A second admonition to Mr. Edward Bagshaw written to call him to repentance for many false doctrines, crimes, and specially fourscore palpable untruths in matter of fact ... : with a confutation of his reasons for separation ... / by Richard Baxter ...

A second admonition to Mr. Edward Bagshaw written to call him to repentance for many false doctrines, crimes, and specially fourscore palpable untruths in matter of fact ... : with a confutation of his reasons for separation ... / by Richard Baxter ...

Table of contents

Title page

THE Contents.

To those Readers who are most enclined to the Principles of Church-division, and censorious unwarrantable Separation.

To Mr. EDWARD BAGSHAW.

A second Admonition to Mr. Edward Bagshaw written in some hope of curing his IMPENITENCE; or at least of saving some of those in London, Northamptonshire, and other Counties, whom he hath laboured to pervert, by FALSE DOCTRINE and FALSE-REPORTS; which tend to destroy, 1. The Soundness of their Judgements by dangerous Error, 2. Their Christian Love, and Unity, by Love-killing Principles and Divisions: 3. And their Christian Practice, by sinful Censures of, and Separations from the far greatest part of the Vniversal Visible Church of Christ, and Communion of Saints, and the publick Worship of God; and consequently to the destruction of their own souls, and of the Churches.

To Mr. Edward Bagshaw.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Now we come to the Question after all this.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Postscript.

ERRATA.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

A Second Admonition TO Mr. EDWARD BAGSHAW;

Written to call him to Repentance for many false Doctrines, Crimes, and specially fourscore palpable untruths in matter of fact, deliberately published by him in two small Libels; In which he exemplieth the Love-killing and depraving Principles of Church-dividers: and telleth the World to what men are hasting▪ when they sinfully avoid Communion with true Churches and Christians, for tolerable faults.

With a Confutation of his Reasons for Separation: Written to preserve the weak, to resist the Dividing Temptations of the Imperious unskilful Clergy, to revive our dying hopes of Concord, and to vindicate the Non-conformable Ministers from the unjust imputation of Schismatical Principles.

By Richard Baxter, a long-maligned and re [...]sted Endeavourer of the Churches Unity and Peace.

LONDON, Printed for Nevill Simmons, at the Three Crowns near Holborn-Conduit. 1671.

THE Contents.

[Page]

[Page]

A Preface to those that are inclined to Principles of Church Division and Separation; containing twenty causes of that sin, and some Notices of Mr. Bagshaw's two Libells.

To Mr. E. B. the grounds on which I go in dealing with him.

Why I answer him contrary to my former purpose.

Sect. 1. Of calling him Brother: of a middle way.

Sect. 2. Whether every untruth be a lye?

Sect. 3. Of Scripture perfection.

Sect. 4. Of the design of my Book.

Sect. 6, 7. Whether calling Dividers to [Page] Repent, &c. be to make them odious?

Sect. 8. Whether all they whose sin brings Judgements, must be hated of all and killed?

Sect. 9, 10. Whether I disclaimed any Activeness in the first War?

Sect. 15. Whether I approved of setting up Cromwell to be Protector? and such like?

Sect. 20. My Repentance published at Mr. E. B. his invitation, in four parts. Of Mr. E. B. his former defence of me against the then Bishop of Worcester.

Sect. 21, 22. Of Christs Temporal Reign, and my judgement of it.

Sect. 24. Whether I meant it, because I dare not own any persecuted truth.

Sect. 25. Whether I inveigh against sufferings▪ —Of sufferers temptations.

Sect. 26, &c. His sinful excuse of Vavasor Powells three publick false Prophecies.

Sect. 29, &c. His (wholsome) accusation of me as proud, 1. For saying that I publickly communicated: 2. For saying that many have written against me, that expect clean contraries from me. 3. For writing many Books.

[Page] Sect. 31. Of his accusation in general about Justification.

Sect. 33. Of the stating of the Question about separating principles.

Sect. 34, &c. Many of his misreports about my stating it.

Sect. 38. His first Reason for separation examined, viz. because every Parish Church is part of a Diocesane Church. How far that is true or not.

Sect. 39. His second Reason, that a Parish Minister is but a servant to the Diocesan.

Sect. 40. His third Reason: Because Parish Ministers consent to silencing and persecution, by open consent or pernicious silence? Whether there be little difference between persecuting, and not sharply reproving it?

Sect. 41. His fourth Reason; that Parish Ministers enter sinfully, and by a solemn Oath renounce their Christian liberty. All sinners, or sinful enterers not to be separated from.

Sect. 42. May not a true Church be called Defective and faulty.

Sect. 43. His further Reasons. 1. That we know not how else to preserve our Christian liberty. Whether all Christian [Page] liberty must be maintained? and how?

Sect. 44. 2. Whether to be present where things are used in Gods Worship which he commanded not, be a sin?

Sect. 45. 3. Whether if we separate not we sell the truth about Christs Soveraignty?

Sect. 46. His reason from Acts 15. retorted.

Sect. 47. He taketh not Corruption and Error as such without Imposition to be a sufficient ground of separation. How he is himself an Imposer.

Sect. 48. The charge of Hypocrisie for joyning in what we approve not?

Sect. 49. That Christ called and designed not his Church to be impure and mixt, considered.

Sect. 50. How far a Church is to be separated from, for abetting sin.

Sect. 51. His grand answer to the example of Church-pollutions in Scripture, that they were setled as to Officers and Ordinances rightly, and so had a power to keep themselves clean, &c. considered. What Power Ministers have now. Whether the Ages following the first, did fall into an Vniversal Innovation, and degeneration [Page] in the Essentials of Order and Doctrine, and Antichristianism? and so Christ had no Church, and was no Christ? Whether Mr. E. B. be a Seeker, and separate from all Churches, as well as from all Parochial?

Sect. 52. Whether the necessity of separation because of the said Vniversal degeneration in Essentials continue still, because we are reformed from Antichristianism but in some points?

Sect. 53. He granteth that neither Corruption barely, nor Imposition barely is a ground for just separation. But Imposing Error with a strong hand, &c.

Sect. 54. His vain answer, intimating that he is wiser herein than the Old Non-conformists.

Sect. 55. Of Arminianisme, whether so pernicious as to exclude from communion—

Sect. 56. Of Free will and its power to receive—

Sect. 57. His ignorant calumny against me about Scripture perfection.

Sect. 58. Twenty Questions to him about various Readings and Copies, &c.

[Page] Sect. 59. Of the Possibility of salvation for some called Papist?

Sect. 61. His former untruth that by [Flesh] I affirmed was only meant the sensitive Appetite, defended by him by reciting my words which expresly confute his calumny.

Sect. 62. The Reason rendred by Mr. E. B. why he cast away my Book of Rest, and refused to read it, and yet is the Judge of it; And my account of my dissent long ago from his Latin slender Discourse against Monarchy.

Sect. 63. His report of Mr. Herles, and Mr. Cawdrys words against my Saints Rest.

Sect. 67, &c. Many more of his Vntruths.

Sect. 74. More of his ignorant Calumny about Scripture perfection.

Sect. 75, 76, &c. More of the Nature of his Defences and Accusations.

Sect. 80. Five Vntruths delivered by the Letter published by him, as written by a woman of Worcester; with my sense of her case.

Sect. 81, &c. Seven Vntruths published by him in his Brother Brownes Letter; and the Confutation of their Calumnies.

[Page] Sect. 94. Mr. E. B. his new sort of Dishonesty charged on me, because (he saith) I have access to the Licensers and Press.

Sect. 95. Whether it be culpable Vanity to write on the Sabbath after Dr. Owen (as he thought.)

Sect. 97. His calumny of my Atheistical arguing against the Divine and self-evidencing authority of the Scriptures—and as one of the worst sort of Hereticks, that under the notion of being a Christian and a Protestant do with my utmost industry and cunning labour to overthrow the Foundation, and therefore am to be Rejected of all—The case opened, and the weak warned to take heed of them that would ignorantly draw them to be Infidels, by subverting Christianity, while they think themselves the chief or true defenders of it.

To those Readers who are most enclined to the Principles of Church-division, and censorious unwarrantable Separation.

[Page]

[Page]

I Know there is in Holiness a contrariety to sin; and Heaven and Hell must finally shew the difference for ever: And to reconcile them is as unpossible, as to reconcile Light and Darkness. I know that it is the endeavour of every faithful Minister of Christ, to make this difference plainly known, and in Doctrine and Discipline to separate the precious from the vile; and to make ungodly men know that they are ungodly, and to give to each their proper portion, and to keep the Churches as clean as they can by lawful means. I know that the ruine of this purging and differencing Discipline, is a great part of the lamentable ruine of the Churches, [Page] and occasioneth that scandal to the Mahometans and Heathens, because of the wicked lives of Christians, which is one of the greatest hinderances of their conversion: And that all Christians should use their utmost skill and power, to recover Religion to its primitive Purity and Splendour, and Discipline to the most effectual regular exercise. And I know that in mens private converse there must be a great care what company we converse with, and especially whom we make our familiars. And that to be indifferent, and to intimate an equality or likeness of the godly and the wicked, in doctrine, communion, and familiarity, is a notable sign of an ungodly person. And upon these accounts, I know that when persons are newly recovered from ungodliness themselves, they are very much inclined to fly from the company of such, as far as their safety doth require: And by this inclination and their ignorance, they are frequently tempted to go further from them in Church communion, than God alloweth them to do, and instead of separating from them in their sin, to separate from them in their duty; and to separate from the Churches of Christ in his true worship, because of the mixture and presence of the bad.

And this they are drawn to, 1. By forgetting the Scripture pattern, and state of the Churches even in the purest age, and thinking only what they desire, rather than what is to be expected or done.

2. By forgetting the difference between the Church visible, which is alwayes mixt with [Page] Hypocrites and offenders, and the Church invisible which shall all be saved.

3. By forgetting the difference between their private familiarity, where they are choosers of their company themselves; and their Church communion, where the Pastors are the Rulers and Judges of the fitness of the members. Or else not understanding that this use of the Keyes, and judging of the fitness of the members, is indeed the Pastors Office, and not theirs.

4. By not considering that nothing must be done by Discipline upon Offenders, but in a course of Church-Justice, upon due Accusations, Summons, Audience, Proof and patient Admonition: And not by casting out any irregularly upon the expectation of every one that will say that they are ungodly and scandalous.

5. By forgetting the great difference between joyning with men in sinful actions, and joyning with them in their duty in which they should be encouraged.

6. By forgetting the great difference of keeping in our own place and duty, though bad men are present, and going out of our place and duty to joyn with them in sin.

7. By forgetting that God will have all mens own wills, by Choosing, or Refusing, to have more hand in their Welfare or Misery, than other mens: And if they mischoose, the sin will be their own.

8. By forgetting that God hath not left the Church at arbitrary liberty to judge any Godly [Page] or Ungodly at their pleasure; But hath given us a set Test or Rule to judge them by; which is [their sober Profession of Consent to the Baptismal Covenant; upon which the Adult and their Infants have right to Baptism; And being Baptized have Right to Church Communion in all the Acts which their Age and Understanding makes them capable of: And it is Church-tyranny to refuse such as shew this Title, till they are openly proved to forfeit it, by Impenitency in gross sin after publick admonition, and due means. This is the truth, and the method of Christs discipline, and the Rule of our Communion.

9. By superstitious placing their Religion in indifferent and undertermined things, and laying a greater stress on the words of prayer, than there is cause. Overvaluing their several outward forms, expressions and orders, in the worshipping of God: when instead of provoking each other to faith and fervency to Love and to good works, they place more of Godliness in words and circumstances (which God hath certainly left free to every mans conscience) than God doth place in them: And one thinks that he is irregular, that prayeth without a set form, and another that he is ungodly, that prayeth not by the Spirit, who useth a set form; when both do but speak their own superstition, and make Laws and Rules which God never made. Superstition and our own additions in Religion (even in those that cry out much against it) is the occasion of most of our Church-divisions. One side supposeth every [Page] disorder or unfit expression in free prayer to be a greater fault than indeed it is: And that its unlawful therefore to joyn with a Church that hath no set forms: Another party supposeth the forms in the Church Lyturgy to be worse than they are; and that it is unlawful to joyn in them, or to receive the Lords Supper when they are used. When as God hath neither tyed us to set forms, nor from them; save only as unsuitableness to any particular persons may make one less edifying than the other: And both free prayers, and set forms, studied prayers, and sudden prayers, are all the work of man, (as to mans part): and therefore they must needs be imperfect and faulty as man is: And yet in both we may pray by the Spirit, even with the holy and fervent desires which the Spirit exciteth in us: And the Spirit may ordinarily be a Spirit of supplication in us, and help our infirmities, in the one way and in the other: And therefore, though I will not equall them (For I prefer some mens free praying before any forms, and I prefer the Common prayers before some mens free prayers) yet I may say, that I will neither Assent and Consent to every word in the one, nor in the other, no not of any man that ever I heard: And yet I will not take it for unlawful to joyn with Church, or Family, or person in the one, or in the other: yea, upon long experience, if I had fully my own choice and liberty, I would use free prayer one part of the day (or one day) and a well composed form another part, because I see commodities [Page] by both, and such inconveniences of either way alone, as are, if possible to be avoided. But when the Mind hath received a prejudice against either way, by Education, Custom, or former distastes, no reason how clear soever will overcome it, till age and experience do mellow green and sowre Spirits, and teach them to judge of things soberly and impartially, not as others judge of them, but as indeed they are.

10. And men are much furthered in the way of separation, by forgetting what good even hypocrites themselves, may receive by their station in the visible Church: And that it is not for nothing that the Great Master of the Church, hath so ordered the terms of admission (upon meer Profession of Consent to the Baptismal Covenant) and of Exclusion (upon proved Impenitency in gross sin after sufficient admonition and patience) as that multitudes of bad men ever have been and will be in the visible Church: Though the regular station that such persons should choose, till they come up to sincere consent, is the place of Catechumens, if they were not baptized in Infancy, and the place of Penitents if they were, yet supposing that they intrude further by a false profession, yet God hath provided great advantages, in Church communion for their good, and secured the innocent from imputation of sin, by reason of their presence.

11. And men are induced to separation by forgetting, how tender Christ is of the weakest of his members, that are sincere, and that he [Page] had rather many hypocrites were received, than one true Christian shut out: For he hath a day at hand, in which he will separate the Tares from the Wheat, and will take out of his Kingdom all things that offend, and them that work iniquity. And they consider not how impossible it is, to shut out all hypocrites, and not to shut out many weak ones that are sincere.

12. And it much wrongeth them that they forget what a Mercy it is, that Christ hath not made the power of the Pastors or Church to be arbitrary, in admissions or exclusions; but hath tyed them up to certain terms, and prescribed to them whom to Receive or Reject: And that they consider not, what confusions otherwise would be brought into the Church, and what Church-tyranny men would exercise; And how the difference of mens Judgements, Interests, Temptations and Passions, would make almost as many sorts of Churches, as there are individual Governours and Churches. And one would make one measure, and another another measure of their communion.

13. And it greatly wrongeth such men that they never had right apprehensions of the Nature and great Necessity of Vanity among believers, and the Churches of Christ. They cry out Truth must not be sold for Peace, when they neither know aright what is Truth or Peace. But by Truth they mean their own doubtful opinions, and by Peace they mean their own quietness with men. We easily confess, that as Peace signifieth our freedom from [Page] persecution or sufferings, or from the reproach of men, the least holy truth is to be preferred before it, and more tenaciously held than it: But if by Peace, they mean the Unity and Concord of believers, or of the Church of God, they speak dangerously, and suppose a pernicious falshood, that Gods Truth, and such Peace or Concord, may at any time be separated: And it is no wiselier spoken, than if they had said, A mans eye-sight or health is to be preferred before the Union of his soul and body, or before the Concord of Head and Heart, or before the conjunction of his members. When as non cutis nulla est affectio. Destroy the Subject, and you destroy the Accidents. Without union of parts, the Church is no Church; Dividing it, is destroying it. A House or Kingdom divided, cannot stand. And when it is no Church, it hath no Truth as a Church, n [...]r any thing that dividers did contend for. An Integral member may rather be cut off, than the whole should perish: But what member will separate it self from the b [...]dy? Or who but a murderer will on pretence of curing, be a divider and dissolver?

14. And it wrongeth these Christians much that they look on the narrow space of the Churches about them, and forget the state of almost all Christs Churches in the whole world, which are in a [...] worse condition than our Parish Churches are: which though it should draw no man to like the least imperfection in them or in himself, nor to neglect any true reforming duty, yet would it make a tender [Page] Christian rather tremblingly to return to Vniversal due Communion, than to dare to separate from almost all Christs visible body upon earth.

15. And gazing all upon one side, doth make men forget, how heinous an injury it is to Christ, to rob him of the greatest part of his Churches, and to say, that they are none of his: when they could easily perceive that it would not be well taken by the King, if they should say, that he is King of no more, but three or four Villages in the Land: And he that can take four parts, yea, nineteen parts of Christs Church from him to day, may take away the fifth or the twentieth to morrow, and so may turn Infidels, and deny Christ to be Christ: For no Kingdom, no King.

16. And they forget that as the Body must have its due magnitude, as well as its comely scite of parts; so we must be zealous for the Greatness, as well as the Purity, the Extensive as well as the Intensive growth of the Church. And if Christs flock be little, they dishonour it that would make it tenfold less than indeed it is; Jer. 30. 19. And out of them shall proceed thanksgiving, and the voice of them that make merry: And I will multiply them, and they shall not be few, and I will glorifie them, and they shall not be small.

17. And the Passion that is kindled in men by their sufferings, is very strong in conquering their judgements; so that too few in the whole world are found so sober, as not to go too far [Page] from those they suffer by; unless it be timerous or temporizing complyers, that yield to escape their further suffering.

18. And men are strangely forgetful of the experiences of themselves and others: And when God hath let loose the Spirit of division to the confusions both of State and Churches, and to the ruining of true Reformation, and to the woful and scandalous dissolution of many particular Churches, where it hath come, yet will not men understand or remember, but see as if they did not see. Holland, England, New England give them loud and lamentable warnings, and yet they will not hear.

19. And they that know what man is indeed, will not deny, but that in very many, there is something of that Pride (which some call spiritual, but is too carnal) in mens inclination to separation. He that knoweth how excellent a thing it is to be Wise, and Holy, and Happy, is oft tempted to be desirous that his own excellency should appear, and not be hid by his joyning with such as are taken for ignorant common men; and so would stand further from the common sort of visible Christians, than God would have him. And also some persons, who should find the Evidences of Gods favour and acceptance in the life of Faith, and Love, and Holiness, do lamentably quiet themselves instead of these, with being members of such strict societies, as profess even a separating conspicuous holiness.

20. Lastly, But one of the greatest snares of all is, that men cannot bear the Censures of [Page] those that are inclined to Separation. And therefore rather than be accounted and called by them Formalists, Temporizers, Carnal, or such like, they will do as they do, and turn their zeal into partial and unjust censures, of the persons, words, and outward Modes and Circumstances of Worship, of those that they dissent from.

These and such other causes of Dividing inclinations, I did (upon the special necessities of the Churches, and some of my own acquaintance) lay open in a Book called the Cure of Church Divisions; which made a great noise, (as water powred upon the flames); But though some upon misunderstanding, and some by guilt and interest muttered much against it, I never had a word against it privately or publickly in writing, by way of Confutation of any thing in it, save only a Libell of one that now calleth himself Edward Bagshaw, a man that I am not acquainted with, though I have seen and spoken with him, and though to my trouble, when his fancy led him that way, he unskilfully wrote for me against the Bishop then of Worcester. I greatly rejoyce that in these times of tryal, so few of the Non-conformable Ministers are by sufferings and passions hurried into the dividing extream. If injuries or interest would excuse any sin, I think there are few Ministers in England, who have more inducements to the angry separating way than I have. But shall I therefore wrong the Truth and Church of God, and my own and others souls! God forbid.

[Page] Brethren, it is none of my meaning to disoblige you from your ancient faithful Ministers. Nor yet to perswade you to hear any insufficient or intolerable man; much less to commit your souls to the Pastoral care of such a person: nor yet to prefer a worse before a better, who may upon lawful terms be enjoyed. But the things that I perswade you to, are these: 1. Not to entertain false uncharitable dividing principles in your minds, which will break the peace of all societies.

2. If you differ about Infant Baptism, Indepencie, Common prayer or such like, that yet you will not think your differences oblige you to deny Communion to all you differ from.

3. That if you are so sinfully partial, that you cannot joyn in the same Churches, you would yet live charitably and peaceably in several Churches.

4. That you would not say any Church of Christ is No Church, because it is not of your form or mode.

5. That you would not say, that Communion with any Church is unlawful, because their external worshipping form, is not of your fashion, or before you have proved what you say. My advice is calculated to the Vnion and peace of all true Churches, and not those of one form or mode alone.

And I note it as a considerable providence of God, that I am drawn in to defend the Principles of Love and Concord in these trying times, against such an adversary as Mr. Bagshaw [Page] is. It hath of late been Gods way to let us know the evil of Principles by their effects on the men that we have had to do with: As Malignant principles would not have been sufficiently distasted by us, if they had not shewed themselves in malignant practices; So Dividing principles had never been sufficiently known in England, if they had not ruined a Reformation, silenced so many hundred Ministers, and laid us in the dirt, as they have done. And if the Cause of Dividers must be judged of by the defenders, I advise you to consider of these things following.

1. How many notorious false doctrines he hath delivered?

2. How many other notorious Crimes in two Libells he hath committed? In special let every sober person judge, whether Ignorance, Temerity, Pride and high self-conceitedness with malignant unconcealed calumny do not only defile, but even constitute or make up his Books?

3. What bitter enmity is here exprest against the Principles of Love, and Vnity, and Concord, and Peace, and Sobriety it self?

4. How many score notorious untruths he shamelesly publisheth in these two Libells?

5. How much he fighteth against Repentance, and so with gross Impenitency aggravateth all his crimes?

6. How like his own Spirit is to that which he accounteth the Spirit of imposition and persecution? And how vehement he is against the same persons as such are, and as impudently [Page] slandereth them, and as bitterly and professedly designeth to make them odious (But he that professeth to make another odious, thereby disableth himself from doing it.)

7. Whether ever in all your lives, you saw two Libells written against another, which do not only perform, but even attempt so little, and next to nothing at all, to give any answer to the Books he writes against. Read mine and read his, and I defie any thing but madness it self, or blind partiality or wickedness, to make any man think that he hath confuted what I have written. I confess I admire at the mans insensibility, that doth not perceive, how much he hath done, by pretending an Answer, and giving none, or worse than none, to make his cause or himself contemptible. Can any man in his wits think, that he hath confuted the Principles of Concord which I laid down in my Directions.

8. Whether such a man as this do shew himself wiser than Dod, Hildersham, Ames, Baine, and all the old Non-conformists according to the importance of his boast? or whether he give us cause to believe that God hath revealed more to him than to them, while he himself can no better reveal it unto others?

9. When I had set down at least thirty three Vntruths which he deliberately dared to write and publish, did you ever read such a pittiful vindication? He hath not spoken to any considerable number of them: And of those few that he speaketh to, try if you can find any one of which he cleareth himself? And yet he [Page] professeth not repentance for any one of them? Nay, to open his Impenitency, he professeth falsly that I cannot justly charge him with any of them; and addeth in the last Libell forty eight palpable Vntruths more? Just like one that being accused of swearing, should forty eight times swear that he never sware.

10. How far he proceedeth in his separation, and how far he would draw poor unstable souls? It is not only from the Conformists and the Parish Churches that he would have you separate, and all in the whole world that are worse than they; but also from all the Non-conformists in England, that are not better than I: as his concluding Advertisement fully telleth you. All of my mind and measure are unworthy of the communion of this humble, tender, credible man.

11. What means is there left in the world to exempt a man from the malignant calumnies of this Judge of the Churches? When in one sentence he telleth you, how much I have written against the Bishops, and in another that I am in the same condemnation with him, and yet in another, that I dare look no truth in the face, that bringeth suffering; when he talks of one point that all Christians are agreed in, and directly bringeth none. And when he chargeth me with Atheistical arguing against the divine and self-evidencing authority of the Scripture, and therefore to be Rejected of all, as one of the worst sort of Hereticks, that under the notion of being a Christian and a Protestant, doth with his utmost[Page]industry and cunning, labour to overthrow our foundation.] When I know of no one man living in this Age, that hath written so much (I say not, so well) for the things in question (Scripture and Christianity) as I have done. May not this man as modestly charge Bishop Downame to be a Papist, that hath written so much to prove the Pope to be Antichrist? or say any thing else that he hath list to say?

12. Doth he not fix upon you by such Libells as these, an odious reproach? As if he would perswade the world, that you that he writeth to, are so partial, so blind, so false to truth, and to your own souls, and such pernicious enemies to peace, as that you will receive that which is thus falsly said to you, without ever reading what is said on the other side, or against all the evidence that contradicteth it, and will believe all these visible untruths of his, without any proof, upon the bare report of so rash a man.

13. Whether following such men and wayes as this, is not the likeliest way in the world, not only to increase the reproach of the Non-conformists, and make them all thought of, as we do of the Quakers, and so to continue severities against them as a company of furious unsociable persons; but also to harden men into a contempt of Religion it self.

14. Doth not God permit such a Champion of the Cause of Division, thus criminally to miscarry, that you may see that you are not better than those you separate from? You blame [Page] them for subscribing erroneously or falsly; And which of them hath put thirty three, and forty eight visible untruths deliberatly in print, and Impenitently stands in them as your Champion hath done? Doth not this shew you, that you are not so good, but that the Churches of godly Pastors are as worthy of your Communion, as you are of theirs? If one should admonish one of your Church-members of one single deliberate avowed lye, would you not call him to Repentance? And will you believe this man and follow him upon his bare word, who hath published eighty such falshoods? Yet I am not one that think he loveth a lye, because it is a lye; but one that is thus guilty through proud overvaluing his own unfurnished understanding, and through an extraordinary Rashness and want of tenderness of Conscience.

You have heretofore had better Guides, and you have better still: (I never met with two Ministers that approve his Libell, nor any but Mr. Browne alone) you have a more peaceable Rule; And if you are Christians indeed, you have a Peaceable Spirit, and a Saviour, who is the Prince of peace (who hath prayed that all his Disciples may be one, John 17. 21.) and a God who is the God of peace. Follow therefore the Wisdom that is both Pure and Peaceable, and not that from beneath, which is earthly, sensual and devilish, and worketh by envious zeal and strife, unto confusion and every evil work, Jam. 3. 14, 15, 16, 17.

To Mr. EDWARD BAGSHAW.

[Page]

[Page]

BROTHER, it is not a little troublesome to me, and will be troublesome to many peaceable Readers, both that these Writings should pass between us, and that I should mention your faults so plainly as I do. But as I began not with you, so I know not how to let you talk on, without betraying the peace of the Church, the credit of the Non-conformists (who are by your self obliged to disown you) and the souls of the weak brethren, for whom Christ dyed. And I am constrained plainly to name your faults; 1. Because truth consisteth in speaking of things as they are. 2. And because my business is now to summon you to Repentance, to which end the opening of your sin is necessary. 3. And because these following Scriptures are my ground, and your own word seem to me to charge it on me as my necessary duty, upon dreadful penalties.

