A Third Defense of Peace, Part 1 (3 of 3)

A Third Defense of Peace · Part 1 (3 of 3)

p. 89§. 41. You come again to our ſwearing Conformity; and you ſay, [That it muſt reaſonably be underſtood of a tumultuous and armed endeavour.] Anſw. 1. And it is publickly known that we are ready to ſwear againſt a tumultuous and armed endeavour (unleſs by the King's Command.) If you would not endeavour it, even with Arms, if the King commanded you, accuſe us not of Diſloyalty for being more Loyal than you. If you would, we are of the ſame judgment as to the thing: And ſo (while the thouſands of ignorant Souls are untaught) men of the ſame judgment (on our part openly profeſſed out) muſt ſome be Teachers, and ſome ſilenced, ſome preferred, and ſome in Priſon, and baniſhed from Corporations, &c. even while they hold the ſame thing. And why? Becauſe one part of them dare take an Oath in a more ſtretching ſence than the others dare: And that, 1. Becauſe they are taught (not only by Ameſius where you cite him) but by all conſciencious judicious Caſuiſts, That an Oath is to be taken ſtrictly and not ſtretchingly, in the common ſenſe of the words, unleſs the Lawgivers will otherwiſe explain themſelves. 2. And the words are univerſal [Not endeavour at any time] without the leaſt limitation or exception of any ſort of endeavour. (I ſhould have broke that Oath by this writing to you had I taken it.) Et non eſt diſtinguendum aut limitandum fine lege. 3. The Law-makers are to be ſuppoſed wiſe, conſiderate p. 90men, eſpecially the Biſhops, and able to diſtinguiſh between an univerſal and a particular or limited enunciation, and to expreſs their minds in congruous words. 4. The Law-makers knew before and ſince that we would take the Oath, if (Endeavouring) had been limited as you do; and yet they never would limit it by one ſyllable. 5. The Reaſons uſed for that Clauſe, and our acquaintance with the Biſhops and other Authors of it, leave our Conſciences perſwaded, that their meaning was againſt all Endeavours, and not tumultuous, military, or illegal only; as in the Et caetera Oath 1640. It was that [I will not conſent] which is leſs than [Endeavouring.] And we are not ignorant what relation this Oath hath to that: And we take it to be a ſin to deceive our Rulers, by taking an Oath in that ſence which we believe was not by them intended, and ſeeming to them to ſwear what we do not mean. 6. When twenty London Miniſters took the Oath, becauſe Doctor Bates told them, that the Lord Keeper promiſed him at the giving it, to put in the words [Endeavour by any ſeditious or unlawful means] (or to that ſenſe) the ſaid limiting words were not only left out, but when old Mr. Sam. Clark ſaid, My Lord, we mean only unlawful endeavour: Judge Keeling asked, Will you take the Oath as it is offered you, and refuſed to add any ſuch Explication; and told them when they had done, they had renounced the Covenant. 7. The Juſtices tell us when they offer us the Oath, That we muſt take it according to the plain ſenſe of the words. 8. The Parliament in the Act for regulating Corporations, in the p. 91Declaration there impoſed, and the Oath, doth fully ſatisfie us what is their ſenſe about this matter. 9. It is not true (as far as any London Miniſters can know) that ever the Judges declared their ſenſe as you ſay for that limitation: That is, that ever they did by any Conſultation and Concord give any judgment in the Caſe, whatever any ſingle Judge (as the Lord Keeper) might ſay privately, or any one alone, when another may ſay the contrary. 10. If they had, it's a known thing, whatever their judgment may do to make Caſes in the Common Law, yet as to Statute Law, only the Law-makers are the Law-Interpreters, as to any Interpretation which ſhall be as the Law it ſelf, a Rule univerſally to the Subjects: And that Judges and Juſtices (who here are made the Judges) do only interpret the Law, for the deciſion of particular Controverſies that come before them. And if all the Judges and Juſtices in England ſhould meet and agree of this Statute, it would only ſhew how they reſolve in particular judgments to expound it, and not what is the true obliging ſenſe to the Subjects Conſcience: Otherwiſe the Judges would be equal to, if not above the King and Parliament. For he hath more power who determineth what ſenſe and ſoul the Laws ſhall have, than they that only make the words and body, which others may put what ſenſe they pleaſe on. Nor can all the Judges make it lawful to take up Arms againſt the King, if they ſo expounded any Law: They have a deciding Expoſitors judgment as to the Caſe before them, but not the regulating univerſal expounding power at all. 11. We think p. 92that Divines that preach againſt ſin, above al… men muſt not ſtretch their Conſciences in ſo dangerous a point as publick ſwearing. 12. And we think that if men be once taught to equivocate, and play faſt and looſe with the ſacred Bond of Oaths, Conſcience is quite debauched, no ſufficient Bar is left to keep out any the greateſt ſins; Preachers and People become incredible; humane ſociety is endeavoured to be diſſolved, and the King's Life (ſecured much by his Subjects Fidelity and Conſcience of an Oath) is expoſed to the wicked wills of men. We charge no others with all this, but we will avoid it our ſelves though it coſt us yet more. You may ſwear [not to endeavour] and mean particularly [not by Tumult or Arms, but by ſome other endeavour;] but ſo cannot we. Therefore do you enjoy your Liberty, Maintenance, and Honour, and we will be without them; and to morrow, at death, we ſhall be as free and as high as you.

But fie, Sirs, why will you talk of [ſtraining Oaths, and turning plain Oaths into Snares, ana… allowing no Interpreters?] Are your ways here equal too? 1. What is the plain ſenſe, but an univerſal ſenſe of an univerſal enunciation? If by [All] or [None] I underſtand All or None, and you underſtand not All but Some, who is the Strainer of the Oath? And I pray you tell me, if once any endeavour ſhall be excepted, who ſhall determine how much it muſt be. The firſt part of the Oath ſaith [Not on any pretence whatever:] That is, we muſt not take up Arms againſt any Commiſſioned by the King. What if a bold limited Expoſitor will here come in, and ſay, p. 93[Except King John deliver up the Kingdom to the Pope; Or except the King's Commiſſions through the Officers fault ſhould be contradictory] Or ſuch Exceptions as Wil. Barclay and Grotius make? Should not this man rather be the Equivocator and Strainer of the Oath, than he that thinketh ſo plain a Phraſe, as [not any pretence whatſoever] is excluſive of any pretence whatſoever? Never truſt the man that feareth not an Oath. 2. But why talk you of none being Interpreters? we cannot give the Power to whom we pleaſe: The Law-makers think it beſt as it is, and will not interpret as you do, when they can, and know all the Reaſons that you can give them. The Juſtices are made our Judges: I told you that the Juſtices when they ſent me to the Gaol, refuſed to Expound it, and told me I muſt take it according to the proper ſenſe of the words. Yet do you go on, as if none of all this had been ſaid to you.

As to what you ſay of Obligation by the Covenant, and leaving a gap, &c. I anſwer, Melancholy men by fearing bring the thing feared on themſelves: It was the Et caetera Oath 1640, that forced me (who elſe had lived quietly in my ignorance) to read and ſtudy many Authors, to know the truth before I ſwore, who turned me (not againſt Epiſcopacy) but againſt the Italian and Dioceſan frame. The Covenant is not the thing that they are in danger of, but their own Diſeaſes; we firmly believe that the Covenant bindeth us to nothing but what we were bound to if we had never taken it, as being not a primary Bond to make new Duty, but a ſecondary to p. 94bind us to that only which is antecedently a duty; and that no Vow or Covenant bindeth us from obeying the King in any thing indifferent, much leſs a duty before. Theſe are our Principles, however you nauſeate them. But without reſpect to any Vow or Covenant, we hold that we are all bound (not to any Treaſon, Rebellion, or any illegal means; but) in our true Place and Calling to endeavour that thoſe things may be reformed in the Diſcipline, which my firſt Diſpute of Church Government hath proved to be evil (After which ſo long unanſwered, you need not ſo loudly have called for my Reaſons:) And if this be it that maketh you think my Retraction not ſincere, think what you pleaſe, I never retracted any of this.

