A Second Admonition to Edward Bagshaw, Part 2 · Section 32 – Section 37
Sect. 32. E. B. 16 Crime, Reſiſting and reproaching other mens labours for the ſervice of God, and the good of ſouls, with confidence in notorious falſehood.And in another place you tell me that you have written the better part of above fifty Books againſt the prophane, the Jews and the Mahumetans: (I will not enquire to what purpoſe; for I am very confident none of thoſe did ever read what you have written againſt them:) But add to theſe your ſeveral other Treatiſes—your Books will in all amount to as many Volumes as Toſtatus writ, concerning whom, and all ſuch kind of Writers, you once gave this true Character, though ſince you have moſt unhappily forgotten it [I cannot but account all thoſe Toſtatus's as impudently proud, who think the world ſhould read no bodies works but theirs. Pray Sir read this paſſage again, and compare it with what you have already written, and what as I hear you do yet further intend to write, and then tell me in earneſt what you think of your ſelf—
R. B. 1. Seeing our debates about Church-dividing muſt needs be turned to this, Whether I am proud, I grant you the concluſion that I am proud, and what would you have more? 2. Your ductile followers that never ſaw Toſtatus know not how you cheat them by theſe words; and that you meaſure by Number, and not by bulk; and twenty of ſome of my Books, will not make one of Toſtatus's for bigneſs: If you go to number, how many more wrote Origen? But a Sheet is not ſo big as a large Volume in folio. Of much writing.3. I never accuſed Auguſtine, Chryſoſtom, Calvin, Zanchy, &c. as imitating Toſtatus; And I have not wrote ſo much as they. 4. The beſt way to cure one that writeth too much, is to perſwade men not to buy and read it, and then the Bookſellers will not print it. And till you can do that, you ſee that all men are not of your mind: And by what obligation am I bound to be of your mind alone, rather than of many thouſands that are of another, and thoſe that ſtill importune me to write more? Is it pride only to differ from you, and to write againſt your judgement? Or were not the Fathers and Divines fore-mentioned, (with Rivet, Chamier, Beza, Luther, &c. yea, and Dr. Owen too, proud, if large Writings be a ſign of Pride. 5. When you queſtion to what purpoſe it is to write Books againſt the Prophane, and Jews, and Mahumetans, that is, againſt Infidelity, and to defend the Chriſtian faith, you ſhew what a Guide you are to the Church. 6. When you are confident that none of the Prophane, &c. did ever read what I wrote againſt them, either you believe your ſelf, or not. If you do, how unfit are you to be believed of any that know no better what is credible in a matter of fact? Could you think for inſtance, that my Call to the Vnconverted hath been printed ſo oft, I think ſome ſcores of thouſands, and tranſlated into French by Mr. Eliots (as he ſaid he was doing) into the Indian Tongue, and no prophane perſon ever read it? You will take this very inſtance its like for my pride, which you make neceſſary to ſhew your temerity and deceit. But if you do not believe your ſelf, how much leſs ſhould others believe you? 7. Will no ſober Readers think that you ſet your ſelf to do the Devils work, againſt the ſervice of the Church of God, by ſeeking to ſilence us from writing by your contumely and ſcorns, (even from writing againſt the Prophane and Infidels) at a time when we are by others ſilenced from publick preaching? Let your conſcience tell you, if I had obeyed you from the firſt, and never written, whether the Devil or moſt that have made uſe of what I wrote, would have thankt you more? 8. Did not the Primitive Teachers, Apoſtles and others leave us their Examples for Writing, as well as for Vocal Teaching? And are they not two wayes of predicating or publiſhing the ſame Goſpel? And if ſo, would he ſerve God or the Devil, that would ſcorn us all as Proud for preaching ſo much, as the beſt men do? 9. And do you not yet ſee how much you have of the ſame ſilencing Spirit which you profeſs to ſeparate from? 10. But your warning for a review hath brought me to Repent of, and Retract that paſſage againſt Toſtatus, as being too raſhly uttered: Becauſe 1. He wrote when good Writers were more ſcarce than now. 2. Becauſe he might be willing that other mens works ſhould be preferred before his, and that his own ſhould not be wholly read, but partly peruſed on particulas occaſions. 3. And it is unſeemly to reprove induſtry.
Now we come to the Queſtion after all this.
