A Plea for the Non-Conformists, Text – Errata

A Plea for the Non-Conformists · Text – Errata

A PLEA FOR THE NON-CONFORMISTS; TENDING To Juſtifie them againſt the Clamorous Charge of SCHISME.

By a Dr. of Divinity.

With two Sheets on the ſame Subject by another Hand and Judgment.

Ʋexatio dat intellectum.

LONDON, Printed in the Year, 1674.

p. 1A PLEA for the Nonconformiſts; tending to juſtifie them againſt the Clamourous Charge of Schiſme.

§. 1. IT was doubtleſs one of the greateſt infelicities which ever befel the whole body of people in theſe three Nations (conſidering them as univerſally profeſſing the Doctrine of Chriſt), that in the year 1662. the Settlement of the affairs of Religion, with relation to Worſhip & Government, was made to no more univerſal ſatisfaction, but that ſome thouſands of Miniſters, many of whom (their greateſt Adverſaries being judges) were men of no inconſiderable worth and uſefulneſs, took themſelves obliged rather to lay down the publick p. 2exerciſe of their Miniſtry, then to do what was by Law required of them, if they would preſerve it; and that ſuch a rigid interpretation was at that time in practice, put upon the Act of Uniformity, as they were not only incapacitated to hold, or take Livings, but alſo to Preach occaſionally in the publick Temples. Whether the Act will neceſſitate any ſuch ſenſe, may deſerve the ſecond thoughts of our Superiours.

§. 2. Whether this was Originated in the anger reſting in the boſom of ſome Church-men at that time, who had been Sufferers: Or in their zeal to continue ſome Biſhops the repute of Martyrs, who had ſuffered for the rigorous enforcing of ſome of the things now enjoyned, or in the deſire of ſome of that filthy lucre, which ariſeth from pluralities of Livings, Dignities, ſine curare; or in their deſire to propagate ſome Doctrines, to which they knew the perſons who would be ejected, would be no more friends, then are the Articles of the Church of England (as p. 3interpreted by King James, former all Profeſſors of Divinity in our Univerſities, very many eminent Biſhops, and once and again by the whole Parliament of England), or from one, or all of theſe cauſes is uncertain to be determined; a better Original is hard to fancy, while the things required, are by our moſt knowing Eccleſ. Superiours granted not neceſſary, antecedaneouſly to the Superiors command.

§. 3. Nor could they ever have been made neceſſary (as is now ſaid) by the King and Parliament of England, had they not been ſuggeſted to them as things that in themſelves might lawfully be done: Nor (probably) would that ſuggeſtion have prevailed with our civil Superiours, (who in things meerly lawful, know ſufficiently that they are to govern themſelves in their commands by Prudence, had they not been alſo told that the Numbers both of Miniſters and People that would refuſe, were very inconſiderable. Their perſons and circumſtances very invaluable; that if once the things were enjoyned, p. 4the Generality would do them, notwithſtanding all their pretences of Conſcience, &c.

§. 4. How true theſe ſuggeſtions were, quickly appeared to our Prudent States-men, which made the then Lord Chancellour (a ſufficient friend to Conformity and a Prudent Perſon) before ever the Act took place, ſend for ſome very valuable perſons, and propound a Medium to them that they might yet abide in their ſtations (foreſeeing the gap would be made) the Pariſhes only providing ſome who might read the Liturgy; but this was too late, and the Act would not, when it came out, admit any ſuch thing.

§. 5. With that rigour the Act was preſſed, is ſufficiently known, and how ſoon after fortified with another Act againſt private Meetings; and with another (when that but a probationer for a few years was expired) more ſevere than the former; nor did there want thoſe in all parts of the Nation, that executed all the Acts with ſeverity ſo far beyond what thoſe Acts Authoriſed, p. 5that they ſaw need of Indemnity for their actions by further Acts of Grace and Favour. How many Godly Miniſters and People, were, during theſe years, not only publickly reviled in Pamphlets and Pulpits, but Impriſoned (and how many dyed in their impriſonments) ſpoiled of their Livelihoods, driven from their Habitations and Trades, is but an unpleaſant ſtory to reflect upon, and with how little ſucceſs as to the bringing them to conform is abundantly known.

§. 6. In the mean time it pleaſed his moſt Excellent Majeſty (as a tender Father of his People, and he who conſidered his intereſt lay not in the Diviſion and Ruine of his People, but in their Peace and Freedom to attend their ſeveral Trades, Profeſſions and Callings (the King himſelf, as Solomon ſaith, being nouriſhed from the Field) to inſpect the ſtate of Eccleſiaſtical affairs; and hearing ſo many Crys from his People, with the Advice of his Counſel to direct means for his or their better information, about p. 6the numbers of Miniſters and People diſſenting; for which purpoſe Letters were directed in the ordinary courſe from the Arch-Biſhop to the Biſhops, who by their Regiſters were to inform themſelves, and then his moſt Sacred Majeſty of the Number of diſſenting Miniſters, &c.

§. 7. How imperfect the information muſt be in this method is obvious enough to every one; the Return could only be made of thoſe, who being poſſeſt of Livings, Aug. 24. 1662. left them for not Subſcribing, into which number came not a 5th. part of Miniſters diſſenting.

1. None came, which 1661 were turned out to give room to others, who had a praevious Title to their Livings, and were not poſſeſt ſo ſoon of any other, which were very many.

2. No Congregational Miniſters, who had no Legal Titles to Churches.

3. None that fore-ſeeing they could not conform (the Act being out) did chuſe rather to reſign their Livings than abide a turning out.

4. No young men, not poſſeſt of Livings, p. 7though ready for them: To ſay nothing of Anabapt. &c.

To advantage this imperfect account, the Author of the Eccleſiaſtical Polity tells the World of but an hundred Miniſters, that hindred all Uniformity.

§. 8. But our Wiſe and Prudent States-men quickly ſaw through theſe Fallacies, and from their more perfect information of his moſt Sacred Majeſty, and the meltings of his own bowels towards the diſtreſſes of his People; the ſound of which, came almoſt from every Court of Judicature, and corner of the Nation, his moſt Excellent Majeſty and his Privy Counſel took a fuller eſtimate of the Number both of Miniſters and private Chriſtians diſſenting from the publick modes of worſhip.

§. 9. Upon this, it was that his Majeſty (conceiving himſelf empowred thereto by his Prerogative, and a liberty reſerved to him by the laſt Act againſt Conventicles,) was pleaſed to iſſue out his Gracious Declaration for Indulgence, date, Mar. 17.

p. 8§. 10. What Power his Majeſty had, or what was reſerved by that Act, to him, we are no Judges to determine. It is enough for us, That as his moſt Sacred Majeſty hath aſſerted to himſelf ſuch a power, ſo the denial of it to him, hath been by no publick Act made known to us, much leſs his Majeſties receſſion from it, Diſputes betwixt Kings and Parliaments, we think, are not to be determined by private Perſons without the doors of the Pallace and Parliament-Houſe, nor medled with by the Subject, till the matters in difference (if any be) be agreed by themſelves, and by ſome publick action notified to the People. We know for the King of England in civil things, to ſuſpend the execution of an Act which he hath found inconveniently practicable till the Parliaments meeting, and further agreeing in it, is no more than hath been done even during this Parliament, and poſſibly to all may not appear unreaſonable.

§. 11. Upon this foundation we ſtand, and practice, Preaching to our p. 9People in places diſtinct from the Parochial Churches. What can we do leſs? May we, having this liberty, ſit ſtill, and live without the publick worſhip of God? Thus indeed a very great number of the People of England (poſſibly not inferiour to the N. Con.) yet we have rarely heard of one of them Endited, Preſented, or Proſecuted, when our Brethren were in their fulleſt career againſt the new Recuſants, at leaſt, not comparably to thoſe of their Brethren, who they knew were every Sabbath day (if not with them, yet ſomewhere ſtrictly worſhipping God, and either Preaching Chriſt, or hearing him Preach'd. Surely our eager Men ſhould rather have bent their Bows, and made their Arrows ready againſt theſe Atheiſtical livers, than againſt the Servants of the Living God, though of a little different Livery; different too, not in the Cloath, but in the inſignificant Fringes and Laces of formes and ceremonies. What though they could ſay (which we know in truth they cannot) that Chriſt (amongſt p. 10the Nonconformiſts) was Preached of envy and ſtrife, yet had they been of St. Paul's Spirit (from whom they pretend to derive, though indeed Chriſt, amongſt the Noncon. had been Preached of Contention, and not of Sincerity. (Yet a little charity would have commanded them to judge as Paul, Some out of good will Preached him.) But however they being (as St. Paul ſaith, Phil. 1.16, 17, 18. Set for the defence of the Goſpel, ſhould have ſaid after him, What then? Notwithſtanding every way, whether in pretence, or in truth Chriſt is Preached, and I therein do rejoyce, and will rejoyce: We ſhall only ſay, had they been of St. Pauls Spirit, they would have ſaid ſo.

§. 12. We take it to be a confeſſed Principle; That every individual Member of the Church-Catholick Viſible, is bound in duty both to God and his own Soul, to joyn himſelf to ſome particular Society of Chriſtians, with which he may enjoy all the Ordinances of God, ſo as may be for his Souls advantage. What ſhall therefore theſe indulged Miniſters and People do? How ſhall they live p. 11up to this peice of the Divine Will? Shall they joyn with the Parochial Societies in their Temples? They have profeſſed to the World, that the buſineſs is ſo ſtated by the Act of Uniformity, that they cannot do this without doing what they judge ſinful. If they could, neither would the Miniſters 1662. have parted, together with that publick exerciſe of their Miniſtry, with the livelihoods alſo of themſelves, their Wives & Children; or expoſed themſelves to Excommunications, Impriſonments, Fines, Baniſhments, and all manner of Reproach and Obloquy, or their Families to the Charitable Baskets of Chriſtians. Neither would more private Chriſtians have ſuffered ſo much in moſt of theſe kinds, as they have ſuffered in vain.

§. 13. It muſt therefore be in Congregations, locally ſeparate from the parochial meetings. Accordingly, having firſt obtained his Majeſtie's Licenſes they practice. Preſently they hear a great Out-cry of Schiſme, and ſinful ſeparation from true Churches, Gathering Churches out of Churches, and we know p. 12not what, nor do we believe they do, that clamour at this rate.

