not to be cast off although it swarm full of faults though there be faults in the Administration either of Doctrine or of the Sacraments yet we ought not to estrange our selves from the Communion of it for all the Articles be not of one sort and therefore for every light dessention we ought not rashly to forsake the Church 4. The value which our Englesh Presbyterians just before the Wars had of our Church and its lay-Communion is not impertinent Letter of many Ministers in Old England to their brethren in new E. pub by Mr. Ash c 1643. but very considerable together with the Censure they then pass'd upon such as refused it They speak to their brethren in New England thus if we deny Communion with such a Church as ours there hath been no Church these 1400 years with which a Christian might lawfully joine Nay that if such scruples as are now in your heads may take place it will be unlawful to hold Communion with any society under Heaven 5. Mr. Gifford an old Non-Conformist wrote a book Gifford Printed 1590. call'd a plain Declaration wherein he doth not vindicate every thing in our Church but that there is no sufficient Cause of seperation Complains thus some are proceeded to this that they will come to the Assemblies to hear Sermons and the Prayers of the Preacher but not to the prayers of the Book which I take to be a more grievous sin than many do suppose But yet this is not the worst for sundry are gon farther and faln into a damnable Schysm and the same so much the more fearful and dangerous in that many do not see the foulness of it but rather hold them as Godly Christians and but a little over-shot in some matters 6. We come now to review the Testimonies we gave in our last from the late Presbiterian Controversie with the Independents we pitcht upon some words of the Provincial Assembly in London and the Argument sent to the Assembly of Divines by the London Ministers from Sion Colledge two eminent bodies of known Presbyterians And we yet see no reason to judg but their words and Arguments are very direct and full to the purpose especially considering the most pittiful shifts of our Answerer about them As to the words in the Divine right of Presbytery be saith that Jus divin Reg. Eccl. book was supposed to be penn'd by Dr Roberts now a Conformist But what doth he mean was he a Conformist then or doth not the book plead for the Presbyâ—ery and its Jus Divinum and in the same sence by which he himself defines a Presbyterian yea was it not owned by and published under the name of the provincial Assembly of Presbyterians and what matter is it then who pen'd it the like dealing you use about Mr. Trapp you say he is a Conformist what then hath he not given a just account of the book written by the London Ministers as I said he did their reasons alledged by me were alledged by a Conformist yet they are theirs still What manner of answering is this It were not pardonable with some Adversaries but you are faln into merciful hands The Authority of the persons then is clear the words I cited out of the preface to that book called Jus Divinum regiminis Ecclesiastici were these Parochial Churches are received as true visible Churches of Christ and most convenient for edification gathering Churches out of Churches hath no footsteps in Scripture is contrary to Apostolical practice is the scattering of Churches the Daughter of Schysm the Mother of Confusion and the step-Mother of edification Observe they condemn gathering Churches out of our Churches absolutely and without any respect to the principles upon which it was done particularly they call it the Daughter of Schysm seperation in order unto the gathering of Churches being Schysm it self in the then Presbyterian opinion The Arguments I took out of the Letter of the London Ministers Sion-Coll to the Assembly were these the Independents are guilâ—y of Schysm 1. Because they refuse Communion with our Churches in the Sacraments 2. They erect seperate Congregations under a seperate undiscovered Government never charging them with any Brownistical principles but the fact it self an undoubted proof of what they undertook to prove Again to the same purpose they charge them with three great Scandals how you will avoid either of them I cannot Devine 1. That they seperated from the true Church 2. That they endeavoured by drawing Members out of it to make up their seperate Churches to weaken and diminish the Church 3. That they endeavoured to get a warrant to authorize both viz. by a Toleration and this say they we think to be plainly unlawful Now hereupon I am bold to challenge our Answerer or any one else to prove clearly that any one Eminent Presbyterian before 1660. was not utterly against all the three against such seperation such gathering Churches and such Toleration Convince me if you can but not by telling me they are now for them all That they would Tolerate things Tolerable that is gathering Churches and persons Tolerable that is Presbyterians as you speak very intelligibly