Answer to Stillingfleets Charge of Separation, Letter 4 (3 of 3)

Answer to Stillingfleets Charge of Separation · Letter 4 (3 of 3)

p. 75But is the remedy impoſſible to the Impoſers? I am aſhamed to debate the queſtion: But ſome men are ſo learned and wiſe, that they will not quench the fire in a City, nor ſave the Ship from ſinking, no forbear ſilencing Chriſts Miniſters and ſcattering the Flocks, as long as they can but ſay, There will ſuch or ſuch an inconvenience follow. It would coſt you nothing to cure all this, which it is impoſſible for us to cure. Therefore all your juſt aggravations of the miſchiefs of ſchiſm or ſeparation fall where it concerneth ſome of you to look to it, if you believe that there is a future Judgement; rather than to call your ſelves Schiſmaticks under the name of others, and pu… God and man to ſay, Thou art the man.

p. 76§ 55. Pag. 33. You come to me, for denying that I ſeparate cauſeleſly from the Communion of true Churches, or ſet up Antichurches, [though (ſay you) they prea… when and where it is forbidden by Law, and adminiſter Sacraments by other Rules and after a different manner than what our Church requireth: This is not dealing with us with that fairneſs and ingenuity which our former brethren uſed—they deny the fact which is evident to all perſons: For do they not the very ſame things and in the ſame manner that the others do. How comes it to be then ſeparation in ſome and not in others. They are very unwilling to confeſs a ſeparation becauſe they have formerly condemned it with great ſ…erity, and yet they do the ſame things for which they charged others as guilty of a ſinful ſeparation.] And I am cited.

Anſ. 1. This is like H. F…wlis, The Puritans are the worſt men on earth: The Papi…s, are far prefer'd before them, Becauſe the Papiſts differ in fundamentals, but the Puritans take maſs for a Ceremony. So we are the moſt diſingenious and not fair dealers, that own them to be true Churches and Miniſters and hold Communion with them; and yet deny that we are Schiſmaticks or ſeparate: We leave you therefore, to treat with the leſſer diſingenious and the fair dealers, that ſay you are no true Miniſters, nor is it lawful to have Communion with men that openly avow ſuch hainous ſin, and covenant againſt ever endeavouring to reform notorious Church corruptions: becauſe with ſuch we are forbid even to eat, and commanded from ſuch to turn away; Its well you have ſome more ingenious and fair dealers than I am.

But the diſingenuity is my denying your accuſation: I heard of a Gentleman that cou…d ſilence any man: and his way was, he would accuſe him (of Murther, Adultery, The…t or what his cauſe required) and if he denied it he would ſay; [what will you make me a Lyar? To give me the Lie deſerveth a ſtab.] It is not only a crime if we do not toto pectore telum recipere, or with Camero unbutton our ſelves and ſay feri miſer, or whe…ever we are beaten, confeſs that we deſerved it: It's an odd kind of ſuit for a man that calleth an innocent man traytor, to bring his action againſt him, for ſaying, you ſlander me. But it is the name or thing that we muſt not deny. We will gratifie you in the firſt: I do ſeparate from your Church, by half a miles diſtance, and by going to my own pariſh, and by preaching my ſelf, and ſo do moſt of the Pariſh Preachers, that will not ſit hearing you when they ſhould preach. But it is de re. And what is it, Firſt I muſt tell the matter of fact: I never took any paſtoral charge theſe twenty years; I gathered no Church: I never baptized one perſon: I never adminiſtred the Lords Supper once, in about eighteen or nineteen years; but of late ſeldom to ſome few, ſince aged weak perſons who were in my p. 77houſe, and near, who gave me ſpecial reaſon for it; and the Liturgy alloweth it to the ſick and all their friends that joyn with them: while I lived at Acton and Toteridge I went twice each Lords day to the publick Church, even to the beginning: Here I go when I am able uſualy once a day to hear the Parſon of the Pariſh; and I communicate with them in the Sacrament: I preach twice a week in another mans Pulpit (borrowed) moſt to ſtrangers that I have no more to do with: My gain I thank them, the accuſer put me not to excuſe: I write and preach againſt Schiſm and all unjuſt ſeparation, and perſwade all to go no further from any than they go from Chriſt, or than they drive us away, or than we needs muſt, to avoid actual ſin. Well; now what is the crime of ſeparation?

1. I preach (you ſay) when and where it is forbidden by Law.] Anſ. Is this the formal reaſon of ſeparation? Then diſobedience and ſeparation are all one. I ſuppoſe you mean the Law of the King and the Parliament, and not the Canons ſave as by them made Laws: when I had given you ſo many Hiſtorical inſtances of the ancient Biſhops and Chriſtians, doing the like, and juſtified commonly by the Church: did you think while you ſilently paſs all that over, and all the reſt that I ſaid for my juſtification, that two lines of your ſaying was enough to confute all? Certainly it was not me that you meant to ſatisfie, nor any impartial man that had read my books. This dealing beſeemeth, not ſo weighty a Cauſe. You ſeem to ſay [All preaching when and where it is forbidden by Law, is ſinful ſeparation: But, &c. I deny the Major. The Primitive Preachers did ſo for three hundred years: The Orthodox did ſo afterwards under Conſtantius, Valens, Theodoſius junior, Anaſtaſius, Philippicus, Juſtinian and many more: The Albigenſes, Waldenſes and Bohemians did ſo: The Reformers did ſo: The Proteſtants when the Interim was impoſed did ſo: Epiſcopius juſtifieth it at large, and the Arminians in Belgia, did ſo: The Martyrs in England and elſewhere did ſo. The Jeſuits in the Eaſt Indies did ſo. But what if the Law forbad you to preach at a certain hour—do you ſeparate from the Church, if you miſs your hour? They that Preacht Afternoon Sermons when forbidden were taken for diſobedient but not for ſeparatiſts. And what if when the Churches here were burnt the Miniſters had read the Liturgy and preacht in a place forbidden by the Law: Had that been ſeparation?

And how cometh [when] and [where] to be in, When we are forbidden every time and in every place, to preach to more than four. Is any time or place allowed us to preach in? You mean [He is a ſeparatiſt who preacheth being forbidden by Law: But I am ready to give you a fuller proof than is now to be offered on this occaſion, that no man p. 78hath authority to forbid a faithful Miniſter of Chriſt, who forfeiteth not his Office-power, to perform the office to which he is ordained. And, Secondly▪ that we remain under a Divine obligation to it, which ſuch a Law … diſſolve, As Biſhop Bilſon before ſaith [if Princes forbid us, we muſt go on with our work: what if the King had turned againſt Epiſcopacy and Liturgy, and forbad all the Epiſcopal to preach. Would you think it ſinful ſeparation to preach. By this you ſhew how eaſily you would lay down the work you are Vowed to, if the Law did but forbid you. How much then are Papiſt and Proteſtant Caſuiſts miſtaken, that ſay the Law is null that is againſt the common good, and that all power is only to edification.

And what limits do you ſet to this. Till you tell us, how can we judge of our ſeparation: what if an interdict ſilence all the Miniſters in a Kingdome, muſt all obey? What if it be moſt, muſt moſt obey? What if it be more then can be ſpared without the Churches wrong? And whoſe Laws be they that ſo binds us: Is it Infidel Princes or only Chriſtians. Is it Papiſts, Arrians, Eutychians, &c. or only the Orthodox? And do you ſet the people all to judge whether the King be Orthodox, as the rule of their obedience to his Laws. If I prove not that God bindeth me to preach, call me diſobedient, but yet that will not prove me a ſeparatiſt.

By this rule you may be a ſeparatiſt, as oft as the Law changeth, if you will not change as faſt as it. Yea though you Judge the Laws impoſitious to be hainous ſins, yet you muſt do them all or give over your Miniſtry: And ſo God muſt ask leave of the Rulers to be worſhiped as God. If he were a God of their making, they might put him down.

