This book made available by the Internet Archive.

bent in each Parifh hath among his Curates a fort of power. And that the Presbyteries and Synods have their Moderators* and if they were fixed durante vita, and bad a Negative Vote in Ordinations, they could confent } fobeit they were duly chofen as of old, and had no forcing power by the fword, but only a Minifterial, teaching, guiding power. And fomeof them thought it of Divine right, that the Apoftles and Evangelifts have Suc-ceflbrs in the ordinary parts of their office 5 and that to have a. fpecial care of many Churches, and their Bifhops and Elders are fome of that ordinary part.

4. And tothe Eraftians z\(b they granted, that the King tsthe Sopreii e Governour of the Church, by rhe fword, or force* and that we muft obey him, not only when he enforceth the Commar is of Chrift, but in all a&s of outward circumftance and order, left by God to his determination, and not appropriated to the Minifters office. Thefe were the thoughts then of the far greateft part of the Minifters that I had then knowIedgoE

$. 2. Before the King returned, many Epifcopal Doftors and great men, perfwaded thefe Reconcilers, that thus much would be accepted to our common concord, if the King werereftored: But fome faid, They do but dedeve you, there are fuch men now got into chief credit on that fide, that will filence yoi> all, and ruine you, unlefs you will follow Grotius, or be of the French Religion, or unite in the Pope, as Prwapium nmtaiis, and obey him, z&xhzWejkrn Patriarch, 8c:. And when you arc all turned out, what men havethey to fupply your places?

p. 3. But when the. King came in, and encouraged the R-e-concilers with the promife of his help, they made the attempt in 1660, and 1-6-61. the Hiftory of which I need not repeat, Since that forefeeing what the iilencing of fo many Minifters, and the afflifting of the people of our mind would unavoidably oaufe, we pleaded, we petitioned the Bilhops to have prevented it, by thofe neceffary mean* which they might have yielded

to.

to, to their own a dvantage: But it was all in vain.

$. 4. When the Ad of Uniformity came out, of about 9000 Minifters that kept in, and had laid by the Liturgy before, a-bout 7000 Conformed ( to the altered Liturgy, before any of them ever favv it, fave a few) by declaring their Affent and Con-fent (the A& being known before the Book could be Printed:) and about 2000 were filenced by that Aft. How they behaved themfelves fince then, is fo well known, and I have here, and oft declared 5 and how the Plague firft, and the burning of the Churches next, and the Kings Licenfes next, did give them the opportunities and calls which made more publick Preaching feem to them a duty, that Khali not make recital of it.

$. 5. AH this while abundance of inveftiues were poured out againft them, by many of the Conforming Clergy, in Prefs and Pulpits $ and especially in the ears of great men, to whom we had no accefs, but feemed what fuch men delcribed us to be. The new Laws againft Conventicles, and the Oxford AQ of Confinement had been added to the firft: Many were hunted up and down, their Goods and Libraries diftrained 0 many were impri-fbned 0 fome there died: The Informers and Profecutors grew weary: They faw the feverity came moft from the Prelates, and the Parliament, the King being not for feverity therein: The Juftices grew unwilling of Execution 5 the Preachers reprove them, and call on them to put the Law's in Execution 5 they are greatly offended at the Kings Licenfes} they continue to accufe us for Schifm at leaft, and fome of Sedition $ though we invaded none of their Temples, nor askt them for any part of their maintenance. And the Parliament and Prelates were fofharp a-gainft us, that we durft not tell the world what we refufed iriC 0*/-formity, and why, left we put them upon more feverity 3 nor indeed could we do it, the Prefs was lockt up by fb great penalties. But while we were forced to filence, we were lowdly called to, to fay what we fiuck^at, and what it was that we would haze. And

after

after 17 years fuch calls, I ventured to name the things5 and hence is theftorm of the prefent indignation.

$. 6. I had before proved the wilful defertion of our Mini-ftry, efpecially when the King Licenfed us, to be odious Sacri-ledg: To this lam told, of mens power to filence fuch as they think deferve it: I grant it, if they truly think fo: fomaythey on juftcaufe alienate Churches, and Church-lands, and hang Ma* lefa&ors: but not when no fuch caufe is given, nor at their pleafure.

$. 7. When in the fitft Plea for Peace I had ftated the cafe of our Nonconformity, I intended to bring the Proofs of each particular fuppofed finful, as I after found occafion. And meeting with abundance that accufed us of dilloyal, rebellious Principles, I largly delivered my own, and many others judgment of Civil and Eccefiaftical Authority, the power of Princes, and the duty of Subjefts 5 and therein alfo wrote fome Anfwer to Four Accufetions brought againft us. 1. That we pretend Grace againft Morality. 2. That we hold, that things Indifferent became unlawful, if commanded. 3. I largly confuted Bifhop Morleys falfe Accufetion of my Dodtrine, of the Magiftrates power to command things unlawfully accident 5 and Dr. Parkers Do&rine of Scandal. 4. 1 confuted them that extend our Nonconformity to things which we refufe not. All this in the Je-cond Plea for Peaces which none yet, that I know of, havean-fwered.

$. 8. And left any (hould think that we are all for Negatives, I wrote a Treatife of the only Terms of TJmverfal Chriflian con-tord, which I value above all the reft, being affured that the Churches will never otherwife be healed, than by that impartial, fure, and eafie Catholick way, which fome have reviled, but none fince, that I know of, confuted. One Learned Biftiop (that had a chief hand in our prefent Impofittons and eje&ion}

Idefired to tell me, which is the way of Christian concord, if this be not: And he maintaineth, That the only, way is to obey the Colledg of Pajiors, who are to govern the Catholick^ Church through all the world, per Lit eras format as. Where this Colledg, as one governing power do meet, or how they fignifie their Majority of Votes, and in what cafes, and who mud gather the Votes (from Abajjia to Mofcovie), and An how long time, and how they (hall come to all men with certainty} and whether the ejected, filenced, and excommunicated, &c. may appeal to them, ,&c. I could not learn.

§. 9. In the fame Book I fufficientiy confuted Mr. H Dodwelh great Book, Xvhich denyeth not only the Churches and Mini-ftry, which are not by uninterrupted Epifcopal Ordination, but alfo the ordinary falvation of all fiich Churches, as having no covenant promife, by valid Sacraments delivered them. He hath pretended fome defence in a late Book of Letters: to which, if they can be Printed, I hope to give eafily a fatisfa&ory reply.

$. 10. "hi theiamebook hePublifheth fome old Letters of his ito me, for the Dioceian frame of Government^ the notice of which beforehand 'given me, caufedmetoPublifh a fullTreatifeof .Diocefan Epifcopacy , containing the Reafons why we cannot fwear to it, or approve it, or fwear never to endeavour any reforming alteration of the frame here fetled, and exercifed. And whatever Mr. Dodwell pretendeth to the contrary, if this Treatife do not fully anfwer his Letter, and juftifie us in this part of Nonconformity, I am unable to judg of the Caufe, but am willing to recieve any better information.

$. 11. And becaufe I find fal(e Hiftory, not the leaft caufe of ordinary miftakes, and men cry up Diocefan Prelacy, as the ancient, and chief cure of Schifm * I gathered an Abftraft of the hiftory of Bilhops, and their Councils, that the true matter of fait might not be fo commonly miftaken as it is.

$.12. At

$. 13. At the fame time came out againft me, Firft, a book of Mi\ John Cheyneys, the miftakes of which I mantfeftcd in .iii'-Ati-fvver: And afteiward old Letters of Mr. liink^eys, to which I had an old Anfwer, which I eaft by, and now Publifhed : and another Accufer, abounding with untruths, called the Impleder^ and another called Reflections, or Speculum, &c. And another Book of Mr. Cheneys, full of moll pitiful miftake^ All which, with Juftice Roger L'Eftrange's Dialogue, and fomeothers, lan-fwered together in a Book called the Third Defence ef the Non-con fur mijls, &c.

§. 13. Bat the Accufations of Dean Stillingfleet in his Sermon, made the loudeft noife: In the Anfwer to which, I chiefly defired to have come tofome underftanding agreement with him, about the true ftate of our Cafe and Controverfie^ and to that end, craved his anfwer to feveral neceffary queftions} but was not able to procure it. And now in his large Book, where I hoped to have found an Anfwer to them, I look for it in vain. Yea, though Mr. Hik^ringhiU roughly provoked him but to expound his own Text, and tell us intelligibly, what the fame Rule is, which the Apoftle would have all walk by, he will not do it 3 but inftead of that, withunufual gentlenefs tells me, he w\\l not differ about it, if I do but grant, that it is a Rule that binds us all to do all that lawfully we can for peace, which I cheerfully grant 5 And if it be not lawful for peace and concord to forbear filen-cing us, imprifoning us, accufing us as odious for not wilful finning, and urging Magiftrates to execute the Laws againft up, and making us feem Schifmaticks for not forbearing to Preach theCofpel, to which we were vowed and coniecrated by Ordination 5 I know not lawful from unlawful: I cannot yet get him to tell us, what he would have the many fcore thousands do on the Lords Days, that have no room in the Parilh-Churches } with many fuch, which our cafe is concerned in.

$.14.1 thought his Book had been an Anfwer to mine,and other mens Prefaces} but I find that I was miftakeri: Indeed he nameth five Books written againft his Accufation: what he faith to Dr. Owen, and Mr. Alfop, I leave to themfelves to confider of: The

B Countrey

Countrey Gentlemans Cafe, in fenfe, was this, Whether all they that thinly Parifh-Communion, under the prefer?t impoptions, tob* fin, are bound, till they can change their judgment ^ to forbear all Church-worfhip , and live likg Atheifls, and jo be damned ? And who can find any Anfwer to this ?

Mr. Barret's Queries out of his Books,he faith,next nothing to, but a dark retra&ing his Irenicon: And far be it from me to blame him for growing wifer.But why took he no notice of hisown words, cited in the Epiftle, out of his late Book againft Idolatry, threatening us all with no lefs than damnation, if we prefer not the purefl s Church.

And as to my Defence, his Book is nothing like an Anfwer, unlefi his naming me, and citing out of that, and other Books, a few broken (craps, which he thought he could make (bme advantage of, may be called an Anfwer.

$. 15. Iconfefs he hath made fbme attempt to tell me what the

National Church of England is 5 but fb Independently, as I doubt

his party will difown it with great offence. In fhort, he holds,

that there is no fuch thing as a Church of England, in theufual

Political fenfe, having any Conftitutive, Ecclefiaftical, Supreme

Power, Monarchical, or Ariftocratical, or Democratical, but it's

only the many Churches in£#g/tf#^,affociated by the common con-

lent inParliament,&c. Remember that be and I arefo far agreed;

As I was writing this,! faw a Book againft him of a friend,too

much forme, andfomewhat freely handling the Dr. which in this

point would help them 3 byfaying,thattheG?ffzwtff/0/z having the

LegiJIafive Church-Power, may be the Conjiitutrve,Regent part : But

he confefleth to me, that he fpake not what is, but what he counts

fhould be,or wifheth^ for the Dr.himfelf had before toldus,that the

Convocations of Canterbury and Torl^ are/»w, and not united to

make oneNational^Jupreme power fa that this proveth no one political

Church of England at all,but only 2 Provincial Churches xnEnglandi

$. 16. The Dr. hath fo ;udiciou(ly and honeftly pleaded our

Gaufe in his defence of A.h'iihop Laud^nd his Book againft Idola-

*ry,that I have made his words the firft Chap, of this Book,which

g£ he candidly ftand to, I fee not but our principles are the fame;

$. 17. His

$.17 His book is made up of 3 parts.I.Untrue Accufat'tons.II.lIn* trueHiftorical Citations (abundance). III. Fallacious P^eafonings.

Would you have an undeniable Confutation, adhominem, in few words?

I. As to his Principles, he faith himfelf as aforefaid, Of Ido* lot. p. 7. We are Jure that wilful ignorance,ox chooftng a worfe Church before a better, k a damnable fin.

II. As to his Hiftory of the old Nonconformifis, read A. Bifhop Bancrofts dangerous Pofitions, and Heylins Hiftory of Presbytery, charging them odioufly with the clean contrary, and the Canons made againft them on that fuppofition.

lII.As to his Hiftory, and Dodtrine againft the Ele&ion of Bp s , which I pleaded } ("as I have fully proved his abufe of Hiftory in it,)I repeat Wx.Thorndihgs \vords,F or bear.ofPenalty, It is to nopur-pofe to tall^of Reformation of theChurchtoregidar Government,with-cut refloring the liberty of chooftng BiJf)ops,and priviledg ofenjoying them to the Synods, Clergy and people,in the making ofthofe of whom they confifl, and by whom they are to be governed, tbat I need mak$ no other reafon of the negleft oj Epiflopacy, than the negleS of it.

O pray hard to God to provide greater ftore of skilful, holy and peaceable Labourers for his Harveft, that by the found belief of a better world, have overcome the deluding love of the honours, profperity and pleafures of the flefh, and wholly live to God and Heaven.

POSTSCRIPT.

Dr\. Edward StiUwgfleet Irenic.P. 1J 4. faith, TheEpifcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture, or in the practice of the Apoftles, for Churches confiding of many fixed Congregations for worfhip, under the chargeof onePaftor^ nor in the Primitive Church, fortheOrdination of aBilhop, without the preceding Ele&ion of the Clergy, and at leaft, confent and approbation of the people 5 and neither in Scripture nor Antiquity, the leaft foot-ttep of the delegation of Church-power} fo that upon the matter all of them at laft make ufe of thofc things in Church-Government, which have no other foundation but the principles of humane prudence, guided by Scripture 5 and itwerc well if that were obferved ftill. B 2 P. 370. Surely

P. 370. Surely then their Dioceflfeswe re not very large, if all the feveral Parities could communicate on the fame day, with what wasfent from the Cathedral Church.

P. 361.4 doubt not but to make it appear,that Philippi was not the Metropolis of Macedonia, and therefore the Biftiops there mentioned could not be the Bilhops of the feveral Cities under the jurifdi&ion of Philippi, but muft be underftood of the Biftiops refident in that City.

P. 157. There muft be a form of Ecclefiaftical Government o-ver a Nation, as a Church, as well as of Civil Government over it as a Society governed by the fame Laws.—For every Society muft have its Government belonging to it, as fuch a Society: And the fame reafonthat makes Government neceflary, in any particular Congregation, will make it neceflary for all the particular Congregations, joyning together in one vifible Society, as a particular National Church: For the Unity and Peace of that Church ought much more to be lookt after, than of any one Congregation. jP. 131. The Churches power, as to Divine Law, beingonly dire&ive and declarative 5 but as confirmed by a Civil San&ion,is juridical and obligatory.

P. 113. Where any Church rs guilty of corruptions, both inDo-ftrine and in pra&ice, which it avoweth, and profeffeth, and requt-reth the owning them,as neceflary conditions of Communion with her 5 there a Noncommunion with that Church is neceflary, and a total and pofitivefeparation is lawful and convenient.

P. 117. Where any Church retaining purity of Do&rine, doth require the owning of, and conformingto any unlawful, orfufpe-&ed pra&ice 5 men may lawfully deny Conformity to,and Communion with that Church in fuch things,without incurring theguilt of Schifm---P.i 19-Let men turn and wind themfelves which way they will,by the very fame argument that any will prove ftparat ion from the Church of Romete wful,becaufe (he required unlawful things a? Conditions of her Communion 5 it will be proved lawful not to Conform to any fufpe&cd,or unlawful pra&ice,^r.-They lay the-imputation ofSchifm on all them who require fuch Conditions of Communion, and take it wholly off from thofe who refufe to Conform for Conscience lake. A Pre-

A Premifed explication of the Equivocal word CHVRCH.

THE word [_ CHURCH] being Equivocal, is unfit for our deputation, till explained: It fignifieth ( being a Relative ) ieveral forts of related Affemblies : which are diftmfi. I. In their Matter : A C hnrch of jews, Turks, Chriftians, of Orthodox, and of Hereticks, being not one thing.

II. In the Efficient: A Church of Gods infticuting , or a Church of mans.

III. In the Fnds. i. *A* Chriftian Affembly at a Fair, or Market, or Court 9 $r *Army, &:• is not the fame with an Affembly for Religious exercifes . 2 Nor an-affembly for Legiflation about Religion (in Parliament J, or Confutation in Synods, or Difputation in Schools, the fame thing as an AJfembly for ftatedworflnp. &c.

IV. In the Form, or Conftitutive Relation to the Correlate: And fo the great difference which now concerneth us to note *r, that a Church of Equals in Office and : power*/ one thing, and a Political Society, rtlated as Gover-nours, and governed, is another.

The firfi is either an accidental AfTembly, or elfe a defigned Affemby by confent.

This la ft is either an t/fffemblyof Lay-men, which may be agreed hereafter to come under Government \ and may meet to worfhtp God without a Paftor ', and this m Politicks is ufually called, a meer Community. 2. Or an isfffem-bly of Rulers or Paftors in equality ( as to Government there ) : And this ie called, a Council, Synod, Dyet, Parliament, Convention, &c. ^%. A Governed, or Political Church is of Three feveral Species (at leaft ) as there are three Species of fuch Government,

I. A Chriftian Family, confifting of the Family- Government, and Governed, living together in holy faith, love, trorfirip, and obedience to God\ the ^JMafter being their Teacher , Ruler, and Guide in worfhtp.

II. A Paftoral-Church, confifting of one, or more Paftors, and Chriftian people correlated as his flock. > for the benefit of his Paftor al- office, which effen-tially containeth a power to teach them, lead them in worftiip, and govern them by the Keys, as a Afinifterial Judg, who is fit for that (fommmunion. Aft together is called alfo, the Power of the Keys, and is fubordinate to Chrifts Teaching, Prieltly, WRuHngO^ic*.

III. A Royal, or Magiftratical Church, confifting of a Chriftian Sove-raign, and Chriftian Subject, to be ruled by \m Jword, or forcing power under Chrift, and his Laws, for the fpiritual and temporal welfare of the Joci-$ty, and the glorifying, and plcapng the Lord-Redeemer*

And-

,And\V. The Univerfat Church comprehtndeth all thefe thrte as partly and h moft excellently , properly, and fully called, the Church, confiftingof Jefus Chrift thec l iefPaftor (Teacher, Prieft,and King, an eminent pcrfett Policy ) With all Q)riftians,as the fubjetl part: It is vifible in that the fubjells,and their profejfion, and worfljip are vifible ; aod Chrift wo* vifible on earthy is vifible in the Court of Heaven, his Laws, and Providence are vifible, and he willvifibty \udg the world, and reign for ever: And it is no further vifible. The con ft i-tuttve, effential parts, are only Chrift and his fubjett-body : The nobleft, or-ganical parts of that body, are Prophets, Apoftles, Evangeltfts, Paftors, and teachers*

In all this, note i. That we have no difference, that ltyowof, about the Church in any of thefe fenfes before mentioned, except,

1. How far men may invent (fhurch-forms for Gods fervice ( without Gods particular prefer'ipt, er inftitution ).

2. Whether it be true, that the King is fo perfona mixta, as fame hold, as to be King and Prkft, and to have the power of Church-Keys, and Word, tind Sacraments.

$. Whether over and above the loweft Paftoral Churches Chrift hatWinflttu* tedadirelh, fuperior Pa floral fort of Churches, to ruletheinferior , in Faith, Worfhip, and the Keys of Difcipline, over Paftors and people ? And if fo, what are thefe fuperior ? aft oral Churches, whether Dioce fan, Provincial, National, Patriarchal, Papal, or all I And if Chrift made no finch, whether men may n>a\e them f

2. And note, that we are certainly agreed, that the Magiftratical form of forcing power, And the Paftoral form of Sacerdotal power of the Keys, are two, though the fub)e£bs floould be the fame (though ufually the Church is in the Commonwealth, as part): And none of hs deny a Chriftian Commonwealth, Monarchical , Ariftccratical, or Democratical', and though fUk power be over the Paftoral Church, it is but Accidental, and not Eflential to it.

I. And note, that the chief questions which Iput to the Dr. about this, were y

i. What is the Paftoral ipecifying form of the Church of England? And

2 Whether it be of Divine or humane Inftitution : And I have brought him to

mdnttin, that there is no fuch Church of England at all. And of the Royal

Church or Kingdom we are Members as well as he.

4. And Laftly, Note, that as to a Paftoral Church, we agree, I fuppcfe, in diffiiguijhing a Tranfient, and a fixed relation. And as he that is a Licenfed Phyfician, atleth as fuch where he cometh, though related fixedly to no Hofpi-tal, fo if a lawful Minister of Chrift, either fixe dm another Church, or in none but the Vniverfal, be called, pro tempore, for a day,to do his office in a~ tf>they Church, he atteth as Chrifts Mini ft er, and their ? aft or for that daytj And if a travelling Chriftian ]oyn with them, he is a Member for that day:

Tea,

T*a, if the whole company intend to meetlrut that one day hstjoe fame relationj 9 to the fame ends, it is a temporary, transient Paftoral church. 'But fixed inhabitants for order and edification, ought to fix their relation andpratlice.

Though moft of this be fatd after, where he calls me to it, J thought meet hereto premife the Explication of the word Q Church] (as m divers bcokj largely I have done of the word [^Separation] left J tmitate him in leaving my explication to the hinder party and we fljould depute aboht a viord, which the Reader , and perhaps our /elves underfiand not.

But we have a greater contr over fie than this, rifen fivce A. Btficp Laud'/, and Grotius'/ Reconciling defign, v z. what the- Catholick vifible Church ut

1. Protefiants have hitherto held, as the firs} point of difference from the *Papifts, that the Univerial Church hath noconftirutive Head, or fupreme regent Power but Chrift. He hath fetledno one, Vicarious, or deputed fu*. preme, Monarchical, Arifjtocratical, or Democratical.

2. ^Accordingly they noted the difference of two forts of Paptfts, fornix that fet the Pope as fuperior, above Councils \ others (as the Council of Conftance, andBzhl, and the French, that make the General Council fupreme, the Pope being Prefident, as the chief of the Patriarchs, and having many priviledges, as Primate to the Vniverfal Qourch.

$, But that in truth, the Catholic^ governing power of Pope, and the other four Patriarchs, was but a humane form of Church Policy fet led in one Empire a*a National kind of Church, and the Councils were Vniverfal as to the Empire, but not toall the Chriftian world (which I have proved again ft W. John-fon fully ) cahd by the Emperour that had no power over other Nations, and fubfcribed by his fubjetls,

4. That the grand cheat that hath fet up Popery, is the turning this National Church into an Univerfal Government of all the Chriftian world \ and pretending that Chrift, or his isfpoftles fet up that power over all, which Em* per ours, and Imperial Councils fet up only over one Empire.

5. We are fworn again ft Forreign r j urifditlion by the Oath of Supremacy. For the Roman Empire-it dtjfolved, and if it were not, we are no fubjetls of it.

6. Tet we hold that all Chriftians flionld live in all poffibHe love and concord, conn felling, andhelping one another for the edification of the Churchy and thai fuch fiuncils are ufeful thereto , as may be had withont more hurt than good. But that no Vniverfal governing power be fides Chrifts ( for Legiflation, fudg-ment, or Execution) is needful to that concord; nor is a Government of the whole Chriftian world by any one Political fupreme, Pope or Council, or Col-ledgof Paftors, or Cardinals, any more poffibleor lawful to be fought, than that all the Kingdoms on earth have one humane civil Sever aign; though all Kings, as well as all Bifho^s, are bound to ferve Cod with thegrcateft concord -that they can attain*

But now he that will read many late Divines of England, will find, that they are come to this^ I. 1o take the fore/aid Conciliate and French Papifts to be no Papifts *, and fo to make it a controverfie , de nomine (in which, for vie, let them have their liberty ). 2. To take it for a necejfary things to believe that the Universal Church in the world hath one fupreme governing power under Chrift, and is a Society, that is, therein vifibly one. And $. That this one ruling powers either a General Council, or the Colledg ol all Bi-fhops on earth. 4. <y4ndthat the Imperial Church-form was, and is to be the true Vnivcrfal Church form, viz. a General Council, where the five Patriarchs are by them/elves, or by confent. 5. And that the Tope is Prefident, and Principium uniratis, and chief Patriarch, and fo to be obeyed by us* 6. And that there is no true way to Vniverfal concord but by being of this one Church, (b formed, and obeying its Ihiverfal Laws, which they fay, chrift hath given them power to make. 7. And that they are Schifmaticks y and not to be tolerated that do not fo confent and obey. 8. Tea, fay fome to us in England, it is compelled obedience to all the prefent Impofkions, which only muft cure our divifions, without abatement for Vnion, or any Tolerations.

A great deal more of this nature is built on this principle, that the Church in all the earth is one, asunder one humane fupreme Government, under Ghrift, and that all are Schifmaticks that are not of it, Wobey it not. I am not for difgracing any by the name of Papifts that refufe it', whether the French, and the councils of Pifa, Conftance andBzfil Jhall be called Papifts I contend not: But whether thofe fatfe principles be the only terms of concord % wife men will canteloufly confide?*

ADVERTISEMENT.

THere is lately Publifhed a Book of the fame Authors, called, A Search for the Englifl) Schifmaticks by the Cafe and Characters I. Of the Diocefan Canoneers. 2. Of the Prefent Meet Novconfermijis. Not as an Accufation of the former, but a neceffary Defence of the latter, fo far as they are wrongfully accufed and perfecuted by them. And is to be fold by Nevill Simmons, at the Sign of the Three Golden Cockj at the Weft-end of St. Pauls.

CO

A N

ANSWER

T O

Dean S T I L 1 N G F L E ET S, &c.

C H A P. I.

The Conccrd of Dr. Stiilengfleet and the Ken conform ifls, efpecial-ly with the Principles ef my Book of Church Concord, about ike true Nature of Schifm , and who is the Schifmatic/^: mitten by him at age in his mo ft owned bocks, and not in youth in his lrenicon : I ftand to all my words againfh Schijm which he hath cited) and Jo I doubt twt but he Jlands to theje following of his.

Dlfcourfe of Idolatry of Rome, p. 7. c ^Though we know not what allowances God will make for invincible ignorance, we are Cure that willful Ignorance or CHOOSING A'WORSE CHURCH BEFORE A BETTER IS A DAMNABLE SIN and unrepented of deiiroys Salvation.

Ihe Papifls confent, p. 43. c [I agree fo far with him, that every Chr an is bound to choofe the Communion of the purcft Church; but which that Church is, mult be iecn by the grounds it brings to prove the Doctrines it teaches to have been delivered by Chrift and his Apoiiles. T Church is to be judged purcft that hath the btil grounds, and confccjuently it is of neceility to Salvation to embrace the Communion of if.

Pag. 1^4. i5>5- c j_i. The Churches power is only to Edification and not to difiru&ion: tor this was as much as the Apoftles challenged to themfelves", and I hope none dare challenge it ore : But this isa prineir of Natuial reafen, that no power in a focicty ought to be extenc.

B

c beyond the benefit of it, or to contradict the end and deGgneofit. 2. c The Apoftles were the molt competent Judges of what made for the Edi-c fication of the Church. ]

Pag. 216. 217. c [1. It is agreed on both (k!es that the Scriptures do c contcme in th^m the unqueftionable will of that God whom we are 6 bound toferve, and it being the end of devotion fas it ought to be ofour c lives) to ferve him, what is there, the mind of any one who fincerely de-' iirestodo it, can be moreinquifitive after or fatisfyed in, than the rules c God himfdf hath given for his own fervicc Becaufe it is fo cafiy a mat-c ter for men to miftake in the waies they choofe to ferve him in: I fee the

* world divided more fcarce about any thing than this: Pag. 218. Can c any man imagine abetter way, ifitconld be hoped for, than that God him-c fclf fhould entcrpofe, and declare his own mind , according to what way c they ought to ferve him I And this is acknowledged to be done already by c all Chriftians in the Scriptures, and after all this muft not all perfons con-

* cerncd be allowed to enquire into that which is owned to be the will of God, c or do they think that ordinary people that undcrftand not Latineand 'Greek ought not to be concerned what becomes of their Souls? If they c be and do in good earned defire to know how to pleafe God and ferve c him, what directions will they give him? They mull do as they are bid" ** den~\AxM<z, fay they, if we were to worfhip you for Gods, we would do 1 as you bid us : for we think it fitting to ferve God in his own way: But c we would know whether that God whom, we ferve, hath given us any 'Rules for his worlhip or no. How (hall we know whether we keep them

* or not, or will you take upon yottihe guilt of our fins in difobcying his Svill? This feems to be a very juft and reafonable requeft, and I fear it c will one day fall heavy on thofe who conceale that which they confefs to be

* the will of God \ from the knowledge of the people.

Tag* 54.8. [I agree with him in the way of proof of a Churches purity r c viz. by agreement with the doctrine ot Chrift and his Apoftles, and that w rhe Church is to be judged pureft, which (hews the greateft Evidence of 'that confent, and that every one is bound to enquire which Church hath

* the ftrongeft motives fork, and to embrace the Communion of it.

Pag. 5 65. '[14. To fuppofe the books fo written to be imperfect, u e. i that any thing necelTary to be believed or PRACTISED are not con-reined in them, is either to charge the firft Author of them with fraud, c and not delivering his whole mind, or the writers with infrncerity in c not fating it down, and the whole Chriftian Church of the firft ages fc with folly , in believing the fulnefs and perfection of the Scriptures in "order to Salvation..

tRead

[ 3 3 Readthe reft of thofe excellent Rules to rhc end. In his excellent, Vindication of Arch Bifcop Lai:d.c//W A Rational account of the Proteltants Religion, be bath the fame tcrmes of Communion and the fame defcription of Scbifm with mint ,and I kporv not how better to exprejr my thoughts s nor plead my Vindication, viz.

Y>ag- 28^. ' [In his defence of Arch Bifhop Laud (riot yet difbwncdj c fince fo great, and conliderable parts of the Chrifiian Churches havcia c thefe laii ages been divided inCommunionfrom each other,the great contel: 'and enquiry hath been which party (lands guilty of the caufeof the prefent

* diftance and fcparation. For both fides retain ftill fo much of their com-'mon Christianity as to acknowledge that no Religion doth foftridtly ob-c ligc the owf*€rso1 it to peace and unity as the Cfiriftian Religion doth ; 'and yet notwithstanding this, we find thefe breaches fo far from clof-4 ing, that, fuppofing the fame grounds to continue, a reconciliation fecms

* to humane reafon impoflible, an Evidence of which' is, that thofe per-'fons who either out of a generous defire of feeing the wounds of the c Chrifrian world healed, or out of fotne private intereft or defigne, have

* made it their bufinefs to propound terms o\ reconciliation between the 'divided parties > have been equally rejected by thofe parties they have 'profeiTed themfelves the members of.

Page. 190. c [The diftance then being fo great as it is, it is a very necef-c faty enquiry what theCaufe of it is, and where the main fault lies: and it

* being acknowledged that there is a poflibility that corruptions may 5 get into a Chriitian Church, and it being impoflible to prove that Chrifti-c anity obligeth men to Communicate with a Church in all thofe corruptions its communion may be tainted with, it feems evident to reafon that c thccaufc of the breach muft lie there, where the corruptions are own* c ed, and impofed as conditions of communion. For can any one imagine c it (hould be a fault in any to keep off from communion, where they arc c fo far from being obliged to it, that they have an obligation to the contrary from the principles of their common Chrifnanity/ And where men c are bound not to communicate, it is impoflible to prove their not com-c municating to be Schifm. For there cm be no Sehifnv, but where there c is an obligation to communion ', Schifm being nothing eKebuta willful '"violation of the bonds Chriliian communion. And therefore whenever c you would prove the Protefiantsguilty of Schifm, you muft do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in thofe things c which they are Proteftants for difowning of, or that there is (o abfolute • and unlimited an obligation to continue inthefociety of your Church, ' that no conditions can be fo hard, but wcare bound rather to lubmit

B 2

[43

to them, then not joyn in Communion with you.

1 This being a matter of fo vaft confequence in order to the fetling mens minds in the prefent difputes of the Christian world, before I come to particulars, I (halllay down thofe general principles which may mani-feft how free Proreftants are from all imputation cf Schifm. Schifm then importing a violation of that, communion which we are obliged to the mort natural way for undeiHanding what Schifm is, is to enquire c what the foundations ate of Chriftian communion, and how far the bounds . of it do extend. Now the Foundations of Chriftian communion in 'general depend upon the acknowledgment of the truth of Chriftian Religion. For that Religion which Chrift came to deliver to the world being fuppofed true, is the reafon why any look on themfelves as obliged to profefs it > which obligation extending to all perfons who have the fame grounds to belcive the truth of it, thence arifeth the ground of ''fociety in thisprofeffion, which is a common obligation on feveral perfons joyning together in fome acts of common concernment to them. The truth then of Chriftian Religion being acknowledged by feveral perfons, ' they find in. this Religion fbme actions which are to be performed by "feveral perfons in fociety with each other. From whence arifeth thac 'more immediate obligation to Chriftian fociety in all thofe. who profefs 1 themfclv.es Chrillians > and the whole number of thefe who own that ^truthof Chriftian Religion, and are thereby obliged to jovn in fociety c with each other, is that which we call the Catholic^ Church. But although there be fuch a relation to each other in all Chriftiansas to make *"them one common fociety, yet for the performance of particular acts of 'communion, there mil ft be lefler focieties wherein perfons may joyn- to-c gether in the actions belonging to them. But ftill the obligation to com-^munion in thefe lciTer is the fame with that which conilitutes the great ''body of Chriftians, which is the owning Chriftianityas the only true Re-'ligionand way to eternal happinefs. And therefore thofe lelTer focieties ^cannot in juftice make the neccfllity conditions of Communion narrower than 1 thofe which belong to the Catholic]^ Curcb^ i. e. thofe things which de* 'dare men Chriftians ought to capacitate them fop communion with 10 Chriftian?.

c But here we are to confider that as to be a Chriftian fuppofeth mens

c owning the Chriftian Religion to be true, fo the conveyance of that Reli-

c gion being now to us in thofe books we call the Scriptures, there mull be

5 an acknowledgment of them as the indifpenfablerule of faith and man-

c ners, which is, that thefe books are the great Charter of the Chriftian

€ iociety according to which it muft be governed.

c Thefe

C5l

1 Thefe things being premiCcd as the foundation in general of Chrift ran fociety, we ["hall the better under/land how far the obligation to munion in it doth extend. For wh ch it mull be conlidered that the grounds of continuance in communion mult be fuitable and proportionable to the iirft reafon of cntringintor. No man being obliged by virtue of his being in a fociety , to agree in anything thatteads to the apparent ruinof that fociety: But he is obliged to the contrary, Irom the general grounds of his fixit admillion into it. His primary obligition beng to preferve the honour and intcreltof'it, and to joyninadls ot it fo far as they tend toit. Now the main end of the ChrilMan fociety, being the promotion of Gods honour, and Salvation ot mens Souls, the primary obligation of men entring into it, is the advancement of theft ends to joyn in all acts of itfo far as they tend to thefe ends > but if any thing come to be required dircclly repugnant to thefe ends, thofe men of whom (uch things are required , are bound not to communicate in thofe lelTer focieties where fuch things are impofed, but to prefeive their communion with the Catholick focictie of Chriftians.

Tag. 291. c Setting then afide the Catholick fociety of Chriftiai s, wc ccme to enquire how far men are bound to communicate with any Icfs, (bciety how extenfive foever it may pretend it's communion to be. 1. There is no fociety of Christians of any one communion , but may fm-pofe fome things to be beleived or pra&iftd which may be repugnant to the general Foundation of Chriftian fociety.

Tag. 2^2. c 2. There beinga poiTibility acknowledged that partk Churches may require unreafonable conditions of communion, the ligation to communion cannot be abfolute and indifpv: fo far as nothing is required defirudrive to the ends of Christian Soc Otherwife men would be bound to deiFroy that which they beleive, and to dothe molt unjuftand unreafonable things. But the greater difr ; . lies in knowing when fuch things are required, and who muft be judge in that cafe,to which I anfvver.

c 3. Nothing can be more unreafonable than that the fbcic I "fuch conditions of communion mould be judge, whether thole conditt-ens be jufi and equitable or no. If the quertion were o^.ly in matt, peace, convenieney, and order, the judgment of the (bciety ought fo over-rule the judgments of particular perfons> but in fuch caL great bodies of Chriftians judge fiwh things required to be unlawful conditions of communion, what Jufi ice or reaion is there that the ; cvjkd mould fit Judge in her own caufe ?

1 4. Where there is fuflicient evidence from Scripture, reafon and'

B 5 c tradi i >1

tradition that fuch things, which are impofed, are unreaionable conditions of Chriftian Communion, the not communicating with that Society, which requires thefe things cannot incur the guilt of Schifm, which ne-cefTarily follows from the precedent grounds, becaufenone can be obliged to Communion in fuch cafes, and therefore the not communicating is no culpable feparation.

Pag. 324. c His Lordlhip delivers hisfenfe clearly and fully in thefe Words* *Tis too true indeed, that there isa miferable rent in the Churchy and I make no queftionbut the bell* men do molt bemoan it j nor is he a Chriftian, thit would not have Unity, might he have it with Truth. But, Ineverfaidor thought, that the Protectants made this rent. The Caufe of the Schifm is yours > for you thruft us from you, becaufe we call'd for truth, and rcdrefs of abufes. For a Schifm muft needs be theirs, whofe the caufe of it is. The IFoiuns full out of the mouth of Chrift ever againft him that gives the offence* not againft him that takes it ever.

Page 325. C I do fay it now* and mod true it is, That it was ill done of thole, whoe're they were, who firft made the Separation. But then A. C. muft not underhand me of adtual only, but of caufal Separation. For ( aslfaid before^ the Schifm is theirs, whofe the caufe of it is: and he makes the Separation, that gives the rirft juft caufe of it > not he that makes an aclual Separation upon a juft Caufe preceding. And this is fo evident a Truth , that A. C. cannot deny \t, for he fays it is moft true.

lhat the Reader may clearly under/land the fall State of this Controverfie concerning Schifm '-, the upjhot of which, is, that it is agreed between bothp'r-ties y that all Separation from Communion with a Church doth not involve in it the guilt of Schifm^ but only fuch a Separation as hath no fufficient caufe or ground for it.

Page 131. c There can be no Separation from the whole Church, but in fuch things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies » for Separation isa violation of fomeUnion : Now when men feparate from the errors of all particular Churches, they do not feparate from the whole, becaufe thofe things, which one feparates from thofe particular Churches for, are not fuch, as make all them put together to be the whole or Catholick Church. This muft be fomewhat further explained. There are two things confiderable in all particular Churches > thofe things which belong to it as a Church > and thofe things which belong to it as a particular Church. Thofe things which belong to it as a Church, are the common ligaments or grounds of Union between all parti-cuter Churches, which taken together maxke up the Catholick Church :

1 Thofe

'Thofe things which belong to it as a particular Church, ai: l it may retain the elTcnce of a Church without. Now. i 'ever feparates from any particular Church (much more fxoi l ibr fuch things without which that can be no Church, fepara:. 'the Communion of the Catholick Church : but he that fcpara ' from particular Churches, as to fuch things which concern nc: c isonely fepantid from the Communion of thofe Churches, ar,d nc \ 'Catholick. And therefore fuppofmg that all perticular Churches c fome errors and corruptions in them, though I mould frparare from 'them all, I do not feparate from the Communion of the whole Chi.; 'unlefsit be for fomething, without which thofe could be no Cbufd 'An evidence of which, is, that by my declaring the grounds of my fepa-' ration to be fuch Errours and corruptions, which are crept into the Com-'munion of fuch Churches, and impofed on me in order to it, I withal 'declare myreadinefs tojoynwith them again, if thofe errours and corruptions be left out. And where there is this readinefs of Communion, 'there is no abfolute reparation from the Church as fuch, but only fufpen-' ding Communion till fuch abufes be reformed: which'is therefore more 'properly a feparation from the errors, than the Communion of fuch a 'Church, wherefore if we fuppofe, that there is no one vilible Church, c ivhofe Communion is not tainted with fome corruptions though ift! c corruptions beinjoyntd as conditions of communion , I cannot commit 'nicate with any of thofe Churches, yet it followes not that I am fcpara-'ted from the external Communion of the Catholick Church, but that I 'only fufpend Communion with thofe particular Churches, 'till I may fafc-*ly joyn with them. As, fuppofe all the particular men 1 can convei 'with, were infected with Lcprofie, my not affociatng with than, d 'not imply that lam feparated from the Communion of all Mankind, but 'that I am loath to be infected as they are, and therefore withdraw my 'felf, till I can meet with fuch healthtul per fons with whom I may (aft ^alTociateagain. Andiffeveral other perfons beof the fame mind with 'me, and we therefore joyn together, do we therefore divide our k 'from the whole World by only taking care of our own fafety ? And efpc-'ciallyif any company of fuch leprous perfons thould refolve that n 'fhould live among them, but fuch as would cat of thofe meats which ' brought that difkmper upon them, our withdrawing our (elvesand all 'dating without them will /til I appear more reafonable and commenda-*ble. Therefore we fay, we do not neccilarily feparate from aiJ Chi 'chesthat have errors or corruptions in them, fuppofing thofe errors and 'corruptions be not impofed on us, ditions of communion> and

m

x r hence though we mould grant, no one vifible Church free from faint c or corruption, yet it is not needfary we fhould feparate from them all: 'for we may lawfully joy ne in communion with Churches having error c and corruptions, if cur joyning be not an approbation of them. Thus c though the C'reekj , Armenians, Albigenfzr^ Abyffins may have fbme errors , c or corruptions, yet if they be not fundamental, and be not joyned as ne-'ceilary to be approved in order to their communion , notwithstanding c fhem, we may lawfully communicate with them, it doth not then at c all follow, that if there may be no one vifible Church free from error c and corruption, it would benecelTary to feparate from the communion of c the Catholick Church: Becaufe, i. All thofe particular Churches may 4 not make thefe errors conditions'of communion. 2. Though they did c we feparate not from them as Catholick, but as corrupt and erroneous 4 particular Churches

Pag. 355. 4 To redli fie fuch grofsmifukes as thefe are for the future c you would do well to underhand that Schifm formally taken alwaiesim-' ports fomething criminal in ir, and there can be no jufl caufe for a fin > c But befides that there is that f which if you under/land it J you would 'call the materiality of it, which is the reparation of one part of the c Church from another. Now this according to the different grounds ''and reafonsof it, becomes lawful or unlawfull,. that is, as the reaionsdo "make it neccflaryor unnecclTary, for fe pa rat ion is not lawfull but when c it is ncceffary i Now this being capable of fuch a different nature that it c may be gcod or evil according to its circumfhnces, there can be no abfolute 'judgment paflcd upon it , till all thofe reafons and circurnfhnces be c due!y examined, and if there be no fufficient grounds, for it then it is for-'mally Schifm /. e. a culpable feparation •, If there be fufficient caufe 'then there may be a feparation, but it can be no Schifm. And bccaule 'the union of the Catholick Church lies in fundamental and neceiTary c truths, there fore there can be no feparation abfolutcly from the Catholick c Church, but what involves in it the formal guilt of Schifm ••> it being im« c poffibleany perfon mould have juli caufe to difown the Churches corn-"munionfor any thing whofe beleif is neccflary to Salvation. And who-' foever doth fo, thereby makes himfelf no member of the Church, becaufe c the Church fubii/ts on the beleif of fundamental truths. But in all fuch c cafes wherein a divifion may be made, and yet the flveral perfons divided retain the elTentialsofa Christian Church, the feparation which may c be among any fuch mult be determined according to the caufes of ir. c For it being poiTible of one fide that men out of capricious humours and fancies renounce the communion of a Church which requires nothing

<bu*

But what isjuftand rcafonable: And it being pcflibleon theotrK 'that,a Church, calling her felf Catholick, may fo far degenerate in 1 c and Practice, as not only to be guilty of great Errors and corrupt!. c but to impofe them as conditions of Communion with her, it is ncccf-c iary, where there is a manifeft feparation, to'inquire into the rea: * ' and grounds of it i and to determine the nature of it according to * c Jufticeofthecaufe, which is pleaded for it.

Page 357. ' The Catholick Church therefore lies open and free, like a c Common field to all inhabitants. Now if any particular number of c thefe Inhabitants (hould agree together to enclofe pare of it without con^ c fent of the reh\and not to admit any others to that right of Comrrx n,with-'outconfentingto it, which of thefe two parties, thofe who deny toycild 1 their confent \ or fuch, who deny their rights, if they will not , are ' guilty of the violation of the publick and common rights of the place ?

Page 358. 'Although nothing feparates a Church properly from the 'Catholick, but what is contrary to the being of it j yet a Church may 'feparate her felf from the Communion of the Catholick by taking upon c her to make fuch things the necelTary conditions of her Communion, c which never were the conditions of Communion with the Catholick c Church.

Page 35p. * Since it appears that the Communion of the Catholick c Church was free for many hundred years without approving or uiing ' the& things h that Church, which (hall not only publ.'ckly ufe,but enjoyn 'fuch things upon pain of Excommunication from the Church, doth as 'muchas in her lies draw the bounds of Catholick Communion within 'herielf^ and fo divides her felf from the true Catholick Church. For ' whatever confines muftlikewife divide the Church, for by that confinc-' ment a feparation is made between the part confined and the other, ' which feparation muft be made by tie Party fo limiting Communion. c As it was in the Cafe of the Donatifis, who were therefore charged with ' Schifmc, becaufethey confined the Catholick Church, within theirown ' bounds: And if any other Church doth the fame which they did, it muir ' be liable to the fame charge that they were. The fum of this difcourfc 'is, that the being of the Catholick Church lies in ElTentials, that for a 'particular Church to difagrce from all other particular Churches in fbmc ' extrinikal and accidental things is not to feparate from the Catholick * Church, fo as to ceafe to be a Church: Cut (till whatever Church makes 'fuch extrinfical things thenecclTary conditions of Communion, fo as to 'calf men out of the Churchy who ycild not to them, isSchifmatical in fo 'doing*, Fork thereby divides it felf from the Catholick Church : And

C Ubz

[>3

* the reparation from it is fo far from being Schifm, that being caft <Jut 'of that Church on thofe terms only, returns them to the Communion of ' the Catholick Church. On which grounds it will appear that yours 1 is theSchifmatical Church and not ours: For although before this im-5 poling humor came into particular Churches, Schifm was defined by the 'Fathers and others to be a voluntary departure out of the Church, yet 1 that cannot in reafon be underftood of any particular, but the true Ca-

* tholick Church For not only perfons but Churches may depart from ' the Catholick Church : And in fuch Cafes not thofe, who depart from c the Communion of fuch Churches, but thofe Churches, which departed c from the Catholick are guilty of Schifm. Thefc things I thought neccf-' fary to be further explained, not only to (hew how falfe that imputati-' on is, of our Churches departing from the true Catholick Church > but ' with what great reafon we charge your Clmrch with departing from the ' communion of it j and therefore not thofe whom you thrtift out of Com-' munion* but your Church fo thrufting them out, is apparently guilty of c the prefent Schifm.

Page 366. 'The truth is fuch pretences as thefeare, are fit only for a c Church that hateth to be reformed > for if fomething not good in it c felf mould happen in anyone Age tooverfpread the vifibleCommunion c of all particular Churches, this only makes a Reformation more necefla-c ry, fo far is it from making it more difputable. For thereby thofe cor-

* ruptions grow more dangerous, and every particular' Church is bound

* the more to regard its own fecurity in a time of general infection. And

* if any other Churches neglecl: themfelves, what reafon is it that the 'reft mould ? For any or{ all other partciular Churches neglecting their 'duty, is no more an Argument, that no particular Church mould re-

* tbrm it fclf, than that if all other men in a Town neglect preferving c themfelves from the Plague, then I am bound to neglecl: it too.

Bage 540. c Every Church is bound to regard her own purity and c peace, and in cafe of Corruptions to proceed to a Reformation of - them.

Page 541. Saint Angufthie faith not only in that place, but in very many others, that Saint Peter did fuftain the Perfon of the Church, 1 when Chrift laid to him, I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of c Heaven.

1 That he did univerjam fignificareEcclefiam ,fignifie the whole Church ; and ' that thofe things which are fpokenof Peter, mm babent illuftremintellettum

* nifi cum referuntur ad Ecchfiam^CHJHf Me agnofcitut in figura gefiajfi perfonam, 4 hive no clear fenfe, but when they are referred to the Church, whole per* c Ion he did bear. Page

C»3

Tag. 542 c He means the formal right of ttem was conveyed to the c Church, and that Saint Petet was only a publick perfon to receive them

* in the name of the Church.

' It primarily and formally refides in the whole body of the Church;

' ? a g» 544« His Lordfhip faith your opinion is yet more unreafbnable fc c becaufe no body collective, whenfoevrr it afiembled it felf, did ever give 'more powertothereprefenting body of it^than a binding power upon it felf 6 and all particularsjnor ever did it give this power otherwife than with this 'rcfervation in nature, that it would call again and reform, and if need c were,abrogate any law, or ordinance upon juftcaufe made evident, that

* the reprcfenting body had failed in truft, or truth. And this power c no body collective, Ecclefiaftical or Civil can put out of it felf, or give

* away to a Parliament or Council, or call it what you will, that re* c prefents it.

'His Lordubip faith that the power which a Council hath to order c fettle and define differences arming concerning faith, it hath not by an im-c mediate inftitution from Chrift,but it was prudently taken up by the c Church from the Apoftles example.

CHAP. II.

Some Animadversions on his Preface.

^ 1, *«r*HE impartial fearchers after truth, have hitherto thought that JL a ftrid method (at leaft agreeable to natural Logick ) is more effectual than confufion or wordy popular haranges: And that the con-troverfie (hould be very cleerly Rated before it can be profitably argued : And therefore that rirltall ambiguity of terms be by due explication removed, that men may not mean feveral things and not underftand each other > and to Define and dijliriguijh where it is needful, and then Affirm or deny, and then effectual) prove. But why this worthy perfon doth far otherwife with us, both before and now, it is more his partthan mine to give the reafon: I dare net fay he cannot •, Not I dare not fay 5 hecan, but will not, but all that I ctn fay is that be doth ret , and I know not

why.

$2. The Preface of his Book called Vnreafonablenefs^ <kc. Is fo much anfwered already by Mr. Lcb y that I will not lofetime by doing much to the fame again : And there is a pofthumous book of Dr. Woyfleys cal-

C 2 UA,

led, The third part of natyd Truth, which hath flrenuou fly handled the fame chief matter forScriprure Sufficiency againftunneceiftry Impofitions. It b^ing fuppofed, though not there expreffcd. I, That he fpcaketh not again!) the guiding determination of undetermined accidents which muft be determined one way or other : As Time, Place, Utenfils, Tranflation-words, Met res,tunes, &c, 2. And that a man that intcllerably breakes Gods Laws f by Blafphemy , Treafon , Murder, Fornication, &t.) is not to be tolleratedbecaufe he erronioufly thinks hekeepeth them.

§ 3. His fad faying [that these is no improbability that the Jefuites Jhould be the firfi fetters up of the way in England which he calls the Do&rinc [ of Spiritual Vrayer J Mr. Lob hath opened, as it deferveth, in parti but to fay all that it deferveth would feem fo harm, that I have reafon to think that it would but more offend than profit him.

§4. For I find that he is grown too impatient with our Nameing what he patiently and confidently doth: The caufe of his impatience I leave to himfelf. But that it is much within him I mult conjecture, when ia his defence of Bifhop Laud I read him faying to the Papifts [_Tofpeak^ mildly , it is a grofs untruth.'] And yet wenlfpeak not fo plainly to him f and I think never more (harplyj he accounts it a continue! Tajfion, Rage^ Raiting, Intolerable indifcretion, &c. Do I give .him harder words than thefe ? Yet I profefslfmartnot by them: I take them for very tollerable words, in comparifon6f his mifcarriges in the caufe in hand.

SeveraMbrtsof men I have found think other men fpeak in paflion ; 7. Thofe that hear and read with pailion; They think that which angers them came from anger* 2. Thofe that are too high to be dealt with on even terms, and think the plain fpeech which agreeth to others is a contempt of fuch as them. 3. Thofe that commit mifearriages fo grofs and defend caufes fo bad, as have no names but what are diigraceful, and then take all that is faid to anatomatize their caufe and errours,to be laid a-gainit them felves. With thefe and fuch others, 'truth, is not tollerable he raileth that confuteth them, and doth Auriculas moths mordaci radere vero^ I profefs I felt fo little pailion in writing that book which he faith was written in one continued Pajfion, that I think verily, I finned all the while, for want of a livelier fenfeof the fin and hurt which I was detecting by my confutation. Butlconfefs it is my opinion that Fal/hood of Speech way lie in describing a thing Jhort of Truth , as well as in going beyond it: And that the Truth of words is their Agreeablenefs to the matter (and mind): And that verba rebus aptanda funt: And that he that writ-ethagainftjw muft call it fin, and open the evil of it.

§ 5. His Prefa.ce giveth us hopes that we are fofarr. agreed in our ends

as

L'3l

asfobe both for God, for truth, for unity and peace and Love', and i-gainft Popery, and one would think this much fhould go far toward;; • r Concord. Eut, alas, allagieenot what Tiety is, or what Popery is. ot the way to our ends.

If he think that to be againft Spiritual Prayer would help us again;. pery, I. I would he would tell us, which way. If by reducing the N conformists to think Formes lawful \ fo do the Jjfuites: And he told as that they at Franchjord took a Forme from Geneva as ufeful : And the prefent Nonconforming put their judgment out of queftion an. id<5o, and i66l. In their wirings, offers and Formes Printed. But all that are for Formes are not for all things in your Formes,

2. And I would he would have better told us what the Spirct^ul Prayer /"/, which the Jefuits firft brought in and helpes in Popery, itar hitherto it is the Dead Ceremonious formality and Imagery of Popery, tjlefrroying Spirituality > (by words not under flood, Mummeries, Beads, Canting Stage workes) which hatha'ienat.d mod Religious Protectants tiom them. I will. i. Tell you what I tike Spiritual Pr^er to be j and then. 2. Defire his judgment of it.

1. It ismy judgment ( ifheknow it to be erroneous, I crave his rea-fons J 1. That Maris Soul is by (info depraved that it is morally unable without Gods Spirit, effectually to know, feel and defire deliverance from his own fin and mifery, and to defire Gods Grace and Glory, above all worldly finful pleafures.

2. That therefore fuchdetires in adt and habit muft be wrought in us by the Spirit of God. And the whole work of Regeneration and Sandi-rication is a giving to the Soul that new Divine nature, Love and delight, which worketh by fuch holy deiircs. And that as the carnal mind is enmity to God, and cannnot be fubjedt to his Law, and if any man have not the Spirit ofChrifr, the fame is none of his i fo to be Spiritually minded is life and peace, and God who is a Spirit will be worihip-ed in Spirit and truth, and by this we know that we an: the Children of God by the Spirit which he hath giren us ; For he promifed to pour out the Spirit of Grace and fupplication : And becaule \vc are fons , he hath given us the Spirit of his Son, by which we cry Abba Father: And this Spirit helpethoar Infirmities in Prayer : If thefe things be in the Papifts Bible, I hope they are no: therefore Popery. I fuppofe: piitsalfoown our God, our Saviour and our Creed.

3. The help in Prayer which we expect from the Spirit, is. 1. To illuminate us to know what we need and (hould defire and ask. 2. To kindle in us holy deiires fincere and fervent, of what we fhould a<

C 3 Tu

5. To give us a true belief of andtruft in the Love of God, the entered 1 iion of Chriftand thepiomifesof the Gofpel, that we may pray in hope. 4. To give us thankful hearts for what we do receive, and fit with joy to praife the giver. 5. To ftir up all thefe difpofitions to particular ads in the due feafon : And to fave us from the contrary. <5. And we believe that a mind fo illuminated , and affections fo fan&ified and kindled, kavea great advantage above others cxterisparibus toexprefs themfelves in words ; For. 1. A man that knowetb what to fay can fpeak it when the ignorant cannot? Doth notaftock of knowledge enable you to Preach without book ? 2. Such a Soul will fet it felf diligently to think what and how to fpeak in fo great a buiinefs, when the carelefs mind it not. 3. Love and delight are very fpeedy Learners. 4. Fervent defire fets all the powers of the Soul awork, and is full and forward to exprefs it fdf. Hunger can teach men eafily to beg: Poor men fpeak intreaties \ Anger, joy, every paffion maketh and powreth out words, where there is prercquifite ability.

4. We believe that he who by natural defeclivenefs or difufe cannot find words fitly to utter his own mind, may have the help of Gods Spirit in uttering fuch words as he readeth or learneth of others , and fefpecially in the cafe of Pfalms which arc not of fudden invention J \i for Concord the Churches agree to ufe the fame meet words, Gods Spirit may actuate theirdeliresthererin.

5. We hold that this Holy Spirit, is asTertullian fpeakcth,Chrilts Vicar, Agent or Advocate* by preventing, operateing, Cooperating grace, thus to illuminate, Sandtirie and actuate believers, in all holy works, and c-fpecially in prayer. And I could heartily wifh that you would not be againft fo much, as Spiritual Preachings Spiritual Writing and difput-ing^ and livings and not fay that the Jefuits brought them in.

6. I believe that we are Baptized into the name of the Holy Ghoft as well as of the Father and the Son,believing that he is thus Chrifts Agent tor all this work upon out Souls, and covenanting to obey him.

7. I believe that iins againft the Holy Ghoft, efpecially deriding or re* proaching his great works, miraculous or Sandtiring, have a dangerous malignity.

8. Ifuppofethatinall this, the faculties of mans own Soul are the natural recipients of the Spirits influx , and agent of the adt which both caufes eftedt : And that its as vain a queftion, whether it be by the Spirit or by natural faculties that we pray aright, as whether it be God as fens na-tur£, or mans natural powers which caufe our natural adls/ Or whether the Ait of feeing be from the fun or the eye > As if the fame effect

might

might not, yea muft not have a Suprior and Inferior Caufe >

p. Therefore as Gods Spirit witnefling with ours that w: arc h drcn, fo Gods Spirit helping our infirmities in Prayer, fufpendc the exercifeof oar Spirits, ovmaketh our reafon and confideration n.chiefs, but actuateth them in their duty. Learning and r pray, is confident with the Spirits help in Prayer.

ic I never talkt ot it with any No neon for mi Irs who denyed that an hypocrite may without any facial help of the Spirit, (peak all the {ame words in prayer without either book or fo,m, wich another may (peak: The help of know ledge, hearing, ufe and pailion may help him to words: Therefore they never take a man to be proved godly or finceer, by his bare words: but by the grace of Prayer, which is holy deftre &c. and not by the fpeaking, gift, or habit.

