between what falls out through the passions of Men and what follows from the nature of the thing But one of their own Party at Amsterdam takes notice of a Third Cause of these Dissentions viz. The Iudgment of God upon them I do see saith he the hand of God is heavy upon them blinding their Minds and hardening their Hearts that they do not see his Truth so that they are at Wars among themselves and they are far from that true Peace of God which followeth Holiness There were two great Signs of this hand of God upon them First Their Invincible Obstinacy Secondly The Scandalous Breaches which followed still one upon the other as long as the course of Separation continued and were only sometimes hindred from shewing themselves by their not being let loose upon each other For then the Firebrands soon appear which at other times they endeavour to cover Their great Obstinacy appears by the Execution of Barrow and Greenwood who being Condemned for Seditious Books could no ways be reclaimed rather choosing to Dye than to Renounce the Principles of Separation But Penry who suffered on the same account about that time had more Relenting in him as to the business of Separation For Mr. I. Cotton of New-England relates this Story of him from the Mouth of Mr. Hildersham an eminent Non-conformist That he confessed He deserved Death at the Queens hand for that he had Seduced many of Her Loyal Subjects to a Separation from Hearing the Word of Life in the Parish Churches Which though himself had learned to discover the Evil of yet he could never prevail to recover divers of Her Subjects whom he had Seduced and therefore the Blood of their Souls was now justly required at his hands These are Mr. Cotton's own words Concerning Barrow he reports from Mr. Dod's Mouth that when he stood under the Gibbet he lift up his eyes and said Lord if I be deceived thou hast deceived me And so being stopt by the hand of God he was not able to proceed to speak any thing to purpose more either to the Glory of God or Edification of the People These Executions extremely startled the Party and away goes Francis Iohnson with his Company to Amsterdam Iohnson chargeth Ainsworth and his Party with Anabaptism and want of Humility and due Obedience to Government In short they fell to pieces separating from each others Communion some say They formally Excommunicated each other but Mr. Cotton will not allow that but he saith They only withdrew yet those who were Members of the Church do say That Mr. Johnson and his Company were Accursed and Avoided by Mr. Ainsworth and his Company and Mr. A. and his Company were rejected and avoided by Mr. Johnson and his And one Church received the Persons Excommunicated by the other and so became ridiculous to Spectators as some of themselves confessed Iohnson and his Party charged the other with Schism in Separating from them But as others said who returned to our Church Is it a greater Sin in them to leave the Communion of Mr. Johnson than for him to refuse and avoid the Communion of all True Churches beside But the Difference went so high that Iohnson would admit none of Ainsworth's Company without Re-baptizing them Ainsworth on the other side charged them with woful Apostasy And one of his own Company said That he lived and died in Contentions When Robinson went from Leyden on purpose to end these Differences he complained very much of the disorderly and tumultuous carriage of the People Which with Mr. Ainsworths Maintenance was an early discovery of the Great Excellency of Popular Church-Governmâ—nt Smith who set up another Separate congregation was Iohnson's Pupil and went over In hopes saith Mr. Cotton to have gained his Tutor from the Errors of his Rigid Separation but he was so far from that that he soon outwent him and he charges the other Separate Congregations with some of the very same Faults which they had found in the Church of England viz. 1. Idolatrous Worship for if they charged the Church of England with Idolatry in Reading of Prayers he thought them equâ—lly guilty in looking on their Bibles in Preaching and Singing 2. Antichristian Government in adding the Human Inventions of Doctors and Ruling Elders which was pulling down one Antichrist to set up another and if one was the Beast the other was the Image of the Beast Being therefore unsatisfied with all Churches he began one wholly new and therefore Baptized himself For he declared There was no one True Ordinance with the other Separatists But this New Church was of short continuance for upon his Death it dwindled away or was swallowed up in the Common Gulf of Anabaptism And now one would have thought here had been an end of Separation and so in all probability there had had not Mr. Robinson of Leyden abated much of the Rigor of it for he asserted The Lawfulness of Communicating with the Church of England in the Word and Prayer but not in Sacraments and Discipline The former he defended in a Discourse between Ainsworth and him So that the present Separatists who deny that are gone beyond him and are fallen back to the Principles of the Rigid Separation Robinson succeeded though not immediately Iacob in his Congregation at Leyden whom some make the Father of Independency But from part of Mr. Robinson's Church it spread into New England for Mr. Cotton saith They went over thither in their Church-State to Plymouth and that Model was followed by other Churches there at Salem Boston Watertown c. Yet Mr. Cotton professeth That Robinson 's Denyal of the Parishional Churches in England to be true Churches either by reason of their mixt corrupt matter or for defect in their Covenant or for excess in their Episcopal Government was never received into any heart from thence to infer a nullity of their