A Second True Defense of the Nonconformists, Treatise · Chapter 6

A Second True Defense of the Nonconformists · Treatise · Chapter 6

p. 76CHAP. VI. Q. Whether he be no Christian that is not a fixed Member of a particular Church?

Sect. 1. HE that is a true Member of the Univerſal Church, which is Chriſts Body, is a true Chriſtian: But many are Members of the Univerſal Church, which are no fixed Members of any particular Church. Ergo.

2. All that are rightfully Baptized are Chriſtians, (for it is their Chriſtening.) But many rightfully Baptized are no fixed Members of any particular Church. Ergo.

3. He that hath all the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity is a Chriſtian: But many that are no fixed Members of a particular Church have all the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity. Ergo.

4. A fortiore, They that are not ſo much as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church, though Baptiſed, are not unchriſtened for want of ſuch Memberſhip. But many Baptized perſon are not ſo much as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church. Ergo. Inſtances.

1. The Eunuch baptized in his Travails Acts. 9 was only a Member of the Church Univerſal. 2. Thoſe that were converted by Frumentius and Edeſius when there was no particular Church: And all that are firſt converted in any Infidel or Heathen Land before any Church be formed. 3. Thoſe that by Shipwrack are caſt on heathen Countries where no Churches are. 4. Travellers that go from Country to Countries (as Lythgow did nineteen years, and others many.) And I think he unhappily named Jeruſalem, where Travellers come that are of no fixed Church (unleſs he in that alſo be a Superindependant, and think that men may be many years Members of a Church many hundred miles off, which they have no perſonal communion with.) 5. Merchants and Factors, who are called to dwell long among Infidels where are no Churches. 6. Embaſſadors who by their Princes are ſent to reſide among ſuch, much of their lives. 7. Wanderers that have no fixed habitations; as many Pedlers and other poor wandering Tradeſmen, and looſe Beggars that have no Dwelling. 8. Thoſe thot live among Papiſts or any other Chriſtians who impoſe ſome ſin as a condition of communion. 9. Thoſe that live among ſuch Chriſtians as have no true Paſtors who are conſtitutive parts p. 77of particular Churches. Some being incapable through inſufficiency, ſome by Hereſie and ſome for want of a true Call: Such as by Mr Dodwells Doctrine moſt of the Chriſtian World are, for want of uninterrupted rrue Epiſcopal Ordination. 10. Thoſe who are ſubjects to ſuch as permit them not to be fixed Members: As Wives hindred by Husbands, Children by Parents, and ſome Subjects violently hindred by Princes; who yet allow them tranſient Communion. And verily a man would think by the writings of many Conformiſts, that they took it for a Duty to obey a Prince in ſuch a caſe. 11. Thoſe who live where Church-corruptions are not ſo great as to make tranſient Communion unlawful, but ſo great as to make fixed communion ſeem to be a culpable conſent: If I come in travel to a Church of Strangers, I am not bound to examine what their Diſcipline is, what their Lives be, or how their Paſtors are called: But where I am fixed I am more bound to know theſe, and if I find them exclude Diſcipline, live wickedly▪ and have unlawful Paſtors, I may in ſome caſes be a partaker of the ſin if I fix among them. 12. They that live in a time and place of Schiſm and diſtraction, ſtriving who ſhall prevail, and condemning each other, all following ſeveral Factions, and needing Reconcilers: It may for a time become in prudence the duty of peacemakers, to own no Faction, nor to be more of one Church than of another, while he ſeeth that it will do more hurt than good; And thoſe that wait in hope as the Nonconformiſts now do, to ſee whether their Rulers will reſtore them to reformed Pariſh Churches, may at once in prudence find it needful, neither to fix as Members in ſome Pariſh Churches till reformed (in the Teachers at leaſt) nor to ſeem to be Separatiſts by gathering new Churches. In none of all theſe caſes is a man unchriſtened, nor ſchiſmatical, for being no fixed member of any Church beſides the Univerſal. And as it is the ill hap of theſe men commonly to ſtrike themſelves, I doubt they will prove Grotius himſelf no Chriſtian, by this Rule, who for many years before he died, they ſay joyned with no particular Church, as a fixed member. And I know not well what particular Church they make the King a Member of.

Sect. 2. To his Queſtions Pag. 3. [Were we not Baptized into this Church, and do you not Renounce Memberſhip? This is ſcarce a civility. I anſwer, 1. This Church! which Church do you mean? I was not Baptized into St. Giles's nor St. Andrew's Pariſh Church, but into one above an hundred miles off, and yet my removal made me no culpable Separatiſt. Or doth he mean, This Dioceſan Church? No; I was Baptized in the Dioceſs of Lichfield. Doth he mean This National Church; as it is ſuppoſed a political body conſtituted of the Eccleſiaſtical Governing and Governed p. 78Parts, he ſaith there is no ſuch Church of England; but that It inferreth Popery to aſſert ſuch. But if he equivocate here, and mean not by a Church as in the reſt, but either a chriſtian Kingdom, or an agreeing Aſſociation of many Churches, I am ſtill a fixed member of ſuch a Kingdom, and of ſuch an Aſſociation in all things neceſſary to Churches and Chriſtian Communion. 2. But Baptiſm as ſuch entred me only into the Univerſal Church; much leſs did it fix me in any other. I was Baptized where I was to ſtay but a little while. And this phraſe of [being Baptized into our Church,] is to me of ill ſound or intimation. Bellarmine ſaith that all that are baptized are interpretatively thereby engaged to the Pope: I was baptized in a Pariſh, and in a Dioceſs and in a Chriſtian Kingdom; but not ſo into them, as to be obliged to continue under that Prieſt or Biſhop or in that Kingdom. And my Baptiſm I hope did not oblige me to every Canon, Ceremony, Form, or Sin of the aſſociated Churches in England, abuſively by him called one Church. 3. And unhappily it is not meer Independancy that he is ſtill pleading for, but ſome extremes which the moderate Independants diſclaim, viz. That a member of their Churches is ſo tyed to them, that they may not remove to another without their conſent. And am I ſo tyed? to what, to Parochial, or to the Dioceſan, or to the aſſociation of Engliſh Churches. If it had been to the Species, I would fain know whether their things called by them Indifferents ſpecifie them.

Sect. 3. P. 111, 112. He yet more pleads as for Separation [why then above once or twice? why ſhould I ſo countenance defective Worſhip and not rather reprove it by total forbearance of Communion,] &c. Anſw. My Reaſons I told him, becauſe the accidents may continue which made it a Duty, but I cannot hinder others from yielding to his arguments: Let him make his beſt of them. Only I muſt tell him yet 1. that if he lay his cauſe on this, that their Parochial or Dioceſan Churches are not defective. 2. Or that the defects cannot by others be avoided, he will quite marr his matter, and undo all by overdoing. 3. And if he indeed think that all defective Churches muſt be forſaken, he will be one of the greateſt Schiſmaticks in the World. But who can reconcile this with the ſcope of his whole Book?

Sect. 4. P. 112. He ſaith, Here are no bounds ſet to peoples Fancies of purer Adminiſtrations. Anſw. Have I ſo oft and copiouſly named the bounds, and now is the anſwer, [Here are none.] Are there none in all the ſame Books he citeth? 2. Scripture is their bounds, as he well openeth in his deſence of Bi…hop Laud.

Sect. 5. P. 114. He complains of my leaving out the beſt part of p. 79his argument, viz. [The people may go to the Anabaptiſts and Quakers.

