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

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

p. 1AN ANSVVER TO M^R. HINCKLEY.

SIR,

I Have peruſed yours, (I think Impartially) and to tell you my Judgment of it, I perceive, is like to offend you more. I find it is natural to men to deſire to be thought to be in the right, and to have ſaid well, and done well, be it never ſo ill. It is ſome Honour to Truth and Goodneſs, that the Names and Reputation of them ſeem deſirable to thoſe that cannot endure the things; yea, that the Things are never loathed or oppoſed formally as ſuch, but for their oppoſition to ſomewhat, that is more loved. And it is ſome help to the depreſſion of Falſhood and Sin, that it is aſhamed of its own Name, and cannot endure to ſee its own Face, which hath ever inclined it to break the Glaſs; though to its greater ſhame, when every piece will ſhew that uglineſs which was ſhewed but by the whole before. If nothing elſe had notified it to us, one might have ſtrongly ſuſpected that you are of that p. 2Tribe, who take themſelves to be perſecuted when they may not domineer, and when others may but Preach and live without their Conſent; by your exceſſive tenderneſs and impatience, calling it Poyſon, Hornets, and abundance of ſuch ſmarting angry Names, if a man that is caſt out of God's Vineyard as well as his Maintenance among many hundreds more, do but plainly in a private Letter ſpeak for himſelf, and ſhew the injuſtice of your Printed Accuſations. O! that you were all but the thouſandth part as tender, (I will not ſay of your Brethrens ſufferings) but of the danger of many thouſand periſhing ſtarved Souls? I ſhall only tell you this much in general, that I now perceive you are uſed but for a Temptation to me, to loſe my time, by the neglect of better Work. And that you do ſo notoriouſly bawk the Truth, and hide Untruth in a heap of Confident Rhetorical Flouriſhes; that while you are of this temperament, I will not undertake to prove to you that Two and Two are Four.

1. My Beginning was taken from your Ending; where you wrote [You will ſatisfie your ſelf, as little as you will do others] And what others Mind know you better than your own? And ſure that which ſatisfieth not you, doth you no good as to its proper end, what ever it may do by accident ſome other way. Yet it ſeems you forgot that you had written this, and that was warrant enough for all your confident Impertinencies on that occaſion. Sandy foundations, light and darkneſs, Hornets Neſts, ruſhing into the midſt of the Pikes, waking Dragons, the golden Fleece, &c. come all in upon this your overſight: And you ſeem to think that you have acquit your ſelf well.

p. 32. You tell me of bringing the Controverſie to an iſſue by dint of Scripture, whether you ſin in Conforming. Is this fairly done, to pretend that to be the Controverſie which I never undertook to meddle with? Could you poſſibly forget, 1. That You were the Plaintiff and Accuſer in Print, not content that your Brethren were forbidden to Preach Chriſt, and that many of them live in great poverty and want? You wrote a Book of reproachful Oratory, with no ſtrength of Argument worthy an Anſwer, to make them ſeem the flagitious Cauſes of their own ſilence and ſufferings: Againſt which, they (that meddled not with you) had nothing to do but to juſtifie themſelves. 2. That in this Book you vehemently importune me, who never knew you, nor meddled with you, to give the World the Reaſons of my Non-conformity. 3. That hereupon the Queſtion that I treated about with you, was, How I may have leave to do it. And whether it be ingenious thus publickly to urge me to that which you know I cannot do. This was all the Controverſie I had with you. I tell you again, I would go on my knees to any Biſhop in England, to procure but Licenſe for my ſelf alone, (much more my Brethren) to Write and Print the Reaſons of our Non-conformity, after Nine years Silence, Suffering, and Accuſation; that the World and Poſterity may but once hear us ſpeak for our ſelves: And I would be engaged to leave out all ſuch plain expreſſions as now offend you. But to begin ſuch a Work, when I know I cannot Print it; or to enter a Dispute with you in this rambling way, (whoſe Books and Letters tell me that you will Syllogize in Ariſtophanes, or Lucian's p. 4Moods and Figures; and whoſe Logick will take up no greater room among your Oratorical Diverſions, Evaſions, Subterfuges, and Floſculi, than a ſpoonful of Wine in a Gallon of Water, which will leave it Water ſtill. I ſhall not eaſily be drawn to this, having loſt ſo much time upon you already, as I have done: Therefore you here bring in your Serpents Head and Tail and Fable, upon a falſe Suppoſition of the Subject of our Debates.

§. 1. Here firſt, you would have your Book go for Innocent; no wonder: Impenitence is no rarity, among thoſe whoſe office is to Preach Repentance: And therefore ſo many of them go without the Fruits of it, Matth. 7. 22, 23. And he that can write againſt Truth, can defend it by Untruth. 2. You untruly ſuppoſe me to undertake the Confutation of your Book. But who hath ſo little to do, as to ſhew particularly of each Page and Line of a Bundle of impotent Oratorian Revilings, how little Logick or Truth is in them. 3. You untruly ſuppoſe me not to have opened the faultineſs of any Page of your Book: Let the Impartial judge. 4. In all, you ſhew the ſtrange unacquaintedneſs with your Self, and your Own, which you cannot endure to be told of. A Calumniating Volume of yours is Innocent, and affordeth no matter for blame or repentance: But to be told ſo, is to let fall ſuch Drops on you as make you ſmart (you ſay) as if there had been poyſon in them. If we that are forbidden to eat a Bit, or wear a Rag of the Levites Portion, or come within Five Miles of any Corporation, or Preach Chriſt to the moſt ignorant miſerable Souls; do but think p. 5and ſay, it is hard uſage: We add to our guilt, and deſerve yet worſe, becauſe we do not Toto pectore telum recipere: Or as Camero, unbutton our Doublets, and cry, Feri miſer. But if we tell you of it, when you voluminouſly play with Reproaches upon them, that you are utterly unable to prove guilty and confute; Oh, it maketh you ſmart like poyſon. Guilt is always tender, but moſt in the Domineering Tribe. They are contemned and ſcorned, if we take not their ſtrokes for ſtroakings, and their calumnies for kindneſs: And to tell them that their ſlanders are injuries, is to call them to veil their Bonnets to us, and we are Popular Rabbies (for being againſt the Rabbies) if the people (that know them and us, will not (becauſe they cannot) believe all the falſhoods which ſuch report of us, who find no readier and ſurer ſteps for their Aſcenſion to their deſired Heights.

§. 2. Firſt, Here you would be my T…r in Logick, to teach me that the Species is no… comprehended in the Genus. And that I tranſgr…ſs the Laws of Diſcourſe, in ſuppoſing that what was ſpoken againſt the Non-conformists, as ſuch, was ſpoken againſt the Presbyterian Non-conformiſts. This is my incloſing and limiting: As if I had offended by ſaying, that you ſay that againſt Man, which you ſay againſt an Animal as ſuch. And this Talk needs a Confutation? But was not the Diſcipline calumniated, which I noted a ſufficient explication of your ſenſe. 2. And here you condenſate your Untruths: As firſt, That there were but few who were not then tantum non Independants, which the Age you live in knows to be falſe. 2. That I intimate, that they are all of a ſudden p. 6become Presbyterians, Becauſe Presbyterians are a part of them: ſo part and whole are not diſtinguiſhable by the Logick of the Gamaliels, whoſe Inſtruction I miſt of. When I have oft Publiſhed, that (beſides Scotland, Lancaſhire, and London) I knew no great number of Miniſters that received the Presbyterian Model: But almoſt all thoſe in the County where you live (Worceſterſhire) Declared, that they agreed to joyn in the Practice of ſo much of Church Diſcipline, as the Epiſcopal Presbyterians and Independents were all agreed in; and on thoſe grounds to unite for the promoting of the Peoples Inſtruction and Salvation, without dividing for the Controverted parts, or laying a greater ſtreſs on them, than there was cauſe for; yet here you have occaſion to talk of the tranſmutation of Elements, &c.