11. But we think that it was not thejtfuits that fir ft fold jut of the aboun-dance eftloe heart the mouth fpeakgtb -, and though the tongue may lie, it is made to exprefsthe mind, and we muft judge of other mens minds by their words, tillfomwhat elfe difpiove them. And its natural for the Heart to lead the Tongue. And men are more arre&ed by words which come from affection than by thofe that do not: and Reading wopds written by another when we fpeak to God, is not fo natural a fignirica-tion of^cfrrc or other atfeCTion, as fpeaking them from the pre Cent die":; of the heart \ For any Child that can read may do the one, and it is r the ufual (igni heat ion of ferioufnefs in other adions. A beggar that lhould only read his begging leflbn, or a Child or Servant that (hould only read fome words to his Father or Mafter, would be thou| fcnfible of his wants.

12. Minifiers (hould be men better aquainted than theptt

fpeal^to God and man: It is their office*) and therefore it belongeth to them to choofe the words which are fitted: and to fee op can do neither, is to befriend the Prince of darknefsagainft t 1 of Light, and to be a deadly enemy toi rch and Souk.

fet upaminiftry that need not do it, but may choofe, oris not obliged u it, is th? way to fet up a miniftry that cannot ds it. Let the Miniitcrsbe bound to no more than to Read, and a few years will transform them to (bch as can do no more than read. M .. proveth that, and too ma other Countries.

13. If it be praying freely from prefent knowledge and defire, without a book or fet form which you call 5j c r, eirhci

the ufe ot it in the Pulpit or not. If you are, did the Jci

you ? or will you go on to follow then: ? If n r arty

ate the Conformifrs, while fomany ufe it and pray fpiritually ? And what a Cafe is the Church of England in, that hath ftill fo many Minifters that pray as the Jefuits Difciples ? Or why do you fo reproach your Church and Miniftry ?

'14. Do you think that there is more force in the name of a Jefuit to difgrace Spiritual prayer, or in the name of Spiritual prayer to honour the Jefuits } And do you not feem to prevaricate and highly honour the Jefuits, on pretence of dishonoring Spiritual prayer? If you had faid that the Jefuits firft brought in Spiritual preaching, and difcourfe and Spiritual living, would it not have more honoured them, than dishonoured Spirituality? Will freedom from Spiritual -prayer honour your Church ? as Seneca thought Cato\ name would do more to honour Drunkenncfs, than Drunkennefs could do to dimonour Cato ?

lam not fuch an Antipapift, as to fall out with Father Son or Holy-Ghoft, becaufe the Jefuits own them. You do but help to confirm my charity, wno have long thought that among the Papi/ls, there are many perfons truly godly, though their education, converfe, and proud, tyrannical wordly Clergy, have fadly vitiated them.

15. All prayers written or unwritten are made byfomebody. Thole that the^B.fhops writedown for us in the Liturgy, and for our Fails, were made by their invention : Either they had the help of the Spirit in making them or not: If yea, then why is it not as Jefuitical to write a Spirit tual prayer, as to fpeak one ? If not, excufe them that fay Gods Spirit made not your Liturgy, nor are they Spiritual prayers.

\6. And were it not too like high and dangerous Pride, if fuch a one as Bifhop Bancroft, Biihop Laud, £i(hop Morley, Biihop Gunning, in a Convocation, or before every publick Fair, fhould be appointed to write the words of Prayer, and (hould in effed fay to all the moft Learned Divines in England [ The Spirit caufed us to write thefe prayers, and our mtafure is fo fure ^nd great, that none of you miy pre fume to qucfiion it, nor to thin\that you can pray Spiritually in any words of your own, hut only in ours, at leaji in the Affemby. The Spirit will help you if you fay our words, but not your own. It now cometh into my mind what may be foine of the meaning of Biihop Gunnings Chaplain, Doclor Saywell, in his lait Book, that none hath power to ordain Bifhops, hut they that have power to give the Holy Ghpfi fir the roor\ of their Office. It may be it is, -TheHoly Ghott to write Doclrine Sermons and Prayers for all their Clergy to ufe. But do you not fay alfo to the Presbyters Kec c he the Holy Gboft ? Ifthey have him, why cannot they fpeak their own hearts in other words than yours ? js Spiritual prayer appropriated to your Liturgy, words or forms, any more

than

[17] than at the Councfrat Trent he was to the Popes inftrudions.

17. We all confefs, that as all the adions of imperfed men, have their imperfections, fo have all our prayers, and thefe arecaiily aggravated : Sudden free prayer, and book prayer, have both their conveni-encies and inconveniencies: The queltion is which bic & nunc hath the great-eft, and whether forbidding either be not worft of all: I have named the conveniencies and inconveniencies of each in my Chriitian Dire-dory.

18. Experience telleth the world , that the daily faying over only the fame words, and that read out of a paper impofed by others, by one that no further fheweth any fenfe of what he doth, is rot fo apt as more free and well varied words in feafon, to keep people from fleepy fenftlefs prophanation , and praying as the Papifts do with their Maf-fes, Rofaries, and Beads : And the variety of Subjects preached on, and variety of occafions, and all accidents require fome diverfirication of words and methods.

19. It is a work of reverence to (peak to the King > yet as it is lawful to write a Petition to him, fo to fpeak to him without Book-Judges have ieiious work to do, for eftate and life, and yet they are trufted to fpeak without prefcribed words*, and ioare Advocates, Lawyers, Ambaltadors, Phyficians, Philofophers, and all men in their Profcf-fions, except Minifters and Chriftians, as fuch.

20. We know not why men may not be intruded to fpeak to God in the name of imperfed man without impofed books and words, as well as to fpeak to man from the mod perfed God and in his name i in preaching. Mans adions will be like man. Nothing that is not divine and fpiritual mould be fpoken as from God and in his name. And as after our fruftrated Treaty for Concord 1661. one of them fnamelefsj wrote a Book againfi free praying without an impofed form in the Pulpit, and yet they never durft forbid it to this dayi fo I know who (hewed his defireof a new Book of Homilies (of his own making its like ) to have been impofed inftead of preaching, and of the old ones, on thofe that had not fpecial licenfeto preach. But intercft ruleth the world: They durft not fo far difgrace their Clergy, as to make them meer Rea* ders, nor lofcthe advantage of talking out of the Pulpit for their Caufe, where none muft contradid them.

Mr. Lob hath ask'd you already, whether our Spiritual Fraycr, as you call it, or your Liturgy ( and Bifhop Cnw(//?x,and Dr Taylors Prayer-books, &c.) beliker to the PopifhMafs book, and many other Offices and Devotions? Indeed Mr. dujiinshzth fo muchgiavity, as execptinghisex-

D a n ' .

etirfions to Saints, &c. it may-compare with many of yours.

And for that fort of fpiritual Devotion , in which they flie too high, I have found more of it in the Friers, Francikans, Benedidlines, &c. fuch as Birbanjon, Benedittus de Benedictis, &c. than in the Jcfuits : And the Otatonanr^PbiLNeriusfiaronius, and the red , and of their fober orReligious men, as Sales, Mr. Renti,& j c. and of old t JobnGerfon , Kempis, &c. have more of fpirituality than the Jefuits. But enough of thiF.

§ 6. As to the reft of his Prefatory difcourle of the Advantages of Popery, i. We doubt not but the Papifls play their game among all Parties, as far as they are able, and put on divers forts of Vizors. But doth he ("that is a HiflorianJ not know, that all over the world their cheif dclign is upon the Rulers and Leaders, and they Cry, Fight neither againft gnat or [mall, but to win one Court Card iignirieth more than many others ?

2. Doth he think the Papifts take the .Conforming or the Nonconfor-miits to be nearer to them, and kfs againfl them ?

3. Did the Papifts think Bilhop Lauds reconciling defign deicribed by Doctor Heylin, ("entertained by Santla Clara , Leander, &c. ) or the Parliaments fears of his introducing Popery in thole times, to be more a-gainftthem.?

4. Are they liker to help in Popery, that are foapt to be over-averfe to any thing that favours of it, in Doclrine, Difcipline, and Worfhip, and account the Pope Antichrift > Or they that hold as followeth. 1. (As Grothis) Thar a Pafiji is hut one that flatters the Popes, as if all were juftthat they Jay and do ( and fo there are few Papilts I hope in the World.) 2. That the Church of Rome is found in Faith. 3. And io are. all the Gene-ral Councils y even Trent, 4. That Rome is the Miftrefs of all Churches ; or as Bimop Bromhal, that for Concord we mud all obey the Pope, as Patriarch of the Weft, and ^rincipium llnitatis Catholics , ruling according to the old Canons, ( a Foreign JurifdiclionJ and all thofe pafs for Schifmaticks, that refufe it (of which more after.J 5. That the validity of our Miniftry muft be proved by the derivation of it from the uninterrupted fuccellion of the Roman Ordainers and Church. 6. That the Church of Rome by thatfixccilion is a true, though faulty Church of Chrift, but fo are none of the Reformed Churches which have not Bifhops, or have them not by fuch uninterrupted fuccellion. 7. That the only way of the Concord of Churches and all Chrijiians is ( faith Bifhop Gunning) to obey the governing part of the Church Vniverfal, is which Collegium Paftorum, all the Bijhops of the univtrfal Church, in one Regent Colledge, governing all the Chriftian World pzrlheras fortmtas. 8. That its fafer and better for the Proteftants in

France

Ci9]

Trance to be of the Trench Church of Papifts than to continue withoti Bilhops as they are. 9.That we fhould come as near the Papifis as thcGreek Church doth, or as both Greek and Latin did at the rupture of the two Churches, or as in Greg. id. daies fay others, or as in Char. Mag* daies, lay others i receiving fay fome the rirft fix General Councils, fay others thehrft 8. 10. That we muft amend the Oath of Supremacy for the Papifts, as Thomdick^ faith , and fo«many Doctrines as he intimateth-ii. That its defireable that the Papifts bad continued in our Churches as in the begining of Queen Eliz. And if they come fas Church Papifts do) mould be received in our Communion. 12. That if the Pope have not fas fome hold) aright of fuch Primacy as belongs to Saint Peters fuccefTour, atleaft, His Primacy is a very prudent humane conftkution. 1. That there may be a Common Father to care for all the Church. 2. And one to be a Head of Unity and order. 3. And one to call General Councils. 4. And one to rule between when there are no fuch Councils (which are rare). 5. And one to give power to Patriarchs and Arch~ Bifhops who elfe will have none over them to authorize, or Govern them. 6. And one to decide controverlles, when Countries, Churches and Arch-Biftiops difagree. 7. And one to fend out Preachers among Heathens, Infidels and Hereticks, all over the world. 8. And one boldly to reprove, admonifhand, if need be, excommunicate Kings, which their own fub-jedfo dare not do.

I do not mean that all thefe things or any of them are the Do&rine of the Church oiEngland^ or held by all or moft that conforme. But if fome of it have been publifhed by the Chief Prelates, and fome by their chief defenders, and fome in conference with us by Clergy men, I only ask whether all this pleafe not and advantage not the Papifts , more than Nonconforming any way do? And whether Arch Bifhop Vfktr and his SuccefTor Arch-Bifhop Bromhal^ Bifhop Downam and his Succeflbur Bifhop Taylor differed not as much as you and I do ? And whether the multitude of Parifli Prieft that were Papifts in Queen Elizabeths daies, and Eiftiop Godfrey Goodman a Papifts Bifhop of Gloncefter, with all the reft mentioned by Prin, Rujhrvorthj Burnet , &c. tell us not that the Papifts had a hopeful game to play among the Bifhops and Clergy of the Church ?

§7. As to his note out of Mr. Jo* Humpherics book, difclaiming Cruelty to Papifts, its known Mr. Humphery is a man of latitude and univcrfal Charity, and tyeth himfelf to no party or any mens opinions : He openly profeiTeth his hope of the Salvation of many Heathens, and I fo little fear the noife of the cenforious, that even now while the Plot doth render them moft odious,I freely fay. 1. That I would have Papifts ufed like men, and

D 2 ro

/>3

no worfe than our own defence requireth : 2, That I would have no man pat to death for beingaPrieft : 3. That I would haveno writ de excommunicato capiendo, or any Law compel them to our Communion and Sacraments. For I would cot give it them ( if I knew them J if they came.

§8. As to his Accufationofmy hxii Flea for Feace, he hath it after, ard it is alter anfwered. And asto his^Accufation of my book for Concord, 1 anfwer. i. Is it no Miniiterswork, in a contending world, to tdl and prove what are Chriits ordained termes of Chriftian Concord, but his that ; s [_Chrifis plenipotentiary on Earth, and were to fet the termes of Peace and War] Is this fpoken like a peace maker and a Divine ? Doth not he pretend alfo in his way to declare the terms of Concord ?

2. Eut no rmn more heartily agreeth with him in lamenting the Hate of the Church on earth, that when fuch men as Bifhop Gunning, Dean Stillingfleet , Dr. Sayrvel, &c. on one fide, and fuch as I and many better men on the other fide, have fo many years ftudied hard to know Gods will, I am certain for my felf, and I hope it of them, with an un^ feigned defire to find out the truth what ever it coft, fand I profefs as going to God, that would he but make me know that Popery, illencing Prelacy, imprifoning, Banifhing , or ruining all Nonconformists, Ana-baptitfs, Antinomians, Quakers, or any that ever I wrote againft, are in the right , I would with greater joy and thankfulnefs recant and turne to them, than I would receive the greatefr preferment in the land) I fay, that yet after all this we (hquld fo far differ, as for one fide to be confident that the others way of Concord is the ready way to ruin wickednefs and confufion, and to come to that boldnelsto proclaim this to the world, alas how doleful a cafe is this ?

What hope of Chrillian peace and concord when fuch excellent fober well itudyed men as they, quite above the common fort, not byaiTed hy honour, or preferments or power, by Bifhopricks, Deaneries, Maftcrftiips, plurality, or love of any worldly wealth, and fuch as we thatftudy and pray as hard as they to know the truth, are yet confident to the height that each "others termes of Love and peace, axe but Sathans way to to defiroy them both, and introduce (as Dr. Sayrvel faith Conventicles do) Hcrefie, Popery, Ignorance, Prophanenefs and Confufion: And what we arepaft doubt that their way will do, experience faith more than we may do.

Oh what (hall the poor people do info great a temptation !

§p. But I muft pafs from his preface , where I have noted, 1. That he is yet Co peaceable as to propofe fbme fort of abatements for our Coa-

cord > that the benifit maybe fibi & fuis, not reaching our necefliri hi.it much better than nothing.

2. That they arc (o ill agreed, that Bifhop Gw?/;z/2gx Chaplain wr againftit, making the only way of Peace to be by the fvvord to torce all men to full obedience to their Lordfhips in every thing injoyned, nor i-batingan Oath, a Subfcription, a Covenant, a Word, a Ceremony, without Comprehenfion or limited Toleration.

3 And I could vvifh the Doctor would confent, atleaftthat Lords an4 Pailiamentmen may have the liberty themfclves of educating their own Sons, To it be in the Chriitian Reformed Religion, and to choofe their Tutors, and not confine them to Conformifts only : The Papiftsare tol-lerated in choofing Tutors for their Children : The King of France hath not yet taken away this liberty from the Proteftants : Nor the Turks from the Greeks: And muftyou needs take it away from all rhe Lords , Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens , and Free-holders of England. Perhaps Beggars will confent, ifvouwill keep their Children, or do what the Godfathers vow. Moft Gentlemen, that keep Chaplains, expect that they teach their Sons at home, fometime at lea ft i what if a Lord or Knight havefuch a Chaplain as Hngh Brougbton, or Ainfnrortb, oxzsAtn:-JihSj Blondel, Salmatius, as Gatahgr, Vines, Surges, &c. muft the Law forbid them to read Hebrew, Philofophy, or Divinity to their Sons ? I doubt you will fcarce get the Parliament hereafter to make fucha Law to fetter themfelves, left next you would extend \our dominion alfo to their Wives as well as Sons , and forbid, them marrying any but Conformifts.

Is it not enough to turn us all out of the publick Miniftry i Methinks you might allow fome the Office of a School-matter, orHoufhold Tutor. or Chaplain under the Laws of Peace •> unlefsthe Sword be all that you tiufttoo: If it be, it is an uncertain thing: The minds of Princes are changable, and all things in this World are on the Wheel; when Peter fliethtothe Sword, Chrift bids him put it up, for they thatfo ule* it perHh by it: Hurting many, forceth many to hurt you, or to defire their own deliverance, though by your hurt.

CHAP.

[«]

CHAP. III.

The leghnnng of the DoBors m/reajonable Accusations examined: His fiatnig of the Cafe of Separation.

§ i. >TpHis much inftead of an intelligible dating of our Contro-JL verfie he giveth us, Page 2. [_By feparation we mean nothing elfe, but withdrawing from the conftant Communion of our Church , and joyning with Separate Congregations, for greater purity of worflrip, and bet* ter means of Edification. ~] And may we.be fare by this, that we underhand the difference.

i. Whether by [ Our Church~\ he meant the Parochial Church, ( and if fo, whether fome or all ) or the Dioccfan Church i or the Provincial, or the National, or all I know not. But 1 know well, that fbme withdraw frcm fome Parifh Churches which joynwith others. And fbme think they withdraw not from the Diocefan or Provincial, if they communicate with any one Parifh Church in the Diocefs: And fome renounce the Diocefan Church , which confiantly joyn with the Parochial : And for the National Church, who can tell whether we have Communion with it, till we know what they mean by it ?. Indeed in the latter part, (after the long difpute) he condefcendcthbeyond expectation to explain that term i But its fo as plainly to deny that there is any fuch thing as a Church of England in a Political fenfe, that hath any conftitutive Regent part: But even there fo late he maketh it not polfible to us to know, whether we be members of the Church or not : For he maketh it to be but all the Chriftians and Churches in the Kingdom joyned by confent expreft by their Reprefentatives in Parliament, under the fame civil Government and Rules of Religion ( Doctrine, and Worfhip, and Government ) i. As it is a Chriftian Kingdom^ we are fure, that we are members of k. 2. As it is all the Churches of the Kingdom confenting to the Scriptures, yea, and to Articles of Doctrine, and all that Chri/t or his Apoltles taught, we are fure that we withdraw not from it: 3. But, if every Chancellor, Dean, Commiffary, Surrogate,^. Or every forme or word or Cercmonie beeffential to their Church, we cannot tell who is of it and who not ? Or really whether any reject not.fome one forme, word or office > If every fuch thing be not ellential, he never in all the book tels us vvhar is, or how to know it, or who is of it.

§ 3. And

[*3l

$2, And the word [ with driving ] feemeth to imply former C fnunion : And if ib, he maketh all the Anabaptifts, Independants, Viziby* terians, &c. Who never were of their Church, to be none of the Sepir* atiiishere meant.

But if by [withdrawing] he mean [ not joyning in Communion] either he meaneth in the whole Communion or but in part: If the whole, then the many thoufands that live in the Parifhes and Communicate not in the Sacrament are no members of the Parirti Church. And who knoweth then who are of their Church? And how few in many Parifhes are of it, that yet pafs for Members of the Church of England ? And yet I thaPjoyn with them am none of it, in their account.

And. J.. What meaneth he by [Conjlant Communion] I go totheParifk Church when iicknefs hindreth not, once a day ••> I go to the Sacrament, and am none of their Church. Thoulands go but rarely, and thoufands fcarceat all, at lead to the Sacrament, and thefeareof their Church and no (eparatiits.

4. But perhaps the conjunction is explicative \_and \oyn with feparate Congregations for greater purity, and Edification : If fo, then he that never joyneth with them nor any other is none of the intended feparati/ts. 2. Nor he that goeth to other Churches on other account; than for furh ty of Worship and Edification (As Papiiis that go as to the only true Church for the Authority J.

§3. But the utter ambiguity is in the word feparate y And that you may underftand it he explaineth it by repeating it. Ey feparation he means withdrawingto feparatc Congregations. But the doubt is y which art the fe-parate Congregations. I named many forts of Lawful and unlawful feparation* , but he will not tell us which he meaneth by any intreaty.

§. 4. I would my felf yet that I may be underftood, tell the reader what forts of feparation 1 renounce and what. I own : But I have done it fooft and largely, that lam afhamed to repeat it, as oft as mens confution calls me to it. The reader who thinks it worth his labour, may fee it done ir> my rirft ?lea for Feace, and in the Preface to my Cath. Theol. and fpecial-ly in the beginning of the third Part of my Treat, of Concord jind in Cbrifi. ~DinB. And he calls me here afterward to the fame

Certainly it is only finful feparation that is in the queftiom and as certainly there are many forts not finful. I am locally feparate from all Churches fave that where I am. I morally feparate from the RomanChurch as an unlawful Policy, and all other which are injpecie again/t Gods word : I feparate from (ome for Herehe as being not capable matter of a Church, while they own not all the Effence ofChriftianity* I feparate from fome

as

[2 4 ] as impofing fin, and refufing my Communion without it. I feparate from Ibme as having no lawful Payors *, fome being uncapable matter, and feme, being ufurpers that have no true call: I feparate from fome only fo far as to prefer a better rebus fie ftantibus \ fometime a better as to the Doctrine, fometime as to the Worfhip, fometime as to the Difcipline iometime and moftly as to the Pallors worth and work > fome go from their own Parilh, becaufe the Minifter is very ignorant in comparifon of another towhom they go: lomethathear the Minifter preach againftpre-cifenefs and for Ceremonies, had rather hear another that callcth them to holinefs: fome that have tollerable Preachers go to Doctor Stillingfteet and Doctor Tillotfonzs better: fome go for neernefs to another Church. Some go from their own Parilh becaufe the Minifter cuts the Common-prayer too fhort, and Preacheth too longs fome becaufe they would have it fo, go to fuch : fome becaufe the Parfon is an Arminian \ others becaufe he is contrary. Some go to the Minifterthat isftrictin keeping the fcan-dalous from the Sacrament: fome therefore go from him: lbme remove their Dwellings or Lodgings for thefe ends > and fome do not: fome go from their ownParifh for the benefit of the Organs in another. And of old, when Nonconforming had Parifh Churches and ufed fome part of the Liturgy, many went to them from their ownParifhes. Some of thefe are lawful, fome are unlawful: Moft certainly they that go from their own Parishes, yea, or to Nonconforming AiTemblies, in London, go not all on the fame account: Nor doth the Doctor and fuch other feparate from me as I am faid to do from them, but otherwife and much more.

§.5. If he would firft have told us what Separation isfinful > fecondly,and then have proved us guilty of it, in/kadofthe confufed talk ofSeparation, and a begging the queftion by fupofing that to be finful, which he will neither difcribe, nor prove fuch< it had been of fome ufefulnefs to our conviction. But I confefs I never liked thofe Phyfitians who give their Patients the Medicines that they are beft ftored with, or they can beft fpare, be the difeafe whatfoevcr h Nor thedifputer that poureth out what he is belt furniQied to fay, how ufelefs foever to the reader or to the Caufe. Di£-puteing mould not be like boys playing at Dufl pointy who cover their Points in a great heap of Duft, and then throw Stones or Cudgels at it, and he that firft uncovereth them wins them. Dully heaps of ambiguous words confufedly poured out, befriend not Truth that mould be Na-ked^nor the reader.

§. 6. Some thought it was the Place called Conventicle boufes, which made the Conforming callus Sepjratijh j and they got oft into Parifh Churcbesand Chappells- But thefe were made the worft of fepatatifts,

and

[25] and punifhed the more. And doubletfs it is not meeting at any of the new Tabernacles, nor at the Spittle, nor atSturbridgz Fair, where Preaching hath long been ufed, nor in a Prifbn nor at the Gallows toPrif-oners and People, which are faulty Separation.

§. 7. Some thought that they meant that its want of the Common-prayer that makethus Separators> and they have tryedand read the Common-prater in their AfTemblys: But thefe have been accufed and (un^ad the more. And even Mr. Cbeny was forced to fly his Country for reading it, and Preaching in an unl'c.nfed meeting. And fome reading more and fome lefs, by this it will not be known who are the Separating i The old Nonconforming in their Parifh Churches read fome more, fome lefs, and now fome Conformifts vary. They fay a Conformif: at Greenwich keepeth up a Common-prayer Conventicle i (ome Conformilts are accufed for overpaying much : One lately fufpended for wearing the Surplice too feldom, and refuting to pray for \_our gratious §ueen and James T)uk$ of York. ] How much of this goeth to make a Separatift I

§. 8. Some thought it was want of the Magifrratcs leave that made them callus feparatifts: Eut when the King Licenled us, the accufation was the fame: yea Mr. Hinkley and many others tell you, that they took this for worftof all.

$.9. Some fay it is want of theBifhops Licence: But as Mr. Tbo.G hath his Univerfity Licence, and I have Bilhop Sheldon s Licence ( I think-not invalidate ) and yet this goeth for no juftiheation of us ■-> [0 is it with others.

§. 10. Some think that it is a Conventicle as defcribed by their Cannon that mull make us Separating, which is of men that call tbemfilveibl another Clmrcb. Eut that's not it: Mr. Gouge, Mr. Toole, Mr. Humphrey, and my felf, and abundance more that never gathered any Church, nor called our felves of any other then their own, are neverthclefs feparatifts in thefe mens account.

§. 11 .They that remembred what was called Separation in Englandof old, fuppofed it had thefe two degrees, which mide men called Brownifts. Frft fallly taking the Parifb Minifters and Churches for no true Miniitcrs and Churches of Chrifr, and therefore not to be Communicated with. Se^ condly or fin the lower rank ytalily taking the faults of the Parilh Minifters and Churches to be fo great, that its a (in to have ordinary Communion with them. But they that have f;ill difclaimed both thefe arc Separates Jhll in our Accufers fence.

§.12. Some thought that ordinary Commitnkating in the Parifh Churches and pleading for it, would prove us no feparatilts with them. Eut this

E wiH

will not fervc as my own and many other mens Experience proveth.

§.13- I am called after to fay more of this: The (urn of my teparation is this. Fir/t that I take not the Parifh Churches to be the only Churches that I mud Communicate with, and will not confine my Communion to themalone, as if they were a feci:, or All: But will alfo have Communion with "Dutch, French or Nonconforming.

2. I take not the Order, Difcipline and mode of worfhip in the Parifh Churches, nor the Preaching of very many Parfons, Vicars and Curates, to be the beft and mod deferable. »

3. I take thofe to be no true Political Churches, which have no Payors that have all the Qualifications, and Call, and Authority, which is EiTential to the Office > and therefore can communicate with them, but as with a flock without a Paftor, or an Oratory, Community or Catechized Company.

4. I live peaceably under fuch Bifhops as have many hundred Parifhes, and no Epifiopos Gregis, true Bifhops and Paftoral Churches under them, as they think: Eut I own not their Conftitution.

5. I joyn with all the Churches in England as Affociated for rnutual help and Concord in all that the Scripture prefcribeth, and in all the Pro-teftant Religion, and all that all Chriflian Churches are agreed in, and all that is truly needful to the ends of Chriftianity: Eut not absolutely in all, which their Canons, Liturgy &c. conttaine: Efpecially their fin* ful Impositions, and their Prefumtious Canonical "Excommunications of dif-^ tenters ipfo fafto.

<5. I am one of the Chriflian Kingdom of England, as under the King according to the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy » and am for obeying the Laws and Rules in all things lawfully belonging to their Power to command. But not for obeying them in fin, againft God, nor for believ-i ng all to be Lawful becaufe they command it i nor for their taking down Family Government or felf Government, and decerning private Judgment of the fubjects. This is my meafureof feparation.

§ 14. . And I think in cafes that concern our own and many mens Salvation we ihould have leave freely to fpeakfbrour felvesi and not be ufed as we are, that muft neither be endured to be filent, or tofpeak. Let this Dr. open our cafe to you himfelf, faith he £ Pref. p. 3 6. Speaking of my firir Plea for Peace [ As though it had been defignedon purpofeto reprefent the Clergy of our Church as a Company of Notorious, Lying and Perjured Villains for Conforming 10 the Laws of the Land and orders eflabli/hed among us : For there are no left, than thirty tremendous aggravations of the fin of Conformity fet down ink and all this done without the leafi provocation given on our fide~] And elf-

where

where he faith he (hall lefs regard my aggravation.

Anf. l. If I do that which you think as bad, I would gladly be told of it f though falfe accufations Idefirenot) And impenitence is too foon learnt without a Teacher or Academical degrees, and I had rather be fav-cdfrom it. 2. But Reader I once more appeal to the Judgment of all reafon and humanity as well as Chriftianity, to decide the cafe of this Accufation.

i. Wedidin, 1660, and 1661. All that we were able by labour petition and yielding as far as we durit for fear of iin and Hell, to have been united and lived in Church Concord with the Epifcopal party.

2. Wrien our labour and hopes were fruftrate and twothoufand of us caftoutofthe Miniftery, and afterwards laws made againft us as Con-venticlers, firfi for our Fining, Imprifonment, and then Banishment, and after beiides Imprifonment to pay twenty pound the firft Sermon, and forty pound thesnext and fb on i when after this the Law that banifhed us from all Cities, Corporations, &c. and places where we lately Preached , did moft deeply accufe us as the caufe j I never wrote fo much as the reafonsofour diflent: When by the execution of thefe Laws we u by Informers and others ufed, as is well known, I was Rill Client, My not conforming (hewed my diflent, but Idurft not fo much as once tell them why, left it mould more exafperate them.

3 . At lait I was often told that the Bilhop that fir ft forbad my Preaching, and many others after him, oft faid to Great men, Mr. Baxter kc; up a Schifm, ai:d yet holds all our conformity lawful, lave rum rebellious Covenant, And I yet continued (ilenr.

4. At laft they wrote againft us, that we durfl not fay that any fart of" Conformity was fin, but only inconvenient.

5. Then many Pulpits and books proclaim , that roe againft our Con-fciences kgpt np a Scbifm , for a baffled caufe which we had nothing to fay

for.

6. All this wlvle Lords and Commons ufed to ask us, what is it tba wouldhave, and what kgepeth you from Conformity, [in private talk, but would never allow us to fpeak for our fclves and give the world or Par* liamentour reafons ].

7. Many years together Pulpits and Printed Books of the Clergy, eryed out to the Magiftratcs to execute the Laws againft us, fand as one faid fet fire toth Fagot) > and blamed them tor not doing it.

8. When the King gave us his Licence, they were gieatly offended, asaforeiaid.

$>- At lair one great Bifhop fold me that he wo ild defirc th Kir.r to

E 2 conftram

conilraine us to give our reafons, and not keep up aSchffm, and not tell for what. And another greater told me, that the King tool^usto be not fincere, that would not give our reafons. And all this while I durit not give them, as knowing how they would be received.

io. When the Bifhops kept me from Preaching and gave me leifure, Iwrote. i. An Apology tor our Preaching, 2. A Treatife of Epifcopi-cy and divers other fuch, and yet durft not Print them fnor indeed could do it.)

1i. At laft after about feventeen or eighteen, years filence, by fuch importunity ( and the Prefs being more open ) 1 ventured firii but to write my firlt Plea for Peace, which only nameth matter ofFad:, and our bare Judgment, enumerating the things which we think <in, without our Arguments, left it mould provoke them more. And therein profeiTed that (knowing mens different Educations, frudies, interefts, &c.) I did not by this accufe the Conformists, nor the Law makers, but only tell, i* What! thought woddbefininm^ 2. And bow great a fin > if we conformed.

Reader, fbouldl have flayed longer (the final Tradr of Sacrilegious defertionof the Miniftry, came out when we were licenfed, but ventured not to name the matters of our Nonconformity ) what could we do lefs > I ftaid till I think half the filenced Minittcrs were dead* Is the call offu-psrkurs, the Intereft of our Miniftry, and Confciences of Co little regard as that Imuft not tell men that fo loud and loi.g had asked, rvhats the matter f Mud we neither he filent nor fpeak ?

And now fee here, i- If Dean Stillingfleet be a man to be believed in fuch accufations, [All this was dune by rne, without the leafi provocation on their fide~\ wonderful diiference / Is my naming what I think God forbids me, io great a provocation to them, and is all this for feventeen years before named £ not the leafi provocation to us on their part ? What fhall one think could bring fuch a man to fuch a word ?

2. And that which I profeit that I wrote not to accufe them, he tells you was [_as if deigned to reprefentthenaasa Company of notorious lying; Perjured Villains.. This Colleclion I feared \ But how could I avoid it ? Mull not I tell them that urge me, what fin I fear, leaft they fay you re* frefent us as fuch ?

3. See here how they talkof us contrarily as the Barbarians of Paxl 0 that now make him a Murderer, and anon a God > For many years together, our Lords and Matters perfwaded men that we took Conformity to be no iin, fave renouncing the Covenant : And now how Contra-tj\? Its the reprefentation of a Company of notorious, Iving , perjur*

ed,

[=93

td Villains, with thirty tremendous aggravations. Repent 0 England, faith Bradford at the ftake. But who would have thought that Repentance had been fo hard a work, in a cafe called fo heynous, and that to the Preachers of Repentance, as it is either to them or to us, whicii ever it be that is found in the guilt.

CHAP. IV.

Of his Hiflory of the cafe of the old Nonconform ifis.

§ i. A S to what he faith of the famenefs of the former Cafe and ours, ll I fhall cell him the ditfercnee after, where he more calls me to in Andfhall (hew him fo much difference, as will difcredit thisafTer-tion.

§2. As to the cafe of the old Nonconforming, i. It mud be premif-ed that we take them not for any of our rule, but cleave to Gods word and the example ef the Primitive Church, looking ftill at the great ends of order and Government.

2. We maintain as well as he that the Chief Nonconforming were asgainft that called Brownifm or Separation , and wrote more again!; it than the Conforming did.

3. I ftill profefs my felf to be of their Judgment in this, and have pradtifed accordingly.

4. But they were not again ft fuch Preachings or anyfuch fort ol paration as-I have either pradtifed or defended.

§3. Here therefore it muft be known what the Controverfie betw them and thefeparatifts was. 1. The higher fort of iepararilts Grid, that the Church of England was no true Church. The Nonconforming, faid it was a true National Church both as a Chrifiian-Kingdom, and as an Aflbciation of Churches > (and as represented in National S. ods were they made one. )

2. The faid Brownifts fatd—that the Parifti Churches were no : Churches, nor to be owned as fucli, nor joyned with. The Nenconf< taifts held that they are true Churches, (-that have capable Minifies though faulty.

3. The feparatifts faid that the Parifh Mini iiers were no true Mini;. becaufe ordained by Diocefans and notchofen by the people, &c. J Nonconforming faid, thatthe capable were trae though faulty Miniftt

t 3 QW

owned by the peoples confenting communion , and the ordination valid though culpable.

4. The feparatifts faid that Minifters and peoplemuft gather Churches that are purer., and letup better dilcipline in them, whatever Rulers fay or do againft if., or whatever they fuffer, as far as they are able. The Nonconform fts faid, this is to be done where it may be done without doling more hurt than good, but elfe itisnoduty but a fin, viz, Todo it Tumultuoufly, Seditiously, or foasby runningon the Magiftrates fword, by improbable attempts to lofe their own advantages for doing and getting good, and hinder the common parifh reformation.

5. The Separating faid that no prohibition of the Magiilrate will warrant a Miniflcr to forbear the publick work of his office. The Nonconforming held that it belongeth to the Magiftrate toreftrain deceivers and all falfe Teachers who do more hurt than good* and fuch mould obey when they are forbidden to Preach and Adminifter Sacraments : Yea if the Magiflrate wrongfully forbid a worthy Minifter to Preach, for order he is bound to obey, unlets tke need of the Church and Souls, and the probable benefit plainly weigh down that matter of order, and make the Magiftratcs prohibition invalid , as being againft the corrmon good, and the ends of the Min'ftry, and foagainlT Chriit.

6. The fern;-feparatifts (Robinfons party ) after held that though the Parifh Churches may be called true Churches,as a Leper is a true man, and it may be lawful to hear a Sermon in them, ye.t the Common-prayer is fo bad, and the people and Minifters fo bad, and difcipline fo call out that it is unlawful to joyn with them in Common-prayer, or Sacrament, or to become fetlea members of them j but all muft attempt, though in Forreign Countreys, that are able, to fet up purer worfhip and difcipline- The Nonconform]lis held that thofe that can have Letter without more hurt than good, mould cbcofe it: But they that cannot may joyn in member-(hip, Common-prayer and Sacrament, with fuch Parifh Churches as will admit them without their own a&ualiin, and cenfent^ ing to their faults.

§. 4. I mall now give you fo full proof that the Nonconforming were fcr more, which the Dc&orcalleth Siparation^ than my Preaching or piadice ever reached to, as I (hall tell the Reader, what credit this Do&ors hiftory deferveth, and what inhumane ufuage the Nonconformity have from that fort of men.

§. 5. Anno 159^ Was printed againft them Bifhop Bancroft's book cilled, Dangerous Portions and Proceedings &c. Or Engl/Jh Scutizing for Vijcipline by force 3cc. In the firfl book he mafc-th their Reformations

fo

Co odious, as that Page 30. He faith that in Scotland [itbatb wrought more mi)'chief in 'thirtyyears, than the Pipe of Rome had done before, as I thinks in five hundred^ you fee how that Spirit then did work,and whether our Arch-Bi»hop Bancroft thought better of the Presbyterian Churches or the Pope, and the Effects.

In the Second book he taketh up what ram words he could from a-ny indifcreet men to make them odious.

In the third he (heweth what the F.nglim Nonconforming did tor their Church-way and Difcipline. Chap. i.p. 42. He faith that the nrir Ten or Eleven years of the Queens Reign they fo clamoured &c. tint they divided themfelves from their ordinary Congregations, and meeting in houfes, woods and fields, kept there unlawful and diforderly Conventicles : and Mr. Cartwright defendeth them, faying, that the nam* of Conventicles was too light and contemptuous for them \ Then they framed their two admonitions: In one of which p. 60, 61. They tell the Parliament that their Difcipline was Gods order, and they mull in Confcience fpe\ for it, and ttfe it. And Anno 1572. They eredred a Presbytery at IVandfworth. The Elders are named. The perfons named chat fet up meetings are Mr. Field , Wilcox , Standen , Jickjon , Bentham , Sander, Crane, Edmonds, and after ClarJ^, Travers, Barber, Gardiner, Cheflon, Crooks Egerton. Anno 1582. There was a meeting of threefcore Minifters out of Effex, Cambridg-fljire and Norfolk^ at Cock^field, Mr. Knew* Jiubs Town. And another that year at a Commencement at Cambridge,

Chap. 3. That they drew up a book of their Difcipline, where choice of Minillers, Elders, Deacons &c. are named and regulated, and for Claffical, Provincial, Comitial Synods and Government. Chip. 4. He tells ycu how they profecuted it Anno 1583. Out of Chohnky, Field, Fen , Wdcox, Axton, Gellebrand, IF right, Gifford. Chap. 5. How they proceeded. 1587. And 1590- Northampton-fkin was divided into three ClalTes. Firfr the Northampton Claifs had Mr. Snape, Penrie, Sibthorp, Edwards, Littleton, Bradfhaw, Lar\, Fleftward, Spicer &c. The T>ai. -trie Clailis had Mr. Barebon, R gers, King, Smart, Sharp, Prowdloe, El-lijhn&c. The Ktttcring Galas had Mr. Stone, WdliamCon. Fallybrook^, Patinfon , Majfey &c. And Jahnfon faith it was received in IVarwick^ftirt Sufoll^, Norfolk Effex, and molt parts ©f England j fo Smith, Hangjr, Holme witnefs, Mr Snape faid. About Braintne the ClaiTis had Mr. Cul-t'erwel, Mr. Rogers, Mi. Gifford, (one of our Doctor's wittneflesjdh'. That at Colchejhr had Doctor Chap.nan, Doitor Chric 1 ^, Mr. Dowe, Mr. Farrar, Mr. Newman, Mr- ley, &c. Page 85. Mr. Snape CM, It wasa*

greed

C30

£reed en in theCIafTical and general affemblies, that the dumb Minifrers were no Minifters, and that all the Minifters (hould Preach for the afor.-faid Governmen t-

Chap. 6. Anno 15S8. A Synod at C m uuij agreed againft private Baptifm, reading Homilies, the Oofs in Baptifm, and that the faithful ot to communicate with unlearned ( they mean uncapable ) Mi-nitte may be pre lent at their Service, if they come of pur-

pofe to heir a Sermon. For Laymen may read publick Service. That the callingof Biftiops &c* is unlawful. That it is not lawful to be ordained by them, or denounce their Sufpentions or Excommunications. That its not lawful to reft in the Eimcps deprivation of any from the Miniliry.except on confultation with neighbour Minifters and their flock, it feemsfo good to therm but that he continue in the fame till he be mpelkd to the contrary by Civil force, ccc And the Difcipline fub-fcribed by Cartwrigbt, Fen, Wright, Oxenbridge,GeIlylrand,C N*t~

ier, Fetberihne, Helm, Lord &c. To repeat all is too tedious.

Putits worth the noteing that whereas the Prelatifts ufually fay, that

rebzn they were pit to draw up a Liturgy tbemj:. Tree of a-

ny, Bithop Bancroft faith Page p<5. Iloey offered the Parliament a ho^sf their

wmm\ containing the form of Common-prayers dec* and hoped to have had it

abrifhed.

Tage 164. Chap. 12. He tells you of their ordf r for Parents to offer their own Children to Baptifm, and be Godfathers &c. H? proceedeth to (hew that they rcfolved to pra&ice their Difcipline againit the Ma-giftrateswill, and did accordingly. And Chap. 15./?. 120. That they foyned chemfelres into an Alfociation or brother-hood, and appropriated to their meetings the name of the Church, thereby (hewing themfelves to be moft notorious Schifmaticks, citeing their words ( our Churches) And p. 121. That the Pari(h where they preach alTembied, is not the Church'pioperly in their fence, but as many thereof only asarejoyned to them with that inviolable bond, viz. The deiire of the godly Difcipline, and thofe furthermore who leaving their own Parifh Churches ccme to them. e.g. The Church of God, forfcoth in Blackjryars confifts befides that Pariih of a number of men and Merchants wives difperfed here and there throughout the whole City. Mr. ■ Snape's tefrimony is cited.

§ 6. Ey thefe words of Bancroft and the cafe compared, it is certain that on thefe fuppofitions many of the Canons were made again/i themj as againft Conventicles and calling themfelves another Church, and a brother-hood, and about God fathers and many more, fuppo-fjogthemtobe of this mind. § 7.

§ 7. On fuppofirion that thcfe things were true, the N : r: - -: r -mills have to this day been accuied by thofe that write again ft them, and the teirioiony of this book alledged as proof. And Doctor Utyhn hath in folio accordingly defcribed them in his Kil;ery of Presbytery, as many others have done.

§ 8. And now cometh Doctor StUlimgjket^ and tdls yon, that [ emain that all tbt §ld Nr mm i fm m ifls ~\ were quite of another mind, and other men, and to prove it citetbfour or £ve mens words against Ercw* nifis i When yet he citeth rrore of my own againft Reparation: and if my wcrds zicvt ~.t r.~: :c zt izi ::.:': ;:. [ _-.v -*:'.'. :h:i:5 z:: v; :' t~ ' : be againi:ir?

$ p. Either Bancrofts^ Hgylias and fuch others words of them are troe or felfe. If fnre, how untrue are Doctor Stilliagfktt's? IffaMe, O what a fort of men were thefe Prelates that (b frigrnatized and accufed and fo tiled lb many hundred fuch men, on fo lalfe a charge ? And what a Church was it that made the Canons again!? them on that fuppofition? And how Gull we know which of them to believe > Doth not Doctor Stillingf&t heavily reproach his own Church for fcch ufuage ofthem ?.

§ 10. The cafe is commonly known, Firfi that a long time they had almoft a]] of them ParUh Churches as other men had r and they fought to let up Discipline in thole Churches. And it had, been folly then to gather others in other places.

2. When Bancroft and others had gc: many af: -cur and deuced, a great part of them kept in by connivence of feme peaceable BiuV and by the mediation of fome Lords and Gentlemen, fuch as the Earl of Laafier, Bedford JFanrkJ^^ the Lord &*£&%, Sir Framdi, Walfngham^ Sir Annas ?«r/«r, Sir Nutrias 2tam, Mr. Btal y and Sir Fronds KmmUr had been to them before: Yea the greater part of them by fuch favour got into privikdged peculiar places,cr little Chapells at ieafr, Few Coun-ties had not fome Gentlemen that iheltred them. The EarlofHnr?* -urn kept in Mr. Hildafham at Afkby , Mr. Slater and Mr. Afh, even in the big Town of Bnmkbam^ Mr. SLnntrariKg kept in Mr. Ball at W'chwsre i Mr. Kmrhtlty kept in Mr. V*a\ J^dge Brantley ( and his humble laoly Lady ) kept Mr. Brnmrlnll at Sheriff Hales, and entertained many moref Mr. Nio// &e.j Sir Kkbard Graves at Mtfdty bad Mr. Postman and divers o-thersjeldom without a Non-con formiit: One would thick Dccror Stillmg-flea (hould know that his c wa Patron,under whole wing he Iived,Sir K Bxrrir.it was feldom withe;.: 2 Nonconfca naift at Rnxkkl in JFamt^ fan: hU.Htring had long liberty at a Sbixmsbtry^ Mr. F§rd

h (m

C343

(who wrote on the Tfalms) had the School Le&ure there, Mr. Atkins at lipton, kept in to the laft, even the Lord Dudley, favouring him. Abundance fuch I might name, Mr. B.irnet, at Vppington (whom I oft heard Catechize Dr. Alleflree,) Mr. 'Tandy at Bewdley, Mr. Lingley, Mr. Paget, Mr. Hind, Mr. Lancafter , Mr. Rowle, Mr. Nieols, Mr. Mather^ Mr. Ratbband f Mr. Barbon, Mr. Gee, Mr. JVrigbt, Mr. Smart, dec, had their liberties for fome time. And when one Bilhop filenced them, the next oft gave them liberty (as Bimop Eridgnun did after Bi(hop Mortons filencing fome) and when they were filenced, they went oft into another Dioce!e,where they rubd out a year or more, and then to another » And lo were mil in fome hope of publick liberty.

And when filenced they ufed to kcepe private faftsi And where they 'odged topreach on pretenfeof expounding to as many as they could.

They obeyed the Biftiops as Magistrates, but not as Pallors.

They knowingly broke the Law in their private and publick Miniflry v They obeyed not the Canons ; ufed not much of the Liturgy y And many of them did as fome do now, get into publick Pulpits for a day and away, where they were not known.

§. 12. But yet there are more undeniable evidences of the falfenefsof what, he faith, he is certain of, as the judgment of AHthe Old Nonconform mfts. One is the known judgement of the Scotch Reformers, and the common accufationof theEnglim, as being of their mind. He that will affirm that the Scotch Presbyterians thought it unlawful to preach or hold Aflemblies, when forbidden by Magifhrates or Prelates, will incur a very (harp cenfure from their own Leaders, who have written fo many Books, which charge them with the contrary, aud make them Rebels and Seditious for it : Such as Bancroft, Hey tin, Beziers, and multitudes both old and new v efpecially thefe lalt twenty years.

And though the Nonconform ills in England did not juftifie all that the Scots did ( and they that took Knox, Bucbanan, Melvin, and fuch other for very pious men, yet thought fome words and deeds too rafh, efpecially Knox's publick opening the Queens faults in the Pulpit, and refufingher offer to come at any time, and tell her of them privately J yet its known, that in the Rules of Difcipline, they were moftly of the fame judgment: And they often joyned in defending the fame Caufe. See their fcveral dcmonltrations of Difcipline, and the feveral Defences of them, how little they differed, when Bancroft preacht againft them at Pauls Crofs, Feb. 8.1588. An Englifh man wrote a Brief Difcovery of his untruths, &c. And a Scoth man J, ~D. Bancrofts rajhnefs in railing againji tbe Cburcb of Scotland, printed 159c* And how little differ they, if at all (and Dr.

Reignolds

Reignoids wrote a Letteragainft it to Sir Francis Knowles, printed with { Francis Knowles his account to the Lord Burleigh of his Speech in Parliament, againft the Bifhops keeping Courts in their own names, as condemned by Law.

And in many of their writings the Engliih own the Scotch Difdr and Church. And yet even thefe Scots have rejected Brown as a Schil-matick, and the Engl ifh Confuter of Bancrofts Sermon tells him, P^.43, 44. Brown a hyorvn Schifrmtick^ is a Fit man to be one of your Wttntjfa a-againft: the Elderfhip : His entertainment in Scotland was fucb as a proud ungodly man deferred to have : God give him and yon repentance. And G//-fords y Pagets, Bradjharvs, Brigbtmans,Ratbbands, Balls, &c words again ft tl Brownifts proved not them to be againfr their own doctrine and pradtk no more than the Scots rejecting Brown proved them againft theirs.

§ 13. And another proof is the common doctrine of the Nonconforming, of the difference of the Magiftrates, and the Churches Orh.-♦Thc faid confutation of Bancroft hath it, pag. 45 and forward, and abundance of their publick writings j viz. That the Magistrate only hath the power of the Sword, and of Civil Government, and to reftrain and pu-fiifti Miniftersthat offend by Herefie orotherwife: But that as Preach-ing,Sacraments and the difciplinary 11 fc of the Keys are proper to the Mini -(try, fothe deciding ot Circumlhntial controvcrlies about them and a-bout the due ordering of them, doth primarily belong to Eccleliaftical Synods. Therefore if thefe Synods were for their Preaching, they were not for cealing itmeerly in obedience to the Magiftrate that fl'enced them.

§ 14. And it is proved by the many Volumes which they wrote againft the Power of our Diocefans, that it was not any Ecclcfiaitical Authority of theirs (which they thought it a (in to difobey.J

§15. And Mr. Fcx, a Nonconforming and many more of them, own the Doclrine of Wiclijf and John Huffe, and the Bohemians, for which the Synods of Conflance and Eafil , condemned them, who afnrm that it is a heynousim to give over Preaching, becaufe men excommunicate us, and that fuch are excommunicated by Chriir.

§ i<5. And it is not nothing that the molt Learned Conforming agree with them, as I have oft cited Eifhop hilfons words, that the Magiftrate doth nor give us our power, nor may hinder our ufeofit, but is appointed by God to protect and encourage us, and if he forbid or hinder us, weare to go on with our work and patiently fcti

And even now I believe moft of the Leading Clergy think that if a Synod bid us preach and hold aiTcmblics, and the King forbid it : we ?tc

F 2 re

[?0

to obey the Synod rather than the King^ Mr. tborndike , and many o-thers.that write for the Church thought (b. And Mr. Vodwel thinks fo even of a particular Biihop. The difference then is but this: One party giveth this power to a Synod of Eifhops (and Presbyters perhapscon-joyned) and the other to a Synod of Parochial Pallors, Doctors and Elders. But both agreed that the Magiftrates prohibition in that cafe is not to be obeyed. And the Conformists will not take it well if I (hould fay that the Nonconform^ are more for obedience to Magiilrates than they: I lull except the Erafiians, and fuch as own Dr. Stillingfteets Irenicon.

§ 17. There is a molt conikicrable book called A Petition direfted to for moji Excellent Majefiyfoeiving a meane how to compound the Civil Dif-fcnti.vis in the Church of England, where the Author ("I fuppofe fome Lawyer) Pag,- 23. tells us what was the difference between the Papifis and them that delired Reformation (Nonconforming) about the power of Magiftratc?. And, I. Ibey give the Prince Authority over all Perfons Ecclefiajtical wbatfoever > 'the Papifis exempt the Clergy : 2. they hold that a Prince may depofe a Priefi , as Solomon did Abiather, and accordingly they obey being filenced: 7be Tapifis deny it. 3: they affirm , if the Priefis makg wicked decrees, the Prince may enforce them to better. 7he Papifis deny it. 4. they fay Princes mu\\ and ought to make Laws for the Church, but with the advife of Godly Paftors : the Papifis deny it. 5. they hold that if the Paft-orsbe unlearned and ungodly, the Prince may of bimfelf without their advife, make Orders and Laws , for EcclefiajHcal matters : the Papifis deny it. 6. they will fubcribe in this point to the Articles of Religion eftablifljed by Law \ to the Apology of the Church of England, to the writings of Jewel, Horn, Nowel, Whitaker, Bilfon, Fulk. ibey takg the Oath of Supremacy:

Here the fecond Article feemeth to be contrary to what I have faid. But the book whence he citetji it (dedifcipl. Ecclef. ) and all their writings (hew, that it is but the fame that I fay, which they aflert, viz. That Princes ought to reftrain or (ilence intolerable men, and fuch Ufupers or dilinquents as give juft caufe. 2. That if they miftakeanddo it unju/h ly, we mult leave Temple and Tyths to their will. 3. Yea, and forbear our own publick Preaching when the publick good on the account of order and peace requireth it j but not when the publick good, and the necefc iity of Souls, and our own opportunities require the contrary. And the fi* lenced that fubmitted ftill,went on to exercife their Miniftry againft Law in that manner as beft conduced to its ends.

And what this Auother faith of the Papifts, I fuppofe many of the higheft Prelatifts come nearer then the Nonconforming » and were the Prince againft them, would obey the Bifhops before him.

And

And the fame book deferibing the Nonconformists in twenty An p. 55. in the 8^. thus expoundcth it [ They teach that;.'.' tbeMini-fieri nor people ought to make any general Formation, with face anJarmef, or othertvife of their own authority change any larvs made or (jljbltfhed for Religion by Authority gf Parliament: But they hold that the general Reformation duth belong to the Magijirates as Gods Lieutenant: and that for tbemfilvts they may and ought in dutiful fort both ? reach andlVrite, and fie to tinMagijirates for rcdrcjs of Enormities, and alp) praUice the ordinances of Chri'i n h'ich he hath commanded his Church to kgcp to the end of the JForld.

And Article 2 c. It is not all the unprepared Pari/h that they would I brouftpt under Difcipline: but thofe of each Parijh who are prepare I and rvil». ling?]

§ .8. In (hort the demonstration, the fupplication, the humbe motion to the Council, and almoft all the Nonconformists writings (hew, that. I. Their great Caufewas to fet np Parifh Difcipline, under Superior Synods. 2. Being rhemfclves almoft aU in publick Churches, at lead per z/cf/,and being Oil] in hope of publick reformation .they were greatly a-gainft the Brownifts violence, that would break thofe hopes.3. They held that Chrifts Law was thdr Rule, which commanded this Difcipline, which no MagiOraie could difpenfe with. 4. Bu' that Magiftrates mull be obeyed in fuch ordering of Church matters as belong to them. But not in forbearing fuchexercife of the Miniltry as was needful to its ends, the Churches good. And^itsfaid, they practifed accordingly,

I. The Brownifts denyed the truth of the Parifh Miniftry and Church* es, and the lawfulnefs ot Communion with them. 11. The Semiiepara-tifts held it lawful to hear them preach, but not to joyn in the Liturgy and Sacrament. And this is it that PhiU Nye. wrote for.

III. The Presbyterians and meer Nor confor mills thought it lawful, and meet in thofe Parishes which had capable Ministers, to joyn in borh Liturgy Sermons and Sacraments, where fin was notimpofed on then . Butfo ("as though forbidden ) while they had publick Churches, to do their bell to practice Chrifts Commands and Difcipline, and where tf could have none to further the fame ends as efTeclually as they could, in the opportunities left them. But never took it for their duty to lea all their Minitfry or publik preaching mccrlyin obedienc to the law much lefs to the Bifliops.

When all this is fo notorious, and when I knew the minds of many aged Nonconforming about forty years agoe as my familiar friends, who were all of the fame mind in this as lam, what hiftory can I be more alTured of, than, as I fa id, that Firft, They took not praying

F 3 publickiy

publlckly and gathering AiTemblies to be therefore finful, becaufe it wa-s forbidden by the Law. 2. But to be a fin againil Prudence and the ends of their; Miniftry, when it was like to do more hurt than good, by exafperating the Prince, and depriving therrifelves and others ot better advantages for thofe holy ends* 3. And that it was a duty when it was like to do more good than hurt: 4. And therefore they broke Laws where they could be endured, even in Chappells and Parifh Churches.

§ 5* Andit is not inconfiderable that the reafons why Calvin, Bui-linger^ Zanchy, Beza, faid what they did for fubmiilive forbearing pub-lick Preaching and Church gathering, wereFirft, Becaufeas they faw that the Prince was refolved not tofurTerit, fo Reformation was then but begun, and the Prince and Magillrates were the pricipal means of it, and they had great hopes that what could not be done at prefent ro perfect it, might be done afterwards at a fitter time. King Fdward was fain to quiet the feditious Papiils by making them beleive that Latin and Englifti, was the great difference between the former Mafs worfhip and the Liturgy: Aftertimes had no fuch ncceillty : and tumul-tuoufly todifturb the Magiftrate in his prudent progrefs of Reforming, had been to ferve the enemies of Reformation.

But in our times Parliaments (who the Dodror S, faith, are intruffed fo Confent for us J have tbefe fifty years told the Kingdom that theRe-formajion was growing backwards, and (fit increafe of Popery by favour and publick tolleration defigr.ed, and much accompliflicd > and Plots threatned the restoring of it: and if Parliaments deceived us, yet the chief Aclorsthemfelves were to be believed : Doctor Heylin maketh the fyncretifm and clofure with them in the bofom of the now indulgent Church,tobeArch-Bi(hop Lands very laudable deligns. Arch-Biihop Browbal, faith Grotius, was to have held fome place among ls, s$ a Protectant, and was of the Englidi Biftiops mind, and hehimfelfdoth fay the lafH and I have (hewed in his own words that Grotius took Rome for the Miilrisof all Churhces , and that there was no way for the Union of Protectants, buttojoyn in Union with Rome, and that he owned the Doclrine of the Councils even of Trent it felf, requiring but the amending of the Clergies lives ', and the calling by the Schoolmen? bold difputes t and the reflraint of the Popes Government to the Rule of the Canons, fecuring the rights of Kings and Bifbops, and this he faith will content the peaceable: Vincentius wrote a book called Grotius Papizans > Saravius in his Epiille upon ipeach with Grotius laments it as too true: His triend Dion, Petaviits told Mr. Ereskjn an honourable perfon attendant

danton the King, that Grotius refolved to have declared hirtifelf for the Church of forae, if he had returned alive from the joarny that he dyed in. See Mr. Tborndikes juit weights , what lie was for.

And how far many Doctors of this Church, fome yet living , have maintained that Grotius principles are not Popery , and consequently what fuch mean by Popery when they difclaim it, I need not tell you , while (b many of them have published it in print? And are not Mr. Tborndick* termes of Concord in Councils till the eight hundredth year much like and much more in book aforefaid ?

And furely there is great difference between fuch Preachings as were like to be the ruin of the begun Reformation by exasperating a Reforming Maginrate , and fuch Preaching as tendeth to flop the revolt of a re-fonned Nation, when Parliaments and the Agents themfelvcs of there-volt, proclaim the danger.