Anſw. Alas that ſuch things ſhould be the beſt to ſuch a man! By [May go] you mean, 1. lawfully, 2. or eventually, 3. or for want of due hindring.] The Reader may think that you by Calumny father the firſt on me, as if I ſaid, that ſo to go to the Quakers were no ſin, whereas I ſtill ſay that if they do but leave your Churches by any culpable Error it is their ſin. 2. And as to the Event, many not only may but do, turn Quakers, Papiſts and Athieſts, 3. And as to the third, it's all the queſtion here (not whether we ſhould ſeek to ſave them but) which is the true reaſonable and allowed means, Whether it be the Patrons chooſing for all England the Paſtors to whoſe care they muſt truſt their Souls, and laying them in Jail that will chooſe others? Or whether there be not a righter way. And again I ſay, Kings and Patrons chooſe not mens Wives, or Phyſicians, or Food, and every man hath a charge of his Soul as well as of his Life, Antecedent to the Kings or Patrons charge.

Sect. 6. But why (ſaith he P. 11. v. 115.) muſt the King bear all the blame, if mens Souls be not provided for, &c? Anſw. He that is the chooſer muſt bear the blame, the King for Biſhops, and the Patrons for Pariſh Prieſts if they miſchooſe. And do you think in your conſcience that all the Patrons in England of ſo various minds and lives, are like to chooſe only ſuch, in whoſe paſtoral conduct all that care for their Souls ſhould reſt. Yea though the Biſhops muſt Inſtitute them as they Ordained them. When we heretofore told them of the multitudes of groſly ignorant, drunken Prieſt, their anſwers were, 1. Their Chaplains examined them. 2. They had certificates. 3. A quare impedit lay againſt them if they required higher knowledge than to anſwer the Catechiſm in Latine. And now experience will not warrant us to know what ſuch men are. P. 115. He asketh How it is poſſible on theſe terms to have any peace or order in an eſtabliſhed Church. Anſw. I have fully told him how in a whole Book of concord, And hath their way cauſed greater peace and order? Yes, to themſelves for the time. So Popery keepeth ſome Order and Unity with them that hold to it: But it kept not the Greeks or Proteſtants from forſaking them.

Sect. 7. P. 119. 120. He ſaith, [They only look on thoſe as true Churches which have ſuch Paſtors whom they approve. Anſw. Equivocal words: 1. If they approve not thoſe whom they ſhould approve, it is their ſin. 2. Approving is either of the neceſſaries ad eſſe, or only ad melius eſſe. They muſt not put the later for the former. 3. Approving is by a Governing or but a diſcerning private Judgment. The firſt they have not, but the later. In good earneſt, would he have all the people take thoſe for true p. 80Paſtors, who they verily think are none. Can they at once hold contradictions? And if they muſt not judge as diſſenters, what meaneth Mr. Dodwels and ſuch mens Arguments to prove all no Miniſters that have not Succeſſion of Epiſcopal Ordination? Muſt not the people on that account diſown them, by his way?

Sect. 8. p. 119. He brings in againſt us my words [I take thoſe for true Churches that have true Paſtors, and thoſe for none, that have 1. Men uncapable of the Paſtoral Office, 2. or not truly called to it, 3. Or that deny themſelves the eſſential Power. Anſw. He knoweth that I ſpeak not of equivocal but proper political Churches. And is it poſſible that ſuch a man ſhould diſſent in this? 1. Can he be a true Paſtor that is uncapable of the Office? Shall I abuſe time to confute groſs Contradictions? Or if he be a profeſt Infidel, Can he be a Chriſtian Paſtor? 2. Is a Layman a true Paſtor that is not truly called to it? why then do they argue as Mr. Dodwell? or Re-ordain men. 3. Can a man be a Paſtor againſt his will, or that con…enteth not, but renounceth it? or can that be a true Paſtoral Church that hath no Paſtor? Verily we are but upon low works, if theſe be the things which we muſt prove.

Sect. 9. He adds, [And one or other of theſe he thinks muſt, if not all the parochial Churches in England fall under.] Anſw. I read theſe words of the Dr. to a Papiſt, [To ſpeak mildly, this is a groſs untruth.] Therefore I hope it were no Rage for me to have ſaid the like. How doth he prove it? Nay in the place cited by him I not only profeſt the contrary, but gave the Reaſon, p. 65. [Becauſe I judge of their Office by Gods Word, and not by the Rule which deprives them of an eſſential Part.] And 1. He citeth my confeſſion that thoſe that I hear preach well (and therefore are not uncapable men.) 2. That their Ordination hath all eſſentially neceſſary, and all the worthy men that I know have the communicants of the Pariſhes conſent, though not Election, and therefore are called, 3. And many of them (as he) thinks they have all eſſential to the Office and diſown it not, though I think others deny it them, where there is the truth of what he ſaith.

Sect. 10. p. 120. Becauſe my practice diſproveth him, he finds out a Subtilty, that I joyn not with the Pariſh Churches as true Churches, but only as Chappels or Oratories—he accounts not our parochial Churches as true Churches, nor doth communicate with them as ſuch—a Subtilty beyond the reach of the old Browniſts. Anſw. Deliberately to print ſuch untruths ſeems tolerable in him, but to ſay they are ſuch would ſeem paſſion in me, and what other anſwer are they capable of?—What I expreſly ſay of the three forementioned excepted ſorts, he feigneth me to ſay of all or moſt of the p. 81Pariſh Churches; and yet dare not deny the truth of any one of the Exceptions. 1. Do not all thoſe men take the Pariſhes for no proper political Churches, but only for Parts of the Dioceſan Church, ſuch as we call Curates Chappels, who ſay that a Biſhop is a conſtitutive Part of a true political Church and entereth the Definition, and that it's no Church that hath no Biſhop, and that Dioceſan Churches are the loweſt political. And do I need to tell him how conſiderable theſe men are among them. 2. Doth he himſelf take any one of theſe for a true political Church? When I was young, divers Laymen by turns were our publick Reading Teachers: Among the reſt one was after proved to counterfeit Orders. This mans acts were no nullities to us that knew it not: but when we knew of ſuch muſt we take them for true Paſtors, and it for a true Church?

Sect. 11. p. 221. He ſaith, [Any Parochial Church that hath ſuch a one (a Biſhop or Paſtor over them that hath the power of the Keys, and owns it ſelf to be Independant) he allows to be a true Church and none elſe.] Anſw. More and more untruths. 1. Where do I ſay [that owns it ſelf to be Independant,] as if that were neceſſary to its being. 1. Doth he not confeſs that I own general Viſitors or Archbiſhops and appeals? 2. That I own Aſſociations which he makes the ſtate of the Church of England? 3. That I own Synods for obliging concord? 4. That I own the Magiſtrates Government of all? Is there no dependancy in any of theſe, or all? what dependancy more doth he aſſert? 2. As to the Power of the Keys, dare he come into the light and tell us, whether any power of the Keys, that is, of the Government of his particular Church be eſſential to the Paſtor of a true organized governed Church or not. If not, is it not a contradiction to call it a governed Church? If yea then is he a Paſtor that wants what is eſſential to a Paſtor? But if they will call a forcing Power, or the preſent ſecular Mode of their Courts, by the name of the Keys, I never ſaid that theſe are eſſential to a Church, nor deſirable in it, but am a Nonconformiſt becauſe I will not by Oath or Covenant renounce (juſt) Endeavours to amend it.

