THE Christian World is divided into two Ranks, Ecclesiastical and Civil, u­sually known by the names of Clergy and Laity, Ministers and People. The Clergy, besides the things essentially belonging to their Office, are by the Laws of all well-ordered Churches in the World, strictly obliged by Declarations or Subscriptions, or both, to owne and maintain the Doctrine, Discipline and Constitution of the Church into which they are admitted. Thus in the Church of England They do subscribe to the truth of the Doctrine more especially contained in the Thirty Nine Articles, and declare that they will use the Forms and Rites contained in the Liturgy, and promise to submit to the Government in its Orders. [Page 2] The design of all which is to preserve the Peace of the Church, and the Unity of Christians, which doth much depend upon that of its Officers and Teachers.

But the Laity are under no such Obligations, there being no Declarations or Subscriptions required of them, nor any thing more than to attend upon, and joyn with the Worship practised and allowed in the Church. Thus it is in the Church of England, as it is acknowledged by a worthy Person, Mr. Baxter's Defence of the Cure, part 2. p. 29. to whom when it was objected that many Errours in Doctrine and Life were imposed as Conditions of Communion, he replies, What is imposed on you as a Condition to your Communion in the Doctrine and Prayers of the Parish-Churches, but your actual Communion it self? In dis­coursing therefore about the lawfulness of Communion with a Church, the difference betwixt these two must be carefully observed, lest the things required only of one Order of Men should be thought to belong to all. A Book licen­sed by M ^r Cran­fo [...]d. It's observed by one, That the original of all our mischiefs sprung from mens confounding the terms of Ministerial Conformity with those of Lay-Communion with the Parochial Assemblies; there being much more required of Ministers than of the People: private per­sons having much less to say for themselves in absenting from the Publick Worship of God, though performed by the Liturgy, than the Pastor hath for not taking Oaths, &c. Certainly, if this difference was but observed, and the Case of Lay-Communion truly stated and un­derstood, Baxter's Cure, p. 311. the people would not be far more averse to Communion with the Parish-Churches than the Non-Con­forming Ministers are, as one complains; and whatso­ever they might think of the Conformity of Mini­sters, Continuat. Morning Ex­ercise, Serm 4. p. 89. because of the previous terms required of them, they would judge what is required of the people to be lawful, as some of them do. And as the Ministers by [Page 3] bringing their Case to the Peoples may see Communion then to be lawful, and find themselves obliged to main­tain it in a private capacity; so the People by per­ceiving their Case not to be that of the Ministers, but widely different from it, would be induced to hold Communion with the Church, and to joyn with those of their Ministers that think it their Duty so to do; and are therein of the opinion of the old Non-Conformists that did not act Rathband's E­pistle to the Reader, pre­fixed to the grave and mo­dest Confuta­tion, &c., as if there was no mid­dle between separation from the Church and true Worship thereof, and subscription unto, or practice or approbation of all the corruptions of the same. For Nichol's Plea for the Puri­tans. though they would not subscribe to the Ceremonies, yet they were a­gainst separation from Gods Publick Worship, as one of them in the name of the rest doth declare. So that as great a difference as there is betwixt presence and Consent, betwixt bare Communion and approbation, betwixt the Office of the Minister and the attendance of a private person, so much is there betwixt the Case of Ministerial and Lay-Communion: And therefore when we consider the Case of Lay-Communion, we are only to respect what is required of the people, what part they are to have and exercise in Communi­on with the Church. Now what they are concerned in, are either, The Forms that are imposed, the Ge­stures they are to use, and the Times they are to ob­serve, for the Celebration of Divine Worship; or, The Ministration, which they may be remotely sup­pos'd also to be concerned in.

The lawfulness of all which, and of all things re­quired in Lay-Communion amongst us, I shall not undertake to prove and maintain by Arguments taken from those that already are in full Communion with the Church of England, and so are obliged to justifie it; but from those that in some things do dissent from [Page 4] it, who may therefore be supposed to be impartial and whose Reasons may be the more heeded as co­ming from themselves, and from such that are as for­ward in other respects to owne the miscarriages of the Church; as those that wholly separate from it.

For the better understanding of the Case, and of their Judgment in it, I shall consider,

1. What opinion the most eminent and sober Non-Conformists have had of the Church of England.

2. What opinion they have had of Communion with that Church.

3. What opinion they he had of such practices and usages in that Church, as Lay-men are concerned in.

1. What opinion the most eminent and sober Non-Conformists have had of the Church of England. And that will appear in these two things, First, That they owne her to be a true Church; Secondly, To be a Church in the main very valuable.

First, They owne her to be a true Church. Thus an Eminent Person saith of the old Non-Conformists, Bayly's Disswa­sive, c. 2. p. 21. They did always plead against the Corruptions of the Church of England, but never against the truth of her Being, or the comfort of her Communion, Corbet's Dis­course of the Religion of England, p. 33. And as much is affirmed of the present, by a grave and sober Person amongst them, The Presbyterians generally hold the Church of England to be a true Church, though defective in its Order and Dis­cipline. And thus it's acknowledged in the name of the rest by one that undertakes their Defence, and would defend them in their Separation, Non-Confor­mists no Schis­maticks, p. 13. We acknow­ledge the Church of England to be a true Church, and that we are Members of the same visible Church with them. And this they do not only barely assert, but do undertake to prove: This is done by the old Non-Conformists, in their Confutation of the Brownists, [Page 5] who thus begin, A grave and sober Confut. p. 1. &c. p. 57. That the Church of England is a true Church of Christ, and such an one, as from which whosoe­ver wittingly and willingly separateth himself, cutteth him­self off from Christ, we doubt not but the indifferent Rea­der may be perswaded by these Reasons following:

So Mr. Ball: Friendly Try­al of the grounds of Se­parat c. 13. p. 306. Wheresoever we see the Word of God truly taught and professed in Points fundamental, and the Sacraments for substance rightly administred, there is the true Church of Christ, though the health and soundness of it may be crazed by many errours in Do­ctrine, corruptions in the Worship of God, and evils in the life and manners of men. A Letter of many ministers in Old England to others in New England. p. 24. As much as this is also affirmed in the Letters passed betwixt the Ministers of Old England and New England, It is simply necessary to the being of a Church that it be laid upon Christ the foun­dation, which being done, the remaining of what is for­bidden, or the want of what is commanded cannot put the Society from the Title or Right of a true Church.

And if we enquire into the judgment of the pre­sent Non-Conformists, we shall find them likewise ar­guing [Page 6] for it: Jerubbaal; Or, the Pleader Impleaded, p. 18. & 27. Thus the Author of Jerubbaal, ‘The Essentials constitutive of a true Church, a re, 1. The Head; 2. The Body; 3. The Union that is between them: Which three concurring in the Church of England, Christ being the professed Head, She being Christ's professed Body, and the Catho­lick Faith being the Union-band whereby they are coupled together, She cannot in justice be denied a true (though God knows far from a pure) Church.’

If we should proceed in this Argument, and consi­der the Particulars, I might fill a Volume with Testi­monies of this kind. The Doctrine of the Church is universally held to be true and sound, even the Brownists own'd it of old in their calm mood, who declare, Brownists A­pol. p, 7. An. 1604. We testifie to all men by these Presents, That we have not forsaken any one Point of the true, ancient, A­postolick Faith professed in our Land, but hold the same grounds of Christian Religion with them. See more in Bayly's Disswasive, c. 2. p. 20.33. and Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation, part 1. §. 9. p. 31. The Presbyterians (if I may so call them for distincti­on sake) do owne it. Discourse, §. 21. p. 43. So M ^r Corbet, The Doctrin of Faith and Sacraments by Law established is heartily recei­ved by the Non-Conformists. Preface to 5. Disp. p. 6. So M ^r Baxter, As for the Doctrin of the Church of England, the Bishops and their Followers from the first Reformation begun by Edward the VI, were found in Doctrine, adhering to the Augu­stan method express'd now in the Articles and Homilies, they differed not in any considerable Point from those whom they called Puritans. The like is affirmed by the Independents, Peace-Offer­ing, p. 12. See Mr. Ba­xter's Defence of his Cure, part 1. p. 64. & part 2. p. 3. & Wadsworth in his Separation, yet no Schism, p. 60, 62. Mr. Troughton's Apology for the Non-Conformists, c. 3. p. 106. The Confession of the Church of England, declared in the Articles of Religion, and herein what is purely Doctrinal, we fully embrace As to the Worship, they owne it for the matter and substance to be good, [Page 7] and for Edification. So the old Non-Conformists, Letter 26. on John, p. 121. as M ^r Hildersham, There is nothing in our Assemblies, but we may receive profit by it, &c. And again, There is nothing done in God's Publick Worship among us, but what is done by the Institution, Ordinance and Commandment of the Lord. So among the present, it is own'd by both Presbyteri­ans and Independents; Morning-Ex­ercise, Serm 4. p. 91. by the former in the Morning-Exercise, Why may it not be supposeable, that Christians may be moved by reasonable considerations to attend the Publick Forms, the substantial parts of them being thought agreeable to a Divine Institution, though in some Cir­cumstantials too disagreeable. So it's acknowledged, T [...]ghton's A­pol. p. 104. That in private Meetings the same Doctrine and Wor­ship is used as in the Parish Churches, only some Circum­stances and Ceremonies omitted. By the latter, Peace-Offer­ing, p. 17. We know full well that we differ in nothing from the whole form of Religion established in England, but only in some few things in outward Worship. But I shall have fur­ther occasion to treat of this under the third General. As for the Ministry of the Church, 1. It is acknow­ledged to be true, and for substance the same which Christ hath established. So M ^r Bradshaw, I affirm, Unreasonable­ness of the Se­paration, p. 16. That the Ministry of our Church-Assemblies (howsoever it may in some particular parts of the execution happily be defective in some places) is for the substance thereof that very same Ministry which Christ hath set in his Church. This he speaks, as he saith, of those that do subscribe and conform according to the Laws of the State.

2. That they have all things necessarily belonging to their Office; so the grave and modest Confutation maintains, Grave and mo­dest Confutat. p. 28. The preaching of the whole truth of God's Word, and nothing but it; the administration of the Sacraments and of publick Prayer, as they are all parts of the Ministers Office prescribed in the Word, so they [Page 8] are all appointed to our Ministers by the Law.

3. They owne, That all the defects in it, whether in their Call or Administration, do not nullifie the Of­fice. Thus much M ^r Bradshaw doth contend for, Unreasonable­ness of Separa­tion, p. 27.37. So many of our Ministers (who in the Book of Ordina­tion are called Priests and Deacons) as in all Points concerning the substance of their Ministry, are qualified according to the intent of the Laws, have their Offices, Callings, Administration and maintenance, for the sub­stance thereof ordained by Christ. And yet I deny not, but there may be some accidental defects, or superfluities in or about them all; yet such as do not, or cannot be proved to destroy the nature and substance of any of them. This is maintained at large in the Letter of the Ministers in Old England, Apologet. Nar­ration, p. 6. &c. p. 86, 87.

And the like is also affirmed even by those of the Congregational way, so the Brethren in their Apolo­gy, The unwarrantable power in Church-Governours did never work in any of us any other thought, much less o­pinion, but that the Ministry thereof [of the English Churches] was a true Ministry. Cotton's Infant Baptism, p. 181. So M ^r Cotton, The power whereby the Ministers in England do admini­ster the Word and Sacraments, is either spiritual and proper, essential to their Calling, or adventitious and ac­cidental. The former they have received from Christ, &c. The latter from the Patron who presents, or the Bi­shop who ordains, &c. Whoever has a mind to see their Ordination defended may consult Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, part 2. p. 12, 16, 17, 25, &c. Jus Divinum R [...]gim. Eccles. p. 264, &c. Cawdry's Indepen­dency a great Schism, p. 116. and his Defence of it, p. 35, 37.

Thus far therefore we see how far it is agreed, that the Church of England is a true Church in its Do­ctrine, Worship and Ministry. But when we come [Page 9] to consider what the Church is they own thus to be true, there we shall find that they do differ. The Presbyterians generally own a National Church, and have writ much in the behalf of it, as may be seen in the Books quoted in the Margin Jus Divinam Minist. Evang. p. 12. &c. Brinsly's Church remedy, p. 41, 42. Cawdry Inde­pend. a great Schism, p. 60, 89, 172: others look upon it as a prudential thing, and what may lawfully be complyed with; So Mr. Tombs Theodu [...]ia, or just defence▪ §. 15, 16. Pre­face, &c. 9. §. 3. It is no more against the Gospel to term the believers of England the Church of England, than it is to term believers through­out the World the Cahtholick Church; nor is it more un­fit for us, to term our selves Members of the Catholick Church; nor is there need to shew any institution of our Lord, more for the one than the other.

But those that will not own it to be a true Church in respect of such a constitution, or that speak doubt­fully of it, do yet assert as much of the Parish Churches. Its acknowledged by all, that the distribution into Parishes is not of divine but humane institution; but withal, its thought by some Croston's refor­mation not se­paration, p. 10. and Bethshe­mesh clouded, p. 101. &c. Cawdrey's Independ▪ a great Schism, p. 132. &c. Church-Reformation, p. 42. agreeable to the rea­son of the thing, and somewhat favoured by Scri­pture, and by experience has been found to be of such convenience, advantage, and security to Reli­gion, that a person of great eminence hath more than once said Mr. Baxter's Plea for Peace, Epist. Serm. on Gal. 6.10. p. 24. Defence p. 21. part 1. p. 36.; I doubt not but he that will preserve Religion here in its due advantages, must endeavour to preserve the soundness, concord and honour of the Parish Churches. And another very worthy per­son saith Mr. Corbit's ac­count of the Principles, &c. of several Non-conformists, p. 25., that the nullifying and treading down the Parish Churches is a Popish Design. But whate­ver opinion others may have of that Form, yet all of one sort and another, agree that the Church­es so called, are or may be true Churches. Troughton's A­pol. p. 103. This was the general opinion of the old Non-Conformists. Thus saith a late Writer, who, though he is unwilling to grant that they did own the National Church to be a true Church, yet doth admit (as he needs [Page 10] must at least) that they did own the several Parishes or Congregations in England to be true Churches, both in respect of their constitution, and also in respect of their doctrine and worship, and that there were in them no such intollerable corruptions, as that all Christians should fly from them. And even those that were in other respects opposite enough to the Church, did so declare; Defence of his Cure, part 2. p. 178. It was, saith Mr. Baxter, the Parish Churches that had the Liturgy, V. Letter of Ministers of Old England to New, p. 49. which Mr. H. Jacob the Father of the Congregational party wrote for com­munion with, against Fr. Johnson, and in respect to which be called them Separatists against whom he wrote. The same I may say of Mr. Bradshaw, Dr. Ames, and other Non-Conformists, whom the Congregational Bre­thren think were favourable to their way.

And if we will hearken to the abovesaid Author, he saith again and again, Apol. c. 4. p. 117. that the general sence of the present Non-Conformists both Ministers and People, is, that the Parishes of England generally are true Church­es, both as to the matter of them, the people being Chri­stians; and as to the form, their Ministers being true Ministers, such as for their doctrine and manners de­serve not to be degraded. But left he should be thought to incline to one side, I shall produce the testimony of such as are of the Congregational way. As for those of New-England, Defence of his Cure, part 2. p. 177. Mr. Baxter doth say, that their own expressions signify that they take the English Parishes that have godly Ministers for true Churches though faulty. Wav cleared, p. 8. Mr. Cotton professeth that Robinson's denial of the Parishional Churches to be true Churches, was never received into any heart amongst them; and otherwhere saith, His Letter, p. 3. printed 1641. we dare not deny to bless the womb that bare us, and the paps that gave us suck.

V. Hooker's Sur­vey, Preface, & part 1. p. 47. The five Dissenting Brethren do declare, We have this sincere profession to make before God and the World, that all the conscience of the defilements in the [Page 11] Church of England, &c. did never work in us any o­ther thought, much less opinion, but that multitudes of the Assemblies and Parochial Congregation thereof, were the true Churches and Body of Christ. To come nearer, On the Ephes. p. 487, 488, 489. Dr. T. Goodwin doth condemn it as an error in those who hold particular Churches (those you call Parish-Church­es) to be no true Churches of Christ, and their Mini­sters to be no true Ministers, and upon that ground for­bear all Church-Communion with them in hearing, or in any other Ordinance, &c. and saith, I acquitted myself [before] from this, and my Brethren in the Ministry.

