Sect. I. FOr our better understanding the State of this Controver­sie, it will be necessary to Premise these Two Things.

1. That although the pre­sent Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of our Reformation, yet, no such thing was then practised, or allowed, by those who were then most zealous for Reformation.

[Page 2] 2. That when Separation began, it was most vehe­mently opposed by those Non-conformists who disliked ma­ny things in our Church, and wished for a farther Refor­mation. And from a true Account of the State of the Controversie then, it will appear, that the Principles owned by them, do overthrow the present practise of Separation among us.

In the making out of these, I shall give a full ac­count of the Rise and Progress of this Controversie a­bout Separation from the Communion of our Church.

I. That although the present Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of the Reformation, yet no such thing was then practised, or allowed by those who were then most zealous for Reformation. By Se­paration we mean nothing else, but Withdrawing from the constant Communion of our Church, and Ioyning with Separate Congregations for greater Purity of Wor­ship, and better means of Edification. By the present Reasons for Separation we understand such as are at this day insisted on, by those who pretend to justifie these Practises; and those are such, as make the Terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful. And not one of all those, which my Adversaries at this time hope to Justifie the present Separation by, but would have had as much force in the beginning of the Reformation. For our Church stands on the same Grounds; useth the same Ceremonies (only fewer;) prescribes the same Liturgy (only more cor­rected;) hath the same constitution and frame of Go­vernment; the same defect of Discipline; the same manner of appointing Parochial Ministers; and at least as effectual means of Edification, as there were when the Reformation was first established. And what advantage there is, in our present circumstan­ces, [Page 3] as to the Number, Diligence and Learning of our Allowed Preachers; as to the Retrenching of some Ceremonies, and the Explication of the mean­ing of others; as to the Mischiefs we have seen follow the practice of Separation, do all make it much more unreasonable now, than it had been then.

Sect. II. It cannot be denied, that there were different apprehensions concerning some few things required by our Church in the beginning of the Re­formation; but they were such things, as are the least scrupled now. Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 131. Rogers refused the wearing of a Square Cap, and Tippet, &c. unless a Difference were made between the Popish Priests and ours. Hooper at first scrupled the Episcopal Habits, but he submitted afterwards to the use of them. Bucer, and some o­thers, disliked some things in the first Common-Prayer-Book of Edward the Sixth, which were Corrected in the Second: So that upon the Review of the Litur­gy there seemed to be little or no dissatisfaction left in the Members of our Church; at least, as to those things which are now made the grounds of Separati­on. For we read of none, who refused the constant use of the Liturgy, or to comply with those very few Ceremonies which were retained, as the Cross in Bap­tism, and Kneeling at the Communion, which are now thought such Bugbears to scare People from our Communion, and make them cry out in such a dread­ful manner of the Mischief of Impositions; as though the Church must unavoidably be broken in pieces by the weight and burden of two or three such insup­portable Ceremonies. Mischief of Impositions Preface. Now we are told, That it is unreasonable that any should create a necessity of Separa­tion, and then complain of an Impossibility of Vnion. By [Page 4] Whom? At what Time? In what Manner was this necessity of Separation created? Hath our Church made any New Terms of Communion, or alter'd the Old Ones? No: the same Author saith, It is perpe­tuating the old Conditions, and venturing our Peace in an old Worm-eaten Bottom, wherein it must certainly misc [...]rry.

Not to insist on his way of Expression, in calling the Reformation, An Old Worm-eaten Bottom; which ill be [...]omes them, that would now be held the most Zealous Protestants. I would only know, if those Terms of Communion which were imposed by the Mar­tyrs, and other Reformers, and which are only con­tinued by us, do, as this Author saith, Create a Ne­cessity of Separation; how then it came to pass, that in all King Edward's dayes, there was no such thing as Division in our Church about them?

And even Dr. Ames, who searched as carefully as any into this matter, Fresh suit a­gainst Cere­monies, p. 467. can bring no other Instances of any differences then, but those of Rogers and Hooper: he adds indeed, That Ridley and others agreed with Hooper. Wherein? What, in opposing our Ceremo­nies, when Hooper himself yielded in that which he at first scrupled? No, but there was a perfect reconci­liation between them, before they suffered. And what then? Is there any the least colour of Evidence, that before that Reconciliation, either Hooper or Rogers held Separate Assemblies from the Conformists, or that Ridley ever receded from his stedfast adhering to the Orders of this Church? This is then a very mean Artifice, and disingenuous Insinuation. For although Ridley, in his Letter to Hooper, out of his great Modesty and Humility, seems to take the blame upon himself, by attributing the greater Wis­dom [Page 5] to Hooper in that difference; yet he doth not Re­tract his Opinion, but only declares the hearty love that he bore to him for his constancy in the Truth. Neither do we find that ever Hooper repented of his Subm [...]ssion, to which he was so earnestly perswad­ed, both by Peter Martyr, and Martin Bucer; and Peter Martyr in his Letter to Bucer condemns his frowardness, Pet. Martyr, Epist. Theo­log. Hoopero, Buc. r. Script. Anglic. p. 708. and saith, That his cause was by no means approved by the Wiser and Better sort of Men. But Ames saith, Mr. Bradford might have been added, who calleth Forked Caps and Tippets, Antichristian Pelf and Baggage. Suppose this were true, it proves no more than that a good man had an unreasonable Scruple, and such as is thought so by our Bre­thren themselves at this day. But did he ever divide the Church on such an account as this? Did he set up separate Congregations, because a square Cap and a Tippet would not go down with him? No, he was a far better man than to do so. But if the whole words had been set down, the seeming force of these words had been taken away, for they are these; The cogniza [...]ce of the Lord standeth not in forked Caps, Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 319. Tippets, shaven Crowns, or such other Baggage and Artichristian pelf, but in suffering for the Lords sake; i.e. it is more a Mark of Gods Service to suffer Mar­tyrdom as a Protestant, than to be at ease as a Romish Priest, for he puts them altogether, Caps, Tippets, and shaven Crowns. And what is this to the Impositi­ons of our Church, or Separation on the account of them? Dr. Ames knew too much, to pretend to any thing like that in those times; For there was no such thing as Separation from our Church then heard of, on the account of these dividing Impositions. Some furious Anabaptists it may be, or Secret Papists then [Page 6] had separate Meetings, Ridiey's Ar­ticles of Vi­sitation, 1550. of which Ridley bids Enqui­ry to be made, in his Articles of Visitation; but no Protestants, none that joyned in the Articles of our Fait [...], and Substantials of Religion with our Church, as Dr. O. speaks, Vindicat. of Nonconf. p. 13. did then ap [...]ehend any [...] of Separation from it; not for [...] of the A [...] Sign of the Cross; nor Kneeling at the Communion; nor the Religious Observation of Holy-days; nor the constant use of the Liturgy; nor any one of all the particulars mentioned by Dr. O. which he saith, P. 35. 37. makes our Com­munion unlawful and separation from it to be necessary. How come these Terms of Communion to be so un­lawful now; which were then approved by such ho­ly, learned, and excellent men as our first Reformers? Were they not arrived to that measure of attainments, or comprehension of the Truths of the Gospel, that men in our Age are come to? Is it credible, that men of so great integrity, such indefatigable industry, such profound judgment, as Cranmer and Ridley, who were the Heads of the Reformation, should discern no such sinfulness in these things, which now every dissenting Artificer can cry out upon, as unlawful? Is it possible, that men that sifted every thing with so much care themselves, and made use of the best help from others, and begg [...]d the Divine Assistance, should so fatally miscarry in a matter of such might importance to the Souls of Men? Could not Latimer, or Bradford, or such holy and mortified men as they, discern so much as a Mote of unlawfulness in those times, which others espy such Beams in now? What makes this wonderful difference of eye-sight? Were they under a cloudy, and dark, and Iewish Dispensation; and all the clear Gospel Light of Division and Sepa­ration reserved for our times? Did they want warmth [Page 7] and zeal for Religion, who burnt at the Stake for it? Doth God reveal his Will to the meek, the humble, the inquisitive, the resolute Minds? And would he conceal such weighty things from those who were so desirous to find the Truth, and so resolved to ad­here to it? If Diocesan Episcopacy, and the Consti­tution of our Church were such an unlawful thing, as some now make it, it is strange such men should have no suspition of it, no not when they went to suffer? For as H. Iacob, Iacob's An­swer to Iohnson, p. 20, 21. the old Nonconformist, saith, in an­swer to Iohnson the Separatist, Did not M. Cranmer hold himself for Arch-Bishop still, and that he was by the Pope unjustly and unsufficiently deposed, and by Queen Mary forcibly restrained from it? Did he ever repent of holding that Office to his death? Also did not Ridley stand upon his Right to the Bishoprick of Lon­don though ready to die? Latimer, though he renounced his Bishoprick, yet he kept his Ministery, and never re­pented him of it. Philpo [...] never disliked his Arch­deaconry: yea, when he refused bloody Bonner, yet he appealed to his Ordinary the Bishop of Winchester. The like mind is to be seen in Bishop Farrar. And generally, whosoever were Ministers then of the Prelats Ordina­tion, they never renounced it, though they died Mar­tyrs. Iohnson's Defence of his ninth Reason. Johnson indeed quotes some passages of Brad­ford, Hooper, and Bale against the Hierarchy; But he notoriously misapplies the words of Bradford, which are, The time was when the Pope was out of England, but not all Popery; which he would have understood of the times of Reformation, under Edward VI. whereas he speaks them expresly of King Henry's days. And it is not credible, Hooper should think the Hierarchy unlawful, who (as it is generally be­lieved) had the Administration of two Bishopricks [Page 8] at once. Bradford's Confer. with the B [...]. Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 298. Bale's words were spoken in Henry VIII. his time; and could not be meant of a Protestant Hierarchy, for he was after a Bishop himself. But H. Iacob answers to them all, That supposing these men disliked the Hierarchy, it made the stronger against the Principles of Separation: Iacob' s An­swer, p. 82. Seeing for all that, they did not refuse to communicate and partake with them then as true Christians. And that not only occasionally and at certain seasons, but they maintained constant and fixed Communion with our Church as the members of it.

Sect. 3. Thus matters stood as to Communion with our Church in the days of Edward VI. but as soon as the Persecution began in Queen Mary's time, great numbers were forced to betake themselves to foreign parts, Letters of the Martyrs, p. 50. whereof some went to Zurick, others to Basil, others to Strasburg, and others to Frankford. Grin­dal in a Letter to B. Ridley, saith they were nigh 100 Students and Ministers then in Exile: These, with the people in all other places, Geneva excepted, kept to the Orders established in our Church; but at Frank­ford some began to be very busie in Reforming our Liturgy, leaving out many things, and adding others; which occasioned the following Troubles of Frank­ford. The true ground whereof is commonly much mis-represented. Plea for Peace, p. 1 [...]0. Mr. Baxter saith, The difference was between those which strove for the English Liturgy, and others that were for a free-way of praying, i.e. as he explains it, from the present sense and habit of the Speaker: but that this is a great mistake, will appear from the account published of them, A. D. 1575. by one that was a Friend to the Dissenting Party. From which it appears, That no sooner were the English ar­riv'd at Frankford, but the Minister of the French [Page 9] Congregation there, came to them and told them, he had obtained from the Magistrates the freedom of a Church for those who came out of England, but espe­cially for the French; they thanked him and the Ma­gistrates for so much kindness, but withal let them understand this would be little benefit to the English, unless they might have the liberty of performing all the Offices of Religion in their own Tongue Up­on an Address made to the Senate, this request was granted them; and they were to make use of the French Church at different times, as the French and they could agree, but with this express Proviso, that they should not dissent from the French in Doctrine, or Ceremonies, lest they should thereby Minister occasion of offence. But afterwards, it seems, the Magistrates did not require them to be strictly tied up to the French Ceremonies, so they did mutually agree. Upon this, they perused the English Order, and endeavour'd to bring it as near as they could to the French Model, by leaving out the Responses, the Letany, Surplice, and many other things; and adding a larger Confession, more suitable to the State and Time; after which a Psalm was Sung; then the Minister, after a short Prayer for Divine Assistance (according to Calvins Custom) was to proceed to the Sermon; which be­ing ended, then followed a General Prayer for all E­states, particularly for England, ending with the Lords Prayer; and so repeating the Articles of the Creed, and another Psalm Sung, the People were dis­missed with the Blessing. By which we see, here was not the least controversie, whether a Liturgy or not; but whether the Order of Service was not to be accommodated, as much as might be, to the French Model. However, when they sent to the English in [Page 10] other places to resort thither, by reason of the great Conveniencies they enjoy'd, and acquainted them with what they had done; it gave great offence to them, which they expressed in their Letters. Those of Zurick sent them word, They determined to use no other Order, than that which was last established in Eng­land; and in another Letter, They desire to be assured from them, that if they removed thither, they should all joyn in the same Order of Service concerning Religion, which was in England last set forth by King Edward. To this the Congregation of Frankford returned Answer, That they could not, in all points, warrant the Full Vse of the Book of Service, which they impute to their pre­sent Circumstances, in which they suppose such Altera­tions would be allowed; but they intended not hereby to deface the worthy Lawes and Ordinances of King Ed­ward. These Learned Men of Strasburg, understand­ing their resolutions, send Grindall to them with a Letter subscribed by 16; wherein they intreat them, To reduce the English Church there, as much as possible, to the Order lately set forth in England, lest, say they, by much altering of the same, they should seem to con­demn the chief Authors thereof, who, as they now suffer, so are they most ready to confirm that fact with the price of their Bloods; and should also both give occasion to our Adversaries to accuse our Doctrine of Imperfection, and us of Mutability; and the Godly to Doubt of that Truth wherein before they were perswaded, and to hinder their coming thither, which before they had purposed. And to obtain their desire, they tell them, They had sent Persons for that end to Negotiate this Affair with the Magistrates, and, in case they obtained their Re­quest, they promised to come and joyn with them; and they did not question the English in other places would [Page 11] do the same. Notwithstanding the weight of these Reasons, and the desireableness of their Brethrens com­pany in that time of Exile, they persist in their for­mer resolutions, not to have the Entire English Litur­gy; for by this time Knox was come from Geneva, being chosen Minister of the Congregation: However, they returned this Answer to Strasburg, That they made as little Alteration as was possible; Page 19. for, certain Ce­remonies the Country would not bear; and they did not dissent from those which lie at the Ransom of their Bloods for the Doctrine, whereof they have made a most worthy Confession. Page 21. About this time, some suggested, that they should take the Order of Geneva, as far­thest from Superstition; but Knox declined this, till they had advised with the Learned Men at Stras­burg, Zurick, Emden, &c. knowing, that the Odi­um of it would be thrown upon him. But finding their Zeal and Concernment for the English Liturgy, he, with Whittingham, and some others, drew up an Abstract of it, Calvin, Ep. 164. and sent it to Calvin, desiring his Judg­ment of it. Who, upon perusal of it, being through­ly heated in a Cause, that so nearly concerned him, writes a very sharp Letter, directed to the Brethren at Frankford; gently Rebuking them for their un­seasonable Contentions about these matters, but severely Reproving the English Divines who stood up for the English Liturgy, when the Model of Geneva stood in Competition with it. And yet after all his Cen­sures of it, he Confesses. The things he thought most unfit, were Tolerable; but he blames them, if they did not choose a better, when they might choose; but he gives not the least incouragement to Separati­on if it were continued; and he declares for his own part, how easie he was to yield, in all indifferent things, [Page 12] such as External Rites are. And he was so far, in his Judgment, from being for Free Prayer, or making the constant use of a Liturgy a Ground of Separation, as Dr. O. doth, that when he delivered his Opinion, with the greatest Freedom, to the then Protector, a­bout the best method of Reformation, he declares, That he did mightily approve a Certain Form, from which Men ought not to vary, Ep. 55. both to prevent the inconveni­encies which some Mens folly would betray them to, in the free way of Praying; and to manifest the General Consent of the Churches in their Prayers; and to stop the vain affectation of some who love to be shewing some new things. Let Mr. Br. now Judge, Whether it were likely that the Controversie then at Frankford, was, as he saith, between them that were for the English Liturgy, and others that were for a free way of Pray­ing; when Calvin, to whom the Dissenters appealed, was so much, in his Judgment, against the latter. And it appears, Ep. 165. by Calvin's Letter to Cox and his Brethren, that the State of the Case at Frankford had not been truly represented to him; which made him Write with greater sharpness than otherwise he would have done; and he expresses his satisfaction, that the matter was so composed among them, when by Dr. Cox his means, the English Liturgy was brought into use at Frankford. And to excuse himself for his liberal censures before, he mentions Lights, as re­quired by the Book, which were not in the second Liturgy of Edward the Sixth. So that either they deceived him, who sent him the Abstract; or he was put to this miserable shift to defend himself; the mat­ter being ended contrary to his expectation. For, although upon the receipt of Calvin's Letter, the Or­der of Geneva had like to have been presently voted [Page 13] in, Tr. of Fr. p. 30. yet there being still some Fast Friends to the English Service, they were fain to compromise the matter, and to make use of a Mixt Form for the present. But, Dr. Cox, and others, coming thither from Eng­land, and misliking these Alterations, declared. That they were for having the Face of an English Church there; Page 31. and so they began the Letany next Sunday; which put Knox into so great a Rage, that in stead of pursuing his Text (which was directly contrary) he made it his business, to lay open the nakedness of our Church, as far as his Wit and Ill Will would car­ry him. He charged the Service-Book with Supersti­tion, Impurity, and Imperfection; and the Governors of our Church with slackness in Reformation, want of Discipline, with the business of Hooper, allowing Pluralities; all the ill things he could think on. When Cox and his Party (with whom, at this time, was our excellent Iewel) were admitted among them, they presently forbad Knox having any thing farther to do in that Congregation; who being complained of soon after for Treason against the Emperor, in a Book by him Published, he was forced to leave the City, and to retire to Geneva; whither most of his Par­ty followed him. And thus saith Grindal, in his Let­ter to Bishop Ridley, The Church at Frankford was well quieted by the Prudence of Mr. Cox, and others, which met there for that purpose.

Sect. 4. It is observed by the Author of the Life of Bishop Jewel (before his Works) that this Contro­versie was not carried with them out of England, Letters of the Martyrs, p. 60. but they received New Impressions from the places whither they went. For as those who were Exiles in Henry the Eighth's time (as particularly Hooper, who lived [Page 14] many years in Switzerland) brought home with them a great liking of the Churches Model, where they had lived (which being such as their Country would bear, they supposed to be nearer Apostolical Simplici­ty, being far enough from any thing of Pomp, or Cere­mony) which created in them an aversion to the Or­naments and Vestments here used: So now, upon this new Persecution, those who had Friendship at Geneva, as Knox, and Whittingham, or were other­wise much obliged by those of that way, as the other English were, who came first to Frankford, were soon possessed with a greater liking of their Model of Di­vine Service, than of our own. And when Men are once engaged in Parties, and several Interests, it is a very hard matter to remove the Prejudices which they have taken in, especially when they have great Abettors, and such, whose Authority goes beyond any Reason with them. This is the True Founda­tion of those Unhappy Differences, which have so long continued among us, about the Orders and Ceremonies of our Church. For when Calvin and some others found, that their Counsel was not like to be followed in our Reformation, our Bishops pro­ceeding more out of Reverence to the Ancient Church, than meer opposition to Popery (which some other Reformers made their Rules) they did not cease by Letters, and other wayes, to insinuate, that our Reformation was imperfect, as long as any of the Dregs of Popery remained. So they called the Vse of those Ceremonies, which they could not deny to have been far more Ancient than the great Apostasy of the Roman Church. Calvin, in his Letter to the Protector, Avows this to be the best Rule of Reformation, To go as far from Popery as they could; and therefore what [Page 15] Habits and Ceremonies had been abused in the time of Po­pery were to be removed, lest others were hardened in their Superstition thereby: but at last he yields to this mo­deration in the case; That such Ceremonies might be re­teined as were easie, and fitted to the Capacities of the People; provided they were not such, as had their begin­ning from the Devil, or Antichrist, i.e. were not first begun in the time of Popery. Now, by this Rule of Moderation our Church did proceed; for it took a­way all those Ceremonies which were of late inventi­on. As in Baptism, of all the multitude of Rites in the Roman Church, it reserved, in the Second Liturgy, only the Cross after Baptism; which was not so used in the Roman Church; for there the Sign of the Cross is used in the Scrutinies before Baptism; and the A­nointing with the Chrysm in vertice after it; in stead of these, our Church made choice of the Sign of the Cross after Baptism, being of Uncontroulable Antiqui­ty, and not used till the Child is Baptized. In the Eucharist, in stead of Fifteen Ceremonies required in the Church of Rome, our Church hath only appoint­ed Kneeling. Bonavent. [...] Ps. 21. I say appointed, for although Kneel­ing at the Elevation of the Host, be strictly required by the Roman Church, yet in the Act of Receiving it is not; Angel. Roecha de So­ll [...]i Com­munione Summi Pon­tificis, p. 33. 38. (as manifestly appears by the Popes manner of Receiving, which is not Kneeling, but either Sit­ting, as it was in Bonaventures time; or after the fa­shion of Sitting, or a little Leaning upon his Throne, as he doth at this day) therefore our Church taking away the Adoration at the Elevation, lest it should seem to recede from the Practise of Antiquity, which received the Eucharist in the Posture of Adoration then used, hath appointed Kneeling to be observed of all Communicants. In stead of the great number [Page 16] of Consecrated Vestments in the Roman Church, it on­ly retained a plain Linnen Garment, which was un­questionably used in the times of St. Hierome, and St. Augustin. And lastly, As to the Episcopal Habits, they are retained only as a Mark of Distinction of a certain Order of Men; the Colour of the Chimere being changed from Scarlet to Black. These are now the Ceremonies, about which all the Noise and Stir hath been made in our Church; and any sober, considering Man, free from Passion, and Pre­judice, would stand amazed at the Clamour and Disturbance which hath been made in this Church, and is at this day, about the intolerable Mischief of these Impositions.

Sect. 5. But the most Material Question they ever Ask, is, Why were these few retained by our Refor­mers, which were then distastful to some Protestants, and were like to prove the occasion of future Contenti­ons?

I will here give a Just and True Account of the Reasons which induced our Reformers either to Re­tain, or to Apoint these Ceremonies, and then pro­ceed.

1. Out of a due Reverence to Antiquity. They would hereby convince the Papists they did put a difference between the Gross and Intolerable Super­stitions of Popery, and the Innocent Rites and Pra­ctises which were observed in the Church before. And What could more harden the Papists, then to see Men put no difference betwen these? It is an un­speakable Advantage which those do give to the [Page 17] Papists, who are for Reforming 1600 years back­ward, and when they are pinch'd with a Testimony of Antiquity, presently cry out of the Mystery of Ini­quity working in the Apostles times: as though every thing which they disliked, were a part of it. Next to the taking up Arms for Religion, which made Men look on it as a Faction and Design, there was scarce any thing gave so great a check to the Progress of the Reformation in France, especially among Learned and Moderate Men, as the putting no difference between the Corruptions of Popery, and the innocent Customs of the Ancient Church. For the time was when many Great Men there, were very inclinable to a Refor­mation; but when they saw the Reformers op­pose the undoubted Practises of Antiquity, equally with the Modern Corruptions, they cast them off, as Men guilty of an unreasonable humor of Innovation; as may be seen in Thuanus, and Fran. Baldwins Ec­clesiastical Commentaries, and his Answers to Calvin and Beza. But our Reformers, although they made the Scripture the only Rule of Faith, and rejected all things repugnant thereto; yet they designed not to make a Transformation of a Church, but a Reformati­on of it; by reducing it as near as they could, to that state it was in, under the first Christian Emperors, that were sound in Religion; and therefore they retain­ed these few Ceremonies as Badges of the Respect they bore to the Ancient Church.

II. To manifest the Iustice and Equity of the Refor­mation; by letting their Enemies see, they did not Break Communion with them for meer indifferent things. For some of the Popish Bishops of that time were sub­tle and learned Men, as Gardiner, Heath, Tonstall, &c. and nothing would have re­joyced them more, than to have seen our Reformers [Page 18] boggle at such Ceremonies as these; and they would have made mighty advantage of it among the Peo­ple. Of which we have a clear instance in the case of Bishop Hoopers scrupling the Episcopal Vestments. Peter Martyr tells him plainly, That such needless scru­pulosity would be a great hindrance to the Reformation. For, saith he, since the People are with difficulty enough brought to things necessary, if we once declare things in­different to be unlawful, they will have no patience to hear us any longer. And, withall, hereby we condemn other Reformed Churches, and those Ancient Churches, which have hitherto to been in great esteem.

III. To shew their Consent with other Protestant Churches, Calvin. Epist. ad Sadolet. De verâ Eccl. Reformatio­ne, c. 16. [...]olamp. Epist. f. 17. which did allow and practice the same, or more Ceremonies, as the Lutheran Churches generally did. And even Calvin himself, in his Epistle to Sa­dolet, declared, That he was for restoring the Face of the Antient Church; and in his Book of the true way of Reformation, he saith, He would not contend about Ceremonies, not only those which are for Decency, but those that are Symbolical. Bucer. Scri [...]t. [...]gl. p. 479. Oecolampadius looked on the Gesture at the Sacrament, as indifferent. Bucer thought the use of the Sign of the Cross after Baptism neither indecent nor unprofitable. Since therefore, so great a number of Protestant Churches used the same Ceremonies; and the Chief Leaders of other Reformed Churches thought them not unlawful, our first Reformers for this, and the foregoing Reasons, thought it fit to retain them, as long as they were so few, so easie both to be practised and understood.

Sect. 6. But the Impressions which had been made on some of our Divines abroad, did not wear off, at their Return home, in the beginning of Queen Eli­zabeths Reign. For they reteined a secret dislike of [Page 19] many things in our Church; but the Act of Vnifor­mity being passed, and the Vse of the Liturgy strictly enjoyned; I do not find any Separation made then on the account of it; no, not by the Dissenting Bre­thren, that withdrew from Frankford to Geneva; Knox was forbidden to Preach here, because of some Personal Reflections on the Queen; but Whit­tingham, Sampson, Gilby, and others, accepted of Pre­ferment and Imployment in the Church. The Bi­shops, at first, shewed kindness to them, on the ac­count of their forward and zealous Preaching, which at that time was very needful; and therefore many of them were placed in London. Where, having gained the People by their zeal and diligence in Preaching, Dialogue be­tween a Sol­dier of Bar­wick, and a-English Chaplain, p. 5, 6. they took occasion to let fall at first their dislike of the Ceremonies, and a desire of farther Re­formation of our Liturgy; but finding that they had gained ground, they never ceased, till by inveigh­ing against the Livery of Antichrist, as they called the Vestments and Ceremonies, they had inflamed the People to that degree, that Gilby himself insinuates, That if they had been let alone a little longer, they would have shaken the Constitution of this Church. This was the first occasion of pressing Vniformity with any ri­gor; and therefore some examples were thought fit to be made for the warning of others. But as kind­ness made them presumptuous, so this severity made them clamorous; and they sent bitter complaints to Geneva. Beza, after much importunity, undertook to give an Answer to them; which being of great con­sequence to our present business, I shall here give a fuller account of it. We are then to understand, that about this time, the Dissenting Party being Ex­asperated, by the Silencing some of their most busie [Page 20] Preachers, Beza Epist. 23. began to have Separate Meetings; This Beza takes notice of in his Epistle to Grindal Bishop of London; and it appears, by an Examination taken before him, 20th of Iune 1567. of certain persons, who were accused not only for absenting themselves from their Parish Churches; Part of a Register, p. 23. but for gathering together and making Assemblies, using Prayers and Preachings, and Ministring Sacraments among themselves; and hiring a Hall in London under Pretence of a Wedding, for that Purpose.

The Bishop of London first Rebuked them for their Lying Pretences, and then told them, That in this Severing themselves from the Society of other Christians, they not only Condemned them, but also the whole State of the Church Reformed in King Edward's dayes, which was well Reformed according to the word of God; yea, and many Good Men have shed their. Blood for the same, which your doings Condemn. Have ye not, saith he, the Gospel truly Preached, and the Sacraments Mi­nistred accordingly, and good order kept, although we differ from other Churches in Ceremonies, and in indif­ferent things, which lie in the Princes Power to Com­mand, for Order sake? To which one of them An­swered, That as long as they might have the Word freely Preached, and the Sacraments Administred, without the preferring of Idolatrous Gear about it, they never assembled together in Houses: but their Preachers being displaced by Law for their Non-conformity, they be thought themselves what was best for them to do; and calling to mind, that there was a Congregation there in the dayes of Queen Mary, which followed the Order of Geneva, they took up that, and this Book and Order, saith he, we hold. Another Answered, That they did not refuse Communion for Preaching the Word, [Page 21] but because they had tied the Ceremonies of Antichrist to it; and set them up before it, so that no Man may Preach, or Minister the Sacraments without them. Things being come to this height, and Separation be­ginn [...]ng to break out, the Wiser Brethren thought not fit to proceed any farther, till they had Consult­ed their Oracle at Geneva. Beza being often solicited by them, with doleful Complaints of their hard usage, and the different Opinions among themselves, what they were to do, at last resolves to Answer; but first he de­clares, How unwilling he was to interpose in the Diffe­rences of another Church, especially when but one Party was heard; and he was afraid, this was only the way to exasperate and provoke more, rather than Cure this evil, which he thought was not otherwise to be Cured, but Precibus & Patientiâ, by Prayers and Patience. After this General Advice, Beza freely declares his own judgment, as to the Reformation of several things he thought amiss in our Church; but as to the case of the Silenced Preachers, and the Peoples Sepa­ration, he expresses his Mind in that manner, that the Dissenters at this day, would have published their Invectives against him, one upon the back of ano­ther. For (1.) As to the Silenced Ministers, he saith, That if the Pressing Subscription continued, he perswades them rather to live privately than to yield to it. For, they must either act against their Consciences, or they must quit their Imployments; for, saith he, the Third thing that may be supposed, viz. That they should exer­cise their Function against the Will of the Queen and the Bishops, we Tremble at the Thoughts of it, for such rea­sons, as may be easily understood, though we say never a word of them. What! Is Beza for Silencing, and stopping the Mouths of such a number of Faithful [Page 22] and able Ministers; and at such a time, when the Church was in so great Necessity of Preaching, and so many Souls like to be famished for the want of it? when St. Antholins, St. Peters, St. Bartholomews, at which Gilby saith their great Preaching then was, were like to be left destitute of such Men? Would Beza, even Beza, at such a time, as that, be for Si­lencing so many Preachers, i. e. for their sitting quiet, when the Law had done it; And would not he suf­fer them to Preach, when they ought to have done it, though against the Will of the Queen and the Bi­shops? It appears that Beza was not of the Mind of our Adversaries, but that he was of the contrary, it appears plainly by this, That before he Perswades the Dissenting Ministers rather to live privately than to subscribe; and that he expresses no such terrible ap­prehensions at their quitting their Places, as he doth at their Preaching in Opposition to the Laws. (2) As to the case of the People, his Advice was, As long as the Doctrine was sound, that they should diligently at­tend upon it, and receive the Sacraments devoutly, and to joyn Amendment of Life with their Prayers, that by those means they might obtain a through Reformation. So that nothing can be more express against S [...]parati­on, than what is here said by Beza: for, even as to the Ministers, he saith, Though he did not approve the Ceremonies, yet since they are not of the nature of things evil in themselves, he doth not think them of that mo­ment, that they should leave their Functions for the sake of them; or that the People should forsake the Ordinan­ces, rather than hear those who did Conform. Than which words, nothing can be plainer against Sepa­ration. Beza Epist. 24. p, 148. And it further appears, by Beza' s Resoluti­on of a case concerning a Schism in the French [Page 23] Church then in London; That he looked on it as a Sin, for any one to Separate from a Church, wherein Sound Doctrine, and a Holy Life, and the Right use of the Sacraments is kept up. And, by Separation, he saith, he means, Not meerly going from one Church to another, but the Discontinuing Communion with the Publick Assemblies, as though one were no Member of them.

