A Second True Defense of the Nonconformists, Treatise · Chapter 4

A Second True Defense of the Nonconformists · Treatise · Chapter 4

p. 29CHAP. IV. Of his Hiſtory of the caſe of the old Nonconformiſts.

§ 1. AS to what he ſaith of the ſameneſs of the former Caſe and ours, I ſhall tell him the difference after, where he more calls me to it; And ſhall ſhew him ſo much difference, as will diſcredit this aſſertion.

§ 2. As to the caſe of the old Nonconformiſts. 1. It muſt be premiſed that we take them not for any of our rule, but cleave to Gods word and the example of the Primitive Church, looking ſtill at the great ends of order and Government.

2. We maintain as well as he that the Chief Nonconformiſts were againſt that called Browniſm or Separation, and wrote more againſt it than the Conformiſts did.

3. I ſtill profeſs my ſelf to be of their Judgment in this, and have practiſed accordingly.

4. But they were not againſt ſuch Preaching, or any ſuch ſort of ſeparation as I have either practiſed or defended.

§ 3. Here therefore it muſt be known what the Controverſie between them and the ſeparatiſts was. 1. The higher ſort of ſeparatiſts ſaid, that the Church of England was no true Church. The Nonconformiſts, ſaid it was a true National Church both as a Chriſtian Kingdom, and as an Aſſociation of Churches, (and as repreſented in National Synods were they made one.)

2. The ſaid Browniſts ſaid that the Pariſh Churches were no true Churches, nor to be owned as ſuch, nor joyned with. The Nonconformiſts held that they are true Churches, (that have capable Miniſters) though faulty.

3. The ſeparatiſts ſaid that the Pariſh Miniſters were no true Miniſters, becauſe ordained by Dioceſans and not choſen by the people, &c. The Nonconformiſts ſaid, that the capable were true though faulty Miniſters, p. 30owned by the peoples conſenting communion, and the ordination valid though culpable.

4. The ſeparatiſts ſaid that Miniſters and people muſt gather Churches that are purer, and ſet up better diſcipline in them, whatever Rulers ſay or do againſt it, or whatever they ſuffer, as far as they are able. The Nonconformiſts ſaid, this is to be done where it may be done without doing more hurt than good, but elſe it is no duty but a ſin, viz. To do it Tumultuouſly, Seditiouſly, or ſo as by running on the Magiſtrates ſword, by improbable attempts to loſe their own advantages for doing and getting good, and hinder the common pariſh reformation.

5. The Separatiſts ſaid that no prohibition of the Magiſtrate will warrant a Miniſter to forbear the publick work of his office. The Nonconformiſts held that it belongeth to the Magiſtrate to reſtrain deceivers and all falſe Teachers who do more hurt than good; and ſuch ſhould obey when they are forbidden to Preach and Adminiſter Sacraments: Yea if the Magiſtrate wrongfully forbid a worthy Miniſter to Preach, for order he is bound to obey, unleſs the need of the Church and Souls, and the probable benefit plainly weigh down that matter of order, and make the Magiſtrates prohibition invalid, as being againſt the common good, and the ends of the Miniſtry, and ſo againſt Chriſt.

6. The ſemi-ſeparatiſts (Robinſons party) after held that though the Pariſh Churches may be called true Churches, as a Leper is a true man, and it may be lawful to hear a Sermon in them, yet the Common-prayer is ſo bad, and the people and Miniſters ſo bad, and diſcipline ſo caſt out, that it is unlawful to joyn with them in Common-prayer, or Sacrament, or to become ſetled members of them; but all muſt attempt, though in Forreign Countreys, that are able▪ to ſet up purer worſhip and diſcipline. The Nonconformiſts held that thoſe that can have better without more hurt than good, ſhould cheoſe it: But they that cannot may joyn in member-ſhip, Common-prayer and Sacrament, with ſuch Pariſh Churches as will admit them without their own actual ſin, and conſenting to their faults.

§. 4. I ſhall now give you ſo full proof that the Nonconformiſts were for more, which the Doctor calleth Separation, than my Preaching or practice ever reached to, as I ſhall tell the Reader, what credit this Doctors hiſtory deſerveth, and what inhumane uſuage the Nonconformiſts have from that ſort of men.

§. 5. Anno 1593. Was printed againſt them Biſhop Bancroft's book called, Dangerous Poſitions and Proceedings &c. Or Engliſh Scotizing for Diſcipline by force &c. In the firſt book he maketh their Reformations p. 31ſo odious, as that Page 30. He ſaith that in Scotland [it hath wrought more miſchief in Thirty years, than the Pope of Rome had done before, as I think in five hundred] you ſee how that Spirit then did work, and whether our Arch-Biſhop Bancroft thought better of the Presbyterian Churches or the Pope, and the Effects.

In the Second book he taketh up what raſh words he could from any indiſcreet men to make them odious.

In the third he ſheweth what the Engliſh Nonconformiſts did for their Church-way and Diſcipline. Chap. 1. p. 42. He ſaith that the … Ten or Eleven years of the Queens Reign they ſo clamoured &c. that they divided themſelves from their ordinary Congregations, and meeting in houſes, woods and fields, kept there unlawful and diſorderly Conventicles: and Mr. Cartwright defendeth them, ſaying, that the name of Conventicles was too light and contemptuous for them; Then they framed their two admonitions: In one of which p. 60, 61. They tell the Parliament that their Diſcipline was Gods order, and they muſt in Conſcience ſpeak for it, and uſe it. And Anno 1572. They erected a Presbytery at Wandſworth. The Elders are named. The perſons named that ſet up meetings are Mr. Field▪ Wilcox, Standen, Jackſon, Bentham, Sancler, Crane, Edmonds, and after Clark, Travers, Barber, Gardiner, Cheſton, Crook, Egerton. Anno 1582. There was a meeting of threeſcore Miniſters out of Eſſex, Cambridg-ſhire and Norfolk at Cock-field, Mr. Knewſtubs Town. And another that year at a Commencement at Cambridge.

Chap. 3. That they drew up a book of their Diſcipline, where choice of Miniſters, Elders, Deacons &c. are named and regulated, and for Claſſical, Provincial, Comitial Synods and Government. Chap. 4. He tells you how they proſecuted it Anno 1583. Out of Cholmley, Field, Fen, Wilcox, Axton, Gellebrand, Wright, Gifford. Chap. 5. How they proceeded. 1587. And 1590. Northampton-ſhire was divided into three Claſſes. Firſt the Northampton Claſſis had Mr. Snape, Penrie, Sibthorp, Edwards, Littleton, Bradſhaw, Lark, Fleſhward, Spicer &c. The Daventrie Claſſis had Mr. Barebon, Rogers, King, Smart, Sharp, Prowdloe, Elliſton &c. The Kettering Claſſis had Mr. Stone, Williamſon▪ Falksbr…k, Patinſon, Maſſey &c. And Johnſon ſaith it was received in Warwick-ſhire Suffolk, Norfolk, Eſſex, and moſt parts of England; ſo Smith, H…gar, Holme witneſs, Mr Snape ſaid. About Braintree the Claſſis had Mr. Cul…wel, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Gifford, (one of our Doctor's wittneſſes) &c. That at Colcheſter had Doctor Chapman, Doctor Chrick, Mr. Dowe, Mr. …rrar, Mr. Newman, Mr. Tey, &c. Page 85. Mr. Snape ſaid, It was agreed p. 32on in the Claſſical and general aſſemblies, that the dumb Miniſters were no Miniſters, and that all the Miniſters ſhould Preach for the aforeſaid Government.

Chap. 6. Anno 1588. A Synod at Coventry agreed againſt private Baptiſm, reading Homilies, the Croſs in Baptiſm, and that the faithful ought not to communicate with unlearned (they mean uncapable) Miniſters; though they may be preſent at their Service, if they come of purpoſe to hear a Sermon. For Laymen may read publick Service. That the calling of Biſhops &c. is unlawful. That it is not lawful to be ordained by them, or denounce their Suſpentions or Excommunications. That its not lawful to reſt in the Biſhops deprivation of any from the Miniſtry, except on conſultation with neighbour Miniſters and their flock, it ſeems ſo good to them; but that he continue in the ſame till he be compelled to the contrary by Civil force. &c. And the Diſcipline ſubſcribed by Cartwright, Fen, Wright, Oxenbridge, Gellybrand, Clevely, Nutter, Fetherſtone, Holm, Lord &c. To repeat all is too tedious.

