THE TRUE HISTORY OF COUNCILS Enlarged and Defended, Against the Deceits of a pretended Vindicator of the Pri­mitive-Church, but indeed of the Tympanite & Tyran­ny of some Prelates many hundred years after Christ.

With a Detection of the false History of Edward Lord Bishop of Corke and Rosse in Ireland.

And a Specimen of the way by which this Generation confuteth their Adversaries in several Instances.

And a Preface abbreviating much of Ludolphus's Histo­ry of Habassia.

Written to shew their dangerous Errour, who think that a gene­ral Council, or Colledge of Bishops, is a supream Governour of all the Christian World, with power of Universal Legisla­tion, Judgment and Execution, and that Christs Laws with­out their Universal Laws, are not sufficient for the Churches Uni­ty and Concord.

By RICHARD BAXTER, a Lover of Truth, Love, and Peace, and a Hater of Lying, Malignity, and Persecution.

To which is added by another Hand, a Defence of a Book, En­tituled, No Evidence for Diocesan Churches. Wherein what is further produced out of Scripture, and ancient Authors, for Diocesan Churches, is discussed.

London, Printed for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three Crowns, at the lower end of Cheapside, near Mercers Chappel. 1682.

To the Pious and Peaceable Protestant-Conform­ing Ministers, who are against our Subjection to a Foreign Jurisdiction. The notice of the Reason of this Book, with a Breviate of Ludol­phus's Habassian History.

Reverend Brethren,

WHen after the effects of our calamitous di­visions, the rejoycing Nation supposed they had been united, in our King new­ly restored (by a General and Army which had been fighting against him, invited & strengthned by the City, & many others) & an Act of Oblivion seemed to have prepared for future amity; some little thought that men were about going further from each other than they were before: But the Malady was evident to such of us as were called to attempt a Cure, and neither the Causes nor the Prognosticks hard to be known. A cer­tain and cheap Remedy was obvious; but no Pleas, no Petitions, could get men to accept it. The Symptomes then threatned far worse than yet hath come to pass, God being more merciful to us than mistaken men. We were then judged criminal for foreseeing and foretelling what Fruit the Seed then sown would bring forth: And since then the Sowers say the Foretellers are the cause of all. We quickly saw, that instead of hoping for any Concord, and healing of the Bones which then were broken, it [Page] would become our Care and too hard work, to endeavour to prevent a greater breach. Though we thought Two Thousand such Ministers as were silenced would be mist, when others thought it a blessing to be rid of them, we then feared, and some hoped, that no small number more would follow them.

It was not you that cast such out; nor is it you that wish the continuance and increase of the Causes. We agree with you in all points of the Christian Reformed Religi­on: and concerning the evil of all the sins which we fear by Conforming to commit, though we agree not of the meaning of those Oaths, Promises, Professions, and Pra­ctices, which are the matter feared. We live in unfeign­ed Love and Communion with those that love Truth, Ho­liness and Peace, notwithstanding such differences as these. God hath not laid our Salvation or Communion upon our agreeing about the meaning of every word or Sentence in the Bible, much less on our agreeing of the sense of every word in all the Laws and Canons of men.

Two things we earnestly request of you, for the sake of the Christian Religion, this trembling Nation, and your own and others Souls. 1. That you will in your Parish Relations seriously use your best endeavours to promote true Godliness and Brotherly Love, and to heal the sad Divisions of the Churches: We believe that it must be much by the Parochial Ministers and Assem­blies, that Piety and Protestant Verity must be kept up: And what we may not do, we pray that you may do it who are allowed. 2. That you will join with us against all Foreign Jurisdiction, Ecclesiastical or Civil.

The Party which we dread I have given you some ac­count of in my Reply to Mr. Dodwell. By their Fruits you may know them. 1. They are such as labour to make our Breaches wider, by rendring those that they dissent [Page] from odious, which commonly is by false accusations▪ They call out for Execution by the Sword against those that dare not do as they do, and cry, Go on, abate no­thing; they are factious Schismaticks, rebellious: They might easily have learnt this Language, without staying long in the Universities, and without all the Brimstone Books that teach it them. An invisible Tutor can soon teach it them without Book. He that hateth his Bro­ther is a murtherer, and hath not eternal Life abiding in him. 2. They are for an universal humane Govern­ment, with power of Legislation and Judgment over the whole Christian World. How to call it they are not yet agreed, whether Aristocratical, or Monarchical, or mixt. Some of them say that it is in the Collegium Epis­coporum, governing per Literas formatas, for fear lest if they say, It is in Councils, they should presently be con­futed by the copious Evidence which we produce against them. And yet they may well think that men will ask them [When did all the Bishops on Earth make Laws for all the Christian World, or pass Sentences on Offen­ders without ever meeting together? And how came they to know each others minds? and which way the major Vote went? And what, and where are those Laws which we must all be governed by, which neither God nor Councils made? The Canons were all made by Councils.

If you say that I describe men so mad, as that I must be thought to wrong them, I now only ask you, whether our Case be not dismal when such men as you call mad, have power to bring us and keep us in our `Divisions; or to do much towards it without much contradiction?

But others who know that such palpable darkness will not serve their cause, do openly say, that it is General Councils which are the Legislative and judging Gover­nours [Page] to the whole Church on Earth, as one Political Body. For they know that we have no other Laws be­sides Gods and theirs, pretended to be made for all the World. But when the Cases opened by me in the Second part of my Key for Catholicks, and else where, do silence them, this Fort also is deserted by them. Even Albert. Pighius hath rendred it ridiculous. 1. If this be the specifying or unifying Head, or summa Potestas of the Universal Church, then it is not monarchical but Aristo­cratical. 2. Then the Church is no Church, when for hundreds of Years there are no General Councils, an essen­tial part being wanting. And they that own but the 4 or 6 first General Councils, make the Church no Church, or to have been without its essentiating Government these Thousand Years. And by what proof, besides their incre­dible Word, can they tell the Church, that they are sub­ject to the six first General Councils, and yet not to the seventh, eighth, ninth, or any since? 3. I have oft (a­gainst Johnson, and elsewhere,) proved that there ne­ver was an universal Council of all the Churches, but on­ly of part of those in the Roman Empire; Were there no proof but from the recorded Names of the Callers of Coun­cils▪ and all the Subscribers, it is unanswerable. 4. Who knows not that the Church is now divided into about Twelve Sects, all condemning one another? And that they are under the Power of various Princes, and many Enemies to Christianity, who will never agree to give them leave to travel to General Councils? And who shall call them, or how long time will you give the Bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, the Jacobites, Abassines, Nestorians, Armenians, Muscovites, and all the rest, to learn so much of each others Languages, as to debate in­telligibly matters of such moment, as Laws for all the World must be. Twenty more such absurdities, make [Page] this Aristocracy over all the World, as mad a conceit as that forementioned: And when we know already what the Christian Parties hold, and that the said Jacobites, Nestorians, Armenians, Circassians, Mengrelians, Greeks, Muscovites, &c. are far more than either Protestants or Papists, do we not know that in Councils if they have free Votes they will judge accordingly against both.

But this sort of men are well aware, that the Church is always, but Councils are rare, and it's, at least, uncertain whether ever there will be more; and the Ar­ticles of the Church of England say, They may not be called without the Will of Princes; and the Church is now under so many contrary Princes as are never like to agree hereto. And they know that some body must call them, and some body must preside, &c. Therefore they are forced to speak out, and say, that the Pope is St. Pe­ters Successor, the prime Patriarch, and principium Uni­tatis, and must call Councils, and as President moderate and difference the lawful from the unlawful: And that in the Intervals of Councils he as Patriarch is to govern at least the West, and that every Diocesane being ex Of­ficio, the Representer of his Diocess, and every Metro­politane of his Province, and every Patriarch of his Pa­triarchate, what these do all the Bishops on Earth do. And so the Riddle of a Collegium Pastorum is opened, and all cometh but to this, that the Italians are Papists, who would have the Pope rule Arbitrarily, as above Councils; but the French are no Papists, who would have the Pope rule only by the Canons or Church Parlia­ments, and to be singulis Major, at universis Minor. This is the true Reformation of Church-Government, in which the English should (by them) agree. And now you know what I am warning you to beware of.

We are for a twist & conjunction of the civil Power [Page] and the Ecclesiastical, and for Christian Kingdoms, and Churches, so far national as to be ruled and protected by Christian Kings, in the greatest Love and Concord that can be well obtained: And for Councils necessary to such ends: But we are not for setting up a Foreign Jurisdi­ction over King and Kingdom, Church and Souls, upon the false claim of uncapable Usurpers. One of your selves in a small Book called, The whole Duty of Nations, and another, Dr. Isaac Barrow against Papal and all Foreign Jurisdiction, (published by Dr. Tillotson) have spoken our thoughts so fully, as that we only intreat you to take those for our sense, and concurr with us therein for our common Peace and Safety.

We reverence all Councils so far as they have done good; we are even for the Advice and Concord of Fo­reigners; but not their Jurisdiction.

If you know the difference between an Assembly of Princes consulting for Peace and Concord, and a Senate to govern all those Princes as their Subjects, you will know the difference between our Reverence to Foreign Councils, and the Obedience to them now challenged as the only way to avoid Schism. I hope you will join with us in being called Schismaticks both to Italian and French Papists.

The great Instrument of such mens Design being to o­ver-extol Councils called General, and to hide their Mis­carriages, and so by false History to deceive their credu­lous party who cannot have while to search after the truth, I took it to be my Duty to tell such men the truth out of the most credible Historians, especially out of the Councils themselves as written by our greatest Adversa­ries; that they may truly know what such Bishops and Councils have done. Among others this exasperated a Writer, (by same called Mr. Morrice,) who would make men believe that I have wronged Councils and Bishops, [Page] and falsified History: and divers other accusations he brings, to which I have tendered you mine Answer. I have heard men reverence the English Synods, who yet thought that the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th Excommunicating Canons and the late Engines to cast out 2000 Ministers, proved them such to England as I will not denominate. I have heard men reverence the present Ministry and U­niversities, who yet have said, that they fear more hurt from the worser part of them to England, than they should do from an Army of Foreign Enemies whom we might resist.

I write much, and in great weakness and haste, and have not time for due perusal: And my judgment is ra­ther to do it when I think it necessary, as I can, than not at all. And Mr. M. would make his Readers believe, when he hath found a word of Theodorets hastily mista­ken, and Calami translated Quils, and such matter for a few trifling cavils, that he hath vindicated the Coun­cils and Bishops, and proved me a false Historian.

And can we have a harder censure of General Councils than his own Reverend Lords and Patrons pass upon them, who tell us that there is but six of all the multi­tude to be owned. If all the rest are to be rejected, I think the faults of those six may be made known, against their Designs who would bring us under a Foreign Jurisdicti­on, by the art of over-magnifying General Conncils.

I confess these men have great advantage against all that such as I can say; for they have got a sort of Fol­lowers who will take their words, and are far from ha­ving will or wit impartially themselves to read the Hi­flories and try the case; but will swear that we are all Rogues and Schismaticks, and unfit to be suffered: And they have got young Reverend Priests, who can cry, away with them, execute the Laws; being conscious how much [Page] less able they are to confute us, than the Gaoler is: But this is but a Dream: The morning is near, when we shall all awake. Perhaps you remember the jeasting story with which Sag [...]tar [...]us begins the Preface to his Me­taphysicks: Indeed the hysterical suffocating Vapours do ordinarily so work, that in a place of Perfumes or sweet­ness the Women faint and swoun away as dead; and Ca­story or Assa Foe [...]da, called Stercus Diaboli, or such like stink, reviveth them like a Cordial. And worse vapours affect the men we speak of: Motions of Love they can­not bear; but reviling and false accusing Books and Speeches are Food and Medicine to them.

One of my chief Controversies with Mr. M. is about the Acts and Effects of the Councils of Ephesus and Cal­cedon, about the Nestorian and Eutychian and Mono­thelite Controversies. That the issue was most doleful Di­visions of the Christian World, unhealed to this day, is past the denial of sober men. Whether this was long of the Bishops and Councils is the question. I have fully proved that Nestorius, Cyril, and Dioscorus were all of the same Faith and differed but in wording the same sense: And if so, judge how much the World is beholden to these Councils of Bishops: But this Mr. M. taketh for a false Report.

Because it is our most important difference, I will here give the Reader an account of the Effect of these Coun­cils even to our times, in the great Empire of Habassia, out of the much praised History of Job Ludolphus.

Lib. 3. c. 8. In order to declare the Religion of the Ha­bassines he first declareth the Success of the Council of Calcedon, thus,—[Damnatus Dioscorus Patriarcha Alexandrinus tanquam Eutychis Defensor & Haeresiar­cha, verberibus quoque mulctatus & in exilium ejectus fuit, alio Patriarcha Catholico in locum ejus suffecto— [Page] Atrox exinde in Ecclesia Alexandrina Schisma, caede & sanguine continuatum, in causa fuit, ut non solum mul­to maxima pars Ecclesiae Alexand. à reliqua Ecclesia Catholica avelleretur, sed & Aegyptus ipsa, attritis in­colarum viribus, in Saracenorum potestatem veniret; qui discordiâ Christianorum, utrosque oppresserunt; ut exi­guum, proh dolor! vestigium Christianae Religionis nunc in Aegypto supersit. Haec atque alia talia Scriptores nostri.

And the loss of Egypt and the South, so strengthened the Enemies of Christianity, that this breach let in De­struction to the whole Christian Empire: But the loss of the whole Empire and Introduction of Mahometanism, in the Eyes of our fiery Canoneers, is no dishonour to these Councils: It is but saying, It was all long of Dioscorus, and the Hereticks: And were not these Hereticks also Prelates and Prelatical?

But he procedeth, [‘But the Aethiopians thus re­port it, that Dioscorus and his Successors, and their followers did greatly complain of the Injury done them; for he neither followed Eutyches, nor ever de­nied or confounded the Divinity or Humanity really existing in Christ, but only was unwilling to acknowledg the word [Nature] to be common to the Divinfty and Humanity of Christ; and only avoided this, lest con­trary to the mind of the Catholick Church, and the Decrees of the General Council at Ephesus, two per­sons of Christ should be asserted: For that would sol­low, if we admit Two Natures, and two Wills in Christ. And the word [ [...]] [Nature] signifying som­what born or created, no way fitteth the Divinity: Nor can the mind conceive of two Wills, in two Na­tures united in one person, without Division, Separa­tion, or Distance: And the Humane Nature exalted into the state of Glory, doth not will, do, or suffer the [Page] same which it willed, did and suffered in the state of Exinanition; and so in the present state of Glory, the humanity doth neither will nor judge any thing but what the Divinity at once willeth and judgeth. And this being our known Judgment, the question seemeth idle, and a meer strife of Words, for which Christians should not have hated one another. At Cal­cedon they proceeded from Words to Blows, and fought more than they dispured: And Dioscorus was condemned absent, neither heard nor well understood, as obstinate and guilty of Heresie in Hatred and En­vy srather than by right.’]

This is the Habassines Opinion of the Council and Con­troversie, false no doubt in our Canoneers Judgment, (for alas they are unlearned men;) but indeed much truer and wiser than their Adversaries.

He proceedeth, ‘Primo reperi omni dubio carere, quod Habessini rejiciunt consilium Chalcedonense—2. Ob­servavi eos in hoc errore esse, quasi Patres Concilii Cal­ced. Hypostasin Christi dividere, & contra praecedens Concilium Ephesinum ex una duas personas facere vo­luerint—Hanc ob causam damnant Leonem Papam, & in coelum extollunt suum Dioscorum tanquam Ortho­doxae fidei hyperaspisten qui justo zelo diploma Leonis ad se datum di [...]aceravit; eumque Martyri assimilant, ob accepta verbera, excussos dentes & evulsam barbam.]’ (But it eased the Spleen of the Bps. at present, and then all the following loss seems tolerable.) He addeth, ‘[4. Con­stat ex multis locis, quod utrumque abstractum, Divi­nitatem & Humanitatem, conjunctim in Christo aperte confiteantur. Quid autem hoc aliud est, quam agnosce­re duas simul naturas in Christo. 5. Tellezius ex Rela­tione Patrum societatis testatur [utramque naturam] reperiri in eorum libris. 6. He shews that the Habassines [Page] words have various signification, and by two natures, they mean two Persons—Which (saith Ludolphus) when I read and consider, I find all to be confused and per­plexed: There is no certain state of the question, and the words are out of measure equivocal. Perhaps Eu­tyches himself could not tell what sort of Nature was made of two, and what was its name, and what was its qualities: But that he was such a fool as to think that the Natures in Christ were so confused as Water is with Wine, and that in so absurd an Opinion he had most wise men agreeing with him; this almost exceedeth all belief: Certainly the Ethiopians are not guilty of so gross a Heresie. Wherefore I confess I cannot under­stand what those frequent Disputations were, which the Jesuits had with the Habassiines, of two Natures in Christ, in which they say they had still the worse, be­ing convicted by their own Books, which I easily believe, seeing they most willingly confess Christs Divinity and Humanity. To me it seemeth likely only that they could not agree in words. Do but explain to them that by Natures in Christ we mean his Divinity and Humanity, & then ask them which Nature is it that faileth in Christ. Most certainly they will answer that neither the Divi­vinity nor Humanity failed, but both continue eternal­ly. And so it's plain, that they take the word Nature in a far other sense than we, and that the true state of the question with them is, whether and by what com­mon Name the two abstracts are to be denominated, which they undoubtedly confess.’

Now good Mr. Morrice, (with your Lords) you must pardon me, (or choose) for thinking that it is not neces­sary to Salvation, or to keep the Church from utter▪ con­fusion, to be such Criticks in Grammar or Metaphy­sicks, as to resolve the questions about the sence of Na­ture, [Page] and Unity, or Duality, which you no better re­solve your selves; I say, it is not necessary by Gods Law, but by the Councils: And if I be a Schismatick for hold­ing that Christs Universal Law is so sufficient for his Church, as that a Legislative Power in Councils to make such Laws as shall tear all to pieces the Churches for 1300 Years, and teach our Holy Fathers to damn Millions of the Innocent, is not either necessary or desireable; a Schismatick I will continue.

Ludolphus proceeding to open the ambiguity of the words, addeth, [‘A famous Country-man of ours, who anno 1634 dwelling in Egypt, read the Books of the Cophties (Pet. Heylin of Lubeck.) judged that [the Dissent of the Parties was more in their fear of the Se­quele, than in the matter itself: For the Greeks would obviate the Hereticks who confound Christs Divinity and Humanity: And the Cophties those who feign two Persons in Christ.] And if indeed this be the case, that the Fight either of old was, or still is only about the sense of words; verily no kind of Tears can be so sharp, as to suffice to weep for this unhappy Word-War; No Breast can be so hard which would not mourn for the unhappy Contentions of them, to whom Christ by his own ex­ample solicitously commended the strictest Bond of Cha­rity: No mind can be so cruel, which for the name of [Nature] would loose the knot of Concord between those whose Nature the eternal Word assumeth into his most sacred Hypostasis.’]

Fie, Mr. Ludolphus, can you so well describe Ethiopia, and no better know your Neighbours? Come into England and you may soon know the Reverend and Right Re­verend, who will not only defend this Councils Acts, and condemn those that be not of their mind, but are ready to do the like themselves, and triumph over the thousands [Page] silenced, as they judge, for lesser things; yea, and make that Councils Canons such a Law to the Universal Church, as that all are Schismaticks that obey it not.

But Ludolphus yet considering, addeth▪ [But such is the Infirmity of our most corrupt Nature, that where once Ambition hath begun, and from Ambition Emulation, and from Emulation Envy, and from Envy Hatred, the mind possessed with (such) affections, no more perceiv­eth Truth, but as with Ears and Eyes shut up, neither heareth nor seeth, how or with what mind any thing is spoken or written by the other side.

O Sir, now I perceive you understand more than you seemed to do.

But yet the History is behind. The Pope hath long had a great desire to be the Church Governour of Habassia, but could never come to know it, much less to bear Rule over it. At last the Portugals getting possession of some Mari­time parts, whence with much difficulty it was possible to come to them, the Pope got them to help the Habas­sines in a dangerous War which they had against their Neighbour Mahometanes and Heathens, on condition that the Habassines would receive a Patriarch and Je­suites from Rome: The Portugals Guns, (which that Country had not) and their own necessity, made the Ha­bassines consent: The Roman Patriarch and Jesuits came over. The custom of Habassia had long been to receive a Metropolitan called their Abuna, from the Patri­arch of Alexandria, who being a poor unlearned Subject, and almost Slave to the Turk, made Abunas and Priests as unlearned as himself: when the Jesuits came furnish­ed with Arts and Sciences, the matter came to long Dis­putes; for the People, especially the Monks and the Ru­lers, were loth to change their old accustomed Religion, called the Alexandrian, for that called the Romane: [Page] The King would needs have it done by hearing both par­ties speak: But the learned Jesuites were still too hard for the unlearned Habassines: One King seemed to like the Romanes, but his Son (Claudius) stiffly resisted them: Others afterward again needed help, and received them, and by their Disputes seemed really to be for them, seeing how much the Jesuites excelled their Priests; specially K. Zadengelus, being taken with the Jesuits Preaching, when all his own Clergy only read Liturgies & Homilies, & never preacht: He set up the Romane Patriarch & power, & K. Susneus after him sware Obedience to the Pope, and resolutely established Popery: Disputes brought him to it: And the Jesuites knowing that it must be somthing which seemed to be of Weight, which must make the Em­pire submit to a Change of their Religion, accuse the Abas­sines as erring with the Eutychians, in rejecting the Coun­cil of Galcedon, and denying two Natures and Wills in Christ. This was chosen as the main Subject of the great Disputes: The Emperour was convinced of their Here­sie, and became a resolute Proselite to Rome: And Po­pery Eight Years had the upper ruling hand.

But all this while the Empire was in discontent: The Royal Family and the Sub-Governours oft broke out into Rebellion. To be short, many bloody battels were fought. The Emperour usually had the Victory: But when one field of blood was dried up, a new Rebellion still Sprung up. The Papists still told the K. that God gave him the Victory for owning his Church and Cause. His Rulers, Priests, and Monks told him he killed his Subjects, and in the end would lose his Empire for nothing but bare words. Af­ter many fights in the last about Eight Thousand of his Subjects called his Enemies, were killed: The Kings own adherents being no friends to the Roman Change, desired the King to view the dead, and made to him presently [Page] this Speech: ‘These were not Heathens nor Mahometanes▪ in whose death we might justly rejoice: They were Chri­stians; they were formerly your Subjects our Countrymen▪ and near in Body some of them to you, and some to us: How much better might so many valiant Breasts have been set against the deadly Enemies of your Kingdom. It's no victory which is got upon Citizens; with the Sword by which you kill them, you stab your self. Those whom we persecute with so terrible a War do not hate us, but only are against that Worship which we force them to: How many have we already killed for the changing of Religion (Sacrorum?) How many more are there yet to be killed? What end will there be of Fighting? Give over we beseech you▪ to drive them to your new Religious things (nova sacra,) lest they give over to obey you, else there will never be a safe peace.]’ Yea, the Kings eldest Son and his Brother got the Gallans (Heathens,) that had been Souldiers for the King, to tell him they would fight against his Dissenting Christians no more. The K. growing weary of War▪ and seeing and hearing all this, changed his mind, and called a Council▪ in which it was agreed, [That the Alexandrian Religi­on should be restored: And to effect this they declared, that indeed the Roman Religion was the very same: Both said that Christ is true God and true Man: And to say, There is one Nature, or there are two, are words of small moment, and not worthy the ruining of the Em­pire.] And thus the King was brought to give Liberty of Religion to the Dissenters.

The Romane Patriarch understanding all this, goeth with the Bishop and Jesuits to the King, and made this Speech to him, [‘I thought we had been lately Conque­tours but behold we are conquered: The Rebels that were conquered have obtained that which they desired: [Page] Before the Fight was the time of Vowing and Promising, but now is the time of Performing: The Catholick and Portugal Soldiers got the Victory, God prospering the Catholick Religion: But now what thanks is given him? When it is decreed the other day, that the Alexandri­an Religion shall be freely permitted. And here you consult not with the Bps. and Religious men, but the dull Vulgar, and Gallanes and Mahometanes, yea and Women pass Sentence of Religion: Bethink you how many Victories you have won against the Rebels since you followed the Romane Religion. Remember that it was not as constrained by Arms or Fear, but induced by free Will, that you embraced it as the truer. Nor did we come to you of our own accord, but were sent by the Pope of Rome, the highest Prelate, and the King of Portugal, and this at your Request. Nor did they ever intend any thing (against you) but only to join your Kingdom to the Church of Rome. Take heed therefore lest you provoke them to just Indignation: They are far off you, but God is near you, and will demand the satisfaction which is due to them, you will inure an in­delible Blot on the Lyon of the tribe of Judah, with whom your Ensigns shine; and will imprint a stain on your Glory and your Nation: In a word you will cause so many sins by your Apostafie, as, that I may not see them, nor the Vengeance of God, which hangeth over you, I desire you to command that my Head may be presently cut off.’] Thus lay the Parriarch, Bp. and Je­suits at the Kings feet in tears.

Readers, Lest you think that I have mistranslated, to fit the matter to our times, I intreat the learned to try it by the Original: You see that the things that are, have been, and that sin so blindeth and hardeneth sin­ners, that one Age and Country will take no warning by many others.

[Page]You see here that the Name and Interest of God and Re­ligion▪ and the Church may be pleaded by a blind ambiti­ous Clergy▪ for the murdering of Thousands for a bare difference of Names and Words, and Gods Judgments threatned against those that will not go on in killing and destroying, and making Kingdoms desolate by Cruelty: And that the hurt Satan doth by Witches and Highway Robbers, is a Flea▪biting in comparison of what he doth by ambitious Prelates and valiant Soldiers. The dis­mallest Story of the success of Witches is that of the Swedes Witches, by Mr. Hornick translated; But what is the killing of now and then one, to the Murder of so many Thousands, the Ruine of so many Kingdoms, the Silencing of so many Thousand faithful Preachers, the Persecuting of so many Thousand godly Christians▪ and the engaging the Christian World in Hatred and War, as the Popish Prelates have been guilty of?

But you'l expect the Answer of King Susneus to the Pa­triarch.

Ludolphus thus proceedeth, (li. 3. c. 12.) [‘The King unmoved briefly answereth, that he had done as much as he was able, but could do no more. And that the bu­siness was not about the total change of Religion, but only about the grant or (Liberty) of certain Rites (or Ceremonies.)’

(O Sir, you had been happier if you had known that sooner!)

‘The Patriarch answered, that he himself had indul­ged some things▪ and was about to indulge more, which concern not the substance of Faith,’ (you are for Tole­ration till the Fires are kindled,) so be it another Edict might be proclaimed, that there might be no other change. The King gave him no other Answer, but that the next day he would send some to treat with the Fa­thers.

[Page]They that were for the Alexandrian Religion go to the Emperour, and by Abba Athanasius request, that by a publick Edict he would allow his Subjects to em­brace the Religion of their Ancestors, else the Kingdom would be ruined. The King consented, and sent some to the Patriarch, to acquaint him with it. These upbraid him with the many defections of the People. ‘Aelius, Caabrael, Tecla-George, Sertzax, with many Myriades slain: And that the Lastenses yet fought for the old Re­ligion, and all ran to them. But the King was deserted, all the Habassines desiring their old Religion. But that they that would might follow the Roman Religion, &c.’

The Papists seeing that they could get no better but a Toleration, sent to the King this Answer by Emanuel d'Almeyda, That [‘the Patriarch understood, that both Religions were tolerated in his Kingdom, and now he loved Ethiopia equally with his own Country Portu­gal, and would presently grant as much as might stand with the purity of Doctrine, (viz, of the two Natures) But there must be difference made between those who had not yet received the Roman Religion, and with them they might agree; but those that had given up themselves to it, and had used the sacred Confession and Communion, might not be suffered to return to the Alexandrian Religion without grievous Sin.]’ By this temperament the Patriarch would have kept the King and all his Court; for these had professed the Roman Religion. But the King weakened with Age and Sickness gave them no other Answer but. [‘But how can that be done, for I have not now the Power of the Kingdom?’] Home went the Prelates and Jesuits: And presently the Trumpets and Drums sounded, and the Crier proclaim­ed, [‘Oyes, Oyes, (Hear ye) We first proposed to you [Page] the Romane Religion, taking it for good; but an in­numerable multitude of men perished, with Aelius, Ca­brall, Tecla-George, Sertzaxo, and with the Country Lastenses; Wherefore we now grant you the Religion of your Ancestors: It shall be lawful hereafter for the Alexandrian Clergy to frequent their Churches, and to have their Arculae for the Eucharist, and to read their Liturgy in the old manner: So farewel, and Rejoice▪’]

It is incredible with what joy this Edict was received by the People, and how the whole Camps applauded and rejoiced, as if they had been delivered from an invading Enemy, specially the Monks and Clergy having felt the Fathers greatest hatred, did lift up to Heaven their joy­ful voices: The Vulgar Men and Women danced, the Soldiers prayed all Prosperity to the Emperour: They broke their own Rosaries, and other mens as they met them, and burned some, saying, ‘That it was enough for them that they BELIEVE CHRIST TO BE TRUE GOD and TRUE MAN, and THERE IS NO NEED OF DISPUTING ABOUT TWO NATURES,’ and so they returned to the old way.

It's worth the noting here, that the Papists way was cast out as Novelty, and the other kept on the account of Antiquity: For Habassia never had received the Pope till the Portugals came to help them. Tet are they not ashamed here to call theirs the old Religion, because when they had banished the old, [which was simple Christia­nity] we returned to it by Reformation.

Besides the Dectrine of Two Natures, about which they saw they agreed in sense, while the Jesuites Here­ticated them, three things much alienated the Habassines: 1. Denying them the Sacrament of the Eucharist in both kinds. 2. Rebaptising their Children. 3. Reordain­ing their Priests.

[Page]This much being done, the Papists were by degrees soon overcome. 1. The Patriarch is accused for preach­ing Sedition. 2. Then the Temples are taken from them, and they break their own Images lest the Habassines should do it in seorn. 3. On Sept. 16. 1632. the King died, and his Son Basilides was against them. 4. Ras-Seel­axus their most powerful friend is banished, and others after him. 5. Upon more Accusations their Farmes, Goods, and Guns are seised on. 6. They are confined to Fremona: Thence they petition again for new Disputati­ons: The King Basilides answereth them thus by writing:

[‘What I did heretofore was done by my Fathers command, whom I must needs obey, so that by his conduct I made War against my Kindred and Sub­jects. But after the last Battle in Wainadega, both learn­ed and unlearned, Clergy and Laity, Civil and Military men, great and small, fearlesly said to my Father the King, How long shall we be vexed & tired with unprofita­ble things? How long shall we fight against our Brethren and near Friends, cutting off our Right Hand with our Left? How long shall we turn our Swords against our own Bowels, when yet by the Roman Belief we know nothing but what we knew before? For what the Ro­manes call two Natures in Christ, the Divinity and Hu­manity, we knew it long ago, from the beginning even unto this day: For we all believe that the same Christ our Lord is perfect God and perfect Man; perfect God in his Divinity, and perfect Man in his Humanity: But whereas those Natures are not separated, nor divided, (for each of them subsisteth, not by itself, but conjunct with the other) therefore we say not that they are two things, for one is made of two, yet so as that the Na­tures are not confounded or mixed in his Being. This Controversie therefore is of small moment among us: [Page] Nor did we fight much for this; but specially for this cause, that the Blood was denied the Laity in the Lu­charist, whenas Christ himself said in the Gospel, ex­cept ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood ye shall not have eternal Life.—But they detest­ed nothing more than the Reiteration of Baptisms, as if before the Fathers rebaptized us we had been Hea­thens or Publicanes: And that they Reordained our Priests and Deacons.—You too late offer us now that which might have been yielded at the first; for there is now no returning to that which all look at with the greatest horrour and detestation, and therefore all fur­ther Conferences will be in vain.’]

In short the Patriarch and all the rest were utterly banished out of the Empire. Ludolph. l. 3. c. 13.

I add one but thing (ex cap. 14.) to end the story. As the new Alexandrian Abuna was coming out of Egypt, the foresaid Dr. Peter Heyling of Lubeck being then in Egypt, took that opportunity to see Habassia, and went with him: On the Borders at Suagena they met the depart­ing Roman Patriarch; where Peter Heyling enters the List with him, & so handled him as made it appear, that it was only the poor Habassine Priests unlearnedness, which had given the Jesuits their Success: And the Patriarch at the parting, sighing said to his Company, If this Do­ctor come into Habassia, he will precipitate them in­to the extreamest Heresie. But what became of him is yet unknown.

And so much for this History of the Roman Conquest in Habassia, by the Calcedon Council, and the Hereticating the Habassines, about the one or two Natures, and the Eight years possession Popery got by it, and the many bloody Battles fought for it, the Prelates powerful Ora­tory for it, and the Peoples more powerful against it; [Page] the Kings mind changed by sad experience, and the Pa­pists finally Extirpated.

And it is exceeding observable, that their very Victo­ries were their Ruine, and the last and greatest which killed 8000, was it that overcame them, when they thought they had done their work. And those that conquered for them drove them out, when they consider­ed what they had done: But had it not been better known at a cheaper rate?

This Tragedy is but the fruit of the Council which Mr. Morrice justifieth: The fruit of a Church determination above 1200 years ago. If you had seen the Fields of blood in Habassia, would it not have inclined you to my Opi­nion against Mr. M. Or if he had seen it, would it not have changed his mind? I doubt it would not, because the Silencings and Calamities in England no more move such men; and because they still call for Execution a­gainst those that obey not all their Oaths and Ceremonies▪ and will abate nothing, what ever it may ost the Land by the strengthening of them that are for our Division: And because the 1200 years experience hath not yet been enough to make them see the faultiness of such Bishops & Councils, [...]ay, because they yet take not all Gods Laws in Nature and Scripture for sufficient to Rule the Catholick Church in Religion, without the Laws of these same Councils, which have had such effects: But some Bishops and Cle [...]g [...] Men yet stand to it▪ that All must be taken as Schismaticks who obey no [...] these same Councils Decrees, as the Laws of the Universal Church.

And if Lud [...]lp [...]s and the Abassines can say so much against Here [...]g those called Eutychians, much more may be said for the Nestorians, to prove that the Contro v [...]s [...] was but verbal.

There is in Biblioth. Pat. To. 6. p. 131. the Missa quâ [Page] utuntur antiqui Christiani Episcopatus Angamallensis in Montanis Mallabarici Regni apud Indos Orientales, e­mendata & ab erroribus blasphemiisque Nestorianorum expurgata per Alexium Menesium Archiepiscopum Goa­num an. 1599. I had rather have had it with all its Errours, that we might have truly known how much is genuine. But it being one of the most Scriptural, rati­onal, and well composed Liturgies of all there publish­ed; It would make one think, 1. That these Nestorians were not so bad a people as their Anathematisers would have made the world believe them. 2. That the Banish­ment of the Nestorians and Eutychians accidentally pro­ved a great means of the Churches enlargement beyond the bounds of the Romane Empire, whither they were ba­nished: And this is plain in current History.

I have given you this account of my Design in both the Books, (The History of Councils, with its Vindication, and the following Treatise.) I add an Answer to a Lord Bishop of Corke and Rosse, who hath written many Hi­storical Untruths by his credulity, believing false Re­porters. As to his and others Reprehension of my sharp unpeaceable words, my Case is hard; My own Consci­ence at once forbids me to justifie my Stile or Passion; and also tells me that if making odious Gods servants, si­lencing and persecuting faithful Ministers, and Perjury, should prove as great a guilt and danger of Destruction to the Land, as is feared, I cannot justifie my long Silence, nor that I use no more plainness and fervency in calling the guilty to Repent.


  • I. A Specimen of the Way by which this Generation confuteth their Adversaries in several Instances.
  • II. In the General Part:
    • § 1. Hard for young men to know what Teachers or History to believe.
    • § 7. Tempting Reasons for Papacy.
    • § 8. Evident against it.
    • § 9. The Steps by which Bishops ascended to Papacy.
    • § 15. The different Opinions of Popery in the English.
    • § 18. The Case of Fact discerned, what Judgment I settled in about Church-Power.
    • § 20. For what Mr. M. hath wrote with so much displeasure a­gainst me.
    • § 22. Instances of above an Hundred Councils, besides particu­lar Bishops, all before An. 1050. of whom I appeal to the Consci­ences of all sober Men, whether they have not been the Tearers of the Church.
    • General Instances of the greater Schisms since then by popish Bps.
    • Some Questions put to Mr. M. and some Reasons to abate his dis­pleasure.
    • § 22. Of a late Book of the History of my Life, to prove me the worst of men.
    • § 24. Whether I be guilty of falsifying History.
  • III. The particular Answer to Mr. M's Vindication.
    • Ch. 1. The Reason and Design of my History of the Schisms of Bishops and Councils.
    • Ch. 2. Whether we ought to tell of the Bishops and Councils Church-corrupting Ways.
    • Ch. 3. Of Mr. M's Industry to shew me to be unlearned.
    • Ch. 4. Whether I vainly name Historians which I never read.
    • Ch. 5. Of my use of Translations, and following Binnius.
    • Ch. 6. His charge of my own mistranslations and mistakes.
    • Ch. 7. His false Supposition that I am only for a Church of one Congregation.
    • Ch. 8. His false Supposition that I am against Diocesanes, when it's only the ill species.
    • Ch. 9. And that I am a Independent, and yet plead for Presby­terians.
    • Ch. 10. His false Accusation that I make the Bishops the cause of all Heresies and Schisms.
    • [Page] Ch. 11. And that I mention all the Bishops Faults and none of their Goodness.
    • Ch. 12. His Accusation of Spite, Malice, and Railing examin­ed, Dr. Burnet satisfied.
    • Ch. 13. His Supposition that I speak against all Bishops Councils.
    • Ch. 14. Some mens Credit about ancient History, tried by their History of this Age. Twenty Instances of the History of our times. My own experience of it. Whether I hate compliance with Superi­ours, or to preach by Licence.
    • Ch. 15. Mr. M. Magisterial authorising or rejecting what Hi­storians he pleases. His Accusation of Socrates and Sozomene, and valuing Valesius, Simond, &c.
    • Ch. 16. His Observation on my Notes of credible and incredi­ble History. His Instances of my Railing particularly considered. Whether the word [Hereticating] be railing or causeless. An In­stance of Fifty five of Bp. St. Philastrius's accused Heresses, by which I desire any sober man to judge. Other Instances. Whether St. The­ophilus, or Socrates and Sozomene were the Criminals. Even Pope Honorius and Vigilius hereticated for being wiser than other Popes.
    • Ch. 17. Of his Censure of my Design and Church Principles: Whether I be guilty of exposing Christianity more than Julian & Lu­cian.
    • Ch. 18. Of his 2d Chap. Who is most against Discipline. Of Ana­thematising. Whether Novatus was a Bishop or an ordaining Presby­ter. Councils for rebaptising. His Self-contradictions. Some Questi­ons to him. Whether the Diocesane Party (as Mr. Dodwel) who nullifie our Sacraments, are Hereticks, if the Re-baptisers were such. The old qu. was not of Rebaptising Hereticks, but of such as Here­ticks had baptised. Of the Donatists and many Councils. Of our Liturgy's Rule to find Easter-day. What the Novatians held. Pe­tavius and Albaspineus Testimony of them. His quarrels about Epi­phanius, the Arians, the Audians divers Synods. Antioch. Of the Circumcellians. Optatus of the Donatists as Brethren. His Ex­cuse of the Bishops.
    • Ch. 19. Of the 1st General Council at C. P. Whether Bishops followed Emperours. Their usage of Greg. Nazianz. Of the Pris­cillianists, the Bishops, and Martin. Of my Letter to Dr. Hill. Of the Council at Capua▪ Jovinian, Easter, African Bps. Donatists. Theophilus. Aliars.
    • [Page] Ch. 20. His 5 Chap. Of the 1st Ephes. Council. His reviling Socrates and Sozomene, as against Cyril. Cyrils Story. Of the Presbyterians Cruelty. Nestorius; Case. His cavils against my Trans­lations. The effects of that Council at this day considered.
    • Ch. 21. Of the 2d Ephes. Council. Of Cyril, the Eutychians, and Dioscorus.
    • Ch. 22. Of the Calcedon Council: Pulcheria and Eudocia. What one sound man can do in a Council. Whether our late Concili­atory Endeavours about Arminianism, have been as vain as these Councils. Of Theodos. 2. and the Eutychians. The whole story of that Council. Luther as well as I, makes the Controversie verbal. Of the Bishops Peccavimus: Many Accusations refelled: More of the Councils Successes, and late Conciliators. The Westminster Synod. Mr. M's way of Concord. Of the old Conformity and ours. Mr. Ed­wards Gangrena, and the late Sects and Heresies.
    • Ch. 24. Of his 7th Chapter. Of the old Heresies. Whether Pro­jects for Moderation have been the chief distracters of the Church. He ost falsly saith, that I charge the Bishops with all the heresies in the world. What it is that I say of them. The true cause of Schism confessed. His misreports of the cause and Bishops. His false saying of me that I compared Oliver and his son to David and Solomon My profest Repentance which he seigneth me an Enemy to. What Noncon­formity is, and what his misreports of it. An explitatory profession of the meaning of this Book against Misinterpreters.

THE Ready Way OF Confuting Mr. Baxter. A SPECIMEN OF THE PRESENT MODE OF Controversie in England.

Joh. 8. 44. 1 King. 22. 22. Prov. 29. 12. & 19. 5, 9. Rev. 21. 8. & 22. 15.

IN 1662. Dr. Boreman of Trinity-Colledge in Cambridge, Publish­ed a Book against me, as having written to Dr. Hill against Physical-Predetermination to Sin; and in it saith, That it is re­ported, That I kill'd a Man with my own Hand in cold Blood; and if it be not true, I am not the first that have been wronged. The Man, though promoted to the Charge of this Parish, St. Giles in the Fields, [Page 2] was accounted so weak, (forbearing his Ministry, and saying he was suspended some Years before he died) that I thought it vain to take publick Notice of his Words▪ neither imagining whence he had them, nor ever hearing of them before.

But a few Weeks before the late Plot was reported, one Mr. P. came to me, and told me, That at the Coffee-House in Fullers-Rents, where Papists and Protectants used familiarly to meet; he pro­voking the Papists to Answer my Books, or to Dispute with me, was answered by a Gentleman of this Parish, said to be of the Church of England, That [Mr. Baxter had kill'd a Man in cold Blood with his own Hand.] Mr. P. provoked him by a Wager to make it good. He refusing the Wager, was told, He should hear of it publickly, unless he would ask me Forgiveness. After some time, the Gentle­man came to me with Mr. Tasborough, (since imprisoned, as is known) and with great Civility, ask't me Forgiveness. He was the Son of a Knight, and Judge, of my Acquaintance; and had an Aunt, that had been my very dear Friend. I told him, That Slandering is so common, and asking Forgiveness so rare, that I took it for a note of great Ingenuity in him; and, as I must forgive all Men as a Chri­stian, so I could easily forgive any wrong to one related to such a Friend of mine. He told me, He was resolved openly to confess his Fault, and to vindicate me on all Occasions.

Accordingly, at the same Coffee House, he openly declared his Repentance. Upon which, Mr. P. tells me, That Mr. G. an A­ged Lawyer, Brother to the Lady Ab. was displeased, and said, He would prove the thing true by many Witnesses: (And, saith Mr. P. the Story among some of them was, That a Tinker did beat his Kettle at my Door, and being disturbed by him, I pistoll'd him, and was tryed for my Life at Worcester.) Mr. P. said, He provoked Mr. G. to lay a Wager on it: And he refusing, was told, [Then he should hear of it in Westminster-Hall.] Upon this, saith Mr. P. his Fellow-Catholicks ingenuously resolved to disown him, unless he would ask Forgiveness; which he being unwilling to come to me to do, Mr. P. saith, He at last performed before Him, and Capt. Edmund Hampden.

All this being done without my Knowledge (till after,) I was re­lating it to Mr. John Humfrey: Why (saith he) I did twelve Years ago hear Dr. Allestry, now Regius-Professor in Oxford, say the like, That he could not think well of that Man, that had kill'd a Man in cold Blood with his own Hand.

[Page 3]I little regarded all the rest: But Dr. Allestry had many Years been my old School-Fellow; many a time I had taught [...]im; and he was the best at Learning, and of the honestest Disposition▪ of any Boy that ever I knew; and I thought, if Parties could draw such as he into such Guilt, there was little Account to be made of the Re­ports or History of Men, if once they fell into different Factions, Wherefore I wrote to him what Mr. Humfrey told me, and received from him this honest ingenuous Letter, which I here annex.

And as to all this Story, I do here solemnly profess, That I never killed, wounded, or hurt any Man in my Life, (save one Man, whose Leg I hurt with playful Wrestling, when I was a Boy, and once or twice boxing with School-Boys, and correcting [...]ads when I was one Year a School-Master.) Nor in all the Wars, or in my life did I ever see any other kill any Man, save one; and that was at the same Bickering, (about Forty of a Side) when Jennings was wound­ed: While they were Fighting with him in one great Field, I be­ing in another near the House, saw the Souldiers offering Quarter to a Foot-Souldier, and promising him Safety, if he would lay down his Musket; which he did not, but struck at them; and Captain Holdich shot him dead▪ And it proved after to be a Wolsh man, that understood not English; which grieved them when they knew it.

I have gone the next day where Fights have been, and seen many dead, when I had nothing to do with the Armies of either Part. But I never saw any, to my Knowledge, kill or hurt any Man, but this one.

Dr. Allestry's Letter: (Which I should not Publish, but that even in Oxford, and elsewhere among the Clergy, the Re­port yet goeth on.)


I Must profess sincerely, That I cannot recollect I ever said such Words of you to Mr. Humfrey, as it seems he does affirm I did: But yet I cannot but acknowledge; it is very possible, that I related, (and may be, to Him) That I had heard, you kill [...]d a Man in cold Blood: Since I very well remember, that above Thirty Years since, at the End of the War, I heard that pub­lickly [Page 4] spoken before Company; and with this farther Circum­stance, that it was a Souldier, who had been a Prisoner some Hours. Now this Report relating to the Wars, in which (I fear) such Things were no great Rarities, and from my very tender Youth, I having not had the least Converse with you, nor likely­of any for the future, did not therefore apprehend, at present, any Concern or Occasion of inquiring, whether it were true; of which, upon that confident Asseveration, I did make no doubt. And I took so little thought of laying up the Relation, that I protest to you, as in the Presence of Almighty God, it is impossi­ble for me to recover, who made up that Company in which I heard it, or from whom I heard it: And I wonder, how it came into my Mind, to say that I had heard it, so long after. But however, though it be some Ease to me, to believe the late Dis­courses of it, do not come from my relating so long since that I heard it, neither are likely to receive any Confirmation from it, unless it be made more Publick than I have made it; yet I do profess, it is a great Affliction to me, to have spoken that, though but as a Report, which (it seems) was a Slander, (for so I be­lieve it, upon your Asseveration) and not having endeavoured to know whether it were true. And, as I have beg'd God's For­giveness of it; so I heartily desire, You will forgive me. And if I could direct my self to any other way of Satisfaction, I would give it. This is the whole Account I can give of this Matter; to which I shall only add, That I am,

Your very Affectionate Servant, Richard Allestry.

II. In the Preface to the Life of Dr. Heylin are these Words.

Mr. Barter may be, pleased to call to mind, what was done to one Major [...]ennings, the last War in that Fight that was between, Lyndsel and Long­ford, in the County of Salop; where the Kings Party, having unfortu­nately the worst of the Day, the poor Man was stript almost naked and left [Page 5] for dead in the Field: But Mr. Baxter, and ou [...] Lieutenant Hurdinat, taking their Walk among the wounded and dead Bodies, perceived some Lif [...] left in the Major, and Hurdman run him through the Body in cold Blood; Mr. Baxter all the while looking on, and taking off with his own Hand, the Kings Picture from about his Neck; telling him, as he was swiming in his Godr, That he was a Popish Rogue, and that was his Crucifix: Which Pi­cture was kept by Mr. Baxter for many Years, till it was got from him (but not without much difficulty) by one Mr. Somerfield, who then lived with Sir Thomas Rous, and generously restored it to the poor man, now alive at Wick near Pershore in Worcestershire, although at the Fight suppo­sed to be dead: being, after the Wounds given him, drag'd up and down the Field by the merciless Souldiers; Mr. Baxter approving of the inhumani­ty, by feeding his Eyes with so bloody, and so barbarous a Spectacle.

I Thomas Jennings, Subscribe to the truth of this Narrative abovemen­tioned; and have hereunto put my Hand and Seal this second Day of March 1682. Thomas Jennings. Signed and Sealed, March 2. 1682. in the Presence of John Clark, Minister of Wick, Thomas Dacke. Published by George Vernon, Minister.

The like was before Published by Roger L'Strange.

Answ. I do not think Major Jennings knowingly made this Lye, but was directed by some bodies Report, and my sending him the Medal. I do solemnly protest, 1. That, to my Knowledge, I never saw Ma­jor Jennings: 2. That I never saw Man wound, hurt, strip, or touch him: 3. That I never spake a word to him, much loss any word here affirmed: 4. That I neither took the Picture from about his Neck, nor saw who did it: 5. That I was not in the Field, when it was done: 6. That I walked not among any wounded or dead; nor heard of any kild, but the one Man before mentioned. 7. That the Picture was never got from me with difficulty. But that this is the Truth: The Parliament had a few Men in Longford. House, and the King a [...] Lynd­sel, about a Mile and a half a-sunder; who used oft to skirmish, and dare each other in the Fields between▪ My Innocent Father being Prisoner at Lyndset, and I being at Longford, resolved not to go thence till he was delivered. I saw the Souldiers go out, as they oft did, and in another Field discerned them to meet and Fight: I know not, that they had seen Jennings; But, being in the House, a Soul­dier shewed a small Medal of Guilt Silver, bigger than a Shilling; a [...]d told us, That he wounded▪ Jennings, and took his Coat, and took that Medal from about his Neck▪ I bought it of him for [...] no one offering him more. And some Years after (the first [...] that [Page 6] I heard where he was, freely desired Mr. Somerfield to give it him from me, that had never seen him; supposing it was a mark of Honour, which might be useful to him. And now all these Lies, are all the Thanks that ever I had.

III. The Observator, N. 96. saith, [Tor. Who saith, they (the Presby­terians) brought in the King, besides your self? Wh. Mr. Hunt, the Author of the Conformists Plea, Mr. Baxter and who not?

Tor▪ Prethee ask Mr. Baxter, If he knows who it was, that went with five or six more of his own Cloth and Character, to General Monk, upon his coming up to London, in 1659; and finding a great deal of Company with him, told his Excellency, That he found his time was precious, and so would not trouble him with many Words: But as they were of great weight, so he hoped, they would make an answerable Impression on him: I hear a Report, Sir, (saith he) that you have some thoughts of calling back the King; but it is my Sense, and the Sense of these Gentlemen here with me, that it is a thing you ought not to do on any termes: For Prophanness is so inseparable from the Royal Party, that if ever you bring the King back the Power of Godliness will most certainly depart from this Land.

Answ. Dr. Manton (and whether any other, I remember not) went once with me to General Monk, and it was to congratulate him; but with this request, That he would take care, that Debauchery and Con­tempt of Religion might not be let loose, upon any mens pretence of being for the King, as it already began with some to be. But there was not one word by me spoken, (or by any one, to my remembrance) against his calling back the King, nor any of the rest here adjoyned; but as to me, it is a meer Fiction.

And the King was so sensible of the same that I said, that he sent over a Proclamation against such Men, as while they called them­selves the Kings Party, did live in Debauchery and Prophanness; which Proclamation so rejoyced them that were after Nonconformists, that they read it publickly in the Churches. Such gross Falshoods as these, are part of the Evil deprecated.

As to his Question, Whether the Presbyterians brought in the King? Who can affirm or deny any thing of equivocal Words? A Presbyte­rian is, who these Men will call such. They that in the Face of the World deny the Publick Acts of Three Kingdoms, in the Age they were done in, no wonder if they multiply the grossest Lies of such as I. The Parties that restored the King, were these; 1. The Excluded Members of the Long Parliament, the Ministers that were [Page 7] since silenced; and the frustrated endeavours of the Scotch Ar [...]nies, and Sir George Booth, Sir Thomas Middleton▪ joyning with some of the Kings Souldiers, prepared Mens minds to it. 2. General Monke, and his Army, who were Fighting against the King a little before, [...]pre [...]t Cromwels Army. 3. The Long-Parliament Members restored, agreed to dissolve themselves, and set up a Council to call home the King. 4. Sir Thomas Allen, Lord Mayor, and the Aldermen; invited General Monk into the City, who joyning with him, turned the Scales. 5. The City Ministers (called Presbyterians) perswaded the Lord May­or to this, and wrote to Monks Colonels (called Presbyterians) to be for the King▪ (specially Mr. Ash, by Mr. Calamy's Counsel.) 6. The Lord Mazarine, Lord Broghil, and others of the same Party in Ire­land, contributed their help; and Colonel Bridges, with others, sur­prized Dublin Castle. 7. Many of the Old Parliament Men openly provoked Gen' Monk, and secretly perswaded and treated with him, to bring in the King (whom the Earl of Anglesey, the Earl of Shafts­bury, and others yet living, can Name to you.) 8. The Parliament called by General Monk, (by agreement with the Long-Parliament,) accounted mostly of the same Party, Voted the Kings Return: Which no doubt also, the Old Royalists most earnestly desired, and en­deavoured.

This is the Historical Truth; which if in this Age, Men will deny, I will bear any lies that they shall say or swear of me.

Now, either the foresaid Armies, Parliament men, Ministers, &c. were Presbyterians, or not. If they were not; then, 1. Say no more, that it was Presbyterians that raised War against the King; but that it was the Episcopal Men, if these were such. 2. Why then have you cal­led them Presbyterians so long, and do so still? But if they were Pres­byterians, then it was such that Restored the King. But alas, how con­temptible, yea, how odious is Truth grown to this Generation!

IV. There is yet a more Famous Historian, than any of these, though unnamed; who pretending to militate after Dr. Stilling fleet, as in a 2d. Part against Separation, takes on him to give you the Histo­ry of my Life. Partly making it my Reproach, that when I grew to Understanding, I remembred how many Drunken or Ignorant Rea­ders had been my Teachers: Partly raking up retracted and oblite­rated Passages of Old Writings; while at once they perswade me to Reviews and Retractions: Partly heaping up abundance of down right Falshoods▪ Partly clipping Sentences, and leaving out [Page 8] the part that should make them understood, and turning true Words, by perversion, into Falshoods: And partly by mixing this known Truth, [That I was on the Parliaments side, and openly declared it.]

But when at the new Model, I saw that they changed their Cause, I changed my Practice, & was from the Day that I went into the Army, a resolved Opposer of all that they did, to the Changing of the Govern­ment, & their Usurpation; & was sent among them to that end; which was immediately after Naseby Fight: And continued openly disown­ing the Usurpation, and the Means that set it up. And though I was Preaching and Writing against the said Usurpers, when an Army was Fighting for them, against the King, and the King knew how to for­give and Honour them, that did so much to his Restoration; yet are the Accusers so far from forgiving those that never personally hurt a Man, that they forbear not multiplying false Accusations; yea, and accusing those Ministers, and private Men that never had to do with Wars: Yea, the same Men that then wrote against me for the Chan­gers and Usurpers, have since been the fierce Accusers of us, that op­posed them.

And if these Men be unsatisfyed of my present Judgment, I have no hope of giving them Satisfaction, if all will not do it, which I have largely written in my Second Plea for Peace, for Loyalty, and against Rebellion; and all my Confutation of Hooker's Politicks, in the Last Part of my Christian Directory; with much more.

But this Book must have (if any) a Peculiar Answer.

V. Lately, when I taught my Hearers, That we must not make the World believe, that we are under greater Sufferings, than we are, nor be unthankful for our Peace, and that we must when any hurt us, love and for­give them, and see that we fail not of our Duty to them; but not forsake the owning, and just defending by Scripture-Evidence the Truth opposed. They Printed, that I Bid the People Resist, and not stand still, and dye like Dogs. And I was put the next Day to appeal to many Hundred Hear­ers, who all knew, that the Accusation was most impudent Lies. This is our present Case.

VI. The Players, I hope, expect no Answer to their Part.

London, Printed for R. Janeway, in Queens-Head-Alley, in Pater-Noster-Row, 1682.

The General Part containing the Design and Sum of this and the former Book, that it may be understood what it is that Mr. Morrice defendeth, and opposeth; and what it is that I maintain or blame, and by what Evi­dence.

§ 1. I Have been these forty years much troubled with the temptation to wonder, why God suffers most of the World to lie drown'd in Ignorance, Infidelity and Sen­suality, and the Church of Professed Christians to live in so great Scandal, Contention, Division, and for the greater number, in a Militant Enmity against the Word, Will, Way, and Servants of Christ, while in Baptism they are Listed under him. But of late since Experience tells me of the marvelous Diversity of Humane Interests and Apprehensions, and the deep Enmity of the Fleshly Mind to Spiritual things, I admire the Wisdom and Providence of God, that there is so much Order, and Peace, and Love in the World of Mankind as there is: And that all men live not as in a continual War. And I perceive that if God had not preserved by Common Grace some remnants of Moral Honesty in the World, and had not also sanctified a peculiar People, whose New Nature is LOVE, the Sons of Men would have been far worse than Bears and Wolves to one another; and a man would have fled with greater fear from the sight of another man, than from a Snake or Tyger. But God hath not left himself without witness, in his Works, and daily Providen­ces, and in the Consciences of those who have not sinned them­selves into Brutes or Devils. And hence it is that there is some [Page 2] Government and Order in the World, and that sin is ashamed of its proper name, and even they that live in Pride, Covetousness, Ambition, Lying, Persecution, &c. cannot endure to hear the name of that which they can endure to keep and practise, and cannot endure to forsake.

§ 2. And indeed it is a great Credit to Honesty and Piety, to Truth, and Love, and Peace, and Justice, that the deadliest Ene­mies of them are ambitious of their Names; and though they, will damn their Souls rather than be such, they will challenge and draw upon any man that denieth them to be such.

And I must profess, that I fetch hence a great confirmation of the Immortality of Souls, and a Future Life of Retribution. For if there were not a very great difference between Moral Good and Evil, what should make all the world, even the worst of men, be so desirous to be accounted Good, and so impatient of being thought and called naught, and as they deserve. And if the difference be so vast here, must there not needs be a Go­vernour of the World that hath made such a difference by his Laws and Providence, and who will make a greater difference hereafter, when the End and Judgment cometh.

§ 3. Among other Causes of Humane Pravity and Confusion, one is the exceeding difficulty that young men meet with, in the communication of so much Knowledge as they must neces­sarily receive from others. Knowledge is not born with them: It is but the power and capacity of it, and not the act in which an Infant excels a Dog. And how shall they have it but by Objects and Communication? And Objects tell them not things past, the Knowledge of which is necessary to make them understand things present, and to come; and without which it is not pos­sible to be wise. And God teacheth not Men now by Angels sent from Heaven, but by Men that were taught themselves be­fore; and by his Spirit blessing mens endeavours. And when I have said [by Man] how bad, how sad a creature have I named? Alas! David's haste Psal. 116. was not erroneous passion; nor Paul's words, Rom. 3. a slander, when they called all men Lyers, that is untrusty; and so little do men know that must teach others, and so much doth all corruption incline them to love flat­tering Lies, and to take fleshly Interest, the World, and the De­vil for their Teachers, and to hate the Light, because it disgra­ceth their hearts and deeds, and so much goeth to make a man [Page 3] wise, that it must be a wonder of merciful Providence that shall help young men to Teachers that shall not be their Deceivers. There were ever comparatively few that were truly wise and trusty, and these usually despised in the World.

§ 4. And how should young men know who these are? This is the grand difficulty that maketh the Errour of the World so uncurable. It requireth much wisdom to know who is wise, and to be trusted; who can well discern and value that Know­ledge in another, which he is a stranger to himself? Experience tells us, that young unexperienced men do commonly receive that man's Opinions, 1. Who hath by nearness, or some acci­dent the greatest advantage in their esteem and love: 2. Or his that speaks most for their fleshly Interest, and for that which they would have to be true: 3. Or his that hath the last word. It cannot be expected that they judge of any thing, beyond the advantage of their senses, and the Notitiae communes, accord­ing to Evidence of Truth, which must be received by long and serious study, and by willing honest minds, and by the help of an­tecedent Verities.

