SCHISM Detected in both Extreams. OR TWO SORTS OF Sinful Separation.

The FIRST PART detecteth the Schismatical Principles of a Resolver of three Cases about Church-Communion.

The SECOND PART Confuteth the Separation pleaded for, in a Book famed to be written by Mr. Raphson.

Rom. 15. 7.
Receive ye one another as Christ received us, to the Glory of God.

LONDON: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, near Mercers Chappel. 1684.

THE DANGEROUS SCHISM …

THE DANGEROUS SCHISMATICK CLEARLY DETECTED, and fully CONFUTED; For the Saving of a Distracted Nation from that which would destroy Christian Love and Unity.

Occasioned by a Resolver of Three CASES about CHURCH-COMMUNION.

By RICHARD BAXTER a Catholique Christian, who is against confining Christian Love and Communion to any Sect how Great soever.

Mark 16. 16.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.
John 13. 35.
By this shall all men know you are my Disciples, if ye have Love one to another.
1 John 4. 16.
He that dwelleth in Love dwelleth in God, and he in him.
Rom. 14. 1. 17, 18.
Him that is weak in the Faith receive ye, but not to doubtful Disputations: for the Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink, but Righteousness and Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost: for he that in these things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God, and approved of Men.

LONDON, Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns at the lower end of Cheapside near Mercers-Chappel, 1683.

The English Schismatick, detected and confuted: Occasioned by a Resolver of Cases about Church Communion.

CHAP. I.
SAITH THE RESOLVER,

§. 1. THE Church is a Body or society of men separated from the rest of the World, and united to God and to themselves by a Divine Covenant.

A. He saith this is the plainest description he can give: That is not the fault of his Auditors or Readers. 1. As to the Genus, a Community of equals without Rulers is a body: but I suppose he meaneth not such. 2. Is it enough that it be of Men? sure now they should be Christians? 3. Many are separated from the rest of the World, secundum quid, that are no Christians; some in one respect and some in another, and none in all respects. 4. Vnited to God, is an ambiguous word, no Creature is Vnited to him perfectly so as to be thereby what he is, God, in the created Nature. Only Christ is united to him Hypostatically in his created Na­ture. All are so far united to him in natural being, as that in him they live and move and have their being: And the Nature of man is one sort of his Image: All things are united to him as effects to their constant efficient. The Church should not be defined without any mention of Christ: The Churches Union with God is by Christ. 5. Christ himself as Head is an essential part of the Church, and should not be left out of a Definition, thô the meer Body may in common speech be called the Church, as the People may be called a Kingdom. 6. Will any Divine Covenant serve? or must it not be only the Baptismal Covenant? 7. Is it called Divine only as made by God, or as commanded by God and made by Man, or as mutual? Certainly Gods Law and offered or Conditional Promise is most frequently called His Covenant in Scripture; and this uniteth not men to God, till they consent and Covenant with him. Their own Covenant Act is necessary hereto: And that is a Divine Covenant, only as commanded, and accepted and done by Gods assisting Grace. 8. The form of a Church is Relative, and the Ter­minus is essential to a Relation. It is no definition that hath not the End [Page 2] of the Association: Therefore this is none at all; and so the beginning tells us what to expect.

This description hath nothing in it▪ but what may agree to divers forms of Society, and so hath not the form of a Church: And if he intended not a Definition, but a loose description, I would a defining Doctor had had the Chair, during this controversie.

Let us try this description upon a Mahometan Kingdom, Army, or Na­vy, or suppose them meer Deists.

1. Such a Kingdom, Army, or Navy may be a Society. 2. Of Men. 3. Separated from the rest of the World secundum quid & ad hoc (and none are separated from it simpliciter & ad omnia: e. g. No man is Separated from the common humanity, No Deist from any but Atheists, and no Christian in believing a God and the Law of Nature and Nations.) 4. They are Vnited to God so far as owning a God and Worshipping him amounts to, be­sides the Union of the Creature with the Creator in whom he liveth, &c. And no unregenerate ungodly Christian is united to him savingly. 5. They are united among themselves. 6. This is by a Covenant: 7. And by a Covenant Divine, as to command, approbation and object. It is God that they Covenant to own and obey: The common Profession of the Mahometans, is, There is one God, and Mahomet is his Prophet. It is Divine in tantum as commanded. For God Commandeth all men to Own him; to believe that God is, and that he is the Rewarder of them that diligently seek him: And God so far approveth it: St. James saith, (Thou dost well) to him that believeth there is a God, much more that is professedly devoted to him.

Let us by this examine the Jewish Church: Jews now may be 1. A Body, 2. Of Men, 3. Separated from the rest of the World, even in Religion and Church pretensions. 4. United to God as Creatures, as Men, as the corporal seed of Abraham, and as professing Belief, Love and Obedience to God, as their God. 5. Strictly united among themselves: 6. By a Cove­nant, 7. Which God once commanded, and still approveth so far as they own God.

Let us consider whether this description take not in, those in every Na­tion that fear God and work Righteousness, that never heard of Christ, (being thus combined.) And whether the Kingdom of God, be not larger than his Church: Joyn the Head and Tail of this mans book together, and by the Head (the description) for ought I see, Jews, Mahometans, if not almost; all Heathens, are the Church: But at the End, I think none on Earth is the Church: At least none that separate from a pair of Organs, or an ignorant Curate; Nor can any man know who.

Page 2. §. 2. He explaineth his Word [Body] as opposed to a confused Multitude.

A. But a Community of Equals, that have no Governours, may have order, and be no confused Multitude. And he himself after pleads over much for [...]necessity of Rulers.

[Page 3] P. 3. §. 3. And in many places, his Confusion and grand errour is repeated, that the Christian Church is but one: p. 7. We know no Church but what all Chri­stians are members of by Baptsme, which is the Vniversal Church; p. 8. There is but one Church, of which all Christians are members, as there is but one Covenant; p. 19. If there be but one Church and one Communion, of which all true Christians are members, &c. p. 23. I am no otherwise a member of any particular Church, than I am of the Vniversal: p. 40. It's a schismatical Notion of membership that divides the Christian Church into distinct memberships, and therefore into the distinct Bodyes: And. p. 19. and often he saith, those Churches which are not members of each other, are separate Churches and Schismaticks.

A. I had hoped that no man but Mr. Cheny had talkt at this rate.

I. It's agreed on, that there is but one Universal Church: The contrary is a Contradiction. 2. It is agreed, that there is no lawful particular Church which is not a part of the Universal. 3. That whoever hath just Union and Communion with a true particular Church, hath Union and Communion with the Universal: 4. That all men in their Worship of God, should accordingly perform it (and do all that they do) as Men in that Relation to the Universal Church: None of this is controverted.

II. But I had hoped never to have heard any but Seekers say, that there are not many lawful particular Churches, distinct from the whole and from one another, though not disjunct in the Common Essentials. For the proof of the contrary,

1. I begin with that which I expect should be most powerful; The mans own after-Confessions, to which he is oft brought. Pag. 8. Distance of Place and the necessities and conveniences of Worship and Discipline, has divided the Church into several parts and members, and Particular Churches, &c. So pag. 14. pag. 19. All Christian Churches ought to be members of one. More fully p. 20, 21. This is ad hominem, Yea and Nay is his Resolution.

2. But I'le bring other Arguments that prevail more with me. The Sa­cred Scriptures oft tell us of many Churches, therefore there are many. Act. 9. 31. The Churches had rest; and 15. 4. Confirming the Churches; 16. 5. So were the Churches established in the Faith; Rom. 16. 4. All the Churches of the Gentiles: So ver. 16. 1 Cor. 7. 17. So ordain I in all Churches; 11. 16. Nei­ther the Churches of God (have such Custom;) 14. 33. As in all the Churches of the Saints; 34. Let your Women keep silence in the Churches. So 16. 1. 19. & 2 Cor. 8. 1. The Grace of God bestowed on the Churches of Macedonia: 18. Whose Praise is in the Gospel through all the Churches. So 19. 23, 24. and 11. 8. 28. The care of all the Churches; 12. 13. Inferior to the other Churches. Gal. 1. 2, 22. 1 Thes. 2. 14. 2 Thes. 1. 4. Rev. 1. 4. To the seven Churches, ver. 11. 20. Angels and Candlesticks of the seven Churches. And 2. 7, 11, 17, 29. and 3. 6, 13, 22, 23. and 22. 16. His Concordance might have shew'd him all these in order, Phil. 4. 15. No Church communicated with me (con­cerning giving and receiving) but ye only. The dispute now must be, whether [Page 4] the Apostles or this Resolver be to be believed: They say there are many Churches, parts of One; he saith, There is but one, and it's Schismatical to divide it into distinct memberships or Bodyes, &c. It's no Schisme here to say, I am for Paul and the Holy Scripture: Let who will believe the contradictor.

‘3. My next Argument is this: Where there are many Political Societies, consisting of Christian Pastors and People, professedly associated for the ordinary Exercise of those Relations as such, in holy Communion, in Chri­stian Doctrine, Worship, Order and Conversation, for Edification in true Faith, Hope, Love and Obedience, and the Glorifying of God therein. There are many distinct true Churches, parts of the Church Universal;’ But on Earth there are many such Societyes, &c. Ergo, &c.

Either the controversie is De re or de nomine (for we called Separatists use to separate these.) 1. If de re; Let the existence of the thing defi­ned be tryed by Scripture, Reason and common Experience: 2. If de nomi­ne; Forma quae dat esse dat Nomen: Here is the true specifick form which is found in many single Churches, ergo the Name of such single (or individu­al) Churches is due to them.

4. Again ad hominem, from the consequences: 1. If there be not many single Churches in the Universal, then there are not many Patriarchal, Na­tional, Provincial, Metropolitical, Diocesan, or Parochial Churches: For non entium non datur numerus: Many nothings is a contradiction Multae sunt ergo sunt; Ab est tertij adjecti ad est secundi valet argumentum.

But if there be not many, then 1. All the Parish Churches in England be­ing but one, and not many, a Patron can have right to present to no one as a Church, more than to another. 2. Then the Parson, Vicar or Curate is no more the Parson of one Church than of another; nor bound to no more Care and Duty; for there is but one. 3. Then no one is bound to go to one Parish Church more than another; for there is but one. 4. Then the Temple and Tithes belong no more to one than another. 5. Then no Bishop is the proper Bishop of one Diocesan Church, more than of another. 6. Then all the revenues of the Bishop of London, are no more appropriate to one Church than to another. 7. Then you owe no more Obedience to the Bishops of one Diocesan Church than another: 8. Then you make the King no more Head or Governour of the Church of England, than of ano­ther. 9. Then a Diocesan oweth no Reverence to a Metropolitane Chruch (if there be none such.) 10. Then many Churches cannot have Communi­on nor send Bishops to Councils; (if there be not many) 11. And the charge of Separation from a Church that is no Church, is a contradiction.

5. I adde, from Parity of Reason, if many distinct subordinate Societies may make one Civil Body Politick, so they may one Universal Church: But the Antecedent is undoubted. If it be Learnedly said with Mr. Cheny, that one whole cannot be Part of another whole; One may attain the perfection by that time he hath worn the Breeches but a few years, to know that a whole Fa­mily [Page 5] may be part of a whole Village, and a whole Vicinage be part of a whole City, and a whole Colledge be part of a whole University; and a whole City part of a whole Kingdom; and a whole Kingdom part of the whole Earth.

And if it be objected, that the Names of the whole and parts are here di­vers; but a Church and a Church are the same Name. I Answer, at the same age one may learn that the same Name proveth not the sameness of the things Named; and that ex penuria nominum the Genus and Species, the Totum and Parts have oft equivocally the same Name, with the Addition of just Notes of distinction. Sometimes an Academy of many School is called Schola, and so are the single Schools therein: The City of London is a Society; and so are the Societies of Merchant-Taylors, Drapers, Mercers, &c. therein.

§. 4. But these Churches must be members of one another, or they are Schisma­ticks.

A. 1. How can that be, if they be all but one. 2. This is also above or below the ferula age. They are no members of one another, but all members of the whole: Yet how oft have we this with the sting of Schisme (as Damn­ing as Murder of Adulter) in the Tail of it. The hand is not a member or part of the Foot, or the Foot of the Hand, or the Liver a member of the Lungs, &c. but each one of the Man: If ever I were a Schoolmaster again, I would perswade may Boyes, that A is not a member of B, nor B of C, &c. but each of the Alphabet; And that one leaf of their Book is not a member of ano­ther, but both of the Book; And if they were ripe for the University, I would perswade them that Exeter Colledge is not a member of Corpus Christi, nor that of Lincoln, &c. but all of the Universitie of Oxford. And I think that Bristol is not a member of Exeter or Gloucester, &c. but all of England; and that the Company of Stationers are not part of the Society of Merchants or Drapers, &c. but all of London.

What a Priviledg is it, that a Man may believe this about any such thing without Schisme and Damnation! And how dreadful to fall into such Church-mens hands that in their Case make it Schisme, Separation and Damnation. But there is a Remedy.

§. 5. But he hath reason for what he saith: p. 3, 4. [Indeed it is extreamly absurd and unreasonable, to say, that the Christian Church, which is built on the same Foundation, &c. who enjoy all Priviledges in Common, should be divided into as distinct and separate Bodies, thô of the same kind and nature, as Peter, James and John are distinct Persons—It's absurd to say, That where every thing is common there is not one Community.

Ans. Let us not swallow this without Chewing: 1. Whether all be extreamly absurd and unreasonable which such Doctors call so; I am grown to doubt as much as whether all be Schism which Schismaticks call so: Ipse dixit is no Proof.

2. What the meaning of this great, Decantate Word [Separate] is; [Page 6] must anon be enquired: But, may not Churches be distinct and not culpa­bly separate? He confesseth afterwards both local distinction and se­paration.

3. How far are the Vniversal Church and Particular Churches distinct? As Whole and Parts? Must the World at last learn that Whole and Parts are not distinct? If you take it for absurd to distinguish a Man from a Body, or from a Liver, Hand or Foot, Dissenters do not; nor to distinguish a Colledge from an University, a House from a Street, a Street from a City, &c.

But how are the Particular Churches distinguished one from another? Reader, so constantly do such men fight with themselves, that it's meet to ask, whether they that thus say there are not many distinct Churches, do not assert a far wider difference between many, than those they dissent from. We affirm that there are many, and that they differ not in specie, but numero, as Colledges, Cities do among themselves; but these men, af­ter all this, hold not only a numerical, but a specifick difference, even as Parochial, Diocesan, Provincial, Patriarchal, National; at least Presby­ters and Diocesans differing Ordine vel Specie with them, the Church deno­minated from them must do so too.

§ 6. But he confirms it. [Peter, James and John, thô they partake of the same common nature, yet each of them have a distinct Essence and Subsistence of their own, and this makes them distinct Persons; but where the very Nature and Essence of a Body or Society consists in baving all things common, there can be but one Body.

Ans. I hope its no culpable Separation to distinguish things as differing specie & numero; and this is the Doctors meaning, if his words are signifi­cant: and the common way of expressing it would have been, [Peter and John differ numerically but not in specie; but two Churches differ neither specie nor numero.]

And 1. Reader, whereas he said before, that the Church is not divided into distinct Bodies, as James and John, &c.] did you think till now, that James and John, and the Doctor, and the several Bishops had not been distinct parts of the Church in their distinct natural bodies?

2. And why may there not be distinct Politick Bodies, or Compound in one whole as well as natural? certainly, all things corporeal save Attomes are Compounds: A Muscle, a Hand, a Foot, parts similar and dissimilar in man are all compounded of lesser Parts. If many Students may make one Colledge, why may not many Colledges make one University? It's strange if a Doctor deny this.

3. But let us consider of his Reason, and enquire 1. Whether the Church have all things Common. 2. Whether the very Essence of it consist in this.

I. It is granted that the whole Essence of the Genus and Species is found in every individual of that Species, Natural or Politick; but did we ever hear, [Page 7] till Mr. Cheny and this Doctor said it, that Politick Bodies differ not nume­ro as well as Natural? The Kingdom of England and of France are two; the Church of Rome and Constantinople long strove which should be uppermost, but who ever said that they were not two?

II. Have they all things common? Dissenters would have excepted Wives and Husbands, (thô the Canons called Apostolical do not;) Why should the Essence of a Church lie in this, and not the Essence of a City or Kingdom? Tories in Ireland would have all common; Merchants and Tradesmen, Knights, Lords and Princes here would not. But it's no Schism here also to distinguish simpliciter & secundum quid, Propriety and the use of Propriety: There is no Community without Propriety: Men have first a Propriety in themselves, their members, their food, the acquests of their Labours, their Wives and Children, and Goods. And they consent to Com­munity to preserve this Propriety, because every man loveth himself: And yet they must use their Propriety, (even of Life) for common good, be­cause all are better than one: But if they had no Propriety they could not so use it for the Common-wealth.

And I never conformed to the Doctrine that denyeth Propriety in Church Members and Particular Churches, and thought all simply common. I'le tell you what Particular Churches have to individuate them, not common to all.

1. They consist of individual natural Persons, many of which as much differ from many other Persons, (those in England from those in Spain) as one man doth from another.

2. Their Graces and gifts are numerically distinct (Faith, Hope, Love, &c.) from those of other Churches thô ejusdem speciei. 3. England and France, London and Oxford, have Churches of different place and Scituation: 4. But the formal individuating difference is their nearest Relation to their several Pastors; as several Kingdoms, Cities, Schools are numerically distinct by their distinct Kings, Maiors, School-masters, so are several Churches ejus­dem speciei. 1. Thess. 5. 12, 13. Know those that are among you and over you in the Lord, and esteem them highly in love for their Works sake. As every mans Wife, Children and Servants must be used for the common good, and yet are not common, one mans Wife and Children are not anothers; So the Bishop of London, of Oxford &c. must govern his Church for the good of the Universal; but he is not the Bishop of Gloucester, Norwich, Paris, Rome.

These are differences enow to constitute a numerical difference of Church­es: Paul distinguisheth the Bishops of Philippi, Ephesus▪ &c. from others.

Do you yet see no Priviledges that one hath Proper, and not common to all? none that make a difference in specie, but both [...]umerical and gradual. 1. All Churches have not Bishop Jewel, Bishop Andrews, Doctor Stilling­fleet, Doctor Sherlock to be their Teachers: Air Churches be not taught all that's in this Resolver. 2. All Churches have not men of the same sound­ness [Page 8] nor excellency of Parts: It was once taken for lawful to account them specially worthy of double honour who laboured in the Word and Doctrine, and to esteem men for their works sake. Paul saith of Timothy, I have no man like minded. If those that heard not a Sermon in many years differed not from your Congregation, why do you preach?

I am reproached in Print for telling the world this notorious truth; That I lived till ten years old, where four men, four years hired successively were Readers and School-masters; two Preached (as it was called) once a Month, the other two never: Two drank themselves to beggery. After I lived where many Parishes about us had no Preachers: The Parish that I lived in, had a Church with a Vicar that never preached, and a Chappel with a Parson eighty years old, that had two Livings twenty Miles distant, and never preacht: His Son a Reader and Stage-player was sometime his Curate: His Grand-son, my School-master, his Curate next that, never preacht in his life, but drunk himself to beggery. One year a Taylor read the Scripture, and the old man (the best of them all) said the Commmon-Prayer without book (for want of sight.) The next year a poor Thresher read the Scripture. After that a Neighbours Son (my Master) was Cu­rate, who never preacht but once, and that when he was drunk, (in my hearing) on Mat. 25. Come ye Blessed, and go ye Cursed;] the saddest Ser­mon that ever I heard. These things were no rarities: Now my assertion is, That the Church that had such as Austin, Chrysostome, Jewel, Andrews, and such worthy men as London now hath many, had Priviledges distinct from these, (and many the like) that I was in.

If you say that every Bishop and Preacher is as much the Bishop and Preacher to all other single Churches, as to that which is his Title; then 1. He must be condemned for not teaching them all. 2. Then he may claim maintenance from them all. 3. Then he may intrude into any mans Charge. 4. Then no Church is unchurcht for want of a Bishop, for any one Bi­shop is Bishop to every Church in the World; and so ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia, signifieth but that Church and Bishop are on the same Earth; and Ecclesia est Plebs Episcopo adunata may be verified if there be but one in the World. 5. And so Mr. Dodwell and such are self-confuted before you are aware: Geneva, Holland, and all Presbyterians are true Churches, for they have all Bishops; e.g. The Bishop of London is Bishop to them all: For if one man be no more a Member of one single Church than of another, and so no more a Subject to one Bishop than to another, then one Bishop is no more Pastor of one Church than of another.

7. And how can you magnifie the Church of England for a Wise, Learn­ed, Pious Clergy above other Churches, if all Priviledges be common, and they have no proper Pastors of their own.

8. Do you think that the Church, e. g. Of Hippo, that was in Austins dayes, was the same numerical single Church with that which is there now, [Page 9] (were there any) or with the Diocesan Church of London? if not, then at least distance of time, and change of Persons maketh divers Particular Churches; and it's no more against the unity of the Church Universal to have divers particular Churches in it in the same Age, than in divers Ages.

In short, Diversity of matter and form maketh a numerical Diversity (as of Natural, so) of Politick Bodies of the same species: But the Church­es of Ephesus, Smyrna, Thyatira, Philadelphia &c. were of divers matter and form numerically; Ergo they were divers Political Churches.

Sure God doth not commend Laodicea for Philadelphia's Church Virtues, nor condemn the Church of Philadelphia for the other Churches Sins.

And if the Angels be Bishops, why are some Bishops praised as the Bi­shops of such Churches, and the Bishops of other Churches threatned.

But I confess this is a ready way to end the Controversies between the Bishops of several Churches which shall be greatest, if they be all but one.

But I hope that when the Bishop of Rome and his Church was corrupted, it is not true that every Bishop and Church fell with him, (or with any that hath turned to Mahumetanism.)

To be no longer on this, (which I thought no Prelatist would ever have put me on) if these men speak not notoriously against Scripture, against the constant Language of Canons and Fathers, Historians and Lawyers, and all Antiquity, and all Christian Countreys and Divines, (yea, even those that at Trent would have had only the Pope to be of immediate Divine Right) then I know not any thing by Reading. And if poor Nonconformists must be put to defend themselves against such singularities, and be Schisma­ticks unless they will differ from all the Christian World of all Ages, there is no Remedy.

