Reply to the Dean of St Pauls Reflections on the Rector of Sutton, Title page (2 of 3)

Reply to the Dean of St Pauls Reflections on the Rector of Sutton · Title page (2 of 3)

p. 27If by Separation you mean any assembling for the Worship of God, otherwise than according to your establisht Rule; and so condemn the Assemblies of meer Non-conformists, that are not of Schismatical Principles; yea, even their occasional Meetings, and those kept off from the times of publick Worship in the Parochial Congregations, I doubt not but the Lawfulness of such Assemblies is, and shall be evidently proved from that Book.

Preface p. 72, 73. Which will appear by these Particulars in it.

(1.) Irenic. p. 123. That it is unlawful to set up new Churches, because they cannot conform to such Practices which they suspect to be unlawful.

(2.) Those are new Churches, when men erect distinct Societies for Worship, under distinct and peculiar Officers, governing by Laws, and Church-Rules, different from that Form they separate from.

(3.) P. 124. As to things in the Judgment of the Primtive and Reformed Churches left undetermined by the Laws of God, and in matters of meer Order and Decency, and wholly as to the Form of Government, every one, notwithstanding what his private Judgment may be of them, is bound for the Peace of the Church of God, to sub mit to the Determination of the Church. Allow but these three Conclusions, and defend the present Separation if you can.

p. 28Ad Trianos ventum est, I hope now we shall come to something. Methinks, we have been too long beating ab…ut the Bush. And yet I am kept off a while seeing you taking up a good part of two Pages to no purpose; unless it be to perswade your Readers, that I was unwilling to take notice of that, which you cannot but grant I do take notice of, viz. that you distinguish betwixt N…n-communion in unlawful, or suspected Rites or Practices in a Church and entring into distinct Societies for Worship. And it were strange, if I had over-look'd, or was unwilling, the Readers should see these Conclusions of yours, when you cannot but say, I there cite the very Pages, Rector of Sutton p. 30. A nd I can say, I gave them what I thought might seem material. Th…y will …ind but two Conclusions in Irenicum; your second Conclusion here is there but an Explication of the first. And what I granted you, is all you can make of them, to your purpose here. And did I not acknowledg, again and again there, that the Primitive and Reformed Churches were two of your Iudges? And what Advantage you will get by that, or any of these Conclusions, we shall now see. Me-thinks, I have this Advantage that you here own these three Conclusions. When you would have me to allow them; it is to be supposed, that you allow them your self. Yea, you say of them, These are most p…rtinent and material. Therefore I shall go over them again.

Conclusion 1. That it is unlawful to set up new Churches, because they cannot conform to such Practices, which they suspect to be unlawfull.

Here, 1. I urge you with what you say, Ir…nic. p. 117. Withdrawing Communion from a Church in unlawful or suspected Things, doth not lay Men under the Guilt of Schism. You say, Men may lawfully deny Communion with a Church in such things. I say, Men cannot lawfully have Communion in such things. As King Iames, (on the Lord's Prayer, pag. 44.) It is a good and sure Rule in Theology, in matters of God's Worship, quod dubitas nè f…ceris. So Hales (Miscel. of Schism, p. 210.) Not only in Reason, but in Religion too, that Maxim admits of no Release, Caut…shmi cujus que praeceptum, quod dubitas nè feceris. And Mr. R. Hooker, (Preface to his Eceles. Polit. …. 6.) Not that I judg it a thing allowable for Men to observe those Laws, which in their Hearts they are stedfastly p…rswaded to be against the Law of God. What he says further there, of Men being bound to suspend their Perswasion in matters determined by Governours, which they have not demonstrative Reasons against, you very well take off. Irenic. p. 118, 119. No true Protestant can swear blind Obedience to Church-Governours, &c. And certainly, it is neither in a Mans Power to suspend his own Perswasion, or lay aside his Doubts ad libitum, no… is he allowed to act against his own Judgment and Conscience p. 29(though mis-informed.) That Man sinneth without doubt, who ventureth on Practices he suspects to be sinful (though in themselves the Practices be lawful.) What the Apostle saith, Rom 14. 5, 14, 23. puts the matter out of dispute.

Now to joyn in Common-Prayer is an unlawful, or suspected Practice to some. They take it to be polluted with Superstition. Perhaps they take Communion herein to be a sinful Symbolizing with the Papists, for what King Edward 6, and King Iames said of it. And if you should tell them our Service-book is reformed; it is possible, some may now reply, How can you say so? Will you blast the Credit of, and cast a Reproach upon our first Reformers? Again, baptizing with the Sign of the Cross, and kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacrament, (as it were before the Sacramental Elements) are suspected unlawful Practices to many. And thus they are barred from Communion with you in Sacraments. And therefore you had no Reason to slight others modest Expressions here, as you do, pag. 333. [They judg, they think, they esteem them unlawful, and they cannot be satisfied about them.] Though you are far short of answering all that hath been said to prove some things enjoyned unlawful; yet suppose a Man ignorant, erring and mistaken here (not without Fault) notwithstanding he must suspend his own Act till he be better informed, and satisfied about it. And here I would again mind you of those significant Expressions, Irenic. pag. 119. Let Men turn and wind themselves which way they will, by the very same Arguments that any will prove Separation from the Church of Rome lawful, because she required unlawful Things, as Conditions of her Communion, it will be proved lawful not to conform to any suspected or unlawful Practice required by any Church-Governours upon the same Terms,▪ if the Thing so required, be after serious and sober Enquiry, judged unwarrantable by a Man's own Conscience. Which (with more you have in that Page, and the Page before it) cuts off your third Particular, Preface p. 75. Here now I have gained so much Ground of you. Such are necessitated to withdraw from your Communion, who must otherwise joyn in some unlawful or suspected Practice. As Chillingworth, p. 269. To do ill that you may do well, is against the Will of God, which to every good Man is a high Degree of Necessity. And say you, Rational Account, p. 290. Can any one imagine it should be a Fault in any to keep off from Communion, where they are so far from being obliged to it, that they have an Obligation to the contrary, from the Principles of their common Christianity. Here I assume, they are bound by the Principles of common Chrisianity to keep off from Communion with you, that know they should certainly sin, if they held Communion with you, because they should then joyn in suspected …ractices, and things, which after Enquiry, their Consciences tell them are unlawful.

p. 30Ergo, you must say, it cannot be a Fault in such to keep off from Communion with you. Though I would grant them faulty so far as any keep off through Prejudice, Error, Ignorance; yet so far as these are involuntary, they are more excusable, than to go directly cross to their own Consciences here. So therefore such are necessitated to withdraw Communion from you, who would certainly sin, if they held Communion with you, judging such Communion to be sinful.

2. If you say here, What is this to a positive Separation, which is the present Business? You shall see, it is something towards it. You are come a fair Step on the Way. Once grant that it is lawful for Men (or that Men are necessitated) to deny Communion with you in unlawful, or (but) suspected Practices, which are unlawful to them, and you come presently to the Point. Allowing them to withdraw from yours, you must allow them to joyn in some other Christian Assembly; unless you would have them utterly deprived of the Worship of God, and to live like Heathens: As you say well, Irenic. p. 109. Every Christian is under an Obligation to joyn in Church society with others; because it is his Duty to profess himself a Christian, and to own his Religion publickly, and to partake of the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel, which cannot be without Society with some Church or other. So then, Christians that cannot enjoy Sacraments with you, must joyn with some other Society, where they may enjoy them. And further, take notice of that remarkable Assertion, in your Rational Account, p. 335. and apply it here, as far as there is Cause, Our Assertion therefore is, that the Church and Court of Rome are guilty of this Schism,—by forcing Men (N. B.) if they would not damn their Souls by sinning against their Consciences, in approving the Errors and Corruptions of the Roman Church, to joyn together (N. B.) for the solemn Worship of God, according to the Rule of Scripture, and Practice of the Primitive Church, and suspending (I suppose it should have been, and to suspend) Communion with that Church till those Abuses and Corruptions be redressed. And I observe further, Ibid. p. 291. you would not have Men bound to Communion with a particular Church, but in Subordination to God's Honour, and the Salvation of their Souls. Yea, you say, Men are bound not to communicate in those lesser Societies, where such things are imposed, as are directly repugnant to these Ends. And where Men should be forced to damn their Souls by sinning against their Consciences, would not this be directly repugnant? And yet are not such bound to joyn together for the Solemn Worship of God, &c. You see now how far I have brought you, even on your own Grounds: how you will get off, I know not.

