English Puritan & Reformed

Against Communicating with the Parish Assemblies

Richard Baxter (1615-1691) · 10,034 words · 45 min

The source for this document is https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A26943.0001.001

Project Note

This is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND. This license allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.

The source of this document is the Early English Books Online (EEBO-TCP) website. Those books were transcribed in a character for character manner and can be very cumbersome to read since there was no standard spelling during that time. Many spelling variations such as "unlesse", "vnlesse", and "vnles" regularly appear.

This project was conceived to clean up those books as much as possible and make them more accessible to the interested reader, leading to the creation of a massive list of variant spellings and their corrections. This was used to clean up the text, but is of course only as complete as the list itself. Because of the nature of the original transcription, some words have missing characters or places where the original language (e.g., Greek) was not transcribed. This effort does not change that. Be aware that the original transcription can also be faulty and in some cases entire sentences may be missing.

Although this is no substitute for a properly compared, proofed, and scholarly edition, I believe that the result is a document which is far more accessible, particularly for searching for terms using standard spelling. The document has been cleaned and presented in what I hope is a pleasing and useful format for the vast majority of Christian brothers and sisters who just want access to read these spiritually nourishing works.

However, a word of warning: The Puritans were a very diverse group of people and their age was characterized with godliness, but also much upheaval, disputation and strife. They disagreed on many doctrines and some of these works contain less orthodox or Scriptural views than others. The reader is strongly advised to read with discernment, particularly if it is unknown whether author is trustworthy.

This project took a huge amount of time and skill to bring to fruition. I would particularly like to thank David Jonescue for the initial list of Puritans he found on EEBO and the concept behind this project as well as the continuous, unceasing efforts toward seeing this complete. Without his labor, this would not be available. Alex Sarrouf was invaluable in providing the initial list of over 7,000 spelling variations he had identified and corrected, as well as continuing to review more than 16,000 additions to that list for any typos.

Logan West
(with David Jonescue and Alex Sarrouf)
www.puritansearch.org

Mr. Baxter's JUDGMENT AND REASONS Against Communicating with the Parish-Assemblies, As by LAW Required. Impartially Stated and Proposed.

Great Men are not always Wise, &c.

Job 32. 9.

Surely in vain the Net is spread in the sight of any Bird

Prov. 1. 17.

Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth,

Rom. 14. 22.

Printed in the Year 1684.

TO THE READER▪

THou art desired to consider, That the Reason why the Author of these Papers has given thee the Judgment of Mr. Baxter against communicating with the Parish-Assemblies, as by Law required, is to undeceive those who think, that he has been of late writing for it; whereas that which he hath written does hold good only on Supposition, the Parish Assemblies are Congregational Churches, independent on the Diocesan Bishop, who is for our holding Communion with them only as such.

It has very much grieved the Author to see how many have been led from their Principles by some men, who though otherwise Dissenters, have since the late vigorous Execution of the paenal Laws, not only gone themselves to Church, but done their best to engage Others to do so too; and to that end have observed the Rule of the Politician, To press the Examples and Practices of some Eminent Men, as a good means to draw on the rest. Thus have they published the Names of Nye, Robinson, Owen, and Goodwin to countenance their Commnnicating with the Parish Assemblies in the Liturgy-Worship, which is manifest Abusing those Persons, while they are made to plead for a Practice they Disavow.

The Design of the Publisher of Mr. Nye, Robinson, &c. ( as he himself professeth ) Is as well to satisfy those that scruple Communion with the Church [ To wit, with the Parish Assemblies in their Liturgy-Worship] as to vindicate those who have complied; whereas there is not one of these men that spake a word in favor of Parish Communion.

Mr. Nye 's and Mr. Robinson 's Rapers are ONLY for the Lawfulness of Hearing the Conformist Ministers preach, not for Communicating with the Parish in their Liturgy-Worship. Besides, it must be noted, That what they wrote was confined to private Manuscript, until some Years after their Death, and never, it may be, designed for public view. And the Author of A speedy Remedy against Spiritual Incontinency, pag. 4. doth assure us,

That at Leyden, Mr. Robinson being confuted in the presence of above Three Hundred People, did revoke his Opinion about Hearing, and acknowledged that Hearing was a sinful partaking with that Ministry.

That this was Nine Years before Mr. Robinson 's Death, and that Mr. Robinson 's Papers were not published in some years after his Death, and had not been published then neither, had they not through Inadvertency escaped the Flames, and fell into the hands of an Inverterate Enem • who printed them. Soon after they were printed, Mr Cann wrote an Answer; notwithstanding which, thes • Papers are now Re-published, and Mr. Robinson 's Authority urged to justify the LAWFULNESS Communicating with the Parish Assemblies in the Liturgy-Worship.

In like manner, Dr. Owen, who did grant that Forms of Pra • ers, in Thesi, may be lawful, is introduced as an Approver of the Lawfulness of the imposed Liturgy and Ceremonies in particular; than which there cannot be a greater Abuse.

Dr. Goodwin likewise, after the Diocesan Episcopacy was laid aside, did say,

That in some of the Parishes in this Kingdom there are many Godly Men, that do constantly give up themselves to the Worship of God in public, and meet together in one place, to that end in a constant Way, under a Godly Ministry, whom they themselves have chosen to cleave unto (though they did not choose him at first) These ( saith the Doctor ) notwithstanding their Mixture, and want of Discipline, I never thought for my part, but that they were true Churches of Christ, and Sister Churches, and so ought to be acknowledged; And as for holding Communion with them, I say, as Sister-Churches, occasionally, as Strangers, men might hold Communion with them.

So far Dr. Goodwin.

Note here, 1 st. That he describes a Church, which for its kind is Congregational, though in it there is a Mixture and want of Discipline. His Discourse is of a complete Congregational Church, not of an incomplete part of the Diocesan. 2 dly. He writes for our acknowledging 'em to be Sister Churches, and communicating with them occasionally as Strangers; but speaks not of our communicating with such Parish-Assemblies as are of the Diocesan Frame, nor of fixing our Communion there, as the Law now requires. 3 dly, He insists only on the Faultiness of Mixture, and want of Discipline, not on the Liturgy-Worship, which sufficiently evinceth that he meant it of the Presbyterian Congregations, which had no Liturgy; not of the Episcopals which have. For whoever consults what he has in his Exposition on the Revelations, will find enough that shows how much he was against the Liturgy-Worship. But yet this Doctor's Judgment must be produced for the justifying our communicating with the Parish-Assemblies, that are but incomplete parts of a Diocesan single Church in their Liturgy-Worship, as by Law required.

