Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times, Part 2 · Section 12 · Floating text 1

Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times · Part 2 · Section 12 · Floating text 1

p. 350The REPLY to the Bishops Disputants, which was not answered.

WHether it be our Arguing or your Answering that is laxe, declamatory, pedantick (as you call it), and whether your confident insulting arise from your advantages or infirmity of Mind, and want of Matter for more pertinent Answers, are Questions that we shall leave to impartial Judges: And we shall crave pardon if we rather seem to neglect your words, than to follow you in these strange vagaries any further than meer Necessity for saving your Readers from the Errour into which they are fitted to mislead them doth require.

To prove the Consequence of an Hypothetical Argument, by an Enthymeme, hath not been used to be accounted culpable. The Proof you shall not want.

That we removed your Answer by shewing your Distinction frivolous, deserved not to be called, A popular Insinuation, Superfluous, &c. We had two things here to do: The first was, if we had been at hand with you, to have called on you for the necessary Explanation of your Distinction, Whether by [commanded by lawful Power] you mean [commanded under no penalty] or [commanded under a penalty, consistent with the Receiving and Forbearing mentioned in the Text] or [commanding under a penalty inconsistent with this Receiving and Forbearance]. And whether you mean by [Lawful Power] that which is indeed [Lawful Power ad hoc] or only [ad aliud]? As far as we can find in these your Papers, you still forbear to explain your Distinction. But this we must yet insist upon, and desire of you, notwithstanding all your Exclamations.

And then our next work must be to shew you, that indeed your Distinction is useless as to the shaking of our Argument. The latter branch of your Distinction [if we speak of things lawful and commanded] you apply to the denial of our Antecedent, or Minor, which we prove stands good, notwithstanding this your Answer. Indeed we speak of [things lawful as such] abstracting from command: But we speak of things which materially were partly not commanded, and partly commanded: It was not commanded to eat or not eat the Meats in question, to keep the Days or not keep them: In these they went against no Law: But to be weak in the Faith, and erroneously to take things lawful to be unlawful, and things indifferent to be necessary, and to offend a Brother by the use of Liberty on the other side, were against the Commands of God. Now the Scope of our Argument was to shew, that if you speak of [a command upon the penalty of the question] your Distinction helps you not to shake our Argument, because as it is true that the Text speaketh not of things so commanded, so the thing that we are proving is, that it is the sence of the Text to forbid all such commands. If it be the sence of the Text to forbid such commands, then your Distinction is frivolous, and the use of it here prevented, and our Argument stands good: But it is the sence of the Text to forbid all such commands: Ergo—The Minor we are to prove hereafter, when we are further called to it by your Answers. But if by [command] you mean any other command without penalty, or without the penalty forbidden, we argue, If it be all one as to our Case, whether it be so commanded or not, then your Distinction is frivolous, and our Argument stands good: But it is all one to our Case, whether it be so commanded or not: Ergo—This was the Sum of our Rejection of your Answer, which we cannot prosecute till you will be perswaded, as we have required, to explain your Distinction; and then we shall know what to speak to.

p. 351But perhaps you take your very Refusal to explain it, to be an Explanation; and your words may seem to allow us to understand you of any command with this penalty or without, where you say [That Text which speaks of things under no command at all is brought nothing to the purpose, of the things which we debate of; being under some command of lawful Authority]. But still, that Text which forbiddeth any such command, and so taketh away the Authority of so commanding, is something to the purpose, as proving that no Humane Authority should so command: But this Text forbiddeth any such command, and so taketh away the Authority of so commanding—Ergo— And as it is a command consistent with [Receiving, Forbearing, &c.] that you may be understood to speak of, 1. If you speak de facto & de jure, and suppose that there be and ought to be no other command, then you grant us the Cause, that there should be no command, upon penalty of being [Not-received, Not-forborn, &c.] 2. If your Supposition be de facto only, then That commanding which consisteth with God's command [to Receive and forbear, &c.] altereth not the Case: But such is the commanding that now you are supposed to speak of—Ergo—So still your distinguishing toucheth not our Argument: no more than if you had distinguished of the Instructed and Uninstructed, and said Paul speaketh of those that were uninstructed only, Ergo he is not alledged to the purpose.

Whereas you say [That this penalty, that the Minister be enjoyned not to administer the Communion to those that disobey such command, is no ways inconsistent with the Receiving, and all the Indulgences of that Truth] We shall prove the contrary anon in due place.

For appellation to indifferent persons, we also are willing such shall judge, whether if your Distinction speak of no commanding but such as is consistent with this [Receiving, Forbearing, &c.] it leave us not in possession of the force of our Argument? and if it speak de jure, that there should be no other, whether it yield not up the Cause?

It seems our very phrase of begging the Question being misunderstood by you, hath been taken as your greatest occasion of insulting: But if we used an unusual Phrase, if that occasioned your mistake, we can beg your pardon, and explain it, with less wrong to our Cause or our selves, than you can make such use of it, as to yours. We did not dream of charging you with that begging of the Question which is the fallacy and fault of the Opponent, as it is the begging of a Principle undertaken to be proved: we know this is not incident ot the Respondent, nor to be imputed to him: we charged you with no such thing: though we confess our Phrase was liable to your misinterpretation: But we crave your willingness to understand, that we were proving that such things may not be by Rulers enjoyned or commanded under the penalty of Exclusion from Communion! and that the latter Branch of your Distinction hath the nature of a Reason of your denial of the Proposition denied, viz. because the things are commanded; and that by our telling you of begging the Question, we mean but this much; 1. That you give us a Reason implied in a Distinction, which is but equal to a simple Negation, and is not (we say not the giving a sufficient Reason, but) the giving of a Reason indeed at all. 2. That it is but equal to an unsavoury Denial of the meer Conclusion. 3. Yea, that it is a preposterous Reduction of the Rule to the Action; and of the former to the latter. Suppose we had thus phrased our Proposition.

Rulers themselves are here forbidden to enjoyn or command the rejecting of such as are only weak in the Faith, &c.] And you should distinguish and say [Either Rulers have commanded the rejecting them for such things, or not: If they have, then we deny the Proposition] that is, [if they have done it, they may do it, and the Text that forbids it is to be understood of such Rulers as have not already forbidden it]; Tell us how you will call such distinguishing your selves, and you may understand our meaning. It is all one if you put your Exception into the description of the Fault: and when we say [God here forbiddeth Governours themselves to make any Commands or Injunctions for rejecting such as are only weak in the Faith, and mistake about indifferent things]; and you distinguish thus, [either the weak offend against such Commands, or not: If they do sin against such Commands, then the Text forbiddeth not: the making of such Commands] Give this kind of distinguishing and answering a proper Name your selves. Or if to our Proposition you say, [The indifferent things are commanded by the Governours, or not: If they be, then God forbiddeth not the Governour to command the rejection of the persons from Commussion] that is, [Though God forbid Governours to make Laws for rejecting such as err about indifferent things only; yet that is on supposition that the said Governours do not first command those indifferent things: for if once they command them, they may then command the rejection of those that break them]. But on the contrary, He that forbiddeth the rejection of such simply and antecedently to the Laws of Men, p. 352forbiddeth the rejecting of them mediately or immediately, and forbiddeth the framing of such Commands as shall be means of the prohibited Rejection: But God in the Text forbiddeth the Rejection of such, simply and antecedently to the Laws of Men: Ergo he forbiddeth the Rejecting of them mediately or immediately, and forbiddeth the framing of such Commands as shall be means of the prohibited Rejection.