Its true that there was then a greater fcarcityof Preachers than now : And that w r asthe Nonconforming argument with the Bifhops when they pleaded for publick liberty; Eut its as true that they had far greater hopes of that Liberty, which it had been folly to caft away, for lefs: But it is not io with us> we are a greater number than they,'and have new Laws to (hut us out not only of the Churches, but of Corporate ons, and Bifhops that will give us no fuch liberty.

§ 6, And indeed fo many were the unlearned Parifh Priefts, and fo bad, in Queen Elizabeths daies, being many of them lately filly Mafs Priefls, that the (hameof the Church and the cry of the Proteftant people forced the Bifhops to tolerate moll of the Nonconforming in fome publick Church , efpecially thofethat were moderate and did not pub -lickly oppofe them- Dr. Humphry was allowed Reigus ProfelTour in Oxford : Dr. John Keignolds Prefident of Corpus Ch. Col. Mr- Perkins , Ledturer in Cambridge , Mr. Paul Bayne after him, fo Dr. Chadeorton there^c fome tell men that thefc were all Conformiits,and of the Church i And yet I am none that am of the fame mind. The truth is, they were for fubmitting to kneeling at the Sacrament, Surplice and moffof the Liturgy, rather than ceafe Preaching: Eutthey were againft fubfeription, and theEnglim fort ofDiocefan EiQiopsand Government, and the im-pofedufeot thcCrofs, as it is in Baptifm ; As Tradition tells us, and you may partly fee in Dr. Reynolds Letter to Sir Francis Knowles , in Mr. Baynes, Diocefans Tryal, his Letters, and in Fuller and other Hi-{Tories, And Mr. Veering, Mr. Greenham, Mr. John Fox, Mr. Marbury, Dudley, Fewer, Mr. Knewflubs, yea I think fix or ten to one , were endured

C4ol

du'redin publick Churches long, before they were hindered i And when they were hindered , they fpake peaceablely and intreatingly, and were ftill in hope of publick Liberty, and were oft petitioning or making great Friends to the Bifhops to that end much they long obtained a*)d more they hoped for. How long Mr. Gravers was kept in at the Temple, is commonly known.

§ 7. It is neither conliftent with my leifurc, nor the bufinefs now in hand,norIfuppofethe patience of moft readers, that I fhould prove this further by a Voluminous tranferibing Hiftorics already extant. If the Book which Dr. St. citeth called part of a Regifier be perufed, he will rind, 1. That the pafTage cited by the D. was the reprehenlion of many Londoners taken at a meeting in an open Hall of a Company, which meeting they avowed : Is this a proof that they were againft fuch publick meetings, or for it ? When for it they lay in many Prifons;

2. That they profelTed that they forfook not the Publick Churches, till their Teachers were filenced and turned out; So little doth (iiencing tend to union.

3. That yet thefe being ordinary Citizens, fpake many things weak* ly , crying out too ralhly of the Rags and Ceremonies of Antichrift: But he might have found many things in the Regifier more worthy his communication: For inftance.

1. The LetterofDr. Wy: In the beginning. 2. Dr. Tilkington (after Eifhop of Durhxm) his Letter or weighty reafons again ft tilencing the Nonconformifts. 3. Mr. Edward Veerings arifwer to the Articles put to him, twice: with fober and Peaceable words. 4, Mr. Greenbams modeft and peaceable Apology to the Bilhop of E/i, againft Conformity, yet refilling to give his Reafons, left they mould provoke till he were con-ftreined fas I did feventeen years J. All which (hew that the Non-conformifts then were moftlyin pofkiTion of fome publick Churches, or but newly turned out , and in hope of reftauration. And what is all this to our cafe of total and peremptory exclufion ?

§8. Andmethinks the Dodtorlhould notdefifre to tempt the Reader that tryeth his citations to read the reft of that Regifter: viz. 1 The harfti ufage of Mr. Johnfon^ who dyed in prifon, driven into too (harp Language by their ufage. 2. The exceptions of Mr. Crane. 3. The Mi-nifters complaint to the Councils v 4» Efpecially the Councils Letter to the Jufticeson the bebalfof the Minifters, worthy to be perufed at this time. 5 A notable Treatife called a Lettertoa Londoner, againft the Legality of the B ; mops proceedings. 6. The Comons complaint for a Learned Miniftry, (hewing what a (hameful fort of men wer*kept in by the bifhops,

white

DM]

while the ^5o neon for mi ft s were turned out and filcnced. 7. Tie pra<frif-esof the Prelates. 8. The Petition to the Queen and that to the Convocation, p. Mr. Marburys conference with the Bifhop of London, and his Arch-Deacon. How the Bifhop railed and fworc at him, and reviled hirofordefiring that all PariChes (hould have Preachers, as if Homily Pvea-ders were not enough. And yet Mr. Marbury was fo moderate that at laft with liberty of interpretation ("like Cbillingrvortbs ) he conformed. 10. Mr. Dudley Fenners defence ot theMinifters againft Dr. Er/Wgej ilanders: Written but a month before his dea;h, whereas theiaid Fenner was far from unlearned fas his Methodical 7 beohgia (hews) and was fo moderate that Dr. Ames faith he much conformed at laft 5 but it feems not enough : and he meweth how the Bifhops fet themteves againft fuch Preachers. 11 Mr. Gawtons troubles. 12. Dudley Fenners Counter-poyfon , or certain form of Ecclef. Government and itsdefence. 13. The demonftration of of difcipline. Doth the Dr. believe indeed that thefe writings fignirie that the Nonconformfts of thofe times thought it a fin to Preach eo nomine be-caufe forbidden?

§p. They wrote indeed a great deal more againft feparation than heck-eth, and more than all the Conformifts did. And yet they were not more againft it than Bifhop Bilfon^ who faith, If the Magiftrate forbid us our rvor\ xve muft go on> and patiently feffer. Mr. Hilderjham was called Malleus Scbifinaticorum, and yet he and I are Schifmaticks with theft men: Mr. John Fagets Arrow againft reparation, Mr. Bradjharv, Mr.> Gifford, Mr. B*//, &c m have faid enough, Eut he that knoweth their controverfie knoweththat it was none of the queition. whether k be lawful to Preach when the Magiftrate forbids it, or whether our Parifh Churches and Dioccfan bz to beprefered before more Reformed Churches when they may be had ? But whether. 1 . The Parifh Churches be no true Churches ? 2. Or fuch as it is unlawful to communicate with occasionally ? 3. Or conliantly when no better can be had without greater hurt than benefit ? 4« Whether it be a duty to gather Churches or Preach publickly when it is like to do more hurt than good, by the Magiftrates op-pofltion } 5. Whether we (hould not quietly bear with that in a Church which we cannot reforme, while no fin is put on us, and the Communion of it is no worfe than that of our Parifh Churches ? In all thefe they were againft the feparatih's^ and foam I. 6, Yea they pleaded the duty of obeying the Magiftrate by forbearing to Preach when their Preaching was not neceffary : And fo do I.

§ 10. One would think they that take Homilies for Sermons, fhould confefs that the Nonconfoimlis writing againit the prohibition of the

G Law,

E.40

Law, was a Preaching, or much more: as it is more publick. And did the Nonconforming write tvben forbidden, Co much as Cartrvrigbt, Parker, Sandford , Fenner . Gilby, Ames , and aboundance more have done, yea and writ againit Diocefanes and Conformity as thefe and Braafhaw , Nichols, Erigbtman , Rzyne, 7rav?rs , and aboundance more have, even many hundreds, as the Millinary Petition and the Country Complaints &c. (hew > and yet did thefe men every one of them take it for fin to Preach, becaufe it was difobedience I But nothing will convince fome men.

§ ii. But I appeal to the reafon and humanity of mankind, into what hands the filenced and perfecuted Minifkrs are fallen? Is it humane firft to charge them with refifting the Laws, by Preaching, gathering Churches, and adminiftring Sacraments, and making Canons and fetting up new Difciplinc, and to publifti this to the land and world by fuch Authority as Arch BiGiop Bancrofts, Doctor Heylins &c. till it is become their CommonCharge to render them fufpecled and odious,and till this be taken for undoubted truth : And yet when it may ferve for the lllencing of usv to maintain it with Z>r. St. as that which he is certain of, thattbe old Noncon-for tnijls were againft fuch Preaching and aiFembling- At this rate we have been hitherto accufed and confuted.

Yea upon the forefaid Accufations their Canons were formed againft the Nonconfcrmifts, forbidding their AiTembling, Preaching, calling themfelvesa diftincl: Church, and a great deal more fuch : and yet now the men that conform to thefe Canons are certain that they were made up. on fafe fuppolitions, and not one of the Nonconformifts were fo guilty.

But doth not the Doctor thus grievoufly accufe the Church which he would defend.? Were they fuch men i. that would fo falfly accufe the Innocent 2. and ufe themfo cruelly on fuch falfe accufations, many of them dying in Prifons, and many lay there long &c. j. and to form Canons on fuch falfe fuppofitions >

$ i?. Andldonot think I (hall prevail with him to tell me, whether he that thinks theirCafe and ours was fo much thefame,doth verily believe f. That if they had been in the Plague at London, and feen theforfaken people crowding for inftru&ion to prepare for death, the Nonconformists ( fuch as Brad(hau>, Gifford, Hilderjham, Greenbam, &c. J. would have refufed to Preach to them.

2. And if the next year they had feen the Churches burnt, and the City in ruins, and few Parilh Minifters officiate, they would have thought it a fin to Preach to the dcfolate City, to afTernble them to worfhip

God»

C433 God, and would have let them under lb dreadful judgements, live and dye like prophane Atheiils ?

3. And if fhortly after the King had Licenfed them to aiTtmblcand Preach, would they have refund it as a fin ?

4. And if the Prelates had prevailed by fuch a Parliament againft the Kings Licenfe, and he fiill had (hewed the clemencie of his mind by his conivence, and Magiiirates were loth to execute the rigorous Laws, and people would not inform, and the informers repented, and thoufands more called to the Nonconforming for help , than did there when Popery ftuck ftill in the peoples hearts > would they have thought all this no alteration of the Cafe, to judge whether their Preaching would do good or hurt i

§13. He tells us of the fewnefsof Nonconforming in King Edward's days. And it is a wonder that fo many in fo fhort a time, went lb far in the Reformation as they did. But fo faft were they then in pro-grefs, that even the Reformation of Church Laws then by the Com-miflioners agreed on was in many things fo much better than our Canons, as could we now but obtain the fame, would go far to heal us. Let me infiance in fome, and anticipate by it my anfwer to his after difcourfe againft Pari(h Difcipline.

1. Cap. 18. de Hcref. They determine of the Salvation of the un-bapmed Infants of believers, the contempt only being damning.

2. They define the Church vifible ( Cap 22, J to be tht Congregation of all believers in which the Sacred Scripture is fincercly taught , and the Sacraments ( at leafi in the neceffary parts ) adminijired according tj Clmfls inflitutiou^But your Canons deny all fuch here to be true Churches, fave theirs, as fettled by Law.

3. De Sacram. Cap, 5. None to he admitted to the Sacrament till in the Church he have profeffed his faith. And de Div. Oir. Cap. 7 They that will receive the Communion muft the day before come fo the Miuijter that he may have time to excujfe their Confciences^ and deal with them if they have done any thing ungodly or fuperjiitioufly^ in which tlje Churc 1 is offended > and alfe may try their faiih^ that fo he may either correct U ignorancz^ or terrifie their Contumely, or confirm their doubting. For none ought to he admitted to the Holy table of the Lord , that hath not a perfect belief"] The words need a gentle expolition : but we have no power now to try mens knowledge or belief thus.

4. Cap. 10. After evening prayers , the Farifh Uinifhr Deacon and EL ders with the people , jhall call thofe that have been publicly perverfe, and

Scandalous to confejs their fins , and to be publicity cor retted 7 that the

g z a

[443

Church may be conformed by their wholefome correction. And the Mini-jier and Deacon with fome Elders fhall confult how the reft that are of vitious lives, may firft by brotherly love according to Chrifts prefcript in the Gofpel, be dealt with by fiber mens whofe admonitions if they receive,

they Jhzll give God tbankj: But if they go on in the Crime , thiy flull

bejharply punifljed as the Gojpel prefcribeth. ]

5. De Condon. Cap. 3. Preachers Jhall name no guilty perfon before

the multitude, unlefs fuch as have contemned Ecclefiaftical Admonitions ~] fuch

m?y be named.

6 4 De E xc. Excommunication for none but horrible Crimes, &c Cap*

4. and after oft admonition. But you Excomunicate all Godly men

that do but fay your Conformity is not lawful, ipfo faclo by your

Canon.

7. Cap. 6. \ We permit not the power of Excomunication to be in any one perfon: 'Though the confent of the wh le Church be fpeciaU ly difirahle , yet becaufe it is hard to gather and takg it, let Excommunication thus proceed , that the Arch-Bifhop, Bifhop, or other law* ful Ecclefiajiical Judge , call ont Justice of peace , and the Minifier of the place where the guilty perfon dwelleth , &r his deputy , and two or three otlyer Learned and well manured Presbyters, in whofe prefence , when the matter hath been moft diligently handled aud gravely weighed, the (intenct or Excommunication fhall pafs. Cap. 7. And be writ-

Cap. 16 There is written a large pious form like a Sermon to be ufed at the Reconciling of the penitent, and his form of con-teffion , and petition to be received , and then the Paftor of dm Chuich is to ask all the flock, whether they w ; l! forgive the offender and pray for bim> and whether they will have him received into their Congregation as a brother. And then the Paftor is to exhort the penitent, and then abfolve him ( A great andfolemn work, moft unlike your Difcipline ). And then to give God tbankj and pray for him and the Church.

Should we now but move for thus much in order to concord with the Cconformifts, we have reafon to think no importunity could prevail for it i were the confequents of our diviiion as denial as they are now by moft proclaimed. - Yet verily we are moft unexcufeable wretches , if we have learned no more to this day than they did in fo few years 5 or under full power and opportunity will refift that good, which they that wanted fuch opportunity wifred for > and go back as fa(i as they went forward.

§ 14.

Sett. 14. To p. 8. £1 never faid that the troubles at Franhford were Fo much about free or formal Prayer , as that the Presbyterians rtfufcd all forms.]

Sett. 15. />. 19. He confelTeth that [_Whittingham^ Sampfon, Gdby and Others., accepted of preferment and employment in the Church, the Btjhop flawing them kwdnefifor their forward zealous Preaching', 3 and this being without their fubfcribing to conform, is it any wonder then that they gathered not Aflemblies elfewhere f Had the Bifhops fo tryed us, we (hould never have put them to talk fo of our feparation, (but might have done our bell: to build more Churches.) Doth none of all this difference their cafe and ours?

Sett. 16. p. 20. He confelTeth when [.they were flcnced, they began to have feparate Meetings,] and yet were all the old Non-Conformiits againlt fuch.

Sett. 17. As to Beta's Letter, have not I faid more againil Separation than he doth i Doth the Dr. think the Reader fo blind as not to fee that Beta's words are juft of the fame importance with the account I gave, and contrary to his, trie \_He trembleth at the thoughts of their exercifing their funtt ion again(tthe will of the Qneen andBifiops, for fuch reafons as may be eafily underftood, though we fay never a word of them: ] Its eafie indeed to fee what he trembles at, and why he named them not, which he w T ould fure in charity have done, had it been becaufe it is finful difobedience to preach when forbidden: It was eafie to fee what hurt it would have done in the ruine of Preachers and hearers, and (baking all the begun Reformation : Its not fo with us, Gualter and Zanchy fay not fo much againil Separation as I do, nor John Fox y nor Bullinger whom he citeth; we fay the fame.

Sett. 18. Thefamel fay of Parker and Gifford, and I again tell him that he may name many more; Hilderfiam, Paget, Ame, &c. I am of their judgment in their oppofition to the Brownifts; but it is a notorious untruth (pag.3 3. J that the force ofall the Non-Conformifts reafonings tgainft Separation, lay in two Suppofitions. I. That nothing could juftifie Separation from our Churchy but fuch corruption* which overthrew the being and conft'itution of it; &c. And 1. It mull: be remembred that Separation being a word of very many fences,they held indeed that [ none ought to feparate from a Church ac-cufvng it to he none, but for that which proved it to be none. ] 2. But did they deny that which all the Chriftian World confelTeth fvix,. 1. What if cur Englifh Divines gathered by Bifhop Hall againft; Burton y be in the right, that the Church of Rome tf a true Church, as a Thief is a trUe man, (though I think otherwifej mull not fuch Bilhops or Conformilts therefore fepa-rate from them * H 2. What

2. What if a Church impofe fome Lye, falfe Oath, or Subfcription, or fome actual Sin in Worfhip, as a condition fine qua non of her Communion ; is it not lawful to feparate into better AfTemblies, ?

3. What if they put down all preaching fave reading fome dry Homilies, and all Difcipline, is it not lawful elfewhere to ferve God better ? But of this more after where he repeateth it. The Brownifts cafe was quite other before defcribed.

ScEt. 19. to/?. 36, 37. We alfo hold that whofoever feparateth from the Church of England, 1. As having not that Preaching and Sacraments which are of neceffity to Salvation. 2. Or as not profelfing true faving Faith, doth by confequence feparate from all Churches in the world > be-caufe they have all the fame Word, Sacraments, and Chriftian Faith. And to this Mr. Jacobs Argument is good, p. 3 8; (though he was the man that anfwered Downams Sermon for Bifhops, and efteemed one of the firft Independents.*) And Mr. Balls words to the fame purpofe, and the fecond Suppofition p: ^p. we grant, and think verily that the late Conformifts have faid more againft the truth of the Church of England, than we; yea, that we are the defenders of it againft the Brownifts and them, Ball^Btad-Jhaw, afford, Hilderfiam, &c< cited by him, defend it as we do, and better than fuch as Dr. Heylin, Thomdike, Mr. Dodwel, and fuch others. Did he think any of this concerned me?

Seft. 20. Yes, for />. 74. he faith, [_ We would blind the Reader by finding cm the difparity. of fome Circumfiances •, but not one of us can deny that it was their judgment, that the holding feparate Congregations for worfiipy where there was an agreement in Doclrine and the fuhfi antiais of"Religion , was unlawful and fchifmatical. ~]

Anfw. Its pity fo feeing a Dr. fhould tempt men to be fo blind, 1. As to think all the differences which I have named, inconfiderable. 2. And to goon to abufe themfelves and others, with the ambiguous word [ Separate ] no better explained. 3. And to think the other caufes before and after named of fome fort of Separation, to be inefficient- andlamfor-ry for the Dr. if this be his own Profefllon, that he would tell any lie, or commit any other fin, or for fake any other part of Religion, ratherthan feparate to other Ailemblies,from a Church that agreed in Doclrine and the fubftantials of Worfhip with him. The Presbyterians then are fure of him,if they were but inpoffeflion *,and it feems in Mofcovy'he would for-iLke preaching. But what if the King licenfed a preaching Church, would he refute the ufe of it for fear of feparating from a mere reading Church.

This Protean word [ feparate ] ferveth for many ufes : I will put one cafe more to the Dr. (not feigned.) A Conformift Gentleman was of

the

Cr>]

the opinion that his Parifh Church was no true Church, becaufe the Vicar was a Socinian, and another becaufe theParfon was ignorant of the efTen-tials of Chriftianity j and they go to tht next Parifh Church. A Non-conformift in the fame Parifh, goeth to a Nonconformifts Chappel, but doth not acaife the Parifh Church as none, as the other do ; which of thefe feparateth more .' At Glcucefter one took the Diocefan Church for no true Church, becaufe Bifhop Goodman was a Papift, and the Bifhop is a conftitutive part, and yet this man was for Diocefans: A Nonconforming went to a Nonconformifts Church, but would not fay the Diocefan Church was none: Which feparated more f He feparateth from his Parifh Church againft the Canon, who goeth from an ignorant fcandalous Reader, to communicate with a Preacher at the next Parifh: He feparateth from the Parifh Churches, who judgeth them true Churches, but having the Kings Licenfe, joyneth conftantly with the French, Dutch, or Nonconformifts as better, Ml owning mental communion where he hath not localjand he feparateth from the French,Dutch,or Nonconformift Churches, who thus leaveth them (as true Churches) to joyn with the Church of £»g/Wasbetter.Many and various are the forts and degrees of Separation, and not all lawful or all unlawful: None of thefe are theBrownifls fepara-tion,which the old Nonconformifts confuted ^ which confuted in a denial, i. That the EnglifliMinifters were true Minifters. 2. And their Churches true Churches. ^.Or fuch as a Chriftian might lawfully live in communion with in ordinary worfhip. 4. And therefore they were all bound to renounce them, andfet up others.

I doubt the Dr. is far more a Separatift than I, and fuch as I \ for I am for Communion with all Chriftians, as far as they feparate not from Chrift^ and I hate the falfe accufing of any Church as if it were none, or its Communion unlawful. I can be but in one place at once, but in heart I joyn with all Chriftians on earth except in fin \ and locally I joyn where 1 fee greateft reafon for it, preferring that which I judge meft agreeable to Gods word, fo far as 1 may without greater hurt. But the Canonical Conformifts, unchurch all the Churches here but their own, and utterly refufe Communion with them, even with thofe that refufe not Communion with them. And fome think that forcible filencing, fining, excommunicating, and imprifoning, is not the gentlcft fort of feparating.

But doth he in all his Book do any thing to fatisfie any mans Confcience, that would know from what Churches he may or may not feparate ? Not a word that lean find, that decideth fuch a doubt. His two words here ufed are [_ Agreement in Doctrine, and fubflantials of Religion^ ~] whereas 1. Religion is in Acts and Habits ', and hath no proper fttbfrance, and what

H 2 his

C&3

his term \_fnbfiance ] meaneth, till he tells us, none can know. It mufi: be either an effential part ? or an integral part, for an Accident I fuppofe it is not If only an ejfeniial part, what Chriftian dare fay that I may fin againft all the meer integrals of Religion,rather than go from the Church that impofeth fuch fin upon me. If it be all the integrals that we mnft agree in, then we differ in no one part of RtUgion •, for Accidents are not farts: And then who eontradicts him t When men differ in no part of Religion, they will not feparate unlefs merely locally: Are all the things named in my firft Flea, no farts of Religion ? It may be by [ Subflance~] he meaneth only the greater fort of Integrals , but how (hall we know where to£x our meafures 5 what duty is fo fmall that I may omit it, or what fin fo fmall that I may commit it for Communion.

2. And as for Dotlrine, they that differ in any part of Religion, arc fuppofed to differ in the doctrine about that part. But can any man tell what Doctrine it is that he maketh our agreement in to be necefTary, or the teft of Communion. If I mould feparate from all Churches from which I differ in any the lead doctrine, I know not where the Diocefan or National Church is that I might hold Communion with : Do all the Conforming agree in all doctrines ? If it be in all that the Law impofeth, how various, mutable, and uncertain is that.

I diftinguifh between Dotlrine profeffed by the Chkrchy and Dotlrinc imposed on me to profefs it. As to the firft, I will communicate with a Church that hath twenty falfe Doctrines, confident with.the effentials of Chri-ftianity and Church Communion. As to the fecond, I wiH not knowingly frofefs one falfe Dotlrine for Communion with any Church on Earth.

Did not the Nonconformists differ from the Conformifts, in the Do-ftrine of thefufficiency of Scripture for regulating Church-Order and Worfhip; and about the Divine Right of Diocefan: and Elders, and about Pari(h Discipline. Do not we now differ about the undoubted certainty of the falvation of all dying baptised Infants ? Will this warrant a feparation ?

Sett. 21. f. 75. He tells us very confidently that diverfity of circumfran-tlal pretences for Separation, alter not the cafe: But 1. Its true that if twenty men have twenty falfe pretences for Separation,none of them are thereby juftified-, but if one man have a juft caufe, it juftifieth him ; Inamed very many juft and unjuft caufes in my Plea, and he.giveth noanfwer to it. 2. Are they fuch circumflances before named: Oaths, Declarations, Sub-fcriptions, Doctrine, &c ? 3. What if the Lawfhould change, and allow of various Churches!* what if the King Iicenfe them. ? Thefe be but circumflances: What if the Plague drive away theParifh Minifters f what if the Churches be burnt and the people forfaken ? will no fuch circumstances

ftances make other Aflemblies lawful, becaufe he calls them ferrate.

Seel. 22. p. 78. His undertaking is repeated: [ He is certain that preaching in off 0fit ion to our eftablifijed Laves, is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nonconformifts of former times. ] Anfw. If I have not proved the contrary, I cannot prove that they were Engiifh men.

But 1. he proveth that they were all of that mind, by citing four of their Books againft Brownifts-, and were four or forty times tour, all? But Mr. Kathbands is faid to be the Nonconformifts. Doth he believe that he meant that all or the twentieth part of the Nonconformifts wrote or flbfcribed it * One of the Names to it is Mr. Simeon Jfi, my intimate dear friend, whofe judgment in thefe muterswas the fame with mine, whom I was with even inhisficknefs almoftto the Jaft hour of his Hfe.and was buryed Aug. 23. 1662. the day before the Law had elfe filenced him, and he was to me a better Expofitor of his own mind, than the Dr. can . be: He was fo much for going on to preach, that his Motto in his \-\\x&-va\Rlng\vas,ZlamnotaflLimedoftheGojpelofChnft:^\ I yet k:epmy Ring, and can (hew it you.

And as to old Mr. Langky, another of them, I heard him my felf preach in Albriton Church in Shropflnre, aThankfgiving Sermon for the hopes of deliverance from the (ilencing Bifhops, when the Law forbad him: And for old Mr. Slater, I heard him preach at Trinity Church in Coventry when theLaw forbad him: And did they not underftand their own Writings better than the Dr. doth?

Sftf.,23. And I would I knew how to prevail with him to tell me, whether theLaw and Canon did not forbid all the Minifters in England to wor-fhip God according to the Directory, and neglect the Common Prayer Book, which yet almoft all did for many years in the times of ufurpation: And yet of nine thoufand or more of thefe, feven thoufand llnce conformed to the Church of England, and they lay that this Dr. is one of them. If mere difobedience then be the fin, all thefe lived folong in fin, and he with others.

Sett. 24. But all that can be gathered out of the four Books cited and fuch others is but this, which is our judgment: 1. That Churches and Pallors are under the Kings Government as well as other Subjects. 2. That itbe-longeth to him to punifh them for evil doing, and encourage them in doing well. 3. That as to this his own execution, he is the publicK Judge whether they do well or ill. 4. That i f he juftly forbid any to preach or aflem-ble he muft be obeyed. 5. And if he miftake in particular cafes, not deft roying the ends of his Government, the common good, he muft not be refilled, nor in fuch a manner difobeyed, astendeth more to the common

hurt

hurt than his miftake doth, nor dilabfed to Govern by their dishonouring him, much lefs by Rebellion or Confufion. 6. Nor are men bound to caft away their great advantages for Gods fervice which they then had, en pretence of doing better ■, when by accident it would do more hurt than good, nor as Bradjknv faith , to run on the Sword, or oppofe Sword to Sword, or raife Sedition, and ruin themfelves in vain.

Their advantages were many : i. Lawful Communion in the Parifh Churches. 2. Molt of them either conftantly or by fits, had publick Churches or Chappels to preach in, and were ftill in hope. 3. The Ma-giftrate protecled them and the Reformation. 4. They hoped for a pro-grefs of it, whereas had they openly done as the Brownifts, they had endangered the Reformation by the exafperation, and ruined themfelves, and loft moft of their labour : So that it is plain that preaching in that imprudent manner which is like to do more harm than good, they took to be a double fin, as hurtful %&& as disobedience *, for obedience is due in fuch a cafe. But in cafe the manner and circumftances be ftich as that thefe evils are not confequent, but more good than hurt to be expected •, they thought the bare breach of the Law no fin.

Sett. 25. Which I yet further prove, 1. Becaufe its agreed by all, that Governing Order is a medium for the thing ordered *, and never obligeth when it overthroweth the end, power being given to Edification and not to Deftruction: None have power to forbid theneceffary preaching of the Gofpel, and probably to damn Souls. 2. Becaufe elfe the Noncon-formifts (hould be more againft preaching when forbidden than the Con-formifts •, who fay as Bifhop Bilfon, We muft go on with our work? & fuffer .• and as Bifhop Andrews Tortur.Torti. Cohibeat Regem Diaconus, &c. 3. Yea, shePapifts who on pretence of Obedience are tyrannical, yetmoftly agree fas I have elfewhere proved) that humane Laws bind not beyond the cafe of fcandal, when they are againft the common good: And a Toletane Council decreed, that their Conftitutions fhould not be taken to bind ad peceatum, fto hazard Souls) but only adpeenam. 4. As I have faid, their own pradice fully expounded their words, who conftantly broke the Law and Canon in preaching in Houfes and in Chappels without, or contrary to the Liturgy, or a part of it* So did Mr. Ball at Whitemore, Mr. Hind t at Banbury, Mr. Geree and Mr. Fox at Tewkftury, John Rogers at Dedham, Mr.Taylor, Mr. Harvy, Mr. Bourne at Manchefter, Mr. Gee, Mr. Johnfon 7 Mr. Hancock Mr. Barlow, Mr. Broxholme , Mr. Cooper , and abundance more, befides thofe mentioned before.

And now 1 leave it to the Dr.'s further thoughts, whether he fpake truly of the fence of All theNonconfirmifts, and have proved what he undertook.

took.To abufe the Magiftrate, or do his part for publick Reformation, they were againft, and fo are we.

Sett. 26. As to his queflion. Was there Ufs neceffuy then or now ? I anfwer, 1.There was then more neceflity as there is of you or me in America, where we cannot preach , the people, lately Papifts, defired not their helps, nor fcrupled hearing others, as many thoufands do now.2.There was neceffuy then and fo there is now, but opportunity mult joyn with neceflity to oblige, which they had more than we by connivence in Chappels, where was neceflity, and they had lefs than we in other places^

Sect. 27. As to the Anfwers of Mr. Sprint, on my knowledge the ufual anfwer was,That evil mall not be done that we may have leave to do good, and that if others hinder me becaufe I will not fin, it is not my omiffion of any duty •, yet the disparity of the Apoftlcs cafe and ours, may be mentioned to (hew the difference of obligations.

Pofitive Precepts bind not ad femper, but Negatives do *, and its too grofs a fhift to turn a Negative to a Pofitive, and then pretend that the comparifon is between two duties: preaching is a duty when we can do it, but not when we cannot do it, unlefs we will fwear, fubferibe, profefs, or pradtife a forbidden thing.

Sett. 28. I conjecture that to what I have proved of the practice of the Nonconform ids, it will be faid that 'their preaching in peculiar places, Chappels, or Churches, though in a manner agai?ifi Law and Canon, was but a partial joyning with the Church of England, and not afeparation ; and the connivence of theBift ops was a kind of toleration.

Anfw. i. And is not my cafe the fame? We had more than connivence when we had the Kings Licenfes, and ever fince experience tells you that his Clemency hath occafioned a reffraint of the Bifhops, and fome connivence from them. 2. And if it were the Temples that make the difference, let them allow us to preach there and fee whether we will rcfufe it: And fure the Conformifts that preach in Tabernacles are not Separatifts; the Parifh Teacher of St. Martins now preacheth in the fame place which 1 built to have preached in, and for fo doing was by a warrant judged to prifon. They had no more Law on their tide than I have, they ufually read no more of the Liturgy but the ConfelTion and the Scriptures, and many not the firft at all, and fome more , fo that its a full proof that if breaking the Law had been all their flop, they would have ft ill preached.

Se5i.2g.Dr. Ames tells us that he had preached without the Bifhops con-fent by this Story, frejh Suit, p. 4c 9. defcribingan Englifh Bifhops Paftoral work, hefaith. " It would be ridiculous for a mean man to defire Mm cc to vifit hkn, his Wife, or Children, inficknefsj he mult have a Chaplain

"not

"not only to do other duties of Religion for him, but even to give thanks "at his Table. I will not here fpeakof [draw up an Excommunication for u bim, take himPurfuivant, fay lor fee to your Prifoner ', ~\ but note one ex-sample of mine own experience, which many others can parallel : lwas "once (and but once 1 thank God) before aBifhop, and being prefented "to him by the chief Magiftrates of a Corporation, to be Preacher in their " Town •, the lowly man firft asked them, how they durft; choofe a Preach-"er without his confent: Ycu (faid he) are to receive a Preacher that I " appoint you, for I am your Paftor, though he never fed them: And then "turning to me, [ How durft you, faid he, Preach in my Diocefs without my leavef ] So that without any other reafon but meer Lordfhip, " the whole Corporation and 1 were difmhTed to wait his leifure, which I " have done now twenty years and more.

Much like the ufage of holy Paul Bayne, Succeflbr to Perkins, who being commanded to preach a Vifitation Sermon, and being fickly and in a fweat with preaching, wasfaintorefrefhhimfelf inftead of going prefent-ly to attend the Bifhop •, and when he was fent for, having fmall Cuffs edged with a little blew thred, faith the Bifhop: How dare you appear before me with thoje ? and hefufpended him: And good Mr.Bayne would never more have to do with a Bifhop, but laid, They are an earthly Generation, and favour not the things of God.

When Dr.F/*/^ (ahalfConformift) went out of St. Johns Colledge in Cambridge with his Pupils, hiring Chambers for himfelfand them in the Town, it was as great a feparation from the Colledge (to avoid the Surplice which he after fubmitted to) as we make from the Church. See Ames frejh fuit, p. 473. And that it was no confcience of obeying the Bifhop, that Bez.a would have the Minifters moved by,Jrom affembling: Judge by thefe words, \_De notis Ecclef. Ego pontificiis —] " I willingly leave to the "Papifts the whole degree of Epifcopacy, of which 1 openly fay, the "Holy Ghoft was not the Author, but humane prudence; which if we "obferve not that God hath curfed, certainly we even yet fee nothing7 " and we nouriih a viper in our bofoms, which will again kill the Mother.

Sett. 30. I will conclude with the recital of the Letter fent to the Bifhops by Dr. Humphrey, Regim ProfefTor in Oxford, who yet conftrained, ufed the Surplice after that; Our Dr. may note what fence they had then of thefe things, premifing only the words of John Fox, fpeaking of Blumfield a wicked Perfecutor, who threatned a godly man, Simon Harelfon, for not wearing the Surplice: C Its pity, faith he, fetch baits of Popery are left to the enemies to take Chriflians in', God take, them away from us, or mfrom them: for God hnowcth they be the canfe of much blindnefs andflrife among men*

Dr.

Dr. Humphrey's Letter to the Bis hop s.

"^7Our Lordfiip Letter > directed unto us by our Vice-Chancellor, a!-X " though written in general words, yet hath fo hearted our Ad ver-" faries, that we are now no more counted Brethren and Friends but Ene-" mies ^ and fith the oJd Mafs attires be fo ftraitly commanded, the Mafs " it felf is (hortly looked for. A Sword now is put into the enemies hands " of thefe that under Q^Mary have drawn it for Popery,and under pretence "of good order, are ready without caufe to bewreck their Popiih anger " upon us, who in this will ufe extremity, in other laws of more importance, partiality.1 would have wifhed,my Lords,rather privy admonition " than open expulfion ■■> yea I had rather have received wounds of my Bro-" ther, than Rifles of mine Enemy ^ if we had privily in a convenient day re-"figned, then neither fhould the punifher have been noted of cruelty, "neither the offender of temerity, neither fhould the Papifts have accu fed "fin their feditiousBook) Proteftants of contention. Religion requireth "nakedChrift to be preached, profefTed,glorified \thatgravioralcgti, by "the faithfulMiniftry of feeding Paftors, fhould be furthered, and after " that orders tending to edification, and not to deftrucl:ion,ad vanced j and "finally the Spoufes friends (hould by all means be cherifhed, favoured, "and defended, and not by counterfeit and falfe intruders, condemned "and overborn, and defaced. But alas, a man qualified with inward gifts " for lack of outward (hews is punifhed, and a man only outwardly conformable and inwardly clean unfurnifhed, is let alone, yea exalted: The " painful Preacher for his labour is beaten, the unpreaching Prelate offend-" ing in the greater, is (hotfree*, the learned man without hiscapisafflift-"ed, the capped man without learning is not touched: Is not this direct "Iy to break Gods laws ? Is not this the Pharifes va f Is not this to wafii " the outfide of the Cup, and leave the inner part unclean fed ? Is not this to " prefer Mint and Annis to faith aud judgment and mercy ? Mans tradition " before the-ordinance of God ? Is not this in the School of Chrift, and in " the method of the Gofpel a plain diforder ? hath not this prepofterous " order a woe f That the Catechifm fhould be read is the word of God, 1( it is the order of the Church, to preach is a neceflary point of aPrieft, to " make quarterly Sermons is law, to fee poor men of the poor mens box rc-cc lieved, Vagabonds punifhed, Parifhes communicate, Rood lofts puD'd "down, Monuments ofSuperftition defaced,Service done and heard,is Scri-" pture, is Statute 7 that the Oath to the C^ Majefty should be offered and

I taken,

<£ taken,is required as well by ordinance of God as of man. Thefe are plain "matters, necefTary, Chriftian, and profitable.To wear a Surplice, aCoap, " or a corner'd Cap is (as you take it J an accidental thing, a device only u of man,and as we fay a doubt or queftion in divinity. Sith now thefe fub-"ftantial points are in all places of this Realm almoft negle&ed, the offen-" der either nothing or little rebuked, and fith the tranfgreiTors have no /'colour of confcience,it is fin and frame to proceed againft usfirft, having <c alio reafonable defence of our doings: Charity my Lords,would firft have ce taught us,Equity would firft have fpared us,brotherlinefs would have war-<c ned us, pity would have pardoned us, if we had been found trefpatfers. £c God is my witncfs,who is the beholder of all faith, 1 think of your Lord-"fhips honourably ,efteeming you as brethren,reverencingyou asLordsand c< Mailers of the Congregation: alas why have not you fome good opinion iC of us? why do you truft known Adverfaries and miftruft your Brethren ? ct We confefs one faith of Jefus,we preach one dodrine,we acknowledg one ct Ruler upon earth,in all things (laving in this) we are of your judgment, "(hall webe ufed thus for aSurpIioe. ? (hall brethren perfecute brethren <c for a forked Cap,devifed fingularity of him that is our enemy ? Now (hall iC we fight for the Popes coat^his head and body being banifhed ? (hall the "controverfie fo fall out inconclufion, that for Jack of neceflary furniture ct (as it is efteemedj labourers (hall lack wages ? Churches preaching ? fhall <( we not teach ? (hall we not exercife our Talents as God hath commanded ci uSjbecaufe we will not wear that which our jenemies have defired,and that cl by the appointment of Friends.Oh that ever I law this day that our Adver-* iaries mould laugh to fee brethren fall together by the ears:Oh that Ephra-u im mould thus eat up Mamffcs, Maxaffes Ephraim. My Lords, before this iC take place,confider the caule of the Church,the Crefts and triumphs of An-fy tichrift,the laughter of Satanjhe forrow and fighs of a number,the mifery V and fequel of the Tragedy.l write with zeal without proof of my matter f at this time prefent,but not without knowledg of it,nor without grief of " mind: God move your Spirit at this prefent to fight againftOww, Gr-" cumcifwnemjmmo Conciftonem.£ga\X\$i Lheram & Leqem^ which principally <( is now regarded and rewarded.Speak I humbly befeech you to the Queens " Majefty, to the Chancellor, and to Mr. Secretary and the reft, that thofe ic proceedings may ileep, that Ezg/W may underftand your zealous mind c< toward the worlhipof God,your love toward the poor welwillers, your t; hate toward the profefted enemies, your unity in true conformity, the o-u ther neither be needful now,neither exacted in any good age : So (hall the " little Flock be bound to you, fofliall the great Shepherd be good to you.

Chap

[*?]

An Answer to the falfe Accusations and Reasonings of the Dr/s Second Part.

HEre the Dr. begins with the defcription of their principles whom he accufeth (lam one of them:) And the firft fort are thofe ["that hold partial and occafional Communion with " our Churches to be lawful, but not total and conftant, ] viz. '- [at fome times to be prefent,and in fome part of our worfliip, and on " particular occafion to partake of fome ads of Communion with us*, but €t they apprehend greater purity and edification in ieparate Congregati-u ons, and when they are to choofe they think themfelves bound to choofe "thefe, though at certain feafonsthey may think it lawful to fubmic to u occafional Communion with our Church. ] The fecond fort are " Such u as hold any Communion with our Church unlawful; And he pretends to "proceed with all poffibleclearnefs]

Anfx>Q, I am forry if more clearnefs and truth is become impofflble to him. He taketh not me to be one of the fecond fort,and therefore defcribeth me as of the firft : Its no prefumption to fay that I know my own mind and practice better than he doth, though he would feem to know the old Noa-conformifts minds better than they did themfelves.

Sett. 2. The matter of fact muft firft be notified: i. I ever diftinguifii-ed the National, Diocefan, Parochial, and Segregate Churches: And the National as fuppofed organized, or an Ecclefiaftically political Society, from the National as a Chriftian Kingdom, and as an agreeing Jffociationo? Churches, without any Governor of the whole {Single or Ariftocratical. ) And I diftinguifted Diocefans that are as Arch-Bifhops over lower Bifhops, and thofe that are like ours, infima jpeciei: andIdiftingui(hedP*r//7jCW^-es that have true Taftors, from thofe that have none but uncapable men, through infufficiency, herefie, malignity, or as ufurpers are not truly called.

2. Accordingly I concluded, i. That the Pari(h Churches in England that have true Paftors, are true political governed Churches. 2. That though fome would make them none, by denying to the Paftors an eflen-

tial part of thwr office, and make the Bifhop the fole Pallor, and the reft but his Curates, and the Parilhes no Churches as having no Bifhop, but to be only asChappels, part of the loweft governed Church (Diocefan) and fo give up the caufe to the Brownifts called Separatifts \ yet truly fuch Parilhes are true political Churches, becaufe the ordainer being but the in-vefting Mnifter, the office is not eflentiated as he willeth or faith, but as God the Inftituter willeth and faith. As the power of the Hujband over the Wife is not what pleafe thePrieft that marryeth them, but what pleafeth God who giveth it by his Law; and as the Lord Mayor's power is not what pleafe the Recorder, or he that giveth him his Oath or Infignia, but what the Kings Charter giveth} and the Kings power is not what he will that Crowneth him and giveth him his Oath, but what he hath right to by the conftitution of the Kingdom •, fo that the truth of the Parifh Churches is foundly maintained by the Nonconformifts, and overthrown by many of the Diocefans: But if the Parilh Minifter himielf confent not to the eflen-tials of his own office, hisMiniftrymay be valid to others while he is in the place, but he is, himfelf, no true Paftor.

3. All Parilhes are no true governed Churches, whofe Minifters want any thing eflential to a Paftor, nor muft be owned as fuch if known.

4. But for the peoples fake they are true Churches, ftcnndum quid, or equivocally as a company of Chriftians may be fo called that have no Pallor, and as fuch may be fo far communicated with.

5. I never fpake againft a Diocelan or Arch-Bifhop, that hath Parifh Churches, and true Pallors or Bifhops under him, andtaketh on him no more than the Apoftles, did, excepting their work, properly Apoftolical, viz.. by the Word and not the Sword, to overfee and inftrud inferior Pallors.

6. When the Diocefans put down all lower Churches and true Pallors, I own not that doing,nor them in that form •, but I feparate from them no further than they do from Chrift.

7. When they are but as good Arch-Bifhops taking care of many Churches, whether their Diocefs (hall be called a Church as fuch, is but lis de nomine. 1 find not that any Apoftle as fuch, was the conftitutive Head of a Diocefan or Provincial Church, or made any fuch, above particular Churches: Nor do 1 find in the New Teftament any political Church form,-, butthellniverfal headed by Chrift, and particular ones governed by Pa-ilors.The General is the conftitutive Head of his Army, and the Colonel of his Regiment, and the Captain of his Troop, as diftincl; fubordinate Bodies*, but the Major General, General of the Ordnance, Qnartermafter General,^, may beonly[under-Officersto the whole, and the nobleft integral

E*3

tegral parts, but as fuch no conftitutive Head of any Body of Men whatever: So that General Paftors prove no fuperior proper Chnrch. But be-caufe it was lawful in prudence for the Apoftles to have taken feveral Provinces, limited feverally to each, fo may men now j and if any call fuch Churches, I ftrive not, fo the matter be agreed on.

8. I ever owned a Chriftian Kingdom, and the agreeing AfTociation of as many Churches as can for mutual help and concord,and the King to be their Governor by the Sword; And if any will call a Kingdom a Church, or an Afibciation that hath no conftitutive Government, a Church •, as if he called a Diet or AiTembly of many Kings or Princes, a Kingdom or Republick, let him enjoy his Equivocation, fo we underftand each other.

9. According to thefe Principles I own my lelf a Member of the univer-fal Church,of the Chnrch of England, and of the Pari(h or particular Church where for the time I am called to be •, that is, as they are. But I think I may remove from Parifh to Parifh as I have caufe, as a dweller or a lodger may *, and I take not all the Parifh to be the Church, and take Parifh bounds to be no Divine lnftitution,but a humane mutable point of order, convenient when by accident it croffeth not the end,nor doth more harm than good.

to. 1 think if any Nobleman in London confine his ordinary communion to a juft alTembly in his~happel, or any that have a Minifter utterly un-fuitable to their needs, do ufually hold communion in the next Parifh Church for better, he is thereby neither §eparatift nor Sinner.

11. According to all this, when I was filenced I ordinarily heard Dr. Wilkins and Dr. Itllotfon-, and communicated in feveral places as I had belt opportunity •, and quickly going to Aclon, I there conftantly morning and evening joyned at Common prayer and Sermon, communicating in the Sacrament where I had belt opportunity,(being loth for the Parfon and Curates fike, to tell you why it was not there,) once with Dr. Morton and often with Nonconformifts. The Plague driving me to Hambden, I conftantly there joyned in all the publick Worfhip and Sacrament: Returning to Allon, Ididasbefore,andfometimerepeatedDeanK/d"t^'sSermon, till he got me fent to Gaol for teaching fome willing ignorant people between the Church meetings in my houfe : Thence going to 'totteridge, I many years conftantly twice a day joyned in the publick worfhip, and took the Sacrament when adminiftred as Mr. Parr* will teftifie. Thence removing • to London^ and licenfed by the King to preach, I forbare fome time, and after chofe only the Market houfe at St. Jameses, openly declaring that we met not asfeparating from the publick Churches, but for theneed of multitudes that went to no Church for want of room. Since then I have many years joyned in all the publick worftiip, Word, Prayer, and Sacraments,

with

with the Parifh Church, when able,, fince that I alfo fometime joyn with Nbnconformifts,and preach my felf Afternoons, and on Thursdays in the Nonconforming Chappels, being not allowed to do it otherwife. In the Country in Summer, I have far off got into fome Parilh Churches for a day, and tryed neer London^ but could not have content, though I have Bifhop Sheldon's Licenfe for that Diocefs, I think not yet invalidated. This is the matter of faft.

Now Reader, Qn. i. Doth the tenth part of thofe counted of this Pa-rifh Church, hear and communicate fo oft as I do.

Q^i. If not, what makes them and not me to be of that Church?

Q^ 3 . What is the conftancy that this Dr .maketh neceflary to a member ?

^4. What are the parts of their worfhip which he faith 1 joyn not in. ? Hath he named any ?

^5. Is this only occafional joyning ?

Sett. 3. I do maintain that 1. When, confideratvs confiderandis,we may choofe the pureft Churches and mofi edifying Mmifiry^ it is a duty fo to do. And one of his anfwers (the lietlor, &c.) hath in the Epiftle cited his own words, not out of the retraced henkon, but his late Book againfl: Popery, exprefly threatning us with damnation if we do not. To which I find no excufe made by him, yea the Papift adverfary grants the fame.

2. I do maintain againfl: thofe that feparate from all Churches which they dare not be ftated members Of, that its lawful to communicate occafi-onally, where we may not do it ftatedly: But is this to deny all fave occafional communion with all their Churches ?

3. Ioften fay that there is fo great difference of Parifh Minifters, and of Perlbns cafes and opportunities, and Relations, (as Wives, Children, Servants, under Parents, &c. of divers commands, &c.) that to be conftant Communicants in their Parifh Church, is to fome a duty, to fome a fin, and fo is occafional communion.

Sell. 4. As to the fecond fort, that hold allcommunion with them unlawful. 1. I leave them to plead their own caufe, and I meddle only with my own part. 2. But I mull fay that if they miftake, thofe that wilfully give them theoccafion are unfit reprovers of them: And if men for worldly ends or by error, will corrupt and defile a Church to the utmoft that is confident with lawful Communion (or neer it) they may make the queftion whether their Communion he lawful,too hard for underftandings.Every one cannot tell whether one in a fwoon be alive or dead,and fome may bury him too Jiaftily.

Stretch not my fimilitude beyond my meaning, If a Gentleman of the game mould by wilful fin, get the Lues Venerea^ and the cafe.be difputed whether his wife may feparate from him, or if he beat her once-a week, if

(he

[<s?3

fhe will not daily eat that which makes her grievous fick, and he doth it to exercife his Authority, another may better plead againfl: her departure than he: If it be a fault in her fo to fave her felf, what is it in him to de-flroy or abufe her?

If we be forbidden to take poyfon, and one will caufelefly command us to take a doubtful thing, as Nightlhade, Hemlock, Auripgmentwn, &c. and then condemn us asdifobedient for refufing, he is the unfitted perfbn to condemn us. If it be lawful to avoid a houfe that hath the Plague, a man is excufable that miftakes the fpotted Fever for it.

Were your Congregations but full of perfons that had the fcabs of the fmall Pox not dryed away, and one went to a founder Congregation for fear of infection, not at all condemning you, he might be born with. If in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign, when abundance of Papift Priefts ftaid in the Churches for their Benefices, a man had quietly gone from them to the Nonconformifts, I could not blame him •, though he had not been fure that they were not changed.

And I dill fay that if fuch erre by too much care to avoid fin and fave their fouls, i. It isa far greater error to give them the occafion. 2. And in fuch as you to fay, that therefore they mull be fo far forfaken, as that none may preach to them. If I may preach to no erring people, 1.1 mull preach to none. 2. Or be no Phyfician to any that are fick.

And I mud fay, that though I found no call to gather any together as a Church, and give them the Sacrament-, I cannot fay that no other had fuch, unlefsl had heard them all fpeak for themfelves: yea I fee fuch notorious need in many places, that 1 dar^ not blame them.

Sett. 5. And now Reader, Qh. whether the Dr. hath truly dated the cafe between him and me \ and whether you can expect truth and edification in his handling of a falfe-flated cafe.

Thcfe are the queflions which, as my accufer, (in his Book) he fhould have handled, had truth been his defign. 1. tl Whether for one that "holdeth fo much Communion with their Churches as I have done, and "here deferibe , it be finful feparation to Preach in and Communicate "with the Afiemblies of Nonconforming, or mixt ones, as I have done. ? Cl 2. Whether to deny this to be finful Separation (or Separation as com-"mor.ly taken for Schifm) be di (ingenious, and worfe than theirs that open-a ly renounce their Communion.

Sett. 6. Three things he faith, p. 94. we cannot deny, 1. That there is no reafon of Separation becanfe of the Doctrine of their Church.

Anfv9. 1. We diflinguifn of Separation : There is no reafon to lepa-rate from you as no Church, or further than we do } there is reafon to

deny

deny our content, i .To your forefaid Do&rine of all baptized dying'Infants undoubted falvation, not excepting thofe of Atheifts and Infidels. 2.T0 your included Do&rine implyed in-your Impofitions, viz." That if a man * c have unlawfully made a Vow and Oath to endeavour in his Place and Calling to reform fome corruptions in Church-Government, yea ortore-li pent of his fin and oppofe Popery, Prophanenefs, and Schifm; there is "no obligation on him from that Oath and Vow to do it. Thefe and fuch other Do&rines we feparate from, fo far as to reject them.

Sett. 7. His fecond fuppofedConceflion is, Q That there is no other reafott of Separation becaufe of the terms of our Communion, than what was from the beginning of the Reformation.

Anfw. 1. There are in my judgment no common reafons for going further from you than we do, nor to juftifie that which is commonly known by the name of Separation. But there are many and great reafons to juftifie ourmeafure of difTent and miniftration •, and to fay that [_we grant there are no more reafons now than were then, ] is too bold an untruth. There is more reafon, 1. From the quality of the things impofed. 2. From the defignsand drift of the Impofition. 3. From the effects. 4. From the aggravation of Conformity as in the Church that we muft communicate with. 5. From the things which give us a fuller caufe for our Preaching and AfTemblies. viz.. 1. The late general contrary Church State and Engagement to it. 2. The Plague. 3. The burning of the Churches. 4. The Kings Licenfe and Clemency. 5. The number and quality of them that feek our helps. Of thefe-briefly in order. 1. As to the things impofed now which were not then.

1. The VeftryAdt was not then made, by which fo confiderable a part of your Parifh Churches as the Veftries, are to renounce all obligations to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the Church, from the Oath and Vow called the Covenant: So that all Reformation of Church Government as fo fworn, was thus renounced by them who in a fort re* prefent the Parifh Church.

2. The Ad of Uniformity had not then impofed the fame declarative Renunciation of all fuch obligation on all the Minifters and Schoolmafters in England, as it now doth.

3. The Corporation A& was not then in being, which conftituteth all the Officers in power in all Cities and Corporations, of fuch only as declare, £ that there is no obligation from the [aid Oath at all, ]■ not excepting fo much as the fworn duties of oppofing Popery, Prophanenefs, and Schifm, to repent of fin and amend our lives. And Iffwearing and vowing a*

gainji Schifm, no whit bind men (if the Oath were but unlawfully impofed,

C«5]

fed, why (hould the'Dr. make fo great a matter of it, and think that his reafonings (hould make men afraid of Gods fervice, if he will but call it Schifm.

4. None of thefe Acts then required men to profefs and fubfcribe, that there is from that Vow or Oath no fuch Obligation on any other perfon; and (b to become Vouchers for the Souls and Confciences of many hundred thouiands whom we never faw \ even thofe Parliament men that were not forced to it, but impofed it on others, when we know not in what fenfe they took it.

5. The Re-ordination of Minifters ordained by Presbyteries was not then required, and made a neceffary condition of their Ministration and Church Relation, (even by them that confefs Re-ordination unlawful, and therefore plainly intimate the nullity of the firft.)

6. The Aft of Uniformity was not then made, which requireth all Minifters publickJy to declare their Affent and Confent to all things contained in, and prefer ibed by the Liturgy, Book^ofOrdination, (though part of this was in a Canon.)

7. The falfe Rule for finding Eafler-day was not then to be aflented and confented to, as a condition of the Miniftry.

8. Nor the new Doctrine or Article of Faith, [of the undoubted certainty by Gods word, that baptized dying Infants are faved y ~] (without any exception of the children of Atheifts, &c.) For the old words at Confirmation fas many Drs. of the Church have (hewed) only meant that no-thing elfe was neceflary on the Churches part, that is, not Confirmation.

9. The word ZPaftor~\ as applyed to Parilh Minifters diftinft from Curates, was not then blotted out of moft places in the Liturgy ; nor the twentieth of Acts, as applied to Presbyters, left out, (Take heed to your fclves and the Flock, &c.) in plain defign to alter the Office and Pa-rifh Churches.

10. The Oxford Oath was not then impofed, to banifh Minifters above five miles from all Cities, and Corporations, and Places, where they had of late years preached ; fo that their old Flock or Friends (yea, Wives and Children that could not follow them) might not fo much as fee or hear fuch Minifters in their Families, or familiar converfe that would have come to the publick Churches: And all Nonconforming Minifters that took not the Oath, were thereby forbidden to come to the Parifh Churches in all Cities, Corporations, or Places aforefaid, though their example might have drawn many (as mine did where I wasj

11. Minifters and Corporations and Veftries, were not then bound to fwear or fublcribe, that it is unlawful on any pretence whatsoever to rejifi any commijjioned by the King \ when the Keeper of his Seal may fign Commiffions tofeize on the KingsForts, Garrifons, Navies, and Treafuries, to deliver up the Kingdoms to Foreigners, to deftroy Parliaments, Cities, and Laws : I am fore Hooker , BUfon, or Arch-Bilhop Abbot, fubfcribed not this, nor were fuch Conformifts. Are all thefe no difference of cafe ?

Sett. 8. There is 2. a great difference in the drift and tendency of the Impofltions. They were at firfl: to quiet a Popifh Nation, while the true Doctrine took poffeifion and rooting , and to avoid the cavils of thofe Papifts that charged the Reformers with forfaking all the Church: But what they have been ufed for thefe laft forty or fifty years, I leave the Reader to" judge.

1. By the Complaints of all the Parliaments, fincethen, faveone.

2. By theHiftory of Arch-Bilhop L^'sTryal.

3. By Dr. Heylin's Hiftory of his Life.

4. By the writings of Divines, f\\ch as Mr. Thomdifa Dr. Parker, Dr. Tierce^ Arch-Biihop Bromhall, and many more fuch •, and by the Papifts hiftorical collection out of fuch.

See Dr. Heylirfs defcription of the Reconciling Plot, Anno 1639.

Arch Bifbop Bromhalfokh, Vindicat. p. ip. &c. " [ Whereas Mr. Baxter "doth accufe GrotillS as aPapifi,lthtvk he doth him wrong, nay I am confident

Cc he doth him wrong And 1 have read all that he aliedgeth to prove it,but

"without any conviction or alteration in my judgment. 1 will endea-

tl vour to give fome further light what was the Religion of Grotim .• He t: was in affection a friend, and in defire a true Son of the Church (a) of "England: And on his Deathbed recommended that Church, as it was le-i( gaily eftablifhed to his Wife, and fuch other of his Family as were then " about him, obliging them by his Authority to adhere firmly to it.

