THE Discourse, which under a Pretence of Charity to our Souls, you lately ad­dressed to Ʋs, who conform'd before the Toleration, and have since withdrawn our selves from the Communion of the Church of England; We think our selves oblig'd, for our own Vindication, and the better information of such, as have ill Thoughts of us on that Account, to acquaint you what Entertainment it finds with most of us, and [Page 4]for what Reasons we can make it no better Wel­come.

Your Introduction addresses us with a Declara­tion of a glorious Design you have to do us all the good you are able; Introduct. and thereupon think it very reasonable to desire our impartial and can­did perusal of what you offer us in order to that good End; tho', as you say, it be more than you can expect from those amongst us, whom your Charity judges as byass'd with Prejudice, false Zeal and worldly Interest: But of all others you assure your self of contributing something to their Satisfaction. And that they are not like to meet with any thing from you that may give any just Cause of Offence; yea nothing but what proceeds from a Spirit of Charity. But of what sort this your Spirit of Charity is, and how well it agrees in its Vertues, with that of the Apostle's, 1 Cor. 13. and how eminently it hath appear'd throughout your following Discourse, every one that reads it may easily discern. This Spirit of Charity is doubtless some rare Arcanum, a highly refin'd volatile Thing; some fiery Tincture, which a­grees not with every Constitution, but prepar'd with a peculiar Art, as a Cordial for one sort of the Cholerick Church of England Men, with whose bilious Blood it agrees by Sympathy. And as for your meek Endeavours herein, you hope that what use soever may be made of them by some Men, yet that God will graciously accept them. Sir, What Acceptance they find with God you will better understand in the Day that you must give your Accounts to Him; but what Reason we have to accept them, you and others, that will, [Page 5]may see by that time you are come to the other end of these Pages. This Ostentation of the Meekness of your Spirit, and the Charity of your Design to reduce us to the Truth, and to the way of our Duty, is the Sum of your Introduction, be­sides an invidious Fling at parting, which we may not pass by without some Animadversion.

You say, Your Business at present is chiefly with Ʋs, who think we may lawfully conform with you, and yet have deserted your Communion; a thing indeed which is very agreeable to Flesh and Blood, and which may make several Turns of Affairs more easie to Ʋs; but wise and good Men would suspect an Opinion and Practice, which are so much on the side of the World.

Sir, This is the first Specimen of that singular Charity you have for us; the plainer English of which is this; That unless we will fully Con­form to you, and for ever abandon those Mini­sters of Christ whom we now hear (tho' we have so much Charity for you, as not to censure You, as you censure Ʋs) it is not fit that we should be employ'd in any Office in Church or State, and in effect, that none should Buy or Sell or Live, but such as have received your Mark. You know what effectual Provision you have made for this (as far as the Times would bear) by your Sa­cramental Test, whereby many Persons of good Figure and Character have been precluded from Publick Service; whose Consciences have been too tender to surmount that Difficulty, and which perhaps the Government hath no great reason to be fond of. But now, to deliver our Bre­thren, who better understand their Liberty in the Gospel, from this end of your Spear, where­with [Page 6]you strike at them; we have this to of­fer.

I. We do not think it utterly unlawful, or absolutely Sinful to Communicate occasionally with the Church of England, at least in a Lay-communion; we have a more Catholick Chari­ty, than so to judge of it; tho' we know it to be a very Faulty, yet we take it to be a True Church of Christ; and are ready to testify (as need requires) our general Communion with it, as a part with us of the same universal Body, tho' we enter not into a stated Communion with it, under those unjustifyable Terms, on which it is offer'd us.

II. It is every Man's bounden Duty to serve God and his Country, as also to provide for Himself and his own Family, with all those in­tellectual and corporal Abilities, wherewith God hath blest him, according as there are Occasions and Calls to it; therefore nothing that is tolera­ble, and not plainly sinful, tho' burdensom and uneligible, ought to restrain us from the Ser­vice of God or Man, which we are sitted for, and called to. For who knows of what consequence the Service of such may be, especially in a pub­lick Post, to the preservation of Religion and Property, or to the support and establishment of the Government? Which are Considerations sufficient to preponderate all tolerable Inconve­niencies.

III. That it may appear we are not acted here­in, merely by the Principles of Humane Policy, or Self-Ends; we have the Example of the great Apostle of the Gentiles to warrant our Practice. You may see what his Opinion was of the Jew­ish [Page 7]Rites and Ceremonies, and how zealously he had, in several of his Epistles, declar'd against them, as weak and beggarly Elements, and enslav­ing Things, Gal. 4.9. Antichristian, Ch. 5.2. Inconsistent with the Liberty of the Gospel, ver. 1. Another Gospel, than that which he had Preached unto 'em, Ch. 1.6, 7, 8. And pronounces Ana­thema on them that had troubled 'em with it, ver. 9. Besides what he writes in some other Epistles to the same purpose. This is more than ever we heard from any Nonconformist against the Ceremonies of the Church of Eng­gland; and yet for all this, the Wise and Holy Paul, to avoid the offending his weak Brethren, would not scruple, for once, to Circumcise Ti­mothy, Act. 16.3. At another time, to shave his Head, and observe the Jewish Rites of a Religious Vow, Ch. 18.18. And at another time, to save himself from the Rage of a Company of Bigots at Jerusalem, appear'd there as a Nazarite, with all the Formalities the Law required in that Case, Ch. 21.24. This he could do occasionally, ac­cording to the Liberty he had in Christ, which he was careful to preserve, and not to be brought under the Power of these Things, which is con­trary to the Nature and free State of the Gos­pel. And having this apostolical Precedent, our Consciences are at ease in this Matter. Yet,

IV. If there be any that have made these ex­ternal Compliances, renuente Conscientia, or but with a doubting Conscience; let them look to it, and repent of their Sin, for whatsoever is not of Faith, is Sin. But to pass this Censure on any, without clear Evidence, is far from that Charity, which thinketh no Evil.

Your first Section it but Preliminary to what you pretend to be more Argumentative; Sect. 1. wherein you tell us, that the Church of Christ, being but One, and that, in the highest and strictest manner of Ʋnion that is possible for a Society of Men; all the Question will be, wherein this Ʋnion does consist, or in what things it ought to be maintain'd? To this you answer, That all Christians ought to be united, 1. In Faith, 2. in Love, 3. in outward Worship and Com­munion. On the Two former you touch lightly, because you perceive, that the stress of the Que­stion lies on the Third. So that tho' We Dis­senters be One with you in Faith and Love, which (whatever you think) we have alwaies taken to be the main fundamental Principles of our Chri­stianity, and the strongest Nerves of our Chri­stian Union, and all that is (as absolutely neces­sary) requir'd of us, 2 Tim. 1.13. Gal. 5.6. Philem. ver. 5. Yet we must, by the Rules of your Charity, be all Damn'd, if we dare to dis­sent from you, in any of your outward Acts and Modes of Worship and Communion. Here you run on a large and learned Harangue on the ex­cellency and necessity of Church-Concord in the external Forms of Worship and Discipline; as if a few variable, unscriptural, and confessedly indifferent Ceremonies, were the only true Ce­ment and Badge of Christian Union; and with­out which, 'tis impossible (as a visible Society) to ap­pear in the Eye of the World, as One. And for this you think you very pertinently quote both Scrip­tures and the Fathers. Now as to what you say as to the necessity of Union in Essentials, we are ready to say with you; and take Communi­on [Page 9]on in Externalls and Circumstantialls (where it may be had without Sin) to be, on several Ac­counts, as desirable as you can represent it to be. But when you say that Faith and Love, being invisible Principles, are not capable of being a pub­lick Badge of the Christian Profession; And Argue from thence, that 'tis only Ʋniformity in the exter­nal Rites and Ceremonies of Worship, that evidences the Oneness of Faith and Affection; as if Faith and Love had no other way to express their Efficacy and Sincerity, but this; you do not only tra­duce those Divine Principles, but shamefully ex­pose the Church, of which you are so very ten­der. For should it be said, that no one would ever believe the Members of the Church of Eng­land, to be any of Christ's Disciples, did they not see them so Zealous for the Ceremonies of their Church, how little would this be for the Cre­dit of their Christianity? And indeed this is lamentably too true of very many, not only of the common Members, but of the Teachers and Leaders of the Church, that have little else to distinguish them from Heathens, or to per­swade a belief of their Christianity, but an emp­ty Name, and a blind Zeal for what they call the Church.

That the Church Universal is One, and, in some respects may be said to be one visible Soci­ety, and Political Body, we readily grant, so that the Unity be made to consist only in what is Essential to it; else we must inevitably cut the Catholick Church in Pieces, according to the va­riety and differences of the external Rites and Communions of the many particular Churches, of which the whole is constituted. And when [Page 10]we have done so, where shall we find that Oracle that shall infallibly determine and assure us, which of all these Parts, is that which we ought to own, and to Communicate with, as the Church of Christ, in which alone Salvation is to be had? Must you be the Oracle? May not others claim it as well as you? Or will you send us to Rome to be determin'd? Yet this is that you so cha­ritably direct us to, and are so strenuously con­tending for. If then the Rending of the Church be Schism, let all the unprejudiced part of the World judge, who are the Schismaticks, You, or We. We are ready to Communicate with you in all that is Essential to the Church of Christ, and profess our selves to be so far One with you; but because we dissent from you in some Circum­stantials of your own devising, which God hath no where requir'd of us, and which are justly Offensive to the Consciences of very many of the Faithful; yet, which you make the indispensable Conditions of Communion with you; therefore we must be cut off and cast out, as no parts of the Catholick Church of Christ. Is not this to cut the Church in Pieces? and the [...] of a Schismatical Church?

The Catholick Church of Christ indeed is One; therefore he that is duly admitted, as a Mem­ber, in any one true part, or particular Con­gregation of this Church, has a right of Com­municating in all; and he that is justly Excom­municated out of one, is cut off from all; be­cause all are but the integrating Parts of one and the same Body. But then they can be one, only in those things, which are essentially common to all, and not in those peculiar Forms, or acciden­tal [Page 11]Differences, which are, one way or other, become proper to 'em, as particular Parts. Will you cut off the Foot, as no part of the Body, because it differs in Form from the Hand? Are you offended with your Nose, because it is not, in Figure, like your Ear? When you have dis­member'd all the Dissimilar Parts, what a come­ly, useful, uniform Trunk will you have left? Yet this is what you are Pleading for; Where then is your Charity? Or your Policy? You say, You see not what just Cause there can be, that they should be divided in Worship, who are united in Faith; And we say so too. But why then have you thus divided us from you? Whose Fault is it that we do not Worship God together, but yours, that will not suffer it, but on such Terms as we cannot without Sin submit to; and which you have devis'd and impos'd, with a design to keep so many of us out of your Communion?

That the Church is a Regular Society, we grant. A Body fitly joyn'd together, consisting of many Mem­bers, of which all have not the same Office, as you quote it from the Apostle. Neither have all the same External Form, or manner of Operation in the Service of the Body. Order is to be preserv'd in the Church; but how shall we agree what, and whose Order it shall be? Let us ask you soberly; Is there no true Church in the World but yours? If there be, may not every one of these Churches, which differ from you, and from one another, as much as we, magnify their own Order as a Law to all the Rest, as you now do? And then tell us, whether it be Order or Confusion that these Positions lead to; or whether this be not the [Page 12]way to set all the Christian World by the Ears.

Here you complain that Men are generally averse from enduring any thing of Subjection; to which we may add, and altogether as prone to Domineering and Imposing. Now the Obedience, which is prescrib'd in the Texts of Scripture, which you have cited, you say, is to be paid by the Faith­ful to those that are over them in the Lord: But by the whole tenour of your Discourse, you plain­ly insinuate, that the Wisdom (which is in effect the same with the Will) of those that have ob­tain'd the Government of the Church, must be the Rule to all their Inferiours. And by their being over them in the Lord, you give us to un­derstand nothing else but their Power de facto in the Church, where they sit in Moses's Chair, as the Representatives of Christ in Government; so that they must be obey'd, without asking any Question for Conscience sake. But for our parts, we understand not how we can be secur'd against the danger of Church-Tyranny and Su­perstition; if those Words of the Apostle, 1 Thes. 5.12. [...] in the Lord, do not import the Bounds of our Obedience, as well as the general Matter of it, and Motive to it. Church-Rulers may be forward to Labour, and to Ad­monish too, but if it be not in the Lord, and according to the Lord, woe be to them that are guided and influenc'd by 'em. But let the Apo­stle's Exhortation be taken in the true intent and meaning of it, and we will be as forward to obey as you. There's nothing in the World that we covet more, than to see such Bishops and Pa­stors in the Church of England, as the Apostle ex­horts [Page 13]us to obey in the Lord, that is (without any personal Reflection) such as require nothing of us, but what the Lord requires, that the World might see, how much we would disdain to be out-done by any, but Flatterers and Sy­cophants, in our Love and Obedience to 'em.

What you say of the Oneness of Church-Go­vernment, and of the People that are under it, we agree to, if you will but stand to your own Distinctions; That what you say of both is to be understood of them, so far as they agree to Christ's In­stitution. And if Christ be not divided, neither are they. They are not divided, I mean, so far as they act according to his Will, and the Rules of their Or­der. If by these Rules, you mean the Sacred Rules, which Christ hath given them, and not the Arbritary Rules which they give us, We mean so too. That the faithful People under their lawful Pastors (we hope you mean Lawful, by the Law of Christ, and not only by the Law of Man) make up one Body: This, you say, is evident, from their Duty; and from their Rights.

From their Duty, you plead, (1.) They are o­blig'd to Honour and Obey their Spiritual Rulers. Ay, Sir, In the Lord, and according to the Lord. (2.) It is their Duty to joyn together in publick Acts of Worship, with that Company of Christians, which they sind Established (and in some Cases, tho' on­ly tollerated, yea, tho' Persecuted) under a lawful Pastor, where they reside. This we acknowledge is their Duty, where they may do it without Sin.

From their Rights, which are the same every where; you Argue, That this Ʋnion is founded on a Divine Institution, and the Baptismal Covenant, in which they are all alike engag'd, and not on a for­mal [Page 14]positive League amongst themselves. No, Sir, nor on any thing that is merely Humane, or of an Indifferent, much less a doubtful Nature, where­in the Substance or Essentials of Christianity do not consist.

What you object against the Independent Con­gregational way, or any others of the same Pra­ctice and Persuasion in this Point, we take not our selves to be concern'd in, unless you mistake us all for such who have not that Dependance on, and Communion with you, which you are Quar­relling with us for.

Having been at great Labour to prove, what none of Us, nor perhaps any one else, that is call'd Christian, ever deny'd, viz. That the universal Church is One Body; you make your Application of this profound Doctrin, by way of Encourage­ment to your selves, and draw a most delightful Contemplation from it, That it is now the same Body that it was from the beginning. The same indeed is every true Church of Christ, as it was from the beginning, that is, in all things that are abso­lutely necessary to Salvation; but we would gladly understand where that pure Church is now to be found, which hath not at all deviated, or degenerated from what the Church of Christ was in the beginning. 'Tis true, every true Church of Christ now in the World is deriv'd, by Succession, from Christ and his Apostles; but dares the Church of England say, that it is now the very same in all it's Circumstantials and exter­nal Modes and Forms of Worship, Discipline and Ceremonies with those of the Apostles own Planting? Where do you read your apostolical Rules, or Precedents for any of those Things, [Page 15]which you so zealously Practise, and so arbitra­rily impose on us, as the Terms of our Commu­nion with you, and which are the only Matters in debate between us? Yet you would have the World believe, that without our full Conformi­ty to these Things, and our Communion with you in 'em, we cannot be one Body with the Ʋni­versal Church, nor in Communion with the Apo­stles. Nor is this all; but that consequently we are out of Communion with the Father and the Son, and so are in a state of Infidelity and Dam­nation. Have we not herein a special Instance and Evidence of your Catholick Charity, just like theirs of the Church of Rome, who call those on­ly Christians, that are of their own Communion? Let us be ever so Orthodox in all the Articles of the Christian Faith; ever so right as to the Ob­ject of our Religious Worship, or Reverent and Devout in the Acts of it; ever so Sober, Just and Righteous in our Conversation; or ever so wil­ing to walk in Communion with you, as far as we may do it without Sinning against God and our own Souls: Yet for want of Conformity to you, in all those unnecessary Things which you would impose on us, we must be cut off from Christ, and left to Perish with the Heathen World. But if we will tamely put our Necks under your Yoke, and prostitute our Consciences to your Authority, and adventure our All to Eter­nity on the safe Conduct of your Direction and Benediction, let us be ever so ignorant of the Ar­ticles or Nature of the Faith we profess, or ever so Scandalous in our Lives, yet if we Live and Die in your Communion, you will on our Death-Beds bring us the Sacrament of the Body and [Page 16]Blood of our Saviour, which you will pretend to Consecrate to us, and so Absolve us, and tell us we are safe for the other World. May we not tell a Popish Priest now, Mutato nomine, de te Fa­bula Narratur?

And now Sir, having taken this brief View of your first Section, wherein had we followed you Line by Line, in every thing that might have of­fer'd us a just Remark, it would have carried us too far beyond the due Bounds of a Letter. Wherefore, for brevity sake, we will now summ up the Argument of it in this categorical Form.

The Universal Church of Christ is One Body,

But the Church of England, and those of the Dissenters are Two, Erg.

Dissenters are not of the Church of Christ. Or which may be concluded altogether as Logically, Erg. Either the Church of Eng­land, or the Dissenters are not the Church of Christ.

Both of these are alike true. In what Univer­sity learn'd you this Logick? Or by what Pre­tence can you hope to hide the shame of so star­ing a Fallacy?

That we have not wrong'd you in the Syllo­gism, Sect. 2. we have drawn upon your first Section, appears by your own Inferences in your Second; where you conclude, That a Breach of Ʋnion in any of these Things, viz. Not only in Faith and Love, but in External Communion, and particular­ly, with the Church of England, in its present State, and in all its Rites and Ceremonies, which is the main thing in dispute betwixt us, where­ever [Page 17]the Fault is, (as you express it with very good caution) must needs be Sinful, i. e. so Sin­ful, as (according to your Hypothesis) cuts a Person off from all saving Communion with the Church of Christ.

