still that there are some honest men in the World yea such as have sinned avowedly and deliberately when they knew it not to be sin as most Sects that contradict each other do yea and some that sin against knowledge too as many do in their vain thoughts and words But where is it that I said that these honest Conformists sin avowedly delaberately and against knowledge Make Conscience of Truth 'T is like that I might sometime say What it would be in me if I should do it But is that to say that it is so in others whose knowledge I am a stranger-to or that it borders on the sin against the Holy Ghost As for your Invective against these honest Conformists I ask you 1. May not a man be an honest Conformist that taketh Conformity for a thing lawful meerly in case of Deprivation as Mr. Sprint did though he had rather be excused If not few learned godly Divines of my youthful acquaintance were honest men For all such as pleaded then with me for it went upon those terms May not those be honest Conformists that heartily and openly wish for abatements as the Bishop of Chester doth and Bishop Gawden openly upon my demand of his Judgment oft did May not those be honest Conformists who go on Bishop Reynolds and Dr. Stillingsteet's grounds That no form of Church-Government is of Divine Institution Or those that had rather all the Ceremonies were out of the Church than so many Preachers If they are you do ill to censure them as dishonest If they are not I shall never be induced to Conform for it would be to give away my honesty if I do it on those aforesaid Principles Thus I perceive that it is not Conformity that would satisfie you if we yielded to it unless we also did it on your Principles But if neither the Bishops and Clergy of England in Abbot's days were any of them honest saving the few described by Heylin that went higher or if all the Latitudinarians that had rather the Ceremonies were forborn and all the unwilling Conformists in England that would not do it but to keep their Ministry be dishonest men I am not yet ready to fall in with that other sort of men that charge so many of their own Society with dishonesty and that account so few honest who are accounted honest by the rest of Mankind and appropriate honesty to those that others can hardliest discern it in § 17. And will you so grosly dispute down Non-conformity To distinguish between meddling with the War and entring into the Army to you is a Fly ad populum phalerae ficulnea evasio a little poor Criticism So that it seems you dare affirm or deny that of the one which you do of the other Durst you swear that none of the Lords or Commons or Citizens meddled with the War but those that entred into the Army And can you insist on such passages thus against your sight when your Error is detected I pray you if ever you be a Confessor resolve not other mens Cases of Conscience at this rate as you do your own § 18. It is an unhappiness in you that so hardly write that which is not errour and yet so hardly acknowledge any crrour in your Writing The Aphorisms recited by the Bishop were mentioned by way of Accusation You excepted none but spake generally of those collected by him What can I do more for tryal than to name Particulars And where should I begin but with the first But it 's many more that I can name which would extort from you the same Answer Particularly that which Bagshaw seeing there was tempted to transcribe among his falshoods as if I had said all that of Oliver which I said of his Son which others also have falsly said of me § 19. It is a troublesom thing to dispute on terms not explained or understood I thought all this while that Presbyterian and Episcopal had been terms whose sense we had agreed of but I was mistaken for now you let me know that an Archbishop who strove hard for such Preferment who drew the rest of the Bishops into that high Protestation for which some were imprisoned who forsook the Parliament and went to the Kings Party as soon as he saw that they would bring low the Bishops who for self-safety turned to the Parliament when he saw all was almost gone on the other side and this but in Wales to recover his own house this man with you was a Presbycerian Archbishop I may understand shortly what a Presbyterian signifieth of late in England As many Episcopal Non-conformists are silenced and go now under the Name of Presbyterians So take heed of straining the word too high lest Archbishops and Bishops at last be put down as Presbyterians too If he be a Presbyterin who is an Archbishop and would continue an Archbishop because he foresaw that the Bishops would pull down themselves and the Puritans would prevail In this sense I should not have denied but that they were Presbyterians that first raised that War in England against the King But your proof is out of Rushworth p. 224. viz. No other than those two famous men Sir John Lamb and Dr. Sibthorpe importuned the Bishop to prosecute the Puritans the Bishop said He knew of none and asked what manner of people they be It 's answered by Sir John Lamb in Dr. Sibthorp's presence That they seem to the World to be such as would not Swear Whore nor Drink but yet would Lye Cheat and Deceive That they would frequently hear two Sermons a day and repeat the same too and afterwards Pray and sometimes fast all day long Then the Bishop asked Whether those places where those Puritans were did lend Money freely to the King upon the Loan To which Sir John Lamb and Dr. Sybthorp replyed That they did generally resolve to lend freely Then said the Bishop No man of descretion can say that that place is a place of Puritans For my part I am not satisfied to give way to Proceedings against them At which Dr. Sibthorp said He was troubled to see that the Church was no better regarded Very good A Presbyterian then is a Bishop that is not satisfied to persecute such Puritans as those Add but what is said by many old Conformists how the word Puritan was used with the utmost Malice by Papists and Drunkards and ungodly persons against those who were firm Protestants and would not Drink and Whore as they did as Dr. Robert Abhot Regius Professor in Oxford and Bishop of Salisbury and Bishop Downam one that I verily thought had been no Presbyterian in his Spittle Sermon called Abraham's Tryal Mr. Rob. Bolton frequently who thinks there was never poor persecuted word used with such bitter malice by the mouth of the Serpents Seed as that word Puritan was at that day of good people I say take in all this and let Posterity judge of an English Presbyterian by it that he
subordinate Head and all but the named parts are denyed As if he would have more than the genus proximum and differentia specificans in a definition yea even the genus supremum and Christ shall be the specifying Head or none § XXVI He saith So the same thing shall be contrary to itself As if 1. Christ and a Bishop in formal relation were proved to be the same 2. Or things subordinate were contrary which he denyeth himself § XXVII He saith Christs Church in this world is but one Answ If there be but one particular Church 1. Then numerically the Church of London and Basil are one And then if I separate not from the Church at Basil I separate not from the Church of London 2. If de specie there be but one then a Patriarchal Diocesane Parochial Presbyterian and Democratical Church are but of one species And why then did you use so many words to tell us of the need of Bishops over Bishops and of the several sorts of supra-ordinate Church-Rulers Then a National Church and a Parish-Church are but one § XXVIII He addeth Quae conveniunt uno tertio conveniunt inter se but the Church Universal and particular agree in uno tertio c. Answ As if Convenientia generica were convenientia totalis vel specifica or Convenientia partialis totalis Accidentalis Essentialis were all one What pretty Logick is here to prove a King and a Constable all one because they are both Men both Christians and both Rulers I hope then a Bishop and a Presbyter are all one that in your sorry sense agree in uno tertio But let us hear the inferred Charge against us § XXIX An Addition of Homogeneous Particles saith he makes no essential differences Answ Christ and a Bishop are heterogeneous Yea a Diocesane and a Parish-Priest have you proved that they are not or that they are § XXX It will necessarily infer that God is contrary to himself saith he Answ O Temerity in the dark that is unless his Church-relation be the same with the Bishops As if the King be contrary to himself if his Kingdom and a Corporation or School be not of the same species § XXXI He saith If this opinion stand Religion cannot stand An. Do you mean in you or in me or all others Do you resolve to cast away all Religion if Christ and a Bishop be not the same informing regent parts of the Church Universal and particular Think better of it first for Religion is more necessary than so Do you think that the Christian world which hath ever been of the opinion which you detest had never any Religion Nor hath now any Which way do Churches that are parts of the Universal cast out all Religion § XXXII If Christ set up two essentially different Church-Forms he is not the Saviour but the deceiver of the world Answ And must Christ bear such a charge as well as I I should sooner have expected it from a Turk or Jew than from you § XXXIII He saith Why then do you blame turning Parish-Churches into Chappels and making them but parts of a Diocesane as a Troop of an Army Answ Putide putares When shall we meet with a true Sentence It is not for making them parts of a Diocesane Church as Troops of an Army but for making them no Political true Churches but disbanding all the Troops by making them no Troops but such parts of a Regiment as Squadrons are It is for putting down Inferiour Bishops and not for being themselves Bishops over them yet on this doth he ground his charge of my deceiving men and wronging God and his Church c. § XXXIV He addeth Look what Bellarmine maketh the Pope c. that do you c. for you say that particular Churches as headed by their respective Bishops and Pastours are parts of another Church called the Church Universal By which assertion you set up an Universal Head besides Christ and you say this is of Divine Institution and lay the Concord of all the Churches on it Answ If you are sani Cerebri this is so gross that your putarem hath no excuse Had you not your self repeated my definition and carpt at those very words Headed only by Christ and many times your self repeated it as my opinion 2. Or had you tryed your wrangling wit to have proved that if Christ only be asserted to be the Head I thereby assert another Head or that If I make Bishops particular specifying Heads I therefore assert a humane Universal Head you had some cloak for your putarem But now If you next print that I said that a Dog is a man I will no more wonder at it than at this See Reader how my Church-Concord is oppugned and by what weapons Satan doth that work As if he that saith the King only is the specifying Head of the Kingdom and the Captain of his Troop or the Diocesans of a Diocess were a Traytor and did assert another Head of the Kingdom than the King § XXXV Do but grant the Papists saith he this one assertion that particular Churches as headed by their respective Pastors are parts and members of the Universal as Cities of a Kingdom and overthrow the Popes Headship over all if you can It will follow that there must be besides Christ an universal Monarch on earth c. Answ 1. Affirmanti incumbit probatio Did you think we must take your bare word in so great a case Do you say one word to prove your affirmation Must we all turn Papists upon your immodest naked saying it is so 2. But your immodesty is in this excessive to me that have written two Books against Johnson alias Terret and the later but lately and largely to prove that the Church hath no Universal Head but Christ notwithstanding the particular Regency of the Bishops and for you to give me not a word of answer to them and bid me now prove it if you can when I have voluminously proved it This is such dealing as I will not name 3. But I am heartily sorry what ever did it that you are got so neer to Popery As if you will be a Papist unless all the writers of the Christian world are deceived and if the particular Church be a part of the Universal which â—â—â—â— dare boldly swear it is and sober men doubt not XXXVI He adds Indeed you have gone beâ—ond Bellarmine in setting up Papal Monarchy Your â—ther assertion sets up Atheism by making the holy God the authour and founder of two essential different Churches or Church-Forms Answ Putares But if all the Christian world be of the same mind do they all set up Atheism and are you only free As for Tho. Hooker whom you cited though it be twenty four years or thereabouts since I read Mr. Hudson and him and will not tast away my time in perusing them my memory doubts not that it was only a Universal Church made one by one universal
Experience Why is it not done if it be morally possible Have you not had near twenty years Trial by your Reasonings Preachings Writings Reproaches Allurements Threatnings Canons Fines Jails Informers crying out for execution of the Laws c. and is it yet done Have there not since more of the Laity turned from you than have turned to you Will not Experience convince you 9. Judge by the great diversity of mens conditions and capacities which I have elsewhere opened Will ever men of such different Capacities Educations c. agree in such and so many things 10. Judge by the requisites to such a Concord It must be by bringing all the Ministry to a higher degree of Knowledge or Conscience and Honesty than all the Nonconformists For it can be nothing that you think keeps us from Conforming but Ignorance or Badness Dr. Asheton undertaketh as going to the bar of God to prove that it is Pride and Covetousness And how can you hope to make us all so much Wiser and Better than we are Do you believe that the seven Thousand that had Conformed to the Directory and staid in by Conforming to your Law 1662. were so much Wiser and Better than the two thousand that were cast out Or that the greater part of your Countrey-Priests now if the lamenting people wrong them not do Conform because they know more or are Better men than we If it be so he is unworthy to be a Pastor that knoweth not how hard a matter it is to make all the Ministers of a Nation so much wiser and better He is blinde that seeth not that it is Fines Jails and Death that our Prosecutors trust to And will true Conscience be convinced by such Arguments Would you your selves change your minds in Religion if you were but Fined and Imprisoned If so you are men of no true Religion If not why expect you it from us § 13. But what am I doing Will it not more tire than profit the Reader if I should number abundance more of his Untruths I will step to his concluding Farewel to me and then see how he justifieth the trade by pleading for Equivocation Pag. 128. You gave several intimations that the King was Popishly affected as Bishop Bramhal affirms Mend. 15. Answ Why did not the man tell where and when I have Printed the contrary in the time of highest Usurpation that the King was no Papist Is he not a Calumniator unless he prove it But he saith Bishop Bramhal affirms it Answ A man that never saw me why did he not cite Bishop Brambal's proof But see what this sort of men are come to Do they think it enough to warrant their slanders of us because one of their Archbishops hath slandered us before them What Credit then is to be given to such mens History or Reports Is this it in which the Authority of Archbishops consisteth that they must be followed in slanders No It is not their Obedience to Archbishops but their Conformity to a calumniating Spirit For Brambal's Predecessor Arch-Bishop Usher a man honoured