§ 5. In this therefore Divine free Election is very manifest; As in giving the Gospel to some Nations in the World, when most others never have it, so in giving some young persons the blessing of good Education, and Teachers, and chusing for them that were unable to chuse well for themselves; as also in bles­sing the same helps to one, which are despised by another. And verily when I have been long stalled with the difficulties about Election and Differencing Grace, undeniable Experience hath been my chief Conviction. If the Gospel be true, the common world­ly fleshly sort, that are for Christ but by Tradition, Law and Cu­stom, and are religious for worldly ends, and no farther than the Interest of the Flesh and World will give them leave, have no true Saving Grace at all. And the rest that seriously believe and seek a better Life, and live above fleshly worldly Interests, are in most places few, and made the scorn and hatred of the rest. And if de facto, God do sanctifie only a peculiar People, who can deny his differencing Will and Grace?

§ 6. I was my self in my Childhood ignorant what Teachers among such diversity I should prefer. And first God had such a witness in my Conscience, that Virtue and Holiness were better than Vice and Sin, that it made me think that the sort of [Page 4] Teachers who Traded meerly for the World, and never spake a serious, word of Heaven, nor differed from sober Heathens, but in Opinion; yea, that endeavoured to make serious Godliness to seem but Hypocrisie, were not like to be the wisest and most trusty men. And yet how to judge among the serious, which were right, was long too hard for me.

§ 7. When I came to consider of the Divisions of the Christian World, and [...]eard the Papists pretend to Catholicism, and call all others Schismaricks or Hereticks, it sometime seemed a plausible Opinion, that the greatest Power and Dignity of the Clergy, was the Interest of Christianity: By Riches, Honour and Power, they may protect the Godly, and keep Religion from Contempt a­mong the worldly sort of men, or from oppression at the least.

2. And I saw that in all Ages and Countries of the World, Historians tell us how rare a thing, a wise and holy Prince hath been, and how commonly by Wealth and Greatness they have been bred up in that Sensuality and Pride, which hath made them the Capital Enemies to serious Piety; if not the Persecu­tors of it.

3. I thought with myself if such godly Christians, as much va­lue the Interest of Religion had lived in such times and places, where Rulers were Persecutors of the Truth, how glad would they have been to have had the Power of Church-matters put into the hands of their Chosen Pastors, what would they have desired more?

4. And I read that till Riches and honours were annexed to the Office, the People had still the Choice of their own Pastors, and therefore could not chuse but wish their Estates and Lives, and all, as well as their Religion, to be as much as might be in their hands. And so no doubt when the Bishops were advanced to great Diocesses, and Power, it was by the desire of the most Religious Christians, who valued most the Interest of the Church.

5. And I could not but observe, that though Christ gave his Apostles no Power of the Sword, he set them above other Mini­sters, not only in Miraculous Gifts, and Infallible testifying and recording his Commands and works, but in some sort of over­sight, which seemeth a thing appointed for Continuance as well as preaching.

6. And I thought that if Church-Grandure were the Interest of Religion and Unity the strength of the Church, it lookt very [Page 5] plausibly to reason, that as Bishops were over Presbyters, so there should be some over Bishops; and that National Churches should by such Government be hindered from Schism and Here­sie as well as Parochial. And that Diocesans and Metropolitans Power should be derived from a Superiour as well as Presbyters. And that when poor Subjects dare not reprove a Prince, some that are above fearing his Power may.

7. And when I read the Popes Claim, I thought it seemed not improbable, that Petrus primus, and pasce oves meas, and super hanc Petram were not spoken in vain And these thoughts pleaded thus for Church-Grandeur in Prelates and Popes.

§. 8. On the other side, I saw 1. That Christ said, His King­dom was not of this world, and comes not [...] with observable Pomp. And that when they strove who should be greatest, he reproved them, and Concluded [with you it shall not be so] and that the most serviceable is to be accounted the greatest; that Peter himself accordingly describeth their office, 1 Pet. 5.

2. I find that Christ appointed them another sort of work to do, even to Preach the Gospel to all Nations through all streights, difficulties and sufferings, and to baptize, and teach Christians to observe the Laws of Christ. And that as he never put the Sword into their hand, so an official declaring and ap­plying his Word to voluntary Disciples was all their Office, as ordinary Pastors to be continued.

3. I find that Christ sent them out by two and two, as if it had been done on foresight, that men would erect a Church-Monar­chy: And that no Scripture tells us of any division of the Church into Diocesses, where ore Apostle was a Monarch, or had Power above the rest, or was his Peculiar Province: Nor that the twelve settled twelve such, or any as the seats of their Successors.

4. I find not that ever any one Apostle exercised Government over the rest: Nor that ever Christ gave the rest any Command or Direction to obey any one; Nor that ever the Contending or Schismatical sort of Christians were directed to end their strise, by taking any one for the Head who must determine all their Controversies: And that they that said [I am of Cephas] are reproved with the rest. And that all are called Mem­bers of the Body, and only Christ the Head. And if it had been his will that One Universal Head or Power should have been set up as the Principium, or Center of Unity, it is a matter of so [Page 6] great consequence, that it is not to be believed that Christ would not have plainly commanded it.

5. I find that Christ hath himself done the work, for which the necessity of Universal Humane Government (by Pope or Councils) is pretended; viz. He hath made and caused his A­postles (peculiarly qualified for it) to record Universal Church-Laws, even as many as are Universally necessary: And if so, I cannot but think, 1. That he hath done it better than Man can do; 2. And that to add more unnecessarily must needs be a snare and burden to the Church; 3. And that it must be an usurping the Power of Christ: For if there be no other Universal Governour, there is no other that hath Authority to make Uni­versal Laws. Therefore this is Treason against Christ, and a making Man a Vice-Christ.

6. I found that there is not so much as a Natural Capacity in any one, or many, for an Universal Government: Church-Government being of such a nature as maketh it far more im­possible, than for one Monarch or Aristocracy to Govern all the Earth: And to do it by a truly General Council, or by the Dif­fused Bishops of all the World is further from possibility than to do it by a Pope.

7. I searcht the Councils pretended to be General, to see whe­ther they had made any better Laws than Christ's, or made any desirable addition. And I found 1. That while they were not wholly Papists, they never pretended to make Canons for any Christians, but only those in the Roman Empire. 2. And that it had been much happier for the Churches if they had made no more Laws than Christ had made them, for holy Doctrine, Wor­ship, and Church-Discipline, and had only as Teachers expound­ed and applied the Laws of Christ.

8. I considered the Present State of the Church Universal, and I find it such as no Party of Christians in the World doth own. The Pope pleadeth for an Universal Soveraignty, and all his Clergy do the same; some saying it is in Councils, some in the Pope, and most in both together, or Councils approved by the Pope: And Protestants, Greeks, Nestorians, Jacobites, and almost all other Christians in the World, accuse this Roman Church and Claim.

The Papists condemn the rest: The Greeks, Arminians, and al­most all the rest accuse each other.

[Page 7]9. I considered what Popery is, that is, Clergy-Power in its height, and what it hath done in the World. And I found 1. A woful description of the lives of multitudes of Popes, recorded by their own most credited Historians. And 2. I found multi­tudes of vicious Canons obtruded by them as Laws on the Uni­versal Church. 3. I found most doleful Histories of the Wars and Rebellions that they have caused from Age to Age. 4. I found that they have corrupted the Doctrine of Christ in abun­dance of particulars. 5. And that they have lockt up the Sa­cred Scriptures from the Vulgar, as they have not done their Canons. 6. And that they have turned God's Spiritual Wor­ship into a multitude of Superstitious Rites, and scenical Cere­monies and Shews. 7. And that they have turned Spiritual Church-Discipline into a secular sort of Tyranny. 8. And that they have most schismatically unchurched the rest of the Church­es, because they are not Subjects of the Pope. 9. And that they have branded the soundest Churches with the name of Here­ticks, while they are the grand Heresie of the World. 10. And that they have been and are the greatest Silencers of sound Preach­ers, and hinderers of true Piety and Reformation in the Church. 11. And that they have wofully vitiated the People that are their Subjects, so that odious wickedness fed by Ignorance, a­bounds among them; and it is their Votaries that are called Re­ligious, and a few Canonized persons Saints; as if Religion and Sanctity were rarities, or any could be saved without them. 12. Lastly, I find that they have lived upon Blood, like Leeches, and have been the cruellest Persecutors of holy men, on pre­tence of killing Hereticks: And that it is this to which they trust.

10. I took not this notice of them upon meer prejudice, but have read, I think, as many Papists Books, as Protestants, or any other against them. Nor have I taken it upon dark Scripture Prophecies, suspecting my understanding of them: But 1. The matter of fact from themselves: 2. Against their Papal Supre­macy from such Arguments as are fully collected by Dr. Barrow. 3. Against their heinous Church-corruptions, from such Moral Evidence as Dr. H. Moore hath fully gathered in his Mystery of Iniquity. 4. Against their pretences of Tradition and Antiquity, I fetcht my Arguments from the Histories and Authors which they themselves alledge, and especially their Councils, with the Fathers Writings.

[Page 8]§ 9. Seeing the Church in this sad Condition, and the Papal part so greatly vitiated, I considered how long it had so been. And I found that the Pope and his Bishops grew not up like a Mushroom in a day; but had been long in thriving to maturity: And I met with no man that could just tell what Year or what Age the disease or tumor did begin. Bishop Bromhall thinks if they will abate their last 400 years Innovations, we may have hope of agreeing with them. Bishop Gunning will own no General Councils, but the first six; some will receive eight; some but four. Mr. Morrice here goeth no further in his defence of them, what­ever he think. Some begin Popery with Leo the great, some with Gregory's Successour. But it is most certain, that it was first an Embrio, and next an Infant and so grew up from Childhood to maturity by degrees. And the first Church-corruption was not that which we now call Popery. And it is as certain that the tu­mor did neither begin nor grow up in the Bishop of Rome alone, but in other Bishops, who grew up with him, & were his strength and Councils, and he their Head.

§ 10. It is known when the Greeks and Romans began most notably to strive which should be greatest, and how the division increased, and when and how it came to an anathematizing or excommunicating each other.

§ 11. It's notorious that it was from the Councils of Calcedon, and Ephesus, that the great separated bodies of Nestorians and Eutychians (now called Jacobites) that possess the East and South, were broken off with Nestorius and Dioscorus, and so continue to this day.

§ 12. I considered who were the Chief Authors of all these lamentable Schisms, and Church-corruptions in the several Ages when they rose, and who continue them to this day: And I found that many Princes were much to be blamed, and the Peo­ple not Innocent, no not the Religious Monks. But the Bishops that had the main Church-power, by abusing it, were with their Clergy the principal Causes, and so are to this day: The breaches might yet be healed in East, West, and South, were it not for them.

§ 13. Finding this in History of undoubted Truth, I next considered what was the Cause that the Bishops and their Clergy should become such Church-corrupters and Dividers, and still continue the Churches miseries.

[Page 9]And I found as followeth, 1. That none are able to do so much hurt as those that have the greatest Parts, Power, Interest and Trust. None kill so many (except Souldiers) as those Physi­cians who are entrusted to heal and save them. If five hundred neighbours mistake a man's Disease, whom he never trusted, it hurts him not: But an unskilful Nurse or Parent may kill a sick Child; and an unskilful or unfaithful Physician may kill multitudes.

2. And there goeth so much to make a man a skilful, faithful Pastor, as that such are rare. As a Physician is like to kill his Patient, if he mistake but some one thing in his Disease, or some Ingredient in his Medicine, though he were right in all the rest: So if a Guide of Souls were excellent in all other things, what work one Opinion, yea or unskilful word may make, not only the case of the Nestorians, Eutychians, Monothelites, &c. tell us, but even the strife that arose in the Church about Hypostasis and Persona, which had almost hereticated Jerom himself, for all his skill in the Languages: And the case of the Greeks and Latines about [Filio (que)] and abundance such.

3. And Pride is the Heart of the Old Man; first living, and last dying. And great Power, great Parts, and great Esteem do feed it, if true Grace do not mortifie it. Knowledge puffeth up; and especially when men live among the ignorant and unlearned, and are but half Learned themselves, and are thought by the people and themselves, to be much wiser than they are: Inter coecos luscus Rex.

4. And Selfishness is the very sum of all positive iniquity: And Pride and Selfishness make men desirous to be the Idols of the World, and to seem as Gods knowing good and evil, and to have their will of all that they have to do with.

5. And the strongest temptations use to cause the greatest sins,

§ 14. These Generals presupposed, it is most clear, 1. That the remnant of these sins, even in Christ's Apostles, set them on striving who should be greatest, and made James and John desire preheminence, and also to have called for Fire from Heaven; and made them after Christ's Resurrection, hope that he would have restored the Earthly Kingdom unto Israel. And it put Paul to vindicate his Apostleship against many that disparaged him; As it made Diotrephes, who loved to have the preheminence, to cast out the Brethren, and speak evil of John: It gave Peter oc­casion to warn the Bishops not to Lord it over God's Heritage, [Page 10] but to be Examples to the Flock, overseeing them not by con­straint, but willingly.

2. Even in good men this fault, though not in a reigning de­gree, did live more in others afterwards, that had not that mea­sure of the Spirit as the Apostles had to overcome it. And if even in Paul's daies he had none like-minded to Timothy, who na­turally cared for the good of all; for all (too much) sought their own, and not the things that are Jesus Christ's, as Demas forsook him for some worldly Interest; what wonder is it if af­terward Pride and Worldliness grew greater, and Heresies and Strifes increased.

3. Yet while Christianity was a suffering and laborious State, the Pastors of the Churches were commonly the best men, that had more Knowledge, Holiness and Love than others, and the Churches prospered under the Cross: They that spared not their labours, but imitated the pattern set by Paul, Acts 20. did not strive who should have the largest Diocess, and undertake that which they could not do, but they strove to do as much as they were able, and to increase and edifie the Flock.

4. But when extraordinary Gifts abated, and acquired Ones became more necessary, and few Philosophers turned Christians, able Taking Preachers or Orators grew fewer, and those few that were eminent in Knowledge and Speech were justly pre­ferred before the rest. And usually some one man had the chief hand in converting men, and gathering a Church in each parti­cular Town, and then he rightfully was taken for their Pastor: And it being found that the publick and private care of Souls re­quired in each Church, where were fit men, more than one Pa­stor; ‘It was not meet that more should be brought to [...]im that was there before, without his approbation and consent; but that he were to the Juniors as a Father;’ And because the rest were u­sualiy below him in Gifts and Worth, it was thought but meet that they should do what they did by his consent: And also to avoid Divisions, to which they were over-prone, it was judged fit that one should have the preheminence, and a negative, and partly ruling Vote.

5. The Churches, which in the beginning had these Bishops and Fellow-Presbyters, were single Congregations: And shortly they grew to be more than could meet together in some few great Cities; Persecution hindering them from very large As­semblies, [Page 11] besides their want of large capacious Temples. Dr. Hammond thinks that there is no evidence, that in Scripture­time there were any other Presbyters than Bishops, and conse­quently a Bishop had but one Congregation, unless he went one hour to one, and another to another, which was not their use. But doubtless in this he is mistaken, as the many Speakers as Corinth shew.

6. The Greatness of the Roman Empire was prepared by God to be then an exceeding great fortherance of the Gospel: For under the same Civil Laws and Powers, where one or two Lan­guages were understood by most, Christians had the far greater advantage for Communication. Want of forreign Languages is now our great hinderance from Preaching the Gospel to other Nations of the World: And the Confusion at Babel was an un­speakable Judgment. But as Ships, yea Navies, can sail on the Ocean, when small Barks or Boats only can pass on Rivers; so the vastness of the Roman Empire was a great help to the Church, by Communication, Language and Accesses: But especially when the Emperour became Christian, the advantage was ex­ceeding great: Whereas now the Greatness of the Turkish, Tar­tarian & Indostan Empire, are great Impediments to the Gospel; because the Barbarians are more cruel Enemies than the Civil Romans (notwithstanding the ten Persecutions) were; and their opposition is the more extensive by the extent of their Domi­nions; and the Christian Churches having now more scandalized the Infidels by their corruptions. While they were not corrupt­ed by worldly power and wealth, the great holiness of the Churches convinced the sober part of the Empire. Albaspineus shews us clearly that their strictness was so great, that they en­dured no notable scandalous sin among them; yea and came ve­ry near to the Novatians in their Discipline: And that it was not for greater strictness that the Novatians were condemned, but for denying the Power of the Church to absolve men peni­tent that sinned after Baptism. And their Canons shew it. And it is certain, that Christians obeying Paul, avoided the Heathen Judicatures as much as might be, and censured those that did not, and ended their Differences by the way of Arbitration, and took the Bishop with the Consent of his Clergy to be an Au­thorized Arbitrator; and thus the affairs of all the Christians being cast upon him, and he having no power to force any [Page 12] but only to govern Volunteers, the Bishops were con­strained to make their Rules of Discipline so much the stricter, that all that would not renounce Christianity, and Church-Communion, might be brought to Obedience to escape Excom­munication.

7. God having made the Great Power and Extent of the Ro­man Empire, so great a means for the propagation of Christiani­ty, the Christians thought that the Greater they grew them­selves, the more it would tend to the Churches deliverance, from contempt and persecution: And their advancement lay in that advancement of the Bishops, which private men could not expect, save only by subsequent participation. Hereupon the Bishops, by the Peoples consent, endeavoured to form the Go­vernment of the Church within the Empire, into a conformity to the Government of the Empire: And they contrived that those Cities whose Governours had the chief Civil Power, their Bishops should have answerable Church-Power; the Glory of the Empire drawing them for seeming Interest, into imitation.

8. From the like Principles they desired greatly the enlarge­ment of the Churches of which they were Overseers: And whereas Christ had made single Churches like Schools, and eve­ry stated Worshipping Church, was also a Governed Church, as every School hath its School-Masters, one, or mo [...] by degrees these Churches were by degeneration quite altered [...]o other things: First, They were like a Parochial Church, [...] add­eth Chappels: They thought not so contemptibly of the P [...]ral work as we do, but found enough, as is said, for many me [...] a Church of a few hundred or thousand souls: And when by Per­secution, or Numbers, or Distance, they could not all meet or­dinarily in one place, they appointed them to meet under seve­ral Presbyters, in several places, but without appropriating a particular Presbyter to each Assembly.

2. After they appropriated them to their distinct charges, and distinguished a stated Worshipping company from a Govern­ed Church, the Bishop and his Consistory ruling all in common; and the People tyed to communicate only at the Bishops Altar, and elsewhere to be but Hearers and Worshippers.

3. After that they set up Altars up and down for Monuments and Memorials of Martyrs, and then in the Presbyters Chappels; yet so that the People were at Easter, Whitsuntide, and the Na­tivity, [Page 13] to communicate with the Bishop in the Mother Church or Cathedral.

4. Then when Country-Villages distant had a great increase of Christians, they allowed Country-Bishops, Chorepiscopos, (pro­ved by Petavius to be true Bishops; if they were not, Presbyters ordained.) But they must be subject to the City Bishop. 5. After this they decreed that very little Cities should have no Bishops, ne vilescat nomen Episcopi; whenas before that every City had a Bishop and Elders, that had Christians enow: And every Town, like our Corporations, or Market-Towns, were called Cities: [...] did not signifie only such as we now call Cities distinct from such Towns; were they no bigger than Cenchrea, Majuma, and such others close to greater Cities, they had Bishops. Yea every Church was to have their Elders, (and consequently Bishops, saith Dr. Hammond) where ever it was, by the Rule of the Holy Ghost, Acts 14. 23. And God never said, Let there be no Churches but in Cities: Else when an Emperour would put down all the Cities, or many, he should put down as many Churches.

6. After this they set up Patriarks as before they had done Me­tropolitans: And it was three that they first set up (but no where out of the Empire:) And the Papists find in the Institu­tion the mystery of Trinity in Unity: For they could not find any where Twelve Seats Successors to the Twelve Apostles; and so they feigned, that Peter being the Center of Unity, The Tri­nity flowed from him. 1. He as Bishop erected the Antiochi­an Patriarchate. 2. By St. Mark his Disciple, the Alexandri­au. And 3. By his final Episcopacy the Roman, saith Joh. Dar­tis, de statu Eccles. tempore Apostoli, pag. 23, 24. [Imitatur Ecclesia Deum ut trinum in Personis & unum in essentia, quatenus scilicet una & eadem Ecclesia est multiplex ratione locorum; nam distributio prima & generalis omnium Ecclesiarum fuit in tres Pa­triarchatus, Romanum, Alexandrinum, & Antiochenum, ut unum esset per tres Antistites Sacerdotium ad Trinitatis instar cui una est atque individua potestas ut recte interpretatur Symmachus Pap. ad Eonium—Dicendum est quod sicut in Trinitate una existente es­sentia, tamen personae differentes existunt, it a Ecclesia una est essen­tia, licet plures particulares existant: Et sicut omnes Trinitatis personae originem sumunt à Patre, qui est origo Filii, & uterque Sp. Sancti, ita Ecclesia origo est Romana aliarum.]

[Page 14]7. At the same time they began to describe Churches or Bi­shops Provinces by the Measures of Land, which before were described by the Persons of Volunteers, inhabiting near each other, saith the aforesaid Dartis p. 128. Et sane diu duravit ille mos tanquam Apostolicus in Ecclesiis, ut non essent alii termini Episcopatus quam multitudo eorum quos ad fidem convertissent & baptizassent, which he proveth out of the Canons.

8. Rome being the imperial Seat, the Bishop of Rome was nearest the Emperour and subordinate Rulers, and so most capa­ble to make Friends for Christians under any Accusations and Persecutions; by which advantage all Christians through the Empire needing and being glad of such help, did willingly give the Primacy to the Romane Patriark.

9. The Emperor Constantine turning Christian, and taking them for his surest Souldiers, resolved to raise them as high as he well could, for the interest of Christianity and his own, and thereby to work down the Heathens by degrees, and according­ly gave them chief Countenance, and chief Power; and their Bishops being their chief men, it must be done by exalting them. He made them the authorized Judges of all Christians that de­sired it, even in criminal cases. He yet gave not the Bishops the power of the Sword; but if any Christians had committed For­nication, Adultery, Perjury, yea Murder, the Bishop was to pu­nish them by Pennance and Suspension from the Sacrament: Besides which, Christians had the chief Preferments as they were capable of in the Armies and Civil Government: So that they triumphed over their late Persecutors, And now Honour, Power and Wealth, were most on the Christians side, but especially the Bishops.

10. Worldly Interest being now on the Churches side, much of the World by such Motives crowded into the Church, and no man can imagine that it could be otherwise, who considers which way the Vulgar go, and how apt to be of the Prince's mind, and how much nature inclineth to fleshly Interest: Who had not rather be kept from the Sacrament and Communion for a crime, till he profess Repentance, than to be hanged or ba­nished, or ruined for it?

But especially the Temptation was strongest to the Bishops, whose baits were the most alluring: And ever since then they that most loved Wealth, Power and Honour (that is, the worst, most [Page 15] worldly men) have been the most eager desirers and seekers of Bishopricks: And while humble holy men must rather be sought to, such earnest seekers are like to be the ordinary finders and possessors.

11. But yet three things kept up for some time a conside­rable number of godly Bishops in the Churches, which with the humble Presbyters, kept up the Interest of sound and practical Religion.

1. Those that had been tryed worthy men before Constan­tines conversion, and the Bishop's exaltation, kept their Integri­ty in the main; though in the Nicene Council their conten­tious Libels shewed that we are more beholden to Constantine than to them, that they fell not into such strife as their Succes­sors did. Good men may be carryed too far in Pride and Strife, but they will not be mastered by them, and turn against the Power of Godliness.

2. The People and Inferiour Clergy had the choice of their Bishops: And so (though they oft had tumults, as in popular Elections it will be) yet the worst ambitious men were long kept out, and the best oft chosen, till the People and Presbyters themselves were corrupted.

3. And divers good Emperours arose that took some care to promote the best: But alas! this had sad and frequent inter­ruptions.

12. For the Arians possest Constantine himself with hard thoughts of Athanasius and his Adherents: And it could not be expected that Julian should countenance the best, when Constan­tius and Valeus had done so much against them, and got most of all the Churches headed by Arian Bishops; to say nothing yet of after times.

13. But now two things became matter of Contention a­mong the Bishops and their Clergy, and increased the strife from time to time. The first and chief was the Old Cause great­ly strengthened, viz. Who should be greatest? Who should have the largest, fattest, and most Ruling Diocess and Seat? The other was, Who should be taken for the most Orthodox, and whose Explications of the Faith should be taken for the soundest; espe­cially about the description of the Person and immanent acts of Christ? Or briefly, 1. Jurisdiction and Greatness: 2. Wisdom and hard words.

[Page 16]14. Now also Constantinople contended with Rome, and being the Seat of the Empire which they judged to be the true Rea­son of Church-preheminence, they at first modestly took the se­cond place: And now the Trinity of Patriarchs was turned to five, Jerusalem being made the fifth. At all this Rome grudged.

15. All this while the old Discipline of the Church was tole­rably kept up; 1. Because though much of the world had got in­to the Church, yet a very great part were tenacious of their Heathenish Customs, and prejudiced against Christians by their Contentions, (odiously described by Am. Marcellinus, and many others, and prejudiced against Constantine for his Son Crispus and Sopaters death, &c. and against Constantius for the Murder of Ju­lian's Relations; and being taken with the plausible parts of Ju­lian, and with the great Learning and highly extolled Lives of Plotinus, Porphyrius, Jamblichus, Aedesius, Maximus, Proeresius, Libanius, Chrysanthius, and such others, described by Eunapius, &c. so that except Rome and Alexandria, for 200 years, and some few of the very great Churches for 400, the Churches were no greater than one Bishop and his Consessus, might tolerably go­vern by the Keys. 2. And all this while all the Presbyters were Church-Governours as well as the Bishop, though he was their Chief, and all Excommunications were to be done by joint con­sent; And so many Church-Governours may do more than one.

16. Then Councils called General, having by the Emperours Grant, and the Clergies Desire and Consent, the Supreme Church-Power, it was in these Councils that the Pride, Ambition and Domination of all the worldly Prelates that were too soon got in, did exercise it self as the valour and wit of Souldiers in a field of War: And as 1. The good men yet among them; 2. And the Articles of Faith yet retained by them, did cause them to do much good against some Heresies and Disorders, so the Pride and Turbulency, yea ignorance of the rest, caused them to become the occasions of the doleful Schisms, and Heresies; and Enmity of Christians against each other, which continue to this day un­healed.

17. These hurtful Contentions in Councils at first prevailed but little, and that at Nice did much more good (I think) than harm: And after at Constant: a little more hurt was done, and much good: And those that followed did worse and worse, till the proud worldly Spirit contracted Malignity, and so much [Page 17] prevailed, that for a thousand years at least the Bishops with their Prelatical Clergy and their Councils have been the grand Corruption and Plague of the Church; which many of the most Learned Expositors of the Revelation, take to be the Image of the Beast; and Dr. H. Moore calls it a Heathenish Christianity, which they have made their Religion.

18. In their progress to all this, as the Diocesses first grew up from our Parochial Magnitude towards that of the present Dio­cesan, so the very Pastoral Power of all the rest of the Presby­ters, was by degrees taken away, so far as that they had no consenting power in Ordinations or Excommunications, unless the Bishop would chuse a few for his Council: so that the proper power of the King's was confined to one Bishop over many hundred Parishes; and so Discipline became an impossible thing, save as it served the Bishops against some that they dis­liked: And so the Church which was as the Garden of Christ, became like the Commons, and good and bad were little diffe­renced in Communion.

19. Yet because the Power must still be useful to the Bishops ends, as he sees cause, some shadow of the old exercise must be kept up: But the Bishop having not leisure for the tenth part of the labour which this very shadow required, Lay-men are made his Chancellours to decree Excommunications and Absolutions, and to Govern by the Church Keys; like a secular Court: And Commissaries, Officials, Surrogates, and other hard names and things, are set up instead of the Presbyters and their Antient Office.

20. By this time the Antient Species of the Churches was al­tered; and whereas it was long held, that a Church and Bishop were Correlates, and there were no more Churches than Bishops, now many hundred or a thousand Parishes are become no Churches, but parts of one Diocesan Church, which is the lowest, and many score or hundred of the old sort of Bishops, all cast out and swallowed up by one. Just as if a thousand, or some hundred Schools should have but one Governing Schoolmaster, and be but one School, but each part have an Usher to read to the Boyes, and tell the one Schoolmaster as a Monitor what they did amiss; but might correct none, nor put them out.

21. By this time they began to live on blood; and even as they swelled in the beginning, cruelty grew up equally with [Page 18] Pride: For Reason and Scripture were not on their side, nor would justifie their Cause and them, and therefore violence must do it: They desired not the bare title of Power, but the exercise of it, to promote the Issues of their Wit and Will. They began with rash silencing, ejecting and deposing Dissenters, and thence to anathematizing them, and thence to banishing, till at last it grew up to tormenting in the Inquisition, and burning them.

22. And whereas (notwithstanding the petty Heresies among Christians too early) the glory of the Antient persecuted Chri­stians was their entire Love and Concord, and the shame of the Philosophers was their discord; it came to that pass, that where­as a Heresie of old did start up among a few for a small time, like our Ranters and Quakers, who shame Religion no more than Bedlams shame Reason: Now the great Continents of the Earth have been the Seats of the millions of those called Hereticks and Schismaticks by each other, about 1400 or 1300 years. Eu­sebius in Praepar. & Demonstr. copiously sheweth that the Philo­sophers were all confounded in dissention (and yet did not per­secute each other) but that the Christians were all of one Reli­gion, cleaving to one Sacred Word of God: Of which also see Raym. Breganium in Theol. Gent. de Cogn. Dei, Enar. 5. cap. 8. To be Lovers of good men, was the character of the old Bishops: To be dividers, and haters, and slanderers, and silencers, and per­secutors, and murderers of them, grew up with corrupters Pride.

23. And with these did gradually grow up corruptions of Doctrine, even while they pretended a burning Zeal against He­resie; and corruption of God's publick Worship, till it grew up to all the Mass and Roman Impurities.

24. And to secure all this against Reformation, ridiculous Legends, and falsification of Church-History, made it hard for posterity what to believe, or whom.

§ 15. Being thus far sure of the matter of fact, by what de­grees Prelacy grew up to the height, that it hath now attained in the World abroad, I considered what men thought of it now at home (I am speaking yet but of matter of fact;) and I found great diversity in mens thoughts of it.

1. As to the Roman height, I found that the Church of England since the Reformation till A. B. Laud's time took the Pope to be the [Page 19] Antichrist; It was in their Church-books: Many other Bishops, as well as Bishop Downam, have written for it: What Bishop Morton, and Hall, and Abbot, and abundance such have written against Popery I need not name.

2. I found that then the stream began to turn, and the name of Antichrist was put out, and our Reconciliation with Rome was taken to be a hopeful work, and actually endeavoured (which by their conversion all good men desire.)

3. I found that many among us of greatest reverence and name had laid down such tearms as these, ‘[That the Catho­lick Church is one Visible Society under one humane Govern­ing Soveraignty: That this Universal Soveraign hath power of Universal Legislation and Judgment: That the Colledge of Bishops through all the World, are this one Supreme Univer­sal Soveraign: That they exercise it in General Councils when they sit: That every Bishop is by Office the Representative of his Diocesan Church; and these Bishops may, or must have Metropolitans and Patriarchs; and by these Patriarchs and Metropolitans per literas formatas, and their Nuntii the Uni­versal Supreme Colledge may exercise their Power over all the World: And what they do thus, the Church or Colledge doth, in the intervals of General Councils: That the Pope of Rome is to be acknowledged the Principium Unitatis to this Universal Church and Colledge of Bishops, and the Ordinary President of General Councils ex Officio. That Councils called without the President who hath the sole power, are unlawful Assemblies, and punishable Routs. That the approbation of the President, (if not of the most of the Patriarchs) is the note by which an authoriz'd obliging Council is to be known from others. That the Pope is to be obeyed accordingly as Prime Patriarch, Principium Unitatis, President of General Councils, and Patriarch of the West. That all that will not unite with the Church of Rome on these tearms, are Schisma­ticks, and so to be accounted and used. That those that thus unite with the Church of Rome, are no Papists: But a Papist is only one that holdeth all to be just and good that is done by Popes, or at least one that is for the Pope's Absolute Power of Governing above Canon-Laws and Church-Parlia­ments or Councils. And that if they will but abate their last 400 years Innovations, or at least not impose them on others, [Page 20] we may unite with the Church of Rome, though they claim as Peter's Successors, the Universal Supremacy at least to be exercised according to the Canons of Councils. And that it is not the Church of Rome, but the Court of Rome, which at present we may not unite with. That the Church of Rome is a true Church, and hath had an uninterrupted Succession, and its Sacraments true Sacraments: But none of those Protestant Churches are true Churches, that have not Diocesan Bishops; nor any of their Pastors true Ministers of Christ, who have not Diocesan Episcopal Ordination; nor any that have such, unless it hath as such been conveyed down from the Apostles by un­interrupted Succession by such Diocesans. That such men have no true Sacraments, God not owning what is done by any not so ordained: That therefore they have no Covenant-promise of, or right to Pardon and Salvation, because such right is given only by the Sacrament: That therefore all such Pro­testants Sacraments are but nullities, and a prophanation of holy things: And that the Holy Ghost being the Instituter of these sacred things, it is the sin against the Holy Ghost to under­take and exercise the Ministry, & celebrate Sacraments without such uninterrupted successive Ordination. That an Ordained Minister, hath no more power than was intended him by his Ordainers: That in such Presbyterians, or Episcopal Churches, which have their power from the Ordainers, and so far for want of Succession, are nullities; it is safe for men (as e. g. in France) to be rather of the Roman Church than theirs.’

§ 16. And as I found this Doctrine in the ascendent in Eng­land, so I met with such as were for using Protestants according­ly, even for the silencing of them by thousands, if they would not swear, profess, promise, and do all that—And for using the People accordingly. And abating neither big nor little, an Oath or a Ceremony to unite or save them. And I lived in an Age where these things were no idle speculations.

§ 17. Being thus far sure of the Matter of Fact, I studied as well as I was able to know which of these waies was right: And I saw that either Popery that is, the Popes universal Headship or Government is of Divine Institution, or elss it is a heinous U­surpation, and formeth a sort of Church which is not on any pre­tence of Concord to be owned. And as to the first I have said before and in many Books what I have to say against it; which [Page 21] is all summed up in Doctor Iz. Barrow, and Doctor H. Moore, and largely told the world by Chamier, Sadeel, Whitaker, Jewel, Usher, Morton, White, Chillingworth, Crakenthorne, and abundance more. And I thought it strange if either Papacy, or that Tym­panite of the Clergy which tended to it, were of God, that the Persons should be ordinarily so bad, and it should introduce so great mischief in doctrine, worship and practice over the Chri­stian world, and bring the Church into such a divided and pollut­ed state, and that as the Clergy swelled the Body should pine away, and the Spirit of holiness and Love be turned into the Skelleton of Ceremony and Formality, and into hatred, cruelty, and tearing and tormenting pains.

§ 18. Upon all such thoughts I concluded in these resolutions; 1. That I must not accuse any Office made by God, for mens abuse of it. 2. Nor must I accuse the good for the faults of the bad. 3. Nor Confound the Office it self, with its disease, and the accidental Tympanite. 4. Nor aggravate humane infirmities in good men, as if they were the crimes of malignant Enemies. 5. Much less lay any of the blame on Christianity or Piety, when nothing in the world is so much against all these Evils, nor would they have been so far limited, restrained or resisted, had it not been for that Christianity and Piety that was kept up a­gainst it; nor is there any other cure of it. It is not by Religion, but for want of more true and serious Religion, that all these mis­chiefs have so lamentably prevailed.

§ 19. I therefore resolving to avoid extreams, concluded thus; 1. That it is most certain that Christ is the only Head of the Church.

2. And that as such he himself did make universal Laws, and will be the final universal Judge, and there is no other that hath universal Legislative and Judicial Power but he.

3. As such he instituted necessary Church-Officers; first, ex­traordinary ones to be his Instruments in Legislation, as Moses was to the Jews, giving them his Spirit extraordinarily for that use, to bring all that he taught them to their remembrance, and guide them to deliver and record all his Commands: And or­dinary Ministers (as the Priests and Levites to the Jews) to teach and apply these Commands, or universal Laws, to the end of the World, but not to add, diminish or alter them.

4. That the formal Essence of this continued Sacred Ministry [Page 22] consisteth in a derived Power and Obligation in subordination to Christ as Prophet, Priest and King, to Teach, to Guide the Churches in holy Worship, and to Rule them by the Pastoral Power, which maketh them Ministerial Judges of mens capacity for Church-Communion; but they have as such no forcing power of the Sword.

5. That there are two sorts of these Ministers accidentally distinguished: 1. Such as are only ordained to the Ministry in general, and not specially related to any one particular Church more than other; whose work is to do their best to Teach In­fidels, and baptize them, and gather Churches, and occasionally to Officiate orderly in such Churches where they come as need their help. 2. Those that have moreover an additional call to be the stated Pastors, Overseers or Guides of particular Churches as fixed Officers of Christ. All which have the three foresaid Es­sentials of the Office, to Teach, Worship and Rule.

6. That the Office of these men is to be performed by them­selves, and no Lay-man may do any Essential part of them by their deligation, and therefore (as in Physicians, Tutors, &c.) necessary Personal abilities are as essential as the necessary dispo­sitio materiae is ad receptionem alicujus formae. And ex quovis ligno non fit mercurius.

7. That it is very much, and great, and most important work, which these Ministers have to do. To Preach God's Word un­derstandingly, faithfully, constantly, fervently; to resolve the doubtful, to reprove the scandalous, to persuade the obstinate, to confute gainsayers, to comfort the sad, and strengthen the weak, particularly as there is occasion. To visit the sick, Cate­chize, Baptize, besides all acts of publick Government. There­fore one man cannot possibly do all this for too great a number of souls, but great Congregations must have many Ministers: And so they had in the Primitive Church, where the most able Speakers preacht usually in publick, and the rest did more of the personal and more private work.

8. And whereas it was very early that most single Churches had one that had a preheminence amongst the rest (not as of another Office, but as a President in a Colledge of Philosophers, Physicians or Divine Students, to be a Governour over those of his own profession, by moderate Guidance,) and it is not un­meet, that when one worthy Teacher hath gathered a Church, [Page 23] and brought up younger Christians to Ministerial abilities, that they when they are ordained should take him for their Father, I will never gainsay such an Episcopacy in single Churches (that is, societies of Christians combined for personal Communion in Doctrine, Worship and Holy living under such Pastors as afore­said.)

9. And because I find that the Apostles and Evangelists had a Ministerial care of many Churches to teach, reprove, exhort the Pastors and People; And though the Apostles extraordinary power and work ceased, yet Church-Oversight as well as Preach­ing being an ordinary continued work; and when I find Christ hath instituted some Teachers over many Churches, I dare not say that he hath repealed this till I can prove it. And the nature of the thing tells us, that if some grave holy men have the care of counselling and warning and reproving the Ministers of many Churches who are below them in parts and worth; It may do much good and can do no harm to the Churches, while they have no power of force or tyranny, Therefore I resolved never to speak or do any thing against such Bishops of Bishops, though Diocesan.

§ 20. Thus far I have oft declared my self for Episcopacy: But finding in all the aforesaid History, how the Church came to the woful State that it hath been in these 1200 years, and what it suffereth by the Bishops and their Clergy in almost all parts of the Christian World; and that even the English Diocesans can endure no more Parochial Pastoral Discipline than they do▪ (I mean such as Bucer in Script. Anglic. prest so vehemently on King Edw. and the Bishops) and that they cannot contentedly hold their Lordships, Wealth and Honours, without silencing and ruining Two thousand such as I, or better; and using many thousands of godly Christians as they do; and finding that I and such others are accused as being disobedient to them—and for not swearing and covenanting never to endeavour any alte­ration of their present Church-Government, and all excommu­nicate by the Canon that say there is any thing in it (even from the Archdeacon downward to [the rest in Office] repugnant to the Word of God) I took it at last to be my duty to give the Reasons of my dissent in a full Treatise of Episcopacy.

And because I perceived young men and strangers to for­mer times, deceived by the general noise, How Antient and [Page 24] Universal Episcopacy hath been; as if all that is called Episcopacy were but one and the same thing; or as if we were against the Primitive Episcopacy; therefore I suddenly (and too hastily for want of time,) bestowed a few weeks in summing up the Heads of the History of Bishops and Councils, out of a few Historians which were most common, next at hand, and of most credit with those whose faults I opened: That it might be truly known How much the tumified degenerate sort of Prelacy had caused the Divisions and Calamities of the Church.

§ 21. For this Mr. Morrice (as fame saith) and many more are so greatly offended with me, and say of me herein what they do. And on pretence of Vindicating the Primitive Church which untruly implyeth that I who vindicated it against corrupters did oppose it) he defendeth the corruptions and sinful miscarriages and diseases of the Prelates: And this he doth, 1. By striving to make me contemptible as unlearned, as if that would excuse the sins which I rehearse and lament: He findeth in one place through my haste and heedlesness, a word of Theodoret misplaced, and the word [Calami] translated Quills, which he thinks should be Reeds; and one or two more such; as if he prevaricated, and had a design to extol the Book, which he finds no more and grea­ter fault in, than he really hath done. And he proveth it likely that I never saw the Histories that stood by me near twenty years, because the Printer put a Comma between [Marquardus] and [Freherus] (I think there are a dozen Comma's misplaced in my whole Book;) when he himself saith of his own Book [The faults that have escaped are almost infinite.] But of these things more anon.

2. He loudly and frequently chargeth me with malicious fal­sifying History; and when he cometh to the proof, I have shewed you who the falsifier is.

3. The great thing I am accused of, is making the Bishops more the causes of Heresie, Schism and Violence, than they were: And of that I have said nothing, but what I think I have fully proved: And let the Reader judge by this following Catalogue.

Dominee [...]ing Pride hath been the chief cause of Heresies and Schisms, especially working in the Clergy to tumid Prelacy and Tyranny.

I. I before noted how the Apostles began to strive who should be greatest, till the effusion of the Spirit after Christs rebukes [Page 25] had cured them. And what tiranny Diotrephes used through love of Preheminence.

II. If the doubtful stories of Simon Magus be true, his tumor was more than Papal; And Epiphanius makes Menander, Satur­nilus, Basilides, to be but his Off-spring. The Original of the Ni­colaitans and Gnosticks (who Epiphanius saith, had ensnared him­self once) is utterly uncertain; Carpocras, Cerinthus, Ebion, Va­lentinus, Secundus, Ptolomaeus, were all but Birds of the same Gnosticks Nest, a crazed sort of men that mingled Christianity, Platonism, and Magical Imaginations; and what they were themselves, is not known: Such was Marcus, Colarbasus, He­racleon, the Ophitae, the Cainites, the Sethians, Cerdo; Marcion was a Bishop's Son cast out for vice; and Lucian, Apelles and Severus his Off-spring, the Heads of their little Sects; whether Bishops or not, is unknown. What kind of Hereticks Tertullian, Tatianus, and Origen were, and how many faults as soul Lactan­tius, and many not numbered with Hereticks have, is well known: And among all these in those early daies, till there were Popes and Diocesans (such as now) in the world, none such could be Hereticks.

III. Many Councils contended about the time of Easter, and Victor with one part of Bishops, excommunicated Polycrates and the Arian Bishops; while, as Socrates and Sozomen tell us, the Churches that left it indifferent had peace.

IV. A Council of the best Bishops at Carthage decreed Re­baptizing.

V. A Council of the Bishops of Cappadocia, Cilicia, Galatia, &c, at Iconium, for Rebaptizing those Baptized by Hereticks: And Stephen Bishop of Rome excommunicated them all.

VI. A Council at Synadis, and divers others decreed the same Rebaptizing.

VII. Divers more African Councils of good Bishops with Cyprian, decree the same, whom Stephen Bishop of Rome con­demneth.

VIII. Divers Bishops are said to be Sabellian Hereticks.

IX. Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch was a Heretick.

X. The Council of Bishops at Cirta in Numidia under Secun­dus Mr. M. calls worse than I do.

XI. A Carthage Council of 70 Bishops An. 306. set up the Donatists Schism, striving for the preheminence, who should be Bishop of Carthage.

[Page 26]XII. An. 308. Another Donatists Council had 270 Bishops. Many more Councils they had.

XIII. The first General Council at Nice we honour, and assent to its Creed: But thank Constantine for burning all their Libels, and keeping peace by his presence and speech.

XIV. The Schism made by Meletius and Peter, Bishops, is well known.

XV. The Heresie of Arius (a Presbyter that would have been a Prelate) quickly infected Eusebius Nicomed. If not Eusebius Caesariensis, and divers other Bishops.

XVI. Epiphanius saith, that Audius was driven to his Heresie by being long abused, beaten, and at last excommunicated for reproving the Bishops and Priests for their Covetousness, Luxu­ry, and other sins: And so he became a Bishop himself.

XVII. Eusebius Nicom. made Bishop of Constantinople (whom you tell us Valesius thinks was no Heretick) hired a Whore at Antioch, to father her Child on Eustathius the Bishop there, and got more Bishops to depose him, and the Emperour to banish him.

XVIII. A Council of Bishops at Tyre unjustly condemn and per­secute Athanasius.

XIX. Three Bishops (saith Mr. M. overcome with too much Wine and persuasion) ordained Novatian falsly Bishop of Rome (before this aforementioned.)

XX. A Council at Jerusalem An. 335. tryed and approved Arius Faith, and restored him.

XXI. A Council at Constantinople condemned Marcellus Ancy­ranus, and Athanasius, and justified Arius.

XXII. A Council of near 100 Bishops at Antioch, 36 being Arians, deposed Athanasius.

XXIII. Another Council at Antioch make a new Creed with­out [ [...]]

XXIV. A Council of 376 Bishops at Sardica, decree Appeals to Rome, which Augustin and the African Bishops were against.

XXV. The Semi-Arian Bishops went to Philippopolis, and con­demned such as the other at Sardica had absolved, but cast out [ [...]] as not scriptural, and cast dreadful accusations on Atha­nasius, Paulus C. P. and Marcellus.

XXVI. An. 350. A Council at Milan received Ursacius and Valens, Arians.

[Page 27]XXVII. Stephen an Arian Bishop hired a Whore to go in to Bishop Euphratas; and this Euphratas after turned Photinian.

XXVIII. An. 353. A Council at Arles condemn Athanasius.

XXIX. An. 355. A General Council at Milan of above 300 Western Bishops (though the Eastern that were most Arian could not come) where Athanasius was condemned, and communion with the Arians subscribed.

XXX. An. 356. A Council at Byterris condemned and ba­nished Hilary, and condemned them as Separatists or Schisma­ticks that renounced the Arian Communion.

XXXI. A General Council at Sirmium of 300 Western Bishops besides the Eastern, made three different Creeds, condemned Athanasius, left out the word [Substance] made P. Liberius, and old Osius subscribe against Athanasius.

XXXII. The Oriental Bishops at Ancyra were only for [ [...]] and not [ [...]] and with Macedonius against the Godhead of the Holy Ghost.

XXXIII. A General Council 400 Bishops met at Ariminum; of whom most at first were Orthodox; but after when the Em­perour interposed, subscribed to the Arian Party.

XXXIV. The rest sate at Seleucia, and were more Orthodox, but divided into Acacians, who were for leaving out [Substance] and Semi-Arians, who were for [Like Substance.] Sulp. Severus tells us, that many Bishops quieted their Consciences by [subscribing in their own sense] and so deceived the Arians that thought they had won them.

XXXV. A Council at C. P. made a Ninth Creed, leaving out [Substance and Hypostasit, The Semi-Arians for this banished the Authors.

XXXVI. A Council at Antioch cast out Miletius, and made a Tenth Creed, worse than the rest.

XXXVII. Julian Reigning, Athanasius calls a Council at Alex­andria, which had almost divided East and West about the names [Hypostasit and Persona;] but that some wise men per­suaded them that the words were both of the same signification; which yet was hardly entertained afterward.

XXXVIII. A Council at Antioch of Semi-Arians Petitioned Jo­vianus to cast out the Acacians; till they knew his mind, and then the Arian Bishops turned Orthodox.

XXXIX. At a Synod in Tyana Eustath. Sebast. denied [ [...]] and the Godhead of the Holy Ghost.

[Page 28]XL. An Arian Council of Bishops in Caria under Valens: And another at Singeduni in Misia.

XLI. Damasus in a Roman Council condemneth Sisinnius for Conventicles: For at the Election in the Church they fought for these two: And Damasus his Party one day left 137 dead bodies behind them, and got the better.

XLII. Valens by cruelty set up Arian Bishops in a great part of the Eas [...].

XLIII. The first General Council at C. P. is commonly called the Second General, when yet that at Sardica, Ariminum, Sirmium, Milan, were General also: They were many good men, and did good: But how they used Nazianzen to the great grief of the Church of C. P. and how Nazianzen describ­eth them, I desire the Reader to take from his own words, and not from mine, or Mr. M.

XLIV. The Council at Caesar Augusta did that which made Martin separate from them and all their Councils after to his death.

XLV. A Council at C. P. set up Flavian at Antioch, and a Council at Rome were for Paulinus: The former advance C. P. and Jerusalem.

XLVI. Many Schismatical Councils of Donatist Bishops fol­lowed.

XLVII. For Theophilus case I refer you to Socrates and Soze­mene.

XLVIII. Epiphanius his Schismatical usage of Chrysostom is un­excusable.

XLIX. And so is Theophilus prosecution of him, and a Synod of Bishops casting him out, and Cyril's resisting the restoring of his name when dead, and reviling the Joannites that kept sepa­rated Meetings for his sake.

L. The Diospolitan Council absolved Pelagius. Divers Car­thage Councils condemned him. P. Innocent condemned him. Zosimus once absolved him, and condemned his accusers.

The Bishops cast out for Simony, I will not number here.

LI. The Contentions between Bonisace and Eulalius, and o­thers after them to get the Bishoprick of Rome, are so many as I will not number them. And the striving of three Bishops suc­cessively against the African Fathers for the Roman super-emi­nence and Appeals to Rome, are commonly known.

[Page 29]LII. One of Bishop Boniface's Decrees is, That [No Bishop shall be brought before any Judge, Civil or Military, either for any Civil or Criminal Cause.]

LIII. What the first General Council at Ephesus did in the Cause of Nestorius I have fully opened: Derodons Evidence is undeniable, that Nestorius was Orthodox as to the Matter, though he mis­took as to words, in thinking that Mary should not be called The Mother of God, but of Christ who is God. (which Luther also shews.) Yet since that Councils anathematizing him, a great body of Christians in many Eastern Kingdoms, to this day are a party hereticated by the rest. Is not such an effect of 1200 years con­tinuance, a witness of the failing of that Council?

LIV. The Bishops of C. P. and Alexandria striving which should be greatest, a Council at C. P. decided it for C. P. where Theodoret was for Alexandria, and fell under displeasure.

LV. Leo M. Bishop of Rome, claims the title of Head of the Catholick Church.

LVI. Two Councils at C. P. one against Eutyches the other for him.

LVII. The second Council at Ephesus is so heavily accused by Mr. M. and such others, that I need not accuse it more. Fla­vianus of C. P. was there hurt to death. Yet Bellarmin confes­seth it wanted nothing of a true General Council but the Pope's approbation.

LVIII. A Council at Alexandria under Dioscorus excommu­cateth Leo.

LIX. What the Council of Calcedon hath done I have shewed: Instead of reconciling the Nestorian and Eutychian Controversies by a skillful explication of their ambiguous unfit words, they Anathematized both and banished Dioscorus, And ever since to this day, the Eutychians and Nestorians are separated Dissenters.

LX. At Alexand. the Bishops party that the Council was for (Proterius) and Timothy whom Dioscorus party were for, so reged, that they murdered Proterius, and dragg'd his carkass in the streets, and bit his flesh: And each party still accused the other.

LXI. Pulcheria (Theodosius's Sister and Martian's Wife) be­ing for the Council, and Eudocia Theodosius's Widdow for Diosca­rus, they animated the several Parties of Bishops and Monks: And in Palestine Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem was expelled, Severianus Bishop of Schythopolis killed, &c.

[Page 30]LXII. Leo the Emperour commanding obedience to the Cal­cedon Council, at Alexandria and Antioch the Armies of contend­ing Bishops were in continual war, calling each other Nestorians and Eutychians; one Bishop banished by the Emperour, the con­trary Bishop murdered by the people, and cast into the River; the next getting the better again, &c.

LXIII. In Martian's and Leo's daies most Bishops subscribed to the Council. When Basiliscus usurped, and was against the Council, saith Niceph. three Patriarchs, and five hundred Bishops renounced it, most before having damned its adversaries. Basi­liscus recanteth his Commands, and commandeth all to be for the Council, and the Bishops obey him, save those of Asia. Zeno recovereth the Empire, and is for the Council, and the Asian Bishops turn for it, and say they subscribed to Basiliscus at first for fear. Zeno seeing it impossible otherwise to make Peace, leaveth all indifferent whether they will subscribe the Council or not. Then the War grew hotter between the Bishops and their Armies against each other, specially the Patriarchs; all be­ing in Confusion, at Alexand. Antioch and C. P. and no Em­perour wise enough to quiet them.

LXIV. Anastasius a peaceable man, made Emperour, leaveth all to think of the Council as they will: Then the Bishops fall into three Parties; some for every word in the Council; some anathematizing it, and some for the indifferency: The East one way, the West another, and Lybia another; yea each Country divided among themselves: Saith Niceph. So great confusion and blindness of mind befell the whole World. The Emperour falls upon the impeaceable of both sides: At his own place C. P. the Sedition of the People overcame him, for their Council Bishop, which turned the Emperour more against the Council, and that Bishop and the rest.

LXV. At Antioch the Armies of two Bishops fought it out, and the Council Party getting the better, killed so many Monks, as to save the labour of burying them, they cast their bodies in­to the River: And after another Party of them made as great a slaughter. For this blood the Emperour banish'd Flavianus the Council Bishop: This was called Persecution. Pet. Alex. being dead, the Bishops of Alex. Egypt and Lybia, fell all into pieces among themselves, and had separate Meetings: The rest of the East sepa­rated from the West, because the West refused Communion with [Page 31] them unless they would anathematize Nestorius, Eutyches, Di­oscorus, Moggus, and Acacius: And yet saith Niceph. Qui ger­mani Dioscori & Eutychetis sectatores fuere, ad maximam paucita­tem redacti sunt. Note that Flavian the Council Bishop for fear with his Fellow Bishops (threatned by Bishop Xenaias) subscribed an Anathema against Theodore, Theodorite, Ibas, as Nestorians: The Isaurian Bishops yield to anathematize the Council. Severus a fierce Enemy of the Nestorians made Patriarch at Antioch, for­ced many Bishops to renounce the Council; and many to fly. The Isaurian Bishops repent and condemn Severus: The Empe­rour commanded out two Bishops for condemning their Pa­triarch: The People defend them, and force the Emperour to desist, because he would shed no blood for Bishops. Helias Bishop of Jerusalem, saw all the Bishops in such confusion, that he would communicate with none of them, but the Bishop of C. P. The Monks at Jerusalem proclaim Anathema to all that equal not the four Councils to the four Evangelists, and write to the Emperour that they would make good the conflict to blood, and went about to engage men to the Council: The Emperour commanded the Bishop to reform this: He refuseth. The Emperour sendeth Souldiers to compel them, and the Bishops and Monks forcibly cast them out of the Church. He sent Olympius with a stronger band, who cast out the Bishop: The next Bishops and more Souldiers had yet more conflicts after this, and the Souldiers driven away by force.

LXVI. Faelix of Rome, with 77 Bishops, excommunicate Aca­cius of C. P. (with a [Nunquam Anathematis vinculis exuendus) and their own two Bishops that obeyed the Emperour in com­municating. The Schism between Laurentius and Symmachus, came to blood-shed, when five or six Councils laboured to heal it. Symmachus excommunicateth the Emperour and Bishop of C. P. as communicating with Hereticks; but not an Arian King then at Rome.

LXVII. A Council of 80 Bishops at Sidon anathematize the Council of Calcedon.

The striving Parties keep up still in great Bodies, and the Mel­chites (as they call those that obeyed Kings and the Council) have one Patriarch at Damascus, the Eutychian Jacobites one at Mesopotamia, the Maronites one at M. Libanus, all called Pa­triarchs of Antioch, (and the Romans make a fourth of the same [Page 32] title) and the Nestorians have their Patriarch at Muzal.

Of the many Heresies or Sects that rose up from the intem­perate opposition to Nestorius, and the woful ruines they made in the East after the Calcedon Councils, and all caused by Pride and Prosperity, and wantonness of Wit, and stopt only by the Conquest of the Sarazens and Arabians, and how orthodox now in their Captivity and Poverty they all are, even the Jacobites, the Nestorians, the Armenians, the Cophti, the Abassines, the Indians, and the Maronites, see the notable words of Brierwrod Enquir. p. 180, 181, 182, 183. As also how the Persian King was a great cause of the spreading of the Nestorians through his Dominions.

LXVIII. The East and West were divided in Justin's Reign, on the Question, whether the names of two Orthodox dead Bishops should be restored into the Dypticks, even Euphemius and Ma­cedonius, whom the Pope had damned as communicating with Hereticks; the Bishops of the East being for it, and the West a­gainst it.

LXIX. Justin turning the stream for the Calced. Council, the Bishops in a Council at Jerusalem, and another at Tyre are for it, and condemn Severus. And a Roman Council condemneth the three dead Bishops of C. P. Acacius, Euphemius and Macedo­nius.

LXX. So far were the Bishops yet from Peace, that Justinian being Emperour, headed the Council Party, and his Wife the ad­verse Party.

About 30000 they say were then killed in C. P. at an Insur­rection.

LXXI. A mischievous Schism for the Bishoprick at Rome, be­tween Boniface 2. and Dioscorus and Agapetus after Boniface.

LXXII. In Justinian's time a Controversie arose, whether we may say [One of the Trinity was crucified?] Hormisda Bishop of Rome said No. The Nestorians took hold of this and said, [Then we may not say Mary was Mother to one of the Trinity.] Justinian sent for a Council about it to Pope John: He and his Bishops concluded contrary to Hormisda, that we may say [One of the Trinity was crucified.] And say Baronius and Binius [Ita mutatis hostibus arma mutari necesse suit.] Faith changeth as occasions change. Reader, if thou seest not here how Bishops have bro­ken the Church in pieces, I must not tell thee, lest Mr. M. be angry.

[Page 33]I intreat the Reader to see what I said, Hist. p. 132. of the Conference of Hypatius and the Eutychians.

LXXIII. A Council at C. P. calls their Bishop Patriarcha Oecumenicus, and condemn divers Bishops, as doth a Council at Jerusalem.

LXXIV. At Rome the Arian King made Silverius Bishop, and others chose Vigilius that murdered him. Vigilius excom­municated Menna of C. P. which Justinian revenged.

LXXV. A new Controversie is stated whether Christs body was corruptible: The denyers had Gainas A. Bishop; The affir­mers had Theodosius; The first were called Phantasiastae, the o­ther Corrupticolae. Most were for Gainas, but the Soldiers for Theodosius: They fought many daies, and the Soldiers killed ma­ny, and many of them were killed, and the Women with stones from the top of the houses, and the Soldiers with fire, continued the war: And the division continued in Liberatus's daies: Justi­nian was so zealous for the Council of Calcedon, that he murder­ed thousands (as they say) in Egypt, and yet dyed a reputed Heretick himself, being for the Corrupticolae, and Evagrius saith, when he had set the whole world in tumult, he was damned him­self. But God best knoweth that.

