Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times, Part 3 · Section 1 · Floating text 2

Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times · Part 3 · Section 1 · Floating text 2

p. 113The Strictures returned upon these Proposals, with the Answers.

My Lord,

I Return you this Paper with an Answer to the Strictures; not with any hopes of Agreement with the Author: For whoever he is, I have no hope of Peace or Healing by him; or by his consent, according to the Principles and Rigour here expressed.

1. Prop. [Supposing the Church-Government may not be altered.] Strict: (a) [All the particulars following do directly, or indirectly, either overthrow or undermine the Church Governmene.

Answ. If by [the Church Government] be meant (as the Propounder did mean) the Constitution containing the Diocesan frame, with Deans, Arch-Deacons, Lay-Chancellours, as Governing by Excommunication and Absolution, there is nothing in these Proposals incompetent with that Frame, nor motioning any alteration of it. (Tho there is that in it, which our Judgments take to be very great sin: For we can quietly live under a Government sinful, while we are not put to sin by our consenting to the sin of others.) But if by [the Government] be meant the whole Exercise of their Government, according to the Act of Uniformity and the Canons, we confess that every abatement desired by us, is against it: And if we could do all requir'd by the Governours, we were full Conformists, and needed none of this.

p. 114But this P…efatory Prognostick tells us what to expect: For whoever intendeth our Solemnity and suffering, will foretel it by his Accusations; And if a Cross be our intended Lot, no wonder if [Overthrowers and Vnderminers of the Government] be the Title to be written on it.

1. Prop. [And the Subscribing the Doctrine and Sacraments, &c.]

Strict. (b) [So they may not be required to Subscribe either to the Government or Liturgyor Rites and Ceremonies of our Church.]

Answ. 1. If there were nothing at all in the Diocesan frame in England, Lay-Chancellours, Spiritual Government, nor any other part of the Government, and Word in the Liturgy, or any Ceremony which we do not, nor dare not approve and Justify by a Subscription; what need we any of this ado, any more than any Bishops or Conformists; seeing we were Conformable already.

2. We are willing to Swear, Subscribe, and Covenant, Allegiance to the King, who is a Constitutive Essential Part of the Kingdom. But we are not willing accordingly to Swear, Subscribe, or Covenant to every petty Officer in the Kingdom, nor to approve of every Law, Custom or Exercise of Government in it; tho we would live peaceably under what we approve not. And if a Law were made that he shall be Banished as an Overthrower, or Vnderminer of the Government, who would not so Covenant or Subscribe, Houses and Lands would be cheaper than they are, and the King have fewer Subjects than he hath: For I am not acquainted with one Conscionable Man, that I think would Subscribe it. And why should all the King's Subjects be bound more strictly to the Human Part of Church Government, than of State or Civil Government, and to approve of Lay-Chancellours than of Civil Officers? Or of the matter of Canons, than of Civil and Common and Statute Laws?

3. If it be a Crime to know, it is a Crime to Iudge, or to use our Reason and Observation. If it be not, it is no Crime for us to know that Clergy-Pride, imposing a multitude of things small and doubtful, on the Churches as the Conditions of Ministry and Communion, and forcing Magistrates, Ministers and People to consent to many unnecessary things in their Humane part of Government; Liturgies and Ceremonies hath been so great an Engin of Schism and Blood and Confusions in the Roman Church, as assureth us that it is no desirable thing, that by us any thing like it should be consented to.

4. And it is no Crime in us to be sure, that if Subscribing to all the present Church-Government, Liturgy and Ceremonies, be the thing that shall be necessary to our Ministry, and Union and Communion, our present Dissentions and Divisions will not be healed, unless by Killing or Banishing the Dissenters, and as Tertullian speaketh, Making solitude, and calling it Peace.

1. Prop. [His Majesty's] Subjects—[Legal] Commission—any other [of his Subjects].—

Stic. (c) [Deleatur.]

Answ. 1. We did not think that it had been your meaning that we must make our selves Judges of the Case, not only of all his Majestie's Subjects, but of all others in the World. If the Judges will give it us under their Hands, that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever, for the Subjects of any Prince on Earth to take Arms against any King of England, or any Commissioned by him; or that it is not possible for any War against us in any Age, on any pretense whatever, to be Lawful; or else that they are sure that all the Kingdoms on Earth are so Constituted, as that no where any Subjects may on any pretence take Arms against their Kings, we shall accordingly submit to their Judgment. But seeing Papists and Protestants, Lawyers and Divines, even Monarchical and Conformable say the contrary, it were not modesty in us that are ignorant of Matters of Law, to say that they are all mistaken, till we are instructed to know it to be so. For our parts we must profess our selves not acquainted with the Constitution of every Kingdom in the World.

2. If [Legal] must be obliterated, we shall our selves quietly submit to the Exercise accordingly; and suffer from any one that saith, he is Commissioned to hurt us, if it be required of us: But we are not skill'd in Law, and thefore cannot say, that all others are bound to do the like. To deal plainly, seeing [Legal] must be p. 115obliterated, we understand not what the word [Commission] meaneth: Whether it must have the King's Broad-seal, or the Lesser-seal, or his Name only: Whether the Commission and Seal must be shewed to those that are not to resist; or proved to be Currant, and how? But that which causeth us to forbear subscribing, is, 1. We have taken the Oath of Allegiance, and think that the King's Subjects are bound to defend his Life, Crown and Dignity; And we fear left by this the Lord Chancellour (if not others) may have power at his Pleasure to Depose the King, that is, to Seal Commissions to Confederates to take Possession of all his Navy, Forts, Garrisons, Arms, if not his House and Person, and no man must resist them. 2. We are not certain that a Commission can Repeal all that Law of Nature, who obligeth a Man to preserve the Life of his Parents or Children, or Neighbour. We have not indeed any reason to fear that our King should grant such a Commission: But who can deny but that it's possible for some King or other to do it? And seeing we know not when a Commission is counterfeit, if two or three men come to my House, and say they have a Commission to Kill my Father, Mother, Wife and Children and my self (and shew it); or if they Assault me and my Company on the High-way, and shew a Commission to take our Purses and Kill us, we are not sure that God will excuse us from the Duty of defending the Lives of our Parents, Children and Friends: Or if half a dozen should come to the Parliament, and shew a Commission presently to kill them all, or Burn the City, and Kill all the Citizens, or Kingdom, we are not wise enough to know that neither Parliament, City, nor Kingdom, may resist them. And we find Parliaments so conceited that they have Propriety in Life and Goods, and that none may at pleasure take them away, and lay Taxes without their consent; and that we fear if we should plainly say, that whatever Taxes are laid, or Estates or Goods or Persons seiz'd on, or Decrees of Judges rejected by such Execution, it were unlawful for the Sheriff, or any others to resist, they would trouble us for so saying. And if an Admiral, General, or Lieutenant should be made by Act of Parliament, Durante Vita, and Authorized to resist any that would dispossess him, we are not so Wise as to know whether he may not resist one to whom the Chancellour Sealeth a Commission to dispossess him: And though we are confident that the Person of the King is inviolable, yet if King Iohn did deliver up his Kingdom to the Pope, we are not sure that the Kingdom might not have resisted any of the Pope's, (or any Foreign Prince's) Agents, if they had been Commissioned by the King to seize upon the Kingdom: Or that no Subjects of any Foreign Prince may be resisted, if they should come against us, by such a Commission. Had we the Judgment of the Judges in this Case, we should submit as far as any reason could require us. But tho we justify not Barclay, Grotius, Bishop Bilson and others, of the contrary mind, we must confess our selves not wise enough to Condemn them.

1. Prop. [Nor by any other [unlawful] means (to endeavour Reformation). Stric. (d) [Deleatur [Vnlawful.]

Ans. 1. Here we may see how many minds the Conformists are of; or how unjustly all that I have debated the Case of Subscription with do affirm, That by [not endeavouring] any Alteration, is meant only not endeavouring by unlawful meanst] which is here contradicted by a Deleatur [unlawful.]

2. I crave an Answer to these Questions.

1. Can you certainly say, That the Church-Government is so purely Divine and Perfect, as that no Reformation is either necessary or lawful? Is all the Diocesan Frame such, and the Lay-Chancellors Power of the Keys also?

2. If there be need of any Reformation, is it not a Covenant against Repentance and Obedience to God, to covenant never to endeavour it at all?

3. What if the King should by Commission require some Alterations, or command us to endeavour it, are you sure that we are all bound to disobey him?

4. What if a Parliament-man make a Speech, or pass a Vote for it, are you sure that he sinneth?

5. Are you sure that the King may not lawfully endeavour any Reformation? Or was his Declararation about Ecclesiastical Affairs a sin?

6. What if any humbly petition the King and Parliament for any such Reformation (as that Laymen may not have the Power of the Keys over a whole Diocess, and all the Parochial Pastors be denied it); is it certainly a sin?

p. 1167. If a man Vow (though sinfully) to do a thing which he may lawfully do, if he had not vowed it, are you sure it is a sin (and not Duty) to keep that Vow in Materia Licita (which he thinketh Necessaria)? I put the Question as de futuro, if I and Millions should make such a Vow (culpably, without and against the Will of my Superiours) for the time to come, are you sure that it bindeth no man of them all? I believe, that no private arbitrary Vow can forestall my due Obedience to my Governours: But antecedent Duty so made by God (as Reforming by lawful means of Endeavour), it is supposed they do not forbid: For every Member of the Church is in his place obliged to promote the Common Good by lawful means: as they might forbid us all to exhort or admonish any sinner, or to pray, or preach, or dispute against sin, as well as to petition against it. 2. And 'tis supposed that every Bishop, or Parliament-man, or Ruler, is not forbidden all sueh lawful Endeavours; and so that a Prohibition rendereth it not (to them at least) unlawful. For I speak of no other Case.

But how sad a Case is that Nation in, where the Clergy would have all men take them for so infallible and perfect, without the smallest Fault or Errour in their Government, as that neither Parliament-man, Clergy-man, nor any one of the People, may by lawful means endeavour the least Reformation of them: when even the Roman Bishop of Gloucester, Godfrey Goodman, writeth so sharply against the Lay-Chancellor's Power of the Keys?

2. Prop. The Nonconformists hold it high Sacriledge [to alienate themselves.]

Strict. (e) But what if they be suspended, or silenced by Authority?

Ans. 1. When it is by true Authority, doing it either justly, or else unjustly, in case their preaching be unnecessary, or less necessary than Obedience to the unjust prohibition, we will surcease, and take it as a sickness or disablement. But if it be done by Vsurpers, like Papal Prelates, or by our Governours u…lawfully, in case that our preaching remain more necessary to the Publick Good, than obedient forbearance; we will exercise our Ministry till Death, Prison, or other Force disable us. If you ask, Who shall be Iudge? I answer, 1. The Magistrate, by publick Decision, in Order to his own Execution, and if he do it unjustly, God is the Avenger. 2. And the Minister by a private Rational Judgment of Discretion, discerning Duty from Sin; and if he were, God and Man, will punish him; if not, God will reward him.

2. I also ask, Were not Constantius and Valens (tho Erroneous) Lawful Princes? And did not the holy Bishops of the East, refuse to surcease their Ministration when they prohibited them? And do not Papists, and other Protestants, as well as Bp. Bilson and Andrews, agree, That we must do the like upon such unjust Prohibitions? And hath our Diocesan more power to silence us than the King! Or were we Consecrated to the Ministry in our Ordination, on that Condition, to preach till forbidden unjustly? And did not the Apostles and all Pastors, for 300 Years, Exercise their Ministry against the Wills of Lawful Magistrates (tho Heathens.)

2. Prop. [To preach Lectures with the Incumbent's Consent.]

Strict. (f) [And with the Allowance of the Bishop.]

Ans. And that is, Let King and Parliament by Law allow us to preach Christ's Gospel, if the Bishop will allow us so to do; and let the Law leave it to his power to forbid us: And what Good will Laws then do us for our Ministry, when these Eleven Years have already told us what we must trust to from the Bishops (some at least.) Provide such supply for the Subjects Souls, as their Numbers and Necessities require, that the meaning may not be [Let men be saved, if the Bishop consent], and for my part, I`ll Joyfully be silent. But I will not so far deny my Sense and Reason (and the Sense of the Countrey also) as to believe this is done, if another will but confidently say it's done, or say that we do more harm than good; no more than I will believe there are no Englishmen in England.

2. Prop. Let not the Incumbent be discouraged by the Bishop from receiving them—]

Strict. (g) So they will conform.]

Ans. So they will conform as far as aforesaid, or as in the Proposals: But otherwise, if it be present, full Conformity, that must still be necessary, what are we speaking for? This was written in order to our Concord, by the means of some Alterations or Abatements of Conformity, because it was told abroad that some Bishops p. 117were willing of such a thing: And is it meant that if we Conform, they will abate us some Conformity.

3. Prop. Let it be forbidden, &c. [about joyning in Family Worship—]

Strict. (h) [That is, let Conventicles be allowed in all places.]