And, I think, it will prove confuſion and worſe diſobedience than our preaching is, to lay all the peoples obedience herein on their opinion of the Rulers Orthodoxneſs: no doubt, but the heathen and heretical Rulers are Governours even of the Church, though none hath power for deſtruction or againſt God. The Duke of Brandenburghs Subjects judge him not Orthodox: Are they therefore abſolved from obeying him in matters of Religion? Calveniſts Subjects think Lutherane Princes not Orthodox; and Proteſtants, in France, Hungary, Poland, judge their Papiſt Kings not Orthodox: Yea, what if we judge the Biſhops not Orthodox that made the Cannons or Liturgy, are we abſolved from obeying them. And what if any Subjects think that the King is not Orthodox? And Parliaments, who alſo make our Laws, contain men of many minds: And the Parliament of 1640. is ſaid by the Biſhops to have been far from Orthodox, even to have been Presbyterians, and Eraſtians, and even for Rebellion; and yet they p. 79made divers Laws which the King conſented to and ratified: Were not men obliged by thoſe Laws: And indeed if the Lawmakers being not Orthodox null his Laws about Religion, why not all his other Laws.

But it may be you will ſay, that it is not all the people that muſt judge whether the King and Parliament be Orthodox, but the Biſhops for them. Anſ. But who ſhall judge whether the Biſhops be Orthodox? And if all be reſolved into the implicite belief of the Biſhops, why not of the civil Rulers as well? Or why not as the Papiſts on Pope and Councils?

I ſuppoſe to avoid all this you will not ſay, that he is a ſeparatiſt that preacheth when forbidden by any Prince whatſoever, Turk, Heathen, Arrian, Eutychian, Idolater, Papiſt? Where then will you fix the notifying Character? All men are heterodox in ſome degree? How ſhall we know the degree which abſolveth us from our obedience,

And how cometh an Orthodox man to be authorized to do miſchiefs and forbid the needful preaching of the Goſpel any more than a heretick? or a Chriſtian more than a heathen? I think he is bound to do more good then they, and not authorized to do more hurt? God never made him a judge whether the Goſpel ſhall be preacht or not, nor whether the people ſhall be ſaved, or left to periſh in their ignorance and ſin.

Either then all are ſeparatiſts that preach againſt the Laws of Heathens, Hereticks or Papiſts: And ſo the Orthodox Churches have in many or moſt Ages and places been ſeparatiſts: or elſe we are caſt upon confounding impoſſibilities to know who the ſeparatiſt is.

Eſpecially in Ariſtocracies and Domocracies, where the Rulers are of many minds, and the people can never know them all, nor when the Orthodox, have the Major Vote.

And I would know, whether it be only Rightful Princes or alſo Uſurpers, whoſe Laws are the bond of the Churches Unity. If of Uſurpers, then all the Prelates that conformed not in the times of the late Uſurpation were Schiſmatical ſeparatiſts by your definition: But to do them right, few of my acquaintance that could by conformity ſlay in, did then refuſe conformity: I hear that you were then no ſeparatiſt. But Biſhop Guning, Dr. Wild, Dr. Hide and a great many more, took another courſe; and will not thank you if you ſtigmatize them with us. But if it be not the Laws of Uſurpers in the Roman Empire by your meaſure? How few were the Emperours that came not in by meer conqueſt, or by killing, putting out the eyes or ejecting p. 80their predeceſſors, or without any juſtifiable right? And what a caſe Rome, Italy, Spain and Africa were in after the firſt conqueſts of the Gothes and Vandals, and all the Weſtern Empire in the days of the Henries, Frederick and many others, while men were fighting for the Empire and Popes claimed the making and unmaking of them all; And even in France ever ſince the days of Chilperic for many Ages, eſpecially among the progeny of Charles the great, it is not to be hid: This way you deſtroy or confound the Churches.

I cannot imagine what you will reply to this? unleſs you ſay that, [it is neither the Title, nor the Orthodoxneſs of Princes, which is neceſſary to make their Lawes the bond of Church unity: but it is the goodneſs of their Laws: at leaſt that they impoſe no ſin upon us]. Anſ. 1. Then if the Uſurpers impoſed no ſin, they were Schiſmaticks that obeyed them not. …. Let that be the rule: who ſhall be judge whether it be ſin or not? If I be a diſcerner for my ſelf, I have told you how much and great ſin I fear, till you are diſpleaſed with the intimation: And when you have proved all thoſe particulars named, to be no ſins, you have done more than yet is done: And if you think you can or do prove it, muſt none have Chriſtian Communion who think your proof invalid, and that you do it worſe than Biſhop Taylor that maintained hurtleſs lying.

§ 56. But the other half of the definition of a ſeparatiſt is [they adminiſter Sacraments by other Rules and after a different manner than what the Church requireth.

Anſ. 1. Why will you ſo reproach your Church? we do it by no other rule but the Scripture; and doth not the Church require that the Scripture be a Rule? You know Polydore Virgil and other Papiſts, ordinarily make this ſignal difference of Proteſtants and Papiſts, that the Proteſtants make the Scripture the only Rule of their Religion: On which ſuppoſition Francis Peron formed his act of diſputing againſt them. And are not the Church of England Proteſtants? If you add another rule, it followeth not that we have another than you have, though you have another beſides what we have.

2. You ſay [we deny the fact which is evident to all perſons] and you ſpeak of me: Is this true? What Sacraments do you mean? I never ordained any: I never confirmed any: I have married very few, if thoſe be Sacraments: I have baptiſed no one theſe twenty years: I gave the Lords ſupper to none for about eighteen years, and rarely ſince as I told you. But, others do? Anſ. And if they have no better reaſon to juſtifie the forſaking of their Miniſtry than you give, well may they go on to do it.

3. Do you mean here by [Rulers] the ſame as before by [Laws] p. 81or what mean you? I ſuppoſe it's the Canon and Liturgy that you mean. And if by the [Church] you mean any thing but the King and Parliament you are unintelligible: For the Church hath but two viſible eſſential parts, the Regent and the Subject parts. And of the Regent only the ſupream is eſſential, the reſt being alſo ſubjects, and but Integrals: And it is a [Requiring] Church which you mention. And ſo it ſeemeth that it is but a lay Church: And nothing but a Chriſtian Kingdom.

4. I have told you that the French and Dutch Churches here adminiſter the Sacraments by another rule than your Liturgy, and yet are no Schiſmaticks.

5. And your rule hath many parts: It requireth Preaching, praying, reading the Pſalms and two Chapters, and delivering baptiſm and the Lords Supper in Chriſts words, and repeating the Creed, the Lords Prayer and the Decalogue. And all that I do when I officiate for any man (for I have no Church,) and others do it with whom I converſe. But if it be omitting any thing elſe in your rule that maketh a ſeparation, what is it? I oft hear Conformiſts omit divers prayers. I have ſeen Dr. Horton give the Lords Supper, I think, to the greater part that ſate. I doubt moſt Pariſhes ſeparate, if every omiſſion make a ſeparatiſt.

6. But thus far you ſatisfie me, that you judge all for ſeparatiſts [that preach without all your Aſſent, conſent, ſubſcriptions, that the Covenant bindeth no man living, no not the Parliament men that took it, to endeavour any alteration of Church Government, that it is not lawful to reſiſt any commiſſioned by the King, (without exception) and much more ſuch: That all are …ratiſts that adminiſter not Sacraments according to your rule, which pronounceth baptized Infants ſaved ſo dying, without excepting Atheiſts, Infidels, or any, and this as undoubted and certain by Gods word; which requireth the Miniſter to refuſe Baptiſm and Chriſtendom, where the dedicating Image of the Croſs is not ſubmitted to, when the Parent or adult judge it an unlawful Sacrament: And where Baptiſm muſt be denyed to all that will not make Godfathers and Godmothers the Sole Covenanting undertakers for their Children, without ſpeaking a Covenanting word themſelves: And when your rule requireth all Miniſters to deny Sacramental Communion to all that ſcruple kneeling in the reception, and yet excommunicateth them and ruineth them for not Communicating when they are rejected: And alſo ipſo facto Excommunicate: To omit much more ſuch, this is your rule, which he that ſwerveth from it, is a ſepariſt.

p. 827. But I had thought that we had not been like thoſe late cavilling Papiſts that will not diſtinguiſh fundamentals from any little points, leſt it loſe them a paultry advantage of abuſing men. Doth not every good Law and Rule diſtinguiſh between Eſſentials, Integrals, and Accidents, and make more Accidents than are Integrals, and Integrals, than are Eſſentials? And doth your rule do otherwiſe? If not, tell us what parts of your rule are neceſſary to one, and what to the other, or you ſay nothing to reſolve the caſe. Is every line and Ceremony Eſſential to the Church, and to each member? If not, how cometh our omitting a form of Ceremony to cut us off as a ſeparated Church any more than every breach of Law cuts off a man from the Commonwealth?