LXXVI. A Council at Barcelona Decree that Priests must cut their beards, but not shave them.

LXXVII. By the Cheat of an Eutychian Bishop Justinian was persuaded that the condemning of some Writings of Theodoré Mopsuest, Theodorite and Ibas, would reconcile the Bishops: He calls a General Council at C. P. to that end (usually called the 5th) His Letters are read opening the doleful divisions, that the Churches had no Communion with one another, &c. The three Bishops writings are read: Theodorite charged by this Ge­neral Council with that salt Epistle against dead Cyril, and a like Speech at Antioch, and none vindicated him: Binius and Mr. Morice and others say the Letter is forged: I know not; But the Tria Capitula are condemned. And now this General Council hath made a new dividing snare. Many that were for the Calce­don Council feared this was a condemning of what they did in receiving Theodorite, &c. The Adversaries were never the more satisfyed; but saith Binius himself [The end was not obtained, but a most grievous mischief added to the Church—The whole Catholick Church was torn by Schism, and worse, the Emperour stir'dup Per­secution, [Page 34] deposed or banished P. Vigilius: But lest the East should all forsake the West, he recanted and consented to the Council. Doth either the work or the effect commend this General Council?

LXXVIII. A Council of Jerusalem save one Bishop, presently received this Decree.

LXXIX. A Western Council at Aquileia condemn this 5th General Council at C. P. and (saith Binius) separated from the whole Catholick Church (even from Rome) for an hundred years till Sergius reconciled them. Q. Were the Western Bishops or the Pope then the Western Church? So many separated, that Vigilius being dead, there could but two Bishops (and a Presbyter) be got to ordain Pelagius his Successor. But the Emperour and his Pope persecute the Bishops, and the Schism seemed desperate.

LXXX. Another Council at C. P. An. 587. decree that John Bishop of C. P. be called The Universal Bishop; which greatly in­creased the Churches divisions.

LXXXI. King Gunthram called a Council at Mascon An. 589. finding all things grow worse and worse, & all long of the Bishops only, saith Binius.

LXXXII. Even Great Gregory called a Synod against the dis­senting Bishops, and they not obeying his summons, the Bishop of Aquileia was ruined (the Western Head) Sabinian that suc­ceeded Gregory would have had his Books burnt. Boniface the third got Phocas the Murderer to declare Rome the Chief Bishops Seat (He to whom Greg. had sung Laetentur coeli, & ex­ult et terra, &c.)

LXXXIII. Next rose up the Monothelite Controversie, Cyrus Bishop of Alexand. to end the Controversies aforementioned, was told that to use the word [Dei virilis operatio & voluntas] would unite them all, which past as satisfaction in a Council at A­lexand. P. Honorius persuaded them to silence [One] and [Two.]

But this Counsel was rejected, and now whether Christ had [One or Two Wills and Operations, became as de fide, the new War of the Bishops through the world. Some were for [One] and some for [Two] as if [Will and Operation, and One or Two] were words that had but one signification; When every Novice in Philosophy must grant that Christ's Will and Operation in some sense, was but One, and in other senses Two, as I have proved. But Sergius Bishop of Const. set it on foot, Heraclius being for it, and Pyrrhus his Successor followed it on. And Sergius by a [Page 35] Council of Bishops at C. P. decreed for [One Will.]

The Opinion and the Emperour Constans his silencing both, are condemned at Rome. The Pope, Emperours and Bishops, are all condemned, and persecuting each other about it.

LXXXIV. Const. Pogonat. called a General Council at C. P. called the 6th, which condemned Macarius Bishop of Ant. and the pacificatory Epistles of P. Honorius and Sergius as Heretical, and all that were for One Will, and One Operation of Christ; 1. As denominated a naturis & earum principiis seu facultatibus, the Divine and Humane Will and Operations were and are Two: 2. As denominated ab unitate persona; they are the Will and Ope­rations of One person, and so far may be called One. 3. As deno­minated ab unitate objectiva they are One: The Divine and Hu­mane Nature will the same thing, so far as the Humane willeth, and do so far the same work: But if any will make a new He­resie by disputing whether the Divine Nature alone do not will and act somewhat without the volition and action of the Hu­mane (since the Incarnation) they shall have no company of mine in it. 4. In the sense as the Operation of the principal and instrumental Cause are One, producing One Effect; so Christ's Divine and Humane Operations are One. 5. As Consent deno­minateth Unity, and the Old Christians are said to be of One heart and soul, One mind and mouth; and Christ prayeth that we may be One in him, so his Will and Operation are One. 6. Yea if there be a sort of Union between Christ & his Members, and between the Blessed in Heaven, which is quite beyond our present com­prehension, it is much much more so between Christ's Divine and Humane Will and Operations.

And now Reader, whether it was well done to pass over these and many other needful distinctions, and to put men barely to say that Christ's Will and Operations were not One, but Two, when really they were both One and Two; and to make the Pope him­self a Heretick, for one of the wisest Epistles that ever Pope wrote (I am no such enemy to a Pope as to be partial;) and to divide the very Western Church from Rome, and make Aquileia its Head for an hundred years, and to set all the Roman Empire in a flame, anathematizing and separating from one another, be­cause they had not skill or sobriety enough to ask each other by such distinctions what they meant, I say, if this be wisely and well done, and be a praise to Prelacy, and I be to blame for [Page 36] blaming it, then good and evil is but what every diseased soul will make it. Mr. Morrice and his Masters, that honour their Leviathan for such works as these, do tell us, that they would do it themselves were it to be done again. And let it be their work, and the reward be theirs: For my part I abhor and renounce it.

LXXXV. Faith and Salvation now depended so much on Arith­metick, that the Bishops of Spain raised another Arithmetical Controversie, asserting Three Substances in Christ, his Divinity, his Soul, and his Body, and say, [A Will begat a Will, that is, the Divine, the Humane.] These things are true. But the wise Pope was so affrighted with Arithmetical Controversies by expe­rience of the mischievous Effects, that he cautioned them much about it, and for that some judged him erroneous.

LXXXVI. The Council at Trull was one of the best that ever they had, yet shewed the Core of the Churches Plague, by de­creeing, That whatever alteration the Imperial Power maketh on any City, the Ecclesiastical Order shall follow it. This Clergy am­bition nurst up Anti-Christ.

LXXXVII. A Council at Aquileia condemned the 5th General Council for condemning the Tria capitula.

LXXXVIII. Pope Sergius condemning the Trullane Council, the Emperour commanded him to be a Prisoner, and the Souldiers bribed rescued him.

LXXXIX. Bardanes Philippicus being made Emperor, he cal­leth a General Council at C. P. where, saith Binius, out of the East there were innumerable Bishops, (which is not said of any o­ther Council) who all condemned the 6th General Council, and their Decrees of Two Wills and Operations.

Here (not I, but) Baronius and Binius say [Thus at the Beck of an Emperour, and the Will of a Monothelite Patriarch, the holy 6th Synod is condemned, and what they said of Two Wills with Christ, and two Operations, and all retracted by the Decree and Subscription of very many Oriental Bishops, that were in one moment turned from being Catholick to be Monothelites.] But do they forget the 100 Year, that even the West made a head against the 5th Council and the Pope.

XC. Next all the World is set together by the Ears about Images, for which the Pope rebelled against and rejected the Emperour for Charles Martel of France.

And Pope Zachary bid Bonisace call a Council to eject the As­tors of Antipodes

[Page 37]CXI. In a General Council at C. P. 338 Bishops condemn­ed the worshipping of Images, and swear men not to adore them, and destroyed reliques, &c. and decreed, that Christ's Body is not flesh in Heaven: But the Pope and Western Bishops of his Party, condemn this Council.

XCII. The Greek Bishops condemn the Roman Bishops for add­ing [Filio (que)] to the Creed, and so another occasion of Schism is raised.

XCIII. The Schisms in Italy and Rome itself now grew so great and the Effects in Blood and Confusions so dismal, that I must not number them one by one.

XCIV. Constantine and Leo Isaur. Emperours, being dead, a Woman Irene, and her Infant Son are for Images, and call a Ge­neral Council for them at Nice, where Tharasius Bishop of C. P. got the Bishops to carry it for Images and Reliques, and the Chief Bishops that had condemned them before, now cryed pec­cavimus, and condemned those that were against adoration of Images, &c. If Mr. Morrice call me an Enemy to Repentance for reciting this, I cannot help it.

XCV. Yet more Schism: Two Bishops, Foelix and Elipandus, say, That Christ as the eternal Word was Gods natural Son, but as Man he was but his adopted Son: (thinking that duo fundamenta, viz. Generatio aeterna, & temporalis, duas-faciunt Relationes, fili­ationis in una persona.] But Councils condemned them as mak­ing two Sons. And the great Council at Frankford condemning the second Council of Nice, and Image-worship, condemn also these two Bishops, 1. For saying Christ was God's Adopted Son; 2. And that by Grace; 3. And that he was a Servant. Is any of this false, not excluding a higher title?

The Council concludeth that Christ was not a Servant subject­ed to God by penal servitude: Sure it was part of his suffering for our sins, to be in the form of a Servant, Phil. 2. 7.

XCVI. Binius saith the Filio (que) was added to the Creed by the Spanish and French Bishops without the Pope.

XCVII. One Council at C. P. restored him that married the Emperour adulterously to another wife: And another condemn­ed Theod. Studita and Plato, for being against it.

XCVIII. The most excellent Emperour Ludov. Pius was so zealous to reform the Bishops, that they hated him, and in a Council at Compendium (Compeigne) most perfidiously deposed [Page 38] him, and after basely abused him, even without the Pope.

XCIX. As to please his Son Lotharius, they deposed the Fa­ther; so when he was beaten by his Brethren, they after in a Council at Aquisgrane (Aken) deposed Lotharius, accusing him as they did his Father.

C. At C. P. a Council was called by the power of another Woman Theodora and the Bishops that had under divers Empe­rours condemned Image-worship, now turn to it again, and ana­thematize on a sudden the opposers.

CI. The Bishops own Lotharius Adulterous marriage with Waldrada.

CII. The Councils that set up and pull'd down Ignatius and Photius at C. P. and the woful stir that they made as Emperours changed, were lamentable.

CIII. Many contrary Councils were between the French Bishops that were for Lotharius divorce and the Pope.

CIV. Basil the Emperour writes to the Pope to pardon all his Bishops, or else they should be without, because all had miscar­ried, and turned with the times.

CV. A General Council at Const. called by the Papists, The Eighth General Council, condemned Photius again, and set up Ig­natius, and the Changers cryed, peccavimus, and make extreme Decrees for Images (But they well condemn subscribing to be true to their Patriarchs and Bishops;) but decree that all Princes and Subjects worship the Bishops, who must not fall down to them. Other horrid Elevations of Prelates above Princes they decreed—saying, A Bishop, though it be manifest that he is desti­tute of all Virtue of Religion, yet is a Pastor; and the Sheep must not resist the Shepherd.

CVI. A dangerous Rent between Rome and C. P. what Bishop should have the Bulgarians.

CVII. A Council at Metz called Praedaetorium, gave the King­dom to Car. Calv. unjustly.

CVIII. A Council at Pavia falsly make Charles Emperour.

CIX. Another (Pontigonense) confirmed it; (the Pope claim­ing the Power.)

CX. A Roman Council unjustly made Ludov. 3. Emperour.

CXI. A General Council at C. P. again set up Photius, and cast out [Filio (que).]

CXII. The Roman actions for and against P. Formosus, are odious to all sober Christians Ears.

[Page 39]CXIII. A Council at Soysons confirm the A. Bishoprick of Rhemes to a Child of five years old, Son to the E. of Aquitane. Divers other Councils do and undo about the same Cause.

CXIV. The History of the Bishops of Rome and their Councils from hence forward is so lamentable that even the most flattering Papist Historians mention them with detestation. So that I must not stay to name many particulars.

CXV. An. 1049. A Roman Council was fain to pardon Simo­niacal Bishops and Priests, because the Cry was, that else none would be left to officiate.

CXVI. Being come into the Roman sink, I will pass above an hundred more of the Councils of this woful sort of Bishops, lest Mr. Morrice think that I suppose him to vindicate them, or not to abhor them. Only remembering my Reader of a few General or notable things: viz.

I. The multitude of Schisms, and long vacancies at Rome; and the horrid incapacity of very many Popes, which prove an in­terrupted succession.

II. The horrid wars that long infested Italy by the Popes means.

III. The dismal wars with many Emperours, and the Bishops and Councils half on one side and half on the other.

IV. The Council that called the Emperours and others Prin­ces power of investing Bishops, the Henrician Heresie, and judg'd the Bishops that had been for it to be dig'd out of their graves and burnt.

V. The Subjecting and debasing of all Christian Princes, mak­ing them but as the Body, and the Moon, and the Bishops, to be as the soul and the sun. Especially the General Lateran Council which decreed Transubstantiation, and all to be Hereticks that denied it; And oblige all temporal Lords to exterminate all such Hereticks on pain of Excommunication, deposition & damnation.

VI. The Councils of Constance and Basils that were for Refor­mation how falsly and cruelly they dealt with Hus and Jerome and rejected the four great requests of the Bohemians, and fixed their pollutions.

VII. The Councils of Florence, and that of Trent, which had more Learned men, who yet more obstinately managed the En­mity to Reformation.

VIII. The present State of the Universal Church throughout the World as it is divided into Papists, Protestants, Greeks, Mos­covites, [Page 40] Georgians, with the Circassians and Mengrelians, Arme­nians, Nestorians, Jacobites, Cophtis, Abasines, Maronites, Mel­chites: And what thoughts these have of one another.

And I would desire Mr. Morrice to tell us,

1. Whether he believes not verily that all these Instances prove that the Bishops have been the chief cause, and that by Ambition, Pride and Worldliness?

2. Whether it be not the Bishops that in the Roman and other Parties now, are the greatest hinderers of Reformation, and of Concord? and it would not be soon done were it not through them?

3. Where it is that he will stop in his Vindication of the Bishops and their Councils, and go no further? and by what co­gent reason?

4. Whether he thought he had well defended the Church-Tyranny which I accused? 1. By vindicating the first Ages, and others whom I praised, and accused not; 2. And by letting fall his Vindication (save a few consequent quibbles) at the fourth Ge­neral Council; which was in 451. And so seems to vindicate the Bishops and Councils but for the space of 150 years of the time that I mentioned their degeneration?

5. Whether if the Bishops had been willing when they had the King's Commission to make necessary alteration, or were but to this day willing to prefer things necessary before things hurt­ful or indifferent, we might not live in happy and holy Love and Peace in England?

6. Whether he can blame a man that believes in Christ, for lamenting the doleful corruption and division of the Christian world, and for enquiring of, and lamenting the sinful causes.

7. If that Church Prelacy which they justly call the best in all the world can endure no more Parish Discipline than we have, nor can endure such a Ministry as are silenced by hundreds or thousands (than whom no Nation on Earth abroad that I can hear of hath better) can you blame us for suspecting that some­what is amiss with them, and more with others?

8. I hope you will yet remember that I did not appear as an accuser of Prelacy or Conformity, but as importuned by your selves to give the reasons why I dare not take your Covenant and Oath never to endeavour any alteration of your Church Go­vernment: and that after seventeen years silence. My prayers [Page 41] to God shall be my endeavour for these following Alterations.

1. That the Primitive Discipline may be exercised in the Pa­rish Churches, as Bucer importuned the King and Bishops de Regno Dei, &c.

2. That to that end we may either have so many Bishops un­der the Diocesan as be capable to do it, or the Presbyters ena­bled, allowed and obliged to do it.

3. And that we may not instead of it have only a distant Court of men that know not the Parishioners, where a Lay Chancellour decreeth Excommunication, and Absolution, which the Parish Priest must publish, though his conscience be against it.

4. And that Diocesans may not silence faithful Ministers with­out such cause as Christ will allow, nor set up ignorant bad ones and bind the Parishioners to hear and communicate with no other. I am so far from precise expectations from Diocesans, or from reviling them, that I do constantly praise them as very good Bishops who do no harm, or but a little, and if they should never preach themselves, so they will not hinder others.

9. And as for my calling Things and Persons as they are, I hope you will not say that it was out of Malice that Anastasius Platina, Massonius, Stella, Sigibert, Baronius, Genebrard, Bin­nius, &c. have recorded such horrid crimes of Popes, and others also of Prelates. And is it malice in me to transcribe their Hi­story?

I am of Dr. Henry Moore's mind, who saith, [Mystery of Iniq. p. 388. ‘Hence it is plain that they are the truest friends to Christendom, even to Rome it self, that do not sooth them up in their sins, by mitigating and hiding their soul miscarriages, but deal apertly and plainly with them for their own safety; that nei­ther admit, nor invent subterfuges to countenance or palliate their Idolatrous and superstitious practices, but tell them plainly how much they are apostatized from the true Worship of God and Christ into Paganism and Idolatry. Better are the rebukes of a faithful friend, than the hired flatteries of a glozing mercenary.]’ I pray mark this well.

10. I take two things to be the degenerating and corruption of Episcopacy.

1. When they became so bad that they were not willing to do good according to their undertaken Office. Bad men will do ill in any place.

[Page 42]2. When they had put themselves into a state of incapacity, that they could not do the Good undertaken, were they never so willing.

1. Since great Baits of Wealth and Domination have tempted the worst men to be the Seekers, Bishops have rarely been good, except under a Saint-like Prince or People that had the Choice; nor are ever like to be. And what work the Enemies of Holi­ness will make by abusing Christ's Name against himself, is easie to know; such will take the best men for the worst, and call them all that's naught, that they may quiet their Consciences in destroying them.

2. And since a Diocess of many hundred or score Parishes hath had but one Bishop for Discipline, the work is become impossible to the best. But when a few Bad men will mercinarily undertake Impossibilities, and so Badness and Impossibility go to­gether, alas, what hope, but of a better world above?

Saith Luther de Concil. & Eccles. p. 300. Sed quam sunt intenti hanc crassam & asininam [...]atuitatem? Unus Episcopus nonnunquam habet tres Episcopatus vel Dioceses, & tamen vocatur Unius Uxo­ris maritus, & cum habet tantum unum Episcopatum, tamen inter­dum habet centum, ducentas, quingentas Parochias, aut etiam plures, & vocatur tamen Sponsus unius Ecclesiae—Hi non sunt digami—Tam insulsas & ineptissimas naenias recipit mens humana; it a permittente Deo cum a verbo discedimus, & omnia limatius & subtilius scrutamur quam ipse vult nos scrutari.] Whether you re­verence Luther any more than Calvin I know not.

11. To conclude this matter, two things I desire you, or at least the Reader to consider,

1. Whether it be not a dreadful thing for a man to make the Church corrupting, dividing and confounding sin [...], to be all his own by defending or excusing them, on a false pretence of Vin­dicating the Primitive Church Government, which was contra­ry to them?

2. Whether you trust to Truth and Evidence, or to Interest and depraved Judgments, if you think men shall believe that you have confuted all this undoubted History, and the present experience of all the woful Christian World, by a general Cry that I write falsly and maliciously, or by saying that I am un­learned, or that I trusted to a Translation, or Binnius, or that Binnius mistook the year, (things that I will not turn over my [Page 43] Books to try,) or that I misplaced or misunderstood a word of Theodorite, or mistranslated Calami, or such like. Such Believers of you are guilty of their own deceit.

§ 22. There is lately published by a nameless Prelatist, to shew the World what Spirit he is of, a Book pretending by the description of my Life from 1640. till 1681. to prove me one of the worst men alive. To that I will now say but these few words.

1. That let them take me to be as bad as they will, so they would have some mercy on their own and others Souls, and the Church of God.

2. That it's no wonder that we differ about Antient Times and History, and present Impositions, when the main difference in our Times is, who are godly, yea tolerable Christians, and who are intollerable Rogues; and those that (as before God) by long and intimate acquaintance, I judge to be the most serious, conscionable, humble, holy Ministers and People that were ever known to me, are the Persons that the Prelatists prosecute, si­lence, and cry out against as the most intollerable wicked Ene­mies of Piety, Truth and Peace. What is it that is the root of this?

3. That this foresaid Book is one continued Calumny, unwor­thy of an Answer, partly making my duty my sin (as that I dis­liked the many drunken Readers that were the Teachers of my Youth, &c.) and partly perverting scraps of sentences; and partly reciting one revoked Book, and a few retracted sentences of another, when Augustin is commended for retracting far more, and filling it with a multitude of most gross untruths, of his own fiction.

4. That as to his and Mr. Morrice and others talk of the Wars I say.

1. That I never thought the Parliament blameles [...].

2. That yet on Bilson's grounds I was in my Judgment, and Speech, and Action, comparatively for them while they made their Commissions to Essex for King and Parliament.

3. That from Naseby Fight I wholly laboured to have drawn off their Souldiers from Errour, and Rebellion, and Usurpation; in which I did and suffered more than multitudes of my Ac­cusers.

4. That I never went so far against the Power of the King as [Page 44] R. Hooker whom I have long ago confuted.

5. That I never struck or hurt man in the wars.

6. That I will consent to be silenced and imprisoned if they will but give those Ministers leave to preach Christs Gospel that never had to do with wars (unless for the King.)

7. That when our beginning Concord had restored the King, the Scots, though unsuccessfully fought for him, Monk & his Army, that had bloodily (at Dundee, &c.) fought against him, had with the Concurrence of Sir Tho. Allen, the Londoners and Presbyterians restored him, when the King by them came in Triumph, Ho­noured Monk and others of them, confest them the Cause of his Restoration, past an Act of Oblivion that we might all live in fu­ture Peace, I say, If after all this it be Prelacy and Clergy In­terest and Spirit, that will rub over all the healed wounds, and strive again what ever it cost us to ulcerate the peoples minds, and resolve that the Land and Church shall have no Peace, but by the destruction of such as restored the King; I shall think ne­ver the better of Prelacy for this. But ask them, why did you not Speak it out in 1660 to Monk and his Army, or till now.

§ 23. And whereas that Advocate (described Job. 8.) and you are still deceiving the ignorant by facing men down with Confi­dence that I lie in saying that [Two Episcopal Parties began the War in England and the Papists and Presbyterians came in but as Auxiliaries.] I again say,

1. Allow me but reasonable leave, and I will prove it to the shame of you if you deny it.

2. At present I will but recite one clause in Whitlocks Memo­rials, pag. 45. even after they thought themselves under a ne­cessity to please the Scots as far as they could. [‘Anno 1640. The Commons had debate about a new Form of Ecclesiastical Go­vernment, and July 17. agreed, That every Shire shall be a seve­ral Diocess; a Presbytery of Twelve Divines in each Shire, and a President as a Bishop over them; and he with the assistance of some of the Presbytery to ordain, suspend, deprive, degrade and excommunicate. To have a Diocesan Synod once a year, and every third year a National Synod, and they to make Canons, but none to be binding till confirmed by Parliament.’

‘The Primate of Armagh offered an expedient for conjunction in point of Discipline, that Episcopal and Presbyterian Govern­ment might not be at a far distance, but reducing Episcopacy to [Page 45] the Form of Synodical Government in the Primitive Church’

Were not these men Episcopal? It's much like Mr. Thorn­dike's own motions saving his Opinion for Forein Jurisdiction.

§ 24. As to your first and last Chapters, and about the Antient Extent of Churches, while my Treatise of Episcopacy, which fully confuteth you, is unanswered; if I repeat it again, it will not be read by weary men. And another hath answered those parts of your Book, which is ready for the Press.

I after tell you where Chrysostom even in his time numbers the Christians in that great Imperial City to be an hundred thousand, that is as many as in Martins and Stepney Parishes, and perhaps in Giles Cripplegate too.

§ 25. To conclude, whereas Mr. M. in general chargeth me as falsifying History, I still call my self a HATER of FALSE HISTORY, and loath Mr. Morrice's History, because it is false: But if he will instead of falsifying and trifling, shew me any false History that I have owned, I will thank him unfeignedly, and re­tract it. But factious reproaching of good men, and painting the deformed face of Vice, go not with me for convincing proof. If I am not near of kin to Erasmus, I am a stranger to my self, even as Merula, and M. Adamus describe him, [Ingenio erat simplex; adeo abhorrens a mendacio, ut puellus etiam odisset pueros mentientes; & senex ad illorum adspectum etiam corpore commoveretur. Dignitatum & magnarum divitiarum contumax contemptor; neque quicquam prius otio habuit ac libertate.] And I think, as it is said of Cuspinian; [Ratus se satisfacturum ingenuo Lectori, siquae verissima esse comperisset simplicissima oratione man­daret posteritati: satis enim est historico (ut praeclare dixit apud Ciceronem Catullus) non esse Mendacem.]

And as to my ends and expectations, I am not so vain as to write with any great hope of persuading many, if any who are possest of large Diocess, Wealth and Power, to forsake them, much less to cure the common Thirst that corrupted Nature is possest with, and to be the means of a Publick Reformation: If I may satisfie my Conscience, and save some from being decei­ved by false History about the Causes of the Antient Schisms, it's all that I can hope for: Had I lived in Alb. Crantzius daies, I might perhaps have said as he of Luther [Frater, Frater, abi in cellam tuam, & dic Miserere mei Deus:] Et de Canonicis [...] dictis, Nunquam posse eos reduci ad meliorem srugem [Page 46] nisi prius a viris doctis expugnata arce (i. e. Papatu.)

And for my self, none of the Interested mens reproaches are unexpected to me: Anger will speak. I know what the Papists say of the Reformers, and all the Protestants: And yet I expect that all at last will turn to the disgrace of falshood, by putting men to search Church-History for the Truth.

The case of Capnio is worth a brief recital. A covetous Jew pretending Conversion, contrived with the Fryers and Inquisi­tors, to get a great deal of money from the Jews, by procuring an Edict from the Emperour to burn all the Jews Books, that so they might purchase them of the Fryers. The Emperour will first hear what Capnio a great Hebrician saith: Capnio ad­viseth to spare all that only promoted the Hebrew Literature, and burn only those that were written against Christ. Hock­strate and the Fryers were vext thus to lose the prey, and accu­sed Capnio of Heresie: The cause is oft tryed, especially at Rome: All the Learned Hebricians were for Capnio: The Fryers raged the more: This awakened many Learned men to search into the Cause, and armed them against the Fryers. Galatinus, Hutten, Erasmus, &c. are for Capnio. The Fryers accuse them also of Heresie: But by this they stirred up such a Party of the most Learned men against them, that when Tezelius came to vend his Indulgencies, Luther had so many ready to joyn against the Inquisitors and Mercenary cheating Fryers, as greatly furthered the Reformation. And two or three ingenuous Conformists who have lately written against the violent battering Canoneers, do tell us that some are like to be excited by the Overdoing of the Accusing silencing Party, to search better into the matter of Fact and Right, till they can distinguish between an Eucrasie and a Tympanite.

Or if this world be incurable, they cannot keep us out of the heavenly Jerusalem, where there is no Errour, Schism, nor Per­secution, because no Ignorance, Malignity or Pride, but the General Assembly of perfect Spirits, are united in one perfect Head, in perfect Life, and Light, and Love.

The particular Defence of the History of Councils and Schisms.

An Account to Mr. Morrice why my mentioning the Church­distracting sins of the Clergy, when worldly grandeur cor­rupted them, is not a Dishonouring, but a Honouring of the Primitive Church. And to vindicate those sins is no Vindicat ion of the Primitive Church.

CHAP. I. The Reason and Design of my History of Bishops and Councils.

§ 1. THEY that know the men with whom I have to do, and the Cause which I have in Controversie with them, will easily understand my purpose. The Persons with whom I am to deal, are such as hold,

1. That a General Council of Bishops or the Colledge of Bishops Governing per Literas formatas out of Council, are the Supreme Governing Power over the Universal Church on Earth, having the Power of Universal Legislation and Judgment.

2. That among these the Pope is justly the Patriarch of the West, and the Principium unitatis to the whole, and the ordinary President in such Councils. And say some, It belongs only to the President to call them, and they are but rebellious Routs that as­semble without a just call.

3. That there is no concord to be had but in the Obedience to this Universal Governing Church. But all Persons and all Nati­onal Churches are Schismaticks who live not in such Subje­ction and obedience.

4. That such as the Diocesan Episcopacy which is over one lowest Church containing hundreds or multitudes of Parishes and Altars without any other Bishop but the said Diocesan is that Episcopacy which all must be subject to, while it is subject to the Universal supreme.

5. That every Christian must hold subjective Communion with the Bishop of the place where he liveth: And say some [Page 48] must not practise contrary to his Commands, nor appeal for such practice to Scripture or to God.

6. That if this supreme Power silence the Diocesans, or these Diocesans silence all the Ministers in City or Country, they must Cease their Ministry and forsake the Flocks.

7. And say divers of them, They are no true Churches, or Ministers, that have not ordination from such Diocesans, yea by an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles: And for want of this the Forein reformed Churches are no true Churches, but the Church of Rome is.

Much more of this Nature I have already transcribed (and confuted) out of A. Bishop Bromhall, Dr. Heylins Life of A. Bi­shop Laud, Mr Thorndike, Mr Dodwell and divers others.

§ 2. The first thing then in my intention is to shew that the Roman Grandeur which is thought to be the Glory of the Church on Earth, and the necessary means of its Unity, safety and true prosperity, hath proved clean contrary, even the means of Church corruption in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline & Conversation, the Soil of the most odious crimes, the means of tyranny, suppres­sion of true piety, and persecution of Gods faithful Servants, and of rebellious, War and cruel bloodshed.

§ 3. To this end I described the steps by which the Clergy ascended to the Papal height: For as all Protestants justly main­tain that their Corruption of Doctrine & Worship came not in at once but by slow degrees, so do they also of the Papal Govern­ment and discipline. And they commonly shew the vanity of the Papists demand, who ask us who was the man, and which was the year, as if the world had gone to bed in simple Christianity, and awaked Papists the next morning. Whereas it is most evident in all Church history that the Clergy leaving the Christian Purity, Sim­plicity and Love, did climb the ladder step by step till they ascen­ded to the Papal height. And it's a meer dream of them that think it was the Bp. of Rome alone that thus ascended, and not the Army that made him their General: As the boat riseth with the waters, so did the Pope with the ascending Clergy: Others strove for superiority as he strove for Supremacy: The strife began among Christs Apostles who should be greatest, and who should, sit next him in his Kingdom; And though Christ then supprest it by his Word and Spirit, and the sufferings of the Church took down those aspiring thoughts, as soon as Constantine had set them the [Page 49] Ladder, what scrambling was there who should climb highest. Yea Constantinople strove for the Supremacy it self.

§ 3. And I the rather mentioned this because I found some late learned Expositors of the Revelations, taking this inordinate as­cent, for the promised glory and felicity of the Church on Earth; and taking it for the fulfilling of many of those prophecies and promises which some applyed to the Millennium, and some to the heavenly state. And doubtless Hildebrand and his adherents had such thoughts, and did believe that their rule over Emper­ours, Kings and Kingdoms, by the Power of the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, was the true Glory of the Church, and the Reign of Christ, and that all the honour was indeed given to Christ as King of the Church, which was thus given to the Pope and the Church-Parliaments of Bishops. Campanella de Regno Dei doth but speak the thoughts of greater Clergy men when he ap­plyeth the foresaid Texts to prove that the Popes Universal Mo­narchy is the true Kingdom of Christ on Earth, to which all Monarchs and Men must stoop.

And Nature is so apt to entertain such thoughts, especially in the Clergy, who think of it as their own prosperity and glory, that it is no wonder, if as Venner, and his Fifth Monarchy men, did itch to be getting up under the name of the Reign of Christ, and so did John of Leyden and his Company at Munster; so the Fifth Monarchy Clergy men, who can aspire more plausibly, do long to be climbing, and are very reconcilable to Papal Great­ness; and where Popery is become a distasted name, they never­theless desire their share in the Power, Honour and Wealth, and under pretence of Peace and Concord among all Christians, and restoring the Church to its Unity and Strength, they strive for much of the same thing, and think it enough to avoid the name: And the Pope shall be but Principium Unitatis, and the Presi­dent of the Clergy or Councils. Get but the poor trick of cal­ling nothing Popery but the Pope's Arbitrary absolute Power, and do but tie him to Rule by the Consent and Laws of Church-Parliaments, that is, set up the French Church-Government, and then they are no Papi [...]ts. Do not the French Protestants deserve all their sufferings then for calling the Church o [...] Bishops there Papists, and separating from so Excellent a Government?

§ 5. And it was not the least of my Motives to try, were it possible to cure their Love-killing Errour, who think that all [Page 50] are Enemies to Unity and Peace, who are not for Obedience to this Universal or Superlative Prelacy, and to save us all from that confusion and calamity, which this Opinion is carrying on, while the Patrons of it think that all are to be prosecuted, silenced, ruined as Rebellious Enemies to the Ruling Church, who do not subject themselves to such a Prelacy; and that we must or can have no Christian Church-Concord, but by Obedience to the Universal Church, as Bishop Gunning hath over and over told me, that is, to the Universal Colledge of their sort of Bishops: Yea not only the Papists, but these Bishops among us, to this purpose repeat and apply Psal. 72. 11. Yea all Kings shall fall down before him: All Nations shall serve him. Or Isa. 60. 12. For the Nation and Kingdom that will not serve the [...] shall perish: Yea those Nations shall be utterly wasted,] which Bishop Gunning applyeth to the Episcopal Universal-Govern­ing Colledge.

These are terrible threatnings, as they shew the principles and purposes of men, however they mistake the mind of God. Few parts of Europe have had more long and cruel Wars, than Italy it self, where these Principles have obtained: But the blood of thousands of sincere Christians hath been a Sacrifice to these Principles in the Clergy. When we read in Jesuites, Fryers and Prelates, sound Christians called Hereticks, and all such He­reticks called, mortal, odious, wicked, pernicious, intollerable Enemies to the Church, whom all good men are bound to en­deavour to root out and destroy; when we hear our neigh­bour Papists say, It is no more sin to kill an Heretick than a Dog: And when we hear and read our Clergy calling out to Magi­strates for yet more Execution upon us, for not obeying them against that which we undoubtedly take for the Law of God; and the nearer any man is to the Papists, usually the more he is for our destruction, and for their way of cruelty, I thought it time to try if it were possible, if not to save the Land from this consuming fire, yet at least to save some Souls who else were like to be tempted to malignant Enmity to the best and truest Christians, and to perish for ever by this deceit.

How many honest passages are in Mr. Thorndike which shew that it was n [...] [...]y worldly interest of his own that moved him; but yet the Power of this Errour [Of a Church that was Uni­versally One by One Ruling Colledge or Council of Prelates, of [Page 51] which the Pope was the rightful President, &c.] which must be ac­knowledged by all Nations and Persons, that will have Christian Communion and not be condemned Schismaticks, prevailed with him to the exclusion of all Dissenters, and confining his Commu­nion to those only who owned and obeyed This Universal Go­verning Church.

§ 6. And as long as this Opinion prevaileth, especially in men of Power and Reverence who take other mens belief and obe­dience for their unquestionable right, where can we think hatred and Persecution will stop. Will not they still think that they that kill or silence or imprison or banish us, do God service, and that the Magistrate that doth not punish us deserveth punish­ment from God, if not also from the Church. And they that are most for Seldom preaching, and can dispense with our Ministe­rial labour therein, will not be indifferent as to the silencing, im­prisoning or destroying us.

§ 7. Whether we have any reason to refuse swearing or sub­scribing to them, and never to endeavour any alteration of their Government as it is in England, I have sincerely endeavoured to shew in my Treatise of Episcopacy. And if Christian Concord and Communion be so hard and narrow a thing, as that no men are Capable of it who are not of a higher form than I, as to un­derstanding, impartiality and willingness to know the Truth, the Church and Christianity are things beyond my capacity and reach: But I doubt not but it is humane errour that would dwindle it into so small a Sect.

§ 8. Alas what Persons for Knowledge and Life can they bear with in their Communion, who cannot bear with such as they silence and ruine in this Land! And the Papists can receive even those that know not Christ if they do but profess obedience to the Clergy-Church. Luthers words are harsh, but I will re­cite them de Concil [...]s P [...]t 3. Pag 291. Si monstrav [...]rint mihi unum aliquem ex tota illa multitudine qui possit aequare unum al­phabetarium in aliqua erudita Schola, aut in summa doctrinae Christianae, vel in Scriptura Sacra tantum profecerint, quantum u [...]a aliqua puella septem a [...]norum; tunc illis concedam palam—nisi quod plus callent traditionum humanarum, & Sycophantiarum: Quod valde credo, & firmius quam in Deum cred [...], cum me con­vinc [...]nt facto ipso ut credam. To this pass did the Clergies aspiring then bring the Church, when worthy men were silenced and per­secuted. [Page 52] And we are unwilling of any thing that looketh towards a differencing men so contrary to that which Christ will make at last.

CHAP. II. Whether we have any reason to report the Faults of some Bishops and Councils, from the beginning of their Depravation till the last?

§ 1. THat I had great reason for it, I think what is before said will evince; when we see men destroying Chri­stian Love, themselves, and us, and the Land, could they pre­vail, by their erroneous endeavour to grant no Concord, Com­munion nor Peace, to no Christians how conscionable otherwise soever, who cannot unite in a species of Prelacy which they be­lieve (by such evidence as I have given) to be contrary to the Law of Christ. To the saving men from Heresie and Schism now, our opposers (and we) do judge it useful, to know how Hereticks and Dividers miscarried heretofore, that others may beware. And is it not as true if Bishops be the Dividers? And also when the Clergies Ambition and Usurpation have brought that upon the Christian World which it languisheth and groan­eth under in East and West, is it not needful to open the be­ginning and progress of the disease, by such as had rather it were cured, than the Church destroyed by it?

§ 2. Among the multitude of Protestant Church Historians and Chronologers, how few are there that do not do the same, though in various degrees? He that will read the Magdebur­gense [...], or Lucas Osiander, Illyrici Test. Verit. Melancthon himself, and Carion Func [...]ius, yea peaceable holy Bucholtzer, Micrelius, Meander, Phil. Pareus, Hen. Gut [...]erleth, &c. yea or Julius or Jos. Scaliger, Salmasius, H [...]ttoman, Hottinger, Morney, shall see the faults of Bishops opened before this day.

§ 3. The pious and moderate Papists themselves report and lament them: Such as Clemangis, Pelagius Alvarus, Mirandula, Fer [...], Jos. Acosta, Lud. Vives, Gerson, Erasmus, and many other such.

§ 4. The antient Godly Bishops are they who for the most [Page 53] part have been freest in reprehending the vices of the rest; espe­cially Greg. Nazianzen, and Chrysostom, and many antient godly Presbyters have been as free, as Gildas, Isidore Pelusiota, Sal­vian, Sulp. Severus, Bernard.

§ 5. And if I have wronged the Bishops or Popes in this Abridgment, their own Historians, yea their chief flatterers have wronged them. One Pope angered Platina by imprisoning him: Yet if he be partial, it is for the Clergy, and not against them. But who will believe that Binnius, Baronius, Crab, Genebrard, Bellarmine, Petavius, and such others have spoken too hardly of them. There is no one man that I took so much from as Binnius: And what should move him to name so many of the miscarriages of the Councils, but the necessity of reciting the Acts of the Councils historically as he found them?

§ 6. The Sacred Scriptures record the Crimes of the best men in all the Ages of which they write, even Adams, Noes, Lots, Aarons, Davids, Solomons, Hezekiahs, Josiahs, Peters, all the Apostles, &c. And it was not done out of spite or malice; but as a necessary warning to us all.

§ 7. The falshood of History is an intollerable abuse of man­kind: To know nothing done before our times, is to shut up man­kind in a dungeon; and false History is worse than none. And it may be false and deceitful in defect as well as excess. He that should record all that was good in the Popes, and omit all the rest, would be a dangerous deceiver of the world, and do more than hath been done to make all Christians Papists. You tell us your selves, that he that should write the History of Cromwell, c. g. or of any Sect that you are against, and should leave out all their faults, would be taken for a false Historian.

§ 8. They that write the History of mens Lives, do use to record their Parentage, Birth and Education: And so must he that will truly write the History of Church-Tyranny, Persecu­tion and Schism. The end is not well understood without the beginning. Who is it that heareth how many Ages the Chri­stian world hath been divided into Papists, Greeks, Jacobites, Ne­storians, Melchites, &c. and that seeth what work the Papacy hath made, but will ask how all this came to pass? Did the man that died of Gluttony, swallow all at one morsel? or rather one bit after another? And when the Clergy have ven­tured on one merry Cup, or one pleasant morsel in excesa, it's [Page 54] easie to make them believe that one, and one, and one Cup more; one, and one, and one bit more, is no more unlawful than the first. Princip [...]is obsta, is the Rule of Safety.

If Papists intending the recovery of England to the Pope should say [‘Let us but first get them under the Oaths, Covenants and Practices which we will call Conformity, and so cast out most that dare not sin, and by this engage them as two Armies in con­trary Interest to fight against each other, and it will be an easie matter to bring the swallowing Party to go further by degrees, and to believe that as a Parish Church must not be independent as to the Diocesan, nor the Diocesan to the Metropolitical or National, so neither must a National be independent as to the Universal: And that the Universal therefore must have its known stated Go­vernment as well as the National,’] Were it not necessary here for him that would save the Land from Popery to sh [...]w the danger of the first degrees.

The usual Method is not to use Boccalines Roman Engine, which will help a man to swallow a Pompion that he may get down a Pill, but to swallow a lesser Pill first and a bigger next, till the Pompion will go down. Infancy is before manhood.

§ 9. But the great necessity was as aforesaid, from the reviv­ed or rather Continued attempts, of imitating the fatal ambitious and Contentious malady. If Priscillians, or Gnosticks should rise now among us, were it not our duty to set before them the history of the miscarriage of their predecessours. And when men are so much set on restoring an Universal Supremacy, is it not meet to shew them where, and when, and with what success the aspiring humour did begin. If we have small visible probabili­ty of escaping, we must yet before we come to Smithfield, satis­fy our Consciences that we betrayed not the Church.

CHAP. III. Of Mr. M's notice that I am Unlearned.

§ 1. MR. M's Preface Contracteth the Chief things which he hath to say against me in his book, that the Reader may find them there all together. And of these [that I am unlearned] is not the least. And if that be any of his question I assure him it shall be none of mine. I am not yet so vain as [Page 55] to plead for my Learning: Yea, I will gratify him (though he accuse me of being against repentance) with an unfeigned confession that my ignorance is far greater than his accusation of unlearnedness doth import. Alas I want the knowledge of far more excellent things than languages. I do but imperfectly know my self, my own soul, my own thoughts and understanding: I scarce well know what knowing is. Verily if no knowledge be properly true that is not adequate to the object I know nothing: And subscribe to Zanchez, quod nihil Scitur, (by such as I.) Alas Sir I groan in darkness from day to day, & I know not how to be delivered! How little do I know of that God whom the whole Creation preacheth, and of that Society which I hope to be joyn­ed with for ever, and that world which must be my hope and portion, or I am undone. Many whom I am Constrained to dissent from upbraid me with my ignorance, and I suppose it is that for which they silence me, reproach, hate and prosecute me; even because I have not knowledge enough to discern that all their impositions are lawful (or else I know not what it is for) But none of them all can (and will) tell me, how I should be deli­vered from this ignorance: If they say, [It must be by hard study] I can study no harder than I have done. If they say [I must be willing to know the truth] I take my self for sure that I am so: If in that also I am ignorant, in thinking that I know my own mind when I do not, what else then can I hope to know? If they say [You must be impartial] I think I am so, saving that I must not deny or cast away the truths already received. If they say [You should read the same books which have convinced us] I read far more of the Papists and Prelatists and other sects that write against me, than of those that are for me. And the more I read the more I am confirmed. And when these men preach and write against the Calvinists, they render them odious as holding that men are necessitated to sin and to be damned, and that it is long of Gods Decree which cannot be resisted: Therefore I suppose they will not lay the Cause on God. I do then confess my Ignorance, of matters a thousandfold greater and more needful than those which they mention in their accusations. I confess my self un­learned: But I intreat them that tell me of my disease (which I know to my daily grief much better than they) to tell me also how I may be cured. If they say that it must be by Fines and Im­prisonment it hath been tryed & I am yet uncured: I hope they [Page 56] will not pronounce me remediless and not tell me why, who use themselves to speak against those that preach men into de­speration; would they but tell me the secret how so many thou­sands of them came to be so much wiser than I, in far shorter time, and with far less study, it would be (if true) an acceptable deed of Charity; rather than to tell me of the Ignorance which I cannot help. Could I but know needful truth in English, I would joyfully allow them to glory of being more skilful in all the Ori­ental Tongues, and also in French, Irish, Spanish and Italian, than I am.

CHAP. IV. Of his Accusation, that I vainly name Historians which I never saw or read.

§ 1. I Must profess that it never was my purpose to tell the world how many Historians I have read; nor to abridge all that I have read: And those that I have most read I have there made no mention of, as not being for my intended end: And multitudes that stood by me, I never opened to the writing of this history, my design being chiefly against the Papists and those Protestants who most esteem their writings, and had rather unite with the French Papist Church, than with us Nonconfor­mists: Therefore when I was past the first 400 or 500 years, it was the greatest and most flattering Popish historians that I abriged, as ad hominem being likest not to be denyed.

I told the reader that I made not use of Luther the Magde­burgenses, nor the Collections of Goldastus, Marquardus Freherus, Reuberus, Pistorius, &c.] And the Printer having put a Comma between Marquardus and Freherus, he Conjectures that I took him for two men, because I added not the Christian names of the rest: And he concludes that [whoever this mistake belongs to, it's plain that M. B. had but little acquaintance with those Collections.] For I name some of the Authors therein.

Ans. Seeing these things are thought just matter for our ac­cusers turn, I will crave the Readers patience with such little things while I tell him the truth. It is about 25 years since I read the Germa: History in the Collections of Freherus, Reube­rus and Pist [...]rius, and about 30 years since I read the Collections [Page 57] of Goldastus: The Magdeburgenses, Osiander, Sleidan, or any such Protestants I thought vain to alledge to Papists. About seven or eight years ago as I remember, I was accused for Preach­ing, and Fined by Sir Thomas Davis; and the Warrant was sent by him to Sir Edm. Bury Godfrey to levy it on me by Distress: I had no way to avoid it but bona fide, to make away all that I had: Among the rest I made away my Library, only borrowing part of it for my use. I purposed to have given it almost all to Cambridge in New-England: But Mr. Knowles (yet living) who knew their Library, told me that Sir Kenelme Digby had already given them the Fathers, Councils and Schoolmen, but it was Hi­story and Commentators which they wanted. Whereupon I sent them some of my Commentators, and some Historians among which were Freherus, Reuberus and Pistorius Collections, and Nauclerus, Sabellicus, Thuanus, Jos. Scaliger de Emendat. Temp. But Goldastus I kept by me (as borrowed) and many more which I could not spare; and the Fathers and Councils and Schoolmen I was stopt from sending. Now whether I was unacquainted with those that partly stand yet at my Elbow, and which I had read so long ago, must depend on the Credit of my Memory; and I confess my Memory is of late grown weak, but not so weak as to think that Marquardus Freherus was not one man, and a Palatinate Councillor, though it be names that I most forget; why I gave not the Christen names of Reuberus and Pistorius, whether because I forgat them, or because I mind­ed not so small a thing, not dreaming what would be inferred from it, I remember not. But when I wrote that abridgment, I made use of none that I thought the Papists would except a­gainst: For the first ages I gathered what I remembred out of the Fathers, and out of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Evagrius, Theodoret, the Tripartite, Nicephorus, Liberatus, Brev. Victor Utic. Beda, and such others as are by them received: Besides which I principally followed and Epi [...]omized Binnius, and Crab, and part­ly Baronius, with Platina, Onuphrius Panunius, Stella, Petavius, and others of their own. And I resolved I would not so much as open Goldastus, or any Protestant Collector, that they might not except against their Credit, and reject them as malicious cursed Hereticks, as Labbe doth Melchior Goldastus and almost all such others as he mentions; and as Gretser, Sanders, and other Papists commonly do. Therefore even those Histories which [Page 58] be in Goldastus, I would not take as out of him, but some of them from the books published by others, and some as cited by Binnius, Petavius, or other such. And this is now the proof of my Vanity.

§ 2. It is a mistake if he think that I intended (as he speaks) to be a Compiler of General Church History; When I professed but to acquaint the English Reader with the true matter of fact out of the Papists themselves, what the ambitious part of Bishops and Councils have done, and by what degrees the Papacy sprang up, and whether subjection to the ascendent exort Prelacy be ab­solutely necessary to Concord and Salvation.

§ 3. As to his saying [I am the first that ever reckoned Na­zianzen among Historians,] I take the writings of the Fathers, especially Justin, Clemens Alex. Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Ba­sil, Nazianzen, Hierom, Chrysostom, Augustin, to be the best part of Church History, especially their Epistles. And of this opinion I am not the first.

CHAP. V. Of his Accusation of my citing Hanmer and other Translators, and being deceived by Binnius and such others.

§ 1. 1. HE accuseth me for not using Valesius his Edition of Eusebius and those Editions of the Councils which he accounteth the best: To which I say,

1. I am not Rich Enough to buy them, nor can keep them if I had them. Must none write but Rich men? The French Coun­cils would cost more than many of us are worth: We have had no Ecclesiastical maintenance these 19 years; and we cannot keep the books we have. Luther wrote his book de Conciliis when it seems he had never read many of the Councils Acts, but as related by Eusebius Socrates, Sozomen, and the Tripartite Histo­ry.

2. Dr. James hath long ago warned all Scholars to make much of Crab and other old ones, (and the Fathers as Printed at Ba­sil by Erasmus, Amerbachius, &c.) and not to trust much to new Editions, as coming through untrusty hands.

[Page 59]3. Is Valesius a man of so much credit with you? Do you be­lieve what he saith of Grotius as being in judgment for the Pa­pal Church, and only in prudence delaying his visible Communion with them, that he might draw in many with him? (Vales. in Orat. de Petavio:) If he lye in this, and the success of Petavius on Grotius, why should he be more trusted than others? If not, I need not tell you what to think of those Bishops and Drs. who profess to be of the same mind and Church as Grotius; nor again to tell you who they be.

4. My design led me not to make use of Criticks, but only to tell the world, what the Papists themselves confess, such as I have throughout cited.

§ 2. As for my using Hanmers Translation of Eusebius and Socrates, my case was [...]s before described: Valesius I had not: Grineus I made use of heretofore. But since I was by constraint deprived both of my books and money to buy more, when I wrote that Abridgment, I had only Hanmers Translation left me. And if that sort of men that forced me to give away my books, to keep them from being distreined on, will make use of this to prove me ignorant of them, the matter is very small to me.

If you say, I should not then have written, I answer, could they so have silenced us in the Pulpit, they had more answered their own judgment than mine. I had no use for Criticks, nor for any thing in Eusebius and Socrates that depends on the credit of the Translator.

§ 3. As to his oft noting that in Translations, and sometime in Chronology I err by following Binnius, I answer, had I written a full Church History, I should better have examined him and others. But I lay no stress of my cause of any of Binnius his Tran­slations, nor will I undertake for any Historian that I cite: My business was but to tell those that believe Binnius and Baronius, and such other, what they say. Nor do I yet intend to bestow any time, in examining whether he wrong Binnius or not, it be­ing nothing to my cause nor me, whether he mistook a year, or the meaning of a word of the Authors whom he citeth.

§ 4. He saith I use an old uncorrect Edition of Binnius 1606. Ans. It is that which is in most common use, entituled, Recogni­ta, Aucta, notis Illustrata, dedicated to the Pope, and to C. Ba­ronius, ejus monitu scripta, qui veterem illam, mendosam, mutilam & confusam compilationem mille locis illustravit, &c. commonly [Page 60] Preferred before Crab, Surius, Nicolinus, &c. But any quarrel serveth some men.

CHAP. VI. Of his Accusations of my own Mistranslations and Mistakes.

§ 1. OF these are two real Oversights which he nameth, committed by too much hast and heedles­ness: The one is, that I misplaced [Vere] in the Translation of a Speech of Theodorets; a gross oversight I confess: The other, that I put [Episcopi] as if it had been the [...]tive case, when it was the Nominative plural; which also was a heedless oversight. And about the death of Stephanus, he noteth my mistranslating Calami; and I imagine yet he is scarce certain what it signified himself. As for his note of my use of [Scripture] about the Ephesine Council, I purposely kept to the literal Translation, that none might say I did mistranslate it; but I never said that by the Scriptures was meant the Bible.

§ 2. This Accuser puts too great an honour on such a History as mine, which goeth through so many Ages and Acts, in noting so few, and such little things. I never pretended to be as good an Historian as he is; yet I do not think that it was any thing but a slip of memory that made him put Eustathius instead of Flavian, as kickt to death at Ephesus. And me thinks he that thus begins his Errata of his own Book [The faults that have escaped are almost infinite:] should not for one false Comma of the Printers, have passed the foresaid censure of me.

But doth not this Learned Historian know, how ordinarily the greatest of them do charge one another with manifold Errours, and of far greater moment than these forementioned. How few Historians do not this? Yea what bitter censures doth he pass himself on no lower Historians than Socrates and Sozomen? It would be tedious to give you the Instances that every such Book affordeth. I see he valueth Labbe the Jesuite. How oft doth he accuse Historians of Errour, Ignorance, Malice, &c. e. g. de Anastasio Biblioth. so eminent a Writer of the Popes Lives, yet [Errat Vossius & siqui alii cum Anastasio Presbytero, &c.] And [Page 61] even of that famous History of the Popes, [Onuphria [...] Panui­nius, Gerb. Vossius, & plerique alii [...] consent esse ab Ana­stasio scriptam, Nicolai 1. Papae Vitam, & a Gulielm [...] S. R. E. Bib­liothecario additas fuisse Ha [...]r. 2. & Steph. 6. P. Vitas: Verum Cardinalis Baronius iis refragatur eidemque auctori omnes illas ascribit; sunt quoque qui a Damaso Papa, &c.] Here the greatest Historians differ about one of the most noted Histories.

Of Augustin's Works (To. 1. p. 129.) he tells you that Bellar­mine tells us not what Edition he used: But it's certain he used not the Antwerp, or Plantinian Edition, which was the best, and the Original of all the rest.]

P. 132. Rivet and Perkins are derided for disowning some Epistles.

P. 135. Erasmi, Riveti similiumque ridetur a doctis censura (viz. de lib. Continent.) And I profess my self less skilful in such matters than Erasmus.

Et ibid. Erasmus & H [...]sius Juliano opus illud tribuere videntur, Pamelius tanquam incerti Authoris allegat: Nos cum Lovanien­sibus Bellarmino, aliisque Catholicis Augustini esse censemus, nec tricae Riveti deterrent.

P. 136. Quaest. Vet. & Novi Test. non sunt Augustini ut facile omnes consentiunt: Quamvis sub ejus nomine citatae reperiantur ab Episcopis Lutetiae Paris. An. 824. Congregatis & quibusdam aliis.

Of Ausonius the Poet, p. 171. he saith, [Quam falsa sint quae de eo scripsit Jo. Trithemius quivis vel ex ipsa lectione intelliget.

Of Mantuan, p. 173. [Ex Trithemii encomio haec dubio pro [...]ul omni obliteranda: [Q [...] metro Virgilium, Ciceronem prosa aequat, ne dicam superat:] Sunt enim falsissima iis qui gustum aliquem la­tinitatis habent.

Of Beda, p. 184. See what he saith of Will. Malmsbury, Mat. Westminst. Vessius and Baronius.

Of B [...]ethius, p. 204. Henorius Augustod.—ubi falso narrat Mediolani interfectum fuisse

P. 217. Plura adversus Leunclavium, primum eorum editorem declamavit Jac. Billius (de Caesario.)

De Claudio Scoto, p. 228. Tho. Dempsterus multa pro more suo indigesta effudit

De Gersone, p. 565. Errat post Possevinum Maraccius qui Joan. hunc Monachum ordinis coelesti—asserit—Idem quoque ex Patro­logo eradendum.

[Page 62]See what he saith de Julio Asricano, that the Annotationes eruditiss. in Euseb. Eccles. Hist.—Opinioni nostrae in plerisque ad­versantur.] I suppose he means that Valesius which I wanted.

And de Justino Mart. Scaligerum errasse, &c.] Et p. 833. (in­signe mendum ex Trithemio, Gesnero, Simlero, Sexto, Possevino, Bellarmino, Miraeo, aliisque propagatum—)

To. 2. p. 361. Smaragdos duos in unum confuderunt, Trithe­mius, Sixtus Senensis, Possevinus, Bellarminus, Miraeus aliique passim—] Abundance such charges tell us how much greater Errours are charged on the greatest Historians, than Mr. Morrice chargeth on me, with the least shew of probability.

How many score of Historians doth Blondell cite, who he thinks have falsly told us of a Pope Joan?

What abundance of faults would Causabon have found in Baro­nius, if he had lived to go through him as he began? And I pro­fess my self much more ignorant in History than Baronius.

It would be tedious to number all the gross Errours that Vossius citeth de scriptor. Graecis & Latinis; e. g. in the Later. p. 230. Hos duos confudit Trithemius—vid. quae habet de Fla [...]. Al­cuino, p. 290, 291, 292. De Usuardo, p. 295. cont. Gualterium & Baronium, Wicelium, p. 296. & cap. 32. de Turpino contra Trithe­mium & alios. Et cap. 33. de Walafr. Strab. Tritthenius vehemen­ter errat—Et Laur. Surium Bellarmin. in Catal. & alios non­nullos in errorem induxit.

Vid. & quae de Aimoino, p. 308, 309. habet, & contra Posse­vinum, p. 310. & contra alios, 311. Et contra Baronium, Breu­lium, &c. 312. Et de Haimone cap. 35. contra Tritthenium, & de Rabano Mauro, p. 315. Et de Landulph. Sagace contra Caes. Or­landium. De Anastas. c. 35. p. 319. De Hin [...]maro contra Tritthe­nium, c. 36. p. 320. But I must not tire the Reader: Multitudes of such Instances this one Author gives us: And how few Histo­rians charge not others with Errours so much greater, and more than Mr. M. with any Truth accuseth me of.

§ 3. As to his notes on my Titles of some Councils, it's past my memory, whether it was my carelesness, or (as I think) the Printer's Errour, to put [a Council at Aransican, Toletan, Regiense, for Concilium Aransicanum, Toletanum, Rhegiense.] If it was my act, I forgot that I had first put the Substantive in English. But he may oft find the same names used to his mind: And sure it is no falsification of the History.

[Page 63]§ 4. But he hath a far greater charge against me, that I did not apprehend the mind of the Council at Tours; why so? The words are [Nos vero siquos Lex perimi jubet, si cupiunt audire praeconem, volumus ut convertantur ad vitam: Nam perimendi sunt oris gladio & communione privandi si relicta sibi seniorum decreta observare noluerint, &c. Here he saith the meaning is, [The Ec­clesiastical Laws do punish such with perpetual Excommunica­tions, yet this Council thought fit to mitigate it, &c.] The Que­stion is, Whether [Quos Lex perimi jubet, signifie Death, or Ex­communication?] I take it to be Death, and that the Council saith [Though by the Law such are to Die, if they will hear the Preacher, we will have them converted to Life: But so that if they will not be separated, the Church Sword of Excommunica­tion shall cut them off instead of Death.] My Reasons why [Lex pe­rimi jubet] signifieth Death, are from the express foregoing words, [Quia etiam Lex Romana constituit, ut quicunque sacratam Deo Virginem vel Viduam fortasse rapuerit, si postea eis de conjunctione convenerit, capitis sententia feriantur. Item siquis, non dicam ra­pere, sed attent are matrimonii conjungendi causa, sacram Virginem ausus fuerit, capitis sententia feriatur. Cum etiam in Chronicis habeatur de Virginibus Gentilium tempore, quae se deae Vestae sacra­verant, postmisso proposito & corrupta virginali gratia, Legali sen­tentia vivas in terra fuisse desossas. If none of this signifie Death, I confess I understand not Latine. I thought the Council meant Death by [Lex perimi jubet,] but they would be more merci­ful; which I blamed them not for, but noted here what many other Canons instance, where they also punish murder but with keeping men from Communion, that this agreeth with some Sectaries Opinion. I leave Mr. M's. great skill in expounding Councils here to any equal Judge. But if I ignorantly mistake in all this, and neither [Capitis sententia feriantur] nor [Vivas in terra desossas] signifie Death, but Excommunication, yet many other Canons after cited fully tell us of the Bishops Clemency.

CHAP. VII. Mr M's. Exposition of Church History tryed by his Exposition of my own words: And 1. Of his false supposition that I am only for a Church of one Congregation meeting in one place.

