The ANSWER.

Your undeserved Character puts me to the mixture of a Blush and An­guish, who own nothing but Defects and Infirmities. As for Literature, I dare pretend no claim, but that of the Greek Orator, of Affection to it, not of the least Perfection in it. As to Piety, [...]. Isoc. ad Dem. my sole interest is a deep sense of my Impiety, a constant acknowledgment of a constant Guilt, with the Prophet David, My sin is ever before me. Psal. 51. 3. That of Tertullian is my Motto: Born [Page 4] to drive on no design, Non ulli rei nisi poenitentiae natus. Tertull. l. de Poenit. c. ult. to expedite no task but repentance. As to a moderate tem­per, I hope I shall not frustrate your expectation: Religion needs not our Passion to bolster it. The Hearts of Christians may be cemented, when their Brains are not. ‘Non eadem sentire bonos de rebus iisdem Incolumi licuit semper amicitia.’ It is S. Paul's Lecture, Gal. 6. 2. Bear one ano­thers Burdens. It is not [...], but [...]. As the Tenets of others are irksome, disgusting to us (if different) so are ours to them; so that a mutual moderation (discarding rancour and animosity) is a debt reciprocally to be discharged and disburst. Even in sub­stantial Differences, when I condemn any erroneous Opinion, I shall com­miserate the person who asserts it, though it were not his Infirmity, but his Obstinacy. For even this state of spiritual desertion is most to be con­doled.

As to you I shall not dip my Pen in Gall or Oil, to revile, or flatter; ex­pect not a Satyrist, or a Parasite. As [Page 5] God's Minister, I shall not dare not mince, nor shuffle in Religion, (as I hinted to you in my last Conference) but shall search the Wound of Separa­tion with the tenderness, yet with the faithfulness of a spiritual Chirurgion.

The ANSWER.

This present Light is but a new Light, I pray beware lest it prove the delusion of the old Serpent. The Spi­rit of Darkness can transform himself into an Angel of Light. Conviction may in this case tend to Condemnati­on. The Jews plead, that they are convinced, that their con­fident Tenets are evident truths by the Light of the Prophets; yet the dis­mal [Page 6] fatal Veil is over their Hearts.

May the enlightning, sanctifying Spirit cleanse our Consciences, clear and rectifie our Apprehensions, our O­pinions, that neither yours nor mine may be dimmed, depraved.

Whilst you are thus convinced to walk by this Conduct, Conscientia er­ronia ligat. Aqu. I blame you not. For an erroneous Conscience is in a sort obligatory: though Consci­ence ought to be sifted, that it be not erroneous; Gentilis the Heretick pre­tended Conscience for his Blasphemy against the Trinity.

S. Paul vindicates himself, Act. 23. 1. I have in all good conscience served God until this day, not only when he was a Pilot to steer the Church, but when he was a Pyrate to rifle it, when he was Paul the Apostle, and when he was Saul the Persecutor, in all good conscience, though for a time errante, with an er­ring, yet not repugnante, vel dubitan­te, with a clashing or scrupling Con­science.

Your profession of a prompt, cor­dial submission to the Law and the Testimonies, is pious and commend­able.

[Page 7] Though Scripture be the purest, the exactest test for decision, yet not with­out some cautions. Satan like Hanni­bal can lay an ambush in the smoothest Field.

The Apostle decyphers [...], 2 Cor. 4. 2. making the word of Truth a passport for Falshood, 2 Cor. 2. 17. and [...], that deal with Scriptures as Huck­sters do with Wares to corrupt, or as Vintners do with Wine to sophisti­cate them, that make earthly Mer­chandise of Heavenly Oracles.

The Hereticks of all Ages have cited the Scriptures as Patrons of their Er­rours. Videns eos Hi­reticos volare per singula quae­que sancta legis Volumina—Nihil unquam de suo proferunt, quod non etiam Scripturae verbis adum­brare conentur. Lege Pauli Samosateni opuscula, Prisciliani, Eunomii, Jovi­niani reliquarumque pestium, cernes infinita exemplorum congeriem pro­pe nullam omitti paginam quae non novi aut veteris testamenti sententiis fucata & colorata sit. Vincent. Lyr. ad Haeres.

The Tempter, Mat. 4. 6. the Grand Patriarch of Hereticks in his conflict with our Redeemer, Luke 4. 10. draws his Arrows out of this sacred Quiver.

He obtruded Scripture to our Savi­our, Non minus ve­ritati obstrepit adulter sensus quam corruptus stylus. Tertull. de Praes. c. 17. but wrested, curtled it. It is the Orthodox Maxim of Tertullian; Truth is no less obstructed by adulterating, de­praving [Page 8] the sense, than corrupting, per­verting the Letter. It is not the Shell, but the Kernel is the delicious word of life.

Some Expedients are requisite for attaining the Kernel.

The Expedients are inward and outward.

The first inward Expedient is Inter­pretation, which is promoted by exa­mining Translations, consulting with Originals.

The second inward Expedient is Comparation by a survey of the Con­text, to pick the sense out of the co­herence, or else by Analogy of Texts; for as one Taper kindles, so one por­tion of Scripture illustrates ano­ther.

There are also external Expedients, the outward helps of the Arts, espe­cially Logick (for apprehending the force and importance of the Proofs in Scripture) Rhetorick (for discover­ing the Flourishes, the Ornaments of its Tropes and Figures) of Witnesses, wherein, though the Modern are not to be excluded, the Primitive are to be preferred.

[Page 9] The most ancient are of best repute, [...]. Arist. Rhet. l. 1. being least tainted and biassed. Deut. 4. 32.

Moses and Bildad, Job 8. 8. Jeremiah Jer. 16. 16: and Solomon recommend the Inquiry of Antiquities: Prov. 22. 28. it is Christ's prescription against Pharisaical, Mat. 19. 8. Heretical Novel­ties; From the beginning it was not. se. Though the Fathers are not to be ido­lized with the Papal Gloss, yet are they not peremptorily to be con­temned, or condemned in their opini­ons and expositions. Though the Ro­manists are Veteratores, saith Joseph Scaliger, corrupters of Antiquity, yet the Reformed are no rejecters of it, not Novatores, nor introducers of No­velties: unanimous Ecclesiastical An­tiquity cheeques not with Purity. It is the Golden Rule of Vincentius Lyrineu­sis. Id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omni­bus creditum est. Vincen. Lyr. advers. Haeres. That which is asserted in all Chri­stian Churches in all Ages is truly Ca­tholick and Venerable.

All these Expedients being united, are to be improved by a fervent peni­tent Devotion.

Scripture is not [...], 1 Pet. 1. 20. of private interpretation, that every one hath liberty to impose his own fancy, but there ought to be sensus innatus [Page 10] pursued (as the Hugonot Champion Chamier distinguisheth) not illa­tus.

Though the Holy Ghost only can truly expound what himself dictates, yet to pretend his Comment on his own Text with a neglect of all subser­vient helps, Omnes Patres sit, sed ego non sic. Abul. were not a holy confidence, but a haughty arrogance.

I presume your Modesty and Inge­nuity will not permit you to split on this Rock, that you will not profess with Abulardus, to run counter with all the Fathers of the Church; Ego neminem agnosco patrem, neminem ma­gistrum. Socin. nor with Faustus (Infaustus) Socinus explode the track of primitive Piety for Gui­dance.

I have dilated this Point, because it is the Lydius Lapis, the Touch-stone of the Controversie.

Having premised these Cautions, Ad Evangeli­um appellasti, ad Evangelium ibis. Bernard. Ede mihi unam Scripturae vo­cem pro parte Donati. Aug. de pasc. c. 14. I joyn issue with you in S. Bernard's Close: To the Gospel you have appealed, to the Gospel you shall go. I may here review S. Austin's challenge; Produce one voice of Scripture in the behalf of Donatus.

The ANSWER.

I cannot be so uncharitable as to boggle at that you ratifie with so sacred and solemn a seal. Though your changes have been the impressions of your heart, yet be pleased to consider, there is no such pernicious Sophister, as the heart of Man. It is deceitful a­bove all things. Jerem. 17. 9. A Supplanter accord­ing to the Original, deep beyond our fathoming, wily beyond our kenning. Your spiritual change still suiting with your temporal advantages, your own retired thoughts may admit a severe reflection on your integrity, so far as to examine it, though I shall not blast, nor scruple it. The Enemy sowed his Tares in the choicest Grain (the Wheat) like Agrippina that distilled her poison into Claudius's delicacies. [Page 12] Satan may insert, rivet an advantageous separation into a pious intention (where­by the Serpent may insensibly swallow up the Dove) like Julian, Sozom. l. 5. p. 16 who caused the Images of the Heathen Gods in the engraving to be intermingled with the Images of the Emperour, that so the Christians, in affording a civil reve­rence to the one might exhibit an ido­latrous to the other, though unwitting­ly.

Ecclesiastical Histories are ample Re­cords of Gracious Men ungraciously swayed by secular interests to desert the best Tenets.

The most Orthodox Venerable Fa­thers under Constantine the Emperour were swayed by the potent violent stream of the Age under Constantius, to embrace the Arrian Confession. This Torrent bore away the grave, Sulpit. Senec. Hist. l. 4. de­vout Osius (centenario major, saith the Historian) being above an hundred years old, as if more crazed and decre­pit in Soul than Body, he renounced the sacred Sanctions of the Nicene Council, which himself compiled and e­stablished.

How rigid and dismal a Doom did [Page 13] Ecebolius pronounce against himself, Socrat. Eccl. Hist. l. 4. c. 11. who having still moulded his Religion to the season, shifted Sail with every propitious Gale, at last he cast himself prostrate in the Church with this ex­pression of perplexity and horrour, Trample on me as unsavory Salt.

I relate it not virulently with the least design of Application, but af­fectionately hint it for caution.

The ANSWER.

I am glad you own that renowned Christian Badge of Piety and Antiqui­ty, whereto this Age affords not pub­lick recital, scarce private repute.

The Foundation you lay, will not support the Fabrick you e­rect thereon. The Communion of Saints will not prove a Division, a [Page 14] Fraction of Separatists: 'tis [...], 'tis [...], it unsoders the Church, untwists the Article. This allows not society with good Men in evil Actions, it debars not society with evil men in good Actions. Ephes. 4. 5.

S. Paul enforceth his Admonition of endeavouring the preservation of the unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace by a Paraphrase of this Communion, One God, one Faith, one Baptism.

This Communion relates to the Head or Members.

The Communion of the Head with the Members consists in our partaking of Christ's Merits by Adoption, Gal. 4. 5. by Justi­fication, Rom. 3. 24, 25, 26. in his partaking of our indigni­ties Rom. 5. 1. 18. by Interpretation, Col. 1. 24. of our iniquities by Imputation, Es. 53. 4. 5. 1 Satisfaction. Pet. 2. 21, 24.

The Communion of the Saints deceased with the living, That importu­nate appeal for judgment to persecutors, Rev. 6. 10. doth infallibly infer a compas­sionate suit, as to their Fellow Members. consists in their general prayers for us, in our general and particular praises for them. The former in the judgment of Reformed Divines consists with the excellency of their Charity: The latter suits with the practice of the Primitive Church. The Communion of the Saints living consists in affection by sympathy of [Page 15] joy or grief, Rom. 12. 15. in edification, Rom. 15. 2. 1 exercising our Graces to the benefit of others, Thes. 5. 11. in Acts 2. 45. distribution of outward Talents. Acts 4. 35.

This bottom of Communion of Saints being thus unravelled, will not countenance or present the least thread of your separation.

If you aver a Communion with the Saints as Fellow Members, I desire to be resolved, who those Saints are? Not the reformed Protestants, not the Primitive Christians, you exclude both, their Church being not separate: if they be acknowledged Members of the Catholick Church, they are interested in the Communion of Saints expressed in the Creed. And then your separa­tion from them amounts to a separa­tion from the Church, and the Com­munion specified in the Creed. To a­scend higher, are the Apostles the Saints you own a Communion with? Then prove they made such separations from Christian Congregations as you do. But you admit them not the Title of Saints (let me inoffensively ask for my own satisfaction) if they be real Saints, why not Titular? If your selves as real assume the Title, why may not [Page 16] the Apostles be indulged that privilege (in regard you plead to be Saints of the same extraction) especially since us to the judgment of others at least, there is greater certainty, infallibility of their Saintship than of yours.

As for your desire of company com­fortably to partake the things of God, those Assemblies you have quitted do afford those sacred Comforts you have deserted them for; wherein sacred Or­dinances are most comfortably, be­cause most charitably celebrated. Be­ing private Persons or Pastors of a Pa­rochial Church, we are principled to be Converts, not Judges; to exercise severity in repentance, not censure; to be inquisitors in our own Breasts, to condemn none but our selves. Religi­on is not tainted with Faction among us, nor Zeal stained with Schism. We bewail the practical prophaneness of any, that the same tincture of Grace is not visible in Worship and in Life: however, our wickedness is not in Gil­gal, as to this charge; God's pure Or­dinances are not slurred, not vitiated, much less vacated (rendred ineffectu­al) by mens impure desailances, un­less [Page 17] to themselves only. 1 Tit. 15. To the pure all things are pure.

The ANSWER.

I take no felicity [...], (In Nazianzens expression) to mould Divinity into a Comedy. I shall not (by the Divine assistance) fail of a se­rious Discussion of your Advertise­ments, weighing them in the ballance of Reason and Religion. I am not so improvident an Enemy to a numerous Family, as to be peevishly wedded to clouded Tenets, could I be rationally and conscienciously divorced from them. I should not stick to pen my own Retractations, according to the laudable Example of St. Austin.

The ANSWER.

The quod sit, that there is a Church is uncontrolled, undiscussed; the quid sit, what that Church is, is the subject of Ancient and Modern Debates. Here the Logick Rule is to be observed, Ambiguous words are first to be di­stinguish'd, then defined. The Church is either Universal or Particular; Grand Differences being loudly pro­secuted touching the Matter and Form of both.

The Romanists comprehend Miscre­ants, Reprobates for material parts and Members of the Catholick Church; the Reformed allow only Elect Per­sons [Page 19] to be true and real Members of this Church; yet they avouch vitious Christians, nay scandalous (till excom­municated) to be Members of a parti­cular visible Church, but the Separa­tists do quite expunge, raze them out.

The Romanists exact, not as a con­secutive, but a constitutive essential Note (as a formal mark of every par­ticular Church) Subjection to the Pope. The Separatists require a Church Co­venant, an evidence, (if not assurance) of the grace of every Member. The Reformed Protestants dissent from both. But not to tread out of your track; Your Latin definition of the Church ( coetus fidelium) is accommo­dated to the inward Church invisible. Though an Assembly, if particular be an object of Sense, Believers properly are not: But your English illustrati­on of it is the Character of the out­ward visible Church (that walk in the profession of the Gospel of Jesus) If they walk whether in the Notion of Nature or Scripture; if they pro­fess, they must be visible. This is to shuffle together Disparata.

The ANSWER.

I shall not except at the Etymolo­gie, Sancti titulus, non virtutis sed professionis. Erasm. in 1 Cor. 1. nor the Scripture definition, but the Restriction of it. That's the [...] the main hinge of the Que­stion. If you understand Saints by calling, of an inward effectual vocati­on, the Testimony is an impertinen­cy, as to our debate, touching an outward visible Church. If you under­stand it of an outward Vocation, remem­ber our Saviours uncontrolled Max­ime ( many are called, but few are chosen.) This suites with a mixt Communion, with an outward profession; take A­retius his rational descant on St. Pauls Character; How are they called Saints, since it is certain many Novices in belief, yea, notorious lewd wretches in [Page 21] life were among them, Matth. 20. 26. Quomodo sancti dicantur, cum certum sit apud eos multos ru­des in fide, imo palam impios fuisse? Respon. Rectè dici San­ctos propter fi­nem Vocationis ad Sanctitatem vocati sunt; w. e. ut tales sint, Aret. in 1 Rom. vers. 7. whereto he frames a double answer. They were Saints by calling, because called to Sanctity, and endowed with prepara­tory Graces: Because the better part were Holy, the rest were Saints in the judgement of Charity, though not of Infallibility. It is the Candor, the Rhe­torick of the Apostle, that the Title might be a Lecture, the name a charm to Holiness.

Zanchy under the name of Saints apprehends titular professing Christi­ans, Zanch. in Eph. 1. 2. the same distinction is expressed, Col. 1. 2. but the faithful distinguish'd, se­vered from these by the Apostle to be sincere Believers.

Thus your first Citation is a Nomi­nal definition of Christians, nominal professional, not real habitual, outward­ly interested by Baptism, though not inwardly regenerated; Saints by de­stination, by designation, not in con­versation, not in the least perfection (of parts, much less of degrees.).

Your second Citation (1 Cor. 14. 33.) is less advantageous to advance your design. God is not the Author of con­fusion (not of dissention in the vulgar Latin) not [...] of tumult, but [Page 22] of peace, as in all the Churches of the Saints. That is in all Christian Churches that are called, obliged to be Saints.

If you observe your separation to be the source of dissention, of confu­sion, admitting no dependance, no su­bordination, it will appear at a great distance from those Apostolical Churches of the Saints; especially if you note the coherence in the Claro­monte Edition (approved by Beza and other Reformed Divines) immediately adjoyning to the 33 verse, the 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 th. vers. and annexing 34, 35 vers. to the 40 th. What came the Word of God from you or to you on­ly. The ophylact thus illustrates it, You are neither the prime nor the sole Be­lievers. It behooves you to entertain that with affection, with submission, which hath the approbation of the Christian World. St. Paul conjures the Corinthians by the Examples of all Churches. The same Argument un­sinews your separation, not to run counter with all Christian Churches. Produce one Christian undoubted Church of your separate strain not universally branded for Schismatical— ‘ [Page 23] —Phyllida solus habebis.’

The true Church shall be yours. You may derive your Pedigree from the Novatians and Donatists, who boulted some of your Tenets for Sepa­ration and Constitution. These will discover some lineaments of your Complexion, not the intire proportion. However, if you are Saints upon their account, they were not Hereticks; and if they were Hereticks upon your account, your selves are not Saints. If you acknowledge them not Here­ticks, you reject the Judgement of all Christian Churches in all Ages, since their Heresies were broached.

Sysinnius counsel to Theodosius was prudent, Socrat. in Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 10. to move Innovators to stand to the Judgement of the Church be­fore Division. I tender to you the de­termination of our Question, by the suf­frage and practice of the Reformed Churches before your separation was raked out of the Embers it was en­wrapped in, or else to the Primitive Churches, either before the flame of the Novatians and Donatists was [Page 24] kindled, or after it was extinguish'd (by the vigorous Confutations of the Fathers, and the Pious Sanctions of Christian Emperors and Councils.) If in despight of these you will persist in contention, in separation; my Refuge is the Apostles Apology: We have no such custome, 1 cor. 11. 16. nor the Churches of God.

The ANSWER.

There is not an exact necessity of that Visibility, so far as to conclude no Sanctity, if no Visibility, no Church if no lustre. There may be Gold in the Ore obscured, not yet resplendent, [Page 25] refined Bullion. Where was the Visibility, when the Primitive Chri­stians, during the brunt of Pagan per­secution, betook themselves for secu­rity to remote Deserts, to obscure Caves; when Prisons were the sole Oratories and Temples, when the Churches were universally demoli­shed; the Sacred Scriptures burnt, the Christians disrobed, disfranchised, Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 8. c. 2. stript of their Dignities, immunities, deprived of their liberties and lives by the fierce Edicts of Dioclesian?

Where was the Church visible, Ingemuit totus orbis & se Ar­rianum esse mi­ratus est. Hier. advers. Luc. 1 Kings 19. 18. when it was o'erspread with a cloud of Arrianism ( Athanasius against the whole World, and the whole World against Athanasius) Eliah discovered not one Saint but himself, yet God vindicated seven thousand, that had not bowed their knees to Baal. We are not visible Saints to you, nor you perhaps to us.

I pray God we may be all visible Saints to him.

I confess that to be a Saint imports a [Page 26] holy separation, a people separated for the Divine Service and Glory. Those you have abandoned, are so ser­vered, dedicated by Baptism. They who demonstrate only a bare out­ward profession, may be Saints out­wardly, formally for profession, though not inwardly really as touching affecti­on, touching sincere Religion. Yet in this defect of entire genuine Purity, the good are not to be eschewed for the evil, Non deserendi boni propter ma­los sed toleran­di mali propter bonos. Aug. Ep. 48. but the evil are to be tolerated for the good.

I shall wave your first Quotation, Tit. 1. (no verse being specified) I shall not contend in a roving conjecture, in a dark conflict like the Andabates. I presume you intended not the whole Chapter for a Proof, this were a fond­ness of separation ( [...]) like the vehement affection of the Pla­tonists, whose intellectuals being pre­possest with numbers, imagined num­ber an Essential in every constitu­tion.

Your second Appeal is to Prov. 15. 8, 9. The sacrifice of the wicked is abomina­tion to the Lord, but the prayer of the righteous is acceptable to him.

[Page 27] The way of the wicked is abomination to the Lord, but he loveth him that fol­loweth righteousness.

If you can dispense with Charity to brand those you separate from, to be wicked; If you can dispense with Hu­mility to repute your selves righte­ous, yet this is no Argument for sepa­ration.

The Sacrifice of the wicked is abo­mination; therefore

The Sacrifice of the godly mingled with the wicked is abomination, you conclude more than you premise.

Judas eating the Paschal Lamb (as for his own personal action) was an abomination, Nec alii obest aut prodest alterius religio, Tert. in l. adv. Scap. but this had no reflecti­on on his associates (in that oblation) the Apostles. Their Piety did not sanctifie and acquit him, nor did his iniquity defile and condemn them.

The ANSWER.

It is true, Religion ought to be per­swaded, Nec Religionis est cogere religi­onem quae sponte suscipi debeat non vi. Tert. in l. adv. Scap. not constrained, Faith and In­nocence are not the products of power and violence. Piety is not savoury if not voluntary. Yet tempers are to be distinguished (mens dispositions being as different as their complexions) Some are moulded like Wax for the impres­sions of the Sacred Spirit. Others are to be hewen like stones, to be squared and polished Materials for the Tem­ples of the holy Ghost. Of some take compassion, Jude 22. 23. [...], in the K. M. S. making a difference (or commiserate those that are staggering according to a famous Manuscript) o­thers save with fear ( Beza interprets it with terrour) pulling them out of the fire.

Though compulsion is not allowable in the grafting, the planting of Reli­gion, yet it is in the fencing and pruning of it. It cannot be compel­led, secundum actum imperatum, for the inward apprehension; it may to out­ward [Page 29] profession, secundum actum eli­citum. I grant that Saints ought to make Saintship their Calling, or rather their Calling makes them Saints.

When their conversation contra­dicts their Vocation, their Profession, the crime is the greater; when our works confound our words, Reatus impii nomen pii. Sal­vian. our lives check with our names. The title of a Saint is the impeachment of a Miscre­ant.

Your Proof (if logically examined) is fallacious. Wicked men are ene­mies to holiness, therefore not Saints, Members of a Church.

It is ignoratio Elenchi. In the same consideration they are not Saints and Enemies to Holiness. Their Saintship is in appearance, their enmity to Sanctity in substance. Holy at least as Pro­fessors, though unholy as Malefactors.

This by the way (as you express it) is indeed a by way out of the Or­thodox road of the Jews and Christi­ans. It is with new Tenets (saith St. Epi­phanius) as with new ways, wherein when men are once engaged, they will proceed on with hazard of safe­ty, [Page 30] rather than return with any fear of infamy.

The ANSWER.

Such unnecessary Queries have dis­carded necessary Duties, which are become pastimes and triumphs to our Romish Adversaries, Wounds and scandals to our Reformed Brethren.

I shall not cavil at the terms of the Question, though justly lyable to ex­ception (as a Nation being a civil con­sideration, as a Church a spiritual) but I affirm the National Church of England to be constituted according to the Word of God, and Primitive In­stitution.

[Page 31] I shall not act the Samaritan, Joseph. Antiq. l. 9. c. 15. l. 11. c. 8. who would be reputed a Jew, when Ju­daism was resplendent, flourished; but in its Umbrage and Captivity had no portion, no interest in Israel. Having owned and reverenced the Church of England as a chaste Matron, as a ve­nerable Mother in her lustre, I shall not desert, nor brand her as an impure Harlot in her Eclipse. I imagine her pathetically expostulating with you in this Assault, as Coriolanus's Mother (in Livy) did with her hostile Son.

The ANSWER.

Your twisted Query is a Fallacy ( Fallacia plurium interrogationum) a compound of variety, of contrariety (at least in consequence) of ingredi­ents. A Church is not degenerated [Page 32] without a charge of the corruption, the stain of depravation: A Church may be defaced by the freckles of af­fliction, by the scars of persecuti­ons.