But its worth the noteing that whereas the Prelatiſts uſually ſay, that when they were put to draw up a Liturgy themſelves, they could not agree of any, Biſhop Bancroft ſaith Page 96. They offered the Parliament a book of their own, containing the form of Common prayers &c. and hoped to have had it eſtabliſhed.

Page 164. Chap. 12. He tells you of their order for Parents to offer their own Children to Baptiſm, and be Godfathers &c. He proceedeth to ſhew that they reſolved to practice their Diſcipline againſt the Magiſtrates will, and did accordingly. And Chap. 15. p. 120. That they joyned themſelves into an Aſſociation or brother-hood, and appropriated to their meetings the name of the Church, thereby ſhewing themſelves to be moſt notorious Schiſmaticks, citeing their words (our Churches) And p. 121. That the Pariſh where they preach aſſembled, is not the Church properly in their ſence, but as many thereof only as are joyned to them with that inviolable bond, viz. The deſire of the godly Diſcipline, and thoſe furthermore who leaving their own Pariſh Churches come to them. e. g. The Church of God, forſooth in Black fryars conſiſts beſides that Pariſh of a number of men and Merchants wives diſperſed here and there throughout the whole City. Mr. Snape's teſtimony is cited.

§ 6. By theſe words of Bancroft and the caſe compared, it is certain that on theſe ſuppoſitions many of the Canons were made againſt them; as againſt Conventicles and calling themſelves another Church, and a brother-hood, and about God fathers and many more, ſuppoſing them to be of this mind.

p. 33§ 7. On ſuppoſition that theſe things were true, the Nonconformiſts have to this day been accuſed by thoſe that write againſt them, and the teſtimony of this book alledged as proof. And Doctor Heylin hath in folio accordingly deſcribed them in his Hiſtory of Presbytery, as many others have done.

§ 8. And now cometh Doctor Stillingfleet, and tells you, that [he is certain that all the old Nonconformiſts] were quite of another mind, and other men, and to prove it citeth four or five mens words againſt Browniſts; When yet he citeth more of my own againſt Separation: and if my words prove me not to be againſt it, how will theirs prove them to be againſt it?

§ 9. Either Bancrofts, Heylins and ſuch others words of them are true or falſe. If true, how untrue are Doctor Stillingfleet's? If falſe, O what a ſort of men were theſe Prelates that ſo ſtigmatized and accuſed and ſo uſed ſo many hundred ſuch men, on ſo falſe a charge? And what a Church was it that made the Canons againſt them on that ſuppoſition? And how ſhall we know which of them to believe? Doth not Doctor Stillingfleet heavily reproach his own Church for ſuch uſuage of them?

§ 10. The caſe is commonly known, Firſt that a long time they had almoſt all of them Pariſh Churches as other men had: and they ſought to ſet up Diſcipline in thoſe Churches. And it had been folly then to gather others in other places.

2. When Bancroft and others had got many caſt out and ſilenced, a great part of them kept in by connivence of ſome peaceable Biſhops, and by the mediation of ſome Lords and Gentlemen, ſuch as the Earl of Leiceſter, Bedford, Warwicke, the Lord Burghley, Sir Francis, Walſingham, Sir Amias Pawlet, Sir Nicholas Bacon, Mr. Beal, and Sir Francis Knowles had been to them before: Yea the greater part of them by ſuch favour got into priviledged peculiar places, or little Chapells at leaſt; Few Counties had not ſome Gentlemen that ſheltred them. The Earl of Huntington kept in Mr. Hilderſham at Aſhby, Mr. Slater and Mr. Aſh, even in the big Town of Bremicham, Mr. Mainwaring kept in Mr. Ball at Whitmore; Mr. Knightley kept in Mr. Dod, Judge Bromley (and his humble holy Lady) kept Mr. Brumskill at Sheriff Hales, and entertained many more (Mr. Nicols &c.) Sir Richard Graves at Moſeley had Mr. Pateman and divers others, ſeldom without a Nonconformiſt: One would think Doctor Stillingfleet ſhould know that his own Patron, under whoſe wing he lived, Sir Roger Burgonie was ſeldom without a Nonconformiſt at Roxhall in Warwickſhire: Mr. Hering had long liberty at St. Maries in Shrewsbery, Mr. Ford p. 34(who wrote on the Pſalms) had the School Lecture there, Mr. Atkins at …, kept in to the laſt, even the Lord Dudley, favouring him. Abundance ſuch I might name, Mr. Barnet, at Uppington (whom I oft heard Catechize Dr. Alleſtree,) Mr. Tandy at Bewdley, Mr. Langley, Mr. Paget, Mr. Hind, Mr. Lancaſter, Mr. Rowle, Mr. Nicols, Mr. Mather, Mr. Rathband, Mr. Bar…n, Mr. Gee, Mr. Wright, Mr. Smart, &c. had their liberties for ſome time. And when one Biſhop ſilenced them, the next oft gave them liberty (as Biſhop Bridgman did after Biſhop Mortons ſilencing ſome) and when they were ſilenced, they went oft into another Dioceſe, where they rubd out a year or more, and then to another; And ſo were ſtill in ſome hope of publick liberty.

And when ſilenced they uſed to keepe private faſts; And where they lodged to preach on pretenſe of expounding to as many as they could.

They obeyed the Biſhops as Magiſtrates, but not as Paſtors.

They knowingly broke the Law in their private and publick Miniſtry: They obeyed not the Canons; uſed not much of the Liturgy; And many of them did as ſome do now, get into publick Pulpits for a day and away, where they were not known.

§. 12. But yet there are more undeniable evidences of the falſeneſs of what, he ſaith, he is certain of, as the judgment of All the Old Nonconformiſts. One is the known judgement of the Scotch Reformers, and the common accuſation of the Engliſh, as being of their mind. He that will affirm that the Scotch Presbyterians thought it unlawful to preach or hold Aſſemblies, when forbidden by Magiſtrates or Prelates, will incur a very ſharp cenſure from their own Leaders, who have written ſo many Books, which charge them with the contrary, and make them Rebels and Seditious for it: Such as Bancroft, Heylin, Beziers, and multitudes both old and new; eſpecially theſe laſt twenty years.

And though the Nonconformiſts in England did not juſtifie all that the Scots did (and they that took Knox, Buchanan, Melvin, and ſuch other for very pious men, yet thought ſome words and deeds too raſh, eſpecially Knox's publick opening the Queens faults in the Pulpit, and refuſing her offer to come at any time, and tell her of them privately) yet its known, that in the Rules of Diſcipline, they were moſtly of the ſame judgment: And they often joyned in defending the ſame Cauſe. See their ſeveral demonſtrations of Diſcipline, and the ſeveral Defences of them, how little they differed, when Bancroft preacht againſt them at Pauls Croſs, Feb. 8. 1588. An Engliſh man wrote a Brief Diſcovery of his untruths, &c. And a Scoth man J. D. Bancrofts raſhneſs in railing againſt the Church of Scotland, printed 1590. And how little differ they, if at all (and Dr. p. 35Reignolds wrote a Letter againſt it to Sir Francis Knowles, printed with Sir Francis Knowles his account to the Lord Burleigh of his Speech in Parliament, againſt the Biſhops keeping Courts in their own names, as condemned by Law.

And in many of their writings the Engliſh own the Scotch Diſcipline and Church. And yet even theſe Scots have rejected Brown as a Schiſmatick, and the Engliſh Confuter of Bancrofts Sermon tells him, Pag. 43, 44. Brown a known Schiſmatick is a Fit man to be one of your Witneſſes aagainſt the Elderſhip: His entertainment in Scotland was ſuch as a proud ungodly man deſerved to have: God give him and you repentance. And Giffords, Pagets, Bradſhaws, Brightmans, Rathbands, Balls, &c. words againſt the Browniſts proved not them to be againſt their own doctrine and practice, no more than the Scots rejecting Brown proved them againſt theirs.

§ 13. And another proof is the common doctrine of the Nonconformiſts, of the difference of the Magiſtrates, and the Churches Offices. The ſaid confutation of Bancroft hath it, pag. 45 and forward, and abundance of their publick writings; viz. That the Magiſtrate only hath the power of the Sword, and of Civil Government, and to reſtrain and puniſh Miniſters that offend by Hereſie or otherwiſe: But that as Preaching, Sacraments and the diſciplinary uſe of the Keys are proper to the Miniſtry, ſo the deciding of Circumſtantial controverſies about them and about the due ordering of them, doth primarily belong to Eccleſiaſtical Synods. Therefore if theſe Synods were for their Preaching, they were not for ceaſing it meerly in obedience to the Magiſtrate that ſilenced them.

