one of the newest Inventions of this Age. This conclusion I easily yield to and who are the Inventers and Maintainers of the Contrary I know not I hope he will not blame us when we are thrust out of the Church that we do not lie about the Church-walls rather than go to another place to Worship God by our selves If we do any thing but what we can shew Christ's command for let him blame us 3d. Conclusion Bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation altho it may excuse Communion in the particulars scrupled provided they have used the best means for a right Information I do so fully Assent to this Conclusion that I shall say more than the Dr. doth to wit that bare scruple of Conscience cannot excuse even Communion in the particulars scrupled whatever means have been used for Information For Scruples that have no Scripture Ground and what else can be meant by bare Scruples I know not make an Erring Conscience which however it may excuse ae toto can excuse from nothing in totum But if our Scruples such as they are and we may say we have used the best means that we could for Information do excuse us from Communion in the particulars Scrupled and if by the force of rigid Men we be deprived of Gods Ordinances unless we will communicate in these scrupled particulars I hope the Duty that lyeth on us to worship God and not live like Atheists will so far warrant that which the Dr. will call Separation that it will be hard for him to disprove it unless he retract this conclusion by which he hath given a sore Blow to his cause I oppose to this regardlesness of Mens Consciences that the Dr. seemeth to allow himself in the Judgment of the Excellent Judge Hales in his piece of Schism who saith That nothing absolveth from the Guilt of Schism but true and unpretended Conscience Also that requiring the doing of an unlawfuâ— or suspected Act is a just cause of refusing Communion Sect. 16. Conclusion 4. Where Occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty I suppose he meaneth of that particular Church in which a Man is a Member and hath his constant Residence otherwise it is manifestly false for it is lawful for me to have Occasional Communion with the Protestant Church of France but that I am not constantly bound to Communicate in England if my Occasions call me often abroad But take it in the most favourable Sense the Assertion is not true It is lawful to have Occasional Communion with a Church that hath one Ordinance pure Exemp Gr. Preaching I may as occasion serveth join in that Ordinance but if there be nothing else pure or that I can partake of without Sin in that Church I am obliged to look after another Occasion where I may enjoy all Gods Ordinances without sinful additions and having got that opportunity I do not see what Obligation lieth on me constantly to hear in that Corrupted Church rather than where I enjoy all the Ordinances in Purity What he alledgeth out of the Assemblies Reasons against the Dissenting Brethren doth not all quadrate with our case for the Congregational Men could not alledge that any unlawful Terms of Communion were imposed on them by the Presbyterians in one Ordinance more than another and therefore if they might join in one Ordinance they might in all and so had no excuse from constant Communion if occasional Communion was lawful But this question about occasional and constant Communion the Dr. bringeth in afterward therefore enough of it at present Sect. 17. Conclusion 5th That withdrawing from the Communion of a true Church and setting up Congregations for purer Worship or under another Rule is plain and down-right Separation as is most evident from the Answer of the Assembly of Divines to the dissenting Brethren It is strange that this Learned Author should Cite these Men for condemning our Practice who were of the same Principles and Practice that we own and he is pleading against particularly Dr. Burgess Mr. Case Mr. Calamy Mr. Newcomen c. whom he nameth They were neither such Fools as to condemn themselves Nor such Knaves as to blame others for that wherein they allowed themselves Whereâ—ore it is evident that it was not every Separation from a true Church that they condemned for such is both innocent and necessary when a true Church will impose sinful Terms of Communion on her Members but a Separation for pretended Corruptions in a true Church which Corruptions were not imposed on the Separaters either to be practised or approved of by them and so could not become their personal Sin. This Separation they condemned and that with good reason for where the Church is a true Church and no Sin committed by them that join with it in their joining Separating can have no shew of Reason Sect. 18. He inferreth Sect. 16. From what he had said That the present Practice of Separation cannot be justified by the Principles of the Old Non-conformists Nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines The former I have disproved tho' he saith â—t's clear by undeniable Evidence The latter he saith is in effect confessed by all his Adversaries to make out which he citeth in the Margin Mr. Baxter and Dr. Owen For the latter no wonder he confess it seeing he was for that very Separation which the Assembly opposed And the former is yet alive to speak for himself And it is as little wonder that he should say so for he denieth that any of Assembly were Presbyterians I have already shewed that the the Assembly might well Assert That Separation from a true Church was Schismatical the men that they debated against separating or such Grounds as either proved the Church false or gave them no colourable ground for that Schism But they could not understand it without Exception He taketh a great deal of pains p. 75. to prove that any difference that is between our Separation and that which the Assembly condemned is but in some Circumstances that do not make the one unlawful and the other not But that it is otherwise is clear if we consider as hath been said that they had no thing Imposed on them as Duty and as Terms of Communion which had been their Personal Sin to do as we have If this make not a material and pertinent Difference I know not what can do it But saith he the Assembly used general Reasons that have equal force at all times Ans. These general reasons may suffer an Exception which they did not nor needed not mention because it was not the case in hand Nor do we make the Difference to lie between that and this time but between their and our Grounds of Non-communion Sect. 19. He saith it cometh to the same point whether the Scruples on which men separate relate to some Ceremonies required or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline if they be such as they pretend to a
Dissenters think them unlawful to be used and are able to make it appear by good reason that it is not Humour but Conscience that moveth them so to think whether they should impose these on the Dissenters and so force them either to separate or sin against their Consciences 2. It is a part of our Controversie and that indeed on which it mainly hangeth whether to worship God by the Liturgy and with the Seremonies be a Worship acceptable to him or such as he will reject If he will approve them to be acceptable Worship yea lawful to be used all our other questions will cease 3. Supposing them to be unacceptable worship as the Non-conformists believe and supposing them to be so imposed by the Church as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances without them with the Church The question is whether we should chuse to use them or forbear the Ordinances with the Church 4. It is yet another question supposing the unlawfulness of using them and impossibility of joining with the Church without them whether we ought to live without the Ordinances of God or keep separate Meetings where we may enjoy God's Ordinances without sinful mixtures of Man's inventions I deny not but several other questions may fall in while we are debating these but these are the main points in difference between our Brethren and Us. Some have not unfitly though not so fully comprized all the Controversie in this question whether we ought to worship God only according to the Prescript of his Word or may do it by the Traditions of Men SECT V The Dr's Arguments examined for Occasional Communion HAving Stated the