§. 3. Here you want Conviction ſtill! If ſo, I will not undertake to Convince you of any thing in the World which you are unwilling to know. Offer the caſe to an unintereſted Stranger, and take his Judgment. Tell him this Truth [Eighteen hundred Miniſters are at once forbidden to Preach Chriſt according to their Ordination Vow: And when upon that Dedication they had alienanated themſelves from all other ways of Employment and Livelihood, they and their Families are caſt upon Alms in a time of extraordinary poverty, except ſome of them that had ſomewhat of their own: None of all theſe are put out for Ignorance, Inſufficiency, or any Crime or ſcandal at all; But for not ſubſcribing Aſſent and Conſens to all things (without exception) in Three Books written by men that profeſs that General Councils p. 7are fallible, even in matters of Faith: And for not declaring, that no man (that vowed it) is obliged to endeavour in his Place and Calling, any alteration of the preſent Church Government (which ſome think the unſworn as much bound to endeavour, as to Reform the worſt Alehouſe or Tavern in the Land: Eſpecially whilſt Lay-men Govern by the Keys of Excommunication and Abſolution) And for not ſwearing and unſwearing, &c. as is known, with ſuch like things. Theſe Men thus ejected and ſilenced, are forbidden, upon ſevere Penalties, Eccleſiaſtical and Corporal, to ſpeak any thing in depravation of the Government of the Church, the Liturgy or Ceremonies, and under the penalty of total ruine in this World: To ſay that any man is bound by the National Vow to endeavour any alteration as aforeſaid. A Law forbiddeth Printers to Print any unlicenſed Book, upon penalty of loſing all the Copies, Paper, and Print; beſides, anſwering for all therein contained. The Company in London is called together, and conſtrained (as holding their Charter by Patent;) to make Laws alſo among themſelves, That any man that Printeth an unlicenſed Book, or Leaf, ſhall loſe his Freedom, and become uncapable of their Trade (and ſo be utterly undone.) A Conforming Miniſter (for ends beſt known to himſelf) Writeth a Book called a Perſwaſive to Conformity, which containeth not the twentieth part of the Argument commonly before uſed by others; Saravia, Hammond, Downame, Bilſon, Burges, Fulwood, &c.) which the Non-conformists are ſuppoſed to have ſtudied: But florid Oratorical, confident Calumnies, moſt of the Book importing; an p. 8Ignoratio Elenchi: And in this Book he vehemently urgeth one man particularly, that never ſaw him, nor meddled with him; to publiſh to the World, An account of the Reaſons of his Non-conformity. This one man tells him, that no Licenſer will licenſe it: That he hath not Printed without Licenſe, before his importunity ſince the Act: That ſome few Printers through poverty have ventured on a few Sheets, which they could quickly ſlip out of the way. But now ſeverity having encreaſed their penalty, he knoweth not of one man that will venture ſo far: That if they would, it will do him no good, who hath ſo much to ſay againſt Conformity, as a few ſheets will not contain; and he knoweth not of that man living that would Print: And, that ſhould he do it, he muſt look for ſuch an Impriſonment as is likely to be his death: And therefore he thinketh that his Time and Life may be more uſefully employed; eſpecially when Experience aſſureth him, that ſuch a Writing would paſſionately diſpleaſe the Prelates of the Church, and ſuch as call for it. And therefore that he did not ingenuouſly that clamoured thus for an account, when he knew that all theſe Manacles were on our Hands: Yet will not this man be convinced but his Clamour was reaſonable and innocent, becauſe in a few Sheets that accidentally had an advantage to ſee the light, (being both for the Kings and the Churches Government) he met with a few words which he thought were not to be licenſed. And if this were publiſhed without Licenſe, it was moſt long of himſelf, ſince his foreſaid urgency, no ſuch thing being done before, nor do I know how to procure the like again.

p. 9This is the true Caſe; And now let any ſober Perſon, Chriſtian, or Heathen, judge betwen us, whether any thing could have hardned you into an impoſſibility of Conviction, but the great averſneſs to Humiliation and Repentance, and ſelfiſh inclination to be righteous in your own eyes? No wonder if no man be juſtified as Legally innocent, when a bare Confeſſion of a deliberate printed ſin, as viſible as a beam in the eye (as Chriſt meant it) is ſo hardly obtained with ſome men: And (becauſe with what meaſure men meet, it ſhall be meaſured to them again.) Wonder not if you meet with Auditors like your ſelf: Suppoſe that You whoſe Office is to Preach Men to Repentance, do hear the Perjured, the Drunkards, Blaſphemers, the F…rnicators ſay, This man is a Rayler, he drops ſmarting poyſon upon us in his Sermons; When we hear him, we deal with a Woolf, and put our hands into a Hornets neſt; bitterneſs and reviling is his Dialect; We are innocent, and all that he ſaith doth not convince us. What would you ſay to ſuch returns? But too many think that it is their work to preach Repentance, and other mens to Repent. As for Magiſtrates forbidding faithful Miniſters to preach the Chriſtian Faith, where there are not enough more to do the Work: Cannot you be content with the Honour, Comfort, and Reward of approving it, and ſuffer ſuch to be without it, as refuſe it. But when you ſay [Alas, Church cenſures without the Magiſtrate are but brutum fulmen] I will preſume to tell you; 1. That you ſeem to me to come near to Blaſphemy, to intimate that Chriſt ordained ſo vain a Diſcipline: What? and yet be the Infallibe Teacher and King of the Church. But p. 10if you think that He did not Inſtitute it, tell us ſo plainly, and pretend not more to an unalterable Divine Inſtitution, which all of us muſt ſwear never to endeavour an alteration of. Or if you think that Chriſt did inſtitute Church Diſcipline to be exerciſed, only when the Sword will ſecond it; ſay ſo, that we may know your mind. And then 2ly, Do you not make the Apoſtles and the Primitive Church for above 300 years, to have abuſed the World with this brutum fulmen. If you talk of the Apoſtles power of ſeconding it by miraculous Penalties. I anſwer, 1. It cannot be proved that they did ſo ordinarily, but only extraordinarily. 2. All Paſtors and Churches then had not that power, that yet were obliged to exerciſe Diſcipline. 3. The Church for 300 years had not that power every where. 4. And Diſcipline was to operate propria virtute, and not only by Miracles. So that you reproach the Apoſtles, and all the ancient Churches. 3. Do you not reproach all the ancient Councils and Canons of thoſe times, as making ſuch a ſtir in the World about a brutum fulmen. 4. Do you not reproach Conſtantine, and other Chriſtian Emperors, who for a conſiderable time adjoyned not the Sword at all to the Churches Keys, except to remove ſome great Patriarch that had influence on the State; and long after did only force them to a quiet ſubmiſſion to the Diſcipline, without the addition of another Penalty, or conſtraining any to ſay, they did repent. How long was it before the Church took a man to be meet for her Communion in the Lords Supper, that had but rather ſay, that he repented, than have all taken from him, and lie in Priſon. 5. Do you not here p. 11tell us what you truſt to, even the Magiſtrates Sword alone: And do you not diſgrace your Cauſe and Function, in telling the World in plain Engliſh, that without the Sword, Prelatical Diſcipline is but brutum fulmen? What then would your Church be, ſhould the King leave it only to an equal Toleration with all other Parties. 6. And do you not highly honour us Non-conformiſts, that deſire no greater matters, than bare Leave to Exerciſe Chriſts Diſcipline without the Sword, on Volunteers; we would have no more. If any have formerly deſired more, we diſown it. The Scots indeed had more, but when Cromwell left them but their Liberty, their Diſcipline proved not brutum fulmen. And truly I ſee not how thoſe few among them that are againſt the Supremacy of the King, Circa ſacra, if there be any ſuch, can expect any further protection or help by his Sword, than a bare Toleration. Let us but Preach and uſe this brutum fulmen, and then enjoy your Lordſhips, Honours, and all that is deſired. And why are you ſo greatly afraid of a brutum fulmen in our hands, when you confeſs it to be no better in your own.

§. 4. If you cannot ſee your Contradictions, repeating them will not open your Eyes. As for Valentine and Orſon, and Knights Errant, I give you the honour of being better acquainted with them, than I am. 2. And next you teach us, that according to your School, a Queſtion may be falſe. Well! ſo let it be, you ſhall there have the better alſo. I knew no more but that ſome kind of Queſtioning might imply a Propoſition which is falſe. But I will not ſtrive with you, if you are wiſer. The Queſtion was, [How many of theſe Miniſters p. 12have little more Learning than the Engliſh Books have taught them.] If this Queſtion be falſe, falſe let it be: I cannot make it true, I would I knew what [How many] fignifieth.

And what could I do more to detect your falſhood, than Name you many that dwell about you, Seven neare you I named. And now (O the power of Innocency and worth) all thoſe for their Gravity, Sobriety, Learning and Peaceableneſs, you have as much eſteem for as I can have] And really I hope as bad as they, and their adverſaries judge each other, were they all better acquainted with each other, the reſt would conſtrain their afflicters themſelves to ſuch a praiſe and approbation, an inconſiderable number only excepted.