§ 14. And it is proved by the many Volumes which they wrote againſt the Power of our Dioceſans, that it was not any Eccleſiaſtical Authority of theirs (which they thought it a ſin to diſobey.)

§ 15. And Mr. Fox, a Nonconformiſt and many more of them, own the Doctrine of Wicliff and John Huſſe, and the Bohemians, for which the Synods of Conſtance and Baſil, condemned them, who affirm that it is a heynous ſin to give over Preaching, becauſe men excommunicate us, and that ſuch are excommunicated by Chriſt.

§ 16. And it is not nothing that the moſt Learned Conformiſts agree with them, as I have oft cited Biſhop Bilſons words, that the Magiſtrate doth not give us our power, nor may hinder our uſe of it, but is appointed by God to protect and encourage us, and if he forbid or hinder us, we are to go on with our work and patiently ſuffer.

And even now I believe moſt of the Leading Clergy think that if a Synod bid us preach and hold aſſemblies, and the King forbid it, we are p. 36to obey the Synod rather than the King, Mr. Thorndike, and many others that write for the Church thought ſo. And Mr. Dodvel thinks ſo even of a particular Biſhop. The difference then is but this: One party giveth this power to a Synod of Biſhops (and Presbyters perhaps conjoyned) and the other to a Synod of Parochial Paſtors, Doctors and Elders. But both agreed that the Magiſtrates prohibition in that caſe is not to be obeyed. And the Conformiſts will not take it well if I ſhould ſay that the Nonconformiſt are more for obedience to Magiſtrates than they: I ſtill except the Eraſtians, and ſuch as own Dr. Stillingfleets Irenicon.

§ 17. There is a moſt conſiderable book called A Petition directed to her moſt Excellent Majeſty ſhewing a meane how to compound the Civil Diſſentions in the Church of England, where the Author (I ſuppoſe ſome Lawyer) Pag. 23. tells us what was the difference between the Papiſts and them that deſired Reformation (Nonconformiſts) about the power of Magiſtrates. And. 1. They give the Prince Authority over all Perſons Eccleſiaſtical whatſoever; The Papiſts exempt the Clergy: 2. They hold that a Prince may depoſe a Prieſt, as Solomon did Abiather, and accordingly they obey being ſilenced: The Papiſts deny it. 3: They affirm, if the Prieſts make wicked decrees, the Prince may enforce them to better. The Papiſts deny it. 4. They ſay Princes muſt and ought to make Laws for the Church, but with the adviſe of Godly Paſtors: The Papiſts deny it. 5. They hold that if the Paſtors be unlearned and ungodly, the Prince may of himſelf without their adviſe, make Orders and Laws, for Eccleſiaſtical matters: The Papiſts deny it. 6. They will ſubcribe in this point to the Articles of Religion eſtabliſhed by Law; to the Apology of the Church of England, to the writings of Jewel, Horn, Nowel, Whitaker, Bilſon, Fulk. They take the Oath of Supremacy.

Here the ſecond Article ſeemeth to be contrary to what I have ſaid. But the book whence he citeth it (de diſcipl. Eccleſ.) and all their writings ſhew, that it is but the ſame that I ſay, which they aſſert, viz. That Princes ought to reſtrain or ſilence intollerable men, and ſuch Uſ…pers or dilinquents as give juſt cauſe. 2. That if they miſtake and do it unjuſtly, we muſt leave Temple and Tyths to their will. 3. Yea, and forbear our own publick Preaching when the publick good on the account of order and peace requireth it; but not when the publick good, and the neceſſity of Souls, and our own opportunities require the contrary. And the ſilenced that ſubmitted ſtill, went on to exerciſe their Miniſtry againſt Law in that manner as beſt conduced to its ends.

And what this Auother ſaith of the Papiſts, I ſuppoſe many of the higheſt Prelatiſts come nearer then the Nonconformiſts; and were the Prince againſt them, would obey the Biſhops before him.

p. 37And the ſame book deſcribing the Nonconformiſts in twenty Articles p. 55. in the 8th. thus expoundeth it [They teach that neither the Mini…ters nor people ought to make any general Reformation, with …or… and armes, or otherwiſe of their own authority change any laws made or … …ſhed for Religion by Authority of Parliament: But they hold that the general Reformation doth belong to the Magiſtrates as Gods Lieutenant: and that for themſelves they may and ought in dutiful ſort both Preach and Write, and ſac to the Magiſtrates for redreſs of Enormities, and alſo practice the ordinances of Chriſt which he hath commanded his Church to keep to the end of the World.

And Article 20. It is not all the unprepared Pariſh that they would have brought under Diſcipline: But thoſe of each Pariſh who are prepare: and willing.]

§. 8. In ſhort the demonſtration, the ſupplication, the humbe motion to the Council, and almoſt all the Nonconformiſts writings ſhew, that. 1. Their great Cauſe was to ſet up Pariſh Diſcipline, under Superior Synods. 2. B…ing themſelves almoſt all in publick Churches, at leaſt per …ices, and being ſtill in hope of publick reformation, they were greatly againſt the Browniſts violence, that would break thoſe hopes. 3. They held that Chriſts Law was their Rule, which commanded this Diſcipline, which no Magiſtrate could diſpenſe with. 4. But that Magiſtrates muſt be obeyed in ſuch ordering of Church matters as belong to them. But not in forbearing ſuch exerciſe of the Miniſtry as was needful to its ends, the Churches good. And as its ſaid, they practiſed accordingly.

I. The Browniſts denyed the truth of the Pariſh Miniſtry and Churches, and the lawfulneſs of Communion with them. II. The Semiſeparatiſts held it lawful to hear them preach, but not to joyn in the Liturgy and Sacrament. And this is it that Phil. Nye. wrote for.

III. The Presbyterians and meer Norconformiſts thought it lawful, and meet in thoſe Pariſhes which had capable Miniſters, to joyn in both Liturgy Sermons and Sacraments, where ſin was not impoſed on them. But ſo (as though forbidden) while they had publick Churches, to do their beſt to practice Chriſts Commands and Diſcipline, and where they could have none to further the ſame ends as effectually as they could, in the opportunities left them. But never took it for their duty to leave all their Miniſtry or publik preaching meerly in obediene to the laws: much leſs to the Biſhops.

When all this is ſo notorious, and when I knew the minds of many aged Nonconformiſts about forty years agoe as my familiar friends, who were all of the ſame mind in this as I am, what hiſtory can I be more aſſured of, than, as I ſaid, that Firſt, They took not praying p. 38publickly and gathering Aſſemblies to be therefore ſinful, becauſe it was forbidden by the Law. 2. But to be a ſin againſt Prudence and the ends of their Miniſtry, when it was like to do more hurt than good, by exaſperating the Prince, and depriving themſelves and others of better advantages for thoſe holy ends; 3. And that it was a duty when it was like to do more good than hurt: 4. And therefore they broke Laws where they could be endured, even in Chappells and Pariſh Churches.

§ 5. And it is not inconſiderable that the reaſons why Calvin, Bullinger, Zanchy, Beza, ſaid what they did for ſubmiſſive forbearing publick Preaching and Church gathering, were Firſt, Becauſe as they ſaw that the Prince was reſolved not to ſuffer it, ſo Reformation was then but begun, and the Prince and Magiſtrates were the pricipal means of it, and they had great hopes that what could not be done at preſent to perfect it, might be done afterwards at a fitter time. King Edward was ſain to quiet the ſeditious Papiſts by making them beleive that Latin and Engliſh, was the great difference between the former Maſs worſhip and the Liturgy: Aftertimes had no ſuch neceſſity: and tumultuouſly to diſturb the Magiſtrate in his prudent progreſs of Reforming, had been to ſerve the enemies of Reformation.

But in our times, Parliaments (who the Doctor S. ſaith, are intruſted ſo Conſent for us) have theſe fifty years told the Kingdom that the Reformation was growing backwards, and the increaſe of Popery by favour and publick tolleration deſigned, and much accompliſhed; and Plots threatned the reſtoring of it: and if Parliaments deceived us, yet the chief Actors themſelves were to be believed: Doctor Heylin maketh the ſyncretiſm and cloſure with them in the boſom of the now indulgent Church, to be Arch-Biſhop Lauds very laudable deſigns. Arch-Biſhop Brombal, ſaith Grotius, was to have held ſome place among us, as a Proteſtant, and was of the Engliſh Biſhops mind, and he himſelf doth ſay the laſt; and I have ſhewed in his own words that Grotius took Rome for the Miſtris of all Churhces, and that there was no way for the Union of Proteſtants, but to joyn in Union with Rome, and that he owned the Doctrine of the Councils even of Trent it ſelf, requiring but the amending of the Clergies lives, and the caſting by the Schoolmens bold diſputes, and the reſtraint of the Popes Government to the Rule of the Canons, ſecuring the rights of Kings and Biſhops, and this he ſaith will content the peaceable: Vincentius wrote a book called Grotius Papizans; Saravius in his Epiſtle upon ſpeach with Grotius laments it as too true: His friend Dion. Petavius told Mr. Ereskin an honourable perſon attendant p. 39on the King, that Grotius reſolved to have declared himſelf for the Church of Rome, if he had returned alive from the Journy that he dyed in. See Mr. Thorndikes juſt weights, what he was for.