But no wonder they are chang'd in their thoughts of these things the case is Alter'd as you hint True there are some new impositions upon Ministerial Conformity but other Alterations render our Lay-Communion more easily than it was before the wars when the Presbyterian denied it not as was noted out of Mr. Baxter before who also assures us that he never heard of five Non-Conformists besides the five dissenting Defence of his cure p. 13. brethren in the Assembly at Westminster he means they conformed as Ministers of the Church of England before they sate there However that Churches may not be gathered out of Churches is asserted not as a Temporary truth but moral depending upon the Nature of a Church which never alters or gives any occasion of change in the judgment about this point The Books of Mr. Cawdrey that Captain in the Presbyterian Cawdrey Army against Dr. Owen and the Independents challenge you all We may saith he prove them to be Schysmatical 1. by a voluntary Seperation from true Churches with whom we dare say they may Communicate without sin and so consequently causelesly rending the body of Christ 2. By their renouncing Communion with us to set up a Church of another Indep further provd Schys p. 73 74 constitution and so condemning our Churches ipso facto as no truely constituted Churches Mark condemning our Churches ipso facto Their very Act is enough whether they avow such principles or not and consequently what ever you pretend to the contrary your very departure from us and making new Churches does of it self condemn you of Schysm He concludes his first book bravely they saith he that Ind. great Schysm raise differences in them i. e. in our Churches and draw disciples from them and renounce Communion
less hath it any colour of candor or justice to say I assert it and maintain it How then can you answer me or give me satisfaction for saying first that that which your self hath argued from my proposition is my proposition and then write a book against me for it This is not too like a favorable Disputant were the consequence most obvious and immediate whereas in the case in hand 't is neither so nor so but contrarily very doubtful obscure and remote your self being Judge The Question here is Whether I cannot write against gathering Churches out of our Churches and yet not exhort you to desert your Ministery You hold it in the Negative Now to fill up the vaâ—ances of your former uneven Argument to make it good there is need of the skill of a learned Propositionist to work thus You must preach you may not preach in the Temples therefore you must preach somewhere else Here 's the place provided but where are the People Let 's try again if you must preach you must have people to hear you there are none to be had but such as belong to our Churches therefore you must gather Churches out of our Churches therefore I that exhort you not to gather Churches out of our Churches exhort you to desert your Office and Ministery and therefore by defending your Office you answer my Book of Toleration not to be abused by gathering Churches out of Churches Thus strangers greet and both ends are at length brought together but their firm friendship depends upon the strength of this golden Chain or Rope of Sand which may come to be tried anon In the mean time let us change the Scene and then make judgement of this way of arguing your self Suppose I should write a Book and intitle it Sedition Rebuked and call this a Reply to your Answer taking it for granted that every one would see the consequence as well as my self and thereupon at every turn I should charge you with the Defence of Sedition and labor against you to prove Sedition a sin meaning all this while though never observing any such thing when I purposely and largely with about threescore Propositions endeavor de industria to state the Question that Sedition lies at the bottom and in the consequence and tail of your Discourse thus in many places you intimate the Priest is intollerable and there whether the People will endeavor regularly to remove him or not you exhort them to disown and forsake him and the place by Law appointed for Publick Worship and to gather themselves into another Church under another Non-conforming Minister This is to exhort the People to begin a publick Reformation without their Governors this is Sedition or the way to Sedition to say no worse and this will therefore justifie my manner of writing against you and my frequent charging sedition and the defence of sedition upon you Pray be ingenuous how would you like this way of arguing Whether the consequence be true or false you will not say this is fair dealing you would say you were highly injured I am sure you would And now I am come so near it I will present you with such an instance in your Book that will to the purpose convince you at once both of your Ingenuity in this way of arguing and of the censure you give me upon a false supposition that I had abused my worthy Friend Dr. Baxter