The faidBifhop (though noPapift) faith, pag. 81. "(p]t\ know n ° u members of the Greek Church,who give them (the Papifts) either more "orlefsthan I do : (Compare this with the Council at Florence, and the 0 Patriarch Jeremiah's Writings, and the prefent fence of the Greek

(a) 7 he new Church ftna Btjhop Laud's change, (b; Note that the Bifhops Boo^ as againfl me, runs upon a mere fitfion, p. 76. that I traduce him as a Fattor for Popery, when J had not a word to that purpofe; yea exprejly excepted him by name, though I argued againft his too. mr approach. tt _ f

n "Church

[*7]

"Church, and we may know his mind :) But my ground is not the au-" thority of the Greek Church,but the authority of the Primitive Fathers, "and General Councils, which are the representative Body of the Uni-tf verfal Church, (c) P. 82. [ To wave their laft four hundred years "determinations, is implicitly to renounce all the neceflary caufes of " this great Schifm. (d) And to reft fatisfied with their old Patriarchal " power and dignity, and Primacy of Order, (which is another part of "my Proportion) is to quit the modern Papacy, name and thing, (e)

"Pag. 84, 85. [ That Chriftians may joyn together in the fame pub-

"lick devotions and fervice of ChrihV 1. If the Biihop of Rome

" were reduced from the Pniverfality of Soveraign Jurifdictioii, jure di-" ww, to his frincipinm mtttatu, and his Court regulated by the Canons "of the Fathers, which was the fence of the Councils otGmftance and " Bafd, andisdefired by many Roman Catholicks, as well as we. '2. If "the Creed were reduced to what they were in the time of the four firft ** General Councils, with only neceflary explications, and thofe made "by the Authority of a General Council. 3. And fome things whence

"offences have been given or taken,be put out of the Divine Offices

"Whether Chriftians ought not to live in holy Communion, and come "to the fame publick worfhip of God, free from all fchifmaticai fepa-" rations, (f)

"Pag. 93. 1. That St. Ptter had a fixed Chair atAntioch, and after at

"&?we,isatruth. 2. That St. Peter had a Primacy of Order among

"the Apoftles, is the unanimous voice of the Primitive Church r

"3. Some Fathers and Schoolmen who were no fworn Vaffais to the Roman "Bifhop, do affirm that this Primacy of Order is fixed to the Chair of u St. Peter.

"P. 97. Though the Bifliop of Rome had fuch a Primacy of Order by "Divine Right or Humane, it would not prejudice us at all, nor is worth u the contending about. But, 1- It is not by Divine Right in foro cxteriorc. " 2. Norelfewhere (interiore) but executive according to the Canons. (g)

<c

(c) No fuch thing, but of the Churches within the Empire then, (d) was there no neceffarj cauG till after, An. 1 200 ? (e) So then theft Prottftant Bifhops give the Pope Patriarchal Power, and Primacy of Order, and as much as the Greeks : But 1. They had by Councils 0] old no Patriarchal Power over othtr Kjngdoms out of the Empire, z. Obedience to the Pope as a Patriarchy is againft the Oath of Supremacy, and on the matter little difftrttb our caje from obeying him as Pope. (() So that this Arcb-Btfhop alfo was fet on thepiow dtjign ofjoyning with thtPapifts on thefe terms, and may not we have leave to worjhip God on better terms ? (gj That is, 1. The Pope is not to govern us arbitrarily, but by Canons, (uhicb what they art is hardly known.) 2. And all will be Schifmatic^s, tkatfo obey him not.

K 2 Whereas

Whereas I faid that Proteftants that confent not to the Popes Patriarchal Power over us in the Weft, will fall under the reproach of Schifm-, he faith, p. 104. &c. [Muft a man quit his juft right be^ufefomediflike it <* Their diflike is but fcandai taken, but the quitting of that whkh is right for their fatisfaction, fhould be fcandai given, (h) If they be forced to fall under the reproach of Schifmaticks, it isby their own wilful humors, or erroneous Confcience, other force there is none. 2. Whether is the worfe and more dangerous condition, to fall under the reproach of Schifm, or to fall into Schifm it felf ? Whofoever {hall oppofe the juft power of a lawful Patriarch lawfully proceeding, is a material Schifmatick at leaft.— P. 107. It's unfound arguing to deny a man his juft right for fear left he may abufe it, as a Patriarchal Power was the Bifhop of Rome's juft right. They who made the Bifhop of Rome a Patriarch were the Primitive Fathers, not excluding the Apoftles and Chriftian Emperors and Oecumenical Councils: what Laws they made in this cafe we are bound to obey for Confcience fake, till lawfully repealed by vertueoftheLaw of Chrift. (i)

Much more he hath to this purpofe, and />. 112. for uniting the Church Catholickon humane terms, and p. 117. againft the peoples liberty of reading and interpreting Scripture*, and after at large that concord muft be on humane terms,/>.i22. [Grotim judgment was, and mine is moderate,"] but had not this man been fo owned by many now, I had not cited fo much of his. And for Grotiw, I have over and over cited his own words, and fliall not now repeat them: And was this the drift of Conformity of old ?

3. Sell. 9. Another difference is in the effects-; for with us, things not univerfally or abiblutely determined by God, are to be ufed or refufed as they do more good or hurt- 1. Then open Preaching and gathering Af-fembliesby Nonconformifts, would have greatly offended the Prince; but our King at B--eda> and in h s three firft Declarations, and by his Li-cenfes, and connivence, fhewed fuch wifdom and clemency, as intimated

(h) 1. thus for union with Rome, all Protectants mutt pafs for felf made Schifmaticks, that cannot obey the Pope as Patriarch: And doth this tend indeed to Concord ? It would open Protectants eyes, did I but tell you all that is in the Canons, which the Pope as our Patriarch muft rule us by, as theft Doclors do defire. (0 i- if this Doftrine be true, no wonder thit Mr. Thomd'ikc thought we could not juft ifie our Reformation, till ne alter the Oath of Supremacy, then we are bound in confcience to a Foreign Jurifdiclion. 1. lhavi fully proved many great errors and fins to be decreed by many of the Councils, by which the Pope, as Patriarchy muft rule m all. $. is it any eafier to do evil In obedience to a Patriarch than a Pope ? 4. In my I aft Boo^ againft W. John-ion, alias Tenet, ihavefdiy confuted alt that he faith of the universality of Councils, and the. Patriarchs power over the Abaffines, and others without the Ewpre, and fhewed they were then aU but in one Empire^ as the Arth-Bifbop of Canterbury is in England.

left

lefs difpleafure at our liberty. 2. It would have deprived mod of the Nonconforming s 0f their hopes of publick liberty in the Pai i(h Churches, which molt of them enjoyed; but we had neither poflefTion nor expectation of fuch a thinge 3.It would have hindred and hazarded the progrefs of the Reformation, but our preaching hath done more to flop the progrefs of the Syncretifm, or of Popery : Others know this whatever you frivoloully fay againft it. 4. Few of the mod: ignorant that needed them would then have left the Pariih Churches, to hear Nonconform ills in private-, but now many will come to us that cannot get in to the Paridi Churches: Other different effects may be named.

Sett. 10. 4. And though Iaccufe you not, you that unjuftly (aid before that I made you feem a company of perjured Villains^ feems to think your fclf that the fore alledged caufes make many of the people think little better of fome ; and a Church thought to confift of fiich Pallors and Veftries, &c. (eflential parts) differ from thofe that do not. 2. And the multitude of Atheifts and filthy livers, and thethoufandsof Noncommunicants who are ftill taken for real members of your Churches, have now (food out againft fo long means and patience, that the reafons of longer waiting for Re for-rration, much differs from theirs in the beginning. 3. The Canon at firft did not ipfo facto, excommunicate all that do but profefs themfelves Non-conformifts, as fince it did. 4. The Biihops and their Canoneers had not then call out :oco, norneer fo many Preachers as now, and lb did not fo much tempt the people to flee from them as perfecutors, thorns, thiftle?, or wolves. 5. When one Bifhop call any out, fome other ufually would endure them, but now it was not 16. 6. The people faw daily, that you bore with thofe as no Schiimaticks, that never communicated nor ufed to hear you, even the greater half of many Parilhes, and took them for Church members as is faid \ and therefore they had reafon to hope that they that communicated fomewhere with Protectants efpecially that communicated alfo with your own Churches, were as good Members, and by good Pallors, would be as well endured.

Sett. 11. 5-LaftIy, The forenamed caufes of our preaching much differ. 1. We faw the Kingdom (though under ufurpers; engaged by Vow, Practice, and about fixteen years poflellion and cuftom, to another way ; and who could expect that a Law fhould prefently change them all, and allure them of abfoLtion. 2. They that conformed were the more averfe, to fee about fix thoufand Minifters that had gone the other way, fo fuddenly changers to declare afTent and confent to a Book which they never faw. 3. The cafeof thePlague,the burning of the Churches,theKingsLicenfes,c>c. I named before, which verily made a great difference. 4. And the numbers

that

that call to us for help makes a great difference, when then they that needed them moft,did not defire it.Thefe are fome differences.

Sett. 12. p. 95- He faith, There is no reafon offeparation becaufe of the do-Urine of our Church, ~] Anfw- But now you have corrupted it, in the Article of Infants undoubted falvation before defcribed, (and before by the doftrines about Prelacy, Godfathers power and duty, Impofitions, &c. imply ed in your practical Canons J there is great caufe of Nonconformity.

» P. p6. Repeatetb that great miftake, that [ there are no alterations, in our own judgment, which make the terms of Communion harder than before."} Anfvt. What hope then of being underltood. ? how far is this from truth ? The terms are far harder to Minifters ? and to the people they are eafier in fome things (as amending fome tranflations, &c.) but it is not to them a fmall matter to make fuch a change of their Pallors, as in too many Pantiles is made. TheBilhoppromifed them at Kiderminfter > when he forbad me to preach, that they fhould be no lofers by the change: They faid (and I had great reafon to believe them) that the Succeflbr knew fo little of the fence of the Creed, and preach'd fo rarely (four times a year) lam loth to tell you how, that they durft not be guilty of encouraging him in undertaking the charge of Souls, nor durft take him for their Paftor: And the great increafe of buildings in London, fliuts thoufands now out of fuch Pariih Churches, who could have got in heretofore , and fome more differences are before implyed. p. 97. As other Churches own your Churches, fo do we, though not your impofed fins.

Sett. 13. p. I was in hope to have met with fome anfwer to my importunate QueftionJ^JFte would yon have the many fcore thoufandt do, that cannot come withm your Churches to heat ? ] But no importunity will prevail for fb fmall a matter with inexorable men. But he faith, 1. that \_this U but a pre fence. ] 2. And that C no man denyeth that more places are defir able, &c. ] Anf. 1. It is me that he is now accufing! why doth he barely fay and not prove, that it's but a pretence ? Ineverfetup a Meeting place, but in St. Martins Parilh, where are faid to be forty thoufand more than can come within the Church: And when they would not fuffer me to ufe it, I gladly left it to the ufe of the Parifh Minifter. 1 preach now twice a week elfewhere, but both the places are in Neighbourhoods,where many thoufands cannot hear in the Parilh Churches. What if other men have other fufficient rea-fons (as the utter incapacity of fome Minifters, or the like) doth it follow that my own cafe and profeffed reafon is a meer pretence I why then did I ufe no publick preaching, while Hived in fuch Villages where the people might go to Church > and why did 1 conftantly twice a day lead them thither, though fome difliked it ? 2.The queftion is not whether moreChnrch-

es are deferable ? But where they are not, whether many thoufands mud live like Atheifts, without all publick teaching or Divine Worfhip, for fear of being called Schifmaticks. Is not this plainly to chufe damnation ? If the Gofpel be needlefs, why do we vvifn the Heathens had it? Why fubfcribe you againfl mens hopes of being faved in all their feveral Religions ? If Church worfhip be needlefs, why is a Clergy to be fo honoured, and maintained at fo dear a rate f Aud why do you make fuch a ftir with Separatifts to bring them to your Churches ? Can men, not blinded by intereft, chufe but wonder, that fo many thoufands in a Parifh (hould be taken for Church Members, and live quietly, that come not to any Church, or never communicate with any, and yet that godly perfons who hear and communicate with their old tryed Paftors (yea with fuch as communicate with you ) mould be preach'd and written againft as Schifmaticks, and judged to that which fome endure. Did this Dr. think that to drop in the cafe of other men, when he was at a lofs, would make good his charge againft me, and fuch as I: Mr. Tombes and Mr. Williams preached other doctrine ; do I do fo, and have you proved it f

But feeing he wiil needs bring the cafe to Kidermwfier, whether I would fuffer Mr. Tombes to gather a Congregation, I muft not balk it \ but advife him hereafter to keep himfelf at a greater diftance, and not to put his own followers, who are wiHing enough to believe him, upon utter impoflibili-ties : He fped better with them when he laid the fcene an hundred years backward : or as far offas New England-^t him know then all thefe things in confutation of his hiftorical fuppofition. i .That Kidermhfier Parifh hath but about three thoufand or four thoufand fouls, and the Church fo fit (with five Galleries) that all may hear: But hisParifh isfaid to have twenty thoufand fouls, of which not four thoufand can hear. 2. Aconfiderable part of Kiderminfter Parifh, called Ridnd, being at Bcwdly Bridge end, and two miles from Kiderminfter , (and fome Villages more J ufually were Mr. Tombes his hearers at Bewdley, and I never blamed them. 3. After him, they were Hearers and Communicants to his SuccefTor Mr. Oafland, and he took the Paftoral care of them fthat defired any •, ) and I was fo far from blaming him, that I greatly thanked him, and we w r cre far from difagreeing. 4. Though Mr. Tombes and I differed in the doctrine of Infant Baptifm, I gave him leave ( yea and the Quakers too J in the publick Church many hours together, to fay all that they coald for their opinions in the hearing of my Auditors, and none of them ever won one of them that I heard of, (yet the Dr. fuppofeth fome great danger of their peoples fedndtion, if they hear fuch as I that never were accufed of falfe Doctrine. 5. But he hath chofen an inftance yet neerer our prefent cafe; Another part of Kider-

minflrr

mtifier Parilh is neer three miles off, at a Village called Mitton; where at theChappei I found a Curate called Mr. Turner, infamous for drunkennefs, fighting, living on unlawful marriage, and for grofs ignorance: (I tryed him, and perceived not that he underftood much of the Creed J 1 fent them a worthy Preacher once a day firft, and twice after, and declared my utter diflent to Mr. Turner's Miniftry •, yet becaufe fome of the Church of England would have him, and he would, againft my will, read the Common Prayer to them once a day, I hindred them not from their choice, but they went on. 6. And the fequeftred Vicar in the Town (Mr. Dance) was generally taken to be as ignorant as he, fo that when once a quarter he went into the Pulpit, his own Wife, though of the Church of England, would for (hame go out of Church: Yet did I never forbid him to preach, and he oft read the Common Prayer at Sir Ralph Clares, and I fuppofe gave them the Sacrament. 7. I had opportunity then to have hindred all this if I would have ufed Magiftrates: They were both by Proclamation to remove two miles oft but neither of them once removed fo much as out of their houfes, nor did I defire it •, but we are by law driven five miles off. 8. Mr. Vance had forty pounds a year allowed him, and Mr. Turner never had a groat of his ancient Salary diminilhed, when another was put in, but the other paid otherwife -, but we ask you nothing for aflifting you. 9.1 had never one hundred pounds to my felf, and therefore could maintain no more help •, (two Affiftants I had; but have you no more to maintain At fiftants? Now judge how well your hiftoricallnftances ferve your turn*

And befides the number of Souls, very many Parifhes are fa wide, that diftance forbiddeth many to come to the publick Parilh Churches: Some Villages are five miles, fome four, and many three miles off-, and how can Families, efpecially Women, Children, and the aged, and efpecially in winter, go fo far twice for oncej a day : And muft all thefe forbear to hear, or to worfhip God, for fear of being counted Schifmaticks?

Becaufe the Dr. appealeth to my felf, I ferioufly profefs that when 1 had a Paftoral Charge, (which was but in one placej 1 would have been very thankful to any one that differed no more than the Dr. and I do, that would have gathered a Congregation of fuch, as for number or diftance could not have come into the Parifh Church*, and the cafe of diftance did occafion the honeft fcparation aforefaid, though the cafe of numbers did not: Yea when hundreds defired Communion according to the Common Prayer, I never offered to hinder any of them from taking it where and how they would.

Seel, 14. P. 99. He ftith [This is Mr. B3Xter's own Cafe—when he is {inched with the Point of Separation, thm he declares, that his hearers are

tht

C733

defame with ours ; at leafi ten or twenty for one. —// this be true, then what fuch mighty help is this to our great Parifoes, what colour or pretence is there from the largenefs of them, that he Jhould preach to the very fame men that come to our Church. — Then how come they to be lawful when few or none ofthofe many thoufands ever come. — to fpeakjojtly this pretence is not becoming Mr. Baxters Sincerity.

u4n[. what hope of Juflicefrom fuch Judges ? Or what hope of profiting fuch Readers by Difpute, as cannot anfwer fuch as this themfelves. When I began to preach at St. James's the neighbours aflured me, that many of the hearers had been at no Church of four years; but they were Members of the PariuVChurch, and that fome of them got into the Church, but rarely : and fome liked it not fo well as to be forward feek-ers. When I was driven thence, I preached a while where MxWadfworth was in Southward There were fome people that had adhered to their old ejected worthy Paftor,and fome that I knew not. Since then I preach once on the Lords day in another mans Pulpit, as near St. James's as I could, and the fame perfons that heard me there do (many of them) come hither, and fome others: of all whom I know very few, but by report. On Thurfdays I preach a Lecture in another mans Pulpit to perfons of whom I know not many : but report faith, that fome of them joyn not ordinarily with the Parifh Minifters, and fome do, and moft judge it lawful, and fometime, but feldom pradlife it .• And thofe are of two forts: fome that prefer the Nonconforming Miniftry, and fome that finding the Parifh Churches crowded, and many prefentare out of hearing, do feldom go thither, though they are of the Parifh Churches, and diffent not from their Miniftry or Worfhip; fome fay [we have no Seats and cannot ftandQ fome fay [we cannot hear the Mnifter : ] fome fay, Thonfands ft ay away that can get no room.and will go no whither elfe y and when we can go elfewhere, we wiX not crowdinfirft- to kgep them out, thatfo much need Others muft be out if we be in. Thefe are your own Church-Members: they hear you fometimes, but feldom. Others that hear you conftantly on the Lords days, will think that a Sermon on the week days may be needful to them whatever you think or fay againft it. And is it mconfiftem with Sincerity here to plead the peoples neceffity. It's well that our Sincerity is not to ftand or fall to your judgment. Did I fay that my hearers are conftant hearers in your Churches * Can you perfwade the World,while you deny not that half or a quarter of your own Parifh cannot hear you (much lefs many greater Pa-rifhesj that if fome of them do but fometimes crowd in, perhaps once in many months or weeks, by coming with the firft, and do but dwell iu the Parifh and own you, that they have no need to hear or worfhip God

C/4]

publickly all the reft of the year, and to pretend fuch need becometk not Sincerity.

2. And as to thofe that meet in lefler Parifhes, you thought not meet to take notice of my anfwer, afligning many Reafons, which I will not repeat, any further than to tell you. i. That many Churches there are unbuilt. 2. Many come from the greater Parilhes to them: and fome have other Reafons.

Sett. 15. P. 102. HQ&ith[Mr.BaxterbathawholeChapter (Vkap.i^i.) tf Reafons againft the Communion of Laymen with our Church."] Anfw. You are unhappy in Hiftory, though it be your ftrength. There's not a word to prove it unlawful for Laymen to have Communion with your Churches, but only the Matter of Fad: named, which is fuppofed to the Controverfie-, But it being cunningly worded by you, it may be by [Reafons againft Communion with our Churches^] you meant but as I did ( Reafons for Nonconformity in thofe particular Atts: ) But do you not your felf all-a-Jong fuppofe and plead, that though we conform not, yet we fhould hold Communion with you. Why call you then the Reafons of Nonconformity, Reafons againft Communion.

Sett. 16. P. 103. He adds [in the fame Books he faith y it is Schif-maticalin a Church to deny Baptifm without the tranfient Sign of the Crojs, erforwant of God-fatherS) &C. or to deny Communion to fuch who fcruple kneeling. Now if the Church be Schifmatical, then thofe who feperate in thefe things are not.

Anfw. 1. Say yon fo ! Then we are not only quit,- but further quit than we can own our felves. I undertake to prove that it may be Schifm to feparate from a Church that is guilty of fome Schifmatical Acts and Im-pofitions. And it needs no proof, but the plain Hiftory, and their Ac-cu&tions of one another ; that there are few, if any Churches on Earth that are not guilty of fomewhat that is Schifmatical, in Eaft 0 Weft^North or South, in Africk, Afia, Europe or America \ Greeks, Mufcovites^ Jacobites, Abaflines, Neftorians, Armenians, Georgians, Mengrelians, Cir-caffians, Papifts, Lutherans, Calvinifts, Prelaticalls, Presbyterians, In-dependants, Anabaptifts, &c. And muft we feparate from them all. 2. Verily Sir, denying Perfons, Chrifiendom and Church-Communion are great things. And if a Crofi and a gefture forbidden by the Ancient Councils in Adoration every Lords Day, be now matters fo weighty, as for them to deny Chriftendome and Communion,for fhame call them Indifferent no more: one would verily think that when you writ your Defence of Archbifhop Laud you nad been of another mind,if words are any notifying Signs of your mind. 3. Other Paftors may be ufed, in fuch inftances

without

without feparating from you, Sir thefe are not impoflibilities to peaceable men. In both the places where I formerly preached, a publicly Mi-nifter and a frivate lovingly joyn as afliftants, one doing that part which the other cannot. And they all live in peace.

Seft. * 7. I am next aflaulted Pag. 1 \o< I fay [The Benefit of Chriftian Love and Concord may make it be ft, for certain feafons y to joyn even in defective Modes of Worftnp, as Chrift did, &C. though the leaft defective muft be chofen when no fitch Reafons fw ay the other way.~\ Reader, is not this true ? Will not the denyal of this drive us from the Parifh Churches, and from almoft all, or require us caufelefly to choofe fins of omiffion. Would you not take him for a feparatift that is againft this. But he faith [_Jnd hence we take notice 1. That no Obligation to the Peace and Vnity of this Church as they arc Members of it, doth bring them to this occafional Communion with it\ but a certain Romantick. Fancy of Catholick Vnity by which thefe Catholickfientlemen thinly themfelves no more obliged to the Communion of this Church, then of the Armenian or Abiffine Churches : Only it happens that our Church is fo much nearer.

Anfw. 1. This is not true : For 1. we take this Church to be far left corrupt than the Armenian or Abiffme. 2. We have more Obligations to it from the civil Magistrates, Laws and Protection, &c. 2. Is nearnefs fuch a trifle with you. How much do you differ from Mr. Cheny. Tell us,why wefhould be of your Parifh Church rather than of one an hundred miles of£ but for nearnefs and Cohabitation •, wby elfe of old had each City its own Church ? 3. If Catholick, Vnity become a Romantick Fancy. Is this the fame man that wrote the Defence of Archbifhop Laud, we are not afhamed of the title of Catholick. 4. If I name one Obligation to Communion with you, is it a learned Note to gather that I deny all other ? 5. When prove you that I am only for occafional Communion when I have fo long prattifed conftant Communion with you? Thefe are reafons fuitable to your caufe.

Sell. 18. He adds [_As k him what Church he is a Member of: If he anfwer, he could have occafional Communion with all tolerable Churches,but waLofixedMember of none, would they (if he were at Jerufalem) take fuch a manfor a Chriftian ? What ? a Chriftian and a Member of no Church. And I much doubt whether they would admit Juch an one to occafional Communion^&c. Anfw. 1. Wonderful ! Who would have thought that this man had been fo much for the Principles of Separation (more than the Independants) In his defence of Laud he maintaineth that the Power of the Keys it formally in the whole Church , and given to Peter as their Reprefentative ( w r hich is not true, for it was given only to Paftors as fuch and not to the Laity.) And now he would make that man no Chriftian that is no fixed Member of fome particular Church. Let us examine whether this be true.

L 3 Chap."

CHAP. V L

Q^ Whether he be no Christian that is not a fixed Member of

a particular Church *

Sett. i. TJE that is a true Member of the Univerfal Church, which fl is Chrifts Body, is a true Chriftian : But many are Members of the Univerfal Church, which are no fixed Members of any particular Church. Ergo.

2. All that are rightfully Baptized are Chriftians, (for it is their Chri-fteningj But many rightfully Baptized are no fixed Members of any particular Church. Ergo,

3. He that hath all the Eflentials of Chriftianity is a Chriftian : But many that are no fixed Members of a particular Church have all the Effen-tials of Chriftianity. Ergo.

4. Afoniore, They thai; are not fomuch as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church, though Baptifed, are not unchriften-ed for want of fuch Memberfhip. But many Baptized perfon are not fo much as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church. Ergo. Inftances.

1. The Eunuch baptized in his Travails Atts. 9, was only a Member of the Church Univerfal. 2. Thofethat were converted by Frumen-tim and Edefws when there was no particular Church ; And all that are firft converted in any Infidel or Heathen Land before any Church be formed. 3. Thofe that by Shipwrack are caft on heathen Countries where no Churches are. 4. Travellers that go from Country to Countries (as Lythgow did nineteen years, and others many.) And I think he unhappily named Jerufalem, where Travellers come that are of no fixed Church (unlefs he in that alfo be a Superindependant, and think that men may be many years Members of a Church many hundred miles off, which they have noperfonal communion with./ %. Merchants and Faclors, who are called to dwell long among Infidels where are no Churches. 6. Embaf-fadors who by their Princes are fent to refide among fuch, much of their lives. 7. Wanderers that have no fixed habitations , as many Pedlers and other poor wandering Tradefmen, and loofe Beggars that have no Dwelling. 8. Thofe thot live among Papifts or any other Chriftians whoimpofe fome fin as a condition of communion. 9. Thofe that live among fuch Chriftians as have no true Paftors who are conftitutive parts

* of

Of particular Churches. Some being incapable through infuffidency,fon:c by Herefie and ibme for want of a true Call: Such as by Mr Dodwelh Doctrine moft of the Chriftian World are, for want of uninterrupted rrue Epifcopal Ordination, i o. Thofe who are fubjects to fuch as permit them not to be fixed Members.- As Wives hindred by Husbands, Children by Parents, and fome Subjects violently hindred by Princes *, who yet allow them tranfient Communion. And verily a man would think by the writings of many Conformifts, that they took it for a Duty to o-bey a Prince in fuch a cafe, j i. Thofe who live where Church-corruptions are not fo great as to make tranfient Communion unlawful, but (b great as to make fixed communion feem to be a culpable confent; If I come in travel to a Church of Strangers, I am not bound to examine what their Difciflme is, what their Lives be, or how their Fafiors are cAiled : But where I am fixed I am more.bound to know thefe, and if I find them exclude Difcipline, live wickedly, and have unlawful Pallors, I may in fome cafes be a partaker of the fin if I fix among them. 12. They that live •inatimeandplaceof Schifm and diffraction, driving who (hall prevail, and condemning each other, all follovungfeveral Factions, and needing Reconcilers: it may for a time become in prudence the duty of peacemakers, to own no Faction, nor to be more of one Church than of a-nother, while he feeth that it will do more hurt than good •-, And thpfe that wait in hope as the Nonconformifts now do, to fee whether their Rulers will reftore them to reformed Pari(h Churches, may at once in prudence find it needful,neither to fix as Members in fome Parifh Churches till reformed (in the Teachers at lead) nor to feem to beSeparatifts by gathering new Churches. In none of all thefe cafes isamanunchriftened, nor fchifmatical, for being no fixed member ot any Church befides the Univerfal. And as it is the ill hap of thefe men commonly to ftrike themfelves, I doubt they will prove Gmwahimfdf no Cbriftian, by this Rule, who for many years before he died , they fay joyned with no particular Church, as a fixed member. And I know not well what particular Church they make the King a Member of.

Seel. 2. To his Queftions Pag. 3. \jVcre we -not B.zptizc I into this Church, and do you not denounce Memberjlnp ? This U fiarce a civility. I anfwer, 1. This Church ! which Church do you mean ? I was not Baptized into St. Gi/w'snor St. Andrews Parifh Church, but into one above an hundred milesoff, andyetmy removal made me no culpable Scpararift. Or doth he mean, This Viocefan Church ? No •, I was Baptized in the Diocefs of Lichfield. Doth he mean This National Church \ as it is fuppofed a political body conftituted of the Ecclefialtical Governing and Governed

Parts

£78]

Parts, he faith there is no fiich Church of England } but that It inferreth Popery to aflert fuch. But if he equivocate here, and mean not by a Church as in the reft, but either a chriflian Kingdom, or an agreeing Affo-ciationof many Churches, lam ftill a fixed member of fuch a Kingdom, and of fuch an AfTociation in all things neceffary to Churches and Chri-ftian Communion. 2. But Baptifm as fuch entred me only into the Uni-verfal Church •, much lefs did it fix me in any other. I was Baptized where I was to ftay but a little while. And this phrafe of {being Baptized into our Church^} is to me of ill found or intimation. Bellarmine faith that all that are baptized are interpretatively thereby engaged to the Pope: I was baptized in aParifh, and in a Diocefs, and in a Chriflian Kingdom; but not lb into them, as to be obliged to continue under that Prieft or Bifhop or in that Kingdom. And my Baptifm I hope did not oblige me to every Canon, Ceremony, Form, or Sin of the aflbciated Churches in England, abufively by him called one Church. 3. And unhappily it is not meer Independancy that he is ftill pleading for, but fome extremes which the moderate Independants difclaim, viz.. That a member of their Churches is fb tyed to them, that they may not remove to another without their confent. And am I fo tyed ? to what, to Parochial, or to the Diocefan, or to theaffociation of Englifn Churches. If it had been tothc Sphies, I would fain know whether their things called by them Indiffe-r*ffttfpecifiethem.

Sett. 3. P. hi, 112. He yet more pleads as for Separation [why then above once or twice ? why Should I fo countenance defethive Worfhip and not rather reprove it by total forbearance of Communion,"] &c. j4nfw» My Reafons I told him, becaufe the accidents may continue which made it a Duty, but I cannot hinder others from yielding to his arguments: Let him make his beft of them. Only I muft tell him yet 1. that if he lay his caufe on this, that their Parochial or Diocefan Ch urches are not defective. 2. Or that the defetts cannot by others be avoided, he will quite marr his matter, and undo all by overdoing. 3. And if he indeed think that all defective Churches muft be forfaken, he will be one of the great-eft Schifmaticks in the World. But who can reconcile this with the fcopeof his whole Book?

SeB. 4. P. 112.Hejfaith, Here are no bounds fet to peoples Fancies of purer Mminiftrations.dnfw.UMG I fo oft and copioufly named the bounds,and now is the anfwer, \Jiere are none."] Are there none in all the fame Books he citeth ? 2. Scripture is their bounds, as he well openeth in his de-fence of Biihop Laud.

Scft.-$. P. 114. He complains of my leaving out the belt part of

hi?

his argument, viz. [The people may go to the Anabaptifts and Quaksrsl Anfw. Ates that fuch things fhould be the beft to fuch a man! By [May go~] you mean, i. lawfully, 2. or eventually^ 3. or for want of due hindring.J The Reader may think that you by Calumny father the firfton me, as if I faid, that fo to go to the Quakers were no fin, whereas I ftil] fay that if they do but leave your Churches by any culpable Error it is their fin; 2. And as to the Event , many not only may but do y turn Quakers, Papifts and Athiefts, 3. And as to the third, it's all the queftion here (not whether we fhould feek to fave them but) which is the true reafona-ble and allowed means, Whether it be the Patrons choofing for all England the Paftors to whofe care they muft truft their Souls, and laying them in Jail that will choofe others ? Or whether there be not a righter way; And again I fay, Kings and Patrons choofe not mens Wives, or Phyfi-cians, or Food, and every man hath a charge of his Soul as well as of his Life, Antecedent to the Kings or Patrons charge-

Sett. 6. But why (faith he P. 11. v» 115.) muft the King bear all the blame, ifmens Souls be not provided for , &cl Anfw. He that is th 2 choofe r mult bear the blame, the King for Bifhops, and the Patrons for Parifh Priefts if they mifchoofe. And do you think in your confcience that all the Patrons in England of fo various minds and lives, are like to choofe only fuch, in.whofe paftoral conduct all that care for their Souls fhould reft. Yea though the Bifhops muft Inftitute them as they Ordained them. When we heretofore told them of the multitudes of grofly ignorant, drunken Prieft, their anfwers were, 1. Their Chaplains examined thenv 2. They had certificates. 3. A quare impedit lay againft them if they required higher knowledge than to anfwer the Catechifm in Latine. And now experience will not warrant us to know what fuch men are. P. 11 5. He asketh How it is poffible on thefe terms to have any peace or order in an efta-bitted Church. Anfw* 1 have fully told him how in a whole Book of concord, And hath their way caufed greater peace and order? Yes, tothem-felves for the time. So Popery keepeth fome Order and Unity with them that hold to it: But it kept not the Greeks or Proteftants from forfaking them.

Se&* 7. P. 119. 120. He faith, [They only look^onthofea* true Church^ es which have fuch Faftors whom they approve. Anfw. Equivocal words : i. If they approve not thofe whom they fliould approve, it is their fin. 2. approving is either of the necejfaries ad effect only ad melius effe. They muft not put the later for the former. 3. Approving is by a Governing or but a difceming private Judgment. The firft they have not, but the later. In good eameft, woulcThe have all the people take thofe for true

Paftors,

Paftors, who they verily think are none. Can they at once hold contradictions? And if they muft not judge as diffenters, what meaneth Mr. DodmU and fuch mens Arguments to prove all no Minifters that have not Succeffion of Epifcopal Ordination ? Muft not the people on that account difown them, by his way ?

Setl. 8. p. t 19. He brings in againft us my words [7 take thofe for true Churches that have true Paftors, and thofe for none, that have 1. Men nncapable of the Pafioral Office , 2. or not truly called to it, 3. Or that deny thcmfelves the effential Power. Anfw. He knoweth that I fpeak not of e-quivocal but proper political Churches. And is it poflible that fuch a man (hould dhTent in this ? 1. Can he be a true P aft or that is uneatable of the Office ? Shall I abufe time to confute grofs Contradictions ? Or if he be a profeft Infidel, Can he be a Chriftian Paftor ? 2. Is a Layman a true Paftor that is not truly called to it ? why then do they argue as Mr. Dodvoell ? or Re-ordain men. 3. Can a man be a Paftor againft his will, or that confenteth not, but renounceth it. ? or can that be a true Pafto-ral Church that hath no Paftor ? Verily we are but upon low works, if thefe be the things which we muft prove.

Setl. 9. He adds, \_And one or other of thefe he thinkj muft y if not all the parochial Churches in England fall under.~] Anfw. 1 read thefe words of the Dr. toaPapift, [To fpeak^mtldly, this is a grofs untruth.~\ Therefore I hope it were no Rage for me to have faid the like. How doth he prove it ? Nay in the place cited by him 1 not only profeft the contrary, but gave the Reafon, p. 65. [Becaufe I judge of their Office by Gods Word, and not by the Kule which deprives them of an effential tart."} And 1. He citeth my confeflion that thofe that I hear preach well (and therefore are not uncapable men.J 2. That their Ordination hath all efTentially necefTary, and all the worthy men that I know have the communicants of the Parifhes confent, though not Eledtion, and therefore are called, 3. And many of them (as he) thinks they have allelTential to the Office and difown it not, though I think others deny it them, where there is the truth of what he faith.

Sett. 10. f. 120. Becaufe my prattice dilproveth him, he finds out a Subtilty, that Ijoyn not with the Farifh Churches at true Churches , but only ai Chappels or Oratories — he account snot our parochial Churches as true Churches, nor doth communicate with them as fuch — a Subtilty beyond the reach of the old Brownifts. Anfw. Deliberately to print fuch untruths feems tolerable in him, but to fay they are fuch would feem paffion in me, and what o-ther anfwer are they capable of ?—What I exprefly fay of the three fore-mentioned excepted forts, he feigneth me to fay of all or moft of the

Parifh

Parifn Churches •, and yet dare not deny the truth of any one of the Exceptions, i. Do not all thofe men take the Parifhes for no proper political Churches, but only for Parts of the Diocefan Church, fucb as we call Curates Chappels, who fay that a Biftop is a conftitntive Part of a true political Church andentereth the Definition, and that it's no C "hath no

Bifhop, and that Diocefan Churches are the loweft political. And do I need to tell him how confiderable thefe men are; .2. Doth

he bimfelf take any one of thefe for a true political Church ? When I . young, divers Laymen by turns were ou: publick Reading Teachers: A-mong the reft one was after proved to counterfeit Or ders. This mans acts were no nullities to us that knew it not: but when we knew of fuch m we take them for true Paftors.and it for a true Church?

Sect. 11. p. 221. He faith, \_Arty Parochial Church that hath fuch a one (a Bijhep or P aft or over them that hath the power of the Keys, and owns it felfrojbe Independent) he allows to be a true Church aid none elfe.~\ A fv. More and more untruths. 1. Where do I fay \jb*t owns it felfto be Independent ,] as if that were necefiary to its being. 1. Doth he not confefs that I own general Vifitors or Archbifhops and appeals ? 2 That I own Affociations which he *makes the Hate of the Church of England? 3 .That I own Synods for obliging concord ? 4. That I own the Magistrates Government of ail ? Is there no de-pendancy in any of thefe, or all ? what dependancy more doth he alPert? 2+ As to the Power ot the Keys, dare he come into the light and tell us, whether any power of the Keysjhat is,of the Government of his particular Church be eflential to the Pallor of a true organized governed Church or not. If not, is it not a contradiction to call it a governed Church ? If yea then is he a Pa-ftor that wants what is effential to a Paftor ? But if they will call * forcing Power, or the prefent fecular Mode of their Courts, by the name of the Keys, L never faid that thefe are eflential to a Church," nor defirable in it, but am a Nonconformift becaufe I will not by Oath or Covenant renounce (joftj Endeavours to amend it.

Sett. 11. p. I2i s 122. The next A collation is, [They leave it in the peoples Power notwithftanding all legal Eftabliflments to own or difown whom they judje ftt.~\ Anfw. Hetireth me with putting me on repetitions. 1. They can unjuftly judge of-none and difown them without fin. It is not I that give men power to fin, nomorethanPw*rf0^>,orbey?cfc, which is but impotency: would I could give them power againft it. 2. It is not power to reject any chofen by King or Patrons, from being publick Teachers, or to have the Tithes and Temples, nortobeaPaftortoothers. But it is to have a dif-cermng Judgment whether one chofen by the Patron be a perfon to whom he himfelf ought to trull the paltoral Conduct of his Soul. Either the Dr.

M thinks

thinks that Laymen have this difcerning power and duty or not. If yea, is it nothing to him to feem thus feriouily to plead againft his confeience f If not, Iaskhim, t. What meant Chrift and his Apoftles to call men to beware of falfe Teachers, to avoid the Leven of their Doctrine, to mark them and avoid them, and turn away from them, and not bid them good ipeed.? 2. What meant all the ancient Churches to forbid Communion with Hereticks ? and even fome Popes and Councils to hear Mafs of Fornicators ?■ 3. W 7 hat meant all thofe Fathers and Councils, that make himnoBilhop that cometh not in with the peoples confent ? if not Election. 4. Why will he not be intreated to tell us in what Countries,or with what Limitations the contrary Doctrine muft be received ? Muft all the people truft onlyfuchPaftors as the Prince or Patrons choofe all over England? or alfo in Ireland^ Trance^ Spain, Italy,Germ any, among Lutherans, CaIvinifts,Greeks, ehr.fiippofing the Law be on that fide? Muft we all be of the Kings or Patrons Religion ? 5. Is this agreeable to his old Doctrine cited Chap. j.

Sett. 1 3. p. 122. He adds, fMr. Baxter [peaks his mind very freely a-gainft the Rights and Patronage, and the Power of the Magiflrates infuch Cafes, and pleads for the unalterable Rights of the people, as the old Separatifls did. Anf Is this true ? 1. What is it againft the Right of Patronage or Magiflrates Tower for me to choofe who I will trull the guidance of my Soul with, while I contradict not his power to choofe publick Teachers, and give the Tithes and Temples, and confefs that for order fake I ought to confent to fuch as he choofeth thus, unlefs he put on me a true necelfity of a better choice.? If the Ring choofe all the HofpitalPhyficians,'what wrong is it to-him, if I at my own charge choofe a better for my felf when I think elfe ignorance or malice will murder me ? Doth he that defireth (as I ever doj that in fo great a cafe there may be many Locks to the Church Door, deny any one of them, viz,. The O/dainers confent, the Magiflrates and Patrons r and the Peoples. Is this the fame that the old Separatifts did ? Should Cloccficr take Goodman a Papift for their Bifhop becaufe the King chofe him? Abundance of Patrons in thebeginning of Q^EUz.abeths Reign prefented Papiits. It feems if they were impofed by Law, and Patrons, you would have the people fubmit to thofe that cry down Bilhops, Liturgy and Ceremonies too. Father Paul Sarpi tramlated by Dr. Demon will tell you how new a way this is.

Sett. 14. p. 122. He adds [fthe People are made Judges of the Competency of their Mnifters?^ Anfxt. They are difcerning Judges. Doth not your charge imply that-you think otherwife 5 and yet you dare not fay fo. Muft they not judge when F on eigners heretofore were fet over them, whetherthey fpeak Ecgtiffijor no ? or if a Socinian deny Chrifts Godhead or the im

mortality

_ C8j]

mortality of the Soul, whether he be Competent or not ? Or if they have an ignorant Curate, that when necelfary advice for the Soul is asked of him, will lay no more but [Trouble not your head about fuch matters> but cafiaway care and live merrily\~] If when the blind lead the blind both fall into the ditch, mull we not note the difference ? Alas how little would fome men have a man care for his Soul, in comparifon of caring what Phyfick, what Food, what Wife, what Servant, what Trade he choofeth ? Trull one to the conduct of fuch as all the Patrons of England wii\ choofe for you, but not any of the other. As to the not caufelefs forftking former Pallors, he knoweth that it was the Uriel charge of the old Canons of the Churches; and the Bilhops themfelves do hold the fame. 1 thought they ought not to beforfakenbecaufementhruft them out. The Churches at Antioch, Alexandria, and many more d id oft and long cleave to thofe Pallors w horn the Chriflian Emperors call out,and rejecl: thofe whom they impofed. When I have proved this fo fully in my firft Flea and Church- hi [lory, what an unfa-tisfattory anfwer is it for fuch a Dr. to repeat it and fay, This is flam dealing. Is the Judgment and Practice of the Churches fo light with him.

Seel. 15. p. 123, The next charge is, {They give directions to the people what fort ofMinifters they jhould own, andwhat not.~\ Anfw* Wedoib: And I had thought all Chriftians had been of the lame mind. It's fad with the Church when this Doctrine needeth apublick defence. Dare be fay,that all impofed mull be owned? Then either Salvation isattheMagiftrates will, or it's the priviledge of fuch Countries as have good ones,or a man may be fa-ved in any Country Religion contrary to the Article which they allfubfcribe*

Sett. 16. Next the Accufer falls on my general Rule, [The Miniflry that tendeth to Deft ruction more than to Edification y and to do more harm than good,is not to be owned,~\ and his bare recital is confutation. Anf. I muft pro-fefsthat lam fo confident of this,that athoufand fuchdiflentingDrs.cannot change me : And according to his excellent Rules of judging in the end of his Difcourfe of Idolatry, which maketh natural Verities moft certain and fundamental, me thinks it fhould to him be furer of the two than theGofpelitfelf: viz.. That all men lhould love themfelves, and be unwilling to be damned, and therefore lhould not own that Miniflry of man which tendeth more to Deitrudlion than to Edification. And when he wrote that cited in my firft Chap, he was of that mind or he was a molt grofs diflembler. But mull it be otherwife ? Is it our Salvation that we mull facrifke to Priefts, Prelates or Princes wills ? If our Tithes would have ferved them, we had not gainfaid them. If our Bodies and Ellates might have fatisfied them, w r e had not fluck at it fo much. But when (Deftruttion) fignifieth (Damnation) it is .a hard bargain ? If we ihould re-

M 2 nouncc

liounce our Chriftianity for them, we are never the nearer : for we are Hill Men and therefore loth to be deflroyed in Hell? Ifthisbethe meaning of the Article which denyeth freewill, I deny it freely : 1 have no fuch/ra mil. But O Reverend Fathers, be more impartial: Are you fo loth to iofe your great Riches and Honor, yea or to have your Reputation fo far questioned, as to be contradicted, or have others live by you that preach without your confent; and yet muft all the people of England, fo much deny their own Salvation for you, as to fubmit to a deftxoying Miniftry ? Why then did you before put (agreement in Doctrine) among the requisites to our Accufation ? muft we agree and not judge whether we agree or not ? Why then mull not all Hereticks, Papifts, &c. be received, why then are all your voluminous Accufations produced to prove us jultly filenced ? and Mr.DWiv^toproveusnoMiniftersofChrill, if we want nothing but a human power to impofe us on the Churches, and a Patron to prefent us? But the beft is, when you have tailed and written your worft, men will be unwilling of deftruclion; and till the Bible be forbidden, men will read, (Beware offalfe Prophets t Let no man deceive you : prove all things : from fitch turn away : Markjhem which caufe Divifions and Offences contrary to the doctrine whichyou have learned and avoid them ; and more,2 Pet.z.J.Tit. % . I o. 2.J. 10,11. Sett, 17. He adds, ( That we may not thinkall this to be only a RomantickScheme, or Fiction,) he adds, (that they are not able to confute the people in too many places, who tell them that their pub lick Priefis arefo defective in their neceffary Qua" life at ions for their Office, as that they hold it unlawful to own fuch for true Mini" fters, and to encourage them by their pre fence, and commit the care of their Souls , to fuch. Anf. i. This is true: we are not able to confute them : If you be rejoice in your Wifdom. 2...Either you would have us believe that there are none fuch, or that no fuch are to be fo refufed. The firft you attempt not: If you did, I would repeat a Catalogue of my old Teachers and Acquaintance : but Ihave named them to Mr. Hinkley. And as to the fecond, I prove it (a fad task for fuch a one as you to put us on.) 1. Such as are known to be no authorized Minifters of Chrift, (hould not be owned as fuch : But all thofe that waat the nccefiary Qualifications for their Office are no authorized Mini ft ers of Chrift. Ergo. If the Major were not true, Error or Lying were a duty. The truth of the Minor is evident in the terms: necef-far turn eft fine quo res non effepoteft. It is Qualifications nece/fary to the Office in effe, and not only to the well performance that is mentioned. Forma nun-quam recipitur in materiam difpofitione neceffariacarentem. But here the Office is the forme, and the neceffary difpofitionof the matter is fuppofedwanting A Ergo. Again :; All men are bound to avoid the apparent means of Damnation ; To truft the conduft of our Souls to men uncapable for want of

neceflary

neceflary Qualifications, is an apparent means of Damnarion (as excluding an ordinarily neceflary means of Salvation,; Ergo. Again: It is a great fin to encourage men in the wilful damning of their own Souls, and hindering the Salvation of many others: But to own an unqualified unca-pableman as a Minifter of Chrift, is to encourage him in the wilful damnation of himfelf (by his prophane undertaking^) and in hindering the falvation of many others, Ergo. 1 will not recite what Zcchary and other Prophets fay of the ufage oi falfe pretenders to be Prophets, left you mifapply it. Again: No man ought to confent to the prophane fubvert-ingof Chrift's Church-Olfices and Ordinances: But to confent to the Mini-ftry of unqualified uncapable men, is to confent to the fubverting of Chrift's Church-Offices and Ordinances. Ergo. Can your patience endure unqualified men in the Miniftry,and cannot endure fuch as us out of Jail,becauie we obey you not in all your impofedOaths,Words andPradifes. Seel. 18. Next he thus confuteth US, (and direclly contrary to the Principles of the old Nonconformifis, a* appears at large by Mr. Ball faying (If Can's meaning be that it is not lawful to communicate in the Workup of God with Minifters not fitly qualified, diforderly called, or carelefly executing their Office, it is directly contrary to the word of God, found Reafon, and confent of all the Learned. Anf Who would have thought that this w r orthy Doctor could not or would not fee a difference, between (fitly qualified] as ad bene effie, and unqualified, or wanting the qualifications neceffary ad cjfe, and between (dtforderly called,) and (not called, or confentedto by the Flock at allj and between (carelefsexecuting the Office) and not having the Office as unca-capable.) He will not ftrain at fuch gnats as thefe. And is there no difference between (lawful Communicating) and committing the conduct of mens Souls to them as our ftatedPaftors. Mr. Bali lived not far from me : his intimate Friend Mr.Jfn well knew his mind. You may yet know it fully from Mr. CW^of Chefier, a filenced Minifter bred up in his houfe andfometjme one of your old Patrons (Sr. Roger Bur gone) Nonconforming after many others at Rockfcalin Wanvickfinre. Mr. Zfatfwasnot fuch an enemy to di-ftinguifhing as to confound Necefiaries ad tffe Officii & ad bene effie.

Seel. 19. But p. 124. lam alfo brought as againft my felt for faying (That a Minifiers perfonal faults do not allow people to feparate from the Workup of God. 2. nor all Minifterial faults, but only thofe that prove him and his Mwifiration utterly intolerable. Anf 1. A ftrong proof, that therefore the intolerable may be received, becaufe 1 fay, no : I contradict my felf by faying the fame things. Perfonal Faults 1 diftinguifhed from Minifterial and tolerable Minifterial from intolerable, then and now : and is this Contradiction? Do not ajl do fo too, till now? Yea in the place cited by him

I, u

[8*3

I i. faid, that as to perfonal Faults, as Swearing, Drmfynnefs, &c. they fliould get a better man, if lawfully they can. 2. And I named juft as here the intolerable inefficiencies, direft pag. 747. viz. 1. An utter infufli-ciency in knowledge and utterance for the neceffary parts of the minifterialWork. 2. If he fet himfelf to oppofe the ends of the Miniftry, &c by Herefie, Ma* Ugnity. And I name the faults that neceflltate not Separation.

Sell* 20. Next he citeth my words againft fome mens Factious fepa-rating humor: And doth it follow that becaufe many are unfit to judge aright, that the people mult take all obtruded Paftors, and not judge to whom to truft the conduct of their Souls? How unfit are the ignorant to judge who is a meet Phyfician, Lawyer, Arbitrator, yea or wife or husband for them : And yet judge they mull as well as they .can : Do you not expect notwithstanding their unfitnefs, that they judge your Books and arguing to be truer than mine? And is it by your bare authority that they muft fo judge?

Sell, 21. But he much blameth me for laying the Cafe far of£ when it is the London Separation which he queftioneth where the Minifters are no fuch men. Anfw. Could any man have fo far fearcht his heart as to know that he fpake only againft Separation in this one City ? When there is no fuch Limitation in his Book, And when the fame Laws, the fame Silencings, Fines, Imprifonments, accufations of the Preachers are all over the Land. But I am glad for the peace of the Nonconformifts elfewhere, if it concern not them. 2. As to London^ he knoweth that I give the Preachers due honour, and that I juftifie not any unnecelTary Separation of the people from them,' nor of the Conformifts from the Nonconformifts. I gave him an account of my own Practice and the Reafons of it: Let other men give account of theirs, I know very many of my mind. 3. And he knoweth that loft told him that many things make good mens actions culpable in fome degree, that make them not criminalls, odious, or to be ruined. And that I gave him many of their Extenuations, 4. Among the reft, verily (to ufe his own Phrafe) it looks fimewhat odly by the Church Law or Canon iff of ado to excommunicate many fcore thoufands in the Land, meerly for profeuing to take fome things impofed to be fin, and then to revile and profecute them as Schifmaticks, for not communicating with you. 5. And 1 told you that Laws'and the higher ground are not always the Terminm a quo of S-chifm : Some of them were never of your Flocks, and therefore never feparated from you, but as you do from them ( and fomewhat lefs.) 6. And the Kings Licenfe firft, and proclaimed Clemency often, gave them fome pofTeffiou as the Law giveth you. 7.

And

[«*3

And Plague, Fire and thoufonds that cannot hear you, made itnecefTary. But fome Ptrijl) Churches are not fall. Anfw. I fee none of thofe, I come in divers where many cannot hear the Preacher •, and would yen have moref And again I tell you, i. They keep meetings in teller Parilhes to receive thofe that come out of greater. 2. If thofe come to you, they muft keep out others. 3. When it is commonly known that in their own great Parilhes there is not room, it's hard for Families to look a-bout the City for room in uncertain places. 4. And all perfons that culpably diflike you are not therefore to be forfaken.

Sett. 22. But the fame man that citeth my Reprehenfions of Separation asketh me, why I do not difown it ^ as if he prefently forgot what he had written. I difown Schifm, and therefore the greatefl in thefinful Church-tearers that fmite the Shepherds,and then cry out of the Flocks for being fcattered: And 1 difown the leaft,butnot by Crueltybut in Charity.

Setl. 23. p. 127. He repeats the Incapacities named by me, (viz. in Knowledge and Utterance, by Herefie, &c.) and faith, Of all thefe the people are judges ^ and fo may feparate : Thtu no fit led Church canfubfift^ &c* j4nfw. 1. It's a hard cafe that in fuch ?. Volumn as this, he will not tell us his own Judgment, further than the accufing of ours intimateth it ( which if we tell him of, he can fay, [_lt wot net his fenfe."} Will he openly fay that the people have not a private Judgment of difcretion in order to their own practice, whether the Preacher be an Heretick, Papift, Infidel, Idolater, or not. ? but mult take him for their Paftor be he what he will ? I know he will not fry it. What then would he be at ? Why doth he accufe us for that which he dare not contradict ?" Doth he any where tell us, in wh.it cafes and how far they muft- jud^e ? No, he (buns all fuch Queftionsas tend to bring the caufe'into the light: put twenty and he will aniwer few or none of them. If he did, perhaps we (hould be agreed whether he will or not.

Eut ( Reader, bear thefe tiring Repetitions as I muft do'J 1. He knoweth that it is the Ordxmert and not the people whom I make fudges whofiallbe aMinifter. 2. That it is the King and Patrons that I make the only Judges who [hall be tolerated, and maintrined by them, and have the Tythes and /Temples. •$. And that though the Univerfal Church was many hundred years, for the peoples Election, I plead ad effe relationis for no more as neceilary but content, who f mil be the Paftor^ to whom they will trull the conduct of their Souls: And this is but Judicium difcretionis & privatum non publicum regentis^ only guiding each, mans own ouedience to God. 4. He knoweth (if he will know) that I fay and fay again,that the advantages of the Laws and Rulers Favour,and the

Tythes.

C88D

Tythes and Temples, and Parifh Order, and national Aflbciation, arefo great advantages to the Service of God, that no man fhould be deprived of them, and go another way, but upon neceffity, and very great and urgent caufe. But I intend God willing further to prove to him that [when 9000 Miniftcrs are all required to fin or ceaje their-M'miftry, a neceffity is put upon them to exercife it again ft fuch Prohibitions as farr as they can without doing more hurt than good *, And that the finful compliance of 7OCO will not excufe.the other 2000 for this duty."] And this is the cafe which a friend of truth fhould have debated.

Sect. 24, p. 126. But ( faith he ,) How ft)all a man efcape being thought Heretical by the people. Anfw. 1. See his own anfwer here, Chap. 1.2. How (hall one get all the world to be wife and good t If lknew, 1 cannot procure it. But put the cafe within your fight } How will.you efcape being judged no rightful Pofiefibr of your Deanry, or Prebend, or the King's Chaplains place, or the Parilh Church of St. Andrews ? 1 know not how: And yet if an Ufurper accufe you here, and fay e. g. that the Church of St. Andrews is his and not yours, muft not the people judge which of you they will take for the Ufurper, and which they will joyn with and obey ? In the times of Ufurpation, many of the people judged the Bilhops to be none of their Pallors, nor the ejected Minifters *, muft not the reft therefore judge that they were ? Where Ufurpers deny the King's Right, ought not the people to judge him to have right, becaufe they may err ? and what Prince or Prelate may not the people judge Ufurpers ? What Landlord may not the Tenants deny ? What Matter the "Servants f What Husband the Wife ? But muft they not therefore be difcerning Judges, who is their Landlord, Mafter,Hus-bahd, What Schoolmafter may not unlearned men mifcenfure ? What Phyfician may they not vilifie ? And yet they (hall judge and choofefor themfelves , andfpeed accordingly, who can help it. ? deny men a judgment of difcretion to guide their own choice and actions, and you contradict mankind, and deny men to be men. What in the world is more a-bufed than Reafon and Freewill f and yet men muft act by Reafon and Freewil. Irs unworthy a Divine to cry out againft a thing for fuch unavoidable Inconveniences, as humane darknefsand badnefsdoneceifitate, and to iwallow Camels on the other fide and take no notice of the mif-chiefs thereof, nor once to tell us how to efcape both.

Sett. 25. He inftanceth in mens cenfure of me for the Votlrine of Juftification and asketh^ Are men bound to feparate from me ? Anfw. One would think by many fuch words that the Doctor did ferioufly believe that I had fa id, that all men are bound to follow an erring Judgment^ and to feparate when they falfly judge they ought. If

If he think not that I faid To, I would not name his fault left I more offend him : If he think I faid fo, I had hoped weaker Readers could have better underftood me. When I read in the Books of fome Con form ills yet living whom 1 much honour, that to obey Confcience though it err is to obey God, I took it for my duty oft and copioufiy (efpecially in my Chrift Direct.) to open that cafe, and to prove that Confcience h no Lawmaker, but only adifcernerof Gods Law, and th.it an erring Confcience involvetliamaninfinwhetherhefollowethitornof, becaufe God chang-eth not his Law when we change our Judgments of it. But yet there are fome cafes in which it is a farr greater fin to goagainfl: Confcience though it err than with it. The Dr. dare deny none of this. And doth ill if he would perfwade men that I deny it : and that God makes it mens duty to do ill whenever they judge it good, or forfake good, when they judge it evil.

Seel. 26. But the great offence is p. 130 that / infinuate that the whole 'Body of the Church U guilty of great Faults, Conformity being a fcandalopts thing with thirty tremendous Aggravations. — And no wonder if men fo judging prefer others, &c. Anfm -Again and again I fay, 1. This is unrighteous dealing; To impofe all thofe things on us ; To caft us out of the Mi-niftry and Churches for not obeying: To Fine and imprifon us, and aecufe us as Schifmaticks and Seditions, To write and preach for the execution of the Laws againft us, to ourRuine: To aggravate our Crime becaufe we tell them not our Reafons; To call us to tell them what we ftick at *, To threaten to get the King to force us to give our Reafons , To declare in Prefs and Pulpit that we wilfully keep up a Schifm and have nothing to fay for it \ To continue all this when we have been fiient fe-venteen years, as fearing that they could not bear it *, And after all this when we difavowed any Accufation of them, and only told them what we feared our felves, to come upon us with this charge of deep accufing their Conformity, isinjuftice if there beany in the World. Either it is fin or no fin which we fear. If none, why are we not confuted ? or invited yet to give our proofs ? If fin, who mould be moft offended ? To be yet plainer with you, had the cafe been in the times of the old Prophets and Priefts, I queftion whether to let fuch a Kingdom alone fo long in that which we judge to be fo great fins, would not have been heavily charged on the Preachers : And I profefs that my confcience is more in doubt whether my fo long forbearance was not my fin, than whether faying at laffc what I did was fin : And I had nothing to fatisfie it, but the men that I ought to judge wifer than my felf, perfwaded me that it would hive done more hurt than good, and caufed but our further rending, And I think

N the

the Conformifls mould have been defirous to help them to try whether it were fin or not, and to have been thankful for helping to lave them from it, it it proved fuch. Bat though hence I extenuate the too great with-drawings of fome men againft their too deep accufations, he knoweth that notwithstanding all thefe aggravations, I neither justified nor pravfti-fhd proper Separation.