Now this Inference, so generally, yet cau­tiously stated, you begin very Orthodoxly to defend in your next Paragraphs, where you say,

I. That if there be but one Faith deliver'd to the Saints, for which they must earnestly contend, they grievously offend who add new Articles to it, or take away from it such as are already reveal'd, or other­wise deprave it by a mixthre of Falshood. And so far as they do so, we ought to depart from them, and not betray or deny the Truth in complyance with them. Sir, We sincerely thank you for this, and wish that we may always sind you sixt on this good Principle. This is all that We and our Teach­ers have been so long wrestling and waiting on the Church of England for. Grant us but this, and then there will need but one thing more (be­sides the Grace of God,) to reconcile and unite us. If we unite with you in all that the Word of God requires us to unite in, the Fault will not be Ours, if we depart and separate from you in those Articles, which are not of the Faith that was once delivered to the Saints, or in those Acts of Worship and outward Communion, which we have no Warrant in the Scriptures for, but general Cautions against; then our Separation will not (by this Principle of Yours) be damn'd by you as Schismatical, but must be acknowledged (as we verily believe it) to be a part of our bounden Duty. And when you [Page 18]speak with so much keenness against our Divisi­on and Separation from you, do Us and the Cause but so much right, as to prefix the Word Causeless, and you will find us ready to say (as to the Theory of your Doctrin) much the same as you do. All that you quote out of the Scrip­tures, or out of your Saints, or any other more modern Authors of your own, or of our Per­suasion, against Schism, is nothing at all to us, unless you first prove our Separation to be Cause­less, and consequently Schismatical.

Now in order to this, you undertake,

• 1. To shew us what the Nature of Schism is.
• 2. What Grounds you have to apprehend that we are deeply concern'd in it.
• 3. You examine the Arguments that have been offer'd on our part, to excuse us from the guilt of it.
• 4. You represent to us the sad Consequence of it.

According to this Method we shall now endea­vour to follow you.

I. You say, That Schism, in the Notion of it that we are now upon, is a causeless Breach of out­ward Ecclesiastical Communion. By this Limitati­on of your Desinition, whereby you warily ex­plain your self, you give us to understand, that what your Discourse is so hotly affected with, is not the Whole, but only a Branch of Schism, and indeed one of the least and remotest Branches [Page 19]of it; yet which, if Causeless, we will grant it to your Desinition, to be Schismatical. And we again thank your Ingenuity in inserting the Word Causeless, by which Specifick Difference of your Genius, you leave us to conclude, that there is a Breach of outward Ecclesiastical Com­munion, which is not Causeless, but Necessary; and if we can prove this to be our Case, then are you bound, by your own Definition, to Ab­solve us of that Guilt, with which we stand charg'd by you.

This Schism, you say, is sometimes within a Church, sometimes from a Church, sometimes sets up opposite Churches and Officers. All which, if the Separation be Causeless, must needs carry the Schism to higher degrees of Guilt; And much more, when it constitutes Pastors without any lawful Authority, or Ordination. So that in all this we are like to agree in Notion, till it comes to be try'd, whether the Separation, with which we are charg'd, be Causeless or no; and whe­ther our Pastors be constituted without any law­ful Authority or Ordination.

But before we come to the Examination of this part of the Question, wherein the main stress of all lies, we are diverted by what you say, you need not enter upon, viz. The Debate, Whether Episcopal Ordination, and Baptism conferr'd in Schism be valid? And yet you so far enter upon it (whether you had need to do it or no) as to re­solve it in the Negative. Now we hope that you would have us to understand Schism here, in the same Notion of it, as you give it us in your Desinition, viz. A causeless Breach of out­ward Ecclesiastical Communion, tho' in all other [Page 20]respects, wherein the Essentials of the Christian Faith and Profession do consist, there be no Schism, but a good Agreement both with the Holy Scriptures, and with the Catholick Church; and that all Ordinances administer'd by such as are under the guilt of this piece of Schism, are null, you conclude from the Notion you have conceiv'd of Catholick Ʋnity; which new-found Notion of yours you strongly fancy is grounded on the Scriptures you have before quoted ( i. e. as you understand and apply them to the Service of your Hypothesis) and on the Judgment and Practice of the Faithful in the purest Ages ( alias the most Popish Ages;) so that you presume your Inference is clear; That all those who have separated with­out just Cause from the outward Communion of that Church, with which they ought, (or with which you will say they ought) to hold Commu­nion, and so persisting in that Separation, tho' otherwise never so Orthodox, or Holy, have hereby so cut themselves off from the Body of the Ʋniversal Church, that they can do nothing, that can qualify themselves or others for Com­munion with it. So that by this your Rule of Catholick Ʋnity in outward Communion, all those Persons and Churches, that herein agree not with you, are not of the Body, nor united to the Head, and then must necessarily be in a state of Dam­nation. Woe be then to all those poor Churches that are to your Constitution, and way of Go­vernment and Worship Strangers. But, by the way, give us leave to ask you, How it comes to pass, that Baptism and Ordination received in the Church of Rome, are accounted valid in your Church of England, and yet Ordination in any [Page 21] Protestant Church, that's not of your Constituti­on, accounted Null? Or, for what politick Reason is their Baptism allowed, and their Ordi­nation only Condemn'd? Is it because the Church of Rome never separated from you, nor you from it, as all the other Protestant Churches have done? Who must therefore be all abandon'd by you, as Harlots that deserve to be ston'd, while Rome is own'd for your Sister, or your Mother, and of the same Catholick Body with you? Either own the Relation, or renounce the Title of Pro­testant.

Will you say that these Churches were never in Communion with you, and therefore did not go out from you? Suppose this were true of the main Body of them, that they were never in particular outward Communion with the Church of England, tho' before the Reformation they were in the same Church with you; and many of those, and of their Children, who were once actually in particular Communion with you, went out from you, on the same Account as we do; yet, supposing it otherwise, How little will this help Them more than Ʋs, as to the Oneness of the outward Communion of the universal Church, in the Sense that you take it, and urge it on Ʋs?

And now that we are upon Enquiries with you; Pray be not offended if we ask you once more. What think you of our first Protestant Re­formers? Before they actually separated from the Church of Rome, were they not Members of that Church, and in outward Communion with it If not, how could they be said to separate from it? But if they were; let us ask you again; was that Church of which they were then Members, [Page 22]a true Church of Christ, or not? If not, then that Church, and all the Members of it, was not united to the Head, and consequently was no Church, nor, by your Rule of Catholick Ʋnity, could do any thing to qualify themselves, or others for Communion with any part of the Ca­tholick Church; and from whom then did your Church of England, or any of the Reformed, de­rive their Succession and Authority, from the Apostles? But if it was a true Church, how could they, according to your Notion of Catho­lick Ʋnity, separate from it, without involving themselves in the guilt of Schism, with which you now charge us? May we not hence conclude, that to separate from a true Church of Christ, that retains the Essentials of a Church, is not al­ways Schismatical, nor a Solution of Catholick Ʋnity. Will you tell us, that these had a War­rant, by a Call from Heaven, to justify their Separation? Rev. 18.4. 2 Cor. 6.17. But on what Reason was this Call grounded? Come out of her my People, that ye be not Partakers of her Sins. And doth not the same Call reach Ʋs, as far as the Reason is the same? Tho' the Sins of the Church of Rome were greater than those of the present Church of England, yet what is Sin, is Sin still, and will, by your own Concessions, so far justify our Separation; and on no other Account do we desire or pretend to justify it.

The Separatists condemn'd in Scripture; and with whom you would sort Ʋs, and so represent us to the World, were Men of very ill Character, as to their Morals; Persons given up to Sen­suality, walking after their own ungodly Lusts; [Page 23]tho' veild under a Form of Religion, yet by their corrupt Lives, they were visibly to be discern'd. Now let the impartial part of the World judge whether this be so much our Character, as the Character of those, by whom we are thus Cen­sur'd.

That the Fathers and Bishops of the first Ages were very jealous of the Union of their Churches, and an intire Obedience to their Ecclesiastical Rulers; very Passionately, and sometimes Hyperbolically declaiming against Se­paration, or setting up Pastors without the Ap­probation of their own Bishops, is not to be de­nyed; and for which they had some prudential Reasons. The Christian Church was then in its Infancy, and therefore requir'd a stricter Hand of Government over it, for the preserva­tion of its Unity in Communion; the Faithful were not so well settl'd, and experienced in their Way; their Dangers were many ways ex­traordinary, not only from the Heathen Per­secutors, but from the Jewish Bigots, which were in so many Places dispers'd among them, and had so troublesome and ensnaring an Influ­ence on the young Gentile Converts. Besides the many false and seditious Teachers, which the Devil had Sown, as his Tares, almost every where among them; the Orthodox Presbyters too few, and generally too weak to deal with so many, so potent, and so subtil Enemies, or to be entrusted with the Conduct of the Church, without the Counsel and Direction of its prime Guides and Governours: Besides, the Honour and Satisfaction of Sovereign Rule and Dictatorship is what was ever very pleasing to [Page 24]Nature. So that all these things consider'd, we have no reason to wonder at the Heat of their Spirits in this Case. And indeed the Church had then very great Reason to bless God for this their Zeal, and most religiously to observe them in it, especially while they had no cause to dis­sent, or divide themselves on the account of any Heresies they Taught them, or any disputable unscriptural Impositions, that were required as the Conditions of their Communion with them. There were no such Things exacted of Them, as have been of Ʋs and our Teachers, which made their Obedience easy and indisputable. And you may observe that the great Reason of their Care to preserve the Unity of the Churches outward Communion, was not to uphold a few unnecessary Ceremonies, but to preserve the Purity of its spiritual Worship and Doctrin, which was in­finitely more valuable and consequential; a cir­cumstantial variety of the external Forms of Church-Administrations would have done the Church no more harm, than the variety which we see in every Species of the Creation doth do them, as long as that wherein the vital Substance of Religion consists is preserv'd.

You having prov'd that a causeless Separation from the Church is highly Schismatical, wherein we do not oppose you in the Theorie, but in the Application of your Doctrin, in which you all along beg the Question; you tell us, That for Separatists to set up opposite Churches and Officers, is a degree of Sin much worse than Separation it self. And we will say as you do, when once you have prov'd the Separation to be Causeless. But till then, we hope your Christian Charity will allow [Page 25]us to provide for our own Souls, that we may not be as Sheep without a Shepherd, when we are either unjustly cast out by you, or most justly separated from you. And if you will not allow us this, we will bless God, and thank our more merciful Governours that do allow us, without your Leave, so to do.

Lastly, You proceed to a yet higher Degree of Schism, viz. When they that are engag'd in it, constitute Officers without Authority; or take to them­selves Pastors that have no lawful Mission or real Ordination. This is another of your orthodox Hypotheses, which it is a thousand Pities, that it should be dishonour'd by a Miss-applicati­on. Sir, We are as little for Uncommissionated Preachers and Self-intruders into the ministeri­al Office, as You. Tho' bare Mission, without Ministerial Qualification, make but an Idol-Shep­herd, and wherein the Church of England is more deeply concern'd, than perhaps you are willing to own, yet Qualification without a rightly de­riv'd Comission, makes but a Thief or a Robber. So that herein You and We agree in Thesi. But when on this Head you apply to Us, and to our Ministers that tragical Story of Korah and his Complices, we cannot take it so kindly of you; tho' you are not the first Man, that in great Wrath, hath thrown this heavy Stone at our Heads; however, we have not been hitherto hurt by it. The History of the Case we need not repeat; the Principles by which they were acted, notwithstanding their popular Pretensions, were Seditious, and sacrilegiously Rebellious; and the Judgment of God on them and their Follow­ers, as Just as it was Dreadful. But before [Page 26]your Charity had apply'd this dismal Story and Guilt to Us and to our Teachers, you ought to have drawn a true Parallel of the Case, and have pro'd that our Ministers have no more Call nor Right to the Gospel-Ministry, than Korah and his Company had to the Priesthood; and that God hath set as strict Bounds about your English Episcopacy, as it is now Established, ex­clusively of all others, as he then had done about Moses, and the Aaronical Priesthood. And till this be done, there is no Man of sober Thought, but must suspend his Judgment on us.

Out of this Preamble, you lead us to your third Section, where you tell us, You are now come to our Case; for indeed we think you have hi­therto been far enough from it; here then we hope for a fair Trial, may we but be determin'd by what is written in that Book, out of which both You and We must shortly be judged.

And in Order to our Conviction, you are pleas'd to mind us how nearly it concerns us to enquire

• I. Whether we have not contracted the guilt of Schism in our Separation from the Church of England.
• II. Whether we have not increased this Guilt by setting up opposite Churches and Officers, or joyning with them.
• III. Whether our Pastors have any just Title to the Ministry.

Sir, Had we not, to the best of our Power and Skill, with the greatest Diligence and Sincerity, enquir'd into all these Things long before this Day, we had acted very precipitantly and dan­gerously; but yet such an Admonition as this, however design'd, shall never be out of Season with us. But seeing you offer your Interroga­tories not in the form of an Enquiry, but of an Indictment, we are ready to answer to each Ar­ticle, in our just Defence.

1. The first Article of our Indictments runs thus, That we have contracted the Guilt of Schism, by our Separation from the Church of England; that is (to wave all Disputes about the Ambiguity of the Word) what you are pleas'd to call the Church of England. Tho' we have varied your Form of Speech, we have done you no wrong, it be­ing a known Rule in Rhetorick, that a Negative, Interrogation is but a more vehement Affirma­tion. And to convict us of the Schism you charge us with, you plead thus. Was your Communion with it lately Lawful, and have any new Terms been added, to make it cease to be so? Or was Conformi­ty then a Duty, and is it now become a Sin? This you take to be a Dead Blow, which must needs convince us, and make us cry Guilty, or stop our Mouths for ever. But be not too Consident before you have heard our Defence.

1. By way of Concession, you shall have all that you here suppose, that you may see we are not froward.

1. That we once thought our Communion with your Church of England Lawful, we grant; for had we not been so perswaded, we had been [Page 28]self-condemn'd by our own Practice. Yet what­ever our private Thoughts were once of it, that was not it that could make the thing to be in it self either Lawful or Unlawful, our private Judgment being only a Rule to our selves. And if we were therein mistaken, thro' our Weak­ness, or any Prejudices of our Education, we hope you will allow us the Liberty of rectifying our Judgments upon better Information, of which, if you think us uncapable, what do all your Ar­guings with us signify? But,

2. We will grant you yet a little more; that we are still of the same Opinion, that it is Law­ful to Communicate with the Church of England, i. e. that it is not absolutely, and in it self Sin­ful so to do; But then we hope, that if your Cha­rity will not, your Logick must grant us, that what is to be consider'd but as simply Lawful, is Matter of Liberty, and not of Necessity. We say Liberty, granted us by the Nature of the Thing, without any Relation to what the Government hath pleas'd (so much to your regret) to grant us. But where we are thus at Liberty, to Cen­sure us for using it, is Inhumanity.

3. If this be not yet enough to please you, we will grant a little more; we once thought the Conformity you contend for, i. e. our Lay-Conformity to be our Duty; nor have we repented of these our Thoughts to this Day, nor acted any thing that is inconsistent with them. We hope the Ingenuity of your cul­tivated Reason will allow, at least in Thesi, that what is a Duty at one Time, and under some Circumstances, is not always so at ano­ther Time, and under other Circumstances. [Page 29]This you must grant, or you know with what a Crowd of senseless Absurdities you will be pester'd, and of which you will not be able to rid your self. Now having granted you all this, we will see what we have left for our selves, and Answer you,

2. By way of Confutation of your Supposition; you suppose.

1. That because our Conformity was once Lawful, therefore it is not only so still, espe­cially because there have been no new Terms ad­ded by you to alter the Case, but that therefore it is still Necessary, which is Illogical enough. But to this we say as the Apostle doth in a like Case, 1 Cor. 6.12. Ch. 10.23. All things are Lawful unto me, but all things are not Expedient, i. e. All things that are Lawful to me, as all indifferent Things, in their own Nature are, are not always Expedient; and when they come to be Inexpedient, they cease to be, in their use, Lawful; for Quicquid non expedit, in quan­tum non expedit, non licet. All Things are Lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the Power of any, q. d. In the use of all Lawful Things I have my Liberty, to do, or to forbear, as it consists with the Expediency of my own, or others Edification; and this Liberty I will not betray, by being brought under the Power of any; of any what? Why, if it be Sense, it must be of any of those Lawful Things he is now speak­ing of; for if he be, by any weak Scruples, or ill Principles of his own, or any impoling Hu­mour of others, brought under the Power of 'em, or to look upon them as Necessary, he superstitious­ly enslaves his Conscience, and renders himself [Page 30]uncapable of serving the more noble and useful Ends of his Liberty. Now in Conformity to this apostolical Rule, we lately conformed to the Church of England, because we thought it in it self, Lawful, and on some accounts, then Ex­pedient, so to do; but under our present Circum­stances, and since that Providence hath given us the Experience of other Publick and Peaceable Christian Communions, we find it Inexpedient to continue where we were, with relation to the eternal safety of our own Souls, which is the highest Concern we have under Heaven; tho' this be one of those Things which in your next Section you upbraid us with. So that tho' it late­ly was, and still is simply Lawful to communi­cate with you, yet we now find it to be on some of the most important Accounts, very In­expedient and Prejudicial, both to our selves and others; and the use of our Christian Liberty herein no way really injurious to the Edisica­tion, or to the Peace of the Church; besides those private Disorders it accidentally occasions in the uncharitable Spleens of a few.

2. You suppose that what was once our Duty cannot now become a Sin to us to do. But we wonder that this should be such a Paradox to a Person of your Capacity; must you not allow it in Thousands of other Cases, that what is a Duty at one time, would be very inexpedient­ly, and sometimes scandalously sinful at another? Why then should it look like such a Contradicti­on in our Case? 'Twas indeed our Duty to pro­vide for our own, and for the Souls of our Fa­milies, in the best manner we could while we were in Communion with you, that is, while we [Page 31]either knew no better, or could get no better; we thought it our Duty, as we do still, rather to joyn with You, than to ly at Home on Lord's Days, or do worse. But now that God hath enlarged our Steps, and made a more plentiful Provision for us, we should Sin against our own Souls, and theirs too that are committed to our Charge, if we should not make use of what God hath given us in this kind, and not hazzard the loss of our eternal All for the sake of a few un­necessary, offensive Ceremonies and humane In­stitutions, wherein you would Popishly per­swade us to believe that the vital Union of the Catholick Church doth consist. And thus we briefly answer to the first Article of our Indict­ment.