§. 44. Firſt, They that exerciſe the Keys of Excommunication and Abſolution in the ordinary open Judicatures of the Land, are Church Governours: But Lay Chancellors exerciſe the Keys of Excommunication and Abſolution, in the ordinary open Judicatures of the Land; Ergo, Lay-Chancellors are Church-Governours. 2. Who doubts but the Et caetera included them. If it included None, it was ſuperfluous: If Any, how exclude you them. And is it not ſaid, [As it ſtandeth, and ought to ſtand.] But were it but Deans and Archdeaeons, I would not ſwear, that if the King commanded me by Writing or Petition to endeavour ſome alteration, I will reſiſt or diſobey him; you may do as you will. 3. It were too long now to tell you, how far I take my Conſcience obliged to a Lay-Chancellor, and how far not. 4. But what's next? That [no Learned p. 95men ſo much as maintain in the Schools, the Lay-Chancellors Church Government.] And yet have we hot and feaveriſh heads, if we will not ſwear to that which no man will maintain. Well! let it go for our Crime or Folly while ſuch men judge. 5. Add p. 20. The fear of God is the beginning of wiſdom; a good underſtanding have all they that do them.—Fools make a mock of ſin.—See that ye walk circumſpectly, not as fools, but as wiſe. To fear an Oath is a mark of the fear of God; and I am ſure to play with Oaths is a mark of the contrary. God will not hold him guiltleſs that taketh his Name in vain. All things by temptation may go for lawful to him, to whom Perjury, deliberate ſtudied Perjury ſeems lawful, yea and a duty. And avoiding the name, is no avoiding of the thing. He that will commit Murder, Adultery, Theft, &c. and then prove it to be no Murder, &c. doth not thereby eſcape the guilt: And he that is not willing to know Sin to be ſin that he may leave it, is wilful and wicked, as well as he that will not leave it, when he knoweth it. We do ſearch the Scripture to know what is Perjury as well as we can; And we are the leſs likely to be partial, when our judgment loſeth us the favour of ſo many, and our Maintenance, and Liberty, and in Priſons, hazardeth our Lives, beſides our Miniſtry, the moſt of all. Few men will take this way for the fleſh; yet this is no proof that our Cauſe is good: But let the Evidence ſhew, whether in fearing Perjury we fear [a Serpent under every Leaf, or a Gorgons head in every Buſh, and bring this Woe upon our ſelves] or not: If we do, it is not for worldy ends, nor is it by a p. 96ſuperſtitious fear of things indifferent. If ſo many in Queen Maries days were burnt for denying the Real Preſence, &c. Shall I not fear Perjury?

§. 44. Next p. 20. you come to the Liturgies Confeſſion, that our Diſcipline is imperfect, and think that ſhould ſatisfie me. Anſ. So it doth ſatisfie me, not to aſſent and conſent to all things contained in and preſcribed by the Book of Ordination and the Liturgie, and not to forſwear all lawful endeavours of a Reformation; it ſeeming unmeet for me (whatever others do) to give ſo plenary aſſent and conſent thus to ſwear, to that which in the ſame Book is confeſt imperfect: I can live in Communion with a Church that hath imperfections, and keep its peace, but not aſſent, conſent, or ſwear to its Imperfections. 2. An you give me no reaſon yet, why a Confeſſion the imperfection of Diſcipline ſhould ſatisfie u… that all things in the Church Government, or all Church-Government is both lawful and neceſſary, and unalterable: For if it be alterable by King and Parliament, I wil … ſwear never to endeavour an alteration, though they command me: Nor will I believe you if you ſay that this Caſe (of their command) is excepted, while the terms are univerſal without exception; Remembring that the long Parliament long before the Wars, when the Lord Falkland, Lord Digby, and the reſt joyned with them, did exagitate the Et caetera Oath, for the word [Not conſent] as eſtabliſhing Prelacy as an unalterable thing; whereas they knew not but the King and Parliament might be brought to ſee cauſe for ſome alteration. p. 97And this Parliament hath not reſtored that Oath (and Canons,)

Ib. §. 44. My Conſutation of your horned Reaſoning, and of the common [peralium] I perceive offendeth you, as triumphant. It is natural for men that ſee plain truth, to be guilty of calling it truth: In this if we cannot be pardoned, we muſt be patient. Truth it ſelf is our reward and ſatisfaction. The force of my Reply you indeed leave intire and untoucht; For when you ſay, that you break my Chain at the firſt Link, you do but repeat what I replyed to, and put me but to ſay over again what I ſaid. You ſay that Lay-Chancellors excommunicate neither as Lay-men, or as Clergy-men formally, or by any proper Cauſality, but from the Surrogates.] Anſw. And were you willing here to be underſtood? Either they do Excommunicate by proper Cauſality, (without cauſality no Act is done) or they do not. If you mean that indeed they do not, why would you not ſay ſo, and deal plainly? If you mean they Excommunicate but … by Cauſality, why would you not ſay ſo (which …moſt abſurd.) If they do it, they do it formally as ſome perſons, and in ſome capacity, and by ſome power or right whatever it is. That they do Excommunicate and Abſolve decretively, as the ſtated publick Judges, is notorious to the Land. That the Perſon in which they do it, is formally Lay or Clergy, I thought had been paſt doubt, and the enumeration had been ſufficient. But you do dare tertium, find out a third Mumber: He is formally neither Lay nor Clergy, but doth it from the Surrogates; See you not how you change the Queſtion, [In what p. 98perſon he doth it] into [from whom he doth it] or make that [from] to ſignifie a third Species, which you could not or would not name: And when I ſay, that if he do it from the Surrogate, yet he doth it either as a Lay-man or a Clergy-man; you anſwer me as neither [but from the Surrogate.] You might have ſaid as well, As neither, but from the King. But who ever it is from, tell us of what Species that man is in acting, who is neither formally a Lay-man, nor a Clergy-man; whereas in our preſent ſence, as a Clergy-man ſignifieth,, One in the Prieſthood or Deaconſhip, dedicated to the Sacred Church-Offices: I eaſily prove that in the World there is no third ſort; becauſe the terms ſignifie Oppoſita contradicentia, & contradictio eſt omnium oppoſitionum maxima, prima & reliquarum menſura. For to be a Lay-man, is to be one that is not devoted and ſeparated as aforeſaid. And Devotus & non devotus, ſeparatus ad ſacra & non ſeparatus, vel perſona ſacrata & non ſacrata, are contradicentia. And if you allow me not to ſwear or conform till you prove that ſome men are neither Lay nor Clergy, you will be no ſuccesful Pithanalogiſt with me. But I deſired to know who this Surrogate is that you mean, and you will not tell me: If you mean any one that is abſent and no Member of the Court. 1. The Chancellor hath his power from no ſuch man as is notorious. 2. You might better ſay, that he had it from the Biſhop: But ſtill I ſhould ask in what perſon he acted, and whether as a Lay or a Clergy-man. But if you mean the Prieſt preſent who pronounceth the ſentence, I never heard that he was called the Surrogate till now: p. 99But call him how you will; 1. It is notorious that he giveth not the Chancellor his power at all. 2. And as notorious that he hath not, nor exerciſeth the power himſelf: But to judge any man to Excommunication or Abſolution, is the Chancellors part; and the preſent Prieſt is but like the Pariſh Prieſt, who readeth or ſpeaketh (as a Cryer) what the Chancellor judgeth and ordereth: And whether ſuch Prieſt be any Member of the Court, or conſtantly uſed, I leave to your Enquiry; but certainly he is no Judge at all, nor doth any thing but pronounce as he is bid. And ſtill my Arguing is unanſwered: For had this Presbyter the power, it would be either as a Presbyter, or as a Biſhop. Not as a Presbyter, ſay the Prelatiſts; for then it will ſet Presbyters too high, or rather take hundreds from that which belongeth to their Office, whilſt one in the ſame Office exerciſeth the Keys upon all their people and themſelves that are his equals: Et par in parem non habet poteſtatem. Not as Biſhops, for they are not ſuch really, and the Epiſcopacy cannot be delegated, as I proved. You ſaid (which I am glad of) That it may be you could wiſh that Excommunication were reduced into a more Scriptural, Apoſtolical, and Primitive Channel as much as my ſelf. But you never look that the Church below ſhould be without ſpot or wrinkle.] Anſw. You ſpeak here ſo well, that it half reconcileth us: If ſo, then the main difference left is, (not whether we ſhall live peaceably in ſuch a Church, or promiſe to do ſo; for that I have oft done, yea and did ſubſcribe to the Archbiſhop that now is, (when he gave me a Licence to Preach, and I could have had it without ſubſcribing p. 100a word) that I would not Preach againſt the Doctrine, Liturgy, or Ceremonies of the Church: But) whether I may deliberately give my hand and profeſſion that I aſſent and conſent to ſuch a frame, and may ſwear that I will not any time endeavour an alteration of that Government, which runs not in the Scriptural, Apoſtolick, Primitive Channel, nor of its acknowledged ſpots and wrinkles: That is, To promiſe or ſwear that I will not obey God, nor ſeek the Reformation of any ſuch thing in his Church, which is acknowledged amiſs, no not in my place and calling, and by any lawful means. Whereas in my Baptiſm I vowed my ſelf and ſervice to Chriſt as the Saviour of his Body; and in my Ordination I vowed my ſelf to him as a Miniſter; and I daily pray for the hallowing of his Name, the coming of his Kingdom, the doing of his Will on Earth even as it is done in Heaven: And therefore will not by ſwearing to the contrary, renounce my Baptiſm, Miniſtery, or Prayers. (Pardon the deſcription of the Sin as it would be to me: I do not ſay, that it is ſuch in you, or another that ſeeth not what I ſee.) Good Meanings and Latitudes, and ſtretching Expoſitions, will not make this paſs with me among things indifferent. And (for your own ſake, not mine, who ſtand or fall to a higher Tribunal:) I entreat you to judge of us in this as of men that are dying daily, and neer a World where Preferments and Wealth, and humane Favour ſignifie nothing; and who are ſo unwilling to neglect our undertaken Office for mens Souls, that we offer our Superiours to take it joyfully as a Favour to be any way puniſhed for this ſuppoſed p. 101Sin (of not lying nor being perjur'd) ſo it may not hinder us from Preaching the Goſpel of Salvation; Even to be puniſhed as deeply as common Swearers, Drunkards, or Adulterers are; to rid Channels, to Dig or Plow, or to be burnt in the hand as Felons are, or our Ears bored or cropt as Rogues or perjur'd Perſons are, ſo we may but Preach Chriſt, or ſee the Kingdoms ſo ſupplyed, as that our Labours may be truly needleſs to mens Salvation. I would take all this thankfully on my Knees: much more be denied the Levites Bread, or Miniſterial Maintenance. But theſe are too high Favours for ſuch as we to hope for in ſuch a time, and from ſuch Perſons, as Experience proveth; except that the Clemency of the King vouchſafeth us ſome convenience, againſt the will of ſuch of the Clergy as you: Nothing but either Debauching our Conſciences, and ſtretching them ſo wide, as that any thing will afterward go down; or elſe deſerting the Preaching of Chriſt for mens Salvation, will ſerve with ſome men that I have talkt with: (For it is not my Superiours now that I am ſpeaking of;) I did all that I was able unfeignedly, to have brought all men once to Union with the Church, upon any other terms than theſe, when the thing was feaſible as to the moſt: But—was an Enemy, and one that deſerved ſhame and ruine for it. But I am gone back: To return.—

