I Heartily thank you for putting me in mind of our late Discourse, and for giving me so fair an opportunity to pursue it, by the Sermon that you sent me; which I greedily read, and had no soon­er run over, but I bless'd my self to find, that you should put the Cause upon this Issue, and to appeal to that for the justification of the present Separa­tion. I look'd again, and thought that you might be mistaken, and had sent me a Sermon against Mr. Jenkin, rather than one for him. It was a Di­scourse that I do acknowledge my self not to be altogether a Stranger to, and what I then retained some remembrance of; but yet wholly to unde­ceive my self, I sent for the Book which you say you compared it with, and, to my no small satisfa­ction, found them (as to what concerns the matter of our Dispute) honestly to agree; and that you may as well bring the one to vouch for the credit [Page 44] of the other, as he himself may (if there were oc­casion) Mr. Brinsley's Arraignment of Schism (from whence he hath borrowed the substance of this Sermon) in the justification of what he hath said here upon that Subject.

And now, Sir, I am glad that I have brought you thus far; for I desire no better advantage than what this Sermon will afford me, and shall decline the Order that we observed in our Discourse, on purpose to comply with it.

You may remember, that I then undertook to shew,

1. That the old Nonconformists did themselves hold Lay-Communion with the Church of Eng­land, and accounted those that did not, guil­ty of Schism, as by their Writings yet extant doth appear.

2. That the present Nonconformists, who are Pres­byterians, did plead their Practice, and use their Arguments, against the Independents, and others, that did in the late Times separate from themselves.

3. That Lay-Communion with the Church of Eng­land, is the same in our Times, that it was in the Times of the old Nonconformists; and that the Church of England hath as much to say for it self now, as it had then.

[Page 45] 4. That therefore the new Separation doth not in reality differ from the old, and is truly Schism, if either they, or the old Nonconformists spoke true.

Now this I look upon as a very covenient Me­thod to bring the Case to a Decision; but because I will shew how willing I am to meet you, and how confident I am in the goodness of my Cause, I shall take that course which will more readily lead me to make use of the Sermon, though in the pursuing of that, I shall also say what will serve for the proof of the Propositions before laid down.

In the first place, it will be necessary to shew what Schism is. Now, that, as may be collected from Mr. Jenkin here, is a perverse or undue sepa­ration from Church-Communion, pag. 21, 22. or, a voluntary and unnecessary dividing and separation from a true Church, pag. 31.

And upon this Definition I shall proceed, and shew,

1. That the Church of England is a true Church.

2. That there is a Separation from it.

3. That this Separation is voluntary and unneces­sary.

4. That therefore the present Separation is schis­matical.

1. That the Church of England is a true Church. [Page 46] But here we are put to it, to tell what the Church of England is, by the Author of Sacrilegious Desertion, pag. 35. We are told (saith he) of Schism from the Church of England, when I would give all the Money in my Purse, to make me understand what the Church of England is. I might here, without any more ado, refer him to Mr. Baxter for resolution, of whom, Mr. Hickman saith, in his Bonasus Vapulans, printed the same Year, pag. 138. That he has Com­munion with the Church of England in all Ordinan­ces; who cannot but certainly know what that Church is, or else how can he hold Communion with it? But because there is so great a Profit like to attend it, and in compassion to him that hath there raised so much dust that he cannot see his own way, I shall for once tell him what it is by Wise Men thought to be, viz. That Company of Persons, in this Nation, that doth joyn together in the Ordinances of God, according to the Laws esta­blished amongst us for Ecclesiastical Matters. It is the joyning together in the Ordinances of God, which makes a Church a True Church, as Mr. Brinsley saith, in his Arraignment of Schism, pag. 31. And it's the joyning together in them, according to the Laws established amongst us, that makes such a Church to be the Church of England. I must profess, Sir, to you, That I can hardly forbear to expose that [Page 47] Book of Sacrilegious Desertion, that as much abounds with Ill-nature, Self-conceit, Confusion, and Self-contradiction, as any that I have met with of that kind; but because the Author hath been in many things of good use to the Church of God, I shall not treat him with that rigour such a Book deserves; and shall therefore proceed to shew, That this Church is a True Church. He indeed, pag. 43. of that Book, when it had been objected against the present sepa­ration, That their Members are taken out of True Churches, replies, How many Bishops have written, that the Church of Rome is a True Church, &c. and must no Churches therefore be gathered out of them? [Her, it should be.] thereby disingenuously insinu­ating, That the Church of England is no otherwise a true Church than that of Rome, and may as safely be separated from. Now how the Church of Rome is said to be a true Church, Mr. Brinsley will inform us, pag. 26. of his Arraignment of Schism: There is a twofold Trueness; Natural, the one; Moral, the other: In the former sense, a Cheater, a Thief may be said to be a true Man, and a Whore a true Woman, and (till she be divorced) a true Wife; yea, and the Devil himself, though the Father of Lies, yet a true Spirit. And in this sense we shall not need to grutch the Church of Rome the name of a true Church; if not so, why do we call her a Church? A Church she [Page 48] is, in regard of the outward Profession of Christiani­ty; but yet a false Church: true in Existence, but false in Belief, &c. not so a true Church, but that she is also a false Church, an Heretical, Apostatical, Antichristian Synagogue. But whether the Author of Sacrilegious Desertion hath the same thoughts of the Church of England, let pag. 76. shew, where he saith, As I constantly joyn in my Parish-Church in Li­turgie and Sacraments, so I hope to do while I live (if I live under as honest a Minister) at due times. And he would by all means have their Assemblies accounted onely as Chappel-Meetings, pag. 15. with respect to the Publick. Now God forbid that all this should be, and that in the mean time he should think, that the Church of England is no more a true Church than the Church of Rome, and not more to be held Communion with. But the contrary is evi­dent from him, and so his abovesaid Insinuation the more blame-worthy. But however, let him think as he pleaseth, it is very obvious, that the constant Opinion of the old Nonconformists was, That the Church of England was a true Church, and what, as such, they thought that they were oblig'd to hold Communion with. So Mr. Baxter, in his Preface to the Cure of Church-Divisions, saith of them; The old Nonconformists, who wrote so much against Separa­tion, were neither blind, nor Temporizers. They saw [Page 49] the danger on that side. Even Brightman on the Re­velation, that writeth against the Prelacy and Cere­monies, severely reprehendeth the Separatists. Read but the Writings of Mr. J. Paget, Mr. J. Ball, Mr. Hil­dersham, Mr. Bradshaw, Mr. Bains, Mr. Rathband, and many such others, against the Separatists of those Times, and you may read, that our Light is not great­er, but less than theirs, &c. So Mr. Crofton, in his Reformation not Separation, (though several of them he evidently wrongs, that were far from any disaf­fection to the Order and Discipline of the Church, as Ridley, &c.) pag. 43. Tindal, Hooper, Ridley, La­timer, Farrar, Whitaker, Cartwright, Bains, Sibbs, Preston, Rogers, Geree, J. Ball, Langly, Hind, Ni­cols, &c. groaning under retained Corruptions, &c. yet lived to their last breath in constant Communion with the Church.▪ And this they did, upon the sup­position of this Truth. Nay, so far were they per­suaded of this, that they did prefer it to most Churches in the World. So the Letters betwixt the Ministers of Old and New-England, published by Mr. Ash and Mr. Rathband, 1643. If we deny Communion with such a Church as ours, there hath been no Church this thousand years with which a Chri­stian might lawfully joyn. When the Wars began, there were those indeed that talked otherwise, and then they would persuade the People, that there [Page 50] was no difference betwixt that and Rome; as Mr. Marshal, in his Sermon upon the Ʋnion of the Two Houses, Jan. 18. 1647. All Christendom, except Ma­lignants in England, do now see, that the Question in England is, Whether Christ or Antichrist shall be Lord and King? Then those that were suspended before the Long-Parliament time, were the Witnes­ses that were slain, and the Prelacy was an Antichri­stian Power; and the taking away of that, and the Ceremonies, was the tenth part of the City falling, as Mr. Woodcock did expound it, in his Sermons of the two Witnesses, 1643. pag. 83, & 86. Then they were the Amorites, and there was the cup of abomi­nation amongst them, as you may find it in a Book called The Principal Acts of the General Assembly convened at Edinburgh, May 29. 1644. pag. 19. But when the Tide began to turn, and Presbytery was opposed, and in great danger of being run down by Independency, they changed their Tune, and began to plead for the Truth of it, and their Propriety in it. Thus we find Ordination according to the Church of England maintained by the Lon­don-Ministers, in their Vindication, pag. 143. We do not deny, but that the way of Ministers entring into the Ministry by the Bishops, had many defects in it:—But we add, That notwithstanding all the acci­dental corruptions, yet it is not substantially and essen­tially [Page 51] corrupted: By Dr. Seaman, in his Answer to the Diatribe; by Mr. Brinsley of Schism, page 31. by Mr. Firmin, in his Separation examined, page 23. Then we are told, That Preaching and Prayer were kept pure in the Episcopal days, by Mr. Firmin, ibid. pag. 29. And to shew you how reverendly they spoke of this Church, I will onely quote it from one that must be thought to speak out of no affection, and that is J. Goodwin, in his Sion College visited, pag. 26. Doubtless the real and true Ministers of the Province of London, having such abundant opportunity of converse with Travellers from all Parts, cannot but be full of the truth of this Information, That there was more of the truth and power of Reli­gion in England, under the late Prelatical Govern­ment, than in all the Reformed Churches besides.

But you will say, All this may be granted, and yet nothing said; for the Case is altered, the Church of England not being now what it was then. This, I acknowledge, the Author of Sacrilegious Desertion, pag. 43. doth suggest; The love of Peace, and the fear of frightning any further from Parish-Communi­on than I desire, do oblige me to forbear so much as to describe or name the additional Conformity, and that Sin which Nonconformists fear and fly from, which maketh it harder to us that desire it, to draw many good People to Communion with Conformists, than it [Page 52] was of old. But this additional Conformity that the People are concerned in, I am yet to understand; and I fear he had another Reason to forbear the description of it, viz. because he could not. How­ever, for once suppose this; yet he grants, that it's onely harder; but that doth not make it unlaw­ful: For then what shall we say to Mr. Corbet, that in his Discourse of the Religion of England, An­no 1667. pag. 33. doth declare, That the Presbyte­rians generally hold the Church of England to be a true Church, though defective in its Order and Discipline, and frequent the Worship of God in the Publick As­semblies? (I believe he speaks of those that he con­verses with, for here it is generally otherwise as to the point of Practice.) What shall we say to Mr. Hickman, that in his Bonasus Vapulans, page 133. saith of himself, I profess, where-ever I come, I make it my business to reconcile People to the Publick Assem­blies; my Conscience would fly in my Face, if I should do otherwise? What shall be said to that of Mr. Bax­ter, in his Cure of Church-Divisions, pag. 263, 264, 265. where he saith, Thousands of well-meaning People live as if England were almost all the World, and do boldly separate from their Neighbours here; which they durst not do, if they soberly considered, that almost all the Christian World are worse than they? And that the present State of this Church is far bet­ter [Page 53] than almost any in the World, he there doth largely prove. So far as the Profession of these Per­sons doth hold (who both deserve, and I am confi­dent have your reverence) we are safe.