Answ. Yes, if needful and orderly Worshipping God, and helping each other towards Heaven be Conventicling; the Heathens so called the Christian Assemblies. This Stricture more mortifyeth our hopes of healing, than any of the rest: For we see here that the Silencing and Imprisoning, and Undoing of the Ministers, will not satisfy; the People also must have their Cross and Conventicles must be Written on it. One would think the Limitations here put should have satisfied any man that is for Faith, Hope and Charity. 1. We moved it for none but those that attend the Publick Assemblies. 2. And so it be not at the Hours of Publick Worship. 3. And but for Neighbours of the same Parish (because many cannot Read, nor remember what they have Read, nor help their own Families, nor understand themselves the Christian Faith.) 4. We desired this Liberty in no Exercises, but reading the Scriptures, or Licensed Pious Books, and repeating the Publick Sermons of their Pastors, and Praying and Singing Psalms. 5. We motioned this much for none but those that herein refufe not the Inspection of their Lawful Pastors, to prevent all ill Effects. 6. And for the Minister himself to repeat his Sermon, or Catechize, or Instruct his People that will come to him. And is this the intolerable Evil, worthy to be avoided at the rate of all our Calamities? Are all our Divisions better than the enduring of this? If any Limitations necessary had been omitted, I might have expected to have found them named, which I do not. But, 1. No Man's denial can make us ignorant of it, that too great a Part of the People in most places know not what Baptism, Christianity, or the Catechism are; and many hundred thousands cannot Read. 2. And that few Ministers so personally instruct them as their need requireth (nor can do for so many): or by their Instruction they have not cured them. 3. That to go to their Neighbours on the Lord's Day, to hear again the Sermon, which they had forgotten, and to Praise God, and hear the Scripture, or a good Book that is Licens'd, read, hath done great good to many Souls. 4. That otherwise such Ignorant Persons as we speak of, except at Churchtime, cannot spend the Lord's Day to any Edification of themselves or Families. 5. Men are not hinder'd from Feasting, Drinking, Playing together frequently, and in greater Numbers. Why then (by Bishops) from reading the Scripture, or a Licens'd Book or Sermon? 6. That God hath Commanded Provoke one another to Love and to good works: And exhort one another daily, while it is called to day, lest any be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin; Heb. 10. 24. and 3. 13. And Cornelius had his Friends with him in his House for God's Servics, Acts 10. and Acts 12. 12. In Mary's House many were gathered together praying. And we find not that even the Iews were ever forbidden it by the Pharisees themselves: And he that seeth his Brother have (bodily) need, and shutteth up the Bowels of his Compassion from him, how dwelleth the Love of God in him? And the need of Souls is more common, and to be Compassionated. Rules may Regulate Charity in both cases; but may forbid it, or the necessary Exercises of it in neither. He shall Perish as guilty of Murder that lets the Poor Die for want of his Relief, tho he be forbidden to relieve them, unless when the hurt would be greater than the good. Love and Mercy are too great duties for a Bishop to null or dispense with: We put no private Man on Ministerial Actions, but in his own place to shew mercy to Souls. To say, that on this pretence Schismatical Meetings will be held, is no more to the people than to say, that all Errours and Wickedness may be kept up by Pretences of Reason, Truth, Piety, Scripture, Honesty, &c. But we must not therefore say, Away with Reason, Truth, &c. But I hope God's Servants will Die rather than desert their Master's Work.

4. Prop. 1. [The greatest part of it]—[once a Quarter]—(of Reading the Liturgy by Lectures.)

Strict. (i) [Why not all as well as the greatest part? Why not always as well as once a Quarter?]

Answ. 1. I know that here and there a word may be scrupled (as the reading of Bell and the Dragon, or such like) which silently past by, maketh no disturbance; And I think the Scrupling of such a word, deserveth not that all the Peoples Souls be Punished for it, with the loss of all their Teachers Labours.

p. 1182. I never hear one Conformist that saith it all: And why may not one be forborn as well as another?

3. All the Liturgy for the day will be work too long and great, that weak Men that have no Curates cannot Read all, and Preach or Catechize also. If you say that Preaching and Catechizing then may be omitted; I answer, They are God's Ordinances, and needful to Men's Souls: And seeing Prayer and Preaching are both Duties, proportion is to be observed, that neither may be shut out: If you account the Liturgy better than Preaching, yet every parcel of it intirely is not sure of so great worth, as to cast out Preaching for it. Rich parsons, that have Curates, may, between them, do both; but so cannot poor Countrey Ministers that are alone, and are sickly.

And as to the [Always,] 1. The Canon limiteth some but to once in half a year, (which is less.)

2. The Conformable City-Preachers, that have Curates, very rarely Read it.

3. Else what should Men do with Curates, if they must always Read themselves?

4. A weak Man may do both once a Quarter, that is not able to do it every day.

4. Prop. 2.—It is supposed it will be done.]—

Strict. (k) Yes, once a Quarter, for you would have no Man obliged to do it oftner; nor all of it then neither.

Answ. Read and believe as you can. The words were [If in the Congregation where he is Incumbent, the greatest part of it appointed for that time, be sometimes (as once a Quarter) used by himself, and every Lord's-day ordinarily (unless Sickness, &c.) either by himself, or by his Curate or Assistant:] Is every Lord's-day but once a Quarter? Or can it be every day done, and no one obliged to do it?

4. Prop. 3. Let not Christian Parents be forbidden to dedicate their Children publickly, &c.

Strict. (l) Christian Parents are not forbidden to present their Children to be Baptized: But the Church in favour to the Infants, appoints others (in case the Parents should die, or neglect their duty) to have a Paternal care of them, in order to their Education, for the performance of their Baptismal Covenant: That which follows is not worth the Animadverting, being nothing else but an Uncharitable and Scandalous Insinuation.

Ans. 1. Read and believe what is forbidden. [Then shall the Priest speak to the Godfathers and Godmothers on this wise; Dearly Beloved—This Infant must also faithfully promise by you that are his Sureties (—That he will renounce the Devil, &c.]—I demand therefore, Dost thou in the name of this Child renounce, &c.] The Godfathers and Godmothers must say, I renounce them all. Dost thou believe, &c. Answ. All this I stedfastly believe. Quest. Wilt thou be Baptized in this Faith?] Answ. That is my desire. Q. Wilt thou obediently keep, &c. Answ. I will.—They are after to Name the Child. After the Priest shall say to the Godfathers and Godmothers—For asmuch as this Child hath promised by you that are his Sureties to renounce—to believe in God, and to serve him—It is your parts and duties to see that this Infant be taught so soon as he shall be able to learn, what a Solemn Vow, Promise and Profession he hath here made by you, &c.] See the rest.

So that here, All the Covenanting Action on the Infant's part, is made the proper work of his Sureties, called Godfathers and Godmothers, without one word of the Parents doing it, or any part of it: And then cometh the Canon, and farther saith, (Can. 29.) [No Parent shall be urged to be present, nor be admitted to answer as Godfather for his own Child; nor any Godfather or Godmother shall be suffered to make any other Answer or Speech, than by the Book of Common Prayer is prescribed in that behalf.] The Answering forbidden, is the Covenanting in the Child's Name. This is expresly forbidden the Parent (whole and part,) and lest it should be thought that he is one Agent with the Sureties, as he is not to speak, so not to be urged to be present. Yet he is not forbidden to be present; but he is forbidden to speak any Covenanting Promise or Word. And this was it that I mentioned; in stead of which, you say, he may [Present the Child]—Whatever you call Presenting, I know not, but I talkt only of Covenanting.

p. 1192. And why say you it is [In case the Parents die, or neglect their Duty,] when the Parents are forbidden (though they have Sureties with them) so much as to promise it as any of their Duty, or to speak as Promising-Parties in it.

3. Whether this use be [an Vncharitable and scandalous Insinuation] is all a Case about Matter of Fact; And the Question is, whether the Author or I be the truer Historian: My Narrative which I stand to is this.

1. God's Law and Man's requires Parents to offer Children to be Baptized; and the Rubrick before Private Baptisme forbids deferring it longer than the first or second Sunday.

2. They may not be Baptized without Godfathers as aforesaid.

3. No Parent can force any to be a Godfather against his Will.

4. Multitudes take it for a sin to be Sureties on the Terms of the Liturgy, and therefore will and do refuse it.

5. Many Thousands know not what Christianity, or the Baptismal Covenant is, as we know by Personal Conference with our Flocks and others, where we have lived. So common is gross Ignorance among the Vulgar.

6. Many of the Learned sort dispute with us frequently, that indeed Baptism is not to Contain any Covenant, or Vow at all.

7. So rare is it for Sureties to take the Child for their own, or intend to do all in his Education which they are to promise, that, to my best knowledge, I never knew one in all my life that ever seriously signified to the Parents such an Intent. But they usually think that they are but Witnesses, and are at most but to give the Parents Counsel to do what they promise to do themselves.

8. Were but all People told, that they must take the Child for their own, as far as this Animadverter mentioneth, and solemnly before God to undertake to do all that themselves for the Child, which they Promise (by the Book) I seriously profess, that I cannot say, that ever I knew one Surety that feared God, that I had cause to believe had undertaken it, unless those, that indeed took home the Child of dead Parents (or an exposed one) as their own. The Rich never intend to give away their Children, nor that the Sureties Educate them. And few would be Sureties for the Children of the Poor, if they must take them so for their own, because of the Charge of keeping them. So that I am fully perswaded, that were the Vow and Undertaking thus understood, not one of Forty, where-ever I have lived, could have any Godfathers for their Children, unless they will take such as know not what they do, or make no Conscience of it, and of whom the Parents cannot reasonably believe that they intend any such thing.

And, de jure, its plain, that it is not lawful to draw any Many, in so great and holy a Work, to do that which he understandeth not at all, and to Promise and Undertake that before God and the Church, which our Consciences tell us, he never intendeth to perform, nor do the Parents intend to cast it on him.

I pass by the Difficulty of three several persons Educating the same Child.

And now consider, whether it be a Scandalous Insinuation, for a Man to beseech the Bishop, that his Child may not be refused, and be Unbaptized (and so denyed Christian burial if he die; and worse than that, according to the Liturgy) and himself punished because he brings not Sureties; if the Man will there profess that he could procure no Sureties, who understood what they are to do, and express to them any Serious Purpose to perform it? Is this an Odious or Scandalous Request?

4. Prop. n. 4. Of the Image of the Cross, as used in Baptisme.

Strict. (m) If any think the Sign of the Cross in (or rather after) Baptism, to be a Sacramental Sign; they may as well think so of the same Sign, in flags, or ships, or banners; for we ascribe no more efficacy to one than to the other: whereas it is the formalis ratio of a Sacrament to be a Means not only to signifie, but to confer Grace non ponentibus obi…em, which our Church doth not ascribe to this, or any other Ceremony of Humane Institution; Or that the Sign of the Cross is any Sacramental, but a Teaching Sign only, as the Surplice is; And such Teaching Signs Mr. Baxter grants may be lawfully appointed by the Magistrate, and made use of in the Service of God, though not as an Essential part thereof.

Ans. 1. You will say (after Baptism:) For you make it not part of Baptism, but a third Sacrament, as I think.

p. 1202. As to your Description of a Sacrament, the Church taketh the word from the old Common use, where (as Ma…c…nius …) Sacramentum was an Oath or Covenant, Quod eo Sacratu… homo ad rem certa…, ut ad Militiam: ut Fest. foreign He is bound by a Sacrament, Qui Sacratur fide interposita; ac tum Sacramento dicitur interrogari quid…m: See the Military Sacrament there described. And the Soldiers had their Stigmata, which our Cross doth imitate; though transiently. Without this Sacrament they were no Soldiers, and might not fight against the Enemy: And Tertullian disswadeth, Ne humanum Sacramentum Divino Super…nducant, opening the Analogie of one to the other. In the laxer and more borrowed Senses it concerneth us not (as Sacramentum is ipsares Sacrata, vel ipse Miles … person…, nor as it is Quodvis juramentum, or Sancta (o…iigatio) nor yet in the largest Ecclesiastical Sense, as it is the Translation of foreign, and signifieth a Sacred Mysterious Doctrine, or Action. But in the Special Church-use, it signifieth either more largely a Solemn Signal Investiture in any Sacred Relation; and so we may grant the Romanists that Ordination is a Sacrament, and Matrimony, as Sanctified, &c. Or most strictly for the Sacramental Solemnizing of the Covenant of God, which is our present Sense. And to this it is necessary, That 1. it be a sign used for the solemn signification of Mutual Consent; that is, of Man's professed Consent, as dedicated to Christ, and of Christ's acceptance, and Collation of the Coven…m-benefits; 2. And that hereupon it be the Tessera, or …ymbol of our Christianity. But that it operate a qualitative change on the Receiver's mind or heart, is not necessary to the being of a Sacrament, nor yet that it be instituted to do so, by …, or Physical Operation, per modum Naturae, without Intellectual Consideration, and Moral Operation.

The First will be granted (that the effecting of such Qualities is not necessary to it.) And as to the 2d, Observe that we grant as followeth; 1. That Sacraments, by Investiture, or Delivery of Right, as Instruments, convey all that Relative Grace, which the Covenant of God doth give immediately to Consenters. 2. That it Morally worketh also Holy Qualifications by Man's Considering-Improvement. 3. And that with the use of it, though not by the Instrumentality of it, God may Physically, or Miraculously, without any second cause, give qualitative grace to Infants, or whom he please, in a way to us unknown. But that this last is not Essential to a Sacrament, I am now to prove.

1. All that is essential to a Sacrament is found in the Sacrament as used by the Adult. (Yea, they are the more notable, and Excellent Subjects, to whom it was first administred; and the Case of Infants is more obscure, and non notum per ignotius, sed ignotius per notius probandum est.) But the Sacrament as administred to (or used by) the adult, doth necessarily contain no more than, 1. mutual covenanting, 2. The Instrumental Conveyance, or Confirmation of the Relative Grace of the Covenant (or Ius) 3. Moral Aptitude to work holy Qualities. 4. And that it be Symbolum Ordinis, id est, Christianismi.