But the Church of England is not only thus acknowledged a true Church, but hath been al­so looked upon as the most valuable in the World; whether we consider the Church it self, or those that minister in it. The Church it self, of which the Authors of the grave and modest confutation thus write; Pag. 6. All the known Churches in the world acknowledge our Church for their sister, and give unto us the right hand of fellowship, Ibid. &c Dr. Good­win saith, If we should not acknowledge these Churches so stated [i. e. Parish-Churches] to be the true Churches of Christ, and their Ministers true Ministers, and their order such, and bold Communion with them too in the sence spoken of, we must acknowledge no Church in all the Reformed Churches, &c, for they are all as full of mixture as ours. And Mr. J. Goodwin saith, Sion College visited. that there was more of the truth and power of Religion in Eng­land, under the late Prelatical Government, than in all the Reformed Churches in the World besides. If we would have a Character of the Ministry of the Church of England, as it was then, Unreasonable­ness of the Se­paration, p. 97. Mr. Bradshaw gives it, Our Churches are not inferiour for number of able men, yea and painful Ministers, to any of the re­formed Churches of Christ in foreign parts, &c. And [Page 12] certainly the number of such is much advanced since his time. But I cannot say more of this subject than I find in a page or two of an Author I must frequent­ly use, Mr. Baxter's Cure of Church Divisions, Dir. 56. p. 263. to which I refer the Reader.

Before I proceed, I shall only make this inference from what hath been said, that if the Church of England be a true Church, the Churches true Churches, the Ministry a true Ministry, the Doctrine found and Orthodox, the worship in the main good and allowable, and the defects such as render not the Ordinances unacceptable to God, and ineffectu­al to us; I think there is much said toward the pro­ving Communion with that Church lawful, and to justifie those that do join in it? which brings to the second general, which is to consider,

2. What opinion the sober and eminent Non-Con­formists have of Communion with the Church of England? And they generally hold,

1. That they are not totally to separate from it; this follows from the former, and must be own'd by all them that hold she is a true Church; for to own it to be such, and yet to separate totally from it would be to own and disown it at the same time: So say the members of the Assembly of Divines, Papers for ac­comodation, p. 47. Thus to depart from true Churches, is not to hold Communion with them as such, but rather by departing to declare them not to be such. Reasons for the Christian Reli­gion, p. 464. And saith Mr. Baxter, nothing will warrant us to separate from a Church as no Church [which yet is the case in total separation] but the want of something essential to a Church: But if the Church have all things essential to it, it is a true Church, V. Annotations on the Apolo­get. Narrat. p. 17. and not to be separated from. When the Church of Rome is called a true Church, its under­stood in a metaphysical or natural sence, as a thief is a true man, and the Devil himself, though the Fa­ther [Page 13] of lies, is a true spirit: But withal she is a false Church (as M ^r Brinsly saith from Bishop Hall) an He­retical, Apostatical, Antichristian Synagogue: Arraignment of Schim, p. 26. And so to separate from her is a duty. But when the Church of England is said to be a true Church, or the Paro­chial Churches true Churches, its in a moral sense, as they are found Churches, which may safely be communicated with. Dwelling with God, Serm. 6. p. 289, 291. Thus doth D ^r Bryan make the opposition, The Church of Rome, is a part of the uni­versal visible Church of Christians, so far as they pro­fess Christianity, and acknowledge Christ their head; but it is the visible society of Traiterous Usurpers, so far as they profess the Pope to be their Head, &c. From this Church therefore which is Spiritual Babylon, God's people are bound to separate, &c. but not from Churches which have made separation from Rome, as the reform­ed Protestant Churches in France, and these of Great Britain have done, in whose Congregations is found truth of Doctrine, a lawfull Ministry, and a people pro­fessing the true Religion, submitting to, and joyning to­gether in the true Worship of God. Such a separati­on would (as has been said) unchurch it. This would be deny Christ holds Communion with it, or to deny Communion with a Church with which Christ holds Communion, contrary to a principle that is, I think, universally maintained, ‘The errour of these men saith Mr. Brightman On Rev. c. 2. V. Jenkin on Jude, v. 19. Allen Vindiciae Pietatis, se­cond part p. 123. Vindication of Presbyterian Government, p. 130. Cotton on John, p. 156., is full of evil, who do in such a manner make a departure from this Church [by total separation] as if Christ were quite banished from hence, and that there could be no hope of salvation to those that abide there. Let these men consider, that Christ is here feasting with his members; will they be ashamed to sit at meat there, where Christ is not ashamed to sit?’ Further, this would be a notorious Schism, so the old Non-Conformists [Page 14] Conformists conclude Grave confut. p. 57. Cawdrey's In­dependency further pro­ved, p. 136., because we have a true Church, consisting of a lawful Ministry, and a faithful people, therefore they cannot separate themselves from us, but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious re­proach of manifest Schism; for what is that, saith ano­ther Brinsly's Ar­raignment, p. 15, 24, 44., but a total separation from a true Church? This lastly, would not diminish, but much increase the fault of the separation, as another saith Baily's disswa­sive, c. 6. p. 104.; For it is a great­er sin to depart from a Church, which I profess to be true, and whose ministry I acknowledge to be saving, than from a Church which I conceive to be false, and whose ministers I take to have no calling from God, nor any blessing from his hand. This therefore is their avow'd principle, that total separation from the Church is unlawful: And this the old Non-Confor­mists did generally hold and maintain against the Brownists Ames's Puri­tanismus Angl. V. Parker on the Cross, part 2. c. 91. §. 21. Bax. Def. p. 55.; and the Dissenting Brethren did de­clare on their part Apologet Nar. p. 6., We have always professed, and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most, either actually overspread with defilements, or in the greatest danger thereof, &c. that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Church of Christ. And among the present Non-Conformists, several have writ for Communion with the Church against those that separate from it, and have in Print declared it to be their duty and their practice. So M ^r Baxter Sac. il. desert. p. 76., I constantly joyn in my Parish-Church in Liturgy and Sacraments. Its said of M ^r Joseph Al­len The Life of Mr. J. Allen, p. 111., That he as frequently attended on the publick worship, as his opportunities and strength permitted The Doctrine of Schism, p. 64.: Of Mr. Brinsley, that he ordinarily attended on the Publick Worship. Dr. Collins saith as much of him­self Reasonable account, &c.. Mr. Lye in his Farewell Sermon doth advise his People to ‘attend the Publick Worship of God, to hear the best they could, and not to separate, [Page 15] but to do as the old Puritans did thirty years before.’ Mr. Cradacot in his farewel Sermon professeth, That if that Pulpit was his dying Bed, he would earnestly perswade them to have a care of total separation from the Publick Worship of God. Mr. Hickman freely de­clares, Bonasus vapu­lans, p. 113. I profess where-ever I come, I make it my busi­ness to reconcile people to the publick Assemblies, my con­science would fly in my face if I should do otherwise. And Mr. Corbet as he did hold Communion with the Church of England Account of the Principles of the Non-Conformists, p. 26., so saith, That the Presbyteri­ans generally frequent the Worship of God in the Pub­lick Assemblies Discourse of the Religion, &c. p. 33. V. Mr. Read's Case, p. 15. Non-confor­mists Plea for Lay-Commu­nion, p. 1.. Its evident then that it is their principle, and we may charitably believe it is their practice in Conformity to it. Thus Mr. Corbet de­clares for himself, ‘I own Parish-Churches, ha­ving a competent Minister, and a number of cre­dible Professors of Christianity, for true Churches, and the Worship therein performed, as well in Common-Prayer as in the Preaching of the Word, to be in the main sound, and good for the substance or matter thereof: And I may not disown the same in my practice by a total neglect thereof, for my judgment and practice ought to be concordant.’ And if these two, judgment and practice, be not con­cordant, it would be impossible to convince men that they are in earnest, or that they do believe themselves while they declare against separation and yet do keep it up. Non-Confor­mists Plea for Peace, §. 17. p. 240. Those good men therefore were aware of this, who met a little after the Plague and Fire to consider (saith Mr. Baxter) whether our actual forbearance to joyn with the Parish-Churches in the Sa­crament [and much more if it was total] might not tend to deceive men, and make them believe that we were for separation from them, and took their Commu­nion to be unlawful: And upon the reasons given in, [Page 16] they agreed such Communion to be lawful and meet, when it would not do more harm than good; that is, they agreed that it was lawful in it self.

2. They hold that they are not to separate fur­ther from such a true Church, than the things that they separate for are unlawful, or are conceived so to be; that is, that they ought to go as far as they can, and do what lawfully they may toward Commu­nion with it. For they declare B [...]rroughs Ire­nicum, p. 182., That to joyn in nothing, because they cannot joyn in all things, is a di­viding practice, and not to do what they can do in that case is Schism, for then the separation is rash and unjust Vindication of Presbyt. Govern. Brinsly Arraign­ment, p. 16.32. Corbet's Plea for Lay-Com­munion, &c. p. 2.. If therefore the Ministerial Commu­nion be thought unlawful, and the Lay-Communi­on lawful, the unlawfulness of the former doth not bar a person from joyning in the latter. ‘The de­nying of assent and consent to all and every thing contained in the Book of Common-Prayer, doth not gainsay the lawfulness of partaking in that Worship, it being found for the substance in the main, &c. as a judicious person hath observed.’ This was the case generally of the old Non-Confor­mists, Irenicum, by Discipulus de tempore, Junior, aliàs M. Newco­men, Epist. to Reader. who notwithstanding their exclusion from their Publick Ministry, held full Communion with the Church of England. We are told by a good hand, ‘That as heretofore M ^r Parker, M ^r Knewstubs, M ^r Vdal, &c. and the many Scores suspended in Queen Elizabeth, and King James's Reign; so also of la­ter times, M ^r Dod, M ^r Cleaver, &c. were utterly a­gainst even Semi-Separation; Friendly Try­al, c. 7. p. 121. i. e. against absenting themselves from the Prayers and the Lord's Supper.’ So its affirmed of them by M ^r Ball, They have ever­more condemned voluntary Separation from the Con­gregations and Assemblies, or negligent frequenting of [Page 17] those Publick Prayers. Hildersham Lect. on John. R. Rogers's 7. Treatises. Tr. 7. c. 4. p. 224. And some of them earnestly press the People to prefer the publick service before the private, and to come to the beginning of the Prayers, as an help to stir up Gods Graces, &c. And others did both receive the Sacrament, and exhort others so to do, as I shall afterward shew. Again, if in Lay-Communion any thing is thought to be unlawful, that is no reason against the things that are lawful; This was the case of many of the godly and learned Non-Conformists in the last age, as we are told, That were perswaded in their Consciences, Vindicat. of the Presbyt. Gov. p. 135. that they could not hold Communion with the Church of England, in receiving the Sacrament kneeling without Sin; yet did they not separate from her. Indeed in that particular act they withdrew, but yet so, as they held Communion with her in the rest. And thus much is owned by those of the present age, as one declares; ‘The Church of England being a true Church (so that a total separation from her is unwarrantable) therefore Communion with her in all parts of real solemn Worship, Jerubbaal p. 28.30. wherein I may joyn with her, without either let or sin, is a duty. Troughton's A­pol. p. 107.’ So another saith of them; They are ready and desirous to return to a full union with the Parishes when ever the obstacles shall be removed. And again, They hold Communion with the Parishes, not only in Faith and Doctrine, but also in acts of worship, where they think they can law­fully do it. This those of the Congregational way do also accord to, that they ought in all lawful things to communicate with the Churches of England; Mr. Nye's Case of great and present use, p. 4. and 5. Mr. Read's Case, p. 14. not only in obedience to the Magistrate (in which case they also acknowledge it to be their duty as well as others) but also as they are true Churches; and therefore plead for the lawfulness of hearing the esta­blished Ministry, and undertake to answer the ob­jections [Page 18] brought against it, whether taken from the Ministers ordination Burrough's I­renicum, p. 183. or lives, or the Church in which they are Ministers, &c. as you may find them in Mr. Robinson's Plea for it of old; Lawfulness Hearing the Publick Mini­sters of the Church of Eng­land. Nye's Case, p. 24, 25. and Mr. Nye's of late, as they are Printed together. Upon the con­sideration of which the latter of these thus concludes, ‘In most of the misperswasions of these latter times, by which men's minds have been corrupted, I find, in whatsoever they differ one from another, yet in this they agree, That it's unlawful to hear in pub­lick; which I am perswaded is one constant design of Satan in the variety of ways of Religion he hath set on foot by Jesuits amongst us. Let us there­fore be the more aware of whatsoever tends that way. Theodulia; Or, A just Defence of Hearing, &c. c. 10. §. 15. p. 369. c. 9. §. 8. p. 319.’ Of this Opinion also is M ^r Tombs (though he continued an Anabaptist) who has writ a whole Book to defend the Hearing of the present Ministers of England, and toward the Close of the Work hath given forty additional Reasons for it, and in opposi­tion to those he writes against doth affirm, Sure, if the Church be called Mount Sion from the preaching of the Gospel, the Assemblies of England may be called Sion, Christ's Candlesticks and Garden, as well as any Christians in the World. Treatise of the lawfulness of Hearing, &c. p. ult. I shall conclude this with what M ^r Robinson saith in this Case; viz. For my self thus I believe with my heart before God, and profess with my tongue, and have before the World, that I have one and the same Faith, Spirit, Baptism and Lord, which I had in the Church of England, and none o­ther; that I esteem so many in that Church, of what state or Order soever, as are truly Partakers of that Faith (as I account thousands to be) for my Christian Brethren, and my self a Fellow-member with them, of that one Mystical Body of Christ, scattered far and wide throughout the World: that I have always in spi­rit [Page 19] and affection, all Christian Fellowship and Commu­nion with them, and am most ready in all outward Acti­ons and Exercises of Religion, lawful and lawfully done, to express the same: And withal, that I am per­swaded the hearing of the Word of God there preached in the manner and upon the grounds formerly mentioned, both lawful, and upon occasion necessary for me and all true Christians, withdrawing from that Hierarchical Order of Church-Government and Ministry, and the uniting in the Order and Ordinances instituted by Christ. Thus far He.

From what hath been said upon this Head we may observe, that though these Reverend Persons do go upon different Reasons, according to the Principles they espouse, though they agree not in the Constitu­tion of Churches, &c. yet they all agree that the Parochial Churches are or may be (as I have obser­ved before) true Churches of Christ, that Commu­nion with such Churches is lawful, and that we are to go as far as we can toward Communion with them. Though they differ about the Notion of Hearing, as whether it be an Act of Communion, and about the Call of those they hear, yet they all agree in the law­fulness of it. And therefore to separate wholly in this Ordinance, and from the Parochial Churches as no Churches, are equally condemned by all.

3. They hold, that they are not to separate from a Church for unlawful things, if the things accounted unlawful are not of so heinous a nature as to un­church a Church, and affect the Vitals of Religion; or are not imposed as necessary terms of Commu­nion.

