Reply to the Dean of St Pauls Reflections on the Rector of Sutton, Title page (1 of 3)

Reply to the Dean of St Pauls Reflections on the Rector of Sutton · Title page (1 of 3)

A REPLY To the Reverend Dean of St. PAULS's Reflections ON THE RECTOR OF SUTTON, &c.

WHEREIN The Principles and Practices of the Non-conformists are not only vindicated by Scripture, but by Dr. Stilling fleet's Rational Account, as well as his Irenicum; as also by the Writings of the Lord Faulkland, Mr. Hales, Mr. Chillingworth, &c.

By the same Hand.

To which is added, St. Paul's Work Promoted; OR, Proper Materials drawn from The true and only way of Concord, and Pleas for Peace, and other late Writings of Mr. Richard Baxter, for uniting Protestant Dissenters, and repairing a Divided Church.

LONDON, Printed by I. D. to be Sold by Richard Ianeway, in Queens-Head Alley in Pater-noster-Row, 1681.

p. 1A REPLY To the Reverend DEAN of St. PAULS's REFLECTIONS ON THE RECTOR OF SUTTON, &c.

NOw thanks (Sir) for your Token; I would have said New-Years-Gift, had it come about a Fortnight sooner. Some told me lately an Answer was coming forth to my Notes upon the Doctor's Sermon; but I could not imagin how I should have a fair and just Answer from him, without his putting forth another Edition of his Irenicum, (and it must be Another indeed, quite different from the former;) or else giving us an Index Expurgatorius to the former, that we may know what he would have expunged; or (which would have been most satisfactory, and not unreasonable) his publishing a Book of Retractations, shewing in what Particulars, and upon what Grounds and Reasons his Mind is since changed.

Upon the perusal of this Voluminous Writing of his, which must pass for a Confutation of his Five Answerers; I can find so little or nothing said to me, that were it not for Three Conclusions he lays down in his Preface, (p. 72, 73.) and Three Letters, which for my sake, upon account of what I had said (as it seems Preface pag. 76.) he annexeth as an Appendix, at the End of his Book, I should not have thought my self concerned to make any Reply.

p. 2I cannot find, that ever he vouchsafes to take notice of so much as one of my Twelve Queries, which (though I remember they were written in great haste, yet) some of them (I think) are pinching.

My First Query (to name no more) wise, impartial Men think it would have been an Act of Iustice and Honesty, as well as of Charity, Ingenuity, Self-denial, for him to have well considered, and to have given a serious and satisfactory Answer unto. How knoweth he, but some, yea, many may have that to say to him, Si Error est quod credo, a te deceptus sum, If I be in an Error, you have led me into it, or have helpt to conhrm me in it.

I thought I had demonstrated to the Doctor, that he was besides his Text That the Word, the Scripture-Rule is that same Rule the Apostle would have Christians walk by (Phil 3. 16.) And that the Establisht Rule, the Doctor would have it applyed to, is such a Rule, as he himself hath told the World the Apostles and Primo-Primitive Christians had not. And if they had no such Rule, nor would ever have establisht such a Rule, then it certainly follows, the Apostle should not be supposed there to press Chri…ians to walk by such a Rule, (which was no Rule with him) [viz. Rector of Sutton, p. 10, 11, 17, f. 18.] Yet I observe, where he pretends to lear the Text from all Objections, (pag. 163 to 176.) he says not one word to this Material Objection. And so he waves what Mr. Baxter says, (Answer pag. 29.) What he replieth to others, I suppose they will consider. Here (I conceive) he cannot well say, as pag. 333. I decline nothing that looks like Argument. And pag. 393. I have not concealed the Force and Strength I saw in any of them.

There I thought it sufficient to argue from the Doctor's former Concessions, or rather his plain Assertions, taking the Matter to be so clear and evident, that no sober Man, and much less he, would deny. But if he had put me to prove, that the Apostles did not, neither would ever establish such a Rule, nor could have established it, (as Apostles as commissionated by Christ, as infallible Guides and Governours of the Church) I should have counted it an easie Task, especially when he hath done it so well to my hand, from Act. 15. 28, &c. This one hint may suffice at present, the Apos…le Peter was to be blamed for that by his Example, only he would have drawn the Gentile-Believers at Antioch to Conformity to the Jewish Ceremonies, Gal. 2. 11, 14. Why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Iews? The Apostle Paul, who thus reproved him, yet says himself, 1 Cor. 9. 20. VntoUnto the Iews, I became as a Iew.—And those Ceremonies he conformed to among the Jewes, (as at Ierusalem) were in themselves as lawful and innocent, as the Ceremonies imposed among us. But he would not have the Gentiles compell'd to more than was necessary. He that was so moved, p. 3and offended, to see but an Example leading that way, how much more would he have withstood any (one, or more) that were for establishing such a Rule? Yet the Doctor tells us, he is certain, he did not mistake the sence of his Text, Preface pag. 63.

But let such things pass, as the Doctor hath pleased to do. And if he had let all pass that hath been said, that the Controversies he hath raised, might have been laid asleep, or had used other Methods and Measures than he hath taken, I should have been better satisfied, than I can be with his present Answer. I am sorry we did not all put him in mind of that, Praestat motos componere fluctus. However (Sir) I must acknowledg your Kindness, in sending me this [Impartial Account, &c.] (as it is called) and that you have since furnished me with his [Rational Account] also, wherein you have greatly pleasured me. Many Years since I looked into it, and doubted not, (when I was writing those former Papers) but I could have made some use of it; but I could not then meet with the Book, for want of which I looked on those Collections as incompleat.

Truly (Sir) I was in hope the learned Doctor had retained that same Spirit of Moderation towards his dissenting Brethren, which those sober moderate Principles he hath published, and commended unto others heretofore, spake him to have. How strange is it, that the Reverend Doctor, should ever forget the Rector of Sutton? And is it not as strange, that he should be for silencing such a one (as of Scismatical Principles?) Or to speak more plainly, should be ashamed to own him in that worthy Work, so full of Learning and Judgment, meriting Praise, rather than Censure: But it is too plain here, he hath deserted the Rector of Sutton, and that in a Matter wherein he was in the right, and had the strongest Reason on his side, and hath given up the Cause to such an imposing Party, as before e had condemned. And what is the matter that the Reverend Doctor is so highly offended at me, for desiring he would renew his old Acquaintance with one so near him, and be friends again? None in the World being nearer to him, if that be true, Proximus sum egomet mihi; unless he will say, and make that good (in none of the best sence) Ego non sum ego. Now I am heartily sorry, if we may see Reason to change our Opinion of him, as he says we may, of some Persons, as well as Things, in twenty Years time, (Preface pag. 76.)

Sure I am, it either does, or ought to grieve me at heart, to see his Hand at such dividing Work, who of all the dignified Persons in England, I had thought, was specially engaged, and hoped also, was as well enclined, to promote Union what in him lay; but not to widen Differences, by pressing and pleading so hard for Dividing-Terms. When certain Bishops were met, that sought nothing more, than that poor Athanasius. p. 4might be oppressed, Doli…, C…lumniis, & malis Artibus; Paphnutius seeing it, rose up, and took Maximus (who, as I remember, had been a Confessor) by the hand, saying, Neque te decet unà inter istos sedere. So I thought it least became the Reverend Doctor to appear with the forwardest in condemning his dissenting Brethren, whose Cause he had so well pleaded in time past. He begins his Preface with a Story of the learned and excellent Bishop Iewell, (which I leave to others to examine) But here I call to mind the Story of Bishop Lindsey, a Scotish-Bishop, who before he came to his Dignity, had given this Question at St. Andrew's, Whether things indifferent once abused, and for their Abuse abolished? &c. Negatur. Where he could bid Defiance to those that were for retaining such Ceremonies. Yet afterwards he was a zealous Contender for them, turning Disce pati, into Dissipate. And the great complaint of him was, that in dealing with his Brethren, he remembred not what he was once himself, that he pittied not his former Case (as some of them said) in their Persons, as Augustine did the Manichees, greater Hereticks than he took them to be, Let them be fierce (rigorous) against you, who never were deceived with the like Error, as they see you. But as for me, I can use no such Rigor against you, with whom I ought to bear now, as I did at that time with my self, &c. Thus I could wish the Doctor would be as favourable as it becometh him to be, in his Censures of his Brethren, who are very much of the same mind, he was of once

And therefore I shall once again apply my self to him.

