less do we here give the reasons of our Cause He dare not be so bold yet as to venture to displease us But this Hypocrisie is so thin that the weakest eye may look through it Mend. 5. Answ 1. The Printer put urge instead of argue which he was told in the Errata And he maketh the errour his own by feigning the words to be mine 2. If I have disputed the Case by Reasons Why did he not cite them and tell where 3. He alloweth the Reader to take him for a Calumniator who will judge the heart which he knoweth not and bring no proof of the hypocrisie which he saith the weakest eye may see Indeed the weakest is liker than the strongest to see as he doth 4. I will shew him three Reasons why it is not like to be Hypocrisie 1. Because there are severe Laws against all that shall deprave the Common-Prayer Book or accuse Conformity of being sinful which is Excommunication ipso facto c. And also Printing such a charge might have cost both Printer and Writer dear And the Book was written divers years as many can witness before the Act that restrained the Press expired And is it not credible that every man loveth himself and is unwilling to be ruined I knew how easily you are displeased and I felt a little what you can do when you are displeased and others felt more And is it hypocrisie then to say I feared to displease you And verily I was afraid by it of occasioning your wrath and contentious Writings against many others and making the breach wider which I desired to heal 2. When it 's visible in the Book that I avoid Argumentation doth not that prove that I said true 3. The third Proof if God will is yet to come when you see my Arguments added to the History you will confess that it was not Hypocrisie to tell you that I used them not before § 8. Impl. For whereas the Right Reverend and Learned Bishop of Eli had told Mr. B. as he confesseth That he would petition Authority that they might be compelled to give their Reasons he there saith To answer the earnest demand of our Reasons by you the Lord Bishop of Eli I have published an Historical Narrative of our Case and Judgment Answ Had he not mentioned weak Eyes you might wonder that he saw not how he here confuteth his own falshood when in the words cited I profess to give but the Historical Narrative of our Case and Judgment and not the Arguments or Reasons for it But he thinketh If the History be given in answer to him that demanded the Reasons then the History containeth those Reasons Negatur Sequela The matter of Fact must go first The Bishop demanded of me an account of our Non-conformity This is the beginning of an Answer The Reasons may come next § 9. Impl. And if he may be believed they are not only Mr. Baxter's Reasons m. 6. but of many others m. 7. for p. 3. it is said We that publish this here give an account of our own judgment how far we hold it lawful or unlawful to gather or separate from Churches or to differ from what is established by Authority Answ The man knoweth not the difference between giving an account of our judgment in Thesi and in Hypothesi If I tell you in what cases I hold it lawful or unlawful to separate from Churches or how far humane Power may go as I have done in the second Plea is that to tell what I take for sin in our Conformity and the Reasons of it What if I shew how far Lying is unlawful Doth that say that Conformity is Lying c. § 10. Impl. Where is that allowance from Authority which he pretends to have so long waited for and begg'd on his knees m. 8. And where is that care not to displease or provoke the Conformists by shewing the many heinous sins in their Conformity m. 9. When without leave of God m. 10. or man he not only endeavours to displease m. 11. but to ruine us m. 12. If any thing may be this is worse than his hypocrisie it is mere distraction and rage m. 13. When our common Adversaries the Papists c. Answ 1. It was leave that I desired but I never said I begg'd it on my knees but that I would gladly do it could that prevail 2. I never shewed the heinous sins of the Conformists but over and over professed that I accused not them nor meddled with their case but only said How heinous a sin it would be to us to Conform till we knew more reason for it than we do 3. That it is without leave of God that we give a reason of our not conforming I take for false while our Superiours so long and earnestly commanded it and it is so necessary to abate the dividing odium raised against us Rom. 12. 18. If it be possible as much as in you lyeth live peaceably with all men And if we are taken for intollerable Malefactors is not undeceiving our Accusers and Haters a necessary means of Peace 4. It 's false that an endeavour to undeceive the offended is an endeavour to displease them 5. And it is more palpably false that I endeavour their ruine 6. How false is it then that this is distraction and rage And what more necessary to unite us against the common Adversaries What Physicians hath this poor Nation that know no way to unite us but laying us in Jails with Rogues till we can believe all to be lawful which they impose Reader Pitty the case of this poor Land What hands are we fallen into What false Doctrine is charged on us What is the Crime that we have committed We are forbidden to Preach Christ's Gospel though we were solemnly devoted to it by Ordination under the Penalties of great Mulcts and Imprisonments and ruine till we will do that which after our best enquiry we verily judge would be our heinous sin We forbear many years to tell them so much as what it is which we dare not to do till at last the Bishops themselves tell us They will petition Authority to constrein us to it And Parliament-men long askt us What is that you stick at And when after about seventeen or eighteen years Silence I do but tell them what it is the Clergy-men are so displeased that they tell me that It is distraction and rage and an endeavour to ruine them When I never moved to put one Priest of them out of his Benefice nor Bishop Dean Archdeacon Canon Prebend out of a Farthing of his maintenance nor one Bishop from their Lordships or Parliament-Power much less did I ever motion the silencing of any one of them or making them pay Fourty Pound a Sermon or laying them in â—ayl as we are used and yet they cry out that we endeavour to ruine them The Lord pity his poor Flock What a case are we in when our Pastors seem to think