by all good men that knew him for Learning Piety and Honesty was of no such Authority with them but we are scorned for conforming to his Judgment But you see that a Calumniator with you is no singular person They are not ashamed to tell the world that their Archbishops lead them and are as bad as they § 14. Impl. p. 128. You applauded the grand Regicide as one that prudently piously and faithfully to his immortal Honour did exercise the Government Mend. magn 16. Answ Reader Do not wrong this man so much as to think he is the Father of this He taketh it up but in Conformity to his Fathers and Brethren that have oft printed it before him and he must keep company and be Conformable Alas It is not one or two such men as are the Guides of Souls in England But what Had he no pretence for it Yes more than for many of the rest He that undertook to be a Lying Spirit in the mouth of all Ahab's Prophets never undertook to deceive them without any pretence I have somewhat else to do than to write the History of my actions in those Times as oft as any such man will tell such a Story as this In short I thought then that both sides were faulty for beginning the War but I thought the Bonum Publicum or Salus Populi made it my Duty to be for the Parliament as Defensive against Delinquents and as they profest to be only for King Law and Kingdom When at the New Moddle they left out for the King and changed their Cause I changed from them and was sent by two Assemblies of Divines to do my best though to my utmost labour and hazard to disswade them Cromwel having notice of it would never let me once come near him or the Head-Quarters I continued on all occasions publickly and privately to declare my judgment against him as a rebellious Usurper till he died But being at London a year or two before he died the Lord Broghil since Earl of Orery would needs bring me to him where I dealt so plainly with him in demanding by what Right against the Will of almost all the Kingdom he pull'd down our lawful English Monarchy that we were sworn to and the Parliament as cast him into such Passion as broke out in reviling many of the worthiest Parliament-men that he knew me to be familiar with The last time the Earl of Orery saw me he told me he had told the King of that Conference and that he should love me the better while he lived for my Faithfulness He and Lambert and Thurloe were silently present A Twelvemonth after Sir Francis Nethersole would needs dispute me into Repentance for being for the Parliaments Cause by way of Writing I told him that the sad effects were enough to make us all suspicious but I would give him those Reasons that had moved me with a true desire to know the full truth that if I had erred I might not remain through Ignorance without Repentance He wrote to me that in the mean time seeing I was satisfied against Cromwels Usurpation I should go to London to set it upon his Conscience to perswade him to restore our present King I sent him word that as he took me for his Adversary so his Conscience was not so easily perswaded to give up such a prey and that this was not now to do I had been lately with him and I and others had tried such perswasions or the like in vain While I was preparing my Papers for Sir Francis Nethersole cometh out Mr. Harrington's Oceana contriving the Settlement of a Democracy which they called a Commonwealth and Sir H. Vane was about another Model I wrote somewhat against them and Mr. Harrington printed a Paper of Gibberish scorning at my Ignorance in Politicks Against him I wrote my Political Aphorisms called A Holy Common-wealth in the beginning pleading for the Divine
in possession Not only the Synods in Martius time that owned Maximus but Ambrose and Theopl Alexand to Eugenius and Gregory the first and many Western Bishops and ordinarily far most of the Eastern Bishops presently owned Usurpers that came into the Empire by the Murder or Deposition of their Predecessors And are all these Fathers and Christians damn'd 5. The Liturgie requires that when such are Buried they are openly pronounced saved that is That God of his great Mercy hath taken to himself their Souls out of the miseries of this Life and that we hope to be with them We must be Silenced and Imprisoned if we will not say this and subscribe to it and reproached if we do This is the Conformity which they would have us yield 6. Do you not tremble your self when you question whether they be not gone to a worse place and revile us for the hopes of their Salvation Doth not your Conscience ask If such men be not saved what will become of me that deliberately write such Volumes of Falshoods against God's true Servants and their present serving him as if they must cease Preaching and all Church-worship till they dare Conform to all imposed O why will you condemn your self in others 7. I finde many of your selves honouring Bishop Jewel Bishop Bilson and Mr. Hooker and such others that held the Principles which those men went upon and you never yet that I heard of reviled any man for hoping that they were saved No nor Grotius nor Barclay nor the common sort of Lawyers and Politick-Writers that have said more of the Cases in which Kings may be Resisted and Deposed than they did or than I ever said If such Principles may stand with the Salvation of Grotius Hooker Bilson Althusius Alstedius Willius c. Why not of theirs that I have mentioned 8. You know I suppose that it was mostly Episcopal men that began the War Lords Commons and Souldiers on both sides If you will not know and can be ignorant when you list your Will hath a freedom which mine hath not And are you sure that your Conformists also are damned 9. You hereby teach them that are confident that the Laudian Clergie were the chief Causers of the War to conclude therefore that they are damned And so our Clergy on both sides will be like Gregory the Seventh's and the Emperour 's in Germany first exciting and encouraging the Princes and People of the two sides and then taking Oaths against each other and lastly damning one another till a Reverend Council of Bishops Decreed that all the Bishops on the Emperours side should be Deposed and the Dead digg'd out of their Graves and burnt 10. You will open the eyes of the people to see what manner of Spirit you are of and that it is no wonder if you cannot endure us to Preach and Live by you who take us for Criminal for hoping that men are saved who otherwise were of most exemplary Lives but being in point of Politiques on the Parliaments side and doing accordingly while they professed to arm only against Subjects holding the person of the King to be inviolable I finde not that even in the Barons Wars or the Wars between the Houses of Lancaster and York no nor King Stephens the Censures were so high Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury is Sainted that was against his King § 17. The second Charge is my Vindicating the Parliaments War against the King Answ 1. I believed then that it was not against him when their Commissions were for him 2. I proposed my Reasons upon a Learned Knights demand requesting satisfaction by an Answer And had you or any of you ever since confuted them it had been more charity than only to Recite them and Condemn them But I have over and over publickly declared my revocation of that whole Book though not of all that 's in it and wisht that I had never written it for more Reasons than I will now name to you 3. My Judgment about the King's Power and our Obedience I have fully declared in The Second Plea for Peace § 18. The third Accusation is His pertinacious adhering to the Covenant Answ 1. The man knoweth that I own not the imposing it specially as a Test for the Nations Concord it being an engine of Division so imposed 2. That I own not the taking it so imposed 3. That I deny that it obligeth me to any thing that is evil yea or from any Obedience to the King in things lawful nor to any thing but what I have a former obligation to from God himself 4. But I confess that I dare not say that it obligeth no man to repent of his Sin nor to be against Popery Prophaneness or Schism nor to endeavour any amendment of Church-Government And I will not deny but that I take Perjury to be no indifferent thing which of these is the Crime of Adherence he tells me not 19. The next Accusation is Crying down the Royal Martyr as a Papist Answ I have said Till he tell me where and how he proveth it I must take him for a gross Calumniator and wonder not that he Conformeth In my Key for Catholicks he may see where I prove the contrary that the King was no Papist I will confess that which he knoweth not 1662 and 1663. when the Kings Letter in Spain to the Pope was Printed out of Mr. de Chesne by Prynne I was struck a while with doubt and suspicion But I soon considered 1. That the words promised but Endeavours for Unity 2. And that it was written in the Spaniards power in a streight § 20. The next is Crying up his Murderer Answ A repeated malicious falshood § 21. The next Accusation is His Principles in his Holy Commonwealth Answ 1. I oft told you The Book is revoked long ago 2. The Principles which I own I have published as aforesaid in the Third Plea and he doth not confute them 3. Of the Wars I spake before What other doth he name Bishop Morley recited many of them and the first as I remember was that I say That pretence to unlimited Monarchy is unlawful or Tyranny because God hath Limited all Humane Power If this be Heresie or Disloyalty I hold it still I mistake much if any Kings have Power from God to command all their Subjects to blaspheme or deny God or Christ or to renounce his hope of Heaven or to worship the Devil and sell his Soul to him nor to murder Father Mother Wife or Children I will venture to dispute this with any Conformist But as to the harder question Whether Kings may kill any or all their Senators or innocent Subjects for nothing or burn all their Cities or take all their Wives Children and Estates I will leave it to Statesmen to debate I am sorry that ever I wrote so much about their matters § 22. The next charge is His present practices in defending Schism Answ Prove it or number it with your
may see that his Charity and his Veracity are proportionable he hence inferrs p. 57. Did ever any Bishop aspire to such Tyranny as this the Pope only excepted Is not the King and whole Nation greatly culpable not to trust themselves with the ingenuity of this people c. Answ Reader which is liker to be guilty of Tyranny 1. We that desire no power but to plead God's Law to mens Consciences 2. And that but with one Congregation And 3. with no constrained unwilling persons but only voluntary Consenters 4. And to rule over none of our Fellow-Ministers 5. And only to be but Freemen as Schoolmasters and Philosophers be in their Schools of Volunteers that we may not against our Consciences be the Pastors of the unwilling or such as we judge uncapable according to God's Laws but to use the Keys of Admission and Exclusion as to that particular Church 6. And to do all under the Government of the Magistrate who may punish us as he may do Physicians Schoolmasters or others for proved mal-administration and drive us not from but to our Duty 7. And to be ready to give an account of our Actions to any Synod or Brethren that demand it and to hear their Admonitions and Advice Yea and to live in peaceable submission where Archbishops or General-Visitors are set over us and upon any Appeals or Complaints to hear and obey them in any lawful thing belonging to their Trust and Power 9. And if we be judged to have worngfully denied our Ministerial help and Communion to any we pretend to no power to hinder any other Church or Pastor from receiving him 10. And if we be by Magistrates cast out or afficted for our Duty we shall quietly give up the Temples and publick Church-maintenance of which the Magistrate may dispose and without resisting or dishonouring him endure what he shall inflict upon us for our obedience to God This is our odious Tyranny 2. On the other side our Accusers 1. Some of them are for power in themselves to force men by the Sword that is by Mulcts and corporal Penalties to be subject to them or be of their Church and Communion 2. Others are for the Magistrate thus forcing them when the Bishop Excommunicates them 3. They thus make the Church like a prison when no man knoweth whether the people be willing Members or only seem so to escape the Jail 4. They would be such forcing Rulers over many score or hundred Parishes 5. They would have power to Rule Suspend and Silence the Pastors of all these Parishes when they think meet 6. They hinder the Pastors of the Parish-Churches from that exercise of the Keys aforesaid in their own Parish-Churches which belongs to the Pastors Office 7. They would compel the Parish-Ministers to Admit Absolve or Excommunicate at least as declaring other mens Sentences when it is against their Consciences 8. They would make Ministers swear Obedience to them and Bishops swear Obedience to Archbishops 9. Some of them are for their power to Excommunicate Princes and greatest Magistrates though contrary to the fifth Commandment it dishonour them 10. Some of them say that if the King command one Church-Order or Form or Ceremony and the Bishop another the Bishop is to be obeyed before the King As also if the King bid us Preach and the Bishop forbid us 11. And they say that their Censures even Clave errante must be obeyed 12. And that he whom a Bishop cuts off from one Church is thereby cut off from all and none may receive him 13. And that it is lawful to set up Patriarchs Metropolitans c. to rule the Church according to the state and distribution of Civil Government Look over these two Cases and judge which party is liker to Church-Tyrants and then judge what Credit is due to such Accusers of the Non-Conformists in this Age. § 43. II. As to Reordination I have answer'd to Mr. Cheny what he saith He deceitfully avoideth determining the first Question whether they intend a Reordination or not Whereas I have proved 1. That the Church of England is against twice Ordaining 2. That they call it and take it for a true Ordination which is to be received from them by such as Presbyters had Ordained 3. And therefore that they suppose the former Null 4. And this is much of the reason of mens doubting whether they should receive the second which is given on such a Supposition But this man is little concerned in the true stating of the case § 44. III. What he saith of the Ministers power for Discipline is answered already to Mr. Cheney that hath the same § 45. About the Covenant 1. he falsly makes me say that the King took it Whereas whether he did or not I only say that he was injuriously and unlawfully drawn to seem to owne it and declare for it 2. Next he aggravates this Injury And who contradicteth him 3. He pleadeth That the King is not obliged by it to make any alteration in the Government of the Church Answ I will not examine your Reasons The King never made me his Confessor nor put the question to me Why then should I make my self a Judge of it And why must my Ministry lie on a thing beyond my knowledge But am I sure that no Parliament-man that took that Vow is bound there in his place to endeavour a Reforming Alteration when I am past doubt that much is needful He would 1. make it doubtful Whether it was a Vow to God I think it not worth the labour to prove it to him that doubteth of it after deliberate reading it 2. He saith Any lawful endeavours are not denied Answ But the Obligation to lawful endeavours are denied Are not the words universal 3. He saith The Covenant condemned as unlawful cannot lay an Obligation Answ A Vow to God unlawfully imposed and taken may binde to a Lawful Act. 4. He calls it unnecessary alterations against the Law of the Land Answ I suppose I shall prove some reforming alteration necessary And it is not against Law for a Subject to petition for it or a Parliament-man to speak for it Yet when the man seems to me to be pleading Conscience out of the Land he saith Would not this cause the Christian Religion in a short time to be exploded out of all Kingdoms Alas poor people what uncertain Guides have you 5. He concludes that the power of Reforming being in the King the Vow was null Answ The Regal Power of Reforming is only in the King To change Laws without him is Usurpation But Parliament-men may speak for it and Subjects petition and on just causes write and speak for needful Reformation And I speak for no other § 45. IV. About not taking Arms against those Commissioned by the King He plainly professeth that we must not distinguish where the Law doth not And if it be an unlimited Universal Negative it will quite go beyond Mainwaring or Sibthorpe And for all