Sect. 12. p. 121, 122. The next Accuſation is, [They leave it in the peoples Power notwithſtanding all legal Eſtabliſhments to own or diſown whom they judge fit.] Anſw. He tireth me with putting me on repetitions. 1. They can unjuſtly judge of none and diſown them without ſin. It is not I that give men power to ſin, no more than Power to die, or be ſick, which is but impotency: would I could give them power againſt it. 2. It is not power to reject any choſen by King or Patrons, from being publick Teachers, or to have the Tithes and Temples, nor to be a Paſtor to others. But it is to have a diſcerning Judgment whether one choſen by the Patron be a perſon to whom he himſelf ought to truſt the paſtoral Conduct of his Soul. Either the Dr. p. 82thinks that Laymen have this diſcerning power and duty or not. If yea, is it nothing to him to ſeem thus ſeriouſly to plead againſt his conſcience? If not, I ask him, 1. What meant Chriſt and his Apoſtles to call men to beware of falſe Teachers, to avoid the Leven of their Doctrine, to mark them and avoid them, and turn away from them, and not bid them good ſpeed? 2. What meant all the ancient Churches to forbid Communion with Hereticks? and even ſome Popes and Councils to hear Maſs of Fornicators? …. What meant all thoſe Fathers and Councils, that make him no Biſhop that cometh not in with the peoples conſent? if not Election. 4. Why will he not be intreated to tell us in what Countries, or with what Limitations the contrary Doctrine muſt be received? Muſt all the people truſt only ſuch Paſtors as the Prince or Patrons chooſe all over England? or alſo in Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, among Lutherans, Calviniſts, Greeks, &c. ſuppoſing the Law be on that ſide? Muſt we all be of the Kings or Patrons Religion? 5. Is this agreeable to his old Doctrine cited Chap. 1.

Sect. 13. p. 122. He adds, [Mr. Baxter ſpeaks his mind very freely againſt the Rights and Patronage, and the Power of the Magiſtrates in ſuch Caſes, and pleads for the unalterable Rights of the people, as the old Separatiſts did. Anſ. Is this true? 1. What is it againſt the Right of Patronage or Magiſtrates Power for me to chooſe who I will truſt the guidance of my Soul with, while I contradict not his power to chooſe publick Teachers, and give the Tithes and Temples, and confeſs that for order ſake I ought to conſent to ſuch as he chooſeth thus, unleſs he put on me a true neceſſity of a better choice? If the King chooſe all the Hoſpital Phyſicians, what wrong is it to him, if I at my own charge chooſe a better for my ſelf when I think elſe ignorance or malice will murder me? Doth he that deſireth (as I ever do) that in ſo great a caſe there may be many Locks to the Church Door, deny any one of them, viz. The Ordainers conſent, the Magiſtrates and Patrons, and the Peoples. Is this the ſame that the old Separatiſts did? Should Gloceſier take Goodman a Papiſt for their Biſhop becauſe the King choſe him? Abundance of Patrons in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths Reign preſented Papiſts. It ſeems if they were impoſed by Law, and Patrons, you would have the people ſubmit to thoſe that cry down Biſhops, Liturgy and Ceremonies too. Father Paul Sarpi tranſlated by Dr. Denton will tell you how new a way this is.

Sect. 14. p. 122. He adds [The People are made Judges of the Competency of their Miniſters.] Anſw. They are diſcerning Judges. Doth not your charge imply that you think otherwiſe; and yet you dare not ſay ſo. Muſt they not judge when Forreigners heretofore were ſet over them, whether they ſpeak Engliſh or no? or if a Socinian deny Chriſts Godhead or the im▪ p. 83mortality of the Soul, whether he be Competent or not? Or if they have an ignorant Curate, that when neceſſary advice for the Soul is asked of him, will ſay no more but [Trouble not your head about ſuch matters, but caſt away care and live merrily.] If when the blind lead the blind both fall into the ditch, muſt we not note the difference? Alas how little would ſome men have a man care for his Soul, in compariſon of caring what Phyſick, what Food, what Wife, what Servant, what Trade he chooſeth? Truſt one to the conduct of ſuch as all the Patrons of England will chooſe for you, but not any of the other. As to the not cauſeleſs forſaking former Paſtors, he knoweth that it was the ſtrict charge of the old Canons of the Churches; and the Biſhops themſelves do hold the ſame. I thought they ought not to be forſaken becauſe men thruſt them out. The Churches at Antioch, Alexandria, and many more did oft and long cleave to thoſe Paſtors whom the Chriſtian Emperors caſt out, and reject thoſe whom they impoſed. When I have proved this ſo fully in my firſt Plea and Church-hiſtory, what an unſatisfactory anſwer is it for ſuch a Dr. to repeat it and ſay, This is plain dealing. Is the Judgment and Practice of the Churches ſo light with him.

Sect. 15. p. 123. The next charge is, [They give directions to the people what ſort of Miniſters they ſhould own, and what not.] Anſw. We do ſo: And I had thought all Chriſtians had been of the ſame mind. It's ſad with the Church when this Doctrine needeth a publick defence. Dare he ſay, that all impoſed muſt be owned? Then either Salvation is at the Magiſtrates will, or it's the priviledge of ſuch Countries as have good ones, or a man may be ſaved in any Country Religion contrary to the Article which they all ſubſcribe.

Sect. 16. Next the Accuſer falls on my general Rule, [The Miniſtry that tendeth to Deſtruction more than to Edification, and to do more harm than good, is not to be owned,] and his bare recital is confutation. Anſ. I muſt profeſs that I am ſo confident of this, that a thouſand ſuch diſſenting Drs. cannot change me: And according to his excellent Rules of judging in the end of his Diſcourſe of Idolatry, which maketh natural Verities moſt certain and fundamental, me thinks it ſhould to him be ſurer of the two than the Goſpel it ſelf: viz. That all men ſhould love themſelves, and be unwilling to be damned, and therefore ſhould not own that Miniſtry of man which tendeth more to Deſtruction than to Edification. And when he wrote that cited in my firſt Chap. he was of that mind or he was a moſt groſs diſſembler. But muſt it be otherwiſe? Is it our Salvation that we muſt ſacrifice to Prieſts, Prelates or Princes wills? If our Tithes would have ſerved them, we had not gainſaid them. If our Bodies and Eſtates might have ſatisfied them, we had not ſtruck at it ſo much. But when (Deſtruction) ſignifieth (Damnation) it is a hard bargain? If we ſhould renounce p. 84our Chriſtianity for them, we are never the nearer: for we are ſtill Men and therefore loth to be deſtroyed in Hell? If this be the meaning of the Article which denyeth free will, I deny it freely: I have no ſuch free will. But O Reverend Fathers, be more impartial: Are you ſo loth to loſe your great Riches and Honor, yea or to have your Reputation ſo far queſtioned, as to be contradicted, or have others live by you that preach without your conſent; and yet muſt all the people of England, ſo much deny their own Salvation for you, as to ſubmit to a deſtroying Miniſtry? Why then did you before put (agreement in Doctrine) among the requiſites to our Accuſation? muſt we agree and not judge whether we agree or not? Why then muſt not all Hereticks, Papiſts, &c. be received, why then are all your volumnious Accuſations produced to prove us juſtly ſilenced? and Mr. Dodwels to prove us no Miniſters of Chriſt, if we want nothing but a human power to impoſe us on the Churches, and a Patron to preſent us? But the beſt is, when you have talk'd and written your worſt, men will be unwilling of deſtruction; and till the Bible be forbidden, men will read, (Beware of falſe Prophets: Let no man deceive you: prove all things: from ſuch turn away: Mark them which cauſe Diviſions and Offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learn'd and avoid them, and more, 2 Pet. 2. J. …it. 3. 10. 2. J. 10, 11.