Beza's Authority being so great with the Dissen­ting Brethren at that time, seems to have put an ef­fectual Stop to the Course of Separation, which they were many of them, then inclined to. But, he was not alone among the Foreign Divines, who, about that time, expressed themselves against Separation from the Communion of our Church, notwithstanding the Rites and Ceremonies herein used. Gualter. Ep. ded. ad Hom. in 1 Ep. ad C [...] ­rinth. For Gualter, a Divine of good Reputation in the Helvetian Churches, takes an occasion in an Epistle to several of our Bishops to talke of the Difference then about these things; and he extremely blames the Morose humor of those, who disturbed the Church for the sake of such things, and gave an occasion thereby to endless Separations. And in an Epistle to Cox Bishop of Ely, 1572. he tells him, How much they had disswaded them from making such a stir in the Church, about Matters of no moment: and he Complains grievously of the Lies and Prejudices against our Church, which they had sent Men on purpose to pos­sess them with, both at Geneva and other places.

Zanchy, Zanchii, E­pist. l. 2. p. 391. upon great Sollicitation, wrote an earnest Letter to the Queen to remove the Ceremonies; but withal he sent another to Bishop Iewel, to perswade the Non-conformists, if the Queen could not be moved, not to leave their Churches on such accounts, which, for [Page 24] his part, he did not understand how any could law­fully do; as long as they had otherwise liberty to Preach the Gospel, and Administer the Sacraments, although they were forced to do something therein, which did not please them; as long as the things were of that kind, which in themselves were neither good nor evil. And the same Reason will much more hold against the Peoples S [...]paration.

Sect. 7. But about this time, the dissenting party much increasing, and most of the old and peacea­ble Non-conformists being dead, or unfit for business; the management of their affairs fell into the hands of younger and fiercer Men. Who thought their Predecessors too cold in these matters; insomuch, that honest Iohn Fox complained of the Factious and Turbulent Spirit which had then possessed that Party, although himself a Moderate Non-conformist; and he saith, See his Let­ter in Fullers Church-Hi­story, l. 9. p. [...]06. They despised him, because he could not Rail against Bishops, and Archbishops as they did; but if he could be as mad as they, they would be kinder to him. And therefore he soberly adviseth the Governors of the Church to look well after this sort of Men; for, saith he, if they prevail, it is not to be imagin'd, what Mischief and Disturbance they will bring; whose Hypocrisie is more subtle and pernicious then that of the old Monks; for, under a Pretence of Greater Purity, they will ne­ver give over, till they have brought Men under a Iewish Slavery. These New Men, full of bitter zeal, despised the old trifling Controversie about Garments and Ceremonies, they complained, That all was out of order in the Church, and nothing but a New and Thorough Reformation would please them. For, in the Admonition presented to the Parliament, 14 Eliz. [Page 25] they complain for want of a Right Ministry, a right Government in the Church according to the Scriptures, without which (they say) there could be no right Re­ligion. The Liturgy they deride, as c [...]lled and picked out of the Popish Dunghill, the Portuise and Mass-Book; the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops and Bishops they call Devillish and Antichristian; and Condemn the Vocation of the Clergy, as Popish and Vn­lawful; and add, That the Sacraments are mangled, and profaned, that Baptism is full of Childish and Su­perstitious Toys. All which, and many more expressi­ons of a like Nature, are extant in the First and Second Admonitions. Which Bold and Groundless Assertions, being so Openly Avowed to the World, by the Leaders of the Dissenting Party, gave the true Occasion to the following practise of Separation. For when these things were not only published in the name of the Party, being the Pleas for Peace at that time, but stifly maintained with greater Heat, than Learning, It is easie to imagine, what Im­pressions such things would make on the common sort of People; who have still a good Inclination to find fault with their Governors, especially in the Church, and to Admire those that Oppose them. And these they Courted most, having their Opinions so suited to Vulgar capacities, that they apprehended their Interest carried on together with that of Puri­ty of Reformation. Hence they pleaded then, as o­thers do at this day, for the Peoples right to choose their Bishops and Pastors against the Vsurpations, as they accounted them, of Princes and Patrons; hence they railed against the Pomp and Greatness of the Cler­gy, which is always a Popular Theme; and so would the exposing the inequality of Mens Estates be, if [Page 26] Men durst undertake it, with as great hopes of im­punity. Besides, it was not a Little Pleasant to the People, to think, what a share they should come to in the New Seigniory, as they called it, or Pres­bytery, to be erected in every Parish; and what Au­thority they should Exercise over their Neighbours, and over their Minister too by their double Votes. By such Arts as these, they complied with the Natu­ral Humors of the People, and so gained a mighty Interest amongst them; as the Anabaptists in Germa­ny and Switzerland at first did, upon the like Grounds. Which made Bullinger, Bullinger, Ep. ad Ro­bert Winton▪ in the Ap­pendix to Bishop Whit­gifts first Book. in an Epistle to Robert Bishop of Winchester, parallel the Proceedings of this Party here, with that of the Anabaptists with them in those Countries; For, saith he, we had a sort of People here, to whom nothing seemed pure enough in our Re­formation, from whence they brake out into Separation, and had their Conventicles among us, upon which fol­lowed Sects and Schisms, which made great enter­tainment to our Common Enemies, the Papists. Just thus it happened here, these hot Reformers design­ed no Separation at present; which they knew would unavoidably bring confusion along with it; for, that was laying the Reins on the Peoples ne [...]ks, and they would run whither they pleased, without any possibility of being well managed by them; but since these Men would Refine upon the present Con­stitution of our Church, there soon arose another sort of Men, who thought it as fit to Refine upon them. They acknowledged they had good Principles among them, but they did not practise according to them: If our Church were so bad as they said, that there was neither right Ministery, nor right Government, nor right Sacraments, nor right Discipline; What fol­lows, [Page 27] say they, from hence, but that we ought to sepa­rate from the Communion of so corrupt a Church, and joyn together to make up new Churches for the pure ad­ministration of all Gospel Ordinances? The Leaders of the Non-conformists finding this Party growing up under them, were quickly apprehensive of the danger of them; because the Consequence seemed so Natural from their own Principles; and the People were so ready to believe, that nothing but World­ly considerations of Interest and Safety kept them from practising according to them. Which was a mighty prejudice against them in the Minds of the Separatists, as appears by Robinsons Preface to his Book of Communion.

Sect. 8. II. The Separation being now begun, the Non-conformists set themselves against it, with the Greatest Vehemency. Which is the second thing I am to make out. Parker on the Cross▪ Part. 2. cap. 9. Sect. 2. As for those of the Separation, saith Parker a Noted Non-conformist, Who have Confuted them more than we? or, Who have Written more against them? And in a Letter of his, he expresseth the greatest Detestation of them. Now it grieved me not a little, at this time, saith he, that Satan should be so impudent, as to fling the dung of that Sect into my Face, which, with all my Power, I had so vehemently resisted, during the whole course of my Ministery in England: Vide Profane Schism of the Brow­nists, Ch. 12. I think no other, but that many of them love the Lord, and fear his Name; howbeit their Er­ror being Enemy to that Breast of Charity, wherewith Cyprian covered his, Qui ab Ecclesiâ nunquam recessit, as Augustin speaketh; they cannot stand be­fore his Tribunal, but by the Intercession of our blessed Saviour. Father forgive them for they know not what [Page 28] they do. Think not these words are applyed to their Sect amiss; for, in effect, What doth it less than even persecute the Lord Jesus in his Host, which it revileth; in his Ordinances, which it dishonoreth; and in his Ser­vants last of all, whose Graces it blasphemeth, whose footsteps it slandereth, and whose Persons it despiseth. And Two Characters he gives of the Men of that way, viz. That their Spirits were bitter above mea­sure, and their hearts puffed up with the Leaven of Pride. How far these Characters still agree to the Defenders of the present Separation, I leave others to Judge. When Brown and Harrison openly decla­red for Separation, T. C. himself undertook to An­swer them, in a Letter to Harrison. His example was soon followed by others of his Brethren, who Wrote the Admonition to the Followers of Brown, and the Defence of that Admonition. When Barrow and Greenwood published their Four Reasons for Separation, Three of which they took out of the Admonition to the Parliament, viz. Vnlawful Ministry, Antichristian Government, and False Worship; Gifford, a Non-conformist at Maldon in Essex, undertook to Answer them in several Treatises. And it is obser­vable, that these Non-conformists Charge the Brow­nists with making a Vile, Notorious, and Damnable Schism, because they withdrew from the Communi­on of our Churches, and set up New Ones of their own. Gifford not only calls them Schismaticks, Giffords first Treatise a­gainst the Donatists of England, Preface. but saith, They make a Vile Schism, Rending themselves from the Church of England; and condemning by their Asserti­ons, the Whole Visible Church in the World, even as the Donatists did of old time: and he adds, That the end of Brownism, as it was then called, is Infinite Schismes, Heresies, Atheism and Barbarism. And the [Page 29] same Author, Gifford's Second Treatise. Preface. in his Second Book, reckoning up the ill effects of this Separation among the People, hath these remarkable words. Now look also on the Peo­ple, where we may see very many, who not regarding the chief Christian Vertues, and Godly Duties, as namely, to be Meek, to be Patient, to be Lowlie, to be full of Love and Mercy, to deal Vprightly and Iustly, to Guide their Families in the Fear of God, with Whol­some Instructions, and to stand fast in the Calling in which God hath set them, give themselves wholly to this, even as if it were the Sum and Pith of Religion, name­ly, to Argue and Talk continually against Matters in the Church, against Bishops and Ministers, and one against another on both sides. Some are proceeded to this, that they will come to the Assemblies to hear the Sermons and Prayers of the Preacher, but not to the Prayers of the Book, which I take to be a more grievous sin than many do suppose. But yet this is not the worst, for sundry are gone further, and fallen into a Damna­ble Schism; and the same so much the more fearful and dangerous, in that many do not see the foulness of it, but rather hold them as Godly Christians, and but a little over-shot in these matters. But that this Man went upon the Principles of the Non-conformists, ap­pears, by his Stating the Question, in the same Pre­face. For, I shewed, saith he, in express words, that I do not meddle at all in these Questions, whether there be corruptions and faults in our Church, condemn­ed by Gods Word; whether they be many or few; whe­ther they be small or great; but only thus far, whether they be such, or so great, as make our Churches Anti­christian. Answer to Giffords Preface. Barrow saith, That this Gifford was one that Ioyned with the rest of the Faction in the Petiti­on to the Parliament against the English Hierarchy: [Page 30] and it appears by several passages of his Books that he was a Non-conformist; and he is joyned with Cartwright, Hildersham, Brightman, and other Non-conformists, by the Prefacer to the Desence of Brad­shaw against Iohnson: Dangerous Positions, &c. l. 3. c. 5. and I find his Name in one of the Classes in Essex at that time. The Author of the Second Answer for Communicating, The Second Answer for Communica­ting, p. 20. Printed by John Win­det, A. D. 1588. who defends T. Cs. Letter to Harrison, Browns Colleague against Separation, proves Ioyning with the Church a Duty ne­cessarily enjoyned him of God by his Providence, through his being and placing in a particular Church, and just­ly required of him by the Church, or Spiritual Body, through that same inforcing Law of the coherence, and being together of the parts and members, which is the express Ordinance of God. So that, saith he, unless I hold the Congregation, whereof I am now, disanulled, and become no Church of Christ, for the not separating an unworthy Member, I cannot voluntarily either absent my self from their Assemblies to Holy Exercises, or yet depart away being come together, without Breach of the Bond of Peace, Sundring the Cement of Love, empair­ing the growth of the Body of Christ, and incurring the guilt of Schism and Division. Page 46. To the same purpose he speaks elsewhere. Answer to Ainsworth, p. 13. Richard Bernard calls it, An Vncharitable and Lewd Schism which they were guilty of. But I need not mention more particular A [...] ­thors, since in the Grave Confutation of the Errors of the Separatists, Page 57. in the Name of the Non-conformists, it is said, That because we have a True Church, con [...]t­ing of a Lawful Ministery, and a Faithful People, therefore they cannot separate themselves from us, but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Re­proach of Manifest Schism. Preface to the Read [...]r, p. 17. And concerning the State of the Persons who lived in Separation, they [Page 31] say, We hold them all to be in a Dangerous Estate, (we are loth to say in a Damnable Estate) as long as they continue in this Schism.

Sect. 9. But, for our farther understanding the full State of this Controversie, we must consider, What things were agreed on both sides, and where the Main Points of Difference lay.

1. The Separatists did yield the Doctrine, or Faith of the Church of England True and Sound, and a Possibility of Salvation in the Communion of it. In their Apology presented to King Iames, Brownists Apology, p. 7. A. D. 1604. thus they speak; We testifie by these presents unto all Men, and desire them to take knowledge hereof, that we have not forsaken any one Point of the True Ancient Catholick and Apostolick Faith professed in our Land; but hold the same Grounds of Christian Religion with them still. A Defence of the Churches and Ministry of England, Middle­burgh, p. 3. A. D. 1599. And the Publisher of the Dispute about Sepa­ration, between Iohnson and Iacob, saith, That the first Separatists never denied, that the Doctrine and Profession of the Churches of England, was sufficient to make those that believed and obeyed them, to be true Christians, and in the state of Salvation, but always held, professed, and acknowledged the contrary. Barrow's Observations on Gifford's last Reply, n. 4. p. 240. Barrow saith, That they commended the Faith of the English Martyrs, and deemed them saved, notwithstanding the false Offices, and great corruptions in the Worship ex­ercised: Brownists Apol. p. 92. And in the Letter to a Lady a little before his Death, he saith, He had Reverend estimation of sundry, and good hope of many hundred thousands in England; though he utterly disliked the present Con­stitution of this Church, in the present Communion, Mi­nistry, Worship, Government, and Ordinances Ec­clesiastical [Page 32] of these Cathedral and Parishional Assem­blies.

2. The Separatists granted, Brownists Apology, p 7. That Separation was not Justifiable from a Church, for all Blemishes and Corruptions in it. Thus they express themselves in their Apology, Neither count we it lawful for any Mem­ber to forsake the Fellowship of the Church, for ble­mishes and imperfections, which every one, according to his Calling, should studiously seek to cure, and to expect and further it, until either there follow redress, or the Disease be grown incurable. And in the 36 Article of the Confession of their Faith, written by Iohnson and Ainsworth, they have these words. None is to sepa­rate from a Church rightly gathered and established, for faults and Corruptions, which may, and so long as the Church consisteth of Mortal Men, will fall out and arise among them, even in true constituted Churches, but by due order to seek the redress thereof. But in the case of our Church they pleaded, that the Cor­ruptions were so many and great, as to overthrow the very Constitution of a Church. Barrow, ib. So Barrow saith, They do not cut off the members of our Church from Gods Election, or from Christ, but from being Members of a True Constituted Church.

On the other side, the Non-conformists granted there were many and great Corruptions in our Church, but not such as did overthrow the Constitution of it, or make Separation from our Parochial Assemblies to be necessary, or lawful. So that the force of all their Reasonings against Separation lay in these two Suppositions.

• [Page 33]1. That nothing could Justifie Separation from our Church, but such Corruptions which overthrew the being, or constitution of it.
• 2. That the Corruptions in our Church were not such, as did overthrow the Constitution of it.

The making out of these two will tend very much to the clear Stating of this present Contro­versie.

1. That nothing could Iustifie Separation from our Church, but such Corruptions which overthrow the being or constitution of it. Barrow's Refutation of Giffard. Pre­face to the Reader. Sum of the Causes of Se­paration. Barrow and his Brethren, did not think they could satisfie their Consciences in Separa­tion, unless they proved our Churches to be no true Churches. For, here they assign the Four Causes of their Separation to be; Want of a right gathering our Churches at first; False Worship; Antichristian Ministery and Government: These Reasons, say they, all Men may see prove directly these Parish Assemblies not to be the true established Churches of Christ, to which any faithful Christian may joyn himself in this estate; especially, when all Reformation unto the rules of Christ's Testament is not only denied, but resisted, blasphemed, persecuted. These are the words of the First, and Chiefest Separatists, who suffered death rather than they would foregoe these Principles. We condemn not, say they, their Assemblies, barely for a mixture of good and bad, which will alwayes be, but for want of an orderly gathering, or constitution at first: we con­demn [Page 34] them not for some faults in the Calling of the Ministry, but for having and reteining a false Antichri­stian Ministry imposed upon them: we forsake not their Assemblies for some faults in their Government, or Dis­cipline, but for standing subject to a Popish and Anti­christian Government. Neither refrain we their Wor­ship for some light imperfections, but because their Wor­ship is Superstitious, devised by Men Idolatrous, ac­cording to that patched Popish Portuise their Service-Book; according unto which their Sacraments, and whole Administration is performed, and not by the Rules of Christ's Testament. So that these poor de­luded Creatures saw very well, that nothing but such a Charge, which overthrew the very being and constitution of our Churches (the Doctrine of Faith being allowed to be sound) could justifie their Separation: not meer promiscuous Congregations, nor mixt Communions; not defect in the Exercise of Dis­cipline; not some Corruptions in the Ministry or Wor­ship; but such gross corruptions as took away the Life and Being of a Church; as they supposed Idola­trous Worship, and an Antichristian Ministry to do. If Mr. Giffard, Ibid. saith Barrow, can prove the Parish Assemblies in this estate true and established Churches, then we would shew him how free we are from Schism. The same Four Reasons are insisted on as the Grounds of their Separation in the Brownists Apology to King Iames, Brownists Apology, p. 7, 8, 9. by Ainsworth, Iohnson, and the rest of them. Ainsworth frames his Argument for Separation thus. That Church which is not the true Church of Christ and of God, Ainsworth's Counter-poy­son, p. 3. Ib. p. 87. ought not, by any true Christian, to be conti­nued, or Communicated with; but must be forsaken, and separated from; and a true Church sought, and ioyned unto, &c. But the Church of England is be­fore [Page 35] proved, not to be the true Church of Christ, and of God, therefore it ought to be separated from, &c. By which we see, the Greatest Separatists that were then, never thought it Lawful to Separate from our Churches, if they were true. On the other side, those who opposed the Separation, with greatest zeal, thought nothing more was necessary for them, to disprove the Sepa­ration, then to prove our Churches to be true Churches. R. Brown (from whom the Party received their de­nomination) thought he had a great advantage a­gainst Cartwright (the Ringleader of the Non-confor­mists) to prove the Necessity of Separation, because he seemed to make Discipline Essential to a Church; and therefore since he complained of the want of Dis­cipline here, he made our Church not to be a true Church, and consequently that Separation was neces­sary. T. C. Answers, T. Cs. Let­ter to Harri­son against Separation, in Defence of the Ad­monition to the follow­ers of Brown p. 98, 99. That Church Assemblies are builded by Faith only on Christ the Foundation, the which Faith so being, whatsoever is wanting of that which is commanded, or remaining of that which is for­bidden, is not able to put that Assembly from the right and title of so being the Church of Christ. For that Faith can admit no such thing, as giveth an utter over­throw, and turning upside down of the truth. His mean­ing is, wherever the true Doctrine of Faith is received and professed, there no defects or corruptions can over­throw the being of a True Church, or Iustifie Separati­on from it. For, he addeth, although besides Faith in the Son of God, there be many things necessary for every Assembly; yet be they necessary to the comely and stable being, and not simply to the being of the Church. And in this respect, saith he, the Lutheran Churches, Page 106. (which he there calls the Dutch Assemblies) which beside the maym of Discipline, which is common to our [Page 36] Churches, are grossely deceived in the matter of the Supper, are notwithstanding holden in the Roll of the Churches of God. Page 107. Was not Jerusalem, saith he, after the Return from Babylon, the City of the Great King, until such time as Nehemias came and Builded on the Walls of the City? To say therefore it is none of the Church, because it hath not received this Discipline, methinks is all one with this, as if a Man would say, It is no City, because it hath no Wall: or that it is no Vineyard, because it hath neither Hedge, nor Ditch. It is not, I grant, so sightly a City, or Vineyard, nor yet so safe against the Invasion of their several Enemies which lie in wait for them; but yet they are truly both Cities and Vineyards. And whereas T. C. seemed to make Discipline Essential to the Church, his Defender saith, He did not take Discipline there strictly for the Political Guiding of the Church, with respect to Cen­sures, Page 91. but as comprehending all the Behaviour concern­ing a Church in outward Duties, i. e. the Duties of Pastor and People.

Afterwards, as often as the Non-conformists set themselves to disprove the Separation, their main Bu­siness was, To Prove our Churches to be True Churches. As in a Book, Entituled, Certain Positions h [...]ld and maintained by some Godly Ministers of the Gospel, against those of the Separation; which was part of that Book, afterwards Published by W. R. and called, A Grave and Modest Confutation of the Separatists. The Ground-work whereof, as Mr. Ainsworth calls it, is thus laid.

That the Church of England is a True Church of Christ, Counterpoy­son, p. 117. and such a one, as from which who­soever Wittingly and Continually Separateth himself, Cutteth himself off from Christ.

[Page 37] If this was the Ground-work of the Non-conformists in those days; those who live in ours, ought well to consider it, if they regard their Salvation.

And, for this Assertion of theirs, they bring Three Reasons.

1. For that they Enjoy, and Ioyn together in the Vse of these outward Means, which God in his Word hath ordained for the Gathering of an Invisible Church; i. e. Preaching of the Gospel, and Administration of the Sacraments.

2. For that their Whole Church maketh Profession of the True Faith: and Hold and Teach, &c. all Truths Fundamental. So we put their Two Reasons into One, because they both relate to the Profession of the Truth Faith; which, say they, is that which giveth life and being to a Visible Church: and upon this Profession we find many that have been incorporated into the Visi­ble Church, and admitted to the Priviledges thereof, even by the Apostles themselves. So the Church of Per­gamus, though it did Tolerate Gross Corruptions in it: yet because it kept the Faith of Christ, was still called the Church of God.

3. For that all the known Churches in the World acknowledge that Church for their Sister, and give unto Her the Right hand of Fellowship.

When H. Iacob undertook Fr. Iohnson upon this Point of Separation, the Position he laid down was this,

[Page 38] That the Churches of England are the True Churches of God. Which he proved by this Argu­ment.

Whatsoever is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian, and in state of Salvation; that is suffi­cient to make a Company of Men, so gathered together, to be a True Church.

But the whole Doctrine, as it is Publickly Professed, and Practised, by Law in England, is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian, and in state of Salvation; and our Publick Assemblies are therein ga­thered together.

Therefore it is sufficient to make the Publick Assem­blies True Churches.

And in the Defence of this Argument, against the Reasons and Exceptions of Iohnson, that whole Dis­putation is spent. And, in latter times, the Dispute between Ball and Can, about the necessity of Separati­on, runs into this, Whether our Church be a True Church or not; concerning which, Ball thus delivers his Judgment. Ball against Can, p. 77. True Doctrine, in the main Grounds and Articles of Faith, though mix't with Defects and Er­rors in other matters, not concerning the Life and Soul of Religion, and the Right Administration of Sacra­ments for Substance, though in the manner of Dispensa­tion, some things be not so well ordered, as they might and ought, are notes and markes of a True and Sound Church, though somewhat crased in health and soundness, by Errors in Doctrine, Corruptions in the Worship of God, and Evils in Life and Manners.

[Page 39] The Second Supposition which the Non-confor­mists proceeded on, was,

Sect. 11. (2.) That the corruptions in our Church were not such as did overthrow the being and consti­tution of it.

This will best appear, by the Answers they gave to the main Grounds of Separation.

I. That our Church was not rightly gathered at the time of our Reformation from Popery. To which Giffard thus Answers, The Church of England in the time of Popery, was a Member of the Vniversal Church, Giffard's Answer to the Brow­nists, p. 55. and had not the being of a Church of Christ from Rome, nor took not her beginning of being a Church, by Separating her self from that Romish Syna­gogue; but having her Spirits revived, and her Eyes opened, by the Light of the Heavenly Word, did cast forth that Tyranny of Antichrist, with his Abomina­ble Idolatry, Heresies, and False Worship; and sought to bring all her Children unto the Right Faith, Grave Con­futation, &c. p. 9, 10, 11. and True Service of God; and so is a purer, and more faithful Church than before. Others add, That the Laws of Christian Princes have been a means to bring Men to the outward Society of the Church, and so to make a visible Church: Neither were sufficient means want­ing, in our Case, for the due Conviction of Mens Minds; but then they add, That the Question must not be, Whether the Means used were the Right Means, for the Calling and Converting a People to the Faith; but, Whether Queen Elizabeth took a lawful course for re­calling, and re-uniting of Her Subjects unto those true [Page 40] Professors, whose Fellowship they had forsaken; which they Iustifie, by the Examples of Jehoshaphat, and Josiah, Asa, and Hezekiah.

II. That we Communicate together in a False and Idolatrous Worship of God, which is polluted with Reading stinted Prayers, using Popish Ceremonies, &c.

To this they Answer;

1. That it is evident by the Word, That the Church hath used, [...]rav [...]con­ [...]utation, &c. [...]. 12, 13, 15. and might lawfully use, in God's Worship, and Prayer, a stinted Form of Words: and that not only upon Ordinary, but Extraordinary Occasi­ons, which requires an Extraordinary and Special Fervency of Spirit. Nay, they say, They are so far from thinking them unlawful, that in the ordinary and general occasions of the Church, they are many times more fit, than those which are called Conceived Pray­ers.

2. If Formes, Ibid. thus devised by Men, be Lawful and Profitable, What sin can it be for the Governors of the Church, to Command, that such Fo [...]ms be used; or, for us, that are perswaded of the Lawfulness of them, to use them? unless they will say, That therefore it is unlawful for us to Hear the Word, Receive the Sa­craments, Believe the Trinity, and all other Articles of Faith, because we are Commanded by the Magistrates so to do: Whereas indeed, we ought the rather to do good things, that are agreeable unto the Word, when we know them also to be commanded by the Magi­strate▪

[Page 41] 3. It is true, Pall against Can. Part. 2. p. 8. the Non-conformists say, The Li­turgy is in great part picked and culled out of the Mass Book; but it followeth not thence, that either it is, or was esteemed by them a devised or false Worship; for many things contained in the Mass-Book it self are good and holy. A Pearl may be found upon a Dunghil; we cannot more credit the Man of Sin, than to say, That every thing in the Mass-Book is Devillish and Antichri­stian, for then it would be Antichristian to Pray unto God in the Mediation of Jesus Christ, to read the Scri­ptures, to profess many Fundamental Truths necessary to Salvation. Our Service might be Picked and culled out of the Mass-Book, and yet be free from all fault and tincture, from all shew and apperance of Evil; though the Mass-Book it self was fraught with all manner of Abominations—But if it be wholly taken out of the Mass-Book, how comes it to have those things which are so directly contrary to the Mass, that both cannot possibly stand together? Yea, so many points, saith B [...]ll, are there taught directly contrary to the foundation of Popery, that it is not possible Popery should stand, if they take place. And, saith he, it is more proper to say, the Mass was added to our Common Prayer, than that our Common Prayer was taken out of the Mass Book: for most things in our Common Prayer, were to be found in the Liturgies of the Church, long before the Mass was heard of in the World.

4. As to the Fasts, and Feasts, and Ceremonies re­tained, they Answer, That what was Antichristian in them, was the Doctrine upon which those Practices were built in the Church of Rome, which being taken away by the Reformation, the things themselves are not Anti­christian. [Page 42] As namely, Giffard's Plain Decla­ration, &c. Preface. saith Giffard, the Remission of Sins, and Merit of Eternal Life by Fasting▪ which is the Doctrine of the Romish Church; the Worship and In­vocation of Saints and Angels; Answ. to the Brown. p. 10, 11. the Power of expel­ling Devils by the Sign of the Cross, and such like things, which the Papacy is full of, but rejected by us.

III. That our Ministery was Antichristian. To this they Answer.

1. That Antichrist is described in Scripture, Mr. Arthur Hildershams Letter against Separation, Sect. 2. high­ly commend­ed by Mr. J. Cotton, in his Preface before his Commenta­ries, on 4 John. not by his unlawful outward Calling, or Office, that he should exercise in the Church; but First by the False Doctrine he should Teach; and Secondly by the Authority he should Vsurp, to give Laws to Mens Consciences, and to Rule in the hearts of Men as God. Which two Marks of Antichrist, as they may evidently be discerned in the Papacy, so admit all the outward Callings and Offices in the Church of England exercised, were faulty, and unwarrantable by the Word, yet you in your own Con­science know, that these Marks of Antichrist cannot be found among the worst of our Ministers. For neither do the Laws of our Church allow any to teach False Doctrine; and we all Profess Christ to be the only Law-giver to Conscience; neither is any thing among us urged to be done, upon pain of Damnation, but only the Word and Law of God.

2. That the Office, I [...]. Sect. C, 7, 8. which our Laws call the Office of Priesthood, is the very same in substance with the Pa­stors Office described in the Word; V. Brad­shaw's An­swer to Johnson. and the manner of outward Calling unto that Office, which the Law al­loweth, is the very same in substance which is set down in the VVord. Doth the VVord enjoyn the Minister to [Page 43] Teach diligently? so, by our Laws, he is expresly charg­ed at his Ordination to do, and forbidden to Teach any thing, as required of necessity to Salvation, but that which he is perswaded may be concluded and pro­ved by the Scripture: yea, it Commandeth him, with all faithful diligence, to banish, and drive away all Erroneous and strange Doctrines, that are contrary to Gods VVord. Doth the VVord Authorise him, to Ad­minister the Sacraments? So doth our Law. Doth the VVord require that the Minister should not only pub­lickly Teach, but also oversee, and look to the Peoples Con­versation, Exhorting, Admonishing, Reproving, Comfor­ting them as well privately as publickly? So doth our Law. Lastly, Doth the VVord Authorise the Mi­nister to execute the Censures and Discipline of Christ? our Law doth also command the same. So that, although many, to whom the execution of these things appertain, do grievously fail in the practice there­of, yet you see the Office which the Law enjoyneth to the Minister, is the same in substance, with that which the VVord layeth upon him. Tell us not then, That the same Name is given to our Office, as to the Popish Sacri­ficers. Do you think the worse of your self because you are called Brownists? And, Shall the Holy Office and Calling, which is so agreeable to the VVord, be misliked, because it is called a Priesthood? considering, that though it agree in Name, yet it differeth in Nature and Su [...]stance as much from the Romish Priesthood, as Light doth from Darkness.

IV. That Discipline is wanting in our Church. To which they Answer.

[Page 44] 1. That the want or neglect of some of those Ordi­nances of Christ, Hildershams Letter, Sect. 3. which concern the Discipline of his Church, and the outward calling of his Ministers, is no such sin, as can make either the Ministers, or Gover­nors of our Church Antichrist, or our Church an Anti­christian and False Church. And Mr. H. adds, That no one place of Scripture can be found, wherein he is called an Antichrist, or Antichristian, who holding the Truth of Doctrine, and professing those Articles of Re­ligion that are Fundamental, as we do, doth swerve, either in Iudgment, or Practice, from that Rule, which Christ hath given for the Discipline of his Church. Neither can you find any Antichrist mentioned in Scri­pture, whose Doctrine is sound. If then the Doctrine of our Church be sound, VVhat VVarrant have you to call us Antichrists? If our Pastors offer to lead you unto Salvation, through no other door than Christ, How dare you, that say you are Christ's, refuse to be guid­ed by them? If our Assemblies be built upon that Rock, How can you deny them to be True Churches?