p. 31Then might it not have been expected, that you would have been more favourable, and charitable towards the Assemblies of those Ministers and Christians, that are kept off from you by unlawful Terms, or at least such unnecessary Terms as are to them unlawful? You speak more temperately, Rational Account, pag. 331. Here let me use some of your own Words there, which something favour those Assemblies, you now engage so zealously against, By their declaring the Grounds of their Separation to be such Errors and Corruptions, which are crept into the Communion of your Church, and imposed on them in order to it, they withal declare their readiness to joyn with you again, if those Errors and Corruptions be left out. ☞ And where there is this readiness of Communion, there is no absolute Separation from the Church as such, but only suspending Communion till such Abuses be reformed. This they'l say is very good. But now in your new Impartial Account, Preface pag. 46. you speak in another Dialect, Would they have had me represented that as no Sin, which I think to be so great a one; or those as not guilty, whom in my Conscience I thought to be guilty of it? Would they have had me suffered this Sin to have lain upon them without reproving it? &c. (What? that which is as plain a Sin as Murder, pag. 209. which is really as great and as dangerous a Sin, as Murder; and in some respects aggravated beyond it, Preface p. 45.) And yet on the other hand, would you have them conform to you, though against their Consciences? Would that be no Sin? Would God be welpleased with such Service, as was done but to please Men, while their Consciences (in the mean while) condemned them for it? Can you say bonâ Fide, that it is better, more pleasing to God, that Men conform to your Modes and Ceremonies, though they have real Doubts of Conscience, that they are unlawful; or better, they should live without God's publick Worship and Ordinances, then to joyn with such as the Non-conformists? That this is as the Sin of Murder! Dare you go, or send to all the Dissenters in your Parish (supposing you take them to belong to your Charge) and give 'm it under your hand, that though they are still unsatisfied, (after all you have said and written) though they believe, they should offend God, if they joyned with you upon such Terms; yet I say, durst you give it under your hand, that they would do better to joyn in your way of Worship, than in that of the Non-conformists; though they have no more doubt of joyning with the latter, than you had heretofore? If you are clear in the Point, have you done this? Or why do you neglect your Duty towards them? Why do you not endeavour to bring them in, or lay the Sin at their Door? But I observe, you would have Care taken, (Preface p. 86.) that there be No Pretence left for idle, loose, and profane Persons, never going to any Church at all; whence I conclude, p. 32that you cannot but allow it, that such as are not satisfied to joyn with you, yet ought to joyn in God's Worship elsewhere: and that in your serious Thoughts you judg it better for Persons to joyn with Congregations, that hold Communion in your way of Worship unlawful (for of such you are speaking in that place) than to be of no Christian Society, than not to attend at all on God's Worship.

Here, if you would not be offended, I shall tell you, what a plain Christian, a Neighbour of mine, said of you; I can remember, I have seen him at the Sacrament with some of you, (abov… 20 Years ago) and would he now have poor, hungry Souls deprived of such Ordinancees and Means of Grace, that cannot be satisfied to partake of them in his Way? If any were a Cause of depriving so many thousands of their bodily Food, as he would have deprived of Food for their Souls, what would the World say of such? Whereby he seemed to think your Sin as great, as Murder, and in some respects, aggravated beyond it. (As he may likewise think, the Sin of those that care not unnecessarily to offend others, or would cause them to offend, to be a kind of Murder, in the Apostles Account, Rom. 14. 15.—Now walkest thou not charitably? Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died.) Such was the honest Man's Zeal, he would have written to you, to put it to your Conscience, (as he said) but I thought this Intimation from him sufficient.

3. I find you so kind, or just, you help such to Ministers, those that cannot conform. Irenic. p. 42, you say, It belongs to the Magistrate, To see that Ministers preach the true Doctrine, though he cannot lawfully forbid the true Doctrine to be taught; and that they duly administer the Sacraments, though he cannot command them to administer them otherwise than Christ hath delivered them down to us. (And that Christ did not deliver the Sign of the Cross down to us with Baptism, I suppose the highest Conformists will grant.) This gives some Hopes, such may lawfully preach still, whom others cannot lawfully forbid Preaching. And you tell us from another (Vnreasonableness of Separation, pag. 7.) that Cranmer held himself for a Arch-Bishop still, and was by Q. Marry forcibly restrained from it.—Latimer though he renounced his Bishoprick, yet he kept his Ministry, and never repented him of it. And Ibid. p. 132. you say, The Question is not, whether all publick Worship be sinful, when forbidden? (which you never said, or thought, as you tell us in the same Page) —I abhor and detest such Principles, as to set up Man's Laws above God's. This is good. And you seem to allow, that such publick Worship, as hath no Evil in it, antecedent to the Prohibition, may not be forbidden. Very good still. All the Question here is, Whether there be not Schism in it? For I hope, you shall never find Idolatry or Sedition in that Worship, I would p. 33plead for. Now as for the Charge of Schism, do but allow Ministers equal Favour with others, and you have said enough to clear them, Iren. p. 113, 116, 119, 120. Charge not them with Schism upon account of their distinct Meetings, who are driven into them by your over-rigorours Impositions. You know well how great a matter this imposing unlawful Conditions is with Chillingworth, to warrant Separation. How oft he is upon it, in Chap. 5. where p. 267. …. 40. he hath the confidence to tell his Adversary, You mistake in thinking that Protestants hold themseves obliged not to communicate with you only, or principally by reason of your Errors and Corruptions. For the true Reason (according to my third Observation) is not so much because you maintain Errors and Corruptions, as because you impose them, &c. (like your pleading for Non-conformists, Irenic. p. 118.) So Ball of Separation, pag. 159. The Lord needeth not Mans lie, neither doth he allow us to do Evil that Good may come thereof: And therefore I must not subscribe to an Error against Conscience, though never so innocent, nor profess Approbation of that which in Conscience I cannot allow, though never so small, &c. But thus are many Ministers driven from you, who neither dare lay down their Ministry, nor take the charge of Parochial Congregations on them, upon such hard, that is, sinful Terms. For (to borrow an Expression of Dr. Potter's) Though in the issue the Errors be not damnable to them, which believe as they profess, yet for us to profess, &c. what we believe not, were without question damnable.

Now may I come in with my Conclusion: It is this.

Conclusion 1. It becomes unavoidable necessary for such Ministers and Christians as cannot in Conscience submit to your Terms, and conform to your way of Worship, neither may lawfully lay aside their Ministry, nor live without God's Worship and Ordinances, to be for other Assemblies than yours, where the one may exercise their Ministry, and the other (with such Ministers) may partake of God's Ordinances, and joyn in his Worship, which you call setting up of new Churches. After the drawing up of this, looking into Corbet of Church-Unity and Schism, I find something to this purpose, pag. 31, 32. Though indeed I took my Hints from you here.

Now because I would not leave this Proposition so naked, as yours stands, I shall here offer something, 1. On the behalf of Ministers. 2. On the behalf of private Christians

1. On the behalf of such Ministers.

1. You cannot deny, but the Ministers, who are forced to stand off from you, were (at least very many of them) duly qualified for, and had a sufficient, valid call to the Office of the Ministry, that they were God's Ministers, Christ's Ministers, before their Ejection. You cannot deny, but the mediate Call is from God, and Christ, even as well as the immediate p. 34Call was. Those two Texts, Act. 20. 28. 1 Cor. 12. 28. (to name no more) fully prove it.