Yea, if your Church be but a Chriſtian Kingdom, do not you cut off all from that Kingdom too, that refuſe your Forms or Ceremonies or Subſcriptions?

8. But Sir, to be ſhort with you, I will yet believe that Chriſt is the Inſtitutor of the Church; and that he hath himſelf made Laws which are ſufficient to be at leaſt the bond of their unity, yea for more than Eſſentials, even the Integrals, and many Accidents; and hath given Laws to regulate all mens Laws that determine of needful undetermined accidents: And that no man ſhould be cut off from the Church or taken as ſeparated that breaketh no Law of God, yea thoſe that are neceſſary to Church unity and Communion: And that the grand Schiſmaticks of the world, are the Engineers that fabricate needleſs, impoſſible dividing terms and conditions of unity and Communion.

§. 57. But you tell me that [we do the ſame things in the ſame manner as the ſeparatiſts: Ergo we are diſingenuous for denying your accuſation.]

Anſ. 1. Judge of the fact by what is ſaid.

2. We do not ſay, 1. That you are no true Miniſters or Churches. 2. Nor that it is unlawful to communicate with you: Ergo it is not true that we do the ſame things.

3. But it is the External action [the whole ſame] that maketh a ſeparatiſt. A Parſon in the Ale-houſe loſt his Common prayer book: When he came to Church, he told them his miſhap, and only read what was in the Bible, Query whether his Flock and he were ſeparatiſts? An old Parſon that I was bread under, could ſcarce ſee, but could ſay moſt of the Prayers without book: He ſaid what he could remember, and got a day Labourer one year, and a Taylor another to read the Chapters: Query, Whether we were all ſeparatiſts?

p. 83§. 58. But you undertake to tell the Reaſon why I am unwilling to confeſs a ſeparation, becauſe we have formerly ſeverely condemned it in others, and yet do the ſame things for which we charged others as guilty of a ſinful ſeparation.

Anſ. If this be not true, it is not well; ſhew me where, and prove, when I ever condemned any for the ſame that I do, or elſe take more heed what you write hereafter.

§. 59. Serm. p. 33. [For the Aſſembly of Divines urged their diſſenting Brethren to comply with the Rules of Government, and charged them with Schiſm, if they did not, &c.

Anſ. 1. It's a Foul miſtake in matter of Fact, if you think that I was that Aſſembly, yea or any one of them; or that what they did, I did: or thoſe of my acquaintance did it. And it is not much better to pretend that I or they were in all things of their mind: Doth the Aſſemblies judgment concern me any more than you? Did not you conform to them as much as I did?

2. But what mean you to wrong your Hearers by ſuch groſs confuſion, to joyn in your Application Dr. Owen, and me, (and Mr. Corbet I think) with the Aſſembly, when it is publickly known that in thoſe matters we were of three ſeveral opinions: (And who are they that differ not in as great matters?)

(1.) It's known that except ſeven or eight, the Aſſembly men were all Conformiſts when they came thither: And either they were ſuddenly changed, or not: if not, they were Conformiſts ſtill, and then no wonder that they were of your mind.

And indeed I know that they were not all of one mind: Moſt of them were moderate Conformiſts that thought it lawful, but that were much better be without it, than make it a ſnare to ſilence Miniſters, and divide the Church, and therefore were glad that it was laid by: Such were Mr. Vines, Mr. Burgeſs, and, I think, moſt. Some were for Dr. Stilling fleet's way, that no one form of Church Government was of Chriſts Command, but all left to prudence as civil Government is: Such was Dr. Edward Reignolds and ſome others; ſome were for the ſole Government of the Magiſtracy, called Eraſtians: Such was Mr. Thomas Coleman, and how many more I know not. Many of the Parliament liked theſe Men beſt: And theſe were alſo for an indifferency of the Clergy form: And when Mr Coleman was choſen to give the Covenant to the houſe of Lords, they took it on his Expoſition, that it meant not the Excluſion of the Primitive Epiſcopacy: ſome were more tenacious of the Primitive Epiſcopacy, and about to enter a proteſtation for it; but that it was declared that only the Engliſh form as deſcribed in the Concatenation was excluded: Theſe were Dr. Cornel. Burges, the excellent p. 84Thom. Gataker, and many more; And ſome few were for the Divine right of Presbytery (and after more:) And the five diſſenters and Mr. Philips were Independents. But take them as Conformiſts, as Eraſtians, and as Indifferents, and judge whether they were not more of your judgment, then of Dr. Owen's or Mine, and it's no diſhonour to you: for I think I have not read of many Aſſemblies of worthier men ſince the Apoſtles days. But they were but men.

But if indeed they were all ſuddenly changed from Conformity to Presbytery, when they came to Weſtminſter; what a diſhonour is ſuch mutability to Conformiſts? And how little hold is there of them; if ſo many of the beſt of them will ſo eaſily change with the times? What wonder if you ſhall do ſo?

2. And as for Dr. Owen, he was known to joyn with the Independents: And ſure you will not intereſs him in the Aſſemblies Judgment.

3. And Mr. Corbet and I are of one mind; And I thought that the truth was divided beween the three parties, and that all of them wanted neceſſary skill and diligence for the healing of thoſe diviſions and the concord of the faithful: And the event excuſed me in that cenſure. And now, is the Synods Judgment more ours or yours?

(2.) But either this Synod were in the right or not: If not, why then will you follow them, or plead their teſtimony? If yea, then they did well in being againſt the Liberty of the Prelatiſts alſo.

(3.) But is it poſſible that you can expect that men ſhould believe, that their Caſe and ours are the ſame, or that either All muſt be tolerated or none that conform not; and that the bare talking for or againſt Toleration, without diſtinguiſhing the Tolerable from the Intolerable, doth tend to mens Edification? He that will tolerate all, is bad; and he that will tolerate none that differ, is mad. As it's an ill argument, Veſpae habent favos, & apes habent favos; Ergo veſpae ſunt apes: So it is not a good one to ſay, Waſps Neſts ſhould be deſtroyed: Ergo Bee-hives ſhould be deſtroyed.

§. 60 But wherein lay the different Caſes?

Anſ. In many things and great, however you untruly make them like.

Firſt the Aſſembly never endeavoured to turn the Independents out of the Pariſh Churches, and benefices, nor to ſilence them, forbidding them publick preaching, as you do us; but only would hinder them from gathering Churches out of other mens Pariſhes.

2. The Aſſembly put on the Independants, no Oath, no Declaration, Profeſſion, Subſcription, or Covenant as neceſſary to their Miniſtry, which both ſides confeſſed not to be lawful; and ſo would have p. 85impoſed no poſitive bond which they ſcrupled, but only the ſaid Omiſſion of their promiſcuous unlimited Church-gathering.

3. They impoſed no Liturgy, no one Ceremony, no practice on them, contrary to their Conſciences.

4. They urged them to declare but what Limits they would allow to their Church-gathering Liberty; that it might not extend to Hereticks and the intolerable, and could not prevail; Judge now whether theſe Caſes are of any kin? Save in the genus of not allowing unlimited Toleration, which we hold to as well as they. Grant us leave to Preach in the Publick Churches, and to be capable of guiding reformed Pariſh Churches, yea, or but to Preach or Officiate Publickly for nothing, though we live on Alms and beg our Bread, and we will thank you: Yea, though you hold us to all the terms and conceſſions in the Kings Declaration about Eccleſiaſtical Affairs: And is this like the Caſe of the Aſſembly, that never offered either to ſilence an Independent, or forbid him Parſonages, Lectures, Colledge preferments, or impoſe on him any one ſcrupled promiſe, profeſſion or practice?