Though we have thus taken off your Answer, we shall give you fuller proof in the end of what you can reasonably expect.

You next Answer this Argument of ours [If there be no power that may command such things any further then may stand with the Reception and other Indulgences of the Text, then must you not suppose that any Power may otherwise command them: But the Antecedent is true: Ergo—] Here you deny the Minor; which I prove thus.

If none have power to break the Laws of God, then there is no Power that may command such things any further than may stand with the Reception and other Indulgences of the Text: But none have power to break the Laws of God: Ergo there is no power that may command such things any further than may stand with the Reception and other Indulgences of the Text.

We had used before another Argument to prove the Minor thus, [If Paul and the resident Pastors of the Church of Rome had no power to command such things further than may stand with the said Reception and Indulgence, then no others have such power: But Paul and the resident Pastors of the Church of Rome had no such power— Ergo there are no others that have such]. Here you deny the Assumption. Which is proved by the foregoing Medium. If Paul and the resident Pastors of the Church of Rome had no power to cross the Will of God, then they had no power to command such things further than may stand with the said Reception and Indulgence: But Paul and the resident Pastors of the Church of Rome had no power to cross the Will of God: Ergo—

You vainly call the Explication of our Enthymeme in plainer words [the proving of its obscure Consequence by the more obscure Consequence of another] and hereupon insult: but we shall take leave to leave you to your humour in such things. If it offend you, blot out the Enthymeme, seeing you have Reply enough without it: Or if you will be still tempted to insult till you are delivered from the Enthymeme, you have our sence in this Argument.

If the things spoken of by the Apostle were not only not commanded, but forbidden to be commanded any further than may stand with the Reception and Indulgence of the Text, then there is no such disparity in the Cases as may shake our Consequence, though with us such things are commanded: But the Antecedent is true; Ergo so is the Consequent.

To your second Answer, we first again endeavoured to bring you to explain your Distinction, what Commanding you mean: but have no Return to that but Silen…e; which we take to be tergiversation.

Then we argued thus, [If there be no such disparity of the Cases as may warrant your disparity of penalty against your Brethren, then our Argument still stands good: but there is no such disparity of the Cases as may warrant your disparity of penalty against your Brethren: Ergo—

You deny the Minor: which we proved thus—If those that Paul speaks of that must be received and forborn did sin against the command of God, in the weaknes… of their Faith and their Erroneous refusing of things as sinful that were not to be so refused, then there is no such desparity in the Cases as, &c. But, &c. Ergo—

Here you deny the Consequence; which we prove thus: If the Sin of those that dare not kncel be no greater than theirs that were weak in the Faith, and refused Things lawful as unlawful, and took Things indifferent as necessary, and hereby gratified the Jews and other Enemies of the Church, and trespassed on the Churches Liberties purchased by Christ, and yet became the Censurers of the strong; and if the Scruple of Kneeling have as fair Excuses as the other, then the Consequence is good, and there is no such disparity in the Cases as may warrant your penalty: But the Antecedent is true; Ergo so is the Consequent.

We shall prosecute the Comparison further anon.

We added here this Reason in brief. [For you suppose those that refuse to kneel to break the command of Man, and those that Paul spoke of broke the command of God, and yet were to be received and forborn] Ergo there is no such disparity as may warrant your penalty. Here you add to our words [the command of Man] the word [only], and say, that else we do but trifle. We reply; that by adding your own words, and then perswading us to own them left we trifle, you do worse than trifle, and p. 353your gross injustice hath no fair pretence, being against the Light of our Conclusion and Undertaking; we were but to prove that there was no such disparity, i.e. that the fault of those that kneel not, was not greater, and so much greater as might warrant your penalty: Therefore as you will acknowledge kneeling at the Sacrament to be immediately but the command of Man, and weakness of Faith, Errour, Censuring, &c. to be immediately against a command of God, (which yet we spoke of but for just denomination, and not to prove a disparity to our advantage), so if we prove no disparity against us, we do what we undertake: And that a Sin against the command of God immediately, is as well worthy of Punishment as a Sin against the command of Man immediately caeteris paribus is true, and all that we affirmed, and all that we were bound to prove.

Yet you importune us to answer you a Question, [Whether is not the Erroneous refusing of lawful things commanded by lawful Authority, as sinful, the refusing of things as sinful that were not to be so refused?] We Answer you, 1. But with them and you it is the Thing in Controversie, Whether they are lawful Things, or not? 2. If they be, What then? Why you say, [If so, then even according to your own reasoning, if you reason at all, these Refusers to kneel sin against God, and the Rule your selves lay down thereof, as well as those Rom. 14.] And what then? Is there therefore a Disparity because they do alike? Are such as these the occasions of your insulting? We shall then suspect you have some gross Mistake, whenever we find you thus insulting. But you say [That Ergo we did fallaciously insinuate the one to break the Command of God, and the other to break the Command of Men]. But really, is it not so? If you allow not the Distinction inter Leges Divinas & Humanas, you know how singular you are, and what Consequences will follow: If you do, why may we not use such Denominations? But you say of the sinsulness [It is most evidently common to the former with the latter.] 1. If the Controversie be yielded you it is so. 2. And what then? because it is common, Ergo there is such a Disparity as may warrant your grievous penalty. We only prove no such Disparity, and we are notably confuted, by your proof that the Sinfulness is common, that is, by yielding what we prove.

Next in many words you tell us of a Disparity. 1. Because in our Case kneeling is commanded. 2. Because the things are antecedently helps to piety. To which we have before answered: 1. God hath forbidden all Commands of such things, inconsistent with the Reception and Forbearance in question. 2. Their Sin of Weakness in Faith, and Errour, were also against Commands. 3. We shall shew greater Reasons of Desparity on the other side. 4. The thing in question (Kneeling) hath nothing antecedent to the Command to make the refusal of it sinful, no nor meet than other Gestures. Of which after.

To your third Answer we replyed, [If Rom. 14. & 15. speak of things lawful, and no further commanded than may consist with [Receiving and Forbearing], forbidding any other commanding of such things, then the Text is most pertinent to prove that there ought to be no such Commands, and that they are sinful]. But the Antecedent is true: Ergo—

Here you tell us of manifest fallacy, of advantageous Equivocation, or else a gross lgnoratio Elenchi in the Conclusion; words easie to be uttered by you. But if you will [profess all along, as you say, to proceed or debate only of things lawful and commanded by lawful power] that is, lawfully, when our very Question is, Whether such things can be so commanded? and we are proving that they cannot, and you will call it an ignoratio Elenchi, if we will not grant you all in question, but will endeavour to prove the contrary to what you would have granted, this is that which we before called even the Respondents begging of the Question, when he accuseth the Opponent for proving what he denieth, and would put that into the Subject as not to be questioned; which is in the Predicate, and we are disproving. 2. And remember that in your first Paper we were not called to dispute the Parity or Disparity of the Offences: Ergo by [such things] we mean [such things] as are mentioned Rom. 14. & 15. And our Conclusion there goeth no further; that Matter being further to be carried on in its proper place.

