Member of such a Church for if it be true that Peter may be a man without being incorporated into any civil Society then it must be false to say that Peter upon the very account of his being a man must be a member of such a Society But let us now come to examine the other part of the Proposition and his sence of it which is what may be there meant by the Church of Christ of which he saith every Christian upon the very account of his being so is a member and that he is bound to joyn with it in external Communion By Church as may be gathered out of his explication of this Proposition he understands a Society of particular Persons gathered out of mankind and formed into a Body Politick of which Christ is the Head This I confesse is somewhat but not sufficient to give us his determinate sence thereof for as he hath here described it for ought we know he may mean only an internal invisible Church which is an internal invisible body Politick of which the invisible Christ is Head and those that are internally united to him by a true and living Faith are invisible Members This certainly is an invisible Church for not only the Head is invisible as to us but so likewise are the Members considered as true Believers for no man can see the Truth of anothers Faith clearly and certainly But methinks he should not take Church in this sence because first he speaks of a Church wherewith every Christian is bound to seek external Communion but no external Communion can be had with a Church considered as invisible And secondly because he speaks of Communion with such a Church where Communion is hazardous as is implyed by his supposition if it can be had now certainly there is no hazard in obtaining an internal Communion with Christ the Head and all true Believers for that may always be had when an external Communion cannot But if he by Church means the Catholick visible Church consisting of all individual professors of the Christian Doctrine thoroughout the world united to Christ their Head which is most likely to be his meaning then the sence of the Proposition is this 3. That Christ the invisible Head in Heaven being joyned to his invisible Professors on Earth make up a Body Politick whether he will call this Body Politick visible or invisible I know not but sure I am the Head thereof which is the more principal part in invisible But this he saith that it is the Duty of every particular Christian to joyn with this Church in external Communion if it may be had To this I say it is well he puts in if it may be had for another reason besides what he imagined when he inserted that clause and that is because no such Communion external can be had with such a body Politick as he calls it First Because it is very improper to say that any one is obliged to hold an external Communion with a Politick body where no Head is owned but what is invisible for since the principal and essential Member of a body Politick is the Head and that no external Communion can be had therewith as invisible it cannot be truely said that we may have or are bound to seek such an Eternal Communion therewith as a body politick I wonder who ever talkt at that rate as to say every man as a Creature was bound to seek an external Communion with mankind as making up a body Politick under the invisible God the Creator and supream Governour Secondly I say no such external Communion can be had because of the vast numbers of professing Christians scattered at such great distances upon the face of the Earth that no such Communion can possibly be obtained so that it is as possible to conceive how an external Communion may be had by every individual man with all mankind as how it may be had by every Christian with the whole body of Christians throughout the World This is so evident that he cannot but confess so much pag. 14. we cannot saith he Communicate with the Catholick Church but by Communicating with some part of it But I say by Communicating with some part of it we do not therefore Communicate externally with the whole for who ever said that a man by holding a Communion with one City or Corporation that thereby he held an external Politick Communion with all mankind and what is it that you can say for the one but I can say much alike for the other Do you say but all Christians are united under one Head the Lord Christ so say I are all mankind united under one God who is their Head and Governour Do you say all Christians Communicate in some external priviledges so say I do all mankind they are enlightned by the same Sun breath in the same air feed on the Fruits of the same Earth Do you say but they have not the same Laws as Christians have which are necessary to unite them in one body Politick I answer but if all mankind had the very same Laws yet if the publication and execution of those Laws were in different Kings hands that had jurisdiction over each other this were not enough to speak them all of one external Politick Communion no more do the same Laws amongst Christians since the publication and execution thereof is in the hands of different visible Church Governours that have no jurisdiction over each other speak any external Politick Communion among all Christians Thus have I shewn of what words and phrases of an uncertain and undetermin'd sence the parts of the Proposition consist and how hard it is to give any tollerable sound sence of the whole we shall now further enquire of the interpretation given whether it can afford any further light to understand it better For the clearing of this he saith you may be pleased to consider that the primary design and intention of our Saviour in his undertaking for us was not to save particular Persons without