in affirming that he had said something that he never said 'T is thus You tell me p. 48. that Baxter as you familiarly call him taketh himself to be abused by my Allegations provoketh me to cite any of his words which are against Non-conformists preaching as they have opportunity and somewhat sharply mind me that he and Mr. Ball understand themselves better then I do them Now who would not hence conclude that I had said that that reverend Person had written against Non-conformists preaching as they have opportunity But where have I said so or any thing to that purpose I know your civility and veracity will engage you to shew it therefore you refer your Reader to p 16. of my Book There indeed I find the place which you mean but not one tittle of the words or thing you say My words there are these Particularly the Arguments of Mr. Baxter and Mr. Crofton for communion with our Parochial Congregations are still the same and ought to be answered before you begin your work of Separation and think of building new any Synagogues But is this to say that Mr. Baxter hath written against Non-conformists preaching as they have opportunity Yet if Mr. Baxter hath writ nothing against Non-Conformists Preaching Cure of Church-Divisions and Defence of against Bagshaw which I never said Mr. Baxter hath written Arguments for Communion with our Parochial Congregations which I did say and still maintain and neither Mr. Baxter no your self will deny it except in Drollery And pray tell me what reason hath that learned and peaceable man to hold himself abused by me for commending his Arguments to be considered by such as he intended them for did he not publish them that they might be considered or hath he chang'd his mind and thinks them now inconsiderable himself or more unseasonable now then when he wrote them I think worthily of that reverend Author but Sir what you can say for your self I know not You ought if I might be Judge first satisfie the World that I have not abused Mr. Baxter and then to acknowledge the Abuse you have put upon your self and Mr. Baxter upon me and the Reader and the plain truth If the censure seem rigorous judge your self and mittigate it if you find cause but consider that you your self intimate that Mr. Baxter never wrote any thing against their preaching and yet you know that he hath written much and that lately too for communion with our Parochial Congregations the thing I affirmed But this way of Reasoning and undue accusation is so familiar a thing in the Book before me that I fear I have abused my Readers stomach by staying himself so long upon one or two particulars of so gross a nature I confess it is as lawful as 't is usual to confute a proposition from the ill consequences and inconveniences of it but this is one thing and to set up the ill consequence as the Doctrine of the Adversary and under that form to dispute and write a Book agrinst it especially without shewing the necessity if not the obviousness and immediateness of such consequence in the stating of the Question all which you very skilfully think not fit to do this I am bold to say is another thing and such a thing as ought never to plead Indulgence or Toleration especially in a grave and grown and practised Disputant However two things ought always to be remembred that incommodum non solvit Argumentum and if any good may come out of evil yet we must not do evil that
either of this Questionist or some other such Pamphleteer Now this Desertion of the holy Ministry is a thing of that dangerous Consequence especially in You and at such a time as this that though it be but in potentia remotissima and onely not impossible to come to pass it must be timely observed by a wise Watchman and as if it were already in Act it must be Rebuked For this Desertion of the holy Ministry is Sacrilegions there is such a thing in our Authors Judgment however some of his Brethren think as Sacriledge under the Gospel a Stealing ones Self who is Consestated to God in the Holy Ministry from the exercise of it is a plain robbing God himself of his Service and consequently Sacriledge and I fear this hint especially if practised upon may bring to our minds and observations too another kind of Sacriledge that our Author was not well aware of For are there not some People Separated Dedicated and in a sence Consecrated to God and as justly Sitled Gods-People as the Preachers Gods-Ministers And if these should be stolen away from God in his Churches and Ministers to whose care he hath committed them is not God himself then robbed of them and ought not this kind of Sacriledg also to be feared and Rebuked A worthy Prebyterian once thought so and honestly gave the World warning of some small effects of it in these words This said he brings Strife and Envyings among Ministers when others steal Cawdry 's Independency farther proved c. p. 84. away their Members and bring Slightings and Contempt upon their Persons and Ministry and at last a lamentable Separation as we see