Church State And in his Answer to Mr. Roger Williams he hath these words That upon due consideration he cannot find That the Principles and Grounds of Reformâ—tion do necessarily conclude a Separation from the English Churches as false Churches from their Ministery as a false Ministry from their Worship as a false Worship from all their Professors as no visible Saints Nor can I find that they do either necessarily or probably conclude a Separation from Hearing the Word Preached by godly Ministers in the Parish Churches in England Mr. R. Williams urged Mr. Cotton with an apparent inconsistency between these Principles and his own Practice for although he pretended to own the Parish Churches as true Churches yet by his Actual Separation from them he shewed that really he did not and he adds that Separation did naturally follow from the old Puritan Principles saying That Mr. Can hath unanswerably proved That the Grounds and Principles of the Puritans against Bishops and Ceremonies and profaneness of People professing Christ
II. Of the Nature of the Present Separation Sect. 1. HAving made it my business in the foregoing Discourse to shew How far the present Dissenters are gone off from the Principles of the old Non-conformists I come to consider What those Principles are which they now proceed upon And those are of Two sorts First Of such as hold partial and occasional Communion with our Churches to be lawful but not total and constant i. e. they judge it lawful at some times to be present in some part of our Worship and upon particular occasions to partake of some acts of Communion with us but yet they apprehend greater purity and edification in separate Congregations and when they are to choose they think themselves bound to choose these although at certain seasons they may think it lawful to submit to occasional Communion with our Church as it is now established Secondly Of such as hold any Communion with our Church to be unlawful because they believe the Terms of its Communion unlawful for which they instance in the constant use of the Liturgy the Aereal sign of the Cross kneeling at the Communion the observation of Holy-dayes renouncing other Assemblies want of Discipline in our Churches and depriving the People of their Right in choosing their own Pastors To proceed with all possible clearness in this matter we must consider these Three things 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several parties with respect to our Church 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation from it 3. What the true State of the present Controversie about Separation is I. In General they cannot deny these three things 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church 2. That there is no other reason of Separation because of the Terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still allowed by the Reformed Churches abroad 1. That there is no Reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church This was confessed by the Brownists and most rigid Separatists as is proved already and our present Adversaries agree herein Dr. Owen saith We agree with our Brethren in the Faith of the Gospel and we are firmly united with the main Body of Protestants in this Nation in Confession of the same Faith And again The Parties at difference do agree in all Substantial parts of Religion and in a Common Interest as unto the preservation and defence of the Protestant Religion Mr. Baxter saith That they agree with us in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from the form of Government and imposed abuses And more fully elsewhere Is not the Non conformists Doctrine the same with that of the Church of England when they subscribe to it and offer so to do The Independents as well as Presbyterians offer to subscribe to the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from Prelacy and Ceremony We agree with them in the Doctrine of Faith and the Substance of God's Worship saith the Author of the last Answer And again We are one with the Church of England in all the necessary points of Faith and Christian Practice We are one with the Church of England as to the Substance and all necessary parts of God's Worship And even Mr. A. after many trifling cavils acknowledges That the Dissenters generally agree with that Book which is commonly called the 39 Articles which was compiled above a Hundred years ago and this Book some Men call the Church of England I know not who those Men are nor by what Figure they speak who call a Book a Church but this we all say That the Doctrine of the Church of England is contained therein and whatever the opinions of private persons may be this is the Standard by which the Sense of our Church is to be taken And that no objection ought to be made against Communion with our Church upon account of the Doctrine of it but what reaches to such Articles as are owned and received by this Church 2. That there are in effect no new termes of Communion with this Church but the same which our first Reformers owned and suffered Martyâ—dom for in Q. Maries days Not but that some alterations have been made since but not such as do in the Judgment of our Brethren make the terms of Communion harder than before Mr. Baxter grants that the terms of Lay Communion are rather made easier by such Alterations even since the additional Conformity with respect to the late Troubles The same Reasons then which would now make the terms of our Communion unlawful must have held against Cranmer Ridley c. who laid down their Lives for the Reformation of this Church And this the old Non-conformists thought a considerable Argument against Separating from the Communion of our Church because it reflected much on the honor of our Martyrs