doubt they will by this take you for somewhat worse 2. What doth your National Church differ from a Christian Kingdom which we deny not 3. Do you think there is no other Species of a Church besides that which is Constituted by the Christian Magistrate as Head 1. All the Christian World as far as I can learn by History no considerable part excepted have been in all Ages and to this Day are of another mind And who then is the great Nonconformist and Separatist You or I if this be your mind 2. The Magistracy and Pastoral Office are of different Species Therefore the Churches Constituted by their Regency are of different Species 3. Constantines words have hitherto been commonly received That He and so Christian Kings was Bishop without the Church and the proper Bishop within that is That he was the Governour of the Church by the Sword as the King is of all Scholars Physitians Families c. but not the Governour by the Word and Keys as the King is not a School-Master Physitian or the formal Specifying Governour of School Colledge Family as such Bishop Bilson of Subjection most clearly openeth the difference and I think Christians commonly agree to it between the Office of Governing by the Sword and by the Word even about the Church it self 4. Christ settled immediately the Pastoral Office and did not leave it to Princes to make it And He settled Churches under the Pastors when there were no Christian Princes And when the Emperours became Christians they never took themselves to be the intrinsick Constitutive Rectors of the Churches but Accidental Heads as is aforesaid And all the Councils and their Canons fully shew that the Bishops were still of this mind And our greatest Defenders of the Power of Princes Bilson Andrews Buckâ—ridge Spalatensis c. were of the same mind and ascribe to them no more 5. Else Heathen and Infidel Princes might be Essential to the Church in the Gospel-Notion For they are the Governours of it by the Sword and may possibly by the Counsel of Christians make them as good Laws as many Christian Princes do Julian made no great Change of the Church-Laws But I Labour in vain in proving that there is a Sacerdotal or Clergy-Church-Form or Species for I suppose you cannot deny it and if you do few others will I suppose it is only the National Form which you take to be Constituted by a Lay-Head But few Christians will deny That the Sacerdotal or Clergy-Form of a particular Church is of Divine Institution and that Men have not power to destroy that Form or change the Office there Instituted by the Holy Ghost Though the Forms of Assâ—ciated Churches Diocesan Metropolitan Provincial Patriarchal are judged by very many to be of Humane Invention And what Man may make Man on good Reason may unmake or alter But if you Grant us the Divine Form before mentioned I shall Grant you that a National Church is also of Divine Command if you mean but a Christian Kingdom But when one Form is Denominated from the Pastoral Office related to the Flock and the other from the Magistrates Office What hath a Man that can understand the State of the Controversy to do here but to shew what is the Pastoral Office towards the Church and what is the Magistrates For sure they are not the same And yet because that it is the Pastoral Form which the word Church denoteth in the strict and usual Christian Sense Our Sovereignes in England to avoid the Papists Exceptions have forsaken the Title of Head of the Church lest they should seem to claim a Constitutive Headship of a Church strictly taken and use only the Term Governour Even as Christ is said by St. Paul Eph. 1. to be Head over all things To the Church Over and To much differ And I yet see not why on the same Reason that we call a Christian Kingdom or Republick a National Church we may not 〈◊〉 call Loâ—don York c. a City-Church as Headed by the Mayor as the Christian Magistrate and so talk of Provincial Consular and Proconsular Churches Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical Churches and make all the Controversies which Church-Form is best as Politicks do what Form of a Common-Wealth is best And thus they that chide the Independents for making the People Governours of their little Congregations which I think yet most of them disclaim do this way quite exceed them in Popularity and in Democraties will make the People Governours of all the Churches even National including the particulars For I suppose they will not say that Democratical Civil Government is unlawful And whereas Cyprian saith Vbi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia you will say Where the Mayor or Bayliffe is there is the Church But I trow the Bishop of London believeth that there is another sort of London-Church-Form besides my Lord Mayors Relation to them But what abundance of Church-Forms Supream and Subordinate may diversity of Magistracy make § 29. Sermon p. 19. I do not intend to speak of the Terms upon which Persons are to be admitted among us to the Exercise of the function of the Ministry but of the Terms of Lay-Communion i. e. those which are necessary for Persons to joyn in our Prayers and Sacraments and other Offices of Divine Worship Answ 1. But your work would have been done more effectually if you had begun at the part which you intend not to speak of I suppose it is not for want of Charity nor Concern that you intend it not and therefore suppose that somebody else will do it at last I have heard of some above your order that could better