And yet I again ſay, both ſides were faultily wanting in the knowledge and uſe of the terms of Peace.

§. 61. Serm. p. 35. [So that whatever falſe colours and pretences ſome men make uſe of to juſtifie their preſent practices, if the judgment of their own Brethren may be taken, 'tis no better than plain and down-right ſeparation.]

Anſ. 1. Were they not as much your Brethren as mine, and nearer to your Judgment?

2. Let the Reader judge, whether it be half ſo great ſeparation or diſtance, as the Conformiſts have among themſelves, while one part ſay that their Church is but Lay in the Eſſential Head, and the other half ſay, It is Clergy, and ſo are really of two Churches: And when one party ſaith, if the King and the Biſhops Command contrary Tranſlations, Verſions, Times, Places, Liturgies, and modes of worſhip, the Biſhops are to be obeyed before the King, and the other ſaith the King is to be obeyed before the Biſhops. To omit abundance of greater differences than ſome would perſwade men is between us and them.

§ 62. Serm. [And I muſt needs ſay, I never ſaw any Cauſe more weakly defended, no not that of Polygamy and Anabaptiſme, than that of thoſe who allow it to be Lawful to joyn in Communion with us, and yet go about to vindicate the ſeparate Meetings among us from the guilt of a ſinful Separation.]

Anſ. 1. I have long obſerved, when ſome men paſs a ſentence on p. 86others, and call them by reproachful names, it ordinarily more …ruly ſheweth what the ſpeaker is, than what the Perſon or Cauſe is that he ſpeaks of: For it is ſo natural for the ſtreams to be like the Spring, and the fruit like the Tree, and the mouth to ſpeak from the abundance of the heart, that one may much conjecture what the Speaker is by his words: But what the Cauſe and Man is that he ſpeaketh of, you can little know, while the ſpeaker oft little knoweth it himſelf or would not have another know it. Neither your confidence nor mine will determine a wiſe Reader.

§. 63. To pag. 36. I Anſwer, 1. Your Text is ſo clear and full a Confutation of your Sermon, that it's hard to know how a mind not ſtrongly prejudiced could have preached ſuch a Sermon, or pleaded for the ſilencing of ſo many ſuch Miniſters from ſuch a text; Yea, or can need any more to confute you than to read your Text: 1. It is ſuppoſed that it was All that had attained to the truth of Chriſtianity that muſt walk by the ſame rule. 2. It was a Divine Rule then known. 3. They were to bear with each other in loving Communion while they grew up to more. If this condemn not making and impoſing new humane unneceſſary Rules, containing that which multitudes of impartial Conſcionable men as wiſe as their Reproachers cannot excuſe from much heynous ſin, and ſilencing and excommunicating all that obey them not, and when they forbid them Communion, call them Separatiſts; I do deſpair of underſtanding ſence.

And to pag. 37. We come as near you as we can in Conſcience; and we know our own Conſeiences better than you do. But whether you condemn not your ſelves as Separatiſts in denying communion where we preach as if you only were the Church, and any that want but your Liturgy were none, Yea when we had the Licenſe of the King; unbyaſſed men will be able to diſcern.

§ 64. Serm pag. 37. [But why then is this kept as ſuch a mighty ſecret in the Breaſts of their Teachers? Why do they not Preach it to them in their Congregations? Is it for fear they ſhould have none left to Preach to? That is not to be imagined of Mortified and Conſcientious men: Is it leſt they ſhould ſeem to condemn themſelves while they Preach againſt Separation in a Separate Congregation? This, I confeſs, looks odly; and the tenderneſs of a mans mind in ſuch a Caſe, may out of meer ſhamefacedneſs keep him from declaring a truth which flies in his face while he ſpeaks it.]

Anſ. 1. Alas, you ſhew us, that ſome men perceive not when it flyeth in their faces. [Reader, hence take heed of Believing words of Reproach againſt Adverſaries, when Intereſt and Sideing hath made men partial. Would you think that all this intimated ſilence p. 87were an untruth againſt publick Teſtimony?

1. I have many and many times declared in print what he intimateth that we dare not Preach. And is not Printing a far more Publick declaration, than ſpeaking it in one Room?

2. When I began to Preach at St. James's, I read a Profeſſion to the Congregation openly, that I preacht not there as to a ſeparate Church, but as in concord with all Chriſts Church on Earth, for the neceſſity of the People that had not many of them heard a Sermon many a year, the Pariſh having 40000 if not 60000 Souls more than could hear in the Pariſh Church.

3. I built a Chapel by money partly begg'd, and partly to my greater loſs than I will mention, that I might but have helpt thoſe needy Souls for nothing: For the ſecond Sermon, one that Preacht for me (that had ſuffered impriſonment for the Kings Cauſe) was ſent to Gaol, to my great Trouble and Charge. And when I might not uſe it (ſaid One in Power, Though you would uſe the Common-Prayer there) I gave it up to the uſe of the Pariſh, and take it thankfully of Dr. Lloyd that he will there teach his People.

4. I have many and many a time in the Pulpit openly Preacht againſt Separation, even what he now deſireth.

5. Not paſt a Fortnight before his Sermon, I Preacht near him (at the Verge of his Pariſh in my Lecture) two whole Sermons of it, on Luk. 15. the Caſe of the two Sons; ſhewing that there are three notable ſorts of Separation. 1. The Perſecutors that forcibly ſcatter the Flock, as the Papiſts by dividing, ſinful impoſitions. 2. The Prophane Separatiſt like the Prodigal, who had rather be at the Tavern, the Play-houſe, the Whore-houſe, &c. than at Church. 3. The paſſionate peeviſh honeſt Chriſtian, as in the Text, [He was angry and would not come in.] Here I ſhewed by many reaſons, how faulty and hurtful this miſtaking paſſionate Separation is: And I took that occaſion to give them many Reaſons why I communicate with the Pariſh Church my ſelf, and Separate not from them; and I told them my judgment, that they that ſuffer meerly for not-hearing, or not-communicating thrice a year as the Law requireth, cannot juſtifie their Cauſe without ſome extraordinary reaſon, if they live in a Pariſh that hath a Miniſter capable of that Office. But I did not malignantly equal the Son that had long ſerved his Father, and not tranſgreſſed his Commandment, with his Brother in his Prodigal deſertion of his Father: But on the next words [His Father went out to him and intreated him to come in;] I ſhewed that Gods Condeſcention, and Method in ſatisfying his miſtaken paſſionate Children, ſhould direct Miniſters and others how they alſo ſhould deal with ſuch. And that violence inſtead of loving Condeſcenſion, p. 88reaſoning and neceſſary forbearance of ſuch Infirmities, ſheweth, 1. That ſuch conſider not the corruption of Humane Nature, and how bad all m…n are. 2. They know not what need of Forbearance they have themſelves; nor how liable they are to Error and to Sin. 3. They imitate not God our Father and Saviour, and know not what manner of Spirit they are of. 4. They have not due acquaintance with the preciouſneſs of Gods Grace and Image, that cannot perceive it, if there be but ſuch an Errour or Paſſion to obſcure it. 5. They conſider not that they alſo may be Tempted, and what Temptation may do even with upright Souls. 6. They are ſtrangers to the Paſtoral office; They ſhould excel in Love and Tenderneſs as much as in Knowledge, and as mothers quiet crying Children, and not therefore caſt them out of doors. 7. They Croſs the ends of the Miniſtry, if they take the Converting of Souls to be any of its end: For as Generation ſo Regeneration maketh Infants and Children before they are grown Men; and Children will be weak and troubleſome: And he that would have no ſuch Children, muſt not endeavour mens Converſion. 8. Yea, they greatly increaſe the Diſeaſe which they would Cure: Men will not love thoſe that hurt them ſo eaſily as others: And when they are diſpleaſed with you, they are the hardlier pleaſed with your Doctrine. 9. Driving men into the Church, maketh it like a Priſon and corrupteth it as compoſed of involuntary Members. 10. Yea, they muſt deſtroy the Church, if they will ſuffer none in it that have as great weakneſſes as theſe. Thus I declared both the evil of paſſionate Separation, and of miſtaking the way of Cure. I would repeat the Sermons, were it not for fear of being tedious.