The Scriptures that I set before me are Lev. 19. 17. after mentioned, Rom. 16, 17. [Page] Mark them which cause Divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them. Jam. 3. 14, 15, 16, 17. But if ye have bitter envying (or zeal) and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lye not against the truth: This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying, (zeal) and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work, &c. 1 Cor. 1. 10, 11, 12, 13. & 3. 1, 2, 3, 4. John 17. 21, 22. Rom. 14. & 15. John 8. 44. When he speaketh a lye, he speaketh of his own; for he is a lyer and the Father of it. Rev. 21. 8. All lyers shall have their part, &c. & 22. 15. Whosoever loveth and maketh a lye. Psal. 15. 2, 3. That speaketh the truth, in his heart, backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour. 3 John 9, 10. I wrote unto the Church: but Diotrephes who loveth to have the preheminence among them, receiveth us not: wherefore if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doth, prating against us with malicious words: And not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the Church: Gal. 2. 11, 12, 13, 14. I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For—he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision; and the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they [Page] walked not uprightly, &c.—Tit. 3. 10, 11. A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition, reject—

Your own doctrine is as followeth: pag. 1. It will be a favour if you look upon me as one that neither desires, (nor if you believe what your self have writ) deserves such expressions of your familiarity. Pag. 2. I hope you are not to learn, that every untruth is a lye— Pag. 11, 12. There being little difference in the sight of God, between the persecuting of brethren our selves, and by not sharply reproving it, seeming to approve of it in others. And I hope you will say as much against approveing your own sin as other mens. Pag. 14. All are commanded to turn aside from them— A Church which after admonition and discovery of offenders, will not use her authority in casting them out, doth partake of their sins, and becomes as guilty as they, and therein as unworthy of communion.

I cite Gods word as my Rule of speaking, and yours as that which I may suppose sheweth what you expect to hear.

All that I now desire of you is, to bring your self to some impartiality in reviewing the two Libells which you have written; And if you cannot, yet condescend to hear the judgement of some understanding impartial persons who have seriously perused your writings and mine: And hate not repentance, and set not your self against it, and justifie not all the Crimes, false Doctrines, and eighty untruths, which your [Page] two Libells do contain. And beg of God more Judgement, Humility, Meekness, Considerateness and tenderness of Conscience: And abuse no longer the souls of weak Christians, with such false Doctrine, which you defend no better than I have done. I rest

A desirer of your Repentance and Sobriety, Richard Baxter.

M. 4. (Jun.) d. 9. 1671.

A second Admonition to Mr. Edward Bagshaw written in some hope of curing his IMPENITENCE; or at least of saving some of those in London, Northamptonshire, and other Counties, whom he hath laboured to pervert, by FALSE DOCTRINE and FALSE-REPORTS; which tend to destroy, 1. The Soundness of their Judgements by dangerous Error, 2. Their Christian Love, and Unity, by Love-killing Principles and Divisions: 3. And their Christian Practice, by sinful Censures of, and Separations from the far greatest part of the Vniversal Visible Church of Christ, and Communion of Saints, and the publick Worship of God; and consequently to the destruction of their own souls, and of the Churches.

A second Admonition to Mr. Edward Bagshaw written in some hope of curing his IMPENITENCE; or at least of saving some of those in London, Northamptonshire, and other Counties, whom he hath laboured to pervert, by FALSE DOCTRINE and FALSE-REPORTS; which tend to destroy, 1. The Soundness of their Judgements by dangerous Error, 2. Their Christian Love, and Unity, by Love-killing Principles and Divisions: 3. And their Christian Practice, by sinful Censures of, and Separations from the far greatest part of the Vniversal Visible Church of Christ, and Communion of Saints, and the publick Worship of God; and consequently to the destruction of their own souls, and of the Churches.

[Page]

To Mr. Edward Bagshaw.

HAving told you in my first Admonition p. 145. that if you write any more at the rates you did, I should give you the last word, as not intending to confute you, &c. I found my self in a streight [Page] when I read your second—about my duty: Though you trampled admonition under your feet, and turn again and all to rend me, I ought not to take you for a Swine or Dog, and give you up as wholly hopeless, till there is no remedy: being under the command, Lev. 19. 17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him! And Charity forbiddeth me to desert all those souls whom you endeavour to seduce, by denying them necessary information, and silently to suffer them to live in all the sins in which you would ensnare them. And yet I have been chidden by so many for answering your last Writing, as containing such palpable scurrility, impertinency and error, that I am afraid of wasting my time, which I might better employ; and preferring a lesser matter before a greater: And I expect you should charge me as a breaker of my promise: But of that you have your self discharged me, it being conditional [If you write at the rates you did, &c.] and but the expression of my [Intentions] which I may well alter, when your alteration calleth for it: For though you neither express Repentance, nor Amend the faults, of which I did admonish you, yet you here attempt such a Plea for separation, as you did not in your former writing, where you seemed to expect that your bare assertions should be believed; but now you pretend to more argumentation: which therefore I shall take into consideration.

[Page] But still I perceive the unavoidable streights into which you cast me in the performance: If I mention your Error and Sin, you will think that I make you odious, and trample upon your honour, and cause your persecution, and strengthen your adversaries: And if I silence them all, I shall leave you under sin, which is worse than persecution, and I shall neglect the souls of others, and I shall betray the honour of Religion, as if its followers were but such as you, and as if our Cause were guilty of all the Error and sin which you maintain. And if you are to be believed if I do not reprove you, I shall but little differ from you: For you say of another case, pag. 11, 12. [There being but little difference in the sight of God, &c.] And what should I do with you, when you cast me into such a streight?

Why this I take to be my duty 1. Impartially first to consider of all the evil which you charge upon my self, that I may not be guilty of the sin of the times, which I am constrained to lament in others, that is, An obstinate Enmity to Repentance; nor yet unthankfully neglect any help that God shall any way vouchsafe me, for the discovery of my sin. 2. And then so to acquaint you with your errors and miscarriages, as may tend, 1. To your repentance; 2. And to other mens preservation; 3. And to vindicate Religion, and the faithful afflicted Servants of Christ, against the unjust accusation of those, who would make the world believe [Page] that your Case is theirs, and that their principles and practices are such as yours. 4. And in all to preserve that just esteem and love which I owe you, as one that I think yet upright in the main. I love your zeal for that which you take to be the Truth: I greatly love your Fortitude of mind, and undaumedness under sufferings, as such; and being so much above the fear of man: And I think it a thousand pitties that you have not 1. A better Cause, 2. A humbler mind, and better acquaintance with your self, 3. A sounder and clearer judgement; 4. More universal Charity; 5. More sense of the mischiefs of sinful divisions: 6. And especially more Sobriety and Caution, and less teme [...]ty and heedlesness of what you read, and what you write; and more tenderness of Conscience to avoid untruths; 7. And more impartiality, to see that evil in your self, and those of your opinion, which you can aggravate in those by whom you suffer; and 8. Lastly, That you have not less Enmity to Repentance, and that you take an invitation to Repentance to be a malicious reproach, and will not understand why God recordeth his servants sins, nor will consider how much better it is that the reproach of sin, do fall upon us, than upon our Religion, or the Church of God; and that we our selves confess our sins, than that our adversaries upbraid us with Impenitent justifying them. And while you are so notoriously wanting in all these things, the greater noise your [Page] sufferings make, the more injurious you will be to the Truth, and to your brethren, and the greater hardning to others: And Satan will not only use you to the corrupting of well-meaning peoples minds, and to the suppression of Truth, and Love, and Concord, but also to the reproach of suffering it self: And while you cry out of persecution, you will prove a notable cause of all our defamations and afflictions, and a great temptation to the actors to justifie what they do.

And now, on these terms, I shall consider of your words, and help you better to understand your self.

1

Sect. 1. E. B. It will be a favour if I look on you as one that desireth not any such expressions of familiarity, (as to be called) Brother.]

Reply. You may suppress your own Charity, but not mine: you may call me what you please; but I will call you what I think my duty requireth me to do: (As Optatus initio tells the Donatist.) My warrant is ubi supra, Lev. 19. 17. & 1 Cor. 5. 11. If any man that is called a Brother be—a Railer—And 2 Thess. 3. 14, 15. If any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed: yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a Brother. But it is the Spirit or tendency of your Doctrine and principles, to renounce fraternity with all of Christs Church, that are not liker to your self than I am.

Pag. 2. You tell me, that I shew how much [Page]I am for a middle way, neither hot nor cold, for a luke warm and neutral indifferency.]

Reply. I take your warming in good part: I daily beg of God, that the decays of my natural spirits and fervour by frigid age and weakness, may not abate the true fervour of my soul; much less any abatement of the estimation of holy Truth, the search of which hath been the unwearied business, the (almost) uninterrupted pleasure of my life. And specially that my love to God, and Heaven, and Holiness may not decay, which alas, was wofully cold, and little at the best. But I confess to you, that I am for a middle way between fury and stupidity, pride and baseness, superstition and profaness, the love of Anarchy and Tyranny, and many such like pernicious extreams.: And you remember me of the folly of my youthful ignorance, in which I presently suspected any man of tepidity and carnal indifferency, who wrote for reconciliation of Contenders, and for a middle Conciliatory way, (such as about Arminianism, Pet. Molinaeus, Vsher, Vossius, Davenant, Hall, Preston, Fenner, Crocius, Martinius, Camero, &c. and so in other points. O Lord forgive the sins of my ignorant unexperienced age.

2

Sect. 2. E B. I hope you are not to learn that every untruth is a lye.

R. E. I suppose your citation of John 1. 62. 2. 21.1st. False Doctrine. is mis-printed for 1 John 1. 6. & 2 21. The first of which saith—If [Page]we say that we have no fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not the truth. The other saith, that [No lie is of the truth.] But do either of these say, that every untruth is a lie. Is it not enough to hold 1. That every designed untruth which is positively voluntary is a lie: 2. And that every rash and carelesly uttered untruth, which is privatively voluntary (that is, where the will omitteth its Office) is a lie? Sure, brother, these many will be heavy enough upon you: you need not contend by false doctrine, for any more. And supposing that you are not to learn how singular you are in this assertion, is it any sign of your humility, to think that so few Divines before you (who so little avoid it) did know what a Lie is? If I had called you a wise, a calm, a sober and charitable man, when I had no evidence of the contrary, how can you prove that this had been a lie? You tell us anon that Prophets, Nathan, Samuel, and good men have been mistaken? And did those Prophets lie? You deny not that your Brother Powel was mistaken? And yet you would not have it said that he lied? Let this go therefore for your first false doctrine, when you say that every untruth is a lie.

3

Sect. 3. E. B: p. 2. You are not afraid to dethrone the Scripture from being a perfect Rule Par. 1. p. 99. 100, 101.

R. B. Though all untruth be not a lye,1st. Falsehood (in fact.) I cannot say, that this is none. I have no [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] such word or sense. I maintain the Scripture to be a perfect Rule, so far as it is a Rule: But so far as it is no Rule, it is no perfect Rule. I do there maintain that it is not a particular Rule, for a Watchmaker, a Carpenter, a Physicion, a Mathematician, a Musicion, &c. to do their work by: nor what Metre or Tune to sing a Psalm in, and such like; but only a General Rule for these. And because you charge this on me as my error, if I can understand you, this is your second false doctrine implyed,Second false Doctrine. that Scripture is a particular Rule, for the things which I there exclude; And a third false doctrine implyed, that if it were not so, Third false Doctrine. it were not a perfect Rule. For your words have no sense which I can discern, if this be not the sense of them [Whosoever denyeth the Scripture to be a particular Rule for the things instanced by R. B. p. 99, 100, 101. doth dethrone the Scripture from being a perfect Rule. But so doth R. B. Ergo your Major includeth the two fore-mentioned false doctrines.

4

Sect. 4. E. B. The whole design of your Book was to make your Brethren, that have not your latitude, and cannot reach the subtilty of your distinctions, odi [...]us, &c.

R. B. Here is a former falshood justified,Second Falshood. and doubled or increased; 1. It is false that this was any design of my Book. 2. But that it was [the whole design] what man of Sobriety that ever read it could imagine. 3. Yea, and that these brethren that I designed to [Page] make odious, were such as have not my latitude and cannot reach the subtilty of my distinctions.

5

Sect. 5. E. B. Many hundreds of sober, impartial, and unbyassed persons have carefully read your Book as well as my self, and they all make the same judgement of it.

R. B. I will not number this with your bare falshoods:1. Crime. A slander of many hundreds. Whether many hundreds have told you their judgement of it, who have read it, I know not: But contradictories cannot be true on both parts. It is a slander therefore of so many hundred such persons which you utter: For if they were indeed sober, impartial, unbyassed persons, and carefully read the Book, it is scarce, or not at all possible, but indeed a contradiction, that they should judge it [the whole design to make my brethren odious that—cannot reach the subtilty of my distinctions.]

6

Sect. 6. E. B. p. 3. You call separation a crying sin, nay the crying sin: and you scruple not to insinuate that all the judgements, which in this Nation we do either feel or fear, were to be charged on separation, as the principal procuring cause.]

R. B. Here is your third falshood in matter of fact:3. Falshood. There is not a word in the places (nor any where else in all my Writings, if I know what I have written) that chargeth all this on separation, as the principal procuring cause: But the contrary in [Page] the comparison is oft and plainly asserted, and greater Causes oft assigned: Nay, that which (without the comparison) I did charge on separation, was in these words conjunct [Our uncharitable Divisions, Alienations, and Separations are a crying sin] and not of separation by it self, or alone.

2. And by your opposition thereto,2. Crime: Justifying or excusing sin under Judgements. you seem plainly to deny the sinfulness of the said [Vncharitable Divisions, Alienations, and Separations:] Which is a crime of heinous aggravation, to be committed and impenitently stood in, at that very time, when uncharitable divisions have broken us so much in pieces, and brought us all so low, and silenced so many Ministers, and done that which our eyes have seen? O dreadful obdurateness! that after twenty years such doleful experience, we will not confess the sinfulness of our divisions? But will suffer, and be silenced, and ruined, and die, and yet not acknowledge that so unnatural and pernicious a thing is a sin? When the world rings of it? When we lye weltring in its sad effects, that yet we are justifying the Cause. Let not any presume to go on in sin, with a purpose to Repent hereafter, when it is so hard a thing, to make men that think us unworthy of their communion, to Repent of the very sin which they suffer by, and that in the very heat and continuance of their sufferings.

7

[Page]

Sect. 7. E. B. p. 3. What can make your brethren more odious, and more expose them to the peoples fury, and to the Rulers Revenge, than thus to make them the Causes of the Na [...]ions Calamity?

R. B. 1. And is there not sin among us,3. Crime Taking a Call to Repentance for a heinous wrong. even among us also? And are the sins of such as we, no Causes of our publick calamities? And would you thus leave us all desperate in Impenitency? May not we Repent? and must we not Repent, if we will be forgiven? When we are freed from the Condition of the Law of Works, is Repentance become so intollerable and hard a Condition? If we Repent not, shall we not all perish, Luke 13. 3, 5. Do Angels rejoice at a sinners Repentance; and shall we take him for their enemy, that calls them to it? 2. Is not Impenitency a greater Reproach to us, in the eyes of those by whom we suffer, than our Repentance would be? And doth it not exasparate them to see men justifie unquestionable sin? 3. What if God Record even good mens sins, and tell a David what evil they should bring upon his house? and what a plague his numbring the people brought on his Kingdom; and so of others? Doth he hereby expose them to be odious? No, but by Repentance, would make them amiable. 4. Is not sin odious whereever it is found? And God is no respecter of persons? Must we not loath our selves for it? It is he that sinneth, that maketh himself [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] odious; and he that calleth him to Repentance, would take away his odiousness (Though the sin of a penitent Manasseh may cause the Captivity.) And he that justifieth it, and fathereth it on Christ, and the Spirit, and Religion, would make Christ, and the Spirit, and Religion, and the Church odious, lest he should be known to be so himself. 5. And do not most good Ministers and people publickly confess to God, that our own sins have been the Causes of our Calamities? Read Mr. Pool's Vox clamantis, and Mr. Stukeley's Book, and judge accordingly of others? And do you think that they thereby expose good people to the Magistrates hatred or revenge? Or dare you charge them with hypocrisie, as if they spake not as they thought? Alas man, what dayes of Humiliation do you use to keep, for the sins and miseries of the Land? Do you only confess your adversaries sins? How easily can some men Repent, if it were other mens only that they were to Repent of, (if the confessing of such might be called Repenting.) Adeo familiare est omnia sibi remittere, nihil aliis, inquit Patercul.

8

Sect. 8. E. B. p. 3. If in separating— our sin is so great, that the place where we live cannot be held innocent, but must suffer from the hand of God for our sakes, we are certainly a people who deserve to be hated of all, and the Confiscations, Imprisonments and Deaths, which some of us have already felt, are no longer to be bewailed and grieved for as [Page] persecutions of the innocent, but rather to be rejoyced and gloried in as due punishments—

R. B. Such stuff may go down with those that will swallow all that seems to lift them up. But 1. It was not separation from forms of Worship only or chiefly that I spake of. 2. None of us are absolutely Innocent, but only comparatively, and secundum quid. 3. Here are two false Doctrines more implyed.4th. False Doctrine. The first is, that they that so sin as is here described, deserve to be hated of all: For though secundum quid so far as we are sinners we are loathsome, and deserve to be hated, yet the same person being in Christ and pardoned, and having the Spirit and Image of God, is amiable: And therefore the Phrase must follow that which is predominant in them: And according either to fitness or custom of Speech, you cannot without falshood say, that they deserve to be hated of all; whom all are commanded specially to Love. Did David deserve to be hated of all, because his numbring the people brought the plague? Yea, or Aaron that made the Golden Calf? Do you consider what you write? How that thus you make all or most, or very many of Gods Servants, such as deserve to be hated of all? For how few are they who do not so sin, as that [the place where they live cannot be held innocent, but must suffer from the hand of God for their sakes.] For Chastisements are threatned to them, and to the societies that they defile? And they are chastned of God, that [Page] they may not be condemned with the world. And how few can say, the place where I live is not the less innocent for me, nor suffereth ever the more for me?

2. And it is false doctrine that Imprisonments and Death are due to all such:5th. False Doctrine. What kind of Politicks would you write? Must every man be imprisoned and put to death (who makes the place not innocent where he liveth, and hath a hand in bringing down judgements on the Land? God afflicteth for what sin he please: But Judges must not Hang men, for all that God afflicteth the Land for. But, alas, that you should reason for Impenitency!

9

Sect. 9. E. B. p. 3. [Your next attempt is to free your self from being looked upon as an earnest and active instrument in the late Wars.]4th. Visible Falshood.

R. B. This is another visible falshood in matter of fact: Alas Brother, that you should no more heed what you read or write? The question that I spake to was only [Whether I was as guilty in stirring up and fomenting that War as any one whatsoever?] And is this comparative question any kin to that which you now falsly father on me?

10

Sect. 10. E. B. p. 4.5th. Visible Falshood. I must confess your bold and resolute disclaiming any Activeness in that War, did so much stagger me—

R. B. This is yet more than the former: Alas, have you cast off all heed what you [Page]say, and all common modesty in your reports? Where did I ever deny any Activeness? I argued thus: [He that never medled with the War till long after it was raised; that never shot, struck or hurt any man; that never was Officer or Common-Soldier, that never took Commission to be Chaplain of the Garrison where two years of the War I did continue, but preached a Lecture to them without any Commission; that never went into the Field Army, till after Naisby Fight, and then went thither by the solemn Advice of an Assembly of Divines, (many yet living) twice assembled, and that upon an open profession to the Committee, that my Reason and Business was in the apprehension of our Common danger from the Army, to discharge my own Conscience in disswading as many of the Souldiers as I could, from overturning the Government of the State and Church, which I was fully satisfied they intended, and that spent his time among them under their displeasure in such work; I say, that he that did thus, was not so guilty of stirring up, and fomenting the War, as were those that first raised it, and those that were Generals, Commanders or Souldiers, and as those that preached for it to the Parliament, or as those that went on in the many following Wars to the end. And is there any thing in all this, that saith, I was no way Active in it? My Activity was principally in the City of Coventry, which never saw an Enemy while I was there: And it was in telling my opinion to others; and twice going out with their [Page]Souldiers to the Siege of neighbour Garrisons; The rest I intimated to you before. And this is it that I meant in the words of the Book which you recite. I askt you, whether the Parliament, nor the chief Speakers in it, nor the Earl of Essex, nor Cromwell did no more? with more to that purpose, which you give no answer to; but defend your falshood with the addition of more such—falshoods, as if your design in writing, were practically to tell men, to what boldness in sinning mans vitiated nature will proceed, if it be not seasonably restrained. Yea, as if you had quite forgotten what you were to prove, you say,

11

Sect. 11. E. B. p. 4.4th Crime. Impudent Calumny. [Nor do I delight to expose you to the scorn of your enemies, and to the pitty of your friends, but I cannot help it.]

R. B. Reader, because I have met with so strange a Judge, I freely appeal to thee, if thou be but sober, who it is that by this mans Writings, is here exposed to scorn and pitty? Whether I that so fully disproved his Calumny [that I was as guilty of stirring up and fomenting the War as any whatsoever,] as that he hath not a word of sense to say in confirmation of it; or he, that with such strange audaciousness addeth such falshoods as have not one syllable in all my Writings to countenance them, and taketh up another charge against me, that I boldly and resolutely disclaim any Activity, &c.] Did he trust that his Readers would so far believe [Page] him, as rather to venture upon the scorn and pity which he would move them to, than once to examine my Book, whether I wrote such a word or not? I confess too many of his own Spirit are like to do so; and to believe what such a man as this reporteth, and think that he cannot be so impudent, as thus insultingly to say, that I say thus and thus, when I never wrote or spake such a word. But what if he attain this end, and be believed? Will it add to his innocence or felicity to have his many hundreds live in the sin of lying and calumny, and have no excuse for it, but Mr. E. B. confidently wrote it. Its a wonder that corrupted nature should be so eager to have companions in sin, when it doth but tend to its own confusion?

12

Sect. 12. E. B. p. 4. You—will not be beholding to an Act of Indempnity, but stand upon your Innocency?

R. B. These are two more gross falshoods in matter of fact: 6th & 7th falshoods. 1. I am and wil be beholden to the Act of Indempnity, and write all this as under the protection of that Act. 2. I did not, I do not stand upon my Innocency, nor speak a word of such importance.

13

Sect. 13. E. B. Nothing but your hopes that all is forgotten as well as pardoned,8th Falsehood. which is past, could ever embolden you to so peremptory denyal.

[Page] R. B. This is another gross falshood: 1. It is spoken of my heart, which he knoweth not. 2. It is twice contradicted by his own Pen. 1. He even now said, that I will not be beholden to an Act of Indempnity, and yet now he makes the hope of Pardon received to embolden me. 2. He rebuketh me for the less seasonable Retractation, of that which now he saith, not only that I hoped it was forgotten, but that nothing but that hope could embolden me, &c. Why did I Retract that which I thought forgotten? Could I think that Book forgotten which remaineth visible? which so many Books accuse me of? and one which he mentioneth and wrote against himself? and which so many have publickly preached against, both formerly and of late? Could I think that part of my life forgotten, which all in the City of Coventry, who thirty years ago were at years of discretion, may remember?

14

Sect. 14. E. B. p. 4. You—ask me many malicious and ensnaring questions.9th Falsehood.

R. B. That's another Falshood: They were not malicious: And another crime, to take him for malicious, who calleth sinners to necessary repentance, in a time of Judgements, with words of love.

15

Sect. 15. E. B. In your Writings you do highly approve of that which was the worst part of the change, the setting up of Cromwell to he Protector?

[Page] R. B. This also is notoriously false,10th Notorious Falshood and a Calumny. as my Writings which have no such word, and as those that I converst with know. Indeed Oliver Cromwells first Troop did under their Officers hands invite me to be their Pastor, which I refused as dissenting from the way into which I saw them entring, and not willing to leave my peaceable habitation at Coventry, where I had the society of very many worthy Ministers, and leisure for my Studies, and was out of the heats of War: And after he expostulated with me himself for refusing his desires: But the very first hour that I went to his Army, which was after Naseby fight, he having notice of my words and intentions, from a friend of his of the Coventry Committee, I was entertained by the jeers of his most intimate friends, as one that came forsooth to Reclaim the Army, and save the Kingdom, &c. And in a year and halfs time while I stayed among them, he would never once speak to me; nor was I ever at his Quarters, but kept at a distance as one of their adversaries, and those that I had interest in were discountenanced for my sake. And had not a sudden bleeding brought me very near to death, and separated me from the Army, about the very day that they had their first open Consultation, for the following Treasonable Changes which they made, I had hazarded my life upon their displeasure, in the contradicting them, and drawing off as many from them as I could, at the time when many did desert [Page] them: For by the advice of a second meeting of the Ministers at Coventry, I stayed with them for that very end, when I had peaceable opportunity to have returned to my former auditors; And I did openly and boldly from that day until Cromwells death, declare to those that I converst with, that I took him and his Army to be guilty of most perfidious Treason and Rebeilion, and himself for an unquestionable Usurper. And I never spake one word to the contrary. And being once before his death (being at London) invited to speak with him, I expostulated with him, by what Right our Government was changed, and how he could prove that all the people of England had lost their own Right to their ancient Government, and laboured to convince him that this change of his, and Instrument of Government (which you charge me to approve) was an unjust depriving the Kingdom of their ancient and never forfeited right; till I made him so angry, that it was time to say no more. But let us hear the proof of your accusation.

16

Sect. 16. E. B. p. 5. You—hugg and embrace the Traytor.11th and 12th Falsehood and Calumny. For you greatly commend that absurd tool, The humble Petition and Advice which was Cromwells Instruments of Government; And you say of it, A more excellent Law hath not been made, for the happiness of England concerning Parliaments, at least since the Reformation.]

[Page] R. B. Here is no proof at all of your false accusation, but the addition of two more falshoods, one exprest, and the other intimated. 1. That I hug'd and embraced the Traytor. Let the Reader judge by what I have truly said. 2. That I greatly commend the Instrument of Government, as making the change and setting up of Cromwell to be Protector, when you could not easily choose but know, that he that will but open my Book where the words are which you cite, may presently perceive your fraud and falshood, and that I say not a word to commend or approve of that Instrument as such, or as making the change, or as setting up Cromwell, or a Protector, but only for this one thing, that it excluded Atheists, Blasphemers, Anti-Scripturists, Cursers, Swearers, Drunkards, Denyers of Sacraments, Prayer, Magistracy and Ministry, &c. from being Parliament men. And is not this fallacy a dicto secundum quod ad dictum simpliciter, a notorious cheat, and falshood? Is this to approve the setting up of Cromwell to be Protector? Do you think by such a rate of Reasoning as this is, to be accounted a wise & faithful Teacher?

17

Sect. 17. E. B. And of Cromwell himself (though he dyed in his sinful Vsurpation,5th Crime, Calumniating insinuation. without manifesting any Repentance) you give this Saint-like Character in your Preface to the Army, The late Protector did prudently, &c.

