THE following Diſcourſe ſhall conſiſt of Four particulars.

Firſt, The lawfulneſs of Communicating with our Churches by the Confeſſions and Arguments of the Congregational Divines.

2. The ſame proved by demonstrating the Apoſtolical Churches more vitiated than Ours, from whom a Separation is made by the Independents; and yet a Separation from thoſe Primitive Churches, utterly diſcountenanced by the Apoſtles.

3. The ſame Propoſition proved by demonſtrating that we have not given them the like, or any just Cauſe, as the Church of Rome gave them and us. Which is the firſt particular to be proved.

Secondly, I ſhall ſhew the ſinfulneſs of erecting Altar againſt Altar, of gathering Churches out of Churches.

Thirdly, That the Independents are averſe in their Principles to Toleration as well as the Preſbyterians, and ſo equally obliged not to abuſe the preſent gracious Indulgence.

Fourthly, I ſhall ſhew, that by His Majeſties late Declaration the Church of England is ſtill eſtabliſhed as the Baſis, and the bare ſuſpenſion of the poenal Laws, doth indeed take off the Obligation, upon the account of wrath, that lay before upon Diſſenters; but does not cancel the Obligation of Conſcience, by which the Independents, and all Indulged parties, are ſtill to avoid all Cauſleſs and groundleſs Separations from this Beſt of Reformed Churches.

Firſt, The Lawfulneſs of Communicating with our Churches, by the Arguments and Conceſſions even of the Independents themſelves. Our Parochial Churches are owned to have the Eſſentials of true Churches by all ſober Congregational men: (For there is the pure Word of GOD Preached, the true Sacraments Adminiſtred, and an implicite Covenant between Paſtor and People in joyning together.) All that is pleaded is Corruption and Defect in the outward Exerciſe and Adminiſtration of Church Order, and Diſcipline. Now that it is Lawful (ſuppoſing, but not granting this bar lies againſt the Church of England) to joyn with Churches ſo defective and corrupt, is not only acknowledged, but fully proved by Reverend Mr. Norton, of the Congregational way in his Anſwer to Apolſius (as Dr. Stilling fleet in his Irenicum quotes it to the preſent purpoſe) which I deſire the Brethren to conſider, whom it chiefly concerns, and to lay ſeriouſly to their hearts: and, without a reply to his Arguments, they cannot juſtifie their Separation from us.

1. A Believer may Lawfully joyn in Communion with ſuch a Church, where he cannot enjoy all the Ordinancies of GOD, as in the Jewiſh Church, in our Saviour's time, which refuſed the Goſpel of Christ, and the Baptiſme of John, and yet our Saviour commands us to hear the Scribes and Phariſees (ſitting in Moſes's Chair;) which hearing implies Conjunctionem Eccleſiae Judaicae, A joyning with the Jewiſh Church. So with Churches rejecting an Article of Faith; as the Church of Corinth, the Doctrine of the Reſurrection; the Churches of Galatia rejecting the Doctrine of Juſtification by Faith: yet the Apoſtle no where requires, on that account, a Separation from them.

2. A Believer may Lawfully joyn in Communion with ſuch a Church, in which ſome Corruption is tolerated in the Worſhip of GOD, without Reformation; as the Offering upon High places, from Solomon to Hezekiah, in the Church of Judah; the obſervation of Circumciſion and the Law Ceremonial in the Churches of Galatia.

3. A Believer may Lawfully joyn himſelf in Communion with ſuch a Church, in which ſuch are admitted to Sacraments who give no evident ſigns of Grace, but ſeem to be Lovers of the World; this he proves, becauſe it is every mans Duty to Examine himſelf, and anothers ſin hurts not me, and ſo is no argument againſt my Duty. And beſides, by mens coming unworthily, Non polluitur Communio, licet minuitur Conſolatio, The Communion is not defiled, though the comfort of it be diminiſhed: This he proves alſo from the Church of Corinth, amongſt whom were many ſcandalous that had not Repented, 2 Cor. 12. 20, &c. and in the Church of the Jews, which lay under great Corruptions when Chriſt and His Apoſtles communicated with it.