Reverend Sir;

I do not very well know, whether that Title [The Rector of Sutton committed with the Dean of St. Paul's] makes you more angry, or merry. This I know, those Papers of mine went out of my hands, without any Title: who put that to it I know not.

The Title, you say, (Preface p. 71.) Was enough to make the common People imagine this was some busie Iustice of Peace, who had taken them both at a Conventicle. And I confess the word [Committed] might puzzle those that could not English bonos inter sese committere (there p. 7.) But sure you had no thought of my being a Iustice of Peace, any more than I should suspect the Dean of St. Paul's (since I have heard of and seen what he hath both preached, and written against them) would frequent Conventicles. However you rub up my Memory here, that I have one thing to put you in mind of, though perhaps you'l call me a busie Informer for it, in your Next. And yet call me at your pleasure, so that it may incline you to more favourable Thoughts of truly Religious Assemblies, such as you have condemned, as Conventicles, and separate Meetings. In the former times of England's Distractions and Confusions, I being unsatisfied p. 5of the Lawfulness of keeping (in publick) either those days of Thanksgiving for Victories, or of Fasting and Prayer for a Blessing on those Counsels, and Forces that then were, (as appointed) it happened that Mr. S. preached in my place upon one of these Fast-days (I suppose at the Request of some, but unknown to me) The Text in Deut. For this is your Wisdom &c. which some remember still, though it is about twenty Years since, when I (at the same time) had a private Meeting at St. Lawrence's, as one called it. This I confess may look something like a personal Reflection; but my end here is, that you would be pleased to resolve me these Queries, viz.

Whether ever you accounted this Act Schismatical, preaching without the Consent of the Rector of the Parish? Or the Assembly that joyned, at that time, Schismaticks? Yet was here no breach of Order. Or were there no Churches in England then, or till your establisht Rule came in? And yet, Sir, I had never the less Esteem of Mr. S. at that time, or of others, who were satisfied to go farther than I durst.

Again, Whether was our private Meeting at that time a sinful Conventicle, when the far greater part of the Parish was with him at Church? I hope you will grant it was a lawful, because a Loyal Conventicle.

But so much to your Reflection on the Title of my former Papers. Now Sir, consider whether we have not more just Exceptions against this of yours.

(1.) The unreasonableness of Separation.] Here 1. Consider whether you do not condemn that as Separation, which is not. And is that reasonable? all Assemblies, distinct from yours, are not separate Meetings, as the World is used in an evil sence; no, though they differ in some unnecessary Mode, or Circumstances of Worship, many that ordinarily joyn with you in the substantial parts of Worship, and meet not in Opposition; yet I cannot discern, but their Meetings fall under your Censure, as much as others, because they keep not to your establish'd Rule, when (Preface pag. 40.) you speak of an unaccountable Separation, without regard to the greatness or smalness of Parishes, &c. doth not that imply, that there may be some Account given for assembling to worship God, where there is a regard to this, to the Abilities and Piety of Ministers, and to the Peace and Order of the Church? And therefore the thing is not so unreasonable as you would make it. (2.) What if I prove (in examining your Three Conclusions) from the Principles you lay down in your Irenicum, and Rational Account too, that many are necessitated to separate from your Communion; Is Separation unreasonable, when necessary? Or will you allow others to say, that there you have pleaded for unreasonable Separation?

p. 6(2.) An Impartial Account, &c. you call it. Here I might say, I was glad to see you promising Impartiality in this Work, having found so little of it in your Sermon: but upon search Quantâ de spe decidi? The Partiality you have discovered is so great, and in so many Particulars, that if I should ransack every Corner of your Book (as you speak) to collect all such Passages, I fear I should be very tedious and irksome to you and other Readers. But

1. May not some of the common People, who have read either what Mr. Baxter says of it, or Mr. Newcomen (in Serm. on Nov. 5. 1642.) take you to be partial in setting down the Jesuit Contzens Directions for reducing Popery (Preface pag. 19, 20.) In that you take no notice of putting out of Honours, Dignities, and publick Offices such as are most adverse to Popery, or of the outing of Ministers, as unpeaceable, proud, obstinate, disobedient to Magistrates: And forbidding them privately, or publickly to assemble? And take no notice of that, How easie is it (as he says) in England to bring the Puritans into Order, if they be forced to approve of Bishops? &c. Here I think of your Words, pag. 10. I do not say, such Men are set on by Iesuits, but I say, they do their work as effectually. —So it would be considered, whether such Methods do not effectually promote the Jesuits design of reducing Popery. You may give us to understand (Preface pag. 22.) that the Declaration of Indulgence 167½ was of the Papists procuring; but we must not say, that the turning out of many zealous Protestant Justices, and Ministers, was any way by their means.

2. Are you impartial in the Account you give of the Reformation in King Edward 6 and Q. Elizabeth's Raign? Did the Reformation lie in those things wherein Dissenters differ from you? Then you must say, that those Churches which aimed at an exact Conformity with the Apostolick Times, and (as Chillingworth says) took their Direction only from Scripture, were yet so far unreformed, as they wanted our Ceremonies. Though it soundeth very harshly, to say that those Churches who were more conformed to the Scripture Rule, were less reformed. But you spake more impartially, and more to the honour of our First Reformers, Irenic. pag. 124. which you was minded of, (Rector of Sutton p. 6.) Certainly those holy Men, who did seek by any means to draw in others, &c. And by that Rubrick, which left it at the discretion of the Minister, what, and how much to read, when there was a Sermon, it is evident, others since have sought to bear up their Authority by their Names, who have been far from their Moderation.

I cannot but wonder at your Harangue (Book pag. 6.) Is it credible, that Men of so great Integrity, such indefatigable Industry, such profound Iudgment, as Cranmer and Ridley, who were the Heads of the Reform…tion, p. 7should discern no Sinfulness in these things.—Could not Latimer, or Bradford, or such holy, mortified Men as they, discern so much as a Mote of Vnlawlawfulness? &c.

It is granted, they were Learned, Pious, Excellent Men; yet it need not seem strange, much less incredible, that such worthy Men should in some things mistake. Does not A. B. Laud tell you, Reformation is so difficult a Work, and subject to so many Pretentions, that 'tis almost impossible but the Reformers should step too far, or fall too short in some smaller things or other? I suppose you may have Bishop Cranmer's Manuscript still by you; and are you of his Iudgment in all things? I do not find it so, comparing what you published, as his Judgment in your Irenicum, and what you have published in this Book, as your own. And Latimer, that Zealous and Faithful Martyr, (as I remember) at the end of his Sermons, used to ex…ite the Hearers to Prayer, and therein to remember such as were departed this Life. Now must we therefore conclude, there is not a Mote of Unlawfulness in praying for the Dead, that otherwise such an holy Man as Latimer, would not have been for it? Most true it is, considering the Times they lived in, and the Temper of the Persons they had to deal with, it was the great Work of God to carry on Reformation so far by them. But I cannot say, but their Hearts were to have carried it on further, if the Times would have born it. (More Shame it is to others, that have had fairer Opportunities since, and yet have not minded the Work.) History of the Troubles at Franksford (printed 1575, reprinted 164…. p. 42.) telleth of one that said, Bishop Cranmer had drawn up a Book of Prayer, an hundred times more perfect, but the Clergy and Convocation with other Enemies would not let it pass. And there followeth something further worth your noting (pag. 43.) that B…llinger told Whittingham, Mr. H. and Mr. C. asked his Judgment concerning certain Points of that (our) Book, as Surplice, private Baptism, Churching Women, the Ring in Marriage, with such like, which (as he said) he allowed not, and that he neither could if he would, neitherwould if he might use the same in his Church, whatsoever had been reported. Therefore (say I) such a Man as Bullinger would not have been for imposing the same on others.

