Communion of that Church whereof he is Bishop, to obey his Rules and Orders, to reverence his Counsels and Censures, and in all things, which concern the Matters of Religion and Christian Worship, to be subject to his Authority and Directions, while he enjoins nothing contrary to the Rules of Scripture, or inconsistent with any part of our duty to God and man.  
III. Another thing wherein Church-Communion consists, and which is an essential part of our Communion with our Bishop, is to live in the Communion only of those Presbyters, who live in the Communion of their Bishop, that is, who officiate by his Authority, and are subject to his Directions and Orders. This was a standing Rule in Ignatius his time, as is evident from his Epistles, That Presbyters must do nothing in the Church, but by the Bishop's Consent or Order, and those who do, are schismatics, and those People who adhere to them in it, partake in the guilt of their Schisms; such was Felicissimus, and those other Presbyters of Carthage, who broken Communion with St. Cyprian their Bishop, whom therefore he did excommunicate, and forbade his People to communicate with them, under the pain of Excommunication, if they did, and describes their Schism 
Cum Episcopo po●tionem plebis dividere, hoc est, á Pastore Oves,& Pilios a parent separare. Cypr. Ep. 38. said& quisquis se connspiratiini& factioni ejus adjunxerit, sciat se in Ecclesia nobiscum non esse communicaturum.  to be a dividing and sharing the People with the Bishop, that is, separating the Sheep from their Pastor, and Children from their Parent.  
And this gives a plain Answer to that Question Mr. B. so often asks us, why we cannot communicate with them, as well as they with us; the Resolution of which is very easy, because they do not communicate with their Bishop, and therefore are schismatics; they preach without his Authority, and contrary to it, which is to set up Altar against Altar; and though Mr. B. sometimes communicates with our Parish-Churches, that does not excuse him from the guilt of Schism, because he preaches without and in opposition to the Authority of his Bishop, and draws People away from the Communion of the Parish-Churches, which alone are in Communion with their Bishop. Nor can I excuse those Amphibious Christians from Schism, who sometimes go to Church, and sometimes to a Conventicle; for though they are not in a constant state of Schism, as not having wholly forsaken the Communion of their Bishop, yet every time they go to a Conventicle, they are guilty of a schismatical Act; and had we a St. Cyprian among us at this day, they would not be suffered to shift turns thus between a Church and a Conventicle; for he expressly declared, that those who communicated with Felicissimus or Augendus, his schismatical Presbyters, should not be suffered to communicate in the Church with him.  
But Mr. B. thinks, it is not the licence and Authority of the Bishop, but the Consent of the People, that makes a Church-relation between Pastor and People; and then if they can but persuade the People to choose them for their Pastors, the work is done; the one may preach and administer Sacraments, and exercise Discipline, and the other communicate in all Religious Offices without Schism; that neither Bishops or Presbyters are any thing to the People, unless they choose them, or consent to a Church-relation with them, and that all those who are advanced into such Ecclesiastical Offices without the Consent of the People, are no better than Intruders or Usurpers.  
This controversy about the Power of the People in the choice of their Pastors, I confess, Mr. B. has managed with more Learning, and a fairere appearance of Reason, than any thing else; but yet has not set things in a true light, nor given Objections their proper and natural place, which confounds mens minds, and hinders them either from understanding or judging aright what he says. And therefore in Answer to him, I shall reduce what I have to say under these three Heads: 1. I will at present suppose the Right of the People to choose their own Pastor, and consider whether it will justify our present Separation. 2. Examine what inherent Right they have in the choice of their Pastors. 3. In what cases they ought to insist upon this Right.  
1. Let us suppose at present the Right of the People to choose their own Pastors. I would only ask, Whether they are not bound to choose their Pastors in the Communion of the Church? Whether they are not still bound to obey the orders and constitutions of the Church, wherein they live, supposing them to be just and lawful? Whether under a pretence of choosing their own Pastors, they may separate from the Church, and set up distinct Churches and Communions of their own? If Mr. B. will not allow this, then notwithstanding the Peoples right of choice and consent, they cannot choose Schismatical Presbyters for their Pastors without being guilty of Schism; and therefore all this dispute about the power of the people is nothing at all to our present controversy of Separation.  
And yet among all those numerous Citations of Authorities out of Ancient Councils, and Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Historians, he cannot produce one Testimomy to give the People right to justify a Schism by the choice of their Pastors, or to give them power to consent to a Church-relation with Schismatical Bishops and Presbyters. St. Cyprian whom Mr. B. so often cites for saying, that people have the greatest power to choose good Pastors and to refuse the evil, yet condemns those people, who adhered to Novatianus at Rome, and threatens to Excommunicate those at Carthage, who communicated with Feli●issimus and those other Schismatical Presbyters, who joined with him: did he now think, that these people had right to choose, where and whom they would to enter into a Church-relation with them: if he did, he did very ill to forbid them, and to threaten Excommunication against them; if he did not, how would he answer Mr. B.'s Argument, that every man is nearest to himself, and most concerned in the eternal happiness of his Soul, and therefore ought to judge for himself, who to entrust the care of his Soul with.  
And yet this has been the case of all Church-divisions and Schisms; whoever began them, they have been continued and increased by the consent of the people to take such schismatics for their Pastors, and yet I never remember, that this consent to a Church-Relation between the Novation, Arrian, Donatist, Bishops and People, was ever thought a justification either of their Schism or of their heresy; if it were, there never could be any such thing as Schism.  
And therefore whatever right may be in the people to choose their Pastors, it cannot excuse them from Schism to break the Communion of the Church wherein they live, and to choose their Pastors out of the Church; to join in Communion with those Presbyters, who Separate from the Communion of their Bishop, and set up distinct Churches in opposition to him.  
But it will be said, that this is to grant and to deny in the same breath; to allow People a right of consent in the choice of their Pastors, and yet not to admit of any choice, but where it can't be had: for they cannot choose their own Pastors in the Communion of the Church of England; for excepting some few Parochial Churches, who have the right of Patronage in themselves, all the Bishops and Parish Ministers of England are choose by the King, or by Private Patrons; and they do not think themselves concerned to communicate with that Church, which has none or very few Pastors rightly choose, and therefore their Separation is no Schism, but a forming themselves into a Church-Society, which they had not before; and I hope now, they will not complain, that I have not fairly stated their case: and I shall endeavour to give as plain an answer to it, and not offer any thing to others, but what satisfies myself.  
1. And First I would desire them plainly to answer me one question, whether there be any such thing, as a Christian Church in England established by Law, if they answer, there is not, that is, if they are so hardy as to unchurch us, when they give their reasons, I will endeavour to answer them, but I never met any of them yet, that would own such a Principle, nor give the least intimations of it in the most free and familiar converse, where they were in no danger of Laws or Inquisition; the general complaints are against the terms of our Communion, and there we are willing to join issue with them; if then we be a Church notwithstanding this irregular promotion of Bishops and Presbyters, then to separate from us without just reason is a sin, and the irregular choice of Bishops and Presbyters is no just cause, because we are acknowledged to be a true Church notwithstanding this.  
2. If they are not willing to grant this, that we may be a true Church, and fit to be communicated with, though the people do not choose their own Bishops and Parish Ministers, it is easy to extort this confession from them, or to put them to the blushy. For I would ask them, suppose all these impositions they complain of were removed,( I mean those which concern the terms of Communion, such as the Liturgy and Ceremonies) whether it were lawful to join in Church-Society with our Parish-Churches, though the King and Private Patrons would not give up their right of Presentations; if they say it were, then it is plain, that the want of Peoples consent in the choice of their Pastors does not unchurch us, nor justify a Separation, and therefore this is a mere pretence not a true reason of their separation: If they say, that the consent of the People is essentially necessary to the constitution of a Church. Then 1. they unchurch most if not all the Protestant Churches of Europe, who have no such choice. 2. They unchurch their dear selves in all the late glorious times, for Patrons would not consent to that piece of Reformation to give the disposal of their Livings to the choice of the Parishioners, though sometimes, as they do still, they might gratify some principal Inhabitants with a nomination of a fit Person: And 3. If this be their judgement they would do well to declare it, for unless the Parliament-men will grant away their Advowsons of Livings to the several Parishes, we can have no through Reformation to heal our Divisions, but this will be an eternal pretence for Separations, and then the constitution may as well remain as it is, as be altered to no purpose.  
3. Mr. B. owns that an after-consent 
Second Defence of Non-conf. p. 90.  of people to their Bishop or Parish-Ministers is sufficient to found a Church-relation: and this after-consent is sufficiently manifested by constant Communion; let us then by this principle examine whether the Church of England be a Church or not.  
If we look back then to the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, and King James, it is certain it was a Church in those dayes, for whatever antecedent consent they had, the generality of the Nation gave an after consent to their Bishops and Ministers, the great body of the people even the Puritans themselves for the most part living in Communion with them; thus it continued for the greatest part of King Charles the First's Reign, Mr. B. himself asserting, that there were very few Non-conformists at the beginning of the War: The Bishops then and Parish Presbyters of those dayes, were the just and rightful Pastors of the Church, not only by a legal Title, but by the consent of the People, who joined in Communion with them; and therefore those who separated from them, and deposed them, must be schismatics; and those who succeeded in their rooms Usurpers; unless they show some other reason for their Separation than want of the Peoples consent to a Church-relation, or it be in the power of the people, when they please, to choose new Pastors, and depose their old ones, and overturn Church and State, and set up any thing or nothing in the room of it.  
When the King returned, the great body of the People returned to the Communion of the Church, and had continued there to this day, had not some busy Factors for Separation drawn them into a Snare, and by degrees formed them into a distinct Party and Interest from the present Establishment; and yet notwithstanding the numerous Sects and Parties, Divisions and misapprehensions of Fanaticism, I doubt not but much the greatest part of the Nation is still firm to the Church of England, and live in Communion with it; which proves us in Mr. B's own way to be a Church, and consequently those who separate to choose their own Pastors to be guilty of Schism.  
4. I have one Inquiry more, whether those Presbyters who were ordained in the Church of England are not schismatics, if they separate from the Church without just reason; and whether those who communicate with schismatics and choose such for their Pastors, are not schismatics: So that it is not enough to justify their Separation, to assert the Peoples power in choosing their own Pastors, but they must vindicate their own Innocence, not only as to Nonconformity, but Separation; for if they are schismatics in separating from that Church, of which they are Presbyters, the People must be schismatics in choosing them for their Pastors; now they cannot deny the Church of England to be a true Church, for then they must renounce their own Ordination, and therefore the only way they have to vindicate themselves from the guilt of Schism, is by proving our Church to be so corrupt, that they cannot without sin communicate with it: and thus the controversy returns to its old bottom, the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the terms of our Communion, where we desire to keep it, and from whence Mr. B. has with all imaginable arts endeavoured to remove it.  
2. Let us now consider what right the People have of consent to the choice of their Pastors; and here I shall speak with as much care as I can, for fear of falling under Mr. B's lash for want of Logical strictness, as the D. does, for whom Mr. B. can 
Second Defence of Non-conf. p. 126.  think of no better Defence than that he is none of the Disputers of this World, who deceive men with vain Philosophy; and I doubt not but the D. will be very well contented to leave that Character to himself, and let him make the best of it: and that all this out-cry about the D's logic and Philosophy, is for using power instead of right and liberty, and yet I am so stupidly Illogical, that I think the power of consenting to be the same thing with the right of consenting; but power of consenting in the People, and power in Rulers are not univocal but equivocal terms: What then: It is power still, and may properly be called power in the People, as well as in the Rulers, though the power be not the same. But the word( Choice) instead of( Consent) is somewhat more crooked, which ( crooked) I suppose is a new Logical term: but what is the matter? may not that consent, which alone makes the choice obligatory to the People, be very properly called the choice of the People? No, for( choice) ordinarily includeth the first nominating vote. In what logic? a choice is a choice, whoever nominates the persons to be chosen, especially if the people may reject every one that is nominated, till one is nominated in whom they agree and consent: I know not what Logical strictness this is, but I am sure, it savours of a rude and petulant humour, and an odd kind of composition of Spite, Pride and Pedantry: But Mr. B. may spare his pains, the World knows the Dean of St. Pauls too well, to think that he need be taught logic.  
But to avoid the rebukes of this angry man as well as I can, I will carefully consider what he means by that right of consent the people have in the choice of their Pastors. And he fully explains his sense in Five particulars. 1. That the People are no judges who is fit to be, and shall be a Minister of Christ. And therefore Bishops and Presbyters may be Ordained without the consent of the people; and therefore may be true Ministers of Christ, whether the people consent to it or not, which I desire may be remembered till a convenient time. 2. The supreme Civil governor is the Judge, whom he must countenance maintain and tolerate; which is another very useful observation. 3. The disposal of the tithes and Temples is in the power of the Prince and Patron by his grant: This is a very comfortable observation too, for poor Church of England men, who are Persecuted for being Loyal to their Prince. And yet upon second thoughts, he is unwilling to give up all interest to the tithes and Temples. And therefore has several qualifications and limitations of this power to bring it all back again: For 1. The Princes Power is not absolute( over tithes and Temples) but under Christ: That we grant, for we don't make a God of our King— 3. If the tithes and Temples were given for the Pastors of the Churches, the Magistrate is bound to give them to such as are lawfully called to be such Pastors, i.e. To those who are choose or consented to by the People, for he looks upon none others as lawfully called, and therefore adds, and not by the advantage of his trust overthrow the way of entrance instituted by Christ: And by having the power of the Tithes and Temples in his hand, he must not deprive the People of their right of consent, by giving the tithes and Temples to those have not their consent, or refusing to give them to those who have: And 4. threatens them with sacrilege, if they do not: For if they 
Ib. p. 127.  were devoted to God, God is the Proprietor, and it is sacrilege to alienate them, and an intolerable ill disposal is alienation. Here he was loth to speak out, and therefore will not charge them in express words with Sacrilege for disposing of them without the Peoples consent, but only an intolerable ill disposal is alienation; but what he means any man may guess by what goes before: and speaking of the same business a little after; says the D. confesseth I deny not the Magistrates or Patrons power of their own gift( the case of Sacrilege I leave to their Consciences.) So that if 
Ib. p. 149.  they will venture to be Sacrilegious, they may give the tithes and Temples without the Peoples consent. Is not this now a man of logic, who has wound themselves into the possession of tithes and Temples too at the back door of the Peoples consent? For they cannot be disposed of, but to such Persons as have the Peoples consent, unless Prince and Patrons will be content to be damned for a Sacrilegious promotion of Church-men; which is an admirable power he grants to Princes and Patrons. And thus his former grant to the Civil Magistrate to judge whom he must countenance, maintain and tolerate, is quiter vanished too; for it is plain he must maintain only those whom the People consent to receive as Pastors, for they must have the tithes and Temples, unless he will commit Sacrilege, and I think this is to countenance, and somewhat more than to tolerate them: thus the right and liberty of the people, which he will not allow to be called Power, to consent to the choice, not to choose their Pastors, overtops all the power of Princes, disposes of tithes and Temples, and gives Laws to the Magistrate whom to maintain and tolerate, and whom not. And yet this he will not allow to be Pleading the Peoples cause against Magistrates, Patrons and Laws. And yet I confess I am glad to hear that Mr. B. has any sense of Sacrilege, and I hope the godly party will consider it, and never think of fingering Churchlands again. The 4.§. is much to the same purpose: but 5. he tells us, I have oft said, that mutual consent is necessary to the being of the relation of Pastor and Flock. And though sometimes the Rulers imposition, and the Patrons choice, may make it the Peoples duty in prudence to consent, when the good preponderates the 
Ib. p. 127.  hurt( not else) yet till they consent the relation is not existent.  