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
If you mean otherwise tell men your own thoughts but if you would any more be believed speak not falsly of other men whom you never knew 3. The old Translation of the Psalms is still used unreformed Do you not Assent to that neither § 15. He tells us that Psal 105. 28. the two Translations are not contradictory They were not obedient to his word and they Rebelled not against his word Because some Translaters understood it of the Egyptians and others otherwise Answ And had the Text those contrary senses If not is not one of them contrary to the Text § 16. Impl. p. 24. The same Answer will serve the exception against the Collects of the old Book which for divers days together used the word This day Answ And the same Reply will serve You dare not say that on Christmas-day Whitsunday c. This day signifieth not the very particular Day but the Week or Time of the Year And hath not the same Collect the same sense on the next days Are your words like Cyphers that change their power by such additions § 17. Impl. Little reason have they to object against any words or phrases in the Liturgy who are still fond of singing Psalms according to the Translation of Strenhold and Hopkins c. Answ Little reason hath any man to be forward to believe your Affirmations that are so used to falshood I finde none so willing to use other Versions as they that you say are fond of this many use the Scot's Version many Barton's some Rous's and some Mr. Patrike And the reason why they no more forsake the old one is not because they are fond of it but lest they too much displease the Church of England which hath allowed no other and those that are apt to turn all Reformations and Varieties into reproach § 18. IV. To what he saith of the Apocrypha I answered already to Mr. Cheney and will not now repeat The Objections against the Fictions in Tobit are Bishop Barlow's now of Lincoln in a Learned M. S. written to satisfie Mr. Dodwell § 19. V. Our great doubt about the abuse of Godfathers and excluding Parents from their proper Office he saith nothing to that needs any reply but what is in the Book which he answers and in the Reply to Mr. Cheny he answers as if he understood not the question and feigns the Liturgy to lay that on the Parents which it doth not but excludes them from it and laies it on uncapable persons § 20. Impl. p. 30. Mr. B. excepts against the Rubrick which saith It is certain by Gods Word that Children which are baptized dying before they commit actual Sin are undoubtedly saved This being a Rubrick and never coming to Use in the Publick Worship it cannot reasonably be thought to be imposed as an Article of Faith on others but only as the judgement of our Superiours Answ I perceive the Parliaments Act and Declaration is to you a mere Nose of Wax It meaneth what you will or none can tell what 1. Are Rubricks of no use Yea those that determine of Doctrines which are not only de Fide but matters of Salvation certain undoubted Salvation of all baptized Infants What is of Use if these be not 2. Are such Doctrines of certain Faith no parts of the Book nor contained in it Is not your Superiour's judgment imposed on you to Assent to What then is imposed to be believed § 21. But p. 31. he citeth Texts as proving the truth of the Article Answ Not a word to the purpose He seems not to understand that it is not of the Salvation of true Believers Infants that we doubt But whetherthis be true of all without exception that have such Godfathers as ours that take not the Children for their own even the Children of Atheists Infidels Heathens Mahometans c. all which the Minister is bound by the Canon to Baptize if offered § 22. VII Impl. 31. Mr. B. is the first that hath accused the Church of England of instituting a second Covenant of Grace Answ Still more untruths I have no such Accusation It is but for making and imposing on pain of Rejection c. another Sacrament or a Sign too much Sacramental of the same Covenant of Grace which Baptism is the Sacrament of 2. And of this he cannot truely say that I am the first I proved from the imposed words and ends that it is appointed to the uses of a Sacrament but indeed not by Christ and therefore is but a humane Sacrament And I answered his Objections to Mr. Che. which he taketh no notice of He cites me as saying that Parents may offer their Children to Baptism though they cannot have it without the Cross it being the Ministers sin and not theirs And what then Is it therefore none of the Ministers sin 1. To consent to it 2. To use it 3. To refuse to Christen Children whose Parents dare not submit to it 4. Nor the Bishops to silence Ministers that refuse such Conformity § 23. p. 34 35. He would explain the Rubrick by Art 27. Those that rightly received Baptisine c. and Christian Proprietors may offer their Children c. Answ 1. The Canon forbiddeth the Minister to refuse any as aforesaid What 's this then to the rest 2. Right coram Ecclesiâ giveth the Church Power to receive them But it must be Right coram Deo to Remission c. that must assure their Salvation which we cannot prove that the Children of Atheists Sadduces or Infidels have 3. The Conformists are here themselves divided One part of them give that certain Salvation only to all baptized Infants which the other give to all in the world baptized or unbaptized See Mr. Che. and the Answer § 24. VIII About our Refusing Children whose Parents refuse the foresaid Crossing and abuse of Godfathers he saith p. 36. 