1. This is proved as to the Baptism of the Adult. 1. They make their solemn signal Profession of Federation, Consent, Reception, &c. 2. God by his Minister doth invest the Receiver in his Right of special relation to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and in his right to Pardon, Reconciliation, Justification and Adoption, and Right to Glory: 3. It is a Means adapted to work Morally on the Will, by the just Considerations of the Understanding. 4. It is the Symbol of Christianity, called, Our Christening.

2. The same I say of the Lord's Supper; and therefore crave leave not to repeal them.

1. That Sacraments are acts of Solemn, Mutual Covenanting, none deny, that know what Christianity is: The Uninterrupted Form of Baptizing, in all Ages proveth it.

2. That God, by their Instrumentality, delivereth the Adult, their Ius, or Relative Grace, or right to present Pardon, &c. is not denyed.

3. That they are Moral Instruments of Holy Acts, and so of Habits in the Adult, neither Papist, Arminians, Lutherans or Calvinists deny. And, above all, the Arminians should not deny it, who, I think, acknowledge no means but Moral, if any other Operations on Man's soul.

4. And that they are Tesserae vel Symbola Christianae Religionis, none, that I know of, do deny.

p. 121But that they are instituted to operate on the Adult any any otherwise than Morally and this Essential to them; I deny upon three Reasons: 1. There is no Scripture that asserteth it: Et quod Scriptum non est, Credendum non est, about such Matters. 2. Else not only the Armenians but the greatest part of Christians should deny the Sacraments, who deny such use and operations of them: And specially all those Protestants who dealing with the Papists opus Operatum, largely write to prove that Sacraments work but Morally. 3. And the Nature of the thing sheweth it impossible without a Miracle. For the Grace to be conveyed is the Act or Habit or Disposition of Love to God (and the Conjunct Graces) with that Antecedent Light of knowledge and faith which must excite it: And how but Miraculously Water in Baptism should be an Instrument of conveying holy Love or Knowledge, no Man conceive. For 1. Our Love of God is not put into the Water. 2. If it were, the Water doth not touch the Soul. 3. If it did; Corporal Contact, or attingencie would not cause Love. The same is said of the …ucharist. And the truth is many Papists are by Protestants mistaken in their Doctrine de Opere Operato, who speak but as distinguishing it ab Opere Operantis. And when they have puzled themselves to tell what the Indelible Character given by Ordination is, they can satisfactorily carry it no higher than with Durandus to say, it is a Relation; that is, A fixed Relation to the Vndertaken Work, and a power, right and obligation to it. And they that tell us as Ioseph Anges, &c.) that Ordination is a true Sacrament (though sinfully used) when given to an Infant and a Bedlam, and that none hut Durandus denieth it, (a false Doctrine no doubt quia deest dispositio recipientis;) yet can tell us of no more that it doth convey to the Infant or Bedlam-Priest, or Bishop, but a Relation. Nor can they, that say [Receive the Holy Ghost] assure us that any more is given by Ordination. And so of Baptism.

And if they say that [If the Water be not the Instrument of given-grace to the Adult, yet it may be to me other means, let them tell us if they can what they mean; and what means besides a Moral means it can be.

If they say that if God give not grace (qualitative or Active), by it as a means, yet he giveth grace with it, without any second cause, I answer, God can do so no doubt: He can give grace while we are hearing, though inconsiderately, without any use of the Word heard; And so in the time of baptizing, without any causality of Baptism: But he, that will assert as in any Miracles and Immediate Operations, as Sacraments, must bring very clear proof of his assertion.

Sure we are that Faith and Repentance are prerequisite in the Adult, and therefore the Sacrament is not so much as the Time of first-giving them (by Institution:) And we are all agreed that in the Sacraments, Sacred truth and Goodness, Christ and his Gracious benefits are objectively set before us, as Moral means of our Information, Excitation and increase of faith and hope and love. And when we are sure that the Word and Sacraments are instituted for one way of giving gracious Acts or Qualities, he that will add another must prove it,

4. And the case being thus with the Adult, the instance of Infants will not prove the Sacraments, no Sacraments to the Adult, the Noblest Subjects. And though God may immediatly or Miraculously at the same time give holy Habits or Acts to Infants; yet it is past Man's Conception how Water or Words should be any Cause of them, any more on them; than on the Adult, as aforesaid: And he that will say that yet so it is though We know not how, as the Papists do about Transubstantiation, must first prove that it is so indeed. We grant that the Parents are to use it Morally in dedicating their Children to God, and believing and Covenanting for them: And that God useth it as his investing or delivering sign, morally to give the Infant all the Relative Grace, which the Covenant as the Principal Instrument giveth, that is, Right and Relation to the Father, Saviour and Sanctifier, and Right to pardon and Adoption and the Heavenly Inheritance, which, set together, are Relative Regeneration, as Judicious Bishop Davenant de Bapt. Infant. well openeth it: And that it is the badg… of his Christianity; and an apt objective means of moral Operations on him as he cometh to the use of Reason. When you have told us what more it doth, and proved it, and proved that, without that, it is no Sacrament, you have done something.

Your non ponenti Obicem is no Scripture Notion, ambiguous if not unsound. If you mean it as the Words sound, of some positive …ct, which is ponere obicem, it is certainly false as to the Adult (to whom the Sacraments are true Sacraments.) For God hath made their positive Consideration, perception, Faith and Repentance, a p. 122necessary Condition of their Reception of the benefit: So that if an adult person, as to Baptism or the Lord's Supper, should carelessly be asleep, or not think what he is about, or meerly not-know, not-believe, not-repent, you can shew no promise of your miraculous grace to him. And the Sacrament to an Infant is the same thing, though the Act of believing be not required of himself, but of another for him.

But if by ponere obicem you mean a priva…ion, that is, non-prestare conditionem, not to believe, repent, &c. then it's true, but an ambiguous deceitful phrase. To believe is more than not to resist: And so to be the Seed of the Faithful is.

And I suppose (by your new Rubrick) you will say, that every Infant in the world, of Cannibals, Heathens or Infidels that is baptized (jure vel injuria, though taken by Soldiers violently by thousands against the Parent's Wills) are certainly Sanctified, and do not ponere obicem themselves, and that the Sacrament to them is not null; It would be needful to our satisfaction that you tell us what internal Actual, or habitual Grace it is that all these have; and prove it; and prove that else it were no Sacrament. But enough of this.

Q. Now let us see what you ascribe to the Cross.

The Matter of it is an Image, though Transient; of which God's Jealousy, exprest in the Second Commandment hath made us Jealous; in his Worship: As to the Form and Use. 1. It is the Covenant of Christianity it self, that it is about: And it is no less than our Solemn Engaging, Professing and Obliging Sign, that we are Resolved Christians, and will keep that Covenant; even the same Covenant that is solemnized also by Baptism. All the Duties of the Covenant on our parts, we thus solemnly bind our selves to perform valiantly to the Death, in Terms like the Sacramentum Militare. The Canon 30. let us know that it is used [to dedicate Children by that Badg to his service, whose benefits bestowed on them in Baptism the Name of the Cross doth represent:] And [It's an Honourable badg whereby the Infant is Dedicated to the Service of him that Died on the Cross.] So that on the Receiver's part it wants nothing of a Sacrament.

2. That it is also used as God's Means of Delivering us the Relative Grace of the Covenant, I conceive for these Reasons.

1. The Adult is not to Sign himself, but the Minister who is Christ's Agent (not so much as asking, wilt thou be signed?) doth sign him with the Sign of the Cross, in token that he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucified, and manfully to Fight under his Banner, against Sin, the World and the Devil, and to continue Christ's faithful Servant and Soldier to their Live's end. Amen.

2. The Cross and the Benefits, with Christ Crucified, are hereby Represented.

3. The Churches Publick Profession, that this is their Dedication of the Child, importeth plainly God's Acceptance of him that is Dedicated: For who dare offer that to God which he supposeth not that God Accepteth, as offered: And God's acceptance of the dedicated person into the State, relation and benefits of Christanity, is the very grace on God's part, which is essential to a Divine Sacrament strictly taken. And is this no grant of federal Grace?

3. And that to the Adult the Cross is a Moral means of internal and Qualitative Grace I think you will not deny A Moral means operateth objectively, by Teaching the Intellect: by representing the moving-object, and by Excitation of the Will: And how eminently is all this here intended? In General the Liturg. (of Ceremony) saith [They are such as are apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the remembranoe of his Duty to God by some notable and special signification by which he may be edified.] And is this no Gracious Work? And it is Christ Crucified, and his benefits that by the Cross are represented to this use. And is not that to operate morally on mind and will accordingly? And the Words tell us particularly that it is to stir us up and oblige us to the Actual Manful fighting under Christ's Banner, against sin, &c. and not be ashamed to confess him. And is not this a moral gracious Operation? When as the Gospel worketh by the Ear, so the Cross by the Eye and Thought: It is not Grace that the Gospel is to work? And is it not a means of working it, as well as the Sacraments; Yea and in the same sort of Causality? Doubtless then here is the Grace of the Covenant to be wrought, as well as the Duty of it promised.

4. And lastly that it is the Symbol and Badge of our Christianity the Canon twice professeth.

So that I think here is an intire third Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace; inventitious and humane, and not of God's making. And if you could prove (as you p. 123never can) that some Miraculous sort of Operation, not common to the Gospel or the Covenant it self, is essential to a Sacrament for new Acts or Qualities on Infants or others, I would ask when you thus cross the Child, Do you look that God should do any more for his Soul thereon, than if you did it not, or no? If you do (as they did that used the Cross of old, and the Papists now) then you expect God's inward Grace upon the use of the Cross. If you look not that the Child's soul be ever the better for it, it's pity Baptism should be denyed them that dare not use it; or so many Ministers be silenced about it.

But had it but some great and notable sacramental uses (as the fore-named) though not all, I durst not presume on such an inventitious sacramental sign. I have oft said; I doubt whether the King would not think his Prerogative invaded, if any should presume to institute a new Badg, besides his Garter and Star, of the Order or the Knights of the Garter; much more a Symbol or Badg for all his Subjects; and deny them the Knighthood or Ius Subditi who refuse it. But too long of this.

4. Prop. About compelling the Unfit to receive the Lord's Supper.

Strict. The Church doth not compel any to receive the Sacrament that is unfit: but punnisheth them that are unfit, and neglect the making of themselves fit for it, by breaking off their Sins by Repentance.

Answ. Alas! poor Souls, that must have such a Cure! It seems by this that this Church supposeth. 1. That all Men can Cure all their Unfitness: 2. And that a Prison is the way to make them willing. We Nonconformists contrarily think, That, 1. A Willing person may be Uncured of some unfitnesses. 2. And that a Prison is no fit cure for such; nor for some others. We think that a Melancholly or Timerous Person is unfit, who would be like to be distracted by the fear of unworthy Receiving: We are sure that all that we can say will not Cure such Fears in very many: If Conformists can do it, and will not, they are to blame: We know that the Person himself, though willing, cannot do it. We will not believe that Christ would have them laid in Goal to cure them. But if the Bishops will take that course, it must be suffered: We judge all our present Infidels, Sadducees, and Socinians unfit, if not the Papists: And they offer their Protestations that they cannot change their Judgments: We think a Goal unapt to change them; but rather with meekness to instruct Opposers, if God perhaps will give them Repentance to the acknowlegment of the Truth, 2 Tim. 2. 25. Yea, though after the Chancellour's admonition (or better means) they be erroneous still. Verily if your way were throughly practised, and such Church-Laws executed, and all dwelt in Goals, that are unfit for the Sacrament (after your teaching, and admonition, and Excommunication) the Landlords would find a great diminution of their Tenants, and the Goalers would have more Tenants than many Lords, and it were necessary to have a Goal in every Parish. This is your way of comforting the timerous; but who should there maintain them all, I know not. But if Goalers be the most effectual Converters of Souls, I think more Clergy-Men than Non-conformists need their help, that obtain it not: And they may possibly put in for the Tythes and Church-Revenues.

Strict. Is any Minister required to give the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood to any unbaptized Person? Is not this a groundless, and slanderous insinuation? Nay, is any Minister forced or required to give the Sacrament to any notoriously wicked, or prophane Person? See the Rubrick before the Communion. That which follows seems to aim at an introducing of Auricular Confession, or the setting up an Independent, Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction in every Minister over his own Parish.

Ans. 1. Your Charge is causeless: I find in the Canons and Rubrick, that every Parishioner must receive: And those unbapaized (as many born of Anabaptists are) I find not described or named, as excepted in the Canon or Rubrick, nor that any at age are forced to be Baptized, and yet are forced by Penalty to Communicate: So that I confess I am so ignorant as not to know whether I should be punished by the Bishop, if I refused an un-baptized Parishioner: p. 124But yet I verily think, that the meaning of the Makers of the Liturgy, and Canon was otherwise; and I intended no more but to enumerate them whom we would have Power not to give the Sacrament to; q. d. Not only the unbaptized (plainly to be named) but also the rest following.

2. If by notoriously wicked, you mean those that the Bishop or Chancellour hath Excommunicated, we may keep them away… Or if the Congregation will say, that they are offended by their Crimes, then they may be admonished to forbear; but if they will not forbear upon the Admonition, or at least will every time say, that they are fully purposed to amend (as most wicked Men will do) I find not by the Rubrick, that we can refuse them; except it be one that is obstinate in Malice, when (at that time) desired to be reconciled; but the Canon seemeth to give more Power.