R. B. 1. In that very Preface against the Army, this man might see such words as [Page]these, reprehending the Armies rebellions and changes [The fabrication of an Instrument of Laws without a Parliament, and many other actions of these times, we doubt not but you will ere long repent of] (having instanced in their other changes before) and many Texts cited to them, in which their actions are condemned as heinous crimes. And [The best Governours in all the world that have the Supremacy, have been resisted or deposed in England] (It was not then safe or necessary to Name all.) And [A Heathen persecuting Nero must be obeyed, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake.] And among the changes which I reprehended, are— [Next this we had the Minor part of the House of Commons in the exercise of Soveraign Power, the Corrupt Majority, as you call them, being left out: And by them we had the Government changed, Regality (It was then death to say, The King) and House of Lords being cast off.My word to the Army heretofore. Next this we had nothing visible but a General and an Army: Next this we had all the whole Constitution and Liberties of the Commonwealth at once subverted; Certain men being called by the Name of a Parliament, and the Soveraign power pretended to be given them, that never were chosen by the people, but by we know not whom, (such a fact as I never heard or read, that any King of England was guilty of, since Parliaments were known.) Next this we had a Protector governing according to an Instrument made by—God knows who. After this we had a Protector governing [Page] according to the Humble Petition and Advice, (and sworn to both): And now we are wheeled about again.]

Reader, did this man read all this, and all the rest that in that Book, especially the Preface and Conclusion, I then wrote (in the bitterness of my soul) against the Army? and did he believe himself, or could he possibly believe himself, that I approved of the setting up of Cromwell to be Protector? If he do really believe himself, How unfit a man is this (who understands not humane language) to be the great refiner of the Church, and to pretend to be wiser than the Old Non-conformists, &c.—If he do not believe himself, how unfit is he to separate from us for our sinfulness, or to be believed by the people whom he seduceth.

2. The words which he citeth, are only in a Parenthesis, concerning which take this true information. 1. Men used to distinguish between a Tyrant quoad jus, and a Tyrant quoad exercitium: And I ordinarily declared Cromwell a Tyrant quoad jus, that is, an Usurper. 2. I never thought it laudable to belye any man whomsoever, nor to make his actions worse than they are. I did not dislike any good, because Cromwell did it: I will not renounce God, or Christ, or Piety, because that Cromwell professedly owned them. All that was good in him, was not made bad (as to the nature of the thing) because he did it. I never censured Sulpitius Severus, Beda, or any other Historians, [Page] for extolling the Christian Piety of Maximus, while they call him a Tyrant, as to Title. I will not fall out with God, or Scripture, or Honesty, because that Cromwell did speak well of them all. 3. Note, that I spake only of his Exercise of Government, and not of his Right, which I still declared to be Null.—4. And I instanced what his Prudence was, (before) [His prudent shunning of Engagements,] that he put not upon us any Oaths or Promises of Allegiance to himself; For he knew that we would refuse them, and thereby disturb his peace. It is known unquestionably that Cromwell did many things that were (in their nature) very laudable. 5. And I mentioned this (not as a praise of him, but) as a Conviction of the Rebellious Army, who thought they might take down all Government, to set up themselves, whom they could easilier believe to be good and godly, than any others: And whereas they pretended, that it was for ungodliness, that they pulled down their Superiours, I shewed them, that if they could not believe that the King was godly, nor the Parliament godly, nor the Minor part of the Parliament (called the Rump) godly, nor their Little Mock-Parliament godly, yet they should not have so accused Cromwell, whom they cryed up, and set him up themselves, and magnified so highly as they did. 6. And I meant this Commendation of some of his actions, as comparative only, and better than theirs that pulled [Page] down that which themselves set up. 7. And yet, I thank you for calling me to review those words, and do hereby declare, that I do take them to be unmeet (as spoken to the Army that then had greatly provoked me to grief) and that I unfeignedly Repent of them; that you may see I love not Impenitence in my self, any more than in you: And I wish that they had not been written, being so lyable to ill effects; and it being unmeet too much to praise even the good that a Usurper doth, lest it take off the odium of his Usurpation.

18

Sect. 18. E. B. Sir could you say all this of him then,13th & 14th falshood. and do you think your partial friends can justifie you now, when you compare him to the Tyrant Maximus, and make him in effect to be nothing else, but a Murderous and a bloody Vsurper?

R. B. Here is two Falshoods, one expressed, and the other implyed. 1. That expressed is, that I make him in effect to be nothing else but a Murderous, &c. when I never denyed any thing that was good in him; but have publickly, and in Print warned our Lawful Governours, that they tempt not the people to dislike them, by undoing any good which he did. 2. The implyed falshood, that I speak worse of him now, than I did heretofore. Whereas the truth is, that I spake in the time of his own Usurpation I am confident twenty times against him, for once that I have spoken [Page] since his death: Not that I changed my opinion of him; but that it is so cross to humane nature, to insult over even malefactors in their sufferings, especially when we suffer with them (though by them) and when their adversaries need no instigation, that I have not been able to judge it my duty, to speak of that very evil, which I and others suffer by: But have been hardly put to it these eleven years, between the thoughts of open disowning those sins of self-exalting Vsurpers that have confounded us, and a lothness to encrease the sufferings of those that are underfoot. And this last prevailing, I have greatly by it displeased my Superiours: And yet lest I should harden men in impenitency, having gently mentioned these Crimes, it displeaseth such as are most obliged to repent. And how strangely doth this man despise his Readers, while he again maketh it such a thing in me,6th Rash Calumny. to compare Cromwell to Maximus, whom still he loadeth with odious Titles? When in my first Book I told him, p. 374. that Maximus by the Bishops was accounted a very religious Christian, and pretended that the Souldiers in England made him Emperour against his will, and took part with the Orthodox, and greatly honoured the Bishops, and promoted Religion, and got a great deal of love and honour: And in my Defence I told him, that Maximus is by Historians made so good a man, of himself, that I more feared lest many would have made me a praiser of Cromwell [Page] by the comparison. And I cited p. 142. the words of Sulpitius Severus of him, Vir omni vitae merito praedicandus, si ei diadema non legitime, tumultuante milite impositum, repudiare, vel armis civilibus abstinere licuisset, &c. And the words of Beda Eccles. Hist. l. 1. c. 9. Maximus vir strenuus & probus atque Augusto dignus nisi contra fidem per tyrannidem emersisset, &c. Invitus propemodum ab exercitis creatus Imperator, &c. But all this is not worthy the observation of this temerarious man, who still puts this among my unbecoming usage of Cromwell, when if he had weighed what I wrote, I should have rather expected that he would have accused me again for overpraising him.

19

Sect. 19. E. B. As for your flattery to his Son,15th Falsehood. which I also charged you with, and you (with a strange, but not to your self unusual boldness) do deny, &c.

R. B. I gave a full answer to this, which no reply is given to: As if you were resolved to say what your list, and hear nothing that is said against it. As I told you that I never saw him, nor ever had to do with him, save that when I saw him take part against the turbulent sort of men, I took it to be seasonable by that Dedication to perswade him to do good and not hurt. So I told you, that your words of [Dedicating a flattering Book to him] in common sense do distinguish between the Book and the Dedication: Whether the Dedication were [Page] flattery, I left to the Reader of it to judge, and neither affirmed, nor denyed it: But only affirmed [that there is not one syllable of his Son in all the Books, but only in the Dedications.] Yet this man goeth on, and falsly chargeth me to deny that which I denyed not, and reciteth my words in the Dedication to prove that the Book as distinct from the Dedication was flattery.

20

Sect. 20. E. B. Deny if you can the consequence,7th Self-condemning calumny. that it became not you to blame the effects, who gave such rise and encouragement to the Cause: I mean, unless you repent of the Cause; which it is evident you have not yet done: And if I may not be believed in this opinion of you, I doubt not but the Bishop of Worcester will; who for this very thing did formerly accuse you of rebellion: From which charge, he that defended you then, leaveth you to acquit your self now as well as you can.

R. B. 1. Your [I mean, unless you repent] were none of your former words: When you say one thing, you think to solve and avoid the charge of falshood, by saying that you Meant another. 2. What you say is evident, must needs be a Calumny in you, 1. Because you have no Evidence of the Negative being about my heart, which is to you unknown. 2. Because your self did before twit me with Retraction, &c. 3. And did you believe your self that the Bishop of Worcesters words so many years ago, are a proof that I repent not now? 4. And are [Page] you yet insensible of your own partiality; that then you blamed that in the Bishop which now you can freely do your self? Let your followers mark what Spirit you are of, if you are resolved not to know your self? Do you not see now that the man who took it for so great a crime in the Bishop, can speak himself, 1. Against the same man, 2. With the same accusation, 3. In the same manner. And is the same thing bad in the Bishop, and good in you? The matter is, it seemeth now to be your concernment to speak it: Its like you would then have separated from the Bishop for it: And yet now it is no fault in you? O what a blinding thing is selfish partiality? And what reason hath any man to doubt, but if it were in your power, you would silence me as much as any Bishop would? And will you not yet see that which you are so angry with me for telling you; viz. How much of the very same Spirit is in Church-dividers, with that which they most condemn in others: Why then do you not separate from your selves?

5. But, though you may think its like that you have me here in your snares, I shall make this benefit of it, that you may see I am not so great an enemy to Repenting, as you declare your self to be.

I do hereby freely profess, that I Repent 1. Of all that ever I thought, said, wrote, or did since I was born, against the Peace of Church or State; Against the King, his Person, or Authority, as Supream in himself, or as Derivative [Page] in any of his Officers, Magistrates, or any Commissioned by him.

2. That I Repent that I no more discouraged the Spirit of pievish quarrelling with Superiours and Church-orders, and (though I ever disliked and opposed it, yet) that I sometimes did too much encourage such, as were of this temper, by speaking too sharply against those things which I thought to be Church-corruptions; and was too loth to displease the contentious, for fear of being uncapable of doing them good (knowing the prophane to be much worse than they) and meeting with too few Religious persons, that were not too much pleased with such invectives.

3. And I do Repent that I had not more impartially and diligently consulted with the best Lawyers that were against the Parliaments Cause (For I knew of no Controversie in Divinity about it, but in Politicks and Law;) and that I did not use all possible means of full acquaintance with the Case. And that for a little while the Authority of such Writers as Mr. Rich. Hooker lib. 1. Eccles. Polit. and Bishop Bilson, and other Episcopal Divines did too much sway my judgement toward the Principles of Popular Power; And seeing the Parliament, Episcopal, and Erastian, and not hearing when the Wars began of two Presbyterians among them all, nor among all their Lord Lieutenants, Generalls, Major Generalls, or Colonells, till long after, I was the easilyer drawn to think that Hookers Political Principles had been commonly received by all; which [Page] I discerned soon after upon stricter enquiry, to be unsound, and have my self written a Confutation of them, ready for the Press many years ago.

4. And all the rest of my sin in this business, which I know not of particularly, I do Implicitly and Generally Repent of; and daily beg of God (as I have done these twenty four years and more) to give me a particular Conviction of them, and not to suffer me to live or dye in any impenitence, but so far to acquaint me with all my great and publick sins, that I may openly confess them, and give others warning to avoid the like. This is the Repentance, which upon your invitation I profess.

If you quarrel with it as not instancing in particulars enow, I answer you, that as in the Revocation of the Book which you accuse, I thought it best to Revoke the whole, (though not as Retracting all the doctrine of it,) because if I had named the particular passages, some would have said I had mentioned too few, and some too many, and few would have been satisfied; so is it in the present Case.

6. As to your Defence of me heretofore, 1. You know I never desired it of you, nor gave you thanks for it. For though you took my part, you understood not my Cause, and therefore in the main deserted it. 2. I am not at all ambitious of such an Advocate, 1. Whose Defence was then judged by all that I heard speak of it, to be commendable [Page] only for boldness, and a handsome Epistolary Style, having little of Judgement or argumentative strength: 2. Whose errors and faults will disgrace the Cause which he defendeth: 3. Who can blow hot and cold, and when his passion and erroneous interest requireth it, can change hands, and take up his adversaries work, and do the same thing in the main, which he accused. Threaten me not with so desirable a desertion.

As for the following insultations on supposition of the sufficiency of your snare, you see now that it is to glory in your shame.

21

Sect. 21. E. B. Your mentioning with so much scorn the doctrine of the temporal Reign of Christ,16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th visible falshoods. which you in derision call the fifth Monarchy way, and your endeavour to expose all that you think favour that opinion, is another evidence that you dare not look any truth in the face, which brings present danger with it: no though formerly you were as earnest and open an asserter of it as any—

R. B. I see but five express falshoods in matter of fact in these few words: 1. One is, that it is Christs Temporal Reign, which I call the fifth Monarchy way; when as I have no such words, nor meaning, but do my self believe Christs Temporal Reign, even that now he is Head over all things to his Church, Ephes. 1. 21, 22. and that all Power in Heaven and Earth is given him, Mat. 28. 19. and [Page]all things are delivered into his hands, John 1 [...]. 3. & 17. 2. that he hath power given him over all flesh; and that to this end he dyed, rose and revived, that he might be Lord of the dead and living: Rom. 14. 9. and that he is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. But whether he will Reign a thousand years in corporal visible presence on earth, I am not wise enough to know: But I am afraid of those opinions which draw down mens minds from looking for a treasure and reward in Heaven, and tempt them to expect great things on Earth. But in this Age custome hath taught men to distinguish between those called Fifth Monarchy men, and meer Millenaries. And by the former name, I mean such as they that assumed that name have been, whom I will not describe, lest I seem to imitate you, or offend you more than needs.

2. The second falshood is, that I mention the Doctrine of Christs Temporal Reign with scorn and derision; when I only mentioned the way by which many of my acquaintance came to hold it, and the arguments which they used to defend it, with pitty and dissent, but not with scorn or derision; much less that doctrine which he nameth.

3. The third falshood is, that I endeavour to expose all that I think favour that opinion; when as some of my most intimate and honoured friends favour the Millenary Opinion: and I know how commonly it was owned [Page] by many of the Ancients, and who doth not honour the name of Mr. Jos. Mead, Dr. Twisse, Mr. Baily, Mr. Porter, &c. that did more than favour it? And when did I ever endeavour to expose such men? (its like you mean, unto scorn, or some evil.)

4. The fourth and notorious falshood is, that I dare not look any truth in the face, that brings present danger with it: when himself saith, that I am in the same condemnation with them; which hath more truth in it in a full sense, than I will here open, lest I seem to dishnour my Governours. And though I confess that my Imprisonment was not so long and sharp as his, yet he can scarce be so ignorant as to imagine, that he loseth by his judgement, so much as I do by mine, quoad lucrum cessans, & damnum emergens. But his own Pen doth publish him temerariously false: while he publisheth me to have been formerly as earnest and open an asserter as any of this Opinion; and doth not cite one syllable whereby I ever did revoke it: And I here as openly declare to him and all the world, that I am still of the same mind that I was in that point, and I am still ready to express my mind in the same words of mine which he reciteth. And while I openly own the same words which he accounteth so dangerous, and pretendeth that they assert as much as any; judge whether he be a man to be believed, that saith I dare not look that truth in the face, which I openly own, or any other that brings present danger.

[Page] 5. The next notorious falshood is, that formerly I was as earnest an asserter of it as any; that is, of the Fifth Monarchy way. As any? Have I written for the Millenary Opinion, as earnestly and openly as Mr. Mead hath done? Have I—I will pass over late practices. Nay did I ever write or speak one word for it? But you shall presently see how he confuteth himself. But before I leave this, I must name two or three implyed falshoods in these words, besides the five expressed.

6. The one is,21st Falsehood implyed. that the Doctrine of the Temporal Reign of Christ, brings present danger: when as all Christians that I know of, do believe or hold his Temporal Reign: And as for his Personai Corporal Visible Reign, I never heard of any Law against any that held it, nor any danger that any man incurred, much less any suffering for holding it. I am perswaded, if Christ came personally and visibly to demand it, the King himself would yield up his Crown to him. But I must confess to you, that if any man will call himself a believer of the Fifth M [...]narchy, and thereupon will either deny the Authority of Rulers that are bad, (even if they were Infidels or Persecutors) or that they judge bad, or will deny to swear Allegiance to the King, or will maintain that good men may seize upon the Government because they are good (or think themselves so) and that because the Saints shall judge the world, therefore they may depose bad Governours, [Page] and take their places, and set up themselves under pretence of setting up Christ; I deny not but such as these may be in danger: And I am none of them that will own such opinions▪ as knowing them to be no truths, but pernicious errors.

7. The other implyed falshood is,22d. Falsehood implyed. that I have changed my opinion, or the profession of it in this point in question.

22

Sect. 22. E. B. [ [...] not many years ago you told us,8 Self confutation & Calumny. that you were perfectly neutral, as to the point of Christs visible and personal Reign upon earth, and you did not know which way your judgement did most incline. But the Theocratical Policy, or Divine Common-wealth (which is the unquestionable Reign of Christ upon Earth) this, all Christians are agreed may justly be sought, and the temporal dignity of the Saints which would undoubtedly much bless the world.]

R. B. 1. You misprint [the temporal] for [that temporal,] and so turn the predicate into the subject. 2. For [as meerly neutral as in almost any point of so great moment, &c.] you put [perfectly neutral.] 3. For [I scarce can perceive which way, &c.] you put [you did not know.] Yet I number not these with your falshoods, but shew you, that you are so habituated to Rashness, that you seldom seem to heed what you report.

2. And can you wink so hard,23d Falsehood. as not to see how here you openly declare your falsehood? [Page] Do you prove me as earnest and open an [...]ss [...]rter as any, by citing words in which I profess to be ignorant, neutral and uncertain? Will your followers still believe such an open self-contradicting false accuser? Is Neutrality and Vncertainty the most earnest and open asserting of a doctrine? If you say that you meant it of Theocracy; I answer, review your words; you speak of Christs Temporal Reign, and of the Fifth Monarchy way, and say [as earnest and open as any.] Was Mr. Mead, and Dr. Twisse but Neutral? Was Mr. Archer but Neutral?

3. I still approve of all the words of mine which you recite? What mean you then to tell me of a change?

4. And is it like that I take that to be dangerous, which I say that [all Christians are agreed of.]

5. And do you not grosly wrong those Rulers, from whom you think any danger or hurt will come to us for such doctrine as this? Who is there that will deny that A holy and Righteous Government in the hands of holy and righteous men, would be a blessing to the world? and is to be vehemently desired, and sought by just and lawful means? Will any Christian charge this doctrine to be erroneous? When it is much of the sense of the three first and greatest Petitions in the Lords prayer? and when all Christians know, that Tyranny, Ignorance, and Vngodliness are the three constituting materials of the Devils Kingdom in the world, and that Tyranny is [Page] the grand maintainer of Ignorance and Vngodliness, while the Heathen, and Infidel, and Popish Princes of the Earth, do keep away the clear and powerful preaching and publication of the truth; and Turks, Persians, Indians, and other Mahometans, and all the Heathens, do maintain Deceivers, and cast out the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

23

Sect. 23. E. B. p. 7. Sir I have been very curious to enquire into the doctrine of the Fifth Monarchy,24th Self-d [...]clared falshood. and most of my Converse is with those that do in Faith expect, and in Patience wait for such a time; and I never knew any of them, (however they are mis-represented) carry the notion further than you have already done.

R. B. 1. And are you a man then that is fit to make such a stir to divide the Churches, and to account your self wiser than all the Old Non-conformists in those matters, when all your curious Enquiry into an open matter of fact (what so many persons hold) could do no more to save you from mistaking it? If you never read what lrenaeus, Lactantius and others of old held? If you never read what is written by Mr. Mead, Dr. Twisse, Mr. Archer, &c. Did you never read any Pamphlets within these thirty years that say more? Did you, that converse so much among such, never hear, what I that so seldom converse with them have heard so oft, and seen offered me in Writings, that I might have procured the [Page] Printing of them? Do you believe that none of the Levellers, or those whom Oliver Cromwell suppressed under the name of Fifth Monarchy men, held no more? Did Venner and his company think you hold no more?

2. But so strange is your forgetfulness or your self-contradicting faculty, that you need none to tell your Readers that you write untruths, but your self. Do you take no notice, that all that is my words is, that such a Holy and Righteous Government is desirable, and may justly be sought as all Christians agree: But your profession is that [most of your converse is with those that do in faith expect it. And could you see no difference between seeking it, and in faith expecting it? I desire the conversion and salvation of all the men I know, and I seek it of God in prayer, and of as many of them, as I have fit opportunity, (or ought so to do at least;) I desire the Conversion of all the Kingdoms, and people of the world; but whether I may in faith expect it, I am so ignorant that I cannot tell. I desire and seek by prayer of God, that all the world may have holy and just Governours: but I cannot boast of so much faith or hope in this, as those that you converse with. As proud as I am, I freely confess my Ignorance to you. But certainly they that take it for an Article of their faith, do carry the Notion further than I can do, who profess that I am ignorant of it, whether it be a promised thing, or not?

24

[Page]

Sect. 24. E. B. p. 7.—[Because you dare not own any hazardous and persecuted truth;24th Falsehood, and a calumny repeated. and you find it far easier in your Notional Divinity to recant all that formerly you were convinced of, than to bring your heart to a willingness for Martyrdom.]

R. B. 1. You spake of danger before; you now add Persecution and Martyrdom, intimating that this is such a persecuted point; which as far as ever I heard (who live in the same Land, and have as hard thoughts of persecution as many others have) there is not any thing true in your intimation. Name the Law that is against the Opinion of the desirableness of a holy Government of all the world? Name the person that ever suffered for that Opinion? Though those that will resist or pull down Governours, because they take them (justly or unjustly) to be ungodly, may suffer for it. Again therefore to imply danger of Martyrdom, for that which no man (that ever I heard of) suffered for, and to feign the avoiding of that danger, to be the Chief Cause of my recanting or changing my mind or words, which I never recanted or changed, is a monstrous course of fiction and temerity.

2. Your talk of Recanting all that formerly I was convinced of] implyeth more temerity and falshood. Any man of humane modesty would have thought [All] too bigg a word, when the instances produced by him prove nothing. If you refer to [Page] the Revocation of my Book, you should have opened your eyes, and seen that I profess not to Recant all the doctrine of it, though I revoke all the Book, and wish men to take it as non-scriptum: And sure that passage had no peculiar recantation.

3. But if Recantation be so easie to me, remember that I pretend not to Infallibility, nor am altogether unwilling to Repent. As for Martyrdom, I take it to be every Christians duty, yea, necessary to salvation, to prepare for it; that is, to deny his life, and to forsake all in true resolution, for the sake of Christ, and hopes of Heaven: But how far my heart is brought to a willingness of it, though I am sure you know not, and therefore venture to speak what you know not: yet I have no reason to boast, nor to be self-consident, nor to be high-minded, but to fear.

25

Sect. 25. E. B. And this alone,25th and 26th Falsehoods. I take to be the true cause, why so weakly, and so unlike a Minister of the Gospel you inveigh against sufferings. For you have never yet experienced either the comfort or the cleansing of them, and therefore venture rashly to speak evil of what you know not; and which I fear you have neither courage nor affection to venture the tyral of: I speak it to your shame.

R. B. 1. Thus sin useth like a River to run on, the longer the greater! Wonderful! that you can believe the people that fear God to be so sottishly credulous of all the falshoods [Page] that you shall tell them, as not so much as to open the Book which you accuse, and to see that you deceive them. If you will prove that true which you say, it must be by this argumentation: He that telleth men that sufferings have their temptations as well as prosperity, and warneth men to fear and avoid those temptations, doth weakly and unlike a Minister of the Gospel inveigh against sufferings: But so doth R. B. Ergo—

But the Major is false, and therefore insufficient to support your false Conclusion. Let the Reader but peruse my words, and if he find one syllable of inveighing against sufferings, let him believe you the next time, and take you for a man that hath not quite forfeited his credit.

2. And what friendship to sin,9th Crime, rejecting and slandering readful warning. and continued enmity to vigilancy and repentance do you express, when you were told an unquestionable truth, and but warned of an unquestionable danger and duty, to reject all so senslesly, and that with such false retortions. Tell your followers, 1. Is it false or true, that sufferings have their temptations as well as Prosperity; and in particular to drive us into uncharitableness and extreams from them that we suffer by? 2. Are not you and others that suffer in danger of such temptations, and sin in sufferings? 3. Should not such temptation and sin be carefully watcht against? Is there any falshood in all this? 4. And is he fit to glory in the cleansing fruit [Page] of sufferings, that shall falsly say, that such a necessary warning is an inveighing against sufferings? &c. 5. Do you believe that they that turned Quakers in Prison are gainers by their sufferings? or they that lose more of their Love, than of their Liberties?

3. If I never experienced the comfort or cleansing of sufferings, I have cause of great lamentation, as having suffered very much in vain. I will not with Paul here glory in my infirmities, but I shall confess, that they greatly aggravate my sin, if your words be true: For I have born the yoke from my youth: since fourteen years of age I have not been a year free from suffering, and since twenty two but few dayes, and since 1646. (which is about twenty five years, I have had but few hours free from pain, (though through Gods mercy, not intolerable.) I have had sufferings in Peace, and sufferings four years in War: The first year I preached the Gospel, my life was sought by malice for my Ministerial work, and dissent from others: The next place I came to (where I was after more blest, and spent my labours) the first year I was hooted at in the Streets, but for preaching the Original sin and misery of mankind (which this man feigneth me to extenuate, if not deny.) The next year my life was sought by an armed Tumult, and strangely preserved, while others were knockt down in the Streets, but for looking after my safety. The same year my life was sought more publickly, and I [Page] was forced into a Garrison from my habitation, through the fury that still sought my life. And since then, O what wholsome and constant sufferings have been measured out unto me, almost continually night and day. I will say no more, but that above all the external disposals of my most wise and gracious God, I humbly, and heartily, and daily thank him for my sufferings. But surely this man is not [...] or permitted to write this in vain. Alas, my God, it calleth my sin, my unfruitfulness to my remembrance! My cleansing, nor my comfort have not been answerable to the sharp but gracious helps and warnings which thou hast so long vouchsafed me: It is true, too true, that I have sinned so much under sufferings, and been so unfruitful after sufferings, that I have little cause to boast of cleansing, and less experience of comfort, than otherwise I might have had. But yet I have so much experience as obligeth me to thankfulness, and assuredly to number this saying with his Vntruths that he utters;10th Crime Self-denying. even the twenty sixth in number; And I think the Crime of usurping the prerogative of God, of knowing the heart, should be repented of. Can any of your followers themselves believe, that you that never saw me till of late years, and never thrice spake with me (that I know of) and that lived at so great a distance from me, and that were unborn when my sufferings began, and were a Child when I was in the greatest of my sufferings many years, I [Page] say that you, should be able peremptorily, without any exception to conclude, that [I never yet have experienced either the comfort or the cleansing of them] When you know how much cleansing Peter acknowledgeth the very Apostates sometimes had, and even they that are most terribly cautioned, Heb. 6. had tasted of the powers of the world to come. Some cleansing and comfort even a miserable man may have.

4. As for your fear that I have not courage or integrity enough to venture the tryal, I thank you for your warning, and shall beg integrity and courage of God; But to add that you speak it to my shame, is but to shew that you could hardly speak with any caution many sentences together: For your fear doth but speak your uncertainty: (and to have pretended to a certainty were to pretend to be a God.) And why should you think that I must be ashamed of that which you are uncertain of? I doubt you speak it more to your own shame.

26

Sect. 26. E. B. p. 8. You should have spared the dead,11th Crime Excusing false prophecying to the dishonour of Gods Spirit. and not disturbed the dust of my fellow prisoner Mr. Powel, by reproaching his memory with so abusive and disgraceful a mention of him, as if he were a false Prophet, and acted by a deluding Spirit: For you lay to his charge, that many years ago, he prophesied of some things which we do not yet see fulfilled.

R. B. 1. Though it was printed since his death, it was written before ever I heard [Page] of his death, and I think many Weeks before he dyed. 2. You made it in a manner necessary to me to convince you by some instance that was near enough for your observation; and do you blame me when you have done? 3. I named not Mr. Vavasor Powell; but only your Companion and fellow Prisoner; and its like you had more than one, and few could know that it was he: But you have disgraced him by naming him. 4. I called him not a false Prophet; but warned you not thus to abuse Gods people, and bring reproach upon Religion, by fathering rashnesses and deceits on the Spirit of God? And have you so little sense of the honour of God and Religion, as to be angry at that! Alas Sir, what would you have said if I had told you how common this was in the Army? To set up and pull down, do and undo, own and disown, as by the Spirit of God? If I should have told you of the sad Instances of Mr. Erbury, Mr. Saltmarsh, Mr. Dell, Mr. William Sedgwick, (who as from God wrote one Week to the Army against their putting the King to death, and the next or same Week wrote to them quite on the other side; and that set London by a Prophecy or Vision on looking for the day of judgement on a set day,) to say nothing of abundance such; besides Mrs. Hutchinson in New England, and the Ranters and Quakers in our dayes. Can you have any love to souls, and any zeal for God and for Religion, and not be grieved to think that Gods [Page]Spirit should be thus reproached, and Infidels hardned in a contempt of the Spirit, as if it were but a fancy! O wo to the world because of offences!

5. You shew more of the relicts of modesty here, than in most that I have yet met with, in that you do not deny the truth of what I said of him. But yet your intimations are deceitful, as if his Prophecies had not been absolute, but conditional, or else not for the present, but the future. But the case was this, as learned and understanding hearers will yet testifie; that at Clifton upon Thame in Worcestershire, quickly after Worcester Fight, in his Sermon he said, that He would tell them these things as from God, that they should have no more King, nor pay any more Taxes, nor pay any more Tythes, and laying his hand upon his Bible, he added [And this I have otherwise than from hence] which shewed that the Scripture was not his Rule, for all you accuse others of making it an imperfect Rule.

6. And do you not yet perceive your partiality and respect of persons? It seemeth your duty to open the faults of the Prelats and Conformists, and to calumniate us Non-conformists that dissent from you, and to feign that which you think will serve you for reproach. But if your companions publick false prophecying be but mentioned upon your own instigation, you cry out of abuse and disgrace to his memory. Sir, Was it true or false? If it be true, that thus he [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] did (which is mentioned as no rarity) should you not rather take part with God than him? And if an Aaron will make the people naked to their shame, will not God record it to his shame? Is not the honour of the Spirit of God more tenderly to be preserved than his, or yours, or mine, or any mans? O do not injure God, for Man.

27

Sect. 27. E. B. p. 8. But 1. May not a good man,12th Crime Paralleling false Prophecies with the Prophets words in Scripture. yea, a true Prophet, be sometime mistaken? Was not Samuel so, when he took Eliab to be the Lords anointed? Was not Nathan deceived, when he encouraged David to build the Temple?—

R. B. 1. Yes, they may be deceived when they speak in their own names, and judge by their own Spirit or reason: But do you think they may be deceived when they prophesie as from God. If so, then what certainty can we have of the truth of any of their Prophecies, if they may speak falsly to us in the name of God? 2. Will not your followers think you yet see your partiality, who in one Page reproach others as denying Scripture to be a perfect Rule, and in another can thus seek to parallel Gods Prophets, with one that rashly in the Pulpit prophesieth three falshoods together in the name of God? Is it not Gods direction to us, to take him for a false Prophet who prophesieth that which cometh not to pass? Every one that foretelleth that which doth [Page] come to pass is not a true Prophet, Deut. 13. 23. But every one that absolutely prophesieth that which doth not come to pass, is a false Prophet, Deut. 18. 20, 21, 22. But the Prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak—even that Prophet shall dye. (Mark whether God do judge as you do.) And if thou say in thy heart, how shall we know the word which the Lord hath spoken, when a Prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the Prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

28

Sect. 28. E. B. 2. May not many Prophets truly foretell things to come,13. Crime, Scrip [...]ures eluded. and yet those things be a long time suspended and delayed because of the sins of the people? Is not this condition to be understood in most Scripture Prophecies, expressed, Zach. 6. 15. And this shall come to pass, if you will diligently obey, &c.

R. B. 1. A Conditional promise or prediction may be not only delayed, but never fulfilled (so as that the thing shall not come to pass) if the condition never come to pass, 2. Promises are oftner to be expounded as Conditional, than peremptory Prophecies, when no condition is expressed. But what words can more exclude both Conditions and Delayes, [Page] than [I tell you from God, that you shall never more, &c. When 1. They never ceased paying Tythes from that day to this: 2. And their Taxes were then upon them, and I think they believe not that they never paid more. 3. And that we have a King his Subjects all acknowledge. Indeed the Jews say that the promise of the Messiah is delayed because of their sins; and by such pretences what true Prophecy may not be perverted, and false excused?

As for what you say of Mr. Powels Religiousness, diligence, and worthiness, I never said a word against it: And I desire to promote, and not to cloud the true honour of his name: And your calling that an unchristian calumny which you cannot deny to be a proved truth, is but an unmanly calumny of your own. And for your Prophecy of my memory dying before me, I am not solicitous of the matter; let God do with my memory what he please: nor am I regardful of your Prophecy, who defend false prophecying, being commanded not to fear such, Deut. 18. 22.

29

Sect. 29. E. B. The pride of your heart,14 Crime, Duty reproached, and scandal made a duty. discovered by your writings is so apparent, that it cannot but be known and read of all men: to go no further for instances than your last Books, what needed you have told the world in print, that you chase once on Easter day to communicate in a very populous Church, purposely that it might be the further known. Is not [Page] this like the Hypocrites to blow a Trumpet before, and to do your actions that they may be seen of men? What other end could you have in doing that so publickly then, or in declaring it now, but a vain glorious hope, that doubting and unsatisfied Christians might look upon your example, as their Pole-star, and accordingly direct their course?

R. B. 1. As to the Pride of my heart,Of Pride. I shall first say this in general; that I am past doubt I have too much of it: As no man is wholly cured of that odious vice, so I am one that have no cause to say that I am perfect. But these things I can confidently say, 1. That so far as I am proud, I sin as much against my own judgement, I imagine, as most men alive do; there being sew that ever I was acquainted with, that have said and written more against it than I have done: I have had these thirty years and more, more odious conceptions of that sin, and a deeper sense of its commonness and prevalency in the world, and the wofull ruines which it makes in the Church and State and souls; and how frequently it sheweth it self even in men of great piety and worth, than of almost any other sin. I have had so many thousand thoughts and words against it, as make me much more culpable, if I be proud. 2. And I shall sin as much against my Conscience in being proud as most men in the world. As my Judgement is so much against the sin, so my Conscience commandeth me a very Low and [Page] Constant self-abasement: It telleth me, that whether I look to a corruptible painfull flesh, or to an Ignorant understanding, or to a sinful will, or to a sinful and unprofitable life, I have so little to be proud of, as will render my pride exceeding odious. 3. I do evidently see the odiousness of this sin in others: Were it not for seeming to retort your charge, I should say, that though I cannot as you do conclude of the heart, yet the usual Ensigns of Pride (with Temerity and Injudiciousness, Boldness and Blindness) do appear to me so monstrous in your Writings, above the size that ordinary sinners ever fall to, as maketh me the more apprehend, how dreadful it is to give way to pride in the beginnings; And methinks I see as written on the front of your Writings, Be not high-minded, but fear. Therefore I am still the more culpable, if I abound with that which is so terrible a warning to me, in your self, and other such as you. 4. And as I every day watch and pray against it (and if ever I knew any thing of my self in the world, I am certain that I live in an habituate and ordinary apprehension of my baseness and unworthiness, and of the utter vanity of humane applause) so I find my self partly glad that you tell me of my Pride, that (whatever you mean) I may have one more check to keep it under; and if it be a messenger of Satan to buffet me, I hope it will not be in vain. 5. And I can assure you, that these Writings which so exasperate [Page] you, had never come from me, if I had not first so far conquered the esteem of man, and love of reputation, as to be willing to cast my self upon reproach, and to be much indifferent as to the opinion of man? For I was not so ignorant as not to foresee that such as you would take the detection and reproof of their errors for a heinous injury, and be angry at him that called them to repent, and would furiously scatter the fetide excrements of their gall, in revilings of such as contradict them. Methinks then you should see, that I laid by some Pride, when I cared so little for your good word, and exposed my self so readily to your Calumnies.

2. And I must tell you that though you do as much to cure my pride, as almost any mortal man that ever I had to do with, by the way of open demonstration of the Ensigns of it by your self (as the sight of a Leprosie would cure one that were in love with it;) yet you are too blame for Tempting me so much to pride as you do on the other side, while you decry it: For what is it else but an inviting and tempting a man to be proud, to tell the world, that you have nothing to charge him with to prove it, but such silly Calumnies as these of yours?

3. And yet I will say, that I see now that a mans enemies may be more useful to him than his friends: For I can hear that of my Pride from you, which never friend by [Page] Word or Letter to my remembrance told me in my life. The more too blame they, if you be not mistaken.

2. But next let us see your evidence or proof:The Reasons of my publick Communicating. Your first is, [What need I have told the world, &c.] would you have an answer to your question or not? If not, why do you ask it? If you would, why did you not take an answer when I gave it you; nor so much as mention it, as if you read it not, when you call for another? Is it because that you remembred, that many that read your Papers, will never read mine, and so will not know what I have said, nor how deceivingly you use them? It may be so: But will that do your work, and hold at last? If I repeat my answer, I shall offend my Readers, for writing the same thing twice, because you take no notice of the first. But this much I will return you now: 1. My avoiding publick communion for fear of bringing more suffering on those that scrupled it, (and that so many years together,) was a scandal and temptation to others, and tended to make them think, that I held it to be unlawful; as Peters Separation was a scandal to Barnabas and others: And do you think every man that avoideth scandalizing, is therefore proud: Are not humble men bound to avoid scandal as well as others? If a man by many years forbearing all publick Prayer or Sacrament, should tempt others to think that he is against them, or accounts them needless, how [Page] should he cure that scandal, but by doing that openly, and open pleading for it, which he is supposed to be against? Doth Paul make scandal to be the destroying of anothers soul, and a thing to be avoided on such hard terms as he mentioneth, and do you think that the open avoiding it, is to be charged with Pride? How directly do you set your self against the way of the Spirit of God?

2. I had for the same reason become a scandal also to our Governours, and to many sober Conformable men, who were tempted by my omission, to think the Non-conformists to be pievish Dividers, who follow Parties and Passion, more than their own Consciences? And would any thing cure this scandal also, that had not been notified? Or is the scandal of so many such persons no evil to be avoided; nor their mis-judging of the Non-conformists to be cured by such as did occasion it?

3. Is not every Minister of Christ a publick person? Should they not be the Lights of the world, that cannot and should not be hid? Is every man Proud, that is not Mad? Whether my Actions be noted, is a matter of fact? The question is not, whether I be so regardable, as to be worthy notice? but whether de facto any do note what I do? And do you doubt of it? Why then do you write two invectives to cure their esteem of me? Do you not perceive here how your work contradicts your self? [Page] And must I needs as my duty, be so mad, as not to know that any observe me, or regard what I do, for fear of being proud? You might as well make it a duty to go naked in the Streets, lest I be proud if I think that any one will observe me. 4. And are not Ministers bound to teach the people by Example, as well as by Doctrine? You dare not deny it. And is that example, which is unknown? Will you teach men to say against Gods command, I must not be so Proud as to think that my example will be observed or regarded? God saith, 1 Tim. 4. 12. Be thou an example of the believers in word, in conversation, in charity, in Spirit, in faith, in purity: Must none that think meanly of themselves obey this? O but, you will reply, Is not this like Hypocrites, to do your actions to be seen of men? Christ will have us all to let our light so shine before men (not with the Hypocrite to get their applause to our selves, but for their own good and Gods glory) that they may see our good works, and glorifie our Father which is in Heaven. O but saith Mr. Bagshaw, What other end can you have in doing this, but a vain-glorious hope, that doubting Christians may look on your example as their Pole-star, &c And indeed will such a scorn of E. B. disoblige all Christs Ministers from obeying their Lord, and allow them to live in open scandal, for fear of thinking it lawful to be Exemplary?

5. Do you think indeed that you are not [Page] noted your self? Do you neither in Life nor in your sufferings, intend to be publickly exemplary? Do you not forbear the publick Assemblies, the rather that your example may move others? Thus still a perverse Spirit condemneth it self.

6. If Doctrine and Example be the two means commanded, by which Ministers must edifie the Church, is it not Pride as well to expect that our words should be heeded, as our Examples? And could an Atheist deal more impudently and prophanely, than to tell all Ministers, you are notoriously proud in expecting that all the Congregation should take heed of what you say? Do you not preach or talk to your own auditors, and expect observation? What if another E. B. were among them and should say, How proud are you to expect that we should all regard your words, as if you were our Polestar? These are not meet Lessons for a sufferer to teach the people.

30

Sect. 30. E. B. I look upon it also as a strange piece of boasting,27, 28. & 29. Visible untruths. when you tell us, that men of all judgements have written against you:—Is it indeed true that you offend all, and please none, and can you glory that you are accounted the Ishmael of the age?

R. B. Alas, poor man! Is this Conscience scrupulous of Communion with us Publicans and sinners? Here are no less than three more visible Vntruths thrast together. 1. That I say, [That men of all judgements have written[Page]against me] when my words are these [Whereas our differences in Doctrine, Worship and Discipline have engaged men of several minds in such Writings against me.] Where did I say, that men of the judgement of Peter or Paul, of Augustine or Prosper, wrote against me? Are those Infidels, Quakers, with the &c. [All]? 2. That I glory that I am accounted the Ishmael of the age (which is intimated in the question) or boast of mens contradiction? Which is so notorious a falshood, that I mention it only as other mens contradiction of each other (who blame me for contrary things) and as my own trouble. I only told you, how impossible it is for me to please all men, while men expect so many contrary things of me: The Anabaptists are quite displeased with me for writing for Infants Baptism: The Conformists are angry, because I will not subscribe that [It is certain by Gods Word, that Children which are baptized, dying before they commit actuall sin, are undoubtedly saved] without excepting those that are wrongfully baptized, Turks, Heathens, &c. The Antinomians are offended with me for opposing their subversion of the Gospel under pretence of extolling free grace: And others are angry that I come so near them, as to the cessation of Moses Law. And so it is with all the rest. How vain therefore is it to turn a Man-pleaser, when the task is as impossible as unprofitable. But O, saith E. B. what a strange boast is this, to tell us that [Page]men of all judgements have written against you! That which I recite as my tryal and trouble, he falsly tells the world, I boast of.

3. The third known falshood is (intimated) that [I offend all and please none.] As if he did believe that those whom I mentioned (even with an &c.) were [all] and there were no others in the world?

2. But besides these falshoods, he again condemneth himself for his accusation. For 1. If it be a matter of Pride to declare that I am written against, why will this man write himself against me, and tempt me to be more proud, when he accuseth me of pride? Is not his Writing published by himself? Why then will he publish that which himself supposeth to be my glorying? and so advance my reputation? (which few adversaries ever did more effectually) 2. And if I offend all and please none, what need he be at all this labour to save men from being pleased by me? But it is fatal or natural to men of his vice, to have bad memories.

The former untruth he again implyeth, [You would be grieved for grieving them, and not put it in among your triumphs, that you had provoked so many able worthy men.] He that hath once ventured upon an untruth, may do it boldlier the second time, and may come at last to believe himself.

As for the worthy Opponents whom he nameth, 1. I can honour and love them as much as he, without thinking them infallible: And I can. differ from them without [Page] disaffection. 2. Which of them is it that the man would have me grieve for grieving? Doubtless those that are in the points controverted of his mind! So kind is he to them or himself. It cannot be all, unless he would have me, either say nothing of the matter, or write contrary things to please contrary parties. 3. And doth he not differ from most whom he nameth himself, by his Separation? And yet he sticketh not thus to grieve many more than them.

31

Sect. 31. E. B. p. 9. [When I said in one of my exceptions,15. Crime, Impudency in calumniating. that I feared you were not sound in the doctrine of Justification by faith alone without works, instead of answering directly, and satisfying my scruple (which you might have done in few words) you refer me to five or more Treatises, which you say you have written on that subject.—

R. B. 1. Did you believe when you wrote this, that this reference was a proof of my Pride? Of Justification. 2. Why would you no more regard your reputation, than to recite such a passage as this? Will your Reader doubt whether you should repent of such things as words of Impudency unbeseeming a man of understanding?

For 1. Was it modesty in you to divulge such an accusation as this [I am afraid you are not sound in the doctrine of Justification] without reciting one word of mine which you accuse, or telling the Reader or me any [Page] reason of your fears? 2. And could you expect that he that had written so many Books to declare his judgement in that point, must write part of another, to tell you what he holds, and consequently write as many, or as oft as men shall so by their Fears invite him? 3. And do you not at that very time prove me proud for writing so many Books, when by this and other passages you call for an answer, that is, for more? 4. Could you think that [a few words] would open a mans mind so plainly, as many Books can do? 5. Could humane ingenuity expect more from one thus slightly questioned, than to be referred to those Books, which were purposely written both to stand as a full Confession of my faith in that point after other mens suspicions, and also to give the reasons of it, and to defend it against all thats said against it? And could I expect, that he that will disdain to read these Books, will read another that repeateth the same things? And shall I write more to remove his Fears, who will rather blindly vent them by calumny, than read for his satisfaction what I have said? If you have read them, why would you say you Fear, which signifieth uncertainty? When you might have come to a certain knowledge? If you read them not, why would you not use a visible means to discuss your fears, before you divulged them? And if this way be right in the eyes of others, what made Dr. Owen, and other Congregational [Page] Brethren, admonish your Brother Mr. Powell for preaching openly (almost as soon as he came out of Prison) particularly against me and another (then thought to have been Mr. Nie, but he said he meant Mr. Tombs) by description; and the description of me was [He that is not sound in the Doctrine of Justification] or to that sense. And what made them threaten to disown him if he would not cease such wayes? Did ever sober men go about with such general accusations, and expect that men answer to they know not what? 6. But what are the few words that would satisfie you? A yea, or a nay? What if I say, Sir I think I am sound in the doctrine of Justification, and I think you speak evil of the things you know not] Would that have satisfied you?

32

Sect. 32. E. B. 16 Crime, Resisting and reproaching other mens labours for the service of God, and the good of souls, with confidence in notorious falsehood. And in another place you tell me that you have written the better part of above fifty Books against the prophane, the Jews and the Mahumetans: (I will not enquire to what purpose; for I am very confident none of those did ever read what you have written against them:) But add to these your several other Treatises—your Books will in all amount to as many Volumes as Tostatus writ, concerning whom, and all such kind of Writers, you once gave this true Character, though since you have most unhappily forgotten it [I cannot but account all those Tostatus's as impudently proud, who think the world should read no bodies works but theirs. [Page] Pray Sir read this passage again, and compare it with what you have already written, and what as I hear you do yet further intend to write, and then tell me in earnest what you think of your self—

R. B. 1. Seeing our debates about Church-dividing must needs be turned to this, Whether I am proud, I grant you the conclusion that I am proud, and what would you have more? 2. Your ductile followers that never saw Tostatus know not how you cheat them by these words; and that you measure by Number, and not by bulk; and twenty of some of my Books, will not make one of Tostatus's for bigness: If you go to number, how many more wrote Origen? But a Sheet is not so big as a large Volume in folio. Of much writing. 3. I never accused Augustine, Chrysostom, Calvin, Zanchy, &c. as imitating Tostatus; And I have not wrote so much as they. 4. The best way to cure one that writeth too much, is to perswade men not to buy and read it, and then the Booksellers will not print it. And till you can do that, you see that all men are not of your mind: And by what obligation am I bound to be of your mind alone, rather than of many thousands that are of another, and those that still importune me to write more? Is it pride only to differ from you, and to write against your judgement? Or were not the Fathers and Divines fore-mentioned, (with Rivet, Chamier, Beza, Luther, &c. yea, and Dr. Owen too, proud, if large Writings be [Page] a sign of Pride. 5. When you question to what purpose it is to write Books against the Prophane, and Jews, and Mahumetans, that is, against Infidelity, and to defend the Christian faith, you shew what a Guide you are to the Church. 6. When you are confident that none of the Prophane, &c. did ever read what I wrote against them, either you believe your self, or not. If you do, how unfit are you to be believed of any that know no better what is credible in a matter of fact? Could you think for instance, that my Call to the Vnconverted hath been printed so oft, I think some scores of thousands, and translated into French by Mr. Eliots (as he said he was doing) into the Indian Tongue, and no prophane person ever read it? You will take this very instance its like for my pride, which you make necessary to shew your temerity and deceit. But if you do not believe your self, how much less should others believe you? 7. Will no sober Readers think that you set your self to do the Devils work, against the service of the Church of God, by seeking to silence us from writing by your contumely and scorns, (even from writing against the Prophane and Infidels) at a time when we are by others silenced from publick preaching? Let your conscience tell you, if I had obeyed you from the first, and never written, whether the Devil or most that have made use of what I wrote, would have thankt you more? 8. Did not the Primitive [Page] Teachers, Apostles and others leave us their Examples for Writing, as well as for Vocal Teaching? And are they not two wayes of predicating or publishing the same Gospel? And if so, would he serve God or the Devil, that would scorn us all as Proud for preaching so much, as the best men do? 9. And do you not yet see how much you have of the same silencing Spirit which you profess to separate from? 10. But your warning for a review hath brought me to Repent of, and Retract that passage against Tostatus, as being too rashly uttered: Because 1. He wrote when good Writers were more scarce than now. 2. Because he might be willing that other mens works should be preferred before his, and that his own should not be wholly read, but partly perused on particulas occasions. 3. And it is unseemly to reprove industry.

[Page]

Now we come to the Question after all this.

Sect. 33. IN stating of this Question, You do E. B p. 10. your self grant so much, that you scarce leave any thing to be either disputed or denyed—

R. B. Remember Reader,The Case, of separation! that my Professed design (on the Title page) is, 1. ‘To invite all sound and sober Christians, by what names soever called, to receive each other to Communion in the same Churches. 2. And where that (which is first desireable) cannot be attained, to bear with each other in their distinct Assemblies, and to manage them all in Christian Love.’ 3. And that under the first head, I particularly prove, that It is lawful to hold Communion with such Christian Churches, as have worthy or tolerable Pastors, notwithstanding the Parochial order of them, and the Ministers Conformity and use of the Common-Prayer Book.

This last is the true state of the Question which I affirm; with these two limitations or explications. That is, 1. That it is lawful statedly to communicate as a member, with such a Parish Church, where we cannot consideratis considerandis have Communion with a better upon lawful termes.

2. That those that can have stated Communion with a better, may yet lawfully communicate sometimes with such a Parish Church, [Page] as we may do on just occasion with a Church of Neighbours or Strangers where we live or come. Yea that we ought to do so when some special reasons (as from Authority Scandal, &c.) do require it.

These are the summ of my Assertions. Though my main cause oblige me as much to prove to a Conformist that he may have Communion with a Church of Non-conformists, yet I had no call to prosecute that particularly, as I had to the other, for the reasons which I rendred at large.

And this being the Case, judge now of this mans Dissent and furious opposition, whether sober people have reason to regard it, when he himself beginneth with this Confession, that I scarce leave any thing to be disputed or denyed. Self-condemnation. What honesty then is there in his denyals and disputes.

34

Sect. 34. E. B. 1. You grant that we are not to have Communion with a Diocesane Church as such,30th and 31st visible Untruths. and that we are not to own Diocesane Bishops?

R. B. Here are two more Untruths! I only said, that these are no part of our Question; they are things that I assert not; and that I meddled not with: And you feign me to grant the Negative, when I only say, I meddle not with it. I only say, that I hold no Communion my self with a Diocesane Church as such, in that form, &c. and that I perswade no others to it.

35

[Page]

Sect 35. E. B. 2. You allow that we are not to have Communion with Persecutors,32d & 33d Untru [...]hs. nor with such as have consented to our silencing.

R. B. I never wrote such a word, but only told you it was none of our question, and that I did not affirm it, and that it is none of the thing that I am perswading men to. And yet with this intimation pag. 9. that neither your selves nor I do avoid. Communion with all persecutors; seeing most Parties have been guilty of it. The Common-wealths men persecuted me and others, so far as to make Orders to Sequester us, for not taking the Engagement, and for not keeping their Fasts and Thanksgivings for the Warrs against Scotland; And yet I am not so rigid as to refuse communion with all that did it, or consented to it. My old special friend did persecute Mr. Sam. Fisher and Mr. Blake, when he turned them both out of Shrewsbury, from their Churches, labour, dwellings and maintenance, even when the Plague was begun and the people doubly sensible of their loss. And yet I refused not all Communion with such as did it. Its like you know who persecuted Mr. Caughton, Dr. Drake, Mr. Nalton, Mr. Arthur Jackson, Mr. Watson, Mr. Jenkins, &c. and Mr. Love and Gibbons; And yet who scrupleth Communion with them? Again I tell you, I mention not these for reproach, [Page] but only to set us in the impartial sense of the question.

36

Sect. 36. E. B. p. 11. All this and more— being granted, I scarce see what it is that you contend for—

R. B. What eyes then have you that cannot see that which I copiously and expresly speak?

37

Sect. 37. E. B. From these grounds separation at this day may be easily justified.

R. B. Blind sophistry and palpable fallacy. This is the undertaking by which you have drawn me to renew this debate, and therefore I shall try your proof.

38

Sect. 38. E. B. Every Parish Church is part of the Diocesane: And if a Diocesane Church as such is not to be Communicated with, then a Parish Church as such is to be separated from; since there is the same reason of the parts as of the whole: And you must find out a new Logick before you can prove, that if the whole be corrupt, any of the parts are clean, and fit for our Communion.

R. B. The name of Logick is incongruously used in such an Argument, as is so palpably fallacious. A Parish Church stands before us in three respects. 1. As it is a true Church of Christians, having all things Essential in Pastours and People. 2. As these Christians live in the bounds of a Parish. 3. As this Parish Church by the Laws of the Land is subject to the Diocesane, and so a [Page] part of his Diocess. How a Parish Church is or is not part of a Diocesane Church. Both the latter are meerly Accidental, and it hath all that is essential to a Church without them. As Mr. Jacob instanceth in Ordination, and so in Marriage; He that is marryed truly, is truly a Husband, though a Priest or Ring or some unnecessary accident was adjoyned.

Your reason is, 1. Ridiculously fallacious, 2. And if all were granted, reacheth not the Case.

1. It is Ridiculous, to argue, If a Diocesane Church as such is not to be communicated with, then a Parish Church as such is to be separated from. For the [as such] in the Antecedent and Consequent denoteth two several things: You should only have inferred [Then a Parish Church as part of a Diocesane is not to be Communicated with] Which is nothing to the question. And when you say that there is the same reason of the Parts and whole; I answer, that must be only as they are parts; but not in all other alien respects. If a Parish Church be to be disclaimed or not owned only as it is a part of a Diocesane Church, yet it may be owned, 1. As a true Church of Christians, in its constitution. 2. And as a Parish Church, limited by those bounds, without respect to the Diocesane.

2. And if it were to be disowned as a Parish Church, that also is nothing to the Question; For it may yet be owned for its Constitutive parts as a Christian Church.

[Page] I will shew you your Argument in another case. Suppose that Usurpers should alter the form of Kingly Government, and set up themselves in another form, and should allow all the Independent Churches in the Land, but set over them Civil officers in every County of their own; and should make a Law, that none shall be a member of a Church that liveth not within five miles of the Meeting place. In this case, the Church is a Church in its own Constitution; and that it is confirmed to a Parochial circuit, or that it is under usurping Magistrates is an accidental thing, which doth not nullifie it. And if you argue [If the Vsurpers Commonwealth as such, be not to be communicated with or owned, then the Church which is part of it is not to be owned. Yes, as a Church, but not as a part of the Common-wealth.

If Independent Churches were under the Turks Government, they may be parts of an Infidel and perhaps usurped Kingdom, and yet be true Churches and to be owned.

If Presbyterian Classical Churches be supposed sinful, and the Law said that all the Independent or particular Churches shall be under the several Classes, and be part of those Churches, the Churches will be true Churches nevertheless. For, 1. Perhaps most of them consent not to the Laws determination, but only forbear an open contradiction. 2. And in others of them the people may not consent though the Pastor do. 3. And if they do consent, and it be their sin, it will [Page] not nullifie the particular Church; being but an unwarrantable Accident.

If Vniversities were as unlawful as many Separatists judge them, yet Dr. Goodwins Church, e. g. in Oxford might have been part of the University, and yet a true Church, and to be disowned as part of the University, and yet not as a Church.

If you were a member of an unlawful Society, Army, Church, &c. You may be disowned as a member of that Society, and yet not as a Christian, or as a Man.

Now would not the Boyes laugh at you if you should reason thus: An usurped Heathenish Kingdom or Common-wealth, as such is unlawful, and not to be communicated with; A Classical Church as such is not to be communicated with; An University as such is not to be communicated with: Therefore such or such a particular Church as such is not to be communicated with, which is a part of that Kingdom, that Classis, that University! E. B. a Christian is a member of a Society which is not to be owned: Ergo E. B. a Christian as such is not to be owned. What more apparent than that the consequent should be but this? Therefore such a Church should not be owned, as it is a Part of such a Kingdom, Classis, Vniversity, &c. which is all accidental to the Church.

So that here is a double Equivocation, and more than four terms: 1. [As such] speaketh (as I said) one essence in the Antecedent, and another in the Consequent. [Page] 2. The word [Communicating] speaketh several things in the Antecedent and in the Consequent. For to Communicate with a Diocesane Church, is not to Assemble with it in publick Worship: For a Diocess (in our sense) cannot so assemble: but it is to own the Diocesane Relation, and Prelats. But to Communicate with a particular Church in a Parish, is to have personal Communion in the Worship of the Assembly. So that this is your Argument if put in plain words: [If it be unlawful to Communicate with a Diocesane Church as such, by owning the Diocesanes and the relation to them, then it is unlawful to communicate with a true particular Church in a Parish, (or bounded Parochially) in the Assembly Worship as it is such a particular Church, which is part of that Diocesane Church: But, &c.] Answ. Yes, It may be unlawful to communicate with it as a Part, and that by Diocesane Communion; but not as a true Church of Christians by assembly communion.

Or thus [It is unlawful, e. g. to have communion with the Army of Maximus, Cromwel, &c. as such: But many Christians are parts of the Army of Maximus, Cromwel, &c. Therefore it is unlawful to have communion with those Christians: Because there is the same reason of the parts as of the whole. Ans. 1. Christians are not parts of the Army as Christians, but as those Souldiers. 2. It is unlawful to have Military Communion with them as parts of that Army; but not to have Christian Communion with them as Christians.

[Page] May not even the simple now easily see (if you will not) by what ignorant erroneous reasons you zealously labour to deceive the people of God, to divide the Churches?

39

Sect. 39. E. B. 2. A Parish Minister is (in that station and office) but a servant of the Diocesane Bishop;The same fallacy with an untruth. and therefore rightly called a Curate, and if we may not own (as you grant) the Bishop, I think it will necessarily follow, that his substitute and curate hath no reason to expect any respect from us—

R. B. The same fallacy is so palpable that a small measure of reason may discern it. 1. It is false that he is in that Office [But a Servant] The truth is,Whether a Parish Minister be but a servant to the Diocesane. the Law maketh him not a servant at all, but only an Ecclesiastical Subject. But if you had said, He is but a subject, it had not been true, if [But] be exclusive of his other Pastoral Relation. For he is by the Law, the Priest, the Teacher, the Rector of that Parish Church in subordination to the Bishop.

2. But whatever he be by the Law of the Land, or by the Bishops will, the faithful Ministers in Parish Churches are by Christs own Commission, the true Pastors of the flocks; having all things essential to that Relation.

3. But deceive not your Reader by intimating, that I speak of a Parochial Minister as Parochial, (not quâ but qui:) For Parish Bounds are but Accidents of the Churches: It is Christian Churches as such, though Parochial or so [Page] bounded, that I speak of. A Christian Pastor with his Christian flock (e. g. Mr. Gataker, Mr. Marshall, Dr. Stoughtion, Dr. Seaman, Mr. Sedgwicke, Dr. Gouge and such like) do constitute a true Christian Church, though in Parish bounds. And as such Pastours they are the Ministers of Christ, and not servants to Diocesanes: And their subordination to Diocesans by the Law is but accidental to their Pastoral office.

How many volumes of the old Non-conformists give you this Answer? And if you have read them, why would you dissemble it, and give no Reply to it? If you never read them, is it modesty to despise them?

40

Sect. 40. E. B. p. 11. [If Persecutors are not to be communicated with, nor such as have consented to our silencing (which you also allow) (though I could wish you had proved it better than by the obscure & disputable example of Martin) then I think very few, if any of the Parish-Ministers, but must even upon that account also be separated from; since either by open consent, or else by an Vndoing and Pernicious silence they have all made themselves guilty of that grievous sin: There being but little difference in the sight of God, between the persecuting Brethren our selves, and (by not sharply reproving it) seeming to approve of it in others.

[Page] R. B. 1. Your repeated mistake of my [allowing] that which I only meddle not with, Whether all the Parish Ministers consent to persecution. but exclude from the question; or oppose not, I pass by. 2. Every one that is by remote consequence guilty of our silencing doth not consent to it. Otherwise You, and I, and all the silenced Ministers in England do consent to it. For he is blindly impenitent that will deny that we are any way guilty of it.

3. You do but cover one open sin with another;Slander. even separation with uncharitable slander of many hundred godly Conformable Ministers, whom you accuse of this consent. I know scarce any one of my acquaintance whom I take for a faithful diligent Pastor, and whom I perswade men to hear, but they are grieved at the heart for the silencing of so many and such. I hear some complain of it privately, and some lament it publickly, and earnestly pray that God would restore them; But I never heard one of them own it.

4. I plead not for Vndoing, Pernicious silence: I think too many are deeply guilty by it: My testimony in this case is visible among the Writings whose number you prove me proud by. But if you make this a proof of the duty of separation, you will make mad work of it. For, 1. You know not mens opportunities to speak: And where there is no opportunity, there its no duty. 2. You know not who hath spoken their dissent plainly and who not. It may [Page] he some have done it in the Convocation: It may be some have done it privately,Of reproving sharply the sins of others. and some publickly already in due season. And we are not to expect an account from them of all that they say. 3. To whom is it that you would have all the Countrey Ministers speak against our silencing? To those that did it they have no access; and they are out of hearing. And must they needs talk to the people of their superiours actions, and speak against them behind their backs? 4. If we know that one, two, twenty have spoken or written plainly in reproof of a sin, are all the Ministers in the Land bound to do the same over again? Must they all leave their flocks to come up to London to do it? Or must they every one publish his reproof in Print? 5. All silence, or not-reproving is not a seeming consent: much less in Gods sight little different from persecution. Were all the Churches in the Empire Persecutors, or to be separated from, which did not reprove the Emperours for banishing Athanasius, and Chrysostom and such others? Of all the silenced Ministers in London or England, how small a number is there that have [sharply reproved] the silencers? And perhaps they that have done it most sharply may have been more sharp than did beseem them.

To conclude Readers,Narrow Communion. mark here by this reason how few you must hold communion with in the Land or in the world, if you will be the Disciples of Mr. Bagshaw; Away from Conformists and Non-conformists that [Page] have [sharply reproved] persecutors. This is the way to be able to guess at the names and numbers of those that by his rule you must Communicate with.

5. But what if they have sharply reproved this one sin? you cannot prove that they themselves have done so by all other sins: Even you your self have left some unreproved: And will not the want of the sharp reproving of other sins as well as of persecution, make your communion with such unlawful?

6. But at the worst; not reproving can be but a particular sin? And it is not every particular sin that maketh Communion unlawful.

7. And have you first admonished them of that sin, and tryed all these Ministers whether they be penitent? Yea or ever heard them speak for themselves? Or do you reject Matth. 18. 15. and make to your self and followers a new Law, that whomsoever you shall suspect or accuse of sin, you must also separate from?

8. But by this rule of yours, methinks few if any should be liker to be accepted in your communion than my self, if reproving persecution would serve turn. And yet even I also am rejected by you, as being not wise or good enough to communicate with such as you, but as one of the worst of Hereticks to be rejected of all.

[Page] 9. But I beseech you give your Readers leave here to remember,Mr. Bagshaw obligeth me to reprove him sharply, left I be guilty of his sin. if you will not, that your own doctrine imposeth it on me as my duty, to Reprove you sharply as I have done; while you teach the world, that it is but little different in the sight of God, to persecute, and not sharply to reprove it, and so disown it. For if it make the sins of my superiours mine, if I do not sharply reprove them, and make me almost as guilty as they, I shall not be innocent if I reprove not you sharply, when it is to me that you direct your words. And I had rather be thought too sharp, than be guilty of all the crimes and falshoods of this your Script, especially when you are the accuser of my silence your self.

41

Sect. 41. E. B. Lastly, admitting there are some worthy and able men, among the Parish Ministers (which for my own part I believe never a whit the more because you affirm it) yet this we must say, that their sin is great in submitting to so undue a way of entering into the Ministry; and therefore we both forbear our selves, and warn all others not to hear them; because we cannot think our Lord Christ ever sent such to Preach in his name, who directly and by a solemn Oath have renounced their Christian liberty under pretence of Preaching Christ; and are indeed nothing else (as to the whole discharge and exercise of their office) but servants of men—in consistent with being servants of Christ.

[Page] R. B. 1. Either you think there are some worthy able men among them, or you do not. If you do, why should you be so malignant as to question the assertion of it, and so loth to grant it? If you do not, how unfit is so false and malignant an accuser of the brethren,All sinners are not to be separated from. to be the conducter of souls, or the Historian of the age, that will not know a thing so publick and notorious.

2. As for your not believing me, no men are so hardly brought to believe the truth from others, as they that are conscious of ordinary falshood from themselves.

3. I think I could prove their sin as effectually as you can: But must we separate from all sinners? or from all that sin in their entrance into the Ministry? And why not as well from all other sins of equal greatness? Do you warn all others not to hear your self? Or do you yet take your self to be no sinner? or no great sinner? What if the Presbyterians think the Independents way of entrance to be undue? And the Independents think so of the Presbyterians? And both of the Anabaptists? and the Anabaptists of them both, &c. Must they all therefore warm all men not to hear each other? Mr. Nye thought not so, when he wrote for such hearing publick Ministers. Is it fit for the Author of two Books of Calumnies and bold Untruths, besides false Doctrines and other Crimes, to say [Their sin is great, &c. and therefore we both forbear our selves, and warn all others not to hear them?]

[Page] 4. Most that I speak of did enter into the Ministry in the Presbyterian or Independent way heretofore, and do but continue on the terms which I dissent from as well as you. How then can you say they unduely enter into the Ministry?

5. Did you know before you wrote this, that all such as we perswade men to hear, have by Oath renounced their Christian Liberty? what Oath is it that you mean? If you mean the Oath of Supremacy or Allegiance, unless Popery be Christian Liberty, we know of none such which these renounce. And I know of no other Oath, except that of Canonical obedience in licitis & honestis. And for that, 1. I find not that the Act, or Canons do impose it on those that come for Ordination; (nor am so well skil'd in the Law as to know by what Law it is done;) 2. I know that men have been ordinarily ordained without it. And to such your reason for separation is vain. 3. Mr. Bradshaw and other old Non-conformists were wont to say that they obeyed the Diocesanes, and so did promise them obedience, only as they are the Kings Officers, deputed for the exercise of that Civil or Coercive power which Magistrates have in Causes called Ecclesiastical. And what Liberty doth that give away?

4. But suppose that you are the wiser man, and that those that are more ignorant do mistakingly think that Canonical obedience,6th False doctrine. and the Oath [Page] (with that of Supremacy) to be their duty, and no renouncing of their Christian liberty▪ Is it not false doctrine to conclude, that Christ never sent out any that had as great a sin as this? what none? when he sent out Judas himself, who was first a Thief and after a Traytor? Do you think then that Christ ever sent out Lyars, Railers, furious Church-dividers, false accusers, &c?

5. That indeed they are nothing else, 34th Falshood and slander. as to the whole discharge and exercise of their office, but the servants of men, is another slander and untruth. He that is a servant of Christ, and a true Pastor of a Christian Church, and a sound Preacher of the Gospel, and an helper of believers faith, and a lover of the peoples souls, and a diligent upright labourer for mens salvation, is something else than a servant of man (even in the discharge of their Ministerial office.) But such are many of the Conformable Ministers: Ergo—

Prove if you can that Dr. Preston, Sibbes, Stoughton, Whittaker, Mr. Bolton, Whateley, Gataker, Fenner, and all the late Assembly save eight or nine at most (being all Conformists) were nothing else but the servants of men, and not at all the servants of Christ. Your Father thought otherwise of Mr. Bolton, and perhaps they were both as wise as you. Prove now that Mr. Gurnal, Mr. Trap, Dr. Lightfoot, Dr. Walker, Mr. Langley, and many others that I can name that are worthy men in London and round about it, are nothing else but the servants of men? And [Page] will it not be as hard to prove one to be a servant of Christ who serveth Satan by falshood and malice, and calumniating Christs Churches and Servants, as those that are thus the servants of men.

42

Sect. 42. E. B. 35th Falshood. For the question is not (as you weakly and insignificantly word it) whether a Defective, faulty, true Church may ordinarily (or at least sometimes be joyned with] But whether a defective, faulty, imposing Church is not to be separated from.]

R. B. 1. You begin here with another untruth: I was the stater of the Question, and did not referr it to you to state it: I chose that question to dispute which I thought fittest: Therefore to tell me that it not the question, which is the question, is untrue.

2. We have here another taste of your insolency: To call them Magisterially [weak and insignificant] words, which you design not to examine, nor once notifie to the Reader, wherein the Weakness or Insignificancy is, nay which we suppose you in the next sentence use your self, expresly in all the words save one, and implicitly as to that: For Defective and faulty are words that you condescend to use: And when you say [a Church] you must mean a Church that hath Truth of Essence▪ or else you speak equivocally or contradiction. And may not a True Church be faulty and Defective? where then is the insignificancy of these words?

[Page] 3. And as to the Predicate, Is there a difference between the Questions, whether such a Church may be joyned with? and whether it must be separated from? If there be, I will put the question as hath least ambiguity. I mean [such separation, as consisteth, 1. In holding that such a Church may not be joyned with. 2. And as consisteth in a privative not-joyning, or refusing Communion as unlawful.] If you mean any thing else, you talk not to me, and to my question.

4. But is all the stress of separation laid upon the word [Imposing?] I undertook to prove that the Parish Ministers that I speak of, do not Impose upon the people; unless officiating be imposing: As Separatists themselves impose their own Words of Prayer, upon the people that are to joyn with them; It being the Ministers office to word his Prayers and praises, he imposeth them on the people: And all other circumstances in which the Pastor doth and must guide the flock (as what Chapter shall be read, what Psalm, Meeter, Tune, Time, &c.) I think the Separatists impose. And I know not that the Minister whom I hear doth impose any more on me: Therefore by your own rule▪ I am not bound to separate from this Parish Church, because it is no Imposing Church. It is Imposed on, but it doth not Impose that I know of.

43

[Page]

Sect. 43. E. B. 7. False doctrines at lest implyed. This we affirm, 1. Because we know not how else to preserve our Christian Liberty (which it is an indispensible duty to maintain) but by separating from those that would unduly take it from us.

R. B. These universal terms not limited nor expounded are to be taken universally; And so here are two false doctrines; one that it is indispensible duty to maintain all our Christian liberty, and the other that we know not how else to maintain it▪ But if by this Liberty, you mean but some sort of liberty, and not all, you should have distinguished, if you would not deceive. And if by [we know not] you intend only a Confession of your own ignorance, that would be no proof of the point in hand, because that may be true, which you know not.

1. There is a Liberty called Christian, Q. 1. Whether it is an indispensible duty to maintain all our Christ [...]an liberty, or what? because it is essential to Christianity; (as to be freed from the Covenant of Works, and from the Guilt and Reign of sin, and from the power of Satan, and the state of enmity against God, &c.) 2. There is a Liberty called Christian, because it is procured and given us by Christ, though not essential to Christianity; (as to eat of this meat or that, flesh or herbs, to be free from the observation of certain dayes, and Customs, and Ceremonies, not sinful in themselves.) 3. There is a Liberty called Christian, because Christians have it in common with all other men, or with many: (as to marry or not marry; [Page] to live in this Countrey, or that; to be free from oppression, injuries, slanders, persecution, when they can.)

And we must distinguish of the word [Our] that is, we must shew how far this Liberty is Ours indeed. 1. It is one thing to be Ours Necessarily, or as you say Indispensibly, and another thing to be ours when we can get it, keep it, or use it, without a greater loss than it will compensate, or a greater hurt to others. It is one thing to be ours in fundamental right, to be used at fit times, and another thing to be ours, to be alwayes used.

Prop. 1.Luke 14. 18. The Liberty which is essential to our Christianity or Godliness, is indispensibly to be maintained and exercised,Isa. 61. 1. Gal. 5. 1.2 Pet. 2. 19, 20, 21.

Prop. 2.Act. 18. 26. All degrees of the same liberty must be maintained,2 Tim. 2. 26. as well as the essentials; that is,2 Cor. 3. 17. we must labour to be as free as we can from all the degrees of sin, and misery: But we cannot here have what we would.Heb. 2. 14, 15.

Prop. 3. There is a Liberty to use certain things as statedly or ordinarily Indifferent,Gal. 4▪ 3, 9. which is none of Ours (to use them) in several Cases,Romans 8. 15, 2. which take away the Indifferency,Iohn 8▪ 31, 36. (as in case of scandal, or greater hurt to others or our selves,Romans 6. 16, 18, 22. or of the restraint of just authority.)

Prop. 4. The same must be said of forbearing things indifferent.

Prop. 5. Our Liberty from persecution, oppression, injuries, slanders, must be patiently let go, as being none of ours, when it [Page] cannot be kept by lawful means, or without a greater hurt, Acts 22. 28, &c.

Prop. 6. But our Liberty in either of these three last mentioned Cases, ought not causelesly to be taken from us by others, nor must be causelesly cast away by our selves; nor should we yield to false Teachers, who would deceive the Churches, by telling them that they are under Divine Obligations, when they are not; and make them believe that things lawful are unlawful, and things indifferent are necessary, Gal. 2. 4, 5. Col. 2. 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23. Acts 15. 1 Cor. 7. 21, 22.

The third Proposition is it that I am to prove. And Pauls becoming all things to all men, to save some, a Jew to the Jews, his shaving his head, his circumcising Timothy, with the reasons of it, his resolution to forbear the eating of flesh, rather than offend the weak, and his perswading others to do the like, do fully prove it. He maintaineth the Christians Right of Liberty against false Teachers; but he maintaineth not the Exercise of it, when he had reason to let it go: For Liberty is not necessity, 1 Cor. 9. 1. Am I not free? 4, 5. Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a Sister, a Wife, as well as other Apostles? 12. If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power, but suffered all things lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ.—15. But I have used none of these things—19▪ For though I be free from all [Page] men, yet have I made my self servant to all, that I might gain the more: And unto the Jews I became a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; To them that are under the Law, as under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law: To them that are without the Law, as without Law, that I might gain them that are without Law. To the weak I became as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the Gospels sake—See 1 Cor. 8. 13. Rom. 14. 21. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Christ himself saith, Matth. 17. 26. Then are the children free: notwithstanding lest we should offend, go thou, &c. and give them for me and thee.

1 Pet. 2. 16. As free, (that is, as such as by Christ are freed from true bondage, but not from order and subjection, and therefore [not having or using liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. No man hath liberty to be unruly or hurtfull.

Rom. 7. 3. If her husband be dead, she is free from that Law, and yet may give away that freedom.

Yea, of the very liberty from the Jewish Law, the Apostle saith, Gal. 5. 13. For ye have been called unto liberty (q. d. therefore let not false Teachers perswade you that you are bound to that which you are freed from) only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by [Page]Love serve one another] q. d. in the exercise of this Liberty you must do or not do the things you are at liberty in, as may do most good, according as the Law of Love requireth, and not as your own carnal interest and lust inclineth you: For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, in this, Thou shalt Love thy neighbour as thy self.

1 Cor. 16. 25, 28, 29, 30, 31. Whatsoever is sold in the Shambles eat, asking no question for conscience sake—But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice to Idols, eat not, for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake (Thus our liberty is not to be exercised against Love: for we have no liberty to hurt our brethren) 29. Conscience I say, not thine own, but of the others: Thus others by weakness, and consequently Rulers by authority may restrain the exercise of our liberty) For why is my liberty judged of another mans Conscience? that is, Not that his Conscience is the Rule of my Right, or his judgement taketh away my title to liberty; but his interest and the Law of Love, do take away my Right of using my liberty to anothers hurt. 3. For if I by grace be a partaker (that is, lawfully according to my Christian liberty) why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks, (that is, it is a fault in those that accuse me of sin, when I do that which is lawful, in it self, abstracted from the Consequents or scandal): Whether therefore ye eat or drink, (which are things indifferent as to the kind of [Page] food) or whatsoever ye do (how lawful in it self soever) do all to the glory of God (For the interest of the End must guide and restrain you in the use even of things in themselves indifferent: For no man hath liberty to dishonour God, nor to hurt another, (nor to disobey just power.)

I beseech you therefore while you promise men liberty, be not your self, and make not them the servants of sin, 2 Pet. 2. 19. And take notice that Liberty must be distinguished as to Right, and as to Vse, And that the use must often be denyed, and not maintained.

2. Let us next see Whether there be no way but separation in our Case, Q. 2. Whether there be no way but separation, to preserve our Christian liberty? to preserve our liberty? Paul hath here shewed you another way: 1. By doctrinal defence to defend it against false Teachers, that would doctrinally brings us into bondage. To maintain against such as you who add to Gods Laws, that we are not bound to do that which is not commanded, or to forbear that which is not by God forbidden, though you say we are. 2. To use our Liberty as it tendeth to Gods glory and mans good, and disuse it when it crosseth these, (but not deny our right.) This is the Scripture way of preserving it: and not to think that we have no way to preserve it, but by doing hurt, or crossing Love by Church-divisions.

3. No falshood is a just defence of our Christian liberty: But to say, that a true Church is no true Church, or true Worship [Page] is no true Worship, or that it is not Lawful to communicate where it is lawful, is a falshood. Therefore it is no just defence of our Liberty.

44

Sect. 44. E. B. p. 12. 2. Being present where those things are used in the Worship of God, which God hath not commanded, this would involve us in the guilt and contagion of them: nor do we believe (however we have your word for the contrary) the Lord will otherwise interpret it; since he hath so strictly charged us, to keep far from a false matter, and not to partake in other mens sins.

R. B. Here are two more false doctrines intimated:8. False doctrine. 1. That to use things in the Worship of God which he hath not commanded (without exception) is a sin. 2. That being present where they are used,9. False doctrine. involveth us in the guilt.

Where note, 1. That it is not Part of the Worship, but things used in the Worship, that he speaketh of. 2. That I proved the contrary to both these at large, and the man saith only that he hath my word for the contrary, and giveth not a syllable of answer to my twenty instances, and many undenyable reasons to the contrary. Doth he not either highly esteem his own reason and authority, that thinketh it should be received, if he do but say the word, without attempting to answer whats said against him: or else doth he not greatly despise his own Readers and followers, in taking them for such credulous [Page] ductile souls, as will take his bare word without expecting any reason from him to confute what is said on the other side? Or is all this on presumption, that his Reader will not know what I have said? Sermon Notes, Meeters, Tunes, printed Bibles (as printed) and divided into Chapters and Verses, the words of a Sermon or Prayer, the particular Method, Cups, Tables, &c. are used in the Worship of God without any particular command, or any command for this, rather than that, in cases of indifferency: And yet all these are not therefore unlawful.

And I proved that all Ministers, and Families sin in Gods Worship, and yet that it is not therefore lawful to separate from them all. If you your self say that you say nothing in preaching or praying but what is commanded you, and that your Worship hath no sin, you deceive your self, and the truth is not in you. But if you think it a sin for any to hear you, or have communion with you, why do you not plainly tell your hearers so? To keep far from a false matter, (as from writing falshoods by the dozens) and not to partake of other mens sins, is one thing; and for Children to tell their Fathers, or People their Pastors, we must not worship God with you, because in Forms, Words, Method, you do something not commanded, yea, because through error you do somewhat sinful, is another thing.

45

[Page]

Sect. 45. E. B. Lastly, Whatever pretences may be used, for the keeping of Peace, yet (to speak strictly so as to satisfie Conscience) Peace is but ill bought, if we must purchase it at so dear a rate as the loss of truth: And this Truth concerning the sole Soveraign Power of our Lord Christ in appointing all matters of his Worship—is a point so necessary to be maintained, and so utterly inconsistent with the supposing that any thing is to be obtruded which he hath not commanded, that we dare not allow our selves in the practice of any thing which may prejudice that fundamental.

R. B. 1. How oft have I answered that saying about selling Truth for Peace, Whether not separating be prejudicial to a fundamental, viz Christs Soveraignty? and must hear it again in the old confusion without any notice of what hath been said. See my Treatise of Infant Baptism on that point particularly. Do I fell thirty three Truths, when I read thirty three untruths in your Writings? Do I sell Truth, if I should hear you preach or pray erroneously, and impose your confused prayers on the people? or impose this or that Metre or Tune on them in singing of Psalms?

2. Here you say [Matters of Worship] before it was [in Worship.] And even the word. [Worship] is taken so variously, as calls for explication, before we determine whether man may appoint matters of Worship: For if you will call [putting off the Hat] and reverent gestures, in particular, and Metres, and Tunes, and the Method and [Page] words of the particular Prayer or Sermon, by the name of Worship, then man may appoint it.

3. It is an untrue supposition, and but a begging of the question, that our presence with any thing obtruded unlawfully, is a prejudice to that fundamental of the Soveraignty of Christ. All men that sin do sin against his Soveraignty: And all that obtrude any thing unlawfully, sin against it by that obtrusion. But if you obtrude a rash and passionate prayer on the people, or an erroneous or disorderly prayer, or an ill-composed Hymn or Psalm, their presence is no approbation of your error, nor denying of Christs Soveraignty.