I am glad alſo that you ſay, That the Surrogates have the power of the Keys; and indeed ſo moſt School-men ſay, and ſo Spalatenſis hath notably and oft proved: But what it will infer againſt Biſhops, denying them to all the Presbyters in a p. 102whole Dioceſs, ſave one or two, or few: I will not repeat.

You ſay, I did not well to overlook what you ſaid about Chancellour's Skill in the Civil Law, &c.] Anſw. I did not overlook it, but paſt it by as an Impertinency, ſuppoſing we had been agreed: 1. That the holy Scriptures are the Univerſal Rule of Church Diſcipline as to the Eſſentials, and the Laws of the Land, and Canonical Agreements, the ſubſervient Rules about Circumſtances, and Adjuncts, and for the execution of the former. 2. And that Ability in Scriptures (much leſs in the Roman Laws) doth give no man authority to the exerciſe of the Spiritual Keys without a Call, being but his remote Capacity. 3. And that he that is called hereunto is called to be a Clergy-man, to whome the Keys are proper. I pray you, Sir, deny none of this: (Let Begging this once go inſtead of Arguing. 4. And he may be fit to Adviſe and Aſſiſt a Biſhop that is himſelf no Clergy man; but Adviſing and judicial Decreeing are ſeveral things. 5. And I am weary with ſaying, that we ſubmit to Chancellors as Magiſtrates, doing that which belongeth to Magiſtrates, according to the ſenſe of the Oath of Supremacy. But what's all this to our Caſe in hand?] You add, [Tell me, Sir, may not a man be ſaid to do that virtually, which he doth not immediately.] Anſw. Yes, a man may pay a Debt by his Servant, or Deputy; but not Baptize or Adminiſter the Lords Supper, or Diſcipline by another, becauſe Chriſt hath annexed the Office to the Perſon, and the Office is an Obligation and Authority to do the work.

p. 103You add, [The King doth neither Preach, nor Adminiſter Sacraments, yet hath a Supremacy of Power in all things belonging to the Church.] Anſw. Now I cannot follow you ſo far, as to believe that the King doth virtually Administer the Sacraments per alios: At leaſt I durſt not ſwear it. If you think it is but a Gorgons head that affrighteth me; hear and judge: 1. Chriſt gave the Keys immediately to Miniſters, and not to Kings, and diſtinguiſhed their Offices. 2. Queen Elizabeth' K. Iames, and the Convocation have publickly diſclaimed ſuch a ſenſe of the Oath of Supremacy, and taken it for the Papiſts ſlanders, and diſclaimed ſuch a Power of the Keys in the King, and ſo hath our preſent King (wiſely) in my hearing. 3. Some Scots are well charged with an injurious refuſal of the Oath of Supremacy, on the account of ſuch a falſe Expoſition; which is the Papiſts Caſe. 4. Almoſt all the Papiſts and Proteſtants in the World that ever I heard or read, are agreed, that the King hath not the ſaid Power of the Spiritual Keys and Sacraments. 5. And ſpecially the moſt learned and zealous Defenders of Monarchy and Prelacy: Bilſon of Cheſt. Obed. and Perp. Gov. and Andrews in Tortura Torti, have moſt plainly and vehemently renounced it, and ſhewed their malice or ignorance, that impute ſuch an Arrogation to our Kings: So alſo Carlton of Juriſdic. Jewel, Whitaker, and who not. 6. What a King may do virtually by another, I think (unleſs Inconveniencies hinder the exerciſe) he hath power to do himſelf. But I think the King may not Adminiſter Sacraments or Spiritual Diſcipline himſelf: Which of our p. 104Kings did it? Or who ſince Uzziah offered Sacrifice among the Jews. 7. Our Kings never yet pretended ſo much as to Ordain; that is, to Inveſt another in that Power Miniſterially in the Name of Chriſt. But as to the Supremacy, it's true, that the King is the Supream over Phyſicians, Philoſophers, &c. but not the Supream Phyſician or Philoſopher: He exerciſeth Coercive Government by the Sword over Biſhops who uſe Spiritual Government by the Keys and Word; but hath not Authority to uſe this ſame ſort of overſight himſelf (unleſs a Clergy-man were King, as ſome are Magiſtrates.) As to the Proxies of the Lords Spiritual in Parliament, when you have as well proved that Chriſt hath allowed them to Preach, Adminiſter Sacraments, and exerciſe the Keys by Proxies, I will yield all that Cauſe: But they will be loath to go to Heaven by Proxy.

Page 21. As to Jeboſaphats Miſſion, and his Nobles Teaching; I anſwer, 1. Teaching is not ſo proper to a Paſtor or Clergy-man, as the Keys and Sacraments: Parents have their Office or Power of teaching, and School-maſters and Lay Catechiſts have theirs, and Magiſtrates have theirs: Judges on the Bench do uſually teach the People, even religious Duties; ſo did Conſtantine, and ſo may any King. But there is a different teaching whith is proper to the Clergy; which is [by teaching to gather Churches, and guide them, and edifie them as Paſtors, devoted or ſeparated to this as their proper Office.] As there is a difference between the Office of a Phyſician and a Womans healing a cut finger, or giving a Cordial to one that fainteth. But this proper Teaching (which God did p. 105not leave in common to others) no Prince can uſe, no Biſhop can do by Proxy; Nor can he delegate to a Lay-man the power of the Keys and Sacraments. 2. And the King may no doubt command Paſtors to do their Duty as well as Phyſicians to do theirs. I take none of this to be quarrelling, but plain truth: Your telling us that Chancellors may direct and adviſe the Surrogates, may ſignifie ſomething in another Land, but not with us: If we had never ſeen their Courts, nor read Travers, Of the difference between Chriſts Diſcipline and theirs; yet Couſin's Tables are in our Libraries.

