THE following Discourse shall consist of Four particulars.

First, The lawfulness of Com­municating with our Churches by the Confessions and Arguments of the Congregational Divines.

2. The same proved by demonstrating the Apo­stolical Churches more vitiated than Ours, from whom a Separation is made by the Inde­pendents; and yet a Separation from those Primitive Churches, utterly discountenanced by the Apostles.

[Page 2] 3. The same Proposition proved by demonstrating that we have not given them the like, or any just Cause, as the Church of Rome gave them and us. Which is the first particular to be proved.

Secondly, I shall shew the sinfulness of erecting Altar against Altar, of gathering Churches out of Churches.

Thirdly, That the Independents are averse in their Principles to Toleration as well as the Pres­byterians, and so equally obliged not to abuse the present gracious Indulgence.

Fourthly, I shall shew, that by His Majesties late Declaration the Church of England is still established as the Basis, and the bare suspension of the poenal Laws, doth indeed take off the Obligation, upon the account of wrath, that lay before upon Dis­senters; but does not cancel the Obligation of Con­science, by which the Independents, and all In­dulged parties, are still to avoid all Causless and groundless Separations from this Best of Reformed Churches.

[Page 3] First, The Lawfulness of Communicating with our Churches, by the Arguments and Concessions even of the Independents themselves. Our Parochial Churches are owned to have the Essentials of true Churches by all sober Congregational men: (For there is the pure Word of GOD Preached, the true Sacraments Administred, and an impli­cite Covenant between Pastor and People in joyning together.) All that is pleaded is Corruption and Defect in the outward Exercise and Administra­tion of Church Order, and Discipline. Now that it is Lawful (supposing, but not granting this bar lies against the Church of England) to joyn with Churches so defective and corrupt, is not only acknowledged, but fully proved by Reverend Mr. Norton, of the Congregational way in his An­swer to Apolsius (as Dr. Stilling fleet in his Irenicum quotes it to the present purpose) which I desire the Brethren to consider, whom it chiefly con­cerns, and to lay seriously to their hearts: and, without a reply to his Arguments, they cannot justifie their Separation from us.

[Page 4] 1. A Believer may Lawfully joyn in Commu­nion with such a Church, where he cannot enjoy all the Ordinancies of GOD, as in the Jewish Church, in our Saviour's time, which refused the Gospel of Christ, and the Baptisme of John, and yet our Saviour commands us to hear the Scribes and Pharisees (sitting in Moses's Chair;) which hearing implies Conjunctionem Ecclesiae Ju­daicae, A joyning with the Jewish Church. So with Churches rejecting an Article of Faith; as the Church of Corinth, the Doctrine of the Re­surrection; the Churches of Galatia rejecting the Doctrine of Justification by Faith: yet the Apo­stle no where requires, on that account, a Sepa­ration from them.

2. A Believer may Lawfully joyn in Commu­nion with such a Church, in which some Corrup­tion is tolerated in the Worship of GOD, without Reformation; as the Offering upon High places, from Solomon to Hezekiah, in the Church of Judah; the observation of Circum­cision and the Law Ceremonial in the Churches of Galatia.

[Page 5] 3. A Believer may Lawfully joyn himself in Communion with such a Church, in which such are admitted to Sacraments who give no e­vident signs of Grace, but seem to be Lovers of the World; this he proves, because it is every mans Duty to Examine himself, and anothers sin hurts not me, and so is no argument against my Duty. And besides, by mens coming un­worthily, Non polluitur Communio, licet minuitur Consolatio, The Communion is not defiled, though the comfort of it be diminished: This he proves also from the Church of Corinth, amongst whom were many scandalous that had not Repented, 2 Cor. 12. 20, &c. and in the Church of the Jews, which lay under great Corruptions when Christ and His Apostles communicated with it.

4. Although a Believer joyns with such a Church, he is not therefore bound with the Guilt, nor defiled with the pollutions of others that Communicate. It is his Duty incumbent, and in doing his Duty, he contracts no Guilt upon himself.