§ 1. IF so many repetitions of my Opinion cannot save Mr M. from so untrue a supposition of my self, I must not too far trust him, of the sence of those that he is as distant from as I. Yet this supposition running through all his book, shews that he wrote it against he knew not whom nor what. His foundation is because I define a single Church by Personal present Communion.

§ 2. I do so: And 1. Doth he think there is no such thing as Christians conjoyned for assembling in Gods ordinary worship, under the Conduct of their Proper Pastors. I will not censure him so hardly as to think he will deny it. 2. Are these Churches or not. I suppose he will say, Yea. 3. But is there no Personal Pre­s [...]nt Communion but in publick worship. Yes sure Neighbours who worship God in divers places, may yet live in the Knowledge and conversation of each other; and may meet for Election of Officers, and other Church businesses, and may frequently exhort, reprove and admonish each other, and relieve each other in dai­ly wants; and many meet sometimes by turns in the same place, where they all cannot meet at once: We have great Towns, (like Ipswich, Plymouth Shrewsbury, &c.) which have many Pa­rishes, and yet Neighbourhood maketh them capable of [Personal Communion in Presence] as distinct from [Communion by Letters or Delegats with those that we neither see nor know.] And we have many great Parishes which have several Chappels, where the People ordinarily meet yet per vices some one time and some ano­ther come to the Parish Churches. Have these no Parochial Per­sonal Communion?

To the well-being of a Church, I confess I would not have a single Church of the lowest species have too many, nor too few: No more than whose Personal Communion should be frequent in Gods publick worship. Nor so few as should not fully employ more Ministers of Christ than one. But to the Being of a Church, [Page 65] I only require that the End of their Association be Personal Com­munion as distinct from distant Communion by Letters and dele­gates. And by [Communion] I mean not only the Sacrament.

§ 2. It is in vain therefore to answer a book that goeth on such false suppositions, and a man that will face down the world that I plead for that which I never owned, and so frequently dis­claim.

CHAP. VIII. Of his false supposition that I am against Diocesan Bishops, because I am against that species of them which puts down all the Bishops of single Churches, and those Churches themselves.

§ 1. THis supposition goeth through almost all the book: In his preface he saith [The superiority of Bishops over Pre­sbyters is acknowledged by Catholicks, and Schismaticks & Hereticks, &c. and yet this Church history would have us believe the Contrary.] And so throughout.

§ 2. And yet to shew that he knew the Contrary in one place he confesseth it, and described part of my judgment, and saith that none will be of my mind in it, but it is singular to my self: Yea I had in my Disput. of Church Government, which he taketh on him in part to answer, and in my Treat. of Episcopacy which he also pretends to answer in part, told them of more sorts of Bishops than one that I oppose not, no not A. Bishops themselves: And one of them hereupon notes it as if I differed but about the name, submitting to Diocesans so they may but be called A. Bishops. To whom▪ I answered that A. Bishops have Bishops under them, so that though I over and over even to tediousness tell them it is the d [...]posing of all the first or lowest Species of Bishops and Churches, and Consequently all Possibi­lity of true Dis [...]ipline that I oppos [...], and submit to any that oversee many such Churches without destroying them and their privi­ledges instituted by Christ] I speak [...]ill in vain to them: These true Historians face down the world that I write whole books to the clean contrary.

CHAP. IX. Of his supposition that I am an Independent, and yet that I plead for the cause of the Presbyterians.

§ 1. THis is also a supposition that is part of the Stamina of his Book; and how far he is to be believed herein judge by the evidence following.

1. He knew what I said before for three sorts of Bishops, 1. Episcopi Gregis, Overseers of single lowest Churches, as of Divine Institution: 2. For Episcopi Episcoporum, or Presidents-Bishops ejusdem Ordinis, non ejusdem Gradus, in the same Churches, as of early Humane Institution, which I resist not. 3. Episcopi Episcoporum, Overseers of many Churches, which I suspect to be Successors of the Apostles, and of such as Timothy, Titus, &c. in the continued ordinary part of their work, (exercising no other Power than they did:) Insomuch that Dr. Sherlock would be thought so much less Episcopal than I, as that he saith, It is Antichristian to assert Episcopos Episcoporum.

§ 2. And Dr. Parker hath newly written a Book for Episco­pacy, which I hear many despise; but for my part I take to be the strongest that I have seen written for it these twenty years; but to no purpose against me; for it is but for Episcopacy in ge­neral, which I oppose not. It excellent well improveth the Ar­guments of the K. and Bishops at the Isle of Wight; even that one Argument that a Superiority of some over others being settled by Christ and his Apostles, that Form must be supposed to continue, unless we have clear proof of the Repeal or Cessa­tion. I have ost said the same; I could never answer that Ar­gument: But this will not justifie the deposing of thousands of Bishops and Churches, and of their Discipline, to turn them all into two or three Diocesans.

§ 3. Also he knoweth that I have written these 35 years against Lay. Elders; believing that the Colledge of Elders which of old assisted the Bishops, were none of them Lay-men, nor un­ordained, but of the same Order, though not Degree, with the Bishop himself.

[Page 67]§ 4. And I have also written that Synods of Bishops or Pres­byters are but for Concord, and have not as such by a major Vote a proper Government of the minor part or absent: Much less that Classes, and other Assemblies, are the stated Church-Government which all must obey: And are the Presbyterians of any of the three forementioned Opinions?

§ 5. I ever held a necessity of manifold dependance of all Christians and Churches. As all depend on Christ as their Head, so do all the People on the Pastors, as their authorized Guides, whom they must not Rule, but be Ruled by, 1 Thes. 5. 12, 13. Heb. 13. 17, 24. And all these Churches depend on each other for Communion and Mutual Help, as many Corporations in one Kingdom. And frequent Synods well used, are greatly helpful to these ends: And the Command of doing as much as we can in Love and Concord, doth bind all the particular persons to concur with the Synods in all things that tend to the Peace and Edification of the Church, or are not against it. And more than so, if the general Visitors or Bishops that take care of ma­ny Churches, do by God's Word direct, instruct, reprove, ad­monish the particular Bishops and Churches, they ought with reverence to hear them and obey them. And if Independents really are for all this, why do these Accusers represent them odiously, as if it were no such matter, but they were meerly for Church-Democracy? Either you are not to believed in what you say of them, or of me.

§ 6. I know we have men that say, that on pretence of ac­knowledging all this Episcopacy, I put down all, because I take from them the power of the Sword, and leave all to despise them if they please. Ans. This indeed is the power that under the name of Episcopacy now too many mean. Bishop Bilson knew no Power but Magistrates by the Sword, and Ministers by the Word. But why name I one man? It is the common Opi­nion of Protestants, and most sober Papists, that Bishops as such have no power of force on Body or Purse. But we deny not the forcing Power of the Magistrate. 3. But we heartily wish that they would keep it in their own hands, and never use it to force unwilling men into the Church, or to Church-Communion; high Priviledges which no unwilling person hath any right to. This is my Independency.

CHAP. X. Of his Accusation, That I make the Bishops the Authors of all Heresies and Schisms, as distinct from Presbyters, Monks and People.

§ 1. THis also runs throughout his Book; and must such Books be answered or believed? I never denyed the guilt and concurrence of others with them. I only say, That as Bishops were the Chief, so they had the chief hand, as far as I can yet learn, in Heresies and Schisms, since they came to their height of Power, and specially in those grand Heresies and Schisms, which have broken, and keep the Churches in those great Sects and Parties, which in East and West it consisteth of to this day. I never doubted or denyed but that 1. The He­resies that were raised before the Church had any Patriarchs, or the turgent sort of Bishops, were certainly raised without them. 2. And afterward sometime a Presbyter began a He­resie. 3. And the Bishops were but as the Generals of the Army in all the Church Civil Wars. But I never denyed but the Prelatical Priests, Monks, and multitude were their obsequi [...]us Army.

§ 2. Mr. M. saith, That those Bishops that were Hereticks, were mostly such, or inclined to it before. Answ. 1. Was there then a good Succession of Ordination, when the World groan­ed to find it self Arian? Were all these Arians before their Consecration?

Answ. 2. Were they not all Prelatical Presbyters that aspi­red to be Bishops, and so as they say had a Pope or Bishop in their bellies. I never thought that Prelatical Priests that stu­died Preserment, and longed to be Bishops, had no hand in Heresies nor Schisms, no more than that the Roman Clergy are innocent herein, and the fault is in the Pope alone. What a deal then of this man's Book is lost and worse, on such suppo­sitions?

CHAP. XI. Of his confident Accusation, that I mention all the faults of the Bishops, and none of their Goodness, or Good Deeds.

§ 1. THis also is a chief part of the Warp or Stamen of his Book. In his Preface he saith, [‘This History of Bishops is nothing else but an Account of all the faults that Bishops have committed in the several Ages of the Church, without Any Mention of their Good Actions, of their Piety and Severity of their Lives; of their Zeal for the Faith, &c.’]

Answ. 1. Whether this Fundamental Accusation be true or false, let the Reader who loveth Truth see 1. In the very first Chapt. from § 41. to the end. 2. Through all the Book where I oft praise good Bishops, good Councels, and good Canons, and good Books and Deeds. 3. In the two last Chap­ters of the Book, written purposely to hinder an ill use of the Bishops faults.

In the first Chapter [‘Very many of the Bishops themselves were humble, hol [...], faithful men, that grieved for the miscarriages of the rest: Though such excellent persons as Gregory of Neocae­sarea, Greg. Nazianz. Greg. Nyssen, Basil, Chrysostom, Augu­stine, Hillary, Prosper, Fulgentius, &c. were not very common, no doubt but there were many that wrote not Books, nor came so much into the notice of the World, but avoided con­tentions and factious stirs, that quietly and honestly conduct­ed the Flocks in the waies of Piety, Love, and Justice. And some of them (as St. Martin) separated from the Councils and Communion of the prevailing turbulent sort of the Prelates; to signifie the disowning of their sins.’]

Of the Antients before the world crowded into the Church, I never made question: Such as Clemens, Polycarp, Ignatius, Ire­naeus, and the rest.

How oft I have praised holy Cyprian, and the African Bishops and Councils, he sometime confesseth.

What I say of Atticus, Proclus, and other peaceable Bishops, you may see p. 17. and very oft. Yea of the Bishops of many Sects, much of the Albigenses, &c. p. 17, 18.

[Page 70]Yea of the good that was done by the very worldly sort p. 18, 19, 20. Yea of the Papists Bishops that were pious p. 20. § 46.

And § 47. I vindicate the excellency of the Sacred Office. And § 53, 58, 59, 60. I plead for Episcopacy it self in the justi­fiable species of it.

§ 2. But perhaps he will say, that at least I say more of their faults than their [...]: I answer, of such good Bishops as Cyprian, Basil, Greg. Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Augustin, Hillary, Martin, &c. I speak of their virtues and nothing at all (that I remember) of their faults. Of such as Theophilus, and Cyril Alex­andri. and Epiphanius, &c. I speak of their virtues and some of their faults (as the scripture doth of many good mens.) Of the more ambitious, turbulent sort, I speak only or mostly of their faults: For I profess not to write a History of their lives, but to inform the ignorant what Spirit it is that brought in Church tyranny and divisions. I denyed none of their virtues, though it was not my work to record them.

While I am confuting the Errours of your book, do I wrong you unless I write a Catalogue of your good works. Morney, Illyri­cus, and many others have gathered a Catalogue of old witnesses for Protestant Verities. And Bishop Morton hath cited multi­tudes of Papists against their party: Have they wronged them because they have not also cited all that the same said for the Roman cause? I have mentioned the virtues of some of the Popes, even of Greg. 7. but of many others I have only mentioned their vices: This is not to deny any good that is in them: Nor do you accuse your selves of any injustice when you tell the world how bad men the Parliaments have bin, and how bad Cromwell and the Armies, and how bad the Nonconformists are, and I in particular, without naming any of their good deeds or virtues: Because it is not your business.

CHAP. XII. Of his Accusation that I do all in spite and malice against Bishops, and as using ill language of them.

§ 1. ANsw. 1. Spite and Malice are heart sins: If the same effect may come from other Causes, how know you that these are the Cause?

Ans. 2. Is it from Spight and Malice that Protestants common­ly describe the vices of the Popes, such as Greg. 7. Sergius, Alex­andr. 3. Boniface 8. Joh. 12. and 13. & 22, & 23. & Eugen. 4. &c. And also that they so hardly speak of the Jesuites, Yea and Pa­pists commonly? Sure it may come from some other cause.

Ans. 3. Is it from Spight and Malice that you recite the tu­mults of the German Anabaptists, the faults of those at Munster, the Errours of David George, the many Enthusiastick Sects described by Beckman Exercit. (of whom many as Thaulerus, Kempis, Behmen had much very commendable; and Grotius praised Job. Ar [...]dt.) Is it from Malice that the Familists, Seekers, Quakers, Anabaptists, &c. are usually by your party described by their faults, without any mention of their goodness?

Ans. 4. Is it from Spight and Malice that your Party have written what they have done of the great faultiness of the Non­conformists, both former and latter; and that Calvinists are so odiously represented, that the Reformation by them is described by Heylin and others as Rebellious? That such books are written as Heylins Aerius Redivivus, H. Fowlis, the Evangel. Armatum, The Eccles. Polit. the Friendly Debate, the Counterminer, the Vindica [...]. of Dr. Stillingfleet, the pretended second part, (which is a continued Calumny against my self, so full of particular fals­hoods as are not to be without a tedious Volume answered: And a multitude such written to render the Nonconformists odious and unsufferable. If all these be not written in Malice, how know you that mine were?

Ans. 5. And whereas some pretending moderation accuse me of too bad provoking language, 1. Is there any Comparison between the language of any of these books, or yours and Dr. [Page 72] Sherlock's and mine? Read but Learned Godly moderate Bishop Downam his Defence of his Visit. sermon, his frequent charges [of shameless, impudent Lying, and much more] against a Non­conformist that gave him no such language. Read but the ordi­nary Writings of such as Bishop Bancroft, Dr. Sutcliff, and most others against the Old Nonconformists; and of the Lutherans against the Calvinists, even men that I am persuaded meant ho­nestly, but by Faction were exasperated, as Hunnius, Brentius, Morlinus, M [...]rbackius, Snepfius, Wigandus, Heshusius, Andreas, Se [...]necerus, Heerbrand, Calovi [...]s, and many such. Read but our Grammarians, such as you may find in the many Volumes of the Collections of Janus Gruter [...]s, even those of Cramer, and Phil. Paraeus, and others against himself; where Fools, Knaves, Lyars, Sots, and worse, make up much of the style.

Read but our Old Grammarian Reformers against the Popish Priests, and Schoolmen, I mean Erasmus, Hutten, Faber, and the rest, what Scorns their Writings do abound with.

I will not refer you to the Queen of Navarr [...], and Stephanus his World of Wonders, against the Priests, lest you think I ap­prove of the excess.

Yea read but the Writings of our famous Learned Criticks, Jul. and Joseph Scaliger, Heinsius, Salmasius, &c. from whom the railing Jesuite Labbe took advantage to say, Tom. 1. p. 820. [‘Ri­v [...]o prae [...]v [...]at Josephus Scaliger, homo utique modestissimus, qui Editores S. Irae [...]ae [...] vocat, clamosos, maledicentissimos. C [...]rcop [...]s, Tartareos, Pyriphleget [...]o [...]tas, vir [...]lentiae & probrorum co [...]c [...]n [...]tores, & editionem coloniensem, cloacam Sycophantiarum, l [...]in [...]m conv [...]ti [...]m, & sta [...]l [...]m inscitiae.’] Through God's great mercy, while Malignity is the Complexion of the Ser­pent's Seed, and Lying is their Breath, and Murder is their Work, the names of all these sins are odious in the world, and guilt is impatient, and cannot endure its own name.

Should I but mention the Language of Papists, how they re­present the holiest Protestants as Lyars, Deceivers, Devils, intol­lerable, whom it is as lawful to kill as Dogs, Foxes or Toads, it would concern none but those of you that use to say, I had rather be a Papist than a Puritane, or Presbyterian; o [...] those that renounce Communion with us, and own it with the Church of Rome; who are, alas, too many. Such Language as [...]a [...]'s, Vol. 1 p. 819. is of the sweeter sort, viz. ‘Quisquis es s [...]lutis [Page 73] t [...] amans, Omnes illic [...] Calvinistas, Lutheranos, Socinianos Anabaptistas, similesque generis humani pestes, Cacodamon [...]m instar execrabere.’ This is but what we daily hear: But while we hear it in a Language so very like from the Papists, and the Pulpits and Press, and Roger Le Strange is become the Church's Advocate and Mouth, it will harden them that did ill joyn to­gether Popery and Prelacy in their rejections.

Honest Thuanus is amiable and honourable for Speaking well of all that deserved it, without partiality: But Gerb. Vossius is put to defend his Father-in-law Junius against his unjust censure. In­deed Junius was a man of Eminent peaceableness and moderation, (I would Arminius and he had been the utmost prosecutors of that Controversie, notwithstanding Dr. Twisses undervaluing his skill in School Divinity) And few men were more unlike Thua­nus his ill Character than Junius: But Dr Manton hath told me that he hath been fully informed that it was not Junius that Thua­nus meant but another that dyed that year (which Junius did not) and that by some ill chance a wrong name was put in Contrary to Thuanus intent.

§ 2. Dr. Burnet is a man whom I much value and honour, and pleadeth much for peace and moderation, and therefore much the more amiable to me: I thank him for his reproof of me to my face; but because he goeth on to vend it as just behind my back, where I cannot answer him, I must do it here. He saith that [I began and that with unchristian, provoking language against the Con­formists in my first Plea for peace, which caused all the succeeding heats.]

Ans. 1. I have to him and oft in print appealed to humanity and common sence whether one that was seventeen years silent, & communicated in the Parish Churches, and under scorns, and ejection, imprisonment & mulcts did peaceably continue Commu­nion with them without reply or self defence, and never wrote against them, till they had long called out to him to give them an account of the reasons of his Nonconformity, and then durst not provoke them by a dispute, but barely named the matters which we judge unlawful, professing not to be the Accuser of Conformists, but only to answer the Call of Parliament-men, Bishops, and others that urged us, and threatned us if we would not tell them what we stuck at; and made this the Justification of their prosecution of many hundred men: I say, whether such a [Page 74] man had a Call to speak? When the King Licensed us, I had before briefly defended our Preaching as Licensed: But being thus summoned by our Prosecutors and Superiours, I told them what we judged unlawful; and was this a beginning of the Flame? Was Seventeen years Poverty, Prohibition and Prose­cution, and all this Importunity, no provocation or call to speak? Did this begin? If he were in the House of Correction, and were beaten but Seventeen years, or Seven years, to confess the Cause for which he suffered, and at last con [...]essed it, and one should say, This was the beginning of the strife, Would he take this for a good Historian? And if he had written History, would this report advance the credit of it?

§ 3. But the second thing accused, is the unchristian Language of that Book. Answ. Doth a general Accusation signifie more ill of the accuser, or of the accused, if it be not proved by par­ticular Instances? I urged him to name the unchristian words, and I remember but two Instances he gave me.

The first is, that I use the word [untruths] against my Accu­sers. And 1. I think the Reader will very rarely find that word in that Book. 2. Is this so harsh as the common charge of Lying, used even by the most Learned sober Conformists? 3. I thought it had been a modest word: What shall a man say when such Volumes of Slander are published against him and others, as tends to preach all their Neighbours into hatred and persecution of them? Alas! Doth it increase our crime to say, It is untrue? How shall we then answer for our selves at any Bar? Is it tollerable voluminously to tell the World down-right falshoods of us? and is it railing for us to say, [They are untrue?] What's this but like him that run a man thorow in wrath with his Sword, and indicted him for crying, oh? This is the Church Justice even of our moderate Historians.

§ 4. But he saith, I should not call it [a falshood, or untruth] but a mistake. Answ. This is a sharper word; for it signifieth the fault of the mistaker usually; whereas by speaking de objecto, that it is false, I leave it to others how far the reporter is to be blamed. But sure most Logical Disputations are Railings, if the words [ [...]alsum] and [fallacia] be such.

§ 5. About a month or six weeks ago the Observator, the Churches Advocate published, That [‘a Captain of Horse of the King's, had the fortune to be dismounted, wounded and [Page 75] stript, and a Chaplain (naming me before) cut from about his neck a Medal, which the King had given him, and the Soul­diers spared in the heat of blood]’ I sent him word how false this was: I never saw the man in my life that I know of; much less ever medled with him: But was in a House where a Soul­dier brought a small silver-guilt Medal, about the bigness of a big Shilling, and said, he took it from about the neck of one Captain Jennings, whose Life he spared: He offered it to sale, and no one offering him more, I gave him eighteen pence for it in 1643. as I remember: And about 1648. hearing where Captain Jen­nings was, supposing it might be of great use to him, I sent it him as a gift by one Mr. Sommerfield.] And this slander is all the thanks I had. The Church-Advocate wrote me back, that he had it formally attested. I craved as a favour of him to tell me if Captain Jennings be living, how I might write to him. He answers me, that one was out of the way that he must first speak with, and I should shortly hear from him. The next I heard was as a second part of Dr. Stillingfleet, the foresaid Book full of cruel falshood, taken from my having been for the Parliament, and from many distorted words of mine: Now when this Book renders me worse than a Jew, or Heathen, and unfit to live, some I fear will tell abroad that I am a Traitor, for saying, that [It is slanderous or untrue.]

§ 6. His second Instance was these words of mine [‘Pardon me for saying, I think that Mr. Tombs hath said more like truth for Anabaptistry, the late Hungarian for Polygamy, many for Drunkenness, Stealing, and Lying, in cases of Necessity, than ever I yet read for the Lawfulness of all that I have here described.’]

Answ. 1. Is there any Railing or unchristian Language in these words? which be they?

Answ. 2. Do I here speak of any but my self and the Non­conformists? Do I not protest against accusing others, and only say, what it would be to me, should I conform? And must I not, when importuned by Bishops, Priests and Rulers, say what I fear, le [...]t others should think it intimateth their guiltiness? Can I help that?

Answ. 3. Did that man ever understandingly consider the matter, who can doubt of the truth of what I say?

I. On the one side how heinous and many the sins that we fear are, if we should conform, I must not again name, for that's it that provoketh.

[Page 76]11. Now as to the Comparison;

1. I'le appeal to Learned Bishop Barlow whether Mr. Tombs hath not made the Case of Anabaptistry more difficult? Let them that deny it confute him better than I have done.

2. And why doth none answer the Hungarians book for Poly­gamy if it be easier done than the task in question. I have known the man that maintained, that if a King had a barren wife, and his Kingdom like to be undone by a destructive successor, he might as lawfully take another wife, as Adams Children might marry incestuously. And indeed the many unreproved instances of Po­lygamy in Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, &c. will allow men more pretence for it, than ever I saw brought for all (I say, but For all) that I have named in that book.

3. And many Physicians have said so much (though amiss) for the lawfulness of a Drunken Cup instead of a Vomit & a Cordial in some diseases, as have made it a harder case than ours seems to me: And I say not what it seems to others.

4. And de necessario concubitu legantur quae a medicis dicun­tur de furore ut erino.

5. And for stealing nothing but present food to save life, he that Considers what God allowed a man to take that went through an Orchard, Vineyard or Corn-field, and what the Law of na­ture is, and whether the Kings Army on whose strength the Safety of King & Kingdom depends, may not violently take food without the owners consent rather than perish, will find it har­der to justifie the denying Christendom and Communion to godly Persons that scruple our sort of God Fathers, Crossing and Kneel­ing, &c. than to confute the aforesaid stealing, or that which is meerly to save life.

6. And as for Lying in cases of necessity, No less men of their own party than Grotius de Jure Belli and Bishop Jer. Taylor in Duct. Dubit. have written for it. And though I be against it, and many Conformists for it, yet I will not deny but if the Life of the King might be saved among Enemies by a Lie; or the Life of a Patient by his Physicians deceiving him by a Lie, much more may be pretended for it, than for all the heinous sin which I fear.

§ 7. And if these words be uncharitable Railing, what means have we lest to give them that demand it, the Reasons of our Nonconformity?

[Page 77]What if we had gone further, and taken it for a crying Church Crime, and called all the Clergy to Repentance? If that which we judge sinful be not so, let them confute us: If it be so, and as great as we fear, is it not our duty to bewail it, and mourn for it? Ezek. 9. 4. Zeph. 3. 17, &c. And is not mincing and extenuating great sin, an implicit hardening men against Re­pentance? Should one Preach against Adultery, Fornication, Perjury, Murder, as about a doubtful Controversie, or a small thing, and say but [Good men are on both sides; I dare not say it is a sin, though I dare not do it my self: Or if it be one, it is but such as good men are ordinarily guilty of: We must not judge one another.] What were this but (worse than Eli to his Sons) to cherish Sin, and Preach Impenitence, and serve Satan against the Evangelical Preaching of Repentance?

§ 8. For my Judgment, I profess it to be the duty of me, and all men, to use no Language of Good mens faults, no, though they turn Persecutors upon some particular Errour, but what is consistent with true Love to the men, and to cover their faults that are private, and meerly personal, as far as law­fully we may; but not to make light of publick, aggravated Crimes, such as those of Hophni and Phinehas; nor to shew indif­ferency towards Buyers and Sellers in the Temple; nor to strengthen the Sin which threatneth a Land. If I thought that hundreds or thousands of Christ's faithful Ministers in any Country were unjustly hunted and forbidden to Preach the Gos­pel to a People that truly need it, and this to the unavoidable dividing of the People, and the plain making way for a Forreign Jurisdiction, I should take my self as a guilty hinderer of Repen­tance, and Enemy to the Publick Safety, if I should say only [This is a doubtful Controversie between Good, Wise, and Learned men.]

Labbe ends his To. 1. as justifying his bitterest Reproaches, with the Authority of Christ, Peter, Paul, John, Jude, Ignatius. And if he had only given great and publick sins, the true names necessary to mens knowledge of them, for Repentance or Pre­servation, those Texts, and many more would have justified him.

CHAP. XIII. Of his Supposition that I speak against all Bishops Councils.

§ 1. THis is not so. 1. I write oft for the great usefulness of Councils. 2. I justly praise no small number of them, especially before the great Rising of the Bishops, for the first 300 or 400 years: He once acknowledgeth it of the African Councils: And he might have seen the like of many Spanish, and some French and Germane Councils: The English I little medled with. 3. The First General Council at Nice I justly honour; yea and the Three following, and many more than three, for the soundness of their Faith, and as having many very laudable persons in them; though I shew the ill effects of their conten­tion and ambition.

I have heard some Conformists confess the great Learning and piety of the Westminister Synod in 1642. and of the Synod of Dort, where we had Delegates: and yet sharplier speak against the Acts of both by far, than I have done by any such pious Per­sons. Even they that have honoured Bishop Carlton, Bishop Hall, Bishop Davenant, Dr. Ward, &c. that were there, have yet bitterly reproached the Decrees which they subscribed. And how many as well as Dr Heylin have written and spoken ill of A. Bishop Usher, of A. Bishop Abbot, A. Bishop Grindai, A. Bi­shop Parker (yea of A. Bishop Whitguif [...] for the Lambeth-Articles which I justifie not) who yet have a great honour both for Bi­shops and their Councils.

§ 2. But I confess I am much of Nazianzen's mind, and I think I am no more against them in the general than he was. And I am against our subjection to the Jurisdiction of Forreign Coun­cils, and the use that the Pope and ambitious Clergy have made of them, to become Masters of Princes and of the world: I am not for Ebbo's French Council which deposed Ludov. Pius, nor for making them either the Popes Army, or the Army of Pa­triacks against each other or of such Princes as Constantius, Valens, Theodosius junior, Anastasius Philippicus, Justinian, Irene, &c. to fulfill their own mistaken wills, how honest soever the men [Page 79] might be. Much less am I for such work as the Council at Later an sub Innoc. 3 made, no nor that at Florence.

§ 3 And I take it for an Act of great Prudence in this my ac­cuser, while he is vindicating Bishops Councils, to go no further than the four first General, when it is many hundred that I have mentioned. And is it not really an intimated accusation of them to vindicate so few of above 400. And those such as for their faith we all own.

And yet a man would think by the strein of his style and lan­guage that it were at least the greater part of Conncils that he were pleading for. I say still as Bishop Bilson and other Prote­stants: Well ordered sound Councils we owe great respect and honour to, for Counsel; strength and Concord, but subjection and Obedience, saith he, We owe Them none, (save as we are bid, be all subject one to another, and serve one another in Love.)

§ 4. And now I leave any impartial man to judge what an­swer such a book deserved, which goeth upon all these foremen­tioned untrue suppositions.

CHAP. XIV. Some mens Credit about ancient Church History, may be conjectu­red at by their Reports of the History of the time and place that we live in.

§ 1. BY their History of late and present things we may con­jecture at the Credit of not Mr. M's. but others of the Clergy-accusers and Prosecutors of their Brethren. Almost all that I remember that write against me, agree in such misreport­ing matters of fact, yea the most publick, of the persons, place and time, which our senses have given us notice of, that we must believe them with as great difficulty as we must believe Transubstantiation, even in opposition to all our senses and ex­perience. And whether those men be fit Vindicaters of the Bishops and Councils above a Thousand years ago (which are blamed by the Historians of their own Age, and by their own Confessions, and by their most servent Defenders) who noto­riously misreport the persons, and actions of their own Place and Age, I think it is not hard to judge.

[Page 80]I will instance in Twenty particulars of publick notice; for those against particular persons, even my self, are not to be numbred.

I. It is now commonly taken for true, that the present Non­conformists, who gave in their Desires for Concord 1660. are of the same Judgment as those called Nonconformists hereto­fore, and whatever can be raked up out of Christ. Goodman, Knox, Kilby, or is reported by Bancroft, is partly chargeable on them, when as their proposed Desires yet shew the world that they never made any motion against many things by those aforesaid scrupled, in Doctrine, Worship, and Ceremony.

And it is commonly supposed by them, that the present Con­formity is but the same as the Old, and the Case no harder to us: And this notwithstanding all the still visible Acts and Alte­rations, and Additions, which attest the contrary to all the world.

II. In most of their Invectives the present Nonconformists are argued against, as if they had been in the Civil War against the King; or had been guilty of it more than the Conformists. And that War is made a Reason of their Silencing; whereas so few of them had any hand in it, that I have many times told them, that if they will Silence none but those that they can prove guilty of any War, or Rebellion, or Sedition, the rest of us will give them a thousand Thanks, though we suffer our selves. Few of the present Nonconformists were then in the Ministry, and of those few that were, few now living meddled with War.

III. They are so confident that the Parliament and Army that began the War in England, were Nonconformists, yea Presbyte­rians, and not of the Church of England, that Mr. Hinkley, & here Mr. Morrice, make a renouncing of their Senses or Understand­ings necessary to the believing of it. And yet they might as well tell us, that they were all Turks or Papists. Are not a Par­liament and an Army things publick enough to be known in the same Age? When we name to them the Chief Lords and Commons, and Chief Commanders, yet (and lately) living, who are known still to live in their own Communion; and when we challenge them to name Three Presbyterians that were then in the House of Lords, or the House of Commons; or many that were at first Commanders in the Army; and we name them the Men that then Commanded, who were commonly known [Page 81] to be Conformists of the Church of England. And if they will not believe their present practice and profession they may yet go to them and be satisfied from their own mouths what were their former Principles. I have told them of a most credible Member of that Parliament yet living, who hath ost profest to me that he knew but one Presbyterian in the House of Commons when the war began, and I have named that one man to them, to try if they can name another. I expect not that they should believe me, or such other concerning those whom we knew: But they may be­lieve the men themselves yet living, & their most familiar Friends.

Yea the Records of many foregoing Parliaments, with Laua's Life written by Dr. Heylin fully sheweth them that the differ­ence arose 1. About the fear of Popery, (and Arminianism as they thought tending towards it) 2. About Property, Loan­mony, Knight-mony and after Ship-mony, &c. 3. About Impri­sonment of members and other Gentlemen. And these were still the quarrel.

But saith Mr. M. How then shall we believe our senses. Ans. See Reader, whether his most confident Errours about past things be any wonder. He is not so sure of what he saith of the old Prelates, or the Nestorians, Eutychians, &c. as he is that he must believe his Senses: And his very senses tell him that a Parliament, even Lords, Commons, and an Army, many of whom are yet living, were of another opinion in Religion than ever they were then acquainted with, and which was known to very few in Eng­land till afterward. And this contrary to their Profession and pra­ctice and the senses of their acquaintance. Lords are Persons of so publick notice that they may easily yet be informed of the living and the dead: In the Army the Chief Commanders were the E. of Essex, the E. of Bedford (yet living) Sir John Merrick, the E. of Peterborough, Dolbiere, the E. of Stamford, the Lord Hastings (E. of Huntington) the Lord Rochford (E. of Do­ver) the Lord Fielding (E. of Denbigh) the Lord Mandevile (E. of Manchester) the Lord Roberts (now Earl of Radnor and Pre­sident of his Majesties Council) the Lord St. Johns, (killed at Keim [...]n Fight.) Only the Lord Say, and Lord Brook were known Independents; and whether the Lord Wharton (yet living) was then for Bishops or against them I know not; but all the rest were of the Church of England. And so were the other Collonels, Sir Henry Cholmley, the late Lord Hollis, Col. Will. Bampfield, Col. [Page 82] Tho. Grantham, Col. Tho. Ballard, C. Sir William Fair fax, Col. Charles Essex, Col. Lord Willoughby of Parham, Col. Sir Will. Waller, Col. Edwin Sandys, Cap. Lord Grey of Grooby; and I think then Sir Will. Constable and Col. Hampden. What mind Sir Will. Balfoore was of I know not: But I know his Country man Col. Brown was too far from a Puritane.

But saith Mr. M. [1. It's well the Bishops had no share in it] Ans. Let Heylin tell you what hand the difference between A. Bishop Abbats Church of England and Laud's then little Party had in the preparations. 2. And was the A. Bishop of York no Bishop, who afterward was a Commander for the Parliament.

But saith he, [I pray where were the Presbyterians when the Parliament took up Arms: Were they not then in being?] Ans. An excellent Historian! that maintaineth Parliament and Army were such, as he knows not whether they were then in being. Yes Sir, they were in Holland, and France and Geneva, and Scotland▪ and in England there was one John Ball, and one Mr. Langley, and a few more such old Nonconformists that never were in Arms, and old John Dod, and one Mr. Geree that was against the war and dyed for grief of the Kings death: But among those called Puritans, few knew what Presbytery was, till the Scots afterward brought it in. Much less did Lords, Commons, and Army know it. In your sense Sir they were not then in being, and therefore could not fight.

It appears by Bancroft and others that there had been once Presbyterians in England: But they were dead, and few even of the few Nonconforming Ministers succeeded them in the Study of that point.

But saith he, [Were they none of them in the house] Ans. Yes, one [or did they protest against the proceedings of the Episcopal and Erastians? Ans. That one went with them. And Non entis non sunt accidentia.]

But saith he [Can Mr. B. believe (or think any one else so weak as to be imposed on in a matter so notorious) that it was a Par­liament of Episcopals, and Erastians and not Presbyterians that be­gan the war?]

Ans. Thus youngmen that know not whom they talk of can controle the most publick matter of fact by their conjectures. Go ask the worthy Master of the Rolls Sir Harbottle Grimston, whose Speeches were then printed: Ask Sir Joh. Maynard His Ma­jesties [Page 83] Sergeant at Law who was one of them; or any other of them yet living. Ask them whether they knew themselves and their companions better than you, who it seems knew them not.

But saith he [Were they Episcopals that voted down Episcopacy Root and Branch before the war begun] Ans. 1. Have you proved that they did so? 2. Do you think that acontradiction? 1. They had got a belief that Bishop Laud had got such men into the Seats as were for a Syncretism with the Papists (described by Heylin) and against the Subjects Property and Liberty. And it was the Men and not the Office that offended them. 2. But be­cause they were willing of the favour of the Scots, and those Lon­doners who were against the Bishops, they pleased them by vot­ing down the present frame, intending to set up a moderate Episcopacy in its stead; Yea long after this when many Learned Divines in the Assembly declared themselves for Episcopacy, but not for Deans, Chancellors, &c. They altered the Covenant so as to describe the present frame only: And when the House of Lords took the Covenant, Mr. Coleman (an Erastian) gave it them openly, declaring, that it was not meer Episcopacy that this Co­venant renounced, but only the English described Complicate form. And could they have had such Bishops as Abbot and the old Church of England, they had never gone thus far. 3. And they thought not Episcopacy itself so necessary, (though if mo­derate the best sort of Governments) as to hazard all for it, which they thought had been in danger. Even in 1640 July 17. They Voted a Diocesan in every County, with Twelve Divines to Govern.

But, saith he, [Were they Episcopals that Petitioned the King at York for Reformation in Discipline and Worship then? i. e. for abolishing Episcopacy and Common-Prayer?] Answ. 1. Reform­ing is not Abolishing. 2. I answered that as to the last. When they feared that the Old House would fall on their heads, they were for pulling of it down, and building a New one, after such a Model as Bishop Usher after gave, and the Germane, Swedish, and Danish Churches have; which they called the Primitive Episcopacy: But before they could do it, they needed the Scots help, who brought in the Covenant, which they chose rather than to fall into the hands of those of whom they had such thoughts and fears, as I need not now describe, Prin's History of Laud's Tryal describeth them.

[Page 84]I would ask this confident Historian (whose senses tell him what Religion men were of contrary to their daily practice of communi­cating in the Parish-Churches conformably) whether the Longest Parliament of all, which made the Acts of Uniformity, the Cor­poration and Vestry Acts, the Two Act [...] against Conventicles, the Militia Act, &c. were Presbyterian or Episcopal? Verily, if these were Presbyterians, I am none, nor ever will be: We shall then have a strange definition of a Presbyterian, such as will take in Bishop Sheldon, Bishop Morley, Bishop Gunning, and such others. If not, did not the fear of Popery make that very Parliament begin to look so sowrely on the Clergy, as produ­ced that which I need not tell you of? And did not most of the same men meet in the next Parliament after, and look yet more suspiciously on the Clergy? And the next yet more? And doth it follow that they were not Episcopal but Presbyterian? But some men are confident against the Sun-light, and the most no­torious Publick Evidence. But I must confess that such have shaken my belief of the meer Moral Evidence of most History, and left me only certain of that which hath Evidence, which is truly Natural, in the Natural Impossibility of Conspiracy in a Lie.

There were men heretofore that would swear that man was a Puritane, who would not swear and drink with them, and would pray in their Families, and read the Scriptures on the Lord's Day, while others were dancing. And the word [Puri­tane] is now vulgarly changed into [Presbyterian] (by the Cler­gies Conduct.) And there are some Clergy-men that will say, a man is a Presbyterian, who reproves them for Drunkenness and Swearing, and other Crimes, specially if he would not have Nonconformists ruined and laid in Gaol with Rogues. In this sense I deny not but Lords, Commons and Army, had many Puritanes or Presbyterians among them, who yet never knew what Presbytery was.

But, saith Mr. M. [Were they Episcopal who pray the King at Oxford to abolish A. Bishops and Bishops, &c. that entred into a Solemn League and Covenant against Episcopacy, and for Reforming the Church after the Presbyterian Platform, and set up Presbytery by so many Ordinances?]

Answ. Distingue tempora is none of this Historians Principles. How long after the War begun was this Petition at Oxford, this Covenant, and these Ordinances? He proveth them Pres­byterians [Page 85] at first when they knew not what it was, because they were for Presbytery a year or two after: Negatur Sequela. The Scots taught afterwards the Assembly, and them that which they never knew before, 2. And all these Petitions & Ordinances shew­ed not what they preferred as best, but what they preferred be­fore expected ruine. The Issue proved this, and Heylin confesseth it, and saith, They never set up Presbytery in any one place (which yet is not true, though they did not force it.)

3. Do you not know now living, those Episcopal Conformists, who refuse no part of your Conformity, and are much against Presbytery, who since the Discovery of the Papists Plot, are so much afraid of Popery, and so confident that too many of the Clergy are prepared for it, that a little more would turn them from you, though they love Presbytery as little as they love your selves.

In a word, The Old Clergy and the Parliament Men agreed. The New Clergy in Bishop Laud's time distasted them; & the Scots Presbyterians helping them in their straits, partly turned some of them, and partly imposed on them unpleasing conditions.

But saith he, [The Erastians and Independents were at first in­considerable, and acted joyntly with the Presbyterians, &c.]

Answ. Thus is History delivered to the deluded World! Nei­ther Independency nor Presbytery were understood by many till the War was begun. The Scots Commissioners by degrees acquainted them with Presbytery, and Mr. Burton's Protestation Protested, and the five Dissenters with Independency: Two or three Independents were in the House of Lords, and some few in the House of Commons: It was Episcopal-men that made up the main Body: These were of two sorts: The one sort thought Episcopacy of Divine Institution, but not Chancellors, Deans and Chapters, Arch-Deacons, Officials, &c. The other sort thought that Episcopacy, not rampant, was the best Govern­ment Jure humano; But that the Magistrate being Chief, might set it up, or take it down, as he see most for the common good. These were called by some Erastians: And that these at first were inconsiderable, is History written in despight of Evidence. Let any man 1. Read what Parliaments formerly said; 2. And what many English Divines wrote for the Jus humanum against the Jus Divinum; and what Testimony Prin hath given of it; 3. And what Dr. Stillingfleet hath produced for it in his Irenicon; [Page 86] 4. And how commonly it was owned by Conformists then in Conserence; 5. And how commonly the Lawyers were for the Humane Right; 6. Yea and the Civilians themselves; and then let him take this Historian's word, if he tell Posterity that the Parliament and Army were not English men.

IV. These Historians candidly tell the world, that the Non­conformists, who offered their Desires for Concord 1660. were Presbyterians, and so are most of the Nonconformists now. Whereas they never made one motion for Presbytery, for Lay-Elders, for Ruling Classes or Assemblies, nor against Episcopacy; but only offered the Paper called A. Bishop Usher's Reduction of Episcopacy to the Primitive Form; wherein neither A. Bi­shops, nor Bishops, nor Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, were taken down, or any of their Revenues, Lordships, or Parliament-Power. This is Presbytery with these Historians.

V. They make the world believe that the main Body of the Conformists, are such as suffered for the King, or complied not with the Directory and Times of Usurpation: Whereas it's pub­lickly notorious, that there are about 9000 Parish-Churches in England, besides many hundred Chappels, & many Churches that had more than one Minister. And almost all these complied with the Times or Directory, as the Nonconformists did: And of all these, it was but about 2000 that Conformed not; so that 7000 or 8000 of them that had kept in, did on a sudden turn Confor­mists. And divers that had been in Arms for the Parliament: Yea, some that had written for the Engagement when I wrote against it; yea some that had spoken or written tantum non a Justification of the Killing of the King. And of those that joyn­ed with us in our Proposals for Concord, Dr. Worth, and Dr. Reignolds were made Bishops, and divers others did Conform.

VI. These Historians would make the world believe that the Present Church, and such as they, did more than the Parliamen­tarians, and Presbyterians, and Nonconformists, to restore the King; when it is notoriously known, how oft their Attempts were defeated, and what the Scots Army under Hamilton under­went, to say nothing of the next; and of the Lord Delamore's Attempt, and what the Restored Parliament did: But sure I am, that the Old Parliament Souldiers, and Presbyterian Comman­ders and Souldiers in General Monk's Army, with those in Eng­land and Ireland that joyned with him, and Sir Thomas Allen [Page 87] Lord Mayor, with the Londoners, at the persuasion of the Pres­byterian Ministers, drawing General Monk to joyn with them, did the main work, which the Council and Parliament after fi­nished. When most of these men that will not endure the ob­livion of Discords, nor the Reconciling and Union of the King's Subjects, do but start up to revile others, and blow the Coals again, and reap the fruit of other mens labours, that desire but to live in Peace.

VII. That there are able worthy men that Conform, we are far from denying; and we earnestly desire their Concord, and the success of their Labour, and I hope love them as our selves. But whereas the History of this Party doth proclaim how much better and abler Ministers than the Noncon­formists are generally put into their Places, that are no Novices or Ignorant Youths, no Drunkards, nor scandalous, but more la­borious, skilful Labourers, I will say nothing, but let the Countries judge.

VIII. And whether it be true that there is no need of the Nonconformists Ministry, but the Churches are sufficiently sup­plied without them, both as to the number and quality of their Teachers, I have in my Apology enquired; and with godly men it's easily judged.

IX. And whether it be true, that it was only for the Kings or Bishops cause that the Parliament put out all, or most of them that were heretofore removed, I leave to the Witnesses and Articles against them. I am sure I and my neighbour Mi­nisters petitioned that none that were tolerable pious Ministers, might be put out for being for the King or Bishops.

X. It is commonly now recorded and reported that the Pres­byterians and those that now conform not put down Catechi­zing, and turned the Creed, Lords prayer and Decalogue out of the Church Service. Whereas (if some few Independents did any of this, it is more than I know, but) in all our Countrey, and where I came, I remember no Churches that did not use the Creed openly at their baptizing any, and the Decalogue fre­quently read out of Exod. 20. or Deut. 5. and the Lords prayer frequently; as we did constantly. But some thought that we were not bound to use it every time they prayed. And the Di­rectory commendeth all these to them. And all our Countrey agreed not only to Catechize publickly, but to take larger time [Page 88] on the week daies to Catechize every family.

XI. These Historians say that I and such others take the things which we conform not to, to be but inconveniences and not sins; And that we keep the Nation in Schisme while we confess the things to be but Indifferent And our writings are visible in which we profest the contrary, and laboured by many arguments to prove it and protested that we would conform if we took them not to be sins. And we gave in a Catalogue of what we judged to be sins: And this before the New Conformity was imposed: And since the fiercest displeasure is against us for telling them what we account Sin, and how great: When many years together our Rulers and the People were told that we confessed them indif­ferent and refused them but to avoid offending our followers.

XII. We frequently hear from them that we oppose Episco­pacy because we cannot be Bishops our selves: When its known that nothing could more put men out of all such hopes than the Presbyterians Endeavours that both their power and wealth should be taken down: And he that hath any desires of a Bishop­rick should sure be for the keeping of them up. And the same men reprove us for refusing Bishopricks and Deanries, and say we did it to please the People.

XIV. The new Historians would make us believe that the Reformed Church of England before Bishop Lauds time were of their mind that now call themselves Bishops and Doctors of the Church of England, in holding as they do, that there is an Uni­versal humane Soveraignty with Legislative and Judicial power over all the Churches on earth: and that this is in Councils, or an Universal Colledge of Bishops; of which the Pope may be al­lowed to be president, and Principium Unitatis &c. and that he must be obeyed as Patriarch of the West; and so we must be under a forreign Jurisdiction. Whereas it is notoriousy known that before Bishop Lauds time the doctrine of this Church was quite Contrary, as may be seen at large in the Apology, the Ar­ticles of Religion, the writings of the Bishops and Doctors; Yea they writ copiously to prove that the Pope is Antichrist, and put it into their Liturgy. And Dr. Heylin tells us that the Reason why Bishop Laud got it out was, that it might not offend the Papists and hinder our reconciliation with them; And the Oath of Supre­macy sweareth us against all forreign Jurisdiction.

XV. The same Historians would make us believe that these [Page 89] mens doctrine is now the doctrine of the Church of England or agreeable to it. Whereas the Oath of Allegiance is still in force, and so are the Homilies, and the Articles of Religion and the Laws and Canons for the Kings Supremacy against all forreign Jurisdiction. And there is no change made which alloweth of their doctrine: And the Church doctrine must be known by its pub­lick writings, and not by the opinions of new risen men.

XVI. The new Historians make the Nonconforming Mini­sters to be men grosly ignorant, preachingfalse doctrine, of wicked principles and lives, and not fit to be suffered out of Gaols. And yet these 19. or 20. years how few of them have been convict of any false doctrine? And I have not heard of four in England that have ever been convict since they were cast out, of being once drunk, or fornicating, cheating, swearing, or any immo­rality, unless preaching and not swearing, Subscribing, &c. be such, nor for false doctrine.

XVII. The new Historians have made thousands believe that the doctrine or opinions of the Nonconformists is for sedition and rebellion; And that it is for this that they refuse to renounce the obligation of the Covenant as to all men besides themselves and that they refuse to subscribe that it is not lawful on any pre­tence whatsoever to take Arms against any Commissioned by the King. Whereas we have at large in a second Plea for peace opened our judgments about Loyalty and obedience, and none of them will tell us what they would have more, nor where our profession is too short or faulty. Nor have they convict any of my acquaintance of preaching any disloyal doctrine.

XVIII. Yea they have by writing, preaching and talking made multitudes believe that the Nonconformists or Presbyte­rians have been long hatching a rebellion against the King, and have a Plot to take down Monarchy under pretence of opposing Poperty. And how far these Historians are to be believed, true Protestants by this time partly understand.

XIX. Yea these Historians have made multitudes believe that the Parliaments that have been disolved here of late years have been designing to change the Government of Church and state, under pretence of opposing Popery. As if that Parliament that did that for them and against us which is done, and made all the Acts which are for the Renunciation of the Covenant, and for all the Declarations, Subscriptions and Practices Imposed, and for Fining us 20 l. and 40 l. a Sermon, and laying us in Gaols, [Page 90] had been for Nonconformists, and against Episcopacy; and they that made the Militia Act, and such other had been against the King or his Prerogative: Or the other following had not been of the same Religion.

XX. But the boldest part of their History, is their description of the two sorts of the People in England, those that are for the present Nonconformists, and those that are against them. Those that are against them, they account the most Religious, Tempe­rate, Chast, Loyal, Credible, and in a word, the best people through the Land (for of our Rulers I am not speaking.) And those that are for the Nonconforming Ministers, they defame as the most proud, hypocritical, treacherous, disloyal, covetous, false, and in a word, the worst people in the Land; or as Fowlis saith, the worst of all mankind, and unfit to live in humane Socie­ty. How long will it be ere the sober people of this Land be­lieve this Character? One would think that the quality of the common Inhabitants of the Land should not be a Controversie, or unknown thing. All that I will say to this History, is, to tell the Reader the utmost of my observation and experience from my Youth up, concerning these two sorts of men.

Where I was bred before 1640. (which was in divers places) I knew not one Presbyterian Clergy man, nor Lay, and but three or four Nonconforming Ministers. Nay till Mr. Ball wrote for the Liturgy and against Can, and Allen, &c. and till Mr. Bur­ton Published his Protestation protested, I never thought what Presbytery or Independency were, nor ever spake with a man that seemed to know it: And that was in 1641. when the War was brewing. In the place where I first lived, and the Country about, the People were of two sorts: The generality seemed to mind nothing seriously but the body and the world: They went to Church and would answer the Parson in Responds and thence go to dinner, and then to play: They never prayed in their families, but some of them going to bed, would say over the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer, & some of them the Hail Mary: All the year long, not a serious word of holy things, or the Life to come, that I could hear of, proceeded from them. They read not the Scripture, nor any good Book or Catechism. Few of them could read, or had a Bible: They were of two ranks; the greater part were good Husbands as they called them, and savoured of nothing but their business or Interest in the World; the rest were Drunkards: Most were Swearers, but not equally: Both [Page 91] sorts seemed utter strangers to any more of Religion than I have named; and loved not to hear any serious talk of God, or Du­ty, or Sin, or the Gospel, or Judgment, or the Life to come: But some more hated it than others: The other sort were such as had their Consciences awakened to some regard of God and their Everlasting State; and according to the various measures of their understanding, did speak and live as serious in the Christian Faith, and would much enquire what was Duty, and what was Sin, and how to please God, and to make sure of Sal­vation; and made this their Business and Interest, as the rest did the world. They read the Scripture, and such Books as The Practice of Piety; and Deut's Plain Man's Path Way; and Dod on the Commandments, &c. They used to pray in their Fa­milies, and alone; some on the Book, and some without: They would not Swear, nor Curse, nor take God's Name lightly: They feared all known sin: They would go to the next Parish-Church to hear a Sermon when they had none at their own; would read the Scripture on the Lord's Day, when others were playing:▪ These were, where I lived, about the number of two or three Families in twenty; and these by the rest were called Puri­tanes, and derided as Hypocrites and Precisians, that would take on them to be Holy: And especially if they told any one of his Swearing, Drunkenness, or Ungodliness, they were made the common scorn. Yet not one of many of them ever scrupled Conformity to Bishops Liturgy or Ceremonies, and it was god­ly Conformable Ministers that they went from home to hear: And these Ministers being the ablest Preachers, and of more se­rious Piety, were also the Objects of the Vulgar Obloquy as Puritanes and Precisians themselves; and accordingly spoke a­gainst by many of their Tribe, and envyed for being preferred by godly men.

This being the Condition of the Vulgar where I was, when I came into the acquaintance of many Persons of Honour and Power, and reputed Learning, I found the same seriousness in Religion in some few before described, and the same daily scorn of that sort of men in others, but differently cloathed: For these would talk more bitterly, but yet with a greater shew of rea­son against the other, than the ignorant Country People did: And they would sometime talk of some Opinions in Religion, and some of them would use some of the Common-Prayer in [Page 92] their Houses, and some of them would swear, but seldom, and small Oaths, and lived soberly and civilly; but serious talk of God or Godliness, or that which tended to search and reform the Heart and Life, and seriously prepare for the Life to come, or to awaken Souls to a care of their State and Salvation, they would at least be very weary to hear, if not deride as Puritani­cal. Mr. Robert Bolton a Conformist, hath fully opened all this of both sorts in his Discourse of True Happiness, and Directions for walking with God: And how the name Puritane was then used.

This being the Fundamental Division where I came, some of these that were called Puritanes and Hypocrites, for not being Hypocrites, but serious in the Religion they professed, would sometimes get together, and as Drunkards and Sporters would meet to drink and play, they would (in some very few places, where there were many of them) meet after Sermon on the Lord's Daies to Repeat the Conforming Ministers Sermon, and sing a Psalm, and Pray. For this, and for going from their own Pa­rish-Churches, they were first envied by the Readers, and dry Teachers, whom they sometime went from, and next prosecu­ted by Apparitors, Officials, Archdeacons, Commissaries, Chan­cellors, and other Episcopal Instruments: For in former times there had been divers Presbyterian Nonconformists, who ear­nestly pleaded for Parish-Discipline (as Bucer also did in Oper. Anglic.) And to subdue these, divers Canons were made; which served the turn against these Meetings of the Conformable Pu­ritanes, and going from their own Parish-Churches; though the Old Presbyterians were dead, and very few succeeded them. About as many Nonconformists as Counties were left; and those few most stuck at Subscription and Ceremonies, which were the hinderance of their Ministry; and but few of them studied or un­derstood the Presbyterian or Independent Disciplinary Causes.

But when these Conformable Puritanes were thus prosecuted, it bred in them hard thoughts of the Bishops and their Courts, as Enemies to serious Piety, and Persecutors of that which they should promote: Suffering bred this Opinion and Aversation. And the ungodly Rabble rejoyced at their troubles, and ap­plauded the Bishops for it, and were every where ready to set the Apparitors on them, or to ask them, Are you holier or wiser th [...] [...] Bishops? And their Accusations were readily en­tertained: [Page 93] This much inclined them to hearken to them that were averse to Conformity, when such rose up, and to such as were more against the Bishops, than there was cause; so that by this time, the Puritanes took the Bishops to be Captains and the Chancellors, Archdeacons, Commissaries, Officials and Paritors, their Officers, and the Enemies of serious Godliness, and the vi­cious Rabble to be as their Army, to suppress true consciencious Obedience to God, and care of mens Salvation. And the cen­sured Clergy and Officers took the Censurers to be Schisma­ticks, and Enemies to the Church, unfit to be endured, and fit to be prosecuted with reproach and punishment; so that the said Puritanes took it to be but the common Enmity that since Cain's daies hath been in the world, between the Serpent's and the Woman's Seed: And when the persons of Bishops, Chancellors, Officials, Apparitors, &c. were come under such a repute, it was easie to believe what should be sail against their Office. And the more the Bishops thought to cure this by punishment, the more they increased the Opinion, that they were persecu­ting Enemies of Godliness, and the Captains of the Prophane.

And when such sinful Beginnings had prepared men, the Civil Contentions arising, those called Puritanes, mostly were against that side which they saw the Bishops and their Neighbour Ene­mies for: And they were for the Parliament the rather, because they seemed desirous to Reform the Bishops, and Restore the Liberty of those whom they prosecuted for the manner of their serving God. Yet they desired, where-ever I was, to have lived peaceably at home: But the Drunkards and Rabble that former­ly hated them, when they saw the War beginning, grew inraged; and if a man did but Pray, and Sing a Psalm in his house, they would cry [Down with the Roundheads] (a word then new made for them,) and put them in fear of sudden violence, and after­wards brought the King's Souldiers to plunder them of their goods, and they were fain to run into holes to hide their per­sons (Martin Crusius in his Turco-Gracia describeth much the like Case of his Father.) And when their Goods were gone, and their Lives in continual danger, they were forced to fly for Food and Shelter: To go among those that hated them, they durst not, when they could not dwell among such at home. And thus thousands run into the Parliaments Garrisons, and having nothing there to live upon, became Souldiers.

[Page 94]We had an honest very Old Arminian (Mr. Nayler) in Coven­try, that was against the Parliaments Cause; and he would say, [The King hath the best Cause, and the Parliament the best Men.] And that he wondred how it came to pass, that the generality of sober Religious men, should be all in the wrong, and the most Irreligious and Prophane, and Debauched be in the right.] But he knew but the Vulgar, and not the Grandees, who no doubt were many of them men of very laudable accomplishments.

And as the feud of the Bishops and their Officers and Curates against the aforesaid exercises of Religion occasioned this sad Di­vision, so did the sense of this in the minds of those called Pu­ritanes continue too long. Many a time have I seen abundance in great Perplexity, saying [We believed them that professed that they took not Arms against the King, but to execute the Law on Delinquents and defend themselves and the Kingdom from them: We abhor the Regicides and Usurpers: We would restore the King, if we were stronger than the Army. And yet we are in doubt how far we should actively contribute to our own calamity: For though the King deserve more than we can do, we doubt not but the Bishops will increase our Burdens and make greater havock in the Church than heretofore] And many sate still on this account, and as far as ever I could dis­cern, next the Power of the Army, the fear of the Bishops was the chief delay of the Kings return.

I knew not all England; but according to the Extent of my ac­quaintance, I have truly told you the quality of those then called Puritans and of their Common adversaries.

And on which side now proportionably are most of the most understanding, sober, charitable, conscionable, and seriously re­ligious Persons, and on which most of the contrary (not speak­ing of any Magistrates) I think it neither my work, nor our New Historians to tell: For people that live among their neighbours, will believe their senses and experience, what ever either he or I shall say. And I am well assured that this argument (which I think was not found) [We cannot believe that God will suffer the Generality of the Religious to be deceived in so great a case, and the most of the debauched ignorant haters of serious Godliness to be in the right,] did prevail with very many that could not try the Cause by the Laws and constitution of the Kingdom.

§ 2. If I should recite the particular unjust reports of mul­titudes [Page 95] of these Writers it would be tiresome and loathsome: Yea all the mistakes of this Eminent Historian are too many to be named: But I will here name one which seems at once to smite and smile.

Pag. 2 [...]7. [‘There is a temper which Mr. B. is acquainted with that, is not to be prevailed on, either by threats or promises from the Magistrate; and seems to hate nothing so much as compli­ance with Superiors: There are some that scorn to preach by the Licence of the Government, and place the Kingdom of Christ purely in opposition to Law and Magistrates.’]

Answ. Note the credibility of this Historian. 1. Doth their accusation of my flattering the Usurpers (whom I more openly disowned than most of his Fraternity) agree with this?

2. Did my long and earnest Petitioning to be accepted but in a poor Curates place, though I Preacht for nothing, yea if it were but in some ignorant obscure Village, and only to preach over the Catechism, agree with this?

3. Doth my large profession of Subjection in my Second Plea for Peace not yet blamed by them herein agree with this?

4. I willingly took the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and an Oath to be true to the King as his Chaplain in ordinary, and had this any such signification?