§. 14. But the truth of this clamour muſt be a little examined; for the Non-conformiſts have got very little by his Majeſties favour, by eſcaping the hands of men, to fall into the hands of the living God. We remember when David was in his great ſtrait, 2 Sam. 24.14. he acquieſſed in this. Let me fall into the hands of the living God, for his mercies are great, and let me not fall into the hands of men. We think we may (in this caſe) ſay the ſame thing, and that with ſome advantage (which David had not, for his heart ſmote him for a known ſin, our hearts as yet do not condemn us for any ſuch black thing as a ſinful ſeparation; and we do believe thoſe that thus clamour do not well underſtand what they ſay. Let men rather call us Schiſmaticks, ſinful Separatiſts, ſo we may worſhip God as his Word, and our own Conſciences tells us he ſhould be Worſhipped purely, and in Spirit and Truth, rather than we not Worſhip God at all, or ſo as our Conſciences ſhall continually flie in our faces.

p. 13§. 15. But certainly God's Word hath laid us under no neceſſity of ſining; let us therefore challenge our confident Accuſers to the Law and to the Teſtimony. 'Tis worth the while to examine whether this great cry be not Vox et praeterea nihil; A clamorous ſcandal & nothing elſe, which we are the more advantaged to hope that it will prove by a noted paſſage in a great Churchman, Mr. Hales his diſcourſe of Schiſme. It is this, Schiſme is one of thoſe Theological Scare-Crowes, with which, they who uſe to uphold a party in Religion, uſe to fright away ſuch as make any inquiry into it, and are ready to relinquiſh or oppoſe it, if it appeareth to them either erronious or ſuſpicious.

Not that Schiſme, truly ſo called, is of no graver importance, but that which generally by School-men and Caſuiſts, and very many (and ſome of thoſe Learned) Divines (though like Elias, men ſubject to like paſſions with other men) is no more, is as evident as the ſhining of the Sun at Noon-day, to any p. 14one who knoweth any thing of Books, or of the World.

§. 16. The Greeks, ſay thoſe of the Latine Church, are Schiſmaticks, and they (becauſe they are the moſt ancient Church) ſeem to have beſt right; but the whole Latine Church requites them with the ſame-name of Obloquy. The Papiſt ſo call the Proteſtants, but they requite them with the like term, ſaying, They that gave the cauſe of the ſeparation, are the true Schiſmaticks. Amongſt the Proteſtants, the Lutherans ſo revile the Calviniſts; nor are the Calviniſts behind them, Amongſt the Calviniſts. The Epiſcopal men ſo call the Presbyterians; the Presbyterians ſo call the Independents and Antipaedebaptiſts. Thus we have called one another Schiſmaticks round. Let us therefore leave theſe pittiful, uncharitable, Boyiſh Revenges, eſpecially ſeeing in vulgar uſe lately, the term hath had no further ſignificancy than to ſpeak perſons not of our mind, and for a name to brand ſuch of our Brethren with, who are a little more inquiſitive p. 15than others into the things of God, and is of the ſame import amongſt Proteſtants; that the word Heretick is amongſt Papiſts, that is not one of their mind; and leaving terms of reviling to the Women at Billings-gate, we will fairly ſtate the Caſe, and argue it as coolely.

§. 17. The Queſtion is this, Whether the Non-conforming Miniſters, and people meeting ordinarily together for the Worſhip of God, in Aſſemblies and places locally diſtinct and ſeparate from the meetings of the Parochial Congregations, becauſe the ſaid Miniſters may not Preach there, nor the ſaid people enjoy there all the Ordinances of God without the doing of ſome things which their Conſciences upon Arguments which they judge highly probable, do judge ſinful, be what the Scripture calleth Schiſme, or be in any right Reaſon A ſinful Separation; theſe perſons in the mean time not condemning all Parochial Societies as no true Churches, nor in other things behaving themſelves uncharitably towards them, We muſt profeſs our ſelves to believe p. 16the Negative of this Queſtion, in which are two folded together. We affirm then

1. This practice is not what The Scripture calls Schiſme.

2. Nor what right Reaſon, concluding from any Scriptural principles can call A ſinful Separation.

We do grant there may be a ſinful Separation of Chriſtians from a Church, which the Scripture doth not call Schiſme, that maketh us diſtinguiſh theſe two things, nor ſhall we diſcourſe the former.

1. Becauſe it is a plain Diſpute about a Term.

2. Becauſe the eminently Learned Dr. Owen hath made it good, that a Separation from a Church (though it may be ſinful) yet is not that which the Scripture calls Schiſme; and we obſerve, that his very Learned Adverſary, upon the point, grants him this, and pleadeth for no more than an Analogical application of the term Schiſme, to expreſs the ſin of unneceſſary ſeparation from a Church, which we will not contend about.

p. 17§. 18. We ſay therefore, let it be ſo, or ſo, it is of no great conſequence; all grant there may be a ſinful ſeparation from a Church, and if the ſeparation be not ſinful, we are ſure they Nickname it that call it Schiſme. If it be ſinful, whether it ſhould be called Schiſme, or by ſome other name, we think ſignifieth very little to the Conſciences of any intelligent Chriſtians.

§. 19. Mr. Hales ſtill keeping the dialect of the Schools, calls this ſinful ſeparation, Schiſme, and gives us this deſcription of it.

Schiſme, is an unneceſſary ſeparation from that part of the Viſible Church, of which we once were Members.

Like a wiſe man he ſpeaks, Multa paucis, remembring the Canon about Definitions. So then according to him to make a Schiſme.

1. There muſt be a ſeparation, and that not from the whole Viſible Church, (that is Hereſy or Apoſtacy) but from ſome part of it, of which we were once Members.

p. 182. Secondly: It muſt be an Unneceſſary ſeparation that is where the Union might have been kept, without ſinning againſt God, we deſire no further advantage than this Deſcription will give us, let our caſe ſtand or fall, as it will abide, or not abide this teſt.

§. 20. Hence we argue, Where there never was an Union, or there is no ſeparation; or if there be a ſeparation, it is neceſſary, becauſe the Union could not be kept without ſin. There is no Schiſme but in the caſes of the Miniſters and People. Either there is no ſeparation, or there was no Union (which indeed ſuppoſed there could be no ſeparation) or no more than a neceſſary ſeparation; Ergo, No Schiſme, no ſinful ſeparation.

§. 21. To make good which, Separation being a term of motion, before we can ſtrictly ſpeak to the parts of the Argument, we muſt enquire for the Term, from which this Motion, or Separation is pretended to be. The Author of The Doctrine of Schiſme, p. 40. tells us this roundly.

p. 19'Tis a great and dangerous Schiſme, both againſt the Church of England and particular Churches.

We will not quarrel with the Zealous Author for the propriety of that Engliſh,—a Schiſme againſt the Church—becauſe in the cloſe of the ſame page, though he doth not at all mend the matter (as to the poor Non-conformiſt, whom he was wont to own as Brethren) yet he amendeth his Engliſh, telling us:

If you conſider the Church of England as a particular Organized Church, 'tis a Schiſm from but as part of the Univerſal Viſible Church only as the N. Con. uſe to term it, is a Schiſme in it; and not only ſo, but p. 57. It is a Schiſme from particular Parochial Congregations: For Mr. Candry (he ſaith) hath obſerved There was and is another Church-ſtate in our particular Congregations.

§. 22. Here now is a double term, from which this motion is pretended to be.

1. The Church of England.

2. The Parochial Churches in England.

To let p. 20our Author know what we hold, we do believe a Catholick Viſible Church, which we take to be well deſcribed in the 19th. of the 39 Articles of our Church.

The Congregation [or whole Body] of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is Preached, and the Sacraments are duly adminiſtred according to Chriſts Ordinance in all thoſe things that are of neceſſity requiſite to the ſame.

Of this the Church of England is a part doubtleſs, and from the Church of England in this ſenſe we do not know that any have ſeparated, but ſuch as have renounced Chriſt and the Goſpel, or the Word and Ordinances neceſſary to Salvation, which would be plain and deſperate Apoſtacy, with which, we hope our Brethren will be more modeſt than to charge us. From this our Plea is, we make no Separation, and therefore cannot be charged with a ſinful Separation. But ſaith our Author, You make a ſinful ſeparation in it. We are not troubled at words that ſignifie nothing, what is the meaning of p. 21this? Do we not Own Chriſt, his Goſpel, the ſame points of Faith, the ſame acts of Worſhip; where is the Separation then? Can all meet in the ſame place? It may be we do not pray by the ſame forms, nor ware the ſame habits, nor uſe ſome of thoſe rites ſome others of our Brethren uſe. Do our Brethren then always when they pray, uſe the ſame forms of words? Do not they take a liberty in the Pulpit? why may not we? Do other parts of the Catholick Church uſe the ſame forms? why elſe are not they Schiſmaticks? (for as yet we are only conſidering the National Church of England as a part of the Church Catholick Viſible:) Is there any form, any habit, any rite or ceremony commanded by Chriſt, and omitted by us: if there be not, where is the Schiſme? It ſeems the term Schiſmatick, is their priviledge to uſe that can firſt get it out of their mouths; if we divide in no command of Chriſt, why may not the Non-Con. call their Brethren Schiſmaticks, as well as they call their Brethren? Doth an humane p. 22Law create a difference? Let it be queried whether that can give a rule to Schiſme or no. What is the buſineſs then, how do we then make a Schiſme in the Church of England, conſidered as a part of the Church Catholick Viſible? Do we break Charity with our Brethren? do we Revile them, or Reproach their Perſons or Societies. Let them bear the blame who do it, we plead not for them; in the mean time, let not all other Non-Con. be called Schiſmaticks for their ſake. We know very many of the Non Con. have been uncharitably enough dealt with by thoſe three famous Authors of the Friendly debate, Eccleſiaſtical Polity, and of Knowledge of & Communion with Chriſt, have they rendred reviling for reviling, though the Maſters of Morality have ſo treated their Brethren, as if Veracity, Comity, and Urbanity were not in the Catalogue of their Moral Virtues. When the Author opens himſelf a little plainer, and tells us what he meaneth by a Schiſme in the Church of England, conſidered as a part of the Church. Catholick p. 23Viſible, we ſhall better underſtand him.

§. 23. But he ſaith, we ſinfully ſeparate from the Organical National Church of England; and indeed this he muſt mean or nothing, by what he ſaid before; for it is not poſſible to ſeparate ſinfully from a National Church conſidered only, as a large part of the Church-Catholick Viſibles, while they keep in the profeſſion of Chriſt and his Goſpel, and in the practice of the ſame Acts of worſhip with them, and in the ſame Doctrines of Faith, unleſs they fail in love, refuſing all kind of occaſional Communion with their Brethren, condemning them as no parts of the Church of Chriſt. The worſhipping of God by different phraſes and forms of Prayers, in different habits of Veſtment, by different rites and ceremonies, &c. will not do it, for theſe are things which belong not to any National Church as a part of the Church Catholick Viſible; Chriſt left no Liturgy to his Catholick Church, nor any ſuch rites and ceremonies, and habits; nor p. 24was ever the Catholick Viſible Church uniform in them; our Brethren themſelves confeſs theſe mutable things, wherein ſeveral parts of the Catholick Church differ each from other: Theſe things proceed from the Church, conſidered as Organical, not as a part of the Catholick Viſible Church; for then the major part of all particular Chriſtians muſt conſent to the impoſition of them.