To your fourth Answer we replyed, That [immediately] was no Term in our Question: You say you may distinguish: True; but you cannot bind us to prove that the Men that we prove are to be received to Communion, must be immediately received; when we never affirmed it; as long as you tell us not whether you speak de immediatione temporis, vel conditionis, vel status, or what you mean by immediately: In regard of Time, no Man in the Church is immediately to be received to the Sacrament, till the very time come.

p. 3542. We Argued, [If the Holy Ghost command the receiving of Men to that Church Communion in general without exception, whereof the Communion in the Holy Sacrament is a most eminent part, then he thereby commandeth the receiving them to the Communion in the Sacrament. But, &c. Ergo, &c. Your Answer signifieth that it is a receiving first to Instruction, and not to the Sacrament, till some Change be made, you tell us not what, or that it is such a Receiving as may consist with denying them the Communion. We shall now therefore prove in order these two Propositions, which are to be next proved.

1. That the Reception that Paul speaketh of, is such as is not consistent with denial of the Sacrament for those faults.

2. That there is no such Disparity between their Faults and those that refuse to kneel at the Sacrament, as may warrant your Disparity of Penalty or Usage.

The first we shall prove, 1. From the Text before us; 2. By other Scriptures; 3. By Testimony of Expositers, especially those of your own way in other Things.

I. So to receive one another as Christ received us to the Glory of God the Father, and this not to doubtful Disputation, (or not to judge their doubtful Thoughts) and not to despise or judge one another, but to take each other for such as do what we do to the Lord, and let every Man be fully perswaded in his own Mind; and so as to distinguish the Points that we differ about from those in which God's Kingdom doth consist, in which whosoever serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and should be approved of Men; and so as to follow the things that edifie and make for Peace, and not lay a stumbling block or occasion of falling in our Brother's way, or destroy him by the uncharitable use of our Liberty, knowing it is Sin to him that esteemeth it Sin; but to forbear our selves to use those things in Controversie whereby our Brother stumbleth or is offended, because he is damned if he use them doubtingly; and therefore to have the belief of their lawfulness to our selves before God, and to bear with the Infirmities of the Weak, and please them to their Eification, and not to please our selves, that so being like-minded one towards another, that with one mind and one mouth we may glorifie God: We say, Thus to receive is not consistent with the denial of Communion in the Sacrament for those Faults. But such was the Receiving required by the Apostle Rom. 14. & 15.—Ergo—

He that can seriously ponder all these Expressions, and the Scope of the Holy Ghost, and yet can believe that all this Receiving is but such as consisteth with for bidding them Communion in the Lord's Supper, which then was so great a part of the daily Communion of the Church, and also may consist with the further Process against People and Ministers to Excommunication, and Prohibition to preach the Gospel, which is now pleaded for in our Case, is of so strange a temperature of Understanding, as that we can have little hope by any Scripture-Evidence to convince him.

2. When the Holy Ghost requireth Men in general to receive others as Church-Members into Church-Communion, with the Affection and Tenderness here expressed, and doth not except any ordinary part of Church-Communion, it is not lawful for us to interpret it of such a Receiving as excludeth the principal part of ordinary Church-Communion.

But in Rom. 14. & 15. the Holy Ghost requireth Men in general to receive others as Church-Members into Church-Communion with the Affection and Tenderness here expressed, and doth not except any ordinary part of Church-Communion.

Ergo it is not lawful for us to interpret it of such a Receiving as excludeth the principal part of Ordinary Communion.

The Reason of the Major is, Because as the whole containeth all the parts, so when the whole or general is commanded, if Men may take liberty to except the very principal part where the Law doth not except it, then no Commands can be intelligible, or such Interpreters may have liberty to make void the law at their own pleasure. As when it is said [Honour the King] and Let every Soul be subject to the Higher Powers] and [not resist] &c. if Men may take liberty by interpreting, to except the very principal part of Honour, and the principal persons from Subjection, and the principal Case from [Resist not], it will be no just interpretation. If these same Persons had a Command in general, to [worship God] or [hold Communion with the Church] if they themselves should interpret it so as to exclude worshipping God in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; or holding Communion with p. 355the Church therein, we doubt not but they would be judged unjust distinguishers.

The Minor is granted us by our Reverend Brethren, who here openly consess that the Text speaketh of Church-Members, and of Receiving them to Church-Communion, though they unwarrantably interpret it of such a Communion as extendeth not to the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

3. If the Text Rom. 14. & 15. forbid not one part to put away others from Communion in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, then it forbiddeth not the other Party to separate from their Brethren in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

But the Consequent is false: Ergo so is the Antecedent.

The Reason of the Consequence of the Major is, because if it speak not of that part of Communion to one Party, it cannot speak of it to the other, it being plainly the same Communion that it speaketh of to both.

The Minor is ordinarily granted us by the Dissenters, when they apply this Text against Separatists, that upon the Account of Ceremonies and Things indifferent, condemn the Church, and judge their Brethren, and separate from their Communion in the Eucharist.

II. From other Scriptures. If in all the Word of God there be no mention of such a Receiving into Church-Communion, (much less with all these Prohibitions of Judging, Despising, Offending, &c.) as consisteth with Rejecting from Communion in the Eucharist, of any Person naturally capable, then the word Receiving is not to be so expounded here.

But in all the Word of God there is no mention of such a Receiving into Church-Communion (much less with all these Prohibitions, &c.) as consisteth with Rejecting from Communion in the Eucharist, of any Person naturally capable.

Ergo the word Receiving is not to be so expounded here.

The Reason of the Consequence of the Major is, because here is no apparent ground in this Text for us to understand the Receiving spoken of, as different from what is mentioned in all other places of the holy Scripture: And if without any such ground we should allow our selves a singular Interpretation, we should open a way to Men to make what they please of Scripture.

The Minor being to be proved by an Induction of all particular Texts, is will be the briefer way for the Respondent to instance in any one which he thinks hath such a sence, and then we shall be ready to prove the contrary.