As to the Reformation in Queen Elizabeth's time, it was not brought in, nor brought on with a rigorous Imposition of those things in Controversie; as Ball▪ against Can, Part 2. p. 13. In the first ten Years of Q. Elizabeth, there was sweet consent among Brethren.—I think there was not a Man that thought of Separation. The pressing of Subscription and Conformity in the tenth year of Q. Elizabeth's Raign, was that which brough… in all the … and Contentions following. Iosias Nichol's (Plea of the Innocent, p. 210, 217, printed 1602,) thus: Some five Years p. 8together, before that unhappy time that Subscription was so generally offered, (which is now some 18 Years past) there was such Unity between the Ministers, and they joyned in all places so lovingly, and diligently in Labour; that not only did the unpreaching Minister and Nonresident quake, and prepare themselves in measure to take pains in the Church; but also many thousands were converted from Atheism and Popery, &c. But when Subscription came abroad, how did it shake the Heavens, and darken the Skies? (O Lord my Heart trembleth to think upon it) how many godly, and worthy learned Preachers were silenced, deprived, and greatly disgraced! How were the holy Ministers divided and distracted! How were the Christian Subjects grieved and offended, and the Papists and wicked Men encouraged and emboldened! What a damp brought it to all Godliness and Religion? and since that time what horrible Wickedness, Whoredom, Drunkenness, and all shameless Filthiness, and what grievous Plagues of God, one succeeding another, have followed, evey good Christian Subject must needs see and lament? So he who was no Separatist. And I hope Sir, you and I are agreed, that these things last spoken of, were no part of England's Reformation. And now Sir, give me leave to tell you (in some of your own Words, Preface p. 47.) We were in a lamentable case as to the Defence of the Reformation, if we had no more to plead for it, (than we have indeed to plead for such mischievous Impositions.) And this seems to have been the sence of the Queen's Council in that Letter, which the modest Enquiry (p. 16, 17.) lays before you.

Therefore Sir, I beseech you, as you would not blast the Credit, and Honour of the Reformation, place it not in such things, as rather brought a Deformation on us.

Here I know not well how to reconcile you to your self. For, p. 365. You say, It was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary (as to Practice) than were made so at the Settlement of our Reformation; but whether there be sufficient Reason to alter those Terms of Communion which were then settled, for the sake of such whose Scruples are groundless and endless, I do not take upon me here to determine. And Preface p. 53 Although the Arguments are very plausible one way, yet the Objections are very strong another. The Union of Protestants, the Ease of scrupulous Consciences, the providing for so many poor Families of ejected Ministers (but not a word of providing for so many poor Congregations, and dark corners of the Land, that have need of them) Are great Motives on one side. But the weighty Considerations on the other side, pag. 54. And double in number too, as you reckon. So here I see your Mind, as you hold the Scales, you might, and would determine that there is no sufficient Reason to alter those Terms of Communion, p. 9which (in the great Wisdom of our Church) were setled, for the sake of such, whose Scruples are groundless and endless. For certainly those Arguments that are only plausible with you, would not weigh down such as are strong and cogent, nor a few Motives weigh down more weighty Consid…rations. But then, what did you think of, when you put that Question, Preface, p. 81. Is there nothing to be done for Dissenting Protestants?—Do we value a few indifferent Ceremonies, and some late Declarations, and doubtful Expressions, beyond the satisfaction of Mens Consciences, and the Peace and Stability of this Church? And how happy had England been, if such things had not been so over-valued! As to this material Question, you deliver your Opinion (you say) freely and impartially. How Sir! what? Are you for altering what was setled in so great Wisdom, by Men of so great Integrity, such indefatigable Industry, such profound Iudgment? Is this for the Honour of our Reformation? Is not this to blast the Credit of the Reformation?

I shall not take upon me, to animadvert upon the whole of your Answer to this material Question, presuming it will be scann'd by some of better Judgment. Only one or two things I cannot but take notice of. So I heartily thank you for that, P. 82. (3.) Notwithstanding, because the use of Sacraments in a Christian Church ought to be the most free from all Exceptions, and they ought to be so administred, as rather to invite than discourage scrupulous Persons from joyning in them; I do think, it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension (only here I would say, Duty) in the Governours of our Church, to remove those Bars from a Freedom in joyning in a full Communion. Now thanks for thus much: and hold to it, Sir. Tho I have two great and learned Men of the Church of England (worthy of Note with you) just at hand, that grant as much of other parts of God's Worship, as you do of Sacraments; scil. that they should be free from all Exceptions. See Hales of Schism, (in Miscel. p. 216, 217, 218.) And you were once of his Mind, Irenic. p. 120. And Chillingworth, p. 180. If all Men would believe the Scripture, and freeing themselves from Prejudice and Passion, would sincerely endeavour to find the true Sence of it, and live according to it, and require no more of others, but to do so; nor denying their Communion to any that do so, would so order their publick Service of God, that all which do so, may without Scruple, or Hypocrisy, or protetestation against any part of it, joyn with them in it: who does not see that, &c.

Again, I cast my Eye on that, p. 87. where you would have indulged Persons to pay Twelve pence a Sunday for their absence from the Parochial Churches, which (you say) cannot be complained of as any heavy Burthen. Which such will not thank you for. You would have them indulged, and not indulged. And is Twelve Pence a Week no burden to those, that p. 10with hard Labour have much ado to maintain their Families, can scarce clear Twelve Pence per Week? See what it is to be rich in this World, that makes some insensible of the low Estate others live in. And would you have Servants th… pol…d too? tho their Wages may not amount to so much.

But now at last I come to that, which I said, makes you hardly reconcileable to your …. Preface, p. 92. Such a Review made by wise and pe…able M…n, not given to Wrath, and Disputing, may be so far fro… being a Dis…on…ur to this Church, that it may add to the Glory of it. And the lik… you … say, of removing those Bars to Communion in Sa… ments bec… it would be a pa…t of Christian Wisdom. Now lay things together, Dr. Stilling▪ says, Preface, p. 53, 54. T…ere are strong Objections and weighty Considerati… against the Alteration of the established Laws, And p. 364. would not take upon him to determine, Whether there be sufficient Reason to … terms of Communi… settled. And yet Dr. S…lling. says, Preface, p, 82, 92. That an Alteration would be a part of Christian Wisdom, and so far from being a … to this Church, that it would add to the Glo… of it. And … on I put this Query, Whether Man are justly charged, as bl…sting the Honour of the Reformation, for dissenting in such things, which it would be the Churches Glory to alter?