[Page 6] 5. A Believer which hath joyned himself to such a Church is not bound to withdraw and seperate under pain of Guilt if he does it not: for to be lawful to joyn, and unlawful to conti­nue the Communion implies a contradiction; for the first speaks it to be a Church, and the second to be no Church; and so it is not Lawful to se­perate from a Church true, as to Essentials (and such the Independents own in their Apologetical Narration, our Parochial Churches) though guilty of Corruptions; for the ground of Communicating is its being a Church, not a corrupt or defective Church. And that men are not guilty by par­taking with those that are guilty of Corruptions in a Church, appears from the Church of the Jews in the case of Ely's Sons, and the Christian Churches of Asia and Corinth; where we read of many Corruptions by S. Paul reproved, but no Mandate to separate, which had certainly by the Holy Ghost been given, and S. Paul would not have omitted, had it been a sin to communicate while those Corruptions were in the Churches of Asia and Corinth. Thus far their own Reverend [Page 9] Norton. Now I desire these Congregational Lea­ders, who gather Churches out of our Churches, to reply to this Learned Divine of their own perswasion, or to consider what Answer is to be given to the searcher of all Hearts, for resisting that light of Conviction that shines in upon their Consciences.

Again, not granting but supposing only; that in this Church from which these separate, Church-Discipline were neglected, Worship de­filed, Manners corrupted, or Tyranny exercised: suppose we grant all this, which we need not, this will not justifie a Separation from the Church of England. My reason is, because there were greater Corruptions in Doctrine, Discipline, and Wor­ship (and no Separations countenanced by the Apostles) in the first Apostolical Christian Churches, then in Ours, or any other Reformed Churches, from whom a Separation is made in these times. As for instance; to begin with Doctrine; In what Church of ours is the Resurrection of the Dead denyed, an Article of that importance that all our Christianity, in effect, depends upon it? [Page 10] It was denyed by many in the Church of Corinth. In what Churches of ours is the Doctrine of Ju­stification by the Law, or any Doctrine so destru­ctive of the Merit of Christ, generally main­tained, as in the Galatian Churches? Again, for Worship; Do ours partake of the Lord's Table and the Table of Devils, as among the Corinthi­ans? Are our Ecclesiastical Assemblies so con­fused, that whosoever comes in must presently take us for Mad? Do ours come to the Com­munion drunk, as at Corinth? Then for Man­ners, and Life; We acknowledge our selves heynous Offendors (which, I suppose, those that call themselves the Saints, and separate from us Publicans) do (unless frantick) confess true of themselves: But what then? have we worse than Incest, Fornication, Covetousness, Malice, Con­tentions unrepented of, as is the Church of Co­rinth? Or, biting and devouring one another, permitters of Idolaters, boasters of Gifts, as in the Church of Galatia? As touching neglect of Discipline; First in the Apostles own company, the Ministers that should exercise Discipline, they [Page 11] all sought there own, and none the things of J [...]sus Christ; and the grossest Vices winked [...] ­mented, as we saw before in the Church of Corinth; and should have been so still, had not the Apostle been Living, and exciting them to their Duty.

Lastly, concerning Tyranny; Ye see what Oppression the false Apostles used, 2 Cor. 11. 20. Ye suffer, saith the Apostle, if a man take of you, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man exalt himself, &c. by which words he toucheth the Tyranny, though out of malice against the Apostle, willingly submitted to, by the Church of Corinth: and we know that Dyo­trephes exercised his Government with such In­solency, that he cast out whom he would, ad­mitted whom he would, opposed S. John him­self; yet no news of Separation.

Now let these men consider, that separate from us, the Apostolical Church was a Virgin newly espoused to Christ, in the midst of the Heathen, under the Rod of Persecution, the great Apostle then living, and yet vitiated more then [Page 12] the Churches that these depart from; and yet the then Separatists branded with the Characters of Schisme and Sedition by the Blessed Apostles. And here I desire the men of this way seriously to consider, that Separation being discounte­nanced, from Churches more vitiated than ours, by the Holy Apostles; how these men, owning our Parochial Churches true as to Essentials, can ever justifie their Separation from us? It would certainly be duly weighed by such as desire to appear tender Consciences, and so capable of a right in the present gracious Indulgence. That they do so acknowledge our Parochial Churches, their Apologetical Narration declares sufficiently in these following words; We have alwaies profest (and that in these times, wherein the Churches of England were most, either actually overspread with defilements, or in the greatest danger thereof) that we both did, and would hold Communion with them, as true Churches of Christ; and that our Parochial Churches were the very Body of Christ: which is in effect to approve and forsake at the same time, and gives occasion, too great, of applying a Sentence [Page 13] in S. Austin against Parmenian (Lib. 1. cap. 8. against these Dissenters:) Et adversum nos lo­quuntur, & nobiscum loquuntur, & cum eos obmutescere compellat veritas, silere non permit­tit iniquitas: They speak against us, and they speak for us; and when Truth constrains them si­lence, their Iniquity will not let them hold their peace.

