A second true defence of the meer nonconformists against the untrue accusations, reasonings, and history of Dr. Edward Stillingfleet ... clearly proving that it is (not sin but) duty 1. not wilfully to commit the many sins of conformity, 2. not sacrilegiously to forsake the preaching of the Gospel, 3. not to cease publick worshipping of God, 4. to use needful pastoral helps for salvation ... / written by Richard Baxter ... ; with some notes on Mr. Joseph Glanviles Zealous and impartial Protestant, and Dr. L. Moulins character.

CHAP. VI. Q. Whether he be no Christian that is not a fixed Member of a particular Church?

Sect. 1. HE that is a true Member of the Universal Church, which is Christs Body, is a true Christian: But many are Members of the Universal Church, which are no fixed Members of any particular Church. Ergo.

2. All that are rightfully Baptized are Christians, (for it is their Chri∣stening.) But many rightfully Baptized are no fixed Members of any particular Church. Ergo.

3. He that hath all the Essentials of Christianity is a Christian: But many that are no fixed Members of a particular Church have all the Essen∣tials of Christianity. Ergo.

4. A fortiore, They that are not so much as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church, though Baptised, are not unchristen∣ed for want of such Membership. But many Baptized person are not so much as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church. Ergo. Instances.

1. The Eunuch baptized in his Travails Acts. 9 was only a Mem∣ber of the Church Universal. 2. Those that were converted by Frumen∣tius and Edesius when there was no particular Church: And all that are first converted in any Infidel or Heathen Land before any Church be for∣med. 3. Those that by Shipwrack are cast on heathen Countries where no Churches are. 4. Travellers that go from Country to Countries (as Lythgow did nineteen years, and others many.) And I think he unhap∣pily named Jerusalem, where Travellers come that are of no fixed Church (unless he in that also be a Superindependant, and think that men may be many years Members of a Church many hundred miles off, which they have no personal communion with.) 5. Merchants and Factors, who are called to dwell long among Infidels where are no Churches. 6. Embas∣sadors who by their Princes are sent to reside among such, much of their lives. 7. Wanderers that have no fixed habitations; as many Pedlers and other poor wandering Tradesmen, and loose Beggars that have no Dwelling. 8. Those thot live among Papists or any other Christians who impose some sin as a condition of communion. 9. Those that live among such Christians as have no true Pastors who are constitutive parts

of particular Churches. Some being incapable through insufficiency, some by Heresie and some for want of a true Call: Such as by Mr Dodwells Doctrine most of the Christian World are, for want of uninterrupted rrue Episcopal Ordination. 10. Those who are subjects to such as per∣mit them not to be fixed Members: As Wives hindred by Husbands, Children by Parents, and some Subjects violently hindred by Princes; who yet allow them transient Communion. And verily a man would think by the writings of many Conformists, that they took it for a Duty to o∣bey a Prince in such a case. 11. Those who live where Church-corrup∣tions are not so great as to make transient Communion unlawful, but so great as to make fixed communion seem to be a culpable consent: If I come in travel to a Church of Strangers, I am not bound to examine what their Discipline is, what their Lives be, or how their Pastors are called: But where I am fixed I am more bound to know these, and if I find them exclude Discipline, live wickedly▪ and have unlawful Pastors, I may in some cases be a partaker of the sin if I fix among them. 12. They that live in a time and place of Schism and distraction, striving who shall prevail, and condemning each other, all following several Factions, and needing Reconcilers: It may for a time become in prudence the duty of peace∣makers, to own no Faction, nor to be more of one Church than of a∣nother, while he seeth that it will do more hurt than good; And those that wait in hope as the Nonconformists now do, to see whether their Rulers will restore them to reformed Parish Churches, may at once in prudence find it needful, neither to fix as Members in some Parish Churches till reformed (in the Teachers at least) nor to seem to be Separatists by gathering new Churches. In none of all these cases is a man unchristened, nor schismatical, for being no fixed member of any Church besides the Universal. And as it is the ill hap of these men commonly to strike themselves, I doubt they will prove Grotius himself no Christian, by this Rule, who for many years before he died, they say joyned with no particular Church, as a fixed member. And I know not well what particular Church they make the King a Member of.

Sect. 2. To his Questions Pag. 3. [Were we not Baptized into this Church, and do you not Renounce Membership? This is scarce a civility. I answer, 1. This Church! which Church do you mean? I was not Baptized into St. Giles's nor St. Andrew's Parish Church, but into one above an hundred miles off, and yet my removal made me no culpable Separatist. Or doth he mean, This Diocesan Church? No; I was Baptized in the Diocess of Lichfield. Doth he mean This National Church; as it is supposed a po∣litical body constituted of the Ecclesiastical Governing and Governed

Parts, he saith there is no such Church of England; but that It inferreth Popery to assert such. But if he equivocate here, and mean not by a Church as in the rest, but either a christian Kingdom, or an agreeing Asso∣ciation of many Churches, I am still a fixed member of such a Kingdom, and of such an Association in all things necessary to Churches and Chri∣stian Communion. 2. But Baptism as such entred me only into the Uni∣versal Church; much less did it fix me in any other. I was Baptized where I was to stay but a little while. And this phrase of [being Bap∣tized into our Church,] is to me of ill sound or intimation. Bellarmine saith that all that are baptized are interpretatively thereby engaged to the Pope: I was baptized in a Parish, and in a Diocess and in a Christian Kingdom; but not so into them, as to be obliged to continue under that Priest or Bishop or in that Kingdom. And my Baptism I hope did not oblige me to every Canon, Ceremony, Form, or Sin of the associated Churches in England, abusively by him called one Church. 3. And unhappily it is not meer Independancy that he is still pleading for, but some extremes which the moderate Independants disclaim, viz. That a member of their Churches is so tyed to them, that they may not remove to another with∣out their consent. And am I so tyed? to what, to Parochial, or to the Diocesan, or to the association of English Churches. If it had been to the Species, I would fain know whether their things called by them Indiffe∣rents specifie them.

Sect. 3. P. 111, 112. He yet more pleads as for Separation [why then above once or twice? why should I so countenance defective Worship and not rather reprove it by total forbearance of Communion,] &c. Answ. My Reasons I told him, because the accidents may continue which made it a Duty, but I cannot hinder others from yielding to his arguments: Let him make his best of them. Only I must tell him yet 1. that if he lay his cause on this, that their Parochial or Diocesan Churches are not de∣fective. 2. Or that the defects cannot by others be avoided, he will quite marr his matter, and undo all by overdoing. 3. And if he indeed think that all defective Churches must be forsaken, he will be one of the great∣est Schismaticks in the World. But who can reconcile this with the scope of his whole Book?

Sect. 4. P. 112. He saith, Here are no bounds set to peoples Fancies of purer Administrations. Answ. Have I so oft and copiously named the bounds, and now is the answer, [Here are none.] Are there none in all the same Books he citeth? 2. Scripture is their bounds, as he well openeth in his de∣sence of Bi••hop Laud.