Much after the same manner doth the Reverend Mr. Baxter deal with us, when he refers us to the Judgment of the Old Nonconformists, who though they were for Communion with the Parish Assemblies then in being, yet esteemed the Diocesan kind of Churches, Ministry and Ceremonies to be Violations of the second Commandment, Idolatrous and Antichristian. And as to the controverted Ceremonies (for instance, Kneeling at the Sacrament) Mr. Baxter knows best how much he differs from several of them, to whom he refers us; for they assert these Ceremonies to be Antichristian and Idolatrous. But Mr. Baxter, notwithstanding the high Applauses he gives 'em, has openly relinquished their Doctrine, and fallen in with Morton and Burgess, having also espoused that very Distinction of Primary and Secondary Worship, which they received from Bellarmine and Suarez; the insufficiency whereof has been long a go detected by Doctor Ames in his Reply and Fresh Suite.

Moreover, it must be observed, that Mr. Baxter has not given us so full and distinct a state of the present Controversy, between him and those he calls Separatists, as was necessary; for, his Discourses for Communion with the Parish-Assemblies, without fuller Explanation, will (as now they are) be generally taken as if he meant it of the Parish Assemblies by Law established, which are in a kind destructive of Christ's Churches, Ministry and Discipline, as Mr. Baxter himself avers; whereby the weaker sort mistaking Mr. Baxter, are induced to conclude the established Constitution to be good. But what is this less than the casting a stumbling Block in the way of his weak Brethren?

These things then being so, 'tis become necessary that some-what be done to undeceive the World; and seeing Mr. Baxter is the Person on whose Authority most of those Dissenters who are now for Parish Communion, do lean, I have thought it expedient to lay before them an impartial state of Mr. Baxter's Judgment, as I find it in some of his late Writings, together with those Reasons that he doth furnish us with, (as Arrows which we may gather up to shoot back upon him) against communicating with the Parish Assemblies, as by Law required. The giving a just Account of Mr. Baxter 's Judgment against Parish-Communion is, I acknowledge, but Argumentum ad hominem, adapted chiefly for the silencing Mr. Baxter; but the Reasons that are couched in what is given out of Mr. Baxter, are more than so, and such as must receive another Answer than merely the saying▪ That Mr. Baxter is grown wiser, and hath changed his Judgment; for until Mr. Baxter or some other do validly answer what Mr. Baxter has said in his Five Disputations against Episcopacy and Ceremonies, and in his late Treatise against Episcopacy, what I have here urged will abide in its strength, and carry also with it the Authority and Weight of the Vnanswerable Mr. Richard-Baxter.

Mr. Baxter's Judgment and Reasons against Communicating with the Parish Assemblies, as by Law required, impartially stated and proposed.

THere has been of late no little stir about going to the Parish Assemblies, and communicating with them in their Liturgy-Worship, and in special Mr. Baxter hath been warmely engaged in the Defense, (as he himself will have it) of his own, and the Practice of those that are for Parish-Communion, and cannot suffer a little Manuscript, said to be Dr. Owen's, to escape his Annimadversions and Opposition. It is at this time no part of my Province to examine Mr. Baxter 's Answer to Dr. Owen 's Arguments; I call the Manuscript Dr. Owen's, not only because common Fame directs me to do so, but because in the Arguments there is the Doctor's wonted Accuracy and Strength. There are very many Scripture-Reasons couched in a few Lines, and such as are too strong to receive any harm from Mr. Baxter 's Answer, as I could by divine Assistance clearly evince: but at this time it shall be no part of my Work. In this, my aim is to show, What it is Mr. Baxter is really for, that he is as much against holding Communion with the Parish-Assemblies, as by Law required, as those are, against whom he writes, and that we are furnished with unanswerable Arguments against such Parish-Communion, by Mr. Baxter.

Thus much will be made very manifest to a common Capacity, by showing what are Mr. Baxter 's avowed Principles about the Institution, Ministry and Discipline of Christ's Churches, and what are the natural consequences of those Principles he holds, and wherein lies the point, in which he differs from his Brethren. In doing which I will give you Mr. Baxter 's sense, for the most part in his own words, directing you to the very pages of those Books of his I make use of.

§. 1. All Christians (saith Mr. Baxter ) are agreed, that Christ is the Author of the Universal Church (considered both as Baptized or Externally Covenanting, called Visible, and as Regenerate and sincerely Covenanting, called, Mystical ) as it is headed by Christ himself, and called his Body and special Kingdom.

§. 2. We doubt not but Christ has instituted the Office of the sacred Ministry, to be under him as a Teacher, Ruler and High Priest of the Church, in Teaching, Guiding and Worshipping, and that he has instituted holy Assemblies and Societies, for these things to be exercised in. And that [a Society of Neighbor Christians, associated with such a Pastor or Pastors, for Personal Communion, even in such Doctrine, Discipline and Worship] is a Church-form of divine Institution.

§. 3. We know not of any proof that ever was produced that many Churches of the first Rank, must (of duty) make one fixed greater Compound Church by Association, whether Classical, Diocesan, Provincial, Patriarchal or National, and that God has instituted any such form, vide Mr. Baxter's Nonconformists plea for peace, p. 8. 12.

§. 4. Christ has stated on the Pastors of his Instituted Churches, the Power of Teaching Assemblies, and particular persons of leading them in public Worship, and Sacraments, and of Judging by the power of the Keys, whom to receive into their Communion by Baptism, and profession of Faith, and whom to admonish, and for Obstinate Impenitance reject; and this Institution none may Alter.

§. 5. He has Instituted Ordinary Assemblies, and stated particular Churches, as is aforesaid, for these Holy Exercises, and forbad all Christians to forsake them, and he and his Apostles, have appointed and separated the Lord's day hereunto. None therefore may abrogate, or suspend those Laws; all this is proved, Mat. 28. 19, 20. and 16. 19. and 18. 18, 19. Joh. 20. 23. Luke 12. 37, 38. Mat. 21. 36. and 22. 4, 5. &c. And 24. 45, 46. Heb. 11. 25, 26. Acts 11. 26. 1 Cor. 14. Ephes. 4. 4. to 17. 1 Thes. 5. 12, 13. Heb. 13. 7. 24. Tit. 1. 5, 6. &c. 1 Tim. 3. Acts 14. 23. Acts. 20. 1 Cor. 16. 1. &c. Mr. Baxter Vbi supra, p. 24.