§. 24. Now truly for this Particular Organical National Church, it is poſſible we may have ſeparated from it, for we never knew there was any ſuch Creature; and at laſt our Author doth confeſs that Mr. Caudry hath told him that the Presbyterians do generally agree, That the Diſciplinary part or form of Government is not eſſential to a National Church; he ſhould therefore firſt have proved that there is ſuch a thing under the Goſpel as A Stated, National, Organical Church; and we ſhould then have tried whether the ſame Arguments would not have ſerved the Papiſts to have proved a Catholick organical p. 25Church, and that ſomething better than they ſerve our Author, becauſe they have found out a ſingle head for it, which we find our Author, p. 43. at great loſs to find for his particular National Organical Church.

§. 95. He knows not whether he ſhould fix it upon the King, for he is to be conſidered as a mixed perſon: Or The Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury, becauſe he is Primate of all England, or all the Biſhops and Paſtors. That the King is the Supreme Political Head and Governour of the National Church of England, is our of doubt to all Proteſtants, but ſuch a one as will not claim Authority to any one ſtrictly called Eccleſiaſtical act, neither to Preach, nor adminiſter a Sacrament, nor Ordain Miniſters. Are we diſcourſing of ſuch a head think we? The Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury indeed may do all theſe; but may he execute any acts of Diſcipline in the Province of York? muſt the Arch-Biſhop of York be taken in. Then we have one National Church Organical with two heads; yet that is p. 26better than 26. for ſo many muſt be, if all the Biſhops make the head; and that yet is better than 9000 heads as muſt be, if the Paſtors of all Pariſhes be the Head. In ſhort, none of theſe can by an act of Eccleſiaſtical juriſdiction influence the whole body; and what kind of head is that? The King indeed (as Political Head of the Church) may influence the whole with his commands, relating to Eccleſiaſtical affairs; but ſurely we have no Arçh-Biſhop, Biſhop, or Paſtor, can Excommunicate from Dan to Beerſhaba. Our Author not being able to fix his thoughts in this point, at laſt tells us, It is not material, for it is a certain Vanity to ſay, 43.Becauſe I cannot find the the Head, I will deny the Body. Is it ſo? can there then be a living Organical Body without an Head? It is not the body we are diſcourſing of, but an Organical Body: We may know our Mother (as our Author ſaith) though we do not know our Father; but we muſt know we had a Father, and that Father is, or was a viſible Creature, p. 27or elſe he could not be known.

§. 26. Well, but what is this ſame National Organical Church of England. He p. 42. gives us this Deſcription of it:

It is a community conſiſting of profeſſed Chriſtians united in the ſame Doctrine, Government and Worſhip, according to the 39. Articles, and Homilies, her Liturgy, and Canons, and Laws, and divided into Parochial Aſſemblies, for the more convenient Worſhip of God.

And p. 45 Schiſme from the Church of England is a ſinful dividing from, or diſſolving our Union or Communion with her in her Governours, Worſhip, Members, or Aſſemblies.

We can neither allow his deſcriptis on of the National Church of England, nor yet of his deſcription of Schiſme, or ſinful ſeparation from it, and we would gladly hear by what Scripture or reaſon, either of them can be made good.

§. 27. It will be no wonder if denying the thing of a National Governing Church, we deny the deſcription of it, p. 28for Non eus, non poteſt definiri; Now we do believe that under the Goſpel there never was, nor can be a ſtated National governing Church, unleſs what is indeed ſomtimes, though far from the ſenſe we are now ſpeaking to, and perhaps not ſo properly called a Church, according to the dialect of Scripture made up of all the Meſſengers of all the particular Churches in a Nation, in an Aſſembly for deliberations, advice, and determinations in ſome weighty emergent caſes, to obviate which, we put in the term ſtated, for this is only an Occaſional National Church, or Synod, which hath but a temporary being pro renatâ, and meets and acts at the pleaſure of the Prince, the Supreme Political Head.

§. 28. When we ſpeak of a Church, we underſtand Church as a Scriptural term in the Religious uſage of it, applicable to no body of people, but ſuch a one as the Scripture calleth ſo. So that if there be any ſuch body as may be called a National Governing Organical Church, we muſt either find it in the p. 29New Teſtament, or at leaſt find ſome directions there for the conſtitution & ordering of it, ſome Commiſſions given for a ſucceſſion of National Officers, but we find none of this; we find indeed a general commiſſion to Miniſters to go and Preach and Baptize; but this referred as well to the Heathens, as to profeſſed Chriſtians. If any will ſay that the Apoſtles were General Officers, and from thence will argue for a ſucceſſion of them, it will better ſerve the Papiſts to prove an Univerſal Organical Church, than it will ſerve any to prove a National Organical Church; and we think that is what our Brethren will not be very free of granting. If any urge the Example of the Jewiſh National Church, which was Organical, they will be alſo obliged to find our Saviours directions for the Hereditary diſcent of an High-Prieſt, or the Election of one into his place. We always thought the Jewiſh H. Prieſt was a type, and Chriſt the Antitype, whoſe coming aboliſhed the type, beſides that that alſo will prove an Univerſal Organical Church, for the Jewiſh p. 30High Prieſt govern'd the whole Viſible Church, which God in his days had upon the Earth; beſides we muſt have found ſome rules and laws left us by Chriſt for this High Prieſt. Finally, who ſo will erect a ſtated National governing or Organical Church in England, muſt find us an Officer cloathed with Authority to Excommunicate from Michaels Mount in Cornwall to Carlile and Berwick. Such a one we ſuppoſe there neither is, nor ever was in England ſince the reformation.

§. 29. But if we could allow ſuch a Creature of God as a National governing Church in England, we ſhould have put Governours (being certainly one of the Eſſential parts of ſuch a Church) into the deſcription of it, as well as into the Notion of Schiſme from it. Nor ſhould we have ſo ſtraitned the Notion of it, as to neceſſitate all the members of it to be united in Doctrine, Worſhip, and Government, without ſaying how far they muſt in theſe things be united. Whether in every point of Doctrine delivered in the 39. Articles and Homilies, p. 31ſo far as to approve and embrace all. And in every point of Government, according to the Canons; or in every mode, rite, or ceremony according to the Liturgy; or if not, in what, and how far they muſt be thus united? And for the Laws (as diſtinguiſhed from the Canons,) we ſhould have left them quite out, being but civil conſtitutions, about the affairs of the Church, not properly Laws of the Church, or in the more intrinſick matters of it; but Impetus cuncta male miniſtrat, this is the unlucky effect of long Definitions, and too great eagerneſs to prove all Nonconformiſts Schiſmaticks. The Author ſhould have done well to have conſidered what he, as well as we long ſince learned at the Univerſity.

1. Definitiones debent eſſe breves. It is the length of this deſcription that ſpoils it, and makes it by no art defenſible.

2. Debet conſtare ex attributis preoribus & notioribus ſimpliciter, had this been thought of the 39 Articles, Homilies, Liturgy, Canons, Laws, had been quite left out; nor certainly did our Author conſider p. 32what would follow upon this deſcription.

§. 30. Let us but a little ſhew what inferences follow his Deſcription of the National Governing Church of England. 1. All Arminians without bail or mainpriſe muſt be Hereticks. They are none of the Community of profeſſed Chriſtians in England, united in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles; will they tell us they are? Let us ask King James, once the very learned Head of this Church. He tell us.

That Arminians was an Enemy to God, Reg. Jacobi Dec. contra Vorſtium, p. 12. 14.that his Diſciples are Peſts, Hereticks, Arrogant perſons, Sectaries, Atheiſts.

That the very Title of Bertius his Book, concerning the Apoſtacy of the Saints, required the fire. Shall we be judged by the Parliament (they make the Laws put into the deſcription of this Church) they confirmed the Articles: We find them Anno 1628. crying aloud, We Claim, Proteſt, and avow p. 33for Truth, the ſenſe of the Articles of Religion, which were eſtabliſhed by Parliament, Mr. Ruſhworths Collections, p. 650.130. Eliz. which (ſay they) by the Publick Act of the Church of England, and by the general and currant expoſition of the Writers of our Church, have been delivered to us; and we reject the ſenſe of the Jeſuits and Arminians, and all others wherein they differ from us.

Shall we ask the Profeſſors of Divinity forty years ſince and upward in either Univerſity: They joyntly agreed theſe points contrary to the 39 Articles (one Dr. Baro only excepted), and we know who was the firſt Doctor of that Divinity, knowingly created at Oxford, and the Profeſſors courſe complement to him at his Creation, after he had defended one of them. Hujus te Theologiae creo Doctorem, meaning the Arminian Divinity, whence ever after to his Death, poſſibly, he took the liberty to Profeſs it as the Doctrine of our Church; yea, and they muſt be Schiſmaticks too, p. 34though not from, yet in the National Church, and that's the worſt ſort of Schiſme, becauſe that which the Scripture chiefly, if not only, taketh notice of.

2. Thoſe who will ſing no Pſalms, muſt be Schiſmaticks too; for ſurely, that's an act of Worſhip in the Church of England, and owned by her; yea, and thoſe that do not ordinarily conform to all Rites and Ceremonies, and Formes in the Liturgy, do they approve of them? The worſe, they ſtill (according to this deſcription) make a Shiſme in the Church. Quaery: Whether none of the Conformiſts do this? I could tell him of ſome, nay One (and he no mean One neither) that openly told the People, ſinging of Pſalms was one of the Idols of the Church of England; there were three Preaching, and keeping the Sabbath were the two other.

§. 40. Now if the Author could have been content to have deſcribed the National Church of England, the number of profeſſed Chriſtians in it united in the p. 35ſame Doctrines neceſſary to Salvation, and in the ſame Acts of Worſhip; the Definition had been ſhorter, many of theſe had been included, and we had all been agreed. But to be ſure to make all the Nonconformiſts Shiſmatick, he firſt Deſcribes a thing not in being, and which never was ſince Chriſt came, and then deſcribes it in ſuch a manner as if he could create it, would do very many of his own friends far more hurt than us.