Sect. 5. P. 114. He complains of my leaving out the best part of

his argument, viz. [The people may go to the Anabaptists and Quakers.

Answ. Alas that such things should be the best to such a man! By [May go] you mean, 1. lawfully, 2. or eventually, 3. or for want of due hindring.] The Reader may think that you by Calumny father the first on me, as if I said, that so to go to the Quakers were no sin, whereas I still say that if they do but leave your Churches by any culpable Error it is their sin. 2. And as to the Event, many not only may but do, turn Quakers, Papists and Athiests, 3. And as to the third, it's all the question here (not whether we should seek to save them but) which is the true reasona∣ble and allowed means, Whether it be the Patrons choosing for all Eng∣land the Pastors to whose care they must trust their Souls, and laying them in Jail that will choose others? Or whether there be not a righter way. And again I say, Kings and Patrons choose not mens Wives, or Physi∣cians, or Food, and every man hath a charge of his Soul as well as of his Life, Antecedent to the Kings or Patrons charge.

Sect. 6. But why (saith he P. 11. v. 115.) must the King bear all the blame, if mens Souls be not provided for, &c? Answ. He that is the chooser must bear the blame, the King for Bishops, and the Patrons for Parish Priests if they mischoose. And do you think in your conscience that all the Patrons in England of so various minds and lives, are like to choose only such, in whose pastoral conduct all that care for their Souls should rest. Yea though the Bishops must Institute them as they Ordained them. When we heretofore told them of the multitudes of grosly ignorant, drunken Priest, their answers were, 1. Their Chaplains examined them. 2. They had certificates. 3. A quare impedit lay against them if they re∣quired higher knowledge than to answer the Catechism in Latine. And now experience will not warrant us to know what such men are. P. 115. He asketh How it is possible on these terms to have any peace or order in an esta∣blished Church. Answ. I have fully told him how in a whole Book of con∣cord, And hath their way caused greater peace and order? Yes, to them∣selves for the time. So Popery keepeth some Order and Unity with them that hold to it: But it kept not the Greeks or Protestants from forsaking them.

Sect. 7. P. 119. 120. He saith, [They only look on those as true Church∣es which have such Pastors whom they approve. Answ. Equivocal words: 1. If they approve not those whom they should approve, it is their sin. 2. Approving is either of the necessaries ad esse, or only ad melius esse. They must not put the later for the former. 3. Approving is by a Governing or but a discerning private Judgment. The first they have not, but the later. In good earnest, would he have all the people take those for true

Pastors, who they verily think are none. Can they at once hold con∣tradictions? And if they must not judge as dissenters, what meaneth Mr. Dodwels and such mens Arguments to prove all no Ministers that have not Succession of Episcopal Ordination? Must not the people on that account disown them, by his way?

Sect. 8. p. 119. He brings in against us my words [I take those for true Churches that have true Pastors, and those for none, that have 1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral Office, 2. or not truly called to it, 3. Or that deny themselves the essential Power. Answ. He knoweth that I speak not of e∣quivocal but proper political Churches. And is it possible that such a man should dissent in this? 1. Can he be a true Pastor that is uncapable of the Office? Shall I abuse time to confute gross Contradictions? Or if he be a profest Infidel, Can he be a Christian Pastor? 2. Is a Layman a true Pastor that is not truly called to it? why then do they argue as Mr. Dodwell? or Re-ordain men. 3. Can a man be a Pastor against his will, or that con••enteth not, but renounceth it? or can that be a true Pasto∣ral Church that hath no Pastor? Verily we are but upon low works, if these be the things which we must prove.

Sect. 9. He adds, [And one or other of these he thinks must, if not all the parochial Churches in England fall under.] Answ. I read these words of the Dr. to a Papist, [To speak mildly, this is a gross untruth.] There∣fore I hope it were no Rage for me to have said the like. How doth he prove it? Nay in the place cited by him I not only profest the contrary, but gave the Reason, p. 65. [Because I judge of their Office by Gods Word, and not by the Rule which deprives them of an essential Part.] And 1. He citeth my confession that those that I hear preach well (and therefore are not uncapable men.) 2. That their Ordination hath all essentially necessary, and all the worthy men that I know have the communicants of the Parishes consent, though not Election, and therefore are called, 3. And many of them (as he) thinks they have all essential to the Office and disown it not, though I think others deny it them, where there is the truth of what he saith.

Sect. 10. p. 120. Because my practice disproveth him, he finds out a Subtilty, that I joyn not with the Parish Churches as true Churches, but only as Chappels or Oratories—he accounts not our parochial Churches as true Churches, nor doth communicate with them as such—a Subtilty beyond the reach of the old Brownists. Answ. Deliberately to print such untruths seems tolera∣ble in him, but to say they are such would seem passion in me, and what o∣ther answer are they capable of?—What I expresly say of the three fore∣mentioned excepted sorts, he feigneth me to say of all or most of the

Parish Churches; and yet dare not deny the truth of any one of the Ex∣ceptions. 1. Do not all those men take the Parishes for no proper political Churches, but only for Parts of the Diocesan Church, such as we call Curates Chappels, who say that a Bishop is a constitutive Part of a true political Church and entereth the Definition, and that it's no Church that hath no Bishop, and that Diocesan Churches are the lowest political. And do I need to tell him how considerable these men are among them. 2. Doth he himself take any one of these for a true political Church? When I was young, divers Laymen by turns were our publick Reading Teachers: A∣mong the rest one was after proved to counterfeit Orders. This mans acts were no nullities to us that knew it not: but when we knew of such must we take them for true Pastors, and it for a true Church?

Sect. 11. p. 221. He saith, [Any Parochial Church that hath such a one (a Bishop or Pastor over them that hath the power of the Keys, and owns it self to be Independant) he allows to be a true Church and none else.] Answ. More and more untruths. 1. Where do I say [that owns it self to be Independant,] as if that were necessary to its being. 1. Doth he not confess that I own general Visitors or Archbishops and appeals? 2. That I own Associations which he makes the state of the Church of England? 3. That I own Synods for obliging concord? 4. That I own the Magistrates Government of all? Is there no de∣pendancy in any of these, or all? what dependancy more doth he assert? 2. As to the Power of the Keys, dare he come into the light and tell us, whether any power of the Keys, that is, of the Government of his particular Church be essential to the Pastor of a true organized governed Church or not. If not, is it not a contradiction to call it a governed Church? If yea then is he a Pa∣stor that wants what is essential to a Pastor? But if they will call a forcing Power, or the present secular Mode of their Courts, by the name of the Keys, I never said that these are essential to a Church, nor desirable in it, but am a Nonconformist because I will not by Oath or Covenant renounce (just) Endeavours to amend it.