§. 6. The Diocesan kind of particular Churches, which has only One Bishop over many score or hundred fixed parochial Assemblies, I take (saith Mr. Baxter ) to be itself a Crime: Which in its very Constitution, overthroweth the Office, Church and Discipline, which Christ by himself, and his Spirit in his Apostles, Instituted: For 1. Parishes are made by them no Churches, as having no ruling Pastors, that have the power of judging whom to Baptize, or admit to Communion, or Refuse, but only are Chapels, having preaching Curates. 2. All the first Order of Bishops in single Churches are deposed. 3. The Office of Presbyters, is changed into Semi-presbiters.

4. Discipline is made impossible; Mr. Baxter' s Church History of Bishops and Council abridged, ch. 1. §. 54. The like he affirms in his five Disputa. of Church-Government, pag. 19.

As to the eight sort of Bishops ( viz. ) [The Diocesan, who assumeth the sole Government of many Parish Churches, both Presbyters and People, ] as ten, or twelve, or twenty, or more, as they used to do, even a whole Diocese, I take them (saith Mr. Baxter ) to be Intollerable and Destructive to the peace and happiness of the Church, and therefore not to be admitted under Pretence of Order or Peace, if we can hinder them.

§. 7. This Diocesan Church Government, being de facto, established in this Kingdom, the parish Assemblies are not complete particular Churches of the first Rank and Order, they are but parts of a Diocesan, which is de facto, established as a single Church, Infime speciei.

That parish Assemblies are not particular Churches, is manifested from Mr. Baxter's principles. For 1. That Cement which is necessary to the being of a Church, is wanting.

And it is impossible (saith Mr. Baxter in his Cathol. Concord, p. 231.) to be a Church without the Cement of Consent. If many be forced into a Temple, not Consenting, it is a Prison, they are not a Church if they Consent only to Meet on other Occasions, as for some Occasional Act of Religion, it is not thereby made a Church. If they be commanded to consent, and do not, and if it only be their Duty, it maketh them not a Church, but only proveth that they ought to be one:

So far Mr. Baxter. And it is manifest, that in pursuance of Canon and Statute Law, the Parishes are de facto, settled as parts of a Diocesan Church; and whoever join themselves unto the Parish assemblies, as by Law required, consent to be of the Parish assembly, as It is a part of the Diocesan Church; this doth every Parish Minster, who swears Canonical Obedience, that is, Obedience to his Ordinary secundum Canones, and who is to rest so fully satisfied in the Diocesan Government, as to declare he will not endeavor, on any pretence whatever the alteration of it. But to form the Parish assembly into a complete particular Church, is to make a Substantial Alteration in the Diocesan Constitution. Besides the Vesteries, who (as Mr. Baxter saith) do after a sort represent the Parish Assembly, are also sworn to the Diocesan Constitution and Government, and therefore cannot be justly interpreted to consent to the Parish Assemblies, being a complete particular Church; Whatever consent there is between the Minister and People, it must be supposed to be no other than what is agreeable to the Diocesan Rule, (i. e.) to be parts of the Diocesan Church, taking none for their Pastor but the Diocesan Bishop.

2. This Parish-Assembly doth not only want consent to make it a Church, but it has no Parochial Pastor, though the Pastor and Flock are the essential constitutive parts of a particular organized Church, yet its not to be found in our Parishes. It may be a Community (saith Mr. Baxter, ubi su • r.) without a Pastor; not a Polity, not an Ecclesiastical Society. That the Parish Minister is not a Pastor, is manifest; for he is deprived of what is essential to the Pastoral Office. This is evident (according to the Principles of Mr. Baxter ) who distinguishing between the Old and New Episcopacy, and who though he had more favorable thoughts of the Old than of the New, and knows that the present is more like the new than the old, and consequently worse; yet writing against the restoring the Old, he lays down his fourth Argument thus,—

4. That Episcopacy, which degradeth all the Presbyters in the Diocese, or causeth them to suspend an Essential part of their Office, is not to be restored under any pretence of the right Order of Peace.

But such was the late English Episcopacy; And in his Advertisement to his Five Disp. p. 13, 14, &c. to satisfy those that make some doubt of the truth of the Minor, he saith,

All men in England that knew but twenty years ago what belonged to these matters, are past doubt of it. And I have no mind to dispute against them that contradict the common knowledge of the Nation, as if they should doubt whether ever we had a King in England. 2. Read over the Canons, and the yearly Visitation Articles, which the Church-Wardens swear to present by, before they had ever read the Book, or heard what was in it. And then judge, 3. Their Arguing for the sole Jurisdiction of Bishops, and that they only were properly Pastors, and that Presbyters had not the Key of Discipline, but of Doctrine, is some Evidence.

It is known to the Nation, that the Pastors of the Parish-Churches had no power by their Laws, (or sufferance) to cast out any the most erroneous Sinner or Heretic from the Church, nor to bring them to open confession of their sin, nor to absolve the Penitent, but by reading of their Sentences, and publishing what they sent from their Courts, and consequently could do nothing of all the means hereunto; for the means cannot be used where the end is known to be impossible. All the obstinate scandalous Persons and scorners of a holy Life, we must take as Members of our Churches, having no power to cast them out. Indeed we had the same Power as the Church-Wardens, to put our Names to the Presentments, but a power of Accusing to a Chancellors Court, is not a Power of Governing, especially when Piety, under the Name of Preciseness and Puritainism, was so hated and persecuted, that to have accused a man for mere Profaneness, would have been so far from obtaining the end, as that it was like to have been the undoing of the Accuser.

Obj. But is not the power of Discipline given them in their Ordination?

Answ. 1 st. In their Ordination, the Bishop said to them [ Receive the holy Ghost, whose Sins thou dost remit, they are remitted; whose Sins thou dost retain, they are retained ] and in the Book of Ordination it was asked them, [ Whether they would give their faithful Diligence always to administer the Doctrine and Discipline of Christ, as the Lord has commanded, and as the Realm has received the same, according to the Commandments of God? ] And the Rubric of the Common-Prayer-Book enables the Curate to admonish open and notorious evil Livers, by whom the Congregation is offended; and those that have wronged their Neighbors, that they come not till they have openly declared, That they have repented and amended. But, 1. This doth but serve to leave them inexcusable that acknowledge Discipline to belong to the Office of a Presbyter, when yet he might not excuse it. The Bishops in the Ordination of Presbyters enabled them to Preach the Gospel, and yet they were after that forbidden to preach, till they had a Licence, and it was put into the visitation Article, to present those Ministers, that preached without a Licence. If they will deny us the exercise of the power, that they first confess belongeth to our Office, we are not answerable for, their self-contradictions. 2. By Discipline, I suppose they mean but our Instruction, and our publishing their Orders for Penance, Excommunication, or Absolutions. 3. They were the Judges of the sense, of the Laws as far as the Execution required, and the universal practice of England; which their Writings shown us, to our cost, their Judgment; what good would it do us, if the Law had been on our side, while the Concurrent Judgment and Practice of the Governors denied it, and went aganist it? 4. He that has kept a man from the Sacrament, according to the plain Words of the Rubric, was to have been acountable for it at their Courts, and so likely to have been undone by it:

So far Mr. Baxter. Which sufficiently shows that the Parish Minister is in his Judgment degraded and deprived of what is essential to the Pastors Office; for by taking from them the power of Church-Government they destroy the very Office of the Presbyters; for Ruling is as Essential to their Office as preaching; notwithstanding which, as Mr. Baxter proves, and expressly asserts, the English Episcopacy, taketh from the Presbyters the Power of Church Governing; see his five Dispute. p. 39.