2. Though it is not questioned by us, but the Clergy is under the Iurisdiction of the Prince, Ministers (as well as others) under the Civil Magistrate, and that they may (where there is just Cause) by him be deprived of their publick Liberty, and may be imprisoned, banished, put to death; yet without just Cause (as Male-administration, or matter of Scandal, rendring them unfit, to use your own Words) no Power on Earth (whether Civil or Ecclesiastical) may turn those out of the Ministry, whom God hath called to it. Rulers, Bishops may neither put in, nor put out of this Office, as they list. Men may neither admit into, nor put from the Ministry, meerly at their their own Pleasure, but only according to Christ's Will and Appointment. For his Officers and Servants they are. And Christ hath, by his Apostles (whose Authority is certainly Superior to that of the greatest Bishops and Councils that ever were) described the Office, and how Persons are to be qualified for it. And when such have been called to the Office, while they give no just Cause for Suspension and Degradation, Christ looks on them as his Ministers still, and accordingly his Will is that Men own them as such. And they that despise them, may therein … in a Degree) be guilty of despising Christ. Chemnitius (Loc. com. par. 3. p. 136. col. 1.) speaks fully to the purpose, thus; As God alone properly claims to himself the Right of Calling, even when the Call is mediate; so also properly it belongs to God …o remove one from the Ministry. Therefore so long as God suffers in the Ministry his Servant teaching rightly, and living blamelesly, Ecclesia non habet Potestatem alienum Servum amovendi, The Church hath no Power (Authority) of putting away another's Servant. But when be no further edifies either by his Doctrine, or Life, but destroys the Church, then God himself removes him.

3. If what you have said formerly (remark'd in Rector of Sutton, p. 29.) hold true, (and you have not hitherto disproved the same) then you must yield, the present Non-conformist Ministers have not been suspended, and cast out for any just Cause. And may I not also add, If Clement say true, as you cite him here, (Vnreasonableness of Separation, p. 314, 315.) Those therefore who were appointed by them, or other eminent Men, the whole Church being therewith wel-pleased, discharging their Office with Humility, Quietness, Readiness, and Unblameableness, and being Men of a long time of good Report, we think such Men cannot justly be cast out of their Office. Though in the heat of Disputation, your Opinion seems to be changed of Persons, as well as Things; yet I hope in cool Blood you would not deny, but such a Character agrees to many Non-conformists; that you should think, they cannot justly be cast out of p. 35Office. And I doubt not, but you are well acqainted with that old Canon, That no Bishop or Priest should be taken into another's Place, if the former were blameless.

4. If still they are in Office, as Ministers of Christ, are they not obliged to serve him in that Office, as they have a Call and Opportunity? (See again Rector of Sutton, pag. 29, 34, 75.) They must not neglect the Gift that is in them. Sad was the Doom of the vnprofitable Servant, that buried his Talent! The Teacher must wait on Teaching. I suppose, all Christ's Ministers are concerned in that solemn Charge, 2. Tim. 4. 1, 2. And they are to take heed to the Ministry, which they have received; even though Men forbid them. You abhor and detest such Principles, as to set Man's Laws above God's Laws. And though they be threatned with Persecution for it; when they are persecuted in one City, they may flee to another, Mat. 10. 23. Yet must they not run away from their Work, but be carrying that on in other Places, where they come, according to their Ability and Opportunity. Prudence directed them, Ioh. 20. 19. to meet privately there, at Evening, keeping the Door shut, for fear of the Jews; yet meet they would. If Ministers be driven from their former Flocks, yet are they Men in Office, and preach as such, not only as gifted Men, in what other place soever God (by his Providence) calls them to bestow their Pains. They are Teachers by Office, to more than their proper Charges, even to as many as they have a Providential Call, hic & nunc, to preach unto.

So it appears, Men cannot lawfully silence Christ's Ministers, without just Cause; or if they do, that such Decree and Sentence does not oblige Conscience. I have it from Mr. B. Church History, p. 446, 447. The Dominican Inquisitor that reasoned the matter with the Bohemians, would have silenced, excommunicated Priests bound to cease preaching: but had the wit to add [if silenced for a reasonable Cause,] and to confess, Sententia injuste lata à suo judice, si Errorem inducat, vel Peccatum mortale afferet, nec timenda est, nec tenenda. The old Bohemian Reformers held, (as Ibid. p. 446.) Every Priest and Deacon is bound to preach God's Word freely, or he sinneth mortally; and after Ordination he should not cease, no, not when excommunicated, because he must obey God rather than Man. I see in Carranza (fol. 437.) It was one of the Articles, for which the Council of Constance sentenced I. Wickliffe's Bones to be digg'd up and burnt, (Art. 13.) They that leave off to preach, or hear God's Word for Men's Excommunication, are excommunicate: And you (that have greater store of Authors, and choice Books, then such as I must ever hope to have the Advantage of… you, I say) I doubt not have, what others add; they are excommunicate, and in the day of Iudgment shall be judged Traitors to Christ. And these were among the p. 36Articles, for which I. Husse was condemned, Carranza, …ol. 440. Art. 17, 18. A Priest of Christ living according to his Law, and having the Knowledg of the Scripture, and a working to edify the People, ought to preach notwithstanding any pretended Excommunication. And, every one that comes to the Office of a Pri…st, hath a Command to preach, and ought to obey that Command, notwithstanding Excommunication. And these you know were before our oldest Non-conformists.

5. But now (Sir) that I may come home to you: If Ministers were bound to cease preaching, to lay aside their Ministry, when silenced unjustly, then at what a miserable Loss might the Church be left? And if you could scarce satisfy your selves to see her at such a loss, we may very well hope, Christ would not have her left at such a Loss. His care of his Church (no doubt) is greater than yours would be.

Because you seem not to take any notice of what I said, (Rect. of Sutton, p. 28.) give me leave here to mind you of it again. What a woful Case the Church was in, if she might be deprived of all, or the greatest and soundest part of her Ministers at Man's pleasure? And further, pag. 43. I put a Case, shewing that if what you would have, be admitted, it might fare a great deal the worse with the Church under Orthodox Bishops, (and Governours) than if they were grand Hereticks. But to come to the Point I aim at; You know when almost two thousand Ministers were cut off from their publick Ministerial Work (as it were) in one day, by a Law of Conformity. Now let us suppose the Minds of Rulers to change (which is not naturally impossible) and put the case that your Conformity should be made as great a Crime, as Non-conformity hath been, and yet, the true Religion acknowledged, and the true Doctrine of Faith owned, (as you say here, pag. 148. …. 6.) Though I find Mr. Phil. Nye, (who is a very considerable Person with you, Preface, p. 27.) In his Beams of Light, pag. 192. saying, Let the same Impositions and Penalties be put into the other Scale, against Epis…pacy and Ceremonies: If the Law had said, it shall be the loss of a Man's living to practise or preach for Episcopacy, Common-Prayer-Book, or Ceremonies; these things even in their own Opinions would have been light as Vanity, (p. 193.) Yet for what you say, Preface, p. 89. I am to suppose, he was under a mistake. For we must not think (as you tell us there) that the Friends of the Church of England will be either afraid, or ashamed to own her Cause,—or that you will give up the Cause of the Church,—so as to condemn its Constitution, or make the Ceremonies unlawful, which have been hitherto observed and practised in it. Now suppose ye were all outed of your Livings, because ye could not, or would not declare your Assent and Consent to the utter abolishing of such things; I besee…h you, tell us sincerely, what you would do in such a Case, p. 37and would have others of your Brethren to do? Do you judg it the Duty of Pastors to go on in passing a just Censure (though against the Will of the Magistrate, as I urged you with it, Rector of Sutton, p. 76.) and yet would you wholly lay aside the Office of the Ministry, and preach the Gospel no more, rather than c…oss his Will? Would ye think your selves no more concerned to endeavour to keep up the Exercise of true Religion (as you might) when it was against the Will of the Magistrate? If only such as the Non-conformists were in place, you would be forced to confess, that, The true Religion was yet maintained and preached in publick Assemblies, (as pag. 136.) And that there was an Agreement in all the Substantials of Religion, between you and them; and therefore (according to your arguing, pag. 132.) you could not exercise (though more privately) when turn'd out of your Livings, but such Faults as Sedition, or Schism, &c. would be found in your Meetings. Make the Case of Dissenters your own, suppose your selves in the like Circumstances, and I doubt not, you will see cause to judg more favourably of them. Do but allow them to do, as you would do your selves in the like Case, and I hope, this Dispute will soon be at an End.

