Against Communicating with the Parish Assemblies, Text

Against Communicating with the Parish Assemblies · Text

p. 1Mr. Baxter's Judgment and Reaſons againſt Communicating with the Pariſh Aſſemblies, as by Law required, impartially ſtated and propoſed.

THere has been of late no little ſtir about going to the Pariſh Aſſemblies, and communicating with them in their Liturgy-Worſhip, and in ſpecial Mr. Baxter hath been warmely engaged in the Defence, (as he himſelf will have it) of his own, and the Practice of thoſe that are for Pariſh-Communion, and cannot ſuffer a little Manuſcript, ſaid to be Dr. Owens, to eſcape his Annimadverſions and Oppoſition. It is at this time no part of my Province to examine Mr. Baxter's Anſwer to Dr. Owen's Arguments; I call the Manuſcript Dr. Owens, not only becauſe common Fame directs me to do ſo, but becauſe in the Arguments there is the Doctor's wonted Accuracy and Strength. There are very many Scripture-Reaſons couch'd in a few Lines, and ſuch as are too ſtrong to receive any harm from Mr. Baxter's Anſwer, as I could by divine Aſſiſtance clearly evince: but at this time it ſhall be no part of my Work. In this, my aim is to ſhew, What it is Mr. Baxter is really for, that he is as much againſt holding Communion with the Pariſh-Aſſemblies, as by Law required, as thoſe are, againſt whom he writes, and that we are furniſhed with unanſwerable Arguments againſt ſuch Pariſh-Communion, by Mr. Baxter.

Thus much will be made very manifeſt to a common p. 2Capacity, by ſhewing what are Mr. Baxter's avowed Principles about the Inſtitution, Miniſtry and Diſcipline of Chriſt's Churches, and what are the natural conſequences of thoſe Principles he holds, and wherein lies the point, in which he differs from his Brethren. In doing which I will give you Mr. Baxter's ſence, for the moſt part in his own words, directing you to the very pages of thoſe Books of his I make uſe of.

§. 1. All Chriſtians (ſaith Mr. Baxter) are agreed, that Chriſt is the Author of the Univerſal Church (conſider'd both as Baptized or Externally Covenanting, call'd Viſible, and as Regenerate and ſincerely Covenanting, call'd, Myſtical) as it is headed by Chriſt himſelf, and called his Body and ſpecial Kingdom.

§. 2. We doubt not but Chriſt has inſtituted the Office of the ſacred Miniſtry, to be under him as a Teacher, Ruler and High-Prieſt of the Church, in Teaching, Guiding and Worſhipping, and that he has inſtituted holy Aſſemblies and Societies, for theſe things to be exerciſed in. And that [a Society of Neighbour Chriſtians, aſſociated with ſuch a Paſtor or Paſtors, for Perſonal Communion, even in ſuch Doctrine, Diſcipline and Worſhip] is a Church-form of divine Inſtitution.

§. 3. We know not of any proof that ever was produced that many Churches of the firſt Rank, muſt (of duty) make one fixt greater Compound Church by Aſſociation, whether Claſſical, Dioceſane, Provincial, Patriarchal or National, and that God has inſtituted any ſuch form, vide Mr. Baxter's Nonconformiſts plea for peace, p. 8. 12.

§. 4. Chriſt has ſtated on the Paſtors of his Inſtituted Churches, the Power of Teaching Aſſemblies, and particular perſons of leading them in publick Worſhip, and Sacraments, and of Judging by the power of the Keyes, p. 3whom to receive into their Communion by Baptiſm, and profeſſion of Faith, and whom to admoniſh, and for Obſtinate Impenitance reject; and this Inſtitution none may Alter.

§. 5. He has Inſtituted Ordinary Aſſemblies, and ſtated particular Churches, as is aforeſaid, for theſe Holy Exerciſes, and forbad all Chriſtians to forſake them, and he and his Apoſtles, have appointed and ſeparated the Lords day hereunto. None therefore may abrogate, or ſuſpend thoſe Laws; all this is proved, Mat. 28. 19, 20. and 16. 19. and 18. 18, 19. Joh. 20. 23. Luke 12. 37, 38. Mat. 21. 36. and 22. 4, 5. &c. And 24. 45, 46. Heb. 11. 25, 26. Acts 11. 26. 1 Cor. 14. Epheſ. 4. 4. to 17. 1 Theſ. 5. 12, 13. Heb. 13. 7. 24. Tit. 1. 5, 6. &c. 1 Tim. 3. Acts 14. 23. Acts. 20. 1 Cor. 16. 1. &c. Mr. Baxter Vbi ſupra, p. 24.

§. 6. The Dioceſane kind of particular Churches, which has only One Biſhop over many ſcore or hundred fixed parochial Aſſemblies, I take (ſaith Mr. Baxter) to be it ſelf a Crime: Which in its very Conſtitution, overthroweth the Office, Church and Diſcipline, which Chriſt by himſelf, and his Spirit in his Apoſtles, Inſtituted: For 1. Pariſhes are made by them no Churches, as having no ruling Paſtors, that have the power of judging whom to Baptize, or admit to Communion, or Refuſe, but only are Chappels, having preaching Curates. 2. All the firſt Order of Biſhops in ſingle Churches are depoſed. 3. The Office of Presbiters, is changed into Semi-presbiters. 4. Diſcipline is made impoſſible; Mr. Baxter's Church Hiſtory of Biſhops and Council abridged, ch. 1. §. 54. The like he affirms in his five Diſputa. of Church-Government, pag. 19. As to the eight ſort of Biſhops (viz.) [The Dioceſane, who aſſumeth the ſole Government p. 4of many Pariſh Churches, both Presbiters and People,] as ten, or twelve, or twenty, or more, as they uſed to do, even a whole Dioceſs, I take them (ſaith Mr. Baxter) to be Intollerable and Deſtructive to the peace and happineſs of the Church, and therefore not to be admitted under Pretence of Order or Peace, if we can hinder them.