Sect. 12. p. 121, 122. The next Accusation is, [They leave it in the peoples Power notwithstanding all legal Establishments to own or disown whom they judge fit.] Answ. He tireth me with putting me on repetitions. 1. They can unjustly judge of none and disown them without sin. It is not I that give men power to sin, no more than Power to die, or be sick, which is but impotency: would I could give them power against it. 2. It is not power to reject any chosen by King or Patrons, from being publick Teachers, or to have the Tithes and Temples, nor to be a Pastor to others. But it is to have a dis∣cerning Judgment whether one chosen by the Patron be a person to whom he himself ought to trust the pastoral Conduct of his Soul. Either the Dr.

thinks that Laymen have this discerning power and duty or not. If yea, is it nothing to him to seem thus seriously to plead against his conscience? If not, I ask him, 1. What meant Christ and his Apostles to call men to beware of false Teachers, to avoid the Leven of their Doctrine, to mark them and avoid them, and turn away from them, and not bid them good speed? 2. What meant all the ancient Churches to forbid Communion with Hereticks? and even some Popes and Councils to hear Mass of Fornicators? ••. What meant all those Fathers and Councils, that make him no Bishop that cometh not in with the peoples consent? if not Election. 4. Why will he not be intreated to tell us in what Countries, or with what Limitati∣ons the contrary Doctrine must be received? Must all the people trust on∣ly such Pastors as the Prince or Patrons choose all over England? or also in Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, among Lutherans, Calvinists, Greeks, &c. supposing the Law be on that side? Must we all be of the Kings or Patrons Religion? 5. Is this agreeable to his old Doctrine cited Chap. 1.

Sect. 13. p. 122. He adds, [Mr. Baxter speaks his mind very freely a∣gainst the Rights and Patronage, and the Power of the Magistrates in such Cases, and pleads for the unalterable Rights of the people, as the old Separatists did. Ans. Is this true? 1. What is it against the Right of Patronage or Magistrates Power for me to choose who I will trust the guidance of my Soul with, while I contradict not his power to choose publick Teachers, and give the Tithes and Temples, and confess that for order sake I ought to consent to such as he chooseth thus, unless he put on me a true necessity of a better choice? If the King choose all the Hospital Physicians, what wrong is it to him, if I at my own charge choose a better for my self when I think else ignorance or malice will murder me? Doth he that desireth (as I ever do) that in so great a case there may be many Locks to the Church Door, deny any one of them, viz. The Ordainers consent, the Magistrates and Patrons, and the Peoples. Is this the same that the old Separatists did? Should Glocesier take Goodman a Papist for their Bishop because the King chose him? Abundance of Patrons in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths Reign presented Papists. It seems if they were imposed by Law, and Patrons, you would have the people submit to those that cry down Bishops, Liturgy and Ce∣remonies too. Father Paul Sarpi translated by Dr. Denton will tell you how new a way this is.

Sect. 14. p. 122. He adds [The People are made Judges of the Competency of their Ministers.] Answ. They are discerning Judges. Doth not your charge imply that you think otherwise; and yet you dare not say so. Must they not judge when Forreigners heretofore were set over them, whether they speak English or no? or if a Socinian deny Christs Godhead or the im▪

mortality of the Soul, whether he be Competent or not? Or if they have an ignorant Curate, that when necessary advice for the Soul is asked of him, will say no more but [Trouble not your head about such matters, but cast away care and live merrily.] If when the blind lead the blind both fall into the ditch, must we not note the difference? Alas how little would some men have a man care for his Soul, in comparison of caring what Physick, what Food, what Wife, what Servant, what Trade he chooseth? Trust one to the conduct of such as all the Patrons of England will choose for you, but not any of the other. As to the not causeless forsaking former Pastors, he knoweth that it was the strict charge of the old Canons of the Churches; and the Bishops themselves do hold the same. I thought they ought not to be forsaken because men thrust them out. The Churches at Antioch, Alex∣andria, and many more did oft and long cleave to those Pastors whom the Christian Emperors cast out, and reject those whom they imposed. When I have proved this so fully in my first Plea and Church-history, what an unsa∣tisfactory answer is it for such a Dr. to repeat it and say, This is plain deal∣ing. Is the Judgment and Practice of the Churches so light with him.

Sect. 15. p. 123. The next charge is, [They give directions to the people what sort of Ministers they should own, and what not.] Answ. We do so: And I had thought all Christians had been of the same mind. It's sad with the Church when this Doctrine needeth a publick defence. Dare he say, that all imposed must be owned? Then either Salvation is at the Magistrates will, or it's the priviledge of such Countries as have good ones, or a man may be sa∣ved in any Country Religion contrary to the Article which they all subscribe.

Sect. 16. Next the Accuser falls on my general Rule, [The Ministry that tendeth to Destruction more than to Edification, and to do more harm than good, is not to be owned,] and his bare recital is confutation. Ans. I must pro∣fess that I am so confident of this, that a thousand such dissenting Drs. cannot change me: And according to his excellent Rules of judging in the end of his Discourse of Idolatry, which maketh natural Verities most certain and fundamental, me thinks it should to him be surer of the two than the Gospel it self: viz. That all men should love themselves, and be un∣willing to be damned, and therefore should not own that Ministry of man which tendeth more to Destruction than to Edification. And when he wrote that cited in my first Chap. he was of that mind or he was a most gross dissembler. But must it be otherwise? Is it our Salvation that we must sacrifice to Priests, Prelates or Princes wills? If our Tithes would have served them, we had not gainsaid them. If our Bodies and Estates might have satisfied them, we had not struck at it so much. But when (Destruction) signifieth (Damnation) it is a hard bargain? If we should re∣nounce

our Christianity for them, we are never the nearer: for we are still Men and therefore loth to be destroyed in Hell? If this be the meaning of the Article which denyeth free will, I deny it freely: I have no such free will. But O Reverend Fathers, be more impartial: Are you so loth to lose your great Riches and Honor, yea or to have your Reputation so far que∣stioned, as to be contradicted, or have others live by you that preach with∣out your consent; and yet must all the people of England, so much deny their own Salvation for you, as to submit to a destroying Ministry? Why then did you before put (agreement in Doctrine) among the requisites to our Accusation? must we agree and not judge whether we agree or not? Why then must not all Hereticks, Papists, &c. be received, why then are all your volumnious Accusations produced to prove us justly silenced? and Mr. Dodwels to prove us no Ministers of Christ, if we want nothing but a human power to impose us on the Churches, and a Patron to present us? But the best is, when you have talk'd and written your worst, men will be unwilling of destruction; and till the Bible be forbidden, men will read, (Beware of false Prophets: Let no man deceive you: prove all things: from such turn away: Mark them which cause Divisions and Offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learn'd and avoid them, and more, 2 Pet. 2. J. ••it. 3. 10. 2. J. 10, 11.