But still suppose the worst, I will be bold to say, and I question not to prove, that our Church is more a Church, than what theirs was, when they so briskly assaulted the Independents, and charged them with no less than Schism, for their separtion from it. For, if you consider, you will find, that their Con­stitution was not setled, nor the Church in any or­der, when this Controversie began, and was carried on amongst them. How it was in 1642. Sir Ed­ward Dering, in his Speeches then made and print­ed, will inform us, pag. 47. The Church of Eng­land (not long since the Glory of the Reformed Religion) is miserably torn and distracted: you can hardly now say, which is the Church of Eng­land. A little above, in the same page, he saith thus: Mr. Speaker, There is a certain new-born, unseen, ignorant, dangerous, desperate way of In­dependency: Are we, Sir, for this Independent way? Nay, (Sir) are we for the elder▪ Brother of it, the Presbyterial Form? I have not yet heard any one Gentleman within these Walls stand up and assert his Thoughts here, for either of these Ways: And yet (Sir) we are made the Patrons [Page 54] and Protectors of these so different, so repugnant Innovations, &c. How it was in 1645. you may guess, when the Sovereign Argument they had was, That they had hopes of a Settlement. So Mr. Ca­lamy, in a Fast-Sermon preached that Year, did call upon his People to be ashamed and confound­ed, as for divers other things, so, amongst the rest, for this, that whilst the Parliament is sitting, and labouring to settle things, and while the Assem­bly of Ministers are studying to settle Religion, and labouring to heal our Breaches, that any should be separating from us: as we may learn out of The Door of Truth opened, pag. 5. So again, pag. 6. They engage themselves into separated Congregations, and do not wait and tarry to see what Reformation the Parliament will make. So it is confessed by the London-Ministers, in their Let­ter to the Assembly, pag. 2. Jan. 1. 1645. That the Reformation of Religion is not yet setled among us according to the Covenant; and urge it to shew, that the Desires and Endeavours of the Inde­pendents for a Toleration at that time, were very unreasonable. How it was in 1646. you may see in Mr. Brinsley's Arraignment, pag. 48, 49. It is alledged, That in this Kingdom at present there is no way laid forth for the Churches to walk in: And then, why may they not take liberty to set [Page 55] up their way, as well as others theirs? Answ. Sup­pose the Church hath not her way laid out, yet it will not be denied, but that she hath been all this while seeking it out, &c. Neither can it be truly said, that the Church is so wholly destitute of a way to walk in, whether for Worship, or Government; the former of which is (and for some good time hath been) fully agreed upon: the latter, however not fully compleated, yet is it for substance both determined and held forth. How it was 1656. Dr. Drake, in his Bar to Free admission, doth acknowledge, pag. 132. How ma­ny Congregations have for ten or twelve Years together assembled constantly at the Word and Prayer, without the Lords Supper, yea some of them haply without Baptism: A great fault, I grant; but, I hope, not so great as to unchurch them. To favour whom, he is drove to affirm, That I dare not say, the Sacraments are essential Notes of the Church visible. This was that which lay hard upon them, and what the Independents took great advantage of, viz. That they were some Years without any setled Constitution, and at last so defective in such a considerable part as Govern­ment and Discipline. So it was urged by the Five Dissenting Brethren, in their Apologetical Narrati­on, 1643. pag, 23. When the others charged them [Page 56] with Schism, they thus answer: Schism, which yet must either relate to a differing from the former Ecclesiastical Government of this Church established; and then, who is not involved in it, as well as we? or, to the Constitution and Go­vernment that is yet to come; and until that be agreed on, established, and declared, and actu­ally exist, there can be no guilt or imputation of Schism from it. This was what the Presbyterians themselves lamented; as the Norwich-Ministers, in their Hue and Cry after Vox Populi, Anno 1646. pag. 31. We could wish some Penal Law were against the Independents, Anabaptists, and some Government setled. And when it is objected there, The Parliament hath given full Power and Authority for Ordination, &c. They answer, For what, Sir? to Ordain Pastors for each Congre­gation? or to chuse Elders? In what Ordinance is this Power given to any but the City of Lon­don? The want of this, was what their Adver­saries did continually object; and this was what they used all their skill to refute, as Mr. Brinsley, pag. 31. Object. We want an Ordinance, viz. Dis­cipline. So in Knutton's Seven Questions about Sepa­ration, 1645. And which Mr. Firmin is so pester­ed with, that he answers it after this sort, in his Se­paration examined, pag. 28, 29. But this Objecti­on [Page 57] hath no place in these Churches; for, Prayer, Preaching, Administration of the Sacraments, yea, Discipline they had in the Episcopal days, &c. As if that were sufficient to vindicate what they want­ed in theirs.

The Case then was plainly thus: That they were some Years without any setled Constitution; That though the Province of London was by an Ordinance, 1645. divided into Twelve Classical Elderships, yet after all the Ordinances about it, the very Form of Government was not ordered to be published till 29 Aug. 1648. nay, nor the Articles of Religion agreed to be printed till about a Month before: And yet notwithstanding, then the Cry was, Inde­pendency a great Schism, and worse than Popery, (as Adam Steuart in his Zerubbabel to Sanballat, p. 53.) and Separation from them, Schismatical. Now, if it must be so, when no body knew what the Church was, nor they themselves knew what Foundation to lay it upon (if J. Goodwin, in his Sion College vi­sited, pag. 10. or J. L. in his Plain Truth, pag. 6. are to be believed, and as Mr. Brinsley, pag. 49. doth not deny); then what must it not be, when it is from a Church that is established, and whose Arti­cles, Constitutions, and Orders are, and have been time out of mind setled, as ours is? If in 1647. there was a Church, and a Church of England, as the [Page 58] Ministers sent by the Parliament in that Year to Oxford did maintain, and as the Form of Church-Government to be used in the Church of England, printed by Order of Parliament, 1648. doth ac­knowledge; then certainly such a thing there is now to be found.

To conclude this: If the old Nonconformists thought the Church of England to be a true Church, and what they did think themselves obliged to hold Communion with; If the present Nonconformists, when time was, did declare as much; If the Church of England doth not now differ from what it was when they so thought of it; and that it is much more a Church, than what that was that the Inde­pendents were accounted by them Schismaticks for withdrawing from: Then I hope their Separation from us, will be allowed to be unwarrantable.

And now I know not what can be said, unless, with the Author of Sacrilegious Desertion, pag. 33. it be said, that this is onely local distinction, not se­paration. But that is the second thing I shall pro­ceed to shew.

2. There is a Separation from the Church of Eng­land. If there was no more to be said in this Case, than what Adam Steuart, in his Zerubbabel to San­ballat, wrote against the Independents, 1644. it would be sufficient; viz. If ye be not separated [Page 59] from us, but entertain Union and Communion with us, what need ye more a Toleration, rather than the rest of the Members of our Church? The pains the Nonconformists took to compass, and the joy which they expressed at obtaining a Tolera­tion, shews that they were not of its Communion. But what credit can we give to such a Declarati­on? For alas, (as Mr. Brinsley, pag. 28. saith in the same case) what meaneth the lowing of the Oxen, and the bleating of the Sheep? I mean, the con­fused noise of our lesser and greater Divisions?—Divisions, not onely without Separations, Sects, and Factions; but Divisions of an higher na­ture, amounting to no less than direct Separati­on; and that not barely to a negative, but to a positive Separation, to the setting up of Altars against Altars, Churches against Churches. That it is so de facto, I think it will not, it cannot be denied. For, if Mr. Baxter, and some others, shall profess, That they meet not at the same hour with the Publick, under any colour and pretence, in any Religious Exercise, than according to the Liturgie; and yet in the mean time use it not: the Dividers will not see (as the Author of Sacrilegious Desertion saith, pag, 20.) the different Principles on which they go, while their Practice seemeth to be the same. But if we should grant this, to those that are willing to [Page 60] hold Communion with us; yet these are very few, to what do wholly decline and deny it. Mr. Jen­kin here saith, pag. 22. That Separation appears in the withdrawing from the performance of those Duties which are both the Signs of, and Helps to Christian Ʋnity, as Prayer, Hearing, Receiving of Sacraments, &c.And that Schism is negative, when there is onely a simple secession, &c. with­out making head against that Church from which the departure is; or positive, when Persons so withdrawing do so consociate and draw them­selves into a distinct and opposite Body, setting up a Church against a Church. Now I dare appeal to all that know them, whether Mr. Jenkin, and the far greater part of his Brethren, have been ever seen in our Congregations (unless at some times the more adventurous of them have thrust their Heads in at the Door; when, if they heard all, as it is usually but very little of the Sermon that they have patience to hear, Mr. Brinsley will tell them, That as for Occasional hearing, it is agreed on all hands, it is not properly an act of Church-Communion, pag. 35.) And I will appeal to your Eyes, whether they do not constantly keep up their Meetings in opposition to those of the Church. But what need I go so far about, when this is not onely acknowledged, but defended? See Mr. Wadsworth, in his Separation yet [Page 61] no Schism, Epist. to the Reader, where he puts the Case of the Nonconformists thus: There are some hundreds of true Ministers of Jesus Christ,—and there are many thousands likewise of visible Pro­fessors of Christianity, do willingly hear and joyn with these Ministers in the Worship of God, and in a participation of Sacraments:—These meet in distinct Congregations, separate from the legally­established Congregations in the Land, with whom they will not, because they cannot hold Commu­nion. And now it is out, and what you see is plainly avowed: So that I have leave to pass to the next Head.

3. That this Separation is voluntary, and unneces­sary. The sin of Schism, will all say, is very great, and what cannot be blotted out with the blood of Martyrdom, as Mr. Jenkin here saith, pag. 26. one spoke very well. But, as he observes from Musculus, pag. 31. There is a double Schism, the one bad, the other good; the bad is that whereby a good Ʋnion, the good whereby a bad Ʋnion is broken asunder. And of what sort the present Separation is, comes now to be tried, which I shall do, by making my Observations from what this Sermon will afford, and by shewing from thence, when a Separation is justifiable, and when not. From all which, if it ap­pears, that the Reasons produced by them fall [Page 62] within the compass of the Negative, but hold not as to the Affirmative, it will appear, That their Se­paration is voluntary, and unnecessary. Now there are Six Cases, as may be collected from this Ser­mon, in which Separation is unwarrantable, and schis­matical.