But if it had been only the Exercise of the Parish Presbyters Power that had been suspended, yet considering the Suspension is statedly established by▪ Law or Custom, during the Life of the Minister, its a destroying his Office; saith Mr. Baxter;

Though an Office may be Unexercised for a time on some special Reason, yet if it be statedly suspended, and that suspension established by Law or Custom during the Life of the Minister; this is plainly a destroying or nulling the Office itself, and not to be endured.

And surely, the Exercise of the Pastoral power is statedly suspended, and the suspension is by Law or Custom established, during the Ministers Life, and therefore the Office is nulled and destroyed; that is, the parish Minister is not a Pastor, nor has the Parish Assembly any Pastor, it is not a particular Church.

All this Mr. Baxter saith, of the Old English Prelacy, and yet thinketh that the present is much worse than the Old. In his second Defense of the Nonconformists, p. 64. Dr. Still. saying, That t • ere is no other reason of our Separation, because of the Terms of our Communion, than what was from the beginning of the Reformation. Mr. Baxter Answers,

To say, that we grant that there are no more Reasons now, than were then, is too bold an untruth, there is more reason (1.) From the Quality of the things imposed (2.) From the designs and drifts of the Imposition. (3.) From the effects. (4.) From the Aggravation of Conformity, as in the Church that we must communicate with. (5.) From the things which give us a fuller cause for our Preaching and Assemblies, viz. The late general contrary Church state and Engagement to it, &c. On these particulars Mr. Baxter enlargeth; I will but just intimate what he saith on some of them. (1.) As to things imposed now which were not then. 1 ^o . The Vestry Act was not then made, by which so considerable part of the Parish Churches as the Vestries are, are to renounce all Obligations, to endeavor any alteration of the Government of the Church, from the Oath and Vow, called the Covenant; so that all Reformation of Church Government, as so sworn, was renounced by them, who in a sort represent the Parish Church. 5. The Reordination of Ministers, Ordained by Presbyters, was not then required, and made a Necessary condition of their Ministration and Church relation, (even by them that confess Reordination Unlawful.) And therefore Plainly intimateth the Nullity, of the first.— 9 ^o . The Word [ Pastor ] as applied to Parish Ministers, distinct from [ Curates ] was not then blotted out of most places in the Liturgies, nor the 20th of the Acts, as applied to Presbyters left out [ Take heed to your selves, and to the Flock &c. ] in plain design to Alter the Office and Parish Churches.

To all this let us add.

§. 8.

That he that will hold Communion with a Church, must consent to the Ministry, Discipline and Worship of that Church, see Cathol. Concord, ubi supra.

So that he that will Communicate with the Parish Assemblies must consent to the Ministry, Discipline and Worship of their Assemblies; that is, he must consent to the Diocesan Pastor, to the Parish Semi-presbyters, and to the Parish Assemblies, as being a part of the Diocesan Church, and to the Diocesan Discipline; for de facto, this is the Constitution and Frame of Parish Assemblies, they are but parts of the Diocesan Church, they are under no other Pastor but the Diocesan Bishop, have no other Minister than a Semi-Presbyter, who wants what is essential to the Pastoral Office, and the Assembly wants that Cement of consent that is necessary to the making e'm a complete particular Church.

This being so, May we by any Act or Deed contribute to the fixing and establishing the Diocesan Episcopacy amongst us? I will Answer according to sound Reason, in conjunction with Mr. Baxter 's own Principles: If it were unlawful to restore the old English Episcopacy, its unlawful to give countenance and strength to it, once restored; for the strengthening it, is but the continuation of the thing restored: and if we might not lawfully help forward, nor consent unto the Restoration of it, we may not lawfully fix it, when once restored; for all these Mischiefs that are said to be the Fruits of its Restoration, will be continued by a fixing it.

But according to Mr. Baxter, it was not lawful to restore the Old English Prelacy, much less Lawful to settle the New, which (he saith) is worse. His Reasons are many, e. g.

It destroys the end of Government, and is certainly inconsistent with the necessary Government and Discipline, to be exercised in the Churches; It unavoidably causeth Separations and Divisions in the Church; it degradeth all the Presbyters in the Diocese, and destroys and nulls their Office; it is the product of proud Ambition and Arrogancy, contrary to the express command of Christ: It so far gratifieth lazy Ministers, as to ease them of the most painful part of their Work: It is contrary to the Word of God, and Apostolical Institution, according to their own Interpretation. Moreover, it gratifieth the Devil and Wicked Men, not by an unavoidable Accident, but by a natural Necessity;

therefore (saith Mr. Baxter in his five Dispute. pag. 32, to 50.)

not to be restored under any pretence of the Order or Peace of the Church:

And for the same Reason (say I, according to Mr. Baxter's principles) not to be complied with, not to be countenanced, not to be fixed and strengthened by us, though now restored. Though the Order and Peace of the Church be pretended, yet we must do nothing that countenanceth or stregthens the English Episcopacy, we must not hold communion with them; for that is to consent to the uninstituted species of their Church, Ministry, Discipline and Worship. What then must we do? May we separate without contracting the guilt of Schism? Take Mr. Baxter 's own Answer.

§. 9.

If any Prince would turn his Kingdom, or a whole Province, Diocese or Country, into one only Church, and thereby overthrow all the first Order of Churches, of Christ's Institution, which are associated for personal present Communion, allowing them no Pastors, that have the power of the Keys, and all essential to their Office, though he should allow parochial Oratories or Chapels, which should be no true Churches, but parts of a Church, it were no Schism to gather Churches, within such a Church, against the Laws of such a Prince; see Nonconformists first plea for peace. p. 52.