§. 7. This Dioceſane Church Government, being de facto, eſtabliſhed in this Kingdom, the pariſh Aſſemblies are not compleat particular Churches of the firſt Rank and Order, they are but parts of a Dioceſane, which is de facto, eſtabliſhed as a ſingle Church, Infime ſpeciei. That pariſh Aſſemblies are not particular Churches, is manifeſted from Mr. Baxters principles. For 1. That Cement which is neceſſary to the being of a Church, is wanting. And it is impoſſible (ſaith Mr. Baxter in his Cathol. Concord, p. 231.) to be a Church without the Cement of Conſent. If many be forced into a Temple, not Conſenting, it is a Priſon, they are not a Church if they Conſent only to Meet on other Occaſions, as for ſome Occaſional Act of Religion, it is not thereby made a Church. If they be commanded to conſent, and do not, and if it only be their Duty, it maketh them not a Church, but only proveth that they ought to be one: So far Mr. Baxter. And it is manifeſt, that in purſuance of Canon and Statute Law, the Pariſhes are de facto, ſettled as parts of a Dioceſane Church; and whoever joyn themſelves unto the Pariſh aſſemblies, as by Law required, conſent to be of the Pariſh aſſembly, as It is a part of the Dioceſane Church; this doth every Pariſh Minſter, who ſwears Canonical Obedience, that is, Obedience to his Ordinary ſecundum Canones, and who is to reſt ſo fully ſatisfied in the Dioceſane Government, as to declare he will not endeavour, on any pretence whatever the alteration of it. But to form the Pariſh aſſembly p. 5into a compleat particular Church, is to make a Subſtantial Alteration in the Dioceſane Conſtitution. Beſides the Veſteries, who (as Mr. Baxter ſaith) do after a ſort repreſent the Pariſh Aſſembly, are alſo ſworn to the Dioceſane Conſtitution and Government, and therefore cannot be juſtly interpreted to conſent to the Pariſh Aſſemblies, being a compleat particular Church; Whatever conſent there is between the Miniſter and People, it muſt be ſuppoſed to be no other than what is agreeable to the Dioceſane Rule, (i. e.) to be parts of the Dioceſane Church, taking none for their Paſtor but the Dioceſane Biſhop.

2. This Pariſh-Aſſembly doth not only want conſent to make it a Church, but it has no Parochial Paſtor, though the Paſtor and Flock are the eſſential conſtitutive parts of a particular organiz'd Church, yet its not to be found in our Pariſhes. It may be a Community (ſaith Mr. Baxter, ubi ſu…r.) without a Paſtor; not a Polity, not an Eccleſiaſtical Society. That the Pariſh Miniſter is not a Paſtor, is manifeſt; for he is deprived of what is eſſential to the Pastoral Office. This is evident (according to the Principles of Mr. Baxter) who diſtinguiſhing between the Old and New Epiſcopacy, and who though he had more favourable thoughts of the Old than of the New, and knows that the preſent is more like the new than the old, and conſequently worſe; yet writing againſt the reſtoring the Old, he lays down his fourth Argument thus,— 4. That Epiſcopacy, which degradeth all the Presbyters in the Dioceſs, or cauſeth them to ſuſpend an Eſſential part of their Office, is not to be reſtored under any pretence of the right Order of Peace. But ſuch was the late Engliſh Epiſcopacy; And in his Advertiſement to his Five Diſp. p. 13, 14, &c. to ſatisfie thoſe that make ſome doubt of the truth of the Minor, he ſaith, All men in England that p. 6knew but twenty years ago what belonged to theſe matters, are paſt doubt of it. And I have no mind to diſpute againſt them that contradict the common knowledge of the Nation, as if they ſhould doubt whether ever we had a King in England. 2. Read over the Canons, and the yearly Viſitation Articles, which the Church-Wardens ſwear to preſent by, before they had ever read the Book, or heard what was in it. And then judge, 3. Their Arguing for the ſole Juriſdiction of Biſhops, and that they only were properly Paſtors, and that Presbyters had not the Key of Diſcipline, but of Doctrine, is ſome Evidence.

It is known to the Nation, that the Paſtors of the Pariſh-Churches had no power by their Laws, (or ſufferance) to caſtout any the moſt erroneous Sinner or Heretick from the Church, nor to bring them to open confeſſion of their ſin, nor to abſolve the Penitent, but by reading of their Sentences, and publiſhing what they ſent from their Courts, and conſequently could do nothing of all the means hereunto; for the means cannot be uſed where the end is known to be impoſſible. All the obſtinate ſcandalous Perſons and ſcorners of a holy Life, we muſt take as Members of our Churches, having no power to caſt them out. Indeed we had the ſame Power as the Church-Wardens, to put our Names to the Preſentments, but a power of Accuſing to a Chancellors Court, is not a Power of Governing, eſpecially when Piety, under the Name of Preciſeneſs and Puritainiſm, was ſo hated and perſecuted, that to have accuſed a man for meer Prophaneneſs, would have been ſo far from obtaining the end, as that it was like to have been the undoing of the Accuſer.

Obj. But is not the power of Diſcipline given them in their Ordination?

p. 7Anſw. 1ſt. In their Ordination, the Biſhop ſaid to them [Receive the holy Ghoſt, whoſe Sins thou doſt remit, they are remitted; whoſe Sins thou dost retain, they are retained] and in the Book of Ordination it was asked them, [Whether they would give their faithful Diligence alwayes to adminiſter the Doctrine and Diſcipline of Christ, as the Lord has commanded, and as the Realm has received the ſame, according to the Commandments of God?] And the Rubrick of the Common-Prayer-Book enables the Curate to admoniſh open and notorious evil Livers, by whom the Congregation is offended; and thoſe that have wronged their Neighbours, that they come not till they have openly declared, That they have repented and amended. But, 1. This doth but ſerve to leave them inexcuſeable that acknowledge Diſcipline to belong to the Office of a Preſbyter, when yet he might not excuſe it. The Biſhops in the Ordination of Presbyters enabled them to Preach the Goſpel, and yet they were after that forbidden to preach, till they had a Licence, and it was put into the viſitation Article, to preſent thoſe Miniſters, that preached without a Licence. If they will deny us the exerciſe of the power, that they firſt confeſs belongeth to our Office, we are not anſwerable for, their ſelf-contradictions. 2. By Diſcipline, I ſuppoſe they mean but our Inſtruction, and our publiſhing their Orders for Penance, Excommunication, or Abſolutions. 3. They were the Judges of the ſence, of the Laws as far as the Execution required, and the univerſal practice of England; which their Writings ſhewed us, to our coſt, their Judgment; what good would it do us, if the Law had been on our ſide, while the Concurrent Judgment and Practice of the Governours denied it, and went aganiſt it? 4. He that has kept a man from the Sacrament, according to the p. 8plain Words of the Rubrick, was to have been acountable for it at their Courts, and ſo likely to have been undone by it: So far Mr. Baxter. Which ſufficiently ſhews that the Pariſh Miniſter is in his Judgment degraded and deprived of what is eſſential to the Paſtors Office; for by taking from them the power of Church-Government they deſtroy the very Office of the Presbyters; for Ruling is as Eſſential to their Office as preaching; notwithſtanding which, as Mr. Baxter proves, and expreſly aſſerts, the Engliſh Epiſcopacy, taketh from the Presbyters the Power of Church Governing; ſee his five Diſput. p. 39.