And how far many Doctors of this Church, ſome yet living, have maintained that Grotius principles are not Popery, and conſequently what ſuch mean by Popery when they diſclaim it, I need not tell you, while ſo many of them have publiſhed it in print; And are not Mr. Thorndicks termes of Concord in Councils till the eight hundredth year much like and much more in book aforeſaid?

And ſurely there is great difference between ſuch Preachings as were like to be the ruin of the begun Reformation by exaſperating a Reforming Magiſtrate, and ſuch Preaching as tendeth to ſtop the revolt of a reformed Nation, when Parliaments and the Agents themſelves of the revolt, proclaim the danger.

Its true that there was then a greater ſcarcity of Preachers than now: And that was the Nonconformiſts argument with the Biſhops when they pleaded for publick liberty: But its as true that they had far greater hopes of that Liberty, which it had been folly to caſt away, for leſs: But it is not ſo with us; we are a greater number than they, and have new Laws to ſhut us out not only of the Churches, but of Corporations, and Biſhops that will give us no ſuch liberty.

§ 6. And indeed ſo many were the unlearned Pariſh Prieſts, and ſo bad, in Queen Elizabeths daies, being many of them lately ſilly Maſs Prieſts, that the ſhame of the Church and the cry of the Proteſtant people forced the Biſhops to tolerate moſt of the Nonconformiſts in ſome publick Church, eſpecially thoſe that were moderate and did not publickly oppoſe them. Dr. Humphery was allowed Reigus Profeſſour in Oxford: Dr. John Reignolds Preſident of Corpus Ch. Col. Mr. Perkins, Lecturer in Cambridge, Mr. Paul Bayne after him, ſo Dr. Chadeorto… there, &c. ſome tell men that theſe were all Conformiſts, and of the Church; And yet I am none that am of the ſame mind. The truth is, they were for ſubmitting to kneeling at the Sacrament, Surplice and moſt of the Liturgy, rather than ceaſe Preaching: But they were againſt ſubſcription, and the Engliſh ſort of Dioceſan Biſhops and Government, and the impoſed uſe of the Croſs, as it is in Baptiſm: As Tradition tells us, and as you may partly ſee in Dr. Reynolds Letter to Sir Francis Knowles, in Mr. Baynes, Dioceſans Tryal, his Letters, and in Fuller and other Hiſtories, And Mr. Deering, Mr. Greenham, Mr. John Fox, Mr. Marbury, Dudley, Fenner, Mr. Knewſtubs, yea I think ſix or ten to one, were endured p. 40in publick Churches long, before they were hindered; And when they were hindered, they ſpake peaceablely and intreatingly, and were ſtill in hope of publick Liberty, and were oft petitioning or making great Friends to the Biſhops to that end much they long obtained and more they hoped for. How long Mr. Travers was kept in at the Temple, is commonly known.

§ 7. It is neither conſiſtent with my leiſure, nor the buſineſs now in hand, nor I ſuppoſe the patience of moſt readers, that I ſhould prove this further by a Voluminous tranſcribing Hiſtories already extant. If the Book which Dr. St. citeth called part of a Regiſter be peruſed, he will find, 1. That the paſſage cited by the D. was the reprehenſion of many Londoners taken at a meeting in an open Hall of a Company, which meeting they avowed: Is this a proof that they were againſt ſuch publick meetings, or for it? When for it they lay in many Priſons.

2. That they profeſſed that they forſook not the Publick Churches, till their Teachers were ſilenced and turned out: So little doth ſilencing tend to union.

3. That yet theſe being ordinary Citizens, ſpake many things weakly, crying out too raſhly of the Rags and Ceremonies of Antichriſt: But he might have found many things in the Regiſter more worthy his communication: For inſtance.

1. The Letter of Dr. Wy: In the beginning. 2. Dr. Pilkington (after Biſhop of Du…ham) his Letter of weighty reaſons againſt ſilencing the Nonconformiſts. 3. Mr. Edward Deerings anſwer to the Articles put to him, twice: with ſober and Peaceable words. 4. Mr. Greenhams modeſt and peaceable Apology to the Biſhop of Eli, againſt Conformity, yet refuſing to give his Reaſons, leſt they ſhould provoke till he were conſtreined (as I did ſeventeen years). All which ſhew that the Nonconformiſts then were moſtly in poſleſſon of ſome publick Churches, or but newly turned out, and in hope of reſtauration. And what is all this to our caſe of total and peremptory excluſion?

§ 8. And methinks the Doctor ſhould not deſire to tempt the Reader that tryeth his citations to read the reſt of that Regiſter: viz. 1. The harſh uſage of Mr. Johnſon, who dyed in priſon, driven into too ſharp Language by their uſage. 2. The exceptions of Mr. Crane. 3. The Miniſters complaint to the Councils; 4. Eſpecially the Councils Letter to the Juſtices on the b…balf of the Miniſters, worthy to be peruſed at this time. 5 A notable Treatiſe called a Letter to a Londoner againſt the Legality of the Biſhops proceedings. 6. The Comons complaint for a Learned Miniſtry, ſhewing what a ſhameful ſort of men were kept in by the biſhops, p. 41while the Nonconformiſts were turned out and ſilenced. 7. The practiſes of the Prelates. 8. The Petition to the Queen and that to the Convocation. 9. Mr. Marburys conference with the Biſhop of London, and his Arch-Deacon. How the Biſhop railed and ſwore at him, and reviled him for deſiring that all Pariſhes ſhould have Preachers, as if Homily Readers were not enough. And yet Mr. Marbury was ſo moderate that at laſt with liberty of interpretation (like Chillingworths) he conformed. 10. Mr. Dudley Fenners defence of the Miniſters againſt Dr. Bridges ſlanders: Written but a month before his death, whereas the ſaid Fenner was far from unlearned (as his Methodical Theologia ſhews) and was ſo moderate that Dr. Ames ſaith he much conformed at laſt; but it ſeems not enough: and he ſheweth how the Biſhops ſet themſeves againſt ſuch Preachers. 11 Mr. Gawtons troubles. 12. Dudley Fenners Counter-poyſon, or certain form of Eccleſ. Government and its defence. 13. The demonſtration of of diſcipline. Doth the Dr. believe indeed that theſe writings ſignifie that the Nonconformſts of thoſe times thought it a ſin to Preach eo nomine becauſe forbidden?

§ 9. They wrote indeed a great deal more againſt ſeparation than he citeth, and more than all the Conformiſts did. And yet they were not more againſt it than Biſhop Bilſon, who ſaith, If the Magiſtrate forbid us our work we muſt go on, and patiently ſuffer. Mr. Hilderſham was called Malleus Schiſmaticorum, and yet he and I are Schiſmaticks with theſe men: Mr. John Pagets Arrow againſt ſeparation, Mr. Bradſhaw, Mr. Gifford, Mr. Ball, &c. have ſaid enough. But he that knoweth their controverſie knoweth that it was none of the queſtion, whether it be lawful to Preach when the Magiſtrate forbids it, or whether our Pariſh Churches and Dioceſan be to be prefered before more Reformed Churches when they may be had? But whether. 1. The Pariſh Churches be no true Churches? 2. Or ſuch as it is unlawful to communicate with occaſionally? 3. Or conſtantly when no better can be had without greater hurt than benefit? 4. Whether it be a duty to gather Churches or Preach publickly when it is like to do more hurt than good, by the Magiſtrates oppoſition? 5. Whether we ſhould not quietly bear with that in a Church which we cannot reforme, while no ſin is put on us, and the Communion of it is no worſe than that of our Pariſh Churches? In all theſe they were againſt the ſeparatiſts; and ſo am I. 6. Yea they pleaded the duty of obeying the Magiſtrate by forbearing to Preach when their Preaching was not neceſſary: And ſo do I.