of a Bill for Accommodation Octavo price 2 s. The Narrative of Rob. Bolron of Shippon-hall Gent. concerning the late horrid Polish Plot and Conspiracy for the Destruction of His Majesty and the Protestant Religion Wherein is contained 1. His Informations upon Oath before His Majesty in Council and before several Justices of the Peace of the said Design and the means by which he arrived at the knowledge thereof 2. Some particular Applications made to himself to assist those design'd in the murdering of his Majesty the persons by whom such Applications were made and the Reward promised 3. The project of the Popish party to Erect a Nunnery at Dolebanck near Ripely in Yorkshire together with the Names of some Nuns actually design'd for that Imployment and taking the Profession upon them As also an Account of a certain Estate of 90 l. per annum given by Sir Thomas Gascoigne to the Nunnery for ever With other remarkable Passages relating to the horrid Piot Together with an Account of the Endeavours that were used by the Popish party to stifle his Evidence The Narrative of Lawrence Mowbray of Leeds in the County of York Gent. concerning the bloody Popish Conspiracy against the Life of his Sacred Majesty the Government and the Protestant Religion Wherein is contained 1. His knowledge of the said Design from the very first in the Year 1676 with the Opportunity he had to be acquainted therewith and the Reasons why he concealed it so long with the manner of his discovering the said wicked Project to his Majesty and his most honourable Privy Council 2. How far Sir Thomas Gascoigne Sir Miles Stapleton c. are ingaged in the Design of Killing the King and Fireing the City of London and York for the more speedy setting uppermost the Popish Religion in England 3. An Account of the Assemblings of many Popish Priests and Jesuits at Father Rishton's Chamber at Sir Gascoigue's house at Barmebow with their Consultations and Determinations with other considerable matters relating to the Plot. Together with an account of the Endeavours that were used to stifle his Evidence by making an Attempt upon his Life in Leicester Fields price 6 d. A Memento for the English Protestants c. with an Answer to that part of the Compendium which reflects on the Bishop of Lincoln's late Book Quarto price stitcht 6 d. Naked Truth the first part Being the true state of the Primitive Church By an humble Moderator price stitcht one shilling Causa Dei Or an Apology for God wherein the perpetuity of Insernal Torments is evinced and Divine Goodness and Justice that notwithstanding defended c. By Richard Burthogge M. D. Tulli's elect Orations Gouge's Works Octavo Horrid Popish Plot in a Pack of Cards A second Pack continuing a Representation of their Villainous Design from the publication of the first Pack to the last Sessions of Parliament begun Octob. 21. 1680. AN 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 Tribe 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 2. 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
in your sense who died lately and hath told me being my very dear Friend his own Judgment and the Parliament's as I now tell it you I have in the heat of the Wars heard Sir Thomas Middleton Major General Mitton and many others thus give their Judgment Yea these were for the Liturgy and full Conformity and some of them for Dr. Hammond's highest strain of Episcopacy But it s sufficient to your Cause that though the men who are yet living are the best Witnesses of their own minds yet you are resolved not to believe either them or me But let me remember you of one wide-mouâ—hed Witness more which will almost swallow up your credit When Cromwell and his Army and their secret Adherents in the Parliament cast out the eleven Members of Parliament first and Conquered the City and pull'd down all the Committees and disbanded all the other Forces of Massey's Army and all the Garrison and County Forces Yea before that when they layd by Essex and his old Officers and Army and abundance of the Parliament-men that had Command in Garrisons Armies c. by the self-denying Vote as it was called All this was done upon Insinuations that they were not men to be trusted being even then at the heart for the most part Episcopal And if yet you are incredulous and as distant as the other Pole I will now but intreat you to fetch one Argument from the North to draw you from your North-Pole distance and tell your self whether Major General Monk and Morgan and his Army which brought in the King and set up the Bishops again was Episcopal or Presbyterian And yet their long abode in Scotland made that Army accounted to be more Presbyterian than any Army that was in England But as King Charles saith in his Letter to Mr. Henderson No man can so hardly understand as he that would not know That the War is so odious now as that neither side will own it is no wonder when they have learned by so much Experience I would it had been so from the beginning § 28. I must allow you to ease your Fancy with the name of Singularities strange Imaginations the body of a dead man c. for want of bettet stuff But it s more strange to me that the Contention between Arminian and Calvinian Prelats and Prelatists should be talked of as so incredible when your Goliah Peter Heylin hath made it so much of the substance of his History of the Life of A. B. Laud. In what you say more of Williams you still confute your self For what say you but that selfish carnal Motives did make an A. B. fight against the King But was he therefore no Prelatist and yet an Archprelate or was he therefore a Presbyterian A. B. I again advise you not to cast all out of your Church that are ruled by selfishness and worldly interest least you leave so few as will take away the glory of your Magnitude and leave the Sectaries to vie with you for the majority And I will intreat you but to mark throughout the foresaid History of A. B. Laud how grosly and uglily your foresaid Champion describeth Laud and the chief of his Party as if Preferment and Rising were there very scope and the contriving and seeking it by all Friends and means were their very Trade of life and business in this world So that to a truly heavenly mortified Christian it must needs seem as loathsom a Character as Christ giveth the rich man Luke 16. 12. if not much more For he writeth Pride Ambition worldliness seeking to be greatest as it were the very Inscription of the Picture which he draweth As his own Letters in the Caball say the same of Williams And will you make that to be a mark of No-prelate which your Champion maketh their notorious Character Read him impartially and judge As for Arrius I had no acquaintance with him nor have I any business with him But if all my foresaid twenty Evidences fail me and I cannot know what a Parliament was what a Synod was what an Army was when I was acquainted familiarly with so many of them all How should I know whether or no that Epiphanius spake truly of the secret heart of Arrius who so openly falsly and furiously abused and persecuted his Superiour Chrysostom You shall believe what you will and I will believe what I can But few men have ventured to cast such a slur upon S. Hierom as you do saying That Jerom himself was not a jot the better for it even for missing of a Bishoprick Medina himself hath not done him so much wrong What Bishoprick was it that he sought and missed of and when Though he joyned with Chrysostom's Adversaries I find not that he sought his Place or any other Bishops though he sowrly over-top Augustine in confidence of arguing I find not that he sought to be above him in place It 's well that you are not out of hope of Preferment your self lest you should turn Presbyterian for pardon on my smarting sharpness of speech to you as you account it while I tell you that I take you not for a better man than S. Jerom and therefore think that want of Preferment would do more with you than it did with him But this is the ordinary judgment of Worldlings who measure other men by themselves When I am dead and cannot answer for my self I doubt not but the same will be said of me though you were now forced to recede from that Censure But above all Impudencies I must magnifie theirs that charge this on the Presbyterians as such whose denominating opinion lieth in resisting all Honours Preferments Precedencies great riches c. in the Ministry save what meer Worth or Age procureth and yet they are said to be discontent because they cannot be Bishops when their Doctrine is against them The Dog that is busie about his Carrion snarleth at every one that passeth by as jealous that he would bereave him of his Feast § 29. 31. When the Question is As whether the Parliament of England be English-men or French-men I will take your return of round square and forked Atomes for a very moving Answer considering the Cause and Person But when I alledge your perversest Champion Heylin only ad hominem I will not believe that your Allegation of his Lies against Presbyterians is any more argumentum ad hominem to us than if you alledged the authority of Manesseh Ben Israel till you have proved for what cannot you do that you have a mind to do that Pet. Heylin as well as the Archbishop of York was a Presbyterian I thank you for your silence to § 32. § 33. When our Question was of the Causers of the late War and we came to recite the Principles of the Leaders of the Prelatical party what should I do more than name the men and their Books When the Bishop silenced me and forbid me to Preach in his Diocess he commended
for my Cure the reading of Bilson and Hooker and named no others I now recited the words of Bilson and Hooker the first as asserting the Principles of the Parliament the second as going quite beyond them on the Principles of them that pull'd down the Parliament I cited page and words at large To all this I have nothing but that you will cover your Fathers nakedness and not own all that they say But doth not this yield that this was their doctrine What need you disown or cover it if it were not so Yet nothing will make some men confess But still Mr. Hooker you admire and so did Camden Usher Morton Hales Gawden King James King Charles I dare not joyn my self to so great Names as one of his Admirers lest I seem too much to value my self I will come far behind them supposing that a long tedious Discourse in him hath as much substance as one might put into a Syllogism of six Lines I said but that it was theirs and such Prelatist's Principles that led me into what I did and wrote His Principles might do it and not he as they were managed by other men But these are Niceties to men that heed not what they read or say What is written Line 1. p. 24. § 10. you seem to defend and 1. you say What is this more than some that writ for the Kings Cause in the late Wars professed Answ And will you defend or own all that then was confessed by them Have you read the Kings Answer to the 19 Propositions Do you know that the Parliaments Adherents drew up a Catechism out of that Answer as pretending to justifie all their Cause by it Know you not that in Fountains Letter answered by Dr. Steward and in Sir Nethersole's Writings for the King and many others those things are supposed or asserted which I would not counsel you now to assert Your Instance is That as to making of Laws our Kings have not challenged a Power without Parliaments Answer God be thanked but that 's none of our Question But what you will not know you cannot understand Seeing you seem to justifie Hooker here who saith That Laws they are not which publick Approbation hath not made so Which I believe of those Countries where such publick Senates have part in the Legislation By this you must say that in the Turks Dominions or any the like there are no Laws But if you say that the Original Grant of the Legislative Power to one is equivalent to an Approbation of his Laws I maintain that Hooker's Principle is false That by the natural Law whereto God hath made all subject the natural power of making Laws to command whole publick Societies of men belongeth so properly to the same entire Societies that for any Prince or Potentate of what kindsoever upon earth to exercise the same himself and not either by express Commission immediately and personally received from God or else by Authority derived at first from their Consent upon whose persons they impose Laws it is no better than meer Tyranny How hard a task then do you put Kings upon to excuse themselves from Tyranny when ever such Prelatists will accuse them of it For 1. I hope you will not put them to prove That they have their Power by an express Commission immediately and personally from God as Saul and David had Shall we obey none but those that fanatically can pretend to a Revelation or immediate personal Commission from Heaven And 2. prove if you can that the People have Regal power to use or to give I grant that originally their Consent may be necessary to the designation of the Person or Family that shall receive it from God But it is God that giveth the power though the people choose the Person or Family no man giveth that which he hath not The People have not legal or governing Power Ergo they cannot give it The Wife chooseth her Husband but Gods Institution giveth him his power If that it be certain as Doctor Hammond hath proved against John Goodwin that the Peoples consent doth give no power but onely let in the person that shall receive it from God and not from them how dare you thus conclude all Kings on earth to be but Tyrants as Hooker plainly doth For no King on Earth hath an immediate personal Commission from Heaven And no King that I know of can receive power from the People that never had it to give Ergo you make all Kings to be no Kings but Tyrants but falsly Will you defend this because Hooker wrote it Were not these the Levellers and Democratists Principles higher than the old Parliament owned Must a Clergy of such Principles put men upon banishing the Non-conformists five Miles from a Corporation as men of seditious Principles Terras astraea reliquit You tell me I take what is for my purpose and leave out the rest Ans Semper idem Do I mai many Sentence Do I pervert any Is the rest contradictory to this What in the great Hooker No not at all I suppose the rest Unrighteous man If you require me to write out all his Book when ever I transcribe a part I own that which you transcribe What would you have more But next you say that I have found other Doctrine in Hookers other Books Answ A silly pretence of which anon You ask Was you led aside by Hooker c. yet you quote passages out of the 8th Book that came out since Ans A man that would turn us to Conformity must be able himself to heed what he readeth 1. I said not that Hooker but such Principles led me 2. I never said that I was led by every word that I now cite but that these words contain the Principles which missed me that is so far and so long as I followed those Principles Do you not see that your heedlesness tempted you to this Error and yet your Ex post liminio and first building the Roof seemed sence to you or you would have them seem such at least to me But it 's well that you disown these three Book of Hookers also But 1. is not this forecited in the first the very sum of all that you are afraid of 2. Will you so give away the sixth and seventh which say far more for Episcopacy than all the rest 3. Will you thus reproach all Bishop Gauden's triumphant Vindication and Dedication to the King 4. Did he not tell you that the Copy was interlined with Hookers own hand as approving it What would you have more 5. I again tell you I can bring you proof of a Concordant Copy the Scribes Errates excepted 6. Mr. Walton could not deny it 7. Dr. Bernard cited by you confirmeth it For to say that a Sentence or two were left doth intimate that the Book was his and leaving out is not putting in And I cited nothing that was left out nor any thing in it that is maimed for want of