You add, [We are all but the Biſhops Curates in the exerciſe of it.] Anſw. 1. I ventured to deny that to Bag ſhaw who made it the Reaſon of Separation: And I will yet deny it of ſome others, though not of you. If we are all but the Biſhops Curates; the Italian Biſhops of Trent were not ſo abſurd as they were made in making the Biſhops the Popes Curates. How eaſie ſhould I be, were I a Curate, could I believe that I have no more to anſwer for, than the Biſhop impoſed on me, and that he muſt anſwer for all the reſt. I ſuppoſe that the Office of the Presbyters or Miniſters of Chriſt is immediately Inſtituted and deſcribed in the Scriptures, and that the Biſhop doth but Inveſt them in it, and that their work is their own, as properly as the Biſhop's is his own, and that his Precminence, maketh not him the Communicator of the Power to them as from himſelf, nor them to be his Curates. 2. And while I think that I can prove this very eaſily, p. 106cenſure us not too deeply for not ſwearing to the Biſhops, if the ſence of it be, to make us his Curates. Not that I think my ſelf too good to be a Servant to the Biſhop's Coach man, but that I dare not ſubvert Chriſt's eſtabliſhed Church Orders.

As for your [Engine, and Wonders, and Babel, and Lucifer, and trembling] I have not learning enough to anſwer them. As to your talk of Abſolute Autocratical, &c. they are but Oratorical Flowers, that ſpeak againſt none of our particular Doctrines, but are the rant of your Magiſterial ſtyle. And your talk of Excommunicating Kings, may paſs as part of your equal ways, to one that hath written ſo oft againſt Excommunicating Kings, (when yet Biſhop Andrews and other Prelates maintain the Refuſing them the Communion; and you know in what Caſe Chryſoſtom rather offered to loſe Hand and Life, even then to give the Sacrament to the Greateſt that was unworthy. Prove that ever any of the preſent Non-conformiſts, who were called to preſent the judgment or deſires of the reſt, did ever ſay more than Andrews and Bilſon, or ſo much. But the Lord Digby is your Author. Anſw. 1. Were we and our preſent Controverſie, (for the moſt of us) in being, and at age when the Lord Digby ſpake that? Is not Conformity now another thing? Do all or half the Non-conformiſts profeſs themſelves Preſbyterians? Are Presbyterians all for Excommunicating Kings? And do not ſome that are for it, confine it only to ſuch Paſtors as Kings themſelves ſhall commit their Souls to, and give leave to exerciſe that Power? Are we, I ſay, we now living, and ſilenced, anſwerable for all that any p. 107Presbyterian holdeth, any more than you are for what Hooker holdeth? Some Scots-men refuſe the Oath of Supremacy. Are we guilty of that Miſtake, who Take it, and Write for it? Or did we ſpring out of their Loins, and muſt be ſilenced for ſuch Original ſin, derived from them that were no kin to us? 2. But where did the Lord Digby ſay it? You cite no Book or Speech of his; but cite Ruſhworth, p. 218. Where is no ſyllable of any ſuch matter, nor any where elſe that I can yet find. 3. Suppoſe he had; Did he not ſay in his Letter to Sir Ken. Digby Printed, That the Primitive Church Government will be found pecking towards Presbytery: He was then Epiſcopal, he is now a Papiſt. Is not his Authority then ad hominem, while he was one of your own, more valued againſt you than againſt them that were not of his Party or way, and is this good arguing? [Whatever the Lord Digby, Bancroft, Heylin, (and if you will Bellarmine) charge the Presbyterians with 1640, or I know not when or where, all that are the Non-conformiſts, Epiſcopal, Presbyterians, Independents, and Catholick Moderators are guilty of in 1671. But the Lord Digby ſometimes ſaid, that the Presbyterians would Excommunicate Kings: Ergo, the preſent Nonconformiſts, even Epiſcopal and all, are guilty of that Opinion, even they that write againſt it.] But all your ways are juſt and equal: But I pray you, why was no Article about Excommunicating Kings offered us as a Teſt? or why was there never any ſuch difference between us and the Prelatiſts pretended? Try us whether we will not ſubſcribe in this to, as much as the Prelatiſts ever p. 108did agree on, or ordinarily hold, and lay our Liberty upon it, and ſpare not. But I remember you nibled before at my words in Differ. of Magiſt. and Paſtors power, Theſ. 60. p. 38. as if I had ſaid, That [unleſs perhaps in ſome rare Caſe, Kings may not be Excommunicated.] A Calumny, when I annexed thoſe words of exception only to the Excommunicating of Parents. But your ways are ſtill equal! And I gave even Moral Reaſons againſt Excommunicating Kings and Parents. But when you in ſwearing will put (who knows how many) Exceptions to expreſs Univerſals, muſt I after all this be at your mercy, unleſs I will ſay, that [In no rare caſe a Paſtor may Excommunicate his own Parents.] What if the rare Caſe were 1. That he were but one in a Presbytery ſubject to a Biſhop, and his Parents were as open Apoſtates as Julian, and the Biſhop and the reſt of the Preſbytery required him to concur in their Excommunication? 2. What if the King command a Biſhop to Excommunicate a Magiſtrate or Parent for Treaſon? Muſt he needs be diſobeyed. 3. What if God ſhould ſend an Angel or Prophet with a particular Meſſage ſo to do? I am ſure that Caſe is rare enough, and I durſt not diſobey. But its hard pleaſing ſome men.

§. 45. Semper idem? 1. But will you give it under your hand as a Leſſon to your Flock, That a Miniſter may not gainſay another for ſlandering Chriſtians, who in any thing differ from him that doth gainſay him; nor may defend the Innocency of a Presbyterian, unleſs he be one himſelf? And that all men are bound to ſtand to the Opinions of all Chriſtians in all other points, whom they ſeek to vindicate p. 109againſt publick ſlanders. What a pack of Doctrines do the Reaſonings of theſe your Writings imply if they were but ſet together. If I write almoſt twenty years ago, and ſtill againſt Lay Elders, a Conformiſt may equally charge that upon me which I write againſt, if I do but plead againſt ſlandering thoſe that hold what I diſſent from. Yea [he knoweth not where to have us] ſo little do our Writings ſignifie our minds in theſe mens account. The firſt Epiſt. to Kederm. in the firſt Book that ever I wrote, diſclaims them: But that's nothing to you. And I muſt be taken for the Achilles of the Party, and accountable for their Opinions; if I do but ſay to a Printing Conformiſt, [Thou ſhalt not bear falſe witneſs againſt thy Neighbour.] May I not ſay ſo to you for a Heathen or a Papiſt. Dr. Heylin tells us in the Life of Archbiſhop Laud, That the Kings Printers were cenſured ſorely for Printing the Seventh Commandment [Thou ſhalt commit Adultery.] But I never yet met with the Ninth Commandment ſo tranſmuted, to give you any excuſe: If you think it lawful to ſay any thing how unjuſt ſoever againſt a man that is not for your Diſcipline (which you as much wiſh amended your ſelf) I am of another mind. When Lamprid. tells us, that Alex Severus borrowed his Motto of the Chriſtians, Quod tibi fieri non vis, &c. He never ſaid that therefore he was a Chriſtian. I had got no Lawyer to plead for me at the Bar, if they had known that they were accountable for all my Opinions. I am ſure the Lord Chief Juſtice when he acquit me, thought fit to declare his different judgment from mine in point p. 110of Preaching privately: Yet here your terms of Logick are, [Into how many ſhapes—and Hecatetriformis—Fiſh, fleſh, Mermaid, Epiſcopal, Preſbyterian, Independent; yet none of theſe when you pleaſe an foreign, ſometimes in the water, ſometimes out; I wiſh you were hot or cold.] All this ſet together would make a Syllogiſm of a new Mood and Figure. But 1. For ought I know moſt of the Nonconformiſts are ſuch are your bungling deſcription intimateth: And whatever men hold, take it as it is, and feign them not to hold what they do not. Do not you in Print proclaim men to be fleſh or fiſh, hot or cold, that are not ſo? But lay our Error where it lieth (even as I muſt not take your Chancellors for Clergy-men or Lay-men.) 2. And did not all my tedious writings convince you before now? that I therefore take that for an honour which you take for my diſgrace; becauſe I take that for plain and certain truth, which you reproach,: You could not (except a Catholick Chriſtian) have trulier called me, than an Epiſcopal Presbyterian-Independent. I have oft enough told the World, that I am very confident that each of the three Parties have ſome Truths and ſome Errors appropriate to themſelves, or which the reſt have not. I never found in Scripture any Obligation that I muſt needs be of a Faction, in a time when Faction hath bred Wars, troubled Kingdoms, ſilenced Preachers by the hundreds, &c. and when I have ſeen and felt the Effects, and not been always innocent of the Cauſe: Nor yet that I muſt either refuſe all the good, or receive all the bad, and feed on the excrements of any Faction whatſoever; I p. 111am for no ſuch heats or cold; I am no ſuch fiſh or fleſh: I will neither perſecute as Paul did, nor ſeparate as Peter did, Gal. 2. nor comply as Barnabas did, nor reject the Brethren as Diotrephes did, nor condemn others as the Weak did, nor deſpiſe them as the ſtrong did, Rom. 14. 1, 2, &c. But be ſuch an foreign, as he that became a Jew, a Greek, all things to all men that he might win ſome. When I offended the Biſhops in Conference, I openly told them, I had ever taken kneeling at the Sacrament to be lawful, but I never took it to be lawful to caſt honeſt Chriſtians out of the Communion of the Church of Chriſt, that dare not do it. Did this prove me to be neither fiſh nor fleſh? Is no man of your Religion that is not for Excommunication, or Priſons, Swords or Flames, for every Child of God that cryeth or wrangleth with the Breaſt. Again I will ſay, were they Priſcillianiſts, I am more for Martin's Spirit than the Ithacian Biſhops. And, Sir, that factious fury and uncharitableneſs keepeth up but a preſent violent kind of honour; the Inſtance now once again named may tell you, that when all the Biſhops thereabouts in their Synods did but ſeek to the Magiſtrate to uſe the Sword againſt ſuch groſs Hereticks as the Priſcillianiſts, who as Severus ſaith that knew them, were Gnoſticks, and but one poor ragged unlearned godly Biſhop Martin, (with one other only in all France) did diſſent from them, reprove them, and ſeparate for it from their Synods and Communion (Godly people accidentally falling under the Vulgars reproach for the Hereticks ſake, as lately by the word Puritans here) yet p. 112this one poor Biſhop that renounced all their Communions for it, is Canonized a Saint, while Hooker himſelf juſtly reproacheth Ignatius. And it made me marvail to read in Bellarmine de Scriptor. Ecleſ. pag. 100. this great Lie that Ithacius (whom he falſly makes the ſame with Idacius, who was one of the ſame Synod, and Author of the Chron. in Joſ. Scaliger de emend temp.) In eo reprehenſus & punitus ab Epiſcopis fuit, quod Priſcillianum apud ſeculares judices accuſaverit & occidi cur averit.] Whenas 1. The Biſhops never puniſhed him for it. 2. The Synod of Biſhops joyned with him. 3. Martin was deſpiſed as an unlearned Hypocrite, and Favourer of the Hereticks that did renounce their way and Communion. 4. Ithacius and Idacius becauſe of the common Odium, would have pretended that they put not on the Magiſtrate hereunto: And that Bellarmine one of the Tribe that is for burning Hereticks, ſhould yet leave this blot on Idacius, and ſeek by untruths to excuſe the reſt of the Biſhops of it; whence is it, but that the Memory of the juſt ſhall be bleſſed, and the Name of the wicked (the cruel eſpecially) ſhall rot. I digreſs only to tell you, that the honour of violence will end in ſhame, and he be odious to Poſterity, who may be ſet up as high as Gardiner or Bonner, to ſerve the turn in ſome preſent Execution: And I had rather be luke-warm, than have a deſtroying or ſlandering heat.