Question he is resolved to make the charge of Separation against all the Dissenters And 1st against those that deny constant Communion to be a Duty where-ever Occasional Communion is lawful 2. Against them that hold all Communion with the Church of England unlawful He insisteth on the 1st Sect. 16. c. There was here also need of clear stating of this question which I have done above and here resume it briefly Occasionâ—l Communion is either in some Duties or in all Duties and so is constant Communion I hope he doth not mean that they who think it lawful to communicate with the Church in some Ordinances as Preaching Prayer c. are consequently to that obliged to think it lawful to Communicate with them in all Ordinances because they have annexed unlawful Terms of Communion to some Ordinances and not to others The Question then is whether they who because they cannot enjoy all the Ordinances without Sin in the Publick Assembly and yet think they may enjoy some of them without Sin and have for enjoying all God's Ordinances without Sin set up a Meeting apart from the Church for that end whether I say such are obliged constantly to attend these Ordinances in the Publick Assembly where there is no Sin in their joining in To make the thing plainer by Instances we may lawfully hear Sermons by the Conformists and do not shun to do it occasionally but they have annexed such unlawful Terms of Communion to the Sacraments and sometimes even to their Preaching by their second Service at the end as well as the first at the beginning that we cannot at all enjoy the Sacraments and but seldom other Ordinances in purity and therefore are forced to have Meetings where we may enjoy all the Ordinances in purity Now the Question is whether in that case we are obliged constantly to wait on Preaching in the Publick Assembly rather than in our private Meetings The Dr. is for the Affirmative we are for the Negative Sect. 2. Before I examine what the Dr. saith for his opinion I shall in a few words lay down the Grounds on which we deny any such obligation to lie on us 1. We are cast out of their Church by Excommunication all of us being Excommunicated ipso facto on our Non-conformity by the Canon as the Dr. confesseth though he labour to palliate the Matter Praef. P. 74. and Part. 3. P. 367. And many of us yea most of us in many places Excommunicated by Name and Prosecuted with such Severities that we may not be seen in Publick It is strange that they should cast us out of their Communion and at the same time blame us for forbearing their Communion 2. This partial Communion that the Dr. would have us constantly use can neither satisfie the Laws of the State which he layeth so much stress on in Church-matters nor of the Church There is no Law for hearing of Sermons but only for waiting on the Service and Sacraments from which they have excluded us by their Impositions Why then should they blame us for forbearing that Communion with them which themselves lay so little weight on while they have excluded us from that which they count Church-Communion so as the Dr. himself reckoneth hearing a Sermon not to be 3. Being by their unlawful Impositions necessitated to have Meetings and Pastors for Administration of all God's Ordinances we think our selves more obliged to wait constantly on hearing of the VVord in those Meetings and from those Pastors than in the Assembles which we are so necessitated to leave or rather are driven from for a time Sect. 3. In order to proving his opinion about Occasional Communion the Dr. undertaketh to make out 1. That bare Occasional Communion doth not excuse from the Guilt of Separation 2. That as far as Occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful constant Communion is a Duty The First of these we are little concerned to dispute with him we bring other Grounds to clear our selves of the Guilt of Separation that he layeth on us Neither do I see how that by it self could do it If we have no cause to forbear constant Communion we cannot satisfie the Obligation that lieth on us to the Unity of the Church by Communion with her now and then It is no wonder that the Presbyterians as he saith were not satisfied with Occasional Communion granted to them by the Dissenting Brethren because they saw no just cause of their denying constant Communion which if we cannot shew in our case we are indeed faulty I have above shewed how we are Members of the Church and how not And do not plead that Occasional Communion maketh one a Member but I hope it will not be denied but that with protestation of the Grounds on which we own it will shew that we do not cast off all sort of Membership with the Church and it may excuse from the tantum though not from the totum of Separation as I believe it did in the Independants compared with the Brownists in reference to the Presbyterians which the Dr. instanceth For his discourse against Mr. B. for being Eighteen years without Administring or receiving the Sacrament and yet Preaching What Evil is in it or in other instances of this nature will be charged on his Party who deprive us of the Ordinances of
the Lord with them by their sinful Impositions and do what they can to hinder us from having them otherwise by their Persecutions many things of that nature are our Affliction and their Sin but all this cannot oblige us to Communicate with them in their Corruptions of God's Worship Sect. 4. I leave our Author to make the best he can of his first undertaking and come to attend him in his second to wit That constant Communion is a Duty where Occasional Communion is lawful This he manageth Sect. 17. Mr. B. and Mr. A. had given good instances to disprove this as it is here set down to wit joining with other Parishes in a Journey at a Lecture c. but I am willing to understand it with the Dr. of Communion with a Church whereof we have been or should be Members and of withdrawing from a Church for some Corruptions where yet I may Occasionally join in some duties for his opinion in this he bringeth two Arguments the first he taketh from the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Vnity of the Church This he inforceth by proving this Obligation which none of us ever denied but do with more reason retort all that can be said on that heâ—d on themselves who will not do what they can for this Peace and Unity they will not quit so much as one of their needless Ceremonies â—or our part we are ready to do what we can without Sin for Peace and Unity but the Dr. should have proved 1. That our coming to their Sermons as often as there was no Let by the Liturgy joined with it and when they pleased to suffer us without Excommunication and Câ—piâ—ndo's would preserve that which he calleth Peace and Vnity 2. That we being necessitated to have other Meetings for the pure Ordinances of God it was a lawful means for Peace and Unity with that Church that had driven us away to desert these Meetings and wait on so much of their Administrations as they should be pleasâ—d to allow us Our Hearts do not reproach us as this Learned Author doth That it is one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done with a good Conscience He meaneth toward Communion with the Church Sect. 5. But I perceive all the Strength of his Argument and the Zeal with which he prosecuteth it is built on a mistake to wit That we hold it lawful to Communicate with the Church in the Liturgy and Sacraments If Mr. B. or any other are of that opinion I know not why they should be Non-conformists If I were convinced of it I should not deny constant Communion with the Church whatever I might do Occasionally elsewhere only I think our Author need not talk so highly against his Opposites as he doth p. 159. when they speak of some cases where joining with the Church would do more harm than good Was ever Schism saith he made so light of And the Peace and Vnity of Christianity valued at so low a rate Ans. Yes to wit by them who will not part with a Trifling Ceremony for the Peace that they so much talk of but will impose these on scrupling Consciences by force to the dividing of the Church the laying aside of thousands of well qualified Ministers and the Hazard and Ruin of many Souls Did ever men in the World make lighter of the Peace of Christians than these men do if you believe their deeds and yet value it more highly