II. The second Article against us is, That we have added to our Sin, by setting up opposite Churches and Officers, or joyning with them; And this hath more alienated our Minds from those whom, you say, we have unjustly forsaken. This you suppose is gene­rally our Case, and that hence it is that you hear of an Old Church and a New in so many Towns in this Kingdom, the latter labouring to establish it self on the Ruins of the former. To this we reply,

That the Separate Churches, which we now commonly frequent, are not set up in Oppositi­on to Yours, but by a necessity which your ob­stinate Uncharitableness hath brought us under. Could we have enjoy'd those Gospel-Privileges with you, which our dearest Saviour hath, by his precious Blood purchased for us, and by his Last Will and Testament bequeathed to us, we had never forsaken You. But now, if the more we come to understand the Wrong you have done [Page 32]us, the more our Minds are alienated from you, you must thank your selves for that. And where­in you have wronged us, you have already often enough heard, and we are ready once more to declare in part, according as the Discourse we are now waiting on you in, shall give us the particular Occasions. All the Opposition that is between our Churches and yours is certainly of your own making. And for our setting up Church-Officers, i. e. Teachers and Pastors over our selves, we flatly deny, without a good Distinction. 'Tis true, we take it as our natu­ral Right, that the Pastor, to whom we are to commit the Care of our Souls, be of our own free Election, and not impos'd upon us against the majority of our Votes, by any that shall pretend to a Power so to do, as the common manner of the Church of England is, and which was not the least of our Grievances, while we were in Communion with You. But if by our setting up of Officers you mean our conferring the Pastoral Office upon them, or the Authori­tative Investing them with it, we deny your Supposition. If you know any such among Dissenters, let them answer for themselves; we assure you, We are not the Persons.

And because you fear that we are Labouring to establish our Selves on your Ruins; we open­ly declare your great Mistake of us. 'Tis our Union and joint Establishment on a Reformation according to the Scriptures, that we are Labour­ing, and have been so long praying and waiting for: And if such a Reformation will be your Ruin, Miserere Deus.

In vain do you complain of our separate Churches (which yet are no Independant Con­gregations, as you suggest, tho' they have not that Dependance on Yours which you contend for) while your selves are the only Causes of the Separation. For, let your calmer Reason tell us, Who are they that cause Divisions, and destroy that Union and Communion of the Churches, which you seem to be so Zealous for? Are they those that stick to the Primitive Apostolical Rules and Institutions, or those that make their own dangerous Innovations the Terms of Communion with them? What we have here to say in behalf of our Ministers, must be referr'd to your Third and most con­sequential Article of our Indictment, as its more proper Place, and which we are now next to enter on, and it runs thus,

III. That the Pastors, we have chosen, have no lawful Call to the Ministry. This indeed, if it could be prov'd, were enough to convict both Ʋs and Them, for Schismaticks. Those Dissen­ters, that think themselves unconcern'd in this Matter, we are not now to answer for, nor are we concern'd in what you say of them. And as for the Philadelphians; we know not what they are expecting; but might we once see the Church of England, reform'd according to the Scrip­tures, we would expect a better Clergy than most of them now are.

I. The Ministers whom we profess to own and to follow, you confess to have had (some of them) Episcopal Ordinations; and others only Presbyterial. Of the former you are willing to allow (for the Honour of your own Church) [Page 34]not only the validity of their Ordination, but an eminency of Personal Abilities; but in the exercise of their Abilities, you fancy that they are some of those, of whom Ignatius says, they serve the Devil; and your great Reason is, not that they are Men of debauched and scandalous Conversation, or of false and cor­rupt Doctrin, but because they refuse to obey their Ordinary, as you say they solemnly pro­mis'd to do; that is, you think they have bro­ken their Oath of Canonical Obedience. To this we answer for them; that if any of 'em have inconsiderately enslav'd themselves, and be­tray'd the Liberties of the Church by an Oath, or Promise to any Man, Ordinary or Extraordi­nary, to obey them any further than the Apo­stle requir'd to be obey'd by the Churches, 1 Cor. 11.1. viz. as far as he himself obey'd, or followed Christ, we think 'tis time for them to repent of such an Oath. And whereas you tell us, They can't expect a blessing on their Work, while they continue in the Breach of such an Engagement; We have as great Reason to think they can't ex­pect a Blessing in keeping it, at least, being now perswaded of the Evil of it. But yet our Chari­ty obliges us to believe, that they took that Oath in no larger Sense, than is consistent with the Rules of the Gospel, and are sure that it is no otherwise binding to 'em. And this, we hope, you will not call a new or strange Doctrin in the Christian Churches. Neither is this to degrade all Bishops, or to abrogate their Office, or over­throw their Chairs, (as you with so ill Design suggest) but to reduce them to that Scripture-Foundation, [Page 35]on which alone they may be more gloriously and firmly Established.

We cannot but remark with how light a Touch you pass by the Foreign Protestant Church­es, as one that is afraid of burning his Fingers, pretending to have nothing to do with them, on a Supposition (which you are willing to allow, that you may so rid your Hands of 'em) that their Call to the Pastoral Office was extraordinary, for which you quote something out of Calvin and Beza, tho' little to your Purpose. In what Sense these Churches understand the extraordi­nariness of their Call, they themselves are best able to inform you. Did they ever, any of them, pretend to be rapt up into the third Hea­vens, where Paul once was, there to receive a new Call and Commission, differing from what Christ and his first Apostles delivered to, and left with the Churches? By what Angel, or Bathkol, or Vision do they say this Extraordinary Call was given them? When, and on whom was it that the Holy Spirit came down in the Form of Cloven Tongues, to Seal them a Commission, to go out and Preach another Gospel, and to lay a new Foundation of the Gospel Ministry? Can you bring us any Tidings of any thing like this out of their Writings, or if you could, would you not easily answer it by, Gal 1.8 But how far are they from such vain Dreams as these? Mons. Turretin will tell you in what Sense they take their Call to have been Extraordinary. Turretin. de Necess [...] ­ria Secessi­one [...] Ec­cles. Rom. p. 228. Si Ordinarium dicitur, quod Ordini primitus & divi­nitus instituto est Consentaneum, potest dici nostra Vocatio Ordinaria; sed si equivoce pro eo sumi [...]ur, quod inveterata consuetudine, qualiscun (que) illa sit, [Page 36]publice est acceptum, extraordinaria dicenda erit; quia plurimum abfuit ab ea Consuetudine & More, qui in Ecclesia Romana inoleverat. If Ordinary be taken for that which is agreeable to the Order of Primitive and Divine Institution, then our Call is Ordinary; but if it be taken equivocally for that which is by long Custom, of any kind, commonly re­ceiv'd, then may it be call'd Extraordinary, because so very different from that use and manner which had so long obtain'd in the Church of Rome. You see now in what Sense they take their Call to be Extraordinary. The Deliverance of the Church out of Mystical Egypt and Babylon was indeed an Extraordinary Deliverance; but their Call to the Ministry was the Ordinary Call of the Gospel; that Spirit of Wisdom, Faith, Pati­ence, Zeal, Self denyal, by which they were divinely influenced in their Reformation was Extraordinary; and it had been better for the Church of England, if her's had not been in this respect too Ordinary. In the same Sense as the Reformation of Johosaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah was Extraordinary in comparison of that of some other Good Kings, who are noted for sparing the High Places, so may the Call of these Foreign Church­es be said to be Extraordinary; M. Claud History of the Refor­mation, Part 4. p. 86. & 89. but that they acted by the ordinary Rule of the Holy Scrip­tures, and the Practice of the Primitive Church, they constantly affirm. O Sir! How poor an Escape have you endeavour'd to make this way, that you may seem to be a little more Courteous to Foreigners than to your own Country-Men; how pitiful a Go by is this, and as foreign to Calvin's Sense, as these Churches are to Your's? What a strain will it cost you now to deliver your [Page 37]self from the Hornes of this Dilemma, either to acquit Ʋs of what you have charg'd us with, or condemn all the Protestant Churches in the World, that are not of your Constitution and Communi­on? And Excommunicate us all as Heathens and Hereticks, that have no Gospel-Ministry, nor Ordinances among them, as the Church of Rome doth, whom you hereby justify in all their Per­secutions and barbarous Severities against them, which looks very ill in a Protestant, especially at such a Time as this. But that our Mini­sters have not taken upon them the sacred Functi­on in a new Way, that was never approv'd in ancient Times, shall be prov'd (as you demand) by a sight of their Patent and Commission (if you have Eyes to read it) in its proper Place.

II. Next you prepare to bring on your Try­al against a second sort of Teachers, who claim a Title to the Ministry, as being Ordain'd by Presby­ters. And indeed when you shall have prov'd this way of Ordination to be Schismatical, you will have done something in the Service of your Cause; wherein if Saying were Proving, and Confidence were good Evidence, doubtless you would not fail. But this being the main Hinge, on which the whole Controversy turns, it will be necessary to spend a little more Time with you here. And first you make your Trip at our Ministers Heels, by striking at the Stone on which they stand; but you will find it is a Rock, against which you may dash your own Feet, but which will not move for all the Kicks you can make at it. The main Scripture, which, with all your might you heave at, is that of, 1 Tim. 4.14. Neglect not the Gift that is [Page 38]in thee, which is given unto thee by Prophecy, with the laying on of the Hands of the Presby­tery.

Against the generally approved Sense of this Scripture, you are pleas'd to Quote us Calvin himself, whom you mistakingly call the Fa­ther of our Discipline; and would have us to believe that he could find no such Matter in this Text; and that he thought Presbytery here signifies but the Office of a Presbyter; and so read to us the Sense of the Text thus. That Timothy should not neglect, but be careful to ex­ercise that Presbyterial Office, or Power which was committed to him by laying on of Hands. Now by the way, lest you should hereafter forget, pray take notice that you have now granted that it was to the Office of a Presbyter that Ti­mothy was now ordain'd, not to that of a Bishop, or an Evangelist. But as for what you refer us to out of Calvin's Institutions: We find that he was there offering some Observations, which he had gather'd out of the Scriptures of the New Testament, concerning the Ordination of such as are to serve in the Office of the Mini­stry; and tells us that it is certain the whole Multitude of the People were not to impose Hands on their Ministers in their Ordination, but only such as were themselves Pastors in Office, to whom alone the ordaining Power be­longs, tho' he leaves it uncertain, whether the Hands of many were always laid on, in every solemn Act of Ordination, but produces Scrip­ture Instances that it was so done in the Ordi­nation of Deacons, Act. 6.6. and in the Ordina­tion of Paul and Barnabas, Act. 13.3. But that [Page 39] Paul here minds Timothy, that he had ordain'd him with his own Hands (tho' not exclusively of all others, or with his own Hand only; but rather that he was the principal Person, and the only Apostle concerned in that Ordination) and therefore Admonishes him to stir up the Gift that was in him, by the Imposition of his Hands. And afterward gives us his private Opinion, that when the Apostle mentions to Timothy, in his other Epistle, the Hands of the Presbytery, that he is not there minding him so much of the manner of his Ordination by the College of Pres­byters, of whom Paul was one and the chief in that Action, but rather that he should mind lp­sam Ordinationem, his Ordination it self, and the great and glorious Ends of it. q. d. Fac ut Gratia quam per manuum impositionem recepisti, quum te Presbyterum Crearem, non sit irrita. That so the Grace which he had receiv'd, when he ordain'd him a Minister of the Gospel, or a Presbyter, might not prove in vain. And now how far Calvin is like to serve your Purpose, or to disserve ours, we leave to any competent impartial Judge. And yet if you think your Notion of Calvin's Sense be the right, we must tell you, you are a Dissenter from the generality of the most Learn­ed of your own Church. Mr. Herbert Thorndike will tell you; ‘If we take not our Marks amiss, we shall sind Argument enough, at least at the beginning, for the concurrence of Pres­byters with the Bishop in making of Presby­ters, and other inferior Orders In the first Place, those general Passages of the Fathers. Wherein is witnessed, that the Presbytery was a Bench, assistent to the Bishop, without Advice [Page 40]whereof nothing of Moment was done, must needs be drawn into Consequence, to argue that it had effect in a particular of this weight. Then the Ordination of Timothy, by Imposi­tion of Hands of the Presbytery will prove no less. Indeed, says he, 'tis well known that the Word [...] in Ecclesiastical Writers, signifies divers times the Office and Rank of Presbyters, which Signification divers here embrace; expounding Imposition of Hands of the Presbytery to mean that by which the Rank of Presbyter was conferr'd. But the Apostles Words running as they do, [...], oblige a Man to ask, when he is come as far as the Impo­sition of Hands, of whom, or whose Hands they were he speaketh of, which the next Words satisfy. Had it been [...], the Sense might better have been diverted, but running as it doth, with the Article [...] with Imposition of [the] Hands, it remaineth that it be specified in the next Words, whose Hands were imposed. Thus this Word [...] in the Gospel, Luk. 22.66. and in Ignatius's Epistles signifieth the College of Presbyters, which hath the Nature and Respect of a Per­son in Law, and therefore is read in the sin­gular, for the whole Bench; which being as­sembled and set, is call'd [...] in both Places; and in Cornelius of Rome his Epistle to St. Cyprian, where he saith, Placuit contra­here Presbyterium.’ Now Sir here's your Mr. Thorndike against what you would impose on our Calvins. But besides this, we Answer,

1. If the Word Presbytery is here to be under­stood of the Office, then will it follow, (as we have before noted) that Timothy's Office was the Office of a Presbyter; What then is become of Timothy's Episcopacy, which you so learnedly plead for in your Discourse of Church-Government? Or When and by Whom was it that he was created Bishop?

2. Camerarius tells us that it is [...], and not [...], which imports the Office of a Presbyter. So that here's a foul mistake of the Presbytery for the Presbyterate, the Persons for the Office.

3. Ignatius, who liv'd very near the Times of the Apostles, and therefore may well be pre­sum'd to have understood the Meaning and Use of this Word, tells us, [...]. Ignat. E­pist. ad Trall. What is the Presbytery other than the Sacred Company, who are the Bishops Counsellors and Assessours? This Sense Clemens Alexandrinus, and some others of the Primitive Fathers give of it; nor was it ever taken in any other Sense by the Fathers till Ori­gen; nor in any Place of the New Testament doth it signify any other than the Company of Presbyters, as Luk. 22.66. Act. 22.5. And this Mr. Selden himself is fore'd to confess, tho', De Sy­nedr. l. 1. Cap. 14.560. being an Erastian in his Judgment, he was loth to allow the Word in this Text to signifie a College of Presbyters, lest he should be forc'd to allow them the Power of Excommu­nication.

4. To put this Sense upon the Word Pres­byter in this Text, and to make it to signify the Office, is such an Inversion and Disturbance of the [Page 42]natural Order of the Word, as is never to be al­low'd but in case of plain Necessity, lest we make the Sacred Scriptures a Nose of Wax, of which Mr. Thorndike was too wise to be Guilty.

5. And yet if you will needs take Presbytery here for the Office of a Presbyter, which Calvin doth not do, but rather for the Solemn Act, by which the Office is conferr'd; see how little it will be to your Advantage. Doth it not then clearly follow, that 'tis by vertue of the Office it self, and not by any Degree that some have obtain'd in it above others, that Men are to be Ordain'd into the Ministry? So that in whom­soever the Office of a Presbyter is found, there is this Power of Ordaining others. Have you not then ingenuously, or inadvertently, granted to our Ministers all that they demand in this Matter, and prov'd it for 'em too from Calvin, whom you pretend to alledge against 'em?

To what a pass now have you brought your Episcopal Ordination? Are these the only Men that have Power to Ordain a Presbyter: Or have they any Power or Authority at all to do it, but as they are themselves Presbyters? What is a Bishop, but a Presbyter set in a higher De­gree for Clerical Order and Government sake, but as to Office, the same with the Presbyter? And therefore it is that the Titles are so promis­cuously and indifferently us'd in the Holy Scrip­tures. Nor did the Apostles themselves Ordain, as Apostles, but as Presbyters, which is the Title they own in their Epistles, and claim as their Honour. And that it is the Presbyter, not the [Page 43] Bishop ( i. e. consider'd only as such) that must Ordain, is put beyond Controversy by a rul'd Case, that a Bishop or Prelate Ordain'd per saltum, ( i. e. who never had the Ordination of a Presby­ter himself, but only of a Bishop) can neither Consecrate, nor administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Body, nor Ordain a Presbyter. Tho', for the necessary Ends of Clerical Order and Go­vernment, the Bishop be set in a superiour De­gree of Superintendency, and consequently his Presence and authoritative Concurrence be ne­cessary, with a select Number of his best qua­lify'd Presbyters, to confer Orders, and to see the Laws of Christ duly executed in his Church; yet where this Power is abus'd (than which nothing in the World is apter, nor hath been more abus'd) where the Churches are impos'd upon, and Presbyters tyrannically ravish'd of their just Rights and Priviledges, and cause­lesly cast out of Episcopal Communion; the Pres­byter is nevertheless a Presbyter, as to all the Parts and Purposes of his Office. He may be robb'd of his Pulpit, but not of his Office; robb'd of his Maintenance, but not of his Right to it; robb'd of his Liberty, but not of his Relation to Christ, nor to his Church. In the Holy Scriptures we find that Presbyters (as such) are vested with the Power of Rule and Govern­ment in the House of God, 1 Tim. 5.17. Act. 20.17. & 28. But of the Investiture of Pre­lates, or their Ordination by Imposition of Hands, as of an Office distinct and different from that of the Presbyter, we read not one Word in all the New Testament. By what Law of Christ then doth he claim a despotical Power over his [Page 44] Presbyters, any other than as the Head and Mo­derator of their common Council, and in whose Name, and with whose Concurrence (for Order and Government sake) all the necessary Canons and By Laws that conduce to the Peace, Profit and Edification of the Churches committed to their Care, ought to be issued and established? Will you tell us; they are the Apostle's Succes­sors in Power and Authority? So are Our Presbyters too, 1 Pet. 5.1, 2, 3. both in Faith and Doctrin, and all Things that are Common and Essential to the Office. Prelacy is not of the Office, per se, but only per Accidens, and which, when duly ex­ercis'd, honourably conduces to the bene Esse of the Church, but is not constitutive of its Esse. We have hear'd indeed of no Bishop no King, and ever thought it extravagant enough; but never heard of no Bishop no Church till now.