But if it had been only the Exerciſe of the Pariſh Presbyters Power that had been ſuſpended, yet conſidering the Suſpenſion is ſtatedly eſtabliſhed by▪ Law or Cuſtom, during the Life of the Miniſter, its a deſtroying his Office; ſaith Mr. Baxter; Though an Office may be Unexerciſed for a time on ſome ſpecial Reaſon, yet if it be ſtatedly ſuſpended, and that ſuſpenſion eſtabliſhed by Law or Cuſtom during the Life of the Miniſter; this is plainly a deſtroying or nulling the Office it ſelf, and not to be endured. And ſurely, the Exerciſe of the Paſtoral power is ſtatedly ſuſpended, and the ſuſpenſion is by Law or Cuſtom eſtabliſhed, during the Miniſters Life, and therefore the Office is nulled and destroyed; that is, the pariſh Miniſter is not a Paſtor, nor has the Pariſh Aſſembly any Paſtor, it is not a particular Church.

All this Mr. Baxter ſaith, of the Old Engliſh Prelacy, and yet thinketh that the preſent is much worſe than the Old. In his ſecond Defence of the Nonconformiſts, p. 64. Dr. Still. ſaying, That t…ere is no other reaſon of our Separation, becauſe of the Terms of our Communion, than what was from the beginning of the Reformation. Mr. Baxter Anſwers, To ſay, that we grant that there are no more Reaſons now, p. 9than were then, is too bold an untruth, there is more reaſon (1.) From the Quality of the things impoſed (2.) From the deſignes and drifts of the Impoſition. (3.) From the effects. (4.) From the Aggravation of Conformity, as in the Church that we muſt communicate with. (5.) From the things which give us a fuller cauſe for our Preaching and Aſſemblies, viz. The late general contrary Church ſtate and Engagement to it, &c. On theſe particulars Mr. Baxter enlargeth; I will but juſt intimate what he ſaith on ſome of them. (1.) As to things impoſed now which were not then. 1^o. The Veſtry Act was not then made, by which ſo conſiderable part of the Pariſh Churches as the Veſtries are, are to renounce all Obligations, to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the Church, from the Oath and Vow, called the Covenant; ſo that all Reformation of Church Government, as ſo ſworn, was renounced by them, who in a ſort repreſent the Pariſh Church. 5. The Reordination of Miniſters, Ordained by Presbyters, was not then required, and made a Neceſſary condition of their Miniſtration and Church relation, (even by them that confeſs Reordination Unlawful.) And therefore Plainly intimateth the Nullity, of the firſt.— 9^o. The Word [Paſtor] as applyed to Pariſh Miniſters, diſtinct from [Curates] was not then blotted out of moſt places in the Liturgies, nor the 20th of the Acts, as applyed to Presbyters left out [Take heed to your ſelves, and to the Flock &c.] in plain deſign to Alter the Office and Pariſh Churches. To all this let us add.

§. 8. That he that will hold Communion with a Church, muſt conſent to the Miniſtry, Diſcipline and Worſhip of that Church, ſee Cathol. Concord, ubi ſupra. So that he that will Communicate with the Pariſh Aſſemblies muſt p. 10conſent to the Miniſtery, Diſcipline and Worſhip of their Aſſemblies; that is, he muſt conſent to the Dioceſane Paſtor, to the Pariſh Semi-presbyters, and to the Pariſh Aſſemblies, as being a part of the Dioceſane Church, and to the Dioceſane Diſcipline; for de facto, this is the Conſtitution and Frame of Pariſh Aſſemblies, they are but parts of the Dioceſane Church, they are under no other Paſtor but the Dioceſane Biſhop, have no other Miniſter than a Semi-Presbyter, who wants what is eſſential to the Paſtoral Office, and the Aſſembly wants that Cement of conſent that is neceſſary to the making e'm a compleat particular Church.

This being ſo, May we by any Act or Deed contribute to the fixing and eſtabliſhing the Dioceſane Epiſcopacy amongſt us? I'll Anſwer according to ſound Reaſon, in conjunction with Mr. Baxter's own Principles: If it were unlawful to reſtore the old Engliſh Epiſcopacy, its unlawfull to give countenance and ſtrength to it, once reſtored; for the ſtrengthening it, is but the continuation of the thing reſtored: and if we might not lawfully help forward, nor conſent unto the Reſtoration of it, we may not lawfully fix it, when once reſtored; for all theſe Miſchiefs that are ſaid to be the Fruits of its Reſtoration, will be continued by a fixing it.

But according to Mr. Baxter, it was not lawful to reſtore the Old Engliſh Prelacy, much leſs Lawful to ſettle the New, which (he ſaith) is worſe. His Reaſons are many, e. g. It deſtroys the end of Government, and is certainly inconſiſtent with the neceſſary Government and Diſcipline, to be exerciſed in the Churches; It unavoidably cauſeth Separations and Diviſions in the Church; it degradeth all the Presbyters in the p. 11Dioceſs, and deſtroys and nulls their Office; it is the product of proud Ambition and Arrogancy, contrary to the expreſs command of Chriſt: It ſo far gratifieth lazy Miniſters, as to eaſe them of the moſt painful part of their Work: It is contrary to the Word of God, and Apoſtolical Inſtitution, according to their own Interpretation. Moreover, it gratifieth the Devil and Wicked Men, not by an unavoidable Accident, but by a natural Neceſſity; therefore (ſaith Mr. Baxter in his five Diſput. pag. 32, to 50.) not to be reſtored under any pretence of the Order or Peace of the Church: And for the ſame Reaſon (ſay I, according to Mr. Baxters principles) not to be complyed with, not to be countenanced, not to be fixed and ſtrengthened by us, though now reſtored. Though the Order and Peace of the Church be pretended, yet we muſt do nothing that countenanceth or ſtregthens the Engliſh Epiſcopacy, we muſt not hold communion with them; for that is to conſent to the uninſtituted ſpecies of their Church, Miniſtry, Diſcipline and Worſhip. What then muſt we do? May we ſeparate without contracting the guilt of Schiſme? Take Mr. Baxter's own Anſwer.