§. 41. In the mean time, we muſt freely yeild him ſuch a National Church as we before deſcribed, and the King the Supreme Head of it, not in a capacity to Preach or adminiſter the Sacrament, or exerciſe any act in it ſtrictly an Eccleſiaſtical by Divine inſtitutions, but to Protect it, to enjoyn the fulfilling in it what God hath commanded; to do as much (in it) in ſhort, as any King of Iſrael and Judah (as a King) might do, and to make rules and conſtitutions about it. But we deny that our Meetings are any more Schiſmes, in, or from this Church, p. 36then the Meeting of Chriſtians to worſhip God at Weſtminſter in the ſame acts of worſhip, is a Schiſme from that part of this Church, which meet for that end in London.

§. 42. Nor is he helped at all by ſaying Our Churches are not of the ſame conſtitution, Doctrine of Schiſme, 55.which he ſays was Mr. Cawdrys anſwer to Dr. Owen; let Mr. Cawdry, or who will ſay ſo, Dolus verſatur in Generatibus. What is the difference, did Chriſt conſtitute theirs? We truſt he hath conſtituted ours, that is, by the Rules given in his Word. Were theirs conſtituted by Parliament? (that will be hard to prove as to the firſt conſtitution; Pariſhes in England were firſt made by a Popiſh Arch-Biſhop, the Parliament afterwards, or Cuſtom rather might confirm them). Doth it then make a Schiſmatick to depart to a Church not eſtabliſhed by humane Law or Cuſtom? How elſe are we of another conſtitution? Is not the ſame Doctrine Preached, the ſame Sacraments adminiſtred? p. 37the ſame acts of Worſhip performed? Where's the difference? In the Modes, Rites, and Ceremonies only; And theſe all of humane inſtitution. This is that which the Church of God never before called Schiſme, & which the Apoſtles never thought of. Do not we agree in the ſame Government? That concerns us not yet, while we are clearing our ſelves only from a Church, which the Author muſt ſhew us capable of any ſuch Government as Chriſt hath appointed intrinſecal to his Church. In the mean time, as to the National Church of England, we deny that we are guilty of any Schiſme, either in it, or from it; ſo that the whole charge muſt reſt upon particular Churches, and our (pretended) ſeparation from them.

§. 43. This is that other Church-ſtate mentioned by Mr. Caudry, and quoted by our Author, ch. 9. p. 57. theſe he calls Parochial Congregations: We are (he ſaith) guilty of Schiſme from them; we all agree that theſe are capable of the name of Churches.

1. As they are leſſer parts of the Catholick p. 38Church, and ſo capable of the name of the whole; thus we were indeed united to them, as we were united to the Catholick Church, and united ſtill to them as unto that; owning the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, his Word and Ordinances, and profeſſing a ſubjection to them: But this is not the other ſtate he ſpeaks of, by which he can mean nothing but a governing ſtate.

2. Secondly therefore; Theſe Parochial Societies may be conſidered as perfectly, or more imperfectly Organized, furniſhed with all Church-Officers requiſite and walking in Goſpel order, or not ſo furniſhed, or ſo walking. The Author tells his Reader in a latter Book, called Advice to the Conformiſts and Nonconformiſts: That the ſum of what the Author of the ſhort Reflections offered, lay in two things; the latter of which he delivered thus. Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches, Advice to Conformiſts, &c. p. 72.or at leſt they are ſo faulty as they may be lawfully ſeparated from.

p. 39We have read over the Book; and good Reader, at thy leiſure, do but read over that Pamplet, the ſecond chapt. particularly the 13, 14, 15. pages, and ſee whether this Author hath, or no, dealt ingeniouſly with him, p. 14. He ſpeaks of theſe Societies, as parts of the Catholick Churches, and ſaith,Short Reflections, p. 14. In this Notion we cannot deny that every Pariſh, yea, Family of Chriſtians, is a true Church: But he indeed concludes, that out of ſuch particular Churches, it muſt be lawful to gather a Church, for all particular Churches in the world, are gathered out of the Catholick Viſible Church; even Heathens, when converted, muſt be of the Catholick Viſible Church, before they can form a particular Church: In this ſtate, and no other, muſt all Parochial Societies be that have no Miniſter, unleſs we will have Organical Governing Churches without any Governours, which we think is a contradiction.

P. 15. He takes notice of another Notion of them, as Miniſterial, by which (he p. 40ſaith) he underſt ands a competent number of Chriſtians, who have either firſt choſen, or after ſubmitted to A. B. as their Paſtor, he might indeed have ſpared this Notion; I do not remember I have met with it in any Author, but Mr. Rutherford; and the truth is, if it be a ſingle Miniſter, I do not underſtand how he Preacheth otherwiſe to them, than as he is (ſo far) an Officer of the Catholick Church, and they a part of that vaſt body. He conſiders theſe people

Either as living in the uſe of all Goſpel-Ordinances, or as at preſent living without ſome Ordinances, or having them ſo unduly adminiſtred, as may offer juſt cauſe of doubt to ſome Chriſtians, whether they may lawfully communicate with them or no:—He adds, we do believe that from ſuch a Church as is furniſhed with a duely ſent, able, painful Miniſter, regularly adminiſtring the Ordinances of Chriſt, ſo as people may communicate with them without ſin, and preſſing forward to that perfection in order, which in all things they p. 41have not attained Chriſtians as before united to them, may not ſeparate without ſin. He did not indeed ſay, but I dare ſay for him, he believed there were many ſuch Parochial Societies in England, and he hints it, when he ſaith, This was that indeed which ſome Presbyterians reflected upon our Brethren of the Congregational perſuaſion, and theſe were thoſe Parochial Churches which they contended for as true Churches. Was this to ſay Parochial Societies were no true Churches? Reader, judge in his 15. page, He tells us; There is yet a more perfect Notion of a particular Church as perfectly Organical, and furniſhed with all its affairs, and walking in all points of Goſpel Order.—He adds, ſuch particular Churches were in many Parochial Societies in England; and there is no doubt but ſuch Parochial Churches were True Churches, from which cauſeleſs, and unneceſſary ſeparation is ſinful. Indeed, he ſays, How far other Parochial Churches were true Churches, avowed ſo p. 42by Presbyterians, he was yet to learn.

And his Anſwer is, for any thing I ſee in his Remarques, yet to teach him, and I believe will ſo continue. For his gueſſes at what the Author meant by Perfection of Order. He I am ſure will tell him he means no more, Than a capacity to adminiſter all the Ordinances of Chriſt proper to a particular Church. The Word, Sacraments, and Cenſures of Jundical Admonition, Suſpenſion, and Excommunication, which they cannot do till they have Officers. I believe it muſt be a caſe of Extraordinary neceſſity muſt juſtifie a ſingle Miniſter in Suſpending, or Excommunicating, but that thoſe that help him muſt needs be perſons not ordained to the Miniſtry. I do not think he believes, but that there may be more Miniſters (if the Parochial Society hath more than one) or others choſen by that Church. And if any will contend that the body of the people muſt joyn with him in thoſe acts (though he reſerves his private judgment in the caſe) p. 43yet he will not contend eſpecially as to Excommunication, becauſe he underſtands not to what purpoſe Officers ſhould caſt any out of the fellowſhip of their Church, who are yet reſolved to have fellowſhip with him: He thinks he hath read ſome rule of the ancient Church, that none ought to be Excommunicated ſine plebis conſenſu, without the conſent of the body of the Church. But was this to ſay, Our Parochial Churches are no true Churches?

1. The Author ſaid they were all true parts of the Catholick Churches, and ſo true Churches.

2. The Author believes There are many Parochial Societies that are true Churches in the ſecond ſenſe.

3. He plainly ſays there were many ſo in the third and moſt perfect ſenſe.

What pittiful diſingenuity was this in this Writer of the Doctrine of Schiſme, thus to repreſent his Adverſary? Indeed from the Authors diſcourſe it plainly appears, That he did not believe.

p. 441. That Pariſhes that had no proper Miniſter, or faithful Miniſter, were true Organical Churches; but only true parts of the Catholick Church he grants them.

2. That no Parochial Societies as ſuch, were true Organical Churches.

3. Though ſome Pariſhes had able and painful Miniſters, yet if they never choſe them as their Paſtors, nor ſubmitted to them as ſuch, They were not true Organical Churches; or thoſe who had not ſo ſubmitted, were not true Members ever united to them.

§. 44. 4. That if perſons living in thoſe Societies, had choſen and ſubmitted to a Miniſter as their Paſtor, believing him able and faithful, and profeſſing to preſs after a perfection in order, & they afterwards found the contrary, that he proved negligent in his work, leud in his Life, corrupt in his Doctrine, unfaithful in his Adminiſtrations; p. 45and there were no viſible hope of a Reformation, that in this caſe they might peaceably and charitably with-draw from that communion, and joyn with a better. Theſe ſeem to be that Authors principles, which amount to this, that all Parochial Societies, either are no true Governing Churches, or the parties concerned were never united to them; or if they were once united to them, yet their ſeceſſion from them was juſt and neceſſary, and therefore could not be a ſinful ſeparation.

§. 45. Now what ſays the Author to this? Will he ſay that Parochial Societies are all, True Governing Churches. Surely he will not ſay ſo, if he own Epiſcopacy; for men of that perſuaſion muſt maintain That the Biſhop is the ſole Paſtor of the Dioceſs; that Government belongs only to him, that Pariſh-Miniſters are but his Curates, according to this Model; ſurely every Parochial Society is not a Governing Church; do they ſay ſo? we ſay ſo too. So we are agreed, and not chargeable with p. 46gathering Churches out of true Churches. Will he ſay that Parochial Societies having no peculiar Paſtor, or none that reſides with his Flock, are true Miniſterial Churches. Surely this in the firſt part is a contradiction, to talk of a Miniſterial Church without a Miniſter. And the ſecond part, contrary to our Authors judgment (if conſiſtent to it ſelf,) for if the cohabitation of Members be neceſſary,Doctrine of Schiſm, p. 85. and that as he tells us, by the Law of Nature, and ſo Divine, the cohabitation of the head with thoſe Members, muſt be neceſſary too by the ſame Law.

§. 46. No, but he will ſay, They were united to them, thoſe of them that were true Miniſterial Churches: And 2. Being united, they have no juſt and neceſſary cauſe of ſeparation. Theſe are the two things to be tried; for the tryal of this iſſue we muſt enquire.

Queſt. What is a ſufficient Union of a perſon to a true Miniſterial Church.