The Beauty of the Piety of the Church of England is clouded, the Feature disfigur'd, by the Obstructions of the times.

In this consideration of solemnity, ‘Seges est ubi Troja fuit.’ But an afflicted eclipsed is not a dege­nerated, depraved Church. If your self be degenerated from her professi­on, your question resembles the fond imaginations of Harpaste, who being deprived of her sight, would not be perswaded, her self was blind, but that the room was dark.

There may be in Tertullians Judge­ment, Duae caecitatis species concur­runt, ut qui non vident quae [...]unt, videre videau­tur quae non sunt. Tert. in A­pol. ad Gent. a confidence of two sorts of blindness intellectual, to discern a de­pravation which is not, and not to see that perfection which is.

The Calamities of the Church of England are not to be imputed to her for crimes. Is the less Christian, be­cause [Page 33] she owns Christs Badge, and wears his Livery the Cross. The par­ticipation of her holy things is not un­holy. It is no sin to communicate with her in these, but to separate from her. To prevent an imaginary guilt of Pollution by others; beware lest you incur a real guilt of Schism (by separation) in your self. It is the wily artifice of Satan, though probably you neither ken, nor dread it.

In this nicety of severity you super­erogate exceeding the Apostolical pre­scription, Ephes. 5. 11. Have no fellowship with the fruitless works of darkness, Ergo non pro­hibetur omnis consuetudo cum impiis sed omne commercium cum operibus corum impiis & tenebrosis, Zanch. in Eph. 5. 11. (The works not the workers) unless you intend to quit universally all society with the World.

The Sacred Charge (nay Charm) of a Sacred Life is cast in the same mould. 2. Tim. 2. 19. Signainter dix­it, ib iniquitate non iniquis E­stius. Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from evil. From the quality the action not the agent, [Page 34] the sin not the sinner; Unless as Con­stantinus reproved Acesius, Sacrat. Ecc. Hist. l. 1. c. 7. Sozom. l. 1. c. 22. you will erect a ladder for your separation to mount Heaven alone.

The ANSWER.

That first Apostolical Institution doth not justifie your separation, your Argument may be retorted. Some have hence proved the lawful consti­tution of those Churches you separate from. By an outward profession, which is the result of their Commu­nication, you alledge that they were Converts. Were they reall Converts [Page 35] or Professional? If real, this ingrafts them in the invisible Church, as pro­fessional they were interested in the vi­sible Church. This Profession claim­ed the Appellation to be called Con­verts. But you argue that they were real Converts, because no ordinary work wrought on their hearts. It is [...]: They were pricked in their hearts: They had some sting of con­science, some gripings of remorse at St. Peters Sermon. Reprobates are not always destitute of these corrosive An­xieties. Matth. 3. 2. 27. 3. Compunction of heart doth not amount to conversion (unless you will confound the critical differences of [...], Semper cum [...] cohacret [...] sed [...], declarat post a­liquem tem factam anxium esse, Beza in Matth. 3. and [...] warranted by the Evangelists) It is a prepara­tive to it, it is not an accomplishment of it.

In this instance it is expressed gene­rally of all the Auditors without any limitation, Vide Erasm. in 2 Cor. 8. in 37 verse ( Now when they had heard this, they were pricked in their hearts) But it is qualified, restrained, ( They that gladly received his word were baptized) in the 41. verse.

If both qualifications of a bitter compunction, and a chearful attention [Page 36] be linked, yet they will not compleat them to be true Converts. Ananias and Saphira are computed Members of this Congregation, you will not grant a true Conversion where there is a Recidivation. Their first Profession is censured Dissimulation.

The ANSWER.

I grant they were gathered into or­der, though your Medium doth not infer it. The Text sets it out Paraine­tically (St. Peters admonition) not Hi­storically [Page 37] (the execution the practice of it, in the 40 verse) However they withdrew themselves not from a Church (if you intend by a Church a Christian Assembly) but from a Sy­nagogue.

If from a Church in this Notion, you contradict your self, this was not then the first Primitive Institution (I suppose in your construction, first Apo­stolical.) Before this numerous shole caught in the Fisher of Souls Net, the Church after our Saviours Passion is summed up, comprehending one hundred and twenty Members. To collect three thousand out of a Church, of an hundred and twenty were as pro­digious Logick, as Arithmetick. I pray weigh the importance of the in­ference touching this Primitive Insti­tution. They withdrew from a Sy­nagogue; (from Jews) therefore Chri­stians must withdraw from Christians. They gathered to the Church, there­fore a Church must be gathered from a Church.

Such deductions are ropes of Sand, arena sine calce, as Domitian censured Senecas concise uncemented expressions [Page 38] (an incoherence more laudable in sen­tences than proofs) but not to digress. Matth. 12. 34. That froward Generation mention­ed were especially the Scribes and Pharisees, Matth. 3. 7. our Saviours profest em­bittered adversaries. Himself titles them a generation of Vipers, and the Baptist so salutes them: It is [...] in the 40 verse, Escape from the tempo­ral imminent destruction of Jerusalem (like the Angels counsel to Lot to quit Sodom) lest you actually perish in their infidelity, Gen. 19. 17. in their impenitency.

Because those Disciples were advised to unshackle themselves of their Judai­cal fetters, who disclaimed the Mes­siah, crucified him, who reputed him an Impostor, a Conjurer, a Male­factor.

Will you hence conclude a separating from those Christian Brethren, who acknowledge him the Lamb of God (both Priest and Sacrifice) and the Lyon of the Tribe of Judah; both a Saviour and Avenger? But here you blast and doom our Professors ( Many professing Christ are as great enemies as they were) Our practical enmity (in the Church of England) is too too great, [Page 39] however it is in infirmity, not in ob­stinacy; we humbly appeal to the Throne of Grace, of candor with the Apostle. What we would do, do we not, and what we would not, that do we. We dare not divorce those At­tributes God himself hath wedded. His Mercy is sharpned with Justice, that we be not presumptuous, and his Justice candid with Mercy (like a su­gred Pill) that we be not chilled with despair.

We own we reverence him as a Soveraign as Christ, and when being clogged with frailties, our obedience faulters, we have recourse to him as Jesus a Saviour.

Without this Divine Sanctuary, both you and we are exposed to be con­demned, as lewd wretched Caitiffs.

The Sacred Testimonies produced by you, are miserably misapplied. The first, Matth. 19. 14. Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.

If you expound this literally, it is valid for the Baptism of Infants, it strikes not us, but the Anabaptists. If you interpret it figuratively for those [Page 40] that are not plumed with pride, not en­venomed with rancor. This Character at the first blush suits not with the grain of your separation. Though I shall not charge, not revile any ( per me equi­dem sint omnia protinus alba) yet I would humbly admonish all. It is not the die of meekness and lowliness, to justifie your selves, and condemn others.

Your next Testimony is Matth. 19. 27. Behold we have forsaken all, and followed thee. This squares better with the condition of the Church of England, than of your separation, for that hath improved, not empaired your Temporalities. Plead this when you are Confessors, or Martyrs, not before.

Your third Testimony is Phil. 3. 18, 19. Many walk, Sub nomine Christi Judais­mum praedi­cantes colendum Amb. m. 3. pa. 19. of whom I have told you often, and now tell you weeping, that they are enemies to the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, their shame, who mind earthly things.

In the Judgement of Expositors the Apostle there descyphers Jew­ish Seducers or Christians Judaising, [Page 41] enemies to the Cross of Christ, Inimici crucis quia ne quid pa­terentur propter Christum, misce­bant cum Christo Mosem, & prae­dicabant neces­sariam esse cir­cumcisionem, Gal. 6. who would shelter their Religion with Circumcision to prevent persecution. Hac in parte gratificantes Judaeis. Zanch. in 3. ph. vide Aquin. Estium. Aret. Pisc. &c. (Judaism being tolerated after Chri­stianity was condemned) who would not be damnified by the Gospel, who like Cameleons assumed all shapes; fa­shioned their Tenets and Principles to Emergencies, who eeked out Christ with Moses.

Though we are abundantly vicious in the Church of England, yet this guilt is not to be fix'd on our score, let it stick where it will.

I beseech you with melting bowels, do not thus dally with Gods Sacred Oracles (as you expect the solace of present Grace, and future Bliss) let them not be heaped but weighed. Deal not with the estimate of them, as of counters for to signifie what you fancy.

The ANSWER.

My Judgement (at least my Genius) prompts me to approve much rather directive, than coactive expedients in Religion; yet the best Worthies of the Church Ancient and Modern, allow both to have their fit seasons and ope­rations. The Word is the Planting, Inoculating, but the sword is the Cut­ting, Pruning Instrument. This may lop off dead branches, though it cannot graft the living: Your instance of St. Peters chearful Auditors concerns the first structure, not the repair of Re­ligion (the Conversion, not the Restau­ration) We must distinguish the con­stituting, [Page 43] and the reforming of a Church, betwixt Infidels and Here­ticks; betwixt the ignorance of Un­believers not informed, and the stub­bornness of Misbelievers, after they are convinced: betwixt those that being erroneous vent speculative innocent Tenets, and these that broach pestilent fundamental Heresies, or maintain practical Impieties, Enormities; nay, Lips. in Polite▪ even in these with Lipsius betwixt Er­rones and turbones, betwixt those that are bono animo errantes (in Lactantius words) those that are imprudently seduced, and those that impudently seduce.

As to some of the Branches, the Ma­gistrate bears not the Sword in vain: He may exercise a coercive penal Power, as to the means, though not immediately to the end; to the pro­fession of what men believe, though he cannot constrain the belief of what men profess.

The Mosaical Laws were capi­tal against Idolaters and Blasphemers. This Authoritative coercive severity in Religion, Levit. 24. 15, 16. as it was prescribed by God, Deut. 17. 5. so it was practised by Nehemiah, [Page 44] Nehem. 13. 21, 22. By Josiah, 2 Chron. 34. 32, 2. By Asa, 2 Chron. 14. 4. Even Manasses, after he was reclaimed, was enflamed with this Zeal. Christian Princes trod their steps.

The spiritual penalties enacted by the four first general Councils (against Arrius, Nestorius, Macedonius, Euty­ches) were ratified by temporal of Christian Emperors. Euseh. Hist. Bech. l. 7. c. 29. To omit Samo­satenus, sentenced by Aurelianus Manes. —But I forbear. In this copious field, ‘—Inopem me copia fecit.’

I shall add only the Donatists cha­stised by the Sanctions of Constantinus, Constantius, Valentinus, Gratianus, Theodosius. This reiterated, rein­forced rigor against the Donatists, Aug. Iph. 48. was at first resented by St. Austin, but up­on second thoughts vindicated, it having proved effectual for the reclaim­ing of many Donatists by their own confession.

Those very men, who have bitterly inveighed at an Imperial, legal, mo­derate severity against the Factors, [...] for exploded, condemned Heresies; yet [Page 45] have embraced all opportunities, August. l. 1. contra Petis. ca. 24. 27. Baron. Tom. 2. Anno 348. Sleidan. de Cottons 3d. vial. p. 19. 20. to act tumultuous, furious cruelties upon the Assertors of the most approved renowned Tenets. Witness the Ar­rians in Egypt and Palastine, the Cir­cumcelliones in Africa, the Anabaptists in Germany. Mr. Cotton vehemently pressed this Divinity in New Eng­land.

I hope you will not brand all the recited precedents with the black aspersion of Antichrists volumus, man­damus.

Converts of the Church of England, though derided in your Letter, were not Captives, not fettered but taught, not hurried, enforced, but perswaded preached to their Religion.

You object the noise of Axes and Hammers to be heard in the Building. This noise is no solecism in erecting a Fabrick, no nor in repairing it, and reducing into order a beam that is starting out. But I pray unpartially recollect your own station. How e­difying is the noise of Drums and Guns? Not the Ordinances of the Temple, but the Camp (A Church Militant without a Trope) Had not Re­giments [Page 46] been Arguments, and Battels Proofs, and Victories Demonstrations, your separation might have been scanted, for Proselites in this Climate, quickly have shifted Scenes, and like Cato on the Theatre vanish'd as soon as it appeared. So that the Church of England is rather conquered, than confuted, not foiled, gladio oris, sed ore gladii.

Power and terror are the Pillars to support your separation, wealth and honour the allurements, the embel­lishments to engratiate it. Such pre­valent Principles may fortifie, not ju­stifie your separation. By this Mar­tial Topick the Bible must truckle to the Alcoran in the Greek Churches.

But you tax the Church of England for a promiscuous, ungracious recepti­on, compulsion (without regard of Knowledge, Conscience, Grace) This confident Objection seconds the vi­rulent imputation of the Roma­nists.

Were it so, that many Churches were like Mishromes of a days growth, that whole Nations became Churches ( [...]) by heaps, God were to be the [Page 47] more magnified for so miraculous a conversion. Acts 2. 41. Were not three thou­sand Souls the Converts of one Ser­mon.

In so numerous a Congregation there was no possibility of St. Peters punctual satisfaction of the personal knowledge, conscience of each. If you look back to the Baptists Church, there appears a larger confluence. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round a­bout Jordan, and they were baptised of him in Jordan, Matth. 3. 5, 6. confessing their sins.

To close with you. Do you charge the Church of England in its first Con­version, or Reformation. In its first Conversion there was no external force or power (nor [...] nor [...]) no influence but of conscience, no Trumpet sounded, but of the word, (that of Isaiah) no Sword brandish'd, but of the Spirit (that of St. Paul) In its Reformation Catechisms and Ser­mons took place of Edicts and Pro­clamations.

The Reformation was initiated by Henry the Eighth, improved by Edward [Page 48] the Sixth, compleated by Queen Eli­zabeth. The Scriptures being trans­lated into English, many gross Er­rors were gradually discountenanced, and at length fairly discarded (Papal Su­premacy, Pardons, Merits, Images, Pilgrimages) under Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth made a further pro­gress. Sanguis Mar­tyrum Semen Ecclesiae, Tertul. During the storm of the Ma­rian Persecution, the Blood of the Martyrs became the Seed of the Church. After that Tempest was blown over, the Pious Confessors re­duced from confinement and banish­ment, became zealous Propagators of the Reformed Religion. Forrain Pro­testant Divines were entertained in England (Peter Martyr and Bucer for purging the Universities, that those eminent Fountains might be no longer corrupted) Moses and Aaron both co-operated, Commissioners assisted with Preachers were disperst into every Canton of the Nation (the Bench be­ing steered by the Pulpit.) The peo­ple were instructed, weaned, not con­strained, not scared out of their super­stition.

If you aim at Truth, not at Tri­umph, [Page 49] to be furnish'd for satisfaction, not cavil; the Historical Narratives of Bishop Goodwin and Cambden: Foxes Acts and Monuments will plentifully inform you, in the holy and wary steps of the Reformation. Happy it is for the Church any way to be re­fined from its dross. It better becomes us to magnifie the Divine Mercy, for the effects, the Fruits of so blessed a Reformation, than to quarrel for the Instruments, the Formalities, puncti­lioes of it, and inconsiderately to gra­tifie our common adversary.

After your light skirmish of in­vectives (conscience or none, &c.) you muster up your grand Battalio Texts of Scripture, for a more vigo­rous assault, Psal. 110. 3. Thy peo­ple shall come willingly at the time of as­sembling.

This Testimony argues for volun­tary assmbling, not separating. Such were the crowds of the Primitive Con­gregations, whose Allelujalis sounded like claps of Thunder (saith St. Jerom) Thus Gods people the Jews thronged into his Temple.

Some desert our Congregations, [Page 50] because they seem holy; disgusting our Sacred Publick Ordinances out of their real prophaneness, and others a­bandon them, because our Congrega­tions, by reason of their mixtures, seem prophane, out of a formal cri­tical Holiness. These extremes ex­empted, the rest assemble with an alacrity of piety, who are affected with Davids solace to rejoyce, when any say, Let us go to the house of the Lord.

Take the Psalmist in what accepti­on you please. Statim ad ob­sequium praesto, licet violento imperio non co­gantur. Calv. in 110. 3. Because those that are regenerated, are convened, and not constrained. Will you hence infer, that the unregenerate cannot by E­dicts of Magistrates be constrained to the helps, and requisite means that they may be regenerated. They may be compelled to be assembled, though not to be reclaimed (to come in, though not to worship when they are come in) Nay, unwilling Auditors may become willing Converts. St. Aastin entred St. Ambrose Church with an itching ear to carp, August. in Con­fess. he de­parted with a bleeding heart to re­lent.

[Page 51] This Answer sufficiently manifests the invalidity of your second Testimo­ny, Es. 2. 1, 2. which is a prediction of the propagation of the Gospel, All nations shall flow to it, in the 2. verse. They shall serve God as St. Jerom expounds it. Both verses flourish out the solemnity of an unanimous Congregation, not the pri­vacy of a disjoynted separation. If you will appropriate these Prophe­sies to your selves (like Homers Iliads contracted in a Nut-shell) I pray ex­clude not the next verse. Swords bro­ken to plowshares, and spears to pruning books. The next text cited is Zach. 4. 6. Neither by an army nor strength, but my Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.

This portion of Scripture is the in­terpretation of a Vision. Zerub. typus Christi Jun. & Tremel. in ann. De Zerubbabil (i.) de Christo Nativitatem Christi praedi­cit qui nullo o­pere humano sed ex Spiritu Sancto conceptus, & natus ex vir­gine. Vatabl. 11. cap. 4. Zach. v. 6. Non in Exercitu ne (que) in multitudine bellatorum sed in Spiritu Dei reductum populum & plenius reducendum & adversarios vastandos. Hier. in Zach. 4. 6, Commenta­tors apprehend Zorobabel, to whom the Vision was interpreted to be the Type of Christ. It is, saith Vatablus, a Prophesie of his Nativity, without humane concurrence. ( Mary being over shadowed by the Holy Ghost) others expound it Historically of the [Page 52] Jews rescued from their Captivity, only by the Divine Power, or Pro­phetically of the Church, guided and guarded soly by the Sacred Spirit. However, this doth not cotten with the web of your separation, that hath a Martial Countenance and As­sistance.

Whereas the Church of England hath no arm of flesh to strengthen it, no Army but the Heavenly Militia, no General but the Lord of Hosts, no Banners but the Cross.

Your third Citation, Quot verba, tot Mysteria, Hie­ron. Rev. 12. 15, 16.) is a Mystery, the Application a Riddle. I must desire you to be your own Oedipus. And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman: that he might cause her to be carryed away of the flood.

And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallow­ed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

What will you hence conclude, [...] therefore compulsion is not allowable in Religion. Indeed I understand not the inference, and blush not to con­fess it.

[Page 53] Upon this occasion, let me inoffen­sively become an humble importunate suiter, that since you piously detest vain Oaths (wherein I highly com­mend your severity, and passionately desire, and press the imitation among our selves) so you would also dread the rash quotation of Scriptures. They are offences of the same batch, breaches of the same Precept. And if such Ci­tations be applied to erroneous Opini­ons, it is to make God a stale for Sa­tan, to put the Divine Stamps to the Devils Merchandise, to make Heaven a disguise, a varnish for Hell.

Your last Proof is 2 Cor. 9. 13. Whiles by the experiment of this mini­stration they glorifie God for your pro­fessed subjection unto the Gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men.

It is [...], For [...], hoc charitatis officio palam de­clarata, Beza in 2 Cor. 9. 13. for the manifestation of compassion, God be­ing glorified whilst the poor are re­lieved, Graces being testified by Alms. Set this on the Tenter-hooks to be rack'd, what deduction can you wrest to your advantage.

The Corinthians were voluntarily [Page 54] charitable (no extorted bounty) when they were converted, what is this to the means how they were con­verted? If it were so, yet I formerly granted the means of the first Con­version to Christianity to be perswa­sive, not coactive.

The ANSWER.

To indulge to you, that they all persevered to the end (though that is not recorded, and I formerly specified the revolt of some) this doth not wound the constant Members of the Church of England, nor blemish the Church for those that are inconstant. If you object this, as a cognizance of a sepa­rate Church; I answer, you must yet plead your innocence, and leave the apology of perseverance (if you merit it) to another Generation. But alas, doth not the present Generation testi­fie a daily Apostasie among your selves. [Page 55] Is not the abuse of Liberty by a licen­tiousness of prophaneness turned blas­phemy. Brownists corrupted to A­nabaptists, Anabaptists to Seekers, See­kers to Quakers. What can the next lees be? but the dreggs of Atheism, and Barbarism, unless the Jesuit angle in our troubled Waters. I relate not this scurrilously to scoff, but mournfully to condole. It is not the Sarcasm of my Pen, but the anguish of my soul. Hereby God is dishonoured, weak Christians perverted, the Protestant Religion scandalled, the Church of England, which was the envy of Christendom, become the obloquy of it.

The ANSWER.

If you press the same instance of [Page 56] the first institution, as your Method and Conclusion imports, that addition is expressed in the 41 verse. No de­scription precedes in that verse, but that they willingly heard the Word, and were baptized. And the same day were added (to the Church in Bezas translation) three thousand souls. The next verse denotes their progress after admittance to be Members of the Church. All those Fruits recited of Gods Sacred Ordinances. The Apostles doctrine, Acts. 2. 42. fellowship, distribution, break­ing of bread and prayers, grow in our Parochial Assemblies. Though these our clusters may be sower Grapes to your separate Palats, yet we hope, be­ing sweetned by Christ merits, they may be accepted as delicious Sacrifices by a gracious God.

The 47. verse expresly insisted on in your Letter, relates the succeeding daily spreading of the Gospel, and therein the recompence of the Con­verts, not the apparence of their Con­version ( And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved.)

You deny most of our Parochial [Page 57] Churches to be in the state of Salvati­on. They stand or fall to their own Master; your self must appear before the same dreadful Tribunal. 1 Cor. 4. 5. Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness. I pray suspend your judgement till the Day of Judge­ment. Then the Sheep shall be sorted, severed from the Goats. Till then touching the damnation of others it becomes you to be a Sceptick rather than a Critick. Those you condemn have the seed of immortality (the Word of God) they have the Seals of the Divine Promises (the Sacraments) they invoke God for remission, for whatever they offend him in. To pre­vent an eternal wrack, they cast An­chor on the Merits of their Redeemer, ( Whosoever believeth on him, shall not perish, Job. 3. 16. but have everlasting life.) They believe, though with much frailty; yet they implore mercy for that frailty; beseeching God to strengthen their weak belief, to help their unbelief, to pardon their misbelief. This is a state of infirmity, not of infidelity.

As to your exception. There may [Page 58] be a doctrinal state of Salvation, where there is not a practical evidence of Sanctification. There may be Sap in the Root, when there is no Verdure in the Branches, as in David, who wel­tered in lust and blood for the space of a year (as the Jewish Doctors com­pute) and yet trod not out of the pale, even of the visible Church: How de­formed would the complexion of Da­vids Soul appear in the glass of your censure (his lineaments being defaced with Murther and Adultery) yet the Divine Character is a specious testi­mony of approbation. A man after Gods own heart. To omit Solomon, whom notwithstanding the uncomely hue of an unholy life, you will not confi­dently exclude from being interested; owned among Gods people, nor yet in a hovering suspence subscribe to the Academick irresolution of Petrus Te­norius, Lovin. in Pro­leg. in Eccles. who caused him to be painted in his Chappel, one half in Heaven, the other in Hell. I shall recommend in this case to your serious consideration two pregnant instances. The first is of Asa who is recorded by the Holy Ghost, 2. Chron. 15. 17. That his heart was perfect all his [Page 59] days (or upright as most Translations express) before the Lord (for the il­lustration of the Original) He worshipped God all his days, Puro corde de­um coluit. Va­tabl. with a pure and sincere heart, saith Vatablus. And yet in the next Chapter, offences of a very black grain are charged upon him, his con­fidence in an army of flesh, resting on the King of Aram, in the seventh verse his ungracious indignation, incensed he was against the Prophet, whom he imprisoned ( Then Asa was wroth with the Seer, and put him into prison, vers. 10.) His tyrannical oppression ( He oppressed certain of the people at the same time, vers. 10.) Lastly, his de­sertion of God in his visitation ( He sought not the Lord in his disease, but to the Physicians, vers 12. My second instance is Lot, who in his deport­ment towards Abraham upon the dif­ference started, acquitted himself nei­ther humble nor charitable, whose magnified Hospitality was tainted with impiety, an unholy overture (to be his Daughters Pandor for to be a Pro­tector of Strangers) that checked with the Principles of Nature, and of Grace. But his distemper and his incest were [Page 60] monstrous blemishes, as if he would transfer Sodom to Zoar; a reiterated distemper and incest, wherein his drunkenness did not abate, but aggra­vate the guilt and horror of his wan­tonness (the cause being directly vo­luntary, though not the effect.) In this addition this cumulation of wicked­ness, the offence was the more heinous, because Gods deliverance was exceed­ing gracious. The meditation of the burning of Sodom should have kindled his zeal, not his lust, should have pro­cured his Holiness, not his dissolute­ness; yet notwithstanding these Crimes and Prodigies, St Peter recites him with no branded Epithet. 2 Pet. 2. 7, 8. 'Tis just Lot, and vexed his righteous soul, (not his incestuous.)