if ye regard their words He asketh p. 161. Which of them readeth what they think lawful in their own Assemblies Ans. We read part of that Service-Book daily in our Assemblies to wit the Scriptures therein contained we read them out of the Bible but for using the Book or any part of it as in that composure we find no obligation on us to that both because that would be very insignificant toward Unity with the Church more than Preaching of the same Doctrine and praying for the same things is counted by them also we look on the whole Frame and Model of that Service as a humane device that we ought to give no Countenance to in God's Worship Aâ—d lastly because having once parâ—ed with them in the matter of worship we think we should take our Rule for manageing our Worship from the Scripture rather than from their Ecclesiastical Constitutions Sect. 6. All his Arguments Sect. 18. do proceed on the forementioned mistake to wit that we count Communion with them in all their Ordinances lawful If that were true Communion with them sometimes for peace might well inferr constant Communion for the same good design Neither do I say that better means of Edification will warrant constant separate Assemblies however it may warrant Occasional Communion elsewhere then where we are Members of a Church I look not on our Lords Communion with the Jewish Church as only Occasional but Constant so far as the Woâ—k that he was sent into the World for did permit but I am far from thinking that ever he did communicate with the Jews in any part of their uninstituted worship as the Dr. alledgeth p. 162. His presence at the Feast of Dedication as other Jews were is asserted by the Dr. without all Ground and he knoweth our Writers do constantly deny it and therefore his bare asserting it should not have been thought enough to set it off All that the Scripture saith of this is That he walked in Solomon's Porch Joh. 10. 22 23. Did none of the Jews more than this at that Feast Is it not to be thought that he who did so sharply reprove their uninstituted Washings and other religious Observations on account of the want of Institution and defended the Non-conformity of his Disciples to these Observations would himself observe a Religious Solemnity that had no other warrant nor foundation but what those other things had which he condemneth It is then rational to think that he walked there to get opportunity to speak to the People at that concourse as the Apostles after did when they knew these Jewish Feasts to be abrogated and not fit to be observed Sect. 7. He bringeth a Second Argument Sect. 19. from Phil. 3. 16. As far as we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things To prove that where Occasional Communion with a Church is lawful constant Communion is a Duty for saith he from hence appeareth evident that Men ought to go as far as they can toward Vniformity and not to forbear doing any thing which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Vnity This Argument is but lamely proposed and this Scripture but weakly improved by what the Dr. saith to prove his design Two things it seems he would inferr from it to wit Vniformity and Study of Peace I first ask him whether he thinketh these two to be necessarily conjoined so
as to study the one is to study the other also and neglecting the one is to neglect the other If he say they are not why doth he here conjoin them Will not the study of Peace answer this injunction of the Apostle without Uniformity If he say they are it is easie to prove the contrary for not only we have Peace and Unity with other Churches though not Vniformity but the Church of England alloweth a Difformity within her self to wit between Cathedral and Parochial Service and yet I hope she alloweth no Schism nor breach of Unity or will the Dr. say that the Apostle here injoineth Vniformity among all particular Assemblies in a Church except in Cathedrals I confess it is like he did not mind their Vniformity for he knew no such distinction of Churches or Officers on whom it dependeth under the New Testament Sect. 8. I ask Secondly what sort of Vniformity doth he think the Apostle doth here injoin if in Doctrine instituted Worship Holy Conversation and such like I grant it to be our Duty to study it But if in the same Forms and Words of Prayer in the same religious instituted Ceremonies yea or in all the same Circumstances let him prove that the Apostle meant any such thing for we deny it And it is generally held that the Ancient Church which the Dr. thinks could not possibly so soon degenerate from Apostolick practice was very various and not Uniform in her Rites and Customs as may be seen in Daillie's right use of the Fathers Lib. 2. p. 148. but much more fully in the Dr's own Irenicum p. 65 66. He must be a great Stranger to the Primitive Church that takes not notice of the great Diversity of Rites and Customs used in particular Churches without any censuring of those that differed from them or if any by inconsiderate Zeal did proceed so far as the Dr. and others now doth how ill it was resented by other Christians A great deal more to that purpose is excellently there said But O quantum mutatus ab illo We deny that Vniformity such as that our Brethâ—en use to plead so hotly for was any part of the Apostles meaning and therefore it ought to be no part of the Dr's Argument from this Text. Sect. 9. I do in the Third place readily acknowledge that the Apostle here designeth to engage Christians as far as they can attain by their understanding of what is their Duty and as far as they can lawfully do to study Peace and Unity as with all men so with the Church of which they are Members But how doth this prove constant Communion with the Church to be our duty for if he mean constant Communion in the Liturgy and Ceremonies we have not attained so far We see not the lawfulness of the use of these much less of the constant use of them and therefore the Apostle doth not enjoin us to study Peace and Unity that way I should rather think that a concludent Argument might be brought from this Text to perswade our Brethren to study the Peace and Unity of the Church by not pressing us with these things nor forcing us to withdraw from the Church because of them for they have attained so far they know them to be indifferent and so unnecessary They and we agree in this Attaintment why then do we not walk by the same Rule in laying them aside and minding the same things to wit the Unity of the Church and not our own Enriching Grandeur and Dominion over our Brethren But if he mean constant Communion with the Church in the Orninance of Preaching 1. That themselves hinder by their Excommunication 2. That is not Duty in the Circumstances that their Violence hath placed us in as hath been shewed 3. That could not conduce to Peace and Unity while we are necessitated to keep separate Meetings on other accounts So that the Apostle's command in this Text doth not at all reach our case and how far it reacheth the Imposers let them look to it Sect. 10. Having thus defended our cause from his Argument built on this Text even supposing his own Exposition of the Text I shall not need to be concerned in what Exposition others give of it nor in his Refutations of them yet I shall take notice of a few things in his discourse on this Text which may seem to make against our cause And 1. this Refutation of Dr. O. who saith That the Apostle understandeth the different Attainments of Christians in knowledge supposing which they should jointly practise what they know and bear with one another in what they differed about To confirm this if iâ— be not a Crime to make use of Mr. Pool's Criticks which the Dr. objecteth to Mr. A. the poor Non-conformists not having Deanâ—ies to furnish them with vast Libraries this seemeth to be the general opinion of Interpreters gradum illum cognitionis rerum divinarum perfectioris vitae say Menochius Estius and Tirinus In eo quod revelavit Deus saith Zanchius Who though he apply it by way of Consequence against Dissentions in the Church as the Dr. aâ—leâ—geth p. 176. yet doth down-right make the Apostle to mean of Degrees of Knowledge and his applying it against Dissentions doth not say that he presseth Unity in Mens Devices but in God's Truth and Institutions which no doubt the Apostle doth also recommend Also