6. I have Printed in my ſecond Plea for Peace, what our Non-conformity is not, containing as much in this point as he can reaſonably deſire, as it was approved by many others (named in our Judgment about the Intereſt of Reaſon in Religion) ſo that he cannot ſay that I ſpeak but of my ſelf.

7. I ſuppoſe he believeth that I am acquainted with more Non-conformable Miniſters than he is (or elſe he will not think that I am any ſuch Anteſignam…s as Biſhop Morley calleth me:) And I meet with few or none that contradict what in this caſe of Separation I have Publiſhed; They are commonly for Reformed Pariſh Churches (not taking all in the Pariſh for the Church, but bounding Churches in Pariſhes for Order;) and Preach elſewhere but on neceſſity and as Aſſiſtants and not as Adverſaries.

8. Doth not our Practice (who go to the Pariſh Churches) ſhew our Judgments to the People if we ſaid nothing?

p. 899. I could not have drawn the People ſo much from too great diſtance if I had not preached to them. At Acton I conſtantly heard Dr. Rieves, and his Curate, and I preached only in my houſe between his Sermons, and then led the People to the Church, which Judge Hales my neighbour thought was good ſervice to the Church. And the very Sermon that I was ſent to the Common Gaol for, was on Matth. 5. Bleſſed are the meek, perſwading to ſubmiſſive peace and patience.

10. When Biſhop Morley forbad me to preach in his Dioceſs, and I could not get leave at my departure to Preach to my hearers one farewel Sermon in publick; I Preacht in a private houſe to them on David's words [Bring back the Ark of God into the City, if I have found favour, &c.] purpoſely to perſwade them as my laſt advice, not to depart from the publick Pariſh Aſſembly, though the Liturgy be there the publick worſhip. But if the Miniſter that is there ſhall be intolerable. 1. As utterly unable. 2. Or a Heretick. 3. Or ſo malignant an Enemy of Godlineſs as to do more hurt than good; I adviſed them not to own any ſuch Miniſter, nor encourage him in his Uſurpation. And it was on that account that they long forbore, till the Vicar was dead and a better ſucceeded him.

11. Since then I have written to my old Flock to perſwade them to joyn in the Pariſh Aſſembly, and I hear not of three that do refuſe it.

And all this I have ſaid as to that matter of fact, to ſhew you how farr to believe this Reverend Doctor's intimated ironical accuſation.

If he ſay, that Other Preachers do not ſo.

I Anſwer Firſt, How knoweth he the Negative that never heareth them, but like a ſeparatiſt avoideth it as unlawful?

2. Is it not likely that in ſeaſon they preach their judgment?

3. But I confeſs they may find more profitable work than to preach over all the ſuſpected paſſages in the Liturgy, and other parts of Conformity, and anſwer all the Peoples objections againſt them. The Builders and Owners of the houſes are the fitteſt to do ſuch offices to maintain it.

§. 65. Is it that they fear the reproaches of the People; which ſome few of the moſt Eminent perſons among them, have found they muſt undergo if they touch upon thi… ſubject?

Anſ. 1. So farr as your accuſation is untrue as to the fact, it's but a further ill intimation to ask, why they do not that which they do?

2. If they that ſhould better know what their auditors moſt need, muſt preach what you appoint that know them leſs, you may make their Sermons for them as well as their prayers.

3. Thoſe few Perſons it ſeems at leaſt toucht on what you ſay they preacht not: And for my part, whom I know you mean for one, I never p. 90felt my ſelf much tempted to grudge at the Diſſenters that therefore will not hear me: If they hear others more ſuitable to them by whom they can more profit, as more eſteeming them, what hurt is that to me? Would I have none taught the knowledge of Chriſt, but by my ſelf? While we have all one Faith, it's ſome convenience for men to aſſemble and hear, where they do it with unprejudiced, undiſturbed minds.

4. If thoſe perſons you mention have before and ſince ſuch cenſures as you intimate, done what you would perſwade men that they do not, your ſelf-contradiction is moſt palpable.

§. 66. Serm. [For I know not how it cometh to paſs that the moſt Godly people among them, can leaſt endure to be told of their faults.]

Anſ. 1. Did you not intend [the Moſt Godly] for a ſcorn, you would confeſs it falſe.

2. If you mean thoſe that we eſteem moſt Godly, it is not true neither.

3. If you mean thoſe that think themſelves ſo, it's no wonder if they miſtake; if not, it's not true.

2. I pray you take warning by them, or by your own reproof, and do not now ſhew that you are one of the moſt Godly by leſs enduring to be told of your faults. If otherwiſe, you have forecondemned your own impatience.

3. Verily they have dealt much more patiently with me than the Biſhops and Canoneers have done: Though ſome have ſpoken their diſlike of me, none of them (even when they were in power) did ever ſilence or impriſon me nor ever forbid me to Preach (ſave once at an Aſſizes.) How can you think that we can feel their cenſures, when we have ſo much worſe to feel from the Canoneers? And when you ask, [Is it for fear they ſhould have none left to preach to?] If you ſeparated not from us, you would ſee that ſuch have ſome left ſtill.

§. 67. Serm. p. 42. [Whence we ſee the Church of Englands endeavour after uniformity, is acquitted from Tyranny over the Conſciences of men, by the Judgment of the moſt Learned of the Aſſembly, &c.]

Anſ. 1. Of the Aſſembly I have ſaid enough.

2. If you think the Aſſemblies Vniformity, or their endeavours for it, were the ſame with th… Church of Englands, none that know the caſe will be of your mind.

3 If you are intelligible we muſt ſuppoſe that you cite them to defend this as the concluſion which you own. The word [Tyranny] is too harſh to be uſed without need: But I ſuppoſe you include that the ſaid Endeavours for Vniformity have no culpable ſeverity in them.

That is, that the Acts for Vniformity, the Canons, the Executing p. 91of them in Declarations, Subſcriptions, Oaths, Practices, Puniſhments Corporal and Spiritual; are no Sin, but Lawful. In your Epiſtle you ſay They are ill men that ſay This is ſtirring up to perſecution: All that I will ſay is, that if you own theſe Endeavours for Vniformity, I do not: and the judge is at the door.

§. 68. Serm. p. 44. [If they form their judgments rather by prejudice and paſſion and intereſt, than from the Laws of God, or juſt Rules of Conſcience, &c.

Anſ. 1. This is true and good: If we make not Gods Laws the Rule of Conſcience, no wonder if we err: God preſerve us from all corrupting prejudice, paſſion, intereſt and Canons.

2. But when you compare our temptation from intereſt with yours, I hope you will not ſay as Dr. Aſheton, that as going to the Bar of God he undertakes to make good, that it's through Pride and Covetouſneſs that we conform not; that is, that we chooſe the contempt of high and low, and to live on Alms, and multitudes in pinching poverty.

§. 69. Serm. p. 46. [We find Vniformity and Order condemned as Tyrannical, till men come into power themſelves; and then the very ſame things and arguments are uſed and thought very good and ſubſtantial, which before were weak and ſophiſtical.]

Anſ. A true and ſad confeſſion; when I read your Irenicon and this Sermon, I the more believe you: Therefore it hath been my happineſs that I was never in Power, no nor ever on the uppermoſt ſide unleſs as I am for the King. I remember Dr. Rieves told us in the Pulpit that the reaſon why we were againſt Dioceſan Biſhops, was becauſe we could not be Biſhops our ſelves: And many others have ſaid the like.