at this day But the Answerer must crave your pardon for indeed the excessive Fidelity of his Brethren to their Preaching-Office leaves no room or occasion for his Rebuking-Office Besides Sacriledge has a tender Edge and may chance to cut ones fingers if not warily handled Therefore though perhaps he had thoughts when he wrote his Title-page to have spoken something upon this Subject yet his Mind it seems is not priviledg'd from change for at present he hath wav'd that Argument and Sacrilegious desertion of the holy Ministry shall escape his Severity till another opportunity Doubt it not for if you turn over but one leafe you are secur'd he there as the use is presents you again with the Title of his Book but there you find nothing of Sacrilegious desertion of the holy Ministry Rebuked no this first Menace is now wisely omitted either by the Author or the Printer Wisely I say for Desertion of the holy Ministry is scarcely any more heard of much less Rebuked throughout his whole Book However let not his Ministry be deserted the Sermon may be good though both it and the Preacher forget the Text. CHAP. II. Of the Answerers discription of Himself his Abusive Terms touching Non-Conformity and his mistake of Armagh 's Reduction those that offer'd it 1660. were no less Presbyterians his change of the Question HE worthily observes the Questionists vanity in honouring himself with the Name of a Lover of Peace and Truth and indeed 't was saucily done the Answerer may promote the Truth by the liberty of Errours and seek for Peace by pleading for if not practising Divisions but who are you Sir Confident that you should so much as pretend to the love of either But pray Mr. Answerer what is your Name there are many that say they know you by your Reason and Passion and by your Words and Works but pray you let me know your Name You have told me already and I find it at large in your Title Page attended before with two great Titles to your Book little to the purpose but for Ceremony and followed after with the train of three pompous places of Scripture to fill up the Page One that is Consecrated to the sacred Mininistry and is resolved not to be a wilful deserter of it in trust that any Vndertakers can justifie him for such Desertion at the Judgment of God till he know better how those can come off themselves who are unfaithful Pastors or unjust Silencers of others And is this your Name indeed Certainly his Grace at Lambeth hath scarce a greater Here is Consecration Resolution Condemnation against the unfaithful of Pastors and the Injustice of the King and Parliament for Silencing better But as the Lion sometimes is not so fierce as he is Painted so I hope this is no Scripture Name that indicates the Nature of the Person But so shall the Man be honored that loves not Himself or Party above Truth and Peace Reader here is nothing but meekness and gentleness and humility worthy of the Author to be understood however the expressions sound a little otherwise 't is the Questionist only is Confident and unintelligible though one would think at the first hearing that this long Name is Monstrum Horrendum and I cannot but add Ingens cui lumâ—n Ademptum Now what dare not the Man of this great Name say or do he dare say the Conformists are the Schismaticks and that many of them that now hold the places that were formerly Non-conformists are Vsurpers and that it is faithfulness to the King to disown such kind of Vsurpers though establish'd in their Places and Power by the Laws of the Land p. 39. He dare say 't is Impudence and Ignorance of the present State of England to call those Presbyterians that did at the King's Return offer Arch-Bishop Vshers Form of Episcopal Government as he calls it for Concord though Mr. Calamy was one of that Number whose Name is found in Smectimnuus He dare call that book a Form of Episcopal Government contrary to the Express Title of it which is a Reduction of Episcopacy to the Forme of Synodical Government Which as Dr. Bernard well observes was only an expedient for the present Clavi Trabales p. 54. Necessity occasioned by the Tempestuous violence of that time as an Accomodation by way of prevention of a Total Shipwrack threatned by the Adversaries of Episcopacy as appears sufficiently by the Title of it It is therefore ingeniously argued by our Author those that are called Presbyterians did desire that Episcopacy might be reduced to the forme of Synodical Government therefore they are no Presbyterians they are not for Synodical Government The plain truth is that Reduction proposeth a way for Vnion and Consolidation of the two Governments but that such a Union as should contain both without the loss of either and least of all as the necessity of that time required of the Presbyterian And consequently those that would submit unto that Reduction might still be Presbyterians both in Name and Thing however it fared with Episcopacy For all men are not bound to subscribe or swear unto the definition of a Presbyterian which our Answerer imposeth upon the World or to believe that the Divine Right of the Ruling Elder Vnordained is essential to the Presbyterial Government