Again, you would have us to believe that, Presbytery, being a Name of Dignity, is sometimes attributed to Ecclesiastical Officers of the highest Rank, as St. Peter and St. John call themselves Presbyters, and therefore it must needs here signify a Company of Bishops. To this we Re­ply,

1. That the Word Presbytery was never so taken for a Company of Bishops only, (of which there was but one in one Church) which is the limited Sense, either in the Times of the Apo­stles, or of the first Centuries of the Church, per­haps not till Chrysostome's Time; but alway for the Collegium Presbyterorum; and before we can believe that it is to be otherwise taken in this Text, you must prove it.

2. If the Word must be taken in your Sense for a Company of Bishops, then either there is no particular Church, tho' Diocesan, that hath any Presbytery of its own, or there must be more Bishops than One in every such Church, or else you must say that your one Bishop is a Company of Bishops.

3. What can you infer, in this Case, from Peter's and John's assuming the Title of Presbyter, but that in all the common Acts of Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline they acted as Pres­byters, and not as Apostles, And what then have you gotten by this Argument?

But you urge again, That Timothy was a Bishop, and had Jurisdiction over Presbyters; there­fore Presbyters could not Ordain him to his Office; for they could not communicate a Power which they never receiv'd. To this we Answer,

1. That Timothy was an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4.5. which, if it signify'd any more than a Preach­er of the Gospel, which was the Work of every Presbyter, then it must signify something more than an Ordinary Bishop, to which he had no particular Ordination, but the Apostles Election of him, as his Companion, and his Mission to some particular Services in the Churches of Paul's planting. So that the Presbytery Ordain'd him only as a Presbyter, not as an Evangelist, nor as a Bishop, about which we have no Form, Rule or Precedent in the Scripture.

2. Whereas you say, They could not communi­cate a Power which they never receiv'd; We An­swer, That in this Case there was no need of it; they Ordain'd him as a Presbyter, and what other Titles he afterward arriv'd to, were but Acci­dental. [Page 46]But this Reason of yours seems to be bottom'd on a great Mistake, viz. That the Or­dainers communicate the ministerial Power to the Persons Ordained; whereas it is Christ that communicates the Pastoral Power and Authority by his Charter of the Gospel; the Power is deriv'd from Christ, not from the Ordainers; As the Major of a City has his Authority from the Charter, granted by the King, and not from the Recorder, who invests him in his Office. And yet neither is this true, that an inferiour Officer may not invest one of a superiour Order in his Office, else what have the Bishops to do at the Coronation of Kings, unless you will make the Regal to be an Inferior Office to that of the Bi­shop; which if you do, you may next pretend to an absolving and deposing Power too.

But you tell us again, That we do not find in Scripture, That to mere Presbyters any such Autho­rity was ever committed; nor are there any Footsteps of it in Antiquity. And we tell you, That we find not in Scripture, nor in Antiquity, that this Authority was ever committed to any other than Presbyters: But if you insist, That they must not be mere Presbyters, we Reply,

1. How do you prove that either Simeon, that was called Niger, or Lucius of Cyrene, or Ma­naen, who were commanded from Heaven, Act. 13.1, 2. to ordain Paul and Barnabas, were any of them, at that time, more than mere Presbyters as to Matter of Office?

2. Where do you find, in all the Books of the New Testament, not only that a mere Bishop, but that any one single Person, whether Bishop, or Evangelist, or Apostle, or any other, besides [Page 47] our Lord Jesus Christ himself, did ever cele­brate this Ordinance of Ordination, without the assistance of some others, more or less of the Presbytery? If you instance in Paul's ordaining Timothy with his own Hands; will that prove that it was with his own Hands alone, espe­cially while he tells us so expresly, in words at length, and not in figures, That it was done by the Hands of the Presbytery?

3. We will propose you a Case, which is possible, tho' we hope will never be real. Sup­pose the Churches of Christ should be reduc'd to a very few, and the Bishops of these few should all turn Hereticks, or Persecutors of the Orthodox, and cast them out of their Communion, the Presbyters retaining their In­tegrity: These Presbyters, by your Doctrin, cannot ordain so much as a Presbyter, to con­tinue a Succession, much less can they create a Bishop to do it: Must the whole Church then be extinct for lack of a Bishop to Head them? Or would you expect to have one rais'd from the Dead, or sent back out of Heaven to do it?

4. As for Antiquity; There is nothing more clear than that in the Primitive Churches the Bi­shops and their Presbyters alway acted in Con­junction in all Acts of Church Discipline, both of Excommunication, Restauration, Confirma­tion and Ordination; And in the Banishment or Absence of their Bishops, the Presbyters alone, without the presence of any other Bishop, did, by his order and allowance (which he could not have done, had it not been a thing in it self lawful) execute all that the Bishop was to have [Page 48]done in Person among them. Nay, St. Jerom will tell you that the Presbyters have Power to Ordain a Bishop over them, and invest him with his Episcopal Authority, as they did at Alexandria. Sir, There was a Time within the Memory of Man, that Our Bishops were banished from their Clergy in England, and what, was the Whole Church of England then extinct, and cut off from the Head Christ? Doth eternal Salvation go and come with Lawn-Sleeves? Yet once more, you tell us, That the Office which Timothy had was given him by Prophecy, 1 Tim. 4.14. Or ac­cording to the Prophesies, which went before of him, 1 Tim. 1.18. His Ordination therefore must have been an extraordinary Thing, and not to be drawn into Precedent, except in parallel Cases. But our Pastors, you suppose, do not pretend that they are mark'd out by Prophecy.

1. We answer, These Prophesies, whatever they were, concerning Timothy, respected his Person, and not the manner of his Ordination.

2. It is very probable that the Apostles had a more than ordinary Direction, relating to the choice of Ministers, or Church-Officers many times in their Days, Acts 20.28. It is there said, That the Elders of the Church of Ephesus were made Overseers of their Flocks by the Holy Ghost, i. e. as some think, their Choice and Nomination was by Direction of the Holy Spi­rit of God. And Clemens Romanus says, That the Apostles in those Days ordained Bishops or Presbyters [...], &c. Discerning by the Spirit, and having a perfect Knowledge whom they should Ordain. But what is all this to the way of Ordaining by [Page 49] Presbyters is an extraordinary Thing, and not to be drawn into Precedent. It's probable that it had been foretold by some one or other, that Timothy would be a faithful and eminent Mi­nister of Christ; who but you would have concluded from thence, That his Ordination by Presbyters was an extraordinary Case?

3. May you not as pertinently argue, That none of the Ordinations, done by the Imposition of the Hands of the Apostles, are to be drawn into Precedent; because these were extraor­dinary Cases, the Apostles being extraordi­nary Persons, who had an extraordinary and immediate Mission from Christ himself; nor do we know of any Bishops that now pre­tend to be marked out by an immediate Call from Christ, or any Prophecy of their extraor­dinary Ʋsefulness, that have gone before of 'em.

But Sir, Before you had given your self and us all this Trouble to so little purpose, you had done much better to have sate down and considered how you could have answered Mr. John Owen's ten Arguments from Scrip­ture and Antiquity, Owen's Plea for Scripture Ordina­tion. proving Ordination by Presbyters, without Bishops to be valid; to which, (to save Labour of Transcribing) we refer those that are willing to see much more on this Subject.

III. The Declamation which you make a­gainst popular Ordination, we are not at all concern'd in, but join with you in our hear­ty Wishes, that they that are, would deeply consider it.

Now to conclude this, your third Section, Having read out our Indictment in all the Ar­ticles of it, and examin'd it after your man­ner; you come to sum up the Evidence, or what you call Evident, and bring in the Bill against us; that we have in all these Respects, exceeded the Novatians, Donatists and Meleti­ans. But before you proceed to your Damna­tory Sentence, we hope your Charity will take into Consideration what we have already, so briefly offer'd in our own Defence, and what we have yet further to plead for our selves, as your following Discourse shall give us Occa­sion.

Your fourth Section (in which you pretend to blow us wholly up, Sect. 4. and to beat us out of all our Fasinesses, and not to leave us a Rag to cover our Nakedness with) is a Collection of just half a dozen of some little Things, which you have pickt up some-where behind our Backs, and what you thought your self able to deal with; and these you set up as so ma­ny Cocks of Clouts to try your Skill upon, and to entertain your Self and your Readers with; and represent it to the World, as the sum of what has been said in our Defence: But if you wou'd have done your Self and your Readers right, you ought to have quoted the Authors, out of which you had taken those Things. Nei­ther is it so easie, as you seem to hope, to make the thinking part of the World, at this time of the day, to believe, that a Man of your Figure and Reading, must not needs be con­scious [Page 51]to himself of other Things. But this, it seems, is what you thought fit to make your Remarks upon; wherein you have not shown that Christian Charity, nor common Ingenuity, which might justly have been expected from the fair Pretensions of your Introduction. Yet what you are here pleased, under this Form, to of­fer us, and to declare to the World in our Names, we must take such notice of as it doth deserve.

1. That which you thought fit to set in the Front of what you call Our Arguments, is this. It has been said, That notwithstanding our present Sepa­ration from you, yet we are One with you, because we both adhere to the same Doctrin.

This, you say, is one Point gain'd of us, that now you are treated with softer Language than for­merly you were: And yet this doth not please you neither, but account ruder Language less dangerous; because this seems to represent Communion with you an indifferent Thing. Sir, This is unaccountably strange, that Com­munion with you should be the Thing you so zealously contend for, and yet are affraid of our coming too near to you. It seems the Principles of Moderation are too dull and phleg­matick to agree with your rectify'd Spirit of Charity, whereby you declare your self to be no Trimmer, but a Tantivy.

Before you had given us your Comments on this Argument, you should have put it into the Form of an Argument, and have shewn the World what it is that we pretend to prove by it. We suppose the sense of it must run thus:

If we are One with you in Doctrin, then our Separation from you in some other things is not Schismatical.

But we are One with you in Doctrin: Ergo.

Here we might in justice have expected that you should have cited our Author of this Argu­ment before you had called it Ours: But in stead of that you tell us, That you know nothing that hath been more commonly urg'd of late in our Vindication. Sir, This is not fair, much less charitable dealing with us; for we know not who they are of us that will own this Argu­ment. For,

1. The Consequence of the Major we deny, as well as you, and therefore disown it; we do not think, nor do our Ministers teach us, That Oneness in Doctrin is enough to justify a Separation in outward Communion from being Schismatical; and had we no greater thing to warrant our Separation from you, we should not think our selves innocent.

2. Neither do we own the Minor of this Argument, without some Exceptions. For we dare not say, That we are perfectly One with you in Doctrin: There are some things in the Doctrin that is commonly preach'd among you that is too Arminian, and too Romish for us to be One with you in it. But this is what we say, and will stand to; that as far as your Doctrin is One with that which is taught us in the Holy Scriptures, the Faith which was once [Page 53]delivered unto the Saints; so far we are One with you. And as far as our Separation from you is not without just Cause, so far it is not Shismatical. So then what you say, in appro­brious Descant,

1. On the Minor of this Argument, is but Petitio Principij, a shameful begging the Que­stion, 'till you have prov'd that to be true, which you say you think, viz. That what is pub­lished by many of our Party in their printed Books, and even in their Catechisms is Heterodox to the pure Apostolical Doctrin, and yet generally embraced by us. What you upbraid us with from the Zeal of the Independents, to secure to themselves their own Proselites, is but what your selves are altogether as guilty of in your own Case; and which indeed is a piece of Natural Poli­ticks, arising from the Principle of Self-pre­servation, and common to all Mankind, and in nothing more than in Religious Socie­ty.

As for those useful Hints, which you suggest from the Heads of Arguments subscrib'd by our Ministers of different Sects, we have reason to look upon as Impertinent, further than the Cases are parallel; yet seeing you are willing to make something on't, we will appeal to your selves, and to all the World, that have observ'd the Grounds and Circumstances of the Breaches that have been made upon us, and the Controversies that have been now almost these forty Years depending between us, whe­ther [Page 54]we or our Ministers did separate from you, before the utmost Endeavours were us'd, by Remonstrances, Arguments, Petitions, In­treaties and Accommodations, but all in vain to prevent our Departure, or rather our Ex­clusion from you. You were resolved to kick us out of your Communion, and now you upbraid us for leaving you without your Con­sent. And as for what you quote us out of St. Cyprian, speaking of the Novatians, and out of St. Chrysostom against the Separatists of those Times, we shall take our selves to be concern'd in when you have truly parallelled the Case, and prov'd your selves and your Church to be as pure in Doctrin, and as far from a Ty­rannical Imposing of new Conditions of Com­munion as they were; and us to be as Here­tical and Corrupt in Doctrin and Manners, as the Schismaticks of their Days were: But 'till this be done, you do but abuse your Authors and expose your self.

II. Having done with the Minor, you draw up your Forces against the Major; and here you endeavour to choak us with your [...] of Catholick Ʋnion; and begin to plead

1. From the Absurdity of saying we are One with you, being divided from you as we are. And how is this? Not in Doctrin, any further than you are divided from Christ, nor any more than you are divided among your selves; not in Affection, unless the Division be wholly on your side; not in any thing wherein the Vita­lity [Page 55]of Essence of the Catholick Christian Union doth consist: Ay, but we are divided from you as to outward Communion, and there­fore can never be One with you, whatever the Union be in any other Respects, as if Ens and Ʋnum did now cease to be Convertible Terms, as heretofore they were alway taken to be. We are divided as to outward Communion, and that mortally destroys the Union. True, Sir, we are, to our sorrow, thus divided from you and by you. And now being thus divided; The Church, both Ʋniversal and Particular must be consider'd as a Political Body; and then if a Company withdraw themselves from it, and shake, off all Dependance on it and Communion with it (all Communion, if you speak this to us, you must mean all outward Communion, in those Ceremonious Acts of Worship, and Matters of Discipline that lie in Controvesie betwixt us) they cannot be of the same Body that they deserted. And then it must needs follow, That Your Church being Politically in Com­munion with the CATHOLICK, and Ours out of Communion with you, we are but as so many dead Branches that have lost their Uni­on with the Body, and all the Influxes of Life from the Head. How gladly then would you see us in the Fire, that you may warm your selves by us? Sure 'tis well for those of us you are so angry with, that the Act, De Ha­roticis comburendis is repeal'd. But this Infer­ence of yours you pretend to illustrate by se­veral pat Instances. The Empire of Persia, you say, was one Body under Darius; but was not so [Page 56]when divided into several Kingdoms under the Suc­cessors of Alexander. Very critically observ'd; when thus divided, they were not One parti­cular Political Body as before, yet were they true parts of One and the same Universal World still, tho' divided into particular Na­tional Polities, yet united still in all the com­mon Interests of Human Nature and Society. So a City is one Body; but the Colonies that issue out from it, and are form'd into other Cities, under their own proper Laws and Ju­risdiction, cannot be Numerically, and perhaps are not Specificially one Political Body; yet they are one Kingdom, and govern'd by the same common Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom: And what the Kingdom is the worse for this Variety, or Diversification of particlar Poli­tical Forms, no Man can tell. Nay, suppose this Separation be made by a Revolt, or Dis­like of the Constitution of the Government of the City, or of their Manners and Forma­lities, and without the Publick Consent; we hope this will not Out-law them, nor Disfran­chize them of any of their National Privile­ges and Rights, as long as they behave them­selves with due Loyalty to their Sovereign, and peaceably to their Fellow-Subjects. Now, you say, a Church hath this Communion with a City, and with all Corporations. Very true, so the Church at Jerusalem was once the Ʋniver­sal Church and Gospel Metropolis: But if all those particular Churches that have been separated from it, into Political Bodies, not only Nu­merically, but Specifically distinct, under their [Page 57]own Laws and Forms of Government, Wor­ship and Discipline, and different from that of the first Mother-Church, from which they issued, be no more Churches because of these different outward Communions, wherein they are not one with the first Church, nor with one another; then it must needs follow that You are no more a Church of Christ than We; and so you have thus far set us on even Ground with your selves; nor hath any one need to renounce the use of the Words, or affront the common Sense of Mankind to draw this Conclusion from your Premises.

2. You plead from a supposed Inconsistency it hath with Church Government, and its Destructive­ness of the Church it self; and a vain excuse, you say 'twill be for Men to say, that they are at an Agreement with the Church in Doctrin, while, by their Divisions they are tearing the Church in Pieces. And this you are at the Pains to Illu­strate, by Comparisons Military, Civil and Domestick, as if it were an hard Matter to beat this Notion into Mens Heads. But when all is done, you won't imagine how little We think our selves concern'd in it; for you have granted us, and we cannot forget it, that it must be a Causeless Separation, or else it is not what you are declaiming on; therefore till it appear that our Separation from the Church of England is Causeless, we are not the Persons that are like to be hurt by your Arrows. And as for our Officers, by whose Conduct we are guided in the Matters of God and of our Souls, [Page 58]they are neither Mutinous, nor Seditious, nor Self-Intruders, as by your Comparisons you would Insinuate, but generally as well qualify'd, and altogether as lawfully call'd and commissi­on'd, and as fully invested with the ministerial Office, according to the Rules of the Holy Scriptures, as any of your Selves, as we have already prov'd; so that this Argument you may now lay aside among your broken Weapons, till you find a proper Occasion for it.