it 8. Any man may see that the 8th Book was imperfect and that is proved by the matter manner and end But it was nevertheless Hooker's and concordant in style and matter with the first And have you now vindicated the Doctrine of the chief Prelatists any better than by disowning them And do you take it as incredible that many Episcopal men in Parliament should think as Bilson and Hooker thought and as the great Speakers Sir Dudley Digs Cook Philips Eliot and many such in former Parliaments did seem to think § 35. Did you write against their Discipline with such ugly Insinuations of Treason before you knew what their Discipline was and then think you are excused by saying It must not be touched 2. Did you not know till now that the Nonconformists are not in all things of one mind They never pretended to it How many men are so whose Faith is their own Are you after so many years to learn that some that Conform not are Episcopal some Presbyterians some Independents and some as we of Worcestershire and I think most of England addicted to no Party but thinking that each of the three and the Erastians too have somewhat in which they excel the rest and somewhat in which they erre more than the rest This is our judgment And will not old printed Writings make you know it before you first write against it and then wonder at it and make a stir about that which you know not when i'ts told you You next think that by proving that they flie their Habitation and refuse the Oath you sufficiciently prove that the Chorus sticks at renouncing War against the King Because it is a serious business I must profess that you here so cross the common Principles of Reason Humanity or Christianity that you do not at all tempt me to Conform When you know if you are reasonable that if they should take all the Oath except the last Clause they are nevertheless to be confined from Corporations When you know if you are reasonable that a man may judge the first part or one part lawful that thinketh otherwise of the last and so that he must remove his Habitation To conclude yet that the flying of their Habitations and not taking the Oath is a proof that they are against the whole or against that Clause that renounceth Arms against the King and to take this for a Demonstration as going is that there is motion I tell you again this reasoning beseemeth not a Divine or a man Doth it not imply that you will take an Oath your self if you judge but one part of it lawful And yet before that Voâ—doth bind no man to the lawful parts which you said had in it some parts unlawful Thus Errors agree amongst themselves You open your self yet more you say This makes me nauseate your Principles as much as the former viz. Not swearing not to endeavour an alteration in the Government of the Church Answ And indeed do you loath as much the altering of your Church Government as the Kings and yet be loyal Is it as loathsom to turn Diocesance into the old Episcopacy or to set up Bishop Usher's Model which we offered yea or to take down Lay Chancellor's power of the Keys as to take down Kings Yet this tempts me not unto Conformity Yet do you not stick to say next Yes by Petition as becomes Subjects viz. we may endeavour alteration Answ What a saying and unsaying is this And what a jumble of swearing and unswearing would you have us make Will men awake believe that Petitioning is no Endeavouring Will you preach this Doctrine to your Flock You may lawfully swear that you will not any time endeavour an alteration of the Scripture of the Ministry of the Universities of Religion of Monarchy and yet may endeavour it by Petitioning that Oath notwithstanding May a man swear universally and mean particularly May he swear that he will not at any time murder his Child and mean except by famishing him May he swear that he will never endeavour to defame you or take away your Life or Lands and yet may Petition the King or Parliament to take them away swear with you at these rates that will for me But by this it appeareth that quoad sensum you are of the Nonconformists mind though not as to the method of swearing For if they could but stretch their Consciences to put your sense upon that Clause of the Oath they would take it And yet do you nauseate their Principles and Discipline because they cannot interpret it as you who would take it were it so interpreted See then by how small a matter even the meer exposition of the words Satan can tempt some men to nauseate the Discipline and Principles of others that fear an Oath But you think in our Places and Callings is that Ministers must preach them down and Souldiers fight them down Ans 1. But is not Petitioning confest by you to be agreeable to the Place and Calling of a Subject and therefore allowable And so you build up what you would pull down 2. Either it belongeth to the place and calling of a Minister to preach for Church Reformation in the said Alteration or not If it be dare you oppose it If it be not this Clause restraineth it 3. If the King who can give Souldiers Authority should commission Souldiers to pull down Lay Chancellors or alter Prelacy and make a Bishop in every Market Town or Parish would you teach the Souldiers to disobey and any to resist him What! and yet in the Oath swear that it is not lawful to resist any Commissioned by him But a Souldier that is not authorized to do it doth it not in his place and calling Your talk of changing Discipline with Rebellion by instances from practices is but a proceeding in bold Calumniation when you say nothing to the Vindications which Dr. Pet. Moulin Bishop Bilson King James and others have given it And to name no Instance but that of Prague is so bad that I will not name its quality Do you know what Discipline they were of at Prague I suppose you know that the Bohemian Waldenses were Episcopal as Commenius and Lascitius Treatises will shew you under the name of Seniors and Conseniors And the Palatine Discipline was mostly Erastian by Magistrates even long before Erastus pleaded for it against Beza even as was and is the Discipline of the Helvetians And hath the Image of both Churches or some such Papist put this into your head to nauseate Magistrates Church-Government for the sake of them of Prague that raised a Tumult against the Magistrate on what cause I leave to just Historians When you ask me what I think of those disciplinarian Principles I answer I think who ever used them they are false and I think him a shameless Calumniator that will charge them on us that Conform not without one syllable or shew of proof Do you mean Bancroft and
the King hath not the said Power of the Spiritual Keys and Sacraments 5. And specially the most learned and zealous Defenders of Monarchy and Prelacy Bilson of Chest Obed. and Perp. Gov. and Andrews in Tortura Torti have most plainly and vehemently renounced it and shewed their malice or ignorance that impute such an Arrogation to our Kings So also Carlton of Jurisdic Jewel Whitaker and who not 6. What a King may do virtually by another I think unless Inconveniencies hinder the exercise he hath power to do himself But I think the King may not Administer Sacraments or Spiritual Discipline himself Which of our Kings did it Or who since Uzziah offered Sacrifice among the Jews 7. Our Kings never yet pretended so much as to Ordain that is to Invest another in that Power Ministerially in the Name of Christ But as to the Supremacy it 's true that the King is the Supream over Physicians Philosophers c. but not the Supream Physician or Philosopher He exerciseth Coercive Government by the Sword over Bishops who use Spiritual Government by the Keys and Word but hath not Authority to use this same sort of oversight himself unless a Clergy-man were King as some are Magistrates As to the Proxies of the Lords Spiritual in Parliament when you have as well proved that Christ hath allowed them to Preach Administer Sacraments and exercise the Keys by Proxies I will yield all that Cause But they will be loath to go to Heaven by Proxy Page 21. As to Jebosaphats Mission and his Nobles Teaching I answer 1. Teaching is not so proper to a Pastor or Clergy-man as the Keys and Sacraments Parents have their Office or Power of teaching and School-masters and Lay Catechists have theirs and Magistrates have theirs Judges on the Bench do usually teach the People even religious Duties so did Constantine and so may any King But there is a different teaching whith is proper to the Clergy which is by teaching to gather Churches and guide them and edifie them as Pastors devoted or separated to this as their proper Office As there is a difference between the Office of a Physician and a Womans healing a cut finger or giving a Cordial to one that fainteth But this proper Teaching which God did not leave in common to others no Prince can use no Bishop can do by Proxy Nor can he delegate to a Lay-man the power of the Keys and Sacraments 2. And the King may no doubt command Pastors to do their Duty as well as Physicians to do theirs I take none of this to be quarrelling but plain truth Your telling us that Chancellors may direct and advise the Surrogates may signifie something in another Land but not with us If we had never seen their Courts nor read Travers Of the difference between Christs Discipline and theirs yet Cousin's Tables are in our Libraries You add We are all but the Bishops Curates in the exercise of it Answ 1. I ventured to deny that to Bag shaw who made it the Reason of Separation And I will yet deny it of some others though not of you If we are all but the Bishops Curates the Italian Bishops of Trent were not so absurd as they were made in making the Bishops the Popes Curates How easie should I be were I a Curate could I believe that I have no more to answer for than the Bishop imposed on me and that he must answer for all the rest I suppose that the Office of the Presbyters or Ministers of Christ is immediately Instituted and described in the Scriptures and that the Bishop doth but Invest them in it and that their work is their own as properly as the Bishop's is his own and that his Precminence maketh not him the Communicator of the Power to them as from himself nor them to be his Curates 2. And while I think that I can prove this very easily censure us not too deeply for not swearing to the Bishops if the sence of it be to make us his Curates Not that I think my self too good to be a Servant to the Bishop's Coach man but that I dare not subvert Christ's established Church Orders As for your Engine and Wonders and Babel and Lucifer and trembling I have not learning enough to answer them As to your talk of Absolute Autocratical c. they are but Oratorical Flowers that speak against none of our particular Doctrines but are the rant of your Magisterial style And your talk of Excommunicating Kings may pass as part of your equal ways to one that hath written so oft against Excommunicating Kings when yet Bishop Andrews and other Prelates maintain the Refusing them the Communion and you know in what Case Chrysostom rather offered to lose Hand and Life even then to give the Sacrament to the Greatest that was unworthy Prove that ever any of the present Non-conformists who were called to present the judgment or desires of the rest did ever say more than Andrews and Bilson or so much But the Lord Digby is your Author Answ 1. Were we and our present Controversie for the most of us in being and at age when the Lord Digby spake that Is not Conformity now another thing Do all or half the Non-conformists profess themselves Presbyterians Are Presbyterians all for Excommunicating Kings And do not some that are for it confine it only to such Pastors as Kings themselves shall commit their Souls to and give leave to exercise that Power Are we I say we now living and silenced answerable for all that any Presbyterian holdeth any more than you are for what Hooker holdeth Some Scots-men refuse the Oath of Supremacy Are we guilty of that Mistake who Take it and Write for it Or did we spring out of their Loins and must be silenced for such Original sin derived from them that were no kin to us 2. But where did the Lord Digby say it You cite no Book or Speech of his but cite Rushworth p. 218. Where is no syllable of any such matter nor any where else that I can yet find 3. Suppose he had Did he not say in his Letter to Sir Ken. Digby Printed That the Primitive Church Government will be found pecking towards Presbytery He was then Episcopal he is now a Papist Is not his Authority then ad hominem while he was one of your own more valued against you than against them that were not of his Party or way and is this good arguing Whatever the Lord Digby Bancroft Heylin and if you will Bellarmine charge the Presbyterians with 1640 or I know not when or where all that are the Non-conformists Episcopal Presbyterians Independents and Catholick Moderators are guilty of in 1671. But the Lord Digby sometimes said that the Presbyterians would Excommunicate Kings Ergo the present Nonconformists even Episcopal and all are guilty of that Opinion even they that write against it But all your ways are just and equal But I pray you why was no Article about