1. It is not to be allowed, when it is by reason of Mixt-Communion, and admitting into Church-fel­lowship the vile with the precious. This he handles at large, from pag. 33. to pag. 37. and saith, That it hath no Scripture-warrant. And this hath been their constant Opinion. So Mr. Firmin, in his Separa­tion examined, pag. 40. Corrupt Members there were enough in the Jewish Church, and so in the Christian Churches soon after, and in the Apostles times; but you have no example of separating from them. So the Provincial Assembly of Lon­don, in their Vindication of the Presbyterial Govern­ment, pag. 134. Suppose there were some sinful mixtures at our Sacraments, yet we conceive this is not a sufficient ground of a negative, much less of a positive separation.—This they give the Reason of, Because in what Church soever there is purity of Doctrine, there God hath his Church, though overwhelmed with scandals. And there­fore whosoever separates from such an Assembly, separates from that place where God hath his [Page 63] Church, which is rash and unwarrantable. Mr. Vines, in his Treatise of the Sacrament, hath a whole Chap­ter, viz. cap. 20. to shew the unlawfulness of it, and saith, pag, 235. That to excommunicate our selves from Gods Ordinances (if Men of wicked Life be not excommunicate) for fear of pollution by them, is Donatistical. So Dr. Manton, on Jude, pag. 496. The Scandals of Professors are ground of mourning, but not of separation. And Mr. Bax­ter doth speak fully to it, in his Cure of Church-Di­visions, pag 81. If you mark all the Texts of the Gospel, you shall find, that all the separation which is commanded in such cases (besides the separation from Infidels and the Idolatrous World) is but one of these two forts: 1. That either the Church cast out impenitent Sinners by the Power of the Keys; or, 2. That private Men avoid all private familiarity with them. But that the private Mem­bers should separate from the Church, because such Persons are not cast out of it, shew me one Text to Prove it if you can. The consideration of this, made the Author of the Book called Nonconformists no Schismaticks, to quit this Argument, concluding, pag. 16. with good reason, That if one Mans sin desileth another that Communicates with him, who can assure himself of any Scriptural Com­munion on this Side Heaven? All which I have [Page 64] produced (and could indeed tire you with Quota­tions of this kind) on purpose to let you see how much the Author of Separation yet no Schism, doth run counter to his own Party, and withal, how lit­tle acquaintance with this Argument will serve to shew the weakness and inconsistency of that Tract. He puts the case thus, pag. 56. If Ministers, or many of the Members are much corrupted, or the Members onely commonly so, but connived at, it is a sufficient ground for the sound to withdraw. And for this he gives two Reasons: 1. Lest under the pretence of Peace, they should be guilty of the greatest Uncharitableness, and that is the hard­ning and encouraging them in their abominable Impieties. 2. Because the sound ought, by the Law of God and Nature, to provide for their own safety,—for they cannot but be in apparent danger by Communicating with such. Now grant­ing the Case so to be, yet separation will not be granted lawful by themselves, upon the Reasons which he there gives. I shall refer him for an An­swer to the first of the Letters that passed betwixt the Ministers of Old and New England, published by Mr. Ash and Mr. Rathband, 1643. (as thought by them at that time very seasonable). When those of New England had said, That by joyning with an insufficient and unworthy Ministry, they did counte­nance [Page 65] them in their Place and Office, pag. 8. it is an­swered, pag. 11. The Scripture teacheth evidently, not onely that the People by joyning do not countenance them in their Place and Office; but that they must and ought to joyn with them in the Worship of God: and in separating from the Ordinance, they shall sin against God. From whence you may observe, That the countenancing of such whom the Word of Truth doth condemn, as not approved Ministers of God, (as it's there said) is no reason to discharge us of our Duty; and if Separation be not otherwise our Du­ty, the fear of hardning others, by our Communi­on with them, will never make it to be so. Surely this might have been very well thought to be the effect of the same Practice in the Church of Corinth, where there was (as the Provincial Assembly of Lon­don observeth, in their Vindication, pag. 134.) such a profane mixture at their Sacrament, as we believe few (if any) of our Congregations can be charged withal: And yet the Apostle doth not persuade the godly Party to separate, much less to gather a Church out of a Church: Which yet had been very neces­sary, if this Author's Reason had been of any force.

And his second Reason, viz. Care of our own safety, will also have no place here, if Mr. Jenkin's Authority will signifie any thing with him; who speaking in this Sermon, p. 36. of that Text, 1 Cor. [Page 66] 5. 11. of not eating with a Brother, &c. shews very well, that it is to be understood of Civil, and not Religious eating, and gives this as one Reason for it, viz. That there is danger of being infected by the wicked in civil, familiar, and arbitrary eatings; not so in joyning with them in an holy and commanded Service and Ordinance. If we follow the Apostles Precept, of having no familiar and ordinary converse with Fornicators, Covetous, Idolaters, Drunkards, &c. we may be assured, that we shall be in no dan­ger of Infection by their Company in Religious Offices and Duties, where there is little or no con­verse, opportunity, and way for it. The case, I acknowledge, is sad, when such are to be found a­mongst Christians, and that Discipline is not exer­cised upon them: but I ought not to leave my Place and Duty, because such do joyn with me in it; or to separate from the Church of God, because such continue in its Communion: For, this is to tear the Church in pieces, and the Doctrine that drives to it is very pernicious. Take the Character of it from the Provincial Assembly, in their Vindication, pag. 124. That Doctrine that crieth up Purity, to the ruine of Ʋnity, is contrary to the Doctrine of the Go­spel.

But truly, the case is not so bad with us, as it is represented. I know there are some that do ob­ject, [Page 67] as J. Rogers did in 1653. The Parish-Churches are not rightly constituted, for there is in them rant­ing, revelling,—To whom I shall reply, as Mr. Crof­ton did then to him, in his Bethshemesh clouded, pag. 103. O sharp sentence! severe censure! at one word pronounced on all Parishes indefinitely: the Position whence it flows had need be well proved, and the In­ference well backed. For, I must needs say, that what Mr. Firmin, in his Separation examined, p. 42. once said of the Presbyterial, is true of the Episcopal, That there are many Ministers that have as few wicked at that Ordinance [of the Lords Supper], as ever were in the Church of Corinth. I must confess, that I was pleased with the ingenuous acknowledgment of the Author of The Cry of a Stone, in 1642. who saith, pag. 39. I freely acknowledge, that there are ma­ny in the Parishes of England, which are of a ve­ry godly Life and Conversation, and some that go as far therein, as ever I saw any in my life: And if I should prefer any of the Separated be­fore them in Conversation, I should speak against my own Conscience: but in the Church-state and Order, I must prefer the other. And I question not, but that the State of the Church is still as good, in that respect, as it was then; and might have been better, had those kept in it that are run away from it, and that by their Divisions in Reli­gion, [Page 68] make many to question whether there be any such thing in the World. Certainly, were our en­deavours rightly placed and united, there is scarcely any Church in the World whose Temper would pro­mise more success, than that of ours: And if we would deal fairly (as J. G. in his Cretensis, pag. 5. once said) in comparing them together, and not set the Head of the one against the Tail of the other, but mea­sure Head with Head, and Tail with Tail; I will not say of our Church, as he did of Independency, That if that hath its Tens, Presbytery hath its Thousands of the Sons of Belial in its Retinue: but I will say, That even the separated Churches, as they now stand, are not without them, as well as we: And if they would as well look out the Extortioner, and Un­just, and Covetous, and Railer, (not to speak of o­thers) amongst themselves, as they do pick out the Fornicator and Drunkard, that are (as they insinu­ate) with us, they would find their own Churches not so good, and others not so bad as they imagine.

But supposing that such are in the Communion of our Church (as it is not to be altogether denied) yet is not the Church presently to be blamed. Hear what Mr. Brinsley saith, in his Arraignment of Schism, pag. 39. ‘Supposing such unwarrantable Mixtures have been, and yet are to be found; yet it can­not properly be put upon the Churches score. [Page 69] What her Ordinance was touching the keeping back scandalous Persons from the Sacrament, they which have read her ancient Rubrick cannot be ignorant.’ And Mr. Vines of the Sacrament, c. 19. p. 233. speaking about the Power which the Mini­ster hath of keeping off unworthy Persons from the Lords Supper, saith, I as little doubt of the Inten­tion of the Church of England, in the Rule given to the Minister before the Communion, in the case of some emergent Scandal at the present time. The Church hath provided for the correcting of Of­fenders; and perhaps there may be as good reason why the Censures of it are not now executed, as there was in the late Times. Mr. Crofton once told the Independents, in his Bethshemesh clouded, p. 110. The continuance of our disordered Discipline, is the fruit of their disordered Separation from us. I would fain be resolved in what Adam Steuart, in his Zerubbabel to Sanballat, pag. 70. puts to the Que­rie: I would willingly know (saith he) whether it were not better for them that aim at Tolerati­on and Separation, to stay in the Church, and to joyn all their endeavours with their Brethren to reform Abuses; than by their separation, to let the Church of God perish in Abuses? Whether they do not better, that stay in the Church to reform it, when it may be reformed, than to quit it for [Page 70] fear to be deformed in it? If they had taken this course, and had given us their help, in stead of withdrawing from it, doubtless the Censures of the Church would have signified more, and the Members of it have been in a much better condition than now they are. I shall conclude this with what is said by a well-experienced Person, in his Address to the Nonconformists, pag. 161. If, in stead of this [Separation], each Christian of you had kept to Parochial Communion, and each outed Minister had kept their Residence among them, and Commu­nion with them, as private Members, in the Pa­rish-way; and had also in a private capacity joyn­ed with those Ministers which have succeeded them, in doing all the good they could in the Pa­rish,—I nothing doubt, but that by so doing, you would have taken an unspeakable far better course to promote the Power of Religion in the Nation, than by what you have done. It's they that have in great measure weakned, if not tied our Hands, and then complain that we do not fight. If all things therefore were considered, I believe that they would have as little reason to condemn our Churches for Corruptions in this kind, as I am sure, if they will be constant to themselves, that they have none to separate from us upon account of them.

[Page 71] 2. Separation is not to be allowed for slight and tolerable Errors, which are not Fundamental, and hin­der Communion with Christ the Head; as may be collected from pag. 28. & 37. of this Sermon. So also say the old Nonconformists, in their Confutation of the Brownists, published by Mr. Rathband, pag. 4. We desire the Reader to consider, that a People may be a true Church, though they know not, nor hold not every Truth contained in the Scriptures, but contrarily hold many Errors repugnant to them. This was the Primitive Opinion and Pra­ctice, say the Provincial Assembly, in their Vindica­tion, pag. 139. All such who professed Christiani­ty, held Communion together, as one Church, not­withstanding the difference of Judgments in lesser things, and much corruption in Conversation. And now, that the Church of England doth hold no Fundamental Errors, I appeal to themselves. What it was before the Wars, let the Author of Church-Levellers, printed for Tho. Ʋnderhil, 1644. speak: When it was objected, That the Presbyterians, whilst persecuted by the Bishops, did hold forth a full Liberty of Conscience; he answers, This is a Slander,— the difference between them and the Pre­lates being not in Doctrinals, but Ceremonials. And therefore after the Covenant was taken, whilst the Lords had the Power of Admission to Benefices, all [Page 72] Persons presented were to read the Articles publick­ly, and profess their consent to them. And that it is the same still, is confessed. So Mr. C. in his Discourse of the Religion of England, pag. 43. The Doctrine of Faith and Sacraments by Law esta­blished, is heartily received by the Nonconformists. So Sacrilegious Desertion, pag. 45. We differ not at all from the Doctrine of the Church of England (till the new Doctrine about Infants was brought into the new Rubrick.) And certainly, that is, if an Error, no dangerous or fundamental one. So Dr. Owen, in his Peace-offering, 1667. p. 12. The Confession—of the Church of England, declared in the Articles of Religion, and herein what is purely Doctrinal, we fully embrace, and constantly ad­here unto. Again, pag. 17. We know full well, that we differ in nothing from the whole Form of Religion established in England, but onely in some few things in outward Worship. Herein too we have the concurrence of Mr. W. himself, in his Se­paration yet no Schism, p. 60. If you take it [the Church of England] for such Christians onely who are of the Faith in Doctrinals with those that hold the Thirty nine Articles; here the Nonconformists come in for a share also, who are of your Faith therein: excepting those which respect Discipline and Ceremonies. And pag. 62. It is evident, that [Page 73] some sort of Errors in a Church, though but tole­rated, may be a just ground of withdrawing; though I do not charge the Church of England with any such Errors.