2 That the Substance of Discipline is preserved among us; Grave Con­futation, &c. p. 17. in which they reckon Preaching of the VVord, and Administration of Sacraments, as well as the Censures of Admonition, Suspension, Excommunication, and Pro­vision for the Necessity of the Poor; which, say they, by Law, ought to be in all our Assemblies; and there­fore we cannot justly be said to be without the Disci­pline of Christ; but rather that we having the Disci­pline of Christ; which is most substantial, do want the other, and so exercise it not rightly, that is to say, not by those Officers which Christ hath appointed. And far­ther they add, That the Laws of our Land do Autho­rize [Page 45] the Minister to stay from the Lords Table, all such as are Vncat [...]chised, Giffard's An­swer to the [...]rownists, p. 47. and out of Charity, or any otherwise publick offenders; as appeareth in the Rubrick before the Communion, and in that which is after Confirma­tion.

3. That although it were granted, Grave Con­futation, &c. p. 18. That we wanted both the Exercise of the Churches Censures, and some of those Officers which Christ hath appointed to exercise them by, yet might we be a True Church notwithstand­ing: as there was a True Church in Judah all the days of Asa and Jehosaphat, yet was not the Discipline Re­formed there till the latter end of Jehoshaphat's Reign. The Church of Corinth was a True Church, even when the Apostle blamed them for want of Discipline. The Congregation at Samaria is called a Church, Acts. 8, 12, 19, 31. before the Discipline was established there. And even in Jerusalem there was a famous visible Church of Christ long before sundry parts of the Discipline (for want whereof they Condemn us) were established there; yea, it is evi­dent, that by the Apostles themselves divers Churches were gathered some good space of time, before the Dis­cipline was setled, or exercised: by all which it is mani­fest, that how necessary soever those parts of the Disci­pline (which we want) be, to the Beauty and Well-be­ing, or preservation of the Church; yet are they not necessary to the being thereof; but a True Church may be without them.

4. That it doth not belong to private persons to set up the Discipline of the Church against the Will and Con­sent of the Christian Magistrate, Grave Con­futation, &c. p. 51. 52. and Governors of the Church: Giffard's An­swer, p. 59. 95, 100, 101, 102. Nay, they declare, that in so doing, they should highly offend God. Giffard saith, That the Fetters and [Page 46] Chains, can no faster bind the hands and feet of Brow­nists, then the hands of private Men are bound with the bands of Conscience, and the Fear of God, from presu­ming to take upon them Publick Authority. And if all the Brownists in the Land should come together, and choose a Minister and Ordain him, it would make him no more a Minister before God, then if all the Appren­tices in London, taking upon them to choose a Lord Mayor, and Minister an Oath unto him, should make him a Lord Mayor. But of this more afterwards.

V. That the Ministers of our Church stand under (as they speak) an Antichristian Hierarchy. To which they Answer,

First, Grave Con­futation, &c. p. 19. They deny that our Bishops can be called An­tichristian, since they do, and by the Laws of the Land ought to hold and teach all Doctrines that are Funda­mental; yea, some of them have Learnedly and Soundly maintained the Truth against Hereticks, that have gain­say'd it; some have not only by their Doctrine and Mi­nistry Converted many to the Truth, but have suffered Persecution for the Gospel.

Secondly, Suppose it were an Antichristian Yoke, which they deny; yet this doth not destroy the being of a True Church, or Mi [...]istry under it. Since both the Jewish and Christian Churches, have frequently born such a Yoke, and yet have been the True Churches of God still.

Thirdly. That there is nothing unlawful, or Anti­christian in the Office of Bishops, if they consider them as the Kings Visitors and Commissioners, to see that the [Page 47] Pastors do their Duties. And that this cannot destroy the nature of a Visible Church, to cast many particular Churches, Bradshaw's Answer to Johnson, p. 65. Ed. 1642. under one Provincial, or Diocesan Govern­ment. Yea, Mr. Bradshaw undertakes to prove this, not only lawful, but expedient, to that degree, that he thinks the Magistrate cannot well discharge his Duty, as to the Oversight and Government of the Churches with­in his Dominions, without it: as is implyed in the seven Quaeries he propounds to Fr. Iohnson about it. Page 49. But supposing them to be Pastors of the Churches under them, this, saith he, doth not overthrow the Office of Pastors to particular Congregations, so long as under them they perform the main and substantial Duties of True Pastors; which all the Ministers of our Church-Assemblies do, and by the Laws cought to do.

These Particulars I have laid together with all possible brevity and clearness, from the Authors of best reputation on both sides, that we might have a distinct view of the State of the Controversie about Separation, between the Old Non-conformists, and the Separatists of that time.

Sect. 12. But before we come to our present Times, we must consider the Alteration that was made in the State of this Controversie, by those who were called Independents, and pretended to come off from the Principles of Brownism, or rigid Separa­tion.

And here I shall give an Account of the Progress of the Course of Separation, or the Steps by which it was carried on; and how it came at last to settle in the Congregational Way; and what the True State of the Difference was, between the Assembly of Di­vines, [Page 48] and the Dissenting Brethren; and how far the Reasons, then used, will hold against the present Separation.

When those who were called Brownists, Stephen Off­woo [...] 's Ad­ve [...]tisement to Jo [...]n De­lecluse and H. May, p. 10, 39. for the f [...]eer Exercise of their new Church way, withdrew in­to the Low-Countreys, they immediately fell into strange Factions and Divisions among themselves. A. D. 1582. Robert Brown, accompanied with Har­rison a School-Master, and about 50 or 60 Persons, went over to Middleburgh, and there they chose Har­rison Pastor▪ and Brown Teacher. They had not been there Three Months, but upon the falling out between Brown and Harri [...]on, Brown forsakes them, and returns for England, and Subscribes, promising to the Arch­bishop, To live Obediently to his Commands. Concern­ing whom, Harrison Writes to a Friend in London in these words: Indeed the Lord hath made a breach among us for our sins, which hath made us unworthy to bear his great and worthy Cause. Mr. Brown hath cast us off, and that with open, manifest, and notable Trea­cheries, and if I should declare them, you could not be­lieve me. Only this I testifie unto you, that I am well able to prove, That Cain dealt not so ill with his Bro­ther Abel, as he hath dealt with me. Some of the words of Browns Subscription, Defence of the Admon. to the Fol­lowers of Brown, p. 127. were these, I do hum­bly submit my self to be at my Lord of Canterbury's Commandment, whose Authority, under Her Majesty, I w [...]ll never resist, or deprave, by the Grace of God, &c. But, being a Man of a Restless, and Facti­ous Temper, no Promises, or Subscriptions could keep him within due bounds; as one who lived at that time hath fully discovered. For, although he promised to frequent our Churches, Page 133. and to come to [Page 49] Prayers and Sacraments, yet, living School-Master at S. Olaves in Southwark for two years, in all that time he never did it; and when he was like to have been question'd for it, he withdrew into another Parish. Sometimes he would go to hear Sermons, Page 135. but that he accounted no act of Communion; and declared to his Friends, Page 134. That he thought it not unlawful to hear our Sermons; and therefore perswaded his Followers in London so to do. Page 140. Notwithstanding this, he Preach­ed in Private Meetings, and that in the time of Pub­lick Assemblies, when he thought fit; Which this Author, though a Non-conformist, and Friend of T. Cs, calls a Cursed Conventicle: who sets forth at large his Strange Iuglings, and Iesuitical Aequivocati­ons in his Subscription. Page 141. By the Bishops Authority, he said he meant only his Civil Authority; by declaring the Church of England to be the Church of God, he un­derstood the Church of his own setting up; Pag. 138, &c. by frequent­ing our Assemblies according to Law, he meant, the Law of God, and not of the Land: he declared, his Child was Baptized according to Law, Counterpoy­son p. 25. Cotton's Answ. to R. Will [...]ms, p. 122. but then told his Followers, it was done without his Consent Mr. Cotton, of New England, hath this passage concerning Brown. The first Inventor of that way, which is called Brownism, from whom the Sect took its Name, fell back from his own way, to take a Parsonage called I [...]ourc [...]; God so, in a strange (yet wise) Provi­dence, ordering it, that he, who had utterly renoun­ced all the Churches in England, as no Church; should afterwards accept of one Parish Church among them, and it called, A Church. But upon the Dissention at Middleborough, between Brown and Harrison, that Congregation soon broke to pieces. Ainsworth can­not deny the early Dissentions between Brown and [Page 50] Harrison, Brown and Barrow, Barrow and Fr. Iohn­son; but he reckons up all the differences in Scripture from Cain and Abel downwards to justifie theirs; not­withstanding, Offwood's Advertise­ment, p. 15. as Dr. O. well observes, We are to distinguish between what falls out through the passions of Men, and what follows from the nature of the thing. But one of their own Party at Amsterdam takes no­tice of a Third Cause of these Dissentions, viz. The Iudgment of God upon them. I do see, saith he, the hand of God is heavy upon them, blinding their Minds, and hardening their Hearts, that they do not see his Truth, so that they are at Wars among themselves, and they are far from that true Peace of God which followeth Holiness.

There were two great Signs of this hand of God upon them.

First, Their Invincible Obstinacy.

Secondly, The Scandalous Breaches which follow­ed still one upon the other, as long as the course of Separation continued; and were only sometimes hin­dred from shewing themselves, by their not being let loose upon each other; For then the Firebrands soon appear, which at other times they endeavour to cover.

Their great Obstinacy appears, by the Execution of Barrow and Greenwood, who being Condemned for Seditious Books, could no ways be reclaimed; rather choosing to Dye, than to Renounce the Prin­ciples of Separation. But Penry, who suffered on the same account about that time, had more Relent­ing [Page 51] in him, as to the business of Separation. For Mr. I. Cotton, Cotton's Answer to R. Williams p. 17. of New-England, relates this Story of him, from the Mouth of Mr. Hildersham, an eminent Non-conformist; That he confessed, He deserved Death at the Queens hand, for that he had Seduced many of Her Loyal Subjects to a Separation, from Hearing the Word of Life in the Parish Churches, Which though himself had learned to discover the Evil of, yet he could never prevail to recover divers of Her Sub­jects whom he had Seduced; and therefore the Blood of their Souls was now justly required at his hands. These are Mr. Cotton's own words. Ib. Concerning Barrow, he reports from Mr. Dod's Mouth, that when he stood under the Gibbet, he lift up his eyes, and said, Lord, if I be deceived, thou hast deceived me. And so being stopt by the hand of God, he was not able to proceed to speak any thing to purpose more, either to the Glory of God, or Edification of the People. These Execu­tions extremely startled the Party, and away goes Francis Iohnson with his Company to Amsterdam; Iohnson chargeth Ainsworth and his Party with Ana­baptism, Clifton's Advertise­ment, p. 22. 26. and want of Humility and due Obedience to Government. In short, they fell to pieces, separa­ting from each others Communion: Way of Con­gregational Churches cleared, p. 6. some say, They formally Excommunicated each other; but Mr. Cotton will not allow that, but, he saith, They only withdrew: yet those who were Members of the Church do say, That Mr. Johnson and his Company, were Accur­sed, and Avoided by Mr. Ainsworth and his Company: and Mr. A. and his Company were rejected and avoid­ed by Mr. Johnson and his. Profane Schism of the Brownists, p. 63. And one Church receiv­ed the Persons Excommunicated by the other, and so became ridiculous to Spectators, as some of them­selves confessed. Iohnson and his Party charged the [Page 52] other with Schism in Separating from them: Ib. ch. 2. p. 9. But, as others said, who returned to our Church; Is it a greater Sin in them to leave the Communion of Mr. Johnson, than for him to refuse and avoid the Commu­nion of all True Churches beside? But the Difference went so high, that Iohnson would admit none of Ains­worth's Company without Re-baptizing them; Page 71. Ains­worth, on the other side, charged them with woful Apostasy: Offwood's Advertise­ment, p. 43. And one of his own Company said, That he lived and died in Contentions. When Robinson went from Leyden, on purpose to end these Differen­ces, he complained very much of the disorderly and tumultuous carriage of the People; Which, with Mr. Ainsworths Maintenance, was an early discovery of the Great Excellency of Popular Church-Governm [...]nt. Schism of the Browni [...]s, p. 87. Smith, who set up another Separate congregation, was Iohnson's Pupil, and went over, In hopes, saith Mr. Cotton, Way of Con­gregational Churches, p. 7. to have gained his Tutor from the Errors of his Rigid Separation; but he was so far from that, that he soon outwent him: and he charges the other Sepa­rate Congregations with some of the very same Faults which they had found in the Church of England, viz. (1.) Idolatrous Worship; for if they charged the Church of England with Idolatry, See Smith's Reasons in B [...]nard against Br [...]nists, ca [...]led P [...]ain Evidences, p. 5, 6, 7. in Reading of Prayers; he thought them equ [...]lly guilty in looking on their Bibles, in Preaching and Singing. (2.) An­tichristian Government, in adding the Human Inven­tions of Doctors, and Ruling Elders: which was pul­ling down one Antichrist, to set up another; and if one was the Beast, the other was the Image of the Beast. Being therefore unsatisfied with all Churches, he be­gan one wholly new, and therefore Baptized himself. For, Smith's Ep. to the Cha­racter. he declared, There was no one True Ordinance with the other Separatists. But this New Church was [Page 53] of short continuance, for, upon his Death, it dwind­led away, or was swallowed up in the Common Gulf of Anabaptism. And now one would have thought here had been an end of Separation; and so in all probability there had; had not Mr. Robinson of Ley­den abated much of the Rigor of it; for he asserted, The Lawfulness of Communicating with the Church of England in the Word and Prayer, Cotton's Way cleare [...], p. 8. but not in Sacra­ments and Discipline. The former he defended in a Discourse between Ainsworth and him. So that the present Separatists, who deny that, are gone beyond him, and are fallen back to the Principles of the Ri­gid Separation. Robinson succeeded (though not im­mediately) Iacob, in his Congregation at Leyden, whom some make the Father of Independency. Page 15. But from part of Mr. Robinson's Church, it spread into New England; for Mr. Cotton saith, They went over thither in their Church-State to Plymouth; and that Model was followed by other Churches there; at Salem, Bo­ston, Page 14. Watertown, &c. Yet Mr. Cotton professeth, That Robinson 's Denyal of the Parishional Churches in England to be true Churches (either by reason of their mixt corrupt matter, or for defect in their Cove­nant, or for excess in their Episcopal Government) was never received into any heart, from thence to infer a nullity of their Church State. Page 138. And in his Answer to Mr. Roger Williams, he hath these words, That upon due consideration he cannot find, That the Principles and Grounds of Reform [...]tion do necessarily conclude a Separation from the English Churches, as false Churches; from their Ministery as a false Ministry; from their Worship as a false Worship; from all their Professors as no visible Saints: Nor can I find, that they do either necessarily, or probably conclude a Separation from [Page 54] Hearing the Word Preached by godly Ministers in the Parish Churches in England. R. Williams Answer to Cotton 's [...]. 3 [...]. Mr. R. Williams urged Mr. Cotton with an apparent inconsistency between these Principles and his own Practice; for although he pretended to own the Parish Churches as true Churches, yet by his Actual Separation from them, he shewed, that really he did not; and he adds, that Separation did naturally follow from the old Puri­tan Principles; saying, That Mr. Can hath unanswer­ably proved, Page 39. That the Grounds and Principles of the Puritans against Bishops and Ceremonies, and profane­ness of People professing Christ, and the necessity of Christ' s Flock and Disciples, must necessarily, if truly followed, lead on to, and inforce a Separation. Notwith­standing all this, Mr. Cotton doth assert the Lawful­ness of hearing English Preachers in our Parish Churches; but then, he saith, There is no Church Communion in Hearing, Page 43. but only in giving the Seals. Mr. Williams urgeth, That there is Communion in Doctrine, and Fel­lowship of the Gospel. Cotton's Answer to Williams, p. 129, 132. Upon which, Mr. Cotton grants, That though a Man may joyn in Hearing, and Prayer, before and after Sermon; yet not as in a Church-state. Yet, after all, he will not deny our Churches to be True Churches. But, if they remain true Churches, it appears from the former Discourse, they can never justifie Separation from them; upon the Principles of either Party. So that though those of the Congre­gational Way seem to be more moderate, as to some of their Principles, then the old rigid Separatists; yet they do not consider, that by this means they make their Separation more Inexcusable. The Dis­senting Brethren, in their Apologetical Narration, to avoid the imputation of Brownism, deliver this as their Judgment, concerning our Parochial Churches. [Page 55] And for our own Congregations, Apologet. Narrative, p. 5, 6. viz. of England, we have this sincere Profession to make before God and all the World, that all that Conscience of the Defilements, we conceived to cleave to the true Worship of God in them, or of the Vnwarranted Power in Church Governors ex­ercised therein, did never work in us any other thought, much less opinion, but that Multitudes of the Assem­blies, and Parochial Congregations thereof, were the True Churches and Body of Christ, and the Ministery thereof a True Ministery: much less did it ever enter in­to our hearts, to Iudge them Antichristian; we saw, and cannot but see, that by the same reason, the Churches abroad in Scotland, Holland, &c.(though more Re­formed) yet for their Mixture, must be in like man­ner Iudged no Churches also; which, to imagine, or con­ceive, is, and hath ever been an horror to our thoughts. Yea, we have always professed, and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most, either actually overspread with Defilements, or in the greatest danger thereof; and when our selves had least, yea no hopes of ever so much as visiting our own Land again in peace and safety to our persons, that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Church of Christ. This is a very fair Confession from the Dissenting Brethren; but then the difficulty returns with greater force; How comes Separation from these Churches to be lawful? If they had gone upon the Brownists Principles, all the Dispute had been a­bout the truth or falshood of them; but their truth being supposed, the necessity of Separation followed; whereas now, upon altering the State of the Contro­versie by the Independents, though their Principles seem more Moderate, yet their Practice is more Un­reasonable. It is therefore a vain pretence used at [Page 56] this day, to justifie the Separation, That they do not deny our Churches to be true Churches, and that therein they differ from the old Separatists; It is true▪ in that Opinion they do; but in Separation they agree, which is the more unjustifiable in them, since they yield so much to our Churches. And yet herein, whatever they pre [...]end, they do not exceed their Independent Brethren, whose Separation themselves Condemned. But the Presbyterians were then unsa­tisfied with this Declaration of the Dissenting Bre­thren, and thought, it did not sufficiently clear them from the Charge of Brownism; Anatomy of Independen­cy, p. 18, 19, 20, &c. because (1.) They agreed with the old Separatists in the Main Principle of Popular Church Government, Which, they say, is inconsistent with the Civil Peace; as may be seen, say they, in the Quarrels both at Amsterdam, and Rotterdam; and the Law-Suites depending before the Magistrates there. (2.) They overthrow the Bounds of Parochial Churches, as the Separatists did, and think such a Confinement Unlawful. (3.) They make true Saintship the necessary Qualification of Church Members, as the Separatists did: Whereby, say they, they confound the Visible, and Invisible Church, and make the same essential form of both. (4.) They renounce the Ordination received in our Church, but all the allowance they make of a true Ministry, is, by vertue of an explicit or implicit Call, grounded on the Peoples explicit or implicit Covenant, with such a Man as their Pastor. For when they first began to set up a Congregational Church, after the New Model, at Rotterdam, Ward was chosen Pastor, and Bridges Teacher, but they both Renounced their Ordination in England; and some say, They [Page 57] ordained one another; others, That they had no other Ordination, than what the Congregation gave them.

Sect. 13. And now, new Congregations began to be set up in Holland, upon these Principles; but they again fell into Divisions as great as the former. Simp­son renouncing his Ordination, was admitted a pri­vate member of the Church at Rotterdam; but he grew soon unsatisfied with the Orders of that Church, and thought too great a Restraint was laid upon the private Members, as to the exercise of Prophe­cying; and so he, and those who joyned with him, complaining of the Mischief of Impositions, were ready for a Separation, if that restraint were not speedily removed. Mr. Bridge yields to the thing, but not as to the time, viz. On the Lords Day af­ter Sermon; this gives no satisfaction, for they must have their will in every thing, or else they will ne­ver cease complaining of the Mischief of Impositions. And so Mr. Simpson, Answer to the Antapologia p. 245. and his Party, set up a New Church of their own: Which I. Goodwin doth not deny; for Mr. Simpson, saith he, upon dislike of some persons and things in that Church, whereof Mr. Bridge was Pastor, might seek and make a departure from it. But were these Churches quiet, after this Separation made? Disswasive from the Er­rors of the Times, p. 76▪ So far from it, that the contentions and slan­ders were no less grievous, saith Baylie, than those of Amsterdam, betwixt Ainsworth and Johnsons follow­ers▪ But did not Mr. Bridges Church continue in great quietness? No, but in stead of that, they were so full of Bitterness, Anatomy of Independ. p. 6. Reproaches, and hard Censures, that Mr. Br [...]dge often declared, If he had known at first, what he met with afterwards, he would never have come amongst them, nor being amongst them, have given them such scope [Page 58] and liberty, as he had. It seems at last, he came to apprehend the necessity of Impositions, and the mis­chief of a Separating dividing humor. But the Peo­ple having the Power in their hands, were resolved to shew, that they held it not in vain; for Mr. Ward, had it seems given Offence to some of the Congregati­on, by Preaching the same Sermons there, which he had Preached before at Norwich; this, and some other frivolous things, were thought Intolerable Impositi­ons; and therefore against the Will of Mr. Bridge, they Depose Mr. Ward from his Ministery. This be­ing a fresh discovery of the great inconveniency of Popular Church Government, gave a mighty alarm to the Brethren: which occasion'd a Meeting of the Messengers from other Churches (as they called them) for closing up of this wound; but they durst not search deep into it, but only skinn'd it over, to pre­vent the great reproach and scandal of it. From these things, the Presbyterians inferred the necessity of Civil Authorities interposing; Anatomy of Independ. p. 49. and of not leaving all to Conscience. For, say they, Conscience hath been long urging the taking away that Scandal occasion'd at Rotterdam by that Schism, where divers Members left the one Church, and joyned to the other, so disorder­ly, wherein even the Rulers of one Church had a deep Charge; yet as that could not then be prevented, so there had been many Meetings, Sermons, and all means used to press the Conscience of taking it off, by a Re-union of the Churches, and yet the way to do it could never be found, till the Magistrates Authority and Com­mand found it. These things I have more fully de­duced; Not, as though bare Dissentions in a Church were an Argument of it self against it; but, to shew (1.) That Popular Church Government naturally [Page 59] leads to Divisions, and leaves them without Re­medy; and (2.) That humerous and factious Peo­ple will always complain of the Mischief of Impositi­ons, though the things be never so just and reaso­nable; and (1.) That this Principle of Liberty of Conscience, will unavoidably lead Men into Confu­sion: For when Men once break the Rules of Or­der and Government in a Church, they run down the Hill, and tumble down all before them. If Men complain of the Mischief of our Impositions, the Mem­bers of their own Churches, may on the same grounds, complain of theirs; and as the Presbyterians cannot Answer the Independents, as to the Pretence of Con­science; so it is impossible for either, or both of them, to Answer the Anabaptists, who have as just a Plea for Separation from them, as they can have from the Church of England.

Sect. 14. From hence we find, that, although the Pretence of the Dissenting Brethren seemed very modest, as to themselves; yet they going upon a Common Principle of Liberty of Conscience, the Pres­byterians charged them with being the Occasion of that Horrible Inundation of Errors and Schisms, which immediately overspread this City and Nation: which I shall briefly represent in the words of the most [...]inent Presbyterians of that time. Thence [...], Duply to M. S. p. 53. a zealous Scotch Presbyterian, said, That he verily believed, Independency cannot but prove the Root of all Schisms and Heresies: Yea, I add, saith he, That by consequence, it is much worse than Pop [...]ry.

Then [...]e the Scotch Commissioners, Arguments of the Scotch Commiss. p. 3, 4. in the first place, pres [...]ed Vniformity in Religion, as the only means to [Page 60] preserve Peace, and to prevent many Divisions and Troubles; a thing very becoming the King to promote, according to the practice of the good Kings of Judah; and a thing which, they say, all sound Divines and Politicians are for.

Dr. Corn. Burgess told the House of Commons, Serm. Nov. 8. 1641. That our Church was laid waste, and exposed to confu­sion, under the Plausible Pretence of not forcing Mens Consciences: and that, to put all Men into a course of Order and Vniformity, in God's way, is not to force the Conscience; but to set up God in his due place, and to bring all his People into the paths of righteousness and life.

The Errors and Innovations, Serm. before the Com. Feb. 19. 1645. under which we groaned so much of later years, saith Mr. Case, were but Tole­rabiles Ineptiae, Tolerable Trifles, Childrens Play, com­pared with these Damnable Doctrines, Doctrines of Devils, as the Apostle calls them: Polygamy, Arbi­trary Divorce, Mortality of the Soul; No Ministry, no Churches, no Ordinances, no Scripture, &c. And the very foundation of all these laid in such a Schism of Boundless Liberty of Conscience, and such Lawless Separation of Churches, &c.

The Famous City of London is become an Amster­dam, Serm. before the Lord Mayor, Jan. 14. 1645. saith Mr. Calamy, Separation from our Churches is Countenanced, Toleration is Cried Vp, Authority asleep. It would seem a wonder, if I should reckon how many separate Congregations, or rather Segrega­tions there are in the City; What Churches against Churches, &c. Hereby the hearts of the People are mightily distracted, many are hindred from Conversi­on, [Page 61] and even the Godly themselves have lost much of the Power of Godliness in their Lives. The Lord keep us, saith he, from being Poysoned with such an Error as that of an Vnlimited Toleration. A Doctrine that overthroweth all Church-Government, bringeth in Con­fusion, and openeth a wide door unto all Irreligion and Atheism.

Diversity of Religion, Serm. before the Parlia­ment, Sept. 12. 1644. saith Mr. Matthew Newco­men, disjoynts and distracts the Minds of Men, and is the Seminary of perpetual Hatreds, Iealousies, Sedi­tions, Wars, if any thing in the World be; and in a little time, either a Schism in the State begets a Schim in the Church, or a Schism in the Church begets a Schism in the State: i. e. either Religion in the Church is pre­judiced by Civil Contentions, or Church-Controversies and Disputes about Opinions break out into Civil Wars. Men will at last take up Swords and Spears in stead of Pens; and defend that by Arms which they cannot do by Arguments.

These may serve for a Taste of the Sense of some of the most eminent Presbyterian Divines at that time, concerning the dangerous effects of that To­leration which their Independent Brethren desi­red.

The Dissenting Brethren finding themselves thus Loaden with so many Reproaches, and particular­ly with being the Occasion of so many Errors and Schisms, published their Apologetical Narration in Vindication of themselves, wherein (as is said be­fore) they endeavour to purge themselves from the Imputation of Brownism; declaring, That they look­ed [Page 62] on some of our Churches as True Churches, and our Mini­stery, as a true Ministery; but yet they earnestly desire liberty, as to the Peaceable practice of their own way.

To this the Presbyterians Answered,

First, Observations and Annota­tions on the Apologetical Narration, p. 17. That they did not understand by them, in what Sense they allowed our Churches to be true Churches.

Secondly, If they did, what Necessity there was for any Separation, or what need of Toleration.

As to the Sense in which they owned our Churches to be true Churches; either they understood it of a bare Metaphysical Verity, as many of our Divines, say they, grant it to the Romish Church; That she is a True Church, as a rotten Infections Strumpet is a True Wo­man; and then they thank them for their Favour, that they hold our Churches in the same Category with Rome: or else they understand it in a Moral sense for sound and pure Churches, and then, say they, Why do ye not joyn with us, and Communicate as Brethren? Why de­sire ye a Toleration? Yes, say the Dissenting Brethren, we own you to be True Churches, and Communicate with you in Doctrine. To which the others reply'd, If you own it by External Act of Communion, ye must Com­municate with us in Sacraments: but this ye refuse; therefore ye must return to the old Principles of Se­paration. For where there was such a refusal of Communion, as there was in them towards all Churches besides their own, Sermon at St. Paul's, Feb. 8. 1645. p. 41. there must lie at the bottom the same Principle of Separation which was in the Brow­nists. And, as Mr. Newcomen urged them, their agree­ing [Page 63] with us in Doctrines that are Fundamental, their holding one Head, and one Faith, doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of Vnity, and downright Schism, as long as they hold not one Body, one Bap­tism. For when Men make different Assemblies, and Congregations, and draw Men into Parties, it is not their owning the same Doctrine doth excuse them from Schism, as he proves from St. Augustin and Beza. Of which afterwards.

But still they denied themselves to be Brownists, or Rigid Separatists, because they separated from our Congregations as no Churches, and from the Ordinances dispensed as Antichristian, and from our People as no Visible Christians.

To which the other Replyed, That there was al­ways a Difference among the Separatists themselves, some being more rigid than others; and as to the last Clause, none since Barrow had owned it. But, for the rest, Narrative of New-Eng­land, &c. Postscript, p. 52. only putting Vnlawful for Antichristian; and by Ordinances, understanding Church-Ordinances, they own the very same Principles as the others did. And although in words they seem to own our Paro­chial Congregations to be true Churches; yet having the same Opinions with the more moderate Brownists, touching Church-Constitution, Matter, Form, Power, Government, Communion, Corruptions, &c. The conse­quence must be, say they, that we have no true Churches, and that our Ordinances are all unlawful. And the less cause they have to plead for their Separation, Baylies Dis­swasive, p. 104. by acknowledging our Churches to be True Churches, their Separation is so much the more culpable, and the grosser and more inexcusable the Schism. For, it is a greater [Page 64] sin, saith Bayly, to depart from a Church, which I profess to be True, and whose Ministry I acknowledge to be sa­ving, than from a Church which I conceive to be False, and whose Ministers I take to have no calling from God; nor any Blessing from his hand.

So that the Independents were then charged with Schism for these two things.

First, For refusing Communion with those Churches, which they confessed to be true Churches. For, say the Members of the Assembly, Papers for Accommod. p. 47. Thus to depart from True Churches, is not to hold Communion with them as such, but rather by departing, to declare them not to be such.

Secondly, For setting up different Congregations, where they confessed there was an Agreement in Doctrine.

Sect. 15. But because some Men are so unwilling to understand the True State of this Controversie a­bout Separation, between the Divines of the Assembly, and the Independents, I shall here give a fuller ac­count of it from the Debates between them.

The desire of the Independents, as it was propo­sed by themselves at the Committee for Accommoda­tion, Dec. 4. 1645. was this,

That they may not be forced to Communicate as Mem­bers in those Parishes where they dwell; but may have liberty to have Congregations of such Persons who give good Testimonies of their Godliness, and yet out of ten­derness [Page 65] of Conscience, cannot Communicate in their Pa­rishes, but do voluntarily offer themselves to joyn in such Congregations.

To which the Divines of the Assembly Answered, Decemb. 15.

This Desire is not to be granted them, for these Reasons.

1. Because it holds out a plain and total Separation from the Rule; as if in nothing it were to be com­plied with; nor our Churches to be communicated with in any thing, which should argue Church-Com­munion. More could not be said, or done, against False Churches.

2. It plainly holds out, The lawfulness of gather­ing Churches out of true Churches, yea out of such True Churches, which are endeavouring farther to reform according to the word of God; whereof we are as­sured, there is not the least hint of any example in all the Book of God.