Here I shall take off all you say to that Question I proposed, Rector of Sutton, p. 26. And may it not be a Question, whether they can properly be said to erect New Churches, or to proceed to the forming of separate Congregations, who were true Ministers, and had their Congregations before others came into their places? If they had done nothing (N. B.) worthy of Ejection, or Exclusion from their Ministry, whether they have not still a Right to exercise their Function? &c. You migh have done well to have joyned my Tenth Query (pag. 3.) with it, and to have considered both together. But what say you to this? Vnreasonableness of Separation, p. 137. There is not one word in all this Plea, but might have equally served the Papists in the beginning of the Reformation. How Sir! Are you in good earnest? Not one word but might equally have served the Papists? Why, certainly you wrote in haste, and forgot your self; or else it is your Judgment, that the Popish Bishops and Priests had done nothing worthy of Ejection, or Exclusion from their Offices, that they had still a Right to exercise their Functions. And yet you argue it, (Rational Account, pag. 379.) that they were justly deprived. How can these things stand together? They had done nothing worthy of Ejection, and yet were justly deprived. You seem to have a great Conceit of this poor Shift; we had it but a Page or two before, pag. 135. The Papists then had the very same Plea, that these Men have now. So you must say, and argue thus, The Ministers of Antichrist (and those such as were State-Incendiaries too) might justly be cast out by Law; ergo, so may true p. 38Ministers of Christ, (though peaceable, and loyal.) I grant the Antecedent, but do you prove the Consequent.

But what have you further to say to me? For indeed what you have yet said here, is worse than nothing. But in what follows, the Reader may think, you had a good mind to pay me home. For the Law signifies nothing with them in any Case, where themselves are concerned. If Ministers be ejected without or against Law, they who come into their place are no Usurpers; and if they are cast out by Law, they that succeed them are Usurpers; so that the Law is always the least thing in their Consideration.

Now I thank you for this. But is there here no sharp Reflection? Do you not here bewray some undecent Passion, which you so condemn others for? Are not these things invidiously spoken? Would you not here be raking into old Sores, &c. contrary to what you say in your Preface, p. 44, 45? But did you think to pinch me here, who never was in a sequestred Living, nor my predecessor before me; but came in upon the choice of the People, none opposing? You thought to give us a dry Blow here, never considering that it would reach as many, if not more Conformists; though it could not once touch him, you seem especially to direct it to.

… thus far of Ministers exercising, though silenced, if silenced for no …. Now,

II. To say something on the behalf of the People that hear them.

1. They are under an Obligation to worship God in Society with other Christians, with respect to God's Glory, and their own Edification, and Salvation. They are charged, not to forsake the assembling of themselves together. And commanded to be swift to hear.

2. The way is blockt up so, as many cannot come to your Assemblies, unless (to use your own Phrase) you would have them damn their Souls by sinning against their Consciences. And if you judge it better for such to want the ordinary means of Salvation, than to enjoy them, by joyning with Non-conformists, we must take you to be no more infallible herein, than that Popish Council, that decreed it righter to remain without visible Communion, than to have it with those they call Hereticks.

3. Some (though they could dispense with the Liturgy and Ceremonies, yet) cannot satisfie themselves to take up under some Parish-Ministers, who are apparently no way qualified for the work they take upon them. I take the 9th Canon of the Council of Nice, to be for nulling the Ordination of such as are scandalous, or insufficient. You are not for the People's choosing their Pastors; but it is evident and undeniable, that they are to refuse some. Beware of false Prophets. Beware of them, i. e. fly from their Communion, and have nothing to do with them (as you say, p. 215.) They are to p. 39flee from Corrupt Teachers, as from Wolves. As the People forsook Photinus, of whom Vincent Lyrinen (adv. haeres. c. 16. p. 42.) saith, Nam quem antea quasi arietem Gregis sequebantur, eundem deinceps veluti Lupum fugere caeperunt, (which you have also noted, Irenic. p. 115.) Some are blind Guides. And may not People very well be startled with what Christ saith concerning such? If the Blind lead the Blind, both shall fall into the Ditch. And have you forgotten, or have you retracted that, in Answer to Several Treatises, p. 265. (cited in Rector of Sutton p. 61.) Men may have reason to question, if not the Skill, yet the Sincerity of their Guides, and though they must have some, may seek new ones.—The ignorant follow their Guides only upon the opinion of their Skill and Integrity▪ and when they see reason to question these, they know of no Obligation to follow their Conduct over Rocks and Precipices. And yet is it now a loose Principle? some the People are to mark and avoid, Rom. 16. 17. some they must not bid God speed, 2 Joh. v. 10, 11. There are three Cases, (you say Vnreas. of Sep. p. 213.) wherein the Scripture allows of Separation. The second, is (p. 214.) In case of false Doctrine being imposed instead of true.— ☞If any Teachers offer to bring another Gospel, or to corrupt the true one, St. Paul denounces an Anathema against them: and that implies, that they should have no Communion with them, &c. Now do you not here make the People Iudges of such Heretical Teachers, whom (I suppose) by an Ironie you call admirable Iudges? p. 123. Yet for them to own and incourage such, is to partake of their Evil Deeds. If Mr. B. saith, as you have it there, [Any one whose Ministry is such as tendeth to Destruction more than to Edification, and to do more harm than good, is not to be owned;] I wonder what you have to say for such, when better may be had? Camero speaks to the same purpose, as Mr. B. (pag. 327. col. 1.) Si non faciant quod spondet tanti Muneris professio deserendi sunt, nam parendum Deo potius quàm Hominibus; ut siquis Medicinam professus, &c. If any one having professed Physick, should not cure, but exasperate the Disease, truly he should be forsaken, and another is to be chosen in his room. And what Peter Martyr says, (Loc. com. p. 909. §. 33.) may fitly be applied here, Vexant praeterea nos, quod non publica sed privata discesserimus Authoritate, ne que , considerant, Deum cui que , mandasse, ut propriam salutem curet. This you cannot deny, but God has commanded every one to have a care of his Soul, and that Men are not bound to lesser Societies (as to their own Parishes, or Parish-Ministers,) but so far as may stand with promoting the Salvation of their own Souls.

Who could speak more fully than you have done, Rational Account, p. 611. The main thing to be discussed, is, Whether the Communion of your Church or ours, be rather to be chosen in order to Salvation?—The tendency to p. 40that ought to be the Rule, by which we should embrace or continue in the Society of any Church. Since the Regard Men ought to have of their eternal Welfare doth oblige them to make choice of the best means;—the bare remote possibility of Salvation,… ought to have no force in determining their Choice in a matter of so great Importance.

4. Many have not the least Doubt, or Scruple, but those Ministers which you would not have them to hear, are such as God hath owned, and still doth, blessing their Ministry to their own, and others Souls Benefit. Many are well assured, The Lord hath not yet forsaken that Ministry, you would have them forsake. Yea, I have spoken with some on their Death-Bed, who have sadly bewailed it as a great Sin of theirs, that lay as an heavy Burthen on them, (and we use to say, Hora mortis est hora Veritatis) That they had despised, and neglected the Ministry of such. But it seems, had they made their Complaints to you, you could soon have satisfied them, telling them, It was no Sin at all; but they had done well, in refusing to hear such, as submitted not to the Orders of the Church. Though perhaps they would have thought it very strange, that you could have allowed them to hear Romish Priests, and yet should suppose it unlawful for them to hear Non-conformists.