who not only lived and died in the Communion of this Church and in the practice of those things which some are now most offended at but were themselves the great Instruments in setling the Terms of our Communion 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still owned by the Protestant and Reformed Churches abroad Which they have not only manifested by receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the Harmony of Confessions but by the Testimony and Approbation which hath been given to it by the most Esteemed and Learned Writers of those Churches and by the discountenance which they have still given to Separation from the Communion of it This Argument was often objected against the Separatists by the Non-conformists and Ainsworth attempts to Answer it no less than Four times in one Book but the best Answer he gives is That if it prove any thing it proves more than they would have For saith he the Reformed Churches have discerned the National Church of England to be a true Church they have discerned the Diocesan Bishops of England as well as the Parish-Priests to be true Ministers and rejoyce as well for their Sees as for your Parishes having joyned these all alike in theâ—r Harmony As to the good opinion of the Reformed Church and Protestant Divines abroad concerning the Constitution and Orders of our Church so much hath been proved already by Dr. Durel and so little or nothing hath been said to disprove his Evidence that this ought to be taken as a thing granted but if occasion be given both he and oâ—hers are able to produce much more from the Testimony of foreign Divines in Justification of the Communion of our Church against all pretences of Separation from it Sect. 2. We now come to the several Hypotheses and Principles of Separation which are at this day among the Dissenters from our Church Some do seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not
Therefore this matter of Schism cannot be ended by the Plea of Conscience judging the conditions to be sinful but by evident and convincing Proofs that they are so but till these are brought forth which never yet were or ever will be they must bear the blame of the Schism if they Separate on these accounts Thus I have faithfully represented the Principles of those who allow occasional Presence in our Churches rather than Communion with them which I have discover'd to be of that Nature as leads Men to the greatest Separation Sect. 14. There are others who deal more openly and ingenuously and so need the less pains to discover their minds and those are II. Such who do in terms assert all Acts of Communion with our Churches to be unlawful But there is a difference among these For First Some allow hearing Sermons in our Publick Assemblies and joyning in the Pulpit Prayers but not in the Liturgy or any proper Act of Church-Communion This I have shewed was the Opinion of Robinson and the new-New-England Churches and was lately owned by Mr. Ph. Nye who Wrote a Discourse about it and answered all Objections Yea he goes so far as to own the publick preaching as a great blessing to the Nation and he thinks the Dissenters and their Families are bound to frequent as they have liberty and opportunity the more publick and National Ministry But towards the end of his Treatise he confesses the generality of their People to be of another opinion which he imputes to the activity of the Iesuits among them and he was a very sagacious Man Secondly Others hold it unlawful to joyn with our Churches in any Acts of publick Worship And some are arrived to that height that one of my Answerers confesseth That they refuse to hear him because he owns many Parochial Churches to be true Churches It seems then they not only think it unlawful to hear us but to hear those who think it lawful and the next step will be to Separate from those who do not Separate from them that own many Parochial Churches to be true Churches Several Books have been published to prove it unlawful to hear our Ministers Preach and these proceed upon the old Arguments of the former Separatists as may be seen at large in a Book called Ierubbaal whose Author goes about to prove our Worship Idolatry and our Ministers Antichristian which Mr. Nye was so far from owning that he grants our Ministry to be true and lawful and utterly denies it to be Anti-christian because the Articles of our Religion to which our Ministers are to conform their Instructions are Orthodox and framed for the casting and keeping out of Popery Sect. 15. The several Principles of our Dissenters being thus laid down the State of the present Controversie as to Separation from our Communion will soon appear And any one may now discern 1. That I do not mean bare local Separation For Mr. B. puts this in the front of his Quaere's Do you think that he is a Separatist that meeteth not in the same Parish Church with you No I do assure him provided that he elsewhere joyns with our Churches as a Member of them and doth not think himself bound to prefer the Separate Meetings as having a purer way of worship and ordinarily to frequent them for more Gospel-administrations And so much may satisfie Mr. A. too who after his trifling manner talks of a bellum Parochiale as though Men were so weak to charge one another with Separation because they meet in different Parishes but as to the Gird he gives about a Bellum Episcopale I desire him only to look into the Evangelium armatum for an Answer to it 2. I do not mean by Separation any difference in Doctrine not determin'd by our Church upon which Men do not proceed to divide from the Communion of it And I wonder who ever did But Mr. B. is pleased to make another Quaere about it To this I shall Answer him in Mr. Hales his words While