Sect. 17. He adds, (That we may not think all this to be only a Romantick Scheme, or Fiction,) he adds, (that they are not able to confute the people in too many pla∣ces, who tell them that their publick Priests are so defective in their necessary Qua∣lifications for their Office, as that they hold it unlawful to own such for true Mini∣sters, and to encourage them by their presence, and commit the care of their Souls to such. Ans. 1. This is true: we are not able to confute them: If you be rejoice in your Wisdom. 2. Either you would have us believe that there are none such, or that no such are to be so refused. The first you attempt not: If you did, I would repeat a Catalogue of my old Teachers and Acquain∣tance: but I have named them to Mr. Hinkley. And as to the second, I prove it (a sad task for such a one as you to put us on.) 1. Such as are known to be no authorized Ministers of Christ, should not be owned as such: But all those that want the necessary Qualifications for their Office are no authori∣zed Ministers of Christ. Ergo. If the Major were not true, Error or Ly∣ing were a duty. The truth of the Minor is evident in the terms: neces∣sartum est sine quo res non esse potest. It is Qualifications necessary to the Office in esse, and not only to the well performance that is mentioned. Forma nun∣quam recipitur in materiam dispositione necessaria carentem. But here the Of∣fice is the forme, and the necessary disposition of the matter is supposed wanting. Ergo. Again: All men are bound to avoid the apparent means of Dam∣nation: To trust the conduct of our Souls to men uncapable for want of

necessary Qualifications, is an apparent means of Damnation (as exclu∣ding an ordinarily necessary means of Salvation,) Ergo. Again: It is a great sin to encourage men in the wilful damning of their own Souls, and hindering the Salvation of many others: But to own an unqualified unca∣pable man as a Minister of Christ, is to encourage him in the wilful dam∣nation of himself (by his prophane undertaking) and in hindering the salvation of many others, Ergo. I will not recite what Zechary and other Prophets say of the usage of false pretenders to be Prophets, lest you misapply it. Again: No man ought to consent to the prophane subvert∣ing of Christ's Church-Offices and Ordinances: But to consent to the Mini∣stry of unqualified uncapable men, is to consent to the subverting of Christ's Church-Offices and Ordinances. Ergo. Can your patience endure unqualified men in the Ministry, and cannot endure such as us out of Jail, because we obey you not in all your imposed Oaths, Words and Practises.

Sect. 18. Next he thus confuteth us, (and directly contrary to the Prin∣ciples of the old Nonconformists, as appears at large by Mr. Ball saying (If Can's meaning be that it is not lawful to communicate in the Worship of God with Ministers not fitly qualified, disorderly called, or carelesly executing their Office, it is directly contrary to the word of God, sound Reason, and consent of all the Learned. Ans. Who would have thought that this worthy Doctor could not or would not see a difference, between (fitly qualified) as ad bene esse, and unqualified, or wanting the qualifications necessary ad esse, and be∣tween (disorderly called,) and (not called, or consented to by the Flock at all) and between (careless executing the Office) and not having the Office as unca∣capable.) He will not strain at such gnats as these. And is there no diffe∣rence between (lawful Communicating) and committing the conduct of mens Souls to them as our stated Pastors. Mr. Ball lived not far from me: his in∣timate Friend Mr. Ash well knew his mind. You may yet know it fully from Mr. Cook of Chester, a silenced Minister bred up in his house and sometime one of your old Patrons (Sr. Roger Burgone) Nonconformists, after ma∣ny others at Rockshal in Warwickshire. Mr. Ball was not such an enemy to di∣stinguishing as to confound Necessaries ad esse Officii & ad bene esse.

Sect. 19. But p. 124. I am also brought as against my self for saying (That a Ministers personal faults do not allow people to separate from the Wor∣ship of God. 2. nor all Ministerial faults, but only those that prove him and his Ministration utterly intolerable. Ans. 1. A strong proof, that therefore the intolerable may be received, because I say, no: I contradict my self by saying the same things. Personal Faults I distinguished from Ministerial and tolerable Ministerial from intolerable, then and now: and is this Con∣tradiction? Do not all do so too, till now? Yea in the place cited by him

I 1. said, that as to personal Faults, as Swearing, Drunkenness, &c. they should get a better man, if lawfully they can. 2. And I named just as here the intolerable insufficiencies, direct pag. 747. viz. 1. An utter insuffi∣ciency in knowledge and utterance for the necessary parts of the ministerial Work. 2. If he set himself to oppose the ends of the Ministry, &c. by Heresie, Ma∣lignity. And I name the faults that necessitate not Separation.

Sect. 20. Next he citeth my words against some mens Factious sepa∣rating humor: And doth it follow that because many are unfit to judge aright, that the people must take all obtruded Pastors, and not judge to whom to trust the conduct of their Souls? How unfit are the ignorant to judge who is a meet Physician, Lawyer, Arbitrator, yea or wife or husband for them: And yet judge they must as well as they can: Do you not expect notwithstanding their unfitness, that they judge your Books and arguing to be truer than mine? And is it by your bare authority that they must so judge?

Sect. 21. But he much blameth me for laying the Case far off, when it is the London Separation which he questioneth where the Ministers are no such men. Answ. Could any man have so far searcht his heart as to know that he spake only against Separation in this one City? When there is no such Limitation in his Book, And when the same Laws, the same Silencings, Fines, Imprisonments, accusations of the Preachers are all over the Land. But I am glad for the peace of the Nonconformists elsewhere, if it concern not them. 2. As to London, he knoweth that I give the Preachers due honour, and that I justifie not any unnecessary Separation of the people from them, nor of the Conformists from the Nonconformists. I gave him an account of my own Practice and the Reasons of it: Let other men give account of theirs, I know very many of my mind. 3. And he knoweth that I oft told him that many things make good mens actions culpable in some degree, that make them not criminalls, odious, or to be ruined. And that I gave him many of their Extenuations. 4. Among the rest, verily (to use his own Phrase) it looks somewhat odly by the Church Law or Canon ipso facto to excommunicate many score thousands in the Land, meerly for professing to take some things imposed to be sin, and then to revile and prosecute them as Schismaticks, for not communicating with you. 5. And I told you that Laws and the higher ground are not always the Terminus a quo of Schism: Some of them were never of your Flocks, and therefore never separated from you, but as you do from them (and somewhat less.) 6. And the Kings License first, and proclaimed Cle∣mency often, gave them some possession as the Law giveth you. 7.

And Plague, Fire and thousands that cannot hear you, made it necessary. But some Parish Churches are not full. Answ. I see none of those, I come in divers where many cannot hear the Preacher; and would you have more? And again I tell you, 1. They keep meetings in lesser Parishes to receive those that come out of greater. 2. If those come to you, they must keep out others. 3. When it is commonly known that in their own great Parishes there is not room, it's hard for Families to look a∣bout the City for room in uncertain places. 4. And all persons that culpably dislike you are not therefore to be forsaken.

Sect. 22. But the same man that citeth my Reprehensions of Separa∣tion asketh me, why I do not disown it; as if he presently forgot what he had written. I disown Schism, and therefore the greatest in the sinful Church-tearers that smite the Shepherds, and then cry out of the Flocks for being scattered: And I disown the least, but not by Cruelty but in Charity.