1. If the Corruptions are such as do not un­church a Church, or affect the vital parts of Reli­gion. So saith M ^r Tombs, ‘Not every, not many [Page 20] Corruptions of some kind do un-church, Theodulia. An­swer to Pre­face §. 23. p. 47, 48. Vid. Blake's Vindiciae Foed. c. 31. p. 229, &c. there being many in Faith, Worship and Conversati­on in the Churches of Corinth, and some of the Seven Churches of Asia, who yet were Gol­den Candlesticks, amidst whom Christ did walk. But such general, avowed, unrepented of errours in Faith, as overthrow the foundation of Christian Faith, to wit, Christ the only Mediator betwixt God and man, and salvation by him, Corruptions of Worship by Idolatry, in Life by evil manners, as are utterly inconsistent with Christianity, till which in whole or in part they are not unchurched.’ For till then the Corruptions are tolerable, and so afford no just reason to dissolve the Church, or to depart from it. Arraignment of Schism, p. 50. So M ^r Brinsley, Suppose some just grievances may be found among us, yet are they tolerable? If so, then is Separation on this ground intolerable, unwarranta­ble: in as much as it ought not to be, but upon a very great and weighty cause, and that when there is no reme­dy. Temple mea­sured, p. 78. So M ^r Noyes, ‘Private Brethren may not sepa­rate from Churches or Church-Ordinances, which are not fundamentally defective, neither in Do­ctrine or Manners, Heresy or Prophaness.’ To all which add the Testimony of D ^r Owen and M ^r Cotton. The former asserts, Evangelical Love, p. 76. ‘That many errours in Doctrine, disorders in sacred Administrations, irregular walking in Conversation, with neglect and abuse of Discipline in Rulers, may fall out in some Chur­ches, and yet not evacuate their Church-state, or give sufficient warrant to leave their Communion, and separate from them. Expos. on 1 Epist. John, p. 156.’ The latter saith, Vn­less you find in the Church Blasphemy, or Idolatry, or Persecution [that is, such as is intolerable] there is no just ground of separation. This is universally own'd: But if any one should yet continue unconvinced, let [Page 21] him but peruse the Catalogue of the faults of nine Churches in Scripture, collected by M ^r Baxter, and I perswade my self he will think the Conclusion in­ferr'd from it to be just and reasonable. Observe, Cure of Church-Divi­sions, Dir. 5. p. 40. &c. saith he, that no one member is in all these Scriptures, or any other, commanded to come out and separate from any of all these Churches, as if their Communion in Worship were unlawful. And therefore before you sepa­rate from any as judging Communion with them unlaw­ful, be sure that you bring greater reasons for it than any of these recited were.

2. They are not to separate, if the Corruptions are not so made the Conditions of Communion, that they must necessarily and unavoidably commu­nicate in them. On the Sacra­ment, p. 239. M ^r Vines speaks plainly to both of these, ‘The Church may be corrupted many ways, in Doctrine, Ordinances, Worship, &c. And there are degrees of this Corruption, the Doctrine in some remote Points, the Worship in some Rituals of mans invention or custom. How many Chur­ches do we find thus corrupted, and yet no Separa­tion of Christ from the Jewish Church, nor any Commandment to the Godly of Corinth, &c. to se­parate. I must in such a Case avoid the Corrupti­on, hold the Communion— But if Corruptions invade the Fundamentals, the foundation of Do­ctrine is destroyed, the Worship is become idola­trous; and what is above all, if the Church im­pose such Laws of her Communion as there is a ne­cessity of doing or approving things unlawful, in that Case, Come out of Babylon. The Churches of Protestants so separated from Rome.’

But if the things be not of so heinous a nature, nor thus strictly required, then Communion with a Church under defects is lawful, and may be a Duty. [Page 22] So saith M ^r Corbet in the name of the present Non-Conformists, Account of the Principles of N. C. p. 8. and Discourse of Religion, §. 16. p 33. We hold not our selves obliged to forsake a true Church as no Church for the corruptions and disorders found therein, or to separate from its Worship for the to­lerable faults thereof, while our personal profession of some errour, or practice of some evil is not required as the terms of our Communion. Irenicum, c. 23. p. 162, 163. And M ^r Burroughs himself doth grant as much and more; for he saith, ‘Where these Causes are not [ viz. the being constrained to profess, believe or practise contrary to the Rule of Faith, or being deprived of means altogether neces­sary, or most expedient to salvation] but men may communicate without sin, professing the truth, and enjoy all Ordinances, as the Free-men of Christ; Men must not separate from a Church, though there be corruption in it, to gather into a new Church, which may be more pure, and in some respects more comfortable.’ And as though such corrupti­ons should be imposed as terms of Communion, yet if not actually imposed upon us, our communicating in the true part of God's Worship is never the worse for the said imposition, as long as we do not communicate in those corruptions, The Unreason­ableness of the Separation, p. 107. as M ^r Bradshaw doth argue: So though they should be imposed and be unavoidable to all that are in Communion, that is not a sufficient reason for a total separation, as it is also own'd; for saith one, J [...]baal, p. 12. When the corruptions of a Church are such as that one cannot communicate with her without sin una­voidably, that seems to me to be a just ground, though not of a positive yet of a negative, though not of a total yet of a partial separation; it may be a just ground for the lesser, but is not so for the greater.

Supposing then the corruptions in a Church not to be of an heinous nature, not respecting the Funda­mentals of Religion; supposing again they are not [Page 23] necessarily imposed and unavoidable, then Separation for the sake of such is unwarrantable. But to make this the more uncontroulably evident, I shall consi­der the Corruptions as they respect Worship, or Discipline. In Worship, I shall consider the defects of it, in it self, in the Ministration, the Ministers and those that joyn with it, and shew that these do not diso­blige from Communion in it, and attendance upon it.

1. The defects of Worship, if not essential, are § 1 consistent with Communion, and no just reason for withdrawing from it. Apo▪ p. 7. This the Brownists did ac­knowledge with some qualification, ‘Neither count we it lawful for any member to forsake the Fellow­ship of the Church, for blemishes and imperfecti­ons, which every one, according to his Calling, should studiously seek to cure, &c.’ So M ^r Cotton, Expos. on 1 Epi [...]t. Joh. p. 157. Suppose there were and are sundry abuses in the Church, yet it was no safe ground of Separation. When the Sons of Eli corrupted the Sacrifices of God, their sin was great, yet it was the sin of the people to separate and ab­hor. England's Re­membrancer, Serm. 2. p. 38. Thus a Reverend Person in his Farewel Sermon doth rightly instruct his Auditors, ‘A means to hold fast what you have received, is diligent attendance on the publick Ordinances and Worship of God, if and when you can enjoy them in any measure ac­cording to God's Will, though not altogether in the manner you desire, and they should be admi­nistred in, &c. Though I dare not advise you to join in any thing that is in it self, or in your judg­ment evil, till you be satisfied about it; yet I must advise you to take heed of Separation from the Church, or from what is good, and God's own Ordinance, &c.’ For the fuller proof of which, it may not be amiss to produce the several Arguments u­sed by them in confirmation of this Truth. As,

[Page 24] Arg. 1. First, To break off Communion, or to refuse it for such defects, would be to look after a greater per­fection than this present state will admit of. Confession of Faith, Art. 36. So the Brownists do declare, None is to separate from a Church rightly gathered and established for faults and corruptions which may, and, so long as the Church consisteth of mor­tal men, will fall out and arise among them. And M ^r Jenkin argues upon this Principle, Comment on J [...], ver. 19. ‘Must not he who will forbear Communion with a Church till it be altogether freed from mixtures, tarry till the day of Judgment, till when we have no promise that Christ will gather out of his Church whatsoever doth offend?’ This was it that amongst other reasons conquer'd the prejudices of that Good Man M ^r J. Allen, His Life, p. 111. and kept him from Separation, of which we have this Account, ‘He knew of how great moment it was that the publick Worship of God should be maintained, and that its Assemblies should not be relinquished, though some of its Administrations did not clearly approve themselves unto him; be­cause upon the account of some imperfections and pollutions in them, supposed or real, to withdraw Communion, is evidently to suppose our selves join'd before our time to the heavenly Assembly, or to have found such an one upon Earth exempt from all mixtures and imperfections of Worship­pers and Worship.’ The want of this prudent con­sideration makes many to expect more than can be expected, and to look upon every defect or corrupti­on as intolerable; to prevent which therefore M ^r Baxter doth give this Advice to his Brethren, Sacrileg. De­sert. p. 96. Teach them to know that all men are imperfect and faulty, and so is all mens Worship of God; and that he that will not communicate with faulty Worship must renounce Communion with all the World, and all with him.

[Page 25] Secondly, They argue, Arg. 2. our Saviour and the Apostles did not separate from defective Churches and Wor­ship, but communicated in it notwithstanding the corruptions, and therefore its not unlawful for others so to do. No doubt it was written for our instruction, saith a Reverend Person, Englands Re­membrancer, Serm. 4. p. 94, 95. our Lord Jesus Christ (who was as zealous for purity in God's Worship, as much a­gainst corrupt mixtures of mens inventions therein as any can pretend to be) used to attend on the publick Worship in his time, notwithstanding the many cor­ruptions brought into it. That he went into their As­semblies not to joyn in any Worship, but only to bear witness against their corruptions, is no where written; but rather the contrary is held forth in Scripture, when he acknowledgeth himself a member of the Church of the Jews, approves of and justifies their Worship, as right for substance, that salvation might be attained therein, which he denies to be attainable in any other Worship, John 4.22. we know (including himself amongst those that worshipped God aright) what we worship, for sal­vation is of the Jews. This is sufficiently proved by many Ball's Tryal, p. 132., that Christ did communicate with the Jew­ish Church, and is granted as well by those of the Congregational as The platform of Discipline in New England, c. 14. §. 8. Presbyterial way: And yet Do­ctrine, Discipline, and Worship were much corrupt­ed, of which M ^r Hildersham doth give a specimen Lect. 35. on John, p. 165, 166., but especially D ^r Bryan Dwelling with God, p. 294.; ‘There were many great corruptions in the Church of the Jews in Christ's time, the Priests and Teachers were ignorant and wicked, and had a corrupt and unlawful entrance into their calling; and the People were like to the Priest, generally notoriously and obstinately ungodly; and the Worship used in that Church was wofully corrupt, many superstitious Ceremo­nies, the observation whereof were more strictly [Page 26] urged, than the Commandments and Ordi­nances of God, the Temple made a Den of Thieves, the Discipline and censures shamefully a­bused, the Doctrine was corrupt in many points; yet the word tells you, Christ (whose example it binds you to follow, and you profess your selves followers of him in all imitable things) made no separation from this Church, professed himself a Member of it, was by Circumcision incorporated a Member, received Baptism in a Congregation of that People, was a hearer of their common Service and their Teachers, allowing and commanding his Disciples to hear them, communicated in the Pass­over with the People and the Priest; no more did his Apostles make separation from this Church af­ter his Ascension, till their day had its Period, &c. By their example it appears, that till God hath forsaken a Church, no man may forsake it, &c.’ So that we may conclude from hence with M ^r Hil­dersham, Ibid. Those Assemblies that enjoy the Word and Do­ctrine of Salvation, though they have many corruptions remaining in them, are to be acknowledged as true Church­es of God, and such as none of the faithful may make Separation from. We shall need no further proof of this Doctrine than the example of our Saviour himself, &c. For why should our Saviour use it if it was un­lawful; The Unreaso­nableness of S [...]paration, p. 104. or why should it be a Sin in us, who have not such Eyes to pierce into the impiety of mans Traditions as he had, as M ^r Bradshaw argues.

The same measures were observed also by the Apo­stles after the establishment of the Christian Church; This is not to be gainsaid, and is therefore granted by one, Non-Confor­mists no Schis­maticks, p. 15. in other things rigid more than enough; ‘I do not say that every corruption in a true Church, is sufficient ground of Separation from it: The [Page 27] unsoundness of many in the Church of Corinth, touching the Doctrine of the Resurrection, and in Galatia touching the Doctrine of Circumcision, and the necessity of keeping the Ceremonial Law, were not sufficient ground of Separation from them; for the Apostles held Communion with them, not­withstanding these corruptions.’ Now by parity of reason it will follow, that if Separation was not to be allowed from those corrupted Churches, then sure­ly not from such as are not so corrupted as they; Independ. a great Schism, p. 195. So M ^r Cawdrey pleads, Corinth had (we suppose) greater disorders in it than are to be found (blessed be God) in many of our Congregations; why then do they fly and separate from us? And if our Saviour and his Apo­stles did not separate from such Churches, much less should we, who may without doubt safely follow the advice given by an Author above-quoted; Englands Re­membrancer, Serm. 4. p. 111. When you are at a stand think how Christ would have carried, what he would have done in the like case with yours, and we may thereby be concluded.

Thirdly, They further argue, Arg. 3. that Christ doth still hold Communion with defective Churches, and not reject the Worship for tolerable corruptions in it, and so neither ought we. It is supposed by a worthy person, Dr. Owen's dis­course of E­vangel. Love, c. 3. p. 81. that ‘there is no such society of Christians in the World, whose Assemblies, as to instituted Worship, are so rejected by Christ, as to have a Bill of Divorce given unto them, until they are utterly as it were extirpate by the Providence of God, &c. For we do judge, that where-ever the Name of Jesus Christ is called upon, there is Salvation to be obtained; however the ways of it may be obstructed unto the most by their own sins and errors.’ And if this may be said of Churches, though fundamentally erroneous in Wor­ship, [Page 28] then, Troughton's A­pol. p. 110. who shall dare, as another saith, to judge when Christ hath forsaken a People who still profess his Name, and keep up his Worship for substance according to his word, though they do or are supposed to fail in circumstances or lesser parts of duty? Now, this grant­ed, the other will follow, that then we are not to separate from such Churches. Lect. 35. on John, p. 165, 166. and Lect. 82. p. 384. Thus M ^r Hildersham concluded of old from the practice of Christ, and observes, ‘1. So long as God continueth his word and the Doctrine of Salvation to a People, so long it is evident that God dwells among them, and hath not forsaken them, V. Dr. Bryan's dwelling with God, p. 293. &c. And till God hath forsaken a Church, no man may forsake it. 2. No Separa­tion may be made from those Assemblies, where men may be assured to find and attain Salvation, but men may be sure to find and attain Salvation in such Assemblies, where the Ministry of his word, and the Doctrine of Salvation is contained.’ So M ^r Vines on the Sacra­ment, p. 242. Croston's hard way to Heaven, p. 36. Noye's Tem­ple measured, p. 79. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Davenport's A­pol. reply, p. 281. Ball's Tryal, p. 159, &c., The Argument, saith he, of M ^r Brightman is considerable, if God afford his Communion with a Church by his own Ordinances, Grace and Spirit, it would be unnatural and peevish in a Child to forsake his Mother, while his Father owns her for his Wife. I might heap up Authorities of this kind, but shall content my self with a considerable one from M ^r Cotton Com. on 1 E­pist. John p. 156., who reasons after this manner; ‘The pra­ctice of the Brownists is blame-worthy, because they separate where Christ keeps fellowship, Rev. 1.18. And that he walks with us we argue, because he is still pleased to dispense to us the word of life, and edifies many Souls thereby, and therefore surely Christ hath fellowship with us; and shall man be more pure than his Maker? where Christ vouchsafes fellowship shall man renounce it?’

Upon this are grounded the wholesome exhorta­tions [Page 29] of many eminent Non-Conformists, as that of M ^r Calamy; Godly Mans Ark, Epist. Ded. You must hold Communion with all those Churches with which Christ holds Communion; you must separate from the sins of Christians, but not from the Ordinances of Christ. Of M ^r R. Allein; Godly Mans portion, p. 122. Excommu­nicate not them from you, excommunicate not your selves from them with whom Christ holds Communion. V. Bains on the Ephes. c. 2.15. p. 297. Englands Re­membrancer, Serm. 16. p. 455. Judge not that Christ withdraws from all those who are not in every thing of your mind and way. ‘Methinks, saith a Reverend Person in his Farewel Sermon, where a Church as to the main, keeps the form of sound words, and the substantials of that Worship which is Christs, some adjudged defects in order cannot justifie separation. I dare not dismember my self from that Church that holds the head. I think whilst Doctrine is for the main sound, Christ stays with a Church; and it is good staying where he stays: I would follow him and not lead him, or go before the Lamb.’ To such we find a severe rebuke given very lately by a Reverend Person; Continuat. of Morn. Exer. Serm. 16. p. 459. Proud conceited Christians are not contented to come out and separate from the unbelieving idolatrous World, but they will separate also from the true Church of Christ, and cast off all Communion with them who hold Communion with him.