p. 5. for the Government may be Synodical without it And I need not give him Instances that that kind of Government was endeavoured to be Erected in the several parts of the Kingdome by the Agreement of several Eminent Ministers of that way that yet denied the Juredivinity of meer Ruling-Elders and admitted them only as Prudential and I doubt not he very well knows it to be so But as to that Application made in 1660. which he speaks of 't is too well known that in effect it rather proposed for the Presbyterial than for the Episcopal Government and had it taken the Bishop should have had left him little more than the Name who was rather to have been a Moderator or Chair-man durante vitâ than a Bishop in a common acceptation or if a Bishop such a one as might well enough have consisted with Synodical Government or the design had been lost But what need any more be said the Proposers would not allow him a Negative voice and consequently the Synod or Presbytery should have Govern'd either with or without his Consent and is not this a fair Apology twice offered by our Answerer that therefore because they would have Admitted the Reduction of Episcopacy to their own Presbyterial Government they are no Presbyterians Again It is nothing for him to say that the Reasonings of the Questionist are weak and silly over and over that they are Confident to Admiration full of Noise and Nonsence Confused and Vnintelligible and Schismatical too p. 29. These are his soft and gentle Strokes upon one that deserves to be called Names that would foul Paper as he intimates more than once as an Argument of his unwillingness to offend his Reader and Himself though he have no foul mouth But he dare venture farther and say that Mr. Fulwoods Mr. Stilemans and Mr. Hinckleys Books for Conformity are such Toyes of factious Disputers He dare say that his own flesh disputeth in him more Cunningly than all the Durells Fulwoods and Stilemans in England and yet in one thing methinks his spirit fails him and he appears too much unlike the valiant Heroe I ever took him for He in one place saith p. 32. Had he had leave to confute the Silly Reasonings of Mr. Fulwood and other such Pamphleteers he had long ago done strange things And in another p. 39. he would have me procure him leave to give his Reasons of Non Conformity Alas good man that he should want Leave to do such brave things that he should want Will or Zeal to do them without leave He saith p. 31. that I knew that he must not give his Reasons against Conformity But who gave him leave to Preach before the Indulgence who gave him leave to Print this Answer Or is it possible to speak bolder things against Conformity if he had leave to do it than he hath done here The Conformists are Vsurpers and Schismaticks those that Silenced the Non-Conformists are Vnjust Cruel and Sacrilegious Conformity is guilty of Perfidiousness Perjury and Persecution Conformists are Proud and contend who shall be Greatest and Covenant never in certain points to obey Christ against the World and the Flesh as he humbly insinuates p. 74. But in Earnest can he that le ts flie at this rate perswade us that it is only want of leave that hath hindered his Answering the Books aforesaid Can he perswade us that his Obedience to Man can warrant his omission of so great a Charity as his effectual endeavor to rescue Conformists from these desparate enormities or can he think so honorably of our Governours as to fear that his strong Reasons would more offend and provoke them if given without their Licence than these hard uncharitable unconscionable insinuations and unjust accusations against themselves as well as us Away then with this childish passion of fear 't is altogether unbecoming our Goliah that defies the whole Army of Israel You have Troops of Propositions always at Command and so many Yokes of Distinctions that you doubtless are able to make good what ever you have said be it never so bad if you durst or had leave But what need of Leave or why should you Fear what quidlibet or quodlibet can stand before you p. 30. You are the Man of Art that can doe and undoe prove and disprove the same thing or else many of your Friends as well as Enemies have done you wrong I am one of his Friends and I dare affirm of him to his deserved honour that he never yet wanted Matter of Argument against the Cause or of Rebuke against the Person of any Man that ever opposed him He hath one very strange and wonderful peice of Artifice that be the Controversie what it will he can make his Adversary differ with him about the Existence of a God and Christ an Heaven and Hell that he may take occasion to tell the World that some Teachers need these plain Admonitions p. 26. But this subtil Answerer hath a more powerful Stratagem never to be escaped for he can make his Adversary say any thing that he