But who elſe ſhould I name in the County where you live, and near you, Mr. Joſeph Baker, Mr. Benjamin Baxſter, Mr. George Hopkins, Mr. Waldern, &c. are dead. Thoſe living are Mr. Ambroſe Sparrey, (your predeceſſour at Hampton) Mr. Andrew Triſtram, Mr. Kimberley, Mr. Oſland, Mr. Badland of Worceſter, Mr. Sergeant, Dr. Richard Morton, Mr. Stephen Baxter, Mr. Richard Dowley, Mr. Cowper, Mr. Paſton, Mr. Read, I cannot remember all. Tell me how many and which of thoſe you mean. The Elder about you dead, were on our ſide, Mr. Arthur Salway, Mr. John Hall, Mr. Thomas Hall, (your next Neighbour) Mr. Smith at Dudley, Mr. Smith at Stoke, (a younger Man) and not far of Mr. Anthony Burgeſs, Mr. Blake, &c. which of theſe mean you? And what if you can Name one unlearned Man, in Forty or Fifty. If he be but a meer Nonconformiſt, and not of ſome ſuch Sect, with whom we have not much more p. 13affinity than with the Papiſts (who conform not, and yet ſay they are nearer to you than to us) I doubt, that odd unlearned Man, ſhould he but conform, would be a great ornament to your preſent Church. But what courſe can one better take to ſilence ſuch Calumnies, and to convince Poſterity of ſuch mens incredibility, than to Name the perſons round about? How many hundred worthy men in London, and a few Counties of my acquaintance could I Name you. And you ſay, it is a uſual Stratagem with us, to poſſeſs particular perſons with an opinion that you detract from them: It is bad arguing Syllogizare ex particulari] Excellent Logick! He that condemneth the Non-conformiſts, and the ejected Miniſters as meer illiterate, doth not condemn the Individuals, though it came in with an How many.] I never ſaid, that you condemn them all; but I askt you, as you did me, How many. And is this like ſyllogizing ex particulari.] Do you intimate an Accuſation againſt Many of them; and when I name almoſt all of that County neer you, will you abſolve them all?

2. Next you ſay [Thoſe I intended have your ſuffrage] Becauſe I ſaid [I had rather have a meer Engliſh Divine, than an Hebrew or a Syriac Sot. It ſeems you are of another mind: A Sot will ſerve to preach Divinity, and ſeek mens ſalvation, We feel the judgment of more than you; and this was enough to ſet you upon blew Aprons, &c. How forgot you Tub-Preachers?

3. And you would fain ſteal ſome honour to your ſelf from the Univerſities as a Defender of them: O happy advantage! But who accuſed them? I ſaid [I am grown of late years to take it p. 14for no very great honour to our young Preachers, that they are acquainted with the Univerſities.] And you put [It is] for [I take it] and ſo I take it ſtill. But late years ſignifieth not [always] nor [our young Preachers] all [Preachers. Doth he that diſhonoureth the Univerſity, deſerve honour for being at the Univerſity? What young ones you have I know not; but our young ones that I ſpeak of, do not yet go about to change my mind. Do you think all thoſe named (though he did not well) by the Gloceſter Cobler Ralph Wallis, are an honour to the University, or it to them: I ſtill take it for no very great honour, (I ſaid not none) for any ignorant, idle Lad, to have been at the University: But ſure I obtruded not this judgment on you or any other! Yet here is place for Fanaticks ſlighting Learning, and the Univerſities, Corah's holy Congregation, eclipſing the two Luminaries, Agamemnon, the Sodomites, and more ſuch ſtuff. And ſhall it be the Controverſie, whether you or I have written more for Learning and Univerſities; and which of us did more to ſave them from the Anabaptiſts and other Fanaticks when they were endangered? The viſible Evidences ſhall decide the Caſe. You may be more beholden to the Univerſities than I; but I have done more than wiſh their proſperity as well as you. But Quidvis ex quovis is your way. There went about Eleven or twelve out of Kederminſter Pariſh and School to the Univerſity and Miniſtry in my time, and many ſince: If you pleaſe enquire of the difference.

3. And when you tell me, that I deal no better with the Primitive Fathers; I firſt ask you, how p. 15could you make ſhift to be ignorant how ill you uſe the ancient Presbyters, yea and Biſhops of the Church your ſelf? were they not moſtly blew Aprons with you, and ſuch as you diſdain for want of Hebrew, &c. Know you not that the Paucity of Learned Presbyters was the true Cauſe that the few that were ſuch, got the place, and honour, and power of Biſhops above the reſt: And how few Philoſophers turned Chriſtians then? And how long it was before the Chriſtians had many conſiderable Schools, much leſs Univerſities? And what men the common Presbyters were; yea, and the Biſhops for the moſt part? Alexandria by Pantaenus, Clemens and Origen kept up ſome competent Learning; Baſil, Nazianzen, Niſſen, Chryſoſtom, were fain to go to ſuch as Libanius, and to Athens; except thoſe forenamed, and Juſtin Martyr, and Tertullian before them, and Hierom after: how few either Linguiſts or Philoſophers had we: And yet do not you account thoſe holy and worthy men, blew Aprons, ſuch as Ignatius, Polycarpus, Irenaeus, yea and Cyprian, almoſt all the Biſhops of Rome, Graeg. Neocaeſar. Antonius, Ab. Pachomius, Macarius; yea Epiphanius himſelf, Ephrem Syrus, Iſidore Peleſiota, Ambroſe, Philaſtrius, Theoph. Alexand, Ruffinus, Gaudentius, Maximus, &c. Beſides Simeon Stillita, and all the holy Famous Monks; yea Auguſtinus himſelf, the beſt rational Divine had little enough of the Tongues. Their Writings eaſily prove all this, with the Hiſtorical Deſcriptions of others concerning them.

I ſaid [I think it ſo ſhort a Work to read the few brief Writers of the three firſt Centuries, as maketh it more a diſhonour to be ignorant of them, than any great p. 16honour to be acquainted with them.] Inſtead of this you feign me to ſay (It is no great honour to be acquainted with them.) But is this true? Is a Poſitive and a Comparative Aſſertion all one?] But it ſeems you are not of my mind: But take it for a greater honour for a Miniſter to know them, than a diſhonour to be ignorant of them: And who vilified them more then you or I? If I ſay, that it is a greater diſhonour to be ignorant of the Alphabet, of the Grammar, of the Goſpel, than honour to be acquainted with them, ſo as to know what is in them; and you denied this, who vilified them moſt? Have you no greater matters than theſe to exerciſe your cenſorious faculty on: You know in how few months all the Writers of the three firſt Centuries may be read over. I pray you here leave every one to his liberty of judging: Among you it ſhall be a greater honour to know them, than a diſhonour to be ignorant of them: Among us it ſhall be a greater diſhonour to be ignorant of them, than an honour to know them. Could you endure any to differ from you, this Comprimize might ſerve: But the next time falſifie not my words. As for your intimation of ſome that cannot read them, do you not believe your ſelf, that its true of ten Conformiſts for one Non-conformiſt: I remember but one Nonconformable Miniſter in Worceſter ſhire that was not of an Univerſity, and I conjecture that he can read the Fathers: But by your ſpeeches, what ſtranger would not take it to be uſed by you for their ordinary Character, which you durſt not charge on One by name in all the County that is an Ordained Miniſter when I provoked you? Doth not this ſavour of Factious malignity? As to the prepoſtecus p. 17method of Reading late Writers before the Fa…hers, which you talk of: 1. Papiſts and Proteſtants in all Univerſities have moſt uſually done ſo, as far as I can hear. 2. Some take both together. 3. I ſuppoſe that if one Book be read this Month, and another the next, it is not like to make any great alteration in knowledge which goeth firſt. 4. Methinks ſtill you croſs your own intention, and tell men that thoſe Non-conformiſts honour the Fathers more than you; for the moſt judicious or neceſſary Authors ſhould be read with greateſt judgment, and mature judgment is uſually the greateſt. If you would have Boys learn the Fathers at School, as they do Tulli's Offices before their larger Catechiſms, they would be loſt, as Tulli's Offices uſually is: And that which they have once read, though without judgment, they would think they need not read again. 5. Do you believe that Lads that never read any Method of Theology or Catechiſm, could draw a good Catechiſm or Method out of the Fathers firſt: ſuppoſe them to have begun at (lem. Romanus, and taken in Dioniſ. Areop. and Ignatius, yea, and Martialis Apoſt. at a venture, true or falſe, and to have ended at the Nicene Council, yea or any where ſhort of Auguſtine: What a Method think you would they draw up? Yea if they muſt go further and read all Chryſoſtom, with his Enemy Epiphanius, and Auguſtine with his Hilary, Proſper. and Fulgentius, how would the Lads reconcile their Doctrinal Diſagreements, and then draw one Method out of both Parties? 6. Do you not condemn the Church of England, which did not ſend men firſt to the Fathers for a Method, but drew them p. 18up Catechiſm firſt, and then a Book of Articles, or Confeſſion, and Nowell's Catechiſm is Authoriſed by them, and then an Apology, and a Book of Homilies, &c. And commandeth not ſubſcription to the Fathers, but to theſe: And commanded no Commentary of the Fathers to be kept in the Churches, but Eraſmus's Paraphraſe. 7. And in good ſadneſs, can you that have read both, believe that the Writings of the Fathers are as methodical, as accurate, as ſound, as full, as uſeful to form a true Body of Theology in the Mind, as the later Writers are? Can you believe this? Is there any thing among them to theſe uſes, like Melancthon's Loci Communes, Tzegedines Tables, Calvin's Inſt. Polanus, Ludov. Crocius, Georgius, Sohnius, Ameſius, Theſes Salmuenſes, Synopſ. Theol. Leidenſium, Camero, &c. Or if you had rather like Arminius, Epiſcopius, Dr. Hammond, eſpecially like Biſhop Andrews, Dr. Field, Biſhop Davenant, &c. Are the beſt of their Practical Writings, even Macarius, Ephrem Syrus, &c. Comparable to abundance uſed now: Whether ſuch Non-conformiſts as Hilderſham, Perkins, Rogers, Burroughs, &c. or ſuch Conformiſts, as Sibbes, Preſton, Gurnal, the Practice of Piety, Hammond, &c. Do you think that the ſureſt and readieſt way for Youth to come to underſtand and believe the Doctrine of the Trinity, of the Godhead of Chriſt and the Holy Ghoſt; of the Hypoſtatical Union, of the twofold Nature and Will of Chriſt, &c. is to read firſt, all the firſt Writers that ſay little or nothing of them, and thoſe that ſay much amiſs of ſome of them; and then to read all the odious Wars at the Epheſine Council, at the Councils of Arimin. Sermium, and many more. And p. 19to read all the contentious Writings hereabout, of Cyril Alexand, Theodoret, Epiphanius, and down to Damaſcene. Is not one Joſhua Placaeus pro deitate Chriſti, worth all that ever was then wrote? I confeſs above all their Subjects, the times engaged them in the largeſt Defences of the Chriſtian Religion againſt the Heathens; In which Euſeb. in Praeparat. & Demonſtrate. Evang. & Auguſtine have done well: But ſo far ſhort of what is done of late by Grotius, du Pleſſis, Vander Meulin, Camero, yea Savonarola, Vives, and many more; as that all laid together, I am not for your Method. Take out but Juſtin, Tertullian, and Cyprian, in the three firſt Centuries, and Baſil Nazianz. Nyſſen, Hierom, and Chryſoſtom, and Auguſtin after, and I will not tell you what you will leave us. If Origen muſt be taken in, let them firſt fight it out to decide it whether he be a Hererick: For Halloix and our Conforming Originiſts tell us, that Theoph. Alexand. and Epiphanius, ended not the Controverſie by the baniſhment of Chriſoſtom. 8. And if all the Naevi of the ancient Fathers, were in our modern Divines, which not only Scultetus and other Proteſtants have gathered, but even Baronius, Sixtus Senenſis, Poſſevine, Bellarmine, &c. What would you call them? What Hereticks ſhould we be? Was there ever ſo great Error charged on any one of the 1800 Miniſters for their ſilencing, as is viſible in Dionyſ. Conſtitut. & Can. Apoſtol. Irenaeus, Clem. Alex. Tatianus, Arnebius, Lactantius, &c. But I forgat how much Dalaeus de uſu Patr. hath ſaid more on this Subject. If we had to do with Men that could let men live by them, that obey them not, even in the method of their p. 20Studies, this much alſo might compremiſe this difference. You ſhall ſet your Pupils firſt to read all the Fathers, and make out of them ſuch a Religion as they are able, or perhaps too many: (But then you muſt not be their Collector as you teach them; For 'tis as good to take a Method from a Book, as from your Mouth:) And We will teach Ours firſt to underſtand the Catechiſm, Urſine, Polanus, Ameſius, &c. with the Scriptures, and to read the Fathers in order, when they have judgment to know how to uſe them, and let the iſſue ſhew which is the wiſer way. But I pray you while you read the Fathers to your Scholars, call them not blew Aprons, nor Tub-Preachers, nor Fanaticks, as out as you find them to have wanted the Languages, or Academical Education, leſt it hinder your ſucceſs.

But I think all this quarrel with the Method of our Studies, is for the Intereſt of Dioceſan Prelacy; Therefore to ſave us any more trouble, we will refer all that Controverſie to your own Ignatius alone, (who determineth, That in every Church there is one Altar, and one Biſhop, with his Presbyters and Deacons) and with that we are content. In your Page 6, to keep your wont; 1. You feign me to ſay, that which I tell you is objected to me by others. 2. You falſly feign me to allow the Conformiſts to have ſome Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, my very mention of which words you out lay hold on, as an Honour granted to your …: But it is all a falſe ſuppoſition, I never ap…roved hofe words to the Conformiſts: I only told you, that (valuing Matter before Words) I … the Church had men that ſpeak ſound Doctrine p. 21in an apt and ſerious manner, for bringing Sinners to repentance in Engliſh, than ſuch as can lace an inſipid, empty, ſenceleſs Diſcourſe, with ſome ſhreds of Chaldee, Syriac, or Arabic: and though I could wiſh that all the Miniſters of Chriſt had all Accompliſhments fit even for the adorning of their …acred Work; yet I had rather hear a meer Engliſh Divine, than an Hebrew or a Syriac Sot.] You put me to the troubleſom repeating of my words, by your falſification. I did not mention Conformiſts at all, nor had any thought of appropriating theſe Paſſages to them any more than others: But only to tell you, that be he Conformiſt on Non-conformiſt, if like Auguſtine, Ambroſe, &c. he had ſound Divinity without the Languages now mentioned, I could better bear with him, than with one (whoever) that had Words for Oſtentation without Senſe; and to free you from all ſuſpicion of Injury, I never heard one of the young Conformiſts which I mention, make any oſtentation or credible ſignification of his skill in any one of thoſe Tongues: Nor do I remember but exceeding few Conformiſts in England of my acquaintance, that I will accuſe or ſuſpect of any ſuch skill: But having a Lad in my houſe not long ago come from School, who hath ſome acquaintance in all theſe Languages, and as many more, who I aſſure you is too young to be a Conformable Preacher, or Divine, he being next me, ſuggeſted the Matter of my Compariſon, when you vilified I know not whom (ſome unnamed) Non-conformiſts, for knowing little more than Engliſh Books can teach them. One Preſſick a Sadler in Leverpool hath written That againſt ſome of your Sect in Engliſh, p. 22which all their Languages will hardly enable them to Confute: And I hear but few of you that in real knowledge, are much more Angelical than Aquinas, ſubtle than Scotus, profound than Bradwardine, &c. when yet they and their Scholaſtick Tribe were commonly very ſorry Linguiſts. But its needful that I intreat you, that you affirm me not to have called them all Non-conformiſt…, becauſe I name them in this Compariſon.

As for the loads of Dirt that you ſay I caſt, and your ſaying, that you ſee (you ſhould have ſaid feel) that its difficult to forbear reproach towards them from whom we differ.] I anſwer; 1. And I ſee that its no wonder if that Tribe who think themſelves perſecuted, when they may not perſecute and ſilence others, do alſo think themſelves reproached, when others are juſtly vindicated from their reproach. 2. But its hard, that as Tranſubſtantiation muſt be an Article of ſome mens Faith; ſo we alſo muſt be obliged to believe, that all our Senſes and Experience are deceived: And that he that walketh in the Frost is a reproach for ſaying it is cold, becauſe another affirmeth that the Summer is colder, becauſe of now and then a rainy day. Alas, are ſo many great Chappelries, and many Pariſh Churches in ſeveral parts of the Land, utterly without any Miniſter at all; Are ſo many others ſo ſupplied (yea ſo many hundreds) as the Lovers of Souls do groan and weep for; and muſt we neither ſee nor feel it? But, Sir, if we muſt not feel it to you, let us feel it to God, that we may feelingly and not formally pray him to ſend forth more and better Labourers into his Harveſt. For my part, I ſeriouſly profeſs, that if the Gospel be p. 23but better Preached, and the Souls of all the Pariſhes in the Three Kingdoms better inſtructed for their Salvation, without us, than with us, I will never more ſpeak for a Liberty to Preach, much leſs deſire a Farthing of the Maintenance.

But, Sir, if you talk in Print as you do to me in private Letters, you might make ſtrangers of your Mind; But to the People of the preſent Age, that ſee, that hear, that know the Perſons, your words will be all vain: You may call them the Children of Hell for not believing you, but men are ſo naturally ſenſible, that your Anger will not change them neer London, and in it I think are the worthieſt Conformiſts in the Land (proportionably) And yet how many places not far off it, feel what I ſay. A worthy Learned, judicious, peaceable Divine (bred up in one of the next Pariſhes to you awhile) Mr. John Warren, is ſilenced at a great Town, Hatfield Broadoak in the Biſhop of London's Preſentation: Thus he hath long lived and done much good, yet ſince 1662 that he was ſilenced, the Place hath been void many years, becauſe the Maintenance is ſmall; and there muſt be none at all, rather than ſuch a one as He. But you call this caſting Dirt too: The ſtarved Souls muſt not take on them to feel their Caſe; And to be paſt feeling in ſuch caſes, is a ſtate that men are prone to of themſelves; and need no Preachers to help them to be indifferent in. Well! Souls muſt be ſtarved, or not be humble. [How can we prefer others before our ſelves] unleſs we will be content that thoſe for whom Chriſt died be neglected, and Ignorance ſet up to teach men knowledge, and the Ungodly to teach them Godlineſs. But as in Natune, p. 24ſo in Grace there is a Principle that will not ſuffer men by Words to be brought to take Famine for Food, nor ſaying a dry Leſſon, for teaching men the Way to Heaven: Bleſſed be God that hath poſſeſſed all renewed Chriſtians with a new Nature, which differenceth the Chaff from the Wheat, and words from real worth and ſubſtance. But you heard a Preacher ſay, That he thanked God he never heard a Preacher, but he could get ſomething by him. Anſwer, And I alſo am of Mr. G. Herbert's mind, Church-porch, p. 15. [If all want ſenſe, God takes a Text and preacheth Patience.] But for all that, I will not by my Approbation contract the Guilt of ſuch Preachers, nor of thoſe that ſet them up, and would have others ſilenced and calumniated, and then plead Humility for the valuing of theſe. Every Text that is preached on, is eaifying; and I hope by bare reading it we may be edified: And in Muſcovy where all Preaching is put down for fear of Treaſon, 1671. and yet now by Treaſon they are juſt between Life and Death) they ſeem to have great advantage in the uſing of your Argument, to tell them that would have Preaching, that Humility ſhould teach them to eſteem the Readers labour above their own. And truly Baſil and Chryſoſtom's Sermons which they read, are better than the Sermons in very many Churches in this Land, (which you that honour the Fathers its like will not deny:) But cheat not your ſelf ſo as to dream that we are the Aſſailants, when we meddle not with you but by way of Compariſon, when urged to it in our own defence. But becauſe Prejudice, and Factious paſſages, yellow Jaundices, a Party, &c. are here accuſed, I could almoſt find in my p. 25heart to ſend you a Copy of ſome of the Sermons that I have lately heard; But you would but pretend that this were ſome rare unuſual thing. O let the World take heed what Hiſtory they believe; I have as much ado to perſwade you, that many Churches are left in a caſe which calls for Tears, as I have to perſwade Bagſhaw and others on the other extream, that any of them have worthy or tolerable men: When yet many hundred thouſand Perſons have Senſe, Reaſon, and Experience to decide the Caſe. But theſe ten years experience, and much more, have taught me, not haſtily to believe a Faction, though in a matter where the common ſenſe is Judge: for Faction is one of the greateſt Lyars in the world.

But you ſay [Juſt ſo did Martin Marprelate traduce the regular Clergies. Anſwer, Juſt ſo, is juſt untruly ſpoken by you. As well may the Papiſts ſay to the Lutherans, Juſt ſo did the Heriticks of old: Rather juſt ſo did Chriſt tell ſome men, That they took away the Key of Knowledge, and would neither enter, nor ſuffer others. And juſt ſo he told them, That if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the Ditch. One of the laſt Sermons I heard, was on [Servants obey your Maſters in all things:] and our own Servants being almoſt wholly paſt by, it was applied to ſhew, That we are Servants to the Biſhops, and muſt obey them in all things: As if ſubjection without ſervitude had not been enough. One of the next before it, was to prove, That the Church may appoint Holy-days, becauſe Eaſter-day (which is the Lords-day) is a Holy-day of the Churches appointment: When moſt of the people had more need to have been taught p. 26the Cathechiſtical Principles, and, what they did when they were Baptized. I can name you the Man (and Place) that from the Title of John's Epiſtle [To the elect Lady] proved undeniably that then there were Lord Biſhops, becauſe an Elect Lady relateth to an Elect Lord, and there are no Elect Lords, but Elect Lord Biſhops. And if ſuch as you are pleaſed to approve of the ſilencing of many hundreds, yea of ſuch as Ameſius, Cartwright, Greenham, Hilderſham, John Rogers, Egerton, Dod, Bradſhaw, Rob. Parker, Paget, Hering, &c. (O what men) and the ſetting up of ſuch as Theſe, or Readers in their ſtead, all is ſalved by telling us, that we muſt think others better than our ſelves, and that we may profit by all. And if God did work by all alike, ſenſe or non-ſence, and made as much uſe of the Ignorant and Ungodly to procure Knowledge and Godlineſs in the world, I would ſay as you. I believe with K. James they have an ill Spirit, that recount Grievances to make themſelves popular; (I ſuppoſe Sir Edw. Sands named by you, was one he meant ſo ill do your Allegations agree) But I will not therefore conſent to their Guilt that make grievances, and then declaim againſt ſuch Popularity. They pleaſe not God and are contrary to all mens forbidding us to Preach to the Gentiles that they might be ſaved, for Wrath is come upon them to the uttermoſt, was this Popular declaiming againſt grievances? Deny your Children Food and Rayment, and then call them ſuch Popular declaimers.

Again you ſnatch at your former ſelf-deceiving fiction, [did theſe Hebrew Children and Ara bick Lads, come out of your School, they ſhould have been p. 27ſtroaked for Precious Youthes] Anſwer, How pleaſeing to you is a ſelfmade Cheat. Realy Sir, I know not one ſuch Lad that is a Conformiſt, your urgency may poſſibly provoke me to, ſend you if it pleaſe you, ſome of our homebred Fruits, to tell you whence I fetcht my compariſon. 1. (when you well mourn for your Alehouſes Sots, and yet ſay, that all our 1800 are not free) your Confeſſion on one part is conſtrained, your Accuſation on the other ſide I think is a Calumny. 1. Becauſe no one of all the Non-conformiſts was caſt out for Drunkenneſs, but many on the other ſide were caſt out uppon Accuſation of that ſin, ſeconded by Oathes, (how juſt I muſt not preſume to ſay) 2. I that know the Non-conformiſts better than you, know not one Drunkard amongſt them all in England. 3. I Challenge you to Name one of all the Miniſters I Named to you, or any other in the County of Worceſter where you live.

Next, (Page 7.) you pretend that I Change my judgement in valuing the Common Prayer and Homilies,] Anſwer, all falſe ſtill, no change at all. I ever valued the Common Prayer and Homilies much before ſuch Preaching as I deſcribed to you. And realy I think that the Non conformiſts much more value the Homilies, than the Conformiſts do.