3. Are you Imp…rtial in the Account you give of the old-Non-Conformists, as if it was their general Sence, that Ministers were to forbear all Preaching, when …? In the Contents of your Book, Part. 1 § 17. it is thus, [The …ld Non-… Iudgment of the unlawfulness of Mens preaching here, when forbidden by …aws, full… cleared from some late Objections.] Which you undertake, p. 78. &c. That their Judgment and Practice was to forbear …rea…hing in their Parish Churches, while they were under Suspension, I grant. And did not the present Non-conformists follow them herein? Did they not generally quit the Temp…es, as well as their Tithes, and Pr…ts, from Aug. 24. 62. yielding these to be at the Magisnates dispose? They would not that you, or others, should call their Preaching (as you do) preaching i… …pposition to established Laws, whereunto they yielded, as far as they could be satisfied it was lawful for them. But do you your self be…ve, that the old Non-conformists thought it unlawful for them to preach at a…, when silenced? Then you cannot take them to have been very hone…, upr…ght Men, who did so ordinarily … from their own Principles. Were not some of them glad of an opportunity of Preaching in another Diocess, when they might not be suffered to preach where they lived? And were not many of them for the exercise of their Ministry in private, when they were denied liberty in publick. Fr. Iohnson speaks of their suf…ering themselves to be deposed from their (stated) publick Ministy, p. 11which you seem to overlook. And so I think Bez… may well be understood of quitting their former publick Employments (with whose Testimony you make so great a Flourish, p. 21, 22.) What! is Beza for silencing, and stopping the Mouths of such a number of faithful and able Ministers?— Would Beza, even Beza, at such a time as that, be for silencing so many Preachers?—It appears that Beza was not of the Mind of our Adversaries— That he expresseth no such terrible apprehensions at their quitting their Places, as he doth at their Preaching in opposition to the Laws. To which I return, Were not the Non-conformists generally, both at that time, and since, for quitting their Places, rather than holding on in publick, to the defiance of the Laws? They have desired, as far as they could, to avoid the exasperating of Rulers. They were not for opposing Sword to Sword, as Bradshaw has it; they were not movers of Sedition, nor have been to this day. And would Mr. Baxter, even Mr. Baxter, be for their silencing, yet he says, (in his Search for the English Schismatick. p. 37.) It is not their Judgment (speaking of the meer Non-conformists) that they are bound to Preach, when by opposing violence, or the offending of Rulers, it is likely to do more hurt than good, and once preaching to deprive them of all the usefulness of their Lives, &c.

But I doubt not, there are many Christians yet alive, who can remember some of the old Non-conformists, and their preaching in private Houses, when suspended from Preaching in Churches. One writes me word, that Mr. Hildersam used to preach in his own House, when silenced; and two or three Families came to hear him. Another special Friend, helping me to a sight of some Papers of Mr. E. Reyner (formerly) of Lincoln, I meet with this considerable Passage: For me to preach in this Place, and at this Time, is no way necessary, since others may do it, and I my self (tho put by here) may do it as well and freely elsewhere, as in New-England, Ireland, Scotland, Holland; yea, haply in some remote out-wing of the Kingdom. And thus God (in his ordinary Providence) doth order it, that his Church gains much by this course of removing Ministers, and transplanting the Gospel to such Places, as never heard the sound thereof before; and in the mean while they may have time to do much good in private, &c. And I think this was the general Sence of the Non-conformists, that they did not look on the censure of Suspension, (if unjust) as a sufficient discharge from the exercise of their Ministry. Had they thought themselves bound to cease Preaching, whensoever they were prohibited by Men, they were honester Men, than to act so contrary to their Judgment; as they used frequently to preach, (tho more privately, or in Places where they were not known) when suspended by the Bishops. But these things were not to be publickly talkt of then, when the High Commission-Court p. 12was up, and there was such Inquisition after their Meetings.

I have this Account of Mr. Simeon Ash, from one (whose Father's House was as his home sometimes) that when he was sought after by Pursevants, coming to them, they had Meetings in the Night-time. Another, (a Minister) tells me he hath heard from Ancient Christians in Ringly Congregation, that Mr. Iohn Angier, sometimes Minister there, being silenced, and having his Chappel suspended by the Bishop of Chester, used to preach to divers in his own House, till such times as he was removed to Denton. I suppose, there are some in those Parts (yet alive) that can testify so much; Mr. Westowbye I well knew. His Bible was his Licence. The Courts could not take him off, but he would be at his Work, in one place or other. Once after my preaching for him, (when he was scarce able to get into the Pulpit for Age, and Weakness accompanying it) he entertained me with a Discourse of much of his Life past, the Troubles and Opposition he had met with in the World, and the great Experience he had of the most encouraging Success of his Ministry under his greatest Troubles, that in his Travels he could write to his Wife, (as he said) that God bad given him many Children she knew not of.

But to enquire after the Practice of particular Persons would be a tedious and endless Work. You have the Iudgment of the Assembly, under that Head of Ordination, where they would have the Person to be ordained, declare his sincere Intentions and Ends in entring into this Calling: And his Resolution to continue against all Trouble and Persecution. If that Assembly were Non-conformists, then you see there the Iudgment of the Non-conformists. But if they were generally Conformists, then you see, wee have the Judgment of a Learned Synod of Conformists for us.

4. Are you not too partial in allowing Protestants to be occasionally present at some parts of Worship in the Roman Church, and that frequently too, to hear Sermons, &c. (how far your et caetera may reach, others cannot tell, till you better inform them) while you do not allow them to be present at the Worship performed in the Assemblies of Dissenters? The former you are for, pag. 108. To your Question there, doth this make a Man to have Communion with the Church of Rome? I answer, yea, so far as he joyns in their Worship, so far he has Communion with them. Sure you will not deny a Man to have any Communion with you in hearing the Word preached, who comes for that End, and that frequently too. So here you must be supposed to grant Occasional Communion with the Roman Church in hearing of Sermons, &c, and that frequently too, to be lawful. Now this is more than you allow to Dissenters, pag. 98. No Man denies, that more places for Worship are desireable, and would be very useful, where they may be had, and the same way of Worship, and Order observed in them, as in p. 13our Parochial Churches; where they may be under the same Inspection, and Ecclesiastical Government.—But, is it possible that Mr. B. should think the Case alike, where the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected, the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemned; and such Meetings are kept up in Affront to them, and the Laws? Here you say in Effect, that let Parishes be never so large, and the Necessities of Souls never so urgent, the Assemblies of Dissenters are not desirable, nor to be encouraged, because not under you establish'd Rule. But either you must grant, it may be lawful to joyn occasionally, and that frequently too, with the Non-conformists, or you must judg them worse than Popish Teachers, and say that it was better for Men to hear these, than such as Mr. B. &c. I know not whether you might fear the least countenancing of occasional Communion with Non-conformists, lest any should thence argue from your own Words, that constant Communion with them is a Duty. I am thinking however, that the Papists may thank you for so much Kindness to them, that you grant it lawful for Protestants to be occasionally present in some parts of their Worship. And let them alone to make their best of what you say, you are sure will follow, p. 176. and p. 77. As far as Men judg Communion lawful, it becomes a Duty, and Separation a Sin; under what Denomination soever the Persons pass.— Because then Separation appears most unreasonable, when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful. If they can get Protestants to joyn with them ordinarily, though but in some parts of their Worship at first, its possible, they would gain far more Proselites by it, than Non-conformists have drawn or would draw into Separation.

You seem to suppose great Force and Virtue in that Salvo, p. 156. A Man is not said to separate from every Church, where he forbears or ceases to have Communion; but only from that Church, with which he is obliged to hold Communion. As if a Christian was only obliged to Communion with some one particular Church. Yet you will look upon your self, not only as a Member of the Church of England, but as a Member of the Catholick Church. And as you are a Member of the Catholick Church, it may possibly sometimes fall out, that you may be obliged to have Communion occasionally with a Dutch Church, or a French Church. And if Non-conformists, with their Assemblies may be proved as sound parts of the Church Catholick, as others you can freely have Communion with, and while they differ from you in nothing, but if the same was removed, your Churches might be every jot as sound and pure, I can see no sufficient Reason why you might not as lawfully have Occasional Communion with them; and then for ought I know, you may be obliged thereunto, it may be a Duty. Because you wholly overlook this, I thought p. 14fit to take notice of it. And further I would put you in mind of your own Arguments, pag. 157. viz.

1. The general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful Means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church. And here I ask, If there be not as great an Obligation at least, upon Christians to preserve Peace, or promote it with all Christians, as with all Men: And they are bound to that, as far as possible, and as much as lies in them, Rom. 12. 18. And if you supposed the present Dissenters to be as bad as the Donati…, (which you cannot in reason suppose) yet your Learned and Excellent Hales says, (Miscel. of Schism, p. 208.) Why might it not be lawful to go to Church with the Donatists?—if occasion so require, And Ibid. p. 209. In all publick Meetings pretending Holiness, so there be nothing done but what true Devotion and Piety break, why may not I be present in them, and use Communication with them?