Sect. 23. p. 127. He repeats the Incapacities named by me, (viz. in Knowledge and Utterance, by Heresie, &c.) and saith, Of all these the people are judges, and so many separate: Thus no setled Church can subsist, &c. Answ. 1. It's a hard case that in such a Volumn as this, he will not tell us his own Judgment, further than the accusing of ours intimateth it (which if we tell him of, he can say, [It was not his sense.] Will he openly say that the people have not a private Judgment of discretion in order to their own practice, whether the Preacher be an Heretick, Papist, Infidel, Idolater, or not? but must take him for their Pastor be he what he will? I know he will not say it. What then would he be at? Why doth he accuse us for that which he dare not contradict? Doth he any where tell us, in what cases and how far they must judge? No, he shuns all such Questions as tend to bring the cause into the light: put twenty and he will answer few or none of them. If he did, perhaps we should be agreed whether he will or not.

But (Reader, bear these tiring Repetitions as I must do) 1. He knoweth that it is the Ordainers and not the people whom I make judges who shall be a Minister. 2. That it is the King and Patrons that I make the only Judges who shall be tolerated, and maintained by them, and have the Tythes and Temples. 3. And that though the Universal Church was many hundred years, for the peoples Election, I plead ad esse relationis for no more as necessary but consent, who shall be the Pastor, to whom they will trust the conduct of their Souls: And this is but Judicium discretionis & privatum non publicum regentis, only guiding each mans own obedience to God. 4. He knoweth (if he will know) that I. say and say again, that the advantages of the Laws and Rulers Favour, and the

Tythes and Temples, and Parish Order, and national Association, are so great advantages to the Service of God, that no man should be depri∣ved of them, and go another way, but upon necessity, and very great and urgent cause. But I intend God willing further to prove to him that [when 9000 Ministers are all required to sin or cease their Ministry, a necessity is put upon them to exercise it against such Prohibitions as farr as they can without doing more hurt than good; And that the sinful complyance of 7000 will not excuse the other 2000 for this duty.] And this is the case which a friend of truth should have debated.

Sect. 24. p. 126. But (saith he,) How shall a man escape being thought Heretical by the people. Answ. 1. See his own answer here, Chap. 1. 2. How shall one get all the world to be wise and good? If I knew, I cannot procure it. But put the case within your sight? How will you escape be∣ing judged no rightful Possessor of your Deanry, or Prebend, or the King's Chaplains place, or the Parish Church of St. Andrews? I know not how: And yet if an Usurper accuse you here, and say e. g. that the Church of St. Andrews is his and not yours, must not the people judge which of you they will take for the Usurper, and which they will joyn with and obey? In the times of Usurpation, many of the people judg∣ed the Bishops to be none of their Pastors, nor the ejected Ministers; must not the rest therefore judge that they were? Where Usurpers de∣ny the King's Right, ought not the people to judge him to have right, because they may err? and what Prince or Prelate may not the people judge Usurpers? What Landlord may not the Tenants deny? What Master the Servants? What Husband the Wife? But must they not therefore be discerning Judges, who is their Landlord, Master, Hus∣band, What Schoolmaster may not unlearned men miscensure? What Physician may they not vilisie? And yet they shall judge and choose for themselves, and speed accordingly, who can help it? deny men a judg∣ment of discretion to guide their own choice and actions, and you con∣tradict mankind, and deny men to be men. What in the world is more a∣bused than Reason and Freewill? and yet men must act by Reason and Freewil. It's unworthy a Divine to cry out against a thing for such una∣voidable Inconveniences, as humane darkness and badness do necessitate, and to swallow Camels on the other side and take no notice of the mis∣chiess thereof▪ nor once to tell us how to escape both.

Sect. 25. He instanceth in mens censure of me for the Doctrine of Justification and asketh, Are men bound to separate from me? Answ. One would think by many such words that the Doctor did seriously believe that I had 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that all men are bound to follow an 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Judgment, and to separate when they ••al••ly judge they ought.

If he think not that I said so, I would not name his fault lest I more offend him: If he think I said so, I had hoped weaker Readers could have better understood me. When I read in the Books of some Conformists yet living whom I much honour, that to obey Conscience though it err is to obey God, I took it for my duty oft and copiously (especially in my Christ Direct.) to open that case, and to prove that Conscience is no Law∣maker, but only a discerner of Gods Law, and that an erring Conscience involveth a man in sin whether he followeth it or not; because God chang∣eth not his Law when we change our Judgments of it. But yet there are some cases in which it is a farr greater sin to go against Conscience though it err than with it. The Dr. dare deny none of this. And doth ill if he would perswade men that I deny it: and that God makes it mens du∣ty to do ill whenever they judge it good, or forsake good, when they judge it evil.

Sect. 26. But the great offence is p. 130 that I insinuate that the whole Body of the Church is guilty of great Faults, Conformity being a scandalous thing with thirty tremendous Aggravations.—And no wonder if men so judging prefer others, &c. Answ. Again and again I say, 1. This is unrighteous dealing; To impose all those things on us; To cast us out of the Mi∣nistry and Churches for not obeying: To Fine and imprison us, and accuse us as Schismaticks and Seditions, To write and preach for the exe∣cution of the Laws against us, to our Ruine: To aggravate our Crime because we tell them not our Reasons; To call us to tell them what we stick at; To threaten to get the King to force us to give our Reasons; To declare in Press and Pulpit that we wilfully keep up a Schism and have nothing to say for it; To continue all this when we have been silent se∣venteen years, as fearing that they could not bear it; And after all this when we disavowed any Accusation of them, and only told them what we feared our selves, to come upon us with this charge of deep accusing their Conformity, is injustice if there be any in the World. Either it is sin or no sin which we fear. If none, why are we not confuted? or invited yet to give our proofs? If sin, who should be most offended? To be yet plainer with you, had the case been in the times of the old Prophets and Priests, I question whether to let such a Kingdom alone so long in that which we judge to be so great sins, would not have been heavily charged on the Preachers: And I profess that my conscience is more in doubt whe∣ther my so long forbearance was not my sin, than whether saying at last what I did was sin: And I had nothing to satisfie it, but the men that I ought to judge wiser than my self, perswaded me that it would have done more hurt than good, and caused but our further rending, And I think 〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

the Conformists should have been desirous to help them to try whether it were sin or not, and to have been thankful for helping to save them from it, if it proved such. But though hence I extenuate the too great with∣drawings of some men against their too deep accusations, he knoweth that notwithstanding all these aggravations, I neither justified nor practi∣sed proper Separation.