§ 10. One would think they that take Homilies for Sermon…, ſhould conſeſs that the Nonconformſts writing againſt the prohibition of the p. 42Law, was a Preaching, or much more: as it is more publick. And did the Nonconformiſts write when forbidden, ſo much as Cartwright, Parker, Sandford, Fenner, Gilby, Ames, and aboundance more have done; yea and writ againſt Dioceſanes and Conformity as theſe and Bradſhaw, Nichols, Brightman, Bayne, Travers, and aboundance more have, even many hundreds, as the Millinary Petition and the Country Complaints &c. ſhew; and yet did theſe men every one of them take it for ſin to Preach, becauſe it was diſobedience? But nothing will convince ſome men.

§ 11. But I appeal to the reaſon and humanity of mankind, into what hands the ſilenced and perſecuted Miniſters are fallen? Is it humane firſt to charge them with reſiſting the Laws, by Preaching, gathering Churches, and adminiſtring Sacraments, and making Canons and ſetting up new Diſcipline, and to publiſh this to the land and world by ſuch Authority as Arch Biſhop Bancrofts, Doctor Heylins &c. till it is become their Common Charge to render them ſuſpected and odious and till this be taken for undoubted truth: And yet when it may ſerve for the ſilencing of us; to maintain it with Dr. St. as that which he is certain of, that the old Nonconfor miſts were againſt ſuch Preaching and aſſembling. At this rate we have been hitherto accuſed and confuted.

Yea upon the foreſaid Accuſations their Canons were formed againſt the Nonconformiſts, forbidding their Aſſembling, Preaching, calling themſelves a diſtinct Church, and a great deal more ſuch: and yet now the men that conform to theſe Canons are certain that they were made upon ſafe ſuppoſitions, and not one of the Nonconformiſts were ſo guilty.

But doth not the Doctor thus grievouſly accuſe the Church which he would defend? Were they ſuch men 1. that would ſo falſly accuſe the Innocent 2. and uſe them ſo cruelly on ſuch falſe accuſations, many of them dying in Priſons, and many lay there long &c. 3. and to form Canons on ſuch falſe ſuppoſitions?

§ 12. And I do not think I ſhall prevail with him to tell me, whether he that thinks their Caſe and ours was ſo much the ſame, doth verily believe 1. That if they had been in the Plague at London, and ſeen the forſaken people crowding for inſtruction to prepare for death, the Nonconformiſts (ſuch as Bradſhaw, Gifford, Hilderſham, Greenham, &c.) would have refuſed to Preach to them.

2. And if the next year they had ſeen the Churches burnt, and the City in ruins, and few Pariſh Miniſters officiate, they would have thought i… a ſin to Preach to the deſolate City, to aſſemble them to worſhip p. 43God; and would have let them under ſo dreadful judgements, live and dye like prophane Atheiſts?

3. And if ſhortly after the King had Licenſed them to aſſemble and Preach, would they have refuſed it as a ſin?

4. And if the Prelates had prevailed by ſuch a Parliament againſt the Kings Licenſe, and he ſtill had ſhewed the clemencie of his mind by his conivence, and Magiſtrates were loth to execute the rigorous Laws, and people would not inform, and the informers repented, and thouſands more called to the Nonconformiſts for help, than did there when Popery ſtuck ſtill in the peoples hearts; would they have thought all this no alteration of the Caſe, to judge whether their Preaching would do good or hurt?

§ 13. He tells us of the fewneſs of Nonconformiſts in King Edward's days. And it is a wonder that ſo many in ſo ſhort a time, went ſo far in the Reformation as they did. But ſo faſt were they then in progreſs, that even the Reformation of Church Laws then by the Commiſſioners agreed on was in many things ſo much better than our Canons, as could we now but obtain the ſame, would go far to heal us. Let me inſtance in ſome, and anticipate by it my anſwer to his after diſcourſe againſt Pariſh Diſcipline.

1. Cap. 18. de Hereſ. They determine of the Salvation of the unbaptized Infants of believers, the contempt only being damning.

2. They define the Church viſible (Cap 22,) to be the Congregation of all believers in which the Sacred Scripture is ſincerely taught, and the Sacraments (at leaſt in the neceſſary parts) adminiſtred according to Chriſts inſtitution] But your Canons deny all ſuch here to be true Churches, ſave theirs, as ſettled by Law.

3. De Sacram. Cap, 5. None to be admitted to the Sacrament till in the Church he have profeſſed his faith. And de Div. Off. Cap. 7 They that will receive the Communion muſt the day before come to the Miniſter that he may have time to excuſſe their Conſciences, and deal with them if they have done any thing ungodly or ſuperſtitionſly, in which the Church is offended; and alſo may try their faith, that ſo he may either correct their ignorance, or terrifie their Contumely, or confirm their doubting. For none ought to be admitted to the Holy table of the Lord, that hath not a perfect belief.] The words need a gentle expoſition: but we have no power now to try mens knowledge or belief thus.

4. Cap. 10. After evening prayers, the Pariſh Miniſter Deason and Elders with the people, ſhall call thoſe that have been publickly perverſe, and ſcandalous to confeſs their ſins, and to be publickly corrected, that the p. 44Church may be conformed by their wholeſome correction. And the Miniſter and Deacon with ſome Elders ſhall conſult how the reſt that are of vitious lives, may firſt by brotherly love according to Chriſts preſcript in the Goſpel, be dealt with by ſober men; whoſe admonitions if they receive, they ſhall give God thanks: But if they go on in the Crime, they ſhall be ſharply puniſhed as the Goſpel preſcribeth.]

5. De Concion. Cap. 3. Preachers ſhall name no guilty perſon before the multitude, unleſs ſuch as have contemned Eccleſiaſtical Admonitions] ſuch may be named.

6. De …xc. Excommunication for none but horrible Crimes, &c. Cap. 4. and after oft admonition. But you Excomunicate all Godly men that do but ſay your Conformity is not lawful, ipſo facto by your Canon.

7. Cap. 6. [We permit not the power of Excomunication to be in any one perſon: Though the conſent of the wh…le Church be ſpecially deſirable, yet becauſe it is hard to gather and take it, let Excommunication thus proceed, that the Arch-Biſhop, Biſhop, or other lawful Eccleſiaſtical Judge, call one Juſtice of peace, and the Miniſter of the place where the guilty perſon dwelleth, or his deputy, and two or three other Learned and well man …ered Presbyters, in whoſe preſence, when the matter hath been moſt diligently handled aud gravely weighed, the ſentence of Excommunication ſhall paſs. Cap. 7. And be written.

Cap. 16 There is written a large pious form like a Sermon to be uſed at the Reconciling of the penitent, and his form of confeſſion, and petition to be received, and then the Paſtor of that Church is to ask all the flock, whether they will forgive the offender and pray for him, and whether they will have him received into their Congregation as a brother. And then the Paſtor is to exhort the penitent, and then abſolve him (A great and ſolemn work, moſt unlike your Diſcipline). And then to give God thanks and pray for him and the Church.

Should we now but move for thus much in order to concord with the Cconformiſts, we have reaſon to think no importunity could prevail for it; were the conſequents of our diviſion as diſmal as they are now by moſt proclaimed. Yet verily we are moſt unexcuſeable wretches, if we have learned no more to this day than they did in ſo few years; or under full power and opportunity will reſiſt that good, which they that wanted ſuch opportunity wiſhed for; and go back as faſt as they went forward.

p. 49Sect. 14. To p. 8. [I never ſaid that the troubles at Frankford were ſo much about free or formal Prayer, as that the Presbyterians refuſed all forms.]

Sect. 15. p. 19. He confeſſeth that [Whittingham, Sampſon, Gilby and others, accepted of preferment and employment in the Church, the Biſhop ſhewing them kindneſs for their forward zealous Preaching;] and this being without their ſubſcribing to conform, is it any wonder then that they gathered not Aſſemblies elſewhere? Had the Biſhops ſo tryed us, we ſhould never have put them to talk ſo of our ſeparation, (but might have done our beſt to build more Churches.) Doth none of all this difference their caſe and ours?

Sect. 16. p. 20. He confeſſeth when [they were ſilenced, they began to have ſeparate Meetings,] and yet were all the old Non-Conformiſts againſt ſuch.