2 The particular force of that Text, Phil. 3. 16. As far as you have already attained, walk by the same Rule, &c. And one would think, such as have attained so much Knowledg, as to see it lawful to joyn with the Roman Church in some parts of W…ship, might know, it cannot but be as lawful at least to joyn in Worship with Non-conformi…ts.

5. Are you not partial, when you lay this down, (p. 157.) As one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists, that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done, with a good Conscience, when they were earnestly pressed to it by those in Authority, &c. (yet you tell us not what things those are, neither the time when they were pressed thereunto, and refused the same. And I never heard of any Motions or Overtures for Peace, that were reasonable, made to them, which they refused.) But you never take notice of it, as any provoking Sin, in those that would not hearken to their most just and earnest Petition for Peace. Might not they with a good Conscience have forborn those needless Impositions, which they very well knew would be so grievous and burdensome to many? And might not so much have been expected from them, as they would profess themselves to be for Vnity and Peace? May I not here return your own Words; pag. 159. Was ever Schis… made so light a matter of, and the Peace and Unity of Christans valued at so low a Rate; that for the Prevention of the one, and the Preserevation of the other, a thing that is lawful may not be done? (Or as I would say, that the imposing of things indifferent, and not necessary, in their own Judgment, but things doubtful, or unlawful in the Judgment of others, might not be forborn?)

Now, (Sir) are you for palliating so great Sin, as the causing of Schism and Dissention in the Church, when you know, The Obligation which p. 15lieth upon all Christians, to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church, (which you give us again, p. 209.) And I find you citing these words of A. B. Laud in your Rational Account, p 324, Nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity, might he have it with Truth. But I never said, nor thought, that the Protestants made this Rent (Dissenting Protestants, say we) The cause of the Schism is yours; for you thrust us from you, because we called for Truth, and redress of Abuses. And there at the End of pag. 102. You could not but judg it a very prudent Expression of his Lordship, That the Church of England is not such a Shre… to h…r Children, as to deny her Blessing, or denounce an Anathema against them, if some peaceably dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation, &c. Where I observe you cannot well plead the Cause of our Separation from Rome, without pleading something for Dissenters. But to return to your Impartial Account, p. 209. You say, Violation of the Unity of the Church, where there is no sufficient Reason to justify it, is a Sin, as much as Murder is, and as plainly forbidden (and in some respects aggravated beyond it, Preface p. 45.) All which returns upon your selves, if the Ar…h-Bishop's Words may take place. And consider further seriously, whether there be any sufficient Reason to justifie the pressing and imposing of those things, which might lawfully be forborn, when the imposing of them will certainly cause a Violation of the Churches Unity and Peac…. Yet this is a thing, you take no notice of, unless it be to justify it. As p. 76. The Church of England hath as much occasion to account those Scruples unreasonable, as they do those of the Ind…pendents, A…baptists, and Quakers. And pag. 59. So it is impossible for them to answer the Anabaptists, who have as just a Plea for Separation from them, as they can have from the Church of England. Now lay these together, and what follows, but that as much is to be pleaded for the English Ceremonies, and other things imposed, which the Non-c…nformists stick at, as can be pleaded for the baptizing of Infants, or against Re-baptization (and I may add, or against the way of the Quakers.) In the Fifty Queries concerning Infants Right to Baptism, I set that down last, which … desired they would specially observe, Scil. Whether the Anabaptist's Schism be not worse than their simple Opinion? And whether it be not desireable, and possible, that some Way be found out, and Terms laid down in which good and sober Men on both sides might agree, and hold Communion, (as Christians?) concerning which, something is proposed there (from Mr. B.) to others Consideration. This the Author of the Anti-Queries took little notice of, which engaged me to mind him of it again, in my Reply, p. 25, 26. And yet I have met with no other Answer from him, but that he is loth at present to give an Answer to it, intreating all his p. 16Friends to take it into Consideration, because it is a matter of Moment, and common Concern. (T. G's Controversy, &c. epitomised, p. 64.) From whence I conclude, if such Terms of Moderation were offered, they would be hard put to it, scarce know what to say for a standing off, and denying to have Communion with Christians of a different Perswasion; but they would have enough to say against your Terms: and that from your self, and not only in your Irenicum, but in your Rational Account, p. 209. It is a very necessary Enquiry, what the cause of (the distance) is, and where the main Fault lies; and it being acknowledge that there is a possibility, that Corruptions may get into a Christian Church, and it being impossible to prove, that Christianity obligeth Men to communicate with a Church, in all those (they will say, in any) Corruptions, its Communion may be tainted with; it seems evident to Reason, that the cause of the Breach must lie there, where the Corruptions are owned, and imposed, as Conditions of Communion, &c.

I should have hoped, that at least you would have granted the conditions put upon Ministers to be very hard; yet I find nothing, but a deep silence here. Tho Mr. Cheny says, I am satisfied that it is in it …elf a great and `dreadful Sin to silence the Non-conformists. It seems here is a provoking Sin, which you was willing to overlook, tho once in your Sermon, p. 20. you were very near it.

6. Do you speak Impartially, p. 378, 379. when you tell us, you wonder, that none of us have taken any care to put any stop to Separation, or to let you know, where you may fix and see an end of it; what Scruples are to be allowed, and what not? I will say nothing for those, who are better able to speak for themselves: but for my self, I thought I had told you plainly, and sufficiently out of your Irenicum (if you will not be offended that I call it yours) where I would have you fix. Let Christians stand upon the same terms now, as they did in the time of Christ and his Apostles. Do not add other conditions of Church-Communion than Christ hath done. (As Rector of Sutton, p. 6, 7. See also p. 59.) If you make no new Terms, and yet others will separate from you still, the Sin is theirs: but if indeed you add other Terms, then beware, that you be not found the Schismaticks.

Do not turn me off here, as you do Mr. Baxter's Way of Concord. You …not justly say, we go on in impracticable Notions here, or dividing Principles. (When you have that Word, Preface p. 38. As tho he had been Christ's Plenipotentiary upon Earth, You forgot that others might as well apply it to the Rector of Sutton, for publishing his Irenicum.)

And I hope you will not deny, but we are backt with great Authority, when you consider, what King Iames tells Cardinal Du Perron, by the Pen of Isaac Causabon, (which Mr. Baxter takes notice of, Direct. p. 752.) His p. 17Majesty thinketh, that for Concord there is no nearer way, than diligently to separate things necessary from the unnecessary, and to bestow all our labour that we may agree in the things necessary, and that in things unnecessary, there may be place given for Christian Liberty. A Golden Sentence! And there is nothing that can be proved necessary, but it must be either expresly taught, or commanded in the Word of God, or deduced thence by necessary Consequence. And that of the Lord Bacon (Essay 3.) is considerable, who for the true placing the Bonds of Vnity, would have Points fundamental, and of Substance in Religion, truly discerned and distinguished from Points not meerly of Faith, but of Opinion, Order, or good Intention. And Chillingworth is full of such impracticable Notions, (if they deserve to be so called,) p. 197.—He that could assert Christians to that Liberty, which Christ and his Apostles left them, must needs to Truth a most Heroieal Service. And seeing the over-valuing of the Differences among Christians, is one of the greatest Maintainers of the Schisme of Christendom, &c. p. 198. Certainly if Protestants be faulty in this matter (of playing the Pope) it is for doing it too much, and not too little.—Take away these Walls of Separation, and all will quickly be one. Take away this Persecuting, Burning, Cursing, Damning of Men, for not subscribing to the Words of Men, as the Words of God: Require of Christians only to believe Christ, and to call no Man Master but him only; Let those leave claiming Infallibility, that have no Title to it; and let them that in their Words disclaim it, disclaim it likewise in their Actions. In a Word, take away Tyranny, which is the Devils Instrument to support Errors, and Superstitions, and Impieties.—I say, take away Tyranny, and restore Christians to their just and full Liberty of captivating their Vnderstanding to Scripture only; and as Rivers when they have a free Passage, run all to the Ocean: so it may well be hoped, by God's Blessing, that universal Liberty thus moderated may quickly reduce Christendom to Truth and Vnity. This Citation being to long, I shall add but one more out of him, and that a shorter, p. 209. This is most certain, and I believe you will easily grant it, that to reduce Christians to Vnity of Communion, there are but two ways that may be conceived probable. The one, by taking away diversity of Opinions, touching Matters of Religion: The other, by shewing that the diversity of Opinions, which is among the several Sects of Christians, ought to be no hinderance to their Vnity in Communion. Last of all, I close with your Rational Account, p. 291. And therefore those lesser Societies cannot in Justice, make the necessary Conditions of Communion narrower, than those which belong to the Catholick Church: i. e. those things which declare Men Christians, ought to capacitate them for Communion with Christians. (Even an acknowledgment of the Scriptures as the indispensible Rule of Faith and Manners: Which (be pleased to note) is something different from your late establish'd Rule.) Now would you fix here, that those things which declare Men Christians, p. 18shall suffice to capacitate them for Communion with you; how many Mens Scruples would be removed? and what better way can you think of, to put a stop to Separation?