There are three things that I would humbly offer to all sober men of the Congregational per­swasion; and I beseech them to consider them seriously, as from one that equally wisheth their Salvation with his own.

1. That they would cautiously distinguish between corruptions in Doctrine, and corruptions in the practice of a Church.

2. That they would Conscientiously distin­guish between corruptions, whether in Doctrine or Practice, profest and avowed by a Church, and required as the absolute conditions of Commu­nion from all its members; and corruptions only crept in and meerly tolerated in a Church, and not any way required as the conditions of

[Page 14] 3. To distinguish carefully between Non­communicating as to the abuses of a Church, and a positive and total Separation from a [...] as it is a Church. These three (the second [...] duly weighed and considered, would [...] a period to their Separation [...] of England; or tend at least to [...]ening of the Breach too sadly occasioned, for want of a due reflection upon the Premisses aforesaid.

Again, We of the Church of England have not given them the like, or any just cause of Separating, as the Church of Rome gave them and us: For where do we urge any Doctrines as Articles of Faith, which we offer not to a tryal by Scripture, and the Four first General Councils, which all Christians reverence (and were Anciently honoured next to the Four Gospels:) and if the Church should teach any other Propositions, she protests against their being Articles of Faith and of Necessity to Sal­vation, and for this reason imposeth not Her [...]IX, Articles, as Articles of Faith, but of [Page 15] Peace and Communion: nor does the Church of England censure other Churches for their dif­ferent Confessions, but allows them the liberty she her self takes, to establish more or less con­ditions of Communion, as the Governours of the Church shall deem most expedient for Ʋnity and Peace. She only requires of such as are admitted to any Office or Employment in the Church, to subscribe to her Articles as certain Theological Verityes not repugnant to GOD's Word, particularly culled out and selected to be taught, and maintained within her Commu­nion, as highly conducive to the preservation of Truth, and prevention of Schisme. And for this reason She passes no other censure upon the Impugners of her Articles, then against the Impugners of Her Government, Liturgy, and Rites; because all intended by her for the same end, The avoiding of all Disorders, and Confusions. But as for the absolute Articles of the Church of England, they were not of Her own Inventing, but such as She found established in the best Ages of the Church, nearest the Primitive and [Page 16] Apostolical simplicity: Here She fixeth the bounds of Her Faith, to prevent the danger of endless Additions, and Innovations. And because in smaller matters somewhat may escape the greatest caution and prudence, She hath reserved Just power to her self to reform what is really amiss, and finds so abused, that the use of them cannot stand with Piety and Holiness; allowing the same Liberty to all her Sister Churches, and all Church Governours within the sphere of their respective Jurisdictions. This is the true state of the Reformation of this Church, as hath been apparently evidenced by her Regular Sons against all Opposers.

Now let the Independents consider, whether this be not (though a brief) yet a True account of the Moderation and Prudence of this Church; and then let them reflect at the same time upon the second especially, of the Three aforesaid Propositions: and upon the whole examine their Tender Consciences, whether it does not Justifie our Separation from the Ro­manists, and at the same time prove them guilty [Page 17] by departing from us. We both agree, that where any Church is guilty of Corruptions in Do­ctrine and practice, which it owns and requires as absolute conditions of Her Communion, there to Separate is no Schisme, but Lawful and Convenient. Let them make the Church of Eng­land appear thus guilty they are acquitted: If they cannot prove it as they have not done as yet (and doubtless they have Zeal enough to set them forward, if it could be demonstrated) what hinders their Return to the Church of England, unless the Conscience, which they call Tender, be sullen and obstinate? Not to prove any thing that justifies a Separation against the Church which they forsake, and yet con­tinue to keep up their Altars against it, is not so much allyed to tenderness of Conscience, as to hardness of Heart, uncapable of being reclaimed by the greatest and most generous condescensions in the World.