§. 70. Serm. [Thoſe that now plead for Toleration, did once think it the Mother of Confuſion, the nurſe of Atheiſm, &c.]

Anſ. 1. Sure though you often cite Dr. Owen, you mean not the Independents.

2. If they ſpake either for or againſt Toleration as you do without diſtinction, and were for all or againſt all, and diſtinguiſhed not the tolerable from the intolerable, it's no great heed to be taken what they ſay. If there were but one falſe word impoſed on you, which you could not aſſent to, and on 2000 ſuch as you, ſhould you be no more tolerated than a Mahometan?

§. 71. As to your advice to us p. 47. 48. 1. Did you think that becauſe we muſt bear with much that is amiſs in the Church, that therefore we muſt either conſent to it, or practiſe it, and Covenant againſt all endeavours of amending it, or prefer it before better. p. 92The man you talk of out of Mr. Ball was near Bremicham, and was Melancholy to a kind of madneſs.

To your ſecond I anſwer, It followeth not, that becauſe we muſt not judge too hardly of Impoſitions, therefore we muſt ſay, ſwear and do all that is now impoſed on us. Or that he that dares not do it, is unpeaceable. I would we knew in what caſes only you would deny Obedience and Conformity your ſelf. Doubtful paſſages and undoubted evils ſomewhat differ. A fault-finding diſpoſition, and the Roman art that Boccaline mentions to ſwallow a Pimpion, have a mean between them. Papiſts, Socinians, or any that are uppermoſt, may call for Conformity under the names of Unity and Peace.

To the Third, ſeparation was not the ſame thing in the mouth of the old Non-conformiſts as in yours: They took it firſt for unchurching the Pariſh Churches. 2. Or holding it a ſin to communicate with them, if they might be excuſed as to kneeling, Croſſing, &c. You take it for [preaching when forbidden.] I have named to you the old Non-conformiſts that preached when they could. And half of them I think got into ſmall priviledged places, exempt from the Biſhops power, and there preached moſt of them without the Liturgy, and all without the Ceremonies: And was not this againſt Law. Sure Biſhop Bancroft that deſcribeth their attempts to ſet up new Churches and Diſcipline was not of your mind concerning the Non-conformiſts judgment. We had but two in all Shropſhire, and Dr. Alleſtree when a boy was the Catechiz'd Auditor of one of them, being his next Neighbour (in a peculiar Chapel, without the Liturgy, &c.) And yet I think not that his Father and all that Aſſembly were ſeparatiſts for hearing him. Bradſhaw thought we ſhould ſubmit to a ſilencing Law, where our Miniſtry was unneceſſary, and ſo do I. Dr. Gouge was a Conformiſt when he wrote the Book which you cite.

To your Fourth; Woe to them that believe our diviſions indanger the Land and let in Popery, and yet will cauſe them, and no intreaty can procure them to forbear dividing us, when they may; and then revile them that have no way to remedy it, unleſs wilful heinous ſinning be the way.

§ 72. That it is diſeaſes (that love not their own names) in mens hearts, that make the trouble more than our different judgments and Aſſemblings, experience telleth us: I was never a ſettled Teacher, but in two places (ſaving a Lecture at Coventry in the War,) viz. An Aſſiſtant at Budgnorth, and a Paſtor at Kidderminſter: And in both places there is an honeſt Conformable and a Non-Conformable Miniſter: And the People go to the publick Aſſembly, and many hear the Non-conformiſt privately between the publick Meetings: And both p. 93parties (as I hear) live in very much love and peace, and why might it not be ſo in other places, if there were the like Miniſters and People, without all this envyous clamour and bugbear words of Anti-chriſtian] on one ſide, or (Separatiſts and Schiſmaticks on the other.

§. 73. As to your next advices p. 53. 54. Firſt Qui monet ut facias, &c. We ſpeak ſo much againſt raſh ignorant Zeal, that you commend us againſt your purpoſe.

2. We thank you for the admonition [not to be always complaining of hardſhips and perſecutions.] Doubtleſs our mercies are ſo great as forbid us to be over querulous; nay leave us unexcuſable, if we are not very thankful. For my own part my ſufferings have been very ſmall from man, in compariſon of what I endure in Soul and Body from my ſelf. They are few days in which I am not a heavier burden to my ſelf, than all my Enemies are. But Firſt, I may not be ſenceleſs of the caſe of many better men, who have great families and no bread but what they have by Alms in poor Countreys where the people are fitter to receive than to give. And if they remove to bigger Towns the Clergy tell them it is for gain, and they that have one, two, three or more perferments, reproach them as covetous that will rather beg than ſin or famiſh, yet your Mr. Hickeringil on the contrary proclaimeth how little they get: Were it my caſe as it is very many Non-conformiſts, to be in other mens debts, and have nothing to pay houſe rent, for cloaths, for bread, &c. and to have Wife and many Children to pacifie, and to live on bread and water, or little more, and be offered plenty if I would but do that which I take to be the hazard of my Soul, I ſhould be ſenſible of the temptation.

2. And alas all this is nothing to the ſuffering of thouſands of Souls! to periſh for lack of knowledge, whoſe caſe it is lawful to compaſſion and lament.

3. And nature maketh it lawful to feel when one is hurt, and to confeſs that feeling.

4. And methinks if Julian that abuſeth the Chriſtians ſhould ſay, your Maſter bid you turn the other Check, his ſcorn would but aggravate his Sin: Patience is our duty; But if they call us to it who Preach and Print, and call out for the Execution of the Laws againſt us (as many of the moſt eminent of the Clergy have long done) as you ſaid in another caſe, It will look but odly: To preach to the Parliament, to put Fire to the Faggot, to accuſe the King for his Licences and Clemency, to tell the Magiſtrates and the World, that our Schiſms are becauſe they execute not the Laws, even the Laws that fine us forty po…nd a Sermon, and lay us in the Common Gaol with Malefactors, p. 94and baniſh us from Cities and Corporations, I ſay for theſe men to ſay [complain not,] is a ſmart accuſation of themſelves. For from good men good is to be expected; but if I meet with Gentlemen on the road that take away my Mony, clothes and horſe, and wound me, and tell me how much I am beholden to them, becauſe they did not cut my throat, it's lawful to know what they are, though I muſt be patient. And I told you before, when you talk of being made a Sacrifice, if a few deſpiſed men cenſure you, while you have all your Honour, Reputation, Riches and many preferments to arm you againſt their thoughts and breath, methinks ſheweth that this Counſel is as ſeaſonable to your ſelf as to the ſuffering Non-conformiſts.

§. 74. Serm. 54. [Where are the Priſcillians that have been put to death by their inſtigation? What do ſuch inſinuations mean, but that our Biſhops are the followers of Ithacius and Idacius in their cruelty; and they of the good and meek Biſhop St. Martin, who refuſed communion with them on that account? If men entertain ſuch kind thoughts of themſelves, and ſuch hard thoughts of their Superiours, whatever they plead for, they have no inclination to Peace.]

Anſw. 1. That is, to your Terms of Peace, and you being Judge. 2. Knowledg is oft conſtrained: It is no ſin to know Hiſtory, much leſs Publick matter of preſent fact, and leaſt of all, that which we ſee and feel. Is it a ſin to know when a man is in priſon, or when his goods or books are diſtrained, &c? I the rather ſpeak to this, becauſe a Reverend Biſhop tells me alſo of this wrong, as if thoſe Biſhops caſe were unlike to his; and citeth the words of the Hiſtorian that mentioneth the ſuffering of the Churches in Spain on that account, as if Maximus had but taken advantage of the Biſhops ſpleen to Tyrannize, and prey upon the Churches. I deſire not to make any men ſeem worſe then they are, nor cauſeleſly to open the faults of any. I profeſs to the world that it is not in an impatient aggravating of any ſufferings of my own (which are ſmall,) that I write this, but as the true ſtating of the caſe between us. If the matter of fact be not truly ſtated, the matter of right cannot be well determined. I hate falſe Hiſtory.