To what you ſay of Beza and Selden, I anſwer, 1. Did I or the preſent Nonconformiſts ever ſubſcribe to Beza or Geneva. 2. Is it not palpably againſt your ſelf, that cry down Lay p. 113Elders, (though many with Miniſters have power but in one Presbytery or Synod) when our Lay Chancellor hath the power over hundreds of Miniſters and Churches. You that cry up or keep up Lay-mens Church Diſcipline, may worſe ſpeak againſt Lay-mens Church Diſcipline, than we that are againſt it in all whomſoever. 3. But Beza and Geneva do not take them for Lay Elders, nor the Scots neither, but for Church Elders, and part of the Clergy of Divine Inſtitution; none of which is pretended for Lay Chancellors. And is that no difference? For Selden as I know what he ſaith againſt the Dioceſan Church, Biſhops in Eutychius Alexandr. So I know what he ſaith againſt all of us for Eraſtianiſm de Synedriis, better than by any Citations out of Heylin. And I know he was one of the Long Parliament that raiſed the War, whom even now you had poſſeſſed with the Spirit of Presbytery: And you may judge of many of the reſt by Selden. And muſt you or I be Eraſtians becauſe Selden (and other Lawyers in the Parliament) were ſo.

§. 46. The Quibble in this Section is Content without an Anſwer.

§. 47. I judged but of your Words, and judge you of my Motives for refuſing a Biſhoprick no worſe than I give you cauſe. I anſwer you, it intimated no Ingratitude to His Majeſty, nor did I ever repent: And that I did it not to keep up a Party or Intereſt in them, the Lord Chancellor had Evidence; and my voluntary endeavours againſt all Faction, and caſting away my Reputation with all ſuch, declareth; when I could as eaſily have kept it, as you with yours, and had p. 114no outward intereſt to move me to renounce it. I ſay this, becauſe you ſeem ſuſpectingly to talk of my Motives.

§. 48. Our Queſtion is, Whether a Church of One Altar (as they ſpake of old) Aſſociated for perſonal Communion, and a Church of never ſo many Altars or Congregations Aſſociated for other ends, and not for perſonal Communion be ejuſdem ſpeciei? And ſo, whether the word Church here ſignifies but one Species? You hold the Affirmative of both, and I the Negative. My reaſon is, 1. Becauſe it being a Relative which is in queſtion, [The ends of the Society ſpecifically differing, make the Societies ſpecifically to differ, (the Terminus being eſſential to the Relation.) But here are different ſorts of ends: Ergo, here are different ſorts of Relations. I uſe the word (ends) to ſignifie the neareſt end which ſpecifieth, and not the remote. And to avoid the ambiguity of the word [Terminus] which (as Finis cujus & finis cui are diſtinguiſhed, ſo) they uſe variouſly, ſometimes for the Correlate, and ſometimes for the neareſt end; and ſo I now uſe it. As a Maſter to teach a Grammar-ſchool, and a Maſter to rule a Family, or to guide a Ship, are Relations ſpecifically diſtinct à fine: And ſo is a Magiſtrate, and a Paſtor, and a Phyſician, &c. This is clear. And for the Minor, That theſe Churches in queſtion have different neareſt ends is evident: For the end of a particular Church is perſonal …ummunion in God's publick Worſhip and holy living, to their mutual aſſiſtance. But the ends of Churches that never know each other, but live an 100 or 1000 Miles aſunder. (They ſay ſome of our Iſlands p. 115and Plantations are parts of ſome Engliſh Dioceſan Church) can be no ſuch thing, but only a diſtant communion in the ſame Faith, Love and Obedience. The end of a ſingle Church is the perſonal Communion of Chriſtians in that one Society. The end of an Aſſociation of many Churches, is the Communion of thoſe many Churches in diſtant mental Concord, or by Delegates or Synods ſometimes in …aſe of need. And who ever thought that a particular Church, a Patriarchal Church, and a Pabal or the Univerſal Church, were ejuſdem ſpe…i…i. when they agree only in remote ends, and differ in the Terminus vel finis proximus. As a Kingdom and a Corporation differ Ex differentia …inium; becauſe though both are Societies for Ci…il Communion and Government, and ſo agree …n genere, yet the end of one is Kingdom government and Communion; and the end of the other is …ut Corporation-government and Communion. 2. Where there are different ſorts of Relates & cor…elates, there are different ſorts of Relations: But … a particular Church, and a Patriarchal, Dioce…n, or other Combination of many Churches, …here are different ſorts of Relates & correlates: Ergo, there are different ſorts of Relations. The …hing ſuppoſed in the major is undeniable, that …e Relate & correlate enter the definition; …erefore the major is undeniable. The minor …ppoſeth a Church to be Conſtituted of the …ars dirigens vel regens, and the pars ſubdita, as relate & correlate, which is undeniable. And …en it is proved per partes. 1. The Paſtor of a …gle Church, and a Patriarch, Pope, or Dioce…n of a multitude of combined Churches, are not p. 116the ſame Relate, for they have not the ſame Relation: (I ſuppoſe the Relation of a Church to be thus Conſtitute of the two Complicate Relations, as well the Church ſubjectively of the two Relates.) For, 1. The different Work. 2. And the different Correlate, prove theſe Paſtors to be two ſorts of Relation (however agreeing in…genere.) 1. It is not the ſame ſort of Works perſonally to guide a preſent people in Doctrine, Worſhip, and Diſcipline (under Chriſt as Prophet, Prieſt, King, all eſſential to the Office) as to ſend others as his Curates to do this: (For the King may ſend others,) or to exerciſe ſome degree of Diſcipline himſelf over many Churches, where he is none of their Teacher, not Mouth, nor Guide in Worſhip, Prayer, Praiſe Sacraments, &c. Nor is it the ſame work to be an unuſual Teacher (as one may be in another Church or School) and to be the ſtated ordinary Teacher and Worſhipper of that Churrh which is the end of the particular Paſtors Office. 2. And the Correlate proveth the difference: For it i… not the ſame Relation to be a Ruler of a Family and of a Kingdom; and ſo here: which bring me to the proof of the Minor by the ſecond part And that the Correlates are various is evident, no only from the magnitude, but the end alſo ther included: For the ſubject of Political Society (Civitatis vel Eccleſiae) is a Community, not an multitude of men: Becauſe that which Ariſtat… calleth Privatio, and is better called Diſpoſu… materiae, is neceſſary as a kind of Principle to th… reception of the Form. (As in Phyſicks, ſo quianalogum in Relations:) And therefore it muſt b… p. 117a Community. Now Communities themſelves are firſt ſpecified by their various ends: As a Company of men combined for Merchandize, and a Company combined for Literature, or for Souldiery, &c. are not the ſame: So a Company combined for Perſonal Communion and helps in holy Worſhip and living, are not the ſame with thoſe combined for other ends as aforeſaid. Therefore neither the Paſtors nor Peoples Relation, and conſequently the Churches, is not of the ſame ſort. 3. Where there are diſtinct Fundamenta vel rationes fundandi, there are diſtinct Relations: But here are distinct fundamenta, &c. The fundamentum is, 1. Principall, which is Inſtitution (Divine or Humane.) 2. Subordinate, which is Conſent: Viz. 1. Of a Miniſter to gather Churches, Conſenſus duplex Dei & Miniſtri. 2. Of a Miniſter to guide Churches gathered, Conſenſus triplex & plerumque quadruplex; viz. 1. Dei. 2. Ordinati. 3. Populi. 4. Plerumque Ordinantis. If any of theſe vary, the Fundamentum relations doth ſo far vary; were it not tedious I would ſhew, you how much difference there is in all theſe. But it is the firſt Reaſon, that being moſt edent, I moſt inſiſt on.