§ 7. But p. 5, 6. he tells us, [that a Church is made by a Divine Covenant—God only can constitute a Church: Such Persons, if there be any so absurd, are not worth disputing with, who dare affirm the Church to be an humane Creature, or the invention of men.—And no Church can depend on humane Contracts; for then a Church would be a humane Creature and Constitution, whereas a Church can be founded only on a Divine Covenant—

1. Who would think but this man were a Nonconformist, that talks so like them (e. g. Amesius in Medul. Theol.) against humane Church Forms? But what then will Bishop Bilson, and almost all other Bishops and Christi­ans be thought of, who affirm Patriarchal and Metropolitical Churches (and many of the Diocesane) to be but humane Constitutions and Inventions. And if these be not worth the disputing with, it seems, that you differ from them more than Separatists do: and then were not all these Schismaticks? and then, are not you a Schismatick if you communicate with them? yea, your Mr. Dodwel himself maketh Diocesan Churches to be a humane Crea­ture; and A. Bishop Bromhall much pleadeth for mans power to make Patri­archal Churches; and so do such others.

[Page 10] 2. But is it true that humane Contracts make not a Church? Ans. Not alone: But I think that all Churches are made by mutual Contracts, and humane is one part of that which is mutual.

1. As to the Vniversal Church, 1. God as Legislator and Donor, insti­tuteth the species of Covenanting by Baptism, and therein he commandeth mans consent to his offered Covenant; and conditionally promiseth to be our God: But, Conditionale nihil ponit in esse: This much maketh no Christian, nor Church. To command a man to be a Christian, and conditionally to promise him life if he will be one, proveth him not to be one; else all were Christians that reject an offered Christ.

2. But when man consenteth and covenanteth with God, then Gods condi­tional gift becomes actual and efficacious, the man being a capable Recipi­ent, and not before: and in this it is the Contract that is the Fundamentum Relationis; but a single Promise is not a mutual Covenant or Contract.

So that it is no wiser Divinity to say, Gods Covenant and not mans consent, Covenant or Contract with God, doth make Christians, and the universal Church; than it is sober Reason to say, That Gods Institution of Marri­age or Magistracie only doth make the Relation of Husband and Wife, with­out their covenanting consent, or doth make Common-wealths, without the consent or Covenant of Sovereign and Subjects. Did this Doctor think that Voluntariness is not as necessary to the Relation of Christianity as to the Relation of Prince and Subjects; yea, or of Husband and Wife? if he do, he is shamefully mistaken. Baptism delivereth men possession of Par­don, Grace and right to Glory; and can men have this against their wills? One would think by the Doctrine and course of some men, that they could force men to Pardon and Salvation! if I believed that their force could accomplish this, I would never call it Persecution. If they can force men to be true Christians, they may force them to be justifyed and saved; and then they are very uncharitable if they do not: Let them then cease preach­ing and disputing us to their Opinion, but bring us all to Heaven whether we will or not.

Yea the self-contradictor, playing fast and loose, confesseth p. 6. That no man at age can be admitted to Baptism, till he profess his faith in Christ, and voluntarily undertake the Baptismal Vow: And is not that humane Covenant­ing?

Yea, he knoweth that the Liturgie maketh even Neighbours or Stran­gers, vow and covenant, both in the name of the Child and for the Child. And so necessary doth the Episcopal Church think humane Covenanting, that without this no Child must be Baptized publickly though the Parents would covenant, and that they can neither for Love nor Money (for many poor men hire Godfathers) get any one (much less three) who examined, will seriously purpose to perform the Covenant for the Childs holy Education which they make.

[Page 11] II. But is not humane Covenanting a cause of single Church Relation as well as of universal? I see no cause to doubt it; and I am sure that the Church for a thousand years (before and since Popery came in) have declared him no Bishop that comes in without consent of Clergie and People; which Consent is their covenanting act.

To make a single Church, manifold consent goeth to the Fundamentum Re­lationis. 1. God commandeth single Church Officers, order and consent, and promiseth them his blessing where they are met: The Lord and his Angels are among them: No command is vain, and without a virtual Pro­mise. 2. To this a threefold humane consent is needful, Ordinarily: 1. the Persons called. 2. The Ordainers (when it may be had.) 3. The Peoples. He that formerly, from the Apostles dayes, for a thousand years, should have said, that neither the covenanting, that is the consent of the Pastor, or People, or Ordainers, is necessary to the Fundamentum of a sin­gle Church Relation or Form, would have been taken for a wild-brain'd Schismatick at least.

§ 8. But saith this Doctor (and another of them) [p. 6. But the Inde­pendent Church Covenant between Pastor and people, is of a very different nature from this: Vnless any man will say, that the voluntary Contract and Covenant which the Independents exact from their Members, and wherein they place a Church state, be part of the Baptismal vow; if it be not, then they found the Church upon a hu­mane Covenant; for Christ hath made but one Covenant with Mankind which is contained in the Vow of Baptism; if it be, then no man is a Christian but an Inde­pendent.

Ans. Alas for the Church that is taught at this rate!

1. I never saw what Independents do in this case; but I think none of them that are Sober own any other sort of Church but the universal, and sin­gle Churches as members of it, and therefore require no Contract but 1. To the Covenant of Baptism or Christianity. 2. To the Duties of their par­ticular Church-relation.

2. And nothing is here of necessity but manifested Consent (which is a real Contract) but a clearer or a darker, an explicite or implicate consent differ only ad melius esse.

3. Is not God the Author of Magistracy, Marriage, &c. And is it any violation of Gods part, if Rulers and People, Husband and Wife be Co­venanters by his command?

4. Is it any renuntiation of Baptism to promise at Ordination to obey the Arch-Bishop and Bishop, and to take the Oath of Canonical Obedience? Is it not still exacted? Are not the Takers of it obliged? are not Covenants imposed on all that will be Ministers in the act of Uniformity? are not multitudes kept out and cast out for not making these Covenants? Quo te­neam nodo, &c. How should one deal with such stippery men? Good Mr. Zachary Cawdry that wrote to have all men to covenant Submission to Bishops [Page 12] and Parish Ministers, did not dream that it was any violation of Bap­tism.

5. Do not men owe duty to their Pastors which they owe to no others? If not, put them not on it: Why are you angry with them for going from you? Why doth the Canon suspend those that receive them to Communion from another Parish that hath no Preacher? Why are we ruined for not covenanting as aforesaid? if yea, then is it against Baptism to promise to do our duty?

6. But hath God commanded or instituted no Covenant but Baptism? Yes sure, the Matrimonial at least; and I think Ordination is covenanting for the Ministry: Did not the Apostle Acts 14. 23. ordain Elders in every Church? if you would have [by Suffrage] left out of the Translation, no sober man can doubt but it was by the Peoples consent; and was it without their consent that Titus was to ordain Elders in every City? Could any then come otherwise in? Did not all Churches hold and practise this after, and was it none of Gods Institution? If so, God requireth us not to take any of you for our Bishops or Pastors: Who then requireth it? What meaneth Paul when he saith, they gave up themselves to the Lord and to us, by the Will of God.

7. Can the wit of man imagine how it is possible without consent, for a man to be made the Pastor of any Flock? Who ever ordained a man against his will? or for any man to have Title against his will, to the proper over­sight and pastoral care of any one Pastor, or the priviledges of any Church? If any think they may be cramm'd and drencht with the Sacrament, or that an unwilling man may have a sealed pardon and gift of Salvation delivered him, he will make a new Gospel. And how any particular Pastor is bound to give that man the Sacrament ordinarily, that consents not ordinarily to receive it of him, I know not. No man is a member of any City, or any Company of Free-men in the City, but by mutual consent; and the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy to the King maketh not the Oath of a Citizen as such or of a Member of a Company as such, unlawful.

8. Doth this Doctor think that he ever yet proved to sober men, that the Covenant aforesaid, of Godfathers and Godmothers, to make Christians, and members of the universal Church, is more (or so much) of Gods Institution, than the Contract or Consent between Bishops or Pa­stors and People to make a single Political Church?

9. If it follow not, that no man is the Kings Subject that sweareth not to the City; It will not follow, that none is a Christian, but an Independent, or Church-consenter.

10. How are your Parish or Diocesan Church members known to your selves or any others? Are all that dwell in the Parish or Diocess your Church members? Then Atheists, Sadducees, Hobbists, and all vicious men and thou­sands that never communicate, are such: Yea those that you call Separatists. [Page 13] If it be every transient Communicant, have you a proper Pastoral care of every Travellers Soul that so communicates with you? You after plead that his very ordinary Communion maketh him not a member, if he be unwil­ling to be one. And is not his consent then necessary? Or if ordinary Com­munion be the test (how few then of great Parishes are of the Church) yet that is because such Communion signifieth their Consent to your over-sight of them.

§ 9. But it's much to be approved which p. 5. and oft he saith, that to be taken into Covenant with, God, and to be received into the Church is the very same thing, as to the Universal Church. By which all his gross Schismati­cal Accusations after wards are confuted. No, man then is out of the Church that is not out of the Baptismal Covenant, either by not taking it, or by re­nouncing some Essential part of it? And when will he prove, that to take him, rather than Dr. Bates that was cast out, to be a Teacher or Pastor at Dun­stans, or to take this man and not another to be the Lawful Bishop or Priest, and to obey him in every Oath and Ceremony, is an Essential part of the Bap­tismal Covenant, or of Christianity? But; such a rope of Sand, as Mr. Dod­well and this man tye together, to bind men to their Sect, will serve turn with some that know not who speaks Truth, by any surer way than prejudice.

§ 10. His Doctrine of Separation and gathering Churches out of Churches is anon to be considered: But whereas he addes, p. 7. [These men convert Christians from common Christianity, and the Communion of the Vniversal Church to Independency.]

Ans. My acquaintance with them is small, save by reading their Books: And there are few Men of any Common Denomination (Episcopal, or other) that are not in many things disagreed. But I must in Charity to them say, that as far as I can judge by their Writings or Speech, he palpably slandereth them; and that none that are grave and sober among them do separate their Churches from the common Christianity or the Universal Church, any more than the Company of Stationers, Ironmongers, &c. are separated from the City of London, or London from England, or Trinity Colledge from the University of Cambridge or Oxford. I never met with man, and I am confident never shall do, that doth not take his Independent Church to be part of the Universal, and Dependent as a part on the whole. If belying others stopt at words, the wrong were small: But when it's made but the stairs to hatred and destroying, it's his way to cure Schism that is commonly painted with Horns and Cloven feet. If a man come from a Coun­trey Village and be made by Covenant a Citizen of London, how prove you that he renounceth King or Kingdom?

But he saith, p. 9. Those who wilfully separate from the Corporation to which the Charter was granted, forfeit their Interest in the Charter.

Ans. What Reader doth this man presume upon that will not ask him, how he proveth 1. That Gods Law or Charter to his Church doth not re­quire [Page 14] them to congregate in distinct single Churches (as London Charter doth to erect several Companies, and the Universities several Colledges?) 2. And that God hath not in his Word given order or command for such single Churches: But that the Apostles and Titus by fixing Elders to their several Churches and Cities, separated from the Universal Church? 3. And that their subordinate Churches have not need of distinct subordinate con­sent and duty: And that our Diocesan Churches all separate from the Uni­versal? Did he think these things need no proof at all?

It may be he will say that the Diocesan depend on the Vniversal, but the Pres­byterian or Independent do not.

I Answer, Dependance is either that of Subjects on Soveraign or Magi­strates for Government, or that Of a Community of Equals for Communion. In the former respect they depend on none but Christ as Universal Soveraign, Nor on any Foriegners for Governments: In the latter, they depend on all true Churches for Communion: And Doctor Hammond and most Diocesans hitherto have said that Diocesan Churches are thus far Independent or Nati­onal at most.

And if any be for a Forreign Jurisdiction, in Charity before they perswade England to it, they should procure them a Dispensation from all the Oaths, that have sworn all this Kingdom against endeavouring any change of Govern­ment, and against a Foreign Jurisdiction: For some Fanaticks now Dream that PER is the Mark of the Beast, and that [...] (which is the number of his Name, is nominal as well as numeral, and refers to [CH-urch [...] (and) S Tate] (For as for them that find a mans name in them, I abhorr their Exposition more.)

§11. P. 9. [God (saith he) hath not made any Covenant in particular with the Church of Geneva, France or England, &c.

A. 1. God hath made one General Law, for Christians congregating with their fixed Elders or Bishops in particular Churches all the World over: And his Command is not without Promise of being with them to the End of the World; and that Promise becometh a Promise to every Church so congregate. God hath not made distinct Laws or Promise to every Chri­stian: But the Promise to Justifie all Believers justifieth each single Person when he believeth. If the King should make one common Law to command all his Subjects that are Freeholders to live in Corporations or Hundreds, described with their priviledges, those priviledges would be all theirs that are so incorporated: As one Charter may Priviledge every London Compa­ny, diversified by subordinate Agreements.

2. And that God who will have them thus incorporated and distributed in­to several single Churches, doth Covenant (or Promise) according to their demerits to each. Do I need to recite the peculiar Promises and threats to the seven Asian Churches, Rev. 2. and 3. which are Covenants to them?

§ 12. Next Pag. 10. He will tell us what Communion is, and in many [Page 15] words, it is to tell us that Communion is nothing but Vnion: I know that quoad notationem nominis, Communion may signifie, Vnion with others: But they that write Politicks have hitherto distinguished. Vnion and Communion, taking Communion for Actual Communication, or exercise of the duties of men in Union? But to speak cross to other Writers on the same Subjects and give no reason for it, and to confound Vnion and Communion, is one part of this edifying Resolution.

§. 13. Pag. 11. [Our Communion with the Church consists in being members of the Church, which we are made by Baptism,] (saith he.)

Then the Baptized are still in Communion with the Church, till their baptism be nullified: And hath he proved us Apostates?

§. 14. Pag. 12. Should any man who is no member of the Church, nor owns himself to be so, intrude into the Church and Communicate in all Holy Offices, it's. no Act of Communion, &c.

A. I thought communicating ordinarily in Holy Office, had gone for an owning of Communion: If it do not, would you would tell us how to know who are of your Church.

§. 15. P. 13. Saith he (Church-Communion does not consist in particular Acts of Communion, which can be performed among those who are present and Neighbours, but in membership: Now as a member is a member of the whole Body (not meerly of any part of it, &c.) All the Subjects of England who never saw nor converst with each other, are members of the same Kingdom.]

A. 1. That word [meerly] hath more Craft than justice or Honesty: Meerly signifieth Only I suppose; and if he would make his Reader think that they that are for single Church peculiar membership and consent, do take themselves to be [meerly or only] members of those single Churches, and not of the Universal, it is shameless injury.

2. Will he ever draw men to conformity by making them believe, that be­cause they owe Common Communion to all Christians, therefore we owe no special duty to the Bishops, Priests, Churches or Neighbours where we are setled? Do the Men of one Colledge, School, Corporation, owe no more duty to that than to all others? Do the Free-holders of Bedford-shire choose Knights for Middlesex; or the Citizens of Oxford choose Officers in London? These seem strange Resolutions to us.

3. But doth he remember that [if Communion consist not in Acts, of Communion to such, but in membership even with the distant,] then he that is baptized, and no A­postate, and performeth no other Acts of Communion to the Bishops, Parson or People where he liveth, than he is bound to perform to them a hundred or thou­sand miles off, is no Separatist. Methinks this favours Separation too much.

§. 16. Pag. 14. When he denyed any Divine Covenant to make us members of particular Churches distinguish't from the Universal (as all National, Dio­cesan and Parochial are, as parts from the whole) he presently confuteth all again, saying [The exercise of Church Communion, as to most of the parti­cular [Page 16] duties and Offices of it must be confined to a particular Church and Congrega­tion (for we cannot actually joyn in the Communion of Prayers and Sacraments, &c. but with some particular Church.]

A. Oportuit fuisse memorem,—1. Reader, doth not this man here confess that there are particular Churches? 2. If these be not distinct from the whole, then each particular is the whole. 3. If the Exercise must be in particular Churches, must not men Consent to their Relations and Duties? Is it a sin to Promise Duty? 4. Sure it is not meer Place, but a mutual Re­lation of Pastors and People that distinguisheth these Churches. The Pres­byterians preach't once in the same Places that you do, and yet you take them not for the same Church Pastors. If one from York or Cornwall come into your Pulpit without consent, do People stand as much related to him as to you? Some men are of extraordinary sufficiency to resist and conquer the clearest evidence of Truth.

But he addes [every Act of Communion thô performed to some particular Church, is and must be an Act of Communion with the whole Catholick Church.]

A. And who denyeth this? No sober Independent or Presbyterian that ever I met with. It's a weighty Truth.

§. 17. P. 14. Saith he [Praying, and Hearing and Receiving the Lords Sup­per together doth not make us more in Communion with the Church of England than with any other true and Orthodox part of the Church, thô in the remotest part of the World.]

A. I think that's not true: With the remotest parts you have only Ca­tholick Communion with the Church Universal: In England and London you have that and more; even special subordinate Communion with your own King, Bishop and Flock.

2. And hath not the Church of England such Communion in obedience to its own Laws; (as the Act of Uniformity,) Convocation and Canons, which you have not with all abroad? Do your Bishops in Convocation make Canon Laws for all the World? Do you Swear Canonical obedience as much to the Bishop of Paris, or Haffnia, &c. as to your Ordinary? Do the Ca­nons of all Churches impose our Liturgy, or ipso facto excommunicate all that affirm any thing in it, or our Ceremonies or Church Government, to be against Gods word? Sure this is a peculiar kind of Communion.

3. If not, why are all the Nonconformists cast out that offer to officiate and Communicate on such terms as are common to all sound Churches?

Pag. 15. Saith he [There is nothing in all these Acts of Communion which does more peculiarly unite us to such a particular Church than to the whole Christian Church.]

A. What, neither in these Acts nor any other! Then we are no more bound to hear you, or maintain you as our Pastor, than to hear and maintain the whole Christian Church.

§. 18. P. 20. Saith he [There is no other Rule of Catholick Communion for [Page 17] private Christians, but to communicatee in all Religious Offices and all Acts Go­vernment and Discipline with Christians those with whom they live.

A. 1. Elsewhere you added [sound and Orthodox:] Else they that live with Arians, Socinians, Papists (in Spain, France, Italy, &c.) are bound to communicate with them in all Religious Offices and obey them. 2. This concludeth, that where Presbytery or Independency is the way of the place where we live, all must thus communicate and obey. The King and Cu­stom then may make any way to become our Duty. 3. If you tell us that it's only with the Sound and Orthodox, you were as good say nothing, unless you tell us who must judge that, whether the People themselves, or who for them. 4. But if this be the only rule for private Christians, what shall they do, e. g. in Aethiopa, Egypt, Syria, and many other Countreys where the Churches are such as General Councils and other Churches judge He­reticks or Schismaticks? And what shall they do, when at Antioch, Alexan­dria, Constantinople, &c. one party is uppermost (by the Judgment of Councils and Prince) one Year, and another contrary party the next. And what shall they do where the Prince equally tolerateth both, and it's hard to know which is the more numerous? as in Zeno's and Anastasius Reign, &c. And what shall they do when many Churches in one City are of divers Tongues, as well as Customs? Have the Greeks, French and Dutch in London no rule of Catholick Communion but communicating in all Offi­ces with the English, and obeying all your Bishops Court?

§. 19. P. 21. Saith he [Distinct and particular Churches▪ which are in Com­munion with each other, must have their district bounds and limits, as every member has it's natural and proper place, and Situation in the Body.]

A. Why may not the Greeks; Dutch and French live in Communion with the Churches London though they live dispersedly among them! In Brandenburg, Hassia, and many free Cities, and Belgia, where Lutherans and Calvinists (as called) live together, and own each other as Brethren, why may not both be Churches of Christ?

§. 20. P. 21, 22. A great deal more he hath of the like, making Schisma­ticks at his Pleasure. [This is plain in the Case of the Presbyterian and Inde­pendent Churches and those other Conventicles—They are Churches in a Church,— Nothing can justifie the Distinction of Christians into several Churches, but on­ly such a distance of place as makes it necessary, &c. p. 22. Distinct Churches in the same place can never be under the same Communion.

A. These things are repeated so oft, and the word [separate] so deceit­fully rolled over and over, that I will answer all together under his third Case at the End.

§. 21. P. 27. See how openly he recanteth most aforesaid: ‘There is a sence indeed wherein we may be said to be members of one particular Church con­sidered as distinct from all other particular Churches: But that principally con­sists in Government and Discipline. Every Christian is a member of the Whole [Page 18] Christian Church, and in Communion with it, but he is under the immediate in­struction and Government of his own Bishop and Presbyters, and is bound to perso­nal Communion with them; and this constitutes a particular Church, in which all Acts of Worship and all Acts of Discipline and Government are under the Directi­on and conduct of a particular Bishop.’]

A. Omitting that he seemeth to make the Parochial Churches no Church­es, but parts of one, here he saith all that he seemed to write against, and that those that he reproacheth hold, allowing the difference of the extent of Churches. And is it Edifying to read such a discourse, that saith and un­saith by self-contradiction? And he adjoyns 28. p. how by agreement Patriarchal and National Churches are made! And is not Agreement a hu­mane Contract?

CHAP. II.
Of his first Case.

§. 1. PAge 31. His first Case, ‘Whether Communion with some Church or other be a necessary Duty incumbent on Christians:] And he thinks the Resolution of this is as plain, as whether it be necessary for every man to be a Christian: For every Christian is baptized into the Communion of the Church.’

A. In this I know no Christian adversary to him: But it being the Vni­versal Church that he giveth his proof of necessary Communion with, it's odde to say, We must have Communion with some Church or other: As if there were more than one Universal Church. 2. But we grant more, that all that can well, should be also members of some single Church.

§. 2. P. 32. He saith [‘External and, Actual Communion is an Essential du­ty of a Church-member (meaning a Christian.’)]

A. 1. And yet before he denyed that Communion lay essentially in this Exercise, but only in Vnion; Yea and Nay is his Custom. 2. Some few Christians (as those that live where such Communion cannot be had with­out sin, &c.) are not bound to it; therefore it is not true that it is Essential to Universal Church-membership. And I think sickness endeth not the es­sentials, that disableth men.