himself thinks he can most easily oppose or if he cannot make him say it he can affirm and prove he saith it and then thunder out a Volume against him for saying so We have a very Notable Instance of his Skill this way in our hands If the Questionist dare say that Toleration ought not to be abused by Presbyterians in gathering themselves into distinct Churches in opposition to the Parochial he will most strenuously and pertinently confute him with a Book called by the hard Name above mentioned Sacrilegious desertion of the holy Ministry Rebuked and Tolerated Preaching of the Gospel Vindicated And if it be too palpable that that Author said nothing for the Sacrilegious desertion of the holy Ministry fit to be Rebuked he can as we before observed quickly desert that part of his undertaking but yet proceed to write his Book in the Vindication of Tolerated Preaching and perswade the World with no mean Confidence that the scope of the Book he pretends to Answer is directly against such Tolerated Preaching Yea in the very beginning of his Book p. 2. And in another Character on purpose to have the Reader note it he expresly affirms that he finds the Questionist hath the Face though he hath not the mouth that spoke it or the hand that wrote it yet he hath the face to exhort them to desert their Office But with how much Ingenuity and Justice God and his own Conscience must needs know already and he must give me leave to let the World know it also in the Chapter following CHAP. III. I did not exhort them to desert their Office as he Affirmeth His manner of Censuring less Errors About Toleration The Authors kindness to Non-Conformists SIR I will take leave to say you may bless your self that you have engaged an Adversary that is a Friend and hath neither Wit nor Will to practice upon you as some
acknowledge that in other places though you omit it here you provide that the Minister of the Parish be faithful truly endeavoring the salvation of his flock I am not here to urge or insist upon the inconveniencies of such a practice and if the Non-conformist be an humble discreet and good man for my part I should not much fear them but my business is to collect from this Advice of yours that you your self can hardly believe that deserting your Office doth necessarily follow the not gathering of Churches and that not only in mine but in the common and usual understanding of the terms For thus as you well observe the Non-conformist would but hold a Chappel meeting under and be subservient in his work to the Parish-Minister and such preaching would in no ordinary construction be termed Schism or a gathering a Church out of or distinct much less in opposition to the Parish-Church but a furtherance if well managed to the common interest and concern of it as the office of a School-master in Catechising the yonger sort upon the week-days And could we find that this cause had been indeed taken upon the foresaid conditions as you advise we should not have thought we had not had much reason to endeavour to prevent the Abuse of Toleration by the Presbyterians or to complain as we do But 't is sad to observe their practice quite contrary generally so far as we can learn and particularly in the populous City where I dwell that are most conveniently ordered into Parishes and the best provided of faithful Ministers for to such places the Non conformists generally resort and set up their meetings in direct opposition to the Parochial Churches at the same time with the publick Worship not endeavoring in the least any communion with it or the Parish-Minister but to as much discouragement of him as possibly they can And in those other places where they have set up their Meetings there are but few that think it convenient to venture in the Country Parishes they take the same course without any regard to the distinction of faithful and unfaithful Ministers and this is the thing we call Schism and sinful separation and unlawful gathering of Churches out of Churches and cannot see how you can believe that the necessity of your Office can justifie such dividing practices who seem to detest them Yea if such as bear the name and licence of Presbyterian-Ministers would follow your advice and only gather temporary Assemblies waiting for a fixed better state as you speak in London and in some Country Parishes where the Ministers are intollerable till they are better provided for though perhaps we justly differ from you about the number of intollerable Ministers and must in reason judge that your first endeavors should try to have such Ministers remov'd yet I conceive we should not have so great cause of lamentation as now is too too notoriously given us by the unreasonable causers of our Divisions Sir give me leave to say and believe upon the observation of the peaceable Principles I find now and then hinted even in the midst of your heat against me in your Book that did you rightly apprehend how matters are carried by these Church-gatherers for the dividing