Now before I consider his proofs for the necessity of this consent, it is worth while to consider, how these things hang together, and what an admirable division here is of Ecclesiastical power between the Prince, the Clergy, and the People. As for the Prince we have already seen how all his power is gone; the people have a Negative Vote against his choice, and if he will not comply with them, they can choose for themselves without his consent, and he has no Negative vote against them, not so much as to the disposal of tithes and Temples without the danger of Sacrilege.  
The case between the Clergy and the People is somewhat more disputable, for Mr. B. owns that the People are not Judges, who is fit to be, and shall be a Minister of Christ: But the Ordainers and the Person himself conjunct,( i.e. the person to be Ordained, are the judges of it) which( he says) is evident from Scripture instances of all that were ordained. 2. From the nature of the thing: For who is supposed so fit to judge as men and Seniors of the same Office? Who but Physicians are fit to judge, who is meet to be a licenced Physician? And who but Philosophers judge of Graduates and Professors in Philosophy? And thus he has in good time given up his Cause, as will appear by some few plain Questions: For,  
1. Has a Minister of Christ Authority to preach the Gospel, and to instruct and govern the Church of Christ? If he has not, what does his Ordination signify? When he has received Authority from Christ, must he wait for the Consent of the People? Does not the Authority of Christ command the subjection and consent of the People? For( 1.) dare any Christian refuse to be instructed and governed by any Minister, who has received Authority from Christ? Does not Christ tell his Apostles, and in them all the successive Pastors of the Church, He that refuseth you, refuseth me, and he that refuseth me, refuseth him that sent me? And what Christian dares refuse Christ in his Ministers and Servants, when they come to them? Will it be owned for a good excuse at the day of judgement for refusing any Minister, who is set over us in Christ's Name and by his Authority, that we had not given our Consent to a Pastoral Relation to him? It is very true what Mr. B. says, That it is impossible, ex naturâ rei,( from the nature of the thing) that the Pastoral Office should be exercised upon Dissenters; therefore their Consent is necessary. A Patient may be drenched like a Horse, 
Ib. p. 139.  and crammed like fatted Fowl, and so may have a Physician against his will, but a soul cannot use Pastoral Helps unwillingly. But the Question is, Whether these men are not bound, as they love their souls, and will answer the Affront they put upon the Authority of Christ in his Ministers, willingly and cheerfully to submit to Pastoral Conduct and Government, to obey those who are set over them in the Lord; whether the obligation of conscience and sense of duty ought not to cure a capricious humour? For it is too late to dispute the Authority of a public Minister of Religion, when he has received Authority from Christ, which he may exercise over any part of the Christian Church, where either the Invitations of the People, or the Power of the Magistrate shall place him. And I would desire Mr. B. to show me any one instance in Scripture, where the Consent of the People was required in setting over them any Bishop or Presbyter, who was already ordained. Something is alleged for their Consent at Ordinations, as their presence at the choice of an Apostle to succeed in the room of Judas, and the choice of Deacons, though not much to the purpose, and as we must conclude from Mr. B. nothing at all to the purpose, that there is no Scripture-instance( of the Peoples being Judge, who is fit to be, and shall be a Minister of Christ) in all that were ordained.  
And thus it was in the Ages succeeding the Apostles, the great care and interest of People was at Ordinations; for when once they were ordained, there was no resisting their Authority, unless they were canonically deposed.  
This is evident in the Ordination of Presbyters and Readers, to whose Ordination the Consent of the People was usually asked; though sometimes it was done without, as we find in St. Cyprian, who ordained some while he was under Banishment, absent from his Church, and gives an account to them by Letter, what he had done. But when they were ordained, they were employed by the Bishop for the administration of Religious Offices, without asking any further leave of the People.  
Thus we know that Bishops were never ordained but to some Church, and the Canons expressly provide against the translation of Bishops from one Church to another, and it was but very rarely practised in ancient times; and therefore when the Episcopal Chair was empty by the death of the Bishop, the great contest was to choose a Bishop to be ordained to that vacant Church. This Mr. B. will find to be true in most of those Examples and Canons which he himself has produced.  
There is one Canon indeed he quotes, 
council. Antioch, c. 18.  which the D. had quoted before, of the Council of Antioch; which supposes, that when the Bishop is ordained for any Church without the Consent of the People, they did sometimes refuse him; the words as Mr. B. translates them are these: That if one be ordained Bishop, and go not to the Parish,( but for all his translating it Parish, the Council does not speak of Mr. B's. Parochial Bishop) because the People refuse him, he shall have 
Second Def. of non-Conf. p. 141.  the Honour and Office of a Bishop, not troubling the peace of the Church; which( as Mr. B. adds) plainly saith, what I have oft said, that the People have no power to hinder any from being Ministers or Bishops indefinitely in the universal Church, but only to judge whether he shall be theirs, whereas the Ordainers had power in both Cases. But where does this Canon say any such thing? It seems to me, as the D. said, to suppose the quiter contrary, that the Bishops who were the Ordainers, did not believe that the People had any inherent Right any more to choose their own Bishop, than to ordain; for they did ordain the refused Bishop indefinitely in the universal Church, but ordained him to that particular Church, where the People refused him; which necessary supposes, that they did think they had Authority to do so,( whatever Custom sometimes prevailed against it) without asking the Peoples Consent, or else they would never have attempted it; and therefore that provision they make for him to retain the Honour and Office of a Bishop, though his People should refuse him, does not suppose that of Right they might do so, but was a prudent provision to prevent for the future such Disorders and Troubles in the Church, as probably had happened formerly upon such occasions.  
I doubt not but Mr. B. very well saw the truth of what I have now discoursed, but was very unwilling to make the peoples consent necessary to the ordination of a Bishop, but only to found a pastoral relation, for he was sensible, that people could have no further interest in ordinations, than to be judges of his holy and blameless conversation, as the Dr. had asserted, that the main ground of the peoples interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon, that a Bishop must be blameless, and of good report. Whereas where he can produce any one instance where people choose a Bishop who was a Bishop before, there are sorty on the other side; and therefore their business was to choose a Bishop to be ordained for them, and therefore could have no greater interest in the choice, than they had in the ordination of a Bishop, which Mr. B. says was none, but I aclowledge to be as much as their good testimony of his life and manners, and of his faithful discharge of any inferior office in the Church.  
And I have an unanswerable argument to prove, that this was the only interest they had( whatever they usurped by tumults and disorders) in the choice of a Bishop, and that their consent was not originally required to a Pastoral relation, as Mr. B. founds it, and that is this, that there is no greater right assigned to them, in all antiquity in the choice of a Bishop, than they had in the choice of Deacons and Presbyters; they used indeed ordinarily to concern themselves more in this, because they thought it a matter of greater consequence, but the original right was the same; as is evident from the Scripture instance of the choice of Deacons, whereon most men found the right of the people, and from the universal practise of the Church in Tertullian's and St. Cyprian's days, when Deacons, Readers, Presbyters, and all other Church-officers were as much chosen by the people, and by the famed right, that the Bishops were, and Tertullian expressly tells us, what the choice of Bishops and Presbyters was in those days, whom he calls by the common name of Seniores, honorem istum non pretio said testimonio adepti, they obtained this honour not by purchase, but by testimony: that good report, which the people, who knew their lives and conversations, gave of them.  
Now the interest of people in the choice of Deacons and Presbyters, could not be founded on the necessity of their consent in a Pastoral relation: the case is plain in Deacons, who were no Pastors, and yet ought no more to be made without the consent of the people than the Bishop; and in those first ages of the Church, Presbyters were never looked on as their Pastors( which name and office was peculiar to the Bishop) but as subordinate Ministers, who were employed in such religious offices, as the Bishop pleased: the Bishops Parish or diocese was not then divided into distinct Titles or Parishes, with their fixed Presbyters over them, which looks more like a Pastoral relation, but the whole diocese lay in common, though there were several congregations in it for religious worship, as I think has been proved above, and the Bishop allotted his Presbyters their work and Province, as he saw the necessities of the Church require. Now if the consent of the people be founded only in a Pastoral relation, what gave them a right of consent in the Election of Presbyters and Deacons? the practise of the Church was the same in all, without the least notice taken of any different or greater interest the people had in the choice of their Bishop, than of any meaner Church-officers, the consent of the people to a Pastoral relation, being of no elder date than the rise of Independency, and never mentioned in all the writings of the ancient Fathers, as far as I can observe either in my own reading, or what more learned men have collected from them.  
Before I examine Mr. B.'s reasons to prove the necessity of the peoples consent to constitute a Pastoral relation, I shall urge one argument against it; which is this. All the true Ministers of Christ, and Pastors of his Flock are Ministers of the catholic Church, and have a Pastoral relation to the whole Church, and all Christian people are members of the catholic Church, and are related to all the Pastors of it, which cannot possibly be owing to consent between Pastor and people. Every Christian Pastor is qualified for the exercise of the Pastoral office in any part of the world, and is bound to it, as he has opportunity to do it: Every Christian man is bound to communicate with all Christian Churches in the world, supposing nothing sinful in their communion, and to obey their Pastors, while he lives among them, though he never gave any consent to this Pastoral relation, but by consenting to become a Christian, and to submit to that authority which Christ has placed in his Church. I need not insist on this, which I have abundantly proved in what I have already discoursed about the unity and communion of the catholic Church, and if that hold good, as I shall conclude it does, till I see it fairly confuted, there can be no place for such a consent, as Mr. B. or such a particular-Church-Covenant, as Dr. O. calls it, to found a Pastoral relation between Pastor and people. Christ who founded his Church hath set his Ministers over it, to instruct and govern his Church in his name, and by his authority, and whoever will be a Christian must submit to the authority of Christ, as visibly exercised by his Ministers, which makes a catholic relation between all Pastors and Christian people; and as for a relation to a particular Church, private Christians are determined by the place of their habitation, if there be any Christian Church there; and a Bishop or Presbyter may be fixed in a particular Church, by the choice of the Prince, Clergy, or people, or by all together, as the Laws of any particular or national Church determine; and though it might be thought convenient in some cases, that the people were consulted in the choice, yet it cannot be necessary to a Pastoral relation, and so is not voided and null without it: for we have a relation to all the Ministers of Christ antecedent to the notion of a particular Church and particular communion, and therefore cannot refuse obedience to him that is set over us in particular, though without our consent, if he be a true Minister of Christ.  
I proceed now to examine Mr. B.'s proofs for the necessity of the peoples consent to the choice of their Bishop or Pastor, to found a Pastoral relation: and he argues from the universal practise of the Church, and from the nature of the thing. I mightily love arguments from the nature of things, which when rightly deduced, are always most plain and convincing; and therefore I shall begin my enquiry here, and do profess myself very willing 
Second Def. of Nonconf. p. 133.  to learn, and therefore am not afraid, that more light should put out my eyes, as Mr. B. suspects some of his Adversaries are; but if there be any such men, I would have them take courage, and venture their eyes, for Mr. B. is a very merciful man to his Readers upon this account, if they do not lose their eyes in fogs and mists, he will never put them out with too much light.  
He never indeed wants twenty arguments for any thing, and such a kind of number he has given us here, but I can make but three or four at most of them. 1. That every man has a propriety in his own soul, and is more concerned to take care of it, than any one else, and therefore must choose his own Pastor, to whom he will commit the care of his Soul. 2. From the necessity of the Pastoral office, and the faithful discharge of it. 3. That it is very unlikely, Princes and Pastors should choose so well for people, as they will for themselves. 4. That no pretence of public good and order can dispense with this duty of taking care of our Souls. This is the force of all he says, so far as I can understand it.  
1. The first he very industriously endeavours to prove, though I think no man ever denied, that we ought to take care of our souls, though the consequence be somewhat doubtful, of which more anon. But in his proof of this we are furnished with such admirable politics and Aphorisms for a Holy Commonwealth, as I fear will be found to overthrow all Civil as well as Ecclesiastical power. Thus in his first proposition he tells us, propriety is in order of nature antecedent to Regiment( or Government) which supposeth it, and is to order the use of it for common safety and good. But now he ought to have exercised his distinguishing faculty here, and  told us what propriety he means, whether that propriety which every man has in himself, or that propriety which governours have in their Subjects: That propriety which Governours have in their Subjects is the foundation of Government: Thus God has a right to govern the world because he made it: this made Adam an Universal Monarch over his own Children; which power descended to the Heads of Families, reserving some authority to immediate Parents, and thus it was ordered by God himself in the Jewish State: The Princes of Israel being the heads of their Tribes and Families; and thus propriety is the foundation of Government still, not indeed a natural but acquired propriety, either by Conquest, Descent, or Election.  
But if he means every mans propriety in himself, it makes every man an absolute Prince in his own concernments, and so he adds 4. self-government( as to power and obligation) is antecedent to human public government in order of nature, that is, has a more immutable right, which public government does not destroy, but regulate. 6. Parents government is antecedent to Princes, and Princes cannot take it from them, nor disoblige their children, but self-government is more natural than Parents, and Parents and Princes must help it, but not destroy it: the Parent has more power over his children than the Prince, and a Child more power than his Parent; and thus every private man is the absolute governor of himself, by the law of nature.  
But not to examine now the looseness of these principles, nor what ill influence they may have upon civil government, especially upon an hereditary Monarchy( for I cannot see any reason why upon these principles, the people have not an inherent and immutable right to choose their King, as well as their Bishop) I will readily grant, that every man has a greater right to his own soul than either Prince or Bishop, and is more nearly concerned to take care of it; but I do not see how Mr. B. proves from hence that every man has an inherent and unalterable right to choose his own Pastor; indeed he does not offer one word of proof for it that I see, but takes it for so plain a consequence as needs no proof; and therefore I shall only offer a reason or two to show, that this consequence is not so plain and certain.  
1. Because mankind always had an equal right in their souls, that they have at this day, and yet this was never allowed them under any religion to choose their own Priests and Pastors. Before the Law, as is generally believed, the Priesthood was annexed to the head of the Family, as the civil power was; under the Law God himself confined the Priesthood to a particular family and tribe: The family of Aaron and the tribe of Levi were separated for the service of the Altar and the Temple, and all the Ministers of Religion; and therefore in those days the people were denied the liberty of choice, though the Priests were never so ignorant and vicious, as it is plain they were in several ages of the Jewish Church. And when our Saviour himself came into the world, though he warned his Disciples against the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees, yet he did not allow them to withdraw from their communion, and to choose better for themselves, but on the other hand tells them, the Scribes and Pharisees sit 
Math. 23. 2, 3.  in Moses's seat, all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, but do not ye after their works, for they say, and do not. And when our Saviour himself instituted a Church he choose his Apostles himself, and commands all to hear them; and the Apostles followed this example, and by that authority they received from Christ, ordained others to succeed in their room, without the choice of the people( as Mr. B. himself acknowledges) and yet commands all Christians to be subject to them, as the Ministers of Christ; which was to impose Pastors on them without their consent either antecedent or consequent, any otherwise than as they knew themselves obliged cheerfully to consent to such Pastors as were set over them by the Apostles, to whom the power belonged.  