the Controversies in Holland about Praedestination went no farther thâ—n the Pen-combats the Schism was all that while unhatcht but assoon as one party swept an old Cloyster and by a pretty art made it a Church by putting a new Pulpit in it for the Separating party there to meet that which was before a Controversie became a formal Schism 3. By Separation I do not mean any difference in Modes of Worship allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live This is to Answer Mr. B's Quaere concerning the difference between Cathedral and Parochial Churches and publick and private administrations of Sacraments But this sticks much with Mr. A. who takes his hints from Mr. B. which he cooks and dresses after his Facetious manner that they may go off the better with the common people And a very pleasant representation he endeavors to make of the difference of the Cathedral Service from that in Countrey Parishes But what is all this to the purpose If the same Man puts on finer Clothes at London than he wears in the Countrey Is he not the same Man for all that Are not David's Psalms the same whether they be Sung or Said Or whether Sung in a Cathedral Tune or as set by a Parish Clerk That which only looks like Argument and my business is to mind nothing else possibly others may call him to an account for his unbecoming way of Writing That I say which looks like Argument is That some things are done without Rules in our Parish Churches as the universal practice of Singing Psalms in Hopkins and Sternholds Metre and therefore they may do things without Rules and yet not be guilty of Separation This proceeds upon a mistake for in the first establishment of the Liturgy upon the Reformation under Edward the VI. allowance was made for the use of the Psalms as they were to be Sung in Churches distinct from the use of them as part of the Liturgy and from thence that custom hath been so universally practised But suppose there are some Customs receiv'd without Rules suppose there are some different Customs among us What is this to the denying the lawfulness of constant Communion with our Churches To the choosing of new Pastors and sitting down as he speaks with purer Administrations All which this Man owns in his Book as their avowed Principles and Practices and yet hath the confidence to parallel their Separation from our Church with the different Modes of Worship among our selves He must have a very mean opinion of Mens understandings that thinks to deceive them in so gross a manner 4. By Separation I do not understand a meer difference as to the way of Worship which the Members of foreign Churches are here permitted to enjoy For they do not break off from the Communion of our Churches but have certain priviledges allowed them as acting under the Rules of those Churches from whence they came But what have
Ceremonies of the Law as necessary to Salvation and to propagate this Opinion of theirs they went up and down and endeavor'd to draw away the Apostles Disciples and to set up Separate Churches among the Christians and to allow none to partake with them that did not own the Necessity of the Iewish Ceremomonies to Salvation Now although St. Paul himself complyed sometimes with the practice of them and the Iewish Christians especially in Iudaea generally observed them yet when these false Apostles came to enforce the observation of them as necessary to Salvation then he bid the Christians at Philippi to beware of them i. e. to fly their Communion and have nothing to do with them These are all the Cases I can find in the New Testament wherein Separation from Publick Communion is allowed but there are two others wherein S. Paul gives particular directions but such as do not amount to Separation 1. The different opinions they had about Meats and Drinks some were for a Pythagorean Abstinence from all Flesh some for a Iewish Abstinence from some certain sorts others for a full Christian Liberty Now this being a matter of Diet and relating to their own Families the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another but notwithstanding this difference to joyn together as Christians in the Duties common to them all For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in Meats and Drinks i. e. Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit but that requires innocency and a care not to give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters which he calls Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost which is provoked and grieved by the dissentions of Christians And he saith he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of Men. Let us therefore follow after the things that make for Peace and things wherewith we may edifie one another In such Cases then the Apostle allows no Separation from the publick Communion of Christians It was the same case as to the observation of Days then for some Christians went then on Iewish Holidays to the Synagogues others did not but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship And the design of the Apostle is not to lay down a standing Rule of Mutual forbearance as to different Communions but to shew that such differences ought not to be an occasion of breaking Communion among Christians and so the Apostles discourse Rom. 14. holds strongly against Separation on these and the like Accounts 2. The corrupt lives of many who were not under Churches Censure When St. Paul taxes so many Corruptions in the Church of Corinth no wonder if some of them put the case to them what they should do in case they knew some Members of the Church to be Men of bad lives although the offences were not scandalous by being publickly known Must they abstain from the Communion of the Church for these To this