Sect. 17. As to Beza's Letter, have not I ſaid more againſt Separation than he doth? Doth the Dr. think the Reader ſo blind as not to ſee that Beza's words are juſt of the ſame importance with the account I gave, and contrary to his, viz. [He trembleth at the thoughts of their exerciſing their function againſt the will of the Queen and Biſhops, for ſuch reaſons as may be eaſily underſtood, though we ſay never a word of them:] Its eaſie indeed to ſee what he trembles at, and why he named them not, which he would ſure in charity have done, had it been becauſe it is ſinful diſobedience to preach when forbidden: It was eaſie to ſee what hurt it would have done in the ruine of Preachers and hearers, and ſhaking all the begun Reformation: Its not ſo with us, Gualter and Zanchy ſay not ſo much againſt Separation as I do, nor John Fox, nor Bullinger whom he citeth; we ſay the ſame.

Sect. 18. The ſame I ſay of Parker and Gifford, and I again tell him that he may name many more; Hilderſham, Paget, Ame, &c. I am of their judgment in their oppoſition to the Browniſts; but it is a notorious untruth (pag. 33.) that the force of all the Non-Conformiſts reaſonings againſt Separation, lay in two Suppoſitions. 1. That nothing could juſtifie Separation from our Church, but ſuch corruptions which overthrew the being and conſtitution of it, &c. And 1. It muſt be remembred that Separation being a word of very many ſences, they held indeed that [none ought to ſeparate from a Church accuſing it to be none, but for that which proved it to be none.] 2. But did they deny that which all the Chriſtian World confeſſeth? viz. 1. What if our Engliſh Divines gathered by Biſhop Hall againſt Burton, be in the right, that the Church of Rome is a true Church, as a Thief is a true man, (though I think otherwiſe) muſt not ſuch Biſhops or Conformiſts therefore ſeparate from them?

p. 502. What if a Church impoſe ſome Lye, falſe Oath, or Subſcription, or ſome actual Sin in Worſhip, as a condition ſine qua non of her Communion; is it not lawful to ſeparate into better Aſſemblies?

3. What if they put down all preaching ſave reading ſome dry Homilies, and all Diſcipline, is it not lawful elſewhere to ſerve God better? But of this more after where he repeateth it. The Browniſts caſe was quite other before deſcribed.

Sect. 19. to p. 36, 37. We alſo hold that whoſoever ſeparateth from the Church of England, 1. As having not that Preaching and Sacraments which are of neceſſity to Salvation. 2. Or as not profeſſing true ſaving Faith, doth by conſequence ſeparate from all Churches in the world; becauſe they have all the ſame Word, Sacraments, and Chriſtian Faith. And to this Mr. Jacobs Argument is good, p. 38. (though he was the man that anſwered Downam's Sermon for Biſhops, and eſteemed one of the firſt Independents:) And Mr. Balls words to the ſame purpoſe, and the ſecond Suppoſition p. 39. we grant, and think verily that the late Conformiſts have ſaid more againſt the truth of the Church of England, than we; yea, that we are the defenders of it againſt the Browniſts and them, Ball, Bradſhaw, Gifford, Hilderſham, &c. cited by him, defend it as we do, and better than ſuch as Dr. Heylin, Thorndike, Mr. Dodwel, and ſuch others. Did he think any of this concerned me?

Sect. 20. Yes, for p. 74. he ſaith, [We would blind the Reader by finding out the diſparity of ſome Circumſtances; but not one of us can deny that it was their judgment, that the holding ſeparate Congregations for worſhip, where there was an agreement in Doctrine and the ſubſtantials of Religion, was unlawful and ſchiſmatical.]

Anſw. Its pity ſo ſeeing a Dr. ſhould tempt men to be ſo blind, 1. As to think all the differences which I have named, inconſiderable. 2. And to go on to abuſe themſelves and others, with the ambiguous word [Separate] no better explained. 3. And to think the other cauſes before and after named of ſome ſort of Separation, to be inſufficient; and I am ſorry for the Dr. if this be his own Profeſſion, that he would tell any lie, or commit any other ſin, or forſake any other part of Religion, rather than ſeparate to other Aſſemblies, from a Church that agreed in Doctrine and the ſubſtantials of Worſhip with him. The Presbyterians then are ſure of him, if they were but in poſſeſſion; and it ſeems in Moſcovy he would forſake preaching. But what if the King licenſed a preaching Church, would he refuſe the uſe of it for fear of ſeparating from a mere reading Church.

This Protean word [ſeparate] ſerveth for many uſes: I will put one caſe more to the Dr. (not feigned.) A Conformiſt Gentleman was of p. 51the opinion that his Pariſh Church was no true Church, becauſe the Vicar was a Socinian, and another becauſe the Parſon was ignorant of the eſſentials of Chriſtianity; and they go to the next Pariſh Church. A Nonconformiſt in the ſame Pariſh, goeth to a Nonconformiſts Chappel, but doth not accuſe the Pariſh Church as none, as the other do; which of theſe ſeparateth more? At Glouceſter one took the Dioceſan Church for no true Church, becauſe Biſhop Goodman was a Papiſt, and the Biſhop is a conſtitutive part; and yet this man was for Dioceſans: A Nonconformiſt went to a Nonconformiſts Church, but would not ſay the Dioceſan Church was none: Which ſeparated more? He ſeparateth from his Pariſh Church againſt the Canon, who goeth from an ignorant ſcandalous Reader, to communicate with a Preacher at the next Pariſh: He ſeparateth from the Pariſh Churches, who judgeth them true Churches, but having the Kings Licenſe, joyneth conſtantly with the French, Dutch, or Nonconformiſts as better, ſtill owning mental communion where he hath not local; and he ſeparateth from the French, Dutch, or Nonconformiſt Churches, who thus leaveth them (as true Churches) to joyn with the Church of England as better. Many and various are the ſorts and degrees of Separation, and not all lawful or all unlawful: None of theſe are the Browniſts ſeparation, which the old Nonconformiſts confuted; which conſiſted in a denial, 1. That the Engliſh Miniſters were true Miniſters. 2. And their Churches true Churches. 3. Or ſuch as a Chriſtian might lawfully live in communion with in ordinary worſhip. 4. And therefore they were all bound to renounce them, and ſet up others.

I doubt the Dr. is far more a Separatiſt than I, and ſuch as I; for I am for Communion with all Chriſtians, as far as they ſeparate not from Chriſt; and I hate the falſe accuſing of any Church as if it were none, or its Communion unlawful. I can be but in one place at once, but in heart I joyn with all Chriſtians on earth except in ſin; and locally I joyn where I ſee greateſt reaſon for it, preferring that which I judge moſt agreeable to Gods word, ſo far as I may without greater hurt. But the Canonical Conformiſts, unchurch all the Churches here but their own, and utterly refuſe Communion with them, even with thoſe that refuſe not Communion with them. And ſome think that forcible ſilencing, fining, excommunicating, and impriſoning, is not the gentleſt ſort of ſeparating.

But doth he in all his Book do any thing to ſatisfie any mans Conſcience, that would know from what Churches he may or may not ſeparate? Not a word that I can find, that decideth ſuch a doubt. His two words here uſed are [Agreement in Doctrine, and ſubſtantials of Religion,] whereas 1. Religion is in Acts and Habits, and hath no proper ſubſtance, and what p. 52his term [ſubſtance] meaneth, till he tells us, none can know. It muſt be either an eſſential part, or an integral part, for an Accident I ſuppoſe it is not. If only an eſſential part, what Chriſtian dare ſay that I may ſin againſt all the meer integrals of Religion rather than go from the Church that impoſeth ſuch ſin upon me. If it be all the integrals that we muſt agree in, then we differ in no one part of Religion; for Accidents are not parts: And then who contradicts him? When men differ in no part of Religion, they will not ſeparate unleſs merely locally: Are all the things named in my firſt Plea, no parts of Religion? It may be by [Subſtance] he meaneth only the greater ſort of Integrals, but how ſhall we know where to ſix our meaſures; what duty is ſo ſmall that I may omit it, or what ſin ſo ſmall that I may commit it for Communion.

2. And as for Doctrine, they that differ in any part of Religion, are ſuppoſed to differ in the doctrine about that part. But can any man tell what Doctrine it is that he maketh our agreement in to be neceſſary, or the teſt of Communion. If I ſhould ſeparate from all Churches from which I differ in any the leaſt doctrine, I know not where the Dioceſan or National Church is that I might hold Communion with: Do all the Conformiſts agree in all doctrines? If it be in all that the Law impoſeth, how various, mutable, and uncertain is that.

I diſtinguiſh between Doctrine profeſſed by the Church, and Doctrine impoſed on me to profeſs it. As to the firſt, I will communicate with a Church that hath twenty falſe Doctrines, conſiſtent with the eſſentials of Chriſtianity and Church Communion. As to the ſecond, I will not knowingly profeſs one falſe Doctrine for Communion with any Church on Earth.