From these Instances I observe, that God judgeth not as man, not accord­ing to the outward integrity, but the inward sincerity. A manifest offender may be a secret penitentiary. I press this only to moderate your rigor, to allay your acrimony in censuring, not to animate the security of others in sinning. I wish I could write and speak like Pericles, Thunder and [Page 61] Lightning to terrifie, to blast their prophaneness.

But you prove your black doom out of 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10. Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the king­dom of God? Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate persons, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revi­lers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Parishes I hope are not Idolaters, &c. Suppose your application to some parochial Members. The Apostle threatned not so much actual as habi­tual customary sinners, Joh. 3. 8. as in St. Johns determination ( He that committeth sin is of the Devil) 'Tis [...], He that drives wickedness as a trade, contrives it as a design, pursues it as a delight. However you understand your quotation (whether of such as are actu­ally or habitually vitious) the menace is not fix'd on the Delinquent, unless impenitent. Our Parochial Churches cannot be pronounced by you to have split on this Rock of impenitency.

The ANSWER.

If your Rule for admission be rigo­rously pressed, how can men of diffe­rent judgements, and repugnant spirits be admitted into separated Churches? Are not Contentions, Divisions, car­nal brands? ( Whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, 1 Cor. 3. 3. are you not carnal?)

The visibility of Church Members and Saints is no more compatible with the profession of gross Errours and Heresies in Doctrine, than the mani­festation of foul vices of enormities in practice.

[Page 63] And yet I presume you will not un­church at once all the Anabaptists, and other erroneous factious assemblies; nor among your selves exclude all such who have been admitted, notwith­standing some spiritual sins, perhaps not undiscerned, which if granted are pollutions of visible sanctity, no less than justly blamed Carnalities.

As for the Apostolical practice ob­jected, as a pattern not copied out by the Church of England in admission of Members. I pray distinguish the times of the infancy of a Church, and the proficiency, the growth of it. A pro­ficiency of age was required in the in­fancy of the Church, an infancy of age allowed to be admitted in the pro­ficiency of the Church (by Baptism.) For I understand no other Church ad­mission or imitation but that. Were persons in some measure ripen'd for years and intellectuals only to be ad­mitted Members of the Church of England (as in the Apostles time) the dispute of a visible qualification were no impertinency.

I pray add to this consideration the Constitution of the Church of Eng­land [Page 64] in point of Confirmation (in imi­tation of the Primitive Purity of Chri­stianity) without this debarring, any reception to the Eucharist: Which to a calm Opponent, will vindicate her admitting of Members, and em­bracing them. But to return more closely to your own Track.

The first Constitution you insist on, doth not prop your separation, no nor yet the following practices you alledge, but instance in no particulars (Falla­cies being fairly shrowded in Genera­lities.) What Visibility of Sanctity was in Simon Magus, Acts 8. 13. He believed and was baptized, that is, he professed, pretended that he be­lieved.

There was no other visible Saint­ship conspicuous in Philip the Eunuch, before his admission to the Church, Acts 9. 39, 40. but a naked profession ( I believe that Jesus Christ is that Son of God.) The Jaylor and his Family were constituted Members of the Church (baptized) upon no other sanctified account than their attention to the Gospel preached, and a single exercise of compassion ( Wash­ing the stripes of Paul and Silas.) Acts. 16. 32, 33. Those [Page 65] additional Testimonies of rejoycing, and believing recorded in the 40 th. verse were improvements, perfections after their admission, not endowments, qualifications before it.

It is indeed expressed of Cornelius and his Domesticks, that they were inspired, before they were baptized, ( The holy Ghost fell on them which heard the word, Acts 10. 44.) Besides the ex­traordinary Season, well suiting with an extraordinary inspiration; as for the appearing of this inspiring, speaking with tongues, it was gratia gratis data, not gratum faciens (as the School-men distinguish) a Grace, a Gift for the e­dification of others, not for the Salva­tion of themselves.

As touching real Saints, you ac­knowledge that the Apostles, who had a far greater spirit of discerning than your selves, were deceived: They had a more discerning, but under favour, a less condemning Spirit. Yours is the Spirit of Eliah, not of Paul, of Moses, not of Christ: It savours of Mount Sina, not Sion. The Apostles were deceived in misapprehending e­vil men to be good, but you in mis­apprehending [Page 66] good men to be evil. They took Wolves for Sheep, be­cause in Sheeps cloathing, because do­ctrinally Christians; But you take Sheep for Wolves, because stragling, because practically Pagan. Nay, they are scarce allowed to be Sheep, when themselves stray not out of the Fold, because mingled with Wolves. This is the less innocent misconstruction. But you alledge you are directed by a well guided, not blinded Chari­ty. That Charity that hath the Divine conduct is not like Lamia in Plutarch putting off the spectacles at home, and putting them on abroad, but is dim without, Vox à Perperie fratribus con­ficta quorum procacitas fabu­lis nobilitata. and quick sighted within. Vaunts not it self, insults not, 1 Cor. 13. 4. ( [...]) thinketh not evil, Erasm. vel à no­mine, [...] qu. [...], secundum He­sych. or imputeth not evil to any (as Valla and Eras. interpret it ( [...]) 1 Cor. 13. 5. Charity shall cover a multitude of faults, (1 Pet. 4. 8.) nay, an univer­sality; many for all, as all for many, being reciprocal Phrases in the Scrip­ture idiome. It hath a present effica­cy, doth cover (according to the Sy­riack and Vulgar Latin Translations.) This being compared with Prov. 10. [Page 67] 12. (whence it is probably esteemed, to be transcribed) it must be under­stood of the offences of others. Cha­rity doth not light a Torch to blaze, but spread a vail to conceal, to en­wrap them in obscurity, and silence; ra­ther resembling Briareus with an hun­dred hands to relieve distresses; then Argos, with an hundred eyes to espie of­fences. An humble merciful errour (out of the Sphere of our own Chage) is more reconcileable with a well guided Charity, than an over severe censorious truth.

This Charity extenuates small lapses, Excusa intentiō ­nem si opus non potes; puta ig­norantiam, puta subreptionem, puta casum. Quod si omnem omnino dissimu­lationem rei cer­titudo recusat, suade nihil­ominus ipse tibi, & dicito apud temet ipsum: Vehemens nimis tentatio: Quid de me illa fe­cisset si accepis­set in me simili­ter potestatem. Bernard. serm. 40. in Cantic. aggravates not great, in doubtful cases is a candid interpreter, in manifest crimes mourns, but condemns not. Take St. Bernards descant on your own note (for the guidance of Charity) In the failing of others, excuse the in­tention, if you cannot the action, charge it on the score of ignorance, surprizal, casualty; If an offence be heinous, notorious, not to be defend­ed or concealed, reflect upon your self with this Application. The Tempta­tion was over vehement, if it had been in me thus prevalent, how had I been [Page 68] foiled. To conclude this point, which alone may serve to unsting your sepa­ration. In your rigorous sentencing of Parochial Churches, your Zeal may be greater than your Charity, and that Zeal perhaps more enflamed than en­lightned. Sit zelus dis­cretus, benevo­lus, constans. Gers. Gerson requires to the tem­perature of Zeal, Prudence, Benevo­lence, Perseverance.

The ANSWER.

Mr. Hooker was a sober stickler for Unity and Uniformity, [...]. But if my memory be not a fraudulent Record, there is no such passage extant in his Ecclesiastical Po­licy, though I confess it consonant to his weighty Judgement, if rightly understood. The inconvenience of [Page 69] your separate Churches is a conse­quence proved by your concession of the convenience of our Parochial Churches. A convenience it is of great antiquity, and importance. I shall take their rise in the Western Church from E­varistus in the beginning of the second Century. Sabell. Enn. 7. l. 4. Platina in vit. Evarist. & Dion. besides the testimony of Damas. Onuph. Polyd. Virg. de In­vent. They were afterward more disperst and regulated by Diony­sius in the year 267, and by Marcellus in the year 305. From which date the Parochial Division was generally embraced in all Christian Territories. Constantine the Great, the first Chri­stian Emperour did by a solemn Law suppress all separate Churches, allow­ing no Religious Assemblies, but in Cathedral or Parochial Churches for the prevention of clandestine Heresies and Schismes. Simplicius was round with Victorinus, a famous Orator con­verted from Paganism to Christianity, but sequestring himself from Parochial Congregations (I will not account you in the Sacred List of Christians, unless I see you in the Church among them) A penalty was enacted for absentors without necessary Diversions by the Elibertine Council, Elib. Conc. Cant. 21. the year 310. The [Page 70] Great Council of Chalcedon did de­bar any Ordination of Ministers [...], Conc. Chalced. Can. 6. without a particular Ti­tle, or interest, without a Parochial Charge. A provident course (to restrain vagrant Levites) seconded, and re­inforced by diverse succeeding Coun­cils. This was the wisdom of the Primitive Christians. But you object, this amounts only to a humane consti­tution. A Parochial Church is of a mixt nature; partly Divine, partly Humane. There is a threefold consi­deration of a Divine Institution.

First, for the matter as well as the Power, the Author of it. This is Gods own Law, simply and pure­ly Moral, its subject being absolutely good in it self, if commanded (in an E­dict) absolutely evil in its self, if coun­termanded (in an Interdict, a Prohibi­tion.) This Law is universally reduci­ble to a natural dictate, a principle imprinted in the Souls of men: Of this stamp and mould are the Branches of the Moral Law, the Precepts of both Tables.

Secondly. There is a Divine Con­stitution, not for the convincing equi­ty [Page 71] of the Matter, but the binding Au­thority of the Power, the external im­position of God, as a Lawgiver. Such was Gods charge to our First Parents touching the prohibited Fruit in Paradise; The eating whereof was not forbidden because evil, but evil be­cause forbidden.

3. Thirdly, a Constitution is Divine for the Matter, and not the Power, not immediately, but mediately, when the Precepts of men are grounded upon the Laws of God, on the Rules of Di­vine Equity.

In the present Question touching Pa­rochial Churches, The constitution is not entirely humane or positive (in the Schoolmens expression) It is Divine in the third Consideration, because of its foundation. For though the cir­cumstantial individual respect (the pre­sent limits of Parishes as now sorted) be humane, yet the substantial respect, that there be a regular limitation for bounds to Ministers and People, is im­plicitely comprehended in these two grand Apostolical Canons, 1 Cor. 14. 26, 40. Let all things be done to edification. Let all things be done decently, and in order. The one being [Page 72] the spiritual Canon, the other the Ec­clesiastical; or the one diverting us from a pompous superstitious gayness, the other from a disordered, unbeauti­fied rudeness in Religion.

There is yet a more special Divine Foundation touching the substantial part. That Pastors and Flocks should have their distinct Relations and Limits, this being warranted by Apostolical Precept and Practice. Acts 14. 23. Apostoli planta­tas Ecclesias commiserunt propriis pastori­bus, Jun. & Trem. When Paul and Barnabas had ordained elders in every Church. They committed the Churches they planted to several peculiar Pastors, as Junius and Tremelius expound it. Thus St. Paul left Titus in Creet (which is titled by Homer [...], Il. 2. dignified with an hundred Cities, to ordain Elders in every City, 1 Tit. 5. That so none should be destitute of its own Presby­ter, [...]. Theoph. its constituted Pastor, its local setled Minister. Hereby the labour (in the Ministerial Charge) becomes lighter, the care the exacter, saith Theoph.

The Apostle knits together the mu­tual special tye of Duty, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves, for they watch for your [Page 73] souls, Heb. 13. 17. as they that must give an account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief, for that is not profitable for you.

These Duties cannot commodiously, conscienciously be discharged, without distinction of charges, designation, restriction of places. Vigilance for souls is obstructed by distance. The account also must needs be hudled, when the charge is confused. The Apostles had a general Oecumenical commission qualified with unparallel'd endowments (for Languages, for Mi­racles) suitable to such dispersed, un­bounded employments. The Time, Message, and Messengers were extra­ordinary. This universall Embassy is not exemplary.

Our bounded Parochial Churches are but Copies of the Jewish division by Synagogues, which though they were not of Divine Right à priori by Injunction, yet they were à posteri­ori by the approbation of Christ, and the Apostles, and of greater Antiqui­ty, than the Temple it self. These Parochial Boundaries are singular Ex­pedients for Piety and Regularity, Psal. 74. 8. not [Page 74] only convenient but necessary (as to order and obedience in this Nation) till there be a valid legal repeal of so valid and legal a constitution.

The ANSWER.

You profess you will embrace the Society of Godly Professors in Doctrine and Practice, though Parochial; I demand how far, perhaps for united Devotion and Attention (for publick Prayers and Sermons) not for Sacra­mental [Page 75] Duties (by the mildest Princi­ples of semiseparatism) there must be a Reformation of Discipline, an ex­act Shibboleth, a new Covenant, a par­ticular satisfaction for the Holiness, the suitableness of disposition to pre­cede, to qualifie for these. What do you indulge the most accomplish'd holiest Parochial Christian more, than to a Mahumetan, an Indian, whom you will not deprive of these Expedi­ents for Conversion, as subservient to the collecting of a Church.

You will not separate from Doctri­nal, and Practical Professors in Pa­rishes; but it is upon this tacite con­dition, that they separate from Paro­chial Congregations. You will not communicate with them in such a mix­ture. So that this solemn flourish, if sifted, will be resolved into the empti­est kind of Fallacy, Petitio principii. The begging of the Question.

You transfer the separation on our Parochial Churches. This Divinity is as Orthodox, as Copernicus his Philo­sophy (that the Earth moves, and the Sun stands still) It is not unlike the Opt [...]ck mistake of those, that first set [Page 76] out to Sea, who launching out of a Haven, imagine the Port the Shore moves, departs from them, not they from the Port the Shore.

Beware lest your self be imbarqued in a floating Vessel, whilst the Church of England is fixt on a Rock. It sepa­rates not from you, it was never a Branch of your Tree, a Member of your Body, but you of its.

But you charge us with the cause of the separation, having withdrawn our selves from our first Covenant. It is violated, not abrogated, though not punctually observed, yet not absolutely renounced, a disobedience, but not a defiance. Though withdrawn, yet we make our penitent approaches to the Throne of Grace, to renew our Co­venant of Baptism by the Eucha­rist.

What withdrawing do you pitch on to warrant your separating, not from discipline: We never embraced yours. This is confest by your selves, no foundation of separation; Not from [Page 77] Doctrine: This you tax not. There remains for the sole cause, a practical prophaneness. This is a fallacious ob­jection. Non causa pro causa. A false cause for a true.

Were not the Sons of Eli practical­ly vitious, 1 Sam. 2. 12. scandalous Sons of Belial? yet the people that communicated with them, were Gods people in the 29 th verse. Though men were induced to abhor the Sacrifices for the Priests impieties in the 17 th verse, yet thereby they were tempted to transgress ( You make the Lords people to transgress, Efficitis ne hic populus veniat ad oblatas vi­ctimas. in the 24 verse) This transgression was a separation, a deserting the Assembly. Not to serve the Lord (according to the Septuagint) to wit, Vatabl. [...]. Sept. publickly with the Congregation.

This visible prophaneness being re­corded in every visible Church, specifi­ed in Scripture without the effect, or attempt of severing, disjoynting in cele­brating Gods Ordinances, renders your separation as unexcusable, as it is un­warrantable.

Adams Family was the one and only visible Church ( una & unica) for a time; therein there was a Cain as well [Page 78] as an Abel, both sacrificed, though both were not sanctified.

Cains pollution was not covert. A­bel brought of the firstlings of his flock, and the fat thereof, Gen. 4. 4. [...], saith Philo, the first and the best. But of Cain it is expressed, he brought of the Fruit, not the first Fruits, [...], saith Chrysostom, what first came to hand, his oblation was scant­ed for the quantity (according to the Sceptuagint, and the Greek Fathers) at least tainted in quality. [...]. Sept. In Abra­hams Family (a visible Church) there was an Ismael as well as Isaac (in Isaac's house an Esau, as well as Jacob. A­mong the Patriarchs ( Jacobs Issue) Simeon and Levi, with Joseph and Ben­jamin. In Noahs Ark (a Type of the Church) there was a Cham, a Judas a­mong the Apostles, a Nicholas among the Deacons.

To omit the manifest mixtures of the Jewish, Corinthian, Galatian, A­sian Churches (recited in the second and fifth Chapters of the Revel.) Each whereof was a Grove wherein every Tree was not a Myrtle, an Edifice, wherein every Stone was not a Marble. [Page 79] The Church delineated by the Apostles Pencil, Ephes. 5. 27. without spot and wrinkle, is to be apprehended as adorned by Christs imputed Merits, as with re­splendent Robes, not as dress'd with its own sordid Raggs, not as clad with its own frailties, stained with its own deformities. 'Tis expressed in the front of the verse (That he might pre­sent it to himself a glorious Church) Christ presents the Church specious, glorious in himself, but the Church exhibits not it self thus to the World.

The Church described holy and without blemish, ubicun (que) in his libris commemo­ravi Ecclesiam non habentem maculam aut rugam, non sic accipiendum est quasi jam sit, sed que praepa­ratur, ut sit quando appare­bit etiam glo­riosa. August. Retract. l. 2. c. 8. Sine macula & ruga non est in praesentia sed e­rit in die Jesu Christi. Pet. Mart. in l. Com. in the close of the same 27 verse, is not Militant but Trium­phant. The one is a Casket of true and false Pearls; the other a Cabinet of true Diamonds and Rubies to be se­lected and severed from the Counter­feit and adulterate, in the day that God shall make up his Jewels. But of this only [...], by way of illu­stration, as an anticipation of an ob­jection.

I proceed to those Texts you cite to justifie your separation, Ep. of Jude 19. These men separate themselves, be­ing sensual, having not the Spirit. This [Page 80] is generally applied by Expositors to Sectaries. Take heed this is not brutum fulmen, if rightly apprehend­ed, it is not to be sported but trembled at. We may play the Sophisters with men, but cannot delude our God.

This is a Bill to indict, no Plea to vindicate your separation; it is active, not passive, you separate your selves, (a spice of singularity) discard others. The Apostle shadows out the occasion of a real separation, an imaginary perfection keeping aloof from sensual men (as refined from such dross) as being spiritual. But the Apostle as­swageth this tumor, blasts this haughty fancy, checks it as a carnal symptom (being sensual, having not the Spirit.)

I shall recommend to you Mr. Per­kins Exposition of this Testimony, Mr. Perkins, on the Epistle of St Jude v. 9. com­paring it with his Comment to the same effect on the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians the 2 verse, and his Doctrinal Observation is this (I shall only abbreviate that descant he hath en­larged) It is a great sin for a man to separate himself from the Assembly of Gods people, Heb. 10. 25. It is our [Page 81] duty to keep Unity, Ephes. 4. 3. Up­on this Occasion he starts this Que­stion.

Whether if there be Errors in the Church, It is Mr. Per­kins express am­plification on the Epistle to the Galations the first Chap­ter and second verse. Is faults appear in the lives of Mini­sters and Peo­ple, so long as true Religion is taught, it is a Church, and so to be esteemed, and the Ministers must be heard, Matth. 23. 1. we may separate our selves? His Judicious Resolution is this. Er­rors are either practical in Manners, or doctrinal in Tenets. For vitious Man­ners we may not separate; Lot did it not. The Jews might not do it from the Scribes and Pharisees, because they sate in Moses Chair.

Though we may not separate from such corrupt persons in the publick Assemblies, yet we may in private conversation, 1 Cor. 5. 11.

If the Church err in Doctrine, it is to be considered whether the error be in a point substantial, fundamen­tal or not? if in a point substantial, fundamental, whether upon infirmity, or obstinacy? if of frailty, we may not separate, as in Corinth and Ga­latia.

If a Church err in the foundation openly, obstinately, a separation may [Page 82] be made, 1 Tim. 4. 5. (yet the error be­ing in some, not in all, it remains a Church as Corinth did.)

If the Error be in smaller points, not fundamental, we may not sepa­rate: They which build upon the foundation of hay and stubble of er­roneous opinon, may be saved, 1 Cor. 3. 25.

Mr. Perkins concludeth that no man can separate from the Church of Eng­land with a good Conscience, since it teacheth, obeyeth, believeth the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles. In the most justifiable cause of Separa­tion he requires examination, convi­ction, censure, (or condemnation.) To separate without examination is not Piety but Phrensie. Arist. l. 1. Eth. No man can judge aright of that (saith the Philoso­pher) whereof he is ignorant. No man can well determine, what he doth not well discuss. Qui ad pauca respicit de facili pronunciat.

2. To separate without conviction is levity, to be like clouds, hover­ing with every sudden gale of Do­ctrine.

Mr. Perkins condemns the want of [Page 83] Moderation in those, that condemn the Church of England without sufficient conviction.

If any object admonition by Books; take the same Authors resolute asserti­on, his asseveration for a satisfactory reply.

I say again, there are grosser faults in some of those Books, than any of the faults that they reprove in the Church of England, and that Books are not fit to convince, Mr. Perkins on the Epistle to the Galatians the first Chapter and second verse. especially a Church.

3. To separate without a Juridical Censure, an Authoritative, a Synodi­cal Doom, is at least a hasty irregu­larity.

Otherwise Separation paves a Causey to Confusion; Schisms will be endless, Synods needless.

If two or three Members of your new Collected Church, should sepa­rate from your Church, branding it to be a corrupt Church, not lawfully to be communicated with; your selves would esteem those two or three to be very inconsiderable for number or power, for to be ballanced with that Collected Church, whereof they are, [Page 84] or, as you alledge, ought to be Members. I pray consider, the disproportion is far greater betwixt your Collected Church, and the National Church of England.

To wind up this bottom: That you have been prudent in Examination, shall be [...], pass for granted; but it remains for [...], whether your conviction of the Church of England hath been sufficient, or your censure your condemnation. Nay, it is a Question put out of all Question negatively, since that the Church of England hath not been disproved by any Demonstrative Arguments upon Scripture Principles, to be no truly constituted Church; nor yet con­demned by any Synod. Till then I pray forbear to separate from it. I shall add by way of Prolepsis. If you here object, that in being thus scrupu­lous, you may be irrecoverably invol­ved in guilt, for want of a Synodical Condemnation, which is not in your power. I answer, In case of this de­fect there is allowable only a partial Separation in the Church, not a total from the Church. Or a Negative Se­paration, [Page 85] by not asserting, abetting, countenancing, owning erroneous Te­nets, or vitious enormous Practices; not a positive separation by constituting a new visible Church, by deserting the Old in its Religious Duties and As­semblies.

The best Christians in the Church of Corinth and Galatia, nay, St. Paul himself did separate no otherwise; when there was conspicuous in the one a tincture of Paganism, in the point of Resurrection; in the other a spot of Judaism, in point of Justificati­on. They severed doctrinally (as to those particulars) not personally, as to the sacred publick Ordinances.

As to your Quotation of St. Jude, I shall fortifie Mr. Perkins Judgement with Mr. Arthur Hildershams (upon John 4. 45. Lect. 35.) Such as separate from our Churches upon pretence of the corruptions, that are in them. These are marked with a black coal, by Jude 19. These be they who sepa­rate themselves, being sensual, having not the Spirit. But herein Christians must learn wisely to distinguish such as are unjustly separated by others from [Page 86] the Church Assemblies; and such as voluntarily separate themselves; These deserve to be called Schismaticks, and not the others. Neither are they to be counted Schismaticks, as though they dare not be Agents or Practisers of any corruption that remaineth in the Church, yet can bear and tolerate them as burthens, without forsaking the Church for them. To this sort I will say no more, but wish them well to weigh the Examples of Gods Ser­vants, that have been mentioned in this Doctrine, which frequented so diligently the publick Worship of God in Jerusalem, when there were far greater corruptions, both in the Priests, and People, and Worship it self, than can be found in ours. What Mr. Hildersham here winds up is un­ravel'd in his thirty sixth Lecture; Be­cause the Author is not lyable to your exception, and proceeds upon Scrip­ture Principles (your own appeal) who hath been reputed by Dr. Willet, Malleus Schismaticorum qui vulgo vo­cantur Brownistae, I shall here insert what himself hath dilated in his own Language without contracting or alter­ing it.