Bullinger in loc not cited by Mr. Pool Idem sentientes concordibus votis calculis studiis progrediamur agnitaque veritate provehamur Let the Dr. shew us one Interpreter that expoundeth this passage of Studying the Churches Peace by Vniformity in Ceremonies and Liturgy I think himself is the first that hatcht that Opinion Sect. 11. The Dr. here against Dr. O. discusseth three Points the first is Whether the Apostle speaketh here of different Opinions or of different Practices He endeavoureth to prove the latter because the Apostle beginneth with a Caution against them that were for Circumcision and maketh a digression concerning himself he adviseth People to agree in pursuing their main end and then bringeth in the Case of them that were not satisfied about the Law that People should not listen to them because they made Divisions among them and divided them by different Observations This is to expound Scripture by our fancy It is evident that the Apostle is speaking of Justification which the Concision Thought must be by the Works of the Law And this he refuteth from his own practice of looking after another Righteousness but he would have them to deal tenderly with those that had not yet learned the Truth even in that great point waiting till God should instruct them I see nothing that he saith to prove that it was meant of different Practices but rather of different Opinions that divided the Church But whether the one or the other it proveth not that we should go over the Belly of our Light to keep Peace but rather bear
apprehend pleaseth him without mens leave when they cannot do it with their leave It is a great mistake to think that Unity among Christians lieth only or mainly in Vniformity and not rather in Consent in the main points of Religion and loving forbearance in reference to the rest Sect. 34. The 5. is The exposing our selves to the Papists and others by receding too far from the first principles and frame of our Reformation This is plain enough yet without wronging the scope or sence it might have been thus expressed more openly We are ashamed to mend lâ—st Men should think that we once were wrong This Reason if it prove any thing will conclude against all Reformations Might it not have been pleaded against the abolishing the high places in Solomon's Azariah's and Josiah's time of which before This will expose us to Baal Worshippers as too far receding from the first Principles of our Reformation Might not the same have been in K. Edward 6's time and in Q. Elizabeth's time in the one of which somewhat was mended that was defective in the Reformation by Hen. 8. And in the other Praying for the Dead and some other things were laid aside that had been under Edw. 6. It is beyond my capacity to understand how this could expose you to the Papists or any other what could they say but that some of their Superstitions were at first over-lookt which now you see the Evil of and think fit to remove them What advantage could they make of all this against the Church of England It will be hard to convince those of mistake who think that cleaving to these Ceremonies doth more expose the Church to the Papists and give them hope of their thinking at last of returning to them when they see how loath they are to go too far from them This Principle seemeth to make what we have done or the first Frame of the Reformation the Rule of the Reformation rather than the Word of God Neither can the laying aside of humane Ceremonies be rationally esteemed a receding very far from the Frame and first Principles of the Reformation seeing they are of so inconsiderable moment and next to nothing compared with the weighty points of Truth that we gained by the Reformation It is known to them who have lookt into the History of the Council of Trent that this very principle put an effectual Bar to all Reformation in the Papacy that was so much desired and stickled for by some His sixth Reason is The difficulty of keeping out priests pretending to be allowed Dissenters This reason is near of Kin to that which papists use against Peoples reading Scripture The difficulty of keeping men from catching Heresy by it If the Dr. here suppose the Dissenters to be well affected to the Priests and willing to have their Company or so unskilful that they cannot discern a Priest's Droctrine from that of a Protestant or to admit Ministers among them to the Discharge of that office without Trial and Testimonials Or if he suppose that when men are allowed by Law to Worship God without Ceremonies that the Law is so laid asleep that men may do what they list If I say all these things be supposed this Reason may seem to have some weight but without such a supposition it is lighter than Chaff and unworthy of the Pen of the learned Dr. Stillingfleet Sect. 35. I perceive the Dr. cannot get that fancy out of his Head That the strength and union of the National Setlement dependeth on continuing of the present Impositions and that they are necessary to keep out Popery Enough hath been already said to lay open the fondness of this Imagination and its inconsistency with what Sentiments about the Ceremonies themselves do on other occasions declare when it serveth a turn After some indecent contempt of Mr. A. in reference to what he had said of the Dr's Sermon he distinguisheth p. 55. between lay-Lay-Communion and Ministerial Conformity that he meddleth with the former not the latter his reason is If the People thought themselves bound to do what is their Duty towards Communion with the Church many Ministers would change their Mind I contract but not misrepresent what he saith To this I return two things 1. Why Ministerial Conformity should not be taken into consideration in such a Discourse is not easily understood But that we may see the Dr. hath a mind not only to make a distinction but a difference between Non-conformist Ministers and their People according to the Maxime Divide impera If all the People might lawfully conform and the Ministers also could submit to what he calleth Lay-Communion is no regard to he had to the many Hundreds not to say Thousands of ministers many of them Eminent and most if not all of them compleatly fitted for the Work of the Gospel and who have God's and His Church's Call to that Work Is there no Consideration to be used by the Church how the Labours of all these may not be lost while the Harvest is great and the Labourers few unless it be thought that the Case is not so now and Shall they all be rendered useless rather than the imposing of Subscription and Assent to what is confessedly not instituted before born Doth this savour of that Regard to Souls and of that love of Peace and Unity that our Brethren make such a noise with when it suiteth their purpose Tho' they think us no Ministers for want of Episcopal Ordination yet we cannot think so of our selves and that one Principle sheweth them the greatest Schismaticks that are among Protestants for by it they unchurch most if not all the Reformed Churches and unminister all their Pastours and nullifie Baptism and all the other Ordinances that are among them Sect. 36. The other thing that I reply to this distinction of the Dr's is That we have such rational and well-grounded Scruples even against Lay-Communion that is joining in their Service and the use of the Ceremonies that nothing that we yet have seen is able to remove as I hope the Progress of this Debate shall make appear He alledgeth p. 6. that The scruple of the Surplice is worn out kneeling at the Sacrament is generally allowed by the more moderate Non-conformists For the sign of the Cross Mr. Baxter saith The sin if it be one in using it is not the Persons who bring the Child to be baptized but the Ministers and that he also debateth for the use of the Liturgy To all this I answer We have the same Scruple against the Surplice we had of old but do not for it withdraw it being the Minister's fault not Ours For Kneeling it is our own act and therefore we must either be dispensed with in it which the Church will not do or for bear the Sacrament in which it is for we utterly deny that the more Judicious of the Non-conformists do allow it neither do I see how they can and disallow other Ceremonies
