A DEFENCE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF LOVE, Which are necessary to the Unity and Concord of Christians; and are delivered in a Book called The Cure of Church-Divisions. I. Inviting all sound and sober Christians, (by what name soever called) to receive each other to Com­munion in the same Churches. II. And where that (which is first desirable) cannot be attained, to bear with each other in their distinct Assemblies, and to manage them all in Christian Love. Written to detect and eradicate all Love-killing, dividing, and Church-destroying Principles, Passions and Practices, and to preserve the weak in this hour of manifold temptation.

By Richard Baxter one of the Mourners for a self-dividing and self-afflicting Land.

Psal. 120. 6, 7.

My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth Peace. I am for Peace: but when I speak, they are for war.

Didicerat enim (Rex Edilberth) & à Doctoribus auctoribus (que) suae salutis, servitium Christi Voluntarium, non Coactitium, debere esse.

Beda Hist. Eccles. lib 1. cap. 26

London, Printed for Nevil Simmons, at the Sign of the three Crowns near Holborn Conduit. 1671.

CAlvinus in Matth. 13. 35, 36, 37, &c.

Hoc porro multis valde absurdum esse videtur, in Ec­clesiae sinu foveri vel impios homines, vel profanos vel sceleratos: Adde quod pleri (que) zeli praetextu plus aequo morosi, nisi omnia ad eorum votum composita sint quia nusquam apparet absoluta puritas, tumultuose ab Ecclesia discedunt, vel importuno rigore eam ever­tunt & perdunt. Quare hic meo judicio simplex est parabolae scopus: Quamdiu in hoc mundo peregrina­tur Ecclesia, bonis & sinceris in ea permixtos fore ma­los & hypocritas, ut se patientia arment filii Dei, & inter offendicula quibus turbari possent, retineant infractam fidei Constantiam—Est quidem haec valde molesta conditio, quod reprobis o [...]eratur Ecclesia usque ad finem mundi: hoc tamen tempus nobis ad patientiam ideo Christus praescribit, ne vanâ spe nos lactemus.—Graviter quidem Pastores incum­bere decet ad purgandam Ecclesiam; Et hac in par­te ab omnibus piis adjuvandi sunt, quatenus fert cujus (que) vocatio. Verum ubi omnes in commune mu­tuas operas contulerint, non tamen eo us (que) proficient, ut penitus ab omni sorde purgent ecclesiam.—Deinde etiam eorum Zelum froenare & moderari, qui fas esse non putant societatem nisi cum puris Angelis colere. Qui ad extirpandum quicquid dis­plicet ꝑraepostere festinant, antevertunt quantum in se est, Christi judicium, & ereptum Angelis officium temere sibi usurpant.—

[Page]Et in Mat. 6. [Quod Iohannes privatam orandi [...]r [...]nam t [...]adidit suis discipulis, id f [...]cisse existimo prout temporis ratio fereba [...]. Res tune valde apud Iudaeos corruptas fuisse notum est: Tota certe Religio sic collapsa erat, ut mi [...]um non sit precandi morem à pa [...]cis rit [...] cultum fuisse. Ru [...]sus quum instar [...]t promiss [...] redemptio, sidelium mentes precand [...] ad ejus spem & d [...]siderium ex [...]itari oportuit. Iohannes ex variis Scripturae locis certam aliquam precationem conficere potuit quae tempori congrueret, ac propius accederet ad spirituale Christi regnum—

Et in Rom. 14. 3. Prudenter & apposite utrius (que) vitiis occurrit. H [...]c enim vitio laborant qui sunt firmiores, ut eos qui inanibus scrupulis detinentur, [...]in [...]uam superstitiosulos despiciant, at (que) irrideant: Contra hi vix sibi cavere à temerariis judiciis que­unt, ut no [...] damnent quod non assequuntur: Quic­quid fieri contra suum sensum cernunt, illud malum esse putant: Illos ergo à contemptu dehortatur, hos à nimia morositate.]

Calvin on Matth. 13.

This seemeth very absurd to many, that ungodly, or prophane, or wicked men, are cherished in the bosome of the Church: And very many being over morose under pretence of zeal, unless all things be composed to their de­sires, because absolute purity is no where to be found, do tumultuously depart from the Church, or by unseasonable rigidness do overthrow and destroy it. Therefore in my judgement, this is the simple scope of the Parable: that as long as the Church sojourneth in this world, bad men and hypocrites will be mixt with the good and sincere in it; that Gods Children may arm them­selves [Page] with patience, and among the offences that might trouble them, may retain unbroken faith and constancy:—Indeed this is a very trou­blesome condition, that the Church is burthened with Reprobates to the worlds end: But this is the space that Christ prescribeth us for patience, lest we flatter our selves with empty hopes—The Pastors indeed must diligently labour to purge the Church: And in this all godly men should help them, as far as their Calling doth allow. But when all men have done their best, they shall not so far have success, as to purge the Church from all defilements.—And Christ would bridle and moderate their Zeal, who think it unlawful to have Communion (or fellowship) with any but pure Angels—They that preposterously make haste to root out all that displeaseth them, do as much as in them is prevent Christs judgement, and snatch and usurp the Angels work.

Calv. on Mat. 6. That Iohn delivered a private form of Prayer to his Disciples, I suppose he did it in suitableness to the time. That matters were then very corrupt with the Jews, is known. All Religion was so collapsed, that it is no wonder that the manner of praying was rightly observ­ed but by few. And when the promised Re­demption was at hand, it was meet that the minds of the faithful should by prayer be stirred up to desire and hope for it. Iohn might from several places of Scripture make up one certain prayer, which should be agreeable to the time, and might come nearer to the Spiritual Kingdom of Christ.

Here I desire the Reader again to note, that [Page] though Prayer was then so corrupted by the Phari­sees, yet Christ usually joyned in their Synagogues, Luke 14. 17. and never medled with our Contro­versie, about the Lawfulness of set Forms.

Calv. on Rom. 14. 3. Paul doth prudently and fitly meet with the faults of both sides: For this is the fault of the strong, that they despise and deride them as superstitious folk who are detained with vain scruples: On the contrary these can hardly forbear censorious condemning that which they understand not: And they think that to be evil, which is against their own sense. Therefore Paul disswadeth the one sort from contempt, and the other from overmuch mo­roseness.

THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST PART.

  • A Preface to those Readers who are of the Ex­cepters mind, and are offended at my Book, called The Cure of Church-Divisions, Expostula­ting with them that have made my perswasions to Love and Communion, the occasion of their displeasure, backbitings and slanders; and prove­ing the necessity of Union among all real Christi­ans, and in particular between the Non-confor­mists and Conformists.
  • 1. The General Part, or Introduction.
    • Chap. 1. A Narrative of those late Actions which have occasioned mens displeasure of both sides against me: The Reasons of my omitting the Nar­ration of those former Actions, which Mr. Durel [Page] and many others have reported falsly, because they wrote of that which they knew not: The Reasons of my earnest displeasing endeavours with the Bi­shops for Reconciling and Uniting terms in 1660. Our Common Profession about a Liturgie at that time, and about this Liturgie, and my practiee ever since. How the Non-conformists must be uni­ted among themselves. Of our judgement about Communion in the Liturgie and Sacrament with the Parish Churches in a [...]. 1663. My ends in opening this. 27. Reasons for the writing and publishing my Book called The Cure of Church-Divisions. A word of the Debatemaker. Of the filse reports that have been vented of my Book a [...]d me, and of some Inferences to be noted by the Reporters.
    • Chap. 2. The state of the Controversie which I speci­aly managed in that Book, with th [...]se that I cal­led Di [...]iders.
    • Chap. 3. Objections and Questions about this sub­ject.
      • Quest. 1. Doth not the second Commandment and Gods oft expressed jealousie in the matters of his Worship, make it a sin to communicate in the Liturgie?
      • Quest. 2. Doth not the Covenant make it now un­lawfull?
      • Quest. 3. Whether the case be not much altered since the Old Non-c [...]nformists wrote against sepa­ration, [Page] then called Brownisme? And whether we have not greater Light into these Controversies, than they had?
      • Quest. 4▪ Is it not a shameful receding from our Reformation, now to use an unreformed Liturgie? and a pulling down what we have been building?
      • Quest. 5. Will it not strengthen and encourage the adversaries of Reformation?
      • Quest. 6. Will it not divide us among our selves, while one goeth to the Parish Churches, and ano­ther doth not?
      • Quest. 7. Shall we not countenance Church Tyranny, and harden Prelates in their usurpations, and in­vite them to go further, and make more burdens of Ceremonies or Forms to lay upon the Churches? The manifold danger of feigning the Scripture to be a particular Rule, where it is none.
The Contents of the Answer to the Exceptions.
  • [Page]Except. 1. False Worship distinguished and open­ed: Whether I speak very little against persecution?
  • Exc. 2. Whether I was as guilty as any one what­soever in stirring up and fomenting the War. Whether it be unbecoming a Minister to blame the sin which he hath been guilty of? or to blame the Effects, if he encouraged the Cause? Whe­ther nothing of the late Military Actions, be to be openly repented of? Whether I never mention the prophane, but with honour?
  • Exc. 3. Of partial tenderness as to Reproof? Whe­ther my prayer was jesting? &c.
  • Exc. 4. Of the supposed Expressions of my Pride.
  • Exc. 5. More of the Excepters mistakes.
  • Exc. 6. What separation Scripture calleth us to, and what not?
  • Exc. 7. Of the Corruptions in the primitive Chur­ches, and of Imposing.
  • Exc. 8. Whether I be a Revealer of mens secrets?
  • Exc. 9. Whether the Universality of Christians ever took the Pope for their Head? Of my Dispute with Mr. Johnson (alias, Terret) on that point. Whether all History be uncertain? Whether it be intolerable to say, that the Papists understand not that answer which is Christian sense and reason.
  • [Page]Exc. 10. Of Local Communion: of separating from the particular Churches which we were never members of.
  • Exc. 11. Of Censurers requitals. Whether a Papist can go beyond a Reprobate?
  • Exc. 12. Of Scandal; and of Pauls case; 1 Cor. 8. explained.
  • Exc. 13. More of my revealing secrets, and other of the Excepters mistakes.
  • Exc. 14. Whether by Separatists, I meant the Inde­pendents as such?
  • Exc. 15. Whether I speak slightly of Prayer in comparison of Study? Whether it be a slighting of Christ, to say that he increased in wisdom? which is opened. Whether Christ needed not prayer, but as a pattern to us? &c.
  • Exc. 16. Of expounding Scripture by the Impressions set upon our minds, in Melancholy. How the Spi­rit cureth our fears, and giveth us comfort, by twelve acts.
  • Exc. 17. Whether my saying, that God hateth nei­ther extemporate prayers nor forms, be as if I could never speak meanly enough of prayer? Whether I be a Trifler, that neither believe the Scripture or my self, for saying that in Christs time, both Liturgies by forms, and prayers by habit were used, and that Christ yet made no que­stion about them? Seldens words upon the Iews Liturgies.
  • Exc. 18. Whether I did ill in disswading men from jeering and jesting at other true Christians manner of Worship? And whether I purposely justifie per­secution?
  • [Page]Exc. 19. Whether all be Idolatry which is used in the Worship of God without a Command of God to make it lawful. The unhappy consequents of making so many Christians and Churches Idola­trous.
  • Exc. 20. More of the Excepters mistakes.
  • Exc. 21. Whether our presence at the prayers of every Church, be a professing of consent to all that is faulty in those prayers?
  • Exc. 22. Of not silencing any truth for peace.
  • Exc. 23. Of imprudent speeches to superiours.
  • Exc. 24. Whether there [...]e any weak, ignorant and injudicious Christians; and whether they hereby have been any cause of our divisions? And whe­ther these be vile Epithets, not to be given to Christians, but instead of them all Christians are to be told, that they have the anointing and know all things? Twenty proofs of such ignorance: And the greatness of their sin (especially Mini­sters) that would hide it or deny it, at this time, manifested in forty aggravations.
  • Exc. 25. Whether any hearers use to be more moved with the affectionate delivery of meaner than with a colder delivery of more excellent things? Of my forsaking the Lords work.
  • Exc. 26. Whether there be any Article necessary to salvation unknown to the universal Church? Whether in points of difficult speculation, one clear judicious well studied Divine be not to be more hearkened to, than the Major Vote? Whe­ther the perfection and plainness of the Scriptures prove all Christians to be of equal understand­ing, or to need no others help?
  • [Page]Exc. 27. Whether honest people be not in danger of following others into error and sin? And whether to say so, be enough to make people afraid of being honest?
  • Exc. 28. Whether it be new or intolerable, to advise men not to imitate Religious people in the sins which they are most prone to? What it is to flatter Professors of Religion; and what it is in them to expect it.
  • Exc. 29. Of the name of a Sect.
  • Exc. 30. Whether we must avoid that good which is owned by bad men?
  • Exc. 31. Of his accusations of my unsetledness in the point of Church Government, and suspectedness in the point of Iustification.
  • Exc. 32. Whether we can speak bad enough of cor­rupted Nature. Twenty instances of speaking too bad of it. Whether I understand by the [flesh] only the sensitive Appetive? Whether I be strongly inclined to deny Original sin? Of free-will.
  • Exc. 33. & 34. Of other mistakes of the Excepter.
  • Exc. 35. Whether no persecution may consist with love?
  • Exc. 36. & 37. Of the fewness of believers, &c.
  • Exc. 38. More of his mistakes.
  • Exc. 39. Whether the same Spirit may not now use the ancient Prayers and Responses which first brought them in, or used them?
  • Exc. 40. Of my comparing Ol. Cromwell to Maxi­mus, and whether I dedicated a flattering Book to his Son?
  • Exc. 41. Of his imputation of levity. The Conclu­sion, [Page] with some advice to the Excepter, and a la­mentation for the decay of Love.

A POSTSCRIPT.

SHewing how far, as Mr. Jacob and the old In­dependents, so the New England Pastors and Elders (and Magistrates) are from approving of the Principles of Separation. Reasons why I am against the new terms of Church-membership, and the approaches of some Independents toward Separation. Reasons why the Independent Chur­ches should as much fear the principles of Sepa­ration as any.

THE PREFACE TO THOSE READERS Who are of the Excepters mind, and are offended at my Book called, THE CURE OF Church-Divisions.

BRethren, why should I wonder at the fruits of those weaknesses which we are all subject to (some more, some less) in this state of imperfection? and which I so lately told you of at large, in my Character of and Directions for Weak-Christians. If a spirit of In­fallibility and Miracles in Paul and other the Apo­stles of our Lord, could not overcome these lamentable failings, in their hearers and followers, in the Pri­mitive [Page 2] Church, why should such as I look for more success. If Paul thought his Galatians foolish and bewitched Gal. 3. 1. and his Corinthian Christians to be babes, yea Carnal and not Spiritual, because there were among them [...], envying, strife, and divisions, or as the words sig­nifie, zeal or emulation, strife and separations or factions, or dividing into several parties, while one saith, I am of Paul, and another I am of Apollos; what wonder if we are no better now. But our sins are not the less because that others had the like, but the greater because we take not warn­ing by them, when the spirit of God hath so smart­ly reprehended them.

I have as little reason as you to be ignorant what provocations the present militating and exas­perated parties do give each others; and how fair pretenses uncharitableness hath obtained. And I know but few of you that have either more openly put themselves into the breach, and attempted more to have prevented both severities against you, and the present divisions among us, than I have done, or that have undergone more wrath and calumny (to mention no other kind of sufferings) for such attempts than I have done: you cannot justly think that it is for want of your provocations and tem­ptations to discontent, that I am not of your mind. I have had as many and great provocations as most of you all: And I am not naturally without those passions, which would take advantage by such usage. A multitude of fierce and reproachful Vo­lumes are written against me, many of them abound­ing with gross untruths in matter of fact; to all which I have for peace sake been silent to this day. [Page 3] And none that know me do think, that it is to es­cape mens wrath that I have been more for peace and unity than you. I will do that right to them that have done me but little, as to testifie that I verily believe, could my Conscience comply with their Opinions and wills, I could as soon have their favour as most among you. But God is still the God of Love, and Peace, and Concord; and so must all his servants be: He changeth not, and we must not change from this which is his Image. This is my Religion; and if any mens provocations must change me from this, they must change my Religi­on. I am not for such fruits of suffering as some late eminent prisoners in London were, who turned Quakers in prison, and lost their Religion with their liberty; nor will I pretend Conscience for the defi­ling of my Conscience, and the forsaking of the sa­cred life of Love. Do you not your selves condemn a Carnal state? Remember then that they are Car­nal who are contentious dividers in the Churches, 1 Cor. 3. 1, 2, 3. You will I doubt not joyn with me in disallowing of a fleshly mind and life: Remember then that the workes of the flesh are these, as adulteries, fornications, &c. So also, hatred (or enmities) variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions ( [...], Dividings into parties) heresies, envyings, &c. I know you will confess that if any man have not the spirit of Christ, the same is none of his, Rom. 8. 9. Re­member then that the Spirit of Christ is the spirit of Love; Love to God and man is that Divine nature which God indueth all Christs members with. The fruit of the spirit is Love, joy, peace, long­suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, [Page 4] temperance, Gal. 5. 20, 21, 22. When we think our selves wiser than those we differ from, let us not shew it by masterly censoriousness or con­tempt, but by being as much more Loving and peaceable than they are. My brethren be not ma­ny Masters, knowing that ye shall receive the greater condemnation. And when other mens faults rise up before you, watch both your passions and your tongues, remembring that In many things we all offend: And if any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able to bridle the whole body. Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? Let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom: But if ye have a bitter en­vious zeal and strife in your hearts, glory not and lie not against the truth: This wisdom descend­eth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, de­villish: For where envying zeal ( [...]) and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work, Jam. 3. 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 16. Brethren no change of times will allow me to change from this which is my Re­ligion: No injuries from men will excuse me if I forsake it. I hope I shall not be such a changeling in this which is the Great Command of the Gospel, and the fulfilling of the Law, and the very Heart of all Religion, as to turn from it for a prison or a voluminous calumny and reproach. I confess I must change, but I hope it will be, to turn still to more and more Love and Concord, and not to Less. It is not thank worthy to Love those that Love us, nor to speak well of those that use us well, nor to take it patiently when we are bussetted or punish­ed for our faults: But if we suffer for well doing, [Page 5] and lose none of our Love or patience or integri­ty by our sufferings, happy are we. Alas how sad­ly do many mistake, that fear only yielding to those whom they suffer by, and do not fear those passi­ons, which would quench their Love, and turn them unto sects and heresies, in meer opposition to their af­flicters.

I know that the great objection is, That under pretence of Love, I would bring ungodly per­secutors into reputation, and tempt men to un­lawful Communion with them, and that I make an ill application of good principles, to hide the odiousness of their sins, that care so little for the souls of men, as their usage of Ministers and people doth openly declare. If I had only perswaded you to unite in Love to one another, and not to think better of the destroyers of the Church, nor to comply with them in their Idolatrous way of worship, you could have born it.

Brethren, will you, that take it for injustice in a Iudge, who will condemn a man before he hear him speak for himself, be intreated but to repress your passions for a little while, till you have calmely considered these things following.

1. Did I ever perswade you to think well of the faults of other men, while I perswaded you to love their persons? (unless you call the Communion a fault of which we are to speak anon) Did I ever seek to abate your dislike of the sins which you most speak against? Either malignity, cruelty, persecu­tion, or any other.

2. The thing which I perswaded men to in that book, was Communion with all Christians, (but differently as they differ in degrees of purity.) That [Page 6] which I motioned and pleaded for, I summed up in the latter end, with the contrary extreams; which you may there read in five propositions, 1. To ad­here to the primitive simplicity, and make no­thing necessary to our Concord and Communion which is not so. 2. To love your neighbours as your selves, and receive those to Communion whom Christ receiveth, and that hold the foresaid necessary things, be they Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independents, Anabaptists, Calvinists, Armini­ans, Lutherans, &c. so they be not proved he­retical or wicked. Peruse the rest. When you come to your selves you will confess that this was no unreasonable nor unchristian motion? Which of all these Parties is it that you are angry with me for perswading you to Communion with? Must every one of the Parties renounce Communion with all the rest? O how unlike is this doctrine to that of the Holy Ghost? 1 Cor. 1. 10. & 3. 1, 2, 3. Rom. 14. & 15. &c. If not every one, which of them is it? Is any one of all these Parties, the whole Church of God? who dare say so? Why should I refuse Communion with any one of these, while I scruple not Communion with all the rest. Or if it must be but with one sort, how shall I know which of them it must be?

I know some men judge of others by their Own opinions and self interest: But is that indeed the Christian Rule? Some of the Episcopal way are angry with me for including the Independents; when I doubt not but the far greater part of them are the sincere servants of Christ: And since their Synods late moderation, I know not many Churches in the world, besides the Waldenses of the Bohemi­an, [Page 7] Polonian and Hungarian Government, who are neerer to my own judgement, in Order and Disci­pline than those in New England are, and none that for Piety I prefer before them. Some are angry with me for taking in the Anabaptists: when it is not such as the Munster Anabaptists that we have to do with, but godly men, that differ from us in a point so difficult, that many of the Papists and Prelatists have maintained, that it is not determined in Scripture, but Dependeth on the tradition of the Church. I am not of their mind, and I have given them my reasons in my book for Infant Baptism: But having had more invitation to study the point throughly, and treat of it largely, than most of those that are offended herein, let them give me leave to say, that I know it to be a very difficult point; And I know as good and sober men of that mind, as of theirs that are most against them; And I know that in the dayes of Tertullian, Nazian­zene, Augustine, men had liberty to be baptized, or to bring their children, when and at what age they pleased, and none were forced to go against their Consciences: And I know not that our Rule or Re­ligion is changed, or that we are grown any wiser or better than they. I once motioned terms of Concord to the Anabaptists, and was in as hopeful a way for Peace with them, as with most others, till—

Some are offended that I put in the Arminians; when I am confident that there is not one of many hundreds, who [...] are against Communion with them that know what Arminianisme is, and truly un­derstand the difference. And the same men refuse not Communion with those Anabaptists who are Ar­minians. And it hath been the work of not only [Page 8] Mr. Dury, but many other excellent men, for many years, to reconcile the Lutherans with the Calvi­nists! and it hath justly been thought a blessed work to draw them to Communion with each other! And yet the Lutherans are not only of most of the Ar­minan opinions, but also have superintendents, litur­gies, ceremonies, exorcisme, Church-images, &c. When so much labour hath been bestowed in this work, and so many excellent Treatises written for it, by pious Dury, Junius, Paraeus, Calixtus, Ludov. Crocius, Joh. Bergius, Conrad. Bergius, Hatto­nus, Amyraldus, Hall, Davenant, Morton, &c. When all sober Protestants have prayed for their suc­cess, or approved this design, are we now come to that pass, that those that seem the zealousest for the Church and mutuall Love, shall think it to be a sin, either to hold Communion with the Lutherans, or to write for it?

But the great offence is that I put in the Episco­pal, as fit for our Communion; which I suppose is principally because of their manner of worship, in which we must have Communion with them. Which foreseeing, I answered more objections against this than against the rest; which hath occasioned some falsly to affirm, that I write only to draw men to Communion with the Church of England. I will therefore here proceed to some further expostula­tions of this point.

3. Is there ever a word in all my Book, perswa­ding you to Communion with a Diocesan Church, as such?

4. Is there one word in it for your Communion with a national Church, that hath one political spi­ritual Constitutive Head under Iesus Christ; (though [Page 9] the Kings supremacie none of us question) Do I once meddle with any such thing?

5. Is there a word to perswade you to Communi­on with Persecutors? Though I am forced to dis­please you by answering that objection, and telling you that we should be Impartial, and remember what most parties or many have done to others; which you were not able it seems, to bear, though it was plainly necessary to the due resolution of the Case in question, whether any Persecutors may be Communicated with?

6. Is there one word to perswade you that every Parish is a true Church, and fit to be Communica­ted with? If none of all this be there, I hope your Patience is not very hard put to it, if I do but in­treat you to repent▪ if you have said that of it which is untrue, whoever told you so, or at least, not to proceed in untruths when you are so often warned of them.

7. Do you think that it was done like tender conscienced Christians, for so many to say, that I write against your meetings, yea that I conform­ed my self? And this before ever they saw my book, or ever spake with man that saw it? And that men dare yet continue such sayings while the book is visible to prove them false? and revile against it when they confess that they never read it? Is this the fruit of the spirit of Christ?

But give me leave after these expostulations, to come a little nearer to your objection, and to tell you openly where we differ.

1. You would have me speak for Love and Unity among the Nonconformists: (And I know no man that hath done it more frequently and more openly [Page 8] [...] [Page 9] [...] [Page 10] than I have done; having these 24 years been offe­ring or publishing terms of peace.) But God forbid that ever I should be of their opinion (if there be any such) who think that our union must be only with a Party, and not with the whole Church of Christ; or that we must Love none, or seek peace with none but th [...]se, that are in such points of our own opinion? I am united first to Christ and the uni­versal Church, and consequently to all the parts as such; though in divers degrees as they differ them­selves in their Conformity to Christ.

2. I beseech you endure me with patience to tell you, that I never took either the Non-conformists alone, or the Conformists to be the whole Church of Christ, or to be his only people in this Land: nor the only faithful Ministers of the Gospel. B [...]ethren, let not wrath and the faults of some, deceive us to become injurious to others; or to deny them Love and Iustice, because that many of their opinion are bad. Where in all the world, do you know a Kingdom, where the greater part are not too bad, and where those that are of the Rulers Religion, be it never so right, do not comply with it to serve their flesh? The Low Countries have no Bishops nor Ceremonies, nor no such Liturgie as most are offended at with us, but are under the Presbyterian Government: And yet what the Comm [...]n sort are there, and in other such Countries, I need not tell you. Forgive me for telling you, that if you know no godly persons (Ministers or others) of the Episcopal way, I do, and long have done: And as my acquaintance in­creaseth I know more and more. You that take me to be so bad, as the Antidote describeth me, will think it no great commendation to them, that I pro­fess [Page 11] to know those of them, whom I take to be much better than my self: Therefore I will say a greater word, that I know those of them whom I think as godly and humble Ministers, as most of the Non­conformists whom I know. I doubt not but there are many hundred Parish Ministers, who are no Persecu­tors, nor ever consented to Persecution! who Preach holily, and live holily, though I could wish that they were more. And what reason have you to charge any other mens sins on them? I am not ignorant what may be said to make them consequentially partakers. But I must say this in answer to all; that if God will charge undiscerned consequences upon them and us, there will none of us all be found meet for Church Communion, or for heaven.

I am judged by your selves to be too censorious of you, and too sharp in telling you of that which I doubt not to be your sin: why then are you so of­fended with me for being no more censorious and sharp towards others? was I ever thought to be kin­der to them than to you? Is not every man natu­rally most favourable to those of his own opinion? Is it Conformity or Non-conformity which I have most defended? Is it as a Conformist or a Non­conformist that I have been judged and used these 33. years? It is they that have lately written re­proachfully against me: It is they that have—I need name no more. But for the Non-conformists I must bear witness of their kindness to me, that they never rejected me, never forbad me to preach (but one Sermon,) nor, (except particular angry parties whom I wrote against,) they never denyed me their good word. What then can you think should draw me to be too sharp against them, and too favoura­ble [Page 12] to the other? I look for no worldly advantage or benefit from them. Surely be that is apt to be too sharp, is liker to be so against dissenters from whom he suffereth, than against those that have ever been his friends? But truth is truth, and the wisdom from above is without partiality and without hypocrisie. Do but mark how both parties justifie me, while both condemn me, (though I am too Conscious of my faultiness to justifie my self) The one side think that I am not half sharp enough against the Anabaptists, S [...]p [...]ratists and Indepen­dents: And you that I now write to, think that I am not half sharp enough against the Confor­mists: so that one side doth not only justifie me from the charge of c [...]ns [...]iousness or sharpness against the other, but blame me for the contrary, and are angry with me that I am no sharper. But Gods judgement of us all is right, and his seal is sure, The Lord knoweth who are his whoever shall deny it. God will not judge of upright Christi­ans as they judge of themselves, when they unjustly accuse themselves; Much less according to the judge­ment of their adversaries.

Brethren, I think verily that I have as much to say against conformity, as it is required of us Mini­sters, as most of you that are most angry have: And yet I tell you again, that I believe there are many hundred Godly Ministers in the Parish Churches of England, and that their Churches are true Churches, and that I think not my self worthy to be compared with Mr. Bolton, Whately, Fenner, Dr. Preston, Sibbes, White, Field, U [...]her, Jewel, and abundance other old Conformists: And you might forgive me, if I compare them with your [Page 13] selves, and if I again profess to you, that if they were all alive, and used now the same Liturgy and Ceremonies as they did then, I could not find in my beart to think their Communion in Prayer and Sacrament to be unlawful, nor to censure that man as injurious to the Church, who should write to per­swade others not to separate from them on that sup­position. I am sure the Assembly of Divines that sate heretofore at Westminster, were so conformable when they went thither, that I never heard of five Non-conformists among them, besides the five dissen­ting brethren: Their judgement was (as Mr. Sprints) that Conf [...]rmity was lawful in case of ne­cessity, rather than to be deprived of liberty to preach the Gospel; but that it was a burden which they should cast off as soon as they had liberty so to do: And I knew some who urged them to declare their Repentance for their former conformity, and to have confessed it to have been their sin. But I ne­ver heard of any considerable number of them that ever did it, or that changed their minds: And though Ministerial Conformity (as to Engage­ments) is now much altered, many of them that are yet living do again conf [...]rm. And though I then was not, nor yet am of their mind my self, yet I would not shun Communion with the Reverend members of that Assembly (Twisse, Gat [...]ker, Whit­taker, and the rest) if again they wer [...] [...]sers of the Liturgie among us.

3. But what if in all this I be mistaken, and if Communion in the Liturgie prove unlawful? should you be so impatient as not to bear with one that in such an opinion differeth from you? As I write for my opinion, so do you for yours? And why should [Page 14] not you bear with my dissent, as well as I do with yours? My judgement commanded me, First to exhort all sober Christians, to draw neerer, and to lay by those principles, which drive them from each other as not to be Communicated with: And Secondly, where that cannot be ob­tained, to bear with one another in our several As­semblies or Churches, and to manage them with Love and peace. This was my ex [...]rtation, And the time once was (even when the five Dissenting brethren pleaded their cause with the Assembly at Westminster,) that this motion would have been ac­cepted, or at least not judged so great an injury as now it is. O brethren, do not expose your selves and cause, so much to the censure of imparti­al men, and of posterity, as to let them know that you are grown so high, or that in the very day of our humiliation these terms seem so injurious to you, as these exceptions intimate. Mr. Nye and Mr. Tho. Good win were so friendly with Dr. Pr [...]ston, as to publish his works when he was dead. And I verily think if you had been acquainted with such Con­formists heretofore, as he was, and Dr. Stoughton, and Dr. Taylor, and Mr. Downam, and those forenamed, and abundance more, you could not choose but have thought them both tolerable and lovely, if you had not thought it lawful to Communicate with them: Much more you should have endured such as the Non-conformists of that age, who used Parish Communion, and pleaded for it against the Separatists, in far sharper language than ever I used to you (as their books against Johnson and Cann and Brown and Ainsworth do yet visibly declare.) If you think their Reasons and mine for the Law­fulness [Page 15] of Parish Communion to be insufficient, so do I think of yours against it.

I have read divers that charge the Liturgie with Idolatry. Did I ever lay so heavy a charge on you? Did I ever say that it is unlawful to have Commu­nion with you, as you say it is to have Commu­nion with others? Why then should you not bear with lesser Contradiction, when others must bear with far greater from you? Will you proclaim your selves to be the more impatient? You will then make men think that you are the most guilty. You say of such men as those before named [your wor­ship is Idolatry, and it is unlawful for any Chri­stian to hold Communion with you in it, and all that are present and joyn with you are guilty of the Idolatry] I do but say, that [you make the Case more odious than it is, and injure others by this charge] What a world are we come to▪ when those that you count unworthy of your Communion, must not take your charge of Idolatry as too sharp, and yet you that should be most patient, take it for a heynous crime and injury, to be told that you wrong them, and that you judge too hardly of them? and that their Communion is not unlaw­ful!

Nay, is it seemly for th [...]se men that have said and done so much, (I say, so much,) for Liber­ty of Conscience, and would never consent to the Westminster Assembly to declare against it, even as to those parties, whom you counted very erroneous your selves, to be yet so impatient of our liberty to tell the Church our judgement about the Lawfulness of other mens Communion? Is it meet for them who are offended with those that silence us and restrain [Page 16] us of our liberty, to be so tender, as to shew by such language as this Excepter useth, and by such unjust fames as some others have dispersed, how little themselves can bear dissenters?

I know that displeasure and impatience in the di­vers parties, is expressed different wayes; But O that yet you would consider, how near of kin the principles are, and how much defect of Love and Patience there is in you as well as others.

4. And I intreat you to mark but what your own objection intimateth: You could endure it if I had only pleaded for Peace and Concord among the Non-conformists: But doth not this intimate, that Peace and Concord in it self is desirable, among all those that should agree and be united? Why, I am as well able to prove that all true Christians should have Peace and Love and Concord for the strength of the Universal Church, as any of you all are able to prove, that any one Party should have Concord in it self. The Episcopal part would have all possible Concord among those that are Epis­copal; and the Presbyterians among Presbyterians, and the Independents among Independents, and the Anabaptists among Anabaptists; no party is for Di­visions among themselves, till the particular tem­ptation doth prevail. And yet I am not pardona­ble for motioning, that all sober Christians, as Christians, may have all possible Love, Peace and Concord among themselves.

Brethren, I am sure that Christs body is but one: I do not despise all those words of Christ and the Spirit which I cited in my book: I know that the diversity of knowledge and gifts among true Chri­stians, should not make diversities of Churches, [Page 17] 1 Cor. 12. When I know this, and cannot choose but know it, why should any be angry with me for knowing it? I know that the Godly Confor­mists and Non-conformists in England should be united, as well as each party among themselves; I know that our division gratifieth the Papists, and greatly hazardeth the Protestant Religion, and that more than most of you seem to believe or to regard; I know that our division advantageth Profaneness, and greatly hindereth the success of Ministers on both sides: I know that it greatly pleaseth Satan, and buildeth up his Kingdom, and weakneth the Kingdom of our Lord: His own mouth hath told us so: And shall I not believe him? As in our Worcestershire Agreement heretofore, we proceed­ed on terms which excluded not the Episcopal; so in our desires and terms of Concord, we must still go the same way, and shut out none from our Love and Communion, whom Christ receiveth and would have us receive. If they shut out us, that is not our sin but theirs. The hurt and loss is farr more to the excluder than the excluded; to him that loseth his Charity, than to him that loseth but Communion with others. And I know that as none shall take out of Christs hands, those that are given him by the Father, and he himself will in no wise cast them out; so he will at last give no more thanks either to Diotrephes or to any separating parties, that would rob him of his own, and say that his Children are not his Children, and that his Churches are not his Churches, and that his Worship is not his Worship, but Idolatry, than you will give to him that will turn out your Children and servants, and take away your [Page 18] goods and lands, and say that they are not yours.

Brethren, it grieveth me to the heart, that nei­ther party Conformable or Non-conformable is more sensible of the sin and danger of our distance. (Though I know that in both parties there are ma­ny wise and holy persons, who I suppose lament it more than I do.) It layeth my soul in daily la­mentations, to see how we run further and fur­ther from each other; to the apparent danger of the Protestant Cause, and of the Kingdoms welfare, and of all the hopes of our posterity; And that in stead of repenting of those sins which every party is guilty of▪ and taking warning by our former experiences, or by the dreadful judgements of God upon us all, that yet we are daily losing the little Love that is left, and still flying further into more and more ex­asperations and distast; As if all the Church and Kingdoms hopes consisted in overcoming one ano­ther. When our long experience telleth us, that subduing those that must still be members, is no Cure of a divided body; and that treading men down doth but alienate them the more.

And I know that it is Concord and Union upon such terms in which we are all agreed, that must be our Cure, if ever we be Cured. And that no Covenant nor partial interest, can possibly justifie us, if we will stablish our union on such terms, as shall either exclude such on one side as Jewel, Grindal, Downam, Hall and other such Bishops, or such on the other side as Ames, Hildersham, Cart­wright, Bayne, Egerton, and other such worthy persons that were Nonconformists:

For my part, my terms should neither exclude, Episcopal, Independent, nor Anabaptist. But one [Page 19] that will separate and exclude himself, or one that will tyraniz [...] and exclude all others, we cannot any otherwise have Concord and Communion with, than distantly by Christian principles and patience. But at long running they shall be all convinced, that the Cure of the Church is not by meer Con­quest or Contempt of others; Nor by the Union and Concord of some Parties only, but of the whole; And that the sound and sober Conformists and Non-conformists, are the parts in England, that must be united; And that neither Violence nor un­just separating Censures are the healing way; And that which party soever it be that contriveth and endeavoureth a Union, by the extirpation and ruine of the other part, is schismatical, and taketh the way of desolation; And that it is the Devil, the Infidels, and the Papists, that will be the gainers by our continued divisions. And therefore though I know not the man alive, in England who hath more fair pretence, from the ungrateful usage of the differing partie [...], to desist from any more such con­ciliatory attempts, yet, let my hopes be never so low, seeing it is a thing that must be done, or we are undone, I will imitate honest Mr. Dury, and choose rather to wast my daies in vain attempts for Peace, than to go quarrelling and contending to the grave, as I have seen too many others do.

And if both parties in this exasperated age, should never so much revile and s [...]ander me, (though a surviving name be little of my interest) I make no doubt but our posterity, will be constrained by experience, to think better of Peace-makers than of Contenders. The names of Melanchthon, Bu­cer, Calixtus, Bergius, Burroughs, Hall, [Page 20] Davenant, &c. are far more grateful and honou­rable to after times, than the name of Flacius (though an excellent learned man) or of Schlus­selburgius, Calovius, or any of our fiery Con­tenders or destroyers.

To all this I add, that even the separated Churches themselves do find a necessity of Union and Concord for their preservation. Division else will pursue the several pieces, and the same principles which I write-against, if they go along with them, will crumble them all to dust. The separated Churches in Holland (of the English) fully pro­ved this. Even those members in New-England, which Mr. Norton sadly told Mr. Ash and me, did withdraw and gather themselves to an unlearned Pastor, and would not be intreated by Magistrates or Ministers, yet when they were separated, would fain keep Concord among themselves. And if half of that separated body, should again have separa­ted from the rest, that fragment would fain keep themselves in Unity. And still nature teacheth them to feel that their Unity is their strength and life, and that their Division is their dissolution.

5. And I must needs tell the world, that though I Conform not, it is greater things than the matters of Conformity, which are the chief parts of my Religion; And therefore it is not Non-conformity that we must all Unite in, so much as Christianity, and soundness in the Faith. And I doubt not but the Independents who offer to subscribe to the Do­ctrine of the Church of England, will say that they differ far more from the Quakers, and Seekers, and Familists, than they do from the Conformists. And [Page 21] so do I, though I would have Love and Gentleness exercised to them all.

6. And if the present Conformable Ministry were more to be blamed than they are, yet they may learn and profit while they teach. Many of them are young, coming lately from the University; and may yet grow up to ability and piety, and greater usefulness in the Church: And many of them are prejudiced against their brethren, for want of ac­quaintance: And a Christian prudent Loving familiarity and Conversation with them, may make them in time become more serviceable to the truth, than we are: whereas a continued distance, estran­gedness, and censorious aversation, will feed their mistakes and uncharitable censure [...] of us, yea and their sharp severities against us, and will keep up a heart-war, and a Church-war in the land. And alas who knoweth either when or how, or in whose calamity it will End. For he that puts on his ar­mour should not boast as he that puts it off.

I do therefore conclude with this repeated profes­sion, that it is the Conformists and the Non-confor­mists that constitute the English protestant body; And it is the Conformists and Non-conformists that must at last, (when they are wearied with tearing and opposing one another) be brought together, and the faithful of both partyes must build up the Church in Love and Peace. And therefore the interest of the Protestant Religion, must be much kept up by the means of the Parish Ministers, and by the doctrine and worship there performed▪ and not by the Non conformists alone. And they that think and endeavour that which is contrary to this (of which side soever) shall have the hearty thanks and con­currence of the Papists.

[Page 22] Him therefore that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. Let not him that eateth despise him that cateth not. And let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: For God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another mans servant?—The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but Righteousness, and Peace, and Joy in the Ho­ly-Ghost: For he that in these things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace and the things wherewith one may edifie another. And blessed are the Peace-makers, for they shall be called the chil­dren of God.

THE GENERAL PART OR INTRODUCTION TO THE DEFENCE OF MY CURE OF Church-Divisions. Being a Narrative of those late Actions which have occasioned the Offence of men on both Extreams; with the true Rea­sons of them, And of these Writings, which some account Unseasonable: with the true stating of the Case of that Separa­tion, which my opposed Treatise medleth with; And an Answer to several great Ob­jections.

Printed in the Year. 1671.

I. THE GENERAL PART, OR INTRODUCTION.

CAP. 1. The Narrative of those late Actions, which have occasioned mens displeasure against me on both sides: with the Reasons of them, and of my Writing, which I am now de­fending.

THE number of Books written against me is so great, that if I should not be very suspicious of my self, lest I had wronged the truth, and the Church of God, and given men just occasion of all this oblo­quy, I should be very defective in humility, and in that care, which I am obliged to for the avoiding of such injuries. And I find upon examination that [Page 26] if I could have let all sides alone, and judged it consistent with my duty to be silent while the en­vious man sowed his tares, and not to have con­tradicted any that I took to be injuring the Truth and Church, nor to have sounded the trumpet against any error which arose before us, I could as easily have escaped their wrath as others. And I find that whereas our diffe­rences both in Doctrine, and Worship, and Discipline, have engaged men of several minds in such writings against me. (Some Infidels, di­verse Quakers, Papists, Antinomians, some Ar­minians, some Anti-arminians, Anabaptists, Se­paratists, Levellers, Diocesans, &c.) What one accuseth me of, another doth not only acquit me of, but ordinarily as sharply accuse me for the contrary, and for going no further from the rest. So that nothing but silence could put by their fiercest accusations, And silence it self will not please the Imperious sect, who think me crimi­nal, because I serve them not according to their own desire and way. And silence was not that which I promised God at my ordination, nor is it a doing of that work, to which I was then consecrated and devoted.

But because some men speak in a more San­guinary dialect than others, and because the late charges of Disloyalty, ought not to be disregard­ed by a loyal subject, and because for the sakes of their own souls, it hath often made me pitty Mr. Durel, Dr. Boreman, and many others like them, who have published ugly falsehoods of me, I once thought to have here exercised so much Charity to them, as by a full Narrative of all [Page 27] those actions of my life, which concern such matters as they accuse me of, to have rectified all their mistakes at once, and made them under­stand, what it is, which they wrote of before they understood it: And the rather because this excepter followeth them, in telling me how guilty I was of the wars, and all the effects of them, and also that I wrote a flattering book to Richard Cromwell. And in this narrative I purposed to confess so much as had any truth in their accusations, and to stop them in their falsifications and calumnies as to the rest. But upon second tho [...]ts, I cast it by, perceiving by too long experience, that they who are engaged against the Truth, are un­able to bear it, and take all for an unsufferable wrong to them, which detecteth the falsehood of their reports. And when men do (as Mr. Hink­ley) importune me to publish the reasons of my Non-conformity, when they know that the Law forbiddeth it, and there is no expectation of pro­curing a Licence, or when the old stratagem is so visibly used, of drawing us by their challen­ges into their Ambuscad'es; or when I am eager­ly provoked to gape against an oven, while it is red or flaming hot; If I crave their patience, and exercise my own, till it be grown more cool, before I accept of such a challenge, and suffer them to use their Art (till repentance shall unteach it them) and to make my name a stepping stone, to those ends which they now aspire after, methinks they should be content, to talk on without a contra­diction, and to be free from the light of that Truth, which they are not able to endure; Or at least should pardon me, if I imitate my Lord, [Page 28] that was silent, even when false accusers sought his defamation and his blood. But, God [...]na­bling me, I promise them an answer, as soon as they will procure me License and Indemnity.