Sett. 27. p. 133. The next charge isjhat I make them Ufurpers,i>z&, 1. AH that come into the place of the ejected Mnifters, at leaft to the people that content not : But Law and Vfurpation are contrary. Anfxv. 1.1 never faid that all are Ufurpers to all the people that content not : If the body of the Church confent the man is no llfurper, though lome odd perfons con-fen t not. He is the Churches Paftor, though not the refufers. 2. I never laid that any that had the Law for them, were Ufurpers of the Tithes and Temples. 3. I never faid that all that fucceed ejected Minifters are Ufurpers *, many of them have the Churches after-confent, though not their Eledion. Yea I often faid, 1. That it is the peoples duty to confent to the change when it is for the Churches good. 2. A nd that their conftant Communion fignifieth their confent. But I will not believe yet that the Law will prove a man no Ufurper of the Paftoral Relation. And when I have fo largely proved the contrary to be true, and to be the judgment of the ancient Churches, it's an unfatisfadlory courfe to me, to leave it unanfwered, and fuppofe himfelf in the right. Not only the firft 300 years, but even under Conftamim, Valens, Theodofim Junior. Zcno y Ba-filijcm, Anafiatim, Philippics, Juftiman, &c. even the Patriarchal Seats practifed the contrary, keeping their chofen Pallors and refufing thofe impofed by the Emperors •, and other Bimops Seates the Emperors fel-dom meddled with as to the choke. Yea in Arcadims days Chryfiftomes Joannites, in his imperial City were of another mind. Is his Rule true only in England, or in Frar.ce 9 SjAinJtaiy i M»fcovy i &c. alfo, or where, that the Law maketh men true Palters?

Seel. 28. But/?. 132. he {aid \jhat he dctcfteth the Principles that Jet mans Laws above Gods, and that in ftating the Controverfie he fuppofed an Agreement in all the Subftantials oj Religion between the dijfenting parties of our Church. Anfw. Of all things you are the unhappieft in flaring the Controverfie. The Inftances here were 1. Infufhaency through Ignorance, 2. Herefie, 3. Malignant oppugning the very ends of the Miniftry, 4. No true calling. 1. Doth he agree with us in all the Subftantials of Religion who knoweth not the very effemialsof Chridianity i Ignoramis non eft Confenjiis. 2. Doth he agree with us in all the fubftantials that is a Here-tick . ? or if we falfly judge his opinion Herefie, do we agree with him ?

3. Is

\ . Is malignant oppofing Godlinefs and pleading for prophanenefs or un-godlinefs an agreement in all the Subftantials ? 4. What if we agree in all Subftantials with an unordained Layman impofed on us ? is he theref our true Pallor f 5. But how (hall we know whether we agree or not, if we are no judges of it ? Do you not fee your own Contradictions ? who fnall judge whether the Paftors or People agree ? fhall the Prince or Patron I If you know the Teachers heart, how know you the Peoples ? Mu^ believe that we agree, becaufe you fay fo ? If the people muft judge whether they Ajree, they muft judge of the things in which the Agreement i?, that is, both the Paftors Doctrine and their own minds. And is not this to judge whether he be a Heretick, c\c. or not. ? And who fnall judge whether the difagreement be in Suhftantials f It mull be the agreers. And they muft be wifer than I if they can learn from you here, what is a Sub-ftantial, and how to know it.

Sett. 29. It may be he will fay, that where Princes and?arlianients are Orthodox, no tie are Vfurpers, but true Paftors whom they impofe. Anf. But doth not this make the people Judges whether Princes and Parliaments are -Orthodox^nd is not that as dangerous as to judge of the Teachers ? And Orthodox Princes and Parliaments may impofe Heretical Teachers : and may by Law enable Patrons and Prelates to impofe them. What more natural than to propagate what men Jike,and oppofe what they hate ? If the many hundred Patrons in Englandbe all orthodox and pious, andfreefrom Schifm,&c. we are ftrangely happy.- If not we may expect that they choofe accordingly, Bnt the Biflwps willfecureiu. Anf. 1. They have not done. 2. They fay they cannot by Law. 3. Would it be any wonder if Bifhop Goodman of Glocefter kept not out any Popifh Teacher ? Or if fuch Fathers of the Church as Archbilhop Bromhall let in fuch as would have the Pope Govern us all by the Canons as Patriark and principium mitatis, and all pafs for Shcifmaticks that confent not to fuch a forreign Jurifdiction, contrary to our National Oaths.

Sett. 30. As to his inftance of Solomons putting out Abiathar, &c. I an-fwered it fully (and many more objections) in my firft Plea, and will not write the fame again for him that thinks it not worth the anfwering or taking notice of. "

Seel. 31. When p. 138, 139. he makes it the way to all imaginable Cox-fuftons, to deny, 1. that the Kings Nomination of BiJJiops. 2. and the Patrons of Partfl) Paftors proveth them no Ufurpers, but true Paftors, is he not an unreverend difhonourer of Biihops himfelf, who maketh them all that for a thoufand years held the fame that I do, to be the authors of all imd* ginabkConfufion ? Is he not unreverend to their Canons ? and to antiqui-

N 2 ty?

ty ? and to the univerfal Church it felf * Whatever in his third part he Cavils againft it, he cannot be fo ftrange to Church-hiftory as not to know that they were commonly againft him.

Sett. 32. The matter of the next accufation is p. 13?, 140. having laid Plea p. 41. 42. \_If any make finfnl terms of Communion by Laws or Mandate,impofing things forbidden by God on thofe that will have Communion,and expel" ling thofe that will not fo fin] I add \Jf any fiwuld not only excommunicate juch perfons for not complying with them in fin, but alfo projecute them with Malice^ Imprifonments, Banijliment or other Perfection to fore them to tranfgrefs, this wereheynow aggravated Schifin."] Anf. And is not this true ? or doth his bare repeating it difprove it ? Is he a zealous Enemy of Schifm that taketh all this for none ? I did not Ileal it out of his defence of ArchbifhopLW, but lefs than this is there made Schifm. Yet he tells us that hefets not mans Laws above Gods, nor pleads for Perfecution. But left the repeating of my words fhould fhame the Accufer he hath two handfome devices 1. He puts [complying with them in fin, that is. Conformityf] as refufed,inftead of \_thofe that will not fo fin } in finful terms of Communion forbidden by God, &C.] 2. He forgeth an addition as mine {and therefore it is no fin to fiparate from fucW] when I have no fuch words, being only there telling what is Schifm, and not what is not. I confefs it will found odly to fay \Jt is Schifm not to communicate with thofe who excommunicate, imprifon and banifl) me by Law, if J wiH not do that which God forbids, and they makg a Condition of my communion^] Fori mull not fin : And in prifon and Banifhment under Excommunication they deny me communion. And yet I fay not that it's always faultlefs, For if they do not execute their own Law, in fbme cafes, where publick good requi ret hit, I may bell communicate with them as far as they permit me withoutthe impofed fin, till they do execute them. But this ex-cufeth not their Schifm.

Sett, 33. p. 140. He blames me as charging him with thefilencing defign. A if 1 did warn him in real defire of hisfafety .* If defending the Church-Laws and Endeavours for ourreftraint, in the words to which I refer the Reader : If preaching and writing againft our preaching as Schifm, and all the reft in his Books do fignifie no owning of our (ilencing, I am glad that he meaneth better than he feemeth : who could have thought other-wife that had read 1 .his firft Q. whether it be not in the power of thofe that give orders to limit and fufpenH theexercife of the minifterial Fun&ion. Q^ 2. And whether theChriftian Magi Urate may notjuftly reftrain fuch Minifters from preaching, who after the experience, do refufe to renounce thofe Principles which they judge do naturally tend to involve us again in the like trouble. And Serm. p. 42. the Church of Englands endeavours after

Vmformitj

Uniformity vs acquitted from Tyranny over the Conference (of men, hy the Judgment y &c] And p. 54. condemning them as hard thoughts of the Biflwps that in ernehy they follow lthacius, &c. And in this new Book, more fuch might have deceived a man that judged by his words. And his arguing that it is unlawful to preach to them becaufe it is unlawful to hear \ What was the meaning of all this if notfilencing us?

Sell. 34. p. 140. The next Crime is [Flea p. 42. As Ion* as they fup-> pofe the terms of our Communion to be finful y they fay , The Schifm doth not lie on thofe that ft par ate, but on thofe that do imp ofe fuch terms : and therefore they may lawfully feparatefrom fuch impofersT^ Anf It's hard to know what words toufe to detect all thefe hiftorical untruths without being thought paffio-nate. 1. I never faid that (fuppofwg tbemfinful) will juftifie a falle fuppofer, but have oft faid the clean contrary (their fuppofing) is of his forging. 2. I faid not 'the Schifm doth not lie on thofe th u fepar ate) but only that it's Schifm in the Impofers.) This alfo is his Fiction. 3 -And I faid not (and therefore they may -lawfully feparate from fuch impofers.) But all Readers will not ftay to find out his Forgeries.But how much of this he (aid once himfelf,fee in my Chap. 1. Seft. 49. But here he comes to fomeclofing diftinction, which mould have gone before *, [Between terms of Communion plainly and in themfelves finful \ and fuch as are only fancied to befo through prejudice or wilful ignorance ,or error of confcience.~] Anf What a deal of labour might he have fpared him-felf and us, if he had here fixed the Controverfie in the beginning ^ we thankfully accept your late diftiuction: we ever defied here to put it to the Ifiue \ If it be through prejudice wilful Ignorance or Error that we judge Conformity a fin, not only Separation but Nonconformity is a fin. If we do not prove fome parts of Conformity (for one is enough) to be plainly fmful^ which are inpofed as Conditions of our Minifterial Commu-nion,andfomewhatimpofedonthe people as conditions of all that part of yourCommunion,which lever difTwaded them from,let the blame be ours; SetL-$$. He paifeth next to them that deal more ingevHonJly than I in owning Separation, And thenreturnethjto me p. 151. and he over and over repeateth his falfe accufation, \jhat I th'mkjt lawful to communicate with them cccafionally, but not ai Churches (as thinkjng they want an ejfential part, viz. a Tafiorwith Epifcopal Power) but as Oratories,and fo that I renounce Communion with their Churches as C\mrches.~] Anfw. If thefe untruths had been made without evidence only, and not alio againfi evidence , they had been the more excufeable in a man of confideration • But now they are not fo, when I havefo often declared that I take the Parifh Churches that have true Pa-ftors for true governed Churches, and prove that they have true Bifhops (Epifcopos Cregis) whether the Diocefans will or not, becaufe Gods Will

and

c

94 3

and not the Invefters, inftituteth their Office, and meafureth their power, and the people (hew their confent by conftant Communion.

Sett. 36. Then becaufe £/ never gathered a Churchy nor baptized any in 2o years{norgave the Sacrament in_ 18,~j he would know \jvhat Church I have been of all this time,~\ and he fuppofeth [of no Churchy Jinf I thought lie had done with this before : but he thinks it an advantage not to be fo ea-fily let go. Would he know. 7. What my Thoughts were ? 2. Or my Church-Covenant ? 3. Or »zy-adtual Communion? He ihall know all. 1. I thought divers Minifters where 1 lived truePaftors, and the Churches true Churches: I cannot fay fo of every Curate. 2. I made no Covenant with any of them .- If I had Mr. Cheny would have condemned me of Atheifra, Infidelity, and what not. 3. With divers of them I went conftantly to the Liturgy, Sermon and Sacrament, as with true Churches, with lome of them I only joyned in prayer and hearing, 1 heard Dr. Kieves till he caufed me to be fent to Jail, and then 1 could not: And though I was ac-cufed by many for hearing a fwearer, I told them, he fwore not in the Pulpit .• I heard his poor Curate conftantly, when I was accufed for hearing a Drunkard, and told them that he was not drunk in the Pulpit. But I mult teil you, 1 communicated alfo with fome Nonconformifts. And now account me of a Church or no Church as you pleafe. I doubt you are renewing the Independant Qneftions with me, which I am loth to difc pute. 1. Qu. Whether an ordained Minifter mull be a private Member of another mans Church ? Q_2. Whether when a Non-refident Dean leaveth his Parifh to an ignorant drunken Curate, the Parifh Church be elTentiated by its relation to the Refident Curate, or the Non-refident Dean $ QK 3. W 7 hether a Minifter not degraded but filenced, living in fuch a Parifh is bound to take that Curate for one that hath the Paftoral Charge of his Soul, and as the reft of the flock "to commit his Soul to his Paftoral Condudt in perfonal, private and publick Offices ? 4. But I would ask the Dean himfelf, whether a man may not be a fixed Member, of two or three Churches at once ? TheReafonsof the^£^, are i.Becaufefbythem)a man may be the fixed Pa/for of two or three Parifh Churches at once : And an Integral Member of many is not fo hard a cafe, as to be a conftitu-tive Regent Part of many. 2. Becaufe a man may have two houfes in two Parilhes at once •, As many Londoners have half their Family at a near Country houfe, and half at a City houfe, and are themfelves part of the week or day at one, and part at the other. And they make Covenants with neither, but what a&nal Communion intimateth. Q. 5. And if fo why might not I at once be judged a Member of two Churches at once, to far as I communicate oft with both ? I therefore anfwer hisqueftion

further,

further, what Church I was a Member off i. I was a Member of Chrifts Universal Church ? Is that none ? and yet is in the Creed ? 2. I was a Member of the reformed Church if you will call that One becaufe aflbcia- ■ ted in one Reformed Religion, 3. I was a Member of the Church of England, both as a Chriftian Kingdom, and as the Churches in England agreeing in the Chriftian Reformed Religion. 4; I was a Member of the Provincial Church of Canterbury, fo far as living peaceably in it, and fub~ mittingboth tofuch power as they had from the King as Magiftrates and a meer general helping inftrucling care of many Churches could make mc. 5. So far alfo I was a Member of the Diocefan Churches where I lived. 6. And I was a Member of fome Parochial Churches' fo far as conftant Communion could make or prove me : And of others (two at once) fofar as partial and moveable Communion could prove me. If this will not fa-tisfieyou, I have proved before (and oft tofomelndependants) that many men are under no obligation to be fixed Members of any Pariih Church: f whether the King be of any I know notj

Sett. 3 7. But p. 152. he comes upon me, why I thought it not my duty dl this while to Baptizje, Administer the Sacrament, was Inotfolemnly bound by Ordination to one as well as the other ? Presbyters of old were rarely allowed to preach.~\ Anf. 1. You tell the World what meafure we muft expect from fuch as you. If we had all forborn any Church gatherings, and Paftoral undertaking of Flocks, and both Sacra nents, c\c. and only preached as loth to offend you more than needs, our accufations had but been the greater ? which incourageth your more ingenious Diffenters to do what they alio are accufed of 2. Do you not know our Reafons ? They are thefe : j. Becaufe we fuppofe there is a greater want of our preaching, than of ouradminiftring Sacraments : And we would obey the Laws in all things lawful \ and go from you and offend you no further thanneceif ty will jufti-fie us. 2. Becaufe a Minifters Relation to the Church-llniverfal and to the world ceafeth not, when his relation to a Parilh Church may ceafe.-And we have not the fame obligations to give the SacrameEt to all the Chriftians or World where we preach, as we have in a Pariih Charge. Paul thanfcth God that he baptized nor many Corinthians, becaufe he not fent to baptize but to preach the Gofpel; nor is the terrible charge 2 Tim. 4. 12. equal as to both. 3. Our Ordination bound us to preach and adminifter Sacraments, when we are thereto lawfully called : And we were fo called to one, when we were not to the other.- nor were all of us fo called alike. But when we know that this way doth as much offend you, we may go further in due time. Aud do you in one part of your Book blame us'for going further than the old Nonconformilts fas

you

you thought) and in the fecond thus accufe us for not going further.' Sett. 38. He is again at his talk of only occafional Communion? Andhad his miftake no Occafion ? yes; he that readeth my Books may fee what;: that is, 1. When I have faid that fome Parifhes having not capable or called Paftorsl take to be no true Political Churches; but yet can communicate with fuch as Oratories or Chappels. 2. That fome true Churches I communicate with in tranfitn or occafionally as ftrangers, whofe Difci-pline and Minifters Calling I am not bound to take account of. 3. I tell thofe that withdraw too tar and take fome true Churches for none, that were it fo they might occafionally join with them as Oratories, 4. And thofe that dare not commit their Souls to the Paftoral Conduct of fome weak and bad men, that yet they may occafionally communicate with them upon great and urgent Reafons. And here he gathereth his oft repeated untrue Reports. '

Sett. 39p. 15 6.He grants there is no Separation where there is no Obligation. And he will prove us obliged to confiant Communion with them. 1. Bc-caufe we mnfi ufe all lawful meant for Peace and Unity. Anf. 1. We are ready to prove that our Conformity\ nor our forbearing to preach the Gofpel are no lawful means. 2. Can you as well prove, 1. That it is not lawful for you to joyn with us ? 2. And to forbear filencing, excommunicating, fining and imprifoning us ? Was it no lawful means for Peace and Vnity to haveforborn impofing all the Covenants,Profeffions ? Subfcriptions, Oaths and Pra&ifes, of what you call indifferent and we think finful.' 3. And is it not lawful for Parents to enter their own Children at Baptifm in Cove* nant with God ? 4. Is it unlawful to Chriften fuch as fcruple your ufe of theCrofs? 5. Or to receive thofe to Communion that fcruple your Ge-fture? 6. Or to forbear Canonical Excommunicating all profefled Nonconformities in the Land ? 7. Or to let Lords and Gentlemen choofe any Nonconformiits to be Tutors to their Children, whiift the Papifts may fend theits to Doway, St. Omers, &c. He faith, he is \jerfwaded it is one of the provoking fins of the Nonconformifts, that they have beenfo backward to do, what they were convinced they might with a good confeience. Anfi Woe to US, if we be not willing to know our fins. But 1. If you will tell me of any one lawful thing th3t 1 have omitted, that tended to Peace, I will thank you. 2. An indifferent thing is no means of Peace when it will do more hurt than good. To ceafe the Miniftry we durft not: To ufe fome indifferent forms in your Churches we could not, being caft and kept out. And to ufe the faoie to thofe that are againft them ; when it will hurt them, and procure no peace with you, and thofe have fped worft from you that haye come neareft you, aud nothing will fervc but all j what tendency

dency hath this to Unity ? You know my own cafe proveth all this. I regarded not the cenfures of any that go too far, fo as to keep me from doing what I judged lawful: And did it tend to peace ? No, one fends meto Jail when I went twice a day to his Church: Othersfay, He is like an j4pe, that is fo much the more ugly becaufe he is like a man : Another more fo-ber faith, \J how not what to make of Mr. B. He communicateth with us, and he preachethto the Nbnconformifts : Like a man that will go one. ftep on one fide the hedge y and another ftep on the other.~] And this man is much in the right: for I fay ftill, [_It is thejeparatmg hedges in Chrift's Vineyard that Ihate y and the enclofwg hedge that 1 am for : I have Bufinefs, Friends, Relationsand great Duties on both fides the hedge, fome with you and fome with others , And if your hedges would feparate Parents from Children, Husband and Wife, Chriftian Neighbours, &c caufelefly I will not be fo feparated, but do my bell to pull down that hedge. And again confider whofe fin it is, that fo many lawful things are denyed us for Vnity. Hold bun to your Rule here and we are agreed. And he ieemeth to confent. For,

Seft. 40. p. 176. Of the Rule Phil. 3.16. he faith, \JflwiU but allow that by virtue of that Rule men are bomd to do all things lawful for the pre-ferving the peace of the Churchy we have no further difference about this matter. Anf. It's well he will fay fo much of the Rule, we gladly confent. Then all the queftion is, what's lawful on both fides f I add one Qjnore. Is it not lawful for peace to forbear forcing men to difoblige 1000 ? whom they never knew, from being obliged by an Oath and Vow to that part of the matter which is good ? If it be the conjunction of fome things bad, that difobligeth them, then he that inferteth a bad thing is free from all obligations of his vow, even in materia licita & necefiaria. And if the want of impofing Power be made the caufe, whether is the Coronation Oathim-pofed by a fuperior Power on the King, or is it his own contract ? or is he therefore not obliged by it ? Had it not been requifite that you fhould have juftified all that we ftick at as unlawful, before you charge us with croffingthis Rule?

Sell. 56. p.zo^&c. My words in many Books againfl Schifm are cited and praifed \ Reader, he tells men the meafure of their Charity and Church Communion, viz* That men that do as much as I do, that forbore fo long Sacramental Ad miniftration, that gathered no Church, that held conftant Communion with divers Pariih Churches, that have wrote Co much and earneftly againfl: Schifm, (hall yet be ejected, fdenced, pay 401. a Sermon and lie in Jails unlefs I will do more. While Biftiop Lauds de-lign for widening the Church doors to the Papifts, is magnified by Heyliu and others as a good work.

O &3.

Cm]

Seft. 13. Firft he finds but w* juftifiable Caufes of Separation 7 but/?.' 213,214. he hath found three and no more, 1. Idolatrom Worfhip ; 2. Falfe Dotlrine impofed inftead of true* 3. Making and impofing things indifferent a* necejfaryto Salvation. Anf 1. Readers,, do you remember how even now he expofed to odium, the peoples judging whether the Pallors be Here-ticks ? And now they may feparate for falfe Dottrinc. 2. Iintreathim to think again of thefe Cafes following. 1 . What if the Worfhip be not Idolatrous, but Blafphemous, or utterly Ridiculous, tending to contempt of God ? 2. What if it be in an unknown Tongue > 3. What if the Church have no true Minifter ? I am glad you are not for feparating for want of Epifcopacy or Epifcopal Ordination ? 4. What if the Church want half the Church-Worfhip ? as to have Preaching and Prayer without Sacraments ? or Sacraments without Preaching or Prayer, or Preaching without Prayer, &c. 5. What if the Church be but fchifmatical ? Have you written all this Book, to draw men ta you from the Independant Churches, and do you now tell us that the people may not feparate from them, on the account of Schifm? 6. Whatif a Church require me to tell orfubfcribetooneknownLie, or to fay, that I believe vvnat I do not.- or to juftifie thoufands that I think obliged by a Vow, if they break it t What if they impofe any one fin on me without which they will not receive me to Communion . ? 7. What if I remove for my Edification from a drunken ignorant Prieft, to the Church of a wife and holy Pallor f 8. Are we loofer than Pope Nicholas that forbad men to hear Mafs from a Fornicating Prieft ? 9. I would you had fpoken to Edification and told men whatp//^ Dotlrine it is that will allow Separation^ and whether it's falfe Doctrine preach-td, or only impofed t on the perfon to be owned t If the former, is it all falfe Dotlrine or but fine, and what f Verily, if alJ, you are tenfold more a Seperatift than 1; For I look to hear fometimes fome words of falfe Doctrine in moll Pulpits, even of Gonformifts ? If it muft be herefie it felf, I will not feparate for once hearing it, if the Church profefs it not. If it be impofed Error that you mean, take heed left you juftifie Separation from your Church, by the new Article of Infants certain Salvation. And whenboth Arminians and Anti-Arminians fubfcribe the 3^ Articles, tell us whether thofe Articles are true in both their fenfes,or whether the fence be not the thing fubfcribed ? or whether one half of them fhould feparate* You are too unmerciful to your felf; but what kind of Churches fhould there be upon your terms ? 1 find no more in his fecond part which I am much.concerned in.

Chap*

C99]

C H A P. VIL

77?e fyply to his Third Tart : 77^ beginning!

Sett. i. TN his third Part Ifirftfindmy felf accufedp.242,^. Andthat 1 is not only by infilling on a falfe accufation of my words, but adding a confutation of himfeif, as if he difcerned not that he did it. In Treat, of Concord I fay, [_If it holdeththat God inftituted only Congregational or Parochial Churches ,as for prefent Communion ,t hen none of the reft inftitu-■ted by man may deprive them of their priviledges granted by Chrift. ~] I put it but with an (If it befe) becaufe I told them my own doubt of it. After 1 fay, [To devife newfpeciesof Cnurches without Gods Authority,and impofe them on the World j yea in his name^ and call all Viffenters Schifmaticht is worfe Vfurpation than to make and impofenew Ceremonies and Liturgies.'] And can any Chri-ftian deny either of thefe ? But he faith, [This fuppofeth Congregational Churches to be fo much the inftitution of Chrift ', that any conftitution above thefe is unlawful and unfupportable .•] which is more than the lndependant Brethren daajfert. And is any word of all this true ? 1. The Indepen-dants much infill on this ? 1 refer him now but to Amefn Medul. deEccl. Mnift. 2. Do the words fuppofe that which is plainly excepted in them ? If it were granted. 1. That the Congregational only are fo inftituted. 2. And that others are not fet over them by God, 3. And yet are obtruded in his name, without his authority. 4. And all DhTenters called Sch if-raaticks,] then I fay they are unlawful. 5. To coufute himfeif plainly he confelTeth that I fay, The queftion is not whether the Archbifhops ft.ould be over the particular Churches, as Succejfors to the Apoftolicaland General 0-verfeers of the fir ft Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office. Nor whether Patl'mks,Diocefans y Lay-Chancellors as Officers of the King,exercifin£ Magiftracy be lawful. ] And yet he faith that I fuppofe the contrary. He next pretends to give my Reafons : And the chief is, becaufe it over-tbroweth the fpecies of Gods making *, when I only fay, That which over-throweth it is unlawful •, which is not the Archbifhops that are over the lower Biihops, but thofe that put them all down, and governed the Carkafles of the mortified particular Churches as the loweft Bifhops of many fcore or hundred fuch as themfelves. And he faith I am for the full exercife of Difcivline within the particular Church •, while he confeft I fpake not a-gainA Archbifhops. And yet he faith,7lW$ is a fair reprefentation of my opinion.

SeB. 2. Coming to prove our Epifcopacy the fame with the Primitive he pretendeth to confute me: That which I aflerted was, i. That by the firft Inftitution, and Constitution, every Church no bigger for number of Souls than one of our great Parities had a Bifhop of their own, (one or more I difputed not.) 2. Yea that for the firft two hundred years if not more, no one Bifhop had a Church fo big as fome of ourPa-rifhes, at leaft except Alexandria, and Rome, and even of them it is not certain that they had more Souls. 3- That after by degrees the cafe was altered : But yet after there were many Meetings like Chappels, a while there was but one Altar. 4. After that thofe Ghappels had Altars ; but fo as that at certain times of the year, the people of the Cities and next parts were all to communicate with the Bifhop, and were no more than could meet to choofe the Bifhops, and to be prefent as to the main body of them, and difciplinary debates, to give confent. 5. In Cyprian's time at Carthage fa place of greatnefs and great numbers of Chriftians) the Church was grown very great, but not beyond the exercife of fuch perfonal Communion as I defcribed : And the Bifhops there and round about being worthy men, kept up the life of the former Difcipline. And as great as their Church was, we would be glad of fuch an Epifcopacy, Order and Commnnion. For I oft told you, that by present Communion, I meant not that all muft meet in one place at once, (For the tenth part of fbme Parifhes cannot: ) But that as Neighbours and Citizens, may have perfonal Converfe and Meetings per vices, of fome at one time and fome at another, as different from meer mental Communion, or by Synods or Perfons delegate, or as their Governours or Reprefentatives, and this for mutual Edification in holy Doctrine, Worfhip and Conversation. And that the footfteps of this remained long, when worldly Reafons had made a change.

And all this I have proved fo fully in my Treatife of Epifcopacy be-fides what's faid in my Abftracl: of the Epifcopal Hiftory, that till fome man fhail confute the full Evidence of Antiquity there brought, I have no more in Reafon to do upon that fubject. And though the Doctors Hiftory of this be the molt confiderable part of all his Book, yet fo far doth he leave what I fay uncontradicted, that I find not one word that he faith againft any of my Teftimonies, nor any for his own caufe, for the firft two hundred years: But when hefhould have proved the extent of the Churches at two hundred years, he begins his hiftorical Proofs at two hundred and fifty for three or four great Cities in the World, and fo proceeds to Aiignftine at above four hundred, and Fiftor Vtkenfis a-bout four hundred and ninety, Theodoret four hundred and thirty, (where

he

D*S3

he fuppofeth me to fay that of his City ? which I faid of the Diocefs of that City: J And to confute all Impertinencies, and groundlefs Sup-pofitions, while my full proofs are unanfwered, is but lofs of time.

Sett. 3. His chief argument is, {that no City how great foever was to have

more Bifhops than one.~] Anf. 1. He can prove no fuch Rule in the firfl: two

hundred years. 2. See how well the defenders of Prelacy agree ? Grotiiss

(& de Impeno & in Anotat. ) and Dr.Hammond I cited.who fay that Cities at

firft had two Biihops in each (Rome, Antioch, &c.) one of Jewifh

Chriftians, and one of Gentile Chriftians, and faith D. hi. Peter at Rome

was Biihop of the Jews, and Pauloi the Gentiles, and they had two Suc-

ceflbrs; and faith Grottus The Churches were formed to the manner of

the Synagogues, and there were divers Churches with divers Bifhops in

the fame City (in 1 Tim. 5. \^.& delmp.p. ^^^ 356,357.) 3. In the

fourth Century a Council at Capua decreed that the two Biihops with their

feveral Churches at Antioch(Flavians and E^^n/^)fhould live together in

Love and Peace. 4. This was a good cuftom while there were in the Cities

no more than one Biftiop might take care of: And the cuftom held when

times altered the cafe and reafon of it: And PoflefTion and the Defire to

avoid divifion made it held up by good men. 5. I have at large in my

Treatife of Epifcopacy confuted the opinion of appropriating Biihops

to Cities •, and fo did the old Churches that fet up Chorepifcopos.

Sett, 4. p. 259. He faith, {In Cities and Diocefes under one Bifliop were feveral diftintt Congregations and Altars.~\ Anf. 1. Yes, no doubt, after the fecond Century, and perhaps in two Cities a little before •, but in few in the World till towards the fourth Century. 2. This is the fame man who in the very Sermon which he defendeth faid [p. 27. Though when the Churches increafedthe occafional Meetings were frequent in feveral places, yet ftillthere was but one Church, and one Altar, and one Baptifm, andone Biflwp, with many Presbyters ajfifiing him : And this is fo very plain in Antiquity, as to the Churches planted by the Apoftles themfelves in feveral parts, that none but a fir anger to the hifiory of the Church can ever call it in que ft ion.~\ But when I told him how this would agree us, and hurt his canie, he will quickly fall under his own cenfare, and became \_a ft ranger to the hifiory of the Church'] alTerting many Altars in one Church of one Biihop. This Sermon was written fince his Irenicon. And now he feigneth a di(Unciion between {An Altar taken with particular refpettto a Biflwp : and for the place at which Chriftians didcommunicate.~] But what was the Altar that was taken with particular refpeft to the Bifhop ? Was it notthe material placeof Com-municn? And fo the members of the diftin&ion are co-incident. Saith Optatus lib. 6. Quid eft Altare vifi fedes & corporis & fanguims Chrifti ? Each ^ Church

C to* ]

Church had long but one of thefe. The belt Altars that Were made after the chief Church Altars were not for ordinary communion, but homH rary of fome Martyrs. The truth is, the phrafe of mum Akarc was taken up when each Church had but one *, but to fet up Altarc tontra Aha; e continued after to fignifie Anti-Churches. But I have fully anfwered this in my Treatife of Epijcopacy. His conje&ures from the numbers of Officers, &c. he may fee there alfo fufficiently confuted and in Ch. Hift. And the odd inftance of iheodoret he doth not at all make credible by his willing belief of Metim and other PopiQi Feigners. And were that Epiftle genuine a Cypher is eafilydropt in by Corrupters : It h ath need of better authority that mail be fo lingular from the cafe of all other Churches. And I fuppofe he knoweth that Cyrus was not afimple Bifhoprick, but a Metropolitane Seat, and might have 800 Parilh Bifhops.

Yea whereas there were under Antioch feven Dioceles, and fifteen Provinces or as others fay thirteen, that yet had many Bifhops under them, as Seleucia twenty four. &c. that were more dependant on Antioch, Cyrus was one of the eight Provinces or Metropolis that were per fe fubfifientes : And therefore when Theodoret faid how many Churches were under hands, it's like he meant Biihops Churches and not meer Presbyters, and either a Cypher dropt in corrupted the account (or elfe the Bifhops had but fingle Congregations •, But for my part as the cafe fo late concerneth me not, £q I fee nothing to perfwade me that that Epiftle is genuine and uncorrupt.But I would not have a Diocefs which then had many Provinces, or a Province which had many Bifhops Churches, be taken for a fingle Church.

Sell. 5. The fame I fay of Carthage, which was the Metropolis of A-frica, and the firft of fix Provinces before Jufiinian^nd of feven after, and Proconfular, and the Church called Africa Caput as Auguft. ep. 162. The fixth and feventh Carthage Councils tell us of the diftribution of the Provinces, decreeing three Judges to be fent out of each Province, viz. Car-thage,Numidia,Byz J acena i Mauritania y &c. Yea Leo Q.P.inEpift. adThom.&c, iaith that the Bifhopof Carthage was pofi Pont. Rom. primus Archiepifcopus & totius Africa maxim us Metropolitans, ( Though yet Binnius truly fay that in Cyprian's time he was not an Archbifhop, that is, no proper Governor of Bifhops, becaufe they concluded in Co\mci[>nemonoftrum dicitur E-pifeopus Epifcoporum •, but he was the chief of that great Province. And the Dr. himfelf out of Victor mentioneth one Creffeus that had one hundred and twenty Bifhops under him : He was Metropolitane of Aquitana and a Diocefs then having many Provinces-,how many be in a Diocefs Victor there tells yon that the Bifhop of Carthage in his own Eugitane Province had one hundred fixtyfour Bifhops. And how great were their Churches then ?

and

andL. 2. when he lamenteth the great number of their baniftied, Bifhops, Presbyters aud the Church-members were 4976. And oneParifh here hath 40000 if not more. He that confidereth that Cyrm was at moft but 60 miles from Antiocb the Patriarchal Seat,and that a Carthage Council had fometimes 600 Bifhops,and the Donatifts perhaps had as many ; and that as he faith, Crefceus had one hundred and twenty Bifnops under him , and that Cyprian fo often tells us how Bifhops were chofen by all the People, and how he managed his Difcipline in the prefence of ail his Plebs, (Laity) and by their confent; and how he telleth that it was the peoples duty to feparate from the communion of a finning Bifhop f which implieth communion before) and how the Bifhops in Council put the queftion, When a Church wanted a Bifhop, whether one of them that was a Bifhop and had perhaps but one or two or three Presbyters was bound to part with one to that wanting Church to make.a Bifhop of? aud confidereth the circuit and diftance of their Cities, and much more which I have elfewhere named, may well believe large Provinces, and larger Diocefles, but will think of their Bifhops Churches as we muft do of theirs in Ire-Und, when a late converted Countrey had fix hundred Bifhops. Make but Chrifts true difcipline practicable, and tie us not to fwear or aflent to your uncertain forms and we fhould«wo further trouble you in this.

Sett* 6. As for the credit he giveth to Syrmondrf% copy of Theodore^ Epiftle, or to the later Editions of his Works, I am not bound to be as credulous, nor to take the laft Editions for the belt, when they come out of the Jefuits hands: And can prove the Epiftle to Joh.Antioch^ which. Be/Iarmwe w r ould difprove, to be more credible than this: And it's one blot that he faith Ibeodorefs Epilt. 6. mentioneth the Metropolitane he was under, when he was under none^ but was himfelf an Independant Metropolitane: For fo the NotitU Epife. tells us, was Berytns, Heliopolis > Laodicea, Samafata y Cyros y Pompriopofa, Mopfucftia and Adama. If his Province was as the Epiftle cited faith foitrty Miles fquare,. andtheChrifti-ans fo numerous asisfaid, and he name none of the Bifnops under him, but number the Churches,it : s like they were Epifcopal Churches and very fmall. Andthat Filiates badChurchss it's no wonder when there were many Chorepifcopi not only under the Metropolitans but the City Bifhops. And why 1 muit reject his long received AVork if 1 queftion his late found Spittles 1 know not.But again I fay,this is nothing to our caufe, being fo long after the ages 1 mentioned,& my contrary evidence beingnot at all confuted

His confidence p. 260,261. about fome citations out of Tbeodoret, runs fcpon falfe Infinuations: 1. That the queftion is not of the number of Churches, but about the extent of the Epifcopal Power, whether it was

[to4]

limited to one Parochial Church, or extended over many: when he know-eth that 1 had no fuch queftion •, but whether thofe whofe power was over many Churches in the firft two Centuries at lead, had not as many Bilhops under them over thofe Churches (if fuch there were.) Or if the Bilhops were of the loweft rank, whether thofe under were not then deny ed to be Churches for want of Bilhops, and were not only parts of a Church T 2. And he feigneth me to bring Theodoras Testimonies to prove that even then in Alex, and Antioch a Church was but one Congregation, when I brought it only to prove, that even in that age they were fo fmali, that the footfteps of the ancient (hape of themftill appeared. Such Fi&ions may deceive them that will not try what is faid, but only read theanfwerer. But by this citation I fee he read my Treatife of £-fife, before his Book came out. And therefore 1 will pafs by thefe nib-lings till he anfwer it-

Sett. 7. />. 26 2. He accufeth me of [Rage and Bitterttefs] for faying that [if he will plead for fo much Frefumption, Profanation of Gods name, Vfurpation, Vncharitablenefs and Schifm y as to own their Churches to be new 9 anddevifed without Gods Authority , and yet may in his name be impofedonthe World, and all Dijfenters called Schifmatickj,~\ I leave him. And firft he feigneth that 1 charge him with this* which is untrue, unlefs he will charge himfelf with it. But why do I put in [If you wllfo plead.~\ Anf. Becaufe he accufed me for faying the contrary, viz* [that fo to divife, and fo to impofe, U worfe> &c. But becaufe I know not why he accufed fo plain a truth, I faid Sjf you dofo,"\ But he now tells me that he (quoted it tofhew that I looked on all Churches beyond Parochial, as Churches meerly of mans de-vifwg,) which is another untruth confeifed by himfelf, who before had this up ancf cited my own words to the contrary ; «bc. that I believe the Catholick Church and deny not National aflbciated Churches •, nor Arch-bifhops that put not down the particular Churches ) Pafl:ors and Difcipline: one miftake is his excufe for another. Had he meant as aforefaid, had my words been Rage,or neceifary confutation.?

SeU. 8. Yea it is his bufmefs in the very next page 16 3 to confute his own accufation of me by citing my own conceilions. And p. 264. he giveth me leave to call our Bifhops Archbifhops. Anf. But 1. Archbi-fhops have Churches with their proper Bifhops under them. But our Bi(hops fay that there are no fuch under them. 2. I told you before that as the Major General, Quartermafter General, &c. of an Army confti-tuteth not adiftindt body from the Army and the particular Regiments and Troops, fo I am not certain that Apoftles or Evangelifts or any general Preachers as fuch, did conftitute any ChurchFonn diftinft from the

Catholick

Catholick and the particular Bilhops Churches; But if they are fuppo-fed to have taken their feveral fixed Provinces (which I never faw pro-. ved) I will not contend whether thofe Provinces may be called Churches. If we agree about the thing, life the name as you fee caufe.

Sett. 9. And to your talk of our Bilhops being of the fame fort, I ask you whether any of the Bifhops for 300 years, or for long after fave Cyril Alexand. by violence, did ever ufe or claim any power over any Minifters or Chriltians, befides meer fatherly Teaching, Perfwading, urging Gods Word on them, and applying it to the confciences of particular Perfons by Admonitions, verbal Cenfures and Abfolutions? Did they meddle by Force, with Body or Purfe ? Let your Bifhops ufe no o-ther force or way of conftraint than the Apoftles did, (if they be their Succeflbrs) and not lay the excommunicate in Prifons and ruine their Bodies and Eftates, & valeat qmntum valere potefi. But Mr. Glanvile and many of you tell us, how little you care for it without the Sword.

Sell. 10. If any man will but confider what I cited out of Greg. Nazj,-arisen that faith Men unfit were fo ambitious to be of the Clergy, 'that the Clergy was in many Churches almoft as many as the Laity ; And that Presbyters then were much like the Presbyterians Elders, fave that they had the power of Word and Sacraments though they feldom exercifed Preaching in Cities, but left that to the Bilhop *, and that the number of their Acoluthi, Exorcifta, Oftiarii, Lettores, Snbdiacom, Diacom, &c. made up the great body of them. And the very Boys and Schollars that were bred up under them, yea or but for Church-finging, arefometimes joyn-cd to make upthenumber,fee Jfidor. deOffic. Eccl. L. 2. even all the Monks, are often numbred with them. And Vtihr cited by him feemeth to number twice the Infamdi fo bred up with the great number of Readers, to theC*rthage Clergy, I fay he that confiders all this, will not judge of the number of people or Churches by the number of the Clergy, as he would do now with us, where the great Parhhes have but two or three Prkfts.

Sett. 11. And as to the caufe that I plead for, it is enough that T have proved that even when the name of Bilhop was confined to the Epifcopi Pa-ftorum y yet the Presbyters had the power of the Keys, and were Epif-copiGregis^ and exercifed this power in their diftantCountrey aflemblies, though under the Bimop, and the Bifhop was to exercife his with them as Afliftants 0 (6 that the particular Churches were not reallyunchurched.

Sett. 12. p. 265. He cometh nearer our controverfie, but firlt fahly ftateth the queltion, fuppofing that I fay that (the whole power of the Pres-

P hytcrs

byters is fwallowd up by the Bijhops.) And is the difputing of a queltion falfly ftated of any profit ? I only faid that the office of a Church-Paftor or Presbyter hath three efTential parts, viz.. the power of Teaching the Church, of conducting them in Worlhip, and Governing the people by the ufe of the Keys. And that he that deftroyeth one part that is elTential (though he fwallow not up all the power) altereth the eflence of the Office : and that fo the Englifh Diocefan Form doth, I have largely proved in my Treat, of Epifcopacy which he doth not anfwer.

Sett. 13. 1. He tells us that the Presbyters are the lower houfe in the Convocation, and fo have their Votes in pajftng all the Rules of Difcipline^ Articles of Dottrine and Forms of divine Service.~] Anf. 1. According to his defcription the Church of England hath no one EccleJiafticalG'overnment ^either Monarchical or Ariftocratical or Democratical: And therefore the Acts of the Convocation are no Acts of governing the Church of England , but meer Agreements. Therefore this proveth not the Presbyters power of governing it. 2. If this be a part of Government it is the Legifhtive Part or the Executive. The later it is not. The former the Lawyers fay it is not *, King and Parliament only being Legiflators. But if this be Legiflation, we deny it to be any of the power of the Keys, in queltion, which is but to judge who is fit or unfit for Church-communion,to Admonifh, Abfolve or Excommunicate according to Chrifts Law} and is the execution of Chrifts Law,and not the making of new Laws, 3. It is lis fubjudke whether the things here named be any part of true lawful Church-Government. 1 Rules of Difcipline Chrift hath made enough, except about meer mutable Accidents. Articles of Do^rine man muft not otherwife make, than to declare what he believeth Chrift hath made. Forms of Divine Service commanded to all others, the Apo-files never made, nor that we find appointed any others to make them. If thefe be lawful by way of agreement of many Churches, this is none of the Power we fpeak of. Yet he calls this [fibof thegreatejl Rights of Government^ viz. making Rules for the whole body , which he denyeth to have any conftitutive Government.

Seci. 14. He faith, [In this main part of Government our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches — only there they were taken fingly in every City^ &C Anf That is, 1. When the Minifters of a Diocefs choofe four, out of whom the Bifhops take two, And 2. This only to make agreements,with-ant any governing power over the Church of England, 3. And this only about"general Regulation. 4. In either unlawful or doubtful Impoii-tionson others about meer Accidents or Circumltantes of Order; This is the lame or as good as, when every true Church hath prefent Paftors

perfonaHy

perfonally toexercife the executive Church-Government called the Keys, by the Laws of Chrift already made, in judging the cafe of each particular Perfon, as to his Title to Church-communion and the Kingdom of Heaven. For that is the thing which by us is pleaded

for.

Sett. 15. Next he tells US of four that are to joy n in Ordinatiom and Examination, when 1. It is not the making or governing of Pallors which Iamfpeaking of, but the Government of the Flocks. 2. He know-eth thatitis no ftrange thing for our Bi(hopsto fay, that both in Convocations and Ordination, the Presbyters aft only as the Bilhops Council, and the Bifhops only aft by governing authority. 3. I never difputed for Presbyters Power to ordain as efTential to them f nor did I ever meddle in any Ordination.) 4. If four Presbyters have fuch power that pro-veth not that four hundred have it, that never exercife it, in the fame Diocefs. 5. If by all this you mean that really Presbyters have the governing Power of the Keys, it condemneth thole the more that give it to four and deny it to four hundred or one thoufand. 6. When I was ordained none examined us but the Bilhops Chaplain, and two or three City Minifters called by the Bifhop that never fawus before, meerly fro form* laid hands on us with him. But it's well that you give fuch a power to ordain.

Sect. 16. Next p. 267. he comes to the point in queftion, whether they have the Paftoral Power of the Keys over their own Flocks ? And I. He faith, One would thinkjbe objettor had never read over the office of Or' dinationfor them. For the Eptftle is read, the Charge given by St. Paul u the Elders at Miletus Aft 2p, or the third Chapter of 1 Tim. concerning the Office of a Bifhop. What a great Impertinency had this been, &c ? Anf. This is like the reft. I mult not fuppofe that he never read it himfelf. Sec Reader, whether any of thffbe true ? Indeed heretofore it was in the Book of Ordination 0 but we (hewed the Bilhops that thence Bifhop Vffier in his Reduction argued that the Presbyters have fome conjunft Power with the Bilhops to govern their own particular Flocks, and fome true Paftoral Power of the Keys (I was one that oft urged it on them.) And they told us that the Bifhop was the Paftorand they but his Curates, and to confute US, put out both thefe parts of Scripture from the Book^which he faith are in it •, fo that neither of them is there : And prefently they alfb put out the very name of Paftor given to Parifh Minifters, in almoft all places of the Liturgy. Doth not all this fhew their mind ?

Sett. 17. Next he tells us of the Bifhops Exhortation, calling them \jhc Meffiengers, Watchmen, Paftors and Stewards of the Lord.^ Anf. It Was

P 2 ' fo

fo in the old Book, But the word (Pafiors) here alfo is purpofely put out to (hew their judgment. Is this juft dealing, And doth it not confute himfelf? 3. He tells US of the Promife to Minifies Doctrine, Sacraments and DifcipHneJ\ Anf The truth is neither in the exhortation nor collation of Orders, is there any mention of any power given him to govern, but only to adminifter the Wordand Sacraments: and thus far the people are called his charge : But in the queftion, Difcipline is named thus [as the Lord hath commanded^ and as this Church and Realm hath received the fame, according to the Commandements of God : ] fo that 1. The Prieft here-by OWneth that as it is receivedinthis Church and Realm it is according to Gods Commandments, and 2. Then promifeth fo to ufe it: which is 1. To be an Accufer, 2. And as a Cryer to publilh the Bi(hops or Lay-Chancellors Excommunication and Ahfolutions. This is the promife.

Seek. 18. And what if the name of Government or the Keys had been put in, when it is denyed in its elfential part ? I have proved out of Coufins Tables, Zouch y and the Canons and actual Judgment and Practice of the Bifhop., that Government or Jurifdiction is denyed to them : And in-ftanced in many and moftadts in which it doth conlift, in my Treatife of Epifcopacy. And this being my queftion, ("whether the Eagliib frame depofe not the ancient Churches (which had every one their own Paftor with the power of the Keys) and fo the ancient Offices and Difcipline.) I am not now concerned about the General Archiepifcopal Power of the Diocefans.

Set?. 19. p. 269. He faith (that while the Apoflles lived it is probable then were no fixed Bifltopf, or but few.) Anf. Mark this Reader, u If fo, then while they lived, there were but twelve or thirteen Bilhops in the World,. if any. And were then no more Churches that had governing Pallors ? 2. Then if it cannot be proved that the Apoflle^were fixed Bifhops, but: ambulatory Apoltles, there were none in the \rorld in their times. 3. Then the Angels of the feven Churches were Apoftles (reprehended l.y Chiift) or meer Presbyters, or of the few excepted B (hops. Why then doth he himfelfelfewhere argue that there were Bilhops then, becaufe thefe Cities were Metropoles ? 4. See what concord is between the chief Doctors of the Churchof England. Dr. Hammond faith that it cannot be proved that there were any Presbyters but Bitbops in Scripture times: and fhppofeth theEpifcopal Party of his mind. This Dr. faith, (It's probable there were no fixed Bijlwps, or but few* And fo they differ. 1. Of the fence of the Texts that mention Presbyters and Bilhops. 2. And abous the guidance of the Churches defatlo in thofe times. 3. And if the Ar-pofties were ngt fixed Billiops of fiugle Churches, they have no Sncceilbrs

as

C m 1

a s fuch. If they were we mull have but twelve or thirteen Bifhops as their Succefibrs in the World. And which be thofe Seats ? and how prove they their claim ?

Sett. 10. To prove the Parifh Minifters Paftoral Power/?. 272. he tells US of that he is judge of the Qualification of thofe that are ta be confirmed. A/if 1. Had I ever taken a Pariih Charge under them, 1 would have taken more advantage from the new Rubrike about this,than any thing elfe.and then the Bifhops intended. But 1. There is not one of a multitude confirmed, and defire of Confirmation proveth notanyunderilandingofChri-ftianity. 2. And if the Minifter doubt whether they be Ready or capable, they may refufe to give him any account. 3- He is to fend in the names of fuch as he judgethfit. But 1. it's only when the Biihop Summons them. 2. And the Bifhop is no way obliged to confirm no more than the Priell approvcth of. To prove this, 1. Their ordinary pra^ice is to confirm without the Curates hands .• 2. When the Kings Declaration was debated at Worccfter Houfe i6<5r, before the K. Lords, Bifhops and Minifters, I laboured almoft only for this that day, to have got in the word (Confer*) of the Minifter of the Pariih for fuch as fhould be Confirmed, fuppofing that one word would have partly reftored the Parifh Pallors power, and fo have made our Biihops tolerable Archbifhops, that if poiTible we might have been healed. But the Bifhops rejected it with all their might, and got the King to refufe it: But becaufe I laid fo great a ftrefs on it, the Lords and others that were to collect and publifti the Concef-fions, when we were gone put it in for that time, and at the Convocation the Bifhops call it all away. Did they not tell us then their fence ? And they call him only the date of the Pariih, and not the Paftor. And 4. If this were practicable fonz good m:n would p;actice it, at leaft this Doctor himfelf : But I never heard of one that pre-examined his Communicants whether they ^cre ready and willing to be Confirmed. }. And it he did, he would keep away many fit Perfons, that fcruple our fort of Confirmation. 6. And what is all this to the many thoufand Noncom-municants,who quietly remain members oPyour Churches ?

Sett. 21. As to his wordsp. 275. of power to keep the fcandalous from the Sacrament, 1 have in fo many books proved it next to none, and utterly infufficient, that I will not wall time to repeat all here.

Sett. 22. Heteils me that in Cxn. 26 is not in Reformatio txgwn Ecchf j4nf But I have before told him, how much more and better is, which would go far to heal us could we obtain it. He faith that \_any one that hath feen them knowethit to be a miftakt, to fay it waipMjhed by Job: Fox. Anf

His Reader mud be a ftrong believer, and taken uchon his word; \. I

ha^a

have feen them, and fpake with men of great understanding that have feen them, that yet judge it no miftake. 2. The Preface of the publifher is like his Style. 3. It is called Prtfatio I. F. Andean every Reader know thati. F. meanethnoty^Fo*.? 4. Ordinary Tradition faith it was John Foxs : And what Ihonid I fooner believe in fuch a cafe ? Inftead of proving that they have all a power (to their condemnation) which we fee they exercife not, let him procure a real power declared and granted, and it will do more than thefe words.

Sett. 23. But when it comes to the queftion whether me may fo much as call a finner to repentance by name before the Church, who reje&eth all more private admonition, he puts the queltion, whether the obligation to admonifh publicity an offender, or to deny him the Sacrament if he will come to it* be fo great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law, made by fublkk authority, &c. Anf. The firft queftion is whether Chrift have not made his Church fo different a thing from the World, that they ihould be openly differenced, by a Communion of Saints ? 2. And whether he hath not inftituted an office to judge of this and by Government execute it ? And 3. Whether any man have authority to fufpend this Law or Office? And then 4. I (hall grant that not only Difcipline, but Preaching and Prayer and Sacraments may be forborn hie & nmc in the prefent exercife, when elfe the exercife would do more hurt than good. 5. But are thefe Laws good that forbid it f and fhould we Covenant never to endeavour an Alteration!

Sett. 24. He next tells us of the great difficulty of exercifing true Difcipline, (which is molt true) andfeems thence to defend the forbearance of it with u>. Anfw- I have in my Treatife of Epifcopacy and oft proved that it is of great importance to Chrift's ends, and that he would have it continued to the laft, and that the Communion of Saints is a practical Article of Faith; and that making»fmali difference between the Church and the World, tends to Church deftruftion, and to the reproach of Chriftianity, and [he utter undoing of millions of Souls.

And though Pope and Prelates have abufed it to captivate Princes and Nations, the juft nfe of it (he knowethj is mentioned by the Universal Church, and vifibly recorded in the Canons of the feveral ages. Though fome Eraftians are of late againft it *, And Jefuits aud worldly Proteftants can difpenfe with it when it would hurt their worldly Intereft, and turn it chiefly againft Gods Servants that difpleafe and crofs them.

Sett. 25. f* 2S4. He faith , £Ihe mm of Difcipline in the Parifh

Churches

Luij

Churches was never thought by old Nonconformists deftrnttive to the being of them*

Anfw. They did not confound the Tower and the Exercife: Nor what the Minifiers office is indeed and from God, and what it is by the Bifhops Mind and Rules of Conformity. I fay as they, i. The £.v-erctje may be fufpended without nulling the Tower or Policy. 2. They are true Paftors and Churches by Gods will, againft the will of thofe that would degrade them.

Sell. 264 But fappofing every man left to his own Consciences for Com-munion, 1. He faith the greateft Offenders generally excommunicate them-felves.

Anfw. 1. And is it your way to leave all the reft to their Conferences, and yet to preach and write againft, and lay in Jail diflenting godly People that communicate not with you ? 2. And are not all thefe Offenders (till Members of your Church ? Albajpineus complain-eth of their Roman French Church, that he never knew any further caft out than from thQ Sacrament, and left ftill to other parts of com? munion as Members *, And fo do you by thoufands who are all Sons of your Church ; but we are none.

He is again at it, what Church I was of and I have told him oft enough.

CHAP.

[ m ]

CHAP. V 111.

What the National Church of England is ?

;Sdh. i. A Ccording to the Doflors Method we $ome now to the JlV Explication of one of the terms of our Controverfie, fo long and loudly called for, viz,, what the National Church of England is, which we mufi obey, and from which we are faid to feparate, p. 287. And theanfwerisfuchasmay tell Dr. Fidwood and him, that it's time to give over wondering that I understood not what they meant by it.

Sett. 2. Our queftion is of the Church Policy and Political Form. All writers of Politicks difference a meer Community y from a Political Body : This is.effentiated of the two constitutive Parts, the Pars Kegens and Pars fubdita : the former is much like the Soul, and the later the Body. The Ruling Part is called the Form by molt, and the forts (Mo-narchkal, Anfocraticaly Democratical or mixt) the form in Specie^ as the rational or fenfitive Soul to Animals : But the Relative Form is the V-nion of both in their proper order. Such a body Politick is a Kingdom, a City, a Church in the proper and ufual fenfe.

, But in a Ioofe fenfe many other things may be called a Church. As 1. a Community prepared for a governing Form, not yet received. 2. An occalional Congregation about Religion fas Prifoners that pray together , Men that meet abouc a Religious Confutation or Difpute, &c.) 3. Many Churches as under one Chriftian Magistrate as an accidental Head. 4. Many Churches alTociated for mutual help and concord, without any governing Head : Either of one Kingdom or of many. 5. Many Churches as meerly agreeing in Judgment and Love, in distant parts of the World. None of thefe are Churches in the political Senfe, but are equivocally fo called.

But Politically, j. All the Chriftian World is one Church as formed by their Relation toChrift the Head. 2. All fingle Churches that have Paltors to guide them in the EfTentials of the Paftoral Office, are true Churches, formed by this mutual Relation. Thefe two are undoubted.

j. The now Rotnan-Catholid^Church is one by Ufurpation, as informed by one llfurping head.

4. A Patriarchal Church is one, as Governed!by a Patriarch.

5. A Provincial Church is one as headed by the Metropolitan, or as mixt where Ariftocratically others are joyned with him.

6. An Archiepifcopal or Diocefan Church that hath particular Churches andBifhops under it is one as headed by that Diocefane. (Jure an injuria I difpute not.)

7. A Diocefane Church of many fcore or hundred Parishes, having no Epifcopus Gregis, or true Paftorsaid Paftoral Churches under him, but only half Paftors and Chappels that are but partes Ecclefw, is one, even of the loweft fort, in their opinion, as headed by that Diocefane.

8. A Presbyterian Clafllcal Church is one, as headed by the Claf-fes.

9. A Presbyterian National Church is one, as headed by the General AfTembly.

10. An Epifcopal National Church is one, either as headed by one National Bifhop, or elfe by a Synod of Biihops Ariftocratically , or elfe by a Synod of Biinops and Presbyters Ariftocratically. All thefe that are conftituted of One Regent and a fubdite Part^ are called Churches in a Political proper fenfe, and not only equivocally.

Now the Qoeftion is,, Of which fort is the National Church of England ?

And the Doctor faith, page 287. 1. That the Society of all Chrifti-ans is counted a true Catholic!^ Church, from their Vnion and Confent in fome common things: and fo is ours-, &c7\

Anfo. But in what common things ? Not in one Bible, for fo may He-reticks, much lefs in one Liturgy. If it be not a confent in one Governing Head, it makes no proper Church.