3. This would give Countenance to A perpetual Schism and Division in the Church, still drawing away some from the Churches under the Rule, which also would breed many Irritations among the Parties going a­way, and those whom they leave; and again, be­tween the Church that should be forsaken, and that to which they should go.

Decemb. 23. The Dissenting Brethren put in their Reply to these Reasons.

[Page 66] To the First Reason, they say, (1.) That ga­thering into other Congregations such, who cannot, out of tenderness of Conscience, partake as Members in their Churches, for the purer enjoyment (as to their Conscien­ces) of all Ordinances yet still maintaining Communion with them as Churches, is far from Separation, much less a plain and total Separation. And this is not set­ting up Churches against Churches, but Neighbour Sister Churches of a different Iudgment. For, say they, if the purest Churches in the World (unto our Iudgment, in all other respects) should Impose as a Condition of re­ceiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, any one thing; that such tender Consciences cannot joyn in (as suppose kneeling in the Act of Receiving, which was the case of Scotland and England) if they remove from these Churches, and have Liberty from a State to Gather into other Churches, to enjoy this and other Or­dinances, this is no Separation.

(2.) That it is not a plain and total Separation from the Rule, unless they Wholly in all things differ, by set­ting up altogether different Rules of Constitution, Wor­ship and Government; but they shall practice the most of the same things; and these the most substantial, which are found in the Rule it self.

(3.) That they would maintain Occasional Commu­nion with their Churches, not only in Hearing and Preaching, but Occasionally, in Baptising their Children in their Churches, and receiving the Lords Supper there, &c.

And, Would not all this clear them from the Imputation of Schism? Not agreeing in the main [Page 67] things? Not owning their Churches to be true? Not maintaining Occasional Communion with them? Let us hear, what the Divines of the Assembly think of all this.

Thus they Answer,

First, That although Tenderness of Conscience may bind Men to forbear, or suspend the Act of Communion in that Particular, wherein Men conceive they can­not hold Communion without sin, yet it doth not bind to follow such a positive Prescript, as possibly may be divers from the Will and Counsel of God, of which kind we conceive this of Gathering Sepa­rate Churches out of True Churches, to be one.

Secondly, It is one thing to remove to a Congrega­tion which is under the same Rule, another to a Con­gregation of a different Constitution from the Rule; in the former case a Man retains his Membership; in the latter he renounceth his Membership upon dif­ference of Judgment, touching the very Constitu­tion of the Churches, from and unto which he re­moves.

Thirdly, If a Church do require that which is evil of any Member, he must forbear to do it, yet without Separation. They who thought Kneeling in the Act of Communion, to be unlawful, either in England, or Scotland, did not Separate, or Renounce Membership, but did, some of them, with Zeal and Learning, de­fend our Church against those of the Separation.

[Page 68] Fourthly, The Notion of Separation is not to be measured by Civil Acts of State, but by the Word of God.

Fifthly, To leave all Ordinary Communion in any Church with dislike, when Opposition or Offence offers it self, is to Separate from such a Church in the Scripture Sense.

Sixthly, A total difference from Churches is not ne­cessary to make a total Separation; for the most ri­gid Separatists hold the same rule of Worship, and Government with our Brethren; and under this pre­tence, Novatians, Donatists, all that ever were thought to Separate, might shelter themselves.

Seventhly, If they may occasionally exercise these Acts of Communion with us once, a second, or third time, without sin, we know no reason why it may not be ordinary without sin; and then Separation and Church-Gathering would have been needless. To Separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly, with whom occasionally you may joyn without sin, seemeth to be a most Unjust Separation.

To the Second Reason, The Dissenting Bre­thren gave these Answers.

1. That it was founded upon this supposition, That nothing is to be tolerated which is unlawful in the Iudgment of those who are to Tolerate: Which the Divines of the Assembly denied; and said, It was upon the supposition of the unlawfulness, to tolerate [Page 69] gathering of Churches out of true Churches: which they do not once endeavor to prove lawful.

2. That if after all endeavors, Mens Consciences are unsatisfied, as to Communion with a Church, they have no Obligation lying upon them to continue in that Communion; or on the Churches to withold them from removing to purer Churches; or if there be none such to gather into Churches.

To which the Divines of the Assembly Re­plied.

I. That this opened a Gap for all Sects to challenge such a Liberty as their due.

II. This Liberty was denied by the Churches of New-England; and they have as just ground to de­ny it as they.

To the third Reason they Answered.

First, That the abuse of the word Schism hath done much hurt in the Churches; that the signification of it was not yet agreed upon by the State, nor debated by the Assembly.

To which the others Reply;

That if the word Schism had been left out, the Reason would have remained strong, viz. That this would, give countenance to Perpetual Division in the Church, still drawing away Churches from under the Rule. And to give countenance to an unjust, and [Page 70] causless Separation from Lawful Church Communion, is not far from giving countenance to a Schism; especially when the grounds, upon which this Separation is de­sired, are such, upon which all other possible scru­ples, which erring Consciences may, in any other case, be subject unto, may claim the priviledge of a like Indulgence, and so this Toleration being the first, shall indeed but lay the foundation, and open the Gap, whereat as many Divisions in the Church, as there may be Scruples in the Minds of Men, shall, upon the self-same Equity be let in.

Secondly, This will give Countenance only to God­ly Peoples joyning in other Congregations for their greater Edification, who cannot otherwise, without sin, enjoy all the Ordinances of Christ; yet so, as not con­demning those Churches, they joyn not with, as false; but still preserving all Christian Communion with the Saints, as Members of the Body of Christ, of the Church Catholick; and joyn also with them in all du­ties of Worship, which belong to particular Churches, so far as they are able; and if this be called Schism, or Countenance of Schism, it is more then we have yet learned from Scriptures, or any approved Authors.

To this, the Divines of the Assembly reply­ed.

1. This desired forbearance is a perpetual Divisi­on in the Church, and a perpetual drawing away from the Churches under the Rule. For, upon the same pretence, those who scruple Infant-Baptism, may withdraw from their Churches, and so Separate into another Congregation; and so in that some practice [Page 71] may be scrupled, and they Separate again: Are these Divisions, and Sub-Divisions, say they, as law­ful as they may be infinite? or, Must we give that respect to the Errors of Mens Consciences, as to sa­tisfie their Scruples, by allowance of this liberty to them? And, Doth it not plainly signifie, that Er­rors of Conscience is a protection against Schism?

2. The not condemning of our Churches as false, doth little extenuate the Separation: for, divers of the Brownists, who have totally separated in former times, have not condemned these Churches as false; though they do not pronounce an Affirmative Judg­ment against us, yet the very Separating is a tacit and practical condemning of our Churches, if not as false, yet as impure, eous (que) as that in such Admini­strations, they cannot be by them, as Members, Com­municated with, without sin. And when they speak of Communion with us, as Members of the Church Catholick, it is as full a declining of Communion with us as Churches, as if we were false Churches.

3. We do not think differences in Judgment in this, or that Point, to be Schism, or that every incon­formity unto every thing used or enjoyned is Schism, so that Communion be preserved; or that Separation from Idolatrous Communion, or Worship, ex se unlaw­ful, is Schism: but to joyn in Separate Congregations of another Communion, which succession of our Members is a manifest rupture of our Societies into others, and is therefore a Schism in the Body: and if the Apostle do call those Divisions of the Church, wherein Christians did not Separate into divers form­ed Congregations, of several Communion in the Sacra­ment [Page 72] of the Lords Supper Schismes, much more may such Separation as this desired, be so called.

4. Scruple of Conscience is no cause of Separating, nor doth it take off causeless separation from being Schism, which may arise from Errors of Conscience, as well as carnal and corrupt reasons; therefore we conceive the causes of Separation must be shewn to be such exnaturâ rei, will bear it out; and there­fore we say, that the granting the liberty desired will give countenance to Schism.

5. We cannot but take it for granted upon evi­dence of Reason, and Experience of all Ages, that this Separation will be the Mother and Nurse of Con­tentions, Strifes, Envyings, Confusions, and so draw with it that breach of Love, which may endanger the heightning of it into formal Schism, even in the sence of our Brethen.

6. What is it that approved Authors do call Schism, but the breaking off Members from their Churches, which are lawfully constituted Churches, and from Communion in Ordinances, &c. without just and suffi­cient cause, ex natura rei, to justifie such secession, and to joyn in other Congregations of Separate Com­munion, either because of personal failings in the Officers, or Members of the Congregation from which they separate, or because of causeless Scruple of their own Conscience, which hath been called setting up altare contra altare: from which they quote St. Augustin, and Camenon.

[Page 73] Thus I have faithfully laid down the State of this Controversie about Separation, as it hath been mana­ged in former times among us. From whence there are these things to be considered by us, which may be of some use in our following Discourse.

(1.) That all the old Non-conformists did think themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England, and did look upon Se­paration from it to be Sin, notwithstanding the Cor­ruptions they supposed to be in it. This I have pro­ved with so great evidence in the forgoing Discourse; that those who deny it, may, with the help of the same Metaphysicks, deny, That the Sun shines.

(2.) That all Men were bound in Conscience to­wards preserving the Vnion of the Church, to go as far as they were able. This was not only Asserted by the Non-formists, but by the most rigid Separa­tists of former times, and by the Dissenting Brethren themselves. So that the lawfulness of Separation, where Communion is lawful, and thought so to be by the persons who Separate, is one of the Newest In­ventions of this Age; but what new Reasons they have for it, besides Noise and Clamour, I am yet to seek.

(3.) That bare Scruple of Conscience doth not ju­stifie Separation, although it may excuse Non-commu­nion in the particulars which are scrupled; provi­ded that they have used the best means for a right information.

[Page 74] (4.) That where occasional Communion is lawful, constant Communion is a Duty. Which follows from the Divines of the Assembly blaming the Dissenting Brethren for allowing the lawfulness of occasional Com­munion with our Churches, and yet forbearing ordi­nary Communion with them. For, say they, to sepa­rate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly, with whom occasionally you may joyn, seemeth to be a most un­just Separation.

(5.) That withdrawing from the Communion of a True Church, and setting up Congregations for purer Worship, or under another Rule, is plain and down­right Separation; as is most evident from the Answer of the Divines of the Assembly to the Dissenting Bre­thren.

Sect. 16. From all this it appears, that the pre­sent practice of Separation can never be justified, by the old Non-conformists Principles; nor by the Do­ctrine of the Assembly of Divines. The former is clear from undeniable Evidence, and the latter is in effect confessed by all my Adversaries. Baxter's An­swer, p. 89. Dr. O. p. 50. For, although they endeavour all they can, to blind the Readers Judg­ment, with finding out the disparity of some circum­stances, which was never denied; yet not one of them can deny, that it was their Judgment, That the holding of Separate Congregations for Worship, where there was an agreement in Doctrine, and the substantials of Religion, was Vnlawful, and Schismati­cal. And this was the point, for which I produced their Testimony in my Sermon: and it still stands good against them. For their resolution of the case, [Page 75] doth not depend upon the particular circumstances of that time, but upon General Reasons drawn from the Obligations to preserve Vnity in Churches; which must have equal force at all times, although there happen a great variety, as to some circumstan­ces. For whether the greater purity of Worship be pleaded, as to one circumstance, or another, the ge­neral case, as to Separation, is the same: whether the Scruples do relate to some Ceremonies required, or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline; if they be such as they pretend to, a necessity of Separation on their Account; it comes at last to the same point. Was it unlawful to desire a Li­berty of Separate Congregations, as the Dissenting Brethren did, because of some Scruples of Conscience in them? and is it not equally unlawful in others, who have no more but Scruples of Conscience to plead, although they relate to different things? I will put this case as plain as possible, to prevent all subter­fuges and slight evasions. Suppose five Dissenting Brethren now, should plead the necessity of having Separate Congregations, on the account of very diffe­rent Scruples of Conscience; one of them pleads, that his Company scruple the use of an imposed Liturgy: another saith, His People do not scruple that, but they cannot bear the Sign of the Cross, or Kneel­ing at the Communion; a third saith, If all these were away, yet if their Church be not rightly gather'd and constituted, as to matter and form, they must have a Congregation of their own; a fourth goes yet far­ther, and saith, Let their Congregation be constituted how it will, if they allow Infant-Baptism, they can never joyn with them; nor, saith a fifth, can we, as long as you allow Preaching by set forms, and your [Page 76] Ministers stint themselves by Hour-glasses, and such like Human Inventions: Here are now very diffe­rent scruples of Conscience; but, Doth the nature of the case vary, according to the bare difference of the Scruples? One Congregation scruples any kind of Order as an unreasonable Imposition and restraint of the Spirit, is Separation on that account lawful? No, say all other Parties against the Quakers; because their scruples are unreasonable. But is it lawful for a Congregation to separate on the account of Infant-Baptism? No, say the Presbyterians and Independents, that is an unreasonable Scruple. Is it lawful for Men to Separate to have greater purity in the frame and order of Churches, although they may occasionally joyn in the duties of Worship? No, saith the Presby­terians, this makes way for all manner of Schism's and Divisions, if meer scruple of Conscience be a sufficient ground for Separation: and if they can joyn occasio­nally with us, they are bound to do it constantly; or else the obligation to Peace and Unity in the Church signifies little: No Man's Erroneous Consci­ence can excuse him from Schism. If they alledge grounds to justifie themselves, they must be such as can do it ex naturâ rei, and not from the meer er­ror or mistake of Conscience. But, at last, the Pres­byterians themselves come to be required to joyn with their Companies in Communion with the Church of England, and if they do not, either they must de­sire a separate Congregation, on the account of their Scruples, as to the Ceremonies, and then the former Arguments unavoidably return upon them. (For the Church of England hath as much occasion to ac­count those Scruples Vnreasonable, as they do those of the Independents, Anabaptists, and Quakers,) Or [Page 77] else they declare, They can joyn occasionally in Com­munion with our Church, but yet hold it lawful to have separate Congregations for greater Purity of Wor­ship; and then the obligation to Peace and Vnity ought to have as much force on them, with respect to our Church, as ever they thought it ought to have on the dissenting Brethren, with respect to themselves. For no disparity, as to other Circumstances, can alter the nature of this Case; viz. That as far as Men judge Communion lawfull, it becomes a Duty, and Se­paration a Sin; under what denomination soever the persons pass. For the fault doth not lie in the Cir­cumstances, but in the nature of the Act; because then Separation appears most unreasonable, when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful. As will fully appear by the following Discourse. Those Men therefore speak most agreeably to their present practice, although least for the honor of the Assembly, who confess, Mischief of Impos. p. 58, 68, 69. That they were transported with undue heats, and animosities against their Brethren; which deserve to be lamented, and not to be imitated; that they are not obliged to vindicate all they said, nor to be concluded by their Determinations: [...]etter out of the Country, p. [...]8. that it is to be ho­ped, the Party is become wiser since. This is plain dealing, and giving up the Cause to the dissenting Brethren; and that in a matter wherein they happen­ed to have the strongest reason of their side. But hereby we see, that those who justifie the present Se­paration have forsaken the Principles and Practices of the old Non-conformists; as to this point of Separa­tion.

Sect. 17. It remains now, that I shew how far they are likewise gone off from the Peaceable Principles [Page 78] of their Predecessors, as to private persons underta­king to reform the Discipline of the Church, and set­ting up new Churches, against the consent of the Magi­strate, in a Reformed Church: and particularly, as to the Preaching of their Ministers, when Silenced by our Law's This I am the more obliged to do, because when I said, That I was certain, that Preaching in opposition to our Established Laws, is contrary to the doctrine of all the Non-conformists of former times, Mr. B. is pleased to say, Answ. to my Sermon, p. 21. That my Assertion is so rash and false, in matters of notorious Fact, that it weakeneth his Re­verence of my Iudgment, in matters of right. I should desire no better Terms from Mr. B. as to the matter of right in this present Controversie, than that he would be determin'd by the plain Evidence of the Fact; and if what I said be true, and notoriously true, I shall leave him to consider on whose side the Rashness lies.

Giffard makes this one principal part of Brownism, Giffard's An­swer to the Brownists, p. 104. That Churches are to be set up, and Discipline reform­ed, without the consent of the Christian Magistrate: Brown maketh many Arguments, saith he, to prove, that Princes are not to be stayed for, nor yet to have to do, by Publick Power, to establish Religion. Which Opinion of his, is such abridging the Sacred Power of Princes, and such horrib [...] Injury to the Church, con­trary to the manifest Word of God, that if there were nothing else, it is enough to make him an odious and de­testable Heretick, untill he shew Repentance. But to clear this matter, he distinguishes, (1.) of Princes that are enemies to Christianity; as they were in the time of the Apostles; to what end, saith he, should they, ha­ving Authority from Christ, to establish Discipline, sue [Page 79] unto the Courts of such Princes, or attend their plea­sure. (2.) Of such who profess Christianity, but are Idolaters. In this case, he saith, they are neither [...]ound to forbear Preaching, nor setting up Discipline if they do oppose it. (3.) Of such Princes, who own the true Doctrine of Christianity, but the Churches in their Dominions are corrupt in Discipline. In this case he determines, That though every Man is to take care to keep a good Conscience, yet no private persons are to break the Vnity and Peace of the Faithful, or to take upon them Publick Authority to reform: which he there proves, and concludes it to be a wicked and dangerous Principle in the Brownists to hold the contrary.

In Answer to this, Barrow a­gainst Gif­fard, p. 105. Barrow saith, That the Servants of God ought not to be stayed from doing the Com­mandments of God, upon any restraint, or persecution of any Mortal Man whatsoever; and for this he quotes the example of the Apostles, who then had been guilty of the same disobedience and rebellion, if Princes had been to be stayed for, or their restraint been a suffi­cient let: and adds, That they only, according to Gods Commandment, refrained from their Idolatry, and other Publick Evils, and Assembled together in all holy and peaceable manner, to Worship the Lord our God, and to joyn our selves together in the Faith, unto mu­tual Duties, and to seek that Government which Christ left to his Church, and for the Church to erect the same.

To the Instance of the Apostles, Giffard had Answer­ed, That they were furnished with an extraordinary Authority and Commission by Christ, to set up his King­dom: [Page 80] but ye have no Commission from God, it is the Devil that hath set you forward; And will ye, in such vile and wretched manner, pretend the Examples of the Primitive Churches? Barrow replies, If the Command­ment of God were sufficient warrant to the Apostles to do their Work, though all the Princes of the World resist­ed; then must the Commandment of the same God, be of the same effect to all other Instruments, whom it plea­seth the Lord to use in their callings to his Service also, though all the Princes in the World should withstand, and forbid the same. By this we see, this was a great point in controversie between the Brownists and Non-conformists. Which will more appear by the Dispute between Fr. Iohnson and Iacob. For among the points of false Doctrine which he charges the Non-conformists with, Page 70, 72. whom they called the for­ward Preachers; these are two.

1. That the planting, or reforming of Christ's Church must tarry for the Civil Magistrate, and may not otherwise be brought in by the Word and Spirit of God in the Mouths of his weakest Servants, except they have Authority from Earthly Princes; which Doctrine, saith he, is against the Kingly Power of Christ, and three whole Lines of Scripture, which he there puts to­gether.

2. That it is lawful for a Minister of Christ to cease Preaching, and to forsake his Flock, at the command­ment of a Lord Bishop: Which Doctrine, he saith, is contrary to two Lines of Scripture more, with the bare numbers of Chapter and Verse. But, lest it should be supposed, that these two were among those which Iacob saith, he falsly laid to their charge; we find [Page 81] both these Doctrines owned by the several Non-con­formists, Confut. of the Brown. p. 51. who joyned together in a Confutation of the Brownists. For, say they, As to the Peoples power of Reforming,

First, We cannot find any Warrant in Holy Scrip­ture, for them that are private Members of any Church, to erect the Discipline, no not though the Magistrate and Ministers, who should deal in this work, were altoge­ther profane and ungodly.

Secondly, We esteem our Prince to be a most Law­ful and Christian Magistrate, and our Ministers to be true Ministers of Christ, and therefore we are justly a­fraid, that by enterprising a publick Reformation, not on­ly without, but contrary to the direction and liking of them, who by God's word ought to have, if not the one­ly, yet the principal hand in that work, we should high­ly offend God.

Thirdly, That for the want of Publick Reformation, the Magistrate is every where blamed, and no where the Church, for ought we can find: Oft are the Priests and People blamed for erecting and practising Idolatry, Page 2 [...] ▪ but never for that they plucked it not down, when their Princes had set it up; neither can we find, whether ever the Church, under a Christian Magistrate, was by any Prophet, either commanded to deal (otherwise than by perswasion) in publick Reformation, when the Ma­gistrate neglected it; or reproved for the contrary.

Fourthly, To the Instance of the Apostles they An­swer Two things.

[Page 82] I. That though they set up Church-Government with­out the Magistrates leave; yet not contrary to his li­king; or when he opposed his Authority directly, and in­hibited it; they never erected the Discipline, when there was so direct an opposition made against it by the Civil Magistrates.

II. If it could be proved that the Apostles did so then, yet would it not follow, that we may do so now; for neither was the Heathen Magistrate altogether so much to be respected by the Church, as the Christian Ma­gistrate is; neither have our Ministers and People now so full and absolute a power, to pull down, and set up Orders in the Church, as the Apostles (those wise Ma­ster-builders) had.

Fifthly, As to their Ministers Preaching being Si­lenced, they declare,

1. So long as the Bishops Suspend, Page 41. and Deprive, ac­cording to the Law of the Land, we account of the Action herein, as of the Act of the Church, which we may and ought to reverence, and yield unto; if they do other­wise, we have liberty given us by the Law to appeal from them. If it be said, the Church is not to be obey'd when it Suspends and deprives us, for such causes as we in our Consciences know to be insuffici­ent. We Answer, That it lieth on them to Depose, who may Ordain; and they may shut that may open. And as he may, with a good Conscience execute a Ministery, by the Ordination and Calling of the Church, who is privy to himself of some unfitness (if the Church will press him to it) so may he who is privy to himself, of no fault [Page 83] that deserveth Deprivation, cease from the execution of his Ministery, when he is pressed thereunto by the Church. And if a guiltless person, put out of his Charge by the Churches Authority, may yet continue in it, What proceedings can there be against guilty persons, who, in their own conceit, are alwayes guilt­less, or will at least pretend so to be; seeing they will be ready alwayes to object against the Churches Iudg­ment, That they are called of God, and may not there­fore give over the Execution of their Ministery at the will of Bishops? The Second Quaere.

2. That the case of the Apostles was very different from theirs in Three respects.

First. They that Inhibited the Apostles, were known and professed enemies to the Gospel.

Secondly. The Apostles were charged not to teach in the Name of Christ, nor to publish any part of the Gospel, which Commandment might more hardly be yielded unto, than this of our Bishops, who, though they cannot endure them which teach that part of the Truth that concerneth the good Government, and Re­formation of the Church, yet are they not only content that the Gospel should be Preached, but are also Preach­ers of it themselves.

Thirdly. The Apostles received not their Calling and Authority from Men, nor by the hands of Men, but im­mediately from God himself, and therefore also might not be restrain'd or deposed by Men; whereas we, though we exercise a Function, whereof God is the Author, and we are also called of God to it, yet are we called and [Page 84] ordained by the hands and Ministery of Men, and may therefore by the Ministery of Men be also deposed, and restrained from the Exercise of our Ministery.

To this, Answer to Letter, p. 22. which I had referred Mr. B. to, he gives this Answer, If Mr. Rathband hath denied this, it had been no proof. Did I ever mention Mr. Rath­band's Testimony as a sufficient proof? My words are, That I was certain their Practice was contrary to the Doctrine of all the Non-conformists, as you may see in the Book published in their name by Mr. Rathband. Can any thing be plainer, than that the Book was written by the Non-conformists, and that Mr. Rathband was only the Publisher of it? This way of Answering is just, as if one should quote a passage out of Curcellaeus his Greek Testament, and another should reply, If Curcellaeus said so, it had been no proof. Can Mr. B. satisfie his Mind with such Answers?

When Fr. Iohnson said, Vnreasona­bleness of Separation, p. 89. That our Ministers ought not to suffer themselves to be Silenced and Deposed from their Publick Ministery, no not by Lawful Magistrates. Mr. Bradshaw Answered, This Assertion is false and seditious. And when Iohnson saith, That the Apostles did not make their immediate Calling from God the ground of their refusal; but this, that they ought to obey God rather than Man; which is a Duty required of all Ministers and Christians. Bradshaw (a Person formerly in great esteem with Mr. Baxter, and high­ly commended by the Author of the Vindication of his Dispute with Iohnson) gives this Answer.

[Page 85] 1. Though the Apostles did not assign their immedi­ate Calling from God, as the Ground of their refusal, in so many Letters and Syllables, yet that which they do assign, is by Implication, and in effect the same with it. For it is as much as if they had said, God himself hath imposed this Calling upon us, and not Man; and therefore except we should rather obey Man than God, we may not forbear this Office which he hath imposed upon us. For, opposing the Obedience of God to the obedience of Man, they therein plead a Calling from God, and not from Man; otherwise, if they had received a Calling from Man, there had been incongruity in the Answer; considering, that in common sense and reason, they ought so far forth to obey Men, forbidding them to ex­ercise a Calling, as they exercise the same by vertue of that Calling. Else, by this reason, a Minister should not cease to Preach, upon the Commandment of the Church, that hath chosen him; but should be bound, to give them also the same Answer, which the Apostles gave, which were absurd. So that by this gross conceit of Mr. John­son, there should be no Power in any sort of Men who­soever, to depose a Minister from his Ministery; but that nowithstanding any Commandment of Church or State, the Minister is to continue in his Mini­stery.

2. For the further Answer of this his ignorant conceit, plainly tending to Sedition, we are to know, that though the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, Preached Pub­lickly, where they were not hindred by open violence; and did not, nor might not leave their Ministery upon any Human Authority, or Commandment whatsoever, be­cause they did not enter into, or exercise the same upon [Page 86] the will and pleasure of any Man whatsoever; yet they never erected and planted Publick Churches and Mini­steries in the Face of the Magistrate, whether they would or no; or in despite of them; but such, in respect of the Eye of the Magistrate, were as private and invisible as might be.

3. Neither were some of the Apostles only forbidden, so as others should be suffered to Preach the same Gos­pel in their places; but the utter abolishing of Christian Religion was manifestly intended in Silencing of them. But our Churches whereof we are Ministers, are no pri­vate and secret Assemblies, such as hide themselves from the Face of a persecuting Magistrate and State; but are publick, professing their Worship, and doing their Religi­on in the face of the Magistrate and State; yea, and by his Countenance, Authority and Protection; and we are set over those Churches, not only by a Calling of our Peo­ple, but also by the Authority of the Magistrate, who hath an Armed Power to hinder any such publick action; who is willing also to permit and maintain other true Mini­sters of the Gospel, in those places where he forbiddeth some. If therefore after our publick calling, to Minister to such a known and Publick Church, not by the Church only, but by the Magistrate also, the Magistrate shall have matter against us (whether just or unjust it skil­leth not) and shall in that regard forbid us to Mini­ster to our Church; I see not by what Warrant in Gods Word, we should think our selves bound notwithstand­ing to exercise our Ministery still; except we should think such a Law of Ministery to lie upon us, that we should judge our selves bound to run upon the Swords point of the Magistrate, or to oppose Sword to Sword. And suppose the Magistrate should do it unjustly, and [Page 87] against the will of the Church, and should therein sin; yet doth not the Church in that regard cease to be a Churh, nor ought she therein to resist the Will of the Magistrate; neither doth she stand bound, in regard of her affection to her Minister (how great and deserving soever) to deprive her self of the Protection of the Magistrate, by leaving her publick standing, to follow his Ministery in private, and in the dark; refusing the benefit of all other Publick Ministery, which with the leave and liking of the Magistrate she may enjoy.

4. Neither do I know what warrant any ordinary Minister hath, by Gods Word, in such a case, so to draw any such Church or People to his private Ministery, that thereby they should hazard their outward state and quiet in the Common-wealth where they live; when in some competent measure they may publickly, with the grace and favor of the Magistrate, enjoy the ordinary means of Salvation by another: and (except he have a cal­ling to Minister in some Church) he is to be content to live as a private member, till it shall please God to re­concile the Magistrate to him, and to call him again to his own Church; labouring mean while privately, upon particular occasions offered, to strengthen and confirm in the wayes of God, those People that are deprived of his publick Labour. And I take it to be the duty of the People, in such a Case, if they will approve themselves faithful Christians, and good Subjects, so to submit to the Ministery of another, as that by Prayer, and all o­ther good, dutiful, and loyal means, they may do their best endeavor to obtain him, of whom, against their will, they have been deprived, and still to affect and love him as their Pastor: now, if the People do thus, then is [Page 88] that Minister called to be Silent, not only by the Magi­strate, but by them also, though with much grief.

To this Testimony of Mr. Bradshaw, Answer to Serm. p. 99. all that Mr. B. saith, is, That Bradshaw thought, we should submit to a Silencing Law, where our Ministery was unnecessa­ry, and so doth he. If Mr. B. did allow himself any time to consider what he writes, he would never have given such an Answer as this. For, Mr. Brad­shaw never puts the case upon the necessity, or no ne­cessity of their Preaching, but upon the allowance, or disallowance of the Christian Magistrate. And if it had been resolved upon the point of necessity, Is it possible for Mr. B. to think there was less necessity of Preaching at that time, than there is now, when him­self confesseth, several years since, That Thirty years ago, Defence of the Cure of Divisions, p. 55. there were many bare Reading, not Preaching Mi­nisters, for one that there is now? And what was there, which the old Non-conformists more complained of, than the want of a more Preaching Ministery? This then, could not be Mr. Bradshaw's Reason; and Mr. Baxter, upon second thoughts, cannot be of that opinion.

I have yet one Argument more, to prove this to have been the general sense of the Non-confor­mists; which is Mr. Sprints Argument for Conformi­ty in case of Deprivation; Cassand. Anglic. p. 2. Which is, that where two Duties do meet, a greater, and a less, whereof both cannot be done at the same time, the lesser duty must yield unto the greater; but this Doctrine of suffering Deprivation for not Conforming, teacheth, and the practice thereof causeth, to neglect a greater [Page 91] duty for performing of a less; therefore it seemeth to be an Error in Doctrine, and a Sin in Practice. The force of which Argument doth necessarily sup­pose, That Ministers, deprived by Law, are not to exercise their Ministerial Function in opposition to the Law's. And to confirm this, several Non-con­formists undertook to Answer this Argument, and to give an account of the disparity of the case, as to the Apostles times, and ours. For Mr. Sprint had ur­ged the instance of the Apostles to this purpose, since they submitted to Iewish Ceremonies rather than lose the liberty of their Ministery, they ought to yield to our Ceremonies on the same ground; to which they Answer; That the Apostles had far greater reason so to do; Page 232▪ because their Ministery was of far greater excellency, and usefulness, and therefore the Argument was of much greater weight with the Apostles, than it could be with them. For, say they, What one Mini­ster of the Gospel is there, that dare be so presumptuous, as to say, That his Preaching and Ministery can be of that necessity, and use for the Glory of God, and good of his Church; as was the Ministery of his Apostles? The work whereunto the Lord called and separated the Apo­stles (viz. the planting of the Church, and the Preach­ing the Gospel to all Nations) was such, as could not have been performed by any other, but the Apostles a­lone; but in deprivation of our Ministers that refuse conformity, there is no such danger, and of their Preach­ing there can be no such necessity imagined; though they Preach not, the Gospel is Preached still, and that soundly, and fruitfully. Did these Men think, the Apostles Woe be unto me if I Preach not the Gospel, did reach to their case? Can Mr. B. imagine, that such [Page 92] Men thought themselves still bound to Preach, al­though they were silenced by our Laws?