respect to a Society but to gather to himself a Church in the form of a Body Politick of which himself is the Head and particular Christians the Members and in this method through obedience to his Laws and Government to bring men to Salvation If I understand the force of these words with respect to the Proposition it is this that you would prove that every Christian upon the very account of his being so must needs be a Member of the Church because Christ intended not to save particular Christians but under the consideration of being Members of the Church I confess if this was as true as I suspect it to be false there would be weight in what is said But let it be tryed You say that Christ primarily designed to save his Church and but secondarily individual Christians as incorporated in this Church I pray tell me do you take Church here as you do in the Proposition certainly you ought
the Doctrines of the Church of England as that they dare deride some sober Christians under the notion of being acquainted with the Person of Christ or that dare Teach there is no difference betwixt Grace and Morality or that there is no special Grace exerted in the conversion of a sinner or that the Holy Ghost is of no further use in the Conversion of men than as he first inspired those that delivered the Doctrine of Christianity in Scriptures and inabled such to confirm the Truth of it with Miracles so that men are left in the working out of their Salvation to their Bibles and the use of their natural Faculties exclusive of any other operation of the Spirit either to their illumination or sanctification I say if the People withdraw from such Teachers or Congregations where such Doctrines are owned for securing their Faith or Salvation there so doing is justifiable because the law-of self preservation is to be regarded before any positive law of visible Church Union and I hope there is no true Son of the Church that hath any zeal for the purity of their Church Doctrine will be my adversary herein and thus much shall suffice to be said concerning your Doctrines and of the lawfulness of separating from some of the particular Congregations in case the Teachers do grossely pervert Some of the weighty Doctrines of your own Church We shall in the next place consider what you have here offered as to corrupt practices which you say is no just ground if only tollerated but not imposed of withdrawing especially if they be no worse than are found in the Church of England I Answer first if all the corrupt practices in your Church were only tollerated but not imposed you would have much more reason of your side against us than you have because several things which you enjoyn to be practised we in our Consciences believe to be unlawful and we cannot must not have Communion with you except we comply therein so that should it be yielded that unimposed corruption in a Church is no just ground of separation yet is it of no force against us because some of these we conceive to be corruptions are imposed But to come close to the case as it stands related to this Proposition suppose no imposition of any of those things that are in controversie between us which is the supposition in the Proposition what will follow but first that all the Ministers of Christ in England would be capable of places for they are Impositions that are the principal reasons why they are kept out Secondly it would follow that those that are for the use of the Liturgy and Ceremonies and a promiscuous Communion withall that had but the name of Christians in the Sacraments might therein act according as they saw fit and as for other Ministers they might freely exercise their Ministry without Liturgy or Ceremonies and might exercise Discipline toward their rerespective Members according to Christ's direction in the case The question now arising can be only this whether it would be lawful for a Member of that Congregation where the Liturgy and Ceremonies are in use and Discipline neglected that conceived these things to be corruptions to separate and joyn with another free from these conceived corruptions I say he might first because were ther is no imposition ther can be no law of Superiors binding him to a Communion with such a conceived corrupt Church so that your great reason ordinarily produced in this case would be of no force here Secondly because that it is much safer for his soul to be joyned to a pure Church than a corrupt and self preservation is founded on a law Superior to that of visible Church-Union to this or that particular Church David might eat of the Shew-Bread to save his life which had not been lawful if positive laws were not to give place to natural Thus have I examined the third position both generally and as it particularly respecteth our present differences and shewn both its unsoundness in the former and impertinency as to the latter I have onely one word to say to the Reason given upon which the supposed Truth thereof is founded and so shall dismisse it The reason why he says that Errors in a Church as to matter of Doctrine and corruptions as to matter of practice if but suffered and not imposed is on just ground for separation because these things are not sins in us so long as we do not joyn with the Church therein I Answer if he mean that other mens Errors or Corruptions are not properly or formally mine by being in their Company and joyned with them in things lawful I grant it But yet it follows not that therefore I may joyn with them if I can otherways help it a man may buy and sell and eat and drink with Fornicators or other unclean and Debauched Creatures if he cannot trade and get provision for his body but in their Company But certainly