2. Men who are so sensible of the worth of their souls, as this argument supposes, may take very great care of them, especially in such a Church, and such an age as this, without separating from the communion of the Church, though his Parish Minister be none of the best preachers, nor best and wisest men: In the daily appointed service of the Church they have the Scriptures red to them, and devout pious prayers in a language which they understand, and if it were no more, a man may provide very well for his soul by a diligent reading, or hearing the Scriptures red to them, and whatever men say, it argues no great opinion of the sufficiency of the Scriptures, to speak so meanly of the ordinary service of the Church, wherein the Scriptures are daily red, and the principal doctrines of faith piously and judiciously explained in the Catechism and homilies of the Church, as if people, who had no more, were in such a deplorable and desperate state for their souls. Which yet was thought a singular blessing at the beginning of the Reformation, and would be so still did men either understand, what kind of preaching the Church has had in most ages, or took not more pleasure in gratifying a wanton curiosity, and itching ears, than in saving their souls: but besides, how many pious books are all men furnished with who are desirous of saving knowledge? how many knowing Christians are there in most neighbourhoods, who, as Mr. B. says, are capable of giving very wholesome advice and counsel, and might make as good preachers as most of the ancient Primitive Fathers? How many learned, judicious, and pious Pastors are there in all parts of the country, to whom they may privately resort in difficult cases for resolution, and make their private particular guides, when their own Parish Minister is not fit for that office? and a man who takes care of his soul, will rather choose upon such occasions to ride or walk some miles, than to break the communion of the Church.  
So that all serious Christians, who love and take care of their souls, may provide very well for them in the communion of the Church, without having this liberty of choosing their own Pastor, when they do not like him who is set over them by the authority of Church and State: and therefore that care which men ought to take of their souls, and that right they have in them, does not necessary prove the necessity of their own consent to a Pastoral relation.  
And as for other men, who take no care of their souls, I suppose Mr. B. does not so earnestly pled for their liberty of choice, which is not like to be a very good one; since, as Mr. B. says, it is natural, to generate the like, and for men to do, and choose as they 
Ib. p. 135.  are, and as their Interest leads them: And if this be an argument against the choice of Princes and Patrons, I think it is no good argument for the choice of a vicious people.  
3. If that right men have to take care of their souls, be a good argument to prove their right to choose their Pastors, methinks it proves somewhat more than Mr. B. will own, that they ought to consent to the choice, or have as much right in the choice of those persons, who are to be ordained Pastors, as in choosing, who shall be their particular Pastors. My reason is this, because if there be any error committed, the fundamental error is in ordaining unfit and unqualified Pastors; for since the people, as Mr. B. says, must choose an ordained Pastor, if none were ordained but those, who are fit, they could never make an ill choice; nor were there such great reason to be curious about it; and if any unfit persons be ordained, they must fall to some bodies share, unless we will suppose more to be ordained, than there is any need of; which though I grant is often done, yet is contrary to Primitive practise, and both the Ancient and Modern Canons of the Church, which will not allow Ordinations, but to some Church or Title. And let us make a wild supposition for once, as Mr. B. makes many, when his cause requires it: suppose the Ordainers should be so generally corrupt in Faith or Manners themselves as to ordain none, or very few men duly qualified for the Pastoral Office, what would become of the peoples choice then? How would they take care of their souls, when there are none to choose, who are fit to take care of them? And yet Mr. B. will not allow them any choice or consent, who shall be Ministers of Christ, but only who shall be theirs, which it is plain, is not a sufficient security to their souls, unless wise, and good, and faithful men are first ordained as objects of their choice.  
4. That reason Mr. B. assigns against their right and interest of choice and 
Ib. p. 126.  consent, who is fit, and shall be a Minister of Christ, is to the full as good a reason against their choice of their own Pastor, notwithstanding their right to take care of their souls. For if none be so fit to judge( of the fitness of men to be Ordained) as men and Seniors of the same Office, as Physicians are fit to judge, who is meet to be a licenced Physician, then certainly those who are fittest to judge, who shall be a Minister, are fittest also to judge, to what people they shall discharge that Office. For the care of our souls( as far as concerns this matter) only requires us to choose a Person fit to discharge a Pastoral Office; and therefore those, who are best able to judge of fitness for the Pastoral Office, are the most competent Judges, of such a choice too; and people take the best care of their souls, by committing the choice to better Judges than themselves.  
5. There is as much hazard to the souls of men in the choice of their own Pastors, as in any other way. People who are careless of Religion, will make as careless a choice too; those who are giddy, will be fickle and unconstant to any, and soon repent of their choice, and either depose their Pastor, if that liberty also be granted, or not regard him, which makes that relation useless. Those who are erroneous, will choose a Pastor of their own mind, who shall not correct, but confirm their errors; and those who are injudicious and ignorant, which I doubt is the case of many, who are thought very knowing Christians, will choose a man of noise and passion, before the most grave and experienced Divine; and some men of better judgments, or who are over-ruled by wise men, will make a wise choice: but all that I conclude from hence is, that the choice of the people, is not the best way to take care of their souls, and therefore we have no reason to think, that our Saviour appointed this way.  
6. There are other Persons accountable to God for peoples souls, as well as themselves, I mean the Governours of Church and State; and if the choice of fit Pastors be of such mighty consequence as indeed it is, they certainly ought to have the over-ruling power in this matter; for they are accountable to God as Governours, which supposes, that they have a superior Power and Government; and yet if the people have a Negative Voice, that no man can be their Pastor without their consent, there are infinite cases wherein Governours have no authority at all to take care of them. And as people have a right in their souls, so I suppose Governours have in theirs, and yet they forfeit their own souls, by not taking care of the peoples. And as for what Mr. B. urges, that the 
Ib. p. 134.  gain or loss is more the Patients; than the Imposers: it is their own souls, that are like to be profited and saved by needful helps, or lost for want of them, and therefore it most concerns themselves to know what helps they choose. It is not upon all accounts true: For the Magistrates and Imposers soul is as much concerned as theirs, nay, he is to give an account for all those souls, which suffer through his neglect, but they are to account only every man for themselves; and he is less excusable, if he do not exercise that power he has to save men even against their wills; than private men are for not making greater improvements, when they wanted better helps, which they could not have without disturbing public Peace and Order: though every man is most concerned to take care of his soul, yet he has no right to damn his soul, though he shall be the greatest sufferer by it, which yet is the greatest force of Mr. B.'s argument, for if a man have not right to damn his soul, he has not the greatest right to choose his own Pastor, because it is as possible he may make a bad as a good choice, and those Governours who are concerned to use their power and interest to prevent mens damning themselves, and are accountable to God, if they do not; have certainly power power to govern and over-rule people in the choice of their Pastors, and to make good provision for them against their wills, which destroys their inherent and unalterable right of choice.  
7. I would desire Mr. B. to consider, whether it is likely, that God who is the God of Peace and Order, should appoint such a way of choice, as in the very nature of it, considering the state of mankind in this world, must inevitably break the Church into ten thousand factions: For by Mr. B.'s argument, every single man is to choose for himself, and must no more be over-ruled by a Majority of Votes in such an Election, than be imposed on by King, Bishops, or Patrons: for every man is nearest to himself, and most concerned for his own soul: and Mr. B. expressly owns, that though the 
Ib. p. 90.  person be choose by the mayor part of the people of any Church, and rejected by some few odd persons, he is by this means, the Churches Pastor, but not the refusers: and upon these principles it is almost impossible there ever should be a popular Election without dividing the Church; for it is next an impossibility, that five hundred Persons, suppose, which make no large Church, should every man consent in the same Persons. I am sure it was otherwise in Dr. Seaman's Church, which as I am informed had not above thirty Electors, and yet after Prayer, and Fasting, and Sermons to direct them in their choice, they divided into two Churches, and choose two distinct Pastors; and so they may do every Week if they please, according to these principles, till every two or three of them make a Church by themselves.  
2. His next head of arguments is from the necessity of the Pastoral Office, and the faithful discharge of it. Thus Prop. 12. he tells us, Scripture and experience tells us, that God worketh 
Second ●ef. on N●n cons. p. 134, 135.  usually according to the aptitude of means and instruments; and learned experienced Physicians cure more than the ignorant, rash and slothful; and good Scholars make their Pulpits more learned, than the ignorant do; and skilful, able, experienced, holy Pastors convert and edify much more than ignorant and vicious men. And means must accordingly be chosen. 13. If the Pastoral work skilfully and faithfully done, be needful, it must not be neglected, whoever forbid it. If it be not needful, what is the Church of England good for, more than Infidels, or at least than Moscovites? and for what are they maintained with tithes, Glebe, and all the Dignities, and Honours, and Wealth they have? and for what do men so much contend for them? If I knew what needed answer in this, I think it were no hard matter to answer it. For,  
1. Who denies the necessity of the Pastoral Office? But cannot there be Wise, Learned, Skilful, Experienced Pastors, unless the people choose them? Are there none such but among schismatics? and are none fit to choose them but schismatics? are such giddy people the only fit persons to choose skilful, experienced and holy Pastors?  
2. What does the dispute of Preaching in opposition to the Authority of Church and State, signify to the choice of the people? unless he thinks people ought to choose none but those, whom their Governours refuse. But are those likely to be the most skilful, holy Pastors, who make a Schism themselves, and draw people into it? I pray God forgive the giddiness and folly of such people, who by the insinuation of such Preachers involve themselves in the guilt of a damning sin.  
3. What occasion was there for those scurrilous reflections upon the Church of England, as little better than Infidels or Moscovites, and unworthy to be maintained by tithes, and Glebe, and Honours, &c. For does the Church of England cry down the Pastoral Office as needless? Is there any Church in the World, which so abounds with learned, skilful and experienced Pastors? But Mr. B. and others of his faction, who pretend so much to despise tithes, and Dignities, and Honour, by those frequent flurts at Church-preferments, and the wealth of Church-men, which I can assure him, excepting some few instances, is not great, plainly show, what is the object of their envy, and that they have as much mind to the tithes and Temples as to the people, unless they can command their Purses too, which many of them have great skill in.  
3. The substance of his third argument is, that it is very unlikely, that Princes and Patrons should choose so well for the people, as they will themselves. This he manages in Proposition 
Ib. p. 135.  or Argument 14.( for I know not well what to call it) and proves it, because it is hard for a rich man to be saved, and few of them prove good: that the Clergy themselves do not say, that all the Patrons in England are wise and pious; many Parliaments have by our Church men been deeply accused, and most Parliament-men I think are Patrons: others say, most Patrons not chosen to Parliaments, are worse: some Preachers complain of great men for fornication, drunkenness, excess, idleness, yea, Atheism and Infidelity: If many or any be such, are they likely to choose such Pastors, as all godly men may trust in so great a case? or would not such Princes choose such Bishops?  
Here Mr. B. has forgot his good rule, and shows that he was not in earnest, when he said it, but spoken it in contempt and drollery, that our present Dissenters are the generality of the most religious and sober people of the Land 
Treatise of Episcopacy, p. 168.  ( always excepting the King and parliament, and those that must be still excepted.) It is a mighty privilege schismatics have, to be witty above other men; for the Cause of God sanctifies the boldest reflections upon all superiors in Church or State.  
But his argument is this, most Patrons are bad men, and therefore will choose Pastors like themselves: 1. This is matter of fact, and confuted by experience; either most Patrons are not bad men, or those who are bad may make a good choice; for there never was a better Clergy in England than is at this day, nor less need of their rude clamours.  
2. I fear the generality of people are as bad as Patrons, and therefore as likely to make as bad a choice, and then there is no remedy but the godly people must be schismatics, and choose for themselves, unless they can persuade these ungodly people who go to Church, to let the Saints choose for them.  
3. It does not always follow, that a bad man will choose a bad Minister: many who are very wicked themselves, will not allow their Children to be so, and of all things abhor a vicious Clergy-man: and their interest may oblige them to gratify their Neighbours or Tenants, or some powerful Intercessor. Mr. B. mightily mistakes mankind, if he imagine that every bad man thinks himself concerned to propagate 'vice. And here I have Mr. B's authority for it, who tells us, that it is known by experience, that learning and great worth doth as light so reveal itself to human nature, that usually most of those, who are loth to be holy themselves, would have a Saint and an able man. The danger of such choices is not so much merely from men, who are vicious themselves, as from Atheists, Papists or Fanaticks, who if they can meet with any such Persons as are likely to prove a scandal to the Church and to Religion, too often prefer them before the most learned, pious and experienced Pastors.  
4. Though Princes may be very bad themselves, it is so much their Civil interest, to have a sober and learned Clergy, to keep people in good order and government, that we have little reason to suspect, that they will lay a design to propagate 'vice and Irreligion, which is the most likely way to undermine their own Thrones. So that there is more probability that Patrons and Princes, though bad themselves, should make good provision of able Pastors, than that a wild, giddy, factious people should.  
4. Another thing he insinuates not as a direct argument, but to prevent objections: for he could not but be sensible, that that extravagant power he allowed the people, would disturb all good order and government in the Church, and expose it to perpetual Factions and Schisms: and therefore he rejects the pretence of public 
Second Def. of Non-conf. p. 133.  good, and public government as of no consideration in this matter. He argues from that care all men must take to please God and save their souls, to prove that right they have to choose their own Pastors, and says, the obligation to please God, and obtain salvation, and escape Sin and Hell( and consequently in order to this, to choose their own Pastors, for to that end it is alleged) is so great, that no man is to pretend public good, or the will of man against it: and self-government( as to power and obligation is antecedent to human public government in order of nature: and public government doth not destroy it, but regulate it; and therefore is not for destruction, but edification. The end of self-government is so much to please God, and save our souls, that no man can on pretence of human government disoblige us from it. All this is to prove the unalterable right of people in the choice of their Pastors, and if he had stated the case so, every body would have startled at it, that men are bound not to quit their right in the choice of their Pastor, though it might be for the public good of the Church, and for the peace and order of public government; and therefore he chooses to lay the stress upon pleasing God; and saving their souls; that no man is to pretend public good and the will of man against this; nor did any man ever pretend this, that I know of: but the question is, whether the right of choosing their own Pastors be so necessary to please God and to save their souls, that no consideration of public good and public government, no regard to the peace of the Church, and obedience to our Prince, should make it our duty to dispense with it: for what he speaks here in general of pleasing God, and saving our souls, must be restrained to the thing he was to prove, if it be any thing to his purpose, and so it ought to be explained in these words, that the obligation to choose our own Pastors in order to please God and obtain salvation, and escape sin and Hell, is so great, that no man is to pretend public good, or the will of man against it; a proposition which I suppose he will not care to stand to, when he cannot take Sanctuary in general terms; for as any man with half an eye may discover in his Answer to the Dean, this is Mr. B's way to make wild and lewd suppositions, and to speak in loose and general terms, and if he be charged with that sense, which the design and series of his discourse requires, he denies the charge, and rather chooses to be thought impertinent in his answers, than to own what he cannot defend.  
This is the substance of all his reasoning, to prove the right of the people to choose their own Pastors, unless any should think there were any force in a comparison or two, which he takes I perceive for parallel cases, and always uses in this argument; that every man has liberty to choose his Physician and his Wife; and that a Prince cannot impose a Physician on them, who they believe is like to kill them by ignorance, error, or treachery, &c. Mr. B. repeats this so often, as if he thought there were great weight in it, and yet the distance is as wide as between a private concern, and public government. The Prince is not entrusted with mens private concernments, any otherwise than as they have an influence upon public government, but the care of the Church and of Religion is as much his charge and Province, as any other part of government; Schisms in the Church are destructive to Religion and the souls of men, and very often occasion factions in the State, and threaten the public peace; and yet if every Subject has such an uncontrollable power of choosing his Pastor, it is impossible ever to see an end of divisions, while they entertain different opinions, and pass such different judgements upon men and things. And whereas Mr. B. thinks the greatest security consists in a great many negative Votes, that Prince, Patrons, Bishops, people should each of them be able to make voided an Election, I confess I see no other security in it, but that there never shall be a choice without Schism; for though it were possible, that the Prince or Patron, and Bishop, and majority of people should agree, this does not oblige the refusers, who may if they please separate into a distinct Church under a Pastor of their own.  