This therefore being thus acknowledged, one would have thought the Argument might be fairly dismissed, and that here could be no reason found for Separation: And yet when we are come thus near, it is like the two Mountains spoken of in Wales, upon whose tops you may exchange Di­scourse, and almost come to shaking of Hands; and notwithstanding all, there is little less than a days Journey betwixt you. We seem to have brought the Matter to a perfect reconciliation; but when we least thought of it, we are at open War again: For the Author last-mentioned grants as much as we can ask; but immediately thrusts in a Reason or two, that he thinks will maintain their Ground, and vindicate their Practice notwithstanding. The Doctrine he hath nothing against; but yet the Prea­chers are—Sometimes he saith, they are contrary one to another; some are for the Doctrine of Predesti­nation, others against it, &c. and how shall he then judge of their Faith and Doctrinals? pag. 60. Some­times he saith, It is conceived, many of them preach contrary to the Articles, ibid. Sometimes again, It is conceived, that several of them do not honestly believe [Page 74] those Articles that they have professed to believe, p. 62. And to make all sure, because it may be objected, That the People have liberty in this case of complain­ing; he answers, To what purpose? when such Er­rors are publickly professed in printed Books, and no course taken for correcting or ejecting of the Authors? pag. 61. Things as impertinently, as slanderously suggested. For, what though the Ministers differ among themselves in some Points, as he doth after his Predecessors the Brownists affirm, (as you may see in the Nonconformists Answer to them, pag. 4.) is that a reason to forsake our Communion? and doth he that forsakes ours for theirs, find the case much amended? Do not the Nonconformists as much differ from each other, as any amongst us? If not, from whence proceed all those Disputes about Com­munion and Non-communion with us, about the Im­putation of Christ's Righteousness, the nature of justi­fying Faith, lawfulness and unlawfulness of prescri­bed Forms of Prayer, of God's Prescience, &c. And why are Mr. How, and Mr. Baxter, &c. so much teazed by some of their Fellows, and the latter cal­led Slanderer, Dictator, Self-saver, and accused of Profaneness, Blasphemy, and what not, as you may see in the Antidote to his Cure, 1670? Is it not be­cause they will not swallow down the absurdest of their Principles, or do go further toward an accom­modation [Page 75] of our unhappy Differences, than they will allow?

But what are those Points that our Ministers thus differ among themselves, or from our Church in? Is it about the mode in Imputation, or about the Ob­ject of Predestination? &c. These things the Church of England is not so minute and positive in. If he will not believe me, I shall turn him over to Mr. Hickman (who hath in several Tracts particularly concerned himself in this Argument, and may be supposed to understand it). He, in his Latin Ser­mon De Haeresium origine, 1659. pag. 37. underta­king to answer Tilenus about the Doctrine of our Church concerning the Object of Predestination, whe­ther massa corrupta, or no, saith, Apage nugas; Non solet Ecclesia Anglicana in mysteriis hujusmodi expli­candis vagari in eas quaestiones, quae nimia subtilitate popularem captum effugiunt. Is it about the special Grace of God in the conversion of a Sinner, or the influence of the Holy Spirit in it? Then I will dare him to produce any that are herein Nonconformists to the Doctrine of the Church of England, and that teach, That there is no special Grace exerted in the con­version of a Sinner; or, That the Holy Ghost is of no further use in the conversion of Men, than as he first inspired those that delivered the Doctrine of Christia­nity, &c. as he slanderously doth say. He may force, [Page 76] and scrue, and wrest; but he cannot do it honest­ly and fairly. But supposing there were several that did thus teach, and that such Books were Li­censed where this is affirmed: Doth this presently make the Church Heretical? Notwithstanding this, I believe that the Church of England is in it self as Orthodox, as theirs was in 1646. when Shlichtin­gius his Comment on the Hebrews, or what was little better, came out thus attested by Mr. J. Downame: I have perused this Comment; and finding it to be learned and judicious, plain and very profitable, I allow it to be printed and published. I doubt they would have taken it very ill, to have been then charged with Socinianism, because that Book came out with such an Imprimatur, from him that was deputed in those Times to give it: And yet I never heard that Mr. Downame was corrected or ejected for so doing. And may they continue Orthodox notwithstanding, and we for such an escape be count­ed Heretical? But how far a Church is concerned in such Cases, I think will appear from what is said in The Divine Right of the Presbyterial Govern­ment, pag. 265. The Church of Rome (setting aside those particular Persons among them that main­tained damnable Errors, which were not of the Church, but a predominant Faction in the Church) continued to be a true Church of Christ until Lu­ther's [Page 77] time,—as the unanimous consent of the Orthodox Divines confess; yea, as some think, till the cursed Council of Trent,—till when, the Errors among them, were not the Errors of the Church, but of particular Men. Now I hope they will be as favourable to us, and give our Church as much allowance in this case as that of Rome, and not count it the Error of the Church, till by some Decree, Canon, or Article it is owned so to be.

Sir, You may by this time perceive, how hard these Persons are put to it, when it makes them so quick to espy, and busie to rake all the dirt they can together, to make our Church deformed, and worthy of all that defamation they have branded it with, and of that distance they observe and keep from it. How do they torture Phrases, hale along Expressions, whithout due Process, to the Gibbet and the Stake, and cry out Pelagianism, and Socini­anism, nay Mahometism? Mr. Jenkin and his Bre­thren once said, in the Vindication of the Presbyterial Government, pag. 140. To make ruptures in the Body of Christ, and to divide Church from Church, and to set up Church against Church, and to ga­ther Churches out of true Churches, and because we differ in some things, therefore to hold Com­munion in nothing; this we think hath no war­rant out of the Word of God, and will introduce [Page 78] all manner of Confusion in Churches,—and set open a wide gap to bring in Atheism, Popery, He­resie, and all manner of wickedness. And all People would be apt to say the same, and could not see into the Reason of this Separation, if it came to this, Whether the Righteousness of Christ be the meritorious or formal Cause of our Justification? or, Whether Moral Vertue and Grace differ in their nature, or onely in their cause? It must be some­what gross and tangible that they can judge of; and therefore charge them home, That they hold no necessity of the Righteousness of Christ; and, That Moral Vertue, as it was in the Heathens, or in Chri­stians without any Divine Grace, will save; and you do the work: This is a Lord have Mercy wrote upon their Church-doors; and People will be taught by this, to avoid them as they would the Plague, and to be as wary of trusting their Souls with them, as their Bodies with Tygers, Bears, and Wolves. It is truly and well observed by Mr. Hickman, in his Sermon De Haeresium origine, pag. 12. Ipsa sa­lus non servet eas oves, quae aeque metuunt a pastori­bus & lupis: Once render their Pastors formidable to them, and we may know how the day will go. Beat up these Kettle-Drums, and you may easily gather, and securely Hive the Bees.

I shall conclude this with what Mr. Baxter saith, [Page 79] in his Cure of Church-Divisions, pag. 393, 394. As I have known many unlearned Sots, that had no other Artifice to keep up the reputation of their Learning, than in all Companies to cry down such and such (who were wiser than themselves) for no Scholars;—So, many that are, or should be conscious of the dulness and ignorance of their fumbling and unfurnish'd Brains, have no way to keep up the reputation of their Wisdom with their simple Followers, but to tell them, O such an one hath dangerous Errors, and such a Book is a dangerous Book, and they hold this, and they hold that; and so to make odious the Opinions and Practices of others.—And if Ignorance get pos­session of the ancient and gray-headed, it triumph­eth there, and saith, Give me a Man, that I may dispute with him; or rather, Away with this He­retick, he is not fit to be disputed with. How far Mr. Jenkin is concerned in this Character, I leave to his consideration; but if you have a mind to inquire into it, you may repair to his Exodus, where he comes like another Samson, shaking his Locks, and rushing forth with his mouth full of Menaces against the uncircumcised Philistims, those audacious Hereticks that lie sculking in the corners of the Church of England: but (poor man) meets with the misfortune of that Champion, to be led away [Page 80] in triumph; and in stead of answering others, is not able to defend himself.

3. Separation is not to be allowed for the manner of Church-constitution. So saith Mr. J. here, pag. 37. Much more clear (if clearer can be) is the Schismati­calness of those who separate from, and renounce all Communion with those Churches which are not of their own manner of Constitution. For which he gives three Reasons, pag. 38. And herein he agrees with Mr. Brinsley, in his Arraignment, pag. 32. and in his Church-Remedy, pag. 51. Now if this Argument held for Presbytery against Independency, and that the separation of the latter was for that reason Schis­matical, I see not why it should not be of as equal force to condemn the former, who yet do presume to offer it on their own behalf against us, and think that they have said enough, when they have been able to pick some quarrel with the present Consti­tution.

4. Separation is not to be allowed when it is up­on those terms which will make us refuse some Chur­ches upon which are seen the Scripture-characters of true Churches. This Mr. J. gives as a Reason to confirm the former, pag. 38. Now what those Cha­racters are, he tells us a little before, in the same page, viz. In Scripture, Churches are commended, ac­cording as their fundamental Faith was sound, and [Page 81] their Lives holy. Nay, he seems to resolve it whol­ly into the former, pag. 34. where he saith, Hath not God his Church, even where corruption of Man­ners hath crept into a Church, if purity of Doctrine be maintained? Now how far our Church hath up­on it these Characters, I appeal to what is above­said, to shew; and for which, I question not but it may contend with any Church in the World.

5. It is not to be allowed because other Churches are by them accounted better. So pag. 39. Men se­parate to those Churches which they account better, because they never found those where they were before (to them) good. Which he there condemns, and as a remedy against it, advises to labour for experimen­tal benefit by the Ordinances. The reason of this Se­paration (saith Mr. Vines on the Sacrament, p. 235.) seems plausible to easie capacities, such as the Apostle calls, Rom. 16. 18. the [...], the simple; but if it be urged by the Standard of Scripture, it will be found too light. But now the case is altered, and it is be­come a considerable Argument; A more profitable Ministry, a purer Worship, a stricter Discipline, an holier Society and Fellowship, are some of the massie Pillars upon which the weight of this new Sepa­ration is laid. Hither the Author of Separation yet no Schism doth with confidence betake himself, pag. 65, 66, 67. The Reason supposeth that which is [Page 82] not to be supposed, i. e. That to withdraw from a Church for the benefit of a more profitable Ministry, is a Crime. Now here I shall consider, whether this Reason will hold, and serve to justifie a Separation from a Church; and, if it were granted, whether yet it is a Reason amongst us.