1. That in private Baptisme and consequently in other cases of Necessity the Church alloweth the omission of Cross and Godfathers 2. That they have a low esteem of the Sacrament that for this withdraw Answ 1. Your Consequence is contrary to the Canon And 't is known that the Church allows not Ministers to forbear them on pretence of such Consequences 2. Much less do they allow the refusal of Dissenters for such a Necessity 3. And it may be no contempt of the Sacrament when men are afraid of a sinful use of it though they mistake 4. Nor is it such a fault of the Receiver or Parent that will warrant a Minister to deny them Christendome or a Sacrament by your selves judged so necessary to Salvation § 25. p. 36. He returneth to the case of Crossing as a transient Image in worship c. I think few will judge his Answer worthy of a Reply § 26. p. 37. IX The next is That no man should come to the Sacrament without a full trust i◠God's Mercy and a quiet Conscience I would make nothing worse than it is I do not
and many Adulteries with Citizens Wives And it is most to be noted That they who after his flight reformed the Civil Government were strong Papists and mainly opposed the reformation of Religion I shall recite no more out of this Episcopal Doctor Prebend of Canterbury but desire you again to read page 23 24. What changed Luther's mind to own the Protestants Arms against the Emperour And page 32 33. What King James saith to vindicate the French Protestants I never knew yet that the French Protestants took Arms against their King c. And that Cap. 3. pag. 64 to 73. He cites the Confessions of all the Churches the Augustane the French the Belgick the Helvetian the Bohemian the Saxonian the Swevian the English as consenting for Obedience to their Soveraigns But all this is nothing to you that can say nothing of worth against it Neither the Vindication of their Principles or Practice But unrighteous Judge I am with you partial and unequal 1. Because I told you that you should not have set down the bare Names of T. C. and Travers as a Charge without citing what they say And is not that true Is that an unequal expectation And what if I had added That had you proved them guilty it had not concerned any of us or our Discipline or Principles till you had proved that we had owned the same And is that unequal O Justice 2. Because I said I will no further believe Bancroft or Sir Th. Aston then they prove what they say No nor you neither Must I believe Adversaries accusing Parties without proof and such Adversaries too Why must I believe them more than Heylin or more than Doctor Moulin afore-cited believed the English Tradition against Geneva Is this the equality of your way § 37. It 's tedious disputing with a man that cannot or will not understand what is said no not the Question no not the Subject of it You cite my words out of the Saints Rest that say not any thing to the Question The Question is not What were the final Motives of the War But what was the Controversie of the warranting Cause and Foundation that must decide the Case whether it was lawful or unlawful The Bonum publicum and the Gospel and Religion and mens Salvations are the great moving ends and Reasons of a lawful War But it is not these Ends that will serve to prove a War lawful Could that be the Cause or Controversie which they were both agreed in Did not the King profess to be for Religion Liberty c. as well as they See yet his Shrewsbury Half-crowns if Coin be any evidence with you private men may not raise War for Religion but the King may The Finis and the Fundamentum are not the same I there talkt but of the Finis and Motives I now speak of the Fundamentum and Controversie which is well known to be whether the King or Parliament then had the power of the Militia rebus sic stantibus and whether the Parliament had true Authority to raise an Army against the Army Commissioned by the King for that Defence and executing the Law upon Delinquents which they then pretended to Now I say still I know no Theological Controversie herein I know no Scripture but Policy and Law and Contract that will tell us whether the King of Spain or the States be the rightful Governours of the Low Countries Or whether the King of France be absolute If you can out of Scripture prove that all Republicks must have the same Form and Degree of Government or how Forms and Degrees must be varied in each Land I resist you not but only confess my weakness that so high a performance is beyond my power Had you understood the Question you might have spared your Citation of my words § 41. You come again to our swearing Conformity and you say That it must reasonably be understood of a tumultuous and armed endeavour Answ 1. And it is publickly known that we are ready to swear against a tumultuous and armed endeavour unless by the King's Command If you would not endeavour it even with Arms if the King commanded you accuse us not of Disloyalty for being more Loyal than you If you would we are of the same judgment as to the thing And so while the thousands of ignorant Souls are untaught men of the same judgment on our part openly professed out must some be Teachers and some