dissipating and as much as in them lies destroying our Parochial Churches you would return to your first thoughts and no longer oppose but second me CHAP. VI. The Question is first stated not unintellgible Now again clear'd and free'd from his Exceptions YOu now perceive that the main of your Book is answered by demonstrating how little it is to the purpose to say no worse and thus you see what trouble you put me to to answer Nothing p. 40. But Soft Sir What if enough be found besides and on the by to Confute you perhaps there is nothing in your Book at least your Answerer might think so sufficient to provoke so great a Man to set his wit directly against you If it be so I accept his mercy for then the Match being the more equal I do the better conceive a Confidence to defend my self and at last to the point In the State of my Question I first supposed that the Presbyterians would not joyn with the Independents but therein my Answerer intimates p. 28. I was mistaken for it is an Article of his Faith so far as faith is concerned in the point that the Presbyterianâ— will joyn with their now friends the Independents not as a Sect c. Yea p. 29. that they will joyn with the Sect as he is pleased to honour us of the Diocesan Prelatists in the Parish Churches also O the Charity of Presbyterians and the length of their Armes that can embrace persons at so great a distance But pray Sir what do you mean by joyning with the Independents Will you indeed joyn with them in their Congregations If this be not your meaning you are again upon the point of little to the purpose But if it be and yet you will joyn with them as a Sect your Judgment is as deep as your affection is broad But to proceed upon that mistake my Question was shortned to this purpose Whether the Presbyterians as things now stand ought in Conscience or Prudence to Set up for Themselves or to Worship God with the rest of their Neighbours in their several proper Parochial-Congregations What I meant by their Setting up for themselves was plained in the very Question as was Just before proposed viz. A refusing our Communion and a gathering themselves into distinct and separate Churches Now rather than I will run in a Maze or venture my self in an Ocean of Tempestuous Propositions my Answerer shall pardon me if I appeal to the Reader whether my Question was not intelligible without them For what man is so ignorant unless his Knowledg hath confounded and Shipwrack'd his Reason as not to know who I mean by Presbyterians p. 45. Yea who would not suspect the person guilty that when he is Indited flies and plaies least in sight or so disguiseth him as he cannot be known or when his friends return as our Author for the Presbyterians a Non inventus But he and the world must know that the Presbyterians like non of his excuses or subterfuges They cannot so easily deny themselves and methinks he should not deny his Brethren they apply themselves under that Name to the King for Licences as our Author acknowledgeth and yet he more then Intimates they are not at least most of them are not what they tell the King they are And then what doth he make them if they are not Presbyterians But let him be answered that such as deny themselves to be Independents or Anabaptists or Quakers or Papists and scruple and mince their Conformity with us whether they be Laity or Clergy will be called Presbyterians whether he will or no and such he could not but know I especially meant 2. Who knows not what I mean by our Parochial Churches
the original of what sighs and warnings did the seperation of the Brownist draw from the Puritans and of the late Sectaries from the Presbyterians all this cannot be torgotten though in the midst of our Bussles and our new joyes for our present liberty we mind it not I shall not repent my former inconveniences the fear of which at least some of them is yet still upon us notwithstanding c. Dividing principles will give shelter to all kind of Heresies Vid Baxt. def of his cure p. 51 52 53. c. and Sects of which experience is too full a proof and shall we stand by and see this work go on and neither lament their sin that drive men to this nor warn them of the passions and principles that lead to it and who knoweth not how fair a game the Papists have to play by the means of our Divisions CHAP. XX. More particular address to the Answer a friendly expostulation about his hard words and dealing We must preach And we may gather Churches to serve God better two great cheats a desire he would detect them Sir I perceive by some Golden lines drawn here and there upon your Rough and Rugged peice pardon the expressions that though we differ in our measures yet we intend the same end and in general by the same means Let us then in cold blood as friends fâ—ln out use to do let us expâ—stulate a little and be friends again I confess I thought I could not reply to much of your book but in Mirth or Anger the former I rather chose and have sometimes used but make it my publique request