In the mean time, I shall now only, 1. Tell you why I offended one side, by saying so much against their impositions, 2. And why I have since offended the other, yea both sides, by my late Book called, The Cure of Church-Divisions.

Before the King was restored, being then at London, I was called to preach two publick ser­mons; t [...] one before the Parliament, the day before they voted the Kings return; The other before the Lord Major and Aldermen on a day of thanksgiving for the hopes of his return. In the latter I plainly shewed my sense of the case of the falling party, and the Armies actions, and gave as plain a warning to the then rising party, with some prognosticks thereupon. In the former (the first that ever I preached to a Parliament, and he last,) I spake some words of the facility of Concord with the sober godly moderate sort of the Episcopal Divines, and how quickly Arch-Bishop Usher and I came to an Agreement of the termes on which they might Unite. When this Sermon was Printed, this passage caused many moderate Episcopal Divines to urge me to tell them the terms of that Agreement; And they all professed their great desires and hopes of Con­cord upon such termes; viz. Dr. Gulston, Dr. Allen, Dr. Bernard, Dr. Fuller, Dr. Gauden, and several others. Dr. Gauden desired a meeting to that end of the several parties, but none came at the day appointed but he and Dr. Bernard, and [Page 29] Dr. Manton and I; where I spake these words, which he Printed without the limitation annex­ed, which I set right in my next Printed Book, viz. That I found (then) little or nothing in the doctrinal part of the Common prayer Book, which was not sound, having but as favourable an exposi­tion as good mens writings usually mnst have. He left out [the doctrinal part]

At last when the Earle of O [...]ery perswaded me to be his Majesties Chaplain in Ordinary, and was present when the Earl of Manchester gave me (and Mr. Ash) an oath of fidelity, it being he that first brought me acquainted with Bishop Usher; the mention of the same business fell in: Whereupon we shortly after were told by the Lord Chamberlain, that it was his Ma­jesties pleasure, that there should be a treaty for Union between the Episcopal party and the Presbyterians: And Dr. Reignolds, Mr. Calamy, Mr. Ash and my self being first Employed, when we had made some entrance, we desired that some might be chosen by the Ministers throughout the land, to signifie their sense, because we could speak in the name and sense of none but our selves; But his Majesty not consenting to that, we desired an addition of many brethren at hand, which was granted; and the liberty for all Mini­sters that would to meet with us, for consulta­tion, as many did at Sion-Colledge and elsewhere. In this Treaty we all professed our Judgements for the Lawfulness of a Liturgie; and desired the Reformation of that which we had, with the addition of new forms in Scripture phrase, fitted to the several Offices, with Liberty to the Mini­sters [Page 30] to use this or that. Whereupon we drew up such a Liturgie our selves, which though it fell to my share, yet the rest of our brethren exami­ned and approved of it, saving that Dr. Reignolds disliked the displeasing the Bishops by such large additions, and a Liturgie seeming entire of it self, instead of some additional prayers to theirs. How many weeks we were employed from first to last, in these debates, how fully and freely we took that opportunity to plead for reformation, and against unnecessary impositions, whilest the men that now quarrel with us said nothing that we know of: how hard a province fell to my own lot, as to the offending of the Bishops, under whose hot displeasure I thereby (in obedience to my Conscience) did cast my self, our writings (which somebody hath published for the greater part of them) shew; and our Savoy conference, and my prohibition to preach in Worcester Dio­cess shortly after (before other Ministers were silenced) and the published writings against me, did all sufficiently acquaint the world: And the particulars of this business I now pass by.

Only I think meet to make this twofold pro­fession, to the two parties on the Extreams;

1. That the true reason why I wrote and spake so much, so long, and so vehemently, had it been possible to have prevented many Impositions, was principally because I undoubtedly foresaw how great a number of faithful worthy Ministers would else be silenced by them; and how ill the Church could spare those Ministers, while there are so many hundred thousands of ignorant and ungodly people in the land; and what sort of [Page 31] Ministers in too many places must unavoidably succeed them, unless the Church doors should be shut up? and I foresaw how the people un­der such Ministers would be affected to Religion, and to the Bishops, and Ministry? And I fore­saw what multitudes of Religious persons would take the things imposed as unlawful, and would se­parate from Communion with the publick Churches; and would worship God in private meetings with the silenced Ministers. I foresaw how many Ministers and people that did Conform with a grudging Conscience, would do more at last to undermine the Impositions, than the Non-Conformists. I foresaw easily what jealousies; di­spleasure, severities, imprisonments, &c. would follow the private preaching of the silenced Mi­nisters, and the private meetings of the people: And I knew well that other Ministers as well as I, would judge it no better than perfidious sacri­ledge, to forsake the holy calling to which they were consecrated and devoted, and to desert so ma­ny thousand needy souls: But, above all, I foresaw, how certainly and sadly the Churches divisions would be hereby increased, and the Love of each party to the other would be abated, if not de­stroyed: How hard it was for one side to Love and Honour the Non-conformists, that account­ed them Persecutors and unconscionable men: And how hard it was for the other side to Love and Honour those that they suffered by: And how little Reproaches, Fines, and Imprisonments, do use to increase mens Love to others. I [...]or [...] ­knew that one side would call the other Rebelli­ous Schismatical Phanaticks; and the other side [Page 32] were like enough to account them, Perjured Per­fidious Persecutors; and that in the midst of such thoughts, such words, such usage, Love was no more like to prosper, than fire in the sea. And I knew that whatever zeal be pretended for Obe­dience and Order on one side, or for purity of Worship on the other, when Love dieth, Religi­on dieth; and they that are destroyers of Love, are destroyers of the Church and of Christiani­ty, and of the souls of men: and to increase Love is to save s [...]i [...]ls▪

And I foresaw that the further they go in this way; the further they will go from God and Godliness▪ from peace and safety, and that it will be the longer the worse, till they retire: For one hard usage on one side, and hard censure on the other side, after another, will by degrees raise men to the height of bitterness, and make them think, that their interest con [...]isteth in the hurt and ruine of each other.

Also I foresaw that while we worried, and weakned one another, as all Sects would grow under the discontents of one party, so the Pa­pists were like to be the principal gainers; And they would be ready to offer their service to strengthen one of the parties against the other; and would be glad to take up the reproaches against the most religious people, that were by an­gry adversaries brought unto their hands; And that when we had made our selves a Common scorn by our manifold divisions, and by our bi­ting and devouring one another, they would plead this as our shame, to draw people to them­selves, as the only stable and consistent Church; [Page 33] and would make us giddy that we might rest on them as our Supporters; and when they saw us weak enough, would be ready to devour us all.

And I easily foresaw how calamitous a thing it would be to the Kingdom, to have most Towns and Parishes set all together by the ears, and for the neighbours to be as Gu [...]lphes and Gibellines, every man employed in censuring and reproaching others, instead of living together in neighbourly and Christian Love.

And I foresaw what an injury this would be to the King, to have the suffering party under these temptations, and wise men made mad, and his people weakned by such sad divisions; whereby their cheerfulness in his Love and ser­vice would be abated, and forreign Enemies would be encouraged to attempts against our peace and safety, and if ever they should invade us, it maketh me tremble to think how our di­visions would debilitate us, and hazard all our common security and hopes. Yea, how un­comfortable a thing it must needs be to the King, to rule such a divided people, that live in a heart-war among themselves, in comparison of ruling a loving, and concordant sort of men. In a word, I knew that a house or Kingdom di­vided against it self would not stand: And though I could not make the Bishops believe me, I knew that divisions, lamentable divisions; were like to be the consequent, of the things which then I so importunately petitioned and intreated them to forbear: I kn [...]w it, for I could not choose but kn [...]w it.

And for these reasons I wrote, I pleaded, I earnestly contended with them as I did, while [Page 34] there appeared any hope, as being loth to have seen the things which I have already seen, and God knoweth to how much worse we are go­ing, if Grace and Wisdom yet prevent it not. And though I exasperated the sore which I would have cured, and have ever since my self lain un­der their displeasure, yet I have peace in the te­stimony of my Conscience, that I did my best, to have prevented our miseries while I had time.

2. And I would give notice to the other par­ty, that whilst I pleaded for their liberty, and against the Imposing of unnecessary things, I took not all the things in question for unlawful to be done, which I thought unlawful to be made necessary to our Communion or Ministration. All knew that my judgement ever was for the law­fulness of kneeling at the Sacrament; (especially since the Rubrick is inserted, which disclaimeth both all Bread Worship and the Bodily real pre­sence.) And we all as is said, thought a Li­turgie lawful; and when we wrote our Reply to the Answer of our Exceptions, we said these words (which may tell you, whether I change my mind, and what was then our common sense) pag. 3. [While we took it to be a de­fective, disorderly and inconvenient Mode of Worship, it would be our sin to use it of choice, while we may prefer a more convenient way, whatever we ought to do in case of necessity, when we must wor­ship God inconveniently, or not at all.] And pag. 12, 13. [What if it be only proved unlawful for you to impose it, though not for others to joyn with you when you do impose it? Is this no reason [...] alter it? Should you not have some care to avoid [Page 35] sin your selves, as well as to preserve others from it? An inconvenient Mode of Worship is a sin in the Imp [...]ser, and in the Chooser, and Voluntary user, that may offer God better, and will not: And yet it may not be only lawful, but a duty to him, that by violence is necessitated to offer up that or none.] By this you may see what we all thought then of not only hearing, but reading a defe­ctive Liturgie in such a case. If you say, that this was but my own Opinion; I answer, Though as they wrote the particular Excepti­ons without me, so I wrote this Defence of them by their appointment, yet it was examined and consented to by the rest, who were not men apt to take things on trust, nor to be imp [...]sed on by such a one as me.

When this Treaty was frustrate, and the tor­rent of displeasure came upon us, (which reach­ed me with the first) I saw also that the storm of mens passions and discontents would quick­ly follow: And therefore according to my own judgement and advice to others, I endeavoured to practise my self; that is, neither to forsake my Calling, or omit any service I could do for the Church, nor yet to do it in a turbulent and unpeaceable, or dividing way.

For the first, I thought writing was my greatest work, which made me not travail abroad to Preach (which also weakness disabled me from doing). But yet I never to my remembrance either forbad any from coming to my house, nor ever invited any to hear me. I had no Pa­storal Charge in London; nor could I live there with my health: My judgement was, that though [Page 36] so many hundred Ministers were silenced, and too many Congregations had such, as were to us mat­ter of grief, yet the Interest of the Christian Prote­stant Religion in England, must be much kept up, by keeping up as much of Truth, Piety and Repu­tation as was possible in the Parish Churches. There­fore I never laboured or disputed to make any Minister a Non-conformist, unless he came to me, and by desiring my judgement, made it my duty (Though I oft openly professed, that if I conformed my self to what is required of a Mi­nister, I should take it to be no little or single sin) I remembred the saying of Mr. Dod, who thanked God for the Churches sake, that some conform­ed, and for the Truths sake, that some conformed not. I resolved that if I lived where was an in­tolerable Minister, I would not hear him, nor come near him, so as to encourage him in his sinful undertaking of that Sacred Office: But if I lived under an able, worthy, or tolerable man, I would joyn with him in publick (constantly if I had not caeteris paribus the liberty of better, and sometimes if I had) And I would help him by my private labours as well as I could, and live with him in Unity and Peace. Accordingly I con­stantly joyned in the publick Prayers and hearing at the Parish Church where I lived (having no better that I could go to) and never Preached to my family, but between the times of publick Worship; and the people that came in to me, wen [...] with me to the publick Worship.

In all this time many persons importuned me to indeavour that all Non-conformists might agree in one, by what measures to walk as to their Commu­nion [Page 37] with the Parish Churches, and such other things, (for many reasons: And I ever shanned all such attempts; 1. Because it is the way that we have blamed so much in others, to make nar­row measures for other mens practices, and un­necessary terms of Brotherly Concord: We must unite as Christians in necessary things; and if one man can, e. g. kneel at the Sacrament and ano­ther cannot, if one can joyn in Common-prayer, and another cannot; yea, if one can Conform to the Liturgie and Ceremonies, and another can­not, it must not break our unity or peace. 2. Be­cause that Non-conformists are not all of the same judgement in every particular among them­selves: And how can they then agree upon the same practice in every point? If they should; ei­ther the most scrupulous must come up to them that think that lawful which they scruple, or else the later must come to the former: If they yield that think the things unlawful, and do as the others do, they shall sin: And then they might as well Conform? And if they that hold more things to be lawful must agree in practice with them that hold the fewest lawful, than such must 1. Forsake their own understandings, and live in many sins; and 2. They must be alwayes at an uncertainty in their practice, because some may yet arise, that may count more things un­lawful; And so the whole party may change their practice every year, as new scruples or errors arise in any; 3. And so the most scrupu­lous though the most erroneous, must be the Standard and Rule of all the rest. 4. And so we should tempt others still to new scruples, and [Page 38] to make more and more things sinful, that so they might obtain the Rule of all. I ever thought therefore that without any combinati­ons, our way is, every man to know the truth as well as he can, and practice accordingly; and live in Love and Peace with those that differ from him in tollerable things. And thus I hope most Non-conformable Ministers do.

In the year 1663 divers learned and reverend Non-conformists of London met to Consider how far it was their duty, or lawful to Com­municate with the Parish Churches where they lived in the Liturgie and Sacrament: and we agreed the next day to bring in our several judge­ments in writing with our reasons. According­ly I brought in mine, in which I proved four propositions, 1. That it is Lawful to use a form of prayer: 2. That it is Lawful to joyn with some Parish Churches in the use of the Liturgie. 3. That it is lawful to joyn with some Parish Churches in the Lords supper. 4. That it is to some a duty to joyn with some Parish Churches three times a year in the Lords supper. They being long, I read over to them the last only, which being proved (by 20. Reasons) included all the rest. Upon Consideration whereof, no one of the bre­thren seemed to dissent, but to take the reasons to be valid; save only that one Objection stopt them all, to which I also yielded, and we con­cluded at the present to forbear Sacramental Communion with the Parishes: And that was, because it was a time when great severities were threatned against those that could not so far Conform; and most of the Independents and [Page 39] some others were against it; And our brethren verily believed that if we should then Commu­nicate, those that could not yield so far, would be the sharplier used, because they yielded not as far as we. I yielded to them readily, that God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice, and even Gods worship otherwise due, as prayer, or preaching, or sabbath-keeping may be omitted for an act of Mercy, even to pull an Oxe or Ass out of a pitt. And therefore pro tempore I would forbear that sacrament, which was like to cause the imprison­ment or undoing of my neighbour.

In mentioning this, these three things are my end. 1. To tell the world the judgement of these Ministers; who are misjudged by their actu­al forbearance of publick Communion, that they take it for a thing unlawful: whereas they are thus accidentally hindered from it (Besides ma­ny other accidents not here to be mentioned, this before named is one.) 2. To shew the Prelates who and what it is that hath hinde­red mens nearer Communion with them; And that while rigor and severity is trusted to as the only means to further it, it proveth the princi­pal means of hindering it. 3. To shew the Inde­pendents, that we have been so far from dealing hardly or uncharitably with them, that we have forborn that Communion, which else our own judgements would have charged on us as our duty, either only, or chiefly for fear of being the least occasion accidentally of their sufferings: And if yet they are impatient with us for obey­ing our Consciences, who can help it

What the rest did after this consultation in [Page 40] their practices, I enquired not: But for my own part on the same argument I forbore Commu­nion with the Parish Churches in the sacrament a long time, till at last I saw that the Reason seemed to me to cease, and I durst not for I knew not what, go against my judgement: But lest it might possibly have any such hurtful con­sequents, I chose a very private Country Parish to Communicate with, where I sometime so­journed, and where there was neither that, nor any other reason to hinder me: But yet after many years further observation, lest men that know not of my practice, should be scandalized or in­snared, to think that I forbore Parish Commu­nion as unlawful, and so to do the like them­selves, I once chose an Easter day to Communi­cate in a very populous Church in London, pur­posely that it might be the further known: But having some reasons to forbear at the Parish where I lived most constantly, it so far provoked the Parson that—I may suppose no Inde­pendent suffered so much through my Communi­cating, as I have done by forbearing for their sakes.

At last in the year 1667. observing how mens minds grew every day more and more exaspera­ted by their sufferings, and whither all this tend­ed, and what was like to be the issue, I wrote this book called The Cure of Church-Divisions; the Reasons whereof I am next to give you. But being not used to publish any thing unlicen­sed, nor thinking it fit to break the Law of Print­ing without necessity, nor knowing how to get it Printed unlicensed if I would; I knew that if [Page 41] I put any thing into it very provokingly, it would not be licensed, and would frustrate all the rest. And yet my Conscience told me, that it looked so like partiality, to tell one party of their faults, and call them to their duty, and not the other, that I resolved to say as much to the Bishops and Imposing Clergy, as should sig­nifie my judgement plainly to any intelligent man, and tell them what sense I had of narrow­ing Impositions and Severities, and what is the way of Unity and Peace, though not to cloath it in exasperating language: And if they would not not license it all together, I purposed to cast it all aside.

And to confess the truth, the deep sense of the sin and infatuation of this age, hath long made me desirous to have written one Book, with the Title in dying Bradfords words, REPENT O ENGLAND; and that in several parts, pro­fessing first, my own Repentance in several Particu­lars, then calling severally the Bishops and Con­formable Clergy, the Presbyterians, the Indepen­dents, and the Sectaries, Corporations and Coun­try to Repent. But I knew the Bishops would not endure it, and I could not get it Licensed or Printed, and I had greater things to write, and many wise men whose judgements much rule me, disswaded me and laughed at my weakness, that I should think that such men would regard what I said, or that it would have any better effect than exasperation! And I long purposed not to speak to one sort, till I might speak to all, to avoid par­tiality, and evil consequents.

But at last considering, that by this rule I [Page 42] might never tell any of their sins, nor preach re­pentance to them whilst I lived, and that I must not deny my duty and Charity to one sort, be­cause another sort will not receive it, and seeing also necessity increase, and having already writen and said so much to the other party, I resolved to imitate those two excellent faithful Tractates, viz. 1. Mr. M. Pool's Vox clamantis in deserto in Latine, calling the Non-conformable Ministers to Repentance, and Mr. Lewis Stukeley's (a worthy Congregational Minister in Exeter, and a kins­man of the late General Monkes) enumerating copiously most of the Common sins of Religious Professors, and calling them earnestly and faith­fully to repentance, which since the writing of this, I find excellently done in a book called Eng­lands danger and only Remedy.

And therefore I first published some old notes written eleven or twelve years ago called Directi­ons for weak Christians, and annexed to it The Character of a sound Christian; In both which I wrote that which was as like to have exasperated the impatient, as this book is; And yet I heard of no complaints, And afterward I wrote this which I now defend; and sent it to the Licen­ser, who upon perusal refused to License it; And so it lay by, and I purposed to meddle with it no more. But leaving it in the Booksellers hands that had offered it to be Licensed, after a long time he got it done; and so unexpectedly it revived.

The Reasons of my writing it were no fewer than all these following, which I now sub­mit to the judgement of all men truly peace­able and impartial, who value the interest of [Page 43] Christianity, and of the universal Church above their own.

1. To make up my foregoing Directions to weak Christians more compleat. Having dire­cted them about the private matters of their souls, I intended this as another Part, to Direct them in order to the Churches Peace.

2. Many good people of tender Consciences and weak judgements, desiring my advice about Communion in the publick Assemblies, I found it meetest to publish this general Advice for all, to save me the labour of speaking to particular persons, and to serve those that lived further off.

3. I saw those Principles growing up apace, in this time of prevocation, which will certain­ly increase or continue our divisions, if they con­tinue and increase. I am sure that our wounds are made by wounding principles of doctrine; And it must be healing doctrines that must heal us: And I know that we cannot be healed, till do­ctrinal principles be healed. To give way to the prevalency of dividing Opinions is to give up our hopes of future unity and peace. And to give up our hopes of Unity and Peace, is to de­spair of all true Reformation, and happiness of the Church on earth. If ever the Church be reduced to that Concord, Strength, and Beauty, which all true Christians do desire, I am past doubt that it must be by such principles, as I have here laid down.

4. But my grand reason was, that I might serve the Church of Christ, in the reviving and preservation of Christian Love. As it was an extraordinary measure of the Spirit, which [Page 44] Christ made his Witness in the Gospel Church; so is it as extraordinary a measure of Love, which he maketh the New Commandment, and the mark of all his true Disciples: And whe­ther afflicting on one side, and unmerciful and unjust censures, on the other side, one driving away; and the other flying away, be either a sign or means of Love: And whether taking others to be intolerable in the Church, and unworthy of our Communion, and separating from, or avoid­ing the Worship where they are present, be likely to kindle Love, or to kill it, let any man judge, that hath himself the exercise of Reason, and unfeigned Love. I know that this is the hour of Temptation to the sufferers, to stir up passion and distaste; and that men have need of more than ordinary grace and watchfulness, and therefore of more than ordinary helps & warning, to preserve due Love, and keep out an undue ha­tred of those by whom they suffer. And how great a temptation also their censures and discontents will prove, to their Superiours, and others by whom they suffer, and what unspeakable hurt it may do their s [...]uls, may easily be conjectured. This sin will prove our greatest loss.

5. Hereupon men will be engaged in sinful Actions of injustice and uncharitableness against each other. They will be glad to hear, and for­ward to believe hard and false reports of one another. And too forward to vent such behind one anothers backs: And there is no doubt, but many of each party already think worse of the other commonly, than they are: (Though, alas, we are all too bad, and some egregiously [Page 45] wicked.) And those Persons and Churches that would censure a man for Curses or Oaths, should also censure men for slanders and backbitings. And should I not do my best, to prevent such a course of daily sin?

6. Both violence and separation tend to divide the builders themselves, and keep the Ministers in contending with, and Preaching and Writing against each other, which should be employed in an unanimous opposition to the Kingdom of Satan in the world, And when all their united wisdom and strength is too little against the com­mon Ignorance and Prophaneness of the world, their division will disable them, and give sin and Satan opportunity to prevail.

7. It may engage them on both sides in the dreadful fin of persecuting each other, one par­ty by the Hand, and the other by the Tongue, (even while they cry out of persecution:) And on both sides to hinder the Gospel and mens salvation, on one side by hindering the Preachers from their work, and on the other side (yea on both) by hindring the success. For what can be more done to make men despise the word, than to teach them to despise or abhor the Preacher? And what more can be done to de­stroy mens souls, than to harden them against the Word? Is there any s [...]b [...]r man on either ex­tream, that dare say, I would have none of the people saved, that are not, or will not be the hearers of our party? If you dare not say, that you would have all the rest to be dam [...]ed, dare you say, you would not have them be taught by others? Or that you would not have them pro­fit [Page 46] by the Word they hear? If not, how dare you tempt them to vilifie and despise their Teachers? If they will not learn of you, be glad if they will learn of any other, and do not hin­der them.

8. By these means they will cherish an hypo­critical sort of Religiousness in the people, which is more employed in Sidings, Opinions and Cen­surings of others, than in humble self-judging and in a holy heavenly mind and life. A man need not the Spirit of God, and supernatural Grace, nor much Self-denyal, nor Mortification of the flesh, to make him choose a certain fashion of external Worship, and think that now he and those that are of that fashion, are the only peo­ple, and to reproach all of other fashions, as ungodly, and to think that he is therefore a bet­ter Christian than the other, because his fashion of outward Worship seemeth the better to him. Not that any thing in Gods Worship should be denyed its due regard; But its pity that by an unproportionable estimation of mens several outward fashions, words and gestures, poor souls should be tempted to deceive themselves, and to forget that he is the best Christian that hath most Faith, Humility, Love and Heavenliness, which is the true Holiness, and Beauty of the soul.

9. When men think a Lawful Communion (yea, a duty) to be unlawful; it will both keep them in the sin of omitting it, and cause them to add their sinful Censures of all those that use that Communion which they avoid. They do not only think that they are holier, because they [Page 47] hear not, and pray not, and communicate not in the Parish Churches, but they look down with a supercilious pity upon those that do? And how many parties have I thus been pitied by? As I go along the Streets, the Quakers say, Poor man, thou art in darkness. The Papists pity me, for not being one of them: The Anabaptists pity me, for not being one of them: The Separa­tists pity or disdain me, because I forbear not the Worship that they forbear: And this Excepter lamenteth my condition as passionately as any. It is not for [Not Worshipping with them] that they censure me (for I am ready to do it,) but for Worshipping with others, in Words which they like not. And whereas holiness was wont to be expressed most by Worship actions, now it must be characterized more by Negatives, even in external adjuncts. And if he be the best man that avoideth most the Communion of others which he taketh to be bad, I have, and have had, neighbours better than you all, that never communicate with any Church, nor ever publickly hear, or pray, or Worship God at all, because they think all your wayes of Worship to be bad.

I remember Rivet marketh out Grotius by this, that while he forsook the Protestant Churches, and called us to unite with the Church of Rome (that is, with the Pope ruling not arbitrarily, but by the Laws of a General Council, not excluding that of Trent) he did actually communicate with none at all.

10. When mens judgements are thus mistaken about Church Communion, their Worship of [Page 48] God will be corrupted: They will in their hearts earnestly desiee that all others may be of their mind, and they will complain to God of that as a sin, which is mens duty: Especially among those of their own mind. And this of­fering up of their mistakes to God, in earnest­ness, as an acceptable service, is a sad polluting of holy things. So he that is famed to have written this Antidote, is said to have made my Book which was written for Christian Love, to be the matter of his publick Humiliation. And another of my friends, in dayes of prayer, maketh it his lamentation, [Lord, here are those that are one day here, and another day at Common-prayer:] As if the exercise of Knowledge and Love, in im­partial Communion with all Christs Churches (not forcing us to sin) were a sin to be lament­ed. But I need not go further for instance, than this Antidote, where the Reverend Author taketh it for a service of God, to write against those necessary Precepts of Love and Unity, which he mistakingly opposeth. And so did Mr. Iohnson and Mr. Canne, who most confidently presented their Writings for separation, to God, as a ser­vice which he had commanded them, and would own.

11. This narrow judgement tempteth men on one side, to Anathematize all that say, There are any other true Churches in England, save of one form and fashion; and it tempteth others to deny the Parish Churches, to be at all true Chur­ches, and so to narrow the possessions of Christ. And hereupon it tempteth them to endeavour to disgrace and dissolve each other. It draweth [Page 49] many to think, that it is the Interest of Religion now in England, to have the Parish Churches to be brought low in reputation and deserted, and Gods publick Worship, which they would have all Religious people use, to be only that of tole­rated or more private Churches. By which they little know what they wi [...] against the interest of the Christian and Pro [...]nt Religion in this Land? Nor what hurt they would do, if in this they had their wills.

12. These dividing Principles and Spirits which I oppose, will on one side give shelter to all the prophane malignant minds, that itch to be afflicting others, that fear God more than they: And on the other side, it will give shelter to all kind of Heresies and Sects; of which expe­rience is too full a proof.

13. Yea, before our eyes, the most pernicious Heresies, even those of Quakers, are still not on­ly continued, but increase. And we see men that to day condemn Communion with the Pa­rish Churches, and then with the Presbyterians; do shortly fly from Communion with the Inde­pendents too. And mens passions in sufferings pervert their judgements; And frequently men are overcome by tryal, when they think they are most constant and have overcome. Its commonly known how many of late are turned Quakers; And what considerable persons lately in prison, fell to that unhappy Heresie. Yet they that by a Prison lost their Religion, no doubt thought themselves more honourable by their sufferings, than those that go to Common­prayer. And shall we stand by and see this [Page 50] work go on, and neither lament their sin, that drive men to this, nor warn them of the Passions and Principles that lead to it.

14. Separation will ruine the separated Churches themselves at last, (By separation I mean the same thing that the old Non-conformists wrote against by that name) It will admit of no consistency. Parties will arise in the separa­ted Churches, and separate again from them, till they are dissolved. I beseech my deer brethren that are otherwise minded to open their eyes so far as to regard experience. Brethren, what now Comparatively are all the separated Churches or parties upon Earth? Would you have all Christs Churches, and all the interest of the Christian Religion to be as short lived, and to stand upon no more certain terms than they do? How few separated Churches do now exist, that were in being an hundred years ago? Can you name any? And would you have had all the Churches of Christ on Earth, to be dissolved, when they were dissolved? Or do you think that all were dissolved with them? This would make us all seekers indeed.

15. Separating and narrow principles be­friend not Godliness, as they pretend to do, but lamentably undermine it? If it were but by dri­ving off and disaffecting the lower sort of Chri­stians, whose Communion you reject. The Case of three or four Churches in New-England grieve my heart: But the Case of the Summer Islands as related to me by Mr. Vaughan, a worthy Mini­ster lately discouraged and come from thence, would make a Christian heart to bleed; To [Page 51] hear how strict and regular and hopeful that plantation once was? And how one Godly Mini­nister by separation, selecting a few to be his Church, and rejecting all the rest from the sa­crament, the rejected party are grown to doleful estrangedness from Religion, and the selected party much turned Quakers, and between both, how wofull are the fruits. But the Case of England, Scotland, and Ireland (which I foretold in my book of Infant Baptisme) is yet a more lamen­table proof, what separation hath done against Religion, so full a proof, that it is my wonder that any good man can overlook it.

16. Yea it tendeth to make Religiousness contemptible, and the professors of it, a common scorn, when we are perceived to place it in un­warrantable separations, and singularities, and when we make men think that the greatest difference between those that they call Precise, or Religi­ous, and others, is but this, that one of them prayeth without book, and the other by the book; that one of them will not joyn with those that use the Liturgie, and the other will. If we let men see that in indifferent things we are indif­ferent, and that lesser evils we avoid as lesser, and greater evils, as greater, and that the great difference between us and the ungodly, is in our seriousness in our Christian profession, and in our heavenlyness, and true obedience to Christ, it would much convince them of their misery, and honour Religion in the world: But when they perceive that the greatest contention which our houses and our streets do ring of, is whether we shall hear a man that conformeth or not? Or whether we shall [Page 52] pray with them that use the Liturgie? Or whether we may sometimes Communicate with a Parish Church or not? This turneth the thoughts of the careless and carnal, the worldling and the sensualist, from the necessary condemning of himself for his ungodliness, and sets him on thinking, that these stricter people do differ from him in things of no importance, and that they are but an erroneous self conceited sort of persons, and that he is much the wiser man. Thousands in England are hardened into a neg­lect of Godliness, to our suffering and the ap­parent danger of their own damnation, by occasion of the unwarrantable singularities, and the scandalous sins, especially of those pro­fessors, that have been most addicted to sinful separations.

17. I am not causelesly afraid lest, if we suffer the principles and practices which I write against, to proceed without our contradiction, Popery will get by it, so great advantage, as may hazzard us all, and we may lose that which the several parties do contend about. Three waies especial­ly Popery will grow out of our divisions. 1. By the odium and scorn of our disagreements, in­consistency, and multiplied sects; they will per­swade people that we must either come for Uni­ty to them, or else all run mad, and crumble in­to dust and individuals. Thousands have been drawn to Popery or confirmed in it by this ar­gument already: And I am perswaded that all the arguments else in Bellarmine and all other books that ever were written, have not done so much to make Papists in England, as the multi­tude [Page 53] of sects among our selves. Yea some Pro­fessors of Religious strictness, of great esteem for Godliness, have turned Papists themselves, when they were giddy and wearied with turnings; and when they had run from sect to sect, and found no consistency in any. For when they see so many, they say, How can I tell that this or that is in the right, rather than the other? This it is that they ring continually in our ears. Which of all these sects is in the right? And what assurance have they of it more than all the rest that are as confident? And how small a Church doth any one sect make? And [...]f h [...]w late original (for the most.) But the poor deluded souls consider not, that in going to the Papists, they go but to another sect that is worse than any of the rest; And though greater, yet not past the third part of the Christians in the world: And that Christianity is but one: And that the way to rest, is to unite upon the common terms of sim­ple Christianity.

2. And who knoweth not how fair a game the Papists have to play by the means of our di­visions? Methinks I hear them hissing on each party, and saying to one side, Lay more upon them, and and abate them nothing? and to the other, stand it out and yield to nothing? And who is so blind then as not to see their double game and hopes. viz. that either our divisions and alienations, will carry men to such distan­ces and practices, as shall make us accounted se­ditious, rebellious, and dangerous to the publick peace, and so they may pass for better subjects than we; or else that when so many parties under suffer­ings [Page 54] are constrained to beg and wait for liberty, the Papists may not be shut out alone, but have Toleration with the rest. And shall they use our hands to do their works, and pull their freedom out of the fire? We have already unspeakably served them, both in this, and in abating the odi­um of the Gun powder plot, and their other Treasons, Insurrections, and Spanish invasion (of which read Thuanus himself that openeth all the mystery.)

3. And it is not the least of our danger (nor which doth least affect me) lest by our follies, extremities and rigors, we should so exasperate the Common people, as to make them readier to joyn with the Papists, than with us, in Case of any competitions, or their invasions, or insur­rections against the King, and Kingdoms peace. Sure I am that the Parliaments and peoples reso­lutions against them, after the late fire, and in the time of the last war, when they were so much feared, did discourage and depress them more, than all the rest of their opposers. And though we cannot rationally believe that the people of England, much less wise and sober Go­vernors, will ever be such enemies to themselves, as to subject themselves to the Romish Tyranny, and to forget what Ireland and England have seen and felt, yet because it is not only oppression that maketh wise men mad, let us do nothing by unlawful alienations and singularities, or fierce and disobedint oppositions, which tend to make the people like better of the Papists than of us.

18. I am not able to bear the thoughts of se­parating [Page 55] from almost all Christs Churches up­on Earth. But he that separateth from one or many upon a reason common to almost all, doth virtually separate from almost all. And he that separateth from all among us upon the account of the unlawfulness of our Liturgie, and the bad­ness of all our Ministry, doth separate from them upon a reason common to almost all, or the far greatest part, as I conceive.

19. Though Ministerial Conformity be to us, another thing (by reason of the new impositi­ons,) than it was to our predecessors yet to the people conformite is the same, if not easier (es­pecially to them that I now speak to:) For it is the Liturgie, Ceremonies and Ministry, that most alienate them (as I said before, and not so much the subscription against the obligation of the Covenant.) And the Liturgie is a little amended as to them, by the change of the Tran­slation, and some little words, and by some [...]on­ger prayers. And the Ceremonies are the same; and thirty years ago there was many bare Rea­ding not Preaching Ministers, for one that there is now: Therefore our case of separation being the same with what it was of old, I take it to be fully confuted by the antient Non-conformists. And I have so great a veneration for the wor­thy names (much more an estimation of the Reasonings) of Mr. Cartwright, Egerton, Hilder­sham, Dod, Amesius, Parker, Baines, Brightman, Ball, Bradshaw, Paget, Langley, Nichols, Hering, and many other such, that I shall not think they knew not why they chose this subject, and wrote more against separation than the Confor­mists [Page 56] did. Nor do I think that the reasons of Mr. Iohnson and Mr. Canne, can stand before them. And it pittieth me to hear now many that differ from them say, we are grown wiser and have more light than they! when as our wri­tings upon the same subjects shew that we are far in that below them? And in other parts of knowledge, al [...]s, what are we to Reignolds, Ames, Parker and several of the rest? But the world knoweth, that the turn of the times put most of us into the sudden possession of our opi­nions, without one half of the study (it may be with most, not the hundredth part) which Cartwright, Ames, Parker, &c. bestowed upon these points. And I never yet saw cause to be­lieve that our present Dividers, do learn more in a days study, than those learned holy men did in twenty. Nor do they shew more wisdom, or holiness in the main. I am very glad that the Pious Lectures of Mr. Hildersham, Mr. R. Rogers and such other old Non-conformists, are in so good esteem among good people, where they will read them urging the people not only against separation, but to come to the very be­ginning of the publick worship, and preferring it before their private duties.

As for them that say, If Dod, Ames, Hilder­sham, &c. had lived till now, they would have been of our mind. I desire them to prove it, or not affirm it? Is not the Liturgie, Ceremo­nies, and Ministery the same? And what signs of such mutability did they shew? Could your Rea­sons have conquered them, more than Mr. Ainsworths, Iohnsons, or Cannes? They were [Page 57] not so Light, to be changed causelesly.

And I pray you mark, that if you are wiser in this point of separation than all these old Non-conformists were, than Iohnson, and Canne, and Howe, were wiser also in that than they, which doth not appear to us by their writings: And then, for all the greater Light, that you think you have, yet Iohnson, Canne, and Howe, had as great Light, and were in this as wise as you, though Ames, and the rest of the Non­conformists were not. O that our brethren would but seriously read over the writings of these men, especially Iacob, Paget, Ball, and Bradshaw, and Gifford against the separatists, and try whether the case was not the same.

20. Yea I must confess, that when I think what Learned, Holy, Incomparable men, abun­dance of the old Cenformits were, my heart ri­seth against the thoughts of separating from them! If I had come to their Churches, when they used the Common-prayer, and administred the Sacrament, could I have departed and said, It is not lawful for any Christian here to Communicate with you? What! to such men as Mr. Bolton, Mr. Whateley, Mr. Fenner, Mr. Dent, Mr. Crook, Mr. Dike, Mr. Stocke, Mr. Smith, Dr. Preston, Dr. Si [...]bes, Dr. Stoughton, Dr. Taylor, and abundance other such? yea such as Bishop Iewel, Bishop Grindal, Bishop Hall, Bishop Potter, Bishop Davenant, Bishop Carl [...]t [...]n, &c. Dr. Field, Dr. Smith, Dr Iohn White, Dr. Willet, &c. yea and the Martyrs too, as Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper himself, Farrar, Brad­ford, Philpot, Sanders, &c. To say nothing of [Page 58] Luther, Melanebthon, Bucer; and the rest of the forreign worthies. Could I separate from all these on the reasons now in question? Yea Calvin himself and the Churches of his way, were all separated from by the separatists of their times.

21. At least I cannot easily condemn the anci­ent Independents, who were against separation as well as the Presbyterians. Mr. Henry Iacob is accounted the Father of the▪ English Indepen­dents; And he hath wrote a book against Mr. Iohnson the separatist, or th [...]s Title, [A Defence of the Churches and Ministery of England, written in two Treatises against the Reasons and Objecti­ons of Mr. Francis Johnson, and [...]thers of the se­paration, Commonly called Brow [...]s.] And in the end he hath [A short Treatise concerning the tru­ness of a Pastoral Calling in Pastors made by Pre­lates.] And I intreat the Reader to note that Mr. Iohnson there chargeth the Church of Eng­land and their worship, with no fewer than 91. Antichristian abominations. And I would ask any of the dividers, whether they have more than 91. Antichristian abominations to charge up­on it now. I am content that those I write to now, will cast by my book, if they will but read Mr. Iacobs.

And Dr. Ames was half an Independent, and yet against separation. I need not mention the great moderation of New-England, where their late healing endeavors greatly tend to increase our hopes of reconciliation? (O that the rest of the Churches were as wise and happy!) Whose experience hath possessed them with a deep dislike of the spirit of separation and division.

[Page 59]Yea (if any thing may be believed which I have not seen) Mr. Ph. Nie himself hath wri­ten to prove the Lawfulness of hearing the Preach­ers in the Parish assemblies. And yet it is as con­fidently confuted by another of the Brethren, as my book is by this Excepter. And he that pro­veth it Lawful to joyn with them that profess themselves a Church, in their ordinary Doctrine, and pulpit prayers, and Psalms of praise, I think can never prove it unlawful at all times, to joyn with them in the use of the Liturgie, or in the Sacrament (supposing the scruple of Kneeling re­moved) For the most of the Liturgie is the rea­ding of the Scripture it self, and the rest is sound matter, though in an imperfect mode and fashion of words.

22. Is sects and heresies increase among us, the blame of all will be laid upon the Non-con­formists. And so it now is: They commonly say, It is you that open the door to them all: And how injuriously soever this be said, it be­cometh our duty, not only to see that it be not true, but also to do our part against them. And this was one great reason why the old Non­conformists wrote and preached so much more th [...] the Bishops against separation; because all this spurious offspring was fathered on them, and still laid at their doors: And withal because they found how hard it is, to stop men that begin to find real faults with other men, from fancy­ing abundance more that are not real; and to keep men from running into extreams: And ex­perience told them, that their own party was in danger of running from them, and it was not [Page 60] easie to keep them stable in the sober [...] of the truth. Especially the Independents o [...] this account, are obliged to be the greatest dis­swaders of separation, because all sects are fathered on them, and too many of their congregations in England, and New-England, have been lamen­tably corrupted, or subverted and dissolved by them.

23. There is [...] man that is acquainted with Church history but knoweth, that as Christ was Crucified between two thieves, so his Church hath been [...] and troubled, between the prophane malignant persecutors, and the heretical and se­ctarian dividers; even from the dayes of the Apostles until this age. Insomuch that Paul himself, and Peter, and Iude, and Iohn were put to [...] as largely against the Dividers al­most as the persecutors. Iraenaeus, Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, besides the rest, do sadly tell us in their Catalogues and Controversies, how lamentably these Dividers then hindered the Go­spel, and distressed and dishonoured the Church. And the sad stories of H [...]lland, Munster and others in Germany, Poland, and especially these twenty years past in England, do bring all closer to our sense. And are not the Watch-men of Christ still bound to tell the Church of their danger on the one side, as well as the other? Yea in some re­spects to say more on this side, than on that, because Religious people are easier and ofter turn­ed to be Dividers, than to be Persecutors or Pro­phane.

24. All these dangers lying before us, and the Non-conformable Ministers being under great re­proaches, [Page 61] and lamentable hinderances from their sacred work, and called by God to fidelity as in a day of tryal, what guilt would be upon us, what shame would be our due, if we should all be silent whilest we see the principles of Divi­sion continually increase? The [...] principles which the old Non-conformists confuted, great­ly propagate themselves, through the smart which alienateth the peoples minds. And Rea­son doth so hardly prevail against Feeling, that all that we can say will prove too little. This is the true cause why they cry out now, [Oh the case is changed! It is not with us as it was in the old Non-conformists daies;] Because they did but hear of what was in those daies, but they see and feel what is done in ours. Therefore we had so easie a work comparatively to perswade men that the old separatists were mistaken, but can hardly now perswade them that the same principles are a mistake; because now they smart, and Passion is not easily held in by reason. I can make shift to hold in a mettlesome horse, while he is not provoked; But if a Bishop will come behind me, and la [...]h him, or prick him, and then blame the rider if he run away with me, I cannot help it. But sure if we must needs have to do with such men, it concerneth us to hold the reines the harder. And if after such grievous judgements, as plagues, flames, pover­ty, reproach, and silencings, and sad confusions, which God hath tryed us with in these times, his Ministers should through passion, policie or sloth, sit still and let Professors run into sinful principles and extreams, it will be our Aggrava­ted sin.