Hereupon Mr. Hildersham observeth, that our Saviour in commending the Worship and Religion of the Jews, makes himself one of their number, acknowledgeth himself a Member of their Church, professeth that himself did worship God as they did; from whence this Doctrine ariseth for our Instruction.

That those Assemblies that enjoy the Word and Doctrine of Salvation, though they have many corruptions remaining in them, are to be acknow­ledged the true Churches of God, and such as none of the faithful may make separation from.

We shall need no further proof of this Doctrine, than the example of our Saviour himself. If we consider of the one side how corrupt the state of the Jews Church was in his time, and on the other, how far our Saviour did communicate with them.

For the first, what the state of the [Page 88] Church was in his time, we may know, if we consider. First, What the Priests and Teachers were themselves, that had the ordering of God's Worship. Secondly, What the people were with whom he was to joyn in Gods Wor­ship. Thirdly, What the Worship it self was, wherein he was to commu­nicate.

First, The Priests and Teachers were ignorant and unlearned, Matth. 23. 16. Secondly, They were wicked and un­godly, Matth. 23. 3. Thirdly, They had a corrupt and unlawful entrance into their Calling, yea, even the high Priest himself. For whereas by Gods Ordinance he was to hold that Office during life, their Office was bought and sold, and made Annual, John 11. 49. Caiphas was high Priest for that year.

And what were the people? surely the most of them in all places were no­toriously and obstinately wicked. In Nazareth, where he had lived most; See what they were, Luke 4. 28, 29. All that were in the synagogue, when they heard this doctrine, were filled with wrath, and rose up, and thrust [Page 89] him out of the city, and led him to the edge of an hill to cast him down head­long. But were they better in other places. He upbraided all the cities, where most of his great works were done. Wo be to thee, Chorazin, Wo be to thee, Bethsaiada, Matth. 11. 20, 21. And were the people of Jerusalem any better. You shall perceive that by that affection they shewed at the Pas­sion of our Saviour, when Pilate a Gentile made such an offer to them. Luke 23. 18. All the multitude cryed at once, Not him, but Barabbas. And Matth. 27. 25. When Pilate had washed his hands, and protested Christs inno­cency, Then answered all the people, and said desperately, His blood be on us and our children.

Thirdly, The Worship it self that was used in the Church, had many corruptions in it. They used many superstitions, the observation whereof they urged more strictly than the commandments and Ordinances of God, Mark 7. 9. The Temple was pro­phaned, and made a den of thieves, Matth. 21. 12, 13. The Discipline and Censures of the Church were shame­fully [Page 90] abused, John 9. 22. The Jews had decreed, that if any did confess that Jesus was Christ, he should be Excommunicated ipso facto. The Do­ctrine was corrupt in many points, as you shall find, Matth. 5. 21, 46. Some corruptions also were crept into the Administration of the Sacraments; for they kept a day after our Saviour, who observed the just time appointed by God, John 19. 17. The day of his Passion was but the day of the Prepa­ration to the Passover.

Thus have we seen how corrupt the state of the Church was: And yet mark how our Saviour made no sepa­ration from it, but communicated with it in the Worship of God.

1. When he was an Infant, he was Circumcised, and by that Sacrament incorporated into the Church, Luke 2. 21.

2. When his Mother was purified, he was brought into the Temple, and presented to the Lord, and an oblati­on was given for him as for other chil­dren, Luke 2. 22.

3. He was content to be a hearer of such Teachers, that taught in the Church, Luk. 2. 46.

[Page 91] 4. He was every Sabbath wont to joyn in Publick Prayer with the Con­gregation that was at Nazareth, Luke 4. 16.

5. He received the Sacrament of Baptism in a Congregation of the peo­ple, Luke 3. 21. When all the people were baptized, he was baptized also.

6. He communicated in the Pass­over with the People and the Priests, John 2. 13.

7. He allowed his Disciples to hear these Teachers, Matth. 23. 12. Yea, he commanded the Leper, whom he had cleansed, to go and shew himself to the Priest, and offer his gift in the Temple, Matth. 8. 4.

The reasons why all men are bound to count such Assemblies true Churches as enjoy the Word and Do­ctrine of Salvation, and may not sepa­rate from them for their corruptions, are these.

1. So long as God continues his Word and Doctrine of Salvation to a people, so long it is evident God dwells among them, and hath not forsaken them. I will set my tabernacle among you: By which he meaneth his solemn [Page 92] Worship, whereof this is a principal part, Levit. 26. 11, 12. Psal. 76. 12. And till God hath forsaken a Church, none may forsake it. For shall we be holier, and hate corruption more than the Lord? It is no sufficient warrant for any to separate from a Church, be­cause it is guilty of such sins and cor­ruptions, as deserve God should for­sake it, and for which God hath threatned in his Word, that he will forsake it; till it may appear to us God hath indeed forsaken it, and put in ex­ecution that which he hath justly threatned against it, no man may forsake it. Though Adultery (either in Man or Wife) be a just cause of se­paration, and that the Bond of Wed­lock should be broken, so as the inno­cent party may justly forsake the offen­der, yet till a Bill of Divorcement have past between them, they still re­main Man and Wife, notwithstand­ing that sin. The Woman, whom her Husband hath wronged in that kind, is called his Wife, Mal. 2. 15. Esau just­ly deserved to loose the Prerogative of his Birth-right and Superiority he had over his Brother, when he had de­spised [Page 93] and sold it, Gen. 25. 34. And Saul to be deprived of his Kingdom; yea, God by his Decree and Oracle had said of Esau and Jacob: The elder shall serve the younger, Gen. 25. 23. and of Saul and David, that he had rejected the one, and appointed the other to Reign in his stead, 1 Sam. 13. 14. and 15. 23, 26, 28. And yet till the Lord saw it good to put this Decree and O­racle in execution, and actually to de­pose the one from his Birth-right, and the other from his Kingdom, Jacob acknowledgeth Esau his Superior, his Lord, Gen. 32. 4, 5. and so did David Saul, 1 Sam. 24. 7, 9. So though a Church, for the many corruptions in it be unworthy the name of Christs Church, and be also such as the Lord hath threatned to make no Church, yet till the Lord hath put this his threat in execution, and takes away his Ta­bernacle and Worship from it, it is still to be acknowledged and reve­renced, as the Church of Christ.

2. Because no separation may be made from those Assemblies, where men may be assured to find and attain Salvation. Lord to whom shall we go, [Page 94] thou hast the Word of eternal life? saith Peter to our Saviour, accounting this as a sufficient reason why they might not leave him, John 6. 68. But men may be sure to find Salvation in such Assemblies, where the Ministery of the Word and Doctrine of Salvation is continued. For the Word and Do­ctrine of Christ is called Salvation here: and Heb. 2. 3. because it is the ordinary means ordained of God to bring men to Salvation, Rom. 1. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 21. Yea it is at one time or o­ther effectual in all Gods Elect that do enjoy it.

James 1. 21. Calls it the engrafti­ed word, which is able to save your souls.

Use 1. To teach us what to judge of our Church, and the Brownists that separate from it. 1. We cannot de­ny it, but there is just cause of fear that God may take away his Taber­nacle from amongst us, and remove our Candlestick; Even the general decay of our first Love may cause us to fear it, Apoc. 2. 5. And that a great neglect of the Censures of the Church upon scandalous offenders, in respect [Page 95] of that the Apostle saith, A little lea­ven leaveneth the whole lump, 1 Cor. 5. 6. But especially the general increase of all filthy abominable sins in the Land, Deut. 32. 14. Eccles. 8. 6. Though we acknow­ledge our Church to be a true Church, yet we may not communicate with it in any corruptions that shall be detected or approved to be in it. Herein we have our Saviours Example to guide us, though he esteemed the Church of the Jews to be a true Church, and joyned with it in Gods Worship, yet would he not communicate with it in the least corruption, he would not use so much as their superstitious purifica­tion, Mark 7. 6, 7. when they put off the Passover a day longer than God ap­pointed, he would not joyn with them in that, Matth. 26. 17.

3. We should mourn for, and shew our dislike to those things that are e­vil in our Church, Ezek. 9. 4. So did Christ, Luke 19. 41. But we may not separate our selves, nor deny it to be a true Church, for the reasons above al­ledged.

Thus far Mr. Arthur Hildersham pro­ceeds in 36 Lect.

[Page 96] Your first Citation out of St. Jude hath hitherto detained me, and oc­casioned this copious Digression not impertinent to the main of the Que­stion.

Your next Testimony to acquit your selves, and to brand most of our people, is Acts 5. 13.

And of the rest durst no man joyn himself to them, but the people magnified them.

None durst joyn in an Hypocritical way, as Ananias and Saphira did. The rest may be expounded, either of the Church Members, who out of reverence kept distance from the Apo­stles (if compared with the 11 verse) Or else the rest were the potent Jew­ish Adversaries of the Apostles, who affrighted with that severe Miracle of Judicature, no sooner pronounced than executed on Ananias and Saphira, durst not assault or approach not [...], not close, or not encounter. The Syriack comprehends both.

Because after so rigorous miracu­lous a doom, the Believers reverenced the Apostles, or the Unbelievers [Page 97] dreaded, and the promiscuous multi­tude extolled them: Make what ratio­nal inference you please, it is an imper­tinence to this Question.

The ANSWER.

I have been often sadden'd and a­mazed at the tart confidence of some of your party in excepting, girding at a National Church, as if it were a strange Chimera, a ridiculous Para­dox (like the antient fate of the opi­nion of the avouching the Antipodes) Whereas there is a Domestical Church mentioned, Rom. 16. 5. ( Greet the church that is in their house) and in 1 Cor. 16. 19. ( With the Church that is in their [Page 98] house) This notion of a Church is your darling. I pray examine with sober reason without distemper of pas­sion or prejudice. Is there not a gra­dual ascent from a Church Oeconomi­cal, to a Church Oecumenical? What are Cities, Kingdoms, States, but Fa­milies dilated, multiplied? A Dome­stical Church is a National contracted; a National Church is a Domestical en­larged. A Parochial intervenes, of a larger extent than a Domestical, a lesser than a National. Such was the Church as Cenchrea. The Professors of saving Truth, if abridged within the narrow limits of a house are a Do­mestical Church, if more numerous disperst within the circuit, the Ter­ritories of a Nation, they are to be esteemed a National Church, though all Individuals of the Nation were not Professors.

The pregnant Scripture Testimonies should silence all Cavils touching this Title. Are there not recorded Churches of Judea, Samaria, Galilee? Act. 9, 31. A Church of Corinth, 1 Cor. 1. 1. 2 Ep. 1. 1. The Church of the Thessa­lonians, 1 Ep. 1. 1. 2. Ep. 1. 1. The [Page 99] Churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Per­gamus, Thyatira, Rev. 2. 1, 8, 12, 18. The Churches of Sardi, Philadelphia, Rev. 3. 1, 2, 10. Why then should the Church of England sound so prodigi­ous a name? Herein we swerve not from the Language of the purest An­tiquity, nor the Modern customary expression (use being the solemn di­ctator for words, ‘Quem penes arbitrium, jus (que) est, & nor­ma loquendi.)’

You will probably retort, all of the Nation are not of the Church of England, nor yet were all the Inhabi­tants of Samaria, Galilee, Smyrna, Phi­ladelphia Members of those Churches. Those that were, served to deno­minate. Inde denominatio unde do­minatio.

After Histories we need not en­quire for Prophesies, to examine whe­ther National Churches were fore­told when they are fulfilled.

That many Nations shall come in­to the Church, may be understood of the invisible Church, for Genera singu­lorum, [Page 100] of the visible Church for singula generum.

That of every Nation, Kindred and People, God will make up his Church, is true of the Church Catholick, of which your first citation may be un­derstood in the universal latitude pro­pounded. ( All nations shall flow to it.)

Your second Sacred Citation is Act. [...] 35. But in every nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

This demolisheth the partition of Judaism, repeals the engrossing pri­viledge of Palestine: This invests e­very Nation with a capacity of some Members of the invisible Church; it doth divest no Nation of a possibility of being an intire visible Church, even as the Jews were in an inclusive, though not as they were in an exclu­sive sense.

The ANSWER.

A National Profession of Christi­anity is no Jewish Paedagogy. It is oppositum, in apposito. Christs freeing us, relates to the Ceremonial, or the Moral Law. (The Judaical Law be­ing left indifferent to be renounced, or retained) The Ceremonial or Mosai­cal Law is annulled (only the equity of it excepted) The Synagogue is de­ceased mortua & mortifera (St. Austin expresseth it) dead and deadly under the Gospel.

The Moral Law is cancelled for the sting, the curse, not the rigor, the observance. It is still a Pilot to steer, though no absolute Judge to sen­tence.

But this double specified Liberty ac­quits nor Person, nor Nation from sub­mission to the yoke of our Redeemer, from being visibly, professionally Chri­stians.

To your next Charge, I answer briefly and summarily. The Officers [Page 102] and Worship asserted in the Church of England (and consequently in the Nation) are for the grounds and essen­tials of Divine Institution. (when you attempt to disprove I shall be ready to ratifie what I assert) These Essentials are general for all, the additionals on­ly are humane, and perhaps peculiar to the Church of England: Which ad­ditionals are accidental, 1 Cor. 14. 26, 40. ritual Cere­monial. In these Ceremonials the A­postles forecited Precepts are piously observed, and St. Austins caveats ju­diciously not neglected; For number not many (no Judaical excess) for sig­nification most weighty (useful for e­difying as well as beautifying) for ob­servation most easie (that they be not plummets to depress, but wings to raise our affections in Divine Ordinances.)

The ANSWER.

We avouch not the Climate, but the [Page 103] Parentage, the descent, a Christian ex­traction in any Nation gives right to the Covenant, and seals of the Cove­nant: this renders Infants capable of being baptized, and therein imitate Church Members.

In Babes that are the issue of pro­fest Believers, we acknowledge a fe­deral, though not a personal, actual holiness. They have seminal claim, a radical right of admission into the visible Church. It is Gods promise to Abraham, the Father of the Faith­ful. Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my covenant be­tween me and thy seed after thee.

Wherein though the invisible graces are assured to inward Believers, yet the visible signs appertain to outward Professors, the Sons, the Heirs appa­rent of Abraham: The legal Seal of the Covenant (Circumcision) being exchanged to the Evangelical (Bap­tism) St. Peter builds the Jews he­reditary Title, and interest as to Bap­tismal reception into the Church, upon this foundation. Acts. 2. 39. The promise is made to you and your children.

The ANSWER.

That in the year 598, was not the first conversion in this Climate, though magnified by the Romanists to heighten the Saxon obligation to Rome, because Austin the Monk was employed by Pope Gregory the first. Nor yet was the complexion of Christianity first discernable in the year 180, though the Jesuits own the dawning of the Go­spel in the British Climate about that time, for to vindicate the dependance of the British Church upon the Ro­man, because of King Lucius bap­tized by a delegate from Eleutherius.

Not to carp at your Chronology, though I find not that punctual year of 180, fixed by any Chronologer. ( Po­lanus [Page 105] mentions 188, Baron. 183. Polyd. Virg. 182. Balaeus 179. Mar. Scotus 177. Forsedia 169, &c.) However not to insist on, or debate that nicity. The first Evangelical apparence was of an elder date than the time specified in your Letter (the year 180.) Gildas mona­chus testatur Britannos ab i­nitio orti Evan­gelii Christia­nam accepisse religionem, Bal. in Cent. 1. de Jos. Arimath. by above an entire Century of years. Gildas an ancient renowned Historian (as cited by Balaeus Cent. 1.) doth testifie the Morn­ing Beams of Christianity, to have been darted among the Britains. Hence the British Church hath been titled Primogenita Ecclesia (the first born Church) Of all the Provinces, Britannia omni­um provincia­rum primi pub­liciter Christi nomen recepit, Sabbell. Enn. 7. l. 7. this is famed by Sabbellicus, for the first celebrating of Christianity. Cre­dible. Testimonies of Capgravius, Scropus, Polyd. Virgil. do fix on the year 63, Susceptam fidem Britanni us (que) ad tempora Dio­clesiani princi­pis inviolatam, integramque quieta pace ser­vabant. Beda Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 4. for the conversion of the Bri­tish Nation. From which Epocha the British preserved the lustre of an un­corrupted purity, till o'ercast with the tempest of the Dioclesian persecution, as Beda acknowledgeth.

But during this time, you will not allow a constituted Church: Brit annorum in­accessa Romanis loca Christo sub­dita. Tertul. adv. Judios. As if Ter­tullians flourish of the British being subdued to Christ, not to Caesar, the one [Page 106] having erected a Throne, where the other durst not set his foot ( Territa quaesitis ostendit terga Britannis) had been but an empty flourish, a windy vaunt.

Your dissatisfaction being expressed without your reason to confirm it, I need not dilate to confute it.

The ANSWER.

My Replies will much more need an Apology than your Query, wherein I have been partly necessitated to be copious for discussion, for illustration, by examining those Texts you quote only, unfolding what you enwrap, because I would not like Heraclitus be entitled [...], a dark obscure [Page 107] Sophister. One Scripture genuine quotation, if pertinently, demon­stratively pressed shall convince and captivate me, whereas a thousand, if loosely and inconsiderately applied, will not startle me from my station.

There is I confess a Divine Separa­tion, not in your notion, you raise se­paration to Heaven (as Hortensius did Eloquence in Tullies Censure) to ad­vance your self with it.

I shall encounter with your Texts in the rank you muster them.

The first is Jer. [...]5. 19.

If thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth, let them return to thee, but return not thou to them.

This is a Doctrinal, Si Sermonibus segregaveris Hieron. in Hier. 15. 19. not a personal separation. It is Gods special conso­lation to the Prophet Jeremy. If by thy Instructions, thy Sermons, thou shalt separate or distingush betwixt the sacred or the wicked, &c. So Je­rom expounds it.

If by Prophecying thou discernest what is good, Si prophetando discernis quic­quid bonum à malo, & sine ac­ceptione persona­rum verum do [...]es & falsum abdicas, tanquam si ego ipse loquerer, &c. Jun. & Tremel. in Her. 15. 19. from what is evil, &c. so Junius and Tremelius gloss it.

[Page 108] Or as others comment, Si separaveris pre­tiosum à vili i. e. si animas Chri­sti sanguine pre­tioso redemptas à vilitate pec­cati per tuam doctrinam, &c. Lyra in Hier. 15. 19. If thou con­vertest those souls that are redeemed by the precious Blood of Christ, from vile, vitious courses, then thou shalt be as my mouth, thou shalt discharge the part of Gods Embassador ( In voce Ho­minis tuba Dei, as St. Austin expresseth it) In the voice of man there will be the trumpet of God. Let them return to thee, but return not thou to them; let them be reclaimed, be not thou de­praved.

The sense and scope of this Text is an alien to the Question, it is far sepa­rated from your separation.

Your second Quotation is at as great a distance, and needs no other solu­tion than the former.

Some Expositors understand this of Ceremonial oblations (the Mosaical differences not observed betwixt clean and unclean beasts and sacrifices) If this charge concerns Moral Actions; The Geneva Fr. notes refer us to Levit. 11. 47. Indifferenter immolantes ani­malia immunda & munda, Lyra. in Ezek. 22. 26. God [Page 109] hereby reproves the Priests, Non docuerunt plebem quae es­set differentia puri & immun­di, Vatabl. in Ezek. 22. 26. because the Priests reproved not the people for their Transgressions.

The Priests were indeed ordained, authorised by God, Instructors of the people, and ordinary Judges in these cases, who yet never sentenced, nor reprehended the holy for mingling with the prophane in a divine Service or Sacrifice.

1. I grant a Ministerial or Prophe­tical Separation by declaring Gods Commandments, by denouncing his Judgments.

The neglect of this is taxed by Je­remy and Ezekiel in your instances.

2. I allow a Professional Separati­on, which may be branch'd to devo­tion, compunction, reprehension, by praying against wickedness, by mourn­ing for it, by rebuking it.

This was the frequent practice of the Prophets and the Apostles.

3. I yield an Ecclesiastical or Juri­dical Separation, which is Excommu­nication, to be of Divine Impression.

But your local separation from those Christian Brethren you account un­holy in those Ordinances you acknow­ledge [Page 110] holy discovers no stamp of the Sacred Spirit, no warrant out of those Prophets you cite, and therefore can­not pass for [...], (in St. Ignati­us words) for Gods current uncon­trolled Coin, having not the true image, superscription of the Sanctuary.

Your two next Quotations, Matth. 7. 6. Matth. 18. are repeated and re­inforced within a few lines where they shall be discussed.

But when divers were hardned, and believed not, but spake evil of the way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, dis­puting daily in the School of one Tyran­nus.

After three Months ineffectual tri­al, not a private ordinary person, but an Apostle (who had an immediate vocati­on and commission an infallible inspira­tion, an universal jurisdiction) quitted, obdurate, obstinate Jews, who under­mined the foundation, [...], Act. 19. 9. who blasted the superstruction of Christian Religion: who were branded for notorious, scan­dalous, blasphemy, infidelity, impeni­tency. In this exigency he withdrew [Page 111] the Disciples from a Synagogue to the School of Tyrannus (a sort of Semina­ry of Piety and Literature, according to Maimonides) A private collegiate Academy for the Prophets and the Prophets Sons, what will you hence infer?

Therefore you ought to separate from profest Christian Believers for their practical defailances.

The proof fits the conclusion as well as Goliahs Armour did Davids body; or Elisha's demensions stretch'd upon the the Child.

Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and receive not of her plagues.

I shall not examine the literal re­striction (as a prediction of Alaricus Siege, Dr. Hammond in his Annot. on Rev. 18. 4. wherein the Emperor Honorius with others escaped from Rome to Ra­venna) Take this Testimony in the most advantageous Latitude, yet there is to be distinguish'd a Negative Sepa­ration of not approving, and a posi­tive of deserting. There may be an egress out of Babylon, not by the paces of the body, but the affections of the [Page 112] souls. It is emphatically expressed (that ye be not partakers of her sins) of her sins, not of her virtues; of her sinners, not with her sinners, especially in those exercises, wherein they are not sinners.

I need not perplex my self to ener­vate the force of your Argument. This will not prop your separation, till you prove the Church of England to be Babylon, at least in a figurative accep­tion to be ranked, parallel'd with it for infidelity, for idolatry. Till then your supposition is an imputation. It is Aristotles Maxime, One absurdity be­ing granted, a thousand may be in­ferred.

Take heed lest you desert Bethel for Babel, Jerusalem for Samaria, lest like Ixion you embrace a Cloud for Juno, lest you exchange a beautified paradise for a Tohu bohu, a disordered Chaos; an uniform exquisite Garden for an unnurtured confused Wilderness, lest your Flowers be not Roses but Net­tles, your Plants not Vines but Bri­ars.

The last Citation is of the same grain, 2 Cor. 6. 17. Wherefore come out [Page 113] from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.

This as the former Testimony is a Transcript of Isaiah 52. 11. Depart, depart ye; go out from them, and touch no unclean thing: go out of the midst of her, be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lord.

This charge at the first blush is con­fined to the Priests and Levites. [...] ad Ju­daeos ut quam­primum exeant à Babylone quòd multi [...]se miscu­erant Babyloni­is. Nihil idola­tricum assumite: ita praecones E­vangelii dicunt discedite, quod fit dupliciter. Primò cum discedimus à Ba­byl. spir. à Papismo. Secundo, cum nos segregamus ah impuris confessione, conversione. Scull. in Is. 62. 11. The Jewish Rabbines expound it as a Pre­cept not to wave the opportunity of Cyrus consent for the Jews returning from Babylon to Jerusalem.

The Fathers of the Church enlarge this Precept to a Prophesie (a mixture of both) for the Christians retiring from Jerusalem to Pella, Euseb. in Eccles. Hist. l. 3. c. 4. before the de­struction of it (which is testified by Eu­sebius to have been accomplish'd) The further application of it extends not to your separation. Take the English Mar­ginal Annotations. He warns the faithful, not to pollute themselves with [Page 114] the superstitions of the Babylonians.

Junius and Tremelius interpret the departure repentance, Eripite vos resi­piscentia è tantis malis in qui­bus adhuc ver­sati estis, & sanctificationi vestrae incumbite, Jun. & Trem. in Is. 52. 11. the separation sanctification.

What our English Translation ren­ders, Be ye clean. The Septuagint, [...], Be ye separated; Estius ob­serves the separation prescribed to be for opinion and affection.

The Geneva Divines run the same descant, Adonnez vous à sainctetè. Voyez sus, vers. 1. The Gen. Fr. notes on Es. 53. 11. and on the first referred to seras entirement sanctifiée & repurgée de tous scandales. that this separation ought to be purifying, sanctifying.