4. Although a Believer joyns with ſuch a Church, he is not therefore bound with the Guilt, nor defiled with the pollutions of others that Communicate. It is his Duty incumbent, and in doing his Duty, he contracts no Guilt upon himſelf.

5. A Believer which hath joyned himſelf to ſuch a Church is not bound to withdraw and ſeperate under pain of Guilt if he does it not: for to be lawful to joyn, and unlawful to continue the Communion implies a contradiction; for the firſt ſpeaks it to be a Church, and the ſecond to be no Church; and ſo it is not Lawful to ſeperate from a Church true, as to Eſſentials (and ſuch the Independents own in their Apologetical Narration, our Parochial Churches) though guilty of Corruptions; for the ground of Communicating is its being a Church, not a corrupt or defective Church. And that men are not guilty by partaking with thoſe that are guilty of Corruptions in a Church, appears from the Church of the Jews in the caſe of Ely's Sons, and the Chriſtian Churches of Aſia and Corinth; where we read of many Corruptions by S. Paul reproved, but no Mandate to ſeparate, which had certainly by the Holy Ghoſt been given, and S. Paul would not have omitted, had it been a ſin to communicate while thoſe Corruptions were in the Churches of Aſia and Corinth. Thus far their own Reverend Norton. Now I deſire theſe Congregational Leaders, who gather Churches out of our Churches, to reply to this Learned Divine of their own perſwaſion, or to conſider what Anſwer is to be given to the ſearcher of all Hearts, for reſiſting that light of Conviction that ſhines in upon their Conſciences.

Again, not granting but ſuppoſing only; that in this Church from which theſe ſeparate, Church-Diſcipline were neglected, Worſhip defiled, Manners corrupted, or Tyranny exerciſed: ſuppoſe we grant all this, which we need not, this will not juſtifie a Separation from the Church of England. My reaſon is, becauſe there were greater Corruptions in Doctrine, Diſcipline, and Worſhip (and no Separations countenanced by the Apoſtles) in the firſt Apoſtolical Chriſtian Churches, then in Ours, or any other Reformed Churches, from whom a Separation is made in theſe times. As for inſtance; to begin with Doctrine; In what Church of ours is the Reſurrection of the Dead denyed, an Article of that importance that all our Chriſtianity, in effect, depends upon it? It was denyed by many in the Church of Corinth. In what Churches of ours is the Doctrine of Juſtification by the Law, or any Doctrine ſo deſtructive of the Merit of Christ, generally maintained, as in the Galatian Churches? Again, for Worſhip; Do ours partake of the Lord's Table and the Table of Devils, as among the Corinthians? Are our Eccleſiastical Aſſemblies ſo confuſed, that whoſoever comes in muſt preſently take us for Mad? Do ours come to the Communion drunk, as at Corinth? Then for Manners, and Life; We acknowledge our ſelves heynous Offendors (which, I ſuppoſe, thoſe that call themſelves the Saints, and ſeparate from us Publicans) do (unleſs frantick) confeſs true of themſelves: But what then? have we worſe than Inceſt, Fornication, Covetouſneſs, Malice, Contentions unrepented of, as is the Church of Corinth? Or, biting and devouring one another, permitters of Idolaters, boaſters of Gifts, as in the Church of Galatia? As touching neglect of Diſcipline; Firſt in the Apoſtles own company, the Miniſters that ſhould exerciſe Diſcipline, they all ſought there own, and none the things of J • ſus Chriſt; and the groſſeſt Vices winked 〈…〉 mented, as we ſaw before in the Church of Corinth; and ſhould have been ſo ſtill, had not the Apoſtle been Living, and exciting them to their Duty.