Sect. 33. IN ſtating of this Queſtion, You do E. B p. 10. your ſelf grant ſo much, that you ſcarce leave any thing to be either diſputed or denyed—
R. B. Remember Reader,The Caſe, of ſeparation! that my Profeſſed deſign (on the Title page) is, 1. To invite all ſound and ſober Chriſtians, by what names ſoever called, to receive each other to Communion in the ſame Churches. 2. And where that (which is firſt deſireable) cannot be attained, to bear with each other in their diſtinct Aſſemblies, and to manage them all in Chriſtian Love. 3. And that under the firſt head, I particularly prove, that It is lawful to hold Communion with ſuch Chriſtian Churches, as have worthy or tolerable Paſtors, notwithſtanding the Parochial order of them, and the Miniſters Conformity and uſe of the Common-Prayer Book.
This laſt is the true ſtate of the Queſtion which I affirm; with theſe two limitations or explications. That is, 1. That it is lawful ſtatedly to communicate as a member, with ſuch a Pariſh Church, where we cannot conſideratis conſiderandis have Communion with a better upon lawful termes.
2. That thoſe that can have ſtated Communion with a better, may yet lawfully communicate ſometimes with ſuch a Pariſh Church, as we may do on juſt occaſion with a Church of Neighbours or Strangers where we live or come. Yea that we ought to do ſo when ſome ſpecial reaſons (as from Authority Scandal, &c.) do require it.
Theſe are the ſumm of my Aſſertions. Though my main cauſe oblige me as much to prove to a Conformiſt that he may have Communion with a Church of Non-conformiſts, yet I had no call to proſecute that particularly, as I had to the other, for the reaſons which I rendred at large.
And this being the Caſe, judge now of this mans Diſſent and furious oppoſition, whether ſober people have reaſon to regard it, when he himſelf beginneth with this Confeſſion, that I ſcarce leave any thing to be diſputed or denyed. Self-condemnation.What honeſty then is there in his denyals and diſputes.
Sect. 34. E. B. 1. You grant that we are not to have Communion with a Dioceſane Church as ſuch,30th and 31ſt viſible Untruths. and that we are not to own Dioceſane Biſhops?
R. B. Here are two more Untruths! I only ſaid, that theſe are no part of our Queſtion; they are things that I aſſert not; and that I meddled not with: And you feign me to grant the Negative, when I only ſay, I meddle not with it. I only ſay, that I hold no Communion my ſelf with a Dioceſane Church as ſuch, in that form, &c. and that I perſwade no others to it.
Sect 35. E. B. 2. You allow that we are not to have Communion with Perſecutors,32d & 33d Untru…hs. nor with ſuch as have conſented to our ſilencing.
R. B. I never wrote ſuch a word, but only told you it was none of our queſtion, and that I did not affirm it, and that it is none of the thing that I am perſwading men to. And yet with this intimation pag. 9. that neither your ſelves nor I do avoid. Communion with all perſecutors; ſeeing moſt Parties have been guilty of it. The Common-wealths men perſecuted me and others, ſo far as to make Orders to Sequeſter us, for not taking the Engagement, and for not keeping their Faſts and Thankſgivings for the Warrs againſt Scotland; And yet I am not ſo rigid as to refuſe communion with all that did it, or conſented to it. My old ſpecial friend did perſecute Mr. Sam. Fiſher and Mr. Blake, when he turned them both out of Shrewsbury, from their Churches, labour, dwellings and maintenance, even when the Plague was begun and the people doubly ſenſible of their loſs. And yet I refuſed not all Communion with ſuch as did it. Its like you know who perſecuted Mr. Caughton, Dr. Drake, Mr. Nalton, Mr. Arthur Jackſon, Mr. Watſon, Mr. Jenkins, &c. and Mr. Love and Gibbons; And yet who ſcrupleth Communion with them? Again I tell you, I mention not theſe for reproach, but only to ſet us in the impartial ſenſe of the queſtion.
Sect. 36. E. B. p. 11. All this and more— being granted, I ſcarce ſee what it is that you contend for—
R. B. What eyes then have you that cannot ſee that which I copiouſly and expreſly ſpeak?
Sect. 37. E. B. From theſe grounds ſeparation at this day may be eaſily juſtified.
R. B. Blind ſophiſtry and palpable fallacy.This is the undertaking by which you have drawn me to renew this debate, and therefore I ſhall try your proof.