3. You argue from its Inconsistency with the Notion of Schism, as it is express'd in the Holy Scripture, i. e. If the Scripture Notion of Schism were the same with Yours. And for this your only Instance is the Schism that was once in the Church of Corinth, where every one said, I am of Paul, or I of Apollas, or I of Cephas. But this Faction among the Disciples at Co­rinth, you told us in your second Section, was but a Schism within the Church, not from it, and therefore will not give us the full Notion of Schism, according to your own apprehen­sion of it. But we will let this pass for an Impertinence, having already granted you more than this Instance can pretend to prove, viz. that Oneness in Doctrin is not always enough to justify a Separation from outward Communion. 'Tis in your misapplying it to us that your great Mistake lies, supposing that our Separati­on from you is as Causeless as were the Factious Divisions of those in the Church of Corinth, which is the Thing that's yet to be prov'd. [Page 59]But it seems to us by the Tenour of your Dis­course from top to bottom; that let a Church be what it will, either as to its Constitution, or its individual Members, ever so Corrupt in Doctrin, Superstitious in Worship, or Filthy in Conversation, and degenerated from Scripture Rules and Institution; yet while they hold to­gether in outward Communion, as the Church of Rome hath done, both before and since the Pro­testant Reformation, there is nothing in it that deserves the Name of Schism, or that will justi­fie a Seperation from it. Pray tell us plainly whose Cause it is you are pleading under the Name of the Church of England? Have you ne­ver consider'd the Differences that there were in the Apostle's Days between the Churches of the Christian Jewes and those of the Gentiles, in respect of Rites and Ceremonies and outward Com­munion; and don't you know to what a height these Differences were kept up by the Churches that were still so fond of their old Way, that there was no Uniting them in this Point? That Paul, for his Non-Conformity to 'em, could not shew his Face among 'em at Jerusalem, without dan­ger of his Life? Have you not read what a feud there was once between Him and Peter on this Account, Gal. 2.11, 12, 13, 14. And how much ado the Apostle Paul had to preserve the Churches of the Gentiles from being bigotted to their Superstitions? Now pray tell us, whe­ther the Church at Jerusalem, or that at Antioch were the true Church; or whether of these Two you will please to cut off for the Schis­matick; or whether the Catholick Ʋnion were [Page 60]preserv'd between them both, notwithstanding these wide Deffences and Dissentions in exter­nal Rites and Communion? But if these were still One in Catholick Ʋnion, we understand not: How less Matters than these should make the Conformists and Non-Conformists of England to be Two, so as that We must be condemn'd for Schismaticks rather than You.

4. You argue from the Scripture Distinction of the Schismatick from the approv'd; and then tell us that those that live in Corformity to your Church are the approved and the beloved of God; ay, Sir, the approved Drunkards and Swearers, the be­loved Woremongers and Adulterers, &c. for such are too many of those who are allowed Communion with you; but we are the Schis­maticks, and the Reprobates, because you have cast us out, and will not admit us to your Communion without Conformity to your Cere­monies. Doth not the Church of Rome tell us the same thing? How generally and loosly do you talk of Conformity to the Church, with­out making any difference of what is Good, or what is Evil in it, or what will justify a Sepa­ration from it, and what will not; the same Argument serves indifferently both Rome and You. The high Presumption you have of your Purity, and the Inoffensiveness of your Terms of Communion is no more than what is com­mon to the Biggots of the corruptest Church and Faction in the World; But till it be bet­ter prov'd than hitherto it hath been, you must excuse us that we cannot take You to be the [Page 61]Approv'd, so as to condemn our Selves for the Schismaticks, in not Communicating with you on such Terms as the Holy Scripture doth not require, and our own Consciences are not satis­fy'd in.

II. Your Second, It has been said, which you call our Second Argument, runs thus. That in the Apostle's Days there were independent and sepa­rate Churches planted in the same City. But still you think it too much to be at the Charge of producing our Author, or putting it into Form of Argument; without which you do but juggle with us, and misrepresent us to the World. How far you intend to stretch your Independency of Churches, we cannot Divine; or whether by Independent Churches you mean Churches, or Congregations only Separate as to outward Com­munion in the same City; How then shall we form this into an Argument, but in your own ambiguous Terms? And then it will Hypothe­tically look thus,

If there were Independent and separate Churches planted in the Apostle's Days, in the same City, then are not the Independent and se­parate Churches now in England Schisma­tical.

But there were Independent and Separate Churches planted in the Apostle's Days in the same City. Erg.

And now that it is brought into this Logical Order for you, we know not who will own it, [Page 62]either Major or Minor. If those that, among us, are call'd Independents, will own it, let them Answer for themselves. But, as far as it con­cers us, we doubt you will have no great Rea­son to triumph in it, by that time we have exa­min'd it.

The Consequence of the Major we deny; be­cause in the Apostle's Days, there might be, and we have Reason to think there were, but too many Independent and Separate Churches planted in the same Cities, by those false Teach­ers, who then crept into the Churches, and drew Disciples after them, and of whom the Apostles often complain'd, Act. 20 30. Jud. 19.3. Joh. 10. Yet thus your invidious Charity re­presents us, that you may, if possible, perswade the World to believe, that we are the Persons whom the Apostles prophecy'd and complain'd of, and whom the Scripture condemns for Schis­maticks, &c.

As for your Minor, That there were such In­dependent Churches planted in the Apostles Days; if you mean, by such as Schismatically Separated themselves, we will grant it, but if you mean, planted by the Apostles themselves, as your following Discourse on it plainly intimates, let them, that think themselves so highly con­cern'd in it, Dispute it out, for 'twill be even all one to Us on whether side the Victory shall fall.

On this Argument you have left us little to do, but to expect the Issue of the Squabble be­twixt [Page 63]you and your Learned Dr. Hammond; who tells you, ‘That as St. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision, and St. Paul of the Gen­tiles; so whensoever these Two great Apo­stles came to the same City, the one con­stantly apply'd himself to the Jews, receiv'd Disciples of such, form'd them into a Church, and left them, when he departed that Regi­on, to be Govern'd by some Bishop of his own Assignation. And the Other in like man­ner did the same to the Gentiles.’ And this is what you endeavour very Learnedly to Re­fute. Sir, We will not presume to intrude our selves as Moderators, between you; how­ever, you may give us leave to gather up some of the great Spoyles of the Field, at least a few of the broken Arrows, to warm our selves by. Now, that the Apostles them­selves were free to Communicate, on all Occa­sions, both with Jews and Gentiles, is most cer­tain, knowing that the Partitian-Wall being now broken down, they both made but One Catho­lick Church under Christ the Catholick Head. But it is as certain, that it was long before the Old Bottles could hold the New Wine, without bursting; Hence it is that there were, for the first Age, such Differences and Distances be­tween the Jewish and Gentile Converts; that they could endure no Religious Communion with one another. 'Tis true, this Heat arose on the Jew's Side, who were still so superstiti­ously Zealous for their Old Ceremonies; and 'tis a common Observation, that the Weaker and more Superstitious are always the more obsti­nately [Page 64]Hot for the Exteriors of Religion, and more for the Shadow than the Substance of it. But so it was that they would admit no other than a Jew, or Jewish Proselyte into their Com­munion, or into any of their Synagogues, at least not into their Temple, as appears by Paul's hard Case at Jerusalem, Act. 21.20. &c. So that whether or no they were at first Apostoli­cally Constituted, as distinct Churches, under their proper Bishops in one and the same City; this is most evident, that they had their diffe­rent Forms of Woship and Religious Rites, and distinct Communions and Assemblies, whether under one City or Diocesan Bishop or more. Neither do all these Arguments wherewith the Apostle laboured to defend his Gentile Converts against the Old-Leaven of the Judaizing Zealots, and to convince the Jews of their unchristian Bigottry against the Simplicity and Liberty of the Gospel, and to maintain the sacred Bond of Union and Peace among them, prove that they were not of different Outward Communions, yea else why should he say to the Jews, I became as a Jew, &c. 1 Cor. 9.20. &c. But he only en­deavours to calm the Heats of their Spirits to­wards one another, that they should not lay the mighty stress of eternal Salvation on these little Things; but notwithstanding these Dif­ferences, which could not be cur'd but by Time, they should receive and embrace one another, as Fellow-Members of one and the same univer­sal mystical Body.

And now I will tell you in few words, how far You and We are concerned in this your Dis­pute with the Dr.: Either there were Indepen­dent and Separate Churches planted by the Apostles in the same City, or there were not, Utrum horum, &c. If there were, then,

1. Your Dr. was in the right, and you un­der a mistake in opposing him.

2. What was done by the Apostles, rules the case under the like circumstances, to Us, and to all other Churches to the World's end.

3. If there were such a Division of Outward Communion among the Churches of the Apo­stle's own planting, and by their Allowance and Order; then the Differences of Outward Communion destroy not the Catholick Union: But the Church is truly One by some surer and more adequate Bond than that of Uniformity of Outward Communion.

On the other side, if all the Churches of the Apostles planting were always One in Out­ward Communion; then were not the Ceremo­nies in Controversie between the Jews and Gentiles ever made the necessary Terms of their Communion; but every one had his Liber­ty, according the Sentiments of his own Con­science, and private Judgment, of using or not using them: Because otherwise Outward Com­munion had been utterly impracticable. Now whether of these two you will chuse, is very indifferent to Us; because either of them will answer well enough for Us in what you here Object against us. And what now is become of your Notion of Catholick Unity, let any one [Page 66]judge that hath but the command of one so­ber Thought.

III. The next thing that you are pleas'd to produce in our Names, and call one of our Arguments, is this; That Jesus Christ hath de­clar'd, that where two or three are gathered together in his Name, he is in the midst of them: And that we Assemble in this manner, and are therefore assur'd of his favourable Presence. Here also Justice would have quo­ted us its Author, and Art would have lick'd it into Form for us; that so we might have seen the proper Dimensions and Strength of it as an Argument. Now, in Logical Form, we humbly conceive it will look after this fashi­on, and speak to this effect.

Those that are gathered together, with Christ in the midst of them, are no Schis­matical Assembly.

But we are gathered together with Christ in the midst of us. Erg.

But because the stuff you have here laid to­gether for Us, will not regularly be compre­hended within the compass of one ordinary Syl­logism, it will be needful to support the Minor, which seems to to be most in danger, with ano­ther to this purpose.

Those that are gathered together in the Name of Christ, have Christ in the midst of 'em.

But we are gathered together in the Name of Christ. Erg.

SIR, Though we own the Scripture out of which you quote us these Words, Matth. 18.20. in the true sense and meaning of them, and bless God for the Gracious Promise contain'd in them; yet as we never offered them as a Reason of our Separation from your Communion, so neither do we own them as an Argument to justifie our so doing. You herein trifle with us. Had you durst to have engaged our Arguments, you would not have made your self sport with these little Things, which are justly enough liable to so many exceptions. But this, it seems, is a Reed, which you have borrowed from the Old Novations to smite Us with; and with these you should have left, it or some others of that Character; and not in imitation of the Old Woman at Endor, have raised up the Ghost of St. Cyprian to read us a Doom, till you had first substantially proved, that we are the Persons of whom St. Cyprian spake. But this indeed is an Argument that you make light of, and so do we.

IV. Your Fourth, It hath been said, is of the same Complexion and Value with the former. The Postulatum that lies in quest between us, is, Whether our Separating from the Church of England, in outward Communion, be Schism? And to prove our Innocency herein, you pre­tend that we produce the words of the Apostle Paul, Phil. 1.15, and 18. That Paul rejoiced that Christ was Preached even by those Men that did it out of Envy and Strife; and if the Case of our Preachers were as bad as this, as long as they Preach Christ, We have no reason to be [Page 68]sollicitous about their Call, nor You to be offend­ed at their Work. This we suppose you put in to make up the Half Dozen: But if you would represent it as one of our Arguments, you should have squeezed it into such a Syllo­gism as this, that we might have known what to make on't.

If the Preaching of Christ, though out of Envy and Strife, were matter of re­joicing to Paul; then the Preaching of Christ, though out of Envy, and without a Call, (which you force into the Argument) is not Schismatical.

But our Ministers do Preach Christ, whatever their Principles, or their Call to the Office be. Erg.

We wish you would do us the right to tell us, from whom of Us you got this Argument: Possibly, some good Body or other, that was not so well-pleas'd with your Rigours in stopping the Mouths of so many Hundreds of our Mini­sters at once, may have said, That if Paul did rejoice that Christ was faithfully Preached, though by such as envied his Fame and Liberty in the Gospel; then you of the Church of England have done very unlike to the Blessed Paul, in silencing so many of the Able and Faithful Ministers of Christ, who would have Preached him Sincerely and Peaceably, and from a Principle of Love to the Souls of Men; and that had as much a Call to Preach as You And if you will, as you ought, take it thus, and call it an Argument, We will own it as a [Page 69]sober Reasonning of the Case with you, who­ever were the first Author of it. But when you mock us with the Man of Straw of your own stuffing, you deal with Us, as they dealt of old with the Christians, whom they put in­to Bears Skins and Fools Coats, to be laught at by the Mob, and worried by the Beasts: And so you deal with our Ministers.

1. By representing them to be such as take on them the Work of the Ministry, without a Call to that Office; the contrary whereof we have already proved.

2. In saying that Paul's Enviers Preached to none but the Infidels, (which is more than you pretend to prove) intimating, that if you could but get our Ministers banished into America, or any other Infidel part of the World, to Preach the Gospel to them that never yet heard of it; then you will rejoice too, as Paul did.

3. In accusing them of Envy and Strife, as the main Principle that sets them on work to Preach Christ here so near to your Noses; wherein you make your self a Judge of evil Thoughts.

4. By your implicit complaint, how much they exercise your Patience and Self-denial, as those of old did Paul's. Yet would you but lay aside your own Envy and Prejudices, you might, on much more comfortable Grounds, conclude, as the Apostle there doth, that this their Preaching would be to your Advantage, and Beneficial both to the Church and to your selves too.

V. The next Argument that you can afford us, is this; That we are only returned to those whom we had forsaken before; and that we might do this, since we had the Indulgence, or the Liberty granted to us by the Law.

Before we meddle with this Argument, let us turn it into Form after its Fellows, and see how it will look then, and who they are that will own it. But in Syllogism it makes this Figure.

For a People to return to those Mi­nisters whom they had forsaken before, when they have Liberty granted them by the Law so to do, is no Schism.

But we have now Liberty granted us to return to those Ministers whom we had forsaken before. Erg.

Sir, It would look very ingeniously, if you would now at last please to tell us, from what Author of Ours you took this Topping Argu­gument, which perhaps you think, and would have others to think, is one of the best we have to defend our selves with. The truth is, were it not for the Law that protects Us, we should be badly able to defend our selves against Church-violence; and doubtless there are Summer-flies enough among Us, whose De­votion depends on this Liberty which the Law hath given us: But had we not better Reasons to justifie our Cause against your Argumentations, we should think our selves in an ill Case.

'Tis hardly worth our labour to follow you in all that you harrangue on this Head. You [Page 71]say, If our Separation was Sinful before we Conform'd, our return to it must be Sinful; And we think so too, For the Law hath not alter'd the Case, as to the Nature of the thing. Wherefore your first Enquiry upon it is very pertinent, viz. Whether our Separation before we Conformed were Sinful. But instead of En­quiring, you take it for granted that it was so; and say, 'tis clear from what went before, i. e. from your notion of Catholick Unity; which we have examin'd, and think that by this time you have little Reason to Glory in it. But if this prove to be no clear evidence against us, then it is not yet clear that our Separation from you is Causeless, and therefore Sinful and Schismatical. And we hope we have already said enough to destroy that Infant-notion of Catholick Unity in your Sense, if we may but obtain an unbyassed Judgment upon it. Nei­ther do we need that Objection you here make for us, That many of us were never Members of the Church of England, and therefore no Deserters of it. We commend you that you will be careful to raise no Objections, but what you think you can Answer. But you must first better prove that our Separation is Causeless, and then we shall think our selves concerned to take notice of what you say.

Sir, We are ashamed to hear a Protestant pleading so like a Papist for a Priestly Succes­sion; concluding that the Office of the Gospel-Ministry is utterly extinct, without your Epis­copal Ordination. Had not this Antiscriptural, Uncharitable, Church destroying Pretension been so long ago baffled, and therefore deserted by [Page 72]the Wisest and most Learned of your own Communion, as well as by the Judgment of all Foreign Protestant Divines, we should not have wondered so much at you. Wherefore we shall not now Rem toties actam agere, but leave you first to answer what hath been by so many, and with so convincing Evidence written on this subject; whose Names we need not mention to one that is so well acquainted with Books as you are. In the m [...]an time we can­not but make a very particular Observation on the Ebullition of your Gall against the Liberty we now enjoy by the Benefit of the Law: 'tis well for us that this was not granted us (as once) by a Dispencing Power, to which the late Reigns pretended, but by a Better-de­sign'd and Well advised Act of King and Par­liament. For to give us here a Taste of the Volatility of your Spirit of Charity you are bold to suggest, that We are not the Persons that come within the intent of that Act, and therefore can justly expect no savour from it; because (you say) that Act was only design'd to give ease to Tender Consciences, but ours are not of that number, because not of the same Latitude with yours. Oh how do your Fin­gers itch to be at your old Work with us a­gain? What a grief of Heart is the Indulgence, which our Governours have so Graciously and so Necessarily granted us? How fain would you cut us off from the Protection of the Laws, un­der which we live as Loyally and Obediently as any of your selves? And all because we have forsaken your Ceremonies, and desire to Wor­ship God in a way more agreeable to the Scri­pture [Page 73]Simplicity of the Gospel, and more ex­perimentally conducive to the Spiritual Good and Eternal Happiness of our own Souls. We see by this, that Paul was never in greater danger at Jerusalem on the account of his Nonconformity, than We should be of You should the Government but once more let you loose upon Us. But that We are none of the Ten­der Consciences, that come within the intent of the Act, you pretend to prove, by our former Conforming to you, and Communion with you; wherein you presume that we were then satis­fied, and thought it lawful. Ay, Sir, we once thought it lawful ( i. e. not absolutely, or in it self Sinful) when we either knew no better, or could get no better; and we are of the same Mind still, as we have once already told you, and to which (to avoid repetition) we would referr you; having (for illustration of the Case) first given you this Familiar Similitude. 2 Kings 6.25. There was a time in Samaria when an Asse's Head was sold for Fourscore Pieces of Silver, and the fourth part of a Cab of Dove's Dung for Five Pieces of Silver: There was nothing so Ceremonially or Naturally unclean, but was Hungrily fed upon, and not one questioned the Lawfulness of it, so that there were no Murder in the Case: To the Hungry Soul every bitter thing was sweet. But when the Siege was broken up, and the Gates were opened, and a Plenty of all Good Food was come, should the Princes have Monopoliz'd it, and by a severe Edict interdicted the free use of it, and con­fin'd the People to the use of such things for kind and measure, as they had found in their [Page 74]extremity would pass down with them, and was just enough to keep Soul and Body toge­ther, and condemn all such to Fines, or Prisons, or Banishment, that should dare, though never so peaceably and temperately, to make use of the Plenty that God had given them; would not your Charity think this to be a little hard? And truly, while we think our Souls so much better and nearer to us than our Bodies, we cannot take it very kindly to be so dealt with by You.

Lastly, To take your fair leave of this Ar­gument, you tell us, that you are far from de­rogating from the Authority of Secular Princes: But we must tell you, that you are not so far as would better become you, from reflecting on the Wisdom and Justice of those that are in Supream Authority over you, and by whose distinguishing Favour it is that you enjoy your Ecclesiastical Preferments, and We our Christi­an Liberty of Conscience, and Immunity from the rigour of Penal Laws.