3. Our Case is this: We know that many are professed Infidels, and many understand not what Baptism, or Christianity, or the Lord's Supper are, in the very Essentials (in many Places I doubt the greater part of the Parish:) A great number live in heinous Sins, (Drunkenness, Fornication, Swearing, slandering, &c.) The ignorant, and Infidels, the Minister would instruct, but they will not come to him, nor speak to him, but refuse to give him any account or answer. Almost all are Baptized in Infancy, and at Age come to Church and never owned, that the Minister knoweth of, their Baptismal Covenant any otherwise. We know not that we have Power to exclude the grosly ignorant: If we had, it must be, if any will witness that his Neighbours are so Ignorant as to be uncapable (which what private Man can and will do?) or else if they will come and say before others, I am so Ignorant; which few if any ever will, till God do humble them: And who will come and offend the scandalous, by witnessing against them, unconstrained, though they will openly report it to one another. How few of the Infidels, Socinians, gross Ignorants, or scandalous here in London, are by the Witnesses accused to the Ministers as such? If we have the most credible Report that half our Country Parishioners, or a quarter, (more or less) are grosly Ignorant of the Essentials of Christianity, and we find it true by so many of the suspected as will talk with us; we must receive all the rest, with all the Infidels, and wicked Livers, that none will become Accusers of, though we know much our selves to confirm report. And if they tell us, we will have nothing to do with you out of the Pulpit, we will give you no account of our knowledge or Faith; nay, we take you not for any of our Pastors; yet must we do the office of a Pastor to them, and give them the Sacrament, and we are setting up Auricular Confession, if we do but, as their Teachers, require on just Suspicion any account of their Knowledge, or Faith, or upon our Knowledge, offer first personally to instruct them. And if we desire else but to suspend our own Act, tho they have their Appeal, we arrogate Independent Power. No wonder if under such Overseers, our Parishes be but what they are.

4. Prop. n. 8. [To publish Excommunications—against his Conscience.

Strict. [Against his, viz. the Minister's Conscience. Is not this to make every Minister an Independent, Ecclesiastical Judge? And that not only exclusively to Lay-Chancellours, but to Bishops themselves also; as appears by the words, [or any other.]

Answ. 1. No, let the Indifferent judge. An Ecclesiastick Judge is Iudex publicus; but here is nothing but Iudicium discretionis privatum, suspending my own Act, and medling with no Man's else. Doth he judge Ecclesiastically, who speaketh not a word, nor medleth with the Cause any more than any one in the Congregation?

2. How is he an Independent Judge where he is no Iudge? Yea, and where the Bishop, and Chancellour are the Judges, and none resisteth or controlleth them? He had not been Independent, had he made himself Iudge, allowing an Appeal.

3. Seriously, do you take it to be each Minister's Duty to pronounce all Excommunications, and absolutions which are sent them, without exception, or not? If yea, then if Bishops again Excommunicate their own Kings (as often p. 125they have done) we must obey, which I will not do. Or if an Arrian Excommunicate the Orthodox; or a Papist a Protestant as such; or any Bishop in Malice or on false Accusations Excommunicate the Faithfullest of the Flock, yea, or all the Parish, must we obey? For my part, (call me as you please) if you Excommunicate the wisest, and most Religious, and (otherwise) most obedient of my Flock, for Covenanting in Baptism for his own Child, for refusing the Cross, for not kneeling at the reception of the Sacrament, for reading a Chapter, or repeating a Sermon to his Family, while his Neighbours hear him, I will bear your silencing and Prisons, rather than pronounce that Excommunication.

But if you allow any Exceptions, our Consciences must be the discerning Judges, whether it be that excepted Case or not. Else it is no Exception.

But O what Groans beseem poor Ministers, if this be indeed their Case, that just, or unjust, whatever Conscience say against it, we must pronounce all Excommunications and Absolutions (and consequently do all such other things) as a Lay-Chancellour, or Bishop shall command us; unless they could prove to us that God will justi…ie our absolute Obedience, how heinous soever the action be! This is not to be the Ministers of Christ, no, nor of Men, but their absolute Slaves, though to our Damnation, and our Brethren's wrong. If you have any tenderness for our Consciences, when you have enow more at hand to pronounce your Sentence, would you not set one to do it that doth not scruple it, and spare a Minister, that protesteth he dare not do it for fear of Damnation?

4. Prop. n. 9. [To travel long Journeys, or neglect their Studies.—

Strict. They need not, for they may appear by Proctors.]—

Answ. There is some Comfort in that: But if I have a Parish of five Thousand, or ten Thousand Souls (more or less) and it prove that the tenth part of the Parish be either grosly ignorant of the Essentials of Christianity, or Infidels, Papists, Hereticks, Schismaticks, Drunkards, Swearers, Ribalds, Railers, or otherwise scandalous, such as the Canon forbiddeth me to give the Sacrament to, and I present each of these to the Chancellour's Court, or half of them, I doubt Proctor's Fees, in the Prosecution, will take up more than all the Tythes come to, and leave me neither Cloaths nor Bread. If you say, it is not so with others, I answer, I know what Men are among whom I have lived, in all places, and I know what the Canon bids me do; but why other Men do it not, and save themselves, I am not bound to give an account, nor yet to imitate them.

And whether these Proctors will save me harmless, and plead my Cause as the Case requireth, I cannot tell.

4. Prop. n. 10. Let it be left to their Prudence whom they will absolve in Sickness, and give the Sacrament to in private.]—

Strict. 1. I know no Law that enjoyns the contrary.

Answ. Rubr. [After which Confession the Priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort—] And if he will but say these Words, [I humbly and heartily desire it] the Minister hath not Power to forbear an absolute absolution.

Strict. 2. I am glad they allow the giving of the Sacrament to the Sick: but that the Sick should chuse what Confessors they please, and consequently exclude their own Ministers from the exercise of the most proper; and most important Acts of his Ministerial Function; besides that it seems to interfere with what is said in the first word of this Paragragph, viz. That their own Minister is best acquainted with the Penitence or Impenitence of his People; besides this, I say, It seems to be a trick to draw all Confessions to themselves, as the Fryars have done in the Church of Rome, from the Secular Clergy, or Parish-Priest in that Church.

p. 126Answ. 1. The mistake had no Cause in the Words: There was no exclusion of any Parish-Minister mentioned, who is willing; no, nor any Excuse of any that is unwilling, from any other Office in Visitation; but only that the unwilling may not be forced to absolve any in those absolute Words [I absolve thee from all thy Sins] when he believeth verily that the Person is Impenitent. But I had no thought, or word of excluding any Priest, as is here suspected.

2. But as the Church of Rome alloweth Men to confess to what Priest they please, I know not how you can hinder any dying Man from doing it, without setting a Guard upon his Doors, or forbidding any, save the Parish-Priest, to visit him, which is inhumane. This day, while I was writing this, a Parish-Minister came to me to lament his Sin, and told me that he had lived idly, and wickedly at the University, and ever since, and had taken the Ministry on him, without any regard to his own Soul, and the People's, and had no Learning, or Knowledge scarce of the Catechism; and that he had not read any Divinity, in Latin or English, but only out of two or three English Books, patched up some Sermons; not understanding a Latin Author, nor having read others: I asked him how he got ordained: He said, that was easie by Friends, &c. And that he was going to put himself into a Playhouse, because his Living was but forty Pound per Annum, but God convinced him by the way. Now I would know, If lie dying in such a Parish, must I confess my Sin to no Man but such an one as this? Why make you not the same Laws about Physicians, that no Man must take any other than such a Sot, if it be his Lot to be appointed him? Why may not I confess my Sins to more than one? Yea, to my Friend that is no Priest?

Prop. id. Let the words at Burial which import the Justification and Salvation of the Deceased be left to the Minister's discretion, who hath known the Person's Life and Death.

Strict. As to leaving the Omission, or use of these Words, (which they point to) in the Burial of the Dead to the discretion of the Minister, what is it but to give him Power of Sainting, or Damning whom he pleaseth?]

Ans. They are not only Christ`s Ministers, but yours, if not your Cryers, or Slaves, if they may not be trusted with the speaking, or not speaking of a Word, in so weighty a Case. There are, I still see, greater matters than Ceremonies that we differ in. The Case is this—[There swarm among us now many open professed Infidels, that openly deride Christ and the the Scripture, and plead against the Immortality of the Soul, and many against the Being of God: There are many Papists, Hereticks, Schismaticks, common Adulterers, openly owning it, Fornicators, Drunkards, Blasphemers; many have been Condemned for Treason, Murder, Theft, &c. The Conformists themselves Preach, and write that such cannot be saved without true converting Repentance: We are commanded at the Burial of all Men to say these Words [For asmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God, of his great Mercy, to take unto himself the Soul of our dear Brother here departed] and [we give thee hearty Thanks for that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our Brother out of, &c. and [that we may rest in him, as our Hope is, this our brother doth:] These words import the Person's Justification, and Salvation. We are to except no Person from this form of Burial, except, 1. Those that die unbaptized (though the Children of true Believers:) 2. The Excommunicate (though for not paying fees, or not conforming against Conscience.) 3. And those that have laid violent Hands on themselves, (though true. Believers in a Fever, Frenzy, or Distraction.) Some die in the act of Drunkenness, some murder each other in Duels, and that in Drunkenness (as lately was done near my Door;) some scorn the Minister and the Gospel to the death: Now we must openly pronounce all these Saved, for fear of having Power to Saint, and Damn whom we will: But we appeal to humanity it self.

p. 127Quest. 1. Whether I damn any Traytor, or Murderer, or impenitent Infidel, meerly by saying nothing of his Case, or not pronouncing him to be saved: And whether I Saint those that I bury in their own prescribed words, any otherwise than they Saint all Men?

Quest. 2. Whether we expose not our Ministry to the scorn of every Infidel, and Heretick, and Adulterer, when they can say to us, [What False Deceivers are you, to Preach and Write Damnation against us, and proclaim us all saved when we die.]

Quest. 3. Whether any thing can more probably debauch the World, and keep Men from Repentance, and so sill Hell, and damn the people, than to perswade all Men, that every ignorant person, that never knew what Christianity was, every impenitent Infidel, Adulterer, or wicked person, is saved when they die. Doth not this give the Lie to all our Preaching the contrary to them in the Pulpit? Do we not Teach them not to believe us? Or else it disableth us from telling them, that there is any Hell for them hereafter. If you say, we presume that they Repent; I Answer, If it be presumed that all Men repent at last, and are saved, even they that make no profession of any Repentance, but justifie their Infidelity, or Heresie, or Schism, or die in the Act, or in utter Ignorance, as a Heathen, then why may we not presume the like of all the World, and so lay by the Gospel, and all our talk of future punishment?

Quest. 4. And is he worthy to be trusted with the Care of Souls, as a Minister of Christ, that may not be trusted (I say not, to speak, but) to suspend one word at any time, which is thus Written for him to say? Judge, by this (with the Offices of Baptism, Confirmation, Communion and Absolution) what is a Priest's Office under such Bishops, and whether he have the Pastoral Power, either independently, or dependently at all.

4. Prop. n. 11. Let no Minister be forced to deny the Communion to godly persons, that think it unlawful to kneel.

Strict. [Why may not our Church forbid the giving of it to those that will not kneel, as well as the Presbyterians here and in Holland, forbid the giving of it to those that will not sit?]

Answ. 1. I never knew one Presbyterian here that did so: And their Directory did not so. And if any one should do so, I am sure it is a rare Person. And the Author of these words is no liker to know them than I. This therefore was not well said.

2. Whether they in Holland do so, I know not: But if they do, Do you think it well? I think otherwise, and all Nonconformists that I converse with. We take not a gesture to be crime enough to cut off Men from Communion with the Church. And if you think otherwise, or durst Excommunicate a Man for being Lame, or having the Gout in his knees, Why must we all needs practise as you judge, and execute so cruel a Sentence, any more than kill men when-ever you bid us? The Canon hath no Exception, Can. 27. [No Minister, when he celebrateth the Communion, shall wittingly administer the same to any but to such as kneel, under pain of Suspen…on.]

4. Prop. n. 12. Let Ministers have leave to open the meaning of the Catechism— (It is much to be wish'd that it were amended.)

Strict. 1. I know no Law which forbids them to do so.]

Answ. 1. That it is good news: some think so: And others think, that the Rubrick and Canon, Commanding them to Teach persons the Catechism, meaneth, that we must only teach them the words: And I remember the Articles in Parliament, against Bishop Pierce, contained, that among other things, that he forbad Ministers Expounding the Catechisme in the Afternoon, saying, it was as bad as Preaching. And the Sence, as to us, will be, what please the Bishop.

Strict. 2. I know no need it hath of mending, nor who are wise enough to amend it.

Answ. I am sorry for it; but cannot help it.

4. Prop. id. [—Some few quickening words of Exhortation—]

Strict. 3. The words prescribed both in Baptism and the Eucharist, are quickening enough, and more edifying perhaps and safe, than an Extemporary fancy can add unto them.] duplicate page p. 126duplicate page

p. 128Answ. 1. You know not what is most quickening and edifying to all other men, so well, as some know what is so to themselves.

2. All that know Humane Nature, know, that Customa…ness dulleth, and the use of words many hundred times over usually affect less than when there is some variation; though it were to be wisht it were not so.

3. Why must an Extemporary fancy needs be the Author? May not a man premeditate a few sentences as well as a sermon? Or if it were ex tempore, is he fit to be a Preacher that cannot speak a few sentences on so great a subject, with safe and edifying words?

4. Is it unsafer to give a Preacher leave to utter a few Sentences of the Sacrament at the Delivery, than to Preach a whole Sermon of it? And is he not equally responsible for both? But we insist not on this, as if we could not Administer without it.

Prop. 4. n. 13.] The Surplice indifferent in the Parish Churches—]

Strict. I had rather that, or any other of the Ceremonies should be taken away quite, than left indifferent: for that would be to establish Schism by a Law, and to bring it into the Church in stead of excluding it out of the Church; which, of two Evils is much the lesser.]