§. 9. If any Prince would turn his Kingdom, or a whole Province, Dioceſs or Country, into one onelyonly Church, and thereby overthrow all the firſt Order of Churches, of Chriſts Inſtitution, which are aſſociated for perſonal preſent Communion, allowing them no Paſtors, that have the power of the Keys, and all eſſential to their Office, though he ſhould allow parochial Oratories or Chappels, which ſhould be no true Churches, but parts of a Church, it were no Schiſm to gather Churches, within ſuch a p. 12Church, againſt the Laws of ſuch a Prince; ſee Nonconformiſts firſt plea for peace. p. 52.

Thus according to Mr. Baxters principles, a ſeparation from the Pariſh Aſſemblies, and an erecting particular Churches, according to Goſpel Order, is not Schiſm. Our ſeparation from the Dioceſane Conſtitution, and from the Pariſh Churches, as but parts of the Dioceſane, is juſtifyable, and not to be Condemned. Now the Lay-Nonconformiſts are fully perſwaded, that the Law of the Land requires our coming to Church, our going to the pariſh Aſſemblies, as they are parts of the Dioceſane Church, which Mr. Bax. ſaith they muſt not do.

This being ſo manifeſt, I preſume the Reader will be querying about Mr. Baxters Practice, and late Writings, and ſay, Why then does Mr. Baxter go to Church? Why doth he write ſo much for it, and cannot ſuffer a few Lines in Manuſcript to paſs without a publick Confutation? What! doth Mr. Baxter ſay and unſay, or is his Conſcience againſt communicating with the pariſh Churches, and his Practice for it? God forbid I ſhould think ſo of one, whoſe Goodneſs and Learning both ſeem above the ſize of what is Ordinary: Really therefore that I might find out the Notion on which Mr. Baxter inſiſts to ſatisfie himſelf, in holding communion with the pariſh Aſſemblies, even when he is ſo very much againſt them, as they are but parts of the Dioceſane Church, I have taken ſome pains, and have been impartial in my Search, and I think I have found out the Notion he builds on, which I take to be this.

Mr. Baxter diſtinguiſheth between the many Pariſh Churches, and the Dioceſane, and the Church of England, as conſtituted of ſuch Dioceſane Churches. The old p. 13Nonconformists commonly owned the Pariſh Churches, (and the Church of England, as made up of ſuch) but not the Dioceſane. It is therefore a Miſtake, that owning the Pariſh Churches and Worſhip, is an owning of the preſent Dioceſane Conſtitution. Mr. B. againſt Dr. O. p. 9.

So that Mr. Baxter diſtinguiſheth between the Church of England, as it is made up of many particular compleat Churches that are Parochial, and as it is made up of many particular Dioceſane Churches. And here it muſt be Noted,

1. That though Mr. Baxter ſuppoſes the National Church of England to fall under theſe two diſtinct conſiderations, yet de facto, its notorious that there are not two ſuch National Churches of England exiſtent; and in truth, its impoſſible that there ſhould be two ſuch Churches, ſimul & ſemel, exiſtent in one Nation; for a National Church made up of many compleat Parochial Churches, is in its very conſtitution deſtructive of a National Church made up of many particular Dioceſane Churches. Mr. Baxter himſelf confeſſeth, that the Dioceſane Church made up of many Parochial Aſſemblies, and eſtabliſhed as a ſingle Church, Infimae ſpeciei, of the loweſt Rank and Order, is deſtructive of the very conſtitution of Parochial Churches, and the Dioceſane Epiſcopacy and Diſcipline deſtructive of the Parochial; and the ſame may be ſaid, è contra, of the Parochial, it is deſtructive of the Dioceſane. So that its impoſſible there ſhould be in this Nation two diſtinct National Churches, the one made up of many Parochial compleat ſingle Churches, the other made up of many Dioceſane ſingle Churches. If then the National Church be in purſuance of the Laws, de facto, ſettled as made up p. 14of many Dioceſane ſingle Churches (whether this be of Divine or Humane Right, matters not) its impoſſible to joyn our ſelves to the Pariſh-Aſſemblies, as to compleat particular Churches. For what-ever Mental Notions we may have of the Church of England, our Notions cannot make the Conſtitution to be de facto, otherwiſe than it is; and all know that the National Church is de facto, a National Church made up of ſeveral ſingle Dioceſane Churches, and that there is no National Church of England exiſtent made up of many compleat Parochial Churches. But,

2. Suppoſe one Pariſh Aſſembly, or more, ſhould form and frame themſelves into compleat ſingle Churches, and the People ſhould conſent to take the Pariſh Miniſter for their Paſtor, and the Miniſter ſhould exerciſe the whole power of a Paſtor in this Pariſh Church. If this be ſo, it's acknowledged that Mr. Baxter may hold communion with this Pariſh Church, and not own the preſent Dioceſane Conſtitution: But then it will alſo unavoidably follow, that this Pariſh Church cuts it ſelf off from the National ſettled Order, it is a Diſſenting Church; for it hereby ceaſes to be a part of the Dioceſane Conſtitution, it is no more under the Paſtoral Over-ſight of the Dioceſane Biſhop, but aſſumes to it ſelf all that Paſtoral Power that in purſuance of Canon and Statute Law is fixed in the Biſhop; ſo that this Pariſh Church is not eſtabliſhed or allowed by the Law, but is a Diſſenting Congregation, of the ſame Nature, Form and Conſtitution with that of other Diſſenting Churches; for the ſpecies of theſe Parochial Churches Conſtitution, Ministry and Diſcipline is the ſame with theirs, and as perfectly inconſiſtent with that of the Dioceſane, and p. 15by the Church of England's Repreſentative declared to be No True Church, and the Miniſter and Veſtry, who conſent to this Alteration, do act contrary to their ſeveral Declarations and Oaths, and are by the Canons Excommunicate, and their Aſſemblies declared Conventicles.