3. Note Reader, that by this mans Doctrine we are all unchristened and damned if we do not gather into disallowed Churches, if we be unjustly cast out of the allowed ones: For all must be Church members that will be Christians, and an unjust Excommunication cannot disoblige us from Chri­stianity, nor bind us to consent to be damned. Now read the 5th 6th 7th 8th, &c. Canons of the Church of England, which ipso facto Excommunicate all that affirm any thing in their Liturgy, Articles, Ceremonies or Govern­ment [Page 19] sinful, and answer Spala [...]ensis arguments against Excommunicating ipso facto, and prove all this just, and you may prove what you will just. But you see where he layeth the Controversie: If any be Excommunicated without suffici­ent cause, or by Lay Civilians to whom God never gave that power, or by such Bishops or Pastors as have no just Authority for want of a true call or Con­sent; or if any unlawful thing be made necessary to Communion, all such per­sons must by his own confessions hold Church-communion whether these Im­posers will or not; for all Christians are bound to be of some Church.

§. 3. P. 33, 34. He saith that [None but publick Prayers are the Prayers of the Church properly, and acts of Communion, that is, such as are offered by the hands of men authorized and set apart for that purpose, &c.]

Ans. Who would have thought that we are more for the Liturgy than he? I undertake to prove, that all the Responsal Prayers, and all the Li­tany Prayers, in which the Minister names but the matter to them, and the People make it a Prayer by speaking the petitioning parts, are all the publick Prayers of the Church, and so are all the petitioning Psalms spoke or sung by the People, and not only that which is offered by the Priest: I do not think that he believeth what he carelesly saith here, himself.

But the Independents are stiffer for his first Thesis (of the necessity of Church-communion) than he is, his unfit words I pass by.

CHAP. III.
Of his second Case.

§. 1. THE next question of Occasional Communion as distinct from fixed, he turns out of doors, as if there could be no such thing, and it's very true as to the Church universal; but as to visible, actual Communion with this or that particular Church, it is not true.

1. A Traveller of another Country, who on his journey communicateth with every Church where he passeth, is not a fixed Member of that Church: for, 1. The Pastor or Bishop hath not that peculiar Charge of him as of fixed members. 2. He is not bound where he passeth to take such notice of the lives of Communicants or Pastors, and to admonish the Offenders, and tell the Church, as fixed members are. 3. He hath not the right in choose­ing Pastors or Deacons as the fixed Members have. 4. An itinerant Bishop in transitu is not their fixed Bishop; ergo an Iterant Lay-man is not a fixed Member.

The same I may say of one that is a fixed member of another Church in the same City, and cometh to that only to signifie universal Communion, or [Page 20] neighbourly; which, though he deny to be lawful, I shall further prove anon.

And the same I may say of those that dwell where there is no fixed sin­gle Church at all, for want of a Pastor, but they congregate only when some strange Minister passeth through the Town.

CHAP. IV.
His third Case.

§. 1. PAge 48, 49. He resolveth his third Case: [Whether it be lawful to Communicate with two distinct and separate Churches] negatively, and saith, [It is contrary to all the Principles of Church Communion, as any thing can possibly be; it is to be contrary to our selves, it is Communicating with Schism: That the Presbyterian and Independent Churches have made an actual separation from the Church of England he hath evidently proved;—and they are Schismaticks, and to communicate with them is to partake in their Schism; and if Schism be a great sin, and that which will damn us as soon as Adultery and Murther, then, it must needs be a dangerous thing to communicate with Schismaticks. And p. 42. There cannot be two distinct Churches in one place, one for occasional, and another for constant Communion, without Schism.]

Ans. To save those that are willing from the Poyson of these Schismati­cal Doctrines, lapt up in confusion by men that abhor distinction, or un­derstand not what they say; I will first lay down that truth that he fights against, with convincing evidence, and then shew you the mischief of his false Doctrine and Application.

§. 2. The confusion of these Words [Church, Communion, Separation and Schism] which every one signifie divers things, is the chief means to blind▪ and deceive his Reader; whether it do so by himself I know not.

I. The Word Church signifieth sometime the universal Church; some­time a single Organized Church as part of it, and sometime humane combi­nations of such single Churches; and that into Diocesan, Classical, Provin­cial, Patriarchal, National, and Papal.

II. The Specification and Nomination of Churches is from the formal cause, and the proper Government is that form: And the Individuation is from matter and form, but principally from the form.

III. The Union of Pastor and Flock in Relation makes that which is a form aptitudinal (as the Soul to the Body) to be the form in act (as the Union of Soul and Body) and Gods command and consent with the consent of the necessary relate and correlate cause that union.

IV. Union is in order to Communion, which is primary by the exercise [Page 21] of the formal powers on the matter, and secondary by the action of all the parts according to their several capacities and Offices.

V. The Union of the Church is of divers degrees. 1. The formal Union of the Head and Body, which maketh it essentially the [Christian Church.] 2. The Vnion of the parts among themselves as Christian, which maketh them a Body capable of Union with the Head. 3. The Union of the parts as unequal Organized, the Official with the rest, which maketh it an Or­ganized Body, fit for its special use and welfare. 4. Union in integrity of parts, which maketh it an intire Body. 5. Union in due temperament and Qualities, which maketh it a healthful Body. 6. Unity in Common Acci­dents, which make it a Comely Beautiful Body joined with the rest. But, 7. Union in mutable Accidents is unnecessary and impossible.

VI. These several degrees of Union are found in Bodies natural and Poli­tick. 1. The Union of Soul and Body makes a man, and an Embryo be­fore it be organized. 2. The Union of the Body maketh it capable of the Souls further Operation. 3. The Union of the Organical, chief parts, (as Heart, Lungs, &c.) to the rest make it a true humane Body compleated to the nutriment and action of Life. 4. That it have Hands and Fingers, Feet and Toes, and all integral parts, makes it an intire Body. 5. The due site, temperament and qualities of each part make it a sound Body. 6. Comely colour, hair, action, going, speech, &c. make it a comely Body. 7. To have all parts of equal quantity and office, would make it uncomely: And to have the same hair, colour, &c. is unnecessary at all.

1. The Union of King and Subjects as such makes a Kingdom. 2. That the People be agreed; for one conjunct interest and Government maketh them a Community capable of Politie or Government. 3. That there be Judges, Maiors and Justices, and subordinate Cities of Societies, maketh it an Organized Body, in which Kingly Government may be exercised to its end, the common good. 4. That no profitable part be wanting, (Judge, Justice, Sheriff, &c.) maketh it an entire Kingdom. 5. That all know their place, and be duly qualified with Wisdom, Love, Justice, Conscience, Obedience to God first, to the Sovereign Power next, to Officers next, &c. maketh it a found and safe Kingdom. 6. That it be well situate, fertile, rich, eminent in Learning, Skill, &c. maketh it an adorned beautiful King­dom. 7. That all be equal in Power and wealth is destructive; and that all be of one Age, complexion, calling, temper, degree of knowledge, &c. is impossible: And that all have the same language, cloathing, utensils, &c. is needless at least.

VII. Jesus Christ is the only Universal Soveraign of the Church, both of vital influence and Government; nor hath he set up any under him, ei­ther Monarchical, Aristocratical, Democratical, or mixt, Pope, Council, on diffused Clergy, that hath the Power of Legislation and Judgment as governing the whole Chorch; but only Officers that per partes govern it a­mong [Page 22] them, each in his Province, as Justices do the Kingdom, and Kings and States the World; nor is any capable of more.

VIII. To set up any universal Legislators and Judge, (Pope or Council) is to set up an Usurper of Christs Prerogative, called by many a Vice-Christ or an Antichrist; and as bad as making one man or Senate the Soveraign of all the Earth; and to attempt the setting up of such or any forreign Jurisdi­ction in this Land, is to endeavour to perjure the whole Kingdom that is sworn against it in the Oath of Supremacy, and sworn never to endeavour any alteration of Government in Church or State in the Corporation Oath, the Vestry Oath, the Militia Oath, the Oxford Oath, with the Uniformity Covenants: And if any should endeavour to introduce such a forreign Juris­diction who themselves have had a hand in driving all the Kingdom to all these Oaths against if, I doubt whether all the Powers of Hell can devise a much greater crime against Clergy, Cities, and all the Land. Good reason there­fore had Doctor Isaac Barrow to write against it as he hath done, and to con­fute Mr. Thorndike, and all such as of late go that pernicious way, by the pre­tence of Church Union and Communion. As if one universal Soveraign and Legislator and Judge, were not enough to unite Christs Kingdom, or man could mend his universal Laws, and could not stay for his final judgment; and Churches and Kingdomes might nor till then be ruled without one hu­mane universal Soveraign by necessary and voluntary agreement among themselves.

XI. To be a true Believer or Christian, (or the Insant seed of such) de­voted to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the sense of the Baptismal Covenant, uniteth each Member first to Christ himself di­rectly, and consequently to his Body or Church; and this coram Deo, as soon as it is done by heart consent; and coram Ecclesia, regularly, as soon as he is invested by Baptism; which Baptism, when it may be had so, is regularly to be administred by none but an authorized Minister or Deacon; but if through necessity or mistake it be done by a Lay-man, the Ancient Chri­stians took it not for a nullity, much less if the Baptizer was taken for a Mi­nister by mistake, being in his place; and if no Baptism can be had, open covenanting is vallid.

X. The Papists (and their truckling Agents here) have here hampered themselves in a fatal contradiction: To make themselves masters of the World, they would perswade us, that Sacraments only regenerate and sanctifie, and that God saveth none (by any known way and grant) but by his Covenant Sealed by the Sacraments; and that he authorizeth none to administer this Covenant but Prelates and their Priests, and none can validly have it from other hands: And so if you will but abate them the proof of many things that stand in the way, Heaven and Hell, Salvation and Damnation are at the will and mercy of such Prelates and Priests. But unhappily they cannot retrieve their old Opinion, but maintain that Lay-men [Page 23] and Women may baptize in necessity validly, and that Baptism puts one into a State of Salvation.

XI. As he that swears and keeps his Allegiance to the King is a Subject and Member of the Kingdom, though he be no Member of any Corporation; so, though he disown a thousand fellow Subjects; yea, though he deny the Authority of Constable, Justice, Judge; so he that is devoted to Christ truly in the Baptismal Covenant, is a Christian, and a Member of the Uni­versal Church, though he were of no particular Church, or did disown a thousand Members, or any particular Officer of the Church.

XII. All faults or crimes are not Treason: A man that breaketh any Law, is in that measure Culpable or punishable: but every breach of Law, or wrong to fellow Subjects or Justices, as it is not Treason, so it doth not prove a man no Subject; though some may be so great as to deserve death and make him intolerable: And so it is in the case of our Subjection in the Church to Christ.

XIII. To own Christs Instituted species of Church Officers is needful to the just Order, Safety and Edification of the Church (as to own the Courts of Judicature, Justices, &c. in the Kingdom) but to own this or that numeri­cal Officer as truly commissioned, is needful only to the right administration of his own Province.

XIV. As Christ did his own work of universal Legislation by himself and his Spirit eminently in the Apostles and Evangelists, who have recorded all in Scripture, so he settled Churches to continue to the end associated for Personal Communion in his holy Doctrine, Worship, Order and Conversation with authorized Ministers, subordinate to his administration in his Prophetical, Priestly, Kingly and Friendly Relations. And thô these may not always or often meet in the same place, their neighbourhood maketh them capable of Personal presential Communion, as men that may know and admonish each other and meet by turns, and in presence manage their concerns; which differ­enceth single Churches of the lowest order from associated Churches of men, that have Communion only by others at distance.

XV. As Logicians say of other Relations, the matter must be capable of the end, or it is not capable of the name and form; so is it here: e. g. It is no Ship that is made of meer Sponge or Paper, or that is no bigger than a Spoon; it is no Spoon that is as big as a Ship: One House is not a Village, nor one Village a City, nor a City a meer House. So twenty or an hundred or a thousand Parishes associate, cannot be a single Church of the first or lowest Order, being not capable of mutual Knowledge, Converse or personal present Communion: Nor are two or three Lay-men capable to be such a Church, for want of due matter. But supposing them capable, thô a full and rich Church have advantage for Honour and Strength, yet a small▪ and poor one is ejusdem ordinis as truely a Church; and so is their Pastor, as Hierom saith of Rome and Eugubium; so Alexandria and Mijuma, &c. Gregory Neocaesar was [Page 24] equally Bishop of nineteen at first, as after of all save nineteen in the City.

XVI. If the Apostles have Successours in their care and Superiority over many Churches, it will prove that there should yet be men of eminent worth to take care of many Churches, and to instruct and admonish the younger Ministers: But it will neither prove 1. That they succeed the Apostles in the extraordinary parts of their Office. 2. Nor that they have any forcing power by the Sword. 3. Nor that one Church hath power over others by Divine right; for the Apostles fixed not their power to any particular Churches, but were general Visitors or Overseers of many: Yet if the same Man who is fixed in a particular Church, have also the visiting admonishing oversight of many as far as was an Ordinary part of the Apostles Office, and be called an Archbishop, I know no Reason to be against him.

XVII. There be essential and Integral Acts of the Sacred Ministry instituted by Christ: These none may take the Power of from any Ministers, nor alter the species or integrity of the Office, by setting up any such Superious as shall de­prive them of that which Christ hath instituted, or arrogating the like uncall­ed. But as in worship, so in Order and Church Government, there are undetermined accidents: As to choose the time and place of Synods, to preside and moderate and such like: And these the Churches by agreement, or the Magistrate may as­sign to some above the rest: And if the Magistrate affix Baronies, Honours, Reve­nues, or his own due Civil forcing Power, and make the same Men Magistrates and Ministers, whether we think it prudent and well done or not, we must ho­nour and obey them.

XVIII. Some call these humane Accidental Orders, forms of Church Govern­ment, and affirm (as Bishop Reignolds did, and Dr. Stillingfleet in his Ireni­con and many excellent men by him cited) that no form of Church Govern­ment is of Divine Command. Which is true of all this second sort of Govern­ment which is but Accidental aud humane; but not at all of the first sort which is Divine and Essential to Christ himself first, and to Pastors as such by his appointment; so that the essential Government of the Universal Church, by Christ, and of each particular Church by Pastors specified by him (if not of Supervisors of many as succeeding Apostles and Evangelists in their Ordinary work) are of unalterable Divine right. But the humane forms are alterable: Such I account 1. The Presidency and Moderator­ship and accidental Government of one Bishop in a single Church over the other Presbyters, Deacons, &c. 2. The accidental Government of a Dio­cesan as an Archbishop over these lowest Bishops and Churches. 3. And the Superiority of Metropolitans and Patriarchs over them, so it be but in such Accidentals and within the same Empire, not imposing a forreign Jurisdicti­on. These tota specie differ from the Divine Offices.

XIX. All these single Church being parts of the Universal are less noble than the whole, and are to do all that they do as members in Union with the Whole, and to do all as Acts of Communion with them.

[Page 25] XX. The General precepts of doing all to Edification, Concord, Peace, Order, &c. oblige all the Churches to hold such correspondencies as are needful to these Ends: And Synods are one special means, which should be used as far and oft as the Ends require: And if National Metropolitans and Patriarchs order such Synods, I am not one that will disobey them. But if on these pretences any would make Synods more necessary than they are, and use them as Governours, by Legislation and Judgement over the Particular Bishops by the use of the Church Keyes, and will affixe to them or Metropolitans, besides an Agreeing Power and the said Government in Acci­dentals, a proper Church Government by making and unmaking Ministers or Christians, excommunicating and absolving as Rulers by the said Keyes, it may be a duty to disown such usurpations. As the King would disown an Assem­bly of Princes any where met that would claim a Proper Government of him and his Kingdom; Thô it were much to be wisht that all Christian Princes would hold such Assemblies for the Concord and Peace of Christendom.

XXI. The Essentials of Faith, Hope and Loving Practice, essentiate the Church objectively: And these are all summarily contained in the Baptismal Covenant, explained in the Creed, Lords Prayer and Decalouge; and all with much more, even Integrals and needful Accidentals in the Sacred Scriptures, which taking in the Law of Nature, are Gods Universal Law.

XXII. There is no Church on Earth so sound and Orthodox as to want no Integral part of Christian Religion: Proved: There is no man on Earth, much less any multitude, so sound as to want no Integral part: But all Churches consist only of Men; And therefore if all the Men be so far defe­ctive, all the Churches are so.

It is not their Objective Religion Generally and implicitely received that I mean, but their Subjective Religion, and their explicite reception of the Ob­jective. The Scripture is our perfect Objective Religion in it self, and as an Object proposed, and in general and implicitely we all receive it. But as a man may say, I believe all that's in the Scripture, and yet be ignorant of the very Essentials in it; so a man may explicitely know and believe all the Essen­tials and more, and yet be ignorant of many Integrals.

All things in Scripture proposed to our Faith, Hope and Practice, are the In­tegrals of our Religion: But no Christian understandeth all these proposals or words of Scripture: Therefore no Christian explicitely believeth them all, or practiceth all. To hold the contrary, is to hold that some Church is perfect in Understanding, Faith, Hope and Practice, without Ignorance, Errour or Sin: that is, not to know what a man or a Christian on Earth is.

XXIII. Much less do all Churches agree in unnecessary indifferent acci­dents, nor ever did, nor ever will or can do.

XXIV. The measuring out Churches by limits of Ground, Parochial or Diocesan, is a meer humane ordering of a mutable accident, and no Divine Determination: And if all were taken for Church members-because they [Page 26] dwell in those precincts, it were wicked: But if it be but all in those pre­cincts that are qualified Consenters, it is usually a convenient measure: But such as in many Cases must be broken.

XXV. If a Church with Faithful Pastors be well setled in a place first where there are not more than should make up that one Church, it is not meet for any there to gather a distinct Church (thô of the same Faith) with­out such weighty reason as will prove it necessary, or like to do more good than hurt: 1. Because Love inclineth to the greatest Union; 2. Because a Great Church is more strong and honourable than a small, if the number be not so great as to hinder the Ends. 3. And the Ancient Churches kept this Union.

XXVI. If Magistrates make such Laws about Church Accidents as tend to further the Churches welfare, or are so pretended, and not against it, we must obey them. But if they wiil either invade Christs Autherity or cross it, by making Laws against his, or such as are proper to his Prerogative to make, or invade the Pastors Office, and the Churches proper right given by Christ, or determine Accidents to the Destruction of the Substance (the Church, Do­ctrine, Worship or Ends) these bind the Consciences of none to Obedience; but Christ must be obeyed, and we must patiently suffer.

XXVII. Self-interest, Self-Government and Family-Government are all antecedent to Publick Government, which Ruleth them for the Common good, but hath no Authority to destroy them: No King or Prelate can bind a man to do that which would damn his Soul, nor to omit that which is need­ful to his Salvation: All power is for Edification: They are Gods Ministers for God.

XXVIII. As it belongs to self-government to choose our own Dyet, and Cloaths, and Wives, and Physicians, (thô we may be restrained from do­ing publick hurt on such pretences;) And it belong to Family Government to educate our own Children, and choose their Tutors, Callings, Wives, &c. so it more nearly belongs to self-government to choose the most safe and profitable means of our own Salvation, which no man may forbid us; and to avoid that which is pernicious or hurtful; and to Family-Govern­ment to do the like for our Children.

XXIX. It is false Doctrine of those late Writers who tell us, that only Sa­craments sanctifie or give right to Salvation: The whole Tenor of the Go­spel tells us that men are brought to Faith and Repentance, and to be Chri­stians, and Godly men, and by Faith to be justified, by the Preaching of the Gospel: and that Gods word is his appointed means of Salvation, which his Ministers must preach skilfully, instantly, in season and out of season, to that End: And if the Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost.

XXX. The Gospel saveth not like a Charm, by the bare sound or saying of the words; nor the Sacrament like an Amulet; But as a Moral means (specially blest by him that instituted it) to work on man as Man, by infor­ming [Page 27] his Mind, perswading his Will and exciting his Affections, as Men are wrought on in other Cases; (which methinks those called Arminians should least deny, who are said to lay more of the Spirits operation on Moral sua­sion than their Adversaries; yea and those that account it Fanaticism to ex­pect any other gift of Prayer from the Spirit but what is given morally by use.) And the contrary Doctrine feigneth God to Work even constantly by Miracle: And as the Papists make every Mass-Priest a Miracle Worker in Transubstantiation, so do they that make the bare saying over the Words and doing the outward Acts in the Sacrament, to save us ex opere operato, and the Pastoral teaching and oversight of an ignorant drunken Lad or Reader to be (near)as great a help to Salvation, as the Ministry of a wise skilful, Ho­ly and exemplary Pastor, and the clear affectionate Preaching of Gods word: And that tell us (as Mr. Dodwell) how sufficient a man is to administer the Sacramental Covenant that understands what a Covenant is in matters of Common Conversation.

XXXI. If a Wise: and Skilful and Conscionable Ministry be as needless to Edification and Salvation as some Men pretend, it is as needless that they should study to be such, and vain to Glory that they are such, and that the Church of England hath such a Ministry, and vain to expect that men should pay them any more respect than I owed my Master that never preacht but once, and that drunken; (and divers very like him.) Or that they should use this as an argument to draw men to hear them.

XXXII. If the King or Law should settle a Physician of his (or a Patrons) choice in every Parish, it were well done if it be but to have help at hand for Volunteers: Bui: if he command all to use them and to use no other be­fore them or against them, where unskilful or untrusty men are placed, no man is bound to obey this command: No mens Law can dissolve the Law of Nature, nor disoblige a man from a due care of his Life, nor bind him to cast it away upon Obedience to ignorant or bad and treacherous Men. And a mans Soul is more precious than his Health or Life; and he is bound to greater care of it; and is no more to trust it on the will of his Superiours How vast is the difference between an ignorant rash Physician or Pastor, and one that is wise, experienced and trusty? They that scorn Men for going for greater edification from one to another, do not so if a man prefer a skilful Physician to one that kills more than he cures; or a skilful and careful Tu­tor for his Son, yea or a Farrier for his Horse.