Thus according to Mr. Baxter's principles, a separation from the Parish Assemblies, and an erecting particular Churches, according to Gospel Order, is not Schism. Our separation from the Diocesan Constitution, and from the Parish Churches, as but parts of the Diocesan, is justifyable, and not to be Condemned. Now the Lay-Nonconformists are fully persuaded, that the Law of the Land requires our coming to Church, our going to the parish Assemblies, as they are parts of the Diocesan Church, which Mr. Bax. saith they must not do.

This being so manifest, I presume the Reader will be querying about Mr. Baxter's Practice, and late Writings, and say, Why then does Mr. Baxter go to Church? Why doth he write so much for it, and cannot suffer a few Lines in Manuscript to pass without a public Confutation? What! doth Mr. Baxter say and unsay, or is his Conscience against communicating with the parish Churches, and his Practice for it? God forbid I should think so of one, whose Goodness and Learning both seem above the size of what is Ordinary: Really therefore that I might find out the Notion on which Mr. Baxter insists to satisfy himself, in holding communion with the parish Assemblies, even when he is so very much against them, as they are but parts of the Diocesan Church, I have taken some pains, and have been impartial in my Search, and I think I have found out the Notion he builds on, which I take to be this.

Mr. Baxter distinguisheth between the many Parish Churches, and the Diocesan, and the Church of England, as constituted of such Diocesan Churches. The old Nonconformists commonly owned the Parish Churches, (and the Church of England, as made up of such) but not the Diocesan. It is therefore a Mistake, that owning the Parish Churches and Worship, is an owning of the present Diocesan Constitution.

Mr. B. against Dr. O. p. 9.

So that Mr. Baxter distinguisheth between the Church of England, as it is made up of many particular complete Churches that are Parochial, and as it is made up of many particular Diocesan Churches. And here it must be Noted,

1. That though Mr. Baxter supposes the National Church of England to fall under these two distinct considerations, yet de facto, its notorious that there are not two such National Churches of England existent; and in truth, its impossible that there should be two such Churches, simul & semel, existent in one Nation; for a National Church made up of many complete Parochial Churches, is in its very constitution destructive of a National Church made up of many particular Diocesan Churches. Mr. Baxter himself confesseth, that the Diocesan Church made up of many Parochial Assemblies, and established as a single Church, Infimae speciei, of the lowest Rank and Order, is destructive of the very constitution of Parochial Churches, and the Diocesan Episcopacy and Discipline destructive of the Parochial; and the same may be said, e contra, of the Parochial, it is destructive of the Diocesan. So that its impossible there should be in this Nation two distinct National Churches, the one made up of many Parochial complete single Churches, the other made up of many Diocesan single Churches. If then the National Church be in pursuance of the Laws, de facto, settled as made up of many Diocesan single Churches (whether this be of Divine or Human Right, matters not) its impossible to join ourselves to the Parish-Assemblies, as to complete particular Churches. For whatever Mental Notions we may have of the Church of England, our Notions cannot make the Constitution to be de facto, otherwise than it is; and all know that the National Church is de facto, a National Church made up of several single Diocesan Churches, and that there is no National Church of England existent made up of many complete Parochial Churches. But,

2. Suppose one Parish Assembly, or more, should form and frame themselves into complete single Churches, and the People should consent to take the Parish Minister for their Pastor, and the Minister should exercise the whole power of a Pastor in this Parish Church. If this be so, it's acknowledged that Mr. Baxter may hold communion with this Parish Church, and not own the present Diocesan Constitution: But then it will also unavoidably follow, that this Parish Church cuts itself off from the National settled Order, it is a Dissenting Church; for it hereby ceases to be a part of the Diocesan Constitution, it is no more under the Pastoral Over-sight of the Diocesan Bishop, but assumes to itself all that Pastoral Power that in pursuance of Canon and Statute Law is fixed in the Bishop; so that this Parish Church is not established or allowed by the Law, but is a Dissenting Congregation, of the same Nature, Form and Constitution with that of other Dissenting Churches; for the species of these Parochial Churches Constitution, Ministry and Discipline is the same with theirs, and as perfectly inconsistent with that of the Diocesan, and by the Church of England's Representative declared to be No True Church, and the Minister and Vestry, who consent to this Alteration, do act contrary to their several Declarations and Oaths, and are by the Canons Excommunicate, and their Assemblies declared Conventicles.

In the 11 th Canon, whose Title is [ Maintainers of Conventicles censured ] its express,

That whosoever shall hereafter affirm or maintain, that there are within this Realm Other Meetings, Assemblies or Congregations of the King's born Subjects, than such as by the Laws of the Land are held and allowed, which may rightly challenge to themselves the Name of true and lawful Churches, let him be Excommunicated, and not Restor'd, but by the Arch-Bishop, after his Repentance and public Revocation of such his Wicked Errors.

And in Can. 12.

Whosoever shall affirm, That it is lawful for any sort of Ministers and Lay-Persons, or either of them to join together and make Constitutions in causes Ecclesiastical, without the King's Authority, and shall submit themselves to be ruled and governed by them, Let them be Excommunicated, ipso facto, and not be restored until they Repent, and publicly revoke those their Wicked and Anabaptistical Errors.

And in Canon 73. where the Title is [ Ministers not to hold private Conventicles ] it is thus ordained;

For as much as all Conventicles and secret Meetings of Priests and Ministers, have been ever justly accounted very hurtful to the state of the Church wherein they live, We do now ordain and constitute, That no Priests or Ministers of the Word of God, nor any other Persons shall meet together in any private House, or else-where, to consult upon any matter or course to be taken by them, or upon their motion or direction by any other, which may any way tend to the impeaching or depraving of any part of the Government and Discipline now established in the Church of England, under pain of Excommunication, ipso facto.

So that those Parish Assemblies that are erected in other manner than according to the Diocesan Constitution, and made complete particular Churches, they are as such no more a part of the settled National Order, than the present dissenting Congregations, but are by the Canons declared to be Conventicles, and the Ministers and People that have had a hand in the framing their Parishes into this Order, are ipso facto, excommunicated. This then being so, I desire it to be observed, that when Mr. B. joins with these Parish-Assemblies, Thus constituted, his Communion is still confined unto the Dissenters Congregations, he doth not hereby hold any Communion with the Church of England, anymore than the Dissenters do; for his Communion with these Parish Churches, is with them as they are erected, in Opposition unto and destruction of the National settled Order, which is Diocesan.