So much of the First particular, The Law­fulness of Communicating with our Parochial Churches, from the Arguments and Concessions [Page 18] of the Independents themselves; from the Pri­mitive Apostolical Churches more vitiated than Ours, and yet all manner of Separation dis­countenanced by the Apostles, and we not having given the Independents any just cause as the Church of Rome gave them and us. That is the first Proposition I engaged to de­fend, The Lawfulness of communicating with our Churches.

Secondly, I am to shew the sinfulness and danger of erecting Altar against Altar, and ga­thering Churches out of our Churches: The Sin is the sin of Schisme, severely branded by An­cient Fathers and Orthodox Councils (as well as in the Apostolical Writings) as the heighth of Pride and Wickedness. That the Independents are guilty of this Sin is clearly de­ducible from what I have said already; From their own Arguments, and Concessions; from the Instances of the Apostolical and Primitive Churches, more vitiated than Ours, yet Sepa­ration discountenanced by the Apostles; and by a comparison between our withdrawing from [Page 19] Rome, and their Separation from us. These things already proved, speaks them Causlesly to Separate from us; and that causless Separa­tion speaks them Schismaticks. They themselves allow our Parochial Churches True, as to Es­sentials; and, what if we suppose spots and pollutions, as to the outward Administration of Order and Discipline; this, if we should grant them, onely infers a lawful desire and endeavour of Reformation, but it warrants no Schismati­cal Separation; for no Corruptions in a Church can give occasion, or allowance of going out of it, but such as strike at the Foundation of Christian Doctrine and Worship; which, setting Calumny and railing aside (which we are not obliged to take for Reason and Argument) they never yet attempted to prove against the Church of England, so far they are inexcu­sable before GOD, and so far from appearing Men of tender Consciences to the World.

Where are those Corruptions in Doctrine or Practice, which the Church of England doth Impose upon her Members, as the absolute Con­ditions [Page 20] of Her Communion. Let them lay aside Wrath and Darkness, and give us a preg­nant Demonstration; or like Men of Can­dour and Ingenuity plead Guilty, and Return. Let them in short prove these two things: 1. That our Episcopal Ordination and Juris­diction, Our mixt Communion, Our Rites of Order imposed, not out of any Necessity, but Ʋniformity and Peace, and some other things by them inveighed against, to be indeed Super­stitious, and (as they call them). Antichristian Abominations. When that difficult Task is o­ver (if it can be ever accomplished) let them prove that we urge Disputable things, or known Errours with such severity, as the Church of Rome does Purgatory, Indulgences, Super­erogation, and other notorious palbable Errours; for which, justly condemned by the Reformed Churches. The very Cock of the Congregation is here nonplust (the most daring of all their Ʋndertakers) unless you will take Noise, and Clamour, and Confidence for Demonstra­tions.

[Page 21] Thirdly, The Independents are equally Ene­mies to Toleration with the Presbyterians; and from the same very Principles, and by consequence equally obliged not to use (however not to abuse) the Gracious Indulgence. Nothing in Con­junction with, or addition to, what is pre­scribed in the Word of GOD (as to Worship, and Government) is to be admitted or Tole­rated. Upon this Principle the Independents in particular (as well as Non-conformists in gene­ral,) for so their greatest and most forward Champion tells us, They do, and will adhere to, and stand upon as to the Differences, between them and us. The plain meaning of which, applyed to the Church of England, is briefly this, That the Independent way of Worship, and Government, is only prescribed in the Word of GOD; and Ours not, but repugnant: And by this Principle they exclude as well their Brethren that lent them the Principle, as well as the Inferiour Sectarists, and are at defiance with them, as well as the Church of England; for Independency being only prescribed in the Word [Page 22] by this Principle. if they will adhere to it, no other way can be Indulged or admitted. With these Men (as well as the Disciplinarians) there is but One only true way of Worship and Government prescribed in the Word. Nothing, secondly, that is unlawful may be Tolerated by the Civil Magistrate; and, nothing is lawful but what is prescribed in the Word (and you may be confident, that is the Independent way of Worship and Government.) These three things resolved, whence should Toleration pro­ceed, or an Indulgence be expected from the Independents to differing perswasions, unless he playes fast and loose, and as he pleaseth, owns and renounceth the Jus divinum of Independency in the same Oracles.