if a Trade might be as well managed with sober men and that Meat may be had in better Company it would be sinful then to Trade and Eat with such and why because the law of self preservation warranteth me in the former but not in the latter I may not neglect the preservation of my life by eating nor geting a lively hood by trading which is ordinarily necessary to the preservation of my life present being A meer occasion of hardning others in sin or scandalizing weak Brethren but when no such necessity doth lye on me then the preventing of a scandal or giving occasion to the hardning others in the their sin and the safety of my self from their contagion are reasons of force to bind me from such Societies In like manner if the Word of God could be no where heard or Communion in Sacraments no where enjoyed but only in such Churches that were so corrupt as yours is conceived to be it might be Lawfull yea and a Duty to joyn with you so far as possibly Christians could without sin But if other Churches may be had which are regular according to Gods law and only irregular according to mans then it is a Duty to withdraw to prevent scandals and hardning a Church in its Corruptions together with the preservation of themselves from the danger of being infected with those Corruption which are reasons of another nature than that only one which you give for though as I said by joying with such I make not their sins formally mine yet I sin therein upon other accounts now named which may justifie my withdrawing I come now to his fourth which is this That the enjoying of a more profitable Ministry or living under a more pure Discipline in an other Church is no just Cause of forsaking the Communion of that whereof we are members Because we are not to commit the least Crime for the attaining of the greatest good in the World now it is a Crime to for sake
is to say in those that have the Government of it I answer If you mean hereby that Jesus Christ hath by directions and precepts provided what is necessary for the due and orderly performance of Gods worship and likewise for the preserving his Churches in peace and Unity and that he hath in a special manner intrusted those directions and precepts with the Pastors of Churches to teach and command the Churches to worship God according to these directions and to keep unity among themselves and likewise to reprove and censure the obstinate according to the said directions and precepts so I yield the whole of what is said But if you mean thereby that Christ hath intrusted the Governours of Churches with an Arbitrary power to institute such things for a pretended due and orderly worship which neither were in use with Christ and his Apostles or those first Churches or that are no ways necessary in themselves but are at least seemingly contrary to the Genius of a Gospell-worship which is Eminently spirituall and to presse these under the penalties of Excommunication as if the Churches could not duely and orderly worship God and be kept in unity without them In this sence I deny that any such power is to be supposed to be Lodged in the Governours of the Church for it is a power altogether uselesse and impertinent and in the consequence destructive For Christ and his Apostles and those first Churches worshipped God and kept unity in a more excellent manner than we do and yet without the use of these humanely invented things that you Impose He goes on From hence saith he it is plain that the Church hath a power to restrain the exercise of her Subjects Liberty as to oblige them to all such Laws Rules Orders Ceremonies as she shall Establish for the ends aforesaid I answer When you have either better proved the necessity or real usefullness of the laws rules ceremonies to the ends aforesaid or that Christ hath given any such power to the said Governours which hitherto you have but meerly beg'd then I will yeild to what you say as true But otherwise it is but a poor naked Lanck Assertion that stands by it self unproved and so I leave it But as to what he adds And if it be Questioned whether her Appointments do indeed conduce to that end of that she her self is to be Judge her members being no farther concerned therein than onely before they obey her Impositions to see that they be not repugnant to the known Laws of God I Answer First let it be considered that he grants a Judgment of discretion to the people antecedent to and a ground of their Obedience to such Laws upon this I say it will follow that if the members upon searching the Scriptures and praying to God for his Spirit to direct them are left after such a search under strong perswasions that the very making such Laws and appointing such Ceremonies and binding them on the disciples necks under the penalties of Excommunication is a meer usurpation and that those Ceremonies themselves are of such a low carnall beggerly consideration extreamly ill suited to the manly State of the Church and the Spirituality of a Gospel worship I say if upon these and other considerations they continue strongly perswaded that both the one and the other are thus repugnant to the Will and Law of Christ it will be the members duty in such a case to disobey It will not here be sufficient for you to say but they are mistaken there is no such real repugnancy as they Imagine For since you leave them to be Judges whether there is or is not it is but equall that those you leave to be Judges that they should be left to act according to their judgements in such a case as this is which you yield to fall under their cognisance And the truth is if you will not yield such a Liberty of judgment as this is you must bid them put out their eyes and follow their