fing to what I have here propofed, as far as it is fitted to the promoting his glory, and the increafing peace and unity amongst Chri ftians. POST T Here being fome who may be willing to fearch into the bottom of that unhappy Controversy that hath been depending almost ever fince the Reformation, between the Affertors of the Unreasonableness of Separation from the Establish'd Church, and those who have acted upon the Oppofite principle, and pleaded a neceffity of Sepa ration from it: I have been defired in order to their fatisfaction, to point out thofe Writ ings of the Former which may be judg'd to contain the strength of their Cause. In compliance with which defire, I recommend the following writings to the perufal of the Curious. Hooker's Ecclefiaftical Polity. John Ball's Friendly Tryal of the Grounds of Separation. Bradshaw's Unreasonableness of Separa tion. 1640. Rathband's Grave and Modeft Confutation of the Brownifts. 1644. A Letter of many Minifters in Old-England to others in New-England. 1637. Brinsley's Arraignment of Schifm. 1646. Separation Self-condemn'd in answer to Mr. Jenkins. Rob. Rob. Grovij Refponfio ad Celeufma. Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon of the Mifchief of Separation. Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation. Dr. Sherlock's Defence of it. Dr. Claget's Answer to the Mischief of Impofitions. Dr. Falkner's Libertas Ecclefiaftica. A Collection of Cafes, and other Difcourfes, Written to recover Diffenters to the Communion of the Church of England, by fome Divines of the City of London. In Folio. Mr. Bennet's Abridgment of thefe Cafes. I need not add any more. He that will be at the pains to perafe thefe, will find that the Affertors of the Unreasonableness of Seperation have much to Say for their Caufe; and little reafon to be troublesome to the World, by repeating their arguments as often as fuch as love Contention think fit to renew the Pleas for Separation, that have been fo often urged already, and as often anfwerd. THE THE 1. A Defence of the Terms of Minifterial Conformity. Reasons why this may be infifted on. from p. 6, to p. 18. An Objection taken from the invalidity of all the Miniftra- tions of the Diffenting Minifters anfwer'd p. 18, 19, 20. The Second of the Scrupled Terms of Ministerial Conformi An Obj. from the Comprehensiveness of the required Be- claration answer'd That this Affent, and Confent, can be only to the Use of The Principal Objections of the Diffenting Minifters a- I. Obj. taken from the Doctine of real Baptifmal Regenerati- on, and certain Salvation confequent thereupon, implied in the Office of Baptifm, and the Rubrick following it. II. Obj. taken from the Ufe of Godfathers and God-mothers in Baptifm, to the Exclufion of Parents.from p. 52, to p. 56. III. IV. V. Obj. taken from the Impofitions, viz. the requiring Sponfours, and the Use of the Cross at Baptism, and Kneeling at the Communion, proposed An Answer to their Objections against the Ufe of the Cross, premised |