Now your Reaſon to the contrary (for your Affirmative) is, that Gradus non variat ſpeciem. To which my Anſwer being, that Quando variat aut finem proximum, ſeu terminum, vel fundamentum, vel relatum correlatum, variat relationis ſpeciem. But frequently Gradus materiae, variat finem proximum fundamentum, &c. Ergo, & ſpeciem. The Major needeth no proof; the Minor I cleared by the inſtance of a Ship, a Church, a p. 118Spoon, &c. where magnitude or parvity can make this difference. You tell me Relatives do not ſuſcipere magis & minus. Anſw. The clean contrary is an uſual Maxim with Logicians: But that is ſo plain that it needs no diſpute; viz. Quoad ſubjectum (& fundamentum aliquando) & materiam correlati; It may be found in divers degrees, but not in degrees of matter uncapable of the End and Form: But the forma Relativa doth not ſo vary; one is not magis vel minus haec relatio, than another. But if you will extend this to the Matter of the Subject, which is our Caſe, you do but (though miſtakingly) give away your Cauſe: For then every new Member maketh a new Church in ſpecie, (when you ſay) [This is only in reſpect of quantity;] You know that Ariſtotle ſaith, That Quantity non ſuſcipit magis & minus, and ſo his Interpreters ſay, ſpeaking ſtrictly and not laxly: Therefore it's this you muſt mean as I do, while you would ſay ſomething that we may ſeem to differ. I told you, that different quantities in the ſubject may change the relations, which I think never man denied that underſtood what a Relation was. And you feign me to ſay ſimply [That Magis & minus variant ſpeciem in relatives:] That you may have occaſion to ſay as I ſaid, under pretence of contradicting the ſame thing. But to my Inſtances, you ſay, That it is enough for your purpoſe that there is not a ſpecifick difference between a little Spoon or Dioceſs, and a great one.] Anſw. Say you ſo; our Queſtion is, Whether different Degrees in the ſubject may vary the ſpecies of Relations? Either you deny it, or you do not: If you do, p. 119common Experience and Reaſon will ſhame your denial. I inſtanced in a Spoon, a Church, a Troop, Regiment, Army, a Ship, &c. Whereſoever the finis proximus (as in all Offices and Societies) is eſſential to the Relation, there no man of Logical acquaintance can make a doubt of it, but that certain Quantities or Degrees in the Subject may be ſo over great or over ſmall, as to be uncapable of that End, and conſequently of the Relation. I will not cenſure you to be ſo ignorant as to doubt of it; and if I do not, you force me to judge you ſo heedleſs or partial as to ſay ſomething towards the hiding of that truth which you do not doubt of: I ſay, that Degrees in the Subject or Correlate vary not the Species, but when they vary the ſpecifying end: ſome Relations are founded only in Actions paſt; as Pater & filius in Generation, Creator & creaturae in Creation: And there the end following is not eſſential. But it is otherwiſe with thoſe Relations which conſiſt in an Authority, Obligation, undertaking of a future work, (as a Teacher, Phyſician, &c.) where the Work as undertaken is the eſſential end. And you had here no better a ſhift then to diſſemble in ſilence the other Inſtances; and to tell me, that [a great Spoon and a little one differ not ſpecie:] But doth that prove, that it may be in ſpecie a Spoon, if if be as big as a Ship, or in ſpecie a Ship, if it be no bigger than a Spoon: Since you perceive your own deceit, which is by transferring the Queſtion, are ad nomen, and then by chooſing Inſtances de nomine, where the Name is never uſed generically, but only for one ſpecies. The name of a Spoon is never taken for a Ship, & contra: p. 120And therefore to ſay, that a little Spoon and a greater differ not ſpeeie, is but to ſay, that the ſame ſpecies is the ſame, as being found in a capable degree of ſubject. But a Society, a Church, yea a Dioceſs, are names (generical or analogous) which may be and are applyed to various Species. The univerſal Church headed by Chriſt, is no more of the ſame ſpecies with a particular Church, than a Kingdom, and a Corporation in that Kingdom are. I uſe not words to hide things, but to render them intelligible. A thouſand Schools combined under a general Schoolmaſter, or an hundred Colledges making up one Academy, are not of the ſame ſpecies with one School, and one Colledge, though in the great remote end they both agree. But you fly to that poor ſhift of bidding me take heed of abſurd and ridiculous Suppoſitions, not argumentative, &c.] As if you had ſhewed any abſurdity in theſe Suppoſitions: Or as if plain undeniable Inſtances had no place in Arguments or Anſwers, but were ridiculous Suppoſitions; and he that would ſay, that a Kingdom is greater than a Family, and the King than a Maſter or Major, uſed a ridiculous Suppoſition. Juſt thus the poor Nonconformiſts are perſwaded by your Pithonalogy, to ſubſcribe, ſwear, &c. But I ſeem (you ſay) to aſſert this my ſelf, by ſaying, there is a ſmall difference between Biſhop Uſher's Model and the preſent.] Anſw. It's tedious diſputing with one that muſt have ſtill another Writing to help him to underſtand that which he will firſt confute, yea and ſeemeth not willing to underſtand. It is a fallacy, A dicte ſecundum quid ad dictum ſimpliciter: I only askt you, p. 121What Farthing doth it take from their Eſtates? What Title from their Honour, Power, Negative voice: (even their Lordſhips and Parliament places.) But is this the Queſtion? We then laboured to ſatiſfie the unſatisfied Miniſters, that not only Biſhop Uſher's Reduction, but even the King's Declaration about Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, had changed the very ſpecies of Prelacy without any of thoſe Abatements. If you would know, it is by one word [Conſent] reſtoring the inferiour Paſtors and Churches, though not to their Integrals, yet to their Eſſentials. And we were ſo inclinable to Conformity, that on that ſuppoſition we had Conformed, had but that Declaration ſtood: (though ſome of the Sects are of another mind, whom you Arguments would confirm:) For we judge, that a Biſhop of one only Church conſiſting of five hundred or a thouſand Chappels or Congregations that are ſtrictly no Churches (as having no Biſhops) doth ſpecifically differ from a Biſhop of a thouſand Churches, which have every one their proper Biſhop, and ſo he is truly an Archbiſhop or General Biſhop. But I am not to trouble you with this.