7. Are you Impartial in charging all Nonconformist's Meetings with Separation, tho very many of them ordinarily join with the Parochial Congregations, and do not deny them …o be true Churches, as the old Separatists did? p. 56. It is true, (say you) in that Opinion they differ, but in Separation they agree. As in your Sermon p. 33. For do they not do the very same things, and in the same manner, that the others do? how comes it then to be Separation in some, and not in others? Which I answered (Rector of Sutton, p. 49.) thus: What they do is not done upon the Separatists Principles, and therefore not done in the same manner. Yet you neither retract that Saying of yours, nor refute my Answer. And have not others as much reason to object against you, that when you receive the Sacrament k…eeling, you do the same thing that the Papists and Lutherans do: (I do not think it manifestly appears from the Pope's manner of receiving, either sitting, or a little leaning upon his Throne, as you say, p. 15. that the Papists are allowed to follow him herein.) How then comes that to be an Act of Worship in them, when with you it is no Act of Worship, but a …eer indifferent Ceremony?

8. Are you not very Partial, in loading those that do not absolutely separate from you, but only secundum quid, as you do, p. 54, 55, 56. Making their Practice, that own you to be true Churches, to be the more unjustifiable, more inexcusable, more unreasonable Separation? Is it not a greater Schism, to separate from you, as no true Church, than to do it, only because you are faulty, in imposing such Conditions, as they cannot lawfully submit to? Are they the greatest Separatists, who hold Communion with you, so far as they can? I should think, they are the greatest Separatists, whose Separation is the most unjustifiable, inexcusable, and unreasonable. As I had thought, there was not so much reason to deny the Being of the Church of England, while she retaineth the true Faith, and hath the true Worship of God for substance; as there may be to doubt of the lawfulness of Ceremonies, and Modes of Worship, invented and imposed, without any clear Scripture-Warrant. And suppose one dares not receive the Communion with you, because he holdeth kneeling in that Act a participating with Idolaters; and another is kept off, because he suspects there may be some Superstition in it? will you say, the latter is the more unreasonable? And do you not own those Lutheran Churches, that have Exorcism with Baptism, yet to be true Churches? And if you was placed there, must you therefore own and use Exorcism, (tho against your Judgment) or be guilty of a more inexcusable, unreasonable Separation from them, than the Papists, who deny them to be true Churches?

p. 199. Are you Impartial, in allowing a different way of Worship, to the Members of Forreign Churches here in England, (as p. 147, 148.) while you are against allowing the like Liberty to Natives, which you deny not to Strangers? Bishop Davenant (Ad pacem Eccl. Adhort. p. 116. Rat. 3.) argues, That none ought to deal more hardly, with their Christian Brethren of other Churches, than with their own. (Rom. 12. 5.) Nam fra…rnit…s Christiana quae Intercedit inter membra Christi non variatur pro locorum aut nationum varietate. You would have your own more hardly dealt with than those of forreign Churches. Now what Equity is here? Either you have Communion with those of Forreign Churches (not withstanding their different way of Worship) or you have not. If you have no Communion with them, then are you not Schismaticks from those Churches? If you have Communion with them, why may you not as lawfully have Communion with Nonconformists in their way of Worship? Can you assign any just and sufficient Cause ex Natura rei, why such a way of Worship should not be allowed?

10. Do you deal Impartially, while you complain, p. 112. that no bounds are set to the Peoples Fancies of purer Administrations; (concerning which I am quite mistaken, if I did not wish the Rector of Sutton had cautioned what he said) and you on the other hand, set no Bounds, but (by your excepting against what Mr. B. hath written of it) would have People own, and commit the care of their Souls to such Ministers, as are in place, be they never so profane, insufficient, or unsound? Tho Mr. Cheyney (Full Answer, &c. Introduct. p. 7.) grants, That where God doth make a difference, Men may. Now God doth make a difference (says he) between the Ministry of the best and the worst, between the Ministry of a John Baptist and a Pharisee, a living Man and an Image. P. 177. Say you, And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches? &c. Where you suppose every Parochial Church in England to be a true Church, and every Parochial Minister (by consequence) to be a true Minister; unless you would argue fallaciously there. Tho I had thought it possible to have found out some few at least, whom you would have been ashamed to own. I cannot but wonder at that you urge again and again. p. 111. Were they not baptized in this Church, and received into Communion with it as Members of it? p. 148. Our Business is with those, who being baptized in this Church, &c. May not all those that were baptized in Presbyterian, or Independent Congregations, as well plead their Baptism, for their continuing in that way of Worship, which was in the Church, wherein they were baptized? Or would you have such Re-baptized? Or can you prove, that unless Men renounce their Baptism, they must needs own Diocesan Churches, and the Parish-Minister (howsoever unqualified) whom the Bishop sets over them?

p. 20You that could find out a Mean betwixt Tyranny over Mens Consciences, and endless Separation, to wit, a prudent and due Submission in lawful things, (as pag. 208.) me-thinks it is a little strange, you could think of no Mean betwixt tying People to their Parish Minister (though notoriously unfit for the Ministry,) and suffering them to run after Quakers, or Papists, p. 330. I suppose you approve of that Saying of the Bishops you cite, pag. 320. If he (that was chosen) were worthy, they would consecrate him, but not otherwise. So you would not have Bishops obliged, or forced to consecrate the unworthy, neither surely should they ordain such, or grant Institution and Induction to such: Yet I see not, but you would have People obliged to accept of them, if instituted and inducted, though it be never so apparent, and easie to prove, they are unworthy. It would seem, it is enough with you, that we have the same Religion, (publickly professed) pag. 308. Though some in place are never so great a scandal to Religion, great Enemies to it, whose Ministry tends to do more harm, than good, p. 123.

11. Are you Impartial? or rather, are you not uncharitable in your Censure of all those, whom you condemn as Separatists, and guilty of Schism? As you say to the Romanist, Rational Account, pag. 613. …. 3. You expresly grant a possibility of Salvation,—in case of invincible Ignorance; and dare you deny it, where there is a preparation of Mind to find out, and embrace the most certain way to Heaven; where all Endeavours are used to that end, and where there is a consciencious Obedience to the Will of God, so far as it is discovered: So say I to you. But here, do not in Effect charge them, with not using the best means for a right Information? otherwise you say their Noncommunion in the Particulars scrupled, may be excused, (p. 73. f.) Therefore say I, their Non-communion with you (who yet acknowledg you to be true Churches) cannot be the most inexcusable, unless you suppose them to be the most deficient in using the means for right Information. Do you not charge them with wilful Error or Mistake? p. 373. There must be wilfulness in the Error or Mistake which doth not excuse. For I say expresly, if the Error be wholly involuntary, it does excuse. So you suppose, pag. 140. That the terms of Communion are only fancied to be sinful through prejudice, or wilful Ignorance, or Error of Conscience. Where we must understand, you would have [wilful] joyned to each of these, otherwise it would excuse. And you add, pag. 141. It is to be supposed, that where there is no plain Prohibition, Men may with ordinary Care and Judgment, satisfy themselves of the Lawfulness of things required. Therefore you suppose that all who are not so satisfied, … Men that want both ordinary Care and Judgment, who suffer themselves to be so easily deluded, p. 142. f. Here I meet with a Letter of some old p. 21suffering Non-conformists, (being an Answer tò what a Reverend Conformable Divine had written to them.) Some Passages therein I shall transcribe, (supposing it was never printed, that they may be new to you, though written many Years since.)