5. These would also wonder, if you your self should at all question such Ministers being true Ministers of Christ, and that Worship (wherein they joyn) being true Religious Worship; they are confident you could not but acknowledg the truth of both these, did but the Law of Man allow them. And then for ought they know, they are such in themselves, and in God's Account. For no Law of Man could make that to be true, religious Worship, which is not so, abstracted from the Consideration of the Law's Allowance. No Law of Man could make those to be true Ministers of Christ, who are not such, or would otherwise be none.

6. Because I suppose, you will be ready to object here, How is it possible for Order to be kept up, if People may run after what Teachers they please? I desire you to do me right; I am only for their hearing such as they have reason to believe are allow'd of God, whom therefore Men should allow to preach the Word. And where the publickly allowed Minister is not such a one, they are not bound (for order-sake) to neglect other faithful and sound Teachers, and therein also to neglect their own Souls. There is no Order Men can make in the Church, that should be urged, or stood upon against the end of Order, against the Honour of God, against Religion, and the true Service and Worship of God, and against the Salvation of Men, and the ordinary means thereof. And if the Sabbath was made for Man, (as Mar. 2. 27.) and therefore was not to be turned to his Destruction; much less should any human, external p. 41Order be strictly urged and pressed to Men's Destruction. Bishop Bilson (Christian Subject, part 3 p. 299. An. 1586.) speaking to that, [We would have things done in order] returns this smart- Answer, Call you that Order, where Christ shall stand without doors, till your Clergy consent to bring him in? Though according to the order of Nature, light Bodies move upwards, and heavy Bodies tend downwards in their ordinary Course; yet (which Camero applies to a like case, p. 581. col. 1. §. 2.) this very order of Nature is inverted, Nè detur vacuum. Here I call to mind what you say, (pag. 198.) Is Schism indeed become such an inconsiderable and petty Inconvenience? And me-thinks, that Inconvenience, the Breach of external Order (which with you is Schism) is a far less Evil, if it be Evil in this case, compared with the Mischief of Men's destroying their own Souls, or neglecting the means of their Salvation. There is an higher Law, which (to use the words of Camero) Ordinem deserere jubet ut extremo malo & irreparabili jacturae occurratur, &c. And qui tam justâ & urgente occasione ordniem deserit, reipsâ non deserit, sed servat. And that Instance he gives there is convincing, If a Souldier knew his Captain, his Leader, was for opening the Gates to the Enemy, and yet followed such a Leader, keeping Rank and Order so unseasonably, he would shew himself a Traitor, rather than a faithful Souldier.

The Disciples would seem to have been for Order there (as you are) when they were hindring Christ's Service, Mar. 9. 38. Luk. 9. 49. Master, we saw one casting out Devils in thy name,—and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. Now I heartily wish, even for your own sake, from that true and due Respect I owe to you, that you would more impartially examine what you have been doing, and reflect upon your self; consider seriously, whether you are not forbidding, and condemning some, as faithful Followers of Christ as your self, even in their serving Christ, and serving their Generation? What are your Thoughts of such, as Iospeh and Richard Alleyn, with divers others that might be named, who kept to their ministerial Work, and (as you say of Father Latimer) never repented them of it? If now they have that Well-come home, Well done good and faithful Servants, enter into the Ioy of your Lord.] How far are they above all your Censures? And me-thinks, it deserves Men's serious Consideration, whether they pray as they ought [Thy Kingdom come] or whether indeed they act not against their own Prayers, who indeavour to hinder the preaching of the Gospel, (a means of enlarging and building up God's Kingdom?) And as you declare to the World, (p. 394.) you are one that believes a day of Iudgment to come, (which I would not once question) I beseech you, Sir, think well of what that well disposed Gentleman (as you call him) says, (I think gravely and piously) Letter out of the Country, p. 42pag. 38, 39.) Let us bring the Cause before our Supream and Final Iudg. And bethink your self whether of these two things he will be most likely to have regard unto, the saving of Souls, which He bought with his Blood; or the preserving inviolate certain Humane Institutions and Rules, confessed by the Devisers of them, not to be necessary, &c. And so much of your first Conclusion, and mine.

Your second Conclusion follows, Preface, p. 73.

2. Those are new Churches, when Men erect distinct Societies for Worship, under distinct and peculiar Officers, governing by Laws, and Church-Rules different from that Form they separate from.

Here, 1. I cannot but look on you as very unfortunate, unhappy in this Cause you have espoused. How oft do you greatly expose your self, that what you urge agianst your Brethren may justly be retorted on you? So here, how plain is it, that you look but on one side, (which as I remember you suppose those that differ from you to be faulty in?) Had you not one Thought, that if you owned such a Conclusion as this, I should be likely to tell you, you had spoiled your Cause, Nihil quod nimis, satis, that by proving too much, you would in effect prove nothing of that you aim at? Should you not have considered, what an Argument you here put into the Mouths of the Dissenters against the National Church of England, against Diocesan Churches, and against Parochial Churches too?

1. Will not many be ready to tell you, that it follows undeniably from this Conclusion of yours, that you have made the National Church of England, and the Diocesan Churches therein, New (unlawful) Churches; because under divers peculiar Officer, governing by Laws and Church-Rules different from the Apostolical Primitive Church, (as from other Reformed Churches.) If those are new, unlawful Schismatical Churches with you, that are under distinct and peculiar Officers, governing by Laws, and Church-Rules different from the Apostolical truly Primitive Churches, (as I suppose it must come to that, Primum in unoquo que genere est Regula & Mensura reliquorum) what work have you made here? What an heavy Task, and hard Province have you taken on you? Can you ever prove, that there are no Officers, Laws, Rules and Orders in your Church, different from what were in the true Primitive Church? Can you ever find all these Officers, Arch-Bishops; Lord-Bishops, Deans, Chancellors, &c▪ down to Apparitors, in the Primitive Church? Will you undertake to find there all our Ecclesiastical Canons, even Rules for kneeling in the Act of Receiving, for signing with the Cross in Baptism, for excluding the Parents, and setting God-Fathers and God-Mothers in their stead, with a Rule for peculiar, appropriate Vestments, &c.

p. 43To say here, that though you have peculiar Officers, Laws, and Rules, different from the Apostolical Primitive Church; yet you do not own your selves to be a Church, separate from that Primitive Church, will not bring you off. For, this many Dissenters likewise say, they separate not from you, but hold Communion with you in all that is necessary; and further have more Local, Presential Communion with you, than you can pretend to have with the Primitive Church. Yet you will have their Assemblies separate Churches, while they worship God by any other Rule than yours, though their Worship be as agreeable to the Scripture-Rule. And yet can you, or any mortal Man prove, that others may not be allowed to differ from you in such things, wherein you differ from the Apostolical, primitive Church?

Again, it will as little help you to say, That you speak of particular Congregations, or Societies for Worship. For,

2. Do you not here make your Parochial Congregations also New Churches? If the Primitive Church had not your Liturgy, were not bound to the use of your Book of Common-Prayer, then you cannot deny, but you are under a somwhat different Rule. And are there not some Parishes, that have only Deacons to officiate? And may I not be bold to tell you, that you can never prove your Deacons the same with those in the Churches erected by the Apostles? According to P. Paul Sarpi (of matters Benefic. N. 27.) Deacons were Ministers of temporal things. You your self say, p. 311. It was no properly Church-power which they had; but they were Stewards of the common Stock. Then are not Deacons, that are allowed to preach, and baptize, &c. different Officers? By this time I hope, you will be sensible, what a Wound you have given to the Cause, you take upon you to defend, by this Conclusion, which is my first Note upon it.