III. For the sence of Expositors; We shall begin with the Learned Dr. Hammond; who expoundeth the Text of Church-Communion, and such Communion as cannot consist with Excommunicating from the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or the other heavy Penalties upon Ministers and People which we now plead against, as may be seen in these his plain Expressions. V. 1. [And for the preserving of that Christian Charity among all mentioned Solemnly Cb. 13. 8, 9, 10. (vid. loc.) I shall enlarge to give these Rules. The Jewish Believer—on the other side the Gentile Believers seeing the Jewish stand upon such things—are apt to separate—and so betwixt one and other the Communion is like to be broken. —The Scrupulous or Erroneous Judaizer—do the Gentiles not reject, but receive to your Communion: Yet not so that he thereby thinks himself encouraged or authorized to quarrel with other Mens Resolutions—and to condemn others—V. 3. The Scrupulous Judaizer must not reject and cast out of his Communion the Gentile Christian—for God hath admitted him into his Church (without laying that yoke upon him) as a Servant into his Family, and he is not to be excluded by the Judaizer for such things as these—V. 4. What Commission hast thou, O Jewish Christian, to judge God's Servant, received and owned by him, to exclude him out of the Church.—God is able to clear him, if he please, and he certainly will, having by receiving him into his Family given him this liberty—V. 5.—In such things every Man must act by his own, and not by another Man's Judgment or Conscience, what he is verily perswaded he ought to do; and therefore Unity and Charity ought not to be broken by you for such things—V. 6, 7. and this sure is well done on both sides. For no Man of us is to do what he himself likes best, but what he thinks is most acceptable to God. —V. 9. And all the Fruit of Christ's Death and Suffering and Resurrection, which accrues to him, is only this, that he may have Power and Dominion over us all, to command or give what liberry he pleaseth. V. 10. But why dost thou Jewish condemn the Gentile Christian, or exclude him from thy Communion, because p. 356he useth his Christian Liberty, &c. Or thou Gentile Christian, why dost thou think it a piece of sensless Stupidity in the Jew to abstain, and thereupon despite and vilifie him, which also is a kind of judging him: Whereas indeed neither of you is to be the Judge of the other, but Christ of you both—V. 13. Do not any longer censure and separate from one anothers Communion for such Things as these—V. 14.—The perswasion of its being forbidden him is, as long as he is so perswaded, sufficient to make it to him unlawful to use that liberty—see V. 15, 16.—V. 17. For Christianity consists not in such External Matters—but in— mercifulness, and peaceableness, and delight to do good one to another—Not dividing and hating and excommunicating one another.—V. 19. Let us most zealously attend to those things, which may thus preserve Peace among all sorts of Christians, though of different perswasions—V. 20. Do not thou for so inconsiderable a Matter as Eating is, or because another will not or dares not make use of that Christian Liberty—disturb that Peace, that Unity which God hath wrought—V. 21. It is not charitable to make use of any part of Christian Liberty, when by this so doing any other Man is kept from receiving the Faith— or any way wounded or hurt, i.e. brought to any kind of sin—V. 23. And indeed for the Scrupulous Jew, there is little reason he should be so ill used for his daring to eat, when he thinks himself otherwise obliged: for it were a damning Sin for which his own Conscience already condemns him, should he eat or do any indifferent thing, as long as he thinks in Conscience that it is not so— Chap. 15. V. 5, 6, 7. And that God for whom we ought to suffer,—give you the Grace of Unity and Charity, Such as Christ commanded and expects from you, that ye may joyn unanimously Jews and Gentiles into one, and assembling together, Worship and Serve the Lord—in all Unity of Affections and Form of Words. Wherefore in all Humility of Condescension and Kindness, embrace and succour one another, help them up when they are fall'n, instead of despising and driving them from your Communion after the Example of Christ's usage towards Men, who came from Heaven and laid down his Life to relieve us, and there is nothing by which God is more glorified than this—]

If all this may consist with rejecting from all Communion in the Eucharist, and afterwards Excommunicating, Suspending, Silencing, Imprisoning, &c. we understand not English.

2. In like manner Grotius in loc. cap. 14. 1. [Contra vocati à Gentibus, conscii datae per Christum libertatis, Iudaeos Iudaice viventes à sua Communione volebant excludere 11, 18, 21. unde secuturum erat Schisma—Huic malo ut occurrat Paulus, mediam institit viam, & Iudaeos qui in Christum crediderant, monet ita suam sequantur opinionem, ut à damnandis crimine impietatis qui aliter sentiebant, abstineant: Ex gentibus vere vocatos, we illorum quamvis Iudaice viventium communionem defugiant, & ut imperitos spernant—[foreign] Societate Ecclesiae, sicut qui hospitio aliquem excipiunt, dicuntur cum foreign, Acts 18. 26. & 28. 2. Ecclesia enim Domini comparatur supra 11. 25. sumitur baec admonitio ex iis quae de Christo quae dicta Matth. 12. 20.— 2—Tolerandi sunt ij qui ab omnibus animatis abstinendum putant, quod quidam faciebant Religione quâdam—Cap. 15. 6, 7. foreign id est, ut cum Deum laudatis, eique preces funditis, faciatis id nen tantum eodem verborum sono—sed & animo pleno mutuae delectionis, sine contemptu, sine odio. Habes hanc vocem foreign, Act. 11. 46. ubi forma est Ecclesiae perfectissimae. Adde adejus vocis explicationem id quod est Act. 4. 32. (all which includeth Communion in the Eucharist) —V. 7. Nolite ob res tales, alii alios à fraternitate abseindere—

§ 225. This Paper was given in the very last day of our Commission and Dispute: And Dr. Gunning read another which he had prepared for an Insultation at out Dismission, which Paper had some Mistakes in it, and the Citation of many Witnesses, who (as he would have perswaded us) took the word [Receiving] Rom. 14. & 15. as not meaning or including, Receiving to the Holy Communion in the Sacrament.

§ 226. In the beginning he affirmed that we had refused to Dispute, till they had promised to take their turn, and prove the lawfulness of their Impositions. To this I answered, That it was contrary to our open and frequent Profession, that we would do our part whether they would do theirs or not: only I said, that if they refused it, we should take it for a deserting of their Cause. This he a while denied: p. 357I appealed to the Auditors of his Party; and they gave no Answer: Dr. Bates witnessed it, Dr. Iacomb offered his Oath of it. He told them that they were Parties. By this time I saw mine Error, in giving way for their Doctors to crowd in to applaud them and witness for them, when we had none (or next to none) of ours there, supposing by the Agreement three only must have stayed.

§ 227. When Dr. Gunning had read his insulting Answer the day before, and made a great matter of my telling the Respondent of [begging the Question] they put Dr. Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln, into the Chair, that his Learning and Gravity might put a Reputation upon his Sentence (he being a very worthy Man, but for that great Pievishness, which Injuries, Partiality, Temperature and Age had caused in him): The Bishop in a few angry Words pronounced that Dr. Gunning had the better, and that the Respondent could not beg the Question, and that I was a Man of Contention if I offered to Reply.] I told him, that though we reverenced much his Lordship's Age and Learning, yet he was but a Party, and no Judge: which yet if he were, it was so strange to us that a Man should be prohibited to reply, and a Censure antidated passed on that Reply before it was heard, and on the Replyers for it, that we craved his Lordship's Pardon if we disobeyed him, and gave in our Reply, which might have more in it than he could forefee. And the next Day when I gave in the Reply (before inserted) there was no such Insulting as before.

§ 228. When Dr. Gunning had read his Citations of Testimonies of the Sense of Rom. 14, and 15. Bishop Cosins called to all the Bishops and Doctors in the Room for their Votes, [All you that think that Dr. Gunning hath proved that Rom. 14. speaketh, not of receiving to the Sacrament, say, I.] And so they all cryed, I. I told him that we knew their Opinion before; and if this were the use that he made of our Concession, that they should be all present while ours were all absent (save two or three Scholars, and two or three Gentlemen that stood behind to hear) it shewed that their Cause was very needy of Defence, when their own Voices must go instead of Argument: But if they would go on upon such lamentable Reasoning as they had used, to cast out the faithful Pastors and the People, and divide the Church, and afflict their Brethren, the Day was comig when their own Votes should not absolve them.