Sect. 17. He adds, (That we may not think all this to be only a Romantick Scheme, or Fiction,) he adds, (that they are not able to confute the people in too many places, who tell them that their publick Prieſts are ſo defective in their neceſſary Qualifications for their Office, as that they hold it unlawful to own ſuch for true Miniſters, and to encourage them by their preſence, and commit the care of their Souls to ſuch. Anſ. 1. This is true: we are not able to confute them: If you be rejoice in your Wiſdom. 2. Either you would have us believe that there are none ſuch, or that no ſuch are to be ſo refuſed. The firſt you attempt not: If you did, I would repeat a Catalogue of my old Teachers and Acquaintance: but I have named them to Mr. Hinkley. And as to the ſecond, I prove it (a ſad task for ſuch a one as you to put us on.) 1. Such as are known to be no authorized Miniſters of Chriſt, ſhould not be owned as ſuch: But all thoſe that want the neceſsary Qualifications for their Office are no authorized Miniſters of Chriſt. Ergo. If the Major were not true, Error or Lying were a duty. The truth of the Minor is evident in the terms: neceſſartum eſt ſine quo res non eſſe poteſt. It is Qualifications neceſſary to the Office in eſſe, and not only to the well performance that is mentioned. Forma nunquam recipitur in materiam diſpoſitione neceſſaria carentem. But here the Office is the forme, and the neceſſary diſpoſition of the matter is ſuppoſed wanting. Ergo. Again: All men are bound to avoid the apparent means of Damnation: To truſt the conduct of our Souls to men uncapable for want of p. 85neceſſary Qualifications, is an apparent means of Damnation (as excluding an ordinarily neceſſary means of Salvation,) Ergo. Again: It is a great ſin to encourage men in the wilful damning of their own Souls, and hindering the Salvation of many others: But to own an unqualified uncapable man as a Miniſter of Chriſt, is to encourage him in the wilful damnation of himſelf (by his prophane undertaking) and in hindering the ſalvation of many others, Ergo. I will not recite what Zechary and other Prophets ſay of the uſage of falſe pretenders to be Prophets, leſt you miſapply it. Again: No man ought to conſent to the prophane ſubverting of Chriſt's Church-Offices and Ordinances: But to conſent to the Miniſtry of unqualified uncapable men, is to conſent to the ſubverting of Chriſt's Church-Offices and Ordinances. Ergo. Can your patience endure unqualified men in the Miniſtry, and cannot endure ſuch as us out of Jail, becauſe we obey you not in all your impoſed Oaths, Words and Practiſes.

Sect. 18. Next he thus confuteth us, (and directly contrary to the Principles of the old Nonconformiſts, as appears at large by Mr. Ball ſaying (If Can's meaning be that it is not lawful to communicate in the Worſhip of God with Miniſters not fitly qualified, diſorderly called, or careleſly executing their Office, it is directly contrary to the word of God, ſound Reaſon, and conſent of all the Learned. Anſ. Who would have thought that this worthy Doctor could not or would not ſee a difference, between (fitly qualified) as ad bene eſſe, and unqualified, or wanting the qualifications neceſſary ad eſſe, and between (diſorderly called,) and (not called, or conſented to by the Flock at all) and between (careleſs executing the Office) and not having the Office as uncacapable.) He will not ſtrain at ſuch gnats as theſe. And is there no difference between (lawful Communicating) and committing the conduct of mens Souls to them as our ſtated Paſtors. Mr. Ball lived not far from me: his intimate Friend Mr. Aſh well knew his mind. You may yet know it fully from Mr. Cook of Cheſter, a ſilenced Miniſter bred up in his houſe and ſometime one of your old Patrons (Sr. Roger Burgone) Nonconformiſts, after many others at Rockſhal in Warwickſhire. Mr. Ball was not ſuch an enemy to diſtinguiſhing as to confound Neceſſaries ad eſſe Officii & ad bene eſſe.

Sect. 19. But p. 124. I am alſo brought as againſt my ſelf for ſaying (That a Miniſters perſonal faults do not allow people to ſeparate from the Worſhip of God. 2. nor all Miniſterial faults, but only thoſe that prove him and his Miniſtration utterly intolerable. Anſ. 1. A ſtrong proof, that therefore the intolerable may be received, becauſe I ſay, no: I contradict my ſelf by ſaying the ſame things. Perſonal Faults I diſtinguiſhed from Miniſterial and tolerable Miniſterial from intolerable, then and now: and is this Contradiction? Do not all do ſo too, till now? Yea in the place cited by him p. 86I 1. ſaid, that as to perſonal Faults, as Swearing, Drunkenneſs, &c. they ſhould get a better man, if lawfully they can. 2. And I named juſt as here the intolerable inſufficiencies, direct pag. 747. viz. 1. An utter inſufficiency in knowledge and utterance for the neceſſary parts of the miniſterial Work. 2. If he ſet himſelf to oppoſe the ends of the Miniſtry, &c. by Hereſie, Malignity. And I name the faults that neceſſitate not Separation.

Sect. 20. Next he citeth my words againſt ſome mens Factious ſeparating humor: And doth it follow that becauſe many are unfit to judge aright, that the people muſt take all obtruded Paſtors, and not judge to whom to truſt the conduct of their Souls? How unfit are the ignorant to judge who is a meet Phyſician, Lawyer, Arbitrator, yea or wife or husband for them: And yet judge they muſt as well as they can: Do you not expect notwithſtanding their unfitneſs, that they judge your Books and arguing to be truer than mine? And is it by your bare authority that they muſt ſo judge?

Sect. 21. But he much blameth me for laying the Caſe far off, when it is the London Separation which he queſtioneth where the Miniſters are no ſuch men. Anſw. Could any man have ſo far ſearcht his heart as to know that he ſpake only againſt Separation in this one City? When there is no ſuch Limitation in his Book, And when the ſame Laws, the ſame Silencings, Fines, Impriſonments, accuſations of the Preachers are all over the Land. But I am glad for the peace of the Nonconformiſts elſewhere, if it concern not them. 2. As to London, he knoweth that I give the Preachers due honour, and that I juſtifie not any unneceſſary Separation of the people from them, nor of the Conformiſts from the Nonconformiſts. I gave him an account of my own Practice and the Reaſons of it: Let other men give account of theirs, I know very many of my mind. 3. And he knoweth that I oft told him that many things make good mens actions culpable in ſome degree, that make them not criminalls, odious, or to be ruined. And that I gave him many of their Extenuations. 4. Among the reſt, verily (to uſe his own Phraſe) it looks ſomewhat odly by the Church Law or Canon ipſo facto to excommunicate many ſcore thouſands in the Land, meerly for profeſſing to take ſome things impoſed to be ſin, and then to revile and proſecute them as Schiſmaticks, for not communicating with you. 5. And I told you that Laws and the higher ground are not always the Terminus a quo of Schiſm: Some of them were never of your Flocks, and therefore never ſeparated from you, but as you do from them (and ſomewhat leſs.) 6. And the Kings Licenſe firſt, and proclaimed Clemency often, gave them ſome poſſeſſion as the Law giveth you. 7. p. 87And Plague, Fire and thouſands that cannot hear you, made it neceſſary. But ſome Pariſh Churches are not full. Anſw. I ſee none of thoſe, I come in divers where many cannot hear the Preacher; and would you have more? And again I tell you, 1. They keep meetings in leſſer Pariſhes to receive thoſe that come out of greater. 2. If thoſe come to you, they muſt keep out others. 3. When it is commonly known that in their own great Pariſhes there is not room, it's hard for Families to look about the City for room in uncertain places. 4. And all perſons that culpably diſlike you are not therefore to be forſaken.

Sect. 22. But the ſame man that citeth my Reprehenſions of Separation asketh me, why I do not diſown it; as if he preſently forgot what he had written. I diſown Schiſm, and therefore the greateſt in the ſinful Church-tearers that ſmite the Shepherds, and then cry out of the Flocks for being ſcattered: And I diſown the leaſt, but not by Cruelty but in Charity.

Sect. 23. p. 127. He repeats the Incapacities named by me, (viz. in Knowledge and Utterance, by Hereſie, &c.) and ſaith, Of all theſe the people are judges, and ſo many ſeparate: Thus no ſetled Church can ſubſiſt, &c. Anſw. 1. It's a hard caſe that in ſuch a Volumn as this, he will not tell us his own Judgment, further than the accuſing of ours intimateth it (which if we tell him of, he can ſay, [It was not his ſenſe.] Will he openly ſay that the people have not a private Judgment of diſcretion in order to their own practice, whether the Preacher be an Heretick, Papiſt, Infidel, Idolater, or not? but muſt take him for their Paſtor be he what he will? I know he will not ſay it. What then would he be at? Why doth he accuſe us for that which he dare not contradict? Doth he any where tell us, in what caſes and how far they muſt judge? No, he ſhuns all ſuch Queſtions as tend to bring the cauſe into the light: put twenty and he will anſwer few or none of them. If he did, perhaps we ſhould be agreed whether he will or not.