spare the Nonconforming Ministers than the People and said plainly that they increased the Impositions because they could do better without us than with us And some have said If this will not cast them out more shall do it I take it for granted that this pretermitted part of your Work is indeed the All that you have to do in the Works of Accusing and Afflicting the Nonconformists and till this be done the rest of your Accusations will confute themselves and I doubt not but it will be attempted and if it be truly and satisfactory I will give you thanks 2. Your Term of Lay-Communion remembreth me that if as you seem you Essentiate your Church of England by a Lay-Ruler and his Laws viz. the King and the Laws made by him for Religious Government the People that you accuse are no Separatists though they Separate from the Diocesanes because they hold this Lay-Communion that is though they are not perfectly Obedient they are Subjects of the Lay-Governour and so Members of the Kingdom which is the National-Church 3. And as to your Lay-Communion here spoken of So far as it is Lawful where you have Preach'd or Written for it once I think I have done it many times I shall be far from Contradicting you in that § 30. Sermon p. 20. I will not say there
no mention of lawful in your Definitions 4. But though you will not tell us whether you mean Divine or Humane Laws and Rules yet I may confidently conjecture that it is Humane you mean for else 1. I am of the same National Church that you are yea if I prove that I am more conformable to God's Laws than you and such as you I shall prove that it will be a harder question whether you are of the Church of Eng. than whether I am 2. And you might know that such a Church we no more deny than you do at least 3. But then it can be but sincere not perfect Obedience to God's Laws and Rules which must prove one to be of this Church or else no Man is of it And then you must shew us whether a mistake in as small a matter as Meat and Drink or a Ceremony or Liturgick Form or Diocesan order do cut one off from that Church If yea than how much more would such Conformity to sin do it which we fear But supposing that you mean Humane Laws 5. Why may not Divine Laws make a Church If Humane Laws were necessary ad bene esse the Christians that I have read and converst with think that they are not necessary to the Being of a Church in sensu famosiore why then should they be in the Definition and only they 6. But the difficulty recurreth as to Humane Laws which of them are necessary to the Being of the Church For your Definition distinguished not The King hath great and excellent Laws which we all conform to Doth not our Conformity to these seem to prove us of the National Church though we conform not to your Formalities and Oaths and Ceremonies Imperfect Obedience serveth to continue men Subjects to the King It is not every Drunkeness or Oath or Fornication much less the miss of a Complement or Ceremony that makes a Man a Rebel or an Outlaw Why then should the refusal of a Prelates Subscription or Formality unchurch a sound and honest Christian 7. And if the humane Laws and Rules which you mention what ever you mean by them be subordinate to God's Laws and so be honest good and obligatory why should they cut off those from the Church which Christ's Laws cut not off yea which Christ receiveth and commandeth us to receive Receive him for God receiveth him and receive him as Christ receiveth us notwithstanding our Infirmities were good reasonings in St. Paul's Judgment which I prefer before any Bishops that I know 8. And a Man of less Acquaintance or Wit than you cannot be ignorant what abundance of Differences there are among your selves I have named you no small number in my â—d Plea some of you are hot against that which is called Arminianism and some hot for it some are for Bishops and Presbyters being of one Order and some of divers all are not of the mind of the Bishop of Hereford that wrote Naked Truth some even Bishops think that the damnatory part of Athanasius's Creed is not approved by Conformity others think that it is all to be approved A multitude such differences there are among your selves And why should not this as much unchurch some of you if it be being under the same Laws that maketh you one Church as the forbearing of a Declaration of Assent and Consent or of a Surplice c. 9. Especially tell us whether the Conformist's difference about the Constitutive Regent Part of the Church of England some being for one species and some for another do not plainly make them to be of two distinct Churches of England and further different from each other than we are from any part We justly say the Papists who are for two species of Soveraigns some for the Pope and some â—â—r a general Council are plainly of two Churches for the regent part is essential And I am sure that one part of the most Eminent Disputers for the Church of England and Conformity say that the King is the Extraneous Civil Governour but the Bishops are the Constitutive Essential Internal Governours of the Church as a Church and that if the Bishops command the use of one Translation Version Metre Liturgie and the King another we are to obey the Bishops and not the King And that the efficient cause of a National Church is the Bishops Agreement among themselves to associate into such a Church And others say that it is the King and his Laws that are the efficient of such a Church and are to be obeyed