And now, I hope, I have proved that to be evi­dently True, which Mr. B. saith was notoriously false. But if after all this, Mr. B. will persist, in saying, That he knew those who did otherwise; all that I have to say to it, is, That I hope Mr. Bs. Acquaintance, both of the one, and the other Party (if they were such, as he represents) are not to be the Standard for all the rest; for, it seems, he was not very hap­py in either.

Sect. 1. HAving made it my busi­ness, in the foregoing Discourse, to shew, How far the present Dissenters are gone off from the Principles of the old Non-conformists; I come to consider, What those Principles are, which they now proceed upon;

And those are of Two sorts.

First, Of such as hold partial, and occasional Com­munion with our Churches to be lawful; but not total and constant, i. e. they judge it lawful at some times to be present in some part of our Worship, and upon particular occasions to partake of some acts of Com­munion with us; but yet, they apprehend greater pu­rity and edification in separate Congregations, and when they are to choose, they think themselves bound to choose these, although at certain seasons they may think it [Page 94] lawful to submit to occasional Communion with our Church, as it is now established.

Secondly, Of such as hold any Communion with our Church to be unlawful, because they believe the Terms of its Communion unlawful; for which they instance, in the constant use of the Liturgy; the Aereal sign of the Cross; kneeling at the Communion; the observation of Holy-dayes; renouncing other Assemblies; want of Dis­cipline in our Churches; and depriving the People of their Right in choosing their own Pastors.

To proceed with all possible clearness in this mat­ter, we must consider these Three things, 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several par­ties, with respect to our Church. 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and de­grees of Separation from it. 3. What the true State of the present Controversie about Separation, is.

I. In General, they cannot deny these three things.

• 1. That there is no reason of Separation, be­cause of the Doctrine of our Church.
• 2. That there is no other reason of Separation because of the Terms of our Communi­on, than what was from the beginning of the Reformation.
• 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still allowed by the Reformed Churches abroad.

[Page 95] 1. That there is no Reason of Separation, because of the Doctrine of our Church. This was confessed by the Brownists, and most rigid Separatists; as is proved already; and our present Adversaries agree herein. Vindication of Non con­formists, p. 8, 9. Dr. Owen saith, We agree with our Brethren in the Faith of the Gospel; and we are firmly united with the main Body of Protestants in this Nation, in Confession of the same Faith: And again, The Parties at difference do agree in all Substantial parts of Reli­gion, Page 22. and in a Common Interest, as unto the preservati­on and defence of the Protestant Religion. Mr. Baxter saith, That they agree with us in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles, Answ. to Serm. p. 27. as distinct from the form of Government, and imposed abuses. And more fully elsewhere, Is not the Non conformists Doctrine the same with that of the Church of England, when they subscribe to it, and offer so to do? Defence of the Cure of Divisions, p. 64. The Independents as well as Presbyte­rians offer to subscribe to the Doctrine of the 39 Arti­cles, as distinct from Prelacy and Ceremony. We agree with them in the Doctrine of Faith, Restor of Sutton, p. 15. and the Substance of God's Worship, saith the Author of the last Answer. And again, We are one with the Church of England in all the necessary points of Faith, Page 30. and Christian Practice, We are one with the Church of England as to the Sub­stance, and all necessary parts of God's Worship And even Mr. A. after many trifling cavils, acknowledges, That the Dissenters generally agree with that Book which is commonly called the 39 Articles, Mischief of Imposition. Preface. which was compiled above a Hundred years ago; and this Book some Men call the Church of England. I know not who those Men are, nor by what Figure they speak, who call a Book a Church; but this we all say, That the Do­ctrine of the Church of England is contained therein; [Page 96] and whatever the opinions of private persons may be, this is the Standard by which the Sense of our Church is to be taken: And that no objection ought to be made, against Communion with our Church, upon ac­count of the Doctrine of it; but what reaches to such Articles as are owned and received by this Church.

2. That there are in effect no new termes of Com­munion with this Church, but the same, which our first Reformers owned, and suffered Marty [...]dom for, in Q. Maries days. Not, but that some alterations have been made since, but not such as do, in the Judg­ment of our Brethren, make the terms of Communi­on harder than before. Mr. Baxter grants, that the terms of Lay Communion are rather made easier by such Alterations, even since the additional Conformity, with respect to the late Troubles. The same Rea­sons then, which would now make the terms of our Communion unlawful, must have held against Cranmer, Ridley, Iacob against Johnson, p. 21, 23, 29, 32, 33, 37, 40, 42, 47, 54, 68, 79, 82. &c. who laid down their Lives for the Re­formation of this Church. And this the old Non-con­formists thought a considerable Argument against Separating from the Communion of our Church; because it reflected much on the honor of our Martyrs; who not only lived and died in the Communion of this Church; Bradshaw's Answer to Johnson's Third Reason Sect. 2. Giffard a­gainst Brow: p. 97, 98, 10 [...]. and in the practice of those things, which some are now most offended at; but were themselves the great Instruments in setling the Terms of our Commu­nion.

3. That Communion with our Church hath been still owned by the Protestant and Reformed Churches abroad. Which they have not only manifested, by receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into [Page 97] the Harmony of Confessions; but by the Testimony and Approbation which hath been given to it, by the most Esteemed, and Learned Writers of those Churches, and by the discountenance which they have still gi­ven to Separation from the Communion of it. This Argument was often objected against the Separatists, by the Non-conformists; and Ainsworth attempts to Answer it no less than Four times in one Book; but the best Answer he gives, Counterpoy­son, p. 9. 10, 27, 51, 92. is, That if it prove any thing, it proves more than they would have For, saith he, the Reformed Churches have discerned the National Church of England to be a true Church; they have discerned the Diocesan Bishops of England, as well as the Parish-Priests to be true Ministers; and rejoyce as well for their Sees, as for your Parishes, having joyned these all alike in the [...]r Harmony. As to the good opinion of the Reformed Church, and Prote­stant Divines abroad, concerning the Constitution and Orders of our Church, so much hath been proved al­ready by Dr. Durel, and so little or nothing hath been said to disprove his Evidence, that this ought to be taken as a thing granted; but, if occasion be given, both he and o [...]hers are able to produce much more from the Testimony of foreign Divines, in Ju­stification of the Communion of our Church against all pretences of Separation from it.

Sect. 2. We now come to the several Hypotheses and Principles of Separation, which are at this day among the Dissenters from our Church.

Some do seem to allow Separate Congregations on­ly in such places where the Churches are not capable to receive the Inhabitants. For this I find insisted on, by [Page 98] almost all my Answerers; Letter out of the Country, p. 34. Some Parishes, saith one, cannot receive a tenth part, some not half the People, belonging to them, few can receive all. The Parochial Teacher, saith another, is overlaid with a numerous throng of People. Mischief of Imposition. Preface. Rector of Sutton, &c. p. 35. The Parish Ministers are not near sufficient for so populous a City, saith a third. And yet not one of these, but assignes such reasons, for the necessity of Separate Congregations, as would equal­ly hold, if there were never a Church in London, but what would hold all the Inhabitants together. This is therefore but a color, and pretence, and no real Cause. Any one would think, by Mr. Baxter's in­sisting so very much, on the greatness and largeness of our Parishes, as the Reason of his Preaching in separate Congregations, this were his opinion, that such Con­gregations are only allowable in such vast Parishes, where they are helps to the Parochial Churches: And no Man denies, that more places for Worship are desireable, and would be very useful, where they may be had, and the same way of Worship and Order observed in them, as in our Parochial Churches; where they may be under the same Inspection, and Ecclesiastical Government; where, upon pretence of greater Puri­ty of Worship, and better means of Edification, the People are not drawn into Separation. But, is it pos­sible that Mr. Baxter should think the case alike, where the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected, the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemn­ed; and such Meetings are kept up in affront to them, and the Laws? Would Mr. B. have thought this a sufficient Reason for Mr. Tombs to have set up a Meeting of Anabaptists in Kidderminster, because it is a very large Parish? Or for R. Williams in New-England to have set up a Separate Congregation at [Page 99] Boston, because there were but three Churches there, to receive all the numerous Inhabitants? If such a number of Churches could be built, as were suitable to the greatness, and extent of Parishes, we should be so far from opposing it, that we should be very thank­ful to those who would accomplish so excellent a Work: but, in the mean time, Is this just and reaso­nable, to draw away the People, who come to our Churches, under the pretence of Preaching to those who cannot come? For, upon consideration, we shall find,

(1.) That this is Mr. Baxter's own case. For, if we observe him, Answ. to Let. p. 24. although he sometimes pretends only to Preach to some of many thousands, that cannot come into the Temples, many of which never heard a Sermon of many years; and to this purpose he put so many Quaere 's to me, concerning the largeness of Pa­rishes, and the necessity of more Assistants, thereby to insinuate, That what he did, was only to Preach to such, as could not come to our Churches; yet, when he is pinch'd with the point of Separation, then he de­clares, That his hearers are the same with ours; at least 10 or 20 for one; Ans. to Let­ter, p 17. Answer to Sermon, p. 57. and that he knows not many (if any) who use to hear him, that Separate from us. If this be true, as no doubt Mr. B. believes it, then what such mighty help, or assistance is this to our great Parishes? What color, or pretence is there from the largeness of them, that he should Preach to the very same persons, who come to our Churches? And if such Meetings as theirs be only lawful in great Pa­rishes, where they Preach to some of many thousands who cannot come into the Churches, Then how come they to be lawful, where few or none of those many [Page 100] thousands ever come at all, but they are fil­led with the very same Persons, who come to our Parish Churches? These two pretences then are in­consistent with each other; and one of them cannot hold. For if he doth Preach to those who come to our Churches, and scarce to any else (i [...] any, as Mr. B. sup­poses) then all the pretence from the large [...]ess of our Parishes, and the many thousands who cannot come to our Churches, is vain and impertinent; and, to Speak Softly, not becoming Mr. Baxter's since­rity.

(2.) That if this were Mr. Baxter's own case, viz. That he Preached only to such, as could not come to our Churches, it would be no defence of the general pra­ctice of Dissenters, who express no regard at all to the greatness or smallness of Parishes. As, if it were necessary, might be proved, by an Induction of the particular Congregations within the City; and in the adjacent Parishes. Either those separarate Meetings are lawful or not; if not, Why doth not Mr. Baxter disown them? if they be, Why doth he p [...]etend the greatness of Parishes to justifie Separate M [...]etings; when, if they were never so small, they would be lawful however? This therefore must be set aside, as a mee [...] color and pretence, which he thought plausible for himself, and invidious to us, though the bounds of our Parishes were ne [...]ther of our own making, nor is it in our power to alter them. And we shall find, that Mr. B. doth justifie them upon other grounds, which have no relation at all to the extent of Parishes, or capacity of Churches. I come therefore to the real grounds which they proceed upon.

[Page 101] Sect. 3. Some do allow Communion with some Pa­rochial Churches, in some duties, at some Seasons; but not with all Churches, in all Duties, or at all times. These things must be more particulary explained, for a right understanding the Mystery of the present Se­paration. Which proceeds not so openly and plain­ly, as the old Separation did; but hath such artifici­al windings and turnings in it, that a Man thinks they are very near our Church, when they are at a great distance from it. If we charge them with fol­lowing the steps of the old Separatists, we utterly deny it, for, say they; For they separated from your Churches as no true Churches; they disowned your Mini­stery and Hierarchy as Antichristian, and looked on your Worship as Idolatrous; but we do none of these things; and therefore you charge us unjustly with Separation. To which I Answer,

(1.) There are many still, especially of the Peo­ple, who pursue the Principles of the old Separatists; of whom Mr B. hath spoken very well in his Cure of Divisions, and the Defence of it; and elsewhere. Where he complains, Cure of Di­vis. p. 393. of their Violence, and Censoriousness: their contempt of the Gravest and Wisest Pastors; and forcing others to forsake their own judgments to comply with their humors. And, he saith, A sinful humoring of rash Professors, is as great a Temptation to them, as a sinful compliance with the Great Ones of the World. In another place he saith, Sacrileg. de­sertion, p. 102. &c. The People will not endure any Forms of Prayers among them, but they declare they would be gone from them, if they do use them. And he doth not dissemble, that they do comply with them, in these remarkable words, Should the Mini­sters in London, that have suffer'd so long, but use any [Page 102] part of the Liturgy and Scripture Forms, though without any Motive but the pleasing God and the Churches good, What Muttering and Censuring would then be among them? And Woe to those few Teachers that make up their Designs by cherishing these Distem­pers. One would think, that their warning had been fair; but, Si nati sint ad bis perdendam Angliam; The Lord have Mercy upon us.

(2.) When the matter is throughly examined, the difference between the Teachers, and the old Separatists, will be found not near so great as is pre­tended. For what matter is it, as to the nature of Separation, whether the terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous, or Vnlawful; whether the Mini­stery of our Church be called a False Ministery, or In­sufficient, Scandalous, Vsurpers, and Persecutors; whe­ther our Hierarchy be called Antichristian, or Repug­nant to the Institution of Christ. Now these are the very same Arguments, which the old Separatists used, only they are disguised under another appearance, and put into a more fashionable dress. As will be manifest by Particulars.

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

Sect. 4. (I.) Our present Dissenters who dis­own the old Separation, yet make the terms of Lay-Communion for Persons, as Members of our Church, to be unlawful. For, First Plea, Sect. 9. p. [...]41. Mr. B. in his late Plea for Peace, hath a whole Chapter of Reasons against the Communion of Laymen with our Church. And in the same Book he [Page 103] saith, It is Schismatical in a Church to deny Baptism, without the Transient Sign of the Cross, or for want of Godfathers, &c. or to deny the Communion to such who scruple kneeling. Page 45. Now, if the Church be Schismatical, then those who Separate in these things are not. For saith Mr. B. When the Laity cannot have their Children Baptized without such use of the Transient Dedicating Image of the Cross; Answ. to Serm p. 49. and such use of Entitling and Co­venanting Godfathers, which they take to be no small sin; Is it Separation to joyn with Pastors that will otherwise Baptize them? We see the Church is Schismatical in requiring these things, and Mr. B. thinks the Peo­ple bound to joyn with other Pastors that will not use them; And what is this but formal Separation? But for all this, Mr. B. may hold, that total renouncing of Communion with our Church may be Schismatical; for, he saith, Plea for Peace, p. 47. it may be Schism to Separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles, Practises, and Persons, if those be not such, and so great, as to necessi­tate our departure from them. But here Mr. B. saith, There is a necessity of departure, and to joyn with other Pastors; and therefore he must hold a formal Separa­tion: And as to the renouncing total Communion with our Church, that was never done by the greatest Se­paratists. For they all held Communion in Faith with it: And even Brown, the Head of the old Separatists, thought it lawful to joyn with our Church in some Acts of Worship; and others thought, they might joyn in Acts of private and Christian Communion, but not in Acts of Church Communion; others thought it law­ful to joyn in hearing Sermons and Pulpit Prayers, though not in others; and yet were charged with Se­paration by the old Non-conformists. And if our pre­sent Dissenters do hold the terms of Communion with [Page 104] our Church to be unlawful; they must hold a neces­sity of Separation, or that persons may be good Chri­stians, and yet be no Members of any Church. For, if it be unlawful to communicate as Members of our Church, they must either not communicate at all as Members of any Church, or as Members of a distinct and Separate Church from ours. If they declare them­selves Members of another Church, they own as plain a Separation, as the old Separatists ever did: if they do not, and yet hold it unlawful to Communicate with our Churches as Members, then they are Members of no Church at all. So that, if they hold the terms of our Communion unlawful; they must either be Sepa­ratists, or no good Christians upon their own Princi­ples. Letter out of the Country, &c. p. 9. For, saith the Author of the Letter out of the Country; this were to exchange visible Christianity, for visible (at least Negative) Paganism. Now, that our present dissenters do hold the terms of our Commu­nion unlawful, they are more forward to declare, than I could have imagined. In my Sermon I mentioned some passages, wherein it seemed clear to me, that some considerable persons among them did allow Lay communion with our Church to be lawful: But they have taken a great deal of pains to undeceive me; some declaring in express terms, That they look on the terms of our Communion as unlawful, and that there is a necessity of Separation from our Parochial Churches, and of joyning to other Congregations. And others saying, Dr. O. Vin­dication, &c. p. 35. That such a Concession, viz. That they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful, taken in their own sense, will neither do them any harm, nor us any service. For, as Mr. A. hath summed up the sense of these Men. Mischief of Impositions, &c. p. 36. 1. Many of them declare so, and many declare otherwise—And it's as good [Page 105] an Argument to prove Communion unlawful, because ma­ny declare against it, as 'tis to prove it lawful, be­cause many declare for it. 2. They d [...]clare Communion lawful, but. D [...] they declare Total Communion law­ful? The same Persons will tell us, that both these Pro­positions are [...]ue Communion is lawful▪ and Communi­on is unlawful; Communion in some parts of Worship is so, in others not. And, 3. Th [...]y will further tell us, That Communion with some Parish chu [...]ches is lawful, with others unlawful; that there are not the same Do­ctrines Preached, the same Ceremonies urged, the same rigid terms of Communion in all Churches exacted. And lastly, that occasional Communion is, or may be lawful, where a stated and fixed Communion is not so; and they give this Reason for their Iudgment and practice, because to hold Communion with one Church, or sort of Christians, exclusively to all others, is contrary to their true Catholick Principles, which teach them to hold Communion, though not equally, with all tolerable Churches; and that there are some things tolerable, which are not eligible, wherein they can bear with much for Peace sake, but chuse rather to sit down or­dinarily with Purer Administrations. Here we have the Principles of the New Separation laid toge­ther.

1. Many of them hold Communion with our Church unlawful; and that must be understood of any kind of Communion; for the Second sort, from whom they are distinguish [...]d, hold total Communion un­lawful; and therefore this first sort must hold Com­munion in any parts of Worship unlawful. And so they exceed the more moderate Separatists of Robinson's, [Page 106] and the New-England way; and must fall into the way of the most rigid Separatists.

2. Those that do hold Communion lawful, do it with so many restrictions and limitations, that in pra­ctice it amounts to little more than the other. For First, It is only with some Churches; and those it seems must be such, as do not hold to our Constitu­tion; for he saith, The same Ceremonies are not urged in all Churches, nor the same rigid terms of Communi­on exacted, i. e. If any Churches among us comply with them, they can Communicate with them, i. e. if they break their own Rules, they can joyn with them. Is not this an admirable way of Communica­ting with our Churches? But, if our Churches hold to their Rule, and observe the Orders prescribed, then it seems they renounce all Communion with them as unlawful. And what is this but to deny Communion with the Church of England? For unless Parochial Churches depart from the terms of Commu­nion required by it, they will have no Communion with them.

And Mr. A. delivers this, not only as his own Opinion▪ Mischief of Impositions, p. 65. but as the Sense of the Party, That if most of the Preachers in the Separate Meetings were Asked their Iudgments, about the Lawfulness of Ioyning with the Parochial Churches in all the parts of Worship, or in any exclusive to their joyning with other Assemblies, where the Gospel Rule is more strictly observed, they would flatly deny it. And he goes yet further, when he saith, That the People cannot lawfully Separate from those Churches whereof they are regularly Mem­bers, and from those Pastors, under whose Ministerial Conduct their own Free Election hath placed them, to [Page 107] joyn ordinarily and constantly with any other particular Churches. This is owning a plain and downright Separation, in as clear and distinct words as ever Iohn­son or Ainsworth did. For, 1. He makes it to be their general sense, That it is unlawful to communi­cate with our Churches ordinarily and constantly, or to be Members of our Churches: Which is the same thing which they said. 2. He ownes the setting up new and distinct Churches in plain opposition to ours. For he owns other Pastors, other People, and a new Relation between these, by the choice of the one, and the con­duct of the other. This is no mincing the matter, as Mr. B. often doth; but he speaks it boldly, and with great assurance; and ushers it in with, I have confi­dence contrary to his. I think no Man doubts of his Confidence, that ever looked into his Book; but in this matter he is so brisk, that he saith, He doth not question that he should carry it by the Poll. And is withall so indiscreet as on this occasion to Triumph in the Poll of Non-conformists at Guildhall: as though all who gave their Votes there, had owned these Principles of Separation, for which, many of those Gentlemen will give him little thanks, and is a very unseasonable boasting of their Numbers.

(II.) All the difference then that seems to be left, is about the lawfulness of that which they call Occasional Communion. As to which, these things are to be observed. (1.) That it is practised by very few; especially if Mr. A 's. Poll be allowed. (2.) That it signifies little, as to this matter, if Men be fixed Members of other Churches. For the denomination of their Communion is to be taken from thence, and not from an Occasional and accidental Presence. For Communion with a Church, is joyning with a Church as [Page 108] a Member of that Church: And it is not occasional Presence at some parts of Worship, which makes a Man a Member of a Church. I suppose there are many oc­casionally present at Mr. A's, or Mr. B's Meetings, who renounce all Communion with them. A Protestant may be occasionally present at some parts of Worship in the Roman Church, and that frequently too, to hear Sermons, &c. but, Doth this make a Man to have Communion with the Church of Rome? Most of our Gentlemen who have Travelled abroad, have been thus occasionally present in some parts of the Romish Worship, at Rome and Paris; but they would think themselves hardly dealt with, to be charged to have had Communion with the Church of Rome. And if they be urged with it, they will plead still, They were of the Protestant Communion; and the Reason they will give, is, because they did not joyn with them in all parts of their Worship; not in adoration of the Host, or Worship of Images; and therefore they re­mained still of the Protestant Communion, although they were occasionally present at some parts of the Po­pish Service. And Is it not the same case here, If Men only afford an occasional Presence, at some parts of our Worship? How comes this to make them more to have Communion with our Church, than the like pre­sence would make them to have Communion with the Roman Church? In the beginning of Q Elizabeth's Reign, most of the Papists in England did offer an Occasional Presence at our Churches, in some parts of our Worship; and yet all that time were Members of the Roman Church, because they kept their Priests, and had Mass in private, and declared, That though they looked on our Service as tolerable, yet they thought the Roman more eligible; and so having Full Communion with [Page 109] that, and being only occasionally present at our Ser­vice, they thought themselves good Catholicks. So, if Men do look on the Separate Meetings as more eli­gible, and a better way of Worship; with which they constantly joyn, and alwayes choose to do it, their occa­sional Presence at our Assemblies, doth not make them Members of our Churches, but they still remain Members of the Separate Congregations, if they main­tain full and constant Communion with them. And none of the formed Separate Churches will look on any one as having Communion with them, for being occasionally present at some parts of their Worship; for they say, That Heathens and Indians may have such occasional Communion with them; but they require from Persons that are admitted to Communion with their Churches, a Submission to all the Rules and Or­ders among them. The New-England Churches will suffer no Man to continue a Member of their Commu­nion, that scruples Infant Baptism, or refuses to be pre­sent at the Administration of it; although he be ne­ver so willing to be occasionally present at all other parts of Worship with them. For not only openly con­demning and opposing Infant-Baptism, but going about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use there­of, or purposely departing the Congregation at the Admi­nistration of that Ordinance, is liable, by their Laws, to the Sentence of Banishment. And they have found it so necessary to twist the Civil and Ecclesiastical In­terests together, that as none but Church-Members are Free-men among them; so none that are banished can retain their Church-Membership. From all this, it ap­pears, that this new Notion of Occasional Communion, in some parts of Worship. exclusively to others, is dis­owned by all sorts of Churches; and is a late fancy [Page 110] taken up on purpose to avoid the charge of Sepa­ration.

Sect. 5. But we here meet with an excellent Rea­son for the lawfulness of this Occasional Communion with our Churches; viz. because to hold Communion with one Church exclusively to all others, is contrary to their true Catholick Principles, which teach them to hold Communion, though not equally, with all tolerable Churches. Or as Mr. B. expresses it, Sacrileg. de [...]ertion, p. 16. The benefit of Christian Love and Concord may make it best, for certain seasons, to joyn even in defective Modes of Worship, as Christ did in the Synagogues and Temple in his time: though the least defective must be chosen, when no such accidental Rea­sons sway the other way. From whence we may take notice, (1.) That no obligation to the Peace and Vnity of this Church, as they are Members of it, doth bring them to this occasional Communion with it, but a certain Romantick Fancy of Catholick Vnity; by which these Catholick Gentlemen think themselves no more obliged to the Communion of this Church, than of the Armenian or Abyssine Churches. Only it happens, that our Church is so much nearer to them, than the others are, and therefore they can afford it more occasional Communion. But I would suppose one of these Men of Catholick Principles to be at Ie­rusalem, where he might have occasional Communion with all sorts of the Eastern Churches; and some of the Members of those Churches should Ask him, What Church he is Member of? If he should Answer, He could have occasional Communion with all tolera­ble Churches, but was a fixed Member of none: Would they take such a Man for a Christian? What, a Christian, and a Member of no Church! That, they [Page 111] would all agree, was no part of Catholick Christia­nity. And I much doubt, whether any of them would admit such a one to occasional Communion, that could not tell what Church he was Member of. For, as to the Church of England, he declares, That he holds only occasional Communion with that, as he would do with any other tolerable Churches. But, Were they not Baptized in this Church, and received into Com­munion with it as Members of it? if so, then if they Communicate no otherwise with it, than as a tolera­ble defective Church, they must renounce their former Membership; for that did oblige them to fixed and constant Communion with it. And if they do re­nounce their Membership in this Church, their occasional Presence at some duties of Worship can never excuse them from Separation. We thank them, that they are pleased to account our Churches tolerable, but we cannot see, how in any tolerable sense they can be accounted Members of our Church; so that this great favor of occasional Communion, which they do not chuse but submit to for some accidental reasons, and some very good occasions, is not worth the speaking of among Friends; and so far from looking like Communion, that it hath hardly the face of a Civi­lity.

(2.) That, if the least defective way of Worship is to be chosen, as they say, then this occasional Communi­on cannot be lawful above once or twice in a Man's Life: For that is sufficient to shew their true Catho­lick Principles; and Mr. B. faith, When no such acciden­tal Reasons do sway, they are to choose the least de­fective way of Worship; or as Mr. A. speaks, To sit down ordinarily with purer Administrations. If then [Page 112] a Man be bound, out of love to his Soul, to prefer the best way of Worship, and he judges the way of the Se­parate Congregations to be such, there will arise a dif­ficult case of Conscience, concerning the lawfulness of this occasional Communion. For the same Reasons, which moved him to prefer one Communion above the other, will likewise induce him to think himself bound to adhere constantly to the one, and to for­sake the other. And why should a Man, that is ac­quainted with purer Administrations, give so much countenance to a defective way of Worship, and have any Communion with a Church which walks so disor­derly, and contrary to the Rules of the Gospel; and not reprove her rather, by a total forbearance of her Communion? And why should not those general Rules of approving the things that are more excellent, and holding fast that which is good, and not forsaking the Assembling themselves together, perswade such a Man, that it is not lawful to leave the best Commu­nion, meerly to shew, what defective, and tolerable Church he can communicate with? Which is, as if a Man should forsake his Muskmelons, to let others see what Pumpions he can swallow; or to leave whol­som Diet to feed on Mushroms, and Trash.

(3.) That here are no bounds set to the Peoples Fancies of Purer Administrations, and less defective wayes of Worship. So that there can be no stop to Separation in this way. Suppose some think our Churches tolerable, and Mr. B's. or Mr. A's. Meetings were eligible; but after a while, when the first rellish [...]. they afford occasional Communion to the [...] or Quakers, and then think their way more [...] and the other only tolerable; Are not these [Page 113] Men bound to forsake them, for the same Reasons, by which they were first moved to leave our Commu­nion, and joyn with them, unless they be secure, that the absolute perfection of their way of Wor­ship is so glaringly visible to all Mankind, that it is impossible for them, either to find or fancy any defect in it? Defence of the Cure of Divis. In­trod. p. 50. Mr. Baxter once very well said, Separa­tion will ruin the Separated Churches themselves at last; it will admit of no consistency. Parties will arise in the Separated Churches, and Separate again from them, till they are dissolved. Why might not R. Wil­liams of New-England (mention'd by Mr. B.) pro­ceed in his course of Separation from the Church of Salem, Ibid. p. 170. because he thought he had found out a purer and less defective way of Worship than theirs; as well as they might withdraw from our Churches on the like pretence? Why might he not go on still re­fining of Churches, till at last he dissolved his So­ciety, and declared, That every one should have li­berty to Worship God according to the light of his own Conscience? By which remarkable Instance we see, that this Principle, when pursued, will carry Men at last to the dissolution of all Churches.

Sect. 6. This I had objected to Mr. B. in my Let­ter, that upon his Principles the People might leave him to Morrow, and go to Dr. O. and leave him next week and go to the Anabaptists, and from them to the Quakers. Answ. p. 23. To which Mr. B. Answers; What harm will it do me or them, if any hearers go from me, as you say, to Dr. O. None, that I know. For, as Dr. O. saith, Dr. O. Vin­dicat. p. 20, Since your Practice is one and the same, your Principles must be so also, although you choose se­veral wayes of expressing them. But, Did the whole [Page 114] force of my Argument lie there? Did I not mention their going from him to the Anabaptists and Quakers, upon the very same ground? And, Is this a good way of Answering, to dissemble the main force of an Argument, that something may seem to be said to it? I suppose Mr. B's. great hast made him leave the best part of the Argument behind him. But I desire him calmly to weigh and consider it better; whether he doth think it reasonable to suppose, that since the Peace and Vnity of the Church is a thing of such great importance, Christian Di­rectory, part 3. p. 739, 741. and Separation so mischievous (as he hath represented it) that the Peoples appre­hension of a less defective way of Worship, shall be sufficient ground for them to break a Church in pieces, and to run into wayes of Separation? Hath not Mr. Baxter represented (and no Man better) the Ignorance, Sacrileg. de­sert, p. 102, &c. Injudiciousness, Pride, Conceited­ness and Vnpeaceabless of the ordinary sort of zealous Professors of Religion? And after all this, must they, upon a conceit of Purer Administrations, and Less Defective Wayes of Worship, be at liberty to rend and tear a Church into pieces; and run from one Sepa­rate Congregation to another, till they have run themselves out of breath, and left the best parts of their Religion behind them? How fully hath Mr. B. set forth the Vngovernable and Factious Humor of this sort of People, Cure of Di­vis. p. 393. and the Pernicious consequen­ces of complying with them? and, Must the Reins be laid in their Necks, that they may run whither they please? Because, forsooth, they know better, what is good for their Souls, than the King doth; and they love their Souls better than the King doth, Answ. to my Letter; p. 23. and the King cannot bind them to hurt, or Famish, or en­danger their Souls. But, Why must the King bear [Page 115] all the blame, if Mens Souls be not provided for ac­cording to their own wishes? Doth the King pre­tend to do any thing in this matter, but according to the establish'd Laws and Orders of this Church? Why did he not keep to the good old Phrase of King and Parliament? And why did he not put it as it ought to have been, that they know what makes better for their own Edification, than the Wisdom of the whole Nation in Parliament, and the Governors of this Church do: and let them make what Law's and Orders they will, if the People, even the rash and injudicious Pro­fessors, as Mr. B. calls them, do think other means of Edification better, and other wayes of Worship less defective, they are bound to break through all Laws, and to run into Separation. And, How is it possible, upon these terms, to have any Peace, or Order, or any establish'd Church? I do not remember, that any of the old Separatists, no not Barrow, or Iohnson, did ever lay down such loose Principles of Separation, as these are. The Brownists declare, in their Apology, That none are to Separate for faults and corruptions, Apology of the Brow­nists, n. 36. which may, and will fall out among Men, even in true constituted Churches, but by due order to seek the re­dress thereof. Where a Church is rightly constituted, here is no allowance of Separation for defects and corruptions of Men, although they might apprehend Smith or Iacob to be more edifying Preachers, than either Iohnson, or Ainsworth. The ground of Sepa­ration with them, was the want of a right constituted Church; if that were once supposed, other defects were never till now thought to be good grounds of Separation. Chap. 13. In the Platform of the Discipline of New-England, it is said, That Church-Members may not depart from the Church as they please, nor without [Page 116] just and weighty cause: Because such departure tends to the dissolution of the Body.