XXXIII. If one Preacher be not for Edification to be greatly preferred before another, then One Book is not: And so it's no matter what Book they read or value; and what a Student will this make? And what a Trade for the Booksellers? And why then should their own Books be so valued? And why then do they silence hundreds or thousands and forbid them to preach on pain of ruine, (thô no false Doctrine be proved against them) if they think not that the difference is very great.

[Page 28] XXXIV. When Councils hereticated and condemned Thousands or Hun­dreds of Priests and Bishops, whom Christian Emperours and Princes owned as Orthodox, they did not then think every Patron, Prince or Prelate a competent Judge with what Pastor Men should trust the conduct of their Souls: Nor did they think so that forbad men hearing fornicators: Nor Cyprian that required the People to forsake Basilides and Martial (& Pec­catorem Praepositum.)

XXXV. So full was the proof given in the Book called, The first Plea for Peace, that the Church from the beginning denyed Princes and Magistrates to be entrusted with the choice of Bishops, or Pastors to whom the Churches were bound to trust the conduct of their Souls, that he who denyeth it, is not worthy to be, therein disputed with. And yet we doubt not but they may force Infidel Subjects and Catechumens to hear sound and setled Preach­ers and Catechists; And may dispose of the Tythes, Temples and many other Accidents of the Church; and may drive on Pastors and People to their Duty.

XXXVI. It is false Doctrine that two distinct Churches may not be in the same Precincts or City; This being a meer Accident which abundance of Ca­ses make unnecessary and unlawful: Which I shall prove.

That which is no where commanded by God, is no duty: But that there shall be but one Church (or Bishop) in the same Precincts, is not commanded of God, Ergo, &c. (Divine of Gods making.)

They own the Major in the case of Indifferent thing. If they deny the Minor let the affirmers prove any such command. We grant a command of Love and Concord, and a prohibition of all that is against them. But in many instances, to have several Churches in the same precincts, is not against them.

If they fly to the Canons of foreign Councils, the reason of them we shall weigh and duely regard; But they were National, and had their Legisla­tive Power only from their own Princes and their Counselling Power only from Christ: And we disown all foreign Jurisdiction.

XXXVII. In all these Cases following (and more) two Churches may be in the same precincts (yea and a City.)

1. In Case that several Bishops are called justly to dwell in the same City, or Diocess, and many of their Flock be with them, e. g. Many Bishops of England dwell long, yea mostly in London or in London Diocess: e. g. The Bi­shop of Eli dwells in the Parish of St. Andrews Holbourn: Qu. Whether there he be a Subject to Dr. Stillingfleet as his Pastor, and bound to obey him? or whether many out of his Diocess (thousands) may not as Law­fully dwell half the Year in London as he? And whether when he preacheth to them, he do it not as their Bishop (in London Diocess.) And so of many other Bishops that here reside.

XXXVIII. 2. Either our Parish Churches are true Churches, or not. If [Page 29] not, the Separatists are so far in the right; And separate not from true Churches eo nomine because they separate from them. If yea, then many Churches are in the same City and Diocess. (Of their agreement and depen­dance on the fame Bishop I shall speak anon.)

XXXIX. 3. In case that in one City, there be resident Stranges, that are sent on Embassies, or live for Merchandize, or flee from Miseries, and are the Subject of other Princes, whose Laws and Customs they are under, e. g. At Frankford, Hamburgh, Middleburgh, Dantzick, Constantinople, there have been English distinct lawful Churches: And in London there are Dutch and French Churches: And if the King allowed a Swedish Church, a Danish Church, a Saxon Church, &c. with their several Bishops, who is so weak as to need proof that this is lawful, and they true Churches?

XL. 4. In case men of different Language are not capable of mutual con­verse by personal communion or help: As Dutch, French, Italian, Greeks, Germans, &c. Grotius and Dr. Hammond (oft in Dissert. and Annot.) do maintain that Peter at Rome had a Church of Jews, and Paul a Church of Gen­tiles: And that the like distribution of Churches of Jews and Gentiles, there was at Antioch, Alexandria and other places: And by this they Salve the Contradictions in Church History about the Succession of Linus, Cletus and Clemens: And the Apostles setled not a sinful Church way.

XLI. 5. Yea Grotius maintaineth that the Apostles setled the Churches at first not like the Jewish Priesthood, but in the order of their Synagogues; (de Imper. sum. Patest. and in Annot.) And that as there were divers Syna­gogues in a great City with their Archisynagogus and Elders, so there were divers Churches in a City with Bishops and Presbyters.

XLII. 6. When there are a greater number of Persons in one City or precinct than can have any just personal Knowledge and Communion, and more than any one Bishop with his Presbytery can perform the needful Pa­storal oversight to, it is lawful and a duty, to gather another Church in that City or Precinct: But this is truly the Case of many great Cities, though worldly Wisdom have at Rome, and other places oft denyed notorious evi­dence and experience. He that will gather up all the duties that Dr. Ham­mond saith were charged on the Bishops (in his Annotations on all the Texts that name Elders and Bishops) if he can believe that any Bishop can perform the tenth part of them to all in the Diocess of London, York, Lincoln, Nor­wich, &c. I will not dispute against him if he maintain a Bishops Ubiquity, or that at once he can be in twenty places. But if they say, that what then was commanded them to do personally, they may do by others, I say, that if they may change the Work, they may change the Power, that specifieth the Office; and so it is not the same Office in specie instituted in Scripture: And then Lay-men may have Power to preach and administer Sacraments, and do the Office of Priests, and yet be no Priest (as Civilians do of Bishops) which is a Contradiction. Certainly if there be more Scholars in the City [Page 30] than one Master can Teach and Rule, it is no Schism to set up more Schools and Schoolmasters, but a duty. And if the Lord Mayor on pretence of City Government should put down but as great a part of Family Government, as those Diocesans do of Parochial Church Government, who allow none under them to be truly Episcopi Gregis, and have the power of their Church Keyes, I think that it were no Schism to restore Families so that the City might have more than one (entirely.)

XLIII. 7. If the Soveraign Power upon Politick or Religious Reasons should determine, that e. g. Dr. A, and Dr. B, and Dr. C. shall all be Bishops in London, to such Volunteers of Clergy and Laity as shall choose each of them to be their Bishop, and this without altering their dwellings, no man can prove it sinful; And of his reasons the King is judge.

XLIV. 8. If the Bishop or Clergy of a City, Diocess or Nation, do agree by Law or Canon to admit none to the Ministry or Communion that will not commit a known sin deliberately as the Condition of his Communion, it is a duty to congregate under Other Pastors in those precincts. This is confest: If they should not only hold any errour, or practise sin, but re­quire men to subscribe and approve it, and say it is no sin, no man ought to do this; nor yet to live like an Atheist:, and forsake all Worship because men forbid him, if it were but to subscribe one untruth: But alas, this is no rare Case: In one Emperours Reign all were Anathematized that subscribed not to the Council of Chalcedon, and quickly after all that did, or that would not renounce it: The same division and changes were made by the Councils against and for the Monothelites, de tribus Capitulis, Images, &c. And when all Men living have many Errours, and the Church of England disclaimeth her Infallibility, and yet will receive no Minister that will not subscribe that there is nothing in her Books contrary to the word of God, the Case is hard. But when all the things mentioned in the Plea for Peace are proved lawful, we shall be more yielding in this Case.

XLV. 9. If true and sound Christians mistakingly think one or many things to be heinous sins, (as Perjury, Lying, Renouncing Obedience to God, and Repentance, &c.) which are things indifferent, but of so great difficul­ty that most Learned and Godly and Willing Men cannot discern the Law­fulness and agree, and yet are not necessary nor just conditions of Ministry or Communion, and so it is the Imposer that entangleth them by difficulty in their disseut, it is not lawful for these men therefore to forbear all Church Worship, but must use it as they can.

XLVI. 10. If any Church unjustly excommnnicate such men; or others, they must not forbear all Church order and worship because men so excom­municate them. No man must Sin to escape Excommunication; and every man in the World is a sinner:, And therefore all the World must be excommu­nicated, if all Sinners must be so. As I before said, the times oft were when almost all the Bishops in the Empire were excommunicated by one ano­ther: [Page 31] Councils and Popes have oft excommunicated some for trifles and some for Truth and Duty. And such must not therefore renounce all Church Worship and Communion.

The Church of England do by their standing Law ipso facto excommuni­cate all (as aforesaid) that affirm any thing to be repugnant to Gods Word or sinful, in their whole Church Government, Articles, Liturgy and Cere­monies, and so to stand till they Publickly revoke this as a wicked Errour. Now many Lords and Commoners in Parliaments, have spoken against some of these particulars; and some out of Parliament: Many Ministers have done the like when the King Commissioned them to treat for Alterations; And many when the Accusations or demands of others have called them to give a Reason of their Actions. Some have maintained that it is repugnant to Gods word that Lay Civilians should have the decretive Power of the Keyes, and that the Parish Minister must cast out of Communnion all that the Lay Doctors or Chancellors excommunicate, and all that dare not receive kneeling, and that they should deny Christendom to all that scruple the Englisn sort of God-Fathers Covenants, and the transient Symbolical Image of the Cross, with abundance such things: Now all these are ipso facto ex­communicate. And thô they be not bound to avoid the Church till this be applicatorily declared, yet actually excommunicate they are, and that by a higher authority than the Bishops; and they know the Churches decree; and the Priests are sworn to Canonical Obedience; And he that will not tempt them to be forsworn, nor come into a Church that hath excommunicated him, seems therein excuseable: But must he therefore renounce the Church of God?

XLVII. 11. If the People are so set against one Bishop for another, as that half being for one and half for the other, and both Orthodox, they cannot be perswaded to unite in one. A Council at Rome determined in the Case of Pauli­nus and Flavian at Antioch, that both of them should hold their distinct Church­es, and so live in love and peace. And though one or both parties in this were mistaken Sinners, so are all morral men, who yet must not live like Atheists.

XLVIII. 12. An undetermined accident must be so determined as most serveth to do the greatest good and avoid the greatest Evil: But whether divers Churches shall promiscuously live in the same City or Diocess or Pa­risn, is an Accident not determined by God, and either way may be for the greatest good, as circumstances vary. e.g. When in a Church half cannot consent to condemn the words of Theodoret, Theodore Mopsuest, and Ibas, and half will condemn them with the Council; if these can serve God quiet­ly in Love and Peace in different Congregations, but cannot endure one another in the same, it is most for the Churches Peace that they be per­mitted to joyn with those of their own Mind.

When one Pope declared that it's sound Doctrine to say [One of the Tri­nity was Crucified,] when another had declared that it is not sound Doctrine, [Page 32] they that held with one Pope, and they that held with the other might both be true Churches in different Assemblies: When Justinian raised the bloody controversie between the Corrupticolae and the Phantasiastae, wise men thought both sides were true Churches: Yea and so did many wise men think of the Orthodox and Nestorians and many Eutychians.

XLIX. 13. It's a common case under Turks and Heathens, that they give liberty of Conscience for Christians of all parties: Now suppose that in A­leppo, in Constantinople or elsewhere, there be (partly for Countrey sake and partly for Language, but most for different Judgments) one Church of Ar­menians, one of Greeks, one of English-men, &c. what Law of God makes on­ly one of these to be a true Church, and which is it?

L. 14. Suppose that the setled Church e. g. in Holland, Sweden, Saxony, is for Presbytery, or for an Episcopacy that arose from Presbyters ordination, or that had none or a short Liturgy, and the Prince would tolerate English men (as Frankford did) to set up a Church of the English Form and Liturgy, I think few Prelatists would deny it to be lawful.

LI. I omit other instances, and come to the matter of Separation, which word serveth this man and such other in so general and undistinguished a sence, as would make one think he were of Mr. Dodwell's mind, That words in dispute have but one signification, which all are bound to know that use them. Even a Bell by the same sound sometime signifieth a call to Church, and sometime a Funeral, and sometime Joy; but [Separate, Separate] is rung over and over with these men, as if it signified but one thing.

1. He that heareth half the Sermon and Service, and goeth out of Church, doth Separate at that time from the rest.

When a Protestant Heretick was doing Penitence with his Faggot at St. Maries in Oxford, and the Fryer was Preaching, a mistaken Voice in the street made them think the Hereticks had set the Church on fire, and they se­parated from the Preacher, one Fryer stuck by the belly that was going out at the window; the door being wedged with the crowd, a Boy that saw it open above their heads, got up on their shoulders, and went on 'till he slipt into a Monks Cowl, and there lay still 'till the Monk was got out, and felt some­thing on his back, and thinking it was an heretical Devil, began to conjure him in the Name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, to tell him what he was, and the Boy cryed, O good Master I am the Bakers boy, &c. Quaere, Whether this was Schismaticks separation.

At Walsall in Stafford-shire, Mr. Lapthorne (known to me in his Iusty age) who had been a Non-conformist, but thought it an honour to be converted by a King, and gloried that King James in conference changed him; but be­ing as rustick a thunderer as Father Latimer and more, he was wont to let fly without much fear; one Mr. Martin in the Parish accounted the greatest enemy to Puritans, when he heard what he liked not, would goe out of Church; one day (in a path way where Mr. Lane had rode a little before) [Page 33] pelting Crabs with a pole, the ground opened and swallowed him and his pole, that they could never be found (being a Cole-mine long on fire;) ever after that, when any one would goe out of Church at a blustering passage, Mr. Lapthorne would call to him, Remember Martin; Quere, Whether all these were separating Schismaticks?

But this is too far off: In Dunstans West, where Dr. Sherlock, Preacheth, when I was licensed: twenty, years ago, at Christmas, as I was Preaching, some Lime or Stone fell down in the Steeple with the crowd, the Church being old and under suspicion, they all thought it was falling, and most ran out in tumult, and some cast themselves headlong from the Gallery for hast; when they were quieted and came in again, the Boyes in the Chancel broke a Wainscot Skreen with climbing on it, and the noise made them run out a­gain; one old woman going out, cryed, It's just with God because I took not the first warning, Lord forgive me, and I'le never come again: Quere, Whether these, or at least this resolving Woman was a Schismatick, and separated from the Catholick Church?

If not, there is some separation that is not so bad as Murder; and me­thinks the Doctor should forgive it for the success; for the Parish hereup­on resolved to pull down the Church and build it new, a far better Fabrick where the Dr. now Preacheth; and it drove me away that I preacht there no more; Whether this new Church built where the old one had possession before, be not a Schismatical Separatist, I leave to him.

LII. 2. Local Separation without Mental can make no culpable Schism; for Nil nisi Voluntarium est morale; if a man be imprisoned or be sick and can­not come to the Church, it is innocent Separation; I have been at no Church this half year, much against my will, O that God would heal me of this Separation!

LIII. 3. If it must be mental Separation that must be culpable, then it is diversified according to the mental degree and kind; and no man separa­teth from the universal Church who separateth not from somewhat essential to it; to separate from its Integrals or Accidents may be culpable, but it's no Separation from the Church, no more than every breach of the Law is a Separa­tion from the Kingdom.

LIV. 4. Some separate as to place, locally and not mentally, some men­tally and not locally, and some both: He that daily observeth the outward Communion of the Church, and yet taketh it for no Church, or denyeth its Faith, Hope or essential Duty, separateth indeed. All those men that live un­believingly, atheistically, wickedly, that in their converse prate against the Scripture and immortality of the Soul, and that hate and persecute serious Godliness, are damnably separated from Christ, and therefore from, the Ca­tholick Church, and are so to be esteemed so far as this is known, thô when, it is unknown, the Church can take no notice of it.

LV. 5. It being only Humane Laws and Circumstantial Conveniences that [Page 34] make it unmeet to have divers Churches Bishops living promiscuously in the same Parishes, Cities, Dioceses or Nations; where Laws and circum­stances allow it, it is no unlawful seperation.

LVI. 6. He that liveth in forreign Lands (Christian, Mahometan or Hea­then) where various Churches live promiscuously (Greeks, Armenians, Pro­testants, Papists, &c.) is no Schismatick, if he choose which he thinks best, and be absent locally from the rest, condemning them no further than they deserve.

LVII. 7. He that removeth into another Diocess or Parish for his world­ly interest, seperateth without fault from the Church he was in.

LVIII. 8. It is a lawful separation to remove ones dwelling, because the Minister is ignorant, unskilful, or otherwise bad, and this for the better edification of his Soul, and the use and help of a more able faithful Minister, even Law and Custome and reason do allow it.

LIX. 9. Thô the Canon 57. and 28. forbid Ministers oft to give the Sacra­ment to Strangers that come out of other Parishes, even where no Preach­ing is, yet those many sober People that use this in London, are not taken to be Schismaticks, as bad as Murders: Many that are esteemed the most sober religious Conformists do ordinarily goe from their own Parish Churches, some (in Martins and St. Giles's Parish, &c.) for want of room, and some for more Edification, to Dr. Tillotson, Dr. Stillingfleet, Dr. Burnet, Dr. Fowler, Mr. Gifford, Mr. Durham, Mr. Hornech and such others, and com­municate with them; and thô these are called by the late Catholicks by the Name of Dangerous Trimmers, I think even Dr. Sherlock will think it more pardonable than Murder, if they come to him.

LX. 10. If the King and Law should restore the antient order that every City, that is, every great incorporate Town in England should have a Bishop, (yea or every great Parish) and that the Diocesans should be their Arch-Bi­shops, and our new Catholicks should tell the King and Parliament that they are hereby unchristened Schismaticks, as dangerous as Adulterers of Mur­derers, for gathering Churches within a Church, I would not believe them.

LXI. 11. If (e.g. at Frankford, Zurick, Lubeck, Hamburgh, &c.) a Church is settled in the Lutheran way, and another in the Bochemian way, described by Lasitius and Commenius, (which is a conjunction of Episcopacy, Presbyte­ry and Independency) or a Church that had no Liturgy, or none but that which the French Protestants and Dutch have, would it be damning Schism, for such as Cox and Horne at Frankford to set up an Episcopal Church in the English mode, and with their Liturgy, and so far to separate from the rest?

LXII. 12. If it be true that John Maior, Fordon, and others say that Pres­bytery was the Government of the Church of Scotland before Episcopacy was brought in, was the introduction of Episcopacy by Palladius a damning [Page 35] Schism by separating from the former, or a Reformation; is just Reformation Schism?

LXIII. 13. When the Church first set up Patriarchs, Metropolitans, General Councils, Monasteries, Parish Churches distinct from Cathedrals, Organs, New Liturgies, and multitudes of Ceremonies, this was a depart­ing or separating from the contrary Church way which was there before, was it therefore Schism?

LXIV. 14. When Socrates tells us of some Countreys that had Bishops in the Countrey Villages (like our Parishes) was it a damning Schism to se­parate from this custome, by decreeing that even small Cities should have no Bishops, Ne vilescat nomen Episcopi? or when the Chorepiscopi were put down, where they had been?

LXV. 15. If a man separate not from any thing essential to the Church of England, he separateth not from that Church, though he refuse that which is its Accidents, or some Integral parts: We are charg'd with separating from the Church of England, as if it were a matter of fact beyond dispute, and scorn'd for denying it, even by them that will not tell us what they mean by the Church of England, or by Separation. By the Church of England we mean the Christian Kingdom of England, or all the Christians in England, as living in one land, under One Christian King who Governeth them by the Sword, which includeth their Concord among themselves in true Christianity; we are Christians, we profess agreement in Christianity with all Christians we are under the same King as they are, and profess subjection, and take; the same Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy; yea, we are not charged with differing in any thing called Doctrinal from their Thirty Nine Articles; but we disown certain late Covenants and Oaths which are not Twenty three Years old, and the Subscription to one Canon about the Innocency of all in their Liturgy; now either these new Oaths, Covenants and Canon, Litur­gy and Ceremonies are essential to the Church of England, or not; If yea, then, 1. It's a poor humane Church, made by them that made these Oaths, Liturgy and Ceremonies. 2. And then it's a new upstart Church, and no man can answer the Papists where it was before Luther, or before Henry 8. yea, if its essentials were made by this King and Parliament, 1662. then the present Church is no older: But if these things be indifferent, or not essen­tial to the Church, then to separate only from these, is not to separate from the Church.

If it be said, That for the sake of these we separate from the Church it self, and therefore from its essence; we abhor the accusation, and challenge them to prove it: If we separate from the Church essentially, it is either Locally or Mental­ly; not Locally, for we are yet in England, nor is Local distance only a sin; not Mentally, for we own it for a true Christian Kingdom, called a National Church, bound to serve Christ in Love and Concord to their Power: We de­ny not the King to be the Governour, nor Christians to be Christians, no [Page 36] nor the particular Churches and Ministers to be true (thô culpable) Church­es and Ministers, nor their Sacraments to be true Sacraments; we profess to hold with them one Catholick Body, one Spirit, one God, one Chirist, one Faith, one Baptism (in the essentials) and one Hope, and are ready to pro­mise to live in Concord with them in all other things, as far as will stand with our Obedience to God; so that we separate not from the Church of England as such, but from some of its Accidents, which we dare not be guilty of.

LXVI. 16. The same I say of a Parish Church; he that locally removeth, e. g. from a Church that hath Organs, to one that hath none, separateth from a pair of Organs, but not Mentally from the Church, unless the Organs be its essence.

LXVII. 17. They that are for the true antient Episcopacy, (e. g. as much as Arch-Bishop Vsher's Reduction which we offer'd did contain) but dislike the Lay Civilians power of the Keyes, and Officials, Surrogates, Arch-deacons Government, &c. do not separate from the Church as Episcopal, but from the humane Novelties which they disown.

LXVIII. 18. If a Parishioner fall out with his Priest, and they goe to Law about Tythes, Glebes, Words, &c. and the Suit be long, and the man dare not Communicate with him believing that he hateth him, thô the animosity should be culpable, being but personal, his going from-him to another Church is not separating from Christ; (for I hope that even Mr. Dodwell himself will not say that every Priest is Christ.)