The Apostle doth no otherwise press it to the Corinthians, Quod Apostolus dicit intelligen­dum de separa­tione spirituali. Aq. in 2 Ep. ad Cor. 6. 17. for a mental not a local discession; spiritual (as Aqui­nas distinguisheth) not corporal.

Not to touch an unclean thing, Judaei cum ob­viam venirent Gentili aut Sa­maritano dice­bant ne attingas me. Drus. in l. 6. Praec. is not like the Jews shy distance from the Gen­tiles & the Samaritans; who upon a sud­den approach startled and admonish'd, Immundum non tangit qui ad peccatum nulli consentit. Aug. in l. 3. contra Parm. Displicere est non tangere. Lyra in 2 Cor. 6. 17. touch me not: but not to touch is to disgust, to reprehend, not to gloze, not to palliate offences.

[Page 115] I pray observe the object of the se­paration (expressed by the Apostle, in that sixth Chapter of the second Epi­stle to the Corinthians, cited by you.) It is the Infidel in verse 15, Darkness in verse 14. for the spirits of darkness; idols in verse 16. for idolaters, accord­ing to Theophylacts Rule of Exposition, [...], (things for persons) Because the Christian Corinthi­ans were required to separate from the damned Fiends, from branded Idola­ters, Pagan Infidels, in their unrighte­ous, idolatrous Sacrifices and Feasts. Will you hence induce a justification of your separation, from Professors in Christian Sacramental Actions: It is a very lame consequence.

Lastly, it is observable what kind of mixture is taxed, prohibited in the A­postles perswasive, invective (in the sixth Chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians) It is a yoking which imports binding and linking ( jugum à jungendo) an unequal yoking of Piety with Infidelity, of Christianity with Paganism, like that of the Tuscan Ty­rant (of the living with the dead) It is not only expressed a participation or [Page 116] Fellowship, not only a Communion, or rather Communication [...], in verse 14. but [...] not conventi­on, according to the vulgar Latin, but consent, not an Assembly, but an Har­mony in verse 15. like several Musical Instruments tuned to an exact melody (saith Aretius) nay, entituled [...]; not barely an agreement, not meerly [...]; Oecumen. in 2 Cor. 6. 16. an assimilation, a resemblance (as the old Scholiast illustrates it) but it denotes an entire confederacy in infi­delity.

This variety of Eloquence-is the A­postles pregnant Rhetorick to present an absolute correspendence heightned to complacence of Society. This we allow not with profest Believers, whose lives are notoriously vitious, scandalous.

But this Apostolical severity reflects upon Pagan, not Christian Professors. I have sifted this Testimony, the rather because as it hath been managed, it hath been a specious snare to men of honest upright hearts, though not of discern­ing, piercing intellectuals.

The ANSWER.

Your proofs hitherto have extend­ed only to Pagans and Jews, for the persons to be separated from, whom you cannot gild with the title of Profes­sors and Brethren; the things, or mo­tives to be separated for, you state to be Offences or scandals. But all scan­dals are not sufficient inducements of separation, not passive scandals (taken) but active scandals (given) nay, not [Page 118] active scandals, till they are legally convicted, doomed.

Your first refuge is to the Jewish Sanctuary; But the Sanctuary being abrogated, your argument is dis­solv'd.

The two first Citations are of the same Judaical batch, Lev. 10. 9, 10. Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou nor thy sons with thee, when you go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest you die; it shall be a statute for ever through your generations.

And that you put difference between the holy and the unholy, and between the unclean and clean.

2 Chron. 23. 19. And he set the por­ters at the gates of the house of the Lord, that none which was unclean in any thing should enter in.

The occasion of the Prohibition urged out of Levit. 10. is apprehended to be Nadab and Abihus strange fire. It seems they were distempered when they sacrificed, and were not qualifi­ed to distinguish betwixt clean and un­clean. For the Priests were obliged [...], to examine the Sacrifices, which could not well be effected, [Page 119] when they were debauched. Quid hoc ad Rhombum?

The Historical Narrative pleaded (2 Chron. 23.) was Jehojadas act the high Priest, who set the Porters. This may serve as a flourish for Ecclesiasti­cal Jurisdiction for Excommunication by Authority, not as the least varnish for separation of themselves of any un­der Authority.

To take a fuller survey of this double Testimony.

The first (of Levit.) is expounded of holy and prophane days, of clean and unclean Beasts and Sacrifices.

St. Austin is sceptical, hovering in suspence, whether to understand the Persons or Oblations, the Officers or the Offerings.

Grant the persons to he unclean, ac­cording to the second Testimony (out of the Chronicles) yet this was only a Mosaical Ceremonial pollution for the Jew, which will not conclude a Moral, Evangelical pollution for the Christian to be separated from.

Origen, who is titled the Allegori­zing Father, is very shy, and useth a solemn Apology, for that Allegorical [Page 120] plication of this legal pollution.

Perhaps you will object that these outward defilements were Types of Inward, Moral, Habitual: However, these are but shadows of proofs, emp­ty conjectural resemblances, not solid substantial arguments.

But I shall gratifie you so far, as to examine the typical force of your Testimonies.

Three sorts of Judaical, Mr. Weemes in his Christian Sy­nagogue. eminent pol­lutions there were; by the Dead, by Issue, by Leprosie; and three different Separations, or Purgations chalked out. Out of the Camp of God, of the Priests, of Israel. These were by Jewish Do­ctors reputed Types of their gradual Excommunications; Nidui, Caerem, Samatha (in the Syriack Maran-atha) Figures of the [...], in the Greek Church; of the Abstenti, Excommunicati, Ana­thematizati, in the Western Church.

This typical force being displayed in its brightest colours, its fullest di­mensions, will countenance a Sepa­ration after Excommunication, not be­fore it.

Your next Quotation is Matth. 18. [Page 121] 16. 17. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more; that in the mouth of two or three wit­nesses, every word may be establish'd.

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the Church. But if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.

This is [...], The apple of debate, the Helena contended for, espoused by each party.

I conceive with submission to more learned mature Judgements, that though this Testimony like a well drawn Picture, may seem to fix an Aspect on every Spectator (that looks on it) yet it appears design'd for a spe­cial direction in point of particular, personal offences betwixt the Jews: This sort of scandal being discernible, like a vein through the whole body of the Chapter. If thy brother shall tre­spass against thee, in verse 15. How oft shall my brother sin against me, in verse 21.

These Queries sound particular of­fences betwixt the Jews, because of the last result. Let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican. An expression [Page 122] that suits with no other Nation but the Jew; who being then left destitute of redress in case of injury by any that waved the Jewish, Mosaical, for the Caesarean, Roman Government and Tribunal, our Saviour chalks out a gra­dual vindicative progress. First, a brotherly solitary admonition (tell him his fault betwixt him and thee alone.) Secondly, a friendly private repre­hension, a glympse of neighbourly arbitration (then take with thee one or two more.) Thirdly, a publick judi­ciary convention (tell it to the Church, Calvin. in Har­mon. Evangelista 'pro seniorum colle­gio [...] dixit Beza in Annot. in Matt. 18. [...], to the Assembly, 'tis so interpreted, Act. 19. 32, 39. 41.) This was the Jewish Sanedrim, in the opi­nion of Calvin and Beza. Lastly, if he be refractory to the Authority of the Sanedrim, then take liberty of Caesars re­paration, of being righted by the Ro­man jurisdiction ( Let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.)

The main exception against this Comment will be, that this under­mines the foundation of Church Dis­cipline, whereas this is elsewhere a­bundantly supported.

The next words of binding and [Page 123] loosing, do not absolutely control this sense; for as there may be a bind­ing of obduration by God, of Excom­munication by the Church, so of re­prehension by a particular person, whose reproof binds, fetters in guilt, when it reclaims not; as also it un­twists the cords, loosens the manacles, when it effectually reforms.

I dare not press with confidence a­ny Exposition that is eccentrical to the Orb of the Church, that hath the least apparence of novelty, of singularity; I only tender this sense of the Text al­ledged as probable, without a literal wrench, which if admitted renders the Testimony an impertinency as to your drift.

But suppose the words in the most indulgent acception to your advantage: Because a heinous, notorious offender, after reiterated fruitless reproofs, having disregarded the Charity of a Brother, and the Authority of his Mother the Church, is to be proceeded against, or reputed, rejected as a heathen and a publican, as an alien to Religion; will you hence argue that without these Methods of varied addresses, without [Page 124] admonition ratified with conviction, you a private person may separate from the Church, whereof you were a Member, a Son, and in effect explode the Church it self, as if it were a hea­then and a publican.

There is no Engine of Logick or Divinity will conclude it. This Text stands at enmity with your opinion. For if a man trespassing were not to be accounted as Ethnicus, or Publicanus, till there preceded a Dic Ecclesiae; not to be branded or deserted, till that Authority be disesteemed; then 'tis unquestionable none can separate and judge a Christian to be a Heathen, any man to be a Publican at his own pleasure. Authority of the Church must be appealed to, and disobeyed, or else no separation can be confirmed by this Testimony.

You charge afresh, wicked persons are called dogs, Matth. 7. 6. The title of a dog is a branding obloquy, a name of reproach in all Languages (as Cri­ticks observe) Though the descrip­tion, the comparison of the holy Ghost is not to be scrupled at, yet your ap­plication may (as to Parochial Mem­bers) [Page 125] They may be sheep in Gods esti­mate, who are dogs in yours. These dogs may be permitted to pick up the crumbs under the Table.

Thus the Turks in a zeal of Mahu­metanism debar Christians from their Moschos, Moryson in his Travels. reviling them to be dogs, because they do not ordinarily use Bathes.

The Donatists, Jusserunt Eu­charistiam cani­bus fundi; non sine signo divi­ni judicti: nam iidem canes ac­censi rabie ipsōs dominos suos quasi latrones sancti corporis reos dente vin­dice tanquam ignotos & ini­micos laniave­runt, Optat. l. 2. who deemed and termed the Orthodox Christians in the Primitive Church dogs, in a haughty contempt and contumely, flung the Sacred Elements of the Eucharist to dogs (in a literal sense) which dogs enraged flew upon the Donatists, and tore them in pieces, for to revenge so horrid an impiety and indignity. To return to your Argument.

The Text you urge, forbids that which is holy to be given to dogs. That which is holy is there unvailed by the best Commentators to be the Evange­lical Doctrine: This debats Sermons (as well as Sacraments) to Parochial Members, which you allow to those whom you account dogs. St. Chryso­stom and Euthymius understood these dogs to be Infidels. In this Notion it [Page 126] is not fit to take the childrens bread, Matth. 15. 16. and to cast it to dogs, who will not regard, but revile it.

St. Paul and Barnabas exasperated by this snarling reception deserted the Jews, Acts 13. 46. and applied themselves to the Gentiles.

You reinforce your assault, 2 Pet. 2. 20, 22. to fix the aspersion of dogs on Parochial Members, being apostatized, degenerated persons. Without fur­ther discussing of the Texts, I confess as Infidels are compared to dogs for barking, and tearing; so are Apostates for a recidivation of trangression, like dogs licking up what they disgorge. But since a reiterated offence doth plead no absolute incapacity of repen­tance (that was the condemned No­vatian disconsolate Heresie.) A lapsed, relapsed sinner, if allowed to be a pe­nitent, is not restrained, but in capa­city to be a communicant.

Our blessed Saviour prescribes re­mission to St. Peter seventy times seven times. Matth. 18. 22. Vicibus innu­merabiliter in­numerabilibus, Aug. Origen understood it literally, but the rest of the Fathers expound it siguratively: A definite number for an indefinite, for an infinite. This [Page 127] is the duty of an earthly Brother, which is much exceeded by the transcendent mercy of an Heavenly Father.

His Candor is the perfect Pattern, ours the imperfect Copy. Be you merciful as your Father is merciful. As for similitude, though not for e­quality, As no less in an extensive than intensive consideration; no less for fre­quency than sincerity.

Your next Citation, 1 Cor. 5. 7. ( Purge out therefore the old leaven) verse 13. Put away from among you the wick­ed person, prima facie, at the first blush hath the apparence of an Ecclesiasti­cal Censure, and is generally so inter­preted by Commentators; that the doom which was determined, pro­nounced by the Apostles, should be executed by the Corinthians. This proves that an incestuous person and such scandalous offenders are to be excommunicated, and separated from, being excommunicated, but not before. If Separation be precedent, Excom­munication needs not be consequent. It were a superfluity of severity. ‘ [Page 128] —Stat magni nominis umbra.’ I pray observe that the incestuous per­son was a member of the particular Church of Corinth, Qui nisi in Ec­clesia fuisset tolli ex ea non pote­rat. Heins. in 1 Ep. ad Cor. 5. till he was excom­municated, otherwise he could not be ejected out of it: As Heinsius rational­ly observes. For to be excluded, unde­niably presupposeth to be interested. The consequence is the same, for eve­ry heinous sinner, who is a profest Be­liever till sentence to be excommu­nicated.

Your double succeeding Testimony, 2 Thess. 3. 6. ( That you withdraw your selves from every brother that walketh disorderly) verse 14. ( Note that man, and have no company with him) amounts to the same single force of Excommu­nication, if most Commentators rightly understand it, Here note (saith Aqui­nas) the sentence is inflicted for diso­bedience. Zanchy raiseth as a doctrinal observation, whom the Church should excommunicate. [...], A Military Metaphor for disorder'd, disbanded Soldiers. There is an Admonition pre­cedent, 1 Thess. 5. 14. Warn them that are unruly. [Page 129] A second Admonition, 2 Thess. 3. 12. We command and exhort you by the Lord Jesus. Aquinas collects conviction, and manifestation from the charge. 'Tis no ordinary mark, not [...], but [...], set, as it were, a mark on the forehead. It is a note of Excommunication, saith Beza.

Some few Expositors understand a Prohibition of familiar conversation, [...], not to be mingled, incorporated.

It denotes the entire conjunction of Wedlock or Friendship, Familiaritas cum Excommu­nicatis est vi­tanda, Jun. & Trem. Junius and Tremelius link both Expositions. The familiarity of the excommunicated is to be eschewed.

Your last Citation, 2 Tim. 3. 5. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof, from such turn away: Whence you collect, they are such then as have but a profession, and no more.

This is indeed the Character of a Hypocrite, who is like a Swan, that hath white Feathers, but a black Skin. The Hypocrite must be unmask'd (as the Swan unfeather'd) he must be convicted, before separated from. Till then the semblance of innocence (the form of godliness) ranks him in the [Page 130] visible Church. Lyra glosseth this formal Piety to be a sacramental socie­ty of pure and impure profest Christi­ans. Habentes speci­em quia eadem Sacramenta cum piis, Lyra in 2 Ep. ad Tim. 1. 3, 5. I need not add more weight to this Position, since your passages of your Letter admit the Hypocrite.

Take the close of your Quotation ( From such turn away) in its largest ca­pacity, as relating to the black Cata­logue in the former verses (2, 3, 4.) It is not [...], avoid, according to the Remists; but [...], Turn a­way; not affording the least counte­nance, or connivance. This denotes a high disgust, a resentment of their vi­tious courses, a distance for a defi­ance; an aversation for a detestation, not of the men, but of their corrupt manners.

Grant this to be applied to the per­sons, that acted the abominations ( from such turn away, or according to the Sy­riack, Remove such far from thee.) This discards a private carnal conversing in the Chamber, not a publick spiri­tual communicating in the Church. That we receive not those into our houses, into our bosoms, that we en­tertain them not for our intimate [Page 131] Friends, who proclaim themselves to be Gods obdurate Enemies. In this sence the Apostles caveat tends to pre­vent the insensible catching, infection of a pestilent, ungratious conver­sation.

This Caution may be byast with a further scope, more peculiarly re­flecting upon Timothy; that he should turn away from such offenders of steeled faces, that being habitually depraved, obstinately hardned, they should not ineffectually be exhorted, ar­gued with. The patient may be quit­ted, when the cure is despaired. Ju­nius and Tremelius thus descant on the Caveat. Non est quod ludetur opera Jun. & Tremel. in 2 Tim. 3. 5. Estius parallels it with the Apostolical Precept to Titus 3. 10, 11. A man that is an heretick, after the first and second admonition reject: Hic locus ex a­lio interpretan­dus (Tit. 3.) ne (que) existima­verim idcircò hoc praeceptum dari Timotheo ne colloquiis inficeretur, sed ob causam Tit [...] communem. Estius. Knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by himself.

The ANSWER.

Distinguish betwixt Separation in Communion and Conversation, and there will evidently appear four Terms in your Argument, which will discover it not a Fallacy only in Divi­nity, but a Prodigie in Logick.

The Major Proposition is true only, as to separating in Communion: The Minor Proposition is true only, as to separating in Conversation.

To prevent Ambiguity, Amphibo­logy. I shall crave leave to new mould your Syllogism.

We may not communicate with such, whom we are commanded by God [Page 133] to separate from in Communion.

But from scandalous sinners we are commanded by God to separate from in Communion.

Therefore we may not communi­cate with scandalous sinners.

I deny the Minor Proposition. This you assay to confirm by the Apostles Prohi­bition, 1 Cor. 5. 11. ( With such a one no not to eat) you hence fortifie your Argument.

If not to keep company in the lesser, as ordinary commerce, and eating, much less may we in the greater.

I answer. The Topick Canon, from the Lesser to the Greater, is a valid proof, when both are of the same Tribe (of the same stock and nature) when they are cloathed with the dress of the same circumstances. But your instances are not. Take the illustration from Calvin. Respondeo in li­bertate nostra & sacultate posi­tum esse, an fa­miliariter ver­semur cum sce­leratis▪ quo fit ut unicui (que) ab eo sit abstinendum. At non est ita in nostro arbitrio positum, an caenam recipiamus necne. Ita (que) diversa est ratio. Notemus ergo, si Ecclesia hominem indignum ferat & toleret, probè facturos eos qui ta­lem noverint, si ab ejus consuetudine abstineant, id (que) quoad poterit facere debere, modo ne schisma ullum, aut separationem in Ecclesiae communicatione inducat. Calv. in instruct. adv. Anabap. The one is arbitrary, it is in our power not to eat with a scandalous Brother. The other is ne­cessary, to communicate with him (in [Page 134] the Lords Supper) He can till excom­municated, plead an interest in the Lords Table, (which is secund [...] post naufragium tabula, the second plank after Shipwrack) He can plead no in­terest in yours. If the Church (saith Calvin) tolerate an unworthy person; it is commendable to be shy of his so­ciety, so far as may consist with a mans duty; so that hereby no Schism, no Separation as to Church Commu­nion be introduced.

Aretius manifests the fallacious abuse of your Topick Maxime by this rea­son. Privatus convi­ctus corrumpit mores conversan­tium non perin­de communis Sa­cramentorum u­sus. Aret. in 1 Ep. ad Thess. 3. 14, Private familiarity of repast with the wicked may taint in point of con­versation, at least tempt, molest, but not so for the publick Piety of the Sa­crament. In the one the holy encou­rage the impiety of the prophane: in the other the prophane counte­nance the piety of the holy. Their access, if impenitent needs not scare, nor divert your approach if penitent, (a foil to set off your lustre of Re­ligion) your joynt Prayers and Graces may be helps to purge them; their de­fect and blemishes cannot annoy and soil you in the Sacramental Devotion. [Page 135] Like a Bee you may suck Honey out of that Herb, out of which others like Spiders extract Poyson. As the fragrancy of that Oyntment deadens the Fly, which enlivens the Dove. The Principle, Quicquid recipitur reci­pitur ad modum recipientis, is no less appliable to a Sacrament than a Ser­mon: Both admit different repugnant Operations, according to the capaci­ties of Auditors, and Receivers. As a reverent Auditor is not less edified, because of irreverent Auditors in the same Church, so a faithful Commu­nicant is not less sanctified, because an unfaithful dissolute Brother, par­takes of the same Table.

Remember the Apostles Caution, wherein (in the judgement of Expo­sitors) he pricks the bladder of Pha­risaical censure, Gal. 6. 4, 5. Let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have cause of rejoycing in himself alone, and not in a­nother. It is [...], not against another, saith St. Chrysostom, to tax, to condemn him. The Apostle enforceth this caution with a prediction, which may unplume any spiritual Arrogance, and turn the edge of any censorious [Page 136] rigor. For every man shall bear his own burden.

This personal clog of guilt hath weight and terror enough to cause you and me to sigh and tremble for our selves. Alas, there needs no panick affrightment of being loaded and pol­luted with the corruptions of others, in uncorrupt actions, unless such only as are committed to our charge, whose vitious courses may reflect stains, if promoted by our neglects, by our de­faults.

The ANSWER.

To prove a Communion of Saints in the Eucharist you cite, 1 Cor. 10. 16. ( The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ, the bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ) This relates to the matter of the Com­munion, not to the quality of the Com­municant.

You add ( vers. 20, 21. But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God, I would not that you should have fellowship with devils.) The Apostle here brands the oblations of depraved Gentiles to damned Spirits, and forbids those that communicate in a Christian Pious Sa­crament to partake of a Pagan Idola­trous Feast, This is remote eccentri­cal to our question. I hope your judge­ment as well as your charity better guided than to rank those you separate from with Heathens, Idolaters, or to repute their sacrifice of thanksgiving to God, to be an offering to Satan.

[Page 138] You aggravate it as a Soloecism in Religion, to say, that a company of ignorant Drunkards, Swearers, Sab­bath breakers are Saints. Is this your best Character to descypher a Paro­chial, In his possumus esse pariter co­piosi sed nolu­mus esse pariter vani. Aug. adv. Petil. Ecclesiastical Assembly. The sharpest invectives are the slightest proofs. It was but a frothy confutati­on of a fiery Spirit in Lucian— [...] Thou cursed wretch. We may in these, saith St. Austin to Petilianus, a Dona­tist, be alike copious, but we will not be alike vain.

As if like those of China you fanci­ed your selves only to have two eyes, (of Reason and of Religion) and the rest of the World but one, your first brand is Ignorant. I pray set down what proportion of knowledge is pre­cisely requisite in a Communicant, and how far that phrase of discerning of the Lords Body is necessarily to be extended. After constant Catechisms and Sermons in Parochial Churches, mens ignorance is not so great in not knowing what to practice, as their prophaneness in not practising what they know. Where Catechisms and Sermons are not frequent, where the [Page 139] Expedients of saving knowledge are not tendred, your Charity may de­termine this ignorance of a pure nega­tion, not of a depraved disposition; an involuntary necessitated, not a volun­tary affected ignorance.

However you deem, there is a gra­tious high Priest, after the order of Melchisedeck, who can have compas­sion on the ignorant, [...], Theophyl. Heb 5. 2. It is [...], which according to Theo­phylact imports commensuration, com­passion, condescention, condonation (to match, to melt, to bend, to stoop, (so the Syriack) to pardon) This com­passion is not confined to the ignorant, but extended to the Delinquent. ( And on them that are out of the way) 'Tis [...], such as swerve deviate from the narrow Path of integrity; such as are seduced by the wiles, the impo­stures of Satan. This notion compre­hends your description of the black rabble, (Swearers, Drunkards, &c.) especially if the transgressions be not predominant, if the transgressors be not impenitent. They may be titled Saints professional, though not actual, for their Tenets, though not for their [Page 140] Lives; as to the outward Administra­tion of the General Covenant of Grace, though not as to the inward special Participation.

Yet in the strictest consideration they are to be enrolled Saints, till they are convicted to be miscreants: Till then, though they are not such really in themselves, yet they are judicially in the Eye of the Law, in the Censure of the Church. Not only by the Rule of Charity, but Equity; every man is presumed, supposed to be good, till he be legally proved to be evil.

To twist together your objections of ignorance and prophaneness (drun­kards, &c.) which you press as incon­sistent with Saintship; I confess not reconcileable with practical, yet recon­cileable with federal sanctity to be in­terested in a visible Church. The Israelites were charged for ignorance, Is. 1. 3. worse than brutish ( The ox knows his owner, Is. 1. 10. the asse his masters crib: But Is­rael hath not known, my people hath not understood) So universally, signally corrupted for conversation, the whole Nation is decypher'd, branch'd out to be Princes of Sodom, and people of [Page 141] Gomorrah, and yet titled the Children of God in vers. 2. The vineyard of the Lord of hosts in Is. 5. 7. yet the fruits were not delitious, Oppression in vers. 7. Covetous in vers. 8. Drunkenness in vers. 11. 12. Security and Impenitency in verse 12. Deliberate, obstinate ini­quity in vers. 18, 20.