Whether it is so in it self, let Mr. Brinsley speak, in his Arraignment, pag. 47. where the Case is put thus; May not People make choice of what Mi­nisters they please, putting themselves under such a Ministry as by which they may edifie most? Answ. Suppose it, That a People have such a Pow­er and Right to chuse their own Ministers; yet having once chosen them, and God by giving a Blessing to their Ministry having ratified and con­firmed that Choice, evidencing that they are the Ministers of God to them; whether they may now, upon pretext of greater Edification, take a liberty to themselves to chuse new ones as oft as they please: this the moderate Author of the late Irenicon [i. e. Mr. Burroughs] will by no means allow, but condemns, as the direct way to bring in all kind of disorder and confusion into the Church. This both Presbyterians and Independents then are agreed in, That Edification alone is no suf­ficient Reason to forsake one Church for another; and that a Persons own Opinion of his Case in that [Page 83] matter, will not make that lawful to him, which will be the unavoidable means of bringing in con­fusion to the Churches which he either leaves, or joyns himself to. But the Author of Separation yet no Schism thinks he hath sufficient Reason for his Opinion, who doth thus argue, viz. You call it a Crime, because you suppose it is a transgression the Law of visible Communion with some parti­cular Church: But I say, That the Laws of visible Communion with this or that particular Church, are but positive, and therefore subordinate to Laws more natural and necessary; such is that wherein we are commanded to take care of our Souls and Salvation: So that if Christians do shift particular Churches, for the obtaining of very ap­parent advantages to their Salvation, above what they have had where they were, I see therein no Crime at all committed. I grant indeed, that positive Laws must give way to natural; but then there must be a plain necessity that must intervene, to make them inconsistent: for otherwise, both re­main in force, as I conceive they do in the Instance here given. If indeed Salvation was inconsistent with, or what we run the apparent hazard of, in Communion with a particular Church, then there is sufficient reason for separation from it: but if it be onely that I conceive the increase of Knowledge, [Page 84] or the engaging of my Affections, may be better attained by separation from, than continuance in its Communion, this is far from a necessity, and so no sufficient Reason to break it. As it is in a Fa­mily, If the Master takes no care to provide for his Children and Servants (who of old were esteem­ed the Goods of their Master) but that they must starve if they continue with him; or if what he provides, is such as will rather poyson than nourish them, or what is absolutely forbid (as Swines flesh under the Law): in such a case they may shift for themselves, and refuse to live with him, till he mends their Condition. But if what he provides is lawful, wholesom, and sufficient, though not of so good nourishment as might be wished, they are to content themselves, and to keep within the bounds of Duty and Observance. So it is here; If we were in a Church that either denied us what is ne­cessary to Salvation, or that would engage us to do what will bring it into imminent hazard, we have an unquestionable Reason to forbear Communion with her: But when the means of Salvation that we enjoy are sufficient to it, and what we delibe­rate about is onely the Degree and Measure, [what is better and fitter] we cannot quit a Church with­out sin, and our departure is unnecessary. And that will further appear, if we consider,

[Page 85] 1. That no further Knowledge or Edification is necessary, than what we can attain to in a lawful way; and what is otherwise lawful in it self, by taking an undue course for it, is made unlawful. As, Hearing, Reading, and Christian Converse, are very fit Means for my Improvement; but if I for it do injure my Family, and neglect my Calling, it is so far from being my duty, that it is my sin. So to edifie my self, and to acquire a greater measure of Knowledge and Christian Vertues, is a noble and most excel­lent End; but if I for it break off Communion with the Church whereof I am a Member, I make my self a Transgressor. All which, if well conside­red, the falacy of our Author's Argument will ap­pear. For, suppose I reason thus: The Laws of particular Families are but postive, and therefore sub­ordinate to Laws more necessary; such is that where­in we are commanded to take care of our Souls: and therefore if I neglect the former for the good of the latter, I see no Crime therein committed. Would not this appear very conceited and imaginary? And if it's false here, it is so in the Case that he offers. The grounds of his mistake herein, seem to be, 1. That he was so intent upon the positive Laws of particular Churches, that he had no respect to Church-communion in it self, which is highly necessary; by which means he did not consider, that this Princi­ple [Page 86] of shifting Communion for the expectation of further Improvement, is what tends so to the disso­lution of a Church, that he that holds it is capable of continuing in no Communion whatsoever; and what cannot be put in practice, but confusion in, and breaking up of Churches will most certainly follow. This was what they of New-England had experience of, and therefore provided against, in their Platform of Church-Discipline, cap. 3. Church-Members (say they) may not depart from the Church, and so one from another, as they please, nor without just and weighty cause.—Such departure tends to the dissolution of the Body.—Just Reasons for a Members removal of himself, are, 1. If a man cannot continue, without sin. 2. In case of Persecution. But not a word of a more profitable Ministry, and greater edi­fication. Now if this be the necessary and constant Effect of this Principle, it cannot be true.

2. Another ground of his mistake seems to be, That the notion of a particular Church, led him to think, that their separation into Societies distinct from our Church, was no more than to go from one Parish-Church to another (which is also the conceit of the Author of Sacrilegious Desertion): This he insinuates pag. 66. But this is apparently false, as I have shewed in part before; and which will be further evident, if you observe, that their Agree­ment [Page 87] with us in Thirty six of our Articles, makes them to be no more of us (whilst they differ in the others that refer to our Constitution, and which they separate from us for, as they profess), than that of the Independents made them one with the Presbyte­rians; who in all matters of Faith did freely and fully consent to the Confession published by the As­sembly, the things of Church-Government and Disci­pline onely excepted, as they say in the Preface to the Platform of Church-Discipline in New-England. And much to the same purpose is that of the Congrega­tional Churches met at the Savoy, 1658. But yet for all this, they neither of them think themselves one with the other; and the Independents, for their se­paration, were notwithstanding accused of Schism by the other.

2. This Course is unnecessary, and so unlawful, because even in the way in which a Person is (whilst a Member of a true Church in the sense all along spoken of), he may attain to all due Improvement. The Author of Prelatique Preachers none of Christs Teachers, pag. 31. to encourage People rather to sit at home than hear the Publick Ministers, tells them, That they might otherwise help themselves, and that they had Means sufficient without it, as the Scriptures, mutual Edification and Conference, Prayer, and Meditation, &c. and that, though never so few or [Page 88] weak, Christ was amongst them. And if this would be sufficient when wholly destitute of a Ministry, I am apt to think it would do as well with one, though not altogether so well qualified as might be desired. I shall conclude this with what the same Author saith, pag. 28. When God hath vouchsafed a suffici­ency of Means, and those unquestionably lawful, though not of so rank flesh, or so highly promising as some others, for the attaining of any good and desirable End, a declining and forsaking of those Means (whether out of a diffidence of the sufficiency of them for the End desired, or upon any other reason whatsoever) to espouse others pretending to more strength and efficacy, hath been still displeasing unto God, and of sad conse­quence to those that have been no better advised than to make trial of them.

But is it really thus, that there is any such diffe­rence betwixt the Abilities of their and our Teach­ers? and that the obtaining apparent Advantages to their Salvation in that respect, above what they could have had with us, is what they separate for? So they would have it thought, as you may see in the Call to Archippus, printed 1664. pag. 20, 21. There is indeed a Ministry, and Preaching (such as it is); but whether snch as is likely to answer the Ends of it, judge ye. Are those like to convert Souls, that have neither will nor skill to deal with them [Page 89] about their Conversion? So again, When there is no better help than an idle, ignorant, loose-living Mini­stry, (under which, God knows, we speak it with grief of heart, too many, not to say the most of those that are of late come in, may be reckoned) or than the cold and heartless way that is generally in use, the Coal of Religion doth ever go out. An high and daring Charge, which he will be concerned to make good; or to suffer under the imputation of a foul Defa­mer. Have they neither will nor skill to convert Souls? From whence then proceed those most ex­cellent and laborious Sermons that the Wisest of the Nation do so extol the present Generation for? Whence was it, that when we were bewildred with Phrases, and Religion made hard and unintelligible, and Cases intricate and perplexed, that the things of it were made easie, and to lie near to Mens Un­derstandings; and that the part of Casuistical Divi­nity is not near so cumbersom as it was in the days of some Men? Are they idle and ignorant? From whence then is it that their Adversaries of all sorts are so well opposed, not to say confuted, that they are made to quit their ground, and to betake them­selves to new Principles in their own defence; to fall from the Infallibility of the Person, to that of Tradition, as they do abroad; from old Nonconfor­mity, to Brownism; and from Presbyterianism to In­dependency, [Page 90] as some do at home? In what Age and Church have the great Truths and Principles of our Religion been more effectually considered, more di­ligently searched into, more clearly stated and ex­plained, or more successfully defended, than in ours; and which I may challenge the whole Party of the Separation to shew any thing equal to? From whence comes all this to pass, if our Church did so abound with uncatechised Ʋpstarts, poor Shrubs, and empty and unaccomplished Predicants, as Mr. Jenkin, with an holy indignation, doth in his Exodus, p. 55. complain? Surely if these Men had but duly weigh­ed things, and had been conversant in the Writings of our Church, or looked amongst themselves, they would not have dared thus to reproch the most Learned and Industrious Ministry that perhaps Eng­land ever yet had. Let me recommend to such, what Mr. Baxter saith in the like case, in his Ex­plication of Passages in the Profession of the Worce­stershire Association, printed 1653. pag. 110. I desire those Brethren that object this, but to search their hearts and ways, and remember what may be said against themselves, and cast the beam first out of their own eye; at least to censure as humble men, that are sensi­ble of their own miscarriages and imperfections. And if they did according to this advice, I am perswa­ded that they would think there were as good and [Page 91] useful Men in the World as themselves. Do we not find some of themselves forced to acknowledge as much? Consult Sacrilegious Desertion, pag. 86. I really fear, lest meer Nonconformity hath brought some into reputation as consciencious, who by weak Preaching will lose the reputation of being judicious, more than their silence lost it. And a little after, speaking of their own Ministers, he saith, Verily the injudiciousness of too many among you, is for a lamen­tation: And, pag. 88. he adds, Through Gods mercy, some Conformists preach better than many of you can do. Truly when I consider what a Stock of wor­thy and accomplished Persons in that Quality, whe­ther for Sobriety and Learning, our Church is at present furnished with, (though it must be confes­sed, there are that are defective in both; as when were they not?) I look upon Men of this quarrel­som temper, to be such as are described in Sacrile­gious Desertion, pag. 91. That having set themselves in a dividing way, secretly do rejoyce at the disparage­ment of Conformists, and draw as many from them as they can; and that therefore deserve the Character he there gives, That they are but destroyers of the Church of God: Such that to strengthen themselves, and carry on their own Interest, care not what they do or say; but how worthily, let the Author of the Antidote to Mr. Baxter's Cure judge, who [Page 92] saith, pag. 20. That to reproch a whole Party, for the miscarriages of some few, without taking notice how many faults are in those whom they would defend, is the usual artifice of such that think themselves con­cerned, upon any wretched terms whatsoever, to main­tain an ill Cause, and have prostituted their Consci­ences to defend an Argnment. I will leave such to consider what Mr. Watson saith, in his Sermon of God's Anatomy upon the Heart, pag. 167. which is so severe, that I care not to transcribe.

But to proceed: As little reason is there to se­parate from a Church for remisness of Discipline. This the Author of Separation yet no Schism saith that he seeth no sin in, pag. 67. for the Reason gi­ven before; and to which my abovesaid Answer, and what I have also said pag. 66. will be sufficient. I shall onely add, That care is taken by our Church and Constitution (as I have already shewed) for the due Administration of Discipline: And if it be ob­jected, That it fails in the exercise and application of it; I will answer with Mr. Jenkin here, pag. 33. Let them consider, whether the want of purging and reforming of Abuses, proceed not rather from some un­happy and political restrictions—in the exercise of Di­scipline, than from the allowance or neglect of the Church it self. If you would see more of their Opinion formerly as to this case, I refer you to [Page 93] Mr. Brinsley, in his Arraignment of Schism, pag. 32. to Mr. Firmin, in his Separation examined, pag. 28. the Confutation of the Brownists, published by Mr. Rathband, pag 18. and Mr. Vines on the Sacrament, pag. 22.