Leaders in a blind Obedience and in case their Leaders be blind also you would there in direct them to an excellent expedient how they may come all to fall into the Ditch He Infers again Hence it will follow that the Church must be furnished with a power to end and determine controversies of Religion that arise among its membmers that is to say to give an Authoritative decision of them as that all parties are bound to acquiesce in it else she could not preserve her self in peace and unity What you say here may be differently understood according to the nature of the points about which the controversie is if the matters of difference or controversie be such as may be held by both sides without any considerable damage to either of their Solutions then I grant that if Church Governours determine as the Apostle you confesse pag. 1. doth that those differing parties should remember each other as brethren and Communicate with each other as such forbearing to censure each other as being the Lords servants to whom they must stand or fall that the members ought to acquiesce in this their determination But in case that Church Governours shall side with one party and with them shall contrary to the said rule and practice of the Apostle endeavour to force by their determination the other party to do and say as they do or else to excommunicate them I say in this case these Governours usurp an Authority to themselves above and beyond what the Apostle had or thought fit to exercise And Likewise that it is not the Duty of the party so Imposed upon to submit contrary to what they conceive to be the Will of God in that case For he that doth or saith any thing against his doubting Conscience is in the same Condition of Damnation as he that doubteth and eateth which the Apostle Instanceth in If the points of Controversie be about such matters where those that hold on one side do Espouse such doctrines or ways of worship that are of very dangerous Consequence to the Salvation to their Souls such are they that are espoused by Arians Socinians Papists I say In these instances if Church Governours determine on the right side according to the plain Revelations of Gods word in Scriptures the Members are bound to acquiesce therein but not meerely because of their determination but because their determinations are sounded on the Revelations of God but in case the said Governours should contrary to the said Revelations determine on the wrong side that is to say for the Socinians Arrians Papists I say then the Members were not obliged to acquiesce in these determinations notwithstanding all the pretences of Unity and Peace that may be obtained thereby The Author being sensible that what he last said if taken in the utmost extent of its signification would be dangerous begins to limit his sence thereof and indeed it is but high time he should Here saith he it may
Authority that enjoynes them before we withdraw our obedience to it otherwise we do not proceed upon safe grounds but now we are absolutely certain that God hath commanded us to obey them that have the rule over us but we are not certain that the Actions we here speak of are any where forbid by him for if they were they would be no longer doubtful or suspected they would be certain sins so that if we will follow the surer side as all Christians in these cases are bound to do we must continue our obedience to the Church notwithstanding we suspect or doubt of the lawfulness of her commands Thus far he I answer this Argument notwithstanding the prittiness of its contrivance is certainly falatious for ex vero nihil sequi potest nisi verum for the rule there laid down of always obeying the Church Rulers where the Conscience is in doubt is in many instances a ready way to involve many a weak Conscience in damnable guilt For suppose there had been many a doubtful Conscience among the Israelites in Ahabs time as it seems there were who halted betwixt the VVorship of Jehovah and Baal suppose yet a little further that the Consciences thus doubting were rather inclined to believe Jehovah the true God and Baal but an Idol but yet were not absolutely certain what say you now what Councel would you have given such an one if he had askt your advice do but look how ill-favouredly such an answer as this would seem true might you say according to your rule I do believe that Jehovah is the only true God and Baal but a Devil and that your worshiping a Devil is a damnable sin but as for you you are not so certain hereof as I am yet your Conscience is inclined to believe as I do my advice therefore is this that since your Rulers have commanded you to worship that Devil I Counsel you so to do till your Conscience be better resolved and why because you are certain God hath commanded you to obey your rulers but you are not yet so certain that Baal is a Devil I dare say you abhor such a resolution of the case and yet I see not but you must be forced to give no better if you follow the rule laid down in this argument I might instance in other like cases as if a Jew in the dayes of Messiahs being in the Flesh had been inclined to believe in him as the Messiah but yet was not so absolutely certain thereof as he was of this command thou shalt obey the Rulers of thy people according to you he must go against the inclination of his doubting Conscience in disowning and rejecting Christ that he might yeild obedience to his Rulers who command him so to do in like manner if a poor man were inclined to believe the Masse Idolatry he must go on in that sin against his doubting Conscience till he comes to be as certain it is Idolatry as he is that God hath commanded us to obey our Rulers From what hath been said