Fourthly, They argue, Arg. 4. that to separate for such de­fects and corruptions would destroy all Communion. If this should be, Unreas. of the Separat. p. 103. saith M ^r Bradshaw then no man can present himself with a good Conscience, at any publick Worship of God wheresoever; because (except it should be stinted and prescribed) he can have no assurance, but that some errours in matter and form will be committed. So M ^r Ball; ‘One man is of opinion, Tryal of the grounds of Se­parat. c. 137, 13 [...] ▪ that a pre­scribed Form is better than another; another that a prescribed Form is unlawful, &c. In these cases, [Page 30] if the least errour do stain the Prayers to others, that they may not lawfully joyn together, with whom shall the faithful joyn at all? Is not this to fill the Conscience with scruples, and the Church with rents? Sacrileg desert. p. 95.’ Such as these must, if they will be true to their own Principles, renounce Communion with all the World, Defence of his Cure, part 1. p. 47. and be like those that M ^r Baxter tell us he knows, that never Communicate with any Church, nor ever publickly hear, or pray, or Worship God at all, because they think all your ways [which he directs to M ^r Bagshaw and other Non-Conformists] of Worship to be bad.

With this there can be no continuance in any Communion, Iren. c 23. p. 163. so much M ^r Burroughs doth maintain; ‘There would be no continuance in Church-fellow­ship if this [a separation from a Church for cor­ruptions in it] were admitted; for what Church is so pure, and hath all things so comfortable, but within a while another Church will be more pure, and some things will be more comfortable there?’ Upon the mischievous consequence of this did M ^r R. Allein ground his last advice to his Parishioners; Godly Mans portion, p. 124. Destroy not, saith he, all Communion by seeking after a purer Church, than in this imperfect estate we shall ever attain. According to this principle [no Commu­nion at all, if not in all] where shall we rest? In all society something will offend.

With this, lastly, there can be no Order, Union, or Peace in the Church; Com. on Ephes. c. 2.15. p. 297. so M ^r Bains, a Person of great experience; This [seeking the Peace of Sion] reproveth such as make a seression or departure from the Church of God, our visible Assemblies, either upon dislike of some disorders in administration Ecclesiastical, or disallowed Forms, and manner of procuring things, which the Communion of Saints for full complement [Page 31] and perfection requireth. This is not, in my conceit, so much to reform as to deform, to massacre the Body and divide the Head, Morton's Me­morial, p. 78. &c. Mr. Baxter's Def. of Cure, part 2. p. 171. &c. and will end in the disso­lution of all Church-Communion (if it be followed) as is notoriously evident in the case of M ^r R. Williams of New England, that for the sake of greater puri­ty separated so long, that he owned no Church nor Ordinances of God in the World; and at his moti­on, the people that were in Communion with him dissolved themselves, as we have the account from thence. This therefore is one of the Doctrines we are to avoid, according to the prudent advice in a Book above-cited; Englands Re­membrancer, Ser. 14. p. 371. ‘Doctrines crying up purity to the ruine of unity, reject; for the Gospel calls for unity as well as purity.’

Fifthly. They argue, Arg. 5. that to separate upon such an account is not at all warranted in Scripture. Thus M ^r Cawdrey; ‘It is no duty of Christs imposing, Independ. a Schism, p. 192. no priviledge of his purchasing▪ either to deprive a mans self of his Ordinances for other mens sins, or to set up a new Church in opposition to a true Church, as no Church rightly constituted, for want of some reformation in lighter matters.’ Saith Mr. Blake, Vindiciae soed. c. 31. p. 228. We read not of Separation in this way [for the sake of abuses and corruptions] approved, nor any presidents to go before us in it; we read a heavy brand laid upon it, Jude 19. These be they who separate them­selves, sensual, not having the Spirit. So the Congre­gations in New-England declare; Platform of Di­scipline in New England, c. 14. §. 8. ‘The faithful in the Church of Corinth, wherein were many un­worthy persons and practices, are never commanded to absent themselves from the Sacrament because of the same; therefore the godly in like causes are not presently to separate.’ It should rather have been in­fer'd, are not to separate, for so much must be con­cluded [Page 32] from the premises, if any thing at all. This is accordingly infer'd by Mr. Noyes; Temple mea­sured, p. 78. For Brethren to separate from Churches and Church-Ordinances, which are not fundamentally defective, neither in Doctrine or Manners, in Heresy or Prophaneness is contrary to the Doctrine and Practice both of Christ and his Apo­stles. Unto whom I shall add the testimony of Mr. Tombs; Theodulia Ans. to Pres. §. 25. p. 48. ‘Separation from a Church somewhat erro­neous or corrupt in Worship or Conversation, &c. is utterly dissonant from any of the rules or exam­ples, which either of old the Prophets, or holy men, or Christ and his Apostles have prescribed, is for the most part the fault of Pride or bitter Zeal, and tends to strife and confusion and every evil work.’

Sixthly, Arg. 6. They argue, that there is no necessity for Separation for the sake of such corruptions, because a Person may Communicate in the Worship without partaking in those corruptions. It was the opinion of the Presbyterian Brethren at the Savoy-Conference, Confer. Savoy, p. 12, 13. Mr. Baxters's Defence of the Cure, p. 34, 35. that not only the hearing, but the reading a defective Liturgy was lawful to him, that by violence is ne­cessitated to offer up that or none. And if there was a possibility of thus separating the substance from the circumstantial defects in the Ministerial use of such Worship, much more may this be supposed to be done by those that only attend upon it, and are not obliged by any act of their own to give an explicite consent to all and every thing used in it. 1. This separation of the good from the bad in Di­vine Worship they grant possible. Tryal of the grounds, &c. p. 308. So Mr. Ball, If some things humane be mixed with Divine, a sound Christi­an must separate the one from the other, and not cast away what is of God as a nullity, fruitless, unprofitable, defiled, because somewhat of men is annexed unto them. [Page 33] In the Body we can distinguish betwixt the substance and the sickness which cleaveth unto it; betwixt the sub­stance of a part or member, and some bunch or swelling, which is a deformity, but destroyeth not the nature of that part or member, &c. So M ^r Calamy; Door of Truth opened, p. 7. Its one thing to keep our selves pure from pollution, another to gather Churches out of Churches. 2. They grant, that what is faulty and a sin in Worship is no sin to us, when we do not consent to it: So M ^r Corbet; Non-Confor­mists Plea, &c. p. 6. ‘My par­taking in any Divine Worship, which is holy and good for the matter, and allowable or passable in the mode for the main, doth not involve me in the blame of some sinful defects therein to which I con­sent not, and which I cannot redress. Englands Re­membrancer, Serm. 4. p. 94,’ So another Re­verend Person in his Farewel Sermon; While all necessary fundamental Truth is publickly professed and maintained in a Church, is taught and held forth in publick Assemblies, and the corruptions there (though great yet) are not such as make the Worship cease to be Gods Worship, nor of ne­cessity to be swallowed down, if one would communicate in that Worship, while any Christian (that is watchful over his own heart and carriage, as all ought ever to be) may partake in the one, without being active in or appro­ving the other; there God is yet present, there he may be spiritually worshipped, served acceptably, and really enjoyed. 3. They grant, that the being present at Di­vine Worship is no consent to the corruptions in it. Thus M ^r Robinson; Lawfulness of hearing, &c. p. 19, 23. ‘He that partakes with the Church in the upholding any evil, hath his part in the evil also. But I deny, as a most vain imaginati­on, that every one that partakes with a Church in things lawful, joyns with it in upholding the things unlawful to be found in it. Christ our Lord joyned with the Jewish Church in things lawful, and yet upheld nothing unlawful in it.’ [Page 34] So M ^r Nye; Case of great and present use, p. 16. 18. Cure dir. 35. p. 196, &c. Defence, p. 96. Approbation is an act of the mind, it is not shewed until it be expressed outwardly by my words and gestures. This M ^r Baxter undertakes to prove by several Arguments, as that no man can in reason and justice take that for my profession, which I ne­ver made by word or deed. That the profession made by Church-Communion is totally distinct from this. That this opinion would make it unlawful to joyn with any Pastor or Church on Earth, since eve­ry one mixeth Sin with their Prayers. 4. They say, that corruptions, Letter of Mi­nisters in Old England to the Brethren in New England, p. 12, 13, 16. though foreknown, do not yet make those that are present guilty of them. Thus the old Non-Conformists declare; ‘It is all one to the Peo­ple, whether the fault be personal (as some distin­guish) or otherwise known before-hand, or not known: For if simple presence defile, whether it was known before-hand or not, all presence is faulty. And if simple presence defile not, our pre­sence is not condemned, by reason of the corrup­tions known, whereof we stand not guilty. If the error be such as may be tolerated, and I am called to be present, by such fault I am not defiled though known before. Cure, p. 200.’ M ^r Baxter replys to those of a contrary opinion after this manner; Take heed that thus [by affirming that foreknowing faults in Worship makes them ours] you make not God the greatest sinner and the worst Being in all the World. For God foreknoweth all mens sins, and is present when they commit them, and he hath Communion with all the Prayers of the faithful in the World; what faults soever be in the words or forms, he doth not reject them for any such failings. Will you say therefore that God approveth or consenteth to all these sins? I know before-hand that every man will sin that prayeth (by defect of desire, &c.) But how doth all this make it mine, &c. [Page 35] And he otherwhere adds; Christian Di­rect. p. 748. It is another mans fault or errour that you foreknow, and not your own. 5. Its granted that the fault of another in the ministration of Divine Worship is none of ours, nor a sufficient reason to absent from it, Cure, p. 197. V. Jerubbaal justified, p. 16, &c. 22, 34. or to deprive our selves of it. Thus M ^r Baxter; ‘The wording of the pub­lick Prayers is the Pastors work and none of mine, &c. And why should any hold me guilty of ano­ther mans fault, which I neither can help, nor be­longeth to any office of mine to help any farther than to admonish him.’ And that the faults of him that Ministers are no sufficient reason to debar our selves of Communion in the worship. Case of great and present use, p. 10. Mr. Nye af­firms and proves by this Argument; If I may not omit a duty in respect to the evil mixed with it, which is my own, much less may I thus leave an ordinance for the evil that is another mans, no way mine, or to be charged upon me, This were to make another mans sins or in­firmities more mine than my own. Thus is the case resolved with respect to the Cross in Baptism; Of Scandal a discourse, p. 65. ‘I may not only, saith one, do that which I judge to be inconvenient, but suffer another to do that which I judge to be unlawful, rather than be deprived of a necessary ordinance, e. g. If either I must have my Child baptized with the sign of the Cross, or not baptized at all; I may suffer it to be done in that way, though I judge it an unlawful addition, because the manner concerns him that doth it, not me (at least not so much) so long as there is all the essence. He must be responsible for every irregulari­ty, not I. V. Croston's re­format. no se­parat. p. 24. Thus Jacob took Laban's Oath though by his Idols, &c.’ After the same manner doth Mr. Bax­ter resolve the case in his Christian Directory, p. 49.

Seventhly, They grant, Arg. 7. that it is a duty to joyn with a defective and faulty Worship where we [Page 36] can have no better. Thus the Presbyterian Brethren at the Savoy; Confer. at Sa­voy, p. 3, 12, 13. ‘An inconvenient mode of Worship is a sin in the Imposer, and in the chuser and vo­luntary user, that may offer God better and will not: And yet it may not be only lawful, but a duty to him, that by violence is necessitated to offer up that or none. Separat. yet no Schism, p. 64.’ This is acknowledged by an Author that is far from being favourable to Com­munion with the Church; If the word of God could be no where heard, or Communion in Sacraments no where enjoyed, but only in such Churches that were so corrupt as yours is conceived to be; it might be law­ful, yea and a duty to joyn with you so far as possibly Christians could without sin. Def. of Cure, part 1. p. 78. Accordingly Mr. Baxter declares, that it is a duty to hold Communion constantly with any of the Parish Churches a­mongst us, that have honest competent Pastors when we can have no better, and professeth for his own part; part 2. p. 176. and Cure p. 265. q. 6. Were I, saith he, in Armenia, Abassia, or a­mong the Greeks, I would joyn in a much more defective Form than our Liturgy rather than none. And he adds, That this is the judgment of many New England Mi­nisters (to joyn with the English Liturgy rather than have no Church Worship) I have reason to conjecture from the defence of the Synod, Defence of Sy­nod. Pref. p. 4, 5. &c. Now in what cases this is to be presumed, that we can have no better, he shews, Def. of Cure, part 1. p. 78. n. 6. p. 96. n. 5. 1. When it is so by a necessity arising from Divine Providence. 2. A necessity proceeding from humane Laws which forbid it. 3. A necessity from the injury done to the publick. And 4. When it is to our own greater hinderance than help, as when we must use none or do worse. In these and the like cases it becomes a duty, and what is otherwise lawful, is thereby made necessary. And he that can­not joyn with a purer Worship, than what is pub­lickly [Page 37] established without the breach of humane Laws, or the disturbance of the publick Peace, or dividing the Church of God, or the bringing danger upon himself, is as much, where any of these or the like reasons are, restrained from so doing, as if it did proceed from a natural or providential necessity, that is, the one he cannot do Physically and naturally, the other he cannot do morally, honestly, and pru­dently. Having thus far stated the case, and shew'd that its universally owned by those that dissent from the Church of England, that Communion in a Wor­ship not essentially defective and corrupted is lawful; and that its a received opinion, that where better is not to be had, its a duty; and that better is not to be had, where it is not to be had lawfully. I might freely pass on, but because there is a common obje­ction against what has been said, taken from Malac. 1.14. Cursed be the deceiver, &c. that voweth and sa­crificeth to the Lord a corrupt thing; I shall briefly re­turn their answer to it and proceed. To this the old Non-Conformists reply; Letter of the Minist. in Old Engl. to those in New Engl. p. 14. ‘1. No Argument can be brought from this place to the purpose, but by analogy, which is a kind of arguing of all other most ready at hand, but liable to most exceptions, and apt to draw aside, if care be not had (which in this case we find not) to take the proportion in every material point just and true. Ball's Tryal of the grounds, p. 74. 2. The cor­rupt sacrifice is that which the deceiver bringeth voluntarily and out of neglect, having a male in his flock, but the faithful bringeth himself and his godly desires according to the will of God; and as for corruptions whether respecting matter or form, they are none of his, they cleave not to his sacri­fice to stain or pollute it, &c.’ 3. He offers not a corrupt thing who offers the best he hath. 4. It is [Page 38] to be considered, Tryal of the grounds, &c. c. 4. p. 78. saith M ^r Ball, that what is simply best, is not best in relation to this or that circumstance or end; what is best in a time free is not best in a time not free. Def. of Cure, p. 85. It is granted, saith M ^r Baxter, that we must offer God the best that we can do, but not the best which we cannot do. V. Burrough's Iren. c. 12. p. 86. And many things must concur (and especially a respect to the publick good) to know which is the best. So that before this Text can be opposed to what has been said, it must be proved, 1. That the things in question are corruptions as much prohibited as the blind and lame under the Law. 2. That they are such as a person doth chuse, and it is in his power to help, and offers it when he hath a male in his flock. 3. That such a corruption as affects not the substance of Worship, doth yet al­ter the nature of it, and makes the whole to be a corrupt thing, and abominable to God. If these things are not, the objection reacheth not the case, and there is no ground from that place for this ob­jection.

Platform of Di­scipline, c. 13. §. 5. I shall conclude this head with a remarkable say­ing of the Ministers of New England; ‘To separate from a Church for some evil only conceived, or indeed in the Church, which might and should be tolerated and healed with a spirit of meekness, and of which the Church is not yet convinced, though perhaps himself be, for this or the like reasons to withdraw from publick Communion in word, seals, or censures, is unlawful and sinful.’