And now how impertinent was it, to bid me [Rub up my Philoſophy about Maximum quod ſic & minimum quod non.] Know you not, that the common uſe of thoſe Writers are to intimate the ſame thing that I am ſaying againſt you; That there is a ſubjective maximum & minimum, which only are capable of the relative form? But I am next turned to Voſſius de invoc. ſanct. of which he hath there diſputed, and one Hiſtor. Theſ. and I am not told which (of them) but the words p. 122are in the firſt Theſ. 49. to prove that the Saint in Heaven and thoſe on Earth make one Society: [Quare cum nihil obſtat quo minus unius civitatis cives dicamur, nec cauſae quicquam erit, quo minus aeque civilis honos dicatur, qui civibus coeleſtibus exhibetur, quam qui civibus terrenis: Nam grad… quidem honores iſti differunt, ſed uterque tamen eſt foreign.] And was it poſſible that you ſhould think that this made for you? Becauſe the world or Univerſe of Rationals are one Body or Society, and ſo civil honour is the ſame thing as ſuch in genere to them in Heaven as to them on Earth: doth it follow that in this univerſal Society there are no Kingdoms, Cities, or Families ſpecifically different? Nor no different ſpecies of the civil honour, what not to Kings, Parents, Maſters? What a thing is factions Intereſt? Voſſius only proveth Generical Identity of civil honour, and the ſpecifical difference of it from the honour of Religious Adoration. The Church univerſal is one; and the love and honour which we owe to the Saints in Heaven and Earth is Generically of the ſame kind. But do you believe therefore that there are no ſubordinate Species of Churches and Honour on Earth? What not the Honour due to the King, the Biſhop, the Chancellor, the Pariſh Curates, the Deacons, and the Beggars. Yet all this with you are Premiſes ſufficient to conclude. [And then it may be you may give leave to—Magis & minus non variant ſpeciem, to be a Maxim ſtill] See what Evidence it is that muſt perſwade us to Nonconformity. Are they not worthy to be ſilenced and branded as you have done, that can reſiſt ſuch Light? But you come p. 123to the quick, and ſay, [Is there no Communion but perſonal? Anſw. Yes, elſe they could not be two ends to make two Societies. You add, [Many of the Kings Subjects never ſaw his face, yet they have many Hands and Eyes in reſpect of their ſubordinate Officers, ſo have Dioceſans in their Curates.] Anſw. Very true! And that proveth that a Kingdom is one Society, and a whole Dioceſs alſo one: Ignoras Elenchum. But doth that prove that there are no ſubordinate Societies in theſe? Which though ſubordinate in point of Power, yet ſpecifically differ. Is there no ſuch thing as Perſonal Communion in preſence, becauſe there is ſuch a thing as diſtant Communion of another ſort? For all that your terms of Hands and Eyes would hide it, I ſcarce think you are ignorant, that under the King there are Heads as well as Hands and Eyes: Heads of Families, Schools, Colledges, Univerſities, Corporations, Cities, who are conſtitutive parts of real Societies, which are not of the ſame ſpecies with a Kingdom, though in it. And if Archbiſhops be of God's appointment, ſo it ſhould be with Archbiſhops and Biſhops, and every Church ſhould have a Biſhop. But if you will not have it ſo, but we muſt only have a Biſhop and Curates, and a Dioceſan Church and Chappels, you betray our Cauſe to the Browniſts, who eaſily prove [No Biſhop or Paſtor, no Church in ſenſu politico:] And ſo when you have granted them that we have no true Pariſh Churches, there are few of them whoſe Wit is ſo weak as not to diſprove the pretended right of ſuch Dioceſan Churches as conſiſt of the Carkaſſes of many hundred mortified Pariſh Churches.

p. 124§. 50. My Anſwer I muſt not repeat, take it how you will: you here come to the very Controverſie, I will not begin it with you, becauſe I cannot proſecute it: I have ſo much to ſay on it, as at theſe rates may engage you and me in diſpute for many years, if we lived ſo long: which I find no reaſon allowing me to undertake. Get me leave to Write and Publiſh it, and I will write you a juſt Volume of it, ſince it is publiſhed: till then I again tell you, I have ſaid enough (though too negligently) in my Diſpute of Church Government; (though one hath nibled at the Forms of ſome Arguments in it:) If you would have more, anſwer Gerſ. Bucer, Parker, and Baine, Ames's freſh Suit, to name no other.

§. 50. I ſhewed the invalidity, 1. Of your [Licitis & honeſtis.] 2. And of former Obedience, ſub poena anathematis, as nothing to our caſe in hand; and do you deny what I ſaid, and diſprove it. 2. I tell you, that ſo far as Biſhops or Chancellors are the Kings Officers to Govern the Church circa ſacra by the Sword, we will ſwear and perform Obedience to them under the King, in licitis & honeſtis. But I told you, they that take them for the Uſurpers of Spiritual power, will eaſily prove it to be lawful to ſwear Obedience to Uſurpers in licitis & honeſtis; will you deny that. 3. And I told you that it is another Oath that is impoſed on us to take. But did you well to ſay, You produced the words of Ignatius, to prove the antiquity of ſwearing to Biſhops, who ſaith not a ſyllable of any ſuch thing? And untruly ſay, I took no notice of it, when I told you that Ignatius mentioned not Oaths, but only actual Obedience. p. 125This is no notice with you: But do you not know how late it was before ſwearing Obedience to Biſhops came into the Church, and by what ſort of men, and to what end and effect.

§. 52. Your talk of Cartwright confirmeth me of the vanity of the Hypocrites reward, the praiſe of men; there being nothing ſo falſe which may not by ſome men be ſaid of them with boldeſt confidence. If Cochleus or his like, do but ſay, That Luther learned of the Devil; that Calvin was a ſtigmatized Sodomite, &c. all their Followers can ever after ſay, It is in Print. So Mr. S. P. (ſome body) Printed this you ſay. And Heylin ſaith, He promiſed. What? juſt the ſame, or to the ſame ſenſe, as I told you, I voluntarily ſubſcribed, when I might (by the Kings Declaration) have choſen, meerly becauſe I would have them know our minds and peaceable reſolutions. I told you why he that can promiſe to live peaceably, &c. cannot ſubſcribe and ſwear the Approbation of all in that Liturgy, Government, &c. which he liveth peaceably under. But this is nothing to you; if Cartwright Conformed, firſt, Prove it by credible History. 2. Why then could the great Earl of Leiceſter procure no more liberty for him, than an Hoſpital in Warwick, and no Church. 3. I have lived in Coventry, and been oft in Warwick, and know by all credible teſtimony of Neighbours, that it's falſe, and no ſuch thing as his Conformity was there dream'd of, any further than I Conform. 4. Why did he never declare it to the World, nor retract his Writings. 5. Your Heylin's own words intimate the contrary; (though I muſt tell you, I owe as little p. 126belief to that Book of his, as moſt Hiſtories written by ſober Proteſtants.) But you ſay much more, [Dr. Burges, p. 377. obſerved, That Cartwright oppoſed the Ceremonies as Inconveniences, but not as unlawful, and therefore perſwaded men to Conform rather than leave their Flocks.] Anſw. 1. But the Ceremonies are but part, and the leſſer part of Conformity. 2. Elſe had all Conformity been here included, he was ſtill a Conformiſt: And how could you then ſay, That at laſt he wrangled himſelf into Conformity, if he was ſuch at firſt? 3. But if you cite him truly, be judge your ſelf, whether Hoylin ſaid true; and what will be your caſe if you will report all that you find ſuch men report. 1. Dr. Burges's own words are but theſe, pag. 423. [The conſideration of this neceſſity moved Mr. Cartwright to adviſe the wearing of the Surplice; and Mr. Beza to reſolve for the uſe of theſe Ceremonies, rather than the Flocks of Chriſt ſhould be forſaken for theſe.] And he citeth Cart. Repl. 2. So that here is not a word of Cartwright's Conceſſion in any thing but the Surplice, (kneeling he was for.) The Anſwer of Ameſius to his Father-in-law Burges, is in theſe words; (Freſh ſuit, p. 21, 22.) [Whereas he addeth, that Beza and Mr. Cartwright determined with them in caſe of the Surplice. I anſwer, 1. They did not ſo for the Croſs. 2. They did not ſo for ſubſcription to either. 3. They did not ſo but by way of toleration, requiring alſo that men ſpeak againſt the impoſing of the Surplice. 4. Beza was not throughly acquainted with the ſtate of our Church. Mr. Cartwright, as I have been certainly informed by his own Son, recalled that Paſſage of his Book, and p. 127deſired that his revoking of it might be made known.] Then followeth the Atteſtation of another to that report. Do you ſee now how credibly S. P. Heylin and you report Cartwright to have wrangled himſelf at laſt into Conformity: Be warned, and take up falſe reports no more.

§. 53. I thank you for ſhortning my trouble.