2. He fuppoleth an agreement in the fame Faith, and under the fame Government and Difcipline.

j4nfxv. That's right: But what Government is it, Civil, or Ecclc-fiaftical f The firft is no effential part of a proper Church. If it be the later, is it one in fpecie or in individuo politico ? Not the former; for a 100 Epifcopal Churches in feveral Nations may have one fpe-cies of Government, as many Kingdoms may have. It is therefore tht later that is all ray Qieftion, which is the Church-Head f

0^ / He

("4)

He faith £ As feveral Families make one Kingdom, fo feveral hjfer Churches make one National.

Anfw. True, if that National Church have one Conftitutive Head as a Family hath: It's no Family without a Pater or Mater Familias. And no Governed proper Church without Governours *, and there is no Governour where there is no fupreme in his place and kind.-For inferiours have all their power from the fupreme .• There is no Univerfal fupreme but God; but the King is fubordinately the fo-preme in his Kingdom in refpeft to inferiours, and fo it is in other Governed Societies.

He addeth [The name of a Church comprehended the Ecclefiafiical Go* vernours and People of whole Cities, and fo may he extended to many Cities united under one Civil Government , and the fame rules of Religion*

Anfw. i. If thequeftion were only de nomine, we grant that Civil Courts even of Heathens are ufually by Writers called Ecclefi*, and fo is any AfFembly. If this be all you mean, fpeak out.

2. Many Nations may agree in the fame Rules of Religion, yea> fo all Chriftians do: Doth this eonftitute National Churches ?

3. One Civil Government is of another fpecies, and not effential but accidental to a Church, and therefore doth not eonftitute or individuate it.- One juftice of Peace or Mayor in a Chriftian Cop poration, doth not make it one Parift Church. But if this be all your meaning, fpeak out: we grant de re a Chriftian Kingdom*, arnd contend not de nomine if you call it a Church.

§. 3. page 297. I. As to the difference of a National Church and Kingdom, he granteth what we defire, confefling the difference. But asketh [whence cometh all this z.eal now againft a National Church?2

Anfw, An untrue infinuation.

i. To defire to know what it is, is untruly called zeal againft it.

2. And agreeing with you in the defcription is no zeal againft it.

He adds [The Presbyterians and Mr. Hudfon write for it.

Anfw. Mr. Hudfon is a Conformift : And the Presbyterians tell you what they mean, a Chriftian Nation of particular Churches Governed by One General Afferably as the Supreme Ecclefiaftical Government. Whether this be juft or unjuft is now none of our question. I have oft told what I think of it. Do you alfo tell us which is your National Church-power and I have done? Are yon loth to be underftood?

§• 4- But.

§. 4. But page 299. He cometh to his plain Anfwer, viz. 1. [7he National Church of England diffupve is the whole Body of Chriftians in this Nation, confifting of Pafiors and People, agreeing in that Faith, Government andworflrip which are eflablijhed by the Laws of this Realm-'} And now he [continues his wonder at thofe who fo confidently fay y they cannot teR what we mean by the Church of England.]

Anfw. Yea, your wonder may increafe, that i lefs and lefs under-ftand it, if you did not after tell us better than in this unhappy definition.

1. Is this called the Church diffufive one Governed body Politick? it nor, it is no Church in the fenfe in queftion, and l'le not ftick with you for an equWocal name

2. Do you mean by [Government agreed in. 1. The Civil Government. 2. Or the Ecclefiaftical Government of the particular Churches feverally. 3. Or one Government of all the National Church ?

1. The firft makes it no Church in the fenfe inqueftion.

2. The fecond makes it no Church, but an Aflbciation of many Churches, fuch as a thoufand Independent Churches may make, or the Churches of many Kingdoms. Many Families AfTociated are no City or one ruled Society if they agree in no Common Gover-nours, but only their feveral Family Governours. Many Cities af-fociated are no Commonwealth if they agree not in one fupreme power. If s no political body without one common Governour, Natural or Colk&ive, Monarchical, Ariftocratical or Democra-tical.

And what is it of [Worfiip eflablifloed by Law} that individuates your Church ? If all that the Law hath 'eftablifhed.

1. Your Church hath oft changed its very being, and may do at every Parliament.

2. And the Church is fmall and unknown, if all that differ in any point eftablifhed are no parts of it. But if it be not all eftablifhed, who knoweth by this definition what it is, and what is the very matter of your Church. So that here is a definition which neither notifieth matter or form.

J. 5. Next he anfwereth the Qieftion, How all the Congregations in England make up this one Church?} and anfwereth [By Vnity of Confenty as all particular Churches make one Catholick^ }

Q 2 Anfw.

( W)

Anfw- Confcnt to what? i. If it be not to one common Government, it is no Governed Church, as one. 2. Doth he think that the Catholick Church confenteth not to one Governing Head, Chrifl * And doth any thing elfe make them formally One Politick body or* Church ? This were ill Dodtrine.

§. 6. Queftion, How comes it to be One National Church? (Saithhe) / fay becaufe it was received by the common confent of the whole Nation in Parliaments as other Laws of the Nation are t ]

jinfw. Whether, {How comes it ?/] Speak of the efficient caufe, or the formal, or what, it's hard to knov/, fo lingular are his Logical notions. But the firft is moft likely. 4

And then, 1. The queftion is ftill unanfwered, What is the One common Governing power in the Church which this Parliament confent hath fa up f He knows this is the queftion.

2. And if it be bf~ Parliament confent) how old is your Church? What Parliament firft made it? It's not fo old as Luther r Is it no older than the Liturgy or Canons ?

j. Doth it die and live again as oft as Parliaments change it? If the corruption of one have been the generation of another, how many Churches 01 England have you had ?

4. The whole Nation did not confent by Parliament when the Lords and Commons voted down the Bilhops and Liturgy: was there then no "National Church ?

5. How fhail we prove that the whole or half the Nation ever meant to put their confent into the hand of the Parliament to make a . new Church of England, and to alter it ?

6. What men make they "may deftroy. May not the Nation withdraw fuch confent? and the Parliament unmake their creature?

§. 7. -Next, p. IOO he faith {The Reprefentative Church 0/England isthe Bi{Ijo?j and. Presbyters'of this Church meeting according to the Laws

tftfe Realm, to confult and advife about matters of Religion. The

confent of both Convocations (of Canterbury and Tork, Provinces,) is the fcprefentative National Church of England.

Anfw- i. So here we have a D'ftufive- Church and its Reprefcnta-Uftc, but no Government of either, as a Church, mentioned, but

the Civil.

2. And they can be no Governors meerly as Reprefenting thofe that are no Govsmours themfelves. Not as the peoples Reprejentatives; , for they are no Church Govsmours (whatever elfewhere he faith like

z Brown-

(H7)

a Brownifl of the Keys being given to Peter as reprefenting the whole Church J Not as the Presbyters reprefentatives; For, i. They are denied Epifcopal power, 2. And they are Governours at molt but of their particular Churches, and not of the whole. 3. Not as the Bilhops reprefentatives, for 1. They are there themfelves, 2. And they are no Common Governours of the whole as fuch.

y If he mean that the two Convocations when they confect become the One Common Confticutive Governing Power of the National ChurcH, this is intelligible, but 1. He after denieth any fuch \ 2. And then their d-iflent would d.flblve the Church, and one Convocation not oblige it '>, (wich much more fuch.J

5. 8. But yet he perceivethhe hath notanfwered me, and therefore comes to it, page JOO, faying, [It's a falfe fupp oft tion that where rver there is the true notion of a Church, there mitft be a Conflitutive

Regent part, . ■—- a ft an ding Governing power rvb.cb is an ejfential

partofit.2 x

Anfvp. A trne notion, belongeth to equivocals ; The true notion^ and the proper political notion are words of various ffgniiication. I have granted you that the true notion of a Church belongs to a Ship-full, a Prifon full, a Houfe-full, of Chriftians as fuch; and to our Parliament, and to the Common-Council of the City: But not the notion now in queftion.

2. Is not Government eflential to a Governed Church ? Fixed Government to a fixed Church, and tranfient temporary Government to an anf>verable Church? Deny this and few will follow you.

§. 0. He adds, [ (< Which I will prove to be falfe from Mr. B. * himfelf. He ailerts that there is one Catholick vifible Church, u and that all particular Churches headed by their particular Bi-u fhops or Pallors, are parts of the Univerfal Church as a Troop is of

ct an Array, and a City of a Kingdom. -Then it will unavoidably

u follow, that -there mull be a Catholick vifible Head to a Catho-u lick vifible Church. And fo Mr. Bs. Conftitutive Regent part of

"a Church hath done the Pops a wonderful kindnefs But there

$ are fome men in the world that do not attend the advantages <! they give to Popery> fo they may but vent their fpleen againft ct the Church of England. But doth not Mr. B. fay, that the Uni-4t verfai Church is headed by Chrift 5 I grant be doth; But the "Queftion is of the Vifible Church of which particular Churches

"are

("8)

u are parts: And they being Vifible parte, require a Vifible Con-

* l ftitutive Regent Head, therefore the whole Vifible Church

41 mult have likewife a Conftitutive Vifible Regent part — This is to *' make a Key for Catholicks ?

Anfw. I am glad he fpeaketh fo intelligibly, in denying a Confti-tntive Regent fart ^ though forry that he fpeaks fo ill.

i. When I have written againft Johnfon, alias Terr* the Papift, two Books on this fubject •, efpeciaJly the later fully proving the Catholick Church headed by Chrift, to be that vifible Church Ca-tholick of which all particulars are members *, Can the Reader think I fhould write it over again, becaufe this Do&or will talk over a little of the fame with that Prieft, and take no notice of my proof or anfwer ?

2. Doth he believe that the Kingdoms of the World are not vifible parts of God's Univerfal Kingdom? and yet Godinvifibie?

3. Dare he fay that all true Churches are not real parts of ChrifiVs Univerfal Church, as a Governed bcdy ? and yet are not they vifible ? Is it necelTary then that the Univerfal Head nuift be vifible if the fubordinate be fo ?

4. Doth he not perceive that he turneth the Controverfie, from the necejfity of a Regent bead, to the neceility of his vifibility ? As if our queltion had not been, Which is the Regent yart of the Church of England ? but whether it muft he vifible f Is this edifying I

5. All Chriftians are agreed that the Univerfal Church is Vifible. 1. In its parts and members on earth, and their profefiion. 2. In that Chrift the Head was vifible on earth •, ;. And hath left Vifible Univerfal Laws} 4. And hath a Body vifible in Heaven^ as the King is to his Courtiers but not to molt of his Subjects •, 5. And will fhortly vifibly judge all the World. Thus far and no further (fave as feen extraordinarily to 7W, Stephen, &c) is the Univerfal Head Vifible. And are we not agreed that this is a real and mod excellent Political Church? and that all other Vifible Churches are parts of it? Something befides fpleen makes fomemen talkdan-geroufiy.

§. 10. But really doth he think that this doth unavoidably fet up the Pope ? Why, firft is there a word of this thatafoberChri-ftian dare deny ? or that the Chriftian World doth not commonly confent to ? And do the certain Dodrines of the Gofpel and Church fet up the Pope? Will he turn Papift if this be proved,

and

and the Chriftian World be not deceived ? Is this our Champion againft Popery now ? I thought no man but Mr. Cheny and fome odd Papifts had been of this Opinion? But to Mr. Cheny and a-gainft Johnfon I have confuted it, and therefore thither refer the Reader. Far be it from me to refift Popery by denying, i. That ChriftY Church thus far vifible is one Political body headed by himfelf, 2. Or that all true viftble Churches are parts of it. j. Or that every Political Governed body is conftituted of the Regent and fnbdite farts. Chriftians will reject me for the former, and Politicians deride me if I hold the laft.

§. 11. He proceeded!, [«* 2. The plain refolution is, that we lt deny any neceffity of any fuch Regent Conftitutive part, or one u formal Eeclefraftical Head as eflential to a National Church : For a-. <l National confent is as fufficient to make a National Church as an " Univerfal confent to make a Catholick.]

Anfw. No confent maketh a Catholick Church, but confenting.to one fupremeHead, Chrift • But I am glad 1 underftand you.

§ 12. Saith he, [ u Qjeft. By what way this National confent "is to be declared ? By the Constitutions of this Church theArch-^Bifhops, Bifliops and Presbyters fummoned by the King's Writ, 4t are to advife and declare their judgments in matters of Religion, *' which received and enafted by Parliament there is as great a Na-tc tionai confent as to any Law. . And all theBifhops, Minilters and " People make up this National Church.^

jinfip. Now we are come to the bottom: And, 1. Our queftion is of the Conftitution of the Church, and ths Do&or tells us the Adminiftration makes it. To confult and advife and make Laws are 2(fls of Adminiftration, and follow the Conftitution. Men muft have Tower before they #/<?*>, and mult be a Church before they aft as a Church.

2 Yea to Advife and Confult are not fo much as atts proper to adminiftring Government, but belong to thofe that are no Go-vernours* alfo.

3. If they be no Laws till the Parliament make them fuch, then either the Parliament are your Church Hiad, or you have none that's Ecclefiaftical.

But having your plain Confeflion that yon have no fuch Regent fart , and fo are no Church Political, (fave Civil ) but a meer Aflbcia-tion> I ask.

( 1.20 )

§. 13. i. Why do you pretend that we are none of the Church of England, or that we vent our fpleen againft it or deny it, who deny not AfTociated Churches in England under one Civil Government)

2. How unhappily are the Church-Defenders and Conformifts difagreed? Read Mr. Dodwefl and many fuch others that take the Church to be a Governed body Politick^ and fee what they will judg of you ?

3. Are not you and I liker to be of one Church of England^ who agree what it is, than you and thofe Bifoops and Do&ors that fpeak of two different things, and agree not io much as what it is ?

4. Have you not brought your Defence of the Church of England to a fair iflue, by denying that there is any fuch Church, in the queftioned political fenfe f

5. What made you before talk of being under one Government? If you meant only Civil? Is your Governed Church as fuch only Civil, or a Kingdom only ?

6. Do you not now abfolve all men from the duty of obeying the Church of England as fitch, and from all guilt of difobeying them? How can men Govern that are no Governours ? and bow can we obey them/ It's only the Civil power then that we herein dit obey.

' If you fay that all the Biihops are Governours, and altogether govern the whole", I anfwer, Yes per panes, but not as a whole or Church, If twenty Families in a Village agree as Matters .and-Servants, to go one way as Confenters, this maketh no one Government of the Village. If the Phyficians of London confent to one Pharmacopeia that maketh them not a body Politick. If twenty Sea Captains confent to go one Voyage by one rule, each one is a Governour of his own Ship, but this maketh no Government of the whole. All the jufcices and Mayors* of England rule the Kingdom per partes^ by the fame Law : But all together make not one Ariftocracy to Govern the Kingdom as One whole. Unlefs your Bifhops, cVc are United in One perfona Politica or Ariftocracy, they may rule their feveral Churches, but they make not one common Government for the National Church as fuch. An agreement of the Emperouf, Spaniard, and other Confederates make not one Kingdom or body Politick.

7. How can they be Schifmaticks for difobeying them that are not their Governours.

8. How come Diflenters bound by Parliament confent f If it never was in their minds to truft them as Conienterstor them? yea and declare their own diffent, as mod of the Nation did lately a-gainfl Prelacy and Liturgy, yea and their chofen reprefentatives ? Have fuch reprefentatives more power to exprefs our confent than we our lelves?

9. You unhappily erre with Hooker in your popular Politicks, if you think that the Laws bind us only becaufe we confent to them by our Reprefentatives, or that as fuch they make them. Whereas it is as by Cwanting in the Conftitntion they are made part of the Rulers or Legislators, and not meerly as if we made the Laves by them.

10. And as to Convocation confent, how binds it all thofethat never confented to them ? How is the City of London fo bound to Conform, when they had not one chofen Clerk ( but only the Dignitaries,) in the Convocation that made us our Conformity (the two chofen by them being refuted by the Bifhops.)

11. Will not you pafs for an aflerter of the Principles of Independency, that not only fay, The Keys are given to the whole body, and the Convocation reprefent the People, &c. but alfo that England is one Church but by confent, without confentingto any one Conftitutive Regent Church head. The Indefendants are for a National Church meerly by confederacy and confent, without National Government of it.

12. You go further from the Epifcopal Politicks than the Pref-byterians do: For they make an jiriftocratical Regent Part, but you make none.

13. I doubt fome Statefmen will be angry with you, that fay there is no power of Church Government in England, but from the King as Head (as Crumpton before Coufws Tables, and others ordinarily.)

14. Do you make England in eflentials any more one Church, than England and any Foreigners agreeing are one ? Did the Synod of Dort make us one with them ? Do large Councils make many Nations one Church ? Did the Heptarchy make England one Kingdom, when feven Kings Governed the whole byp4rtt, but none the whole, as fuch?

R is I

15. I befeech you think what you have done againfl the Pare-chiaiy Diocefane and Provincial Churches in England. Have none of thefe, have not each of thefe a Regent Confiitutive part? Are none of them true Churches in fenfu politico ? You dare not fay, No. If they are, You have faid that vifible Churches as Parts unavoidably require a vifible Head to the whole (by which I bring in the Pope, becaufe you think Chrift will not ferve tl^e turn:) And do you not fay that all thefe Churches are parts of the. Church of England f And if you deny it to have one Regent part, do \ou not then either deftroy the reft, or ufe the name Church equivocally to thefe feveral forts fo heterogeneal?

16. I pray you tell us, from whom our Arch-bifhops receive their power ? If you fay from the Bifhops, and fo Inferiours or Equals may give power, why may not Presbyters make Presbyters or Bifhops, and generare fpeciem ? If it mult come from Superiours, the Church of England hath none fuch.

17. If the Peoples confent can make a National Church, why may it not make an Independant or Presbyterian Church ?

18. If the Nations confent, as fuch make the Church of England, it is not made by Legillative power of King and Parliament.

19. Do the Clergy reprefent the King? or is h-e none of the Church ?

20. How prove you that the Clergy reprefent the Laity in the Convocation ?

21. By your Rule, if divers parties of Chriftians agree to fet up divers forms of Church-Government, with mutual forbearance they would be one National Church. And fo would Epifcopal, Presbyterians and Independants if the Law allowed them all.

22. Was the Church of England the fame thing in the days of //. 8. Ed. 6. ££. Mary, Q Eliz.. &c.

2$. Who maketh National churches in abfolute Hereditary Monarchies, where are no Parliaments to fignifie popular confent ?

24. If every Law of Order be effential to your Church, few Con-formifts are of it: If only the true eflentials, why are not wealfo of it?

25. How ill agree you with Mr. Cheny, who maketh it Atheifm, Infidelity, Blafphemy, Impiety, to aflert Church-making confent or confederacies befides Baptifra ?

26. But

16. Butthebeft is you leave us in hope of Reformation •, for if Parliaments will but confent for us to take down Diocefanes lower, and to reform Parilh-Churches, and alter Liturgy, &c we are the National Church ftill. And one prevailing Vote may prove us all confenters; and make the Church quite another thing.

§. 14. Yet he faith [Page 299. By this defcription any one nuy fee how eafily ths Church of England /'/ djhnguified from the Ptpifts on one fide, an'dthe Diffenters on the other.~]

j4nf\v. I am- one, and I cannot fee it, nor fo much as fee how to know the Church it felf, nor who is a Member of it, nor how any man can know it: but he feems to me to make it a Church wvlfible. But I fee the DifTenters mud be none of it.

1. How was the Church of England known from Papifts, in the beginning of H.3. or in the middle, or in the end? orhow known when it began ?

How was it known in the beginning of Qj,een Elizabeths days* when the Papifis came to Church * or now as to Church-Papifts f Jiow [hall we know to which Church the late Bifhop Bramhall and other Doftors belong, who would have the Pope Govern us according to the Canons as Patriarch of the Weft, & principium unitatatis urn-verfalis, and all go for Schifmaticks that deny it. Some call this the New-Church of England, differing from the old one which was before Bifhop Laud.

2. How fhall one know how far confent is neceflary to a Member, and diflent unchurcheth him ? Lately a Doctor was accufed for faying he fcrupled to call the King according to the Liturgy, Our rnoft Religious King: Mr. Jole of Sarralwzs fufpended for notoftner wearing the Surplice, and denying to pray in the Litany for [Our moft Gracious Queen Katherine, and James Duke of York. But thefe are fmall difTents •, The fenfe is the Churches Law and Doctrine, and not the found of words in various fenfes: I have ofc fhewed in how many contrary fenfes the Conformifls take the 39 Articles, the Liturgy, the words of Subfcription and Declaration, and the Oaths impofed ? How (hall one know among all thefe, who are, or are not of your Church ? When you tell us that it is Agreeing in the Faith government and Worfhip which is eftabliflied by Law"] and then fpeak fo hotly againft the need and being of any common Government, favethe Civil, at all eftabliflied over the Church as a National vody, and never diftinguifn any neceflary parts of Faith, Government and Worfhip,

R 2 from

from the reft, nor tell us how to know them? And when Conformilts * diffent in fo many things*, Tome from Lay Chancellours Government by the Keys, fome in the fenfe of the Articles, and theNon-conformifts fay they confent to all that Scripture requireth, and the meer Circumftantials determined by Law, how (hall you be known? Either it is in the Effentials only, or the Integrals alfo, or alfo in all the Laws de Accedentibus, that, the Church of England by agreement is made that One Church.

i. If it be only in Effentials^ is there either Confeflion, Rubrick, Canon, or any Writer that hath told us which be thofe, and all thofc, and only thofe Effentials? I never met with man that pre-tendeth to know them, and therefore never met with mm that can thus tell, whether he be of the Church of England or not ? nor that can tell of others, and who is not ?

2.. To fay it muft b&-confent alfo in the Integrals that is neceffa-ry ad effe, is a contradiction: and is to make Integrals Effentials. To fay that it muft be confent in all Laws of Occidents alfo, is to make that an effential part.which is no part. Our loofe confounding Difputers, when they have loft the truth in fuch contradictions, may fay as Mr. Dodmll doth to me, that I Cavil .• But will that an-fwer help down all abfurdities with reafonable men ? it's plain that as the Papifts Doftrine of defining Church-Members and Chriftians, by no Effential Articles of Faith, but by Probable Propofal of more or lefs doth make their Church invifible, fo doth this definition of the Church of England by Do^or StUUngfleet make theirs, and leave us uncertain who is of it. It makes me think what I heat Oliver the U-furper laid to a Biftiop that now is (as 1 am credibly told, iDoclor b<m i<now you that-yon are a true Minifies of Chriftf} who anfwercd him on Mr. Dodwell's Principles, \_Becaufe I have received Ordination by. uninterrupted fucceffive conveyance from true Bijhops, from the Apo-ftl'es : 2 Saith he •, Are you jure they were all true Bifhops and the fuc-ceffion uninterrupted ? Dotlor will you take your Oath that you are thus a true Minifterf} At which when he ftuck, [Come y come , Doclor, faith he., there is a furer and a nearer way.}

Certain I am, that if Agreement in the fenfe of the 39 Articles, or in all Forms and Ceremonies be neceffary to conftitute a Member ©f the Church of England, abundance that fubferibe are none, that now go for fuch ; But if not, I pray tell us why fuch as I alfo are apt Members, of.your. Church. Do I more differ from you than

Doftor

Doctor Heylin, Mr. Thorndiky Mr. Dodwell, and in a word than the party which adhered to Arch-biihop Laud, differed from the puty which adhered to Bifhop Abbot, Whitgift, and the Parliaments of thofe and after-times ? If the Church of England as fuch a one, be conftituted by no fupreme Church-Government, we arc all of it, fo far as we confent to the Aflbciation, and none as it is one Political body. And what then becomes of its Laws, and all theTreatifesof its Church-Policy ?

§. 15. Butyct the Doctor flops not here : J unavoidably irtroduce Popery if I make. <* Conftttutive Regent Church power, neceffary to a Church : for then the Vmverfai Church mufthave fuch.~\

Arfw- 1. it's not necefTary to an equivocal ungoverned Church, fuch as our Worcefierjhire Aflbciatioa made : But to a Political Governed Church it is.

2. Mark here all you that go the Political Church way, that your Doctor accufeth you more than the Nonconformifts, even of certain opening the door to Popery, What if 1 had faid lb by you? Is it fuch men that thus make you agents for a Pope ?

$. Doth this Political defcription of Parochial, Diocefane, Provincial, Patriarchal Churches, aifo bring in Popery ?

4. Then either our Archbifhops have no power, or they have it from no fuperiour, or elfe they infer a Pope.

5. I again tell the Doctor as I did Mr> Cheny y It is difingenious to fay this to me, when I have written fo much againft Johnfon the Prieft, in my firft, and fpecially my fecond anfwer, which none re-plyethto, without any confutation or notice of it: 1 have fully pro-, vcd that Chrift's Catholick Church hath himfelf for an EfTential Head, fometime vifible on earth, leaving vifible Laws, and now vifible to the Courtiers in Heaven, and coming vifibly to judge all ^ and there is no other. Indeed if the doctrine of Mr. Dodwefl vnd many fuch hold, who deny that the power floweth immediately from Chrifts Law or Charter to the Church, and not from the Ordainersor E-lectors, who do but determine of the Receiver and Inveft him, then all the Doctors in England cannot anfwer the Digreffion, Cap. 14. of the Book called [The Catholic^ Hierarchy,1 proving that fuch a Prelatical fubordination of Churches, inferreth a Pope : But 1 have fully (hewed the vanity of that inference as to us.

But remember that the Doctor and 1 are agreed, that [A-Nati-en cwfeming in an Affociation of particular Churches, may be called

aNa-

C )

a National Church (equivocally ,) Though it can make no Laws un-lefs its confent alfo fet up a Supreme Church-Government. Meer Agreementsare not Laws.

§. 16. He next would make the unwary Reader think that hean-fwereth my Queftion, 1. What is the fame 'Rule that all mufl vpalk^by,

viz. that the Scriptures are the Foundation of our Faith* — 2. But

our Church requireth Conformity to the Rules anointed by it agreable to the word of God*"}

Anfw. But it feems the Scripture then is not the whole rule, but part: the fundamental part. 2. Which did Foul mean? Was your Churches Rule then made ? 3. Doth your Church require this ad ejfe, or but ad melim efje f If the firft, all Canon-breakers are difmem-bred ? And, is that according to God's word ? If the later, why am not I of your Church? 4. But how comes that Church to command and bind, which hath no fuch Ruling power ?

CHAP.

CHAP. DC

Of the Peoples Consent to the Pafteral and Church-Relation.

$• !■ T) A g e 307. Saith the Dean, C lt Trw next thing to be con-

JL w fidered is the intereft and power of the People as to

t£ the choice of their Pallors, for want of which great complaints

Ct are made, Mr. Baxter is very tragical on this Argument,

ct and keepeth not within tolerable bounds of difcretion in plead-c < ing the Peoples Caufe againft Magiflrates and Patrons and Ci Laws.]

J?jf\v. 1. That is tolerable to fome men, which others cannot bear *, Silken ears mull have foft words; The Land cannot bear all his words, was an old Complaint: And [ Speaks pleafing things, Prophecy deceit] was an old Mandate- It's no wonder if that fort of meD, that mult judg whether our Preaching, and Woiihipping God be tolerable, and muft write us down the words which we mult fay to God in Prayer, or not be tolerated, do alfo think themfelves the meet judges, whether our indifcretion be h.tollerabk.

2. But let us try whether he (tate this Controverfie any more Logically or truly than the reft, and whether he intimate not hurtful though tollerable untruth.

1. It's a crooked infmuation, to put the wcrd [Power"] inflesd of [Right and Liberty,] us if [Power] of Conferring in the People, and [Power of Rulers] were univocal and not equivocal terms: But this is tolerable.- For experience hath convinced me, how little Lc~ gical ftriftnefs is from this Doctor to be expected: 1 doubt left next, as fome men inftead of Learning maintain their reputation by deriding it, we may expect fome fuch defence of the Doctors Logick, to prove that he is none of the Difoutcrs of this World, who deceive men by vain Pkilofephy.

2. And the word [choice] inftead of [confer:] is fomewhat more crooked; For [choice] ufually includeth the firft nominating

Vote j

C )

Vote; Andheknoweth that I pleaded for the neceffityofnomore, than the Churches confent, though it were fubfequent to the choice of Magiftrates or Patrons.

3. But the next is worfe, that \_Iplead the Peoples Caufe againft Magiftrates^ Patrons and Laws^\ when I do but defire their Con-jun&ion.

§• 2. His repetitions call me tedioufly to repeat the ftate of the Controverfie (abufinefs quite below him.)

I. I Have oft faid, that God hath not made either Magifirates or People the Judges who is fit to be, and (hall be a Minifter of Chrift in general? but the ORDAINERS and the PERSON himfelf conjunct. This is evident, i. From Scripture Inftancesof all that were Ordained : 2. From the nature of the thing.

1. Who isfuppofed fo fit to judge as men and Seniors of the fame Office? Who but Phyficians are fit to judge who is meet to be a Licenfcd Phyfician? And who but Philofophers judge of Graduates and Profeflburs in Philofophy ?

% And no man can make me a Minifter againft my will, nor know me to be fit, if I know my felf to be unfit.

§. 3. II. I have oft faid that the Supreme Civil Governour is the Judge, whom he muft countenance, maintain and tolerate. The proof is eafie, 1. Becaufe to doit is his work; and every man muft be a difcerning judge of his own work. 2. Becaufe it is a publick a& of Government, and he is the chief publick Judge therein.

§. 4. III. I have oft faid that the Difpofal of the Tythes and Temples is in the power of the Prince, and Patron by his grant. But with thefe bounds.

1. His power is not Abfolntc, but Vnder Chrift and limited by him, and therefore he hath no power againft him, nor to crofs his Laws or to contraditt his ends.

2. If the Tythes and Temples were given only for publick Teachers of Catechumens, or for meer Lecturers, the Magiftrate muft dif-pofe ofthemtofuch as are capable of that Office.

3. If the Tythes and Temples were given for the Paftors of the Churches, the Magiftrate is bound to give them to fuch as are lawfully called to be fuch Paftors, and not by the advantage of his Truft, overthrow the way of entrance inftituted by Chrift.

4. How-

4. However if they Were devoted to God, it is God who is the proprietor, and it's facrilege to alienate them. And an intolerable ill difpofal is alienation.

§. 5. IV. I have oft faid, that it being fuppofed that their An-ceftorsgift of Tythes or Glebe and Temples is the reafon of our common Patronage and prefenting power, the will of the dead Do nors is to be obferved, and their gifts given to none but on the termes by them determined.* But their gifts are fuppofed to be for the Churches good and not againft it: Nor had they any power on pretenfe of beneficence, to deftroy, or to take away more than they give: But the Trufting of our Souls Conduft is a matter of more weight than Tythes and Temples. If Tythes be pro-ved not to be of Divine Right, all that can be expeftedis, that if the flock cannot trufl: him whom the Patron chufeth , they let him give his Tythes and Temple to whom he pleafe, and they will truft their fouls with fuch as they^lare, and fafely may. But if he will chufe and offer them one whom they can fafely and comfortably accept, fo as Tythes and Temples (hall preponderate in cafe of fmall difference in the men, prudence obligeth them to accept of the advantage. The fame I fay of the Magiftrates countenance and approbation. But if the difference be very great, it's better ftretch our purfes to build new Temples and pay our Paftors than trufl; our fouls on the Paftoral Conduct of ignorant, malignant, unfaithful or heretical men.

S- 6. V. I have oft faid, that mutual confent is neceffary to the being of the relation of Paftor and Flecks And though fometimes the Rulers impofition, and the Patrons choice, may make it the Peoples duty in prudence to confent^ when the good preponderates the hurt, (not t\k) yet till they confent % the Relation is not exiftent* As if Children were bound to take Wives and Husbands by the Command and fore choice of Parents, yet it's no Marriage till they conient.

$. 7. The common objection is from the inconvenience, if the fe-veral parties agree not: To which I anfwer.

1. The mifchief of the contrary way, is worfe than that inconvenience.

2. There is nothing in this World without inconveniences where all things and perfons and aftions areimperfeft.

r * 1. If

C )

j. If Parents and Children agree not about their Marriage, it hath great inconveniences*, And yet neither Parents Government, nor Childrens conferring Liberty muft be denyed.

4. In fo weighty a Cafe, divers Locks and Keys keep the Churches treafure fafe. Prince, Patron, People and Ordainers, will not fo often agree on a vile perlon, as any one of them alone may do.

§. 8. And now judge how Logically, how honeftly the Dodtor hath ftated the Cafe, and made me Intolerably indiscreet and tragical a-gainft Magiftrates, Patrons and Laws* And try if you can under-ftand what it is inftead of this, that he would have: I tell hima-gain, that if he deny the necejfity of the flocks confent to the mutual relation, he notoriouQy oppofeth the judgment and pra&ice of Antiquity and the Univerfal Church, of Princes, Patriarchs, Prelates, Councils and People, and fights againft the full ftream of Hiftori-cal evidence, for a new crooked way, that would make as many modes of Religion as there are different Princes.

And here he wonders what he faid, that occafiomd fuch undecent fajfion. It feems he felt fome paffion in reading it, and thought he muft have the like that wrote ir. And fo let any man obtrude any pernicious thing on the Church, and he can eafily prove the detector to have undecent paffion , for giving a bad Caufe its proper name.

$. 9. But he cannot find out the reafon of my inference, that then Princes may impofe what Religion they pleafe.2

Anfy. Not underftanding, with fome men, goes for confuting: To put L Religion ] for the mode of Religion is too little a (lip of his to be infifted on. But is not my inference neceffary ? I urged him to tell me, in what Countries, and under what fort of Princes the Rule holds, that the People muft not judge whether the offered Paftors be Hereticks, norrefufe them, if Prince and Patron pre-fent them f He will not be entreated to tell me. I tell him, thai if the Rule be univerfal, when a Papift, Socinian, Anabaptift, Anti-cpifcopal, &c Prince and Patron prefent men of their own mind, and they are inftituted, the People muft take and truft them as their Paftors: And is not this to fct up in all the Churches what modiih Religion Prince and Patron pleafe/ Is this hard to be underftood >

Yet

Yet he calls this Railing on him for [ufpofitiorts of my own making. And here he fteps over to another man.

$. 10. Before I come to his undertakings, I will repeat anothers railing and undecent paflion againft his Caufe *, And I defire the Reader to note how well the Doctors of the Church of England agree •, and to learn which of them it is that we mult believe, both as to Hiftory and Right. It is Mr. Herbert Thomdike in his Treatife of Forbearance of Penal. [ u It is to no purpofe to talk of Reforma-u don in the Church, to regular Government, without reftoring ct the Liberty of chufing Bifhops and the priviledge of enjoying "them, to the Synods, Clergy and People of each Diocefs. So evident *' is the right of Synods, Clergy and People in the making of thofe "of whom they confift, and by whom they are to be Governed, iC that I need make no other reafon of the negledt of Epifcopacy, <v than thenegledtof it .3

Yet thefe two are Doftors of one Church, but we are no Members of it.

§. ii. 1 again fay that either the Reader hath read the Church Hiftory and Canons, or not ? If nor, how can he tell who to believe that report them? theDo&oror me? But if he have, I will no more difpute this Cafe with him, than I would do whether Eng-HJh Parliaments ufed to make Laws. He ispaft my conviction if he be not convinced.

§. 12. And I will again fay, that I will yet fuppofe the Dodtor fo humble as to acknowledge himfelf much inferiour to Paulas far-pi fervita venertwt, in point of Church* Hiftory : At lea ft I fay to the Reader, perufe what he hath faid of this Controverfie and of the alteration of Church Government in his Hiftory of the Council of Trent, and his Book of Church Benefices, lately tranflated by Dr, Denton, and doubt if you can.

§. 13. And in general I add: I. I fuppofe no man of fuch reading maketh any doubt of the firft 300 years, whether any Bifhops were made over any Church withouc the free Election or Confent of the Flocks and the whole Clergy, and the approbation of the Ordainers. I will #ot for ftiame Itay to prove this, having faid fo

muck

( ;

much of it in my firft Plea for Peace, and Eplfcopal Church Hiftory, which are unanfwered.

II. And (ince the firft $00 years, it's fo notorious in Hiftorythat it's a ihame to need proof of it, that the Chriftian Emperours confirmed the Churches in this right and ufe, and for many hundred years after, permitted and ordered, that Bifhops fhould be chofen by the People, Clergy and Synods, and when the Peoples Election was infringed, the neceflity of their confent long continued .* And it was only in the choice of the five Patriarchs that the Emperours ufed to meddle, and that not always, nor at all chufing them alone, but commending fome one to the People and Clergy to chufe, or confirming fome one that they had nominated. And this held on till Popery fprung up.

III. And even then the Popes long continued it :■ But, i. They ftrove (fpecially in Hildebrand's days and after) againft the Emperours negative voice in the confirmation of Popes, 2. And his negative in Invefting Bifhops: But even in this ftrife, the Ele&ion was confeft to be in the Clergy, the People chufing or freely con-fenting, and no man to be made their Bifhop againft their will; and it was but the Inveftiture perbaculum & annulum, as a confirmation which the Emperours claimed.

§. 14. I have formerly named elder Teftimonies not denied .• I will now recite but fome Canons of Councils.

i. The 9f/?and 10th Canonsofthe firft great Nicene Council.nul--lifieth the very Ordination of fcandalous uncapable men : And in the Arab- Can. 4. Si populo placebit, is made a condition of the E-pifcopal relation. Andc 5. in cafe of the Peoples difagreement, the faid People muft take the moft blamelefs.

2. The Roman Council faid to be under Silvefter of 275 Bifhops faith, [_No Bijhop Jhall Ordain any Gierke > nifi cum omni adunata Ec-clefta, but with all the Church united. If this Council be not cer-tain, the very forgers fhew the Antiquity of the Churches right and cuftom.

3. I before named a Council at Capua that decreed that the two Bifhops at Antioch chofen by their two Churches, fhould live in Love and Peace.

4. Chryfoftoms Church offoannites would rather feparate than for-fake their chofen Bifhop or his honour, though Emperour,Council and

Patriarch

Patriarch was againft him .• and though Cyril Alex, wrote that their breach of Canons was intolerable, and to tolerate them (afewftub-born Nonconforming) would butdifcourage the obedient.

5. Even the famous Pope Caleftine who helpt Auftm againft the Pelagians Decreed \_Let no man he given a Bifiop to the unwilling : Let the fenfe and deftre of the Clergy, the Laity, and Magiftracy (ordwis) be required for necefTary .)~\

6. How the people depofed Theodofius Bifhop of Synada and chole another and the change approved, 1 have eifewhere (hewed.

7. After Aniens death the Clergy at Conftantimple were for Philip or Proclus, but the people chofe Sifmnius and prevailed.

8. Sifmnius fent Proclus to be Bifhop at Cyzjcum, but the people refufed him and chofe another.

9. The Orleance Council, 477.540. Can, \. decreeth about Ordaining Bijhops, Qui praponendus eft omnibus ah omnibus eligatur: as of old, viz.* Let him he chofen hy all, who is to hefet over all.

10. An. 541. The Concil. Avem. decree c. 2. That none feek^the facred Office of a Bifliop hy Votes hut hy merit, nor feem to get a Divine Office, rebus fed moribus: and that he afcend to the top of that eminent dignity hy the ttetlion of ally and not hy the favour of a few: and that in chufing Priefts there he the greatell care, hecaufe, &c»

Therefore another Council at Orleance decreed that a Bifhop mull be ordained in his own Church which he mull overfee.

11. Another Orleance Council decree, c. 10 That none get a Bifhoprick^ by gifts or feeding, hut with the will of the King, hy the election of the Clergy and the Lay-people. And Can. 11. And as the ancient Canons have decreed, Let none he made Bifhop to an unwilling People (or without the Peoples con fent) Nor let the People or the Clergy he inclined to con fent, hy the opprejfion of perjons in power (a thing not lawful to he fpok$n.) But if it he otherwife done, let the Bifliof he for ever depofed, &c.

12. I have formerly cited Pope Gregory I. his exprefs Decrees herein.

15. Clodovtus his Council at Cahilone renewed the old Decree, That all Ordination of Biftiops he null, which was otherwife made than by the c-Uttionof the Com- Provincials, the Clergy and the Citizens.

14. The General Council called Quincfextum, an. 691. decreed Can. 22. That Biceps and Priefts Ordained with Money, and net hyExamination and Eletlion, he depofed : Though the fame Council by humane wifdom decreed, Can. 38. That whatfcever alteration the Imperial power maketh on any City, the Ecclefiaftrcal Order alfo follow it. 1 he way by

S which

which Humane Order overthrew Divine Order and Initiations.

15. And by the way you may conje&ure of cheChufers by the Council of Toletane, an. 693. under King Egica, where the King Preaching to the Bifhops (as was then needful,) decreeth, That every Parijh that hath twelve Families have their proper Governour. But if it have lefs than twelve, itjhall be part of another*s charge.

16. K- Pepin (who advanced the Pope to advance himfelf, and added the Sword to Excommunication by mifchievous decree, yet) altered not the common way of Election, and decreeth that every City (like our Corporations) have a Bifhop, and none meddle in another's Diocefs without his confent.

17. The choice of Pope Conftantine, the humiliation of Stephen, and many fuch inftances (hew that even at Rome ftill the People had the greatefthandin chufing the Pope} and that to Communicate with a Bifhop irregularly chdfen, was taken for a great fin. And when Charles Mag. was gratified as to the Papal Chair, it was but by making him a neceflary Confirmer.

18. The Frfffcfc Conftitutions, /. i.e. 84. objected about this by Ba-ronius and Binius, fay, Not being ignorant of the fac$ed Canons, we confentedto the Ecclefiajlick^ Orders, to wit, that Bifhops be chofen by the Eletlion of the Clergy and People, according to the Statutes of the Canons , out of their own Diocefs, without refpetl of perfons or rewards, for the merit of their life, and theirgift of wifdom, that by example and Word they may every way profit thofe that are under them.

19. The old Canons gathered by Pope Adrian and fent to Charles Magn. recorded by Caniftus, depofe a Bifhop, Presbyter or Deacon, -guilty of Theft, Fornication or Perjury, And Can. 28. ABtflwpwho obtaineth a Church by the fecular power, jhall be depofed. And Can. 33. That no one yray with Hereticks or Schifmaticks: Ex cone. Sard. Can. 2. A Bifiop that by ambition changeth his feat, jhall not have fo much as Lay Communion at his end: That no Bijhop be above three wee\s in another City, nor above two weeks from his own Church. Can. 17. A Bifhop contraditled (by oppofers) fiiaU not after be ordained or purged by only three Bifhops, but by many.

And Can. 94. The people converted from Here fie by another Bifhop, may beiof Sis flocks without removing their ParijJi dwelling where another is Bijhop.

Amongfl the other 80 Canons againfl oppreffion, as one is, That ■ no Bifljop judge any Priefi without the prefence of his Clergy, it being void if mtfo confirmed;. So another is. againfl: all foreign Judgment, becaufe

men-

men mufl be judged by thofe that are chofen by themfelves and not by grangers-And none of the Clergy muft be condemned till lawful Accufers be prefent> and the Accufed anfwer the Charge.

20. The fecond General Council at Nice, though by fervility they were for Images, held to the old Church-Canons for Elections, faying Can. 5. * Every Election of a Bifhop, Prieft or Deacon, which is 'made by Magiftrates, fhallremain void, by the Canon which faith, ' If any Bifhop ufe the fecular Magiftrates, to obtain by them a Church, 4 let him be depofed and feparaced, and all that Communicate with 1 him.

How much more fay thefe than my \intolerable indifcretionQ I fear fome will think that all this binds them to more feparation than I am for.

The 15 Can. forbids them to have two Churches.

Can. 4. condemneth thofe to Lex talionis, as unfufferably mad,that faultily drive any from the Miniftry, and fegregate them from the Clergy, or (hut up the Temples, forbidding God's w r orfhip.

21. By the way, a Council at Chalons under Charles Magn. finding fome Prelates fetting on foot an Oath of Obedience to them, thus condemn it:

c It is reportedof fome Brethren(Bifhops j that they force them * that they are about to Ordain, to fwear that they are worthy, and 4 will not do contrary to the Canons, and will be obedient to theBi-c fhop that Ordaineth them, and to the Church in which they are Or-c dained v which Oath, becaufe it is very dangerous, we all ordain 1 fhall be forbidden,] which other Councils after repeat, fyet our Bifhops reft much on fuch an Oath of obedience to them.)

22. What the Electing Churches were may be partly conjectured from the Concil. Regiaticin. in Canifius, Can. 6. That the Arch Presbyters examine every Mafler of a Family particularly, and take account of their Families and lives, &c

A Council at Soifons about 852. ( a Presbyter by the King's Command being Ordained to the Church of Rhemes irregularly; Decree, That they that are made Presbyters without examination by ignorance, or by diffimulation of the Ordainers, when they are known ftailbe depofed, becaufe the Catholick Church defevdeth that which is irreprehenjible, &c.

23. An 855. under Lotharius Rennigins Lugd, and others, at a Cou :.-cil decreed, (becaufe that bad King had by impofing corrupted tie Clergy) c That becaufe Bifhops were fet over the Cities that wei\

i tryed, andalmoft ignorant of Letters, and unlike the Apoftolick

S 2 •fitript,

c fcript, by which means the Ecclefiaftical vigor is loft, they will pe-4 tition the King that when a Bifhop was wanting, the Canonical Ele&L-c o n by the Clergy and the People may be permitted, that men of try-'edknowledg and life, and not illiterate men, blinded by covetouf-c nefs, may be fet Bifhops over the Flocks.

24. An. 857. Pope Nk. I. isehofen by the Emperour Ludovictu confent, and by All the People. And he fo far maketh the People felf-feparating judges, as to decree, Tit. 1 i.-c. 1. c That none hear the

* Mafs of a Prieft whom he knoweth undoubtedly to have a Concu-4 bine or fub-introduced Woman. And Can. 2. That by the Canons

* he cannot have the honour of Priefthood, that is fain into Forni-

* cation.

25. An. 1050, (or thereabout) one of the worft of Popes at a Council at Rhemes. was conftrained to confirm the old Canon 9 'That 4 no man be promoted to Church-Government but with the ele&ion c of the Clerks and the People, &c.

26. An* 1059. Again a Roman Council forbidding all men to joyn with a fornicating Prieft, maketh them fo far feparating judges.

27. About An* 1077. A Council at Rome reneweth the Canon, nulling all Ordinations made, ant pretio, precibus ant ebfequie, or that are not made by the common confent of Clergy and People 0 for fuch enter not by Chrift, &c

28. From hence the Popes grew to ufurp moft of the power in chu-fing Bifhops to themfelves by degrees, till they got Councils to judg it Herefie for Emperours to claim fo much as a confirming inveftiture. Whence bloody Warsrofe. And it's greatly to be noted that yet thefe Emperours fuppofed the Bifhops ele&ed by the Clergy and People, and claimed but the faid inveftiture, as is feen in the formuU of Pope Pafchals Grant of inveftitures to them.

29: When they made Princes Inveftiture Sacrilege (and entring by them,) they fo far made the People judges of Priefts and Communion, asin a Council at Benevent. an. ioSj. fnb Vitt- to decree, c That

* if no Catholick Prieft be there, it's righter to perflft without vifible 4 Communion, and to Communicate invifibly with the Lord, than by

* taking it from an Heretick to be feparated from God. For what con-'cord hath Chrift and Belial? AndSimoniacks are Infidels.

30. But were good and bad Bifhops in all Ages thus minded, or was it only Popes ? I next add that it was one of the Articles charged againft Wieklife the Reformer (as before againft Wecelo, who contemned their Excommunications) That they that give over Preaching or

hearing

hearing Gods word, for mens Excommunications, are Excommunicato) and in the day of judgment jhall be judged traitors toChrift- Art. 13. in Cone Conft.

Reader, are we not in a hard ftrait between Wkktiffe and Dr. StiU lingfieet f

31. The fame is one of the Articles againft John Hus, That nfca muft not for Excommunications give over preaching. We grant that they mean unjufi ones*

32. This became one of the great Controverfies with the Bohemians y againft whom one of the four long Orations were made at Cone* BaftL They would never yield that their chofen Minifters fhould obey the Silencers.

53. Laftly, the Romans themfelves oft decreed, That a fimoniacde-lettion even of the Pope is plainly null, and conferreth no right or authority tothcelefted (though this certainly overthroweth the uninterrupted-nefs of their own Succeffion.) And how Popes were elected till the device of Cardinals, is well known.

§. 15. If all this be not enough to prove the conftant confentof the Chriftian Churches down from the Apoftles for the neceffity of the Flocks confent to the relation of the Bifhop and Paftors to them* Let him that would have more read all that Blondel hath produced r de jure plebis in regim* Ecclef

§. 16. I lhall next prove the faid neceffity from the nature of the thing, the work and benefit, and the common nature, intereft and reafon of mankind, if more light will not put out the eyes of fome unwilling men, that are loth to know w4iat they cannot eafily be ignorant of.

And 1. Propriety is in order of nature antecedent to Regiment,, which fuppofeth it, and is to order the ufe of it for common fafety and good.

2. As a mans propriety in his Member?, Children, acquisitions, is antecedent to Regiment, fo much more in his foul which is himfelf.

3. Nature obligeth all to care for their lives, but yet thofe muft fometimebe hazarded for publickgood. But the obligation to pleafe God and obtain Salvation and efcape Sin and Hell, is fo great, that no man is to pretend publick good or the will of man againft it.

4.'Self-government (as to power and obligation,) is antecedent to humane publicletGovernment in order of Nature: And publick Government dotf Qfot deftroy it, but regulate it .• And therefore is not for deftruftion but for edification.

* The

(m)

5. The end of Self-government is fo much to pleafe God and fave our Souls, that no man on pretence of publick Government can dif-oblige us from this.

d. God hath in the fifth Commandment, which fetleth humane Government and obedience, chofen the name of Parents rather than Princes, becaufe Parents Government is antecedent to Princes, and Prin-' ces cannot take it from them, nor difoblige their Children. But Self-government is more natural than Parents, and Parents and Princes muft help it, but not deftroy it.

7. When perfons want natural capacity for Self-government fas Infants and Ideots and mad-men) they are to be governed by force as bruits, being not capable of more.

8. Family Government being in order next to perfonal, Princes or Bifhops have no right to overthrow it, (at lead except in part on flaves of whofe lives they have abfolute power.-) If the King impofe Wives, Servants, and Diet on all his Subjects, they may lawfully chufe fitter for themfelves if they can •, and at leaft may refufe unmeet Wives and Servants, and mortal or hurtful Meats and Drinks.

9. Much more if Princes and Patrons will impofe on all men, the Bifhops and Pallors, to whofe charge, care and Paftoral conduct they muft commit their Souls, the people having the nea reft right of choice, and ftrongeft obligation, muft refufe (as difcerning Self-governing judges) fuch whole herefle, negligence, ignorance, malignity, or treachery, is like either apparently to hazard them, or to deprive them of that Paftoral help which they find needful for them, and they have right to as well as other men.

lb. The gain or lofs is more the Patients than the Impofers/. It is their own Sou's that are like to be profited and faved by needful helps, or loft for want of them: And therefore it moft concerns themfelves, to know what helps they chufe.

11. If all the Kings on earth command men to truft their lives.to a Phyfician who they have juft caufe to believe, is like to kill them, by ignorance, errour, or treachery, or to a Pilot or Boat-man that is like to drown them, they are not bound to obey fuch mandates. Yea if they know an able faithful Phyfician that is moft like to cure them,they may chufe him before an unknown man, though the King be againit their choice.

12. Scripture and experience tell us, that God wArfceth ufually according to the aptitude of means and inftruments* f /<ftd learned experienced Phyficians cure more than the ignorant, rafh, and flothful;

and

(■Ms)

and good Scholars make their Pupils more learned than the ignorant do. And skilful, able, experienced holy Pallors, convert and edifie much more than ignorant and vicious men : And means mult accordingly be chofen.

i j. If the Paftoral work skilfully and faithfully done, be needful, it muft not be neglefled whoever forbid it: If it be not needful, what is the Church of England good for, more than Infidels, or at leaft than Mofcovites f And for what are they maintained by Tythes, Glebe, and all the dignities, honours and wealth they have? And for what do men fo much contend for them ?

14 It is natural to generate the like ; and for men to do and chufe astheyare, andastheir intereft leadeth them. Chrift tellsushow hard it is for a rich man to be faved, and how fewfuch prove good. And the Clergy themfelves do not fay that all the Patrons in England are wife and pious: Many Parliaments have by our Church-men been deeply accufed: And moft Parliament men, I think, arc Patrons: O-thers fay, that mod: Patrons not chofen to Parliaments are worfc. Some Preachers complain of Great men for fornication, drunkennefs, ex-cefs, idlenefs, yea, Atheifm or infidelity.- If many or any be fuch, are they like to chufe fuch Paftors as all godly men may truft in fo great a Cafe? Or would not fuch Princes chufe fuch Bifhops?

15.- Men are asableandasmuch obliged now to take heed to whole condudt they trult their Souls, as they were in all former Ages of the Church, forecited.

16. The Laws and Bifhops of England allow all men liberty to chufe what Church and Paftor, that Conformeth, they pleafe ^ fo they will but remove their dwellings into the" Parifh which they affect. And in London thoufands live as Lodger's, and may eafily go under whom they will chufe', And if they like him not, may fhifc as oft as they pleafe.

17. Parifh bounds are of much ufe for Order: But Order is for the thing ordered, and not againft it: And Parifh bounds being of humane make, cannot juftlybe preferr'd before the needful edification and fafety of mens Souls, though fuch humane Laws bind, where there are no greater obligations againft them.

18. The Law of keeping to PariftvChurches where we dwell, and the Law that giveth Patrons the choice of all the Paftors, and Princes of Bifhops, are of the fame efficient power andftrength.

19- Cafuifts ufually fay (even Papifts that are too much for Papal power ) that humane Laws bind not when they are againft the end,

the

(i30

the common good, efpecially againft mens falration. And a Toletm Council decreeth, that none oftheir Canons fhatt be interpreted to bind ad culpam, but ad pcenam, left they caufe mens damnation. And many Ca-fuifts fay, that Penal Laws bind only to do or fufFer, and bearing the penalty fatisfieth them, fave as to fcandal.

20. Yetweftill acknowledge all the right in Princes and Patrons before-mentioned, and that Princes are bound to promote Learning and piety, and fo to fee that due places, countenance and maintenance encourage faithful Minifters, and that all the Subjects have meet Teachers, and fubmit to hear and learn •, And that they fhould reftrain Hereticks and Soul-betrayers, from the facred Office-work *, andjudg who are to be maintained, and who to be tolerated.

21. But this power is not abfolute but bounded : And if on the pretence of it, they would betray the Churckand ftarvc Souls ( like the Englijh Canon that binds all from going to an able Paftor at the next Parifh, from an ignorant unpreaching vicious Reader,) men are not bound to obey it, but to provide better for themfelve: funleft ?nateri-ally, not formally forfome time, when not obeying ;;:>uld do more hurt than good •,) or as a man muft forbear publick afiimblies in a common Plague-time.

And fo much to open the true reafon of the cafe in hand. And PauPs words to Timothy % iTim.4. 16. tell me, this care is not unnecessary, Take heed to thy felf and to the dottrine, and continue in them\ for in doing this thoufloalt both fave thy felf and them that hear thee.

§. 17. 1 come now to the Doctor's words, who p. 312. undertakes to prove, 1. That the main ground of the peoples Interefl was founded on the Apoftles Canon C A Bijhop muft be blamelefs.2

Anf The word [main"} may do him fervice, but no hurt to my caufe. ZMain} fignifieth net \Only\\ who doubts but the People were todifcern the Lives of chofen perform? But (without coming to the Ballance, among many caufes which is the main) I have proved that there were more; And among others, thac Chriftandhis Apoftles bid them take heed how they hear: beware of falfe Prophets^ and their leaven: beware of the concifion. A man that is an Heretic!^ avoid, — Bid them not good fpeed: Let no man deceiveycu x — Thofe that caufe divifons and offences contrary to the dottrine ye have learned, avoid\ — fromfuch turn away. —Is here no more than judging their lives?

§. 18. Here he cometh to prove this even by Cyprian's Epiftle.a-gainft Martial and Bafilides : I muft not name his dealing with it, left he fay I rail. But I may note, 1. that he faith, \jhe force of what

Cyprian

( *37)

Cyprian faith comes at laft only to this giving Teftimeny.~]

Anfw. Only here is more than Main before. And though it was a matter of fcandal that was before there, and therefore it is no wonder if nothing elfe be particularly fpoken of \ yet fure thefe words (ignifie more than Teftimony. [By publicly judgment and Teftimony be approved worthy and meet.2 And to be found in the faith, and apt to teach is fome part of meetnefs. And [ becsuje they chiefly have power either to chufe Priefts that are worthy, or refufe the Unworthy.~] A chief chafing power of the worthy is more than a meer teftimony of fact. Again, [that by the fuffrage of the whole fraternity the Epifcopzcy b2 deliveredto him7\ Suffrage is more than teftimony of fail. And [Ail they do fin who are defiled by the facrificeof a prophane and unjuft ?rieft~\ fignifieth a dilfenting power, or elfe feparation were no duty.

But he fa[th>This is the ftrongeft teftimony in antiquity for the peoples power. Anfw. A ftrange faying of fo good an Hiftorian, who may eafily know that the concurrent judgment of all the Churches, their practice, and their Canons, making the Peop'es confent fand ufuallyE-le&ionj neceflary, was a far ftronger teftimony than one Epiftle. But to weaken this he faith,

1. It was in a cafe where a Bifliof had voluntarily refigned.

Anfw. i.What'sthatto the general rule here aflerted ? 2. Was it voluntarily which they were adjudged to do ? But I find no mention of Martial's voluntary refigning, but only Bafilides.

2. He faith [Another Btfliop w-as put in his place , not by the power of the people, &c']

Anfw. 1. This was before faid [that the people might give them power ? No.~] As if he would have the Reader think that we hold the people give the power, which 1 have fo oft difproved. But it's his advantage to talk to many men at once, that he may fay, fome of you faid it.

But if diftindion were not a crime, I would diftinguifh between giving the power, and concurring with other Caufes to give a Receptivity to the perfon that mufthave it: The peoples confent is a can-fa partialis, of capacity and receptivity.

2. But what fignifie thefe words [The Ordination of our Collegue Sabi-nus by the fuffrage of the whole fraternity', and by the judgment of the Bi-flops, &c2 Is not this as much power as we plead for ?

3. Are not you the Author of the Defence of B. Laud, and fay. That Chriftgave the Keys to Peter as the reprefentative of the whole Church ? And have you now faid more againit me or your felf ? I am not of that mind.