silenced some preferred and some in Prison and banished from Corporations c. even while they hold the same thing And why Because one part of them dare take an Oath in a more stretching sence than the others dare And that 1. Because they are taught not only by Amesius where you cite him but by all consciencious judicious Casuists That an Oath is to be taken strictly and not stretchingly in the common sense of the words unless the Law-givers will otherwise explain themselves 2. And the words are universal Not endeavour at any time without the least limitation or exception of any sort of endeavour I should have broke that Oath by this writing to you had I taken it Et non est distinguendum aut limitandum fine lege 3. The Law-makers are to be supposed wise considerate men especially the Bishops and able to distinguish between an universal and a particular or limited enunciation and to express their minds in congruous words 4. The Law-makers knew before and since that we would take the Oath if Endeavouring had been limited as you do and yet they never would limit it by one syllable 5. The Reasons used for that Clause and our acquaintance with the Bishops and other Authors of it leave our Consciences perswaded that their meaning was against all Endeavours and not tumultuous military or illegal only as in the Et caetera Oath 1640. It was that I will not consent which is less than Endeavouring And we are not ignorant what relation this Oath hath to that And we take it to be a sin to deceive our Rulers by taking an Oath in that sence which we believe was not by them intended and seeming to them to swear what we do not mean 6. When twenty London Ministers took the Oath because Doctor Bates told them that the Lord Keeper promised him at the giving it to put in the words Endeavour by any seditious or unlawful means or to that sense the said limiting words were not only left out but when old Mr. Sam. Clark said My Lord we mean only unlawful endeavour Judge Keeling asked Will you take the Oath as it is offered you and refused to add any such Explication and told them when they had done they had renounced the Covenant 7. The Justices tell us when they offer us the Oath That we must take it according to the plain sense of the words 8. The Parliament in the Act for regulating Corporations in the Declaration there imposed and the Oath doth fully satisfie us what is their
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
poor Bishop that renounced all their Communions for it is Canonized a Saint while Hooker himself justly reproacheth Ignatius And it made me marvail to read in Bellarmine de Scriptor Ecles pag. 100. this great Lie that Ithacius whom he falsly makes the same with Idacius who was one of the same Synod and Author of the Chron. in Jos Scaliger de emend temp In eo reprehensus punitus ab Episcopis fuit quod Priscillianum apud seculares judices accusaverit occidi cur averit Whenas 1. The Bishops never punished him for it 2. The Synod of Bishops joyned with him 3. Martin was despised as an unlearned Hypocrite and Favourer of the Hereticks that did renounce their way and Communion 4. Ithacius and Idacius because of the common Odium would have pretended that they put not on the Magistrate hereunto And that Bellarmine one of the Tribe that is for burning Hereticks should yet leave this blot on Idacius and seek by untruths to excuse the rest of the Bishops of it whence is it but that the Memory of the just shall be blessed and the Name of the wicked the cruel especially shall rot I digress only to tell you that the honour of violence will end in shame and he be odious to Posterity who may be set up as high as Gardiner or Bonner to serve the turn in some present Execution And I had rather be luke-warm than have a destroying or slandering heat To what you say of Beza and Selden I answer 1. Did I or the present Nonconformists ever subscribe to Beza or Geneva 2. Is it not palpably against your self that cry down Lay Elders though many with Ministers have power but in one Presbytery or Synod when our Lay Chancellor hath the power over hundreds of Ministers and Churches You that cry up or keep up Lay-mens Church Discipline may worse speak against Lay-mens Church Discipline than we that are against it in all whomsoever 3. But Beza and Geneva do not take them for Lay Elders nor the Scots neither but for Church Elders and part of the Clergy of Divine Institution none of which is pretended for Lay Chancellors And is that no difference For Selden as I know what he saith against the Diocesan Church Bishops in Eutychius Alexandr So I know what he saith against all of us for Erastianism de Synedriis better than by any Citations out of Heylin And I know he was one of the Long Parliament that raised the War whom even now you had possessed with the Spirit of Presbytery And you may judge of many of the rest by Selden And must you or I be Erastians because Selden and other Lawyers in the Parliament were so § 46. The Quibble in this Section is Content without an Answer § 47. I judged but of your Words and judge you of my Motives for refusing a Bishoprick no worse than I give you cause I answer you it intimated no Ingratitude to His Majesty nor did I ever repent And that I did it not to keep up a Party or Interest in them the Lord Chancellor had Evidence and my voluntary endeavours against all Faction and casting away my Reputation with all such declareth when I could as easily have kept it as you with yours and had no outward interest to move me to renounce it I say this because you seem suspectingly to talk of my Motives § 48. Our Question is Whether a Church of One Altar as they spake of old Associated for personal Communion