5. Did my begging in vain a License from Bishop Morley, and craving and obtaining one of Bishop Sheldon, signifie this?

6. But the smile is that one would think by these words, I might have preached by the Governours License and would not. And is that true? Did I not preach by the Kings License, and the Clergy blame me for it? And as for the Bishops License I do profess that it's yet in force, and I do preach by it. If I mi­stake it is not my refusing it. If he intimate as he seems, that by the Bishops License I might have had leave to preach in the Parish Churches, it's now too late: But I would I had known how to get it. I confess one Summer in the Countrey about 25 miles off, I did venture upon the Credit of my License (at Amersham, Chesham, Rickmersworth, &c.) But it was too pleasing work to me to be continued: One Church in Southwark I was once let into, but no more in or near London. I once craved leave of the moderate Bishop that now is, that without putting down the meeting where I was in that great Parish of St. Martin's, I might preach sometime there and once a day at the Chappel [Page 96] which I built, which the Parish Incumbent useth, and that he would quiet the Justices to that end, and thought I had had his consent: But the Constables and other Officers stood from that day about a quarter of a year together every Lord's Day at the door of the former place of Assembly, to have apprehended me by the Justices warrant if I had gone. And never could I hear of a man in London that was willing I should come into his Pulpit; but the best have refused it. Nor did I much desire it here: For it is not to preach to them that have no need that is my request; but to such as cannot come into the Parish Church or otherwise truely need our help. Once I did try to have got leave two miles out of the City to have preacht a Kinswomans Funerall Sermon on the right of my License: But the Minister said, He must first ask the Bishop, and then denyed me.

Reader, these are the Historians that Charge me with mis­report of ancient History, visible in the most partial Authors on the other side: Judge of them by their Report of the Histo­ry of our Place and Age.

CHAP. XV. Mr. M's. way of getting belief, by a Magisterial condemning the most credible Historians, and authorizing whom he please.

§ 1. IF we had not Eusebius, Socrates and Sozomen, how naked should we be left, and much unacquainted with the case of the Church from the Apostles; (Besides Theodorets Hi­story) till 440. And what a shake is given to the Credit of all these by Mr. M. and others of greater name?

Though Eusebius himself be by Petavius and many other Pa­pists accounted an Arian, yea and seemingly proved such, and by Bellarmine de Script. Eccles. its said that Athanasius so calls him, and Jerom calls him the Arian Signifer and Prince, and the 7th General Council so judgeth him, yet Socrates vindicateth him, and thinks he is wronged: And indeed though his own Epistle written to his Flock be not justifyable, incautelous and unjustify­able words were too Common before his daies (as Petavius hath too fully proved) with those that we must not yet call Arians. But while Bellarmine and Mr. M. charge Socrates and [Page 97] Sozomen as Novatians that is Hereticks themselves, they deprive Eusebius of much of their defence; and render his History the more suspicious.

§ 2. And though I know Mr. M. hath more partners herein, I never saw yet any credible proof that either of them were No­vatians: Good Christians are not ashamed nor afraid to make pro­fession of their Religion. And they are so far from professing it, that they oft speak of the Novatians in disowning words. But they praised them for the good that is in them! And would not any impartial Historian do the like? Must a man rail at any party, or hide their Virtues or else be taken to be one of them? I confess that such as Mr. M. do fully acquit themselves from the suspicion of being Presbyterians or Nonconformists. But so did not A. Bishop Grindall, Bishop Jewel, A. Bishop Abbot A. Bishop Usher, and many more such. Sure Candor and Impartiality is Laudable in Historians; And Thuanus is most honoured for that. And not­withstanding Mr. M's assertions of the contrary, I profess my self a lover & honourer of the worth of many of the aspiring Bi­shops that corrupted the Church, and of many Popes, and of many that continue Church corruptions in the height; even many of the Papists Cardinals, Schoolmen and Jesuites. Who will not love and praise the excellent Learning of such as Suarez, Vasquez, Vi­ctoria, Petavius and abundance such? Who will not praise the piety of such as Gerson, Borromaeus, Sales, and many others, though we nevertheless disown their Popery? For my part I highly value the Cleareness, of multitudes of the Schoolmen, and that they have not in whole loads of their volumes so much malicious railing as the Jesuits and many of our late Conformists have in a few sheets. Doth it follow that I am a Papist because I praise them, or that Socrates or Sozomen were Novatians because they speak well of their faith and piety.

There are abundance of Malignants, that acknowledge the Good Lives of those they call Puritanes (and if he had not had the late Wars between King and Parliament to fill all Mouths and Books against them, the Devil by this time might have been at a loss with what Accusations to reproach them. For he was put to use the Voices (no names) of [Roundheads, Whigs, &c. when their Revilers were called Drunkards. Swea­rers, Dam-me's, &c.] But they that confess the Good, reproach them as Hypocrites that do but counterfeit it. Doth this ac­knowledgment [Page 98] prove them Puritanes. I suppose Mr. M. know­eth that no small number of Historians and Fathers confess the strictness of the Novatians Lives, and yet were no Novatians. And Constantine's words to Acesius imply that he thought him singularly strict. And Mr. M. saith Pref. [The Novatians, saith the Author, did not suffer much by this Edict, being besriended by the Emperour, who had an esteem for their Bishop of C. P. upon the account of his Holiness.] And may not an Orthodox man confess the Piety of others?

§ 3. But Mr. M. is so Magisterial as to say, Pag. 322. The story of Theophilus, and the Monks of Nitria, no reasonable man can believe, as it is related by Socrates and Sozomen, without loving a malicious Lie.] So that Socrates and Sozomen either be­lieved not themselves, or else Love [...] a malicious Lie.

And Page 319. he saith, [The story of Theophilus his charging Isidore with double Letters, that whoever was Conquerour, he might apply himself to him in his name, is of the same piece with the rest of Socrates his story concerning that Bishop; and in all pro­bability an invention of one of the Monk [...] of Nitria.]

It seems this Historian believeth Old Historians, as the matters seem probable or improbable to himself. And so we may take him for the Universal Expositor of History: It is not the Old Historians that we must believe, but his Conjectures. And thus he deals with divers others.

§ 4. For my part I profess, that before I had any Engagement in these Controversies, since I first read them, I took Socrates and Sozomen to be two of the most credible Historians that the Church had till their Times, and of many an Age after them. I said of them, as I use to do of Thuanus, A man may trace the footsteps of Knowledge, and impartial honesty, and so of Vera­city in their very style. And there are few of the judicious Censurers of Historians, but do tell us of far more uncertainties in Eusebius, and after in Nicephorus, and most that followed, (as far as I am acquainted with such Censurers) than in these two. And if their History be shaken, our loss will not be small. And I doubt not but the Anathematizing and Condemning Spirit hath done hurt, which hath made Eusebius an undoubted Arian, and Theo­doret, first a Nestorian, and after at the fifth General Council condemned some of his Writings, and imposed it on the whole Christian World to condemn them, though many never heard of [Page 99] them, and that made Ruffinus (and Chrysostom) Originists, and Origen a Heretick, condemned also by a General Council, and Socrates, and Sozomen, Novatians, Epiphanius an ignorant cre­dulous Fabler, Sulpitius Severus, and Beda, two pious credulous Reporters of many feigned Miracles, and one a Millenary, Ni­cephorus a Fabler, Anastasius Bibl. full of Falshoods, Philastrius an ignorant Erroneous Hereticator, Cassianus a Semi-Pelagian, Cassio­dori Chronic. est farrago temulentiae inquit Onuphrius Pan. Pene nunquam cum Eusebio convenit inquit Vossius, &c. I say, Though it be no wrong to the Church to take them for fallible, and such as have mistakes (which the English Articles say even of General Councils) yet it wrongfully shaketh all our belief of Church Histo­ry to call their Credit in matters of fact into question for their Errours or opinions sake, without good Evidence that either they were ignorant, mis-informed or wilfully lied. But if the Novatians were more strict & precise than others, it's rather like that they were more and not less credible than others, and made more or not less conscience of a lye. Certainly that which the rest named are charged with is somewhat more as to Historical Credit than to be Novatians: So that if these men had been Novatians, I should yet say by the Complexion of their History that They are two of our most useful and credible Church Historians.

§ 5. But when it serveth his turn he can gather out of Sozo­men that even in Constantine's time, Constantinople was [Altoge­ther a Christian City] Because he mentioneth the great Enlarge­ment of it; and great encrease of Christianity: When as no man that lived could be a sitter judge of the number of Christi­ans in his time than Chrysostom: And he that considered that there and every where Constantine left all the Jews and Heathens uncompelled to be Christians, yea and used them commonly in places of dignity and Government in City, Provinces and Armies, and that they continued in such power under many Emperours after him, will hardly believe that in Constantine's time C. P. had half or a quarter so many Christians as were in the time of Ar­cadius and Chrysostom; And yet then Chrysostom conjectureth the Christians to be an hundred thousand, and all the City poor half as many, but the Jews and Heathens not to be numbred. See him one Act 4. Hom. 11. When he is making the most of their estate and numbers, saith he [I pray you tell me: How great a number of all sorts of men hath our City? How many Christians [Page 100] will you that there be (That is will you grant, or do you think there be?) Will you that there be [...] an hundred thousand? But how great is the Number of Jews and Ethnicks? How many pounds of Gold have been gathered? (or Myriads?) And how great is the Number of the Poor? (that is, of the whole City?) I do not think they are above fifty thousand (Commelin. hath put an hundred thousand, as Erasmus Translation, I suppose by the Errour of the Press.) Now if there was in Chrysostom's daies but an hun­dred thousand (which many say is not near so many as there be in two Parishes here, Martins and Stepney) it is not like that in Constantine's Time they were half so many at most. And yet I am far from thinking that there was then no more than usually met in an Assembly, or could so meet.

§ 6. The Jesuites, Valesius and Sirmondus, I am no fit per­son to censure. But I am not satisfied why their Credit should go as far with me as it doth with him: I have before spoke of Valesius's Recording Grotius as one that designed to bring many with him into the Roman Church. And Grotius himself saith, That many of the English Bishops were of his mind, as Bishop Bromhall, and many Doctors by defending him seem to be: And yet when I wrote my Christian Concord, and The Grotian Religion, how many censured me as a Slanderer, for saying less than Va­lesius doth. Yet I am false with this Historian, and Valesius is a credible Jesuite.

And he vouchsafeth to tell us the Judgment of Valesius, that Eusebius Nicomed. was no Arian, pag. 332. where he saith [Eu­sebius of Nicomedia was no Heretick in the Judgment of Valesius: But if he were, he was not an Heretick, because he did not begin the Arch-Heresie, but followed Arius.]

What the meaning is of the latter words I know not [If he were (an Heretick) he was not an Heretick] I conjecture it is one of the almost Infinite Errata's of the Printer: (But he supposeth my Printer's to be mine own:) But that Eusebius Nicomed. should be no Heretick, whom all the stream of credible Histo­rians make to be that Arch-Heretick (I say not the first) who corrupted Constantine his Court and Son, which introduced the prevalency of Arianism to the almost Ruine of the Orthodox Church, is a thing which he that believeth Valesius in, must pre­fer the Credit of one Jesuite that lived above a thousand years after, before the whole current of the best Historians of the [Page 101] same, and many following Ages. And did I ever so discredit the whole stream of Church-Historians, as on the word of one Jesuite, to bring them under the suspicion of such a Lie? But I confess I am more inclined to believe a Jesuite, and a Prela­tist, when they excuse any man of Heresie, than when they ac­cuse him.

§ 7. In the Preface he tells us that [‘Had I consulted Sirmond's, Edition of the French Councils I must have wanted several Alle­gations for the Congregational way, which are nothing else but corrupt readings of the ancient Canons of the Gallican Church. Nor can we suspect Sirmond as too great a favourer of Diocesan Bishops, since it is well known how he is charged by the Abbot of S. Cyran under the name of Petrus Aurelius, for having falsified a Canon in the Council of Orange to the prejudice of the Episcopal Order] Jesuites care as little for Bishops as our Protestant Dissenters can do.’] Answ. I doubt not but Sirmond was a very Learned man, and had not the Conformists divested me of all Church-maintenance, I had been like to have bought his French Councils. In the mean time, that notice which others before him gave of the Acts and Canons of Councils, sufficed to my furniture, fully to prove the Cause I maintained: But I confess his pretended reason no whit in­duceth me to give more credit to a Jesuite than to another man. Though Albaspineus was a Bishop, there is so much Judg­ment and Honesty appears in his Observations, that I would sooner believe him about Episcopacy, than a Jesuite that you say is against it.

But it's as incredible to me, as the rest of his spurious Histo­ry, that the Jesuites care as little for Bishops as our Protestant Dis­senters can do. Sure many of those called Presbyterians and In­dependents, would have none at all. If this be true, then 1. The Jesuites would have no Bishops of Rome, though they be his sworn Servants. 2. Then they would have no Bishops to be subject to the Pope. 3. Then they would have all particular Churches to be without Bishops, or to be unchurcht. 4. Then they would have Ordination without Bishops. 5. Then they think not that an uninterrupted Succession of Episcopal Ordination is necessary to Church or Ministry. 6. Then they think that Bi­shops should not confirm. 7. Then they are against the Coun­cils of Bishops, General or Provincial. 8. And against Diocesans Government of the Parish Priests. And yet is a Jesuite a Papist? [Page 102] Wonderful! that they will venture their Lives in endeavours for the Church of Rome, and that they write so much of and for Bishops Councils, and yet are quite against them.

But if really this be so, you that take me for incredible, who am against but the Corruption of Episcopacy, do allow me to take Sirmondus and Valesius, and the rest of the Jesuites for in­credible, who are as much against the very Office as our Dis­senters can be? But what will not some Historians confidently say?

CHAP. XVI. Mr. M's. Observations on my Notes of credible and incredible History, Examined.

§ 1. I. BEcause I suppose that common sound Senses are to be trusted: He 1. Infers that I was asleep, & thought that I saw all that I relate; that is, He that saith he must be­lieve sense, implies that he seeth all that he reporteth: I am one of the unlearned, and this Logick is too hard for me: Let it be his own.

2. He concludes, That we must not believe our senses, if they were not Presbyterians but Episcopal that begun the late War (in England:) As if he had seen not only the Parliament (Lords and Commons) then, and the Army then (forty years ago al­most) but had seen their Religion, or heard or read them then so profess it: Whereas I cannot learn yet whether he was then born, or of capable understanding, and hath neither sense nor reason for what he saith. The Case that we are in is very sad, when both sides say they have the Evidence of Sense it self a­gainst each other; what hope then of Reconciliation? They that are yet living, that were Lords, Commons, and Comman­ders, say their internal Sense and Self-knowledge told them that they were no Presbyterians, but Episcopal; and their daily converse told them, that their Companions were mostly of the same Religion and Mind. But Young Men that never conver­sed with them, know them all better, and that infallibly by sense it self.

[Page 103]§ 2. II. Because I say, the History of the Gospel is certainly credible; it is ground enough to say, That All is not Gospel that I write; as if I had said it is.

§ 3. III. Because I say, Prophets were sure of their Revelation, he saith. It may be Mr. B. heard a Bene scripsisti: As if I had pre­tended to be a Prophet.

§ 4. IV. I said that History is certain even by Natural Evidence, when it is the common Agreement of all men of most contrary Interests, &c. in a matter of fact and sense to all that knew it. To which he saith [The Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters is acknowledged by Catholicks, and Schismaticks and Hereticks, men of very contrary minds, dispositions and interests; and yet this Church-History would have us believe the contrary.

Answ. This is our credible Historian.

1. He doth not tell us in what Ages it was so acknowledged; when those who doubt of the matter of fact, doubt but some of 100, some of 150, or 200 years: Doth any doubt whether it be so now?

2. He tells us not either what Species of Bishops the question is of, nor what Species of Presbyters, nor what the Superiority was.

3. He speaks without distinction or Exception, and so must be understood to say that this Church history would have us to be­lieve that even President Bishops Ejusdem Ordinis had de facto no Superiority at all over Presbyters in the same Churches and of the same order with them, which is an untruth so gross as is no Credit to our Historian. I have named both more than one ranck of Bi­shops whose Superiority de Jure I deny not: & Popes, Patriarchs, Primates, Diocesans who deposed the Bishops of single Churches, whose Superiority de facto I fully enough affirm, in the ages and degrees in which they did ascend.

If he say that he meant it [Even from the Apostles time, and that of such Diocesans as have scores or hundreds of true Churches and Al­tars without their particular Bishops, or any Presbyters that were Ejusdem Ordinis with the Bishops, and were Episcopi Gregis, and that had such Power of the Keys over their flocks, as ours have not: or that had so many such Assemblies that were no true Churches;] if he will be proved a Historian worthy Credit, Let him give us any proof that all men described by him agreed de facto that there was so long, such a superiority of such Bishops. But these [Page 104] men deride distinguishing, and banish Logick, that is Reason, from their History.

§ 5. V. The next Evidence of certainty which I mentioned, was from [continued Existent visible Effects which prove their Causes.] And here this undistinguishing Historian is at it again. The Supe­riority of Bishops over Presbyters is proved by the Laws and Customs of all Churches. This hath the same answer, which I will not re­peat. Either it falsly reporteth my denyal, or it falsly affirmeth that all Churches in all ages have left us visible Effects of the foresaid species. And I would he would help us that are ignorant therein with such History and Evidence from the begining of the Churches in Scotland, and in the Southern and Eastern Coun­tries that were without the Empire.

§ 6. VI. I said, that History is credible which speaketh consentingly against the known interest of the authors: and there­fore I named few testimonies of the sins of Popes and Councils but of those that are their most Zealous Friends. To this he saith that my Characters of ancient Bishops are taken from their pro­fessed Enemies, [as my account of Athanasius; Theophylus, Cyril, and divers others.]

Ans. 1. My account of Athanasius is almost all, if not all, in his praise, and is not an enemies testimony there valid. If I menti­on the displeasure of Constantine against him it is not any Chara­cter of him, but of Constantine the Agent: Nor do I think Con­stantine, or Eusebius Caesar: meet to be numbred with his Enemies; why did he not instance in some words of mine?

As to Theophylus and Cyril, I do not believe that he can prove that Socrates and Sozomen, and the Historians that Concur with them, were their Enemies. And if in reciting the Acts of the Councils I recite their Enemies words, so doth Surius, Nicho­linus, Binnius, Baronius and all just writers of those acts. And I do not find that Chrysostom himself, or Isidore Pelusiota had any Enmity to them, nor Pope Innocent neither. Of the rest before.

§ 7. VII. The next degree of credibility that I mentioned is that which dependeth on the Veracity and fitness of the re­porter. Of which I named nine things requisite.

Here he supposeth me one that is unfit; and particularly saith [Whether any hath [...]ailed with greater intemperance, and less provo­cation] Ans. 1. I am not the Author of the History of the men­tioned Councils or Popes or Bishops, but the Transcriber. Let [Page 105] me be as bad as you, or any of your tribe have made me, that proveth not that Socrates, Sozomen, Theodorite, Nitephorus, &c. or Binnius, Baronius, &c. have misreported what they write. If I have misreported these authors in any material point, prove it and I will soon retract it.

As for my railing, I expect that title from all such whose faults I name, and call them to repentance: He that calls men to Re­pent, calleth them sinners, and that is Railing he it never so great.

His first instanced railing is Pag. 19. [A few turbulent Prelates Persecute good men] He saith thus I call the present Bishops of the Church of England; Doth he mean All or some? If All he is an untrue Historian: He may see many named before my Apo­logy whom I except: And if I have named two I have annexed the proof.

The next is Pag. 46. [silencing destroying Prelates] Ans. Are there none such? Were not about 2000 here silenced? Do we not continue so and impoverished almost 20 years? Have none perished in prisons or with want? Do men call out for the exe­cution of the Law, and plead for our Silencing as a good work, and take it for railing to have it named? Doth not Conscience recoil in these men when in Pulpits, press and Conference they maintain it to be a good work, and tell the world how sinful a thing it is for rulers to suffer us out of Gaols? What, are you now ashamed of your meritorious works? Sure they are s [...]ant good if it be railing to name them. You will not say I rail, if I call you Preachers. And why do you say so, if I call you Silencers, if that be as good?

The next railing is Pag. 73 [If all the proud, Contentious, am­bitious, Hereticating part of the Bishops, had been of this Christian mind (to endure each other in small tollerable Differences) What sins, Scandal and shame, what Crimes, confusion and miseries had the Christian world escaped?] And is this railing? Hath the Chri­stian world had no such Bishops these 1000 years? Have not whole Kingdoms been forbidden all Gods Publick worship by such, even France and England among the rest? Is it railing to tell for what little things they not only Silenced men, but burn­ed and murdered many thousands? Were they not proud am­bitious Prelates that deposed and abused Lud. Pius, and those that in Council decreed the digging all the dead Bishops out of their graves to be bur [...]t as Hereticks, who were for the Em­perours [Page 106] power of Investitures? Do I rail if I say that Greg. 7. was Proud and ambitious when he threatened the Prince of Calaris with the loss of his dominions, unless he made his Bishop shave his beard? Do not Jewel, and all Protestant writers say worse than this of Papist Bishops? Is there any such thing as pride silen­cing, burning, &c. If yea, must it never be known, reproved, re­pented of and so forgiven to the penitent? And if yea, than how shall it be known without proper names? By what name should I have called Silencing but its own and so of the rest? Gods power over Conscience is marvellous that sin cannot endure its own name.

The next railing is the word [Hereticating.] And how could I have known if he had not told me that this word is railing? Did not the Bishops take it for a great service of God, and is it railing to name it? It's true I used one word instead of a Sen­tence for brevity, to signifie the Bishops culpable over doing in proclaiming men Hereticks. He that doth not believe that they did not well, nor do not to this day in Cutting off from the Church of Christ all those whole Countreys of Christians called Nestorians, Jacobites, Melchites and the Monothelites and many such I cannot save him from himself who will own all such sin and contract the guilt of it. Hath not Bishop Epiphanius made us more Hereticks than he needed? Hath not Bishop Philastrius made many more than the Devil himself made? Lest this pass for railing once more I will name some of them.

1. His 11th sort of Hereticks are those that kept Easter-day at a wrong time (as our Brittains and Scots did.

2. The Millenaries are the 12th (such as many of the antient fa­thers, and our Mr. Mede, Dr. Twiss, &c.)

3. The 27th Offered Bread and Cheese at the oblation.

4. The 28th put New Wine in New Vessels in the Church.

5. The 29th Put their fingers on their mouths for Silence.

6. The 30th thought that all Prophets ended not with Christ.

7. The 33d went without shooes.

8. The Novatians are the 34th.

9. The 41th thought the Epistle to the Hebrews was not writ­ten by Paul, but by Barnabas or Clemens? and the Epistle to Laodi­cea by Luke.

10. The 42th are the Orthodox Miletians that Communicated with the Orthodox and some Arians too.

[Page 107]11. The 46th doubted of the diversity of Heavens.

12. The 47th being ignorant that there is another Common Earth invisible, which is the Matrix of all things, do think that there is no Earth but this one.

13. The 48th thought that water was the common matter, and was alwaies, and not made with the Earth.

14. The 49th Heresie denyed that the soul was made before the body, and the body after joyned to it: and believed that Gods making them Male and Female first was to be understood of the bodily Sexes: Whereas (saith he) it was the Soul that was made Male and Fe­male, And the Soul was made the Sixth day and the body the 7th.

15. The 50th Heresie thought that not only Grace, but also the Soul itself, was by God breathed into man.

6. The 51st is Origens (that thought our Souls were first celestical Intellects, before incorporate (as Mr. Glanvile and many now.)

17. The 52d thought that brutes had some reason (as Mr. Chambre.)

18. The 54th thought that Earthquakes have a natural Cause.

19. The 55th Heresie learned of Trismegistus to call the Stars by the names of Living Creatures (as all Astronomers do.)

20. The 56th thought that there were not many languages before the confusion of Babel.

21. The 57th Heresie thought that the name of a [Tongue] pro­ceeded first of the Jews or of the Pagans.

22. The 58th Heresie doubted of the years and time of Christ.

23. The 59th thought (as many Fathers) that Angels begat Giants of women before the flood.

24. The 61st was that Christians were after Jews and Pagans.

25. The 62d Heresie saith that Pagans are born naturally, but not Christians, that is, that the Soul and body of men are not daily, Created by Christ, but by Nature.

26. The 63d saith that the number of years from the Creation was uncertain and unknown.

27. The 64 thought that the names of the daies of the week (Sun­day, Monday, &c.) were made by God first and not by Pagans, and were named from the Planets.

28. The 66th was that Adam and Eve were blind till God opened their Eyes to see their nakedness.

29. The 67th Heresie imputeth the Sins of Parents to their Chil­dren.

[Page 108]30. The 68 Heresie was of some troubled about the Book called Deuteronomy.

31. The 69 thought that those sanctified in the Womb wore yet conceived in sin.

32. The 70th Heresie thought that the World had been first di­vided by the Greeks, Egyptians, and Persians.

33. The 71 thought there was a former Flood under Deucalion and Pyrrha.

34. The 72 saith that men are according to (or under) the 12 signs of the Zodiack, not knowing that those 12 signs are divers Cli­mates, and habitable Regions of the Earth.

35 The 74 Heresie is that Christ descended into Hell to offer Repentance there to sinners.

36. The 75 doubted of the nature of the Soul, thinking it was made of Fire, &c. (as many Greek Fathers did.)

37. The 77 is of Gods hardening Pharaoh, (&c. where he descri­beth the Dominicans.)

38. The 79 is that the Psalms were not (all) made by David: and it denieth the equality of the Psalms, as if they were not all written and placed in the order that the things were done.

39. The 80 Heresie thought that Gods words to Cain [Thou shalt rule over him] were properly to be understood, whereas the meaning was [Thou shalt rule over thy own evil Thoughts that are in thy own free Will.]

40. The 81 Heresie did not well understand the reason of Gods Words to Cain, giving him Life.

41. The 82 Heresie thought that the Stars had their fixed place in Heaven, and their course, not understanding that the Stars are every night brought out of some secret place, and set up for use, and at morning return to their secret place again, Angels being Presi­dents and Disposers of them,) (that is, as servants bring Candles in­to the room at night and take them out again.)

42. The 83 doubted (as some Episcopal Commentators) of the Book of Ca [...]ticles, lest it had a carnal Sense.

43. The 85 Heresie thought, that the Soul of man was naturally G [...]ds Image [...]efore Grace.

44. The 87 Heresie thought, that really four living Creatures mentioned in the P [...]phe [...]s praised God.

45. The 88 Heresie thought that the Levitical Feasts were litte­rally to be understood, not knowing that it was the 8 Feasts of the Church that were meant.

[Page 109]46. The 90 Heresie preferred Aquila's Translation before the Septuagint.

47. The 91 preferred a Translation of thirty men before the Sep­tuagint.

48. The 92 preferred another Translation of six men before it.

49. Another Heresie preferred the Translation of Theodotion and Symmachus before it.

50. The 94 Heresie preferred the Scriptures found in a Vessel af­ter the Captiv [...]y before it.

51. The 96th ought that Melchizedeck had no Father or Mo­ther, not knowing that it's spoken of him as learning that which his Father and Mother never taught him.

52. The 97 hold that the Prophet Zachariah of Fasts, is to be properly understood; when as it is but for the four Fasts of the Church, viz. for Christmas, Easter, Epiphany, and Pentecost.

53. The 98 H [...]r [...]sie holdeth, that Solomon's great number of Wives and Concubines, is literally to be understood; whereas it is meant but of diversity of Gifts in the Church.

54. The 100 Heresie thought that the Measuring Cord in Za­chary, was to be understood of measuring Jerusalem literally where­as it meant the choice of Believers.

55. The 101 Heresie not understanding the Mystical Sense of the Cherubim and Seraphim, in Isaiah, are troubled about it, and in doubt (And here he Mystically tells you the Mystical Sense.)

56. The last Heresie thought that one of the Cherubims came to Isaiah, and with a Coal touched his Lips, and that it was an Angel or Animal with Fire; whereas it is the Two Testaments, and the Fire of God's Grace.

To these you may add if you please the Heresie of holding Anti­podes, determined by Pope Zachary, by the Mediation of the holy Bishop Boniface, I think an English man. And of what peril it is for Christians to eat Jayes, and Rooks, and Badgers, and Hares, and Wood horses: And Lard must not be eaten before it is dryed in the Smoak, or boiled on the Fire: Or if it be eaten unboiled, it must not be till after Easter: And there must be three great Lamps set in a secret place of the Church, after the similitude of the Taber­nacle, which must be kept burning; and at Baptism others lighted by them.

Reader, remember 1. That Philastrius as well as Epiphanius, was a Bishop; 2. Yea and a Saint; whereas very few Bishops [Page 110] of all the Councils had the honour to be Sainted.

Therefore if you say that all these were not Anathematized by Councils; I answer, 1. All these are Registred as Hereticks. 2. And they held (as Mr. Dodwell and his Company here do) that he that communicateth with Hereticks, is to be judged a Heretick. 3. And that Hereticks are no parts of the Church.

And forget not above all the Hen [...]ician Heresie, which deter­mineth not only our King, but many Papist Princes to be Here­ticks, for claiming Invest [...]tures.

And now Reader, I un [...]eignedly hate uncharitableness, and therefore deny no good that was in such Bishops: But I must no more be indifferent between Good and Evil, than between Hea­ven and Hell; not may I judge Christ a Railer, for saying to his prime Apostle, [Get thee behind me Satan, thou art an offence unto me, &c.] If the name of [Hereticators] that is, too rash pro­nouncing men Hereticks be railing, I will give thee no Character, censure or name of the aforesaid practice, for I can devise no name which may not be called Railing. But judge of it and call it what you see cause.

And again, if you say, These are not the Decrees of Councils, I answer, These are but Flea-bitings to the wounds that the Church hath received from Councils, by Anathematizing.

The next Instance of Railing in these words, which he half repeateth [Either credible Socrates and others were gross Lyars, or this Patriarch and St was a dow [...]right Knave.] Ans. He him­self is so far from denying this, that he makes Socrates and So­zomen not only Lyars, but Lovers of a Lie; for what they say of St. Theophilus: And who is it then that is the Railer? Read the Story.

The next Instance is, p. 95. that I call Bishops the [Firebrands of the World▪] Ans. The words are these [I take them to be the Firebrands of the World, and unworthy the regard of sober men, who pretend to know mens Judgments better than themselves, and allow not mens own a [...]liberate professions to be the notice of their Faith.] If they will say, that you are Hereticks in heart, though your Tongue and Life pr [...]fess sound Doctrine, what means hath any man to clear himself against such, and keep from their Inqui­sition Racks or Flames? Is this Railing?

The next Instance is the Word [Self-conceited Bishops] P. 98. Having mentioned the many Logical Niceties necessary to de­cide [Page 111] the Question between the Nostorians, Eutychians, and the Orthodox, I said [Is it not p [...]ty that such Questions should be rai­sed about the Person of Christ, by self conceited Bishops, and made necessary to Salvation, and the World set on fi [...]e and divided by them?] Reader, remember the Division made by it con [...]inueth to this day, to the Separation and Condemnation of a great part of the Christian World! And is the name [self-conceited] in de­scribing the cause of this a railing? How much worse r [...]ers are they that will call a Drunkard a Drunkard, or a For [...]cator a Fornicator? Read the sadder words of Ludolphus.

The next railing is [merciless, fur [...]us Bishop [...], pag. 196] Ans. There is no such word: When I find where it is I shall see the occasion of it. Italy, Piedmont, Ireland, &c. have tried that there have been such.

The last is pag. 183. [The Confounders of Churches.] Ans. I thought I had merited of them by my impartiality and lenity: As after I commend the Wisdom & peaceableness of Pope H [...]no­rius, (though a General Council even for that made him an H [...]re­tick,) so I here justly commend the Wisdom and Peaceableness of Pope Vigilius, who advised the Council to leave dead men to God (Theod. M [...]ps. Theodorite and Ibis] and not dam [...] them when God hath judged them already, and yet not to admit any of their wrong opi­nions] I [...]y T [...]is was the right way: If they had all dealt as vise­ly and Christianlike, Councils [...]ad not been the Consounders of the C [...]u [...]ch [...]] Is this railing? At last they forced Pope Vig [...]lius to subscribe to them, and it so consounded the Churches, that a great part of Italy itself forsook the Church of Rome for it, and set up another head against the Pope a [...] 100 Years. Was not this confusio [...]? And must it not be known?

Reader, as far as I understand them, the Paraphrase of these mens words, is [If we kindle a fire in the Church, name it nor, much less call any to quench it: or else we'll say it's you that kindle it: say not you are excommunicate or silenced when you are, though it be by Thousands: else we will prove that you are railer [...]: If we lay you in Gaols and take all you have, do not say, you h [...]rt us, much less you wrong us: take not on you to know or feel when you are hurt: else we will have an Action of railing against you.

§ 8. That w [...]i [...]h followeth I answered before: But after he finds a notable piece of my ignorance. The Pope inviting the [Page 112] King of Denmark to conquer a Province of Hereticks, I know not who they were unless they were the Waldenses: Well guest, saith Mr. M. Waldo was in 1160, 80 Years after. Ans. This will serve for men willing to be deceived. It was the Persons and Religion, and not the name that I spoke of. Doth not he know that Rainerius himself saith, that those Persons (called Al­bigenses, Waldenses, and other such names) professed that their way of Religion was Apostolical, and they derived it down from Silvesters, that is Constantines time? If I did not guess well I wrong no Bishops by i [...]: and I confessed my Ignorance that I knew not whom the Pope meant: And why did not this callent Historian tell us who they were?

§ 9. Next he hath met with my Ignorance for saying Vienna near France] which is in the Borders of France. A [...]s 1. Is that any slander of Bishops or Councils? 2 Truly I had many a time read in Councils, that Vienna was in France, and had not forgot it, if Ferrarius and Chenu had not also told it me; And whether it was the fault of the Printer, or of my Hand, or my Memory, that put near for in, I leave it freely to his Judgment, for I re­member it not.

And if the manner of Binnius naming it made me call Ordo Prophetarum in Gelasius a Book, it's no wrong to Episcopacy.

CHAP. XVII. His Censure of my Design, and Church-Principles, considered.

§ 1. AS to this his first Chapter I have before shewed how falsly he reporteth my design. He saith he never saw any thing which more reflecteth on Religion: Lucian and Julian have left nothing ha [...]f so scandalous in all their Libels against Chri­stians, as this Church-History has raked up: Here is nothing to be seen in his Book but the Avarice, Ignorance, Mistakes and furious Contentions of the Governours of the Church.

Ans. How false that is the Reader may see in all the begin­ning, the two Chapters in the end, and much in the midst, which are written contrarily to obviate such false thoughts 2. Is the ascendent sort of Prelates that were growing up to maturity till [Page 113] Gregory the Seventh's daies, the whole Church of God? Are there no other Christians? Is all that is written against the Pope and such Ascendents, written against Christianity? Did Christ speak against Christianity, when he reproved them for striving who should be greatest? or Peter, when he counselled them, as 1 Pet. 5. And Paul when he said, I have no man like minded; for they all seek their own things, and not the things that are Jesus Christ's? Or when he said, Demas hath forsaken me, &c? Or John, when he said, Diotrephes loved to have the preheminence? Or all those Councils of Bishops which condemned each other, far deeplier than I judge any of them?

What have I said of Fact or Canons, which Binnius and their other Flatterers say not? Was it not there extant to the sight of all?

And that I Recorded not all their Virtues, 1. The History of Councils saith little of them. 2. Must no man shew the hurt of Drunkenness, Gluttony, &c. and so of Ambition and Church­corruption, unless he will write so Voluminous a History, as to contain also all the good done by all the persons whom he blameth? I have oft said, that I wondered that instead of so greedy gathering up all the scraps of Councils, the Papists did not burn them all, as they have done many better Books which made against them.

§ 2. I was about to answer all his first Chapter, but I find it so useless a work, that I shall ease my self and the Reader of that labour. 1. He takes on him to answer a Piece of a Dispu­tation written about 23 years ago, whereas I have lately writ­ten a Treatise of Episcopacy, with fuller proof of the same things, which he nameth, and takes on him to answer some part of it, and answers not: Till he, or some other, shew me the mistakes of that, let them talk on for me in their little Veli­tations.

2. Most that is considerable which he saith, is answered al­ready in that Book: As his fiction that Unum Alt are in Igna­tius, signifieth not an ordinary Communion Table, &c. And much more out of Ignatius, and many more is added, which he saith nothing to.

3. I have before shewed that he goeth on false Suppositions, that I am only for a Bishop of a single Congregation, or against all, and many such; when yet he himself confesseth the con­trary, [Page 114] yea derideth me for making Twelve sorts of Bishops, and being for such as no Party is like to be pleased with.

4 The contradictions and mistakes are so many as would tire the Reader to peruse an answer to them.

And when he hath all done with the numbring of Churches, (over-passing the full proof of the Primitive Form of them which I gave as before) he confesseth that even his great esteemed Jesuite Valesius, [believes that the City Church was but One even in Alexandria, and in Dionysius's time, p. 64.

And while p. 65. he makes Petavius and Valesius so much to differ, as to gather their contrary Opinions from the same words, and consequently one of them at least understood them not, I that profess my self not comparable to either of them, specially Petavius, in such things, am taken for a falsifier, if I misunderstand a word that concerneth not the matter of the History.

This therefore being not about Church-History so much as against my Opinion of the Antient Government, when he hath answered the foresaid Treatise of Episcopacy, if I live not, some one may reply, if he deal no better than in this.

CHAP. XVIII. Of his Second Chapter.

§ 1. PAg. 78. He would have men believe that it is Dis­cipline against real Heresie, that I find so much fault with, and ascribe all mischief to—

Answ. Utterly contrary to my most open Profession: It is only making those things to seem Heresie that are none (either Truth, or meer difference of words, or small mistakes,) or cu­ring Heresies by rash Anathema's, without necessary precedent means of Conviction, or by Banishment or Blood.

§ 2. Is this it that you defend the Church for, and we op­pose it for? When we would have none in our Churches whom we know not, and that have not personally, if at Age, profest understandingly their Faith. And what is the Discipline that you exercise on Hereticks? It's enough that you know them [Page 115] not, and so never trouble them. Your Talk and Pamphlets tru­ly complain what swarms of Hobbists, Sadduces, Infidels, Atheists, are among us: Do they not all live in the Parishes and Diocesses? Doth the Bishop know them? Are any of them Excommuni­cated? I could never learn yet how to know who are Mem­bers of your Churches: Is it all that dwell in the Parishes? Then all these aforesaid, with Jews and Papists, are in it: And then why are ten parts of some Parishes suffered without Dis­cipline to shun the Parish Church-Communion? Is it all that hear you? Then 1. Ten parts in some Parishes, and two or three, or half in others are not of your Church, and hear you not, and many Nonconformists hear you. 2. And any Infidel may hear. Bare hearing was never made a sufficient note of a Church-Member. 3. And how can you tell who all be that hear you in an uncertain crowd? 4. And why doth not your Discipline meddle with constant Non-Communicants?

3. Is it only all that Communicate with you? 1. These are yet fewer, and so the far greatest part of many or most Parishes here are let alone to be no Church members at all, when they have been long Baptized, and no censure by discipline past on them. 2. How know you your stated Communicants, when any stranger may come unquestioned? The truth is, it is Parish dis­cipline which you will not endure. No wonder if you named it Issachars burden. Bucer in scrip. Anglic. and all the Noncon­formists after him long strove for it in vain. It is the hated thing. Were it possible to prevail with you for this, we should have little disagreement about Church Government. But the Popes that have been the greatest enemies of it, have yet glo­ried in a Discipline to set up their power over Princes and Peo­ples, and to have their own wills, and tread down all that are against them.

§ 2. To extenuate Anathematizing (so very Common with Councils) he tells us P. 81. that [‘Let him be Anathema im­ports no more than that we declare our abhorrence of such doctrines, and will have nothing Common with those that profess them.’]

Ans. 1. We may declare our abhorrence of every known sin and Errour, in such as must not be anathematized. 2. By (no­thing) I suppose you mean not [not the same King, Countrey, Earth, Air, &c.] but [not the same Church, the same Christian Com­munion, familiarity, love, &c] Whether you mean [not the [Page 116] same God, Christ, &c.] I know not But do you think the Ana­thematizing Bishops so unreasonable, as to renounce all Christian Communion with men and not tell why? Or to give no better Reason than [We abhor their doctrine:] How few Churches or men have nothing worthy to be abhorred, that is, No Errour or sin? And must we renounce Communion with all the Christian world? No, they were not so bad: You use them hardlier than I. They took them to be no true Christians, as wanting some­what of that faith which is necessary to Salvation, and Essential to a Christian, and so to have made themselves no Church-Mem­bers, and therefore are to be sentenced & avoided accordingly.

And how ordinarily do they expound [Let him be Anathema] that is [Cut off from Christ?] Not only Hildebrand so expounds it often, but many before him: Whereupon they commonly a­gree that an Anathematized Heretick is none of the Church, nor can be saved without repentance.

And indeed to renounce all Communion with Christs true members not Cut off from the Church, is a greater sin than I charge on them. Though familiarity and specially Communion may be suspended, while delay of repentance makes the Case of a sinner doubtful.

§ 3. Pag. 82 He begins himself with blaming Bishop Victor, ‘for Endangering the Peace of the whole Church upon so light occa­sion. Valesius is of opinion, that it was but by letters of accusation.’

Answ. I think it could be but by Letters of Accusation, Re­nunciation, and persuading others to renounce them. For Bishops were not then come up to their Commanding Power over one another. But doth not Mr. M's. here rail upon a Bishop, in saying the same of him that I did, if my words were Railing? Thus you shall have him all along confessing much of that faultiness by them, which he takes the mention of by me to be so bad.

§ 4. He nameth many Councils, which he saith I pass lightly over; then sure I say no harm of them. He thinks it is because I could not, as if he knew it were my will. And so I am never blameless.

§ 5. But he hath a notable Controversie against Baronius, who thought Novatus had been a Bishop (such Errours as Ba­ronius was guilty of by Ignorance, are excusable in one so far below him in History as I am.) But I congratulate Mr. M's, [Page 117] discovery, that he was but a Presbyter: But all confess that he Ordained Felicissimus Deacon: And here is a Presbyter Ordain­ing: But it was irregularly! Let it be so: He saith, that he ought not to have Ordained, but with Cyprian, or by his per­mission. I grant it. But 1. If Cyprian's permission would serve, then it was not a work alien to a Presbyter: If a permitted Presbyter may Ordain, a Bishop's Ordination is not necessary ad esse Officii; and so that which is a disorder is no Nullity. 2. And it seems by Novatus's Act, that the Necessity of Episcopal Or­dination was not universally received. And I have not yet met with any that make it more necessary ad esse Presbyteratus quam Diaconatus.

§ 6. Next he mentions another Carthage Council, where one Victor dead, is condemned for making a Priest Guardian of his Child, and so entangling him in worldly Affairs. And he tells you, that all that I can say against this, is the rigour of the Sentence; but he dissembleth, and takes no notice that I men­tion it in praise of the Bishops of those Times, who were so much against Clergy-mens medling with Secular Affairs: What odious Puritanism would this have been with us? What I cite in praise, our Historian cannot understand.

§ 7. And that you may need no Confuter of much of his Ac­cusation of me but himself, who so oft saith, I say nothing of Bishops and Councils, but of their faults, &c. he here saith as followeth.

[‘After this he gives a short Account of Councils called on the Subject of Rebaptization of Hereticks: And here, to do him right, he is just enough in his Remarks: The generality of the World was for Rebaptizing Hereticks: And considering what manner of men the first Hereticks were, it is probable they had Tra­dition as well as Reason on their side. However, Mr. Baxter endeavours fairly to excuse these Differences, and speaks of the Bishops with honour and respect, allowing them to be men of emi­nent Piety and Worth. Had he used the same Candour towards others, &c.’

Answ. 1. If this be true, a great deal contradictory is untrue.

2. He greatly misreporteth the Controversie: It was not whether Hereticks should be Rebaptized, but those that were Baptized by Hereticks, and taken into their Churches. If a He­retick had been Baptized when found by a sound Minister, and [Page 118] after turned to Heresie, he was to be restored by Repentance without Rebaptizing; and I think they all agreed in this. But I imagine this was but a lapse of his memory in Writing.

3. But the Question is, Whether the Bishops, whose faults I mention, were of equal Worth and Innocency with those whom I honour and praise? Let the proof shew.

I would he would freely tell us, Q. 1. Whether he think at this day the generality of Bishops (in Italy, Spain, France, Ger­many, Poland, the Greek Church, Moscovy, Armenia, Syria, &c.) are so commendable, as not to be notably blamed? Q. 2. If not, When was it that he thinks they ceased to be generally so commendable? Was it in Hildebrand's Time, or any time be­fore? Q. 3. Can you believe that the generality turn from good to bad just in one Age? Or rather that they degenerated by degrees? If they were mostly bad in a thousand, or nine hundred, or eight hundred, can you think that they were not drawing to­wards it and near as bad a little before; Q. 4. What was it think you in which the Corruption of the Clergy did consist? Was it not most in a proud, domineering worldly Spirit? Is it not that that you blame the Popes for? Was not their Ascent their Corruption? Sure you all agree of that. Q. 5. And did the Papacy Spring up in a year? Did not Leo begin to arrogate, and others after him (to say nothing now of those before him) rise higher and higher by degrees as Children grow up to manhood, till in Greg. 7. it came to Maturity? I know no Protestant that denyeth this? Q. 6. And can you or any sober man think that in so ma­ny hundred years it was only the Bishop of Rome that was sick of this disease, and that all or most of the other Bishops were Free? Were they not commonly for ascending with them: Did not they in the East strive to be greatest? And the Bishops of the West strive to rise with, and by the Pope? Were they not, and are they not as his Army? And did he prevail against the Pri­mitive Purity and Simplicity without them? Did not his Coun­cils, and Prelates, as his Armies, do his greatest works? Yea, have they not oft out-done him, and over-topt him in Mischief (as in the deposing of Ludov. Pius against his will? say good Histo­rians.)

Tell us then at what Age just we may begin to dispraise the Bishops. And from that time forward, will you not be as great a Railer as I, and scandalize Christianity more than Lucian or Julian?

[Page 119]§ 8. But I somewhat marvel that he is again at it (reciting Dionysius's words which he thinks I mistook for Eusebius's) That he does not condemn the rebaptizing of Hereticks which was a Tradition of so great antiquity: I judge more Candidly of him than he doth of me: Though he so oft repeat it, I will not believe that he knew not, that it was not the baptizing of Hereticks as such, that was the question: but only of those that were baptized by Hereticks. Yet I confess Eusebius phrasing it, might tempt one to think so that had not read Cyprian and others upon the que­stions. But when Eusebius and Dionysius mention [rebaptizing He­reticks] they mean only those that were by Hereticks baptism en­tered into the Societies and Profession of Hereticks. If the worst Heretick, yea or Apostate, had been baptized, by the orthodox, Cyprian and all the rest were agreed against Rebaptizing such when they repented. This Dionysius telling Xystus Rom. of an ancient Minister that was greatly troubled in Conscience that he had been falsly Baptized by an Heretick (being himself no Here­tick) and doubted whether he should not be Rebaptized, yet saith, He told him he durst not Rebaptize him that had so long been in the Church and Communicated, but bid him go on Com­fortably in Communion (Much like a forementioned case put to me, by some that never were Baptized, but in our undisciplin­ed Parish Churches had been without knowledge or question admitted long to Communion, whether yet they should be Baptized at all: And Dionysius's Reasons against it I cannot an­swer.

§ 9. And here I may take notice how our new Church-men, (such as Thorndike, Mr. Dodwell and all their partners) who nul­lifie sacraments delivered by one that hath not Canonical Or­dination by a Bishop of uninterrupted Succession from the A­postles, do make themselves Hereticks in the sense of the Roman Church which they allow: For 1. Baptism is the first and most necessary Sacrament in their own opinion. Yea Austin and too many of old, but specially too many now, take it to be necessary to Salvation; 2. If therefore Baptism be a nullity all that are Baptized in England, Scotland and all the Protestant Churches by such as had no such Ordainers, must be Baptized again or be damned. 3. If they say, They may be saved without it, then 1. they confess Mr. Dodwells Doctrine to be false, that saith none have a Covenant right to Salvation, who have it not by a Sacra­ment [Page 120] from such hands. 2. And they renounce the Doctrine of the Necessity of Baptism to Salvation. But if they are for Re­baptizing all such Protestant Countries, as necessary to Salvation, they are uncharitable that do not speak it out.

§ 10. He passeth by Bishop Stephens Excommunicating all the Oriental Bishops of Cappadocia, Cilicia, Galatia, and Repro­bating their Synods, for Rebaptization: Doth he think that even then some Bishops did not rise too fast?

§ 11. The man that is so angry with me for telling of the faults of Bishops and Councils, is pag. 87. angry with me for not saying worse against Secundus his Council of Bishops at Cirta; and saith, I have not done right to the Catholick Church: I perceive the question is not, whether I may Rail at Bishops, but what Bishops they be that I must Rail at.

As for the Council at Sinuessa, I believed the being of it no more than he doth: And when I am but naming the common Catalogue, he might pardon my modesty for saying that the be­ing of it is a Controversie.

§ 12. Of the Council of Illiberis he saith but contractedly the same that I do, that It hath many good Canons, and some that need a favourable Interpretation, and is very severe in some cases. This measure of just praise and dispraise, is practised by him that is condemning it in me.

§ 13. As to his Controversie, whether Bishops, or such as strove to be Bishops, were the very first movers of the Dona­tists Controversie, who should be Bishop, it's not worth the turning over one Book to search, as to my business.

§ 14. Next he that accuseth me of Railing at Bishops, accu­seth me for saying (from some good Authors) that a Bishop of Carthage, Donatus, was a good man, who he saith was bad. It's little to me whether he were good or bad.

§ 15. Next he noteth that I Err with Binnius and Baronius as to the year of a Carthage Council. I undertook not to ju­stifie all the Chronology or History that I transcribe: Whether Optatus, or Binnius and Baronius hit on the just year, little care I.

§ 16. I praised a Donatist's Council of 270 Bishops at Car­thage for Moderation, agreeing to communicate with penitent Traditors, without Rebaptizing them, and so doing for 40 years.

Q. What was these mens Heresie?

[Page 121]He saith, This looks liker a piece of Policy than Moderation, for it had no tendency to peace, but to strengthen the Schism.]

Ans. Who knows how to please men? When they exclaim against Separation if men Communicate with them, they judge it but Policy, that hath no tendency to peace. 2. And who is it now that most raileth at Bishops? I am confuted for praising the moderation of 270 of them, and he is their censurer even when they do well, and their moderation with him is but Policy. E­ven as they say, of me, that I constantly Communicate with their Parish Churches to undermine them: Near or far off, all's one with this sort of men, if you stick at any thing that they bid you say or do.

But he will not believe that this Council of Orthodox mode­rate Donatists were so many as 270. ‘Because 1. we have only the Authority for it of Tychonius a Donatist. 2. It's improbable after Constantine's suppression of them that Schism should so suddenly spread. 3. Lest it should prove the Churches to be too Small: Yet he saith, These Schismaticks set up Churches in every City and Village.’]

Ans. 1. It's said Tychonius confesseth this Council, because the later Donatists would fain have buryed the memory of it: But that it depends only on the Credit of Tychonius, I think depends only on your Credit: 2. Augustine that reports it, honoureth this Tychonius, and reciteth an Exposition of his of the Angels of the Churches, Rev. 2. and 3. which I suppose displeaseth you more than his Donatism. 3. It seems you would have believed some stranger that knew it not, rather than a Donatist that speaketh against the will and interest of his party. 4. It rather seems that the Donatists were the greater number of Christians there be­fore Constantine's time, and like the Papists therefore counted themselves the Catholicks and the others the Schismaticks. Constantines Prohibition did not suppress them. 5. Therefore the numerousness of their Bishops and smallness of Churches, rather sheweth what was the state of the Churches before worldly greatness swelled them to that disease, which was the Embrio or infancy of Popery.

§ 17. Whether the Donatists be like the Papists or the Se­paratists (much less to the Nonconformists) if the Reader will but peruse what I have said and what Mr. M. hath said, I am content that he judge without more words.

[Page 122]§ 18. He passeth by divers Councils because he could not say that I blame them: And he passeth by Constantine's E­pistle to Alexander and Arius, which raileth at them more than I do (in his sence.)

As to the Council of Laodicea, it is not two or three such words as his that will make an impartial man believe that the Churches were like our Diocesses, when every Convert before baptism was to say his Catechism to the Bishops or his Presby­ters: Or that the Command that Presbyters go still with the Bi­shop into the Church, and not before him, do not both imply that they were both together in every Church.

But he will have it confined to the Cathedral; And when I say, There were long no Churches but Cathedrals, he saith he will not differ with me whether they shall be called Churches or Chappels. But the difference is de re: They say themselves that A Bishop and a Church were then Relatives: And when they have put down many hundred Churches under the Diocesan, for­sooth they will gratifie us by giving us leave to call them Church­es. As if they put down an hundred to one of the Cities and Corporations, and then give us leave, to call them Corporati­ons when they are none. Yet blush they not to make the world believe that they are that Episcopal party (who put down a thousand Churches and Bishops in some one Diocess) and I am against Bishops.

Yea when they have not the front to deny but that every Ci­ty then had a Bishop (that had Christians,) and that our Cor­porations are such as they called Cities, Yet when we plead but at least, if they will have no Chorepiscopi, they will restore a Church and Bishop with his Presbyters to every such City with its adjacent Villages, hatred, scorn and derision goeth for a Con­futation of us; Though we do it but to make true discipline a possible thing; Which they call Issachar's burden, and abhor it, and then say, It is possible and practised.

§ 19. As to the Roman Council which he believeth not, he might perceive that I believed at least their antiquity as little as he: But the Canons are so like those of following Councils that such it's like were sometime made.

And whereas I noted that their condemning them that wrong timed Easter, would fall on the Subscribers to our English Li­turgy, where 2000 are Silenced for not Subscribing, the man [Page 123] had no better answers to give, than these 1. That I should have said the Almanack-Makers. As if he would have had men believe that Falshood, that it was the Almanack Makers and not our Liturgy changers that were deceived.

2. [Alas! one year they mistook.] As if he would Perswade men that their rule faileth but one year, which faileth oft.

3. The Silenced Ministers have little Reason to thank him or any body else, that giveth this Reason of their Separation. It's strange this should trouble their Consciences that Care no more for Easter than for Christmas, but only that it Falls upon a Sunday.

Here see his Historical Credibility. 1. Would he perswade men that we give this Reason alone? Or why may it not be one with twenty more?

2. He intimateth that I give them as reasons of Separation: As if to be Silenced, were to separate, and to be passive were to be active.

3. He intimateth that as Nonsubscribers I and such other are Separatists, which is false; While we live in their Communion.

4. He taketh on him to know our judgment as against Easter (but for Sunday) when we never told him any such thing.

5. He intimateth that it's no credit to us that we make Con­science of deliberate professing Assent to a known untruth in o­pen matter of fact: And if the Contrary be their Credit, I wish they may never be Witnesses against us.

6. He intimateth that a man that is not for keeping Easter, is the less excusable, if he will not Profess a known Falshood a­bout the time of Easter. If Conscience stood a man in no stead for greater Ends than worldly wealth and ease and honour, who would not be a Latitudinarian Conformist?

§ 20. Next when I deny belief to these Councils, he blames me for making advantage of the History of them. As if he saw not that I do it, but ad hominem to the Papists who record them as if they were really true. For it is principally the Papists (from Infancy to Hildebrands Maturity) against whom I write.

§ 21. He next comes to the Novatians as my Favourite sect, And [Favourite] may signifie to the Reader a truth or a Falshood. 1. Doth not every Christian Favour them that have lesser Er­rours more than them that have greater?

2. Do I not as oft as he profess my great dislike of every sect, as a sect?

[Page 124]3. Do I not disclaim this Novatian sect and their opinion, and own the Contrary?

4. It seems he taketh me to be too Favourable to some Bi­shops and their followers: The question is but who they be that must be favoured? I may come to be taken for a Novatian by such men as well as Socrates and Sozomen.

§ 22. Here (wi [...]hout railing) he bedawbs Novatus and Novatian to the purpose with horrid Crimes, a Pharisaical Saint, Perjured, and what not? But what! Were they not Episcopal? Yes, he doubts it not: It was for to be a Bishop that Novatian wrought his Villanies; (what if I had thus bedawbed the Epi­scopal?) But yet the very word [Puritan] is of use to him. This, saith he of Novatus, was the tender Conscience of the au­thor of the Ancient sect of the Puritanes? Can you tell who the man aimeth at? Is it Nonconformists? Novatus & Novatian were Prelatists, and never scrupled more Ceremonies than our Pre­lates impose. Who then can it be but men that in general, though Episcopal, do profess Tenderness of Conscience? And there I leave them, without the application.

§ 23. But this Defender of Surgent Prelacy, sticks not to disgrace those whom he seemeth to defend. It was three of the Catholick Bishops that Consecrated Novatian, and (without rail­ing) he calls them Three plain ignorant Bishops. These good men suspecting no trick, and overcome with his good entertainment, with too much Wine and perswasions, were forced at last to lay their hands on him and Consecrate him Bishop.] 1. Ignorant Bishops; 2. Overcome with too much Wine, and entertainment: 3. And with perswasion: 4. To do such an Act as to Consecrate so bad a Bishop, & that in such a city as Rome, and that without the Churches choice or Consent. How much worse have I said of Bishops? But, yet [they were good men.] But if they had been Nonconformists, what names had been bad enough for them? No doubt if they had been sequestred and cast out (for their too much wine and such ordination) how odiously might the agents have been described as enemies to the Church and Persecutors of good men.

§ 24. Yet further this New Bishop engageth men to him by Oaths, enough to strike a horror in the minds of the Reader, saith he.

See what a man may do for a Bishoprick? It reminds me of many good Canons that forbid Bishops swearing their Clergy to them; And of our Et Caetera Oath in 1640 never to Consent to [Page 125] any alteration, (to say nothing of our times) and the old Oath of Canonical obedience. It strikes horror into mens minds now that we scruple these.

§ 25. He maketh the Novatian doctrine blasphemous (with­out railing) and me too Favourable in representing it. As to that I suppose he is not ignorant how great a Controversie it is what they held, even among the greatest Antiquaries, and Ene­mies of Schism and Heresie. And I use in accusations to meet with most truth in the most Favourable interpretations.

And here I will tell our Historian, that while I take leave to dissent from his accusation, it shall be but by the authority of those whom I judge as well acquainted with Church Writers and Cu­stomes as any that ever Mr. M. or any of his Masters read, not excepting more knowing men than Valesius.

The first is D. Petavius in Epiphan. de Cath. Where first he tells us, that no less nor later men than most of the ancient Fathers, and Specially the Greeks, mistook Novatus and Novatian for one, or thought the sect had a single Author; naming Euseb. Theodoret, Epiphan. Nazian. Ambrose, Austin, Philastrius, yea and Socrates. Yet half as great a mistake in me would have been scorned.

2. Against Epiph. and Theodoret he saith [Non ea Nova­tiani Opinio fuit, eos qui gravioris peccati noxam contraherent, ab omni spe consequendae salutis excludi: Nam & illos ad capessendam poenitentiam hortari solebant: Et ut Divinam clementiam lach [...]y­mis ac sordibus elicerent identidem admonebant: Sed hoc unum ne­gabant; ad Ecclesiae fidelium Communionem recipi amplius opor­tere: Neque penes Ecclesiam reconciliandi jus ullum ac potestatem esse: Quippe unicam illam peccatorum indulgentiam in illius ar­bitrio versari, quae per Baptismum obtinetur; which he proveth out of Socrates, Ambrose. And he saith, that they were not counted Hereticks for wronging the lapsed, by denying them Communion, but for wronging the Church Power, by denying the Power of the Keyes for their Restitution. (Like enough.)