Next, I am glad that you diſclaim the proving it of any of our Non-conformiſts in England, that he was ſilenced for Inſufficiency. But was this impertinent to one that intimated ſuch Charges of unlearnedneſs as you did. But, you ſay it is of another Nature (the reaſon of our ſilence) that we do not give ſecurity to Authority: that we will Preach up no more Wars, Anſwer, I ſummon your Conſcience to juſtify you p. 28ſilencing of ſo many and ſuch, in the neceſſity of ſo many Thouſand Souls, one moment after death, upon the Charge now given us on theſe reaſons, 1. I told you, and you could not deny it, that if you leave out your Oath and Subſcription to the Biſhops and Chancellors, with the Vaſt Aſſent, and Conſent, few Non-conformiſts will refuſe the renuncation mentioned by you about Wars. Yet ſtill have you that front to …ay it upon this. The many that took the Oxford Oath upon this, and the more that were ready to take it, if Judge Keeling had not preſently and openly declared it to be a renunciation of the National Vow. 2. I again provoke you to prove that there is one Non-conformable Miniſter of Ten or Twenty, that ever was proved, or can be, to have medled with the War againſt the King, 3. you read and cite my late Writing, wherein I ſay (Page 51. Differ. of the Pow of Mag. and Paſt. I aſcribe all that power to Kings which is given them by any Text of Scripture or acknowledged by any Council General, or Provincial, or by any Publick Authentick Confeſſion of any Chriſtian Church, either Proteſtant, Greek, or Papiſt, that ever I yet ſaw.) And is all this Inſufficient to a Liberty to Preach Chriſt, to ignorant Souls, muſt Proteſtants, Greeks, and Papiſts, be all ſilenced for want of Loyalty? I will ſubſcribe to the utmoſt, that which any of their Confeſſions give to Kings, 4. The Non-conformiſts, (as far as I am acquainted with them, have ſtill been ready in expreſs terms to promiſe never to meddle in any War againſt the King; Nay to promiſe to employ their intereſt, and labour to prvent it. I… this would ſerve they ſhould not be ſilenced, Are ſuch as Hooker and Bilſon thought worthy of Honour, p. 29and are theſe Principles of ours ſo much leſs ſecurity againſt War, as to leave us on that account uncapable to Preach. Let but reaſon and humility be judge of your Accuſation and Cauſe. And here to ſhame your ſelf, yet more Marchiaement Need-hams Book, is inſtanced in. A Man that is no Miniſter but a Phyſician: who in thoſe daies Wrote againſt us Non-conformiſts, and againſt my ſelf by Name, when the generality of the now ſilenced Non-conformiſts, and (excluding the Sectaries) ſtood, out refuſing for the moſt part the engagement whom the Royaliſts of my vicinity took it. This Man that Wrote againſt me, and ſince the Kings return, hath welcomed him in florid Poems: is inſtanced in to tell Men what the Nonconformiſts are, and why they are ſilenced. Truly Sir I conjecture you are a Stranger to them, (as abundance of the Prelatiſts are) though you lived in England, and have dwelt ſomewhere where you knew but ſome Giddy Sectaries, and judge by them of thoſe you knew not. And here (Page 8.) I am glad that you deny not, that the worſt among us are received, if they do but conforme, which ſheweth for what crime we are kept out. And for your exclamation againſt us that come not in, you would be impatient if I ſhould but deſcribe your dealing, What if you lived under in ſuch a power of Uſurpers as would ſay [if all the Miniſters in Germany Holland &c. will under their hands, or delibrately profeſs, that no one in the Kingdom is bound by the Oath of Supremacy or Allegiance, and promiſe that he will never endeavour the reformation of any Corruption in Religion, but will Aſſent and Conſent to every Word in the Interim, and will p. 30uſe Exorciſm, &c. they ſhall have leave to Preach elſe they ſhall all be ſilenced and deprived of all Miniſterial Liberty and maintenance.] And the… Caſſander ſhould have told them, that they ſhu… out themſelves if they come not in. I ſay not that our Caſe is the ſame with this. I know it is not But Caſſander dealt more Candidly than you do Is there any thing that could be impoſed, that would make you a Non-conformiſt? If there be, might non any Man talk to you at ſuch rates, even tye your Legs, and intreat you to go: or blindfold you, and ſay, read who ſtruck you.

§. 6. What need you more to the preſent Caſe, when you ſay that there is never a Cherubim to hinder them, than this, that though it be no ſin in your Opinion, it is a hainous ſin in theirs.? And will your Opinion prove it, where we ſearch as diligently as you do to know the truth: If we be not as good as you, you may allow us to love our ſelves as well. Tell me what time of any Uſurpation had ſuch impoſitions, which the main Body of the preſent Conformiſts then in being, did not conform or ſubmit to, or which they refuſed to the Coſt of all their Church maintenance (for the liberty of Preaching, too many of them could eaſily forego it) I know that many were turned out by others, that would gladly have conformed, if that would but have been accepted. I knew not three Men in the three Counties about me, that would not then have conformed, if that would have kept them in their livings. If there were more unknown to me there or elſewhere, I would but have asked thoſe men, whether it was a ſin that was impoſed on them: And if ſo, whether it would have prevailed with them p. 31if one had done as you, and told them that they kept out themſelves, and that no Cherubin ſtood in the way, and how hainouſly they ſinned in forſaking their Calling. It ſeems by your Complaint of the Tryers (men that I had nothing to do with) that either you did Conform then (or would have done, if they had not refuſed you:) They ſay you did Conform. I am ſure that moſt of my Acquaintance that were ſequeſtred, would have Conformed to have kept their Livings: But if we be of another mind now, when Declarations, Subſcriptions, Oaths, and Practices are impoſed on us; which—what would you have us to do? Our manifold Intereſts obligeth us to judge them lawful if we could: We loſe as much by not Conforming, as moſt of you get by Conforming. Muſt we judge all lawful, becauſe our Guides do ſo? How far will that hold? Will it hold in Italy, or in France, or in Denmark; or formerly in Scotland if you had lived there? He that muſt take all for good, which another calleth ſo, muſt know who it is, that is ſo far to be truſted on; eſpecially of thoſe that renounce Infallibility.

2. The Irony was palpable enough to have prevented your Fancy, that I give up the Cauſe, ſcil by confeſſing the Crime that we ſought to ſave Souls, and that we did eat bread. A little will encourage you ſometimes to great Concluſions.