6. We must not separate from a Church as long as Christ holds Communion with it. So Mr. Jenkin here, pag. 36. saith; Separation from Churches from which Christ doth not separate, is Schismatical. So Mr. Vines on the Sacrament, pag. 242. If God af­ford his Communion with a Church by his own Ordinances, and his Grace and Spirit, we are not to separate. It would be unnatural and peevish in a Child to forsake his Mother, while his Fa­ther owns her for his Wife. Now whether Christ holds not Communion with our Church, I refer you to the several Marks given in this Sermon by Mr. Jenkin, p. 32. such as the having the Gospel of Sal­vation preached in an ordinary way, &c. which you may compare with what is said in the Vindication of the Provincial Assembly, pag, 141. And so much is expresly granted by T. P. or rather D. (as Mr. Crofton unriddles it) in his Jerubbaal (wrote in an­swer to Mr. Crofton, 1662.) pag. 18. The Essen­tials constitutive of a True Church are, 1. The Head. 2. The Body. 3. The Union that is be­tween them: Which three concurring in the [Page 94] Church of England, Christ being the professed Head, She being Christs professed Body, and the Catholick Faith being the Union-bond whereby they are coupled together, She cannot in justice be denied a True (though, God knows, far from a pure) Church. So much is granted by the Au­thor of Nonconformists no Schismaticks, pag. 13. who having started an Objection, viz. You own the Church of England to be a true Church of Christ; and if so, Christ is in it, and with it; and why will you leave that Church from which Christ is not withdrawn? Replies after this sort: "We acknowledge the Church of England to be a true Church, and that we are Members of the same visible Church with them; but it's one thing to leave a Church, and another thing to leave her external Communion. To leave a Church, is to disown it, and cease to be a Member of it or with it, by ceasing to have those Requisites that con­stitute a Member of it, as Faith and Obedience. I will not quarrel at this time with the distinction; but I do not understand what service it can be of to them, when after all the accuracy of it, such that have nothing more to say, will notwithstanding that be Schismaticks, if his own Definition of Schism hold true; for, pag. 12. he saith, That Schism is a causeless separation of one part of the Church from [Page 95] another in external Communion. Now if the Church of England is so a Church, that Christ holds Com­munion with it; and they Members of that Church, as he acknowledgeth: then they that leave her ex­ternal Communion are guilty of Schism: and then it's no matter whether there be any difference be­twixt leaving a Church, and leaving her external Communion, when the least of them makes those that are guilty of it to be Schismaticks.

To sum up now what hath been said: Though there be Errors in a Church (if not fundamental); though there be corruption of Manners, mixture in Communion; though there be not a perfect Constitu­tion and Order, and other Churches may be thought better: yet if it hath the Scripture-Characters of a true Church upon it, and Christ holds Communion with it, it is not to be separated from, and Separa­tion from it is Schismatical. So that as far as the Negative part holds, we are secure.

2. For what Reasons may a Church be separated from, and Persons be justified in it?

Dr. Manton on Jude, pag. 496. saith, The onely lawful grounds of Separation are three, viz. Intole­rable Persecution, Damnable Heresie, and gross Ido­latry. To which Mr. Jenkin doth here, pag. 23. add unjust Excommunication, and a necessary Communion with a Church in its Sins. All which I shall now [Page 96] consider, and enquire, whether they are Causes existent at the present amongst us, and what they of the Separation have reason to plead.

1. Damnable Heresie. This I have before suffici­ently acquitted our Church of, and therefore con­ceive that I may without more ado proceed.

2. Gross Idolatry. I find those that deny the law­fulness of hearing the established Ministers, are most forward to charge this upon us. With this the confident Author of Prelatique Preachers none of Christs Teachers, that he might possess the unwary Reader betimes, thought safest to begin his Book, viz. The Idolatrous madness of the Common-Prayer-Book-Worship, hath of late been made so manifest to all the Houshold of Faith in this Na­tion,—As if it was a thing so certain, plain, and notorious, that he must not be one of the Houshold of Faith that doth not discern it, and abhor the Church for it. With the like boldness are we assaulted by the Author of A Christian and sober Testimony against sinful Compliance, or the un­lawfulness of hearing the present Ministers of the Church of England, pag. 55. printed 1664. An Author of great forwardness, but of intolerable ig­norance or malice, that tells you, pag. 44. That our Church doth own, that Men ought to be made Ministers onely by Lord Bishops; (And [Page 97] then what a breach is made upon our Church by the Bishop of Soder in the Isle of Man, that takes upon him to Ordain without that Title?) That the Office of Suffragans, Deans, Canons, Petty-Canons, Prebendaries, Choristers, Organists, Com­missaries, Officials, &c. is not onely accounted by us lawful, but necessary to be had in the Church: And, pag. 45. That Women may administer Baptism. And, pag. 94. reveals a further Secret, That the Re­formed Churches generally renounce the Ministry of the Church of England, not admitting any by vertue of it to the Charge of Souls. Now do you not think that such as these are able Champions, and fit to enter the Lists of Controversie, that take up things by hear-say? By this you may guess to what Tribe they belong; and you may learn it from Mr. Bax­ter, in his Cure, pag. 193. It is an ordinary sound, to hear an ignorant, rash, self-conceited Person, especially a Preacher, to cry out Idolatry, Idolatry, against his Brothers Prayers to God. But what occasion hath our Church given for this Out-cry? Is it for the Matter, or the Form of its Prayers? Not the Matter: for Mr. D. in his Jerubbaal, pag. 35. doth thus say of it, Most of the Matter I grant to be Divine. And Mr. Crofton, in his Reformation no Separation, pag. 25. speaks more universally; I confess their Common-Prayer is my Burden;—yet [Page 98] I must confess, I find in it no Matter to which (on a charitable Interpretation) a sober, serious Christian may not say, nay can deny his Amen. Not for the Form: for then it must be either be­cause every Form is Idolatrous, or that this Form is especially so, or because it is prescribed and imposed. The first of these is affirmed by the angry Author of The Antidote to Mr. Baxter's Cure, pag. 11. who saith, We do not think any thing to be Idolatry, because it hath something in it to be amended; but because it is used in the Worship of God, without any Command from God to make it law­ful: and this we must tell our Dictator, is a spe­cies of Idolatry, and forbidden in the Second Com­mandment. But this Author hath warily declined the main Argument which Mr. Baxter insisted upon three Pages before, and falls upon the Rere, and picked up an accidental Expression: for you will find him, pag. 190. of his Cure, to reason after this manner; Where did these Men learn to call their Brethrens Worship false, any more than their own, upon the account that God hath not com­manded the manner of it; when he hath neither commanded us to use a Form, or to forbear it? Now I believe it would be as hard for him to find a Command for the perpetual use of a Conceived Payer, as he thinks it will be to find one for a Form; [Page 99] and then they that pray without a Form, are as much guilty of Idolatry, as those that use it: Nay, if the Divine Authority hath left it free, these are the Superstitious, that would make that a Duty com­manded, and that a Sin forbidden, which is not; as Mr. Baxter there saith, pag. 282. But if you would see more of this, I shall refer you to the Confutati­on of the Brownists, pag. 12, 13.

It is not Idolatrous, as this Form is especially so. This indeed some have ventured to say, as suppo­sing the Liturgie to be taken out of the Mass-Book. So saith the Author of the Anatomy of the Service-Book: And therefore Mr. Robert Baily wrote a Book called A Parallel of the Liturgie with the Mass-Book, reprinted 1661. But it shall suffice to say to this, what Mr. Ball, in the Name of the Nonconformists, replied, in the Letters betwixt the Ministers of Old and New England, pag. 14, 15. The Liturgie was not taken out of the Mass-Book, in such sense as you object; but rather the Mass, and other Ido­latrous Prayers, were added to it: for Popery is a Scab or Leprosie cleaving to the Church.—It is no hard Task to shew, that our Service-Book was reformed in most things, according to the purest Liturgies which were in use in the Church long before the Mass was heard of in the World. And if that could not be shewed, yet forms of Speech [Page 100] generally taken (we speak not of this or that spe­cial Word or Phrase), is no more defiled by Ido­latry, than the light Air, or Place where Idolatry is committed. It is not unlawful to pray, Lord help, or Lord have mercy; or to give Thanks, Prai­sed be God; because the Papists say, Lady help, or Praised be God and the Virgin Mary.

Lastly, It is not Idolatrous as it is a Form impo­sed. So much indeed is said in the Christian and so­ber Testimony, pag. 68. To pray by an imposed Form, is Idolatry; and therefore doth not spare to say, pag. 70. That Latimer, Ridley, and Hooper, and ma­ny other Martyrs, were Idolaters: and yet in the mean time grants, That they were such eminent Wit­nesses of Christ, that they shall come with him, and sit upon Thrones. But I cannot understand how Im­position can alter the Nature of Things, and make that unlawful which was otherwise in it self law­ful; and I see it is as little understood by the bet­ter part among themselves. So the Nonconformists Confutation of the Brownists, pag. 15. If Forms thus devised by Men be found to be lawful and pro­fitable, what sin can it be for the Governors of the Church to command that such Forms be used; or for us, that are perswaded of the lawfulness of them, to use them, being imposed? unless they will say, That therefore it is unlawful to hear the [Page 101] Word, receive the Sacraments, &c. because we are commanded by the Magistrates so to do. Whereas indeed we ought the rather to do good things, that are agreeable unto the Word, when we know them also to be commanded by the Christian Magistrate. So Mr. Baxter, in his Cure, pag. 186. If you command your Child to learn a Catechism, or Form of Prayer, will you teach him to say, Father, or Mother, it had been lawful for me to use this Form, if neither you nor any body had bid me; but because you bid me, it is unlawful. O, whither will not partiality lead men! And it will be worth your while, to see how Mr. Brinsley, in his Church-Remedy, argues against it, where he con­cludes, That amongst all the monstrous and mis-shapen Conceptions which these brooding Times have hatched and brought forth, I do not know any more prodigious than this, viz. That things indifferent in themselves, are made unlawful by being commanded. And then much less are they thereby made Idolatrous. If our Liturgie then is good for the Matter, and that the Matter is not altered by the Form; then you may see where the Storm will fall, and what they are to be thought of that are guilty of these Reproches, and how much they distrust the goodness of their Cause, that betake themselves to such Arts as these to support it.