Ans. I think not: for we see things left indifferent make no Schism: One useth the Surplice in the Pulpit, and another not: One Prayeth before Sermon, And another only bids them Pray: One Prayeth after Sermon, and another not: One at the Singing of Psalms doth sit, another stand; and it maketh no Schism. And the Convocatio…, 1640, Commend Indifferency about Bowing towards the Altar: Therefore that Convocation was not of your mind. But either way will serve us.

Prop. 5.—[Not [to renonuce their Ordination] or be Re-ordain'd—]

Strict. They are not: Neither doth their Re-ordaining imply that they are: but only that they are not sufficiently qualified to Officiate in our Church.]

Ans. What Qualification is it that that they want? Generals here decides not the Case. If it be only the Qualification of Legal Authority, or License, Why will not the giving of that qualifie them? Or what necessity is there of Re-ordination? But when you, as well as we, profess, that Re-ordination, when real, is unlawful, and yet you require their Ordination de Nova, which they call Re-ordination, Doth not this tell the World that you take the first for null?

6. Prop. [No Excommunicate Person, as such, to be Imprison'd and Undone, but such whose Crimes deserve it.

Strict. Contempt of Authority is one of the greatest Crimes, and for that it is that men are Excommunicated first, and afterwards Imprison'd. Why doth not this Exception lie against such as are Outlawed in the Chancery, as well as against those that are Excommunicated?

Answ. Because the Cause differeth. E. g. I believe I have had multitudes with me Conformable as well as others, who being of timerous, or melancholy Constitutions, and under Temptations and Trouble of Mind, dare not receive the Sacrament, for fear of doing it unworthily, and of eating and drinking Damnation, and the Devil entring into them, (according to the words of the Liturgy, which affright them:) and they never Communicated in their Lives (at above 30 years of Age,) and have oft been going, and never durst venture: One of them was with me within this hour: Some that have ventured have faln Distracted, and some near it by Terror and Temptations: You can tell them reason against all this: And so can I, and have done it as like as oft as most of your Curates: and yet they are Uncured. And I must not say how little is done in too many places to cure their Ignorance, or Timerousness, which is the cause. And are you sure that all these poor troubled timerous Souls are worthy of utter ruine as Contemners of Authority? For not Communicating they must be Excommunicated, and after Imprison'd, and undone in the World, even during life, unless they can be changed by you. Every Man deserveth not utter ruin, who doth not all the good that he can do. But can such a person change their own minds and fears, because you give them reason for it? I know they cannot. And when Christ tenderly carrieth his Lambs in his Arms, and will not break a bruised Reed; Shall I, in his Name, as his Minister, Excommunicate them, and deliver p. 129them up (if not to the Devil) to the Magistrate, to be Beggered, and perpetually Imprisoned? Let me rather bear the wrath of all the Prelates on earth, and all that they can say or do against me.

Prop. 7. But who shall be judged tolerable—it doth not become us, &c.—]

Strict. As it doth not become you to be Judges of what is, or what is not tolerable in the case of others; so it doth much less become you to be Judges of what is, or what is not to be granted in your own case.]

Ans. We never arrogated any of your Power over our Brethren: We have formerly, in our Folly, hoped that we might presume to be Petitioners, though not Iudges what is to be granted us. We are not ashamed to confess, that we did desire leave to Preach Christ's Gospel; But we become not Iudges in the Case of our Superiours Acts. But by (or without) your leave, we must be discerning Iudges of our own Duty or Sin, whatever it cost us. And, I think, no sober Christian will give the contrary, under his hand, as his Judgment.

Prop. id. [That no Licensed Ministers shall Preach against any of the Doctrine, &c.]

Strict. It seems Vnlicensed Ministers may be allowed to speak for or against what they list.

Answ. Our Case is hard with you. I put in [Licensed, or Vnlicensed;] And the first Honourable and Learned Person that saw it, thought [Vnlicensed] should be put out, because it was unmeet for us to tell His Majesty whom he should tolerate, or how far; but to meddle only with our own Case, who desired Licenses: And now for blotting out that word, and not medling with any others, we are censured, as motioning, that the Unlicensed may say what they list: Thus all our Peace-making motions have been long interpreted by some.

Prop. id. [That all Magistrates be excepted from all open Personal Rebukes, and disgraceful Censures, or Excommunications, because, &c.

Strict. We take Excommunication to be an Ordinance of God, from which Magistrates are not to be exempted.

Ans. 1. God never ordained that a Lay-Chancellor should Excommunicate them.

2. God never gave power to any to excommunicate a King, Prince, or other Ruler (if any at all) but that particular Pastor to whom by voluntary Consent he committeth the Charge of his Soul. The Independents that think as you, are yet more modest in this, in that they subject the Ruler to none but the chosen Pastor of that particular Congregation which he voluntarily joyneth himself to.

3. Is not the World much abused when they are told that it is the Presbyterians, that are for excommunicating Princes, and not the Episcopal? For my part I am fully of the mind of Bishop Bilson, and Andrews (in …ortura Torti) in this; that to an Impenitent wicked Ruler, I would suspend my own Act of giving him the Sacrament, with Chrysostom's resolution rather to suffer: But my Judgment is that no Bishop nor Minister (especially one that is not his proper Pastor) may lawfully use any open personal rebukes, or disgraceful censures or Excommunications against Kings, Iudges or Honourable Magistrates: And my Reason, no Papist, Prelate, Presbyterian, or Independent, is able to refel, viz. from the fifth Commandment. The stablished perpetual Law of God Commandeth us to honour them. Disgraceful Excommunication is not accidentally, but purposedly a dishonouring them: For Men are excommunicated that they may be shamed. The after-positive Institution of Excommunication nulleth not this antecedent Moral Law: but must give place to it, and bindeth not against it. I farther prove that, 1. Because all Men confess that this last is but a Law of Order, and that Order is for the sake of the end and thing Ordered, and that it oft obligeth not when it ceaseth to be a means to that end, or would destroy it; And that E, g. If you knew that an Excommunication of a King or Judge would prove the Dissolution of that Church, it were not Lawful: Therefore neither when it exposeth the Magistrate to the reproach or Contempt of the Subjects, and so shaketh the very frame of the Kingdom, or Government. The Magistrate's honour for the good of the Kingdom is more p. 130necessary than his Dishonour and shame can be to the Order of that particular Church.

2. And a suspending of the Pastor's Act of delivering him the Sacrament, with an humble admonition, may better attain the Lawful end.

3. Christ himself hath oft taught us this Exposition of his Law. When he did eat with Publicans and sinners, he preferred their repentance, before the positive Order of not being familiar with such, as being never intended in such a Case. When the Disciples pluck't the Ears of Corn, and himself cured the sick on the Sabbath day, he proveth that the positive Law of Rest was intended to give place to the Moral Law of Necessity and Charity, and proveth it by the instance of David and the Officiating Priests; and twice sendeth the contrary minded Pharisees to learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy (a Natural Duty) and not (at that time) sacrifice (a positive institution:) And they, that will pretend a positive Law of Order for a Congregation, to the dishonouring of Kings and Iudges, and Magistrates, and making them contemptible, and so unable to govern, do Pharisaically set up Positives against natural moral Duties. By which means Popes and Patriarchs and other Prelates, have wronged Princes, and troubled the world too much already. Do you no better justifie the Common slander, how much the Non-conformists are against the honour of Magistrates in comparison of the Church of England. I know some Non-conformists think as you: but others do not. See the old Non-conformists judgment against excommunicating Kings in a Latin Treat, De vera & Genuina Christ. Relig. Authore Ministro Anglo, An. 1618. pag. 280.

4. Moreover, the execution of the sentence of Excommunication on Princes and Rulers, will less consist with the honour that is due to them, than the sentence it self: For to avoid them that they may be ashamed, to turn away from, not to be familiar with them, to keep them out of the Church at all God's special Church-worship, are things that we cannot do, without neglect of much of our duty to them; We must attend them and obey them with honour: I know a General Council hath forbidden Bishops to carry themselves with Lowliness at the tables and in the presence of Princes and great men; And I know that some think that Excommunicate Princes have forfeited their honour and it is lawful to dishonour them, yea and all wicked Princes who deserve Excommunication; and I know Mr. Hooker in his Eccles. Polit. saith, that it is supposed that a Prince that is the Head of a Christian Church be himself a Christian: But all these are Errours tending to the subversion of Order and Government; And the Higher Powers whom God's Spirit commandeth us to honour and be subject to, were Nero and the Roman Senate, and other Enemies of Christianity; even Idolatrous Heathens. And if these must be honoured, much more a Christian King or Judge, who were he a private man, might deserve an Excommunication. At least I hope that the Writ de Excommunicato Capiendo shall not be issued out against the King or his Judges, (though the Canon 65. command that every six months in Cathedrals and Parish-Churches the Excommunications be declared, of those that obstinately refuse to frequent the Divine Service established by publick Authority, and those (especially of the better sort and Condition) who for notorious contumacy, or other notable Crimes stand Excommunicate, &c.]) Though the Better sort are singled out especially for the sentence and shame, yet if it should be Judges and Sheriff, who shall Judge and apprehend them?

Prop. id. [Not silence, suspend, &c. Arbitrary, but by a known Law.]

Strict. No Bishops do or can do so; Neither is there any Law or Canon to that purpose that I know of.

Answ. I am loth to Name Iustances lest it provoke: Mr. Potter is dead: Dr. Willes of Kingsion now Chaplain to the King (they say,) I am sure hath complained much of his suspension at Shadwell: I remember Bishop Reighnolds was so sensible of the necessity of this Provision, that at the Savoy Treaty, he was most earnest to have it inserted and insisted on. It may be it is Minister's ignorance in the Law, that maketh them when suspended not know where to seek for a remedy (unless in vain or to their undoing.)

Postscript. If Sacraments were left free, &c. It would take in the Independents, &c.]

Strict. If Independents may be taken in by us now, why did not you take them p. 131in when you were in power? but preach and write so much as you did against Toleration of them? But you that would have us dispense to all things now, would your selves dispense with nothing then.]

Answ. It's pity that matters of publick fact should be so much unknown, and that when such inference follow! 1. I was never in power: Nay my Lot never fell out to be of any side that was Vppermost in Church matters, nor in State-Usurped power, but I always was of the under side.

2. It was the Toleration of all Sects unlimitedly that I wrote and preacht against, and not (that I remember) of meer Independents.

3. Those that did oppose the Toleration of Independents, of my acquaintance, did not deny them the liberty of Independency, but opposed separation, or their Gathering other Churches out of Parish-Churches that had faithful Ministers: If they would have taken Parish-Churches on Independent Principles, without separation, neither I nor my aquaintance did oppose them, no nor their Endeavours to reform such Churches.

4. The Case greatly differed: For an Independent to refuse Parish-Churches, when no Ceremony, no Liturgie, no Oath or Subscription is required of him, which he scrupleth, is not like his refusing Oaths, Subscriptions, Liturgie, Ceremonies, &c.

5. But in a Word, Grant us but as much, and take us but in, as we granted to, and took in the Independents, and we are content. Make this agreement and all is ended; we desire no more of you. We never denyed the Independents the liberty of preaching Lectures, as often as they would: Nor yet the liberty of taking Parish-Churches: They commonly had Presentations, and the publick Maintenance; And no Subscription, Declaration, Liturgie, or Ceremony, was imposed on them. Again I say, I ask you no more Liberty than was given the Independents by their brethren called Presbyterians. Let your Grant now agree but with your intimations.

6. And how then say you, we would dispence with nothing? For my part and those of my mind, we never imposed, nor endeavoured to impose any thing on any man, as necessary to Ordination, Ministry, or Communion, but [The owning of the Scripture Generally, and the Creeds, Lord's Prayer, and Decalogue and Sacraments particularly, with that measure of understanding them, and ability to teach them, which is necessary to a Minister, and fidelity therein.] I never spake for liberty herein for Episcopal, Independents yea and Anabaptists that only deny Infant Baptism, I wrote that hindering men's Ministry for their being against the Parliament: And I think I kept many and many thousands from taking the Covenant.

7. At least do you deny Liberty to none but those that denyed it to others, and we shall thankfully acquiesce.

Strict. I cannot think the maker of these Proposals could imagin that any, much less all of them would or could be agreed to.]

Answ. 1. You speak truly, if you mean [by those men, of whom upon former tryal, he had so great Experience:] It were great weakness in him to have expected it. But yet he is so charitable as to be confident (though not certain) that if these Proposals were made to the Conformable London Ministers, (such as Dr. Whitchcot, Dr. Stillingfleet, Mr. Gifford, Dr. Tillotson, Dr. Cradock; Dr. Outram, Dr. Ford, and many more such Learned worthy peaceable men, in this City) they would either grant all that is here desired, or abate so little as should be no hinderance to our present Concord: And though I have no great acquaintance with any of them, yet my knowledge of them by fame and hearing them preach, doth render me so fully persuaded, that if we could get the Case but referred to their Judgment and Counsel, instead of the Interessed Bishops who brought us to the state that we are in I make no doubt but we should be all healed in a few weeks time. And that you may not think my confidence vain take this proof: Bishop Wilkins was no fool nor fanatick: These men are much of his spirit and judgment, (who was a Lover of Mankind, and of honesty, peace and Impartiality and Justice.) And we agreed with him upon Terms like these, (upon the Lord Keeper Bridgman's Invitation) so far, that by mutual Consent the Agreement was drawn up into the form of an Act, to have been offered to the house, so that as much as lay in him and us, we were all agreed and healed. And why should I suspect that any of these worthy persons are less peaceable?

p. 1322. But by this Conclusion, those many persons, who have talk't so loud how ready some great Clergy-men are to Condescend, agree and abate all Unnecessary things to Unite us and prevent Popery, may now see, past all doubt, the very truth of the Case. This Animadverter you see, would not grant [any] one of all these Proposals no not our forbearance of an Oath, or Subscription to Ceremony, or any piece of their imposed formalities, not the leaving out of a word of the Litur…ie, &c. What is it then that they would abate? such Dealing will make men see at last.