But supposing it may be unlawful to separate from a Church for a defective and faulty Worship; yet it may be supposed, that it may be lawful when it is for better edification, and that we may chuse what is for our edification before what is not, and what is more for our edification before what is less. For the deci­sion [Page 39] of which case I shall shew from them,

2. That as defects and faults in worship, so neither is the pretence of better edification a sufficient rea­son against Communion with a Church. Sometimes they say it is no better than a mere pretence and ima­ginary, a seeming contentment of mind, as one calls it. Methermeneut. p. 71. On John 4. Lect. 58. This M ^r Hildersham takes notice of; Some prefer o­thers before their own Pastor, only because they shew more zeal in their voice and gesture, and phrase of speech and manner of delivery, though happily the Do­ctrine it self be nothing so wholesome or powerful, or fit to edify their Consciences, as the Doctrine of their own Pastor is, of such he saith, we may wish them more knowledge and judgment. M ^r Baxter observes the same, Cure of Divis. p. 359. ‘One thinks that this is the best way, and another that the other is best— And commonly appear­ance, and a taking tone and voice do more with them than solid evidence of truth.’ Therefore its fit to have a right notion of edification, which, saith a Reverend Person, Continuat. of Morn. Exer. Serm. 4. p. 95. lies more in the informing of our judgments, and confirming our resolutions, than in the gusts and relishes of affection. These, as he saith, are indeed of great use to the other, but without them are far from making a Person better, and leaving him truly edifyed. Again, it may be, and 'tis no better than a mere pretence, when the fault is in themselves that complain they do not edifie. Lect. 28. p. 129. and Lect. 58. M ^r Hildersham charges it upon such; Thou mightest receive profit (if the fault be not in thy self) by the meanest of us that preach. And he thus freely again declares himself; I am perswaded, there is never a Minister that is of the most excellent gifts (if he have a Godly heart) but he can truly say, he never heard any faithful Minister in his life that was so mean, but he could discern some gift in him that was wanting in himself, and could receive [Page 40] some profit by him. And therefore they advise to cure the fault before they make use of this plea. So the pious Person above-said argues; How shouldest thou profit by his Ministry, if thou come with prejudice, without any reverence or delight unto it, nor dost scarce acknowledge Gods Ordinance in it? Com. on Jude, v. 19. So M ^r Jenkin di­rects; ‘Labour for experimental benefit by the Or­dinances. Men separate to those Churches which they account better, because they never found those where they were before (to them) good— Find the setting up Christ in your hearts by the Ministry, and then you will not dare to account it Antichristian. Englands Re­membrancer, Serm. 16. p. 456.’ Thus a Reverend Person in his Farewel Sermon, speaking of supposed defects in the Church, doth advise his Auditors; Enlarge your care and pains in your preparations; a right stomach makes good nourishment of an indifferent meal; you may be warm (though in a colder air and room than you have formerly been) if you will put on more cloths before you come: Watch your hearts more narrowly, and speak things to your hearts m [...]re than you have done, Eccles. 10.10 if the iron be blunt, then must he put to more strength.

But supposing it be really for edification, yet this they declare is no sufficient reason for Separation. So M ^r Burroughs; Iren. c. 12. p. 85. ‘If you be joyned to a Pastor, so as you believe he is set over you by Christ, to be a Pastor to you; though this man hath meaner gifts than others; and it would be more comfor­table for you to have another Pastor, yet this is not enough to cause you to desert him whom Christ hath set over you. Platform, c. 13. §. 5.’ And so the Ministers in New Eng­land deliver their minds; To separate from a Church for greater enlargements, with just grief to the Church, is unlawful and sinful. So when this Question was [Page 41] put, Continuat. of Morn. Exer. Serm. 4. p. 91. Are they not at all times obliged to use the means which are most edifying? Its answered by a Reverend Person, They may say at all times, when they have no­thing to outweigh their own edification. So that edi­fication may be outweighed, and then it can be no standing and sufficient reason. Iren. c. 12. p. 85, 86. So M ^r Burroughs de­clares in this case; ‘Men must consider not only what the thing is in its own nature, but what it is to them, how it stands in reference to their rela­tions— It is not enough to say the thing is in it self better, but is it better in all the references I have and it hath? Is it better in regard of others, in regard of the publick, for the helping me in all my relations? may it not help one way and hin­der many ways? Defence, part 1. p. 85.’ Of the same opinion is M ^r Bax­ter; Many things, saith he, must concur (and especi­ally a respect to the publick good) to know which is the best. So that edification is not to be judged of a­lone, our own improvement is not to determine us in our actions, and especially not with respect to Church-Communion, for then other reasons do give Law to it and over-rule it. This we see those that dissent from the Church in other things agree with her in: And they give several reasons and arguments for it.

First, If we were sure we could not profit, Arg. 1. yet we must come to do homage to God, Lect. 28. p. 129, & 309. and shew reverence to his Ordinance. This is M ^r Hildersham's opinion.

Secondly, The leaving a Church for better edifica­tion, Arg. 2. is built upon a false and dangerous principle, which is that we must always chuse the best. Iren. c. 12. p. 84, 87. So M ^r Burroughs; To hold what in its self best must be cho­sen and done, not weighing circumstances or references is a dividing principle. And afterward he saith, a Christian without comparing one thing with another, [Page 42] will hack and hew, and disturb himself and others in the ways of Religion. I believe some of you have known those who, whatsoever they have conceived to be better than other, they have presently followed with all eager­ness, never considering circumstances, references or con­sequences, but the thing is good, Of this V. Ball's Tryal, c. 4. p. 75, 76, 78. it must be done; yet being wearied with this they have after grown loose, in as great an excess the other way.

Thirdly, Arg. 3. This principle of better edification if fol­lowed, would bring in confusion. Lect. 66. So M ^r Hilder­sham; This factious disposition of the hearers of Gods Word, hath in all ages been the cause of much confusion in the Church of God, and greatly hindred the fruit of the Gospel of Christ. Arraignment of Schism, p. 48. ‘This, saith M ^r Brinsley, the moderate Author of the late Irenicum [M ^r Bur­roughs] will by no means allow, but condemns as the direct way to bring in all kind of disorder and confusion into the Church; and I think none who are judicious, but will therein sub­scribe to him. Iren. c. 12. p. 85.’ It will not be amiss to transcribe his own words; It is in it self a better thing to enjoy a Ministry of the most eminent gifts and graces than one of lower; but if this should be made a rule, that a man who is under a Pastor who is faithful, and in some good measure gifted, upon another mans coming into the Country that is more eminent, he should for­sake his Pastor and join to the other; and if after this, still a more eminent man comes, he should leave the former and join to him; and by the same Law a Pastor who hath a good People, yet if others be more likely to receive more good, he may leave his own Peo­ple and go to them, Platform Pref. p. 7. and c. 13. §. 1. Independ. a Schism. p. 50. what confusion and disorder would there be continually in the Church; This is condemn­ed also by the New England Ministers. This M ^r Cawdrey doth expose; ‘If a man may lawfully se­parate [Page 43] from a true Church, &c. only with a good mind to serve God in Church-institutions, true or conceited by his own light, all the Secretaries and Se­parists, Donatists, Brownists in the World may be justified.’ This, saith another, Methermeneut, p. 72, 74. speaking of hearing for this reason, is a Church-destroying Principle; sure if one member be not fixed, then not another, nor ano­ther, &c. and then not the Pastor, nor Teacher, and so farewel Churches.

Fourthly, This will be endless: So M ^r Burroughs; Arg. 4. ‘Men must not separate from a Church, Iren. c. 23. p. 163. though there be corruptions in it, to gather into a new Church which may be more pure, and in some re­spects more comfortable. First, Because we never find the Saints in Scripture separating or raising Churches in such a case. And Secondly, There would be no continuance in Church-fellowship if this were admitted; for what Church is so pure, and hath all things so comfortable, but within a while another Church will be more pure, and some things will be more comfortable there?’ And he concludes with this prudent maxim; The general peace of the Church should be more regarded than some comfortable accommodations to our selves. Defence, part 1. p. 85. So M ^r Bax­ter; What if twenty Ministers be one abler than ano­ther in their several degrees, doth it follow that only the ablest of all these may be joyned with, because that all the rest do worse? And yet this must be, if edifica­tion be always to be consulted, and is to determine us in our choice of Ministers, Churches, and Ordi­nances.

Fifthly, They say, Arg. 5. edification doth not depend so much upon the external administration of Worship, as Gods Blessing, and that we are not to break the Order, Peace▪ and Union of the Church for the sake [Page 44] of it. Lect. 54. p. 254, & Lect. 58. The former is asserted by M ^r Hildersham; ‘Its our sin and shame, and is just cause of hum­bling to us, if we cannot profit by the meanest Mi­nister God hath sent. The power of the Ministry dependeth not on the excellency of the Teachers gift, but Gods blessing.’ The latter is maintained by M ^r Vines; On the Sacra­ment, p. 246. Its said, order in an Army kills no Bo­dy, yet without it the Army is but a rout, neither able to offend or defend: So haply order in the Church con­verts no body, yet without it I see not how the Church can attain her end, or preserve themselves in begetting or breeding up Souls to God. Therefore is the advice of Mr. Baxter; In his Farewel Sermon. ‘Do not think to prosper by break­ing over the hedge, under pretence of any right of Holiness [so of edification] whatsoever, following any party that would draw you to Separation.’ The mischief of which is represented by Dr. Tuckney; Experience, Serm. at Pauls on Acts 9.31. saith he, hath taught us that the Church of God hath been poorly edifyed by those who have daubed up their Babel with untempered mortar, &c. when the Church is rent by Schisms and Factions, and one Congregation is turned into many Conventicles, falsely now called Churches, this doth diminish, weaken, and ruine.

Lastly, When they do grant that edification may serve to guide us, and that we may hear where we can most profit, its with such limitations and cauti­ons as these; it must be seldom, in a great case, with­out offence and contempt. Lect. 54. p. 2 [...]3. Thus Mr. Hildersham; ‘I dare not condemn such Christians, as having Pa­stors in the places where they live of meaner gifts, do desire (so they do it without open breach or contempt of the Churches order) to enjoy the Mini­stry of such as have better gifts, &c. so they do it without contempt of their own Pastors, and without [Page 45] scandal and offence to them and their People.’ So again; Lect. 58. You ought not to leave your own Pastor at anytime with contempt of his Ministry, as when you say or think, alas! he is no body; a good honest man, but he hath no gifts, I cannot profit by him. And as if he could not be too cautious in the case, he lays down this as the Cha­racter of one that doth this innocently; He only makes right use of the benefit of hearing such as have more excellent gifts than his own Pastors, and learns thereby to like his own Pastor the better, and to profit more by him. That this is to be but seldom, we have the concurrent testimony of the Provincial Assembly of London, who upon this Question; Jus Divi [...]m Minist. Evan­gil. p. 11, 12. Would you have a man keep constantly to the Minister under whom he lives? do answer, We are not so rigid as to tye up People from hearing other Ministers occasionally, even upon the Lords Day. But yet we believe 'tis most a­greable to Gospel order upon the grounds forementioned. Thus it is resolved also by one of a more rigid way, Methermeneut, p. 72. who puts this Question; Whether members of particular Churches may hear indifferently elsewhere? and returns this answer; ‘God will have mercy and not sacri­fice, as distance of habitation, handling such a point. But most certainly members of Churches ought mostly to be with their own Churches— The ima­gined content in hearing others, is rather a tem­ptation than motion of the Spirit.’

From all which we may conclude, that the pre­tence of better edification is no sufficient reason for Separation from a Church, Worship, or Ministry, without there be other reasons that do accompany it; and then it is not for this reason so much as those it is in conjunction with.

But admitting this, yet it will hardly be granted to be a reason for Separation from the Church of [Page 46] England, if the testimony of many worthy persons be of any consideration. Lect. 29. p. 131. Thus Mr Hildersham de­clares, when he is reproving such as make no consci­ence to come to the beginning of Gods publick Worship, and to stay to the end of it; he thus pro­ceeds, ‘Because I see many of them that have most knowledge, and are forwardest professors offend in this way, I will manifest the sin of these men. 1. They sin against themselves in the profit they might receive by the Worship of God— There is no part of Gods service, (not the Confession not the Prayers, not the Psalm, not the Blessing) but it concerns every one, and every one may receive edification by it. Lect. 28. p. 129.’ This he otherwhere repeats and saith, ‘By the Confession, and all other Prayers used in the Congregation, a man may receive more profit than by many other.’ Of this opinion, as to the most of the Prayers in our Liturgy, Letter of the Minist. in Old England to the Brethren in New England, p. 13. were the old Non-Conformists; We are perswaded, that not only some few select Prayers, but many Prayers and other exhortations may lawfully be used, with fruit and edifi­cation to Gods People.

Case of great [...]e, p. 3.As for the word preach'd amongst us, Mr Nye saith, that ‘there is a summ of doctrinal truths, which in the enlargement and application, are sufficient both for conversion and edification, to which the Preach­ers are to assent.’ And that ‘the word of God in­terpreted and applyed by preaching in this way, is a choice mercy and gift wherewith God hath blessed this Nation for many Years, to the con­version and edification of many thousands.’ And he afterwards ascribes the want of edification to the prejudices of People. Pag. 25, Such reasonings, saith he, a­gainst hearing, though they convince not the unlawfulness of it, yet they leave such prejudices in the minds of them [Page 47] which are tender, as perplex and render hearing less profitable and edifying, even to those that are perswa­ed of its lawfulness. Theodulia, c. 9. §. 8. p. 317. This M ^r Tombs declares himself freely in; ‘If we look to experience of former times, there is now ground to expect a blessing from conforming Preachers, as well, or rather more, than from Preachers of the separated Churches. Sure the conversion, consolation, strengthening, establishing of Souls in the truth, has been more in England from Preachers, who were Enemies to Separation, whether Non-Conformist to Ceremo­nies or Conformists, Presbyterial or Episcopal, e­ven from Bishops themselves, than from the best of the Separatists. I think all that are acquainted with the History of things in the last age, will ac­knowledge that more good hath been to the Souls of men, by the Preaching of Vsher, Potter, Abbot, Jewel, and some other Bishops; by Preston, Sibbs, Taylor, Whately, Hildersham, Ball, Perkins, Dod, Stock, and many thousands, Adversaries to the separated Churches, than ever was done by Ainsworth, John­son, Robinson, rigid Separatists, or Cotton, Tho. Hooker, and others (though men of precious me­mory) promoters of the way of the Churches Congregational. And therefore if the Bishops and conforming Preachers now apply themselves (as we hope when the heat of contention is more allay­ed, they will) to the profitable way of preaching against Popery and Prophaneness, exciting Auditors to the life of faith in Christ, &c. there may be as good ground, if not better (considering how much the Spirits of Separatists are for their party, and the speaking of the truth in love, and edifying in love, is necessary to the growth of the Body, Eph. 4.15.) to expect by them a blessing in promoting [Page 48] the power of Godliness, than from the Separatists.’ So that whether we consider the Worship or Do­ctrine, or the preaching of it, the Church of Eng­land in their apprehension doth not want a suffici­ency of means for the conversion and edification of Souls: And consequently the argument taken from edification, in justification of forsaking the Commu­nion of it, is inconclusive and of no force. But this branch of it will be further confirm'd under the third general.

But however, this will not be so easily quitted, for supposing the Doctrine good, and those that teach it capable (as far as learning and parts are requisite) to improve it to the conversion and edi­fication of others; yet if they themselves are loose and scandalous, it may give just offence, and be thought a sufficient cause to separate from the Wor­ship in which such do officiate.

3. Therefore I shall shew, that the badness of the Ministers is of it self no sufficient reason to forsake the Communion of a Church, or to separate from the Worship administred in it. Seven Treati­ses, Tract 3. c. 4. p. 223. What holy M ^r Ro­gers saith is a great truth; ‘It is not to be denied, but that the example of ignorant and unreformed, especially notorious Persons in the Ministry, hath done and doth much harm; and if either they cannot be convicted, or if their crimes be such as cannot remove them out of their places, there is just cause of grief that such should have any thing to do in Gods matters, which are so weighty and to be dealt withal in high reverence.’