—The second Course you direct us to, of seeking Information [but with all Humility, and Prayer in the use of means (but with all Indifferency) lest halting with God, as Balaam did, we find his success) we readily accept it, according to the measure of the Truth and Integrity of our Hearts; only we have cause to be humbled, and fear our own Hearts (for we speak of our selves, we judge not others) lest any of us yield without such serious search after the Truth, as you advise, and that for fear of losing what Balaam gained. For ought we see, there is small hopes of gaining Balaam's ways by standing for the Purity of Gods Ordinances, and therefore less Fear of halting as Balaam did, in seeking and following after that way, which exposeth us to the loss of all the chiefest Comforts of this Life, and which if it be not the way of Truth, we are of all true-hearted English-men the most miserable. And further on, they say,— Or suppose (which God forbid) that we were so void of Christianity and Humanity together, as to undo our selves (inward and outward Man, without all Reason or Conscience;) yet will you pass the same Iudgment upon all those three hundred Ministers, which in our memories have been deprived for that very Cause, for which we suffer? Were not some of them such, as the Christian World never yielded more eminent Lights of Sincerity and true Holiness, since the Apostles times? And did Misprision, or long Vse make such a fell adoe in their Hearts also, as to blind their Consciences in this Cause? Was all their Patience in this Cause for Conscience sake, not a Fruit of God's Spirit in them, but a Bastard of their own Spirit? (And Sir, you may be informed, how some of them suffered for Preaching and keeping Conventicles, as they were called, as well as for In-conformity.) Afterwards towards the Conclusion, they have these words, Consider whether you rightly take such things for indifferent, when they do not suffer you to carry an indifferent Mind towards you poor Brethren, which in them only, and in no weightier Matters, do differ from you. And let me beg of you to consider it; and once more to consider your own words, Rational Account, p. 614. But we have not so learned Christ, we dare not deal so inhumanly with them in this World, much less judg so uncharitable as to another, of those who profess to fear God, and work Righteousness, though they be not of the same Opinion or Communion with us. Remember this, unless you will retract it.

The last point of Partiality I shall take notice of, toucheth me in particular, Preface p. 61, 62. You say of that worthy Person, (whosoever he was) who wrote the Letter out of the Country, He seems to write like a p. 22well-disposed Gentleman,—He discourses gravely and piously, without Bitterness and Rancor, or any sharper Reflections, &c. Though he also reflects on your Irenicum, yet there is no harm done. You have the same from him as it were by whole-sale, (almost two Pages together, Letter, p. 15 16.) which I return in small Parcels; yet do you not pay Him off with such sharp Inve…ives, as I have from you, Preface p. 72.

So now I come to consider what you say to me, Preface p. 71. The whole Design of that Book doth not seem very agreeable to the Christian-temper which the Author pretends to. Whether is it your meaning, that it is not wholly agreeable, or not at all agreeable? Whether, not agreeable in all things, or agreeable in nothing? But is it not for Moderation in such Cases, wherein Moderation ought to be shewn? And is not that very agreeable to the Christian-temper? And what may others say now of your Icenicum? If what I transcribed thence, seem to you not agreeable to the Christian temper, then, was you not under some great Distemper, either at the writing of this latter, or that former Book? In the Christian-temper I have Occasion (p. 370.) to borrow something from Bishop Downam; what he noteth to have always been the Hypocrit Guise, I there say is the genius of false Zeal, S…il. To neglect the greater Du…es, and to affect the Observation of the less; to prefer Circumstances before th… …obstance, and Ceremonies before the Works, either of Piety or Charity; to place the heig…th of their Religion, either in observing, or urging Ceremonies, or Controversies, in inveighing against them. And I say further, (p. 371.) You would not take him for a wise and careful Builder, that laid the greatest Weight on the weakest part of the Wall.— And is that true Zeal for God? Or rather is it not a selfish Zeal, which is for ones own Opinions (or own Party) neglecting those things, which make most for the Honour of God, and wherein the main Interest of Religion lieth. If I could see any thing there, or in that Book, which chanceth to bear the Name of the Rector of Sutton, that is not agreeable to the Christian-temper, and to the Truth, and Doctrine of Christ, I hope I should be ready to retract the same.

Ibid. For it is to pick up all the Passages he could meet with (in a Book written twenty Years sinc) with great tenderness towards Dissenters, before the Laws were establish'd.

And have you repented of that your former Kindness and Tenderness towards them, since the Laws were against them? But Solomon tels us, A Friend loveth at all times, and a Brother is born for Adversity. Which I observed … agreeable to the Christian-temper, (p. 219.) And you cannot deny that which you told us twenty Years since, of the Magistrates Power being bounded. He hath Power of determining things (undetermined by the Word) … they be agreeable to the Word—His Laws must be regulated by the general p. 23Rules of the Divine Law, (Rector of Sutton, p. 12.) That no Laws of Men can hinder, but what was Truth, will be Truth still, and what was Duty, will be Duty still.

In what followeth, you more humbly (as it would seem) than truely confess (in Mr. Cotton's words) the weakness or unwariness of those Expressions, which I have gathered out of your Irenicum. That Book was your First-born. And the First-born was the chief of their Strength, Psal. 105. 36. But it seems, you are for reading Gen. 49. 3. Principium doloris, rather than Principium roboris. The beginning of your Strength, is now become the beginning of your Grief. Thus you now let the World know indeed, that whereas you had written much, favouring the Cause of Dissenters, your Thoughts at last are changed, as to those Things and Persons too.

Next you fall hotly on me, [And, have you not very well required the Author of that Book, for the Tenderness and Pitty he had for you, and the Concernment he then expressed, to have brought you upon easier Terms, &c. ]

Reverend Sir, I hope you will give me leave to speak, when I am thus spoken to. I suppose you expect my Answer, when you put Questions so close to me. First then, I thank you for your good pains taken in that Book, and for your truly Christian Design in it, so agreeable to the Christian-temper; though it hath been unsuccesful. I doubt not yet, but that Book will stand as a Witness before God and the World against many, who can never answer that Strength of Reason in it, an Evidence of Truth, against unn…cessary, rigorous, mischievous Impositions; and yet were for pressing, and are still for continuing them upon us. But it is no ill Requital of the Author, that I have an esteem of his Work. And if you can reconcile the Scope of your Sermon with what I cite out of your former Writings, do your self that Right. Or if you can, refute those Collections; otherwise such as meet with them may be tempted to think you self-condemned

When you say, you wrote in Tenderness, &c. I hope, you did not only play the Orator, make a flourish meerly with Words; or plead our Cause against your own Judgment; nor acted the part of Politician, as hoping to engage a Party; but wrote your Judgment, as a sober (and indeed well studied) Divine. Will you say, you wrote partially then, as swayed with your Pitty and Tenderness towards Dissenters? How then shall we be satisfied, and assured, that you have not written partially of late, out of overmuch Fondn…ss on Conformity? If you wrote impartially, your Judgment, and Reason deserves to be regarded, till you, or some other for you, bring greater Str…gth of Reason to prove you was then in an Error. You pleaded wel… for … …ms, and what can you say now, what have you p. 24thought of since to justify Mens imposing harder Terms? How can you answer your own Interrogatories, [What ground can there be, why Christians should not stand upon the same Terms now, which they did in the time of Christ and his Apost es? And, whether do they consult the Churches Peace and Vnity, who suspend it upon such things, (as you know what?) How far doth the Example of our Saviour or his Apostles warrant such rigorous Impositions?] Rector of Sutton, pag. 7, 8.