In the 11th Canon, whoſe Title is [Maintainers of Conventicles cenſured] its expreſs, That whoſoever ſhall hereafter affirm or maintain, that there are within this Realm Other Meetings, Aſſemblies or Congregations of the King's born Subjects, than ſuch as by the Laws of the Land are held and allowed, which may rightly challenge to themſelves the Name of true and lawful Churches, let him be Excommunicated, and not Reſtor'd, but by the Arch-Biſhop, after his Repentance and publick Revocation of ſuch his Wicked Errors. And in Can. 12. Whoſoever ſhall affirm, That it is lawful for any ſort of Miniſters and Lay-Perſons, or either of them to joyn together and make Conſtitutions in cauſes Eccleſiaſtical, without the King's Authority, and ſhall ſubmit themſelves to be ruled and governed by them, Let them be Excommunicated, ipſo facto, and not be reſtored until they Repent, and publickly revoke thoſe their Wicked and Anabaptiſtical Errors. And in Canon 73. where the Title is [Miniſters not to hold private Conventicles] it is thus ordained; For as much as all Conventicles and ſecret Meetings of Prieſts and Miniſters, have been ever juſtly accounted very hurtful to the ſtate of the Church wherein they live, We do now ordain and conſtitute, That no Prieſts or Miniſters of the Word of God, nor any other Perſons ſhall meet together in any private Houſe, or elſe-where, to conſult upon p. 16any matter or courſe to be taken by them, or upon their motion or direction by any other, which may any way tend to the impeaching or depraving of any part of the Government and Diſcipline now eſtabliſhed in the Church of England, under pain of Excommunication, ipſo facto.

So that thoſe Pariſh Aſſemblies that are erected in other manner than according to the Dioceſane Conſtitution, and made compleat particular Churches, they are as ſuch no more a part of the ſettled National Order, than the preſent diſſenting Congregations, but are by the Canons declared to be Conventicles, and the Miniſters and People that have had a hand in the framing their Pariſhes into this Order, are ipſo facto, excommunicated. This then being ſo, I deſire it to be obſerved, that when Mr. B. joyns with theſe Pariſh-Aſſemblies, Thus conſtituted, his Communion is ſtill confined unto the Diſſenters Congregations, he doth not hereby hold any Communion with the Church of England, any more than the Diſſenters do; for his Communion with theſe Pariſh Churches, is with them as they are erected, in Oppoſition unto and deſtruction of the National ſettled Order, which is Dioceſane.

To undeceive the World then, I muſt tell them (and Mr. Baxter cannot deny it,) that Mr. Baxter is no more for the joyning with the Pariſh Aſſemblies, as they are parts of the ſettled National Church, than the congregational Diſſenters are, That when he goes to Church, he holds no other Communion with the Church of England than they do who go not to Church; for his Communion is ſtill confind to a diſſenting Pariſh Church, erected as much contrary to the Law p. 17of the Land, as their Congregations are. Its true, he joyns with them in ſome part of the Liturgy, and ſo goes farther then they, but he holds not Communion with the Church of England, as it is a Church of Legal Eſtabliſhment, any farther than they do. For he Eſteems the Church of England, as by Law eſtabliſhed, to be deſtructive of that kind or Species of thoſe Churches, Miniſtry and Diſcipline, which is of Chriſts Inſtitution, and Parochial or Congregational. Mr. Baxter and they (I ſay) are agreed in their diſſent and ſeparation from the Pariſh Aſſemblies, as they are parts of the ſettled National Order, and differ about the Frame of Parochial Aſſemblies; for Mr. Baxter ſuppoſes them to be what (conſideratis conſiderandis) other Diſſenters judge Impoſſible.

To make this as plain as poſſible I can, it muſt be obſerved, that Mr. Baxter affirms the Pariſh Aſſemblies to fall under a Twofold Conſideration; They muſt be looked on, either as they are compleat particular Congregational Churches, independant on the Dioceſane, or as they are incompleat parts of, and dependant on the Dioceſane. Now as the Pariſh Aſſemblies are parts of the Dioceſane; they are not by any means to be owned or approved, but as they are particular Congregational Churches, ſo they are to be communicated with and owned.

This is Mr. Baxter's Judgment; but on the other hand, his Diſſenting Brethren hold, that though Parochial Aſſemblies may be actually formed and framed according to the Congregational Conſtitution, that is, an Aſſembly of good Chriſtians living in a Pariſh, may give up themſelves to God, and aſſociate themſelves for perſonal Communion in the Doctrine, Diſcipline and Worſhip of Chriſt, chuſing a Paſtor and other Officers; for this end p. 18the pariſh Aſſembly may conſent to be of ſuch a Conſtitution, and may chuſe a Paſtor, and in this Aſſembly all the Ordinances of Chriſt may be regularly Adminiſtred, and Diſcipline duely exerciſed. This may be, but though it may be ſo, yet they affirm that the Pariſh Aſſemblies are not thus conſtituted, their Conſtitution is not Congregational, but Dioceſane. They are not a compleat Church, but incompleat parts of the Dioceſane; there is no ſuch conſent as is neceſſary to Conſtitute ſuch a Church; but a conſent to be what the Law directs 'em to be; they have no Paſtor amongſt them, as a Congregational Church has, nor are they independant on the Dioceſane, as the Congregational is. They are not a particular Church of Chriſts Inſtitution: Though they may be a ſound part of the Catholick Church, or of the Chriſtian Kingdom, yet they are not an Inſtituted Church, they are not a true particular Church, and therefore it is impoſſible any ſhould communicate with them, as with ſuch a Church. Whatever we may fancy them to be they alwayes remain the ſame, our Imaginations cannot make any change on their Conſtitution, our Mental Conceptions are but Iminanent Acts, Et Nihil penunt in eſſe. Think any man what he will of the Church of England, de facto, it remains the ſame, viz. A National Church made up of many ſingle Dioceſane Churches, Infimae ſpeciei, of the loweſt Rank and Order; for which reaſon its Impoſſible for any to joyn with the Church of England, as made up of many ſingle compleat Parochial Churches; we cannot Communicate with it as ſuch, becauſe it is not ſo made; there is not any one Pariſh thus Conſtituted. Let Mr. Baxter direct them to that Pariſh, that is thus framed, that is, p. 19a particular compleat Church of Chriſts Inſtitution, and he would do ſomewhat, but till then, although there be ſome ſuch Pariſh Churches, it is to them as if there were none ſuch; for [de non Apparentibus et non exiſtentibus eadem eſt ratio.] Beſides they ſay, That if there be any ſuch Parochial Congregational Church actually exiſtent in this Kingdom, and the Miniſter and People privately declare ſo much, they think, that if without an open profeſſion of their Church conſtitution, as different from the National eſtabliſhed Order, their Commuunicating with them muſt be interpreted a Communicating with them as they are a part of the ſettled National Order, which is Dioceſane, which cannot be done without an owning the preſent Dioceſane Conſtitution. But if ſuch a profeſſion be made, they communicate not with the Church of England, but with a Congregation of Diſſenters, from the National Conſtitution. Farthermore, ſome are afraid, that the erecting ſuch Pariſh Aſſemblies, cannot be without the Miniſters and Veſtry Mens contracting the guilt of Perjury. In fine, I muſt again beſeech the Reader to fix it in his thoughts, That the Church of England, as made up of many ſingle Dioceſane Churches, is not in Mr. Baxter's Judgment a true Church; Though it be a ſound part of the Church Univerſal; yet the Dioceſane Churches, which make up the National, and which in purſuance of the Law are, de facto, ſettled and eſtabliſhed, are not true Churches. Mr. Baxter doth hold that the Pariſh Aſſemblies, as parts of Dioceſane Churches, are not true Churches; p. 20for they have not Paſtures, as has been largely proved, and its no Schiſm to deny 'em, the Communion proper to a true particular Church. What Mr. Baxter ſaith of a Pariſh, that wants a Paſtor, on the account of the Peoples not conſenting to one impoſed on 'em, the ſame may be ſaid of that Pariſh, whoſe Miniſter wants what is eſſential to the Paſtoral Office; and This all Pariſh Miniſters according to the ſettled National Order do want, and therefore it may be ſaid, That that Pariſh Church is no Pariſh Church, in the proper political Organized ſence, as we now ſpeak of a Church, as conſtituted by the Governing and Governed part. For that which wanteth an eſſential part wanteth the Eſſence. And therefore it is no Schiſm to pronounce it no ſuch Church, [i e. no true Church of Chriſts Inſtitution] and to deny it the Communion proper to ſuch a Church. Mr. Baxters Nonconformiſt plea for peace, p. 82.