in matter of the Circumstances of Worship c. before the Bishops Can you prove that this difference between the Conformists about the very Constitutive Regent Power is not greater than Mens differences about a Ceremony or Form and doth not more to make them to be of two Churches 10. If all this confused stir be but about a Christian Kingdom be it known to you that we take such to be of Divine Command And if you know it not or dissemble it after I have said so much of it in the first Plea and elsewhere I cannot help that viz. if you will talk publickly against what you know or know not when told because you will not know But I have there largly told you what the Power of Princes about Church matters is which if you will not read I will not repeat 11. Your Words Laws and Rules would induce one to think that you joyned the Kings Laws and the Bishop's Canons together in your meaning as the bond of Uâ—ity If so is it two sorts of Governours by the Swoâ—d and by the Word Magistrates and Pastors which you take for the constitutive regent parts of the Church If so then either in Cooâ—dination and Coalâ—tion or in Subordination The first cannot be that the two Species in Coalition should make one Head unless both were in the Kings as Persona Mixta both Lay and Clergie as some affirm him to be like Melchizâ—deck But this both King and Clergie disown Nor can the second be because a subordinate Power is not essential to the whole body politick but only the supreme And the Magistracy Ministry are coordinate Species both depending immediately on God and Subordinate Mutually only Secundum quid Nor is the Legislative Power in England any other than one which is in the King and Parliament conjunct The Bishops Canons are not Laws Ejusdem Speciei till the King and Parliament make them such If this be your Judgment there are I think but few Conformists of your mind 12. I must Conjecture therefore by your words That the Laws and Rules which you define the Church by are the Laws of the King and Parliament and that it is the Civil Christian Sovereign that you take for the Constitutive Head of that National Church which you plead for or else I know not what to Conjecture And if this be your Meaning I add to what is said 1. Erastians have hitherto been distasted by the Bishops and I
to you in my book of Concord that we are utterly unable to remedy it If you will not know who can make you know Do you think that when you say to all the Land say and do all that is imposed or you shall not be admitted to our Communion that it is morally possible to make all good Christians agree in bâ—lieving that it is all lawful or to make them all do that which they think to be unlawful I must freely tell you that he that thinks that his own or any others reasonings will ever so far change all the truly honest Christians in the Land knoweth so little of matters men or Conscience as that he is unmeet to be a Bishop or a Priest But is the remedy impossible to the Imposers I am ashamed to debate the question But some men are so learned and wise that they will not quench the fire in a City nor save the Ship from sinking no forbear silencing Christs Ministers and scattering the Flocks as long as they can but say There will such or such an inconvenience follow It would cost you nothing to cure all this which it is impossible for us to cure Therefore all your just aggravations of the mischiefs of schism or separation fall where it concerneth some of you to look to it if you believe that there is a future Judgement rather than to call your selves Schismaticks under the name of others and puâ— God and man to say Thou art the man § 55. Pag. 33. You come to me for denying that I separate causelesly from the Communion of true Churches or set up Antichurches though say you they preaâ—â— when and where it is forbidden by Law and administer Sacraments by other Rules and after a different manner than what our Church requireth This is not dealing with us with that fairness and ingenuity which our former brethren used they deny the fact which is evident to all persons For do they not the very same things and in the same manner that the others do How comes it to be then separation in some and not in others They are very unwilling to confess a separation because they have formerly condemned it with great sâ—â—erity and yet they do the same things for which they charged others as guilty of a sinful separation And I am cited Ans 1. This is like H. Fâ—wlis The Puritans are the worst men on earth The Papiâ—â—s are far prefer'd before them Because the Papists differ in fundamentals but the Puritans take mass for a Ceremony So we are the most disingenious and not fair dealers that own them to be true Churches and Ministers and hold Communion with them and yet deny that we are Schismaticks or separate We leave you therefore to treat with the lesser disingenious and the fair dealers that say you are no true Ministers nor is it lawful to have Communion with men that openly avow such hainous sin and covenant against ever endeavouring to reform notorious Church corruptions because with such we are forbid even to eat and commanded from such to turn away It s well you have some more ingenious and fair dealers than I am But the disingenuity is my denying your accusation I heard of a Gentleman that couâ—d silence any man and his way was he would accuse him of Murther Adultery Theâ—t or what his cause required and if he denied it he would say what will you