But (Reader, bear theſe tiring Repetitions as I muſt do) 1. He knoweth that it is the Ordainers and not the people whom I make judges who ſhall be a Miniſter. 2. That it is the King and Patrons that I make the only Judges who ſhall be tolerated, and maintained by them, and have the Tythes and Temples. 3. And that though the Univerſal Church was many hundred years, for the peoples Election, I plead ad eſſe relationis for no more as neceſſary but conſent, who ſhall be the Paſtor, to whom they will truſt the conduct of their Souls: And this is but Judicium diſcretionis & privatum non publicum regentis, only guiding each mans own obedience to God. 4. He knoweth (if he will know) that I. ſay and ſay again, that the advantages of the Laws and Rulers Favour, and the p. 88Tythes and Temples, and Pariſh Order, and national Aſſociation, are ſo great advantages to the Service of God, that no man ſhould be deprived of them, and go another way, but upon neceſſity, and very great and urgent cauſe. But I intend God willing further to prove to him that [when 9000 Miniſters are all required to ſin or ceaſe their Miniſtry, a neceſſity is put upon them to exerciſe it againſt ſuch Prohibitions as farr as they can without doing more hurt than good; And that the ſinful complyance of 7000 will not excuſe the other 2000 for this duty.] And this is the caſe which a friend of truth ſhould have debated.

Sect. 24. p. 126. But (ſaith he,) How ſhall a man eſcape being thought Heretical by the people. Anſw. 1. See his own anſwer here, Chap. 1. 2. How ſhall one get all the world to be wiſe and good? If I knew, I cannot procure it. But put the caſe within your ſight? How will you eſcape being judged no rightful Poſſeſſor of your Deanry, or Prebend, or the King's Chaplains place, or the Pariſh Church of St. Andrews? I know not how: And yet if an Uſurper accuſe you here, and ſay e. g. that the Church of St. Andrews is his and not yours, muſt not the people judge which of you they will take for the Uſurper, and which they will joyn with and obey? In the times of Uſurpation, many of the people judged the Biſhops to be none of their Paſtors, nor the ejected Miniſters; muſt not the reſt therefore judge that they were? Where Uſurpers deny the King's Right, ought not the people to judge him to have right, becauſe they may err? and what Prince or Prelate may not the people judge Uſurpers? What Landlord may not the Tenants deny? What Maſter the Servants? What Husband the Wife? But muſt they not therefore be diſcerning Judges, who is their Landlord, Maſter, Husband, What Schoolmaſter may not unlearned men miſcenſure? What Phyſician may they not viliſie? And yet they ſhall judge and chooſe for themſelves, and ſpeed accordingly, who can help it? deny men a judgment of diſcretion to guide their own choice and actions, and you contradict mankind, and deny men to be men. What in the world is more abuſed than Reaſon and Freewill? and yet men muſt act by Reaſon and Freewil. It's unworthy a Divine to cry out againſt a thing for ſuch unavoidable Inconveniences, as humane darkneſs and badneſs do neceſſitate, and to ſwallow Camels on the other ſide and take no notice of the miſchieſs thereof▪ nor once to tell us how to eſcape both.

Sect. 25. He inſtanceth in mens cenſure of me for the Doctrine of Juſtification and asketh, Are men bound to ſeparate from me? Anſw. One would think by many ſuch words that the Doctor did ſeriouſly believe that I had …, that all men are bound to follow an … Judgment, and to ſeparate when they …al…ly judge they ought.

p. 89If he think not that I ſaid ſo, I would not name his fault leſt I more offend him: If he think I ſaid ſo, I had hoped weaker Readers could have better underſtood me. When I read in the Books of ſome Conformiſts yet living whom I much honour, that to obey Conſcience though it err is to obey God, I took it for my duty oft and copiouſly (eſpecially in my Chriſt Direct.) to open that caſe, and to prove that Conſcience is no Lawmaker, but only a diſcerner of Gods Law, and that an erring Conſcience involveth a man in ſin whether he followeth it or not; becauſe God changeth not his Law when we change our Judgments of it. But yet there are ſome caſes in which it is a farr greater ſin to go againſt Conſcience though it err than with it. The Dr. dare deny none of this. And doth ill if he would perſwade men that I deny it: and that God makes it mens duty to do ill whenever they judge it good, or forſake good, when they judge it evil.

Sect. 26. But the great offence is p. 130 that I inſinuate that the whole Body of the Church is guilty of great Faults, Conformity being a ſcandalous thing with thirty tremendous Aggravations.—And no wonder if men ſo judging prefer others, &c. Anſw. Again and again I ſay, 1. This is unrighteous dealing; To impoſe all thoſe things on us; To caſt us out of the Miniſtry and Churches for not obeying: To Fine and impriſon us, and accuſe us as Schiſmaticks and Seditions, To write and preach for the execution of the Laws againſt us, to our Ruine: To aggravate our Crime becauſe we tell them not our Reaſons; To call us to tell them what we ſtick at; To threaten to get the King to force us to give our Reaſons; To declare in Preſs and Pulpit that we wilfully keep up a Schiſm and have nothing to ſay for it; To continue all this when we have been ſilent ſeventeen years, as fearing that they could not bear it; And after all this when we diſavowed any Accuſation of them, and only told them what we feared our ſelves, to come upon us with this charge of deep accuſing their Conformity, is injuſtice if there be any in the World. Either it is ſin or no ſin which we fear. If none, why are we not confuted? or invited yet to give our proofs? If ſin, who ſhould be moſt offended? To be yet plainer with you, had the caſe been in the times of the old Prophets and Prieſts, I queſtion whether to let ſuch a Kingdom alone ſo long in that which we judge to be ſo great ſins, would not have been heavily charged on the Preachers: And I profeſs that my conſcience is more in doubt whether my ſo long forbearance was not my ſin, than whether ſaying at laſt what I did was ſin: And I had nothing to ſatisfie it, but the men that I ought to judge wiſer than my ſelf, perſwaded me that it would have done more hurt than good, and cauſed but our further rending, And I think duplicate page p. 84duplicate page p. 85duplicate page p. 86duplicate page p. 87duplicate page p. 88duplicate page p. 89p. 90the Conformiſts ſhould have been deſirous to help them to try whether it were ſin or not, and to have been thankful for helping to ſave them from it, if it proved ſuch. But though hence I extenuate the too great withdrawings of ſome men againſt their too deep accuſations, he knoweth that notwithſtanding all theſe aggravations, I neither juſtified nor practiſed proper Separation.

Sect. 27. p. 133. The next charge is that I make them Uſurpers, viz, 1. All that come into the place of the ejected Miniſters, at leaſt to the people that conſent not: But Law and Uſurpation are contrary. Anſw. 1. I never ſaid that all are Uſurpers to all the people that conſent not: If the body of the Church conſent the man is no Uſurper, though ſome odd perſons conſent not. He is the Churches Paſtor, though not the refuſers. 2. I never ſaid that any that had the Law for them, were Uſurpers of the Tithes and Temples. 3. I never ſaid that all that ſucceed ejected Miniſters are Uſurpers; many of them have the Churches after-conſent, though not their Election. Yea I often ſaid, 1. That it is the peoples duty to conſent to the change when it is for the Churches good. 2. And that their conſtant Communion ſignifieth their conſent. But I will not believe yet that the Law will prove a man no Uſurper of the Paſtoral Relation. And when I have ſo largely proved the contrary to be true, and to be the judgment of the ancient Churches, it's an unſatisfactory courſe to me, to leave it unanſwered, and ſuppoſe himſelf in the right. Not only the firſt 300 years, but even under Conſtantius, Valens, Theodoſius Junior, Zeno, Baſiliſcus, Anaſtatius, Philippicus, Juſtinian, &c. even the Patriarchal Seats practiſed the contrary, keeping their choſen Paſtors and refuſing thoſe impoſed by the Emperors; and other Biſhops Seates the Emperors ſeldom meddled with as to the choice. Yea in Arcadius's days Chryſoſtomes Joannites, in his imperial City were of another mind. Is his Rule true only in England, or in France, Spain, Italy, Muſcovy, &c. alſo, or where, that the Law maketh men true Paſtors?