§ 229. Hereupon we fell again upon the point of Charity and Compassion to the Church, and their frustrating the King's Commission, and the Kingdoms Hopes. And when they professed their Desires of the Churches Peace, I told them they would not abate the smallest Thing, nor correct their grossest Errors for it: And hereupon I read over to them the Preface (drawn up by Mr. Calamy) before our Reply to their Answer to our Exceptions against the Liturgy, which reciting their Corruptions, and shewed their Unpeaceableness, offended but filenced them.

§ 230. By this time the Evening of our Last Day was far gone; and I desired to know of them, whether we should continue our Dispute any further, as Private Men Voluntarily among our selves; for I had many more Arguments, which I desired before to have read all at once, but could not be permitted: Or whether they would receive my Arguments, and the Reply which I last read. Dr. Pierson resolved that he would meddle no more after that Night. Bishop Morley said, he thought it unfit when the King's Commission was expired that we should meddle in it any farther. But Dr. Gunning and I had so much mind to it, (for I knew that almost all my Arguments were yet behind, and it was a Cause that might easily be made very plain) that I told him, I would venture on the Danger for the Love of Charity and Peace, and he agreed that I should send him in all my Arguments, with the last Reply (which he had not answered) the next Day.

§ 231. Lastly, I desired Bishop Morley to resolve us what Account we were jointly to give his Majesty of our Proceedings, that we might not wrong each other: And by his and their Consent it was agreed on, that we give nothing in our Account to the King as charged on one another, but what is delivered in by the party in Writing: And that all our account was to be this, That we were all agreed on the Ends, for the Churches Welfare, Unity, and Peace, and his Majesty's Happiness and Contentment, but after all our Debates, were disagreed of the means. And this was the End of that Assembly and Commission.

§ 232. As soon as we were gone, I delivered my Papers to a Scribe to be transcrib…d: And about Eight a Clock or Nine, just as I was entring the Door of my Lodging, Dr. Gunning's Messenger comes to me, to tell me, that upon further Consideration, he should receive no more Papers from me after that Day, and so our farther trouble was prevented.

p. 358§ 233. In the last place, it's time that I give you a Copy of their Disputation; and this which followeth is exact, and all.

[Oppon. (Dr. Pierson, Dr. Gunning, Dr. Sparrow and Dr. Pierce) My Assertion is, Nothing contained in the Liturgy is sinful**Here we had a great Debate they should have proved their penal Imposition lawful; but I could get them to no more..

This general Assertion I am ready to make good in all Particulars, in which our Brethren shall think fit to charge the Liturgy with Sinfulness.

And because our Brethren have as yet by way of Disputation, charged no other part of it with the Imputation of Sinfulness, but that which concerneth kneeling at the Communion, therefore my first Assertion as to that particular is this.

The Command contained in the Liturgy concerning kneeling at the Communion is not Sinful. This Truth I am ready to prove by several Arguments.

First, This only Command [The Minister shall deliver the Communion to the People in their Hands kneeling] is not sinful.

The command contained in the Liturgy concerning kneeling at the Communion, is this only Command [The Minister, &c.]—

Ergo, The Command contained in the Liturgy, concerning kneeling at the Communion, is not sinful.

Resp. Negatur Major.

Oppon. Prob. Major. That Command which commandeth only an Act in it self lawful, is not sinful.

This only Command [The Minister shall deliver the Communion to the People in their Hands kneeling] commandeth only an Act in it self lawful—

Ergo, this only command [The Minister shall deliver the Communion to the People in their Hands kneeling] is not sinful.

Resp. Negantur Major, & Minor.

Oppon. Prob. Major—That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawful, and no other Act or Circumstance unlawful, is not sinful.

That Command which commandeth only an Act in it self lawful, commands an Act in it self lawful, and no other Act or Circumstance unlawful—.

Ergo—That Command which commandeth only an Act in it self lawful, is not sinful.

Resp. We deny the Major, and (for brevity) give a double Reason of our Denial. One is, because that may be a Sin per accidens, which is not so in it self, and may be unlawfully commanded, though that Accident be not in the Command.

Another is, That it may be commanded under an unjust Penalty.

2. We deny the Minor for both the same Reasons.

Oppon. Prob. Minor. The delivery of the Communion to Persons kneeling, is an Act in it self lawful.

This only Command [The Minister shall deliver the Communion to the People in their Hands kneeling] commandeth only the delivery of the Communion to Persons kneeling.—

Ergo, This only Command [The Minister, &c.] commandeth only an Act in it self lawful.

Resp. We distinguish of [delivering to Persons kneeling] it signifieth either exclusively [to those and no other]; or not exclusively as to others: In the first Sense we deny the Major; in the second Sense we deny the Minor.

Oppon. You deny both our Propositions for two Reasons, both the same: We make good both our Propositions, notwithstanding both your Reasons.

The Major first.

That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawful, and no other Act whereby any unjust Penalties enjoined, nor any Circumstance whence directly or per accidens any Sin is consequent, which the Commander ought to provide against is not sinful.

That Command which commandeth an Act in it self Lawful, and no other Act or Circumstance unlawful, commandeth an Act in it self lawful, and no other Act whereby any unjust Penalty is enjoined, nor any Circumstance, whence directly or per accidens any Sin is consequent, which the Commander ought to provide against—

Ergo, That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawful, and no other Act or Circumstance unlawful, is not sinful.

p. 359Resp. 1. The Proposition denied is not in the Conclusion.**This was a mistake in the Speaker, or the Scribe.

2. The Major is denied; because the first Act commanded may be per Accidens unlawful, and be commanded by an unjust Penalty, though no other Act or Circumstance be such.

Oppon. The Minor next.

That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawful, and no other Act whereby any unjust Penalty is enjoined, nor any Circumstance whence directly or per Accidens any Sin is consequent, which the Commander ought to provide against, commands an Act in it self lawful, and no other Act or Circumstance unlawful.

That Command which commands only an Act in it self lawful, commandeth an Act in it self Lawful, and no other Act whereby any unjust Penalty is enjoined, nor any Circumstance, whence directly and per accidens any Sin is consequent, which the Commander ought to provide against—

Ergo, That Command which commands only an Act in it self lawful, commands an Act in it self lawful, and no other Act or Circumstance unlawful.

We prove our Major notwithstanding your Reason alledged.

That Command which hath in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of a Command, and particularly cannot be guilty of commanding an Act per accidens unlawful, nor of commanding an Act under an unjust Penalty, is not sinful, notwithstanding your Reason alledged—

That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawful, and no other Act whereby any unjust Penalty is enjoined, nor any Circumstance whence directly or per accidens any Sin is consequent, which the Commander ought to provide against, hath in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of a Command, and particularly cannot be guilty of commanding an Act per accidens unlawful; not of commanding an Act under an unjust Penalty—

Ergo, That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawful, and no other Act whereby any unjust Penalty is enjoined, nor any Circumstance whence directly or per accidens any Sin is consequent, which the Commander ought to provide against, is not sinful notwithstanding your Reasons alledged.