it is evident there is a fallacy in your Argument and now to shew you where it lies give me leave to tell you it lies in your arguing from particulars to an Universal vel a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter That because I am sure that God hath Commanded me to obey my rulers in some things therfore I am sure that God hath Commanded me to obey my Rulers in every thing yea in such things which I suspect to be sin Do but you make this Evident that in that very Command which I suspect to be sinfull that I may be sure that God hath Commanded me to obey and then I will give up the Cause But this you can never do for upon those very arguments upon which I suspect the sinfulnesse of the Command upon the same Arguments I suspect whether God hath given them Authority to Command or whether God would have me to obey for I can never be sure that God hath Commanded me to obey my Rulers in such instances where I suspect my Rulers Command me to sin So that whereas your Argument supposeth that a Doubting conscience may be more certain that God hath Commanded him to obey his Rulers than he is of the thing he doubts and so he is therefore to take the surer side and so to obey his Rulers against his Conscience I have made the contrary appear by shewing that a man can never be sure that God hath Commanded him to obey his Rulers in such cases where he suspects they Command him to sin So that in obeying them he doth not take the surer side Thus is the strength of this Argument and so the strength of his second Charged upon the Nonconformists broken wherein he hath been endeavouring to prove they have no just Cause of Separation though it be upon the account of avoiding what they suspect to be sinfull which is made the Condition of Communion Thirdly saith he Neither can it be true that Errours in a Church as to matter of Doctrines or Corruptions as to matter of Practice so long as these Errours and Corruptions are only suffered but not imposed can be a sufficient Cause of Separation The reason is because the things are not sin in us so long as we do not joyn with the Church in them I Answer First I would fain know what kind of Errours of Doctrines or Corruptions of Practice you do here mean for they are of divers sorts and kinds and accordingly what you here say may be either True or False If by Errours of Doctrine you mean such that are consistent with the holding of Christ the head or such that touch not upon the Fundamentals of the Christian Doctrine some such were those in the Apostles days that related to the Abstaining from meats and observation of days in such cases doubtlesse Christians ought without imposing to bear with one another and to continue Communion with each other notwithstanding such differences which was the Apostles counsel in that case in this sence what you say is true Or if by Corruptions in Practice you should mean such infirmities that all Members of Churches are subject to more or lesse for who can say that he is without sin in this sence you are right or if you mean by errours and Corruptions such that are of a more Grosse and Hainous nature which are not publickly known or of which the Members cannot have sufficient proof for the conviction of themselves that those that are accused are really guilty so also I grant what is here said for till it be evident by some overt Act that Judas hath a Devill and is a Traytor he ought to be look'd on as an Apostle and might be heard In like manner if the Governours of the Church were with many of the Members Arrians or Socinians in their judgments but not known evidently to be such it may be the Duty of sound Christians not to
of England not scruple to professe that he would for Peace sake use all the Popish Ceremonies of Cream and Spittle in Baptisme as well as the sign of the Cross provided his Rulers did impose them but so as that he was left to his liberty is not to use them to the Popish Superstitious ends But why such an one may not upon the same pretence of peace practice most if not all of the Ceremonies and Gestures pertaining to the Mass granting him the liberty of a mentall abstraction of them from their Superstitious and Idolatrous ones I cannot yet understand and what wonder is it if there be of such perswasions among you when it is evident that there are not a few of your Church whose Ambition it seems to be to run as nigh to the Romish Rights as they may be suffered not only in adoring by bowing of the knee in the act of receiving of the Supper but in erecting the Communion Table in the form of an Altar and not only in bowing towards it but being ready to kiss the very steps that lead up to it But if this were your mind I can prove the contrary But I know he will say all this is nothing to our present case for there are no such errours or idolatrous Practices in the Church of England and therefore cannot be pleaded as a cause of our separation I Answer It is very difficult to know what the Church of England is and how they shall we be able to understand what are the Truths or Errours she maintaineth or what are her Practices If you should take it to consist of all the Christians in England whether Ministers or People so the Church of England would Comprehend all Non-conformists Churches as well as others If you take it for such Christians only who are of the Faith in Doctrinals with those that hold with the 39. Articles here the Non-conformists come in for a share also who are of your Faith therein excepting those which respect Discipline Ceremonies But if you will take in and own such Christians in England to be only of your Church that agree with you in Ceremonies and a certain form of Service and Discipline which