and a Church of never so many Altars or Congregations Associated for other ends and not for personal Communion be ejusdem speciei And so whether the word Church here signifies but one Species You hold the Affirmative of both and I the Negative My reason is 1. Because it being a Relative which is in question The ends of the Society specifically differing make the Societies specifically to differ the Terminus being essential to the Relation But here are different sorts of ends Ergo here are different sorts of Relations I use the word ends to signifie the nearest end which specifieth and not the remote And to avoid the ambiguity of the word Terminus which as Finis cujus finis cui are distinguished so they use variously sometimes for the Correlate and sometimes for the nearest end and so I now use it As a Master to teach a Grammar-school and a Master to rule a Family or to guide a Ship are Relations specifically distinct à fine And so is a Magistrate and a Pastor and a Physician c. This is clear And for the Minor That these Churches in question have different nearest ends is evident For the end of a particular Church is personal â—ummunion in God's publick Worship and holy living to their mutual assistance But the ends of Churches that never know each other but live an 100 or 1000 Miles asunder They say some of our Islands and Plantations are parts of some English Diocesan Church can be no such thing but only a distant communion in the same Faith Love and Obedience The end of a single Church is the personal Communion of Christians in that one Society The end of an Association of many Churches is the Communion of those many Churches in distant mental Concord or by Delegates or Synods sometimes in â—ase of need And who ever thought that a particular Church a Patriarchal Church and a Pabal or the Universal Church were ejusdem speâ—iâ—i when they agree only in remote ends and differ in the Terminus vel finis proximus As a Kingdom and a Corporation differ Ex differentia â—inium because though both are Societies for Ciâ—il Communion and Government and so agree â—n genere yet the end of one is Kingdom government and Communion and the end of the other is â—ut Corporation-government and Communion 2. Where there are different sorts of Relates corâ—elates there are different sorts of Relations But â—â— a particular Church and a Patriarchal Dioceâ—n or other Combination of many Churches â—here are different sorts of Relates correlates Ergo there are different sorts of Relations The â—hing supposed in the major is undeniable that â—â—e Relate correlate enter the definition â—â—erefore the major is undeniable The minorâ—pposeth â—pposeth a Church to be Constituted of the â—ars dirigens vel regens and the pars subdita as relate correlate which is undeniable And â—en it is proved per partes 1. The Pastor of a â—â—gle Church and a Patriarch Pope or Dioceâ—n of a multitude of combined Churches are not the same Relate for they have not the same Relation I suppose the Relation of a Church to be thus Constitute of the two Complicate Relations as well the Church subjectively of the two Relates For 1. The different Work 2. And the different Correlate prove these Pastors to be two sorts of Relation however agreeing inâ—genere 1. It is not the same sort of Works personally to guide a present people in Doctrine Worship and Discipline
under Christ as Prophet Priest King all essential to the Office as to send others as his Curates to do this For the King may send others or to exercise some degree of Discipline himself over many Churches where he is none of their Teacher not Mouth nor Guide in Worship Prayer Praise Sacraments c. Nor is it the same work to be an unusual Teacher as one may be in another Church or School and to be the stated ordinary Teacher and Worshipper of that Churrh which is the end of the particular Pastors Office 2. And the Correlate proveth the difference For it iâ— not the same Relation to be a Ruler of a Family and of a Kingdom and so here which bring me to the proof of the Minor by the second part And that the Correlates are various is evident no only from the magnitude but the end also ther included For the subject of Political Society Civitatis vel Ecclesiae is a Community not an multitude of men Because that which Aristatâ—calleth Privatio and is better called Disposuâ—materiae is necessary as a kind of Principle to thâ— reception of the Form As in Physicks so quianalogum in Relations And therefore it must bâ— a Community Now Communities themselves are first specified by their various ends As a Company of men combined for Merchandize and a Company combined for Literature or for Souldiery c. are not the same So a Company combined for Personal Communion and helps in holy Worship and living are not the same with those combined for other ends as aforesaid Therefore neither the Pastors nor Peoples Relation and consequently the Churches is not of the same sort 3. Where there are distinct Fundamenta vel rationes fundandi there are distinct Relations But here are distinct fundamenta c. The fundamentum is 1. Principall which is Institution Divine or Humane 2. Subordinate which is Consent Viz. 1. Of a Minister to gather Churches Consensus duplex Dei Ministri 2. Of a Minister to guide Churches gathered Consensus triplex plerumque quadruplex viz. 1. Dei 2. Ordinati 3. Populi 4. Plerumque Ordinantis If any of these vary the Fundamentum relations doth so far vary were it not tedious I would shew you how much difference there is in all these But it is the first Reason that being most edent I most insist on Now your Reason to the contrary for your Affirmative is that Gradus non variat speciem To which my Answer being