Sect. 27. p. 133. The next charge is that I make them Usurpers, viz, 1. All that come into the place of the ejected Ministers, at least to the people that con∣sent not: But Law and Usurpation are contrary. Answ. 1. I never said that all are Usurpers to all the people that consent not: If the body of the Church consent the man is no Usurper, though some odd persons con∣sent not. He is the Churches Pastor, though not the refusers. 2. I ne∣ver said that any that had the Law for them, were Usurpers of the Tithes and Temples. 3. I never said that all that succeed ejected Ministers are Usurpers; many of them have the Churches after-consent, though not their Election. Yea I often said, 1. That it is the peoples duty to consent to the change when it is for the Churches good. 2. And that their constant Communion signifieth their consent. But I will not believe yet that the Law will prove a man no Usurper of the Pastoral Relation. And when I have so largely proved the contrary to be true, and to be the judg∣ment of the ancient Churches, it's an unsatisfactory course to me, to leave it unanswered, and suppose himself in the right. Not only the first 300 years, but even under Constantius, Valens, Theodosius Junior, Zeno, Ba∣siliscus, Anastatius, Philippicus, Justinian, &c. even the Patriarchal Seats practised the contrary, keeping their chosen Pastors and refusing those imposed by the Emperors; and other Bishops Seates the Emperors sel∣dom meddled with as to the choice. Yea in Arcadius's days Chrysostomes Joannites, in his imperial City were of another mind. Is his Rule true only in England, or in France, Spain, Italy, Muscovy, &c. also, or where, that the Law maketh men true Pastors?

Sect. 28. But p. 132. he said [that he detesteth the Principles that set mans Laws above Gods, and that in stating the Controversie he supposed an Agreement in all the Substantials of Religion between the dissenting parties of our Church. Answ. Of all things you are the unhappiest in stating the Contro∣versie. The Instances here were 1. Insufficiency through Ignorance, 2. Heresie, 3. Malignant oppugning the very ends of the Ministry, 4. No true calling. 1. Doth he agree with us in all the Substantials of Religion who knoweth not the very essentials of Christianity? Ignorantis non est Consensus. 2. Doth he agree with us in all the substantials that is a Here∣tick? or if we falsly judge his opinion Heresie, do we agree with him?

3. Is malignant opposing Godliness and pleading for prophaneness or un∣godliness an agreement in all the Substantials? 4. What if we agree in all Substantials with an unordained Layman imposed on us? is he therefore our true Pastor? 5. But how shall we know whether we agree or not, if we are no judges of it? Do you not see your own Contradictions? who shall judge whether the Pastors or People agree? shall the Prince or Patron? If you know the Teachers heart, how know you the Peoples? Must we believe that we agree, because you say so? If the people must judge whe∣ther they Agree, they must judge of the things in which the Agreement is, that is, both the Pastors Doctrine and their own minds. And is not this to judge whether he be a Heretick, &c. or not? And who shall judge whe∣ther the disagreement be in Substantials? It must be the agreers. And they must be wiser than I if they can learn from you here, what is a Sub∣stantial, and how to know it.

Sect. 29. It may be he will say, that where Princes and Parliaments are Orthodox, none are Usurpers, but true Pastors whom they impose. Ans. But doth not this make the people Judges whether Princes and Parliaments are Orthodox, and is not that as dangerous as to judge of the Teachers? And Orthodox Princes and Parliaments may impose Heretical Teachers: and may by Law enable Patrons and Prelates to impose them. What more na∣tural than to propagate what men like, and oppose what they hate? If the many hundred Patrons in England be all orthodox and pious, and free from Schism, &c. we are strangely happy: If not we may expect that they choose accordingly. But the Bishops will secure us. Ans. 1. They have not done. 2. They say they cannot by Law. 3. Would it be any wonder if Bishop Goodman of Glocester kept not out any Popish Teacher? Or if such Fathers of the Church as Archbishop Bromhall let in such as would have the Pope Govern us all by the Canons as Patriark and principium unitatis, and all pass for Shoismaticks that consent not to such a forreign Jurisdiction, contrary to our National Oaths.

Sect. 30. As to his instance of Solomons putting out Abiathar, &c. I an∣swered it fully (and many more objections) in my first Plea, and will not write the same again for him that thinks it not worth the answering or ta∣king notice of.

Sect. 31. When p. 138, 139. he makes it the way to all imaginable Con∣fusions, to deny, 1. that the Kings Nomination of Bishops. 2. and the Patrons of Parish Pastors proveth them no Usurpers, but true Pastors, is he not an unreverend dishonourer of Bishops himself, who maketh them all that for a thousand years held the same that I do, to be the authors of all ima∣ginable Confusion? Is he not unreverend to their Canons? and to antiqui∣ty?

and to the universal Church itself? Whatever in his third part he Ca∣vils against it, he cannot be so strange to Church-history as not to know that they were commonly against him.

Sect. 32. The matter of the next accusation is p. 139, 140. having said Plea p. 41. 42. [If any make sinful terms of Communion by Laws or Man∣date, imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have Communion, and expel∣ling those that will not so sin] I add [If any should not only excommunicate such persons for not complying with them in sin, but also prosecute them with Malice, Imprisonments, Banishment or other Persecution to force them to transgress, this were heynous aggravated Schism.] Ans. And is not this true? or doth his bare repeating it disprove it? Is he a zealous Enemy of Schisin that taketh all this for none? I did not steal it out of his defence of Archbishop Laud, but less than this is there made Schism. Yet he tells us that he sets not mans Laws above Gods, nor pleads for Persecution. But lest the repeating of my words should shame the Accuser he hath two handsome devices 1. He puts [complying with them in sin, that is, Conformity,] as refused, instead of [those that will not so sin, in sinful terms of Communion forbidden by God, &c.] 2. He forgeth an addition as mine [and therefore it is no sin to separate from such] when I have no such words, being only there telling what is Schism, and not what is not. I confess it will sound odly to say [It is Schism not to communicate with those who excommunicate, imprison and banish me by Law, if I will not do that which God forbids, and they make a Condition of my communion.] For I must not sin: And in prison and Banishment under Excommunicati∣on they deny me communion. And yet I say not that it's always faultless, For if they do not execute their own Law, in some cases, where publick good requireth it, I may best communicate with them as far as they per∣mit me without the imposed sin, till they do execute them. But this ex∣cuseth not their Schism.

Sect. 33. p. 140. He blames me as charging him with the silencing design. Ans. I did warn him in real desire of his safety: If defending the Church-Laws and Endeavours for our restraint, in the words to which I refer the Reader: If preaching and writing against our preaching as Schism, and all the rest in his Books do signifie no owning of our silencing, I am glad that he meaneth better than he seemeth: who could have thought other∣wise that had read 1. his first Q. whether it be not in the power of those that give orders to limit and suspend the exercise of the ministerial Function. Q. 2. And whether the Christian Magistrate may not justly restrain such Ministers from preaching, who after the experience, do refuse to renounce those Principles which they judge do naturally tend to involve us again in the like trouble. And Serm. p. 42. the Church of Englands endeavours after

Uniformity is acquitted from Tyranny over the Consciences of men, by the Judg∣ment, &c.] And p. 54. condemning them as hard thoughts of the Bishops that in cruelty they follow Ithacius, &c. And in this new Book, more such might have deceived a man that judged by his words. And his arguing that it is unlawful to preach to them because it is unlawful to hear; What was the meaning of all this if not silencing us?