1. It is agreed on by many of the beſt Hiſtorians of that Age, beſide Beda, that Maximus wanted nothing but a good Title to make him one of the beſt of Emperours: That he was ſaid to be made Emperour by the Britiſh Souldiers, againſt his will, and being once in, could not go back. His uſurpation was wicked, but a way too common in the Empire. He was of a pious life, and great zeal for the Biſhops and the Orthodox Religion; what he did was to pleaſe the Biſhops and to ſuppreſs Hereſie and Schiſme: And it's like enough he thought by their friendſhip to ſtrengthen himſelf. He reſcued Ambroſe p. 95at Milan from the Arrians, and by his threats deterred Valentinian (provoked by his Wife) from perſecuting him, and ſo preſerved the Church of Milan and many others.

2 I read not of any of the Biſhops in all his Countreys that complyed not with this Uſurper, ſave Martin, Theognoſtus, and Ambroſe, (that was preſerved by him.)

3. It was not Ithacius and Idacius only, but all the Synod of the Biſhops, that were guilty, and that Martin ſeparated from.

4. The Priſcillians were down-right Gnoſticks, and ſo are not the Nonconformiſts, who you ſay agree with you in Doctrine, &c.

5. It is but the death of Priſcillian and a very few more that the Biſhops were ſaid to have procured; and they were aſhamed of it when they had done, and denyed that it was their doing. You force me for Hiſtorical Verity to tell you, that they did not ſilence about 2000 Miniſters, which is worſe than many bodily afflictions; nor did they deſire Maximus to make a Law that all that did not ſuch things as ours, ſhould be ruined by Fines, Impriſoned, &c. Make them not worſe than they were. Our Quakers are much like the Priſcillianiſts. Had it been but twice as many of them that had dyed in priſon, as were put to death of the Priſcillianiſts, the caſes had not been much unlike. But Mr. Thompſon that dyed in Priſon at Briſtol, Mr. Field that dyed in Priſon here; Mr. Hughes that in Priſon catcht his mortal ſickneſs; Mr. Joſeph Allen that had the ſame Lot, and many more ſuch, were none of them like the Priſcillianiſts; but men of whom I and ſuch as I come far ſhort.

6. The great miſchief that thoſe Biſhops did was by ſuſpecting men that Faſted and Prayed much, to be Priſcillians; they brought reproach by unjuſt ſuſpicions in all Countreys on the moſt ſtrict Religious men; and Martin was called by them a Priſcillianiſt for being againſt the Biſhops Perſecution of them Let not me, but publick knowledge here make the compariſon: How ſmall was this reproach, for extent and continuance, in compariſon of that which by occaſion of Non-conformity hath been caſt on men in England? My memory ſerveth me from 1623 or 24; Commonly in the Countreys, if a man did but pray in his family, and ſpend the Lords day in Religious Exerciſes, reading the Scripture, or repeating a Sermon, or reading a good book, or ſinging a Pſalm, and was againſt ſwearing and drunkenneſs, he was made the common ſcorne, as a Puritane, and the Biſhops Articles, and their reproach of Non-conformiſts, occaſioned all this in the Rabble againſt thoſe that were no Non-conformiſts If you believe not me, believe a Conformiſt Rob…rt Bol…on, that ſaith more of the horrid abuſe of Piety by the name of Puritane. And ſince then the ſame ſpirit hath uſed the Name of Preſbyterian, p. 96Schiſmatick, Separatiſt, Fanatick, to the like reproach of ſeriouſneſs and diligence in Religion, though not ſo univerſally as the name Puritan was; Yea if a man had but been for Lectures, and ſuch like helps as Arch-Biſhop Grindall was for (to his coſt) or for afternoon Sermons, or would not read the book for Sunday dancing, &c. he was worſe than ſuſpected and reproached. My neighbours that I once was a Teacher to, did never preſume to preach nor invade the miniſterial Office, nor do anything but the work of private Chriſtians, that is, to pray and repeat the Sermon, and ſing a Pſalm, but becauſe many ignorant Families that could not read, could not do any of this in their houſes, they joyned with the Neighbours that performed it, and this not at time of Publick worſhip: yet becauſe that more than four ſuch met, they were diſtrained on and laid in Gaoles. Compare all this (and the removal of many hundred families our of the Land heretofore) with the conſequents of the Biſhops zeal againſt the Priſcillians.

But remember that it is not in my thoughts to lay any of this upon the Biſhops that came in ſince the Impoſitions and actions aforeſaid, and had no hand in them, and cry not to Magiſtrates to execute the Laws, much leſs on men of ſuch known moderation as divers of them are, nor on the Peaceable Conformiſts that own none of this.

7. And it muſt be remembred that Martin was but an odd man, and ſeemed ſingular againſt the Synods of all the Biſhops, and a man of little Learning, like one of our Trades-men that is Religious. And therefore I have wondred that Baronius and Binnius, and our Rich. Hooker, did ſo openly decry the faults of the Biſhops here, and take part with Martin, and not rather turn the reproach on him, as an unlearned Separatiſt, and Fanatick: But his Miracles ſilenced all reproaches; with the rooted eſteem which ſerious Chriſtians will ſtill have for ſerious Piety, when the Reproachers have ſaid and done their worſt Elſe one unlearned Man that went in ſordid attire, and lived in a ſmall thacht Cottage, and lay on the ground, and eat worſe than our beggars do, and pleaded for the Gnoſticks perſons, was liker to have been born down as a mad Fanatick, than ſuch men as Dr. Twiſſe, Thomas Gataker, Richard Vines, Anthony Burges, Mr. Hughes, Joſeph Allen, and about 2000 more.

8. Laſtly, Let it be noted that the Cauſe of St. Martin was his judgement that Hereſie and Schiſme, even as bad as the Gnoſticks, was not to be puniſhed by the ſword, but only by Church cenſures; and therefore that the Biſhops did wickedly, in calling for the Magiſtrates ſword againſt them for then if the Heretick can get the Magiſtrate to be for him, the ſame ſword may be drawn againſt the Orthodox: And ſo the Priſcillianiſts p. 97once got a great Courtier to be for them, and a while turned the ſword againſt their adverſaries, which occaſioned ſufferings in Spain and other parts. And I wonder how Baronius, Binnius, or you that plead for the ſilencing and other afflicting of Non-conformiſts, under the name of [Non-toleration] and the Churches endeavours for Vniformity, can poſſibly keep out the light which would tell you that we may give you twenty to one in weighing your caſe and ours with Ithacius and Martins, if any impartial hand do hold the ballance. Is not your whole cauſe, who cry out for the execution of the Laws, and againſt our Toleration, (that is, that we are not to be endured) clean contrary to Martins cauſe?

§. 75. As to your 3d. Advice, pag. 55. [Not to Condemn others for that which themſelves have practiſed.]

I Anſwer, 1. Prove that I or any of my Acquaintance ever practiſed Ejecting, Silencing, Ruining men for things unneceſſary, yea or for greater things. Whom did we ever forbid to Preach the truth? Whom did we caſt out of all Church Maintenance? Whom did we impriſon?

2. If any in New-England had done it, is that our doing? They that are againſt Chriſts Righteouſneſs impated, I hope will not joyn with you in imputing to us the ſins of thoſe that were no Kin to us, and we never ſaw.

3. What a pitiful Caſe is Mankind in, if ſuch an Harangue of confounding words can make them believe, that Tolerating or not-Tolerating in Cauſes vaſtly different, are the ſame? Is it all one to deny men Liberty to ſeduce men from the eſſentials of the Faith, and to forbid many hundreds to preach Chriſts Goſpel, unleſs they will openly profeſs that they Aſſent and Conſent to three Books, and Covenant never to endeavour the Reforming of the Government of the Church, &c? Might not the Papiſts have ſaid to us juſt as you do [it is the ſame thing for us to burn Proteſtants as Hereticks, as for you to expel the Subverters of the Faith.] But you that are for ſilencing us all, for not conſenting to, You know what, have leſs excuſe for calling it [the ſame thing] unleſs you think Chriſt and a Liturgy to be ſame.