Do you, or can you believe and make all your followers believe, that the Synagogue-Worship, and the Temple-Worship were kept so pure, by the Priests, Levites, and Pharisees in Christs dayes, as that there was nothing of humane Tradition obtruded? Or nothing but what God commanded? Can you believe this? Or can you believe that Christ was not usually or often present there? See Luke 4. 16. At Nazareth where he had been brought up, as his custom was, he went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day—And of Paul its said, Acts 17. 2. As his manner was, he went in to them, and three Sabbath dayes reasoned—Or do you believe, that Christ was a sinner? and that he contradicted his own Soveraignty? What! and yet be a perfect Saviour? Who is it [Page] now that prejudiceth fundamentalls?

46

Sect. 46. E. B. And we judge we have sufficient warrant from what the Apostles did in a like case, Acts 15. 24. For if they reproved such as preached up Circumcision and other Legal Ceremonies, at that day, when as the Apostles had given them no such Commandment, saying of them, that they subverted or spoiled the souls of the Disciples, then may we affirm the like of those men now, who in things equally indispensible, do act with every whit as little authority, from whom on that very account we think it our duty to separate.

R. B. 1. The authority of the King and lawful Magistrates is more about the Circumstantials of Worship (as whether Abiathar shall be High Priest, &c.) than the false Teachers was about that doctrine.

2. The Apostles do indeed declare that they sent them not to preach,The Case Acts 15. or not such doctrine: But thats not the thing on which they lay the great accusation, but on the false and dividing doctrine which they preached. Christ saith of one that cast out Devils in his Name, and followed him not, Let him alone; he that is not against us, is for us: And Moses wisht all the Lords people were Prophets: But these false Teachers would have made the keeping of Moses Law to be necessary to salvation: And can you prove that the Minister doth so, whom I use to hear? Do all the Parish Ministers do so? Can you see no difference between one that [Page] saith, The Law or Cannons command me to use this Surplice or Form as an indifferent thing:] and one that saith [Except you do this or that, you break Gods Law and cannot be saved: Except you separate from all Parish Churches, you sin against God, and prejudice a fundamental? Sure it is one thing to say, God saith this, or binds you to this, or forbids you this? and its another thing to say, The King, or the Bishop saith it.

3. And what is it that keepeth you from seeing how strongly you confute your self?Acts 15. against the Sparatists. Is there a word in Acts 15. to forbid all Church communion with those that taught even this subverting false doctrine? How many Texts be there that intimate that the Churches long (without a prohibition) held communion with the erronious judaizing Christians? Till they grew obstinate, and grew up to a Heresie, and were the Separaters themselves, and did subvert the Gospel and faith of Christ. But yet prove that such doctrine is held by our Parish Churches, and I will leave them: Do not the Independents offer to subscribe the Doctrine of the Church of England? Sure then they think its Doctrinals to be sound.

47

Sect. 47. E. B. By two Arguments you labour to defend your irregular way of Communion: 1. That in the Primitive Churches there were many corruptions, which the Apostle writes against, but doth not advise any because of them to separate. But I answer—It is not [Page] corruption or error barely considered as such, that we account to be a sufficient ground of separation: But the Imposing of that error with on high hand, and making a submission to it (at least in our practice and outward observance) the very condition of Communion: This we say, is a thing which necessitates us to make a separation.

R. B. Mark that you distinguish not of Corruption or Error, Mr. Bagshaw's too loose communion with all Hereticks that impose not. nor except any, but what is Imposed. And when I had answered all this so fully, why will you deign to confute a Book, while you disdain to take notice what it saith?

1. Who would have thought that you are so much looser in your communion than we are? I will separate from that Church which in the essential matter (Pastor, or all the flock) after admonition retaineth such Corruption and Error, as is directly contrary to any essential point of Christianity, though they impose it not on others: But by these words it seems, as scrupulous as you are, you would not separate from Hereticks or Ungodly ones, if they do not Impose their Heresie and Impiety!

2. How oft have I urged you to prove, that our publick Parish Ministers whom I advise men to hear, do Impose any more than you your self do?His own Imposing. By choosing what Chapter to read, you impose on the people to hear that Chapter then or none? By choosing what Place, Hour, Method, Words, ye [...], Matter, and Metre, Tune, &c. you impose [Page] upon the people to joyn in all these, or not to have communion with you therein. And so our Teacher doth by reading Common-Prayer and wearing the Surplice, impose on us to hear him so reading, or to stay away. But he maketh no Laws: he commandeth us no Ceremony: They are commanded by others, and not by him: And it is not in your own practice of any thing forbidden of God, that I advise men to have communion with such; but only in Gods true Worship, though in the circumstances or manner the Minister himself, say or do something that is forbidden; as every Teacher in the world doth, though not in the same degree. It is one thing to submit to be present at the Worship, which the Pastor performeth in some faulty manner: And another thing wilfully to do evil your self, or to approve of his failings or your own.

48

Sect. 48. E. B. To which I add only this, that however the presenting our bodies at a Worship which we do not inwardly approve of, may render us excusable, and justiste us among men, yet we are sure it will not in the sight of God who hates hypocrisie—

R. B. Though you confound,Of approving what we joyn in. I must distinguish the essentials of the Worship from the circumstances, and outward imperfections in the manner. I do inwardly approve of the matter or substance of the Worship which I joyn in, in the main; and labour to pray with my heart when I joyn in the Common-prayer; [Page] though I consent not to the whole Method, nor to the defects. And when I hear a man in free prayer use confusion, disorder, unseemly words,Whether he be an Hypocrite, who joyneth with any manner of Worship which he approveth not? and when I hear one man drop the error of an Arminian, or a Lutheran, another of an Antinomian, another of an Anabaptist, another of a Separatist, &c. in his prayer, I do not inwardly approve of that error or disorder, any more than of the defects of forms: And yet if it were hypocrisie to be present, I would joyn with no man living. Can all your hearers inwardly approve of all that you say, if you preach and pray but as you write? If they can, its time to pitty them. And are they Hypocrites else for joyning with you?

49

Sect. 49 E. B. p. 14. 1. This is clear in Scripture,Self-contradiction. that our Lord Christ (who was himself holy and separated from sinners) did never call or design his Church to be an impure mixt body of holy and unholy without any distinction, blended and hudled up together, but—to be an holy separate people—and to depart from unrighteousness.

R. B. 1. Remember Reader, (for he will not remember) that but even now he told us, that it is not Corruption and Error barely as such, that is a sufficient ground of separation, without Imposition: And now here is nothing but Mixture of Holy and Vnholy. Reconcile these if you can.

2. Christ that was perfectly separated from sinners, had yet ordinary communion with [Page] sinners in a sinful or culpable manner of performance (unless the Jews were all perfect) Therefore our separation must be such as Christs was, in our measure.

3. Impurity, and unholiness, and sin is not the Matter of Gods Call, or designment either in the Church or out; but of his Permission: But Communion with those Churches which by permission have sin and impurity in them, is a commanded thing. And they that must depart from iniquity,Whether no Church may be communicated with that is not such as Christ called and designed it to be? must not alwayes depart from the worshipping Assembly where some unrighteous persons are. Your argument, if it be any, must run this: Christ did never call or design his Church to be an impure mixt body of holy and unholy. The Parish Churches which you perswade us to communion with, are impure mixt bodies: Therefore the Parish Churches are such as Christ never called or designed them to be. Suppose we grant you the Conclusion: Whoever is a sinner is such as Christ never called or designed him to be. But your Question intimateth that you would argue thus. [Whatever Church is such as Christ did not call it or design it to be, is not to be communicated with: But all the Parish Churches are such as Christ did not call or design them to be; Ergo—The Minor you prove, Whatever Church is an impure mixt body of holy and unholy, &c. is such as Christ did not call or design them to be: But the Parish Churches are such—

But I answer you; 1. A Church is no [Page] Church that wants the Essentials required by Christ: But he that will not communicate with Church or person that wants the Perfection which Christ calleth them to, shall communicate with no Church or person on Earth.

2. The word [mixt] is ambiguous; and implyeth a double act; one of the Impure part, and that Christ designeth not, but forbiddeth: the other of the holy, who joyn with some that are unholy; and that in some Cases Christ commandeth, and did practise himself.

3. Without distinction indeed it should not be: for Discipline is appointed to distinguish regularly.

4. Take home the argument, and try it on your self. [Whatever Church is such as Christ did not call and design it to be, is not to be communicated with: But a Church that hath an erroneous Preacher, or an erroneous sinful people is such as Christ did not call or design it to be: Ergo—And will you then communicate with any in the world, or any with you?

50

Sect. 50. E. B. p. 14. Though through the Corruption of men and negligence of Church-Officers, many ungodly prophane Formalists and hypocrites did (and daily do) creep in; yet there is a strict command given to put such out of the Church, and turn aside from them—If such are to be withdrawn from, then if any Church which is admonished concerning [Page] them shall still maintain, abett and countenance them, that Church is defiled, and unfit to be communicated with, 1 Cor. 5. 7. Eccles. 9. 18. Heb. 12. 15.

R. B. 1. It is only gross sinners, after just Admonition upon proof, that are to be put out. The Officers ought not to do it without proof. 2. Have you or others rightly Admonished every Parish Minister that you call us to separate from, and convicted them upon proof, when you have heard them speak for themselves?When a Church is to be separated from for approving sin? 3. And who gave you authority so to examine other Pastors, being but a single person? 4. We easily grant (and earnestly desire) that true Church-Justice should make a difference: But in case the Officers do not their duty, it is none of the peoples duty to separate therefore, haveing done their own part, except in these cases: 1. That the Error or Crime be so great, as to be inconsistent with Christianity, or Church communion. 2. That the Church do not only neglect it, but deliberately Own that Error or Crime in its aggravated state, as it is so inconsistent with Christianity or Communion; Not only being consequentially guilty of it, (as the best man may be of the most heinous sin of another, by some omission of his duty to cure it) but making it their profession or Practice. 3. That this be done, not by some particular members only, but by an essential part of the Church, that is, either by the Pastor, or by the main body of the people. 4. That this be fully [Page]proved, or so notorious as to need no proof. 5. That they be impenitent herein after due admonition: When these five things concur, it is a duty to separate from a Church as unfit for Christian Communion. (And in lower cases it is a duty to prefer a Better, when we can have it.)

But its much higher (or lower rather) that you go:10. F. doctrin You say [A Church which after admonition and discovery of offenders, will not use her authority to cast them out.] This may be by mis-information on the sinners side, or by meer negligence, as in Eli's case, and may be a great sin, and yet not the same in kind, as that which should be censured; nor such as will unchurch that Church, nor make its communion unlawful to the innocent.

As to your proofs, the Texts you▪ cite are all written to the whole Churches as Churches, who are bid put them away, &c. save that to Timothy, and Rev. 2. which is to the Church-Rulers. And it followeth not, that if a Church, or Church-Rulers who have the power of the Keyes, are bid to reject or cast out, or not suffer an Heretick or wicked person, and to have no fellowship with them, therefore every member is forbidden to have Communion with that Church in Gods Worship, unless they cast such a one out. I did by many Scripture instances, Rev. 2. & 3. & 1 Cor. 11. & 15, &c. prove the contrary, to which you give no answer.

5. Let all sober Readers note how few in [Page] the world we shall have communion with on your terms. How certainly you will turn all Churches into strife and bitter envyings, confusion, and every evil work. For Railers and Covetous among the rest, are those that must be avoided: And if any member of the Church shall think that one Railer, or one Covetous person is kept in unjustly, away they must go, and condemn the Church as unworthy of Communion. And who will not think that read your Book, that you would be one of the first accused of Railing? Yea, how few even of the strictest separating Churches are they, that neglect not Discipline upon some one person? It may be it may be a rich or powerful man, that will persecute or divide the Church if he be cast out? Is there no Gathered Churches (as they are called) that have one Railing woman in, or one Covetous person?

6. But Sir, our question is not only of the Communion of Members, but also of strangers occasionally and rarely: And what call hath a stranger to try the Discipline of another Church? Or what opportunity hath he to know all their members crimes, and to admonish them? Why may not I in my travail communicate with a Church whose members and Discipline I know not? At least all Parish Churches have not been thus admonished by you.

51

Sect. 51. E. B. p. 14. Lastly, Which will fully answer the scruple, It is to be considered, [Page] that the Primitive Churches were setled by the Apostles, and constituted according to the Divine pattern, having all the Ordinances of Christ, and true Officers rightly established among them; so that though many scandalous sins did break out, and were visible among some of the members, yet a power was still retained in each Church for the keeping themselves pure by casting out offenders; whereby they were kept to the institution and orders of Christ, without any universal innovation or degenerating in those Essentials of Order as well as Doctrine, which they fell into in the ages after; and when Antichristianism (which was then working) did manifestly shew it self, not only in rejecting truth, 2 Thess. 2. but in imposing error, Rev. 13. 16, 17. then was separation made necessary.

R. B. Reader, this confused huddle of words it seems is the thing he trusteth to as a full answer to the scruple. But 1. If such Churches are to be communicated with, as yet retain all the Essentials of Office, Order and Doctrine, then those are to be communicated with, that are now in question: But the former seemeth here intimated by himself, That our said Churches have all such essentials, is thus proved. Whereever there are true Pastors and a Christian flock related mutually as such, receiving the holy Scriptures as such, there are all things essential to a true Church, for Office, Order and Doctrine. But it is so [...] the Parish Churches in question: To stay here to write a particular proof of the validity [Page] of the Ministers Calling, any further than to put the accuser if he can to prove, that any essential part is wanting (whether in Qualification, Ordination, or Consent) would be vain, it being done so largely by the old Non-conformists.

2. But is there a Power retained in such Churches to cast out offendors? Answ. Yes; A Power divine, or given by Christ. Remember that (as I have proved Disp. of Ordinat.) men are not the Makers of the Office of the Sacred Ministry, nor the Measurers or Givers of the Power; but only the Choosers of the person that shall receive what Christ by Institution giveth, and the Ministerial Investers of the person in that power. Therefore,

Whoever receiveth the Office of a Pastor receiveth the power of the Keyes, to take in and cast out (Though not arbitrarily nor ungoverned by himself) But the Parish Ministers (or very many of them) now in question do receive the Office of Pastors: Therefore they receive the power of the Keyes to take in and cast out.

If you say that the Bishops intend it not in ordaining them: I answer, 1. It sufficeth that Christ intendeth it, who is the only maker and giver of the power: The Book of Ordination maketh them solemnly Covenant to give faithful diligence alwayes so to Minister the Doctrine, and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath [...] manded, &c. And to teach nothing as required [Page] of necessity to eternal salvation, but that which they are perswaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture, as containing all such necessary doctrine: And to be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to Gods word: And to use both publick and private monitions and exhortations as well to the sick, as the whole: And to be diligent in prayers and reading the holy Scriptures, and in such studies as help to the knowledge of the same, laying aside the study of the world and the flesh. And that they will be diligent to frame and fashion themselves and their families, according to the doctrine of Christ, and to make both themselves and them, as much as they can, wholesome examples to the flock, &c. And till lately the said Book recited Acts 20. 28. to the Presbyters at their Ordination.

And the Canon 26. saith [No Minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the holy Communion any of his Cure or flock, which be openly known to live in sin notorious without repentance; Besides what the Rubrick saith to that purpose.

And now (though I think this one of the greatest sores which you have touched) yet judge whether even the Laws and Canons concede no Power to the Ministers.

3. But if they did not, the Power of Office is one thing, and the Liberty of exercising it is another: We have Power from Christ to preach: and if we be silenced and our liberty restrained by men, that proveth us not to be [Page] no true Ministers. If you mean that no Church is to be communicated with where the Pastor is hindered by men from the full discharge of his Office, you mistake, and can never prove it.

4. They that voluntarily neglect their Office (without hinderance by the force of men) are more to be blamed than those that are so forced. But in the Primitive Churches Discipline was lamentably neglected voluntarily; as appeareth in the Case of most of the seven Churches, Rev. 2. & 3. for which they are threatned by Christ, and in the Corinthians case: yea, corrupted by such as Diotrophes. And do you think that the Church that hath Power to do well, and will not, is therefore to be communicated with because it can? that is, because it sinneth not through disability, but negligence or wilfulness?

5. But the Core of your erroneous reasoning is behind; you say, they were—without any Vniversal innovation or degenerating in those Essentials of Order as well as doctrine which they fell into in the ages after, &c. An Vniversal degenerating in the Essentials even of Doctrine and Order too, is a big and a sad word: And the time pointed at by you being so early, if I can understand you, you do (as the Seekers) unchurch the universal Church of Christ. For if it Degenerated Vniversally in the Essentials of doctrine, it Vniversally apostatized from Christianity: For where any Essential part is lost, the Essence [Page] and just Name is lost.11. Dreadful false doctrine. Read and fear the tendency of separation. And I beseech you, let not rashness or passion blind you to over-overlook the dreadfulness of this Doctrine.

1. If Christ had then no Church (as he had not, if the Essential degeneration was Vniversal) then he was no King of the Church on Earth,Mr. William's doctrine. no Lord, no Teacher, no Saviour of the Church; no Intercessor for it in the Heavens? And do you not then dethrone him, and deny him indeed to be the Christ? What, a Head without a Body? A King without a Kingdom?

2. So you will make all Gods Promises of his Churches perpetuity, as built on the Rock, against which Hell Gates should not prevail, and of being with them to the end of the world, &c. to be false and fail. And if the whole Church failed, and the Promises made to it, what particular soul can trust Gods Promises.

3. If all the Church apostatized, how shall we know that Apostates did not corrupt all the Copies of Scripture that are come down to us?

4. And then the Article [I believe the holy Catholick Church] would have been a falshood or error.

5. And then there could be no Baptism, no Sacrament of the Lords Supper, &c.

6. And then there must be New Apostles with Miracles to make a new Church. And thus we have Mr. Williams doctrine, whose Story I recited in my last Book.

[Page] Sect. 52. E. B. p. 15. [This necessity of separation which began then continueth still, since our Churches, though reformed from Popery (that is, from Antichristianism) in some points, yet are not restored to the primitive pattern and purity.]

R. B. 1. Whether by [our Churches] you mean only the Parish Churches of godly Ministers, or also All the Protestant Churches, and all other Vniversally through the world, I am not sure: But as far as I can conjecture by your words you mean; All. Because you speak of them as in a Continuance in part in the Vniversal degeneration in Essentials; And you speak of them as avoiding Popery but in part, and call them [our Churches,] and mention no Church in the world here that you own as a true Church (and whether any where in all your writings I remember not.) I confess I pretend not to know the mind of so careless a Writer by any words, but very plain ones: But if this be your mind as it seemeth to be, you would do well (being so bold a man) to tell the world your mind more plainly: And you that think that no Truth is to be sold (as you call it) for Peace, let Independents, Presbyterians, Separatists, Anabaptists, &c. know it, if indeed you think that all their Churches are to be separated from, as well as the Parish Churches. If this be your mind, I suppose you [Page] are but a Preacher to Auditors your self, and not a Pastor to any Church. He that thinks no Truth should be concealed for fear of suffering, should not carry it in darkness and dissimulation to the Pastors and Churches about him, if really he believe them to be no Pastors or Churches, or not to be communicated with. But I think that you better deserve to be disowned by them, than they by you.

Certainly few or no Protestant Church, that I have known, will say that it is restored to the primitive pattern and Purity in degree. If that therefore be your meaning, you do separate from all the Churches in the world. But if you mean not, in Degree, but in Essence, I still challenge you to prove that the Churches in question want any thing Essential; or need a Restoration to that which they never lost?

52

Sect. 52. E. B. p. 15. [So that more may be said for separation now (when whole Churches are out of order and corrupt) than could be at that time when corruption had infected only particular members.]

R. B. 1. Is it now come to that? Is it the number corrupted that must decide the case? Who can tell where to find this Proteus? sometime it is the mixture of holy and unholy: sometime it is not bare corruption without Imposition: And now it is the numbers corrupted, (whole Churches:) And in the next sentence—you shall see [Page] what? 2. Is the whole Church any thing besides the particular members? Is there any other matter? or any form besides the Relation of the particular members? 3. I challenge you if you can to prove any corruption in the Churches in question, which is not consistent with the essence? I know not so much errour or harm, in the people of the Church that I now joyn with, where I live, as Paul chargeth on the Corinthians or Galathians: (Though I suppose the primitive Ministry and gifts more excellent than any of ours.)

53

Sect. 53. E. B. More of the Causes of separation. [For it is not, as I said before, Corruption barely, no nor Imposition barely, that is a sufficient ground for any to separate (For where some lesser errours are held but not Imposed; or, where only necessary things are imposed, we shall not forbear Communion.) But when errour is once imposed, and by a strong hand forcibly maintained (notwithstanding all admonitions and endeavours of reformation,) here we must separate or consent to sin.—

R. B. Better and better: Here it is granted that neither Corruption barely, nor Imposition barely, will justifie separation. But by Corruption and Imposition barely seemeth to be meant such formaliter quoad actum, without including the degree of the matter. For it is expounded of [Lesser errours] held and not Imposed; or of necessary things Imposed. So that if it be Imposed on us to Worship [Page]God, it will not prove us no Christians: we are beholden to you for this clemency. And if we should mistake a point of Genealogie or Chronologie it will not un-church us. This is something.

2. Well, but what is the crime that maketh our Communion unlawful? [when errour is once imposed, &c.] so then (if you can speak sense) any errour Imposed will do it. What if it be Imposed on the Church, to use a Translation of the Bible that hath some errour in (And is there any without?) Must that Church needs be separated from? And yet the Church that used the same Voluntarily (and therefore more sinfully) is not to be separated from? What if erroneously it be imposed on the Church to meet at an inconvenient time or place? What if some flaw or errour in Chronologie on smaller-matters, were in their imposed Confession, which the Pastour erroneously subscribeth to? It seems an Infallible Imposing Church may be communicated with, and no other. But do you not know that there is a Ministerial as well as a Magistratical forcing Imposition? Every Pastour that speaketh as by Commission from Christ, Imposeth somewhat on the people! He Imposeth doctrine, and Method, and words in prayer, and times, places, utensils, orders, metres, tunes, as aforesaid. Must all these be separated from (that is almost all the Pastors in the World;) And is there no remedie?

3. But perhaps you lay all the stress [on a [Page]strong hand and force!] If so, prove that your Ministerial Imposition of errour in your Prayer or Conduct, doth not make Communion unlawful; and yet that forcible imposition doth? As if Voluntary reception made less the sin! Prove that the Church of the Jews was nullified whenever any errour was imposed by authority! Or when the Pharisees then in power had corrupted it in Christs time by force. If this were your meaning, then separation could scarce be Lawful, till there was a Constantine, a Christian Emperour, who (being not infallible) might force or impose something amiss, whereas you before talk of an early universal failing, necessitating separation. It seems then that no Countries are so unhappy as those that have Christian Magistrates, who being fallible, impose some errour: And that in all the Ages and Countries that have Heathen or Infidel Rulers, (notwithstanding Church Corruptions not forced) Separation is a sin.

4. But I would fain know, whether it be the Imposition, that nullifieth the Church, or makes Communion unlawful, or only the obeying that Imposition? If it be the Imposition, then a Heathen Prince may nullifie the Church at pleasure. If it be only the obedience, then, 1. Must it be once obeying or continual? What if Aurelian or Dioclesian forbid Church-assemblies: will once obeying them nullifie all the Churches, or make their Communion unlawful? 2. Why will not obeying a Minister or de [...]ver make it as unlawful as obeying a [Page] King? 3. Why doth not the doing it without constraint (as is said) make it as unlawful as obedience?

5. Is it the King and Parliament, or the Bishops whose Impositions have this sad effect? If the former, then (as is said) it was 300 years after Christ, before separation was lawful. If the latter, then it is not force only that doth it; And Independent, or Anabaptist or Presbyterian Pastors may Impose as well as Bishops. For the Bishops disclaim all coercive power in the Church, (as I have shewed to Dr. Moulin.)

54

Sect. 54. E. B. The second Argument is the example of the former Non-conformists, who you say were all against separation, &c.

R. B. Here you cite a passage of Mr. Hildershams, that the authority of man is not to be set against Gods, and that we may know more than those that went before us, &c. And did not) I tell you so my self? who dissenteth from you in this? Bring your proof from Scripture against them and us, and we will hear you. Or give us but good proof that you are a wiser and better man than they, and are better taught of God, and we will yield this by-reason from authority. But to bring Mr. Hildershams acknowledgement of Gods authority above mans, against Mr. Hildershams arguments against separation, and his perswasions to come to the beginning of the Churches prayers, and to imply that you know more than those [Page] worthy men, when you give the world so little evidence of it, doth prove the goodness of your cause as much as it proveth your humility or self-acquaintance.

55

Sect. 55. E. B. p. 17, 18.Boasting Ignorance. [The former non-conformists held Arminianisme so fundamental and dangerous an errour, &c. But you do not only speak favourably of it, but also Proudly tell us that you are confident, not one of many hundreds, who speak against Communion with Arminians, do understand what Arminianisme is—As if—plain Christians could not easily come to know it.

R. B. 1. As under Church-tyrants all is Schisme, which contradicts their Schisme, so with some men all is Proudly spoken which contradicteth their Pride, and supposeth them to be but half as ignorant as they are.

2. Were all the Non-conformists of one mind about Arminianisme? Was not Arminius himself against Prelacy and Ceremonies? and many of his followers? Who were the great Antiadiaphorists in Germany, but Iliricus, Amsdorsius, Gallus and other Lutherans? Is not Mr. Dury a Non-conformist who hath forty years laboured to bring the Lutherans (who are as far from us as Arminius) and the Calvinists to Communion?

3. Who would be at the labour to read over the many Volumes that are written about Pre-determination, Free-will, Concurse, and Grace, by which such Ignorant souls as I, cannot to this day tell what they [Page] mean, nor in many or most points wherein they differ, when this man, and his plain followers (Women and Boyes) so easily know it! But like the Pope that can Infallibly expound the Scriptures, but is so wise that he will not do it. Le Blank, and many more might have spared their pains of right stating the Controversies, if they had this mans Key. I never yet met with the man that could but make me well understand, what it is that is meant by Free-will, nor what by the Power which they dispute of, to do good, much less open all their meanings de scientia media, de Concursu prae-determinations, &c. But here's one can easily tell us all. But I warrant him he will not. Some men (alas, and some Treachers) will be wise, and humble, in despight of Wisdom and Humility; and Christians in despight of Love, Unity and Peace.

56

Sect. 56. E. B. p. 18. His own Free-will hath not the least power to receive the things of God.

R. B. 1. What not sanctified Free-will? 2. What! not a Receiving obediential power? A receiving power is a passive power (as it is strictly taken.) Hath a free-agent less Power to receive Grace, than a marble to receive the engraving of the work-man? Doth no man ever receive Grace? Or do they receive what they cannot receive? Hath a man no more Receptive Power than a block or stone? I know its said [The natural man Receiveth not, &c.] [Page] that is, Vnderstandeth not, believeth not, and loveth not in sensu Composito: But its never said, that [Our free-will hath not the least power to receive.] But I have said so much of this, and the next point (the badness of nature) to which he giveth not any answer at all, that I wonder that the man thinks that one that is all tongue and no eares or eyes, is fit for credit or humane converse.