To undeceive the World then, I must tell them (and Mr. Baxter cannot deny it,) that Mr. Baxter is no more for the joining with the Parish Assemblies, as they are parts of the settled National Church, than the congregational Dissenters are, That when he goes to Church, he holds no other Communion with the Church of England than they do who go not to Church; for his Communion is still confind to a dissenting Parish Church, erected as much contrary to the Law of the Land, as their Congregations are. Its true, he joins with them in some part of the Liturgy, and so goes farther then they, but he holds not Communion with the Church of England, as it is a Church of Legal Establishment, any farther than they do. For he Esteems the Church of England, as by Law established, to be destructive of that kind or Species of those Churches, Ministry and Discipline, which is of Christ's Institution, and Parochial or Congregational. Mr. Baxter and they (I say) are agreed in their dissent and separation from the Parish Assemblies, as they are parts of the settled National Order, and differ about the Frame of Parochial Assemblies; for Mr. Baxter supposes them to be what ( consideratis considerandis ) other Dissenters judge Impossible.

To make this as plain as possible I can, it must be observed, that Mr. Baxter affirms the Parish Assemblies to fall under a Twofold Consideration; They must be looked on, either as they are complete particular Congregational Churches, independent on the Diocesan, or as they are incomplete parts of, and dependant on the Diocesan. Now as the Parish Assemblies are parts of the Diocesan; they are not by any means to be owned or approved, but as they are particular Congregational Churches, so they are to be communicated with and owned.

This is Mr. Baxter 's Judgment; but on the other hand, his Dissenting Brethren hold, that though Parochial Assemblies may be actually formed and framed according to the Congregational Constitution, that is, an Assembly of good Christians living in a Parish, may give up themselves to God, and associate themselves for personal Communion in the Doctrine, Discipline and Worship of Christ, choosing a Pastor and other Officers; for this end the parish Assembly may consent to be of such a Constitution, and may choose a Pastor, and in this Assembly all the Ordinances of Christ may be regularly Administred, and Discipline duly exercised. This may be, but though it may be so, yet they affirm that the Parish Assemblies are not thus constituted, their Constitution is not Congregational, but Diocesan. They are not a complete Church, but incomplete parts of the Diocesan; there is no such consent as is necessary to Constitute such a Church; but a consent to be what the Law directs 'em to be; they have no Pastor amongst them, as a Congregational Church has, nor are they independent on the Diocesan, as the Congregational is. They are not a particular Church of Christ's Institution: Though they may be a sound part of the Catholic Church, or of the Christian Kingdom, yet they are not an Instituted Church, they are not a true particular Church, and therefore it is impossible any should communicate with them, as with such a Church. Whatever we may fancy them to be they always remain the same, our Imaginations cannot make any change on their Constitution, our Mental Conceptions are but Iminanent Acts, Et Nihil penunt in esse. Think any man what he will of the Church of England, de facto, it remains the same, viz. A National Church made up of many single Diocesan Churches, Infimae speciei, of the lowest Rank and Order; for which reason its Impossible for any to join with the Church of England, as made up of many single complete Parochial Churches; we cannot Communicate with it as such, because it is not so made; there is not any one Parish thus Constituted. Let Mr. Baxter direct them to that Parish, that is thus framed, that is, a particular complete Church of Christ's Institution, and he would do somewhat, but till then, although there be some such Parish Churches, it is to them as if there were none such; for [ de non Apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio. ] Besides they say, That if there be any such Parochial Congregational Church actually existent in this Kingdom, and the Minister and People privately declare so much, they think, that if without an open profession of their Church constitution, as different from the National established Order, their Commuunicating with them must be interpreted a Communicating with them as they are a part of the settled National Order, which is Diocesan, which cannot be done without an owning the present Diocesan Constitution. But if such a profession be made, they communicate not with the Church of England, but with a Congregation of Dissenters, from the National Constitution. Farthermore, some are afraid, that the erecting such Parish Assemblies, cannot be without the Ministers and Vestry Men's contracting the guilt of Perjury. In fine, I must again beseech the Reader to fix it in his thoughts, That the Church of England, as made up of many single Diocesan Churches, is not in Mr. Baxter's Judgment a true Church; Though it be a sound part of the Church Universal; yet the Diocesan Churches, which make up the National, and which in pursuance of the Law are, de facto, settled and established, are not true Churches. Mr. Baxter doth hold that the Parish Assemblies, as parts of Diocesan Churches, are not true Churches; for they have not Pastures, as has been largely proved, and its no Schism to deny 'em, the Communion proper to a true particular Church. What Mr. Baxter saith of a Parish, that wants a Pastor, on the account of the Peoples not consenting to one imposed on 'em, the same may be said of that Parish, whose Minister wants what is essential to the Pastoral Office; and This all Parish Ministers according to the settled National Order do want, and therefore it may be said,

That that Parish Church is no Parish Church, in the proper political Organized sense, as we now speak of a Church, as constituted by the Governing and Governed part. For that which wanteth an essential part wanteth the Essence. And therefore it is no Schism to pronounce it no such Church, [i e. no true Church of Christ's Institution ] and to deny it the Communion proper to such a Church.

Mr. Baxter's Nonconformist plea for peace, p. 82.

This then is Mr. Baxter's Judgment, touching the Diocesan Churches, as by Law established. He cannot consent unto them, nor hold Communion with them as such. For the very kind and frame of their Churches is false, so is their Ministry, and Discipline, even- destructive of Christ's Churches, Ministry and Discipline.

§. 10.

A Congregation or Nation of Men (saith Mr. Baxter ) of eminent Sanctity and Order, sound Doctrine and Worship, may by human frailty take someone Falsehood or Uncertain thing to be necessary to Ministry or Communion, (as they say, some Churches unhapily of late reject all that own not the Antiquity of the Hebrew points) I cannot have local Communion with that Church, (saith he) for they will not receive me, unless I subscribe either a falsehood, or that which I judge false) but yet I highly honor and Love 'em, and have mental Catholic Communion with them, when perhaps necessity makes me join with a Church of far worse Men and Order, that will impose no sin on me.

Mr. Baxter's Schism Detected, pag. 56.

In pursuance of this principle Mr. Baxter lays down, his Brethren separate from the Church of England; for there are several things which they Judge unsound, that are made necessary to their Communion with them. By Cannon 27.

No Minister, when he celebrateth the Communion shall wittingly Administer the same to any but such as Kneel, under pain of Suspension, nor under the like pain to any that refuse to be present at public Prayers, according to the Orders of the Church of England; that 'tis according to the 18 th. Canon, The Communion must not be administered to him, that will cover his Head in the Church or Chapel, in time of Divine Service, or that doth not Reverently Kneel, when the general Confession, Lettany and other Prayers are read, and shall not stand up at the saying of the Belief, or refuse to make due and lowly Reverence, when the Name of the Lord Jesus shall be mentioned, in time of Divine Service, or refuse to say in due place, and audibly with the Minister, the Confession, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed, or not make such other Answers, to the public Prayers, as are appointed in the Book of Common-prayer.