§. 54. [Waſpiſh, and faltering, and raging, after a tedious journey.] Are your Logicks above my skill to anſwer? But adrem, 1. It is a wonder to me that an Engliſhman ſhould be in doubt who they be that drive men from the Pariſh Churches? Enquire who drave away the People of Kederminſter? Did I? I Preach'd, I Printed long before. That ſhould the Liturgy be reſtored, it were no ſufficient cauſe, &c, When I was ſilenced and might not Preach in publick, the laſt Sermon that ever I preached to ſome at my Farwel in a private Houſe, was in concluſion to perſwade all to keep to the publick Churches, where the Miniſters are not notoriouſly Inſufficient as to the very Eſſentials, or notorious Hercticks, or Malignant Oppoſers (not of differing Parties, but) of the certain Practice of Godlineſs it ſelf. But when I had done my beſt then, and ſince by other means, the Reading Vicar, and one Sermon of the Biſhops, and one of the Deans, and many of a Lecturers after, and they ſaw ſo many hundred Miniſters ſilenced, it poſſeſſed them with ſo great a prejudice, that till a good Miniſter came among them, it was paſt my power to reconcile them to the Church; nor is it done ſo fully as before I could eaſily have done.

2. As to your ſecond Queſtien, When I told p. 128you how hardly the People would be driven t… Communion in your way: You anſwered, Ha… they not been diſtracted, diſtorted, poyſoned by other Tutors.—But ſince they have been taught, like Wolves not to value the Scepter,—like Maſtiff-dogs they will worry me to pieces. Thoſe that are lately perverted any way, are moſt heady and …ierce. The Revolters are profound to make ſlaughter: And after the Scribes and Phariſees compaſſed Sea and Land to make a Proſelyte, when he was made, he was twofold more the Child of Hell than themſelves:] Theſe are your words: And I thought I had uſed them very gently, when I only ſay, [Whether all ſuch Diſſenters are ſuch Children of Hell as you deſcribe.] (I might have added, ſuch Wolves, Dogs, &c.) I ſhall leave to a more wiſe and righteous Judge, what is in theſe words! Be impartial one hour before you die, and compare them with your own, and think how he that will ſay at laſt, [Inaſmuch as you did it not to one of the leaſt of theſe my Brethren, &c.] will take all theſe Revilings of faithful Souls. But how heedleſly do you read? I ſaid, [All ſuch Diſſenters as you deſcribed, and were talkt of.] And you ſay, [all Diſſenters.] There is no end at this rate of calling you again to read what you write againſt. I excuſe no mans faults: But I will not be one of thoſe Nurſes that will caſt the Children out of the houſe when ever they cry or wrangle, till I find it pleaſeth our Father, and till I know where to have better enow in their rooms: Nor will I call them Wolves and Dogs, that for fear of ſinning againſt God dare not do as I do, and too preciſely wrangle with me when I urge them to p. 129it: And if their narrow throats cannot ſwallow ſo big Morſels as the Nurſe can, but will cry and ſtrive when it is cram'd down by force, I will not cut their Throats to widen the paſſage; nor ſtretch Conſcience, till like a crakt Bladder it will hold nothing: Nor with Ithacius, get the worſt on my ſide as my Flocke, and bring the ſtricteſt under ſuſpicion and reproach, becauſe they are angry with me. And what now your Calumniare fortiter ſignifieth, Review.

§. 55. The matter of this I have anſwered. The Flowers of [Flood-gates Torrents, Dragons Scum, Raca, &c. I leave unanſwered, becauſe you would have brevity: But if you would have brevity, you ſhould not make work for prolixity, unleſs you beſpeak me to forbear anſwering you. But I know not how better to ſpare your trouble and my own, than to tell you, that I expect or deſire no anſwer from you to all this that I have written; And if you do ſend me one, I will not promiſe you a Reply. I like the Work as little as you do: And for the matter and manner of my Writings, I do (as one that daily expecteth, (and long have done) a ſpeedy paſſage into a more holy, wiſe, righteous, and peaceable World) Proteſt to you, that as I have not been for forty years at leaſt the moſt negligent Searcher after Truth, nor the coldeſt Deſirer of it; but have I think Impartially laboured to know it, without adhering to any Sect, (at leaſt theſe 25 years;) ſo I do defend nothing which I am perſwaded is the Truth; nor oppoſe any other mens ways, but what I think my Fidelity to God, his Church, and Truth obligeth me to oppoſe. If you be in the p. 130right and I in the wrong, it is becauſe you have a more bleſſed underſtanding, and not becauſe I have been leſs ſtudious, or deſirous to know the truth than you. And I confeſs my Temper and Style is ſharp; and Verba rebus aptanda, is a Motto that Quoad diſpoſitionem was born with me, and maketh me oft forbear that pleaſing ſtyle, which ſhould be fitted to the perſons, though unſuitable to the thing. But I write in haſt, and ſuit all my Anſwers juſt to the matter before me, not conſidering ſufficiently how men can bear it. I juſtifie none of this; and I unfeignedly deſire you to pardon all Paſſages, which you ſhall truly find to tranſgreſs the Rules of Chriſtian lenity: For if I be angry I would not ſin; but I am not conſcious of wrath or diſaffection when I ſpeak moſt eagerly. But I muſt needs tell you that had this writing been for the view of the World, I would have forborne moſt of that freedom which in plaineſs I have uſed to you, but being only for your ſelf I remembred L…v. 19. 17. which I need not recite: being confident that you have much wronged your bretheren by the Book which you have written. Which I impute (with all the reſt of our diviſions, violences and calamities) to wa… of acquaintance and familiarity with each other; each party converſing familiarly only with thoſe of their own mind, and iudging falſly of their neereſt Neighbours as of real ſtrangers, by thereports of factious men. For I do not remember that I ever yet had reall acquaintance with any man in my Life, that I did not live in Love and Peace with. But all my reproaches, accuſations, and ſufferings, have come from men that know me p. 131not (unleſs by a few publick interviews.) And I do faithfully endeavour to defend behind their backs, the juſt Honour and Reputation of the Biſhops and Conformiſts, as well as of the Nonconformiſts, being not for factious Calumny againſt either. Nor am ſo ſharp in my cenſures, as your moderate Eraſmus was againſt ſuch Biſhops as he then of London, that would have perſecuted Dr. Colet, (the Biſhop being a learned Scotiſt,) who, as Mr. Thomas Smith tranſlateth him in the Life of Dr. Colet, ſaith, [of which ſort of men I have known ſome that I WOULD NOT CALL KNAVES, but I never knew one, whom I COULD CALL a CHRISTIAN. There be ſome that judge juſt thus of the (not unwilling Conformiſts, but) the eager promoters and defenders of it among the Clergy, (that are not our ſuperiours.) But ſo do not I, but reprove their cenſoriousneſs; though I muſt needs confeſs, while I fear being of a party, I fear not being one that differeth from ungodly formal Hypocrites, and that I find very great difference in point of ſerious piety between parties. And if in my Youth I did incline more to one party than another, it was only on the ſuppoſition that they were more ſpiritual, practical, and devoted to God, (on which account I hope I ſhall ſtill value them) though even then Schiſm was, and now much more is, a thing which I abhorr; but take not thoſe to be the leaſt promoters of it, who moſt accuſe their brethren of it, being juſt of Hales's mind in that treat of Schiſm. And for former complyances, &c. (you were acquainted at Co… ſold, Sir Robert Pyes, Mr. Twiſse's, &c.) conſider p. 132whether of us it is that needeth no Retractation: A word to the wiſe is enough. Having ſome information of your former life, I may very eaſily ſay, that as great a noiſe as you now make for Conformity, and againſt the late Uſurpers, I did much more againſt them than you did in my Miniſtry; and my danger from them was not a denial of a richer living (which I never ſought) but for open oppoſing their uſurpation, engagementdaies of thankſgiving for unjuſt victories, &c. I add this but to mind you that ſome men by reproaching others, do doubly reproach themſelves, and that conſciouſneſs of their proper caſe ſhould make men ſpeak as they would hear.

foreign, &c. look diligently into the Scriptures which are the true Oracles of the Holy Ghoſt: learn that in them is contained nothing unjuſt, or fained, or counterfeit. For you ſhall not find that the juſt were rejected by holy men. The juſt ſuffered perſecution, but from the ungodly. They were caſt into priſon, but by the Profane; they were ſtoned, but by the unrighteous and tranſgreſſours of the Laws: They were extinct, but by the wicked and ſuch as were pricked with unjuſt envy againſt them. Clemens. Roman. ad Corinth.

Reader, remember that this was written only for Mr. Hinkleys ſight, if he had ſo pleaſed.

FINIS.