Those just Reasons are,

• 1. If a Man cannot continue without sin.
• 2. In case of Persecution.

Not one word of better means of Edification. For the Independents have wisely taken care to secure their Members to their own Congregations, and not suffer them to wander abroad upon such pretences; lest such liberty should break them into disorder and confusion. So in their Declaration at the Savoy, they say, Order of Congregatio­nal Churches, n. 28. That Persons joyned in Church-Fellowship, ought not lightly, or without just cause, to withdraw themselves from the Communion of the Church, whereunto they are joyned.

And they reckon up those which they allow for just causes.

1. Where any person cannot continue in any Church without his sin: and that in Three cases.

First, Want of Ordinances.

Secondly, Being deprived of due priviledges.

Thirdly, Being compelled to any thing in practice, not warranted by the Word.

2. In case of Persecution.

3. Vpon the account of conveniency of Habitation.

[Page 117] And in these Cases, the Church or Officers are to be consulted, and then they may peaceably depart from the Communion of the Church. No allowance here made of forsaking a Church, meerly for greater means of E­dification. And how just soever the reason were, they are civilly to take leave of the Church and her Of­ficers, Irenic. c. 22. and to tell them why they depart. And Mr. Burroughs condemns it, as the direct way to bring in all kind of disorder and confusion into the Church. Yet this is now the main support of the present Separati­on; and meer necessity hath driven them to it; for either they must own the Principles of the old Sepa­ratists, which they are unwilling to do, or find out others to serve their turn; but they are such, as no Man, who hath any regard to the Peace and Vnity of the Church, can ever think fit to maintain, since they apparently tend to nothing but disorder and con­fusion, as Mr. Burroughs truly observed. But what ground is there to suppose so much greater means of Edification in the Separate Congregations? since Mr. B. is pleased to give this Testimony to the Preaching in our Parish-Churches; Answ. to Letter, p. 18. That for his part, he hath sel­dom heard any, but very good well-studied Sermons in the Parish Churches in London, where he hath been; but most of them are more fitted to well-bred Schol [...]rs, or judicious Hearers, than to such as need more Practi­call Subjects, and a more plain, familiar, easie method. Is this the truth of the case indeed? Then, for all that I can see, the King is excused from all blame in this matter; unless it be a fault to provide too well for them. And, Is this a good ground for Separation, that the Preaching is too good for the People? Some Men may want Cau­ses to defend, but at this rate they can never [Page 118] want Arguments. Yet, methinks, the same Men should not complain of starving, and famishing Souls, when the only fault is, that the Meat is too good, and too well dressed for them. And on the other side, hath not Mr. B. complained publickly of the weakness and injudiciousness of too many of the Non-conformist Preach­ers? Sacrileg. de­sert, p. 86. and that he really fears, lest meer Non-Confor­mists have brought some into reputation as conscientious, who, by weak Preaching, will lose the reputation of be­ing Iudicious, more than their silence lost it. And a­gain, But verily the injudiciousness of too many is for a Lamentation. To which he adds, But the Grand Calamity is, that the most injudicious are usually the most confident and self-conceited, and none so com­monly give way to their Ignorant Zeal, to Censure, Backbite, and Reproach others, as those that know not what they talk of. Let now any Reader judge, whe­ther upon the stating of the case by Mr. B. himself, their having better means of Edification, can be the ground of leaving our Churches, to go to Separate Congregations, unless injudiciousness, and self-con­ceited confidence and an ignorant zeal may perhaps be more edifying to some capacities, and to some pur­poses, than judicious and well studied Sermons.

This Argument must therefore be quitted; and they who will defend the present Separation, must return to the old Principles of the Separatists, if they will justifie their own practices. And so I find Mr. B. is forced to do; for discerning▪ that the pretence of greater Edification would not hold of it self, he adds more weight to it, and that comes home to the business; Answ. p. 18. viz. That the People doubt of the Calling of the obtruded Men. This is indeed an Argument for [Page 119] Separation, and the very same, which Barrow, and Greenwood, and Iohnson, and Smith, and Can used. Now we are come to the old Point of defending the Calling of our Ministry; but we are mistaken, if we think they now manage it after the same man­ner. We do not hear so much the old terms of a False and Antichristian Ministry; but if they do substitute others in their Room as effectual to make a Separation, but less fit to justifie it, the difference will not appear to be at all to their advantage.

Sect. 7. 2. I come therefore to consider the Prin­ciples of our new Separatists, as to the Ministry of our Church; and to discover, how little they differ from the old Separatists, when this matter is throughly enquired into, as to the Argument for Separa­tion.

I. In General, they declare, That they only look on those as true Churches, which have such Pastors whom they approve. How oft have I told you, saith Mr. B. that I distinguish, Answer to my Sermon, p. 63. and take those for true Churches, that have true Pastors. But I take those for no true Churches, that have,

• 1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral Office.
• 2. Or not truly called to it.
• 3. Or that deny themselves to have the power essential to a Pastor.

And one or other of these he thinks most, if not all the Parochial Churches in England fall under.

[Page 120] You will say then, Mr. B. is a Rigid Separatist; and thinks it not lawful to joyn with any of our Paro­chial Congregations: but this is contradicted by his own Practice.

There lies therefore a farther subtilty in this mat­ter; for he declares in the same place, he can joyn with them notwithstanding. But how? as true Churches, though he saith they are not? No; but as Chappels and Oratories, although they be not Churches, as wanting an essential part. This will bring the matter to a very good pass, the Parish Churches of England shall only be Chappels of Ease to those of the Non-conformists. This I confess is a Subtilty beyond the reach of the old Brownists, and Non-conformists, for they both took it for granted that there was sufficient ground for Separation, if our Churches were not true Churches, and the Proof of that depended on the Truth of our Ministry. Now, saith Mr. B. Although our Parochial Congregations be not true Churches, be­cause they want an essential part, viz. a true Ministry, yet he can joyn with them occasionally, as Chappels or Oratories. From whence it appears, that he ac­counts not our Parochial Churches as true Churches, nor doth communicate with them as such; but only looks on them as Publick places of Prayer, to which a Man may resort upon occasion without owning any relation to the Minister, or looking on the Congrega­tion as a Church. For, where he speaks more fully, he declares, That he looks on none as true Churches, but such as have the Power of the Keys within them­selves, Sacrileg. de­sert. p. 34. and hath a Bishop or Pastor over them with that Power; True way of Concord, Ch. 10. and any Parochial Church that hath such a one, and ownes it self to be independent, he al­lows [Page 121] to be a true Church, and none else. So that un­less our Parochial Churches and Ministers assume to themselves Episcopal Power, in opposition to the pre­sent Constitution of our Church, as he apprehends, he at once discards them all from being true Churches: but I shall afterwards discover his mistake as to the nature of our Parochial Churches; that which I only insist on now is, That he looks on none of them as truly constituted Churches, or as he calls it, of the Po­litical Organized Form, as wanting an essential part, viz. a true Pastor. From hence it necessarily follows, either that Mr. B. communicates with no true Church at all; or it must be a Separate Church; or, if he thinks himself bound to be a Member of a true Church, he must proceed to as a great Separation as the old Brownists did, by setting up new Churches in op­position to ours. It is no sufficient Answer in this case, to say, That Mr. B. doth it not; for we are on­ly to shew, what he is obliged to do by vertue of his own Principles: which tend to as much Separation, as was practised in former times, and hath been so often condemned by Mr. B.

Sect. 8. II. Suppose they should allow our Pa­rochial Churches in their Constitution to be true Churches; yet the exceptions they make against the Ministers of our Churches are so many, that they scarce allow any, from whom they may not lawfully Separate.

1. If the People judge their Ministers unworthy, or incompetent, they allow them liberty to withdraw, and to Separate from them. This I shall prove from many passages in several Books of Mr. B. and others.

[Page 122] First, They [...] it in the Peoples Power, notwith­standing all Lega [...] [...]stablishments, to own or disown whom they judge sit Mr. B. speaks his Mind very freely against the Rights and [...]etronage, Answ. p 15, 50. and the Power of Magistrates in these cases, and pleads for the unalterable Rights of the People; as the old Sepa­ratists did. Plea for Peace, p. 55. God, saith Mr. B. in Nature and Scri­pture, hath given the People that consenting Power, an­tecedent to the Princes determination, which none can take from them. Brownis [...]s Apology, Sect. 23. Mr. A. saith, Every particular Church has an inherent right to choose its own Pastors. Dr. O. makes the depriving the People of this right one of his grounds of Separation. Mischief of Imposit. Pre­face. So that although our Ministers have been long in possession of their Places, yet if the People have not owned them, Dr. O's. Vin­dic. p. 36. they are at liberty to choose whom they please. How many hundred Congre­gations, Answ. p. 50. saith Mr. B. have Incumbents, whom the Peo­ple never consented to; but take them for their hinder­ers and burden! So many hundred Congregations it seems are in readiness for Separation.

Secondly, The People are made Iudges of the wor­thiness and competency of their Ministers. This fol­lows from the former. Plea for Peace, p. 83. In case incompetent Pastors be set over the People, saith Mr. B. though it be half the Parishes in a Kingdom, or only the tenth part, it is no Schism, saith he, but a Duty, for those that are desti­tute, to get the best supply they can, i.e. to choose those whom they judge more competent; and it is no Schism but a Duty, for faithful Ministers, though forbidden by Superiors, to perform their Office to such people that de­sire it. This is plain dealing. But suppose the Ma­gistrate should cast out some, and put in others; In [Page 123] that case he saith, If they be Men of uniried and sus­pected parts of fidelity (of which the People are to be Judges) the Princes imposition doth not make such true Pastors of the Church before, or without the People con­sent; nor doth it always bind the People to consent, and to forsake their former Pastors, nor prove them Schisma­ticks, because they do it not.

Thirdly, They give particular directions to the Peo­ple, what sort of Ministers they should own, and what not. Mr. B. bids the People not think that he is perswading them to make no difference: Cure of Di­visions, Di­rect. 36. but after he hath set aside the utterly insufficient, and the heretical (of which the People are admirable Judges) he lays down this general Rule, Any one whose Ministry is such, as tendeth to destruction more than to edification, and to do more harm than good is not to be owned. And if not to be owned so, then he is to be separated from: and although he adviseth the People to lay aside partia­lity and passion; yet whether they will or not, they are left sole Iudges in this matter. And that we may not think all this to be only a Romantick Scheme, or Fiction, Sacrileg. de­sert. p. 10. he tells us elsewhere, That they are not able to confute the People in too many places, who tell them that their publick Priests are so defective in their neces­sary qualifications for their Office, as that they hold it unlawful to own such for true Ministers, and to encou­rage them by their presence, or commit the care of their Souls to such, i.e. in plain terms, they are encouraged to Separation on this account, which is directly con­trary to the Principles of the old Non-conformists, as appears at large by Mr. Ball. Ball against Can, p. 1, 4, 5, &c. if, saith he, Can's meaning be, that it is not lawful to communicate in the Worship of God with Ministers not fitly qualified, dis­orderly [Page 124] called, or carelesly executing their Office and Function, then it is directly contrary to the word of Truth, sound Reason, and consent of all the Learn­ed. With much more to that purpose. Pag. 15, 42, 56. and even Mr. B. himself, when he takes upon him as a Ca­suist to determine these things, Trial of New Church way, p. 11. doth then declare his Mind.

• 1. That a Ministers personal faults do not allow People to Separate from the Worship of God.
  Christian Di­rect. Part. 3. p. 747.
• 2. Nor all Ministerial faults, but only those that prove him or his Ministration utterly intole­rable.

But now, Answ. p. 50. if Mr. B. may be believed, the People need not be told, how great a number of Cases there are among us, where the Ministers are uncapable of the Ministerial Office, and therefore it is no sin in them to judge him no Minister, and consequently to Sepa­rate from him. Hath not Mr. B. fully set forth the Pride, Ignorance, Censoriousness, Headiness, Rashness of raw and injudicious Zealots? and after all this. Is it fit or reasonable, that the opinion of such persons be taken, concerning the qualifications of their Mi­nisters? Hath not Mr. B. complained with more than ordinary resentment, Cure of Di­vis. p. 393. that they are ready to scorn, and vilifie the gravest wisest Pastors? And, Must such Mens Judgments be taken, concerning the Abilities and Competency of their Ministers? Either Mr. B. hath extremely wronged them in the Characters he hath given of such People; or he hath taken away all the reputation of their Judgment in such cases: [Page 125] When they scorn and contemn the greavest wisest Pa­stors, are they fit to Judge of Ministerial A [...]ilities? But there are graver and wiser among the People. Sup­pose that; But doth not Mr. B. say, That the rawest and rashest Professors are commonly the most violent and censorious? these are the bold and forward men, that will Judge in spite of the rest; these are the men that need not be told, what numbers of uncapable Ministers there are among us And it doth not become Mr. B's Gra­vity or Wisdom to hearken to all the censures and malicious reports of such ignorant and heady zealots (as he calls them) about the unworthiness or incapacity of their Ministers. Are they only the grave and wise Pastors among themselves, which are scorned by such men? It is possible, that those may be grave and wise among us too, whom they censure for incompe­tent men; Or must the same People which are raw and injudicious, ignorant and censorious, proud and self-conceited, when they make their Judgment of them, be of a sudden turned into grave and wise men, when they pass their Judgment upon the Abi­lities and Fitness of our Preachers? This doth not look like fair and equal dealing. I pray let our Mi­nisters have a fair hearing, and let the matter be well examined, before the People be thus encoura­ged to Separate from their Ministers for their disabi­lities, or unworthiness. But suppose there be too great a number of young, raw, injudicious Preachers, as Mr. B. saith, Answ. p. 54. no Man can deny that knoweth Eng­land, and hath any modesty. Is there no way, but to your Tents O Israel? Will nothing but Separation serve your Turn? Is this the way to mend the matter, and to make them grave and wise? Doth not Mr. B. confess, That they have too many such among them­selves? [Page 126] Must they Separate from them too? What endless confusions do such Principles tend to? But the bottom of all is, this Separation must be justified, one way or other; and such Principles found out, which may seem to do it. Yet after all, What is this to the present case of Separation in this City? for here the Charge was laid, and to this the Answer must be given, or it is to no purpose. Is it any rea­son, that near half of some Parishes in London, should Separate from their grave and wise Pastors, such as I know some to be, where this case is; be­cause in Cornwall, or Yorkshire, or Northumberland, there are many raw and injudicious, besides scandalous Priests, as Mr. B. speaks? We urge you particular­ly with the London Separation, you tell us what the People say of the Insufficiency and Vnworthiness of the Clergy in other parts of England; suppose it true, What is all this to the business? If you persist in this way, we can name the Parishes to you in London, where the Ministers are Men of unexceptio­nable Learning and Piety; where the Churches are large enough to receive the People that Separate; as well as those that come; and yet they forsake the Churches Communion, and adhere to the Separate Con­gregations: Tell us plainly in this case, Is this Se­paration lawful or not? If it be lawful, to what pur­pose do you make use of so many shifts and evasi­ons, as to great Prishes, and insufficient and scanda­lous Priests, in other parts of the Nation? Answer to the case proposed, and to the place where the Charge was laid; and think not to escape by such apparent evasions, and impertinencies as these. If you think such a Separation unlawful, then Why do you pre­tend [Page 127] to confute my Sermon, which was designed pur­posely against it?

Sect. 9. But while you plead for this liberty of the Peoples Separating upon their Iudgment of their Ministers Abilities and Fitness, you can never secure them from Separation from any Church or Ministers whatsoever. And no setled Church in the World could ever subsist long, without infinite disorder and confusion, if this were allow'd. For Mr. B. thinks them uncapable of the Ministerial Office in the Peo­ples Judgment.

1. Who have not tolerable Ministerial Knowledge, Answ. p. 50. or utterance.

2. Who are Heretical.

3. Who malignantly oppose serious Religion as Hy­pocrisie, or a needless thing.

4. Who by their wicked lives do more hurt than they do good. From such, saith he, St. Paul bids turn away.

And of all these things the People are to be Iudges; and so may Separate, (1.) When they are unsatisfi­ed about the Ministerial Knowledge or utterance of their Ministers. As for their Vtterance; we may al­low them to be Judges of that; but I never heard before, that St. Paul did bid People turn away from their Ministers, if their Vtterance were not thought to be tolerable. For he intimates, that some com­plained of his utterance and had him in contempt for [Page 128] it. But as to Abilities and Knowledge fit for Mini­sters, Are not the People admirable Judges? How few, how very few, even of those of the people who pretend most to Knowledge in Religion, have any tolerable understanding of the true principles, and right notion of it? I do not speak only of Artificers and Tradesmen; but of those of better education, who either by prejudices, or want of due applicati­on of their minds to such things, are subject to great mistakes about Religion, and yet may be very good men: If such as these, are so unfit to Judge of Mi­nisterial Knowledge, and the Doctrines of Religion, What shall we say to the common sort of raw, and injudicious Professors of Religion? Mr. B's. experience in the World is not so little, as not to know and be sensible of the truth of this, among the People most apt to divide and Separate. Is it not then a strange thing he should thus subject the Judgment of Mini­sterial Knowledge to such a Company of Triers as these? But suppose they do allow their Ministers to pass for men of tolerable abilities, and reasonable good utterance, there is a harder task yet behind, and that is, to approve themselves to the People to be Sound and Orthodox; For, saith Mr. B. (2) If they be Heretical, they may without sin separate from them. But how shall a Man escape being thought Heretical by the People, if they have a mind to make him so; i.e. if he crosseth their humor, and delivers such Doctrine as doth not please them; for that is generally their Standard for Heresie? And they can­not well have any other; unless you will suppose all the People to be learned Divines, and every Man obliged to read and understand Epiphanius and Bini­us: and then perhaps they may be competent Iudges [Page 129] of Heresie, and come at last to be even with the Divines for having been their Judges so long in that matter. Let us now suppose a Person of great value and esteem among them for his other Ministe­rial Abilities, should happen to be thought unsound in the Point of Iustification, and to draw too near to the Papists in it; and this not only be said by the common People, but they are abetted and encou­raged in it, by the greatest part of their Teachers, who tell them, this is a Fundamental point, Articulus stantis & cadentis Ecclesiae; that they had as good give up the Cause of Reformation, as yield in that matter, as some have said; I would fain know in this Case, whether upon Mr. B's. Principles, the People are not bound to Separate from such a Man, notwithstand­ing his other Abilities?

The like may happen as to many other Doctrines, which the People are as incompetent Iudges of, as they are in this matter. Let us yet suppose that such a Man may pass for sound in the main among the Peo­ple; what shall we say to him, if under pretence of Curing Divisions he exposes good People, and lays open with great freedom and plainness their Factious, Turbulent, Censorious, Vngovernable humor; not o­mitting their Injudiciousness, but forgetting all the while that these same injudicious People (with all their other faults) were once his Electors, and are still his Iudges; suppose, that he tells the World, That for their Ignorance, Injudiciousness, Pride and Self-con­ceitedness, they are their grief and their shame; that they are endanger'd by Divisions, principally because the selfconceited part of the Religious People will not be ruled by their Pastors; that it is they that tempt the Papists to use Fire and Faggot that will not be ruled, [Page 130] nor kept in Concord by the wisest, and holiest, and most self-denying Ministers upon earth. Notwithstanding all these very kind words of themselves, Do not we think such People would call all this Reviling, and Reproaching the People of God, and say, That such men do malignantly oppose serious godliness as Hypocri­sie; and let their lives be what they will, they do more hurt than good; and therefore by Mr. B's own Rules, they are bound to Seprate from the Wisest, the Holiest, the most Self-denying Ministers upon earth. Which I think is sufficient for the present to shew the mischievous consequence of putting so great a power of Judgment, and Separation upon it into the hands of the People.

Sect. 10. But this is not all the encouragement to Separation, which is given to the People, by their power of Iudging, and Withdrawing from their Mi­nisters; For,

2. They insinuate, That the whole Body of the conforming Clergy is guilty of such Faults, as the People may lawfully Separate from them; as will ap­pear by these Particulars.

First, They make Conformity it self to be a very scandalous thing; and then tell the People over and over, It is no sin to separate from Scandalous Priests; especially when the Scandal is notorious, as it is in this case. Plea for Peace, p. 108. Mr. B. goes about to prove This, by ma­ny Arguments, when he Writes in the name of the Party; now let us see what Judgment they pass up­on Conformity. In one place he saith, That the Love of Peace, Sacrileg. de­sert. p. 43. and the fear of frightning any farther from Parish Communion than I desire (as though such sug­gestions [Page 131] did not do it enough) do oblige me to forbear so much as to describe or name the additional Conformi­ty; and that sin which Non-conformists fear, and fly from, which maketh it harder to us that desire it to draw many good People to Communion with Conformists than it was of old. No doubt of it, if you give such broad intimations as these are, what a horrible scan­dalous sin Conformity is. Nay, he maketh it an in­excusable sin, when he saith, in the Preface to his Plea, That more like Truth hath been said for the lawfulness of Anabaptistry, Poligamy, Drunkenness, Stealing, and Lying, in case of necessity, than any thing he ever yet read of all that he hath there described, i.e. full Con­formity. Answer to Serm. p. 46. He chargeth us downright with Lying, and by consequence with Perjury, Plea for Peace, p. 220. 223, 226, 339. and tells me of 30 tre­mendous Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity; among which are Lying and Perjury, and not only that, but drawing on our selves the guilt of many thousand Perjuries (by declaring, That the Covenant doth not oblige.) But I do not question, if Mr. B. plea­sed, he could find out 40 or 50 as tremendous aggra­vations of the Sin of Separation. For never did any Man lay more load than he, upon whatever he op­poses, without considering how it may fall upon himself at last; and How easie it is to return such heaps of Aggravations. And it was well said by one of Mr. B's. Adversaries concerning him, Answ. to Sacril. deser­tion, p. 13. That be the Controversie what it will, he can make his Adversary differ with him about the Existence of God and Christ, a Heaven and Hell. Which I have found too true, by my experience in this case, for without any colour or pretence in the World that I know of, but only by declaring against Separation, he tells me, That he is so far past doubt, on the other side, as that he thinks [Page 132] I overthrow all Religion, Answ. p. 19. and set up Man in Rebellion against God. But the worst is that he would make me say, which I never said or thought, That all Publick Worship is sinful, when forbidden: and then on he runs with a mighty torrent, Daniel may go to the Li­ons; the Martyrs, Fathers, Counsels, the Vniversal Church are all foolisher, than the meanest of his Audi­tors. I wonder he did not give me 30 tremendous aggravations of Atheism and Hobbism. For he doth in effect charge me with them; For it follows, It's strange that he can be sure, God's Word is true, and yet be so sure, that Mens Laws are above it, and may suspend it. Did I ever in my life say the least thing tending that way? I abhor and detest such Principles, as set Mans Laws above Gods. And when I gave him the State of the Controversie about Separation, I supposed an Agreement in all the Substantials of Religi­on, between the dissenting Parties and our Church. How then could he possibly infer from hence, that I set Man's Laws above Gods? The Question is not, Whe­ther all Publick Worship be sinful, when forbidden? but whether in a Nation professing true Religion, some publick Worship may not be forbidden? If not, then an universal, unlimited toleration of Turks, Iews, Papists, Socinians, Ranters, &c. must follow. If some may be forbidden, then another Question fol­lows, viz. Whether such Publick Worship, as may have an evil in it, antecedent to that Prohibition, may not be forbidden? viz. such as tends to Idolatry, Sedition, Schism, &c. and if this be allowed, then it comes to this at last, Whether such Meetings are guilty of any of these faults; and if they be, Whe­ther the Magistrate so judging may not justly forbid them? And this is the utmost that matter can be [Page 133] driven to; which I here mention, to let the Reader understand, what little cause there is to dread Mr. B's 30 Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity; which are built on as slight grounds as this heavy charge against me; for the sake of which I shall hardly ever dread his aggravations more. But the sting of these aggra­vations follows. If the People think, (though they should mistake) that all the Conformists are guilty of the like, Answ. p. 50. Can you wonder, if they prefer less Guilty Pa­stors to trust the Conduct of their Souls with? Now the true Reason of Separation is come out at last. Our Conformity is a horrible, scandalous sin with them, and therefore they must choose better Pastors. Is not this just the old Brownists Argument? The Mi­nistry of the Church of England is a corrupt and sinful Ministery, and therefore we must not communicate with them, but choose more honest and faithful Guides: But let me ask Mr. B. supposing all this to be true, Is it lawful to communicate with Conformists or not? If it be not lawful, then he condemns his own practice, and takes away occasional communion; if it be lawful, How comes Separation to be lawful, since, that is ne­ver lawful, but when it is necessary? as it will be proved afterwards.

Sect. 11. 2. They make most of the present Mi­nisters of the Church of England to be Vsurpers; and from such they say, they may lawfully separate. Is it Separation, Answ. p. 4 [...]. saith Mr. B. to refuse Pastors that are V­surpers, and have no true Power over them? But Who are these Vsurpers among us, since we have a legal establishment, and we thought Law and Vsurpa­tion contrary to each other? But notwithstanding Law, it is determin'd,

[Page 134] First, All that come into the places of ejected Mi­nisters are Vsurpers, at least to as many of the People, as do not consent to their coming in: Answ. p. 54. How prove you, saith Mr. B. that the relation of the ejected Lon­don-Ministers and their Flocks was dissolved, and that the succeeders, were true Pastors to the Non-consent­ing Flocks? When faithful Pastors, saith he in his Plea (written in the name of the Party, Plea for Peace, p. 55. and by consent, as he saith, of many of his Acquaintance) are in pos­session, Answ. p. 44. if a lawful Magistrate cast them out; and put others in their places of untried or suspected parts or fide­lity.

• I. The Princes Imposition maketh not such true Pa­stors of that Church, before, or without the Peoples consent.
• II. Nor will it alwayes bind the People to consent, and to forsake their former Pastors, nor prove them Schismaticks, because they do it not.

The bottom of all this, is, they are Vsurpers to whom the People do not consent in any particular Parish; although the whole Nation in Parliament consented to the passing of a Law for removal of some Pastors, and putting in of others. And what dangerous consequences there may be of such Prin­ciples as these, I leave others to Judge. For upon these grounds, when Salomon deprived Abiathar, and put Zadok in his room; 1 Kings 2. 35. any part of the People might have pleaded, They never consented to Zadok 's com­ing in, and therefore he was their High- [...]riest still; let Salomon do what he would; he could not dissolve the [Page 135] relation between them, without their own consent. For the Question is not, Whether Abiathar did not de­serve to be put out, but to whom it belonged to do it, whether to the King, or the People? And whe­ther any part of the People might still own that rela­tion which he had before to them, without palpable disobedience and contempt of Authority? Especially if the People had given their own consent, and the thing had been done not only by Salomon, but by the States of Israel; as it was in our case. They who discern not the ill consequences of such Assertions as to our Government, have very little insight into Affairs. For it follows, that a small part of the People may disown the Publick Acts of Parliament, and choose other Go­vernors, to themselves in opposition to those establish­ed by Law: and why they should not do it, upon an equal pretence in other cases, I do not understand. For there is no more colour for the Peoples resuming their right, especially a small part against the whole, in one case then in the other. Which makes me won­der at those who da [...]e call them Vsurpers, who enjoy their places by the same Laws, that any Men do enjoy their Estates. And they who assert, that the people are bound notwithstanding the Laws to ad­here to their former Pastors, as Mr. A. doth, who saith, Mischief of Impos. Pre­face. They judge it their unquestionable duty to abide in that relation to their ejected Pastors, do not only assert a power in a handful of people to act against established Laws, passed by general consent in Par­liament; but overthrow the settlement of our Church upon the Reformation. For, the Papists then had the very same Plea, that these Men have now, v [...]z. That the Magistrate could not dissolve the relation be­tween their former Church Guides and them: and there­for [...] [Page 136] notwithstanding Acts of Parliament, they were still hound to adhere to them. For the Magistrate had no power in such matters, and the real Schism was to withdraw from those Guides; just as Mr. A. speaks concerning the ejected Ministers. So much do these Men, in pursuing the interests of their Par­ties, overthrow the principles of the Reformation. For either the Magistrate hath a Power to Silence some Ministers, and to put others in their places, or he hath none: if he hath none, then, What becomes of the Iustice of the Reformation, when the Popish Bi­shops and Priests were ejected, and others put into their places? If they say, He hath a just power in some cases, but not in theirs. Is not this a Plea com­mon to all? For whoever thought themselves justly ejected? Or that they did any thing which deserved so severe a punishment? What then is to be done in this case, if Men think themselves unjustly cast out? The old Non-conformists said, They ought to sit down quietly; with this satisfaction, that there were others to Preach the Word of God soundly, although they did not. They might by joyning in their pri­vate capacities in Communion with our Churches, and drawing the People to it by their example and en­couragement, have done more good both to the People and to this Church, than I fear their publick preaching in opposition to the Laws hath done to either▪ But if they go upon such principles [...]s these, That the Magistrate had no rightful power to eject them, That others are Vsurpers who come in their places, That the People are still bound to own them in their former relation notwithstanding the Laws, And that 'tis Schism to separate from them, notwithstanding that they confess the True Religion is maintained and preached in our pub­lick [Page 137] Assemblies, I leave it to others to determine how consistent such Principles are with the submission Men owe to Government, or that peaceable behaviour which becometh Christians. This I the rather insist upon, because I find not only Mr. B. and Mr. A. asserting it, but that it is made the standing Plea for the ne­cessity of the present Separation, among those who do not hold all Communion with our Churches unlawful. So the latest of my Answerers makes a Question, Whe­ther they can be said to erect new Churches, Rector of Sutton &c. p. 26. or proceed to the forming of separate Congregations, who were true Ministers, and had their Congregations before others came into their places? If they had done nothing wor­thy of ejection, or exclusion from their Ministry, whether they have not still a right to exercise their Function. And consequently, whether others may not as justly be said to draw away their People from them, as they are charged with the same practice? There is not one word in all this Plea but might have equally served the Papists in the beginning of the Reformation. For the Law signifies nothing with them in any case where themselves are concerned, if Ministers be eject­ed without or against Law, they who come into their places are no Usurpers; and if they are cast out by Law, they that succeed them are Usurpers; so that the Law is always the least thing in their consideration.