(2.) At the first view and reading of this your second Conclusion, I was willing to hope, that then you would not condemn such Assemblies as Mr. B's. who leave the ruling Work to you, and are glad if they be permitted to preach and hear God's Word, and do not separate from you, but joyn with you, even in Sacraments, as well as other parts of God's Worship. But looking farther into your Book, I see my Mistake: For you say, pag. 98. (as was cited before) No Man denies, that more places for Worship are desirable, and would be very useful, where &c. But is it possible that Mr. B. should think the Case alike, where the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected, the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemned? Tac…o caetera.

Now I had thought, you might have granted more places for Worship, not only desireable, and useful, but very necessary for such as cannot c…me to yours, as far as the Apostle makes hearing of the Word necessary, Rom. 10. 1…, 17. p. 44more necessary than unnecessary Modes of Worship, or such matters as you count but indifferent things. But by what is here last cited, it is too plain and manifest, that you condemn all Religious Assemblies in England, that follow not your Church-Rule, and own not the Authority of the Bishops. And thus it seems, where you are zealous in words for Communion, yet Subjection to the Bishops Authority, is the thing you drive at. And upon this Account, though your Discourse was calcul…ted chiefly for the City of London, yet it may ind…fferently serve for all other Places and Meetings in England, where you… Church-Rules and Orders are not observed and obeyed. As to our grief, we in the Country have found many of the conformable Clergy, with others, improving your Authority and Arguments as far as they are able, even against such Assemblies, as meet off from the times of the Paro…hi…l Congregations meeting, that they might not be censured to meet in opposition. These are s…parate Meetings with you, as well as others; because the Orders of the Church are neglected in them. But,

(3.) What will you say of those Assemblies, where Christ taught, and the Disciples likewise whom he sent forth? Did they d… this, as und…r the Inspection and Government of the Rulers that then were? Were they tyed up to the Church-Rules of the Jews in what they did? were they not distinct and peculiar Officers? Certainly, you mince the matter, when you say, pag. 163. Our Saviour himself did only Teach his Disciples occasionally, and at c…rtain Seasons. As if he taught but rarely, or seldom. And as if he was c…ntent with his Disciples only to be his Hearers. (As you would have the silenced Ministers think it enough, if they have three or four besides the Family.) whereas we read of Christ's teaching the Multitude, and of the Multitude pressing upon him to hear. And when he sent forth the Tw…lve, M…t. 1…. preaching was a good part of their Work. And the Miracles they w…ought, were to seal and confirm their Doctrine. So the Seventy, (Luk. 10.) were to t…ch. So much is implied, ver. 16. He that heareth you, hearet… me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me, &c. Now what will you make of them, and their Hearers? Here were distinct and peculiar Teachers, not under the Government of the Iewish Church-Rulers: Then, were they new (unlawful) Churches? I know you will not say i…. But if you say h…re, though they differed in somethings from the Form of the Iewish Church; yet they did not separate. Well, grant that; yet consider, whether this Example may not justi…y those, who ordinarily … with their …arochial Congregations, in hearing Non-conformists at … times? And m…y it not justify those Non-conformist Ministers, that … from the Parochial Congregations? And how many more … but for the five Miles Act, which … p. 45distinguish betwixt such, and others (that I can find,) but all are alike to you. Yea, so far are you from favouring these, that sometimes you would have the Sin of those that own you for true Churches, and have Communion with you, as f…r as they can, to be aggravated, and more inexeusable, in having other d…stinct (which you account s…parat…) Meetings.

Ball against Can (part. 1. p. 82.) Neither did our Saviour, nor his Disciples before his Death, … upon them to erect a new visible Church, altogether distinct from the erring Synagogue, but lived in th…t Church, and frequented the Ordinanc…s, neither as absolute Members of the Synagogue, nor y…t as the visible Chur…h distinct from it: But as visi…le Members of that primitive Church, from which that Synagogue had degenerated.

I find you so hard, and u…yielding in this Controvers…, I should be glad, if you would grant a little here, (which I wonder how you can so stifly deny) in hopes of more in time.

(4.) As you know our Reformers pleaded, that (in their departure from Rome) they forsook not the Church, but approached nearer to the Catholick, an… Primitive …hurch (as P. Martyr Loc. Com. p. 915.) So those Christian Assemblies, you censure as new (unlawful) Churches, because not under you… Rule, suppose you have censured them rashly here, if in their Worship they are nearer the Scripture-Rule. And truly (Sir) you speak so home, and fully to the purpose (Rational Acc…unt, p. 356, 357.) as is quite beyond the power and r…a…h of my poor Imagination to conceive▪ how you can ever answer your self. There you say, Supposing any Church (tho pretending to be never so Catholick) doth restrain her Communion within such narrow and unjust Bounds—☞Whatever Church takes upon her to limit and inclose the bounds of the Catholick, becomes thereby divided from the Communion of the Catholick Church: and all such who disown such an unjust inclosure, do not so much divide from the Communion of that Church so in…losing, ☞ as return to the Communion of the Primitive and Universal Church. How will Dissenters thank you for this? Methinks, I have some hope that we shall in time be agreed, th…t we shall have you (who do so clearly understand and apprehend what Schism there is in any Churches limiting and inclosing the bounds of the Catholick Church; shall we not have you) again pleading for Catholick Terms? And you say further, ibid. p. 357.—The disowning of those things wherein your Church is become Schismatical, cannot certainly be any culpable Separation. For, whatever is so, must be from a Church so far as it is Catholick; but in our case it is from a Church so far only as it is not Catholick, &c. While such Passages (so greatly befriending Dissenters, that would gladly close with you upon Cath…ick Term… ) drop from you at unawares, wh…n you s…arce think of them, wh…t an excellent … …ould p. 46they have of you, it indeed you was minded to undertake their Cause? Yet how contrary hereunto are you, in your too partial Account, p. 305. where your Gentleman pinching you with this Question, Can it be proved that Christ … the Guides of this Church—with a power to make Laws and Decrees, preseribing not only things necessary for common Order and Decency, but new fed…ral Rites, and teaching Signs and Symbols, &c. I answer, (say you) that such a Church hath power to appoint Rules of Order and Decency not repugnant to the Word (which whether this be to the purpose of new fed…r…l Rites, and teaching Signs and Symbols, will I suppose be further examined) which on that account other are bound to submit to; and to take such care of its … to admit none its Priviledges, but such as do submit to them; (Here you are … off from your Catholick Terms again, and …or limiting and inclosing the Catholick Church) and if any disturb the Peace of this Church (and here you do not … the most peaceable Dissenters, that only meet for the Worship of God, and separate no farther from your Church, than as it is not Catholick: you go on) The Civil Magistrate may justly inflict Civil Penalties upon them for it. Is this your Mind, that all that submit not t… those new federal Rites (as they are supposed) and teaching Signs and Symbols (spoken of) should be both debarred of Church-Priviledges, and laid under Civil Penalties, as disturbers of th… Churches P…ace? Then I cannot but wish that Governours may have more Moderation and Clemency, or poor Dissenters more Faith and Patience, than you shew Christian Charity herein.