57

Sect. 57. E. B. You,12. False doctrine and pernicious. Jesuite like, are not afraid to say, The Scipture tells us not sufficiently and particularly which Books in it self are Canonical, nor that the various Readings are the right, nor whether every Text be brought to us uncorrupted.]

R. B. 1. And by implying your assertion of the contrary, you become a false Teacher of pernicious doctrine; As if you designed to make men Jesuits or Infidels, by renouncing the Scriptures, as soon as they find, that these things are not sufficiently there done and thence to be proved, without subordinate testimonies.

2. Why do not you save such as Dr. J. Reignolds, Chamier, and others their great labour, and prove out of Scripture it self, which of all the various readings mentioned by Beza, Capelus, and others, and found in various Copies, is the right? and so of the rest?

58

Sect. 58. E. B. So that in effect you do resolve the Credit of the Holy Scriptures into [Page] the truth of Church-history—which words are so contrary to the true Protestant doctrine—so fully agreeing with the doctrine of the Jesuits, &c.

R. B. 1. As to agreeing with the Jesuits fully,36th Untruth. &c. all that know their Writings, know it is an untruth. 2. True Protestants usually say the same things that I do. Though you may meet with some few like your self that do not. 3. I have fully opened in the Preface to the 2d. Edit. &c. of my Saints Rest, how ambiguous that word [Resolving into] is, and how far your saying is true or false. He that enquireth what Laws are in force in England, must distinguish of these two Questions, 1. Which are the Laws? which are the Statutes in force? what words are false Printed, and what right? what Copies most perfect? And, 2. What Authority are these statutes of?

The Authority of them is all resolved into the Authority of the King and Parliament. But we that are not so wise as you,Whether the true Reading and uncorruptness of particular Texts be sufficiently known by the light of the Scripture alone? must be beholden to various Copies, Records, Printers, Lawyers, to know which are the Statutes in force? and whether any words be falsly Printed; And if we find so many hundred various Readings as be in the Bible, we cannot know in every one which is right▪ and which is wrong, by the bare inspection of the Book it self.

And, if you have any considering faculty left, and your free-will hath the least power to [Page] receive any truth, or stop you in your errour, me-thinks these questions should force you into your witts.

Qu. 1. Shall he that by the Book alone can resolve all these doubts, see it in the Original, or only in Translations? If in the Original,

2. Shall he see the Autographs or only the Transcripts? or Impressions?

3. If the Autographs be not to be seen, but only Transcripts, hath God promised unerring infallibility to all the Scribes and Printers in the world, or to some only, or to none?

4. If to all; where is the promise? If to some, how shall we know them? If to none, may they not all erre?

5. When many Copies so much differ as they do, is it not certain that some of them erred?

6. Can all Women and Unlearned persons or Ministers, judge by the Original Transcripts who understand not the Original tongues?

7. Must he that shall be certain see all the various Copies, or will it serve turn to see some one only?

8. If he must see all, who is he or she in the world that can be certain? If they must see many, who knows how many and which?

9. If they must see but one Copy, how shall he know that it is the Truest Copy that falleth into his hands, and that all that differ [Page] from that are false? Do not corrupt Copies come to other mens hands? Why then might they not do so to his?

10. How can he judge of the various Readings of all the rest of the Copies, which he never saw?

11. If a Translation will serve him to judge of the various readings in the Original, are they not in the Translation fore-judged of to his hand?

12. Is any man Infallible in Translating? Is there a promise of Infallibility to them?

13. Do not the Translations differ?

14. How shall men know which Translation is truest; (when none is perfect?)

15. Must he see all Translations that shall judge? or will one serve (as aforesaid) And how shall he judge of those he seeth not?

16. Is it by Inspiration from Heaven, such as the Prophets had, that the true Reading must be known? or to ordinary (at least sanctified) Reason by evidence in the Text it self? If the former, none but Prophets can know it. If the later, you can prove it to a Rational or sanctified man, from some intrinsick evidence. For instance suppose a man never saw but two Printed English Bibles, and was never told which is right by others, and in one is Printed, Heb. 12. 2. he [despised the same] viz. the Cross, and in the other [he despised the shame] (for so two of them do differ:) how shall he prove which Printer erred?

[Page] 17. Do all the Men and Women that are Godly actually know the true and uncorrupt copies and readings, by the Book it self without mans testimony? Or what is the name of that one Man or Woman in the World that you know, who without ever hearing it from man, could tell all the true readings from the false, or could tell that the Canticles or Ecclesiastes or the Book of Jonas were Canonical, and that the Book of Baruck, Wisdom, and Pauls Epistle to the Laodiceans, and Clemens to the Corinthians, were not. Do you know his name, that ever knew this by Reading the Bible only, without being ever told it by any? If not, and if it be sine quâ non to mens receiving of the Bible it self, that some one brings it to their hands; judge how wisely and fairly you deal with poor souls to talk at such a confident and yet confused rate.

And, 18. Let me ask you one question more; Is it necessary to Salvation that men be able to read? Hath God promised it to all or most that shall be saved? Faith cometh by hearing, as the most ordinary way of old: And he that will Preach the Gospel to most Nations under Heaven, must Convert more than can read, or but a few. And if you Preach the Gospel to a Congregation that cannot read, do you recite all the various readings in the Hebrew and Greek to them? If not, can they judge of that they never heard? If you do, are they ever the wiser as to know of themselves [Page] which of them is the right?

19. But if you say that you suppose not only Grace but great Learning and Study to discern these things, how cometh it to pass that the most Learned, Studious and Godly men do still so much differ about the various Readings? (as Lud. Capellus, Vsher, Heinsius, Bootius, De Dieu, and others.) And how come the Churches in the Ages next the Apostles to leave out so many Books of the Canon as many of them did, while others received them? And Luther, Althamar and others, to set no more by James's Epistle than they did? And so many Godly men long, and yet, to receive much of the Apocrypha?

20. How durst you that speak so hardly of the Jesuits, honour them so much as to make your silly ones believe, that their doctrine in this is no worse than mine, when in so many Books, I have left that at large which may confute you?

And you (wisely) ask me to tell you whether I will take the Jesuits into my Communion, because they hold the same with the Arminians with whom I will communicate! so they hold the same with all Christians, that there is a God, and a Christ and the Scripture true? But it is not for this that I renounce their Communion, but for some things else. Will you communicate with none that holdeth any thing (yea any errour) which the Jesuits hold? Or did you dream that the Arminians hold all that the [Page] Jesuits hold? Or did you dream that the Arminians hold all that the Jesuits hold? Sir, I am ashamed to spend time-upon such triflings?

59

Sect. 59. E. B. The former Non-conformists thought there was no possibility of salvation for a Papist—But you tell us that you affect not the honour of this Orthodoxness.A lame deceitful recital, and 17. Crime, Cruel judging millions unknown without a Call.

R. B. It is confutation enough of such an accuser to recite the words which he accuseth; which are [Vnless 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 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.] So that I distinguish of Papists properly so called who practically hold all the Popish errours, and Nominal Papists that call themselves such or are called so by others, who know not or practically hold not the pernicious part of their errours: These latter I refused to undertake to judge to Hell, and consequently to damn all in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, &c. who are called Papists. And if this accuser be more valiant, and dare damn them all, I do not wonder that he dare damn me for not damning them: For he that can eat and digest an Oxe, will never stick at one crumme more. But he should not be also [Page] so cruel to the Reader as to put him to read my words twice over, because he dismembers them, to make them seem to have some loathed sense.

60

Sect. 60. E. B. p. 19. The former Non-formists said, The filth of nature cannot be sufficiently spoken of?—But you, &c.

R. B. 1. When you tell us in what common Confession of theirs they say so, I shall try whether you say any truer than in the rest. 2. Reader, I answered him on this point before, by no less than twenty instances, proving that Nature may be too ill spoken of, And he saith nothing to any of them, but sings over his old song again. Is not this a fine man to dispute with?

61

Sect. 61. E. B. I shall conclude with mentioning one thing more:18. Crime Justifying a falshood, while you openly your self detect it. I affirmed that by Flesh you had told us [war only meant, the sensitive appetite] This you reply is an untruth and a meer fiction, for you never said so. Sir, you had need have a good memory, for you have writ many Books;37. Untruth implyed. in which as containing many words, there cannot want much sin and vanity. And indeed had you meditated strictly upon a quarter of what you have writ, you could not be guilty of so strange forgetfulness. For in your Premonition to the Saints Rest you have these very words, [Many think that by Flesh is meant only Indwelling sin; when, alas, it is the [Page] sensitive appetite that it chargeth us to subdue;] For which you quote, Rom. 8. 3, 4, 5, &c.

R. B. You begin comfortably, with a promise to Conclude; but you proceed sadly. 1. Is not the inference as strong against many words in your Preaching as in mine and other mens writings, that in many words there cannot want much sin?

2. You proclaim the aggravation of your sin, when you speak for meditating strictly on what we write. Can you heap up untruths in Book after Book, and commit all these Crimes, even when you have strictly meditated what you write? Do you sin so studyedly and deliberately, and yet will you not Repent?

3. Reader, if ever thou wilt pitty a poor self-conceited troubler of the Church, pitty this poor man, who here openly tells thee, that either he understands not common sense, or else takes no heed what he saith, but bringeth a new untruth to justifie a former, even into the open light, and triumpheth in his act. He telleth you the charge which he undertaketh to prove; viz. that I have written, that [by Flesh is only meant the sensitive appetite.] He now undertaketh to prove that I said so, in the Premon. to the Saints Rest (which is another Vntruth) because I said [Many think that by Flesh the Scripture meaneth only our Indwelling sin, when, alas, it is the inordinate sensitive appetite which it chargeth[Page]us to subdue.] Here he first leaveth out several words, especially the word [inordinate] because he read not the later Editions; And yet he put in the word [only] which the Printer in the last Editions hath left out, and which openly sheweth the falshood of his charge. Is it all one to say, that [by Flesh is meant not only Indwelling sin, and to say It is not meant at all?] Do you think he took any heed of the word [only] when he wrote it? My business (not in the Premonition as he mis-reports, but in the Epistle) was to prove the sinfulness of flesh-pleasing, and that when the Scripture bids us subdue the flesh, and make no provision for it, &c. It doth not only mean, subdue the habits of Indwelling sin in the understanding and will, and make no Provision for them, but also that we must prevent actual sin by subduing the sensitive appetite unto reason, and ruling it by faith, and that even Original and habitual sin it self consisteth partly in the Inordinateness of that Appetite; And here I implyed this proof from the Notation of the Name; q. d. [If the sin to be subdued be called Flesh, then the Fleshly appetite is not wholly to be excluded; For there is some reason why sin is called Flesh, rather than Spirit. And what can the reason be, but that 1. The sensitive appetite it self is Inordinate, and so part of the seat of sin; and 2. The understanding and will are enslaved to the [Page] sense or flesh, and are vitiated with a sinful inclination to serve the flesh or sense it self: And therefore he that readeth in Scripture such passages as require us to subdue the flesh, he must not deceive himself by thinking that it is only Indwelling sin (that is in the superiour faculties) that is meant by flesh, and that the sensitive appetite is not here meant at all, When as 1. Original sin it self is partly in the sensitive appetite; And, 2. Actual sin is to be resisted by subduing the sensitive appetite to reason, and bringing the body into subjection as well as Indwelling sin. to be extirpated. And if the Name of Flesh be put upon Indwelling sin, from the Fleshly interest and Inordinate appetite, then surely this it self is not wholly to be excluded, as no part of the sense of the word Flesh in Scripture. And when my words plainly express this sense, with what face could this man, not only put other words upon me, which were none of my own, but also another sense, and a sense clean contrary to the words? And this to justifie a former falshood; And this after that in divers Writings I have fully, and plainly disputed of Original sin as it] is the corruption of the superiour faculties; and in divers Books about Conversion shewed the necessity of the cleansing and renewing of those faculties! And here the word [only] was before his eyes, a confutation of his calumny?

62

[Page]

Sect. 62. E. B. And indeed Sir, that I may confess a secret to you, this very passage of yours I looked on as so conceited and singular, and many years agoe it gave me so great offence, that I threw away your Book upon it, and never would read it over, as not thinking it possible that one who erred in the very entrance in so plain a truth, was able to instruct me in any thing that was worth my knowing.—

R. B. 1. The Book was written about twenty one or twenty two years agoe, and you are a Young man yet: You surely begun very early to be past possibility of being taught any thing by such as I. Is this only to declare your humility? or that you speak evil of the Books which you never read? and that you are the fittest man to be the accuser of them?

2. It may be there was some early antipathy between our judgements. For I will confess such another secret to you, That about twelve years ago a Latine small discourse came to my hand as famed to be yours, against the Species of Monarchical Government, and the arguments against Monarchy in it seemed to me such poor injudicious slender stuff, that (though I did not as you cast away the Book till I came to the end) it was one occasion of my writing the twenty Arguments against [Page] Democrasie, which I put into the Book which I have revoked (my Polit. Aph.—)

3. Do you not tell the world how fit a Champion you are for any truth or reformation, who when you read [not only indwelling sin] expound it [not at all Indwelling sin,] and then glory that you cast away the Book as that which could not possibly teach you—. And are you not by this time an excellent Scholar and a very wise man, if you did so by all your other Books?

63

Sect. 63. E. B. p. 26. I am much confirmed in that judgement of your Book, since a person yet living, and one worthy of credit, accuainted me, that when the learned and judicious Mr. Herle had read that cryed-up Book of yours, he told him, It had been happy for the Church of God if your friends had never sent you to School. Mr. Cawdry had the same opinion of it; And another person as knowing in the Mysterie of Godliness as either of them told a friend of mine, that notwithstanding the noise about you, you would end in flesh and blood.

R. B. 1. A worthy question! What a Book is which you never read! I will help you out, and mend your cause. You dispraise it that never read it; and you name some that read it and dispraised it; [Page] And I that wrote it am far from praising it. Therefore I hope you are gratified▪ and who will now contradict you? (Though I confess for my own part, I think I shall not think my self fit to tell the world in Print what any mans Book is, at the same time when I confess that I never read it: But you may possibly avoid that way because it is mine.)

2. But he that employeth you shall miss of his design, of engaging me against the names of Mr. Herle and Mr. Cawdrey, and against your unnamed person: It is sufficient to me that I honour their names, and abhort all motions contrary to the Laws of Christian Love; But I was not bound that they should love or honour me, and if they did not, that is not my sin: But if my sin deserve it, I have farr greater accounts on which to be displeased with that sin. And I do with hearty willingness hear the Prophesie of him that told your friend, I would end in flesh and blood, to awaken me the more to the necessary fear and vigilancy, lest his Prophesie should prove true. But whether these stories be true or not, it little concerneth me to enquire. If they be not, I pray name not the reporters or witnesses.

64

[Page]

Sect. 64. E. B. You have promised me that you will make no Reply—

R. B. It was but conditionally [if you write at the former rates.] And your alterations (by venturing to dispute for separation) have declared me not obliged. And because I fear you were by those words encouraged the more to all your untruths, I will promise you silence no more, though I purpose it. I have done this that you might have a second Admonition to Repent, and the simple may not believe your multiplyed falshoods: But now, he that will be hereafter deceived by you, let him be deceived.

65

Sect. 65. E. B. 20. When you write next I intreat—1. That you will be short, 2. And significant.

R. B. Your Counsel is Prudent Sir, but all men cannot attain to your exactness and significancy! Nor will I follow your Rule till I see better effects of it. Nor pretend Brevity for leaving a Book almost wholly unanswered, which I pretend to answer as you do: And I will better shew that I understand common English, before I call to others for significancy.

66

[Page]

Sect. 66. E. B. 1. That you will not mistake the thing you write about, but labour clearly to understand the question.

R. B. But I will not undertake to make you understand it.

67

Sect. 67. E. B. Do not ramble and talk of Nature as it is Pure,38. & 39. Untruths implyed. when you should write about nature corrupted.

R. B. 1. Remember that it is not you but I that am the Respondent, and had the stateing of the Question. Here therefore are two more falshoods intimated, 1. That the question was only about Nature as corrupted. 2. That I spake of Nature as pure, and not as corrupted. For the question put by me was about Nature as Nature; and that men should not so speak against the corruption, as to dishonour Gods part, Nature as Nature, nor yet as it is corrupted, to make it worse than it is. So that I spake not of it as Pure; but I spake of it both abstractedly as Nature, and also as corrupt.

68

Sect. 68. E. B. Do not discourse about Free-will at large, when you should only handle free-will in the things of God.

R. B. This implyeth another Untruth,40. Untruth implyed. that I did not speak of Free-will in the things of God. To forbear the breaking of some of Gods Laws, and to do somewhat commanded are the things of God: I shew that [Page] men have some free-will to forbear Murder, Adultery, Theft, Treason, Perjury, Perfecution, yea, and writing falshoods. If not, why do you cry out of Persecution, Silencing, Atheism, when men have not the least free-will to forbear them! Why do you refuse the imputation of your own Untruths, if you have not the least free-will to forbear them? Your words were [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—]▪ The Synod of Dort taught other Doctrine: And so doth Mr. Fenner in his Book of wilful Impenitence. And in the second Sheet of Mr. Dods sayings, when one had been restrained from swearing at Dinner by his presence contrary to his use, he took occasion to shew, that men can do more than they do, and can forbear more evil than they forbear.

69

Sect. 69. E. B. And because many Professors of Christianity are ignorant and injudicious, do not think that therefore you do well to call Christians,41. Untruth, notorious. considered as Christians so. These are evident and apparent Sophisms which abound in your last Treatise.

R. B. These are deliberate written words: And if all this be the meer fiction of your brain; If I have not one syllable that hath any such importance; Nor one word in my Books have the least shew of such a thing; Nay, if the clean contrary be most openly [Page] and plainly expressed in them, and yet rather than confess your former falshood, you fear not before God and man to second it with this most immodest additional forgery, which hath no Cloak, let your Reader judge, and let your Conscience judge at last, whether Repentance was your duty. He that saith Christians considered as Christians are ignorant, injudicious, &c. layeth his charge on Christianity, more than on the men: Had you no way to hide your former falshood, but by this impudent forgery that I speak against Christianity it self? Had not Repentance been a better reparation of your prostituted honour, than this.

70

Sect. 70. E. B. Do not love to jumble absurd and insignificant Phrases together: as to say [A defective, faulty, true Church.]

R. B. Reader, if thou expect that he should tell thee, the absurdity or insignificancy of any one of all these words, thou must not put him to so much condescension, but take it on his word, or rest unsatisfied. Whether Defective, or faulty, be insignificant words, or whether no True Church be defective and faulty, if you believe him, perhaps you may hear in his time.

71

[Page] Sect. 71. E. B. To mention a Political, Spiritual, Constitutive Head.

R. B. More wisdom still! which of these is the non-sense?Wisdom and humility in the dark. Is it that the Pope pretendeth to be a Political Head? Consult. D. Lud. Moulins Jugulum Causae, and all Goldastus his three Volumes, with Chamier, Rivet, Whitaker, Blondel, and all that write against him. Or is it that he claimeth to be a Spiritual Head or Governour? Then all his own defenders and all our opposers of him wrong him, till Mr. Bagshaw came to reform this language: Or is it because he claimeth not to be the Constitutive Head of the Church? Ask all those Papists that say it is Essential to a member of the Church to be subject to the Pope. Reader, Is not this man uncharitable, that will neither give us his leave to use our old words, nor teach us better; but intimate that we speak nonsense, and he can speak better if he would! We have hitherto been used to call a Governed Church a Political Society, as distinct from a meer concourse or community of Christians. And why not? if [...] come from [...]: And if God hath prepared for them a City, whose God he is not ashamed to be called, Heb. 11. 16. And if it be well said, Phil. 1. 27. [...]: And if our Political conversations [...],Phil. [...] 26. be in Heaven, why may not a Church, at [Page] least such a one as the Pope doth claim, be called a Political body or society! Or at least, why may not the Pope be said to lay such a claim? We have been used to call that Government Spiritual, which is done by the Word and Church Keyes, and consequently the Governours Spiritual? And why must this be non-sense now? We have been used to call that Governour a Constitutive Head, without whom the society is not essentiated in specie, as a King in a Kingdom. O unkind Teacher, that will leave us all in this ignorance, and not vouchsafe one word to help us out.

72

Sect. 72. E. B. And do not think to excuse your self from writing Non-sense, by saying you meant a thing objectively, and not subjectively.

R. B. Nay then I despair of scaping non-sense! If the Object and the Subject must needs be all one, and if sense in the Book or argument, and sense or reason in the Reader be all one, I am not the first that was deceived: No nor if it be all one to say You understand not the sense or reason of my argument, and [you have no sense or reason.] But new Lords new Laws.

73

Sect. 73. E. B. And do not make Philosophy ridiculous as you do when you tell us, That our acts of knowing exterior things are as Philosophers affirm, objectively organicall, [Page] though not efficiently and formally. Sir I am sure no wise man talks thus; and if Philosophers do, its time we left them, &c.

R. B. When you once begin to say you are sure, and no wise man is against you, I begin to think you talk more ignorantly than when you seem to doubt; I will not prophane a point so little understood by you, and so much scorned, as to dispute it with you. Enjoy your ignorance and scorn.

74

Sect. 74. E. B. Lastly, When truth is to be examined, and the nature of a thing strictly to be considered, do not argue against it from some ill consequence—as what you desperately urge against the Scriptures being a perfect Rule,42. Untruth which foundation of faith and practice you labour to overthrow, by tragically infisting on the consequences that will follow—Sir this in the end will be found perfect folly and madness; therefore leave it in time, lest the Lord reprove you, and you be found a lyar.

R. B. 1. Alas, That your Pen could write the last word without the more prevalent rebuke of your Conscience? After so many Untruths? yea, and when in the same paragraph you are renewing the same sin? in saying I deny the Scripture to be a perfect Rule, when I still say, [It is a perfect Rule so far as it is a Rule!

2. If you intend sense and truth, your argument must run thus [He that saith the [Page] Scripture is not a particular Rule, commanding the thing in particular, but only a General Rule, for the Metre and Tunes of Psalms, for the dividing of it self into Chapters and Verses, for the hour and place of meetings, for the choice of a Text to preach on, and words and method of Sermon and Prayer, for the naming or determining the Person that shall be a Pastor, for the form of Pulpits, Tables, Cups, &c. yea, for the making of a Clock, or Watch, or Hour-glass, to measure the time by, or for building the House to preach in, &c. He that saith these are not determined of particularly in Scripture, but only under the General Rule of doing all things to Gods Glory, to Edification, decently and in order, &c. this man doth deny Scripture to be a perfect Rule, and laboureth to overthrow the foundation of faith and practice, and proveing what he saith by the ill consequences that else will follow, will in the end be found in perfect folly and madness, reproved by God, and found a lyar: But such a one is R. B. Therefore, &c.] Reader, if this be sound doctrine, if after all Gods warnings of the danger of Levity and Ignorant pride, thou canst yet receive such errors and revilings, as a defence of the foundation, thy case also is to be lamented.

3. When Def. par. 1. pag. 98, &c. I had fully described the opinion which I rejected, and had given in fifteen reasons against [Page] it, what doth this easie confident Disputer, but instead of offering an answer to any one of them, calls it perfect folly and madness so to confute it by ill consequences? Doth this disputing satisfie any sober enquirer after truth? Doth he not reproach his followers in the eye of the world about him, while he thus openly seemeth to expect, that they will rest in such reasonings or replyes as these? And really if we prove against the Papists, that though they directly deny not Christ and his Office, yet that such Consequents will follow upon divers of their errors, will this man that talketh so much of Antichristianism, say that it is perfect folly and madness to charge such consequents upon them? If I prove that any opinion doth consequentially deny God, or the souls immortality, or subvert all our faith, do I deserve no better an answer than that? this is my perfect folly and madness, and I shall be proved a lyar. What need is there of learning reason, sobriety or modesty to enable any man to dispute and seem Orthodox at this rate?

75

Sect. 75. E. B. You may see by this brief taste, how easie it is for me to defend my self—

R. B. O wonderful blinding power of self-conceit!

76

[Page] Sect. 76. E. B. p. 21. It is not a lessening of your Reputation that I mainly aim at: much less at the advancing of my own upon the ruine of yours. But I thought the truth of Christ worth my vindicating: And when I saw that your name did stand in the way of it—The whole design of this Letter is (as to others) to perswade all to look upon you, not only as a fallible, but a mistaken man—

R. B. I have long ago done wondering that such men as you can deliberately choose and use such means, when once they have dared to intitle God and his Glory to their false doctrines: For what is it that they will not think lawful to do for God and Truth? If some serve him by killing his servants, no wonder if others do it by slandering them, and perswading all to separate from them: And if they say [Rom. 3. 7. If the Truth of God hath more abounded through my Lye unto his Glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?] But God and Truth may be better served by Truth. But falshood must by falshood be upheld. But Sir my Reputation is at your service for an honester use; but seeing it was but for the destruction of Christian Love and Peace that you designed to make a stepping-stone of it, try whether you be not slipt beside it into the dirt.

77

[Page] Sect. 77. E. B. I thought it my duty to reprove you, and to see your sin (and error herein) in order before you—

R. B. I have much more sin than you are aware of, which all such invitations do call me to renew my sorrow for, and vigilancy against: But when I once take the Principles of Christian Love and Vnity for sin, and the principles and practice of Enmity and Division for my duty, I shall then avoid sin as sinfully and lamentably as many in this age have done.

78

Sect. 78. E. B. If you will still go on, and under pretence of writing for Love, do what you can to keep up a mixed, disorderly, persecuting and imperfect Church-State, leaveing us no hope nor possibility of reformation—

R. B. 1.43. Untruth This is another implyed Untruth, that I keep up a persecuting Church-State, when I have written so much more than you against it: yea, that I do what I can to do it; as if you thought that we can do no more evil than we do, and our power were as small to sin as you make it to be to good. But you will find at last that separating from Churches for mixture, and imperfection, and such disorder as we have now in question, and to cloak this with slandering the honest Conforming Ministers with Persecution, who lament it in [Page] others, and never practise it (though I am not one that take them to be blameless) this will prove a greater hinderance to Reformation than a sober peaceable Christian conversation will be.

2. And thus unskilful builders do pull down! Did our Separations and Church-divisions these six and twenty years last past promote our Reformation? Wonderful! That men can yet take that for the reforming way, which hath destroyed Reformation, and brought us into all the confusions we are in? Will all this experience teach us nothing? I will cease wondering at the words, Luke 16. 31. If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be perswaded, though one rose from the dead.] And do you not know how your erronious reasonings and practices do occasion men even to scorn at your talk of Reformation? and if we did not disown you and renounce your errors, and mis-doings, the Non-conformists were like to be exposed to common derision for your sake, and accounted a sort of men at enmity with sobriety and peace; and multitudes were like to be hardened by you into greater evils and enmities than I will name. And can any ignorant Mountebanks more mortally and perniciously practise Physick, than you thus practise the Reformation of the Churches? Which are wounded and torn by such Reformers?

79

[Page] Sect. 79. E. B. My miscalling you Learned, Judicious,44 Untruth▪ Mortified—is indeed the only (untruth) which you can justly charge me with—

R. B. Alas Sir, is that sin such a jesting matter? Will you end as you begun? When you said you had done, will you not have done writing untruths? When you have no other matter for Vntruths, will you make this another, to say that no one of thirty three which I named to you, can be justly charged on you?—Ask any sober impartial man who hath read your Book and mine, whether you have cleared your self of any one of them, or spoken any thing that is considerable and probable to such a purpose?