Sect. 28. But p. 132. he ſaid [that he deteſteth the Principles that ſet mans Laws above Gods, and that in ſtating the Controverſie he ſuppoſed an Agreement in all the Subſtantials of Religion between the diſſenting parties of our Church. Anſw. Of all things you are the unhappieſt in ſtating the Controverſie. The Inſtances here were 1. Inſufficiency through Ignorance, 2. Hereſie, 3. Malignant oppugning the very ends of the Miniſtry, 4. No true calling. 1. Doth he agree with us in all the Subſtantials of Religion who knoweth not the very eſſentials of Chriſtianity? Ignorantis non eſt Conſenſus. 2. Doth he agree with us in all the ſubſtantials that is a Heretick? or if we falſly judge his opinion Hereſie, do we agree with him? p. 913. Is malignant oppoſing Godlineſs and pleading for prophaneneſs or ungodlineſs an agreement in all the Subſtantials? 4. What if we agree in all Subſtantials with an unordained Layman impoſed on us? is he therefore our true Paſtor? 5. But how ſhall we know whether we agree or not, if we are no judges of it? Do you not ſee your own Contradictions? who ſhall judge whether the Paſtors or People agree? ſhall the Prince or Patron? If you know the Teachers heart, how know you the Peoples? Muſt we believe that we agree, becauſe you ſay ſo? If the people muſt judge whether they Agree, they muſt judge of the things in which the Agreement is, that is, both the Paſtors Doctrine and their own minds. And is not this to judge whether he be a Heretick, &c. or not? And who ſhall judge whether the diſagreement be in Subſtantials? It muſt be the agreers. And they muſt be wiſer than I if they can learn from you here, what is a Subſtantial, and how to know it.

Sect. 29. It may be he will ſay, that where Princes and Parliaments are Orthodox, none are Uſurpers, but true Paſtors whom they impoſe. Anſ. But doth not this make the people Judges whether Princes and Parliaments are Orthodox, and is not that as dangerous as to judge of the Teachers? And Orthodox Princes and Parliaments may impoſe Heretical Teachers: and may by Law enable Patrons and Prelates to impoſe them. What more natural than to propagate what men like, and oppoſe what they hate? If the many hundred Patrons in England be all orthodox and pious, and free from Schiſm, &c. we are ſtrangely happy: If not we may expect that they chooſe accordingly. But the Biſhops will ſecure us. Anſ. 1. They have not done. 2. They ſay they cannot by Law. 3. Would it be any wonder if Biſhop Goodman of Gloceſter kept not out any Popiſh Teacher? Or if ſuch Fathers of the Church as Archbiſhop Bromhall let in ſuch as would have the Pope Govern us all by the Canons as Patriark and principium unitatis, and all paſs for Shoiſmaticks that conſent not to ſuch a forreign Juriſdiction, contrary to our National Oaths.

Sect. 30. As to his inſtance of Solomons putting out Abiathar, &c. I anſwered it fully (and many more objections) in my firſt Plea, and will not write the ſame again for him that thinks it not worth the anſwering or taking notice of.

Sect. 31. When p. 138, 139. he makes it the way to all imaginable Confuſions, to deny, 1. that the Kings Nomination of Biſhops. 2. and the Patrons of Pariſh Paſtors proveth them no Uſurpers, but true Paſtors, is he not an unreverend diſhonourer of Biſhops himſelf, who maketh them all that for a thouſand years held the ſame that I do, to be the authors of all imaginable Confuſion? Is he not unreverend to their Canons? and to antiquity? p. 92and to the univerſal Church itſelf? Whatever in his third part he Cavils againſt it, he cannot be ſo ſtrange to Church-hiſtory as not to know that they were commonly againſt him.

Sect. 32. The matter of the next accuſation is p. 139, 140. having ſaid Plea p. 41. 42. [If any make ſinful terms of Communion by Laws or Mandate, impoſing things forbidden by God on thoſe that will have Communion, and expelling thoſe that will not ſo ſin] I add [If any ſhould not only excommunicate ſuch perſons for not complying with them in ſin, but alſo proſecute them with Malice, Impriſonments, Baniſhment or other Perſecution to force them to tranſgreſs, this were heynous aggravated Schiſm.] Anſ. And is not this true? or doth his bare repeating it diſprove it? Is he a zealous Enemy of Schiſin that taketh all this for none? I did not ſteal it out of his defence of Archbiſhop Laud, but leſs than this is there made Schiſm. Yet he tells us that he ſets not mans Laws above Gods, nor pleads for Perſecution. But leſt the repeating of my words ſhould ſhame the Accuſer he hath two handſome devices 1. He puts [complying with them in ſin, that is, Conformity,] as refuſed, inſtead of [thoſe that will not ſo ſin, in ſinful terms of Communion forbidden by God, &c.] 2. He forgeth an addition as mine [and therefore it is no ſin to ſeparate from ſuch] when I have no ſuch words, being only there telling what is Schiſm, and not what is not. I confeſs it will ſound odly to ſay [It is Schiſm not to communicate with thoſe who excommunicate, impriſon and baniſh me by Law, if I will not do that which God forbids, and they make a Condition of my communion.] For I muſt not ſin: And in priſon and Baniſhment under Excommunication they deny me communion. And yet I ſay not that it's always faultleſs, For if they do not execute their own Law, in ſome caſes, where publick good requireth it, I may beſt communicate with them as far as they permit me without the impoſed ſin, till they do execute them. But this excuſeth not their Schiſm.

Sect. 33. p. 140. He blames me as charging him with the ſilencing deſign. Anſ. I did warn him in real deſire of his ſafety: If defending the Church-Laws and Endeavours for our reſtraint, in the words to which I refer the Reader: If preaching and writing againſt our preaching as Schiſm, and all the reſt in his Books do ſignifie no owning of our ſilencing, I am glad that he meaneth better than he ſeemeth: who could have thought otherwiſe that had read 1. his firſt Q. whether it be not in the power of thoſe that give orders to limit and ſuſpend the exerciſe of the miniſterial Function. Q. 2. And whether the Chriſtian Magiſtrate may not juſtly reſtrain ſuch Miniſters from preaching, who after the experience, do refuſe to renounce thoſe Principles which they judge do naturally tend to involve us again in the like trouble. And Serm. p. 42. the Church of Englands endeavours after p. 93Uniformity is acquitted from Tyranny over the Conſciences of men, by the Judgment, &c.] And p. 54. condemning them as hard thoughts of the Biſhops that in cruelty they follow Ithacius, &c. And in this new Book, more ſuch might have deceived a man that judged by his words. And his arguing that it is unlawful to preach to them becauſe it is unlawful to hear; What was the meaning of all this if not ſilencing us?