LXIX. 19. Ex quovis ligno non fit Mercurius, surely there is some qualifica­tion essential to the Ministry; if a man want that qualification, it is a Duty to separate from him as no Minister, e. g. When I came to Kederminster, (af­ter my subjection to six or seven worse) I found the Vicar, one reputed ig­norant of the Fundamentals, (he was brought in by Sir Henry Blunt a Papist) who Preacht but once a quarter, which most thought he might better have forborn, and his Curate Mr. Turner at Mitton Preacht once a day, whom I found ignorant of the Catechism Principles by Conference, and he confest he had but one Book, Musculus common places in English, and he said some of that to the People, and they took it for a Sermon; he lived by unlawful Marrying, infamous for Drinking and Quarrelling; he that had taken these for no Ministers, and separated from them, had not thereby seperated from Christ or his Church Catholick.

LXX. 20. If it prove as hard to know who is the true Pastor in a compe­tition of Pretenders, as it was to know which was the true Pope, when there were two or three, (above twenty times) or whether, e. g. Optandus was true Bishop of Geneva that knew not Letters, or whether Duke Heriberts Son consecrated in Infancy was Arch-Bishop of Rhemes, or any other Infant con­secrated be a Bishop, (officiating per alios, Surrogates, Chancellours, Offici­als, &c.) it is not here a Separation from Christ to separate from either of [Page 37] the Pretenders: He that mistaketh not, is not liable to the Charge, he that mistakes, doth not erre in an Article of Faith, but in a difficult point of hu­mane title, and the qualification and right of a single man; and my Opini­on is, that if such a title were tryed before our Judges or King, and they should mistake and give Judgment against him that had right, this were no separating from Christ, nor proof that they are Infidels.

LXXI. 21 If the Case of two contending Bishops or Presbyters come be­fore a General or Provincial Council, and they mistake and give it to the wrong, and so separate from the right, I do not think that thereby they se­parate from Christ or the Church Catholick, e. g. The Constantinopolitan Council first gave the Church of Constantinople to Nazianzene, and after judg­ed him out as having no right; if by this they separated from Christ, they that take them for the Catholick Church representative, must say that the Catholick Church separated from Christ and it self.

When another Council wrongfully deposed Chrysostome, and separated from him, and Cyril Alexandr. perswaded the continuance of it, did the uni­versal Church separate from it self and Christ? If a General Council which should be wisest, be excusable from damning Schism, whenever it misjudg­eth and separateth from a rightful Bishop, sure every Lay-man and woman that doth the same, doth not separate from Christ.

If it prove that a General Council deposed Nestorius as unjustly as David Derodon thought, or Dioscorus as unjustly as others thought, or Flavian as unjustly as the Orthodox think, this proveth them Guilty of some Schism, but not of separating from the universal Church.

When Menna of Constantinople, and the Pope excommunicated each other, when a Synod in Italy renounced Vigilius, and all his Successors were an hundred years deposed from their Primacy, and a Patriarch at Aquileia set up in his stead for a great part of Italy, because Vigilius subscribed to a Ge­neral Council, de tribus Capitulis, this was Schism (some where) but not separating from Christ.

LXXII. 22. If a man in England should think that all the old Councils were obligatory, which decree that he shall be taken for no Bishop that comes in by the choice (yea or Mediation) of Courtiers, Princes or great men, or any that have not the true Consent of Clergy and People, and thereup­on should conclude that Bishops, Deans, Prebends, &c. so chosen and im­posed are Lay-men and no true Bishops and Pastors, this were a separating from those Persons, but not from Christ and the Vniversal Church, when as Mr. Thorndike saith, that till the right of Electing Bishops by the Clergy and People be restored, we need look no further for the reason of the Contempt of Episco­pacy here.

So if a man think that God never trusted every Ignorant Wicked man that can but get Money and buy an Advowson, to choose those Pastors to whose conduct all the People are bound to trust their Souls, (and the Bishop to ad­mit [Page 38] them for fear of a Quare impedit, if they have but a Certificate and can speak Latine) This is not damning Separation.

LXXIII. 23. If a Bishop set up a seeming Convert, really a Papist (e. g. Mr. Hutchinson alias Berry, or one of them that lately Confessed themselves Papists,) the People that find by experience what the man is, are not damn­ed Schismaticks for not taking him for their Pastor, or for going from him.

If Godfrey Goodman Bishop of Gloucester was a Papist, did he separate from Christ that separated from the Diocesan Church of Gloucester, while he was an Essential part? Or that did not implicitely trust all the Priests that he ordained?

LXXIV. 24. If in a Cathedral Church one withdraw from their Service, because of their difference in singing, Ceremonies, &c. from the Parish Churches, thô it be the Bishops Church that he separateth from, it is not as a Church, nor from any thing essential to it, e. g. Miles Smyth Bishop of Gloucester (the famous Hebrician, and chief in our Bibles Translation) de­clared and performed it, that he would never come more to his Cathedral, because the Dean (in Lauds time) kept up the Altar. Qu. Whether he separated from himself or his Church? Vbi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia: Who were the Separatists? They that followed the Bishop, or they that separated from him and kept to the Ca [...]hedral? The same I say of Williams Bishop of Lin­coln that wrote against Altars.

LXXV. 25. If faithful Pastors and People are setled in concord, and the higher Powers make a Law to depose and eject them without just cause (as Multitudes were in many Emperours dayes, and Multitudes by the Interim in Germany in Charles the fifths time; and Multitudes in the Palatinate by Ludovicus, and in too many other Countreys) those that leave the Tem­ples and Tythes to the Magistrate, but cleave to their old Pastors in for­bidden meetings (called Conventicles) supposing the Pastoral Relation not dissolved (as the Joannites clave to Chrysostom) do not thereby separate from the Catholick Church: Had the Power been lawful that set up ano­ther way, when Dr. Gunning kept up his Meetings at Exeter House, it had not been a Separation from Christ that he then made.

LXXVI. 26. If the Law command all to take one man for his Pastor, and a Parent command his Child, or a Husband his Wife to take another and not that, and the Child or Wife know not which should be obeyed, and whether the choice belong more to the Domestick, or the Publick Govern­ment, it is not a separating from Christ, which way ever such an one shall go.

LXXVII. 27. Yea if I should think that self-Interest and self-Government bind me rather to choose a Pastor for my self, than to stand to such a choice by Prince, Patron or Prelate, which I think intolerable, as well as (against their will) I may choose a Wife, or a Physician, or a Tutor, or a Book, or [Page 39] my daily food, this is not separating from the Universal Church.

LXXVIII. 28. If owning the same Diocesan make them of one Church who differ more than Nonconformists and Conformists do, then owning the same Christ, Faith, Scripture, &c. maketh them of one Catholick Church who differ less. But, &c. Jesuites, Dominicans, Jansenists, and all the Sects of Papists are taken for one Church, because they own the Pope and Councils. In England the Diocesan Conformists are taken for one Church, thô some of them are as much for a Foreign Jurisdiction, as Arch-bi­shop Laud, Arch-bishop Bromhall, Bishop Gunnings Chaplain, Dr. Saywell, Mr. Thorndike, Dr. Heylin, and many more, have manifested in their words and writings. And some that subscribe the Articles of General Coun­cils erring in Faith and against Heathens Salvation, and against free will, and for Justification by Faith only, &c. do shew that they differ in the Do­ctrines of Religion, (unless the sound or syllables be its Religion) while one and another take the words in contrary sences. Some are for Diocesans being a distinct Order from Presbyters, some (as Vsher and ma­ny such) deny it: Some hold them to be of Divine Right, and some but of humane; some think the King must choose them, some rather the Clergy and People; some hold them Independent, others rather subject to the Arch-bi­shops and Convocation; some think all that bear Office in their Church Go­vernment are lawful, others think Lay-Civilians Government by the Keyes unlawful (and so are ipso facto excommunicate by their own Canons;) some that promise Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary, take the Judges of the Ecclesiastical Courts for their Ordinaries; and others only the Bi­shops; some think they are sworn to obey their Ordinaries, if they rule according to the Canons (and so to pronounce all Excommunicate that the Canon excommunicates, if commanded;) Others think other­wise, that they are judges themselves whether the Canons command licita & honesta; some take the Pope to be Antichrist, and the Church of Rome no true Church; others think otherwise. Many more (Armini­an and other) such differences there are, and yet all of one Church, both Catholick, National, Diocesan and Parochial (oft:) Much more are those Nonconformists that differ from the Church in nothing but what the Impo­sers call Indifferent.

LXXIX. 29. If one that prayeth in the Litany against false Doctrine and Schism, and readeth the Conformists telling him of the danger of it, should; verily think that Dr. S. printeth and preacheth false Doctrine, and such as plainly tendeth to serve Satan against Christian Love and Peace, and to the most Schismatical dividing and damning of Christians, should hereupon separate from him for fear of Schism and false Doctrine, and go to a safer Pastor, I think it were not to separate from Christ.

LXXX. 30. If a Bishop in any Diocess in London should openly write or plead for a Foreign Jurisdiction, and we are told that none are true Mini­sters [Page 40] that depend not obediently on the Bishop, he that for fear of the Law, or of Personal or common perjury, should separate from that Bishop and his numerical Diocesan Church, doth thereby neither separate from the Catholick Church, nor from the Church of England. As if the Kings Army should have a Colonel that declared himself an obliged Subject to the King of France and bound to obey him, the Regiment may forsake that Colonel. Yea if the General of the Kings Army should give up himself in subjection to the Enemy or a Foreign Power, and say, I will take a Com­mission from the Turk, and my Officers shall only obey me, and the Soldiers obey them, were not this an Army of Traytors or Rebels, though none but the General took a Commission from the Enemy? So if the Bishops should all take Commissions from the Pope, or declare themselves Subjects to a For­reign Jurisdiction, it were no separating from Christ, to separate from them all, in Loyalty to Christ, and to avoid National perjury and Schism.

LXXXI. 31. If a man think that he is bound to use all Christs institu­ted means of Salvation, and live in a Church that wilfully omitteth any one of them, e. g. either Infant baptism, or singing Psalms, or Praying, or Preaching, or the Lords Supper, or all Personal care, and discipline to exclude the grosly intolerable, to resolve the doubting, &c. He that in Obedience to Christ goeth to a Church and Pastor (in the same Diocess or City) that omitteth none of these, is no damned Schismatick.

LXXXII. 32. He that is unjustly cast out of the Church, and by its ve­ry Laws excommunicated ipso facto, is no damned or Sinful Schismatick for Worshipping God in a Church that will receive him: Nor any one that is denyed Communion unless he will sin; Much more if they should prove half as many and great Sins as the Nonconformists have said they fear (in the first Plea for Peace, &c.)

LXXXIII. 33. If a Foreigner that doth but half understand our lan­guage, withdraw to a Church and Pastor whose tongue he understands, obeying God and Nature is no damning Schism.

LXXXIV. 34. If one that is erroneously conceited of the obligation of General Councils, should think it a sin to kneel at the Sacrament on any Lords day in the year, or any Week day between Easter and Whitsuntide, because Tradition and the twentieth Canon of the first Council, and that at Trull, &c. do forbid then to adore kneeling, this separating on that ac­count to another Congregation is not damning.

If it be said, that Mr. Thorndike and others tell us that it is not necessary that we do the same things which the Supream Catholick Power commanded, but that we subject our selves to the same Power which may change their own Laws. I an­swer, 1. The asserting of that Universal Soveraignty is the greatest Crime and Heresie of all. 2. By this it seems that our Religion is very mutable, and very uncertain, and a man hath need to take heed of obeying any old [Page 41] Canons, till he know the mind of the present Church; (and who those be, and how to know it.) 3. But what if the same man read Dr. Heylin (of Sab.) telling him that this custome against Adoration-kneeling continued a thousand years, and was never revok't by any true General Council, but changed by little and little by mens practice: And what if he question who those Changers were, and whether their practice was Rebellion at first, and whether they had power to repeal the Canons of the greatest Coun­cils without a Council. Sure they that are for such Councils universal so­veraignty, when they have cast men into these shares, should scarce tell them that they are damnable Schismaticks, for joyning with such Churches as obey these Councils, rather than with those that mine men for not disobeying them.

LXXXIV. And now Reader if thou art one that thinkest of these things with Christian Sobriety and impartiality, I appeal to thee whether if I should be of the mind of Mr. Dodwell, and such self-conceited Resolvers, I should not write my own Condemnation, and be one of the grossest Schismaticks that any History hath mentioned, unless ever there were any man so mad as to hold himself to be all the Church: Yea, when he no more distinguisheth of Separation and Schism, but involves almost all Christi­ans in his Condemnation, and tells us that Schism will damn us as soon as Adultery and Murder, is it not obvious for all men to infer that we are as odious as Adulterers and Murderers? and doth he not Preach Christians into the hatred of each other? and can any wonder if Rulers should think the Punishment of Murderers is not worse than we deserve? It is not New-gate only, but Tyburn that these healing men do seem to assign us; it would be too tedious to look over all these again, and shew you how great the number is that these men damn, and how few on Earth in any Age they excuse from being so far like Murderers.

LXXXV. 1. It seems to me that he virtually damneth all Christians on Earth as such Schismaticks; for it is most certain that all men have sin, and culpable imperfection in Knowledge, Will and Practice; and if any say, That he hath no sin, he is a Lyar, saith St. John; and it is certain that all two persons on Earth have many errours, and many differences from one another; it is certain that the Love and Duty of Christians towards each other is culpably defective in all men: It is certain that no man living is so perfect in knowledge as to know all the indifferent things in the world, which may be imposed, to be Indifferent! And long and sad experience hath told the Church, that both gross errours and sins, and things called Truths or indifferent, which few can be sure of, may be imposed. What follows from all this, but that all men on Earth may easily fall under the imputation of disobedience to Prelates, and so be Excommunicate, and then they have their choice (when no man is perfect, and they cannot change their mindes) 1. Whether they will be damned as Excommunicate [Page 42] and practical Atheists that give over all Church Worship; 2. Or as damna­ble Schismaticks, for worshipping God in Churches when they are excom­municate; 3. Or as persidious Lyars, that will make false Confessions, Pro­fessions and promises, to get off an Excommunication. When Mr. Dodwel numbers those with Schismaticks that [suffer themselves to be excommunicate,] if they have no other means in their Power to hinder it, it seems these great Enemies to absolute reprobation, do think all Christians being unavoidably born to imperfection of Knowledg, are as unavoidably born to damnation whenever Prelates or Priests please thus to precipitate them.

LXXXVI. 2. Particularly, 1. The first and second Canons ipso facto ex­communicate all that say [that any manner of Obedience and Subjection within his Majesties Realms and Dominions is due to any usurped and foreign Power:] By this all Papists and all pretended Protestants (such as Dr. Barrow confuteth) who hold any manner of Obedience and Subjection due to Pope or Foreign Councils, are Excommunicate.

2. Those that say that the Book of Common Prayer containeth any thing in it repugnant to the Scriptures are, ipso facto excommunicate. Which now by the new Laws are interpreted of the present Books.

3. In this all are excommunicate who say, the Mis-translations (in Psalms, Epistles or Gospels, of which many instances have been given) to be any thing repugnant in the Scripture.

4. And all that say, It is against the Scripture to deny Christendom to all In­fants that have not such Vowers in their Names and for their Education as we call Godfathers, and Godmothers, thô the Parent (who is forbidden it) offer his Child by Sponsion.

5. And all that say it is against Scripture to deny Christendom to all that refuse the Covenanting transient Images of a Cross.

6. And all that say that it is against Scripture for all Ministers to profess [that it's certain by Gods Word that baptized Infants (without exception) so dying are undoubtedly saved] when no word of God is cited that saith it, and adding to Gods word is dreadfully threatned, and when it's certain that all Ministers are not certain of any such thing (and I think no one.)

7. All are ipso facto excommunicate that say, It is against Gods Word to deny Church Communion in the Sacrament to all that dare not take it kneeling, for fear (thô mistaken) of breaking the second Commandment by Symbolizing with Idolaters, that are seeking to reduce the Nation to their Sin, and that live round about us.

8. All are excommunicate that say it is against Scripture to pronounce all sa­ved that are buryed, except the unbaptized, self-murderers and the excom­municate, while thousands of Sadducees, Hobbists, Infidels, Papists, Per­jured, Adulterers, Drunkards, &c. dwell among us.

9. By the fifth Canon all are ipso facto excommunicate that say, [Any of the Armies are in any part erroneous, or such as they (perhaps as doubters) [Page 43] may not with a good Conscience subscribe to,] and cousequently all the aforesaid Conformists that think the sence erroneous while they subscribe those words and snall affirm, e. g. that Canons are made necessary to Salvation, thô the matter cannot be proved by Scripture, contrary to Art. 6.

Those that contrary to Art. 8. say, any thing in Athanasius Creed may not be subscribed.

Such as Bishop Taylour that against Art. 9. deny Original Sin.

Those that say contrary to Art. 10. that the Word [no Power] exclu­deth Common natural Power, or maketh Nature to be Grace.

Those that write against our being accounted righteous, only for Christs me­rits, and say that another subordinate Righteousness is named many hun­dred times in Scripture, contrary to Art. 11.

Those that contrary to Art. 13. say, that works done before the Inspiration of the Spirit may make men meet to receive Grace.

Those that with Dr. Hammond write for works that are not commanded but counselled, and Free-will-offerings, contrary to Art. 14.

All they that take Infants and new baptized Persons to have no sin, contrary to Art. 15.

All that say, that after we have received the H. Ghost, we cannot depart from Grace given, contrary to Art. 16.

Those that deny the Doctrine of Election, in Art. 17.

Those that say, any on Earth may be saved by diligent living according to the light of Nature, without knowing the name of Christ, contrary to Art. 18.

Those that contrary to Art. 19. reject that Description of a visible Church, which reacheth to such as our Resolver damneth.

All that contrary to Art. 20. say, that the Church [may not enforce any thing to be believed for necessity to Salvation, besides the Scripture] even those that say, it's necessary to Salvation, by avoiding Schism to believe that all imposed Tyths, Covenants Practices, and Ceremonies are not sin.

All that contrary to Art. 21. say, that General or other Councils may be ga­thered without the command and will of Princes, and deny they may erre, and things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation have neither Strength nor Authority, un­less it may be declared that they are taken out of Holy Scripture.

Those that deny Art. 23. that those are lawfully called and sent into the Mi­nistry, who have publick Authority given them in the Congregation, to call and send Ministers into the Lords Vineyard, are chosen and called hereto, (for want of Canonical Succession.)

Those that contrary to Art. 24. would have Gods Worship performed to them that understand not the language, to avoid the Schism of having many Churches in a City.

Those that take Confirmation or Penance, or the other three for Sacra­ments of the Gospel contrary to Art 25.

[Page 44] Those that contrary to Art. 26. would not have it believed to be the Peoples duty, who know the Offences of Bad Ministers, to accuse them.

All that contrary to Art. 27. are against Infant Baptism, as agreeable to Christs Institution.

All that contrary to Art. 28. say, the Body of Christ is given and taken and eaten in the Sacrament otherwise than in a Spiritual manner by Faith.

All that say, that in some wise the wicked are Partakers of Christ in the Sacra­ment, contrary to Art. 29.

All that contrary to Art. 30. say, There is other satisfaction for Sin besides Christs Blood.

All that say, that Men justly Excommunicate may be reconciled and received by the multitude without open penance (which is ordinary) contrary to Art. 33.

All that contrary to Art. 34. think that a General Council may ordain such Traditions or Ceremonies as shall in all places be one or the like: and that every Particular or National Church may not abolish those Ceremonies or Rites which the General Council or Colledge ordained.

Many things in the Book of Homilies [especially against peril of Idolatry] are blamed by many Conformists, contrary to Art. 35.

All that contrary to Art. 36. say, that the Book of Ordination wants some things necessary.

All that contrary to Art. 37. think that Pope or foreign Bishops have any Jurisdiction by right in this Land: And all that (by mistake) say, the King hath not chief Power in all his Dominions, meaning in France, of which he professeth to be King, and we so call him even in our Prayers to God.

All that say, contrary to Art. 38. that it is not their Duty liberally to give Alms, according to their ability.

All that contrary to Art. 39 think men in conforming may swear upon trust of their Superiours words, without judgment, and true understanding of Justice and Truth.

A [...]l these are already ipso facto Excommunicated by this one Canon, and if they elsewhere worship God, are called Separatists and Schismaticks, in dan­ger of Damnation, as Adulterers and Murtherers are: And how grea [...] a number are these?

10. All are ipso facto Excommunicate by the sixth Canon, who affirm, that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, by Law established, are super­stitious, or such as (now commanded) men who are zealously and godly affected, may not with a good Conscience APPROVE, use and subscribe as occasion requireth. That is, all that thus mistake kneeling at the Sacrament, on the reasons afore­named, to be against the second Commandment, or that judge so of the Surplice, or that think the Gross, as described by the Canon and Liturgy, hath all the Essentials of a humane unlawful Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace. And all that are against the Rites of Godfathers that never owned the [Page 45] Child as theirs, to be the only Sponsors in its Name, and to Vow its Christian Education (when I never knew one living that so much as made the Parents believe that he intended it:) And all that think the words of the Liturgy (making Imposition of hands an assuring sign of Gods Gracious acceptance) make Confirmation a humane unlawful Sacrament, and say so. All these are cut off.

11. By Canon seventh all are ipso facto excommunicate that affirm, that the Government of the Church of England, under his Majesty, by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, and THE REST THAT BEAR OFFICE in the same, is repugnant to Gods word; that is, all Bishops, Ministers, Noble­men, Gentlemen or People, that say that it is against Gods word for Lay Civilians or Chancellours to govern by the Church Keyes, excommunicate or absolve: And all that think it unlawful for Surrogates that are not Bi­shops but Presbyters, either as a Cryer pro forma to pronounce all excommu­nicate or absolved who are so decreed by the Lay Chancellor, or else for them (or a Priest-Chancellour) to govern a Diocess by the Keyes of Excommu­nication and Absolution being no Bishops; and all that think it sinful for Archdeacons, Commissaries, Officials, &c. who are no Bishops, to exercise the same Government by the Keyes over so many Pastors or Churches, or for a Bishop. to do his Office by others that are no Bishops, any more than a Priest by those that are no Priests; or for a Diocesan with his Lay Court, to Govern many score or hundred Churches under him, without any subordi­nate Bishop in those Churches, that is, to set up the Name and shew, and make Christs Discipline impossible: Or for Lay Chancellors or Surrogates to publish Excommunications in the Bishops Name, which he never knew of, nor tryed the cause: Or for such Chancellours to oblige all Parish Mi­nisters to publish all their Excommunications which are agreeable to these Canons. What quality and number they are of that call any of this sinful, I pretend not to know: But they are all now excommunicate men.