[Page 102] 3. A Church may be separated from upon into­lerable Persecution. Where I should consider, whe­ther it be Persecution, before I proceed to enquire whether it be intolerable. But because I have no mind to aggravate the Case, by shewing what hath been by them formerly thought Persecution, and what not, I shall omit that part of it, and enter upon the other, viz. the intolerableness of what is suffered, as a Reason for which they suppose them­selves compelled to quit Communion. And it must arise to this degree, or else it will not justifie a Se­paration: Persecution alone will not warrant it, un­less it comes to be insufferable. Now this must be either on the part of the Ministers, or on the Peo­ple. Not on the Ministers: for all the difference betwixt them and the People is, that they are re­quired to lay down the present Exercise of their Ministry, till they are satisfied in the submission they must give to the Rules and Orders of the Church: But this is no Persecution, much less what is intole­rable No Persecution: for it is a Security required in all Churches of the World, that those who are intrusted with that Office, should observe the Or­der and Discipline that is amongst them. So it was in the Church of Scotland whilst Presbyterian, where it was resolved, That whosoever hath born Office in the Ministry of the Kirk, or that presently [Page 103] bears, or shall hereafter bear Office herein, shall be charged by every particular Presbytery where their Residence is, to subscrive the Heads of Di­scipline of the Kirk, betwixt this and the next Synodal Assemblies of the Provinces, under the pain▪of Excommunication; as you may see in the Doctrine and Discipline of the Kirk of Scotland, print­ed 1641. pag. 12. And as they there declared the Office of a Bishop to be unlawful in it self, pag. 19. so I find, that the General Assembly did require, that besides this Subscription to the Book of Discipline, some Persons (I suppose suspected of affection that way) should subscribe a particular Declaration of the unlawfulness of Episcopacy, as was the Case of Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Hay, in the Principal Acts of the General Assembly, 1644. And thus it was amongst us, when all Persons to be Ordained, were to bring a Testimonial of their having taken the Covenant, as you may find it in the Form of Church-Govern­ment, pag. 20. and in all Places required to take it, and to read the Directory the next Lords-day after the receipt of it, by an Ordinance, Aug. 23. 1645. So that taking Security by Profession and Subscri­ption, that the Order of the Church shall be obser­ved by Persons intrusted in the Ministrations of it, and Suspension in case of refusal, is no Persecution. But supposing that so it was, yet it is not intolera­ble. [Page 104] I do grant, that it must needs be a great trou­ble to a good Man, that he cannot do God and the Church that Service which he hath devoted himself unto, by reason of some Limitations put upon him; but yet I think, that this is not sufficient to carry him off from Communion with a Church, and to set up another, because he is denied this Liberty: for he is still capable of being a private Member of it, and therefore he ought to continue in the latter Capacity, when suspended from the former. So saith Mr. Crofton, in his Reformation not Separation, Epist. to the Reader: I cannot be perswaded, that I am disbanded from Christs Army, so soon as I am su­perseded to my Conduct; I must march under his Banner, when I may not be permitted to march at the Head of a Company. So again, pag. 98. I conceive, Administration of God's Worship is much different from Attendance on God's Worship; and I stand bound to the last, when I am (justly or unjustly) bar­red from the first. And this was the Opinion of the old Nonconformists. But now we find it otherwise; and sometimes these plead the obligation of their Or­dination, sometimes the Relation which they have to a peculiar People, and sometimes the necessity of mul­titudes of Souls. The first we find insisted upon by the Author of Separation yet no Schism, Epist. to the Reader: If it be asked, May not Supreme Magi­strates, [Page 105] within their Dominion, suspend some Ministers from the Exercise of their Office, when they conceive it is for the peace of the rest? It will be answered, That the Lord of Lords, who giveth the Office and the Commission,—hath certainly with the Office designed them to the Exercise thereof, and hath therein placed, not onely the Office, but the Exercise thereof, above the restraint of any Powers whatso­ever, so long as the Exercise thereof continues to be re­gulated by the Laws of Christ. And in this case, nothing is more ordinarily produced than that of the Apostle, Wo is me, &c. But is not this to ad­vance every one beyond the cognisance of Superi­ors, and to fall in with the Church of Rome, whilst they decry it? If indeed theirs was the Apostle's case, the Apostle's resolution of obeying God rather than Man, would become them: But how little it is so, let the old Nonconformists shew, in their Con­futation of the Brownists, pag. 41. How unskilfully that speech of the Apostles is alledged, will appear to them that will consider these three differences between their Case and ours. 1. They that inhibited the Apo­stles, were professed Enemies to the Gospel. 2. The Apostles were charged not to teach in the Name of Christ, nor to publish any part of the Doctrine of the Gospel. 3. The Apostles received not their Calling and Authority from men, nor by the hands of men, but [Page 106] immediately from God himself; and therefore might not be restrained or deposed by men: whereas we, though we exercise a Function whereof God is the Author, and we are also called of God to it, yet we are called and ordained by the ministry of men, and may therefore by men be deposed, and restrained from the exercise of it. I shall conclude this with what Mr. Crofton saith, in his Reformation not Separation, pag. 70. If the Being of Christianity depended upon my Personal Ministry, as the being or appearing a Chri­stian doth on my Communion with the Church visible, the Inference might be of some force: But till that be proved, I think it is of little.

But is this really the case? Then what becomes of those that among themselves have taken up whol­ly with other Professions, and yet were never char­ged by their Brethren, for so doing, (as Mr. Baxter is by the Author of the Antidote, pag. 15.) with ha­ving left the Lord's Work? Now I question not, but the same Reason that did induce some to take up with other Employments to the neglect of this, and so satisfie the rest, that they acquiesce in it, will al­so be sufficient to shew, That meer Ordination can­not bind to the Exercise of that Office, when the Magistrate and Church forbids; and consequently, that a Restraint is no intolerable Persecution.

But the relation that they have to a peculiar People [Page 107] makes this Inhibition intolerable. This is indeed pleaded in Sacrilegious Desertion, pag. 11. & 45. I undertake to prove, that Pastors and People are the constitutive Essentials of a true Church; that Dr. Seaman, Mr. Calamy, Dr. Manton, &c. with the People subject to them as Pastors, were true Churches: Prove you, if you can, that on August 24. 1662. they were degraded, or these true Churches dissolved. But before he puts others to prove the contrary, he ought to have made good his own Proposition, by proving, That the Relation betwixt particular Pastors and People is not to be dis­solved. For what though Pastors and People are the Constitutive Essentials of a true Church? what though Dr. Seaman, Mr. Calamy, &c. and the Peo­ple with them, were true Churches? Can neither Dr. Seaman, &c. remove, or be removed from a People, but all this mischief follows, that Ministers are presently degraded, and Churches dissolved? Could not Mr. Calamy remove from St. Edmonds­bury to Rochford, and from Rochford to Alderman­bury, as he himself doth declare in his Apologie? Could not Mr. Jenkin remove from Black-Fryers to Christ-church, without all this disorder? What wreck was here made in Churches, if this Relation was indissoluble? But if a Pastor may thus remove himself from one Church, upon invitation to ano­ther, [Page 108] (as it seems he may) it shews, that the Rela­tion is not so strict as is pretended; and that, con­sequently, Superiors in Church and State may so far dissolve that Relation, as well as the Pastor him­self. But however, what relief will this afford to those that leave those Places where they had any pretence of such a Relation, and busie themselves where they had none? What relief will this be to those that contract a new Relation, and that do ga­ther Churches out of Churches? Surely Dr. Sea­man's, Dr. Jacomb's, and Mr. Jenkin's Flocks now, are taken from other Places than Alhallows Bread­street, Martins Ludgate, &c.

Lastly, The necessity of the People is what doth make their Preaching necessary (as they would have it understood. So Sacrilegious Desertion, pag. 59.), and so their Suspension intolerable Persecution. But supposing this, (as doubtless there is and ever was Work sufficient for a greater number of skilful and faithful Labourers); yet is there no way to be use­ful, but by facing a numerous Congregation, and preaching at such Times, and in such Places, as do declare a defiance to the Church, which they there­by make a manifest rupture in, and open separati­on from? Is there no good to be done by preach­ing to Five, besides a Mans own Family, and by Personal Conference and Instruction? How came [Page 109] then our Saviour and his Apostles oftentimes to be­take themselves to this way, as an Author of their own, in his Archippus, doth inform us, pag. 21? But if it be of great advantage, and that it is no little part of a Ministers Duty, personally to Instruct, and Preach from House to House, as that Author saith, how comes it to be so sadly neglected by them, as he there complains? and how comes the Apo­stles Wo to be pleaded for the one, and not to bind the other? Hear what the Author of Sacrilegious Desertion faith, pag. 93. Is it not too much Hy­pocrisie to cry out against them that forbid us Preaching, and in the mean time to neglect that which none forbids us, viz. Christian Conference. Certainly, as he saith, pag. 94. Sincerity inclineth men to that way of Duty that hath least Ostentation.

But if the state of the People be indeed the rea­son, why do we not find them where there is most need of their Assistance? Are we not told, in Sa­crilegious Desertion, pag. 10. That the Nonconformists have found, that some Places of many Years past have had no Ministers at all? Are there no Places in Eng­land and Wales, that do much more abound in Ig­norance, than London, and the adjacent Parts? and are the Nonconformists there to be met with? No, that Work is left to one (good Soul) that having not a Liberty by the Law to exercise his Office in [Page 110] the more Publick way, doth with unwearied dili­gence pursue the Ends of it, in travelling over steep Mountains and craggy Rocks, and conversing with the rude and untaught Natives, whilst others do more consult their Ease and Profit.

You see then, upon the whole, that their Sus­pension is not intolerable Persecution, or what will be sufficient to justifie their Separation; but that still, notwithstanding their Pleas, they are upon the same terms with the People; and what will not justifie the Separation of the People, will not justifie that of the Minister; and what is sufficient to retain the People in Communion, is sufficient to retain the Minister.

And so we are left to consider the State of the People, and whether there be on their part intole­rable Persecution. Not to dispute whether what is suffered be Persecution, or not; I shall onely consi­der, whether it be what is sufficient to warrant their Separation: And that will appear, if we observe, That their Suffering must be either because they do not at all Communicate with the Church, or that there are some particular things onely which they do not Communicate with us in. If it be for the former, then they did separate before their suffer­ing, and consequently their Suffering can be no rea­son for their Separation. If it be onely as to par­ticular [Page 111] things, then, I say, it will be hard to shew, that any Person doth suffer intolerably upon that score; the Church proceeding in so great tender­ness, where Persons have shewed their readiness to hold Communion with her in what they can, and have so far given satisfaction of their Piety, Peace­ableness, and Compliance, that in the Cases where the Laws have been thought severe, they have rare­ly been executed upon such in their severity. Which I conceive is a sufficient Reply to those that cry out, Persecution, and intolerable, because of the great Pe­nalties that Offenders in such kind are liable unto. For, the meer supposal and expectation of severity, is no good Reason for Separation, as long as it is not, nor is likely to be actually inflicted. For, as Mr. Bradshaw the Nonconformist, in his Ʋnreasona­bleness of Separation, printed 1640. pag. 107. doth say, Though Humane Laws, under never so great Pu­nishments, should bind us to never so great Corrupti­ons in Gods Service; yet so long as we do not actually communicate in those Corruptions, our Communicating is never the worse for the said Laws: So I say, Though Laws threaten never so great Punishments, yet so long as we do not actually suffer them, our Condi­tion is not the worse for these Laws. And this was thought a good Argument by Mr. Baily, in his Hi­storical Vindication of the Church of Scotland, 1646. [Page 112] Pag. 20. who, when charged, That the King and his Family are subject to the Classical Assemby, answers, That any Presbyterian did ever so much as begin a Process with any Prince, when they had the greatest Provocations thereto, it cannot be shewed to this day. The Church of Scotland, notwithstanding all the cross Actions of King James, or King Charles,— yet never did so much as bethink themselves of drawing against them the Sword of Church-Censures. Where he de­nies not the Charge of their Churches claiming such a Power; but thinks it enough to reply, That she had never so used it. So then you see, that it is not the Power that our Superiors have, nor the Pe­nalties that a Law threatens, that will serve in this case; as long as the Use of that Power, and Exe­cution of those Laws is suspended: and a Person ought not any more to quit the Church, than he will his Country, as long as he may be suffered to abide in it. And that he may do with us, that will hold Communion with our Church in what he can, and doth behave himself with modesty in those things which for the present he cannot Communi­cate in.

4. Ʋnjust Excommunication is another Reason gi­ven to make Separation warrantable. But that being a spiritual Persecution (as Camero calls it) doth not really differ from the former, and therefore will receive the same Answer.