The Author ſeems not to think p. 47meer cohabitation doth it, though he thinks it of the Law of Nature and Divine (which I do not underſtand) that the Members of a Church ſhould cohabitate. I think it very expedient and neceſſary that they ſhould live ſo near together, that ordinarily they may meet for worſhip together in one place, and be able mutually to perform the dutys of exhortation and admonition one to another; yet the Author will not ſay this makes their Union in a Church Organical; beſides many queſtions would ariſe, as How near they muſt live? Whither none may live betwixt them? What if a Jew, Turk, or Pagan hires an Houſe betwixt them, &c? What the Author doth ſay, I will candidly transſcribe, as I find it in his Doctrine of Schiſme, ch. 13. p. 89. They were Baptized unto theſe particular Churches, Doctrine of Schiſm. chap. 13.89.as well as into the Univerſal, and the known Laws both of Church and State, oblige their Conſciences to communion with them, —Their ordinary attending upon p. 48the publick Worſhip as they generally do, or have done, concludes them by their own conſent, &c.

Here now are three things brought to prove the Union,

1. Baptiſme,

2. The Laws of men.

3. Their own conſent implicitely, by their ordinary attendance upon the Worſhip in Parochial Temples.

Let us candidly examine whether any of theſe will do it.

§. 47. That men are Baptized into a particular Church, and by it made compleat Members of it, is what I cannot yeeld. Baptiſme indeed admitts into the Univerſal Church. If any Presbyterian Brethren have judged more, I muſt underſtand their Reaſons before I ſubſcribe their Opinions; beſides that, hardly one of twenty Chriſtians were Baptized in that Parochial Society wherein they live; when at years of diſcretion, Baptiſme indeed gives a Chriſtian a claim to a Memberſhip in ſome particular Church, but makes no Union with it.

2. As to the ſecond, it can have no truth in it, till he hath proved That it is p. 49the will of Chriſt, that Chriſtians ſhould be Members of that particular Organized Church, where their Superiours in Church or State will command. As this is no civil thing, but Spiritual, and ſuch wherein the Souls of Chriſtians, as to their Eternal concerns, are highly concerned. So neither is it a thing indifferent; but let the Author prove what I ſay he muſt prove in this caſe, and we will ſay more. We think, though God hath expreſly no where told Chriſtians in his Word (which had been almoſt impoſſible) what particular Church they ſhould be of; yet he hath obliged them to attend what in their Conſciences they judg, and upon experience they find the moſt propable and effectual means for their Inſtruction, Holineſs, and Eternal Salvation; not expecting he ſhould work miracles for them. God hath no where told every Man, what Woman he ſhould Marry; yet ſurely he hath not left Magiſtrates a power to determine all their Subjects to Wives. Yet we think this concern of Souls p. 50is much higher, and that there is as much difference in Miniſters as in Wives.

3. The laſt therefore is all, for which there can be any pretence, conſent indeed will do it. And we will grant, that this conſent may be either Explicit or Implicit. Explicit when Chriſtians have either firſt choſen, or upon recommendation accepted a truly ſent, able, faithful Miniſter to be their Paſtor, to adminiſter the Ordinances of God to them: Or more Implicit, when though they have not firſt called him, nor ſo explicitly declared their conſent to him; yet they have ordinarily and ſtatedly walked with him in the fellowſhip of all Ordinances. But here muſt be conſidered

1. That there is a great deal of difference betwixt deſiring, conſenting to, and accepting of one as a Miniſter of the Goſpel to Preach to the Parochial Society, where a Chriſtan lives, as it is a part of the Catholick Church; and conſenting to ſuch a one to be his or p. 51their Paſtor, in order to a Church Organical, It muſt be a conſent of the latter Nature. I may conſent and deſire one to Preach to the people in the precinct where I live, and yet have no thoughts of conſenting to him as my Paſtor.

2. That there is a great deal of difference betwixt an occaſional hearing, and it may be receiving the Sacrament with a Miniſter, and a ſlated ordinary fixed doing of it. If a Chriſtian, that is of a particular Church at London, goeth down to York, and be to ſtay there 6 or 9 moneths, and ordinarily hears and receives the Sacrament there, while he is there; this will indeed prove his owning the Church of York as a true Church, & having communion with it, but not that he is a Member of it. Suppoſe many Chriſtians, who were formerly ſtated Members of Churches, but for 10 or 12 years laſt p. 52paſt, have not been able to walk with their Paſtors and Brethren in all Ordinances, meeting in the ſame place to worſhip God, have in the time ordinarily, or often heard a Parochial Miniſter; nay, ſometimes received the Lords Supper. This indeed proves their Charity, that they lookt upon that Society as a true Church; but it doth not prove them Members of it, nor their conſent to ſuch a Memberſhip; no, not to ſuch a Miniſter as their Paſtor, though it may be, they conſented to him for the good of the place where they lived, as a Preacher of the Goſpel to them. If indeed they were of no other ſtated particular Church before, and did ordinarily joyn in Sacramental Communion with ſuch a Miniſter, it goes far to prove an Union by implicit conſent, and we think ſuch cannot plead, They were not United.

§. 48. It is true, theſe Notions about particular Churches, Worſhip and Government, eſpecially the firſt and laſt, were very dark, and little underſtood by many good men, Anno, 1641. p. 53and no wonder if it be conſidered.

1. How very few Books were then wrote of them, on the Presbyterian ſide.

2. And how poenal it was made to have, or read them, and how little hope before that time appeared of reducing any thing had been ſaid to practice.

Some of our Congregational Brethren having had more reſt and freedom, and opportunity of exerciſe in N. England and Holland were better ſtudied in them. As alſo our Brethren of Scotland. This for a few years occaſioned great animoſities. Yet I could never read, nor hear quoted that even then any judicious Preſbyterians ever granted:

1. That all Parochial Societies were true Organized Churches.

2. Nor that living in a Pariſh did more than give the Chriſtian a liberty to claim admiſſion into that Society.

But ſome few years paſſing, and mens heats abating, and peaceable converſe each with other, better advantaging them to underſtand one another, than at firſt they did, they began to be far p. 54more clear and unanimous in their Notions, and more charitable in their practices.

§. 40. I cannot ſpeak for all, but I can ſpeak for a very competent number ſo many (as in one County) would be perſwaded to meet in 1657. & 58. They agreed in the following Character of a perſon fit for Church-fellowſhip in all Ordinances and Priviledges.

I have by me, alſo the Scriptures affixed to prove this.1. One that is indued with ſome competent knowledge in the principles of Religion.

2. Whoſe life & converſation is free from all groſs and ſcandalous evils, both of Omiſſion and Commiſſion.

3. Who maketh ſuch a profeſſion of Faith and Holineſs as may give unto the Church a probable hope in the judgment of true Chriſtian Charity, that there are ſome ſeeds of ſome ſpiritual work of God in his ſoul.

4. Who profeſſeth a willing ſubjection to the Goſpel, and all the Ordinances of Jeſus Chriſt, and ſo giveth up himſelf to the Lord, and his Church, to walk in p. 55all duties of Obedience and Love, according to the Will of God.

To which they added, and then ſubſcribed.

We acknowledge ſuch Churches to be true Churches, as conſiſt of ſuch perſons coming together as are here deſcribed, and ſuch to be true Miniſters as are called by, and unto ſuch a people. And we further acknowledge ſuch to be Churches, and their Miniſters to be true Miniſters, though ſome bad with the good agreed to the call of thoſe Miniſters, or to own and embrace them; and although there were ſome diſorder, and failing in the Ordination, and coming in of ſuch Miniſters.

By this, theſe Presbyterians judgments eaſily appeared, what Parochial Societies they judged, True Churches; and alſo what they judged neceſſary to make up the Union of a Member with a particular Organical Church.

§. 50. I think I can from a Friend alſo, aſſure the Author that the perſon whom this Author doth ſomewhere declare not only a Presbyterian, but one of great judgment and Worth (as indeed p. 56he was) I mean Mr. Brinſley of Yarmouth, was the man drew up this Writing, recommended it to his Brethen; himſelf agreed in it, and they alſo, and made it a great foundation for an Agreement betwixt them and their Congregational Brethren. For my own part, I am much of his mind: We ſay many of the Miniſters and people he reflects upon as Schiſmaticks, neither were actually thus united to Parochial Societies, nor we in capacity ſo to be, becauſe formally Paſters and Members elſe-where.

§. 51. But the Author thinks the Law forbidding Miniſters to Preach in the Parochial Temples, hath diſſolved this Relation. In this we differ from him, and deſire a better proof of it, both de facto, then he hath given us, and de jure, Then Solomons putting Abiathur from the Prieſts Office, who had deſerved to dye (as Solomon tells him firſt;) but more of that by and by. I do not profeſs ſtrictly to Anſwer the Authors Book about Schiſme: It is directed againſt an Author able enough p. 57to ſpeak for himſelf; but ſomething I muſt ſay to this and ſome other paſſages, only as they come athwart me in maintaining the Negative part of my Queſtion, and juſtifying my ſelf and others from the clamour of Schiſme. Therefore in Doctrine of Schiſme, p. 75. I find theſe words,

What if a man hath a mind to be Friends with him, (that we deſire, for we are for peace, &c.) and ſhould grant that thoſe Miniſters were not degraded [diſcommiſſioned he ſhould have ſaid, or unordained as to] their Miniſtry within the Church of England; and that thoſe Churches were not diſſolved by having new Paſtors, [he forgets the Biſhop, Curates he ſhould have ſaid] no more then the Kingdom, when the King dyes; and yet certainly the King and People are as much conſtitutive parts of a Kingdom, as Paſtor and People of a Church; who will ſay, that conſiders what he ſaith, that a particular Church is diſſolved by the death or removal of the p. 58Paſtor. Afterward he tell us the Opinion of Dr. Gouge, then of Mr. Baxter, as to the removing of Abiather; and laſtly, p. 77. That he hath thought hitherto, that the diſtinction of the Office, and of the exerciſe of the Office had gone uncontrouled amongſt Presbyterians; and though the Miniſters of Chriſt depend not (not upon the Chriſtian Magiſtrate for their Office) and he cannot degrade them, yet quoad Exercitium, as to the Exerciſe of it in his Dominions he might, and that he had power to ſilence ſuch as are judged unmeet to Preach; and in this Mr. Baxter confirms him, &c.