12. The eight Canon ipso facto excommunicateth all that affirm that the form and manner of making and consecrating Bishops, Priests and Deacons hath any thing, repugnant to Gods Word, &c:] That is, all those that hold Bishops and Presbyters to be the same Order (contrary to the words of that Book.) Which yet even the Church of England while Papists declared in King Aelfriks Canons (see Spelman:) And all such as Thorndike, who say the People and Clergy should choose their Bishops; or that say the Peoples consent is ne­cessary to the Pastoral Relation to them, and that the old Canons for this are in force.

13. The ninth Canon ipso facto excommunicateth the Separatists.

14. The tenth Canon excommunicateth all that affirm [that Ministers that refuse to subscribe to the Liturgy, &c. and their Adherents may truely take to them­selves the Name of another Church, not established, by Law and dare publish that this their pretended Church hath long groaned under the burden of imposed grievan­ces, by the Church of England, and the Orders and Constitutions therein by Law [Page 46] established.] (Ipso facto is not here.) This reacheth to all that confine not Gods Church in England to the Party that subscribe and their Adherents: If any say, that if such as Blondel, Rivet, Amesius, or any other the most Learn­ed, holy, peaceable men that dare not subscribe as aforesaid, should with any Christians worship God together, and that these are a true Church (though he judge them faulty) and that these Canons are grievances, such are to be excommunicated: (Though it be gross Schism in others to confine not one­ly the Purity but the Verity of a Church to their own Party:) For such to feel and groan loud here is Excommunication.

15. The eleventh Canon much to the same purpose requireth the Excom­munication of all that affirm that any Subjects in England may rightly chal­lenge the Name of true and lawful Churches besides those allowed by Law, though the King should License them.

16. The twelfth Canon ipso facto excommunicateth all, that make Rules and Orders in Causes Ecclesiastical without the Kings Authority, and submit to them, e. g. All that without the Kings authority agree to turn the Table Altar­wise, to require People to kneel at the Rails, or to bow toward the Al­ter or East, or to set up Organs, &c. All these are now excommunicate by an Authority above the Bishops, which no Bishop or Priest can dispense with (but only forbear to publish and execute it, but not nullifie it) no nor absolve any that publickly repent not of it as a wicked Errour.

16. By Canon fourteenth, if any Minister shall diminish any part of the Or­ders, Rites, Ceremonies, Prayers, &c. inregard of Preaching or ANY OTHER RESPECT, or shall adde any thing in matter or form, (e. g. If he let the Parent express the dedication of his Child to God, or lay any charge on any Parent) he breaketh the Church Law, and so far separateth from it.

17. By Canon fifteenth when twenty or thirty thousand are commanded to come to a Church that cannot receive six thousand, and the Alleys and Pewes are wedg'd so that they cannot all kneel, yet all that kneel not at the Prayers, and all that say not audibly the Confession, Lords Prayer, Creed and Responses, disobey the Laws of the Church, and so far separate from it.

18. When twenty thousand Persons are commanded to come in more than can, if ten thousand of them (or any number) should come to the Church-yard or Porch, to shew that they are not presentable, but would get in if they could, the nineteenth Canon commands to drive them away.

19. The Liturgy and Canon 22. &c. bind all under the penalty of the Law to receive the Sacrament thrice every year: If a secret Infidel, Sadducee, Hobbist, Socinian, or any Heretick say, I am not able to change my Judgment, which is inconsistent with the Sacrament, or if one whose Consci­ence tells him of the guilt of Adultery, and that he is not resolved to confess and forsake it yet; or one that by Melancholy causelessly feareth unwor­thy receiving to damnation; I say, if any of these will avoid the charge of [Page 47] Schism, they must run upon worse, till grace recover them, which is not at their command. And yet all notorious Offenders are prohibited it Ca­non 26. and particularly the Perjured: And if the tenth part so many be perjured in England in City and Countrey, as many fear, it's a very great number that are uncapable of Comm-union with the Church.

20. By Canon twenty seventh on pain of Suspension no Minister must wit­tingly administer the Communion to any but such as Kneel, or to any that refuse to be present at publick Prayers, &c. So that all that Kneel not in receiving are rejected, and if they worship God elsewhere, must be taken for Schismaticks, as dan­gerous as adulterers or murderers.

21. The twenty eighth Canon forbids admitting strangers to Communion, and commands sending them home to their Parish Churches: It's disobedi­ence to violate this.

22. The twenty ninth Canon forbids urging Parents to be Present when their Chil­dren are baptized, and admitting them to Answer as Godfathers for their own Chil­dren; and any Godfather to make any other Answer or speech than the prescribed.

23. The thirtieth Canon describeth the Cross as a Sacrament, as seem­eth to us.

34. By the thirty sixth Canon no man must be a Minister that subscribeth not that the Book of Common Prayer and Ordination contains nothing in it contrary to the Word of God, and that he himself will use no other form in publick, Prayer and administration of the Sacraments: By which all that refuse this, or that use the forms made and imposed by the Bishops on occasions of publick Fasts and Thanksgivings, seem all to be under disobedience to the Church.

35. By Canon fourty ninth no Person not Licensed as a Preacher, may in his Cure or elsewhere, expound any Scripture, or Matter or Doctrine, but onely shall study to read plainly the Homilies: So that all Ministers before Licence to preach, all School-masters, all Parents, or Masters, that do expound to their Schollars, Children or Servants, the meaning of Baptism, or of any Article of the Creed, any Petition of the Lords Prayer, any one of the Ten Commandments (to fit them for Confirmation, or Salvation) other­wise than by plain reading the Homilies or Church Catechism, doth dis­obey the Law of the Church: And so do all Tutors in the Universities that expound any Scripture, matter or Doctrine to their Pupils, before they are examined or approved by the Bishop; or any Judge on the Bench or Ju­stice that presumeth to do it to the hearers, or any Friend or Neighbour in discourse: For it is [No Person whatsoever not examined and approved by the Bishop of the Diocess.] How few in England separate not from the Church as far as this disobedience amounts to? If by [no Persons] be meant only [no Ministers] it's hard enough, that Ministers may not be allowed out of the Church what Lay-men are allowed.

36. All those that deny not the validity of Baptism or the Lords Supper when they are done by an unpreaching Minister, but yet think that a man [Page 48] utterly unable to Teach otherwise than by Reading, may not lawfully be encouraged in so high a function, (any more than a man in Physick or School-teaching that hath not necessary skill, or is utterly illiterate,) and thinks it a sin to consent to take such an Ignorant fellow for the Pastor of his Soul if he can have better; If this man, I say, go to the next Parish Church for Sacraments, he is to be suspended first and next excommunicate: Special­ly if he should judge that Ignorant Reader, no true Minister for want of necessary capacity.

37. Surplices, Hoods and Tippets are made the matter of Obedience, Ca­non fifty eighth.

38. By Canon thirty eighth no Minister must refuse or delay to Christen any Child (without exception) according to the form of the Common Prayer, that's brought to Church to him on Sundaies or Holy-daies, though the Parents be both Jewes or Heathens or Atheists or Sadducees: The Minister must be suspended that refuseth it.

39. The seventy first Canon suspendeth all Ministers that Preach in any pri­vate house (except to the sick or impotenti n time of necessity.) By which had Paul here preached publickly and from house to house, or Timothy in season and out of season as dreadfully adjured, or Christ preacht as he oft did, they must be suspended: And every Minister that preacheth to his Family. And no doubt, repeating his Sermon, is preaching the same again.

40. All Ministers must be suspended and then excommunicate, that without the Bishops Licence appoint or keep any solemn Fasts publickly or in private houses, other than by Law appointed, or be wittingly present at any: Though it were in time of Plague, or when divers of his Neighbours are sick or troubled in Consci­ence, or in preparation to a Sacrament, or on some great occasion in No­ble-mens Houses and Chappels: He is not to be trusted to fast and pray with his own Flock or Friends, or come among them, lest being excommunicate he be a damn'd Schismatick.

The same prohibition is for holding meetings for Sermons called Exercises: Which Arch-Bishop Grindall was zealous to set up, (Q. Was he then a Schismatick? or is the damning dangerous Engine made since?)

41. By Canon seventy third if any Ministers meet in any privat ehouse (as ma­ny did by consent in 1660. and 1661.) to do any thing that any way tends to impeach the Common Prayer or any part of the Government and Discipline (e. g. to Petition King or Parliament for the least Reformation of it) he is excom­municate ipso facto.

42. Canon seventy fourth brings all Ministers apparel under Church Laws, for the Shape.

43. Canon seventy sixth Excommunicateth all that voluntarily relinquish their Ministry, and use themselves as a Lay-men. And man having free will, that is done voluntarily, which is done in Obedience to mens command: And yet we are ruined in the World, if we will not leave our Ministry, at their Command.

[Page 49] 44. It's tedious to go over all the rest: I end at the end of them. Canon 139. excommunicateth all them that affirm that the Synod is not the true Church of England by Representation: that is, 1. All that take it for the Church real and not Representative, lest they make the diffused Church (Peo­ple and all) to be Chief Church-governours, while Convocations govern but as their Representatives. 2. All that say, that it is only the Bishops and not the Presbyters in Convocation that are the Governing Canon-making Church. 3. All that say that the Clergy represent not King, Nobles, par­liaments, Laiety, and that these are true parts of the Church of England. All these are ipso facto excommunicate.

45. The 140. Canon Excommunicateth them that deny the Canons ob­ligation of absent Dissenters, which yet even many Papists deny of Coun­cils Canons.

46. The last Canon Excommunicateth all that contemn these Canons, as taking them to be the work of a Company of Persons that conspired against Religious Godly men. All this huge Catalogue are here excommunicate.

47. If any part of all this be Schism, Mr. Dodwell ad this man seem to teach Separation from the Church of England: Or if the late silencing, hunting and ruining of two thousand Ministers were Schism, and as bad as Bi­shop Taylor in Duct. Dubit. Mr. Hales of Eaton, Chillingworth, &c. say of the like, then these men make all the Church of England to be in as dam­nable a State as Adulterers and Murderers. Yea they make all damnable Schismaticks that hold Communion with the Church of England; for that is their Sentence on them that communicate with Schismaticks; viz. that they are guilty of their Schism.

48. They unchurch and damn the Churches of Corinth, Galatia, Laodicea, Ephesus, Smyrna, &c. in the Apostles dayes: For the Scripture tells us of many guilty of Schism in all these, and yet the rest communicated with them; for the Scripture speaks more of Schism in a Chruch, than of Schism or Separation from a Church, Rom. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 1. 10. & 3. 3. & 11. 18. Mat. 12, 25. Luke 12. 52, 53. I Cor. 12. 25. Jam. 3. 15, 16. And yet no one was commanded to separate from those Churches; no not from those that had Heresies among them, such as denyed the Resurrection, and taught Forni­cation, and eating things offered to Idols, that were drunk at the Sacrament or Love-Feasts, nor those that had Jewish Schismaticks, who talkt like ours, Act. 15. Except ye be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, ye cannot be saved. The Churches were not all unchurcht and damn'd that communicated with such. Yea Peter was guilty of encouraging them in Schism, that would not eat with the Christian Gentiles, but he was not unchristened by this.

49. They separate from or unchurch almost all the Ancient Churches in the dayes of the most famous Emperours and Councils. For I have ma­nifested past doubt that they almost all did Hereticat [...] or separate from one another. It was Schism either in Victor to Excommunicate the Asi­an [Page 50] Bishops, or in them to deserve it and be excommunicate. The owning or disowning several Councils, specially that of Calcedon and that at Const­de tribus Capitulis, &c. was the Schism of almost all the Imperial Church­es; one part condemning the other. And if either were in the Right, it salves not the Case with them: For most of the same men that went that way call'd the Right in one Princes Reign, went contrary in the next, and so condemned each other round; especially about Images adoration.

50. Hereby they cut off that Succession of that sort of Ordination, which they say must be uninterrupted, while it came down from Churches excom­municated by one another, or make the Proof of it impossible.

51. They separate from all the Greek Church at this day, as guilty of Schism, both in their Succession from Schismaticall Bishops, at Constant. Alexand. Antioch, Jerusalem, &c. and in their excommunicating not only the Church of Rome for a wrong cause (the filioque, but other Churches, and for divers Acts of Schism.

52. They must by their Principles Separate from the Abassines, Aegyptians, Syrians, and all the Eastern and Southern Churches that are called Jacobites, and Nestorians: For Councils and other Churches condemn them: And they condemn the Councils of Ephesus, and Calcedon, and all since: And they must separate from and condemn the Churches of Armenia, Georgia, Cir­cassia, &c. because they separate from others, and are separated from.

53. Their Principles utterly unchurch the Church of Rome, 1. Especial­ly because it is guilty of the greatest Schism on earth, by setting up a false Church form and head: 2. And because they Schismatically con­demn and Unchurch three parts of the Church on earth, even all save their Sect: 3. And for their many other Schismatical Doctrines and Practices: 4. And as being condemned by the Greek Protestants and most Churches, and separated from by the Church of England which they own.

54. They separate in Principles from all or near all General Councils (save the first) as having separated from other Councils and condemned them, and being again condemned by them.

55. Some of them condemn and separate from all the Protestant Churches that have Bishops, in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Transylvania, &c. because they had not their Ordination Successively from Bishops but Presbyters at the Re­formation: And because they have been guilty of Schism against others.

56. The Principles of Mr. Dodwel and his Associates condemn the Church of England, as Schismatical, 1. Those that claim Succession from Rome, whose own Succession hath been oft and long interrupted, by incapacities and Schisms. 2. For holding Communion with those Protestant Churches which these men call Schismaticks.

57. They condemn and separate from all the Churches called Presbyte­rian in France, Holland, Geneva, Scotland formerly, and those in Helvetia that have no Bishops; Tho some would threat kindness on them by saying [Page 51] that they would have them and cannot? And why cannot they?

58. Their Principles make the Bishop of Oxford, Bristol, &c. Schisma­ticks: For their Dioceses are Churches taken out of Churches, being late­ly parts of other Dioceses.

59. And they condemn all the Parish Churches in England as Churches distinct from Cathedrals: For they are all Churches gathered out of Church­es: At first the Cathedrals were the only single Churches: Next Monaste­ries were gathered; and next our Parish Churches. And the Parish Church of Covent-garden, is a Church taken out of a Church.

60. Their Principles damn St. Martin that separated to the death from all the Bishops Synods and them that were near him (save one Man) be­cause they perswaded Maximus to use the Sword against Priscillian Gnosticks, and brought men of strict Religion under Suspicion of Priscillianism: And sure the ruined persecuted Protestants here, are more Orthodox than the Priscillians. And they damn Gildas that told the English Clergy, that he was not eximius Christianus that would call them Ministers; (Do they not disgrace the many Churches dedicated to the Memory of St. Martin, if he be a damned man?) I doubt they damn Paul and Barnabas for local angry separating from each other: Whatever they do by Peter and Barnabas for the Separation blamed Gal. 2.

61. If all are Schismaticks that here conform not, all those called Con­formists are such, that conform to the words in a false sence.

62. They separate from all that obey the twentieth Canon of the Nicene Council: And from all that obey the Councils that forbid communicating with a Fornicating Priest: And from all that obey the Councils which nul­lifie the Episcopacy of such as are obtruded by Magistrates, or not consent­ed to by the Clergy and people. And many more such.

Abundance more instances of their Separation, and Damnation, I might adde: In a word, I think then Principles are, as I first said, for damning and separating from all men living, for all men living are guilty of some sort and degree of Schism, that is, of Errours, Principles or Practices in which they culpably Violate that Union and Concord that should be among Christians and Churches: Every defect of Christian Love, and every sinful Errour, is some degree of such a violation. All Christians differ in as great matters as things indifferent: And no man living knoweth all things Indif­ferent to be such: And these men distinguish not of Schism, nor will take notice of the necessary distinctions given (in the third Part of the Treatise of Church Concord,) And solutio cont [...] causeth pain: nor do they at all make us understand what sort of Separation it is that they fasten on, but talk of Separation in general, as aforesaid.

LXXXVII. They seeme to be themselves deceived by the Papists in expo­sition of Cyprians, words de Vnit. Eccles. Vnus est Episcopatus, &c. But they themselves seem to separate from Cyprian as a Schismatick, and consequent­ly [Page 52] from all the Church that hath profest Communion with him, and with all the Councils and Churches that joyned with him: For Cypri­an and his Council erred by going too far from the Schism and Heresie of others, nullifying all their Baptisms, Ordinations and Communions: And for this errour they declared against the Judgment of the Bishop of Rome and other Churches; and they were for it condemned as Schismaticks by the said Bishop: And here is a far wider Separation than we can be charged with. 2. And Cyprians words came from the Mind that was possest with these opinions, and are expressive of his Inclination. 3. Yet they are true and good, understood as he himself oft expounds them; the Bishop of Oxford citeth some instances, many more are obvious, in which he opposeth the Bishop of Rome, saying, that none of them pretendeth to be a Bishop of Bishops; and limiting every man to his own Province, and saying that they were to give account to none but God, with much the like.

But in what sence is Episcopacie one? 1. Undoubtedly not as numerically in the personal Subjectum Relationis: One Bishop is not another; if you should say Paternity is One, none believe that one mans Relation of Paternity is ano­thers. The Relation is an accident of its own Subject, as well as Quanti­ty, Quality, &c. 2. Nor doth any man believe that many Bishops go to make up one Bishop in Naturals. 3. Nor did ever Cyprian hold or say that all Bishops go to make up one Politick Governing Aristocracie, as ma­ny go to make one Senate or Parliament, that hath a power of Legislation and judgment by Vote as one Persona politica. He never owned such a hu­mane Soveraignty.

But Episcopatus unus est, I. In specie, all Bishops have one Office; 2. Ob­jective: As the Catholick Church is one, whose welfare all Bishops ought to seek: 3. And so finaliter as to the remote End; and are bound to en­deavour Concord. 4. And as effects, all are from one efficient institutor. As it may be said that all official Magistracy in England is one: 1. As from one King or summa potestas: 2. As described by one Law, and as Justices of one Species: 3. As all their Cities and Counties and Hundreds are but part of one Kingdom, whose welfare all are for: 4. And as they are all bound to keep as much common Concord as they can; if any mean more, they should ten us what; If any mean that all Bishops make one numerical Uni­versal Government, they are heinous Schismaticks, and the kingdom is Sworn agaisst their Judgment: And these Men damn them in damning Schismaticks.

The truth is, Cyprian de Unitate, Ecclesiae (leaving out the Papists additi­ons) is a good Book and worthy, to be read of all; and take Cyprian's Description of the Epispcopacy of the Church which we must unite with, and the nature of that Union, and we would rejoyce in such. But if Cyprian had lived to see [...] Arians or Donatists the greater number; or any Sect after [...] themselves the Church because that Princes set them up, and had seen them depo [...]e Chrysostome and such other, doubtless he would never have [Page 53] pleaded the Unity of Episcopacy for this, but have judged as he did in the Case of Martial and Basilides; nor did he ever plead for an universal hu­mane Soveraignty.

LXXXVIII. If we are damned Schismaticks, I can imagine no pretended manner of Separation in which our Schism consists, but first, either Local as such. 2. Or Mental, as such. 3. Or Local, caused by Mental.

If Local, as such be it: All Christians are Schismaticks, for being lo­cally separated from others, and absent from all Churches; and places save one.

If Mental Separation be it, either all Mental Division is such, or but some only; if all, then all mortal men are Schismaticks, as differing in a multi­tude of things from others; If it be not all, what is it? is it all difference in the Essentials of Christianity? we grant it; and we are charg'd with no such thing. Is it all difference in the Integrals or Accidents? so do all differ that are not perfect. Is it all want of Love, or all Vncharitableness to one another? all on earth have some degree of it; and those are likest to have most, that do as the Bishops did against the Priscillianists, bring godly peo­ple under reproach, on pretence of opposing Heresie; or that seek the Si­lencing, Imprisonment, Banishment or Ruine of men as faithful as them­selves: For our parts, we profess it our great Duty, to love all men as men, all Christians as Christians, all godly men as godly, all Magistrates as Magistrates, &c. Is it for our separating in mind from any Principles in specie necessary to Communion in the Church Universal, or single Church­es? let it be opened what those Principles be: We own all Christianity, and all Ministry of Gods Institution, and all his Church Ordinances: We own Bishops over their Flocks, let them be never so large, so they be capable of the Work and End, and alter not the true species; and we submit to any that shall by the Word admonish Pastors of many Churches of their Duty, or Sin, or seek their good. Nor do we refuse Obedience to any humane Officers set up by Princes, to do nothing against Christs Laws, not nothing but what is in Princes power in the Accidents circa Sacra.

Is it because we disown any Numerical Rulers? we own the King and his Magistrates, we own all that we can understand to be true Pastors; and if we are in doubt of their Calling, we resist them not, unless obeying Christ before them be resistance: But our Accusers loudly profess, that Usurpers are not to be owned; and if they go on the ground, that he hath right that the Prince is for, we would know, whether that hold in Turky, in Italy, Spain, France, or only in England, or where? If it be where Princes are Or­thodox, do they make all the People Judges of their Princes Orthodoxness? And we would know, whether EVERY BISHOPS and PRIESTS right, as a true Minister, called of God, and set over us, be necessary to Salvation, to be belie­ved or known by all the People? if it the, wo to us, that ever such men were set over us, whose right we cannot know: What abundance of things go to [Page 54] make a Bishops or Priests right known! 1. That he hath capable sufficiency. 2. That he is a just Bishop, that's chosen by the King, the Dean and Chapter obedi­ently consenting, & that the Clergy's and Peoples consent is unnecessary. 3.That the Diocesan species (over multitudes of Churches without any subordinate Bishop) is of Christ, or lawful. 4. That their work, according to the Ca­non, is lawful. 5. That all our Patrons have right to chuse Pastors for all the People. 6. That they are true Pastors over them that consent not. 7. That if they prove worse far than Martial and Basilides, and be owned by the Bi­shops as they were, the people may not forsake them (plebs obsequens divinis praeceptis,) which saith Cyprian have most power to chuse or refuse.