[Page 62]25. And one reason why I set upon this work was, because I saw few others do it. If it must be done, and others will not, then I must take it for my duty.

26. And another reason was, because I knew but few that I was willing to thrust upon it, so for­wardly as my self, for fear of being the author of their sufferings. Many may be abler, that are not in other respects so fit. Some Ministers are young men. and like to live longer to serve God in his Church; and their Reputation is needful to their success: If they be vilified, it may hin­der their labours. And experience telleth us, that the dividing spirit is very powerful and victorious in censorious vilifying of dissenters. But I am almost miles Emeritus at the end of my work, and can reasonably expect to do but little more in the world; and therefore have not their impediment: And for popular applause, I have tryed its vanity: I have had so much of it, till I am brought to a contempt if not a loathing of it. And whereas some brethren, say, that Censures will hinder the success of my Writings, I answer, No man shall do his duty without some difficul­ties and impediments. If my writings will not do good by the evidence of truth in them, and if the censures of Dividers are able to frustrate them, let them fall and fail. And some of my brethren have great Congregations to teach, which are so inclined to this dividing way, that they cannot bear their information. But when I preached in my house to the most, I knew scarce any of the Parish that came not to the Parish Church, but such as lived in my own [Page 63] house. Also many Ministers being turned out of all their maintenance, have families and nothing to maintain them, but what the Charity of Re­ligious people giveth them. (Little do some know what the families of many godly Ministers suffer!) And some Independents are maintained by their gathered Churches, and if they cast them off, both reputation, work and maintenance would fail (For those that silence them will nei­ther honor them, nor maintain them). And though I suppose that these brethren would serve God in the greatest contempt and poverty, and self-denial, if they perceive that God doth call them to it, yet I think it a duty of Charity in me, to go before them, and do the more displea­sing work, to prevent the sufferings of such, or at least, not to thrust them on so hard a service. For I have no Church that maintaineth me, nor any people whose estimation I am afraid to lose, that are dividingly inclined, nor (through Gods mercy) have any need of maintenance from others, and therefore may do my duty at chea­per rates than they.

27. And I will add one reason more of the pub­lishing, though not of the writing of my book. When it had been long cast by, [...] [...]ound in the Debater, and Ecclesiastical Polititian that the Non­conformists are made ridiculous and [...]dious, as men of erroneous, uncharitable, and ungover­nable principles and spirits (Though we sub­scribe to all the Doctrine of the Church of England) And I thought that the publication of this book, should leave a testimony to the gene­rations to come, by which they might know [Page 64] whether we were truly accused, and whether our principles were not as much for Love and Peace as theirs, and as consistent with order and go­vernment.

Is not the Non-conformists doctrine the same with that of the Church of England, when they subcribe to it, or offer so to do? Did not his Ma­jesty in his Declaration about Ecclesiastical affairs, complain of them (Dr. Burges I suppose) who pretended a difference between us in doctrine? If they say that the Non-conformists are to be de­nominated from the Major part, I answer, we provoke the willingest of their adversaries to prove, that either the Major part, or any thing near it, is of more erroneous doctrinal principles than themselves? The Independents as well as the Presbyterians offer to subscribe to the doctrine of the 39. Articles, as distinct from Pre­lacy and Ceremony. And I must witness that when I was in the Country, I knew not of one Minister of ten that are now silenced, that was not in the main (as far as I could discern) of the same principles with my self. And though any Reproacher will blindly injure the Non-con­formists, who shall judge of them throughout England and Scotland by the many parties in Lon­don, where a great number of differing opinions alwaies inhabited; Yet I may add that even in London, the burning of the Churches, and the notorious necessity of many thousand souls, and the Acts which punish them by six moneths im­prisonment, if they come within five miles of a Corporation, (and therefore make them think it necessary to keep out of the Parish Churches, [Page 65] where they may presently be both accused and ap­prehended) doth make the Practice of many very humble, godly, peaceable, and moderate men (by Preaching at the time of publick wor­ship, when their hearers cannot well come at another time) to be such as causeth men to mis­stake their principles.

But Satan maligning the just vindication of the Non-conformists against these accusations, hath by false suggestions stirred up some, who differ from the rest as well as we, to clamour against this Book, which was published for the clear­ing of the innocent: And now they have dis­claimed it, they have renounced their own part in those peaceable Principles which they disown, and in this Vindication; But I must desire the next Accuser, to charge this Renunciation upon none but those that he can prove to be guilty of it, and not on the Non-conformists. And the ra­ther because (by a self confutation) they have shewed themselves, that the old Non-conformists were more sober and peaceable; And I can as­sure them, that the most of the Non-conformists Ministers of my acquaintance, are not a jot more rigorous or farther from them, than the old Non­conformists were. And that those that treated with the Bishops in 1660. did yield to such an Episcopacy, as the old Non-conformists would scarcely have generally consented to (viz. Bishop Ushers model in his Reduction.)

If the Accusers of the Non-conformists shall say, [By the censure of your Book and Person you see what Non-conformists are, that will joyn in re­ceiving [Page 66] and venting false reports, even of their bre­thren, before they saw or heard one line of the book,] I Answer to such: 1. Call not that the act of the Non-conformists, which some of one party of them are drawn to by misinformation. 2. There were so great persons and so many of the Conformists concurred in the report, that you may well be silent as to Parties, and say that Iliacos intra muros, &c. We are all to blame. 3. It cannot be denyed, that among all parties in England, there are so many that take up false reports, and think it no sin if they did but hear it from credible persons, and hereby are Sa­tans instruments to vend false defamations, that it is become the shame and crime of the land; and many strict Professors (excepting the graver and soberer sort) are too commonly guilty of it, though not so much as others. I will not deny but humane converse requireth some credulity: But if men medled not with other mens matters without a call, and withall did Love their neigh­bours as themselves, and were as tender Consci­enced as they ought to be, and knew how little before God it will excuse a Lie or Slander to say, [I heard it of such an honest man, or I said but what I heard of many,] it would prevent a great deal of sin.

And that it may appear I am impartial, and defend not those faults in the Religious sort, which they must repent of, I will intreat you to note from this one instance, these following obvi­ous observations.

1. Note by this instance what an inequality [Page 67] there may be in the [...]nd [...]ness of mens Consciences towards meer words and formes of worship, and towards the sins which nature it self condemneth, if they study not well the wiles of Satan; when the City and Country shall have the same men that are tender Conscienced (which I commend) about a Ceremony or the fashion of their prayers, without any scruple or remorse thus receive and publish a slander or falshood, (that I wrote against private meetings, and for Conformity, and that I Conformed) and this before they had ever seen or spoken with one man living that had seen one line of the book, or could report it to them with the least pretense of knowledge. Yea and all this against one that had given an opener testi­mony against Conformity, than any one man of all them that thus slandered him, as far as ever I was able to know.

2. Note here what I have told you in the book, the great difference between a formal di­viding zeal for opinions, and a Christian zeal of Love and Heavenliness and good workes. If you would kindle this latter in your own or others hearts, alas, what holy labour doth it require? How many lively Sermons are all too little to kindle the least flame of Lo­ving, heavenly fruitful zeal! How many meditations and prayers are used before any holy flame appeareth? But a zeal for our Party and our opinions, and our several formes and fashions of speaking to God, will kindle and flame like the fire that consumed London. A sparke from one discontented persons mouth will suddenly take, [Page 68] and engage multitudes in City and Country in the affectionate spreading of untruths; and who can quench it till it go out of it self for want of fewel?

3. Note also the great Partiality of multi­tudes of Religious people, and how easily we can aggravate the faults of others, and how hardly we can either aggravate or see our own! The defects of the Liturgie, and the faults of those by whom we suffer, are ea­sily heightned, even beyond desert. But when many of us vend untruths, and slan­ders against our brethren about the land, who aggravateth this or repenteth of it?

4. But above all I intreate the Dividing Brethren, if they can so long lay by their partiality, to judge by this of the Reasons of their Separation from those Churches (Pri­vate or Parochial) that they differ from, in tolerable things. You think it a sin to Communicate in a Church where the Litur­gie is used, and Discipline is not so strict­ly exercised against some offenders, as you and I desire. But such publicke multiplyed untruths in mens mouths, doth never make you scruple their Communion. I intreat you do but study an answer to one that would se­parate from you all, upon such grounds as these. First for the sin, consider of these texts, Exod. 23. 1, 2. Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thy hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou [Page 69] speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest it. Psalm 15. 3. He that backhiteth not with his tongue, nor doth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour. Rom. 1. 30. Backbiters, [...]aters of God, 2 Cor. 12. 20. Lest there be debate, strifes, backbi­bitings, whisperings, &c. Prov. 25. 23. An angry counterance driveth away a backbiting tongue: Tit. 3. 1, 2. Put them in mind to be ready to every good work; to speak evil of no man. 1 Pet. 2. 1. Laying aside evil speak­ings—1 Tim. 6. 4. Whereof cometh evil surmisings, Eph. 4. 31. Let evil speakings be put away from you. Jud. 10. These speak evil of those things which they know not. Jam. 4. 11. Speak not evil one of another; He that speak­eth evil of another and judgeth another, speak­evil of the Law, and judgeth the Law.

Have you more and plainer texts of Scri­pture agninst the Common Prayer than all these are? Now suppose one should say that a peo­ple of such sin as this should not be Com­municated with, especially where there is no discipline exercised that ever so much as cal­leth one man of them to repentance for it: what answer will you give to this, which will not confute your own objections, against Communion with many Parish Churches in this Land.

5. Lastly hence note, how still overdoing is undoing. By the Principles of Love and Peace conteined in the book which some reproach, had they not disowned them, they might [Page 70] have had their part in this just Vindication, against them that accuse the Non-conformists Principles of Enmity to Love and Peace: But they would have no part in it, and have cast away their own vindication, and so have confirmed their accusers, and tempted them to believe that some Non-conformists are indeed such as they described:

But I must again intreat them to distin­guish: Many sects go under the name of Non­conformists, from whom we differ incompara­bly more than we do from the Conformists; as the Quakers, Seekers B [...]hmenists, and some others. We are none of those men that, be­cause we all suffer together under the Pre­lacy, do therefore more close with these, than with the Conformists, with whom in doctrine and the substance of worship, we agree.

But because it is their own resolved choice, to disown the Principles and Vindication of that book, I shall only say,

  • I. To our Accusers [It is not these Divi­ders which we Vindicate, that will not stand to our Vindication].
  • II. To posterity (whose historical Informa­tion of the truth of matters in this age I much desire,) [If you would know what sort of men they are, that these times call sectaries and Di­viders or separatists, I will give you but their own Character of themselves, that you may be [Page 71] sure I wrong them not: Peruse the book called, The Cure of Church-Divisions; for they are per­sons so contrary to that book, as that they take it to be an evil and mischievous thing, and great­ly to be lamented and detested: in so much that some of them say, It had been well if the Author had dyed ten years ago, and others, that this book hath done more harm than ever he did good in all his life. So intolerable is it to them, to have their Love-killing and dividing principles so much as thus contradicted, while they cry out against the Imposing spirit of others. The measure of their distaste against these Principles of Love and Unity, I leave you to gather out of the exce­ptions which I am now to answer.

CAP. 2. The true state as the Controversie, between me, and those whom I call Church-Di­viders.

BEcause the Excepter carrieth it all along, as if he understood not what I say, or would not have his Reader understand it, I must state the Case as it standeth between us, for the sake of them that love not to be deceived, nor to be angry at they know not what.

Know therefore that the design of the Writer of that Book was, to restore Love and Unity among Christians, which he saw decaying and almost dying through the temptation of our sufferings from some, and our differences with others, and through the sidings of parties, and through the passions which conquer some mens judgements, and the hy [...]e of others, who place their Religion in their sidings, and in the forms or fashions of the words of their prayers, or the circumstances of outward Worship: And to acquaint Christians with the wiles of Satan, who would kill their Grace, by killing their Love, whilst they think they do but preserve their Purity. And to open to them the secret windings of the Serpent, and the workings of [Page 73] Pride, and Wrath, and Selfishness, against the works of Love and Peace: And to shew them the great deceitfulness of mans heart, which often fighteth against God as for God, by fight­ing against Love and Unity; and which oft loseth all, by seeming to overcome, and forsaketh Religion by seeming valiant for it;) And I especially intreat the Reader to note, that I said much more about Principles, than Practices; Because I know that as to Communion with this or that Church, m [...]ns practices may vary upon accidental and prudential accounts, of which I pretend not to be a Judge: And therefore I first speak against Love killing Prin­ciples, and then against such Practices only, as either proceed from such Principles, or increase them. If I see a man stay from Church, as I know not his reasons, so I judge him not; unless as he doth it upon sinful causes, and espe­cially if he would propagate those Causes to others, and justifie them to be of God, when they are against him.

And whereas Hatred and Enmity worketh by driving men from each others Societies, as wick­ed or intolerable, and Love worketh by inclining men to Union and Communion; and again, mens distance increaseth the Enmity which caused it; and their nearness and familiarity increaseth Love, and reconcileth them; I did therefore think it a matter of great necessity to our wel­fare, to counsel men to all lawful nearness and Communion, and to disswade them from all un­necessary alienation and separation from each other▪

[Page 74]Let the Reader also understand, that in this, my purpose was not to condemn mens separati­on from the Parish Churches only, nor more than any other sinful separation: But from any true Church of Christians whatsoever; when uncha­ritable Principles drive them away, Whether it be from Presbyterians, Independents, Anabap­tists, Arminians, Lutherans, &c. Only because that those I deal most with, make most excepti­ons against Communion with the Parish Churches, I bestowed most words in answering such ex­ceptions.

Therefore observe 1. That it is none of our Question, [Whether you should Communicate with the Parish Churches alone, and no other?

2. Nor [Whether you should Communicate with every Parish Church, or any one whose Pastors are through insufficiency, heresie or impiety intolerable? which I have written against Dir. 36. p. 202, &c.

3. Nor [Whether we may hold local Commu­nion in Worship with a Church which denyeth us such Communion, unless we will sin: This I have oft enough denyed, p. 203, &c.

4. Nor [Whether caeteris paribus local Com­munion with a purer and better Church, be not or­dinarily to be preferred before local Communion with a worse? (which I assert, p. 203, &c.)

5. Nor [Whether a man be a Separatist from another Church, meerly because he is not locally present with it? (For then when I am in one Church, I separate from all other in the world?)

6. Nor [Whether it be lawful to remove ones [Page 75] dwelling, for Communion with a better Minister and Church, supposing that we are free? p. 204.

7. Nor [Whether it be lawful to remove to a better Church, without removing ones dwelling, in a place where another Church is near, to which we may go without any publick injury, or hurt to our selves or others, which is greater than the benefit, pag. 204.

8. Nor [Whether we may remove both from Church and Countrey, by the occasions of our Cal­lings or Trades, or other outward weighty reasons? pag. 298.

9. Nor [Whether we may keep in Communion privately with our lawful Pastors, if they be turned out of the publick Temples?] Which I have as­serted, pag. 299. and have said, that where the Pastor is, there the Church is, in whatever place they do assemble, p. 250. (which Dr. Hide also thought, when he began his Book with an as­sertion of the necessity of separating then from the publick places. And so did other Prelatists then, and so think the Papists now, and most other parties.)

10. Nor is it any of our Question, [Whether you should have Communion with a Diocesan Church, as such; (It is a Parochial Church with such others that I spake of, and never a word of a Diocesan Church.)

11. Therefore it is none of the Question [Whe­ther you must own our Diocesan Bishops?]

12. Nor yet [Whether you must have Commu­nion with any thing called, A National Church, as a Political Society constituted of an Ecclesiastical [Page 76] Head and Body, and denominated from that form, [...]r Constitutive Head? Though we must own a National Church, as it is improperly so denomi­nated, from the King that is the Civil Head (accidental, and not Constitutive to the Spiritual Church.) And as it is a Community of Christi­ans, and a part of the Universal Church, united by the Concord of her Pastors; who in Synods may represent the whole Ministry, and be the means of their agreement.

13. Nor is it the Question, [Whether you must needs hold Communion with those individual Bi­shops, whom you account the Persecutors, and Cau­ses of our silence and confusions. I have told you in the Story of Martin, how he separated from the Synods of th [...]se individual Bishops, and from their local Communion, without separating from the Office, the Churches, or from any other Bishops. This is a matter that I did not meddle with, because it is not their Communion that you are called to, but the Parish Churches.

Indeed to save m [...]ns lives, he did yield to the Emperour once to communicate with them; But (saith Sulp. Severus [...]i [...]l. 3. p. Bib. Pa [...]. 254. Summa vi Episcopis nitentibus, ut communionem ill [...]m subscriptione firmaret, extorqueri non potuit. And the Angel that appeared to him said [Me­rito Martine compungeris; sed aliter exi [...]e ne­qui [...]ti: repara virtutem, resume Constantiam, n [...] jam non periculum gloriae sed salutis incu [...]reris. Ita; ab illo tempore satis cavit, cum illa I [...]ha [...]ianae par­tis Communione mis [...]ri. And after finding his power of Miracles abated, with tears he con­ [...]essed [Page 77] to Sulpit. That propter Communionis illius malum, cui se vel puncto temporis, necessitate, non Spiritu mis [...]isset, d [...]trimentum s [...]etire virtutis. S [...]d [...]im p [...]s [...]ea vixit annos, nullam Synodum adiit, ab omnibus Episc [...]porum Conve [...]ibus se rem [...] ­vit. But this was only from those Bishops who by provoking Magistrates against the Priscillian Gnosticks, had brought all strict Religious peo­ple under scorn. But he separated not from any others.

14. Nay, I made it none of our Question, [Whether you should Communicate, with any Pa­rish Minister, who concurreth with the [...] in the said matters whi [...]h y [...]u [...]cuse the Bishops of, a [...]y far­ther than by C [...]orming to the La [...]. For it is but few o [...] [...] Parish Ministers that were Conv [...]ca­tion Men, or that you can prove did ever con­sent to our silencing.

15. Nor is it any of the Question, [Whether those also be guilty of separation and divisions, wh [...] shall make unnecessary Engines of division, and [...]y upon the ne [...]ks of any Churches such unnecessary things as have a tendency to divide.] Who hath said more against this, than I have done?

16. Nor is it any of our Question, [Which of the two is the greater cause of divis [...]s, or which of the foresaid persons is m [...]t [...]?] Who hath spoken plainlier in this, than I? I [...] the Brother that excepteth would ma [...] you believe, that any one of these is the [...], i [...] you believe him, he doth but deceiive you.

But whom I mean by S [...]parati [...] ▪ I hav [...] pla [...] ­ly told you, pag. 249. 2 [...]0. &c.

[Page 78]☞ And that which I perswade men to, is this: 1. To love all Christians as themselves.

2. To hold nothing, and do nothing which is contrary to this Love, and would destroy it.

3. Therefore to deny no Christians to be Christi­ans, nor no Churches to be Churches, nor no law­ful Worship of any M [...]de or Party to be lawfull.

4. Not to sep [...]ate from any others upon any of these three false suppositions or accusations, (viz. 1. As no true Christians: 2. As no true Churches: 3. As having no true Worship, or as worshipping, so as it is not lawful to joyn with them.)

5. To choose the most edifying Ministry, and the soundest Church, and purest manner of worshipping God, that possibly you can have on lawful terms, as to your ordinary use and Communion, so far as you are free to choose.

6. To joyn with a defective faulty true Church, ordinarily, and in a manner of Worship which is defective, when you can have no better, on lawful terms, (as without the publick injury, or your own greater hinderance than help) And I prove, that this is the worst that you can charge (as to this matter of Communion) on those Pa­rish Churches in England, that have honest com­p [...]tent Pastors; and the same others charge on the Churches of Independents and Anabaptists. And that it is a duty to hold communion with any one of th [...]se constantly when you can have no better.

7. That if you can statedly have better; yet sometimes to Communicate with a defective Church, as a stranger may do, that is not int [...]ressed in their [Page 79] discipline, or is no stated member, is not only law­ful, but, for the ends sake, is a duty, when our never communicating with them is scandalous, and offensive to our Rulers, and tendeth to make people think that we hold that to be unlawful which we do not, and when our actual Communion is apt and needful to shew our judgement, and to cherish love and Christian Concord. On which account, as I would statedly communicate with the Greek Church, if I were among them, and had no bet­ter; and would sometimes communicate with them in, their Prayers and Sacraments, if I did but pass through the Countrey as a stranger, or if I could have better; even so would I do with a Parish Church, if as faulty as you can justly charge it (with the foresaid limitations) or with a Church of Anabaptists or Independents, (if they did not use their meetings to destroy either Piety or Love.)

This is my judgement; This is the summ of all that I plead for, as to Communion. If the Excepter deny not this, he talketh not at all to me.

If any that have passionately reviled my Book and me, do say, We thought you had gone fur­ther, and pleaded for more: I answer them, that we should not speak untruths, and revile things before we understand them, and then come off with [I thought you had said more.] It is this with other Love-killing distempers that I strive to Cure.

And again I tell you, that it is, 1. Ignorance: 2. Pride, or overvaluing our own understandings:

[Page 80]3. And Uncharitableness generated of these two, which is the Cause of our CRUELTIES and our unlawful SEPARATIONS, and which breed and feed our threatning Divisions, among the parties on both extreams. And its the death of these three that must be our Cure.

CAP. 3. Some Objections (or Questions) about Se­paration answered.

AS to that party who think Anabaptists and Independents unfit for their communion, I am not now dealing with them; and therefore am not to answer their Objections. Only on the by I shall here mind them; 1. That it is not such as the old German Anabaptists, who denyed Magistracy to Christians, &c. that I speak of; But such as only deny Infant Baptism: And that many of them, are truly Godly sober men; and therefore capable of communion. And that the ancient Churches left it to men▪ liberty at what time they would have their Children baptized.

2. That many Independents are downright against Separation; Mr. Iacob hath notably writ­ten against it. Therefore those that are but meer Independents, refuse not communion with the Parish Churches: And why should you refuse communion with them?

3. That many that separate, secundum quid, or [Page 81] pro tempore, from some part of Worship only and for a season, yet separate not simply from the Churches as no Churches, nor would do all as they do, in othe [...] circumstances. For instance, when they come not to the publick Assemblies, yet they will not refuse you, if you will come to theirs. Go to their meetings, and see if they so far separate, as to forbid you? Nor per­haps to their Sacraments, if you will submit to their way, as you expect they should do by yours. Now seeing we are all agreed, that the Magi­strate doth not make Ministers, Churches (or Sacraments,) but only encourage, protect and rule them, I desire you but to be so impartial as to consider that 1. You count not your selves Separatists, because you never go to one of their Meetings in their houses or other places; Why then should you call them Separatists, on­ly for not coming to yours? 2. But if they are guilty of Separation for holding either that your Churches and Ministry are Null, or that Com­munion with you is unlawful by Gods Law, enquire how far you also are Separatists, if you say the same without proof by any others, (Though their lawfulness by the Law of the Land, I justifie not, no nor the regularity of their Church Assemblies.)

4. And I would here note how partial most men are. They that think an Independent or Anabaptist, yea, or a Presbyterian intolerable at home in their several Churches, yet if they would but come to their communion, they would re­ceive them as tolerable members. And they that think it unlawful to hold communion with [Page 82] the Prelatists, and give the reason partly from their unfitness, yet would receive them (in many Churches) if they did but change their Opinions, and desire communion with them in their way.

But it is those that judge Parish communion (where there are godly Ministers) unlawful, that I am here to speak to. And their principal doubts are such as many good and sober persons need an answer to.

QUEST. I.

Quest. 1. DOth not the second Commandment, and Gods oft expressed jealousie in the matters of his Worship, make it a sin to com­municate in the [...]turgi [...]?

Answ 1. The meaning of the second Com­mandment (mistaken by many) is directly to forbid Corporal or Interpretative Idolatry, and wor­shipping God by Images, as if he were like [...] Creature: And scandalousl [...] symbolizing with the Idolaters▪ I desire the [...]ader to [...] the most judi [...]ious [...]o [...] ­rate Expositio [...] o [...] th [...] s [...] ­cond Commandment (a o [...] all the est) i [...] Mr. George Lawson's Th [...]opolitica. or Worshippers of false Gods▪ by doing that which in out­ward appearance is the Wor­shipping of a false God, though the mind be pretended to be kept free. Now the Worshipping of the true God in the words of the Liturgie, hath none of this; nor will any but a sinful C [...]nsurer think that it is the worshipping of a false God.

Nor is every use of the same places, words, or [Page 83] other things indifferent, a symbolizing with Ido­latry: But the saying those words, or the using those Acts or Ceremonies, by which their false Religion in specie is notified, as by a tessera, or badge to the world. Or using the Symbols of their Religion as differing from the true. Even as the use of Baptism, and the Lords Supper, the Creed, and the constant use of our Church-Wor­ship, are the Symbols of the Christian Religion. So their Sacraments, Incense, Sacrificings, and Worshipping Conventions, were the Symbols of Worshipping false Gods; which therefore Chri­stians may not use.

But they that say, that all false Worship of the true God is Idolatry, add to Gods word, and teach doctrines which are but the forgeries of their own brain. Though more than Idolatry be forbidden by Consequence in the second Com­mandment, that proveth it not to be Idolatry, be­cause its there so forbidden.

2. I have after distinguished of false Worship, and told you, that if by false, you mean forbid­den, or not commanded, or sinful, we all worship God falsly in the Manner every day, and in some part of the matter very oft. Our disorders, con­fusion, tautologies, unfit expressions, are all for­bidden, and so false worship: And if God pro­hibit any disorder which is in the Liturgie, he prohibits the same in extemporate prayers (in which some good Christians are as failing as the Liturgie) And as the words of the Liturgie are not commanded in the Scripture, so neither are the words of our extemporate or studied Ser­mons or Prayers.

[Page 84]3. God hateth every sin in every prayer; but he hateth the avoiding of prayer, and of due communion much more. He hateth every dis­order in extemporate prayer; And yet he more hateth that Censoriousness and Curiosity, which would draw men to forsake the substantials of Worship, or Christian Love and Communion on that pretence.

Gods Jealousie in his Worship is most about the heart, and next about the substantials of his own institutions, and of Natural Worship, and least about the phrase of Speech and order, while it is not such, as is grosly dishonoura­ble to the Nature of God, and to the greater things. And though God under the Law ex­pressed his jealousie much about Ceremonies, yet that was not for the Ceremonies sake, but to controll gross irreverence and contempt of holy things (as in the Case of Uzzah, the Beth­shemites, Uzziah, Aarons Sons) and to keep up an esteem of the Holiness of God, and to restrain sacrilegious presumption. And under the Gospel, it is neither this place of Worship, nor that, neither this Mountain, nor Ierusalem, but Spirit and Truth that God most looks at. It is not whether you pray by a Book, or with­out, by words fore-studied or not, by words of your own contriving, or of anothers, that God is now jealous of. For even when you want words, he accepteth the groans excited by his Spirit, Rom. 8. 26, 27.

If Christians should plead Gods jealousie about his Worship; as Censoriously against thelr own prayers, as they do against other [...] and [Page 85] Churches in this case, they would turn prayer into the fuel of despair and torment. For God is so jealous of his Worship, that he hateth all the sinful dulness, emptiness, wandrings, vain repetitions, confusions, unseemly expres­sions, of all your secret prayers, and all your family prayers. And yet I would advise you neither to think that God therefore hateth you, or the prayer it self, nor yet to fly from God and prayer, nor family Worship, where it is no better done, Gods jealousie, especially un­der the Gospel, is to be minded for to drive us from our sloth and carelesness, to do the best we can, but not to drive us from him, or from prayer, or from one another. These are Satans ends of minding men of Gods jealousie, as he doth troubled souls to drive them to despair.

And others may scruple joining with your weaknesses and faults in Worship on pretence of Gods jealousie, as well as you with theirs. What if twenty Ministers be one abler than another, in their several degrees (and the lowest of them doth weaklier than the Liturgick forms.) Doth it follow, that only the ablest of all these may be joyned with, because that all the rest do worse? It is granted that we must offer God the best, that we have or can do. But not the best which we cannot do? And many things must concurr (and especially a respect to the publick good) to know which is the best.

QUEST. II.

Quest. 2. DOth not the Covenant make it now unlawful, to hold Communion in the use of the Liturgie?

Answ. To hold Communion in the Liturgie Ordinarily where we cannot lawfully have better, and extraordinarily where we can have better, is a thing that we are bound to by the Covenant, and not at all bound against.

For those of the Independent way who think as Mr. Eaton writeth that the Covenant bindeth not, I need not here say any thing as to their satisfaction. For others I say, 1. There is no word in all the Covenant expresly against the Li­turgie.

2. If there had been any word in it against Communion with the Churches that use the Litur­gie, it had been sin, and against our duty, and therefore could not bind.

3. The judgement of Protestants is, that Vowes must not make us new duties of Religion but bind us faster by a self obligation, to that which God binds us to without them. Therefore (though if we should Vow an indifferent thing, it would bind, yet) this could not be taken for the Covenanters intention.

4. And it is commonly agreed, that if we Vow a thing indifferent, it bindeth us not when the indifferency ceaseth: which may be by the Ma­gistrate [...] command, or by another mans necessity, or [Page 87] change of Cases: Else a man might before hand prev [...]t most of the Magistrates obligations, and his P [...]re [...]ts and Masters too, and escape obedience; and might say with the Pharisees, it is Corban, or a devoted thing.

5. It rem [...]neth therefore that no man of us all hath need to go, or ought to go to the Covenant to know what is his duty in the worship of God, but only to the Scripture; seeing if Scripture make it no [...] a duty, the Magistrates Law will make the doing of it a sin; And if Scripture make it not a sin, the Magistrates command will make it a duty. But when we know what is duty or sin (in our case) we may go to our Vows next to prove that it is a double duty or a double or aggravated sin but no otherwise. Therefore let the Scripture only decide the first case, whether it be lawful or not.

6. The Covenant or Vow expresly bindeth us against schisme. But the renunciation of Com­munion which I now dispute against, is plaine schisme; Therefore we are bound against it by that Vow.

7. The Covenant bindeth us against all that is contrary to the power of Godliness, and found doctrine. But the separating which I plead against is certainly such.

8. The Covenant bindeth us to Unity and the nearest Uniformity we can attain. But as the world goeth now, this Communion is the nearest, and needful to express our Unity.

9. The Covenant bindeth us to Reformation ac­cording to Gods word, and the example of the best reformed Churches: But to prefer no publick [Page 88] worship or a worse, before the Liturgie, is defor­mation and prophaneness, And it is greater Refor­mation to prefer the Liturgie before none, than to prefer extemporate publick worship before the Liturgie. And all the Reformed Churches in Christendom, do commonly profess to hold Communion with the English Churches in the Liturgie, if they come among us where it is used. Therefore it seemeth to me to be perjury and Covenant-breaking, either to prefer no publick worship before the Liturgie, or to refuse occasio­nal Communion with the Churches that use the Liturgie, as a thing meerly on that account un­lawful.

QUEST. III.

Quest. 3. WHether the Case be not much al­tered since the old Non-confor­mists wrote against separation, then called Brow­nisme? And whether we have not greater Light into these Controversies than they?

Answ. 1. The Case of Ministers Conformity is much altered, by a new Act which requireth subscribing new things, Declaring Assent and Consent to all things prescribed and conteined in and by three books; and by some other things. But that part of the Liturgie which the people are to joyn in is made better, as is shewed be­fore. And if we are returned to the same state that they were then in, we are under the same duties that they were under. And let it be re­membred, [Page 89] that we never Vowed that God should not bring us back to the same case (which had been blasphemy) And therefore it had been bad enough, if we had vowed not to do what was our duty in that state, if God should return us to it.

2. I earnestly intreat the doubting Reader, that thinketh his duty and the Churches peace, to be worth so much labour, but to read over some of the old Non-conformists books against separation. And if you there find the very same objections answered (or more and greater) than judge your selves whether their case and ours was (as to this cause) the same. The books I would desire you to read are, Mr. Iacobs the Independent against Iohnson; Mr. Bradshaws against Iohnson, with Mr. Gatakers defence of it against Canne: Mr. Gifford, Mr. Darrel, Mr. Pa­get, Mr. Hildersham, Dr. Ames, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Brightman, and last of all and fulliest at the beginning of our troubles, Mr. Iohn Ball in three books.

But of this having spoken already, I shall repeat no more; but only to profess my judge­ment, that our ordinary boasters that think they know more in this Controversie than the old Non-conformists did, as far as I am able to discern are as far below them almost, as they are below either Chamier, Sadeel, Whitaker or such others in dealing with a Papist. which of them can say that, about Episcopacy, as Ger­som, Bucer, Didoclaue, Blondell, Salmasius have done? and so of the rest.

QUEST. IIII.

Quest. 4. IS it not a shameful receding from our Reformation, now to use an unreformed Liturgie, and a pulling down of what we have been building.

Answ. 1. It is not fit here to enquire who it is that hath pulled down, and destroyed Refor­mation: though it be easie to discern it. But this is certain, that God hath set up the Go­vernment that is over us, and that our Go­vernours take down by their Laws, that which we accounted Reformation: This is not our worke, but theirs: And that they permit us not otherwise publickly to worship God. And that a man in Goal doth ordinarily joyn in no publick worship at all. And where men do venture on other manner of worship in for­bidden assemblies, the fears of some and the passionate discontent of others, and the distur­bances by souldiers and officers, and such like, do take off much of the edification, and hin­der us from such a frame of mind as is most agreeable to the work and day. And to wor­ship God no where, is to go farther from Reformation, than to worship him by the Li­turgie.

2. To do it of choice is one thing, and to do it as a duty put upon us by Gods pro­vidence, and our Governours, when we can do no better, is another thing. It is God [Page 91] that hath pulled down our liberty and opportu­nity to serve him otherwise: and we must obey him. It is no faulty mutability, to change our practice, when God by changing our con­dition doth change our duty: No more than it was in Paul who to the Jews became a Jew, and circumcised Timothy, and shaved his head for his Vow &c. and became all things to all men: And no more than it was in Augustine who professeth that he would worship God, as to formes and ceremonies, according as the Church did with which he joyned where ever he came: Nor no more than it is in a traveller or merchant to joyn, in several Countries, in seve­ral fashions and ceremonies or rites of outward worship.

QUEST. V.

Quest. 5. WIll it not strengthen and encou­rage the adversaries of Refor­mation?

Answ. 1. We must not make such carnal policies our guides, as to forbear that which God doth make our duty, for fear of encou­raging other men. If we take this to be un­charitable factiousness in others, to desire ra­ther all these distractions in the Church, than that the Non-conformists should be encouraged and strengthned by seeming to have justly de­sired a Reformation, let us not be guilty of what we blame.

[Page 92]2. If you will believe themselves, it is the unwilling Conformists that they are most in dan­ger of, who profess that they conform of ne­cessity, and desire a Reformation; As Dr. Wil­liam Smith hath shewed in a book written to that end. The Assembly of Westminster that set up the Presbytery were such Confor­mists.

3. It is sinful pride and tenderness of their own honour, which maketh some men avoid their duty, and wrathfully grudge at them that speak for it, because those that are against them thence take occasion to insult over them or reproach them. If men do but say, you are now turncòats and time servers, and where is your reformation now, and you are now glad to do as we do, they think this reason enough why they should forbear that Communion and worship which is their duty. Are these beseeming self denying humble persons? Could they suffer death for their duty sake, that cannot bear a little reproach for it.

Object. If we knew it were our duty we would suffer for it.

Answ. But is it not this very suf­fering and reproach, and insulting of others, which maketh you think that it is not your duty? And so carnal persons use to do. They will be­lieve nothing to be their duty which they must suffer by. Let Gods honour be all to you, and your own be nothing, and you will not much stick at such things as these.

QUEST. VI.

Quest. 6. BUT will not this course divide us among our selves; while one goeth to the Parish Churches and another doth not?

Answ. 1. Mr. Tombes did not stick at divi­ding the Anabaptists when he wrote for Parish Communion. And Mr. Philip Nye did not stick at the fear of dividing the Independents, when he wrote a M. S. (as I am credibly informed) for the hearing of the Parish Preachers, (though another wrote against it presently after). And if an ordinary attendance on their publick do­ctrine be lawful, this will go further than ma­ny think, to prove the rest of the Communion lawful.

2. We are already so far divided in our judge­ments, as for one to hold it to be lawful, and another to be unlawful: And who can cure this division? And why should it divide us more, if mens practice be according to their judge­ments, rather than for them to sin against their Consciences?

3. The great thing in which we differ from the Prelatists yea and Papists too is, that we would have our Union laid only upon Necessary things, and liberty and Charity maintained in the rest. And shall we now contradict our selves, and say that things necessary are not sufficient for our union? Cannot we hold union among our selves, if some go to the publick assemblies, and [Page 94] some do not? What is this but to have the imposing domineering Spirit, which we speak so much against? We cannot better confute the uncharitable dividing Spirit of the world, than by shewing them, that we can hold Love and Union, notwithstanding as great differences as this, (yea, and much greater.)

QUEST. VII.

Quest. 7. SHall we not hereby countenance the Prelates in Church-Tyranny and Usur­pation? and invite them to go further, and to make more burdens of Forms and Ceremonies to lay upon the Churches?

Answ. Without medling now with the que­stion, what guilt it is that lyeth on any Pre­lates in the points here mentioned, I answer, on your own supposition; 1. That it is the King and his Laws which we obey herein, and not the Diocesans.

2. How openly and fully have we declared our utter dissent from the things which you suppose that we shall countenance them in? Our Wri­tings are yet visible: Our Conferences were no­torious. And is not the loss of our Ministry, and the loss of all Ecclesiastical Maintenance, and the pinching wants of many poor Ministers, and their numerous families, and our suffering Vo­lumes of reproach, confinements, &c. a signifi­cation of our dissent? The case is somewhat hard with abundance of godly faithful Mini­sters? Few that never felt it themselves, can [Page 95] judge aright, what it is to want a house to dwell in, a bed to lye on, to have Wives that are weak natured, to keep in yearly patience un­der all such necessities, which the Husband can bear himself; to have Children crying in hunger and rags, and to have a Landlord calling for his Rent, and Butchers, and Brewers, and Bakers, and Drapers, and Taylors, and Shoo-makers cal­ling for money, when there is none to pay them (there being no fifth part of Church-maintenance now allowed them): in the Frost and Snow to have no fire, nor money to but it! And yet all this is little in comparison of their restraint from preaching the Gospel of Salvation; and the dis­pleasure of their Governours against them if they preach. And is not all this yet an open signifi­cation of their Dissent from the things which they so far deny complyance with? If some of their Accusers on both sides were but in the same condition, they would think it should go for a sufficient notification of dissent.

3. We perswade no man to any one sin, for Communion with others, no not to save their lives. If the thing be proved unlawful to be used (and not only unlawful to be so imposed) we exhort all to avoid it.

4. Yea, if an over numerous aggregation of things which singly are lawful, should make them become a snare and injury to the Church; we would have all in their places sufficiently signi­fie their dissent; or if the number shall turn them into a sin in the users, we would have none to use them. Though we would not have men cen­sure or contemn one another (much less destroy [Page 96] one another) fo [...] a matter of meats, or dayes, or shadows; yet if any will by false doctrine or Imperiousness, say Touch not, Taste not, han­dle not, and will judge us in respect to Meat, or Drink, or Holy Dayes, or the New Moon, or Sabbaths, Col. 2. 16. 21. We would have all men to bear a just testimony to the truth, and to their Christian liberty.

5. But if the defects of publick Worship be tolerable, and if Providence, necessity and Laws, concurr to call us to use them, (when else we must use none, or do worse) here Commu­nion doth become our duty: And a Duty must not be cast off, for fear of seeming to coun­tenance the faults of others. We have lawful means to signifie our dissent: It is not in our power to express it how we please, nor to go as far from the faulty as we can, to avoid the countenancing of their faults: But we must do Gods work in his own way: And we must disown mens sins only by prudent lawful means, and not by any that are contra­ry to Christian Love and Peace, or a breach of any Law of God.

6. Paul was not for countenancing any of the falsehoods and faults which he reproveth in any of the Churches, especially partiality, sensuality, drunkenness at the very Sacrament or Love Feasts, 1 Cor. 11, &c. And yet he ne­ver bids them forsake the communion of the Church for it, till they shall reform. There were other wayes of testifying dislike.

7. I must not countenance an honest weak Minister or Master of a family, in the disorder [Page 97] or defects, or errors of his prayer or instruct­ing; And yet if they be tolerable errors or de­fects, I must not forsake either Church or fa­mily-Worship with him, that I may discounte­nance him.

8. There be Errors on the contrary side, which are not without considerable danger; which we are obliged also to take heed of counte­nancing. I will instance but in two; one in Doctrine, and the other in Practice.

1. There are men otherwise very honest, and truly godly, and of holy and unblameable lives, who think that the Scripture is intended by God, not only as a General, but a particular Law or Rule, for all the very Circumstances of Worship, (yea, some say of the common business of our lives): and that the second Commandment in particular condemneth all that is the product or invention of man in or about the Worship of God; and that to deny this is to deny the perfection of the Scripture; and that all written Books, and Printed, are Images there forbidden; and that all studied or prepared Sermons, (as to Method or Words, whether in Notes or memory) are for­bidden Images of Preaching, and that all provided Words or Forms (written, or in memory, of our own or other mens Contrivance or Composition) are forbidden Images of Prayer; and all prepared Metre and Tunes are forbidden Images of Praise or singing; and that no man that useth any such preparation or form of words in preaching or pray­er, doth preach or pray by the help of Gods Spi­rit: and that if Parents do but teach a Child a [Page 98] form of words to pray in, they teach him this for­bidden Imagery, yea, Idolatry.

I hope the number is but small that are of this Opinion, and that it being commonly dis­owned by the Non-conformists, no justice or Modesty can charge it on them, but only on the few persons that are guilty of it. But yet I must say, that we are obliged to take heed of Countenancing this Error, as well as of Countenancing Church-Usurpations.

For 1. When a few men of eminent inte­grity are of this mind, it proveth to us that many more may be brought to it, and are in danger of it; Because meer Piety and Honesty is not enough to keep men from it: Yea, when men otherwise eminent also for Learning and great understanding are of that mind (as they are) poor, ignorant, unlearned persons, though very godly, are not out of the danger of it.

2. And if it prevail, what abundance of hurt will it do?

1. You may read in the new Ecclesiastical Politician, how it will exasperate the minds of others, and give them matter of bitter re­proach, and for the sake of a very few, how many that are blameless shall be aspersed with it? and the cause of the Non-conformists, yea, with many, the Protestant, yea, and the Chri­stian Religion, rendred contemptible and odious by it.

2. It draweth men into the dangerous guilt of Adding to the Word of God, under pre­tence [Page 99] of strict expounding it, and defending its perfection and extent.

3. By the same Rule as they deal thus by one Text (as the second Command) they may do so by all: And if all or much of the Scripture were but thus expounded, I leave it to the sober Reader to consider, what a body of Divinity it would make us, and what a Re­ligion we should have?

4. It altereth the very Definition of the ho­ly Scripture, and maketh it another thing: That which God made to be the Record of his holy Covenant, and the Law and Rule of Faith and Holiness, and the General Law for outward Modes and Circumstances, which are but Accidents of Worship, is pretended by men to be a particular Law, for that which it never particularly medleth with.