Every Sect (the Independent especially) allows no Worship, but their own way esta­blished in the Word. This is not only pleaded against the Church of England, but every Fa­ction bandyes against every Faction for the Di­vine Right. The Presbyterian Discipline is the only Scepter of JESƲS CHRIST for all [Page 23] Churches Government to the End of the World: He can neither Indulge himself, nor accept an Indulgence where other Parties are not ex­cluded. The Independent allows only his own Way of Worship, and excludes all Dissenters from Worshipping GOD aright; and from the beauty and purity of Gospel Ordinances; which is a Principle Sir John Presbyter lent him: And how can an Indulgence hence proceed?

By this Principle the Presbyterian first as­saulted the Church of England. By the same Principle the Congregational Hector takes Sir John to task, and beats him out of the field: By the same the Anabaptist attempted the In­dependent; and all the under- Sects the Anabap­tists: And so if they had crumbled into a thousand sub-divisions, still as every Sect gathers strength enough, he persecutes all Opposers. And, How should the Independent be more mer­ciful than the Presbyterian, or any other Sect, whose Enmity to Toleration doth equally arise from the same common Principle of the Divine Right, only of their own way of Worship and [Page 24] Government, from which all the Sects are ex­cluded, as well as the Church of England? There is One only way of Worshipping GOD aright, and that way is the Independent way of Worship. Where is Toleration then? It is excluded. By what Law? By Divine Right: And so Every plant that my Father hath not planted must be rooted out; and so only Independency is to be Tolerated, unless Kings and Princes who Rule for GOD, may Indulge men in an Open violation of the Law of GOD? And if you look a little backwards, it may admit a Dis­pute, Whether the Scepter of JESUS CHRIST were more an Iron Rod under the Kirk, or the tender hearted Tryers? It may indeed some­times consist with Carnal prudence (supposing the Independents to have power in their hands) to connive at, and Indulge the Lesser Facti­ons, the better to hold out the Flag of Defiance against the Royalists, and the Presbyterians their most considerable Competitors. Or they may (as the Ʋsurpers tender-Conscien'd Army once did) offer the taking away even the Poenal [Page 25] Laws from the very Papists, to collogue with Forraign Princes, and so have the greater secu­rity in their Villanous Designs against the King, and the Church; but this is a State Juggle for the advancement of the Good Old Cause: But then as soon as the fear is over from a­broad, then they spared nothing that Sacri­ledge could devour.

And now, Can any Man, that looks back upon Independent mercy and forbearance, believe that Men of such Principles and practices (who are now pleased that Episcopacy is established, and Poenal Laws removed from Papists, only because Indulged themselves) would Tolerate either Popery or Episcopacy if they had Power in their hands, and not rather Lord it with the Insolence of Ʋsurpers? Credat Judaeus Apella, non Ego.

So that as a late Treatise demonstrates, the Presbyterian hath no cause of joy, because others are Indulged as well as himself; whereas his Doctors, Elders, and Deacons are the perpetual Scepter of CHRIST to the end of the World [Page 26] for all Churches Government; and therefore, Down with the Colours of the Dragon; advance the Standard of CHRIST.

The Independents have no cause of Joy, be­cause the Church of England, and the Presbyte­rian Limb too, of the Antichristian Leviathan, are included, as well as the rest of the Parties among us: His Way being only laid down in the WORD, and all others repugnant to the Holy Scriptures. Yet they take the advantage, both out of a hatred to a third Party, the Church of England, and the next thing is to fight one with another for the Government: and then the only Scepter of Christ is the Conquerours worship; the longest Sword is the Divine Right; the Pike and Gun declare the Cause of GOD; and in­fallible Artillery decides all the Controversies re­lating to the Gospel Truth. And thus the Pres­byterian (who thought to have erected his Dis­cipline upon the sad Eclipse of the Church of England) was powerfully baffled and confuted, by such Arguments as the Independent Man of War carryed in his Snapsack.