VI. You have now brought us to what you Call our Sixth Argument; and that you may shew how bountiful you can be, and how willing to make the most of what we have to say for our selves, you have subtilly divided this One for us into Three. The Bulk of the Argument we perceive lies thus.

That the way of the Separation is prefer­able to that of the Church, i. e. Of the Church of England. Erg.

We Answer, that to chuse that which is the more excellent, and having now Liberty given us so to do, we hope is no Schism, at least in our Case. And to suffult our Major, you have found out for us Three other Subservient Argu­ments, which yet you say are cut off, by the Sin­fulness of our Separation: So that it seems your Goodness never intended they should do us any real Service. And thus you could have found it in your Heart to have dismised them without farther Consideration. But because you appre­hend there is some stress laid upon 'em, and to make your Triumph the greater, You thought fit to bring them under a distinct Examination, wherein we shall follow you with a very obse­quious diligence.

1. It hath been said, that in the way of Separation we enjoy purer Ordinances; Or­dinances that are freer from Ceremony, and the addition of things not commanded, that set us at a greater distance from Popery, &c. But to rid your self of this way of Arguing, you endeavour to smother it under a Heap of Ab­surdities, which they fall into, who would ex­clude from Religion all things not commanded; and who make the greatest distance from the Church of Rome, (from which you seem Jea­lous of being drawn too far) the Standard of the best Reformation. And then you make us a long Quotation of the gross Absurdities of those Men, whom you call the more Rigid Separatists, out of Baylie's Disswasive, and Paget's Arrow against Separation; wherein we are not con­cerned, unless it be, as you well advise, to cau­tion us against the like wild Extravagancies. [Page 76]This we take kindly enough from you, and that we may not lye long in your Debt in this kind, we think it as seasonable to desire you to consider by what Means and Degrees the Church of Rome arriv'd to its [...] in Su­perstition and Idolatry: Whether some such few uncommanded Ceremonies, which you so zealously retain, and unwarrantably impose, were not the first Nest-Eggs, to which all the rest were laid: Whether they are not now as productive of more as ever they were, when an occasion shall offer; and whether there are not enough now in England that do expect it, and have prepared their Nests for it? Whether your few Ceremonies have not the same rela­tion and subservient tendency to the grosser Superstition and Idolatries of Rome, as the High Places of the Jews, which some of their Reforming Kings, through the instigation of their Priests were so loth to let go, were of the grosser Idolatries of the Heathen? And whether you are not as much concerned to be­ware of leading your selves and others into the Gulph of the foulest Superstition by an abuse of your Power, as we have to beware that others run not out into Extreams by our doing but our Duty.

You seem to grant us, with the generality of your Conformists, That there is nothing to be admitted as an Essential part of God's Worship, that is not the subject of a Divine Precept: But would you not then by an innuendo, have us to believe, that some Integral Parts may be admitted without any such Precept? Which you had need to prove, before we can be very [Page 77]forward to believe. But then you say indefi­nitely, That External Rites and Circumstances of Worship (whether English, or Romish, Jew­ish, Greek, or Barbarian,) are of another Na­ture; and indeed we think so too, but being not forbidden of God, expresly, or by conse­quence, are not Sinful. And herein we should agree too, could it but be once agreed, what is by consequence forbidden. For our parts, we are apt to think that the consequence of those first words of the Second Commandment, and all those Scriptures of the Old Testament, that condemn the using of any thing in God's Wor­ship, which He hath not commanded or requi­red: That that of Matth. 15.9. and that of the Apostle, Colos. 2.20, 21, 22. will go far to condemn all those Rites and Ceremonies us'd in Divine Worship which are of Men's In­vention, and not necessary ex natura rei, what­ever their pretended usefulness on the account of their significancy be. Besides, for the aggra­vation of our Guilt, and our fuller Convicti­on, you would have us to consider how few of these are required of us as Private Men. To which we reply, that this brings to our Minds, how Lot on a better Principle, and to better Purpose, once pleaded for Zoar, Is it not a little one? But whether there be few or many, we know no Power you have to re­quire, nor any warrant we have to admit of any; for he that may require one, may, on your Principles, require ad libitum, as many as he will. But that it should be impossible to preserve Peace and Order in the Church without a [Page 78]Conformity to these things, is owing only to the disorder of your own Spleens, and your pertinacious Zeal for them. Would you but give every one his Liberty in these things which your selves call indifferent, according to the Apostle's Rule, Rom. 14. & alibi, we know not who would disturb the Churches Peace a­bout them.

You say, That in the Primitive Church, as many Ceremonies were used, as now are requi­red by the Church of England; and what if we grant that there were as many, and more; will you argue from the Primitive Churches using to your Churches requiring and imposing? Or do you know which way to prove that their Effects of Charity, or Kiss of Peace, or the Woman's Vail, were of the Apostles Appointment or In­stitution? 'Tis true, the Apostle argues the De­cency of the Woman's being cover'd, and of the Man's being uncover'd in the Place and Time of God's solemn Worship, 1 Cor. 11. But as for the Matter or Mode of the Covering, he hath left this to every one's Liberty, for any thing we have yet heard of; and this being a Matter of na­tural Decency, as he there argues at, Ver. 14.15. we take it for our Duty to observe; as one of our Ministers in an Essay on that Subject hath, not long ago, taught us. But the Inference you drew from this had need of a little better proof. Viz. That if the Church hath Power to lay aside such Rites, (for you confess they are Altera­ble, tho' yours be like the Laws of the Medes and Persians) so it hath Power also to appoint o­thers of the like Nature, and is oblig'd to do so, upon Emergent Occcasions, as the Prudence [Page 79](i. e. as the good Pleasure of your Bishops) may direct. But for our parts, we cannot think that your Consequence is good, Viz. That be­cause the Church hath Power to Purge it self of some unnecessary and offensive Vanities, there­fore it hath Power to Introduce others, much less that it is oblig'd so to do. For we cannot believe that because Hezekiah had Power to take down the Brazen Serpent, and to cast it away as a Ne­hushtan, which had been a Symbol of God's own Appointment, and of so long standing, that there­fore he had Power, or was under any Obligation to erect another Gambol of his own Invention, to stand in the Room of it.

1. Then, we will say with you, It is certain that the publick Worship of God ought to be Cele­brated with such Ceremonies as are suitable to the Dignity and Solemnity of the Work, and agreea­ble to the general Directions of the Holy Scripture, and (you might have added) to the Purity and Simplicity of the Gospel, and which are Necessa­ry to the right Performance of the Work.

2. That Ceremonies us'd in Divine Worship ought to be Significant of some Spiritual Grace, or Expressive of some Christian Duty, is certain; because else they are but Herb John, Useless and Impertinent, which would but Affront the Deity we pretend to Worship. And so indeed we find, that all the Ceremonies of Christ's Institutions were Symbolical and Expressive; but to argue, that because Christ did institute symbolical Cere­monies in his Church, therefore you may do so too, is what you may not expect our Assent to, till you have prov'd your Power in and over the Church to be equal to that of Christ, or shew [Page 80]us the Patent he hath given you to justifie your so doing. The little Instances which you pro­duce, of Smiting the Breast, Lifting up the Hands, in Prayer, Kneeling on the same Occa­sion, and the putting on some new Garment at the time of Baptism, have been indeed things taken up into common Use as naturally Expres­sive of some inward Devotion, or Affection of the Heart, or of outward Decency, and almost com­mon to all Mankind; and when you shall have discover'd and prov'd any Divine Institution of them, we will acknowledge our Sin, if at any time we disuse them on such Occasions; but to Argue from the Antiquity of their Use, to the Churches imposing Power, is as Orthodox and Valid in England, as it is in Rome or Spain, or any other Church, true or false, in the whole World.

3. That the H. Scripture directs us in gene­ral, to do all things Decently, and in Order, we do as zealously own as you. But then, why should not that of the H. Scripture, from which we take our Rules of Gospel worship, determine to us what is Decent and Orderly? Or, if by the Old Testament you would justifie your Ephod, and Organs, and Festivals, and Ceremonious Con­secrations, or any thing else that the Christian hath borrowed from the Jewish Church, why do you pick and chuse, and follow your Rule at halves? Are not the Harp, and the Trumpet, and the Viol and Cymbol, the Holy Oil, and all the rest of the Priestly Robes, and Utensils of the Divine Service, which you have left out, altogether as Decent and as Significant, as what you have taken from thence, or have been bor­rowed [Page 81]from any others, and which have as much to shew of a Divine Institution?

4. Your next Paragraph looks more like Banter than Argument; for you tell us, in Effect, that we ought to satisfie our selves with an im­plicit Faith of the Lawfulness of the Ceremonies impos'd on us, and of their Consormity to the End for which they are appointed, because it is not Necessary that every one that uses them should know the Reasonableness of their Institution; so that we ought to make no Question of the Lawfulness of what you require of us, even in the High and Important Concern of God's Wor­ship, and our own Salvation, how Unreasonable soever it appears to us; and are we not like to be edefi'd much by what we don't understand? Is this one Article of your Faith too, That Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion? Must we put out our own Eyes, and make no Question for Conscience sake either of the Lawfulness or Reasonableness of what you require of us, but fol­low the Conduct of your Customs, believing, as the Church believes? Is this [...] the Reasonable Service that God now requires of the Gospel-worshipper? And is this some of your Protestant Doctrine? But to satisfie our Conscien­ces herein, you Instance in the customary Way of taking an Oath by kissing the Book, which, you say, may safely be done by such as know nothing of the Original of that Ceremony, nor are satisfi'd of the Fitness of it; what, nor of the Lawful­ness of it; nor whether the Common-Prayer be in the Book or no? If Custom will serve for a Rule in Civil Matters, must it be so in the highest and most sacred Acts of our Religion too?

5. And this now brings you home to your main Topick Custom; from which you profess to take the Significancy of your Ceremonies, and the Measures of Decency, as that which gives Rules both for Words, and Actions, and Habits, and Gestures. 'Tis true, Custom hath a great stroak to conciliate a Decency and Signi­ficancy to these things, and may serve very much to excuse the Use of them in Civil Conver­sation; and to offer any thing to the holy God in Worship, which Civil Custom hath made Undecent or Ridiculous, is horribly Prophane. But will you hence argue, that what Custom hath made Decent in Civil Conversation, is therefore so in Religious Worship, and fit to be impos'd as a Condition of Christian Communi­on? Or that what Religious Custom hath made Decent and Significant in the Opinion of the Superstitious and Idolaters, is therefore lawful to be us'd and impos'd by you? Tho' the Apostle pleaded from the Custome of the Churches, for what he call'd on the Corinthians for, 1 Cor. 11.16. yet this was but one of his Arguments, and which, if you observe, he urges only negatively; he doth not plead for it, because it was a Custom, but pleads against their contrary Practice, be­cause they had no such Custom. And pray which of those Ceremonies which you contend for, and make the indispensible Condition of Communion with you; might not the Apostle have said, we have no such Custom? So that this Argument recoils upon you, and flies very sorely in your own face.

6. Your next Paragraph tells us what you have to say for the Sign of the Cross, which [Page 83]you use in Baptism; for which you cannot pre­tend to any Apostolical Institution, but an Old and General Custom; you fancy it to be almost as Old as the Apostle's, or not above an Age short of them. 'Tis true, the Image of the Cross crept very early into the Church: He that sows the Tares is not wont to be long behind him that sows the Good Seed in the Field. But we hope you will not say that the Earliness of a thing is enough to justifie it: And that it was very commonly (though we cannot say univer­sally) used as an Ensign among the Christians, and as a visible Badge of their Christianity, especially before the Heathen, who were wont to upbraid them with their Crucified God, we will grant; neither will we uncharitably censure the Zealous Principles, or Prudential Reasons on which it was at first taken up by such as foresaw not the ill use that would in Af­ter Ages be made of it. However though it were taken up in those Days as a Testimony against the Infidel World, and in token that they were not ashamed of their once Crucified LORD, and used by them not as any part of their Worship, but only for distinction sake be­tween Them and Heathens; yet this is but a precarious kind of Apologizing for the using, much less for the imposing of it now, when there is not, per ratio, the same reason for it; especially after it hath been so generally and so long as idolatrously abused by such as have prevented the first Design of it, as ever Gide­on's Ephod, or the Brazen Serpent were abus'd. Nor doth it yet appear how our Protestant Re­formers have, or ever can free it from the Pol­lution [Page 84]of those Abuses whereby the Superstitions and Idolatries of Men have defil'd it by putting it into your Liturgy, and making it a significant Sign, and imposing it on us as an Integral Part of the Sacrament of Baptism, without which that Sacrament is not to be esteemed Perfect; and all this without any intimation of instruction or warrant from him who instituted and left this Sacrament intire with his Churches. Baptism, as our Saviour himself instituted it, is but one Symbolical Sign, but you by adding to it another of your own devising, have made it Two; which to us appears like the setting of your Thresheld by God's Threshold, and your Post by God's Post. Neither will the great Names in which you boast of the Saints and Martyrs now with God, who in the Days of their Flesh walked with God, and Worshipped according to their present Circumstances, and the Light they had then attain'd to, justifie your practice in this more than in any other thing, which is now acknowledged to be the imper­fection of these more early and unexperienced Times.

7. You can't yet have done with your be­loved thing Custom, it being that on which the Life of your Cause doth depend. From Custom you take your measures of Decency or Indecency in all things that you are pleased to call indifferent, that is, all those things that may be by the Wit of Man superadded as Accidental, or Integral Parts (for only the Essential Parts are by you excep­ted) of God's Worship. And whether this Posi­tion do not open a wide Door to all the Super­stitions in the World, and justifie all that hath [Page 85]ever been done of this kind in the most degene­rate Churches, let any but a Bigot judge.

8. But now you begin to be more Orthodox, when you tell us, That things which according to Custom are Signs of irreverence amongst Men, are Marks of Prophaneness and Contempt when they are used towards the Almighty: Tho' here you might have remembred to have made an exception of some few things; but in general what Custom represents as Undecent or Rude in Civil Conversation, deserves a worse Name in Religious Worship. If we rudely rush into God's Presence without an awful sense of his Majesty upon our Hearts, and such an outward Behaviour of Body, as either Nature or Custom hath made expressive of our inward Fear and Reverence, (though without any of those quaint Ceremonies which are of Hu­mane Institution) we may indeed justly fear the due punishment of such Irreverence.

And now, Sir, if you lay all these things together, as you advise us to do, you may find that what you call the Reverence and Decency of your Services is indeed their Defilement; that in what you call your Laudable Customs, you act against the Scripture Rules of Spiritual Worship and Gospel Simplicity, and have de­serted the way in which Christ and his Apo­stles walked, and deal with us in that Tyran­nical manner which the Holy Scripture con­demns. As for outward Bodily Worship, we own and practice as zealously as you, though not in your Formal Ceremonious way, which seems to be more Artificial than Natural, and so nearer of kin to Graven Images. You are [Page 86]for setting forth your Publick Services with Pomp and Art; we are for what is more Plain and Rational, and naturally Expressive of the hidden Man of the Heart, and therein more Agreeable to the Tenour of the Gospel. We are careful to avoid whatever Nature, Scripture or Custom hath made a Mark of Irreverence in the Worship of our God; but we know no Authority we or any others have to prescribe particular positive Laws in these things to others. Kneeling in Prayer we own as a Gesture which both Nature and Scripture directs to, and so we practice; though not from a Conscience of its absolute necessity, either in our own Private Houses, or in the Publick, because God hath allowed us a Liberty in it, and all the Saints before us have used the same Liberty; nor do we understand why you should so strictly re­quire it of us in Publick rather than in Private, (which your selves do not observe in every Pray­er you put up to God there) unless it be from a conceit you have that the Publick House is more Holy than the Private; which is a No­tion too Jewish for us to entertain.

To conclude this Head, omitting, as you say, some other Particulars in debate between us; which perhaps you are not willing to un­dertake the Defence of; you think you have one thing that will demonstrate to us the weak­ness of our Exceptions against the Ceremonies of the Church, and shew as the Irreverence that is used in our Meetings. And what you mean is the Lord's Supper, which in our way is appointed to be received sitting. Now against this you begin to demonstrate very gravely [Page 87]thus, Is there any Precept for this in Scri­pture? Or if none can be found, is it not against the Second Commandment? Is it not an Idol? This you offer us Ironically, but we reply to you in Earnest, that we find that in Scripture, which warrants our Sitting at this Sacrament; but never a word of Kneeling by Precept or Precedent of Christ or his Apostles, in all the New Testament, nor in the Practice of the Churches, while they retained their Primitive Purity; therefore you are as much concerned in the Second Commandment on this account as we. You tell us for certain that this Matter is not decided in Scripture: But why is it not there decided? Because it is not expresly required or forbidden; and where the Scripture is not very punctually express, there, no doubt, Men may devise, and do, and impose what they list, without any regard to Scripture Con­sequences. But yet you find that it is not for your Interest alway to use this way of Argu­ing. The Practical Precedents and Examples of Christ or his Apostles, which you find in Scripture, will sometimes amount with you to the force of a Precept, when you apprehend it will fall on the side of your Beloved Ceremo­nies? Nay, you can plead very stiffly the Autho­rity of an Old Custom of the Churches which hath been taken up, and perhaps superstitiously enough, long after the Apostle's Days: But now it seems there is nothing to be taken for certain that hath not a plain Scripture command, wherein we think you are not so well aware at what an uncertainty you have lest the Cause you have now undertaken.

Though you cannot be ignorant of what hath been already said by so many of the Learned of our Way in the Vindication of our Practice here­in; yet let us once more see if we may not find much more in the Holy Scripture for Sitting, at this Sacrament, than for Kneeling.