Did not the Nonconformiſts differ from the Conformiſts, in the Doctrine of the ſufficiency of Scripture for regulating Church-Order and Worſhip; and about the Divine Right of Dioceſans and Elders, and about Pariſh Diſcipline. Do not we now differ about the undoubted certainty of the ſalvation of all dying baptized Infants? Will this warrant a ſeparation?

Sect. 2, 1. p. 75. He tells us very confidently that diverſity of circumſtantial pretences for Separation, alter not the caſe: But 1. Its true that if twenty men have twenty falſe pretences for Separation, none of them are thereby juſtified; but if one man have a juſt cauſe, it juſtifieth him: I named very many juſt and unjuſt cauſes in my Plea, and he giveth no anſwer to it. 2. Are they ſuch circumſtances before named: Oaths, Declarations, Subſcriptions, Doctrine, &c? 3. What if the Law ſhould change, and allow of various Churches? what if the King licenſe them? Theſe be but circumſtances: What if the Plague drive away the Pariſh Miniſters? what if the Churches be burnt and the people forſaken? will no ſuch circumſtances p. 53make other Aſſemblies lawful, becauſe he calls them ſeparate.

Sect. 22. p. 78. His undertaking is repeated: [He is certain that preaching in oppoſition to our eſtabliſhed Laws, is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nonconformiſts of former times.] Anſw. If I have not proved the contrary, I cannot prove that they were Engliſh men.

But 1. he proveth that they were all of that mind, by citing four of their Books againſt Browniſts; and were four or forty times four, all? But Mr. Rathbands is ſaid to be the Nonconformiſts. Doth he believe that he meant that all or the twentieth part of the Nonconformiſts wrote or ſubſcribed it? One of the Names to it is Mr. Simeon Aſh, my intimate dear friend, whoſe judgment in theſe matters was the ſame with mine, whom I was with even in his ſickneſs almoſt to the laſt hour of his life, and was buryed Aug. 23. 1662. the day before the Law had elſe ſilenced him, and he was to me a better Expoſitor of his own mind, than the Dr. can be: He was ſo much for going on to preach, that his Motto in his Funeral Ring was, [I am not aſhamed of the Goſpel of Chriſt:] I yet keep my Ring, and can ſhew it you.

And as to old Mr. Langley, another of them, I heard him my ſelf preach in Albriton Church in Shropſhire, a Thankſgiving Sermon for the hopes of deliverance from the ſilencing Biſhops, when the Law forbad him: And for old Mr. Slater, I heard him preach at Trinity Church in Coventry when the Law forbad him: And did they not underſtand their own Writings better than the Dr. doth?

Sect. 23. And I would I knew how to prevail with him to tell me, whether the Law and Canon did not forbid all the Miniſters in England to worſhip God according to the Directory, and neglect the Common Prayer Book, which yet almoſt all did for many years in the times of uſurpation: And yet of nine thouſand or more of theſe, ſeven thouſand ſince conformed to the Church of England, and they ſay that this Dr. is one of them. If mere diſobedience then be the ſin, all theſe lived ſo long in ſin, and he with others.

Sect. 24. But all that can be gathered out of the four Books …ed and ſuch others is but this, which is our judgment: 1. That Churches and Paſtors are under the Kings Government as well as other Subjects. 2. That it belongeth to him to puniſh them for evil doing, and encourage them in doing well. 3. That as to this his own execution, he is the publick Judge whether they do well or ill. 4. That if he juſtly forbid any to preach or aſſemble he muſt be obeyed. 5. And if he miſtake in particular caſes, not deſtroying the ends of his Government, the common good, he muſt not be reſiſted, nor in ſuch a manner diſobeyed, as tendeth more to the common p. 54hurt than his miſtake doth; nor diſabled to Govern by their diſhonouring him, much leſs by Rebellion or Confuſion. 6. Nor are men bound to caſt away their great advantages for Gods ſervice which they then had, on pretence of doing better, when by accident it would do more hurt than good, nor as Bradſhaw ſaith, to run on the Sword, or oppoſe Sword to Sword, or raiſe Sedition, and ruin themſelves in vain.

Their advantages were many: 1. Lawful Communion in the Pariſh Churches. 2. Moſt of them either conſtantly or by ſits, had publick Churches or Chappels to preach in, and were ſtill in hope. 3. The Magiſtrate protected them and the Reformation. 4. They hoped for a progreſs of it, whereas had they openly done as the Browniſts, they had endangered the Reformation by the exaſperation, and ruined themſelves, and loſt moſt of their labour: So that it is plain that preaching in that imprudent manner which is like to do more harm than good, they took to be a double ſin, as hurtful and as diſobedience; for obedience is due in ſuch a caſe. But in caſe the manner and circumſtances be ſuch as that theſe evils are not conſequent, but more good than hurt to be expected; they thought the bare breach of the Law no ſin.

Sect. 25. Which I yet further prove, 1. Becauſe its agreed by all, that Governing Order is a medium for the thing ordered; and never obligeth when it overthroweth the end, power being given to Edification and not to Deſtruction: None have power to forbid the neceſſary preaching of the Goſpel, and probably to damn Souls. 2. Becauſe elſe the Nonconformiſts ſhould be more againſt preaching when forbidden than the Conformiſts; who ſay as Biſhop Bilſon, We muſt go on with our work, & ſuffer: and as Biſhop Andrews Tortur. Torti. Cohibeat Regem Diaconus, &c. 3. Yea, the Papiſts who on pretence of Obedience are tyrannical, yet moſtly agree (as I have elſewhere proved) that humane Laws bind not beyond the caſe of ſcandal, when they are againſt the common good: And a Toletane Council decreed, that their Conſtitutions ſhould not be taken to bind ad p…c…atum, (to hazard Souls) but only ad poenam. 4. As I have ſaid, their own practice fully expounded their words, who conſtantly broke the Law and Canon in preaching in Houſes and in Chappels without, or contrary to the Liturgy, or a part of it. So did Mr. Ball at Whitemore, Mr. Hind at Banbury, Mr. Geree and Mr. Fox at Tewkſbury, John Rogers at Dedham, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Harvy, Mr. Bourne at Mancheſter, Mr. Gee, Mr. Johnſon, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Barlow, Mr. Broxholme, Mr. Cooper, and abundance more, beſides thoſe mentioned before.

And now I leave it to the Dr.'s further thoughts, whether he ſpake truly of the ſence of All the Nonconformiſts, and have proved what he undertook. p. 55To abuſe the Magiſtrate, or do his part for publick Reformation, they were againſt, and ſo are we.

Sect. 26. As to his queſtion, Was there leſs neceſſity then or now? I anſwer, 1. There was then more neceſſity as there is of you or me in America, where we cannot preach; the people, lately Papiſts, deſired not their helps, nor ſcrupled hearing others, as many thouſands do now. 2. There was neceſſity then and ſo there is now, but opportunity muſt joyn with neceſſity to oblige, which they had more than we by connivence in Chappels, where was neceſſity, and they had leſs than we in other places.

Sect. 27. As to the Anſwers of Mr. Sprint, on my knowledge the uſual anſwer was, That evil muſt not be done that we may have leave to do good, and that if others hinder me becauſe I will not ſin, it is not my omiſſion of any duty; yet the diſparity of the Apoſtles caſe and ours, may be mentioned to ſhew the difference of obligations.

Poſitive Precepts bind not ad ſemper, but Negatives do; and its too groſs a ſhift to turn a Negative to a Poſitive, and then pretend that the compariſon is between two duties: preaching is a duty when we can do it, but not when we cannot do it, unleſs we will ſwear, ſubſcribe, profeſs, or practiſe a forbidden thing.

Sect. 28. I conjecture that to what I have proved of the practice of the Nonconformiſts, it will be ſaid that Their preaching in peculiar places, Chappels, or Churches, though in a manner againſt Law and Canon, was but a partial joyning with the Church of England, and not a ſeparation; and the connivence of the Biſhops was a kind of Toleration.

Anſw. 1. And is not my caſe the ſame? We had more than connivence when we had the Kings Licenſes, and ever ſince experience tells you that his Clemency hath occaſioned a reſtraint of the Biſhops, and ſome connivence from them. 2. And if it were the Temples that make the difference, let them allow us to preach there and ſee whether we will refuſe it: And ſure the Conformiſts that preach in Tabernacles are not Separatiſts; the Pariſh Teacher of St. Martins now preacheth in the ſame place which I built to have preached in, and for ſo doing was by a warrant judged to priſon. They had no more Law on their ſide than I have, they uſually read no more of the Liturgy but the Confeſſion and the Scriptures, and many not the firſt at all, and ſome more; ſo that its a full proof that if breaking the Law had been all their ſtop, they would have ſtill preached.