Excommunicating Kings offered us as a Test or why was there never any such difference between us and the Prelatists pretended Try us whether we will not subscribe in this to as much as the Prelatists ever did agree on or ordinarily hold and lay our Liberty upon it and spare not But I remember you nibled before at my words in Differ of Magist and Pastors power Thes 60. p. 38. as if I had said That unless perhaps in some rare Case Kings may not be Excommunicated A Calumny when I annexed those words of exception only to the Excommunicating of Parents But your ways are still equal And I gave even Moral Reasons against Excommunicating Kings and Parents But when you in swearing will put who knows how many Exceptions to express Universals must I after all this be at your mercy unless I will say that In no rare case a Pastor may Excommunicate his own Parents What if the rare Case were 1. That he were but one in a Presbytery subject to a Bishop and his Parents were as open Apostates as Julian and the Bishop and the rest of the Presbytery required him to concur in their Excommunication 2. What if the King command a Bishop to Excommunicate a Magistrate or Parent for Treason Must he needs be disobeyed 3. What if God should send an Angel or Prophet with a particular Message so to do I am sure that Case is rare enough and I durst not disobey But it s hard pleasing some men § 45. Semper idem 1. But will you give it under your hand as a Lesson to your Flock That a Minister may not gainsay another for slandering Christians who in any thing differ from him that doth gainsay him nor may defend the Innocency of a Presbyterian unless he be one himself And that all men are bound to stand to the Opinions of all Christians in all other points whom they seek to vindicate against publick slanders What a pack of Doctrines do the Reasonings of these your Writings imply if they were but set together If I write almost twenty years ago and still against Lay Elders a Conformist may equally charge that upon me which I write against if I do but plead against slandering those that hold what I dissent from Yea he knoweth not where to have us so little do our Writings signifie our minds in these mens account The first Epist to Kederm in the first Book that ever I wrote disclaims them But that 's nothing to you And I must be taken for the Achilles of the Party and accountable for their Opinions if I do but say to a Printing Conformist Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy Neighbour May I not say so to you for a Heathen or a Papist Dr. Heylin tells us in the Life of Archbishop Laud That the Kings Printers were censured sorely for Printing the Seventh Commandment Thou shalt commit Adultery But I never yet met with the Ninth Commandment so transmuted to give you any excuse If you think it lawful to say any thing how unjust soever against a man that is not for your Discipline which you as much wish amended your self I am of another mind When Lamprid tells us that Alex Severus borrowed his Motto of the Christians Quod tibi fieri non vis c. He never said that therefore he was a Christian I had got no Lawyer to plead for me at the Bar if they had known that they were accountable for all my Opinions I am sure the Lord Chief Justice when he acquit me thought fit to declare his different judgment from mine in point of Preaching privately Yet here your terms of Logick are Into how many shapes and Hecatetriformis Fish flesh Mermaid Episcopal Presbyterian Independent yet none of these when you please an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes in the water sometimes out I wish you were hot or cold All this set together would make a Syllogism of a new Mood and Figure But 1. For ought I know most of the Nonconformists are such are your bungling description intimateth And whatever men hold take it as it is and feign them not to hold what they do not Do not you in Print proclaim men to be flesh or fish hot or cold that are not so But lay our Error where it lieth even as I must not take your Chancellors for Clergy-men or Lay-men 2. And did not all my tedious writings convince you before now that I therefore take that for an honour which you take for my disgrace because I take that for plain and certain truth which you reproach You could not except a Catholick Christian have trulier called me than an Episcopal Presbyterian-Independent I have oft enough told the World that I am very confident that each of the three Parties have some Truths and some Errors appropriate to themselves or which the rest have not I never found in Scripture any Obligation that I must needs be of a Faction in a time when Faction hath bred Wars troubled Kingdoms silenced Preachers by the hundreds c. and when I have seen and felt the Effects and not been always innocent of the Cause Nor yet that I must either refuse all the good or receive all the bad and feed on the excrements of any Faction whatsoever I am for no such heats or cold I am no such fish or flesh I will neither persecute as Paul did nor separate as Peter did Gal. 2. nor comply as Barnabas did nor reject the Brethren as Diotrephes did nor condemn others as the Weak did nor despise them as the strong did Rom. 14. 1 2 c. But be such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he that became a Jew a Greek all things to all men that he might win some When I offended the Bishops in Conference I openly told them I had ever taken kneeling at the Sacrament to be lawful but I never took it to be lawful to cast honest Christians out of the Communion of the Church of Christ that dare not do it Did this prove me to be neither fish nor flesh Is no man of your Religion that is not for Excommunication or Prisons Swords or Flames for every Child of God that cryeth or wrangleth with the Breast Again I will say were they Priscillianists I am more for Martin's Spirit than the Ithacian Bishops And Sir that factious fury and uncharitableness keepeth up but a present violent kind of honour the Instance now once again named may tell you that when all the Bishops thereabouts in their Synods did but seek to the Magistrate to use the Sword against such gross Hereticks as the Priscillianists who as Severus saith that knew them were Gnosticks and but one poor ragged unlearned godly Bishop Martin with one other only in all France did dissent from them reprove them and separate for it from their Synods and Communion Godly people accidentally falling under the Vulgars reproach for the Hereticks sake as lately by the word Puritans here yet this one
Colledge though in the great remote end they both agree But you fly to that poor shift of bidding me take heed of absurd and ridiculous Suppositions not argumentative c. As if you had shewed any absurdity in these Suppositions Or as if plain undeniable Instances had no place in Arguments or Answers but were ridiculous Suppositions and he that would say that a Kingdom is greater than a Family and the King than a Master or Major used a ridiculous Supposition Just thus the poor Nonconformists are perswaded by your Pithonalogy to subscribe swear c. But I seem you say to assert this my self by saying there is a small difference between Bishop Usher's Model and the present Answ It 's tedious disputing with one that must have still another Writing to help him to understand that which he will first confute yea and seemeth not willing to understand It is a fallacy A dicte secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter I only askt you What Farthing doth it take from their Estates What Title from their Honour Power Negative voice even their Lordships and Parliament places But is this the Question We then laboured to satisfie the unsatisfied Ministers that not only Bishop Usher's Reduction but even the King's Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs had changed the very species of Prelacy without any of those Abatements If you would know it is by one word Consent restoring the inferiour Pastors and Churches though not to their Integrals yet to their Essentials And we were so inclinable to Conformity that on that supposition we had Conformed had but that Declaration stood though some of the Sects are of another mind whom you Arguments would confirm For we judge that a Bishop of one only Church consisting of five hundred or a thousand Chappels or Congregations that are strictly no Churches as having no Bishops doth specifically differ from a Bishop of a thousand Churches which have every one their proper Bishop and so he is truly an Archbishop or General Bishop But I am not to trouble you with this And now how impertinent was it to bid me Rub up my Philosophy about Maximum quod sic minimum quod non Know you not that the common use of those Writers are to intimate the same thing that I am saying against you That there is a subjective maximum minimum which only are capable of the relative form But I am next turned to Vossius de invoc sanct of which he hath there disputed and one Histor Thes and I am not told which of them but the words are in the first Thes 49. to prove that the Saint in Heaven and those on Earth make one Society Quare cum nihil obstat quo minus unius civitatis cives dicamur nec causae quicquam erit quo minus aeque civilis honos dicatur qui civibus coelestibus exhibetur quam qui civibus terrenis Nam grad◠quidem honores isti differunt sed uterque tamen est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And was it possible that you should think that this made for you Because the world or Universe of Rationals are one Body or Society and so civil honour is the same thing as such in genere to them in Heaven as to them on Earth doth it follow that in this universal Society there are no Kingdoms Cities or Families specifically different Nor no different species of the civil honour what not to Kings Parents Masters What a thing is factions Interest Vossius only proveth Generical Identity of civil honour and the specifical difference of it from the honour of Religious Adoration The Church universal is one and the love and honour which we owe to the Saints in Heaven and Earth is Generically of the same kind But do you believe therefore that there are no subordinate Species of Churches and Honour on Earth What not the Honour due to the King the Bishop the Chancellor the Parish Curates the Deacons and the Beggars Yet all this with you are Premises sufficient to conclude And then it may be you may give leave to Magis minus non variant speciem to be a Maxim still See what Evidence it is that must perswade us to Nonconformity Are they not worthy to be silenced and branded as you have done that can resist such Light But you come to the quick and say Is there no Communion but personal Answ Yes else they could not be two ends to make two Societies You add Many of the Kings Subjects never saw his face yet they have many Hands and Eyes in respect of their subordinate Officers so have Diocesans in their Curates Answ Very true And that proveth that a Kingdom is one Society and a whole Diocess also one Ignoras Elenchum But doth that prove that there are no subordinate Societies in these Which though subordinate in point of Power yet specifically differ Is there no such thing as Personal Communion in presence because there is such a thing as distant Communion of another sort For all that your terms of Hands and Eyes would hide it I scarce think you are ignorant that under the King there are Heads as well as Hands and Eyes Heads of Families Schools Colledges Universities Corporations Cities who are constitutive parts of real Societies which are not of the same species with a Kingdom though in it And if Archbishops be of God's appointment so it should be with Archbishops and Bishops and every Church should have a Bishop But if you will not have it so but we must only have a Bishop and Curates and a Diocesan Church and Chappels you betray our Cause to the Brownists who easily prove No Bishop or Pastor no Church in sensu politico And so when you have granted them that we have no true Parish Churches there are few of them whose Wit is so weak as not to disprove the pretended right of such Diocesan Churches as consist of the Carkasses of many hundred mortified Parish Churches § 50. My Answer I must not repeat take it how you will you here come to the very Controversie I will not begin it with you because I cannot prosecute it I have so much to say on it as at these rates may engage you and me in dispute for many years if we lived so long which I find no reason allowing me to undertake Get me leave to Write and Publish it and I will write you a just Volume of it since it is published till then I again tell you I have said enough though too negligently in my Dispute of Church Government though one hath nibled at the Forms of some Arguments in it If you would have more answer Gers Bucer Parker and Ames's fresh Suit to name no other § 50. I shewed the invalidity 1. Of your Licitis honestis 2. And of former Obedience sub poena anathematis as nothing to our case in hand and do you deny what I said and disprove it 2. I tell you that so far as Bishops or
all Religion Christianity the Gospel the Church all Government Introducing Popery c. Especially for asserting 1. That Christ hath Instituted one Universal Church of which he onely is the Head and particular Churches as parts of it of which the Pastors are Subordinate Heads or Governours and so formally differenced 2. That neither of them is Constituted without some signification of consent which he never before heard one Christian deny CHAP. I. PREFATORY § 1. COntending though Defensive and made necessary by Accusers is an unpleasant work As I would choose a Prison before a Defensive War were it for no greater interest than my own so I would choose to be in Print proclaimed an Heretick Schismatick Atheist or any thing rather than be at the unpleasing labour of a Confutation of all Accusers were it not for a higher interest than mine For though we must contend for the Faith yet the servant of the Lord must not needlesly strive 2 Tim. 2. 24 25. And experience tells us the good seldome answereth the bad effects § 2. And there are few that call me to a publick Account that I answer less willingly than Mr. Cheney because his Accusations are such gross Mistakes that I cannot Answer them in the gentlest manner according to truth without opening that which will bring him lower in the Readers esteem than I desire and I much fear will be to himself a temptation which he will hardly overcome as I see by this his 2d Book Had he that was my familiar Neighbour thought meet to have spoken with me before his Publications I am past doubt that I could have convinced him of multitudes of Untruths and Errours so as to have prevented such a publication of them for in private he would easilier have born the detection of them than in the hearing of the World which he has chosen But whereas some cast away his Book as a fardel of Dotage and shameless Lyes I must remember such that I am confident he wrote no falshoods with a purpose knowingly to deceive and therefore they are not strictly Lyes but as rash untruths are such in a larger sense which ignorant men assert for want of due tryal It is a great errour to over-value such poor frail ignorant men as we all are Mr. Ch. and I have both over-valued one another and this errour now we have both escaped but not laid by our Christian love And as God will not take Mens Diseases for their Sins his bodily temper is to me a great excuse of his strong confident mistakes § 3. The very Introductory Preface of his Books disowning Cruelty and uncharitable dividing Impositions enableth me to forgive him the multitude of rash untruths and slanders and instead of a Mentiris I shall put but a Putares or Non-putares I have just such a task in dealing with Mr. Ch. as with one that is hard of hearing when I speak to such a one that heareth but one half and mis-heareth the rest he answereth me as he heard and when I tell him his mistake his last reply is I thought you had said thus and thus but if I should dispute a whole day with such a man I should be sharply censured if I printed the Dispute and told the World how many hundred times the man mis-heard and so mistook me And I fear neither he himself nor the Reader that valueth his time would thank me for such exercise of my Arithmetick with Mr. Cheney § 4. For his Preface I thank him It tells me that all our Accusers do it not in meer Malignity and that he hath a few steps further to tumble before he come to the bottom of the hill His Book consisteth partly of a handsome considerable discourse for Prelacie and other Church-Offices of Humane Invention and partly of a new singular Doctrine about Church-Forms partly in a critical discharge of his fancy and unpacking his preparations against the Independant Covenant and Church-Form and partly in detecting my many Atheistical Infidel Impious Errours by which he supposeth I am deceiving the world and partly n a multitude of falshoods of me and others in matter of fact and partly I hope an ignorant plea for the Pope To open all these fully would tire the Reader and me CHAP. II. What the Doctrine is which he accuseth of Atheism Impiety c. § 1. THE Reader that hath well perused my Writings knoweth it but I cannot expect that all should do so that read his Book The abstract is this I. That Jesus Christ is Head over all things to the Church Eph. 1. 22 23. II. That the Mosaical Law as such never bound other Kingdoms and is ceased with their Commonwealth and is abrogated by Christ and that he as King of the Church hath established a sufficient Law for all that is universally necessary for Doctrine Worship and Church-order or Government and was faithful in all his house as Moses and Commissioned his Apostles to Disciple Nations Baptizing them and teaching them what Christ himself had commanded them Matth. 28. 19. III. That he setled the Ministry and Church-Form before he made any Magistrate Christian and that no Magistrate hath power to change them IV. That what his Apostles did by his Commission and Spirit he did by them V. That Church-Forms being so Instituted and Constituted he hath not left them so much to the will of Man as he hath done the Forms of Civil Government VI. That Christ hath One Universal Church of which he is the onely Head and Law-giver and no Vicar personal or collective as one Political person or power of which professed believers and consenters in Baptism are the visible Members and sincere Believers and Consenters the Spiritual saved Members VII That the World and Church are not all one nor Heathens and Infidels the same with Christians nor any parts of the Church properly called VIII That Christs Ministers first work to which they were Commissioned was not on the Church or any Member of it but the Infidel world to gather them into a Church and the first Baptized person was not Baptized into a pre-existent Church but the Church existing Baptism entereth men into it IX That the first Baptizer was no Pastor of such an existent Church but an Organical Minister to gather a Christian Church X. That though at Baptism one may enter into the Universal and a particular Church yet Baptisme qua talis entereth us onely into the Universal being our Christening or Covenant-uniting to the body of Christ XI That a Pastor in the Scripture and usual sense is a Relate to Oves the Sheep or Flock and not to Infidels And a Ministry to Infidels and an Episcopacy or Pastorship of the flock are different notions but if any will use the terms otherwise we contend not de nomine though you call him a Pastor of Infidels or what else you can devise XII To explain my self when I mention a Bishop or Pastor I mean the Bishop or Pastor of