5. It sorely prepareth men for Infidelity, and to deny the Divine Authority of the Scri­pture, and utterly to undo all by overdoing. If Satan could but once make men believe, that the Scripture is a Rule for those things that are not to be found in it at all, and which God never made it to be a Rule for, he will next argue against it, as a delusory and im­perfect thing. He will teach every Artificer, to say, That which is an imperfect Rule, is not of God. But the Scripture is an imperfect Rule. For saith, the Watch-maker, I cannot learn to make a Watch by it; saith the Scrive­ner, I cannot make a Legal Bond or Indentures by it; saith the Carpenter, I cannot build a [Page 100] House by it; saith the Physician, I cannot suf­ficiently know or cure Diseases by it; saith the Mathematician, Astronomer, Geographer, Musician, Arithmetician, the Grammarian, Lo­gician, Natural Philosopher, &c. it is no per­fect particular Rule of our Arts or Sciences: The Divine will say, It tells me not sufficient­ly and particularly what Books in it self are Canonical, nor what various Readings are the right, nor whether every Text be brought to us uncorrupted, nor whether it be to be di­vided into Chapters and Verses, and into how many: Nor what Metre or Tune I must sing a Psalm in, nor what persons shall be Pastors of the Churches, nor what Text I shall choose next, nor what Words I shall use in my next Sermon or Prayer, with abundance such like: Only in General, both Nature and Scripture say, Let all things be done in Order and to Edifica­tion, &c. Spiritually, Purely, Believingly, Wise­ly, Zealously, Constantly, &c. He that believeth it to be given as such a particular Rule, and then findeth that it is silent or utterly insuf­ficient to that use, is like next to cast it away as a delusion, and turn an Infidel, or Anti-scri­pturist.

6. This mistake tendeth to cast all Ratio­nal Worship out of the Church and World; by deterring men from inventing or studying how to do Gods work aright. For if all that man inventeth or deviseth be a forbidden Image, than we must not invent or find out by study, the true meaning of a Text, the true method [Page 101] of Praying or Preaching, according to the va­rious subjects: Nay, we must not study what to say, till we are speaking, nor what Time, Place, Gesture, Words to use; no nor the very English Tongue that we must Pray and Preach in, Whereas the Scripture it self-re­quireth us, to meditate day and night, to stu­dy to shew our selves workmen that need not be ashamed: to search and dig for knowledge, &c. Do they not err that devise evil? but mercy and truth shall be to them that devise good: Prov. 14. 22. I Wisdom dwell, with Prudence (or sub­tilty) and find out knowledge of witty inventi­ons, Prov. 8. 12. The Preacher sought to find out acceptable words, Eccles. 12. 10. Banish study, and you banish knowledge and Religion from the world: The Spirit moveth us to search and study, and thereby teacheth us what to judge, and say, and do; and doth not move us, as I play on an Instrument, that knoweth not what it doth.

7. This Opinion will bring in all Confusion instead of pure reasonable Worship: While eve­ry man is left to find that in the Scripture which never was there, and that as the only Rule of his actions, one will think that he findeth one thing there, and another another thing. For it must be Reality and Verity, which must be the term of Unity: Men cannot agree in that which is not.

8. Yea, it will let in impiety and error; for when men are sent to seek and find that which is not there, every man will think that he find­eth [Page 102] that, which his own corrupted mind brings thither.

9. And hereby all possibility of Union among Christians and Churches must perish, till this Opinion perish: For if we must unite only in that which is not in being, we must not unite at all. If we must all in singing Psalms, agree in no Metre or Tune in the Church but one that Scripture hath prescribed us, we shall sing with lamentable discord.

10. And hereby is laid a snare to tempt men into odious censures of each other: Because studied Sermons, printed Books, Catechisms and Forms of Prayer, are Images and Idolatry, in these mens conceits, all Gods Churches in the world must be censured as Idolatrous. And almost all his Ministers in the world must be accounted Idolaters; Children must account their Parents Idolaters, and disobey them that would teach them a Catechism, Psalm or Form of Prayer. Our Libraries must be burnt or cast away as Images; And when Ministers are diminished, and accounted Idolaters, if Satan could next but per­swade people against all the holy Books of the Ministers of Christ (such as Boltons, Prestons, &c.) as Images and Idols, had he not plaid a more succesful game, then he did by Iulian, and doth by the Turks, who keep the Christians but from humane Learning?

11. Hereby Christian Love will be quenched, when every man must account his Brother an Idolater, that cannot shew a Scripture, for the hour, the place of Worship, the Bells, the Hour­glasses, [Page 103] the Pulpit, the Utensils, &c. or that studieth what to say before he Pray or Preach?

12. And hereby backbiting, slandering and railing must go currant as no sin, while every Calvin, Cartwright, Hildersham, Perkins, Sibbs, &c. that used a Form of Prayer, yea, almost all the Christians in the world, must be accused of Ido­latry, as if it were a true and righteous charge.

13. And all our sins will be fathered on God, as if the second Commandment and the Scri­pture perfection did require all this, and taught Children to disobey their Parents and Masters, and say your Prayers and Catechisms are Images and Idols, &c

14. It will rack and perplex the Consciences of all Christians; when I must take my self for an Idolater, till I can find a particular Law in Scripture, for every Tune, Metre, Translation, Method, Word, Vesture, Gesture, Utensil, &c. that I use in the worshipping of God: When Con­science must build only in the air, and rest only on a word which never was.

15. It will have a confounding influence into all the affairs and business of our lives.

16. Lastly, It will affright poor people from Scripture and Religion, and make us, our Do­ctrine and Worship, ridiculous in the [...]ight of all the world. The Doctrine (which we hear maintained) which hath no better fruits than these, must be avoided, as well as the contrary extream, which would indeed charge the Law of God with imperfection, and cause man to [Page 104] usurp the part of Christ. And we must first know, How far God made the Scripture for our Rule? and then we must maintain its sufficiency and perfection.

II. Also on that extream, we must do nothing to countenance those Practices which tend to alienate Christians hearts from one another, and to keep up Church-Wars, or to feed bitter cen­sures, scorns and reproaches. And we that must not scandalize the Religious sort, must avoid all that thus tempteth them, which is the real scan­dal. But of this I have said enough in the Book which I am now defending.

Part II.
An ANSWER to the Untrue and unjust Exceptions OF THE ANTIDOTE Against my TREATISE for LOVE and UNITY.

DEar Brother (for so I will call you, whether you will or not), the chief trouble that I am put to in answering your Excepti­ons (next to that of my grief for the Churches and your self, by reason of such Diagnosticks of your Malady) is the naming of your manifold Untruths in matter of fact. It is, it seems, no fault in your [Page 2] eyes to commit them; but I fear you will account it unpardonable bitterness in me to tell you that you have committed them. If I call them Mistakes, the Reader will not know by that name, whether it be mistakes in point of Fact or of Reason: And Lies I will not call them, because it is a provoking word: Therefore Untruths must be the middle title.

EXCEPT. I.

Page 1. T [...]e whole d [...]s [...]n of this Book being [...] 1 Untruth. make such as at this day are carefull to k [...] themselves Pure from al [...] defilements in False worship. Odi [...]us, it may well be affirmed i [...] was neither seasonable n [...]r h [...]nest—

Answ. THat's the fundamental Untruth which animateth all the r [...] when [...] had got a false apprehension of the design of the Book, you seem to ex­pound the particular passages by that Key. That which you call, The whole design, is not any part of the design, but is expresly and vehemently oft disclaimed and protested a­gainst in the Book. And whoever readeth it without a Partial mind, will presently s [...] that the whole design of the Book is to deli­ver weak Christians from such mistakes and sins, as destroy their Love to other Christians, and cause the divisions among the Churches.

[Page 3]2. False worship is a word of various sen­s [...]:False Worship, what: seven senses of that word. Either it signifieth, 1. Idolatry, in worshipping a false God. 2. Or the Ido­latrous worshipping of Images, as represen­tations of the true God. 3. Or worshipping God by Doctrines and Prayers that consist o [...] falshoods. 4. Or devising Worship-Or­dinances, and falsly saying they are the Or­dinances of God. 5. Or making God a Worship which he forbiddeth, in the sub­ [...]an [...]e, and will not accept. 6. Or worship­ping God in an inward sinful manner, through false principles and ends as hypo­crites do. 7. Or in a sinful outward man­ner, through disorder, defectiveness, and unhandsome or unfit expre [...]ions.

O [...] these, I suppose you will not charge the Churches you separate from, as guilty of the first, second, fourth, or sixth, ▪which is out of the reach of humane judgment▪ For I suppose you to be sober. As for the third, through Gods great mercie, the Doctrine of England is so [...]ound, that the Independants and Presbyterians have still offered to sub­scribe to it in the 39 Articles: according to which (if there were any doubtfulness in) the phrases of their Prayers, ▪they▪ are to be interpreted. For the fifth, if you accuse them of it, you must prove it; which is not yet done (supposing that you take not Government for Worship [...]; nor can you do it. So that it must lie only on the seventh. And for that (if you will take the word ▪false-wor­ship] in that sense) do not you also worship [Page 4] God falsly when you worship him sinfully? And are not your disorders and unmeet expressi­ons sins, as well as theirs? Alas, how oft have I joyned in Prayer with honest men that have spoken confusedly, unhandsomly, and many waies more unaptly and disorderly than the Common Prayer is? How oft have I heard good old Mr. Simeon Ash say, that he hath heard many Ministers pray so unfitly, that he could heartily have wished that they had rather used the Common Prayer? When did any one of us pray without sin? How ordinarily do Anabaptists, Antinomians, Arminians, Separatists, &c. put their Opinions into their Prayers, and so make them false Pray­ers, and so false Worship? Nay, could you lay by partiality, and kn [...]w your self (a very hard thing) you would presently see that you who wrote these Exceptions, are liker to Worship God falsly than they that do it by the Liturgie, that is, in the third sense: Because the Doctrine of the Prayers in the Liturgie is sound▪ but if you account this Script of yours to be Worship (and why not writing as well as preaching) or if you put the same things into your Worship, which you put into your writings, (as is very usu­al with others) then it is false Worship in­deed, as consisting of too many falshoods. If you pray to God to encline men against all that Communion which you write against, or lament such Communion as a sin, this is falser worship than any is in the Liturgick Prayers. And if you will call all those [Page 5] modes of worship false, which God in Scri­pture hath not commanded, what a false worshipper are you, that use a translation of Scripture, a Version and tunes of Psalms, a dividing the Scripture into Chapters and Verses, yea the Method and words of every Sermon and Prayer, or most, and abundance such like which God commanded not? God never bid you use the words of Prayer in the Liturgie; Nor did he ever bid you use those which you used last without it.

O Brother, if you knew your self, and judged impartially, you would see, that whatever you say against mens communica­ting with other mens tolerable failings, as false worship, may be as stronglie urged for avoiding communion in disordered prayers that are without book▪ and much more in the prayers of honest erroneous Separatists, Anabaptists, Antinomians, &c. which yet for my part I will not so easily avoid. I confess if my judgment were not more than yours against dividing from each other in the general, I should be one that should be as forward to disclaim Communion with many zealous Parties (now received by you) and that as false worshippers, as you are to disclaim Communion with others. I am sure you worship God falsly, that is, sinfully, every time that you worship him.

3. But, seeing my Book disswadeth you equally from unjust avoiding Communion with all sound and sober Christians; I ask you, whether all these several parties are [Page 6] false worshippers, save you alone? Did not the Presbyterians and Independants agree in worship, when you gathered Churches out of their Churches, and when thousands separated from all the Parish Churches al­most then existent? Indeed the Anabaptists charged us also with false worship, but it was not truly. But the ordinary Divider [...] had not that pretense.

4. O how easie a thing is it, Brother, for a man, without any supernatural Grace, to reproach another mans Words in Worship, and then to abhor it and avoid it, and think▪ I am one that keep my self Pure from false Worship! But to keep our selves pure from pride, censoriousness, uncharitableness, con­tention, evil speaking, and sensual vices, is a harder work. Others can as easily (with­out mortification or humilitie) keep them­selves pure from your false worship as you can do from theirs.

EXCEPT. ib. Since the crying sin this2. Untruth. day is not separation, but unjust and violent Persecution, (½) which Mr. Baxter speak­ [...]eth very little against.

Answ. 1. A Las, dear Brother, that af­ter so many years silencing and affliction, after flames and Plagues, and dreadful judgments, after twenty years pra­ctice of the sin it self, and when we are buri­ed in the very ruines which it caused, we [Page 7] should not yet know that our own uncha­ritable Divisions, Alienations, and Separati­ons, are a crying sin? Yea the crying sin; [...] well as the uncharitableness and hurtfulness of others? Alas, will God leave us also, even us to the obdurateness of Pharaoh? Doth not judgment begin with us? Is there not crying sin with us? what have we done to Christs Kingdome, to this Kingdoms▪ to our friends (dead and alive) to our selves, and (alas) to our enemies, by our Divisions? And do we not feel it? Do we not know it? Is it yet to us, even to us, a crime intolerable to call us to Repentance? Wo to us! Into what hard-heartedness have we sinned our selves! Yea that we should continue in the sin, and passionately defend it! When will God give us Repentance unto life?

2. And whither doth your passion carry you, when you wrote so strange an untruth as this, that I [speak very little against it [...] ▪ Was it possible for you to read the Book, and gather Exceptions, and yet to believe your self in this? Doth not the Book speak against Church-Tyranny▪ Unjust impositions, Violence, and taking away mens Liberty and rigor with Dissenters, from end to end? If any man that readeth but the Preface (as page 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.) and all the second part (besides much more) can possibly be­lieve you, I will never undertake to hinder him from believing any thing.

3. But suppose I had said little against it, will you charge me with Negatives or omis­sions [Page 8] before you know my Reasons? Or would you have no better people hear of their sin and duty, till Persecutors will en­dure to hear of theirs. Exod. 6. 12. Behold the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me: how then shall, &c. [...] saith Moses? Have most or many of the Separation said more against severities than I have done?

4. But could you possibly be ignorant that a License is not to be expected for such a Discourse as you seem here to expect. You deal by me as the late Perswasive to Conformi­ty, that vehemently calls to me to publish my Reasons for Nonconformity, while he knew my hands were tied by the Laws and Li­censers.

5. But what if I had not in this Book spo­ken much against Persecution, Is it not e­nough that I have done it in others? I have not here written on many subjects which in other Volumes I have written of. And why should I? If I had, would you not have blamed me for writing one thing so oft? But you most unhappily chose this Instance for your quarrel, I think in the judgment of all the Land, that have read my writings? Besides my five Disputations of Church Go­vernment, how oft have I written against Persecution? The few Publick Sermons that ever I Preached, had somewhat against it. Read our Papers to the Bishops in 1660. especially the Reply to their Exceptions, and the Petition for Peace. Enquire again of the long provoking Conference at the [Page 9] Savoy, and the reason of the following in­dignation against me, and afterwards read this Book again; and then I modestly cha­lenge you 1, to name those men in England, especially of the Separatists, that have said and done more against that severity which you call Persecution, than I have done. 2. To name me one Licensed Book since the silencing of the Ministers, and since the Printing Act, That hath said so much against Severity and Persecution as the Book which you quarrel with hath done.

EXCEPT. II. Mr. B. mentioneth with3. Untruth. much bitterness what was formerly done in the time of the War; which is in him a most unbecoming practice; because first, Mr. B. was as guilty of stirring up and fomenting that War as any one whatsoever: and none ought to blame the effect, who gave rise and encouragement to the Cause.

Answ. 1. IF you mean that my words taste Of my menti­oning former things. bitterly to you, I cannot deny it: You know best: But for my part, any Reader may see in the Book which the Pre­face referreth to, that I only lament our too open undeniable uncharitableness and divi­sions, and the effects thereof, and use the mention of some mens former faults with whom they and I can hold communion, to prove by way of Argument that they ought not to avoid communion with others for [Page 10] the like or less. And I know not how to convince men well, if I must pass by all such experimental Arguments.

2. Do you not mark your partialitie, Brother! In our Reply to them 1660. pag. 7, 8. et alibi, and in my 5 Disput. &c. I tell the Bishops of faults past, of Silencings, and Suspendings, &c. of the excellent Ministers afflicted and laid by; and how ordinarily are they told of the things charged on Bi­shop Laud, Pierce, Wren, &c. in their Arti­cles to the Parliament: And when did you blame me or others for so doing? Can I be­lieve that this offendeth you? And is it sin to tell your selves of your former sins, and none to tell the Bishops of it? O that we could know what spirit we are of.

3. Your third untruth in point of fact, is, [that I was as guilty of stirring up and foment­ing that war as any one whatsoever.] Could you possibly believe your self in this? 1. I suppose you never saw me till above ten years after I had done with Wars. 2. I sup­pose you lived far from me. 3. If you know whom, and what you speak of, you know that I was never of the Assembly; I never Preached to the Parliament, till the day before the King was Voted home: I was forced from home to Coventry: There it was that I did speak my Opinion, but refu­sed their Commission as Chaplain to the Garrison. In Shropshire my Father was twice imprisoned, that never did any thing against the King; nor medled with Wars: [Page 11] For two Months I did something there to little purpose, and once got my father out of Prison, by causing another to be seized to redeem him; but I never took Commissi­on, Office, or pay all that time. I never entred into the Army till after Nas [...]by fight, and openly declared I went thither for this purpose, To discharge my Conscience in dis­sw [...]ing the Souldiers from the Overturning of the Government, and to have turned them from the purpose which I perceived among them, of doing what afterwards they did. If you and others that know not what they talk of, will but ask Dr. Brian, Dr. Grew, Mr. King, or others, whom assembled, I twice consulted about it, or any Survivers of the Coventry Committee, what business I went on into the Army, you will change your mind.

And did [no man whatsoever do more than this.] What not the Parliament themselves? Not any of the chief Speakers there? Not any of their acquaintance. What, not any of the other party neither? Not any of the Armies, neither of the Earl of Essex nor of Cromwel himself? How then came the Ar­miesWhether I were as guilty as any in stir­ring up the War? on both sides to be raised, and proceed so far in Wars, before ever I saw one man of them, to my remembrance, or any Parlia­ment man or Souldier had ever spake with me, or saw me, or ever had a line of writing from me? Why do you find none of my Parliament Sermons in Print?

4. But, if indeed I was as guilty as you [Page 12] mention, why is it in me a most unbecoming practice, to blame that which you think I did occasion? Is this good Divinity, that it is unbecoming a Minister to mention hei­nous sin with bitterness which we have bin guilty of? How then shall we repent? Or is Repentance an unbecoming thing? I hope the Act of Oblivion was not made to fru­strate Gods Act of Oblivion, which giveth Pardon to the Penitent? Doth it forbid us to Repent of sin, or to perswade our bre­thren to repent? Where sin is hated, Re­pentance will not be hated: And if sin were as bitter as it must be, Reproof would not be bitter.

5. Do you think that you Preach sound Doctrine, when you say that [None ought to blame the effects who gave rise and encourage­ment to the Cause.] If this Doctrine be part of Gods worship which you offer him, who should be avoided as a false worshipper, that is, a false teacher, sooner than your self! What a scandal is it to the world, and di­shonour to your self, that such Doctrine should be found thus under your hand, de­liberately delivered? If this be true, then he that first encouraged the War on either side, must not blame any of the Murders, Robberies or other Villanies therein com­mitted? Then he that hired the French man to set London on Fire, must not blame the burning of it. Then a man ought not to blame any sin which ever he was a cause of! Then when a man hath once sinned he [Page 13] must despair, and never must repent nor blame his crime. If you had found such Doctrine as this in the Common Prayer Book, you would have had a fowler charge against it than now you have, as to Doctri­nals. Which I mention but to shew you, that if we must run away from one another for every thing that is unsound, we shall ne­ver have done, and others must avoid you as much as you do them.And guilty of all which he calleth the Effects?

6. But your deceit in the word [That War] hath a transparent covering. Which War is it that you mean? Do you think all that is done in one land, or one age, or by one Army, is one War? Where there are several causes, (especially if also several par­ties,) sure they are several Wars. The first War was made under the Earl of Essex, when the Commissions run [for the King and Par­liament]. The second War begun under Fairfax and Cromwell, when [for the King] was left out of the Commissions. Ano­ther War was by Cromwell against the Lon­doners and Parliament, when he garbelled them (though it came not to blows). Ano­ther War was against the Scots Army and the English that rose for the Kings Delive­rance. Another was in Ireland: Another in Scotland: Another between Cromwel and the Levellers. And many others there were afterwards under several Usurping Powers; And do you call all these one? or which of them do you mean?

7. I suppose you grosly call the meer [Page 14] consequents, the effects. Sure that which was the Effect of a later War, might be but the Consequent of a former. Or else you must say that the Parliament raised War against themselves, to pull down themselves, and set up a Protector? This was the Conse­quent of their first War; but whether the effect I leave to Logicians to determine. But by this you may see that you again preach false doctrine. The King may give rise and encouragement to a War, and yet may lawful­ly blame such Consequents as you call ef­fects: What if the Kings own Army should plunder and murder, and blaspheme and depopulate; yea, or depose or hurt, or any way injure the King himself? Shall a man that separateth from the Liturgie as false worship come and tell us, that the King ought not to blame any of this because he gave rise and encouragement to the War: Extremities and Passion do thus unhappily use to blind men.

8. But seriously, Brother, I beseech you let us review the Effects you mention or re­spect. Is it possible for any sober Christian in the World to take them to be blameless, or to be little sins. What! both the viola­ting the person and life of the King. AndWhether no­thing past must be repented o [...]. the Change of the fundamental Government or Constitution. And an Armies force upon the Parliament which they promised obedi­ence to? First upon eleven members; next upon the greater part of the house; and lastly upon the remainder? The taking down [Page 15] the house of Lords; The setting up a Par­liament without the peoples Choice or Con­sent. The invading and Conquering Scotland: The Reader must note that I wrote the full Narrative of my Actions herein, which this presuppo­seth, but after cast it away, because neither part of the ac­cusers can bear it. The making their General Protector. The ma­king an Instrument of Government them­selves, without the people. The setting up their second Protector. The forcing him to dissolve the Parliament. The pulling him down, whom themselves had lately set up. The setting up the remnant of the Com­mons again: The pulling them presently down again: The placing the Supremacy in a Council of themselves, and their adhe­rents. Was all this lawful? And to do all this as for God, with dreadful appeals to him? Dare you or any man, not blinded and hardened, justifie all this? If none of all this was Rebellion or Treason, or Mur­der, is there any such Crime, think you, pos­sible to be committed? Are Papists insult­ing over us in our shame? Are thousands hardened by these and such like dealings into a scorn of all Religion? Are our Rulers by all this exasperated to the severities which we feel? Are Ministers silenced by the oc­casion of it, about eighteen hundred at once, (even many hundreds that never were in any Wars, and such as consented not to this at all.) Are we made by it the by-word and hissing of the Nations, and the shame and pitty of all our friends? And yet is all this to be justified, or silenced? and name of it at all to be openly repented of? I openly pro­fess to you, that I believe till this be done, we [Page 16] are never like to be healed and restored; and that it is heinous gross impenitence, that keepeth Ministers and people under their distress: And I take it for the sad Progno­stick of our future woe, and (at best) our lengthened affliction, to read such writings against Repentance, and to hear so little open profession of Repentance, even for unquestiona­ble heinous crimes; for the saving of those that are undone by these scandals, and for the reparation of the honour of Religion, which is most notoriously injured.

To see men still think, that their Repen­tance is the dishonour of their party and Cause, whose honour can no other way be repaired! To see men so blind, as to think that the silencing of these things will hide them, as if they were not known to the World! That man or party that will justi­fie all these heinous Crimes, and still plead Conscience or Religion for them, doth grie­vous injury to Conscience and Religion: I have told you truly in the book which is bitter to you, that Gods way of vindicating the honour of Religion, is for us by open free Confession, to take all the shame to our selves, that it be not injuriously cast up­on Religion. And the Devils way of pre­serving the honour of the Godly, is by justi­fying their sins, and pleading Religion for them, that so Religiousness it self may be ta­ken to be hypocrisie and wickedness; as maintaining and befriending wickedness.

For my own part I thought when I wa­sted [Page 17] my strength, and hazarded my life in the Army against these fore-named Crimes, and afterwards preached and wrote against them so openly, and so many years, that I had not been so much guilty of them as you here affirm. But if I was, I do openly con­fess that, if I lay in sackcloth and in tears, and did lament my sins before the World, & beg pardon both of God and man, and in­treat all men not to impute it to Religion, but to me, and to take warning by my fall, which had done such unspeakable wrong to Christ and men, I should do no more than the plain light of nature assureth me to be my great and needful duty.

EXCEPT. II. ib. There is daily much4 Untruth. greater prophaneness, and the Consequent of prophaneness, Immorality, acted by those (4) whom yet Mr. Baxter never mentioneth but with honour; As if no sins or miscarriages were to be blamed but theirs, who are unable to defend themselves.

Answ. 1. IF this were true, I were much too blame, it being the very usage of others against my self, which I have great reason to complain of.

2. But if it was possible for you to believe your own words, that I never mention them but with honour, I shall think that there are few things that you may not possibly be­lieve. Reader, if thou peruse the book, and [Page 18] yet believe this Author, I am not capable of satisfying thee in this, nor will I undertakeWhether I ne­ver mention the prophane but with ho­nour. it in any thing else. Are these terms of ho­nour Pref. p. 18. [How long Lord must thy Church and Cause be in the hands of unexpe­rienced furious fools▪ &c.] Do I honour them when I so much display their sin? And when in the scheme in the conclusion I de­scribe it? And when I tell you of many of such Ministers, and that it is a duty to separate from them, or disown them. And when in the history of Martin, I tell you how neer it I am my self, as to such as Martin se­parated from? And when I cite Gildas, cal­ling such no Ministers, but enemies and tray­tors, &c. Were you not very rash in this?

3. But what if in this book I write nei­ther against the prophane, nor the Iews, nor the Mahometans? Is it nothing that I have written the greater part of above fifty books besides against them.

4. What if there be Prophaneness to be re­proved; doth it sollow that we must not be reproved also? Must we not repent, be­cause they must repent?

5. O how hard is it to please all men▪ What man in Eagland hath been less suspe­cted to be a flatterer of such as he moaneth than my self? or more accused of the con­trary that hath any reputation of mini­sterial sobriety? Ask the Bishops that Con­ferred with us at the Savoy, 1660? Ask your self that read our Reply then? Ask any that ever did Converse with me; whether ever I [Page 19] was suspected of flattery, or dawbing with men sins?

6. But seeing you so far honour me, as to vindicate me from other mens accusati­ons, I shall confess that it is my judgement, both that we should honour all men, 1 Pet. 2. 17. especially our superiors; and also that in our eyes a vile person should be contemned, while we honour them that fear the Lord, Psal. 15. 4.

EXCEPT. III. He alloweth himself a great and masterly liberty, to call his brethren fierce, self-conceited dividers, feaverish per­sons, &c.

Answ. IF there be none such, or but a few, I will joyfully confess my error;Of partial gen­derness. But if all ages of the Church have had such, and if this Kingdom have been so troubled by such, as all men know; and if they yet live in this sin to their own trouble and ours, why should it be contrary to meekness to mention it? Should I hate my Brother, in suffering sin to lie upon him.

Every paragraph almost inviteth me to remember Christs words to the two fierie Disciples, and to say, O how hard is it to know what manner of spirit we are of. Tell me Rea­der, whether this be not true? that if I had called the Bishops sacrilegious silencers of a faithful Ministry, murderers of many hun­dred thousand souls, perjurious, proud, tyran­nical, [Page 20] covetous, formal hypocrites, malignant haters of good men, &c. I might not very easily have come off with many of these an­gry brethren, without any blame for want of Meekness? Nay, whether they would not have liked it as my zeal? when as such a gentle touch upon themselves, doth intol­lerably hurt them. Is there not gross par­tialitie in this.

Note also that these brethren that plead for Libertie do call it a masterly Libertie in me, thus to name their faults. And do you think that they would not have silenced my book, if it had been in their power? Note then whether the silencing imperious Spirit, be not common to both extreams.

EXCEPT. Ib. He useth the same frothy and unsavoury words, that others prophane Prayer and the name of God by, and which at the best, is that foolish talking or jesting which we are commanded not so much as to mention, Eph. 5. 3, 4.

Answ. THE words are [I am only per­swading Of my foolish talking. all dissenters to Love one another, and to forbear but all that is contrary to love: And if such an exhortation and ad­vice seem injurious or intolerable to you, the Lord have mercy on your souls.] Is the mat­ter of this prayer unlawful? Or can he prove that I spake it jestingly, when I took it to be the serious prayer of my grieved [Page 21] heart? Or may we use no words (as Lord have mercy on us, &c.) which others use unreverently? Or is it true doctrine, that this is the foolish talk and jesting forbidden, Eph. 5? What proof is there here of any one word of all this?

EXCEPT. IV. p. 2. He doth very often and needlesly insist on many things that may tend to advance his own reputation.▪ The in­stances are added.

Answ. 1. I Confess, Brother, I am a greatOf my Pride. sinner, and have more faults than you have yet found out. But I pray you note, that all this still is nothing to our Controversie, whether we should advise men against Church divisions as contrary to Love.

2. If a humble Physitian may put a proba­tum to his Receipt, and say I have much ex­perience of this or that; I pray you why may not a humble Minister tell England, that I (and you) have had experience of the hurt of divisions, and of the healing uniting power of Love? Did all the Independent Church­members whose Experiences are printed in a book, take Experience to be a word of pride.

3. And is it pride to thank the World for their Civilities to me, in mixing comm [...]n­dations, which I disown, with their cen­sures? What! to confess the remnants of [Page 22] their moderation (notorious in matter of fact, the truth of which you durst not de­ny) in the midst of their many false cen­sures and calumnies.

4. Or to tell you how unable I have [...]ound back-biters, to prove their accusati­ons in doctrinals to my face? 5. Or to tell you, that some (even Independents) per­swaded me, when I was silenced to write ser­mons for some of the weaker Conformists (such as are too many youths from the University) to preach? Where lieth the pride of these expressions? Is it in suppo­sing that there are any Conformists weaker than my self? Whether, think you, this brother or I, think meanlier of them? Or set our selves at the greater distance from them? 6. When I plead against charging forms with [Idolatry] I say, that for my self [it is twenty times harder to me to remember a form of words, than to express what is in my mind without them.] If this be not true, why did you not question the truth of it? If it be, why is it pride to utter it, as a proof that I plead for Love, and not for my own in­terest? Is it pride to confess so openly the weakness of my memory? I never learnt a Sermon without book in my life: I think I could not learn an hours speech, sufficient­ly to utter the very words by memory in a fortnights time. And is it pride for a man to say that he can easier speak what is in his mind? Truly brother, I was so far from intending it as a boast, that I meant it as a [Page 23] dimin [...]tion of the over-valued honour of present extemporary expression, and to tell you, that I take it to be so far from proving that your prayers only are accepted of God, before a form, as signifying more grace,Whether it be easier to pray extempore, or by memory of words. that I take it to be an easier thing for an ac­customed man that hath not a diseased hesi­tancy to speak extempore what is in his mind, than to learn a form without book; And that they tha [...] do this, do serve God with as much labour and cost as you do? Do I boast, or do I not speak the common case of most Ministers, when I truly say, That when I take most pains for a Sermon, I write eve­ry word: when I take a little pains I write the heads; but when business hindereth me from taking any pains, I do neither, but speak what is in my mind; which I sup­pose others as well as I, could do all the day and week together, if weariness did not in­terrupt them. I seek by these words but to abate their pride that think themselves spi­ritual, because they can pray or preach with­out book; Like some now neer me, that account it formality and a sign that a Preacher speaketh not by the Spirit, if he use notes, or preach upon a text of Scripture; but admire one neer them that cries d [...]wn such, and useth neither.

7. Is it pride to say that [th [...]se darker persons whom I have been [...]ain to rebuke for their over-valuing me and my understanding, would yet as stiffly defend their most groundless opinions against me when I crost [Page 24] them, as if they thought I had no under­standing.] If you do think that you can­not be over-valued, or are not, so do not I. And I thought my rebuking men for it, had been no sign of pride. And, brother, I am confident, if you your self did not believe that my understanding, and consequently my Writings are over-valued, you would ne­ver have written this book, especially in such a stile against me: yea, in the end you profess this to be your design, to undeceive those that had a good opinion of me. If those on the other side had not thought the same, my late Auditors at Kederminster had never had so many Sermons, and that by per­sons so high, nor would so many books have been written to the same end even to cure the people of this dangerous vice, of over­valuing me. The matter of fact being so publick, invalidateth your exception.

8. The last expression of my pride is, that I give this testimony even to Christians in­clined to divisions, that if they think a man speaketh not to the depressing of true and serious religion, they can bear that from him, which they cannot bear from one that they think hath a malignant end: and that on this account in my sharpest reproofs my own auditors have still been patient with me. Enquire whether this be true or not? Whether I have not preached twenty times more against Divisions, to a people that ne­ver once quarrelled with it, than I have written against it in the book with which [Page 25] you so much quarrel. And is this probatum given against malignity a word of pride too?

You proceed in your Charge that [I have great thoughts of my self, and have learned little of Christian or moral ingenuity, and am unfit to be a Teacher of it to others. Answ. 1. Do you not yet perceive that you also have a silencing spirit? when you and those that you separate from are agreed, that we are unfit to be Teachers, because we gainsay you, why do you pretend so great a distance, even in the point of imperious severity. 2. O how hard is it still to know our selves, and what man­ner of spirit we are of. Is it pride in me to think that I am righter than you or to express it? Why, brother, do not you think as con­fidently that you are righter than I? and do you not as Confidently utter it? I differ no further from you, than you do from me: And why is it not as much sign of pride in you, to think you know more than I, as in me to think that I know more (in this) than you? The truth is, Pride is not a true valu­ing, but an over-valuing our selves, and our Who is to be judged Proud. own understandings. If either you or I be in the right, and both think our selves confi­dently to be so, he is the Proud person which ever he be, that is in the wrong; For it is he that over-valueth his own understanding. Here therefore the Evidence must decide the Case.

EXCEPT. V. p. 3. Answered. Your 5th▪ Exception implieth more Untruths: TheMore mistakes. first is, that I did not consider that fault of the Imposers, which I have written in that very book so much against, and elsewhere; and before, said more against than any man that I know in England, This was not consi­derately spoken. The second is, that all or most of those that you separate from, made tearing engines and dividing impositions. If this be not implied you speak not to the point. But you may easily know that in all the Pa­rish-Churches of England, there is not one man or woman, no not one Minister of very many that ever made or imposed such En­gines.

The third implied untruth is, that I plead either for subscribing Assent, or for such Communion as cannot be had, without sub­scribing Assent, to what you know is sinful; when you may joyn as far as I desire you, with­out subscribing any Assent at all.

EXCEPT. VI. Answered. 1. As to the sense of 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16. and Rev. Whom we must come out from. 18. 6. You confess that the Texts do direct­ly and properly concern only Infidels and Ido­laters there mentioned. 2. You say It belongs to others that are guilty of the same Crimes, under the name of Christians, proportionally.

Answ. Very true; If it be not a contra­diction! If any called Christians be notorious [Page 27] Infidels and Idolaters, they are not Christi­ans, and so not fit for Christian Communi­on. But from the Societies of such we must flie our selves: But not from the societies of Christians, alwaies, when some such shall in­trude.

3. You say [We are commanded strictly to separate from every one that is called a brother, if he be covetous, or a railer, &c. Answ. The Church, and not a private man, must ex­clude such a one from Church-Communion. And you your self must exclude him from your private familiarity; But you are not commanded to separate from the Church, if they exclude him not. I am not bound to separate from the Church where you are, for this Book which you have written, though I could prove it railing. How few separated Churches know you on earth, that have no Covetous person or railer? Or at least, where the people hold it their dutie to separate from their own Church, if any Co­vetous person or railer be there?

4. You add [that if notwithstanding all admonition any Church will still retain them, we are not to own such a Church as a Spouse of Christ, and therefore must come out of it, &c. Whom we must disown as no Church. Answ. 1. I have in that Book proved the contrarie by abundant Scripture instances; And in the next exception you your self con­fess the primitive corruptions, and lay the stress of your Separation only on Imposed Conditions of Communion. 2. You give us no proof of this naked assertion. If a [Page 28] Scolding woman or a Covetous Professor be re­teined in a Church otherwise pure, you are not therefore bound to separate, much less to take it for no Church: For that is a true Church which hath the true essentials of a Church: But so may one that reteineth a Covetous man or a Scold. Ergo—By your rule, you must Separate not only from Pa­rish Churches, but from most of the Separa­ted Churches that ever I was acquainted with.

I find no particular Church called A Spouse of Christ, but the universal only: As a Corporation is not a Kingdome, but a part of a Kingdome.

5. Above twenty Arguments in my book for Infant Baptism, shew that you did not truly say, that [the best argument that all lear­ned men have ever defended it by, is the propor­tion it hath to Circumcision.

EXCEPT. VII. Answered. You say that I impertinently recite the Corruptions of the Scripture Churches, to prove that we are not to separate, &c. your reason is [Be­cause many Errors in Doctrine and life were formerly admitted, yet none of them were impo­sed as conditions of Communion. The Corrupti­on of the Scripture Churches.

Answ. Do you not see that here you seem to deny what you said so confidently in the last Exception? There you say, We must come out, if they will receive such for members after all admonition, and retein them. [Page 29] Here you seem plainlie to yield that up, and to lay all on imposed Conditions of Commu­nion, as if else you could communicate with Churches so corrupt. You can bear your own contradiction better than mine.

2. What is imposed on you as a conditi­on to your Communion in the Doctrine and Prayers of the Parish Churches, but your actual Communion it self? If you will say, that their bad Minister, and their imper­fect form, is imposed as a Condition, because you must be present; so they may say, that you also impose your imperfect manner and expressions on them, as Conditions of their Communion in your Churches: And thus you are all Imposers.

EXCEPT. VIII. Answered. First5 Untruth. you say I said that I [met with many Consci­entious Professors, &c. That's your fifth un­truth: I said no such thing, but only [ma­ny Censorious professors.]

2. You say, It is hardly possible to believe it. But that is possible to men that use to be more careful of speaking truth themselves, and that are acquainted with the people of England, by such means as Conference, which is hardly possible to others.

3. You ask [Ought not such things to be Of concealing the faults of Dividers. concealed.] And you abuse Scripture to con­firm it. But, 1. Are you not here partial? Is it your judgement that we should conceal the faults or ignorance, or errors of the Bi­shops, [Page 30] Conformists, and Parish members?Of concealing the faults of Dividers. Or be they not commonly multiplied and aggravated? And yet, must the Separatists ignorance and error be concealed.

2. Do you desire their Repentance and hu­miliation whose faults you would have con­cealed? And do you imitate Nehemiah and others of Gods Servants, that use to Con­fess the sins of all ranks and sorts of men?

3. Do you use in publick humiliations to confess this ignorance of Professors or not? If not, what a kind of humiliation do you make? If you do, do not you publickly re­veal this secret.

4. How grosly are you unacquainted with England that take this for a secret, or for hardly to be believed, when we have Con­gregations and multitudes of such, and the land Read but Hornius his description of the English Sects, Eccles. Hist. and see what strangers think of us. and world ringeth of them.

5. Do you not thus harden them that charge us with factiousness, when you shew your self so solicitous for the Concealment of the ignorance of your party, while you have no such care for others?

4. But it is your sixth Untruth in point of fact, when you say (with scorn) [Are not we Commanded not to reveal the secret of another, which pious and prudent Mr. Baxter hath not scrupled to sin against, &c. Prov. 25. 9.]

As you abuse the text, which speaketh ofOf my reveal­ing Secrets. an individual person, who is supposed to be hereby injured, because known, so you speak [Page 31] untruly in saying I revealed anothers secrets; For to pass by, that I reveal not the persons, who are still unknown, it is not true that they were secrets! When I disputed almost all day with such (both Souldiers and others) in the publick Church at Amersham above 20 years ago, was that a secret, which they so fiercely proclaimed? When I disputed daily almost with such in Cromwell's Army, was that a secret? When I disputed with Mr. Brown (an Army Chaplain) and his adhe­rents for the Godhead of Christ, in a pub­lick Church at Worcester, was that a secret? When I disputed in the publick Church at Kiderminster with the Quakers, was that a secret? When the said Quakers, and many other Sects, have come to my house, and have oft assaulted me in many other places openly, and vented their ignorance with fierce revilings and raging confidence, was that a secret? When I have openly Cate­chized men, was that a secret? Do not all sound Protestants believe that they are fun­damentals which our Quakers commonly contradict, and are ignorant of, especially Foxes party, whom Smith and Major Cob­bet accuse to deny Christ and the Resurre­ction, &c. And are there not Assemblies of such in London? And do not many turn to them of late? And is that a secret which their books and their assemblies tell the World? Who is it now that is put to shame?

EXCEPT. IX. Answered. I must now answer for what I say against the Papists too. I Confess they are separatists or recu­sants too. But lets hear the Charge? You say [They are very unweighed and rash words, when he saies [Shew me in Scripture or in Church history that either there ever was de facto, or ought to be de jure such a thing in the World, as the Papists call the Church, and I profess I will immediately turn Papist;] We think none can write thus, but declares a great unsteadiness in his Religion; for none that knoweth Church history but can prove that such a Church as the Romane, hath been neer 1300 years actually in being.

Answ. 1. My foregoing words are these, [The Pope hath feigned another thing, and cal­led it the Church, that is, The Universality of Christians headed by himself: Whereas 1. God never instituted or allowed such a Church. 2. Nor did ever the Universality of Christians acknowledge this usurping head.

Now when you say there hath been [such a Church as the Romane] either you mean what I denied [such a Church as they claim and feign] and I described; Or only [such a Church as they are, which is another thing.] If the later, why will you grosly abuse your Reader by such a deceit, which tendeth to tempt him unto Poperie? What's that to my words which you seem to contradict? But if you mean the former, and indeed contradict me, then 1. You prevaricate in [Page 33] befriending Popery. 2. You here set down three more Untruths in matter of fact; 1▪ That there hath been neer 1300 years (or ever was) such a Church; that is, that the7 Untruth. Universality of Christians did acknowledge the Pope for the Universal Constitutive and Go­verning 8 Untruth. Head. 2. That there is none that know­eth 9 Untruth. Church history but can prove this. 3. That they are very unweighed words, in which I as­sert what I did.

And all this I have given the World fullThe Cause of Popery tried. proof of, in my Dispute against Mr. Iohn­son the Papist, of the Visibility of the Church. Had I not weighed the words, I had not so many years ago so largely proved and maintained them. And I have there fully proved, that the Romane Church was only Imperial, or of the Empire (and the Countreys that after fell from the Empire) such as we call national, because under one Prince. That de facto, the Persians, the Abassines, Indians, part of Armenia, and ma­ny other Churches or Christians, never ac­knowledged him their Constitutive or Go­verning Head; that the Emperors who cal­led the General Councils had nothing to do with the subjects of other Princes, nor used to call them: That the General Councils consisted only of the subjects of the Em­pire, (and those that had been of the Em­pire,) except one Iohannes Persidis, and one or two more inconsiderable persons, that no account can be given of, who they were, or how they came thither. Godignus himself [Page 34] will tell you enough of the Abissines. All the Papists in the World are never able to answer this publick Evidence of fact, with any sense.