Secondly, All those who come into any Pastoral charge, whether Bishops by vertue of the Kings No­mination, or others by the Presentation of Patrons, are Vsurpers, unless the People be pleased to give their free consent; and if they do it not, they may lawfully withdraw from them. For, saith Mr. B. the [Page 138] People have an antecedent Right to consent, Plea, p. 55. which none can take from them. Answ. p. 9. And he saith, he hath proved it by many Canons, that he was no Bishop, that was not cho­sen by the Clergy and the People; or came in without the Peoples consent. Nay, if they have the consent of some, and not of the greater part, those who did not consent, may proceed to choose another Bishop, if Mr. B. say true. For these are his words. If a Diocess have a Thousand or 600, or 300 Parish Pastors, Plea, p. 81, 82. and a Hundred thousand or a Million of People (or 50000 or 20000, as ye will suppose) and if only a dozen or 20 Presbyters, and a Thousand People (or none) chuse the Bishop, this is not the Election or Con­sent of the Diocesan Church; nor is it Schism for twen­ty thousand to go against the Votes of two thousand. Therefore if they have so much the advantage in polling, as Mr. A. suggests, there is nothing hinders them, but that in spite of Laws, they may proceed to the choice of new Bishops, and new Pastors of Churches, wherever they think they can make the Majority. For this is an inherent and unalterable right in the People, say they, to choose their own Pa­stors. Again, saith Mr. B. in the name of the Party in his Plea, Ibid. If Bishops that have no better a Foundati­on, i.e. that come in by the Kings Nomination, and not by the Majority of the People, shall impose infe­rior Pastors or Presbyters on the Parish Churches, and command the Peoples acceptance and obe [...]nce, i.e. if they give them Institution upon a Patrons presenta­tion, the People are not bound to accept and obey them by any Authority that is in that command as such; nor is it Schism to disobey it, no more than it is Treason to reject the Vsurper of a Kingdom. It is plain then, all Bishops of the Kings Nomination, all Ministers [Page 139] presented by Patrons are meer Vsurpers: the People may give them a good Title if they please; but they are not to blame if they do it not. For in them, Mr. B. saith, Answ. p. 49. the chief Power is, and sometimes he tells them, they are bound to Separate; however, while they do not consent, they are no Churches, which they are set over; Plea, p. 82. and it is no Schism so to pronounce them; nor to deny them Communion proper to a Church. Is not this an excellent Plea for Peace; and the true and only way of Concord, which lays the foundation for all imaginable Disorders and Confusions, only that they might have some pretence for their pre­sent Separation?

Sect. 12. 3. Suppose the Bishops and Clergy have gained the consent (implicit at least) of the People, and so are no Vsurpers, yet if they be Perse­cutors, or Ithacian Prelatists, i.e. if they either act towards, or approve of the Silencing Non-conformists, the People may Separate from them. When Mr. B. wrote the Defence of his Book, called, The Cure of Divisions, to satisfie the People who were much dis­pleased with him for it; one of the material Questi­ons, Preface to Defence of his Cure, p. 9. he Asks about his Book, is, Is there a word to perswade you to Communion with Persecutors? As though that had been an unpardonable Crime. In the Plea he saith, If any Excommunicate persons for not complying with them in sin, Plea, p. 42. i.e. Conformity, but also prosecute them with Mulcts, Imprisonments, Ba­nishments, or other Prosecution, to force them to trans­gress, this were yet more heinously aggravated Schism: and therefore it is no sin to Separate from such. And how easily Men are drawn in to the guilt of this [Page 140] persecution, appears by the example he makes of me, for although I expresly set aside the case of Ministers, and declared, I intended only to speak of Lay-commu­nion; Answ. p. 61. yet he charges me with engaging my self in the Silencing design. And by such consequences, all that speak against Separation may be Separated from, as Persecuters, and Ithacian Prelatists.

Sect. 13. 4. As long as they suppose the terms of our Communion to be sinful, they say, the Schism doth not lye on those that Separate, Plea, p. 42. but on those that do impose such terms; and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers. This is the most colourable Plea hath been yet used by them. But in this case, we must distinguish between terms of communion plainly and in themselves sinful; and such which are only fancied to be so through prejudice, or wilful Ignorance, or error of Conscience. That there is a real distincti­on between these two, is evident; and that it ought to be considered in this case, appears from hence, that else there can be no sinful separation under an er­roneous Conscience. As suppose some men should think that Preaching by an hour-glass, and much more Praying by one, was a stinting of the Spirit in point of Time, as Praying by a Form was in point of words; and all Men should be required to begin the publick Wor­ship at such an Hour, and so end at such an Hour; time being a necessary circumstance, our Brethren grant, that the Magistrate or Church may lawfully determine it. Here is then a lawful imposition; and yet the Quakers may really judge it to be sinful; and declare they cannot communicate unless this sinful Imposition be removed; For it is against their Consciences to have the Spirit limited to [Page 141] any certain time; On whose side doth the Schism lie in this case? Not on the Imposers, because they grant such an imposition lawful; therefore it must lie on those that Separate, although they judge such terms of Com­munion sinful. If therefore the determination of other things not forbidden be really as much in the Magistrates and Churches Power, as the necessary cir­cumstances of time and place, &c. then mens appre­hending such terms of Communion to be sinful will not hinder the guilt of Separation from lying on their side, and not on the imposers. Because it is to be suppo­sed. that where there is no plain prohibition, men may with ordinary care and judgment, satisfie themselves of the lawfulness of things required. As for instance, when the Church of Rome imposeth the Worship of Images, we have the plain prohibition of the Second Commandment to prove that it is really a sinful con­dition of Communion; but when our Church requireth the constant use of a Liturgy, and Ceremonies, which are now pleaded as sinful conditions of Communion, Where is the prohibition? In the same Second Com­mandment say some. I desire them to read it over to me. They do so. Where, say I, are the words that forbid a Liturgy, or Ceremonies? I am mistaken, they tell me, it is not in the words, but in the sense. I Ask, How we should come by the sense, but from the words? Yes, they say, there are certain Rules for in­terpreting the Commandments. Are they Divine or Human? Where are they to be found? What are those Rules? One, they say, is, that where any thing is forbidden, something is commanded. So say I, there is here a Command to Worship God without an Image. What is there more? Yes, say they, (1.) That [Page 142] we must not Worship God with our own Inventions; now Liturgies and Ceremonies are Mens Inventions▪ But, I say, no Inventions are condemned in the Worship of God, but such as God himself hath somewhere for­bidden; but he hath no where forbidden these. And human Inventions are forbidden in this Commandment in the Worship of God; but then (1) They are such inventions which go about to represent God, and so to disparage him; and no other inventions are to be understood, than the Reason of the Law doth ex­tend to, i.e. not such which are consistent with the Spiritual and Invisible nature of God. (2.) They are not such as do relate to the manner or form of Worship, supposing the Worship it self be performed in a way agreeable to the Divine Nature and Law. For otherwise all use of mens inventions, as to Preaching, or Reading, or Interpreting Scripture, would be for­bidden. And then this interpretation of the Second Commandment would be unlawful, because it is a meer Invention of Men; as much as Liturgies, or Ceremo­nies.

By this we see, what stretching and forcing of Scripture there must be, to make Liturgies or Ceremo­nies unlawful terms of Communion; And that Men must first blind and fetter their Minds by certain pre­judices of Education, or Reading only one sort of Books, and taking some things for granted which they ought not, before they can esteem the terms of Com­munion required by our Church to be sinful: and there­fore the Schism doth not lye on the Imposers side, but upon those who suffer themselves first to be so easily [Page 143] Deluded, and then Separate from our Church upon it. But there is another plain instance in this case, wherein our Brethren themselves will not allow the Schism to lie on the imposers side; and that is of those who deny the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism. Ma­ny of whom pretend to do it with as much sincerity and impartiality, as any of our Brethren can deny the lawfulness of Liturgy or Ceremonies: if they break Communion rather than allow what they judge to be sinful, On whose side doth the Schism lie, on theirs that require the allowance of it, as a condition of Communion, or not? If on the Imposers side, they must condemn themselves, who blame the Anabap­tists for their Separation. And so did Fr. Iohnson, and so did the New-England Churches. From whence it appears, that they do all agree, that where Men through mistake do judge those to be sinful terms of Communion which are not, the guilt of Schism doth not lie on the imposers side, but on those that sepa­rate. Therefore, this matter of Schism cannot be ended by the Plea of Conscience judging the conditi­ons to be sinful, but by evident and convincing Proofs that they are so; but till these are brought forth, which never yet were, or ever will be, they must bear the blame of the Schism, if they Separate on these accounts.

Thus I have faithfully represented the Principles of those who allow occasional Presence in our Churches, rather than Communion with them; which I have discover'd to be of that Nature, as leads Men to the greatest Separation.

[Page 144] Sect. 14. There are others who deal more openly and ingenuously, and so need the less pains to dis­cover their minds, and those are,

II. Such who do in terms assert all Acts of Com­munion with our Churches to be unlawful. But there is a difference among these; For,

First, Some allow hearing Sermons in our Pub­lick Assemblies, and joyning in the Pulpit Prayers; but not in the Liturgy, or any proper Act of Church-Com­munion. This I have shewed, was the Opinion of Robinson, and the New-England Churches; and was lately owned by Mr. Ph. Nye, who Wrote a Discourse about it, and answered all Objections. Yea, he goes so far, as to own the publick preaching, as a great bles­sing to the Nation; and he thinks, the Dissenters and their Families are bound to frequent, (as they have li­berty and opportunity) the more publick and National Ministry. But towards the end of his Treatise he confesses the generality of their People, to be of another opinion; which he imputes to the activity of the Iesu­its among them; and he was a very sagacious Man.

Secondly, Others hold it unlawful to joyn with our Churches in any Acts of publick Worship. And some are arrived to that height, Rector of Su [...]to [...] &c. p. 25. that one of my An­swerers confesseth, That they refuse to hear him, be­cause he owns many Parochial Churches to be true Churches. It seems then, they not only think it unlawful to hear us, but to hear those who think it lawful; and the next step will be to Separate from [Page 145] those who do not Separate from them, that own many Parochial Churches to be true Churches.

Several Books have been published to prove it unlawful to hear our Ministers Preach: and these proceed upon the old Arguments of the former Sepa­ratists; as may be seen at large in a Book called Ie­rubbaal: whose Author goes about to prove our Wor­ship Idolatry, and our Ministers Antichristian; which Mr. Nye was so far from owning, that he grants our Ministry to be true and lawful, and utterly denies it to be Anti-christian; because the Articles of our Religi­on, to which our Ministers are to conform their In­structions, are Orthodox, and framed for the casting and keeping out of Popery.

Sect. 15. The several Principles of our Dissenters being thus laid down, the State of the present Contro­versie, as to Separation from our Communion, will soon appear. And any one may now discern,

1. That I do not mean bare local Separation. For Mr. B. puts this in the front of his Quaere's; Answ. p. 46. Do you think, that he is a Separatist that meeteth not in the same Parish Church with you? No; I do assure him, provided that he elsewhere joyns with our Churches as a Member of them; and doth not think himself bound to prefer the Separate Meetings, as having a purer way of worship, and ordinarily to frequent them for more Gospel-administrations. Mischief of Impos. P. 48. And so much may satisfie Mr. A. too, who, after his trifling manner, talks of a bellum Parochiale, as though Men were so weak to charge one another with Separation be­cause they meet in different Parishes; but as to the [Page 146] Gird he gives about a Bellum Episcopale, I desire him only to look into the Evangelium armatum for an Answer to it.

2. I do not mean by Separation any difference in Doctrine, not determin'd by our Church, upon which Men do not proceed to divide from the Com­munion of it: And I wonder, who ever did. But Mr. B. is pleased to make another Quaere about it. To this I shall Answer him in Mr. Hales his words: While the Controversies in Holland about Praedestinati­on, Tract of Schism, p. 3. went no farther th [...]n the Pen-combats, the Schism was all that while unhatcht; but assoon as one party swept an old Cloyster, and by a pretty art made it a Church, by putting a new Pulpit in it for the Separa­ting party there to meet, that which was before a Con­troversie became a formal Schism.

3. By Separation I do not mean any difference in Modes of Worship allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live. This is to Answer Mr. B's. Quae­re concerning the difference between Cathedral and Pa­rochial Churches; and publick and private administrati­ons of Sacraments. But this sticks much with Mr. A. who takes his hints from Mr. B. which he cooks and dresses after his Facetious manner, that they may go off the better with the common people. And a ve­ry pleasant representation he endeavors to make of the difference of the Cathedral Service from that in Countrey Parishes. Mischief of Impos. p. 48, 49. But what is all this to the pur­pose? If the same Man puts on finer Clothes at Lon­don, than he wears in the Countrey, Is he not the same Man for all that? Are not David's Psalms the [Page 147] same, whether they be Sung, or Said? Or whether Sung in a Cathedral Tune, or as set by a Parish Clerk? That which only looks like Argument (and my business is to mind nothing else; possibly others may call him to an account for his unbecoming way of Writing) That I say which looks like Argument is, That some things are done without Rules in our Parish Churches, Mischief of Impos. p. 53. as the universal practice of Singing Psalms in Hopkins and Sternholds Metre; and therefore they may do things without Rules and yet not be guilty of Sepa­ration. This proceeds upon a mistake, for in the first establishment of the Liturgy upon the Reforma­tion under Edward the VI. allowance was made for the use of the Psalms, as they were to be Sung in Churches distinct from the use of them as part of the Liturgy; and from thence that custom hath been so universally practised. But suppose there are some Customs receiv'd without Rules; suppose there are some different Customs among us; What is this, to the denying the lawfulness of constant Communion with our Churches? To the choosing of new Pastors? and sitting down, as he speaks, with purer Administra­tions? All which this Man owns in his Book, as their avowed Principles and Practices; and yet hath the confidence to parallel their Separation from our Church, with the different Modes of Worship among our selves. He must have a very mean opinion of Mens understandings, that thinks to deceive them in so gross a manner.

4. By Separation I do not understand a meer difference as to the way of Worship, which the Members of foreign Churches are here permitted to en­joy. For they do not break off from the Communion of our Churches; but have certain priviledges allow­ed [Page 148] them, as acting under the Rules of those Churches from whence they came. But what have we to do to judge the Members of other Reformed Churches? Our business is with those who being Baptized in this Church, and living under the Rules and Government of it; either renounce the Membership they once had in it, or avoid Communion with it as Members, and joyn with other Societies set up in opposition to this Communion. Answ. p. 46. 60, 87. Yet this matter about the Foreign Churches Mr. B. mentions again and again; as though their case could be thought alike, who ne­ver departed from ours, but only continue in the Communion of their own Churches.

5. I do not charge every disobedience to the King and Laws and Canons in matters of Religion, Government and Worship with the Guilt of Separation. For although a Man may be guilty of culpable dis­obedience in breaking the Commands of Authority, Answ. p. 47. and the Orders of the Church he lives in; yet if he continues in all Acts of Communion with our Church, and draws not others from it upon mere pretence of greater Purity of Worship, and better means of Edifi­cation, I do not charge such a one with Schism.

6. I do not charge those with Separation, who under Idolatrous, or Arian Princes did keep up the Exercise of true Religion though against the Will of the Magistrate. But what is this to our case, where the true Religion is acknowledged, and the true Doctrine of Faith owned by the dissenters them­selves, who break off Communion with our Churches. Wherefore then doth Mr. B. make so many Quaeres, Answ. 15, 52, 53, 84. about the case of those who lived under Heathen Persecu­tors? or the Arian Emperors, or Idolatorous Princes? I hope, he did not mean to Parallel their own Case [Page 149] with theirs; for, What horrible reflection would this be upon our Government, and the Protestant Re­ligion established among us? To what end doth he mention Valens and Hunericus that cut out of the Preach­ers Tongues, Answ. p. 21. and several other unbecoming Insinuati­ons? when God be thanked, we live under a most merciful Prince, and have the true Doctrine of the Gospel among us, and may have it still continued, if Mens great Ingratitude, as well as other crying Sins, do not provoke God justly to deprive us of it. What need was there, of letting fall any passages tending this way? when I told him in the very State of the Question, that all our Dispute was, Whether the upholding Separate Meetings for Divine Worship, where the Doctrine established, and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God, be a Sinful Separation or not? Why is this Dissembled and passed over? And the worst cases imaginable supposed, in stead of that which is really theirs? If I could defend a Cause by no other means, I think Common Ingenuity, the Honor of our Prince and Nation, and of the Protestant Reli­gion Professed among us, would make me give it over.

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

• I. Against those who hold occasional Communion with our Church to be lawful in some parts of Worship; but deny constant Communion to be a Duty.
• [Page 150] II. Against those who deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful; although they agree with us in the Substantial of Religion.

1. Against those who hold occasional Communion to be lawful with our Church in some parts of Worship, but deny Constant Communion to be a Duty.

To overthrow this Principle, I shall prove these two things,

• 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not ex­cuse from the guilt of Separation.
• 2. That as far as occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful, constant Communion is a Duty.

1. That bare occasional Communion doth not ex­cuse from the guilt of Separation. Which will ap­pear by these things,

First. Bare occasional Communion makes no Man the Member of a Church. This term of occasional Com­munion, as far as I can find, was invented by the Dissenting Brethren to give satisfaction to the Pres­byterians, who charged them with Brownism: to a­void this charge, they declared, That the Brownists held all Communion with our Parochial Churches unlaw­ful, which they did not; for, said they, we can occasi­onally Communicate with you; but this gave no man­ner of satisfaction to the other Pary, as long as they upheld Separate Congregations, with whom they would [Page 151] constantly Communicate; and accounted those their Churches, with whom they did joyn as Members of the same Body. But if notwithstanding this lawful­ness of occasional Communion with our Churches, they joyned with other societies in strict and constant com­munion; it was a plain Argument they apprehended something so bad or defective in our Churches, that they could not joyn as Members with them; and because they saw a necessity of joyning with some Churches as Members, they pleaded for separate Congregations. And so, must all those do, who think it their duty to be members of any Churches at all; and not follow Grotius his Example, in suspen­ding Communion from all Churches. Which is a prin­ciple I do not find any of our dissenting Brethren wil­ling to own. Answ. p. 64. Although Mr. B. declares, Page 24. That he and some others own themselves to be Pastors to no Churches; Page 62. That he never gather'd a Church; Page 86. that he Baptized none in 20 years; and gave the Lords Supper to none in 18 years. I desire to know, what Church Mr. B. hath been of all this time. For as to our Churches, he declares, That he thinks it lawful to Communicate with us occasionally; but not as Churches (for he thinks we want an essential part, viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power, as appears before) but as Ora­tories; and so he renounces Communion with our Churches as Churches; and for other Churches, he saith he hath gathered none, he hath administred Sacraments to none in 18 years; and if he hath not joyned as a Member in constant Communion with any separate Church, he hath been so long a Member of no Church at all. It is true, he hath Pray'd occasionally, and Re­ceiv'd the Sacrament occasionally in our Oratories, but [Page 152] not as a Member of our Churches; he hath Preached occasionally to separate Congregations, but he hath ga­ther [...]d no Church, he hath Administred no Sacraments for 18 years together. So that he hath Prayed occasio­nally in one place, and Preached occasionally in ano­ther, but hath had no Communion as Member of a Church any where. But I wonder, how any Man could think such a necessity lay upon him to Preach, that Woe was unto him if he did not; and yet appre­hend none to Administer the Sacraments for so long together; none, to joyn himself as a Member to any Church. Is it possible for him to think it Sacriledge not to Preach; and to think it no fault, not to give the Sacraments to others, nor to receive one of them himself as a Communicant with a Church? Was there not the same devotedness, in Ordination to the faithful Administration of Sacraments, as to Preach­ing the Gospel? Was not the same Authority, the same charge as to both of them? Was there not the same promise and engagement to give faithful diligence to Minister the Doctrine and Sacraments? Is there an indispensable obligation to do one part of your du­ty, and none at all to the other? Is this possible, to perswade impartial Men, that for 18 years toge­ther you thought your self bound to Preach against the Laws; and yet never thought your self bound to do that, which you were as solemnly obliged to do as the other? Mr. B. knows very well in Church-History, that Presbyters were rarely allowed to Preach, and not without leave from the Bishop, and that in some of the Churches he most esteems too; viz. the African; but they were constantly bound to Administer the Sacraments; so that, if one obligation were stricter than the other, that was so which Mr. B. dispensed [Page 153] with himself in, for 18 years together; and why he might not as well in the other, is not easie to under­stand. However, Why all this while, no Constant Communicant with any Church? What, no Church among us fit for him to be a Member of? No Obliga­tion upon a Christian to that, equal to the necessity of Preaching?

These things must seem very strange, to those who judge of Christian Obligations, by the Scripture, and the Vniversal Sense and practice of the Christian Church in the best and purest Ages. To what purpose is it to dispute about the true notion of an Institu­ted Church for personal presential Communion; if men can live for 18 years together without joyning in Communion with any such Church? What was this Communion intended for? The antient Churches at this rate, might easily be capacious enough for their Members, if some never joyned with them in so long a time. But he hath communicated occasionally with us: Yes, to shew, what defective and tolera­ble Churches he can communicate with, but not as a Member, as himself declares; and this occasional Com­munion makes him none. Mischief of Impos. P. 85. For Mr. A. saith, Their occasional Communion with us, is but like any of our occasional Communion with them: or occasional hearing of a weak Preacher; or occasional going to a Popish Chappel; which no one imagines makes the Persons Members of such Congregations. If therefore Men use this occasional Communion more than once or twice, or ten or twenty times, as long as they de­clare it is only occasional communion, it makes them no Members of our Churches; for that obliges them to fixed and constant Communion.

[Page 154] Secondly, They that have fixed and constant communion in a Church gathered out of another, are in a State of Se­paration from the Church out of which it is gathered, although they may be occasionally present in it. Now, if Men who think our constant communion unlawful, Do judge themselves bound to joyn together in another Society for purer administrations, as Mr. A. speaks, and to choose new Pastors; this is gathering new Churches; and consequently is a plain Separati­on from those Churches out of which they are ga­ther'd. The Author of the Letter out of the Country speaks plainly in this matter. Such, saith he, of the dissenting Ministers, Page 33. as have most openly declared for communicating at some times with some of the Paro­chial Churches; have also declared their judgment of the lawfulness and necessity of Preaching and Hearing, and doing other Religious Duties in other Congregations also. If this be true, as no doubt that Gentleman well understands their Principles, then we see plain­ly a Separation owned, notwithstanding the occasio­nal communion with our Churches. For, here is not only a lawfulness, but a necessity asserted of joyning in Separate Congregations, for Preaching, Hearing, and other Religious Duties. And here are all the parts necessary for making New Churches, Pastors, People, and joyning together for Religious Worship, in a way separate from our Assemblies. For although they allow the lawfulness of occasional communicating with some of them; yet they are so far from allow­ing constant communion, that they assert a necessity of separate Congregations for Divine Worship; And what was there more then this which the old Separatists [Page 155] held? For when they first published the Reasons of their Separation, which Giffard Answered, they laid down the grounds of their dissatisfaction with our Assemblies; from whence they inferred the neces­sity of Separation; and then declare, that they only sought the Fellowship and Communion of Gods faithful servants; and by the direction of his Holy Spirit to pro­ceed to a choice of new Pastors; with whom they might joyn, in all the Ordinances of Christ. And what is there in this different, from what must follow from the Principles of those, who assert the necessity of joyning in other Congregations distinct and separate from our Assemblies for the performance of Religious Duties? And if there be a necessity of Separation, as this Gen­tleman tells us they generally hold, that seem most moderate, the holding the lawfulness of occasional Com­munion, will not excuse them from the guilt of the other. For, as long as the necessity of Separation was maintained, the other was alwayes accounted a less material dispute, and some held one way and some another. And for this occasional communion the same Author tells us, that he looks upon it, but as drinking a single glass of Wine, Page 51. or of Water, against his own inclination, to a person out of Civility; when he is not for any Mans pleasure to destroy his health by tying himself to drink nothing else. It seems then, this occasional communion is a meer Complement to our Churches, wherein they force themselves to a dangerous piece of civility much against their own in­clinations; but they account constant communion a thing pernicious to their Souls, as the other is de­structive to their health. So that this Salvo cannot excuse them from the guilt of Separation.

[Page 156] Sect. 17. 2. That as far as occasional Communion is lawful, Page 50. constant Communion is a Duty. This the for­mer Gentleman wonders at me if I think a good conse­quence. Mischief of Impos. p. 84. Mr. A. brings several instances to prove, that we allow occasional Communion to be lawful, where con­stant is no duty; as with other Parish Churches, upon a Iourney, at a Lecture, &c. but who ever question'd the lawfulness of occasional Communion with Churches of the same constitution; or thought a Man was bound to be always of that Church, where he goes to hear a Lecture, &c. but the question is, about the lawfulness of Separation, where occasional Commu­on is allowed to be lawful. For a man is not said to separate from every Church, where he forbears or ceases to have Communion; but only from that Church, with which he is obliged to hold Commu­nion, and yet withdraws from it. And it is a won­der to me, none of my Friends (my Adversaries I am loth to call them) could discern this. It is law­ful, saith Mr. B. to have Communion with the French, Dutch, Answ. p. 105. or Greek Church, Must constant Communion therefore with them be a duty? Yes, if he were obli­ged to be a Member of those Churches, and thought it lawful to communicate some times, constant com­munion would be a Duty. But because this seems so hard to be understood, I will therefore under­take to prove it, by these Two Arguments.

[Page 157] First, From the general Obligation upon Christi­ans, to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Vnity of the Church.

Secondly, From the particular force of that Text, Philipp. 3. 16. As far as you have already attained walk by the same Rule, &c.

First, From the general Obligation upon Christi­ans to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church. Rom. 12. 18. If it be possible, saith St. Paul, as much as lies in you live peaceably with all Men. Now I Ask, If there be not as great an ob­ligation at least, upon Christians to preserve Peace in the Church, as with all Men? and they are bound to that, as far as possible, and as much as lies in them. And is not that possible and lies in them to do, which they acknowledge lawful to be done, and can do at some times? What admirable Arguments are there to Peace and Vnity among Christians? What Divine Enforcements of them on the Consci­ences of Men in the Writings of Christ and his A­postles? And cannot these prevail with Men to do that, which they think in their Consciences they may lawfully do, towards joyning in Communion with us? This I am perswaded, is one of the pro­voking Sins of the Non-conformists, that they have been so backward in doing, what they were con­vinced they might have done, with a good Consci­ence. When they were earnestly pressed to it by those in Authority, they refused it; and they have been more and more backward ever since, till now [Page 158] they seem generally resolved, either to break all in pieces, or to persist in Separation. Mr. B. indeed very honestly moved them 1663. to consider how far it was lawful, or their duty to communicate with the Parish Churches in the Liturgy and Sacraments; and brought many Arguments to prove it lawful; and no one of the Brethren seemed to dissent: but observe the An­swer Mr. A. makes to this; Mischief of Impos. P. 39. i. e. saith he, They did not enter their several Protestations, nor formally de­clare against the Reasons of their Brother; like wise and wary persons they would advise upon them. And so they have been advising and considering ever since, till with great Wisdom and Wariness they are dropt into Separation before they were aware of it; and the meer necessity of defending their own practices, makes them espouse these Principles. Such another Meeting Mr. B. saith, they had after the Plague and Fire, at which they agreed, That Communion with our Church was in it self lawful and good. Here Mr. A. charges me for being tardy, Ibid. and wronging the Relator, by leaving out the most considerable words of the sentence, viz. When it would not do more harm than good. And upon this he expatiates about the wayes when it may do more harm than good; Whereas if the Reader please to examine the place, he will find, I did consider the force of those words; Plea. p. 240. when I put it, that they resolved it to be lawful in it self; although some circumstan­ces might hinder their present doing it. For they declared, That it was in it self lawful and meet; but the circumstances of that time, did make them think it might do more harm than good; and therefore it is said, They delaid for a fitter opportunity, which makes it clear, they were then resolved upon the lawful­ness [Page 159] of the thing. But that opportunity hath never hapned since; and so they are now come to plead against the practice of it; as Mr. A. plainly doth; by such reasons as these. Communion with our Churches will then do more harm than good,

1. When such Communion shall perswade the Parish Churches, that their frame is eligible and not only tole­rable. Mischief of Impos. p, 40. As though Separation were more eligible, than a Communion that is lawful and tolerable; and Schism were not more intolerable, than Communion with a tolerable Church. What will not Men say in de­fence of their own practice? Was ever Schism made so light a matter of, And the Peace and V­nity of Christians valued at so low a rate; that for the prevention of the one, and the preservation of the other, a thing that is lawful may not be done, if there be any danger that what is only tolerable should be mistaken for more eligible? As if all the Mischiefs of Schism and Division in the Church, were not fit to be put in the ballance, against such a hor­rible and monstrous inconvenience. Methinks, it were better sometimes to be wise and considerate, than always thus subtil and witty against the com­mon sence, and reason of Mankind.

2. When others shall thereby be thought obliged to se­parate from purer Churches, i. e. be drawn off from their Separation.

3. When it will harden the Papists. As though their Divisions did not do it ten thousand times more.

[Page 160] 4. When it shall notably prejudice the Christian Re­ligion in general. Yes, no doubt the Cure of Divisi­ons would do so.

By these particulars, it appears, that he thinks them not obliged to do what lawfully they can do. Yet at last, he saith, he tells us, as much is done, as their Consciences will permit them. Say you so? Is it indeed come to this? Will none of your Conscien­ces now permit you either to come to the Liturgy, or to make use of any parts of it, in your own Meet­ings? How often hath Mr. B. told the World, That you stuck not at Set-Forms, nor at the Vse of the Liturgy, provided some exceptionable passages were alter'd in it? Did not Mr. B. declare at his Meeting, publickly, in a Writing on purpose, That they did not meet under any colour, or pretence of any Religious Exercise in other manner, than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England, and were he able he would accordingly Read himself? Is this observed in any one Meeting in London, or through England? Then certainly, there are some who do not, what they think they lawfully may do towards Communion with us. And Mr. B. saith in the beginning of his late Plea, That they never made one Motion for Presbytery, or against Liturgies; and these words are spoken in the Name of the whole Party called Presbyterians. And since that, Mr. B. saith, They did come to an Agreement, wherein the constant Vse of the Liturgy, Answ. p. 64. with some Alterations, was required. And are we now told, That all that can lawfully be done is done? Mr. B. indeed acts agree­ably [Page 161] to his Principles, in coming to our Liturgy; but Where are all the rest? And, Which of them Reads what they think lawful at their own Assemblies? Do they not hereby discover, that they are more afraid of losing their People, who force them to comply with their humors, than careful to do, what they judge lawful, towards Communion with our Church?

Sect. 17. But whence comes it to pass, that any who think occasional Communion with us to be lawful, should not think themselves obliged to constant Com­munion? From what grounds come they to practise occasional Communion? Is it from the Love of Peace and Concord, as Mr. B. saith? That is a good ground so far, as it goes, But will it not carry a Man far­ther, if he pursue it, as he ought to do? What love of Concord is this to be occasionally present at our Churches, and at the same time to declare, That there is greater purity of Worship, and better means of Edification in Separate Congregations? The one can never draw Men so much to the love of Concord, as the other doth incourage them in the Principles of Separation. But, if there be an Obligation upon Men to Communicate with the Church they live in, notwithstanding the defects and corruptions of it, that Obligation can never be discharged by meer occasio­nal Presence at some times, and in some Acts of Wor­ship; Trial of Grounds of Separation. Chap. 10. p. 791. for, saith Mr. Ball, To use one Ordinance, and not another, is to make a Schism in the Church.

The only Example produced to justify such occa­sional Communion with defective Churches, is that our Blessed Saviour did communicate after that manner in [Page 162] the Iewish Synagogues and Temple. But this is so far from being true, that the old Separatists granted, That our Lord Communicated with the Iewish Church in Gods Ordinances, Robinson's Treatise, p. 11. living and dying a Member thereof; and from thence they prove, That the Iewish Church had a right Constitution in our Saviours time.