make me a Lyar To give me the Lie deserveth a stab It is not only a crime if we do not toto pectore telum recipere or with Camero unbutton our selves and say feri miser or wheâ—ever we are beaten confess that we deserved it It 's an odd kind of suit for a man that calleth an innocent man traytor to bring his action against him for saying you slander me But it is the name or thing that we must not deny We will gratifie you in the first I do separate from your Church by half a miles distance and by going to my own parish and by preaching my self and so do most of the Parish Preachers that will not sit hearing you when they should preach But it is de re And what is it First I must tell the matter of fact I never took any pastoral charge these twenty years I gathered no Church I never baptized one person I never administred the Lords Supper once in about eighteen or nineteen years but of late seldom to some few since aged weak persons who were in my house and near who gave me special reason for it and the Liturgy alloweth it to the sick and all their friends that joyn with them while I lived at Acton and Toteridge I went twice each Lords day to the publick Church even to the beginning Here I go when I am able usualy once a day to hear the Parson of the Parish and I communicate with them in the Sacrament I preach twice a week in another mans Pulpit borrowed most to strangers that I have no more to do with My gain I thank them the accuser put me not to excuse I write and preach against Schism and all unjust separation and perswade all to go no further from any than they go from Christ or than they drive us away or than we needs must to avoid actual sin Well now what is the crime of separation 1. I preach you say when and where it is forbidden by Law Ans Is this the formal reason of separation Then disobedience and separation are all one I suppose you mean the Law of the King and the Parliament and not the Canons save as by them made Laws when I had given you so many Historical instances of the ancient Bishops and Christians doing the like and justified commonly by the Church did you think while you silently pass all that over and all the rest that I said for my justification that two lines of your saying was enough to confute all Certainly it was not me that you meant to satisfie nor any impartial man that had read my books This dealing beseemeth not so weighty a Cause You seem to say All preaching when and where it is forbidden by Law is sinful separation But c. I deny the Major The Primitive Preachers did so for three hundred years The Orthodox did so afterwards under Constantius Valens Theodosius junior Anastasius Philippicus Justinian and many more The Albigenses Waldenses and Bohemians did so The Reformers did so The Protestants when the Interim was imposed did so Episcopius justifieth it at large and the Arminians in Belgia did so The Martyrs in England and elsewhere did so The Jesuits in the East Indies did so But what if the Law forbad you to preach at a certain hour do you separate from the Church if you miss your hour They that Preacht Afternoon Sermons when forbidden were taken for disobedient but not for separatists And what if when the Churches here were burnt the Ministers had read the Liturgy and preacht in a place
forbidden by the Law Had that been separation And how cometh when and where to be in When we are forbidden every time and in every place to preach to more than four Is any time or place allowed us to preach in You mean He is a separatist who preacheth being forbidden by Law But I am ready to give you a fuller proof than is now to be offered on this occasion that no man hath authority to forbid a faithful Minister of Christ who forfeiteth not his Office-power to perform the office to which he is ordained And Secondly that we remain under a Divine obligation to it which such a Law 〈◊〉 dissolve As Bishop Bilson before saith if Princes forbid us we must go on with our work what if the King had turned against Episcopacy and Liturgy and forbad all the Episcopal to preach Would you think it sinful separation to preach By this you shew how easily you would lay down the work you are Vowed to if the Law did but forbid you How much then are Papist and Protestant Casuists mistaken that say the Law is null that is against the common good and that all power is only to edification And what limits do you set to this Till you tell us how can we judge of our separation what if an interdict silence all the Ministers in a Kingdome must all obey What if it be most must most obey What if it be more then can be spared without the Churches wrong And whose Laws be they that so binds us Is it Infidel Princes or only Christians Is it Papists Arrians Eutychians c. or only the Orthodox And do you set the people all to judge whether the King be Orthodox as the rule of their obedience to his Laws If I prove not that God bindeth me to preach call me disobedient but yet that will not prove me a separatist By this rule you may be a separatist as oft as the Law changeth if you will not change as fast as it Yea though you Judge the Laws impositious to be hainous sins yet you must do them all or give over your Ministry And so God must ask leave of the Rulers to be worshiped as God If he were a God of their making they might put him down And I think it will prove confusion and worse disobedience than our preaching is to lay all the peoples obedience herein on their opinion of the Rulers Orthodoxness