Christ never Commanded and without which many of Christs Churches have and do subsist and flourish to say no more I wonder then by what Gospell Rule you presume to constitute a Church only of such as exclusive of all others however sound in Faith and unblameable in life Or shall we take your Church only to consist of its officers how shall we then Judge of your Faith and Doctrinals when so many of your Ministers are so contrary one to another Some are for the doctrine of Predestination and others against it some are for Justification by Imputed righteousness others not some for a difference betwixt Grace and Morality others oppose it Some for the divine right of Episcopacy others that the Magistrate may appoint what form of government he pleases in a word some write or approve of such a book that others of you think as I have heard fit to be burnt Which of these shall we understand to be your Church If those only that meet by authority in your Consistory to advise of what is fit for the rest to believe and Practise What then becomes of the Church when that Consistory is dissolved and sent home But what if a Consistory concludes of the 39. Articles and the Preachers when all is done preach the quite contrary in several weighty points As it is conceived many of yours do and these are not only tollerated but encouraged by preferments consequently owned by your selves but you have a salve for all this for you tell us let some and why not many or most preach Doctrines contrary thereto yet your Church is very sound in Doctrine so long as the XXXIX Articles remain to be her Doctrine But I wonder how these Articles may be called your Doctrines if but for fear your Ministers or People shall believe them according to the true intent and meaning of the Compilers But in the mean time what a sad Condition must the poor People be in when such corrupt Teachers shall be imposed on them if they are bound for fear of Schisme to sit under their corrupt Doctrines to the endangering of their Faith and consequently of their Salvation yea though they be errours contrary to the Doctrine of your own Church If you say the people have liberty in this case of complaining I Answer but to what purpose when such errours are publickly profest in Printed Books and no course taken for the correcting or ejecting of the Authors which shall hold their places with encouragements If you say they may then withdraw and joyn with other Pastors provided they be of the same Church of England I Answer then what is become of your propositions that errors only tollerated are no just ground for separation If you say they may be just ground of separation from a particular Congregation but not from a National Church I Answer but what if the whole National Church should beguilty of the same or like errours what is it a just ground Then to withdraw if you say no I demand for what reason I can not think of any except these two that to separate from a Particular so we joyn with another of the same National Church doth not run us upon the same danger as if we separated from the whole for the latter leaves us destitute of all publick advantages to our selves which the other doth not Beside the publick honouring of God in his Worship which is every Christians Duty would be neglected My further reply is this that if the honouring of God in publick and my Souls safety are the only reasons that are to sway in this matter then in the pertaking with Churches though Non-conformists where both these may be obtained the separation will be lawful and consequently it will be lawful to separate from a Church upon the only cause of its having corrupt Doctrines in it tollerated though not imposed If you say there is a law of the Land that makes it unlawful to joyn with a Church separate from the National I answer then the question will be only this whether the Law of a Land or the security of my Faith and consequently my Salvation ought more to be regarded which I think is very easy to determine From what hath been said it is evident that some sort of errors in a Church though but tollerated may be a just ground of withdrawing though I do not charge the Church of England with any such errors nor had I ground provided her Ministers did honestly believe those Articles that they have professed to believe which as is conceived several of them do not So that what as to this point I have said is pleadable only by such private Christians whose lot it is to fall under the Teaching of such Conformists who are such Non-conformists to
Corrupt Discipline in your Church gives ground of separation from you His Fifth and Last Proposition That though we have a just Cause to refuse Communion with the Church whereof we are members in some instances yet we are not therefore to proceed to so total a separation from it as to Erect a New Church in Contra-distinction to it or to joyn with those that do The Reason he gives is because we are bound to obey as far as we can but at no hand to disturb the Peace To the Reason I Briefly answer that these Ministers and People obey as far as they can when they by obeying neither commit sin or what they suspect to be sin or when they neglect not some known duty Daniel might not obey when he was forbid praying for some days to the true God But for the Ministers of Christ not to go on in their Ministeriall work and for the People not to enjoy all ordinances is to neglect known duties in some things only and not in these they suspect and therefore such a separation is Lawfull notwithstanding his Reason and now I answer to the Proposition I may very well doubt whether this proposition be universally true when this very Author himself grants it is not For if