Resp. The Minor is denied upon the same Reasons; which you do nothing to remove: Such a Command hath not in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of a Command; because though no other Act be commanded whereby an unjust Penalty is enjoined, yet still the first Act may be commanded sub Poenâ injustâ: And though no other Act or Circumstance be commanded that is a Sin per accidens, yet the first it self commanded, may be a Sin per accidens.

Oppon. Either our Minor is true notwithstanding your Reason, or else the first Act may be a Command commanding an unjust Punishment, and be an Act lawful; or the first Act it self being lawful in it self and all Circumstances, may yet be a Sin per Accidens, against which the Commander ought to provide.

Posterius utrumque falsum; both the later Members are false—Ergo, Pri…s verum—Therefore the first is true.

Resp 1. Neg. Major. Because 1. The Subject is changed: You were to have spoken of the first Act commanded, and you speak of the first Act commanding, in the first Member. You should have said, (Else the first Act may be commanded sub Poenâ injustâ, and yet be in it self lawful] which is true.

2. Because in the second Member where you should have spoken only of the commanded Circumstances of the Act, you now speak of all its Circumstances whether commanded or not.

3. We undertook not to give you all our Reasons: The Minor may be false upon many other Reasons.

And were your Major reduced in the Points excepted against, we should deny the Minor, as to both Members. And we should add our Reasons.

1. That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawful, and only such, may yet be sinful privatively, by omission of some thing necessary, some Mode or Circumstance.

2. It may sinfully restrain, though it sinfully command not.

3. It may be sinful in Modis commanding that universally, or indefenitely, or particularly, or singularly, that should be otherwise; though in the Circumstances (properly so called) of the Act, nothing were Commanded that is sinful.

p. 3604. It may through culpable Ignorance be applied to undue Subjects who are not Circumstances; as if a People that have the Plague be commanded to keep Assemblies for Worship; the Lawgiver being culpably ignorant that they had the Plague. Many more Reason may be given.

Oppon. We make good our Major by shewing that the Subject is not changed, thus.

If whensoever the first Act is commanded sub Poenâ injustâ, and no other Act is commanded whereby any unjust Penalty is enjoined (which were your Words) the first Act commanding must command an unjust Punishment (which were ours) then we have not changed the Subject—

But the Antecedent is true; therefore the Consequent.

§ 234. Thus, Reader, thou hast every Word that was brought by them in this Disputation, to prove the justness of all those Impositions on pain of Excommunication (which infers Imprisonment, &c.) which have divided this miserable bleeding Church, and will admit of no Remedy, nor patiently endure him that shall propose it, or beg for Peace and Charity at their Hands.

§ 235. The other Arguments which I offered (and they were not accepted or read) were these following. In which you must note that all these Arguments were but proposed thus briefly, and not followed up, because it was expected that they should have called us to that. And that this Writing was but begun, and many more Scripture Texts and Arguments omitted, for want of time, and by the Interruption of our Disputation. And concerning the foregoing Reply to Dr. Gunning about the Sense of Rom. 14. Note, that as I was purposing to have added a multitude of Testimonies more, to those of Dr. Hammond and Grotius, the ending of our Disputation did prevent me, and ever since then I cast by all such Thoughts as these, foreseeing that now (when they would not endure the means of Peace) my Duty would henceforth lye on the other side, to plead other Men into true and moderate Thoughts of things indifferent, and Obedience, so far as the Unity and Peace of the Church required it, and the matters imposed were not sinful to the Doers, though they might be sinful to the Imposers. I knew that henceforth I should be as much exercised in moderating those for whom I had now pleaded, and must bear some censure also from many of them.

Quest. Whether it be just (or lawful) to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament on the Lord's Days? Neg.

Because you will needs cast all the Opponent's Work on us, by arguing that we have brought no sufficient Reasons for the contrary (appealing to all Men acquainted with the just Method of Disputation, whether you that have the affirmative, do not hereby fly all just and equal Dispute, and shew a Diffidence, of your Cause) we that have the negative shall more justly by the same method, cast back your proper Work upon you.

If it be just (or lawful) to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament on the Lord's Days, then some cogent Argument may be drawn from the Nature of the thing, or supernatural Revelation, to justify it.

But no Argument can be drawn (for ought that ever was yet by the Right Reverend Fathers, or Reverend Brethren produced or manifested to us, or we can tell where to find, or how to invent) from the Nature of the thing, or from supernatural Revelation, to justify it.

Ergo, it is not just, &c.

If any such Argument can be produced, let it be produced, or you forsake your Cause. (Note that this was written before they yielded to be Opponents.)

I. Our first Argument drawn from general Councils, and the Practice of the Universal Church, we handled already: and are ready to bring in fuller Proof.

II. And our second Argument from Rom. 14, and 15. where the Case is purposely and largely decided, that things of such Moment must not be made the matter of Censures, Rejections, or Contempt.

III. To impose on the Church things antecedently unnecessary upon so great a Penalty as Exclusion froth Communion, is a sinful thing.

But to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament (for Fear of Idolatry or Scandal) is to impose on the p. 361Church things antecedently unnecessary, upon so great a Penalty as Exclusion froth the Communion.

Ergo to enjoyn all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament is a sinful thing.

The Major is proved thus: That which is contrary to the express Determination of the Holy Ghost, Acts 15. is a sinful thing.

But to Impose on the Church Things antecedently unnecessary, upon so great a Penalty as Exclusion from Communion, is contrary to the express Determination of the Holy Ghost, Acts, 15. 28. [For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things]: Ergo it is a sinful thing.

IV. To cross that great Rule of Charity [I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice] is a Sin.

But to enjoyn all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to cross that great Rule of Charity, &c. Ergo it is a Sin.

The Major is certain, Christ himself urging it twice upon the Ceremonious hypocritical Pharisess, Matth. 9. 13. & 12. 7.

The Minor is thus proved. To prefer Sacrifice before Mercy (yea, an unnecessary Ceremony before Sacrifice and Mercy) is a crossing of that Rule.

But to enjoyn all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament is to prefer Sacrifice before Mercy, (yea, an unnecessary Ceremony before Sacrifice and Mercy:) Ergo it is a crossing of that Rule.

The Major I suppose will not be denied: The Minor is thus proved—

1. To prefer this genuflexion in the Reception of the Sacrament, before our Brethrens Communion with Christ and his Church in the Sacrament, and before their corroboration and consolation thereby, and before the preaching of the Gospel by all those Ministers that will be hereupon laid by, even when many Thousands among us are in gross ignorance for want of means, and consequently before the Salvation of very many, and the Worship of God by the Excluded, is to prefer Sacrifice before Mercy, yea, an unnecessary Ceremony before Sacrifice and Mercy.

But to enjoyn all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to prefer this Genuflexion before all these things: Ergo it is to prefer Sacrifice before Mercy; yea, an unnecessary Ceremony before Sacrifice and Mercy.

2. If the forbidding of David and his Company to eat the Shew-bread, and the Priests in the Temple to break the Sabbath, and the Disciples to rub out the Corn, would have been the preferring of Sacrifice before Mercy, (as here prohibited), then enjoyning all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to prefer Sacrifice before Mercy (in the forbidden sence).

But the Antecedent is true; Matth. 12. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Ergo so is the Consequent.