5. He faith, They had the judgment of a whole Council for defer ting him. T Anfw.

Anfw. Yes, for deferting them both} And that Council told them God had fore-determined in his word what men mult or muftnot be Bifhops, and it was God rather than they that judged it and bound them to obey j and that the power was chiefly in the people to chufe andrefufe &c.] Did you think you had helpt your caufe by faying, It was a whole Council that was for what we fay ?

4. He faith, It was for Idolatry andblafphemy by his own confeffion. Anfw. Which mean you by [his'] when they were two? neither of

them were otherwife Idolaters than as LibeUaticks ( who to fave their lives fuffered other men to fubfcribe their names, thinking it was not their own deed ; like fome that I have.heard of, that thought Conformity Perjury, &c but let a Friend bribe an Officer to fubfcribe their names and give them a Certificate J And Eafdides blafphemy was in his ficknefsin terrour of Confidence and perhaps phrenfie.

5. He faith all St-Cyprians proof is, that the people weremoftconcerned to give tefimony of life, &c This is anfwered already.

§, 1 p. His next is, The people on this ajfuming the power of Elections* caufed great difturbanee and diforders in the Church -, where he goeth over fome few of the many inftances, which I have at large recited, ZtAntioch, Rome j Alexandria, &c. s,

Anfw. 1. And yet for all thefe diforders, the Church deprived not the People of their priviledge.

2. But how fallacioufly is this urged ? I have fully elfewhere opened to the Reader, how the afpiring Prelates feeking Patriarchates and Biihopricks became as fo many Captains at War, and gathered Monks, Clergy and People to Arrive and fight for them ; And now he layeth this on the People ? As if the common Souldiers and not the Generals were the caufe of the War? But of this 1 havefaid enough.

§. 20. He faith, To prevent this many Bifhops were made without the choice of the People, and Canons made to regulate Elections.

A*fw. Craftily faid! He faith not [without the confent of the Peo~ pie,'] but [the Eleclion.~\ And he faith not that the Canons took away either conftnting or */*#/»£ fuflxages, but that they regulated them: Yes s they over and over confirmed them.

$. 21. He faith, At Alexandria the Election belonged to the twelve** Presbyters.

Anfw. They are hard put to it when they are put to fly to that te-ftimony which maketh Presbyters the makersof Bifhops.

Hierome and Eutychius Alexand. tell you that the Presbyters chofe and made the Bifhops as the Army doth a General: which made Arch-

Bifhop

fciihop Vjher tell KingCharUs theFirfl, That the Presbyters at Alexandria did more than Ordain Presbyters, for they made Biihops fas he told me himfelf.J But r. We never denied that the Corn-provincial Bi-(hops ordinarily afterwards Ordained them, 2. Nor that the Presbyters chofe them. Did the Dottor think this was to the purpofe ? But

1. Doth he think that the Presbyters choice excludech the Peoples,when it is a known thing that the Canons and Cuftom conftantly conjoyned them?

2. Will he conclude that whenever Hiftory nameth not the Peoples choice, they are left out ?

3. Will he perfwade us when the People are not the chufers, that they are not neceffarily the confenters or refufers ?

I will add one more proof to all before-mentioned. It isimpof-fible, exnaturarci^ that the Paftoral Office fhould be exercifed ondif-fenters .* Therefore their confent is neceflary.

A Patient may be drencht like a Horfe, and cram'd like fatted Fowl, and fo may have a Phyfician againft his will. But a Soul cannot ufe Paftoral help unwillingly. 1. He cannot unwillingly be baptized :

2. Nor unwillingly joyn in publick prayer and praife with the Church.

3. Nor unwillingly confefs fin. 4. Nor unwillingly crave or receive Minifterial counfel. 5. Nor unwillingly receive the Lords Supper. 6. Nor unwillingly defire the Pallors vifitation and prayers in his fick-nefs. 7. Nor unwillingly feek and receive abfolution, &c. I mean, he can do none of this that doth not confent. And is he a Paftor to fuch men that refufe all this ? It's a fhame~to think that learned men ihould bend their wits to prove that the Sun is not light.

Did the Church at Alexandria ever after chufe their Bifhops, and not before ? All the Alexandrian Church-Hiftory tells us that the peo. pie there indeed exercifed too great power, after this, no place on earth more tumultuous and unruly .- And yet no place where the Bi-fliops were more fecular, and more afTumed the power of the Sword : But the people chofe them.

4. And if it had been true that the choice lay only and abfolutely on the Presbyters, how came they to have fo long two Bifhops and two Churches, befides the Arians ?

5. And he wifely overlooketh the Queftion, who chofe thofe Pref byters that were the chufers of the Bilhop ?

J. 22. He next inftanceth, ex Eufeb. /. 6. ci'io. in Getmanion and Gerduis Ordained by the Bifhops in NarciflUs place at Hiernfalem. Anfw. 1. His argument, if any, mull be this ; Enfibins faith, the

T 2 m-

( Ho )

Bifhops Ordained them, not mentioning the peoples confent or choice : Ergo, their confent or choice was not nfed. How eafily might he have known that we would deny the confequence? Doth any of us deny that the Bifhops were the Ordainers of Bifhops ? 2. And even the words of £«-febins confute him, faying, That when Narciflus Jhewed himfelf Again, the brethren (no doubt the Laity) intreated him to enjoy his Bijhoprick again.

$. 2 s.HLsnext inftance is, QSeverus Bifrop 0/Milevis, in his life-time appointed his fucceffowr, acquainting only the Clergy with it: And Auguftine prevented the peoples difturbance and got them to receive him^\

Anfw. Thus it is fome mens work to confute themfelves. It's a known thing that the peoples right was fo univerfally and unquefti-onably acknowledged, that the Canons forbad any Bifhop to nominate and chufe his Succeflbur, left it fhould foreftall rhem and prejudice their choice. And why elfewasthe peoples refiftance feared? And what did Attftin but perfwade them to confent ? And why doth he mention that the People confented and received him, if they had no confenting Vote, or right on juft caufe to difTent ? It would be an odd argument to prove, that a woman had no power of choice in Marriage, becaufe one was put to perfwade her to confent ? which proveth the neceffity of her confenting.

$, 24. He next tells us of Auftinh own nomination of his Succeffeur Zy-adius.

Anfw. More and more againft himfelf. All that men do is in danger of mifcarrying by their faultinefs .- Wife men would do their beft to prevent this, and the peoples confent being of neceffity, they fbme-times will pre-engage them ; fo Austin's predeceflbur thought it the craftieft way in his life-time, to take in Auftin for his Coadjutor or fellow Bifhop ftwo in a City J left the people fhould mifsof fo excellent a man.- But this being againft the Canons, Anfiin confefleth that he did it ignorantly, and difowneth it- Yet left the people ( who grew more and more faulty) fhould mifchufe, he in his life time com-mendethtothem£/W/w, that their love to him might procure their acceptance. Doth not this prove that their choice or confent was necefTary ? Reader, if the Doctor can perfwade thee that the Country have not the choice of Parliament men, becaufe fome are commended or named to them, thy yielding is tooeafie.

§.25., The next is the ftory oiPadtbe Novatian.outof Socrat.l 8. (who hath but feven) Paulus.was advifing his Clergy to chufe his Suc-cejlbur j They tqld him their fear of,their own difagreement, and to

prevent

( Hi )

prevent it, intreated him to nominate one. He made them promife to ftandto it, and named Mercianus in a fealed paper. Dot;i not this inftance prove, that the Bifhop had not power to chufe one of him-felf? And was not his fear of thedifagreement of the C/ergy f And doth any of this difprove the peoples confenting right? And would the Doctor perfwade us that even the Novatians excluded them.

§. 26. He tells us, that the Greeks Canonifts thirst hit the Council of Nice tooh^ away ail the power of eleclion of Btfiops from the people, and gave it to the Bijhops of the Province.'}

Anfw. i. In all reafon he (hould have cited thofe Canonifts; for it's ftrange that yet their following Cuftoms and Canons (hould fay the contrary. 2. There is not a word in the Canon cited about election, but only ordination [that all the Bifhops in the Province fliould Ordain a Bifhop', But when that cannot be, there (hall beat leaft: three prefent, and three more confenting by writing.] And what's this to the Cafe of the Peoples election or confent ?

§. 27. Yet hebringeth moreagainft himfelf, viz.. Can. 18. Condi ■ Antioch. which is, That if one be Ordained BiJIwp and go not to the Pa^ rijh, beeaufe the people refufehim, he Jhall have the honour and Office of a Bifhop, not troubling the peace of the Church;} which plainly faith what i have oft faid, That the people have no power to hinder any from being Miniflers or Bifiwps indefinitely in the Church Vniverfal, but only to judge whether he (hall be theirs : whereas the Ordainers have power in both cafes 5 and ufually were the firft chufers, though the people had a refufing or accepting power, as there appeared caufe.

$. 28. Next he addeth more for what I plead, that Bafl Ordaining one firft, yerfwades the Senate and People to accept him : Adding {Their way then was y if the people did agree on aperfon to be Bifiop, to petition the Metropolitan and Synod, who had the full power to allow or re-fufe him."}

Anfw. Is not this a ftrong proof that the people had no fuch a-greeing or chufing power, becaufe the Metropolitan and Synod alfo had their vote? what need Bafl perfwade them to accept him, when they had no power to refufe ? Did Bafl or any Synod fay, all people are bound to accept thofe whom we chufe, be they what they will, and not to try them and judge themfelves.

§. 29. And here I defire the Reader to remember, 1. That we take the chief truft to be by Chrift committed to the Ordainers for taking in fit men,and keeping out the unfit: They being the only Judges (with the perfon himfelf ) who fhall be a Mioifterof Chrift in the

Church

( *4* )

Church Univerfal ♦, And neither Magiftrate or People have a power to chufe or refufe them.

2. That the Univerfal Church being one body of Chrift, though Minifters have not fuch a charge of each others flocks as the particular Biihops of them have, yet are they bound to give them all the -help they can ( as neighbour families to help each other:) And therefore to offer to vacant Churches the beft they know, and perfwade them to accept them, when they are at a lofs or need advice.

3. The people are bound to reverence the judgment of neighbour Paftors herein, and not cauflefly tooppofe.

4. When the People have chofen for they and the Clergy,) if the perfon were not before Ordained, the Ordainers ftill are judges for their own ad.

5. It was not ufual to Ordain fmetitHlo, and the Ordainers did two things at once, 1. Judge abfolutely who jhall be a Minifter of Chrift ? 2. Judge with the Church to which he was Ordained (Elders and People) who was fit for that Church, and fhould be theirs: And a threefold lock was fafe.

6. By all this it appears that all the Dodors talk againft the peoples unfitnefs to difcern who are found or Heretick, fit or unfit, is to no purpofe: And that if unmeet men are Miniftersor Bifhops, the fault is ten times more in the Ordainers than in the People: feeing it is not the People but the Ordainers that are trufred to take into the Miniftry indefinitely, but only among many to judg who (hall be theirs, fuppofing them either before Minifters, or next to be made fuch by the Ordainers. And doth the Dodor think that the judgment of all parties is notas fure as of one alone? or that my refufing a Phy-fician is any wrong to his Licenfers or him ?

J. 30. The Laodicean Canon cited by him fpeaketh for me as the reft: (Did he think 1 wanted his help to cite more for my feif ?) Who doubteth that the People being not the fole judges, if they took in an un-Ordained or un-approved man without the Synods confent, it was void? ( By the way, do either Synods or People (theoldchufers) chufe our Biihops or Priefts ?>

§. ft. Yet more for me, he citeth the Chalced. Council, turning out Bajfianus and Stephams from Ephejns, two men that ftrove and fought for the Bifhoprick unto blood in the Church, and both plead-cd they were lawfully called by Clergy, and People, (And yet had the People no right?; But they were both proved to be violent Intruders, and another chofen. And who doubts but a great General Council had thegreateft power then? §• 32.

(t*8)

§. $2. Next he tells us of a Law of Jufttnian, that made the Efctt jry and better fort of Citizen j chafers- ("And indeed Naz.t4xz.ene once wilht the more religious fort were chufers: ) but doth not this prove ftill the peoples power, though fo long after by an Eraperour the poorer were fo reftrained ? I will not ftay to fearch the Book, but take it as he citeth it.

J. 53. Buthisnexc feemeth to be downright againft us, Can. 1$. Conc.Laodic. But it is not fo: Crab hath two tranilations : Thefirft faith, £uodnon fit permittendum turbis elcftioncs eorum facere qui funt ad facer dot mm provebendi : It is not fufferable to chufe by tumults : ergo, net for the people to chufe at all, no nor diffent. I deny the confequence. To forbid diforder is not to forbid choice or free confent.

$. 34- His next proof is Ntc One 2. c. j. which he faith, reftrainedthe eUclion only to Biflops.

Anfw* Such dealing tells us that Protectant Doctors are not to be taken for infallible no more than Papifts ', 1 cited the Canon before: The doubt is whether it drive us not to more feparation than we are willing of, by nullifying our Bifhops and Priefts calling. It is Levery iletlion of a Btflop^ Prieft or Deacon, which is made by Magiftrates, flail remain void, by the Canon which faith, If any Biflop ufe the fecular Magiftrates to obtain by them a Church, let him be depofed and feparated, and all that communicate with him.2 Doth not the Doctor unhappily chufc his teftimonies ? Had it not been better to have paft over this Council ? Where now is all the Church of England by this Canon, if Bifhops coming in by the King, and Parfons by the Patrons be all void and null, and the people feparated that communicate with them ? Suche-vents are the fate of an ill caufe. And the next Canon doth not a-mend their matter, which calleth it madnefs for gain or any afFefti-on of his own, to drive any from the Miniftry, or figregate one of his Clergy, he flail have Lextalionis, and his work^ flail fa/Ion his own head.

§. 35. He adds, [_ Which was confirmed by following Councils in the Greek Church, as Can. 28. Conft. againft Photius, and the people are there excluded with an Anathema, fo far were popular elc&ions grown out of yequefi in the Eaftern Empire.']

Anfw. r. Had this been true, it would not much move me, that thefe two Councils that fetup lmageworflip, and fhewed much wick, ednefs, fhould contradict the ApoftolicalandCatholick conft i tut ions and practice. But, 1. 1 thank the Bifhops, I am not able to buy the French Volumes of the Councils, and therefore what is there I know not: and my own Library is rtined to avoid their Agents distraining

( 144 )

(training it for my Preaching.- And Dottor James and others have taught me to prefer the oldeft Editions of the Councils, and to take heed how I truft the later and the Jefuits pretended Manufcripts. 1 have now none but Crab (who medlethnot with this) ia\&Binnius\ And in Binnius there are but 14 Canons in the laft Action, and 27 in the antecedent Fragment* : and no fuch thing as a 28/^? Canon to be found: Nor is there in the 27^ any fuch thing as the Doctor ci-teth.

2. But if there were, if it were but the confirmation of the 2. Ni-cene Canon, it were much againft the Doctor's caufe, and nothing for him.

3. But unhappily here alfo he fends us to find out much againft him. For befides that the %th Can. in Fragm. condemneth requiring fubfcriptions to ftick to the Patriarch (chough they were not yet oaths of obedience J the 12th Canon is indeed the fame with thofe forecited, *&. "That the Apoftolical and Synodical Canons flatly u forbidding promotions and confecrations of Bifhops, by the power u and command of Princes, we concordantly define, and fentence, ct that if any Bifhop receive the confecration of fuch a dignity, by u the craft and tyranny of Princes, he (hall be altogether depofed, as u one that defired and confented to have the gift of God by the will 4C of carnal fenfe, and from men and by men.

I fuppofe this is the Doctors Canon which depofeth all the Englijh Bifhops, unhappily cited. And the Can. 14. requiring Princesto honour Bifhops, and condemning the Bifhops that debafe themfelves to go far from their Church to meet a Prince, and that will alight to them from their Horfes, and that will bafely kneel to them, or will come to their tables, ur.lefs with purpofe freely to reprove them] expoundeth both thefe Bifhops hearts and words. And fo doth Can. 17. which condemneth fuch as come not to Synods becaufethe Prince forbiddeth them, and faith, That Princes have no right Jo much as to.be ffctlators of the matters which at Synods fall out among Pnefts. And here indeed an Anathema is pronounced againft the obflinately diC obedient Bifhops> that will not obey their Patriarch before theforbid-dingTrince7\ And doth this meddle with the peoples Recipient power i which is only levelled againft Princes and Lay Patrons Impofiti-ons, and depofeth the Englifh Clergy and Church ?

The fame is repeated, Can. 25. (which it's likely is that which he meant) viz* u That according to the old Canons the promotions tC and confecrations of Bifhops be made by the choice and decree of

the

( '45 )

ct the ^College, and that no Lay Princes or men in power tfmmstm) " do mix themfelves in the electioneer promotion of Patriarchs, Metropolitans, or any Bifhop ^ left hence there be inordinate confu-"fionor contention, fpeciaily feeing that it is net convenient thai: "any Potentates or other Lay-men have pewer in fnch matters,

44 but rather attend with fllence. And if any llcular Prince or

"Potentate (men in power) or Laymen of other dignity, ftrivt lt againft the common and confonant and Canonical Election of the "Ecclefiaftical Order, let him be anathema, till he confent and obey " in this, which the Church fhall (hew its will in, in the Election and "Ordination of its Proper Bifhops.

Here, I. The Churches will is made the determiner of the Election and Ordination of their proper Bifhop. 2. The Canonical Order is eftablifhed (which ever required the Clergies and Peoples confent.) 3. Nothing of the Laity but acts of Princes power and dignity is excluded: 4. And hereby our Englijh Clergy depofed. The Doctor had been better to have let alone his Hiftory and AntU quities.

J. 36. His4fi> note is, Chriftian Magiftrates did interpofe in this matter as they judged expedient.

jinfw. Hitherto he hath produced the Teftimonies of Councils and Bifhops againft Magiftrates choice ormediings(miftakingly thinking it had been againft the Flocks Receptive powerj And now he will prove that Magiftrates interpofed, as you fhall hear.

§. 3 7- Andfirft [So Conftantine did in the Church of Antioch. Soz. I. i.e. 19.

j4nfw. What did he ? He motioned a Bifhop to end the difference-, And who oppofeth that ?

§. 38. Next [Conftantitu put by two that the peopleftrovc about, and fet up Eufeb. Nicom.

jlnfvr. An unhappy teftimony : Socrates whom he citeth thus rela-teth it, [Alexander dying commended Paulus to thethufers as the fitreft, but if they muldhave a man offrowefs to chafe Macedonius.*] The people were divided in the choice, and made a greater ftir than formerly 1 But the Orthodox carried it for Paulus againft the Hereticks that were for Macedonius. Conftantius being the firft perfecuting Arian Emperour, was offended, and got a Council to depofe Paulus, and he got in his great favourite Eufebius Ntcomed. the head of all the A-rians. Doth not this fhew, 1. That the people were chufers, 2. That the Emperour depofed him not, but by a packt Council of Bifhops

U (which

( *¥ )

£which we know had a depofing power?) 3. That this is Recorded as an Acl: of two Hereticks, a Prince and Prelate, wronging the Church.

§. 39. Saith he, [XVhen Eufebius was dead, the Orthodox party again chofe Paulus, and Conftantius fends Hermogenes to drive him out by force.

Anfw. i.I doubt he will next cite Valens, Genfericas ^Hnnner km ><&c for murdering and perfecting the Bifhops. Was an Arians Tyranny, a note of right?

2. The ftory (in Socrates cited by him) is this : Eufeb. the Arian being dead, the People again went to the choice, and chofe as before: But fome were kiliM in the tumult. The Arian Emperour fends Hermogenes to force out Taulus the chofen Bifhop .♦ The people tumuitu-oufly fight for their Biihop and priviledge, and fet Hermogenes Lodgings on fire and kill him. The Emperour comes from Anticch, a-merceth the City, and puts Tad out, and yet is angry that Macedonia was chofen by the other part without his advice;, but con fen tech to him.

1. Doth notthisfhew that the people were the chufers ? 2. And even their murderous tumult moved neither an Heretick Prince nor the Bifhops to deny their right of choice. 3. Murder and fuch violence was a fair colour for more feverity. 4. Yet all this was by a Heretick noted as an ad againft the Church. 5. And all this was but about a Patriarch, and not an ordinary Biihop, and that at his Imperial feat, where it concerned the Emperours to have moft regard. 6. And I told you that Princes are the Judges whom thqy fhould tolerate, whoever have the choice..

§. 40. He adds, When Athanafius was reflored, Conftantius declared it was by the decree of the Synod and by his confent.

Anfw. 1. If he meant here to intimate the exclufion of the peoples confent or choice, he could fcarce have named in Hiftory an inftance more againft himfelf, than that of Athanafius, who thereby was brought in, upheld and oft reftored. 2. This Hiftory tells you the Arian Emperour was forced to this confent, to avoid a threatned War from his brother. 3. This was not to make him Bifhop, but tocall him to his flock from his banifhment. 4. And dothnot all this confirm what I plead for, as,to the Peoples, Synods and Princes feveral parts ?

§ ; 41. NeEtarius cafe is next, about whom Hifiorians difagree, but the moft credible fay> that the.Council named Nettarw with fome

( H7 )

others in a paper, and in honour to an excellent Emperour, bid him take which he would : But all this excluded not the peoples pare (who would not have left Gregory but by his own requelt) and were glad to accept one from fucha Council and Prince.

§. 42. Next he faith out of Soumen, That the People and Clergy chofe Chryfoftome, and Arcadius confented\ and then he affronted! Sozomen with PalUdins.

Anfw. i. Palladms denyeth nothing that I plead for, but only tells us of the Emperours premotion and endeavours, (in his Royal City about a Patriarch) to prevent the divifion of the people : Nor hPal-Udius credit to be equalled to Sozomen^s herein, much lefs preferred. 2. Socrates the moft credible of all in this, faith, /. 6. c. 2.

[It feernedgood to them to fend for John Chryf Wherefore not long

after, Arcadius with the general confent both of Priefts and People fent forhim.2 And did not tne Doctor think 1 needed help by fuch Citations?

$.45. The choice of Neftorins was juftfuch another. The people had no reafon to deny confent to one out of ChryfoftonPs Monastery, nominated by fo good an Emperour', who was judge whom to tolerate in his Royal City: But both he and they after repented of the choice.

§. 44. His laft inftance is Theodofins getting in Proclns before Maxi-mianus was buried.

Anfw. Reader, 1. All this is a good Emperours care about one Patriarch of his own City to avoid divifion, and nothing to the common choice of Bifhops.

2. The true cafe Socrates ( cited ) thus defcribeth: The people were the chufers: They were for Proclns ; but fome adverfaries objected a Canon, that a Bifhop might not be removed from one Church to another, and he being a Bifhop already they could not have him : Socrates pleadeth for the difpenfablenefs of this Canon \ but the people were fain to take Maximiamis. The Emperour being for dit penfing with that Canon, and gratifying the people that had before declared themfelves for Proclns, did not himfelf bring him in, but got Celeftine Bifhop of Rome to write to Cyril of Alexanid. John Bifhop oiAntioch and Rnfns Bifhop of Thejfalonka to fatisfie them to do it •, and fo got Proclns in. What is this againft the peoples right ? Thefe be all the Doctor's inftances on this point.

$. 45- His 5fJ?note is, [On the alteration of the Government of Chri-ftendom there was greater reafon for the Maaiftrates interpofmg than be-

U 2 fore:

fire: Becaufe of Princes endowing Churches, the Royal affetit waspt % — though a Biflwp was chofen by the Clergy and People^

Anfw. Who would ftnve againft fo friendly a difputer, that go-eth on to fay die fame as I ? when I doubt his party will fay that he Prevaricateth.

$, 46. But he faith, The Royal power overthrowing the Papal , refer-ved the power of nomination of Bifoops as part of the Prerogative : which being allowed in frequent Parliaments, the confent of the people u {wallowed up thereiny fince their Atls oblige the whole Nation.

Anfw. 1. 1 fee we yet underftand not how much of the Irenicon is, retraced, and whether he yet hold not that no Form of Church-Government is of Divine Institution; or we be not bound to be for that which King and Parliament are for. But we undertake to prove the. contrary, and have done it.

2.. What if Parliaments gave the King power to chufe all Folks Wives and Husbands, Phyficians, Tutors, Diet, Trade, &c. our Right were not fwailowed up by this, though it were called tbe King's Prerogative. Much lefs where Gods lnftitution and the very Law of Nature have foreftalled them, and neither. God nor Man. gave, them that fwallowing power.

3. I oft anfwered, thatTythes and Temples may be more in the. Magiftrates power, than Paftoral relation and power of the Keys.

$. 47. He faith, p. $26. That the inferiour right of Patronage isjuftly, thought to^ bear <qual date with the fettlement of Chrifiianity in peace and quietnefs.

Anfw. 1. It was fcarce ever fetled in peace and quietnefs to this, day: Much lefs during the Saxons Heptarchy. 2. I have proved that the Univerfal Church was far from making Lay Patrons thechufers. 3. It is lefs lawful to fell our Souls into flavery than our bodies: And if our Anceftors had faid tofome rich men, YoufhaU all chufe our Paftors and we will ft and to your choice, if you will build us Temples and give them Lands *, it would no more bind us to ftand to their bargain, than if they had faid, Give usHoufe and Land,. and you fhall chufe our Diet, Wives, Phyficians, &c we fay if your kindnefs be turned to our hurt, take your houfe and land) or give it to whom you will: we mil not fell our fouls and Church-rights at fuch a price*

§,.. 48. His 6//j conclufion is, That things being thus fetled — there is vo ground for the people to refiitne the liberty of Elections.

Anfw- 1. 1 need not over and over repeat the anfwer to his rea-fons. 2. If the liberty of Eltftim be not refumed fwhich was not

that

(H9)

that which I pleaded for, as he would all along inflauate,) yet the liberty of free confent or refufal may be neceflary.

§. 49. Reader, again, the true cafe is like this following: Parents-have a ruling power to chufe Wives and Husbands for their Children: Guardians have much power over Orphans in it. «=13 Magiftrates may make Laws to reftrain unlawful Marriages. Children are bound inthefe cafes to obey Parents, unlefs they chufe to their apparent hurt or danger*, and to obey Guardians and Magiftrates in their proper Laws. But 1. It is for all this no Marriage till both parties confent. 2. And ail the faid power over them is limited, and but directive and not deftruttive to their own confent-ing power.

Even foin our cafe ^ n The Ordainers are the firft Judges, and have a power like Parents, and none fhould be received agamft their wills, unlefs they would betray the Church. 2. Tne Magiftrates may make ordering reftrainingLaws, that no unworthy perfon (hall be tolerated : 3. Alimited power of nomination may be left to Patrons, as Guardians, who have power to help the Churches, but none to hurt*, much iefs to ruinc them 4. But it is not a Church related as Paftor and Flock, till both confent. Thefe things are evident truth, though fome would bury it in a heap of words.

$. 50. I would alfo if I could have drawn the Doctor to refolve me this doubt ', Whether the power of Parents and Husbands, or ejPatrons , yea or Princes be greater, in the choice of Food, Phyfick^ and fo of a Tutor, a Paftor or a particular Church-Communion. And if a Parent or Huf~ band fay, I command you to hear and Communicate with fuch a Paftor and Congregation, and the Patron fay the contrary, yea, or the Prince or Law, which is to be obeyed ? A nd to whom this Family Government moft belongeth ? And why Father and Mother rather than Prince and Priefts are named in the Fifth-Commandment ?

§. J1- p- 529. He reciteth my reafons, why Parliaments cannot take away our free Receptive confent, and he again feigneth that I fay all this for the peoples chafing power, yet confefTeth I deny not the Magiftrates or Patrons power of their own Gift. (The Cafe of Sacrilege I leave to their Confciences.)

§. 52. p. no. But faith he, Anabaptijts, Quakers, and all maypretend a care of their Souls, and fo leave the Minifter only the Temple and Tythes.

Anjw. i. kxAAnahaptifts and Quakers will have a care of their Souls, when you have faid and done all you can againft it: Aprifon will not overcome it. 2. So

(i5o)

- 2. So Turks* Socimans, Papifts, (or Anabaptifls if you will) when they get into power, may pretend that they are fitter to be traded with mens Souls, than men with their own; And fo Prelates may fay : But is nothing true that men can abufe and mifapply ?

And to me it is fomething, though it fliould be nothing to you, i. That nature obligeth and difpofeth every man more to care for his own foul, than it doth the Patron to care for others. 2. That many hundred or thoufand men are not all fo like to miftake and mifcar-ry about their own Souls, as one Patron is that is far from their hearts. 3. That it is a matter more dangerous to truft thoufands in one hand than in many fas it would be in a ftorm to put all into one boat.) If that man mifcarry he endangereth multitudes: If another manmif-carry it is but for one.

3. To have a felf-faving power, and to have a felf-deftroying power, differ (with men that hate not diftin&ion.) So little can a man know what we fay by this Doctors Aniwers, that a (hanger would think by him that we were quite of another mind. I never faid Quakers or any others may have whom they will: If they chufe men uncapable, the neighbour Bifhops or the Clergy mayadmonifh them, and renounce his Communion", And the Magiftrate may re-ftrain him and refufe to tolerate an intolerable mart: And yet the people ought not; to accept an uncapable man offered by Bifhops or Patrons*, no nor a man next to uncapable when they need and may have much better. Many Negatives are fafe.

§. 53. He faith, The prophane have right to their own fouls, and to the care of them r and therefore are equally concerned with others fto chufe.J

Anfw. It is fad with the Church when they need to be faved from fuch reafonings of their great Teachers.

1. A Right to care for their Souls giveth no man right to chufe men for others Soul?, to do that which they will not have done for their own. The queftion is, whether that man will Communicate with the Church on Chrifts terms ? He refufeth and will not (elfe he ought not to be refufed.) And ihall he that refufeth Communion chufe one to give it others, becaufe he hath a Soulhimfelf? Had the neighbour Heathens and Hereticks of old power to chufe Bifhops for the Church, while they refufed to be of the Church themfeives > Shall he that will not be of the Society chufe for the Society ?

2. We diftinguifh between what a man may be forced to, and what *ot. He may not be forced to the great gift of Sacramental Remif-

fion

C*sO

fion and Communion,rx-caufe no unwilling perfon hath right to it; But an ignorant perfon may be forced as ^Catechumen or hearer^to hear what can be faid for his conviction: For truth may conquer the unwilling. But none on this pretenfe can hinder the Church from hearing its own Paftors, nor force men to be the ordinary Auditors of Mahometans, Hereticks or Heathens.

§. 54. p. 331. He again tragically exclaims of me, on the old falfe fuppoficion, that I make the people the fole chufers, and noc only plead for their free Negative Vote (though chufing alfo, but not alone, was the old way^) And here tells us of the tumults that would follow.

Anfw* 1. So they would if the people chofe in France, Spain, [-taly: And yet I would they did. Nohurnane aftions are free from inconveniencies ', which are not to be cured with amifchkf.

2. Let him name me ten places that have fuffered fo deeply by the peoples choice, as I can tell him of ten thoufand that have done by the choice of Prelates, Patrons and Princes, and I will confefs my errour. It was not by the peoples choice that all preaching was put down in Mofcovy .- It is not the people that have this many hundred years chofen all the Popifh Bifhops, iMafs-priefts, &c in Italy, and moft of the Roman Church, even in Spain, France, Bavaria, &c.

3. I told him, but had no anfwer, that not only the Innes of Court, but alfo Black}ryart, J Iderwan bury y znd fuch other places as have ehofen their own Teachers, have f peaceably J had as happy a fuccef-fion of Learned, Godly, able Pallors, as any place in London or in England.

4. It's known by experience that Learning and great worth doth as Light fo reveal it felf to humane nature, that ufually moft of thofe that are loth to be holy themfelves, would have a Saint and an able man.

5. Doth he think in his Confcience that all the Patrons in England are liker to be judicious, and free from felicitations, favour and refpect of perfons, than the majority of the Communicants of fuch Churches ?

6. If the Parfons firfb admit great numbers of profane, and wicked men to be Communicants, and then tell us how unfit thefe men aretochufe.* they do but condemn themfelves.

§• 55- p* 111* He tells us we do but fay, We judge, we thinly, &c. the things unlawful, but for partkukr arguments to prove them unlawful, he finds none*

Anfa. If this be true, then they that never found our arguments never anfwered them. (If it be not true, it is not well.) Then you here, and Mr. Falkener^ Fulxvood^ Durd % &c. have not yet anfwered any of our arguments. Remember this.

2. Though I did not argue, but name the things in my'firft Plea, you and others took it for arguing ^ and we ever craved leave to doit.

3. Is it true indeed, that there are no arguments, in our Writings, 1660. and 166 1. with the Bifhops, nor any in my Book of Concord, orTreatifeofEpifcopacy, nor in my old Difputations of Church-Government, nor in any other mens Books thefe eighteen years ? I doubt the angry Bifhops will think that in my Treatife of Epifcopacy there is fome fort of Argument^ and that my Book againft Sacril. Defertion of the Miniftry hath fome: and that an A-pology for our preaching ( now in the Prefs) hath fome. But if the re be none, accufe us of none*

CHAP.

(*si ;

CHAR X.

Of the Impofed ufe of the Crofs in Baptifm, and denying Baptifm to the refufers.

$. i.l)Age 348. He comcth to our {charge againft the Church] JL ( chough he never found any Arguments as aforefaid.)

And I. Why doth he filently balk the chief things which I had named? will this fatisfie Confidence ? will excufing fome things make others lawful ?

II- As to what he faith for the Crofs, I have fo fully anfwejed it twice to Mr. Cheney, and once to the Impleader, that I am loth to repeat all again. In fhort, 1. He faith the Church intends it not {for a fign of Immediate dedication."}

Anfw. 1. What is the Medium i 2. What if it were not Immediate ? 3. Can it be more Immediate than in the very prefent dedicating a&, to ufe the fign and exprefling the dedicating fignification ?— 4. The words of the Canon a;te, [To dedicate them by that badge to his fervice, whofe benefits beftowed on them in baptifm the name of the Crofs doth refre-fent.] And after {the Church of England accounteth it an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the fervice of him that dyed on the Crofs."] And the fervice is named QChriftianity in practice,] to fight under his banner, &c.

2. He faith, {In baptizing the Minifler ails by Authority derived from Chrift, but at Croffmg he fpeaks in the name of the Church, [We receive this Child, &c]

Anfw. 1. It's meet it fhould be fo,thatChrift's Sacraments be ufedby Chri It's Authority, and mens by mens.

2. But I hope this is but a quibble*, and that notwithftanding the word {we,] the Minifter as Chrift's Minifter, and in his name faith, {we receive this child,] when even the abfolved are to be received by Chrifi: firft, and then by the Church. I will not elfe aggravate the ill confequences.

$. 2. He before faith, {Was the Crofs a dedicating fign to Cod, or rf declarative fign to men ?]

Anfw- The Canon faith exprefly twice, QTo dedicate them by this badge to his fervice—] And Can honourable badge whereby the In-

fane is dedicated to his Service.] And the Rubrick which we muft fubferibe, refers us to the Canon for the true fenfe and reafon of the Croffing.

2, Is Baptifm and the Lords Suffer a fign to God, or to man ? It is a fignto man for God .- Godknoweth notbyfigns, but inftiruteth figns-for humane ufe. It is to dedicate them to God's fervice. $. 3. He faith, [It reprcfents the duty and not the Grace'} Anfw. 1. The words are, [to his fervice, whofe benefits b eft owed on them in baptifm, the name of the Crofs doth reprefent.} Are the benefits fobeftowed no Grace? or is Reprefenting no Reprefenting ? orfhali we believe the Doctor againft the Church ? or is this the kind of Conformity that he would teach us, by denying what we fubferibe to?

2. Sure the Crofs of Chrift with his dying on it, expreft alfo in the words of the Canon, is Grace. To repreientor fignifie Chrift- dying on the Crofs ( which are the words and ufe) is immediately to repreient or fignifie the very Grace of Redemption it felf.

3. To be lifted under Chrift as the Captain of our Salvation, and to be received into the Congregation of Chrifts flock, to fight under his banner, &c are all great Grace.

4. The moral operation on the foul which the-preface of the Liturgy afcribes to the Ceremonies, is Grace ro be*wrought By them.

5. To make a common fymbol or badge of Chriftianity, folemn-ly obliging as a Covenanting fign, by which they muft be diftinguifh-ed from Infidels, and this even at our fir ft Covenanting with Chrift:, is to make a Sacrament in the old fence. What was the Souldiers Sacramentum Militare more, from which the Church feems to have borrowed the name? The Oath was obliging ', The colours or c/h-gtdum was obliging and a fignifying badge.- The good received was the honour, relation and hope of future pay or preferment upon performance. And is not all this in ours?

6. If you have wit ftrong enough to juftifie all this humane addition to Chrifts great inftitution, muft all men be compelled to pra-ftifeas you and fuch others judge, becaufe you think they do not confute you? Who gave you or fuch others right to filence, reject from Chriftendom, &c. all fuch as are not herein of <your mind j even when you deny what your Canon exprefly faith ?

§.4. He faith, It addeth nothing to Bsptifm which is compleat before. *

Anfw. What's this to our queftion f It adds another Sacrament to

Baptifm z

Baptifm: The Lords Supper is another Sacrament of the fame Covenant added to perftd Baptifm by Chrift; and the Crofs by men.

§. 5. But all the difficulty is thus removed •( he thinks) and by the forefaid quibble of [I baptize'] and [we receiver]

Arfw. Difficulties are eafilier removed with fome men, than with others.

1. He dare not fay that the Minifter fpeaks not as from Chrift, when-ever he faith [we] in the plural number.

2. Doubtlefsitis firft Chrifts aft, and then the Churches to Receive the Baptized into the fioch^ofChrift : And the Minifter herein firft fpeak-eth Chrills aft and then the Churches.

$. The words [we receive] him, goeth before the Crofting and is named efpecially as part of the Miniftration of Baptifm, being its immediate effe&. And what a dangerous invention is it to fay than the Minifter here fpeaketh'not from Chrift but the Church, in receiving in thofe dedicated to him ?

4. And he will make us a hard task of it, to know when the Prieft fpeaks as God's Minifter, and when as the peoples Minifter or mouth ?

§. 6. He brings us the inftance of one after B^ti[m y engaging himfelf in the Independent Church Covenant by holding up his hand.

Jnfw. 1. It is fuppofed that the Covenant which he mentioneth is not the Covenant of Chriftianity, but (that fuppofed) aconfent or promife to live in the relation and duty of a Chriftian member of that particular flock. And this is much like a Covenant between a Chriftian Man and Wife, Tutor and Pupil .• And as men may make particular contracts, they may make particular figns of them, (as is the Ring 2nd taking hands in Marriage*, the crowning of a Chriftian King, &c.J But if you fuppofe the Independant Covenant to repeat alio and contain the Covenant of Chriftianity it felf as the firft: part, then that which is required is but Jigmfied consent : And as all Chriftians renew their confent at each Encharifl Sacrament ally, fo do they frequently by word and dud, and all due fignificationof confent-Nature and Cuftom of humane converfe have made words and ge-ftures fignifiers of confent.- But Sacraments and folemn badges of this nature fignifie by b;ftitntionot the inventer or impofer.

The fin lyeth in arrogating Chrifts prerogative, and accufing his Lawsof infufficiency. If Chrift (byhisadt.and fpint) had not fepa-rated one day in feven for the Commemoration of his Refurreftion,

X 2 he

he had not told us that this is his own work as Legiflator. But now he hath feparated one day, if man wiil make a Law that another day alfoof the week fhall be feparated to the fame ufe, it is as much as to fay, I. We have authority to make fttch Laws as Chrift made, 2, And to amend his Law by this addition. For if it had been fit to be made, there was the fame reafon then for Chrift to have feparated two days.

So kit in this cafe. If Chrift had made no Sacraments, we might more have doubted whether he took it for his proper work: But where he hath made two, to make more of the fame, nature, to me feemeth too bold: He could have made the Sacrament of the dedicating Crofs if he would have had it. If our Bifhops fhould command us to fay we believe Chrifts refurre&ion, or to ftand up to (ignifie it, to avoid confufed noife, we refufe it not;' But if they would make a Law that none (hall be Chriftened that will not let the Prieft put him intoa Coffin or Grave and take him out again to reprefent the Refur-rection, 1 think it fafeft to deny obedience to fuch arrogant ufurpation.

§.7. He confcffeth, It belongs to Chrift only to appoint the means of conveying his own grace.

Anfw. I have before proved that the Crofs is by this Church appointed as fuch a means, and named the Grace and conveyance.

§. 8. He faith, {Though it belong to the King t* make the badge or fymbolof his ownfubjetts, yet every Nobleman may give a diftinfl Liver J without treafion7\

Anfw. True; And this opens the Cafe. A badge of the Kings fnb-jects is not the fame thing, with the badge of a fubjects fervant.- But the Crofs is not the badge of a humane fubordinate contract or relation (as City Covenants, or Paftoral particular contracts, &c.) but of Chrift ianity it felf, and of the fubjectsbf Chrift as fuch.

§. 9. p. 553. He faith, Is our worfiiip dire tied to it or may we kneel before i>, as Mr, B. allows men may do before a Crucifix?

Anfw- But if this be not true, or be a deceiving intimation, you fhould not allow your felf to write it. My words are in Chrift- Direct, q. 11.3, p. 876. When I had named 21 Cafes in which an Image may not be ufed, (and among the reft, when it is fcandalous, or tempting to fuperftition, &c.J I named many Cafes in which an Image may be ufed *, and fay {that it is not unlawful to fray before or towards an Image, in a Room where they are placed only for Ornament, &c-2 Is this to fay, (worjhip may be directed to it ? or that we may kneel before # Crucifix ) ) when 1 had before excepted the Images of

God,

God, Chrift, &o in worfhip, on feveral reafons ? Doth any Pro-teftant doubt of what I aflert ? My Parlour hath on all four fides the pictures of our living friends: muft I not pray in that room be-caufemyface will be ftiii towards fome of them? Doth he doubt of this? Or is not his citing one half of the words as he doth, to deceive his credulous Reader, if not worfe ?

$. 10. He faith, Kneeling bef^e a Crucifix is lawful to bim juppofvig the mind be only excited by it.

Anfw- A Calumny made up by fetting together two fcraps of remote fentences. i. Becaufe I fay it's lawful to pray in a room wnere pictures fnot any) are before me, for meer ornament,, therefore he feigns me to fay, hi lawful to kneel before a Crucifix. 2. And elfewhere I fay, It is lawful to be excited to a good thought by feeing a Deaths-head-, or any of Cods works, and fo it is by feeing a Crucifix, (which no fober Chriitian doubts of) he feigns me to make it an exciting fign to him that kneels before it.

§. 11. Yea he makes fo much ufe of his own calumny asp. 354. to prove me flrangely partial, Allowing it to be lawful to pray before a Crucifix as a medium excitant, as an objecl that ftirs up in us worshipping affections, and fo excufe all Papifis from Idolatry that profefs they ufe a Crucifix for no other end.

Anfw Meer repeated forgery, not becoming his profefFion. I never fpake for praying before it, much iefs as an objecl: toftir up worfhipping affections : But only that I am not bound to fly at prayer from a room that hath only ornamental pictures', and that as in the Geneva Bible there be Hiftorical pictures, and few but Turks are againft them, it is lawful (I fay not kneeling before them at prayer, but out of cafes of fcandal and danger) to be excited by them to good affections, and indeed good affections are worshipping affection*. Dare any Chriftian fay that it is a fin to think reverently of God when we fee his works, or fee but a picture of Scripture Hi-ftory (as Abraham offering lfaac y Chrift dying and rifing, exej Non-conformifts have ftill taken them for Lyers that faid they were a-gainft Hiftorical pictures *, and (hewed it in the Geneva Bible. I have feen in many pious country Houfesalltheftory of Dives and Lazjtrus painted over their Tables, and never heard the good ufe of it ac-cufed. But I defirethe Reader to perufe my words, which he citetb, Qjeft. 11 1. and judge with what honefty we are accufed. I there fay, 1. It is unlawful to make any Image of God. 4 It is unlawful to make y place or ufe an Image as is like to do mere hurt than good, or to tempt to

fin:

cm)

fin : —— And all fncb Images of creatures as others ufe to give unlawful wor-fhip or honour to, when like to tempt others to the life ', as among the Papifls the Image of the Crucifix, the Virgin Mary and Angels rhay not be made % placed or ufedfo as may tempt any to worship them fitfully as they do. 11. It is unlawful to place Imtgts in Churches or in fecret before our eyes when we are worjhipping God, when it tendeth to corrupt the mind ■— which is the ordinary effecl of Images. 12. It is unlawful to ufe Images fcanda-toufly, as any of the aforefaid finners ufe them, though we do it not with the fame intent: that is, fo as in outward appearance is the fame with their ufe, Becaufe fo we (hall difiionbur God as they do, and harden them in fin : Therefore Images in Churches or in Oratories in thofe Countries where others ufe them fin fully, orjiear fuch Countries, where the fame may harden men in their fin, is evil* 21. I think^it unlawful to make an Image or any equal inftituted fign to be the publicly common fymbol of the Chriftian Religion , though but a profeffing fign fas they make the Crofs.y

Doth this doctrine jultifie the Papifts ? And p. 876. § 14. I larg-ly prove the ufe of a Crucifix (as they do the Crofs in baptifm) to be unlawful: which he anfwereth not. Is it not confiftent with all this that I fay, [That it*s not unlawful to pray before or towards an Image, in a room where Images are placed only for ornament, and we have no refpetl to them as a medium or objetl of ourworfhip {except as by accident it's made unlawful.) And that (nqt kneeling to them, nor in prayer, but, in tran-fient meditation,) it is lawful fo to ufe them biftoric ally as to fiir up in us a worfJnpping affetlion.'] If the Papifts do no more, no Proteitant would call themldolaters for it. But if they ufe them IdoLatroufly, it makes our ufeof them unlawful, when even but outwardly it is like theirs : And fo I fay of the Crofs. This is the Doctors zeal againft Idolatry, that it feems would havens all ufed as his Books intimate, till we dare ufe the Tranfient Image of the Crofs much worle than he maketh the Papifts to ufe Images and Crucifixes in particular. For to ufe them as a dedicating common badge of Chriflianity, in our great Covenant with Chrift, is more than to ufe them hiflorically and in meditation, or more than to pray in rooms adorned with common pictures. Butheknowcth that the Papifts give more to Images.

§. 12. Obj. But what need had you to fay all this of Images ?

Anfw. That men may underftand it. 1'le tell you that you may fee the Candor of our accufers. Dr. R. Coxe Bifhop of Ely confulted with Caffander to have had Images in our Churches* 7he Lutherans fo ufe them. Our new Church of England began to fet up Crucifixes over Altars, and to pkad more for Church-pictures than heretofore. In 1642. the

Pariia-

(*S9)

Parfiament ordered the defacing all Images of any Perfon of the Trinity in Churches or Church-yards, (before the King went from them) B-caiifel read chis Order and the Church-warden attempted to obey it, the rabble of drunken fwearing Journy-men, who were all for Conformity, rofe in a tumult with clubs, leeking to kill me and the Churchwardens,and knocktdown two Country-men becaufe they were our friends (who carried the hurt to their death:) And the Conforming Clergy were fo much for them, that one of them indicted meat the Afllzes, and I was forced to leave the Country. Such rage for Images tempted fome religious men that were againft them, to be more cenforious againft theConformifts than I would have them, and to run too near the other extream : And after it grew a difpute whether the Lutherans were not Hereticks ( of which fee Cafpar Strefo.) The remembrance of all this drew me to fay all the Truth which I thought ufeful to cure mens over-much cenfuring the Lutherans and the new Prelatifts: And now the thanks they give me is to turn the cenfure on my felf for faying fo much to excufethem.

Juft fo did Mr.Pierce by me: My religious neighbours fcrupled Communion with their neighbour Prelatifts, faying, All the drunkards and fwearers and ignorant ungodly people that had no religion, were fierce for Bifhops, Liturgy and Ceremonies, and they durft not joyn with them while they profaned the Sacrament. I was far from jufti-fying them, but to abate their overmuch cenfuring, 1 told them that in fome Countries where cuftome had brought fome particular fin from under difgrace, we could not judge one gracelefs, whofe whole lives elfe were pious, temperate and juft, for fometime committing that particular fin ", and it was hard to fay how oft this might fall out: As breaking the Lords day in Geneva and Holland, fome petty Oath in fome Countries that ufe it, and fuch like. For this charity to the Prelatifts, what doth Mr. Tierce but turn the charge of favouring fuch grofs fin againft my felf, as if I had been compounding it with god-linefs ?

1 leave you all therefore hereafter, better to defend your felves.

§. 13.. About their appointing theCrofsto worl^ Grace morally, and that Sacraments work^it not phyfically^ he faith, J mifreprefent or mifapply both the Popifli and Proteflant dottrtne of Sacraments.'] And for thefirft he faith, It overthrows all that I fay that they all hold that Sacraments worl^ grace, ex opere opera to, where there is n* atlual impediment, and it y s he-rtfic to fay, They are bare outward prof effing pgw.~}

Anfw*

Anfw. Did he think that this is inconfiftent with the opinion that they work.it morally ? They diftinguifh between the Principal Agent, the inftrumental Operator, and the Receiver. And they fay that the Sacrament conveyeth Grace by the will of the Principal Agent (GodJ ex opere operato, and hath not its effed ex opere operantis-, And that ophs operantis is that which vim habet ex bonitate & devotiont ejus qui cperatur, that is, from the Miniftersgoodnefs (And doth not the Eng-lijh Canon fay the fame ?) But opus operatum is that which is effectual, modo fiat ficut lex prafcribit, whether the inftrument be good or bad: But it mull be ficut lex prafcribit : And when they come to the Receiver they require in him more than the opus operatum to the effect: viz.. that he intend fas Aquinas fpeaketh, 3. q. 68.4.7.) to receive Bap~ tifm, which is the beginning of a new life y and that he have faith, a. 8. r. ex parte gratia quam quis per baptifmum confequitur, exigitur in fufcipien-te fides, exp-trte vero Char aft eris non nee ejfart a eft. The Character is received without real Faith, but Grace is not. And what that Character is how little they are agreed fee at large in Wotton de Reconcil. Peccat. Durandusj, and the wifeft fay it is but the Relation of one that hath received the external tejfera or badge of Chriftianity (which none deny.) And ad 2. he taith, \jhe Church quantum in fe, non intend* dare baptifmum nifi habentibus reftam fidem, fine qua non eft remifi fio peccatorum. Et propter hoc interrogat accedentes ad baptifmum an ere-Aant ? And citeth Auftin, that without true faith it is net received to falvation. .

And Art. 9. he concludeth that feeing God doth not compell men to righteoufnefs, ifsmanifeft that feigned comers obtain not the benefit of bap-ttfm. And ad 3. inter fitte accedentes, he numbers them that come in mortal fin, net willing to leave it and be conformed to Chrift.

And your own words imply all this, that the Receiver muft put no hin-derance~] while they make the want of neceflary intention, defire, true faith, repentance, to be the hinderance, leaving the fubject uncapable of the Grace of the Sacrament of Baptifm."

§. 14. It irketh me to repeat, but you conftrain me: Scotland Okam (and then I need not fay how many morej confute Aquinas at large for calling Sacraments fomuch aslnftruments giving Grace, as heexplainethif, And fo doth Vet. Aliaco Camerac briefly in 4.9. 1. B. C concluding that Sacraments are no Caufes of Grace properly, but improperly, becaufe Deus in facramentis ndinavit fie agere, non quod ipfa facramenta agant< And that a facrament neither by its own virtue, nor by any virtue given it y is any proper efficient taufe of any difpofi-

tion

tion irt the foul previous to grace 9 or of grace it felf, hut a condition fine qua non, difpofitiv , improperly called Caufa difpofitiva Moralis, non efi fettiva fedreceptiva: Yet they grant alfo a Moral objective caufality, by fignification.

Brianfon In 4.. q. i.fol. 6. concludeth (i.doc-J facr amenta non funt gratia caufa effcftiva, fed fclttm per modum meritiper cadaturgratia, citing Ricardus, Scotus, Aureolus, Franc. Perufiusj &c. againfl: Thorn. & Alexand. herein. Yet faith [Baptifmus indigetfide, qua eft difpofitio & fundamentum omnium facramentorum, vel in fe ut in adult is, vel in alio ut inparvulis. Suarez.de Legib.l. p. c. 6.^.748. Col.Z. deCircumcif \_Nam etiam ipfa fides parentum erat conditio neceffaria & fine qua non •, Et ta-mendeiiladici non poteft, Quod Gratiam daret Infanti ex opere operato % nee quod gratiam contineret • etiam nee caufa juftificans parvulos dici poteft'-, rife late & improprio modo, ficutdicitur de quolibet remedio vel condition e. fine qua non.

And Brianfonztfo faith in \>q. 4. doc. 1. fol. 34 Sl*pd ficie recipi-entes baptijmum non hah ent gratiam baptifmi, dicunt Scholaftici.

Yea even Hildebrand in one of his Roman Councils concludeth, that the Sacraments of Baptifm and Penance give not pardon to the impenitent and uncapable.

Petrus aS.JofephThef univerf. de facram. p. 93. faith, [Sacramentum eft fignum fenfibilt divinitus inftitutum, longo tempore durans, fancli-tatem aliquam, faltem extemam (that is, Relative feparation to God, which is the true Chara&er-with them) conferens, & veram figmficans.

And p. 101. \_Sacr amenta nova legis conferunt gratiam, pdtjue ex opere operate & immediate : Duplicem fcilicet, aliam refpondentem dtfpofi-tioni, aliam ipfi facramento: cum antiqua adultis nullam conferrent nifi

ratione difpofitionis Sacrament a nova legis nonproducunt gratiam phy-

fice, fed tantum moraliter.2

But I mufl: fpare the Reader : By this he may underftand, 1. That tb*y hold not to the opus operatum as efficient of Grace in the Sacraments of the old Law,and fo not to Sacraments as Sacraments: 2. That they put opus operatum againfl: opus operantis, and not againfl the ne-ceffary difpofition of the Receiver, which confifteth in Faith, Repentance, intention, &c

3. That many of them deny all proper Sacramental caufality of Grace. 4-Specially Phyfical. (And Proteftants make them not mcerfigns, butinvefting figns.) 5. And ponere obicem is to want neceffary racial qualification, and action as aforefaid.

Y And

And now the Dr. had done well to tell me wherein I was very much tfiiftaken.

§. 15. He next faith, {The Croft is in no fence held to be an inftru-ment appointed for conveying Graced}

Anfw. 1. Not by God, for it is none ofGod*s Ordinances. 2. But that by men it is I hare manifefted j if z moral obje^ive moving and teaching means may be called an Inftrument: If not, the word Inftrument is nothing to our cafe. 1. To work on the foul of thea-dulfi by reprefentation, (Ignification, excitation ( as the word doth) is to be an operative moral caufe or means: And this the Church afcribeth to it (Pref.toLiturg. &c.^ 2. The death of Chrift, and the benefits of it, and reception into the Church and State of Chri-ftianity, and the fenfe of our Engagement to fight under Chrift's banner, &c are Grace*, fomeof which is given by excitation and fome (the Relation,) by inveftiture.

§. 16 And now whether I have only invented thefe objections to a> mufe and perplex mens conferences^ and this Dr. hath made allfo plain that all may venture on it, and he and all Minifters may deny them Chriftendom that dare not venture, and call out all from the Mini-ftry that be not as bold as he, I leave to confideration.

He next turneth to Mr. A about bowing, and fo goeth to their Excommunication

CHAR

( 1*3 ) CHAP. XL

Whether the Excommunicating Church, or the Excommunicated for not Communicating when Excommunicated be guilty of Schi[?n ?

§. l. *Ti Heir Canons excorinunicate ipfo fafto all that fay Conformi-X tyis unUvful, lad many fuch like. i. He fakh [The excommunication is not againft fuch as modeftly fcruple the lawfulnefs of things impofed; but thofe xko cb'h^ately affrtv it.

Anfw. Reader, troft neither him nor me, but read the words. Can. 3, 4, 5, 6. [Whofoever fijall ajfrm that the Church of England by Law e-fiablijbed under his Afajefiy is ut a true and an Apoftolical Church, — le* him be excommunicated ipfo fa do.

Whofoever foall affirm that the form of God's worfhip in the Church of England eftablified by the Law, and contained in the Book^ofCommon-prayer is a eorrupt, fuperftitious, or unlawful worjljip of God, or contained ANT THING in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures, let him be excommunicated ipfo fadlo, and not reftored till, &c

Whofoever flail affirm that any rf the 39 Articles, are in any part fuperftitious or erroneous, or fuch as he may not with a good confeience fub-fcribe unto > let him be excommunicated ipfo facfto , and net reftored till, &c.

Whofoever fhall affirm that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church 0/England by Law eftablijhed are wicked, antichriftian, or fuperftitious, OR fuch as being commanded by lawful authority, men who avre z.ealoufly and Godly offered may not with any good confeience approve them, ufethem, OR as occasion requireth fubferibe to them, let him be excommunicated ipfo fadlOf and not reftored till he repent and pnblickly revoke fuch his wicked er-rours.

Can. 7. Whofoever JliaM hereafter affirm, that the Government of the Church of England under his Majefty by Arch-B'flops, B flops, Be a is, Arch-Deacons, and THE REST THAT BEAR OFFICE IN the fame, is antichriftian, OR repugnant to the word of God, let himb-j excommunicate ipfo facfto, &c.

Y 2 Can.

( i*4 )

Can. 8. Whofoevtr jhall affirm that the form and manner rf making* and confecrating Bijliops, Priefts-or Deacons, cwtaineth ANY THING in

it that is repugnant to the word of God, let them be excommunicate ipfo

facto, &c.

Can.- II. Whofoever fhall affirm — that'there are within this Realm, other Meetings, AJfemblies, or Congregations of the Kings born fubjetlsi thanfuch /is by the Law of this Land are-held and allowed, which may rightly challenge to themfelves the Name cf true and lawful Churches, let him be excommmunicate ipfo facto, &c.

And now if the Reader will no more believe the Doctor, it is not long of nae> If ail this be no more than to excommunicate them that [obfiinately affirm the Ceremonies Antichriflian, impious, or fupcrfiitious^ underftanding them is not polTible.

$. 2. But I confefs they excommunicate not men for fecret thoughts^ We thank them for nothing. It is but for telling their judgment. And DiiTenters may have many occafions to tell it. The Kings Com-million once allowed fomeofus to tell it: The Demands, Accufati-ons, calumniating Books and Sermons, &c. may call many to it.

§. i. He faith, All Excommunication fuppofetkprecedent Admonition.

Anfw. i. They fhould do lb: The worfe is yours becaufe it doth notfo: It only alloweth admonition to repent for his reftoration: which made M. Anton. Spalatenfis lay fo much againft it.