Sect. 34. p. 140. The next Crime is [Plea p. 42. As long as they ſuppoſe the terms of our Communion to be ſinful, they ſay, The Schiſm doth not lie on thoſe that ſeparate, but on thoſe that do impoſe ſuch terms: and therefore they may lawfully ſeparate from ſuch impoſers.] Anſ. It's hard to know what words to uſe to detect all theſe hiſtorical untruths without being thought paſſionate. 1. I never ſaid that (ſuppoſing them ſinful) will juſtifie a falſe ſuppoſer, but have oft ſaid the clean contrary (their ſuppoſing) is of his forging. 2. I ſaid not (the Schiſm doth not lie on thoſe that ſeparate) but only that it's Schiſm in the Impoſers.) This alſo is his Fiction. 3. And I ſaid not (and therefore they may lawfully ſeparate from ſuch impoſers.) But all Readers will not ſtay to find out his Forgeries. But how much of this he ſaid once himſelf, ſee in my Chap. 1.

Sect. 49. But here he comes to ſome cloſing diſtinction, which ſhould have gone before; [Between terms of Communion plainly and in themſelves ſinful; and ſuch as are only fancied to be ſo through prejudice or wilful ignorance, or error of conſcience.] Anſ. What a deal of labour might he have ſpared himſelf and us, if he had here fixed the Controverſie in the beginning; we thankfully accept your late diſtinction: we ever deſired here to put it to the Iſſue; If it be through prejudice wilful Ignorance or Error that we judge Conformity a ſin, not only Separation but Nonconformity is a ſin. If we do not prove ſome parts of Conformity (for one is enough) to be plainly ſinful, which are impoſed as Conditions of our Miniſterial Communion, and ſomewhat impoſed on the people as conditions … all that part of your Communion, which I ever diſſwaded them from, let the blame be ours.

Sect. 35. He paſſeth next to them that deal more ingenuouſly than I in owning Separation, And then returneth to me p. 151. and he over and over repeateth his falſe accuſation, [that I think it lawful to communicate with them occaſionally, but not as Churches (as thinking they want an eſſential part, viz. a Paſtor with Epiſcopal Power) but as Oratories, and ſo that I renounce Communion with their Churches as Churches.] Anſw. If theſe untruths had been made without evidence only, and not alſo againſt evidence, they had been the more excuſeable in a man of conſideration: But now they are not ſo, when I have ſo often declared that I take the Pariſh Churches that have true Paſtors for true governed Churches, and prove that they have true Biſhops (Epiſcopos Gregis) whether the Dioceſans will or not, becauſe Gods Will p. 94and not the Inveſters, inſtituteth their Office, and meaſureth their power, and the people ſhew their conſent by conſtant Communion.

Sect. 36. Then becauſe [I never gathered a Church, nor baptized any in 20 years, nor gave the Sacrament in 18,] he would know [what Church I have been of all this time,] and he ſuppoſeth [of no Church.] Anſ. I thought he had done with this before: but he thinks it an advantage not to be ſo eaſily let go. Would he know. 1. What my Thoughts were? 2. Or my Church-Covenant? 3. Or my actual Communion? He ſhall know all. 1. I thought divers Miniſters where I lived true Paſtors, and the Churches true Churches: I cannot ſay ſo of every Curate. 2. I made no Covenant with any of them: If I had Mr. Cheny would have condemned me of Atheiſm, Infidelity, and what not. 3. With divers of them I went conſtantly to the Liturgy, Sermon and Sacrament, as with true Churches, with ſome of them I only joyned in prayer and hearing, I heard Dr. Rieves till he cauſed me to be ſent to Jail, and then I could not: And though I was accuſed by many for hearing a ſwearer, I told them, he ſwore not in the Pulpit: I heard his poor Curate conſtantly, when I was accuſed for hearing a Drunkard, and told them that he was not drunk in the Pulpit. But I muſt tell you, I communicated alſo with ſome Nonconformiſts. And now account me of a Church or no Church as you pleaſe. I doubt you are renewing the Independant Queſtions with me, which I am loth to diſpute. 1. Qu. Whether an ordained Miniſter muſt be a private Member of another mans Church? Q. 2. Whether when a Non-reſident Dean leaveth his Pariſh to an ignorant drunken Curate, the Pariſh Church be eſſentiated by its relation to the Reſident Curate, or the Non-reſident Dean? Q. 3. Whether a Miniſter not degraded but ſilenced, living in ſuch a Pariſh is bound to…ke that Curate for one that hath the Paſtoral Charge of his Soul, and a… the reſt of the flock to commit his Soul to his Paſtoral Conduct in perſonal, private and publick Offices? 4. But I would ask the Dean himſelf, whether a man may not be a fixed Member of two or three Churches at once? The Reaſons of the Quaere, are 1. Becauſe (by them) a man may be the ſixed Paſtor of two or three Pariſh Churches at once: And an Integral Member of many is not ſo hard a caſe, as to be a conſtitutive Regent Part of many. 2. Becauſe a man may have two houſes in two Pariſhes at once; As many Londoners have half their Family at a near Country houſe, and half at a City houſe, and are themſelves part of the week or day at one, and part at the other. And they make Covenants with neither, but what actual Communion intimateth. Q. …. And if ſo why might not I at once be judged a Member of two Churches at once, ſo far as I communicate oft with both? I therefore anſwer his queſtion p. 95further, what Church I was a Member of? 1. I was a Member of Chriſts Univerſal Church? Is that none? and yet is in the Creed? 2. I was a Member of the reformed Church if you will call that One becauſe aſſociated in one Reformed Religion. 3. I was a Member of the Church of England, both as a Chriſtian Kingdom, and as the Churches in England agreeing in the Chriſtian Reformed Religion. 4: I was a Member of the Provincial Church of Canterbury, ſo far as living peaceably in it, and ſubmitting both to ſuch power as they had from the King as Magiſtrates and a meer general helping inſtructing care of many Churches could make me. 5. So far alſo I was a Member of the Dioceſan Churches where I lived. 6. And I was a Member of ſome Parochial Churches ſo far as conſtant Communion could make or prove me: And of others (two at once) ſo far as partial and moveable Communion could prove me. If this will not ſatisfie you, I have proved before (and oft to ſome Independants) that many men are under no obligation to be fixed Members of any Pariſh Church: (whether the King be of any I know not.)

Sect. 37. But p. 152. he comes upon me, why I thought it not my duty all this while to Baptize, Adminiſter the Sacrament, was I not ſolemnly bound by Ordination to one as well as the other? Presbyters of old were rarely allowed to preach.] Anſ. 1. You tell the World what meaſure we muſt expect from ſuch as you. If we had all forborn any Church gatherings, and Paſtoral undertaking of Flocks, and both Sacraments, &c. and only preached as loth to offend you more than needs, our accuſations had but been the greater? which incourageth your more ingenious Diſſenters to do what they alſo are accuſed of. 2. Do you not know our Reaſons? They are theſe: 1. Becauſe we ſuppoſe there is a greater want of our preaching, than of our adminiſtring Sacraments: And we would obey the … in all things lawful; and go from you and offend you no further than … will juſtifie us. 2. Becauſe a Miniſters Relation to the Church-… and to the world ceaſeth not, when his relation to a Pariſh Church may ceaſe: And we have not the ſame obligations to give the Sacrament to all the Chriſtians or World where we preach, as we have in a Pariſh Charge. Paul thanketh God that he baptized not many Corinthians, becauſe he was not ſent to baptize but to preach the Goſpel; nor is the terrible charge 2 Tim. 4. 12. equal as to both. 3. Our Ordination bound us to preach and adminiſter Sacraments, when we are thereto lawfully called: And we were ſo called to one, when we were not to the other: nor were all of us ſo called alike. But when we know that this way doth as much offend you, we may go further in due time. Aud do you in one part of your Book blame us for going further than the old Nonconformiſts (as p. 96you thought) and in the ſecond thus accuſe us for not going further.