V. To use the Power to Destruction which is given to be used to Edification, is unjust.

But to enjoyn all Ministers to deny the Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to use the Power to Destruction which is given to be used to Edification.

Ergo. To enjoyn all Ministers to deny the Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is unjust.

The major is proved 2 Cor. 10. 8. & 13. 10 Rom. 15. 2. I Cor. 14. 26. Rom. 14. 15, 20.

For the Minor I shall prove it, I. As of the Destruction of the Person; 2. Of many others; 3. Of the Church it self.

1. To use this Power to deprive many Thousands of their Communion with Christ and his Church in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, and Consequently of all the Benefits thereof, is to use it to the Destruction of those Mens Souls.

But to enjoyn all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to use this Power to deprive many Thousands of their Communion with Christ and his Church, in the Sacrament of his Body p. 362and Blood, and consequently of all the Benefits thereof: Ergo to enjoyn all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to use this Power to the Destruction of those Souls.

2. To the Destruction of many others.

II. To use this Power to deprive many Thousand ignorant, ungodly People of the Labours of able faithful Ministers, when those People are like to have no competent Preachers of the Gospel in their stead, is to use this Power to the Destruction of those many thousand Souls.

But to enjoyn all Ministers to deny Communion to all those that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to use this Power to deprive many Thousand, &c.—Ergo it is to use this Power to their Destruction.

It being supposed that it is not any Injunction in genere, but the English Injunction in specie that is spoken of. The Minor is proved thus:

If such an Injunction will Silence a great number of able and faithful Ministers, while there are not competent Preachers of the Gospel to supply very many of their Places, then to enjoyn all, &c. is to use the Power to Deprive, &c.—

But the Antecedent is certain: Ergo, &c.

Two notorious Evidences in Matter of Fact do fully prove the Antecedent:

1. That there are a great number of able, faithful Ministers, whole Consciences do forbid them to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, though they suffer Silencing for it: and that the Injunction doth Silence (and Imprison them) if they do not deny it them. 2. That there are very many Congregations in Wales and divers parts of England, where are Thousands of ignorant ungodly People, that even now have no competent Preachers, much less will there be enow when all there Ministers are turned out.

3. To the Destruciton of the Church.

III. 1. To use this Power to deprive the Church of a great number of her pious and exemplary Members, that are meet for her Communion, is to use it to the Churches Destruction.

But to enjoyn all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel at the Reception of the Sacrament, is to use this Power to Deprive the Church of a great number of her Pious and Exemplary Members, that are meet for her Communion.

Ergo, To enjoyn all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to use this Power to Destruction.

2. To use this Power to the certain and lamentable Division of the Church, is to use it to the Destruction of the Church.

But to enjoyn all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Lord's Supper, is to use this Power, to the certain and lamentable Division of the Church:

Ergo, To enjoyn all, &c. is to use this Power to the Destruciton of the Church: The Major is undeniable: The Minor I prove thus—

1. To divide by force (or constraint) so many Thousands as dare not kneel in Receiving the Lord's Supper, from the rest, is to use this Power to the actual and lamentable Division of the Church.

But to enjoyn all Ministers to deny them Communion, is to divide them by constraint from the rest:

Ergo, To enjoyn all, &c. is to use this power to the certain and lamentable Division of the Church.

2. To maintain and exercise by this Power a Principle of Church Division, is to use this Power to the certain and lamentable Division of the Church.

But to enjoyn all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not receive kneeling, is to maintain and exercise a Principle of Church Division, (that is, such as is of its own nature fitted to divide it, and will effect it).

Ergo, To enjoyn all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not Receive kneeling, is to use this Power to the certain and lamentable Division of the Church.

The Minor (which only needs proof) I prove thus:

p. 363To maintain and exercise this Principle; That [Things as unnecessary, small and doubtful, as kneeling in the Reception of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, are to be made necessary to the Communion of the Church] is to maintain and exercise a Principle of Church Division.

But to enjoyn all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not Receive kneeling, is to maintain and exercise this Principle, that [Things as unnecessary, small and doubtful, as kneeling in the Reception of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, are to be made necessary to the Communion of the Church].

Ergo, To enjoyn all, &c. is to maintain and exercise a Principle of Church-Division.

The Major (which only needs proof) is thus proved.

To maintain and exercise such a Principle as, 1. Never yet was exercised, but it did divide the Church; 2. and by which its Divisions have been caused or cherished ever since the Roman Usurpation begun; 3. and which cannot possibly consist with Unity whilst Christians are of such different. 1. Educations, 2. and degrees of Natural Understanding. 3. and degrees of Grace, is to maintain and exercise a Principle of Church Division.

But to maintain and exercise this Principle [That Things as unnecessary, small and doubtful as kneeling in the Reception of the Sacrament, are to be made necessary to the Communion of the Church] is to maintain and exercise such a Principle, as 1. never yet was exercised but it did divide, &c.—Ergo—

And thus our Dispute at the Savoy ended, and with it our Endeavours for Reconciliation upon the Warrant of the King's Commission.

§ 236. Were it not a thing in which an Historian so much concerned in the business is apt to be suspected of partiality, I would here annex a Character of each one that managed this business as they shewed themselves. But because it hath that inconvenience, I will omit it, only telling you what part each one of them acted in all this Work.

The Bishop of London (since Archbishop of Canterbury) only appeared the first day of each Conference (which, besides that before the King, was but twice in all as I remember) and medled not at all in any Disputations: But all Men supposed that he and Bishop Morley (and next Bishop Hinchman) were the doers and disposers of all such Affairs. The Archbishop of York,**Frewen spake no more than I have told you, and came but once or twice in all. Bishop Morley was oft there, but not constantly, and with free and fluent words, with much earnestness, was the chief Speaker of all the Bishops, and the greatest Interrupter of us; vehemently going on with what he thought serviceable to his end, and bearing down Answers by the said fervour and interruptions. Bishop Cosins was there constantly, and had a great deal of talk with so little Logick, Natural or Artificial, that I perceived no one much moved by any thing he said. But two Vertues he shewed (though none took him for a Magician): One was, that he was excellently well versed in Canons, Councils, and Fathers, which he remembred, when by citing of any Passages wotried him. The other was, that as he was of a Rustick Wit and Carriage, so he would endure more freedom of our Discourse with him, and was more affable and familiar than the rest. Bishop Hinchman (since Bishop of London) was of the most grave, comely, reverend Aspect, of any of them; and of a good insight in the Fathers and Councils, Cosins and he and Dr. Gunning being all that shewed any of that skill among us considerable: in which they are all three of very laudable understandings, and better than any other of either of the Parties that I met with: And Bishop Hinchman spake calmly and slowly, and not very oft: But was as high in his Principles and Resolutions as any of them.

Bishop Sanderson of Lincoln was some time there, but never spake that I know of but what I have told you before: But his great Learning and Worth are known by his Labours**Since, of his death, he made it his request that the ejected Ministers might be used again: but his request was rejected by them that had overwitted him, as being too late., and his aged Peevishness not unknown.