Though Sodom and Samaria were out­vied in guilt by Israel, Ezech. 16. 48, 51. yet were they a people relating to God by Covenant, though forfeited by their defailance, disobedience; yet by Gods indulgence, not deserted, disclaimed by himself ( I will remember my covenant made with thee, Hos. 4. 2, 3. in the days of thy youth) It is Ho­seah's black enditement, No truth, no mercy, no knowledge of God in the land. By lying, and swearing, and killing, and stealing, and whoring blood toucheth blood,) and yet it is appropriated, My people in the sixth and twelfth verses of that Chapter; Nec tamen iro­nice appellavit cum suum popu­lum, sed verè quoad externam adoptionem. Not ironically, but truly as ( Zanchy expounds it,) in regard of an external adoption, of outward Symboles expresses of Religion; which served as publick badges and cogni­zances to manifest the Jews Ecclesi­astical visible priviledges, not to be [Page 142] a people uncovenanted, unchurched.

Suppose this Nation more depraved than Sodom and Samaria, yet is it but ballanc'd with Israel; and it is no greater Soloecism in Scripture Lan­guage to entitle this Nation to be Saints (for its Parochial Members) for the profession of true Religion, than to entitle the Jews to be Gods people on the same account. They are like parallel lines proportionable, suitable to each other.

The people of Israel were sanctified by a federal relation, were circumcised; they owned Gods Oracles, but diso­beyed his Laws. The scene of Cir­cumcision being shifted to Baptism, our case holds resemblance (as to a visible Church) as face answers face in water.

I shall add by way of surplusage, The Apostles themselves were not ab­solutely acquitted from ignorance of scandal; even in a remarkable con­juncture, notwithstanding the cele­brating of our Saviours last Supper, and the approaching of the last scene of our Saviours Tragedy, they were contentious, and ambitious, tainted [Page 143] with pride and variance. Luk. 22. 24. ( There a rose a strife among them, which should be greatest.) Ignorant they were of the saving mysteries of Christs Passion, his Resurrection; notwithstanding the predictions of the Prophets, the Ser­mons of our Saviour, yet they under­stood the Scepter only, not the Cross of Christ, the apprehension of a Tem­poral, not a Spirituall Messiah fluttered in their brains, yet were still listed, reputed Disciples, Apostles. Nay, Matth. 26. 25, 26, 27. Judas himself, Mar. 14. 23. when he was declared, Luk. 22. 19, 20. pointed out a Traitor (being not ex­communicated) was not debarred the name or the seal of a Disciple (the Sacra­ment) as it is recorded by three E­vangelists. A truth written radio So­lari, in Tertullians Phrase, with a Sun­beam, manifest to discerning judge­ment, not dimmed with prejudice or cavil.

Since that Judas (his treason being discovered, but not doomed) was reckoned among Christs Disciples, why may not vitious persons uncen­sured by the Church, who profess Christianity, as to that profession be named Saints.

[Page 144] You pretend this is contrary to Gods Word, 1 Cor. 6. 9. This Text hath been already sifted. As to your present application of it, I answer, This debars such offenders from being Members of the Mystical Church, of that part of it which is triumphant in Heaven, not of the Church Mili­tant, so far as it is visible here on earth.

Your next Text is, 1 John 1. 6. ( If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.) This excludes practical, habitual Malefactors (such as walk in darkness) from being comprehended in the Catholick invisible Church, not in a particular visible Church. The next verse points out as an evidence of this innocence ( Fellowship one with another) an united Congregation, not a disjoynt­ed Separation.

Your third Citation is Matth. 3. 7, 8. And when he saw many of the Pharisees come to his baptism; he said to them, O generation of vipers, who had warned you to flee from the wrath to come. Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.

[Page 145] This by way of Analogy (betwixt Baptism, and the Eucharist) proves that every Communicant ought to be a real penitent, not that we ought not to communicate with him, who is a real impenitent.

You seem to deal with these Texts, to form and fit them to your opinion, as Procustes did with his guests, to pro­portion their dimensions to his bed; some he hack'd and cut shorter, others he rack'd and stretch'd out.

You annex a Caveat, Is. 5. 20. Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

I pray God be merciful to any of either party ( Tros Rutulusve fuit) who is justly liable to this Commina­tion. When ever your separation is de­monstrated to be good, when your Do­ctrine is manifested to be light, I shall not presume to misname, nor disesteem it.

But if the blaze of Comets be ac­counted the splendor of Stars; if a new Light, that diverts to Schism, extin­guish the old Orthodox; if division, [Page 146] distraction, confusion in Religion be gilded with the title, the varnish of Reformation, if Sects that are to be bewailed, lamented for, be applauded, gloried in (as some Ladies imagine their little black spots to be grand beauties) then this Caution affords a retortion, and may be weighed by your selves.

You enforce this Caveat of Isaiah with Solomons Aphorism, Prov. 17. 15. He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, they both are abominable to the Lord. Whether this is to be interpreted of publick judi­cature, or private censure, I shall not discuss.

If you appropriate the Epithet Just, as you do Saints to your selves; we ho­nor whatever hath the true savour of Sanctity in you: we are ready to em­brace you in our Bowels, in our Church.

Upon your aversness we condemn not the Separatist, but the Separation, because erected upon an unwarrant­able foundation, upon a Pharisaical presumption. If you apply the wick­ed, mentioned Solomon, to a Parochial [Page 147] Assembly formerly asperst by you to be a company of Drunkards, Swearers, Sabbath-breakers; I am no Advocate to plead for any crimes or scandals. I resent, bewail, and detest them, and upon all fit opportunities shall present the guilt and horror of them to the con­sciences of the Offenders, in the sharp­est accents: Though when ever acted, they are sufficient grounds for the Mi­nisters general reprehension in the Pul­pit, yet not of your particular Sepa­ration from the Lords Table, till they are declared, sentenced by the Church.

You proceed. They profess Christ, 1 Cor. 6. 15, 17. (Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid, verse 15. But he that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit, vers. 17.)

The Apostle doth here by the ele­gant charm of Sacred Rhetorick dis­swade, deter the Christian Corinthi­ans from lasciviousness, being the dar­ling sin of Corinth, Herodot. in Clio. Strabo, l. 8, where a thousand beautiful Damosels were the vo­taries of Venus (as Herodotus and Strabo [Page 148] testifie) so that [...], became proverbial to be wanton: The spread­ing contagion of uncleanness there occasioned the Apostles piercing Ex­postulation, for a searching, healing, at least a preventing Physick, You may hence argue, that fornication severs a profest Christian inwardly from Christ, when ever committed, and not re­pented of, but not outwardly from the Church, without conviction and promulgation.

You object such make not the Com­munion, because a mixt Communion is not fit for Christ, his Members must be homogeneal, or else a monster.

This Argument is fallacious, Ab ig­noratione Elenchi.

Wicked men so far as they are Christs Members, are homogeneal, to wit, in profession, though heterogene­al in conversation, wherein they are not Christ's Members. Your Obje­ction is not ejusdem secundum idem.

Real, actual Believers are Members homogeneal inwardly, sincerely: ver­bal, professional Believers are Members homogeneal outwardly, formally. If this Professional consideration will not [Page 149] serve, how do you confess Hypocrites to be Members of the Church, since they are no otherwise homogeneal, than a glass eye, or a wooden leg is to a true body, than a painted face is to a ge­nuine complexion, than the fucus, the Paint of Art is to the Beauty of Nature.

Lastly, you conclude the Church, if not homogeneal, a Monster; whereas, impiety in Church Members is not monstrosity till emproved to impeni­tenoy: such Monsters are to be cut off, to be excommunicated.

Your Citation in the close, 2 Cor. 6. 14. hath been already discuss'd.

The Apostle there forbids the Corin­thians to be yoked with Pagan Unbe­lievers, because of the profest Idola­try: Therefore you will be separate from Christian Believers for their pra­ctick iniquity.

The ANSWER.

You plead it noxious to communi­cate with scandalous Brethren, from 1 Cor. 5. 7. compared with vers. 6. I have already vindicated this Text from your gloss, being to be understood of Excommunication, not separation with­out it▪ You add, Gal. 5. 9. ( A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump) It is a reci­tal of the same maxime, but not with the same scope, [...], Theophyl. in Gal. 5. or drift. In the fifth Chap­ter of the first Epistle to the Corinthi­ans, it is applied to the incestuous per­son, but in the fifth to the Galatians, to the infection of Circumcision, a con­tagious Doctrine.

It is our Saviours Lecture. Matth. 16. 6. Luk 12. 1. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. Their singularity, their hypocrisie like lea­ven had a double influence, to swell [Page 151] and sower (Arrogance and Virulence) If this leaven be entirely purged out, the question of separation will be com­pletely stated, absolutely determi­ned.

If we will separate from the Pha­risee, in the secret mortification of our own bosoms, we cannot separate from the Publican, in the publick pious devotion of the Temple.

This primary duty being conscien­tiously observed (of purging the cor­ruption of our own hearts) the secon­dary duty will much more dextrously he discharged to endeavour so far as in us lyeth (within the compass of our own Sphere, our calling) to cleanse the Congregation of its corruption (a scandalous person.)

The Rule proposed, Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. hath been copiously examined, though by your selves scantily ob­served.

The ANSWER.

It ought to be our prime care in this exigency, not to partake of the sins of other men (when they are vi­tious and scandalous) not to be engaged in them by Precept, or Precedent, by advice or example, by assistance or countenance, nay, not by connivence, silence.

If the Church doth not excommu­nicate, yet are not we commissioned to separate. But you know no war­rant to continue in a diseased body that cannot, will not purge out her infecti­ous humours. The desire of the Church of England is fervent, though impo­tent [Page 153] for her power; impotent not in actu primo for constitution, but actu se­cundo for execution. Ecclesiastical censure is not imposed, because op­posed. Will you charge outward im­pediments for inward defects of the Church.

You tax the want of the pretious Ordinance of separating the pretious from the vile, to be a ground for your separating and offer for a proof.

Hag. 2. 12, 13, 14. If one bear holy Flesh in the Skirt of his Garment, and with his Skirt do touch Bread or Pottage, or Wine, or Oyl, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the Priest answered and said, No.

Then said Haggai, if one that is un­clean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the Priest an­swered and said, It shall be unclean.

Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation be­fore me, saith the Lord, and so is every work of their hands, and that which they offer there is unclean.

The Judgement of the Priest was not erroneous, if any unclean person touch bread, it shall be unclean to him [Page 154] that is unclean, not to him that is clean. Thus an impenitent person polluteth what he receiveth to himself in the Communion, not what the pe­nitent receiveth. To the pure all things are pure, 1 Tit. 15.

This Testimony of Haggai concerns a Judaical, Quibus typis innuit Deus il­lorum judicio­rum causas quae in Judaeis ha­ctenus exercue­rat, nimirum quod nullam sanctitatem in uncto aut rebus sanctificatis Deo percepissent, quia impuri a­nimis suis fue­rant non minus quam illi qui ex cadavere impuritatem contraxerant. Jun. & Tyem. in Hag. 2. vers. 12, 13, 14. Ceremonial, Ritual Defile­ment; which is not directly argu­mentative to infer a Moral, an Evan­gelical. As for the Application of it, the Prophet manifests the Sacrifices of the Jews to be impure, because their hearts were; resembling them to those that contract impurity by the dead. Thus Junius and Tremelius understood it. This Text admits no consequence, no inference to your advantage.

If one unclean by a dead body, &c. This might be so covertly managed, that it might be concealed, not discern­ed; and yet the thing he touch'd was unclean. Whence what can you de­duce except it be that even Hypocrites undiscovered do pollute the Sacra­ments, and render them unclean to [Page 156] every one that communicates with them? (A Position you will not assert) If from some mens uncleanness the holy Institutions of God should be de­filed to others, who can be unsoiled. God help us, with whom should any man communicate to assure himself of ex­emption from this pollution.

Yea, but I know the man is unclean. That I cannot peremptorily determine, because of his being present, his desire and design to receive the Seal of his Salvation in Charity induces me to a perswasion, at least prompts me to a hope, that he is penitent.

Hezekiahs candor deserves a serious consideration, a pious imitation (For a multitude of people, 2 Chron. 30. 18, 19. even many of E­phraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Ze­bulun, had not cleansed themselves: yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good Lord pardon every one, that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fa­thers, though he be not cleansed ac­cording to the purification of the san­ctuary.)

This Prayer, that abounded in [Page 156] Charity, was not scanted for success. A great compassion of man was own­ed, and crowned by a greater of God. 'Tis recorded in the next verse, And the Lord hearkned to Hezekiah, 2 Chron 30. 20. and healed the people. Though our Con­gregations are not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary, yet I wish you would rather commiserate, than separate, exercise yearning bow­els to bemoan, rather than branding Epithets to doom; that you would ra­ther pray for us, than censure; This will neither hallow our people, nor your self.

But ( à Diverticulo ad viam) to re­turn to your Objection, the rational force whereof is Sophistical, non causa pro causa. The want of Excommunica­tion in the Church of England, is no sufficient warrant for your separation. This at most imports an imperfection, not an abolition. I appeal to Calvins Judgement. Si hic ordo (scil. Excom.) alicui Ecclisiae desit, imperfectione eam, & prava macula notatum esse, sed, non to minus pro Ecclesiae ipsam habemus, ac per sistimus in ejus communione, at (que) affirmamus singulis ab ea segregare non licere, Calv. adv. Anabap. We do no less esteem it a Church (for this defect) we persist [Page 157] in its Communion, we aver it not law­ful for men to segregate, to separate themselves from it.

This also is Paraeus decision, Nec censuras Ec­clesiasticas sive superiorum ini­quitate sive po­puli pervicacia habere possunt ad patientiam sese cum pruden­tia Christiana hoc modo com­ponant; ut primo quidem defectum disci­plinaram docen­di officio ac se­dulitate pensare studeant cogi­tent (que) ex ore Dei beatos esse qui esuriunt & fitiunt justitiam quia sacura­buntur. Deinde caveant in eam ire sententiam aut venire opinionem, quasi Ecclesia esse non possit, aut non sit, ubi nulla est excommunicationis disciplina. Haec Per­meniani & Donatistarum olim erat pestilens opinio. Paraeus in 1 Ep. ad Corinth. cap. 5. where Ecclesiastical Censures cannot be ob­tained by the iniquity of the Gover­nours, or the obstinacy of the People, he recommends Prudence and Patience to all, to Pastors a special diligence (to support the of want rigorous Discipline, with the power of vigorous Doctrine) considering our Saviours consolation. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be sa­tisfied. But he admonisheth to shun the pestilent opinion of the Donatists, as if there were no true Church, where there is not this severe Disci­pline.

Polanus confidently resolves, Non propter dis­ciplinae Ecclesi­asticae negle­ctum aut cessatioinem statim Ecclesia est neganda. Polan. in synt. l. 7. c. 8. That a Church is not immediately to be dis­avowed [Page 158] upon neglect or cessation of Ecclesiastical Discipline. To omit o­ther numerous Testimonies, Quanquam erro­res & defectus nunquam sunt dissimulandi: in quibuscun (que) tamen funda­mentum & sum­ma doctrinae A­postolicae retine­tur, eo (que) nulla manifesta com­mititur idola­tria cum lis cae­tibus tanquam vtris Christi Ecclesiis pacem & communionem colendam esse sentimus. Tan­ti facienda est unio Ecclesiarum. Zanch. de Christ. cap. 24. sect. 10. I shall add only Zanchies determination (the reformed learned Schoolman) in what Churches soever the Fundamental Summary of Apostolical Doctrine is retained, and therein no manifest ido­latry admitted, Peace and Communi­on is to be regarded with those As­semblies, as the true Churches of Christ.

So greatly is Ecclesiasticall Unity to be esteemed.

Were this sober moderate Rule as­sented to, it would put your separati­on to the blush; which it self alone, (be­ing the fertile Womb of a various pro­digious issue of Sects in this Climate) is a greater scandal to the Reformed Religion, than all those vitious, notori­ous practices, (not punish'd with Church Censures, whereby it is pre­tended to be justified.)

This is the harmonious opinion of Reformed Divines.

[Page 159] If these [...], these inartificial Arguments, if their Authority sway not; I shall add [...], artificial from the grand Topick, the end of Excom­munication, which spreads it self in­to three eminent Branches, (1. That the Church may be vindicated. 2. That the Offender may be reclaim­ed. 3. That others may not be infect­ed.) Neither design is advanced by Separation.

The Church of England is by you unjustly scandall'd, Si damnaremus excommunicati­onem aut suade­remus inutilem esse & superva­caneam tunc mur­murandi adver­sum nos occasio­nem haberent. Calv. ad. An. branded (being in­deed not corrupted in its self as re­jecting Excommunication, but disabled, restrained from executing it.)

Offenders are hereby more exaspe­rated, tempted to be more depraved, being deserted in those acts, wherein they are not Offenders, being doomed unheard, unsummon'd)

Lastly, others are more endangered to be infected, being abandon'd un­warrantably by those, by whose ex­emplary Graces they might be pre­served untained.

The ANSWER.

I have already discovered the inva­lidity of your Major, in those in­stances produced; whence it is col­lected.

I deny your Minor Proposition. To communicate in and with the Parishes of the Church of England, is not to communicate with those we are com­manded by God to separate from, your proof is Fallacia Accidentis. The wickedness wherein we are to separate is extrinsecal, accidental to the holiness wherein we communicate.

Were our Parishes such as you de­cypher them, yet were it no sin to com­municate [Page 161] in and with them for acts of necessary duty, of piety; but of unne­cessary familiarity, intimacy, impiety. It is no sin to communicate with such sinners Sacramentally, whilst such sin­ners are not excommunicated.

The ANSWER.

I may except against your Major Proposition. For a Church is not to be estimated by the Errors, the Erail­ties, nay, the enormities, the prodigies [Page 162] of some Members, but by its own Laws (establishments, acknowledge­ments) and by the manners, Ecclesiae non ex quorundum er­roribus, infirmi­tatibus, flagiti­is, sed ex legi­bus & sanioris partis moribus aestimanda. Pet. Mart. in loc. Com. the pra­ctices of the better, the sounder part, saith Peter Martyr.

The bent of your Argument is fal­lacious, Ecclesiae aesti­mandae ex eo quod communis­sime & latissime tenetur. Whitak. de Not. Eccl. A dicto secundum quid ad di­ctum simpliciter, whilst you tax the constitution of the Church for the cor­ruption of its Members.

However, I deny your Minor Pro­position, which is illogically expressed, and helps to shape your Syllogism a Paralogism by excrescence of terms. I shall crave leave to rectifie, to re­gulate it.

Let [testified by sad experience] be inserted in your Major Proposition. A Church that, testified by sad experi­ence, consists of ignorant, prophane, scandalous persons, is not safely to be communicated with, when other law­ful ways are offered.

Let your Minor be thus framed. Such are generally the people of the Parishes of England, as sad experi­ence testifieth, when other lawful ways are offered.

[Page 163] I presume it was not your inadver­tency to omit this Clause (when other ways are offered) being in this Con­troversie of special importance.

Your Minor Proposition being thus enlarged, contains a charge of the Church of England, and a discharge of your selves from its Communi­on, a redress by other lawful ways of­fered.

The first part is not so properly a Proposition, as an Aspersion. This is to calumniate, not demonstrate (The Church of England generally consists of ignorant, prophane, scandalous per­sons and scoffers.)

The Jesuit will congratulate and applaud this invective, Ex Haereticis nullus est bonus. Res ipsa est no­tissima. Bellar. de not. Eccl. l. 4. c. 13. which partly justifies Bellermines censorious condem­nation. It is notorious manifest to all, that among Hereticks (he means Protestants) there is not one good gra­tious person.

You here reinforce your former impeachment of ignorance, as if a se­parate [Page 164] Church were the Goshen of a new sacred Light, and the Church of England were like the rest of Egypt o­verspread with superstitious darkness. I have already endeavoured to vindi­cate it from this imputation.

To ignorant you add the brand of prophane, scandalous scoffers, as if your separation were like Gideons Fleece, besprinkled with the dew of Heaven, whilst the Church of Eng­land is parch'd with barbarism of in­fidelity.

Be it so, Rom. 11. 20. yet be not high minded, but fear; lest your spiritual tumor alter the Scene, remove the Candlestick. Pride tainted Adam in Paradise, the Angels in Heaven (once blessed Spirits, now damned Fiends.) Remember the second part of the Miracle, Gideons Fleece partch'd, all about it bedewed. Mary Magdalen, who was once pos­sessed with Devils, was afterward replenish'd with Graces. These scof­fers you tax may (by Gods Grace) mourn for their scoffs: Those pro­phane persons, who o'erflow in their cups, may o'erflow in their sorrows, and exchange a deluge of distempers [Page 165] for tears, their frequent oaths and im­precations, for penitent prayers and supplications. And though the out­ward fruit be blasted, to your eye; yet there may be secret buds and blos­soms discernible to God, and accepta­ble in Christ, notwithstanding those apparent witherings. There may be deep sighs and sobs of spirit, passionate yernings, and pantings for Grace, where there are no manifest effects of it. Will you deny the balm of Gilead to these bleeding wounds of Souls? The sound have no need of the physician but the sick. Matth. 11. 28.

Our captivity interests us in a Re­deemer, our iniquity in a Saviour, who summons, attracts, those who are heavy laden, clogged with their trans­gressions, to be disburdned of this weight and pressure, who came not to call [...], just persons, who justi­fie themselves; but [...], heinous, scandalous sinners to repentance; that so where sin abounds (for ap­prehension, conviction, as well as commission) there Grace (of re­mission) may much more abound.

To conclude, as to the first part of [Page 166] your Minor Proposition: Homo sum de area Christi▪ hujus ar [...]ae ven­tilabrum non est lingua Petili­ani. Aug. con­tra Petil. l. 1. c. 10. Those igno­rant prophane persons in the Church of England, are of Christs visible floor, your pen is not the fan of that floor, to dispel, to reject them as chaff; nor are they to be deemed so by you, till doom­ed so by the Church.

The second part of your Minor Pro­position asserts other lawful ways of­fered besides communicating with the Church of England degenerated.

Separation is no lawful way, this is Petitio principii, the begging, not the proving of the Question. This loud vaunt of other lawful ways is not unlike the Cyclops clamor in Homer, [...]. It is but an empty sound. It is the grave Caveat of Dr. Kellet, Dr. Kellett in the first b. of his Miscel. chap. 8. take it in his own expression. Reasons more than ordinary, will be expected by God and good men from him, who leapeth out of the Church, in which he was born and bred, kicking at the breasts of his Mother, running with the bit in his teeth, his own ways. He chalks out these paths as the most lawful ways, and expedients. First, Integrity, Jer. 4. 14. To wash the heart from wickedness. (A Church is ill con­tradicted [Page 167] by ill depraved men.)

2. To pray for, and practice hu­mility. First cast out the beam out of thy own eye, Mat. 7. 5. and thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye, ( so likewise out of thy Mothers eye.)

A second Expedient is conference (without prejudice) with learned pi­ous Pastors of a different Opinion; that truth (not interest or faction) may impartially be promoted. If our addresses be made to, our discourses held only with those, who are byast with our own Tenets, we must ex­pect to be soothed, applauded in our judgements, not informed and recti­fied.

If after these assays having been sanctified, humbled, having conferred we remain yet unsatisfied, he prescribes a retired mourning and silence; where­in he pleads the current judgement of Jerome, Ockam, and Dr. Field.

Thus without separation may the peace of the Church, and our own in­nocence be secured inviolable.

Thus with Unity and Humility of spirit may we uprightly renounce the [Page 168] Errors and Vices of any Members of the Church, but not renounce the Church it self for the Errors and Vices of any of its members.

Lastly, you affix to your Conclusi­on, as an appendant to your Argu­ment, as a corollary naturally result­ing (though of a far different Extra­ction and Linage,) Rev. 2. 20. Not­withstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest the woman Jesabel, which calleth her self a prophe­tess to teach, and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. I shall not dispute whether the woman Jesabel be meant Helena (Simon Magus lascivious darling) or Priscilla, the wanton Mi­nion of Montanus, or any Gnostick un­chast favourite (wherein learned Ex­positors vary in their conjectures) Beza and Junius understood fornicati­on in that verse, to be an idolatrous sacrifice or worship seconded expresly with an idolatrous Feast, to eat things sacrificed to Idols. Because the An­gel of the Church of Thyatyra is re­proved for permitting idolatry; will you hence conclude, that the Church [Page 169] of England is not to be communi­cated by a private person in her Sacra­mental Piety.

You object, it was Gods Contro­versie. I grant a Controversie it was, not a Judgement, ('tis lis sub judice) no sentence past, no Bill of Divorce, no Separation. This instance is very inconsiderately obtruded. How gentle is the Controversie ( I have a few things against thee,) It is no sharp Indictment. In the immediately precedent verse, God vouchsafes a high Elogy. I know thy works, Revel. 2. 19. and charity, and service, and faith, and patience.

Though Jesabel was suffered, con­nived at, yet others were not cor­rupted, not counsell'd to separate from the Church for that permission, but their perseverance in good is instructed, and a recompence promised, vers. 24, 25, 26.