no doubt but the heathen and heretical Rulers are Governours even of the Church though none hath power for destruction or against God The Duke of Brandenburghs Subjects judge him not Orthodox Are they therefore absolved from obeying him in matters of Religion Calvenists Subjects think Lutherane Princes not Orthodox and Protestants in France Hungary Poland judge their Papist Kings not Orthodox Yea what if we judge the Bishops not Orthodox that made the Cannons or Liturgy are we absolved from obeying them And what if any Subjects think that the King is not Orthodox And Parliaments who also make our Laws contain men of many minds And the Parliament of 1640. is said by the Bishops to have been far from Orthodox even to have been Presbyterians and Erastians and even for Rebellion and yet they made divers Laws which the King consented to and ratified Were not men obliged by those Laws And indeed if the Lawmakers being not Orthodox null his Laws about Religion why not all his other Laws But it may be you will say that it is not all the people that must judge whether the King and Parliament be Orthodox but the Bishops for them Ans But who shall judge whether the Bishops be Orthodox And if all be resolved into the implicite belief of the Bishops why not of the civil Rulers as well Or why not as the Papists on Pope and Councils I suppose to avoid all this you will not say that he is a separatist that preacheth when forbidden by any Prince whatsoever Turk Heathen Arrian Eutychian Idolater Papist Where then will you fix the notifying Character All men are heterodox in some degree How shall we know the degree which absolveth us from our obedience And how cometh an Orthodox man to be authorized to do mischiefs and forbid the needful preaching of the Gospel any more than a heretick or a Christian more than a heathen I think he is bound to do more good then they and not authorized to do more hurt God never made him a judge whether the Gospel shall be preacht or not nor whether the people shall be saved or left to perish in their ignorance and sin Either then all are separatists that preach against the Laws of Heathens Hereticks or Papists And so the Orthodox Churches have in many or most Ages and places been separatists or else we are cast upon confounding impossibilities to know who the separatist is Especially in Aristocracies and Domocracies where the Rulers are of many minds and the people can never know them all nor when the Orthodox have the Major Vote And I would know whether it be only Rightful Princes or also Usurpers whose Laws are the bond of the Churches Unity If of Usurpers then all the Prelates that conformed not in the times of the late Usurpation were Schismatical separatists by your definition But to do them right few of my acquaintance that could by conformity slay in did then refuse conformity I hear that you were then no separatist But Bishop Guning Dr. Wild Dr. Hide and a great many more took another course and will not thank you if you stigmatize them with us But if it be not the Laws of Usurpers in the Roman Empire by your measure How few were the Emperours that came not in by meer conquest or by killing putting out the eyes or ejecting their predecessors or without any justifiable right And what a case Rome Italy Spain and Africa were in after the first conquests of the Gothes and Vandals and all the Western Empire in the days of the Henries Frederick and many others while men were fighting for the Empire and Popes claimed the making and unmaking of them all And even in France ever since the days of Chilperic for many Ages especially among the progeny of Charles the great it is not to be hid This way you destroy or confound the Churches I cannot imagine what you will reply to this unless you say that it is neither the Title nor the Orthodoxness of Princes which is necessary to make their Lawes the bond of Church unity but it is the goodness of their Laws at least that they impose no sin upon us Ans 1. Then if the Usurpers imposed no sin they were Schismaticks that obeyed them not ◠Let that be the rule who shall be judge whether it be sin or not If I be a discerner for my self I have told you how much and great sin I fear till you are displeased with the intimation And when you have proved all those particulars named to be no sins you have
done more than yet is done And if you think you can or do prove it must none have Christian Communion who think your proof invalid and that you do it worse than Bishop Taylor that maintained hurtless lying § 56. But the other half of the definition of a separatist is they administer Sacraments by other Rules and after a different manner than what the Church requireth Ans 1. Why will you so reproach your Church we do it by no other rule but the Scripture and doth not the Church require that the Scripture be a Rule You know Polydore Virgil and other Papists ordinarily make this signal difference of Protestants and Papists that the Protestants make the Scripture the only Rule of their Religion On which supposition Francis Peron formed his act of disputing against them And are not the Church of England Protestants If you add another rule it followeth not that we have another than you have though you have another besides what we have 2. You say we deny the fact which is evident to all persons and you speak of me Is this true What Sacraments do you mean I never ordained any I never confirmed any I have married very few if those be Sacraments