that neither your self nor any one else would take it in contempt of your person or parts But if my pleasantness hath indeed displeased you pray reflect a little seriously upon the manner how you dealt with me without any provocation And consider both the Exâ—mple and Rule you give me p. 4. and I am apt to conceive you will require no further satisfaction yea and that for the future you will learn this lesson not to dispise your Adversaries person or parts least of one you make two and instead of Reason you stir up and provoke Folly and Madnâ—ss If any thing hath miss'd my eye and consideration that you conceive to be â—rgumentative believe me it was not design'd I left your Method because I had a mind to review the point throughly and once for all and therefore you are secure from any further trouble from me in this matter unless I see more reason hereafter than now I can foresee Yet I promise you that if without Insulting you will shew me any Argument which was overlookt I promise you faithfully I will either Answer it or acknowledge I cannot Indeed some parts of your Book I have wilâ—ingly declined to insist upon there being observable in them the defects of Pertinence and Charity which I impute to your hast and hastiness and thank God that I know how to allow something to the best of men for their Natural Temper Yet so far as we are vertuous we cannot be unwilling to hear of our faults especially with meckness of reason and in a friendly expostulation which I hope may well enough admit me to tell you plainly that I have found neither kind words nor fair dealing in your book For your Words calling my Arguments silly questioning my Witt and Mâ—desty rendring me guilty of Noise instead of Sence of Confusion and immeasurable considence these and such like do not much affect me but I confess when you speak of my pernitious fallacies that goes something near me as also when you number me with factious disputers when God knows I intended nothing as I said in my last but to save the people from sin and the Church from confusion and ruine by gross Seperation For your fair dealing I mean not only that you would make me affirm what I never said or thought for of that I have delivered my self before or so much that you seem to ly upon the Catch for little oversights which concern not the Controversy though by the way take an Instance or two of this Nature Whereas I say p. 28. they cannot but understand the Declaration to prohibite al such private meetings as the law calâ—s conventicâ—es What an out-cry do we hear you know not whose understandings you talk of and with Scorn why should you judge us to be as wise as your self But where 's the victory doth not the very Declaration it self suppose unlawful Conventicles or what if I had slipt and put in the word Law for Declaration was it unpardonable it looks ill when we design disgrace to our Adversary without any advantage to our Cause and what have you gained by this Nâ—ble quarrel but the name of Conventicles and so branded by the Law a name one would think not much worth the contention if we Admit the Learned Hale's definition of it a Conventicle saith he is nothing else but a Congregation of Schysmaticks Tract of Schys p. 14 Take bâ—t one Instance more I had said p. 14. that I thought I might safely say that the Declaration doth not so much as uncommand any thing which the Law properly commands But had you heeded one word among the rest you would hardly have entred this exception p. 46. I mean the word properly which you to seeming Advantage leave out in your Reflexion for who knows not that the main matter for which the Law is framed is the thing properly and directly commanded by the Law and that the execution of the penalty and the command thereof are but in subserviency thereunto and only of force conditionally in case the Law in the proper matter of it be disabused And your exception to the other paragraph hath yet lâ—ss colour I say the Declaration medles not with the law either in the preceptive or punitive part of it But I still take it to be beyond your skill in the Law to confute me in this and to be beyond dispute that the Law in both these parts of it had its being from the Legeslative power and the Declaration from the Executive power and that this cannot operate to the change of that at all The true internal vigour of the Law is still the same and 't is your mistake to think that the Declaration suspends the command or so much as the punitive part of the Law it suspendeth only the Actual Execution of the Law as poenal and allows such meetings as break the Law and incur its penalty to abide unpunished think on it well and you may be of my mind Of these by the way which indeed had not found their place here could I have reduced them to any head of discourse above yet now I am upon it let me whisper it in your ear without any great noise about it that there is one Paragraph of yâ—urs that could I take pleasure in such little p. 45 last par or Sect reflections