of both known to us in the world I oft enough distinguishing de nomine aequivoco have told men that it is not every Christian Assembly that we speak of but societas politica And all Politicks call the form of the Government the specifying form of the Politick Society throughout the known world So Monarchy Aristocracie Democracie are specifying forms of Republicks And Schools Armies Navies have divers Relative forms specifyed by the union of the various Regent Relative parts to the rest § IV. The Form is a chief essential part § V. Therefore divers specifying forms prove divers essences in specie § VI. It is not the generical form that specifieth Else all things that are ejusdem generis should be ejusdem speciei All bodies are not Animate nor all Animals Men nor all Men Bishops or Physicians § VII The Genus denominated without defining it with the specifying form or difference makes the Definition of the Species Else the Definition of the species infima would be confounded by the conjunct definitions of all the superiour Genera He that defineth a King must not put in it the definition of Homo of Animal of Vivens of Corpus and Anima of substantia § VIII The highest species must be defined by its proper highest form though not the subordinate species The King must be put in the definition of a Kingdom but not of a City Country Church Family School he is there supposed in a Kingdom And so of others § IX The higher Genera must not be named in the definition of the species but the next which is the superiour species Therefore Mr. Ch. mistook his Art of defining when he said I mist it by naming Christ as the Head of the Church Universal and adding that I blame my self that defining of a particular Church As in Relations it is not the ultimate end but the nearest that must be in the definition so is it not the highest but the next Genus that must be named In defining all the lower species the higher Genera are but implyed in the naming of genus proximum and not named § X. The Relation of Jesus Christ and of a humane Bishop are not the same Relation in specie though both be called Heads or Rulers Proved There is not the same subjectum nor the same fundamentum vel ratio fundandi nor the same Correlate for all the Christian world and a Diocese are not the same nor the same nearest terminus Ergo not the same Relation § XI Therefore the Universal Church Headed by Christ onely and a particular Church subordinately Headed by a Bishop or Clergy-head are essentially divers and two Proved Where the formal specifying Head or Regent part is two or divers and the Body divers c. there the societies are divers in specie or essentially But so it is here Ergo. That One and One are Two I will not undertake to prove to Mr. Ch. nor think it needful to prove to others nor yet that Christ is One and a Bishop one and not the same That Christ is the formal Head of the Universal Church all Christians confess and therefore to be named in the definition whether Mr. Ch. will or not and not supposed Baptismal Union and subjecting to him maketh us Christians and not supposeth us such in visible Church-state That Christ is not the formal specifying Head of a particular Church as such but of the Universal and so the Supream Head only of the particular is proved before 1. Because the specifying forma totius heterogenei is not the specifying form of the parts 2. Else all that Christ is Supreme Ruler to should be such particular Political Churches which is false It is not true of single persons of Christian Armies Troops Markets Parliaments Courts c. as such 3. Christ himself by his Apostles hath ordained a subordinate humane species of Church-heads or Rulers 4. From parity of cases Natural and Political The forma animalis is not forma hominis nor forma hominis forma oculi manus pedis c. The General is the formal Head of the Army but not of a Regiment but the Colonel Nor the Colonel of a Troop but the Captain nor the King of a City but the Maior or other subordinate head Nor the King or Maior of a Family School Colledge but the Pater-familias the Master the Rector c. Depose the subordinate Head and it's part of the Kingdom still but no Family School Colledge Troop Regiment c. All Mankind that profess dealing in such subjects as far as I know are agreed in all this As to the Body related also a Diocess is not all the Christian world § XII Every true particular or single Church is part of the Universal which is Headed only by Christ That it is part of the Universal I know not that ever man denyed till now that a conformable pious Divine maketh this with the former Atheistical making God and Christ a deceiver driving all Religion out of the world Popery worse c. Proved Quae unita totum constituunt sunt partes At Ecclesiae omnes particulares cum membris caeteris Christo Capite totam seu Universam Ecclesiam Redemptorum constituunt Ergo sunt Ecclesiae Universae partes Ecclesia universa constat ex horum unione Ergo haec omnia sunt ejus partes Again If the single Churches be no parts of the Universal either they are Co-ordinate Churches with the Universal or there is no Universal If the Universal be All without them than they are none If not then it is not Universal if there be other Churches which are no parts of it Again If they be no parts of the Church Universal they are no parts of the Body or peculiar people or Kingdom of Christ for that is but one 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. 15 16. 5. c. But they are parts of the Body of Christ Ergo. § XIII To say that the whole Church e. g. at Corinth and the whole Church in the world are the same and what 's predicated of one is also of the other is a saying not to be justly denominated The subjectum relatum correlatum fundamentum terminus proximus and so the relation are divers The whole Church and its Head and a part and its subordinate Head are not the same The Kingdom and the City the City and a Parish or Ward the University and a Colledge the Man and a hand c. are not the same § XIV To say as he doth that a Family is not a part of the street or that of the City and London no Member or part of the Kingdom is stuff that I will not name an ill foundation for the charge of Atheism Blasphemy and all Impiety But I am out of all fear that he should make one Proselyte that 's sani cerebri If any accuse him of less than denying God and Christ even but of Deposing the King from most of his Kingdoms and saying that London and
fallacia aequivocationis and so quatuour termini This Parish-Church and the Universal are not the same The word Church in the Major signifieth one thing and in the Minor another All is not essential to Communion in the Church Universal which is essential to Communion with this or that or any particular political Church To the later there must be you say Neighbourhood and I say proper Pastors and Flocks for personal Communion But the Eunuch Acts 8. was baptized into the Universal Church and not into any Neighbourhood Parish Diocess Assembly or had any stated Pastor He came into no Church-meeting Philip the Deacon supposed was snatcht away from him in the open field c. Baptism as such enters us into no particular Church Your words you are a Pagan to me are too false for a Christian to have used He that believeth with all his heart is no Pagan I am a Minister of Christ to the world but Infidels are not my Flock or a Church Catechizers should teach Children all this plain truth § 5. II. P. 102. Ask Mr. Baxter saith he Whom do you mean by the word Church and at last he must come to one man the Pastor as the Papist◠the Pope He that covenanteth first covenantet◠with none but the Pastor You change your terms What Church must he covenant with that was first baptized Ans Christ was baptized and his first baptized Disciple and he were the Embryo of the Universal Church if you can prove that one was baptized alone And as to a particular Church the Gatherer at first is onely a Minister in the Church Universal and authorized to that gathering which shall be the Foundation of his future relation And the first person that consenteth and he are not a proper Church for it is an Embryo and in fieri as a Troop when the Captain hath listed the first man But usually many are made Christians first and then they are materia disposita and Consent maketh the Pastors and them to be particular Churches Acts 14. 23. They ordained them Elders in every Church Elders of their own Acts 20. the Elders of the Church of Ephesus and so of the rest of the Churches are mentioned And is the Captain a Troop or the Pastor a Church if he be the gatherer of it § 6. III. You name not Christ saith he but the Pastor Ans When we say Captain A. B's Troop we name not the General When we say the Bishop of London 's Diocess the King's Dominion c. we name not Christ or God For onely the Genus proximum is to be in definitions The Superiour are supposed they are Christians first § 7. IV. You say saith he that before this Covenant men are but hewed stones that is all the faithful are Pagans Ans Putares To be prepared for Baptism is somewhat more than to be Pagans But till consent Christians are not Members of any particular Church The Eunuch was but a hewn stone as you call it as to a formed Congregation but he was no Pagan but a Member of the Body of Christ § 8. V. This saith he makes the most excellent Ministers Apostles c. mere Lay-men such as go up and down preaching to Pagans where Christ is not known plainly subverts the Gospel c. Ans They are Christ's Ministers and not Lay-men while they convert Pagans and yet Pagans are no Church And till they are a Church no Apostle is a Pastor of them as a Church The Gospel standeth for all this § 9. But saith he may not a man be a Shepherd by calling and occupation unless he have a Flock as well as a Physician c. Ans Either you quarrel de re or de nomine If de re do you mean any more than that he is authorized to gather and rule a Flock If more what is it If not you calumniate if you pretend that I deny this but if it be onely de nomine whether the name of a Pastor may be given him that yet hath no Flock or of a Captain to him that hath no Troop I answer 1. When you wrangle but about Names try once more to stay that list of laying the overthrow of the Gospel on your Names 2. Titles of Relation may be given aptitudinally ex intentione de futuro But if one may be called a Pastor by relation to an intended Flock much more to an actual Flock and still it is a Relative to such a Flock intended 3. Try in Scripture and Councils and all Church-writers whether the title Pastor be not usually given onely to those that have actual Flocks But to avoid your quarrel call you them by what name you list if that will ease or please you § 10. VI. According to this Doctrine a Minister hath no Office or Authority but just to those of his own charge he preacheth elsewhere but as a gifted man Ans Still false as to me of whom you speak what a strange Chain of Calumnies can you make A Minister is 1. Christ's Officer to the world to convert them 2. To gather a Church in fieri 3. To officiate pro tempore in any other Church as a Licensed Physician to others even to Physicians doth his office § 11. VII It maketh void saith he Gods Ordinance of Ordination for either they are Ministers by Ordination or not If yea this Doctrine is erroneous Ans Unproved Ordination sine titulo maketh a man a Minister to the World and to the Church indefinitely Ordination with Institution doth that and more viz. it tieth a Minister to a consenting people Your Writings are all stigmatized with the shame of naked affirmations without proof and then forgetfully you oft say I have proved Why may not Consent and Ordination and Institution and Induction too be all needful Is a man and womans Consent needless unless the Ministers marrying them be needless May not a Town Hospital or Person chuse a Physician as theirs if he were licensed be-before If a Captain have commission to raise a Troop is consent of the Listed needless So of a Major a Pilot or any relation which requires Consent § 12. VIII It inferreth saith he that the Church is before the Officers viz. Pagans a Church Ans All fictions as to me to whom he speaks I said before they are as the Heart to the Body the punctum saliens is the first organical part to make the rest but not a part of the Body till the Body be made They are Ministers to gather Churches and then Pastors of Churches onely by consent And when Churches are gathered and the Pastor dead the people are Intentionally a Society but actually but a Community till a Pastor related to them make them a politick society And then relata sunt simul § 13. IX This Doctrine puts a new clause into Baptism which Christ never put in and altereth Christianity saith he Before I baptize you I must have an antecedent Covenant or signified Consent from you to submit to