I have baptised no one these twenty years I gave the Lords supper to none for about eighteen years and rarely since as I told you But others do Ans And if they have no better reason to justifie the forsaking of their Ministry than you give well may they go on to do it 3. Do you mean here by Rulers the same as before by Laws or what mean you I suppose it 's the Canon and Liturgy that you mean And if by the Church you mean any thing but the King and Parliament you are unintelligible For the Church hath but two visible essential parts the Regent and the Subject parts And of the Regent only the supream is essential the rest being also subjects and but Integrals And it is a Requiring Church which you mention And so it seemeth that it is but a lay Church And nothing but a Christian Kingdom 4. I have told you that the French and Dutch Churches here administer the Sacraments by another rule than your Liturgy and yet are no Schismaticks 5. And your rule hath many parts It requireth Preaching praying reading the Psalms and two Chapters and delivering baptism and the Lords Supper in Christs words and repeating the Creed the Lords Prayer and the Decalogue And all that I do when I officiate for any man for I have no Church and others do it with whom I converse But if it be omitting any thing else in your rule that maketh a separation what is it I oft hear Conformists omit divers prayers I have seen Dr. Horton give the Lords Supper I think to the greater part that sate I doubt most Parishes separate if every omission make a separatist 6. But thus far you satisfie me that you judge all for separatists that preach without all your Assent consent subscriptions that the Covenant bindeth no man living no not the Parliament men that took it to endeavour any alteration of Church Government that it is not lawful to resist any commissioned by the King without exception and much more such That all are â—â—â—â—ratists that administer not Sacraments according to your rule which pronounceth baptized Infants saved so dying without excepting Atheists Infidels or any and this as undoubted and certain by Gods word which requireth the Minister to refuse Baptism and Christendom where the dedicating Image of the Cross is not submitted to when the Parent or adult judge it an unlawful Sacrament And where Baptism must be denyed to all that will not make Godfathers and Godmothers the Sole Covenanting undertakers for their Children without speaking a Covenanting word themselves And when your rule requireth all Ministers to deny Sacramental Communion to all that scruple kneeling in the reception and yet excommunicateth them and ruineth them for not Communicating when they are rejected And also ipso facto Excommunicate To omit much more such this is your rule which he that swerveth from it is a separist 7. But I had thought that we had not been like those late cavilling Papists that will not distinguish fundamentals from any little points lest it lose them a paultry advantage of abusing men Doth not every good Law and Rule distinguish between Essentials Integrals and Accidents and make more Accidents than are Integrals and Integrals than are Essentials And doth your rule do otherwise If not tell us what parts of your rule are necessary to one and what to the other or you say nothing to resolve the case Is every line and Ceremony Essential to the Church and to each member If not how cometh our omitting a form of Ceremony to cut us off as a separated Church any more than every breach of Law cuts off a man from the Common-wealth Yea if your Church be but a Christian Kingdom do not you cut off all from that Kingdom too that refuse your Forms or Ceremonies or Subscriptions 8. But Sir to be short with you I will yet believe that Christ is the Institutor of the Church and that he hath himself made Laws which are sufficient to be at least the bond of their unity yea for more than Essentials even the Integrals and many Accidents and hath given Laws to regulate all mens Laws that determine of needful undetermined accidents And that no man should be cut off from the Church or taken as separated that breaketh no Law of God yea those that are necessary to Church unity and Communion And that the grand Schismaticks of the world are the Engineers that fabricate needless impossible dividing terms and conditions of unity and Communion § 57. But you tell me that we do the same things in the same manner as the separatists Ergo we are disingenuous for denying your accusation Ans 1. Judge of the fact by what is said 2. We do not say 1. That you are no true Ministers or Churches 2. Nor that it is unlawful to communicate with you Ergo it is not true that we do the same things 3. But it is the External action the whole same that maketh a separatist A Parson in the Ale-house lost his Common prayer book When he came to Church he told them his mishap and only read what was in the Bible Query whether his Flock and he were separatists An old Parson that I was bread under could scarce see but could say most of the Prayers without book He said what he could remember and got a day Labourer one year and a Taylor another to read the Chapters Query Whether we were all separatists § 58. But you undertake to tell the Reason why I am unwilling to confess a separation because we have formerly severely condemned it in others and yet do the same things for which we charged others as guilty of a sinful separation Ans If this be not true it is not well shew