Mr. Iohnson's Reply I take not to be wor­thyOf Mr. Iohn­son's Reply to my Book. of an Answer with any man that can make use of an answer; when his shift is so gross as to instance in the Bishops of Thra­cia as out of the Empire, and such as they, which every novice in history and Geogra­phie can Confute. Unless I was Confuted in▪ London at a publick Play, where (that you may see who influenceth them) a Tutor in Geographie was (as I am credibly inform­ed) brought in telling his Pupill, that Prester Iohn's Countrey of Abassia was of the same Latitude with a place in Worcester-shire cal­led Kederminster.]

Now seeing reason forbiddeth me to in­terpret you as speaking of the Church of Rome as a Sect or Party, when I spake of it, as the Universality of Christians headed by the Pope (your Context shewing that it is my words that you gainsay,) therefore I must number these three also with the rest of your untruths.

You adde [We wonder that any Protestant should be found, though but by the equalling of Church history to Scripture, as if the uncer­tain tradition of the one, were to be as much ac­counted of and followed as the Divine and in­fallible Revelation of the other.]

Answ. 1. Because this wonder plainly containeth an affirmation that I do so, I must [Page 35] say that it is your tenth untruth: Prove such10 Untruth. a word if you are able.

2. It is not true that this Historie is un­certain (though not to be equalled with Scripture.) Is the Case of a vast Empire of Aethiopia (as big yet after the decay saith Brierwood, as Germany, Italy, France and Spain) uncertain, when the World knoweth that they have not had so much as Converse with the Pope, and at Oviedos attempt did not know who he was? And so of Persia, India, &c.

If you will needs be so much wiser than your neighbours as to prove all historie un­certain, even that there was a Caesar, or a William the Conqueror. 1. While you be­friend the Papists in this one point, you will incommodate them in others, 2. And you will promote Infidelitie, by making that hi­storie uncertain by which we know the Ca­nonical books of Scripture, and that they are delivered down to us the same and un­corrupt.

When I had given in few words, a full and plain answer to the Papists about our separation from their Church, and remem­bred how many Volumes they have troubled the World with, by obscuring our plain andWhether it be intollerable Pride to say that the Papists understand not Christian sense and rea­son. ordinarie answer, I told them, that must have Volumes to hide the sense, that if this answer seem not plain and full to them, it is be­cause they understand not Christian sense and reason; and not for want of plainess in the matter, or through defectiveness as to satis­fie [Page 36] a reasonable impartial man. This, bro­ther, chargeth this saying, to be [insolent, and from intolerable Pride] because I dare so Charge another with want of Christian sense and reason, &c.

Answ. 1. This is his eleventh untruth. I11 Untruth. only named sense and reason objectively, not subjectively. It is not because the Answer which I give the Papists (and which Pro­testants commonly give) is not full and plain, or wanteth sense or reason, but because the Papists understand it not. He that hath sense and reason may be hindred from using it aright, by interest, partialitie, and wilful negligences which it is no new thing for Protestants to think that Papists are too oft guilty of. But how proud am I then, intole­rably proud that in several books have main­tained that all Papists that hold Transub­stantiation, do make it an Article of Faith, and necessarie to Salvation, flatly to contra­dict all the senses of all the sound men in the World, that shall judge whether bread be bread, and wine be wine? How much more insolent a Charge is this? But, brother, Popish absurdities have need of a better de­fence, than to call the adversarie insolent and proud.

2. And is the thing I say true or false? I prove it true. The Answer of the Protestants about Luther's Reformation which I give, is Christian [...] Sense and Reason: But the Papists or any that deny it seriously, and take it not to be plain and full understand it not: Ergo they [Page 37] understand not Christian sense and rea­son.

That is, In this: For I never said that they understand not Christian Sense and Reason, in any other thing, nor is there the least appearance of such a sense. Now if this, brother, will deny either of the premises, he may expect an answer. Till then I adde.

3. Are not you, brother, by your own censure notoriously insolent and intolerably proud, if this hold good, as well as I? Do you not take all that you say against me (or some part at least) to be plain and full, and to be Christian sense and reason? And do you not suppose me to think otherwise of it? And do you not think that this is be­cause I understand it not? Thus some mens hands do beat themselves.

4. And do you not implicitly charge all or most Protestant Writers with insolence and intolerable pride as well as me? Do they not all think their reasons against the Pa­pists plain and full (at least some of them:) And do they not think that the Papists de­nie them because they understand not the Christian Sense and Reason which is in them.

5. And have not all mankind a deficien­cie of understanding? And is it pride and insolence to say so?

6. But judge of your own spirit by your own rule: Do not you think those that you before charged with persecution, and making our dividing engines, and whose [Page 38] Communion you think it a duty to avoid, to be such as understand not Christian sense and reason in the arguings which I and others have used against them? And is it not as lawful to think so of the Papists?

EXCEPT. X. Answered. I used the phrase of [Local presential Communion] in Contradistinction, 1. To the Catholick Communion of persons absent, which is by Faith and Love, 2. And the Communion by Delegates and Representatives: And our bro­ther here, 1. Calleth this phrase [insignificant Iargon,] which was not said through any redundancy of Sense and Reason above othets; Nor do I acknowledge his autho­ritie in the sentence without his rea­son.

2. He saith [Unlawful terms are impo­sed on us] Answ. Brother, Do you think men must trust their souls on your naked word? Where in all this book have you done any thing, that with an impartial un­derstanding can go for proof, that [in all the Parish Churches of England that use the Liturgie, that is imposed as a Condition of our Communion in hearing or praying, which it is not lawful sometimes to do?] Answer this, as to Mr. Nie about hearing, and to me about Praying; if you can? and do not nakedly affirm.

3. You say you do not [so much separate as forbear Communion] and your reason is [Page 39] [for we were never of them.] Answ. I take you for a Christian and a Protestant: Are you not so far of us? Is not a member of the same Universal Church of Christ, ob­liged to hold Communion, as he hath a spe­cial Call or occasion, with more Churches than that particular one which he ordinarily joyneth with? If you purposely avoided and denied Communion with all the Inde­pendentOf Separation. Churches in England save one, and wrote to prove it unlawful, I think this were a separating from them, as they are parts of the Church Universal that are neer you.

EXCEPT. XI. Answered. 1. The word Sect (though oft taken but for one party in a division) was not by me applied to all the names before going, but to the last named only, and such other. 2. I spake nothing at all of the truth or falshood of the Censurers words, but of the requitals that Censurers have by other mens Cen­sures, which may be sharp and passionate, and a rebuke to the Censured, and modallyOf Censuring Papists. Culpable, when the words are true. Yet I am content to undergo the Censure you here cast out of me, rather than to censure, that a Papist cannot go beyond a reprobate, un­less you do, (as Mr. Perkins doth, to make it good,) be so charitable to all the millions else among them, as not to call them Papists, except they practically hold the most per­nicious [Page 40] opinions of their Councils and Di­vines. I confess I affect none of the honour of that Orthodoxness, which consisteth in sentencing millions and Kingdoms to Hell, whom I am unacquainted with.

EXCEPT. XII. Answered. Here we have first a meer magisterial dictate with­out proof, that I speak [triflingly] about Of Pauls not scandalizing the weak. Scandal, and shew how little I understand it. But where's his reason or Confutation? 2. Why all is but this [Paul would not eate flesh rather than he would offend his weak bro­ther, &c.] Judge, Reader, whether the bareI know that Expositors much differ about the weak brother here described, but not in the point that I now urge the [...]ext for. citing of these words be any proof, that in Scripture, Scandal is not taken more for tempting, ensnaring, and laying before men an occasion of stumbling, or sinning, than for meer displeasing men, which is the thing that I af­firmed.

But, sure Brother, if you soberly review it, you will find that you deal very hardly with the Scripture and the souls of men. First the word [ [...]] which our Translators turn [make to offend] you read [offend] instead of scandalize; And 2. You bring a text against the truth which I assert, which is as plain for it as can well be spoken. The whole Chapter shewing, that [the weake brother] that Paul speaketh of, was one that [with Conscience of the Idol, did eate it as a thing offered to an Idol, and their Con­science being weak was defiled, ver. 7. 9, And [Page 41] it is one whose Conscience is emboldened (or confirmed) to eate those things which are of­fered to idols, and thereby he may perish, ver. 10, 11.

And it is he that is (not displeased) but made to offend. And the scandalizing which Paul would avoid is called [becoming a stumbling to them that are weak, ver. 9. Em­boldening to that heinous sin, ver. 10. Making a brother to offend, v. 13. twice over. Is this, think you, displeasing the innocent, or rather, tempting those that are apt to sin, and confirm­ing the faulty.

Read what Dr. Hammond saith of their weakness, and what [...] signifieth there, and then further tell me; 1. Whether you mean such weak ones that you would not have me offend? 2. Whether those that are most displeased with us for Communion in the Liturgie, be such as you will say, are most in danger of yielding to sin? 3. Whe­ther you would do as Paul doth, Call those weak brethren, who to that day did eate in Idols temples, and that as a thing offered to idols? 4. Whether Paul commanded the Corin­thians to separate from the Church, because such men were in their Communion? 5. Whether Paul himself in communicating with that Church, did not that which you write against? 6. Whether by this rule, we should not take heed most of scandalizing those Christians that are aptest to sin? 7. Whether this text, which you so abuse, well considered, is not sufficient against all [Page 42] your Cause, and for that which I main­tain?

EXCEPT. XIII. p. 6. Answered. Here is nothing but, 1. His saying that He may well doubt of the truth of what I report, viz. whether any (or many) faithful Ministers would so reproach their people, and their ho­nourable name which is upon them, as to call them pievish and self conceited Christians.] Answ. 1. Are there any such Christians or not? 2. If they are, should their fault be healed or cherished? 3. If healed, should it be reproved or concealed? But I will an­swer this further anon, when it comes in again.

2. He doubts not but those that thus com­plained to me expected so much prudence and faithfulness in me as to conceal their Com­plaints, and not vent them now when the state of affairs is so much altered. Answ. Here areMore of re­vealing secrets. two untruths implied: 1. That these com­plaints were only made in secret, with an expectation that not only the persons, but the case it self should be concealed. But how did he know this? Might not many of them be men that since conform, and make the same complaint now openly? Yes, I could name you more than one such? Might not some be such as have done the same in print themselves? Yes, Old Mr. Rob. Abbot was one, who after removed to Austins London, and died there, before Mr. Ash. If you [Page 43] will but read his book against separation, you will see thathe silenced not such matters, but hath said more than ever you are able well to answer. 2. It is not true that these Com­plaints were only made before the state of af­fairs was altered; for I have oft heard it since, with greater sense of it than ever before. Nor is it any dishonour to a Minister, not to be ignorant of Satans wiles: The more they know them, the liker they are to over­come them.

3. In his conclusion are two more mi­stakes, but because they are prophetical, I will not count them with the grossest. The first is, that he hopes that hereafter all that fear God will be very careful how they make any complaint unto a Person, (The Second) who will take the next worst occasion to revile a whole innocent and Godly Party by a malicious pub­lishing of it: Whereas, 1. Since the writing of his book I have had complaints against such as he, by many that fear God; 2. And he cannot prove what he prophesieth I will do. But yet two more untruths are implied in the prophesie. 1. That I will revile a whole Innocent, Godly suffering Party, when I protested I meant no particular party, but those of every party, Episcopal, Presbyte­rian, Independent, Anabaptist, &c. who through want of Love are aptest causelesly to condemn their brethren and avoid them (unless he will call all the Ignorant, Proud, and Uncharitable of all parties, by the name of a whole Godly suffering party.) 2. That I [Page 44] will revile them maliciously; unless he mean that writing for Love and Unity is a malici­ous act against Satan and his Kingdom.

EXCEPT. XIV. (Hereafter I must12 Untruth. number them, for he is weary of it) Answer­ed. This hath little worthy observation, but his 12th. Untruth, viz. that [by mentioning the separatist as a distinct body of men, from Whom I mean by Dividing; And of his Curse. the Antinomian, Quaker, and Anabaptist, it is evident I can mean no other, but my Presbyte­rian and Congregational brethren] which he follows with An Appeal to God against this Slanderer, and earnestly prayeth that he would please to rebuke him.

Whether this earnest prayer be a Curse? and whether it be like to that rule, to pray for them that curse us, and whether this bro­ther himself doth not in these very words put his error into his earnest prayer, even in print, and so verifie what he would so ve­hemently gainsay (to say nothing of the Common fame in London, that he that is famed to be the Author of these Exceptions, kept a day of Humiliation about me and my book) I leave to the Readers observation. And also whether this earnest prayer (or Curse) and this bold Appeal to God, be not prophane, and rather a fruit of passion, than charitable zeal? And whether he here knew what spirit he was of?

But to his Untruth I answer, 1. I prote­sted openly that my meaning was not what [Page 45] he affirmeth it to be; And could he know it better than I? 2. An Antinomian and Anabaptist as such, are distinct from Separa­tists as such: But doth it follow that there­fore they may not be Separatists also that are Antinomians and Anabaptists? Though the Errors whence the Sects are denomina­ted be various. 3. I have long ago in ma­ny books told the Papists that I mean them, as the Chief Schismaticks and Sect; and Dr. Hide for the first page of his book, what I thought of him; And the Lutherans that so resist all the endeavours of Dury, Calix­tus, Bergius, Lud. Crocius, and many more, in refusing Communion with the Calvi­nists, that I mean them; And here I profess that I mean no other party of men at all, but the Dividers of all parties whatsoever, even in the beginning of my Preface; And yet, alas, brother, did you not tremble first to publish so gross an Untruth, and when you had done, to ground your Appeal to God, and earnest prayer against me, upon it? The Lord give you a meeker spirit, and a tenderer conscience.

And that I mean not an Independent as such (for the Presbyterians will not suspect me) I will stop your mouth with this suf­ficient proof, 1. That the chief Indepen­dants have written excellently against sepa­ration, as Mr. Iacob by name; And they pretend that Mr. Bradshaw and Dr. Ames were Independants. 2. That I rejoyce in the state of the Churches of New England, [Page 46] since the Synods Concessions there, and good Mr. Eliots propositions for Synodical con­stant Council and Communion of Churches, as much as in any Churches State that I hear of in the World, (Though as to the form of Government, my judgement most agrees with the Waldenses, or Bohemian, publish­ed by Lascitius and Commenius;) especially since the Magistrates late printed Order, that all the Ministers shall take especial care to Catechize and personally instruct all the people under their Charge, even from house to house; at least 3 or 4 Families meeting together, &c. which I much rejoice in. It is evident then, that though a man may be a Divider, that is Episcopal, Presbyterian, In­dependant or Anabaptist, yet as such as their denominations signifie, I mean none of them; for many of all these names are no Di­viders (though a Papist is so by the essence of his Religion, un-churching all beside his Sect.)

And if you had done me but common justice, you would have noted, that in my scheme in the end, the second Proposition of the way of Love which I plead for is in these words; [Love your neighbours as your selves: Receive those that Christ receiveth; and that hold the necessaries of Communion, be they Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independants, Ana­baptists, Arminians, Calvinists, &c. so they be not proved heretical or wicked.] Judge now of your Truth and Charity by these eviden­ces.

EXCEPT. XV. p. 8. Answered. Here13 Untruth. is the 13th. visible Untruth, He saith [He speaks very slightly of Prayer in comparison of study, for the attaining of wisdome, calling it too cheap a way, which sheweth you how little he understandeth the nature of true Prayer,] &c.

Answ. I love you the better for yourWhether I slight prayer? And whether wisdom is to be got by prayer alone, without any other means. zeal for the honour of Prayer, though I had rather knowledge and truth had guided it. Reader, I intreat thee to peruse my book, and if thou find there what he saith, condemn me more than he doth, and spare not. I tell those men that will do nothing for know­ledge but ask for it, that [God hath not pro­mised you true understanding upon your pray­ers alone, without all the rest of his appointed mea [...]s; Nor that you shall attain it by those means as soon as you desire and seek it; For then prayer would be a pretence for laziness, &c. That praying is but one of the means which God hath appointed you to come to knowledge by; Diligent reading hearing, and meditation and Counsel of the wisest is another.] And will any Christian deny the truth of this except the Enthusiasts? Or should any Godly Mi­nister rise up against it? Is any of this true? 1. That I have here one word of Comparing prayer and study? 2. Or that I prefer study or reading, or other means before prayer? 3. Or that I speak lightly of prayer in Com­parison of the other? 4. Or that I make prayer it self an easie thing? Is not this, that I [Page 48] call his 13th. Untruth, composed of many? When it is visible, that I put prayer first, that I only say that it is but one means, and not all; and that others must be added, and that praying alone without other la­bour is too easie a way? What should one answer to such dealing as this? I beseech you, brother, preach not the contrary what­ever you think, lest you justifie the silencers, while you blame them?

And if really you are against my words, satisfie the World by experience, how ma­ny you ever kn [...]w that came to the under­standing but of the Articles of Faith, or the Decalogue or Catechism, or Christianity it self (that I say not to your degree of know­ledge above me and such as I,) by prayer alone, without hearing, reading, meditati­on, or conference. And why Paul bids Ti­mothy give himself to Reading, and meditate on these things, and give thy self wholly to them? And why Hearing and Preaching are so much urged? And whether it be any great fault to silence you and me and all the Preachers in the Land, if prayer be the only means of knowledge? And whether you do not before you are aware still agree with them whom you most avoid, who cry up Church-prayers to cry down Preaching? And why you wrote this book against me, if your earnest prayers against me, and the people, be the only means?

And when you have done, I can tell you of many Papists and others, that you your [Page 49] self suppose never pray acceptably, who have come to a great deal of knowledge: Though there be no sanctified saving Knowledge (after the first Conversion) without prayer. I am sorry you put me to trouble the Reader about such things as these.

It follows [Neither doth Solomon direct to any other way principally, &c.] Answ. Did I speak one word of the principality, or which was the principal way? Did I not put prayer first, and other means next? This is not well, brother; Truth beseemeth our Calling, and our work. And yet he that said, I was found of them that sought me not, in my opinion, which yet expecteth your reproach) doth give so much knowledge as is necessary to mens first faith and repen­tance and conversion by the hearing or reading, or considering of his word, ordi­narily to them that never first asked it by sincere prayer; For I think that Faith go [...]t [...] before a believing prayer.

You adde We cannot but wonder that any dares so expresly go against the very letter of Scripture,—but that we have done with wondering at Mr. Baxter's boldness.

Answ. This I may well put as your 14th. 14 Untruth. Untruth. Reader, try if you can find one syllable of what he speaks in all my book? Doth he that saith [prayer is but one of the means] contradict the letter of Iam. 1. 5. If any man lack wisdome, let him ask it of God? O how hard is it to know what spirit we are o [...]? That a man should go on in such deal­ing [Page 50] as this? and make his own fictions the ground of such tragical exclamations when he hath done? Yea, he proceed.

For what follows in justification of his un­warrantable conceit exceeds all bounds of so­briety,—whither will not Pride and over­weening carry a man? He that had so tramp­led upon his brethren without any regard to their innocency or sufferings, now speaks but slightly of our Lord Christ himself.]

Answ. Your anger I pass by; I like you the better for speaking against Pride: For by that you shew that you love it not un­der that name. But still How hard is it to know our selves?

I am sorry, 1. That you are so sore and tender as to account it trampling on you, to be intreated to Love your brethren, and not [...]o divide the Church of God. 2. And that you say, He regardeth not your sufferings, who suffereth with you, and writeth so much as that book containeth against your sufferings. 3. And that you should call that your Inno­ [...]ency, which I have proved so largely to be against the new and great Commandement, and when you make so poor an answer to the proof.

I might number these with your Un­truths, but that I will choose out the grosser sort; such as is the next (15th. Untruth)15. Untruth. that I speak slightly of Christ. Is it slighting Christ to speak the words and undenied truth of Scripture? Two things I say of Christ; 1. That he increased in wisdom in [Page 51] his youth? Do you not believe that to be true? Surely Mr Ieanes in all his writingsWhether I speak slightly of Christ? against Dr. Hammond of that point, did ne­ver deny it. 2. That he would not enter upon his publick Ministry till he was about 30 years of age? Do you not believe that also? WhatHow Christ increased in wisdom. then is here that is a slighting of Christ? The reason of this later which I humbly conjecture at (and elsewhere express) is, that he might be an example to young men, not to venture and enter too early upon the Ministry. The reason you alledge from Num. 4. 2, 3. I gainsay not, though I think it far fetcht (that Christ must not enter sooner upon his publick Ministry in his ex­traordinary office, because the sons of Co­ [...]ah were numbred from 30 years to 50.) But you insinuate another untruth, yea express it while you flatly say, I insinuate, that Christ staid till 30 years old, that he might be more perfect in wisdome: I had no such word or thought. My following words [It had been easier for Christ to have got all knowledge by two or three earnest prayers than for any of us] refer only to the first clause, (of his growth in wisdom) and not at all to the later (of the time of his Ministry.)

But you deny that Christ had any addition of wisdom, except as to manifestation, I believe Gods word! And with others he will be as pardonable that believeth it, as he that denyeth it. I did not expound it: But if I must, I will. I think that according to the present frame of humane nature, the in­corporate [Page 52] soul receiveth the several objects it must know ab extra, by the fantasie, and that by the senses, and that our acts of knowing exterior things are as Philoso­phers affirm, objectively organical, though not efficiently and formally, that is, that the Intromission by the senses and phantasie, is necessary to the right stating of the object, And therefore that in all those acts of Knowledge which Christ exercised as other men do, 1. The Object, 2. The Organical capacity and aptitude of the body were ne­cessary (not to the perfection of his humane soul, in Essence, Power, Virtue, Inclination, Disposition, but only to the Act of Know­ing. And so I think Christ when new born knew not actually as a man, all that he aft [...]r knew; no, nor long after; And that he in­creased in Actual knowledge, 1. As Objects were presented, 2. And as the Organs in­creased in Capacity and aptitude, and no [...] otherwise. Yet I believe that Christ prayed before his Organs and actual knowledge were at the highest, and that he could (had it been his Fathers will and his own) by prayer have suddenly attained their per­fection; and that Culpable imperfection he never had any, nor such as is the effect of sin in Infants now. If this be an error, help me out of it by sitter means than reviling.

You adde that Christ needed not prayer for himself, but as a pattern to us, &c. Answ. Christ had no Culpable need, nor as God any natural need. But, brother, take heed of the [Page 53] Common error of them that think they can never say too much or do too much,Whether Christ needed Prayer for himself. when they are once engaged; for this is but undoing. 1. Do you think that Christs hu­mane nature was not a Creature? 2. Do you think that all Creatures are not Dependant on the Creator? and need him not? 3. Do you think Christs humane nature needed not Divine sustentation in existence, life, and motion, and Divine influx or Communica­tion hereunto, seeing that in God we live, and move, and be? 4. Do you think that Christs body needed not created means? as the earth, the air meat and drink, and sleep and rest? And that he needed not drink, when it is said, he thirsted, Ioh. 19. 28. I thirst. And Ioh. 4. 6. [being wearied with his journey, &c. ver. 7. Give me to drink.] Whether he needed not cloathing, and need­ed not ordinary bodily supplies, when it is said, that some ministred to him of their sub­stance, Luke 8. 3. As our Father knoweth that we have need of all these things, Mat. 6. 8. 32. So I think that Christs humane nature needed them; and that he gave not thanks at meat for his Disciples only; and that he bid them speak nothing but the truth, when he said Mat. 21. 3. Mar. 11. 3. Luke 19. 31. The Lord hath need of him. And that it was for himself that he prayed three times that the cup might pass, if, &c. (though for our instruction) Luke 22. 44. Matt. 26. 42. 44. Heb. 5. 7. Wh [...] in the daies of his flesh, wh [...]n he [...] offered up prayers and s [...]ppli [...]ati [...]ns [Page 54] with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he was a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered, and being made perfect, &c.] I believe that when he was on the Cross he needed de­liverance, and when his body was in the grave it needed the Divine power for to ef­fect his resurrection. And how a man would have been formerly judged of that had de­nyed any of this. You may learn by the severities of many Councils against the Eu­tychians, Nestorians, Monothelites, &c.

I am so regardful of your sufferings that I would not put your mind to any needless grief; But yet I heartily wish your R [...]pen­tance, not only for your errors, but that you should let out your (unknown) spirit to such vehemency in your revilings upon such pittiful grounds, as when you adde▪ [So that to speak so lesseningly of Prayer and Christ, to undervalue so much the unspeakable usefuln [...]ss the of one, and the incomprehensible Majesty of the other, becomes very well the spirit that Mr. Baxter writes with.] This is but a repetition of untruths.

EXCEPT. XVI. p. 9. Answered. Ha­ving Dir. 27. given five proofs by which I knew many to be mistaken that expound Texts of Scripture, by the Impressions on their own spirits, I said Dir. 28. [It is very ordinary with poor fanciful women and melan­choly [Page 55] persons, to take all deep apprehensi [...]ns for revelations; and if a Text come into their Of melancholy misinterpreta­tions of Scrip­ture. minds, to say,—This text was brought to my mind, and set upon my spirit, as if nothing could bring a text to their minds but some extraor­dinary motion of God? and as if this bringing it to their mind, would warrant their expositi­on.] Whereupon I advise men to know the necessity of the spirits ordinary sancti­fying work, and not to despise mens preten­ces of revelation; but yet to believe none against Scripture. As to the ground of this passage, it is such as is not disputable with me, being matter of sense; (so impossible is it for me to escape all the heinous accu­sations of this brother.) It is not many years since I have had several persons with me (two or three out of one County) that brought me books written for the Press, and urged me to procure them printed and shewed to the King, in which were abun­dance of Scriptures abused to many daring predictions of things presently to come to pass, and all upon pretence of Visions and Revelations, and the setting of such an ex­position on their hearts: And the men were ignorant, melancholy, and craz [...]d persons, and the Scriptures almost all fal [...]ly interpre­ted, and the predictions fail. And all of them had the fifth Monarchy notion with­out conference (that I could learn) with any about it.

When I lived in Coventrey, Major Wilkies a Learned Scot, lived in the house with me, [Page 56] who professed to have lived many years in a Course of Visions and Revelations, and had abundance of Texts set upon his heart, and expounded to him by Vision, most for the Millenary way, and for Prophecies about our times and changes, (and some against preciseness) many of his expositions were considerable: some palpably false: some of his predictions came to pass, and some pro­ved false: He was of a hot melancholy tem­per, and as I heard, after distracted.

If this brother had known how many (if not many score) of deeply melancholy persons have been with me, that have had some of them prophecies, most of them al­most in desperation, and some of them com­forted by such or such a Text, brought to their mind, which was of a quite different sense, and impertinent to that which they fetcht from it, and some of their Collections contrary to the rest; he would take heed of doing Gods spirit so much wrong as to fa­ther poor crazed peoples deliratio [...]s on it? And this is as common, I think, among the Papists themselves, that meddle less with Scripture than we do: What abundance of Books be there, of the phantasmes of their Fryers and Nuns, as Prophecies, Visions, and Revelations, which the judicious Rea­der may perceive are but the effects of me­lancholy and hysterical passions, improved by ignorant or deceitful Priests.

But what is the Charge against me here? Why he saith [He calls them poor fanciful [Page 57] women, and melancholy persons, that ordina­rily receive comfort by suggested Texts of Scripture.]

Answ. This is the 16th. visible Untruth. 16 Untruth. Indeed here are are two gross untruths to­gether. 1. He changeth the subject into the predicate, and then affirmeth me so to have spoken. I said [It is ordinary for such fanci­ful and melancholy persons, to take deep appre­hensions for Revelations, and if a Text come into their mind, to think it is by an extraordi­nary motion of the spirit. And he feigneth me to say, that they that ordinarily receive comfort by suggested texts are melancholy. Is it all one to say, It is ordinary for melancholy persons to pray, to fear, to erre, &c. And, They that ordinarily pray, fear, erre, are melancholy.] Again, Brother, this is not well.

2. He feigneth me to speak of them that [ordinarily receive Comfort] when I have no such word, but speak of them that would draw others into error and separation by confident asserting false expositions of Scripture as set on their mind by revel [...]tion from the spirit. This is not well nei­ther.

He addeth [If this be not to sit in the Chair of Scorners, what is?] This needeth no an­swer.

[For (saith he) is not this the very language of holy men; Answ. Alas, brother, how im­pertinent is your question? The question is, Whether this be the language of no melancholy person? or of none but holy men? and that [Page 58] as holy? Is it not the language of many [...] Popish Nun and Fryer that pretend to Re­velation? Have not I heard it with these ears from multitudes in melancholy and other weakness that have perverted the Texts which they alledged? Have I not read it many books of Experiences? Is he a scor­ner that saith, that a man may speak the same words mistakingly in melancholy which another speaketh truly? Do you well, brother, to trouble the World at this rate of discourse? For charges on me, I pass them by. And for his saying that the bare recital of their usual words is fitter for a Iester than a judicious Divine, and when he hath done, to be so angry that they be not all ascribed to Gods spirit, I will not denomi­nate such passages as they deserve, lest I of­fend him.

Lest you deny belief to me, I intreat you and the Reader to get and read a book pub­lished by Mr. Brown (as is uncontrolledly affirmed, who lately wrote against Mr. Tombes against the lawfulness of Communi­on in the Parish Churches) concerning the experiences and strange work of God on a Gentlewoman in Worcester (whom I will not name, because yet living, and God may recover her, but is there well known.) This Gentlewoman having been long vain, and a constant neglecter of publick worship, was suddenly moved to go into the Church while I was there preaching (on Rom. 6. 21.) The very Text struck her to the heart; but [Page 59] before the Sermon was done she could hard­ly forbear crying out in the Congregation: She went home a changed person; resolved for a holy life. But her affection (or passion) being strong, and her nature tender, and her knowledge small▪ she quickly thought that the Quakers lived strictlier than we, and fell in among them. At last perceiving them vilifie the Ministry and the Scripture, her heart smote her, and she forsook them, as speaking against that which by experience she had found to do her good; And desiring to speak with me (who lived far off,) open­ed this much to me. But all these deep workings and troubles between the several waies, did so affect her, that she fell into a very strong melancholy; Insomuch that she imposed such an abstinence from meat upon her self, that she was much consumed, and so debilitated as to keep her bed, and almost famished. Mr. Brown (and others) were her instructers, who were very zealous for the way called The Fifth Monarchy, and having instructed her in those opinions, published the whole story in print (which else I would not have mentioned) I shall say nothing of any thing which is otherwise known, but desire the Reader that doth but understand what melancholy is, better than the Writers did, to read that book, and ob­serve with sorrow and pitty, what a num­ber of plain effects of Melancholy, as to thoughts, and Scriptures, and actions, are there ascribed to me [...]r Temptations on one [Page 60] side, and to Gods unusual or notable operations on the other side! In the end he saith [And indeed when a soul oppressed with sorrow be­fore, shall suddenly find ease, by having some Scripture brought to their mind which before they thought not of if this be not the spirits work as a Comforter, we shall be alwaies doubtful how aad when he performeth that office; which way of Doubting Mr. Baxter's Divinity leads into, which sufficiently shews, it is not of God: For God calls us to hope perfectly, and to rejoyce in the hope.

Answ. The Divinity which I think true and sound, doth teach Enthusiasts, whether Fryers or Nuns, or any such Phanatick, not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits whether they be of God; And to believe that Satan can transform himself into an Angel of Light; And to doubt whether their suggestions, revelations or prophecies be of God, till it be true and sure: For in­stance, I would have had your fellow prison­er have doubted of his three after men­tioned prophecies uttered in the Pulpit, as from the spirit of God (That we should have no more King, Tythes, or Taxes:) Be not an­gry with me for giving you such instances; It is only to save others from wronging the Holy Ghost, and exposing Religion to pro­fane mens scorn. And I would not have one turn Anabaptist, if in their sorrow or mu­sing that Text should be set upon their mind, Act. 22. 16. Why tarriest thou, arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.] Nor [Page 61] would I have another turn Papist, if that Text be set upon his heart, Act. 9. 6. Arise and go into the City, avd it shall be told thee what thou must do: And if it be a Popish Priest that he [...]irst me [...]teth with, and think­ [...] [...] [...] [...] th [...] m [...]n that must inform [...]im.

I wo [...]d not [...]ember of any Church, upon an insufficient reason separate from it, if that Text be se [...] upon his heart, Come out of her my people, &c. Or [...] Cor. 6. 17. Come out from among them, and be y [...] separate, &c.

Nor would I [...] [...] Hypocri [...] [...]r un­godly person con [...]lude himself to be sincere▪ if that Text do suddenly come into his mind (how affectingly soever) Ioh, 1. 47. Behold an Israelite indeed in whom is no guile.

Nor would I have an upright doubt [...]g Christian conclude himself an Hypocrite [...] that text come into his mind, Act. 8. Thy heart is not right in the sight of God, &c. I think that there is somewhat else besides the sud­den coming into our minds, and the deepes [...] affecting of us, that is necessary to prove the true meaning of a Text, and the sound­ness of our Conclusions from it. And yet I never doubted but that the spirit doth both cause our comfort, and our resolutions and other gracious effects, by bringing forgot­ten Texts to our remembrance.

But the way that I think the spirit cureth our doubting by, is all these things follow­ing [Page 62] set together. 1. Supposing that he hath infallibly guided the writers of the Scrip­ture. 2. And hath set to it the infallible seal of God (which is the Impress of his Power, Wisdome, and Goodness.) 3. And that he helpeth Ministers to preach this Gospel to us. 4. He next doth help us to Remember, and to Understand it; And no false exposition is from the spirit of God: And he hath left us sufficient means to discern (as far as is necessary to our Salva­tion and our Comfort) whether it be right­ly interpreted or not. 5. And he helpeth us firmly to believe the Truth of it: And of the unseen Glory which it promiseth. 6. And hereby he kindleth in us Repentance, Hope, and Love, and reneweth both soul and life to the Image of God, and the example of Jesus Christ. 7. And then he helpeth us to Act or Exercise all this Grace. 8. And he helpeth us to discern the sincerity of it: And And so by the spirit we know that we have the spirit, and have the witness of Christ, and the seal of God, and the pledge, earnest, and first fruits of eternal life within us, whilest the spirit doth make known him­self to be in us. And all true signs of Sancti­fication, or the Divine nature in us, are signs of this in-dwelling sealing spirit: But so are not the sudden passions, and fancies, and change of parties, sides, or by opinions, or strong conceits unproved, from whence some use to fetch their comforts. 9. And next he helpeth us hereupon to make a true [Page 63] application of the promise of Justification and Salvation to our selves: Having before applied or received it by Faith and Consent, and being Iustified, he helpeth us to apply it to our Assurance and setled Hope and Com­fort; and to argue, There is no Condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus, that walk not after the flesh but after the spirit: But I am in Christ Iesus, and I walk not after the flesh but after the spirit; Therefore there is no con­demnation to me. 10. Next the same spirit exciteth actual Hope and Ioy in the soul, by the said application of the promise; that we shall not only conclude from it, that we have pardon and right to Heaven in Jesus Christ, but also shall have the Will and Affections duly moved with that Conclusion. 11. And the same spirit helpeth us to answer all the false Cavils of Satan, the World, or our misgiving hearts, which rise up against this hope and Com­fort. 12. And lastly he helpeth us in the use of all those holy means, by which this Hope and Comfort is to be maintained, and helpeth us against the sins that would de­stroy it, and so keepeth it in life, and exer­cise, and perseverance, till we finally over­come. By all these twelve Acts together the spirit causeth the Hope and Comfort of Believers, and saveth them from their doubts and sorrows.

And now, Brother, when you can calm­ly think of it, I should be glad that you would consider, whether to say this Divinity [Page 64] leadeth to doubting, and that it is not of God, be not, 1. An untruth, 2. An injury to him whom you calumniate, 3. An injury to the souls of men that must be thus comforted, 4. And an injury to God, by telling the World, that his own doctrine is not his own, and by feigning Gods truth to be mans er­ror. And whether your way here opened (by receiving sudden Comfort by a remem­bred Text) be sounder doctrine? And be not such a way as Papists, Quakers, and most deluded people commonly boast of? And if you bring poor souls no better directions for their full assurance, peace and joy, whether in the end you will not prove a miserable Comforter?

EXCEPT. XVII. p. 10. Answered. Whether God hates book­prayers or forms. When I say that I wonder at men that think God maketh such a matter as they do of their several words and forms, as that he loveth only extemporate prayers and hateth forms, or loveth only prescribed forms and hateth extemporate prayers by habit,] he saith this is ▪As if I could never speak meanly enough about prayer. But, brother, if you kindle this burning zeal your self, by teaching men to hate either forms or praying by habit; Marvel not if it burn you, within and without; and when your own passions have scorched you, other mens hatred of your prayers, as you hate theirs, do trouble you also. And if you hate the quenching of these fires, even when the [Page 65] Churches by them are all on a flame, as so­ber▪ men as you will be of another mind, I tell you again, brother, you greatly wrong and dishonour God, if you think that he layeth so much upon that which he never gave any law about, or spake one word for or against, as to tell the World that he hateth all prayer that is put up by a form or book. And that he that denyeth this, speaketh mean­ly of prayer. The Lord teach you to know what manner of spirit you are of, (which request I shall reit [...]rate for you, instead of praying with your earnestness, The Lord re­buke him.▪ Have you the bowels of a Chri­stian, and the spirit of Christian Love and Unity▪ and can you think that God hateth (for that was my word) all the prayers of all the Churches and Christians in the World, that use a form? Even of all the Greek Churches, the Armenians, Abassines, Jacobites, Syrians, Cop [...]ies, Lutherans, and Calvinists; of all the English publick Churches; and the prayers of such holy men as Dr. Preston, Dr. Sibbes, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Hildersham, Mr. Cartwright, Dr. Stough­ton, Mr. Whateley, Mr. Bolton, and all such as they that used some the Li [...]urgie, and some other forms? And that God hateth the prayers of all Christian Families and Christians that use a form? Do you dislike adding to God's word, and will you adde to it so boldly, as to say, he hateth that which he never once forbad?

If you would make your reader think [Page 66] that I make God indifferent to all modes and words in prayer, you would abuse him: For though I never heard a man swear in prayer, I think you curse in prayer a little before; and I have heard many rail in prayer, and traduce men for truth and duty, and vent their own errors. But I beseech you pro­mote superstition no more, and feign no Di­vine Laws which you cannot shew us? And teach not this unhappy age to feign things necessary that are not, and paint out the most holy gracious God, as the patron of every one of their fancies.

Your words [Doth not God regard the man­ner of our addressing our selves to him? Must we not pray in the spirit?] Do still make me pray, that you may know your spirit. Do you well to intimate that I say the contrary? When I maintain that God so far accepteth them that worship him in spirit and truth, that he will accept their prayers, with a form or without, and hateth neither; yea; hath left both indifferent, to be varied as mens oc­casions and use for either vary, as he hath done a form or notes in preaching. It is an easie thing to turn formalist either way, by thinking God loveth our prayers either be­cause they are in the same words, or in vari­ous words.

The second part of this Exception cal­leth me [a trifler, that doth neither believe the Scripture nor himself, but tries to abuse, &c.] Because I say about a Liturgie, 1. Certainly in Christs time, both Liturgies by forms, and [Page 67] prayers by habit were used. 2. That it is like Whether the Jews had a Liturgie in Christs time. that the Pharisees long Liturgie, was in many things worse than ours; And yet Christ and his Apostles oft joyned with them, and never condemned them.▪

Answ. 1. Let the Reader observe whe­ther ever Christ, his Apostles, or the Pha­risees medled with the Controversie about the lawfulness of forms? Whether ever Christ condemned them? 2. Let the Rea­der note that when I say that Certainly forms were used, I say not, whether in the Synagogue or Temple, or House, nor do I say that they were other forms than Di­vine? But when I say that it is like in many things the Pharisees Liturgie was worse than ours, I mean that it is like (though not cer­tain) that part of it was of humane inven­tion, and used publickly.

And, 1. The word Liturgie (as Martinius and other Etymologists agree, hath three significations, 1. The largest is, for any pub­lick office of ministry, and specially of distri­bution. 2. For the publick service of God, in reading, teaching, praying, &c. 3. For stated orders and forms of that publick service, To which Bellarmine addeth a 4th. as the narrowest sense of all, viz For the sacrificing offices only; which is no usual sense. Now the second and third being the now-Common sense, I thought there hadSee Psal 92. and 102, &c. been no question about them.

That the Jews had a Divine Liturgie in both senses (as a service, and as a prescript [Page 68] form) I proved in my 5th. Disput. of Litur­gies many years ago. 1. In the Temple they had most punctual prescripts for their sa­crifices of all sorts, and their offerings; and the manner of performance, and the actions of Priests and people about them. In the Synagogues Moses and the Prophets were read every Sabbath day! And the Psalms were purposely penned (many of them) and1 Chr. 16. 4. and 25. 2 Chron. 8. 14, 15. recorded to be Prayers and Praises for the publick and private worship, and were committed to several Church-officers to be publickly used: And David and Solomon appointed the Instruments, Singers, and or­der & manner in which they should be used. A form of prayer for the Priests is prescribed in three benedictions, Numb. 6. 23. Heze­kiah commanded the Levites to sing Praises to the Lord with the words of David and of Asaph the S [...]r, 2 Chron. 29. 30. 1 Chron. 16. 7. [On that day David delivered first this Psalm to thank the Lord into the hands of Asaph and his brethren, Exod. 15. The song of Moses is a form. And Rev. 15. 3. the Saints are said to sing the song of Moses and of the Lamb. Most Expositers think that the Hymne that Christ sung at his last sup­per, was the usual form: If not, it was a new form. Moses form at the moving and resting of the Ark is set down, Numb. 10. 35, 36. Deut. 21. 7▪ 8. There is a form for the people to use, Iudg. 5. Deborahs song is recorded: so is Hannahs praise, 1 Sam. And Ioel 2. 17. there is a form for the Priests in [Page 69] their Humiliation: And Iohn taught his Disciples to pray; And when Christ was desired to teach his Disciples as Iohn had done his, he gave them a form. Now let the sober Reader judge whether the Jews had no form or Liturgie of God's appoint­ment.

If he say, I thought you had meant a hu­mane form; I answer, If you will think that which I say not, and choose rather to revile, than observe what you [...]ead, I cannot help it.

2. When I speak of a Probability after­ward, I do mean of a humane Liturgie: of which I will now only say, 1. That it seem­eth very improbable to me that the Phari­sees who so abounded with Traditions, should not so much as have any humane forms of prayer or praise.

2. When Christ speaketh of their long prayers, I desire them on both extreams to con­sider, that, If it was a long Liturgie, they should not compare the Puritane to the Pharisee in his long prayers as they use to do, but to others. But if they were extem­porate Prayers, 1. To one side I say, that if Christ had been against extemporate praying, he would have put that into his rebukes: 2. To the other side I say, If the Pharisees had the gift of long extemporate prayers, we must take heed of over-valuing such a gift, and ascribing it too much to the spirit, so that the Pharisees long prayers, as a two edged sword, cut both extreams in this pievish Controversie.