St. Paul Answers That every private Christian ought to forbear all familiar Conversation with such If any one that is a Brother be a fornicator c. with such a one no not to eat Which is all the Apostle requires of private Christians but if the Scandal be publick as that of the Incestuous persou the Church had power to vindicate its own honor by casting such out not as though the Church Communion were defiled if they continued in but the reputation and honor of the Church suffered by it the preservation whereof is the true cause of the Churches Discipline But the Apostle gives not the lest countenance to private Mens withdrawing from the Churches Communion though such persons still continued in it For there may be many reasons to break off private familiarity which will not hold as to publick Communion For our Communion in publick is a thing which chiefly respects God and a necessary duty of his own appointing the benefit whereof depends upon his Promises and all the communion they have with other Men is only joyning together for the performance of a common Religious Duty but private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the Persons converse with and a thing of mere choice and hardly to be imagined without approbation at lest if not imitation of their wickedness And therefore to argue from one to the other is very unreasonable The matter of Separation being thâ—s stated according to the Scripture there can be no way leâ—t to justifie the Separation from our Church but to prove either that our Worship is Idolatrous or that our Doctrine is false or that our Ceremonies are made necessary to Salvation which are all so remote from any color of Truth that none of my Adversaries have yet had the hardiness to undertake it But however what Pleas they do bring to justifie this Separation must in the next place be examined PART III. The Pleas for Separation examined Sect. 1. ALL the considerable Pleas at this time made use of for Separation may be reduced to these Heads 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church 2. To the terms of Communion with it 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters 4. To the Parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church which are these 1. That our Parochial Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That our Diocesan Churches are unlawfull 3. That our National Church hath no foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Right in the choice of their Pastours 1. I begin with our Parochial Churches because it is Separation from these with which we principally charge our Adversaries for herein they most discover their principles of Separation since in former times the Non-conformists thought it their duty to keep up Communion with them But since the Congregational way hath prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into the practice of it whatever their principles are at least so far as concerns forsaking Communion with our Parochial Churches and joyning together in separate Congregations for Divine Worship This principle is therefore the first thing to be examined And the main foundation of that way I said was that Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ himself instituted by unalterable Rules which were onely particular and Congregational Churches Concerning which I laid down two things 1. That supposing Congregational Churches to be of Christ's Institution this was no reason for separation from our Parochial Churches which have all the essentials of such true Churches in them 2. That there is no reason to believe that the Institution of Churches was limited to particular Congregations In answer to this Dr. O. saith these things 1. That they do not deny at least some of our Parochial Churches to be true Churches but why then do they deny Communion with them But he saith
Concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church 1. Concerning the difference between a Christian Kingdom and a National Church A Christian Kingdom he saith they all own but this is onely equivocally called a Church but he saith the Christian Bishops for 1300 years were far from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church or that the Church in the common sense was not constituted of another sort of regent part that had the Power of the Keys If there be any such Christians in the world that hold a Prince an essential part of a Christian Church let Mr. Baxter confute them but I am none of them for I do believe there were Christian Churches before Christian Princes that there are Christian Churches under Christian Princes and will be such if there were none left I do believe the Power of the Keys to be a distinct thing from the Office of the Civil Magistrate and if he had a mind to write against such an opinion he should have rather sent it to his learned sincere and worthy Friend Lewis du Moulin if he had been still living But if I onely mean a Christian Kingdom who denies it saith he If all this confused stir be about a Christian Kingdom be it known to you that we take such to be of divine Command Nay farther if we mean all the Churches of a Kingdom associated for Concord as equals we deny it not What is it then that is so denied and disputed against and such a flood of words is poured out about It seems at last it is this that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Saccrdotal head personal or collective Monarchical or Aristocratical Before I answer this Question I hope I may ask another whence comes this zeal now against a National Church For when the Presbyterians were in power they were then for National Churches and thought they proved them out of Scriptures and none of these subtilties about the Constitutive Regent part