The other shall be that excellent Bishop Albaspineus Observ. lib. 2. Observ. 20, 21. p. (mihi) 130, 131. [Advertant Nova­tianorum errorem non in eo positum, quod dicerent neque lapsum, neque excommunicatum in morte à peccatis liberandum; sed haere­ticos ideo habitos, quod opinarentur Deum ipsum Ecclesiae neque re­mittendorum neque retinendorum peccatorum capitalium potestatem [Page 126] copiamque fecisse: Atque haec in eo fuit viguitque eorum haeresis, qui quanquam illud consequeretur ex-eorum falsa Opinione, ut ab­solutionem non largirentur, tamen hoc eorum factum non haeresis no­mine afficiendum erat, neque ad haeresin accedebat ob aliam causam quam quod à fonte illo & quasi capite haresin olente dimanârat, eo maxime quod Novatiani crederent id Ecclesiae a Deo non fuisse prae­stitum & concessum; quae causa sola fuit cur praxis illa ce [...] disci­plinae Novatianorum ratio haeresis nomen notionemque non effugeret.]

The Clergy felt their own Interest, and the Novatians denied their Power to retain, as well as forgive capital Crimes, and thought their Keyes extended not so far.

And that the Case of the lapsed was it that they began with, Epiphanius himself and others agree.

And Observ. 19. he shews that Novatianus did this against his former Judgment, in Envy and Faction against the Bishop, be­cause he mist of being Bishop himself. A Bishoprick was it that provoked him to deny this Pardoning Power in Bishops.

And Albaspineus hath in many antecedent Observations shewed, how little, if any thing at all, the Novatians differed else from the Antient Church in the strictness of their Commu­nion, and avoiding sinners: So that he thus begins his fifth Ob­servation [Incredibilia prope sunt, quae his capitibus dicturi sumus: sed tamen ita vera & certa, & quae cujusque animam summam in admirationem rapiant, Ecclesiam primis temporibus nulla vel le­vissima labe inquinatam fuisse; quin ita illibatam intactamque ut omni ratione, curâ & solicitudine prospexerit, filii ut sui quam à Baptismo hauserant puritatem eam nulla aspersam vitii alicujus macula & soeditate conservarent. Imo ca se veritate adhibita ut fugiendum sibi detestandumque peccatum, quovis terrore proposito putarent. Non solum autem multa crimina peccataque nume­rabantur, quorum Authores artificesque absolutionem omnem despe­rabant, sed & ea quoque quibus ignoscet poenitentiam concedi oper­tere censuerat, peccata ita ulciscebatur, [...]ut non nisi semel eis qui ea commisissent, unius poenitentiae copiam faceret Ecclesia, hoc est si post Baptismum lethaliter peccassent. Quod si cum Ecclesia reconci­liatus in idem aut aliud mortale peccatum iterum prolaberetur, ita in perpetuum tribus primis saeculis ab Ecclesia repulsam ferebat, ut non nisi poenitentiae & in morte precum quae reliqua erant subsidia expectanda sibi duceret, nulla absolutione data quae in spem veniae il­lum erigeret.] And he adds, that many that cannot deny his [Page 127] proofs, yet will not believe that ever such a Discipline was used.

But this was in the three First Ages: After, when Prosperity and Wealth ticed the ungodly into Bishops Seats, and into the Church, the Case was altered, and as he shews, Observ. 6. the Case was so altered to the loose extreme, that Criminals were admitted toties quoties. And in his Notes on Tertullian he sheweth, that this was a difference between the Orthodox and the Hereticks, that the Orthodox did di [...] multumque deliberare quos in societatem ejusdem Ecclesiae, & corporis recipere debeant; but the Hereticks were ready to take all that came. Yet I suppose not near so loose as those Diocesan and Parochial Churches that know not who comes, but without question take all that will but come to the Rails and kneel: And when by the magnitude of Diocess and other means, they have secured themselves a­gainst the trouble and possibility of Pastoral Discipline, the Priest wipes off all guilt with a word, and faith, If they were Atheists, Hobbists, Sadduces, Whoremongers, common Blasphemers, Drunkards, it's no fault of mine, I know it not; and no won­der, when he knoweth not who in the Parish are his Flock.

That Eusebius himself and others named by Petavius mistook the Novatians is no wonder to those who read the volumes of palpable Falshood written against the Nonconformists in this pre­sent age, and hear witnesses at the bar swear those Plots and Con­spiracies & Treasons against men, from which grave and conscio­nable Juries quit them.

But me thinks when Mr. M. had said that Socrates is an Histo­rian of good Credit and acquainted with them] he much forgot his own ends when he recited these words as his [Some took part with Novatian, and others with Cornelius; according to their several inclinations and Course of life: The looser and more licenti­ous sort Favouring the most indulgent discipline, the other of more au­stere lives inclining most to the Novatian severity.] Good still, I now see that the Novatians indeed were Puritanes, though E­piscopal, and I accuse not our accusers of any such Heresie. But I confess that I shall believe a Novatian Historian, who being so strict against sin must be strict against a Lie, rather than those that Scorn such Puritanism, and deride the Person that cannot swallow a bigger Pill.

And when Mr. M. labours to shew out of Socrates that it [Page 128] was not only Idolatry that they censured, he labours in vain: It was the beginning of their Schism that I mentioned, and not Socrates his Age.

As to the judgment of the Council of Eliberis and all the three First Ages, I have told you what Albaspine saith before. If you can consute him, do; I am not engaged to defend him; but I believe him.

§ 26. I conclude this and the former Chapter with this Counsel to the Scorners of Puritanes: Never trust to your Titles and Order, how good soever, without a careful holy obedience to the Supreme Law-giver, either for Concord on Earth, or Salvation in Heaven. True Parish-Reformation is the way to satisfie godly persons better than either Violence or Separation. But if you still obstinately resist Parish. Discipline and Reforma­tion, you must have Toleration of such as will not consent to your Corruption, or else persecute the best to your own ruine. Theophilus Parochialis hath said more for Parish Order against the Regulars, and Priviledged, than you have done against the Se­paratists. And yet the Confraternity of the Oratorians set up in every Parish, was the best way he could devise to recover the state of lapsed Parishes: As the priviledging of Fryars was the Pope's last Remedy instead of Reforming his corrupted Church.

CHAP. XIX. Of the Council of Nice and some following.

§ 1. THis Historian having put himself into a military posture seemeth to conceit that every word proceeds from an Enemy. And first he feigneth me to make Constantine judge that [the Bishops and Councils were of little use] when I had no such word or thought, but the contrary.

§ 2. Next he himself confesseth that which I blame those Bi­shops for; Even those Libels which they Contentiously offered against one another; to have raised Quarrels instead of Peace, and which Constantine cast altogether into the fire without read­ing them. And when he confesseth what I say, is he not a Rai­ler at the Bishops as much as I in that?

[Page 129]As to his excuse that [It is no wonder considering their great dissentions in Religion, &c.] I easily grant it: But in this excuse he saith yet more against them.

§ 3. Because I said that Athanasius differing from Constan­tine about the reception of Arius his repentance [Caused much Calamity] he feigneth me heinously to accuse Athanasius which I intended not: Even a just action may [Cause Calamity] as Christ saith his Gospel would bring division. All his labour in justifying Athanasius fighteth but with a spectre of his own ima­gination. And yet I am inclined to think that if an Hypocrite Arius had been connived at to please such an Emperor, the death of Arius would have left the Church quieter than it did; though he here thinks greater rigour had been safer: And I think mul­titudes of Sadduces, Infidels and debaucht Persons in one of our Diocesses, yea or Parishes, is worse than one Arius while Hy­pocrisie restrained him from Venting his opinion.

§ 4. And here he that dreamed I accused Athanasius, really accuseth Constantine as imposed on by a Counterfeit Repentance and restoring the incendiary to opportunities of doing mischief, and being against the means that might have ended that fatal mischief. But I confess Constantine was no Bishop, and therefore this is not an accusation of Bishops or a railing at them.

§ 5. Next when I had fully opened the Case of the Mel [...]tians out of Epiphanius on pretence of abbreviating, he leaves out that which he likes not, and tells us how the Nonconformists have advantaged the Papists: If I thought the man believed himself I would try to undeceive him▪ In the mean time I desire him to think again which party most befriends the Papists; ‘They that are for a reconciliation with them on these terms, that there may be acknowledged an Universal supreme human Power over all the Church on Earth, and the Pope to be Prin­cipium Unitatis and Patriarch of the West, and he shall abate us the last 400 years Impositions, and all be accounted Schisma­ticks that unite not into this Church; and that all the Preachers in England shall be silenced that will not swear, pro­mise, profess, and practise all that which is here imposed on them, though they think it heinons sin, and others think it but matter indifferent, and all the people shall be prosecuted that hear them; and that this Division shall rather weaken the Kingdom, and advantage the Papists, than the Consciences [Page 130] of men, as wise and faithful as themselves shall be eased of such Impositions, or they suffered to Preach the Gospel of Christ: Or those that being condemned to such Silence, Pri­sons and Ruine, had rather be delivered, though a Papist be delivered with them, than be destroyed.’] Methinks we are used by these Church-Fathers, as if they should determine that a great part of the Protestants who are most against Popery, shall be hanged, unless the Papists will beg their pardon, or cut the Rope; which if these Protestants accept, they shall be said to be the Promoters of the Papists.

§ 6. As for all his Exceptions against Epiphanius, they are no­thing to me, who did not undertake to justifie his words, but transcribe them; nor think it worth my labour now to examine the Case of so small concernment.

§ 7. When some have blamed me for condemning the Arians too much, he saith, that I say some what very much to the dis­advantage of the Doctrine of the Trinity, but he was so gentle as not to tell what it was, unless it be telling what Petavius the Jesuite saith: About that I am wholly of his own mind. But the express words which Petavius de Trinit. citeth out of all those Old Fathers, cannot be denied: And verily they are so many, and so gross, that unless his Argument satisfied me, viz. [The Votes of the Council of Nice shewed what was the Common sence of the Church, better than the words of all those Fathers] I should think as Philostorgius in point of History, that there were no suf­ficient confuting of the Arians from those Fathers, though some­times they have better words. Visible words cannot be denied, even where they must be lamented. That's the difference be­tween Mr. M's. Opinion of History and mine.

§ 8. As to the Audians, I recite but Epiphanius's words, who in other cases is greatly valued by these Accusers: They will believe what he saith of Aerius. And as to what he saith to the contrary out of Theodoret, he may see that he saith all by hearsay, and saith, that They hid that which he accuseth them of, and were Hypocrites, professing too much strictness, l. 4. c. 9. which is still the common way of accusing the best, against whom instead of proveable faults, they turn their strictness into a crime. Epiphanius is much more particular than Theodoret in the story.

§ 9. The rest which he noteth of my words of the Council [Page 131] of Nice, have nothing needing a reply. Petavius hath fully proved that the Chorepiscopi were true Bishops. But now we are odious Presbyterians if we would but have a Bishop in every City, that is, Corporation, Desiring only that Discipline might become possible. And for this we are proclaimed to be a­gainst Bishops; that is, saith this sort of men; They that would have but One Bishop over a thousand, or many hundred, or score Churches, are for Episcopacy; and they that would have every Church have a Bishop, as of old, or at least every great Town, and so would have twenty, or forty, or a hundred for one, are against Episcopacy: And that which is strange is, These men are believed.

§ 10. I praised the Council of Gangra for condemning some Superstitions, and he saith, I have nothing against it: Whether it be a Common Mistake that Arius was here received to Com­munion, I'le not stay to examine.

§ 11. When he hath weighed all he can for the Synod at Antioch, he is forced to confess that they were a packt com­pany of Bishops, that complied with Constantius and Eusebius's Contrivance. And what do I say worse of them than he? As to the Canon against Priests or Deacons not gathering Assem­blies against the Bishops will, I am for it as much as he, if the Bishops and Churches be such as they were then; but not in France nor Italy.

He saith, I leave my sting behind me, and end very angrily; for these only words [This is their strength] mentioning the Coun­cils (that was against Athanasius) suppressing Dissenters as se­ditious by force. I see angry men think others angry when they are, and are stung if we do but name their stinging us: As if Prisons and Ruine were not so sharp a sting as these four words. If it be not their strength, why do they so trust to it, as to con­fess that their Arguments and Keyes would do little to uphold their Prelacy without it. In the daies of the Usurpers I moved for a Petition, that when they granted Liberty of Conscience for so many others, they would grant Liberty for the full exer­cise of the Episcopal Government to all that desired it. But the Episcopal Party that I spake to, would not endure it, as knowing what bare Liberty would be to their Cause, unless they could have the Sword to suppress those that yield not to their Reasons.

§ 12. Next he saith, I spare my Gall for about a dozen­times, [Page 132] not regarding how it contradicts his former Accusations.

But whereas I recite the horrid Accusations of the Council at Philippopolis against Athanasius, Paulus and Marcellus, of open Matters of Fact, as Murder, Persecutions, Burning of Churches, Wars, Flames, Dragging Priests to the Market-place with Christs Body tyed about their necks, stripping Consecrated Vir­gins naked before a concourse of People [and offering to send messengers on both sides to Try the Fact, and to be themselves condemned if it prove not true] he is offended that I seem staggered at this, Athanasius having detected before so many Subornations, &c.

Answ. I did not say that I was staggered, much less doubted which of them did the wrong: But that a Reader may by such a Temptation be astonished, and confounded whom to believe. But d d I ever rail more at Bishops than he here doth? What 1. So great a number of Bishops, 2. Deliberately in Council, 3. To affirm so vehemently, 4 Such matters of open Fact, 5. And offer it to the Trial of Witnesses of both sides; and all this to be false, 6. And to be but the consequent of former Sub­ornations and Perjury; can you name greater wickedness?

Obj. But they were Arians. Answ. But they were Bishops. The worse for being Arians. 2. Yet called but Semi-Arians, and renounced Arius, and pretended Reconciliation. 3. And they were the Oriental part of the Council at Sardica, called General by the Papists. 4. And they were believed against Mar­cellus by Basil and Chrysostom: But all that I cite it for, is to tell the Reader what a doleful case the Church was faln into, by the depravation of the Bishops. Did none of these profess before to be Orthodox? I do not say that it was quatenus Bishops that they did all this, but that multitudes of Bishops were then be­come the shame and calamity of the Church.

§ 13. Next he scorningly accuseth me for giving too soft a Character of the Circumcellians; and saith, My Moderation and Charity may extend to John of Leyden. And he calls them The Most barbarous and desperate Villains that ever defamed Christia­nity by assuming the Title.]

Ans. 1. This is the man that saith I rail. I named so many and great sins of theirs, that I little thought any Reader would have thought that I spared them too much. 2. Yet they were Donatists, and of them Optatus himself saith, lib. 5. [‘Apud vos [Page 133] & apud nos Una est Ecclesiastica conversatio; Communes Le­ctiones: Eadem Fides; ipsa Fidei Sacramenta, eadem myste­ria] that is, saith Albaspine [Una Ecclesiastica disciplina:’ Eo­dem modo Scripturas Explicamus: Ipsa Regula Fidei: Idem My­sterium quod confertur & significatur, & eadem res visibilis per quam res spiritualis datur] in lib. 5. p. 153.

And saith Optatus, lib. 1. [Nequis dicat me inconsiderate eos fratres appellare, qui tales sunt. Quamvis & illi non negent & omnibus notum sit, quod nos odio habeant, & execrentur, & nolunt se dioi fratres nostros; tamen nos recedere à timore Dei non possu­mus—sunt igitur sine dubio fratres quamvis non boni: Quare nemo miretur eos me appellare fratres, qui non possant non esse fratres.

Obj. But the Circumcellians were worse than the rest.

Answ. They were of the same Religion, but the unruly fu­rious part in their practice: And Optatus saith, Though they would rail in words [sed unum quidem vix inveuimus cum quo p [...]r literas, vel hoc modo loquatur:] And so goes on to call Par­menian his Brother. And it's worth the consideration how much Albaspine includeth in Fraternity; note first, & in Observat.

3. And they were Orthodox fierce Prelatists, doing all this for the preheminence of their Bishops. And what if some Pre­latists now should hurt their Brethren more than the Circumcel­lians did, must I call them therefore the most barbarous Villains that ever defamed Christianity. Angustine saith, They made a Water of some Salt or sharp thing, and cast in mens Eyes in the night in the streets: No man can think that this barbarous action was done by the most, or any but some furious fools: They say that they would wound themselves to bring hatred on the Catholicks, as if they had done it, or drove them to it: He that knoweth what Self-love is, will believe that this was the case but of a few; and an easier wrong than some that abhor them do to their Brethren. And must we needs Rail indeed a­gainst such numbers of hurtful Prelatists? What if any rude per­sons of your Church should be Whoremongers, Drunkards, Blasphemers, and seek the Imprisonment of their Brethren, yea their Defamation and Blood by Perjury, should the Church be for their sakes so called, as you call them? I speak them no fairer than Optatus did.

§ 14. When p. 57. I commend the many good Canons of the African Councils, and the faithfulness of the Bishops, he noteth [Page 134] none of this, because it proveth the untruth of his former Ac­cusations.

And when I name twenty five or twenty six more Councils of Bishops, some General, and some less, which were for Arianism, or a compliance with them, he defendeth none of them, but ex­cuseth them, and saith, that [they were not much to the honour of the Church: Yet the evil Edicts and Consequences of them are ra­ther to be charged on the Arian Emperour, than the Bishops.]

Answ. 1. This is the same man that elsewhere so overdoes me in accusing the Arians.

2. The Emperour was Erroneous, but said to be otherwise very commendable. And is it not more culpable for Bishops to Err in the Mysteries of Divinity, than a Lay-man? And for many hundred to Err, than for One Man? And do you think that the Bishops Erring did not more to seduce the Flocks, than the Emperour's?

But he saith, that [If many fell in the Day of Tryal, they are rather to be pitied, than insulted over, for we have all the same infirmities, &c.

Answ. I wrote in pity of them and the Church, without any insulting purpose. If any now to avoid lying in Prison, and star­ving their Families, by Famine, should surrender their Conscien­ces to sinful Subscriptions after a Siege of Nineteen years, I shall pity them, and not insult over them. Nay, if I speak of those that lay the Siege, and call out for more Execution, I do it not insultingly, but with a grieved heart for the Church and them.

But when I largely recited Hillary's words of them, he saith, [The Account is very sad] (and what said I more?) But, saith he, yet such as shews rather the Calamity, than the Fault of the Bishops.]

Answ. Nay then, no doubt, it's no fault to Conform. Hillary then, and all that kept their ground, were in a great fault for so heavily accusing them. And so the World turned Arians in shew (as Hierom and Hillary speak) is much acquit, and the Nonconformists are the faulty Railers for accusing them. It had been enough to say, It was no Crime; but to say, no Fault, is too gentle for the same man that so talkt of Perjured Arians before.

§ 15. Yet because he is forced to confess that it was most by far of all the Bishops, even in Councils (he of Rome not ex­cepted) [Page 135] that thus fell, he must shew how it offended him to be forced to it, by telling the world how contentious I have been against all sorts and Sects (the first is false, and he knows it I think, and the latter is true formally of a Sect as such; even his own Sect.) And some judge me such a stranger to Peace, as to need a Moderator to stand between me and the Contradictions of my own Books.]

Answ. Yes, the Bishops Advocate Roger L'Estrange, where nothing but gross ignorance, or malice, or negligence, could have found Contradictions, were the whole places perused. And where I am sure my self, that there is none; I have somewhat else to do than to write more, to shew the Calumnies of such Readers. Who most seeks Peace, you, or those that you prose­cute? One would think it should not be hard to know if men be willing.

CHAP. XX. Of the first General Council at Constantinople. His Cap. 4.

§ 1. HE begins with accusing me of imitating the Devil; Doth Job serve God for nought? because I say that [the reason why the West was freer from the Arian Heresie, than the East, was not as the Papists say, that Christ prayed for Peter, that his Faith might not fail, but because the Emperours in the West were Orthodox, and those in the East Arians: And the Bishops much followed the Emperour's will.]

What, saith he, can be more unchristian?

Answ. 1. I never said that this was the Only Cause.

2. I proved that this Priviledge of Rome was not the mean­ing of Christ's Prayer.

3. Is not this the same man that even now [...]id the fall of far more Bishops, even most in the World, on the Emperour, as overcoming them by force and fraud?

4. Doth not God himself keep men usually from strong temptations, when he will deliver them from sin?

5. Were not the Eastern Bishops, and the Western, of the same mold and temper? And if the Eastern followed the Empe­rours, [Page 136] had not the Western been in danger if they had the like temptation?

6. Doth not Basil that sent to them for help, complain of them as proud, and no better than their Brethren?

7. Did not Marcellinus fall to Idolatry, and Liberius to sub­scribe against Athanasius with the Arians?

8. Did not the West actually fall to Arianism when tempted for the most part? Judge by the great Council at Milane, and by Hillary's complaints.

9. Hath Rome and the West stood faster to the Truth since then? What! all the Popes who are by Councils charged with Heresie or Infidelity, and all wickedness, and those many whose Lives even by Baronius and Genebrard, are so odiously described? Is the West at this day free from Popery and its fruits?

10. Do you think in your conscience that if we had not here a Protestant King, but a Papist, many of the Clergy would not be Papists? Why then are they so in France, Spain, Italy, Po­land, &c? And why did the most of them turn in Qu. Mary's daies? I do not insult, but lament the Churches Case, which ever since Wealth and Honour, and too much Power corrupted it, have had Bishops far more worldly, and less faithful than they were the first three hundred years. Though I still say that ever since, God hath in all times raised some serious Be­lievers that have kept up serious Piety in the Church: And as I doubt not but there are so many such among the Confor­mists, as is our great Joy, so I hope that, though foully blot­ted with Superstition and Errour, there are many such among the Papists themselves.

§ 2. Yet he saith, I do the Bishops Right again, without think­ing of doing them Justice, while I tell how many were murdered.

Answ. 1. Doth he know my thoughts? 2. It's true I in­tended not to do any other Justice, than to praise Christ's Martyrs and Confessors, while I lament the Case of Persecu­tors and Revolters? Is the praise of Confessors any honour to the Hereticks?

But perhaps he means, I right the Order of Bishops. Answ. Did I ever say or think that there were no Bishops that kept the Faith? Do I say All fell, when I say Most fell? The Man speaks as his imagined Interest leads him, and so interpreteth my words to his own sense, not as written. And if that be the [Page 137] right way, I think he will grant that there were more Martyrs and Sufferers under Valens, Constantius, Hunnericus, and Genseri­cus, in the East, and in Africk, by far, than were when their Tryal came in all the West that is now subject to the Pope. And what moved the man to dream that when I so describe and praise their constancy in Suffering, I did it as at unawares?

That the greater part of the Bishops of the Empire were Ari­ans, I will not offer by Testimony to prove, when it is so com­monly by Fathers, Historians, by Papists and Protestants agreed on. How many of them were Bishops before, and how many but Presbyters or Deacons, I'le not pretend to number. The turning of multitudes all agree on. The Constancy of many he falsly intimateth that I deny, and saith, I injuriously represent them, and cannot tell a word wherein that Crime is found.

§ 3. Naming the things that were done by the Council at Constantinople, I mention both the setting up, and after the put­ting down of Gregory; & lest any Caviller should carp at the word [putting down] I presently open particularly what it was that they did toward it; that resolving on his deposition, they caused him, though unwilling, rather to give it up, than stay till they cast him out. This great Historian had no more manlike an Excep­tion here, than to say, that against all History, and against my own Explication, I say that [They Deposed him.] I said [They put him down] in the manner, and as far as I explained.

§ 4. While he here himself accuseth the Times then of Gene­ral Corruption, and the Church of Divisions, adding, [What Age hath been so happy as not to labour under those Evils?] he accuseth me of making misuse of Gregory's words, to represent the Coun­cil in an odious manner.

Answ. It is to represent the worser part in a lamentable man­ner, as far as Gregory did, and no further. And as to his quar­rel at my citation, I shall say no more; but if the Reader will but read Gregory's own words, I willingly leave all that Cause to his Judgment: If he will not, my words cannot inform him.

Yet he himself saith [He doth indeed in several places find fault with this Council] And can you forgive him? I think I find no more than he did. But for this you find fault with him [He did resent the Injury (And was it an Injury?) and did not bear the deprivation of his Bishoprick with the same generosity he proposed, which made him a little more sharp than was decent in his repre­sentation [Page 138] of the Bishops—What wonder if sharpened with discontent, he exclaim with somewhat too great a passion against the admini­stration of the Church which he had been forced to quit] Ans. All will be confest anon, when I have been accused for saying it be­fore him: That's his way. But it was not for leaving a high and fat Bishoprick that he was grieved, but for being separated from the People that he had partly served in their lower state, and partly won from Heresie, and who came about him with tears intreating him not to forsake them. And though it were more­than generosity to set light by the Honour and Wealth, it is treachery to set light by Souls: And they changed to their great loss. He resigned much to quiet the People lest they should do as they did for Chrysostom after him. It is no new thing for the Major vote of the Clergy to Envy those few that are better and more esteemed than themselves, nor yet for the Godly People to be loth to leave such pastors.

§ 5. He saith [His censure of Councils that he knew none of them that have any happy End, was not the fault of the expedient, but of the men] Ans. And what did I ever say more. It is his custom when he hath stormed at me, to say in Effect the same that he stormed at. Some Papists would persuade men, that it was only Arian Councils that he meant, but most Protestants that Write about Councils against them, do cite & vindicate these words of Gregory: And the impartial Papists confess that it was the Coun­cils also of the Catholicks that there and else where he spake of.

§ 6. In the Case of Meletius, and Paulinus, two Bishops in a City, and the Case of Lucifer Calaritanus made a Heretick for separating from lapsed Arians, he saith over the same that I do; that good men cannot rightly understand one another, and so it ever hath been, and it's the Effect of humane frailty and not Episcopacy. In all this I agree. But 1. If humane frailty make Bishops swell in pride and ambition, and domineering, it hath far worse Effects than in other men: 2. And Bishops are bound to excell their flocks in Piety, humility, Selfdenyal, peaceableness, as well as in knowledge. If the Physicians of this city should prove unskil­ful, and yet confident where they err, it is not quatenus Phy­sicians that they are such: But if it be qui Physicians that are such, they may kill thousands, while the same faults in all their neigh­bours may kill few or none. If your Interest made you not smart and angry without cause, you would not cavil against such plain truth.

[Page 139]§ 7. About the Priscillianists he saith [I all along observe this Rule, to be very favourable to all Hereticks and Schismaticks be they never so much in the wrong, and to fall on the Orthodox party and improve every miscarriage of theirs into a mighty crime.]

Ans. If all along this accusation be false, then all a long your History serveth such a use. But in France, Spain, Italy, he is fa­vourable to Hereticks that takes not the orthodox for such, or that is not for racking and burning them. And in England he is favourable to Schismaticks that taketh not the greatest lovers of Piety and peace for such, and the Church Tearers for Church-Healers: As Mr. Dodwell phraseth it, they are Schismaticks that suffer themselves to be excommunicate (for unsinful things in the Bishops account, and heinous sin in theirs; and so that are not so ripe in Knowledge, as to know all the unsinful things to be such which may be imposed.

§ 8. What would this enemy of railing have had me said more than I did of the Priscillianists? viz. that they were Gno­sticks and Manichees? Was not that bad Enough. No, I favour them still? And what say I more of the Bishops and the whole cause, than Sulpitius Severus the fullest and most knowing De­scriber saith? Why doth he not accuse him for the same de­scription? Yea and their Mr. Ri. Hooker who in the Preface to his Eccl. Pol. saith of Ithacius the like? Yea Baronius him­self consenteth? Where I say that to the death Martin separated from the synods of these Bishops (I said not from all Bishops in the world) he saith, he renounced only the Communion of Itha­cius his Party, and that others did as well as he. Reader, it will be thy folly to take either his word or mine, what an Author saith, when we differ, without looking into the Book it self. Read Sulpitius Severus; I will transcribe some words, lest he say, I mistranslate them.

‘Priscillianus, familia nobilis, praedives opibus, acer, inquies, facundus, multa lectione eruditus, disserendi & disputandi prom­ptissimus—vigilare multum, famem & sitim ferre poterat, habendi minime cupidus, utendi parcissimus (Was it a crime to say so much good of him?) But proud of his Learning, set up a He­resie, and two Bishops Instantius and Salvianus ioyned with him, and made him a Bishop—At Caesar Augusta one Synod was gathered against him. The Story I before recited. Next a Synod at Burdeaux tryeth them.’ Saith Sulpitius [‘Ac mea [Page 140] quidem sententia est, mihi tam reos quam accusatores displicere. Certe Ithacium nihil pensi, nihil sancti habuisse definio: suit enim audax, loquax, impudens, sumptuosus, ventri & gulae plurimum impertiens. Hic stultitiae eo usque processerat ut omnes etiam sanctos viros, quibus aut studium erat lectionis, aut propositum erat certare jejuniis, tanquam Priscilliani socios aut discipulos in crimen arcesseret. Ausus etiam miser est ea tempestate Martino Episcopo—palam objectare haeresis infamiam. Imperator per Magnum & Ru [...]um Episcopos depravatus à mitioribus consiliis de­flexus▪—So he tells how many were put to death—Caeterum Priscilliano occiso, non solum non repressa est haeresis—sed confir­mata, latius propagata est: Namque sectatores ejus qui eum prius ut sanctum honoraverant, postea ut Martyrem colere c [...]p [...] ­runt. Ac inter nostros perpetuum discordiarum bellum exarserat, quod jam per quind [...]im annos [...]oedis dissensionibus agitatum, nullo modo sopiri poterat. Et nunc cum maxime discordiis Epis­coporum turbari aut misceri omnia ce [...]nerentur, cunctaque per eos odio aut gratia, metu, inconstantia, invidia, factione, libidine, avaritia, arrogantia, somno, desidia, essent depravata: Postremo plures adversus paucos bene consulentes, insan [...]s consiliis & perti­nacibus studiis certarent: Inter haec Plebs Dei, & Optimus quis­que probro atque ludibrio habebatur.’] So ends Sulpitius History.

Do you not see, Mr. Morrice, that there have been Prelates and Puritanes, even Episcopal Puritanes before our Times? Doth not your stomach rise against Sulpitius as too Puritanical and severe? Is not my Language of most of the Bishops soft in com­parison of his? Yet he was so early as to live in that which you now call the most flourishing Time of the Church. Sir, I hate Discord, and love Peace; but I never look that the En­mity between the Woman's and the Serpent's Seed, or Cain and Abel, should be ended▪ or that the holy Title of Bishops and Priests should reconcile ungodly men to Saints. Sir, England knoweth, that though some factious persons have done other­wise, the main Body of those that your Law doth Silence, Ruine and Revile, have a high esteem of such Bishops as have been seriously godly; such as were many in Antient and late Times: And deride it as long as you will, the seriously religious People in England are they that are most against Church-Ty­ranny, and which Party most of the debauched and prophane are of, hath long been known.

[Page 141]§ 9. But the Reader shall further hear how little you are to be trusted. Saith Sul. in Vita Mart. [Apud Nemausium Episco­porum Synodus habebatur ad quam quidem ire noluerat—(There's another Synod.)

Et pag. 584. In Mon. Pat. [‘Maximus Imperator aliâs vir bonus, depravatus consiliis Sacerdotum, post Priscilliani necem Ithacium Episcopum Priscilliani accusatorem caeteros (que) illius socios, quos nominare non est necesse vi regia tuebatur.—Congregati apud Treveros Episcopi (there's another Synod) tenebantur, qui quotidie communicantes Ithacio communem sibi causam secerant: His ubi nunciatum est [...]opinantibus, adesse Martinum, totis animis la­besacti, mussitare & trepidare coeperunt.—Nec dubium erat quin Sanctorum etiam maximam turbam tempestas ista depopulatura esset. Et enim tunc solis oculis discernunt inter hominum genera, cum quis Pallore potius aut Veste, quam fide, haereticus aestimare­tur. Haec nequaquam placitura Martino Episcopi faciebant.—Ineunt cum Imperatore Consilium ut m [...]ssis obviam Magistri of­ficialibus, urbem istam (Martinus) vetaretur propius accedere.’ (But it was not five Miles from all Cities and Corporations.)—‘Interea Episcopi quorum communionem Martinus non in ibat tre­pidi ad Regem concurrunt, per damnatos se conquerentes actum esse de suo omnium statu, si Theognisti pertinaciam, qui eos SO­LUS palam lata sententia condemnaverat, Martini armaret au­thoritas: Non oportuisse hominem capimoenibus illis: Non jam desensorem haereticorum esse, sed vindicem (Methinks I read Mr. Morrice) Nihil actum morte Priscilliani si Martinus exerceat illius ultionem. (These men have done nothing till they have destroy'd all that are against their Tyranny.) Postremo prostrati cum fletu (they could weep too) & lamentatione Po­testatem Regiam implorant, ut ut atur adversus UNUM homi­nem vi sua: Nec multum aberat quin cogeretur Imperator Mar­tinum cum haereticorum sorte miscere.] But the Emperour know­ing his eminent Holiness and Reputation, tryeth persuasion; [& blande appellat, haereticos jure damnatos, more judiciorum publicorum, potius quam in sectationibus Sacerdotum: Non esse causam qua Ithacii caet erorum (que) partis ejus communionem, puta­ret esse damnandam, Theognistum odio potius quam causa, fecisse dissidium; Eundem (que) tamen SOLUM esse qui se à communione interim separavit; a reliquis nihil novatum.] You see here that M. M. saith truly, that Martin separated but from the Bishops [Page 142] of Ithacius's Party: That is, All save one Theognistus (and Iginus is elsewhere named.)’ Is not here a great accord of the Bishops?) [‘Quinetiam paucos ante dies habita Synodus (Sy­nods still) Ithacium pronunciaverat culpa non teneri] no won­der: Synods have justified the forbidding of two thousand to Preach the Gospel.) At last when no other Remedy could save the Lives of men from the Leeches, Martin yielded once to communicate with the Bishops on condition the mens Lives should be saved: The Bishops would have had him Subscribe this Communion: But that he would never do. [Po­sterodie inde se proripiens, cum revertens in viam moestus ingemisce­ret, se vel ad horam noxiae communioni esse permixtum—sub­sedit, causam doloris & facti accusante & defendente cogitatione pervolvens, astitit ei repente Angelus; Merito inquit Martine compungeris, sed aliter exire nequisti: Repara virtutem: resume Constantiam; ne jam non periculum gloriae, sed salutis incur­reris. Itaque ab illo tempore satis cavit, cum illa Ithacianae partis communione misceri. Caeterum cum quosdam ex inergu­menis, tardius quam solebat, & gratia minore curabat, subinde nobis cum lachrymis fatebatur, se propter communionis illius ma­lum cui se vel puncto temporis necessitate, nonspiritu miscuisset, de­trimentum sentire virtutis. Sedecim postea vixit annos: Nul­lam Synodum adiit; ab omnibus Conventibus se removit.’] Now Reader, judge how great Ithacius's Party was, that boasted but one or two men were against them: And whether Martin sepa­rated not from their common Synods.

Methinks I see Mr. M. here in the strait of the Pharisees, when put to answer whether John's Baptism was from Heaven, or of men. Fain he would make Martin and Sulpitius Puritanes and Fanaticks; but the Church hath made a Holy day for Mar­tin, and dedicated multitudes of Temples to his Honour; and all men reverence Sulpitius and him. Yet he ventures to go as far as he durst p. 142. against them.

§ 10. But here Mr. M. smarteth, and saith [This Instance could become none worse than Mr. B. who in a Letter to Dr. Hill confesses himself to have been a Man of Blood—]

Answ. A Man of Blood is your Libertine Phrase. If you would have published that secret Letter, you should 1. Have told the whole, and worded it truly; 2. And have professed your self a derider of Repentance, while you call for it. I lived in an Age [Page 143] of War, and I was on the Parliaments side, and that was enough to prove that I had a hand in blood while I was on one side, though I never drew blood of any man my self (save once a Boy at School with boxing.)

But he thinks I should have imitated Martin in renouncing Communion with men of blood.

Answ. Martin renounced Communion with those that were for destroying even downright Hereticks. Alas Sir, I dare not renounce Communion with these that Silence thousands of faithful Ministers, and continue still to Plead, Preach, and Write for their Prosecution by Imprisonment and Ruine. I hope many do it in Ignorance, and if I do it, it may increase the distance that I would heal. Nonconformists are no Priscillianists.

And if I renounce Communion with all that were in Wars, it must be with some present Bishops, and a great part of the Land.

But I understand you; it must be with all that were in Arms for the Parliament, &c. Answ. The King then will condemn me by his Act of Oblivion, and by his own practice: Hath he not one of them for the Lord President of his Council? and ma­ny more in Trust and Honour? Did he renounce Communion with General Monk and his whole Army, who were long in Arms for the Parliament? Or with the Citizens, and multitudes of Commanders through the Land, who drew in▪ & encouraged General Monk? Or the Ministers that persuaded Sir Tho. Allen, Lord Mayor, to draw him in?

To be plain with you Sir (though you call it Railing) Men of your Faculty kindled the Fire, and set the Nation together by the Ears, and when sad experience brought them to repentance and to desire unity and peace, and those that had fought for the Parliament had restored the King, this evil Spirit envyeth the Kingdom the benefit of this concord, and would fain break us again into contending Parties, and will not let King and Kingdom have peace, while God giveth us peace from all foreign enemies. Do we need any other notice what a Contentious Clergy have still been, than the woful experience of what they are. If you would have had G. Monk and his Army, and all such that joyned with him destroyed or excommunicate for what they had done, why did you not speak out at first, but when we would all fain have peace and concord thus twenty years after cast your Wild­fire [Page 144] you warn the Present Duke of Albemarle to expect to be at last called to account for his original sin.

§ 11. But his passion makes him say he knows not what, P. 142 [‘I need not call Mr. B. to rememberance who compared Cromwel to David and his Son to Solomon; But this has tran­sported me a little too far.’]

Ans. He saith this plainly of me afterward, to shew the cre­dibility of his History? Did he know it to be false? If so, there's no disputing with him. If not, why did he not cite my words. Yea he after transcribes the Epistle meant, where he saw there were no such words: But others had told that tale before him, and that was Enough: Even as one of his tribe hath written that I have written in my Holy Common-wealth, that any one Peer may judge the King. If these Episcopal Historians tell forreigners that we have all Cloven Feet and Horns, and go on four legs, yea and if some swear it, we have no remedy: They can prove our noses horns, and our hands Feet.

I again tell them, If Martins Angel and Miracles be credible, woe to those Prelatists that are for ruining violence, and silences against men better than the Gnosticks. If they be not true, let them not trust too much to the best Historians.

§ 12. Of the Council at Capua I said that they decreed that the two Bishops and their People should live in loving Com­munion, Mr. M. finds me mistaken here. The words in Binnius are [Ut tam Flaviani quam Evagrii fautores in Communionem Catholicam admittantur, modo Catholicae fidei assertores invenian­tur] I thought Catholick Communion had been Loving Commu­nion: And I thought if their fautors were to be received, so were they: And I thought Antioch had been a part of the Ca­tholick Church, and Catholick Communion had extended to An­tioch: But if Mr. M. deny these, I will not contend with him.

§ 13. He tells us, that [No man with his Eyes open ever saw the Condemnation of Bonosus by the Council of Capua] (for deny­ing the Virgin Mary's perpetual Virginity.

Answ. It is Criticism and not History that the man is best at. They did it mediately, while they referred it to them that did it. Saith Binnius [‘Causa Bonosi cujusdam in Macedonia Episco­pi haeretici, negantis delibatam Dei genitricis Mariae Virginita­tem, post partum in judicium deducta est. Synodus cognitionem causae Anysio Thessaloniensi cum Episcopis ipsi subjectis aelegavit. [Page 145] Ab Anysio Bonosum damnatum, eorumque quos ordinasset commu­nione privatum esse testatur Innoc. P.’ And he knows it's a He­resie now. Yet this Council condemned Reordinations.

§ 14. That Jovinian a Monk was called a Heretick, for Do­ctrines judged sound by Protestants, is no strange thing. That one not a Bishop was the Head of a Heresie, was somewhat strange then, but not before they got too high.

As to the Question, Whether Bishops were the Chief Heads and Fomenters of Heresie, I crave his impartial Answer to these Questions. 1. Do not your selves maintain that all Churches in the world had Bishops; and that the Bishops were the Ru­lers, and of Chief Power? If so, can you imagine that after they had such Power, Churches could be usually made Hereticks without them?

Q. 2. Do not Councils, and all Church-History tell us how many Councils of Hereticks there have been that were Bishops?

Q. 3. If any Presbyter broke from his Bishop to set up a Heresie, was it not one that sought to be a Bishop? Or did they not make presently him or some other their Bishop and Head? Heresie or Popery had made but small progress, had it not been for Bishops.

§ 15. When I commend the Novatians Canon, which al­lowed all men Liberty for the Time of Easter, as better than burning men as Hereticks, he takes it for an Immoderate Transport that I say▪ [‘as loud as I can speak, If all the Proud, Ambitious, Hereticating part of the Bishops had been of this mind, O what sin, what scandal, and what shame, what cruelties, confusions and miseries had the Christian world escaped?’] That is, had they left such Indifferent things as Indifferent.

And is this against Moderation? I would such Zeal of God's House had more eaten me up: Dare you deny but that this course would have saved the Lives of all those thousands of Al­bigenses, Waldenses, and Bohemians that the Papists killed: And the death and torment of multitudes by the Inquisition? And the burning of our Smithfield Martyrs: And it's like most of the Wars between the Old Popes and Emperours about Investitures? And the blood of many thousand more. And it would have sa­ved more Nations than ours from the Tearing and Division of Churches by the Ejecting and Silencing of hundreds or thousands of their Pastors, as the case of the Germane Interim, and other [Page 146] such actions prove. And is it Immoderate Transport to wish all this Blood, Schism, Hatred and Confusion, and weakning and shaming of the Church had been prevented at the rate of Tole­rating Indifferent things: No wonder if you had rather Eng­land still suffered what it doth, and is in danger of by Schism, than such things Indifferent shall be tolerated: It is not for no­thing that Christ and Paul repeat, that some have Eyes and see not, Ears and hear not, &c.

§ 16. And here he again would make his Reader think it's true, that the Nonconformists pretend that their Silencing is for not keeping Easter Day at the due Time; as if this man that liveth among us did not know, that it is the avoiding of deliberate Lying by subscribing to a known untruth, which is the thing that they refuse; and they mention it only as an appurtenance of the Imposition ad homines, that it would bind them to two dif­ferent times.

Whether, as he saith, our disease be a wantonness sed by con­cession, and we are most violent when we know not what we would have, those men are no credible Judges that for seventeen years would not endure us to speak out our Case; and when before we debated part of it, would not vouchsafe to answer us; and at last when we tell it them, do but accuse us with a sharper storm, instead of giving any thing that a man can call an Answer that ever knew the Case, e. g. to our Pleas for Peace, and my Trea­tise of Episcopacy.

§ 17. He confesseth that I praise the African Bishops as the best in the world, though it contradict his former charge. As to the Magnitude of Diocesses, when he hath answered my Treat. of Episcopacy, some body may be edified by him.

I agree with him that Good men will do much Good in a great Diocess. But 1. Worldly Bishops are so far bad: And worldly Wealth and Honour will ever be most sought by the most worldly men: And usually he that seeks shall find—Ergo—And 2. A good man cannot do Impossibilities: The best cannot do the work of many hundred.

Forty two years ago some wisht for the Restoring of Confes­sion.

Theophilus Parochialis brings copious Reasons and Orders of Princes, Popes and Prelates, that all should confess to the Parish-Priest. If you had set this up here, how many men must have [Page 147] gone to it in the Parishes of St. Martin, Giles Cripplegate, Step­ney, &c▪ But how much greater work hath Dr. Hammond, and Old Councils, cut out for him that will be the sole Bishop of many hundred Parishes? I have named it elsewhere.

And, if any man of consideration think I have not proved against Mr. Dodwell, that Bishops Government is not like a King's, who may make what Officers under him he please, but depends more as a Physician's or School-master's on Personal Abi­lity, I will now add but this Question to him [Why is it that Monarchy may be hereditary, and a Child or Infant may be King] but an Infant may not be Bishop, nor any one not qualified with Es­sential Ability? I have at large told you how sharply Baronius and Binnius condemn that odious Nullity of making a Child (by his Father's Power) A. Bishop of Rhemes.

If I heard twenty men say and swear that one man is sufficient to be the only Master of many hundred Schools, or Physician to many hundred Hospitals, or that one Carpenter or Mason may alone build and rear all the Houses in the City after the Fire, or one man be the sole Master of an hundred thousand Families; what can I say to him, but that he never tryed or knows the work?

§ 18. When I note that the Donatists took themselves for the Catholicks, and the Adversaries for Schismaticks, be­cause they were the greater number, he very honestly saith, that Multitude may render a Sect formidable, but it's no Argu­ment of Right.

Very true; nor Secular Power neither. But what better Ar­gument have the Papists, and many others that talk against Schism?

§ 19. He thinks the Donatists Bishops Churches were not so small as our Parishes. Answ. Not as some: But if, as I said before, Constantinople in the height of all it's Glory in Chryso­stom's daies, had but 100000 Christians, as many as three Lon­don▪ Parishes have, judge then what the Donatists had.

§ 20. His double quarrel with Binnius and Baronius, let who will mind. What I gathered out of those and other Canons of the smalness of Churches then, I have elsewhere made good. His Reviling Accusations of Envy to their Wealth, deserveth no Answer.

§ 21. He comes to St. Theophilus's Case, of which we spake [Page 148] before. The Monks that reported evil of him, were, it may be, saith he, downright Knaves, The Reviling is blameless when ap­plied to such. Doubtless they were ignorant rash Zealots: But one that reads what the Egyptian Monks were in Anthony's daies, and after, and what Miracles and Holiness, Sulpitius Seve­rus reporteth of them, and why Basil retired into his Monastery, &c. may conjecture that they had much less worldliness than the Bishops, and not greater faults.

§ 22. I think it not desirable or pleasant work to vindicate the credit of Socrates and Sozomen accusing Theophilus: But if his Conjectures in this case may serve against express History of such men, and so near, let him leave other Histories as loose to our Conjectures. Post [...]umianus Narrative in Sulpitius, is but of one piece of the Tragedy. He thinks it improbable that Origen should be accused for making God Incorporeal; and such Con­jectures are his Consutation of History: But Origen had two sort of Accusers; the Bishops, such as Theophilus and Epiphanius had worse charges against him: But the Anthropomorphite Monks were they that brought that Charge against him (that God had no face, hands, eyes.) And Theophilus before them cryed down Origen in general, to save his life, by deceiving them, that they might think he did it on the same account as they did. This is Socrates his Report of the Case.

He saith, that the Impudent Mutinous Monks were not ashamed to tell all the world, that all that were against them were Anthropo­phites.

Answ. It was other Monks that I here talk not of, that he means: It was these Monks that were Anthropomorphites them­selves, and would have killed Theophilus for not being so, till he said to them, Methinks I see your faces as the Face of God: And the name of the Face of God did quiet them. Hierom was a Party against Chrysostom; it was for not passing that Sentence on Origen, that Epiphanius would by masterly Usurpation have imposed on him, that Chrysostom was by him accused.

§ 23. Could any Sobriety excuse that man Epiphanius, that would come to the Imperial City, and there purposely intrude into the Cathedral of one of the best Bishops in the world, for Parts and Piety, and there play the Bishop over an A. Bishop in his own Church, and seek to set all the Auditory in a flame at the time of Publick Worship, and require him to say that of [Page 149] Origen, which he there without any Authority imposed on him? I know not what is Pride, Usurpation, Turbulency, if not Malig­nity, if this be not.

But at last he saith, [‘I do not intend to excuso Theophilus in this particular: (Thank Pope Innocent) He did certainly pro­secute his Resentment too far: But he was not the only man: Epiphanius, a person of great Holiness; Hierom, and several other persons renowned for their Piety, were concerned in the per­secution of this Great man, as well as he: And to say the truth, this is their weakness; for that Severity which gives men gene­rally a Reputation of Holiness, though it mortifie some irregular heats, yet is apt to dispose men to p [...]evishness.’]

But true Holiness ever sincerely loveth holy men, and special­ly such as are publick Blessings to the Church: And though I censure not their main State, your Holy Persecutors of the best of Christ's Servants, will never by Christ be judged small Offen­ders.

Alas! it's too true that Theophilus was not alone: A Coun­cil of Bishops were the Persecutors. And it's hard to think that they loved Chrysostom as themselves. When the forementioned Council at Constantinople had turned out Nazianzen, even the great magnifiers of General Councils, Baronius and Binnius, thus reproach them, that they drove away a holy excellent man, that a man was set up in his stead that was no Christian; that it was the Episcopi Nundinarii that did it, the Oriental Bishops first leaving them, and going away with Gregory. And if the Major Vote of that General Council were Episcopi Nundinarii, what Ch [...]ysostom's Persecutors were may be conjectured. Do not these Papists here say worse of them than I do?

§ 24. Yet though he confess as much as is aforesaid, and bring but his Conjectures mixt with palpable omissions against the express words of Socrates and Sozomen, he hath the face to make up his failing with this Calumny [‘I have dwelt so long on this, not only to vindicate Theophilus, but to shew once for all the manner of our Author's dealing with his Reader in his Church-History. Any scandalous Story, though it be as false and impro­bable as any in the Anni Mirabiles, or Whites Centuries of Scan­dalous Ministers, any Fiction that reflects with disgrace on Bishops and Councils is set down for aut [...]ntick, no matter who delivers it, friend or foe.’]

[Page 150] Answ. Are not Baronius and Binnius friends to the highest Prelacy? Doth not he himself say that Socrates is a credible Hi­storian? Is his Authority weighty enough to discredit them whom he contradicts? Hath he proved one word false that I have said of Theophilus? Is not Chrysostom as credible as he? Doth he not know how ill he is spoken of by a great number of Chrysostom's Defenders? And how smartly Isidore Pelusiota re­flects on him?

But who could have disgraced him more, than he that will imply that the things mentioned of him are as true as what is said in White's Centuries of Scandalous Ministers, or the Anni Mirabiles. I know not all or most things in either of them. But he was a stranger in England that had not credible Testimony of divers of the things in the Anni Mirabiles. And Mr. White, the Chairman of that Parliament-Committee, was commonly re­puted a grave and godly credible man; and if he lied, the whole Committee must concur in the Lie; and the Witnesses must all be false. I will not further meddle in so unpleasant a business, than to tell you, that all that I knew accused of Scandal, had Witnesses of it, that in the places where they lived were thought to make as much conscience of a Lie, as the best of their Neighbours: And whether such a mans scorn that was then in the shell, is in History a sufficient proof that Commit­tees of Parliament, and Witnesses, were all Lyars, I leave to con­sideration, I well know what School-masters and Curates I was bred under, and what the two Ministers were that were se­questred in the place where I after came: And all the Country can tell you. They constrained me to name them, and the Case in my Apology for our Preaching, and my Answer to Mr. Hink­ley: It's yet the same Age: Any may enquire of them.

§ 25. As to his Note of Altars, I doubt not but there were at the Memorials of Martyrs Commemoratory Altars erected in the third or fourth Centuries: But what's that to Communica­tory Altars? and those in the first and second Century?

§ 26. I suppose he wrote against my Book upon some others Reading. I did in a Parenthesis say (Innocent Excommunicated Theophilus, Arcadius and the Empress.) And of another matter added; yet did this pass without contradiction: And he confounds them, and saith, [Any thing passeth with him for History: This Epistle of Innocent is all forged.] Answ. I see not his proof: But [Page 151] I had rather it were proved false than true: But when I speak against Papal Usurpation (be the men never so good) I think to such Binnius and Baronius are meet Witnesses.

§ 27. Boniface's Decree of exempting Bishops from Civil Judicatures, he thinks not so Antient, and saith, We have only the Authority of Gratian for it: But his Conjecture and a flirt at me is all the Confutation: And he cannot doubt but that Ex­emption hath sufficiently priviledged Bishops since then: As is after proved.

CHAP. XXI. Of the first Council of Ephesus, &c. His Cap. 5.

§ 1. OUR Accuser in his Fifth Chapter passeth by the just Praises which I give to Peaceable Bishops, as crossing his Slander that I dispraise all, or such as well as the unpeace­able, whose Justification it is that he undertaketh.

§ 2. He begins with an Accusation, that [to prejudice the Rea­der against Cyril's Council, I give the worst account of him that I could patch up out of all the Libels and Accusations of his Ene­mies.]

Answ. If by Prejudice be meant Informing him of H [...]story; and by Worst is meant Impartial Recitation of what History saith; and by Patching up be meant such Reciting; and by Enemies be meant the best and most credible Historians that have written of it, then this is true: Else it is the work of that Under­taker that is engaged to call Evil Good, and Darkness Light, and preserreth speaking good of bad actions, before speaking truly.

§ 3. And that you may know by what Spirit men that will not reproach the best that differ from the Prelates, are them­selves reproached by this Sect, and also what sort of History this man giveth the Lie to, on pretence of giving it me, and how far he is from Railing, he thus proceedeth.

[‘The first thing he is charged with is the Oppression of the Novatians. This was enough with Socrates or Sozomen to paint him as ugly as men do the Devil or Antichrist; and [Page 150] therefore there is no great credit to be given them in these Relations, as manifestly espousing the Cause and Quarrel of the Novatians.’]

Answ. 1. Just as Thuanus or Erasmus espoused the Cause of the Protestants by Truth and Peace, when others hated and be­lied them. 2. Methinks the man revileth me very gently in comparison of Socrates and Sozomen, the two most impartial and credible of all our Antient Church-Historians (with Theo­dorot.) But who can wonder that he imitateth that which he defendeth.

§ 4. But he saith, [It may be the Novatians deserved it—and it's not unlikely that they were very troublesom and seditious.]

Answ. It's not unlikely now that others will say it was so. But mark Reader which of these Historians is most credible [Socra­tes and Sozomen lived with those that knew the things and per­sons: They have told us Truth in the rest of their Histories: If they had been Novatians, Mr. M. saith, They believed sinning after Baptism had no pardon or absolution: And were they not like then to fear such Lying and false Accusing as paints a Saint like the Devil or Antichrist.] On the other side [Mr. M. liveth above a thousand years after them: He is one of the Party that take it to be not only lawful, but a duty to say and swear all that is imposed now, which I will not here describe: How truly he writes the History of his own Age, even of Parliament and Wars, and living persons, I have told you. He saith no more against the Historians credit here, but [it may be] and [it's not unlikely] and [they were Novatians, Schismaticks, Alexandrians.] Even so their Counterminer, and many Conformists, that have many years reported us to be Raising a War against the King, had their [May-be' [...]] and [It's not unlikely] and [they are Schisma­ticks] to prove it: And others soon rose up and swore it. And when some lament their Perjury, it stops not the rest. But some have such Free-will, that they can believe whom they list.

§ 5. Socrates, saith he, makes it part of his charge that he took on him the Government of temporal Affairs. This was not the Usurpation of the Bishop, but the Indulgence of the Emperour: And he shews the Churches need of it.

Answ. That which he is charged with is, that he was the first Bishop that himself used the Sword. And 1. Do you think that so great a Patriarchate & Diocess would not find a conscio­nable [Page 153] Pastor work enough, without joyning with it the Magi­strates Office? 2. Was not the Church greatly changed even so early from what it was a little before in the daies of Martin and Sulpitius, when even Ithacius durst not own being so much as a seeker to the Magistrate to draw the Sword against gross Hereticks; and the best Bishops denied Communion with them that sought it: And now a Bishop himself becomes the striker not of gross Hereticks, but such as peaceable Bishops bore with.

I remember not to have read that Cyril had any Commission for the Sword from the Emperour: Others then had not: But I deny it not.

§ 6. He saith, that elsewhere I say [I shall not dishonour such, nor disobey them.] Answ. I say and do so: If a Bishop will take another Calling from the King's Grant, when he hath underta­ken already 40 times more work as a Diocesan than he can do, Ile honour and obey him as a Magistrate: But I would be loth to stand before God under the guilt of his undertaking and omissions.

§ 7. As to all the rest of the History about Cyril's Execu­tions, and the wounding of Orestes the Governour, I leave it between the Credit of Mr. M. and Socrates.: And he very much suspects the Story of Cyril's making a Martyr of him that was exe­cuted for it: I leave all to the Reader's Judgment. I think I may transcribe Socrates without slandering Cyril.

Here his spleen rising, saith [There are men in the world that honour such as Martyrs for murdering a King.]

Answ. You may smell what he insinuates: I think he will not say, that he ever did more against them than those that they call Presbyterians have done. We Wrote and Preacht against them when he did not. I know not the Presbyterian living to my remembrance, that was not against the Murder of the King, and Prin. whom the Bishops had cropt and stigmatized for be­ing against them, as an Erastian, was the hottest in the Par­liament, for the Execution of the King's Judges: But I knew di­vers Conformists that have written or spoken to justifie or ex­cuse that Fact.

§ 8. As for the Murder of Hypatia, I leave him to his scuffle with Socrates and Damascius, in which I interess not my self.

§ 9. I thank Pope Innocent Mr. M. durst not deny Cyril's [Page 154] faults, in his Enmity to the memory of Chrysostom; and yet he calls my reciting the matter of Fact a reproach. He is constrain­ed to confess [‘That the Quarrel was it seems hereditary to him (so is Original Sin) and he did prosecute it beyond all equity or decency against the memory of a dead man: This was a fault, and and he that is without any, or without any particular animosity, specially if he be in any eminent place, let him [...]ast the first stone.’]

Answ. Thanks to Conscience: We feel your Animosities: But is not this man a Railing Accuser of Cyril, if I am such? What saith he less in the main? Yea he now renews his Accusation of his Predecessor, saying, It was hereditary. To prosecute malice against the very name of a holy extraordinary Bishop, beyond all equity and decency—what will Christianity or Humanity call it? But Faction saith, it was a fault, and he that is without any, &c. Thus talkt Eli to his Sons: So one may say, To Silence 2000 Ministers, or to hate the best men, and seek their ruine, is a fault, a Prelatical peccadillo; and so was Bonner's usage of the Martyrs; and let him that is without any cast the first stone. And St. John saith, He that hateth his Brother is a murderer, and none such hath Eternal Life abiding in him; and that as Cain, he is of the Evil One, the Devil. And I believe him.

§ 10. But he saith, I injuriously charge him with calling Alex­ander a bold faced man, when Atticus was the first Author of that word.

Answ. Atticus mentioned Alexander's confident, true and ne­cessary Counsel; Cyril contradicting it, calls the man, A man of a confident face or mouth. If another Bishop said the first words before him, do I wrong him in saying he said the second? O tender men! His urging the keeping up the names of such as Nectarius and Arsacius, and casting out Chrysostomus, is so like our Canons about Readers and Nonconformists, and our Cano­neers descriptions of their Country Parsons, and the Puritanes▪ that I wonder not that you defend him.

§ 11. But he saith, that It's a little unchristian to blast his memory with the faults which he corrected in his life-time.]

Answ. 1. It's necessary to tell that truth which blasteth the Reputation of such sin as was growing up towards Papacy▪ Ans. 2. Then Christ was unchristian to tell the Jews of their very Fathers murders of the Prophets, while they disclaimed it, and built their Sepulchres, Mat. 23. And then it was unchristian in [Page 155] the Holy Ghost, to blast the memory of Adam, Noe, Lot, David Solomon, Peter, yea or Manasseh, with sins repented of. 3. History must speak truth about things repented of; or else it will but deceive the world. 4. The Honour of God, and Goodness, and Truth, must be preferred before our own Honour. Repentance, if true, will most freely confess a mans own sin, and most fully shame it.

§ 12. Whether all his far-fetcht Conjectures that Cyril re­pented, be true or no, is nothing to me. I will hope he did, though I never saw it proved: The very last Sentence of Death might do it. His retortion is, [I know no man deeper engaged in the Contentions of the Church (than I) The writing of his Eighty Books being but like so many pitcht Battels he has fought, and most commonly in the dark, when he was hardly able to discover friend from foe.]

Answ. It's too true, that being all written for Peace, the Enemies of Peace have fought against them. Nimis diu habi­tavit, anima mea inter osores pacis. But pro captu Lectoris, &c. All men take not the words of such as he for Oracles. How much I have written and done for Peace, let others read and judge. I long laboured and begg'd for Peace in vain with such as he defendeth. And it's admirable if this pittiless Enemy of Sects and Errours can be for all the Sects and Errours that I have written against. Have I in the dark taken for foes by Er­rour the Atheists, the Infidels, the Sadduces, the Hobbists, the Quakers, the Ranters, the Papists, the Socinians, the Libertines called Antinomians, the Anabaptists, the Separatists, and Sects as Sects? Be of good comfort all: These Prelatists that accuse us for too dark and sharp Writings against you, seem to tell you that they will more hate persecuting or distressing you; Yes when they agree with themselves.

His Prayer that I may have a more honorable opinion of Re­pentance he calls me to speak to in the End.

§ 13. Whether good Isidore Pelusiota were a man [‘very easy to take any impressions, and upon false information chargeth Cyril with prosecuting his private quarrells with Nestorius under pretence of zeal for the faith’] I leave all men to believe our Accuser as they see cause. And the same I say of that which is so great a Controversie among the Critical Historians, whether Theodorets Epistle to Job. Aut. against Cyril be Counterfeit, or [Page 156] were written on a false rumour of Cyrils death. Their 5th Ge­neral Council hath it. Baronius and Binnius say, some Eutychian knave hath corrupted the Acts of that Council. Must Councils be the Laws of all the world, and hath the Church and Tradi­tion kept them no better, that we know not when we have them truly? Leave us then to the universal Laws of God.

§ 14. He saith truly that [the Council of Ephesus was chiefly directed by the authority of Cyril] Ans. And so was that at Trent by the authority of the Pope And when he hath confuted the credible History wich tells us of the womens and Courtiers ha­tred of Nestorius, and proved that the Emperour and Pul­cheria the Empress were but one, I will grant that the authority of the Court directed not Cyril; and that then and now Bishops neither were nor are directed by the Civil powers.

§ 15. When I spake against Nestorius his cruelty to Sectaries he asketh [What Hereticaters were hotter than the Presbyterians in 1646. The inquisition is not more severe than their ordinance a­gainst Heresies, which they desired should be made felony and punish­ed by death &c.]

Ans. Reader Judge of the mans Credit as to ancient History still by his truth about the Present age. 1. The Inquisition he saith, is not more severe. Do I need to answer this to any man of 50 years of age? It's Capable of no answer but what he will call by some name deserved by his own.

2. I can find no such ordinance: He saith It was offered? Is that all? And by whom? Was it the body of the Presbterians, or who?

3. What were the Heresies named by them? Were they not down right Blasphemy?

4. Who and how many were ever either tormented or put to death for Heresie, from 1641 till 1660: I remember not one, save that James Nayler was imprisoned and whipt, and had his Tongue bored for blasphemous Personating Christ, and that not by the Presbyterians.

5. Why are they so ordinarily reproached by the Prelatists for tolerating all Sects here in England?

6. What if all this had been true? What is it to me or any of my mind? I never had a hand in persecuting one man, to my remembrance. How few can you name of all the Nonconfor­mists now in England, that had any hand in the Severities you [Page 157] mention? I know not four in England, that I remember. And what's this to us any more than to you?

7. And was it well done, or ill? If well▪ why do you liken them to the Inquisition? Are you for it? If ill, why do you plead for it in others? Imitate it not if you dislike it.

For my part, as I am against all Sects as such, I am much more against the cruelty of any. I stick no more at the dis­gracing the Presbyterians sins, than yours: And I am readier to disgrace my own than either, if I can know them. I would cherish Errours no more than you; but I would not ruine or imprison even such of your selves as have too many. Heresie must have its proper cure. I thank God I had once an Ortho­dox agreeing Flock. But again I say, the Presbyterians were too impatient with Dissenters; and it's better have variety of Fish in the Pond, than by the Pikes to reduce them to special unity.

§ 16. He saith that Nestorius consequentially denyed the God-Head of Christ. p. 192. Next he hath found a contradiction in my words, that the Emperor was weary of this stir: And yet that [Cyril did it to please the Court] These critical men can make their two hands enemies to each other. How came he waking to dream that this was a contradiction, when Historians tell us that the Women and Courtiers hated both Chrysostome and Nesto­rius? He implyeth that the Emperor and the Court were all one, or of one mind. But I am not bound to believe him, no more than of many other Emperours whose Wives kept up one party and they another. And I pray you why should we be confident that Theodosius 2. himself called an Eutychian by the heretica­ting Bishops, was not against Nestorius when he called that Coun­cil, & at first Condemned both him and Cyril, and after him alone? I did but recite the Historians words, and was that forgetfulness?

§ 17. His many words about this controversie with Nestori­us are the most unworthy of any answer of all his Books: some­time he saith as I, as p. 193. [It had been happy for the Church if the mysteries of our Religion had never been curiously disputed: sometime he confesseth that Nestorius spake the same thing with Cyril, that Christ had two natures in one Person: ibid. And that he expresseth himself one would think very orthodoxly. p. 202. But the Heretick dissembled and hid his sence. And so this man after above 1000 years knew the mans mind to be contrary to his words: whereas it's palpable to him that readeth the Histories, that the [Page 158] man was so far from hiding and dissembling, that he was sowrly and morosely addicted to stick to the words and Notions he had espoused, and too little to regard a peaceable complyance to mollifie his accusers▪ His fault lay on the clean contrary side, But he proveth him a Heretick that meant Christ was two Per­sons, though he said the contrary, 1. Because he saith that the Humane Nature was united in dignity and honour to the Divine.

Ans. As if either the hypostatical union were denyed by those words, or he knew that Nestorius meant not to include it in those terms:

But he saith he useth the word [...] and not [...] Ans. As if [...] never signifyed more than a Relative or official Person, when besides the many places cited by Derodon, Nesto­rius oft explaineth himself in the common orthodox sence.

But the foulest charge is, that he seems once or twice to distin­guish Christ from the Divine Nature. Ans. By [Christ] he ex­presseth himself to mean the humane nature anointed to his Office: And the man thought that the Divine Nature was not so anoin­ted: and distinguishing is not dividing.

It is not his Nay and my Yea that can inform any Reader what Nestorius said and meant without reading his own words (rather than Cyrils of him.) And if such as Mr. M. will pretend Chari­ty, and contrary to plain evidence face down the world that a Man denyeth consequentially Christs God-Head, and the Unity of his Person, while he profest the contrary, no mans innocency is sufficient to escape the fangs of such hereticaters: And let him call me what his list inclineth him to call me, I again profess that on the reading of Cyril, Nestorius, and the Council, and Dero­don's Citations, I am quite past doubt that the controversy was Verbal, which of them spake orthodoxly while they both meant the same thing; and when one said Mary was the Mother of God, and the other said, no; She was but the Mother of that Person who is God; the fitness of the phrase was the matter of their quar­rel.

And consider 1. Many think that when a high point is in con­troversy to the danger of the Church, we must use the exactest phrases, and not say all that may be justified.

2. And as forma dat nomen, so locutio formalis, or denominating forma is more exact and proper than à materia: And therefore though idioms may be Communicated, he that in controversie [Page 159] denominateth the Divine Nature from its own properties, speaks more exactly.

3. If one should in our Pulpits say ordinarily▪ [The World was Created by Man:] The eternal proceeding of the Holy Ghost was from a Man: Flesh and Blood was from Eternity;] many sound Christians would not like it. And yet it's true in the Com­municative sense, viz. [He that is now man made the world as God: The Holy Ghost eternally proceeded from the 2d Person in the Trinity who is now God and Man: Christ who was flesh and blood on Earth, was Eternal as God.] So if one now say [God was confined to the Virgins Womb, and to the Manger: God could not speak in the Infancy of Christ: God was but a­bout 30 year old when Christ was Baptized: God knew not the day nor the hour of Christs second coming: God was asleep, hungry, sorrowful, in an agony, crucified, dead, buried, &c.] All this is thus far true, viz. Of Christ who was God, not as God but as man: And yet if I should deny but the fitness of this speaking, I were just such an Heretick as Nestorius was: And many that are no Hereticks for all that would not rellish it.

Either▪ my Eyes could not find that in Nestorius which he affirms of him or else he is a meer slanderer of him, when he [...]aith Pag. 193 that he denyed Yea obstinately] that Mary was the Mother of that Person who was God.] He hath produced no such word. That which he stood to was, that instead [...] of saying Mary was the Mother of God, we should say she was the Mother of Christ who is God and Man. And of the unity of Person I have cited already his own words so fully, as moved Derodon to say [I dare boldly say, no Christian hath hitherto spoken trulyer and plainer of the unity of Christs Person in two natures than Nesto­rius▪] And that it's false that he confest but an union of dignity the same cited words shew: Nexu adeo sublimi (saith he) Di­vinoque & admirabili (mentioning the conjunction of the Divini­ty and humanity) ut Divina natura ea sibi vendicet quae Corporis alioquin sint propria] Epist. ad Cyril.

And as to all his justifications of Cyril, he knoweth that I justi­fy his Doctrine as well as he, but not the work that he made, which is not undone among Nations of Nestorians to this day. But if the man were able to be impartial, and so happy as not to draw on himself the guilt of such sins by justifying them, he might easily see in his own confession that Cyril the Hereticator [Page 160] spake as bad at least as Nestorius. He oft confesseth (for he can­not deny it) [that he doth frequently own but one nature] p. 197. and 198. [that there is but one nature of the word incarnate] so p. 201. &c. But Cyril meant well, that is, by Nature he meant Person. And was not this Eutychian Speech as improper as Nesto­riu's is? Is the nature and Person to be confounded? Did the Fathers speak thus? If Nature put for Person be pardonable, why is it not pardonable to prefer a denomination a proprietate vel forma, to another? And thus you make Cyril to differ from the Eutychians, in their different meanings while they used the same words. If I had said that Christ had but one Nature I should have had a censure otherwise measured.

And though this man seem to deny it, I have cited many of his words in which he saith [Duas naturas unitas asserimus: past unionem vero tanquam adempta jam in duas distinctione, unam esse credimus filii naturam, tanquam unius sed inhumati & incarnati & ad succes. Nihil injusti facimus dicentes, ex duabus naturis factum esse concursum in unit atem: Past unionem vero non distin­guimus naturas ab invicem. But I have cited enough before.

The sum and truth is, to judge no one but my self, I must be blind by ignorance or partiality if I be not past doubt, 1. That unskilful explication was their difference. 2. That Cyrils words were Eutychian. 3. That Nestorius words were orthodox in the main, but not sufficiently yielding to a tolerable phrase. 4. That they both meant the same thing. 5. That all their war was managed, 1. For want of distinguishing fully the Abstract [Dei­tatem] and the Concrete [Deum] 2. For want of distinguishing [Qui Deus] from [Qua Deus] and a strict formal expression from a more laxe that's tolerable. And 3. For want of distingui­shing [division] from [distinction] of natures. 4. For want of explaining the various sorts and senses of [Unity] and [Plurali­ty.] I cannot but know this to be true, though Mr. M. scorn me for it.

What [I that understand not the language they wrote in to pre­tend to know better than the Council?] Ans. 1. So say the Papists: what? will you pretend to know more than the Church and Councils? If it be implicite faith that they are bringing us to, let them tell us which Councils we must so believe when they condemn each other? 2. I thought I could make shift to under­stand their language, though I be no critick in it: But if he know [Page 161] me better, I strive not for the reputation of Learning; not only Baronius and Binnius, and all the rest that he nameth that had no skill in Greek, but most of the Schoolmen, seem to me with­out it, far more Learned than he. I can tell him of Lads whose Learning I admire not, that shall vie with him in Languages Oriental and Occidental, and give him odds; And when he scorns Derodons distinctions, telling us it's making two bad Groats by slit­ting a Sixpence, &c. I leave him to glory in his Confusion: But I suspect the Fox that speaks against Tails is like enough to want one himself.

But when he hath shewed in all this History of Nestorius, Cyril, and the Council, little but that partiality which can talk confidently to the ignorant for any cause, without any shew of confuting Derodons justification of Nestorius, or my Conciliati­on, his crast or passion attempts to divert the Reader by the art of the times, and as if it must stop our Mouths from lament­ing the sin of Hereticators, and misery of the Church thereby, he tells us how men in these times call them Papists that are none.

Ans. If it be ill done, why condemn you your self by de­fending those that did the like? If it was well done in Bishops Councils, why not in them? 2. But what's this to me, if it be not me that he means? If it be, 1. If you will read but the last part of my Cathol. Theolog. judge of the mans front. 2. It is none but those that are for a humane Soveraignty over all the Church on Earth that we judge Papists: And if you judge them not such, we will thank you to tell us what a Papist is in your own sense.

§ 18. His saying p. 225. that [John Comes that gives a sad ac­count of the Council is much to be suspected, &c. doth but tell us that he would have your belief of History guided by the Inte­rest of his Cause.

§ 19. As to his scorn against my translating the words [the Scripture and Sacred] which mean that imperial Scripture, I did think a litteral Translation could not have been judged a misun­derstanding or mistranslation: Why may they not be called in English what they are called in Greek? And he had a strong ima­gination if he thought that Haumers Translation of Eusebius, &c. afforded me such materials as these.

§ 20. His conclusion of some that scorn to preach by the Li­cence of the Government I before mentioned. The Truth and [Page 162] ministerial Honesty of it, is much like as if Thousands should petition the Bishop, that their sick families may have licensed Physicians, and he rejecteth all their Petitions, and prevaileth with the Parliament to do the like: At last the King pittieth them, and licenseth the Physicians, and the Bishop and his Cler­gy are offended, and get it revoked, and the Physicians practise at their peril without license: And our credible Historian should record it, that they scorned to practise as licensed by the Govern­ment, even while still they make all the Friends they can to the Clergy to be licensed, and are not able to prevail. But the ages that knew not them and us, that are to come, may possibly be­lieve these men as they believe their Predecessors.

§ 21. To conclude, Reader, if now thou have any sense of Christian Interest, Unity and Love, judge of the whole case im­partially, and begin with notorious matter of fact.

1. We find at this day a great Body of Christians, called Ne­storians, inhabiting the Countries of Babylon, Assyria, Mesopo­tamia, Partbia, and Media, yea, spread Northerly to Cataya, and Southerly to India; abundance of them even in Tartary, saith Paulus Venet. See Brierwood p. 139. And we find that they are by the Western Churches, if not the Greeks, called Here­ticks, and at the easiest Schismaticks. And yet as those very Friars that have lived among them say, they are commonly free from any such Opinions as are charged on them, but only ho­nour the name of Nestoriaus, and condemned the Councils that condemned him. This Mr. M. nor no Prelate will deny that re­taineth humanity.

2. We find that this woful fraction hath continued about one Thousand two Hundred and thirty Years.

3. We are put to enquire what was and is the cause; and we find that on both sides it is the Bishops and their Clergy that now continue it, and it was Patriarchs and their Bishops that at first caused it.

4. We enquire how they did it: And Mr. Morrice confesseth that it began in a dispute between the two Patriarchs (whether the Virgin Mary was to be called The Mother of God, or rather The Mother of Jesus Christ who is God and Man: and that on this occasion Cyril charged Nestorius, as making Christ to be two Persons, and he himself said Christ incarnate had but one Na­ture, but had no more skill in speaking, than by one Nature to [Page 163] mean one Person, (though Derodon labour to prove that he meant worse,) that Nestorius professed two Natures in one Per­son. And Mr. M. saith, Nestorius when he spake well meant ill, and Cyril when he spake ill meant well. And upon this a Gene­ral Council itself is first divided about them, even to blows: and after by the importunity of Cyril's party, Nestorius is banished, and the Bishops divided, some for one, and some for another to this day. Another Council is called at Calcedon, and confirmeth the Condemnation, and the Nestorian Bishops condemn that Council, and for many Ages the Bishops were divided also about that, one part condemning it, and the other subscribing to it, and honouring it. Judge now what these Bishops have done to Christian Religion and the Church of Christ, and continue to do: And if you dare join with our Canoneers in making the guilt your own, by justifying such dismal work; the further you go, the more of it you have to justifie, till your Souls have guilt and load enough.

Honest Dr. Moore charged with Nestorianism, is fain to ac­cuse Nestorius out of his Enemies words to clear himself. That he owned not a [Physical Union of Natures] is an ambiguous, un­safe word: A Physical Union seems to signifie one [...] which is not to be said. He never denied a personal or Hypostatical Uni­on. And if he had (as he did not) opposed the word Hypostasis, so did Hierom that was no Heretick, and many more for a long time.

I suppose Mr. M. is not more zealous against Nestorianism than the Hereticating Church of Rome is: And how great they really thought the Nestorian Heresie, the story which I mention of P. Hormisda tells you, which I will repeat. [There arose a controversie whether it might be said that [One of the Trinity was crucified,] Pope Hormisda said [No] because they that were for it were suspected to be Eutychians: The Nestorians laid hold on this, and said, [Then we may not say that Mary was the Parent of one of the Trinity.] This was a hard case: Justinian sent to Pope John about it. His infallibility and Hormisda's were contrary: he and his Council say that we may say, that [One of the Trinity was crucified.] Hereupon Baronius and Binnius give us a useful note, [Ita mutatis hostibus arma mutari necesse suit.] What should the World do if we had not had such a Judge of Contro­versies. I hope Mr. M. will not be so heretical, or schismatical, [Page 164] as to say that either of these Popes erred against an Article of Faith: But will rather recant his Accusation of Nestorius, and number this with Things Indifferent, which the Church hath power to change at her pleasure.

CHAP. XXII. Of the Council of Ephesus 2d.

§ 1. THat our Historian may justifie the Dividers he makes himself a Party, and by downright mistake against both saith, 1. That Nestorius fell into Blasphemy, denying Christ to be true God. 2. And that Eutyches denied Christ to be true Man.] This is our Reformer of History; when both of them professed Christ to be true God, and true man. I doubt not but the Man can write another Book to justifie this; for what is it that some cannot talk for? Yea, he is at if again, p. 230. that Eutyches held Christ not to be true Man.

§ 2. He confesseth again that Cyril affirmeth but one Nature, and meant but one Person, and that Eutyches used the same words, but saith, sure they cannot be so mad as to fall out so violently when they say the same thing & words. Flavian could not be so foolish or so wicked, &c. Ans. I justifie not the words of Eutyches or Cyril; but if I have great reason to believe, that as he confesseth Cyril so gross as to use [...] for [...] so Eutyches who had far less Learning than Cyril, did word amiss the conceptions, which were the same with Cyrils, I leave it to this mild Censurer to call them Fools, and mad, and wicked. It's taken for railing in me to blame them.

§ 3. He saith [Cyril never said there were two Natures in Christ before the Union. Ans. I have twice cited his words: Find a true difference between them and those of Eutyches if you can. I believe they both meant better than they spake.

§ 4. But the Spirit of detraction useth to fetch Accusations from Hearts, & Thoughts, and secret Actions, and so doth he against Eutyches; and he saith this hath been done of late times, To deliver that in select Meetings, which they will not in publick promiscuous Assemblies: as evil Spirits are under restraint in consecrated places.

[Page 165] Ans. Therefore it is that the Nonconformists have 20 or 19 years so earnestly beg'd for leave to preach in publick con­secrated places to promiscuous Assemblies, that they might be out of suspicion, but could never obtain it of this sort of Ma­sters. Ex ore tuo—Thus they that cast the stone at others oft find it hit themselves. Mr. Edwards Gangrena is here commend­ed to those that are for Toleration. As if all differences were equally intolerable or tolerable: And he that saith [Tolerate not those that preach Blasphemy or intolerable errour,] said no worse than he that saith [Silence Two Thousand Preachers, unless they will Profess, Promise, and Swear, and do all that is (oft described) imposed on them.

§ 5. In his Narrative he is no more tender of the honour of Bishops it seems than I am, nor so much of Emperours; for when he had said the Emperour [was too much addicted to this kind of Vermine (Eunuchs) and shews his bitterness against Flavian, he saith that the Letters which called this Council suggested sufficiently what it was to do, and that their business was to condemn a Bishop the Emperour did not care for, though without any just ground, nay, for his honesty.

I deny none of this: But were the Bishops of the Catholick Church in a good case then, that, when they knew before that they were called to such a work as this, would meet in a General Coun­cil and do it? No; he accuseth them himself, I need not do it.

The Emperour, he saith, knew how to choose Bishops, (and yet his Summons was general to all to come,) and the President, if half be true that is said of him, (and if that be a doubt, how cre­dible are your Historians?) was one of the most wicked, profligate Wretches in the World,] yet he was one of the Patriarchs, and all the Council Bishops, and till they met, were not thus accused. You see the man is a far greater railer than I even against Bi­shops: But it is but against those that are against his Interest and side.

§ 6. He describes those Bishops as using violence, forgetting that it is it his Party trusteth to continually: just with the front as Baronius and Binnius, and many other Papists, justifie Martin for being against putting Hereticks to death, and condemn Itha­cius, while their Kingdom is upheld by that which they con­demn, and worse, even the burning of true Christians as Here­ticks, and it's Heretical with them to imitate Martin, just as [Page 166] those Matth. 23. Your Fathers killed the Prophets, and you build their Sepulchers, and say if we had lived in the days of our Fathers, we would not, &c.

§ 7. But in the passage I find our Historian in a more charita­ble mood to this Ephesine Council of Bishops than his Brethren, [How bad soever Dioscorus and this Council were, yet they are in my judgment to be looked on rather as favourers of Heresie than Hereticks, they followed the meaning I believe as well as the Words of Cyril.] Ans. And now I may hope I am Orthodox and Cha­ritable when I have no less than his Judgment to justifie mine. And Anatolius justifieth us both.

§ 8. But Sir, now you are in a good Mood, will you consider,

1. Whether those Bishops and Councils that set the Christian World in that Flame that burneth dreadfully to this day, after above 1200 Years, were not guilty at least of a peccadillo or venial sin.

2. Whether they are imitable.

3. Whether this General Council had a supream Legislative and Judicial power over all the Church on Earth, which all must obey and none must appeal from.

No: saith Bishop Gunning, It was a meeting of violent Robbers.

Ans. But it was a General Council: which it seems then may be such.

CHAP. XXIII. Of the 4th General Council at Calcedon.

§ 1. HE begins his Chapter comically, and notably derideth me for saying Pulcheria was the same that before at Ephesus had set the Bishops against Nestorius. Is this so ridicu­lous? It's well known that Historians make her very powerful with her Brother: she chose his Wife Eudocia, (They were long of two minds.) It's no wonder that she that got him con­demned at Ephesus, got the same further done at Calcedon, when she was Empress her self, having made Martian Empe­rour, and her nominal Husband, (for they were not conjugally to know each other.) Is there any thing in this that deserveth the stage? Though Theodosius be reproached by Popish Historians [Page 167] as an Eutychian, or a favourer of them, if credible honest So­crates may be believed, there have been few such Princes in the World, (for Piety, his House was a Church; for Patience, ne­ver seen angry; for Compassion, would never let a man die for Treason-against himself.) But his Sister (a Woman eminent for Wit and Piety) was thought to govern him very much, & spe­cially in the severities against Nestorius. Evagrius who bitterly reproacheth Nestorius, tells us of some writings of his that fell into his hand, in which he saith, that the Emperour was his friend, and would not sign his banishment, and laies the cruel­ties that he underwent on his Officer: and considering the case of a suffering man, I see nothing unseemly in the Letter to him, which Evagrius chargeth with contempt.

§ 2. My wish for the Churches Peace, that the unskilful words of Nestorius and Eutyches had been silenced by neglect, ra­ther than the flame blown up by honouring them with two Ge­neral Councils disputation, doth with this Gentleman deserve this Replication, [He cannot be more violent and outragious, more bitter and malicious under all the provocations imaginable, than he is under that neglect which himself prescribeth for the cure.] Ans. If this be a true accuser, he can prove what he saith: It's easie to say this of any man: But if a man that hath a cholerick Sto­mack shall swear that there was Aloes in his Physick, his word is no proof. These are the men into whose hands we are by Gods permission falln, while we are cast out, judged to silence, prisons, & beggary, if we do but repeat the words of the Laws and Canons, and in 17 Years time when most that they turned out are dead, if the rest at their own urgent demand do but tell them what they judge unlawful, and answer those that accuse them, they are outragious, violent, bitter, and malicious. As if one that wounds me should sue me for saying, You hurt me. It's violence and an unpeaceableness to feel, but none at all in them to strike or to destroy. We will give you many thanks if you will hurt us no more than we do you.

§ 3. I said that one skilful healing man that could explicate am­biguous words, and persuade men to Love and Peace, till they under­stood each other, had more befriended Truth, Piety, and the Church, than the hereticating Councils did.] And why, saith he, may not that skilful man shew his skill in Councils, as well as else where?

Ans. Who denieth it? But the question is, how he shall be [Page 168] heard and prevail? I told you that here One man in one sentence did so, by differencing between mental distinguishing and divi­ding; even Basil of Seleucia, saying, [Cognoscimus duas naturas, non dividimus; neque divisas, neque confusas dicimus.] This was true and plain enough, to have ended all the quarrel: But who laid hold on it, or did improve it? What the better was Nazi­anzen for speaking well in the Council at Constantinople? Or Chrysostome for any thing he could say to the Bishops for himself? I hope few of all that great number of Councils that were Arian, Semiarian, Eutychian, Monothelites, for Images, &c. were so bad as to have never a Bishop among them that could or would speak right: But did they prevail? In the very Council at Trent were more good Speeches than did prevail; and if Luther, Me­lanchthon, Zuinglius, and such others, had not done more good singly by Writing and Preaching, than Dudithius could do at Trent, or any of them at Wormes, or Ratisbone, &c. there had been little done. What good did Philpot do in the Convocation? Some say one Paphnutius turned the Inclination of the first Nicene Council for good; But that hearing temper was too short or rare.

§ 4. Next he tells us, that [in many late Disputes of Justifica­tion, &c. we find not that any of these healing men were able to re­concile Parties any more than the Councils of old.]

Answ. 1. If that were true, it's also true, that they have not made so great and many Parties as Councils did. We have not cast the world into so many Nations of Jacobites, Nestorians, and other Sects.

Answ. 2. Through God's mercy it is much better than such Historians would make men believe. Dr. Heylin tells us what work the Arminian Controversie made between Bishop Laud's Party, and the Parliaments and Abbots Party, as if it had set us all by the Ears. It is not so now: One of your Brethren late­ly tells us, how that Controversie is quieted: What Contention do you hear of among the Nonconformists about it? No man hath so much as writ a line, that I know of, against my Concilia­tion in my Cathol. Theology. How little stir doth the Antinomian Controversie make? If one or two men do vent their displea­sure about any of these, we neglect it, and it is presently for­gotten. I hear sometime that called Arminianism hotly preach­ed in the Parish Churches: It provoketh not me, and I take no [Page 169] notice of it. I (rarely) hear some preach against the Arminians: I take no notice of it, and there it dies: Whereas if one should write Challenges and Accusations to the Preachers, we might make work enough for all the Country. I never yet met with many such, but if you make not a War of it, and engage them by opposition, they grow weary themselves, and grow into un­observ'd neglect or contempt. Most of the spreading Errours and Contentions among us have come by the Bellows of too strong or imprudent Opposition or Disputes. I hear of no con­siderable Doctrinal Strivings among all the Nonconformists now in England. One Ignorant Uncalled Fellow is lately crept into London, and wrote proud Challenges for Antinomianism, and none answered him, and he is contemned, and hath no Second that I hear of.

§ 5. Though he say [he is weary, yet he must not pass by, that when I mention Socrates his most high praise of Theodosius (living under him) and the miracles which he saith God wrought for him; I say, if this be true, God owned his Moderation by Mira­cles, notwithstanding his favouring the Eutychians, more than he did any ways of violence.] And here the man hath found me in Contradiction, and saith, [Those miracles could not countenance the Eutychian cause that was after. 2. That the Eutychians were the most violent men. Such Contradictions he and L'Estrange find in my Writings.

Ans. But, 1. Is it true that I said those miracles countenanced the Eutychian Cause? I said only that God owned the Moderati­on (not the Eutychian Opinion) of a man called an Eutychian by the Hereticators, notwithstanding his favouring the Eutychians. He was a man that studied the reconciliation of the contending Bi­shops, and was moderate towards all, but persuaded that the major Vote of the Bishops being against Nestorius, and for Cyril, and Dioscorus, it tended to peace to take that side. His Mode­ration was the same before the stir with Eutyches as after. I on­ly said that God by miracles owned that mans moderation, who is charged with after favouring the Eutychians.

2. And what I spake of Moderation opposite to violence, in way of suppressing Hereticks, he feigneth me to speak it as opposite to violence in the Persons suppressed: I spake of Violence in the Prince as agent, and he feigneth me to speak of Violence in the parties that he dealt with. He may find matter at this rate [Page 170] to write greater Volums against any man. I read of none of the Heresies then contended about, Nestorian or Eutychian, but the accused Bishops were violent for them: But though they were all violent, yet if the question were, whether the Emperour should use violence or Moderation against them, I may say, that God owneth more the way of Moderation.

§ 6. P. 246. he saith [At Ephesus Eustathius was kikt to death, and all those that durst desend him were threatned to be served in like manner.] Ans. Of this before: His memory failed him: It was not Eustathius but Flavianus. 2. Yet he after excuseth Di­oscorus from Heresie; more Bishops than were Hereticks were violent.

§ 7. As to his Reflection, [‘It may be he thinks the Empe­rour took a particular Delight in that kind of cruelty, and that he had rather one should be kickt to death, than that he should be hanged or beheaded; which would not be much to the credit of his Moderation: And to say the truth, his Letter to Valentinian discovers a strange kind of Spirit; for there he justifies the pro­ceedings of the Eutychians at Ephesus, and saies that all things were carried on with much freedom and perfect Truth, and Flavi­an found guilty of Innovating in Religion. This is but an ill sign that Mr. B. is a hater of false History, when he lets this pass un­reproved.’

Ans. 1. Had I reproved such an Emperour, I might have ex­pected that some of you would have published me an Enemy to Kings.

Ans. 2. Rather Sir, you and I should hence gather, that all men must have pardon and forbearance, and that for want of that, the names of Nestorians, Jacobites, Melchites, Greeks, Papists, Protestants, Lutheranes, Calvinists, Prelatists, and Presbyterians, &c. have almost swallowed up the Name, much more the Love of Christians.

Ans. 3. May it not consist with modesty and the hatred of false History, to believe the high praises of this Emperour, pub­lished by one that knew him in so pious and credible words as Socrates speaks, as I before told you, giving him (to me) a more credible Canonization than the Pope could have done, as a man of eminent holiness, wonderful Clemency, that would not let a Traitor go out of the Gates towards the place of Execution; and when he was moved to any Execution, answered, he had rather, [Page 171] were he able, restore the Dead to Life: excelling all the Clergy in meekness, and never seen angry. May not I who am branded for a railer by meek Prelatists, be tolerated to think charitably of such an Emperour, and to wish that the world had many more such.

Ans. 4. Judges are taken for unjust if they will not hear both sides speak. And why should not I regard the words of such an Emperour, as well as of one half the Bishops against the other?

Ans. 5. Surely Modesty requireth me to think that the Em­perour was much more capable of knowing the truth of the acts of his own Subjects, when his Servants present gave him an account of them, than I am 1200 Years after: And so good a man would not willingly lye.

Ans. 6. Therefore my own Conclusion is, God is true and all men are Lyars, that is, untrusty: and that Eudocia and his Courtiers had much power with him for Dioscorus against Flavi­an, as Pulcheria had against Nestorius; but that it was the Peace and Concord of the Bishops which he most studied, and thought that it lay in going with the major part. And I believe things were bad on both sides, and worse than the Emperour thought with the Eutychian Bishops, and worse than others say with their Adver­saries; and that the Emperour, though fallible, was as Socrates saith, beyond all the Clergie.

But here I see that I am blamed for not railing against a meek and pious Emperour, and as a Railer for lamenting the sins of the Clergie.

§ 8. About the Council of Calcedon he accuseth me in gene­ral, as [disingeniously mincing the Acts, and using all the soul play possible.

Easily said: And what's the proof? Why, 1. Leave out that they were violently beaten to it.

Ans. The Reader may see that this is false: I mention it oft, pag. 101. [The Bishops answered, that they did it against their Wills, being under fear: Condemnation and banishment was threat­ned, Souldiers were there with Clubs and Swords.] Shall I believe this man against such as Socrates, of things done 1200 Years ago, that will face me down with such untruths about my own yet visible Writings?

2. But is it falshood to omit what is said in such and so many Volumns? May not the Reader there see it? Do I contradict it? [Page 172] Must I write many Folio's or nothing? I refer all Readers to the Acts.

§ 9. But he saith, [It would go near to excuse their Compliance with a merciful man.]

Ans. I confess such are not so bad as the Clergy-men, that will sin for meer Preferment, and will write against, and revile, and call for Execution on those that will not do as they. But if Noncon­formists after 19 Years Ejection and Reproach, and Sufferings by more than Threats, should at last surrender to heinous sin, can he think it would excuse their Compliance, when Christ saith, Luk. 14 33. He that forsaketh not all that he hath cannot be my Disciple? If he think Martyrdom a work of Supererogation, he is dangerously mistaken. And he that to day thinks Threatning and Danger an Excuse for his sin, may to morrow think Poverty, and the next day the desire of Preferment an excuse.

§ 10. Dioscorus and the Eutychians holding close to the Council of Nice, as sufficient, as a Test of the Orthodox, to which nothing was to be added, in reciting this he hath found my Ignorance in translating [retractat] by [retract.] Is not the English word of the same sence with the Latine? If not, and I be ignorant in English too, what wrong is that to any Bishop?

§ 11. When he had charged Nonsence and Confusion on that which he understood not, and mentioned Eusib. Doril. giving the Lye to Eutyches, he confesseth that the thing was true.

§ 12. P. 253. He saith, When the giddy rabble of Monks with Swords and staves, like Bedlams broke loose, run upon them—I should rather pity them than insult.

Ans. If the History be an insulting, his own credited Histori­ans insult by recording it. If noting it as a fault be insulting, then a motion to Repentance is insulting, and if he would have us pity them for their sin, and not only for their suffering, that is in­sulting too: But to own their sin, and draw men to imitate them, shall be none of my Compassion.

He minds me of Peters Denial, and the Disciples forsaking Christ. Alas! he is not a man that is not sensible of Humane frailty? But is it not therefore to be blamed? Why doth Scrip­ture mention it, but that we may avoid the like? Is it to tempt others to the like? Did Christ insult when he said to Peter, Get thee behind me Satan, &c.

§ 13. He next falls into his familiar strain, to carry that ex [Page 173] Cathedra, by sentence, which he cannot do by proof, and saith, [When I venture on Observations it's an even lay that I am out.] Ans. That is, I am out of the way of his Magistry, Precon­ceipt and Interest.

It is my Conciliatory words that the peaceable man is an­gry at, viz. [That this doleful, Contentious, Anathematizing, and ruining of each other, was about the sense of ambiguous words, and they were both of one mind in the matter and knew it not.] He cannot but confess, that my judgment of them is softer than theirs that hereticate each other. And Derodon hath fully proved that this Council when they condemned Nestorius, were of his Judgment in the whole matter, and said but the same as he.

§ 14. As to his telling me, that Eutyches denied Christ to be truly and properly man, I will no more believe him, than if he had said Cyril did so.

§ 15. But he saith, the Monothelites were the genuine Disci­ples of Eutyches. They were of his mind in that Consequence: And such another Controversie it was. And how much greater errour against our Belief of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, have I proved e. g. to be, in your Dr. Sherloks Book; And yet I hope he meant better than he spake.

§ 16. P. 255. He confesseth of one Party what I said, viz. [‘Of Dioscorus and Flavian, I am apt to believe they were much of the same Opinion as to the point in controversie, and knew it well enough; which was the only cause why Dioscorus with his party of Bishops and Monks, would not endure to come to any De­bate of the matter, for fear it would appear that they all agreed, and then there would have been no pretence to condemn Flavian, which was the Design, if not of the Emperour, yet at least of those that governed him.’]

Ans. Fie Dr. will you thus abuse so many Orthodox Bishops? And almost condemn your vindicating Book? And harden me in my Errour? But I am much of your mind, and if one of us err, so doth the other.

§ 17. And I like his Ingenuity, saying Anatolius confesseth in Council, that Dioscorus was not condemned for Heresie but Tyranny, and no man contradicted him. Ans. Not in answer to those words, but the Accusations of many contradicted him before.

§ 18. That they mean one thing by their various expressions [Page 174] I have fully proved, and he no whit confuteth: That the Euty­chians acknowledged no distinct Properties, and Nestorius own­ed an Unity but in Dignity and Title only, are his flat slanders, to be no way proved but by their Adversaries accusations. The ve­ry words I named even now, [Divino, mirabili, sublimi nexu.] and many clearer, shew it of Nestorius. And I wish him to take heed himself how he defineth the Hypostatical Union, lest the next General Council (if ever there be one) make him an Here­tick.

Can he believe that the great number of Eutychian Bishops were so mad, as not to know that Christs Mortality, possibility, material Quantity, Shape, &c. were the properties of Christs Humanity and not his Deity? But some Men can believe any thing well or ill, reasonable or unreasonable, as Interest and af­fection lead them.

§ 19. He saith, that [If it were a faction that denied this, it was a strong one, and never was opposed by any Person before Mr. Baxter.

Ans. I heard you were a young man; but if you be not above one Hundred Years old, your reading cannot be great enough to excuse this confidence from such temerity as rendereth you the less credible. How many Thousand Books be they which you or I never read? How know you that none of them all op­pose it? But would you persuade the Reader that I call it a Fa­ction, to believe your sence of these Councils? Factious men are forwardest to judge others Hereticks without cause; and all that I say is, that Though such deny my Assertion it is true: Doth it follow that I take all for factious that deny it? If I had said, [Though Papists deny it,] that had not been all one as to say, [All are Papists that deny it.]

2. But did never any person oppose it? 1. I named you Da­vid Derodon before, who though he largely labour to prove Cy­ril an Eutychian in words and sence, and that by [...] he did mean Natura, and not Persona, yet as to Nestorius he copiously pro­veth, that the Council of Calcedon was just of his Mind, and condemned him for want of Understanding him. Though you have not seen that Book of Derodons, I have, and you should not judge of what you never saw.

2. Luther de Conciliis first accuseth Nestorius as a Heretick, denying Christ's Godhead, or holding two Persons; And present­ly [Page 175] retracts it, and confesseth he was seduced by believing the Papists, but (though he had not read much of the Councils, but what he had gathered out of the Tripartite and such Historians) yet he gathered from the Passages of the History, that the dif­ference lay only in words, which he openeth at large, and yet turns it sharply against Nestorius, for thinking that we may not speak of Christs Godhead or Manhood by communicated names or Attributes, and greatly rejoiceth that this serveth his turn in his Opinion about Consubstantiation and Sacramental words.

Because I will leave nothing in doubt with you, but whether Luther was before my days, and lest you say again that I cite Books which I see not, I will give you some of his words, be­ginning earlier, (not translating lest I have not skill enough) but they are so like mine, that I doubt you will be no Luthe­rane.

De Concil. pag. 175. Ecclesiae Romana & C. P. ambitiose rixa­tae sunt de re nihili, vanissimis & nugasissimis naeniis donec tandem utraque horribiliter vastata & deleta est.—Illa omnia libentius re­cito, ut videat prudens Lector quomodo ex tam celebri Synodo Con­stant inopolitana, seu ex sonte manaverint semina maximarum Con­fusionum propterea quod ibi Episcopus Ecclesiae ut Patriarcha fue­rat Praefectus.—p. 178. Quam horribilia certamina & contentio­nes moverunt hi duo Episcopi de primatu: ut facile judicari posset Spiritum sanctum non esse authorem hujus Instituti: Alia habet Episcopus longe potiora quae agat, quam sunt hi pueriles & inepti ludi—Praemonemur quod Concilia prorsus nihil novi debent commi­nisci vel tradere.

De Concil. Ephes. p. 180, 181. Excesserant jam è vivis sancti Patres, & illi optimi Episcopi, S. Ambrosius, S. Martinus, S. Hi­eronymus, S. Augustinus (qui eo ipso anno quo Synodus coacta est mortuus est) S. Hilarius, S. Eusebius & similes; eorumque loco prorsus dissimiles patres suborti fuerant. Ita ut Imperator Theodosi­us amplius eligi Episcopum C. P. ex Sacerdotibus vel Clericis Civi­tatis C. P. nollet: hanc ob causam quod plerumque essent superbi, ambitiosi, morosi, qui movere certamina, & tumultus in Ecclesiis plerumque tolerent.—p. 182. Cumjam videret Nestorius tantas turbas ortas ex corruptela multiplici, gemens prorupit in haec verba, Tollamus è medio omnes ambiguitates quae primum praebuerunt occasiones istis certaminibus, & fateamur palam Mariam recte vocari Matrem Dei. Sed nihil profecit Nestorius, ne tunc quidem eum [Page 176] revocaret suum errorem; sed voce publica conde m [...]atus, ex or­be Imperii universo ejectus & explosus est: Quanquam illi duo Episcopi Antiochenus & Alexandrinus, etiam post Concilium cum rediissent in suas Ecclesias, se ipsi mutuis convitiis lacerabant, & omnibus diris devovebant: Etsi postea res ad placidum exitum de­ducta est: Quanquam tamen dolendum hoc, & effusis lachrymis de­plorandum in Ecclesia est, tam praestantes viros adeo indulsisse suis affectibus, ut instar mulierum aut puerorum ineptissime inter se rix­arentur. Omnino suisset eis opus aliquo Constantino, qui ipsorum jurgia & contentiosa scripta etiam conjecisset in ignem.—p. 184. Mentioning the false accusations of Nestorius, making two Per­sons, &c. [Atque adeo intricata & confusa sunt quae scribunt, ut existimem ne quidem ipsos scire in hunc usque diem, quid & propter quas causas damnaverint Nestorium. Hoc inde conjicito. Fatentur credidisse Nestorium quod Christus sit Deus & Homo—exhis cer­tum est quod Nestorius non crediderit Christum esse purum homi­nem.—Constat Nestorium non duos sed unum Christum credidisse, id quod ipsorum verba testantur—ideoque non potuit credere esse duas personas. Nec ullibi reperitur in historiis quod Nestorius unum Christum crediderit habere duas personas, nisi quod Pontifices & corum historiae it a argutantur. Apparet Papam & scriptores Pon­tificios haec verba contra Nestorium calumniose & veteratorie finxisse, quod Christum pro puro homine & non pro Deo, & quod unum Christum pro duabus personis vel gemino Christo habuerit.—Ne­storius fuit homo inflatus tumens Pharisaico fastu, & indoctus; Et cum subito esset evectus ad supremum fastigium Ecclesiae, adeo ut haberetur pro summo Pontifice, Patriarcha, somniabat se unum an­tecellere doctrina & eruditione omnes homines in toto genere humano, nec sibi opus esse lectione librorum qui erant scripti à Majoribus aut aliis, nec in explicatione magnaram rerum retinendos esse modos lo­quendi antiquitus receptos in Ecclesia puriore; sed quia & voce va­lebat, & ex temporali sacundia volebat esse [...], Doctor vel Magister, & sormas loquendi quibus ipse uteretur tantum recipi­endas esse in Ecclesia, non alias. Et tali sastu armatus adorieba­tur illum articulum. Maria est mater Dei, aut genetrix Dei; Ibi vicissim Episcopos in adversa parte invenit perinde inflatos, quibus vehementer displicebat. Nestorii sastus, in primis Cyrillum Alexan­drinum: quia tunc nullus erat Augustinus aut Ambresius.—p. 189. Hinc manifestum est, quod Nestorius ut homo imprudens & vanissi­ma persu [...]sione adductus, loquatur quidem bono zelo de Christo: sed [Page 177] ex mera inscitia non intelligat quid & quomodo loquatur.—p. 192. Non est Nestorii error quod Christum credit tantum esse purum ho­minem, nec in duas personas eum dirimi; sed duas naturas Deum & hominem in una persona uniri satetur: sed communicationem idio­matum non vult concedere. Objiciat autem hic aliquis, Nestorium insidiose confessum esse, quod Christus Deus sit & una persona. Resp. Quod non: Tam ingeniosus enim & industrius non suit, sed serio ita judicavit.—Ad haec accessit aliorum Episcoporum insolentia, qui non cogitaverunt quomodo sananda essent talia vulnera, sed multo magis irritandis & refricandis causam dederunt. Vide caetera.

P. 202. De Concil. Calcedon. Adeo indulgebant sancti Patres mutuis odiis & dissensionibus ut alter non facile vellet alteri cedere—shewing the uncertainty of the Histories of this Council, and the Lies of the Papists not to be trusted. Iam divina qua ratio­ne ego ero salvandus, qui nec ipsum Concilium assequor, nec causam Concilii satis perspicio. p. 205. Quod Eutyches non tantum unam in Christo naturam esse statuat, ostendunt Papistarum Verba, qui dicunt Eutychen concessisse in Christo duas naturas, viz. Divinitatem & Humanitatem, quae à Divinitate est assumpta—Sed quid Euty­ches voluerit quod postea in Christo tantum Divina natura manse­rit, deserta humana, ibi prorsus sunt muti; & re nondum certo cogni­td dicunt, statuisse Eutychen quod in Christo duae naturae, & tamen non duae sed una natura sit: Ita postea historiae fiunt incertae & ob­scurae, ut nemo possit intelligere quid Eutyches senserit, aut quid Pontificiae historiae sentiant. Amittimus hisce ambagibus concilium una cum causis propter quas convocatum est.—Ego meas conjecturas recitabo: si rem assequor, bene; si non, non propterea labesactabitur fides Christiana. Eutychis opinio (sicut & Nestorii) errat circa idiomata, quamvis alio modo. Nestorius non vult idiomata humanitatis tribu­ere Divinitati in Christo:—Contra Eutyches non vult idiomata di­vinitatis tribuere humanitati, etiamsi & ipse firmiter & mordicus re­tineat Christum esse verum Deum & hominem. Ut si dicerem in Concione publica, Verbum filium Dei esse conditorem Coeli & Terrae aequalem Patri ab aeterno—Et hoc Verbum, illum filium Dei esse verum hominem: Hoc concedit mihi Eutyches nihil dubitans. Iam si porro dicam, Quod ille homo Christus sit conditor coeli & terra, hoc offendit Eutychen, qui putat prorsus esse absurdum dicere, Homo creat coelum & terram.—P. 210. Ibi vides quod idiomata facili occasione homines non praemonitos offendant & perturbent. Hic erat subveniendum teneris Conscientiis [...]raterna, amica & salutari admo­nitione, [Page 178] nec superbissimi errantes abjiciendi essent. Utinam meo ju­dicio non respondeat eventus: sed vereor profecto aliquos haereticos in novissimo die fieri judices; & illos ipsos Episcopos penes quos suit ju­dicandi potestas, in aeternum damnatos, ni Deus est mirabilis & incom­prehensibilis in suis judiciis; nisi quod scimus eum esse propitium humi­libus & infensissimum superbis. Et praesertim in Conciliis & Ecclesiis nihil erat agendum zelo vel invidia, vel superbia, quia Deus non potest ferre.

§ 20. Readers, you see what tedious work some men can make us: Many are scandalized, as if we gave them false Histo­ry, if we do not thus confute them; and if we do, we tire our selves and you. If I should cite you many more thus to confute his falshood, that never person before me opposed that Faction, you would be weary of it.

§ 21. Yet now my hand is in, you shall see further how much Luther was for the same that I have written. [Qui volet poterit ulterius legere acta Concilii, privata opera. Ego ad taedium & nau­seam us (que) legi ista; ejusmodi Chaos ceremoniarum & confusionum est ibi, ut videatur recte judicasse Greg. Naz. qui Synodis eruditiori­bas & sedatioribus interfuit,—& scribit [Sic affectus sum si dicen­da est veritas. ut malim omnes Episcoporum conventus vitare, quia nullius Synodi finem vidi bonum, aut qui magis tolleret mala quam augeret. Nam cupiditas contentionis & principatus, & aemulatio vincunt rationem. Ut profecto miror quod propter haec verba non du­dum eum excommunicaverunt ut atrocissimum haereticum. Sed quid sit quod dicit in Synodis Episcopos certasse ambitione, superbia, [...], habes in hac Synodo clarissimum exempium. Quod au­tem certum sit quod hic dicit se nullius Synodi vidisse finem bonum, docent nos historiae: Nam Ariana haeresis jocus fuit ante Nicaenum Concilium prae illa confusione quam ipsi post Concilium excitaverunt, (that was not long of the Synod.) Talis etiam suit Macedonici & Nestoriani Concilii. Nam illa pars quae est condemnat a eo suit conjunctior, ut tali specie concordiae. & unitatis suas praestigias pin­gerent quasi nulli justa ratione damnari possent. Subinde excitarunt major a certamina contra Concilia quae ipsi non recte intelligebant.—P. 247. Illud possum facillime probare quod miser ille Pastor in Hippone S. Augustinus plus docuit quam omnia Concilia—Dicam & quiddam amplius: Majus Lumen accedit Doctrinae Christianae ex Catechismo puerili quam ex omnibus Conciliis, & oratio Domi­nica & decem praecepta plus continent doctrinae & eruditionis quam omnia Concilia.

[Page 179]§ 2. Because I recite the words of the Bishops crying Pecca­vimus, he exclaimeth against me, as making Repentance and Re­oantation a derision, and this by the Spirit of Schism which is nice in point of honour, no Conviction shall be able to reclaim it, though in the most indefensible thing in the World.]

Ans. Add but with the Inquisitors, [Therefore burn them as hopeless.] and you are come to the end of your Lesson. The pe­netrating Wits of some men are admirable. This man whose face I never saw, knoweth my heart so much better than my self and my acquaintance, that he can tell that it is to avoid dishonour that I avoid Repentance, when I offer him my Oath, that if I have any knowledge of my own desire, I would thank him as my dearest Friend, who will by Evidence shew me any necessa­ry truth that I deny, or Falshood that I hold, and will joyfully publish my recantation.

2. And he can see Schism in my forbearing known and hei­nous sin in the satisfaction of my Conscience, while I write, and preach, and practise Communion with their Church, and can see none in silencing Thousands, and ipso facto excommunicating ma­ny more Thousands of godly Christians, and denying Baptism and the Lords Supper to such as think it is sinful to do—he knows what.

3. And he can see those things to be most indefensible, which after our best study we take to be clear, and can get no rational Reply to our defence.

4. And (for want of memory or tenderness of his partners ve­racity) when their Advocates have so oft and scornfully charged me with Retractations, and also told the World how much my own party (as they call them) speak against me, and my many large and free oppositions to the faults of Nonconformists that run into any extream, do all proclaim how little I have set by such honour; yea, when himself saith that I have fiercely con­tended against all Sects and Parties, and they call me Ishmael, whose hand is against every man: After all this to proclaim as aforesaid, such obstinate Impenitence for the love of Honour, I confess doth no more further my conviction than the Oath of an Irish Witness would have done: For if he had sworn it, I would have shewed my Books and their contrary testimony, and have askt him, whose honouring of me is it that I buy so dearly? It is not the Rulers, nor the Prelates, nor their Clergy, [Page 180] nor their adherents, noble or ignoble: And if I have willingly and laboriously displeased and lost the Sectaries too, whose ho­nour is it that I sell my Soul for?

§ 23. But did the man think that Unconstancy and compliance with powerful Heresie, is the same thing with Repentance for it? Or is it well done to persuade the Reader that it is Repen­tance or Retractation of Heresie I write against, when I recite the words of the Council and their own? Do I say that peccavi­mus was their sin?

§ 24. And I would humbly desire him in time to consider, 1. Whether it was a venial sin not to be named by me, when the most zealous Papists and Historians name it, for so great a num­ber of Bishops to turn and turn again so often, and that with Anathematizing one year of what they voted for before with Anathema to the contrary. I crave your impartial considerati­on but of two Instances: How oft did they with Anathema's vote for and against the Council of Calcedon as the Emperours changed? Yea in the same Usurpers time, Basiliscus, when he changed himself. 2. In the case of Images: How oft did they change in Councils, for them and against them, as the Princes changed? Sir, we mind this with lamentation and not insultingly: But if you take these for venial little sins, and our not swearing and covenanting all that you bid us for a mortal sin, are you not partial?

2. And I would wish you to think on it again, before you make this guilt your own, by mincing and excusing it; and lest you make all other mens sin your own, whom hereby you en­courage in the imitation of them. These are not things indif­ferent.

3. And do not so dishonour Prelacy, and your Church and Discipline, as to tell the World that these in Bishops are little things; what then is left for you to stick at? No man should make light of such Beams in the Eyes of those that should be the most pure, while they are pulling the mote of scrupling a Cere­mony, yea an Oath. &c. from their Brothers Eye, and that by such Iron Instruments as they use.

§ 25. Next comes his Logical terms, [throwing dirt, outragi­ous, bitter, malicious, &c.] And what's the matter? [I give not one loose at Emperours and Courts: scorning to change the game; charging the Bishops with the faults of the Magistrate, and laying [Page 181] all the blame on them.] In what words? I say, [so far could fierce, and factious Prelates prevail with a pious and peaceable Prince, by the pretences of opposing Heresie and Schism.

Ans. 1. Was he not a most pious and peaceable Prince? Then Socrates that knew him, and protesteth against flattery, and many others, are not to be believed? yea, if he excelled not the Bishops?

2. Do I say that none but the Bishops persuaded him? Where do I lay all the fault on them? Do I not after name the Empe­ress Eudocia, as the Agent to persuade him for the Eutychians, and Pulcheria to persuade him against Nestorius: My words are visible.

3. What Bishops were they that persuaded him to make a Law to confirm the Ephesine, Eutychian Council? Was it not Dioscorus and the Eutychians? Were they not Bishops? Did they not do it? Yea, doth not this man oft revile them far more bitterly than ever I did, and revile me for speaking so cha­ritably of them? Would you ever have expected that the same man should have so reviled me, for saying that these Eutychian Bishops prevailed with a good Emperour to confirm that Coun­cil of Eutychians?

4. Is it a sin not to speak hardlier of so good a Prince, who after repented and punished his Wife and Eunuch for persuading him? It was a blaming him to tell to what he was persuad­ed.

Truly the mans anger here for my blaming the Eutychian Bi­shops, in condemnation of whom he hath poured out so much more than I, doth make me think that there is somewhat in the sound of some words, that turns his wrath this way or that: When he hears the name of an Eutychian, away with them, speak not easily of them. When the same men are called Bishops, it's malice, outragious bitterness to blame them for getting a Law to confirm that called an Heretical, Murdering, Latroci [...]ian Council. His words are, p. 146. [Were there ever greater vio­lences committed than in that infamous Conventicle at Ephesus?]

§ 26. P. 263. He confesseth that the Debate between the Council and the Egyptian Bishops was something too warm: but saith that heat was not altogether without reason. Ans. This is his way to confess their faults, and then rail at me for bare reciting the words of the Debate or History. But it was not without reason: He [Page 182] confesseth not so much as this of the silencing and ruining Mini­sters now. It shall not be the use of my reason to make Fig­leaves to cloath and cover the sins which God abhorreth.

Men will be men he saith, wherever they are placed, whether in a Council or in the Church, or even at the Altar.

Ans. By Men I suppose he meaneth Sinners: and it's true. But of all Sinners Oh that God would save his Church from those who hate reproof, and cherish the worst that will be for them, and excommunicate and prosecute the most conscionable that will not obey them in things which they call indifferent, for fear of sinning against God.

§ 27. His trifling words about Leo and Rome are not worthy of an Answer.

§ 28. He hath, P. 268. hit again on the oversight which I before confessed, even the effect of my necessitated haste, that in translating Theodoret's words I put (truly) in the wrong place: I ask him forgiveness, and the Bishops, if that be any slander against them; which is nothing to them.

§ 29. He saith, P. 269. [There is no truth in what our Au­thor saith, that Ibas Epistle was acquit.] Ans. There is no truth in saying that I said it was, when my words were disjunctive, [The Epistle was acquit, or at least the Bishop upon the reading of it.] He saith, Ibas was not acquit on the reading the Epistle, but on the defence he made, that he communicated with Cyril. Ans. His Accusations of Falshood are commonly Boyish Quibbles. His Defence and the Reading of his Letter go together, and in Bin­nius the Letter, and the Letters of the Clergy of Edessa are the last things done before he is discharged.

§ 30. P. 270. He saith, [The truth is, the Eastern Bishops were not so ingenuous and fair after their reconciliation with Cyril, &c.] Thus he becomes himself still an accuser of the Bishops.

§ 31. Because I say that the Judges past sentence to cast out both Stephen and Bassian from Ephesus, and all consented, he saith, [One would think here the Judges passed sentence against the consent or Inclination of the Bishops.] Ans. There is no end of answering your thinkings. I did not say that the Judges passed the Councils Sentence but their own: And whether it were a­gainst the Fore-inclination of the Council let any Reader judge, when the Judges asking the Council their sence, [Res. Episcopi clamaverunt, justi [...]ia Bassianum vocat: Regulae valeant. The [Page 183] Judges answered them that their judgment was that both were to be cast out, and a third chosen, and the Council suddenly con­sented. If he would be believed contradicting this he must deny the Acts.

§ 32. He hath found matter for a quibble against tasting Pote­rius Flesh with their Teeth. Teeth taste not: Dangerous false Hi­story, or want of Learning is learnedly here discovered. When he cannot deny the most woeful, calamitous dissentions which followed the Calcedon Council, he saith, [Was it the misfortune or the fault of these only not to be able to heal the differences of the Church? Or was the defect in the Councils, or the blame to be im­puted to those obstinate men that opposed the Rule established by them?]

Ans. No: They were neither the first nor the last that have miscarried. Nor are we the first that suffer under such miscarri­age. It was the misfortune of the Churches to have such Phy­sicians: But as it is the honour of some Physicians to shew how many Patients they have cured, so is it of some others, when most die under their hands, to be able to say, that it was long of the Patients that would not be ruled, or that they killed them secundum artem. It was a Proverb in Sutton-Coldfield, [Who be­gun?] A poor man had but one Ass and he loaded him too hard, and the Ass being in pain bit his Master a little on the But­tock; and his Master knockt him down, and killed him; and when he saw him dying,, [Well, (saith he) But who begun?] But who had the loss? There be Clergy-Men that can impeni­tently see the Strages, the divisions, the swarms of sin that are the consequents of their needless masterly Impositions, and wipe their mouths and say. It was the obstinacy of those that would not be ruled by us! They kill a Flea on a mans Forehead with a Beetle, and say they meant not to kill the man.

But if that Councils Acts were a fit means to cure the Churches Divisions, how came they to be presently and through many Ages, yea, ever since to this day, thereby increased so many fold? Though the Assembly at Jerusalem cured not all the Jewish Teachers of their blind Zeal for Moses Law, it was so far from increasing the Dissentions and number of Dissen­ters, that it satisfied the Gentile Christians for the most part, and many of the Jewish, and greatly diminished the Discord. It's one thing not wholly to cure, and another to make far worse.

[Page 184]§ 33. He instanceth also in the Dort Synod that made things worse.

Ans. 1. The Synod of Dort made things the worse in their own Country, not by their Doctrinal Decisions, but by too much of the Masterly Spirit, engaging the Magistrates against the Ar­minians in the use of the Sword. Whether it be true that they say, that they were necessitated to do what they did against Barnevolt and Grotius for the safety of their State, I am no Judge: But I am sure it is of an ill sound to those that read it: And so is it to read in Episcopius and others, what violence the People have used against the Arminians, and they were fain to tolerate them when all was done.

And it's no wonder that the Dissention increased in England, when the Clergy would not long stand to the decrees that by our own six Delegates were moderated: Dr. Heylin tells you how Bi­shop Laua's Zeal was the cause of our following Contentions: And how? By bearing down all that were against him.

2. But the meer Doctrinal Decrees of the Synod of Dort are so moderate and healing, that where Violence hath been forborn, and Reason used, many have been pacified by them. And

3. What that Synod did not, a few private Peace-makers have much done: The Writings of Camero Amyraldus, Capellus, Placeus, Testardus, Lud. Crocius, Mat. Martinius, Conr. Bergi­us, Joh. Bergius, Blondel, Daile, and above all, Le Blank's have for ought I hear, half ended the controversie. And having my self written one Book (Cathol. Theologie) for Reconciliation, I have not to this day had a word of Contradiction, but the Con­sent of very many. And as I before noted, Is not even in Lon­don where other differences might exasperate, yet this Contro­versie almost laid to sleep? But if our Arminians will but get as severe Laws and Canons made against them that are not of their Opinions, as be against them that dare not conform to the Dio­cesane Model and the rest, they shall quickly see this quarrel re­vived. The Articles of the Church of England determine not these Controversies, and that is our Peace. Put in but one de­termining Article against either side, and it will break us more in pieces. Doth not our own Case and Experience then confute those over-doing Councils?

§ 34. His next Instance is that of the Westminster Assembly,—So far from reconciling the People, that after this they were di­stracted [Page 185] into innumerable Schisms: Never was there so lamentable a face of things, never such variety of Heresie, and such Wan­tonness, and Extravagancy, in blaspheming God under pretence of Religion and Conscience: And this is the State whither the same manner of men are driving again.

Ans. 1. I say again I knew so many of that Assembly, as that I do not think that the Christian World had ever an Assembly of more able and truly pious Clergy-Men, these 1300 Years at least. But these Upstarts that knew them not can tell us any thing that Faction hath taught them to believe concerning them and others. The Parliament was by seeming necessity drawn to gratifie the Scots: The Assembly, though Conformists, all, save Eight or Nine, were as sensible as the Nonconformists of the mischiefs of silencing worthy Ministers, and forbidding After­noon Sermons, and such like; and they were as much against Arminianism and Popery as the Church of England was in A. Bp. Abbat's days, and as much as he against the Doctrine of Main­waring and Sibthorp: And the Parliament absolutely restrained them from debating any thing but what they proposed to them; so that they that were for the Primitive Episcopacy had no li­berty to debate it, or speak for it, but on the by. But when the Covenant was offered them against Prelacy, they were about to enter a Protestation against it, and were stopt only by limiting the renunciation to the English frame described in an explicato­ry Parenthesis. But for my part I think them much to be bla­med, that they did not, though against that prohibition, re­solve to propose such moderate healing terms to the Parliament as were agreeable to their judgments, or at least have testified against the limiting of Church Concord to such narrow termes, as must exclude such men as were for the English Episcopacy: They might easily have known, that the number of such in Eng­land was so great, as that an excluding Law must needs be an Engine of great Division; and that Conquest will not change mens Judgments.

And as I doubt not but the five Dissenting Independents were greatly to blame, for making such a stir for leave to gather their Churches, when nothing was imposed on them which they could accuse; So I doubt not but the Assembly were to be blamed for making a greater noise against errours than they had cause for. Their desire of Concord, which was good itself, did raise [Page 186] them to too great Expectations of it, and too great impatience of little differences. They published their Testimony against the errours of the times, in which they took in Dr. Hammond, and made many differences worse than they were, too like the old Hereticators. And they wanted that skill to compose their differences with the Independents, as was needful to that end, and might have been attained. And will the faults of that Assem­bly justifie the far greater faults of others? But

2. This sort of Historians do much more differ from us about the matters of Fact, which our Eyes have dayly-seen, yea, about our own Thoughts and Minds, than about the History of the an­cient Church. The case was very far different from that which he describeth. Mr. Lawson, a Conformist, saith, [There was ne­ver better Preaching, Piety encouraged and encreased, &c. than at that time. In all the Counties where I was acquainted, there were many young Orthodox faithful Preachers, that gave them­selves wholly to do good, for one that was ten Years before, and not any considerable number noted for any immorality: We were in the County where I lived almost all of one mind; for Episcopal, Presbyterians and Independents uniting in that which they agreed in, and leaving all to Liberty in the rest, we lived in constant Brotherly Love and Peace without Dissention. I ne­ver knew of any of a divers Religion in all the County, save at the end, in one or two corners about Twenty Quakers: And near me were about Twenty otherwise. Orthodox, that denied Infant-Baptism, (and perhaps as many more in the whole Coun­ty,) and Two or Three ignorant Socinians. In the next County I heard not of so many Heterodox: Never did I see, before or since, so much Love and Concord among Ministers, and all reli­gious People, nor read of any Age that had so much for 1300 Years. And whereas the common cry is, Oh, but they were all Rebels against the King! I have named abundance of the Mi­nisters in mine Apology to Dr. Good, (who being Episcopal was a Guide in our Meetings, and after so accused the Nonconformists) and challenged him to name one of them that ever meddled with Wars. I knew none in all the County that was in any Army save the King's, save Mr. Hopkins of Evesham (dead) and my self, and one that is a Conformist, and one Independent (dead.)

But it's true, that they were then so set upon Parish Refor­mation and Concord, that they were more troubled at any one [Page 187] that did turn Quaker, or against Infant Baptism, than some in­different Persons are at Multitudes. And I was one that disputed most against them, and wrote against some distant Antinomians, mostly Souldiers; But our Disputes satisfied and confirmed all our Neighbours more than Prisons would have done. We punish­ed none of them, and none of our People there turned to them. But I confess we were commonly too little sensible, how much hurtful Violence hindereth Concord, more than loving forbear­ance of tolerable differences. As too many were how much for Peace they should have abated of the Zeal for their private Opi­nions, which they thought to be better than they were. We were much like the days that followed the Apostles, which had some troublesome Sectaries, but the main Body of Christians did cleave together in Love, till success had puft up a rebellious Army to make themselves Rulers, to the Confusion of them­selves and others.

§ 35. At last mentioning the common Dissentions of the Churches, he seems to resolve the Question, What then must be done? But he puts us off only with the Negative Answer, that [the Rule, i. e. of our Uniformity is not to be altered. And why? [We have no assurance that we shall find any Conformity to it more than we have now.]

Ans. I must not call this Answer as it deserveth.

1. You were about dealing otherwise with the Papists: Dr. Heylin tells us how much they were to have altered for Con­cord: Mr. Thorndike threatens the Land, if you alter not the Oath of Supremacy for them: The name of the Pope and Anti-Christ hath been expunged for them; yet you said not, We know not that they will come any nearer us.

2. By these measures a Rag or a Ceremony should never be abated for the Peace and Concord of any Church or Kingdom: You may still say we are not sure that this will serve them. The Pope may say so, where he refuseth to abate the shaving of the Priests Beards, or the least of his Impositions; yea he knows that would not serve. They said so to the Bohemians four De­mands: They concluded so at first against Luther. This very Ar­gument hath kept them from all Reformation.

3. Can you find nothing in your Impositions that in the nature of the thing is worthy to be altered? If not, you have more or less Wisdom than Bishop Morton, and the rest of the Church [Page 188] Doctors who at Westminster motioned so many Alterations. [...] one should but then move you to correct your known false Rule for finding Easterday, or to give Parents leave to be the first Promisers for their own Children, and Godfathers but their se­conds, or not to deny Christendom and Communion for that or a Ceremony: No, come on it what will, nothing must be al­tered, lest men ask more. And yet you preach against Clergy Infallibility, (or subscribe at least.)

4 But if you are so much against altering, why did you alter to our greater suffering, and add as much more (yea five times more) to the former Task and Burden? You can no doubt say somewhat for all this.

5. And when it is the same things that the old Nonconformists still asked, and we since 1660 askt yet less, what reason had you to raise that suspicion that we will not be satisfied with what we ask? Have we given you any cause? If you mean that per­haps there be some still that may be unsatisfied, will you deny Peace to so many that beg it of you, because others will not accept it on their Terms? Or will you never agree with a­ny lest some disagreement should arise hereafter.

Some Travellers were assaulted by the high way by a Cap­tain of Souldiers, who took all their Money, Swords and Horses, and swore he would kill them if they would not take an Oath to conceal him: One took the Oath to save his Life, another scrupled it: They begg'd his Mercy to restore so much as would bring them home: He askt them what would satisfie them: One would have his Horse, another his Sword, another part of his Money. He told them, You are a Company of Rogues, that can neither agree what to ask, nor give me assurance if I give you this you will ask no more. I compare not the Authority but the Reasons of the Denial.

§ 36. But seeing no abatement of their Canons, &c. must be granted, what is it that must cause our Concord? He would not tell you; but it's discernible what's left: It must be no Concord but what Punishment can procure: And what punishment? Sharper than is yet tried; for that hath not done it: Such Concord as Tertullian nameth, Solitudinem faciunt & pacem vocant: The Concord in Spain is worse than the Amsterdam toleration.

Again I remember the great Fish-Pond mentioned by Judge Hale, that had multitudes of Fish and frie; and at last two [Page 189] small Pikes put in; when the Pond was drawn there was never a Fish but the two Tyrants (as he calls them) grown to a huge bigness. The fear least Popery and Prelacy should be the two Pikes, tempted men irregularly to covenant against them. To have such variety as Roch, Dace, Pierch, Tench, Carp, made it a Schismatical Pond; The two Pikes were against Schism and Toleration, and for ending the Division by reducing all to unity of Species.

§ 37. As to his Question of Qu. Elizabeths days, the Intima­tion may seduce the ignorant, but none else. 1. If he know not that it was the Subscription required in the Canons, (that nothing in the Books is contrary to the Word of God, scrupled, which broke the Peace and Concord of England, he is unfit by his Ig­norance to be an Informer of others. I have known many that would have yielded to come into the Conforming Church, if that one word had been but forborn: For when any practice a­gainst their Consciences about baptizing, Communion, or Bu­rials had faln in their way, they would have silently shifted it off, or been from home, and have ventured to answer it, so they could but conscionably have got in. But our Canoneers are for all or nothing.

2. He is sure no English Clergy-man, if he know not how much is laid on us, that was not known in the days of Qu. Eli­zabeth. Is it to inform men, or deceive them, that he makes the difference to be between 36 and 39 Articles, and saith nothing of all the new Covenants, Declaration [...], Oaths, Subscriptions, Doctrine and Practises?

§ 38. Many make use of Mr. Edwards Gangrena, and the Lon­don Ministers Testimony against errours, to prove the Heresies and Confusions of the late times. No doubt all sin is odious: But few men living are more competent Witnesses of those things than I. The Errours that sprung up were much more tenderly resented then than now. You now have many called Wits and Persons of Quality, who at a Club dispute against the Providence of God, the immortality of the Soul, and a future Life; and there is neither Church-Admonition, Excommunication, nor any great matter made of it, but they are Members of the Church of England, the purest Church in all the World: Whereas in those licentious times, if one Souldier had spoken such a Word, it would have rung out through the Land, and perhaps his Tongue would [Page 190] have been bored with an hot Iron. It was the errours of the proud rebellious Soldiers that made most of the noise, that had no considerable number of Ministers left with them. I had a hand in Mr. Edwards Book thus: An Assembly of Ministers after Naseby Fight sent me into the Army to try if I could reduce them. Dayly disputing with them, a few proud selfconceited Fellows vented some gross words. At Amersham a few Coun­try Sectaries had set up a Meeting in Dr. Crooks Church, to dis­pute and deceive the People: A few of Major Bethel's Troop (that afterwards turned Levellers and were ruined) joined with them: I met them, and almost all day disputed against them, and shamed them, and they met there no more. I gathered up all the gross words which they uttered and wrote them in a Let­ter to Francis Tyton, and after I found them cited in Mr. Edwards Gangrena. And what's the absurd Speeches of a few ignorant Souldiers, that are dead with them, to the Heresies and Schisms that these 1000 or 1200 Years continue in all the Roman Com­munion, and they say in all the rest of the Christian World. One cheating Papist as a converted Jew got into an Anabaptists Meet­ing, one Maxwell a Scot, and all England rung of it. But when Bishops have made and keep France, Spain, Italy, &c. in the same Errours, Dr. Heylin, and Bp. Bromhall, and such others, took them for such, with whom a Coalition on the terms by them described was very desirable.

CHAP. XXIV. His 7th Chapter considered.

§ 1. THE Man had not the courage to defend the surgent Prelacy in its Manhood and Maturity, but only in its Infant and Juvenile State; nor to defend the many hundred Councils which I mentioned after the Council of Calcedon, in which either his Modesty or Cautelousness comes short of his Rd. Fathers, who some of them own the six first General Coun­cils, and some of them eight, and some would unite with the Church of Rome, if they will abate but the last 400 Years addi­tions.

[Page 191]§ 2. In his Gleanings in this 7th Chap. he over, and over, and over persuadeth his Reader, that I make or affirm that [the Bps. were the cause of all the Heresies in the world, and of all the Here­sies, Schisms, and Evils that have afflicted the Church. And hath this Historian any proof of this? Or is it the melancholy fiction of his Brain? Yes, this is his proof contrary to my manifold Instances, because I say in one age, [We have a strange thing, a Heresie raised by one that was no Bishop: which I have answered before. To be then strange, and never to be at all; are not words of the same sense? But his Answers throughout do mind me of Seneca's Words, that a man that is sore complains (or cries Oh) when he doth but think you touch him.

§ 3. He thus himself accuseth the Bishops, p. 276 [There have been wicked men and wicked Bishops in all times.] And p. 277. [That some Bishops have abused their Authority and Office, and been the cause of Heresie and Schism cannot be denied.] But yet [He hath shewed sufficiently, that most of my particular Accusati­ons are void of all truth and Ingenuity.] Ans. Or else those words are so.

§ 4. He saith All Ecclesiastical Writers agree, that Simon Ma­gus was Author of the first Heresie in Christian Religion.] Ans. All confess that Judas was before him: And if it be a Heresie to buy the Spirit for Money, it is a Heresie to sell Christ for Mo­ney. But I confess some tell us of his after pranks at Rome, and imitating Icarus, at Peters Prayers: If you would see why Dr. More takes this for a toyish Legend, see his Mystery of Iniqui­ty, Lib. 2. C. 19. § 6, 7. p. 447, 448.

§ 5. P. 286, 287. Baronius first, and Philastrius after, are made guilty of Forgery and disregardable History, so that I may well bear some of his Censures.

§ 6. P. 290. To confute me effectually he saith much what the same which is much of the sum of all my Book: And yet it's false and malicious in me, and true and charitable in him: viz. [Praising the first 300 years, (when the Bishops were such as we offer to submit to:) he adds [The following Ages were not so happy; but as Christians generally degenerated so did the Bishops too.]

Ans. What! Before the Council of Nice! That's a sad Con­fession. I was ready to say as a Roman Emperour said to a flat­terer, that still said all that he said, [Dic aliud aliquid ut duo si­mus,] [Page 192] But his next words allay it, [But yet not so much as our Au­thor would make it appear.] As the Dominicans and Oratorians must say some falshood of Calvine, lest they be thought Calvi­nists.

And yet he addeth, [The beginning of the 4th Century was very unhappy to the Church, for Persecution without, and Heresie and Schism within. Meletius an Egyytian began a Schism, forsook the Communion of the Church, &c. Next the Donatists, Arians, &c.]

Ans. It seems that the Emperours Constantius and Valens were without the Church, and yet the Arian Priests and Bishops were within it. When he defineth the Church we may understand this. But is it not this 4th Century that is made the Churches more flourishing state by others?

§ 7. Even the great Historian of Heresies, Epiphanius, is said p. 292. to be [unaccountably mistaken in several things relating to that History.] And 293. hath [a strange unaccountable mistake in diverse other things relating to that matter.] If I had at any time erred with such a Bishop and Father, I might have been excusable for reciting his History.

§ 8. Pag. 295. He opens the very Heart of his Parties Prin­ciples, and saith, [The Church is never distracted more by any thing than Projects of Moderation.]

Ans. Experience proveth that you speak your Heart. The words are no wilful Lye which agree with a mans Mind, be they never so false as disagreeable to the matter. No man was more of that Opinion than Hildebrand, that would not yield the Em­perours the Investiture, nor as I before said, abate the Prince of Calaris the shaving of his Bishops Beard to save his Kingdom. Victor began with that Opinion too soon, but his Successors have these Thousand Years been as much for it as you can wish.

2. But to whom is it that you intend this? Sure not to all: Was Bishop Laud of that mind toward the Papists if Dr. Heylin say true? Was Grotius of that mind toward them? Was Arch-Bishop Bromhall, Forbes, Beziar, Thorndike (and many more such) of that mind? No: I'le excuse you, that you meant not them and their Projects of Moderation: Nor I believe neither Cassander's, Erasmus's, Wicelius's, Sancta Clara's, Leander's, &c.

But towards such as I am, you have been as firm to that Prin­ciple as any one of our Enemies could wish. In 1660, 1661. it [Page 193] was most effectually improved; and you have attained much of the fruits then foretold: and ever since have been unmoveably and prevailingly true to it.

3. But this maketh some men the Distracters of the Church, if not the greatest, which truly I have better thoughts of: Such as Junius, Paraeus, Amyraldus, Le Blanke, Davenant, Ward, Usher, Holdsworth, Morton, Hall, &c. And lately when we were preparing for the Kings Return, Bp. Brownrig, and after his death Dr. Gawden, Dr. Gulston, Dr. Allen, Dr. Bernard, and diverse such did offer themselves to a Treaty for Moderation: And since then Dr. Wilkins, Dr. Burton, Dr. Tillotson, and in di­ebus illis Dr. Stilling fleet have been guilty of this crime, of di­stracting the Church by projects of Moderation: But I can name the Bps. that were not guilty of it.

To abate or forsake the necessary points of Faith and Practice on pretence of Moderation, is to destroy Christianity on pre­tence of Humanity or Peace. But to make Laws that men shall preach with Horns on their Heads, to signifie the Victory of Truth, and to ruine all that will not keep these Laws (much more if men should command worse) and to say a Project for Moderation would distract the Church, would be as far from Wisdom as it is from Moderation: And some Prelates have done as bad as this.

§ 9. He confesseth p. 296. that by force and Fraud [the whole World in a manner was turned Arian.] And did I ever say worse of the Bishops than this?

§ 10. He maketh Aerius to speak against Bishops because he could not be a Bishop, so that he was of a Prelatical Judgment and Spirit, and calleth him [The Cartwright of the times,] by which if he mean that Cartwright would have been a Bishop, it doth but tell us that he deserveth little belief in his Histo­ry.

§ 11. He is a most singular Historian, p. 303. in telling us, that after the Monothelites in following Ages of the Church the Devil started up but few Heresies till these Ages,—Swenk feldians, Anabaptists, &c.

By this I perceive he believeth neither Papists nor Protestants: For the Papists name many Heresies since, and the Protestants say that Popery is but a Composition of many Heresies, and name us many that concur'd thereto.

[Page 194]§ 12. He there giveth me this serious Admonition, [It is a much greater wonder that any man that makes Conscience of what he saith, should against all truth of History, and against his own knowledge, charge the Bishops with all the Heresies in the World: that a person that seems so sensible of approaching Judgment, as fre­quently to put himself in mind of it—should yet advance so malici­ous and groundless an Accusation. There is no dallying with the all­seeing God—What Plea shall be made for whole Books full of Ca­lumny and Detraction, &c.]

Ans. This is not the least acceptable passage to me in his Book; I love the man the better for seeming serious in the belief of Judgment; and I hope his Warning shall make me search my Heart with some more jealousie and care. He seems here to be­lieve himself; but being my self far more concerned than he is to know how far I am guilty of what I am accused, as far as I can know my Heart and Writings, I'le tell the Reader what to judge of his words and me.

1. That I charge the Bishops with all the Heresies in the World, never was in my mind, nor can I find it in any of my Writings: Yet this he very oft repeateth: And should a man so often write a falshood about a thing visible, and never cite the place where I say it, and this while he is thus seriously mentioning Calumny and Judgment.

2. Can he make men believe at once that I do persuade men that Bishops or Diocesanes came not up till about 150 years af­ter Christ, and yet that I make them the Authors of the Here­sies that were in those times? Non entis non est actio: Could Bi­shops be Hereticks when there were no Bishops?

3. If I had charged the Bishops with all the Heresies, it follow­eth not that I had charged no one else with them, and made the Bishops the sole Authors, and acquit People, Priests, and Princes; why then doth he name many Monks and Priests that were He­reticks? Or Emperours that promoted them, as if this crossed what I say? Did he think that I excluded the Army if I blame the General, or the Prelatical Priests when I blame the Prelates? If I took the Bishops of England to be the chief cause of our Church-Schisms, and Calamities, doth it follow that I acquit such as you, and all the Clergy like you?

4. That I have done this [against all Truth of History] which I transcribed out of the Councils and Historians most partial for [Page 195] the highest Prelacie, is either a great untruth, and unproved by him, or I know not what I read or write.

5. That I do this against my own Knowledge I am certain is an untruth.

6. That my Accusations are malicious I am certain is untruth, as being able to say that I speak in pitty to the Church, and to save Souls from deceit, and malice no man; but pray with the Liturgy, that God will forgive our Enemies, Persecutors, and Slanderers, and turn their Hearts.

7. That I have brought any Groundless Accusation I must take for an untruth, till my Grounds produced are better confu­ted.

8. Much more that I write whole Books full of Calumny and Detraction.

All these and more untruths being heapt up with the mention of Death and Judgment, tells us whither Faction and Prepos­session may carry men.

2. But what is the truth I shall again briefly tell the Reader: 1. About 2000 of such Ministers as I confidently take for the most spiritual, and conscionable and devoted to God and the good of Souls are silenced, and in Law imprisoned and ruined; and all the People of their mind are ipso facto (if they confess it) excommunicated, besides their other penalties. I accuse not the Law but mention only the matter of Fact, which the K. once commissioned Bps. to have prevented.

2. The Kingdom is dolefully divided, and alas, the sad con­sequents are not to be named.

3. Besides all our Penalties the Bishops accuse us as the causes of all, and as wilful Schismaticks, and call for the Execution of the Laws against us.

4. We say, we dare not do that, which when ever they will give us leave, we are ready to give our reasons why we take it for heinous sin against God, and tending to the ruine of the Church: nor dare we forsake our Ministry while the Churches necessities are to us past doubt.

5. We beg of them but to abate us some needless Oaths, and Covenants, and Professions, and a few things called indifferent by the Imposers, that we may all live in Christian Love and Peace, and we offer them as unquestionable security for our Peaceableness, Loyalty, and Orthodoxness, as the said Oaths, Promises, or Professions can be.

[Page 196]6. They tell us, Nothing is to be abated us, and we must cease preaching, the Rule must not be altered; we will do more harm in the Church than out; Projects for Moderation most distract the Church; There is no Concord or Liberty to be expected, but by our total obe­dience to the Bishops; It is obeying the Church, yea the Universal Church of Bishops, that is the only way to Concord.

7. To confute this Supposition, which is the root of our Ca­lamities, I transcribe out of History and the Acts of Councils, how great a hand in the Schisms, and Heresies, and Confusions of Christians, those Bishops have had, who have swelled up a­bove the primitive species, by vast Diocesses, Wealth, and claim of Government over other Churches and Bishops; and that it is notorious that this Grandeur and exorbitant power of Bi­shops, singly or in Councils, hath been so far from keeping the Church from Schisms, that it hath been one of the greatest causes of the Schisms of most Ages, since such a sort of Prelacy sprung up, and that Popery came not up in a day, but rose from that Juniority to its present Maturity. This was my work.

§ 13. He truly tells you, that the Original of all mischiefs is the Lusts that war in our Members, and not this or that Order of Men.]

When the World had a good Pope, if God would bless that Order of men, some think he might do more good than any other man. But he hath toucht the Core of the Churches Mala­dy. Verily, the grand Strife is between the Flesh and Spirit, the seed of the Serpent and of the Woman: And if Patriarchs and Di­ocesans were but as much set on the promoting of a holy and heavenly Life, as those Ministers are whom they silence and im­prison, they might do much good, though the largeness of their Diocess render them uncapable of performing the 40th part of a true Bishops Work. No doubt but Bishop Hall, and Potter, and Usher, &c. did much good, by such preaching, writing, and good living, as others use that are no Bishops.

But will fire burn without fewel? And will it not burn if com­bustible fewel be contiguous? Do not the Lusts that war in our Members live upon that food which we are forbidden to pro­vide? Do you think that the Lust of the Flesh doth not more desire Riches than Poverty, Honour than a low Estate, Domi­nation over others, to have our Will on all, than humble Sub­jection? Where the Carkass is there will the Eagles be gather­ed. [Page 197] Do not you your self say, that the Bishops and Church grew more corrupt after the third Century? Do you be­lieve that when a Bishops Power was made equal to a great Lords, or more, and all his Pomp and Riches answerable, that the Lust of the Flesh would not more greedily desire it, than it would desire a meer mediocrity? Or that a worldly proud man would not seek more for Lordship and Greatness, than a Synesius, and such others as you say fled from it? If the poor retired Monks were as bad as you make them, what wonder if great Lordly Bishops were much worse? Will not the fire of Lust grow greater as the fewel is greater?

I am satisfied that Riches and Power well used, may greatly serve the Interest of Religion: But two things must be consi­dered.

1. That the greatest Power and Wealth being far more desired by carnal Worldlings, (that is, by bad men) than by mortified heavenly minded men, the more men desire them, the more eagerly they will seek them by Friends, Flattery, or any means: and therefore the liker they are to attain them, except when the choosers are some resolved godly men. And so which way can a Succession of the worst men be avoided? But a mediocri­ty that doth not to the Flesh overweigh the labours and diffi­culties of the sacred Office, will encourage the good, and not much tempt the bad: Or if good men will be never so bounti­ful to pious uses, their bounty and Church-Lands may better maintain Labourers enough for the work, than be made a snare to one.

2. And that Power which depopulateth and destroys its end, is unlawful in its very state, as well as in its use. The Power of one man to be sole Physician to the City, and to have none but Apothecaries under him; or of one man to be the only School-Master in the County, and have none but Ushers under him, is rather to be called Destruction than Power. It is Bishops casting out Power that I am against, that is, the necessary Power of the Keys in the Parish Ministers, or putting down necessary Bishops; and also a Power to silence Christs faithful Ministers, and deprive Souls of the necessary means, by imposing things needless in themselves, and sinful in the receiver, that after his best search believes them such.

Seeing then that we are agreed, that it is the Lust that war­reth [Page 198] in men, that is the corrupter of the Church, let but the face of the whole Romane Clergy these 1000 Years at least tell us, whether it be not the swelling of the Power and Wealth of Bi­shops, that hath caused so long a Succession of a worldly, lustful, tyranical Clergy.

§ 14. And he truly saith, [p. 306. that the generality of men when they have gained Wealth and Honour, are commonly willing to secure the enjoyment of those Possessions, by letting things run in their ordinary course.

(The Spanish Proverb is, The World is a Carryon, and they are Dogs that love it, and they will snarle at any that would take it from them, and if it lie in the Ditch, Dogs rather than Men will gather about it: and its pitty such men should by such a Bait be tempted into the sacred Chair.) And he truly adds, that Repulse and Disappointment will end such mens Patience. For really as the man is, such are his desires: It is not only turgent Prelacy but a Prelatical Spirit that troublerh the Church: And If Novatianus or Arius would fain be a Prelate, it is in his heart; and no wonder if he be a Schismatick; Trahit sua quemque vo­luptas. Appetite is the Spring of Action. All the Popes Clergy are much of his mind; for they participate of his worldly Inter­est, and depend on him, and therefore participate of the Papal Spirit. The Interest of the General and Army are conjunct.

§ 15. And its true that he saith, that the Bishops Interest ob­ligeth him to maintain Peace and Unity. And so no doubt from that sense of Interest it is endeavoured, in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, &c. when a strong man armed keeps his house, the things which he possesseth are in Peace. But whether therefore the People did ill that forsook the Bishops and followed Lu­ther, or are all bound to cleave to the Bishops Unity, is the doubt.

§ 16. Whether it be true, p. 310 that very few if any one were Bishops when they turned Hereticks, I have enquired in the Pre­face; though if they ascended from Heresie to Prelacy it's all one to me. But by this I conjecture that he taketh fewer for Hereticks than others do, and that he pretends acquaintance with their minds, in that antecedent part of their Lives which no History mentioneth. I confess I think that for the most part men are Papists before they are Popes or Papist Bishops: And yet I think that it is first the desire of Papal and Prelatical Grandeur, [Page 199] and next the Exercise of it, which is the cause of Schism and Persecution.

§ 17. I verily believe as he doth, that Platonick Philosophy, and a willingness to win the Heathens by compliance, had a great hand in corrupting many Doctrines; and not only Monks but others of the most religious Christians, had a great hand in ma­ny of the ancient Superstitions, especially those that tended to the over-honouring of their Martyrs, and too much advance­ment of their Bishops, when they came newly from under the Persecution of the Heathens. But it came not to be universal, nor the Engine of great Corruption and cruelty, till the Bishops turned all into a Law. Who could make any of all this necessa­ry, but Pope, Prelates, or Princes, who pretended a Legisla­tive Power hereto? Even Luther and Melancthon were indiffe­rent to diverse Ceremonies, so they were made to be indiffe­rently used. But when they are made necessary by a Law (spe­cially more necessary to a Minister than his Ministry, and to a private Christian, than his Church Communion, who doth more vehemently condemn them than they?

§ 18. That Paschasius Radbertus was the first that broached the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, is a doubtful expression. Ei­ther he meaneth the Name or only the Thing under another Name. If the latter, he will do more than Edm. Albertinus, or Bp. Consius have done, if he prove it: If it be the name that he meaneth, I think (by my Memory, for I will not for that go read him all over) that he will not find the name in Radbertus, nor any where before Stephanus Eduensis, about 130 years after him: and that all that he can truly say, is but as Bellarmine doth, [Hic Author primus suit qui seriò & copiosè scripsit de veri­tate Corporis & Sanguinis Domini in Eucharistia contra Bertra­mum Presbyterum.

§ 19. That the Bishops charged by me with these Corruptions, were the only Opposers of them that we find in antiquity, as we may see in the Canons of Africk and Spain,] is a saying very near kin to much of his History: I confess that so few Presbyters in comparison of Bishops were publick Actors, whose Judgments were notified to the World, that it's no wonder (after Constan­tine's time) if there be more proofs of their words and deeds than of other mens: But there are a great number of excellent men here slandered against the credit of all Church-History, and [Page 200] their own Writings yet in our hands. Would it be worth the Readers Price and Labour, I could swell my Book with the proof that what he speaketh is untrue. Did he think that I could not prove that Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatianus, Tertulli­an, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origene, Arnobius, Lactantius, Ma­carius, Maternus Firmicus, Ephrem Syrus, Faustinus, Hierome, Ruffinus, Prudentius, Sulpitius Severus, Sedulius, Mammertus, Cassianus, Vincent. Lirinensis, Socrates, Sozomen, Isodore Pelusi­ota, &c. did something in opposition to some Church-Corrup­tions? Though some of them promoted some others: Yea, An­tonie and abundance of Monks that furthered some, opposed others no less dangerous: Though many of them may be accu­sed as Bellarmine doth Sulpit. Severus, for saying, Ecclesiam au­ro non strui sed destrui.

Judge of time past by what we see; Is it only the Bishops that are against the Popes Church-Corrupting Usurpation in Italy, Spain, France, &c. Is it only the Bishops that are against the Mass Corruptions, and against all their corrupt Doctrines of Indul­gences, Purgatory, Images, &c. and against all their Ceremo­nies, and prophane abuse of holy things? Was it only the Bi­shops at Constance and Basil, that were against suppressing the Bohemian and Moravian Reformation? In the end of Lydius up­on Prateolus you may read a Letter subscribed by so great a number of Lords and great men, for John Hus, and Hierome, and the Reformation, which yet prevailed not with the Bishops, as will tell you who was then the greatest Opposers of Church-Corruption. And I think Princes and Drs. opposed it more than Bps. in Luther's time. Is it only the Bishops that have opposed warping towards Rome for Church-Unity? Have none but Bi­shops been against corrupting the Churches, by silencing good Ministers and ordaining bad ones? The things that are, have been. I confess our difference is great on the case, what is to be accounted Church-Corruption. For that which in one Country go­eth for Corruption, in another (yea the same) goeth for Church-Glory, Strength, and Beauty; Our main difference is about what's good, and what's bad; what's Virtue, and what's Vice.

§ 20. He next comes to Sedition, and asketh [What Reign have they disturbed here with their Sedition?] And because he knoweth that I can refer him to the large Volume of their Trea­sons written by Prin, and abroad to the many Volumes in Gol­dastus, [Page 201] and the many Histories of the Wars of Popes and Coun­cils against Emperours,] he prevents all my Proof with a down­right Untruth, that [‘If a man be not blind he may see that my History is only designed against Protestant Bishops under a general name.’

Ans. Was it not enough so grosly to write this Untruth of me, but he must also reproach all the Readers as blind that will not judge falsly of what they read? Doth he know my meaning bet­ter than my self? He knoweth that I plead for the Primitive Episcopacy, and that I profess to intend this History most to dis­cover the Rise, Growth, and Maturity of the Popish destructive sort of Prelacy. Readers, can you believe this man, that I wrote the case of the Bishops before and under Popery, and of the Popes, and of above Five hundred Councils, and all these be­fore the name of a Protestant Bishop was known in the World, and as he saith, gathered their faults, and all this only against the Protestant Bishops, and not against Popes or Prelates, or any of the Councils that I named?

Perhaps he would tempt me to refer him to the History of Bishop Laua's Trial, or to what Bishop Abbot, George and Ro­bert, Bishop Hall and others said against him: Or to tell him of A. Bp. Williams Arms for the Parliament. But these are not Sub­jects fit for our Debates.

§ 21. P. 318. When I say, that where Prelacy with the Pa­pists is at the highest, Princes are at the lowest. He asketh, Is it the Bishop or the Papist that is here to blame? Is this the effect of their Order?

Ans. 1. I thought the Pope of Rome and the Bishop of Rome had been the same. 2. But this Corrector of History taking Untruths not only▪ into the Completion, but the Stamina and Scope of his Book, among all the rest supposeth me to speak against a Bishop as a Bishop, when I have troubled him with my repeating so often that I am for Bishops, and that it is not the Office but the tumor, and that tumor that maketh another species which I oppose. Doth he not think that the Popes Bi­shoprick is faulty (yea, as a corrupt species?) And as it is more tumid than the Patriarchs, is not the Patriarchs more tumid than the Metropolitanes, and that than the Diocesanes? And if Dr. Hammond were not deceived, who thought that there were no stated worshipping Assemblies in Scripture times without a present [Page 202] Bishop, is not the sole Bishop of a Thousand or a Hundred such Assemblies different from a Bishop of One only? And if many Ca­nons speak truly, that say a Bishop should be in every City that hath a Church, and every great Town like our Corporations and Market Towns was called a City, doth not a Bishop of one Ci­ty, and a Bishop of 50, or 40, or 10, differ so far, that a man may be against one without being against the other? Doth he speak against Patriarchs that speaks against the Pope? Or against Diocesanes that speaks against Patriarchs? Or against the Primi­tive Bishops that speaks only against such Diocesanes as put them all down, and all their Churches, and almost all true Discipline of such Churches, like Erastians.

§ 22. P. 319. 322. His Charge on Socrates and Sozomene (sha­king the credit of Church History) as writing that [which no reasonable man can believe as it is related by them, without loving a malicious Lye.] I spake to before: If such Historians believed not what they write or loved a malicious Lye; alas, whom shall we believe? Is he better than they?

And his note that Valesius judged Eusebius Nicomed no Here­tick, I before noted.

But I will follow that case no further, lest he should draw me to seem to charge the ancient Bishops with sedition, whom I ne­ver intended so to charge; but only to desire those that can ex­cuse the Language e. g. of Gregory the great to Ph [...]cas, of Am­brose to Eugenius, of the Bishops to Maximus, and many such like, not implacably to reproach and hunt those that did no more or not so much.

§ 23. His full Stomach dischargeth itself against me three times over with one charge, P. 314, 320, 352. [Oliver Crom­well and his Son, the David and Absalom of Mr. B.] And [He compares the most barbarous villain in the World to King David, in his Epistle to his Son.

Ans. Reader if there be no such word in any of my Writings, after all these Accusations of this man and many such other, I must leave it to thy self how thou wilt name these men, their History, and their dealings; for if I name them they will say I rail.

Yea, what if this very man (it's easie to know why and whence) doth even here, p. 352. &c. reprint the very Epistle which he thus accuseth, and cite no such word, to tell us that [Page 203] he knew there was no such word there, and yet thus affirmeth it, what will you call this?

The words cited by himself are these, [‘Many observe that you have been strangly kept from participating in any of our late bloody Contentions, that God might make you a Healer of ourHad I said what is this Week pub­lished, as one of their chief Dr's Elegy upon Oliver Cromwell, (with two o­thers) what should I have heard? What abundance of Conformists flattered O­liver, while I openly dis­ow [...]nd him as a Usurper; but now their malice hath got the han­dle. Breaches, and employ you in that Temple Work, which David himself might not be honoured with, though it was in his mind, be­cause he had shed blood abundantly, and made great Wars. 1 Chr. 22. 7, 8.’]

Is here ever a word of Oliver? Is he here called David? Did I not purposely say, [David himself] and cite the Text, lest any should feign the same that he doth? Any man may see that he hath nothing to say, but to accuse my Thoughts, and suspect that I had such a meaning. And who made him acquainted with Thoughts that were never uttered? Or made him a Judge of them? If his and other mens thoughts may be thus by conjecture accused, no Enemy need to want matter of Accusation.

It's like he will appeal to my Conscience whether it were not my thought? And 1. By what authority will he so do? 2. But I will shrive my self to him this once. It is so long since, that truly I remember not what was in my Thoughts, any fur­ther than my words express: But I well remember my for­mer Actions, and what was then my judgment of Oliver and his Actions, and I use not to speak against my judgment. Many knew that he being acquainted the first day that I went into the Army, (which was after Naseby Fight) that I was sent by an Assembly of Divines, to try whether I could turn the Sol­diers against his subverting Designs, (then first discovered to me,) he would never once speak to me while I was in the Ar­my; and that ever after I was driven away, I openly in Pulpit, Press and Conference disowned, and warned men to disown his Actions against King and Parliament, and his Usurpation; and that I wrote against the Engagement: And therefore I do not think that ever I meant to call him David, and I am sure I ne­ver did it. But they say old Men can see better afar off than near at hand; and so all these notorious Untruths about visible present things, may yet consist with such mens credibility about things said and done 1300 Years ago.

§ 24. And now I am here, I must not pass by his friendly Ad­monition, p. 357. after his reciting my Epistles, [‘If I were as [Page 204] worthy to advise Mr. B. as he was to advise Cromwell, I would say, It were much more adviseable for a Christian, specially for one that thinks he is so near his eternal State, to repent and cry peccavimas, than to stand on Justification of the fact, &c.]

Ans. 1. Is was usual for men to choose their own Confessours: But it being the Custom of the times for Pastors and Confessors to be forced on Dissenters, I will submit now to your way, though my former Confessions and my Communion with you have been turned to Reproach and Scorn.

1. I do daily beg earnestly of God, to let none of my sins be unknown to me, and taken for no sin, and be unrepented of; and that he would forgive that which I would fain know, and do not.

2. I do not repent of owning Oliver's Actions against King and Parliament, or his Usurpation; for I never owned them, nor the Actions of them that set up his Son.

3. I do not repent that I loved the Peace of the Church, and that I desired the Governour, though a Usurper, should do good and not evil.

4. I do not repent that seeing the Armies Rebellions and Con­fusions, I stirred up Rulers and People to take heed of favouring so great Sin.

5. But I do now by experience of other ways perceive that I was sometimes too eager in aggravating mens Errours, and re­pent that I used not more forbearance of some of my Accusati­ons of some of them.

6. I did think that Richard Cromwell was an Usurper: But when we had been twelve Years at least without a rightful Go­vernour, I then thought as Thomas White, alias Blacklow, the moderate Papist, wrote, that the Land could not subsist in Soci­ety without some Government, and that No-Government is worse to the People than a Usurped one: And that it is somtime lawful to submit and use an Usurper, when it is not lawful to approve his Entrance. And wherein I was deceived I am willing to be better informed.

7. But I do unfeignedly repent that I wrote those two Epistles, though it was to put a man on to do good, whom I never saw, [...]or [...] had the least to do with.

8. And I do more repent of the cause of all, viz. that I ap­pointed God a time, and limited his Providence; and thought [Page 205] that because so many Armies and Endeavours had failed Twelve or Fourteen Years, that had attempted the restoring of the King, therefore there was no probability of accomplishing it: I do not repent that I was not a Prophet, to know before what God would do; for it was not in my power; nor do I repent that I preached Christs Gospel under Usurpers; but I repent that I waited not Gods time, and did not better consider that want of humane Power is no hinderance to Omnipotency, and nothing is difficult to him.

9. I was drawn too far by Mr. Harringtons Scorn, and the dislike of Sir Henry Vane's Attempts for a Common-Wealth, to meddle with matters of Government, and to write my Politi­cal Aphorisms, called, A Holy Common-Wealth: And I do un­feignedly repent that ever I wrote and published it, and had not more confined my self to the matters proper to my Calling, and let those meddle with forms of Government who were fitter for it.

All these, besides what's formerly said to Mr. Bagshaw, I de­clare my unfeigned Repentance of. And though it pleaseth you to feign me a Schismatick, and hater of Repentance, (for speak­ing against the fault [...] that needed it) I shall thank you to be a real helper of me in so necessary a work as Repentance is.

And that I may do the like by you, I shall now only requite you with this Advice, that before you write next, you will set before your Eyes the Ninth Commandment, Thou shalt not bear false Witness against thy Neighbour: And that when you say your Prayers, you would be serious when you say, Lord have Mercy upon us, and encline our hearts to keep this Law.

§ 25. A Roman Zeal tells us, that Faction and Schism, when animated by worldly Interest, and grown up to a malignant hatred of the things and persons that are averse to it, is hardly bound­ed, but is thriving up towards destructive Persecution, as swel­ling Prelacy did towards the Papacy and the Inquisition. It is not one or two Fishes that will satisfie the stomach of a Pike: Nor is it the slandering or ruining of one or two men, or silen­cing of one or two of the Ministers of Christ, that will satisfie a malignant Spirit. One Meal will not make a lean Man fat. Whe­ther there be a Legion in those that would destroy a Legion of Christs Servants, or one have so much Power I know not; but the effects tell us what manner of Spirit they are of. But let the Papists pass.

[Page 206]§ 26. When I read p. 337, and 358, 359. and such passages, it makes me think of them that cried, [His Blood be on us, and our Children,] together with our Judge's words, [In as much as you did it or did it not to one of the least of these my Brethren, you did it or did it not to me.] P. 337. he saith, [‘There is great reason to value the peaceable Resignation of the Nonconformists, when we consider by what Usurpation and Violence they were brought in, and what a number of worthy learned Ministers were turned out to make vacancies for these men, who were to instruct the Peo­ple in new Mysteries of Religion, which their old Pastors had not the Conscience or Ability to teach them, that is, of the lawfulness of Rebellion.—And p. 358, &c. There were many of those Mini­sters Usurpers, and had intruded into the Churches of other men, who had been silenced and cast out.—There were many others that were intruders into the Ministry, and such not a few of them as Mr. B. himself would not have thought fit to have continued. All the rest were such as would not submit to the Rule that was then established in the Church, but chose rather to leave their Livings, and the Bishops could not help it, any otherwise than as they were Members of Parliament; for it was the Law that tied them to their choice, and not the Bishops. If Mr. B. means what happened before the last Civil Wars, as it's likely he may, then these ancient Teachers were the instruments of an Antimonarchical, Antiepisco­pal Faction: They would preach but they would not conform to the Established Religion: Nay many of them would preach against it, and against their Governours too. These were such Incend [...]ries as no Government would endure, &c.]

Ans. When you have noted this part of his History, it will not be hard to judge of his credibility.

I. The things that he defendeth is the silencing and prosecu­ting of three sorts of Ministers. 1. Many Hundreds of Noncon­formists in the days of Qu. Eliz. K. James, and some few in the time of K. Charles 1. 2. Many Conformists in the time of K. Charles 1. under Bishop Laud. 3. About 2000 that conform not to the New Laws of Uniformity in the time of K. Ch. 2. What these Ministers were or are, and what the fruits of their silencing have been, and what it hath done to the Church of England, and to many Thousands of Godly Christians, I will not be [...]udge: Nor will I dispute that which all England sees or feels. But it seems so well done to our Historian, as that he is [Page 207] willing deliberately to justifie or defend it, which as I understand is to make it his own, and to undertake to be one of those that shall answer for it. What if another had done as much against him, as he hath done against himself? And for how small a prize?

II. As he before would insinuate, that what is said of the great number of Drunkards, and ignorant men turned out, was false, though so judged upon the Oaths of men accounted the greatest lovers of Religion in their Parishes; so he seemeth here to intimate that it was only or chiefly into the places of learned worthy men, that the silenced Ministers succeeded; whereas it was not one of many that came into any such mens places of them that were silenced at the fatal Bartholomew day.

III. He seemeth to intimate, that when the Parliament (suppose by wrong) put out either such as he or I describe, the Land must be under an Interdict till the Bishops and King were restored, and that Christs Gospel was no more to be preached in England, till Diocesanes returned, but all Souls be given up to Damnation, unless Christ would save them without the preaching of his Gospel, and the Land was to be left to the Devil and Paganism. And who can deny now but the Diocesane Species is essential to the Church?

IV. When I spake only of the silencing and ejecting Act, of Aug. 24. 1662. he would make the Reader believe, that this Change was to restore the Churches to their ejected Pastors, or cast out Usurpers; whereas unless Ignorance or worse hinder him, he knoweth that all that were cast out and were alive, laid claim to their Benefices, and were restored before that, and their Li­vings resigned quietly to them, to say nothing of the rest that were supposed to be at the Lord Chancellors disposal. Those that were put out that the sequestred might re-enter, were none of them silenced, nor made uncapable of other Livings till August 24. 1662.

V. He would insinuate that it was only the Nonconformists that were cast out of such sequestrations: Whereas in the Countries that I either lived in or heard of, it was as many or more of the Conformists, that had sequestred Livings and were cast out, and took new presentations.

VI. And this is evident by his Intimation, as if it were a ve­ry great number of the Church Livings that were so possest: [Page 208] Whereas of Nine Thousand or Ten Thousand Ministers then in Possession, Seven or Eight Thousand Conformed: There­fore it's likely that the Conformists had most of the Sequestra­tions.

VII. He tells you that the Ejected Ministers were brought in to instruct the People in the Lawfulness of Rebellion: Doth not this intimate that this was the case only or chiefly of the silenced Nonconformists? But I have oft cited Jewel defend­ing the French Protestants; Was not he a Bishop? I have oft cited Bilson, affirming it no Rebellion if the Nobles and People defend their Legal Constitution against one that will—(I will not recite the rest.)—I have oft cited Ri. Hooker whose popular Principles I have con [...]ured, and goeth higher against ab­solute Monarchy, than I or any of my Correspendency did in all the Wars. Heylin is for Conciliation with the Papists: He know­eth not their Writings who knoweth not that the Papists are more for popular Election, and Power towards Princes, far than ever such as I were. And had he not put his Head and Eyes into a Bag, he could hardly have denied but that they were Episcopal Conformists on both sides that began the War: But being got into the dark he loudly denieth it.

VIII. He saith, There were many others that himself would not have thought fit to have continued. Ans. I thought I was more likely to know them than he. I remember not one such of an hundred that did not conform. I confess that when the Prelatical party intreated me no longer to refuse the Westminster Commissioners Letters, deputing me with others to try and judge of some Episcopal Conformists that stood then for Livings, to avoid all seeming opposition to that way I did stretch as far as I durst, to approve and keep in some Conformists, of very low parts who knew not a quarter so much as some Lay People did: But none of these were Nonconformists.

IX. He saith, [All the rest were such as would not submit to the Rule then established in the Church. This is true: And what was that Rule? Did Peter or Paul make it, or submit to it? Did they refuse any thing that God commanded in Nature or Scripture? Or any Circumstantials necessary in genere left in spe­cie to the Magistrates determination? They were guilty of be­lieving that God is above man, and that there is no Power but of God, and none against him; and that we must please him [Page 209] whoever be displeased. They were guilty of so much Self-love as to be unwilling to be damned for a Benefice, or for a Bishops Will. They did not consent to profess Assent and Consent to all things contained in and prescribed by three Books, written by such as declare themselves to be fallible; and such as not one of Fourty ever saw before they declared the said Assent and Consent to them. They did not consent to cast out all Infants from Christendom, whose Parents durst not offer them to Bap­tism, under the Sacramental Symbol of the Cross; nor unless they might have themselves been Covenanters, Undertakers, or Promisers for them, as well as the Godfathers: Or that scru­pled getting Strangers to undertake that perfidiously for their Children which they never intended to perform. They durst not read Excommunications against Christs true Servants, nor repel those from Christian Communion, who scruple kneeling in the reception of the Sacrament: They durst not swear that many Thousands whom they never knew are not obliged by the Co­venant, when they know not in what sence they took it: For they are not willing to believe that the compounding Lords and Knights did not put a good sence on it before they took it. They durst not say that all is so well in our Church Government by Diocesanes, Lay-Chancellours Power of the Keys, Archdeacons, Officials, Commissaries, &c. that we may swear against all en­deavours to amend it by any alteration; They do believe that the Law of Nature is Gods Law, and that as it alloweth a single Person only private desence, so it alloweth every Nation publick defence against Enemies notorious destroying assaults: And they dare not swear or covenant, that if any should from the Lord Chancellour, &c. get a Commission to seize on the Kings Navy, Treasures, Forts, Guards, Person, and to seize on the Lives and Estates of all his Innocent Subjects, that it is unlawful to re­sist any that execute such a Commission. They find it so hard a Controversie, what God doth with the dying Infants of Atheists, Infidels, Mahometanes, and Persecutors, that they dare not declare, that if any of their Children be baptized and die, it is certain by the word of God that they are undoubtedly saved. We say not that the Law binds us to any of the evil which we fear: But we dare not take Oaths and Promises which we un­derstand not.

Abundance I pre [...]erm [...]t.

[Page 210]He is extreamly censorious if he think that Mr. R. Hooker▪ Bp. Bilson, Bp. Grindal, A. Bp. Abbot, Bp. Rob. Abbot, Bp. Jewel, &c. would have been Conformists had they been now alive.

X. He saith, [They chose rather to leave their Livings.] Ans. They chose not to conform, but submitted only to leave their Livings; Eligere est agere. They were passive in this, they re­fused to conform as supposed by them a heinous Sin, but they chose not to be silenced or cast out; but they chose to endure it when the Bishops chose it for them.

XI. He saith, that [the Bishops could not help it any other­wise than as they were Members of Parliament.

Ans. 1. I confess Scripture useth the like Phrase, Can the Leopard change his Spots, &c. or they that are accustomed to do evil learn to do well? And Rom. 8. 6, 7. The carnal mind is enmi­ty against God, for it is not subject to his Law, nor can be.] I will not here too much contradict him, 2. But is it nothing that they could have done in Parliament, had they been willing? 3. Is it unlawful for us to know if he know it not, or deny it, how much the Bishops and Clergy did with the Parliament-Men? 4. He should at least have stayed till Dr. Bates, Dr. Jacomb, and I are dead, who wrote and disputed with the Bishops by the Kings Commission, before he had talkt at this rate to the World. Did not the King make his Declaration about Ecclesiastical Af­fairs? And did he not under the broad Seal commission those Bishops and Doctors to treat with us for the making such altera­tions as were necessary to tender Consciences? Did they not main­tain that no alterations were thereto necessary, and so end the trea­ty. 5. Did they not in their next Convocation lay aside the Kings Indulgent Declaration, and make the Additions to the Liturgy? And yet could they not help it? Nor was it none of their do­ings? 6. Doth not England know that Parliaments since have by experience perceived their Mistake, and would have suspend­ed our Prosecution, and restored us to Unity, and the Bishops and Clergy will not consent but rage against it, and preach and write to have us executed according to the Laws, and no abate­ment to be made, and as this man, think that the Churches Di­straction is from Projects of Moderation. What name should one give to such Histories as these? The guilty cannot bear their names.

[Page 211]XII. He saith, [It was the Law that tied them to their choice and not the Bishops.

Ans. 1. Suppose the word choice were proper here, [Is it any justification of the Executioners?] It was the Emperour Charles the 5th's Edict that tied all the Protestant Ministers to conform to the Interim, or be gone: It was the Law that tied the Martyrs in Qu. Maries days to profess what they believed not, or to be burnt. Alas! How could Bonner and Gardiner help it? 2. But how many Bishops were against the passing of that Bill? And who persuaded the Lay-Men to it? Must we not know when it's night if you deny it?

XIII. He tells you, that [the ancient silenced Teachers be­fore the Civil Wars, were the Instruments of Antimonarchical and Antiepiscopal Faction.

Ans. 1. Which of them all said so much as Mr. Hooker, Bp. Bilson, Bp. Jewel, &c. have done? 2. If you make any Con­science of the 9th Commandment, prove the Truth of what you say of those that were suspended and driven out of the King­dom in the times of A. Bp. Laud, Bp. Wren, Bp. Piercy, &c. for not reading the Book for Lords-days Dancing and Sports, and that were prosecuted for Preaching twice on the Lords-day, and for not turning the Table Altar-wise, and railing it in, which even Bp. Montague as well as Williams was against. Was Bishop Miles Smyth of Gloucester, were A. Bp. Abbot or Grindall Anti­monarchical or Antiepifcopal? 3. Prove if you are able any Anti­monarchical Principles, Words, or Deeds by Mr. Hildersham, Mr. Brinsley, Mr. Paul Baine, Mr. Dod, Mr. Knewstubs, and hundreds of such I might name. The most malicious are fain to talk of one Knox, or one Goodman, or one Junius Brutus, (that is, Hubertus Languetus Melancthous friend) or somewhat in Bu­chanan, not the tenth part so much as is commonly said by the Papists, with whom our A. Bp. Bromhall and his Companions so much plead for Concord. 4. Doth not Al. Cope, and Sanders, and Pateson in the Image of both Churches, and lately the nomi­nal Bellamy in his Philanax Anglicus, and many more such, say all the same of the Bishops and Church of England, and all that they deride as [Protestants of Sincerity] as guilty of far more re­bellious Principles and Practices, th [...]n ever you can prove by the meer Nonconformists old or new? And is it enough to accuse?

[Page 212]XIV. He saith, They would preach but they would not conform to the established Religion.

Ans. 1. But why should they be forbidden to preach (which was good and they were devoted to?) If a man will not do all that you would have him to do, shall he do nothing?

2. What was that which he calleth the Established Religion? It was the Ceremonies and Subscription, that there is nothing in the Liturgy contrary to the Word of God.] And was this a Crime worthy the forbidding men to preach the Gospel? Or why should the Souls of Thousands of the Innocent People be so hea­vily punished for another mans omission, even because the Teachers fear Conformity.

3. But still we see what these mens Religion is: Had their Religion been the Scripture, or any Doctrine or Worship com­mon to the Christian or Protestant Churches, the old Noncon­formists willingly consented to it. But here they shew that their Ceremonies and proper Liturgy forms are their Religion. But then 1. Why do Dr. Burges and all that plead for your Cere­monies and Invention, build all on this, that you make them not any parts of Worship or Religion, (which they confess man may not invent) but meer accidents? 2. How old then is your Religion? Your Liturgy was made since Luther began his Refor­mation. 3. It seems then that you are not of the same Religi­on with the Protestants that have none of your Ceremonies, Li­turgy or Subscriptions. 4. Is not then your Church of a singu­lar Religion from all the World, and consequently a singular Church? And is it the whole Catholick Church then, or a Schismatical Church?

I confess that you shew more evidently than by such words, that your self made Rules and Circumstances are your Religion: For 1. You make Conformity to them to be de facto more necessary than our Preaching the Gospel, or our Church Com­munion, or any publick Church Worship of God. 2. And you excommunicate by your Rule or Canon every Member of Christ in England, that doth but think and say, that any thing of your Imposition, Liturgy, Ceremonies, or Govern­ment are sinful. 3. And yet when you have done you call all your Impositions things indifferent. 4. And thereby you declare that your Religion in part is a thing indifferent. 5. And no Man or Woman shall be of your Church that cannot know all the in­different [Page 213] things in the World which may be imposed on them, to be Indifferent and not Unlawful; when you know (or you know not whom you dwell among) that we have much adoe to get one half your Church to know things necessary. 6. The Papists that put a greater necessity on their Inventions will deride you for an Indifferent Religion.

There was a poor Puritane Nonconformist that feared Lying, that went about the Streets with Ink to fell, and was wont tru­ly to cry, [Very good Ink, very good Ink;] but once his Ink a little miscarried, and he durst not call it [Very good,] but cried, Pretty good Ink, Pretty good Ink,] and no body would buy of him, and he lost his Ink. And if you cry up [An indifferent Re­ligion,] whatever you have for numbers, you will have for qua­lity but an Indifferent Church, (save our Rulers.)

XV. But he adds, [Many of them would preach against it and their Governours too.]

Ans. 1. You tempt them towards it. If I ask the Butcher [Is your Meat sweet?] and he say it is indifferent, I am excusa­ble if I think it stinks. 2. They judge by the effects: They thought that when an indifferent thing casteth out a necessary thing, it becomes naught. 3. But yet your Accusation is un­faithful: Why did you not say then, that it was not for Non­conformity that men were cast out, but for preaching against your Religion? Who were those? Was it proved? If so, what was that to the rest? Do you punish many learned moderate men for the fault of a few others that they were not concerned with? You now alledge Mr. Hildersham, Ball, Bradshaw, Baine, Knew­stubs, and abundance such, for being against Separation, and persuading men to come to the Common Prayer, (and many of them to kneel at the Sacrament,) and yet when you plead for their Silencing, even other mens words may serve against them.

XVI. To conclude, in all he layeth the cause of their silence on themselves for not conforming, and yet will not tell us what we should do to help it. Would they have us Conform while we judge it as sinful as I have mentioned in my first Plea for Peace? No; they profess the contrary. Would they have us believe all to be lawful? We cannot: Our Judgments are not at our Command: What would they have us do to change? Worldly Interest maks us too willing! We study as hard as they! [Page 214] We earnestly beg Gods Illumination to save us from Er rour We read all that they write to convince us: And the more we read, study, and pray, the more heinous the Sin of Conformity seems to some. I askt Bp. Morley the same question when he for­bad my preaching, before the ejecting Act; and he bid me read Bilson and Hooker: I told him that was not now to do: and in both of them I found the Principles which are made the cause of my Silencing, my greatest Crimes, and in one of them worse. He then told me, If God would not give me his Grace he could not help it: And yet most of these men are against fatal, repro­bating, necessitating Decrees.

The imposing Papists use men worse: Of whom will you par­don a Fable.

A Bee and a Flie were catcht together in a Spiders Web: The Spider when they were tired with striving, claimed them both for her Food, as a punishment for breaking into and troubling her Web: And against the Bee she pleaded that she was a hurt­ful Militant Animal, that had a Sting; and against the Flie that she was noisome and good for nothing. The Bee answered that her mellifying Nature and work was profitable, and Nature had armed her with a Sting to defend it. And the Flie said, as she did little good so she did little harm, and could make her self no better than Nature had made her. And as to the Crime al­ledged against them, they both said, that the Net was made by a venomous Animal, spun out of the Air and the Venom of her own Bowels, made for no use but to catch and destroy the In­nocent, and they came not into it by malice, but by ignorance and mistake, and that it was more against their Will than against the Spiders, for they contrived not to fall into it; but she con­trived to catch them; and that it was not to break the Net that they strove, but to save their Lives. The Master of the House overheard the Debate, but resolved to see how the Spider would judge, which was quickly done without more words; the took them for Malefactors, and killed them both. The Ma­ster of the House so disliked the Judgment, that he ordered that for the time to come, 1. The Bees should be safely hived and cherished. 2. And the Flies, if not very noisome, should be tolerated. 3. And all Spiders Webs swept down.

I need to give you no more of the Exposition of it, than by the Spider I mean the Papal noxious Canon-makers, and that by [Page 215] the Net I mean their unnecessary and ensnaring Laws and Canons, which are made to catch and destroy good men, and are the way to the Inquisition, or Bonner's Coal-house, or Smithfield Bonefires. But I must desire you not to imagine that I speak against the Laws of the Land.

§ 27. As to the Conclusion of his last Chapter, I shall now add no more but this: If what I said before and to Mr. Hinkley satisfie him not, of what Religion and Party both sides were that began the War, and Mr. Rushworths Collections, and other Hi­stories of former Parliaments be not herein useful to him, let him but secure me from burning my Fingers with Subjects so red hot, by mens misinterpreting and impatience, and I will (God willing) give him so full proof, that (to say nothing of latent Instigators and consequent auxiliaries on either side, nor of the King himself, whose Religion is beyond dispute,) the parties else that begun the War in England did differ in Religion; but as A. Bps. Laud, and Neal, and Bromhal, and such others, and A. Bps. Abbot and Williams, and Bp. