SChism being a dissolution and breach of Ʋnion, 'twill not be amisse, if for the better under­standing of the nature of the Schism in que­stion, we make some enquiry into that Church-Ʋnion whereof it is a breach: Now, from the distinct notions and acceptions of the Church, the nature of Church-Ʋnion will best appear.

The Church of Christ, (even that which is Militant (for the Triumphant comes not here to be considered) is usually distinguished into

• 1. Catholick.
• 2. Particular.

The Catholick Church again, into

• 1. Visible.
• 2. Invisible.

1. The Catholick Visible Church is the Ʋniversality of Persons called by the Word into External Fellowship with Christ, and Communion amongst themselves, pro­fessing the true Religion, the Faith, Doctrine, and Wor­ship of Christ throughout the world; called Visible in respect of Outward Administration and Profession.

[Page 2]2. The Catholick-Invisible Church is the Collective Bo­dy of the truly Faithfull, the compleat Quorum of the Elect, Gods Chosen ones, called out of the whole World of Mankind, into an intimate Vnion with Christ, and Com­munion one with another, not only externally by the Word, but effectually and internally by Gods holy Spirit; called Invisible, no [...] quá Men, but quá Elect, the Man is seen, but not the Christian: The Lord (only) knoweth them that are his, 2 Tim. 2.19. The Church-Catholick is un­der both those considerations, called the Mystical Body of Christ, viz. 1. By League & Outward Profession under the former; 2. By true Faith and real Possession under the latter: Christ is a Common Head both to the one, and to the other.

2. A Particular Church is a Society or Societies of Persons called to the participation of, and subjected to the Ordinances and instituted worship of Christ, under certain external Rules accommodated for Local Joynt-Communion therein, in a particular place: Such are the English, French, Dutch Churches, and such like, including Parochial Distributions and Congregations as the Church Catholick includes them, viz. as a totum Integrale, or Vni­versale, so as that nec totum recte de una praedicetur, nec una totum sibi vindicare possit, saith Junius, lib. de Ecclesia; though the Papists make a kind of Monopoly of their Romish Church, obtruding it for a Catholick, yea, the only Catholick Church in the World; and thus by a cursed Sacriledge impropriate (as I may say) the Church of Christ.

This Distinct Notion of the Church, ariseth from the diversified Nature of her Members (the Constitutive Mat­ter thereof) who may be considered, either 1. as Professors of the Faith of Christ, in obedience to an Externall Call by the Word; those constitute the Church Catholick-Vi­sible: or 2. as Possessors of Christ by Faith (true Belie­vers) in Obedience to an Internall Call by the Spirit; [Page 3]those constitute the Church Catholick-Invisible; or 3. as Partakers of the same Ordinances and instituted worship of Christ, in a particular place, in Obedience to a Provi­dential Call, and in answer to an Opportunity serving there­unto; those constitute a Particular Church, so that the same Persons may be Members of the Church under that threefold consideration at once.

Church-Ʋnion then must be threefold, or considerable under a threefold Notion.

1. The First is the Ʋnion of the Members of the Church Catholick-Invisible, with Christ, and their Com­munion amongst themselves, wherein they are, through the Inhabitation and Indwelling of the same Holy Spirit in all, and by vertue of a true Faith, joyntly incorporated into Christ, and concorporated one with another; as Fel­low-Members of the same Select Fraternity, the Son of God having assumed their Persons into a Mystical, as well as their Nature into a Personal Ʋnion with himself.

Now Sir, This Ʋnion admits of no breach, Christ and his Elect Members (the true Branches of that true Vine) are inseperably conjoined; their Persons (as well as their Nature) are eternally matched and married to Christ; the Mystical Ʋnion of the one, is indissoluble, as well as the Personall Ʋnion of the other with him. There is no fear of a divorce here; neither can the Body be severed from the Head, nor any one Member from the Body: the Members may quarrel (an Israelite with an Israelite) thus we read that Paul and Barnabas did contest and contend so fiercely, that their Paroxysme of strife ended in Sepa­ration, Act. 15.39. Yea, they may joyn to their breach of Society, a breach of Charity in some degree; but neither is the one nor the other a dissolution of that Internal Union whereby the truly Faithfull are coupled together, one with another, and all of them joyntly with their Common Head, Christ. The Vinculum Ʋnionis, the Con­jugal-Ʋnion-Knot (viz: true Faith, or the spirit of grace [Page 4]in the Faithfull) being altogether inviolable. The Holy Ghost is the Fountain-Radical of Faith, (as of all other Graces) and therefore of this Communion. One Spirit quickening & influencing both Head and Members in the Mystical, as one Soul conveys life and sense to all the Members of the Natural Body, (and hence 'tis I con­ceive, that Christ and Beleevers are said to be, not One Body onely, but One Spirit (viz: in Esse Mystico) 1 Cor. 6.17.) Now this same Spirit may suspend his influen­ces, viz: Comfortable and Augmentative, not Vital (as in the dark and solitary dayes of soule-desertion) and Faith may in such a case be much weakened and impaired, (viz: in its Graduals) but True Faith being the Seed of God (1 John 3.9.) is, in Esse vitali, as to its Truth and Na­ture (intrinsecally) permanent, an irreradicable principle, Per­severance and indeficiency being its Genuine property, as well as Christs purchase, Luke 22.32. there is a kind of Immortality in it; So that, as there is a weaknesse in the strongest Faith, so there is truth in the weakest; now this Vnion depends not upon the strength, but upon the truth of Faith; and not upon the Gradual Communicati­ons, but upon the Radical Inhabitation of the Spirit: Such a suspension then, is unfitly termed a seperation, (David lost Comfort, but not the Comforter, Psal. 51.11, 12.) or if we grant (with some) that it is (a breach in tantum, though not in totum) a breach in, yet 'tis no interruption or breach of, Vnion, but rather a temporary intermission of (Comfortable) Communion. What though the Trees of Righteousnesse have their Autumn-season, their fall of the leaf (the trees of the Vineyard, as well as those of the Forrest)? There is still an Indeficient principle of life in them, by vertue of their incision and ingrasture into their Common Root, Christ, the Tree of Life. This is both defensive and offensive Armour against our Arminian Adversaries, who daringly assert a Schism and Seperation here, de possibilis; that is, that 'tis possible for the truly [Page 5]Faithfull, totally and finally to apostatize from Christ, and thus, of true Converts, to become very Cast-awayes; sad doctrine Might we receive what they obtrude for Ortho­doxy, verily we might betake our selves to our pen, and write our faith vain, all our prayers lost, and our selves of all men most miserable. If the foundation be destroyed, what can the Righteous do? But now here is the Beleevers Fort-Royal, namely his Inviolable Conjunction with his Living Head, Christ; this is an impregnable bottom of Saint-stability, groud of Christian-perseverance, and guard against their total-final Apostacy: Quatenus uni­mur, munimur, this Vnity is our Safety. By vertue of this (to speak a big word) the State of grace is equally safe, (though not equally comfortable) with the State of glory; and the Spiritual State of the weakest, equally safe (though not equally comfortable) with that of the strongest Belee­ver; salvation being annexed to a Real Vnion with Christ, which is grounded on the truth of Faith, not to comfort­able Communion with him, which ordinarily attends the raised degrees, and strength of Faith. Conclude we then all the Members (yea the very meanest) of the Church Invisible to be (in this sense) Invincible; Obeunt non pereunt, dye they must, perish they shall not, cannot, — None of them is lost.

The second is that Vnion and Communion wherein all the Members of the Church-Catholick-Visible, the Professors of the true Religion, throughout the world, are by vertue of their Common Profession of One Lord, One Faith, Eph: 4.5. One Baptisme, Gospel-doctrine, and worship, united amongst themselves, and joyntly concorporated with Christ, as One Entire Body Catholick. Now to apply this to our purpose:

1. The Vnion that is between Christ and the Catholick Visible-Church, considered as a Collective Body of Pro­fessors, is also un-interruptible, admits of no breach: She (in this sense) can neither, by Universal Apostacy, fall [Page 6]off, nor by any Violence, be broken off from her Common Head, Christ. True, The Church hath her Moon-like waxings and weanings, gradual though not substantial Changes. SIONS Sun hath his Apogaeums, and Perigae­ums: The Waters of the Sanctuary, their Reciprocati­ons, they (often) ebb as well as flow; The Churches Glory is frequently (what by Intestine Corruptions and Divisions, what by forreign Combinations against her, and Torrents of persecution) clouded and eclipsed, insomuch that an ICHABOD might often seem, best to become her whom (yet) her Lord hath dignified with this title of honour, Christ-Mystical.

But the Light of the Church (though often eclipsed) was never as yet extinguished; being continually renewed by the Auxiliary influences of the great Sun of Righte­ousnesse. The Truth hath in no age wanted either Patron or Proselyte. The Visible Church surely was very Con­sumptive when the whole Body seemed to be contracted to one Member, abridged in a single Elijah (that second Jerub-baal, a Champion-Zealot for the Truth) and yet even then were there no less than 7000 Non-Conformists in Israel, 1 King 19.10.14.18. God had got their Hearts, and now Baal shall not so much as have a knee. Reflect we upon the Primitive Churches Sanguine Com­plexion under the Tyranny and ten Persecutions of the Heathenish Heroes, when the whole earth wasAug. in Psa. 118. Vid. Corn. Tacit. Lib. 5. Annal. Tertul. Apo­log. advers. Gent. purpled and scarleted with Martyr-blood: when the very name of Christian was a Crime, when he that professed himself a Christian dyed by a Sanguinary Law enacted to that pur­pose, without either self-defence or conviction; when thousands were dispatched being nominis tantum et sectae rei, guilty of a meer name (Christian). When Dioclesian that Infernal Wolf, (having upon a Hell-devised Oracle or Prophecy, viz: That if the Christians were but once cut off, the Roman Empire would wonderfully flourish) caused no lesse than 17000 to be massacred in one [Page 7]moneth) did most wickedly boast De delet [...] nomine Chri­stiano, That he had everlastingly rased out of memory, and utterly abolished the very name of a Christian; yet could not the sword of violence ever intersect the line of Church-Succession; yea the more they were mow­ed down, the more they multiplyed; Plures efficimur, quoties metimur, saith that Christian-Mecaenas, Apolog. adver. Geut. Ter­tullian. Againe, who could have expected any to have appeared for the patronage of the Truth, under the Tor­rid Zone of Antichristian persecution? and yet behold even then, hath Christ his two Witnesses, Rev. 11. Two. though, but two; though the least number, yet a number; though a small, yet a competent number; a Quorum of Witnesses, by whose testimony the opposed Truth should be protected and established; so impossible a thing it is that Christ should ever be [...], without a Witnesse. Call we to mind Modern Persecutors, That English Lion­nesse Q. M. with her Wolf and Leopard, Brethren in iniqui­ty; Bloody Charis the fifth, and the Duke of Alva, both which died their souls red with blood, they having destroyed, of Protestants, the one 50000 in the Low Coun­tries, the other 18000 in Belgia in six years time; the French Massacre Anno 1572. Even all the conflicts be­tween the seed of the Woman, and the seed of the Serpent, since the quarrel was first begun in Paradise, which hath been fiercely pursued well nigh six thousand years: All that time hath God uninterruptedly maintained a conti­nued Series and Succession of Persons, (notwithstanding Captivities and hostile Cruelties) Patriarks, Prophets, and all the Old-Testament-Professors; Apostles, Fathers, Councels, Confessors, Martyrs, and all New-Testament-Saints; in and by whom the true Religion, hath been pro­fessed, preserved, and (successively though not alwayes very successefully) propagated, kept by some, guarded by others, and (through good providence) transmitted, by all to us.Isa. 53.10. 'Tis impossible that Christ should want a Seed [Page 8](a Church) or that Church, a Guardian and Defendor of the Faith: For the Church to be Christ-lesse, and for Christ to be Church-lesse, are equall impossibilities. The Church Militant is Christs Sublunary Kingdom, which admits of no Interregna, or Vacancy: There is in her (though not an Infallibility) yet an Indeficiency; Subject she is to Cor­ruption within, but not to Interruption; to Obstruction from without, but not to destruction. She is a house built upon a Rock, Mat. 16.18. and this Rock is Christ, (the Foundation, as well as Founder of his Church,) therefore she must needs be Impregnable and Invincible; —The Gates of Hell shall not prevaile against her: A promise ever made good to the Whole Body of the Catholick-Vi­sible, as it is to every Individual Member of the Catholick-Invisible-Church.

2. That the Ʋnion which is between Christ and Par­ticular Visible Professors and Churches, (parts of the Church Catholick-Visible) may be broken and interrupted, is a truth that hath been verified in many sad experien­ces; forasmuch as all are not Israel, that are called Isra­el: Many Particular Churches and Councels (however our Neighbours in the Church of Rome amongst the rest of their Romish strange-fire, ascribe an Infallibility and un­erring Quality to them, yet) are known to have so far degenerated as to become instead of Churches of Christ, Synagogues of Satan; witnesse the Churches of Asia (which (though once recorded for Golden Candlesticks, Rev. 2. yet) are at this day the Receptacles of Maho­metan Idolatry) Judea (that degenerate Vine) Rome (that Adulterate See) &c. But this is not only Schism, but Apostacy, being a degeneracy from the true Catholick-Apostolick Faith, and a Separation from, or, not holding of the head, from which all the body by joynts and bands having nourishment ministred, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God, (Col. 2.19.) which is inconsistent, not onely with the Ʋnity, but with the Verity and very Being [Page 9]of a (true) Church; whence those Churches are deser­vedly called Apostatical, as well as Schismatical, and Renegadoes or Fugitives from the Faith of Christ, such as Parphyrie, Julian, miserable Spira, and such like (who have of Visible and Professed Members of the Body, be­come Enemies to the Head, some of them turning open Persecutors of that Faith whereof they were once Profes­sors) are not barely called Separatists, but branded for cursed Apostates.

3. The Communion wherein the Members of this great Corporation the Church Catholick-Visible are by ver­tue of their Common Profession of the true Religion, and Faith of Christ, united one with another, is sub­ject to a twofold Schism or breach; viz: 1. A breach in the Church, and 2. A breach from the Church: The first consists in Intestine Divisions and differences, either 1. in point of Judgement, and that (principally) about matters either of Discipline or Worship (if the Er­rour be in a point fundamental or incorrigibly persisted in, it is then Heresie, which St. Augustine calls Schisma in­veteratum); or else 2. in point of Charity and Christian Love. The second consists in a degeneracy from the true Religien, and a voluntary relinquishing of a Church-state but this is (as I have said above of not holding of the Head) not Schisme onely, but Apostacy, a Cat holick and Ʋni­versal Separation; for one that thus relinquisheth Christs Body-Catholick, separates from it, Tanquam Membrum ab Integro, as a Member from the Whole; now as a Leg or Arm, when lost, ceaseth to be a member of the body Na­tural, to which it was united, even so a Professor thus de­generated, ceaseth, In statu quo, (without recovery by repentance) to be a Member of this Body Mysticall. Whereas many are most justly condemned for Separatists (I shall not need to name any) who (yet) while they hold the Head, and professedly own the Catholick-Apostolick Faith of Christ, cannot be disowned for Members of the [Page 10] Body, Branches in the Vine, Part of the Mystical Build­ing, the Church Catholick-Visible: Church-Communion is distinguishable into

• 1. Real.
• 2. Pesonal.

There is a Real Community, and a Personal Society: now though those Separatists refuse, by way of Personal Associ­ation to communicate with that Church from which they separate, yet they continue a Real Saint-Communion and Fellowship with her in the Enjoyment of the same (Objective) Ordinances; Prayer, Word, and Sacraments, and therefore notwithstanding their Separation from a Particular, they cease not to be Members of the Catholick Church; Real Community being maintained, though Personal Society be (unjustly) denyed.

The Third Church-Vnion is that Social-Local-Joynt-Fellowship, wherein the Members of a Particular Church are united one with another, not only by the Profession of the same Faith and Religion (all the Members of the Catholick and Vniversal Church are thus united) but in the participation of the same Ordinances, Administrations, and instituted worship of Christ, in a particular place, where there is fitting opportunity of executing, and yield­ing due observance to Rules of Joynt-Communion; which is not a thing possible for the Vniversal Church, now, through numerosity and multitude; though once it was, viz: when the whole Catholick-Christian Church consisted of about but 120. Members in all, Act. 1.15. Now

This Comunion may admit of a twofold breach, viz. 1. Schism in the Church, 2. Separation from the Church (as the breach in the Church-Catholick before): The first is a breach either 1. in point of Judgement and Opinion; or 2. in point of Charity and Christian Affection, (the too too frequent issue and result of the other) 'tis chiefely the former (I presume) that Sr. Augustine calls Dissidium Congregationis, Church-dissention; the latter [Page 11]he calls Odium Fraternum, Brother-hatred and dis-affection; both sad Church-Rents: What, when Lot and Abraham (Brethren) are at strife, when Brethren fall out by the way!

Separation from the Church, is either

• 1. Partial.
• 2. Total.
• 1. Negative.
• 2. Positive.

1. A Partial Separation; when we decline Communi­on with the Church in some Ordinances, but joyn with her in others; as in Prayer, but not in hearing of the Word, or in both those, but not in the Saerament. 2. A Total Separation is an Ʋniversal declension of Communion with a Church in every Ordinance.

1. Negative Separation; when we withdraw from Communion with some Church, not joyning with any other, but continuing in hopes and expectation of the happy amendment of that Church from which we withdraw, with a purpose of returning to her when reformed. 2 Positive Separation; when we do not only decline Communion with a Church, but divide into several Parties, Combina­tions, and new Conventions, as (probably) 'twas amongst the Corinthians; One saying I am of Paul; another, I am of Apollo; a third, I am of Cephas, &c. (1 Cor. 1.12.) embodying in several Church-wayes, setting up Altar against Altar, and Threshold against Threshold.

Separation from the Church, may be Culpable or Incul­pable, Lawful or Vnlawful (and that more or lesse) ac­cording to its Grounds and Causes: Now the only law­full Grounds or Causes of a Total-Positive Separation, are usually reckoned three, viz.

• 1. Intolerable Persecution from Persons.
• 2. Damnable Heresie in poynt of Doctrine.
• 3. Grosse Idolatry in poynt of Worship.

These are the Grounds of our just Departure from the Tyrannical, Heretical, Idololatrical, Church of Rome: O happy Divorce! may the Lord perpetuate it! that we [Page 12]may never say a Confederacy to her again,Isa. 8.12. but upon Gods own Terms of Accommodation, — Let them return unto thee, but return not thou unto them, Jer. 15.19. Again, when the Corruptions of a Church are such, as that one cannot communicate with her without sin unavoydably; That seems to me, to be a just ground, though not of Positive, yet of Negative, though not of Total, yet of Partial, Sepa­ration; and Non-Communion in such a case, can be no sin, therefore no Schism. How can Non-Communion be sin, there, where one cannot communicate without sin? unless men will impose or suffer to be imposed upon themselves, a Necessity of sinning; that which true Piety abhorrs. I am not alone here, or without the suffrage of the so­ber-Learned, (a sufficient protection against the brand of Novelty) who say that if a Church be either no true Church, See Dr. Caw­drey, in his Treatise Enti­tuled, Indepen­dency a great Schism. or so extreamly corrupted, that a good Christian cannot hold Communion with it, without sin; Separation in that case is no Schism; but they are the Schismaticks that give the Cause of that Separation: Then let the VVorld Judge who in England may most deservedly be branded for Schismaticks.

On the Contrary, Culpable, Faulty, and sinful Separation from the Church (the Schism in question) is (as I think it is generally described) a Causeless Separation from Com­munion with, and participation of Christs instituted Wor­ship in, a true Church.

Sir, This premised, we shall easily discover what Church-breach, Schism, or Separation, it is, that Mr. Crof­ton chargeth upon those in the Church of England, (and amongst those my self) who under the present Providence (though they joyn with her in the Instituted VVorship, and Substantial Ordinances of Jesus Christ, therein admi­nistred by, as Prayer, Hearing of che Word Preached, Sing­ing of Psalms, &c. yet) do not, cannot, communicate with her, in her Liturgy or Common-Prayer; as being guilty of a sinful Practice, &c.

[Page 13]1. 'Tis not a breach of the first Vnion, viz. That where­in the Elect, Gods Chosen Ones, are by a true Faith or the Spirit of Faith un-interruptedly indwelling in them, con­joyned one with another, and all of them with their Pub­lick Head, Christ; for this (as is declared) is an utter Impossibility; which none but an Arminian Spirit will deny.

2. 'Tis not a Breach of Communion with the Catholick-Visible Church, and her Common Head, Christ, by vertue of Outward Profession, (which is called a Catholick and Ʋniversal Separation); for this were not only Schism but Apostacy, (as hath been said) not only a Breach of Church-Vnity but a Voluntary forfeiture of a Church-State; an Imputation which my Creed will acquit me from; while I professedly own the true Catholick Doctrine of Christ and [...] Apostles, the Orthodox Fathers, Councels, Confessors, Martyrs in all Ages, and the Reformed Chur­ches.

3. 'Tis not a Breach in the Church; either, 1. in poynt of Judgment and Opinion; nor 2. in poynt of Charity and Affection. 1. Not in poynt of Judgment and Opinion; for, as for Erroneous Principles, according to that light God hath given me, I abhor them: Church-rending Divisions, I shall not willingly or wittingly be accessory to; never forgeting (what Luther said of Caspar Schwenckfield) that Church-Incendiaries may kindle a fire here, which may burn themselves to all eternity, hereafter; But if a Dissent in Judgment about matters of Worship or Disci­pline (yea and (perchance) in Doctrinal poynts too, at least Non-Fundamentals) from our present Church-Pilots, be a Schism, I shall not busie my self about either Vindi­cation or Excuse, under the Censure; but sure I am, ei­ther Mr. Crofton himself is in this sense a Schismatick, or else justly may he be branded for an Apostate. 2. Nor in poynt of Charity and Christian Affection: Mr. Crofton is no competent Arbitrator in that case; God himself is [Page 14]best able to judge, who at this day walks charitably, who not: for my own part, I have Charity for all Church-Members, (understand their Persons, not their Corrupti­ons); The Law of Piety, and the Law of Charity God himself hath married together, and whom God hath joyned, let no man separate.

4. The Breach or Schism (then) charged, must be a Separation from the Church of England; not 1, Total, since I communicate with her in those Parts of Christs instituted Worship and Ordinances, Prayer, Hear­ing, &c. Nor 2. Positive, whilst I turn not Conventicler, and embody not into a Party or Convention set up against her, Altar against Altar, Threshold against Threshold, &c. But 1. Partial, and 2. Negative, viz: meer Non-Communion with her in her Liturgy or stinted and Set-Forms of Common-Prayer. This is the Schism and Sepa­ration charged, This is the Crime and great Article of Endictment. What, and is Mr. Crofton turned Accuser of the Brethren?

Sir, Two Things I equally dislike, Separation on the one hand, and Superstition on the other, (and what so­ber Christian will not?) they being destructive, the one to the Vnity, the other to the Purity of the Church) and the latter not more than the former, (understand I pray you sinfull Separaiotn); Schism in the Church, is a Rent and Wound in Christs Body, a Crucifying afresh of the Son of God: The Schismatical Rendings of the Church by Anabaptists, and such like Fanaticks in Germany, cost Zealous Luther no little grief and lamentation. God for­give those who are known to have been too too guilty of such Sectarian-Cruelty here at home:1 Cor. 1.13. Zech. 13.6. Is Christ divided? was a sad Interrogatory: What, Christ wounded in the house of his friends! that's sad! The Voluntary Rending of Christ-Mystical is a sin, nothing inferiour (in my mind) to that of the Jews Crucifying of Christ Perso­nal, [Page 15]forasmuch as that it reacheth both Head and Mem­bers.

That then which inclineth me to this attempt is, not Consciousnesse to my self of any Schism or (sinfull) Sepa­ration (though I perceive you are ready to espouse mine Acculers quarrel in case of non-satisfaction to your enfor­ced request) but the prevalent sense as well of your im­portunity, as of mine own innocency.

This Epistle (possibly) may seem to be with the City of Myndus, lyable to upbraiding, the Porch being too big, but neither is the premised Introduction larger, nor the subsequent discourse more brief, than (I judged) expe­dient.

Mr. Croftons Grounds and Reasons, urged for Commu­nion with the Church of England in all Acts of worship (and consequently in Common-Prayer) therein administred by; and against Separation or withdrawment from the same; are all reduced to four Positions, or Argumentative Propositions; from which (Premises) he infers, partly the Lawfulness, partly the Expediency, and partly the indispen­sable Necessity of the former, as the sinfulnesse and unwar­rantablenesse, (the Schism) of the latter: And those Posi­tions he calls CONSIDERATIONS, which come now to be considered.

CONSID. 1.Page 4. Communion with the Church-Visible in all the Acts (I had rather say Parts) of Solemn Publique Worship, is an Essential part of the sanctification of the Sab­bath, or Lords day, and positive indispensable duty of every particular soul, called by the name of God, to be onely super­seded by a reall inevitable necessity, with assurance to any, that God will have mercy, and not sacrifice. This is the Major-Proposition of Mr. Croftons great Doom-Argument. The Assumption must be this.

But Communion with the Church of England in her Li­turgy or Common-Prayer (commonly called, Divine Ser­vice) [Page 16] is Communion with the Church-Visible, in So­lemn and Publique Worship: and then the Conclusion must be,

Therefore Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy and Common-Prayer, is an Essential part of the sanctification of the Sabbath, or Lords day, and a positive in­dispensable duty, &c. and by consequence Non-Communi­on, &c. must be a breach of duty, and therefore, a sin, viz: SCHISM.

REMONS. Honoured Friend, My Answer to this, shall be threefold. Viz:

• 1. By way of Concession.
• 2. By way of Distinction.
• 3. By way of Retortion.

1. By way of Concession.

That the Church of England (That is the Community of Christians in this Nation, concorporated by Baptism, pro­fessing the true God and Jesus Christ, and subjected to the Word and Sacraments, &c.) is a true Church, cannot in justice be denyed; Her Primitive Constitution being by History (Times Index, and our best Intelligencer touching Antiquity) known to have been Apostolical, administers to me no occasion of doubt in the thing: But whoever were the Seminary Founders thereof, (whether Simon Ze­lotes, or Joseph of Arimathea (Christs Immediate Emissa­ries) or Aristobolus, or Augustine the Monk,) 'tis no mat­ter of Faith; only let none despise-his Birth-right, as Esau did his. O what a happinesse is it that our Native Land should be a (thus) Consecrated Soil; and that we should be by birth (in this respect) Sons of the Church, (Visible Church Members:) The Inroades of Popery into this Iland, since the Sun of Righteousnesse first rose herein, have been both various and violent, (and what they may further be, God knows) but God hath safe-kept his English-Ark in the midst of that Deluge; the Rock of Ages, hath hitherto been her Ararat; By no Antichristian Inundations, was [Page 17]she ever as yet (totally) overwhelmed; Popery spoiled her Beauty, but did not destroy her Being.

Mr. Crofton turning Confessor, hath acknowledged this Churches (present) Corruptions as well in Things (viz: Wor­ship and Ordinances therein administrable by) as in Persons, both Ministers and People, Visible Members, (the Integral Parts thereof): But a True Church is one thing, a Pure Church another; Here is the New-Creature, Here­after (onely) the Pure-Creature. Now the question is not about Church-purity, (alas! Adulterate Mixtures and In­novations in the Worship of God, are a too too plain con­futation of this now) but Church-Entity, the Truth and Being of the Church, (which our English Donatists (Mr. Crofton may know whom I mean) having (formerly) well nigh confounded, did (like their Progenitors) most sa­criledgiously monopolize the Church of Christ in this Na­tion, confining the Formality (and therefore the Truth and very Essence) of a Church, within the narrow com­passe of their Confederate Members, as if it had not been possible, for their Ark to contain a Cham, or for Tares to grow within their Inclosure; (God will I hope, humble them for it). Truth, we must needs ascribe to the Church of England, while She professedly owns the Faith of Christ, and the True Religion: For the Truth of Religion proves the Entity (or Being), as the Power of Religion the Purity of a Church: while She owns the Head, she must not be disowned for a Part of the Body (the Church Catholick-Vi­sible); while She separates not from Christ, we have no warrant (totally and positively) to separate from Her: She may be Christs Spouse (viz: Visibly and Professedly) though not a Chast-Virgin-Spouse; a Wife, though an Adulteresse; retaining her Affinity, though not her Virginity. Corruptions in the Church are either

1. Personal. or 2. Real.

Real, again, either or

• 1. Substantial and Intrinsecal.
• 2. Circumstantial and Extrinsecal.

The latter is Mr. Croftons own distinction (though possibly he and I may differ in the application of it).

Personal Corruptions in Scandalous Professors, or Visible Church-Members, (Ministers (as well as others) the Hophnie's and Phinehas's of our age) defile a Church: Corruptions Objective and Real, though onely Cir­cumstantial and Extrinsecal, (in Outward Rites and Cere­monies, or corrupt Modes and Methods of Administra­tion, as the Antiquated Jewish Vestments, Crosse in Bap­tisme, Kneeling at the Supper, &c.) adulterate a Church. Corruptions Substantial and Intrinsecal (which are Church-wasting Corruptions; the very Vitals and Intrinse­cals of Religion, being by them destroyed) do (ipso facto,) actually divorce a Church from Christ; those are the steps of Church-Apostacy, when the Wife becomes a Lewd-Woman; (Single Fornication in the first; Adultery in the second; A Bill of Divorce in the last:) The Church of England is too truly chargeable with the two first, but not with the last, as is the Church of Rome, she having not (as yet, I pray God she never may) with her degenerated from a Christian Church, into an Antichristian See; nor her Members with hers, from Pro­fessors to Persecutors of the Faith, not holding the True Head, but setting up ANOTHER NAME; being in Do­ctrine (damnably) Heretical; in Worship (grossely) Idola­trous; in both Antichristian. The Essentials Constitutive of a True Church, are 1. the Head; 2. the Body; 3. the Ʋnion that is between them: which three concur­ring in the Church of England; Christ being her profes­sed Head, she being Christs professed Body, and the Ca­tholick-Faith being the Ʋnion-Bond whereby they are coupled together; She cannot in justice be denyed to be a True (though the Lord knows, far from a Pure) Church. Vid. Jun. lib. de Ecclesia. Herein I agree with Mr. Crofton.

[Page 19]2. By way of Distinction.

Two things are here to be distinguished; viz.

• 1. Communion with the Church-Visible.
• 2. Solemn and Publick Worship.

1. There is a twofold Communion; viz.

• One by Profession.
• Another by Participation.

1. Church-Communion by way of Common Profession of the same true Religion, Faith, Doctrine, and institured worship of Christ, (by vertue whereof all the Members of the Church-Catholick Visible throughout the World, are concorporated and embodyed, one with another, and all of them with Christ as a Publick Head, Catholick Faith being the ground of Catholick Communion, the main Liga­ment of the great Body Mystical) is not only a Duty, but a Priviledge too, indispensably necessary to salvation. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, is a severe Maxim not more known then true; no Salvation (ordinarily) without the Churches Line of Communication. The Church is Gods Inclosure, (Cant. 9.12.) his Nursery planted with the Trees of Righteousnesse; without whose Pale and Boundaries all that die doe perish: Ah, my Dear Friend, Let me rather be a Myrtle in the Vineyard, then a Cedar in the Forrest. 'Twere better England should be unpeopled then unchur­ched: A Church-lesse People is a Christ-lesse People; and if Christ-lesse then Hope-lesse, Ephes. 2.12. Christ is the Head of the Body the Church, Coll. 1.18. No Ʋnion with this Head without Communion with this Body: Christ must be professed, or (else) never possessed; no Saint-State without a Church-State; no Call by the Spirit with­out a Call by the Word first; so that no Word, no Life: Rom. 10.13, 14. — Whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved; — Worship is necessary to Salvation: — How shall they call on him, in whom they have not beleeved? Faith is necessary to Worship: — How shall they beleeve in him, of whom they have not heard? Hearing is necessary [Page 20]to Faith: — How shall they hear without a Preacher? Preaching is necessary to Hearing: so that, without Wor­ship there is no Salvation; without Faith, no (true) Wor­ship; without Hearing, no Faith; and without Preach­ing no Hearing; therefore (a primo ad ultimum) the Word preached is necessary to Salvation; — no Word, no Life; (ah! may this (loathed) Manna never fail from amidst our Brittish-Israel!) Thrice miserable are they whose Sun sets, where the Sun of Righteousnesse never rose, — with healing in his Wings. Solomon (the great Sophi of the World) hath long agoe read the Destinie of such; Where there is no Vision, [...]eunt pere­ [...]t. the people perish, Prov. 29.18. a sad Exit! There is Visio Salvifica in the Church Mili­tant, as well as Visio Beatifica, in the Triumphant: There be no true Saints who are not (in this sense) SEERS. This is the first Communion, wherein I am chargeable with no Breach, while I professe my self a Christian: All Professors throughout the VVorld, are in this respect Communicants.

2. Communion with the Church Visible, by way of Par­ticipation, or actual Enjoyment of the Ordinances, and cele­bration of the instituted Worship of Christ in a particular place (the Communion in question) is (I grant) a Duty ob­lieging semper, but not ad semper: To explaine my self; A Particular Church (such as is the Church of England) having her rise (as such) not from a Common Call by the Word onely, (for the Catholick-Visible Church hath her rise from that) but from a Particular Providential Call, (for so I may term it) whereby Persons (whether Natives or Forreigners), are called to inhabit, reside, or live, there, where there is fit Opportunity of enjoying the Publique Ordinances, and celebrating the instituted Worship of Christ by way of Social-Joynt-Communion; as Providence, Opportunity, or necessary Occasions, shall vary, the Obligati­on to Joynt-Communion must vary also. Mr. Crofton can­not deny that there may be many Members of the Ʋni­versal [Page 21]Catholick, who (yet) never had opportunity of associating themselves with, or of Joynt-Communion in the Solemn Publique Worship he speaks of, in a Particular Church; and many have had it, who have been deprived of it, as Merchants and Marriners, professing the true Religion, who in pursuance of their Secular Callings, are distanced from a true Constituted Church, some of them living in Spaine, others in India, others in Turky, &c. or such as through sickness are kept from the Enjoyment of Publick Ordinances, &c. We cannot say that Communion with a Particular Church, in such Persons under that pro­vidence is an Indispensable duty, or Non-Communion, Schism, unless we also say (which were very hard) that they are bound to an Impossibility; Providence gives a Dispen­sation (as it were) in case of Necessary and Inevitable Non-Communion: In a word, Where Opportunity is serving, Vio­lence not obstructing, Corruptions not barring, no Ne­cessity hindering, there Joynt-Communion in Solemn Pub­lique Worship is an Indispensable duty; otherwise, That which gives a Call, gives also a Discharge, viz. Providence.

Those that disclaim all Church-Fellowship out of a pee­vish petulancy, slighting all opportunities thereof, are justly to be disclaimed as Self-out-lawed; such as the Va­grant Seekers, &c. led by the Ignis Fatuus, the wild-fire of their own deluded Fancy: Surely Communion of Saints is no Article of their Creed, the maintaining of which should be in our respective Capacities, every ones endea­vour. But to proceed.

Sir, I own an Obligation lying upon me, whereby I am bound to communicate with the Church of England (whereof I professe my self a Member) she being (as is acknowledged) a True Church (notwithstanding her many Corruptions,) in these Parts of Gods Real-Solemn, Pub­lick Worship, wherein Violent Impositions, Prevalent Cor­ruptions, or some or other Inevitable barrs necessitate not a withdrawment and Non-Communion; and if I should [Page 22]not, I should greatly sin. But what does this make for Communion with her in her Liturgy and Common-Prayer? Yes, (sayes Mr. Crofton) 'Tis an Act of Solemn Publick Worship, &c. and therefore matter of duty: That is (next) to be tryed.

The Second Thing to be distinguished, is, Solemn Publick Worship.

Religious Worship may be said to be Solemn and Pub­lick in respect of a threefold Community or Solemnity: viz:

• 1. Personal, In respect of Persons worshipping.
• 2. Local, In respect of the Place of worship.
• 3. Real, In respect of the Matter and Constitution of worship.

1. That Worship which is celebrated by a Plurality or Society of Persons, wheresoever convented, is Solemn and Publique in respect of Persons; now our English Liturgy-Service may (I confess) in this respect passe for Worship Solemn and Publique, and so may the Popish-Masse-Service too.

2. That Worship (properly) is in respect of Place, So­lemn and Publick; the particular Place whereof, as well as the Worship it self is appointed of God: Now the Jewish Worship celebrated in the Temple & Tabernacle, was in this respect (as shall appear by and by) the onely Solemn and Publique Worship in the world.

3. That Worship, whereof God is the Author as well as the Object; the Word, the Rule, as well as the Matter; The Catholick-Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles; That Worship which Christ Himself (the Churches Lord-Regent and Law-giver) did appoint and institute; which the Apo­stles (His Seminary Disciples) did, by vertue of Authority derived from Him, commend and command; which the Gospel (the Christian Churches Directory) doth Licence and Warrant; which hath been by a Continued Series and Succession of Christian Professors (Faiths Defenders) from Christ and his Apostles, uninterruptedly maintained, and at [Page 23]length through the Current of Sixteen hundred years, hap­pily (as to substance at least) transmitted and conveyed to us, is in respect of Matter, Authentique Constitution, and Reality, the onely Solemn Publique Divine Worship in the Christian world. Now to apply.

1. Communion with the Church-Visible in that Worship, which is in respect of Matter and Authentique Constitution, Solemn and Publique, namely, That which was instituted by Christ Himself, the Chur­ches Publique Head; preached and pressed by the Apo­stles, the Churches Publique Guides; recorded (as the onely Evangelical Worship) in the Gospel, the Chur­ches Publique Rule; and (in conformity to this Rule) observed and performed by the Primitive Christians for the first two hundred years, the purest Ages of the Christi­an Church, This and all other Churches Publique Exam­ple; is (I readily grant) an Essential Part of the Sanctifi­cation of the Lords Day, and a Positive indispensable duty, to be upon perill superseded or intermitted, upon no less Warrant or Authority then that which imposed it, (with this assurance that God will have mercy, and not sacrifice); In Conscience whereof, I own my self oblieged to joyn with some Society in a Particular (True) Church (a Part of the Church Catholick-Visible) while opportunity serves, and no Real Inevitable Obstruction hinders, in all the Parts of Real-Solemn-Publique Worship (Prayer, Praise, the Word, the Supper) wherein no Violent Impositions, nor any Real Impediment may bar but that I may communicate, nor Prevalent Corruptions necessitate a declension or with­drawment, but that I may without sin. As Saint-Commu­nion is matter of Faith ( [...]) so Joynt-Communion is (Caeteris Paribus) matter of Duty ( [...]); That which all the Professed Members of this Spiritual Corpo­ration (the Church) are bound in their respective Capa­cities to maintain: Church-Ʋnity and Ʋniformity should be the Joynt-endeavour of all, but so as that the purity [Page 24]of the Church be also endeavoured, and (much more that) her Truth and Being, be not destroyed. I am no Divinorum Desertor Castrorum (as St. Ambrose de­scribes a (real) Separatist) no Camp-Fugitive or Assem­bly-Forsaker; no, God knows I detest and disown the Principles and Practises of such as (wilfully and willingly, unnecessarily and peevishly) forsake the assembling of themselves together, as the manner of some (too too many in these late times) hath been in all Ages. There is a twofold Christian Scope; one Primary, viz. Gods Glo­ry; the other Subordinate, viz. the Christians Own Good. The Glory of God is or ought to be by a Gospel-Law (1 Cor. 10.31.) the Terminus Reductivus of all our acti­ons: To glorifie God is a Natural debt, due from the Man as well as from the Christian, and from an Angel as well as from a Man; the whole Host of Heaven are Gods Tributaries herein. The Christians own Happinesse is to be pursued next and in subordination to this. Now, nei­ther is the Crown-Revenue of Heaven so much inhaunced, nor the Catholick Benefit of Christians so much advanced, by Solitary Worship, as by the Joynt-Services of Professors. 'Tis well worthy of our Observation, That Christ gave that Portion and Measure of his Spirit to his Disciples when assembled, which he never gave them whilst apart, (the richest Donative that ever he bestowed upon the Sons of Men!) Act. 2.1, 2, 3, 4. great encouragement to Saints Joynt-Communion! Vis unita fortior. Now

2. This Real-Solemn Worship and Indispensable Joynt-Communion therein, is not confined to any one Particular place more then to another, under the Gospel; not to Rome, more then to England, nor to a Cathedral more then to any other Church; nor to any Church or Chappel, or any such Fabrick and Structure in the World, more then to the open Fields; nor to a Publique, more then to a Private house, in it self: The house of an Obed-Edom may receive this Ark: The Churches Chamber-Worship [Page 25](Act. 1.15.) was true Solemn Worship. My Friend, meer Conscience of the Truth constrains me to speak: They miserably erre, who restrict the truth and reality of Solemn Worship to a Publique place, a material Church and Structure (which yet none that I know, but a few pee­vish Sectaries can dislike) as if Locality, which is but a meer natural Circumstance, were Intrinsecal or Essential to Gospel Worship: And what if those Places thould chance in processe of time to become the Receptacles of Jewish, Popish, Idolatry? where would their Solemn and Publique Worship then be? But (more Argumentatively) where were Material Temples or Churches in the dayes of the Apostles (other then that of Jerusalem, and the Jewish Synagogues)? where were they for the first hundred and fifty years after Christ? when Christians did celebrate their worship in [...], in the Burial Places of Martyrs, (whence (probably) 'twas that their places of Assembly were called Martyria, and the Temple of Jerusalem, Martyrium magnum); and this was the reason why Per­secuting Emperors made it their first businesse and care to barr and banish the Christians from those places: yea,Lib. cont. Valent. Tertullian tells us, that in his dayes (viz. about two hundred and sixty years after Christ) the Christians had no other Meeting-places (Churches) then simplices domes, poor despicable Cottages, which were (saith he) antris & latebris quam Templis similiores, more like unto Caves, or Corners, then Churches: And 'tis probable, that there was not a Material Christian Church, till about or after the times of Evaristus and Dyonisius, Bishops of Rome, well nigh three hundred years after the birth of Christ; Parochial Distributions being begun by the one, and fur­thered by the other. Sir, you may please to consultDe Rer. In­vent. lib. 4. c. 9. lib. 5. c. 6. Polidor Vergilius andDe Orig. Temp. c. 6. Hospinian (both expert and learn­ed Antiquaries) in the case. Now, were Christians all that time, because not Templers, therefore no true Wor­shippers? Was there no Solemn Publique Worship per­formed [Page 26]for so many hundred years (the purest Ages of the Christian Church)? But further; When I read of St. Paul Sermoning, of Lydia converted, and of Prayer wont to be made by a River-side, (Act. 16.13, 14.) Of St. Paul a private House-Preacher eighteen moneths, and that in a house ad­joyning to a Synagogue (Basils [...]) Act. 18.7.11.) Of St. Paul and his Followers, their Chamber-Com­munion in the Word, the Supper, (doubtless there was Prayer there too, Act. 20.7, 8.) When I read of the whole Catholick Christian Church (a Conventicle consisting of about 120 Persons) convented & worshipping in a pri­vateroom (Act. 1.15.) I am sufficiently warranted severe­ly to condemn all such as limit Solemn Worship to any Par­ticular place, as if its Solemnity consisted in its Locality.

The Jewish Worship was the onely Worship that ever could be called Solemn and Publique in respect of Place; for God himself (not Men like our selves) determined upon the Place as well as the Matter and Manner of his worship in the Jewish, which he did not in the Christian Church; the Jewish Sacrifices and Oblations being limit­ed first to the Tabernacle, and after that to the Temple; the former whereof was built according to Gods own Instructions and Plat-form, namely, the Pattern shewed to Moses upon the Mount; the latter was Gods own Choice (Deut. 12.5.11. 1 King. 8.29. 2 Chron. 7.12.) by Solomon through Divine Instinct dedicated to him, and by a miraculous Signal of favour and acceptance (2 Chron. 5.13, 14.) owned by him; and thus 'twas said, In Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship, John 4.20. So that the Place of worship, was indeed a Part of worship, not onely a Circumstance, but of the Substance of worship, amongst the Jews; God having stampt Sanctity and Sacred Solemnity thereupon, (Mr.Altar Wor­ship. page 77. Crofton himself bearing me witnesse.) But under the Go­spel, and in the Christian Church, Locality is a meer mat­ter of Indifferency; Local Liberty being a great part [Page 27]of Evangelical Liberty, Mal. 1.11. Mat. 18.20. John 4.21, 24. Act. 10.35. 1 Tim. 2.8. Christ having Ore & Corp [...]re, both as Man, and as Prophet, by his Preaching, as well as by his Coming abolished Sanctity and Peculiarity (as of Time, so) of Place; the Typical Ʋse of Temple and Tabernacle ceasing in him as Antitype, and Local Li­berty being preached by him as Prophet, John 4.21. In­somuch that Two or Three (wheresoever) met in his Name, have the Solemn promise of his presence (now) Mat. 18.20.) whereas if the Solemnity of his worship were tied to any one place, his presence and the Concomi­tant blessing of his worship should be tied to that place also. Who would have thought thatVid. lib. 3. De Cultu Sanctorum. Bellarmine that great Light of the Romish Firmament, (the chief Atlas of that Orbe) should have been so much in the dark, as to think that, Prayer, or (any other part of worship, perform­ed in a Material Church, &c. is of more Efficacy, then if it were celebrated elsewhere? as if Stone and Timber did contribure vertue to our devotion; or Prayers Efficacy depended on Locality! I wish there be not many Bellar­mines in this respect, foolish Superstionaries! that cry, The Temple of the Lord, The Temple of the Lord, Jer.7.4. &c. like their silly, blind Pharisaical Progenitors. But Sir, You and I are taught of God, assured by Holy Record, that Prayer, or any other part of Divine Worship, in what place soever performed, will be accepted of God, through Christ, so he be but worshipped according to his own Ca­non, viz. — In Spirit, and in Truth, John 4.24. Let none then presently conclude from a necessary declension of Local Society in a Publique place, a breach of Real Commu­nity in True Solemn Publique Worship, which may (indeed) be maintained in any place indifferently. Yet

3. The Church of England (while she holds the Head (Christ) and professeth the True Religion,) being a True Church (a Part of the Church Catholick-Visible) as is ac­knowledged: and a Publique Place, being dictated by the [Page 28]light of nature, and judged by men (to whose Prudential Determination the Conveniency or Inconveniency of Place of worship, as a Natural Circumstance, is left, though it be a meer matter of Indifferency under the Gospel, and in it self) to be fittest for Publique Joynt-Communion, and therefore (though not sanctified) yet prudentially seque­stred and devoted thereunto; I must needs own my self called to communicate (and in answer to that call I do communicate) with her, and that, in the Place of Publique Assembly, in all the Parts of Real-Solemn Divine Wor­ship, wherein I may without either let or sin. And thus Sir, 'tis my known Practice (which you are no stranger to) to joyn with the present Assemblies in Prayer, (though not their Common-Prayer) Praise, or Singing of Psalms, Hearing of the Word, all which are Substantial parts of True Solemn Divine Worship; what? and yet a Separa­tist? Judge how little I deserve that name, while this is my practice, and I exhort you and others to the like; Onely give me leave to tell you, that what was Reverend Beda's advice to him that should chance to read the Books of that Heretical Bishop Julian, I desire (and it may be so will you) to improve in the hearing of ours,—Ita carpat botrum ut spinane caveat, Take of the Cluster, but beware of Prickles, be sure they be of Canaans Grapes; I would not willingly be starved, but God keep me from being poysoned; Take heed of Choaking, chew before you swallow; a Proselyting Romanist (a Seminary Priest) will tell you otherwise; once swallow his Churches Infalli­bility, and any thing will go down then; there is no room left for dispute more, no need of the true Ballance of the Sanctuary. But I have not as yet laid finger upon the soar; therefore consider,

4. That the Church of Englands Liturgy or Common-Prayer (the great apple of strife, &c.) is a Part of this Real-Solemn worship of God, and that Communion with her therein (the thing urged) is (therefore) a Positive Indis­pensable [Page 29]duty, I must take leave (at least till I see more cogent Arguments for it then have as yet been pleaded by the best that ever undertook the patronage of it) utterly to deny. This I know would seem strange to many, (what, a Convocation-Master-piece! the Summum quod sic of the Wit of men and Angels! the Monopoly of Divine Service! the Prayers of the Church! &c. and yet no Part of True Solemn Worship!) but that it is written for pri­vate satisfaction, and by way of private Apology. Sir, 'tis a fixed Principle with me, which I should not fear to publish to the world, (had my tongue the liberty of mine Accu­sers in the case, viz.) That there is no True Divine Wor­ship whereof God is not the Author as well as the Object, the Alpha as well as the Omega: What is not Instituted Worship, is none of His Worship, but meer Will-Worship, for God will be worshipped Desuo, his Soul loathing all that Service (though (possibly) nick-named Divine,) wherein there is more of the Creature, than of Himselfe, (more of Man than of God); What Reason either from Scripture or Common Light, can perswade me other­wise? Now, can Mr. Crofton say Bona fide ('tis not a matter to be dallied withal) that Liturgies or stinted & Set-Forms of Prayer, were ever Instituted by Christ, Practised by the Apostles, Intended in the Gospel, or observed by the Primi­tive Christian Church, in the best and purest ages after Christ, (whose Practice in the case was to be a Leading Case and an Imitable Example to all succeeding Churches) In a word, Can he prove Englands Common-Prayer part of Christs Instituted Worship? Let him produce Authen­tick (either) Precept or President for it, (which will be a hard matter for him to do) else surcease his censure; for what other can it be then a meer Humane Ordinance, Su­per-erogatory Worship, Arbitrary Service, even Scripture-bitten Will-Worship, one of the (justly condemned) Com­mandements and Ordinances of men, Col. 2.22, 23. What is Will-Worship if this be not? Yea, but the Matter [Page 30]of it is good, (this is the ordinary plea, but) so is a great part of the Popish Missal, (with which it so much symbolizeth, (especially their Letany, the first Edition of ours); and so of the Turkish Alcoran: But will that prove it a Divine Constitution? Now, the Question is not, whether it be Divine Matter, or not, but whether a Divine Constitution or not? and therefore I joyne Matter and Constitution together: The Matter proves not its Le­gitimacy, unless such a Frame, Method, Composure and Constitution of VVorship can be proved Jure Divino, to be Christs Own. Prayer is Christs own Institution, (I commu­nicate with them in that) but here is my Crime, I joyne not with them in Prayer in such a Dresse or Form, which (though I neither question the Wisdome that composed it, nor the Authority that imposed it, yet) I professedly de­clare, is in my weak judgment meerly Humane; and there­fore I do not a little wonder that such a man as Mr. Crof­ton should become its Mecoenas and Advocate, who cannot be ignorant of the unhappy occasion of the first introduction of such man-devised Forms and Frames into the Christian Church, administred by the prevailing Arrian and Pelagian heresies, above three hundred years after Christ; nor of the approved Testimonies of Justine Martyr, Tertullian, &c. witnessing the immunity and freedome of the Church in their dayes from such impositi­ons, alleadged by his SMECTYMNƲAN Brethren: But the grounds of my doubts herein shall be disclosed in the next answer; however you may judge from what hath already been said, how unjustly Non-Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy and Common-Prayer, is interpreted sinful Separation, it being a necessary declen­sion of meer Will-Worship.

5. The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is indeed a Sub­stantial Part of Real-Solemn Divine Worship, being one of Christs Fundamental Institutions; but the knowne Violence of Imposition, the Will-Worship and Superstition, [Page 31]which attends the celebration thereof in the Church of England, (so that I cannot communicate with her there­in without sinne) does warrant and necessitate my (pre­sent) Non-Communion and Withdrawment, this being clearly Mr. Croftons alleadged case of Real Inevitable Necessity. Thus then,

Though the Church of England be a true Church (so that a Total Separation from her is unwarrantable) and therefore Communion with her in all the parts of Real-Solemn Divine Worship, wherein I may joyn with her without either let or sin, be a Duty, yet, her Liturgy and Common-Prayer, appearing to be no part of Real-Solemne Divine Worship, but a meer humane Constitution; and the Supper (though a Substantial Part of Real-Solemn-Di­vine VVorship, yet) being by corrupt Mixtures and Appurtenances, much adulterated, so that I cannot com­municate therein without sin; my (present) Non-Com­munion with her, in both the one and the other (which is a Partial Separation) is so far from being a breach of Duty, that it is a Duty, therefore no Schism, (the thing charged) which is a Causless Separation, &c. This may acquit me, and all men in my Capacity, from Mr. Croftons Nick-name of Separatist in the Case. But I refer you, Sir, to my next answer for further satisfaction in both.

3. By way of Retortion.

Communion with the Church of England may be super­seded in case of Real-inevitable Necessity (ex Concessis) by Mr. Croftons own Doctrine and Assertion; but mine (that I may put in for a Supersedeas) is a case of Real inevitable Necessity; therefore (by Mr. Croftons own Acquittance) my Non-Communion, &c. is no sin, no Schism.

There be two things wherein I cannot communicate with the Church of England, viz. 1. Her Liturgy and Com­mon-Prayer: 2. The Sacrament of the Lords Supper, un­der [Page 32]her present method of administration; for Non-Commu­nion in both which, I alledge a Real-Inevitable Necessity,

1. The Necessity of my Non-Communion in the Liturgy and Common-Prayer, is grounded on Invincible doubts a­bout the very Lawfulnesse of such a Constitution, and those upon three Maxims (shall I call them?) or Principles, which Mr. Crofton (possibly) would term Schismatical as well as my Practice.

• Viz: 1. Ecclesiastical Constitutions that are not Ʋseful, are Ʋnlawful.
• 2. Ecclesiastical Constitutions, that are not Needful, are Ʋnlawful.
• 3. That Constitution of Worship which is not commanded, is forbidden.

(Which though they may seem to be very Paradoxes, and strange Positions in this age, yet I professe to you (without any censorious reflection upon either the Prin­ciples or Practises of others) they hamper me:)

The Assumption peculiar to each of those Propositions containeth my doubt —

But the Liturgy or Common-Prayer of the Church of England, is an Ecclesiastical Constitution, which is neither 1. Ʋseful, nor (much less) 2. Needful, nor 3. Commanded, Ergo, &c.

1. That Ecclesiastical Constitutions which are not Ʋse­ful are not Lawful, which are Ʋnprofitable, are Vnwar­rantable (where, by that which is unprofitable I understand that which is un-edifying) is a Truth bottomed upon a great Canon Apostolick (in respect of which all Church-Constitutions ought to be Acts of (True) Canonical Obedi­ence, viz:) [...], Let all things be done unto edifying, 1 Cor. 14.26. Now [...], Edification (according to the language of the Holy Ghost) is not only, 1. a Freedom from positive dammage; nor 2. a Single; but 3. a Successive and gradual Benefit: For Con­firmation hereof, I might produce the Joynt-determina­tion [Page 33]and Vote of a whole Jury of the Orthodox-Learned. Calvin, Junius, Tilenus, Alstedius, Hospinian, Beza, Pa­reus, Prof. Leidens. Jus Canonicum, Perkins, &c. who unanimously conclude the same, whose several Testimo­nies I should here insert, but that I must shun prolixity. 'Tis observable what is left upon everlasting Record, namely, That the Ceremonial Law of Moses was disanulled because of its weaknesse and unprofitablenesse, Heb. 7.18. (that which may be urged (in my mind) invincibly against the retention of Jewish Ceremonies in the Christian Church) whence I argue,

If a Divine Law (one of Gods own making) must be reversed, disanulled, and abolished, (the Holy Ghost himself being Judge) because unprofitable, (as the Cere­monial was, Christ the Substance being exhibited) then surely (A fortiori) all Humane Laws (those of Mens ma­king, especially Ecclesiastical) which are unprofitable, are (hoc ipso) unwarrantable: I should not fear to assert this in the face of the world. Now

That the Liturgy or Common-Prayer is a Constitution unprofitable (which is the Assumption) will need no great labour to prove. 'Tis hurtfull, and is that usefull? who cannot witness the unhappy Consequences, Mischiefs and Inconveniencies attending it? I should say but little, if as some call Ignorance the Mother of Devotion, so I should call it, The Nursery of Ignorance: Nay what greater Schismatick this day in England? what hath more divided between Faithful Pastors & their dear People? the Service hath stopt the Prophets mouths, pad-lock't those lips which should pre­serve knowledg; alas! those are but few amongst the many thousand Malignant Influences of this Convocation-Wild­fire: And yet, There is no hurt in it, say some; that's strangel but admit there were not, doth it any good? the Negative will prove it an Illegitimate brood; yes, may some Commo­ner say; and so may I say of the Popish Missal, it may ac­cidentally profit me; but neither will Collateral nor single [Page 34]Benefit prove the Legitimacy either of the one or of the other: Further; Is it an Edifying Constitution? if not, cashier it for Apocryphal, 'tis an Adulterate piece: The waters of the Sanctuary must rise higher and higher; now what influence hath it in building of a man, a Church-member, up in his most holy Faith? were this to Edifie? In a word; It mustInstit. lib. 4. c. 10. Sect. 32. Manifestam utilitatem prae se ferre, (ac­cording to Calvins Rule,) It must conduce to the neanifest advantage of the Church of God, to her growth and gradual Prosiciency (since the riper she is for age, the ri­per she should be for knowledge, &c.) to the perfecting of this Mystical Building, Ephes. 4.11, 12. else (beleeve it) it is not [...], and if un-edifying, then un­warrantable. Now how little our Liturgy or Common-Prayer is contributary hereunto, let the Impartial judge.

2. That Ecclesiastical Constitutions which are Vnnecessa­ry, are (also) Vnlawfull, (the second Proposition) seems to be firmly grounded on the Authentick Decretal and Re­solve of the famous Synod of Jerusalem, consisting of Apostles and Elders (Men extraordinarily gifted, and infal­libly guided by the Holy Ghost) Act. 15.28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater bur­den than those necessary things: An Imitable and Regula­tive Example to all Councels and Convocations in succeed­ing ages; for there the Holy Ghost Himself was Presi­dent (as I may say) it seemed good first to the Holy Ghost, and then to Vs. 'Twas His Own Visum est, and Canon. — All Peace be on them that walk according to this Rule.

That the Liturgy or Common-Prayer is an Vnnecessary Constitution (which is the Assumption), none [...], none of the Necessary things licenced by the Holy Ghost, appears to me from a threefold consideration, namely, Of 1. Christ; 2. The Spirit; and 3. The Gospel.

1. All Necessary Parts of Divine Worship are by Christ (who is the Churches Law-maker, as well as Peace-ma­ker, the great Master of Assemblies) undoubtedly) insti­tuted [Page 35]and appointed; else that might be justly imputed to the Son, from which the Holy Ghost acquits the Servant, Heb. 3.5. (which were blasphemy once to imagine,) and 'twere not a little strange, if when the Man Moses did punctually prescribe all the Tabernacle-Appurtenan­ces, even to a Pin and Snuffers, the Lord Christ should not also be faithfull over his house in describing and prescri­bing all the necessary Parts of his Worship and Service; as if Scripture-Oeconomicks were defective and incompe­tent Church-Rules without the Contribution of Men-devi­sed, additional-traditional Forms, &c. But now the Liturgy or Common-Prayer (that Constitution) is none of Christs either in respect of Composition, or (much lesse) Impositi­on; Ergo, &c. Most of the Matter though I grant to be Divine, yet that will not prove the Constitution (the thing in question) Divine: What need many words? For the Lords sake let either Precept or President in either Christ or his Apostles, be produced for such a Frame, Contexture and Constitution of worship, and the question is deci­ded. The Lords Prayer is an Instance and President, say some! 'Tis Authentique Common-Prayer indeed, (and that which I reverence for the Authors sake, but not ido­lize) but that it is a Form, needs proof; however, be it a Form, be it a Pattern, it makes nothing against me; for if a Form, then Humane Forms are Ʋnnecessary, (that is my Quaesitum) unless men will tax Christs Own with some de­fect or Insufficiency, — Frustra fit per plura, &c. Religion abhors Superfluities as well as Nature. If Christ hath accommodated me with a Divine Form of Prayer (one of his Own) I may by Authority slight all Humane Forms in the world: Again, If a Pattern, then no President nor Protection to Set-Forms, &c.

2. Where the Spirit of Prayer is plentifully effused and diffused, there Set-Forms of Prayer are unnecessary; be­cause whatever Benefit can be imagined to accrew from Forms, all that and much more doth accrew from the [Page 36] Spirit: Are Forms Helps to the weak? cannot they go with­out them? The Spirit helpeth our infirmities, Rom. 8.26. He being the Christians Auxiliary in, as well as the Author of prayer: Are Forms Guides to the Blind? cannot they see without them? The Spirits Office is to—guide into all Truth, John 13.16. Now this same Spirit is plentifully powred out in Gospel-times, being Christs Exaltation-Do­native, Act. 2.1, 2, 3, 4. Eph. 4.8. By vertue where­of the Christian hath commenced a degree above the Jewish Church: This being subjected to a Servile and Infant-state, (the Legall Constitution,) That being promoted to a Filial Adult-State, (the Evangelical Constitution of the Church); Ergo, &c.

3. The Gospel (Christs Canon-Law) is (as a Perfect System of Sound Words and Doctrine, so) a Sufficient Directory for Worship, able to make the man of God per­fect, (2 Tim. 3.15, 16.) without Humane Contri­butions; Ergo, &c.

I am not ignorant that Errour hath its Advocates; 'tis pleaded, That Set-Forms of Prayer are needfull for maintaining of Ʋniformity, &c. Good Lord! have those Patrons no better Pleas than what Adulterate-Rome may espouse for defence and insinuation of her Masse-Service, and Metropolitical Antichristian Head? Are there no Church-Ligaments? no Bonds or Badges of Church-Vnity, but what would inevitably destroy Church-Purity, if not (eftsoon) Church-Entity? Why, will men create more Necessities than the Word will warrant, and thus occasion more Sins than ever God forbad? But enough of that. Sir, With Your leave I will now conclude that our Liturgy or Com­mon-Prayer is unnecessary, therefore unwarrant­able; not usefull, not needfull, therefore not lawfull.

3. That that which is not commanded in the Worship of God (viz. in poynt of Matter or Manner) is (consequen­tially) forbidden, (the third Proposition) may be (in [Page 37]my Judgment) undeniably concluded from these three gradual Axiomes, (which are indeed [...], Com­mon, Innate, Rational Principles,) viz.

1. There is a GOD; This is [...], the ve­ry First and Fundamental Article of our Faith; a Truth, which the Creatures may serve for Catholick Teachers, (the Ʋniverse for an Ʋniversity) to school us in, Rom. 1.20. Creation-works are a Revelation-Book, which reveals a God, though not a Christ; a Deity, though not a Trinity: Natural Conscience is a Bosom-Volume, wherein we may read the same; which, should a man become a tractable Disciple to, he should never die (in this sense) Atheist or Infidel. Davids Fool may say in his heart, Psal. 14.1. There is no God, but 'tis not said he (really) thought so; for this is a Truth, which may be read by Natures Com­mon Light, yea, by that of the Sun, Moon, and Stars.

2. There is Worship due from the Creature to this God. This is a main [...],Rom. 1.19. one of the prime things which may by Natures Light and Creature-evidence be known of God; a Principle depending upon the former. That very Light which convinceth men of a God-head, convinceth them also of this Worship as a Natural Debt and Tribute due thereunto: Both are Common-Creed: Thus the Gentiles are not charged with Ignorance of a God­head, nor with neglect of Natural Worship (the Thing), but with a defect in the Manner of Worship, — When they knew God, they glorified him not [...] AS God, Rom. 1.21.

3. This God is to be worshipped in a way suitable to his own Will and Nature: What more Rational then this? What Heathen Socrates ascribed to his Idol-God, surely we may, and must (much more) ascribe to Our Only True God, namely, that he must be worshipped [...] in a way, manner, and method most pleasing to himself; and what Manner or Method of Worship more pleasing to God, then that which is agreeable to his Own [Page 38] Will, or most suitable to his own Nature? Now then to apply.

Since there can be no true Divine Worship, which is not either suitable to Gods Nature (as is Gospel-Worship, it being spiritual as God himself is a Spirit, Joh. 4.24.) or (at least) agreeable to Gods Will (as the Jewish Worship, by Sacrifices and Oblations, the blood of Buls and Goats, &c. which had nothing at all to commend it, but the Quod libet licet, the very Will and Authority of the Law-giver, (else how irrational had it been?) God having by way of In­dulgency, accommodated the Outward Method and Man­ner of his Worship under the Law more to the Nature of the Jewes, then to his Own; whereas Evangelical Worship is not only agreeable to his Will, but suitable to his Na­ture). Since the agreeablenesse of Worship to Gods Will, and the suitablenesse of Worship to his Nature, is to be measured by the Manner, as well as (if not more then) by the Matter of it, (That being the Distinctive Forme thereof): And since the true Regular Manner of Di­vine Worship is only revealed and dictated in and by Scrip­ture-Canon; Scripture Light directing to the Manner, as Natures Light directs to the Object of Worship; (else what advantage have We to whom are committed the Ora­cles of God, over the Pur-blind Gentiles? who are not tax­ed for not worshipping of God according to the light they had, whereby they were directed to the Object of Wor­ship; but for not glorifying of God AS God, (Rom. 1.21.) they failed in the Manner): Since (I say) 'tis so, I must needs conclude, that That Manner or Constitu­tion of Worship, which is not Prescribed, is (ipso facto) Probihited, which is not Commanded, is (consequentially at least) forbidden. Some (possibly) will Object, What Reason, that That which is not Commanded, should (con­sequently) be forbidden; more then why that which is not forbidden, should be (consequently) commanded? (a common Plea in the Case): But, Dispar est Ratio, [Page 39]there is a great disparity, a Negative will prove a Sin, but every Positive will not prove a Duty; thus whatever is not agreeable to the Will of God is a Sin, but all that is agreeable to the Will of God is not a Duty; this is plain, a Moral Duty is the Obligatory Influence of some Positive Law: To proceed then.

That such a Constitution as Liturgy or Common-Prayer is not commanded of God (the Assumption) is proved aboun­dantly: Where is there ever a Deus dixit, a Thus saith the Lord for it in all the Book of God? An Ecclesia dixit, will not go down with me, who cannot put Church-Infal­libility into my Creed, nor suffer my soul to become Cap­tive to an Implicite-Faith, Infallibility is one of Gods own Crown-Royalties; He onely is Infallible in point of Knowledge, who is Immutable in Being and Existence. Where is there ever one Authentick President for it? Mr. Crofton (I know) doth attribute the Essential Form of Prayer to it (page 25.) which he describes to be, A calling upon God in the name of Christ; But if he under­stand not, in the Name of Christ, the Will of Christ, then I say, 'Tis not a Right Description of Prayer, (whose ( [...] Essentiale) Essential Form depends upon the Rule, Gods own Prescript, it being a Moral Duty) no better then what may agree to the Romish Letany: But if he do un­derstand therein the Will of Christ, I once more call for an instance in some Authentique Precept or President (the onely Commentaries upon Gods Will Regulative) for such a Constitution; which I despaire ever to see. I might have told you, that it is a Humane Tradition, and therefore a sin against the 2. Commandement, being contrary to BishopExpos. on 2. Com. Andrews his Modus Praescriptus; Gods own Prescribed Manner of worship: But I shall not need to go so far; let it be proved, that it is a Constitution whereof God is the Author, the Word the Rule, the Practice Apostolick the Pattern; or what can it be other then Cultus ex humane cerebro confictus? meer Will-Worship and Superstition, which (beingSir France Bacon, in his Essayes. the reproach of Deity) must needs be as well [Page 40](though not as much) as Idolatrous Worship displeasing to Him who with his own finger twice wrote Himself [...] A Jealous God; who therefore may justly say of such Officious Service;—Who hath required this at your hand? O that men would seriously consider (what I tremble at the very thoughts of, namely) the dreadfull doom and sentence gone out against such, as either add to, or sub­stract from Gods own Volume, Deut. 12.32. Rev. 22.18, 19.

Thus Sir, a Conscience fettered with doubts is that which I plead as a ground of Real inevitable necessity in this case of my Non-Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy and Common-Prayer. So that whereas Mr. Crof­ton pleads for Communion with her in that (as well as in other Parts of Solemn Publique Worship) as a thing not onely Lawfull, but Expedient, yea, Indispensably necessary, I question all, viz: not onely the Necessity, but the Ex­pediency, yea the very Lawfulnesse of it, it being in mine opinion upon the accounts aforesaid, none of the Real or True Worship of God, but meer Wil-Worship and Contri­vance of Men, so that I cannot communicate therein without sin; For To him that esteemeth a thing unclean, to him it is unclean: And he that doubteth is damned, if he eat, because he eateth not of faith, for what is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14.14.23. And what though my Conscience be Erroneous herein, yet doth it lay upon me a Negative Obligation in the case, Ligat, though not Obligat; Though an Erroneous Conscience obliegeth me not to do what it commandeth, yet it obliegeth me to refrain from what it forbiddeth; this is the determination of Learned Casu­ists in the Case: Conscience being the Queen Regent-Fa­culty of the soul, Gods Own Representative therein, must not (at least in matters of Indifferency) be controled; ForAmes. de Consc. lib. 1. cap. 4. Quicquid dictat, dictat sub ratione Voluntatis Divi­nae. Better it is that I should not at all communicate, than to communicate with a Reluctancy of Conscience; [Page 41]for in such a case, what is an Indifferency to another, may be Iniquity in me; Mr. Crofton should rather pity than censure such a One; what must all be cut off that are not skilled in his Shibboleth? His Invective against Church-Yard-Loyterers, Judg. 12.6. (Page 24.) might well have been spared in a time, wherein Vineyard-Labourers are so few.

2. The Real-Inevitable Necessity of my Wit [...]drawment from, or Non-Communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, under the present Modes and Methods of Admi­nistration in the Church of England, is grounded upon theConstit. and Can. Eccles. An Dom. 1603. Can. 27. Imposed Gesture, the Superstition and Corruptions which attend it: (which who can be such a stranger in our Israel as to be ignorant of)? Though I could go neer to approve of the gesture of Kneeling, being lest Arbitrary, and commended or practised only as an Outward Badge of more than ordinary thankfullnesse, under the reception of an Extraordinary Blessing, and not as an Act of Piety, Necessity, or Worship: And though I shall not (at this time at least) go so far as some, namely, to assert that the Conse­crated Bread purposely set before Superstitious Kneelers (Protestants), and the (supposed) Transubstantiated Bread purposely placed before Idolatrous Kneelers (the Papists) is the same, In Esse Ad. rabili; yet two things I shall say: First, A Papists Idolatrous Kneeling. before the Bread (supposed to be Transubstantiated, is (in some respect) more Excusable, than a Protestants Superstitious Kneeling before the Bread (being onely) Consecrated; for his Creed doth (though not Justifie, yet) in part excuse his gesture; Did I beleeve that the Sacramental Bread, is no sooner Consecrated, than really Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ, I should think, I should greatly [...]n if I did not forthwith exhibit Worship thereunto, since (as the O tho­dox-Learned generally grant) there is Adoration and Worship due to Christ even as Man, viz: by vertue of the Personal Vnion of his Humane with his Divine Nature. Secondly, The gesture of Kneeling at the Sacra­ment, [Page 42]&c. in the Church of England, having Necessity placed in it (else why is it imposed, and not seft Arbitra­ry?) yea and holinesse and worship too, (as itsThe Arch-Bishop of Spalato: Dr. Burgesse: Dr. Mortoun; Pay­body, &c. learned Pa­trons inform us), and so becoming a dangerous piece of Superstition and Will-Worship, I am warranted to with­draw, and refuse Communion with her therein, by a Super­sedeas of Mr. Croftons own grant, viz: in case of Real-In­evitable Necessity; with this assurance, that God will have mercy and not sacrifice. The Sacrament is a Priviledge, but Superstition is Sin; now I may often warrantably wave a Priviledge, but never am I warranted to commit the least Sin; and therefore for fear of Poyson, I deny my self Food. Alas! Mr. Croftons Instances in Stinking Fish, &c. Pudled wa­ter, &c. An Vncleane Vessel, &c. yeeld not the least satis­faction to me; what if there be poyson in the dish, though never so well garnished? My Dear Friend, The case is very hard; but what shall I do? If I must dye, let it be by famine, as soon as by poyson, If I must be fourty years with­out a Passeover, (even as long as the Israelites were in the Wildernesse without theirs) The will of the Lord be done: I had rather be in the Wildernesse without it, than go back to Egypt for it, while I know that I am in the way towards Canaan; not so getting St. Bernards Max­im, Non privatio sed contemptus damnat; The want of a Sacrament is my Affliction, but the Contempt of it onely (under that want) is my Sin; only my prayer is that God would forgive them, Who make the Lords offering to be abhorred. Thus Sir, I hope you are by this time satisfi­ed in the case, namely, That Non-Communion with the Church of England, in her Liturgy and Common-Prayer, as also in the Lords Supper under the present method of Administration, in those who yet joyn with her in Prayer, Praise, The Word Preached (Parts of True Solemn Divine Worship) as you and I do) is no breach of duty, but a duty; (the one being no True Divine Worship, but Will-Worship; the other being though a Substantial Part of Worship, [Page 43]yet Adulterated and extreamly Corrupted Worship) there­fore no SCHISM, which was the thing charged. Now give me leave before I conclude this, to produce my War­rant and Protection in the case, from the Church of Eng­lands own Canon and Constitution; namely, the 9^th made in the year, 1603. Entituled Authors of Schisms in the Church of England censured; the words whereof are these, viz: Whosoever shall hereafter separate themselves from the Communion of Saints, as it is approved by the Apostles Rules in the Church of England, and combine themselves together in a new-Brotherhood, accounting the Christians who are conformable to the Doctrine, Government, Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, Prophane and unmeet for them to joyn with in Christian Profession, let them be ex­communicated, Ipso facto, &c. Now 1. I separate in case of Real-Inevitable Necessity only, therefore not contrary to the Apostles Rules; 2. Mine is not Positive Separation, there­fore no Combination in a New-Brotherhood; 3. I am not only a Professor of the same Faith, (which is all the Canon seems to require) but a Partaker in the same Ordinances, (though not in all) with those who are Conformable, &c. and there­fore that very Canon which censureth Schismaticks, prote­cteth Me.