But yet before the objection is admitted, it is to be premised, 1. That if there be such in the Church, it doth not proceed from their Conformity to it. For good and pious men of this sort always were and [Page 49] still are in the Church. What there were formerly may be read in Mr Baxter, Defence, part 1. p. 57. who thus delivers him­self; ‘When I think what learned, holy, incompa­rable men, abundance of the old Conformists were, my heart riseth against the thoughts of separating from them; such as M ^r Bolton, M ^r Whately, M ^r Fenner, &c. and abundance other such; yea such as Bishop Jewel, Bishop Grindal, Bishop Hall, &c. yea and the Martyrs too, as Cranmer, Ridley, Hoo­per himself, &c.’ What there are now in the Church, he also tells us; Ibid. p. 12. I believe there are many hundred Godly Ministers in the Parish-Churches of England. And of his own knowledge, saith, Ibid. p. 11. I profess to know those of them, whom I take to be much better than my self; I will say a greater word, that I know those of them whom I think as Godly and humble Ministers, as most of the Non-Conformists whom I know. So saith D ^r Bryan; Dwelling with God, Serm. 6. p. 313. ‘In some Countries I am sure there are ma­ny Sober, Godly, Orthodox, able Preachers yet in possession of the publick places.’

2. It is to be premised, that this argument, if of any, yet is of no farther force than against the Con­gregations where such are, and so is of none against the Church it self where are good as well as bad, nor against Parochial Communion where such are not. Defence, part 1. p. 11. So M ^r Baxter argues; I doubt not but there are many hundred Parish Ministers, who preach holily, and live holily, though I could wish that they were more. And what reason have you to charge any other mens sins on them, &c. or to think it unlawful to joyn with the good for the sake of the bad? this is to condemn the sound for the sake of the infected.

Having premised this, we shall re-assume the case. and consider how it is stated and resolved by them.

1. Its granted, that it is not unlawful to joyn with [Page 50] bad Ministers in some cases where they may have better. Tract. 3. p. 223. So M ^r Rogers; As it is far from me to be a Patron of such, or to justifie them; so yet, while we may enjoy the Ministry of better, I would not refuse to be partaker of the Prayers which are offered by them.

2. Its granted, that its lawful and a duty to hear and joyn with such where a better cannot be had; that it is lawful, so M ^r Rogers; Who can blame him, who desireth to pray with better than they be? And yet better to joyn with them sometime, than to leave the publick Assemblies altogether. Cure Dir. 17. p. 114. So M ^r Baxter; ‘No People should chuse and prefer an ungodly Mini­ster before a better; but they should rather submit to such than have none, when a better by them cannot be had.’ That its a duty, so the old Non-Conformists; Letter of the Minist. in Old England to the Brethren in New England, p. 11. The Scripture teacheth evidently, that the People must and ought to joyn with them [unwor­thy Ministers] in the Worship of God, and in separa­ting from the Ordinance they shall sin against God. For the Worship is of God, and the Ministry is of God; the Person unworthily executing his place, is neither set up by some few private Christians, nor can by them be removed: And warrant to withdraw themselves from the Worship of God, because such as ought not, are suf­fered to intermeddle with holy things, they have none from God. Tryal of the grounds, c. 13 p. 311. V. To [...]. [...], p. 17. So M ^r Ball; ‘To communicate with Ministers no better than Pharisees in the true Wor­ship of God, is to worship God aright, to reve­rence his Ordinances, to relye upon his Grace, to hearken unto his voice, and submit unto his good pleasure.’ This they maintain by several arguments. As,

Arg. 1. First, Such were always in the Church, and Com­munion must never have been held with the Church, if no Communion was to be where such were. So the [Page 51] old Non-Conformists argue; Letter of the Minist. in Old Engl. &c. p 10. ‘If the Minister make it unlawful, then all Communion in any part of Gods Worship with such Ministers is unlawful, and so the Church in all ages of the World, the Prophets, our Saviour Christ, the Apostles, V. Ball's Tryal, p. 310. and the faithful in the Primitive Churches sinned, in holding Communion with such, when the Priests were dumb Dogs that could not bark, and greedy Dogs that could never have enough; when the Prophets prophesied lyes, when the Priests bought and sold Doves in the Temple, &c. when they were such and did such things, they were ungodly Ministers; but we never find that the Prophets, our Saviour, and the Apostles, did either for­bear themselves, or warn the faithful not to com­municate with such in the Ordinance of Wor­ship.’ So much M ^r Nye doth grant; Case of great use, p. 14. More cannot be objected against our Ministers that Conform, than might against the Scribes and Pharisees in Christs time; either in respect of their Doctrine; which was loaden with Traditions; their standing, which was not accord­ing to Law; their lives, which were vicious; yet Christ not only permits, but requires us to attend the truths they deliver.

Secondly, Arg. 2. They plead that our Saviour himself did Communicate where such did Officiate. So D ^r Bryan; In some Countries, Dwelling with God, p. 313. I am sure there are many So­ber, Godly, Orthodox, able Preachers, &c. And if you know any Country where it is worse, consider if Christ himself did not joyn with worse. Englands Re­membrancer, Serm. 4. p. 94. This is attested by another Reverend Person; ‘Our Saviour Christ u­sed to attend on the publick Worship in his time, notwithstanding such formalists and superstitious ones, as the Scribes and Pharisees did officiate in it.’

[Page 52] Arg. 3. Thirdly, They say that the sin of the Minister is not theirs, nor doth bring any detriment to them, though they Communicate with him. Christian Di­rectory, p. 747. & Cure, p. 113, 114. So M ^r Bax­ter; A Ministers personal faults may damn himself, and must be matter of lamentation to the Church, who ought to do their best to reform them, or get better by any lawful means; but in case they cannot, his sin is none of theirs, nor doth it make his administration null or ineffectual, nor will it allow you to separate from the Worship which he administreth. Account given to the Parli­ment, p. 27. So the Ministers sent to Oxford do assert; ‘Some evil men may and always have de facto been Officers and Ministers in the Church, &c. and the wickedness of such men did not null or evacuate their Ministerial Acts, for our Saviour would have the Scribes and Pharisees heard while they sate in Moses Chair, &c.’ And that the Ministrations in such a case are not invalid, and that the People suffer not by it they further prove: 1. Be­cause they officiate not in their own name. So the Old Non-Conformists; Letter of the Ministers, p. 11. ‘It hath evermore been held for a truth in the Church of God, that al­though sometimes the evil hath chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name but in Christs, and minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry both in hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments; neither is the effect of Christs Ordinance taken a­way by their wickedness.’ 2. The vertue of the Ordinance doth not depend upon their goodness but Gods promise. Tract 3. p. 223. So M ^r Rogers saith of Prayer; If this burden [of bad Ministers] must be born, I ask, if among many sweet liberties we enjoy, we may not joyn in Prayer with them, if we can pray in faith, see­ing their unworthiness cannot withhold the fruit of Gods [Page 53] promise from us which is to one kind of Prayer as well as another. So saith M ^r Cradacot of the Word; Farewel Ser­mons, Vol. 3. p. 22, 23. ‘Take heed, saith he, of being leavened with prejudice against the Ministry of the Word, because of the misdemeanors or miscarriage of the Minister. It is the word of the Lord which converts, not the Person of the dispenser or speaker. Hence it was that the Ministry of the Scribes and Pharisees was not to be rejected but to be esteemed, so long as they failed not in the substance thereof, &c. I conceive its a rare thing for unconverted Ministers to con­vert, and yet we must remember not to tye the efficacy of the Word and Sacraments to the good­ness or badness of a Ministers Person. Case of great▪ use, p. 14.’ So when its objected; How can we expect a blessing upon the labours of such though they preach truth? Mr. Nye replys. Answ. 1. The mixtures in Sermons are nearest, the irregularities of their calling next, the sins of their conversations fur­thest from their Doctrine, and therefore have less effi­cacy at such a distance to prejudice it. Answ. 2. Its Gods word and not their own they preach, &c. 3. That if Persons themselves do believe and are sin­cere, they are, notwithstanding such a Ministry, ac­cepted. The sacrifice of a faithful Elkanah, saith one, Englands Re­membrancer, Serm. 4. p. 94. was pleasing to God, even when Hophni and Phineas were Priests. From all which we find some declaring, that notwithstanding this they would Communicate. So a Reverend Person; Bonasus Vap [...] ­lans, p. 133. ‘The Peoples prejudices a­gainst the Liturgy, are grounded for the most part upon the wicked lives of those that are the most constant readers and frequenters of it’[doubt­less the Author if he had considered this, would rather have said that they are grounded upon the wicked lives of some of those that read and frequent it.] ‘I shall never upon that account cease to joyn [Page 54] in Prayers and to hear Sermons.’ Others we find exhorting their Auditors to attend even upon such. So Mr R. Fairclough in his Farewel Sermons; [...] Lega­cy, p. 125. Get all good from, shew all duty▪ to him that follows— If he should be weak, or evil, yet while he preacheth truths, while he sits in Moses Chair, hear him seriously, and carry your selves towards him as becomes a People to their Minister.

I have thus far considered the case of scandalous Ministers, because many make it an objection, as well those that are not concerned as those that are. O­therwise it must be acknowledged, that England was never better provided with a learned and pious Ministry than at present; Non-Confor­mists Plea for Conformists, p. 12. & 23. who have as good under­standing, preach as good Doctrine, do as much good by their Preaching as any others, as a late writer doth confess. But though many Congregations are well supplied with a Pious, Able, and Industrious Mini­stry, yet there are few or none but what have some, more or less amongst the Laity, that are (as it may be supposed) not fit to be received into Communi­on with a Church, or to be communicated with. This brings me to the next thing in Worship, which is,

On the Sacra­ment, p. 235.4. The case of mixed Communion. This is a plea, saith Mr. Vines, that is plausible to easie capacities, be­cause it pretends to set up holiness of Ordinances and People, but what the eminent Dissenters do utterly disclaim; Mr. Vines saith it is Donatistical, and others, as Mr. Brinsley and Mr. Jenkin, Brinsley's Ar­raignment, p. 37, 38. that its the common plea or pretence which for the moct part hath been ta­ken up by all Schismaticks in defence of their separation from the Church; Jenk. on Jude, v. 19. and therefore that it is necessary the People should be untaught it, Baily's disswa­sive, p. 22. as Mr. Baxter doth advise. And as they do disclaim it, Sacril. desert. p. 97. so they declare that those [Page 55] that separate upon this account do it very unjustly Cawdrey's Re­formation pro­moted, p. 131.; that the scandals of professors are ground of mourning, but not of separation Manton on Jude, p. 496.; that there may be a sufficient cause to cast out obstinate sinners, and yet not suffici­ent cause for one to leave the Church, though such be not cast [...]ut Vines on Sa­crament, p. 242.. That ‘the suffering of prophane and scandalous livers to continue in the Church, Platform c. 14. §. 8. and partake in the Sacrament, is doubtless a great sin; V. Cotton's Holi­ness of Church-members, p. 2. yet the godly are not presently to separate from it.’ There is, saith M ^r Burroughs, an error on both sides; Gospel Wor­ship, Serm. 11. p. 242. either those that think it concerns them not at all with whom they come to the Sacrament, or those that if they do what they can to keep the scandalous away, and yet they should be suffered to come, that they themselves may not come to partake of it. This both the Pres­byterians and Independents so far agree in; and for this their opinion they urge several Arguments.

First, Its no where commanded, Arg. 1. but is a vain pretending to holiness above rule and example, On Sacrament, p. 246. p. 31. saith M ^r Vines. ‘Its no duty, as he elsewhere saith, be­cause there is no command; its no duty, and there­fore we read not this word, come forth, in any of the Epistles written to the seven Churches, against which Christ saith he hath such and such things. They that lived in the impurer are not called forth into the purer, but there are promises made to them that keep themselves pure, and duties injoyned them toward the impurer part. For we may not make every Disease the Plague. Shall the Sons of God, the Angels, forsake the Lords presence, be­cause Satan came also amongst them, &c.’ The Pro­vincial Assembly of London doth affirm; Vindicat. of Presbyt. Go­vern. p. 134. In the Church of Corinth was such a profane mixture at the Sacrament, as we believe few, Brinsl [...]y's Ar­raign. p. 47. if any of our Congrega­tions can be charged withal: And yet the Apostle doth [Page 56] not perswade the godly party to separate, Firmin's Sepa­ration exami­ned, p. 40. much less to gather a Church out of a Church. From which consi­deration Mr. Tombs concludes; Cawdrey's Church Refor­mat p. 71. ‘Sure it can be no sin in any Person to joyn in the true Worship and service of God with any, Theodulia, p. 74. if he have no command to withdraw himself from that service because of their presence, nor power to exclude them, and yet is bound to the duties there performed.’

Nay, they do not only plead that its not com­manded, but that its forbidden and unlawful. So M ^r Hooker; Survey of Di­scipline, Pref. A. 3. To separate from a Church because of the sin of some Worshippers is unlawful. So the New Eng­land Ministers do declare; Platform, c. 14. §. 9. ‘As separation from a Church, wherein prophane and scandalous livers are tolerated, is not presently necessary: So for the Members thereof, otherwise worthy, hereupon to abstain from Communion with such a Church, in the participation of the Sacraments, is unlawful.’

Arg. 2. Secondly, They plead, that the communicating in Gods service with open sinners, whom the Godly in some of our Assemblies are enforced to commu­nicate with, Grave confut. part 3. p. 53. is not sufficient to make such prophane, or to pollute to them the holy things of God: So the old Non-Conformists. On the Sacra­ment, p. 242. & p. 31, 32. So M ^r Vines; The pre­sence of wicked men at Gods Ordinances, pollutes not them that are neither accessary to their sin, nor yet to their presence there. Gospel Wor­ship, Serm. 11. p. 236, 237. This M ^r Burroughs disclaims; You are not defiled by the meer presence of wicked men in the Sacrament (for that is a meer deceit and gull, that some would put upon men that differ from them) but thus are you defiled if you do not your duty, and the uttermost you are able, to purge them out. But if this be done according to the power and capacity Persons are in, its universally granted that the In­nocent shall not suffer for the Nocent. So Mr. [Page 57] Ball; Tryal, c. 10. p. 191, 205. ‘The precept of debarring scandalous offen­ders bindeth them to whom God hath given this power, V. Jeans dis­course on the Lords Supper. Rutherford right of Presbyt. and them only so far as God hath put it in their power. But God regularly doth not leave that power in the hand of one single Steward, or some few private Christians— And if the Steward, or one or few private Christians, cannot debar the unworthy from the Lords Table, it is manifest the Ordinance of God is not defiled to them by the presence of the wicked, whom they desire to re­form or expel, but cannot, because power is not in their hand to do it lawfully.’

This they confirm, 1. From the examples of the Pro­phets and good men, Grave confut. part 3. p. 53. & 55. who of old joyned with many that were notoriously stained with gross sins; from the practice of our Saviour that communicated with such in the publick service of God; Ball's Tryal, p. 211. from the practice of Christians in Apostolical times, Platform, c. 14. §. 8. all which the old Non-Conformists do insist upon. Blake Vindic. p. 235. This is al­so pleaded by those of New-England and others.

This would make all the sins of the Congregati­on to be ours. So M ^r Baxter; Christian Di­rectory, p. 747. ‘If you be wanting in your duty to reform it, it is your sin; V. Non-Conformists no Schismaticks, p. 16. but if bare presence made their sin to be ours, it would also make all the sins of the Assembly ours.’

From all which it appears that their sence is, that scandalous Members are no sufficient reason for Sepa­ration; for that must be, either be cause its com­manded in Scripture, or that those that do commu­nicate with such, are in so doing corrupted also; but if neither of these be, then we may safely Com­municate with such, or in a Church where such are without sin.

Thirdly, To separate upon this ground, Arg. 3. Vines on the Sacrament, p. 244. is to main­tain a Principle destructive to the Communion of [Page 58] the Church visible, which consists of good and bad. This M ^r Cotton is peremptory in; Infant-Ba­ptism, p. 102. ‘It is utterly un­true to say that Christ admits not of any dead Plants to be set in his Vineyard, V. Bains on the [...] c. 1. v. 1. p 5. or that he takes not to himself a compounded body of living and dead Members, or that the Church of God is not a mixed Company, &c.’ From the ill effects of which, In Proverb. Ed­wards Apol. M ^r Cartwright used to call this Separation, upon pretence of greater purity, the white Devil.

And because there are some Scriptures that seem to look this way, and are made use of by those that make mixed Communion an argument for Separati­on; therefore they have taken off the force of them.