Having thus examined his reasons for the peoples right of choice, consent or refusal( call it which you will, for it comes much to one) of their particular Pastors, let us now briefly consider the historical account he has given of the practise of the Church in this matter. I have not now either time or Books at hand to examine his particular testimonies, but shall make some such general remarks, as may be sufficient for this purpose.  
1. I observe, that neither in his Answer to the Dean, nor in his Plea for Peace, he has urged one Scripture precept or example for such a choice, 
Second Def. of Non-conf. p. 136.  though the Dean had particularly answered those places, which are usually alleged for it, which he passes over without any notice. He quotes indeed some places of Scripture, but to what purpose I cannot tell, surely not to prove the peoples right to choose their Pastors, such are these, Take heed how ye hear, which may be done without choosing their Pastors, and the doing of it will prevent any danger form them, whom they do not choose: beware of false Prophets, but Prophets whether true or false, were never choose by the people; and their leaven, he should have said the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees, who were no fixed Pastors neither in Mr. B's sense, nor choose by the people, much less by Christs Disciples, who yet were commanded to hear them, but to beware of their leaven; and let them serve the Church of England, but as Christ commanded his Disciples to serve the Pharisees, to hear them, but to beware of any corrupt Doctrines they taught, and we will not quarrel with them. Beware of the concision, that is, the Jewish Separatists, who would not communicate with the Gentiles: A man that is an heretic avoid; a command given to a Bishop, not to the people: and though the peoples duty, when the heresy is notorious, yet it does not prove their right to choose their Pastors. Let no man deceive you: so we say also, and yet think not a popular election of Pastors necessary; Those that cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine ye have learned avoid— from such turn away: that is, from all schismatics; thus we teach our people, and for this Mr. B. and others are so angry with the Dean. Mr. B. I confess has a greater reach than other men, and so he had need to have, who can find out the peoples right to choose their Pastors in such Texts as these.  
I would inquire then of him, since he has no Scripture proof of this, how he finds a Divine authority for it, or if he have no Divine authority, how he dares set it up in opposition to public Laws and Constitutions to all the authority of Church and State, as a right unalterable by any human power.  
2. As for his later authorities out of Councils and Fathers, I would desire to know under what notion he alleges them: whether as witnesses of the Apostolical practise, or as a binding authority to all the succeeding Ages of the Church. The second I presume he will not own, but if he own the first, he must allow them to be very good witnesses in other matters of fact as well as this: and then the dispute about Diocesan Episcopacy, and the right of patriarches and Metropolitans is out of doors, which are expressly confirmed by the first Nicene Council, to whose authority he appeals in this matter. But Mr. B. has a refuge and distinction at hand in these cases: what he likes, is Apostolical practise; what he does not, is decreed by human wisdom: as he distinguishes in the General Council called Quinosextum, where he finds one Decree, as he thinks, for the peoples election, and this is very well; but the same Council by human wisdom decreed, Can. 38. That whatsoever alteration the Imperial power maketh on any City, the Ecclesiastical order follow it: Which, he says, is the 
Second Def. of Nonconf. p. 129.  way by which human order overthrew divine order and institutions: he means his Parochial Episcopacy; and yet these are both matters of fact which they were equally capable of knowing and testifying, and therefore their authority is good in both or in neither; and there is more to be said even from the Apostolical age, for this order of planting Churches than for popular Elections.  
But we have an admirable instance of his partiality to his cause in the second Nicene Council; when he alleges it for himself, he says, though by servility they were for images, yet they 
Second Defence of Nonconf. p. 131.  held to the old Church Canons for Elections, and thus far their authority is very good. When the Dean a little after produces a testimony out of the same Council against him: He answers, Had this been true, it would not much move me, that these two Councils 
p. 143.  that set up Image-worship, and shewed much wickedness, should contradict the Apostolical and catholic practise and constitutions. So different a case is it to speak for or against Mr. B.'s darling opinions.  
3. I observe most of his authorities are of a very late date: in his answer to the Dean he begins with the first Nicene Council, which was in the fourth Century; and though he tells us there, I have formerly name elder Testimonies not denied, I have searched his Plea for Peace in that Chapter, where he purposely proves this matter, and I can find but one passage out of Clemens Romanus, and another of St. Cyprian, which I think will not do his business.  
His testimony from Clemens Romanus in his famed Epistle to the Corinthians, concerns the practise of the Apostles, and those who succeeded them in ordaining Bishops or Elders: Which was consensu universae ecclesiae, the Greek words are {αβγδ}, the whole Church being pleased with it, which I hope the Church may be, where there is a wise and good choice, whether the peoples consent be antecedently required or not; much less though they be not allowed to choose by Majority of votes, which Mr. B. sometimes requires. And that this is all Clemens meant, is 
Plea for Peace, p. 81.  evident from what he said immediate●y before; that the Apostle appointed their first fruits ( i.e. those who were first converted to Christianity) to be Bishops and Deacons of those, who should afterwards believe, which plainly excludes any popular election, when there were not people to choose them, ●ay he tell us expressly how the Apostles choose, {αβγδ}, 
Clementis Ep. p. 96. Ed. Oxon.  trying them by the Spirit; which I suppose signifies the gift of discerning Spirits, which the Apostles had: and adds that this was foretold in the ancient prophets; and what wonder then was it, that 
{αβγδ}, {αβγδ}, {αβγδ}.  those who were entrusted by God in Christ with this work( of ordaining Bishops and Deacons) did accordingly do it: Here we see the appointing or placing Bishops and Deacons is not referred to the consent and choice of the people, but to the Authority of God given them by Christ: which in the following words he parallels with Moses his giving the Priesthood to Aaron and his Sons, without the consent of the whole congregation, nay against it, as was evident from the contention of the other tribes about the Priesthood, which was decided by a miracle, by the blossoming of Aaron's ●od. And if the Apostles ordained Bishops and Deacons by as absolute an authority as this, the Church might be pleased with what they did, but could not contradict it: these things the Dean had more largely discoursed before, to which Mr. B. returns not one word of answer: and yet Clemens says that this was done not only by the Apostles but by other eminent men {αβγδ}, that is, Evangelists or Bishops authorised by the Apostles for this work, and takes no notice of any alteration in his days, that now the chief power was in the people.  
But he every where insists on that saying of St. Cyprian, that the people 
Cypr. Ep. 88.  had the greatest power to choose worthy Bishops, or to refuse the unworthy. The Dean at large answered this testimony, and made it appear, that St. Cyprian gave no other right to the people in the Elections of Bishops, but to be present at them, and to bear testimony of their lives and conversations, as is evident from the whole series of that Epistle; this he confirms by the practise of Alexander Severus, who in imitation of the Christians in the choice of their Bishops, proposed the names of his civil officers to the people, to hear what they had to object against them; which proves, that he who lived among them, and might be presumed to know the nature of such public Elections, understood no more but that the people were to be witnesses of the good or bad lives of those to be ordained Bishops, for he never intended the people should choose his officers, in imitation of the Christians; and confirms it by a testimony of Origen concerning this practise and the nature of it.  
To all this Mr. B. replies little, and nothing to the purpose; but only that the words signify more than testimony: for the chief choosing power of the worthy is more than testimony of fact: but choosing is a word of a large signification, and may be given to all, who any way contribute to the choice, whether by testimony, or vote and suffrage, and therefore we must determine the sense of any particular place where it is used, by the circumstances of the discourse, not from the largest and most comprehensive signification of the word: But Mr. B. says, these words signify more than testimony[ by public judgement and testimony be approved worthy and meet] but Mr. B. should have given us the whole sentence, That the Bishop 
Ut Sacerdos plebe present in omnium oculis deligatur,& dignus arque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur, Cypr. Ep. 68.  should be chosen, the people being present and looking on, and be found worthy by public judgement and testimony, where there is a manifest difference made between the choice of the Bishop, and his public approbation as worthy of that office, the first is the work of the Bishops, who were the Electors and Ordainers; the second the peoples work, who were therefore to be present to give judgement or testimony; for there is a great difference between choosing the Bishop, the people being present, which is all St. Cyprian says; and that the people being present, should choose their Bishop; and it is one thing to give testimony to a man as worthy of the Episcopal office, and another thing to choose him; for many men may have the like testimony of equal merit, when only one is choose: but he adds, it is said ( that by the suffrage of the whole fraternity the Episcopacy be delivered to him) which refers to the choice of Sabinus, and yet there he makes a difference between the suffrage of the 
De universae fraternitatis suffragio,& de Episcoporum judicio. Ib.  fraternity, and the judgement of the Bishops, which supposes that the Bishops had a superior power to judge of their suffrages: and yet what these suffrages were we are  told before; that that may be a 
Ut plebe present vel delegantur malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita praedicentur; ut sit ordinatio justa& legitima; quae omnium suffragio& judicio sit examinata.  just and regular ordination, which is examined by the judgement and suffrage of all. So that the suffrage of the people concerned only the examination of the worth and fitness of the Bishop to be ordained.  
What he adds about the particular case I shall not now consider, to avoid prolixity, since we are secure of the general practise, and whoever will compare the Deans and Mr. B.'s arguments together will need no answer, and therefore I shall only observe one thing more from St. Cyprian's Epistle, that the Election of the Bishops in the presence and under the eye of the people, as he speaks, was not in those days the universal practise of the Church, and therefore can be no argument against our Church at this day; for though he thinks it a Divine and Apostolical tradition and practise, yet he says, this custom of choosing Bishops in the presence of the people was observed 
Apud nos& fetè per provincias omnes te●●t●r. Ib.  not in all, but almost in all provinces: and yet he does not reject or condemn the Bishops of those Provinces, where it was not observed.  
The like arts he has used with the Council of Nice. He says, the ninth and tenth Canons of the first great Nicene Council nullify the very ordination of scandalous uncapable men: But what is this to the peoples Election; for those who are elected by the people are to be deposed also, if they were scandalous, by these Canons: for if men were persuaded against the Canons, to impose hands upon such, they were not to be received.  
He cites the Arab. Can. 4. in my Book, the 5. Si populo placebit, is made the condition of the Episcopal relation: in mine cum consensa populi, with the consent of the people, not determining what that consent is, which therefore we must learn from more ancient records, and have already heard out of St. Cyprian, what it was: But in the Greek Canons of this Council, in the translation of Dionysius Exiguns, Isidore, Mercator, Ruffinus, there are no such words, but the entire power is given to the Bishops and Metropolitan: he adds, and, c. 5. in case of the peoples disagreement, the said people must take the most blameless. I suppose he refers to c. 9. in the Greek c. 6. which plainly will convince any man what trust is to be given to Mr. B. in these matters: the power of elections and ordinations is there given to the Arch-Bishop, and though the people of the diocese desire any one against the Arch-Bishops will, he is not to be admitted; but if the election be canonically made with the consent of the Arch-Bishop and Bishops, and some few of the people oppose it, if they please, they may determine it by the majority of votes among the people: where it is plain the people have nothing to do to take one or other, nor is here any mention of the most blameless; but the Arch-Bishop and Bishops may if they please gratify the people so far, as to determine the controversy by the majority of votes: which supposes that they are not bound to do it.  
His quotation out of the Roman Council under Sylvester is not much better than this, Mr. B. says, that Council decreed ( no Bishop shall ordain any Clerk, nisi cum omni adunatâ ecclesiâ, but with all the Church united.) That this is said to be decreed by that Council I grant, but cum omni adunatâ ecclesiâ is no more than plebe present in St. Cyprian, the Church or people being present, and what that is, we have already heard.  
4. Mr. B. himself has taken off the force of most of these authorities alleged by him, by his distinction between the right of the people in consenting to Ordination of Bishops, and their right to choose, who shall be theirs. He denies, as I observed before, that either Magistrates or people are Judges who is fit to be, and shall be a Minister of Christ in general, but the Ordainers and the Person himself conjunct. And yet it is evident to all men, who will be at the trouble to examine it, that most, if not all his testimonies concern the Ordination of Bishops. Thus Clemens Romanus, St. Cyprian, the Council of Nice, the orleans Council, Clodoveus his Council at Cablione, the General Council called Quinosextum, the Council at Soisons, with several others alleged by him; it being a very unusual thing either to translate Bishops from one Church to another, or to ordain a Bishop but to some Church.  
Mr. Baxter seems to be sensible of this inconvenience, and does what he can to deliver himself from it, but to no purpose: He distinguishes between 
Second Def. of Nonconf. p. 137.  giving the power, and concurring with other causes to give a receptivity to the Person that must have it, the peoples consent is the causa partialis of receptivity and capacity: and yet the people no Judges, Who must have this power? There are but two things required in Ordinations, the giving the power or judging to whom it should be given. Mr. B. acknowledges, that the people neither give the power, nor are Judges who is fit, or shall be a Minister of Christ, much less can they determine by votes, who shall be the man; and let Mr. B. now tell me what this capacity and receptivity is, which the people give.  
But he would fain recant what he has granted, and proved that the people have some power in ordination, in these words: But what signify these words( the ordination of our colleague Sabinus by the suffrage of the whole fraternity, and by the judgement of the Bishops) is not this as much power as we pled for? Yes Sir, and a great deal more, for you have given away all power in ordinations; but we own with St. Cyprian, that the people are proper witnesses of their conversations, which I have already shown is all he means by the suffrage of the people.  
A little after he thinks upon another distinction. It was not usual to ordain sine titulo, and the ordainers did two things at once. 1. Judge absolutely who shall be a Minister of Christ. 2. Judge with the Church to which he was ordained 
●b. p. 142.  ( elders and people) who was fit for that Church, and should be theirs: but this is all Romance and fiction to serve a cause: the action was but one, and considered as one, whatever distinctions and different respects a metaphysical wit may find in it; when any Church was empty, the neighbour Bishops, and the Clergy and people of the vacant Church met for the choice of a new Bishop for that Church: The people gave testimony of his life and manners, the Bishops judged of his other Pastoral qualifications, and if they could agree in the same man, he was ordained their Bishop; but there was no consideration at all, whether he should be a Bishop in general, but whether he should be Bishop of that Church: and therefore it is evident, the people have no more power in choosing their Bishop, than they have in making a Bishop, which was the very same action; and therefore according to Mr. B.'s principles they have none at all, but we allow that according to the ancient practise and constitutions of the Church, they were witnesses of their conversation, and may be so still.  
One thing I confess he has proved, that the people in many places, especially when there were different interests and persuasions among them, did sometimes by noise and tumults, and open force over-rule the Election against the consent of Prince, Bishops and Clergy; and if this be thought sufficient to give a right, our dissenting people may, as indeed they do, follow their example, and set up Ministers to themselves in defiance of Authority and Laws.  
As for what Mr. B. answers to that historical account the Dean has given of these popular Elections, it is so inconsiderable, and so full of shifts, that no man who reads both with any care, will desire any farther vindication of it: and therefore I shall only give some instances of his way of answering. I have already considered what he answers to the first thing alleged by the Dean, that the main ground of the peoples interest was founded on the Apostles Canon, That a Bishop must be blameless and of good report.  