[Page 27] Do not the Independents, when most cool and moderate, look upon all other Churches and People, as all Revolters from the purity and beauty of Gospel-Ordinances, introducers of Will-Worship and Superstition, instead of Disciples of the Lord JESƲS; not allowing any Dis­senters the least share or degree of Wisdom, or Godliness? And men of such Principles of this forehead and complexion, must needs carry tender bowels to Men of differing Perswasions. Certainly, unless where the rules and maximes of carnal Policy interpose and plead for mercy to Dissenters, their Clemency is the same with the Presbyterian, who first lent him the Principle, of not admitting any thing not expresly delivered in the Sacred Scriptures: by which Principle they are engaged in a War with one another, as well as against their common Antagonists. So that the Tables are now turned. It is not the Que­stion, whether all Partyes may be Tolerated; but, whether Independents only: for there is but One true way of Worship, and that is Theirs. Theirs only hath the Divinum Jus, and Princes may not [Page 28] Indulge Men in an open violation of Scripture Precepts, and Directions. And so every Sect is engaged to root out all the rest, as Enemies to the Scepter of the Lord JESƲS.

Fourthly, The Execution of the Poenal Laws being suspended, by the late Declaration in Fa­vour of Dissenters, does only take off the Obliga­tion, upon the account of Wrath, to Obedience; but the Conscience is still obliged, to avoid all causless and groundless Separations from our Churches. This will be manifest enough to any one that seriously reads the Declaration it self, and a late Treatise, Toleration not to be Abused, which will extend as well to the Independents as the Presbyterians, whose aversion to Toleration is built upon the same common Principle, the Divine Right of their one onely way of Worship and Government, in the Sacred Oracles; and so I refer them to that part of the Discourse be­fore mentioned, That they are obliged (as before the Declaration) to avoid all groundless Separations. For the Church of England is, as before, established as the Basis, and so the Ob­ligation [Page 29] of Conscience still Obligatory upon all the Indulged Parties to avoid Schismes, and all causless departure from us. The Obligation upon the account of Wrath is removed indeed; but if they would appear tender Consciences to the World, the King's suspension of the Punish­ment should make them the more Obedient for Conscience sake; and a Gracious Indulgence ra­ther abate, than heighten their Opposition against the Church of England, still established.

I shall now conclude all, by desiring them to consider, what they themselves acknowledge in the Declaration of the Faith and Order of the Congregational Churches, in Chap. 26. Of the Church, &c. The purest Churches under Hea­ven are subject both to Mixture and Error. And in their Institution of Churches; Persons that are joyned in Church-fellowship, ought not lightly to withdraw themselves from the Communion of the Church, to which they are so joyned. To these two let them add the Four particulars in this Dis­course mentioned: and upon the result of all consider, Whether Ambition and Pride, rather [Page 30] then a Conscientious tenderness keep not up their departure from, and opposition to the Church of England. I am not as this Publican, Come not near me, for I am holier then thou. An over­valluing of our own worth, and a Pharisaical contempt of others, is the usual rise of Schisme; for only by Pride cometh Contention; so the best of Kings and Preachers.

Thus the Valentinians looked on themselves as the only spiritual Men. The Pharisees the only Separati, separate Persons. The Sadducees, Justi, the only Righteous. The Novatians, [...], the only Puritans: And none Men of Knowledge but the Gnosticks, and the acute Tertullian, when Montanist. All others were Psysici, and he was come to his Nos spirituales. And if (out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh) spiritual Pride is the original of your Schisme. For you only are GOD's Israel, his Elect and precious ones. You only have Communion with GOD in pure Ordinance▪ All the World faln short of GOD's Truth, but your selves: And none is Orthodox out of the Pale of your own Church. [Page 31] Not only Pap [...]sts, Prelatists and Arminians, but even your dear Brethren, the Presbyterians, are Limbs of the Antichristian Leviathan. All re­volted from the Lord JESUS, and to be treated as members of the Whore, whom the Saints hate, and shall make desolate and naked, eat her flesh, and drink her bloud. This is the Canting Dialect of your Independent Leaders.

To Conclude. If it be not Ambition, but Conscience; Let it so appear by your Charity to Dissenters, by a serious and impartial Enquiry into the Grounds upon which you separate from us, without prejudice or passion; and do not so far Idolize a Sect, or an Opinion, as to prefer it before the Peace and Settlement of a Church, and Nation.