Object. 1.If a Brother be a Fornicator, &c. the Apostle ex­horteth not to eat with him. 1 Cor. 5.11.

To this they answer,

Ans. 1.That if it be meant of excluding such an one from Church-Communion, Defence, part 2. p. 27. it must be done by the Church and not a private person. Cawdrey's Church Refor­mat. p. 126. But you are not command­ed to separate from the Church, if they exclude him not; So M ^r Baxter, &c.

Ans. 2.That it concerns not religious but civil Commu­nion, and that not all civil society or commerce, but familiar only. For which they produce several rea­sons, 1. They argue from the notion of eating bread, which is a token of love and friendship in phrase of Scripture, Ball's Tryal, p. 200. Brinsley's Ar­raignment, p. 45. not to partake of or to be shut from the Table, is a sign of familiarity broken off. So Mr. Ball, &c. 2. Jenk. on Jude, v. 19. ‘The eating which is here forbidden is allowed to be with an Heathen, Tombs's Theodu­lia, p. 210. but its the civil eating which is only allowed to be with an Heathen; therefore its the civil eating which is forbidden to be with a Brother.’ So Mr Jenkin, &c. 3. ‘The eating here forbidden is for the punishment of the nocent not of the innocent.’ To these [Page 59] there are added others by the old Non-Conformists. Grave Confut. part 4. p. 57.

As for other objections they are also undertaken by the same hands, Tomb's Theo­dulia, p. 167. and to which M ^r Baxter's answer is sufficient; If you m [...]k all the Texts in the Gospel, Cawdrey's Re­format. p. 75. you shall find that all the separation which is command­ed in such cases (besides our separation from the Infidels and Idolatrous World, Cure Dir. 9. P. 81. or Antichristian and Heretical Confederacies, and No-Churches) is but one of these two sorts, 1. Either that the Church cast out the impenitent by the power of the Keys. Or, 2. That private men a­void all private familiarity with them; but that the private Members should separate from the Church, be­cause such persons are not cast out of it, shew me one Text to prove it if you can. ‘This, saith M ^r Vines, On the Sacra­ment, p. 246. hath not a syllable of Scripture to allow or countenance it. Tomb's Theod. p. 128.’

But supposing it be allowed that we ought not to separate from a Church, where corrupt Members are tolerated or connived at under some present cir­cumstances (as for want of due proof, or through particular favour) yet it seems to be allowable where there is no Discipline exercised, or taken care of. For then we are without an Ordinance. To avoid this objection, I shall consider,

2. The case with respect to Discipline, and shall § 2 shew from them, 1. That the want of that or de­fects in it are no sufficient reason for Separation. 2. What Discipline is exercised or taken care of in the Church of England.

The former of these they do own and prove.

First, Arg 1. As Discipline is not necessary to the being of a Church. T. C's. Letter to Harrison a­gainst Separa­tion in the De­fence of the Admonit. p. 98, 99. This was of old maintained by M ^r Cartwright, who thus argues; ‘That Church Assem­blies are builded by Faith only on Christ the Foun­dation, the which Faith so being, whatsoever is wanting of that which is commanded, or remain­ing [Page 60] of that which is forbidden, is not able to put that Assembly from the right and title of so being the Church of Christ— For though there be many things necessary for every Assembly, yet they be necessary to the comely and stable being, and not simply to the being of the Church.’ And after­ward he gives an instance in the Dutch Assemblies (or Lutheran Churches) which, P. 106. he saith, are maim­ed in Discipline. Com. on the Ephes. p. 487, 488. So D ^r T. Goodwin; ‘Whereas now in some of the Parishes of this Kingdom, there are many Godly Men that do constantly give them­selves up to the Worship of God in publick, &c. These notwithstanding their mixture and want of Discipline, I never thought for my part, but that they were true Churches of Christ, and Sister Churches, and so ought to be acknowledged.’ So that if Discipline be not essential to a true Church, and a true Church is not to be separated from (as has been proved above) then the want of Discipline is no sufficient reason for Separation.

Arg. 2. Secondly, This they further prove by an induction of particulars. Vindiciae c. 31. p. 236, 238. This way Mr. Blake proceeds in; ‘Discipline was neglected in the Church of Israel, yet none of the Prophets or men of God ever made attempt of getting up purer select Churches, V. Grave Con­fut. part 1. p. 18. or made separation from that which was in this sort faulty. All was not right in the exercise of Discipline in the Churches planted by the Apostles, some are censured as foully faulty, &c. yet nothing heard by way of advice for any to make Sepa­ration, nor any one instance of a Separatist gi­ven.’

Vines on Sacra­ment, c. 19. p. 226.To come lower, we are told by a learned person, that the Helvetian or Switzerland Churches claim to be Churches, and have the Notes, Word, and Sacraments, [Page 61] though the order of Discipline be not settled among them, V. Gillespie's Ni [...]il r [...]spondes, p. 33. and I am not he that shall blot out their name. To come nearer home, it was so in the late times when this was wanting, as was acknowledged Knutton's se­ven Queries. Brinsley's Ar­raign. p. 48., and of which Mr. Vines saith On Sacram. p. 219., we know rather the name than the thing. And if we shall look into the seve­ral Church-Assemblies amongst the Dissenters, we shall find, Troughton's A­pol. p. 65. that there are many Preachers without full pastoral charge, as it is acknowleded, and that have little authority over their flocks in this kind, that have not so much as the name of Discipline a­mongst them. And so they have little reason to ju­stifie themselves in a Separation by such an argument, that will as well wound themselves as those they bend it against; and they that do so are guilty of Sin. So Mr. Baxter; Cure Dir. 47. p. 231. Many that observe the pollution of the Church by the great neglect of holy Discipline, avoid this error by turning to a sinful Separation. I shall conclude this with that grave advice of Dr. Owen; Evangel. Love, c. 3. p. 77. ‘When any Church, whereof a man is by his own con­sent antecedently a Member, doth fall in part or in whole from any of those Truths which it hath professed, or when it is overtaken with a neglect of Discipline or Irregularities in its Administration; such a one is to consider, that he is placed in his present state by Divine Providence, that he may orderly therein endeavour to put a stop unto such defections, and to exercise his Charity, Love, and Forbearance towards the persons of them whose miscarriages at present he cannot remedy. In such cases there is a large and spatious Field for Wisdom▪ Patience, Love and prudent Zeal to exercise themselves. And it is a most erverse imagination, that Separation is the only cure for Church disorders.’ If this advice be good in one [Page 62] case, it is so in another; and if it were well under­stood, and faithfully followed, this argument would be of little or no force.

2. I shall shew how little this plea of the Defe­ctive Discipline reaches the case. Its granted that there is such a Power and Authority of Ecclesiasti­cal Discipline resident in the Church of England, that if open and scandalous persons are not cast out, the fault is in the Governours, for the Law takes order they shall be, V. Grave Con­fut. part 1. p. 17. as D ^r Bryan saith Dwelling with God, Serm. 6. p. 301.. And the power of suspension put thereby into the Ministers hands is so evident, Firmin Sepa­ration exami­ned, p. 28. that after D ^r Collins had proved it from the Rubricks, Canons, &c. he concludes Provocator provocatus, p. 151. & 154. its plain that the judgment and practice of the Church of England in all times, ever since it was a Church, hath been to suspend some from the Table of the Lord. So that if there be defects, V. Vines on Sacrament, c. 19. p. 233. through some past and present obstructions in the exercise of Discipline, yet cannot the Church properly stand charged with them, Brinsley's Ar­raign. p. 40. as is ac­knowledged Brinsley's Ar­raign. p. 48.; Cawdrey's Church Refor­mat. p. 122. or whatever may be charged upon the Church, there can be no sufficient cause from a defect, remisness or corruption therein, for a Separa­tion from it. This was the constant judgment of the old Non-Conformists, Jenk. on Jude v. 19. which I shall transcribe from a grave Author; ‘Those, saith he, that for many Years together, Blake's Vindi­ciae, c. 31. p. 236. during the Reign of the three last Princes, denied to come up to a full Confor­mity to this Church, had a low opinion of the Discipline then exercised (of which they have left behind them large evidences) yet how tender were they of the Churches honour to keep Christi­ans in Communion? how zealous were they against Separation? as may appear in the labours of M ^r Parker, M ^r Paget, M ^r Ball. M ^r Brightman laid us low enough, when he did not only parallel us with [Page 63] luke-warm Laodicea, but made that Church the Type and we the Antitype, by reason of our Di­scipline; yet how zealous is he against Separation from these Assemblers, and breaks out in these words; Therefore their error is wicked and blasphe­mous, who so forsake the Church, as if Christ were altogether banished thence.’

Having thus far considered what opinion the gra­ver sort of the Non-Conformists have of Communi­on with a Church, and what rules they do lay down about it, and shew'd that according to those rules, Separation from the Church is unlawful. I shall close all with the last advice given by a Reve­rend Person to his Parishioners in a Farewel Sermon in these words; Englands Re­membrancer, Serm. 16. p. 454. ‘Take heed of extreams. It is the ordinary Temptation in a time of differences, to think we cannot run too far from them we differ from, and so whilst we decline one Rock we split upon another. Remember the old Non-Conformists were equal Enemies to Superstition and Separation. Maintain (I beseech you) sober Principles, such as these are, that every defective Ministry is not a false Ministry; that sinful super-additions do not nullifie Divine institutions; that sinful defects in Ordinances do not hinder the saving effects of them. That there is a difference betwixt directing a Worship, prescribing things simply evil and ma­nifestly idolatrous, and directing about Worship, things doubtfully good being injoyned, but the unquestionable substance of Worship being main­tained.’ This latter doth not justifie Separation.

And that the supposed corruptions in the Church of England are of that nature, as do not affect the substance of it, nor are such but what may be safely communicated in, I shall now proceed to shew from them.

[Page 64] 3. Genera l. Letter of the Minist. of Old Engl. p 12, 13. Bryan's Dwel­ling with God, p 311.3. I shall consider what opinion the eminent Non-Conformists have had of the several practices in the Church of England that are injoyned upon those that hold Lay-Communion with it, which respect Forms, Gestures, Time, &c. In general they ac­knowledge that they are things tolerable, T [...]'s Theod. p. 230. and what no Church is without more or less ^d. Tr [...]ghton's A­pol c. [...] p. 68. 2. That they are not sufficient to hinder Communion. 3. That they are but few Owen's Peace-Offer. p. 17. Mischief of Im­positions, E­pist. Dedic..

First, Forms, and so its required of the Members of the Church that they joyn in the use of Liturgy or Common-Prayer. For the better understanding their judgment in this matter, I shall shew what their opi­nion is of Forms of Prayer, of publick Forms, of Forms prescribed, and of that particular Form of Divine Service used in this Church.

1. The use of Forms is declared by them to be a thing lawful in it self, and what God hath left us at liberty to use or not to use as we see occasion. So Mr. Ball; Tryal, c. 2. p. 36. &c. 8. p. 131. ‘The word of God doth not prescribe any particular Form, stinted or not stinted, as necessary, but doth warrant both as allowable; for where nothing is in particular commanded touch­ing the external Form of Words and Order, in which our Petitions should be presented to the Lord, Cure of Church Divis. p. 175. there we are left at liberty. And to put Religion in reading or uttering Words in a stint­ed or conceived Form, Tomb's Theod. p. 137. what is it less than Supersti­tion?’ Of the same mind is Mr. Baxter and others Sacril. deser [...]. p. 98, 99.. And even Dr. Owen, though he doth disallow the composing Forms of Prayer for our own private use, V. Dissenting Brethren in 32 Quests, p. 55. yet at the same time declares Discourse of the Work of the Spirit in Prayer, p. 220, 235., that he doth not argue against Forms of Prayer as unlawful to be used. And he adds a little after; If they appear not contra­ry unto, or inconsistent with, or are not used in a way [Page 65] exclusive of that work of the Holy Spirit in prayer, which we have described from Scripture, &c. I shall not contend with any about them.

But they do not only assert, but they also under­take to prove the lawfulness of Forms Ball's Tryal, c. 2., R [...]gers Tr. 223. Bryan's Dwel­ling with God, p 307. from the nature, use, and ends of prayer, and charge the con­trary opinion with Enthusiasm Grave confut. Ep. to Reader. Continuat. of Morn. Exer. p. 1006., and Novelty Freion Serm. on Jo. 1.16..

Secondly, As to Forms in publick, they declare, 1. That it is lawful to use them, and that this was the Tenent of all our best and most judicious Divines Clark's Lives of 10 Divines, p. 255. This Dr. Owen is cautious of denying, who saith, Supposing that those who make use of, and plead for Forms of prayer, especially in publick, do in a due manner prepare them­selves for it by holy meditation, &c. I do not judge that there is any such evil in them as that God will not com­municate his spirit to any in the use of them. Ball's Tryal, p. 11. 2 They do not only grant it lawful to use them, Owen's Disc. of Prayer, p. 231. but that it's expedient. So Mr. Egerton declares, Pract. of Chri­stianity, c. 11. p 691. Edit 5. ‘As for the publick Congregation, special care must be had that nothing be done in Praying, Preaching or Ad­ministring the Sacraments, but what is decent and orderly, because there many Eyes do see us, and many Ears hear us; and upon this account, it is expedient for the most part to keep a constant Form both of matter and words. Life of Mr. W. Brad [...]haw, in Mr Clark's Col­lection in Fol. p. 6 [...].’ Mr. Bradshaw pleads for it (as Mr. Gataker informs us in his life) for the avoiding hesitation, which in Prayer is more offensive than in other discourse. Continuat. of Morn. Exer. Serm. 31. p. 1006. And when in a late collection of Sermons we find it complained of, that in our days some have such Schismatical Phrases, Notions, and Doctrines in Preaching, Praying, and Praising, that a sober Christian cannot say, Amen; it renders a Form so much the more considerable. Collection of the Lives of 10 Divines, p. 255. Life of M. Ca­p [...]l. 3. They declare that publick Forms were universally used. So Mr. Clark saith, That ‘set Forms of [Page 66] Prayer are according to the practice of all Church­es, even the best Reformed; yea, and Mr. Smith himself saith, upon the Lords Prayer (though as then he was warping, and afterwards wandred far in the ways of Separation) that it was the pra­ctice of the ancient Church, and of all the Refor­med Churches in Christendom, of the Churches immediately after the Apostles; nay (saith he) of the Church in the time of the Apostles, as may be probably gathered out of 1 Cor. 14.26. This hath also been the practice of the best Lights that ever were set up in the Churches of Christ.’ 4. Ac­cordingly this was the practice of the old Non-Conformists. So Mr. Clark; Ibid. It is very well known that the flower of our own Divines went on in this way, when they might have done otherwise, if they had pleased, in their Prayers before Sermons. This we are told of Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Cartwright Bradshaw's Life publish'd by Mr. Clark in Fol. p. 67.. And we find Mr. Hildersham's Prayer before Sermon Print­ed His Doctrine of Fasting and Prayer, An. 1633., and others. This was so universally and constant­ly practised, that Mr. Clark tells us Collection of 10 Lives, 4 ^o. p. 38., that the first man who brought conceived Prayer into use in those parts where he lived, was Mr. Sam. Crook, who dyed but in the Year 1649.