The second thing alleged by the Dean is, that the people upon this assuming 
Unreas. of Se●ar. ●. 18.  the power of elections, caused great disturbance and disorder in the Church. To this Mr. B. answers 1. And yet for all these disorders, the Church deprived not the people of their privilege: and why was it? because they could not. For Greg. Nazianzen, St. Chrysostom, St. Hierom, Origen, as the Dean proved, declared their dislike of it, and how desirous they were it should be altered, which me-thinks is a plain argument, that they did not believe it to be an Inherent and unalterable right, either by the Law of Nature, or a Divine Institution, for if they had such wise and good men would not have desired the alteration of it.  
2. He answers, that all these disorders, which are charged upon the people, were owing to the ambition of Clergy men: the aspiring Prelates seeking Patriarchates and B●shopricks, became as so many Captains at War, and gathered Monks, Clergy and people to strive and fight for them. Mr. B. must think very meanly of his Readers, when he would persuade them, that this was always the case, though sometimes I grant it was so; but is this any better argument for the choice of the people, that they are so many too's in the hands of aspiring men, to give great disturbance to Church and St●te? the inconveniencies of popular elections it seems are intolerable, and it does not better the case, whether they be thus mutinous and troublesone out of their own folly and giddiness, or the suggestions and persuasions of others.  
3. The Dean adds, that to prevent these inconveniencies many Bishops were appointed without the choice of the people, and Canons were made for the regulation of Elections. To this Mr. B. answers, Craftily said! So men of craft are apt to suspect plain honest men; but wherein is this craft? Why, he saith not[ without the consent of the people] but[ the election] but whatever distinction Mr. B. may make between these, the Dean means honestly, nothing more( suppose) than a Negative Voice, that there can be no election without them. And he saith not, that the Canons took away either consenting or electing suffrages, but that they regulated them, yes they over and over confirmed them. Sometimes they did one, and 
Second Def. p. 138.  sometimes t'other, which is an argument against an Inherent and unalterable right.  
The D. instances in the election at Alexandria by the twelve Presbyters, to which Mr. B. answers, 1. Does the Dr. think that the Presbyters choice excludeth the peoples? Not always, but it is plain it did in this case, as all men know, who know the story; and he offers nothing to prove, that it did not. 2. Will he conclude, that whenever the History nameth not the peoples choice, it is left out? When it is name as a particular custom, peculiar to one Church, there is reason to think so. 3. Will he persuade us, that when the people are not the choosers, they are not necessary the consenters or refusers? Yes, they are bound by the custom of their Church to be the consenters, but not refusers: and so they ought to be at this day, to acquiesce in the method of elections confirmed and established by the Laws of our Church.  
What he says of the tumults of Alexandria in after dayes, is owing to the change of this custom; for there were no tumults at elections before, which is a plain demonstration of the difference between limited and popular elections, though their souls were as well taken care of before without such tumults.  
As for the Ordination of Germanion and Gordius at jerusalem ordained by the Bishops in the place of Narcissus without any mention of the peoples consent; he answers, this is no argument that because the peoples consent is not mentioned, therefore they did not give their consent; but I think it a good argument, when Eusebius uses to be so punctual in giving an account of the manner of Elections; never leaving out the people, when there was reason to put them in. But how do the words of Eusebius confute this, when he says, that when Narcissus shewed himself again, the Brethren( no doubt the Laity, but any man who will doubt, may with the same reason Mr. B. doubts of other things, who will believe nothing against him less than a Mathematical demonstration) entreated him to enjoy his bishopric again? What is this to the election of the former Bishops without their consent? If it were on Mr. B's side, he would think it a good argument, that they did not choose their former Bishops, because they were so willing to receive their old Bishop again.  
The next instances are of several Bishops, who sensible of the great inconveniencies of these popular elections appointed their Successors in their life time; as Severus Bishop of Milevis, St. Austin, Paulus the Novatian Bishop at Constantinople. All that Mr. B. answers is, that it hence appears, that the people had the election; because St. Austin was desired to go to Milevis to persuade the people to accept their Bishop, and he himself in his life time, as being deservedly in great esteem among his people, persuades them to accept of a Bishop of his nominating; which was much the same case with Paulus the Novatian, whose Presbyters desired him to nominate his Successor for fear they should not agree. I grant what Mr. B. says, that this does prove, that de facto the people at that time did choose their Bishops, but it proves a little more, that wise men were sensible of the inconveniency of it, and took the best course they could to prevent it; which supposes, that they thought it a custom which might be very well partend with, and not essential to a Pastoral relation.  
Thus Mr. B. says, that the Canon 
council. Antioch. c. 18.  of the Council of Antioch alleged by the Dean, that if one be ordained Bishop, and go not to the Parish( as he translates it) because the people refuse him, he shall have the honour and office of a Bishop, not troubling the peace of the Church, makes against him, as proving that the people had then the power of choosing or refusing: but on the other hand, it makes for the Dean, by proving, that the Bishops of those dayes, did not think it an Inherent right in the people to do either, for then they would not have ordained one for them without their consent. The same answer will serve for what is objected against St. Basil's consecration of Euphronius without the consent of the people. But his answer to the Law of Justinian, which excluded the common people from the election of Bishops, is very pleasant; that this rather proves the peoples power, that so long after by an Emperour the poorer sort were restrained; it proves indeed de facto, that it was so, but the restraining of this power proves that it was not thought inherent and unalterable; and when Mr. B. returned such answers as these, and took it in so much scorn, that the Dean should help him with more Citations to prove his cause, certainly he had quiter forgot what the D. undertook to prove, not that the people never did choose their Bishops, but that wise Bishops, Councils and Princes, were sensible of the mischief and danger of it, and by degrees endeavoured to restrain or regulate it.  
His answer to the Canon of Laodicea, which as the D. observed, excluded the common people from choosing any into the Clergy, savours of a desperate cause, for he is fore't to pervert the Canon by a false translation, and make nonsense of it into the bargain to get rid of it: He tells us Crab translates it thus, quod non sit permittendum turbis( {αβγδ} in the Greek) electiones eorum facere, qui sunt ad sacerdotium provehendi: the English is this, that it must not be allowed to the multitude to choose into the Clergy: Mr. B. translates it, it is not sufferable to choose by tumults. Which is an admirable Decree for a Council; and an argument of the great skill or honesty of a Translator.  
The D. alleges, that the second Nicene Council, Can. 3. restrained the election only to Bishops, which was consirmed by following Councils in the Greek Church: Mr. B. cannot deny the thing, but finds something in it, which unchurches the Church of England: that if any Bishop use the Secular Magistrate to obtain by them a Church, let him be deposed and separated, and all that communicate with him. How Mr. B. has translated it I cannot tell, because I have not that Council by me; but the sense of it is sufficiently plain, that no man must persuade a Prince by force and power to make him Bishop, which we know was often the case, but we cannot suppose that Council to deny the Emperour his consent and approbation, nay, nomination of a fit person, any more than other Councils do the people, which yet forbid a Bishop to seek that Sacred Office by Votes, that is, to endeavour to persuade people to give their Votes for him; as the orleans Council does, 
Second Def. of Non. conf. p. 129.  as Mr. B. himself relates it: and thus the Church of England is safe, though her Bishops are advanced by the Kings favour and nomination, granted by the Laws of Church and State, which are of greater authority with us in all alterable Constitutions, than much better Councils, than the second of Nice.  
This is sufficient to give a taste of Mr. B.'s way of answering the Dean, his other answers are very like it; and many of them have already been considered upon other occasions.  
Having thus considered, what the peoples right is in choosing their Pastors, there is but one inquiry more behind;  
III. Whether there be any cases wherein the people may insist on a right of choice; for Mr. B. loves to confounded what is ordinary and common with what is extraordinary, and to make the same rule for both, as I have already observed; and thus he does here. He puts a great many hard cases, as suppose a Prince be a Papist, a Pagan, a Mahometan; suppose he choose Atheists and Infidels and notorious heretics, or idiots for our Pastors, and we can have no other but such, must we be contented with such Pastors as these, may not any Prince at this rate quickly destroy all Religion, and set up what he will in the room of it? I Answer, when the case is really thus, in Gods name let the people choose better for themselves, and maintain the honour and interest of Religion and take care of their souls, whoever says nay; and if Mr. B. thinks, that this is the present state of things, I think their separation is very innocent and commendable, and nothing but what becomes good Christians. Let him speak out, we desire no favour, he sees our Articles, our Liturgy, which whatever he thinks of us, we hearty subscribe, and assent and consent to; if this be Popery or Mahometism, let him but tell us, what Christianity is, and we will be his Converts; but in the mean time let him consider, what guilt he contracts by persuading ignorant and unstable people into a sinful separation by such arguments, as can never justify men under a Protestant Prince, and in a Christian Church.  
But suppose we have such Pastors set over us as are under a great suspicion of concealed heresy, which cannot be proved; Can concealed heresy do people any mischief? For whatever he be, he cannot propagate his infection, while he keeps it to himself. And it is a mighty fault for people to suspect their Pastors of heresy, when there is not sufficient evidence for it: but this indeed is not the fault of the people, but of their Teachers, who to secure them in a faction, paint Conformists in horrid and frightful shapes, to deter their Converts from any thoughts of returning to their Communion.  
But suppose some comforming Ministers be horribly vicious and profane: I hope there are few( whatever faults they may have) deserve this character. If there be any such vile wretches, who are a reproach to their Function and to Religion, all legal courses ought to be used for their removal, which must certainly be effectual, if they be so notoriously wicked; or if they be not removed, yet it is no just occasion for Schism and Separation, while religious Offices, and the administration of Sacraments are performed according to the appointment of the Church; and serious Christians have so many other helps for their souls, as I have already proved. St. Cyprian, I confess, did think any notorious crime a sufficient reason to forsake the communion of such a Bishop, but this was anciently thought as great a mistake in him, as his rebaptisation of heretics; and St. Austin in his disputes against the Donatists, and I think the most learned Divines of all Communions for several ages have condemned it: However when this infection is not general, as our greatest enemies cannot say it is at this day, it is more excusable to withdraw from the Communion of a Parochial Minister, upon such accounts, and to join with neighbour Parishes, which are better supplied, than to forsake the Communion of the Church; which can never be lawful till absolute and unavoidable necessity justify it.   

CHAP. VII.  
What Communion is essential to the Constitution of a National Church.  
OUR next Inquiry is concerning a National Church. I have already vindicated the constitution of National Churches, as founded on a Divine Law of catholic Unity, which does not only justify, but require such union and combination of Churches, as is for the preservation of order and unity, and the better edification and government of the Church. But since Church-Unity consists in one communion, it is necessary to explain more particularly, what that communion is, which is essential to a National Church, considered as a Church. Now to state this matter as clearly as I can, to lay a foundation for a plain answer to Mr. B.'s question, What the Church of England is, and who is the constitutive Regent head of it; I shall distinguish between a National Church considered as a Church, and as a Church incorporated with the State, and speak distinctly to each of them.  
1. Let us consider a National Church as a Church, or a Religious Society, for so I must profess, as the Dean did, I do believe there were Christian 
Unreas. of Separ. p. 297.  Churches before Christian Princes, that there are Christian Churches under Christian Princes, and will be such, if there were none left; nay I add farther, that there were and may be still, National Churches, when the Prince and great numbers of the people are not Christians. For Patriarchal and Metropolitan combinations of Churches are of the same nature with what we call National Churches, and such there were in the times of Paganism under Heathen and Persecuting Emperours. Now here are two things to be distinctly stated. 1. What kind of Church a National Church is. 2. What Communion is essential to it, considered as a Church.  
1. What kind of Church a National Church is: and here I shall examine two questions, 1. Whether it be properly called a Church. ●2. Whether it be a Political Body.  
( 1.) Whether a National Church be properly called a Church. For the Author of the Peaceable Design in his answer to the Dean, says, That to be 
An Answer to Dr. Still. p. 14.  particular or universal is of essential consideration to Christs Church, but to be national is of accidental consideration: and his reason for it is this: That all the people of the Land should be Christian, and the Magistrate also is( I say) an accidental thing to the Church, which may exist where that is not: and hence he infers; upon which account though the Magistrate be none of Christs proper Officers, yet may he be head of his Church, and constitutive Head of it, as under his dominions, because he is Head not in any essential, but in this accidental consideration of it: so that if this Author say true, the National Church is not a proper essential, but an accidental Church: for I suppose that is the meaning of its not being a Church in an essential, but accidental consideration, and thus my distinction between a National Church considered as a Church, and as incorporated into the state is out of doors; for it is a Church only as it is the state, and headed by the Civil Magistrate.  
But there are two things supposed in his argument as necessary to the being of a national Church, neither of which are necessary, 1. That all the people of the Nation should be Christians, and 2. That the King or national government should be so also: and then there could be nothing like a National Church for three hundred years and more, till Constantine embraced Christianity; and yet it is evident to any man, who is not so fond of beating out notions, that he can be contented to take a little book-learning with him, that there were many great combinations of Churches, which made up one body, and used to meet in Synods and Councils together to advice about the public affairs of the Church and of Religion, long before those times; and these I take to be equivalent to a National Church, which I take to be the union of all the Christian Churches in a Nation into one Body and Society. And why this should be called an accidental consideration of the Christian Church, any more than the Universal Church itself is; I cannot tell. Our Saviour gave command to his Apostles to go teach all Nations, and plant Churches in them, and therefore this was the intention of our Saviour, that there should be Churches in all Nations, as well as in all the World: And if all the Churches in the World must make but one Church, then certainly much more must all the Churches in the same Nation be but one, which are in a nearer capacity of communion with each other, than the Churches of all the World are; and whereby catholic unity and communion may be more easily preserved, than if all the particular Churches in a Nation were single and Independent; there being a more easy correspondence between Nations, than between every particular Town and City in distant Nations. But I have already discours'● these things more at large in vindication of National Churches.  
2. Another question is, Whether a National Church be a Political body, the right stating of which, will go far to put an end to this dispute. Thus 
Second Def. of Non-conf. p. 112.  Mr. B. tells us, that the question is about Church Policy, or a Political form, not of a mere community of Christians: for the question Mr. B. puts to the Dean is ● What is the constitutive Regent head of the Church of England: that they may know what the National Church of England is, which they must obey, and from which they are said to separate? To this the Dean answers in my poor opinion with great judgement and consideration: We deny any necessity of such a Constitutive Regent part, or one formal 
Unreas. of Sep. p. 301.  Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church. Here the Author of the Peaceable Design very modestly and civilly triumphs, If ever any Boy in the higher form at School, was posed by his Master, the Doctor here is posed, who is indeed in Mr. B.'s hands, no other than 
Answer to Dr. Still. p. 11, 12.  such a one, when he takes him in such a point, where his Books and polite style do not serve him. This I confess is plain dealing; and as an honest country 
Reflections on Dr. Stillingfleet's Book. p. 35  Conformist says, The Author is no Courtly Writer, he doth not powder nor dress his discourses; he writes neither with Oy● nor gull, but with plain Vulgar Ink, what he thinks he speaks openly and honestly without any respect of Persons. I confess this Ink, which I see they both make use of, is grown too common, and any but those who use it, would think it had some mixture of gull in it: and our country Conformist is the general Apologist for this Ink, whose Pamphlet of Reflections consists of nothing else, but a Vindication of the most clownish and scurrilous abuses offered to a most excellent Person, to whom common Christianity, the Protestant Cause, and the Church of England owes more for his admirable Writings, than to most men in this Age. But this is the way of such little creatures to bark and snarl at those glorious Lights, which shine in a superior Orb, as the objects of their envy, but above their spite and malice.  