Now it is certain, that this Sacrament, as to the Externals of it, is but a Ceremony, tho' of the most Sacred Institution and Highest Im­portance, both a Signifying and a Sealing Cere­mony; and he that instituted it, did best un­derstand the Nature and Ends of it, and what Gesture and Circumstances would best become the Celebration of it: And his own Example herein, we think is sufficient to warrant, if not to require, our Imitation. But when we look back to the Institution, we find that Christ sate down with the Twelve, and Eat the Passover with them. Here the Gesture was expressed, and 'twas Sit­ting, not Kneeling; Matth. 26.20. And as they were Eating, without changing the Gesture, he Instituted and Celebrated this Gospel Ordinance, and Administer'd it to them with his own Hand, verse 26, 27, 28. Mark tells us, as they Sate and did Eat, Mark 14.18. i. e. the Passover, and in the same Posture still. As they did Eat, Jesus took Bread and Blessed it, ver. 22. Luke also tells us, That be Sate down, and the Twelve Apo­stles with him, Luke 22.14. and in that Posture Administred his Last Supper to them, verse 17, 18, 19, 20. These are the only three Evangelists that particularly mention the manner of our Saviour's Administring this Or­dinance; and they all speak expresly of their [Page 89] Sitting, but never a word of Kneeling in either of them. Thus Christ and his Disciples did Eat it together as they were wont to Eat the Pass­over which was the very same Ordinance, of the same Divine Institution, Signification and Mystery, and equally Sacred, though of a dif­ferent Form, as this of the Gospel is. And will you now say, that this was irreverently done? That it had too much of Familiarity, and two little of Decency or Humility? Dare you thus Blaspheme the Wisdom of your Savi­our? Did not he understand the End, and the proper Signification of his Own Mystery, as well as you? Hath he told you again and again, that he and his Disciples did Eat it Sitting, and will you tell him that it ought to have been done Kneeling? May he not then demand of you who made you his Counsellors, or his Cor­rectors? And who hath required this voluntary Humility and Will-worship of you? But you tell us that there is a Prayer with which you deliver the Elements to the People, and there­fore it ought to be received in a Praying Po­sture. A Prayer, viz. The Body and Blood of Christ preserve thy Body and Soul unto Eternal Life. To which we answer,

1. This which you call a Prayer, sounds more like a Priestly Benediction, or kind of Exorcism, being repeated over and over to every individual Communicant; so that the Kneeling seems to be requir'd rather in Honour of the Office, as in Confirmation and Absolution, than in respect of what you call a Prayer.

2. Who made this Form of Words for you? Or required it of you? Is there any mention of this, or of any thing like it, in the Insti­tution? Though we grant that the Heart ought to be full of Holy Ejaculations, Vows and Self-re­signation in so Sacred an Action, and which may be done every way as Decently and Reverent­ly Sitting or Standing, as Kneeling, and where­in every one ought to have his own Liberty and Freedom of thought, in the Exercise of all Graces, according as they find particular occa­sion in and from themselves; and wherein the Minister from the Experiences of his own Heart, may piously and profitably suggest to their assistance in it; and this reasonable Ser­vice we reject not.

3. Why do not You Administer on your Knees? For if it be a Prayer, 'tis you that pro­perly Pray, and the People say Amen. Doth not your requiring it of others condemn your selves? Why must you Pray Standing, and they Kneeling?

4. Though Kneeling be an ordinary Praying Posture, yet if you will excuse your selves, you must grant that it is not indispensibly ne­cessary. The Apostle bids you Pray [...] continually, or without ccasing; but should you be bound to Kneel continually, we doubt that would not be very pleasing. Judge now whe­ther your Practice herein be not irregular, to say no worse of it.

What the Reasons were of our LORD's Insti­tuting this Sacrament with a Table-Gesture, and of what it is significant, we will not now [Page 91]enquire: 'Tis enough for us that we know his Will in it by his Practice. But you know that we have something else to Object against Kneeling in the Act of Receiving. This Ge­sture is now become scandalous, at least to some, because it Symbolizes with the Idolatry of the Church of Rome in Worshipping the Host; and by whom, as some say, it was intro­duc'd and impos'd to support their Bloody Do­ctrine of the Real Presence, or, as others think, that this was the occasion of that Ido­latry; so that here is an unexcusable appear­ance of Evil in it; and therefore having no Command of God for it, nor Apostolical Ex­ample, we ought not to continue its use, much less to endure the imposition of it, as if it were of necessity. Neither is your Churches decla­ring against the Idolatrous use of it, enough to purge or to defend it, unless it were a matter of particular Divine Institution. As for those that think it their Duty or their Liberty so to express their Reverence to Almighty God in this Sacrament, with a just Abhorrence of all Idolatrous thoughts or pretensions, we do not judge them; but to do it as of necessity, we take to be a piece of Superstition, and a weakness to be pitied.

II. The Second Branch of the last Argument you can afford us is this, That the way of the Se­paration affords us Communion with a better Peo­ple than those which we have deserted.

'Tis easily discerned from what sort of Dis­senters you have rak'd up this Argument, to [Page 92]cast it, without distinction, in our Faces. But we are not the Persons so much concern'd in it as you would represent us to be. However we will not dismiss it without giving a short touch of our thoughts upon it, in what you fancy that you have spoken very much to your own pur­pose, and altogether as pertinent to our Case.

But first we will premise, that neither You nor We have any great Reason to boast of our Goodness; it would better become us to lament every one his own Faults, than to say to one another, Stand by thy Self, come not near to me, for I am Holier than thou. That there is Wheat as well as Tares with You, and Tares as well Wheat as with Us, we readily grant; though your Charity condemns us all for Tares, and such as are fit to be burnt; and that not for any Heresie in Judgment, or Immorality in Practice, or Idolatry in Worship, but because we dare not bring our Consciences under the Yoke of your needless Ceremonies. We do not pretend to be Churches without a Mixture of Good and Bad, nor do we hope for any such in this World. Yet we must say, the more the necessary Discipline is neglected, and Prophane­ness tolerated, yea, encourag'd by the Examples of so many of your Clergy; and the most Igno­rant and Scandalous ones, not only admitted, but press'd to come to the LORD's Table with you, we can have the less comfort to join with you in these most Sacred Mysteries of our Religion. But yet should we grant that all this were too little of it self, to justifie our Se­paration, we cannot think that what you offer [Page 93]us from Scripture on this Head, doth at all af­fect our Case.

'Tis true, in the Church of Corinth there were Corruptions, Disorders, some foul Im­moralities, and neglect of Discipline; and yet the Apostle doth not advise them to purge themselves by a Separation, but endeavours to reduce them to the Holy Rules of their In­stitution, both in Worship, Discipline and Manners: And being a Church of his own Planting, his Authority was prevalent there. what need then of Separation, when Reformation could be obtain'd without it? But, O that this were our Case! Where is the Apostle now that shall judge between us, and Authorita­tively decide our Matters for us? To whom shall we go with our Complaints, when those that call themselves the Apostle's Successors will not hear our Complaints, nor hearken to the Apostle's Words, nor walk by the Apostle's Rules, nor regard our Remonstrances and Pe­titions? If the Foundations be removed, what can the Righteous do? If those that should head the way will not go before us, must we not go alone? Had the Rulers of the Church of Co­rinth refus'd to obey the Apostle's Orders, and insisted on their own Authority, and the Purity of their way, as needing no Reformation, would not the Apostle have advised to Separate from these Men? Though Separation be never in it self desirable, yet it is sometimes necessary. And as for all the ill consequences of Separation which you have mentioned with their Aggra­vations here, we will concurr with you, when [Page 94]once you have prov'd our Separation to be Causeless or Unnecessary. But till then, we are not the Persons concern'd, but by your own Rule, are bound in Conscience to Sepa­rate from those, with whom we cannot hold Communion without Sin.

III. And now we are come to your Third and Last. It hath been said, That the way of the Separatists conduces more to our Edifica­tion: And that if we would provide what is best for our Bodies, we ought more especially to do so for our Souls. That we are more Edified by the Dissenting Ministers, than by the Conforming Clergy; and think it requi­site to be Hearers of those, by whom we pro­fit most.

This Argument, you say, is Popular, and therefore the more Dangerous; wherefore you have (according to your Art) bestowed it the more distinctly under these Four Heads of Enquiry.

I. You Enquire, what is the true (i. e. your new) Notion of Edification; and on very strict enquiry, you say that you have found, that Edifying, as applied to Spiritual Mat­ters, signifies the Advancement of Persons in some Spiritual Good; and to Edifie them is to do that Work of Charity, whereby we become beneficial to their Souls. And thus far we think you are right as to the Active and Tran­sitive Signification of it: But would you have us to believe that Edification is a thing that [Page 95]hath relation only to others, and not to our selves? And for this you cite us, 1 Cor. 8.1. Charity Edifieth, and several other Scriptures where you find this word mentioned. Whence you conclude, That 'tis the Edifying of our Neighbours that is required of us, and that of our selves is never enjoyn'd under this Expres­sion, nor can it well be sought, but in con­junction with the Publick Good.

Sir, Whether the care we ought to have of our own Souls be injoin'd us under this Expres­sion or no, if the thing we intend by it be en­join'd, what you have hitherto said of it, is but Logomachy. For we hope your Charity would not go about to perswade us, that if we endeavour to Edifie others, 'tis no matter what becomes of our own Souls: And we have reason to think that where the Edifying of others is re­quired, the Edifying of our selves is necessa­rily imply'd in it, and to be concluded from it a Majori. Thou therefore which Teachest a­nother, teachest thou not thy self? Rom. 2.21. Lest when I have preached to others, I my self should be a cast-away, 1 Cor. 9.27. Should not our own Souls be as dear to us, and as much the subject of our care, as the Souls of others? Would you make us the Keepers of your Vine-yards to the fatal neglect of our own, as the Spouse once complain'd, Cant. 1.6. Besides, 'tis a Solecism in Nature for the Liver to prepare good Blood for the nourish­ment of all the other parts of the Body, be­sides its own proper Parenchyma; and is not the Parallel as great a Solecism in Divinity? [Page 96]Sir, If this be your Spirit of Charity, and your way of Edifying, you may recommend it to those of your own Tribe, that can Preach Faith and Repentance, Charity, Humility, Sobriety, Continency and Mortification to others, but not to themselves; too well like those of whom Christ spake, Matth. 23.4.

But by your Learning you have discover'd, that Edifying signifies Building, and Building hath relation to a House; and you observe that Houses do not build themselves, but must be built by others; and this House, you say (as the word is here to be taken) is the Church; for which you quote us two pertinent Scriptures, in which the Apostle speaks of Edifying of the Church: But can you inform us why it is not as proper, and as necessary for Temples to be Edified as Churches, and whether every indi­vidual believer be not call'd the Temple of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 6.19. Nay, do you not grant us in other words, as much as we crave, when you say that the Polishing and Perfecting those Living Stones, of which the Church is Built, is the Edifying of it; yea, and thus the Church is said to Edifie it self, Eph. 4.16. Well then, if Edifying be the Word that doth offend you, pray strike it out of our Argument, and put in Polishing and Perfecting, and it will please us all as well. And thus we will conclude with you, That if we bring new Proselites into the Church (i. e. by sound conversion to God, and not to a Party, to the Church of Christ, and not meerly to [Page 93]the Ceremonies, and Peculiar External Rites, or Forms of this or that Particular Church) and confirm those that are in it, in advancing any in Knowledge and Piety in Faith and Practice, we shall be reckon'd amongst the Buil­der or Edifiers of the Church.

And farther to explain what you mean by Edification, you tell us, there are these two things requir'd in it, viz. Unity and Order.

1. Unity: And here you descant on the Be­nefits of Union, and the Mischiefs of Schism, in the words of Clemens Romanus, and Mr. Baxter; wherein we would not contradict you, would you but once better prove that this Union must consist in those controverted things which you impose on us, as the indispensible Condition of our Communion with you. We are as desirous of Church-Union as You, and are sensible how much it would conduce both to the Ornament, Establishment and Enlarge­ment of the Church; but if it be your Tyran­nical Impositions, and your delivering up the Care of our Souls to such as have no Care of Ours, nor of their Own, that hath made and doth keep open the Breach between us, let the World Judge who are the Schismaticks.

2. As for Order, you tell us not what you mean, more than what we can pick out of Eph. 2.21. and Ch. 4.16. which Scriptures we own, but can't learn from any thing that is Written there, that our Dissent from such Impositions [Page 94]as yours, and refusing to do what you would have us to do, is a breach of Order. If we stand not in those Ranks and Files of Military Order as once we stood; if you see our Seats forsaken in your Churches, and at your Communi­on-Tables, you must blame your selves as the only Causes of this Disorder.

II. You next Enquire, What we understand by Edification, and whether we rightly judge how it is best promoted. And here, we are also concern'd to Enquire, how rightly we are judg'd by you when you say, That we take that to be Edifying, that raises in us some Sensible Devotions, that excites in us some Religious Affections, such as Love, Joy, Fear, or the like: And these, you suppose, we have chiefly in view, when we preferr the Service in our Meetimgs before that of the Churches. The truth is, that which is not proper to raise our Devotion in Religious Duties, and to ex­cite Holy Affections in us, we cannot think to be very Edifying. We know not how (in this our compound state) to exercise the Spiritual Graces of Faith, Repentance, Love, Fear, Humility, Joy, Delight in God, &c. but by the help of those Rational and Intellectual Fa­culties of Understanding, Will and Affections, which God hath given us. If you understand the more Raptural Mysteries of Quietism, a more Stoical or Seraphick way of contempla­tion, without concerning those Grosser Spirits in so Divine an Exercise, we will not envy your Attainment; but for our parts, we can't be [Page 95]satisfied that our Hearts are concern'd in Reli­gious Duties, as they ought to be, unless we are sensible that they are so.

But to come to Particulars, you instance in the two great ordinances of Praying and Preaching.

1. You begin with the way of Praying us'd in our Meetings; and here again you make your self a Judge of Evil Thoughts; and that in such a Case, wherein you are in Danger of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit of God. For if it be by the Spirit of Supplication, which makeh Intercession in the Saints, that we are taught both what and how to Pray; it concerns you to take heed how you approbiously oppose your Cant against our Common Experience of its assi­stance herein. The Old and Often-repeated Har­rangue by which you and others of your Way endeavour to exalt your prescribed Forms of Prayer, and which hath been so often an­swered to silence, doth but bewray your Inex­perience of that way of Praying, which the Holy Scriptures direct to, and in which all the Saints in all Ages have found their greatest Reliefs. How impertinently do you tell us, That we are not to think that God is at all wrought upon by the variation of Phrases, or the modulation of them. No, Sir, we don't imagine that God is mov'd with Words or Tones, or the most Eloquent or Artificial Compo­sures of Matter or Expression whether Prescrib'd­or [Page 96]or Unpremeditated; Words are for our own sakes, not for His; yet we have great reason to think, that the better the Affections are exercised, and the Graces of the Spirit of God in the Heart, the better is the Heart prepared, and the better grounds it hath to hope to obtain Mercy from him. And certainly, that way of Praying which we find most con­ducible to this end, we have reason to pre­ferr: Nor can any thing that we have ever yet heard incline us to your contrary Opi­nion.

That the Gift of Prayer, which is in it self but a Common Gift, as that of Preach­ing, &c. is, may be, and too often hath been abused by ill Men, is what we grant: But to censure all for ill Men that use it, is unbecom­ing a Christian; and to argue from the Abuse, against the Use, is too Weak and Ab­surd for a Man of your Figure and Learning. And may we not easily retort as many and as great Abuses of your Way of Praying by Li­mited and Prescribed Forms, had we a Mind to retaliate? Those Motions and Efforts of De­votion, which without due Caution or Distincti­on you impute to Natural Causes, as, you say, a little Philosophy would teach us, in such as use the Gift of Prayer, are censured by you but one degree short of what the Spi­rit of God in our Saviour Christ, was cen­sured by those that attributed the Power by which he wrought his Miracles, to a Dia­bolical Cause, Matth. 12.24, &c. which [Page 97]you will do well to read, and spend some Se­cond Thoughts upon.

But to moderare the matter, you are pleased to grant, that the Gift of Elocution (which you seem to take for the whole of the Gift of Prayer) may, upon occasion, be of Bene­fit to others: But if it chance to touch your Noli me tangere, and seem, though but by consequence, to reflect on the Honour of your Liturgy, and the Forms by which you Pray, that's enough, without any other Fault, to render them most Dangerous Snares; and instead of promoting, cannot but hinder their Edification. And this indeed is Canonical enough.

For your part, you say, you think a well­compos'd Liturgy has much the Advantage of our Way of Praying, and is much fitter in Publick Assemblies; then we hope you will bear with us in our Private Families; where, we thank God, you cannot yet reach us. And for this your Opinion you produce several Rea­sons, which are no new things to us, and which have been already Answered by such as, on our side, have Written on this Subject. You say it secures the Honour of Religion in the Solemnities of Worship, i. e. from such Ex­pressions in Prayer as agree not with the Geni­us of your Fancy, or the Fineness of your Stile, or which, on some account or other, you might be ready to ridicule, or to quarrel at: And then it affords the greatest help in the [Page 98]part that you bear in it, i. e. It eases you of one, and that the more Spiritual, half of your Ministerial Work; so that you are more be­holden to your Prayer Book than to the Spirit of God in that Duty, which indeed is great pity, but yet ingeniously, enough confessed. Again, by this means You have no occasion to be in Pain or Fear (as you think we are) about the next words that shall fall from your Minister; as you might have Reason enough to be, were it not for his Form which he hath before his Eyes, or which he hath made as perfect as the Child hath his Lord's Prayer: Well may you be in Pain for one that never accustomed his Tongue to Holy Discourse, more than what he hath prepared for his Pulpit: That never studied his own Heart, nor hath been experimentally affected with the Cases of Tender or Wound­ed Consciences: No wonder if such a one be at a loss, that is a Stranger to these things. And,

Lastly, By the Benefit of your Forms, You have no Doubtful Expressions to exercise your Thoughts, or disturb your Devotion with (as you suppose there are in our Mi­nisters Prayers) before you can say, Amen. And this you take as a great Commodity, both to the Minister and to the People, for which it ought to be preferred before our way of Praying. And why are not the same Arguments as cogent for the use of Homilies? That so the whole Work may [Page 99]be cut out for him that Officiates; which would be a great ease to his Studies; some charge sav'd in Books: A small Sallary would serve to maintain him as a Curate; the more time to spend all the Week in the Satisfying of his Lusts, and the De­bauching of his Neighbours: How happily would this conduce to the comfortable Assu­rance of your performing an acceptable Service to God, and agreeable to his Will, when the whole of the Ministerial Work is thus wisely prepared, that there can be no Errour in it if the Man can but read English?