Whoever refuseth these things, he is one who though present at the public Prayers, yet not according to the Orders of the Church, is not to be admitted to the Communion, that is, all those things are made necessary to the Communion: And here it must be observed, that though the admitting notorious Offenders to the Comunion be forbidden by the 26 th Canon, yet not under the penalty of Suspension, as it is in this case of admitting those who refuse to Kneel, or to be present at the public Prayers, according to the Orders of the Church of England.

But these things several Dissenters for great Reasons refuse to do, I will at this time only insist on the Ceremony of Kneeling at the Sacrament, and give the Reasons of some Learned Men against it. 1st. Let us hear Mr. Baxter in his five Dispute. p. 410, 411.

As for Kneeling at the Sacrament, I doubt not at all but the Imposing it, and that on such Rigorous Terms, tying all to it, and easting all out of the Communion of the Church, or from the participation of the Sacrament, that durst not use it, was a very grievous Sin, and tended to Persecution, and Injustice, and Church dividing. It is certainly in a doubtful case the safest way to do as Christ, and his Apostles, and the Universal Church did for many hundred Years; either the Gesture is Indifferent in itself, or not; If it be, how dare they thus divide the Church by it, and cast out Christians that scruple it, when they have these and many other Reasons of their Scruples (which for brevities sake I omit)? If they say, That Kneeling is of itself Necessary, and not Indifferent, because it is Reverent.

[Now if the Reader considers the Rubric added in the New Common-Prayer-Book, he will find that Kneeling is enjoin'd for a Signification of our humble and grateful Acknowledgment of the Benefits of Christ therein received, and for avoiding such Prophanation and Disorder in the holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue. Thus we see the Gesture of Kneeling is made a Reverent Gesture, necessary to avoid Disorder and Prophanation. But says Mr. Baxter, if Kneeling is of itself necessary, and not indifferent, because it is Reverent] Then,

1 st, They make Christ an imperfect Law-giver. 2 dly, They make himself or his Apostles, or both, to have been Sinners. 3 dly, They condemn the Catholic Church of Sin. 4 thly, They condemn the Canons of the chief General Councils. All which are Consequents that I suppose they will disown. What a perverse preposterous Reverence is this! when they have leave to lie in the Dust before and after the very Act of Receiving, through all their Confessions and Prayers; yet they will at other times stand, and many of them sit at Prayer, and sit at singing Psalms of Prayer and Praise to God, and yet when Christ doth invite them to a Feast, they dare not imitate his Apostles and Universal Church in their Gesture, lest they should be sinfully Irreverent. So sar Mr. Baxter.

Now though Mr. Baxter is accurate in distinguishing, and as to the part of the Receiver, may yet see how to answer all these Arguments, and satisfy himself in kneeling, yet he cannot but believe, that Godly and Judicious men may be so far under the powerful Convictions of such Arguments against the Imposition, as to be unable to satisfy their Consciences in complying with the Gesture of Kneeling. Surely Mr. Baxter tells the World so much in his first Nonconformists plea for Peace, p. 150, 151, 152.

Some Nonconformists (saith he) Lay and Clergy, judge Kneeling, as things now stand, Vnlawful: Their Reasons are, 1. In Doubtful cases Duty lieth on the surest side; but this to them is a doubtful case on one side, and to imitate Christ's Institution by such sitting, as men use to do at Meat, is certainly lawful.

2. Because they think Kneeling

violateth the Reasons of the second Commandment, being used where by whole Countries of Papists round about us, and many among us, it signifieth Bread-Worship, or Idolatry by the same Action, at the same Season used. For they suppose that the second Commandment forbiddeth Images, as being external corporal Idolatry, and symbolizing scandalously with Idolaters, though the Mind intend the Worship of God alone: And such they think this Kneeling is, and that encourageth the Papists.

So far Mr. Baxter.

2. I will only add one Argument more, which I find in a Proposition concerning Kneeling, joined to Mr. Bradshaw 's Twelve Arguments, which is taken from the Abuse of Kneeling in this Ordinance, by the Papists. 'It is there said,

That the Apostle, to Reform an Abuse which crept (even in their Times) into Love-Feasts, which were immediately before or after the Lord's Supper, did banish them thence, and reduced the manner of Admistring the Lord's Supper to the first Institution, saying, Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not; for I have received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you, &c. 1 Cor. 11. verse. 22, 23. Whereby it is apparent, That that form of Administration which differeth from the first Institution, is worthy no Praise, and therefore no acceptable Service to God. For if the Apostle would not tolerate an Indifferent thing (as was a Love-Feast till then) to continue so near the Lord's Supper, when it was abused, how would they allow the change of Sitting into Kneeling, especially in these two Considerations?

First, Because the abuse of Love-Feasts ( viz. Superstuity) was never so great and scandalous in the Apostles time, as the abuse of Kneeling ( viz. Idolatry)▪ was and is in the Synagogue of Rome. And besides, Love-Feasts were either before or after the Lord's Supper; whereas Kneeling is in the principal part of the Holy Communion. Therefore if the Apostle banished Love-Feasts from the Lord's Supper, because of the Abuse, and brought the Church to the Simplicity of the first Institution, is it not a tempting Sin to retain the Idolatrous Kneeling of Papists, and reject the exemplary Sitting of our Master Christ? And the rather because it is in that Sacrament, and in that part of the Sacrament which especially setteth forth our communion with Christ and his Church, and is therefore called the Communion —Doth not God strictly forbid us to serve him as Idolaters do their Godds? The which considered, can Kneeling, wherewith Papists honor their Breaden God, be honorable to Christ in his holy Sacrament?

For such Reasons, many are convinced, that Kneeling at the receiving the Communion is Unlawful; and seeing without Kneeling they cannot have Communion with the Church of England, they cannot locally communicate with her, but yet highly honor her for the soundness of her Doctrine, and do mentally hold Catholic Communion with her, so far as she agrees with the Catholic Church; but Necessity makes them to with-hold local Communion from them. To make this yet more clear, the Reader must Observe, that the Argument Mr. Baxter doth furnish them with, runs thus, It is not lawful to communicate with those that impose Sinful Terms of Communion: This Mr. Baxter affirms. But the Church of England imposeth many things as Terms of Communion with them, which they think are sinful. Ergo They must not communicate with them. Now in the Minor Mr. Baxter and they differ; he thinks the things they scruple (for instance, Kneeling ) are Lawful, but yet proposes strong Arguments against the Lawfulness of Kneeling; which Arguments, though not Convincing unto him, yet are so unto them. And therefore whatever is his Liberty, it is their Duty to with-hold their Communion from the Church of England, still honoring her for the soundness of her Doctrine, &c.