Is every Christian bound on pain of Damnation to know all these, and then to examine and judge Bishops and Priests accordingly? or if they mistake one or more mens Commission, do they therefore separate from the Catho­lick Church? If so, what a case was the East in by the difference between Chrysostome and his Competitors? Photius and Ignatius and hundreds others? and France, about the Archbishops ofRhemes, when he was put out that depo­sed Ludovicus 4. and when an Infant was put in, and oft besides?

What if the Alexandrians, when Athanasius was banisned by, Constantine himself, were half for him, and half against him? Or Basil at Caesarea was put down, and hundreds more, or when Theodosius first and second and Mar­tian, and Valentinian, and Zeno, and Anastasius and abundance more, set up and pull'd down, and set up again against each other? What, I say, if the People now mistooke who had the best Title? Is this separating from the Catholick Church? When the Interim cast out hundreds in Germany; When Ludovicus cast out Multitudes in the Palatinate, and half the People stuck to the ejected, persecuted Pastor, and the rest to the Magistrates choice, which of them separated from the Universal Church? Is every Priest the Vniversal Church, or an essential part of it? then it dyeth when he dyeth, and Apostatizeth when he doth. How many Ages in above 23 Duplicates or Schisms, was the World uncertain which was the true Pope? suppose, e. g. Arthur Jackson, Edmund Calamy, and many such were placed in their Incumbency, by the Bishops, Patrons and Parish consent, accord­ing to the Law of Christ and the Land, and by a mew Act of Uniformity they be all turned out, the Flock not consenting, nor any Bishop accusing, trying or deposing them (save in Legislation,) and some of the Parish think this dissolveth not their Relation to him, and they cleave to him as before, without any change save of Place and Tythes, and others for­sake such a one, and follow the Magistrates choice, may not both these be still of the Catholick Church? If not, I know where the old Canons laid the charge and danger. It's wonderful selfishness in those men, that if they can but get into the Seat, take it for granted, that all must own their right on pain of Damnation.

And what if in any such Land, the Prince change his mind, or the next [Page 55] differ, and put down all these same men, and set up such as differ from them more than we do, is it damning Schism for any of their People still to adhere to them?

LXXXIX. Do you find that Mr. Dodwel, Dr. Saywel, Dr. Sherlock, or any of these men, do, in Pulpit and Press, ingenuously tell the People the truth of the Case, when they liken men as Schismaticks to Murderers for danger? Did you ever hear them say, [The Canon, which is the Churches Voice and Law, doth Excommunicate you all that do own your Opinions against Conformity, and commandeth us not to admit you to the Sacrament, and yet to pro­nounce your Excommunication for not taking it: We confess they have been holy and Learned Men that have thought many things imposed unlawful; and therefore we wonder not if it be not in your power to change your judgment, no more than to be perfect in knowledge; and we confess if you are unjustly Excommunicated, or any of the things made necessary to Communion be against Gods Word, then it is the Church that guilty of Schism, but because this is not so, we accuse you of Schism, even of separating from the Vniversal Church, and from Salvation.

XC. I do admire, that never any one of them would be prevail'd with to prove the Canons Excommunications ipso facto lawful, when even Pa­pists have scorn'd all such doings; and when the learnedst of all their own admired men, that were for comprimising matters with Rome, even Mar. Ant. de Dom. Spalatensis de Rep. Eccl. hath so confidently, copiously and stre­nuously damn'd it: Christ would have none Excommunicate, whatever the Crime be, without Impenitency after due admonition for Repentance, but these Canons ipso facto Condemn and Excommunicate Godly men, without ever admonishing them, or calling them to repent, or hearing or seeing them: Nothing is necessary but the proof of the fact, and then the Law is instead of a Judge; and to oblige the People to avoid them, it must be published.

If this and all things named in the first Plea for Peace, be sinless, studying and disputing is not the way to know what is sinful.

XCI. But, saith the Resolver, [Christ hath but one Body, and to be a Member of two separate and Opposite Churches, is to be contrary to ourselves.]

Ans. But I had hoped your Catechized Boyes had known, 1. That one Body hath many parts. 2. That particular Churches are parts of this Bo­dy, as Corporations are of the Kingdom. 3. That all the parts are imper­fect, and made up of none but sinners. 4. That every good man is partly bad, and so contrary to himself 5. That Churches may be so far separate as to be distinct, and yet not so far as to be contrary or opposite. 6. That they may be opposite in Accidents and Integrals, that are one in specie in Essen­tials. 7. That a man may own several Churches, and Communicate with them for that which they agree in, and yet not own both, (or either per­haps) [Page 56] in that which they are opposite in. 8. That there being somewhat op­posite in all men and Churches on Earth, you damn your selves for Communi­cating with them. 9. That a man may have more Communion with the Church which he Locally separateth from, even for sin, than with that which he is present with.

E. g. A Congregation or Nation of men of eminent Sanctity and Order, sound Doctrine and Worship, may, by humane frailty take some one false­hood or uncertain thing to be necessary to Ministry or Communion (as they say some Churches unhappily of late reject all that own not the Antiquity of the Hebrew Points) I cannot have local Communion with that Church, for they will not receive me, unless I subscribe either a falshood, (or that which I judge false;) but yet I highly honour and love them, and have mental Catholick Communion with them, when perhaps necessity may make me Lo­cally join with a Church of far worse men and Order, that will impose no sin on me. 10. And I would advise these men, did they not despise my advice, for the Church of Englands sake, and their own, to retract their Errours, and not lay such a Snare before the People. Should you say in the Pulpit, [If the Church be guilty of any Schism by her Impositions, (oft­named) Excommunications and silencing of Christs Ministers, and afflicting good people without just Cause, then I, and all that communicate with it and me, com­municate in the guilt of Schism, and are all in as much danger of Damnation by it as Adulterers and Murderers] tell not your hearers this, for if you do, some will think you bid them separate or be damned, and only make a doubt whe­ther most men have Noses or not.

XCI1. Qu. But is not the Inference true?

Ans. No, it's false: There are twenty cases in which 1. One may be guilty of Schism and not be a Schismatick, as denominated from what pre­dominateth: 2. And as many in which he is not at all guilty that commu­nicateth with the guilty.

And let the world (that is sober and awake) judge now whether these men or we be the greater Schismaticks, and which more condemneth or se­parateth from the Church of England. We say that all Churches have some degree of Schism, and so hath the Church of England, as it hath imperfe­ction, Errour and Sin; but that it is not therefore no Church, nor is it un­lawful to communicate with it; All Christians and Churches must not be separated from that are guilty of some degree of Schism.

If any will turn these Serious matters into Jest, and say, as Dr. Say­well, that they will receive Greeks, Lutherans, &c. that come to their Com­munion, his Serious Readers will tell him, that so will most Sects receive [Page] those that approve of their Communion and come to them: Joyning with you signifyeth that they are of your way therein; But will you go to their Churches and Communicate with them? You will receive the damned Schis­maticks if they come to you, when yet you make it damnable to joyn in their meetings with them. This quibbling beseems not grave men in great matters.

To conclude, Reader, God having allowed more Legislative Power to men in things Secular than in Religion, I may say this case is like ours in debate.

I. Some Judges and Lawyers say, that the Oath of Allegiance makes a Subject in this Kingdom; that the Renouncing or Violating it by Treason, or Rebellion, or deserting the Kingdom, overthrows the Relation. But that other particular faults or quarrels against Neighbours, Justices, Judges, yea the King himself, are punishable according to the Laws, but are not all Rebellion, nor dissolve Subjection, nor oblige the Subjects to renounce ci­vil converse with each other; though some contempt and obstinacy may outlaw them. Such is our Judgment of Church Relation and Communi­on, which 1 need not rehearse.

II. Suppose a sect of Lawyers and Judges arise, that say, no men are the Kings Subjects, but are Rebels, that break any of his Laws, that Shoot not in long Bows, that Bury not their dead in Woollen, that swear pro­phanely, that eat flesh in Lent unlicensed, that have any unjust Law-Suit, that wrong any Neighbour, that oppress any Poor man, all these are Re­bels; yea all that plead opposite Causes at the Bar, and all Judges that judge contrary to one another, and all that misunderstand any point of Law and Practice accordingly, and all that besides the Oath of Allegiance do constitute Marriages, Families, Schools, Societyes by any other Cove­nants of their own, and all that are of different Cities and Companies, parts of the Kingdom, or all whose Justices, Mayors, Sheriffs, &c. differ from one another in any point of Law and practice: Or all that obey not every Constable and Justice; or that go to divers Justices in the same Precincts, or that go from one Justice to another to avoid unrighteous Judgment, or that go from the Physician of the Place for Health, and from the Schoolma­ster of the Town for greater edification, or that Travel beyond Sea for Knowledge, yea all that understand not every word in the Law, that may con­cern them: If any say, none of these are the Kings Subjects, but Rebels, oppo­site to him and one another, and deserve to be all hang'd as Murderers, and so are all that have Communion with them; Quaere, 1. Whether these men are for the Unity of England? 2. And are Friends to the King that deprive him of all his Subjects; as much as those that would have him have no Subjects, that be not of the same Age, Stature, Complexion and Wit. 3. And whether they are Friends to Mankind? 4. And whether they. [Page] condemn not themselves if they live not as Anchorets, out of hu­mane Society. 5. And whether that Nation be not by infatuation pre­pared for Destruction that would believe them, and would hate, scorn and ruine them that are of the first mentioned opinion, according to the saying, Quos perdere vult Jupiter, hos dementat.

As to the more dangerous Doctrine now threatning this Land, that would subject England to a Foreign Jurisdiction, on pretence of a Necessity of either an Universal Church Monarch, or Church-Parlia­ment Senate or Council, or of all the Church on Earth represented by Patriarchs or Metropolitans, or that plead for Subjection to them, under the Name of Communion, they require a distinct Answer. But Dr. Is. Barrow, and Mr. Beverley's Catholick Catechism, have effectu­ally done it.

FINIS.
THE SECOND PART AGAI …

THE SECOND PART AGAINST SCHISM: BEING ANIMADVERSIONS On a Book famed to be Mr. Raphson's.

LONDON: Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappel. 1684.

TO THE READER.

Reader,

WHEN I had Written the first of these Discourses, I came after to know more of the Authors Judg­ment, by another Book against me; which I also Answered, but it lyeth by unprinted. I also wrote, for the use of some private Friends, my Reasons for Communion with those Parish­Churches who have Capable Ministers, which many Importuned me to Print; but that also is yet un­done: But a Book famed to be Mr. Raphsons coming out, I thought it my duty to Animadvert on that, and to bear my Testimony against Schism on both Extreams, left I be guilty of Partiality, and of the Sin and suffering of many that may be deceived by them. If these Two be not over­much discouraged, the other Two against both the Extreams may come hereafter.

THE SECOND PART AGAINST SCHISM, &c. The Reasons of Mr. Raphson, and such others, against going to the Parish-Churches, consi­dered.

THE Matter of his Book, as against Persecution, is very considerable; the Stile is very close and pun­gent: His Doctrine against Communion with the Churches that use the Liturgy, is that which I exa­mine.

The sum of it is, 1. That kneeling at the recep­tion of the Sacrament, and the use of the Liturgy, are unlawful.

2. That they are false Worship, and Idolatry.

3. That the places where they are used, are Idol-Temples.

4 That to joyn there in them, is to partake in Idolatry.

5. The proof of all this is by this Argument; ‘Worship not in­stitute, is not lawful; but kneeling in receipt of Bread and Wine, is Worship not instituted by Christ: therefore not lawful; therefore [Page 2] not pleasing, p. 160, 161. To which, by way of Motive, he addeth, p. 275. How many once in the separation, are returned back to the Vomit they once cast up, and wallow in the mire of a worldly worship? &c. Is compliance in Idol-Temples, going to Dan and Bethel, bowing to Baal, sitting, or drinking with the superstitious inacts of religious adoration, a witness for, or against defection? Are you turned as silly sheep (that once were called shepherds), to bleat after other shepherds, that Christ never sent, nor bid you go after them, &c. Looks it not like a declining of the Camp of Christ, the work of the Gospel, and setting your face towards Babel, &c.? Is scandal of no weight with you, &c.? How dare you venture your souls to sit under Means that he says shall not profit you; and which is worse, lies under his curse? Jer. 23. 32. Mal. 1. 14. with more such.’ Either this Writer knoweth how ill he dealeth with his Reader, or not: If he do, it's a double fault: if not (which I think), it's a doleful case, that every well­meaning man, that can but be confident in his ignorance and error, and father it on God, should become such a snare to them that cannot see through his Pretences, and should himself suffer for sinning, and call it the Cause of God, and condemn all that sin not as confidently as he; and hereby harden his afflicters, by shew­ing them his weakness, and impenitently justifying his sin.

If he would not have ensnared his Reader, he should first have opened the meaning of the words of his Question, that they might know how much of the Dispute is material, and how much only about words. 2. And then he should have so proved his assertion and accusation, as might satisfie a good Conscience in a matter wherein God, the Church, and Souls, are so much concerned; and not have poured out Accusations by way of Motives, upon unproved and false suppositions.

I find but one Argument, which I shall now answer plainly:

His Major is, [Worship not instituted, is not lawful] Ans. 1. The word [Worship] in general, signifieth, 1. Any thing done in honour to another; and so all our obedience to God is Worship: It is to his glory that we must do all. I suppose that this he meaneth not. 2. Any immediate act or expression of the honour and reverence of the heart. If this be not it that he meaneth by Worship, I know not what he meaneth.

[Page 3] This Worship, as within, is the secret act of the soul; as exprest, it is the act of the body.

Of such Worship there are two sorts: One sort is made necessa­ry, statedly, by God's commanding it in particular. To this no man must add the like, or from it diminish any thing so com­manded, either pretending God's authority, or his own. The other sort is but the subordinate ordering of the former, and is but the manner of doing it. This God doth not institute in par­ticular, but only give man a general Rule, how to choose it him­self; which is, That all be done in love, and to edification, decently and in order.

Either this latter sort is to be called Worship, or not: If it be, then it falls under his opposition: If not, then, 1. He must give us a definition of Worship, which shall exclude it; and so Worship must be somewhat else than the direct or immediate acting or ex­pressing honour to God: And then who knows what he meaneth by it? 2. And then when we plead for mens making none but this, he should to avoid deceit, confess that the Controversie is only of the Name (whether Modes and Circumstances of God's instituted Worship, may be called Worship), and not at all of the Thing (whether it be lawful or not): This had been like a Christian Teacher.

Now I answer, 1. to his first Proposition: 1. Worship which is neither instituted particularly, nor in the general, appointing man how to choose it, is unlawful, 2. And to invent worship without God's allowance, contrary, or of the same kind, as if he had not done his part, is unlawful. 3. But for man to choose and use such worship as is but the right ordering of God's Instituti­ons, is commanded by him, and a Duty; and therefore not un­lawful.

2. As to his Minor, or Second Proposition, I answer, Kneeling at the Sacrament, and communicating with Parish Churches that have tollerable Ministers, are not instituted of God in particular, but the Genus of them is instituted, and we commanded to choose our selves, according to God's general Rules, to the best of our understanding: and so they are our Duty, and not un­lawful.

I give the Instances of these two sorts of worship:

[Page 4] First, God hath Instituted, that our Minds Worship him, in be­lieving, and receiving all his Gospel Revelations, and trusting them; and in desiring all things Petitioned in the Lords Prayer, and in con­senting to all commanded in the Scriptures; and in Dedicating our selves to him cordially in Baptism, and renewing it in the Lords Sup­per, in commemoration of Christ's Death, till he comes. He hath Instituted the Corporal Expresions of all these; That we confess Christ in all the necessary Articles of Faith; That we ask the Petitions of the Lords Prayer; That we perform the Commands of the Decalogue towards God, and all others in the Scripture. These are the Instituted Worship which none must alter.

Secondly, The Manner and Ordering which is the Second sort (which I leave every one to call Worship, or not, when they have defined Worship) which man may, and must chuse himself, without any Particular Institution of God, contain such Acts as these.

1. Undetermined gestures of Reverence and Honour in time of Publick Worship. As to be uncovered, or put off the Hat at Prayer, or the Lord's Supper. This we do directly in honour and reverence to God, whom we there Worship; and therefore it is it self a sub­ordinate act of Worship.

So to stand, or kneel at Prayer, and not to sit. Though in Scrip­ture we read of sitting, standing, kneeling, and prostration: yet no one of these is made necessary by Institution: yet are they sub­ordinate Acts of Worship, expressing our inward Worship of God: And the reason why being uncovered, or kneeling, are now chosen, is not a particular Institution, but because the Custom of the Country hath made them the most congruous Expression of our in­ward Worship: when as Paul tells us, That then and there it was a sharne for a man to be covered: and the whole Church for many hundred years forbad all kneeling, in Adoration, on the Lord's Days. And more,

To these I add, the gesture of the Adult in Baptism, whether they shall be Baptized kneeling, to signifie Humble Reception, or not, is left to choice.

So is the Gesture in singing Psalms: If any think, that speaking to God by prayer, praise, or thanksgiving in Psalms, should in ho­nour to God be done Standing, or Kneeling, rather than Sitting, it is no addition to God's Institution. And that we commonly use sitting in Psalmody, and not when we Pray in Prose, is meerly be­cause Custom maketh one more offensive than the other.

[Page 5] The same I say of the Gesture of Preaching, which some do sitting with their Hats on, and others stand to avoid a seeming disho­nour of Gods Name and Service. Also, some holy Nonconformists I have known, that would rarely name God but with their Hats put off, or bowing their Heads; or with Hands and Eyes lift up towards Heaven. (Old Mr. Atkins at Tipton near Dudley, did thus use to shew such Reverence, when he named God, that would strike Reverence into those that saw and heard him: and hath oft Affected me more than a Sermon.) This was External Worship, not Instituted in the particulars, but in general of Reverence to God.

2. Another instance is in Vows to God, which are acts of Wor­ship: But for the Matter of them, several things may be Vowed which are not particularly commanded, but onely in the General. And for the Form or Words, I do not think that Mr. Raphson can shew me all that Vow called the Covenant, in any particular Institution; and yet I conjecture, that he taketh it not to be Idolatry, nor Unlaw­ful.

3. Another Instance is, in things devoted and offered to God The Scripture in general saith, Honour God with thy substance, and with the first Fruits of thy increase. And that Christians at first sold all, and laid at the Apostles Feet; which yet Peter tells Ananias he might have chosen not to do. And for many hundred years after, they brought their Weekly Donations for the Ministers, Sacraments, and Poor, to the Altar, and Offer'd it first to God: And so Paul would have the Corinthians give their Collections as to God, for the Saints. But no Institution told them how much they should give, but the General Rule.

4. Another Instance is, the length or degree of outward Wor­ship: If I pray two hours rather than one, it is an act of Honour, or Worship, not particularly commanded.

So whether men shall in Publick read one Chapter, or two; sing one Psalm or two, or more, is undetermined by God

5. Another is about set Days and Hours for Worship; as to keep a yearly Thanksgiving for Deliverance from the Powder Plot; the Spanish Invasion; for the Reformation, &c. So also Fasts, and what days Lectures shall be kept, and what hour: And what day and hour the Lord's Supper shall be Administred; which are Circum­stantial Acts of Worship.

6. Another Instance is in the choice of Psalms and Hymns: the use of Davids are Lawful, and so are others: but no Institution [Page 6] tyeth us to One, but leaveth us to chuse.

7. Another Instance is in the Tunes and Metre of Psalms, which we use as Subordinate Acts of Worship. It is but lately that the Churches used Metre and Melody of Tune; but Prose read with a loud Voice: yet I hope we are not Idolaters for our Metre and Melody: which I may say also of Church Musick, which David used, and we may do, where it's Edifying; but it's no Institution now. Yea, when Paul directs the Church to use Psalms, Hymns, and Spi­ritual Songs; Which is for singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord, and therefore it is Worship, which some men must indite and make.

8. Another Instance is, in the versions of the Psalms of David; where among many we may chuse which seems best.

9. Another Instance is, in the publick and private Reading of the Scriptures Translated: where every word is the work of man: God wrote it not in English, but in Hebrew and Greek; but man Translates it, some well, and some defectively; yet I hope, an En­glish Bible is not an Idol.

10. So also the dividing the Scriptures into Chapters, and Ver­ses, which are the Works of man, is no Idolatry.

11. And another Instance is, the Method and Words of Sermons and Prayers: whether a Minister shall Preach by way of Doctrine, Reason, and Use; or otherwise: and Expound by way of Paraphrase, or otherwise; what words he shall use, God hath not instituted in particular; but mens invention maketh these, some suddenly, and some beforehand.

12. Another Instance is, the use of helps, or written Words; Whether one shall use Notes in Preaching, and read them, or not? Whether the words of a Prayer shall be written, and read, or not; God hath not determined. And so Books of Catechism, Publick Confessions: Prayers, Meditations as formed; are all the works of man, and no Idolatry. And if Parents impose words of Prayer on their Children, it is no Sin; as Deut. 6. and 11 shew.

13. Another Instance is in the form of Ordination, when the Words and many Circumstances are undetermined. Imposition of Hands is a Iawfu1 Sign: and so is doing it by a Writing, or by meer Words, without that Imposition; some receive it Kneeling, some Standings; some by one Form of Words, some by another, &c. some from one Ordainer some from many, &c. And none of these de­termined by Institution.

[Page 7] 14. The same is true of Discipline; The Form of Words for Ad­monition, for Absolution, for Excommunication, for the Penitents Confession and Request, are left to Humane Wisdom, so the matter and manner be regulated by the general Law. And they that say, that God hath Instituted, that the Church shall be Governed Ne­cessarily by fixed Classes, with Appeals to National Synods, and that here a Major Vote hath Governing Power over the lesser part; yea, and that these must be made up of Two sorts of Elders, of which one sort are un-ordained, or are not Authorised to Administer the Word and Sacraments, do but add to the Word of God, if they say these National Assemblies are the Supreame Church-Power; what Law of God did ever Institute, That a Minister, or Classis, e.g. in Geneva, Breme, Scotland, is not as much subject to the Decrees of a larger Council of many Nations; and that the Synod at Dort had not as much Power as a lesser at Hague: or a Synod of many Na­tions as much as one in Scotland? But if (as by parity of Reason they must) they say, that General or large Councils are the Go­vernours of National Assemblies, as they are of Classis and Presby­teries: then they bring us under a Foreign Jurisdiction, which the Kingdom is sworn against; and I think they are Papists, but of the French sort, who make General Councils Superior Governours of the Universal Church.