Laſtly, concerning Tyranny; Ye ſee what Oppreſſion the falſe Apoſtles uſed, 2 Cor. 11. 20. Ye ſuffer, ſaith the Apoſtle, if a man take of you, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man exalt himſelf, &c. by which words he toucheth the Tyranny, though out of malice againſt the Apoſtle, willingly ſubmitted to, by the Church of Corinth: and we know that Dyotrephes exerciſed his Government with ſuch Inſolency, that he caſt out whom he would, admitted whom he would, oppoſed S. John himſelf; yet no news of Separation.

Now let theſe men conſider, that ſeparate from us, the Apoſtolical Church was a Virgin newly eſpouſed to Chriſt, in the midſt of the Heathen, under the Rod of Perſecution, the great Apostle then living, and yet vitiated more then the Churches that theſe depart from; and yet the then Separatiſts branded with the Characters of Schiſme and Sedition by the Bleſſed Apoſtles. And here I deſire the men of this way ſeriouſly to conſider, that Separation being diſcountenanced, from Churches more vitiated than ours, by the Holy Apoſtles; how theſe men, owning our Parochial Churches true as to Eſſentials, can ever juſtifie their Separation from us? It would certainly be duly weighed by ſuch as deſire to appear tender Conſciences, and ſo capable of a right in the preſent gracious Indulgence. That they do ſo acknowledge our Parochial Churches, their Apologetical Narration declares ſufficiently in theſe following words; We have alwaies profeſt (and that in theſe times, wherein the Churches of England were moſt, either actually overſpread with defilements, or in the greateſt danger thereof) that we both did, and would hold Communion with them, as true Churches of Christ; and that our Parochial Churches were the very Body of Chriſt: which is in effect to approve and forſake at the ſame time, and gives occaſion, too great, of applying a Sentence in S. Austin againſt Parmenian (Lib. 1. cap. 8. againſt theſe Diſſenters:) Et adverſum nos loquuntur, & nobiſcum loquuntur, & cum eos obmuteſcere compellat veritas, ſilere non permittit iniquitas: They ſpeak againſt us, and they ſpeak for us; and when Truth conſtrains them ſilence, their Iniquity will not let them hold their peace.

There are three things that I would humbly offer to all ſober men of the Congregational perſwaſion; and I beſeech them to conſider them ſeriouſly, as from one that equally wiſheth their Salvation with his own.

1. That they would cautiouſly diſtinguiſh between corruptions in Doctrine, and corruptions in the practice of a Church.

2. That they would Conſcientiouſly diſtinguiſh between corruptions, whether in Doctrine or Practice, profeſt and avowed by a Church, and required as the abſolute conditions of Communion from all its members; and corruptions only crept in and meerly tolerated in a Church, and not any way required as the conditions of

3. To diſtinguiſh carefully between Noncommunicating as to the abuſes of a Church, and a poſitive and total Separation from a 〈◊〉 as it is a Church. Theſe three (the ſecond 〈…〉 duly weighed and conſidered, would 〈…〉 a period to their Separation 〈…〉 of England; or tend at leaſt to 〈…〉 ening of the Breach too ſadly occaſioned, for want of a due reflection upon the Premiſſes aforeſaid.

Again, We of the Church of England have not given them the like, or any juſt cauſe of Separating, as the Church of Rome gave them and us: For where do we urge any Doctrines as Articles of Faith, which we offer not to a tryal by Scripture, and the Four firſt General Councils, which all Chriſtians reverence (and were Anciently honoured next to the Four Goſpels:) and if the Church ſhould teach any other Propoſitions, ſhe proteſts againſt their being Articles of Faith and of Neceſſity to Salvation, and for this reaſon impoſeth not Her ••• IX, Articles, as Articles of Faith, but of Peace and Communion: nor does the Church of England cenſure other Churches for their different Confeſſions, but allows them the liberty ſhe her ſelf takes, to eſtabliſh more or leſs conditions of Communion, as the Governours of the Church ſhall deem moſt expedient for Ʋnity and Peace. She only requires of ſuch as are admitted to any Office or Employment in the Church, to ſubſcribe to her Articles as certain Theological Verityes not repugnant to GOD's Word, particularly culled out and ſelected to be taught, and maintained within her Communion, as highly conducive to the preſervation of Truth, and prevention of Schiſme. And for this reaſon She paſſes no other cenſure upon the Impugners of her Articles, then againſt the Impugners of Her Government, Liturgy, and Rites; becauſe all intended by her for the ſame end, The avoiding of all Diſorders, and Confuſions. But as for the abſolute Articles of the Church of England, they were not of Her own Inventing, but ſuch as She found eſtabliſhed in the beſt Ages of the Church, neareſt the Primitive and Apostolical ſimplicity: Here She fixeth the bounds of Her Faith, to prevent the danger of endleſs Additions, and Innovations. And becauſe in ſmaller matters ſomewhat may eſcape the greateſt caution and prudence, She hath reſerved Just power to her ſelf to reform what is really amiſs, and finds ſo abuſed, that the uſe of them cannot ſtand with Piety and Holineſs; allowing the ſame Liberty to all her Sister Churches, and all Church Governours within the ſphere of their reſpective Juriſdictions. This is the true ſtate of the Reformation of this Church, as hath been apparently evidenced by her Regular Sons againſt all Oppoſers.

Now let the Independents conſider, whether this be not (though a brief) yet a True account of the Moderation and Prudence of this Church; and then let them reflect at the ſame time upon the ſecond eſpecially, of the Three aforeſaid Propoſitions: and upon the whole examine their Tender Conſciences, whether it does not Juſtifie our Separation from the Romaniſts, and at the ſame time prove them guilty by departing from us. We both agree, that where any Church is guilty of Corruptions in Doctrine and practice, which it owns and requires as abſolute conditions of Her Communion, there to Separate is no Schiſme, but Lawful and Convenient. Let them make the Church of England appear thus guilty they are acquitted: If they cannot prove it as they have not done as yet (and doubtleſs they have Zeal enough to ſet them forward, if it could be demonſtrated) what hinders their Return to the Church of England, unleſs the Conſcience, which they call Tender, be ſullen and obſtinate? Not to prove any thing that juſtifies a Separation againſt the Church which they forſake, and yet continue to keep up their Altars againſt it, is not ſo much allyed to tenderneſs of Conſcience, as to hardneſs of Heart, uncapable of being reclaimed by the greateſt and moſt generous condeſcenſions in the World.

So much of the Firſt particular, The Lawfulneſs of Communicating with our Parochial Churches, from the Arguments and Conceſſions of the Independents themſelves; from the Primitive Apoſtolical Churches more vitiated than Ours, and yet all manner of Separation diſcountenanced by the Apoſtles, and we not having given the Independents any juſt cauſe as the Church of Rome gave them and us. That is the first Propoſition I engaged to defend, The Lawfulneſs of communicating with our Churches.

Secondly, I am to ſhew the ſinfulneſs and danger of erecting Altar againſt Altar, and gathering Churches out of our Churches: The Sin is the ſin of Schiſme, ſeverely branded by Ancient Fathers and Orthodox Councils (as well as in the Apostolical Writings) as the heighth of Pride and Wickedneſs. That the Independents are guilty of this Sin is clearly deducible from what I have ſaid already; From their own Arguments, and Conceſſions; from the Instances of the Apoſtolical and Primitive Churches, more vitiated than Ours, yet Separation diſcountenanced by the Apoſtles; and by a compariſon between our withdrawing from Rome, and their Separation from us. Theſe things already proved, ſpeaks them Cauſleſly to Separate from us; and that cauſleſs Separation ſpeaks them Schiſmaticks. They themſelves allow our Parochial Churches True, as to Eſſentials; and, what if we ſuppoſe spots and pollutions, as to the outward Adminiſtration of Order and Diſcipline; this, if we ſhould grant them, onely infers a lawful deſire and endeavour of Reformation, but it warrants no Schiſmatical Separation; for no Corruptions in a Church can give occaſion, or allowance of going out of it, but ſuch as ſtrike at the Foundation of Chriſtian Doctrine and Worſhip; which, ſetting Calumny and railing aſide (which we are not obliged to take for Reaſon and Argument) they never yet attempted to prove againſt the Church of England, ſo far they are inexcuſable before GOD, and ſo far from appearing Men of tender Conſciences to the World.

Where are thoſe Corruptions in Doctrine or Practice, which the Church of England doth Impoſe upon her Members, as the abſolute Conditions of Her Communion. Let them lay aſide Wrath and Darkneſs, and give us a pregnant Demonſtration; or like Men of Candour and Ingenuity plead Guilty, and Return. Let them in ſhort prove theſe two things: 1. That our Epiſcopal Ordination and Juriſdiction, Our mixt Communion, Our Rites of Order impoſed, not out of any Neceſſity, but Ʋniformity and Peace, and ſome other things by them inveighed againſt, to be indeed Superſtitious, and (as they call them). Antichriſtian Abominations. When that difficult Task is over (if it can be ever accompliſhed) let them prove that we urge Diſputable things, or known Errours with ſuch ſeverity, as the Church of Rome does Purgatory, Indulgences, Supererogation, and other notorious palbable Errours; for which, juſtly condemned by the Reformed Churches. The very Cock of the Congregation is here nonpluſt (the moſt daring of all their Ʋndertakers) unleſs you will take Noiſe, and Clamour, and Confidence for Demonſtrations.

Thirdly, The Independents are equally Enemies to Toleration with the Preſbyterians; and from the ſame very Principles, and by conſequence equally obliged not to uſe (however not to abuſe) the Gracious Indulgence. Nothing in Conjunction with, or addition to, what is preſcribed in the Word of GOD (as to Worſhip, and Government) is to be admitted or Tolerated. Upon this Principle the Independents in particular (as well as Non-conformiſts in general,) for ſo their greateſt and moſt forward Champion tells us, They do, and will adhere to, and ſtand upon as to the Differences, between them and us. The plain meaning of which, applyed to the Church of England, is briefly this, That the Independent way of Worſhip, and Government, is only preſcribed in the Word of GOD; and Ours not, but repugnant: And by this Principle they exclude as well their Brethren that lent them the Principle, as well as the Inferiour Sectariſts, and are at defiance with them, as well as the Church of England; for Independency being only preſcribed in the Word by this Principle. if they will adhere to it, no other way can be Indulged or admitted. With theſe Men (as well as the Diſciplinarians) there is but One only true way of Worſhip and Government preſcribed in the Word. Nothing, ſecondly, that is unlawful may be Tolerated by the Civil Magiſtrate; and, nothing is lawful but what is preſcribed in the Word (and you may be confident, that is the Independent way of Worſhip and Government.) Theſe three things reſolved, whence ſhould Toleration proceed, or an Indulgence be expected from the Independents to differing perſwaſions, unleſs he playes fast and looſe, and as he pleaſeth, owns and renounceth the Jus divinum of Independency in the ſame Oracles.

Every Sect (the Independent eſpecially) allows no Worſhip, but their own way eſtabliſhed in the Word. This is not only pleaded againſt the Church of England, but every Faction bandyes againſt every Faction for the Divine Right. The Presbyterian Diſcipline is the only Scepter of JESƲS CHRIST for all Churches Government to the End of the World: He can neither Indulge himſelf, nor accept an Indulgence where other Parties are not excluded. The Independent allows only his own Way of Worſhip, and excludes all Diſſenters from Worſhipping GOD aright; and from the beauty and purity of Goſpel Ordinances; which is a Principle Sir John Presbyter lent him: And how can an Indulgence hence proceed?