This then is Mr. Baxters Judgment, touching the Dioceſane Churches, as by Law eſtabliſhed. He cannot conſent unto them, nor hold Communion with them as ſuch. For the very kind and frame of their Churches is falſe, ſo is their Miniſtry, and Diſcipline, even-deſtructive of Chriſts Churches, Miniſtry and Diſcipline.

§. 10. A Congregation or Nation of Men (ſaith Mr. Baxter) of eminent Sanctity and Order, ſound Doctrine and Worſhip, may by humane frailty take ſome one Falſhood or Uncertain thing to be neceſſary to Miniſtry or Communion, p. 21(as they ſay, ſome Churches unhapily of late reject all that own not the Antiquity of the Hebrew points) I cannot have local Communion with that Church, (ſaith he) for they will not receive me, unleſs I ſubſcribe either a falſehood, or that which I judge falſe) but yet I highly honour and Love 'em, and have mental Catholick Communion with them, when perhaps neceſſity makes me joyn with a Church of far worſe Men and Order, that will impoſe no ſin on me. Mr. Baxter's Schiſm Detected, pag. 56.

In purſuance of this principle Mr. Baxter layes down, his Brethren ſeparate from the Church of England; for there are ſeveral things which they Judge unſound, that are made neceſſary to their Communion with them. By Cannon 27. No Miniſter, when he celebrateth the Communion ſhall wittingly Adminiſter the ſame to any but ſuch as Kneel, under pain of Suſpenſion, nor under the like pain to any that refuſe to be preſent at publick Prayers, according to the Orders of the Church of England; that 'tis according to the 18th. Canon, The Communion muſt not be adminiſtered to him, that will cover his Head in the Church or Chappel, in time of Divine Service, or that doth not Reverently Kneel, when the general Confeſſion, Lettany and other Prayers are read, and ſhall not ſtand up at the ſaying of the Belief, or refuſe to make due and lowly Reverence, when the Name of the Lord Jeſus ſhall be mentioned, in time of Divine Service, or refuſe to ſay p. 22in due place, and audibly with the Miniſter, the Confeſſion, the Lords Prayer, and the Creed, or not make ſuch other Anſwers, to the publick Prayers, as are appointed in the Book of Common-prayer. Whoever refuſeth theſe things, he is one who though preſent at the publick Prayers, yet not according to the Orders of the Church, is not to be admitted to the Communion, that is, all thoſe things are made neceſſary to the Communion: And here it muſt be obſerved, that though the admitting notorious Offenders to the Comunion be forbiden by the 26th Canon, yet not under the penalty of Suſpenſion, as it is in this caſe of admitting thoſe who refuſe to Kneel, or to be preſent at the publick Prayers, according to the Orders of the Church of England.

But theſe things ſeveral Diſſenters for great Reaſons refuſe to do, I'll at this time only inſiſt on the Ceremony of Kneeling at the Sacrament, and give the Reaſons of ſome Learned Men againſt it. 1ſt. Let us hear Mr. Baxter in his five Diſput. p. 410, 411. As for Kneeling at the Sacrament, I doubt not at all but the Impoſing it, and that on ſuch Rigorous Terms, tying all to it, and eaſting all out of the Communion of the Church, or from the participation of the Sacrament, that durſt not uſe it, was a very grevious Sin, and tended to Perſecution, and Injuſtice, and Church dividing. It is certainly in a doubtful caſe the ſafeſt way to do as Chriſt, and his Apoſtles, and the Vniverſal Church did for many hundred Years; either the Geſture is Indifferent in it ſelf, or not; If p. 23it be, how dare they thus divide the Church by it, and caſt out Chriſtians that ſcruple it, when they have theſe and many other Reaſons of their Scruples (which for brevities ſake I omit)? If they ſay, That Kneeling is of it ſelf Neceſſary, and not Indifferent, becauſe it is Reverent. [Now if the Reader conſiders the Rubrick added in the New Common-Prayer-Book, he will find that Kneeling is enjoyn'd for a Signification of our humble and grateful Acknowledgment of the Benefits of Chriſt therein received, and for avoiding ſuch Prophanation and Diſorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwiſe enſue. Thus we ſee the Geſture of Kneeling is made a Reverent Gesture, neceſſary to avoid Diſorder and Prophanation. But ſayes Mr. Baxter, if Kneeling is of it ſelf neceſſary, and not indifferent, becauſe it is Reverent] Then, 1st, They make Chriſt an imperfect Law-giver. 2dly, They make himſelf or his Apoſtles, or both, to have been Sinners. 3dly, They condemn the Catholick Church of Sin. 4thly, They condemn the Canons of the chief General Councils. All which are Conſequents that I ſuppoſe they will diſown. What a perverſe prepoſterous Reverence is this! when they have leave to lie in the Duſt before and after the very Act of Receiving, through all their Confeſſions and Prayers; yet they will at other times ſtand, and many of them ſit at Prayer, and ſit at ſinging Pſalms of Prayer and Praiſe to God, and yet when Chriſt doth invite them to a Feaſt, they dare not imitate his Apoſtles and Univerſal Church in their p. 24Geſture, leſt they ſhould be ſinfully Irreverent. So ſar Mr. Baxter.