2. If it did oblige you to admonifh us, as you have done by your Books, you know that this changeth not our judgments: So that.to be excommunicate before the admonition and after comes all to one: But indeed when the Law ipfo falio excommunicateth, the.Lawitfelf is the admonition.

$. 4. He addeth [General excommunications though they be Iatse fen-tent i a?, do mt a feci the particular perfons till the evidence be notorious, not only of the bare fall, but the contumacy^

Anfw. AffeBmg is a word that fignifieth what you pleafe. Ipfo fatlo is [for and upon the fall proved, without any fentence ofajudge.~] While the faft only is thus made th? full caufe, the contumacy need not be proved. It's true, 1. That the fail muft be proved, 2. Andthenthe Law is-a fentence and Relatively affefteth the perfon as fentenced; 3. But no perfons elfe are obliged to avoid him, till the faB be lawfully publifh-. ed. But the man is excommunicate. And 4. Whether the man that knoweth the Law and his own Fact be not bound himfelf to avoid the Churches Communion, is a great Controvedle : And. the. plain truth is, Ific be a juft Excommunication, he is bound to forbear

Com-.

( t*5;

Communion in obedience to ft: (As much as a filenced Minifter is- to forbear Preaching-J But if it be a fentence unj'ift, and injuftice be not fo grofs as to nullifie it, ftillhe maft forbear: But if it befoun-juftastobe invalid, he may Communicate till he be executively rejected : (Asonefo unjuftly filenced may preach, if he can: for the cafe is much like. J

The Reader would be difpleafcd if I fhould cite him many Cafuifts in fo plain a cafe.

2. But no man doubteth but the General fentence of the Canon fpeaketh the fence of the Church, and doth all that Law-makers can do, before judgment: And the Law is norma officii & judicii, obliging Subjefr and Judge.

§. 5. It's true that Linwood faith, that a Declaratory fentence, that is, A Declaration that fuch a man it already fentenced\ by the Law , is ne-ceffary to oblige any to the execution of it on others, or the perfon in faro externo. But ft ill the Church hath done her part in Legiflation, to oblige asaforefaid.

$. 6. He faith [Perfons excommunicate are to be denounced fo every fix months, that others may have notice of them .]

j4nfw- 1. But are they not excommunicate then, before they are fo oft denounced, yea or at aH; as far as aforefaid ?

$-. 7. He faith £/ have fully ax fared my own Objection by faying, I dm not bound to execute the fentence on my fclf-2

Anfw. 1. He would not fay that he approveththe anfwer : For if he do, he confuteth himfelf, that would have us execute the filencing fentence on our felves, and the fentence againft publick worfhip in any way but theirs.

2. My reafon is, becaufe I take the unjuft fentence as invalid .-elle I Wfre bcund in fore intertore .

3. Butfurethe Church at leaft relaxeth that mans obligation to prefent Communion, by (hewing her will, if (he did not oblige him to withdraw.

Read over the words of the Canon, and fee whether they make them not as unintelligible and flexible to what fenfe they pleafe, as they do the words of the Aft of Uniformity and Liturgy.

§. 8. As to his two cafes in which the excommunicate may be fchifc maticks for not communicating, 1. We queftion not the firft : Juft excommunication excludeth none but the guilty. Here then indeed is the ftate of our Controverfie. Had he proved that in all the cafes before cited, it is juft to excommunicate us, he had done fomewhar,, when now for want of it he betrayeth his cau£r. 2i His*

( \66)

2. His id. is Uf they form new Churches."]

Anfw. i. Is forming new Churches and not communicating with the old wesatlone't Our prefent queftion is of the later. So that this great Accafer feemeth plainly to abjolve all from being bound to Communicate with them, who are unjuftly excommunicate, and gather not new Churches*

2. But may not the unjuftly excommunicate that cannot on juffc terms be reftored, worfhip God in fome^ublick Church ? Doth fuch a wicked fentencebindmento live like Atheifts till death/ or deprive them of their right to ail God's Ordinances? even many Papift Do&ors and Councils fay the contrary. And how elfe do you juftifie the Church of England againfl the Papifts charge of Schifm?

$. 9. f. 372. He ftill feemeth to think, that ^Hisown and others reafonings may change all the truly honeft Chriftians in the Land to hold alt the things imp ofed lawful^]

Anfw* Thefe thoughts of the Bifhops in 1660. and 1661. have brought us all to the pafs that we are at:, And if after 20 years fo great experience of the inefficacy of all their Difputes, yea and Prisons, and after the notice of the nature and different cafes of men, they ftill trufl: to bring us to Concord on thefe terms, difputing with fuch men is in vain •, The Lord deliver us from them.

CHAP.

C**7)

CHAP. XIL

Of the Englilh fort of Sponfors, and the exclufion of Parents duty.

$• *4 T^ge ^°* ^ e foth I \^ fever al times mention this as one of the JL grounds of the mlawfulnefs of the peoples joyning in Communion with hs : yea as the greatefl objettion.~]

Anfw. Four places of my writings are cited, and all will teftifie to him that will read them, the untruth of the Doctors words. This is an unhappy courfe of accufations: I can find no word of £ The mlawfulnefs of the peoples joyning in Communion with you on this ground*"] On the contrary, I have taught men how to make this very action in them lawful, viz. By getting if poffible credible Sponfors of the old fort, and agreeing with them to be Die Parents Reprefenter, and pro-mife as in his name, or at leaft but as his fecond, undertaking the E-ducation of the Child if he die or apoflatizje ( which was the old fort:) andhimfelf to be prefent and fignifie his confent by gefture, though hemaynotfpVsk.

But I have (hewed, i. That this mult be done befides the Churches order, that hath no fuch thing. 2. That fubferibing to the Churches order herein is unlawful: 3. That the Church which refufeth the Child lawfully offered, ought not to blame that perfon that cannot or will not make fuchfhifts, but getteth another Pallor to Baptize him whom they finfully refufe.

But this is not to prove it unlawful to have Communion with you. But it's lawful to ufe better alfo when they can, being thus Jtepulfed by you.

§. 2. He faith [The Parents are to provide fuch as are ft to undertake that office.']

Anfw. 1. No one is fit for it as ufed by the Liturgy, but an A-dopter thatfaketh the Child for his own : For he undertaketh the Parents work. And it's lis fub judice* whether any others undertaking befides a Parent or Owner can prove the Child to be in the Covenant as offered, and have right to the feal and benefits: Atheifts and Infidels Children are unholy, 1 Cor* 7.14?

2. If any were fit, few Parents can get fuch, as will underftand-ingly and deliberately and credibly promife them to do all that Godfathers muft by the Liturgy undertake. I never knew one in my life that feemed to the Parent to mean any fuch thing, much lefs to do ir.

I have in my younger time been Godfather to three or four $ But we before agreed with the Parents to intend no more than to be Wit-nejfes y and the Father to be the Entitler and the undertaker.

I did in 1640. Baptize two by the Liturgy, (without Croffing) and never more in 6. or 7. years after, becaufe of the impofed corruptions. Mr. Kettilby the Bookfeller (unlefs his Father had another Child of the fame name baptized the fame year)«was one : But his Father gave him his name, and prcmifed all his own duty, and his Uncle and Aunt Handing as Sponfors, we before agreed that they fhould fignifie butWitneJfes and friendly helpers in cafe of need.

2. But what if the Parents are bid provide fuch f that is no discharge of their own part, nor are they bound to call their duty on others.

f. 3. He faith fas to theChildstf^k to Baptifm) that the Godfathers ft and in a threefold capacity, 1. Reprefenting the Parent in offering, 2. Reprefenting the Child in promifing, $. In their own as undertakers of his education, &c.

j4nfw- 1. 1 will not till he confute them repeat my proofs that in the Church of England's fence the Godfathers are not the Parents re-prefentatives at all, nor fpeak in their name.

2. If they were, then when the Parents both are Atheifts, Infidels, Hobbifts, fcorners at Godlinefs, Hereticks, the Godfathers can reprefent them but as they are, and their own faith entitleth not the Child, becaufe they ftand in the perfons of Atheifts, Infidels, &c, your Church doth not like this doctrine.

j. And as to their reprefenting the Child, qno jnre is thedoubt.lt cannot be done without fome reprefenting power given them. And who gave it them ?

4. And as to the third Perfon (in this multiform thing) the doubt is, whether their undertaking to educate another mans Child be lawful, while he is bound to do ithimfelf? 2. And whether men ufe to be ferious in fuch undertakings, which I never knew one perform, nor feem to mean it, fave fuch as take poor mens, ktnfmens or dead mens children to keep as their own. 3. And if it be done without ferious intention, Is it not to make perjury or perfidioufhefs, and prophane

taking

( 1*9) taking God's name in vain, to be the way of Chriflening and Covenanting with Chrift in order to falvation ?

§. 4. This is a great point, and he doth well to handle it diligently; His explication of it is this, p. 382. [i. The Church hath tlie^ power of the Keys, (Trut •, but not as he and the Brownifts fay, The whole Church, but only the Pafters.)

£ 2. They may baptise capable fubjects.2 No doubt of it.

£ I. Infants are capable fub]tcls7\

jinfa. But what Infants? All, orfome? Is this our fatisfa&ion? If it be AH Infants , then how come the Heathens Infants to be baptizable and have right, when the Parents have none? Then how great a deed of charity isic to bring an Army among them to baptize their Children by force ? When even Aquinas and other Papifts fay, that Children may not be baptized againft the Parents wills.

I have elfewhere at large proved, 1. That Baptifm is but the feal-ing of the Covenant, and the delivering of pofleffion by Minifterial Inveftiture, and not the firft gift or condition of our right to Chrift and his benefits.

2. That in the Adult faith and Repentance and heart-confent are the Conditions, which Baptifm after folemnly exprefleth.

*. That if a true penitent believing confenter die without Baptifm, he is faved; and if the Baptized adult die without faith, repentance and heart-confent, he is damned.

4. That therefore all the adult muft have an entitling condition, to give them right, firft initially, coram Deo, to pardon of fin, and then to be baptized (which folemnly delivereth their full right) before they can be lawfully baptized.

5. That God dealethnot fo differently with Infants and Adult, as to require conditions of right in the later, and none in the former, as if they were all born with right.

6. That the Covenant is made to the faithful and their feed, and that Infantscondition of right is that they be children of believers: And that if both Parents be Infidels, the Children are unclean, but elfe they are holy. And God that confoundeth not the Church and the World, confoundeth not their Childrens cafe.

This 1 have fully proved in my Difp. of Original fin, and Treat, of right to Sacraments.

7. That Baptifm fealeth and delivereth to the qualified fubjeft, the prefent pardon of fin, and right to Chrift and life as to adopted Children of God. And therefore there muft be fome reafon and

Z proof

( I JO )

proof of a right to it, more than all Infants in the world have.

8. That it is not a mans bringing them to baptifm and fpeaking feignedly in their name, that giveth them right to a feaied pardon and falvation • It muft be one that can prove himfelf entitled to represent the Child, which none can that cannot fay He is my own.

9. If it were otherwife, Atheifts, Infidels, Wicked men, though Baptized, could give no right to the feaied pardon, or to the Invefti-ture maftateof life, to which they have no right themfelves^ And if they reprefent no better Parents, as fuch they can give them no right, fave coram Etclefia when they are not infddesjudicati.

10. Nor doth it fuffice to an Infants right, that the Minuter, or Church, be Cnriftians,

Therefore to tell us that Infant* are right fubjetts, fignifieth nothing, till either, 1. He tell us what Infants, i. Or prove that all Infants "have right *, which he can never do: And if he could, I would eafily prove that all dying infants arefaved, whether Baptized or not ^ As I can prove that true Chriftian Infants are.

§, 5. While he gives us not the lead fatisfa&ion of Infants Right, he tells us of difficulties on the other fide j if we lay it on Parents for Owners) right. And 1. He tells us of divers mens Opinions*, which the Reader will be loth I (hould digrefs to try, having done it fo larg-ly in my Chrift. Direcft and Treat, of Right to Sacraments-

2. He nameth the qualification which I aflert, [A frofeffion of the Chrifiian faith not invalidated'} and faith nothing to difable it, but that Others m^ rejed it- Others wild Opfpjions named, goes for my Confutation.

And now I defirethe Reader to fee the Catalogue of the things we account finful in Conformity in my fir ft Plea for Peace, and try how many of them the Doctor hath fo much as meddled with: And whether he think by thefe few touches he hath proved either our Con-formity lawful, or our Preaching unlawful, or our Communion with thofe Chriftians who are not of his mind herein unlawful..

If he fay again, that he meddleth not with Minifters Conformity but the Peoples, 1. Note, how he hath pa fled by even thegreateft things alfoin their cafe. 2. Whether he meddle not with the Minifters cafe who feeketh to prove their preaching unlawful, and fo perfwades them to be filent. 3, Whether their cafe (hould not be fo far meddled with, as to prove the things which they think finful to be lawful, or their preaching unnecelTary , before the endeavours ufed againft them (well known J be juftified as needful to the Churches Peace.

GEA-p:

( 17* ) CHAP. XIII.

Of the three French Letters which he fubjoyneth.

$. i. T ,T 7Hat advantage to the Drs. Caufe the three Letters of V V the French Divines annexed, can be to any that will not be decoyed by meer founds and fhews, I know not: But could we know thefe things following, we might better underftand the judgment of the Writers*

Queft. i. Whether he that fought their judgment djd make them underftand what all our prefent Impofitions and Attsof Conformity are? and what alterations are made in the Church of England* fact the beginning of Bifhop Lands power ?

2. Whether he made them truly underftand the difference between the ancient Epifcopacy, and the Englijh Diocefan frame in all its parts ?

*. Whether he did put the Cafe as about Subfcribing or Declaring, Covenanting or Swearing, Aflent and Confentto all things, and pra-ftifing accordingly? or only of living in Communion with them which do fuch things ?

4. Whether he put the cafe as of denying active Communion in the practice of unlawful things-, or as denying Communion in the reft which are lawful? •

5. Whether he made them underftand that we are ipfofattotxcom-muncate by their Canon for telling our judgment ?

6. Whether he made them underftand that it was about 2000 Mini-fters that werefilenced, and what men are in many of their places? and what claim their ancient Flocks lay to many of them ; and what men they are, and what they did to prevent all ourdivifions?

7. Whether he made them underftand whatmeafure of Communion we ftill maintain with the Church of England and the ParifhChur* xhes ?

8. Whether he put the cafe to them, whether we that haveCommu-nion with them arcSchifmaticks, if we alfo have Communion withc-thers whom they profecute f

9. Whether he put the queftion to them, whether we are lawfully filenced? and if not, whether rebut pcftantibfu we atebound to forbear ourMiniftry? 2 2, 1. Was

io. Whether fee made them know that all thf Minifters of England as well as we were forbidden to Preach, &c. unlefs they would Conform to that we are ready to prove unlawful ? And if it prove fo,whe-ther they fhould all either have finned or been filent in obedience ?

11. Whether he made them underftand how many thoufands there be in -London that cannot have room in the Parifh-Churches and theNon-conformifts Churches fet together, but live like Atheifts.

12, Whether he acquainted them that the queftion is, whether all godly diflenters that are caft out, or cannot joyn in thePariflr way of Liturgick Worfhip, muft (till their judgments change) give o-Ter all publick worfhip of God, and be forfaken of all Teachers ?

1$. Whether he acquainted them, how loud a Call we had to preach in London fait by the Plague,& then by the burning of the Churches,the people beingdeferted by the Parifh Minifters in thefe fad extremities ?

14. Whether he acquainted them with the Kings Licences, and our being accufed of Schifm, even when Licenfed ?

15. Whether he acquainted them with what we have faid for our felves lately in divers Books $ or they judg'd us unheard ?

16. Whether they be lingular? or whether it be the judgment of the Proteftant Churches in France, that it is a fin for any to preach or pub-Kckly worfhip God, when the King, Bifhops and Law forbid them ?: And if fo, How long it hath been their judgment ? and why all their. Churches ceafed not when prohibited ?

If not fo, How to know that our filencing Laws and Bilhops muft I be obeyed,, and not theirs ?

There is no undgrftanding their anfwers, till we know how the cafe was ftatod.

§. 2. Mr. Clodes Letter is moderate, and it's like they took the ; cafe to be about proper feparation,and fo fay no more in the main than fome Nonconformifts have laid againft the Brownifts. But the Dr. hath dealt too unmercifully with Mr. Le Maine in publifhing his Epiftle, when it was fo eafie to know how few, if any, would believe his ftory^ c r but take it for a confirmation, how incredible our accufers arc ? I meah his ftory that [_ five .years ago he heard one of the mofl famous Noncon-formifls f reach in a place where were three men, and three or fourfcore women : he had chofen a Text about the building up the ruins of Jerufaiem,*^ for explication cited fclinny and Vitruvius a hundred times, &c~\ I think 1 fhall never fpeak with the perfon that will believe him: fure I am, ZWwknoweththattheNonconformiftsarefche mofl: averfe to fuch kind of Pf eaching. And I know not one of them that I can fey ever

read

( 173 )

read a quarter of Vitruvim : I confefs I never read a leaf of him. This Monfieur would do well to tell us yet the name of the man, that if living he may be callM to account: But 1 doubt he feil into fome Tabernacle, of which many are erefted in place of the burnt Churches, ana perhaps heard the Conformift who had occafion to talk of archite&ure? But yet I will not believe that either Conformift or Nonconformift would expofe himfelf .to common fcorn by an hundred or twenty fuch citations.

§. 7,. And his defcription of the mens horrible impudence to excommunicate without mercy the Churchy &c. imagining that they are the only men in England, nayintheChriflian world that are yredsfiinatsd to eternal hap-pinefs, &c. and then pronouncing them intolerable, fheweth that k:-> not us that he fpeakcth of, nor any company that is known to us, neither our Separatifts here, nor Anabaptifts, nor fc much as the very Quakers holding any fuch thing.

§. 4. And though he faith [He was not at all edified by the Nonconformift s preaching, it followeth not that no others are: Nor that none were edified in England or Scotland, while publick Preachers went theNonconformifts way.

§. 5. But becaufe the Doftor chufeth this way, I will imitate him, though with the Apology that St. Paul gloried, and give him notice of fome Epiftlesof men that judged otherwife of the Nonconformifts.

CHAP.

C174)

CHAP. XIV.

Epiftles or Teftimomes compared with the Doffors, And notes on Mr. Jofcph Glanvile's Book> called The Zealous Impartial Proteftaxit, with a Letter of his to the Author heretofore (and a Digreffion of Doftor L. Moulin.)

$. 1. ¥Ngeneral, he that will read the Lives of many of the old Non-X conformifts (Hilderfliam, Dod, and many fuch, and Bifhop iM's Character of Dr. Reynolds, and the late publifhed Lives of Mr. fofeph Allen, John Janeway, Dr. Winter, Mr. Macham> Mr. Wadfaorth^ Mr.Stuhbsi #?•) will fee better what to judge of them, than by our three French Epiftles. Yea Thuanus giveth a jufter Character of many abroad that were of their mind: And John Fox (one of them) of more.

$. 2. And to our three Frenchmen, I will when it will be of more ufe than fetming vanity, return you four French-mens Letters to my felf, ( Mr. Gaches y Mr. Amyraids, Mr. Le Blanks, and Mr. Teftards, (and if you will fome Germans too, Calvinifts and Lutherans,) of a quite differing fenfe of us Nonconformifts. But Mr. Gaches being already in Print (by the Duke of Landerdales means) 1660. and j'oyned with one of Mr. V Angles, I leave the Reader that defireth to fee both.

$. 3. But becaufe Mr. J of. Glanvile was one of themfelves here (though an Origeniflja mofl triumphant Conformift, and not the gen-tleit contemner of Nonconformifts, and famous for his great wit, I will repay the Dr. with the annexing one (among many Cince) of his Letters to my (elf ^ which yet indeed 1 do not chiefly to ballancethe Drs. but to help the Reader to understand Mr. Glanvile and his poft-humous Book, which 1 think not meet to pafs by without fome Anim-adverfions.

Though I have great reafon to hope that dying fo fbon after it and his preferment, the experience of the Vanity of a flattering World might help to fave him from impenitence.- As I have read in divers credible writers, it waswithDr.>W<wJ!wy Sntl\ffe\ that on his Deathbed

bed he repented that he had written fo much againfl: the Reformers called Puritans,

I perceive D.\ StH'wgflcet marvelleth, that m/ own expectations of approaching Death do not hinder me from writing what I do for the Nonconformifts*, whereas the truth is, had not pain and weaknefs kept me from my yoiuh as in the continual profpeet of the Grave and the next life, I had never been ; ike to have been fo much again/1 Conformity, and the prefent Difcip! me of this Church (thatis, theirwant of Difcipline) as I have been •, For the World might have more flattered me andbyafTed my judgment, and my Confcience might have been bolder and lefs fearful of fin*, And, though I love not to dif-pleafethem, I malt fay this great truth, that I had never b:en like to have lived in fo convincing fenfible experience of the great difference of the main body of the Conformifts from themoft of the Non-conformifts, as to the ferioufnefs of their Chriftian Faith, and hope and practice, their vi&ory over the flefh and world, &c. I mean both in the Clergy and Laity of mine acquaintance! O how great a difference have 1 found, from my youth to this day? Though I doubt not but very many of the Paffive Conformable Minifters f to fay nothing of the lmpofersj have been and are worthy pious men *, and fuch as would not perfwade their hearers, thit the Jefuits firfl brought in fpirituM prayer: And I had the great bleffing of my Education near fome fuch, in three or four neighbour Parifhes.

§. 4. It grieved me to hear of Mr. GlanviWs death, for he was 2 man of more than ordinary ingeny, and he was about a Collection of Hiftories of Apparitions, which is a work of great ufe againfl our Sadducees, and to ftabllfh doubters, and the beft mans faith hath need of all the helps from fenfe that we can get: And I feared left that work had perilhed. with him ; But 1 gladly hear that by the care of Dr. //. More (that worthy faithful man of peace, who never fhidied preferment) it is both preferred and augmented.

And as for his Origenifme, as I like itnot T folconfefs in matters of that nature, I can better bear with the venturoufnefs of diflenters, than hereticators can do.

But when 1 faw this Rag. called a Letter left behind him, my grief for him was doubled: And 1 faw what caufe we have all to fear the fnares of a flattering world, and what caufe to pray for Divine pre-fervation, and for an unbyafled mind, and a-humble fenfe of our own frailty, that we may neither over-value profperity^ nor our own under-{landings. I did

I did not think that he that had wrote the Vanity of Dogmatizing could fo foon have come toperfwade men in power, that diffenting from Our Churches dogmatizing and impofed words, formes and ceremonies was worthy of fo ievere a profecution of us, as he defcribeth: and that all their danger is from the forbearing fuch profecution of us^ and that (though for their own ends be could abate us fome little matters,) the only way to fettled peace is vigoroufly to execute the Laws againlt us.

He 1 that can think the filencing, and imprifoning of about 2000 fuch Minifters, is the way to bring this Land to Concord, hath fure very hard thoughts of them incomparifon of Conformifts. And that you may fee how little his judgment againlt fuch fhould weigh with o-thers, who is fo lately changed from himfelf, 1 will give you here one of feveral Letters which 1 had from him, and leave you to judge whether he have proved that he was much wifer at laft than when he wrote this? or whether his character of me agree with his motion to filence and mine all fuch ? I am fo far from owning his monftrous praifes, that 1 fear I offended him with fharply rebuking him for them- But left his wit and virulence here do harm, I give it you to fhew the unconftancy of his judgment; or if he would have excepted me from his feverities, Imuftprofefs that / believe the moft of the Tsfonconformable Minifters of my acquaint/wee are better men than my /elf; and therefore his excefTive praife of me, is the condemnation ana ihame ofhis-perfecuting counfel.

§. 5. As to his praife of the Bilhops Writings againft Popery, I had rather magnifiethan obfeure their deferts: But I am not able to believe that the old ones who write to prove the Pope Antichrift, &c and the new ones who would bring us to obey him as Patriarch of the Weft and principium nnitatis Catholic*, were of one mind, becaufe both are called Proteftants, and that fuch asBifliop Bramhall and the reft of the defenders of Grotim, were of the fame judgment with Bifhop Vfoer, Bifhop Morton, Bifhop Downtime, &c. nor that Grotius, who defcribeth a Papift to be one thatfiattereth Topes as if all were right which they Jaid and did, did difclaim Popery in the fame fenfe as the old Church of Englanddid. Two men may cry down Popery, while one of them is a Papift or near one in the others fenfe.

As to the folly of calling that Popery which is not, I have faid more againft it in my Cath. Theologie than he hath done.

And as tc his excufe of an ignorant vicious fort of Minifters becaufe no better will take fmall Liv-ings J It is not true; Xhefilenced

Noncon-

( 177 )

Nonconformifts would have been glad of them, or to have preached there for nothing.- The tolerating of ignorant fcandalous men were more excufable, if better were not fhut out that would have taken fuch places. But it's notorious that for the intereft of their faction and prosperity, they had rather have the ignorant and vicious, than the ableft and moft laborious Nonconformift; Bifhop Morley told me, when he forbad me to preach, that It was better for a place to have none, than to have me; when I askt him, Whether I might not be Suffered in fome place which no one elfe will take-'} Moft of the old Nonconform ifts were fuffered by connivance in fmall obfcure places, which was the chief reafon why they fet not up other meetings, which Dr. Sul-lingfieet thought they avoided as unlawful, becaufe forbidden.

§.6. And as to his excufe by blaming ill Patrons, I would know then by what true obligation all men in England are bound to commit the Paltoral conduct of their Souls to fuch men only as our English Patrons chufe f

§. 7. And when he fo blameth the tepidity and irreligioufnefs of the Members of their own Church, I would know, 1. Whether all men that are more ferioufly religious mult be forfaken by us, and ruined by them, if they be not of their mind and form ? 2. And whether tfee numbers of the irreligious that are for their way, and the numbers of the religious that are againft it, fhould not rather breed fome fufpicion in them, than engage them to ruine fo many fuch men.

$. 8. And when page $. he confefTeththattheywW is their Churches ftrength and Government, and how contemptible words, paper, arguments and excommunications are without force *, doth he not fhame their whole caufe, and (hew that it is not the fame Government which the Church ufed for many hundred years, which they defire ? and that their whole power of the Keys which they talk fo much for, feems tothemfelvesadeadanduneffectual thing? while we Nonconformifts defire no coercive power, but to guide Confenters.

J. 9. As to his project to fave religion under a Papift King, if the Dean and Chapter may but chufe the Bifhop, I leave it to 0-ther mens confideration-* But I give you his Letter to me, becaufe page 34. He frith, {The greatefi part of thofe that now fcatter and run about do it out of Humour or Fancy, or Faction, or Interefl, or Animofity, or defire of being counted godly, not really out of Confcience and Conviction of duty: and theft the penalties duly exactedwoula(bring bacl^ (with much more fharp

A a and

and cruel,) As if he knew the confciences of the molt .* But fee how much otherwife he lately thought of fome.

Agapetus Diacott. ad Juftiitian. Adhort. cap. j J. {Epifcopls vi & gladio invitos regentibut qnam Regibus magis congrna.'}

NOmIZe 7m $&7iKivuv a<r$cLk6)(, ontr Wwtw ak<*wh; rff dr&§cl7rzov> &£+ Exiftima tunc regnare te tuto, cum volentibus imperas hominibus. Qued enim invito fubjicitury [edittones molitur , capta occafione* Quod vero vinculis benevolentia tenetur, fir mam fervat erga tenentem obfervantiam.

i Pet. 5. 1,2, 3,4. The Elders which are AMONG you I exhort, who amalfo an Elder and awitnefs of the JOfferings of Chrift, and alfo a partaker of the Glory that Jhall be revealed. Feed the Flock^of God which is among yott y taking the overfight thereof, not by conflraint but willingly -, Net for FILTHY LVCREy but of a ready mind: Neither as being Lords over Gods heritage, but being enfamples to the Flocks And when the chief Shepherd Jhall appear, ye fhaU receive a Crown of Glory that fadetk not away.2 See Dr. Hammond on the Text.

Ut.Glath

( ^79 ) Mr. Glanviles Letter.

Reverend and moft Honoured S*r,

c

I Have often taken my pen in hand with a defign to fignifie to you, how much I love and honour fo much learning, piety, and exemplary goodnefs as you are owner of \ And how paffionately defi-4 rous I have been, and am, to be known to a perfon with whom none 'hatha like place in my higheft efteem and value: But my affections andrefpects dill growing infinitely too big for mine expreffion, 4 I thought J ihould but difparage them, by going about to reprefent 4 chem. And when I fate down toconfider, how I might moft advan-4 tagioufly fet forth my regards, and high fenfc of your great deferts, I 4 always found my felf confounded with fubject. And the throng of mine 4 affections, each of them impatient to be firft upon my paper,hindred 4 one another's gratification. Great paffions are difficultly fpoken : 4 And 1 find my felf now fo pained with the fenfe that I cannot write 4 futeably to the honour I have for you,that I can force forbear throw-

* ing away my pen *, being near concluding, that 'tis better to fpeak

* nothing in fuch a fubject, than a little. But when I confider you as 4 a perfon that have high affections for thofe excellent qualification?, 4 which in the higheft degree are your poffeflion, and futeably refent 4 the worth of thofe that own them •, I am incouragM to think that 'you may conceive how I honour you (though my pen cannot tell it 4 you) by reflecting upon your own eftimateof thofe, that are of the 4 higheft form of learning, parts, and exemplary piety \ or, more 4 compendioufly, fuch in your judgment, as 1 take you for, Incomparable. And yet I have a jealoufie that that will not reach if, for 4 though 1 think your judicious efteem of fuch, cannot be furpafTed ^ 4 yet I am apt to think, that none ever got fuch an intereft, and ho'd 4 upon your paffions, as hath the object of my admiration, on mine. 4 Nor yet can 1 rebuke them as extravagant, though at the higheft, fince 4 they take part with my fevereft judgment, and were indeed inflamed 4 by it. And Iprofefs I never found my felf fo dearly inclio'd to thofe 4 of my neareft blood, or fo affectionately concern'd for my moft be-4 loved friends and acquaintance, as for you, whom I had never the 'happinefstoconverfewichbutin your excellent writings, nor ever

(i8o )

4 often faw, but in the Pulpit. Yea, I fpeak unfeignedly, Ihaveal-4 ways interefled my feif more in your vindication when your unrea-4 fonable prejudiced enemies have malign'd you, and delighted my 4 felf more inyourjullpraifes from thofethat know you, than ever 4 my felf-love or ambition could prompt me to do in any cafe of 1 mine own. Sir, I hope you believe that I fpeak my moll real fenti-

* ments, and do not go about to complement you. For I mull: be very 4 weak and inconfiderate, did I think to recommend my felf to fo much 4 ferious wifdom, by fuch childifh fooleries. Therefore ifmyexpref-4 fions favour any thing above common refpeft, I befeech you to be-4 lieve, 'tis for that their caufe is not common ^ but as much above 4 ordinary, as their ofyeft. I know your humility and remarkable 4 felf-denyal will not bear to read, what 1 cannot but fpeak, as of-

* ten as I have occafion to mention your great worth and merits. How-4 ever I cannot chufe but here acknowledge, how much I am a debtor c toyour incomparable writings. In which, when you deal in pra&i-4 cal fubje&s, I admire your affectionate, piercing, heart-affe&ing 4 quicknefs: And that experimental, fearching, folid, convi&ive way 4 of fpeaking, which are your peculiars *, for there is a fmartnefs ac-

* companying your pen that forces what you write into the heart, by 4 a fweet kind of irrefiflable violence *, which is fo proper to your fe-4 rious way, that 1 never met it equal'd in any other writings. And c therefore I cannot read them without an elevation, and emotions 4 which I feldom feel in other perufals. And when you are ingag'd in 4 do&rinaland controverfal matters, I no lefs apprehend in them your 4 peculiar excellencies. Ifindaftrength, depth, concinnity, and cohe-4 rence in your notions, which are not commonly elfewhere met with-4 all. And you have no Jefs power by your triumphant reafon upon 1 the judgments of capable, free inquirers *, than you have upon their

* afFe&ions and confeiences in your devotional and practical difcour-4 fes. And methinks there is a force in your way .of arguing, which o~

* verpowers oppofition. Among your excellent Treatifes of this nature, your Rational confirmation of that grand principle of our Re-

* ligion, the Sacred Authority of Scripture *, your folid dependent notions in the bufinefs of junification, and your ftriking at the Root of 4 Antinomianifm in them, which I look on as the canker of Chriftiani-

* ty, and have always abhorrM as thefhadow of death ; And your excellent Catholick, healing indeavours*, Thefe I fay, deferve from 4 me particular acknowledgments. I profefs theloofe, impertinent,' ' unfound, cobweb arguings of the moll that I had met with in the

4 Matter of the Divine Authority of Scripture, had almoft occafioned 4 my (tumbling at the threfhold, in my inquiries into the grounds of 4 my Religion. For I am not apt to rely on an implicit faith in things 4 of this moment. But your performances in this kind brought relief 4 to my ftaggering judgment, and triumph't over my hefitancy. As 4 they did alfo to an excellent perfon a friend of mine, who was fha-4 ken on the fame accountsthat I was. And we are both no lefs obliged by what you have done in the other things formentioned. V, 4 Iprofefs 1 judge fo rational, that I cannot but wonder, almoft to 4 ftupor, to behold the fierce, though feeble onfets of your cankerM 4 fiery opponents; whofe writings againlt you fmoft of them) feem c to me to be indited by nothing but fpleen and choler. Nor have I 'been able to afcribe the ingaging of fo many virulent pens againft 4 you, to any other^caufe than the indeavours of Satan to hinder the

* fuccefs which your powerful pen hath had againft the Dark Kingdom. 4 And the fpirit that I have perceiv'd to animate fome of their wild 4 ravings hath confirmed me in that belief, that it was the great Abad-' don that infpir'd their undertakings. 1 thought e're this to have gi-4 ven you a more pubiick fpecimen of mine affections by indeavour-

* ingfomewhat in your vindication againfl: the calumnies, and feeble 4 arguings of fome of thofe fiery Afiailants \ But colhteral occafions, c and other ftudies have hitherto diverted me: Yet I fhall not forget *■ my obligations, aflbon as I can be mafter of convenient time and c opportunities for the performance. But I fee my paper warns me •, 4 And though /fhouldpleafe my felf by a larger expreflion of my re-4 fpects, and fenfe of your high defervings from every one that hath

* had the happinefs to be taught by you, either from the Prefs or Pul-4 pit; yet / dare not be fo rude inthisfirft Addrefs, as to betrou-' biefome and importunate. / know your occafions are fucb, as that 4 they cannot bear a long divertifement. I had feveral times defign'd 4 at London to have taken the boldnefs to have waited on you, but the 4 confideration, how you were conftantly ingagM inbufinefs, prevent-4 ed the execution of thofe intentions. And about three years fince 4 1 came from Oxford on purpofe to Kederminjler^ to fee you there, 4 and hear you preach j both which I was happy in. But you were then ' fo bufie in the company of feveral Minifters that were at your houfe, 4 that I could not gain an opportunity of making way for a future acquaintance. If I were fure that you were lefs incumbred now, and ' that you made any confiderable ftay in the Country, I would make a 4 journey on purpofe to wait on you. I have with this fent you r. fmall

'Dif-

Difcourfeof mfneown, of which I defire your acceptance. For the fubject and defign, I know it will not difpleafe you. And for the management, I'me confident you will not quarrel with it, becaufeit is not lb popular as it might have been,when you (hall know,that 'twas intended for thofe of a Philofophick Genius. I durft not (Sir,) be any longer troublefbme, and therefore fhall conclude with this pro-feffion, that the freedom of your fpirit, the impartiality of your in-quiries, the Catholicknefs of your judgment and affections, the peaceablenefs, and moderation of your principles, the generolity and publick fpiritednefs of your difpofitton, the exact, uniform bo-linefs of your life, and your indefatigable induftry for the good of fouls, excellencies which I never knew fo coinbinM in one; have fo endear'd you to me, that there is not that perfon breathing that hath fuch a ihare in the affections, and higheft value of,

Afoft excellent 5/r, tne of the meanefl, though tnoft Jimere •, of your afeft tonate lovers, and admirers t Sept. 1.61.

Jof GlanvilL

CHAP.

CHAP. XV.

Seme Notes on the Book, called the Lively Pi&ureo/ Dr. Lud. Moulin 3 and his Repentance fubferibed hy Dr. Simon Patrick, Dean of Peterborough, and Dr. Gilb. Burnet.

§. 1. T Had ta v ken no notice of this Book, had not the Author by J. citing my words againft Dr. L. Moulin^ juftifying his Cha-ra&er,made me a party. Therefore I (hall impartially fpiak my judgment of him and the accufation, left I be thought to own all that the Waiter fpeaketh of him, andfotobeasguiltyofuncharitablenefsas he feemtth to me to be. I honour the name for the fake of his famous Father, and his worthy Brother Peter, yet living, who by his Anfwer to Philanax Anglicus, &c. hath well deferved of all Proteftants : And his worthy Brother Cyrus, and his very worthy Son now dead : And 1 truly believe that Dr. Lewis was a fincere honeft-hearted man, though Dr. Stillingfleet teem to diflike my giving him that title. And I will tell you why I think fo.

§. 2. I ever obferved that his faults lay in his weaknefs, and not in wickednefs: 1. He was not a man of an accurate diftinguifhing head, and fo was apt to take verbal Controverfies for real. 2. And it was no fingular thing in him, that hereby he was led by the authorities which he moft valued, to think that the differences between the RemonftrantsandContra-remonftrants were much greater than they are, and Arminianifm as it was called, to be a more heinous thing than indeed it is. $. And whenhe thought that God's Caufe fas Bmdxvar-dine called it) was fo deeply engaged againft fuch Opinions, who can wonder if be was zealous againft them ? 4- And then he had a hafty raflmefs in fpeaking what he thought was true and necefTary, when fometimesit was not well tryed, and fometime it was in an imprudent manner and time : And fo in his haft ran into the temerities and mifc takes which Mr. DaiHe and 1 did blame him for. But I never perceived that he had more jaffion (much his fury) than other ordinary dif-puters, but a more rafh and bluftering way of uttering his mind, fome-times and in fome Cafes, where he thought Religion much concerned. He had fo fervent a love to truth, that he fometime rufht upon miftakes

that

f 1*4}

that wore the vizor of it, and then truth Creator fuppofed) whatever it coft him he would fpeak. 5. I ever obferved it was in his too extreme oppofition to fomereal errour or crime, that he was carried into his temerities. 6. And I never found that he was a worldling, nor finned by the preference of worldly intereftj Anddoubtlefs the love of worldly profits, honours and pleafures* are more dangerouf-ly* contrary to the love of God, than fome fafli uncharitable words and cenfures in a Caufe which he thought was Gods.

§. 3. Yea I found him more patient of confutation, contradiction and reproof than moft men that ever I difputed with, his Zeal which you call fury being far more for God than for himfelf. I began with him about 24 years ago, confuting his Latine Book of Juftification a-gainft his Brother Cyrus. I wrote a fecond time againft him in the Preface cited by his Pitture-drawer, about Univerfal Redemption, f and had faid much more in a Book of Univerfal Redemption, going to the Prefs, which I caft by becaufe Mr. Dailies came then out, which had the fame teftimonial part and more which I intended.) Yet I never heard that the Dr. gave me any uncivil or uncharitable word, nor did he ever reply to either of thefe Books ^ nor fignified any abatement of his love. And I think this fhewed a forgiving mind.

f. 4. But it's intimated, that this was becaufe we agreed in other things? I anfwer, we disagreed alfo even about Church-Government, which was the dividing Controverfie of thofe times. The Dr. was zealous for the Magiftrates Power in Er*ft*u fenfe, and went rather further than Dr. Stillingfreet in his Irenicum : And as I was before againft him, fo after this, about 12 years ago, I wrote that Book a-gainft him about the Magiftrates Power in Church-matters, in which I called him Myfmcere friend, thinking [metre friendly confiftent with iuch a difference and an open Confutation. (And if the contrary muft be repented of, I hope fuch charity is no crime.) This third Booka-gainfthimalfohe took patiently, and without breach of Love.

And when I laboured to perfwade him to retract his Writings a-gainft Excommunication, though he held ftill to his Conclufion, and thought that the great work that God called him to in the World, was to difcover the Papal and PrelaticalUfurpation of the Magiftrates power under the name of Ecclefiaftical, yet I made him coniefs all the matter that I pleaded for, and he made me fee that his errour lay moft in meer ambiguous words> which he had not accuratenefs enough to explicate. Ail this patience fignified not uncharitablenefs, rage or fury. And 1 obliged him not by benefits or praife, but ufually chid

him

him for his eagernefs for his own indigefted conceptions \ nor gave him any thanks for his indifcreet and exeeffive praifes afterwards given me in his Patronusbona ftdei. Upon all this I would put fome quefti-ons to the fober thoughts of the Author of his Picture.

i. Whether there be not as great figns of fmcerhy, humility and patience in fuch a behaviour, and in that great love which he had to all that he thought Godly men, (though he too hardly judged of o-thers for that which he thought great errour and fin) as in thofe than cannot bear a juft defence of diflenters agsinft their unjuft accufa-tions, nor endure men to tell why they rather naffer than Conform.

2. Whether he that maketh him fo very bad a man * and incredible a lyar for too *P*gttx A win-Writo rafh cenforioufhefs of diflenters, and fome am ? ^^T' i{ noz u ma f! untruths vented in rafh zeal, do not tempt Z£^% u *£% men to give as odious titles to thofe Reverend men , if they be of his mind, perfons who go very far beyond him in un- and vilific the beftif they be truths and uncharitable cenfures? And whe- of another, p. 27. He hath ther they that were for the filencing and ut- SUS3* ASfc£ ter ruining or about 2000 Minilters, and nies: with more fuch. call'd to Magiflrates to execute the Laws

againft them, and that unchurch all the Reformed Churches which have not a continued fucceflion of Diocefan B.fhops 7 (hew, not as much uncharitablenefs as he did that defcribed fome too hardly ? And whether moflofthe Books written againft me by Conformifts, (fuch as the Bifhop of Wore eft er^s Letter, the Impleader, Mr. Hinlehy, and many morej be not much fuller of untruths in matter of fact than the Drs? But yet I think it a fin to give them fuch a" Character as this, and render the perfons as incredible lyars, becaufe errour, in-tereft and faction made fome fo unadvifed.

3. If it deferve fuch a Character to cenfure Arminians as dangerouf-ly erroneous and befriending Popery ? whether you do not confe-quently fo ltigmatize the old Church of England, before Bifhop Laud's time? Even Arch-bifhop Whitgift, Bifhop Fletcher, and the reft who drew up the Lambeth Articles, Arch bifhop Abbot and the Church in his time (except fix Bifhops, &o) King James, and the whole Church asconfenting by fix Delegates to the Synod of Dort: And alfo that Synod and all the Forein Reformed Churches that conferred to it? And is not this more than Dr. Moulin did ?

4- And are they not then to be accordingly ftigmatized, who on the other fide make the Calvinifts as odious, accufing them of Blafphe-

B b my,

my, Turcifme, and doing as much againft them as Dr. Heylin in the Life of Arch-bifhop Laud tells us was done in England on that account.

5. And if iuch hard thoughts of Arminians as furthering Popery deferve your Charadter, whether by confequence you fo brand not all thofe Parliaments who voted againft it accordingly, and made it one of the dangerous grievances of the Land? And is not that as faulty as for Dr. Moulin too much to blame you ?

6. Yea I doubt you ftigmatize thus fo great a part of Chriftians in all the World as I am loth to mention: fo rare is it to hear of any Country, where they are not fo much guilty of feds and factions, as by education and intereft to run in a ftream of uncharitable cenfures of one another, fpeaking evil of more than they underftand, as 1 have proved in my Cathol. Theolog. about this fubject.

7. Seeing it is above 20 years fince I wrote that againft Dr. Moulin which you cite, and he never found fault with it, nor juftified his mi-ftakes, may 1 not think that he was convinced and repented ? And you that praife his death-bed repentance, fhould not Characterize him by failings twenty years repented of ?

8. How do you know that the Dr. repented not of his too hard words of you till his death-bed ? You are miftaken? In his health I more than once blamed him, 1. For his cenfure of Dr. Stillingfleet and the other particular perfons, whofe worth was known, and had defended well of the Proteftant Churches ^ 2. For his extending thofe cenfures to the Conformifts and Church which belong to fome parti-, cular perfons, and the molt are not guilty of, And 3. For his Book of the fewnefs of the faved, as prefumptuous: And as far as I could then difcern he repented of them all, but laid the ill Title-page of the lafton the Book-felier : And he ftill thought of Caufes and Parties as very different, he owned not his harfh words or cenfures aforefaid. I found him not raging nor impenitent.

9. Doth not your own defcription of his great readinefs to beg for-givenefs, andlothnefs to own anything uncharitable, fhewa better fpiritthan your pitture doth defcribe ?

10. Is not he as like to be a fincere man who aaketh forgivenefs of his faults fralh cenfures and words) as he that repenteth of his former duties, his Pacificatory principles and Writings. Surely to repent of evil is a better fign than to repent of good-

11. Becaufe you call us to acquit our felves by difowning Dr. Moulin, may we not difown both his faults and our own, without difowning

C i«7 )

ing God's grace and mens piety and worth ? would you be fo dif-ownedfor your own faults? 2. And how fhouid Idifown hisrafhnefs better than to write what I wrote againfthim, and fay what I faid to him ? would you have a Synod called to reprove every rafh word ?

12. Bccaufe you juftly value mens repentance, I will be thankful to you to further mine, and give me leave to further yours. Only 1 foretell you that your words (hall not offend me by their hardnefs t if they have but truth, and you call me to repent of my fin and not of ferving God. I do not repent of defending Truth and Duty : nor of feeking to fave the Reader from the infection of falfe accufation and arguings which would deftroy his charity and innocency, by the fulleft mani-fefting the faljhood and evil of the words and deeds which are the In-ftruments- 1 take it to be a wrong to thofe that I would preferve, to extenuate the danger of the fnare or poyfon, on pretence of gen-tlenefs to the Writer. But I deal with the Caufe and defire none to hate the perfon; nor would 1 diminifli the honour due to him for his parts orvertuesj but rather have all men love and magnifie all the good, while they diflike the evil \ and would fave the Reader at as eafie a rate to the Writer as I can .• But thathefhould not be related to his falfe orfinful words or deeds is not in my power to effe&. But though I repent not of neceflary truth, if I any where miftake, or fpeak more truth than is profitable, or in language by fharpnefs more apt to do hurt than good, of this 1 repent, and ask forgivenefs of God and man *, As I do if I fpeak fo fhort of truth, as with Eli to make fin feem fmaller than it is.

And now I hope you will lore your own duty of Repentance better than another mans, and will not be angry if 1 feekto help it.

1. Do you not perceive that while you paint the Dr. as an incredible raging diffracted lyar, and praife his repentance for rafo words of others, that you commit the fame rafhnefs your felf againft him ? If you cannot fee your own face, let any impartial Reader be your glafs, and ask him whether you do not that which you are condemning?

2. You feem to vindicate the Book called the Friendly Debate, I fhall (hortly further tell you of fomewhat in it to be repented of. And if partiality made not repentance a very difficult work you would have no need herein of a Monitor. But you may think me partial, though I acknowledg your civilities tome.* I can (hew you a Manufcript of one both impartial an j truly judicious, even the late Judge Hale, cx-prefling fo great diflike of that Debate and theEccl. Policy, as tend-

mg to the injury of Religion it felf, that he wifheth the Authors would openly profefs that they write for themfelves, and no more fo abufively pretend it is for Religion.

3. You fay in this Picture that [IfL. du Moulin had that honefl zeal inhhnto which he pretends, he would have handled Mr. Baxter a* fmart-ly, &c.

Anfw. There may be other reafons than want of honefl zeal: But do you not here (hew that it is the perfons more than his aft that offended you in his reproof? Could you judge it honefl zeal had it been toothers? pag. 16.

4. You fay, p. 17. He hath fomething of the Nonconformifts in him, andfor that reafon he fpareth him :

Anfw* Do not Nonconformifts differ from Eraflians ? Did not I write againft his opinion of Church-Government I- And did he not bear 22 years ago when Conformity was not in our Controverfies.

5. You fay of [the party that come nearefl the dottrine of Calvinifts and Puritans, (chough you fay you mean fuch as D. M. your Reader muft iuppofe you mean the Nonconformifts^ that [they are the true Caufes of all our prefent evils. — For the late War was raifed, — by the very befl of you, &c.~] If you mean, as you feem, it's fomewhat extraordinary to perfwade men to believe this in the fame Land and Age that the War was raifed in; And for one to do this that had the firft General of the Horfe in the Earl of Effex Army, his Patron a few doors from him,and the Lord Hollis a Colonel nearer him till lately, and the Lord Prefident of his Majefties Privy-Council a Colonel not far off him,and many more . known Conformifts, who could ail quickly have fatisfied him how few Nonconformifts were Members of Parliament or Commanders in the Army when the War began, and that it was betwnen two parties of Conformifts that the Wars began, as I have proved againft Mr.Hink-ley, and can fullier do when there is need. Which party is rrioft obliged to repentance you may difpute with thofe that are fit for it.* But if vour intimation be untrue, it is of another nature, and degree than any of Dr. Moulins- I confefs one party did in many Parliaments before, and in that, accufe Bifhop Laud and his new followers, 1. Of Innovations, 2. Of Arminianifm, *. Of promoting abfolute arbitrary Government againft the Subjects Property and Liberty, 4. And of promoting Popery. But if this party were not Conformifts of the Church of England, the Bifhops, Clergy and Gentry were not the Church in Arch-bifhop Abbots days before Bifhop Laud.

As

(i*9)

As to the Reafons of their accufations, and the publifhing the Articles for Toleration in order to the Sp. and Fr. Match, &c. I pais them by. Butbecaufe you may fay fome fuch think of me as you do of D. M for what I fay in my fearchfor the Schifmaticki, I only add, i. That I hope we may tranfcribe mens own words, 2. And may judge that there is fome difference between the Bifhops that judged the Pope Antichrift, &c. and thofe that would have us as the way to unity, to obey him as Patriarch of the Weft> and principium unitatis, and the firft 6 or 8 General Councils, and that fay our concord muft be in obeying HnHmCollegiHrnTafiorum, ruling the whole Church per literas forma-tiu, and that fay the Roman Church is a true Church, but fo are none of the Reformed that have not Bifhops, and a continued fucceflive Ordination by fuch-

A Copy

t *?o )

A Copy of a Letter written by Mr. Lewis Du Moulin to the Worthy Dr. Tho. Coxe } With the Drs. An-fwer occafioned by fome Reports that concerned Dr. Lewis Du Moulin.

Worthy Sir,

KNowing the natural inclination you have to oblige all men and the fer-ticular experience 1 have of your unwearied goodnefs to my perfon and family did incourage me to write both before and now ^ The occafion of both was the Reports fpread abroad of my Father , being informed you had made him the objeel of your Care during his ficknefs, 1 rejoyced that Previdence had ordered it fo that a Perf on of your approved worth and Integrity was concerned about him- J {hall not trouble you with the Relations Fame has brought into this Country, but (liallonly defire to tyowhowhedied'. Was there any advantage taken of his weahnefs of body or mind ; How far did his Reported Recantation extend? Reach* d it to any material thing of his Tenets, or only in reference to perfonal Reflections *, This is what is humbly defired by }

Honoured Sir y

Tour moft Humble and obliged Servant,

. Lewis Du Moulin.

From my Houfe at Malton in Torkjhirc, Otlober the 7^. 1680.

The

( i9i ) The Drs. Anfwcr to Mr. Lew's Du Moulin.

Sir,

I Had not delayed to return an Anfwer to your firfl Letter, had I known how to direct mine to you, which indeed 1 had forgotten how to do '-, This is therefore to'let-yon know that your Father (my honoured Friend) Dr. Du Moulin, Dyed as he had Livedo a truly pons man, agreeX hater of the Romifh Superjfition, and of fo much of the Englifh Ceremonies as he thought approached thofe of Rome ', He loved all good men of what per-fwafion [oever, agreeing in the Fundamentals of the Proteftant Religion. When feme worthy and Learned men did on his Death bed intimate to him that he had fain too heavy upon many Pious and Learned men of the Church of England: He profeffed himfelf never to have born any mdice in hit heart againft the P erf on of any of them, but that his intention was only to blame them for having too much gratified the Enemies of the true Proteftant Religion, by their condefcentitns to them, and their too great compliances with them : He never recanted nor retraced ahy thing material that he had Profeffed and Printed of late years ; if he had ufed any fharp expreffions, or by any reflections given any offence to any truly pious man, he heartily prayed their pardon, and as heartily forgave all men, as he defired them to forgive him. And this heh ad often before expreffed to me both in pub* lick^ at my Houfe, and in private between himfelf and me, and alfo after that fome worthy men had been with him, which gave occafion to this dtf-courfe. This for your fatisfattion is with truth and fmcerity attefted bf

Tour Affectionate Friend

Tho. Coxa

London, Ottob. 29.

POST-

POSTSCRIPT.

Five Additional Notices to the Reader. '

THere are fome things of which I thought meet to add this notice to the Reader.

I. That I am more alienated from Conformity in the point of ^ffent 9 Confent and Vfe , in denying Chriftendom to all Children who have no Godfathers and Godmothers, and excluding the Parents from that Office, by fome late Observations which ray re-tirednefs kept me unacquainted with : I am requefted by fome poor People to Baptize their Children : I tell them the ParifhMi-jiifters muft do it. They anfwer me, That they cannot have them Baptized by the Parifh Minifters, becaufe they are poor; and can neither pay the Curate nor the Godfathers: Task them, Cannot yen get Godfathers without money : They fay, No: No body will be Godfather to their Children for nothing? Whereupon enquiring into the cafe, 1 am informed, that among the poor it is become a trade, to be hired perfons to be Godfathers and Godmothers; and fome that have not money mud leave their Children unbaptized, and till lately, Popifh Priefts Baptized many. I am not willing to aggravate this Hiring, nor the caufes of it, nor that the fame men that think Baptifm neceflary to Salvation, ( or as Mr. Dodwell fpeaks, to a Covenant right to Salvation) fhould yet fhut out all that have not money to hire fuch Covenantersj But I am not Conformable to fuch Church-Orders.

II. Whereas there is a great ftrefs laid on Mr. Rathband's Book of the old Nonconforming Doctrine againft the Brorvmfls y as if they thought' that meer obedience to the Law required them to forbear Preaching when they were filenced, when indeed they only thought, i. That it bound them to give up the Temples and Tithes and publick maintenance (which are at the Magiftrates difpofe,J 2. And to forbear that mmner and thofe circitmftances of their Miniftry as no Law of God in Nature or Scripture do oblige them to, but

will

will do more hurt than good •, I have now for fuller fatisfa&ion, here added the Teftimony of his Son concerning his judgment snd practice: who nineteen years had his liberty in Lancashire to Preach . publickly, in a Chappel, and after that in Northumberland* and no wonder if the diforders of Brovpnifm that would have deprived them of all fuch liberty were oppofed. I have perufed Mr. Rath-band's Book (written by fome others,) and I find nothing in it that I confent not to 7 but defire him that would underltand it to read the Book it felf.

Mr. Rathband's Letter to me is as followeth.

- Reverend 5#V,

WHereas Doftor Stillingfleet in a late Book of his hath alledged a Book publijhed by my Father, to prove that Preaching contrary to our Eftablifhed Laws is contrary to the Dottrine of all the Nonconformifts in former times y I aJfureyou f Sir, that my Father is not to be reckoned in that number; for he exercifed his Miniftry, though contrary, to the Law, for many years at a Chappel in Lancalhire , and after he was fi-lenced he Preached in private, as he had opportunity and the times would bear ; of which I my felf was fometime a witnefs. Afterward, upon the invitation of a Gentleman, he exercifed his Miniftry at Belfliam in Northumberland, for about a year, and from thence he removed to Owingham in the fame County, where he Preached alfo about a year, till being filenced there, he retired into private as formerly. This I thought expedient to fignifie to you, and you may make what ufe of it you fleafe, for what is written here fha/l be owned by

SIR, Tours in all Chriftian refpefts,

William Rathband.

London, April 2. 1681.

Cc (Vk

( *94r )

(He is a Grave and worthy Nonconforming eje&ed Minifter, living ufually in High-gate.) His Father read part of the Common-Prayer, and kept in as aforefaid.

And I thank Do&or Stillingfleet for fo full a Vindication of fuch old Nonconformifts againlt the Accufations of their Profe-cutors.

III. When my Book was almoft Printed, I received the Manu-fcript.of a faithful Learned ejedted Minifter, in which, he mani-fefteth the fallacy of Do&or Stilling fleets Allegations of Hiftory for the Antiquity of Diocefan Bifhops, and fully proveth that for the firft three hundred years the Biihops were Congregational and Parochial, and that with fo'full evidence, as that out of Strabo and o-ther Geographers hefheweth that many of their Seats were but about four Miles from one another, as our Parifh Churches are ^ and he tonfuteth what is faid againft it. And he (heweth the Doctors grofs abufe of Hiftory, to prove thatBifhops needed not the Peoples confent, and proveth that the Peoples choice or confent was neceflary by the conftant judgment of the Churches.

But this Book is of fo great worth, that I will not difhonour it by making it an Appendix to mine, but intend to make To bold with the Author,* as to publifh it by it felf.

i. As a fuller Confutation to Do&or Stillingfleet.

2. As a full Anfwer to Mr. DodwPs Letters on that fubjeft •,

And $. As a Confirmation of my full proof of the famethings* in my Treatife of Epifcopacy.

IV. And if any will receive that from a Conformift, which he will not receive from fuch a one as I, he may read,

i. Our full and faithful Vindication by a Beneficed Minifter, and a Regular fon of the Church, Called A Companionate Confideration of the Cafe of the Nonconformifts: I am not fo happy as to know the Author, but he confirmeth my former Judgment, that a great part of the PafTive Conformifts are moderate worthy men, with whom we fliould earneftly endeavour as near and fait a coalition as is polfible to be had by lawful means*

2. And either the fame hand, or fuch another Conformift, hath written Reflections on Dottor Stillingfleet, in which the like candor and charity appeareth, though with fome excefs of kindnefs to me*

Vo With

"II

V

95 )

V. With this Defence agamlt Doftor SiitUngfleit, I zt oiice pub* blifh in another Volume, An Apology fir the Nonconformist Preaching, with an Anfwer to a multitude of their Accufers, and Reafons to prove that it is the Bifhops and Conformifts great Duty andln-terefi to feek their Reftoration. Which is the molt material part of the Confutation of Do&or Stillingfleet, who would perfuade us that our Preaching is a fin, and make us guilty of filencing our felves.

FINIS.