that Quando variat aut finem proximum seu terminum vel fundamentum vel relatum correlatum variat relationis speciem But frequently Gradus materiae variat finem proximum fundamentum c. Ergo speciem The Major needeth no proof the Minor I cleared by the instance of a Ship a Church a Spoon c. where magnitude or parvity can make this difference You tell me Relatives do not suscipere magis minus Answ The clean contrary is an usual Maxim with Logicians But that is so plain that it needs no dispute viz. Quoad subjectum fundamentum aliquando materiam correlati It may be found in divers degrees but not in degrees of matter uncapable of the End and Form But the forma Relativa doth not so vary one is not magis vel minus haec relatio than another But if you will extend this to the Matter of the Subject which is our Case you do but though mistakingly give away your Cause For then every new Member maketh a new Church in specie when you say This is only in respect of quantity You know that Aristotle saith That Quantity non suscipit magis minus and so his Interpreters say speaking strictly and not laxly Therefore it 's this you must mean as I do while you would say something that we may seem to differ I told you that different quantities in the subject may change the relations which I think never man denied that understood what a Relation was And you feign me to say simply That Magis minus variant speciem in relatives That you may have occasion to say as I said under pretence of contradicting the same thing But to my Instances you say That it is enough for your purpose that there is not a specifick difference between a little Spoon or Diocess and a great one Answ Say you so our Question is Whether different Degrees in the subject may vary the species of Relations Either you deny it or you do not If you do common Experience and Reason will shame your denial I instanced in a Spoon a Church a Troop Regiment Army a Ship c. Wheresoever the finis proximus as in all Offices and Societies is essential to the Relation there no man of Logical acquaintance can make a doubt of it but that certain Quantities or Degrees in the Subject may be so over great or over small as to be uncapable of that End and consequently of the Relation I will not censure you to be so ignorant as to doubt of it and if I do not you force me to judge you so heedless or partial as to say something towards the hiding of that truth which you do not doubt of I say that Degrees in the Subject or Correlate vary not the Species but when they vary the specifying end some Relations are founded only in Actions past as Pater filius in Generation Creator creaturae in Creation And there the end following is not essential But it is otherwise with those Relations which consist in an Authority Obligation undertaking of a future work as a Teacher Physician c. where the Work as undertaken is the essential end And you had here no better a shift then to dissemble in silence the other Instances and to tell me that a great Spoon and a little one differ not specie But doth that prove that it may be in specie a Spoon if if be as big as a Ship or in specie a Ship if it be no bigger than a Spoon Since you perceive your own deceit which is by transferring the Question are ad nomen and then by choosing Instances de nomine where the Name is never used generically but only for one species The name of a Spoon is never taken for a Ship contra And therefore to say that a little Spoon and a greater differ not speeie is but to say that the same species is the same as being found in a capable degree of subject But a Society a Church yea a Diocess are names generical or analogous which may be and are applyed to various Species The universal Church headed by Christ is no more of the same species with a particular Church than a Kingdom and a Corporation in that Kingdom are I use not words to hide things but to render them intelligible A thousand Schools combined under a general Schoolmaster or an hundred Colledges making up one Academy are not of the same species with one School and one
humane policie that he denied and that they differed but about words Did ever Christian before you deny particular Churches to be distinct policies and parts of the Universal Have we so many Books written of Ecclesiastical Policie and is there no such thing or no Churches that are Politick Societies § XXXVII He adds According to your assertion all the world must be Atheists of no Religion at all Answ Then all the world of Christians are so for as far as writings notifie they are generally of this mind Alas Brother did you shew this to any man before you Printed it for their honour I must think you did not and for your sake I wish you had § XXXVIII He adds Your division of the Church into Universal and particular is plainly against that Rule in Logick Membra omnis bonae divisionis debent esse inter se opposita but you oppose the same thing against it self Answ Thus do men humble themselves by forsaking humility Had it not been better for your to have let your Logick alone than to bewray that which you might have concealed Are not diversa distinguishable as well as opposita And is there no diversity in parte essentiae as in subalternis where there is not a diversity in totâ essentia as there is in summis generibus is there not both diversity and opposition inter totum partem and between the species of an universal and particular Society Are they not Relative opposita May you not distinguish Army and Regiment and Troop Kingdom and City Christ and a Bishop c. § XXXIX He adds You make the Church at Corinth a particular Church Answ And do not all Christians Is it all the Christian world § XL. You plainly saith