§. 52. He will at leaſt (ex abundanti) grant that man hath no power to ſay to thoſe, Do not preach, to whom Chriſt and his Church hath ſaid, Go and Preach; it is ſome relief yet, that he will in any thing ſuffer us to acknowledge Imperatorem coeli. The Miniſters were not put out of Office, 1662. then; OnelyOnly forbidden to exerciſe that Office within the Kingdom of England; but where was this prohibition? The Law only p. 59ſaith, in publick Churches and Chappels. But the Churches he ſaith were not diſſolved any more by having new Paſtors, than the Kingdom is diſſolved when the King dyes [he ſhould have ſaid by having a new King.] The Queſtion is, whether the Churches were not diſſolved by the removal of their Paſtor. We think not: ſo he ſaith, Are we not agreed? the Governours were in being; the Governed in being; only the Governours were in Priſon, and for a time could not exerciſe their Office in their Churches. But if the Governours were diſcommiſſioned, unordained, ſurely the Governing Church was diſſolved as the Governing Kingdom; (ſo far as the Governours act by commiſſion) is by his leave diſſolved at the death of a King, as we all know.

§. 53. He asks who will ſay That a particular Church is diſſolved upon the Death or Removal of the Faſtor. I anſwer any one that underſtands ſenſe, if there were no other Governour, and he be not in being, ſurely the particular organical Governing Church is diſſolved, p. 60the body is not neceſſitated to part, but at liberty, whether they will agree to the next Paſtor, yea or no; his Friend Mr. Candry hath ſaid ſo.

Mr. Hooker had ſaid, If the Church be not a Church without Officers, Cawdrys Anſwer to Mr. Hookers Survey, chap. 8. page 133.then as oft as the Officers dye, the Church dyeth alſo. That is an Authoritative Governing Church; and indeed, for any to ſay a Church is a Miniſterial Church, without a Miniſter, or a Governing Church without a Governour, is a piece of ſence I cannot underſtand.

§. 54. But to return to the Caſe of Abiathar, which is brought to prove the power of Magiſtrates, to put Miniſters as well out of their Office, as out of their Preferments, Poſſeſſions, and publick Temples (all which is granted and excluded the Queſtion.) I have nothing to do with any mans Opinion in the caſe. Let us fairly debate and underſtand the caſe, and ſee whether it will conclude for the Author, yea or no. p. 61Aaron was Gods undoubted High-Prieſt, immediately conſtituted ſo by himſelf. His Sons were alſo ordained by God to ſucceed him. Aaron had four Sons, 1 Chron. 6.4. Nanab and Abihu, (theſe Lev. 10. dyed before their Father) Eleazar and Ithamor. By Gods ſpecial order Eleazar was made the High-Prieſt inſtead of Aaron, Numb. 20.26, 28. Eleazer died, Joſh. 24.33. Phinehas his Son ſucceeded him, Jud. 20.28. Here the Scripture leaveth us. The next High Prieſt we read of, was Eli, for his neglect to correct his ſcandalous Sons, God threatneth that he would cut off his Poſterity from his Altar, 1 Sam. 2.33, 35. and raiſe up unto himſelf a ſaithful Prieſt: This was the known will of God, declared to Eli by two Prophets; his Sons Hophni and Phinehas died before him. Ahilub is by Divines concluded to have ſucceeded him; he is called Ichabods Bother, 1 Sam. 14.3. That is Elies Grandchild. Ahiah ſucceeded Ahilub, as is plain from 1 Sam. 14.3. Ahimelech ſucceeded him, as is plain, 1 Sam. 22.11. p. 62Here God's Vengeance on Elies Family began to appear. Saul ſlays him and all his Fathers Houſe, 1 Sam. 22.16. only v. 20. Abiathar eſcapeth and fleeth unto David, and was with him in all his troubles by Saul; but in the mean time it would be enquired who was High Prieſt for Saul at Jeruſalem? and this the Scripture ſaith not, (poſſibly he little regarded the Eccleſiaſtical Order inſtituted by God.) But it is a greater difficulty how the H. Prieſthood came out of the line of Eleazer, Aarons Eldeſt Son, into the line of Ithamar the Younger Son of Aaron? Nor doth the Scripture reſolve us, nor Joſephus, who aſſureth us, Eli was of the Family of Ithamar, and the firſt of it, but ſays only, He took the Prieſthood, of whoſe Family Abiathar was the laſt.Joſephus, v. 62.12. This Abiathar was one of thoſe, who during Davids life, and contrary to his Will, proclaimed Adonijah King, 1 Sam. 1.25. which was no leſs than High Treaſon. Solomon calling him to account for it, ſpares his life p. 63for the kindneſs he had ſhewed to his Father, telling him he was worthy of death, but confineth him to Anathoth, (where he could not execute the Prieſts Office) 1 King. 2.26, 27. So ſaith the Text, He thruſt out Abiathar from being Prieſt unto the Lord; and it is added, That he might fulfil the Word of the Lord, which he ſpake concerning the Houſe of Eli in Shiloh: yet 1 King. 4.3. In the rool of the Officers we find Zadock and Abiathar were the Prieſts; ſo that it ſeems he was a Prieſt ſtill, Whatever is to be underſtood by, He put him out of the Prieſts Office: 'tis certain, 1 King. 2.35. he made Zadoc in his room, who was of the Sons of Eleazar, 1 Chron. 24.3. We cannot underſtand from Scripture, but that the High-Prieſthood ought to have been in the Family of Eleazer; and it is like the diſorderly times of the Judges altered it. Solomon reſtoreth it, and in doing it, fulfilled what he knew was the will of God about Elies Family. It is not improbable but David had done it before, but for Abiathars peculiar Service to p. 64him in his troubles. Now we have the caſe,

1. Solomon knew that Abiathar was of the younger Houſe from Aaron, whereas the High-Prieſthood truly belong'd to the Elder.

2. He knew alſo God had declared his Will to root out the Houſe of Eli.

3. This Abiathar had committed the higheſt crime; Solomon might have put him to death, but for his kindneſs to his Father as to life he ſpares him, but thinks fit to ſend him far enough from the Court, and the place where the High-Prieſts Office was to be Executed at Hieruſalem, and to confine him to Anathoth, where he could not execute the Office of the High-Prieſt; and ſo he was in effect turned from the High-Prieſts Office.

4. And Zadoc, to whom that Office was due, is inveſted with it: But Abiathar remains a Prieſt ſtill, & is ſo called after, and joyned next to Zadoc; but the High Prieſthood could not truly belong to him, but to the Elder Houſe p. 65from Aaron; and beſides, God had declared his Will, that this ſhould be done; he is ſaid to have done it, that he might fulfil the Word of the Lord, and he that did it was a man inſpired by God, and a Pen-man of Holy Writ. What will follow from hence think we? therefore Kings and Magiſtrates may remove

1. The chiefeſt Prieſts from their Preferments, Dignities, and their own Courts.

2. That in caſe they have deſerved death, and the Magiſtrate thinks fit to ſhew mercy, but yet to puniſh them with Baniſhment to remote places where their flock cannot come; he may thus in effect turn them out from their Paſtoral Relation.

3. That in caſe he finds them no true Miniſters of Chriſt, he may forbid them to Miniſter.

4. That if God from Heaven by a revelation, or by any plain Scripture commands them to turn true Miniſters out of Office, they may do it. I can ſee nothing more, let the Author make his beſt of this.

p. 66§. 55. But he had thought the diſtinction of the Office, and the exerciſe of it, had been uncontrouled by the Presbyterians; and that they had granted, that though the Magiſtrate could not degrade them, yet as to the exerciſe of their Office he might, and that he had power to ſilence ſuch as he judged unmeet to Preach. Presbyterians can (without the help of this Authors Logick) diſtinguiſh betwixt the Office and the exerciſe of the Office, and make one diſtinction more between the exerciſe of the Office in publick places, (undoubtedly in the Magiſtrates diſpoſal,) and in their own private Houſes, or in the private Houſes of others. They do believe it in the power of the Magiſtrate, though not to take away their Office, or Relation to their Flock. Yet to hinder the exerciſe of it, and that they ought to obey him, commanding them to forbear the exerciſe of it in publick places belonging to the Magiſtrates; and accordingly have generally been ſo obedient, though the Law ſo far, be not ſo plain, that any are prohibited to Preach, except ſuch as are p. 67diſabled, which is the caſe of very few. They know Paul Preached in his hired Houſe at Rome, Act. 28. and in the School of Tirannus, when the Jewiſh Rulers forbad them the Synagogues; the Office not taken away, nor to be taken away, they conclude the Relation attending the Office abiding. But hitherto we have only juſtified our firſt Plea. It is no ſeparation, becauſe there never was an Union, nor could be of very many of us to a Parochial Miniſterial Governing Church. And conſidering it only as a part of the Catholick Church, we are in all points one with it.

§. 56. But we will ſuppoſe that this is not the caſe of all our Brethren; but ſome have been United to the Parochial Societies, wherein they lived, and implicitly conſented to be one body with them, by not only hearing the Miniſters there, but receiving the Communion with them. What ſhall be ſaid for them? We ſay they are not ſinfully ſeparated.

1. Are they ſeparated? They now indeed meet for worſhip in other places, and that ſtatedly; but do they condemn p. 68the Miniſters or Churches, from which they are come? do they not own them as true Miniſters, and ſuch Churches as true Churches? Do they not pay to the Miniſters, & love the Brethren? where's the Schiſme then? For when men have ſaid all they can, Schiſme is a ſin againſt the command of Love to our Neighbour. It is no command of God, you ſhall be of this Congregation or another, other then it falls under general precepts, commanding us to uſe the beſt means for our Souls. Now cannot I love my Neighbour, except I dwell in his Family, or chuſe her for my Wife, or him for my Husband: Beſides, it is moſt certain, I am bound to love my own Soul in the firſt place; and as an Evidence to that, I am tied to uſe the beſt means I can (not contradicted by God's Word) according to my own Conſcience (which certainly muſt judg for me in my higheſt concern) for the Salvation of it.

§. 57. I am a-ware of what this Author hath ſaid, That a man may not depart from a Congregation to which he was p. 69United, either to enjoy the Ordinances of God more powerfully, or purely, or perfectly adminiſtred in another, convenient enough for me to joyn with. This is the ſubſtance of what he hath ſaid and quoted from others as their Opinion. But this will never enter into my thoughts. Let them ſpeak plainly to this. Is it not the duty of every Chriſtian to uſe what appears to his Conſcience the beſt and moſt probable means for his Salvation? The light of Nature as well as Scripture will evince this. Now I would fain know of any perſon what it is under Heaven, (except the bare Word and Sacraments) that God hath appointed as means for the Inſtruction, Edification, and Salvation of my Soul, but the gifts of his Miniſters or People, (with which, in order to theſe ends) his holy Spirit works not miraculouſly, but in a national orderly way ſecundum quae nactus eſt, Organa. There is nothing more evident than that in Miniſters, there is a great diverſity of Gifts, and as much a diverſity of Wills, Humours, and Fancies; and alſo a great variety of peoples p. 70Capacities. There's nothing more evident than that our Miniſters parts, method of Preaching, &c. is really more fitted to the Inſtruction and Edification of ſome people, than the Gifts and Methods of others are; as we ſay every good Man makes not a good Husband for every good Woman; ſo it is demonſtrably true, that every able and good Miniſter is not a fit and good Inſtructor for every good Chriſtian; they poſſibly underſtand not his language, nor cannot learn his method (poſſibly 'tis Cryptick, and requires a Schollar to underſtand it. Shall theſe people be perpetually ſtaked down in the caſe, that let their Souls be never ſo much concerned, they muſt not ordinarily joyn with another Miniſter, and hear him, though their habitations be convenient enough for it? or muſt theſe perſons (poſſibly to the loſs of their Trade and Livelihood, which in Towns lyes much upon their habitation) be forced to remove into that other Pariſh; where hath God required any ſuch thing?

p. 71§. 58. Beſides that, I underſtand not much thoſe of my Brethren that are ſo Zealous in this point. In my little dealings in the World, I uſe always to be afraid of that Trades-man, whom I perceive uſing arts to tye me to his Shop; and upon that Work-man that I ſee endeavouring to oblige me to none but himſelf. I fear always, they have no good meaning toward me; and I ſhould fear my ſelf, that I meant not to deal well with Souls if I went about to ſtake them to my Miniſtry. I ſhould ſuſpect my ſelf of Pride, or Self-intereſt, or ſome other ſcurvy Luſt or Paſſion. If I think none ſo able as my ſelf, 'tis Pride; if I would have them to fill my Congregation, it is Self-intereſt. If I would ſave their Souls, ſo may another, and poſſibly be a better inſtrument for it, at leaſt he is more likely, if ſound in the Faith, able, and painful, becauſe they have a more fancy to him. In ſhort, I have for ſome good time been an unworthy Miniſter of the Goſel; I thank God, I can ſay, that as I never denyed any Chriſtian deſirous to p. 72leave me, my Licenſe to do it; ſo I never had an ill thought of any that did it; but ſaid with my ſelf, The fewer Souls I have will be under my charge, the leſſer my account will be: And that which much confirm'd me in this, was my reading Chryſoſtom's expreſſing a fear that but a few Miniſters would be ſaved, becauſe their work and charge was ſo great; which if well conſidered, would abate our trouble for the diminution of our Auditory, and rather make us rejoyce. I have a number not inconſiderable under my charge now, and I can ſay, I dearly love them; and ſhould think I did not, if I ſhould not declare my free leave for them to leave my Miniſtry, and joyn with any other of ſound faith and holy life, under whom they ſhould think they could profit more than by me; and I do think this the duty of every Miniſter. I do not think this is any ſinful ſeparation which Schiſme doth import.

§. 59. But laſtly: Suppoſing ſuch a departing from a Church, to which we are united, be to be called Separation; p. 73yet it is not ſinful (in the judgment of all Divines) if it be neceſſary, or if it be not cauſeleſs; now poſſibly this may be the caſe of many. I remember in the caſe of Marriage, Divines diſtinguiſh between Repudiation and Divorce; Divorce, they ſay, can only be for Adultery; but Repudiation may be lawful and neceſſary in ſeveral other caſes; in ſhort, in all caſes where it appears; there ought to have been no Union, had it been known; as ſuppoſe,

1. One had Married another (through deceit) of his or her own Sex.

2. His very near Relation, as Mother, Siſter, &c.

3. or 3dly.

One appearing evidently unfit for the chief ends of Marriage, &c. I think the ſame is to be ſaid in this caſe. Let us try a little: Suppoſe Chriſtians by an error, had choſen a man to be their Paſtor, and ordinarily heard him, and communicated in the Lords Supper with him, whom at laſt they found to be no Miniſter. And when they diſcover it ſhould leave him: This I hope were no ſinful ſeparation. If any ſhall ſay it is, he ſhould complain p. 74and have him orderly removed. We will ſuppoſe the caſe ſo, that it could not be obtained: Of this the late times gave us ſome inſtances. 2. Secondly: Suppoſe Chriſtians, by an errour, and through ignorance, had done the like to one, whom after they diſcover to be corrupt in matter of Doctrine, ſuppoſe ſome points of Popery, Arminianiſme, Socinianiſme, which they in their Conſciences judge falſe, and makes a trade of this. Is it a ſin for them to go to another Miniſter, not being able to get this removed? 'Tis plain, they ought not to have choſen him as their Paſtor. 3. Suppoſe Chriſtians by an error, have ſo choſen and joyned with one whom they then judged of a very ſober life, but they find him a notorious Drunkard, Swearer, &c. Such a one ought not to have been choſen, but doth factum valet here; muſt they not leave him? If any ſay they may have him removed, I deſire to know by what Law of England? if he be neither Jew nor Schiſmatick. I am miſtaken if I have not read or heard the Law allows no other p. 75caſes (or very few) of Deprivation. 4. Suppoſe Chriſtians by the like Errour, to have choſen one, who they thought would have been faithful watching his Flock, and to that end cohabiting with them, the thing of the Law of Nature (ſaith our Author) and that is Divine for Members of the ſame Church; but they find, he rarely comes near them, or rarely Preacheth to them if amongſt them, poſſibly once a monethmonth, hardly more, ſeldom or never adminiſtring other Ordinances. In this caſe may Chriſtians depart to another, yea, or no? will any ſay No ſtill? then he is bound to live without God's Ordinances all his life time for ought I know.

§. 60. But laſtly: Muſt it appear demonſtratively, or is it enough for it to appear to the Chriſtian probably, (that is ſo far as his Conſcience can diſcern or judge) ſinful to Communicate with a Church, before he ſeparates from it. If any ſay Demonſtratively, let him prove it: will any ſay it is enough, as to his practice? if it propably appears ſo; then p. 76why are we ſo boldly called Schiſmaticks before our probable Arguments be made appear to us, to have no probability to? But They are the people, and have ſaid Wiſdom ſhall dye with them. We muſt be Schiſmaticks and ſinful Separatiſts, and for no other reaſon, but becauſe they ſay ſo.

§. 61. Once more. If it be Schiſmatical for the Members of a Chuch to ſeparate from the Miniſter and Congregation to which they are united: Then it is Schiſmatical for Miniſters alſo to ſeparate from the Congregations to which they were once ſo united, unleſs at leaſt commanded by the Governours of the Church, for the publick good: If any ſay No, he will, I hope, give us a Reaſon; is not the Miniſter United? Doth not he break the Union, yea deſtroy the Organical Church by removing, which private Chriſtians do not? I am afraid the Author will rather quit us from Schiſme, from Parochial Societies, than grant us the conſequence, to the prejudice of, if not himſelf, yet of ſo many of his Friends, p. 77One of them he muſt do, if I underſtand ſenſe. Will our Author think to excuſe this, by ſaying, It is no Schiſme in them, becauſe they but remove to Churches of the ſame Communion (which he ſaid before, for peoples removing from one Pariſh to another)? It lyes upon him to prove that perſons agreeing in the ſame Doctrine, and in the ſame acts of Worſhip, though they differ in the words and ſyllables, and forms (of mere humane conſtitution) be of a different communion from their Brethren, otherwiſe the Presbyterians do not ſeparate, and are but Siſter-Churches of the ſame Communion with their Brethren, not ſeparated from them.

§. 62. The Author of the Reflections had told the Author, That themſelves with us had ſeparated from Rome, which yet they, or ſome of them acknowledg a True Church: Therefore we might ſeparate from a True Church. The ſum of his Anſwer is

1. That the Presbyterians do not acknowledg it ſo, to whom he ſpake.

p. 782. This was a current Argument of the Presbyterians againſt the Independents.

3. He meant ſuch true Churches as our Parochial Congregations.

4. They prove the Communion of Rome is corrupt; we only ſay theirs is.

5. Many do hold the Church of Rome truely a Church, not a true Church; true as to the Eſſence, but not Morally true as to her Doctrine and Worſhip.

6. We did not ſeparate from Rome, for we really were never of them; we reformed our ſelves without ſeparating from Rome.

Notwithſtanding all theſe Anſwers (except the laſt) which I ſhall ſhew weak enough. Thus much we have gained.

That it is Lawful in ſome caſes to ſeparate from a body that is Metaphyſically a true Church, that is truly a Church, which is all was intended to be gained. That the general Notion of the Truth p. 79of a Church, ſhould be no more a Medium to prove us Schiſmaticks, now let us examine his particular Anſwers.

§. 62. The Presbyterians do not acknowledg Rome a true Church, and therefore he argued ad homines. Indeed I find Mr. Caudry, to his Adverſary granting ſomething of the Truth of a Church to Rome, crying Viderit ipſe, but he is not the mouth of all Presbyterians; did ever any know a Presbyterian, Ordaining a Miniſter the ſecond time, becauſe he was the firſt time Ordained by the Church of Rome? yet he was there ordained to offer Sacrifice, but alſo to Preach the Goſpel, which makes them afraid of it; or Baptizing any that turn'd Proteſtants from Papiſts. Till he had known this, he ſhould have forborne this Anſwer, it may be that many of them will grant ſhe hath ſomething of the Metaphyſical Verity of a Church. A rotten Houſe, and falling, but yet an Houſe ſtill, and we think Chriſtians from ſuch a Church may with-draw.

p. 80§. 63. But this was an Argument againſt the Independents. Produce a place where they ever ſaid, It was unlawful for Chriſtians to depart from a Church that had the leaſt of truth in it. But he ſays he meant ſuch as our Parochial Congregations, this is a general: what doth he mean by ſuch? 4. They prove the Communion of the Church of Rome corrupt; we only ſay it of theirs. And he only ſays that we only ſay it. We think that many have proved that we cannot Communicate or Miniſter in it under ſome preſent circumſtances, without what we judge ſin. Who ſhall determine betwixt us as to our practice? Hath this Author made, or can he ſhew us a ſtrict Anſwer to Calderwood, Gilleſpy, and Dr. Ames? and yet much more is to be ſaid in our caſe, then they could ſpeak.

