But to cut the matter fhort, whether it be Ceremonies, or our Common-Prayers, or Forms of Prayer, or whatever elfe that is found fault with, and inclines this or that Man to diflike our Church, and fancy a Separate Meeting better; it hath been fufficiently made out by our Authors, and particularly in the London Cates, that they are no other than what the Primitive Churches used, than what our Holy Martyrs (of precious Memory) both ordered and used, than what (or their Equivalents) are at this day ufed in all the Reformed Churches, fo that no Man can diflike our Church's Communion upon any alledgments hitherto made against it, to as to feparate from it; but he must upon the fame account have feparated from the Primitive Churches, had he lived in any of them, from the Bleffed Martyrs, who not only ferved God in the fame way, but alfo prefcribed it, and from whom we have it by Succeffion, and he must be a Separatift from any other Proteftant Church's Communion, if Providence fhould remove his Habitation into any of them, and what thinking ferious Chriftian will elpoufe or walk by fuch measures of Church-communion, as will neceffarily render him a Separatift in all the Churches of God, and indeed from the whole Catholick Church throughout the World? But to come to the other part of the Dilemma.

2. If this be a Sound and Orthodox Church, concerning which, I need not perhaps (recollecting my felt) argue at all the generality of fuch as go to the Separate Meetings, being fuch as we know to have without fcruple, held Ccm

muni

munion with the Church of England, while the Laws obliged them to it; nay, and who still to this day do it in moft parts of our Holy Offices when they please: And if we must in Charity believe them fo tender ot confcience, that they will by no means fo much as once do what they think to be really finful, or do but fufpect to be finful. This must be an Argument they can never anfwer, That they have no finful thing to lay to this Church's charge; and then, as they love their Souls, they are earnestly defired to confider how they will justify their unconftancy in an Apoftacy from its Communion.

Let fuch Perions take Paul's Golden Aphorifm* into confideration, Hap

22.

py is the Man that condemneth *Rom. 14. not himself in that which he al loweth. The inverfion whereof holds good. Unhappy is the Man that alloweth himself in that which he condemneth. These unconftant Communicants allow the Church of England as a Church, with which they can lawfully communicate,without fear of finning therein, or elle why do they it at all? And they implicitely condemn its Communion as finful, in withdrawing and breaking out from it,because there must be fomething finful in its Communion, or else they cannot justify their not communicating with it; fo that they can never overcome this Dilemma, viz. they either fin whenever they communicate with us: And why then do they it fometimes? or else they fin whenever they do not communicate with us, by joyning in a Separate Meeting, and the confequence is neceffary, because Separa

tion is always either a Duty or a Sin. A Duty, if Church-communion be idolatrous or finful, a Sin if it be not fo; and fo on the other hand communicating is either a Sin or a Duty. A Sin, if the Communion be finful, or a Duty, if the Communion be lawful and not finful; and then, if it be a Duty to communicate, it must be a Sin of Omiffion, that is, a neglect of a neceffary Duty, or a not doing what we ought to do, if we do not communicate. In fhort, without doubt, it is every Chriftian Man's Duty to communicate with the Church he lives in, if he can do it lawfully; and if Mens confciences will fuffer them to do it fometimes, they are bound to do it always, for nothing can justify their not doing that always which they can do fometimes without fcruple. Their doing it fometimes is an implicite allowing it, and their not doing it always, especially if they joyn in oppofite Communions, is an implicite condemning it; fo that here is an allowing themselves in what they condemn, and a condemining themselves in what they allow beyond all contradiction, and to avoid a felf-condemnation in the one, or in the cther is impoffible.

All which will be further evident by a proper Answer to the next Queftion, which will be fo near a-kin to this laft at the firft view, that an Apology may feem needful for making them two diftinct Queftions. But there is this good reafon for it, viz. the great number of Perfons, who being profeffed Members of the Church of England, and pretending no fcruple against its Communion, do yet indifferently refort, and

(as

(as it were) blindfold go to the Separate Meetings, without the leaft fenfe or confideration of the fin or mischief of doing fo, for whofe better Information therefore, I think it necessary to make this diftin&t Inquiry.

Quest. XVI. May not a good Christian lawfully communicate with diftinct separate Churches or Meetings, who yet are minded to hold Communion with the Established Church for the main?

Anf. No Man can do this that will guide himfelf either by Scripture Precept or Prefident, or by any found and ancient Rule of Catholick Unity or Church-communion, or by the DiEtates of true reafon.

In this doth the changeablenefs of the Presbyterians seem very fcandalous; for after many confeffions of the moft eminent amongst them in diverse of their Books, that the Church of England is a true and orthodox Church, and af ter the generality of them, communicating with it till the late Royal Indulgences, and efpecially till the late Act of Toleration, their very Teachers giving the People their own example for it, and pronouncing Schifm and Separation to be a damnable Sin, wherein as I have faid, they have left themselves felf condemned in not doing that for the Church's Unity and Peace, which they have again and again, both in print and practice confefled they can do without Sin, and in doing that now which they have alike confeffed to be a damnable Sin, and but for this reason, there is no great heed to be taken of what they do,

or

or have done, as to communicating, or not communicating, feeing we daily experience them fo loofe in their Principles, as to Catholick Unity or Church-communion; for after all this that I have here exprefled, the whole Sect is at this day clearly fallen into the Independents course of gathering Churches, and fetting up Altar against Altar, holding their Separate Meetings in competition with the Church's folemn Affemblies, (a thing that they formerly branded with the guilt of downright Schifmn,) which yet is not all, for (which is a much more marvellous prevarication) fome of them I find have of late given a very honourable Character of the Schifmatical Practice of profeffed Church members, and Schifmatical communicating with, and joyning to their Separate Meetings as the right Catholick Spirit. A very strange thing, that any Perfons pretending to Senfe, Religion and Confcience, fhould have the forehead to offer fuch a Notion to the Chriftian World: For what will the confequence of this be less than this, not only to make it an indifferent matter, with what Party or Sect Orthodox Chriftians communicate as their fancy prompts then; but even a fort of Chriftian Duty to communicate freely with Churches of all Communions, and a principle of Schifm for any one to be stanch, refufing to communicate with whatever Schifmatical Brotherhoods fhall fet up for themfelves, in oppofition to an Orthodox Church?

And now let every one open his Eyes, and fee how contrary this pretended Catholick Spirit is to the Holy Scriptures, both Precepts and G

Pre