a Church be so greatly and generally Corrupt in Doctrine and Practice as the Church of Rome so that the Salvation of those that Communicate with her be indanger'd it is then not only lawfull to separate but to Erect a new Church this he confesseth in a very few lines following Thus he hath provided wisely good shelter for himself his from the first charge of his proposition with respect to the Church of Rome whilest he hath left the poor Non-conformists to shift as they can with respect to their own Church but by his leave I shall make bold with his own evasion for a covert to them also from this storm for what though the Corruptions and Doctrines and Practices be not so great and so generall in an other Church as theirs in the Church of Rome yet if they be but so many and so great as to endanger their Salvation it is sufficient to warrant such a separation And now if you will give me leave I will tell you how these People concieve their Salvation is indangered through your corruptions If they should not separate as they do I say then These outed Ministers do not wonder if they conceive it is by reason of the corruptions that many hundreds of them have been cast out and silenced as much as in them lies and why because they will not swear and forswear assent and consent to all that they would have them by reason whereof they are reduced to these straits either to swear and do as you would have them and that against their Consciences or else to wrap their Tallants through slavish fear like slothful Servants in a Napkin and forsake the work of the Ministry which their Lord has intrusted them with if they do the former they like wicked Hypocrites will go against their own Consciences and so will indanger their Salvation or else like false and treacherous Stewards must desert their masters work and so incurre the doom of such Stewards so that let them look on the right hand or on the left they see nothing but damnation what then is left for them to do but to go on in their work as now they do for their own safety that is to Preach Teach Father and Rule his People which you are pleased to call the erecting of new Churches which as I said is no more than to do the duty of Christs Ministers and therefore cannot justly be charged on them as their sin You call these erected Churches new and what if they be new in respect to the time of their rise that is not their fault but if you consider them with respect to their rule either of their Worship or Government so they may be more Antient than your own for such Societies of Christians that meet with Christs Ministers to worship God according to the way of the Gospel Churches without imposed Forms of Prayer or without the use of any superstitiously imposed vestments or when they meet to Administer Sacraments without any impertinent superstitious use of the sign of the Crosse or to Eat the Supper in a Feastival posture as Christ and his Apostles did or such Churches that are governed by Christs Officers and such Presbyters unquestionably are not by lay Chancellors unheard of in the first Churches where nothing is imposed on the Members but what Christ by command hath made necessary and nothing censured as scandalous and threatned with Excommunion but that that is an evident transgressors of Gods laws as Drunkenness Whoredome Swearing are in a manner connived at or if at any time censured in some poor People the censure is upon very slight grounds taken off upon a very slight and formal Repentance or the payment of a few groats But where the transgression of a Ceremonious law or a Tradition of the Elders is dealt with as a sin unpardonable fines imprisonments silencing banishments Excommunications are punishments all thought little enough for so great a scandal Let now any man well consider both these sorts of Churches both as to their way of Worship Administration of Sacraments or way of Government and then tell me whether of them are more conformable to the Antient Apostolical pattern and so which of them deserve the name of old and which of new Churches But notwithstanding all this peradventure you will say that we have broke the Unity of the National Church which we ought to have preserved I Answer we have but broke it by accident and you perceive but by accident for no man can be said to sin or to be a Peace-breaker when he is but doing his duty and I conceive it hath been proved that we do no more Elijah was charged with being the troubler of Israel and the Apostles with turning the world upside down and yet they were faultless But you rather are breakers of it per so for do but you impose no more up-us than Christ our Lord hath done either by Himself or his Apostles as necessary conditions of Communion and be but you willing to receive these as Ministers and Members which Christ receives and owns and I dare say we shall soon enjoy a blessed Peace and that upon Righteous Foundations which Christ would certainly bless and cause to last but if you will drive us to such straits as that either we must wound our Consciences by a sinful compliance with you at least with such a compliance that we suspect sinful or else live in the neglect of our known duties and without the enjoyment of some Ordinances I beseech you blame us not for what we do for you your selves have made it necessary this I think is a sufficient answer to your fifth and last proposition which being all you have said that directly concerns us I shall take the boldness to conclude with your own words I am verily perswaded that I have said nothing in this my reply but what is very agreeable to Scripture and reason and the sence of the best and Antientest i. e. Apostolical Christians and Churches FINIS