Mr. B. I confess, takes an admirable way to answer this; for he states the question about the Political form of a Church, and then makes it essential to such a Political Church to have a pars regens, and pars subdita, a governing and governed part, and so as he thinks to have a constitutive regent head. Many Churches associated for mutual help and concord is a Church only in a loose sense: but those that are constituted of 
Second Def. of Non-conf. p. 112, 113, 114.  one Regent and a subdite part are called Churches in a Political proper sense. And that there is no governor, where there is no supreme in his place and kind.— It's no body political without one common governor, Natural or Collective, 
120.  Monarchical, Aristocratical, Democratical. But may not we say, that all the Bishps are Governours, and all together govern the whole? He answers, Tes per partes, but not as a whole or Church— unless your Bishops are united in one Persona Politica or Aristocracy, they may rule their several Churches, but they make not one common Government for the National Church as such. Herein his whole strength consists, by stating the question about a Political Church form, and then taking it for granted, that every Political body must have a Constitutive Regent head: But now if we deny this, that though a National Church be one body, yet it is not such a Political body as he describes, and cannot be according to its Original Constitution, which differs from Secular forms of Government, by that ancient Church Canon of our Saviours own decreeing, it shall not be so among you, the controversy were at an end, and a national Church as governed by consent may be one body in an ecclesiastical, though not in a civil political sense.  
The Author of the Peaceable Design in his Answer, sings over the same Song, That there is a government in the Church of England, I hope the Dr. does not doubt: No Sir, I will venture to grant this for him. Where there is 
P. 12.  a government established, there must be a Political Society; here this Author wants Mr. B. 's subtlety: if Government makes a Political Society, we grant a National Church is a Political Society, for government by consent, without superiority, is government. But he adds, every political body consists of a pars imperans and subdita: this I grant too, Church-governours united and governing by consent, are the Pars Imperans, Christian people in obedience to the Laws of our Saviour, submitting to such government are the pars subdita; and all this is true without a constitutive Regent Head. And that this is all that is or can be required to make a National Church one, considered as a Church, I prove by these two arguments.  
First, that the entire notion of Church-unity consists in one communion, this is the unity of a particular, national, and universal Church, as I have already proved; the whole power of Church officers consists in taking in, or putting out of the Church: and therefore a Church society, as such, differs from a civil-political-body, armed with civil power and juridiction.  
Now consent is all that can be necessary to unite a body or society in one communion, for a body that subsists, and is one by consent, has all things necessary to unity and communion in a joint consent: this consent indeed is not an arbitrary thing, but is made necessary by a divine law, and if we inquire after that superior power, which unites all these Church-Governours in one consent, and keeps them together, so Christ is the constitutive Regent Head of the National, as well as Universal Church: for it is by his Authority, and as they are all accountable to him, that they unite into one body; and govern their several Churches by mutual consent, advice and counsel; but yet their unity consists only in consent, not in any Superiour-Governing-Ecclesiastical power on earth, which binds them together. For,  
Secondly, Christ hath instituted no such constitutive regent power of one Bishop over another in his Church; and therefore the union of particular Churches into one must be made by consent, not by superiority of power: The Apostles were all invested by Christ with equal power and authority, as St. Cyprian tells us, that all the other Apostles were, what Peter was, equal 
Hoc utique erant& caeteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti& honoris& potestatis.— apostles omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat. Cypr. de unitate Eccles.  sharers with him in honour and power, and that Christ gave all his Apostles equal power after his resurrection. And as the Ancient Fathers always asserted Bishops to be the Apostles successors, so they did as constantly affirm all Bishops to be equal: it is a known saying of St. Hierom, that wherever the Bishop be, at Rome, or Eugubium, 
Hierom. ad Evagr. Ep. 85.  or Constantinople, &c. he is of equal merit, and of the same Priesthood: and therefore as I shewed above, St. Cyprian asserts, that there is but one Episcopacy( as there is but one Altar in the whole Church) of which every Bishop has an equal portion:  
There are three or four things very evident in Antiquity, as I have already sufficiently proved, which plainly show, both that several particular Churches may and ought to unite in one body, and that such a body can be governed only by a mutual consent of the Bishops of those particular Churches, which are thus united into one: As( 1.) the obligations to catholic communion, as I have before observed, is the foundation of this union.( 2.) Every particular Bishop is the supreme governor in his own diocese:( 3.) That yet every Bishop has a relation to the whole Christian Church, and concerned as far as he can to take care of the whole, especially of neighbouring Churches, which are under his eye, and nearer inspection: and therefore( 4.) That those Bishops, especially whose vicinity and neighbourhood makes them capable of such a union, should govern their Churches by mutual advice and counsel, and observe the same laws and rules of worship, discipline, and government; and when Mr. B. can give me any reason, why this may not be called one Church, one Ecclesiastical-body-Politick, without a constitutive Regent Head, I'll think further of it.  
All that I can find he says to this is, that this is not one government of the Church considered as National, it is 
Second Def. of Non-conf. p. 115.  not one Church but an association of many Churches, such as a thousand Independent Churches may make, or the Churches of many Kingdoms. I answer, 1. I can see no reason, why that may not be called one government, which is concluded by common advice, counsel, and consent, though administered by particular Bishops in their own diocese: for in this case every Bishop governs his diocese by common consent, and is accountable to his associated Bishops for maladministration. 2. As for Independent Churches they can never be thus united, because though indeed they may consent if they please, yet they may not also, if they please, they being according to their fundamental principles and original constitution absolute and independent; and therefore may stand by themselves if they please: but now we assert, that all Bishops according to the standing laws of catholic unity and communion ought thus to associate by mutual consent, and that those are schismatics not catholic Bishops, who do not: and this is the constitution, which Mr. B. inquires after, which we have, and which the Independents have not, for if they had, they were no longer Independents, but like Mr. B.'s Parochial Bishops.  
3. We assert no other difference between a National consent and association of Churches, and the association of the Churches of many Kingdoms, or the universal Church; but only in the different degrees of communion, which are owing to neighbourhood, their living in one nation, and under one civil government. The Churches of the same Nation, under the same Prince, may more advantageously unite in the same rules of worship and discipline, whose civil customs, and manners, and way of life are the same, which very much influence Ecclesiastical constitutions; whose Bishops upon any emergent occasions may more conveniently meet together for advice and counsel, and where appeals may be heard and determined with least trouble; where both Bishops and people do more frequently converse with each others, and join in the public offices of religion: these are nearer acts of Christian communion, than we can enjoy with the Churches of foreign nations, whose civil laws and customs differ, and whose Princes possibly do not well agree, and whose distance will not admit of such a presential communion,( as Mr. B. speaks) as is required to such association of Churches; but could this be done in several Kingdoms, nay, in all the world as conveniently as in one Nation, I should think there were no need of such National associations.  
And now I think I have fairly prepared the way to justify that answer the Dean gave to Mr. B.'s inquiry, what is the constituent Regent Head of the Church of England: to which he answers two things, 1. That it proceeds 
Unreas. of Separat. p. 300.  upon a false supposition, which is, that wherever there is the true notion of a Church, there must be a constitutive Regent part, that is, there must be a standing governing power, which is an essential part of it. To which Mr. B. replies, 1. by excepting against that phrase of 
Sec. Def. p. 117.  the true notion of a Church, and would have the Dean put in the political notion; which had been wise work, when the Dean denies such a political governing power as he asserts, but of this above: and therefore the true notion of a Church was the properest term the D. could use, for it was evident to every man, what Church he spoken of, not such equivocal Churches, as a Ship full, or Prison full, or House full of Christians.  
2. He asks, is not government essential to a governed Church? and does the D. deny this? is not government by consent a government? is there no government, but where there is a constitutive regent Head? let Mr. B. prove this.  
The Dean proves there is no need of a constitutive Regent part to make a 
Ib.  Church from Mr. B.'s own concession, that there is one catholic visible Church, and that all particular Churches, as headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors, are parts of the universal Church. Now if this doctrine be true, and withal it be necessary, that every Church must have a constitutive Regent part as essential to it, then it unavoidably follows, that there must be a catholic visible Head to the catholic visible Church, and so Mr. B.'s constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness, and made a very plausible plea for his universal Pastorship. The D. indeed owns, that Mr. Baxter says, that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself, but adds, that this doth not remove the difficulty; for the question is about that visible Church, whereof the particular Churches are parts, and they being visible parts do require a visible constitutive Regent head as essential to them; therefore the whole visible Church must have likewise a visible constitutive Regent part, i.e. a visible head of the Church.  
Here Mr. B. and his flattering echo very wisely start aside from the main argument( as being at an irrecoverable loss) to pursue at fresh game: and they found a very fair opportunity for it, from the dispute of the necessity of a visible head to the visible catholic Church. The Author of the peaceable design, thinks it enough 
Answ. to Dr. Still. p. 18.  that Christ is the head of those who are visible: But yet disputes very learnedly, that Christ is the visible head of his Church: because he was visible when he was on earth, and is now visible in Heaven. Mr. B. is much concerned, that after he has written so much against Johnson the Papist about the Visible Head, the Dean charges him with such principles, as will in the issue justify the Popes claim to the catholic Visible Pastorship: and to be even with him, he trys to make him a Papist, and crys out, Is this our Champion against Popery now? 
Sec. Def. p. 118.  and thus this matter is pretty well adjusted. But he thinks it no inconvenience, that there should be an invisible Head to a visible Body, for so God who is invisible is, what? the invisible Head of all the Kingdoms of the world? that he would not say, but all the Kingdoms of the world are visible parts of his universal Kingdom, though he be invisible, which is nothing to the purpose: but however, no man dares deny that Christ is the universal Head of his Church: that we grant, but not the Visible Head: and we are far from asserting that the universal Head must be visible if the subordinate be so: but this we assert, that if no Church can be a true visible Church without a subordinate visible Head, then the universal Church cannot be a visible Church without a subordinate catholic visible Head, no more than a National Church can: But he says, this is to turn the controversy from the necessity of a Regent Head, to the necessity of his visibility: This I deny, for when the question is about a constitutive Regent Head on earth, it concerns a visible Head on earth: for if an invisible Head in Heaven would end the controversy, we could find him the same Regent Head for a national, as he has done for the universal Church: for I hope Christ is Head of every part of his Church as well as of the whole.  
The true state of the question after all this pother is this: Mr. B. attempts to prove, that a national Church cannot be one political Church, unless it have a constitutive Regent Head; does he mean this of a visible Head on earth, or not: if not, then as I now observed, we can soon end this controversy, by asserting Christ to be the Head of the national Church, and let him disprove it if he can: if he does mean it of a visible Head on earth, then how does he answer the Dean's argument, that if no Church is a true Church, which has not a visible constitutive Regent Head on earth, who visibly governs the Church in subordination to Christ the invisible Head in Heaven: then the catholic Church is not one true visible Church, unless he will find a visible Head for it, and this will be a great kindness to the Pope of Rome, who will then dispute his title with any new pretenders: this he has made no reply to, and I suspect, he understands very good reason for it.  
To what the Dean has thus unanswerably objected, I shall add but this one thing more; that to deny a Church can be one without a constitutive Regent Head, does necessary infer a denial of one of these two things, either 1. that many particular Churches can combine and associate into one, for the joint exercise of discipline and government, which overthrows the very notion of catholic unity and communion, or 2. that there is and must be a power in the Church superior to the Episcopal power, which naturally sets up a Pope above Bishops.  
It is evident from the Testimony of the earliest ages of the Church, that first the Apostles, and then the Bishops as their successors, were the supreme Governours of the Church, who had no higher order or power over them: and therefore Tertullian calls the Bishop Summus Sacerdos, the chief or high●st 
tart. de Bapt. c. 17.  Priest; and Optatus apices& principes, the tops and Princes of all, which was the general language of those days, as any one who pleases may learn from Dr. Barrow's learned Treat●se of 
Barrow. Supremacy, p. 189, &c.  the Popes Supremacy.  
And as Bishops were the highest Governours of the Church, so every Bishop was greatest in his own diocese, no other Bishop, nor Synod of Bishops could impose any thing on him without his own consent: they met for advice and counsel, not for rule and empire, which Mr. B. tells us so often was Arch Bishop Usher's judgement, and which plainly was the judgement and practise of Antiquity, as appears from what I have already discoursed about catholic Communion: It were easy to transcribe several passages out of St. Cyprian to this purpose, especially his Preface to the Council of Carthage: where he tells them, that they were met freely to declare their opinions about this matter( the rebaptisation of those who were baptized by heretics) judging no man, nor denying Communion to him, if he dissent; for neither doth any of us constitute himself Bishop of Bishops, or by Tyrannical terror compel his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, since every Bishop being free, and in own power, has his own free choice, and can neither be judged by another, nor judge another: but let us all expect the judgement of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has power both to advance us to the government of his Church, and judge of our government.  
It was not indeed a superior power, but the obligation to Christian communion, which united them in one body; nor was it lawful to deny Christian communion for every different practise or opinion in matters of discipline, for which St. Cyprian reproves Stephen Bishop of Rome in this very cause, and before him, Irenaeus Pope Victor about the Paschal controversy: But if any Bishop was notoriously Heretical, or guilty of any great 'vice, then they withdrew from his communion by public consent and judgement, and ordained another in his room, and exhorted the people to forsake him; as St. Cyprian did in the case of Basilides and Martialis. And thus a Bishop may be deposed without any superior authority over him, as a Bishop, as well as a private Christian be excommunicated: For the Church has certainly authority to cast all unworthy members out of its Communion, whether Clergy or Laity.  
Nor does this overthrow that very ancient constitution of Patriarchal or Metropolitan Churches: For a Patriarch or Metropolitan was not a superior order to Bishops, nor included any authority over them, as is evident from what St. Cyprian discoursed, who was himself a Primate, but only some precedency in the same order, and such advantages of power in the government of the Church, as was given them by the common consent of Bishops, for a greater public good: as the power of calling Provincial Synods, and presiding in them, and a principal interest in the ordination of Bishops in his Province, and the like: which were determined and limited by Ecclesiastical Canons.  
It is true, this Patriarchal power did in time degenerate into domination and Empire, when it fell into the hands of ambitious men, but was originally( and is so still, when wise and good men have the management of it,) a very prudent constitution to preserve peace and order, and good discipline in the Church.  
But that Arch-Bishops and Metropolitans had no proper superiority and jurisdiction over Bishops is very evident from what St. Hierom objects against the discipline of the Montanists. Among us( i.e. the catholics) the 
Hieron. ad marcel. Ep. 54.  Bishops enjoy the place of the Apostles, among them the Bishop is but the third: For they have the patriarches of Pepusa in Phrygia for the first, those whom they call Cenones for the second; thus Bishops are thrust down into the third, that is, almost the last place: and yet in St. Hierom's time the catholic Church had Arch-Bishops and Metropolitans, but it seems not such as degraded Bishops, or advanced any above them: And methinks this is an untoward testimony against Mr. B.'s Parochial Bishops, whom he calls the lowest Bishops, for Bishops were always the highest order in the Church.  