By this Principle the Presbyterian firſt aſſaulted the Church of England. By the ſame Principle the Congregational Hector takes Sir John to task, and beats him out of the field: By the ſame the Anabaptiſt attempted the Independent; and all the under-Sects the Anabaptists: And ſo if they had crumbled into a thouſand ſub-diviſions, ſtill as every Sect gathers ſtrength enough, he perſecutes all Oppoſers. And, How ſhould the Independent be more merciful than the Presbyterian, or any other Sect, whoſe Enmity to Toleration doth equally ariſe from the ſame common Principle of the Divine Right, only of their own way of Worſhip and Government, from which all the Sects are excluded, as well as the Church of England? There is One only way of Worſhipping GOD aright, and that way is the Independent way of Worſhip. Where is Toleration then? It is excluded. By what Law? By Divine Right: And ſo Every plant that my Father hath not planted must be rooted out; and ſo only Independency is to be Tolerated, unleſs Kings and Princes who Rule for GOD, may Indulge men in an Open violation of the Law of GOD? And if you look a little backwards, it may admit a Diſpute, Whether the Scepter of JESUS CHRIST were more an Iron Rod under the Kirk, or the tender hearted Tryers? It may indeed ſometimes conſiſt with Carnal prudence (ſuppoſing the Independents to have power in their hands) to connive at, and Indulge the Leſſer Factions, the better to hold out the Flag of Defiance againſt the Royaliſts, and the Presbyterians their moſt conſiderable Competitors. Or they may (as the Ʋſurpers tender-Conſcien'd Army once did) offer the taking away even the Poenal Laws from the very Papiſts, to collogue with Forraign Princes, and ſo have the greater ſecurity in their Villanous Deſigns againſt the King, and the Church; but this is a State Juggle for the advancement of the Good Old Cauſe: But then as ſoon as the fear is over from abroad, then they ſpared nothing that Sacriledge could devour.

And now, Can any Man, that looks back upon Independent mercy and forbearance, believe that Men of ſuch Principles and practices (who are now pleaſed that Epiſcopacy is eſtabliſhed, and Poenal Laws removed from Papists, only becauſe Indulged themſelves) would Tolerate either Popery or Epiſcopacy if they had Power in their hands, and not rather Lord it with the Inſolence of Ʋſurpers? Credat Judaeus Apella, non Ego.

So that as a late Treatiſe demonſtrates, the Presbyterian hath no cauſe of joy, becauſe others are Indulged as well as himſelf; whereas his Doctors, Elders, and Deacons are the perpetual Scepter of CHRIST to the end of the World for all Churches Government; and therefore, Down with the Colours of the Dragon; advance the Standard of CHRIST.

The Independents have no cauſe of Joy, becauſe the Church of England, and the Presbyterian Limb too, of the Antichristian Leviathan, are included, as well as the reſt of the Parties among us: His Way being only laid down in the WORD, and all others repugnant to the Holy Scriptures. Yet they take the advantage, both out of a hatred to a third Party, the Church of England, and the next thing is to fight one with another for the Government: and then the only Scepter of Chriſt is the Conquerours worſhip; the longeſt Sword is the Divine Right; the Pike and Gun declare the Cauſe of GOD; and infallible Artillery decides all the Controverſies relating to the Goſpel Truth. And thus the Preſbyterian (who thought to have erected his Diſcipline upon the ſad Eclipſe of the Church of England) was powerfully baffled and confuted, by ſuch Arguments as the Independent Man of War carryed in his Snapſack.

Do not the Independents, when moſt cool and moderate, look upon all other Churches and People, as all Revolters from the purity and beauty of Goſpel-Ordinances, introducers of Will-Worſhip and Superſtition, inſtead of Diſciples of the Lord JESƲS; not allowing any Diſſenters the leaſt ſhare or degree of Wiſdom, or Godlineſs? And men of ſuch Principles of this forehead and complexion, muſt needs carry tender bowels to Men of differing Perſwaſions. Certainly, unleſs where the rules and maximes of carnal Policy interpoſe and plead for mercy to Diſſenters, their Clemency is the ſame with the Presbyterian, who firſt lent him the Principle, of not admitting any thing not expreſly delivered in the Sacred Scriptures: by which Principle they are engaged in a War with one another, as well as againſt their common Antagonists. So that the Tables are now turned. It is not the Queſtion, whether all Partyes may be Tolerated; but, whether Independents only: for there is but One true way of Worſhip, and that is Theirs. Theirs only hath the Divinum Jus, and Princes may not Indulge Men in an open violation of Scripture Precepts, and Directions. And ſo every Sect is engaged to root out all the reſt, as Enemies to the Scepter of the Lord JESƲS.

