A Second Admonition to Edward Bagshaw, Part 2 · Section 40
Sect. 40. E. B. p. 11. [If Perſecutors are not to be communicated with, nor ſuch as have conſented to our ſilencing (which you alſo allow) (though I could wiſh you had proved it better than by the obſcure & diſputable example of Martin) then I think very few, if any of the Pariſh-Miniſters, but muſt even upon that account alſo be ſeparated from; ſince either by open conſent, or elſe by an Vndoing and Pernicious ſilence they have all made themſelves guilty of that grievous ſin: There being but little difference in the ſight of God, between the perſecuting Brethren our ſelves, and (by not ſharply reproving it) ſeeming to approve of it in others.
R. B. 1. Your repeated miſtake of my [allowing] that which I only meddle not with, Whether all the Pariſh Miniſters conſent to perſecution.but exclude from the queſtion; or oppoſe not, I paſs by. 2. Every one that is by remote conſequence guilty of our ſilencing doth not conſent to it. Otherwiſe You, and I, and all the ſilenced Miniſters in England do conſent to it. For he is blindly impenitent that will deny that we are any way guilty of it.
3. You do but cover one open ſin with another;Slander. even ſeparation with uncharitable ſlander of many hundred godly Conformable Miniſters, whom you accuſe of this conſent. I know ſcarce any one of my acquaintance whom I take for a faithful diligent Paſtor, and whom I perſwade men to hear, but they are grieved at the heart for the ſilencing of ſo many and ſuch. I hear ſome complain of it privately, and ſome lament it publickly, and earneſtly pray that God would reſtore them; But I never heard one of them own it.
4. I plead not for Vndoing, Pernicious ſilence: I think too many are deeply guilty by it: My teſtimony in this caſe is viſible among the Writings whoſe number you prove me proud by. But if you make this a proof of the duty of ſeparation, you will make mad work of it. For, 1. You know not mens opportunities to ſpeak: And where there is no opportunity, there its no duty. 2. You know not who hath ſpoken their diſſent plainly and who not. It may he ſome have done it in the Convocation: It may be ſome have done it privately,Of reproving ſharply the ſins of others. and ſome publickly already in due ſeaſon. And we are not to expect an account from them of all that they ſay. 3. To whom is it that you would have all the Countrey Miniſters ſpeak againſt our ſilencing? To thoſe that did it they have no acceſs; and they are out of hearing. And muſt they needs talk to the people of their ſuperiours actions, and ſpeak againſt them behind their backs? 4. If we know that one, two, twenty have ſpoken or written plainly in reproof of a ſin, are all the Miniſters in the Land bound to do the ſame over again? Muſt they all leave their flocks to come up to London to do it? Or muſt they every one publiſh his reproof in Print? 5. All ſilence, or not-reproving is not a ſeeming conſent: much leſs in Gods ſight little different from perſecution. Were all the Churches in the Empire Perſecutors, or to be ſeparated from, which did not reprove the Emperours for baniſhing Athanaſius, and Chryſoſtom and ſuch others? Of all the ſilenced Miniſters in London or England, how ſmall a number is there that have [ſharply reproved] the ſilencers? And perhaps they that have done it moſt ſharply may have been more ſharp than did beſeem them.
To conclude Readers,Narrow Communion. mark here by this reaſon how few you muſt hold communion with in the Land or in the world, if you will be the Diſciples of Mr. Bagſhaw; Away from Conformiſts and Non-conformiſts that have [ſharply reproved] perſecutors. This is the way to be able to gueſs at the names and numbers of thoſe that by his rule you muſt Communicate with.
5. But what if they have ſharply reproved this one ſin? you cannot prove that they themſelves have done ſo by all other ſins: Even you your ſelf have left ſome unreproved: And will not the want of the ſharp reproving of other ſins as well as of perſecution, make your communion with ſuch unlawful?
6. But at the worſt; not reproving can be but a particular ſin? And it is not every particular ſin that maketh Communion unlawful.
7. And have you firſt admoniſhed them of that ſin, and tryed all theſe Miniſters whether they be penitent? Yea or ever heard them ſpeak for themſelves? Or do you reject Matth. 18. 15. and make to your ſelf and followers a new Law, that whomſoever you ſhall ſuſpect or accuſe of ſin, you muſt alſo ſeparate from?
8. But by this rule of yours, methinks few if any ſhould be liker to be accepted in your communion than my ſelf, if reproving perſecution would ſerve turn. And yet even I alſo am rejected by you, as being not wiſe or good enough to communicate with ſuch as you, but as one of the worſt of Hereticks to be rejected of all.
9. But I beſeech you give your Readers leave here to remember,Mr. Bagſhaw obligeth me to reprove him ſharply, left I be guilty of his ſin. if you will not, that your own doctrine impoſeth it on me as my duty, to Reprove you ſharply as I have done; while you teach the world, that it is but little different in the ſight of God, to perſecute, and not ſharply to reprove it, and ſo diſown it. For if it make the ſins of my ſuperiours mine, if I do not ſharply reprove them, and make me almoſt as guilty as they, I ſhall not be innocent if I reprove not you ſharply, when it is to me that you direct your words. And I had rather be thought too ſharp, than be guilty of all the crimes and falſhoods of this your Script, eſpecially when you are the accuſer of my ſilence your ſelf.