Sect. 34. p. 140. The next Crime is [Plea p. 42. As long as they sup∣pose the terms of our Communion to be sinful, they say, The Schism doth not lie on those that separate, but on those that do impose such terms: and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers.] Ans. It's hard to know what words to use to detect all these historical untruths without being thought passio∣nate. 1. I never said that (supposing them sinful) will justifie a false supposer, but have oft said the clean contrary (their supposing) is of his forging. 2. I said not (the Schism doth not lie on those that separate) but only that it's Schism in the Imposers.) This also is his Fiction. 3. And I said not (and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers.) But all Readers will not stay to find out his Forgeries. But how much of this he said once himself, see in my Chap. 1.

Sect. 49. But here he comes to some closing distinction, which should have gone before; [Between terms of Communion plainly and in themselves sinful; and such as are only fancied to be so through prejudice or wilful ignorance, or error of conscience.] Ans. What a deal of labour might he have spared him∣self and us, if he had here fixed the Controversie in the beginning; we thankfully accept your late distinction: we ever desired here to put it to the Issue; If it be through prejudice wilful Ignorance or Error that we judge Conformity a sin, not only Separation but Nonconformity is a sin. If we do not prove some parts of Conformity (for one is enough) to be plainly sinful, which are imposed as Conditions of our Ministerial Commu∣nion, and somewhat imposed on the people as conditions 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all that part of your Communion, which I ever disswaded them from, let the blame be ours.

Sect. 35. He passeth next to them that deal more ingenuously than I in own∣ing Separation, And then returneth to me p. 151. and he over and over repeateth his false accusation, [that I think it lawful to communicate with them occasionally, but not as Churches (as thinking they want an essential part, viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power) but as Oratories, and so that I renounce Communion with their Churches as Churches.] Answ. If these untruths had been made without evidence only, and not also against evidence, they had been the more excuseable in a man of consideration: But now they are not so, when I have so often declared that I take the Parish Churches that have true Pa∣stors for true governed Churches, and prove that they have true Bishops (Episcopos Gregis) whether the Diocesans will or not, because Gods Will

and not the Investers, instituteth their Office, and measureth their power, and the people shew their consent by constant Communion.

Sect. 36. Then because [I never gathered a Church, nor baptized any in 20 years, nor gave the Sacrament in 18,] he would know [what Church I have been of all this time,] and he supposeth [of no Church.] Ans. I thought he had done with this before: but he thinks it an advantage not to be so ea∣sily let go. Would he know. 1. What my Thoughts were? 2. Or my Church-Covenant? 3. Or my actual Communion? He shall know all. 1. I thought divers Ministers where I lived true Pastors, and the Churches true Churches: I cannot say so of every Curate. 2. I made no Covenant with any of them: If I had Mr. Cheny would have condemned me of Atheism, Infidelity, and what not. 3. With divers of them I went constantly to the Liturgy, Sermon and Sacrament, as with true Churches, with some of them I only joyned in prayer and hearing, I heard Dr. Rieves till he caused me to be sent to Jail, and then I could not: And though I was ac∣cused by many for hearing a swearer, I told them, he swore not in the Pulpit: I heard his poor Curate constantly, when I was accused for hear∣ing a Drunkard, and told them that he was not drunk in the Pulpit. But I must tell you, I communicated also with some Nonconformists. And now account me of a Church or no Church as you please. I doubt you are renewing the Independant Questions with me, which I am loth to dis∣pute. 1. Qu. Whether an ordained Minister must be a private Member of another mans Church? Q. 2. Whether when a Non-resident Dean leaveth his Parish to an ignorant drunken Curate, the Parish Church be essentiated by its relation to the Resident Curate, or the Non-resident Dean? Q. 3. Whether a Minister not degraded but silenced, living in such a Pa∣rish is bound to••ke that Curate for one that hath the Pastoral Charge of his Soul, and a•• the rest of the flock to commit his Soul to his Pastoral Conduct in personal, private and publick Offices? 4. But I would ask the Dean himself, whether a man may not be a fixed Member of two or three Churches at once? The Reasons of the Quaere, are 1. Because (by them) a man may be the sixed Pastor of two or three Parish Churches at once: And an Integral Member of many is not so hard a case, as to be a constitu∣tive Regent Part of many. 2. Because a man may have two houses in two Parishes at once; As many Londoners have half their Family at a near Country house, and half at a City house, and are themselves part of the week or day at one, and part at the other. And they make Covenants with neither, but what actual Communion intimateth. Q. ••. And if so why might not I at once be judged a Member of two Churches at once, so far as I communicate oft with both? I therefore answer his question

further, what Church I was a Member of? 1. I was a Member of Christs Universal Church? Is that none? and yet is in the Creed? 2. I was a Member of the reformed Church if you will call that One because associa∣ted in one Reformed Religion. 3. I was a Member of the Church of England, both as a Christian Kingdom, and as the Churches in England agreeing in the Christian Reformed Religion. 4: I was a Member of the Provincial Church of Canterbury, so far as living peaceably in it, and sub∣mitting both to such power as they had from the King as Magistrates and a meer general helping instructing care of many Churches could make me. 5. So far also I was a Member of the Diocesan Churches where I lived. 6. And I was a Member of some Parochial Churches so far as constant Com∣munion could make or prove me: And of others (two at once) so far as partial and moveable Communion could prove me. If this will not sa∣tisfie you, I have proved before (and oft to some Independants) that ma∣ny men are under no obligation to be fixed Members of any Parish Church: (whether the King be of any I know not.)

Sect. 37. But p. 152. he comes upon me, why I thought it not my duty all this while to Baptize, Administer the Sacrament, was I not solemnly bound by Or∣dination to one as well as the other? Presbyters of old were rarely allowed to preach.] Ans. 1. You tell the World what measure we must expect from such as you. If we had all forborn any Church gatherings, and Pastoral undertaking of Flocks, and both Sacraments, &c. and only preached as loth to offend you more than needs, our accusations had but been the grea∣ter? which incourageth your more ingenious Dissenters to do what they al∣so are accused of. 2. Do you not know our Reasons? They are these: 1. Because we suppose there is a greater want of our preaching, than of our administring Sacraments: And we would obey the 〈…〉〈…〉 in all things lawful; and go from you and offend you no further than 〈…〉〈…〉 will justi∣fie us. 2. Because a Ministers Relation to the Church-〈…〉〈…〉 and to the world ceaseth not, when his relation to a Parish Church may cease: And we have not the same obligations to give the Sacrament to all the Christians or World where we preach, as we have in a Parish Charge. Paul thanketh God that he baptized not many Corinthians, because he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel; nor is the terrible charge 2 Tim. 4. 12. equal as to both. 3. Our Ordination bound us to preach and administer Sacraments, when we are thereto lawfully called: And we were so called to one, when we were not to the other: nor were all of us so called alike. But when we know that this way doth as much of∣fend you, we may go further in due time. Aud do you in one part of your Book blame us for going further than the old Nonconformists (as

you thought) and in the second thus accuse us for not going further.