And if they determine the bounds of Church-Power, by the Ma­gistrates Laws, and yet damn Erastians, they seem in ignorance to deal too hardly with themselves.

15. Another Instance is, in the Place of Publick Worship: God hath not determined where the Assembly shall meet: where the Pulpit, Font, Table, &c. shall stand. And if great and lofty Structures, called Temples, be Built, purely to shew how we honour God, and Religion: as Constantine, and others after him, did at Constantineple, Alexandria, Jerusalem, over the Grave of Christ, and all over the Empire: this Actual Expression of Honour to God, is Cultus modalis & secundarius, a subservient sort of Worship, and no Idolatry, but Lawful.

16. The same I say of Church Utensils: If for the Honour of God and Religion, the Pulpits, and Tables have Ornaments of Silk, Cups, and Trenchers, and Flaggons of Silver; the Font and Seats have some special Neatness, &c. this is left to Man's Determinati­on, without any particular Institution, and is no Idolatry.

17. And if as Judges and Lawyers have distinguishing Habits, the [Page 8] Ministers have so, (officiating, and at other times) to no worse end (or manner) than the said Utensils are put; I know no Institution that is crost by it, nor that forbids it.

18. Another Instance may be of Speaking in the Assembly, whe­ther it shall be One Minister, or Two, or Three. Whether Lay­men may not be Interlocutors by Questions, yea, and sometime Preach and Pray, &c. God hath not particularly determined, but left to Human Choice.

19. Many good Christians knowing the Lord's Day to be an In­stituted Day of Thanksgiving for the greatest Mercies, do as an Act of Honour wear their best Cloathes, and Feast themselves and the Poor accordingly that day: This is Lawful, by the General Law; but not particularly Instituted by God.

20. Professing Signs in our Covenantings with God, and Con­fessing of our Religion, are left to be chosen onely by the General Laws of Edification, and Order. When a Nation, or Church, or Person renew their Covenant with God, and their Confession of Faith, it may be done (when the Ruler demandeth their consent) either by word or by subscribing, or by lifting up the hand, or by standing up, or by bowing the Head; for these are all, or most found in Scrip­ture instances; yea, sometimes they fell by Prostration to the Ground: yea, and so they oft did in receiving a Charge or Message from God, by his Ministers.

I will add no more Instances; These are enough. If yet it be said, That none of these be acts of Worship: I again Answer, 1. Then do not by Slander call them so, and say still, that Man's inventing or using these, is using false Worship, If they be no Worship, they are no false Worship. Confess then, that it's but a bare name that you charged with Idolatry: for its onely such things as these that we would add. 2. But de nomine, If an Action done directly to ho­nour God be to be called Worship; some of these at least may be called Secondary subordinate Worship: But if you appropriate the Name to Gods stated Ordinances, these must not be called Worship; but the manner, order, circumstances, or accidents of Worship. But call them what you will, they are but what God alloweth, and the General of them he commandeth.

I need not say much to his Applicatory Words. 1. To return from Separation, to Love and Union, is as fitly called, a Returning to their Vomit, as returning from Drunkenness and Fornication, to Sobri­ety and Chastity may be so called. Repentance is casting up our Sin.

[Page 9] 2. The Names of bowing to Baal, Dan and Bethel, Babylon, Idols, &c. are as easily used by Quakers, Ranters, Familists, &c. against all God's Church and Worship: And they were worn so thread-bare by the railing Separatists (then called Brownists), against the Old Learned Godly Nonconformists, that they turned to the Speakers reproach. And I suppose he knoweth that the Scots were called as bad, and worse, by the Army that conquered them in 1650, &c.

3. That sitting or drinking with the superstitious in arts of religi­cus adoration, is a sign of defection. This would make all Back­sliders Who so sit and drink with him, and such as he, who is so superstitious, as to turn sin into duty, and duty into sin, and falsly father Laws on God: Yea, that is worse than superstitious, as is after manifested. 2. Superstition is an offering somewhat as pleasing to God, which is not pleasing to him. All Christians havesome degree of this in Matter or Manner; for we know but in part, and prophesie in part, &c. And so no Christians must joyn with others. But must they not give over all Religious Duty them­selves, seeing their own defects more defile them than other mens? 3. Christ doth not disown all imperfect worship that hath some Su­perstition: And we must receive one another as Christ receiveth us. 4. It was Superstitious persons that Paul commandeth Christi­ans to receive to Communion, Rom. 14. 5. Thus he condemn­eth the Apostles, and the Churches then, and the Scripture it self. 6. It is dreadful revolting to choose rather forbearance of all Church Communion, than to Communicate with our Parish Churches, when better cannot be had, and men are not forced to any sin themselves. And he that will communicate with none that sin in Preaching, Prayer, Sacraments, shall communicate with none 7. It is a gross Service of Satan and Popery, to fight against Love and Unity, and bring all the Publick Assemblies un­der disgrace, as unlawful, that Popery may take possession unre­sisted.

4. His words of [silly Sheep bleating after any Shepherd, &c.] are but a Net to catch silly Souls. It's the common Trap of the Papists, to put ignorant people to prove the Calling of the Ministers, or forsake them. They that preach the Gospel, and do the Office (tho faultily), and are in possession, have a Calling sufficient to justifie the. Hearers, when it may not be enough to [Page 10] justifie themselves: A better Call than the High Priests that Christ did send men to.

5. As to the Argument of Scandal; It is of dreadful weight to deter a tender Consience (as from conforming to sin, so) from his groundless Separation, and war against Unity and Love.

6. That God saith such Means shall not profit; yea, curseth it, is a slander against God and Scripture, and all the Church on Earth that's known; by perverting and misapplying the Text.

I shall now better prove the lawfulness of using such things as these, than he hath proved it unlawful.

1. That which no Low of God, or valid Law of Man, for­bids, is not unlawful: but the use of the things forementi­oned, no Law of God, or valid Law of Man forbids: Therefore the use of the things forementioned, is not unlawful.

He that will say that there is any such Law, must shew that Law, and prove his Affirmative: But let him take heed of adding to God's law: A false Prophet that fathered a false Message from God, was an heinous sinner. Is it not worse falsly to father a Law on him?

Perhaps they will say, that God forbids, adding or diminishing: I answer, He doth so: Therefore let them take heed of it, who say his Law forbids that which it never forbad, but in general commandeth. If we must not add to the Laws of the Land, yet the Bookbinder that covereth them, and the Lawyers and Judges that expound them, do not add thereby to the Law. When the Hearers bowed, and prostrated themselves in reve­rence to God, they did not by this add to the Law; nor yet when they made a Vow uncommanded, or a Free-Will-Offer­ing: And I think it was no sinful addition to the Law, for the Publican to smite his Breast, and look downward; and when Jeremy said, No man smiteth on his thigh, and saith, what evil have I done? The meaning is not, No man idolatrously giveth God false worship. And I think, that they that rent their clothes to express their repentance, did not add to God's Word, nor yet do it as necessary worship, tho Joel says, Rent your hearts, and not your garments.

[Page 11] Some Object, That Christ's sitting at the Sacramental Supper, is a Law to us, forbidding any other gesture. But this Author professeth, that all the actions of Christ, or his Apostles, are not Laws binding us to do the like: If they be, we break many such Laws; as when we do not eat a full Meal before the Sa­crament, when we do it not without women, only to a Family, or to Twelve, only to Teachers, in an upper Reom, in an Inn, or Private House, and that we do not lie along, leaning, as they did; especially when we take it not at Supper-time, and turn the Lord's Supper to a Breakfast or Dinner. The Apostles brake no Law when they differed from any of these, which were but occasional Circumstances.

It's said by some, That Christ's Example binds us to a Ta­ble-gesture: But 1. That may be convenient, and yet not neces­sary: The bare Example binds us not to it. 2. If it did, that were but like the general Law; Let all be done to edification, and in order; and binds to no one sort of gesture at all: For then when they eat standing, it would bind us to stand; and if they eat kneeling (as Labourers oft do at Harvest-work in the Fields), it would bind us to kneel; if they eat lying, as the Jews did, it would bind us to that: and so this would but tie us to the Custom of the Countrey. But in feasting with God, we may sometimes do it more lowly than in a common Table­gesture, and break no Law. When Mary was, it's like, on her knees, washing Christ's feet with her Tears, if he had offered her Bread or Wine, it's like it had been no Idolatry so to take it.

But the grand Objection is, that we worship Bread and Wine; which can be no better than a slander, when the very Liturgy and Doctrine of the Church, not only renounce Transubstantiation, but the very real Presence of Christ's Body, which yet many thousand Protestants believe.

Object. But you kneel before the Bread and Wine, and make it a mediate Object of adoration, contrary to the Second Command­ment.

Answ. 1. We neither make any Image, nor invent this Me­dium, nor yet symbolize with Idolaters, while we renounce the very Object (Transubstantiate Bread) which they adore, and therefore break not the Second Commandment, no more [Page 12] than we do in kneeling in lawful Prayer, because they kneel in praying before Images, or to Angels.

2. An Object of worship is either a meer motive exciting Ob­ject, or else a terminative mediate worshipped Object. The first is more than lawful: For we should be moved and stirred up by the works of God, even by our Meat and Drink, by Sun and Moon, and all that we see, to worship God: And this is proper­ly but the Object of our thoughts, and the motive of our out­ward acts: And the Sacrament is no more. But if we did di­rect our worship terminatively to the Bread and Wine, as a me­diate Object, by which it should pass to God, this were to break the Second Commandment, like Image-worship.

There are many Instances in Scripture, of people that have bowed to God before the Prophet, moved by his word and pre­sence, who yet break not the Second Commandment, nor idoli­zed the Words or Prophets: So Joshua fell down to the Angel, Josh. 4. We give thanks for the Meat that stands before us on the Table, as a Motive-Object; and we may do it on our knees: Is this an idolatrous worshipping of our Meat? I have many a time seen a miserable Beggar, when one hath given him Money or Meat, fall down on his knees, and take it, saying, I thank God and you; Did this make the giver his Idol? How sad is the case of ignorant young Christians, whose Consciences must be rack­ed or cheated by such Sophistry, because their wits be not ripe enough to find out the deceit?

II. Another Argument: That is not unlawful which God com­mandeth us in general to choose and do, and so alloweth in the Particulars: But such are the Twenty Things before mention­ed, &c.

God commandeth us to do all things in Love, and Concord, and Order, to edification. This must needs reach to the undeter­mined circumstances. We cannot worship God publickly at all, but it must be in some words, in some gestures, in some time, in some place; nor profess our Faith, and Covenant-consent, but by some sign: and so of the rest. If you choose no one, when God hath tied us to none, but bid us choose to edification, we break his General Law. If you can prove that we choose amiss, the Fault will be, not that we choose, but that we choose not better.

[Page 13] III. That is not unlawful which Christ and his Apostles did before us without blame, and belongeth also unto us. But such is the use of such Modes and Circumstances of God's instituted worship, which are left variable, and free to occasional choice, &c.

What Christ did, I shall speak more anon. Paul hath his [Not the Lord, but I]; signifying, that the thing was not deter­mined by a Law, Rom. 14. He judgeth circumstantial differen­ces such as should not break communion, when yet they that kept days, or kept them not; and they that did eat, or not eat, did it as to the Lord. And did he bid them not judg each other for idolatry? or say, Rom. 14. 17, 18. That Idolaters were acceptable to God, or approved of men? or Rom▪ 15. or bid them re­ceive Idolaters, as Christ received us? He regulateth their Church-Meetings, How many shall speak at a Meeting, and by what course and order; and that women shall be vailed, and not men; and that they salute each other with an holy Kiss, &c. not by a Law that setleth the Particulars, but by the General Law of doing all in order, and to edification; and pleadeth not Institution, but the Custom of the Churches, which is alterable, as the signification of such acts are. And St. James will have the Elders anoint the sick with Oyl for recovery, which yet bindeth not us. The Papists use this as an Institution, as they do imposition of hands in Confirmati­on: They say in Ordination, Receive the Holy Ghost, and breathe on the Person: They wash the feet of one another in imitation of Christ: And yet these men condemn them in this, as superstitious, for imitating Christ and his Apostles, and Scripture-Examples, and cry down Popery, and at the same time call us Idolaters, for going beyond Scripture-institution. The same I say of their keeping Lent, in imitation of Christ's forty days fast, &c. Is it Idolatry both to fol­low, and not to follow Scripture-Examples?

To all the rest I add one Instance more: Swearing by appeal to God, is a most solemn act of worship: but the sign of taking an Oath, is left free to convenient choice. Abraham's Servant did it by putting his hand under his thigh: Was this a common Law, or Institution? Others did it otherwise: We do it by laying our hand on the Book, and kissing it. These. are neither sinful additions, or Idolatry. The Memorial of God's Works, and Mens Covenants, were kept, sometime by pitching Stones, sometime by Pillars, some­time by set days (as the Feast of Purim,) sometime by laying up the [Page 14] Ensigns (as Goliah's Sword, &c.) And all these lawful, and no Ido: latry.

IV. Lastly, I will unveil these mens Doctrine of Separation, and then judg whether it be the Doctrine of Christ, which is a Law of Love, and Union, and Peace; or the Wisdom from above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, &c.

1. It is false, that all such Secondary Modal Worship, is unlawful, which is not instituted by a fixing Law.

2. It is deceit not to distinguish these different things.

3. The charge of [false Worship] unexplained, is meer deceit: 1. Worship is so far [false], as it is contrary to the Rule. Every Sermon, Prayer or Sacrament which we administer, hath faultiness and sin, and is so far [false Worship]. 2. But Worship offered God on pretence that he instituted it when he did not, or that Man hath authority to command the like, is yet worse false Worship. 3. And the worship of false Gods or Idols, is yet worse than that, and abhorred of God.

4. His making all faulty circumstances, such as he nameth, to be Ido­latry, because false, as he calls it, is yet more sinful, and of mischie­vous importance.

5. So is it to make the Churches Idols Temples, where they do kneel at the Sacrament, and use the Liturgy.

6. So is it to feign falsly, that God calleth men to come out from such, and be separate, because he calleth them out of Babylon; falsly adding to the Laws of God.

7. By his Doctrine he maketh Christ an Idolater (which Imenti­on with horror): For he 1. used Circumstances riot instituted be­fore, or by himself: He preached on a Mountain, in a Ship, &c. not commanded: He commended Mary for anointing him, washing his Feet with Tears, wiping them with her Hair, not instituted in particular: He commended the Publican for smitinig on his breast, standing far off, not looking to Heaven, without particular Com­mand: His Custom was to go to the Synagogue-worship: He from his childhood performed Temple-Duties and Service: He command­ed the Lepers cleansed to go to the Priests, and offer their due, and his Disciples to hear the Scribes and Pharisees in Moses Chair, &c. And yet 1. The High Priests were not of Aaron's line, ac­cording to Institution. 2. They bought the Office of Heathen Ro­mans. 3. They had it not for life, according to institution. 4. Do­ctrine, [Page 15] Worship, Discipline and Manners, were heinously corrupted, so that the Hearers were to beware of the Leaven of their Doctrine, and not to imitate their lives. 4. They were bitter enemies of Christ, and Persecutors: yet Christ never bid his Disciples to sepa­rate from any thing but their errors; but saith, They shall cast you out of the synagogues. And doubtless Christ committed no sin; nor can we be so holy as he.

8. He condemneth Abraham, and all the Jewish Church of old, that used such things that were not instituted in Worship, as is before mentioned in swearing, &c.

9. He maketh the Apostles Idolatrous that used the like.

10. He maketh the Primitive Churches Idolatrous, and the Scrip­tures to approve it. For they used such uninstituted things: yea, the Romans were guilty of differences in God's Service, and despising and judging each other for them; The Corinthians were Carnal in making Parties and Divisions, they defrauded each other, and went to Law before Heathens. They had Fornicators, Judaizing envious Slanderers of Paul, Heretical deniers of the Resurrection; such as eat in Idols Temples, or of their Sacrifices: Were drunk at, or be­fore the Sacrament. The Galatians are yet sharplier charged: Almost all the Seven Churches Rom. 2. and 3. had Nicholaitans, or Jezabels Doctrine, which God hated: and no Christian is called to separate from the Communion of any one of all these; but com­manded to amend, and live in Unity, without divison.

11. He condemneth as Idolaters all the Churches on Earth, for Six Hundred, if not One Thousand Years after the Apostles; not One Church Christian, or Heretick (as far as any History tells us that I have found) did ever deny such things, as he calls False Wor­ship, or Idolatry. They all [...]ent further than our Parish Churches do. At Baptism they used the White Garment, tasting Milk and Honey, Chrisme or anointing the Forehead, Crossing; they ador­ed onely Standing, and not Kneeling, every Lords Day, all as significant Ceremonies: No one Church or Person is said to scruple these; I think they did not well: but God rejected not their Wor­ship.

12. He maketh all, or near all the Churches on Earth, Idolaters, at this day: All on Earth, save the Protestants are far grosser in their Liturgies and Ceremonies than the English: Of the Protesants, Sweden, Denmark, Saxony, and all the Lutherans, have Liturgies, Crossing, Ceremonies, Church-Images, Consubstantiation. The [Page 16] Helvetians are such as are called Erastians, making the Magistrate, the onely Ruler, and Sacraments common. Geneva, and France, yea and Helland, have their Liturgies and some Rites.

13. He condemneth Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, and all Dissenters that are here called Protestants. For they have al1 many of the foresaid uninstituted things: They put off the Hat in Church at Prayer. They stand up at the Blessing; they use un­commanded gestures at Sacrament; they use Psalm-versions, Me­tres, Tunes Scripture-Translations, Divisions into Chapter and Verse, never instituted particularly. The Scots used a Go­vernement by Classes, National Assemblies of various Elders, ruling by Vote, instead of meer consulting for Concord, uncom­manded.

14. I humbly propose it to consideration, Whether by conse­quence (which he seeth not, nor owneth) do not deny Christ, and all the Gospel, and work of mans redemption: I challenge him to name me one Church on Earth for many hundred years after the Apostles, that had not that which he calls false Worship and Idolatry: Suppose this were but in a few Ages, as the second, third, or fourth Century: Then a Temple of Idols, and Company of Idolaters, is no true Church: And if at any time there was no Church there was no Head of the Church: No Kingdom, no King: No Wife, no Husband, that is no Christ. How much more, if he make all, or near all the Church Idolaters to this day, and himself with the rest?

15. If it be a heinious sin to bear false Witness against a Neighbour, or to slander one man, what is it to slander and back-bite all the Church on Earth, and Christ himself?

16. Is it not a work of Satan to destroy Love, and to render al­most all Christians odious? And doth not he do so, that calleth them Idolaters? Is not this Preaching men, into the hatred of each other? Do we owe no Love to any Christians, but such as is due to Idolaters? Is not the fruit of the Spirit otherwise described?

17. Doth he not deny that Communion of the Saints, which is an Article of the Creed? and tempt weak Christians into sinful Separa­tions, Divisions, Slanders, Judgings, Murmurings, Envies, which are the fruits of the flesh?

18. Doth not this directly destroy the Church by Dissolution? When there is none to be owned or joyned with, that hath not somewhat which he calleth false worship. And is not separating the Materials, destroying the house?

[Page 17] 19. Doth he not directly rush into the Sin which, he condemneth adding to God's Laws, and saying he forbids what he forbids not? yea, fathering on him Laws more rigorous than the Jewish, as dis­owning Christ's Church as Idolators and false Worshippers?

20. I add, such wofully harden men in that which they them­selves suffer by, and which they call enmity and persecution, and make more Conformists while they deny it, than R. B. whom he fri­volously talketh of, ever did (except it be a Conformity to Truth and Goodness.) For when men read and hear others confidently rage against Truth and Duty,by rash presumptuous ignorance, they judge of all our dissent by this: And while many run into this Guilt, it seems to justify their Afflicters: And it tempteth weak Persons to suf­fer for sinful separation as evil doers, thinking it is for Truth. Oh with what grief will understanding men see Christians together, as in a state of enmity by mistakes. To see some at once require from others, things good and necessary, things Lawful but unnecessary; things necessary in their Genus, but not this more than that, and some things sinful, as if they were all almost alike. To see those whose Senses are not exercised to discern things that differ, misled by the words and reverence of men, to swallow some Sins as excellent Du­ties, and fly from things Lawful; yea, oft from great Duties, as odious Sins, and suffer rejoyeingly for sinning against God, and con­demning all that sin not as they do; yea, even all, or almost all the Churches on Earth; yea, and calling them Idolaters for being wiser and better than they, who alas, do in all things shew themselves to be ignorant Babes, and who speak evil of that which they understand not And then to see others revile, and hate, and ruin these mistaking Christians by a far more dangerous mistake; as if Religious fear of Sin, were an unsufferable thing, and such were intollerable Hypo­crites, and Conscience were a disgraceful thing; and as if themselves and all Mankind were not liable to worser Errors, than to take some lawful things for Sin, when they see unlawful things stand near them, or among them.

But of all this, I have oft spoken, and now only say again, That if those justly called Separatists, and who think Parish Communion un­der honest Ministers to be idolatry, or unlawful, will but without pre­judice read what is written to prove it lawful by the old Godly, Judici­ous Non-Conformisits, especially John Ball's Trial of Separation, Mr. Hildersham Mr. Bradshaw, Dr. Ames, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Gif­ford, Mr. John Paget, Mr. Brightman, Mr. Rathband, &c. they will [Page 18] need no more to save them from this scandalous Schism: But if Pe­ter withdraw or separate from the Gentiles for fear of offending the Jewish Christians, and Barnabas be led away with the Dissimulation, Paul must oppose it to their Faces: And I that have seen what the Spirit of Division hath done, and read that God never blest unneces­sary separation, will imitate Paul. And if this World be uncura­ble, the Lord prepare me for that World where Love and Unity have no Enemies.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.