Sect. 38. He is again at his talk of only occaſional Communion? And had his miſtake no Occaſion? yes; he that readeth my Books may ſee what: that is, 1. When I have ſaid that ſome Pariſhes having not capable or called Paſtors I take to be no true Political Churches; but yet can communicate with ſuch as Oratories or Chappels. 2. That ſome true Churches I communicate with in tranſitu or occaſionally as ſtrangers, whoſe Diſcipline and Miniſters Calling I am not bound to take account of. 3. I tell thoſe that withdraw too far and take ſome true Churches for none, that were it ſo they might occaſionally join with them as Oratories, 4. And thoſe that dare not commit their Souls to the Paſtoral Conduct of ſome weak and bad men, that yet they may occaſionally communicate with them upon great and urgent Reaſons. And here he gathereth his oft repeated untrue Reports.

Sect. 39. p. 156. He grants there is no Separation where there is no Obligation. And he will prove us obliged to conſtant Communion with them. 1. Becauſe we muſt uſe all lawful means for Peace and Unity. Anſ. 1. We are ready to prove that our Conformity, nor our forbearing to preach the Goſpel are no lawful means. 2. Can you as well prove, 1. That it is not lawful for you to joyn with us? 2. And to forbear ſilencing, excommunicating, fining and impriſoning us? Was it no lawful means for Peace and Unity to have forborn impoſing all the Covenants, Profeſſions, Subſcriptions, Oaths and Practiſes, of what you call indifferent and we think ſunful? 3. And is it not lawful for Parents to enter their own Children at Baptiſm in Covenant with God? 4. Is it unlawful to Chriſten ſuch as ſcruple your uſe of the Croſs? 5. Or to receive thoſe to Communion that ſcruple your Geſture? 6. … forbear Canonical Excommunicating all profeſſed Nonconformi… Land? 7. Or to let Lords and Gentlemen chooſe any Nonconfo… to be Tutors to their Children, whilſt the Papiſts may ſend theirs to Doway, St. Omers, &c. He ſaith, he is [perſwaded it is one of the provoking ſins of the Nonconformiſts, that they have been ſo backward to do, what they were convinced they might with a good conſcience. Anſ. Woe to us, if we be not willing to know our ſins. But 1. If you will tell me of any one lawful thing that I have omitted, that tended to Peace, I will thank you. 2. An indifferent thing is no means of Peace when it will do more hurt than good. To ceaſe the Miniſtry we durſt not: To uſe ſome indifferent forms in your Churches we could not, being caſt and kept out. And to uſe the ſame to thoſe that are againſt them; when it will hurt them, and procure no peace with you, and thoſe have ſped worſt from you that have come neareſt you, aud nothing will ſerve but all; what tendency p. 97hath this to Unity? You know my own caſe proveth all this. I regarded not the cenſures of any that go too far, ſo as to keep me from doing what I judged lawful: And did it tend to peace? No, one ſends me to Jail when I went twice a day to his Church: Others ſay, He is like an Ape, that is ſo much the more ugly becauſe he is like a man: Another more ſober ſaith, [I know not what to make of Mr. B. He communicateth with us, and he preacheth to the Nonconformiſts: Like a man that will go one ſtep on one ſide the hedge, and another ſtep on the other.] And this man is much in the right: for I ſay ſtill, [It is the ſeparating hedges in Chriſt's Vineyard that I hate, and the encloſing hedge that I am for: I have Buſineſs, Friends, Relations and great Duties on both ſides the hedge, ſome with you and ſome with others; And if your hedges would ſeparate Parents from Children, Husband and Wife, Chriſtian Neighbours, &c. cauſeleſly I will not be ſo ſeparated, but do my beſt to pull down that hedge. And again conſider whoſe ſin it is, that ſo many lawful things are denyed us for Unity. Hold but to your Rule here and we are agreed. And he ſeemeth to conſent. For,

Sect. 40. p. 176. Of the Rule Phil. 3. 16. he ſaith, [If I will but allow that by virtue of that Rule men are bound to do all things lawful for the preſerving the peace of the Church, we have no further difference about this matter. Anſ. It's well he will ſay ſo much of the Rule, we gladly conſent. Then all the queſtion is, what's lawful on both ſides? I add one Q. more. Is it not lawful for peace to forbear forcing men to diſoblige 1000? whom they never knew, from being obliged by an Oath and Vow to that part of the matter which is good? If it be the conjunction of ſome things bad, that diſobligeth them, then he that inſerteth a bad thing is free from all obligations of his vow, even in materia licita & neceſsaria. And if the … of impoſing Power be made the cauſe, whether is the Cor… Oath impoſed by a ſuperior Power on the King, or is it his own …act? or is he therefore not obliged by it? Had it not been requiſite that you ſhould have juſtified all that we ſtick at as unlawful, before you charge us with croſſing this Rule?

Sect. 56. p. 204, &c. My words in many Books againſt Schiſm are cited and praiſed; Reader, he tells men the meaſure of their Charity and Church Communion, viz. That men that do as much as I do, that forbore ſo long Sacramental Adminiſtration, that gathered no Church, that held conſtant Communion with divers Pariſh Churches, that have wrote ſo much and earneſtly againſt Schiſm, ſhall yet be ejected, ſilenced, pay 40 …, a Sermon and lie in Jails unleſs I will do more. While Biſhop Lauds deſign for widening the Church doors to the Papiſts, is magnified by Heylin and others as a good work.

p. 98Sect. 13. Firſt he finds but two juſtifiable Cauſes of Separation; but p. 213, 214. he hath found three and no more. 1. Idolatrous Worſhip: 2. Falſe Doctrine impoſed inſtead of true. 3. Making and impoſing things indifferent as neceſſary to Salvation. Anſ. 1. Readers, do you remember how even now he expoſed to odium, the peoples judging whether the Paſtors be Hereticks? And now they may ſeparate for falſe Doctrine. 2. I intreat him to think again of theſe Caſes following. 1. What if the Worſhip be not Idolatrous, but Blaſphemous, or utterly Ridiculous, tending to contempt of God? 2. What if it be in an unknown Tongue? 3. What if the Church have no true Miniſter? I am glad you are not for ſeparating for want of Epiſcopacy or Epiſcopal Ordination? 4. What if the Church want half the Church-Worſhip? as to have Preaching and Prayer without Sacraments? or Sacraments without Preaching or Prayer, or Preaching without Prayer, &c. 5. What if the Church be but ſchiſmatical? Have you written all this Book, to draw men to you from the Independant Churches, and do you now tell us that the people may not ſeparate from them, on the account of Schiſm? 6. What if a Church require me to tell or ſubſcribe to one known Lie, or to ſay, that I believe what I do not: or to juſtifie thouſands that I think obliged by a Vow, if they break it? What if they impoſe any one ſin on me without which they will not receive me to Communion? 7. What if I remove for my Edification from a drunkeſs ignorant Prieſt, to the Church of a wiſe and holy Paſtor? 8. Are we looſer than Pope Nicholas that forbad men to hear Maſs from a Fornicating Pricſt? 9. I would you had ſpoken to Edification and told men what falſe Doctrine it is that will allow Separation, and whether it's falſe Doctrine preached, or only impoſed on the perſon to be owned? If the former, is it all falſe Doctrine or but ſome, and what? Verily, if all, you are tenfold more a Seperatiſt than I: For I look to hear ſometimes ſome words of falſe Doctrine in moſt Pulpits, even of Conformiſts? If it muſt be hereſie it ſelf, I will not ſeparate for once hearing it, if the Church profeſs it not. If it be impoſed Error that you mean, take heed leſt you juſtifie Separation from your Church, by the new Article of Infants certain Salvation. And when both Arminians and Anti-Arminians ſubſcribe the 39 Articles, tell us whether thoſe Articles are true in both their ſenſes, or whether the ſence be not the thing ſubſcribed? or whether one half of them ſhould ſeparate. You are too unmerciful to your ſelf; but what kind of Churches ſhould there be upon your terms? I find no more in his ſecond part which I am much concerned in.