me and you must be baptized in the name of Paul c. No Church-covenant no Church-member no right to any Church-ordinance Ans Confundendo fortiter caluminaris 1. The Eunuch consented to be a Christian of the Church Universal but not to be of a particular Church without that Consent he had not been baptized but this was not needful to it 2. The dispute whether Lay-mens baptism be valid I leave to you But if yea it is not necessary that I judge the Baptizer a Minister If not then it is necessary and my consent is necessary to make me a Christian but not him a Minister But mutual consent is necessary to his Pastoral relation to a particular Church 3. An Ordinance common to the Church Universal and proper to a particular Church should not be confounded nor so much as the modal ministration Do I adde to Baptism if I say that by the Canons and Custom of all the Churches for one Thousand years a man was not to be taken for the Bishop of any Church without mutual consent what 's this to Baptism And what temerity is it to feign men to wrong Christ by that which was his Institution and so judged and used in all the Churches § 14. X. Saith he It maketh the people Church-Rulers or Co-partners in office with the Pastors so that without their Consent they can do nothing not baptize Ans Of me the calumny hath no excuse I have written so much to the contrary Yea the very Act calumniated essentially containeth the contrary in it As he that consenteth to be a Servant consenteth not to be Master but to obey So they that consent to be Lay-members of a Pastors Flock consent that he and not they shall rule and that they will be the obeying part How could you wink so hard as not to see that your false witness confuteth it self And what if he cannot be their Governour without their consent doth this give them any part in governing Nay what if he cannot baptize a Non-consenter or give him the Lords Supper is the Refuser a Church-governour The man had got a heap of Notions against the Independents in his mind or his instigator that hath the same disease had thrust them in and out they must come against he knew not whom or what upon the word Consent What work would he make in the Church if he should deny the necessity of this Consent and have the Church made a Prison where Infidels should be cram'd and drencht with the Sacrament § 15. XI It sets up saith he Rebaptization by a Law For it requireth of godly baptized ones an antecedent Covenant to be Members of the particular Church As if a man should covenant to be a godly Citizen of London to be a Member of Gods Church at K. and hold communion therewith the people are called on to be new Christians as if they had been no Christians before Ans It is a sin to read such words without grief and indignation What! is every renewal of the Covenant of Godliness or Christianity a Rebaptizing or supposeth us Pagans Is this made by a Minister a heinous sin Are we not to do it in every partaking of the Lords Supper Yea explicitely or implicitely in every prayer Is Mr. Allen's Book for Covenanting and Mr. Rawlet's of Sacramental Covenanting such unchristening Heresies Is it damnable or sinful to covenant to be a godly Servant or a godly Husband or Wife or a godly Minister or Magistrate Doth this suppose them ungodly before with wat weapons are we assaulted § 16. XII He addes It bindeth people to be dwellers within the precincts of that one Church to hear no other Minister to joyn with no other Congregation Ans Concatenated Calumnies as to me They onely consent to the Relation of Lay-members till they remove their dwelling or relation They consent to take that Church but as a part of the Universal and therefore to hold just Communion with all others and receive what benefit they can from any other Ministers I abhor a Covenant that renounceth Communion with the Universal Church or any part of it without necessary cause Putide haec putares § 17. XIII He addes What shall godly Strangers Travellers c. do your Doctrine maketh them invaders Ans 1. If I have no notice of their consent to communicate with us pro tempore they expect it not And de ignotis non judicat Ecclesia and non apparere is equal to non esse If I have notice of their Consent it supposeth some notice that they are baptized or Christians and have more right than Heathens to Communion And if so 1. They consent to be Members of the Universal Church and as such I shall give them the Sacrament and Communion though I were no Pastor of any particular stated Church 2. They consent to a Transient Temporary Communion with me as a Minister in the Catholick Church And 3. They consent to transient temporary Communion with that particular Church and transient temporary Communion I will give them yea and may call them transient Members of that Church but no further any of these than they consent A Christian giving evidence of his Christianity hath right to transient Communion in all Churches in the world where he cometh yea all are not bound to live in stated Churches some are Travellers some unsetled Embassadors some Factors amongst Heathens some of no Habitation Beggars Pedlars Tinkers and such wandring Trades some live where is no Church with whom they may hold lawful Communion c. Now we have a new Divine risen up in the end of the world that seems to make all the setled Churches of Christ in the world for many hundred years to be all Traitors to Christ because these wanderers must not consent to their special relations nor enjoy their proper Priviledges and because they consent themselves to a more setled relation and Communion than these wanderers or refusers are capable of What would all the old Church that made so many Canons about their proper Communion have thought of this mans Doctrine if he had come among them at their Elections Discipline Distributions to the Widows and Poor and said Hold Sirs You are all destroying Baptism and Christianity by consenting to more towards one another than you owe to every unknown wanderer or refuser of a setled Church-state As if with our new Politician all Cities and Corporations are Traytors or deny or wrong the King because all Subjects are not Citizens some being Vagrants some in Villages some Souldiers some in odde Houses c. and because Cities consent to a special sort of Government which the rest have not Between the Anathematizers and these over-wise Censurers there are few Christians in the world that are not condemned as no Christians for being sound Christians § 18. XIV He was aware that we say that every one that may come into the Temple is not a part of my special Charge as a Pastor which I
by the Conformists 1. The Ministers are even to swear Obedience to the Diocesane and the Diocesane promise it to the Arch-Bishop And this is a Covenant and more 2. They are to attend him at Visitations and otherwise to express their consent to his Government which they do not to the Bishop of the Neighbour-diocesses 3. The Parishioners signifie their consent to their Relation to that particular Church and Incumbent by their constant Attendance Submission Communion c. 4. The Law and Canon command their Consent yea to keep their own Parishes though the Minister preach not at all suspending Neighbour-ministers that receive such to their Communion that come from such a Reader to them And the Conformists say that men are bound to obey these Canons § 31. Either Parishioners are supposed thus to signifie Relation-consent to that particular Pastor and Church or not If yea this Accuser falsly supposeth that no Church but the Independents do so If not then he giveth up most of their Cause to the Brownists that say the Parish-Churches are none For it 's easie proved that Non-consenters are none Thus rash men confute themselves Nay we are all silenced for not Covenanting to the present frame of Diocesane Churches and never to endeavour an alteration Yet saith this man It is not in any of the Churches unless Independents neither explicite nor implicite Then none should so much as implicitely shew Consent to the Relation to his Diocesane or Parish-pastor or Church § 32. But saith he to me with gross falsehood Your Covenant is to this effect you shall not onely submit to me as your Pastor but binde your self by a particular antecedent Covenant so to do You shall dwell in the Parish and Covenant so to do c. Ans I wish that though design brought the word Covenant infread of Consent into his mouth it might not so long stick there as to choak his Conscience to think that any use of it is lawful Where and when did I engage any to dwell in the Parish If they dwell there I never hindred any from removing 2. But the Consent required is beforehand very true The Liturgie bids men come tell the Ministers before-hand that they desire the Communion Shall I ask them to consent to their duty when it is past Or can I know who are capable till I know who consenteth But saith he Why not à Church-Covenant for all other Duties Ans Why not a Marriage-covenant to make one a Priest c. Why not an Oath of Allegiance to make one a Coblar c. Consent necessary to the being of a Relation is one thing and Consent to every Duty is another which yet in general all Christians should promise sincerely to perform Must we write Books against such things as these § 33. To the Objection I am not bound to take every one that comes into the Parish for one of my Charge he hath no better answer than to tell us of Parish-bounds setled by law and binding me to do my best for all Ans Deceitfully confounding Charge the Genus with Church As if Heathens and Atheists and Papists and Refusers are of that Church because I have a Charge to seek their Conversion Or as if I had no special Charge of that Church 2. He did not see that he confuteth himself implying that we must consent because of the Law 3. And he forgot the many hundred years before Parish-divisions § 34. His zeal at last thus swelleth p. 129. I do utterly withstand it as wickedness and abomination in Gods Church I am to die and burn at a Stake before I yield to any such thing You make two Churches two Church-forms as two Baptisms p. 130. to teach Infidelity c. Ans Let him that thinks he standeth take heed lest he fall Alas for the Church whose Guides are no wiser and better men and tenderer Conscienced than he or I which ever is in the wrong 1. You will make me think you are deeply melancholy Is it so frightful a thing for me to say I will be no Pastor to any that consent not as to put you into talk of dying and burning at a Stake Had the Martyrs been burnt if men had been of this minde Did you ever know any put to death or burnt at a Stake for your Opinion Which is liker to be the burning party they that say We will rule none but Consenters or Volunteers or they that call this wickedness and abomination and so are for the contrary course Which Party hath killed more for Religion Reader you see my wickedness and abomination CHAP. V. I Had thought to have gone thus over the rest of his Book but it is such stuff that my Reason and Conscience bid me spare my own and the Readers time I. He begins with telling me what the Church of England is and all is worse than nothing Instead of telling me what is the Constitutive Formal Regent part he tells me of Bishops Pastors Convocation King c. as if he defined a Man to be one that hath a Head Eyes Liver Stomack c. II. It grieveth me to read what he saith of Popery 1. His Supposition that Popery is sound if the Particular Church be a part of the Universal having its subordinate form of Government under Christ's 2. His Supposition of the Emperour of Constantinople's turning Christian and becoming the Universal Prince and Bishop of his Empire as a lawful thing 3. His Supposition of the Pope's resigning his Place to St. Peter if he were alive c. 4. His Note that to claim but St. Peter's Place is not to claim Christ's with more such are unwise Temptations to Strangers to fear lest London-Air have done him hurt III. His many words about the Princes power to chuse Pastors for all his Subjects and that if faithful he is no Christian that refuseth to accept them 1. Is all a bare saying over what he thinketh taking little or no notice of my Discourse on that subject in my first Plea where all that 's against us is answered before and I will not repeat it 2. And it shamefully condemneth his foresaid Condemnations Is not Consent then necessary to the imposed Pastor if not consenting Unchristen men 3. It supposeth that the political Controversie Whether the King be authorized by God to chuse what pastoral Guide all the Subjects shall trust their Souls with any more than what Tutor Physician Wife Diet they shall take is an essential of Christianity and yet it is not in the Creed c. When yet it is notorious that all Churches for most Ages since Christ if not almost all in the world to this day were and are of the contrary minde and so are all unchristened by him 4. And though I urge him he will not answer what I said of the Question Who shall judge whether the Minister be faithful 5. If the Patron present a weak ignorant man that is faithful but of little use comparatively and
Slanders What is the Schism Is it Schism to say That it is unlawful like Atheists to cease all Publick Worship of God till Conscience can finde it lawful to Conform Others think that the contrary is both Schismatical and Atheistical Can you prove that I am for Silencing faithful Ministers and making partition separating hedges in the Vineyard of Christ My Rule is to go no further from any Christian than he goeth from Christ or would force me to sin for his Communion § 23. The next charge is Sedition that is not giving over God's Worship till I can swear say and do all that is imposed Where is the proof of all these Accusations But their method of Justice is first to do execution casting out 2000 and next to justifie it by an Accusation behinde our backs and next to bring their Witnesses when we are dead or forbidden to speak and they are one anothers Witnesses This mans proof is that Bishop Bramhall of Ireland said it The next mans may be that This man said it Dr. Ashetons proof was that the Debate-maker said it and who said it to him I know not And p. 100. This man hath an infallible witness Bishop Morley then of Worcester And what saith he Why first That I did what I could to make the King odious to his people But where 's his proof It 's enough The Bishop said it 2. I sowed the seeds of Sedition at Kederminster The proof is the same the Bishop said it 3. The Bishop taught him to adde I my self have heard him in a Conference in the Savoy maintain such a Position as was destructive to the Legislative Power of God and man But what if the Bishop spake as falsely as if he had said that I pleaded for Mahomet Where is your proof then I after Printed the words with the Dispute of the Dr's to which they were an Answer And I have in my Second Plea in a Disputation of Scandal vindicated them Let any man of brains read both and believe the Bishop and you if he can But Reader if such mens renewed Accusations cause me yet to Print that Answer to the Bishop's Letter which for peace I cast away blame not me but them that force me to it I am for peace but they are for War § 24. But what good will it do the Reader to have this mans Falshoods detected and numbred They are so many and so gross that it is a troublesome work as p. 107. Your Principles which assert that the King may be Deposed Answ Burn any Book of mine with scorn where I ever asserted any such thing But if it be a Forgery believe such men accordingly So p. 112. Refusing the Tests of Obedience which require only the disclaiming of Rebellious Principles and Practices Answ See my Profession and Renunciation second Plea Chap. 3 4 and my Confutation of Hooker Chr. Direct Par. 4. Pag. 112 113. He joyns with those that would bring us into the Plot and fathers his Accusation on the Acts of Parliament against us Pag. 113. He saith I have a better opinion of the Papists than of the Conformists because I say I had rather be saved from the Gallows by a Papist than hang'd by a Conformist So p. 132. To withdraw your avowed Communion Answ A Fiction witness the Parish-Assembly Pag. 133. Your Practice continueth and encourageth Separation from our Communion False Ibid. Cartwright after he had written as much as he could against Conformity repented and Conformed at last Answ A Fiction No more than I Conform Many a time have I been in Warwick where he last lived Master of the Hospital and the antient people there and at Coventry knew the contrary If to joyn in the Liturgy and Sacrament and perhaps rather than be Silenced to wear the Surplice be Conforming you abuse many whom you reproach and silence as Nonconformists Pag. 