to get that removed where he considereth the several Principles on which he alledgeth That the several sorts of Dissenters do proceed in their separating from the Church I am not obliged nor shall I endeavour to defend all these the owners of them not agreeing among themselves let every one stand up for his own Principle But there is one general Principle that I think Non-conformists agree in That the Church of England imposeth some unlawful Terms of Communion and because of not submitting to these she excludeth the Dissenters from her Communion and being thus excluded they think it their duty to worship God apart by themselves when they are not suffered to do it with the Church without Sin. If any do add to this other Principles I leave the defence of them to their Authors This is to be further opened in the Third Part where the Dr. examineth the several Pleas for Separation He is pleased to take a great deal of pains to refute some things as insufficient Grounds for Separation which some Dissenters have mentioned in their Books as additional motives there being other sufficient Reasons for Non-communion which never any of them owned as the sole ground of their practice or a sufficient Reason for not joining with the Church by it self This is to set up a man of Straw that he may get a Victory by bearing him down Instances enough of this kind will occurr in our progress I shall consider what is argumentative against the Principle already mentioned that I hold SECT I. Some Opinions about Separation from the Church of England Examined THE Dissenters with reference to the Principles of their withdrawing from the Church he divideth into two sorts 1. Such as hold partial and occasional Communion with the Church lawful but not total and constant Communion and that they may chuse Communion where there is greater purity and edification 2. Such as hold any Communion with the Church to be unlawful because they believe the Terms of its Communion to be unlawful such as the Liturgy Cross c. This distinction is unhappily stated for 1. Non exhaurit divisum There is a third sort who hold partial and occasional Communion lawful but not total and constant and yet believe the Churches terms of Communion unlawful and because of that Belief cannot communicate totally and constantly with Her. We can hear a Sermon join in Prayer without partaking in any of the unlawful Terms of Communion to wit Ceremonies and Liturgy but we cannot enjoy other Ordinances and often we are even excluded from these by their Excommunications and therefore must seek the Ordinances elsewhere 2. Partial and Occasional Communion are not the same thing nor total and constant as to the lawfulness of them One may have communion with you and that not only occasionally but constantly in God's Ordinances that are kept pure and yet refuse communion with you in your own devices and in those Ordinances of God that ye have so annexed those devices to that the one cannot be had without the other And there are some that practise accordingly they wait on your Sermons and Pulpit-prayers constantly but refuse the rest of your Worship 3. I think there are few if any Non-conformists that think the Terms of Communion with your Church lawful and can keep occasional communion with Her and yet separate for greater purity and edification If any such be they make a causeless Separation indeed Sect. 2. He will now proceed with all clearness which he hath not done in the fore-mentioned distinction and consider three things 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several Parties 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation 3. What the true state of the present Controversie about Separation is For the first he saith There are three things that we cannot deny And I say There is not one of the three but they are to be denied or at least distinguished and not admitted as he setteth them down The first of them is That there is no reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church I do cordially agree with the learned Authors whom he citeth in the proof of this p. 95. That there is no cause of separating from the Church of England or refusing communion with all Her Congregations on account of that which is the Doctrine of the Church contained in the 39 Articles for we assent to them all as true except those about Bishops and Ceremonies and we would not separate from the Church because of Doctrinal mistakes in these things if the owning of them were not imposed as Terms of our communion with Her. But it is not so easie to perswade us that there is no just cause to withdraw from the Communion of some particular Parishes in England where Arminianism or Socinianism is commonly taught where the practice of Godliness is ridiculed and Principles striking at the root of it are instilled into the Hearers such as That all the aids of the spirit that men pretend to look after that are above that Exercise of their own Faculties that is in their own power is but fancy that the Person of Christ is not to be minded by Christians but only obedience to his Laws that Resting on Christ Rolling the soul on him are no fit expressions of Faith. What would the Dr. have serious Christians who are concerned about the Salvation of their Souls do when such a Minister is set over them Shall they hear him That were to sit down to a Table where Poison is strewed over all the Meat and it is hard if not impossible at the best dangerous to pick out a wholsome bit And it is contrary to Solomon's Advice Prov. 19. 27. Cease my son to hear the Instruction that causeth to erre from the words of knowledge They who would have such Doctrine heard but not received may as well advise to go to the Stews but not commit Fornication Should they complain to Superiors against the erroneous Preacher But what if they get no redress and the Heretick be countenanced and dignified notwithstanding that all this is known to the World by the Press as well as the Pulpit What if such a Case as this or little less evil be not rare Ought not people to seek their Souls Food in corners when they cannot have it in the publick Assembly being mean while ready again to join with the Assembly when the Lord shall remove this stumbling-block Sect. 3. The Second Concession of his Adversaries that the Dr. setteth down is That there is no other Reason of Separation because of the Terms of Communion that what was from the beginning of the Reformation A sufficient refutation of this may be seen Par. 1. Sect. 1 2 3 4. If he can tell of some Alterations that have been made to the better we can tell and have told of others made to the worse It may be Mr. Baxter thinketh Lay-communion easier than before
he thinketh it so easie that he practiseth more of it than his Brethren can do But that is no proof What he objecteth from the practice of the Martyrs is above answered The Third Concession That Communion with the Church of England hath been still owned by the Reformed Churches abroad I have before answered this also shewing That though some of the Divines for no Churches ever gave any hint to that purpose in their condescendency have shewed aversion from our withdrawing yet they have laid down Doctrinal Principles that necessitate what they are so averse from Their receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the harmony of Confessions the Dr. bringeth as an Argument against Separation from Her But it is a frivolous Argument both because the Collection of these Confessions is not the work of the Churches but of a private Writer as also because the Author of that Book reckoning England among the Protestant Churches doth not by so doing oblige all to submit to her unlawful Impositions What Durel hath said or he or others can say of the good opinion of Reformed Divines of the Constitution and Orders of the Church of Englâ—nd may soon be Balanced by Testimonies out of the same Reverend Divines Condemning her Ceremonies as relicts of Popery Sect. 4. The Second thing that he insisteth on he beginneth Sect. 2. to examine the several Hypotheses and principles of Separation that are at this day talked of among Dissenters He saith some seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not capable to receive the Inhabitants And this he groundeth on some passages wherein some had defended their Meeting-Houses by this Consideration that all the Inhabitants in London could not hear in the Churches But did ever any of them say that