But if they are as near the Primitive Church, and as much in Communion with the Catholick Church as you are; yea, and in Communion with you still, so sar as you are Catholick, what great reason can you have so severely to condemn them? I hope the Doctrine of the Non-conformists generally is sound, their Worship agreeable to the Word. The only Question then remaining seems to be; By what Authority they do these things? And who gave them Authority? Now it is true, they cannot pretend Authority from the Bishops: but if they can prove, they have Authority from Christ, is not that sufficient? If he hath called them to the work of the Ministry, and commandeth them to be diligent and faithful in it (according to their Abilities and Opportunities) me th…nks Men should not deny their Authority. And whether may not such Societies as you call n…w Churches, return what you cite (p. 179, 180.) out of Calvin (Instit. l. 4. c. 1. n 9.) as proving them to be true Churches, They having the Word of God truly preached, and Sacraments administred acc…rding to Christ's Institution? Now he saith (as you have him) where ever th…se Marks are to be found in particular Societies, those are true Churches, howsoever they are distributed according to Humane Conveniences. And therefore if you did not look only on one side, you might probably see, that you are no more allowed wilfully to separate from them, than they are from you. p. 47And as that Synod of the Reformed Churches in France, at Charenton, A. D. 1631. declared (as you have it p. 186.) That there was no Idolatry, or Superstition in the Lutheran Churches; and therefore the Members of their Churches might be received into Communion with them, without renouncing their own Opinions or Practices: So why might not the Non-conformists, and their Hearers be taken into, or acknowledged in Communion with the Church of England, without renouncing their Opinions or Practices, they being certainly as far from Idolatry or Superstition, as any of the Lutheran Churches. As the Helvetian Churches (with you, p. 187) declare; That no Separation ought to be made for different Rites and Ceremonies, where there is an Agreement in Doctrine: and the true Concord of Churches lies in the Doctrine of Christ, and the Sacraments delivered by him: Even so because the Non-Conformists consent with you in Doctrine, do not break them off from your Communion, for their difference about Ceremonies.

May not several Churches differ in Modes and Forms of Worship, and yet have Communion with one another? Some Difference you cannot but grant betwixt your Cathedral Service, and that in common Country Churches. p. 146, 147. You will not say, the Churches in other Nations, that have not the same Rule with you, are Schismaticks. No, not though such came over into England, and lived among you. And what if the old Liturgy, and that new one (which you cannot but remember the compiling of, and presenting to the Bishops, at the Savoy 1661.) had both passed, and been allowed, for Ministers to use, as they judged most convenient, might not several Ministers and Congregations in this case have used different Modes of Worship, without Breach of the Churches Peace, or counting each other Schismaticks? Would you have called those, new separate Churches, that made use of the new reformed Liturgy? And what if a Dutch Church was in your Parish? Would you disclaim Communion with them, because they had some Rules and Orders different from yours? And what if divers of your Parish, living near it, should joyn with that Congregation, would you thence conclude, that they erected a new separate Church? And, as the Canon 1640. speaks of bowing towards the East or Altar, That they which use this Rite should not despise them which use it not, &c. if now our King and Parliament (like true Catholick Moderators) should put forth an Henoticum, make an healing Law, enjoyning Conformists and Non-conformists, that agree in the same Faith and Worship for Substance, to attend peacably on their Ministery, and serve God and his Church the best they can, whether they use the Liturgy and Ceremonies, or no, without uncharitable Censures, and bitter Reflections upon one another, either in Word, or Writing; would you yet say, that the Non-conformists Assemblies (not following your Rules and Orders) were no other than new separate Churches?

p. 48(5.) I know no Laws, nor Ecclesiastical Canons, that the present Non-conformists have made. And non-entis nulla sunt praedicata. But if your meaning be, that it is enough to prove them New Churches, that they come not up to your Laws, and Church-Rules, and therefore are so … as they conform not to you, I would argue thus:

Either Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules is necessary to Communion with the Church of England, and to cut off the charge of being of a New …hurch, or not▪

If Conformity in all things be not necessary here, why may not sober Dissenters, that own the Church of England for a true Church, and profess the same Faith, and worship God in no other manner, than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England, (as you say, p. 160. Mr. B. declared in writing, and as I told you a good Lawyer pleadeth, Rector of Sutton, p. 26, & 50.) I say, why may not such be owned as in Communion with the Church of England? Why do you charge them with erecting new separate Churches, meerly because they differ from you in some alterable Circumstances, and separable Accidents, not necessary to Churches Concord and Communion? I see, you dare not say, that those things wherein they differ from you are any parts of Worship; So they are of the same Faith, and agree with you in all parts of Worship. And is not all this (with their owning themselves to be be of the Church of England, so far as it is Catholick) a bidding fair for your Reception of them, and acknowledging them still in Communion with you? And then why have you so many words of such being no good Christians, because Members of no Church? (as pag. 104, 105, 110. f.) If Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules be not necessary, pray tell us what is necessary, and what not: what things may be dispensed with, and what not. Rector of Sutton, p. 27. n. 9. You were put in mind of it to inquire, whether there be not some in publick Place, (not very well satisfied with what they have done) who come not up to your Church-Rules? As, some read not all the Common-Pr…yer they are enjoyned to read, and yet had declared their Ass…nt and Consent to the use (at least) as you would have it. Some use not the Surplice, some omit the Cross in Baptism; some dare not put away from the Sacrament any, meerly for not kneeling. And yet you charge not such with Schism, (pag. 148. n. 5.) yet have they different Rules, or at least, they differ from your Rules, as well as Non-conformists. And I know not whether you may not be understood to allow Men to go from their Parish Church (pag. 145. n. 1.) provided they elsewhere joyn with your Churches, as Members of them. What then is the parting Point from the Communion of your Church, or the trying p. 49Point of Conformity, without which a New Church is erected? Here I offer this Note upon what you say farther, pag. 148. n. 5. That many whom you condemn, though not satisfied with such and such Orders of the Church, yet continue in all Acts of Communion with your Church, (or in all that you will call parts of Worship) and draw not others from it, upon any meer Pretence, no, not at all; though they dare not but joyn at other times with Non-conformists, in that which they are well assured is as truly God's Worship, and if they say, in some Respects more pure, you have not yet disproved it. And therefore you should make good your word there, and not charge such with Schism.

Or if you should say, Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules is necessary, that if Men differ never so little from those Rules, it is to erect new Churches, what woful rending work would this make? By a Parity of Reason, may not other foreign Churches be denied to have Communion with the Church of England? How many that could not submit to these Laws and Rules, without receding from their own publick Confessions? Could the French, and Belgick Churches assent to the Ius divinum of Episcopacy? could they own it, as evident to all Men diligently reading the holy Scriptures, to be of Apostolical Institution? And would not any one that reads the Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies of the Psaltzgraves Churches, printed at London A. D. 1637, take them to have been averse from such Conformity, as the Church of England stands upon? You glory in the good Opinion of the Reformed Churches, and Protestant Divines abroad, concerning the Constitution and Orders of our Church: and their owning Communion with our Church, (pag. 96, 97.) And you make nothing of what hath been returned by way of Answer to Dr. D. Bonasus Vapulans is but a little Creature (I confess, to look on) yet some that have read it, do not look on it as nothing. But if an owning of the Divine, or Apostolical Right of Episcopacy and Re-ordination, &c. be made the Terms of their Communion with our Church, how many Protestant Divines abroad, that would renonuce Communion with us, rather than be pleased with it upon such Terms?

And further, if Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules be necessary, &c. How many Parochial Ministers and Congregations (as was noted before) must be denied to be in Communion with the Church of England, whom for the same Reason you must call new erected Churches? For as one says (alluding to that) They who themselves were circumcised, kept not the Law. They who have assented and consented, observe not the Orders and Rules to which they have given their Assent, &c. And yet (as you have it from another) The Priests in the Temple break the Law, and are blameless. Then must you not either acquit many Dissenters here, or condemn many Conformists?

p. 50You see how fain I would have Protestant Dissenters acknowledged still to have Communion with the Church of England, (if it might be) the difference being not in such things as belong to it, as a Church. If you took away those things, which are as the Wall of Partition betwixt you and them, your Churches would be as sound and entire without them. And if you make them S…hismaticks, for differing from you in such things, while they agree with you in all things necessary; whether will you not make your selves, or other Churches (you would be ashamed to disown) Schismaticks, who differ from you in as great Matters, as such Dissenters do? Here let me press you a little further, Keep to your own Rule, Preface p. 46. As far as the Obligation to preserve the Church's Peace extends, so far doth the Sin of Schism reach. Then it follows, if the Obligation to preserve the Church's Peace extends so far as to the Rulers and Governours of the Church, there may be as much Schism in their setting up unnecessary Rules, which others cannot submit to, as in Mens varying from such Rules. P. 209. You argue, From the Obligation which lies upon all Christians, to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church. And now (say you) I have brought the matter home to the Consciences of Men. Had you put the Matter home indifferently and impartially to the Consciences of Men on both sides; that is, both of Imposers, and Dissenters, many could not but have thought in their Consciences, you was to be commended for it. But then, had you not pleaded as much for Dissenters, as here you plead against them? I must grant, they ought (for the Peace and Vnity of the Church) to yield as far as they can, without sinning against God, and their own Souls: and should not Imposers do the like? Were this one Rule agreed on, what Peace and Unity would soon follow? What Chillingworth (p. 283. § 71.) says of Protestants, That they grant their Communion to all who hold with them, not all things, but things necessary, that is, such as are in Scripture plainly delivered:] Make this good of the Church of England, and by my consent, all we (who have unwillingly appeared against you) will readily and joyfully give you our publick Thanks.