2. The second thing the Dean answers, contains the resolution of the question, that we deny any necessity of any such constitutive Regent part, as one formal Ecclesiastical Head, as essential to a National Church: For a National consent is as sufficient to make a National Church, as an universal consent to make a catholic Church. That this is the true resolution of the question has been sufficiently proved already; and Mr. B. returns no new answer to it but this, No consent maketh a catholic Church, but consenting to one Supreme Head Christ: then it seems the catholic Church is one by no external visible bonds of union; but I have already proved, that the unity of the catholic Church consists in its consent and agreement in one Communion; and thus a National Church as a larger portion of the universal Church is one also.  
II. Having considered what kind of Church a National Church is, let us now consider, what acts of Christian Communion are essential to a National Church; and I need not add much to what has been already hinted for the explication of this matter. As,  
1. That all the Churches in the Nation live in Communion with each other, and freely communicate together, as one and the s●me Church. And this answers Mr. B.'s Query, Why do you pretend, that we are none of the Church of England— who deny not associated Chur●●es in England under one Civil Government: for whatever he means by this, it is plain they are not associated in one Communion with us, and therefore cannot make one Church, though they live under the same Civil Government: for separate Ecclesiastical Communions is a contradiction to the Notion and Being of One Church.  
2. That they consent in the same Confession of Faith and Rules of Worship. Here Mr. B. desires to know what this consent is, which is necessary to make us members of the Church of England: because there are a great many differences among ourselves concerning the sense of many Articles, and the different manner of explaining them: Now to consent to the Doctrine of any Church, is to believe those Articles of Faith, which it proposes as its Doctrine: but then where the Church has not determined every minute question, but has left a latitude of sense to prevent Schisms and breaches upon every different opinion( as it is evident the Church of England has done in some Articles, which are most liable to the hottest disputes, which yet are penned with that temper, as to be willingly subscribed by men of different apprehensions in those matters) those who live in the same communion, and worship God together, are members of the same Church; which those who agree in the same Faith cannot be, who do not worship God in the same communion.  
I cannot say it is absolutely necessary to the Constitution of a National Church, that all the particular Churches should have the same Liturgy and form of Worship, but certainly it is highly reasonable and convenient, that they should; and when it is so settled by mutual consent and advice, it is a degree of Schism for any Church to depart from the common rule.  
3. National communion requires, that the National Church be governed by common advice and consent, or by common Rules and Canons agreed and confirmed by mutual advice: And this as the Dean observed is declared in Convocations, which consist of Arch-Bishops, Bishops and Presbyters. For as the ancient Government of particulas Churches was in the hands of Bishops, with the advice of their Council of Presbyters; so the Convocation for the Government of the National Church, by mutual consent consists of Bishops and their Presbyters; not indeed of all Presbyters, who could not be spared from their several Cures to meet in Convocation, but of such as are chosen by the inferior Clergy for their Proxies: and such Ecclesiastical Canons or Rules of Discipline, agreed by mutual consent, though they have not the force of a Civil Law, till they are confirmed by Civil Authority, nor can bind a dissenting Bishop without the concurrence of some other obligation, yet do oblige the Consciences of those Christian people, whose Bishops receive and own them; for if Christians are bound to submit to the Government and Discipline of the Church as exercised by their Bishop, then much more, when their Bishop does not govern arbitrarily, but by fixed Rules agreed by the common advice and consent of the Bishops and Clergy of the National Church.  
And thus we have found a National Church, and Church Government antecedent to any human authority; for as for that Objection, that the Church of England is not one, but two Provincial Churches, with their distinct Synods, it alters not the case, since both Provincial Synods act by mutual consent, which makes them one Church, as much as all the Churches of the same Province are one.  
So vain is it, what Mr. B. insinuates, that we own no Government of the Church, but the Civil. And upon the same mistake, asks How old our Church is? what Parliament first made it? Does 
Second Def. of Nonconf. p. 116.  it die, and live again, as oft as Parliaments change it? How shall we prove, that the whole or half of the Nation, ever meant to put their consent into the hand of the Parliament to make a new Church of England, and to alter it? What men make, they may destroy. May not the Nation withdraw such consent, and the Parliament unmake their creature? These I confess are all very smart Objections, had the Dean assigned no other original or being to the Church, but a National consent in Parliament, but if a National Church considered as a Church, be antecedent to any such consent in the nature of the thing, and does not depend upon such a National consent to be a Church, but only to be incorporated with the Civil Government, all these questions need no answer.  
A great many other questions he asks just to as much purpose as these, and proceeding upon the same mistake: as that the Dean has defended the Church of England fairly, by denying that there is any such Church in the questioned Political sense: that he 
p. 120.  absolves all men from the duty of obeying the Church of England as such; and how can men be schismatics for disobeying them that are not their Governours; with abundance more to the same Tune, all running upon this supposition, that the Dean owns no National Church, nor Church authority, but what is owing to Civil Authority, which appearing to be so wild a mistake, we will leave him to answer his questions himself, and now consider the National Church, as incorporated into the State.  
II. The Church considered as incorborated into the State continues the same Church still, only backed and countenanced by Civil Authority: No Prince, nor Parliament have authority to make a new Church, because they have no authority to alter Divine or Apostolical Institutions: And therefore those are admirable Notion makers, who would make a National Church of all the different forms of Churches by an Act of Parliament 
Answer to Dr. Still. p. 30.  to le●itimate the meetings of Nonconformists, so as thereby to become immediately parts of the Church as National, no l●ss than the Parochial Assemblies. But this is the same man, who makes the Church as National, to be only of an accidental, not essential consideration, and truly I must confess this would be a kind of an accidental Church.  
But the only difference between a National Church considered as a Church, and as it is incorporated into the State is this, that as a Church it has no other authority, but what is purely Ecclesiastical, consisting in Church censures, as incorporated into the State it enjoys Civil privileges, and is armed with Civil power: the King is its Civil Political Head, and though he has no authority, which is purely Ecclesiastical, yet has authority over Ecclesiastical persons: Church Canons when confirmed by Civil Authority, become the Laws of the Land, as much as any other Laws are, and Church Censures are backed with Civil punishments upon obstinate dissenters. And in this sense the Dean understood 
Unreas. Separ. p. 299.  a National Church, when he answers that question, how it comes to be one National Church: for he distinguishes this from another question, how all the Congregations in England make up this one Church; which he answers, I say by unity of consent, as all particular Churches make one catholic Church. Where it is plain, he means the Church as a Church: and therefore by the National Church, he means the Church a● incorporated into the State, and so answers very truly, that it becomes a National Church, because it was received 
p. 300.  by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parliament, as other Laws of the Nation are. Which shows how impertinent Mr. B.'s questions are upon this occasion; as what that common governing power in the Church is, which this Parliament consent hath set up: that the D.  told him before, was by the consent of Churches, and I suppose he will ask that question no more: and if it be by Parliament consent, how old is your Church? as confirmed by Act of Parliament, it is no elder than the first confirmation of it; but otherwise much elder than presbytery, or Parochial Episcopacy. Doth it live and die again as oft as Parliaments change it? May not the Parliament unmake their creatures? Yes they may, if they can alter an essential part of the Civil Government; they may deprive it of Civil authority, but it is a Church still. And as for his dispute, Whether a National consent be included in what the Parliament does in matters of Religion, neither the D. I think, nor any body else for him, is bound to defend it; if there be but as much National consent, as there is to any other Law, which was all the Dean asserted: for we do not say, that the Parliament makes our Church, but only makes the Government and Discipline of the Church, the Law of the Land: and when he asks, how Dissenters come to be bound by Parliament consent? if it never was in their minds, to trust them as consenters for them? I know no body asserts, that they are any otherwise bound, than they are by the other Parliamentary Laws; and if they think they are not bound by them, they may deliver themselves from the obligation of these, considered as Parliamentary Laws; and as for that dispute, whether the Laws bind them, only as consenting to them by their representatives, I do not see, how the D. nor the cause he defends, is concerned in it; the Church of England is made the Law of the Nation, by as much National consent, as any other Law has, and that is sufficient to our purpose. Thus he asks, if the peoples 
p. 122.  consent can make a National Church, why may it not make a Presbyterian, or Independent Church? but we say, the peoples consent makes neither, and an Act of Parliament may establish either by Law, though that Law cannot make them a Church, which must have a more Divine Institution. Thus if the Nations consent as such, make the Church of England, it is not made by Legislative power of King and Parliament: but therefore the D. speaks of no other National consent, but what is included in the Legislative power of King and Parliament, which does not make it a Church, but establish it by a Civil Sanction. Do the Church represent the King, or is he none of the Church? As King he is the Civil governor of the Church, as a private Christian, a member of it. How prove you, that the Clergy represent the Laity in the Convocation? Who says they do, or that there is any need they should? But by your rule, if divers parties of Christians agree to set up divers forms of Church Governments with mutual forbearance, they would be one National Church. That can never be, because mutual forbearance cannot make them one Communion, which is essential to a National Church. Thus easy is it to answer this man of many questions, when once the case is plainly stated, I think I have considered what is most popularly objected by him, and dare venture any ordinary Reader with the rest.   

CHAP. VIII.  
What Communion is essential to the catholic or Universal Church.  
HAving already discoursed so largely of the communion of Diocesan and National Churches, I need not add much more about catholic Communion, or the Communion of the Universal Church: that there is such a thing, which unites the whole Christian Church into one body, I have already proved at large, and therein given sufficient intimations, what this catholic Communion is, and wherein it consists.  
I have already proved the catholic Church to be one visible body and society, and therefore need not now add any thing more to confute that opinion, that the catholic Church is invisible, which is asserted by Doctor own, and his Independent Brethren. But Mr. B. and others who aclowledge one visible catholic Church consisting of all the particular Churches of the world, do not much differ from Dr. O.'s invisible Church, while they make the unity of this Church to consist only in their union to Christ as Head of the Church, not in the union of Churches as members of the same body: for I take it not to be enough that all Churches are united to Christ, unless they be all united in one body; for the whole Church cannot be the one body of Christ, unless all particular Churches are one body: and therefore I would desire Mr. B. and his Brethren to tell us, how the whole catholic Church is united into one body: I assert this is done by one communion; if he can tell any better way, I would gladly learn it; especially if he can tell me, how all Churches can be one body without one Communion. But to reduce all to as narrow a compass, as I can, I shall briefly discourse these two things. 1. What that communion is, which makes the catholic Church one body. 2. What place there can be for catholic Communion, in such a broken and divided state of Christian Churches, as we see at this day.  
I. What that Communion is, which makes the catholic Church one body. And I shall not here insist on catholic Doctrine or catholic Charity, which are necessary supposed as the foundations of catholic Communion; but yet are not sufficient to make the Church one, when they do not unite all in one communion, as I have already proved: but catholic Communion strictly so called, principally consists in two things; 1. In the agreement and concord of the Bishops of the catholic Church among themselves and with each other. 2. In the communion of particular Churches and Christians with one another.  
1. In the concord and agreement of the Bishops of the catholic Church with each other: for the Bishops being the supreme Governors of their particular Churches, their agreement and consent is necessary to catholic Communion. This is sufficiently evident from what St. Cyprian affirms, that there is but one Episcopacy in the Christian Church, of which every Bishop has an equal share, and therefore that all the Bishops in the world are colleagues, and no man can have the authority or honour of a Bishop, who does not preserve the peace and unity of the Episcopacy, that is, who does not live in unity with his fellow Bishops. That the catholic Church is one, when it is not rent and divided, but united and coupled by the cement of Bishops, who stick close together, as I have already 
Vide supr. c. 4. p. 208. &c.  discoursed at large.  
And hence it is evident, that a superior power over Bishops is not necessary to the unity of the Church, for no man does more plainly deny that, than St. Cyprian does, and yet no man is a more resolute asserter of catholic Communion than he is.  
Now there were several ways whereby this communion among Bishops 
Et miserim tibi proximè nomina Episcoporum istic constitutorum, qui integri& sani in Ecclesia Catholica frarribus praesunt. Quod utique ideo de omnium nostrorum consilio placuit scribere, ut erroris diluendi,& perspiciendae veritatis compendium fieret,& scires tu,& collegae nostri quibus scribere,& litteras mutuò à quibus vos accipere oporreret Cypr. Cornelio ep. 55.  was expressed and maintained. As, 1. By Writing Letters to, and receiving Letters from one another about Church affairs. Thus St. Cyprian sends a catalogue of the names of catholic Bishops to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, that he might know to whom to writ, and from whom to receive Letters. For hereby they owned communion one with another, by owning those to whom they wrote to be their colleagues and Fellow-Bishops, which they never would do to schismatics.  
2. By advising together about the public affairs of the Church, and communicating counsels with each other, and giving an account of the reasons of their actions, that there might be no mis-understanding between them: there are numerous instances of this in St. Cyprians Epistles. As to give some few: Thus St. Cyprian 
Cypr. ep. 29.  writes to the Roman Clergy in the vacancy of that See, giving an account, why he denied communion to those who were lapsed, and yet challenged the Communion of the Church as granted them by Paul the Martyr. Thus he writes to Cornelius to 
Ep. 41.  acquaint him, that he disowned the Ordination of Novatianus, but owned his: Cornelius writes to St. Cyprian 
● 42.  about those Confessors, who at first joined with Novatianus, but were now returned to the communion of the Church. And several other Letters past between them, about Novatianus 
Ep. 46.  and his Schism. Thus St. Cyprian and other African Bishops sent a Synodical Epistle to Cornelius, to give him an account of their reasons, why they had now yielded, contrary to their first determination, to receive the lapsed to communion, and the peace of the Church: as he afterwards did to Stephen Bishop of Rome, concerning 
Ep. 54.  the decree of their Council to baptize those, who had been baptized by heretics. 
Ep. 62.   
For though they did not own a superiority of power of any one Bishop, or Church over another, and therefore would not allow of judiciary appeals to a foreign Church, as St. Cyprian 
Nam cum statutum sit omnibus nobis,& aequum f●● pariter ac justum, ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur, ubi est crimen admissum,& singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit adscripta, quam regat unusquisque& gubernet, rationem sui actus Dominoredditurus, oportet utique eos, quibus praesumus non circumcursare, nec Episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem sua subdolâ& sallaci temeritate collidere, said agere illic causam suam, ubi& accusatores habere,& testes sui criminis possint. Cypr. Cornilio ep. 55.  speaks in his Epistle to Cornelius about F●licissimus and Fortunatus, two schismatical Presbyters of the Church of Carthage; yet they thought it the duty of every Bishop, and the most effectual way to preserve catholic Communion, not only to govern their Churches with the advice and consent of neighbour Bishops of the same Province, but to consult with foreign Churches, especially in matters of such importance, as did equally concern all Churches. And therefore the Clergy of Rome after the death of Fabianus before they had a new Bishop ordained in his room, in that very Letter to St. Cyprian, wherein they mightily commend his modesty in acquainting them with the affairs of his Church, and making them, not judges but partners of his counsels, yet aclowledge, that all such public matters should be concluded by public advice, and that no decree can be firm and lasting, which has not a general consent: and thus St. Cyprian had acknowledged in his 
Ep. 1.  Letter to them, that mutual love and charity, and the reason of the thing required, that he should not conceal any thing from their notice, but that they should advice with each other concerning the most profitable administration of Ecclesiastical Discipline. 
Ep. 29.   