this was either the only or main reason of their Meetings or was it not rather brought as an Additional Consideration to blunt the Edge of that Clamour that was raised against Non-conformists Preaching by them who neither could benefit the People themselves nor would suffer others to do it whereas the Non-conformists had other reasons for not joining with the Church but worshipping God without Humane Mixtures in other Assemblies But even that reason might have some weight ad hominem against the Silencers of Non-conformist Ministers I hope to give better reasons in due time and place for the Non-conformist Ministers Preaching But I am very free to declare that in a Church where there is no cause of withdrawing from her Ordinances this alledged is not sufficient Sect. 5. Some saith he Sect. 3. do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches in some Duties and at some Seasons but not with all Churches in all Duties and at all times And from this he chargeth the Separation as a Mystery as if we dealt not openly and ingeniously in setting down our opinion But I ask the Dr. who of the Non-conformists did ever thus express their opinions without further Explication And if none have it is not Candour so to represent us We desire not to walk in the Dark nor are we ashamed of our Principles We profess then That in Parishes where Truth is Preached and not dangerous Error and in those Ordinances to which no Humane Ceremonies are annexed as Preaching and Prayer and when we are not obliged to wait on the Ordinances in those Assemblies where we have all the Ordinances in purity as we cannot even in the Parish mentioned because of unlawful Impositions made the Terms of our Communion with them I say thus we can join with them but not otherwise I hope there is no Labyrinth in this Declaration of our opinion Sect. 6. He is at much pains to prove that we go upon the same principles with the Old Separatists which he proveâ—h of some of the People out of Mr. Baxter's reproof of them for their unsoberness I know the Reproofs of that Learned Author were sometimes dealt at Random But if any of the People have undue apprehensions of things and understand not so well as need were what they profess will that ruin our cause Is there no such blame among his Party Do they all speak Judiciously and Soberly and with no Tincture of Popish Principles in managing their Conformity But he will p. 103. have even our Teachers to come near to the principles of the Old Separatists for what matter is it saith he as to the Nature of the Separation whether the Terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or unlawful whether our Ministery be called a false or insufficient Ministry scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors Whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian or Repugnant to the Institutions of Christ Ans. 1. A difference sufficient to make our Separation lawful and theirs unlawful is that we withdraw being put away by the Church for not submitting to unlawful Terms of Communion These left the Church and would not join with her even tho' these Terms had not been imposed looking on the Church as no true Church Answ. 2. Whatever fault we find with the Ministers of the Church and the Hierarchy we do not separate because of these we would join with you for all these Grievances if you would but suffer us to do it without sinning against God in that which is our personal Action I hope he will not alledge that the Old Separatists were of that principle Sect. 7. But this to wit that we are of the same principles with the Old Separatists the Dr. will make manifest And that 1. As to the People 2. As to the Ministers of the Church As to the People Sect. 4. he saith We disown the Old Separation and yet make the Terms of Lay-communion for Persons as Members of the Church unlawful This I own save that I am not willing to contend with him about the Term Members of the Church let the thing be understood to wit that we think it unlawful to join in the Liturgy and Ceremonies and seeing we cannot have Gods Ordinances without these with the Church we think it our duty to serve God without these apart among our selves Yet are ready to worship God with the Church when they shall please to suffer us to do it without these Impositions This I say being understood we matter not much whether he call this a casting off of Membership with the Church or not Mr. Baxter he saith calleth it Schismatical in the Church to deny Baptism without the sign of the Cross and God-fathers and the Communion without Kneeling and that People in this case may join with other Pastors that will otherwise Baptize and give the Communion And I say the same What is this saith the Dr. but formal Separation Ans. It is nothing else And what hath he gained by that Concession For who ever questioned but there is a Separation in the Church of England between the rigid Imposers and the Dissenters But the Question is Who is the culpable cause of the formal Separation and consequently who
am at home I would join with the Publick Assembly in the True Protestant Church of England but that her Rulers impose unlawful Terms of Communion which forceth me and others to join together in Worshipping God apart and in that Assembly I am a Member till I can find a sinless access to the Publick Assembly where I desire to be a Member I suppose the Eastern Christians such as are sober and serious of them and are duly informed of the State of our Debates would not think me no Christian for this Answer nor deny me Occasional Communion for it I am sure if they did they should not then walk by the Rules of the Gospel Sect. 12. Another argumentative Consideration is p. 111. We were baptized in the Church of England and received as Members of it If then we communicate with it only occasionally we renounce our membership Ans. Whereever one be baptized that Baptism maketh him only a Member of the Catholick Church If an Inhabitant of England be occasionally in France and have his Child there baptized in the English way or in the French way Doth that make it a Member of the Church of France tho' the Child in Infancy be brought to England and there have Education and continue The Dr. had not it seems when his Book had come this length hatched his fine Notion of the Sign of the Cross being the Rite of Admission as a Member of the Church of England Ans. 2. We are obliged to fixed and constant communion though not by our being baptized in this Church yet by our residence in it and owning the same â—aith with it and are willing to own that Membership and Obligation But the Church's sinful Impositions do take off this Obligation for we cannot by any means or case be obliged to sin and therefore we do not renounce our Membership but the Church hindereth our answering that Obligation that our Membership layeth on us The Dr. despiseth this our yielding to occasional communion and it is no wonder for his Party forasmuch as they talk against us for withdrawing desire none of our communion as appeareth in excluding us by imposing such terms as they themselves count needless and we judge unlawful But whatever he think of it it is all that we can do We would bid more frankly in bargaining about our own matters but in God's matters dare not go one Ace beyond his Warrant Sect. 13. The next thing he bringeth against this Occasional Communion p. 111 112. is pure Trifling unworthy of so learned an Author That this Occasional Communion cannot be lawful above once or twice in a Man's Life That there will arise a difficult case of Conscience concerning the lawfulness of not constant cleaving to the purer Occasions and leaving purer Administrations to join with a defective Church For a man may occasionally have Communion in publick when he cannot have it in private and that often And these Occasions we may embrace in a true Church which we would not do in a false Church but rather be without the Ordinances for that time Again We do not speak of Occasional Communion with the Church in any of Her corruptions we should alwaies abstain from and reprove those as he speaketh These things being considered the difficult Case of Conscience that he fansies hath an easie resolution That when we can enjoy God's Ordinances in the Society to which we are joined to shun the sinful Impositions that are in publick