80

Sect. 80. R. B. 23. Mr. Bagshaw having done, begins again to call me to recant unseemly abuses of Mr. Brown, and one that a Book prefaced by him is written of: And he reciteth both their Letters. As to Mrs.—Letter, I give her this account of my thoughts of her and the Book thats written of her: 1. That I make no doubt but all the holy truth which she hath learned, all the mortification of sin, and reformation of life, all the faith in Christ, and Love to God and holiness, which is in her, are the true fruits of the Spirit of God, and he is a wretched person that will ascribe these to Melancholy: 2. And I doubt not but in a [Page] Melancholy distemper, as Satan findeth his advantage for some special temptations, so God can make his advantage to further the sanctification of such a soul.

3. But he that giveth me that Book to read, and would have me ignorant that Melancholy had a great hand in her fastings, temptations and several conceits, there mentioned, and this after my experience of multitudes in the like condition, yea, when I am still wearied out with the Cases of such, from time to time, doth put an utter impossibility upon me: For if my Ignorance herein would gratifie such, it is not in my power to be ignorant when I will: But I can bear with it in others.

Therefore her words [If this be the effect of Melancholy] go on an untrue supposition.1. Untruth of Mrs.— I have told you what were the effects. And her sorrow that [I am found deriding] the effects she mentioneth, is the effect of worse than Melancholly, as being founded in her untruth.

Next this Woman accuseth me with all these following untruths.

1. That Brother Browne was the Author of that Book.2. Untruth.

Answ. Not a true word: I only said that it was published by him, as uncontrolled fame affirmed;] but not that he was the Author: I can find no such word in my writings: [Page] If you can, tell me where. And doth not his Epistle before it shew that he was one of the Publishers?

2. That I was suddenly moved to go hear Mr. Baxter. 3d Untruth.

Answ. False again: I only said [was suddenly moved to go into the Church;] that is, As she was passing by in the street, not knowing who Preached.

3. That ought of his Sermon had any impression upon me (which I could not attend to, because I was so terrified with the words of the Text,4th Untruth. Rom. 6. 21.)

Answ. False again: I have no such words that ought of my Sermon had any impression on her? but only of the Time, that before the Sermon was done she oould hardly forbear crying out.

4. That I went away resolved upon a holy life.

Answ. Another mistake: I said only, [she went home a changed person; Resolved, (that is, did resolve) for a holy life. That she went home changed she denyeth not, for her terrours were some change: That she Resolved for a holy life, her self and her Book profess; But whether as soon as she went home, or how many dayes after, I never undertook to tell! But how could she be Converted without resolving of a holy life?

[Page] 5. That Brother Browne instructed me in the fifth Monarchy principle, whereas he then opposed it.

Answ. I said [Mr. Browne and others were her Instructers, who were very zealous for the way called the fifth Monarchy, and having instructed her in those opinions, &c. If I did mistake here I recant my errour; But I will tell you my grounds. 1. That the others were of that opinion as they deny not, so I have heard no others deny. 2. At the publishing of that Book, same spake the same of Mr. Browne and of his companion. 3. The Book doth plead for that opinion. 4. His Epistle is before the Book as a Publishing applause of it. 5. He professeth that opinion to this day. And all these appearances might induce such a judgement of him. But if he took it up between the Action, and the publication of the Book, on what day or week, it is none of my business to declare: He better knoweth those himself.

[6. That I imposed abstinence upon my self as to meat (when I would gladly have eaten but durst not,5th Untruth. because I apprehended I had no right to the Creature being out of Christ) This is all false and untrue; and I am astonished that Mr. Baxter should with so much confidence affirm these things.]

[Page] Answ. 1. The good Woman understandeth not that she contradicteth her self: She did not impose abstinence on her self; but she durst not eat for the reason here given: that is, She did not impose abstinence on her self, but she did impose it for fear upon this reason. These untruths and nonsence in a Woman are more excusable than in her Teachers: Why doth She render a Reason why She durst not eat, if by that fear and for that reason she did not impose abstinence on her self? Did any other impose it, or shut her mouth? Is not that our own doing which we give a reason of, and say that we did it through fear? Doth not he that giveth a Thief his Purse, consent himself to it, and make it his own act to save his life? If she knew not what she did, why is she angry for being thought Melancholy, (which is many a Godly persons case?) If she did know, why doth she falsly call it an untruth, that she imposed it on her self? By this taste you may see that even in well-meaning people the same principles will oft have the same practices, when here are five untruths in this short Letter, and four at least of her accusation of my words are visible untruths.

But I would know of Mr. E. B. or her, whether it be true doctrine, that one out of Christ should not eat, because they have [Page]no right, and whether almost to consume her self with Famine was well done? If so, must all wicked men do so? If it be false doctrine (as undoubtedly it is) I further ask, whether it was the spirit of God, or Satan that was the Author of it? I hope she dare not father sin and falshood on Gods Spirit: And if it was a Temptation of Satan (as it was) I ask whether to yield so far to a Temptation so much against the light of Scripture, nature, and self-preservation, in a case so plain that common people know the errour of it, and to proceed so long almost to famishment in that errour and sin, I say, whether this shewed not some flaw at that time in natural understanding and reasoning as well as in grace? If it did (as sure it did) what could it be less than Melancholy? And I hope it was never the mind of Mr. Jordan, or Mr. Browne in that Book, to father this opinion or practice on Gods spirit. I doubt not but God thus oft tryeth his own; but it is as little doubt but that he oft leaveth them under Melancholy as the Tempters opportunity and advantage. And its pitty that poor souls should be angry with those that know their case, better than they themselves, and truly pitty them.

81

[Page] Sect. 81. R. B. I come now to Mr. Brownes Letter; wherein I will not reckon it (as it is) with his untruths, that my [two last Treatises give great occasion to the Adversaries of Truth and Purity to reproach and Blaspheme God and his people] For the man speaketh as his ill cause and principles have made him think. And that this is no more than some of my Disciples have suggested to him, whether it be true or false I know not. What men that I have been eleven years driven from, may be drawn to by cruelties on the one hand, and seducers on the other, I can give no account of at this distance: Let them answer for themselves.

The first untruth I charge him with is that I have uttered many falshoods of himself and others. 1st. Untruth. The case is anon to be tryed.

82

Sect. 82. Mr. Browne. P. 27. [How the present Conformists can be excused from some degree of Idolatry remains to be better proved—

R. B. An answer to what I said had been more congruous than this putoff. And that you take it for no Railing to call almost all Christs Churches on Earth (even the Reformed) Idolatrous, and yet take it for railing to be told that you so accuse them ignorantly, rashly [Page] and self-conceitedly, doth but shew the blinding power of selfishness and dividing principles, when there is so vast a disparity, 1. In the matter of the charge. 2. And in the persons charged.

That your Brother Bagshaw liath as you call it, now deceived your expectation and wronged his cause, that is, hath been fain to leave his untruths unjustified, I suppose you cannot deny in consistence with your own expressions.

83

Sect. 83. Mr. Browne. p. 28.2d Untruth. [Indeed sir, in two lines there are no less than two Vntruths published to the world concerning me: The first is that I am the Author and Publisher of that Book, which is affirmed by him against the most notorious evidence in the World to the contrary: The Author Mr. Timothy Jordain—and all that I did was, being desired to write an Epistle wherein I acquaint the Reader that I am not the Author of it, but only did joyne in Testimony to signifie what was recorded in the ensuing Treatise was true.

R. B. Reader, wouldst thou think it possible for a man that voluminously accuseth the Churches, and chargeth them with Idolatry, and had read my detection of his Brothers Untruths, to face men down with such words as these that I say that which I never said! I have many times over read my own words, and I [Page] can find no syllable of what he saith, that I affirm him to be the Author of that Book. I only said [the Publisher] and he addeth [the Author] as may presently by the Readers eye-sight be convicted. I say, [Published by Mr. Browne as is uncountroledly affirmed.] And is not this also a rash and careless man, that no better heedeth what he readeth and what he writeth? And doth he not here declare himself a Publisher of it, when he confesseth he put an Epistle to it, to joyne in Testimony, that what was recorded was true. And is this Printed Epistle and Testimony no Publication?

84

Sect. 84. Mr. Bowne. The second untruth is,3d Untruth. that I am uncontrolledly affirmed so to be, when I believe he had never a second in the world that either will or can affirm it.

R. B. Here are two more falshoods, 1. That it is an Vntruth that I said of him. 2. That I said it was uncontrolledly affirmed that he was the Author. But that he was a Publisher you have now his own Confession of his Epistle, which I had read, and Mr. Joseph Baker gave me the Book, and told me it was published by Mr. Jordain, and Mr. Browne, and this report I oft after heard, and it never was controlled to me; which is all that I can reasonably mean my [uncontrolled.] For [Page] how is it possible for me to know what is said of him to all others, in every distant place and corner?

85

Sect. 85. Mr. Browne. As for the Book it self and the matter of fact contained in it, I never yet met with any judicious sober Christian that had seriously perused it, who durst adventure to pronounce either of the whole or any considerable part of it, that it was an effect of Melancholy.

R. B. Who talkt of the whole? But what part you will call considerable who knows? Is not this a concession that some part is so judged of? And must your Ignorance of such matters as Melancholly have so great influence into your Divinity? But you may say true, For most now adayes converse with few but those of their own mind. And the Book is not to be got in any shop that I can hear of.

86

Sect. 86. Mr. Browne. Whether this decrying of experiences, this slighting the work of Gods spirit in the soul, the crying out that these things are but the effects of Melancholy, be not the ready way to make all supernatural Conversion derided, and the whole mysterie of Godliness contemned— consider—.

R. B. 1. Here is implyed a fourth Untruth,4th Untruth. that I decry experiences, and the rest here mentioned. 2. Alas, must the poor [Page] Church of Christ have such miserable Guides, that build hay and stubble, and think if it be burnt the Church must fall! I tell you sir, such rash and Ignorant Teachers, as your Writings shew you to be, are the men that do so much towards the very same effects which you seem to fear, even to tempt men to deride all supernatural conversion, as that I scarce know a more powerful way.

If you heard one man say [Satan as an Angel of Light stirred up the Quakers to pretend Miracles, Prophesies and spiritual raptures, purposely to tempt the World to Infidelity, by perswading them that the Spirit in the Prophets and Apostles was but the like] And if you heard James Naylor say, [Your calling the Spirit in us a vain Imagination or deceit, is the way to perswade men that the spirit in the Prophets and Apostles was but imagination and deceit;] Which of these two sayings would you believe? I take the case which I spake of to be the like.

I tell you still, that all the Truth and Goodness that your Book mentioneth truly, was wrought by the spirit of God. But if men will make the world believe that any false doctrine, or any sin, or any false exposition of Scripture is of the spirit, or that their unproved Impulses which are not agreeable to the word, but are against it or besides it, must be believed to be of God, [Page] and will describe these as Experiences and Gods way of Converting souls, their Ignorance will as effectually serve the Devil to bring true Conversion and the spirit into scorn, as the derisions of a Drunkard will do, if not more. It is no new thing for Satan to deceive as an Angel of light, and his Ministers as Ministers of Righteousness. And if you know not his wiles, expect not that we should all concur with you in exposing spirituality and holiness to the scorn of such as now abhorr it, or as of late have taken such advantages against those that are better than themselves.

87

Sect. 87. R. B. Whether you instructed her in those principles you know best: If you deny it, I retract it. That you were very zealous in them is past doubt; but just the day when you began, whether before that Book was begun, or before it was finished, or when, I leave to your own report.

88

Sect. 88. Mr. Browne. Indeed it is now my Opinion that there is a glorious state of the Church yet to come, before the last end of all things, when all Oppression and Oppressours shall cease, and every thing of man shall be laid down in subserviency to the Interest of Christ, and the Kingdom of the World shall become his.

[Page] R. B. Amen! It is my earnest Desire as well as yours; See Jer. 28. 6. But Desire and Belief are not all one. The Prophesies that you suppose foretell all this, I thought I almost understood thirty two years agoe; but since I perceive I did not: But I contradict not that which I do not understand, nor never did. Who will plead for Oppression? And what Christian desireth not the greatest Holiness and Righteousness in the World? I freely confess my Ignorance in the point, whether on this side the general Resurrection, there shall be so perfect and universal Righteousness as you describe, as that All Oppression shall cease. My greatest Hope is in the three Petitions of the Lords Prayer, Thy Name be Hallowed, Thy Kingdom Come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven: And I am sure this will warrant my desires. And I the better like those Opinions of a perfect age, because Hope will set men upon praying for it. But as I detest all Rebellions against just Authority on pretence that they are not truly Godly, and all setting up mens selves on pretence of setting up Christ, and using unlawful means on pretence of good ends, so I am afraid of being tempted down from the Heavenly Hopes and Comforts, by looking for more on earth than is indeed to be expected.

89

[Page] Sect. 89. Mr. Browne. p. 29. [He tells us first that she was suddenly moved to come to hear him Preach—

R. B. A meer untruth:5th Untruth. as I have before shewed. I said not so.

90

Sect. 90. Mr. Browne. That she had such convictions from his Sermon (for so he seems to intimate,) &c.

R. B. Untrue again:6th Untruth. as is before shewed: Nor will your seeming salve it.

91

Sect. 91. Mr. Browne. That she desired to speak with him is another untruth.

R. B. Of that I shall speak anon.

92

Sect. 92. Mr. Browne. That she did impose on her self abstinence from meat—

R. R. Here he contradicts himself as she did,7th Untruth. and saith she durst not eat, and yet falsly chargeth me with untruth for saying the same sence.

93

Sect. 93. Mr. Browne. Lastly, She never fell in so among the Quakers as to be one of them; though it is true that through the power of Temptations she was somewhat enclined to them.

R. B. Here he untruly intimated that I said more, who never said so much; but only that she thought they lived strictlyer than we, and fell in among them. And [Page] now Reader I shall again tell thee my reasons for all that I said of her.

Mr. Joseph Baker then Preacher in Worcester (a man of unquestionable Prudence and Credit, now with Christ) told me all that I have said of this Woman, and that she had not been at Church of a long time before, and was passing along the Streets, and was suddenly moved to go in to the Church at Lecture time; and that she was struck as aforesaid at the hearing of the Text, and before Sermon was done could hardly forbear crying out in Church; and that she had on the conceit of their strictness faln in among the Quakers; and been often at their meetings; but hearing them speak against Scriptures and Ministers was troubled, and thought that they spake that which her experience would not suffer her to consent to: and that she was like in these perplexities to fall into great Melancholy, and her body also to be weakened by the troubles of her mind, and that through his motion or perswasion she was desirous to speak with me: I had no reason to deny belief to him: When I came next to his house the Gentle-woman came to me, and he and she together repeated the substance of all this again, and she spake not a syllable against it: And speaking a few words to disswade her from the Quakers in haste, I never saw her more: The said Mr. Baker told me after of all her sad and Melancholy [Page] abstinence and weakness, and of Mr. Browne and Mr. Jordanes frequency with her; And shortly after shewed me the Book, with Mr. Brownes Epistle to it, and told me that which they now thus quarrel with, that Mr. Browne was one of the publishers of it, and was for the doctrine in it. Though I discerned by the Book that she her self was taken with that point. These things I long heard affirmed and confirmed, and never contradicted till this day, and now you hear that the Timeing of Mr. Brownes Opinion and endeavours, is all that they can say any thing against themselves. And thus much I thought meet to say against their rash occasions on this by-occasion.

94

Sect. 94. R. B. p. 30. I have not yet done with Mr. Bagshaw: He comes on again in a Postscript with more Untruths; And first he tells you how little commendation it is to my honesty to have yet such easie access now to the Licensers and Press that he can Print two Books before another man can Publish a few sheets—

Answ. 1. I never spake with the Licensor,45th Untruth by E. B. nor saw him; And if neither of those two Books were Licensed (when he wrote this at least) is not this still a fearless heedless man?

2. Is not Honesty among these men become a word of a new signification?A new sort of Honesty. And is it any wonder if our dishonesty make us [Page] unworthy of their Communion, when our honesty is questionable for the Licensing of our Books? If it be a sign of dishonesty to do any thing which our Rulers will but allow of, it may next be dishonesty to speak any thing that they think worthy to be believed, and to Preach the Gospel if they do but allow it. And may not your honesty be as reasonably questioned because you are suffered to Preach? Sure the Licensers are not so bad men, as to prove all dishonest whose Books they License?

95

Sect. 95. E. B. His last Book about the Sabbath—might have been wholly spared, Dr. Owen having judiciously and accurately handled that Question before him.]

R. B. 1. The Wisdom from above is without partiality and without hypocrisie. Envy and partiality. Was it a blot on Dr. Owens honesty that his Books are Licensed? O forgetful man! 2. Who made the Law, that no man must write on a subject after Dr. Owen? was Dr. Owen to be blamed for needless work, because he wrote on the Sabbath after Dr. Bound, Dr. Young, Dr. Twisse, Mr. Eaton, Mr. Bifield, Mr. Shephard, and many more? 3. Mine was Written and in the Press before Dr. Owens was abroad: (Though I had before seen Mr. Hughes his accurate Treatise that then came out.)

96

[Page] Sect. 96. E. B. His last Book about the Sabbath—doth make so full a discovery of Mr. Baxters spirit in pleading for Saints dayes, (that is, for will-worship.)

R. B. 1. Remember,Superstition. Reader, that it is my own Book, and not his, that discovereth my spirit. Fetch thy judgement of it thence and spare not. 2. And if thou find cause to put down the Commemoration of the Powder-plot or such other dayes for fear of willworship, do not therefore renounce all see houres for secret and family-prayer and Lectures; it being equally will-worship to appoint a set hour as a set day, which God in Scripture hath not appointed.

97

Sect. 97. E. B. [And in Atheistically arguing against the▪ 46th Untruth. Divine and self-evidencing authority of the holy Scriptures (which he doth for many pages together) that henceforth I hope he will no longer be a Snare, but justly he Rejected of all as one of the worst sort of Hereticks; since under the notion of being a Christian and a Protestant,47th Untruth. be doth with his utmost▪ industry and cunning labour to overthrow our foundation, in that he puts the credit of Scripture on the Truth of History, and 48th Untruth. denies any certainty but what may be gathered from that: which dangerous doctrine I could not but warn thee, Christian Reader, as thou lovest thy peace and comfort, as well as the truth of Christ, that thou wilt diligently [Page] beware of. And I must leave it to thee to judge, whether that Conformity which such a person pleads for, is not justly to be suspected.

R. B. Here are three more visible untruths in point of fact, 1. That I argue against the Divine Authority of the Scripture; yea or the self-evidencing either; which I have written for at large in three several Treatises. 1. In the 2d Part of my Saints Rest. 2. In a Book called the Unreasonableness of Infidelity. 3. In my Reasons of the Christian Religion, most fully: but never wrote a word against it. 2. That I do with my industry and cunning labour to overthrow our foundation: Hath this man written more for the foundation than those three Books? 3. That I deny any certainty but what may be gathered from the truth of History: For which he citeth not one word in which I ever said so, nor can: But the contrary is legible in the forecited Volumes, at large.

As to the matter of his Accusation I will not here write another Book, to tell men what I have written in the former: Read my own words, even those he accuseth, and my Treatise for the Christian Religion, and judge as you see Cause; But for them that will believe him to save them the labour of reading it in my own Books, as if another man were liker to tell rightly what I have written than the Books themselves, I leave them to judge, and do [Page] as they are, and as such men lead them.

And how far Tradition or History, or Humane aide and Testimony is necessary to our Reception of the Scripture, I have long agoe opened at large in the Preface to the second Part of my Saints Rest, and shewed you that Dr. Whitaker, Chemnitius, Davenant, Rob. Baronius and other Protestants usually say the same that I do, and that otherwise by casting away such subordinate means, Proud-ignorance and pievish wrangling will cut the throat of faith it self, and undermine the Church of God.

Reader, I will conclude also with an Admonition as my Accuser doth; As thou lovest Christianity, Scripture and thy soul, take heed of those Ignorant destroying-defenders of the Scripture, who would tell the Infidel world, that they may continue Infidels till we can prove, that the Scripture alone by its own light, without humane Testimony, History or Tradition, will bring it self to all mens hands without mans bringing it, and will translate it self, without mans translating it, or in the original tongues will make all English men, and all that cannot read at all, to understand it; or being translated will tell you sufficiently which is the true translation; and where the Translater failed; or will tell you among many hundred divers Readings which is the right, and which Copy is the truest, and [Page] which particular text is uncorrupted, or rightly translated? For instance, whether it should be in Luke 17. 37. [...] or [...], when it is [...] in Matth. 24. 18. and Beza saith, In uno exemplari & apud Theophilactum Scriptum est, [...], id est Cadaver; sicut etiam in nonnullis codicibus testatur selegisse Erasmus; Videtur (que) haec lectio magis accomodata, &c. Hundreds of such may be named.

And believe not these men till they can name you one man that ever knew before some man told him, by the Book alone whether Esther and the Canticles were Canonical, and the Book of Wisdom and Pauls Epistle to the Laodioaeans Apocryphal; and knew what was the sense of the Original Text, and what Copies, and Readings, and Translations were true, and what false? Yea or that knew these particular Books were the same that the Apostles wrote, without alteration, till some one told it them?

Would not that man reduce the Church into less than one single person, who would have no man believe the Scripture, nor take it for Gods word, till he can do it without any help of man, or humane History, or Testimony or Tradition? But of this I put him twenty Questions before.

It shall now suffice to tell you this much of the plain truth, that such furious false Teachers as shall take the foresaid course may not utterly subvert your faith.

[Page] The Scripture and Christian Religion taken together as one frame or Body,The self-evidencing light of Scripture, what it is. hath that in it self which may prove that frame, and all the essential parts of our Religion to be of God; And the true proof of the Divine Authority of the Scripture, is by the evidence of the spirit; not a new Revelation of the spirit; But by a double Impression of Gods own Image made by the Holy Ghost, one upon the Scripture it self, The other by the Scripture in its continued efficacy on Belivers souls: And both these Images are the Impresses of the Trinity of Divine Principles, even of the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God; which are unimitably done in both. This is the true proof that Scripture is the word of God.

But this proof excludeth not but supposeth the Ministry and Testimony of man as a subservient help and means; even to bring it to us, to translate it, to teach us how to know both the sense and verity of it, and to testifie which is the true Canon, Copies, Reading, Translation, &c. And they are ignorant subverting deceivers and destroyers of your souls, who would separate the Word, the Spirit and the Ministry which Christ hath conjoyned as necessary together for your faith: and that would cast out subservient helps as unnecessary under pretence of the sufficiency of the Scripture. As if Printing it were needless, because Scripture is sufficient of it self.

[Page] And the fore-said self-evidencing Light is not sufficient without humane help and Testimony to make you know every Canonical Book from the Apocryphal, nor to know the truest Copies in the Original, nor the rightest readings, nor this or that particular verse, to be uncorrupted; nor the translation to be true, nor this or that to be the true meaning of the Greek or Hebrew word; nor that the Minister readeth truly to the unlearned that cannot try it by his own skill, nor read himself. And he that would make the contrary supposition to be the foundation of your faith, would destroy your faith, the Church and you.

Postscript.

REader, since the Writing of this, two things have faln out which make it a more displeasing work to me than it was before; And I am sorry that Mr. Bagshaw made it necessary. The one is, that (as the current report saith) he is again in Prison, for Refusing the Oath of Allegiance: And I naturally abhorre to trample upon a suffering person (which hath caused me to say so little against the Armies and Sectarian miscarriages since their dissolution and dejection in comparison of what I did before in the time of their prosperity.) The other is, The [Page] Printing of the Life of Mr. Vavasor Powel, which hath so many good things in it, that I fear lest the mention of his false Prophecies (extorted by Mr. Bagshaw, who first published also his name as the Author of them) should abate their exemplary use.

But yet I must give this notice to forreigners and posterity, that they must not judge either of the JUDGEMENT or the SUFFERINGS of the Non-conformists by these mens: It is not for refusing the Oath of Allegiance that they are silenced, and suffer as they do: nor do they consent to the words which conclude the life of Mr. Powel, That since such a time he hath learnt that we must pray for our present Rulers as sinners, but not as Magistrates. No man can truly say that such Doctrines as these have been proved against any considerable part of the Ministers that are now cast out, or that they were deposed and silenced for such things, seeing they commonly take the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy.

And how far the ejected Ministers of Scotland are from the Principles of Separation, Mr. Browne a Learned Scottish Divine hath shewed in the Preface of a Learned Treatise Newly Published in Latine against Wolzogius and Velthusius, (even while he saith most against receding from a Reformation;) overthrowing the Tenents maintained by our two or three English Brownes, which formerly were called Brownisme. (Though the [Page] same mans numerous reasonings against the derivation of the Magistrates Office from the Power of the Mediator, I waite for leisure to refell.)

FINIS.

ERRATA.

IN the Contents, Page. 2. Sect. 24. for meant, r. recant. Sect. 5. p. 5. after and, adde into. Epist. p. 4. l. 27. for that, r. and. p. 41. l. 2. r. writings shew. p. 43. l. 22. for quod, r. quid. p. 86. l. 15. r. and by Mr. Eliot. p. 93. l. 12. for confirmed, r. confined. p. 100. l. 1. r. have not. p. 105. l. 21. for designe, r. deigne. p. 120. l. 9. for your, r. their. p. 146. blot out the two first lines (repeated) p. 181. l. 16. for occasions, r. accusations. less litteral errours are past by.

[Page] BUT I have one thing more to Advertise the Reader of, that I was too blame to believe Mr. Bagshaw in his recitation of my own words, in his pag. 5. where he saith that [of Cromwell himself, though he dyed in his sinful Usurpation without manifesting any repentance, I give this Saint-like Character in my Pref. to the Army, The late Protector did prudently, piously, &c. exercise the Government.] Having noted that I spake against Oliver a few leaves distant, I too rashly believed Mr. Bagshaw that this passage was spoken of him too. But upon perusal I find it is most notorious that I spake it of his Son, when the Army had brought him to a resignation, which any man may see that will peruse the place. Hereafter therefore I will not so hastily believe so common a—in what he writeth of the most visible subject, of my self or others.

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

Information about this book

Title statement

A second admonition to Mr. Edward Bagshaw written to call him to repentance for many false doctrines, crimes, and specially fourscore palpable untruths in matter of fact ... : with a confutation of his reasons for separation ... / by Richard Baxter ...

Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.

Edition statement

1671

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2006-02 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A27032

ID [STC]

Wing B1400

ID [STC]

ESTC R16242

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12545373

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12545373

ID [VID]

63037

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online 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.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A27032)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 63037)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 305:10)

Source

— A second admonition to Mr. Edward Bagshaw written to call him to repentance for many false doctrines, crimes, and specially fourscore palpable untruths in matter of fact ... : with a confutation of his reasons for separation ... / by Richard Baxter ..., Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691..

Extent

[11], 190, [1] p.

Printed for Nevill Simmons ...,. London :: 1671.. (Page 32 has faded print in the filmed copy. Pages 22-47 photographed from Union Theological Seminary Library, New York copy and inserted at the end.) (Errata: p. 190.) (Reproduction of original in British Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.