§. 7. P. 9. Here you have many things to ſay, to prove that men that came into Sequeſtrations, either ſought not, or procured the good of Souls: But O! firſt remember, that if that were true, yet all thoſe (or neer all) were turned out of their Sequeſtrations before the ſilencing Bartholomew Day, 1662. p. 322. Do you think that it had been as conſiſtent with the good of Souls, that they had for ſixteen years been all untaught, and left without any Miniſters, or Publick Worſhip, rather than any ſhould have ſucceeded the ejected. 3. If our Preaching did no good to Souls, why ſhould you think that yours does any? If you preach the ſame Goſpel, why ſhould you think ſo well of your own works above other mens? And if yours alſo do no good, why do men pay their Tythes, and trouble themſelves to hear ſuch as do but trouble the World. 4. Do you not Conſpire with the Quakers that falſly cried out that our Miniſtry did not profit men; and with the Levellers, that would have taken down the Miniſtry as unprofitable. 5. But O! what an attempt you make to prove how little Hiſtory is credible, to teach men to ſay, How know we that Hegiſyppus, that Euſebius, that Socrates, that Epiphanius ſay true, when ſuch men as ſhould be the Preachers of Truth, can ſay what they do of common or notorious matters of Fact; yea and confidently ſtand to it, to the face of that Age which knoweth that they ſpeak falſly. 1. Who are more competent Judges, whether men received any good by Chriſts Goſpel which we preached you or they. Do you know the Hearts and Lives of many hundred thouſands better than they do themſelves: I know many are deceived with ſelfflattery, but are you that are a ſtranger to their hearts and them, the fitteſt Judges. Do you better know what Faith, Hope and Love what Repentance and Obedience the Goſpel hath produced. To inſtance among ſtrangers, is the way of darkneſs or evaſion; I may ſpeak boldlieſt where I know p. 33beſt. Ask the People of Kederminſter, whether in that time they received any good by the Goſpel: Know you not, that when ſome ſuch did but preach to them at the rates you now talk, it ſo alienated their minds from Prelacy and Conformity, who before were not ſo averſe thereto, as that they have put it paſt my power to reconcile them ſo far to them as I am reconciled my ſelf; and were not my intereſt very great in them, and their Preacher very honeſt, I ſhould not get them to come to Church: Such good the Spirit of Envy and Faction doth in the World, while it pretendeth to heal the hurt that others do. 2. Let the effects that are viſible be judge; if places that abounded with Rioting, Drunkenneſs, Ignorance, and Ungodlineſs, do now ſearch the Scriptures and meditate with delight in the Law of God, and conſtantly worſhip him, and their Families call upon his Name, if they live ſoberly, righteouſly, and godly, forſaking the former luſts of their ignorance, and ſeek firſt the Kingdom of God and his righteouſneſs, and live in charity and peace; will it prove that theſe People are never the better, becauſe Faction cauſeth a ſtranger to tell them ſo. But you ſay [They were not the Souls of every Soil, ſuch as did inhabit poor Villages, but ſuch as dwell in fatteſt Parſonages, or elſe in great Towns, where theſe men who were moſt for the good of Souls, might act their parts, &c.] Anſwer. Farwel the credit of all Hiſtory, if there be no truer Hiſtorians: (But how ſhall Poſterity know who they are?) Is there an Engliſh-man that can be ignorant that the endeavour then was that no Church might be unſupplied. There is no talking a far off, was not Mr. Cowper at Moſeley p. 34Chappel near you, Mr. Rock at Rowley, Mr. Triſtram at Clents, Mr. Walderne at Broom, Mr. Baldwin at Chadſley, Mr. Sergeant at Stone, Mr. Baldwin at Wolverley, my Aſſiſtant at Mitton Chappel, Mr. Lovel at Alveley, &c. Doth not all the Country about you know, that this which you ſay is falſe: And are you then to be believed in difficult moral Caſes of Duty or Sin, who deny publick fact which all the Country about you knoweth. Go into any one of theſe Churches, and tell them that theſe men were never their Preachers, and try whether you can convert them to believe you. 2. But that the great Towns (which commonly had leaſt Maintenance) ſhould be firſt provided for: That Tribe of Men ſhould not deny, who hold that none but Cities of old had Churches and Biſhops, nor ſhould have Biſhops to this day. Nor ſhould they teach Enemies to ſay, Theſe Biſhops ſettled themſelves only in the great Cities to act their parts with moſt popularity. Is that the reaſon of your remove to Hampton. 3. But what were the parts they had to act? Their work it ſelf is the beſt evidence of that. Let the two Printed Agreements of the Worceſterſhire Miniſters, one for Diſcipline, and one for Catechiſing and perſonal inſtruction, with my Reformed Pastor, be a ſtanding Witneſs to Poſterity, what the Countries Miniſters work was, againſt all factious Calumny: We lived not idle; not one of a multitude had an hundred pounds a year Maintenance, that I could know of. In my great place (of Sequeſtration) mine was leſs, when I was elſewhere oft offered above Three hundred pounds; we preached twice or thrice a week, and rarely meddled with any p. 35Controverſies, except againſt the Quakers, and Anabaptiſts, when they came to trouble the Churches: We ſpent half two clays a week in Conference with each Family, to Catechize them, and help them to underſtand the Catechiſm, and to prepare them for another World. Beſides all our Labour of Diſcipline; to bring the Scandalous to Repentance, and all the other Offices of our places. In the laſt Leaf of my [Uiverſal Concord] the practice of the Church where I lived is recited. This was the Part we acted for our ſelves. 2. But you add [What good was done to Souls by theſe Intruders, late Poſterity will find, &c. Anſwer, 1. I think that the preſent Age that hath the Experience may better know than Poſterity, unleſs they have truer Hiſtorians than you. 2. Many thouſand Souls already in Heaven, and many thouſand more yet on Earth, that were brought to the true knowledge of God and themſelves, by the Labours of ſuch Miniſters, will be their Witneſs what good they did. But the Stranger meddleth not with their Joys. 3. If you impute to them either the Errors or Work of Sectaries, whom they were the principal means of ſuppreſſing, and whom they did much more againſt than you: Or yet the Works of the Rebellious Souldiers, that pulled down Powers, and ſet up themſelves; you will but ſhew your malignity and unrighteouſneſs: If you do not, your Accuſation ſignifieth nothing. If you mean that the People will not be brought to like ſilencing of Prelats better than ſuch Preachers; and this is the breach which the skilfulleſt of you cannot heal, I am of your mind: And the Names of Intruſion and Schiſm will not ſerve to change their p. 36Minds. As for Intruſion, I knew very few ſuch in thoſe days that ever came to a place before they were ſought to and intreated; And I know very few now that are not Seekers. 3. Your next, againſt Preaching down Authority and Plundering other mens Livings to ſave Souls, ſheweth more what you are, than what they did: When you know that I have provoked you to name one of ten or twenty that ever preached down Authority, or meddled with Arms; Moſt coming out of the Univerſities after the Wars, and many never meddling with them (though ſeveral Conformiſts did.) And ſure the Party is not to be judged or denominated by a tenth or twentieth part. I named many men to you in the former Paper, and in this: Enquire how few of all thoſe ever meddled with Arms. 2. And thoſe few that did, almoſt all did it before they came into Sequestrations, and many never did ſo after; and thought it had been Authority which they had ſtood for: And as he that erreth in Medicine upon the judgment of a Colledge of Phyſicians, ſo he that erreth in Law upon the judgment of a Parliament, is more pardonable than ſome other men, and may again be capable of Preaching the Goſpel, or elſe ſuch ſhould not now be readmitted. 3. And, if eating the Bread of Preachers be it you call plundring other mens livings, their Error if it were one, had theſe excuſes, that they thought that the Tythes had been firſt devoted to God, and that he was the firſt proprietor, and that they were determinately devoted to him for this uſe, to maintain a lawful Miniſter there to officiate: and they thought that when the then Ruling Parliament had caſt out ſome p. 37under the Notion of Inſufficient and Scandalous, it was lawfull nevertheleſs for others to keep up a Church, and teaching, and Worſhip of God, and therefore to Eat the Dedicated Bread. And as for the turning out of any for the Kings Cauſe, that were not utterly Inſufficient or Drunkards, or ſuch like, we Printed our judgment againſt it; and many would not ſucceed ſuch men, which gave advantage to ſome that were Sectarians to ſucceed them? And what got the People by that ſcruple? As for the fifth part, you know it was ordinarily paid, (and now nothing) and, Mr. Lea's Book made no alteration. Your talk of medling with Temporals, in ordine ad ſpiritualia, is a meer impertinency. But if you ask Biſhops, and Chancellors, whether it be lawfull to meddle with ſpiritual things, in ordine ad temporalia, (yea and Prieſts too) it will be a ſeaſonable queſtion, (if ſet home.) I am glad to read that they did but threaten to ſilence you. By which I perceived you were not then ſo ſcrupulous as to loſe all, to eſcape Conformity to thoſe times. And I alſo was threatned to be ſilenced as well as you: and virtually ſequeſtred by an Ordor againſt ſuch as would not keep their Faſts, and Thanksgivings, and that ſpake againſt their Authority (which I openly did) and that would not take the Engagement: and yet I was never ſilenced by them, (but only as to one Aſſize Sermon,) that work being fitter for Men, whoſe proper Office it is, and that jure divino. And my life was frequently threatned by the Souldiers, as well as yours. But I muſt [tell you truly, ſhould I reaſſume my Chair, would I continue in this Courteous Mood.] Anſ. You have proved already, that a Queſtion p. 38may be falſe, may you not as eaſily prove that it may be Malignant, 1. What is my Chair? Had I any but the Pulpit, or Reading place, at Kederminster, 2. Why do you queſtion my Courteſie, when I both Printed my deſires and reaſons, againſt hindring any worthy Men from Preaching the Goſpel, upon pretence of the Cauſe of the King or Prelacy heretofore, and when I have in Three or Four Books this very Year, maintained the ſame Impartiality and Principles. Yea moſt of all my Writings and Preaching for 25 Years have been much againſt Faction: and for the Union, Concord, and Concurrence of all Miniſters and Chriſtians, who are agreed but in Chriſtianity it ſelf, and the Eſſentials of Church Communion, in carrying on Gods Work with mutual forbearance. And when I never had a hand in putting any ſuch men out, and have kept many of your Party in: What room after this for ſuch a Queſtion? Next you carp at me, for telling you (in reputation of your Calumnies by a Compariſon) what Miniſters were in my time, and in the Places where I lived: You [marvel at my Praecox ingenium, that could judge before I was ten years old, Who were ignorant, Who learned Preachers: You fear it is ſtill the greateſt part of ſome mens Devotion to cenſure the Parts and Gifts of the Preacher.] Anſwer, O what relief are poor Souls like to have from ſuch uncompaſſionate Shepherds! I conjecture you believe me not, I will do what I can to cure you. But remember, I open not my Fathers Nakedneſs, while I ſpeak nothing but what Congregations ſaw and heard; and that to you alone now in ſecret, and that upon your urgency. I was not bred in Wales nor Ireland, p. 39but firſt in Shropſhire. At ſix and ſeven years old my firſt Maſter was a Reader, never at Univerſity, and Preached once a Month: I name him not, becauſe he was aſ…ied to me, and mended. My next Maſter Mr. Heyward was a Lay-man, publickly read the Common Prayer, but never Preached, but proved after an honeſt Lay-man, though no Scholar. My next Maſter, Mr. Cope, Read and never Preached. My next Maſter, Mr. Yale, B. D. Preached once a Month, and drank himſelf, Wife and Children, to be ſtark Beggars. Theſe at Rowton: And ſtill note that we had no other. I then came to live at Eaton Conſtantine; the Vicar of the Pariſh, Mr. Richard Wolley, never Preached: The Parſon of the Town, Sir William Rogers, above fourſcore, had two Livings, and never Preached in his life, as was ſaid: When his Eye-ſight failed him, he ſaid Common Prayer by Memory; and John Colly a Day-labourer, one year, and Thomas Gaynam a Taylor, another year read the Scriptures, but none Preached. Having two Places, when he was abſent, his Curate was firſt, his Son Francis Rogers, rarely if ever Preached; a famous Stage-player: (One of his Sports was on the open Stage, to let his Pudenda nudata per reſtem laceratam quaſi neglecta ſe oſtentare ad riſum populi movendum. His next Curate, my Maſter John Rogers (his Grand-child) was unlearned and never Preached. His next Curate, Richard Bathoe, was a Lawyers Clerk, broken by drinking, who was wont, to our ſmart, to let us know when he was drunk; and never Preached there but once, which was in my hearing when he was drunk, as I told you: If he be not lately dead, he is yet a Miniſter p. 40very near you at Patſhill. In the ſame Village another Neighbours Son turned Prieſt, Mr. Thomas Rock, who being detected to be vicious, and have forged Orders, fled: So much for our Pariſh (Leighton.) The next Eaſtward, Bildwas, had a Miniſter that never Preached; nor could I learn that ever they had before a Preacher ſince the Reformation. The next to that was Madeley, whoſe Miniſter preached not, and was as famous for Debauchery, as the Madmen of Madeley for Folly. On the other ſide us, the next Church Creſſage had no Preaching. The next Kenley, had Mr. Bennet a Reading Curate, that Preached not. Mr. Bent at Harley; my Kinſman Mr. Wood, B. D. at Cund, ſeldom: And the ſame I may ſay of too many other Places round about us. At Kederminſter Mr. Dance Preached (as ſome call'd it) once a Quarter, or Half-year: Mr. Turner at Mitton, ſometime (when ſober) once a day, of whom I told you, that I knew by Examination, his intollerable Ignorance of the Creed. At Dowles our foreſaid Sir William Rogers was Parſon. In the two Chappels in the Rock Pariſh (which I confeſs had ſmall Maintenance) one Reading Curate made Ropes for his living, and another cut Faggots. I will add no more; and this is only private to your ſelf: to excuſe my ſelf and the poor people, who you think [place our Devotion in judging of the Miniſters Parts.] Alas, poor Souls! Into ſuch hands are you fallen: The Lord be more merciful to you, than ſuch Paſtors; who if for Bread, they give you a Stone, will reproach you as Cenſurers of your Teachers, if you find fault: And when the firſt Work needful to ſave Sinners, p. 41is to awaken them to a care of their own Souls, and a love to Teaching; ſome men are angry with them, if they will care whether they are taught or untaught. Of all Merchandize, I love not making Merchandize of Souls. But I pray you dream not, that I take all the old Miniſtry for ſuch as theſe? I know there are many excellent men: But I think the preſent Non-conformiſts as fit for the Sacred Office as theſe; (Is that preſumption?)

§. 10. p. 10. I thank you for your tranſitions and purpoſed brevity: To requite you; 1. Your firſt Paragraph doth but ſay in effect, 1. That you untruly ſuppoſe me to meddle with the Controverſie, which I do but wiſh for leave to meddle with. 2. And that you think many things good, which I think to be ſtark naught. But becauſe you call me ſo oft to Diſpute the main Controverſie, I tell you once, that it is diſingeniouſly done, ſtill in Print and Writing to call for more, as if we had never done any thing in it, while our Printed Books lie by you unanſwered. Anſwer my Fifth Diſpute of Church Government, 1. In the Point of Prelacy, 2. Of Reordination, 3. Of Impoſitions; and then call out for more when you have done: Or if you have more time, Anſwer Gerſom-Bucer, de Gubernat. Eccleſ. Baine's, Dioceſanes Tryal, Robert Parker de Polit. Eccleſ. & Blondel de Epiſcopis, where Dr. Hammond left at the entrance. One quarter of the Reaſons of our Non-conformity, is contained in theſe Books; and ſome are in Ames his freſh Suit, and Nicols and Bradſhaw; but the moſt are upon a new account, which our Fathers were not put upon.

p. 422. I am aſhamed to Read a Preacher, a Writer, an Accuſer of the afflicted, to talk of the dreadfull ſubject of Oaths ſo poorly as you do. Though I tell you, I will not diſpute this Point with you without a Licenſe from Authority, I will ſay, 1. That when you ſay [Take an unlawfull Oath in what ſenſe you pleaſe, and will there be much need of abſolution.] You ſhould not ſo confuſedly have Named an Unlawfull Oath. Remember that you have proved againſt me, that a Question may be falſe. And that an Indefinite in reneceſſariâ, or thus unlimitedly delivered, goeth for an Univerſal: an Oath is unlawfull, 1. Quoad actum imponendi, 2. Quoad actum jurandi, 3. Quoad materiam juratam. If the Materia Jurata be Lawfull, do you think that the unlawfulneſs of the other two, do leave no need of an Abſolution? 1. What if a Thief force me to ſwear Allegiance to the King, or to ſwear to do ſome Duty, doth it not add a Second bond? Or what if I vowed without the Command of any power? 2. What if I ſinned in making a Vow, or Oath, by taking it from a Uſurper▪ or without juſt Cauſe, or unreaſonably, or to an ill end, &c. If the Matter be good, doth it not then bind me. And de materiâ, what if one Article or many be bad and another good, doth the Neighbourhood of the bad, diſoblige me from the good. If ſo, it is but inſerting ſome bad Clauſes, and men may be bound by no Oaths or Vows, as in the former Caſe. It is but ſwearing ſinfully, to an ill end, &c. and never be obliged. But if this be your Divinity about Oaths and Perjury, you have no cauſe to cenſure them ſo deeply that ſwear not as quick and deep as you. Your next Queſtion is, Muſt the ſenſe of p. 43an Oath be meaſured by him that receiveth it, or …rom the Authority and Intention of thoſe that im…oſe it. Anſwer, Still worſe and worſe: what Confuſion is here? Who knoweth whether by …eaſuring the ſenſe, you mean as to the taking of the …ath, or as to the Obligation of it when taken. Your Muſt ſeemeth to ſpeak of both. But 1. He …hat taketh an Oath from one in lawful Authority, …r from an Equal, is bound to take it in the ſenſe …f the Impoſer or Requirer, whom we would ſa…isfie. 2. He that taketh an Oath from a Thief …r Murtherer, ſome Caſuiſts ſay, (Is bound not …o lie to hide his ſenſe, but) may take it in a ſenſe …ifferent from the Impoſers, when the plain words …ill bear it without a Lie. As if a Thief or Tray…r ſhould force the King to ſwear that he will do …his or that, which hath an equivocal Name; If …he Traytor's ſenſe be not according to the Com…oner uſe, or defanioſiore analega…o, but the King's, they think that the King is not bound to wear in his ſenſe, though yet he may be bound …o ſwear, to ſave his life. 3. But our Caſe is only …e obligatione juramenti praeſtandi: If a man that …as bound to take the Oath in a Uſurpers ſenſe, …hall either miſtake the Uſurpers ſenſe, or ſhall …ke it in another ſenſe, as ſuppoſing that he is not …ound to the Uſurpers; I ſay, that this man if …e make this A VOW to God, and not only an …ath to Man, is bound to keep it in the ſenſe he …ok it in, if it were materially lawful. If I Vow to …ive ſo much to a Miniſter of Chriſt, and he that …rced me to it meant a Maſs Prieſt, and I miſtook …im, and meant a true Miniſter; I am bound by …y Vow to give it him. If your confuſed Queſtion p. 44ſuppoſe the contrary, then a man's Vows to God are all null, if he that forced him to it were of another ſenſe. A meer Oath to confirm a Contract to a man, is to be interpreted by the Contract, being but an Obligation to perform it; yea, and may be remitted by the man that will remit his Right. But in a Vow, God and Man are the Parties; and God's ſenſe impoſing, and Man's ſenſe intending in the Vow, are each obliging: So that if ten men uſe the ſame words in Vowing, in ten ſeveral ſenſes, they are ten ſeveral Vows, and all oblige if materially lawful. And therefore when you ſay, that the Vow was commanded by Uſurpers, and when I know not the ſenſe of one that vowed, let him that will ſay of Millions, that they are not bound, no not when they vow againſt Schiſm, and Prophaneneſs. But you cite here a Non conformiſt againſt me, Ameſius Caſe Conſc. to you, p. 216. to me p. 203. But 1. He ſpeaketh not at all of our Queſtions, In what ſenſe an Oath bindeth when taken, but only in what ſenſe it ought to be taken. 2. He ſpeaketh not of a Vow, but of a meer Oath. 3. He ſpeaketh only of the Caſe of Equivocation; but he that ſweareth in ſenſu famoſiore, to a Thief whoſe mind he is not bound to follow, doth not equivocate. 4. He himſelf ſaith in the next Caſe that the words of an Oath muſt be taken, Eo ſenſu quem audientes concepturos judicamus, id eſt, regulariter eo ſenſu quem habent in Communi hominum uſu. But the Audientes and the Impoſers may be different; and a man may think ſometimes that the Impoſers ſenſe may be contrary to the uſum communem, and his own agreeable to it. But this impertinent Queſtion is nothing to us: Suppoſe p. 45that the Powers were bound to take it in the Impoſers ſenſe, but did not; the Queſtion is, whether it bind them not in their own ſenſe: (And in ſome poſſible Caſes in both, and to both.)