[Page 70]3. This Controversie whether the Iews had a Liturgie, is handled so largely by Mr. Selden, that I must refer the Reader to him that would see what is said for the affirma­tive, in Eutych. Alexandr. pag. 35 to p. 63. Where he shews that till Ezra's time there was none but the Scripture Liturgie; And that in Ezra's time eighteen Prayers were made; and shews how far they might or might not adde: Where having cited abun­dance of Rabbins, he shews that however the Jewish Rabbins are fabulous, these histo­rical testimonies are our best means of in­formation, and are credible, and addeth the words of Ios. Scaliger, [Hic fuit vetus Ri­tus Celebrationis Paschae temporibus Messiae: Quod vetustissimi Canones in Digestis Talmu­dicis manifesto probant: Nisi quis eos neget antiquos esse; Quod idem ac si quis capita Pa­piniani, Pauli, Ulpiani, & aliorum Iuris­consultorum in Digestis Iustiniani producta ne­get esse eorum Iurisconsultorum quorum no­mine citantur; Quod nemo sanus dixe­rit.

EXCEPT. XVIII. p. 10. Answered. Here you except against me, if for any thing▪ for [being grown so scrupulous and so tender Of jeasting at other mens [...]ayers. as to be offended, if any break jeasts upon Com­mon Prayer.]

Answ. 1. I spake of jesting on both sides at one anothers devotions, and not of one alone. 2. If you are for that way of break­ing [Page 71] jeasts and scorns at other mens prayers, with what measure you mete it will be meted to you again. They will requite you to the full with jeasts and scorns at yours al­so. 3. Brother, do you like this way, or do you not? If you do, what a spirit are you of? If you do not, why do you quarrel with this advice

And whereas you cite my own words in the Reply to the Bishops, I must tell you; 1. That I know nothing in any of those Papers or Treaty, as to the matter that I have changed my judgement in, or repent of. And I admire that the Prelates that ask so often [What will satisfie us?] and others that carry it to the World as if we had said nothing, should to this day leave that Reply and our Liturgie then offered them, and our Petition for Peace, so much unanswered; Which few that knew them will believe is for want of will and fervour or indignati­on against them? 2. That yet the sentence cited by you [Whether it be that the Common-Prayer-Book hath never a Prayer for it self,] I confess is sarcastical, and I unfeignedly thank you for calling me to review it; and I do unfeignedly repent of it, and desire pardon of God and men, for speaking words of so much derision? Though I then no more perceived my fault, than you do yours.

I mentioned some that were scandalized at the scorns of men at the Liturgie here­tofore; And, 1. He calls it a prophane story fitter for Ranters, 2. He challengeth me to tell [Page 72] the names of them that used those expressions. 3. He thinks I did greatly sin in repeating them. 4. Else he will think I invented them▪ on purpose to make my brethren odious, and justifie the persecution against them.

Answ. 1. If it be so bad, why are you so angry with me, for being against it, and th [...] like, or [...]ny scorns at other mens tolerable devotion?

2. Your challenge is but a drop of your unrighteousness. I told you I knew them that were inflamed by those words, but not that I knew the Speaker. And how should a man know the names of all that look in at a Church-door? How oft have I had Qua­kers in the face of the Market and of the publick Congregation, revile me, and curse me as in the name of God, and speak as bad words as those, when I seldome asked what their names were. And yet I must name them or be to you a malicious lyar. And shall I no [...] be so with you, if I obey your challenge? Is it not uns [...]vo [...]y to name men in such stories? Well, I will thus for this once obey you. In 1640. coming up to London to the Physitians, I lay at Bosoms-Inn in Laurence- [...]e: On the Lords-day the Inn-keeper, an old man (Mr. Hawkshead as I remember his name was) came in from Laurence Church with some guests in a ve­ry great passion: We ask'd him what the matter was? He answered, that as he went into the Church, a fellow look'd in, and spake those very words I recited, save that [Page 73] he said [The Deele] instead of [The Devil:] And from very sober honest people I have, I believe, many score times heard them call the Common Prayer [Porridge] and say, [He is not out of his Porridge yet.]

3. If I sin in repeating them, I pray you justifie not that spirit that uttered them; Nor be not of the mind of the Councellor of the wicked in this age, whose policy is to perswade men to commit such heinous sins (Perjury, Lying, &c.) which sound odi­ously in the naming, and then no man may ever accuse them, lest he be guilty of rail­ing, incivility, &c.

4. Brother, a very low degree of inge­nuity would have taught you to have judg­ed such a Plea for Love, by one that in this book speaketh more against Persecuting you, than ever you read, I believe, in a Li­censed book since the printing Act, to have come from no malicious persecuting in­tent.

Yet, as if you were so eagerly set on the Defence of the dividing scandalous miscar­riages of this age, as to take it for persecu­tion so much as to lament them, or pray against them, you gather the same conclu­sion from my very prayers to God, for pitty to his Church that is distracted and endan­gered by such usage.

And here, seeing your sufferings are soThe temptati­ons of suffer­ings. much talk'd of, and I am numbred by you among your persecutors, endure me to tell you, that suffering hath its temptations as [Page 74] well as prosperity; And that the tempta­tions to passion, and to run too far from those we suffer by, and to lose our charity to them and their adherents, are so much stronger to me (I leave others to judge themselves) than the temptations to fear and timerous complyances, that I was much more jealous of my heart in this, when I suffered most than at other times: For I knew that it is one of Satans designs to rob me of my Cha­rity and Integrity, in which he would more triumph than in depriving me of my main­tenance, reputation and liberty. And I must confess to you, brother, that (though I once hoped that we should have been great gain­ers by our sufferings) the fruit of them now appeareth to me to be such in many as ma­kethMany are overcome by suffering, who think they overcome. It's a reproach to our Nation that Hornius Hist. Eccl. saith, [Ita ut seperatismus sive Brownis­mus non alios habeat authores quam cum Ty­rannide & su­perstitione Epis­copos Dominan­tes, pag. 244. So much good suffering doth. me more afraid of imprisonment for the sake of my soul, than of my body, lest it should stir up that passion which should bear down my judgement into some errors and extreams, and corrupt and destroy my Love to them by whom I suffer.

And truly, Brother, I am fully convin­ced that many that think their sufferings are their glory, and prove them better men than others, are lamentably lost and over­come by their sufferings. I think your com­panion and you are no gainers by it, who presently by preaching and writing thus, bring water to the extinguishing of Chri­stian Love. I think those two Gentlemen before mentioned, that turned Quakers in prison, and left their Religion (as many [Page 75] more have done) were losers by it. And I think many thousands in these times, that are driven into various errors and extreams, and have lost their charity to adversaries and dissenters, have lost a thousand times more than their liberties and money comes to. Woe be to the World because of offences; And woe be to them by whom offence cometh. Experience of too many maketh me less in love with sufferings than I have been; And to think that the quiet and peaceable preaching of the Gospel (though under many other disadvantages) if God would grant it us, would be better for our own souls.

EXCEPT. XIX. Answered. You pro­ceed, [But Mr. B. being once got into the chair of the scornful will not easily out, and there­fore goes on [It is an odious sound to hear an ignorant, rash, self-conceited person, espe­cially a Preacher, to cry out Idolatry, Ido­latry, against his brethrens prayers to God, because they have something in them to be amended,] Whereas we do not therefore think any thing to be guilty of Idolatry, because it hath something in it to be amended, [but be­cause it is used in the worship of God, without any command of God to make it lawful;] And this we must tell our Dictator, is a species of Idolatry, and forbid in the second Com­mandement: And if he will not receive it so, it is, to use his own arrogant and imperious [Page 76] words, because he understands not Christian sense and reason.

Answ. 1. The charge of Idolatry against the Liturgie and Conformable Ministers I found in Iohn Goodwins book, and Mr. Brownes, and others: But this, Brother, car­rieth it much further.

2. He contradicteth himself in his Nega­tion and Affirmation: For, whatsoever is to be amended, which is used in Gods wor­ship, hath no command of God to make it lawful (For it is sin:) But whatsoever is used in Gods worship without any command of God to make it lawful, he affirmeth to be Idolatry: Ergo, whatsoever is used in Gods worship which is to be amended, he maketh to be Idolatry.

3. Reader, if this one Section do not make thy heart grieve for the sake of the Church of Christ, that our poor people should be thus taught, and our Congrega­tions thus distracted, and unholyness, that is, uncharitableness, fathered upon the God of Love, and our sufferings and non-con­formityWhether all that use any thing in Gods worship not commanded (and in parti­cular a form of prayer) be Idolaters? And what this cen­sure of Idolatry signifyeth. thus turned to our reproach, and wrath and reviling pretended to be Reli­gion, thou hast not a true sense of the con­cernments of Christianity and the souls of men. I shall propose here these few things to thy consideration.

Quest. 1. Whether an Idolater be not an odious person, and unfit for Christian Com­munion? (That these men think so, their practise sheweth.)

[Page 77]Q. 2. Whether he that writeth and preacheth to prove others Idolaters, do not write and preach to make them (so far) seem odious, and to perswade men from loving them, and having communion with them as Christians?

Q. 3. Whether he that preacheth up ha­tred causelesly, and preacheth down Chri­stian love, do not preach down the sum of true Religion, and preach against God, who is Love?

Q. 4. Whether preaching against God and Religion, be not worse than talking against it in an Ale-house, or in prophane discourse? And fathering all this on God and Religion be not a sad aggravation of it?

Q. 5. Whether this, brother, that affirm­eth this to be Idolatry that he speaketh against, should not have given us some word of proof, especially where he calleth me that deny it, a Dictator? And whether both as Affirmer among Logicians, and as Accu­ser among men of justice, the proof be not incumbent on him?

Q. 6. Whether here be a syllable of proof, but his angry affirmation?

Q. 7. Whether thou canst receive this saying of his, if thou have Christian sense and reason, so far as to believe that all the Churches of Christ fore-named, the Greek, the Abissine, the Armenian, the Coptics, the Lutherans, and all the Reformed Churches that fall under his Charge, are [Page 78] Idolaters? And couldst bring thy heart ac­cordingly to condemn them, and separate from them? And whether thou canst take all the holy Conformists of England, such as Bolton, Preston, Sibbes, Stocke, Dike, El­ton, Crooke, Whateley, Fenner, &c. for Ido­laters? yea, and all the non-Conformists that used and joyned in the Liturgie?

Q. 8. Whether thou canst believe that this same brother himself, that writeth at this rate, do use nothing in Gods worship which hath no command of God to make it lawful? Is all this reviling, all this false doctrine, all his untruths commanded of God? Or doth he not make himself an Idola­ter?

Q. 9. Whether, if he teach true doctrine, there by any Church or person in the World that worshippeth not God with Idolatry; I give my reasons. 1. There is no one but sinneth, (or useth sin) in the worship of God. But no sin is commanded or lawful: Ergo there is no one, according to his doctrine, but useth Idolatry in the worship of God.

2. There is no one that useth not some things not commanded to make them law­ful, in the worship of God: Therefore, if he teach true doctrine, there is no one but useth Idolatry. The antecedent I have oft proved by many instances: The method of every Sermon, and Prayer, the words, the time and length, the translation of the Scripture, whether it shall be this or that, [Page 79] the dividing of the Scripture into Chapters and Verses, the Meeter of Psalms, the Tunes, Church utensils, Sermon notes (which some use,) Catechisms in forms, &c. the Printing of the Bible, or any other books, &c. none of these are commanded. And all these are used in the worship of God. And must all Christians in the World be taught to fly from one another as Idolaters? Is this the way of Love and Unity?

Q. 10. Why should this, brother, be so extream impatient with me for calling Di­viders, weak and pievish, and censorious Chri­stians? If in his own judgement all men be Idolaters, that use any thing in Gods wor­ship not commanded? Is not this to cen­sure all men as Idolaters? And yet is a cen­sure of previshness on these Censurers a ju­stifying of persecution.

Q. 11. Whether this kind of talk be not sport to the Papists, to hear us call one ano­ther Idolaters, as well as them? and do not make them deride us; and harden them in their bread-worship, and image-worship, as being called Idolatry on no better grounds than we so call one another.

Q. 12. Whether it be not a great disho­nour to any man to suffer silencing, because he cannot add to Gods worship, the Cere­monies and Liturgie, and at the same time to add to Gods word new and false do­ctrines of our own, by saying that [It is a species of Idolatry, forbidden in the second Com­mand, because it is used in the worship of God [Page 80] without any command to make it lawful.] And if we should suffer such false doctrine, and additions, and Love-killing, dividing prin­ciplesas this, to go uncontradicted, whe­ther we do not betray the truth and our flocks, and shew that we were too worthy of our sufferings?

But that this assertion or definition of Idolatry is false, I need to prove no other­wise, than, 1. That it is unproved by him that is to prove it, and, 2. That it denieth Christ to have a Church on earth, or to have any but Churches of Idolaters. 3. That it turneth all sin in Gods worship into one species, even Idolatry. And so every false doctrine used in Gods worship is Idolatry: Every Antimonian, Anabaptist, Separatist, or of any other error be it never so small, must be presently an Idolater, if in prayer or preaching he speak his error: And what man is infallible? When your Companion promised in the Pulpit, that there should be no more Tythes, no more Taxes, nor no more King, in Worcestershire after Worcester-Fight, this must be Idolatry. For certainly no error is commanded of God. 4. That it maketh the description of a thing indifferent, to be the description of Idolatry. For as [a thing forbidden] is the description of sin, so to be [not commanded] speaketh no more but Indifferency (Though the prohibition to do any thing not commanded, speaketh more, if it could be proved.) 5. It is contrary to the Scripture which never useth the word

[Page 81][IDOLATRY] in that sense? Peruse the several texts, and try. 6. It equalleth almost all Churches with the Infidel and Pagan World. 7. It heinously injureth God, who is a hater of Idolaters, and will visit their sins (as God-haters) on the third and fourth Generations; to feign him to be thus a hater of his Churches, and of them that use any thing in his worship not commanded. 8. It tendeth to drive all Christians to de­spair, as being Idolaters, and so abhorred of God, because they have all some uncomman­ded, yea forbidden thing in worship: For by this mans doctrine, a sinful wandring thought, a sinful disorder, or tautologie, or bad expression is Idolatry, (as being not com­manded.) 9. It tendeth to drive men to give ever worshipping God; because while they are certain to sin, they are certain to be Ido­laters, when they have done their best▪ 10. It hardeneth the Mahometans in their enmity to Christianity, who being the great exclaimers against Idolatry do already falsely brand us with that crime.

But what ever else it do, I am sure it is so pernicious an engine of Satan, to kill Love and divide the Church, to feign every Con­formist how holy soever, and every one that useth in worship any thing not comman­ded, to be an Idolater, that I may well ad­vise all Christians, as they love Christ and his Church, and their own souls, to keep themselves from such mistakes. Were it not that it is unmeet to do great works [...] ­rily, [Page 82] on such slight occasions, in such a dis­course as this is, I would here stay to open the meaning of the second Commande­ment; and shew, 1. That there are abun­dance of lawful things in Gods worship, as circumstances and outward modes that are not commanded in specie or individuo. 2. That somethings forbidden in that Com­mandement indirectly, are not Idolatry. 3. Much less are they a sufficient cause of separation. But this is fitter for another place. And I again refer you to Mr. Lawson in his Theopolitica.

EXCEPT. XX. Answered. This Ex­ception is but a bundle of mistakes, and the fruit of your false interpretation of my design, 1. That I prove not what I say, is not true, when the many instances fully prove it, and you your self deny them not. 2. When I explain my self frequently and fully, who I do not mean by Dividers, and what sepa­ration I allow, you feign me to open my mind [very unwillingly,] and to [defend those whom I traduce,] that you may make men believe that I mean those whom I still pro­fess that I mean not, and that you know my mind better than I my self. This is not true and righteous dealing.

EXCEPT. XXI. p. 12. Answered. When I say [Our presence at the prayers of the [Page 83] Church, is no profession of Consent to all that is faulty in those prayers] he saith, [The Apostle thought otherwise in a like [...]ase of sitting at meat in an Idols Temple.]

Answ. Brother, of all the men that everWhither we are guilty of consenting to all that is faul­ty in the pray­ers that we are present at. I had to do with, scarce any hath dealt so superficially, without saying any thing against the proofs which I lay down, no [...] seeming to take any notice of them. How can you choose but see your self, that by de­nying my proposition. 1. You make it un­lawful to joyne with any Church or person in the World; and so would dissolve all Church-Communion and Family-worship; For do not all men sin in prayer? And must any man consent to sin?

2. How do you reflect on God that for­biddeth us, to forsake the assembling of our selves together? If consenting to sin be un­avoidable?

3. I told you, we Consent not to the faults of our own prayers, much less to anothers, that are less in our power? What work would this one opinion of yours make in the World? If we are guilty of all that is faulty in all the prayers of the Church (or Family) we joyn with, yea more, do by our presence profess Consent to them; and withal, if all not commanded in worship be Idolatry▪ what a World are we then in? It's time then to turn seekers, and say that Church and Mi­nistry are lost. It is these principles, bro­ther, that I purposely wrote my book against.

[Page 84]But you speak much besides the truth, when you say [The Apostle thought otherwise in a like Case;] For you never prove that he thought otherwise: Dare you say, (I be­seech you think on it) that Paul and all the Apostles, and all the Churches, professed con­sent to all the faults in worship which they were present at? How know you that they were never present at any such as Paul re­proveth in the Corinthians? Yea, was Christ a professed Consenter to all that he was present at? Or all that he commanded men to be present at, when he went to the Synagogues, and bade the cleansed, go shew themselves to the Priests, and offer, &c. And bade his Disciples, hear the Scribes and Pha­risees, &c. I do not charge the Consequen­ces on your person, but it's easie to see, that it will follow from this opinion, that Christ was a sinner, and consequently no Saviour, and so no Christ. Alas, whither would you car­ry the people of the Lord?

Nor do you prove Paul's Case to be like this. Eating at the sacrifi [...]s in the Idols Temples was visible Corporal Idolatry, for­bidden indeed, in the second Commande­ment as Idolatry (interpretative, visible, ex­ternal, corporeal.) It was that very Act by which an Idol was outwardly worshipped. Therefore it was a Professing-act inter­pretatively. Symbolizing with Idolaters I have told you, is Professing; for a Symbole is a Professing sign. But he that is present, with a Church professing to worship, not [Page 85] an Idol, but the true God, and that accord­ing to the Scripture, and is united to the Church only in this profession, doth not by so doing Profess Consent to a Ministers ill wording, or methodizing of his Prayers or his Sermons, which is the work of his own office.

2. As for your charge of Blasphemy, &c. on me, for intreating you to take heed lest you blaspheme, by making Gods fore­knowing of faults, to signifie an approbati­on, I pass it by, and will not by so frivolous a return be drawn to enter further on that point.

EXCEPT. XXII. p. 13. Answered. Whether it be bitterness, fierceness, fury, or proud impatience, to reprove these sins, in an instance which your self presume not to contradict; And whether the opinion that [no truth is to be silenced for peace] be fit for judicious peaceable men to own, or be not fit to be gain-said, I have long ago debated in my book of Infant-Baptisme, pag. 218.

EXCEPT. XXIII. p. 13. Answered. If you dissent, why did you answer none of the six Reasons I gave for what I said, nor seem to take notice of them? But only when I say [It were easie to instance in unseasonable and imprudent words of truth, spoken to Prin­ces [Page 86] which have raised persecutions of long con­tinuance, ruined Churches, caused the death of multitudes, &c. Upon which you put four questions, To which I answer, 1. The flat­tery of some, will not justifie the sinful im­prudence of others. 2. If you should be guil­ty of the blood of thousands by one sin, will it excuse you that another was more guilty? 3. Elijah, Micaiah, and Iohn Baptist, spake not unseasonably or imprudent­ly: Nor is all imprudent that bringeth suf­fering or death. 4. Gospel Ministers may follow them that spake prudently; but un­seasonable and imprudent speaking, is not following them. I have recited elsewhere a saying even of Dr. Th. Iackson, that It is not because great men have not sins and wrath enough, that there are no more Martyrs under Christian Rulers; but because there be not John Baptists enough to tell them of them (to that sense.)

But, either by all this you mean to de­fend unseasonable and imprudent speaking, or else you mean that there is no such sin, or else you must needs contend where you con­sent. If it be the first or third, I will not be so imprudent as to sence with you. If the se­cond, it is gross contradiction of reason and morality, and of Christ himself, Matth. 7. 6. 1 Tim. 2. 11, 12. 1 Cor. 14. 28. 34. Amos 5. 13. Eccl. 3. 7.

EXCEPT. XXIV. p. 14. [He hath found out a new Cause of Separation, and such as we doubt not the Pope will thank him for, when he saies, [Almost all our contentions and divisions, are caused by the ignorance and injudiciousness of Christians;] For it is evi­dent that our contentions at this day, are prin­cipally, if not wholly caused, by the pride, im­pertinencie and tyranny of imposers; which guilt Mr. Baxter would ease them of, by char­ging it on the ignorance and injudiciousness of Christians.]

Answ. These last words are your 17th. 17 Untruth. Untruth; 1. Where have I said a word to ease them of it? May not two persons orOf flattering Christians. parties be both guilty of Division? Yea, if one were guilty [wholly] that is, of the whole, yet he may not be guilty solely, and no one with him.

2. Have you or any of your party, done so much to have stopt that cause of divisions which you accuse, as I have done? And did I ever change my mind?

3. O that God would make you know what spirit you are of, and what you are doing! Alas, brother, will you leave Eng­land no hope of a Cure? What hope, while we are impenitent? What Repentance, while we justifie our sins? Yea, while the Preachers teach the people to justifie them,Whether any [...] be [...] ignorant, and injudi­cious. and become the defenders of the sins which they should preach against; and fight against their brethren that do but call m [...]n to [...] ­p [...]nt: [Page 88] What! is Godliness up, and in ho­nour among us, while Repentance is down, as an intolerable abhorred thing! What a Godliness is that, which abhorreth Repen­tance? I am offended greatly with my own heart, that melteth not into tears over such lines as th [...]se, for England's sake▪ and for Religions sake; For the honour of God, and for the souls of men. Is that [a new Cause of separation] which hath been the Cause since the daies of the Apostles to this day? Did ever man read the histories of the Schismes and Heresies of the Churches, and not find out this Cause, this old, this ordinary Cause? If you had remembred but what Socrates and Sozomene say of the Church of Alexandria alone, what conten­tions, what tumults, what blood-shed these weaknesses and faults of Christians caused, it might have told you, it is no new thing. O lamentable case of miserable England, that even among the zealouser sort of Mini­sters, any should be found, that either vin­dicateth all Christians from the charge of Ignorance and Injudiciousness! Or that thinketh these are no Causes, or no culpabie Causes of divisions! That have no more acquaintance with the people of this land! And know no better them that they plead for! That such should seek to flatter poor souls in despite of that open light, and un­deniable [...] of all the Christian World! That in an age when the weak­nesses and faults of Christians have wrought [Page 89] such heinous effects among us, they should be denied! And when God by judgements hath so terribly summoned us to repent, by silencing, dissipations, imprisonments, re­proaches, and most dreadful plagues and flames; alas, shall we call to professors that have ruined us by Ignorance and Injudicious­ness (the gentlest names that their sin will bear) and say, Repent not Christians, you are not ignorant or injudicious; It is not you that are the causes of our divisions and calamities, Our Contentions at this day are principally, if not wholly caused by the pride, impertinency, and tyranny of the Imposers.

Believe not, Christians, that you are in­nocent; Believe not that you are not igno­rant and injudicious as you love your souls, and as you love the land: If once God de­liver us up to Antichristian darkness and cruelties, it will be cold comfort to you, to think, that you once were flattered into im­penitency, and made believe that you were not the Cause.

But that our hearts may yet more relent in this sad condition of the seduced, let us hear the following words.

Besides, (saith he) we cannot understand the meaning of such phrases as [dull Christi­ans, Ignorant and injudicious Christians;] For whoever are Christians indeed have received an anointing, by which they know all things, 1 Joh. 2. 20. 27. And should not have such vile Epithets affixed to them, which only [...]nd to expose even Christianity it self, as if it did [Page 90] not cure those that sincerely imbraced it, of their Ignorance and Injudiciousness.

Answ. It is no disgrace to Christianity, that it is set off by the presence of Ignorance and Injudiciousness; As sickness maketh us know the worth of health. Nor is it long of life or health, that doleful diseases remain yet uncured; For were it not for them, in­stead of diseases there would be death. It is Godliness and Christianity which bring­eth that Light and Health into the World that is in it; And men are not ignorant and bad because they are Christians and Re­ligious, but because they are not better Chri­stians, and more Religious. Perfect Chri­stianity would make men perfectly judici­ous. The weakest true Christian exceedeth the Learnedst Ungodly Doctor even in judgement and knowledge; Because he pra­ctically and powerfully knoweth, that God is God, and to be preferred in honour, obe­dience, and love before all the World; and that Christ is Christ, and to be believed in for Justification and Salvation; And that the Holy Spirit is his Advocate and our Quickener, Illuminater and Sanctifier, to be believed and obeyed; and that there is a Life of Happiness to be hoped for, which is better than all the pleasures of sin, and the felicity of worldlings; In a word, they have a real, though imperfect understand­ing of the Baptismal Covenant, and of the Creed, or Symbole of Christian Faith: And this is a great and noble knowledge, and [Page 91] Cure of them that were lately ignorant of all these things, and were led Captive [...]y the Prince of darkness at his will. If the Reader that would see the difference will peruse my small Tractate of Catholick Uni­ty, he may be informed of it.

But yet is there no such thing as Igno­rant, See my book of Directions to weak Chri­stians to grow in grace. dull, injudicious Christians, because they know all things; Must we not use such phra­ses and Epithetes, because Christianity cureth them. Dear brother, I have no mind to make you odious, nor to open your sin to others; But you have opened it to the World, and I must open it to you, if pos­sibly you may repent; But especially I am bound to try to save mens souls from this perilous deceit; And theref [...] I shall prove to you that there are such [...] and ignorant and injudicious Christians; And 2. I shall tell you the greatness of your error and sin.

That there are such is proved, 1. By the words of Scripture, Heb. 5. 11, 12, 13, 14. [Seeing yee are dull of hearing: For when for the time yee ought to be teachers, yee have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the Oracles of God, and are become such as have need of milk and not of strong meat; For every one that useth milk is unskilfull (or unperienced) in the word of Righteousness; for he is a babe: But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age even those who by reason of use have their sen­ses exercised to discern both good and evil.

[Page 92]1 Tim. 3. 6. Not a novice, lest being lifted up with Pride, he fall into the condemnation of the Devil. The verb [...] is other­wise by our Translators in the margin turn­ed [besotted.] And Strigelius saith that it signifieth not only puffed up, but one crack'd brain'd and phanatick: And Lyserus saith of the same word, 2 Tim. 3. 4. translated High minded, that it answereth an Hebrew word which signifyeth, to be dark, and not to shine clearly; which Leigh reciteth. See Martinius de Typho.

1. Cor. 3. 1, 2, 3, 4. And I brethren could not speak unto you as unto Spiritual, but as un­to Carnal, as unto babes in Christ: I have fed you with milk▪ and not with meat. For hi­therto yee w [...]t able to bear it, neither yet now are yee able: For yee are yet Carnal: For whereas there is among you, envying (the word is, Zeal, that is, emulation) and strife, (or contention [and divisions,] or factions,) are yee not Carnal, and walk as men (or accord­ing to man;) For when one saith, I am of Paul, and another I am of Apollo, are yee not Car­nal?

Eph. 4. 14. That we henceforth be no more children, tost to and fro, and carried about with every wind by the sleight (or cousenage) of men, and cunning craftiness whereby they lye in wait, to deceive; but speaking the truth in Love may grow up, &c.

Luke 24. 25. O fools and slow of heart to believe, all that the Prophets have spo­ken.

[Page 93]Mark 6. 52. They considered not the mira­cle of the Loaves, for their heart was har­dened.

Mark 8. 17. Why reason yee because yee have no bread? Perceive yee not yet, neither understand? Have yee your hearts yet har­dened? Having eyes see yee not? And having ears, hear yee not? And do you not remem­ber?

Luke 12. 16. These things understood not his Disciples at the first.

Luke 18. 32, 33, 34. They shall scourge him, and put him to death, and the third day he shall rise again: And they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

1 Cor. 8. 2. 7. 10. If any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know,—Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: but some with Conscience of the Idol unto this hour, eat it as a thing offered to an Idol, and their Conscience being weak is defiled. Shall not the Conscience of him that is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to Idols.

See Rom. 14 and 15. Gal. 6. 1. 1 Cor. 9. 22. Gal. 3 and 4. throughout. Col. 2. 21, 22, &c. Heb. 13. 9. 1 Tim. 1. 3. Should I re­cite all such Epithetes, convictions, and re­proofs in Scripture it would be tedi­ous.

2. The thing is further proved by the common experience of mankind, which it [Page 94] amazeth me to think a man that liveth among men in the world, awake and in his senses, can be ignorant of? Enemies know it: Friends know it; not only that there are Ignorant and Injudicious Christians, but that the far greatest part are such though not in a damning, yet in a sad and troublesome degree! And that the far greatest part of those that we hope are truly godly, remain so lamentably ignorant of abun­dance of things, that should be known, and continue in such an infancy of understand­ing, as is a great advantage to the Temp­ter, and many waies calamitous to them­selves, and to the Church: It is the lamen­tation of all experienced Ministers. Alas, how ignorant even honest people remain; And how slowly they come on in know­ledge?

3. If God have made it one half the work of the Pastors of the Churches, to labour all their daies to heal the Ignorance of good people, then, such Ignorant ones there are: But the antecedent is plain in Scripture; and believed by most Ministers, as their daily Sermons tell you.

4. Do not the multitudes of Sects and Errors, and Contentions that have torn the Church from the Apostles daies till now prove it? Were all those in the Catalogues of Epiphanius, Augustine, Philastrius, &c. Certainly graceless? Or were none of them Ignorant and Injudicious?

And though Church-tyranny be a grand [Page 95] Divider, that this was not the only Cause, two instances prove to the great disgrace of this assertion of his. First, the instance of the said sects of Christians, for the first 300 or 400 years, when there were no such Impositions. Secondly, our late twenty years (or neer) contentions and divisions, and numerous parties, when there were lit­tle or no impositions. Was it impositions or tyranny that bred sects in the Armies, and in England and Ireland in the daies of liber­ty?

5. And is it not sufficient proof to Eng­land, that there are weak, ignorant, injudi­cious Christians, when the ruines of twenty years experience overwhelmeth us, and when so many years unreconcilable differences prove i? And when we have so many sects and differences to this day: What all these dif­ferences, these wars, these disputings, these censurings, divisions and confusions, and yet no Ignorant Injudioious Christians? O what will pass for proof with them that will not take such experience for proof?

6. And what say you by all the Greek, the Abassine, Armenian, Nestorian, Iacobite, &c. Christians, that are alas, in National general Ignorance: Which will you affirm, Brother; That all these Nations are dam­nable Infidels, or no Christians? Or that there are no Ignorant Christians among them?

7. And what say you by all the Conten­tions of Lutherans and Calvinists, Arminians [Page 96] and Antiarminians, the troubles of Germany by Muntzer and his Anabaptists, and those at Munster, and those in Holland, and many other Countreys.

8. And what say you by all the books now extant (Dr. Crispes, Mr. Saltmarshes, Cop's, Mr. Cradocks, Mr. Dels, Mr. Dens, Mr. Randalls, Iacob Behmens, and all the Germane Prophets, Andr. Osiander, Swenk­fieldius, &c.) Is there no Christianity? or no ignorance and injudiciousness apparent in them? Besides all the writings of Episen­pal, Presbyterian, Independents, Separa­tists, Anabaptists, &c. against one another.

9. Do you not think your self, that mul­titudes of Conformists, yea Ministers are Ig­norant and Injudicious? Sure you do; And can you judge them all to be no Christi­ans?

10. Do you not think that I am Igno­rant and Injudicious? If not, you must not only think that I am no Christian, but also extreamly maliciously wicked. But if you do so think of me, can you think so of all the non-Conformable Ministers of my judge­ment. I am sure if you believe your self, and as you write; Ignorance is the easiest charge we can expect from you.

11. And will you put sorth such a book as your own to the World, and when you have done deny the Ignorance and Injudiciousness of all Christians? This is all one as to swear that there is never a swearer among Christians.

[Page 97]12. I appeal to the common Charges of Ministers in their Sermons and books, who charge weak Christians with dulness, igno­rance, and injudiciousness.

13. I appeal to the experience of all Ma­sters of Families, whether they meet with no such Christians there? Yea, how hard it is to meet with better?

14. I appeal to the experience of every self-knowing Christian, whether he find not abundance of dulness, ignorance and in­judiciousness in himself?

15. I appeal to the prayers of almost all Christians, whether they charge not them­selves with this to God?

16. I appeal to almost all the disagree­ing disputers of this and every age, whe­ther they charge not one another with it?

17. I appeal to most Parishes in England, whether many of the people charge not their Ministers themselves with it?

18 I appeal to Universities, Tutors and Schools, whether they know none such?

19. I appeal to any judicious man, whe­ther he find not the judicious even among good Christians; yea, and Ministers to be, alas, too rare?

20. And I appeal to all men that are a­wake, whether there be no Christian chil­dren in the World? And whether all such children are cured of Ignorance and Injudi­ciousness, and know all things by the anoint­ing of the Spirit? And if all this be no proof, it is time to give over teaching and disputing.

[Page 98]And now that, if perhaps, you may re­pent, and others be preserved, I shall tellThe greatness of the sin of thus flattering Christians. you what nature this sinful doctrine and practice is of; 1. It is a cherishing of Pride, which is the first-born of the Devil: Yea of spiritual Pride, even a Pride of mens Knowledge and Iudiciousness, which is worse than Pride of wealth or ornaments.

2. Hereby it resisteth a great work of the Gospel and Spirit of Christ, which con­sisteth in the humbling of souls, and making them become as little children, conscious of Ignorance, and teachable.

3. It defendeth that sin which all expe­rienced judicious men complain of, as that common calamity of mankind, which is the grand cause of contentions, and errors in the World. Which is, mens thinking that they know what they do not, and over­valuing their own understandings, & think­ing that they are wise when it is otherwise.

4. It contradicteth the Holy Ghost, and reproveth his language and reproofs, as I have before shewed. To which I adde 2 Tim. 3. 6, 7. They lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1 Cor. 15. Where Paul is put to prove the Resurrection; ver. 34. Some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame: ver. 36. Thou fool, that which thou s [...]west, &c. Hos. 9. 7. The Prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad, &c. 1 Cor. 3. 18. Let him become a fool that he [Page 99] may be wise. If you say that some of these were not true Saints, I answer, 1. Paul cal­leth the Church of Corinth in general, Saints. 2. Our question is of more than true Saints; even such as may by others (who are no heart-searchers) be called, Christians; whether we may call any [dull, ignorant, or injudicious Christians?]

5. You teach Parents and Masters to neg­lect and betray the souls of their children and servants, that are Christians: And chil­dren and servants, to reject the teaching of Parents and Masters: For if they are not dull, nor ignorant, what need they to be taught or to learn? And at what age do they come to know all things, and to be past the title of Ignorant? Is it at 4, or 5, or 7 years old? Doubtless they may have the spirit then: If not, where is it that you will set the bounds? At what age were you past your ignorance and injudiciousness, and knew all things?

6. You thus make the work of School­masters needless; and also of Tutors and Academies.

7. You encourage and countenance idle Ministers, as to the labours necessary to Christians: If there be no dull nor igno­rant Christians, they are not so blame-worthy as we have made them.

8. You excuse those that unjustly hinder Christs Ministers to preach to Christians, in any part of the World: If there be no ig­norant Christians, Preachers are not so ne­cessary, [Page 100] nor silencing them so bad a thing as we have made it.

9. You encourage the contemners of the Preaching of Gods word, who say, what need we go to hear, we know as much as they can tell us.

10. You contradict the Sermons of al­most all Ministers, as if they abused Chri­stianity, and belyed the people, when they reprove their ignorance and dulness.

11. You encourage the bold invaders of the Ministry, who thinking that they know all things, and are not ignorant, do turn Teachers of others, before they have learned themselves.

12. You encourage the disputing, conten­tious wrangling, and insolent spirit that is abroad, which maketh men tear and divide the Church, by confidence in their several opinions; while all of them may think that they are not ignorant nor injudicious.

13. You seek to keep Christs Disciples in continual Ignorance, while you would make them believe that they are not Ignorant, and so keep them out of a learning way, which is a Disciples state.

14. You condemn your own practice, who preach to those that you judge your self to be Christians; For what need they your teaching (as to their understandings) if they are not Ignorant, but know all things?

15. You countenance the Q [...]akers and Papists in their doctrine of Perfection: Yea you go far beyond them, inasmuch as they [Page 101] ascribe perfection but to a few.

16. You justifie all the Errors of the times, which Christians hold, and teach them to say, we are Christians, therefore we erre not, for we are not ignorant.

17. You justifie Contradictions: For if ten men be of ten several contrary minds, e. g. about the exposition of a Text, it is but one of them that can be right; And yet you teach them all to think that they are right.

18. You do this against the full light and experience of an age of Errors, yea of al­most all ages of the Church.

19. You shew your self insensible of the sinful ignorance and divisions, and ruines thereby procured, these twenty years.

20. You teach all those that are or have been guilty, to be impenitent.

21. You do this in an age, when dread­ful judgements, which have begun at the house of God, do call his houshold most loudly to Repent, and to be an example of penitence to others.

22. Should you prevail thus to keep Christians in impenitence, you would keep us in our calamities, and turn away the peace and deliverance which we hope and pray for, and be the prognostick of our continued woe, if not of the undoing of the land, and an utter forsaking.

23. You teach Christians in prayer not to confess their dulness or ignorance, and make them speak falsly that do consess it.

[Page 102]24. You vilifie all those means which God hath instituted to cure his peoples ig­norance, as a needless thing, if it be cured in all already; As reading, hearing, me­ditating, conference, &c.

25. You cross the use of all the World, even the works of Creation and Providence, so far as they are Gods means to teach Chri­stians knowledge, and cure their igno­rance.

26. You teach men to lose the most of their lives, as to growth in knowledge, when they must believe that they are cured of their ignorance as soon as they are Chri­stians, and know all things perhaps at seven years old.

27. You teach almost all Christians to despair of their sincerity, and to deny themselves to be Christians. For when you have taught them that [whoever are Christians indeed, have received the anointing by which they know all things, and are cured of their igno­rance and injudiciousness, & are not to be called dull, or ignorant, or injudicious Christians.] They will quickly assume [But it is not thus with me, I am dull and ignorant, &c. there­fore I am not a Christian indeed.]

28. You almost if not wholly deny and un-Church Christs Church on earth, while you deny all to be Christians indeed that are ignorant, injudicious, dull, and know not all things.

29. By cherishing the pride and ignorance of Christians, you cherish all their other [Page 103] sins, which these two are the common pa­rents of.

30. You make us hereby seem a tender and a factious people, that see motes in the eyes of others, but not beams in our own▪ who can aggravate the sins of others, yea, the publick worship into Idolatry it self; But when we come to our party, we take it for a reproach to Christianity, to be called dull, or ignorant, or injudicious.

31. You shew by this that your censure of the Conformists is so high, as to make them all to be no Christians indeed. For you cannot think that an Idolater is not Ig­norant and Injudicious: and so no Chri­stian with you. But he that wrote Mr. Bolton's life, thought otherwise.

32. You abuse the Scripture, 1 Ioh. 2. 20. 27. to countenance all this; As the Qua­kers do [He that is born of God sinneth not.] Calvin truly noteth that by [knowing all things, he meaneth not universally; sed ad prae­sentis loci circumstantiam restringi debet;] It is, the All things which the apostates there reproved did deny. As the Prophet saith, They shall not need to teach one another saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know him:—And yet they might have need to teach one ano­ther an hundred other truths, though they all knew the true God from Idols. So here to know all things, is to be knowing persons, in com­parison of the infidels and apostates; (which, saith Calvin, he speaketh to procure a fair audience with them:) As if he should [Page 104] say, [I speak not to you as so rude and ig­norant persons that know not these great things which these apostates deny.] Dr. Hammond thinketh that it meaneth, that the Holy Ghost by which you are anointed, or preferred before others, is a certain proof or evidence to you, of the Truth of all the doctrine which Christ taught, and therefore you cannot forsake him by the seducement of these apostates. Beza [...]aith, Atqui cogn [...] ­scimus omnes ex parte, 1 Cor. 13. 9. Est igi­tur Hyperbole, qua significat Apostolus, se ni­hil afferre quod illi jam antea non intellexerint, quos ipse commonefaciat potius quam doceat, ut loquitur etiam ipse Dominus, Jer. 31. 34. Vel quod etiam simplicius est, omnia intelligit necessaria agnoscendis Anti-Christis, & [...]aven­dis illorum insidiis: And to that purpose the English Anotations.

But further I grant, that all Christians have that spirit which teacheth them all things needful to Salvation. But how? Not in the first moment. Nor without their pains and patience in learning: But in blessing them by degrees in the use of those means, which they must continue learning by, while they live; which not­withstanding, most are long dull and igno­rant, and injudicious, though not in compa­rison of unbelievers.

But what if the Text had meant properly [yee know all things;] Do you prove that this is spoken of all true Christians, and that in all ages? And that it is not partly groun­ded [Page 105] on the extraordinary anointing of the spirit, poured out, Act. 2. proper to those primitive times, for the obsignation of the Gospel.

33. It's a heinous sin to be a flatterer of mens souls! And to sowe pillows under mens elbows, and to call evil good, and to sooth multitudes up in their Ignorance, and tell them, It is not an Epithete fit for them.

34. And thus you teach them to oppose and hate a faithfuller sort of Ministers, who will tell them of that which you would draw them to deny.

35. And it is a double sin for a Minister to do this, who is a watch-man for the peo­ples souls.

36. And yet more, for one that so sharply reprehendeth the faultyness of Confor­mists, as to separate from them.

37. And to pretend that the consession of our own faults is not only an easing of other mens, but even a meriting of the Pope; As if either the Pope must be in the right, or no Christians must be said to be Church-Dividers by their ignorance; Even in a time when our Divisions so shew them­selves, that no one can doubt of them: What is this but to perswade men to be Pa­pists?

38. And what is all this but to expose us to the scorn of all that are inclined to scorn us. To teach them to look on us as they do on the Quakers, as a proud, distra­cted [Page 106] sort of people, that will make the World believe that none of us are ignorant,How sad is it to read in Ho [...] ­nius, Salmasius and others abroad, such horrid descrip­tions of the English sects and scandals? Though the Actors were not so many as some of them thought. injudicious, or dividers, against such noto­rious publick evidence: Yea, to harden them that have voluminously reproached the non-Conformists, and to engage your self to justifie all the ignorant, injudicious sayings that they are charged with; or else to prove that the speakers were no Christi­ans.

39. And this you do in the very day of our scandals and reproach, where thou­sands are already hardened into a distaste of serious Religion, by our former divisions and injudicious miscarriages; As if you would thrust these miserable souls yet deep­er into Infidelity and Atheism. And when the scandal of our divisions hath turned many (and some old professors of Religi­ousness) unto Popery; you take the course to turn off more.