It is therefore fitter to be anſwered with Compaſſionate Tears than Words, when you ſay pag. 56. that [every one of them would practiſe the ſame were it in their Power, and think it very juſtifiable ſo to do] Anſ. O whither may he rowl that is tumbling down the Hill! I was never in Power: The Independents once were: They uſed it not as I would have had them: But did they or the Presbyterians Eject or Silence one another? Is it a good Conſequence [you would ſilence a Quaker that denieth the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity: Ergo, every one of you, were it in p. 98your power, would Silence, Impriſon, and Ruine them, that differ from you in Ceremony, Form, or Subſcription like ours?] O how incredible are the words of ſome applauded men!

I remember that at the Savoy when it was ſaid how ſome had uſed the Epiſcopal, Biſhop Walton excuſed and reproved me, and ſaid, that [indeed I had then written againſt Ejecting or Troubling any honeſt worthy man for being Epiſcopal or againſt the Parliament, but that the incompetent and vicious of all ſorts equally ſhould be Ejected But (ſaith he) did not you write that if the Sword interpoſed not, but meer liberty to Volunteers were granted to all parties, the Prclatical Liturgick Church would be like a Tavern or Inne where many ſober Perſons come, but ſo many others alſo, as would make it a place of no very great inviting Fame?] I confeſſed the truth, and ſtill confeſs it.

§. 76. To your 4th. Advice, [not to make our differences ſeem greater than they are.]

I do conſent. But 1. Did our 18 or 19 years Silencing them, do that? 2. Do not you do it, that make men believe that we are Intolerable and to be Silenced, and that Separate from our Congregations as if it were a ſin to join with us? 3. We deſire only a true ſtating of the Caſe.

The honeſt dealing which you demand, I and many others conſtantly perform; and it's ill to intimate that we do not. But you add,

§. 77. [It's hard to underſtand if occaſional Communion be lawful, that conſtant Communion ſhould not be a Duty.]

Anſ. Some Truths are hard to men of great Wit. It's lawful to have communion in our Aſſemblies (as I am ready to prove) and yet you think not any, much leſs conſtant, Communion to be a Duty. It's lawful to have Communion with the French, Dutch, or Greek Church; muſt conſtant Communion be therefore a Duty? It's lawful to have Communion with an ignorant Reader, or a drunken Prieſt (at leaſt in your Judgment;) Is it therefore a duty to ſeek no better?

§. 78. Serm. [All underſtanding men will conclude that they p…efer ſome little intereſts of their own, before the Honour of Chriſt and the Peace of the Church.]

Anſ. 1. The word [Little] came well in as to your ſenſe: Truly Poverty and Ruin are little intereſts: I cannot imagine what you mean, … it be Reputation. But is not your Reputation with the Higheſt Perſons, and the multitude, a more tempting Intereſt than our Reputation with ſuch as you much Contemn. 2. But do you underſtanding men know our hearts better than we? And are you ſure that none are underſtanding that be not as partially Cenſorious as you? If we prefer our Little intereſt, why do we not Conform? If you take us all for Mad men, diſpute not with us: if not, can we be ignorant that p. 99Carnal Intereſt is on your ſide, and are none of us Capable of it? 3. I ſhould have taken it as too ſharp an intimation to ſay that Your Greater Intereſt ſwayeth you: No man that is a Chriſtian taketh this vain vexatious World for his great Intereſt. And to make the Little Intereſt of Proſecuted, Beggared, Ruined Non-conformiſts to be that which beareth down, both all the intereſt of Wealth, Eaſe and Worldly honours and the intereſt of the Churches Peace and the intereſt of their own Salvation, and all this by no other proof than a Suppoſition that your Sagacity knoweth their hearts, and that all underſtanding men are of your mind] the naughtineſs of this is ſo great that it will not ſuffer you to ſee it. Sir, as wiſe as you are, I know my own heart better than you do (and ſo do my Brethren know theirs.) If you would ſwear the contrary I will not believe you. And I tell you, it is no Little Intereſt that moveth me; it is greater than a Deanery or a Biſhoprick. I were worſe than mad, if 1. I conſumed my ſmall eſtate. 2. And my Health. 3. And denied my Eaſe. 4. And all worldly Wealth and Pleaſure. 5. And expoſed my ſelf to be called a Schiſmatick and a Rogue, by the Conformiſts. 6. And lay my ſelf under the ruining dangers of the Law. And 7. to be written againſt as doing all this by ſin. 8. And all this under the languiſhings and pains of ſickneſs, expecting when I am called to my account; I ſay I were worſe than mad, if I choſe all this for that which you call [Little intereſt.] 9. And if Reputation with my poor deſpiſed party be that Little intereſt, you confute your ſelf before, where you ſay how much I have undergone of their impatient Cenſures. Have I flattered them? Have I not ſaid more againſt their faults than you have done, though not againſt their Duty? 10. Some of my heart-judges ſay, it is a ſemel …, to avoid the imputation of mutability. But their Companions confute them who charge me with my retractations; and who ſee by my writings that I left room for ſecond thoughts, and have not ſilenced them to eſcape the Cenſure of any whomſoever. I have left my Reputation to God, and never was ſo thin Skin'd as to be unable to bear a Cholerick breath: I liv… not upon Air, or the thoughts of men, who will ſhortly with me be ſilent in the d…ſt. They that know how many Books, perhaps ſcores, have been written againſt me, by Sectaries of many ſorts, and ſome by good and ſober men, Presbyterians, Independents and Prelatical, and how little they have broke my peace, will not think applauſe is my Little intereſt. Had I b…en as you I wo…ld have left cut this Charge of Little intereſt, leſt it ſhould te…pt men to compare your Caſe and ours.

§. 79. Your 5th. Advice is juſt: I hate Charging you or any with unjuſt ſuſpicions of inclinations to Popery. I know ſome ſew men p. 100whom I have reaſon to ſay, Defend Grotius as one of their Religion; who thought that the Proteſtants can never unite among themſelves till they unite with Rome as the Miſtreſs Church; and that the Councils even that of Trent are ſound in the Faith, and that ſecuring the rights of Kings and Biſhops, and diſowning the Schoolmens abuſes, and the Clergies evil lives, and reducing the Pope to rule us, not Arbitrarily but by the Canons, are enough to ſatisfie and reconcile us. But to charge this on all, or moſt, is unjuſt: We know what Biſhop Barlow, Biſhop Croſts, and divers others have done to ſignifie their Faithfulneſs to the Proteſtant Cauſe. And if C…ntzen's way prevail not, to drill men they know n…t whither by degrees, I hope of the 9000 or 10000 Clergie men in England, one thouſand will not turn to Popery. But I muſt ſay, that when ſome Prelates made it their great buſineſs to Silence, Shame and Ruin us, and drive us far enough from Perſons of Power, undertaking to preſerve the Proteſtant Religion better without us than with us, and after all, cry out themſelves that we are in danger of Popery by their own Pupils and Diſciples, whoſe inſtruction they undertook; men will have leave to think of this awake, and to judge of Cauſes by Effects.

§. 80. Your Counſel is good, [Not to run the hazard of all for a ſhow of greater Liberty to our ſelves.] Should I tell you three ſtories of our hazarding our own Liberties becauſe we would not do what you diſſwade us from, one in 1660, and another 1662, and another about 1667, it would be a pair of Spectacles to ſome. 2. But will not all that have eyes ſee, who doth more for Toleration of Popery, they that ſay [Popery and you ſhall ſtand and fall together, except you will ſay, ſubſcribe and do all that is preſcribed you;] or they that ſay [We cannot do that which we take to be hainous ſin?] Do you think the Papiſts had not rather (with you) that we were Silenced, than that we Preach, who have been their greateſt Adverſaries? If you will rather let in Toleration of Popery, than you will Tolerate Proteſtants that fear the guilt of Lying, Perjury, and many other Evils, ſhould they do that which you Confeſs indifferent, let God be judge between you and us.

FINIS.

End of the text · Richard Baxter, Answer to Stillingfleets Charge of Separation (1680)