Strict.—Or that if the Non-conformists were, upon such Terms as these, permitted to exercise their Ministry, and made capable of Pastoral charges and other Preferments in our Church, this would be a means to heal our lamentable Divisions that are now among us: unless he will say that the best expedient to suppress Schism, is to embrace and cherish and to reward Schismaticks, still professing and resolving to be so: Or that it is better and safer for the Church to have a fire within her bowels than without her doors; or contraries by being mingled together would thereby become less contrary or destructive to one another: No certainly: And therefore if they will still continue Non-conformists it is better and safer for the Church they should be still kept out than taken into it.

Answ. 1. But 'tis our Opinion (pardon our folly) that if the Law had not been made which forbad Daniel to pray to God, or commanded the worshiping of the Golden Image, they had been no Inconformists that kept not such a Law. And that if the Law were repeated which requireth Corporations to declare (that no man is bound by the solemn vow (no not to repent, nor against Popery, Schism, or Prophaness) they would be no Inconformists that did not so declare: And that if the Laws commanded us not to swear, subscribe, declare, Cross, &c. We were no Inconformists or Schismaticks if we did them not. But the name of Schismaticks is by such Godfathers as Ithacius, Idacius, and the rest of the Council of Bishops (from whom Ambrose dissended) put upon such as St. Martin, who separated from them to the death, for their Church-Tyranny and wicked Lives, and bringing Godly people into the suspicion and reproach of Priscillianism, if they did but meet for mutual edification and live Religiously. As Grotius saith that by a Papist he meaneth one that approveth of all that any Pope shall say or do (and I hope there are few such;) so with some men, a Schismatick is one that approveth not of all that a Pope or Prelate will prescribe. And if all the present Non-conformists were commanded to Preach with horns on their heads, to signifie the conquering power of the Church, or Word, they were Schismaticks, by such men's nomination, if they disobeyed. But I will now only ask, 1. Q. Were all the Apostles, and the Churches in their time and long after Schismaticks, who knew not our Oaths, Declarations, Subscriptions, Liturgie, Ceremonies, &c.

Q. 2. Did they not take as wise a course for the Churche's concord and the avoiding of Schism, as either the English or Roman Bishops take?

Q. 3, Had not the Omission or the Romish Canons about Transubstantiation, Tradition, and such like, been a better way to prevent heresie, than the obeying them? And may it not be so in our case? Would any be Schismaticks for dissenting from Lay men's power of the Keys, from Crossing, &c. if there were no such Laws? And did not Peter and Paul please God as well without them as you do with them? And did not Peter and Paul go as safe a way to Heaven as you? And is he that consenteth to go the same way to heaven as they did, and to do all that the Universal Church imposed for an hundred, two hundred years after them (at least) yet worthier of the Name of a Schismatick, than the New Lords, that by new Laws do make and call all Schismaticks that live as the Apostles did, or did command them, and no more?

2. You have tryed your Better and safer way (by silencing 1800 Ministers of Christ) by which the Flocks are scattered and divided, and we are as Guelphes and Gibelines in Contention; And if yet it seem best to you, a few years (by Death's interposition,) will help you to be of another mind. But, alas, must the souls of Millions and the Nation pay so dear for your mistake, while you are preparing for the too late Convictions of sad Experience?

Strict. The only certain and safe way of healing these Divisions (as I conceive) p. 133is, for all, that are taken into the Church, to submit to one and the same Rule as well in Agendis as Credendis, as well in circumstantials and ceremonials, as in Substantials and Essentials; as well in the manner, as the matter of Religious Worship.

Ans. 1. And who shall make that Rule? The Bishops! And who shall be Bishops? You! And so the Sum is, The only certain, and safe way of Healing, is, for no Man to differ from our Judgment or Will in our Agendis, or Credendis, Circumstance or Substance, manner or matter of Worship, nor say a Word to God in publick, but what we write down for him, or allow him. What Sectary would not be such a Healer?

2. But I am sorry that any Christian, much more Pastors, can believe that ever all the Church will be such Idolizers of Man, as to stretch their Consciences to own all that for matter, and manner, substance, or Circumstance he shall prescribe; or else will all be so ripe in Knowledge, as all to know which are the right Modes and Circumstances, and so come to be of one mind. The Church of Rome had not needed Inquisitions, Flames, and Racks, nor lost so many Kingdoms, if this could have been done. But if ever the Church be heated by Men of your Opinion, by this which you account the only way, neither God nor Reason have herein spoken by me. Wonderful! that near one Thousand three Hundred Years Experience of the Churches doth not convince you, and teach you better.

Strict. For though an Agreement in the Essentials only be enough to make any Man a Member of the Catholick, or universal Church, yet is it not enough to make a Man a Member of this or that particular National Church: For all the Reformed Churches agree (as appears by the Corpus Confessionum) in the Essentials of Faith and Worship; and therefore in that respect they are all Members of the Church-Catholick; but they do not agree, either in the same form of Government, or in the same outward form of Worship; or in the same Ecclesiastical Discipline, or in the same Rites and Ceremonies: And it is the Agreement in such things as these, as well as in Essentials, which constitutes, and giveth Denomination to the several National Churches; which, all of them taken together, do make up the Church Catholick: Thus to make up one Member of the French, Dutch, or any other Reformed Churches, it is not enough to be a Catholick, no nor a Protestant-Catholick neither; but he must subscribe, and conform, not only in point of Judgment to their Confession of Faith, but in point of Practice also to all their Rules, Orders, and Usages, in Preaching, Praying, Administration of the Sacraments, and all External Rites, and Ceremonies prescribed by publick Authority, to be used in the publick Worship of God, for the more solemn, more unanimous, more decent, and more edifying performance of the same; which, if any Man, upon any pretence whatsoever, refuse to do, he cannot be of such or such a National Church, where a Conformity to all such things is indispensably required of all that will be of, or continue in the aforesaid respective Churches. And is it not as Lawful and reasonable for our Church to prescribe Conditions of her Communion, to those that will be of it, and continue in it, as it is for any other of the Reformed Churches to prescribe to those that are of theirs?

Ans. 1. It's well that Christ is more merciful than Men: His easie Yoke and light Burden, Mat. 11. 29. and the necessary things, Act. 15. is enough to make Men Members of him, and his Body the Church Catholick, that they may be saved: But he that will be of a National Church must bear and do no Man knows what!

2. But how will this stand with Christ's Catholick Laws? A true Catholick Christian shall be saved: But he that is no more, with you, is guilty of one of the greatest Crimes, viz. Contempt of your Authority; and can he then be Saved? Christ's Catholick Members must love, honour, and cherish each other: But with you, he that obeyeth you not in every Word, Mode, and circumstance, or ceremony; is to be silenced, and persecuted. Christ's Laws are, that he that p. 134is weak even in the Faith, be received, but not to doubtful disputations, and that for smaller difference we neither despise nor judge each other, but receive one another as Christ received us, and that so far as we have attained, we walk by the same Rule, and mind the same things, and if in any thing we be otherwise minded, God will reveal even this unto us: And that we must love one another with a pure Heart, fervently, and by this be known to all Men to be Christ's Disciples: But your National Process carrieth it beyond this Line; you will first break this Catholick Law (as if your National Church were not part of the Universal) and make Laws for judging the foresaid Dissenters, and then plead yours against Christ's Laws, and say, he meant not those that are under a Law, (while he forbad such Laws.) And so you may Excommunicate, reproach, avoid, imprison, undo, and silence those that Christ commanded you tenderly to Love, and say they are Schismaticks, for they obey us not in every Circumstance O! how much easier is Christ's Yoke than yours?

3. But what is this National Church which is so contrary to Christ's Catholick Church? If it be all the Churches and Christians that are under one Christian Prince, we own it as such: But this needs no such conditions as you name: And it is not true that the Catholick Church consisteth only of such; for the Subjects of the Turks and Heathens are part of the Catholick Church: If it be all the Churches of a Kingdom as voluntarily associated for Communion or Concord, I repeat the same as aforesaid. But if you mean all the Churches of a Kingdom, as under one Constitutive Ecclesiastical Head, and Pastor, few Protestants will say that it is of God's Institution; (Bilson and others usually say Patriarchs, Metropolitans, &c. are humane Creatures:) And verily I had rather be no Member of a Church of Man's making (till I better know the Maker's Authority) than renounce all that mutual Love, and Brotherly concord and forbearance, and kindness, and all Christ's Promises of Salvation to such, which he hath settled upon his Catholick Members. And if what you say be true, who would not rather far be a meer Catholck Christian, out of all National Churches, than be in them? But I yet hold, that though your particular Canon bind not the Church universal, yet Christ's universal Laws bind all particular Churches and Christians.

4. And that which maketh me dissent is, that I am not able to discern how all Men can obey such Laws as you mention, and live in any concord with you, without renouncing all Conscience, Christianity, and Religion. Not that I judge all to do so that agree with you: For those that agree in Iudgment, may agree in Practice. But you must make me mad, or unacquainted with Mankind, before you make me believe that a whole Kingdom will ever be so perfect in Judgment, or so much of the same temper, Education, condition, converse, &c. as to be all of one Mind in every word, circumstance, ceremony, and mode of Worship, and Discipline, upon Christian, conscientious terms. Either they must absolutely believe as the Rulers bid them, or not. If yea, then most Turks, Heathens, Papists are in the right, that be of the Religion of their Rulers. If not, some bounds and Rules must shew them the difference, how far Obedience is to be given: And the Subjects must be the Discerners, whether the Case falls under those Qualificationt or not: As e. g. whether it be Sin against God. And when all the Men and Women in a Kingdom have a Multitude of Words, circumstances, and ceremonies, and modes to try by such Rules, they will never be of one Mind about them, who would be of one Mind in a few plain things. And then you come and make their Disobedience to be one of the greatest Crimes, deserving Excommunication, Imprisonment, and ruin; so that you make such a National Church to be a trap for Men's undoing and Damnation.

5. As for what you say of the Foreign Churches, their Country-men say, that it is not all one to impose the necessary Discharge of Men's plain, undeniable Duty, and to impose the Humane Work, which you can describe. But I am a stranger to them, and am bound to receive nothing against another, till I hear both Parties speak; nor am I concerned in the Case, as not being bound to justifie them any more than you. If it be as you say, no wonder if they have the distractions and calamities, and Divisions, which render them the objects of compassion. The Serpent, that beguiled Eve, hath long ago tempted almost all the Churches from the Ancient Christian Simplicity, in Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship, which is the only way of common Concord.

p. 1356. But yet besides the Catholick Church, we hold particular Churches being Christian Assemblies, to be of Christ's Institution. And it is impossible there to worship God without the determination of many Circumstances and Modes: Some Translation, some Metre of Psalms, some Tune, some Time and Place, some Pastor, some Utensils, must be chosen: And he, that will herein depart from the Common chosen Circumstance, departeth therein himself, from their Communion: But yet such may serve God acceptably in another Assembly, and may live in Christian Love and Peace, though they Sing not in the same Tune or Gesture; or use nor every Ceremony alike. And this is nothing to the making of new Symbols, Oaths, Subscriptions, or other things, not necessary in genere, and that by the Officers of National Humane Church, and this not only to be done, and quietly born, but approved: Your Way is the most proper Engine to tear in pieces all the Churches in the World, or reduce them to a Spanish Humane Obedience. For if a particular Parish-Church did not so much as tye Men to a Ceremony, but mere Determinations, which must some way be made; If the Priest stood at the Church door, and said, You shall not enter, unless you will Subscribe, or Say, or Swear, that we are infallible in all that we do; or that there is no Sin, no Fault, nothing contrary to God's Will and Word; nothing but what you Assent, and Consent to, in all our Translations of Scripture, in all our Versions, Tunes, Words, Gestures, Circumstances, I would never enter into that Church; though I will gladly and peaceably joyn with them, if they will let me alone without such Obligations to justifie all they do. One would think this should have been past Controversie before this day, among the Prudent Pastors of the Churches.

Strict. Still supposing, that neither they, nor we, require any thing that may not be submitted to without sin.

Answ. Upon that Supposition we have no Controversie with you; Then what need any of this adoe? But who shall be the Judge? If you must, and that absolutely; then it is all one to us whether it be sin or no sin: for, to us, it will be none, if we do as you bid us: But then why do Protestants condemn Papists, who do as they are bidden? And why do our Articles condemn them, that say, All Men may be saved in the Religion they are bred in; when they all do as they are bidden, even they that defie Christ. But, if you hold not to this, what shall we do? Are we our selves the discerning Judges? Then we protest before God and Men, that we take the things that we deny Conformity to, to be sins, and very heinous sins, and very far from things indifferent: If you say, that we must obey you till we are past doubt, and certain that 'tis sin; I Answer, 1. It's too few things that Man's Understanding reacheth to a certainty in: What if I verily think, that I see reason to take that which a Bishop or Church Commanded, to be Blasphemy, Perjury, Treason, Murder, Heresie, &c. but I am not certain and past doubt: Must I then do it? Then a Man that can be but sufficiently ignorant, or doubtful, may stick at no Commanded Wickedness. Some other Rule therefore than this must be found out. If you say, That we have no reason to take any thing commanded for sin; and you think you confute all our Objections; I Answer, 1. So all Imposers think, or most: And so we are as confident that our Reason is good, and that we see the gross Errors of your Answers: And all this is but to say, that no Man is to be Tolerated in your Church, that is not in every thing in the Right (and that in your Judgments.) Suppose you were Infallible, so are not all the Subjects: And if their Reason be bad, and yours good, all that is no more than to say, That They Err, or are Mistaken: And if no Man shall be Tolerated with you that Erreth, and that in as great a Matter as a Circumstance, or Ceremony; no two Men in the World must hold Communion on such Terms. I am confident I study as hard as you: I am confident I am as impartial and willing to know the Truth: I have far less than you to tempt me to the contrary. And yet I verily think Conformity to me would be a heinous Sin: Nay, I am past doubt of it, if that will serve. Give us but leave to publish our Reasons freely, and you shall see whether we have any Reason. But if yet I be mistaken, Shall your National-Church have never a Member Tolerated that is as ignorant and bad as I? Hold to that, and try the Issue, whether your Church will be as numerous as you are.

p. 136Strict. And Churches abroad both have been and will be our Compurgators, and I wish the Presbyterians of England and Scotland would be content to stand to the Judgment of all the Tresbyterian Churches abroad, whether they may not without sin conform to all that (by our Church) is required of them. Nay, whether they can refuse to Conform without sin.

Ans. Content: I and all of my mind profess, that we will accept your offer: But we wish as sincerely that you would stand to it. Not that we take any Men for the Lords of our Faith: but let them hear us speak, and if they say, that it is lawful (or not a heinous sin in us) to Conform, we will acquiesce and never more accuse you as Persecutors, but silently undergo all the Accusation of Schism. But then by the Churches, you must not mean any odd persons, but the Churches indeed.

Strict. Especially in this Conjuncture of time, when we have so great reason to fear the prevailing of the Common Enemy against us both; and consequently, not only the Endangering, but the utter ruining of the Protestant Religion, and that not only here, but perhaps in all the World besides; the guilt whereof will lie especially at our Doors if we do not agree.

Ans. 1. What is the great reason you have to fear the prevailing of the Common Enemy, and utter ruin of the Protestant Religion. Is it from our State at home? Or from abroad? If the later, we understand it not, nor who is the Cause. If the former, Where lyeth the danger? Is it in the increase of Papists, as to Quality or Number of persons? Did not you cause the Silencing of 1800 Ministers, and thereby (and otherwise) the disaffecting of many Hundred thousand people (I think) who would have loved and Served you? Did not you help to Banish them Five Miles from (not the Court only) but all Cities and Corporations, and Places of their former Ministery? Did you not undertake all the Ministerial Work, without them; And say, you could do it better without them than with them, as being sufficient your selves. Did not one of you tell me, that you thought any Congregation was better to have none, then such as I? Do you not still here conclude, that unless we will conform to every Oath, Subscription, Word, &c. It's better that we be out of your Church than in it? And do you, after all your Undertakings and Sufficiency, now bring us so sad an account of your success? Have you been bringing our Religion to no better a pass? Have high and low been no better instructed and prefered by you? Hath Popery been no better resisted by you in those Places whence you Bunished us? Do you now come and tell us, that we have great reason to fear the utter ruin of the Protestant Religion? Is this your account of your undertaken Stewardship? What hands then is the Church faln into, if it be so used?

2. O let us all hear and fear what Man may come to: Would our Agreement do any thing to prevent this terrible danger which you describe; And will you still tell all the World, That rather than we shall not be compelled against our Consciences (to our Damnation if we obey) to Declare, that we assent and consent to every word, yea, and use every word in all your Liturgy, to Declare, That Millions whom we know not, if they Vow in their Places and Calling, to endeavour a Reformation of the Church (were it but in Lay-Men's power of the Keys) are not obliged by that Vow: rather than we shall be suffered not to Swear Obedience to the Bishops (though we are responsible to the Law for any Disobedience;) rather than we shall be Suffered to forbear the Image of the Cross in Baptism, or to forbear to pronounce every wicked Man saved that we Bury, or to suffer a Parent to Covenant in Baptism for his own Child; or rather than we shall be endured to forbear turning Godly People that dare not kneel, from Church-Communion, and pronouncing them Excommunicate every six Months if the Chancellor or Bishop bid us; Rather than this shall be granted us, we shall have no Agreement, the Common Enemy shall prevail, the Protestant Religion shall not only be endangered, but utterly ruin'd here, and throughout the World! And is it so indeed? And yet would you make us believe that you are against the ruin of it; who will not prevent it at so easie a rate? What good doth it do you for me to subscribe as ex Animo, that there is not a word in your Liturgy or Ordination, contrary to the Word of God, and that I assent and consent to all that is in it? When I am without this responsible for all Omission, or Opposition to it. We offer, if necessary, to take our Oaths, as in the presence of God, the Judge of all, that we would agree with you, and obey you too in any thing, except that which we judge to be forbidden of God: We offer our Reasons, which perswade us, that p. 137your Impositions obeyed would be our sin, and heinous sin: We are past doubt, that your Answers to them are frivolous. You dare not allow us to bring all into the Light, and to Print our Case and Reasons, that the World may Judge of them: We that pay so dear for our Dissent, are as likely to be Unbiassed, as you that have the Wealth and Honours of the World! And were it not liker to be moved by our Reputation with the poorer sort, than you by your Reputation with the Great and Honourable, if not the most. And if yet we be mistaken, so is all the World in as great a Matter, as most things now in Question. You call them Indifferent: We think them not so: And yet shall Protestant Religion be ruin'd in all the World, rather than you should not have your will in our obedience to you, in every prescribed Word, Ceremony, Covenant or Oath, after all this?

Strict. And at Ours indeed of the Church-party, if we require what cannot be consented to without sin.]

Ans. Ex ore tuo … What you required of old we debated 1660, and you never gave us an Answer to what we largely offered you, in Confutation of your Defence: And how then did you think we should know we Erred? Not by what you kept secret in your thoughts. And, as to the New Conformity, we never had leave to give our Reasons against it, by Word or Writing. Grant us but that leave, and if we do not openly prove, that to Conform would be our sin, and very heinous sin (not medling with any Men's Conscience but our own) call us Schismaticks, and go on to use us as you have done. Which, I say, as to my self, who offer to assume that suffering, as the penalty of my Error, if I err; but not to justifie you, if it were so, who are no more allowed by Christ to shut all that err out of the Church, than to Un-church every person in the World.

Strict. But at theirs that refuse to come in to us, if they may, without sin, submit to all that their acknowledged Superiours require of them.

Ans. Which they are most confident they cannot do: And if Quoad Materiam, they should mistake, I think yet St. Paul mistook not, in saying, He that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not in Faith—And him that is weak in the Faith receive, &c. And therefore I would deny your Consequence comparatively: There are various degrees of Guilt: If you made a Canon, that all the present Conformists should take the Pope, with Bishop Bramhall, to be Patriarch of the West, and Principium Vnitatis to the Universal Church, or should own the Church of Rome, the Council of Trent, and the rest, as far as Grotius did; or should subscribe, that the Septuagint is to be preferred before the Hebrew Text; Or if it were but these, and not those of all the various Readings are the right; or that there is not a word faulty in our Old Translation (or New) or in any Book that ever the Convocation approved of (as well as the Liturgy, &c.) If all this should prove lawful (as it never will) and they should turn Nonconformists to your Canon, and hereupon they should all be silenced, and Popery thereupon come in, Who were guilty of all this? They, with that degree of guilt, which all Men have, in that they are imperfect: Or you, with that more heinous Guilt, which is incomparably greater. If you said, All Ministers shall be Silenced, and People Excommunicated that have any Error and Sin; Their Error and Sin is some Culpable Cause of the Consequent ruin of the Church; but nothing in comparison of Yours, who are the Grand Cause.

Strict. And for this, if they refuse to stand to the Judgment of Foreign Churches, I refer them to Mr. Baxter, one of the most Eminent Divines of their own party, who, in the 2d. Chapter of the last of his 5 Disputations, having enumerated the Controverted Ceremonies (viz. the Surplice, Kneeling at the Lord's Supper, the Rails, and the Cross in Baptism) though he finds fault with the imposing of them (which the Governours are to answer for) yet, that they may be obeyed without sin (which are all that Subjects are concerned in) he concludes of all, but the Cross in Baptism only; which he would not have excepted neither, if it were used (as we say it is) as a Teaching, or a Professing Sign only; and not as a Sacramental, as he mistaketh it to be: for we do not use it as a means to confer Grace, which is the formalis ratio of a Sacramental-Sign; but to signifie, and put us in mind of Grace only. The like he concludes p. 138concerning the use of the Liturgy: And as for the Government, the Proposer doth not propose the Alteration of it, and consequently implyeth, it may be submitted to as it is, without sin.

Ans. 1. You speak all this against your self, to tell the World how narrow your Church, and how strait your Charity is; whilst he, that you say, is so much of your Mind, is judged unworthy to be permitted to Preach the Gospel of Christ, and worthier to lye in a Common Gaol among Thieves and Rogues; yea, that it is better for any Congregation to have no Minister than such. All this Complyance with you is as good as none, to procure him but leave to Preach Repentance: For he offered you to Preach only on the Creed, and Catechism, and could not prevail, though responsible for any thing said amiss. And he challengeth you to name any one of all the Complying Principles of that Book which he hath ever receded from, or contradicted.

2. They refuse not to stand to the Judgment of other Protestant Churches, that shall hear themselves speak for themselves.

3. Did Mr. Baxter in that Book, or any where else say, That it is Lawful to Subscribe according to the Canon, as ex Animo, that there is nothing in your Liturgy, or Book of Ordination, contrary to the Word of God? Or that the English Diocesan Frame may be Sworn to for Obedience? Or, that King or Parliament have not power to make, or Endeavour any alteration of your Church-Government, if they had sworn it? no nor a Lay-Chancellor's Spiritual Power; … any subiect to Petition, or any way endeavour the same, if he had sworn it. … Did he ever say that it was lawful to Excommunicate as many of Christ's faith… Members, either by Pronunciation, or Rejecting them from Communion, a… the Bishops or Chancellor will command him? Or to deny Baptism to the Children of all that Scruple Crossing them, or that insist on their duty of Covenanting in their Children's Name themselves? Did he ever say, that your New Subscription, Declaration, Oath, or Re-ordination are Lawful? I think not.

4. He that can submit to your Government, that is, peaceably obey you without sin, cannot threfore Subscribe, that you stand by a Divine Right, or that all is faultless, and nothing alterable in your Government. He would have lived peaceably in Israel when the Priesthood was Corrupted, and the High-Places not taken down, or in the Greek Church, where are many faults, or among the …menians, or Abass…nes; but he would have lain in Gaol rather than make a Covenant (Contrary to part of his Baptismal Vow) never to obey God in endeavouring any reformation of these in his place and Calling, telling all others, that none of them are bound to do it, no not if they had Vowed it; Or rather than he would have Subscribed his Approbation and Consent to all, and Covenanted to live and die impenitently herein: He taketh not these for things indifferent. But we find that you will not let men live under you quietly on Terms of patient submission, unless they be fully of your mind.

You say the Proposer proposeth not the alteration of the Government; Therefore it may be submitted to without sin.] He proposeth it not because he knoweth you would not consent: Bishop Vsher's Primitive Episcopacy was the Government desired in vain, for our Healing, 1660. But again, I say, All, th… may be submitted to, may not, by Subscriptions, Covenants, or Oaths, be justified and approved.

5. Lastly, As to the Cross, he then thought, and thinks still, that it is forbidden by the Second Commandment, and that as an Image and Symbol of Christianity, and a New Humane Sacrament, of which before.

If possibly Light may have any Acceptance, I will adjoyn these Questions for the Opponent whosoever.

Qu. 1. Do you not believe in your Conscience, that Agreement would be more easie and common on our Terms of Meer Christianity, and Things Necessary, than on Yours, by adding many things doubted of, and needless? Will not more agree in the Creed, than in Aquinas's Sums, if it were all true?

Q. 2. Doth not the knowledge of Humane Darkness, and Variety of Educations, Tempers, Interests, Converse, &c. and the Paucity of very knowing Men convince you, that Concord must be in few, and great, and evident things?

p. 139Q. 3. Doth not the Experience of all Ages prove it past doubt?

Q. 4. Doth not the Conscience of your own Frailty, and imperfect Knowledge moderate you? Dare you say, That you are not ignorant of plainer and greater things than we suffer about?

Q. 5. Do you not hold, That God must be first obeyed, and none against him? And should not a desire to obey God first be cherished? And do you cherish it, by saying to us, [Though you think it a heinous sin to conform, yet do it, or Suffer for your Dissent?

Q. 6. Was it not an Act of Christ's Wisdom, Mercy and Soveraignty, to make the Baptismal Covenant (which the Church explained by the Creed) to be the Stablished Universal Test and Badge of his Disciples and Church-Members? And did it not seem good to the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles, Acts 15. to Impose only necessary things? And is it not a Condemning, or Contradicting God needlesly, to take a Contrary Course?

Q. 7. Is not Christ's way, and the first Churches, most likely to save the People's Souls, and yours to damn them? For you will confess, that Christ's few evident necessary Conditions of Christianity would save Men, if Bishops and Rulers added no more. But if a multitude more (which you count Lawful) are added, then the Nonconformists to them are in danger of Damnation, for the Crime of Contempt of your Authority: So that consequently you make all your Impositions needful to Salvation, and so make it far harder to be saved, than otherwise it would have been.