And thus by communicating counsels with each other though they could not meet together in a General Council, yet they had the advice and consent of all Christian Churches in the world in all difficult affairs; Neighbour Bishops first advising with each other in provincial Synods, and sending their decrees to other Churches for their concurrence with them: and such decrees confirmed by an universal consent, St. Cyprian calls the decrees 
Maximè cum jampridem nobiscum,& cum omnibus omnino episcopis in toto mundo constitutis, etiam Cornelius collega noster— decreverit— Ep. 68.  of the whole world, and indeed did better serve the ends of catholic Communion than any general Council did.  
And thus I doubt not, but a late learned Author has given a very true account of the unity of the Christian Church according to ancient practise, when he tells us. The peace of the Church was preserved by communion of all parts together, not by the subjection of the rest to one part: though I do not think he has made a true representation of it, when he says, That the case of Bishops was like to that of 
D. Barrow, Unity of the Chur. p. 30.  Princes, each of whom hath a free superintendence in his own territory, but to uphold justice and peace in the world, or between adjacent Nations, the intercourse of several Princes is needful. For this makes Christian Communion as arbitrary a thing, as the confederacies of Princes; whereas the Episcopal Office is but one, and therefore ought to be administered by the mutual advice and consent of Bishops, who all equally share in it. And catholic Communion is essential to the unity of the Church, and he who violates it by an unreasonable dissent, whatever he be, is a schismatic, and therefore no member of the catholic 
Qui ergò nec unitatem spiritus, nec conjunctionem pacis observat,& se ab Ecclesiae vinculo,& à Sacerdotum collegio separat, Episcopi nec potestatem habere potest nec honorem. Cypr. Ep. ad Antan. 52.  Church; and St. Cyprian tells us that such cannot retain either the power or the honour of a Bishop. The Christian Church is governed by the Episcopal college, wherein every Bishop has equal power, but yet is by his Office obliged, as far as it is possible to govern his own Church by the advice and consent of his colleagues, where there is need of it, and where it can be had; which is a very different thing from the arbitrary combinations of secular Princes.  
3. Of the same nature were those Letters of recommendation granted to Presbyters or private Christians( who had occasion to travail) from those Churches of which they were members, to other Churches, whither they went, which were called formed or communicatory Letters: the design of which was to satisfy foreign Churches, that those persons who brought such Letters were in communion with the Church which sent them; and therefore to desire them to admit them to their communion, and to show them such respect and kindness, as became Christian Brethren, while they stayed with them: for the ancient discipline was very severe in admitting strangers, who were unknown to them, to communion, lest they should admit heretics, or schismatics, or Excommunicated persons: and therefore if any such came, who could not produce their recommendatory Letters, but pretended to have lost them by the way, they were neither admitted to communion, nor wholly refused, but if occasion were, maintained by the Church, till such Letters could be procured from the Church from whence they came, which was called the communio peregrina, as Albaspinus has observed.  
And this was a plain argument of communion between those Churches, who sent, and who received such Letters, that they would recommend and receive each others members to communion, and by such Letters Optatus tells us 
Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in una communionis societate concordat. Optatus l. 2.  catholic Communion was maintained So much is that Learned man mistaken, who makes this no more, than as Princes sometimes recommend 
Barrow. Ib. p. 40.  their Subjects to other Princes; they expect offices of humanity toward their Subjects, traveling or trading any where in the world; common reason doth require such things, but may common union of polity from hence be inferred? I answer, catholic Communion may, that all the Churches in the world were united in one body, and one communion; for they were received into all the rights and privileges of Christian Communion in the Church whither they went, by being owned members of the Church from whence they came: which cannot be said of the subjects of England when they travail into France or Spain, though recommended by their Princes Letters, which may procure them civil treatment, but not make them free denizens. There was no other distinction in the ancient Church between occasional and fixed communion( as Mr. Baxter calls it) but occasional or fixed residence: every Christian was as much a member of every Church, while he was there, as those who were constant Inhabitants, and enjoyed constant communion in that Church.  
And if it might not be thought immodest to pass a censure upon so great, and so deservedly admired a man, I should venture to say, that he was so much bent upon opposing that notion of Church Unity, which set up a supreme and sovereign power over the catholic Church, such a constitutive Regent Head, as Mr. B. would have over a National Church( which he has effectually done beyond all contradiction) that he was not so careful to avoid some expressions, which might seem to reflect upon catholic Communion. He has given a true and perfect account, wherein the unity of the ancient Church consisted, but to avoid a sovereign Church Power, has made catholic Communion( which is the only cement of catholic Unity, and the only foundation of Ecclesiastical Discipline) too arbitrary a thing, like the confederacies of Sovereign Princes. Not that I suspect so great a man, was either ignorant or unsensible of the necessary obligations to catholic Communion, but that not being the subject of the present Dispute, he did less attend to the due stating that side of the question.  
2. After this I need say little to that Communion which was maintained between distant Churches, and private Christians, who were members of such Churches, which was to own each other as Sister Churches, and actually to communicate with one another, as occasion and opportunity offered.  
II. Let us now briefly consider, what place there can be for catholic Communion in this broken and divided state of the Church, which we see at this day: I confess the divisions of Christendom are matter of very sad lamentation, the Church being now so shattered and torn, that we cannot find any one entire communion, in a National, much less in the Universal Church.  
But yet I take that man to be a catholic Christian, not who communicates with all Sects and Parties of Christians( which is Mr. B.'s notion of a catholic Christian) but he who preserves the Communion of the Church wherein he lives; and is ready as occasion shall offer to communicate with all Christian Churches, which are neither Schismatical nor Heretical. By Schismatical, I mean those Churches, which separate from the National Church, wherein they live, without just and necessary reason, which can be nothing less than sinful terms of Communion; and by Heretical, those which impose any Doctrine as the terms of communion, which contradicts some plain and express Article of Faith. It cannot be expected from me, that I should particularly apply this general rule to the various communions of foreign Churches, since my present argument confines me to home; it may suffice for my present purpose, to have given this short and general account of catholic Communion.   

The Conclusion.  
THus I have as briefly as I could, explained the true nature of Christian Union, and therein answered all those pleas for separation, which relate to the constitution of our Church; and have occasionally taken notice of several others: For though our Adversaries talk loud of sinful terms of communion, yet they are willing, if they can, to shelter themselves in some more obscure controversies, of which the people are least capable of judging, but will readily believe upon their authority to be a sufficient reason for their separation; or else they cast such mists before mens eyes by wild and perplexed descriptions of Schism, which dwindle it into nothing, or make it a very innocent and harmless thing, that they cannot discover either what it is, or what is the evil or danger of it: and therefore my great design in this undertaking has been to cut off all these retreats, and so to state the notion of Christian Unity, that every man may understand what Schism is, and be made sensible how inconsistent it is with the true principles of Christianity, and how destructive to mens souls.  
As for the terms of our communion( where the controversy must at last rest, if what I have now discoursed hold true) they have been so often and so learnedly defended, and so little occasion given by any late assault for a fresh defence, that, I thought, I should do very good service by bringing the cause to that issue again, though I there left it as I found it; and yet in my answer to Mr. B.'s search for the English schismatic, I have briefly considered what he has objected against our communion, which I hear also is lately done by another hand, in answer to the Melius Inquirendum.  
I shall conclude all with this one observation, how vain all those projects of union are, which will not unite Christians in one communion; they may possibly for a time prevent cutting of throats, but cannot heal the Schisms of the Christian Church; and what little reason we have ever to expect an union with men of Dr. Owens principles, who will not 
〈…〉.  allow, that all lawful things are to be done for the Churches peace: God preserve his Church, and all good Christians from such schismatical Principles, as make it impossible to preserve Christian Unity and Communion when we have it, or to restore it, when it is lost. Amen.   
FINIS   

Books Printed for and sold by Richard Chiswel.  

FOLIO. 

SPeed's Maps and Geography of Great Britain and Ireland, and of Foreign Parts.  
Dr. Cave's Lives of the Primitive Fathers.  
Dr. Cary's Chronological Account of Ancient time.  
Wanly's Wonders of the little World, or History of Man.  
Sir Tho. Herbert's Travels into Persia, &c.  
Holyoak's large Dictionary, Latin& English.  
Sir Rich. Baker's Chronicle of England.  
Causin's Holy Court.  
W●lson's complete Christian Dictionary.  
Bishop Wilkin's Real Character, or Philosophical Language.  
Pharmacopoeia Regalis Collegii Medicorum Londinensis.  
Judge Jones's Reports in Common Law.  
Judge Vaughan's Reports in Common Law.  
Cave Tabulae Ecclesiasticorum Scriptorum.  
Hobbes's Leviathan.  
Lord Bacon's Advancement of Learning.  
Sir. W. Dugdale's Baronage of Engl. in 2. Vol.    
QUARTO. 

Dr. Littleton's Dictionary.  
Bish. Nicholson on the Chur. Catechism.  
The complete Clerk.  
History of the late Wars of New England.  
Dr. Outram de Sacrificiis.  
Bishop Taylor's dissuasive from Popery.  
Garissolius de Chr. Mediatore.  
Spanhemi Dubia Evangelica, 2 Vol.  
Dr. Gibb's Sermons.  
Parkeri Disputationes de Deo.  
History of the future State of Europe.  
Dr. Fowler's Defence of the Design of Christianity against John Bunynan, 1 s.  
Dr. Sherlock's Visitation-Serm. at Warrington.  
Dr. West's Assize-Serm. at Dorchester, 1671.  
Lord Hollis's Relation of the Unjust Accusation of certain French Gentlemen charged with a Robbery, 1671. 6 d.  
The Magistrates Authority asserted, in a Sermon by James Paston.    
OCTAVO. 

ELborow's Rationale upon the Eng. Service.  
Burnet's Vindication of the Ordination of the Church of England.  
Bishop Wilkin's Natural Religion.  
Hardcastle's Christ. Geography and Arithm.  
Ashton's Apology for the Honours and Revenues of the Clergy.  
Lord Hollis's Vindication of the Judicature of the H. of Peers in the case of Skinner.  
— Jurisdiction of the House of Peers in case of Appeals.  
— Jurisdict●on of the House of Peers in case of Impositions.  
— Letter about the Bishops Vote in Capital Cases.  
Duporti Versio Psalmorum Graeca.  
Grew's Idea of Philological Hist. continued on Roots.  
Spaniards Conspiracy against the State of Venice.  
Several Tracts of Mr. Hales of eton.  
Bishop Sanderson's Life.  
Dr. Tillotson's Rule of Faith.  
Pasoris Grammatica Grae. Novi Testamenti, 4 s.  
Dr. Simpson's chemical Anatomy of the Yorkshire Spaws; with a Discourse of the Original of Hot Springs and other Fountains.  
— His Hydrological Essays, with an Account of the Allum-works at Whitby, and some Observations about the Jaundice, 1 s. 6 d.  
Dr. Cox's Discourse of the Interest of the Patient in reference to physic and Physicians.  
Organon Salutis: Or an Instrument to cleanse the Stomach: with divers New Experiments of the virtue of Tobacco and Coffee: with a Preface of Sr. Hen. Blunt.  
Dr. Cave's Prim. Christianity in three Parts.  
A Discourse of the Nature, End, and Difference of the two Covenants, 1●72. 2 s.  
Ignatius Fuller's Sermons of Peace and Holiness, 1672. 1 s. 6 d.  
Buckler of State and Justice 〈…〉 France's Design of Universal Monarc●●, 1673.  
A Free Conference touching the Present State of England at home and abroad, in order to the designs of France 1673. 1 s.  
Bishop tailor of Confirmation, 1 s. 6 d.  
mystery of Jesuitism, third and fourth Parts. 2 s. 6 d.  
Dr. Samway's Unreasonableness of the Romanists, 1 s. 6 d.  
Record of Urines, 1 s.  
Dr. Ashton's Cases of Scandal and Persecution, 1674. 1 s.    
DUODECIMO. 

HOdder's arithmetic.  
Grotius de Veritate Religionis Christianae.  
Bishop Hacket's Christian Consolations.    
VICESIMO QUARTO. 

VAlentine's Devotions.  
Guide to Heaven.    
Books lately Printed. 

GUillim's Display of heraldry with large Additions.  
Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation of the Church of Engl. Fol. in 2 Vol.  
Dr. Burlace's History of the Irish Rebellion.  
Herodoti Historia. Grae. Lat. Fol.  
Cole's Latin and English Dictionary with large Additions, 1679.  
William● ●ermon before the Lord Mayor, Octob. 12. 1679.  
— Impartial Consideration of the Speeches of the Five Jesuits Executed for Treason, Fol.  
Relation of the Massacre of the Protestants in France.  
trials of the Regicides, Octavo.  
Mr. James Brome's Two Fast Sermons.  
Dr. Jane's Fast Sermon before the House of Commons, April 11. 1679.  
Dr. Burnet's Letter written upon the Discovery of the late Plot, 4o.  
Decree made at Rome, March 2. 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists, 4o.  
Mr. John Jame's Visitation Sermon, April 9. 1671. 4o.  
Mr. John Cave's Fast Serm. on Jan. 30. 79. 4o.  
— His Assize Serm. at Leicest. July 31. 79. 4o.  
— His Gospel preached to the Romans, 8o.  
Certain Genuine Remains of the Lord Bacon in Arguments Civil, Moral, Natural, &c. with a large Account of all his works, by Mr. Tho Tenison, 8o.  
Dr. Puller's Discourse of the Moderation of the Church of England, 8o.  
The Original of all the Plots in Christendom; with the Danger and Remedy of Schism: By Dr. William Sawel, Master of Jesus college Cambridge, 8o.  
A Discourse of supreme Power and Common Right: By Sir John Munson, Bar. 8o.  
Dr. Edw. Bagshaw's Discourses upon Select Texts against the Papist and Socinian, 8o.  
Mr. Rushworth's Historical Collections: The Second Volume, Fol.  
— His large and exact Account of the Trial of the E. of Straf. with all the Circumstances preliminary to, concomitant with, and subsequent upon the same to his Death, Fol.  
remarks relating to the state of the Church of the three first Centuries, wherein are interspersed Animadversions on a Book, called, A View of Antiquity: By J. H. Written by A. S.  
Speculum Baxterianum, or Baxter against Baxter, 4o.  
The Country-mans Physician. For the use of such as live far from Cities, or Market-Towns, 8o.  
Dr. Burnet's Sermon before the Lord Mayor upon the Fast for the Fire, 1680. 4o.  
— Conversion and Persecutions of Eve Cohan, a Person of Quality of the Jewish Religion, lately Baptized a Christian, 4o.  
— His Account of the Life and Death of the late Earl of Rochester, octavo.  
— His Fast Sermon before the House of Commons, Decemb. 22. 1680.  
— His Sermon on the 30th of Jan. 1680/ 1.  
New England Psalms, twelves.  
An Apology for a Treatise of human Reason. Written by M. Clifford Esq twelves.  
The Laws of this Realm concerning Jesuits, Seminary Priests, Recusants, the Oaths of Supremary and Allegiance explained by divers Judgements and Resolutions of the Judges; with other Observations thereupon, by William Cawley Esq Fol.    
In the Press. 

BIshop Sanderson's Sermons.  
Fowlis his History of Romish Conspiracies, Treasons and Usurpations, fol.  
Markham's Perfect horseman, octavo  
Dr. Parker's Demonstration of the divine authority of the Law of Nature and the Christian Religion, quarto.  
Dr. Sherlock's practical discourse of Religious assemblies, octavo.  
Dr. Wil. Outram's Sermons, now in the Press.     
FINIS.