did ever perplex or trouble them Thus the Presbyterian London Ministers 1654. made no difficulty of owning National Churches and particularly the Church of England in these words And if all the Churches in the world are called one Church let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England be called the Church of England But this you will say is by association of equal Churches No they say it is when the particular Congregations of one Nation living under one Civil Government agreeing in Doctrine and Worship are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblies and in this sense say they we assert a National Church Two things saith Mr. Hudson are required to make a National Church 1. National agreement in the same Faith and Worship 2. National union in one Ecclesiastical body in the same Community of Ecclesiastical Government The old Non-conformists had no scruple about owning the Church of England and thought they understood what was meant by it Whence come all these difficulties now to be raised about this matter Is the thing grown so much darker than formerly But some mens Understandings are confounded with nice distinctions and their Consciences ensnared by needless Scruples To give therefore a plain answer to the Question what we mean by the National Church of England By that is understood either 1 the Church of England diffusive Or 2 The Church of England representative 1. The National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastours and People agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm And by this description any one may see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from the Papists on one side and the Dissenters on the other Which makes me continue my wonder at those who so confidently say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England For was there not a Church here settled upon the Reformation in the time of Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth Hath not the same Doctrine the same Government the same manner of Worship continued in this Church bating onely the interruption given by its Enemies How comes it then so hard for men to understand so easy so plain so intelligible a thing If all the Question be how all the Congregations in England make up this one Church I say by unity of consent as all particular Churches make one Catholick Church If they ask how it comes to be one National Church I say because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parlament as other Laws of the Nation are and is universally received by all that obey those Laws And tâ—is I think is sufficient to scatter those mists which some pretend to have before their eyes that they cannot clearly see what we mean by the Church of England 2. The representative Church of England is the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting together according to the Laws of this Realm to consult and advise about matters of Religion And this is determin'd by the allowed Canons of this Church We do not say that the Convocation at Westminster is the representative Church of England as the Church of England is a National Church for that is onely representative of this Province there being another Convocation in the other Province but the Consent of both Convocations is the representative National Church of England Sect. 21. And now to answer Mr. Baxter's grand difficulty concerning the Constitutive Regent part of this National Church I say 1. It proceeds upon a false supposition 2. It is capable of a plain resolution 1. That it proceeds upon a false supposition which is that whereever there is the true Notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part i. e. there must be a standing Governing Power which is an essential part of it Which I shall prove to be false from Mr. Baxter himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches which are headed by their particular Bishops or Pastours are parts of this Vniversal Church as a Troop is of an Army or a City of a Kingdom If this Doctrine be true and withall it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Baxter ' s Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderfull kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his Vniversal Pastourship But there are some men in the world who do not attend to the advantages they give to Popery so they may vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. Baxter say that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself I grant he doth but this doth not remove the difficulty for the Question is
the Bishop the Reforming the Ecclesiastical Courts as to Excommunication without prejudice to the excellent Profession of the Civil Law the Building of more Churches in great Parishes especially about the City of London the retrenching Pluralities the strictness and solemnity of Ordinations the making a Book of Canons suitable to this Age for the better Regulating the Conversations of the Clergy Such things as these might facilitate our Union and make our Church in spite of all its Enemies become a Praise in the whole Earth The Zeal I have for the true Protestant Religion for the Honour of this Church and for a firm Union among Brethren hath Transported me beyond the bounds of a Preface Which I do now conclude with my hearty Prayers to Almighty God that he who is the God of Peace and the Fountain of Wisdom would so direct the Counsels of those in Authority and incline the hearts of the People that we may neither run into a Wilderness of Confusion nor be driven into the Abysse of Popery but that the true Religion being preserved among us we may with one heart and mind serve the only true God through his only Son Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace and our alone Advocate and Mediator Amen The Contents PART I. An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of Separation § 1. No Separation in the beginning of the Reformation although there were then the same Reasons which are now pleaded The Terms of Communion being the same which were required by the Martyrs in Queen Maries days § 3. A true account of the Troubles of Francfurt Mr. B's mistake about them § 4. The first causes of the dislike of our Ceremonies § 5. The Reasons of retaining them at the time of Reformation § 6. The Tendencies to Separation checked by Beza and other Reformed Divines abroad § 7. The Heats of the Nonconformists gave occasion to Separation § 8. Their zele against it notwithstanding their representing the sinfulness and mischief of it § 9 10. The true state of the Controversie between the Separatists and Nonconformists § 11. Their Answers to the Separatists Reasons § 12. The progress of Separation The Schisms and Divisions among the Separatists the occasion of Independency That makes Separation more inexcusable by owning some of our Churches to be true Churches § 13. The mischiefs which followed Independency both abroad and § 14. hither into England § 15. The Controversie stated between the Divines of the Assembly and the Dissenting Brethren § 16. The cause of the Assembly given up by the present Dissenters § 17. The old Nonconformists Iudgment of the unlawfulness of mens preaching here when forbidden by Laws fully cleared from some late Objections PART II. Of the Nature of the present Separation § 1. The different Principles of Separation laid down The things agreed on with respect to our Church § 2. The largeness of Parishes a mere Colour and Pretence shewed from Mr. B's own words § 3. The Mystery of the Presbyterian Separation opened § 4. The Principles of it as to the People Of occasional Communion how far owned and of what force in this matter shewed from parallel cases § 5. The reasons for this occasional Communion examined § 6. Of the pretence of greater Edification in separate Meetings never allowed by the Separatists or Independents as a reason for Separation No reason for this pretence sheâ—ed from Mr. B's words § 7. The Principles of Separation as to the Ministry of our Churches Of joyning with our Churches as Oratories § 8. Of the Peoples judging of the worthiness and competency of their Ministers Mr. B's Character of the People The impertinency of this Plea as to the London Separation § 9. The absurdity of allowing this liberty to separate from Mr. B's own words § 10. The allowance be gives for Separation on the account of Conformity What publick Worship may be forbidden § 11. The Ministry of our Church charged with Usurpation in many cases and Separation allowed on that account § 12. Of Separation from Ithacian Prelatists § 13. That the Schism doth not always lie on the Imposers side where the terms of Communion are thought sinful § 14. The Principles of the Independent Separation or of those who hold all Communion with our Church unlawful § 15. The nature of Separation stated and explained § 16. The charge of Separation made good against those who hold Occasional Communion lawful § 17. The obligation to constant Communion where Occasional Communion is allowed to be lawful at large proved § 18. The Objection from our Saviours practice answered § 19. The text Phil. 3. 16. cleared from all Objections § 20. A new Exposition of that text shewed to be impertinent § 21. The charge of Separation proved against those who hold all Communion with us unlawful § 22 23. The mischief brought upon the Cause of the Reformation by it The testimonies of forein Protestant Divines to that purpose § 24. No possibility of Union among the Protestant Churches upon their grounds which hath been much wished for and desired by the best Protestants § 25. All the ancient Schisms justifiable on the same pretences § 26. There can be no end of Separation on the like grounds Mr. A's Plea for Schism at large considered § 27. The Obligation on Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church The Cases mentioned wherein Separation is allowed by the Scripture In all others it is proved to be a great sin PART III. Of the Pleas for the present Separation Sect. 1. The Plea for Separation from the Constitution of the Parochial Churches considered Sect. 2. Iustice Hobart's Testimony for Congregational Churches answered Sect. 3. No Evidence in Antiquity for Independent Congregations Sect. 4. The Church of Carthage governed by Episcopal Power and not Democratical in S. Cyprian's time Sect. 5 6. No evidence in Scripture of more Churches than one in a City though there be of more Congregations Sect. 7. No Rule in Scripture to commit Church-power to a single Congregation but the General Rules extend it further Sect. 8. Of Diocesan Episcopacy the Question about it stated But one Bishop in a City in the best Churches though many Assemblies Sect. 9. Diocesan Episcopacy clearly proved in the African Churches The extent of S. Austin's Diocess Sect. 10. Diocesan Episcopacy of Alexandria The largeness of Theodoret's Diocese the Testimony of his Epistle cleared from all Mr. B's late Objections Sect. 11. Diocese Episcopacy not repugnant to any Institution of Christ proved from Mr. B. himself Sect. 12. The Power of Presbyters in our Church Sect. 13. The Episcopal Power succeeds the Apostolical proved from many Testimonies Sect. 14. What Power of Discipline is left to Parochial Churches as to Admission Sect. 15. Whether the power of Suspension be no part of Church Discipline Sect. 16 17. Of the defect of Discipline and whether it overthrows the being of our Parochial Churches Sect. 18. Of National Churches and the grounds on which they