Bishop Gauden was our most constant helper; He and Bishop Cosins seldom were absent. And how bitter soever his Pen be, he was the only Moderator of all the Bishops (except our Bishop Reignolds): He shewed no Logick, nor medled in any Dispute, or Point of Learning; but a calm, fluent, Rhetorical Tongue: And if p. 364all had been of his mind, we had been reconciled: But when by many days Conference in the beginning, we had got some moderating Concessions from him (and from Bishop cosins by his means) the rest came in the end and brake them all.

Bishop Lucie of St. David's, spake once or twice a few words calmly, and so did Bishop Nicholson of Glocester, and Bishop Griffiths of Asaph (though no Commissioners); and did no more.

Bishop King of Chicbester I never saw there: Bishop Warner of Rocbester was there once or twice, but medled not that I heard. Bishop Lany of Peterborough was twice or thrice there, and talked as is before recited; for I remember no more.

Bishop Walton of Chester was there once or twice, and spake but what is before recited, that I know of.

Bishop Sterne of Carlisle, since Archbishop of York, was of a most sober, honest, mortified Aspect, but spake nothing that I know of, but that weak uncharitable word before mentioned: so that I was never more deceived by a Man's Face.

Bishop Reignolds spake much the first day for bringing them to Abatements and Moderation: And afterwards he fate with them, and spake now and then a word for Moderation. He was a solid honest Man, but through mildness and excess of timerous reverence to great Men, altogether unfit to contend with them.

Mr. Thorndike spake once a few impertinent passionate words, confusing the Opinion which we had received of him from his first Writings, and confirming that which his second and last Writings had given us of him.

Dr. Earle, Dr. Heylin, and Dr. Barwick never came. Dr. Hacket (since Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield) said nothing to make us know any thing of him Dr. Sparrow said but little; but that little was with a Spirit enough for the imposing dividing Cause.

Dr. Pierson and Dr. Gunning did all their Work (beside Bishop Morley's Discourses but with great difference in the manner. Dr. Pierson was their true Logician and Disputant, without whom, as far as I could discern, we should have had nothing from them, but Dr. Gunning's passionate Invectives mixt with some Argumentations: He disputed acurately, soberly and calmly (being but once in any passion) breeding in us a great respect for him, and a perswasion that if he had been independent, he would have been for Peace, and that if all were in his power, it would have gone well: He was the strength and honour of that Cause which we doubted whether he heartily maintained.

Dr. Gunning was their forwardest and greatest Speaker; understanding well what belonged to a Disputant; a Man of greater Study and Industry than any of them, well read in Fathers and Councils; and of a ready Tongue; (and I hear and believe of a very temperate Life, as to all Carnal Excesses whatsoever): but so vehement for his high imposing Principles, and so over-zealous for Arminianism and Formality and Church Pomp, and so very eager and servent in his Discourse, that I conceive his Prejudice and Passion much perverted his Judgment, and I am sure they made him lamentably over-run himself in his Discources.

Of Dr. Pierce I will say no more, because he hath said so much of me.

On our part, Dr. Bates spake very solidly, judiciously and pertinently when he spake: And for my self, the reason why I spake so much, was because it was the desire of my Brethren, and I was loth to expose them to the hatred of the Bishops, but was willinger to take it all upon my self, they themselves having so much wit as to be therein more sparing and cautelous than I; and I thought that the Day and Cause commanded me those two things, which then were objected against me as my Crimes, viz. speaking too boldly, and too long. And I thought it a Cause that I could comfortably suffer for; and should as willingly be a Martyr for Charity as for Faith.

§ 237. When this Work was over, the rest of our Brethren met again, and resolved to draw up an Account of our Endeavours, and present it to his Majesty, with our Petition for his promised help yet for those Alterations and Abatements which we could not procure of the Bishops: And that first we should acquaint the Lord Chancellour withal, and consult with him about it. Which we did; and as soon as we came to him, according to my expectation, I found him most offended at me, and that I had taken off the distaste and blame from all the rest. At our first entrance he merily told us, [That if I were but as fat as Dr. Manton, we should all do well **Referring to something that past between Sp. Cosins and me about my leanness…, &c.]. I told him, if his Lordship could teach me the Art of growing fat, he should find me not unwilling to learn, by any good means. He grew more p. 365serious, and said, That I was severe and strict, like a Melancholy Man, and made those things Sin which others did not: And I perceived he had been possessed with displeasure towards me upon that account, that I charged the Church and Liturgy with Sin; and had not supposed that the worlt was but inexpendiency. I told him that I had spoken nothing but what I thought, and had given my Reasons for— After other such Discourse, we craved his Favour to procure the King's Declaration yet to be past into an Act, and his Advice what we had further to do. He consented that we should draw up an Address to his Majesty, rendering him an account of all; but desired that we would first shew it him: which we promised.

§ 238. When we shewed our Paper to the Lord Chancellour (which the Brethren had desired me to draw up, and had consented to without any alteration) he was not pleased with some Passages in it, which he thought too pungent or pressing: but would not bid us put them out. So we went with it to the Lord Chamberlain (who had heard from the Lord Chancellor about it), and I read it to him also, and he was earnest with us to bloe out some Passages as too vehement, and such as would not well be born. I was very loth to leave them out, but Sir Gilbirt Gerrard (an ancient godly Man) being with him, and of the same mind, I yielded (having no remedy, and being unmeer to oppose their Wisdoms any further): And so what they Scored under we left out, and presented the rest to his Majesty afterwards. But when we came to present it, the Earl of Manchester secretly told the rest, that if Dr. Reignolds, Dr. Bates, and Dr. Manton would deliver it, it would be the more acceptable (intimating that I was grown unacceptable at Court): But they would not go without me, and he profest he desired not my Exclusion: But when they told me of it, I took my leave of him, and was going away: But he and they came after me to the Stairs, and importuned me to return, and I went with them to take my Farewel of this Service. But I resolved that I would not be the Deliverer of any of our Papers (though I had got them transcribed and brought them thither): So we desired Dr. Manton to deliver our Petition, and with it the fair Copies of all our Papers to the Bishops (which was required of us for the King). And when Bishop Reignolds had spoken a few words, Dr. Manton delivered them to the King; who received them and the Petition, but did not bid us read it at all. At last, in his Speeches, something fell in which Dr. Monton told him that the Petition gave him a full account of, if his Majesty pleased to give him leave to read it; whereupon he had leave to read it out.Mr. Calamy was most of this time sick, or lame of a hurt which he had received. The occassion was, a short Speech which I made to inform his Majesty how far we were agreed with the Bishops, and wherein the difference did not lye, as in the Points of Loyalty, Obedience, Church, Order, &c. This Dr. Monton also spake: And the King but the Question, [But who shall be Iudge?] And I answered him, That Judgment is either publick or private: Private Judgement called Discretionis, which is but the use of my Reason to conduct my Actions, belongeth to every private rational Man: Publick Iudgment is Ecclesiastical or Civil, and belongeth accordingly to the Ecclesiastical Governours (or Pastors) and the Civil; and not to any private Man. And this was the end of these Affairs.

§ 239. I will give you the Copy of the Petition just as I drew it up, because 1. Here you may see what those words were which could not be tolerated; 2. Because it is but supposing the under-scored Lines to be blotted out, and you have it as it was presented without any Alteration. For those under scored Lines were all the words that were left out.