What you say further, p. 209. may thus be handed back again to you: If there be no sufficient Reason to justify such Rules and Orders, if they are a Violation of the Vnity of the Church, you there make it a Sin, as much as murder is, and as plainly forbidden. And therefore I do earnestly desire (as you, p. 213.) all Parties concerned, as they love their own Souls, and as they would avoid the Guilt of so great a Sin, impartially and without prejudice to consider that Passage of Irenaeus (with you, p. 212.) That Christ will come to judg those who make Schisms in the Church, and rather regard their own Advantage, than the Church's Vnity, &c. And if any indifferent Men had the matter put to them to decide, who were more likely to regard their own Advantage, whether p. 51some of you, or such as Mr. B. one might soon guess, what their Sentence, or Verdict would be. If I seem here, and sometimes elsewhere to digress a little; yet I think in reason you should overlook it. I would hope that in time you may be convinced of a greater Digression in the scope of your late Writings.

(6.) If you, and the Church of England, will not be so favourable towards those distinct Societies, that are not under your Church-Rules, as to acknowledg them in Communion with you; yet by what you, and Chillingworth say, I see not but they may be still in Communion with the Catholick Church, and Members of it. Knot talketh thus to our Reproach, (Charity maint. part 1. c. 5. § 38.) Protestants cannot avoid the note of Schism, at least by reason of their mutual Separation from one another. For most certain it is, that there is very great difference—between the Lutherans, the rigid Calvinists, and the Protestants of England. But it is observable, what Chillingworth says, p. 255. Eighthly (to that) That all the Members of the Catholick Church, must of necessity be united in external Communion.] Which tho it were much to be desired it were so, yet certainly cannot be perpetually true—Divers times it hath happened, as in the case of Chrysostome and Epiphanius, that particular Men, and particular Churches, have upon an over-valued difference, either renounced Communion mutually, or one of them separated from the other, and yet both have continu…d Members of the Catholick Church. Here let us suppose some unhappy difference to arise among your selves, as if some were for the publick condemning of your Irenicum, some against it; some offended at those Ministers who appear not as zealous against Dissenters, as you have shewed your self, and others offended as much at you, and them; some taking offence at those that bow at the word Iesus, or bow towards the Altar, and others taking the like offence at those who scruple, or forbear such Practice. Suppose now the contention was carried so high, that the disagreeing Parties refused Communion with one another hereupon; and if it came to that, I would know which of these should be the new Church? Or whether both Parties might not yet be in Communion with the Church of England? And much more, may not the same Catholick Church hold Conformists, and Protestant Dissenters?

And you give us this Note, Ratinal Account, p. 331. He that s…parates only from particular Churches as to such things which concern not their Being, is only separated from the Communion of those Churches, and not the Catholick. Now will you say, those Rules and Orders, about which all the Difference is betwixt you, and the Non-conformists, concern the Being of your Church? I doubt you will never be able to convince many, but the Church of England might be every jot as well without them.

p. 52But if it should happen, that any Error, or Corruption is to be found therein, then you have more to say for those you here oppose. Ibid. and pag. 332. which is therefore more properly a Separation from the Errors, than the Communion of such a Church. Wherefore if we suppose that there is no one visible Church, whose Communion is not tainted with some Corruptions, though, if these Corruptions be injoyned as Conditions of Communion, I cannot communicate with any of those Churches; yet it follows not that I am s…parated from the external Communion of the Catholick Chuch, but that I only suspend Communion with those particular Churches, till I may safely joyn with them. Which you illustrate there by a Comparison, where you have these remarkable Words, And if several other Persons, be of the same mind with me, and we therefore joyn together; Do we therefore divide our selves from the whole World by only taking care of our own Safety? &c.

So Chillingworth speaks as like you as, if one had taken his Hints from the other, pag. 298. He is for distiguishing, not confounding these two, departing from the Church, and departing from some general Opinions and Practices, which did not constitute, but vitiate the Church. More he hath to that purpose. But that which I would specially note out of him here (to shew the Harmony and Consent betwixt you, which otherwise should have come in before) pag. 269. A Man may possibly leave some Opinion, or Practice of a Church (says he)—and continue still a Member of that Church: provided that wh…t he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the Essence of the Church consists. Whereas peradventure this Practice may be so involved with the external Communion of this Church, that it may be simply impossible for him to leave this Practice, and not to leave the Churches external Communion.

I cite such Passages as these, because I would have the World know, and take notice, what Friends you are sometimes to poor Non-conformists. That if any should now send an Hue and Cry after them, as after Murderers, you are willing they should take Sanctuary either in your Church, or in the Church Catholick, the New Church, your second Conclusion speaks of, being not so safe.

Now my second Conclusion is this.

2. That many of those Societies which you condemn, do not separate from the Church of England, many of them have ordinary external Communion with you; and though in their Worship, they do not in all things follow your Church-Rules and Orders, yet their Worship cannot be proved contrary, but is agreeable to Scripture-Rule. And as for those, who are not satisfied to go so far, as to hold external Communion with you, yet having Communion with you in the same Faith, it were a very p. 53desirable thing, that the Bars to their full Communion with you were removed (if they be such things as are not necessary.) And in the mean time (possibly) those New Churches are better than no Churches.

And indeed it is matter of wonder to me, if you have no more Charity for such, have no better Thoughts of them, than of those idle, loose, profane Persons, that wholly neglect and contemn the Worship of God, that never go to any Church at all.

I would say more to this, did I not think enough is said already.

Now I come to your last Conclusion.

3. As to things in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermined by the Law of God, and in matters of meer Order and Decency, and wholly as to Form and Government, every one, notwithstanding what his private Judgment may be of them, is bound for the Peace of the Church of God, to submit to the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church.

But would you not lead us here into a Maze, a Labyrinth, without any Clew to guide us out? Let us now see how Pertinent and Material this is to your purpose.

Here first, I must suppose this Question, viz. How far, or in what things is every Man bound (whatever his private Iudgment be) for the Churches Peace, to submit to the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church?

And your Answer is, every one is bound to submit to the Determination of such (what ever his private Judgment be.)

1. As to things in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermin'd by the Law of God.

2. And in matters of meer Order and Decency.

3. And wholly as to the Form of Government; This I think, you cannot deny to be the true Analysis of your third Conclusion.

How pertinent this your Resolution is to the case of Dissenters, and how material to give them Satisfaction, will appear by examining the several Parts.

But first, it is worth nothing, that you speak only of the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church. Implying, that Men are not bound to submit to the Determination of such as may be proved Vsurpers, such as are not lawful Governours of the Church. Then so far you and they may be agreed, that if the Pope should set up a Patriarch, &c. in England, Men were not bound to submit to their Determination, till such could be proved lawful Governours of the Church. And then whether you have fully answered your Gentleman (p. 305.) and others, and proved that Christ hath invested with Power to make such Decrees and Determinations (as lawful Governours of the Church) those who neverwere chosen, or approved by the People, is another Question?