What you quote us out of a Sermon of Dr. Beveridge, on 1 Cor. 14.26. in the Praise of your own Liturgy, we shall not stay now to make Remarks upon, there having been enough already said by others on this Point, and of which you cannot be ignorant. How your Liturgy was com­pil'd in that juncture of the Reformation, or rather Accommodation, the true History of these Times would inform you; but that this was that that was Defended, or Confirmed by the Martyrdom of many, or of any, was the Doctor's great mistake, and yours too. That it hath been Establi­shed by Acts of Parliament, and fenc'd with the sharp Thorns of Penal Laws, too of­ten Arbitrarily and Despightfully executed, we have known to our sorrow; but that ever it was yet established by an Act of Scri­pture we could never yet learn.

2. You come next to Animadvert on our Ministers Way of Preaching, which you represent as a Sect of Pharisees, in which they have no meaning, or a bad one; and that we think our selves Edified by a Sound of Words, when we understand nothing by it. Sir, this is Written with Scorn enough. Then you fall out (as well you may) with the Antinomians. But to set us forth in such Bear-skins as these, is but a trick of the old Enmity and Policy.

But yet, if (for Argument sake) you should suppose, that we have better Praying and Preaching; yet, you say, we do not preetend that there is any thing wanting with you that is necessary to Salvation. Sir, We do not pretend that Salvation is not to be ob­tained in the Church of England; but whe­ther there be any thing wanting with the most of those that are set over our Souls in our Parish Churches, which is necessary to our Salvation, or no, of this we are sure, there is something wanting that is necessary to our Edifica­tion, or (if you had rather have it in your own words) to our Conversion, and Advancing, and Perfecting in Knowledge, and Piety, and Faith, and Practice. When we hear what, for Airiness of the Notions, or the Affected Quaintness of the Language, we can't understand; or for the Obscurity of the Method which seems to be generally affect­ed, and is become the Mode amongst your Modern Church-men, in opposition to the [Page 101]more Plain and Instructive Method, which was once called the Puritannical, and now (in derision) called DRUM Preaching, we can't comprehend; or, for the tumbling cele­rity of its utterance, we can't remember; when we must be Entertain'd with such jejune insipid stuff, as a School-boy would be ashamed of in his Exercise; or have Stones given us in­stead of Bread, and Raileries instead of sound Doctrine; or a good Sermon in the Pulpit, and a Vicious Life all the Week after, we can't think this to be very Edifying, or the Way to make any great Advance Heavenward. And 'tis hard to perswade us thus to neglect our own Souls, to keep up the honour of your Ceremonies. 'Tis true, a Publick Good is to be preferr'd to a Private of the same kind. We ought to deny our selves, and to lay down our Lives for the Brethren; but we know not by whose Law, besides yours, we are requi­red to Damn our own Souls to please or to save others.

III. Your next Enquiry is, Whether it be a good Rule, that we may, or ought to follow those Teachers, whosoever they are, by whom we can most be Edified; or whose Praying and Preach­ing we approve as most beneficial to our selves. To which, as you have here (more tuo) stated it, we Answer, much as you would have us to. do; Sir, We have no such Licencious Rule as this to walk by: We are for Discipline and Order as much as you. But when we are dri­ven out of your Communion by your uncon­scionable [Page 102]Impositions; or have Wolves instead of Shepherds set over us, and enforc'd on us; or such as are either unable or unapt to feed our Souls with the Bread of Life, we think it our Duty, and Bless God that we have now Liberty, and Allowance by the Law of Men, as well as of God to make the best Provision we can for those poor Souls of ours which must Live or Die to Eternity, by the more Charitable assistances of those whom the good Providence of God hath raised up for us, and sent to us to this End. So that what you alledge out of, 1 Cor. 3.3. is not to our Case, nor at all to your purpose. Yet here again you lift up your cry of Unity and Order; That which is a­gainst the Unity of the Church is against the Edification of it. That is, without an entire Conformity and tame Submission to all your Impositions, your Church is broken, and weak­ned, and convuls'd, and undone. So that whoever they be that could speak with the Tongues of Angels, or whatever their Qualifi­cations and Commissions to Preach the Gospel be, if they will not say as you say, and do as you do, in those things wherein you Dissent from almost all the Reformed Churches in the World, we must, for the preservation of your Ceremonies, fly from them, and avoid 'em as most dangerous Fellows. And then, what is against the Order of your Church must needs be against Edification; as if there were no Or­der, but with you, or that yours were to give Laws and Orders to all others. For what you seem to speak of the Church in general (to [Page 103]carry with it a face of Orthodoxy (you de­sign only for your own Church, from which you condemn us as Schismaticks for Dissenting, and in this Vein hath the Fallacy of your Argu­ings run throughout your whole Discourse.

IV. Your last Enquiry is of the same kind, and to the same purpose; Whether our hopes of being better Edified, may justifie our Sepa­ration; that is, say you, if you have Stated the matter right (which indeed is one of the most necessary Parenthesis in all your Book) whether our false Hopes may justifie a Sinful Practice. And this will as easily be resolv'd on your side as you can desire or imagine, when once you shall have prov'd our Hopes to be False, and our Practice Sinful; but till then, you do but beg the Question.

And now, Sir, Sect. ult. we are come with you to your Last Section, wherein you lament the deplora­ble consequences of Schism, in all which we have reason to think you much more properly concern'd as guilty than our Selves, who have been the Causes of all the Separation you com­plain of, and of the ill consequences of it. You tell us how it hath hardened the Insidels in their Unbelief, and hinder'd their Conversi­on, brought a Reproach on the Reformation of the Church, and hindered the Progress of it, gives occasion to the spreading of many detest­able Errors in matters of Religion, and greatly incouraged Immorality. All which, if you had as much Charity for your selves, as [Page 104]you pretend to have for us, you would apply, as you ought to do, to your selves, unless you have a mind to be famous among those Edifiers, that have more care of other Men's Soul's than of their own. But being sensible how far we have run with you, though with as much haste as we could beyond the ordinary Bounds of a Letter, we shall have done with your Dis­course, wherein we have found you better at Declaiming than at Arguing, though this we would impute rather to the incapacity of your Subject, than to the measure of your Parts or Learning, when we shall have shewn a little of the face of your Spirit of Charity, as it hath here appeared in your own Glass, and now in a truer Light.

Cast back your Eye now, and see with what Industry you have gathered up all that hath come to hand from the Fathers, and from any others, that hath been written in Aggravation of the Sin of Schism, that you might cast it as Stones with all your might at our Heads. Have you not represented us here, who are both your Christian and your Protestant Brethren, as the very worst of Sinners? That our Sin in Dissenting from your Ceremonies, is worse than Murder or Idolatry, and equal to the Crucifying of the Son of God; that we have hereby cut our selves off from the Catholick, Church, and from Christ the Head of it? Have made our selves some of the most Execrable and Hopeless Villains on the face of the Earth? That our scrupling your Way of Worship, is much worse and more dangerous than down­right [Page 105] Popery, and therefore ought to be more severely dealt with, and have no benefit of Protection from the Laws of the Land we Live and were Born in? The Papists it seems are no Schismaticks, as we are, and therefore more tolerable, and deserve more fa­vour. Have you not set us forth as worse than Thieves or Traitors, that ought to be Punished with Death? That not to Kneel at the LORD's Supper is a greater Sin than Drunkenness, or Whoredom, or the foulest Immorality; not to wear a Surplice, more Vile than Idolatry or Witchcraft; to scruple the Cross in Baptism, as bad as the Crucifying our Lord himself; that our Blood, though in Martyrdom, will not expiate our Guilt; though you should tear us in Pieces, or burn us in the Fire, and make our Houses Dunghils, and rid the Earth of us, yet this will not sa­tisfie, unless you can Damn our Souls too; though all these be not your very Words, yet are they not the direct and natural consequents of 'em? Besides, have you not laid your Pro­testant Brethren in France and Germany, &c. who are the Suffering Martyrs and Confessors of the present Age, under the same Condemna­tion with us? O Sir, will you laugh at their Calamities, and justifie the Barbarities of their Enemies, and mock at their Tears and Groans, and yet call your self Protestant? Will you clap your hands at them, and say, Ah! so would we have it, down with 'em, down with 'em to the Ground, that the Names of Calvin and Geneva may no more be had in remem­brance? Is this your Spirit of Charity and [Page 106]Meekness you told us of in the front of your Discourse? Frouti nulla fides. If these be your Tender Mercies, what must your Severities be? We will now only mind you of what one of your own Doctors once said to a Papist, Still. Ra­tion. Ac­count. p. 613. and leave you to make the Application: ‘When we consider, says he, how many among you dis­pute for the possibility of the Salvation of Hea­thens, and yet deny it to those who own all the Fundamentals of Christianity; what can we otherwise Imagine, but that it is the Interest of your Church you more aim at, than the Salvation of Men's Souls?’

But before we dismiss you, we must crave your leave to do our selves more right than you have done us, in producing those Six Ar­guments in our Names, and which you would have the World to believe is all that we have to say for our selves; which Arguments we have already reply'd to, and shewn how far we own or disown them.

Sir, If you were as ignorant of the Con­troversie that hath now almost this Forty Years been depending between us, and hath past through so many Hands on both sides, as your Discourse represents you to be, you were very un­fit to meddle in it: But if you have supprest your own knowledge in it, you have not rightly consulted the Honour of your Charity, Sincerity or Wisdom. What we have further here to add in Defence of what you call our Schism, you shall have in very few Words; [Page 107]that we may not fill up Paper with what hath been by others already Written. Something we must say for our Selves, and something for our Ministers.

I. For our selves we say thus.

What we cannot do without Sinning against Christ, and against our own Souls, we ought not to do:

But we cannot hold that Communion with the Church of England which is requi­red of us, without Sinning against Christ, and against our own Souls. Erg.

The Minor only is to be prov'd. And,

First, That we cannot hold that Communion with the Church of England which is requi­red of us, without Sinning against Christ. That is, that Stated Communion, to the disown­ing or forsaking of the Non-conforming Mi­nisters and their Assemblies, without Sinning against Christ; which we prove thus.

To forsake the Ministers of Christ with­out cause, is to Sin against Christ.

But to forsake the Non-conforming Mi­nisters whom we hear, is to forsake the Ministers of Christ without Cause. Erg.

The Minor only is what you can except against; but if it hath been already substan­tially prov'd that our Ministers, whom you condemn as no Ministers, for want of Epis­copal Ordinations, or for not Conforming to the Laws and Rites of your Communion, be in truth the Ministers of Christ, as we are abundantly satisfi'd it hath been, then is our Minor good: And to forsake them, especi­ally in their Sufferings, and when you have, without cause, cast them out of your Commu­nion, and out of their Places in their Master's Vineyard, we are in our Consciences convinc'd is to forsake Christ; for so he himself hath told us, Matth. 10.40. He that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, re­ceiveth him that sent me. And Luke 10.16. He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despis­eth you, despiseth me; and he that dispiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. Nor can we but tremble to think of that dreadful Doom fore­told us by that very Mouth that shall at last pronounce it, Matth. 25.41, &c. Depart from me ye Cursed into Everlasting Fire, prepared for the Devil and his Angels; for I was an Hun­gred, and ye gave me not Meat; I was Thirsty, and ye gave me no Drink; I was a Stranger, and ye took me not in; Naked, and ye Clothed me not, Sick, and in Prison, and ye visited me not? For inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. Sir, if you can make light of these things, [Page 109]we can't. 'Tis in vain for you to tell us, They are none of Christ's Ministers, when we are assur'd they are. In vain to go about to perswade us that you are the Men, when we see how you disown and hate your Brethren. In vain for you, at this time of the Day, to call Light Darkness, or Darkness Light, when our own Eyes are open to see the difference. In vain to tell us, They are no Ministers of the Church of England, because you have so unjustly cast them out, and keep them out. In vain to tell us, They are Intruders, when we see who they are that have extruded them, and why. In vain to insist with us on your Parish-Bounds, when we know by whom, and for what Reasons these Bounds were first set; when we see and hear with what Stuff most of our Parish Pulpits are fill'd; when we see in what a Condition our Parishes generally lye, as to Ignorance and Immorality, and what cry­ing Need there is of more and better Ministe­rial Help; and when we know that the Mini­sters of Christ are Ministers, where-ever they be, and are bound to preach the Gospel to any that will hear them. Yea, when we re­member that they had once the Pulpits and Parishes which you now possess, till you came upon them with the Advantage of a Secular Power, and turn'd them Headlong by Hun­dreds, Ex Officio & Beneficio, and exchang'd their Pulpits for Prisons, and their Maintenance for Mulcts, and Fines, and Confiscations. And in vain do you tell us of your Charity and meek Spirit, when we taste and see what the [Page 110]bitter Fruits of it are. Sir, We dare not thus to sin against Christ to please you, nor ha­zard his Favour to keep up the Credit of those pitiful little things you are so fond of.

2. We cannot do what you require of us, without sinning against our own Souls; and that both in respect of the Danger we are in, by turning our Backs on the Ministers of Christ, and neglecting to hear them whom he hath sent us, which is not only a Contempt of his Bounty, but an Affront to his Authori­ty, especially when we read Matth. 10.14, 15. Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your Words, when ye depart out of that House, or City, shake off the Dust of your Feet. Veri­ly I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the Land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the Day of Judgment, than for that City. By what Names soever you may now call them, and by whatsoever Glosses of yours, you may tempt us to believe that this Scripture doth not concern us in this Case, we know that you shall not be our Judges, nor our Compur­gators in that Day; nor can we think our selves safe, should we refuse to receive and hear those Ministers of Christ whom he hath sent, but you have cast out. But, besides we dare not so despise our own Souls, nor the Souls of our Families, which are committed to our Charge, as to neglect that which we find to be the best, and most successful Means to promote their Growth in Grace and Good Works here, in order to their Eternal Happi­ness [Page 111]hereafter; nor ought we to be wheedl'd or ridicul'd by you from this our Way. And tho' we must suffer all the Reproaches and hard Censures, that you can load us with for so doing, we will take it patiently and thankfully at God's Hands, tho' unkindly at yours. Had we no more but this to say for our selves, it were enough to justifie our Non Communion with you, and our owning and adhering to the Ministers of Christ, whom we hear; but you cannot but know that there are many other things, with clear Evi­dence of Reason and Truth, urg'd by several others, who have travell'd in this Province, and to whom (that we may not here be too tedious to you) we do referr you; assuring you that we are not carry'd by a Sense of Liberty, but by a Sense of Duty, as many of us as have any Religious Principles to act by, either in our, or in your Communions; not because allowed by Men, but because com­manded of God, to do what you so uncharita­bly condemn us for.

II. For our Ministers, we say,

1. That it was never desir'd nor design'd by those that influenc'd the Revolution of Church Affairs, on the Restauration of King Charles the Second, that any of those of the Presbyterian Way, should be comprehended in that Act that was then made for Uniformity. And tho' they pretended to treat with them a­bout it, the Design was but to know what [Page 112]they would stick at, that so they might be sure to shut them out, as appears not only by the Measures they took, but by what is cre­dibly reported of Archbishop Sheldon, that he should say, Now we know their Minds, we'll make them all Knaves if they conform. Defence of Mr. M. H. of Schism, Append. p. 143. And of another Reverend Dean, that reply'd to a sober Gentleman, complaining that they had made the Door of Admission too strait. If we had thought so many of 'em would have conform'd, we would have made it straiter. So then, they must Sacrilegiously have renounc'd their Ministry, to have put their Necks un­der the Yoke of your Tyranny; for into the Ministry you were resolv'd not to admit them, if by any Means you could keep them out, as you did the far greater part of them, to the num­ber of about Two Thousand.

2. It is most certain that they neither could then, nor can now obtain their Ministerial Communion with you, without sinning directly against their own Consciences. For,

1. How can they, without the most horrid Perjury, declare upon Oath their full Assent and Consent to such things as they are per­swaded in their Judgments to be unsound in Doctrine, and superstitious in Worship; can this be done without lying to the Holy Ghost? And yet having thus shut them out of your Communion, and hitherto kept the Door so strongly barr'd against them, will your Charity accuse them for their Separation from you? [Page 113]How unsincere is this? You should have spo­ken out the very Truth; that when you first threw them out of your Communion, you re­pent you had not thrown them out of the World, could you have found any Pretence for it? That when you stopt their Mouths, you had not stopt their Breath too. Pray Sir, upbraid them no more with their Nonconformity, nor charge them with Schism on that Account, till you can as­sure them which way they can conform to you in their Ministerial Capacity, without Perjury; or in a Lay capacity, without Sacri­ledge.

2. How can they submit to your Reordina­tion, without condemning and renouncing their first Ordination as null; and consequently not only condemn Themselves, and all their for­mer Ministerial Acts, but all those Protestant Churches in the World, that have no other than Presbyterial Ordinations; which, while they are, as they have Reason to be, otherwise minded, they can't possibly do, without sin­ning point blank against their own Consciences, against the Truth, and against the greater part of the Church of Christ in the World. So that they must either do this, which is tre­mendous to think, or must abandon their Office, which they can't do without a Sacrile­gious Desertion, and sinning against Christ, who hath put them in Commission, and to whom they have sworn Fidelity; and against so many Thousand Souls too that are pe­rishing for want of more and better Mini­sterial Help, almost every where throughout [Page 114]the Kingdom. This [...], this little we think is enough to justifie their Pra­ctice, in preaching the Gospel of Christ to us, and to as many as will hear them: And for you to brand Them or Us as Schismaticks for so doing, is openly to fight against God.

Sir, We wonder what you could propose to your self as the Merit of such an Undertaking; what is the [...] you please your self with; the rare Discovery you have made after the most inquisitive Researches, that have been made for these 38 Years, by the most learned and sharpest Wits on both sides? What have you to add to what hath been by the greatest Names in your Church already urg'd, and which hath been over and over answer'd? If your Design had not been to impose a Wheedle on such as never read much, nor are capable of making a Judgment in controversial Cases; and under a Pretence of Charity and Zeal for their Souls, to affright them with the black Name of Schism, and so to lick them into your Communion, you would have taken other Mea­sures. If you would have pleaded the Case like a Man of Sense and Integrity, you would have taken up the Arguments on our side in their Strength, as they have been offered, on every part of the Controversie, by Mr. Baxter, Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Owen, the Defender of Mr. M.H. Mr. Corbet, Mr. Rule, and many others, more than it is needful for us here to mention, and too tedious to make Collections from, while the Authors themselves may so easily be con­sulted. [Page 115]To conclude, In what you have herein done, it appears to Us, that you have shewn your Charity and your Discretion much alike; who are,