§. 64. Many do ſay that the Church of Rome is Vere, but not Vera Eccleſia, (that will not do) we can ſhew him vera, that is true as well as, Vere Truly; but his meaning is, True in Eſſence, not Morally True; what is the meaning of p. 81that? Not true in her Doctrine and Worſhip. This kind of truth admitts many degrees. We would fain know of our Author to what degree of moral truth that Church muſt be arrived, from which he judgeth it ſinful to ſeparate; for we ſhall find that divers of his Brethren and Fathers have acknowledged a great degree of moral truth in the Church of Rome, from which yet they ſeparated, and we believe died in their ſeparation from it. Died they as Fools dyed? Let me ſhew this a little: Was not the Church of Rome morally true, becauſe an Antichriſtian-Church, and the Seat of the Antichriſt? So indeed Biſhop Downame, Biſhop Abbot, and many Biſhops were wont to ſay; but ſince that time Biſhop Mountagne hath called their Arguments Apocaliptycal phrenzies. Dow ſaith it is doubtful. Dr. Heylin ſaith it cannot be, for Antichriſt muſt be a ſingle man, a Jew that muſt kill Enoch and Elias. Star Chamber Speech; p. 32.Biſhop Laud confeſſeth therefore he hath raced out of the Liturgy, the ſcandalous term Antichriſtian Sect.

p. 82§. 65. Is the fault in the Doctrine of the Church of Rome; it may be ſome of us think there is fault enough there; I truſt our Author himſelf thinks ſo, but neither all former Conformiſts, nor preſent Conformiſts believe that ſhe differs from us in any Fundamentals. I my ſelf have been told ſo within few years; the Author could not but know that Biſhop Laud, Dr. Heylin, Biſhop Potter, and many others have thus far aſſerted her Moral truth again and again, as to Doctrine. Now may not that be put for a Problem amongſt thoſe who are ſo Zealous in this point.

Whither it be not Schiſmatical to ſeparate from a Church upon the account of Doctrine which errs in no fundamentals.

Yet thoſe great men confeſſed the latter, and did the former. If we looſe this ſtand, I know not where we ſhall find a boundary to ſtop us from ſeparation, from a true Church, for any one falſe Propoſition of Doctrine maintained in it. But what Doctrine is there, as to which we cannot ſhew them that p. 83ſome or other our conforming Fathers or Brethren have not either acknowledged true in their terms, or ſo far true, as would make ſeparation for it dangerous; yet all theſe ſeparated from it, and died many of them in that black Schiſme (if it were ſo.) Let the Author inſtance, and he ſhall hear what we can ſay to it; he will I hope, ſpare the Arminian points. The Doctrine of Faith as an aſſent only to the Propoſition, Juſtification by Works, &c. but let him inſtance.

§. 66. But it may be the buſineſs is, they have acknowledged and proved her Communion unlawful as to Worſhip; we indeed do ſo think it ſufficiently ſinful. But have all thoſe Conformiſts ſeparated from her thought ſo? we think ſo, becauſe we judge her idolatrous in her Adoration of the Euchariſt, The Saints departed, Reliques, Images, Altars, &c. and we know that many of our conforming Brethren are of the ſame mind with us, Dr. Brewynt, Dr. Stillingfleet, and many others have ſufficiently told us ſo; but the queſtion p. 84is, whether all our conforming Brethren, who have ſeparated thus, judged her thus morally not a true Church. What meant Dr. Heylins four bowings at his taking up and ſetting down the Bread and Wine in the Euchariſt. Heylins moderate Anſwer, p. 137.What ſaith the Author of Weights and Meaſures, as to the point of Veneration of Images? What ſaith Biſhop Mountague, Antig. p. 318. and in his Antid. p. 30. and in his Orig. p. 40. he ſays the Ancient Church did Venerate Reliques, Antid. p. 44. but I will enlarge no further till I have particular inſtances given.

§. 67. We ſee it was the judgment of theſe men, (and they were learned men) that we may ſeparate from a Church that hath a great degree of moral truth. But it may be they thought they did not ſeparate becauſe they and their Fore-fathers were really never of them, but reformed themſelves. But were not our Fore-fathers Baptized into that Church? Did not the Laws of England once tye us to them? Were we not United p. 85to the Governours Worſhip, Members, and Aſſemblies of that Church. Did not our Fore-fathers ſhew their conſent by ordinary attendance upon their Devotions, &c. This is all our Author ſaith for our Ʋnion to the National and Parochial Church, or Churches of England.

§. 68. Again, they have proved it, he ſaith, that Communion in that Church is corrupt. How? Becauſe we cannot communicate with it without ſin. How have they proved it? Demonſtratively; ſo as the Adverſaries cannot deny it? Nothing leſs, they do deny it, and yet diſpute it, but ſo as we probably judg it ſinful. We grant this is proved, and ſo we think we have proved it too, though it may be more ſinful to communicate with the Romiſh Church. But we know Magis & minus non variant ſpeciem. But we think we ought not to do the leaſt ſin.

§. 69. But we do not ſay it is ſinful to communicate with them in all Ordinances. Why do we not communicate with them ſo far as we can without ſin? Presbyterians indeed do generally acknowledg ſo much. But Communion is either ſtated and fixed, or Occaſional. They conceive themſelves obliged, ſtatedly and fixedly, if they can, to communicate to their proper Congregations where they can enjoy all the Ordinances of p. 86God. For occaſional Communion, they neither have denied it, nor ſhall deny it to their Brethren in ſuch actions wherein their Conſciences will allow them ſo to communicate without ſin, as occaſion offers it ſelf; they acknowledg many of their Miniſters, and of their Churches, true Churches, true Miniſterial Churches; they many of them hear them Preach and Pray, and bring their Children to them to be Baptized (eſpecially if any of them will abate what in that adminiſtration none judgeth by Divine precept Originally neceſſary, and they judg ſinful?) what would the Author have more, unleſs a perfect communion?

§. 70. As to which (though I do not much value Arguments from Authority of men, becauſe they never touch the Conſcience, nor ad homines; becauſe they are ſingle Bullets, and hit but one perſon; yet once let me uſe one. Becauſe our Author in his Doctrine of Schiſme, p. 28. aſſures us he is much of Mr. Fulwoods mind. I know not that Reverend Perſon; but I take him to be the ſame Mr. Fulwood that was ſometimes Miniſter at Staple Fitzpane in Somerſet-ſhire, and anno, 1652. publiſhed a Book called, The Churches and Miniſtry of England true Churches, and a true Miniſtry (if he be not the man intended, I beg his pardon p. 87if it be he, he ſaith thus of the Church of England.

For matters of Government, indeed of late we were under Epiſcopacy, all whoſe appurtenances ſavoured of Antichriſt—and in the ſame page a little after—our Epiſcopal Courts, Service, Tyranny, &c. were very groſs.

This was Mr. Fulwoods judgment. I think we may eaſily argue according to his principles. It is Mr. Fulwoods aſſertion, not ours.

From a Church, all whoſe appurtenances, as to Government, ſavour of Antichriſt, Fulwoods Churches & Miniſtry of England true, &c. p. 12.and whoſe ſervice is very groſs. Chriſtians may, and ought to ſeparate, ſo far as to that Government, all whoſe appurtenances ſo ſavour, and whoſe ſervice is groſs. But ſaith Mr. Fulwood, &.—Ergo. When the Reverend Author hath found out an anſwer for his Friend Mr. Fulwood, we will further examin it. But there is no end of theſe things.

§ 71. In the mean time I muſt mind the Author of too little candor, as to his Adverſary who wrote the Reflexions, in ſaying the ſum of what he offered, was reducible to theſe two propoſitions.

1. That the Conformiſts held the Church of Rome to be a true Church, p. 88yet did ſeparate.

2. That our Parochial Churches are no true Churches, when as he never ſaid the latter at all, but the clean contrary, and had acknowledged,

1. All of them true Churches, that is, true parts of the Catholick Church.

2. Many of them true Miniſterial Churches.

3. Some of them true Organical Churches.

Beſides this, He that reads the Authors chap. 1. will ſee theſe two things were not the ſum of what he ſaid, and that how little ſoever Reaſon was in thoſe Reflections, there was yet more then this Author in his Remarques was pleaſed to take notice of, for that Author had then inſiſted on their not being united to Parochial Churches.

§. 72. To ſhut up this diſcourſe, I from my Soul wiſh, all the Lords, Miniſters, and People of England were of one heart and mind. I am not of Gravity or Learning ſufficient to Adviſe either Conformiſts or Non-conformiſts, but ſhall only propoſe my own thoughts, and not mine alone. The Reverend and Learned Dr. Hornbeck, foreign in his Diſſertations de Epiſcopatu, hath theſe paſſages which I ſhall tranſlate. The learned may read them in the Printed Copies.

If men were every where as ſollicitous for forming and reforming men, and fitting them for the ſacred Miniſtry, to which they p. 89profeſs to give up themſelves, the diſputation about the form of Sacred Order and Government would be more eaſie, and leſs evil need be feared from that which we judge not ſo good.—Here, ſaith he, We muſt begin that men may be made worthy for the work, and Parag. 4.—Here we muſt lay on our help—We ſee the Apoſtles in their Writings, were more ſollicitous about the Vertues than the degrees of Miniſters,—Parag. 9. Before (ſaith he) we divide into parties about other things, we ſhould joyntly agree about theſe things. A confeſſion of common Doctrine according to truth and piety, ſhould be either ſet forth or confirmed, then exact Canons ſhould be made about the whole life and manners of Miniſters, and then a diſputation about the form of Church Government ſhould follow—Thus far he.

§. 73. I ſhall conclude with delivering my Opinion, That if 1. All the ancient Canons of Councils were executed, which concern Miniſters Lives and Office. And the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as expounded by King James and the Parliament of England were avowed, and thoſe men might have nothing to do in the debate. Who are dead in Law, according to thoſe Canons; that is, ſuch as ought to be Excommunicated, or deprived, and who had declared, or ſhould p. 90declare themſelves contrary to the Doctrine ſo expound…d and declared. The remaining part would quickly ſo well agree with other things, as we ſhould be no more troubled with clamours of Schiſme and Separation; and tell ſomthing of that Nature be, I ſee no medium, but either Diſſenters muſt be indulged, and Schiſme clamour'd and never proved, or ſuffering for Conſcience-ſake muſt be impoſed and patiently endured.

Fiat Voluntas Dei.

ERRATA.

PAge 2. l. 23. f. curare, r. curaes, p. 32. l. 14. f. Arminians, r. Arminius, p. 33. l. 4. f. 130. r. 13th. p. 36. l. 12. f. generatibus, r. Generalibus, p. 42. l. 12. f. Jundical, r. Juridical, p. 70. l. 2. r. one Miniſters parts, p. 74. l. 9. r. he Preach ſome, p. 75. l. ult, r. probably.

ERRATA, in the Two laſt Sheets.

PAge. 10. l. 14. after the word Apology, I pray add this, That which is of Divine, is undeniably greater than that which is of Humane Inſtitution, p. 4. l. 10. f. act, r. acts, p. 27. l. 19. f. page 4. l. 34. r. B. 4. c. 34. p. 29. l. 22. f. Affirmations, r. Affirmatives.