he leave out of your description the differing form or token of that which you call a particular Church and that is Neighbourhood c. Answ Anne putares 1. Have I so oft exprest it and yet will you say so 2. But it was in descriptions indeed and I was far from your Logical belief that Neighbourhood is the differencing form And I hope no one else is of your mind 1. If Neighbourhood be the differencing form then all Christian Neighbours are particular Churches But that is false Ergo. 1. Those that dwell together only for Trade are not therefore Churches 2. Those that hold that there are no particular Churches or Pastors but that all Christians are as Priests 3. Those that hold that the Minister of the Parish where they live is no true Minister nor the Parish a true Church 4. Those that profess themselves Members of no particular Church 5. Those that profess to be no Members of that Church but of another 6. Papists and Sectaries that stand in opposition to that Church 7. Those that dwell near another Parish-Church and many miles from their own are not Members by proximity 8. Those that are Excommunicated which is de facto all professed Non-Conformists 9. In places where the Magistrate tyeth not Churches to Parish-bounds persons of the same street and house may be of several Churches 10. No man that consenteth not is a Church-Member 11. And who knoweth not that proximity is but dispositio materiae and not the differencing form All these singular novelties should have had better proof than these dry assertions contrary to all Christian sense § XLI This startles me I strive to be silent and cannot saith he and the more I strive the more I am overcome Answ If you are so far gone I shall hereafter I think without any striving with my self let that which is within you talk on and not resist you For who can hold that which will away But I wish you the benefit of some stiptick remedy and a sober mind § XLII I prove to you saith he when there is nothing like one proving word c. you make the Lord Jesus the authour and founder of subverting principles Answ Read the Ninth Commandment I conclude with these requests to him as my true friend viz. to consider Qu. 1. Whether a man so far from persecution and yet condemning us of Atheism blaspheming and destroying all Religion c. be not much more uncharitable than they that charge no such thing upon us but trouble us for refusing Forms are Ceremonies or is it not the same spirit Qu. 2. Whether he justifie not the silencing and ruining of all whom he so accuseth should not such impious Atheists be silenced Qu. 3. If he knew that the generality of the Christian world in all ages hold what he thus censureth what will he call it to charge all Christians so far with Atheism and casting out all Religion and making God and Christ a deceiver If he knew it not what will he call it to venture thus to publish such an accusation before he knew that which an ordinary Inhabitant of the world might so easily have known As if he had published All that say a City is specified by its subordinate Form of Government and is a part of the Kingdom specified by the Monarch are Traytors and depose the King or make him a deceiver and no King and deny all obedience What will you call this dealing Qu. 4. Was it well done to write such a Book while he understood so very little of the very plainest passages which he wrote against Qu. 5. Was it excusable to confess some errour of the last and to add far worse and after warning a second time so to speak evil of what he understood not Qu. 6. Was it humility to make ostentation of the Logick he understood not Qu. 7. Doth not the extreme bold confidence of the falsest of his own conceptions shew a very unhumbled overvaluing of his own understanding To be ignorant is common to Mankind yea and to be much ignorant of our ignorance and to think that we know more than we do But to have so little sense of this calamity and so little suspicion of ones own understanding as to be confident to such a height of accusation of the grossest falshoods where a lad of fourteen years old that had read any thing of Logick and Politicks might have better taught him that I say not the reason and use of Mankind this seemeth somewhat beyond the common measure of self-conceitedness Qu. 8. Whether the great number of asserted untruths here shew not some want of necessary tenderness or care of writing CHAP. IV. Mr. Chenies Accusations of me about Church-Covenants and rigid Independencie and the odiousness hereof considered § 1. WHen he had said that it leads to two contrary Gods which is to make no true God p. 69. He proceedeth Mr. B. hath devised and framed two Covenants the one to make a man a Member of the Church Universal the other of the particular p. 97. I will shew 1. That this is the same with the upstart way of the Independents 2. The unsoundness of it p. 101. Mr. B. and the Independents now are contrary to
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