Blemishes are recited in other Churches, specified in the same Chap­ter, but the unblemish'd are not ad­vised to a Separation, to a Schism, for any stain or corruption.

The ANSWER.

This Argument is lyable to Lo­gical Exception (the terms being va­ryed, and thereby multiplied.) But I shall not scruple at the form, but answer to the matter of your Syl­logism.

The Major Proposition is not abso­lutely true to be granted, nor absolutely [Page 171] false to be denied, but ambiguous to be distinguish'd.

Gods Ordinances is an equivocal ex­pression. Some Ordinances are essen­tial, requisite to the constitution, the very being of the Church, others are accidental Ornaments to conduce to its perfection, its well being: Of the first sort are the preaching of the Word only, and the administration of the Sa­craments (in the judgement of the best reformed Worthies, in direct op­position to the Romanists.) Of the la­ter sort is the Ordinance of Excom­munication.

That Church which entirely wants the former sort, is not of Divine In­stitution, or Approbation: In the la­ter we must distinguish betwixt not ap­proving Excommunication to be pra­ctised, and not practising it, being ap­proved; and in the not practising, there is a vast difference betwixt a willing consent, and an unwilling re­straint. This last is the case of the Church of England, which desires to enjoy the Ordinance of Excommuni­cation, according to the Primitive, Apostolical Purity, and vehemently [Page 172] bewails its not enjoying. So that the substance of your Argument is a So­phism, A dicto secundum quid ad di­ctum simpliciter. From an outward im­pediment, to an inward defect in the Church of England; from its disaster, to its default; from its calamity, to its impiety, its nullity.

I may tender the retortion of your Argument for its refutation.

God never instituted such a Church, wherein his whole Worship, and all his Ordinances cannot be enjoyed. But some, if not all, of the collected Churches are such, that all his Or­dinances cannot be enjoyed. There­fore.

To prove the Minor, I will instance in singing Psalms, reading the Scrip­ture, baptising Infants, which are not allowed, nor practised in some col­lected Churches. I only hint this re­tortion, and proceed to your illustra­tion, which is over severe like Dracos Law written in Blood, accented with horror; that you could make it ap­pear, that if we should be excommu­nicated, that the Word requires, that most, if not all, in many Pa­rishes [Page 173] should be excommunicated. ‘Tertius è coelo cecidit Cato—’ Give me leave to allay your rigor, as a prudent Senator did Cato's, that he expected a Platonick Commonwealth in the dreggs of Romulus.

Here you sentence most, if not all, in many Parishes, to have merited Excommunication; in a former ob­jection you widely, expresly charge the Parishes of the Churches of Eng­land generally to consist of ignorant, prophane, scandalous scoffers. You have been no Vicar General to visit all the Parochial Churches, having re­sided in a nook of the Nation, and cannot in that Angle judge exactly of the whole, like him who discovered the measure of Hercules body by his foot. But it is not in point of quality of actions, as of quantity and dimen­sions. The Body Natural, Political, and Ecclesiastical are not alike dis­cern'd.

Your harsh censure hath its foun­dation in conjecture or rumour; nei­ther will warrant its stability, or in­tegrity [Page 174] In such cases, if false, your judgement perverse; if true, 'tis pre­cipitate, 'tis rash (as Aquinas state it.)

God examined, endicted before h [...] doomed Adam, Gen. 3. 9, 11. Gen. 4. 9, 10. or Cain, Though th [...] sin of Sodom was heinous, and clamo­rous, ascended from Earth to Heaven though it pierced the Clouds, and was conspicuous in the face of the Sun▪ yet God resolved to descend from Hea­ven to Earth, to proceed to inquisiti­on, before condemnation ( I will go down and see) Gen. 18. 21. though not to satisfie himself; Cum omnia nu­da & aperta sint mala, ta­men Sodomae noluit ante ju­dicare quam probare nos in­struere ne mala hominum ante presumeremus credere quam probare. Greg. Hom. 17. in E­vang. yet to instruct us. He pre­scribes a singular exemplary, legal can­dor, in Deut. 22. 23, 24, 25. A Damo­sel guilty of actual uncleanness in the City is condemned, but charged with that impure act in the Field is acquit­ted, because if she had cryed, opposed in the City, she might have been heard, relieved; but in the remote Field (the case being doubtful) with a mixture of Equity and Charity, it is decided that she cryed, was ravish'd, because not evidently to be dis­proved.

The Rule of the Civil Law is not in­consistent [Page 175] with the Evangelical. In doubtful cases the milder interpreta­tion is to be esteemed the better. If you will still persist with confidence to brand our Parishes upon the expe­rience, perhaps of others; I shall re­ply only, St. Johns Gosp. chap. 8. vers. 7. Let him that is without sin (exempted from the present iniquity, and future capacity of it, as the preg­nancy of the word [...] im­ports) cast the first stone, ‘—Iliacos intra muros pecatur & extra.—’

I must confess with horror and an­guish of soul, that the practical cor­ruptions, the abominations of many in our Parishes are too great, which calls for the sharpest contrition of our souls in groans and agonies; with the vilest humiliation of our bodies, the most abject prostration in Sack-cloath and Ashes. Yet we are not the sole offenders.

There is little, too little sincerity of Christianity among the sons of men; who make choice of opposite Ver­tues and Vices to serve secular in­terests, to satisfie sensual appetites.

[Page 176] I wish from my soul your separation were as guiltless for spiritual trespasses, as our Parishes are guilty of carnal:

That the maturity of our iniquity (as you urge) may prevent yours, that there were no tincture, of avarice or malice out of our Parochial Congre­gations: That the voice being Jacobs voice, there might be no hands of E­sau; that you were all endowed as well as titled Saints, to be heavenly men, according to the Greek Etymo­logy, sequestred, refined from earth­ly dregs. But the detestation of our gross offences is no priviledge, nor plea before Gods dreadful Tribunal, for the prosecution of your own, though spun with a finer thread.

I pray God of all hands pierce us with a deep mournful apprehension of our own personal offences; that our Parochial Assemblies may be more so­ber and devout; and that your separate Churches may be more humble and charitable.

Before I quit this Argument, let me admonish your candor and suspense in point of Excommunication.

It is no prudent soul Chirurgery; Nulli Christi­anorum facilis communio dene­ganda, Leo Ep [...] 87. nor innocent, to be too busie tampering with the saw. The Spiritual Sword of Excommunication, is not hastily to be unsheathed, It savours of the Pa­pal violence to thunder out Anathemaes against whole Reformed Churches. St. Iraeneus justly blames Victor for his fierceness of spirit, his proneness to ex­communicate the Churches of Asia. The Primitive Church herein proceed­ed with much wary weighty delibera­tion (saith Tertullian) as in the so­lemn presence of God. Nam & judi­catur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu. Tert. adv. Gent.

Paraeus adviseth special moderation, Qui habere pos­sunt moderate ea utantur, & ca­veant à rigore, quia ob infir­mitatem huma­nam eventus (que) dubios, medicina est ut valde dolorifica, sic admodum periculosa. Par. in 1 Cor. c. 5. because of humane infirmity, and con­tingency of dubious Events; it is a corrosive Medicine, as very grievous, so very perillous. In this particular, ‘ [Page 178] —Fas est & ab hoste doceri.’

It was a good sanction, Quamvis ex­communicatio­ [...]s gladi­us nervus sit Ecclesiasticae Disciplinae, & ad continendos in officio popu­los valde salu­taris, sobrie ta­men magnaque cum circumspectione exercendus. though of no good Council (that of Trent) Al­though the Sword of Excommunica­tion be the sinew of Ecclesiastical Discipline, and very wholesome to contain the people in their duty, yet is soberly, and very circumspectly to be exercised.

Since experience tutors us, Cum experien­tia doceat, si te­mere aut levi­bus ex rebus incutiatur, ma­gis contemni quam formi­dari, & perniciem potius parere quam salutem. Cont. Trid. Sect. 25. c. 3. that if managed with rash passion upon light occasion, it is rather contemned than dreaded, rather destructive than pre­servative.

Father Paul the Venetian (the Au­thor of the excellent History of that Council of Trent) reputed this Ca­non worthy to be engraven with Let­ters of Gold.

It is in effect confest both by Pri­mitive and Modern Divines, that ob­stinacy against the Authority of the [Page 179] Church is causa primo movens, Spirituali gla­dio superbi & contumaces ne­cantur. Cypr. li. Ep. 11. first moving; Pertinaces esse excommunicandos tantum id (que) cum pertinacia eorum toti Ecclesiae nota fu­erit facta. ait Zanch. in quartum Praecept. at least promovens, promoting Excommunication. Your own Argu­ments frequently intimate it.

If so, what greater contumely, con­tumacy against the Church of Eng­land, than of her own separated Members (in whom her just interest is not cancelled, though not esteemed) If she proceeds to Excommunicati­on you disclaim, spurn at it; If she proceeds not to Excommunication, you quarrel for this neglect. Separa­tion is (in some respects at least) more excommunicable, than prophanation, Schism than distemper. A debosh'd man, if discreetly reprehended (other­wise it is a reproach, not a reproof) will blush or tremble, but a separatist disdain, insult; he disturbs the peace of the Church, tears its Unity: the other perverts himself, disquiets his own conscience.

The Apostle so passionately re­sents the wound of Ecclesiastical fa­ction, Gal. 5. 19. that he burst out. I would they [Page 180] were even cut off that trouble you. 'Tis [...], that are unsetling, remo­ving you from your first station in the Church. Est noanihil emphaseos in conjunctione [...] (i.) amputentur, sive reiecentur, non solum judi­centur, sed etiam Anathema siant. Erasin. in Gal. 5. That they were cut off that trouble you. 'Tis [...], the Greek Phrase in the Primitive Church for Ex­communication.

The Apostle prescribes a recess, Rom. 16. 17. a di­stance as from excommunicated persons. [...] est at­tente, diligenter quasi hostes è spe­cula observetis, Beza in Rom. 16. 17. Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine you have learned, and avoid them: [...] is to observe diligently, to ken them, as Enemies from a watch Tower; and when they are discovered, [...], decline, wave them; Theo­phylacts gloss is [...], recoyl. The Method is observed by St. Chry­sostom, and Oecumenius: First, Divi­sions, That you ex­clude them as prophane out of your pub­lick Assem­blies by Ex­communicati­on, Diodati on Rom. 16. 17. [...]. O [...]cum. Rom. 16. then Scandals, Division being the prime subversion of the Church. Whilst it is united, Satan is not ad­mitted, Scandals are not started. These [Page 181] offences are expounded Heresies by the same Fathers. Gal. 5. 19, 20, 21. Heresies are in the Apostles carnal list, Pet. 2. Ep. 2. ch. v. 1. as well as sen­sual vices, they are alike execrable, titled damnable by the holy Ghost.

It is an Apostolical constitution, ne­ver to be abrogated. Gal. 1. 8. Though we, or an angel from heaven preach any other do­ctrine, than that which we have preach'd to you, So accounted by Is. Casaubon upon Athenaeus. let him be accurst. Not that an Angel from Heaven can preach any heretical Doctrine, but mortal men on Earth may, Anathema sit, id est segregatus, separatus, ex­clusus. Vincent. Lyrin. adv. Hae­res. who pretend an Angeli­cal heavenly sanctity: If any such be, the doom is determined. Let him be Anathema. It is a sort of Excommuni­cation, Hesychius, the first Christian Grammarian glosseth it by [...], excommunicated. Are not all the do­ctrinals of Christian Religion explod­ed by some or other separated Mem­bers, who in this Climate, in a few years have vented more heresies and blasphemies than any age, per­haps more than all the ages since the Apostles.

[Page 182] I never yet heard of any excommu­nicated for a Heretick out of any sepa­rate Church.

Even in point of practical conversa­tion, Indulgentiam sibi invicem tri­buerunt, ut cri­mina in silen­tium mitterent sua, vitam in­famare conati sunt alienam, Optat. l. 1. de Schis. Donat. The Donatists, who pressed the same objection against the African Or­thodox Churches, yet embraced in their own vitious and scandalous Gil­dorinians, Primians, Circumcelliones, indulging each other in impieties, ob­scuring their own crimes by defaming others. I shall not offer to revive a­ny such black impeachment, that may reflect on the present separation.

I have enlarged this meditation, not out of the least desire that the Church of England, if in its full power and lustre, should exercise its severe juris­diction towards those of your opinion, but only to blunt your keen edge, and allay your rigor. I am no Boanerges, no Son of Thunder towards any that are conscienciously erroneous.

Lastly, because the defect of Ex­communication is the main hinge of [Page 183] your separating from the Church of England, I pray recollect your self, and consider the true tenor and rigor of Excommunication, with the ancient practice of it.

That which you account Excom­munication, is rather to be named Ex­communion.

That spreading Generation of men, which reject all Sacred Ordinances, do not dread but deride this doom.

It is not to them a Thunder-bolt, but a Rattle.

Those prophane persons in the Church of England excepted against (and for them the Church it self) are either such as resent their ungracious courses, relent for them (these being not justly to be excommunicated) or else they are habitual obdurate Offen­ders. This sentence (as you seem to understand) is to them an indulgence; it serves to gratifie, not terrifie them, depriving them of that Sacrament, whereof they deprived themselves.

If you cast an eye upon the Ju­daical, and the Ancient Christi­an Discipline (Ecclesiastical) This appears but the first gradation of Ex­communication, [Page 184] nay, scarce that.

The first step among the Jews was Niddui, [...]. Juda in Si. Mos. 95. 1. Bux­torf. in Just. Epist. which signifies separation (twenty four causes whereof are reci­ted.) This was in some measure and degree a remotion, not only from Ec­clesiastical, but Civil and Domestick Society, such was not to be approach­ed to within four paces, of this sort probably was Cains Excommunicati­on. Those who were excommuni­cated, were the Menudde, who were discerned by their lips cover'd, and confined to the gate of the Mourners, not admitted to the gate of the Bridge­grooms. This is that separation men­tion'd, Luk. 6. 22. The exclusion put­ting out of the Synagogue, John 9. 22. the 12. 42. and 16. 2. This was a li­mited censure for three days. Such was the restraint of the Abstenti (men­tion'd by St. Cyprian) But the Offen­ders persevering obstinate, there was a second gradation, an aggravation of censure, without limitation of time.

Cherem with the addition of solemn Mosaical execration, without capa­city of being Rabby or Disciple (nei­ther being debarred in the former [Page 185] gradation) without liberty of access to any part of the Temple or Sy­nagogue.

This judgement proving ineffectu­al, the delinquent persisting impeni­tent. The third Gradation, Samatha, (or Schammatha) is an intire proscri­ption, a banishing from any Society of Gods people, an ultimate appeal, an immediate surrender to Divine ven­geance.

The Canonists and Schoolmen di­stinguish a lesser, and a greater Ex­communication (how warrantably as to Scripture Rules I discuss not) the lesser is a suspension from the Sacra­ment; 1 Cor. 5. 5. but the greater from all holy Assemblies and Duties (as Prayers and Sermons in the Congregation. 1 Tim. 1. 20.) This is a delivering to Satan to be destitute of the Spiritual Armory, for resisting, Si quis deli­querit ut à communicatione Orationis, & conventus & omnis sancti commercii religetur. Tert. in Apol. adv. Gent. & cap. 39. rejecting Satan, and in the Primitive Apostolical Church to be outwardly afflicted, corporally tormented by him.

[Page 186] This greater Excommunication doth dispriviledge the living from legal Ju­dicature, Excommunica­tio minor sepa­rat tantum à participatione Sacramentorum; Major Excom­municatio sepa­rat hominem & à Sacramentis Ecclesiae & à Communione fi­delium, Aquin. in suppl. 3. part. Qu. 23. Act. 1. and the dead from solemn Christian Sepulture [...], not admitting the excommunicated till absolv'd into the Church for any act of Communi­on, Devotion, or Attention: Not in­to Civil Courts for any Testimonies, not into private Houses for repast (un­less in special exigencies and relations) allowing them neither the Commodity of Commerce of Traffick, nor the fa­miliarity of converse, Vide formam Excommunica­tionis in Con­cil. Fransic. & apud Gratian. 11. 9. 11. Ca­nonica instituta (A Gremio sanctae matris Ecclesiae, & à consortio totius Christianitatis elimnamus.) of discourse (there being a glimmering resemblance hereof among the Heathens in Orestes Adrastus, in the judgement of Me­lanchthon.) The Schoolmen express these restraints in a Poetical summary.

Even in relaxation of this severe censure, there was in the Greek Church a gradual progress chalk'd [Page 187] out before a plenary absolution. The first Station is [...], To be wee­pers without the gate of the Church, Vide Canonem, Greg. Neo-Cae­sariensis de [...] loc. Penit. [...]. Orig. contra Celsum l. 3. in a doleful note to supplicate for the Prayers of those that enter in (who passionately mourn for them, saith O­rigen, as for the dead.) The Second Station is [...], To be Auditors within the gate. The third Station is [...], for an Humiliation of Devotion to pray, and depart with the Catechumeni. The fourth Station is [...], to be rank'd with the faith­ful in the Congregation. The last Station, the perfection of the rest, is [...], to be re-admitted to the Sacred Encharist.

These gradual abatements, and in­hancements of judiciary severity, may be singular restraints to curb the loose reigns of prophaneness in those that retain any reverence to the Or­dinance of Church Discipline. How­ever, to be debarred Civil Enfran­chising, and Domestick Offices will bridle the most insolent extravagant Offenders▪ who have the least inge­nuity of Nature. To conclude this point insensibly spun out beyond my intention.

As for your objection of whole Pa­rishes that have deserved to be ex­communicated, Supersedendum est Excommuni­catione quando tota plebs eo­dem laborat morbo. August. St. Austin doth not approve the Excommunication of a community, a multitude, because such a sentence will fail of obedience, it invites contempt, and rather steels and hardens, than scares and saddens Ma­lefactors. Nunquam tota Communitas ex­communicari debet, ne cum loliis & ziza­niis simul eradicetur & triticum. Aquin. in suppl. 3. part. Qu. 22. Act. 5. Aquinas seconds St. Austin with this reason, lest the pure ear be rooted up with the tare.

The Canon Law fortifies the same caution, lest the innocent be ex­terminated out of the Church, toge­ther with the delinquent. When in a Community all are engaged in the act of wickedness, yet not all alike in the guilt; some primarily interest­ed, others secondarily: some with delight, others with regret. How­ever a vitious multitude professing Christianity, if uncensured, is not Un­church'd.

The ANSWER.

You start an Objection, and quickly startle from it, as willing to be rid of it; it is propounded to its own dis­advantage, contracted and disfigured: like one who contrives the disesteem of a choice piece of Tapestry, by dis­covering [Page 190] the wrong side, and that not folded but rufled. You could have displayed it in a fuller measure, for proportion, in a brighter lustre for view.

The whole Church of Corinth was discompos'd (in its Members cor­rupted) for Doctrine, Discipline, Pra­ctice.

The Resurrection, 1 Cor. 15. 35. a Principle, a Fundamental of Religion contradicted, 1 Cor. 5. 1. scoffed.

A heinous prodigious incest not on­ly not censured, 1 Cor. 1. 12 but not mourned for. 1 Cor. 3. 3.

Carnal stains of Animosities, 1 Cor. 11. 18. Par­ties, Sects.

Contentions, 1 Cor. 6. 6, 7, 8. injurious Suits, scan­dalously prosecuted before Pagan Tri­bunals.

Intimation of Christian Liberty a­bused, 1 Cor. 6. 12, 15, 16▪ Chastity violated.

The wounding of Consciences. 1 Cor. 8. 12. Spi­ritual Murther, baning of souls.

Idolatrous Pollutions. 1 Cor. 10. 20, 21, 22.

The Decency of Ecclesiastical Cere­mies slurred. 1 Cor. 11. 13, 14, 15.

The Piety of Ecclesiastical Assem­blies blemish'd. 1 Cor. 11. 17.

[Page 191] Disorderly riot, 1 Cor. 11. 20. and distemper re­corded.

The Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per prophaned, 1 Cor. 11. 29, 30. and the diffusive guilt evidenced by a diffusive Judge­ment.

Ohè lassatum juvate posteri! The Church of Corinth was an Augean sta­ble to be purged.

Can any Separatist point out the Church of England with a more un­comely feature.

Indeed the Church of England doth not discover more scandal, than that of Corinth, but you express less Cha­rity than the Apostle. He entitled the Church of Corinth thus depraved, the Church of God. To this Obje­ction you frame a double resolution. First, as if the Apostle had reflected on their first constitution past, not their present condition and qualifi­cation.

This is (as Bembus blasphemed) to make Scripture a nose of Wax.

You confidently boult out an un­warranted, uncountenanced gloss; un­warranted, because it checks with the literal Grammatical expression. [Page 192] It is to the Church of God in [...] ▪ a Participle of the present Tense, nor is there the least plausible plea for a tropical evasion to flee to an Enal­lage temporis.

Since the holy Ghost vouchsafes the same title to the Corinthians of Corinth, in the 2 Ep. v. 1 of Galatia, Gal. 1. 2. of Ephesus, Rev. 2. 1. of Pergamus, Rev▪ 2. 12. of Thyatyra. Rev. 2. 18. of Sardis, Rev. 3. 1. of Laodicea, Rev. 3. 14. And yet all soyl'd with scandals.

Do not your self vindicate an Au­thority of Excommunication at Co­rinth, when this Epistle was written? Where there was a true power of Ex­communication, you must grant a true Church. The consequence is infalli­ble. Though there may in some Cases, which I have already manifested be a true Church, where there is not the Exercise of Excommunication (the terms being not reciprocal) yet where­soever there is a lawful exercise of excommunication, or a lawful right for that Exercise (though diverted) there is true Church.

As your Exposition is unwarranted, so uncountenanced by Primitive, by [Page 193] Reformed, or even Romish Commen­tators.

Produce but one of any repute, and your strained gloss shall pass more smooth and solemn. In the mean time I shall subscribe to the universal Com­ment. Omnes fallunt neminem, nemo omnes, Plin. All deceive none, none deceive all (saith Pliny.)

The Fathers generally flourish out the description of the present conditi­on of the Christians at Corinth (the Church of God) as a perswasive spell to conjure their Unity, Hunc titulum Corinthiis reli­quit quod scili­cet sic Dei Eccle­sia cum tot erro­ribus laboraret, &c. Facit id contra eos qui puram quaerunt Ecclesiam in terris, quam cum non reperiunt, omnibus caetibus solent nomen Ecclesiae adi­mere & alios damnent. Non tam rigidus censor est Apost. aqud Corin­thios. Aret. in 1 Cor. 1. not to be di­vided, and their Piety not to be defi­led, depraved.

Reformed Expositors raise as a natu­ral genuine observation on this title, a reproof of your Church separation.

Your second Answer closeth with the former. Sed mirum Pau­lum agnoscere Ecclesiam Dei (sanctificatos) quos paulo post ut schismaticos carnales reprehendit; sic vero testatum facit ubicun (que) nomen Christi invocatur, ibi Ecclesiam Dei agnoscendum esse charitatis judicio quantumvis naevis & morbis caetus ille laboret. Par. in 1 Cor. 1. Ecclesia Dei quae magnis vitiis laborat, modo admonentibus pareat. Jun & Irem. Though among many faults, worthy reprehension, yet the Apostle doth acknowledge them to be a Church, Diodat. in 1 Cor. 1. For if they must cast out, [Page 194] then they must be a Church, and the scandalous then of the Church (till e­jection, excommunication) for else they could not be cast out.

As for the excommunicating of their corrupt Members, the Historical evi­dence is very scanty; the sole instance is the incestuous person: wherein the judgement was determined, the sen­tence pronounced by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 5. 3. but recommended to the Church of Corinth, to be attested, to be effectu­ally executed.

Some eminent Divines, both anci­ently and lately have conjectured, That at the writing of this first Epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle St. Paul had not fully establish'd the Ecclesiasti­cal jurisdiction in the Church of Co­rinth, but retain'd the reins of Go­vernment in his own hands.

However, I shall not obtrude that o­pinion, not question the Commission of the Church of Corinth for excom­munication: nor can you justly the Ju­risdiction of the Church of England, which I have amply cleared from ad­ministring any cause of just deser­tion upon this account, though there [Page 195] may be vented an unjust imputa­tion.

Whether the Church of Corinth might excommunicate its own corrupt members, is not controverted betwixt us. But whether (these being not excommunicated) the sound part was bound to separate locally from the un­sound in religious Exercise. Let it be proved that this was effected at Co­rinth.

The ANSWER.

The double Answer to this Para­bolical Objection is like Mephibo­sheth, [...], halting with both feet.