Sect. 38. He is again at his talk of only occasional Communion? And had his mistake no Occasion? yes; he that readeth my Books may see what: that is, 1. When I have said that some Parishes having not capable or cal∣led Pastors I take to be no true Political Churches; but yet can communi∣cate with such as Oratories or Chappels. 2. That some true Churches I communicate with in transitu or occasionally as strangers, whose Disci∣pline and Ministers Calling I am not bound to take account of. 3. I tell those that withdraw too far and take some true Churches for none, that were it so they might occasionally join with them as Oratories, 4. And those that dare not commit their Souls to the Pastoral Conduct of some weak and bad men, that yet they may occasionally communicate with them upon great and urgent Reasons. And here he gathereth his oft repeated untrue Reports.

Sect. 39. p. 156. He grants there is no Separation where there is no Obligati∣on. And he will prove us obliged to constant Communion with them. 1. Be∣cause we must use all lawful means for Peace and Unity. Ans. 1. We are rea∣dy to prove that our Conformity, nor our forbearing to preach the Gospel are no lawful means. 2. Can you as well prove, 1. That it is not lawful for you to joyn with us? 2. And to forbear silencing, excommunicating, fining and imprisoning us? Was it no lawful means for Peace and Unity to have forborn imposing all the Covenants, Professions, Subscriptions, Oaths and Practises, of what you call indifferent and we think sunful? 3. And is it not lawful for Parents to enter their own Children at Baptism in Cove∣nant with God? 4. Is it unlawful to Christen such as scruple your use of the Cross? 5. Or to receive those to Communion that scruple your Ge∣sture? 6. 〈…〉〈…〉 forbear Canonical Excommunicating all professed Non∣conformi•…•… Land? 7. Or to let Lords and Gentlemen choose any Nonconfo•…•… to be Tutors to their Children, whilst the Papists may send theirs to Doway, St. Omers, &c. He saith, he is [perswaded it is one of the provoking sins of the Nonconformists, that they have been so backward to do, what they were convinced they might with a good conscience. Ans. Woe to us, if we be not willing to know our sins. But 1. If you will tell me of any one lawful thing that I have omitted, that tended to Peace, I will thank you. 2. An indifferent thing is no means of Peace when it will do more hurt than good. To cease the Ministry we durst not: To use some in∣different forms in your Churches we could not, being cast and kept out. And to use the same to those that are against them; when it will hurt them, and procure no peace with you, and those have sped worst from you that have come nearest you, aud nothing will serve but all; what ten∣dency

hath this to Unity? You know my own case proveth all this. I regarded not the censures of any that go too far, so as to keep me from doing what I judged lawful: And did it tend to peace? No, one sends me to Jail when I went twice a day to his Church: Others say, He is like an Ape, that is so much the more ugly because he is like a man: Another more so∣ber saith, [I know not what to make of Mr. B. He communicateth with us, and he preacheth to the Nonconformists: Like a man that will go one step on one side the hedge, and another step on the other.] And this man is much in the right: for I say still, [It is the separating hedges in Christ's Vineyard that I hate, and the enclosing hedge that I am for: I have Business, Friends, Relations and great Duties on both sides the hedge, some with you and some with others; And if your hedges would separate Parents from Children, Husband and Wife, Christian Neighbours, &c. causelesly I will not be so separated, but do my best to pull down that hedge. And again consider whose sin it is, that so many lawful things are denyed us for Unity. Hold but to your Rule here and we are agreed. And he seemeth to consent. For,

Sect. 40. p. 176. Of the Rule Phil. 3. 16. he saith, [If I will but al∣low that by virtue of that Rule men are bound to do all things lawful for the pre∣serving the peace of the Church, we have no further difference about this matter. Ans. It's well he will say so much of the Rule, we gladly consent. Then all the question is, what's lawful on both sides? I add one Q. more. Is it not lawful for peace to forbear forcing men to disoblige 1000? whom they ne∣ver knew, from being obliged by an Oath and Vow to that part of the matter which is good? If it be the conjunction of some things bad, that disobligeth them, then he that inserteth a bad thing is free from all obli∣gations of his vow, even in materia licita & necessaria. And if the 〈…〉〈…〉 of imposing Power be made the cause, whether is the Cor•…•… Oath im∣posed by a superior Power on the King, or is it his own •…•…act? or is he therefore not obliged by it? Had it not been requisite that you should have justified all that we stick at as unlawful, before you charge us with crossing this Rule?

Sect. 56. p. 204, &c. My words in many Books against Schism are ci∣ted and praised; Reader, he tells men the measure of their Charity and Church Communion, viz. That men that do as much as I do, that forbore so long Sacramental Administration, that gathered no Church, that held constant Communion with divers Parish Churches, that have wrote so much and earnestly against Schism, shall yet be ejected, silenced, pay 40 ••, a Sermon and lie in Jails unless I will do more. While Bishop Lauds de∣sign for widening the Church doors to the Papists, is magnified by Heylin and others as a good work.

Sect. 13. First he finds but two justifiable Causes of Separation; but p. 213, 214. he hath found three and no more. 1. Idolatrous Worship: 2. False Doctrine imposed instead of true. 3. Making and imposing things indifferent as necessary to Salvation. Ans. 1. Readers, do you remember how even now he exposed to odium, the peoples judging whether the Pastors be Here∣ticks? And now they may separate for false Doctrine. 2. I intreat him to think again of these Cases following. 1. What if the Worship be not Idolatrous, but Blasphemous, or utterly Ridiculous, tending to con∣tempt of God? 2. What if it be in an unknown Tongue? 3. What if the Church have no true Minister? I am glad you are not for separating for want of Episcopacy or Episcopal Ordination? 4. What if the Church want half the Church-Worship? as to have Preaching and Prayer without Sacraments? or Sacraments without Preaching or Prayer, or Preaching without Prayer, &c. 5. What if the Church be but schismatical? Have you written all this Book, to draw men to you from the Independant Churches, and do you now tell us that the people may not separate from them, on the account of Schism? 6. What if a Church require me to tell or subscribe to one known Lie, or to say, that I believe what I do not: or to justifie thousands that I think obliged by a Vow, if they break it? What if they impose any one sin on me without which they will not receive me to Communion? 7. What if I remove for my Edification from a drun∣kess ignorant Priest, to the Church of a wise and holy Pastor? 8. Are we looser than Pope Nicholas that forbad men to hear Mass from a Fornicating Pricst? 9. I would you had spoken to Edification and told men what false Doctrine it is that will allow Separation, and whether it's false Doctrine preach∣ed, or only imposed on the person to be owned? If the former, is it all false Doctrine or but some, and what? Verily, if all, you are tenfold more a Seperatist than I: For I look to hear sometimes some words of false Do∣ctrine in most Pulpits, even of Conformists? If it must be heresie it self, I will not separate for once hearing it, if the Church profess it not. If it be imposed Error that you mean, take heed lest you justifie Separation from your Church, by the new Article of Infants certain Salvation. And when both Arminians and Anti-Arminians subscribe the 39 Articles, tell us whether those Articles are true in both their senses, or whether the sence be not the thing subscribed? or whether one half of them should separate. You are too unmerciful to your self; but what kind of Churches should there be upon your terms? I find no more in his second part which I am much concerned in.