Thirdly, As to prescribed Forms and Liturgies, of this Mr. Ball saith; Tryal, Epist. to Reader. I have shewed the use of a stinted Liturgy lawful and allowable by the Word of God, of ancient use in the Churches of Christ, approved by all Reformed Churches, which is a very convenient me­thod for the consideration of their judgment in the case. 1. They grant that they are lawful, its con­trary to no precept or commandment directly or by law­ful consequence, Tryal, c. 1. p. 5. c. 3. p. 23. saith Mr. Ball. So Mr. Norton of New-England doth determine; Answ. to Apol­lonius, c. 13. ‘Such things be­ing observ'd as are to be observed, it may be law­ful [Page 67] to use Forms of Prayers, &c. prescribed in the Church; neither are the Churches which use them guilty of Superstition, Will-worship, and violating the second Commandment. Discourse of Prayer, p. 222. & 235.’ And Dr. Owen him­self complys with it, who yields, That Men or Churches may agree upon a prescribed Form by common consent, as judging and avowing it best for their own edification; and only argues against prescribing such Forms of Prayer universally, in opposition, and unto the exclusion of free Prayer. 2. They grant that they are not only lawful, but that there are footsteps of this way of Worship both in the Old and New Te­stament, as Mr. Tombs and others have shewed, Ba [...]. Cure, p. 176. Ball's Tryal, p. 1 [...]8, 129. and Mr. Ainsworth himself (that did otherwise argue a­gainst them) doth confess Tombs's T [...]eo­d [...]ia, p. 221.. 3. They grant that they are very ancient in the Christian Church: Grave Confut. p. 12, 13. Ainsworth's Annot. on Ex. 12.8. The Christian Churches of ancient times for the space of this 1400 Years at least, if not from the Apostles time have had their stinted Liturgies, saith Mr Ball Tryal, p. 96, 106, 11 [...], 138. & p 8 [...].: And they answer Objections to the contrary Tomb's Theo­dulia. p. 222.. 4 They grant that in the best Reformed, nay in all Reformed Churches, they are not only used and tolerated, but also useful and expedient. Ball's Tryal, p. 108, &c. 5 That those amongst us, Rogers's Trea­tises, p. 224. to whom the use of the Common-Prayer hath been thought most burdensome, have from time to time professed their liking and approbation of a stinted Liturgy, Tomb's Theod. p. 224. as Mr. Ball assures us. Ball's Tryal, p. 96, 106, 120. Tryal, p. 121. 6. That they thought it al­together unlawful to separate from a Church for the sake of stinted Forms and Liturgies. This is not on­ly frequently affirmed by Mr. Ball Tryal, p. 121, 129, 140, 156., but little less even by Mr. Norton Resp. ad A­poll. c. 13., who saith, It is lawful to em­brace Communion with Churches, where such Forms in publick Worship are in use; neither doth it lye as a duty on a Believer, that he disjoyn and separate himself from such a Church: And they give this rea­son [Page 68] for it, that then they must separate from all Churches. Sacril. desert. p. 102. So M ^r Baxter, &c. ‘Is it not a high de­gree of Pride to conclude, Defence, part 2. p. 65. that almost all Christs Churches in the World for these thirteen hundred Years at least to this day, Ball's Tryal, p. 138. have offered such Wor­ship unto God, Rogers's 7 Tr. p. 224. as that you are obliged to avoid it; and that almost all the Catholick Church on Earth this day is below your Communion for using Forms; and that even Calvin and the Presbyteri­ans, Cartwright, Hildersham, and the old Non-Conformists were unworthy your Communion.’ I know there are several Objections against Forms of Prayer, but I know also that these are answered by them. But since the most common is, that of quench­ing and stinting the Spirit; I shall briefly give their sence of it. They say,

Rogers's 7 Tr. Tr. 3. c. 4. p. 223.1. To say that persons should use no set Form, but pray as moved by the Spirit, is a fond errour.

Ball's Tryal, c. 5. p. 83.2. They say, that the Spirit instructeth us what to ask, not in what phrase of speech. It stirreth up in us holy desires, but giveth not ability suddenly and without help to express and lay open our hearts in fit method and significant Words— Ability of speech is a common gift of the Spirit, which the Lord bestoweth upon good and bad, &c.

Ibid. p. 91.3. That the measure of the Spirit standeth not in Words and Forms, but in fervent sighs and groans.

Rogers, Ibid.4. That ‘there is nothing letteth, but that in such Forms the hearers hearts may profitably go with the same both to humble, to quicken, and to comfort.’ And D ^r Owen cannot deny but that they may be for edification, Disc. of Pray­er, p. 222, 231, 232. and that persons in the use of them may have Communion with God.

5. They say that the Scriptures insisted upon in this case are grounded upon mistakes, and are mis­applyed, [Page 69] as M ^r Tombs in particular hath clearly ma­nifested. Theodulia, p. 164, 238.

Fourthly, I shall consider what their opinion is as to the English Liturgy or Common Prayer, both as to the Liturgy it self and Communion in it. As to the Liturgy it self, its acknowledged,

1. That the matter for the most part is good, Bryan's Dwel­ling with God, Serm. 6. p 312. sound and divine, and that there is not any doctrinal passage in any of the Prayers, Baxt. Def. part 1. p. 29, 59. that may not bear a good con­struction, and so Amen may be said to it, Croston's Refor. no Separ. p. 25. as D ^r Bryan with others do maintain.

2. That as no Church for this 1400 Years has been without its publick Forms, T.D. Jeru [...]baal p. 35. so ours is the best. So the old Non-Conformists; Compare the Doctrines, Letter of the Minist. in Old Engl. p. 12. Prayers, Rites at those times [throughout] in use in the Churches with ours, and in all these (blessed be the name of the Lord) we are more pure than they And its not much short that we find in M ^r Baxter in the name of the present Non-Conformists. Second Plea for Peace, p. 101.

3. That which is accounted faulty is tolerable, and hinders not but that its acceptable to God, and edifying to pious and well-disposed Persons.

Tolerable. So M ^r Corbet; Plea for Lay-Communion, p. 2. ‘The Worship contained in the Liturgy may lawfully be partaked in, it being found for substance in the main, V. Ball's Tryal, c. 9. p. 158. and the mode there­of being laudable in divers Forms and Orders, and passable in the most, though in some offensive, in­convenient, or less perfect.’

Acceptable to God. So the old Non-Conformists; Letter of Mi­nisters in Old Engl. p. 13. In them that join with the Prayers, according to Christs command (and liberty of absence from Christ hath not been shewed) notwithstanding the corruptions, we hold the Prayers to be an holy acceptable Sacrifice to God, &c.

Edifying to well-disposed Persons. To this purpose [Page 70] M ^r Hildersham, Treat. 3. c. 4. p. 224. M ^r Rogers, &c.

And accordingly M ^r Corbet professeth his own ex­perience; Plea, p. 1. ‘Though I judge their Form of Worship to be in many respects less perfect than is desired, yet I have found my heart spiritually affected and raised towards God therein, and more especially in receiving the Lords Supper. I judge this Form may be use formally by the formal, Sacril desert. p. 105. and spiritually by those that are spiritual. It is my part to make the best of it, being the established Form.’ As to Com­munion in the Liturgy, it is granted, 1. That there is no cause to renounce it, or the Communion of the Church for it Corbet's Plea, p. 3., and that so to do is a Sin Gifford's plain Declaration. Ball's Tryal, c. 7. p. 121.. 2. That all the Reformed Churches in Christendom, do com­monly profess to hold Communion with the English Churches in the Liturgy, if they come among us where it is used Mr. Baxter's Def. of Cure, p. 68.. Mr. Hamphry's Healing Paper, p. 5. 3. Its declared on the part of the old Non-Conformists, Mr. Baxter's Disp. 4. of Church Gover. p 364. That they ordinarily and constantly used the Communion-Book in their publick Ministrati­ons Ball's Tryal, p. 121. c. 8. p. 155.; and that the People generally were in their days satisfied in it Letter of Mi­nisters of Old Engl. p. 14.. And for the present its de­clared, We can lawfully not only hear Common-Prayer, Mr. S. Fair­cl [...]ugh's Life, p. 157. but read it our selves Mr. Read's Case p. 7..

Tryal. c. 8. p. 152.I shall not trouble the Reader with the several Ob­jections against the Liturgy, and the answers return'd to them by the old and present Non-Conformists, but shall content my self with that, which it seems was much insisted upon in the days of M ^r Ball, and their reply to it.

Object. The Liturgy in the whole matter and Form thereof is too like unto the Mass-Book.

Answ. ‘If the Liturgy be Antichristian, it is so either in respect of the matter or of the Form. Not of the matter; for that which properly belonged to An­tichrist, the foul and gross errors, is purged out. [Page 71] Not of the Form; for Order and Phrase of speech is not properly Antichristian.’

2. ‘That the English Liturgy is gathered according to the Ancients, the purest of them, P. 155. V. Letter of the Minist. in Old Engl. p. 14. and is not a collection out of the Mass-Book, but a refining of that Liturgy which heretofore had been stained with the Mass, Dr. Bryan's Dwelling with God, p. 309, 310. &c. and is not a translation of the Mass, but a restitution of the ancient Liturgy. Mr. Baxter's Cure p. 281.’

Thus saith that Learned Person and much more, to whom many others do likewise consent. And in this Mr. Tombs is so zealous, that he concludes; Theodulia, p. 102. I cannot but judge that either much ignorance, or much malice it is that makes any traduce the English Common-Prayer Book, as if it were the Popish Mass-Book, or as bad as it, and to deter men from joyning with those Prayers and Services therein, which are good, as if it were joyning with Antichrist the Pope, (when they can hardly be ignorant that the Martyrs in Queen Mary' s days were burnt for it) is impudent falsehood.

Having thus far considered the Forms, I shall now § 3 proceed to shew what their opinion is of the ge­stures required in Lay-Communion, such as kneeling at the Sacrament, and standing up at the Creed and Gospels.

As to Kneeling,

1. Its granted that the posture in the Sacrament is not determined. So Mr. Baxter; Christ. Direct. p. 616. I never yet heard anything to prove Kneeling unlawful, there is no Word of God for or against any gesture.

2. It is granted whatever the gesture of our Savi­our in it was, yet that doth not oblige. V. Faldo's Dia­logue 'twixt a Minister and a Quaker. This M ^r Tombs hath undertaken to shew, ‘1. Because this gesture seems not to have been of choice used by Christ. Noye's Temple measured, p. 81. 2. Because S ^t Paul omits the gesture, which he would not have done, if it had been binding. Theod. p. 168. 3. He men­tions [Page 72] the night, and calls it the Lords Supper, and if the time be not necessary, much less the ge­sture. 4. If the gesture doth oblige, then Christi­ans must use the self same that Christ used.’

3. It is granted that the nature of the ordinance doth not forbid kneeling. Christian Let­ters, Let. 24. p. 201. So M ^r Bains, kneeling is not unbeseeming a Feaster, when our joy must be mingled with reverent trembling. Direct. p. 616. So M ^r Baxter, ‘The nature of the ordinance is mixed. And if it be lawful to take a pardon from the King upon our knees, I know not what can make it unlawful to take a sealed pardon from Christ by his Ambassador upon our Knee. Disswasive, c. 2 p. 30 &c. 6 p. 121, 122.’ Hence M ^r Bayley reckons it as an er­ror of some Independents, that they accounted sit­ting necessary as a rite significant of fellowship with Christ, V. Johnson's Christian Plea, Treat. 3. c 10. p. 285. and a part of our imitation of him, and for both these reasons, declared it necessary to keep on their hats at the time of participation.

Lettters, Ibid.4. It is granted not to be idolatrous. So M ^r Bains. ‘Kneeling is neither an occasion, nor by participati­on Idolatry: V Baxt. Christ. Direct. p. 616. kneeling never bred Bread-worship. And our doctrine of the Sacrament, known to all the world, doth free us from suspicion of adoration in it.’

Theodulia, p. 256, &c.To these M ^r Tombs adds, ‘1. that the Papists adore not the bread at putting into their mouths, but at the elevation. It being inconsistent with their principles to worship that which is not above them. 2. That the worship of God not directed to a creature, V. T. D. Je­rubbaal, p. 41. & Mr. Croston's Answ. p. 28. but before it, as an occasional object of adoration to God is not Idolatry. 3. That yet in the Church of England the Elements are not occasio­nally so, V. Ames's Fresh Sult, c. 4. § 4. p. 382. but the benefits of Christ in the Lords Sup­per; and 4. Kneeling is not to the Bread, but as the signification of an humble and grateful mind, Perkins's cases. as he shews from the Rubrick.’

[Page 73]5 thly, Those that do account it inconvenient, yet account it not to be unlawful. Thus M ^r Cartwright, Evangel. Harm. on Luke 22. v. 14, &c. Kneeling in receiving the Sacrament, being incommodi­ous in its own nature, Second reply, p. 262. and made far more incommodious by Popish superstition, is not therefore so to be rejected, that we should abstain from the Sacrament (if we cannot o­therwise be partakers of it) because the thing is not in its own nature unlawful. So its said of the old Noncon­formists, Troughton's A­pol. p. 90. Kneeling at the Sacrament was disliked by all, but yet thought tolerable, and that it might be submitted to by some of the most learned.

From all which we may conclude with Mr. Vines, On the Sacra­ment, p. 102. that the posture being a circumstance of action, as well as the time and place, is not of the Free-hold of the ordinance; and with Mr. Baxter, Sacril. desert. p. 19. that those that think they must not receive, kneeling, think errone­ously. As for standing up at the Creed, &c. Christ. Direct. p. 858. Mr. Bax­ter saith, his judgement is for it, where it is required, Sacril. desert. p. 96. and where not doing it would be divisive and scandalous. Nay elsewhere he saith, that tis a convenient prai­sing gesture, &c.

Thus I have considered the most material points, in which the Lay-members of the Church of England are concern'd, and shew'd that the lawfulness of the things injoyned upon such, is declared and justified by the suffrage and judgement of as eminent Noncon­formists as have lived in the several ages since that un­happy controversie was first set on foot amongst us. And now what remains, but that every one con­cerned set himself seriously and impartially to consider it; and it becomes such so to do when they go against the stream of the most experienced writers of their own party, who might pretend to understand the case as well, if not better than any that were conversant in it. It becomes such, ‘when they bury that under [Page 74] the condemnation of false worship, which the Lord, the author of all truth, Ball's Tryal, Epist. to Read­er. doth allow in his service. When they forsake the prayers of the Congregation, and depart from the Table of the Lord, and break off society and communion with the Churches of Christ, &c. when they expose Religion to contempt, and the truth of God to reproach, by the rents and di­visions in the Church, as M ^r Ball doth represent it.’

Defence. p. 17, 52.It becomes them, when our division gratifieth the Pa­pists, and greatly hazardeth the Protestant Religion, and by it we may lose all which the several parties contend about, as Mr. Baxter hath proved.

It becomes them when the Church of England is the bulwark of the Protestant Religion amongst us at home, and that according to the noted saying of Mr. Eger­ton, The withdrawing totally from it, would more effectu­ally introduce Popery, than all the works of Bellarmine.

It becomes them when this is the Bulwark of it abroad, and ‘all the reformed Churches in the world have a venture in this Bottom, Brinsley's Heal­ing of Israels Breaches, p. 62. which if compar'd to a Fleet, the Church of England must be acknowledged to be the Admiral. And if it go ill with this Church so as that miscarry, there is none of the Churches of Christ this day under Heaven, but are like to feel it;’as M ^r Brinsley discourses.

Lastly, It becomes them when divisions and separa­tions draw down the displeasure of God and lay us o­pen to his Judgements. Dwelling with God, Serm. 6. p. 313, 314. Therefore Dr. Bryan after he hath largely insisted upon the Argument and the present case amongst us doth thus apply himself, ‘O that I could prevail with you, to lay sadly to heart the greatness of the sin of divisions, and the grie­vousness of the punishment threatned against it, and hath been executed for it; and that the Leaders and encouragers of private Christians to make this [Page 75] sinful separation, would read oft, and me ditate up­on S ^t Jude's Epistle to v. 20. and that the multitudes that are willing to be led by them would follow the prescription of the means here to preserve or recover themselves from this seduction, v. 20, 21. And that both would leave off their reviling the Government Ecclesiastical, and the Ministers that conform, and submissively behave themselves by the example of Michael, &c.’

I shall conclude the whole with the peaceable and pious advice of Mr. Bains. On the Ephes. c. 2. p. 297, 298. ‘Let every man walk within the compass of his Calling. Whatsoever lyeth not in us to reform, it shall be our zeal and piety to tolerate, and with patience to forbear, espe­cially in things of this nature, which con­cern not so much the outward Communion with God or man essentially required in a visible state, as the due ordering of business in the said Commu­nion, wherein there be many superfluities and de­fects, silvâ tamen Ecclesiâ; yea and such a Church notwithstanding, as wherein the best and truest Members (circumstances considered) may have more cause to rejoyce than to grieve.’