Now though Mr. Baxter is accurate in diſtinguiſhing, and as to the part of the Receiver, may yet ſee how to anſwer all theſe Arguments, and ſatisfie himſelf in kneeling, yet he cannot but believe, that Godly and Judicious men may be ſo far under the powerful Convictions of ſuch Arguments againſt the Impoſition, as to be unable to ſatisfie their Conſciences in complying with the Geſture of Kneeling. Surely Mr. Baxter tells the World ſo much in his firſt Nonconformists plea for Peace, p. 150, 151, 152.

Some Nonconformiſts (ſaith he) Lay and Clergy, judge Kneeling, as things now ſtand, Vnlawful: Their Reaſons are, 1. In Doubtful caſes Duty lieth on the ſureſt ſide; but this to them is a doubtful caſe on one ſide, and to imitate Chriſt's Inſtitution by ſuch ſitting, as men uſe to do at Meat, is certainly lawful.

2. Becauſe they think Kneeling violateth the Reaſons of the ſecond Commandment, being uſed where by whole Countries of Papiſts round about us, and many among us, it ſignifieth Bread-Worſhip, or Idolatry by the ſame Action, at the ſame Seaſon uſed. For they ſuppoſe that the ſecond Commandment forbiddeth Images, as being external corporal Idolatry, and ſymbolizing ſcandalouſly with Idolaters, though the Mind intend the Worſhip of God alone: And ſuch they think this Kneeling is, and that encourageth the Papiſts. So far Mr. Baxter.

p. 252. I'll only add one Argument more, which I find in a Propoſition concerning Kneeling, joyned to Mr. Bradſhaw's Twelve Arguments, which is taken from the Abuſe of Kneeling in this Ordinance, by the Papiſts. 'Tis there ſaid, That the Apoſtle, to Reform an Abuſe which crept (even in their Times) into Love-Feaſts, which were immediately before or after the Lords Supper, did baniſh them thence, and reduced the manner of Admiſtring the Lords Supper to the firſt Inſtitution, ſaying, Shall I praiſe you in this? I praiſe you not; for I have received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you, &c. 1 Cor. 11. verſ. 22, 23. Whereby it is apparent, That that form of Adminiſtration which differeth from the firſt Inſtitution, is worthy no Praiſe, and therefore no acceptable Service to God. For if the Apoſtle would not tolerate an Indifferent thing (as was a Love-Feast till then) to continue ſo near the Lords Supper, when it was abuſed, how would they allow the change of Sitting into Kneeling, eſpecially in theſe two Conſiderations?

First, Becauſe the abuſe of Love-Feaſts (viz. Superſtuity) was never ſo great and ſcandalous in the Apoſtles time, as the abuſe of Kneeling (viz. Idolatry)▪ was and is in the Synagogue of Rome. And beſides, Love-Feasts were either before or after the Lords Supper; whereas Kneeling is in the principal part of the Holy Communion. Therefore if the Apoſtle baniſhed Love-Feaſts from the Lords Supper, becauſe of the Abuſe, and brought the Church to the Simplicity of the p. 26firſt Inſtitution, is it not a tempting Sin to retain the Idolatrous Kneeling of Papiſts, and reject the exemplary Sitting of our Maſter Chriſt? And the rather becauſe it is in that Sacrament, and in that part of the Sacrament which eſpecially ſetteth forth our communion with Chriſt and his Church, and is therefore called the Communion —Doth not God ſtrictly forbid us to ſerve him as Idolaters do their Godds? The which conſidered, can Kneeling, wherewith Papiſts honour their Breaden God, be honourable to Chriſt in his holy Sacrament?

For ſuch Reaſons, many are convinced, that Kneeling at the receiving the Communion is Unlawful; and ſeeing without Kneeling they cannot have Communion with the Church of England, they cannot locally communicate with her, but yet highly honour her for the ſoundneſs of her Doctrine, and do mentally hold Catholick Communion with her, ſo far as ſhe agrees with the Catholick Church; but Neceſſity makes them to with-hold local Communion from them. To make this yet more clear, the Reader muſt Obſerve, that the Argument Mr. Baxter doth furniſh them with, runs thus, It is not lawful to communicate with thoſe that impoſe Sinful Terms of Communion: This Mr. Baxter affirms. But the Church of England impoſeth many things as Terms of Communion with them, which they think are ſinful. Ergo They muſt not communicate with them. Now in the Minor Mr. Baxter and they differ; he thinks the things they ſcruple (for inſtance, p. 27Kneeling) are Lawful, but yet propoſes ſtrong Arguments againſt the Lawfulneſs of Kneeling; which Arguments, though not Convincing unto him, yet are ſo unto them. And therefore whatever is his Liberty, it is their Duty to with-hold their Communion from the Church of England, ſtill honouring her for the ſoundneſs of her Doctrine, &c.

§. 11. Mr. Baxter in his Schiſm detected, p. 40. affirms, That he who is unjuſtly caſt out of the Church, and by its very Laws Excommunicated, ipſo facto, is no damned nor ſinful Schiſmatick, for Worſhipping God in a Church, that will receive him.

But according to the Judgment of Mr. Baxter, Proteſtant Diſſenters, are unjuſtly caſt out of the Church of England, and by its very Laws, ipſo facto, Excommunicated. Ergo they are not Sinful Schiſmaticks.

When Mr. Baxter ſpeaks of going to another Church, Mr. Baxter muſt be underſtood to mean a with-holding Communion from the Excommunicating Church, and commuicating with another, whoſe Laws do not, ipſo facto, Excommunicate. The which being ſo, the Argument againſt Mr. Baxter is valid for the acquitting their Seperation from the Guilt of Sin.