40. Yea, by making us thus odious, you do very much to increase the distaste and displeasure of our Afflicters, and to bring more sufferings upon us, as a people that are Phanaticks indeed: Even while you make Proud imposition and persecution the cause of our divisions. And when the world know­eth, not only that in the first 300 years of the Church, there were swarms of heresies and sects, and also after Luther's reforma­tion, and among us in Armies, Cities, and Countrey for about 20 years, even to our own confusion; yet would you tempt them [Page 107] to take us for a people not to be believed, by seeming to deny all this. And when I proved to you, that it is Gods way after our misdoings, to take the shame to our selves, that it may not fall on our Religion; and the Devils way to justifie the misdoings of Christians, that Christianity and Reli­gion may bear the blame; you give no con­futation of any of this, and yet go on to wrong the truth, by defending that which is not to be defended; If there be none of all this that in your eyes is matter fit for your Repentance, I still pray that you may better know what manner of spirit you are of.

Yet I wish you to observe, that I do not say, that in terms you assert all these ill con­sequences; nor do I think that you so pra­ctically hold them, as not in some measure to hold the contraries of them; I take you not to be so bad: But I only advise both you and others, to own no more the opi­nions which infer such things, nor to do that which tends to cherish them.

And I here protest to all that shall take the occasion of your paper, to asperse the Protestants, or the non-Conformists in ge­neral, that they will be inhumanely disin­genuous in so doing, when none but the guilty should be accused.

EXCEPT. XXV. Answered. 1. Bro­ther, you do ill to intimate either of these [Page 108] Untruths. 1. Either that there is no such thing as [an ignorant sort of Preachers, more valued for their affectionate tone and fervour, Of the loud voice of the Preacher, and a sound judge­ment. than abler judicious men;] When as the whole Christian World knoweth that there are many such Preachers both among the several sects, (and of our selves, there are or have been some) and in the publick Assemblies; and among all Christian Churches where there is preaching through the World: And the worlds experience puts it past doubt, that the generality of the vulgar, un­learned and injudicious sort of men, do va­lue a man by his tone and voice more than for the judgement and excellency of his matter, if not put off by such advan­tage. Brother, you and I are both known persons; Though I look not to mention my self without your imputation of pride, I will venture, while I put my self on the side which you say I reproach, to tell you, that I was once commonly taken to have as affectionate a tone of speech as ever you were, at the least: And I ever found that Matter and Affection together took best: But that warm Affection and fervent ut­terance, with common and little matter, took more with the far greater part, than far more excellent matter delivered, with less fervour of affection. I have said as much against cold preaching as ever you have done at least: And I am as much against it as ever: And I am my self much helped in profiting by an affectionate delivery. But, [Page 109] Brother, I take it for no pride to think that I have had more experience of mens cases than you have had; (If you have had no more Pastoral Charge than I suppose, and came but out of the University when I was ready to be turned off from mine.) And I must tell you that I have been oft sorry to see how the people have been moved (in Army and Countreys) to value a Quaker, a Seeker, an Antinomian, an Anabaptist, a Socinian that preach'd down the God-head of Christ; (And among the Orthodox, such ignorant ones as you know I am ac­quainted with;) meerly for the tone and fervency of their delivery. Scarce any thing hath more infected the injudicious with er­rour.

2. Or if you deny not that such a thing there is, then it is yet worse in you to feign this empty loudness, or affected fervency, to be the Preaching which God owneth to the Conversion of souls, Comparatively. This is to reproach the work of Preaching and Conversion, so ill do you avoid what you injuriously impute to others, when you cry out▪ [What could Parker, &c. have spoken more reproachfully, &c. Sure you thought I had spoken against fervent preaching it self, or else you would not have talk'd as you do? Here also (after some mention of my Pride and Folly) you adde two more gross Untruths. 1. That what I spake of indivi­dual persons without respect to any party, Conformists, non-Conformists, or Separa­tists, [Page 110] and instanced in many of my own ac­quaintance, some of which now Conform, yea are zealous Conformists, who were the fer­ventest loudest Preachers that ever I knew in all my life: [If I will not tell you who they are, (alas man, did you never know such) you must think it concerns all that are at this day engaged in a Gospel separation.] Answ. Had you said [We will think so] it might18 Untruth. have been true: But, 1. I had made no men­tion at all of separation in the whole Directi­on, nor intended any more than I expres­sed; But only meant to direct people to avoid that error in the choice of Teachers, which prepareth them for any seduction and division. 2. I had largely spoken there for affectionate Preaching. 3. I am not ac­quainted with very many such as in England have been known by the name of Separa­tists, that go no further; But those few that I do know, I take to be colder, duller Preachers, than those that are called Pres­byterians byfar, for the most part of them; so far was I from meaning them; But Quakers, and Fifth-Monarchy men, and some Ana­baptists I know, and many revilers of the Ministry I have known, in Armies and Countreys that were just such as I de­scribe. 2. It is an untruth that you had19 Untruth. no pretence of Reason for (that I can think of) that I [have left off the Lords work, and instead of helping it forwards with you, am weakening your hands, and disgracing the [Page 111] builders.] If you mean that I preach not in the Pulpit, no more do you: If you meanWhether I have left off the Lords work. that I have not a separated Church, I never had one (on your principles at least:) If you mean that I preach not in London, 1. I cannot if I would. 2. I never had any Pa­storalNote how or­dinarily Christ himself and his Apostles avoided per­secution by removing. Charge, nor place in London, but preach'd one year up and down for others, and another year took but a voluntary Le­cture. 3. London I was forced eight years ago to forsake for my health and life. 4. Gods work is not only in London. 5. I have no call thither, nor any people related to me as a Pastor there. 6. There are very many worthy men there that want both employ­ment and maintenance, whom I will not injure. Are not all these reasons enough? But if you think otherwise, 7. Are not all the Preachers in England forsakers of Gods work that preach not in London? 8. I think you preached not for many years, when you lay so long in prison: Did you then for­sake Gods work?

But I must confess, Brother, I have al­waies been too slothful and unprofitable a servant, and still am: Yet I can say, that I know no other employment that I have, and that I spend no more time in other things than necessities of life require; I play away none, and I idle away but little; and preaching, were it oftner, is a small part of my work, and that will be proved to be the Lords work, which you think is against him, (as all have done that ever I wrote [Page 112] against almost.) And I love you much the better for being zealous for that which you do but think is the Lords work; But I am past doubt that it will prove at last, that such doctrines, passions, and practices as yours, will be the weakeners and hinderers of the buil­ders.

EXCEPT. XXVI. Answered. p. 16. IOf the judge­ment of the Unive [...]sal Church. intreat the Reader to peruse my words which you except against so angrily, and I am assured, he will find them useful to him, in the great Question Who shall be Iudge? And to help him out of his perplexities. 1. It is a notorious untruth that you say, [It is altogether a new way of deciding Con­troversies, to affirm Dictator like, in all points of belief or practice which are of necessity to Salvation, you must ever keep company with the Universal Church.] Be it right or wrong, who knoweth not that knoweth what was held of old, that it is the way that Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Hierome, Augustine, Optatus, and abundance more have largely written for: And which Vincentius Lirinen­sis wrote his book for, (Quod semper, ubi (que), & ab omnibus, &c.)

2. Note, Reader, that he leaveth out, that I said here [no man must be Iudge, no, not the universal Church, but only that they are our associates, and that here every Christian ma­keth the Articles of his Faith his own, and upon no mans authority, &c.] But I maintain that [Page 113] it is no Article of absolute necessity to Sal­vation, that hath been unknown to the Uni­versal Church till now; for then it were no Church.

But, saith our brother, who shall tell us what is the Universal Church? And where shall we find it? Answ. Are these Questions now to be answered by me? Did you ne­ver before hear it done by others? The Uni­versal Church, is the Universality of Christi­ans: It is to be found militant, on this ha­bitable earth. Did you not know this?

But you ask, [How comes the Scripture not to be mentioned?] Answ. Because it was not seasonable, or pertinent. I was not de­fining the Church; If I had, it was de­finable without the naming of the Scrip­ture, at least before the Scripture was writ­ten: And whence think you did I mean men should make the doctrine of Faith their own, past controversie, but by the Scripture? Good brother, till you have written more books for the authority of Scriptures than I have done, or preach'd more for it, own not such disingenuous in­timations.

2. You say that, [what he addes is Of the judge­ment of Learn­ed men in dif­ficult specula­tions. much more conceited and singular; In matters of high and difficult speculation, the judge­ment of one man of extraordinary understand­ing and clearness, is to be preferred before both the Rulers and the Major Vote.] Answ. It is another Untruth, that this is singular. My very words are almost verbatim in Mr. Pem­ble [Page 114] Vind. Grat. elsewhere cited. Why do the Scotists, so far follow Scotus, and the Nominals, Ockbam, and the Dominicans, Aquinas, &c. if this were a singular opini­on? Do not all the Peripateticks say the same of Aristotle in Philosophy? And the Atomists of Epicurus, Democritus and Lu­cretius; and the Cartesians of their Master? Doth not Dr. Twisse say the like of Brad­wardine and of Piscator? And do not many besides Rutherford think the same of him? Do not the Ramists say so of Ramus? Do not the Protestants say so of Calvin, as to all that went before him? Nay, is it not al­most the common opinion of all Learned men? And a thing beyond dispute? Did ever any man put such points of high spe­culation to the Major vote? Alas, brother, that you should trouble men thus, by print­ing your confidence against unquestionable Truths!

In the next place you suppose, [Mr. Bax­ter hopes, as Haman did in the like case, that 20 Untruth. he shall be the man, or else he would not have advised us to prefer the judgement of any one man whatsoever.] Answ. Here are three more Untruths, 1. That I hope to be the man. 2. That Hamans was the like case. 3. That else I would not have advised, &c. But I let them go for one; till you have proved what you say, and know my heart better than I my self. In the mean time I give you an instance in which I assure you I hope not to be the man: Will you suppose at the [Page 115] next meeting of Ministers, that there are sixteen that understand not the Hebrew Tongue, and three that have but a little smattering in it, and one that is a Bithner, [...] Phagius, a Buxtorfe, a Tremelius, or (to please you where it is possible) an Ayns­wer [...]h: If the Controversie be, how such a T [...] of the Old Testament is to be inter­preted, will you put it to the Vote? Or will you not prefer that one mans judge­ment before all the rest? And do not those Ministers do thus, that trust to the Trans­lators, and understand not the Originals themselves.

But you adde, [He knows we believe that the Scripture is both perfect and plain.] Answ. Yes, plain to them that are fitted to under­stand it. Our labour is not to alter the Scrip­ture, but to alter mens understandings. Do you know as much as Twisse or Bradwardine for all the Scriptures are plain? Or do you think that I know as much as you? Let the Reader judge. Do you not think that your writing and preaching is needful, for all that the Scripture is plain and perfect: And do you not know more than all your hearers? If all the Ministers silenced and unsilenced be not needless to teach the people, why may not some one man excell you and me, whose teaching may be needful to us, and yet the Scripture not be disgraced? Or why will you not write us an Infallible Com­mentary, and save Mr. Poole his labour of abbreviating the Criticks, if the plainness of [Page 116] the Scripture serve your turn without the teaching of any one that excelleth you? Shall all our people, and all the differing, contending parties in England say, The Scriptures are perfect and plain, and there­fore we need not the Translation of them, the Interpretations, the decisions or helps of any but our selves? Or of any wiser than the most?

As for your Anathema, I thank you for your admonition.

EXCEPT. XXVII. Answered. You say He seems to us very much to disparage the reputation of honesty, when he scruples not to Whether ho­nest people be not apt to stray after one ano­thers example. affirm [It oft falleth out that honest people are like straying sheep, if one leap over the hedge, the rest will crowd and strive to follow him.] This we think is enough to make people afraid of being honest, if indeed when they are so, they are so apt to go astray.

Answ. 1. Do I need to cite you an hun­dred Texts in which this sinning, straying inclination is charged upon honest men? When Paul saith of himself, what he doth, Rom. 7. and David of himself, Psal. 119. 176. And he that saith that he hath no sin deceiveth himself, and the truth is not in him, And there is not a just man that doth good and sinneth not. Did not Pauls carnal Corinthians, and Lgeal Galatians go astray one after ano­ther? Are you sure that they that followed their Leaders into all those sects which Epi­phanius [Page 117] and others mention, were all disho­nest? And all they that followed Swink­feldius, and Behmen, and Sti [...]felius, and Muntzer, and such others? And all they that have followed Dr. Crispe, or Arminius, or the Leading Anabaptists, or Seekers, of these ages? Yea, or all they that did and said those contrary and confounding things in our late troubles, which must not to you be mentioned? Are you sure that none of all these were honest? Or are you sure that none of them went astray? Even when they contradicted, yea, killed one another? Or are you sure that some seduced not the rest? At least you should not have forgot­ten in the doing of it, that you were then writing an Antidote to keep honest people from being infected by my book for Love and Unity; And if honest people are in no such danger, why laboured you in vain? Your intenseness upon what your passion sets you on, hindereth your memory of what you cannot choose but know.

2. But, O brother, how injurious a Course is this that you take? How contrary to all the course of Scripture, and the duty of a Minister, to lay the reputation of ho­nesty it self so much on such sinners as most honest men are, that honesty it self must be thus published by you to seem dan­gerous and hurtful, unless all honest people be vindicated from such errors? As if we must grant that, if men can but prove this straying disposition in many honest per­sons, [Page 118] they must be afraid to be honest? And do you not undoubtedly hereby give up all honesty to be avoided? Will any man but you, that is sober, and awake, deny the an­tecedent, that seeth our several parties, and knoweth what we have done? This is not the way to vindicate honesty. Health and Life are not to be avoided because most men have diseases and infirmities. Why did you not answer the proofs I gave you of the Lu­therans, Armenians, Greeks, and other Kingdoms that run together in an error? Are the falls of Gods servants recited in Scripture, a reason to teach men to flye from honesty or religion?

EXCEPT. XXVIII. Answered. When I counselled men to [note and avoid the sins and bad examples of religious men, and to study what are the common errors of the religious party where we live, that we may take a special care to escape them.] Here, 1. You impute this to my enmity against strictness.

Answ. 1. I thank you for all your admo­nitions;Whether we should mark and avoid the sins of Chri­stians in the time and places where we live▪ but, truly, Brother, you quite mistake our controversie through your book; which is about Dividing the Church­es, and destroying Love, and not whether my heart be malicious, wicked, or to be Ana­thematized! What if I be worse than Iu­das? What's that to our case in hand? 2. And time will teach you, that sin is not godly strictness nor honesty; and that he that was against your sin, might be for your strict­ness and your honesty.

[Page 119]2. You question whether [any man that dares write so, is serious.] This needs no an­swer.

3. You [believe such counsel was never given to Christians before.] Answ. 1. Alas, that any Minister or Christian should be so unex­perienced! Would you not only reproach the non-Conformists, but all Protestants, and all Christians? as if none either of their Ministers or Neighbours ever counselled men to watch and escape the sins which the Religious part are guilty of, in the time and Countrey where they are? The Jews were before Christs time the holy peculiar peo­ple of God: And did you never read, 1 Cor. 10. 1. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. It's too long to transcribe. Did you never read Heb. 3 and 4? Nor read of the sins, of the Po­lygamy, the putting away of wives, and other faults of the better sort, and the ge­nerality of the Jews? Did you never read how common the high place-worship was even under godly Kings? Nor yet how the Law was neglected till the book was almost unknown? Did you never read of the sins of Noah, Lot and his Family, Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, Moses, Aaron, and his sons; the company of Corah, David, Solomon, Pe­ter, &c? Did you never read of Christs re­buke of his Disciples for their hardness of heart, their ignorance, their striving who should be greatest? And how he took that occasion to warn them by the comparison of a child, and by his washing and wiping [Page 120] of their feet? Nor yet of his rebuking their common expectation of a temporal Kingdom? Are not the errors of the se­veral Religious Sects reproved by the An­cient Writers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epipha­nius, Augustine, &c. Did you never read any writing counselling men to avoid the errors and sins of the Donatists, nor the No­vatians, the Monothelites, the Nestorians, Eu­tychians, &c? The errour of the Religious sort among the Lutherans, is Consubstan­tiation, Church-Images, Ceremonies, &c. The error of the Religious Calvinists is too much neglect of the Lords day: What those of the Arminians and the Anabaptists, and many other sorts are, I leave to you. Did you never read any man that warned others to avoid these sins and errors? Did you ne­ver find in the Antimonians writings, that the stricter sort of good people went too far in pressing humiliation, tears and de­grees of sorrow, so as to be too dark and spa­ring in pressing the doctrine of Grace and Love: (And it was partly true;) Did you never hear or read, how superstition, [...]reme­tical and monastical lives, excessive fastings and austerities, were caused by the strictest people? Nor yet of touch not, taste not, han­dle not? Nor of some lawful things feigned to be unlawful? Nor yet that ever Paul wrote to the Corinthians, Galatians, &c. And Christ, by Iohn, to six of the Asian Churches, to know and avoid the sins of Christians, together with the hereticks [Page 121] among them? Nor yet that Paul said, Act. 20. Of your own selves shall men arise speak­ing perverse things to draw away Disciples af­ter them? Nor yet that he said, I have no man like minded, (as Timothy,) for all seek their own things, and not the things that are Iesus Christs? Nor that all forsook him at his appearing before Nero? Nor that all his Disciples forsook Christ and fled? Nor that Paul said that the Ministers of Satan trans­formed themselves into Ministers of Righteous­ness? In a word, that beside all other sins, the carnal siding and divisions which Paul reproved the Corinthians for, most ages have among the stricter sort been guilty of? Would you teach your hearers to put their doctrines or practices to a Major Vote of Professors? Do you think we know the sincere from hypocrites? Or that either hypocrites or sincere are without sin? Or that we must take no warning by good mens falls? Must we all do over again, all the faults that Religious men have done these 30 years? You make my heart grieve, Brother, to think that there should be a man among us, that thinketh the Church must be built up by such doctrines, and such means as yours?

You say [We are commanded not to conform our selves to the World.] Answ. Nor to sin­ning Christians neither; [But first (say you) to suppose that the Religious party have ge­nerally some common errors among them, and then to advise that we should carefully study to [Page 122] escape them; This counsel we think Mr. Bax­ter Whether the Religious sort may not have some common errour to be avoided? may be the father of; nor do we envy him the honour of it.]

Answ. 1. Have the Religious sort among the Greeks, Abassines, Nestorians, Iacobites, Armenians, Lutherans, Anabaptists, Armi­nians, &c. no common error among them?

2. Are you for more Infallibility and Perfection than the Papists themselves?

3. Will any Christian besides you, that is sober, deny that we should study to escape them?

4. Did you ever read any sober Writer of another mind?

I beseech you take heed of this pernici­ous flattery of Professors: And I beseech all the Religious that love their souls, to take heed of being ensnared by such flattery, in­to a proud, impenitent state.

And in the grief of my heart here, I must say to the people that which I expect this brother should impute to enmity to godliness. You see by this manner of teach­ing what you have brought your selves and your Teachers to? I have oft grieved to observe, that many look that Preachers should make it their business to flatter them, and extoll them in the highest praises, and to prick others as deep, and vilifie them as much as may be; and this is the preaching that they are best pleased with. I know that the precious and the vile must be widely differenced, and he is no Preacher of the [Page 123] Gospel that doth not do it: But when the Preacher must notifie our party as precious, and cast dung on those as vile, whom un­charitable men without proof think vile, and must hide all our sins, as if to touch them were to reproach Religion it self, and must aggravate theirs, even the greatest that differ from us, or else be a flatterer and tem­porizer; O that such knew but what man­ner of spirit they are of!

You adde that I make my advice ridicu­lous, by forgetting that I bid men agree with the Universal Church. Answ. I said expresly, [In the necessary Articles of Faith,] And must we therefore agree with them in all their sins and errors? Or may I not say, [separate not from most or any Christians as to things true and necessary,] and yet [avoid their sins,] and [he followers of them as they are of Christ.] Alas, poor Christi­ans, that ever you should either be instru­cted at this rate? or yet have need to be in­structed against it?

EXCEPT. XXIX. Answered. Why, Brother, did you never till now hear either Familists, Socinians, or the grosser Quakers (such as Major Cobbet writes against, and Smith) called by the name of [a Sect,] Had you no greater thing to quarrel with? You shall call them how you will. Your an­ger I pass by.

EXCEPT. XXX. Answered. Y [...] say [May we not justly suspect that to be bad in the worship of God, which the wicked sort do love?] Answ. I spake not of [what they love, but, what they are for;] This change of my words is unrighteous. I only advi­sed men not to reject a good cause, because it is owned by some (or most bad persons.) And why did you not answer my instance of the Pharisees long prayers? We have had ma­ny Religious persons or sects that have of late been some against▪ Infant Baptisme, some against singing Psalmes, some against Ministry, and Church-meetings, and some against Sacraments, and instituted Ordi­nances, and some against Tythes and Uni­versities, and humane Learning; (And Mr. Norton of New England told me, that with them, A Church separated from a Church, or was gathered out of it, rejecting their Pastors, and choosing unlearned men, and would receive and endure none that had humane Learning; and that Moses and Aaron (as his words were) Magistrates and Ministers went down on their knees to them with tears, and could not move them to relent unto unity, or to re­ceive a learned Minister, nor get any answer from them, but [that is your judgement, and this is ours.] I speak his very words as neer as I can possibly, spoken to old Mr. Ash and me, before his (yet living) companion Mr. Broadstreet a Magistrate of New England.) Now all this the common people are against. [Page 125] Must we therefore be against Magistrates, Ministers, Ordinances, and all, because the common people are for them. How common­ly are they against the Quakers, and the Familists, and the Infidels, and Heathens, and (with us) the Papists? Are all these therefore in the right? Let any Familist deny the Scripture, or the immortality of the soul, and the common people will be against them. Must we deny God and Christ because we live in a land where they are owned?

Brother, consider, 1. That some truths the light of nature teacheth all. 2. And some common illumination teacheth multi­tudes of bad men. 3. And some good edu­cation, and the tradition of their fathers, and the Laws of the Countrey teacheth.

4. And some are better persons among those that you separate from, than many are that separate from them. Let not us then be bad, and more erroneous than those whom you account the worse, and all be­cause they are no worse.

The Text which you wish me to read on my knees, I have done so, and I thank you for that advice; but I answer not your hope of retracting what I have written (in that,) but contrarily, 1. On my knees I pray God to forgive you such abuse of Scripture. 2. And to give you a sounder mind. For the Text speaketh of Infidels, or denyers of Christs incarnation, and ma­keth this the differencing Character, [Eve­ry [Page 126] spirit that confesseth that Iesus is come in the flesh is of God; and so on the contrary. But are all these Christians that you plead for separation from, and charge with Ido­latry, Infidels, and denyers of Christ? And all the Churches on earth that use a Litur­gie? O brother, you use not Scripture, o [...] the Church aright. We grant that in pro­fessed Christians also, the carnal mind is en­mity to God, and they that are most car­nal, are likest to reject the truth; But ye [...] we would not wish you to measure Truth by the quality of the Receiver: For Christ is truly Christ, though many workers of iniquity shall say, we have prophesied in thy name: Many hereticks have been strict and temperate, when the greater part of the Orthodox have been too loose: Yet that did not prove the Christian doctrine to be false.

EXCEPT. XXXI. Answered. I have little here to do but number your visible Untruths21 Untruth. in matter of fact: One is (21th. Untruth,) [He flyes upon all sides that are for order in any kind,] When I speak not a word against Order, nor against any side; but the in­stances of some mens extreams, which all that are for Order hold not.

Your 22d. Untruth, is [Without expres­sing 22 Untruth. himself whether he is for Papal, Presby­terian, or Independent Government in the Church,] And [if this were not crime enough [Page 127] to seem unsetled in so necessary a point.] What signification have I given of unsetledness? When I have long ago publickly told the World my judgement about all this to the full, in my five Disputations of Church Government; and in a Book called Christian Concord, and another called Universal Con­cord, another of Confirmation, besides ma­ny more. But might not a man be setled that were (as I am in the main) of the same judgement as is expressed in the Walden­ses, or Bohemian Government, described by Laseitius and Commenius; which taketh in the best of Episcopacy, Presbytery and In­dependency, and leaveth out the worst, and the unnecessary parts? Are all the Hunga­rian, and Transilvanian, and old Polonian Protestants, that come neer this order, with­our Order, or unsetled?

3. It is your 23d. Untruth that I write ve­ry 23 Untruth. dubiously about Iustification, whether we are to take it to be by Faith or by works.] When as all that I was here to say of it, is spoken very plainly; & I have written many books to make my mind as plain as it is possible for me to speak: (As in my Confession, my Dispu­tations of Iustification, my Apologies, my Answer to Dr. Barlow, and in my Life of Faith, which was printed before this, where I have detected a multitude of errors about Justification; and many more.) And if you expect every time I name Justification I should write the summ of all those books over again, I shall fail your expectation, [Page 128] though I incur your censure, who, no doubt' had I done it, would (justly) have censured such repetition for tedious vanity.

You adde [We fear he is not sound in that point.] (Answ. Your fear is your best con­futation, and the best assistance that you af­ford, to make me as wise and judicious as your self.)

[The Lord, (say you,) We hope in mercy to his Church, and particularly to those who have been deceived into a good opinion of him, will bring this man upon his knees, that he may make a publick acknowledgement of his folly.]

Answ. If that be your work, it is theOf Justifica­tion. same with his, that it is said you sometime wrote against: so many Volumes have been written already by Papists, Prelatists, Anabaptists, Quakers, Seekers, and many other Sects, for this very end, to cure mens good opinion of me (as if a man that could but think ill of me, were in a fairer hope of his Salvation) that if all these have not yet accomplish'd it, nor all the famous Ser­mons that have been preach'd against me; I doubt, brother, that your endeavours come too late. You may perswade some few factio [...]s credulous souls into hatred, but still those that love God, will love one ano­ther. And I confess of all that ever I saw, I least sear your book, as to the bringing men out of a good opinion of me, unless your name and back-bitings can do it.

When you say that I say that [The pre­sumptuous [Page 129] do boast of being Righteous by Christs imputed Righteousness,] in consci­ence and honesty you should not have left out [without any fulfilling of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace on their part;] Is this just dealing? Are there no such presump­tuous boasters? Or will you justifie them all, that you may but vent your wrath on me. My judgement in the foresaid point of Imputation of Christs Righteousness, I have opened at large in the foresaid wri­tings, The Life of Faith, Confession, Disp. of Iustif, &c.

EXCEPT. XXXII. p. 18. Answered. I said, [The good of nature is lovely in all men as men, even in the wicked, and our enemies; (And therefore let them that think they can never speak bad enough of nature, take heed lest they run into excess;) And the capacity of the good of holiness and happiness is part of the good of nature;] Would you think now that any man alive should find error or heresie here? or should deny this? Yet, saith this brother, This is strange counsel to them that have learned from Scripture, that every imagination is evil, &c. So that we do not see if we will allow the spirit of God to be the best Counsellor, how we can speak bad enough of corrupted nature, as the nature of every man now is.]

Answ. Truly, brother, that man that would not have Professors of Religiousness in England humbled in these times, may find [Page 130] in your book a greater help to cure his er­ror,Whether we can speak bad enough of na­ture. than in the Debater, or the Eccles. Politi­cian. 1. Your [not bad enough] is sure a hyper­bole: For you can speak as bad as the Scrip­ture doth; And if that speak not bad enough, you accuse it of deficiency or error.

2. But I suppose, you meant [not too bad.] What do you think then of such sayings as these following? If you speak truth, then, 1. Mans nature is not capable of grace, or of any amendment or renovation. 2. Nor is it capable mediately of Glory. 3. Mans nature is not Reasonable, nor bet­ter or nobler than a bruit. 4. The argu­ment would not be good against murder­ing of any but a Saint, Gen. 6. 9. Who so sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the Image of God made he man. 5. No man can grow worse than he is, if he never so much despise God and all his means of grace, and commit every day Adultery, Murder, Treason, &c. 6. Then there are no degrees of evil among natural men, nor is one any worse than another. 7. Then men on earth are as bad as those in hell, and as the Devils. 8. Yea, ten hun­dred thousand times worse than Devils, and the damned; for so bad you can call them. 9. Then mans nature hateth good formally as good, and loveth evil formally as evil. 10. Then there are in mans nature no testi­monies for a deity, or the immortality ofSee Act. 17. and 14. And Rom. 1, and 2. the soul, nor no conscience of good or evil, nor no principles or dispositions to com­mon [Page 131] honesty or civility; or else all these are bad. 11. Then no wicked man is cul­pable, as sinning against any such innate Light, Law, or Principles. 12. Then na­tural men are as much void of power to read, consider, or do any good at all, or for­bear any sin at all, even hourly murder, thest, perjury, &c. as a stone is void of power to speak or to ascend. And so that all such that are damned, are damned for not doing that which they had no more power to do, and for not forbearing that which they had no more power to forbear than a stone to speak. Or else that all such power it self is evil. 13. Then it may be said, that there is nothing in all the nature of man which is the work of God; or else that Gods work it self as well as mans is evil. That man is not a man, or else it is evil to be a man. 14. Then there is nothing in mans nature that God can in any kind or measure Love; or else that God loveth that which is evil, even with complacence. 15. Then there is nothing in mans nature which we should love in one another; and no man is bound to love, yea, every man is bound perfectly to hate all that are not Saints; or else we must not perfectly hate, but love that which is perfectly evil. 16. Then no man should love his children or friends, for any thing in them till they have grace. 17. Then no natural man should love himself: Or else goodness is not the proper object of rational love. 18. Then [Page 132] if every man be armed with utmost malice against others, and persecute and destroy them, imprison, torment, murder all good men, yea Kingdoms, if he were able, it would be but that which we are naturally no more able to forbear, than the fire to burn, or a stone to be heavy. 19. Then see­ing every man ought to look upon every natural man as perfectly evil, and a perfect enemy to all mankind, if they all murder one another, it is but the destroying of such as have no good, either natural or moral, and so are far worse than toads or serpents. 20. Then every natural man hath no rea­son saving only Gods command, (which it is impossible for him to obey) to forbear the murdering of himself or his children, any more than others. 21. To conclude, Then man is not Bonum Physicum, and in Metaphysicks, Ens & Bonum non convertun­tur.

You adde, [And had not Mr. Baxter told us before, that he understood by Flesh, only the sensitive Appetite?]

Answ. This is your 24th. Untruth, and24 Untruth. a meer fiction; And your not nothing the place was no sufficient hiding of it. I have oft in many a writing declared otherwise what I understand by [Flesh.] Viz. 1. The sensitive apprehension, imagination, appetite and passion as it is grown inordinate. And, 2. The understanding, will, and ex­ecutive power as they are corrupted to a sinful inclination to the objects of sense, and [Page 133] become the servants of the sensitive part, and are turned from the love of God, and things spiritual, unto the fleshly inter­est.

You proceed, [Now we see one firm reason to deny the least allowance of free will in the things of God, since those that hold it in any degree, are strongly inclined to deny original sin and corruption; which if Mr. B. hath not felt, &c.] Answ. 1. This is plainly assertive of me, and is your 25th. Untruth: I never25 Untruth. Whether there be any free­will. denied it; but have in my Divine Life and other Writings, said more to prove it, than ever you have published. 2. If no degree of free will, even Physical, or Civil, be to be allowed, those that deny us liberty to preach, or if it were to live, do no more in your account, than they are as absolutely neces­sitated to do, as your pen was to write this. And sure you will alter our course of Ju­stice, and equal murder, man-slaughter, and chance-medley, as they call it: And where­as he that killed a man by the head of his axe flying off unwillingly, had an excuse and refuge from death by the Law of Moses, you will allow every man that killeth ano­ther,Whether he that counts all natural men as bad as he can name, will not hate them, and say bad of them without fear of slan­der? or that hurteth, beateth, or slandereth you, this much excuse as to say, I had no more liberty of will to do otherwise, than I have to hate felicity as such: Or I could no more do otherwise, than your pen can forbear writing when you move it.

And out of this Section of your judge­ment of humane nature, I ask you, 1. Do [Page 134] you not tell the world here the reason why you write so vehemently against my Prin­ciples of Love? What wonder if you should hate all men perfectly whom you count natural, and so perfectly evil? 2. Do you not tell the World, that your purpose is to speak as bad of all us and others whom you account natural, as your tongue can possibly speak, and to take this for no slan­der, but your duty; seeing you think, you cannot speak bad enough of corrupted nature, as the nature of every man now is? Do you not here tell us, that how bad soever you shall say of us, you never do or can say bad enough? But why are you so angry with me for being and doing so bad, when I have no freedom to be or to do better, any more than the fire not to burn? Yea, when you inferr all mens natures to be incurably evil, and therefore desperate; seeing it was a capacity of holyness which I asserted, when with such abhorrence you contend against my words.

EXCEPT. XXXIII. p. 19. Answered. 1. To be a surly, proud professor is a milder accusation far than your last. 2. But why should a Preacher think that a man must speak against no sin which he is guilty of himself?

EXCEPT. XXXIV. Answered. 1. I understand not what you mean by saying [If they persecute any, they contract a guilt upon all?] If you mean on all the people, then you think you are guilty of persecuti­on: If you mean on all the Magistrates, then the Innocent, even Obadiah that [...]id the Prophets are guilty of persecuting them. What guilt a publick persons sin bringeth on a body politick as such, is a case that I mean not to dispute with you.

2. You adde, [We think they do a very ill office to Magistrates that insinuate, it is possible for them to persecute some, and yet be innocent.] Answ. If you intimate (as you seem plainly to do) that I have so done, this is your26 Untruth. 26th. Untruth, and worse than a meer un­truth.

EXCEPT. XXXV. Answered. 1. Doth it follow that because lawful separation is not from the same uncharitable spirit, that persecution is, therefore unlawful separation is not?

2. You force me to confute you by In­stances which yet you abhor to hear. You say [Persecution in no case can consist with love?] Do you think your self that all theWhether no persecution can consist with Love? Common-wealths-men, the Anabaptists, the Separatists, the Independents, or who­ever, that had a hand in the order for se­questring all Ministers, that kept not their [Page 136] daies of humiliation and thanksgiving for the blood of Scotland, had no love at all re­maining? Or that none of this was per­secution? Nor yet the ejecting of them that refused the engagement? Nor yet the im­prisonment and banishment of the London Ministers, and the death of Mr. Love and Gibbons? To pass by the Scotch war it self, and all the rest. Do not the Sectaries think that the Presbyterians did or would have persecuted them? And did not the Presby­terians think that the Sectaries persecuted them? Do you think that in the Conten­tions, with the Donatists, the Novatians, and many other professors of strictness, the parties that persecuted had no Love, and so no true grace remaining? Truly, brother, I like persecution as little as most men living do, and have written more against it than you have done; (forgive this pride) But I cannot be so uncharitable as to condemn all the sects, and parties, and persons, as utter­ly graceless that have been drawn to per­secute one another; When I consider how few sects in the World have escaped the guilt; and how far pievishness and seeming interest hath carried them. You know, I suppose, that the Munster Anabaptists them­selves, did not forbear it. The Lutherans have oft persecuted the Calvinists; And the Arminians in Holland thought that the Cal­vinists persecuted them, and denied them li­berty of Conscience: Even the New Eng­land godly Magistrates and Ministers are [Page 137] accused of it by the Quakers and the fol­lowers of Mrs. Hutchinson and Gortin.

And I would you knew what spirit you are of, whether you have none of the same spirit your self? Would you not have hin­dered the Printing of this Book of mine, if you could have done it? And then would you not have hindered me from Preaching the same thing, if you could have done it? And is not this to silence that Teaching which is against your judgement? Is not that spirit, which hath all the vehement slanders and revilings which your book aboundeth with, and which earnestly prayeth God to rebuke me, of the same kind think you, as to uncharitableness, with the per­secuting spirit? And is this in you incon­sistent with all Love?

3. It is your 27th. Untruth, that (after 27 Untruth. many virulent expressions) I am forced to con­fess, &c. My constant expression of my judgement, and true stating of my sense, is no [forced Confession] of any thing: Much less did I ever confess that no persecution can consist with Love; but have even there said much to evince the contra­ry.

EXCEPT. XXXVI. Answered. I put ten Questions to convince men of the sin of that separation which I speak against: And all his answer to them, is but this, [He asks many questions about Church-Communion: [Page 138] But he knows the Proverb, and let that answer him.] Answ. But is this impartial enqui­ring into the truth? Or is this kind of writing fit to satisfie sober men?

EXCEPT. XXXVII. Answered. Your 28th. Untruth is next, [He taketh it ill that 28 Untruth. we should think the Church of Christ to consist but of a few,] When I have no such word or sense; but my self profess there to believe it; and only contradict them that would rob Christ of almost all those few, and make them incomparably fewer than they be.

You adde, [But when he saies, the belief of this is the next way to infidelity.] Answ. That's29 Untruth. Of the fewness of Believers. your 29th. Untruth; I said no such thing; I only admonish you to observe that your abusive lessening the number is your way to Infidelity; And I proved it, which you pass by: He that can believe to day, that Christ came to dye for no more in all the World, than the Separatists are, is like very shortly to believe that he is not the Christ, the Sa­viour of the World, and the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the World.

When you adde that [I cast reproach on the word of God that affirmeth this expresly,] it is but another of your untruths, and an abuse of the word of God.

EXCEPT. XXXVIII. Answered. When I tell you of some that have run through all sects, and turned Infidels, you30 Untruth. adde another Untruth, that I thus reproach a whole party with the miscarriages of some few, unless you mean by a whole party, all that are of that opinion which I confure: For all the Separatists are not for it. And so what ever opinion in the World I shall gain-say, you may say that I contradict a whole Party, that is, the Party that holdeth that opinion. But, brother, doth every one reproach you, that telleth you of your dan­ger, and would save you from infidelity and hell? If the common people should tell you that you reproach their whole party, when you preach to them of the tendency and effects of sin and error, you would easi­ly see the fault in them. Your talk of a pro­stituted Conscience I forgive: But if you must not be told of the dangerous tendency of an unsound doctrine, lest you seem to be reproached, you will leave your selves in a sad condition, when your cure is rejected as a reproach.

EXCEPT. XXXIX. Answered. Very good. You grant that [if the same spirit be restored to the same words, they will be as good as they were at the beginning.] But, what spirit was that, brother, that first took up the forms and words that now we speak of?

[Page 140]It was not only a spirit of miracles, tongues, or supernatural inspiration. Why do you say then that [no man can restore the same spirit to them, and we cannot believingly expect that God will do it, because we have no promise for it] It was but the spirit of Illu­mination and Sanctification; And have not all Christs members this same spirit? Judge by Rom. 8. 9. 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 4. 3, 4, 5, toWhether the same spirit may not be restored to the ancient forms. 16. You have here then by consequence given up your whole cause. You grant that [If the same spirit be restored which first used the prayers, and responses and praises of the Li­turgie, it is very true, that they may be used now: But the same spirit is in all the truly faithful; Ergo, by all the truly faithful they may be used now.]

EXCEPT. XL. p. 20. Answered. You say, [It is unbecomingly done in Mr. Bax­ter to compare Cromwell to the Tyrant Maxi­mus, who dedicated a flattering book to his son.]

Answ. 1. Maximus is by most Historians made so good a man, of himself, that I more feared lest many would have made me a praiser of Cromwell by the comparison. 2. He is called a Tyrant, because he was a Usurper; And do you think that Cromwell was not so; when he pull'd down both King, Parliament, and Rump? Nay, Maximus was chosen in England by the Souldiers at a time when pulling down and setting up by [Page 141] Souldiers was too common; and when his predecessors had little better Title than him­self: Therefore I pray you judge not too roughly of Maximus: But Cromwell did usurp at a time when the case was other­wise; Our Monarchy was hereditary by the undoubted Constitution and Laws of the Land; and our Parliament by an Act was to sit till they had dissolved themselves, and he had by solemn promises obliged himself to the Parliament as their servant, and had fought against and kill'd the King, among other things, on this pretence that he fought against his Parliament, and would have pulled them down; which thing he actually and finally did himself. Sir, God is not well pleased with the justifying or pal­liating of these things,, though men may be tempted to do it in faction, and for a di­vided interest.

3. It is publickly known that I did open­ly and constantly speak the same things all the time of Cromwell's Usurpation: Why then is it unbecoming now? Among other places, see my book of Infant Baptisme, pag. 147 to 152. and 269, 270, &c. Where the passages spoke with caution are yet fuller than all these that displease you: If Crom­well's party endured me then, cannot you endure me to say one quarter as much now?

4. What if I had done otherwise? Shall such a suffering Preacher as you teach us all, that its unbecoming to Repent?

[Page 142]5. That I dedicated a flattering book to his son, is your 31st. Untruth. For common31 Untruth. Maximus Im­perator R [...]m­pub. g [...]berna­hat: Vir omni vitae merito praedicandus, si ei vel diadema non l [...]git [...]m [...] [...]umultua [...]te milite imposi­tum repudi [...]re, vel armis civi­libus abstinere licuiss [...]t; sed m [...]gnum Im­perium nec sine pe [...]iculo ren [...]. i, nec sine armis potuit teneri: Sulp. sev [...]rus Dialog. 3. cap. 7. sense here will discern that you distinguish between the Book and the Dedication. And two books at once I directed to him. The books were one against Popery, and the other against the English Prelacy, and Re­ordination, and the imposing of the Litur­gie and Ceremonies; And there is not one syllable of his son in all the book, save in that Dedication. Nor did I ever see him, speak to him, or write to him else, nor hear from him. But only hearing that he was disposed to peace, and against such turbu­lent Church-destroying waies as you here plead for, I thought it my duty then to urge him to do that which was right and just.

EXCEPT. XLI. Answered. HavingBeda etiam, [...]ist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 9. Maximus vir str [...]n [...]us & p [...]obus at (que) Au­gusto dignus, nisi contra Sa­cramenti fidem per tyrannidem emersisset, &c. Invitus prope­modum ab ex­ercitu c [...]eatus Imperator, &c. my self been bred up under some Tutors, and with acquaintance, that kept up a re­putation of great learning and wisdom, by crying down the Puritans as unlearned fel­lows, when themselves were more unlearned than I will here express, on the by I said that I had known such, and also that there were some such now, who having clumsie wits that cannot feel so fine a thred, nor are capable of mastering difficulties, do censure what they understand not: And that many that should be conscious of the dulness and ig­norance of their fumbling, unfurnished brains, [Page 143] have no way to keep up the reputation of their wisdom, but to tell men, O such a one hath dan­gerous errors, &c.] To this he saith, that if Ben. Johnson or Hudibras had writ it,but for Learned Mr. B. mortified Mr. B. judicious Mr. Baxter, to fall into such levity, will I hope warn all to take heed how they over-value them­selves, left God in judgement leave them to them­selves, as he hath evidently done this poor man, &c. And he concludeth with an invitation of me, [to a second and more seasonable re­tractation.]

Answ. I heartily thank you for your pity, and for any zeal of God, though it be not according to knowledg; And for my retractation, I suppose you would have cal­led it a third. You quarrelled not with my suspension of my Aphorisms of Justificati­on. And for my retractation of my Politi­cal Aphorisms, I have no more to say to you and others of your mind, but that you would better consult your own peace and other mens, and your innocency too, if you would meddle with your own matters, or with that only which concerneth you.

And to conclude, 1. I unfeignedly for­give you all the revilings and other injuries of this your Book.

2. I intreat you to review what is against God and his Church, against Faith, Love, and Peace, and to repent of it in time.

3. I beseech you to give over this perni­cious flattery of Professors, and daubing over their ignorance, injudiciousness, pride, and divisions▪

[Page 144]4. I intreat you to be more impartial to­wards dissenters, and let not your Judg­ment be blinded by your passions.