Now Honoured Sir, Though I perswade my self that your request is satisfied in the case touching Non-Com­munion, &c. Yet cannot I satisfie my self unless I give a brief touch upon Mr. Croftons other Considerations; and before I come to them, assoile what is objected from the High Places amongst the Israelites; (A Recocta crambe with him, and an ordinary Allegation with all that are of his perswasion in the case in hand).

Do men complain (saith he) as they have cause, Page 39. That some Roman Rites were retained, when this Church was re­formed, let them consider, many pious Kings of Judah, have their reforming-Governments stained with a—But the High Places were not taken away, but the People went thi­ther to worship, yet I find not that any God-fearing Israelites [Page 44]who loathed those Reliques of Idolatry, ever barred them­selves because thereof from Gods Altar and Worship.

Ans. 1. The Retention of Jewish Ceremonies in the Christian Church, is (God knows) a just cause of Com­plaint, since by reason of them, the condition of the Chri­stian Church, is become more intollerable than was that of the Jewish Infant Church; the Jews being subjected to Divine Impositions, the Christians (oh, sad!) to Hu­mane Presumptions (the Arbitrary Lawes and Lusts of Men) witnesse Sr. Augustine. Ad Januar. Epist. 119. c. 19. Item Epist. 118. c. 2.

2. If the Retention of Jewish-Popish Ceremonies in the Church of England at first, (when Reformation was but Early) was a just cause of Complaint, how much more grievous must the Reduction of them after Sacred and So­lemn Expulsion be? the First compared to that of the last 20 years, being as the Twilight to a clear Sunshine: It St. Augustine complained of the intollerable burthensomness of Ceremonies in his dayes, (as in the places before menti­oned) what cause have we to complain, &c. in our dayes? For if the first Introduction of them into the Roman Church, was a Reduction of Judaisme, how like does the Reduction of them into the English Church, look to the Introduction of Romanisme? what? and not complain!

3. Mr. Croftons alleadged case of the Israelites, and their High Places, &c. is (alass!) infinitely wide of Ours; (and therefore I marvel that a man of such Parts as he is, should once plead the thing): For,

1. Though the High-Places of old were, even under Reforming Governments, both retained and frequented, (which I deny not) yet what makes this against me, who dispute not about the Retention, but about the Resti­tution of a piece of Superstition and Will-Worship? When did any one of those Pious Kings of Judah, first reforme, and then restore the High-Places spoken of? Can Mr. Crofton instance when the high-Places were restored by the [Page 45] King, and frequented by the People, after sacred and so­lemn expulsion of them (to use his own words) by Both? O, but Retrogradations in Religion are dangerous! Let me rather sojourn in a Wildernesse, then return to Egypt; Alass! this is our Case: Who can be insensible of the Retrograde Motion of Englands Sun? Our high-Places are restored after sacred and solemn Expulsion; 2 Kings 18.4. a blasted Ne­hushtan reintroduced: Ah! this is the Spot in our Moon: 'Tis happened to us according to the true Proverb, 2 Pet. 2.22. The Dog is turned to his Vomit, and the Sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the Mire.

2. The Israelites were confined in their Sacrifices and Oblations to Gods Altar, (viz. at first in the Tabernacle, Lev. 17.3, 4. and afterwards in the Temple, Deut. 12.5, 6, 11. from which it was not lawful, but upon extra­ordinary occasions, or by divine Inspiration, to separate;) God having determined upon the Place, as well as the Manner, of his Worship in the Jewish Church: No won­der then, if the God-fearing Israelites did not barr them­selves from Gods Altar and Worship, notwithstanding those Reliques of Idolatry, since they should have in so do­ing transgressed a Positive Law. Now will Mr. Crofton argue from hence, against the Practice of Christians, a­mongst whom the Place of VVorship is a meer Matter of Indifferency, Local-Liberty being a part of Gospel Liberty, (as hath been cleared above)?

3. Though the High-Places were originally devised by the Idolatrous Israelites in imitation of the Heathenish Groves, yet the use of them was changed by the God-fear­ing Israelites, who (even the Priests and Levites them­selves being of the number, 1 Chron. 16.39.) perform­ed Religious Worship in an Idolatrous Place: Now will Mr. Crofton infer from the Israelites worshipping in an Ido­latrous Place, a necessity of Communion in a Superstitious Worship? My Friend, I distinguish between Presence and Communion. The Devout Israelites were present in [Page 46]an Idolatrous Place, but did not therein partake of Idola­trous Worship: Now, What does Mr. Crofton plead for? Is it my Presence only in the Church at the time of Divine Service (as it is called)? or is it Communion in that Ser­vice? To be plain with you; The former I could give, and yet refuse the latter, but so, as That also shall be the fruit of cogent Necessity, (not of Choice) hoping in that case for Naamans Dispensation, 2 Kings 5.18, 19. (it that sense be received) Presence is a Civil, but Commu­nion a Religious Act, so that should I in Obedience to a Poenal Law, or out of Necessity of hearing of a soul-sav­ing Sermon, give my Personal Presence in the publick Con­gregation in time of Common-Prayer, knowing that an Idol is nothing in the World, 1 Cor. 8.4. let none conclude from my Presence in the Place, Communion in the Worship, (or rather Will-Worship): Naaman's Servile presence in the house of Rimmon (being granted) would not prove his Communion in the Worship of Rimmon, 2 Kings 5. Eli­jah could look upon Baals Prophets Sacrificing, and con­demn them, 1 Kings 18. God-fearing Israelites did fre­quent the High-Places, but that proves them not Commu­nicants in the Superstition or Idolatry of those Places: Their Practice then herein, are but weak Premises to Mr. Croftons Conclusion. Once more;

4. The disparity between the case of the Israelites, and that of ours, lies greatly in this, viz. There the Worship was good, the Place only bad; but here the Place only is good, and the Worship (being meer Will-Worship) bad: So that Mr. Croftons Inference drawn from the Jewish Practice, in that case, against Non-Communion, &c. is (with me) a manifest non sequitur.

CONSID. 2. Communion with the Church under many and great Corruptions, is not inconsistent with Zeal, Care, and Contest for Reformation.

Remons. 1. That the Reformation of the Church is a Duty incumbent upon every Man and Member thereof, to be pursued within the Verge of their respective Places and Capacities, by all Just and Lawful Means, is a Truth here supposed, and hereafter (Page 28.34.) asserted by Mr. Crofton himself: Certain it is, that every Church-Member ought to be in this respect a Church-Reformer: And according as his Capacity shall vary, whether in re­spect of Power, Interest, Office or Opportunity, &c. ac­cordingly doth his Obligation hereunto, vary also.

2. Mr. Crofton had done well to have stated the que­stion aright de Ecclesia Reformanda, & de Ecclesia Refor­mata: The Question with us, is not, Whether Communi­on with the Church under many and great Corruptions be con­sistent with Zeal, Care, and Contest for Reformation there­of? Who will deny that? But this, Whether Commu­nion with the Church of England under many and great Corruptions be consistent with due and constant endeavours of reforming, after sacred and solemn Expulsion of the same? Nay Sir, more particularly yet, 'Tis this (and I would Mr. Crofton had well considered it, viz.) Whether Com­munion with the Church of England (not under, but) in those very Corruptions which (he says) we are by a Duty-Obligation bound (in our Capacities) to reform, be consi­stent with due and constant endeavours of reforming the same? More particularly yet, Whether Communion with the Church of England in her Liturgy and Common-Pray­er (That (once) Exploded Will-Worship and Corrupt Con­stitution) be consistent with that Tie, whereby we are bound to constant endeavours of Reformation? The Que­stion thus stated, who cannot but resolve into the Nega­tive? Especially, if he consider, that the Liturgy and Common-Prayer is not a Luxurious Branch, which ought to be lopt off, but an Adulterate Plant, Math. 15.13. which ought to be rooted out, as being none of those Plants which our Heaven­ly Father hath planted; so that the Reformation herein oblieged to, must consist not in an Alteration, but in the [Page 48]outer Ejection and Abrogation of such a Constitution, (but such as is to be endeavoured only in our several Places and Capacities, and by Lawful and Warrantable Means: Schism and Sedition, Faction, and Rebellion I am taught of God to abhor, as well and as much as doth Mr. Crofton himself.) Now then, If I be bound to contribute by all lawful endea­vors, what in me lies, & in my capacity, to the Reformati­on (that is, to the Extirpation) of such an Adulterate Con­stitution (viz. the Liturgy or Common-Prayer), how in­consistent with such a Tie must my Communication in that worship be! VVere not this to plant what I am bound to root up? and to build what I am bound to destroy? Or if I should after sacred and solemn Ejection thereof, re-embrace or countenance or communicate in it, were not that to re­turn with the Dog to the old Vomit? to re-build our (once) demolished High-Places? and is this to reform? Con­nivance is to Mr. Crofton (Page 28.) an Argument of Affection; and Communion is to me an Argument of Conni­vance: Ah!Rom. 14.22, my Good Friend, Happy is he that condemneth not himself, in that thing which he alloweth. How can I countenance or communicate in that Worship, whereof I am bound constantly to endeavour the Reformation? Yes, saith Mr. Crofton, very well, while the Matter is good, the out­ward Mode or Method only bad: This is his Recocta Cram­be, but he must prove the Whole Frame and Constitution good, which as yet he hath not done, else 'tis but a meer evasion. Now let me ask, What is it that he is bound to reform? Is it the Matter of the Liturgy, &c.? Or the Outward Mode only? or the Constitution and Whole Frame of such a VVorship? the Whole Frame and Constitution, surely, a piece of Adulterate Worship, else why was it ever wholly exploded and ejected? But This Reformation is to be endeavoured only in our several Places and Capacities: Truth, Buth the Negative Part obliegeth ad semper, thus, Though I cannot go on, yet I am bound never to go back; my Progress may be obstructed, but my Regress is not the reby warranted; If my Sun be hindered in its Course, [Page 49]let it stand still, rather then goe, one, much less, ten degrees backward: My Positive endeavours may be ad extrinseco obviated, so that I can not reform, but the Moral Obligation cannot be violated, so that I must not retreat; the Nega­tive is the least that I am in the case oblieged to: Now, If by Mr. Croftons own Rule, (Page 28.) Error cui non resistitur, approbatur, the non-resistance of Errour (viz. when 'tis in our power to give a stop) be an Allowance of it, and Connivance be an Act and Argument of Affection, what must Personal Communion in the Liturgy and Common-Prayer, be? surely an Act and Argument of, Connivance in, Allowance of, and Affection to it: And how inconsistent this is with his alleadged Zeal, Care, and Contest for (and due uninterrupted Endeavours of) Reformation, &c. let the impartial judg. Sir, I need not to tell you that I am under no Obligation from the Oath, commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant, (I never took That, more then the slavish Engagement, which you well know); who then can imagine that I should once plead That? But had it been my sad Lot to be, either through a Precipitant Zeal (the Predominant humour of former Times) entangled, or by the circumventing Perswasives of Covenant-Zealots, inveagled, into such a Labyrinth, and yet free, yea, forward with Mr. Crofton and other Reverend and VVorthy Pres­biters, to swallow down Common-Prayer, and to proselyte others to Communion therein, I should have owned my self a perpetual Debtour to King and Parliament for a Re­lease, whose Wisdome judged it fit to open a door of Liberty by disanulling that Oath. But I go on.

Reformation and Separation (saith he (whereof Volun­tary Non-Communion is the Privative Part) though con­founded, Page 30. yet are in themselves vastly different, inconsistent, and destructive each to other.

Ans. 1. Separation from the Common-Prayer, is an Act of Reformation, being a Continuation of Reforming Endea­vours in this juncture of time, wherein Scrupulous Weak­lings, are loth to contribute to the maintaining of That by [Page 50]their Practice, which after Solemn Ejection, is returned and retained by Power. 'Tis Negative Reformation; an Act of Primitive Zeal; whereby those Persons refuse to con­form to, what they cannot (positively) reforme; the same Principle oblieging them to decline and disown it, when (after Expulsion) restored, that at first oblieged them (and possibly Mr. Crofton too) to that Expulsion; 'Twere strange if it should be otherwise.

2. Separation sinfull, and Reformation, are indeed in­consistent, and destructive each to other: Virtus stat in me­dio: Reformation (which supposeth (hurch Entity) is an Act of Vertue, equally opposite to those Extreams, Super­stition and Separation (the Scylla and Charybdis, the two Rocks, upon either of which, the Mysticall Ark (the Church) is in danger of being split) the one being destruct­ive to Church-Purity, the other to Church-Ʋnity (as hath been said), so that, That very Principle, which obliegeth to Reformation (be it Conscience, or Conscience under such or such Enforcements, &c.) doth ipso facto obliege to an Equal abhorrency and detestation of Both: And thus, Schism, I abominate, 'tis a thing my Soule loathes, I desire to keep the Ʋnity of the Spirit, in the Bond of Peace (Mr. Crofton wrongs me if he thinks otherwise), for I am suffi­ciently apprehensive, how neer, Church-Rents border up­on Church-Ruine. But now, That Separation onely is Sinful and Schismatical which is Causelesse, and not war­ranted by the (often mentioned) Case of Real-Inevitable-Necessity; which will acquit me from such an Imputati­on, who communicate with the Church of England in Prayer, Praise, the Word, Parts of True Divine Worship, but decline, and modestly refuse Communion with her onely in those two things; viz: 1. Her Liturgy and Common-Prayer; 2. The Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per under the present Method of Administration and Ap­pendices; the first appearing to be no part of Christs In­stituted Worship; the second (though for substance a Part of Christs Instituted Worship, yet) being by Superstition [Page 51]and Adulterate Mixtures of Pharisaical Leaven with the Sacramental Bread, &c. so extreamly corrupted, that I cannot communicate with her therein without sin; I can­not partake of the Sacrament, but that I must partake of the attending Superstition too; I cannot celebrate the Death-memorial of a Crucified Lord, but that I must by sin crucifie that Lord afresh, and thus Commemorate his Death with his Death. I must add,

3. There is a Separation Passive, whereby Pastors are separated from their People (their Charge) and a breach made upon their Joynt-Communion; Hereby judge who are the greatest Schismaticks; Those who are separated, being by a Violent Interruption at first driven away, and by Prevalent Corruptions (at least in the Things just now men­tioned) kept away, and barred from Communion, &c. or, Those who cause that Separation: This is a Poenal Evil, the Condigne punishment of our Laodicean Neutrality and Lukewarmnesse in the work of Reformation; there have been in former times too too many Jehu-like Refor­mers, who have made Religion to stoop to a Carnal Interest, to Secular and Selfish Ends and Aimes; this hath kindled a fire in Heaven, which nothing but Prayers and Tears, &c. can quench; for This,Psal. 78.21. A fire is kindled against Jacob, and anger also is come up against our Brittish-Isra­el: Isa. 43.28. Ah! for this hath God profaned the Princes of the Sanctuary.

I cannot (saith he, page 31.) without trembling consider the Circumcised Sects in the Church of Corinth are charged to have left the Head, by leaving the Body, Col. 2.19. &c.

Ans. 1. This is a strange Argument to be urged against his censured Non-Communicants, unless they be proved to be (such as by his own confession, those whom the Apostle there taxeth, were, viz:) Circumcised Sects, or guilty of such Corruptions as will amount to a — Not hol­ding of the Head, the thing there charged upon those Cir­cumcised Sects, and as justly chargeable upon all Judaizing Christians, who contend for the Introduction and Retenti­on [Page 52]of the Antiquated, Jewish Rites, and Ceremonies, in the Christian Church:1 Joh. 4.3. Qui negat Christum in Carne venisse, Ive est Anti­christus. Ter­tul. lib. de car­ne Christi. for this is (virtually) to deny that the Son of God is come in the flesh, He being the Body and Substance presigured and shaddowed thereby; This is Real Antichristianism; Enough to turn a Bethel into a Bethaven! Now who in England are most Criminal herein, who most exposed to the Apostolick Censure, let an Altar and Organ, and other Romish Reliques and Jewish Popish Ceremonies, witnesse: AhJudg. 6 32. Jerub-baals are rare in our age. Is this Reformation? Yes, such another as was that of King Hen­ry the Eighth, when he had renounced the Popish Jurisdi­ction, but retained the Ceremonies; whom Luther, (that great German-Reformado) upbraided with a— He hath killed the Popes Body, but saved his Soul: Yet

2. That the Church is Gods Ark of Salvation, and therefore not to be totally and universally forsaken, upon perill of inevitable Ruine, is a received principle with me. The Church is both an Ark of Safety, and an Ark of Plenty; It saves both from drowning and starving: Noahs Ark saved from the Deluge, all that were in it, and none but those: The Ark under the Law contained in it three things, viz: Aarons Rod, the Tables of Testimony, the Pot of Manna, Heb. 9.4. This Ark represented the Church; Aarons Rod, Discipline; the Tables of Testimony, the Word; and the Pot of Man­na, the Sacrament: Where is either Soul-Safety, or Soul-Plenty, to be had but within the Verge and Limits of the Church? This is the only Ark that can land us safe at the Heavenly Haven, the Land of Rest; so that Ʋniversal Separation must needs forestall Salvation: But enough of that. Generalia non pungunt.

CONSID. 3.Page 37. Scandal is an Argument of no strength, when pleaded to supersede, or condemn a Positive duty.

Remons. 1. Who denies that? But Communion with the Church of England in her Common-Prayer (it being none [Page 53]of Christs Instituted Worship) is not as yet proved to be a Positive du­ty: What Communion hath light with darkness? 2 Cor. 6.14.16. But 2. Scandal is an Argument of strength, when pleaded in matters of Indifferency (by his own confession, P. 39.) now such I hope he will grant (which I cannot as yet do) our Liturgy and Common-Prayer to be, unless he say as a Reverend Bishop (one of the greatest in this Na­tion) once upon occasion said to me; who when I humbly desired to know wherein the weak were to be indulged, was pleased to resolve it into Things Indifferent; and I assuming that a Liturgy or Common-Prayer is a Thing Indifferent, replyed, 'Tis not Indifferent when imposed: And then, sarewell Christian Liberty, for there is nothing Indifferent (in Actu exercito, or) when imposed. But Right Reverend Fathers, &c. what a wofull case is this? You tell us, that in things Indifferent we are to indulge the weak; and yet by reason of your Impositions, you leave nothing Indifferent; far be it from You to ren­der that Necessary by Your Law, which (you grant) should be left Arbitrary by Gods Own: There is an Indulgency (you grant) allow­ed us by the Law of God (Rom. 14.13, 15, 21. 1 Cor. 8.9, 13.) and yet how are we abridged of it by the Laws of Men? Is this Charity? or is it Sacriledge? Now 3. VVhy may not Scandal accrue from Mr. Croftons Communion in, as well as from his Conformity to the Common-Prayer? May not a weak Brother hereby suffer in the tor­tures of a Scrupulous Conscience, being racked between his own doubts and the Offenders Practice? Or, may not this administer to him an occasion of sinning, either in his condemning of that which may be Lawful to Mr. Crofton, seeming Ʋnlawful to him; or, in doing what yet he condemns or doubteth of, being animated thereunto by Mr, Croftons Practice? Or, may not this tend to the hardening of men in sin? And is not this Real Scandal, being Factum quo alius dete­rior redditur? (Amandus Polanus, Synt. Theol. l. 6. c. 3.) I dare say ma­ny Non-Conforming Ministers, who have judged a set Form of Pray­er to be Lawful in it self, and therefore a thing which might be used without any trespass upon either the Law of Piety (the Word), or the Law of Purity (Conscience), who yet would have totally declined it upon the account of the Law of Charity, fearing least they should destroy him (or them) with their meat, for whom Christ died, Rom. 14.15. Now 'twere strange if this were an Argument strong enough [Page 54]against Conformity, and yet an Argument of no strength against Communion. But Scandal in this case is Offence taken only, not given? This is as Common as the Prayer it self, but 'tis assumed gratis. However 4. Admit it were scandalum accep um, an offence taken, and groundless: Shall there be no Indulgency shewed in that case? What shall we think of the Christians in the Primitive times? the weaker had no cause or ground to be offended with the stronger about their Indif­ferent use of mean, Christ having purchased for them an absclute liberty therein; & yet what strict laws are by St. Paul enacted, against the scandalizing of such? and is it nor his own Personal Resolve in the case, to become a perpetual Deb­tor to [...] Bell, rather than a Debtor to the law of Charity? (1 Cor. 8 13.) This was my Reply to that Reverend Bishop, when he was pleased to assert, that the weak are not at all to be indulged, where there is no cause or ground of offence; (and if there be any real ground of offence, how can they be called weak?) strange Diocesian Doctrine!

CONSI. 4. I am not without the Caution and Conduct of the seber Godly, Learned Pro­moters & Purjuers of a Perfect & Compleat Reformation. Remon 1. 'Tis strange Mr. Crofton should argue from Communion amongst Distinct Churches, against the present Non-Communion of Particular Members of one & the same Church; since that which is between the other Reformed Churches, and this of England, is a Communion, not by way of Participation or Joynt-Fellowship &c. but of Profession of the fame true Religion only, which I have here owned, and asserted. 2. There are indeed Liturgies used (though not imposed) in some of those Reformed Churches, But (though they are not Mala peruse yet) this proves them not Au­thentique more than the Priests and Levites Sacrificing in the High Places (1 Chr. 16.39.) proves those Lawful; why then may they not be looked upon as Spots in their Feasts? God conniving at those in Christians, as He did at Polygamy amongst the Jews, which yet he did not approve of. 3. Mr. Croftons Instance in the Primitive Non-Conformists is wide of that of the Modern; for our Communion in the Liturgy and Common-Prayer, were a Relapse and Return into (I am loath to say) an Egyptian darkness, after a Noon-day Sunshine of the Gospel; and that (by Mr. Croftons own grant) after Sacred and Solemn Ex ulsion thereof; now Prom [...] ­ters of Reformation, are no Patterns of a Retrogradation; ah! this may humble Englands declining Sun! lengthned Shaddowe: (Jer. 4.6.)! 'Tis Low Water in the Sanctuary! out English Ark is retarded in Her Voyage Heaven-ward! Wind bound by Ser-Forms, &c. saint Gailes of the Spirit! perswaded I am, were those Wor­thies now alive, they would be loth to become Baals (either) Advocates or Ad­herents. 4. What does Mr. Crofton think of the thousands of Non Conforming Mi­nisters in our days, who (in my mind) deserve the name of, Church, as well as any Papal Conclave, or, Prelatical Convocation in the world: But however 5. I must not draw every Example into a Rule, Judaizing Peters I must not pattern by; Mr. Crofton and his Liturgy-Communicant-Fellow Presbyters. I respect and reverence; but he he a MOSES, be he an AARON I have no warrant to follow him any further then he is a Follower of Christ, 1 Cor. 11.1.

Now Dear Sir, The good Spirit of God be your Convoy to guid you through the Syrtes of this World in a straight course Canaan-ward, that you may not split upon the Rock, either of Church-rending Separation on the one, nor Church-Adulterating-Superstition on the other hand, till he at length land you sale within the Vail.