134. He mentions my Positive opposing and hindering their Communion The Book is much made up of such untruths in matter of Fact § 25. His Postscript is his Ingenuous Conjectures if not Proofs that I am a Liar and an Hypocrite in the dating of my Prognostication and that it was written 1680. Answ Should I abuse the Reader by a particular Answer to them That it was not written 1680 many persons that saw them can witness Will his Reasonings make me ignorant of such a matter of my own fact All that I know of it is this 1. As far as I can remember it was shortly after the Savoy-Conference that the first Copy was written but just the Month I do not remember 2. Finding this Copy among my rude neglected Papers I wrote it fair in 1671. And my Memory is not so strong as to be sure that I altered not a word For I cast away the first rude Copy 3. After that I thought it had been lost not seeing it some years Till Mr. Matthew Silvester told me that I had long ago lent it him to read I did not think it worth the Publishing But one of judgment that he shewed it to thinking otherwise I added a few Lines in the End This is the Truth and if it be the Impleaders interest to believe it to be false let him use his Intellect and Pen accordingly I 'le no more strive against him CHAP. III. His Answer to the first Plea for Peace Examined § 1. BEcause the great Charge against thâ— Non-Conformists is 1. Their Not Conforming 2. And that till they can Conform they cease not Preaching and all publick Worship oâ— God which is to live like Atheists and chusâ— Damnation The first thing that I did in the First Plea was to Declare our Judgment about Churches Ministry Church-Communion and Seperation in what Cases we hold it sinful or lawful To my great wonder almost all this iâ— past over by all my Accusing Answerers that â—â—â—â— have seen as if it had bin little to them And they go on to take it for granted that we are guilty of Schism and sinful Separation or in wondering that we do not grant it 2. And as to the second part of our Charge I have seen none yet but Mr. Cheney and this Impleader that pretend to bring proof of the Lawfulness of theâ—â— Points of Conformity which we avoid And to Mr. Cheney I gave a Reply which I judged satisfactory and this man where they agree repeateth the same things as if I had not Replied and therefore I refer him to that Reply rather than write the same over again But in some things they as much differ from each other as from me § 2. Pag. 4. He premiseth 1. What are the Parts of the Book to which we are to declare our Assent and Consent Answ All things contained and prescribed in and by it Are not these words plain We are not for Equivocation What he saith of this is answered to Mr. Ch. 2. Pag. 9. He saith It is granted by the Non-Conformists that the Common-Prayer Book as it is now
it a Calumny that I say the Liturgy is defective and Disorderly Answ I did in 1660. draw up a Catalogue of the mere defects and disorders but never offered it to avoid offending them He tells us 1. of the disorders of the Directory And had he proved it is that a justification of the Liturgy 2. And also he tells us of the defects and confusions which were in Mr Baxter's eight days exploit our Additionals or Reformed Liturgy 1661. when as neither this Accuser nor any of the Bishops or Dissenters then said one word of particular accusation against it nor any other that ever I knew of to this day save an impertinent quarrel of Mr. Roger le Strange that we used not more imposing words and such trifles § 35. XVI Next comes the Profession of the Antiquity of Three Orders in the Preface of the Book of Ordination and elsewhere p. 47. And he citeth me Christ Direct p. 127. as against my self falsly intimating that I assert three Orders because I am uncertain whether there be not divers Degrees in one Order I cited out of Spelnian the Canons of Aelfrike shewing that the Church of England even in times of Popery took Bishops and Presbyters to be the same Order as many Papists-Schoolmen do And the man should have known that it is not the Bishops of a particular Church that I mentioned in my Direct but only such as have the care of many Bishops Churches § 36. XVII He next defends the Scenical Call to the people to come forth and shew reason why the person may not be Ordained As if he knew not that it is not the sence of the words that is questioned but that this insignificant Ceremony should be set in the place of the ancient demand of their free consent over whom the Minister is set to seem as if they had still that liberty when it is no such matter nor do the people whose Souls he is to have the charge of know any thing usually of his Ordination nor at his Institution which sets him over them have they any Call Nor are so much as these Shews used at the Ordination of Bishops which by the old Canons was void without the Peoples Consent § 37. XVIII Of the words Receive the Holy Ghost c. he saith less than Mr. Cheny whom I have answered § 38. XIX So have I there answered p. 11 12. what he saith for the Oaths of Obedience to Archbishops Bishops Chancellors c. 1. It 's one thing to Obey them and another to Assent to the Oath of Obedience 2. And it 's one thing to swear Obedience to them as exerciâ—ing the power of Magistrates under the King and another thing as Laymen exercising the power of the Church-Keys c. And I have elsewhere cited divers old Canons that condemn such Oaths as dangerous § 39. XX. In the 20th Chap. to Mr. Cheny I have abundantly answered what he saith here about keeping men from the Sacrament and informing the Ordinary These be the Number of our Exceptions which the Impleader could finde though the rest were as plainly written § 40. XXI As for our Objections against the Declarations and Oaths required by Act of Parliament because it is not the sence of the Liturgie but of an Act of Parliament that we doubt of he refers us to the Executioners of the Law for our Instruction their natural way of satisfaction the Justice and Jailor I suppose Did these satisfie him to Conform herein Doth he take such Arguments for unanswerable Why did he pretend to defend the rest which are imposed in the same Act These are greater matters than the Ceremonies and need as clear a Justification § 41. But that you may see the measure of his Knowledge he can tell you that our mistake is wilful and an act of pure malice and revenge Answ Our Rule oft mentioned is agreed on by Casuists viz. To take such Oaths Promises and Professions in the sense of the imposing makers of them if they are our Rulers and unless they give us another sense we must take the ordinary sense that those words are used in to be theirs Therefore we take on any pretence whatsoever and those Commissioned by him and any alteration of Government in the Church and not at any time endeavour and no obligation on any other person as well as Assenting and Consenting to all things conteined and prescribed to have that meaning which not only our Parents that taught us to speak and our Masters and Dictionaries and the use of such as we hear talk hath taught us to take such words in but also in the sense of the Lawyers and Law-books which we are acquainted with unless any odde persons differ from the rest And this sagacious man hath found that this Exposition is a wilful mistake in malice and revenge Just as others of them can prove before God that it is through Covetousness that we Conform not viz. Two thousand Ministers England knoweth of what sort though the Accusers do not have forsaken all Church-maintenance and their Rulers countenance and put themselves under a Law that mulcts them 40 l. a Sermon banisheth them from Cities and Corporations lays them in Jayl c. reproacheth them as seditious and all this in Covetousness Malice and Revenge I have seen a Child throw away his meat in revenge but he returned to it in less time than 18 years I have heard of a woman that cut her throat and another that drowned herself and Children in a revengeful passion against her drunken cruel Husband but sure if she had 18 years deliberated it would have calm'd her passion But that 2000 such Ministers should chuse ruining Fines and Poverty and Jails and wilfully damn their own Souls by sin and all to be revenged on Parliament or Prelates is somewhat strange Especially when it is that which that Parliament and Prelates themselves are pleased with who chose the terms What kinde of Revenge hath our Malice found out which destroyeth ourselves and pleaseth our Afflicters § 42. And here p. 55. he falls with scorn on my Book of Concord and that his Book may be Conformable to itself describeth my terms of Concord by downright fiction and falshood as if he had thought none would ever open the book to shame his Calumny He tells you that the result of all is That every Pastor be independent free from any superiour to controul him and have an arbitrary Power and arbitrarily exercise the power of the Keys without Appeal to have the power of Ordaining who they will the power of altering the Laws in Church and State c. All which I have expresly written against at large Besides what I have written 1. For Bishops in each Church 2. For Archbishops or general Overseers 3. For Synods 4. Had it been no more than what I have written for the Magistrates Governing of all Pastors and Churches it would prove the falshood of this mans Assertion Yet that you
Chancellors are the Kings Officers to Govern the Church circa sacra by the Sword we will swear and perform Obedience to them under the King in licitis honestis But I told you they that take them for the Usurpers of Spiritual power will easily prove it to be lawful to swear Obedience to Usurpers in licitis honestis will you deny that 3. And I told you that it is another Oath that is imposed on us to take But did you well to say You produced the words of Ignatius to prove the antiquity of swearing to Bishops who saith not a syllable of any such thing And untruly say I took no notice of it when I told you that Ignatius mentioned not Oaths but only actual Obedience This is no notice with you But do you not know how late it was before swearing Obedience to Bishops came into the Church and by what sort of men and to what end and effect § 52. Your talk of Cartwright confirmeth me of the vanity of the Hypocrites reward the praise of men there being nothing so false which may not by some men be said of them with boldest confidence If Cochleus or his like do but say That Luther learned of the Devil that Calvin was a stigmatized Sodomite c. all their Followers can ever after say It is in Print So Mr. S. P. some body Printed this you say And Heylin saith He promised What just the same or to the same sense as I told you I voluntarily subscribed when I might by the Kings Declaration have chosen meerly because I would have them know our minds and peaceable resolutions I told you why he that can promise to live peaceably c. cannot subscribe and swear the Approbation of all in that Liturgy Government c. which he liveth peaceably under But this is nothing to you if Cartwright Conformed first Prove it by credible History 2. Why then could the great Earl of Leicester procure no more liberty for him than an Hospital in Warwick and no Church 3. I have lived in Coventry and been oft in Warwick and know by all credible testimony of Neighbours that it 's false and no such thing as his Conformity was there dream'd of any further than I Conform 4. Why did he never declare it to the World nor retract his Writings 5. Your Heylin's own words intimate the contrary though I must tell you I owe as little belief to that Book of his as most Histories written by sober Protestants But you say much more Dr. Burges p. 377. observed That Cartwright opposed the Ceremonies as Inconveniences but not as unlawful and therefore perswaded men to Conform rather than leave their Flocks Answ 1. But the Ceremonies are but part and the lesser part of Conformity 2. Else had all Conformity been here included he was still a Conformist And how could you then say That at last he wrangled himself into Conformity if he was such at first 3. But if you cite him truly be judge your self whether Hoylin said true and what will be your case if you will report all that you find such men report 1. Dr. Burges's own words are but these pag. 423. The consideration of this necessity moved Mr. Cartwright to advise the wearing of the Surplice and Mr. Beza to resolve for the use of these Ceremonies rather than the Flocks of Christ should be forsaken for these And he citeth Cart. Repl. 2. So that here is not a word of Cartwright's Concession in any thing but the Surplice kneeling he was for The Answer of Amesius to his Father-in-law Burges is in these words Fresh suit p. 21 22. Whereas he addeth that Beza and Mr. Cartwright determined with them in case of the Surplice I answer 1. They did not so for the Cross 2. They did not so for subscription to either 3. They did not so but by way of toleration requiring also that men speak against the imposing of the Surplice 4. Beza was not throughly acquainted with the state of our Church Mr. Cartwright as I have been certainly informed by his own Son recalled that Passage of his Book and desired that his revoking of it might be made known Then followeth the Attestation of another to that report Do you see now how credibly S. P. Heylin and you report Cartwright to have wrangled himself at last into Conformity Be warned and take up false reports no more § 53. I thank you for shortning my trouble § 54. Waspish and faltering and raging after a tedious journey Are your Logicks above my skill to answer But adrem 1. It is a wonder to me that an Englishman should be in doubt who they be that drive men from the Parish Churches Enquire who drave away the People of Kederminster Did I I Preach'd I Printed long before That should the Liturgy be restored it were no sufficient cause c When I was silenced and might not Preach in publick the last Sermon that ever I preached to some at my Farwel in a private House was in conclusion to perswade all to keep to the publick Churches where the Ministers are not notoriously Insufficient as to the very Essentials or notorious Hercticks or Malignant Opposers not of differing Parties but of the certain Practice of Godliness it self But when I had done my best then and since by other means the Reading Vicar and one Sermon of the Bishops and one of the Deans and many of a Lecturers after and they saw so many hundred Ministers silenced it possessed them with so great a prejudice that till a good Minister came among them it was past my power to reconcile them to the Church nor is it done so fully as before I could easily have done 2. As to your second Questien When I told you how hardly the People would be driven tâ— Communion in your way You answered Haâ— they not been distracted distorted poysoned by other Tutors But since they have been taught like Wolves not to value the Scepter like Mastiff-dogs they will worry me to pieces Those that are lately perverted any way are most heady and â—ierce The Revolters are profound to make slaughter And after the Scribes and Pharisees compassed Sea and Land to make a Proselyte when he was made he was twofold more the Child of Hell than themselves These are your words And I thought I had used them very gently when I only say Whether all such Dissenters are such Children of Hell as you describe I might have added such Wolves Dogs c. I shall leave to a more wise and righteous Judge what is in these words Be impartial one hour before you die and compare them with your own and think how he that will say at last Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these my Brethren c. will take all these Revilings of faithful Souls But how heedlesly do you read I said All such Dissenters as you described and were talkt of And you say all Dissenters There is no