Prayer as qualifies it for the publick worship of God Answ 1. Gratis dictum Who authorized you to say that Assenting and Consenting to all things contained and prescribed meaneth not as it saith but only an useable measure of Truth and Goodness Is this the usual sence of All things c. If not where have the Law givers given us another If you can think so why must all be silenced that think otherwise and dare not be so bold § 7 Impl. The title of the Act is the Key If Uniformity be observed the Act is satisfied Answ 〈…〉 is not de fine only but de medio to secure Uniformity by profest Assent c. All Lawyers know that Laws have usually more in the Body than is in the Title § 8. Impl. They say 1. Assent implies the Truth and Consent the Goodness 2. All things they say meaneth all words and expressions 3. By to the use is meant those things that come not into use 4. When it 's said in sensu composito conteined and prescribed in and by c. they extend it to all things that are conteined as well as prescribed Answ I see that Wit is useful to many ends Here are so many and rare Expository Evasions as Escohar or Bauny could not have excelled in them 1. If Assent signifie not Judging all to be true it hath lately got a new signification Consent indeed signifieth oft an object practicable and existent for some good motive of Consent 2. If the all things in the Books mean not all the words but things distinct from words I would we could know what they are Sure it is not the Paper and Ink that the Parliament mean Prayers and Forms are words Actions or Ceremonies that are not words are but little of the Book or rather none of it being but the matters commanded by it 3. There is no word or part of the Book that was not made for some use If not how shall we know which words are useless 4. I do not think that there was a man in the Parliament when the Act was made that ever thought of this subtle Exposition that any man would take all conteined and prescribed only in sensu composito And so that we profess Assent to nothing contained in the Book but that which is prescribed also If so is not conteined an idle word when all men know that all that is prescribed is conteined And yet by that time prescribed Doctrines Calendars Rules Forms c. are taken in they will prove more than my Assent and Consent will reach to § 9. Whereas the Commons brought the Lords to agree with them for not limiting the sense of the Declaration of Assent and Consent to the Use of all he answereth 1. That the Bishops then were more our friends than the Commons As if the Bishops always went with the major Vote of the Lords 2. He giveth Reasons why it is meet that men Approve as well as Use what they do And what else is it that we say but the Using without Approving satisfieth not the imposition § 10. He citeth my words That we may take an Oath whose words in the plain and proper sense are lawful But the Question is Whether these be such § 11. II. pag. 21. He defends the words Easter-day on which the rest depend is always the first Sunday after the first Full-Moon which happens next after the 21 of March Which being oft false he saith 1. Being a General Rule it may be allowed to have some exception Answ And so they say Always and they mean not always but sometimes 2. He proceedeth The Rubrick doth not say a Rule but Rules in the Plural and where the first Rule fails the defect is supplied in the second Answ What may not such a Wit prove true and lawful if the man be willing 1. The Rules contained in that Section under that Title are only this and one for Advent and other Sundays and none for Easter but this 2. To say This is always so and after to say the contrary is but to say One is true and the other false Always excludeth your acknowledged Falshood sometimes 3. He saith The Defect never cometh into practice Answ It 's an useable Rule and so you covenant to practice it if the Use of all things be intended and so you must keep two Easter-days Object 4. Mr. B. might as well have objected against the Almanack which saith February hath 28 days Answ So I should if it had said always and only 28. § 12. III. Impl. p. 22. defendeth these words We are fully perswaded in our judgments and we here profess it to the world that the Book as it stood before established by Law doth not contain any thing contrary to the Word of God And 1. he blameth me for omitting the condition of a just and favourable Construction c. Answ I undertook not to transcribe the whole Book which is in so many hands A just construction is still supposed and as favourable as will stand with Truth I have oft enough told him the Rule by which we Interpret words viz. The ordinary sence in which they are understood by men of the profession which they belong to unless the Speakers otherwise expound them If he thought this Rule to be false he should have disputed that If on pretence of favourable Interpretations you resolve to put a good meaning on any words which your Interest perswadeth you to take nobis non licet we cannot do so else we could take any Oath in the world while all words have divers sences and are arbitrary signs which we can put what sence upon that pleases us § 13. Impl. p. 22 23. He well knows our Assent to the words there mentioned is not required nor could be intended Answ Utterly false I know it not but verily believe the contrary Impl. For it is only a profession of our Superiours that were then in being what their judgment and belief was c. Answ So the Rubrick and the 39 Articless were the judgment of your Superiours But are not they and that Preface parts of the Book If not tell us how we shall know what are parts of it and to what we must consent And must you not Assent and Consent to all things in it I like not those Equivocations which will make Oaths and Promises to be but what the Speaker please § 14. Impl. Mr. B. doth very ill to recount those mistranslations in the old Book which are amended in the new c. which Mr. B. knows to be false viz. that Assent to them is required Answ 1. How did this bold man know my thoughts I know these words to be a deliberate Printed Falshood and this man to have so many such as that to me he is incredible 2. When the New Book justifieth the old as having nothing contrary to the word of God and you must Assent to all things in the new one I think you assent to that justification
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