we should wait on them there rather than elsewhere but when that occasion is not offered we may join with a Church in some things corrupted in such Ordinances that are not corrupted in it Sect. 14. His next Argument is That here are no Bounds to the peoples Fancies of purer Administrations and less defective ways of Worship so that there can be no stop to separation in this way This Argument the Dr. prosecuteth with facetious Scoffs more than with solid Reasons which he but undeservedly most severely had taxed Mr. A. for he telleth us of Deserting our Meetings when the first relish is over and going to Anabaptists and thence to the Quakers and that they are bound to forsake us on the same Reasons that we left the Church unless they be secure that the perfection of our way is so glaringly visible to all Mankind that it is impossible for them either to find or fansy any defect in it Noâ—hing here that hath a shadow of Argument but it is already objected and answered but the Dr. falleth into frequent repetitions I answer It is not only for purer Administrations that we withdraw but to shun sinful Impositions which I am sure neither Anabaptists nor Quakers can justly alledge Neither is it the glaring visibility but the real Scripture-warrant for our way that condemneth them for departing from us Nor will Fansied Defects in our way excuse them but real sinful Terms in our Communion But that some will without cause separate from us is no reason why we should not on just cause withdraw from you Such a way of reasoning from the ill use that some will make of our doing our Duty is too vulgar to come from so Learned a Pen. The Dr. when he wrote this had forgotten it seems what he had said Iren. p. 109. where he saith A Christian is bound to adhere to that Church which appeareth most to retain the Evangelical Purity Which Assertion I no further improve than ad hominem counting it the opposite Extreme to what he here pleadeth for It is incident even to wise men Dum vitant vitia that in contraria currunt it is downright for us and against himself What he hath Iren. p. 116. A Christian is bound to break off from that Society that injoineth some corruptions as to practice What he citeth out of Mr. Baxter is a good and sound Reproof to them that causelesly divide the Church if he intended it against any others let him answer it The sad effects of R. William's Separation in New-England do not concern us further than to lament them unless the Dr. can prove that we have no better Reason for what we do than he had Sect. 15. His Refutation of Mr. B's Answer to this Objection that he had made I insist not on save that I observe his usual way here also his representing his Adversaries as if they held That Peoples apprehension of a less defective way of Worship is sufficient ground for them to break the Church in pieces We think the less defective that Worship be it is the better but it may be the Dr. as well as Mr. B. writeth sometimes in haste Neither do we think Defectiveness but real Sinfulness and that imposed on us as the Terms of our Communion a sufficient ground of Separation Far less do we think that the Peoples apprehension of Defectiveness in Worship is a sufficient ground unless that apprehension be founded on Scripture or found Reason And least of all do we think that such
of the Prophets is subject to the Prophets not to the People As for Pastors not now to be Elected but obtruded on the people and sâ—tled among them tho' in an undue way I shall not say that it is the Peoples part to separate meerly for the Insufficiency of the Minister if the Ordinances be Administred so as they can partake of them without Sin. That which can warrant withdrawing must be a Depravation of the Ordinances and that such as importeth my personal Action in partaking of that depravation of the Ordinance and not every defect or fault either of the Minister or the Ordinance What Mr. B. saith of peoples Duty to get the best supply they can which the Dr. taxeth him for is not meant of dâ—ferting or separating from a Parish meerly on Accompt of the defective Qualiâ—â—cations of the Minister but either of Occasional Communion with a better supplied Society which if the Dr. do altogether condemn he should Preach against the Throngs that resort to him and leave others under whose particular charge they are Or when withdrawing is founded on other good Grounds that people should chuse better qualified Pastors than those they leave What he saith himself must Explain and Defend What Mr. B. further saith of the warrantable Preaching of Silenced Ministers and of the Magistrates imposing Pastors obliging people to adhere to and own these and forsake their own Pastors settled among them in the way of the Gospel come afterward to be debated and hath in part been spoken to above Sect. 5. Argument 3d. They give directions to the People what sort of Ministers they should own and what not And doth not the Scripture so too We Affirm people to have a Judgment of Discretion both of their Pastors to be Elected and also of the Doctrine and Administrations of their Pastors already in possession of the chaâ—ge of their Souls And yet that they are not to separate from the latter for any defect save that which doth so vitiate the Ordinances as that it is their Sin to join in them And if the Dr. will not allow them this Judgment as he seemeth to deny it by his Sarcasm of which saith he to wit utter Insufficiency and Heresie the People are admirable Judges he must introduce implicite Faith and Obedience And by this Doctrine it had been a Sin in the People even to have left Rome it self for were not they admirable Judges of the Heresie and Idolatry of that Church He that chargeth other mens way so fiercely with a Tendency to Popery should take heed of giving ground for such a Reflection to be made on himself Our Lord doth not speak with such Contempt of the People as this Learned Dr. doth He saith My Sheep hear my Voice and they know not the Voice of strangers Joh. 10. 27. and 5. to deny this Spirit of discerning to the People of God is to make them Sheep in a literal Sense that men may Rule over them as Beasts I see not such Inconsistency in Mr. B's Words as the Dr. would make us believe while he speaketh p. 123. of withdrawing from the utterly Insufficient and Heretical and p. 124. that people are not warranted to withdraw for a Ministers personal Faults nor for his ministerial Faults while his ministration is not utterly untolerable if the Dr. can shew either the Falshood or Inconsistency of these Assertions we shall own it He also wrongeth Mr. B. and the Non-conformists while p. 124. he telleth us of Mr. B's outcries against the People as Heady Rash Câ—nsorious Proud Ignorant such as are ready to Scorn and Vill fy the Gravest and Wisest Preachers And hence He the Dr. inferreth that such are unfit to discern the Qualifications of Ministers I ask the Dr. if ever Mr. B. said that the People were all or generally such We deny not there are too many that deâ—erve severe Reproofs for such things and Mr. B. hath not been too sparing in his Censures of them but is there any shadow of reason for inâ—erring thence That all the People should be deprived of the Right that Christ by his Testament hath bequeathed to them It were as reasonable to say that because many men Misguide or Debauch away their Estates therefore no man should haâ—e the Power of managing his Estate Christ hath provided Discipline and Authority in his House to Curb the Extravâ—gancy of such persons and to restrain the Power of Election when it is mis-managed as is above-said And he needed not the Dr's and tâ—e â—â—elates device to prevent this mischief by putting the power of Election into the Hands of a Patron who may be a Papist Atheist or Enemy to Godliness and so less fit to chuse one to take the charge of mens Souls than any of the Persons described Sect. 6. And if Mr. B. say That the heady Persons mentioned are commâ—nly the most violent and will judge in spite of the rest Yet the Remedy that I have mentioned is for restraining of them and is like to do it betâ—eâ— than what the Dr. is for can do Neither doth Mr. B. nor any of us allow these heady persons to be the decisive Judges either of who of his side or who of our side are true and sufficient Ministers Which the Dr. might have known and