Q. 8. What hindereth any debauched Conscience from entering into your Ministry, who dare Say, or Swear any thing; while he that feareth an Oath, or a Lie, may be kept out? And against which of these should you more carefully shut the Door?

Q. 9. If Agreement be desirable, Which side may more easily, and at a cheaper rate yield and alter, you or we? If you forbear Imposing an Oath, Subscription, Declaration, or Ceremony, it would not do you a Farthing's-worth of hurt: If we Swear, Subscribe, Declare, Conform, we take our selves to be heinous and wilful sinners against God: You call that Indifferent, which we believe is Sin.

Q. 10. Do you not confess, that you are not Infallible? yea, and subscribe, that General-councils are not; even in matters of Faith? And yet must we subscribe our Assent to every word in these Books, or else be Silenced, or Suffer? Do these well consist?

Q. 11. Dare you deny, that many of your Silenced Brethren Study as hard as you to know the Truth, and have as good Capacity? And are they not as like to be Impartial, who suffer as much by their Judgment, as you gain by yours? Judge but by your selves. Doth their kind of Interest tempt you more than …our own to partiality?

Q. 12. Is it not gross Uncharitableness, and Usurpation of God's Prerogative, to say, That they do it not out of Conscience, when you have no more from the nature of their Cause, Motives, or Conversation, to warrant such a Censure? And they are ready to take their Oaths, as before God, that were it not for fear of sinning, they would Conform.

Q. 13. Do your Consciences never startle, when you think of Silencing 1800 such Ministers? and depriving so many Thousand Souls of their Ministry? 1 Thess. 2. 15, 16.

Q. 14. Can you hope to make us believe while we dwell in England, that the People's Ignorance and Vice is so far Cured, or the Conformists, for Number and p. 140Quality, are so sufficient, without the Nonconformists, that they should rest Silent, on supposition, their Labours are unnecessary?

Q. 15. Is not the loss of a Faithful Teacher, where, through Paucity, or Unqualifyedness of the Conformable, he is necessary, a very great Affliction to the People? And, Do the Innocent Flocks deserve to suffer in their Souls for our Nonconformity?

Q. 16. Could not Men of your great Knowledge find out some other Punishment for us (such as Drunkards, Swearers, Fornicators have) which may not hurt the People's Souls, nor hinder the Preaching of Christ's Gospel?

Q. 17. Seeing at Ordination, we profess, that all things necessary to Salvation are in (or provable by) the Scripture, Do you not confess, that your …nventiunculae are not necessary to Salvation? And is the Nonconformist's Ministry no more necessay?

Q. 18. How say you, That only Christianity is necessary to a Member of the Universal Church, and so much more be necessary to the Members of particular Churches, and the Universal consist of them?

Q. 19. Did any National Church Impose any one Liturgy, or Subscription besides the Creed, or any Oath of Obedience to the Bishops, for 300, 400, 500 years after Christ's Nativity?

Q. 20. Can you Read Rom. 14. and 15, and not believe that it bindeth the Church-Rulers as well as the People?

Q. 21. Did the Ancient Discipline, not enforced by the Sword for 300 years, do less good than yours? Or was any Man Imprison'd or Punish'd by the Sword eo nomine, because Excommunicate, as a Contemner of Church-power in not repenting, for many Hundred years after there were Christian Magistrates?

Q. 22. Hath not the making false Conditions of Communion, and making Unnecessary things necessary thereto, been the way, by which the Papists have Schismatically divided Christians?

Q. 23. Should not Bishops be the most skilful and forward to heal, and the most backward to divide or persecute?

Q. 24. Could you do more to extirpate Episcopacy, than to make it hateful to the People, by making it hurtful?

25. Would you do as you do, if you loved your Neighbour as your selves, and loved not Superiority?

Q. 26. Were not those, that Gildas called no Ministers, such, as too many now, obtruded on the People? And was not the Case of the Bishops that St. Martin separated from to the Death, like yours, or much fairer?

§. 257. A little after some Great Men of the House of Commons drew up a Bill, as tending to our Healing, to take off our Oaths, Subscriptions and Declarations, except the Oath of Supremacy and Allegiance, and Subscriptions to the Doctrine of the Church of England, according to the 13th. of Eliz. But shewing it to the said Bshop of Winchester, he caused them to forbear, and broke it: And instead of it he furthered an Act only to take of Assent and Consent, and the Renunciation of the Government; which would have been but a Cunning Snare to make us more remediless and do no good; seeing that the same things with the repeated Clauses would be still by other continued Obligations required, as may be seen in the Canon for Subscription, Act, 2. and in the Oxford-Act, for the Oath, and confining Refusers. And it's credibly averred, that when most of the other Bishops were against even this ensnaring shew of abatement, he told them in the p. 141House [that had it been but to abate us a Ceremony, he would not have spoken in it: But he knew that we were bound to the same things still, by other Clauses or Obligations, if these were Repealed.]

§. 258. But on Feb. 24. all these things were Suddenly ended, the King early, suddenly, and unexpectedly Proroguing the Parliament till November. Whereby the Minds of both Houses were much troubled, and Multitudes greatly exasperated, and alienated from the Court: Of whom many now saw that the Leading Bishops had been the great Causes of our Distractions; but others hating the Nonconformists more; were still as hot for Prelacy and their Violence as ever.

§. 259. All this while the aspiring sort of Conformists, that looked for Preferment, and the Chaplains that lived in fullness; and other Malignant Factious Clergymen, did Write and Preach to stir up King, Parliament, and others, to Violence and Cruelty, against the Liberty, and blood of the Nonconformists, who lived quietly by them in Labour and Poverty, and medled not with them, (besides their necessary Dissent. (Some railed at them as the most intolerable Villains in the World; espeically S. Parker (jocularly confuted and detected by Mr. Marvel a Parliament Man,] and one Hickeringhill, and others, came near him in their malignity; And Papists, taking the advantage, set in and did the like. One Wrote, [a Sober Enquiry of the Reasons why the Nonconformable Ministers were still so valued by the People,] (which was their grievous vexation,) And pretended many Causes, I know not whether more malignantly or foolishly, which none could believe but Strangers, and those that were blinded by the Faction, Malignity, or False Reports. One Dr. Asheton, Chaplain to the Duke of Ormond, Wrote a Book, 1. To perswade those to Subscribe who held it lawful, and forbore it only for fear of offending others; falsly insinuating, that this was the Nonconformists Case; when I never knew one Man such among them all to this day. 2. To stir up Rulers to Violence, to Ruine us, perswading them that it is no Persecution: And the Man was not afraid to profess to the World [That as he was going to meet us at the Bar of God, the Reason why so many Subscribed not, was Reputation and Interest, Pride and Covetousness;] And that he might not seem Stark Mad with Malice, in charging Men with Covetousness, that I lost all, and lived so poorly upon the Charity of others (mostly poor themselves,) he giveth you 2 proofs of their covetousness. 1. That by Non-conformity they got Living for their conformable Sons. 2. That they lost notheng by their Non-conformity (as Bishop Gunning also vehemently told me:) words which tell the world that History is no more credible to Posterity, than either the Concent of all Parties, or the notoreity of fact, or the honesty of the Writer, can make it so, by being known as it's evidence: Words which tell you that it's hard to devise words, so false and impudent, beseeming the Devil himself were the speaker, which Carnal Clergy-men may not be drawn with great confidence to utter. For 1. of the 1000, or 2000. Ministers that were Silenced, I have not yet heard of thirty in all, nor of twenty, or twelve yet living, that have Conformable Sons in the Ministry. And of those I know not of one that Conformed by his father's consent, And why should not the father's Conformity be the liker to help his son to a Living than his Non-conformity, when the far greatest part of the Presenters of Patrons are Conformists? And would not covetousness rather make both father and son Conform, that both might have Livings, than the son alone? And do a thousand or 1600 Ministers, that have no Conformable sons in the Ministry, refuse Conformity, that 20, or 40 of other Minister's sons may have Livings? Did I not consider that, among Strangers and Malignants, any thing may be believed that is bad, I should think the Devil a fool for playing his game so unskilfully. 2. And that they lose nothing, by losing all their Church maintenance now above eleven years together, is a thing hardly to be believed by their poor families, or neighbours, who know that many go in rags and want bread, and even in London, more than one have lately died of Colds and Diseases, contracted by poverty and want of the necessary Comforts of Life. And it is a wonder of God's mercy, and the honour of charitable People, especially in London, that it is not so with a very great number of them.

§. 260. This Malignity inviteth me once more to recite my own case: I have lost not only the Bishoprick which they offered me by Non-conformity, but all Ministerial maintenance these eleven years now near 24. years in 1684. I have these eleven years Preached for nothing: I know not to my remembrance that I have p. 142received a groat, as for Preaching these eleven years, but what I have returned (unless I may call about the sum of ten pounds which some persons gave me on particular occasions, and 35 lb. which three gave gave me in the Jail to defray my Prison-charges, by that name, or ten pounds per Ann. which Sergeant Fountain gave me till he dyed, to whom I never Preached, nor was it on that account) only four pounds I received for Preaching the Merchant's Lecture, and 6 lb. more was offered me as my due, and some offered me somewhat after a year's Preaching at Mr. Turner's Church: but I sent it every penny back to them, and resolved (while it is as it is) to take no money for my Preaching. 1. Because I preach but in other men's Churches, to people that maintain other Ministers already, 2. Because I want not, but have to give, when multitudes are in great necessity. 3. Because I will be under no temptation by dependence or obligation which may hinder me from dealing plainly with Dissenters and Offenders. 4. Because I perceive that, when men's purses are sought to, it tempteth many to question whether we sincerely seek the good of their Souls. On all which Accounts & not (I think) from proud disdain, I have so long refused money for preaching. And whereas they say how much I receive for my printed books, I again at this year 1674. profess that having printed about 70. Books, no one Lord, Knight, or any person to whom (as it's called) any of them were Dedicated or inscribed, ever offered me a groat, save the City of Coventry and the Lady …ous, each a piece of Plate of about 4 lb. value: And whereas the fifeenth Book printed is my due from the Bookseller, which I use, for almost all of them, to give my friends, which amounteth to many thousands, I remember not that every one person, noble or ignoble offered me one groat to this day, for any book I gave them. And I mention all this, because I am not capable of confuting the malicious calumniators by distant instances so well as by my own case; But yet that the Readers may partly conjecture, at the case of many of my Brethren, by my own: who yet never received a groat from my Inheritance or Patrimony (my poor kindred having much more than all:) Were not malice impudent, these Apologies were needless, for men, that the world seeth are turned out of all. Yea we our selves pay constantly to the maintenance of the Conformable Ministers, though we have no part our selves.

And I can truly say that I have offered money to my old acquaintance, who live silenced in a very poor and hard condition, who have stiffly refused it because they thought it unlawful while they had Bread and Drink, to take money while many of their Brethren were in greater need.

And at the same time while these envious Preachers cryed out against our Preaching, and perswaded men how fully we were maintained, they laboured for Laws to increase their setled maintenance, and some of them in my hearing Preached how miscrable a case the Clergy were in, were they left to the people's kindness and bounty: And yet proclaim our fulness, who are left to the kindness of those few (who also pay fully their Tythes to the Parish Ministers) who, these Envyers say, are but the smaller and poorer sort in the Land; which comparatively is true, (though by this time I think the far greatest part are grown into dislike with the present Prelates, who yet cleave to their Church.) And if their noble, rich, and numerous followers would leave them in want, were they left to their Charity, it seems they take their Church to consist of men much more covetous, and less Religious and liberal than our few poor men.

§. 261. The Lord's day, before the Parliament was dissolved, one of these Prelatists Preached to them to perswade them that we are obstinate, and not to be tolerated, nor cured by any means, but Vengeance, urging them to set Fire to the Fagot, and teach us by Scourges or Scorpions, and open our eyes with Gall. Yet none of these men will procure us leave to publish, or offer to Authority the Reasons of our Non-conformity. But this is not the first proof that a carnal, worldly, proud, ungodly Clergie, who never were serious in their own professed belief, nor felt the power of what they Preach, have been, in most Ages of the Church, its greatest plague, and the greatest hinderers of Holiness and Concord by making their formalities and Ceremonies the test of Holiness, and their Worldly Interest and Domination the only cement of Concord: And O how much hath Satan done against Christ's Kingdom in the World, by setting up Pastors and Rulers over the Churches, to fight against Christ in his own name and livery, and to destroy piety and peace, by a pretence of promoting them!

§. 262. This foresaid Preacher brings to my remembrance a Silenced Minister p. 143who heard the Sermon, Mr. Iohn Humphrey, a man not strait and factious in Doctrin, Government or Worship, as his Books shew for the middle way, about Election, Justification, &c. and his former Writings, for giving the Lord's Supper to the Ungodly to convert them, and his own Reordination, and writing for Reordination: The former Sessions of Parliamen he printed a sheet for Concord, by restoring some silenced Ministers, and tolerating others, for which he was Imprisoned (as was Dr. Ludovicus Molinaeus M. D. Son to old Peter for writing his Patronus against the Prelatists: but delivered by the Common Act of Pardon. And this Session the said Mr. Humphrey again printed another sheet, and put it into the hands of many Parliament men; which though slighted, and frustrate by the Prorogation of the House, yet I think hath so much reason in it, that I shall here annex it, though it speak not at all to the righteousness of our Cause and the Reasons of our Non-conformity, that the Reader may see upon what Terms we stood: But the truth is, when we were once contrived into the Parliament's Inquisition and persecution, it was resolved that we should be saved by the King or not at all; and that Parliaments and Laws should be our Tormenters, and not our Deliverers any more.