And did not he declare, Ainsworth's Consider. examin'd, p. 5. That he came not to dis­solve the Law, but to fulfill it? And that he comply­ed with Iohn 's Baptism, because he was to fulfill all righteousness? Did he not go up to the Feasts at Ie­rusalem, as a Member of the Iewish Church, and fre­quent the Synagogues? Even at the Feast of Dedi­cation, though not instituted by the Law, he was present, John 10, 22, 23. as other Iews were. Yea, Did he not ex­press more than ordinary zeal, for purifying the out­ward parts of the Temple, because it was to be a House of Prayer for all Nations? Was not this to shew Mens Obligation to come and Worship there, as well, as that the place was to be kept Sacred for that use? And, Doth not the Apostle expresly say, That he was made under the Law? Where is there the least ground in Scripture, to intimate, that Christ only kept occasional, and not constant communion with the Iewish Church? What part of Worship did he ever withdraw from? Did he not command his Disciples to go hear the Scribes and Pharisees, because they sate in Moses Chair? Matt. 23. 2. Where did he ever bid them go thither, when they could have no better; but when they could to be sure to prefer the Purer way of Wor­ship, and better Means of Edification? Was not his own Doctrine incomparably beyond theirs? Is there any pretence for greater Edification now, to be men­tion'd [Page 163] with what the Disciples had, to forsake the Iewish Assemblies, for the love of Christ 's own Teach­ing? Yet he would not have them to do that, out of the regard he had to the Publick Worship and Teach­ing. Our Saviour himself did only Teach his Disci­ples Occasionally, and at certain Seasons; but their constant Communion was with the Iewish Assemblies. And so it was after his Passion, Luk. 24, 53. till the Holy Ghost fe [...]l upon them, and they were then imploy'd to ga­ther and form a new Church; which was not done before; and thence the Author of the Ordinary Glosse observes; That we never read of Christ 's Praying to­gether, with his Disciples (unless perhaps at his Trans­figuration with three of his Disciples) although we often read of his Praying alone. So that no exam­ple can be mention'd, which is more directly contra­ry to the Practice of Separation upon the present grounds, than that of our Blessed Saviour's; which ought to be in stead of all others to us.

Sect. 19. 2. I argue, from the particular force of that Text, Phil. 3. 16. As far, as we have already attain­ed, let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same things. From whence it appears evident, that Men ought to go as far as they can, towards Vniformi­ty; and not to forbear doing any thing, which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Vnity.

To take off the force of the Argument from this place, several Answers have been given, which I shall now remove; so that the strength of it may appear to remain, notwithstanding all the attempts which have been made to weaken it.

[Page 164] Some say, That the Apostles words are to be under­stood of the different attainments Christians had in knowledge, and the different conceptions and opini­ons which they had concerning the Truths of the Gos­pel. Vindication of Non-con­form [...]ts. p. 25, 30. Thus Dr. O. understands the Text; whose sence is somewhat obscurely and intricately expres­sed; but as far as I can apprehend his meaning, he makes this to be the Apostles; viz.

I. That although the best Christians in this life can­not attain to a full measure and perfection in the com­prehension of the Truths of the Gospel, or the enjoyment of the things contained in them; yet they ought to be pressing continually after it.

II. That in the common pursuit of this design, it is not to be supposed, but the Men will come to different attainments, have different measures of light and know­ledge, yea and different conceptions, or opinions about these things.

III. That in this difference of opinions, those who differ'd from others should wait on the Teachings of God, in that use of the means of Instruction which they enjoy'd.

IV. That as to their Duty in common to each other, as far as they had attained, they should walk by the same Rule, namely, which he had now laid down, and mind the same things as he had enjoyned them.

From whence he infers, That these words are so far from being a Foundation to charge them with [Page 165] Schism, who agreeing in the substance of the Doctrine of the Gospel, do yet dissent from others, in some things; that it enjoyns a mutual forbearance towards those who are differently minded. And again, he saith, The advice St. Paul gives to both Parties, is, that whereun­to they have attained, wherein they do agree, which were all those Principles of Faith and Obedience which were necessary to their acceptance with God, they should walk by the same Rule, and mind the same things, that is, forbearing one another in the things wherein they differ; which, saith he, is the substance of what is pleaded for by the Non-conformists.

For the clearing of this matter, there are Three things to be debated,

• 1. Whether the Apostle speaks of different opini­ons, or different practises?
• 2. Whether the Rule he gives be mutual for­bearance?
• 3. How far the Apostles Rule, hath an influence on our present case?

First, Whether the Apostle speaks of different opi­nions, or of different practises? For the right un­derstanding of this, we must strictly attend to the Apostles scope and design. It is most evident that the Apostle began this Discourse with a Caution against the Teachers of the Circumcision, Vers 2. Beware of Dogs, beware of Evil Workers, beware of the Concision. But speak­ing so reproachfully of them, he shews in the next words, that every thing that was excellent in the de­sign [Page 166] of the Law, was accomplished in the Gospel; and so he proceeds to declare, how justly he was brought to a disesteem of the greatest priviledges of the Law, in comparison with the things revealed by the Gospel, which shews, that the Apostle had still an eye to these False Teachers, who were very busie in disturbing the Peace of the Churches, and draw­ing Disciples after them, pleading the necessity of observing the Law; and dividing the Christians in­to different Communions on that account, as appears by their proceedings at Antioch, where they did se­parate themselves from the Gentile Christians, and St. Peter for a time complyed with them. Act. 16. 13. If such as these had not been busie at Philippi (where it appears that Iews inhabited) What need St. Paul give so much caution against them? What need all this dispute concerning the Priviledges of the Law? If it be allowed, that they were there carrying on the same designs, which they did in other Churches, then it follows, he had great reason to perswade them to Vnity so earnestly, as he doth, Philip. 2. 1, 2. and to give so much caution against them; and to represent the great excellencies of the Gospel above the Law; which being done, the Apostle after his usual method, makes a digression, concerning him­self, viz. How far short he thought himself of what he aimed at, and yet with what earnestness he pressed forward, toward Christian perfection; making no longer any account of legal priviledges. Which I take to be his meaning, when he saith, Forgetting the things which are behind I press forward, &c. So St. Hierome understands it, Legis obliviscens ad per­fecta Evangelii praecepta me teneo. Forgetting the [Page 167] Law, I keep to the Precepts of the Gospel. This be­ing understood, the Apostles sence naturally follows, according to his former design; Let us therefore, as many as are arrived to this height of Christianity (so the word [...] is used, 1 Cor. 14. 20. Ephes. 4. 13. Coloss. 4. 12. Heb. 5. 14.) agree in pursuing our main end. But then comes the case of those, who were not so fully satisfied in this matter of the Law; there being many and plausible Arguments on their side; well, saith the Apostle, if they are doubtful, I advise them however, not to hearken to these false Teachers, for they make nothing but Faction and Divisions among you, wait patiently up­on God, which is the best means, for your satis­faction. If any be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you, i. e. saith Beza in his Paraphrase, If any yet doubt of the laying aside of the Law, let them make no disturbance in the Church about it. And so Erasmus saith, It ought to be understood of the Iu­daizing Christians, who did not yet discern, that the Ceremonial Law was to be abolished, however, saith he, they ought not to break the Peace of the Church for it. But, What sence can Dr. O. here put upon the being otherwise minded: Otherwise than what? As many as be perfect be thus minded, to pursue your main end; but, if any be otherwise minded; Did any think they ought not to mind chiefly their great end? that is incredible; Therefore the Apostle must be understood of somewhat, about which there were then very different apprehensions; and that it is cer­tain there were about the Law among the Christians then. The Apostle therefore doth not speak of any kind of different apprehensions Christians might fall into; but of such as were at that time among [Page 168] them; and so one Copy reads it, [...] If hitherto ye have been otherwise minded; they had no difference concerning the [...], the things before them; viz. the happiness of the Gospel, but they had concerning the [...], the things behind, viz. the force and obligation of the Law. And since this difference did not rest barely in opinion, but was carried on so far, as to break the Peace of the Church about it; it appears to have been no bare difference of Opinions, but such as related to the Peace and Communion of Christians.

Secondly, Whether the Rule which the Apostle layes down, be only a Rule of mutual forbearance? Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same Rule, let us mind the same things. The sence according to Dr. O. is this, That those who are agreed in the stubstantials of Religion, should go on and do their duty without regarding lesser differences. Which is a sence very uncertain, and doth not reach to the differences then among them▪ It is very un­certain, because it sets no bounds to differences; and supposes the continuance of such differences among them, which he designed to prevent, by perswad­ing them so often in this Epistle to be of one mind, Phil. 1▪ 27. 2. 2. of one soul; as well as to mind the same things. Besides, the difference then on foot, was none of the smaller differences of opinions, but that about which they differ'd was urged on one side, as necessary to Salva­tion, Act. 15. 1. by the false Apostles; and opposed on the other, as pernicious and destructive to it. One of my Answerers saith, Rector of Sutton, p. 15, 16. That the Iudaizing Christians were leaven'd with such a corrupt Opinion, as was by [Page 169] no means to be born with; which would have madè Christ and his Death in vain. And that the Apostle sets himself against it might and main, shewing the dreadful consequences of it. And is it probable the Apostle should prescribe a Rule of mutual forbear­ance, Gal. 5. 2. in such a case as this? especially, when in the same Chapter, he gives so great a caution against them, with so much unusual sharpness of expression; Beware of Dogs, beware of Evil Workers, beware of the Concision. Doth this look like a Precept of mutual forbearance, as to the differences then among them? these we know there were, let Dr. O name any other smaller differences of Opinion, which might be an occasion of the Apostles giving such a Rule of mu­tual forbearance. But now, if we suppose the Apo­stle to speak to the difference about the Law, about which the Churches were then divided, the sence is plain, easie, and pertinent. For so, either (1.) It takes in those who hitherto differ'd about the Law; and then the sence is, although you are not come up to so great satisfaction as others have, yet go as far as you can with the Body of Christians, you live with; keep within one Rule; break not the bounds of Peace and Vnity which Christ hath set you; run not with the false Teachers into Separating dividing cour­ses. (2.) It is directed to those who have got the start of others, and then it contains the obligation that lies upon them, especially so have a mighty re­gard to the Peac [...] and Vnity of Christians; not to break the Common [...]ties and bonds on the account of their greater attainments, nor to Separate from others, as meaner and lower Christians, because they are not come up to that perfection, which you have at­tained [Page 170] to. And so either way, it contains an excel­lent Rule, and of admirable use to the Christian Church, not only at that time, but in all Ages of the World, viz. That those who cannot be fully satisfied in all things, should go as far as they can to­wards preserving Peace and Communion among Chri­stians; and not peevishly separate and divide the Church, because they cannot in all things think as others do; nor others on the account of greater san­ctity and perfection, despise the inferior sort of Chri­stians, and forsake their Communion, but they ought all to do what lies possibly in them to preserve the bonds of Peace, and the Vnity of the Church.

Thirdly, How far this Rule hath an influence on our case? (1.) It follows from hence, that as far as Communion is lawful, it is a duty, since, as far as they have attained they are to walk by the same Rule. And so much Dr. O. doth not deny; when he saith, Those who are agreed in the Substantials of Religion, or in the Principles of Faith and Obe­dience, should walk by the same Rule, and mind the same things, forbearing one another in the the things wherein they differ. Then as far, as they agree, they are bound to joyn together, whether it be as to Opini­on, or Communion. Because the obligation to Peace and Vnity must especially reach to Acts of Christian Communion, as far as that is judged to be lawful. (2.) That the best Christians are bound to Vnite with others, though of lower attainments, and to keep within the same Rule; which is a general expression relating to the bounds of a Race, and so takes in all such Orders which are lawful and judg­ed necessary to hold the Members of a Christian [Page 171] Society together. Vindication of Non-con­formists, p. 26. But, saith Dr. O. Let the Apostles Rule be produced with any probability of proof to be his, and they are all ready to subscribe and conform unto it. This is the Apostles Rule, to go as far as they can; and if they can go no farther, to sit down qui­etly, and wait for farther instruction, and not to break the Peace of the Church, upon present dissatisfaction, nor to gather new Churches out of others upon sup­position of higher attainments.

If the Rule reach our Case, Page 27. saith he again, it must be such as requires things to be observed, as were never divinely appointed, as National Churches, Ceremonies and Modes of Worship. And so this Rule doth in order to Peace, require the observation of such things, which although they be not particularly appointed by God, yet are enjoyned by lawful Authority, provided, they be not unlawful in them­selves, nor repugnant to the World of God.

But the Apostles never gave any such Rules them­selves, Page 28, about outward Modes of Worship with Ceremo­nies, Feasts, Fasts, Liturgies, &c. What then? It is sufficient that they gave this general Rule, That all lawful things are to be done for the Churches Peace: And without this no Vnity, or Order can be preserved in Churches. The Apostles, saith he, gave Rules inconsistent with any determining Rule, Page. 28▪ 31. viz. of mutual forbearance, Rome. 14. And herein the A­postle acted not upon meer Rules of Prudence, but as a Teacher divinely inspired. That he was Divinely in­spired, I do not question, but even such a one may determine a case upon present circumstances, which resolution may not always bind, when the circum­stances are changed. For then, the meaning of the [Page 172] Apostle must be, that whatever differences happen a­mong Christians, there must be no determination either way. But the direct contrary to this, we find in the Decree of the Apostles at Ierusalem, up­on the difference that happened in the Christian Churches. Act. 15, 28. And although there was a very plausible pretence of the obligation of Conscience one way; yet the Apostles made a determination in the case, contrary to their Judgment. Which shews, that the Rule of Forbearance, where Conscience is al­ledged both wayes, is no standing Rule to the Christian Church; but that the Governors of it from Parity of Reason may determine those things which they judge to conduce most to the Peace and Wel­fare of that Church, which they are bound to pre­serve. And from hence it appears how little Reason there is for Dr. O's Insinuation, as though the false Apostles were the only Imposers: whereas, it is most evident, that the true Apostles made this perempto­ry Decree, in a matter of great consequence, and a­gainst the pretence of Conscience on the other side.

But saith Dr. O. further, Page 7, 8. The Iewish Christians were left to their own liberty, provided they did not impose on others; and the Dissenters at this day, desire no more, than the Gentile Churches did, viz. not to be imposed upon to observe those things which they are not satisfied, it is the mind of Christ should be imposed up­on them. I Answer, 1. It was agreed by all the Governors of the Christian Church, that the Iewish Christians should be left to their own liberty, out of respect to the Law of Moses; and out of regard to the Peace of the Christian Church, which might have [Page 173] been extremely hazarded, if the Apostles had present­ly set themselves against the observing the Iewish Customs among the Iews themselves. 2. The false Apostles imposing on the Gentile Christians had two Circumstances in it, which extremely alter their case from that of our present Dissenters. For, (1.) They were none of their lawful Governors, but went about as Seducers drawing away the Disciples of the Apostles from them. (2.) They imposed the Iewish Rites as necessary to Salvation, and not as meerly indifferent things. And therefore the case of our Dissenters is very different from that of the Gentile Christians, as to the Impositions of the false Apostles. Thus I have considered every thing material in Dr. O. which seems to take off the force of the Argument drawn from this Text.

The Author of the Letter saith, (1.) That I ought to have proved, Letter cut of the Country, p. 24. that the Apostles meant some Rule superadded to the Scriptures; and, (2.) That other Church-Guides had the same Power, as the Apostles had. But what need all this? If it appear (1.) That the Apostles did give binding Rules to particular Churches, which are not extant in Scriptures, as ap­pears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. So that either the Scripture is an imperfect Rule, for omitting some Divine Rules; or else these were only Prudential Rules of Order and Government, (2.) That it is a standing Rule of Scripture, that Men are bound to do all lawful things for the Peace of the Church. And this I have shewed, was the Apostles design in the words of this Text.

[Page 174] Sect. 20. Others pretend, that the Apostle means no more by these words, but that Christians must live up to their knowledge, and mind that one thing. This is a very new Exposition; and the Author of it in­tends to set up for a Critick upon the credit of it. It is pitty therefore it should pass, without some consideration. Mischief of Imposit. p. 6, 7. But, I pass by the Childish triflings about [...], a Canon, viz. that is not taken in a Mili­tary notion, because great Guns were not then invented; that it is an Ecclesiastical Canon mounted upon a plat­form of Moderation; which are things fit only for Boys in the Schools; unless, perhaps, they might have been designed for an Artillery-Sermon on this Text; but however, methinks they come not in very suta­bly in a weighty and serious debate.

I come therefore to examine the New-Light that is given to this Controverted Text. [...] he ob­serves from Grotius, is left out in one MS (it may be the Alexandrian) but, What is one MS. to the general consent of Greek Copies? not only the Mo­dern, but those which St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Pho­tius, Oecumenius, and Theophylact had, who all keep it in. But suppose it be left out, the sence is the very same to my purpose. No, saith he, [...], To walk by the same must be referred to the an­tecedent [...]. And what then? Then, saith he, the sense is, What we have attained let us walk up to the same; Which comes to no more than this, unto whatsoever measure or degree of knowledge we have reached, let us walk sutably to it.

[Page 175] But the Apostle doth not here speak of the im­provement of knowledge; but of the union and con­juction of Christians, as appears by the next words [...], to mind the same thing. No such mat­ter, saith Mr. A. that phrase implyes no more than to mind that thing; or that very thing, viz. Vers. 14. pressing towards the mark. But if he had pleased to have read on, but to Phil 4. 2. he would have found [...], to signifie Vnanimity. And St. Paul, 1 Cor. 12▪ 25▪ opposes the [...] to [...]. That there be no Schism in the Body, but that all the Members should take care of [...], one for another: and therefore the [...], minding the same things, is very aptly used against Schisms and Divisi­ons. I should think St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, all understood the importance of a Greek Phrase, as well as our Author, and they all make no scruple of interpreting it of the Peace and Concord of Christians. Although St. Augustin did not understand much Greek, yet he knew the ge­neral sense of the Christian Church about this place; and he particularly applyes it to the Peace of the Church, De Baptis­mo, [...]c, Do­nat. l. 2. c, 4, 5. in St. Cyprians case. By this tast, let any Man judge of the depth of that Mans learning, or rather the height of his Confidence, who dares to tell the World, That the Vniversal Current and Stream of all Expositors is against my sense of this Text. And for this universal stream and current, besides Grotius, who speaks exactly to the same sense with mine, viz. That those who differ'd about the legal Ceremo­nies, should joyn with other Christians in what they agreed to be Divine; he mentions only Tirinus and Zanchy, and then cries, In a word, they all conspire [Page 176] against my Interpretation. If he be no better at Polling Non-conformists than Expositors, he will have no such reason to boast of his Numbers. Had it not been fairer dealing, in one word, to have referred us to Mr. Pool's Synopsis? For, if he had looked in­to Zanchy himself, he would have found, how he applyed it sharply against Dissensions in the Church. Mr. B. saith, [...] That the Text speaketh for Vnity and Concord is past Question; and that to all Christians, though of different attainments; and therefore requi­reth all to live in Concord that are Christians, notwith­standing other differences. And if he will but allow, that by vertue of this Rule, Men are bound to do all things lawful for preserving the Peace of the Church, we have no farther difference about this matter: For then, I am sure, it will follow, that if occasional Communion be lawful, constant Communion will be a Duty.

And so much for the first sort of Dissenters, who allow some kind of Communion with our Church to be lawful.

Sect. 21. II. I come now to consider the charge of Schism, or Sinful Separation, against Those, who, though they agree with us in the Substantials of Religi­on, yet deny any Communion with our Church to be law­ful. I do not speak of any improper [...] Commu­nion, Vindicat. p. 14. which Dr. O. calls Comm [...] Faith and Love, this they do allow to the Church of England, but no otherwise, than as they believe us to be Orthodox Christians; yet he seems to go farther, as to some at least of our Parochial Churches, that they are [Page 177] true Churches: But in what sense? Are they Churches rightly constituted, with whom they may joyn in Communion as Members? No; that he doth not say. But his meaning is, that they are not guilty of any such heinous Errors in Doctrine, or Idolatrous Practice in Worship, as should utterly deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches. And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches? I had thought, every Parochial Church was true, or false, according to its frame and con­stitution; which among us supposeth the owning the Doctrine and Worship received and practised in the Church of England, as it is established by Law; and if no such Errors in Doctrine, nor Idolatrous Pra­ces be allowed by the Church of England, then every Parochial Church which is constituted accor­ding to it, is a true Church. But all this amounts to no more, than what they call a Metaphysical Truth; for he doth not mean, that they are Churches with which they may lawfully have Communion. And he pleads, for the necessity of having Separate Congregations, from the necessity of Separating from our Communion: (although the time was, when the bare want of a right Constitution of Churches, was thought a sufficient ground for setting up new Churches, or for withdrawing from the Commu­nion of a Parochial Church; and I do not think the Dr. is of another mind now.) But however, I shall take things as I find them; and he insists on, as the grounds of this necessity of Separation, the things enjoyned by the Law's of the Land, or by the Canons and Orders of the Church; as Signing Chil­dren Baptized with the Sign of the Cross; Kneel­ing [Page 178] at the Communion; Observation of Holy-dayes▪ Constant Vse of the Liturgy; Renouncing other As­semblies, and the Peoples Right in choice of their own Pastors; Neglect of the Duties of Church-mem­bers; submitting to an Ecclesiastical Rule and Disci­pline, which not one of a Thousand can apprehend to have any thing in it, of the Authority of Christ, or Rule of the Gospel. This is the short account of the Reasons of Separation from our Churches Communion.

That which I am now to inquire into, is, Whe­ther such Reasons as these be sufficient ground for Separation from a Church, wherein it is confessed there are no heinous Errors in Doctrine, or Idolatrous Practice in Worship; for if they be not, such Sepa­ration must be a formal Schism; because such per­sons not only withdraw from Communion with our Church, but set up other Churches of their own.

Now the way I shall take to shew the insuffici­ency of these Causes of Separation, shall be, by shew­ing the great Absurdities, that follow upon the allowance of them.

These Five especially, I shall insist upon.

• (1.) That it weakens the Cause of the Refor­mation.
• (2.) That it hinders all Vnion between the Protestant-Churches.
• [Page 179] (3.) That it justifies the antient Schism's, which have been always condemned by the Christian Church.
• (4.) That it makes Separation endless.
• (5.) That it is contrary to the Obligation which lies on all Christians, to pre­serve the Peace and Vnity of the Church.

Sect. 22. (1.) The prejudice it brings upon the Cause of the Reformation. Which I shall make ap­pear, not from the Testimonies of our own Writers, who may be suspected by the Dissenters of too much kindness to our Church; but, from the most eminent and learned Defenders of the Reformation in France, who can be the least suspected of par­tiality to our Church. Instit. l. 4. c. 1. n. 9. I begin with Calvin; against whom I hope no exceptions will be taken.

(1.) In the General, He assigns two marks of the Visible Church, the Word of God truly Preached, and Sacraments administred according to Christ's Institu­tion.

(2.) He saith, Wherever these Marks are to be found in particular Societies, those are true Churches, howsoever they are distributed according to humane con­veniencies.

[Page 180] (3) That although those stand as Members of particular Churches, (who may not be thought wor­thy of that Society) till they are duly cast out; yet the Churches themselves having these Marks, do still retain the true Nature and Constitution of Churches, and ought to be so esteemed.

(4.) Men ought not to Separate from, Numb. 10. or break the Vnity of such Churches. And he hath this no­table saying upon it: God sets such a value upon the Communion of his Church, that he looks upon him as an Apostate from his Religion, who doth wilfully Separate himself from any Christian Society, which hath the true Ministery of the Word and Sacraments. And a little after, he calls Separation a Denial of God and Christ, a destruction of his Truth, a mighty provocation of his Anger, a crime so great that we can hardly imagine a worse, it being a Sacrilegious and perfidious breach of the Marriage betwixt Christ and his People. Numb. 11. In the next Section he makes it a very dangerous and mischievous temptation so much as to think of Separation from a Church that hath these Marks.

(5.) That although there be many Faults and Corruptions in such a Church, yet as long as it re­tains those Marks, Separation from it, is not ju­stifiable: nay, although some of those faults be a­bout Preaching the Word, and Administration of Sa­craments: for, saith he, all truths are not of equal moment: but as long as the Doctrine according to Godliness, and the true Vse of Sacraments is kept [Page 181] up, Men ought not to separate upon lesser differences; but they ought to seek the amending what is amiss, continuing in the Communion of the Church; and without disturbing the Peace and Order of it. And he at large proves, Numb. 13, 14, 15, 16. what great allowance is to be made, as to the corruption of Members from the Examples of the Apostolical Churches: and he saith, Mens Moroseness in this Matter, although it seems to flow from zeal, yet it much rather comes from Spi­ritual Pride, and a false opinion of their own holi­ness above others. Although, saith he, there were such universal corruptions in the Iewish Church, Numb. 18. that the Prophets compare it to Sodom and Gomorrah; yet they never set up new Churches, nor erected other Altars, whereat they might offer Separate Sacrifices: but whatever the People were, as long as Gods Word and Ordinances were among them, they lifted up pure hands to God, although in such an impure Socie­ty. The same he proves, as to Christ and his A­postles. From whence he concludes, That Sepa­ration from such Churches, Numb. 19. where the true Word of God and Sacraments are, is an inexcusable fault. But how then comes he to justifie the Separation from the Church of Rome? Cap. 2. n. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Because in that Church the true Doctrine of Christ is so much suppressed, and so many Errors obtruded on Mens Minds in stead of it; and the Worship of God so corrupted, that the Publick Assemblies are Schools of Idolatry and Wickedness. And the truth of the Gospel, being the Foundation of the Churches Vnity, it can be no culpable Separation to withdraw from the Communi­on of a Church which hath so notoriously corrupted his Doctrine and Institutions: especially, when they [Page 182] Anathematize those who will not comply with them? But doth he mean any indifferent Rites, Numb. 9, 10, 11, 12. or Cere­monies, where the Doctrine is sound? No; but False Doctrine, and Idolatrous Worship; as he fre­quently declares. And therefore he that would go about to defend Separation from a Church, on the account of some Ceremonies prescribed, and some Corruptions remaining in it, must over­throw the fundamental grounds of the Reforma­tion, as they are explained by Calvin himself.

Sect. 23. Among their later Writers, no Man hath Vindicated the Cause of the Reformation with greater success and reputation then Mr. Daille in his Apology. And the Grounds he goes upon are these.

(1.) That we are bound to avoid the Communion of those, Apology, c. 3. who go about to destroy and ruin Christia­nity.

(2.) If the Church of Rome hath not required any thing from us which destroys our Faith, offends our Consciences, and overthrows the service which we believe due to God; if the differences have been small, and such as we might safely have yielded unto; Cap. 4. then he will grant, that their Separation was rash and un­just, and they guilty of the Schism.

(3.) He proves, that they had weighty reasons for their Separation; Cap. 5. which are these, (1.) Impo­sing new Doctrines as necessary Articles of Faith: and yet, not all errros in Doctrine do afford sufficient ground for Separation; Cap. 7. but such as are pernicious [Page 183] and destructive to Salvation: for which he instan­ceth in the Lutherans opinion of Christ's Bodily Pre­sence in the Sacrament, which overthrows not the use of the Sacraments, nor requires the adoring it, it neither divides nor mutilates it, nor makes it an Expitiatory Sacrifice for Sin; all which follows from the Popish Doctrine. From whence he concludes, That to separate from a Church for tolerable Errors, is an unjust Separation. Cap. 8. (2.) Requiring such Worship, as overthrows the Foundations of Christianity; which, saith he, proves the necessity of our Separation; and for this he instances in Adoration of the Host; which the Church of Rome strictly requiring, and the Prote­stants believing it to be a meer Creature, they cannot give it without Idolatry: from whence he concludes our Separation to be [...]ust, because it was necessary. Besides this he gives instances in the Worship of Images, Cap. 18. Invocation of Saints, &c. By which we see the Iustice of the Cause of Reformation doth not de­pend on any such Ceremonies, as ours are, nor on the want of Discipline, nor on the bare Dissatis­faction of Conscience, but on such great and impor­tant Reasons, as obtruding new Articles of Faith, and Idolatrous Worship on the partakers of the Com­munion of the Roman Church.

Amyraldus goes so far, De secess. ab Eccles. Rom. &c, p. 233. as to say, That if there had been no other faults in the Roman Church besides their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism, and other things, beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion, they had still continued in its communion; For, saith he, a Physician is to be born with that loads his Patient with some unuseful Prescriptions, if he be otherwise faithful and skilful. But if he mixes [Page 184] Poison with his Medicines, and besides adds abun­dance of Prescriptions, both needless and chargeable, then the Patient hath great reason to look out for bet­ter help, and to take care of his own safety and free­dom. By which he plainly declares, that bare Ceremonies, although many more than ours, are no sufficient Ground for Separation.

Of late years, a Person of Reputation in France set forth a Book against the Reformation, charging it with Schism, Prejuges le­gitimes con­tre les Cal­vinistes. because of the Separation from the Roman Church; which hath been Answered three several ways by three learned Divines, M. Claude, M. Pajon, and M. Turretin. But, Do any of these insist upon matters of meer Ceremony where the Do­ctrine is sound, the constant use of Liturgy, bare neglect of Discipline, &c. No, they were Men of better understanding than to insist on such things as these, which they knew, could never bear that weight as to justifie Separation from a Church; and that they should have exposed themselves and their Cause to the contempt of all considering Men, if they could have alledged no more Sub­stantial Reasons than these.

But they all agree in such common reasons, Claude sa Defence de la Reforma­tion. 8. part. Pajon Exa­men du livre, &c. 3. partie. Turretini disput. 1. de necessariâ secessione ab Ecclesiâ. Rom. Sect. 11. which they thought sufficient to make a Separation Justi­fiable, viz. Great corruption in Doctrine, Idola­trous Worship, and insupportable Tyranny over the Consciences of Men. Turretin expresly saith, No slight errors, no tolerable Superstitious Rites that do not infect the Conscience (as they cannot where they are not forced upon it by unsound Doctrine) [Page 185] not any corruption of Manners, nor defect in Go­vernment, or Discipline, are sufficient grounds for Separation. In one word, saith he, the Patient is not to be forsaken, unless his Disease be deadly and infectious, nor then neither but with great diffi­culty.

Le Blanc shewing the impossibility of Reunion with the Papists, Le Blanc. Theses de Reunione. goes upon these 3 grounds.

1. That it cannot be obtained without subscribing to the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent, and without Anathematizing all those who have op­posed them. For the condition of Communion with that Church is no less, than receiving all its Errors for necessary Articles of Faith.

2. That the Publick Worship practised, and allow­ed in that Church is Idolatrous, he instanceth in A­doration of the Host, the Worship of Saints and Images.

3. That they cannot return to that Church without subjecting their Consciences to the Tyrannical Vsurpa­tions of the Pope.

Let our Brethren now consider, what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us, if we had nothing to justifie our Separation from them, but only that we could not have our Children Bap­tized without an Aerial Sign of the Cross, nor receive the Communion without kneeling; that we must ob­serve Holy-days, and use a Liturgy; and that Men are not so good as they should be, nor Discipline so [Page 186] exact as were to be wished; How should we be his­sed and laughed at all over the Christian World; if we had nothing to alledge for our Separation from the Roman Church, but such things as these? And when the Papists see the weakness of these Allega­tions, they are harden'd in their own ways; and cry out presently there is no end of Schism's and Separations on such pretences as these, by which, unspeakable mischief hath been done to the Cause of the Reformation.