so spaâ—ed much of his discourse which I shall not Transcribe That which Mr. B. telleth of many young rare injudicious Preachers in England was never look'd on as sufficient ground of Separation by it sâ—lf as the Dr. insinuateth But it is a sad grievance and these men withal imposing sinful Terms of Communion on the people for who greater Zealots for Liturgy and Ceremonies than they and there being many faithful and qualified Ministers laid aside from their publick work is it any wonder that people leave the one and cleave to the other The Ground that I have already laid down will justifie our withdrawing from the Ministers even in London however Grave and Learned they be and however Capacious their Churches be For even their sinful Terms of Communion are imposed Sect. 7. He alledgeth Sect. 9. That by this means Separation cannâ—t be kept out of any Church whatsoever This is true if the Dr. have liberty to make our opinion to be what he pleaseth to have it that he may the better refute it But if our opinion be rightly understood and if we be heard speak for our selves it is most false I hope there are Churches where the Ministers generally are sound in Doctrine and mix nothing with God's Ordinances as Terms of â—ommunion with them that is unlawful In a Word There are Churchâ—s where tho' Ministers be not faultless yet the ordinances are pure or if there be any thing amiss in the Ordinances people are not required to own it peâ—sonally From such we will not withdraw He bringeth Four Qualities that Mr. B. required in Ministers the want of which may warrant to withdraw from them Tolerable Knowledge That they be
over the Christian world and how the Papists are hardened seeing no end of Schism To all this I answer 1. I know Rome and some others too will triumph when there is no cause for their so doing but as long as we can shew Scripture-warrant for what we hold and do we are unconcerned in their censures 2. That there is no cause for their triumphing appeareth because the Dr. and his Party who have the same cause of Triumph that the Papists could have on this occasion have as yet had no such victory in their Debates with us as to make them triumph 3. If by the Christian World he mean the Protestant part of Christianity for the rest we are less mâ—ved by their Judgments I hope they will not laugh at us who scruple nothing but what most of them have condemned as Additions to the Word of God and Corruptions of His Worship for so all the Calvinist-Churches and Divines have done 4. If the Papists be hardened as seeing no end of Schism they are to be blamed for we can shew them and others a good end of it to wit ordering the worship of God by his Institution or at least imposing nothing uninstituted as Terms of Communion with the Church Sect. 7. His Second Argument is Sect. 24. That this Separation maketh Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible supposing them to remain as they are This he proveth because the Lutheran Churches have these and more Ceremonies yet these Churches are thought true and fit to be united with by a Synod of the Reformed at Charenton 1631. The Helvetian Churches declare against separating for different Rites and Ceremonies So doth the Confession of Poland and that of Ausburg and Strasburg also Crecius and the Transilvanian Divines Nothing of all this cometh up the point as above stated We allow no Separation for these Rites and none of the Divines or Confessions mentioned disalloweth forbearing of them in our own persons nor injoineth using of them We do not separate because the Church useth them but She driveth us away because we cannot use them What he citeth out of Amyraldus p. 189. that the nature of Ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine that goeth along with them I have said somewhat to above I deny not but a bad Doctrine may infect an indifferent Ceremoâ—y that is built on it but I cannot assent That the best Doctrine can justifie an uninstituted Ceremony in God's Worship He citeth Davenant giving three Reasons that may hinder Union and the first is Tyranny over Mens Faith and Conscience let but this be removed and our Separation is at an end for I think the Dr. will hardly clear imposing of needless Ceremonies on them that are convinced of and can prove their sinfulness of this blame That Protestant Churches abroad have harder Terms of Communion than we he supposeth p. 198. but doth not prove the Calvinist Churches have not and if the Lutheran Churches have that is impose them with such rigour we cannot but eatenus condemn them Yet we shut not out the Lutheran Churches from all possibility of Union with them as he insinuates we can have Union with them as Sister Churches but we cannot partake in their instituted parts of Worship Sect. 8. His third Argument is that this will justifie the ancient Schisms that have alwaies been condemned in the Christian Church and he instanceth in the Schism of the Novatians and others But the Dr. hath done us Presbyterians the favour to free us of the trouble of this Debate with him by setting aside from their Pleas for Separation Ceremonies Liturgy and Holidays which are the things we insist upon I say no more on this Argument but take notice of the Dr's wonderful but most groundless confidence in a Parenthesis asserting That these are common to our Church with all other Christian Churches for many hundred years before the great degeneracy of the Roman Church and are continued by an universal consent in all parts of the Christian World. The first part of his Assertion is absolutely false for all the cunning used in inserting the Epithete great degeneracy of the Roman Church I know not where he will fix this great degeneracy whether in Boniface's usurping the Title of Vniversal Bishop or may be in the Council of Trent But he shall never prove that these were used in the Church before a notable degeneracy of the Church nor that they were used by all Christians even before the greatest degâ—neracy For the Second Part of his Assertion it is beyond comprehension what he can mean by it for he cannot be ignorant that these are not continued in all nor most of the Reformed Churches but disowned in their Confessions and by their Practice But some mens confidence or pretence to it runs highest when Truth and Reason is with them at the lowest ebb Sect. 9. I come now to his Fourth Argument Sect. 26. That these grounds will make separation endless He prosecuteth this Argument in 12 pages by shewing the evil of Schism p. 197. reprovâ—ng Mr. A. for making too light of it p. 198. and exposing him in a mimick loâ—g Oration in the excuse of it p. 199 200 201 202 203. and citing Mr. B. setting forth the evil of Schism p. 204 205 206. and reproving Mr. A. for not setting Bounds to Separation All which I shall pass by as not against the cause that I maintain and only briefly answer his Argument if either his Party or any pretended to be on our side will not keep within that Boundary let them answer it That Separation will soon be at an end if the Church impose nothing but what is warranted by Scripture and if People refuse nothing so as to separate for it but what they can shew Scripture-ground that it were their Sin to own it or do it Sect. 10. His Fifth Argument is taken from the Obligation that lieth on all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church To enforce this Argument the Dr. doth well prove several sound truths but such as none of them nor all of them conclude against withdrawing from the Church when sinful Terms of Communion are imposed as 1. That the Study of Unity is a Duty 2. That this Unity doth not lie in bare Communion in Faith and Love. 3. Nothing can discharge us from this Obligation to study Unity but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles as a sufficient reason for it What is all this to make up an Obligation to sin against God rather than separate from the Church But a fourth thing he insisteth on may be will help him better He telleth us of three cases wherein Scripture alloweth of Separation to wit Idolatrous Worship False Doctrine mens making indifferent things necessary to Salvation That this is not a sufficient enumeration I prove 1. Because there may be sinful Terms of Communion imposed where none of these are May not men make owning Traditions of Men necessary to their