§. 12. There is another Argument which Mr. Baxter, in Conjunction with Dr. Sherlock gives us, and which will acquit the Lay-Diſſenter from Sin, p. 28… no Sin, but a Duty to with-hold Communion from a Schiſmatical Church: This Dr. Sherlock doth over and over aſſert. But the Church of England is a Schiſmatical Church, ſaith Mr. Baxter. It is a Schiſmatical Church, it is guilty of haneous and aggravated Schiſme. Mr. Baxter in his firſt Plea, p. 41. ſaith,

§. 14. If any Proud, or Paſſionate, or Erronoous Perſon do, as Diotrephes, caſt out the Brethren undeſervedly, by unjuſt Suſpenſions, Silencings or Excommunications, it is TYRANNICAL SCHISME, what better Name ſoever cloaks it. If any ſhould make ſinful Terms of Communion by Laws or Mandates, impoſing things forbidden by God, on thoſe that will have communion with them, and expelling thoſe that will not ſo▪ ſin; this wore HANEOUS SCHISME; And the further thoſe Laws extend, and the more Miniſters or People are caſt out by them, the greater is the Schiſme.

§. 15. If any ſhould not only Excommunicate ſuch Perſons for not complying with them in ſin, but alſo proſecute them with Mulcts, Impriſonments, Baniſhments, or other Proſecution, to force them to tranſgreſs; this were yet more haneouſly aggravated Schiſm.

§. 16. All thoſe would be deeply guilty of ſuch Schiſm, who by Talk, Writing or Preaching juſtifie it, and cry it up, and draw others into the Guilt, and reproach the Innocent as Schiſmaticks, for not offending God. [Then look to your ſelf, good Mr. p. 29Baxter, reflect on your Talk and Writing, and clear your ſelf from the guilt of Reproaching the Innocent as Schiſmaticks, if you can.] But I'll proceed:

§. 17. If any ſhould corrupt ſuch a Church, or its Doctrine, Worſhip or Diſcipline, in the very Eſſentials, by ſetting up forbidden Officers and Worſhip, or caſting out the Officers, Worſhip or Diſcipline inſtituted by Chriſt, and then proſecute others for not communicating with them, would be yet the more Haneous Schiſme.

§. 18. If either of the laſt named ſorts would not be contented with mens communion with them, but would alſo ſilence and proſecute ſuch as will not own, juſtifie and conſent to all that they do by Subſcriptions, Declarations, Covenants, Promiſes or Oaths, this would be yet more aggravated Schiſm. So far Mr. Baxter.

Now let any impartial Reader compare what is here ſaid, with what elſe-where Mr. Baxter accuſes the Church of England of, and he'll find all this to be but his Deſcription of the Church of England, which according to the general import of his Writings, muſt be looked on as guilty of Haneous, Aggravated and Tyrannical Schiſm, that is, to be deeply Schiſmatical; and therefore, according to Dr. Sherlock, not to be communicated with.

But I'll draw to a cloſe, beſeeching the Reader to conſider well what Mr. Baxters judgment is, about communicating with the Pariſh-Aſſemblies, by Law eſtabliſhed, how much he is againſt it, and what are ſome of his Reaſons, and he will find,

p. 30I. That Mr. Baxter is as much againſt communicating with the Pariſh-Aſſemblies, as by Law required, as his Brethren are. The Pariſh-Aſſemblies, by Law eſtabliſhed, are Dioceſane, and with them, as ſuch, Mr. Baxter communicates not. But firſt fancies the Pariſh Aſſembly to be a Congregational Church, and the Pariſh Miniſter to be an Independant Paſtor, exempt from the ſpiritual Juriſdiction of the Dioceſane Biſhop, and then holds communion with it as ſuch, that is, he either communicates with it as if it were what indeed it is not, or if it be really ſuch a Church as he fancies it to be, his communion with it is only as 'tis a Church ſeparated from the National ſettled Order: For the Pariſh Aſſembly, as a part of the National ſettled Order, is no Church, it has no Paſtor, &c.

II. That Mr. Baxter's communion is no more Catholick than theirs; though he talks more of the Name, he has no more of the thing than they have. Doth he hold Catholick Communion mentally with the Univerſal Church? ſo do they. Do they with-hold mental communion from Pariſh-Aſſemblies, as by Law eſtabliſhed (i. e.) as they are parts of the Dioceſane …nſtitution? So doth Mr. Baxter. Are the Con…tions, to which their local Communion is confined, of a Conſtitution different from, and independent on the Dioceſane? So is the Pariſh Church with which Mr. Baxter communicates, if it be really what he fancieth it to be; ſo that his Local Communion is as much confined to Diſſenting Aſſemblies as theirs is.

This is on a Suppoſition that Mr. Baxters Imaginations were operative, ad extra, and would make a real change on the Conſtitution. But if the Pariſh Aſſembly continues, de facto, as eſtabliſhed, then I muſt ſay,

p. 31III. That Mr. Baxter holds both thoſe Premiſes, from which a concluſion (juſtifying their ſeparation) doth naturally follow. The Premiſes are theſe; It is our undoubted Duty to ſeparate from the Corruptions that are in the Pariſh Aſſemblies. But the very Conſtitution of the Pariſh Aſſemblies and Miniſtry, by Law eſtabliſhed, are Corruptions. Theſe are Mr. Baxter's Premiſes. And let the World judge whether this Concluſion [namely, That it is our undoubted Duty to ſeparate from the Pariſh Aſſemblies and Miniſtry, as by Law establiſhed] doth not naturally flow from them, juſtifying a with-holding Communion from the Pariſh Aſſemblies. In fine, it muſt be obſerved, that if the Pariſh Aſſemblies be really de facto, but parts of the Dioceſane Church, and no compleat Churches, Mr. Baxter muſt juſtifie the Separation, and that he doth ſo, I will give you his own words, as I find 'em in his Schiſm detected, p. 28. Either our Pariſh Churches (ſaith he) are true Churches, or not; if not, the Separatiſts are ſo far in the Right, and ſeparate not from true Churches, eo nomine, becauſe they ſeparate from them: ſo far Mr. Baxter; who, if the Pariſh. Aſſemblies be but parts of the Dioceſane Conſtitution and not true compleat particular Churches, juſtifies the ſeparation from 'em; And who knows not, that the Pariſh Aſſemblies, as by Law eſtabliſhed, are but parts of the Dioceſane?

FINIS.

End of the text · Richard Baxter, Against Communicating with the Parish Assemblies (1684)