[Page 113] 5. That which will warrant a Separation from a Church, is a necessary Communion with it in its Sins. Towards the resolution of which, I shall observe,

1. That bare Communion with a Church, doth not necessarily make a Person to communicate with the Sins of it. This is granted by all that say, We must not separate from a Church, because of the ungodly that are in its Communion, or because of some mixtures that are in its Worship: And if we must not se­parate from them, it is certain we may continue there, without being guilty of the Sin of them. How far the first of these is and ought to be acknow­ledged, I have shewed above, at pag. 62. And how far the latter, you may see in Mr. Brinsley's Ar­raignment of Schism, pag. 50. Though toleration of some unwarrantable mixtures in a Church, be an evil; yet it is not so great an evil, as Separation upon that ground. This was the Opinion of the Five dissent­ing Brethren, in their Apologetical Narration, pag. 6. We have always professed, and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most either actually over-spread with defilements, or in the great­est danger thereof,—That we both did and would hold a Communion with them, as the Churches of Christ. And this they agreed to, upon this consideration, that otherwise there hath been no Church yet, nor will be to the day of Judgment, which Persons [Page 114] otherwise perswaded, could or can hold Communi­on with; as you may find it in the old Nonconfor­mists Letters to those of New-England, pag. 12. Mr. Firmin's Separation examined, pag. 25. and the Vindication of the Provincial Assembly, pag. 135.

2. I add, That the imposition of things unlawful, or so thought to be, in a Church, makes a Person in this case no farther concerned, than as they are imposed on him. For, if Corruptions tolerated are no bar to Communion, then they are not when imposed; meer Imposition not altering the Nature, as Mr. Crofton saith, in his Jerubbaal, pag. 27.

3. Imposition in some things unlawful, or supposed so to be, will not justifie a separation from what is law­ful. The Author of Separation yet no Schism, in his Epistle to the Reader, thus pleads for the People: The People are not always free from such Impo­sitions which they extremely suspect as sinful; as that they cannot enjoy Baptism for their Chil­dren without the Cross, nor receive the Lords Supper without Kneeling; to name no more, (as well he could not). But suppose that these things are imposed, and what they extremely suspect; can this be a Reason for their separation in those things where nothing of this nature is? Certainly, in obedience to Magistrates, and for Communion with a Church, we ought to go as far as we can; [Page 115] and what I cannot do, is no excuse for the omission of what I can. Thus did the old Nonconformists think and practice, as I observed to you before, from the Vindication of the Provincial Assembly, pag. 135. That though some of them thought it unlawful to receive the Sacrament kneeling, yet they held Com­munion with the Church in the rest. And according­ly Mr. Firmin argues, in his Separation examined, pag. 29. Suppose there should be some Humane mixtures, are all the Ordinances polluted? Why do you not com­municate with them in those Ordinances which are pure?

Now if this be true, what shall we say to them that have nothing to object against the greatest part of what they are required to communicate with us in; and yet keep up a total and positive Separati­on from us, as if all Parts were alike infected, and that from the Crown of the Head, to the Sole of the Foot, there was nothing but Wounds and pu­trifying Sores?

4. The meer suspicion that a Person may have of the unlawfulness of what is imposed, will not justifie his omission of, or separation in that particular. For, he ought to come to some resolution in it, and in case of Obedience, Communion, and Charity, to go against such his Suspicion. To this purpose speaks Mr. Geree, in his Resolution of Ten Cases, 1644. [Page 116] Things wherein doubts arise, are of a double na­ture: 1. Meerly arbitrary, and at my own di­spose: 2. That are under command; as coming to the Sacrament, Obedience to the Higher Pow­ers in things lawful. If Scruples arise about these, and a Man doubts he sins if he acts, and he also doubts he sins if he forbears, &c. In this case he must weigh the Scales, and where he apprehends most weight of Reason, must incline that way, though the other Scale be not altogether empty. And this done, after humble and diligent search, with bewailing our infirmity, that we are no more discerning, will be accepted by God: God puts not his People on necessity of sinning, nor can our Scruples dispense with his Commands. So Mr. Fal­do, in his Quakerism no Christianity, pag. 93. In doubtful and difficult Cases, wherein we cannot reach the knowledge of our Duty, it's our Duty to follow the Examples of the greatest number of the Saints, &c. And then surely, what will serve in such a case to let us dispense with our Doubts, will much more in Obedience to Gover­nours, and for Communion with a Church. This I thought to have more largely handled, as it's thought a new and late Argument, used by Bishop Sanderson, &c. (but what I can prove to be of old the common Resolution of the Case), and as the [Page 117] contrary is pleaded for from Mr. Hales: But light­ing happily upon a Book called Mr. Hales's Trea­tise of Schism examined, wrote by a Learned Per­son, I shall refer you to it, where he particularly undertakes this Point, pag. 110, &c.

Having thus made good the Three Propositions abovesaid, and shewed, That the Church of England is a True Church; That there is a Separation from it; and, That this Separation is voluntary and unne­cessary: that which remains is not to be denied, viz. That therefore the present Separation is Schismatical. So that now you may see in what condition those of our dissenting Brethren are, that withdraw from the Communion of our Church; and how little able they will be to reconcile their present Proceed­ings, to their former Principles and Professions. It was once said by them, in the Vindication of the Presbyterial Government, pag. 133. We dare not make separation from a true Church, by departing from it, as you do, [speaking to the Independents.] Then In­dependency was what they proved to be Schism, be­cause, 1. Independents do depart from our Churches, being true Churches, and so acknowledged by themselves. 2. They draw and seduce Members from our Congrega­tions. 3. They erect separate Congregations. 4. They refuse Communion with our Churches in the Sacra­ments. Now we judge, that no Schism is to be tolera­ted [Page 118] in the Church; as say the London-Ministers, in their Letter to the Assembly, pag. 3. Then the inevi­table Consequences of it could be discovered and represented, as that by it Peoples minds would be troubled, and in danger to be subverted; bitter heart­burning would be fomented and perpetuated; godly, painful, and orthodox Ministers be discouraged, and despised; the life and power of Godliness be eaten out, by frivolous Disputes; and the whole Course of Re­ligion in private Families be interrupted, and under­mined; as they there say, pag. 4. Then Church-Di­vision was as great a Sin as Adultery and Theft, as Dr. Bryan maintains, in the Publick Disputation at Kilingworth, 1655. pag. 28. Then it was pleaded, That they Covenanted not onely against Sin, but Schism, as saith Mr. Watson, in his Anatomy upon the Heart, pag. 160. But is not that now true, which he there charges upon themselves, We have gone against the Letter of it? For, do not many of them that have said all this, set up Churches against Churches, exer­cise the Worship of God, administer Ordinances, the Word, Sacraments, apart, and in a separated Body? Which in a peculiar manner, and by way of eminency, is called Schism, saith Mr. Brinsley, pag. 16. Is Schism all on a sudden grown so innocent a thing, that Per­sons are to be indulged, and tamely permitted to continue in it? And is it not as sad now, as it was [Page 119] then, that many that pretend to Religion, make no Conscience of Schism, as Dr. Manton on Jude, pag. 492. doth observe? Certainly, That still remains good which was said by Mr. Brinsley, pag. 17. The Schisms and Divisions which are broken in, and that amongst God's own People, are what I cannot but look upon as one of the blackest Clouds, one of the saddest Judgments which hang over the head of this Kingdom at this day; of sad influence for the present, and, un­less they be healed, of dangerous consequence for the future. Have we not Atheism, and Infidelity, and Profaneness enough to encounter; but must we have more Work found us, by those that have given us Arguments to oppose themselves with? Are we in no danger of being over-run with a Foreign Power, and that the Romans shall come and take away our Name and Church; when we, which are at difference amongst our selves, shall without any opposition be swallowed up by them? Are they yet to be taught, that as nothing can, so nothing will sooner make us a prey to them, than mutual Hostilities amongst our selves? And whence is it, that they will run the adventure, and care not what they expose us to? Is it that Rome is nearer to them, than they are to us? That will not be supposed. Is it that they ex­pect better Quarter from that, than they meet with from our Church? That let Experience decide. Is [Page 120] it that by bringing all to confusion, and a common scramble, they may hope to go away with the Su­premacy? That their Divisions amongst themselves doth confute. For, can they think, because they agree against us, that they will agree among them­selves? Or, can they think, if they do not, that one alone can carry the Victory from the Common Ene­my? Let a sober Author of their own, in his Di­scourse of the Religion of England, be heard, who saith, pag. 39. That the common safety and advance­ment of true Religion cannot stand by a multiplicity of petty Forms; but requires an ample and well-setled State, to defend and propagate it against the amplitude and potency of the Romish Interest. And are not these the thoughts of the wisest in this Nation? and shall Men yet continue to keep up Feuds and Animosi­ties, and make no scruple of contradicting them­selves to feed them? It was once said by Mr. Brin­sley, pag. 62. That it's a foul blemish to a Minister of Christ, to speak one thing to day, and another thing tomorrow, to say and unsay. And I will appeal to all the World, whether this be not what our Brethren are guilty of. Surely, if they would but take the pains to review what they have written, and weigh those Arguments against Schism and Separation that they formerly published, they would return to them­selves, and to that Church which they have so un­advisedly [Page 121] broken off from; they would then think it their Duty, with the old Nonconformists, to come as far as they can, and their Happiness to live in the Communion of that Church where they may be as good as they will; they would then see, that Schism is a great Sin, and that their present Separa­tion is Schism.

I should now conclude, but that I may fear that Mr. Jenkin will proclaim, and others think me a Slanderer, for saying, pag. 44. That he hath borrow­ed the Substance of this Sermon from Mr. Brinsley's Arraignment of Schism, if I do not make it good: and therefore in my own vindication, and also to shew you how far holiness and indignation may be pretended, when indeed it is little better than hypo­crisie and calumny that prompts Men on, I shall draw the Comparison, and leave you and all others to judge, whether he be not one of those empty and unaccomplished Predicants spoken of in his Exodus, pag. 56. that preach the Sermons of others, and, more than that, dare before all the World publish them as his own: the like to which is also done by him, or one of his Brethren, in the Vindication of the Presbyterial Government, pag. 132. compared with Mr. Brinsley, pag. 16. and pag. 134. with 52. and pag. 135. with 41. Nor hath he borrowed from Mr. Brinsley alone, but hath rifled divers other Au­thors [Page 122] for the greatest part of his Book, as might ea­sily be proved, were it either requisite, or worth the while. How far he is beholden to others for that kind of Wit and tawdry Eloquence that a gross and bribed Flatterer, in his Patronus bonae Fidei, gives him the Title of Seneca for, the Author of the Vindication of the Conforming Clergie hath alrea­dy shewed: And how bold he hath made with others for Argument and Reason, the following In­stances will be a sufficient Specimen, where he hath scarcely left any thing untouched that he then thought might serve his purpose.

[Page 133]Now, Sir, by this you may perceive, how some Men do make their Books and Sermons, and by what ways a Man may rise to the reputation of being a considerable Author: he may cull and pick, pilfer and steal, and become Learned to a miracle, an excellent Preacher, and write even to a Folio; and if he had but the Art of keeping men from poring into neglected Authors, and prying into Books that are cast into corners, might pass as such: But as long as what is forgotten in one Age, is revived in another, and as long as it is become a Trade to collect Pamphlets, I would advise your Friend to be more wary for the future, and keep from writing a Folio and a Comment again.

And now, Sir, it is high time for me to con­clude, to whom it is no pleasure to deal in such a way, and to converse with those kind of Books that you see my Design hath put me upon. It is Charity to you and the World that hath led me along; and I hope I have so managed it, as shall be to the offence of none, but those that are Enemies to Truth: I am sure I have so much avoided all that might exasperate, that I have for that reason cast aside Leaves of what some others might be tempted to have taken in. If Mr. Jenkin hath been hardly dealt with, he must thank himself, who [...] [Page 134] without provocation, defamed others, could not be suffered to run away with that out-cry which he hath made, without a just Rebuke. I am,