You express your having been concerned to have brought us in,—But were not many of us in, both in the Church, and in the Ministry, before we were put out by the late Impositions… By this expression of yours, it would seem, your Church is a new Church, lately erected, standing upon new Terms, (which I shall have occasion again to take notice of.) But were we not true Ministers before? had we not a valid Ordination? Deny it if you can. And if we were true Ministers before, then it is a great Question, whether we are not so still, (unless you can prove we were justly degraded.) And consequently, whether we are not obliged to the exercise of our Ministry, as we may have opportunity? Preface p. 72. And hath he now deserved this at your hands, to have them all thrown down in his …ace, and to be thus upbraided with his former Kindness? Is this your Ingenuity, your Gratitude, your Christian-temper?

Now are not these pretty sharp Reflections? If you can justly charge me with any Bitterness and Rancor, &c. I shall acknowledg such things not agreeable to the Christian-temper, and would be ashamed of them. If you are ashamed to own your former Principles, many will judg, it is without Cause. It may prove you fallen from those sober Principles, but it will not prove those Principles false.

When you speak of my throwing them in your Face, my Design was not to cast Dirt upon so worthy a Person. What I alledged, I took to be matter of Argument, and with this Advantage, ad Hominem. I know no Reason you have to be sorry for what you wrote formerly, tending to Peace and Vnion, as you may have cause to be sorry for what looks another way. I should have thought, the Method I took (minding you how much you had said against such an establisht Rule, as you would now bring us under) might have tended to moderate, rather than exasperate you. What if you have since changed your Opinion? Yet me-thinks, you should not judge those former Principles of yours so sinful and dangerous, that none are fit to be tolerated in the Church who hold to them. How happy and glorious would the Church of England be, had she no worse Teachers, than Dr. Stilling fleet was, when he maintained those Principles? Or if you do account them so sinful and dangerous, are you not the more obliged to disprove and refute them? which you will find as hard a Task, as it would have been p. 25to Grotius, had he gone about the Confutation of what he had written de satisfactione Christi.

You go on, Are you afraid of having too many Friends, that you thus use those, whom you once took to be such? Me-thinks herein you appear very self-denying.

I am not careful to answer in this matter. But is it so, that we have quite lost you? Will you no more stand our Friend? Where is then the Kindness you spake of? I remember, Dr. Borrel silenced me, when I had been silenced not two Months before: But I could not have thought 20 Years ago, that when we were driven into Corners, Dr. St. would be for driving us out of our Corners too, even he that could plead so well for us, that we might enjoy publick Liberty. Here I look back to that (Preface, p. 52.) They would have had me preached for Alterations and Abatements, and taking away Ceremonies and Subscriptions,—and then I might have been thought to have preached a very seasonable Sermon. This indeed would have shewed, that you was still our Friend, and not our… only, but as good a Friend to this poor Church and Kingdom. To plead for all Abatements that (with the Honour of God, and safety of true Religion) might be granted to Dissenters, for the uniting and strengthening of the Protestant Interest, in such danger to be trodden down by the common Enemy, would certainly be more seasonable, than this work you are engaged in.

I would know, whether that Speech of the Bishop of St. David's in the Convocation-House, May 23, 1604, was not seasonable? Can it ever be unseasonable, moving for the due Liberty of grave, honest, sound, and conscientious Men, such as the Church hath need of at all times, and whose Labours might be very profitable? And then, whether pleading for Abatements at this day be not as seasonable? I put a great difference (said he) between Quid liceat, and Quid expediat,—And then speaking of those who were scrupulous only upon some Ceremonies, and other Circumstances, being otherwise learned, studious, grave and honest Men, whose Labours have been both painful in the Church, and profitable to their several Congregations, (he says) though I do not justify their Doings, yet surely their Service would be missed, at such time as need shall require them, and us to give the right hand of Fellowship one to another, and to go arm in arm against the common Adversary, that so there might be vis unita fortior.—If these our Breth…en aforesaid should be deprived of their places for the matters premised, I think … Cause to bend our Wits to the uttermost extent of our Skill to provide … cure of Souls for them, where they may exercise their Talents.

Furthermore, If these Men, being divers hundreds (as it is …) should forsake their Charges (as some do presuppose they will) who I … p. 26should succeed them.—Besides this, for so much as in the Life-time of the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, these things were not so extreamly urged, but that many learned Preachers enjoyed their Liberty herein, conditionally that they did not by Word or Deed openly disgrace, or disturb the State established; I would know a Reason, why it should now be so generally and exceeding strictly called upon, especially seeing that those Men are now the more necessary, by so much as we see greater Increase of Papists to be now of late, than were before. To conclude, I wish, that if by Petition made to the King's Majesty, there cannot be obtained a quite remove of the Premises, which seem so grievous to divers, not yet a Toleration for them, which be of the more staid, and temperate Carriage; yet at the least, there might be procured a Mitigation of the Penalty, if they cannot be drawn by other Reasons to a Conformity with us. Thus the Bishop of St. David's. And if all the Bishops in England were of his Mind, and would move for their Ministerial Liberty, whose Service is needful, at such a time as this especially, whether would it not be very seasonable? And if you had a Kindness, and Pity for Dissenters, is there not the same Reason for it still? And is not this very Iuncture of Time as good an Occasion, as ever you may have to shew it?

You say further to me, Preface p. 72. But I cannot take you to be any of the wisest Men upon Earth.] And I should wonder if you did. But you know what Diogenes said to one that told him, many mocked him. But (said he) I am not mocked. I might well expect your Contempt, when I see you contemning such, whose Books I am not worthy to carry after them. Yet it may be questioned here, whether you take not your self to be wiser, than the Wisdome of the whole Nation in Parliament, comparing your Preface p. 81, &c. with the declared Sense of that great and honorable Council? Pref. p. 93. you say, These are all the things which appear to me reasonable to be allowed in order to an Union. So that if they were inclined to have gone further, therein they appeared to you not very considerate, or reasonable.

When you think it reasonable, that upon longer time, and farther Consideration, those Divines of the Assembly, who then opposed Separation, should change their Opinions: [But where find you this in what I wrote] Will you not allow one single Person (but stupendae eruditionis Theologum, as the Latine Apologist then called you, pag. 118.) Who happened to write about these matters when he was very young; (as you may say, Mr. Ioseph Alleyn was very young, when he was very ripe) in twenty Years time of the most busie and thoughtful part of his Life, to see Reason to alter his Judgment? And yet you was as close a Student in that former part of your Life, and as free from other Business, from Diversions, and Temptations, as can be supposed you have been since. p. 27But you should be allowed to alter your Iudgment, and none can blame you, if it be for the better. Only in this case, you should be so just, and charitable, as to let us know your Reasons, that if they be sound, we may see Cause to alter ours. I hope, you will not say, Then was then, and now is now. And can you now assure us, that you shall not alter your present Judgment once again within twenty Years? We read of Bishops that have cried peccavimus again and again, and of Councils doing and undoing again, and sometimes in less than twenty Years.

But after all this, wherein is it that he hath thus contradicted himself? Is it in the point of Separation, which is the present Business? No, so far from it, that in that very Book, he speaks as fully concerning the Unlawfulness of Separation, as in this Sermon, which will appear by these Particulars in it.

If by Separation, you mean a Separation from any Church upon any slight, trivial, unnecessary Cause, as you define Schism, Irenic. p. 113. I am not for such a Separation. But perhaps some may tell you, that if you separate from such Assemblies as Mr. B. &c. when you might have occasional Communion with them, you do it upon far less Cause, than many separate from those of yours, where they are required to joyn in Practices more to be suspected.