First, you mince it as an unnecessa­ry concession, that it is to be proved by me, and assay'd to be disproved by your self. In other passages, in other parables, recited in this Chapter the Kingdom of Heaven is the Church, [Page 197] why not in this? Regnum Caelo­rum (i.) status Ecclesiae mili­tantis, Gl. Ord. in Matth. 13. 24. This is the ordinary gloss, this is the Exposition of the Primitive Fathers, (the Donatists ex­cepted) But you offer rationally to e­vince the contrary. The Church is not the Kingdom of Heaven, because the preaching of the Gospel is. This Ex­ception is ignoratio Elenchi. Both may be so titled in different con­siderations. The Church on Earth is the Kingdom of Heaven initiate, and the Kingdom of Heaven is the Church consummate; the preaching of the Gospel is the efficient instrumental cause for propagating the Church on Earth, for promoting to the Kingdom of Heaven, and may Metonymically be so named.

After this Objection you Question (But how came in the Tares?) it con­cerns not our Controversie to sift the Original, for the admittance of the Tares, but the peril of their continu­ance: Or whether a Field, because it hath good Ears, ought to be quitted, because it hath Tares intermingled? I shall dismiss this curiosity, touching the Original of the Tares, as St. Au­stin did an enquiry touching Original [Page 198] sin, with the pert reply of one plunged in a deep pit, Cogita, quomo­do hinc me libe­res, non quomo­do huc recid [...] ­rem quaeras, Au­gust. Ep. 29. ad Hier. who being demanded by a passenger the occasion of that disa­ster: He replyed, Be sollicitous how I may be rescued out of this pit, not how I came to be ingulfed in it.

The second part of your Answer observes the likeness of Tares to Wheat, scarce to be discerned. 'Tis true, in the blade, but not in the ear. The Text doth manifestly assert their manifestation. Matth. 13. 26. ( But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then the tares appeared also.) They were not permitted to be served before Har­vest, not because they were obscur'd, not sufficiently discover'd; but lest the pure grain should be hazarded to be rooted up, being so intermingled with the Tares. When this mischief of a promiscuous extirpation may be prevented, Tares ought not to be suf­fer'd, (I confess) but Tares do often improve to be so numerous and vigo­rous in such strength and multitude, that they prevail above the Wheat, in this case both must be reserved till Harvest to be separated.

[Page 199] Should the Church of England ad­dress it self by Ecclesiastical severity, to root out the Quakers, Ranters, A­nabaptists, &c. whom you will allow to be Tares, it were a fruitless attempt, a phrensie of piety.

There being so populous an increase, they must be suffered to grow together till the Harvest.

This demonstrates, That the Church Militant is not exempted, acquitted from Tares, and that the Wheat grows with them in the same Field.

I shall not examine for the literal sense, whether these Tares are to be understood Thorns (as Aretius ima­gines) or spreading Plants (as Diodati fancies) peculiar to the soyl of Pale­stine, noxious to Corn; whether par­ched Corn on the same stalk, with the purest grain, or a distinct cockle, a kind of darnel or eaver.

It is Isidore Pelosiots caution, not to take [...], not scan syl­lables and circumstances in Parables; [Page 200] wherein only the scope is properly ar­gumentative.

The three Parables couch'd up in your Objection, are like different lines that meet in one and the same Cen­ter, the same drift or design to disco­ver the mixt condition of the Church Militant, of various colours like a Rain-bow: The season of separation of condemnation, being the day of Judgement, which as the Italian speaks of the day of death, Quia zizania cernimus in Ec­clesia non ideo recedendum est ab Ecclesia, Cypr. l. 3. Ep. 3. ad Max. ( leva tutte le­maschere) takes of all Masks. St. Cy­prian hence infers, because we discern Tares in the Church, we must not therefore depart from the Church.

It is the observation of Junius and Tremelius translated exactly in our Eng­lish Marginal Annotation. Christus docet nunquam peni­tus liberam fore Ecclesiam ab offendiculis tum in doctrina & moribus, &c. Jun. & Trem. in Matth. 13. (The Church shall never be free from offences, both in Doctrine and Manners, till the day appointed for the restoring of all things do come; and therefore the faithful have to arm themselves with patience and constancy. This instructs an humble, holy▪ toleration, not a stern, haughty separation.

In the conflict betwixt the Reform­ed and the Romish, when the Romish [Page 201] Disputants object these three Parables to confirm that Reprobates are Mem­bers of the Catholick Church; our Reformed Champions do unanimously reply, That these Parables are Hiero­glyphicks, Representatievs of a parti­cular visible Church, not to be stretch'd, and applied to the Catholick and invi­sible. If you question the truth of my recital of this responsal, I will produce for your satisfaction a full particular Catalogue.

Instance at present only in Whit­akers determination touching these three Parables. We do not deny in the floor, Nos non nega­mus in area, id est, in Ec­clesia quaquae visibili, esse pa­leam cum tri­tico mistam. Sed cum Aug. ta­men dicimus, in Ep. 48. Eccle­siam in fru­mentis domini­cis conservatum esse non in pa­l [...]is; & Ecclesiam crescere inter zizania, sed non esse agrum zizani­orum. Whitak. in praelect. Contr. 7. qu. 1. c. 7. de Ecclesia. that is in every visible Church, there is Chaff mixt with the Wheat; but notwithstanding, we a­ver with St. Austin in the 48. Epistle, the Church to be preserved in the Lords Grain, not in the Chaff, but with the Chaff, that the Church groweth a­mong the Tares, yet is not a Field of Tares.

In the renowned dispute the Car­thage, betwixt the Catholick Bishops, [Page 202] and the Donatist Bishops, assembled by the Edict of the Emperour (our Controversie being then in solemn a­gitation) The Parable of the Net col­lecting the good and bad Fish being pressed by the Catholick Bishops, the Donatists were pinch'd so far, as to confess good and wicked persons to be in the Church, but the wicked only covertly, as in a Net in the Sea, whilst the good Fish are not distinguish'd from the bad: But the Catholick Bishops reinforc'd their Parabolical Argument. The Church is not only compared to a Net, hut also to a Floor, wherein the Chaff is more apparent that the Corn. The Donatists, though convinced, yet were not silenced, but clamor'd. This were to constitute two Churches, one on Earth mingled with sacred and prophane: the other in Heaven severed, sanctified, refined from dress and mixtures.

The Catholick Bishops vindicated the Church to be one and the same, but not in one and the same state Mi­litant and Triumphant. The Church may in some considerations be expressed mortal, because consisting of mortal [Page 203] members on Earth, but immortal in Heaven: As Christ himself was mor­tal before his Passion, but immortal after his Resurrection. Hereupon the Donatists reviled rather than argued, and triumph'd (or rather vapor'd) when themselves were conquered; as if a strange Paradox had been vented in asserting the Church is mortal. The Catholick Bishops candidly reply: Times ought to be distinguish'd. The Church in its present condition admits corruptible Saints, in its future incor­ruptible; when a mortal dress shall be exchanged for a robe of immorta­lity. Confutatos à Ca­tholicis Dona­tistas omnium documentorum manifestatione pronuncians, Aug. in op. Brev. Collat. cum Donat. in fine 3. diei coll. The Judge (or Mediator) here­with satisfied, set a period to the de­bate in that particular, and in the fi­nal close of that grand disputation, the said day he pronounced, that the Donatists were manifestly confuted by the Catholick Bishops.

But you are still unsatisfied, that though Tares be permitted (as un­discerned, covert Hyppocrites) yet that no way be left that pernicious weeds should be ejected. I grant they may be rooted out by excommunicati­on, but I deny a separation without [Page 204] it. The wholesome Herbs and fra­grant Flowers in the Garden are not to be neglected, abandon'd, because some pestilent weeds are not rooted up. Beware left your separating be the weeding of our Garden.

If you wave Humility and Charity, your selected Flowers are but perfumed Thistles; like the Ibides in Alexandria, which exclude one stench, but create another.

Lastly, you Syllogise.

If Christ should allow of wicked men to be taken into his Church, and to be continued in, he would contra­dict himself, as hath been proved.

But Christ doth not contradict him­self. Therefore,

Not to except against the illogical composure of your Syllogism in an Hy­pothetical form, which being reduced to Categorical (the Logical exactest) its want of genuine artifice will be e­vident▪ But not to sift punctilioes of Art, of Mood, and Figure. I answer, your major proposition is a false sup­position, you obtrude a tenet which we own not, That God allows the taking and continuing of wicked men [Page 205] into his Church. I pray distinguish betwixt permission and approbation; and for the admittance and continu­ance of the wicked, betwixt the visible and invisible Church: This permit­ting in the visible Church is not the ac­quitting of the men, but the protracting of the doom.

If your Major be understood of the approbation of wicked men in the in­visible (the Catholick Church) it is an impertinence, we disclaim any such assertion.

If your Major be meant of the to­leration of wicked men in a particular, in a visible Church, it is an inconse­quence: Christ doth not herein con­tradict himself. So that the force of your smart proof is but the flourish of Sophistry. 'Tis fallacia consequentis.

The ANSWER.

Though the Argument you slightly propose hath not efficacy enough to demonstrate, yet it wants not proba­bility to perswade, unless interest or prejudice suggest that of the Comoe­dian.

The concurrence of Texts and Cir­cumstances renders the Apostolical Precept ( Let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11. 28.) more pregnant and important. Primum disce, probationem no­stri non alteri­us requiri. Aret. in 1 Cor. 11. 28.

The subject of the latter part of this Chapter, from the seventh to the end, is the reprehension of the prophanati­on of the Lords Supper, a reproof of [Page 207] mental abuses at Corinth) wherein, notwithstanding spreading notorious corruptions, yet the Apostle prescribes only a self examination, without re­flection upon others: This emphati­cal restriction of the object (himself) is repeated, reinforced, not only in point of scrutiny, of search; but in re­gard of penalty, of peril in vers. 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, and in vers. 30. If we judge our selves. 'Tis our selves exclusively of others. (Otherwise it were a spice of arro­gance, not repentance.) From the li­mitation himself thus varied Calvin raiseth a double observation. In quibus verbis duo sunt ob­servanda: pri­mum indigne panem domini edere non esse cum iis qui indigni sunt communicare, sed non rite prae­parare seipsum, nec expendere fidem propriam & paenitentiam. Alterum cum caena recipienda est, ne initium facimus ab aliis quo exa­minemus ipsos, sed nosmet ipsos probemus, & certe si accurate considerentur omnia, qui ita otia abundant, ut inquirant in alios, saepius in re sua sunt negligentes & obliviosi. Calv. Curiosi ad cognoscendam vitam alienam, desidiosi ad corrigendam suam. Aug. in Cont. l. 10. c. 3. 1. To eat the Lords bread unworthily, is not to communicate with the unworthy, but without due preparation of ones self, without discussion of ones own faith and repentance. 2. When we intend to be Communicants, let us not take our rise abroad to sift others, but [Page 208] our selves. Certainly (saith the same Author) if all things be exactly con­sidered, they who have so much va­cancy to be inquisitive after others, are frequently negligent, and forget­ful as to themselves, their own lapses, the sharpness of their intellectuals and memories, being exercised at di­stance, out of their own Sphere.

You answer, 1. You are bound to look to another, to keep your self clean, that is by not partaking of his uncleanness, by act, or by consent, di­rect, or indirect. 2. You are bound to deal with him, if he offend, ac­cording to the Rule of Christ.

I have already copiously discuss'd that Rule, and cleared it from your misapprehension. 3. If he be wick­ed, I am bound to see him purged from the Congregation, 1 Cor. 5. 6, 12.

This objection hath been formerly debated, and satisfied. 4. I am not bound to suffer sin to lye on my Bro­ther, much less on my self. That sin may not lye on your self, you ought to prevent the Commission, if not thus to be a Prometheus, yet to be an Epi­metheus by contrition and reformation. [Page 209] That sin may not lye on your Bro­ther (as you express it) you ought at fit opportunities to reprove, and to pray that your reproof may be effectu­al; if it be ineffectual, you ought to mourn, not to depart.

God vouchsafed an Asterisk, Ezek. 9. 4. a mark to be set upon the foreheads of them that mourn, and are sorry for all the abominations that be done in Jerusalem; yet those holy mourners separated not from the persons of those that acted the abominations. The Testimony you cite, Levit. 18. 17. ( Thou shalt not discover shame, &c.) relates to Nuptial, not to Sacramental Union or Separa­tion; it concerns affinity in Marriage, but hath no affinity, no consanguinity with our Controversie.

You object Cains Language, Am I my brothers keeper, an answer more horrid than his Murther in Gregory Nazianzens Judgement, an aggravation of his crime by expostulation. To be a deserter, is not to be a Bro­thers keeper, much less to be his ac­cuser.

[Page 210] 'Tis Satans title and office, the ac­cuser of the Brethren. Schism is no spiritual guard, Separation no brother­ly protection, unless like the Parthian Soldier, you will make your flight a defensive fight, and will vindicate your Brother, whilst you retreat, you separate from him.

The ANSWER.

Gods Ministers ought Doctrinally to decypher the Sheep and the Goats, not judicially to discriminate to sever [Page 211] the Sheep from the Goats, this being the censure of the last day.

They claim a discretive Judgement in Religion as Christians, a Directive as Ministers (to borrow Occhams distin­ction) but not absolutely a decretive Judgement, much less an executive to proceed disorderly to execution (to separate) before the Church hath pro­ceeded to condemnation (to excom­municate) your Scripture Citations have been already examined ( Jer. 15. 19. Matth. 7. 6.) You object, they kill souls, if they do it not, Ezek. 13. 19, 20. And will you pollute me among my people for handfuls of barly, and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, in lying to my people that hear your lies? Wherefore, thus saith the Lord God, Behold I will have to do with your pillow, wherewith you hurt the souls to make them to fly.) This is entirely, [...], an imper­tinency. This primarily concerns the Female predictions of Female Sor­cerers, whose magical deceits were cheap Merchandise among the Jews. If by the wrench of comparison, of [Page 212] allusion you make application of this to the Clergy of the Church of Eng­land; I shall answer only, that we may, and ought to refer it by appeal to the judgement of the grand Ses­sion, and of the Universal Monarch, whose Ambassadors we are to deter­mine, whose Prophesie is most sor­did and mercenary, ‘(Hinc panis fumus (que) domi—)’ Yours or ours. I pray God be mer­ciful to any who that day shall appear guilty, when our hearts shall be as visible as our faces: when we shall not list nor dare to Canonize our selves, nor Anathematize others.

Your next Testimony is Jer. 8. 10, 11. ( Every one from the least even to the greatest is given to covetousness, and from the prophet to the priest, every one deals falsly. For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people, with sweet words, saying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace.) If you in­tend this Citation as a Proof, it is not pertinent to the Controversie, if you [Page 213] intend it as a charge, as an invective (given to covetousness) I shall not retort it, and shape one calumny, an Apology for another (like the Scor­pions inwards prescribed, a physical cure against its sting) but I shall pray, that you and we may purge both our hands, and our hearts from this guilt. That neither of us may sacrifice our souls to our fortunes, nor ever repair a subsistence with the least breach of conscience.

As for the next impeachment of Levites that turn Parasites ( saying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace) we tax your own to applaud schism, whilst you separate from our Paro­chial Congregations; you indict us as accessories to prophanation, whilst we do not separate. I shall not dis­miss this debated Problem, with the Rabbinical dilatory evasion in such disputes, When Elias comes, he will resolve us. In the mean time, we are countenanced by the uncontrol­led practice of the Synagogue and Temple of the Jews, of all Christian Churches in all ages, excepting such [Page 214] as have been universally resented and recorded for Schismatical at least, if not Heretical.

You argue, that Ministers are like good Stewards to divide the word aright, and to give every man his portion. In this you bicker only with your own shadow. I shall not discuss the confirmation by Text, 2 Tim. 2. 5. 1 Cor. 4. 1, 2, 3. Since I grant the whole assertion. It is their duty to divide the word aright, or to handle it, according to the Remists. (The Latin Fathers calling their Ex­positions, Tracts, as the Greek Tomes) To preach the Word aright (accord­ing to the Syriack.) To preach with life and voice (saith Primasius) when the Conversation is a constant Sermon. [...] imports artificial exactness, and spiritual uprightness, like a Ma­thematician to draw a streight line (which can be but one (saith Eu­clid) betwixt two points, but many oblique, bending) To chalk out the streight way to Heaven, to cut out the direct path, or like a Cook to pre­pare, and temper, and proportion [Page 215] viands to all sorts of guests, or like a Steward to give every one his portion, to the wounded conscience, a lenitive (consolation) to the festred, ulcer'd soul, a corrosive (reprehension) But can you resolve the Apostles Interro­gatory, 2 Cor. 12. 16. Who is sufficient for these things? This requires singular ability, and integrity, the mixture of Endow­ments, Seraphims and Cherubims. These Meditations should excite sor­row, and anguish, and astonishment, no Motives of Justification, of Sepa­ration. We may be faithful dispen­sers of Divine Mysteries, and yet not be deserters of Christian Assemblies for offences not convicted.

I may apply that to my self for the Sacramental Communion (which is especially started at) what Averroes spoke of his Physick; That he ne­ver administred a Purgation, but his heart trembled some days before: And though I would neglect no Sa­cred Expedients to prepare and qua­lifie others, to promote the penitent, and to deterr the impenitent; yet after all assays, I apprehend my [Page 216] self the greatest offender in the Con­gregation.

Being most acquainted with the corruptions of my own heart, being bound to be a severe Inquisitor in my own bosom (not in other mens) my depraved condition being aggravated by my sacred Function; which ren­ders the indifferencies of others my infirmities, the frailties of others my crimes and prodigies (there being as large a Sacrifice prescribed in the Mo­saical Law, for the Priest, as for the whole Congregation) so dilated, mul­tiplied is my guilt, chargeable with that ignorance I inform not, with that negligence I rouze not, with every offence I reprove not, with every er­rour I confute not (within my Do­mestical and Parochial bounds at least) So that approaching to the Lords Table, with these searching per­plexities, and agonies of spirit, I doom my self more unworthy to administer, that [...], (as St. Chryso­stom expresseth it) that dread mystery, than any Christian Communicant to receive it at my hands.

[Page 217] You conduct my Pen from the Ministers to the Church, alledging Gods church to look to it, 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. This objection hath already past the Anvil. Neither the active care nor cure of Ecclesiastical Discipline doth properly belong to the whole Church collectively, nor to the parti­cular distinct Members severally and individually, as to subjectum adaequatum. This Exercise of this power doth ap­pertain to those, that stear, that guide in the Pinnace of the Church, not to those that tug and row: un­less you will consound the Helm and the Ore. The submission enjoyned by the Apostle, Heb. 13. 17. ( Obey them that have the over-sight of you, and sub­mit your selves, for they watch for your souls) is not to be confined to their spiritual Doctrines; but extended to their Ecclesiastical censure.

As to your objection. Grant your own expression in your own interpre­tation (that the Church is to look to it) This warrants the Church to censure its Members, it doth not justifie the [Page 218] Member to censure the Church, to se­parate from it.

Lastly, you add, 2 Cor. 2. 6. It is suf­ficient to the same man that he was re­buked by many. 'Tis [...], under, or in the presence of many, which is a gloss best reconcileable to the phrase of the same Apostle, 1 Cor. 5. 4. ( You being gathered together) 'Tis by many, because of the publick So­lemnity attested by the whole Congre­gation. However you expound it, this confirms a jurisdiction in the Church, not a discession out of it.

The ANSWER.

That you are brief, suits with the grace and artifice of an Epistle, which if voluminous is monstrous.

My over copious answer needs your ample candor to ex­cuse it. I would not be con­cise, because I might not be too obscure.

Having aimed to unty each knot, not to cut it, not to e­vade but satisfie. If it appear so material, prove so effectual, as in the least degree to pro­cure the end designed, I shall account this reply compendious [Page 221] enough. Vide quot ver­sibus Homerus, quot Virgilius arma, hic Aentae, Achillis ille de­scribat, brevis tamen uter (que) est, quia facit quod instituit, Plin. Ep. l. 5. ad A­pollinarem. This being Pliny's plea for the prolixity of Ho­mer and Virgil, setting out the Arms and Exploits of Achilles and Aeneas. If in this my inten­tion is frustrated; this is much too profuse of ink and time. It wants brevity, if it wants effi­cacy. Yet in this case, ‘Vna litura sat est.’

Give me leave in the close friendly and brotherly to ad­vise, That you beware of new Tenets; they are like new Wines; they sume up to mens heads, make them light and giddy.

It is the Apostles grave charge, Heb. 13. 9. [...]. Be not carryed about with divers and strange doctrines.

[Page 222] Or if you look back, do not dote on that part, that ble­mish of Antiquity, which the Church of Christ hath in all ages exploded for He­resie.

I pray examine well before you determine or censure, without some grains of holy compliance you will not edifie aright. It is an Italian Proverb ( Duro con duro non fa bon muro) Rough stones will never make a firm structure, without a yield­ing material, without cement to close them. The Apostle di­ctates moderation towards all men. Phil. 4. 4. It is [...], lenity, gen­tleness in opposition to [...], to exactness of ri­gor.

You may live to acknow­ledge my words Prophetical: [Page 223] When future years and various occurrences shall improve you spiritual prudence and experi­ence (especially if God shall vouchsafe a sanctified calamity) you will confess the Unity, the Peace of the Church, to conduce more to the saving of souls, than the most specious Sects varnish'd with the most pious, glorious pretences.

You cannot be to caute­lous in rending the Church of England. If you dissect her bowels, sift her Articles, her Constitutions; you may per­haps discover more Beauty of Purity, Nesciebam mihi adeo pulchram fuisse matrom Xiphilin. in vita Neronis. than you imagined (like Neroes acknowledgment) How­ever cast not dirt upon the Dugs that gave you Milk (the sincere Milk of the Go­spel) Tear not the Womb [Page 224] of your Christian birth by Baptism.

Let me recommend to you the Apostolical charm, Eph. 4. 3. Endea­vouring to keep the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace. It is [...]. Hastily endeavour­ing, lest the wounds of a bleed­ing languishing Church be­come uncurable.

Let me censure you with A­brahams powerful Rhetorick. Let there be no strife between me and thee, Gen. 13. 8. for we are bre­thren. The precedent words enforce, enliven the spell of this sacred Eloquence. More­over the Canaanites and Pere­zites dwelled at that time in the Land. Then said Abra­ham to Lot, &c. There are men of Romish principles in the Land, lately titled Recusants, [Page 225] but now I am to enquire how to name them: Non sint Collegae, si noluit, tamen fratres sunt. Fra­ter meus igitur Parmenianus, &c. Optat. de Schism, Donat. l. 1. Consider whose hands you weaken, your Brethren: So you are to us as Parmenianus was to Optatus.

Recollect your self whom you fortifie, our common Ro­mish Adversaries. The Eclipse of the Church of England is their Splendor. They are u­nited by our divisions, justified by our mutual Reproaches; our Scandals and Schisms objected, proclaimed by our selves, are their renowned, gloried Victo­ries and Triumphs:

I hope in these Cautions, and all other passages, I shall have no cause to revive Theo­dorus complaint; that what is tendred with the right hand, is received with the left.

You have my judgement re­quested, [Page 226] sincerely discovered without any wily, windy col­lusion; as weighing, I must pass an account on the dreadsul day of Judgement, for every word hath past my Pen in this de­bate.

As to your promise of weigh­ing this in the Ballance of the Sanctuary, I am not diffident of your performance, but I pray remember in Phocylides expres­sion [...], let the Scales be held even, not bended with a singular prejudice. For in Scripture, as in a glass, our prejudicate O­pinion discerns only its own complexion.

Like the indulgent phansie of that Athenian Thrasilaus, who walking on the Key of Athens, conceited that every [Page 227] ship which arrived was his own.

As to your engagement of embracing whatever bears the Scriptum est; I shall only offer to your consideration St. Au­stin's Maxime. There is no Ex­position of sacred Writ proceeded from the holy Ghost, un­less it tend to Charity: And if you please to annex to this Ca­non the same Fathers pithy E­jaculations. That in perusing and citing the Scriptures. Grant, O Lord, Ne fallar in iis, ne fallam ex iis. Aug. that I my self be not deceived in them, that I deceive not others by them.

Lastly, I shall assure you of a reciprocal Love. Our Affe­ctions may be link'd, though our opinions are not. And though we are not both members of a separated Church on each; [Page 228] yet I hope (by the sacred Me­rits of our blessed Redeemer) we shall be both in the same Congregated Church in Hea­ven: Where in a full Quire of Angels, all Notes shall be tuned to an exact Harmony, no jar of Faction, no Descant of Divisi­on, but entire Unisons: where our Anathemaes shall be ex­changed to Anthems, our Cen­sures to Allelujah.