Fourthly, The Execution of the Poenal Laws being ſuſpended, by the late Declaration in Favour of Diſſenters, does only take off the Obligation, upon the account of Wrath, to Obedience; but the Conſcience is ſtill obliged, to avoid all cauſleſs and groundleſs Separations from our Churches. This will be manifeſt enough to any one that ſeriouſly reads the Declaration it ſelf, and a late Treatiſe, Toleration not to be Abuſed, which will extend as well to the Independents as the Presbyterians, whoſe averſion to Toleration is built upon the ſame common Principle, the Divine Right of their one onely way of Worſhip and Government, in the Sacred Oracles; and ſo I refer them to that part of the Diſcourſe before mentioned, That they are obliged (as before the Declaration) to avoid all groundleſs Separations. For the Church of England is, as before, eſtabliſhed as the Baſis, and ſo the Obligation of Conſcience ſtill Obligatory upon all the Indulged Parties to avoid Schiſmes, and all cauſleſs departure from us. The Obligation upon the account of Wrath is removed indeed; but if they would appear tender Conſciences to the World, the King's ſuſpenſion of the Puniſhment ſhould make them the more Obedient for Conſcience ſake; and a Gracious Indulgence rather abate, than heighten their Oppoſition againſt the Church of England, ſtill eſtabliſhed.

I ſhall now conclude all, by deſiring them to conſider, what they themſelves acknowledge in the Declaration of the Faith and Order of the Congregational Churches, in Chap. 26. Of the Church, &c. The pureſt Churches under Heaven are ſubject both to Mixture and Error. And in their Inſtitution of Churches; Perſons that are joyned in Church-fellowſhip, ought not lightly to withdraw themſelves from the Communion of the Church, to which they are ſo joyned. To theſe two let them add the Four particulars in this Diſcourſe mentioned: and upon the reſult of all conſider, Whether Ambition and Pride, rather then a Conſcientious tenderneſs keep not up their departure from, and oppoſition to the Church of England. I am not as this Publican, Come not near me, for I am holier then thou. An overvalluing of our own worth, and a Phariſaical contempt of others, is the uſual riſe of Schiſme; for only by Pride cometh Contention; ſo the beſt of Kings and Preachers.

Thus the Valentinians looked on themſelves as the only ſpiritual Men. The Phariſees the only Separati, ſeparate Perſons. The Sadducees, Juſti, the only Righteous. The Novatians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the only Puritans: And none Men of Knowledge but the Gnoſticks, and the acute Tertullian, when Montaniſt. All others were Pſyſici, and he was come to his Nos ſpirituales. And if (out of the abundance of the heart the mouth ſpeaketh) ſpiritual Pride is the original of your Schiſme. For you only are GOD's Iſrael, his Elect and precious ones. You only have Communion with GOD in pure Ordinance▪ All the World faln ſhort of GOD's Truth, but your ſelves: And none is Orthodox out of the Pale of your own Church. Not only Pap • ſts, Prelatiſts and Arminians, but even your dear Brethren, the Presbyterians, are Limbs of the Antichriſtian Leviathan. All revolted from the Lord JESUS, and to be treated as members of the Whore, whom the Saints hate, and ſhall make deſolate and naked, eat her fleſh, and drink her bloud. This is the Canting Dialect of your Independent Leaders.

To Conclude. If it be not Ambition, but Conſcience; Let it ſo appear by your Charity to Diſſenters, by a ſerious and impartial Enquiry into the Grounds upon which you ſeparate from us, without prejudice or paſſion; and do not ſo far Idolize a Sect, or an Opinion, as to prefer it before the Peace and Settlement of a Church, and Nation.