§. 11. Mr. Baxter in his Schism detected, p. 40. affirms,

That he who is unjustly cast out of the Church, and by its very Laws Excommunicated, ipso facto, is no damned nor sinful Schismatic, for Worshipping God in a Church, that will receive him.

But according to the Judgment of Mr. Baxter, Protestant Dissenters, are unjustly cast out of the Church of England, and by its very Laws, ipso facto, Excommunicated. Ergo they are not Sinful Schismatics.

When Mr. Baxter speaks of going to another Church, Mr. Baxter must be understood to mean a with-holding Communion from the Excommunicating Church, and commuicating with another, whose Laws do not, ipso facto, Excommunicate. The which being so, the Argument against Mr. Baxter is valid for the acquitting their Seperation from the Guilt of Sin.

§. 12. There is another Argument which Mr. Baxter, in Conjunction with Dr. Sherlock gives us, and which will acquit the Lay-Dissenter from Sin, 〈…〉 no Sin, but a Duty to with-hold Communion from a Schismatical Church: This Dr. Sherlock doth over and over assert. But the Church of England is a Schismatical Church, saith Mr. Baxter. It is a Schismatical Church, it is guilty of haneous and aggravated Schism. Mr. Baxter in his first Plea, p. 41. saith,

§. 14.

If any Proud, or Passionate, or Erronoous Person do, as Diotrephes, cast out the Brethren undeservedly, by unjust Suspensions, Silencings or Excommunications, it is TYRANNICAL SCHISME, what better Name soever cloaks it. If any should make sinful Terms of Communion by Laws or Mandates, imposing things forbidden by God, on those that will have communion with them, and expelling those that will not so▪ sin; this wore HANEOUS SCHISME; And the further those Laws extend, and the more Ministers or People are cast out by them, the greater is the Schism.

§. 15.

If any should not only Excommunicate such Persons for not complying with them in sin, but also prosecute them with Mulcts, Imprisonments, Banishments, or other Prosecution, to force them to transgress; this were yet more haneously aggravated Schism.

§. 16.

All those would be deeply guilty of such Schism, who by Talk, Writing or Preaching justify it, and cry it up, and draw others into the Guilt, and reproach the Innocent as Schismatics, for not offending God.

[Then look to yourself, good Mr. Baxter, reflect on your Talk and Writing, and clear yourself from the guilt of Reproaching the Innocent as Schismatics, if you can.] But I will proceed:

§. 17.

If any should corrupt such a Church, or its Doctrine, Worship or Discipline, in the very Essentials, by setting up forbidden Officers and Worship, or casting out the Officers, Worship or Discipline instituted by Christ, and then prosecute others for not communicating with them, would be yet the more Haneous Schism.

§. 18.

If either of the last named sorts would not be contented with men's communion with them, but would also silence and prosecute such as will not own, justify and consent to all that they do by Subscriptions, Declarations, Covenants, Promises or Oaths, this would be yet more aggravated Schism. So far Mr. Baxter.

Now let any impartial Reader compare what is here said, with what else-where Mr. Baxter accuses the Church of England of, and he will find all this to be but his Description of the Church of England, which according to the general import of his Writings, must be looked on as guilty of Haneous, Aggravated and Tyrannical Schism, that is, to be deeply Schismatical; and therefore, according to Dr. Sherlock, not to be communicated with.

But I will draw to a close, beseeching the Reader to consider well what Mr. Baxter's judgment is, about communicating with the Parish-Assemblies, by Law established, how much he is against it, and what are some of his Reasons, and he will find,

I. That Mr. Baxter is as much against communicating with the Parish-Assemblies, as by Law required, as his Brethren are. The Parish-Assemblies, by Law established, are Diocesan, and with them, as such, Mr. Baxter communicates not. But first fancies the Parish Assembly to be a Congregational Church, and the Parish Minister to be an Independant Pastor, exempt from the spiritual Jurisdiction of the Diocesan Bishop, and then holds communion with it as such, that is, he either communicates with it as if it were what indeed it is not, or if it be really such a Church as he fancies it to be, his communion with it is only as 'tis a Church separated from the National settled Order: For the Parish Assembly, as a part of the National settled Order, is no Church, it has no Pastor, &c.

II. That Mr. Baxter 's communion is no more Catholic than theirs; though he talks more of the Name, he has no more of the thing than they have. Doth he hold Catholic Communion mentally with the Universal Church? so do they. Do they with-hold mental communion from Parish-Assemblies, as by Law established ( i. e. ) as they are parts of the Diocesan • nstitution? So doth Mr. Baxter. Are the Con •••••… tions, to which their local Communion is confined, of a Constitution different from, and independent on the Diocesan? So is the Parish Church with which Mr. Baxter communicates, if it be really what he fancieth it to be; so that his Local Communion is as much confined to Dissenting Assemblies as theirs is.

This is on a Supposition that Mr. Baxter's Imaginations were operative, ad extra, and would make a real change on the Constitution. But if the Parish Assembly continues, de facto, as established, then I must say,

III. That Mr. Baxter holds both those Premises, from which a conclusion (justifying their separation) doth naturally follow. The Premises are these; It is our undoubted Duty to separate from the Corruptions that are in the Parish Assemblies. But the very Constitution of the Parish Assemblies and Ministry, by Law established, are Corruptions. These are Mr. Baxter 's Premises. And let the World judge whether this Conclusion [namely, That it is our undoubted Duty to separate from the Parish Assemblies and Ministry, as by Law established ] doth not naturally flow from them, justifying a with-holding Communion from the Parish Assemblies. In fine, it must be observed, that if the Parish Assemblies be really de facto, but parts of the Diocesan Church, and no complete Churches, Mr. Baxter must justify the Separation, and that he doth so, I will give you his own words, as I find 'em in his Schism detected, p. 28.

Either our Parish Churches (saith he) are true Churches, or not; if not, the Separatists are so far in the Right, and separate not from true Churches, eo nomine, because they separate from them: so far Mr. Baxter; who, if the Parish.

Assemblies be but parts of the Diocesan Constitution and not true complete particular Churches, justifies the separation from 'em; And who knows not, that the Parish Assemblies, as by Law established, are but parts of the Diocesan?

FINIS.