Sect. 29. Dr. Ames tells us that he had preached without the Biſhops conſent by this Story, freſh Suit, p. 409. deſcribing an Engliſh Biſhops Paſtoral work, he ſaith. It would be ridiculous for a mean man to deſire him to viſit him, his Wife, or Children, in ſickneſs; he muſt have a Chaplain p. 56not only to do other duties of Religion for him, but even to give thanks at his Table. I will not here ſpeak of [draw up an Excommunication for him, take him Purſuivant, Jaylor ſee to your Priſoner;] but note one example of mine own experience, which many others can parallel: I was once (and but once I thank God) before a Biſhop, and being preſented to him by the chief Magiſtrates of a Corporation, to be Preacher in their Town; the lowly man firſt asked them, how they durſt chooſe a Preacher without his conſent: You (ſaid he) are to receive a Preacher that I appoint you, for I am your Paſtor, though he never fed them: And then turning to me, [How durſt you, ſaid he, Preach in my Dioceſs without my leave?] So that without any other reaſon but meer Lordſhip, the whole Corporation and I were diſmiſſed to wait his leiſure, which I have done now twenty years and more.

Much like the uſage of holy Paul Bayne, Succeſſor to Perkins, who being commanded to preach a Viſitation Sermon, and being ſickly and in a ſweat with preaching, was fain to refreſh himſelf inſtead of going preſently to attend the Biſhop; and when he was ſent for, having ſmall Cuffs edged with a little blew thred, ſaith the Biſhop: How dare you appear before me with thoſe? and he ſuſpended him: And good Mr. Bayne would never more have to do with a Biſhop, but ſaid, They are an earthly Generation, and ſavour not the things of God.

When Dr. Fulke (a half Conformiſt) went out of St. Johns Colledge in Cambridge with his Pupils, hiring Chambers for himſelf and them in the Town, it was as great a ſeparation from the Colledge (to avoid the Surplice which he after ſubmitted to) as we make from the Church. See Ames freſh ſuit, p. 473. And that it was no conſcience of obeying the Biſhop, that Beza would have the Miniſters moved by, from aſſembling: Judge by theſe words, [De notis Eccleſ. Ego pontificiis—] I willingly leave to the Papiſts the whole degree of Epiſcopacy, of which I openly ſay, the Holy Ghoſt was not the Author, but humane prudence; which if we obſerve not that God hath curſed, certainly we even yet ſee nothing; and we nouriſh a viper in our boſoms, which will again kill the Mother.

Sect. 30. I will conclude with the recital of the Letter ſent to the Biſhops by Dr. Humphrey, Regius Profeſſor in Oxford, who yet conſtrained, uſed the Surplice after that: Our Dr. may note what ſence they had then of theſe things, premiſing only the words of John Fox, ſpeaking of Blumfield a wicked Perſecutor, who threatned a godly man, Simon Harelſon, for not wearing the Surplice: [Its pity, ſaith he, ſuch baits of Popery are left to the enemies to take Chriſtians in; God take them away from us, or us from them: for God knoweth they be the cauſe of much blindneſs and ſtrife among men.

p. 57Dr. HUMPHREY'S Letter to the BISHOPS.

YOur Lordſhips Letter, directed unto us by our Vice-Chancellor, although written in general words, yet hath ſo hearted our Adverſaries, that we are now no more counted Brethren and Friends but Enemies; and …ith the old Maſs attires be ſo ſtraitly commanded, the Maſs it ſelf is ſhortly looked for. A Sword now is put into the enemies hands of theſe that under Q Mary have drawn it for Popery, and under pretence of good order, are ready without cauſe to bewreck their Popiſh anger upon us, who in this will uſe extremity, in other laws of more importance, partiality. I would have wiſhed, my Lords, rather privy admonition than open expulſion; yea I had rather have received wounds of my Brother, than kiſſes of mine Enemy; if we had privily in a convenient day reſigned, then neither ſhould the puniſher have been noted of cruelty, neither the offender of temerity, neither ſhould the Papiſts have accuſed (in their ſeditious Book) Proteſtants of contention. Religion requireth naked Chriſt to be preached, profeſſed, glorified; that graviora legis, by the faithful Miniſtry of feeding Paſtors, ſhould be furthered, and after that orders tending to edification, and not to deſtruction, advanced; and finally the Spouſes friends ſhould by all means be cheriſhed, favoured, and defended, and not by counterfeit and falſe intruders, condemned and overborn, and defaced. But alas, a man qualified with inward gifts for lack of outward ſhews is puniſhed, and a man only outwardly conformable and inwardly clean unfurniſhed, is let alone, yea exalted: The painful Preacher for his labour is beaten, the unpreaching Prelate offending in the greater, is ſhotfree; the learned man without his cap is afflicted, the capped man without learning is not touched: Is not this directly to break Gods laws? Is not this the Phariſes vae? Is not this to wa… the outſide of the Cup, and leave the inner part uncleanſed? Is not this to prefer Mint and Annis to faith aud judgment and mercy? Mans tradition before the ordinance of God? Is not this in the School of Chriſt, and in the method of the Goſpel a plain diſorder? hath not this prepoſterous order a woe? That the Catechiſm ſhould be read is the word of God, it is the order of the Church, to preach is a neceſſary point of a Prieſt, to make quarterly Sermons is law, to ſee poor men of the poor mens box relieved, Vagabonds puniſhed, Pariſhes communicate, Rood lofts pull'd down, Monuments of Superſtition defaced, Service done and heard, is Scripture, is Statute; that the Oath to the Q Majeſty ſhould be offered and p. 58taken, is required as well by ordinance of God as of man. Theſe are plain matters, neceſſary, Chriſtian, and profitable. To wear a Surplice, a Coap, or a corner'd Cap is (as you take it) an accidental thing, a device only of man, and as we ſay a doubt or queſtion in divinity. Sith now theſe ſubſtantial points are in all places of this Realm almoſt neglected, the offender either nothing or little rebuked, and ſith the tranſgreſſors have no colour of conſcience, it is ſin and ſhame to proceed againſt us firſt, having alſo reaſonable defence of our doings: Charity my Lords, would firſt have taught us, Equity would firſt have ſpared us, brotherlineſs would have warned us, pity would have pardoned us, if we had been found treſpaſſers. God is my witneſs, who is the beholder of all faith, I think of your Lordſhips honourably, eſteeming you as brethren, reverencing you as Lords and Maſters of the Congregation: alas why have not you ſome good opinion of us? why do you truſt known Adverſaries and miſtruſt your Brethren? We confeſs one faith of Jeſus, we preach one doctrine, we acknowledg one Ruler upon earth, in all things (ſaving in this) we are of your judgment, ſhall we be uſed thus for a Surplice? ſhall brethren perſecute brethren for a forked Cap, deviſed ſingularity of him that is our enemy? Now ſhall we fight for the Popes coat, his head and body being baniſhed? ſhall the controverſie ſo fall out in concluſion▪ that for lack of neceſſary furniture (as it is eſteemed) labourers ſhall lack wages? Churches preaching? ſhall we not teach? ſhall we not exerciſe our Talents as God hath commanded us, becauſe we will not wear that which our enemies have deſired, and that by the appointment of Friends. Oh that ever I ſaw this day that our Adverſaries ſhould laugh to ſee brethren fall together by the ears: Oh that Ephraim ſhould thus eat up Manaſſes, Manaſſes Ephraim. My Lords, before this take place, conſider the cauſe of the Church, the Creſts and triumphs of Antichriſt, the laughter of Satan, the ſorrow and ſighs of a number, the miſery and ſequel of the Tragedy. I write with zeal without proof of my matter at this time preſent, but not without knowledge of it, nor without grief of mind: God move your Spirit at this preſent to fight againſt Carnem, Circumciſionem, immo Conciſionem, againſt Literam & Legem, which principally is now regarded and rewarded. Speak I humbly beſeech you to the Queens Majeſty, to the Chancellor, and to Mr. Secretary and the reſt, that thoſe proceedings may ſleep, that England may underſtand your zealous mind toward the worſhip of God, your love toward the poor welwillers, your hate toward the profeſſed enemies, your unity in true conformity, the other neither be needful now, neither exacted in any good age: So ſhall the little Flock be bound to you, ſo ſhall the great Shepherd be good to you.