5. To help you to impartiality, I beseech you consider how you tempt the Bishops to think it no harm, to silence men that bold and do such things as you have vented and done in this book.

6. I beseech you to that end, better to study your self, and to know what manner of spirit you are of. Besides all the intima­ted Untruths, here are 30 or 31 gross Un­truths in matter of fact which I have set before you. For my self, it is not the least part of my Non-conformity, That I dare not lie, by publick Declaration to say, I As­sent and Consent where I do not. Now shall a man aggravate the crime of such things as these, and yet do what you do himself?

7. I do solemnly profess to you, that I feel no malice against you, much less a desire of your hurt in all this that I say which is against your Judgment, but an unfeigned love to you, and tenderness of your person.

8. Lastly, I again protest against the injustice of any one that shall charge your Opinions and Miscarriages on the Non-con­formists; when I know not two Presby­terians or meer Independants of your mind; though too many so called in England, have enclined to unjust separations. And we are no more concerned in the opinions of them that are not Protestants, though they also go under the name of Non-conformists, [Page 145] than in the opinions of the Papists, who are called Recusants.

And to Conclude, I assure you, that if you write any more at the rates as you have done in this Antidote, I shall give you the last word, as not intending to confute you, if you shall maintain that Light is darkness; nor plead any more a cause against you, which needeth not much argumentation as to sober judgements, but as to interests, pas­sions, and byassed wills, which are other­wise moved than by truth and reason, and have but one eare; And I fear not to en­courage you before-hand by telling you, that you shall see that I have somewhat else to do. For it is a truth that I tell you with grief, that he that will take out of your book, 1. All the false doctrines. 2. All the gross untruths. 3. And all the impotent revilings, together with the professed end or design, to undeceive them that have a good opinion of me; will leave so little, as may contained in a very narrow room. And he that seeketh in it for any thing that savoureth much of Judgement, Repentance, Love, Unity, or Peace, must have other eyes than mine, or be disappointed. And I wonder not at that, when the sound Prin­ciples of Love, Unity and Peace are the things that have cast you into this displea­sure, and which you write against. For where ever the Principles of Christian Love and Peace seem intolerable, there are such contrary principles as will bring forth con­trary [Page 146] effects, which will prove indeed in­tolerable in the end.

As there is nothing in this World which God doth design more gloriously to mani­fest and magnifie than his LOVE, and no­thing which he so much obligeth mankind to, especially Believers, as the LOVE of Him and one another, so there is nothing which the great enemy of God and man doth so much hate, and seek to extinguish; fighting by many sorts of weapons neither against small nor great, in comparison of Divine and Christian LOVE. And his common way is to present the persons to us as UNLOVELY, or Odious, whom he would have us hate. And as their own pre­dominant Carnality and Impiety doth give him full advantage with the ungodly, to make first that Holyness which is contra­ry to them odious, and consequently holy persons, and God himself; so with those that really Love God, the Tempter findeth this double advantage to make their brethren seem odious to them.

1. The great weakness and error of their judgements, sometimes about the Things in difference, and sometimes about the Persons through unacquaintedness; whereby, either through mistake of the Cause or of the Man, they easily deny or extenuate all the amiable Goodness which is in him, and think that the Love of God, and of Truth and Godliness obligeth them to hate their bro­ther, as a supposed enemie to both. And yet [Page 147] while they openly declare to the World, an Aversation and a want of Love, and a desire to make the person seem odious to others, by their obloquy, detraction and back­biting accusations they make themselves be­lieve that all this is indeed no effect of Ha­tred or Malice, but of Love, because they can still say, that they desire unfeignedly that the man were of their mind and way, which they call a desiring of his Conversion and Conviction, and of his own and the Churches good. And thus not only the hereticks of his time, but the very Jews were Lovers of Paul, and of other Apostles: No doubt but they desired that which they thought was their Conversion and their good; And what hatred so great that may not have such a cover; not only a feigned pretence, but a real, though erroneous desire. Gardiner and Bonner exprest the like, and no doubt, did really wish the Martyrs had been of their mind; And no doubt, but many that wish'd this, thought they wish'd but the persons and the Churches good. The burning zeal which hath so much depopulated much of the World, was in many a zeal of God, though not according to knowledge. He that can transform himself into an Angel of Light, and his Ministers into Ministers of Righteousness and free Grace, no doubt, can teach them to persecute men in Love, and to excommunicate them in Love: To revile others in Love, to hinder the Preaching of the Gospel in Love, to afflict, or to Divide the Church in Love. [Page 148] Alas, how much is the Serpent too subtile, for the understanding that trusteth to it self, and is not illuminated and guided by the spirit of Light and Love: How easily can he hide from us, that in our brother which we should Love, and magnifie and multiply his faults into odious crimes, and transform his very virtues into vices, and his rightest judgement into errors. In this, brother, I thank God that my principles give me that advantage of you, that I think you not odi­ous, but weak.

2. The other yet greater advantage that Satan findeth, to kill the Love of most, is SELFISHNESS; one selfish man thinks that he may well account him bad and odious, who is against his worldly wealth and honour: And another thinks him bad and odious, who is against his Learned or Re­ligious reputation, and would detect his ig­norance or vice. Another thinks him bad and odious, who is against his Opinions, and the words or manner of worshipping God, which he is confident are best; And he that hath once suffered spiritual pride to extoll his own understanding and his piety, will make that so far the measure of his cen­sures, that all shall be thought so far to swerve from Truth and Godliness as they swerve from him. But if we should suffer much by others, and that for a cause which we take to be the cause of God, how easie is it for selfishness to stir up those Pas­sions, which shall blind our understandings, [Page 149] so far as to see no good at all scarce in them that we suffer by, or to extenuate all that is Lovely in them; yea, to think hardly of almost all others of their judgement and party, for their sakes: And if we think we may once call them Persecutors, yea, or but such as Conform to the Persecutors waies, we think it [...]yeth almost any thing which we say [...] to make them odious: As th [...]se on the [...] side think they are justified in all [...] may say or do against m [...]n i [...] [...]hey [...].

[...] are men from Loving their enemies, [...] [...]ssing them that curse them, and doing good to them that hate them, and praying for them that despightfully use them, (or falsely accuse them,) and persecute them, that they are hardly kept from hating those that Love them, and cursing those that bless them, and hurting those that would do them good, and falsely accusing and despightfully using and persecuting those that pray for them: And yet lest they should not be flattered in their sin, and that yet they may judge themselves the children of our heavenly father, they will do all this as Acts of Love, to the Church and Truth, and to the persons souls; and will Love them, as is said, with a hurting, a reviling, a slandering, a cursing, and a hating and malicious Love.

O that the God of Love would pitty and undeceive the selfish and passionate sort of professed Christians! and teach them to know what manner of spirit they are of! O [Page 150] that he would rebuke the evil spirits that are gone fo [...]th! The spirit of Cove [...]o [...]s­ness and Pride: [...] Hypocrisie, and Reli­gious Imagery! O [...] Self-conceitedness! Of Malice and Wrath! Of Back-biting and False accusing, before that both Christianity and Humanity be turned into Devilisme, (2. Tim. 3. 3. [...],) and earth be more conformable to Hell! O that the spirit of Light would make us of one mind, and the spirit of Love would mortifie both mens malignant and religious passions, contentious­ness and malice, and cause us to Love our Neighbours as our selves! That as the en­vious and striving wisdom from beneath, hath caused Confusion, and every evil work, so the wisdom from above, which is first pure, and then peaceable, gentle, and easie to be in­treated, might bring forth Mercy and good fruits, without partiality and hypocrisie; that we might edifie the body of Christ in Love, (Eph. 4. 16.) and frustrate the hopes of the enemies of our peace, who wait for our to­tal dissolution, and triumph already in our Divisions, (when it is their own Mill which grindeth us into powder,) But God can make their Oven to bake us into a more Christian and salubrious Consistency, (that I may use Ignatius his [...]llegory,) but it must be first by [...]ermenting us with unfeigned Love; and then we shall be Lovely in his [...]ight, and the God of Love and Peace will be with us, 2 Cor. 13. 11.

Amen.

POSTSCRIPT.

THat the Excepter may yet further be convinced that it is not any Party of men called Independents or Anabaptists as such, that I here speak against; As I did in my opposed Book declare that I thought them both, and all others that hold the foun­dation, and disclaim it not by Heresie, or wicked lives, to be such as the Churches should receive into their Communion; and that it is their duty to hold Communion in the same Assemblies, notwithstanding their difference; and that it is not the Opinions which denominate them, that I write against; but only the Love-killing and Dividing prin­ciples which are among them, which make them fly with censure and alienation from their brethren that are as meet for Church-Communion as they; and oft break them into pieces among themselves; so do I yet again here declare the same; And not only so, but that if it were in my power, when their Communion with others cannot be procured, they should yet be tolerated in their separation it self, and enjoy Communion with themselves alone, in their separated Congregations, under the Laws of Peace, being not tolerated to turn their preaching or worship into a reviling and reproaching of the Orthodox, to the destruction of Christian Love: And I should not doubt [Page 152] but the Communion of the Orthodox Churches maintained in Constant Synods, together with the special Countenance of the Christi­an Magistrate, and the daily experience of Believers (which would still make the aged sort forsake them) would suffice better than violent severities to repress the evil, and to give victorious Truth opportunity to do its proper work.

And to silence this calumny yet more, I do renew the Profession which I have often published, that my own opinion is so much for Independency, as that I think, no Church is made, by God, to be a Ruler to other Churches, under the name of a Mother Church, or a Metropolitane, or Patriarchal, but that all these are humane forms; And that Councils are not the proper Governours of the particular Pastors; but are for Communi­on of Pastors and Churches directly, by way of Consultation, Consent and Agree­ment; (As I have heretofore declared, that Bishop Usher professed his judgement to me.)

Though I confess that the Pastors in Council are still the Guides of the people, as well as singly at home, and by their Consent lay a stronger governing obligation on them; And that the General Law of Unity and Concord doth consequently bind the several Pastors, to concurr in all things Lawful, (Consideratis considerandis) with the Con­fenting Churches.

And even Dr. Hammond is for Indepen­dency [Page 153] so far as to say, that [every such regular assembly of Christians under a Bishop, (such as Timothy was) an Oeconomus set over them by Christ, was the Church of the Living God.] Though he adde [such again every larger cir­cuit under the Metropolitane, &c.] Yet he confesseth, [And such all the particular Churches of the whole World, considered toge­ther under the supream head, Christ Iesus, dispensing them all by himself, and administring them severally, not by any one Oeconomus; but by the several Bishops, as inferiour heads of unity to the several bodies, so constituted by the several Apostles in their plantati [...]s each of them having an [...], a several distinct commission from Christ immediately and subor­dinate to none but the supream Donor or plene­potentiary.] So far he; on 1 Tim. 3. 1 [...]. e.

To this do but adde what Bishop Bilson of subjection largely sheweth, and other Bishops as well as he, that Metropolitanes and Patriarks are not of Divine but humane institution, ad accidental to the Divine con­stitution of Churches; And also what Ig­natius saith, of the Unity of Churches, and description of a Bishop, that [To every Church there was one Altar, and one Bishop with the Presbyters and Deacons,] and so every communicating body, or Congregation that had an Altar, had a Bishop, (as Mr. M [...]de on this of Ignatius sheweth;) and then you will see how far Independency is owned by others as well as by me.

And for further silencing the calumny, [Page 154] let it be noted, that the Churches in New-England are commonly called, Indepen­dent, or Congregational, and yet they are against Separation, and do find by experi­ence that Separation is as perillous a thing to Independent free Churches, as it is to Dio­cesane Churches, and somewhat more, Be­cause they use not outward force to preserve their Unity, and because one single Congre­gation is sooner dissolved by division than such a thing as a Diocesane Church is. And therefore no men should be more willing to suppress Dividing Principles and Passions than the Independents, both because they are most charged with them, and with all our Sects and Confusio [...], and because they are not the least in danger of them.

And that the New England Churches are against the Separation which hath been commonly known by the name of Brow­nisme, I will give you these following evi­dences.

1. Even Mr. Robinson himself, a part of whose Church began the Plantation at Plimouth, though he was one of those that was called a Semi-separatist, yet hath writ­ten for the lawfulness of hearing in our English Conformable Parish▪Churches: And in his Letter to his people in New-England (in Mortons Memorial) he hath these honest observable passages.

[How imperfect and lame is the work of grace in that person who wants Charity to co­ver a multitude of offences?—Neither are [Page 155] you to be exhorted to this grace only upon the common grounds of Christianity, which are, that persons ready to take offence, either want Charity to cover offences, or wisdom duely to weigh humane frailties; or lastly, are gross, though close hypocrites, as Christ our Lord teacheth, Mat. 7. 1, 2, 3. As indeed in my own experience, few or none have been found which sooner give offence than such as easily take it, neither have they ever proved sound and profitable members in societies who have nourished this touchy hum [...]ur.] To these he addeth special Reasons from themselves.

Mr. Browne accusing the Ministers as be­ing Separatists, and would be Anabapists, &c. The Ministers answered, that They were neither Separatists nor Anabaptists, they did not separate from the Church of England, nor from the ordinances of God there, but only from the corruptions and disorders there, &c.

‘Old Mr. Wilson Pastor of Boston, be­ing desired by all the Elders of the Chur­ches assembled at his house, that (on his dying bed) he would solemnly declare to them, what he conceived to be those sins, which provoked the displeasure of God against the Countrey, told them, that he had long feared these sins following as chief among others which God was greatly provoked by, 1. Separation. 2. Anabaptisme. 3. Corahisme; when people rise up, as Corah, against their Mi­nisters and Elders, as if they took too [Page 156] much upon them, when indeed they do but Rule for Christ, and according to Christ; yet it is nothing for a brother to stand up and oppose without Scripture or reason, the doctrine and word of the Elder, saying, I am not satisfied, &c. And hence if he do not like the Admini­stration, (be it Baptisme or the like) he will then turn his back upon God and his Ordinances, and go away, &c. And (saith he) for our neglect of baptizing the chil­dren of the Church, those that some call Grand-children, I think God is provoked by it. 4. Another I take to be the making light of, and not subjecting to the Autho­rity of Synods, without which the Chur­ches cannot long subsist. And so for the Magistrates being Gallio like, not caring for these things, or else not using their power and authority, for the maintenance of the Truth and Gospel, and Ordinan­ces, &c. Morton, p. 133. 184.’ And among the Poems there recorded of him, this is part,

Firm stood he 'gainst the Familist
And Antinomian spirit strong;
He never lov'd the Separatist,
Nor yet the Anabaptists throng.
Neither the Tolerators strein,
Nor Quakers spirit could he brook,
Nor bow'd to the Morellian train;
Nor childrens right did over-look, p. 186.

[Page 157]And, Pag. 195. in the Poems on their fa­mous Mitchell it followeth.

The Quaker trembling at his thunder, fled,
And with Caligula resum'd his bed:
He by the motions of a nobler spirit
Clear'd men, and made their Notions swine inherit.
The Munster Goblin by his holy flood
Exorcis'd, like a thin Phantasma stood:
Brown's Babel shatter'd by his lightning, fell,
And with confused horror pack'd to Hell.
Let not the brazen Schismatick aspire▪
Lot's leaving Sodom, left them to the fire.

But the fullest evidence is the work of the New-England Synod, 1662. who determi­ned of two great points of Church-practice, so as greatly tendeth to reconcile them to all the moderate Presbyterians, and other peaceable Christians. The one is 2. ▪ That Members of the visible Church according to Scripture, are confederate visible believers, in particular Churches, and their Infant-seed; that is, Children in minority, whose next Parents, one or both, are in Covenant. ▪The Case of Christians that are of no particular Church is not here medled with). 3. And that [The Infant-seed of such when grown up, are personally under the Watch, Discipline, and [Page 158] Government of the Church]. 4. That these adult persons are not to be admitted to full Communion, meerly because they are and con­tinue members, without such further qualifi­cations as the Word of God requireth thereun­to. 5. That Church-Members who were ad­mitted in minority, understanding the doctrine of Faith, and publickly professing their Assent thereto, not scandalous in life, and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church, where­in they give up themselves and their Children to the Lord, and subject themselves to the Go­vernment of Christ in his Church, their chil­dren are to be baptised.]

As to the points themselves, having written a Treatise on the subject, (under the name of Confirmation) and therein di­stinctly shewed my Opinion in reconciling terms, (though it may seem stricter than these propositions, and more inclining to the dissenters in some things) I shall say no­thing of it here. But by this it is visible, that the New-England Synod do not only exclude the practice of Gathering Churches out of Churches (which was the great contest in England between the Assembly and the Congregational party); but they provide that not so much as any particu­lar persons that were Baptized in their Churches in Infancy, shall be made Church-members de novo (unless by removing from one Church to another), but shall be ac­counted members till they apostatize noto­riously or are Excommunicated: And so [Page 159] shall their children after them succeed by the way of Baptism into the Church, and they will have no other ordinary Church-door but Baptism. And so gathering Churches of Baptized persons will cease, unless it be in a ravelled state, when the old Churches being dissolved, believers are to embody themselves anew. And Mr. Da­venport and a few more, seeing that by this way their Churches would fall into the way of England and other Churches, by a succession of Members growing up from Infancy (and not by making them up of new Adult enterers, as the Anabaptists do,) did oppose himself by writing against the Synod, which by some of them is largely Answered: Wherein they tell us that there were n [...]t ten in a Synod of above seventy that did in any thing Vote on the Negative, and not above three against the third Proposition, which carryeth the Cause. They frequent­ly disclaim Separation: They cite Allen and Shephard p. 33. as advising for the Refor­mation of such Churches as our Parishes, that they be acknowledged true Churches, and then called to Repentance and Refor­mation, and a select number of those that agree to it, being fit for the sacrament, &c. to be admitted, and go in the Congrega­tional way, pag. 42. they cite Cotton, Holin. of Chur. Mem. p. 92. saying, [Neither among us doth irregeneration alone keep any from Church-fellowship with us, unless it be accom­panied with such fruits as are openly scanda­lous, [Page 160] and de convincingly manifest irregenera­tion.] They prudently tell us, p. 45. that [The Lord hath not set up Churches only that a few old Christians may keep one another warm while they live, and then carry away the Church into the cold Grave with them when they die; but that they might with all care and advan­tages nurse up still successively another genera­tion of subjects to Christ, &c.] And that [We may be very injurious to Christ as well as to the souls of men, by too much straitening and nar­rowing the bounds of his Kingdom, or visible Church on earth.] Citing Paraeus, (in Mat. 13.) saying, [In Church-Reformation it is an observable truth, that those that are for too much strictness, do more hurt than profit the Church.] Abundance more to the same purpose I might collect.

And seeing they take children growing up, to be members under Church-discipline according to their Capacities, Let it be con­sidered soberly, whether this doth not inti­mate to us, that Discipline it self must not be exercised with the hurtful rigor that some expect? For I would intreat the ridgeder sort, if they are Parents, but to tell me, at what age, and for what faults, and for want of Grace, they would have their own children excommunicated? And when they have done, whether they will also pro­ceed to a Family Excommunication of them for the same causes?

They adde a sixth Prop. for the Baptizing of the Children of those that by death or ex­traordinary [Page 161] providence have been inevitably hindered from publickly acting as aforesaid, and yet have given the Church cause in judge­ment of Charity to look at them, as so qualified, and such as had they been called thereto would have so acted.

And they adde a seventh Propos. that [The Members of Orthodox Churches being sound in the faith, and not scandalous in life, and presenting due testimony thereof; these oc­casionally coming from one Church to another, may have their children baptized in the Church whither they come, by virtue of Communion of Churches; But if they remove their habi­tation, they ought orderly to covenant and sub­ject themselves to the Government of Christ, in his Church where they settle their abode, and so their children to be baptized: It being the Churches duty to receive such to Communion, so far as they are regularly capable of the same.]

So that they provide for the reception of all meet persons. But the chief thing observable is that in Propos. 5. Where the Qualifications or Description of a just en­titleing Profession is laid down, as consisting in no more than these four things, 1. Un­derstanding the doctrine of Faith. 2. The publick Profession of Assent thereto. 3. Not to be scandalous in life. 4. And solemnly own­ing the Covenant before the Church, wherein they give up themselves and their children be­fore the Lord. They require no other proofs of Regeneration; no [...] any particular ac­count [Page 162] how they were converted; nor what further signs of it they can shew.

And, for my own part, I never dissented from those called Congregational, in Eng­land, in the two great points from which their Churches are denominated, viz. 1. That regularly they should consist but of so many as are capable of Personal Communion, which they call a Congre­gation. 2. And that this Congregation is not jure Divino under the spiritual Govern­ment of any superior Church, as Metropo­litane, Patriarchal, &c. But my chief dis­sent from them hath been, in their going beyond Independency, and too many of them coming too neer to Separation, 1. By ma­king other tearms of mens title to Church­member-ship, than these here recited by the New-England Synod, and then the under­standing, sober profession of Assent and Consent to the Baptismal Covenant is. 2. And for their gathering new Churches in the several Parishes, as if there had been no Churches there before, and the members not gathered by them, were not the sub­jects of any Church-Discipline; neither the Children nor Adult.

And the reasons why I have ever dissen­ted from them in these points, have been these.

1. Because I find that the contrary was the way of Scripture-times and all anti­quity. And that the Apostles still received members, upon a sudden and bare profession [Page 163] of belief and consent to the Baptismal Co­venant, with the penitent renunciation of the Flesh, the World, and the Devil. And all Ages since have held this course, and made Baptisme the Church-door.

But I shall heartily joyn with any Bre­thren that will endeavour herein to save the Church, from that state of Imagery and dead Formality, which Papists and all Carnal Hypocrites have mortified Gods or­dinances, and unspeakably injured the Churches by, and are still working every ordinance of God that way: All good men should labour to recover Religion and Christian profession to an understanding seriousness.

I will here insert the words of a most Learned and High Prelatist, to shew you that whoever is against this Course in Pra­ctice, no sober men can deny it in princi­ples: Eldersfield of Bapt. pag. 48. marg. [Upon score of like reason whereto, and for such after-tryal, may have been taken up in the Christian Church that examination which did sift the Constancy or rather Consistency of those that had been taken in young, to their presumed grounds, that if they wavered, they might be known and discharged; Or if they remained constant, they might by Imposition of hands re­ceive what the common name of that Ceremo­ny did import, of their Faith (at least a sign of) Confirmation: Vasques hath from Eras­mus (in the Preface to his Paraphrase on the Gospels) a word of most wholsome, grave, and [Page 164] prudent advice, that those who were baptized young, when they begin to write Man, should be examined, An ratum habeant id quod in Catechismo ipsorum nomine promissum fuit? Quod si ratum non habeant, ab Ec­clesiae jurisdictione liberos manere, in 3 part. Thom. Disp. 154. To. 2. C. 1. 2. If they did then stand to what their Sureties had presumed for them, If not, they should be discarded: Most necessary! and of unimaginable bene­fit; (But not if it be turned into cursory Imagery,) Such a scrutiny would shake off thousands of rotten hypocrites, and purge the Church of many such Infidel-believers (or professors,) upon whose dirty faces a little holy water was sprinkled when they knew not what it was; but they no more mind the true Sancti­fication appertaining, than Turks or Saracens, (who shall rise up in judgement against their washed filthyness,) Or than those of whom St. Peter, [It is happened unto them according to the true Proverb, The dog to his vomit, and the washed swine to wallow in the mire;] Such Discipline of awakened Reason is that which the World groans for, (And groan it may for any remedy that the formal Hypocrites will either apply or endure.) That men would become Christians! O that the truth of faith, and the power of true Christian belief might be seen in the hearts and lives of those, that knowingly put the neck in Christs yoak.] So far Eldersfield. See also Dr. Patrick of Bap­tisme. Dr. Hammonds words I have reci­ted after my Treat. of Confirmation; They [Page 165] are very worthy of consideration. But to leave this digression,

2. My second reason why I dissent from them that will have other Tearms of Church-entrance than Baptisme, and a stricter exaction of a Title to member­ship than a professed Affent and Consent to the tearms of that Covenant; is because, if in our very Church-title and Constitution we forsake the Scriptural and primitive tearms, we are liable to the exceptions of all dissenters, and cannot justifie our selves against their accusations; nor well answer them that say, It is long of us, and not of them, that they communicate not with us.

3. Because we shall unavoidably injure many of Christs members, and keep those out whom he will own, and would have us own; to the great injury of him and them.

4. Because we shall lessen and weaken the Church of Christ, which is already so small, and so be injurious to it.

5. Because we shall be alwaies at uncer­tainty, on what tearms to go: For if once we leave Gods prescribed tearms, we shall never know where to fix: But every Pa­stor will examine as he please, and form such Covenant-tearms as are agreeable to the measure of his own private judge­ment and Charity: And even among Con­gregational men, we see already that the tearms of mens Titles do vary, as the Pa­stors [Page 166] (or Congregations) differ in point of strictness.

6. And this layeth a certain foundation for perpetual dissentions and divisions; when there are no certain tearms of Con­cord: And there is no Union when we depart from Christs authority. And it is not in vain that Christ himself prescribed a form of Baptizing; And if all his Chur­ches since the Apostles daies, have brought us down that Creed or those Articles of Faith, and form of Baptizing used univer­sally among them, New waies, and various waies, (even as various as mens degrees of prudence and charity) will never be the tearms of the Churches Unity.

7. And I am very much the more con­firm'd against this extream by my long ex­perience. Having made it much of my work to know the minds and lives of all the people of the great Parish where I lived, and since that, having conversed with ma­ny of the inferior rank, both for estate, and profession of piety, I have found that there is much more good in a great number of those, that are not noted openly for spe­cial Professors of Religiousness, than I did before believe. For no man is usually noted now for Religious, in this stricter sense, 1. Whose knowledge hath not some readi­ness of expression, in conference, and in prayer. 2. And who doth not come to private meetings, and associate himself with the stricter and forwarder sort of Pro­fessors. [Page 167] But there are abundance of things which may hinder some serious weak Chri­stians from both these. Dulness of natural parts, and want of good education, and use, and teaching, and company, may keep mens parts and utterance very low. And some young Christians for want of former use, at their first true Conversion, cannot speak sense, in the very fundamentals, which yet they have a saving sense and knowledge of, (but are like Infants,) and their prayers have little better expressions, than Abba Father, and the unutterable groans of the spirit.

And some never had the opportunity of profitable company; And some are hin­dered from such converse by bashfulness; And some by poverty and business, or di­stance; And some by the restraint of Pa­rents, Husbands, Masters, &c. And some by ill company, and scandall, may have a prejudice against those Religious people who are neerest to them; who yet may be real lovers of Christ. Having found in ma­ny called common people more knowledge (though not beter utterance) than I ex­pected, and more trust in Christ, and more desire to be better, and love to those that are better, and more willingness to be taught (crowding in publick or private when they have a full opportunity, and af­fectionately hearing the closest preaching,) I am grown the more fearful of wronging Christ, his Church and them, by number­ing [Page 168] such with those that are without, when they are Baptized persons, that never were proved to have apostatized, nor to have lived impenitently in any sin so gross, as the back-bitings, proud-censoriousness and di­visions of too many Religiouser people are.

8. To which may be added the sad ex­perience of this age of the dreadful mis­carriages of the more noted sort of Pro­fessors, turning Infidels, Ranters, Quakers, Socinians, Antinomians, and too many scandalous in life; and such as have destroyed Order, Government, Unity, & Reformation, when there was scarce an enemie able to hurt it much besides themselves: Which is no dishonour to the Profession of Holy­ness, much less to Christ and Holyness it self; But it seemeth to me a notable rebuke of our common over-valuing the meer Parts and utterance, and extemporate per­formances of the people, and of Ministers flattering such Professors, and over-looking all of Christ which is in many, that have had no such helps for gifts and utterance as they.

2. The second Point in which the New-England Synod agreed was, the stated Con­sociation of Churches, and use of Synods, And herein, saith the Defence, p. 99. there appeared no Dissent or dissatisfaction in the Synod. Where they adde also (as to the point of Separation,) [We never said nor thought, that there should be a with­drawing [Page 169] from other Churches upon differences, errors or offences of an inferiour and dubi­ous nature, yea, though continued in: We are far enough from hastyness or harshness in that matter, being professed adversaries to a spirit of sinful and rigid separation.]

And that Apostolical man Mr. Iohn Eliot, hath printed a draught for stated Synods, (for Counsel and Concord, which is their proper use,) which will go far enough to satisfie moderate men in that point, and saith more for such Synods than ever I said.

2. Having said thus much of the Iudge­ment of Congregational men in New-Eng­land against Separation, I shall adde some­what of the second Assertion, That it con­cerneth the Congregational Party, as much in point of Interest, to be against it, as any sort of men whatsoever. 1. Because their Chur­ches have no other bond of Concord (here) but voluntary Consent; And if that break, they are dissolved. 2. Because their mem­bers being usually neither, so low as to be ignorant of matters of Controversie, nor so high as to be able solidly to Resolve them, are most like to be quarrelsome, and fall into divisions. And honest people that have a zeal of God, and for Truth and Unity, and not knowledge enough to guide it steadily, are likey to contend and trouble one another, than either they that are more careless, and have less zeal, (and therefore like swine will leave such pearls to any that [Page 170] will take them up,) or they that have sound knowledge to guide their zeal. 3. And the power which too many of them give the people, over the Pastors and themselves, will do much to increase these divisions, and cause their dissolution.

And that this is the sense of New-Eng­land, appeareth, 1. In their banishing Ly­ford first, and the two Brownes after, lest they should be divided about the Prelacy and Liturgie. 2. By their common judge­ment against dangerous Toleration. 3. By the History of Mrs. Hutchinsons business in Sir Henry Uane's daies. 4. By the History of Mr. Williams business. 5. And of Gor­ton's. 6. And of the Quakers of late; All which I shall say no more of, but only tran­scribe some of the words of Morton's Me­morial, about Mr. Williams, p. 78, &c:

[In the year 1634. Mr. Roger Williams removed from Plimouth to Salem, He had li­ved about three years at Plimouth, where he was well accepted as an assistant to Mr. Ralph Smith then Pastor there; But by degrees vent­ing of divers of his own singular opinions, and seeking to impose them upon others, he not find­ing such a concurrence as he expected, des [...]red his dismission—foreseeing that he would run the same course of rigid Separation and Anaba­ptistry as Mr. John Smith the Separatist at Amsterdam had done, the Church consented to his dismission; and such as did adhere to him were also dismissed, or removed with him, or not long after him, to Salem.—But he having [Page 171] in one years time filled that place with princi­ples of rigid Separation, and tending to Ana­baptistry; the prudent Magistrates of the Massachusets jurisdiction, sent to the Church of Salem, desiring them to forbear calling him to Office; which they not hearkening to, was a cause of much disturbance.—He being in Of­fice, proceeded more vigorously to vent many dan­gerous Opinions, as, That it is not lawful for an Unregenerate man to pray; nor to take an Oath; and in special, not the Oath of Fi­delity to the Civil Government; Nor was it lawful for a godly man to have Communion, either in Family-Prayer, or in an Oath, with such as they judged unregenerate. And there­fore he himself refused the Oath of Fidelity, and taught others so to do. Also that it was not lawful so much as to hear the godly Mini­sters of England, when any occasionally went thither; and therefore he admonished any Church-members that had done so, as of hey­nous sin. Also he spake dangerous words against the Patent which was the foundation of the Government of the Massachusets Colony. Also he affirmed that the Magistrate had no­thing to do in matters of the First Table, but only the Second: And that there should be a general and unlimited Toleration of all Reli­gions: And for any man to be punished for any matters of his Conscience, was Persecution.—Staying at home in his own house, he sent a Letter, which was read in the publick Church-Assembly, to give them notice, That if the Church of Salem would not separate, not only [Page 172] from the Churches of England, but the Chur­ches of New-England too, he would separate from them. The more prudent and sober part of the Church being amazed at his way, could not yield to him: Whereupon he never came to the Church-Assembly more, professing separati­on from them as Antichristian: And not only so, but he withdrew all private Religious com­munion from any that would hold Communion with the Church there. Insomuch as that he would not pray, nor give thanks at meals with his own Wife, nor any of his Family, because they went to the Church-Assemblies. Divers of the weaker sort of the Church-members, that Had not this man brought the Catholick-Church into a little room. had been throughly levened with his Opinions, of which number were divers Women that were zealous in their way, did by degrees fall off to him: Insomuch as that he kept a Meeting in his own house, unto which a numerous company did resort, both on the Sabbath day and at other times, by way of Separation from, and opposition to the Church-Assembly there: Which the prudent Magistrates understanding, and seeing things grow more and more towards a ge­neral division and disturbance; after all other means used in vain, they passed a Sentence of Banishment against him, out of the Massachu­sets Colony, as against a disturber of the Peace of the Church and Commonwealth. After which Mr. Williams sate down in a place cal­led Providence—and was followed by many of the Members of the Church of Salem, who did zealously adhere to him, and cryed out of the Persecution that was against him: Some others [Page 173] also resorted to him from other parts. They had not been there long together, but from ri­gid Separation they fell to Anabaptistry, re­nouncing the Baptism which they had received in their Infancy, and taking up another Bap­tism, and so began a Church in that way. But Mr. Williams stopped not there long; For af­ter some time he told the people that had follow­ed him, that he was out of the way himself, and had misled them; For he did not find that there was any upon earth, that could administer Baptisme, and therefore their last Baptisme was a nullity as well as their first: And therefore they must lay down all, and wait for the coming of new Apostles: And so they dissolved them­selves, and turned Seekers; keeping that one Principle, That every one should have liberty to worship God, according to the light of their own Consciences; but otherwise not own­ing any Churches or Ordinances of God, any where upon earth.] So far the History.

To which I adde, that this man was one of the great instruments after all this, of sublimating the English Separation to the same height, and gratifying the Papists by raising up the sect of Seekers, who said, that both Scripture, Ministry, Church and Ordinances were lost. And had they not now broken the Church sufficiently, and made it small enough, when they had made it none?

God forbid that I should transcribe any of this with a desire to bring reproach on any mens persons, but only to help our [Page 174] dear brethren that are in danger, to prof [...] by the warning of other mens falls.

For to this end was the Scripture writ­ten historically, with the falls of the Saints inserted in it.

The same History, pag. 139, 140. thus describeth Mr. Thomas Dudley a Principal Founder and Pillar of the Massachussets, and often Governour, dying 77 years old, that [His zeal to order appeared in contriving good Laws, and faithfully executing them on Criminal Offenders, Hereticks and Under­miners of Religion: He had a piercing judge­ment to discover the Wolf, though cloathed with a Sheep-skin,—] These following are the conclusion of a pious Copy of Verses found in his pocket when he was dead.

Let men of God in Courts and Churches watch,
O're such as do a Toleration hatch,
Lest that ill egg bring forth a Cockatrice,
To poyson all with Heresie and Vice.
If men be left, and otherwise Combine,
My Epitaph's, I dy'd no Libertine.

(But this is no excuse to them, that Tolerate not men to obey the Laws of Christ.)

To these I may adde that (though ma­ny Prelatists utterly mistake, and think that it is the Ministers every where that are the chief Leaders of the people to Separation, yet) both in New-England and in Old, the [Page 175] people are so much proner to it than the Ministers, (except a very few,) that if it were not for the wisdom, gravity, sta­bility and authority of the Ministers re­streining them, the matter would be other­wise than it is. As this Synod of New-England sheweth you their stability and moderation, so do the choicest of their Pa­stors still stand firm against all extreams, and hold the people in that Concord which they have. The excellent service of Mr. Mitchell in this kind before he died is pre­dicated by all. I will not recite all the com­plaints I heard from Mr. Nortons mouth, against the separating humour of many people, and their danger thereupon; nor the many Letters to the same purpose, which many worthy men thence have sent over to their friends, and their particular lamenta­tions of the case of Hartford, Boston, &c. which I have had the sight of; which fully testifie that they are no promoters of those waies.

The sad case of the Bermuda's I before mentioned: Sad indeed, when in so disci­plin'd a Plantation, one Minister shall turn away the greater part from Church-Com­munion, till they become aliens,—And the rest whom he gathered as the only wor­thy persons, shall so many turn Quakers and such like, till Religion between both is,—alas, how low (as their late worthy Minister fore-named testifyeth.)

The dissolution of the separated Chur­ches [Page 176] of the English in the Low Countreys by their own divisions, is a thing too well known to be concealed.

From all which I gather, that it is the In­terest of the Congregational Churches themselves, as much as of any others, to joyn with us for the Principles of Christian Love, forbearance and Unity; and against the Principles of alienation and division: which is all that I am driving at.

Obj. But the Churches of New-England would not joyn with a Church that should use the Common-prayer in that worship, nor in the Sacrament.

Answ. Nor I neither ordinarily if I were with them, and in their case; who have liberty to worship God in the most edify­ing and serious, and orderly manner that they can. And yet were I in Armenia, Abas­sia, or among the Greeks, I would joyn in a much more defective form than our Li­turgie, rather than in none. And that this is the judgement of many New-England Ministers, (to joyn with the English Litur­gie rather than have no Church-worship;) I have reason to conjecture, because in their foresaid Defence of the Synod, Pref. pag. 4, 5. They profess themselves to receive their principles not from the Separatists, but from the good old non-Conformists, to whom they adhere, naming Cartwright, Ames, Pa­raeus, Parker, Baines, Fox, Dearing, Green­ham, &c. And I need not tell those that have read their writings, that the old non-Conformists [Page 177] did some of them read the Common-prayer, and the most of them judge i [...] lawful to jo [...] Or else Mr. Hildersham, Mr. Rich. Rogers, &c. would not write so earnestly to men to come to the beginning, and prefer it before all pri­vate duties: And Perkins was for kneeling at the Sacrament: And Mr. Baines his suc­cessor in his Letters writes for Communi­cating kneeling at the Sacrament, and an­swereth the objections.

But though I write this to give them the due honour of their moderation and sober judgement, yet not as making them or any men our Rule, in faith or wor­ship.

Obj. Therefore the Churches of New-England reprove not separation from a Com­mon-prayer Church, though they would have none separate among themselves, because there is no just Cause.

Ans. 1. The former answer may serve to make it probable, that they would joyn with them as Churches, in case they had not better to joyn with on lawful tearms. 2. And their own expressions signifie that they take the English Parishes that have godly Ministers, for true Churches, though faulty. 3. And those that I now write for cannot forget, that they gathered their Churches by separation out of our Parish-Churches, when there was no Common­prayer nor Ceremonies used, nor any dif­ference in worship found among us, that I [Page 178] know of; And that in New-England it self, the Principles which I deny, do too of procure separation from those Churches, that have nothing which moderation and peaceableness will think a sufficient cause of such disjunction.

4. And it is well known that the name of a Separatist and Brownist was first taken up here in England, with relation to these Parish-Churches where they had the Litur­gie and Ceremonies as now. Therefore they would speak equivocally in disclaiming Separatists and Brownists, if they meant not such as the word is first and commonly used to signifie. 5. And if that were not the sense, a Separatist might be said to be against Separation as well as they in New-England. For Canne or Iohnson would be against separating from their own Church­es, or from any which they judged as fault­less. 6. It was the Parish-Churches that had the Liturgie, and were accused to have 91 Antichristian Errors (in them and the Church of England which they belonged to) which Mr. H. Iacob the Father of the Congregational Party, wrote for Com­munion with against Francis Iohnson, and in respect to which he called those Separa­tists against whom he wrote; The same I may say of Mr. Bradshaw, Dr. Ames, and other non-Conformists, whom the Congre­gational brethren think were favourable to their way. And if the old Independents (as well as the rest of the non-Conformists) ac­counted [Page 179] them Culpable Separatists that then wrote for separation from the Pa­rish-Churches (for Diocesane Churches I I [...] meddle not with,) then we have small reason to think that those New-England Brethren that disclaim the Se­paratists, were of the mind of these Se­paratists themselves, or that they differed from the old Independents herein, when they seem rather to be of such healing prin­ciples and temper towards the Presbyteri­ans, (as in my opinion) they have in their Synodical Conclusions made [...]p almost all the breach: And therefore are not to be ac­counted more for separation than the old Congregational Divines.

And that you may see that the Magi­strates of New-England are of the mind of their Pastors in the Synod, and take the youth to be under the Ministers Charge, or at least that I may hereby express my gladness for this work of their great prudence and Christian zeal, and call those my brethren of the Ministry to Repentance, who did neglect this work of personal Instruction, while we had liberty to exercise the Pasto­ral office; and also that I may yet remem­ber them that are silenced, what abundance of good the Law yet alloweth them to do, by this course of going from house to house, and of Catechizing the youth, (see­ing we are restrained to no members un­der 16 years of age,) I say for these reasons, I shall give you as my Conclusion, the Order [Page 180] of the Governour and Council of the Massachusets in New-England to all the Elders and Ministers in their Jurisdiction, for Catechizing, and private labours with all the Families under their Charge; Dated at Boston, Mar. 10. 1668.

To the Elders and Ministers of every Town within the Juris­diction of the Massachusets in New-England:

The Governour and Council sendeth greeting;
Reverend, and Beloved in the Lord,

WHereas we find in the Examples of holy Scripture, that Magistrates have not only excited and commanded all the people under their Government, to seek the Lord God of their Fathers, and do the Law and Commandment, 2 Cro. 14. 2, 3, 4. Ezra, 7. 25, 26, 27. but also stirred up and sent forth the Levites, accompanied with other principal men, to teach the good know­ledge of the Lord throughout all the Cities of Iudah, 2. Chron. 17. 6, 7, 8, 9. which en­deavours have been crowned with Gods blessing.

Also we find that our Brethren of the Congregational Perswasion in England have made a good Profession, in their Book, entituled, A Declaration of their Faith and Order, Pag. 59. Sect. 14. where they say, That although Pastors and Teachers stand especially related unto their particular Church­es; yet they ought not to neglect others living [Page 182] within their Parochial Bounds, but besides their constant publick Preaching to them, they ought to enquire after their profiting by the word▪ in­structing them in, and pressing upon them (whether young or old) the great Doctrines of the Gospel▪ even personally and particularly, so far as their strength and time will per­mit.

We hope that sundry of you need not a spur in these things, but are consciously careful to do your duty: yet forasmuch as we have cause to fear, that there is too much neglect in many places, notwithstanding the Laws long since provided therein; We therefore think it our duty to emit this De­claration unto you, earnestly desiring, and in the bowels of our Lord Jesus requiring you to be very diligent and careful to Ca­techize and Instruct all the people (especi­ally the Youth) under your Charge, in the Sound and Orthodox Principles of Christi­an Religion; and that not only in publick, but privately from house to house, as blessed Paul did, Acts 20. 20. or at least three, four, or more Families meeting together, as strength and time may permit, taking to your assistance such godly and grave persons as to you may seem most expedient. And also that you labour to inform your selves, (as much as may be meet) how your Hear­ers do profit by the Word of God, and how their Conversations do agree there­with; and whether the Youth are taught to read the English Tongue: taking all oc­casions [Page 183] to apply suitable Exhortations par­ticularly unto them, for the rebuke of those that do evil, and for the encouragement of them that do well.

The effectual and constant prosecution hereof, we hope will have a tendency to promote the Salvation of Souls, To suppress the growth of Sin and Prophaneness, To beget more Love and Unity amongst the people, and more Reverence and Esteem of the Ministry, and will assuredly be to the enlargement of your Crown and Recom­pence in Eternal Glory.

Edward Rawson, Secret.
FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.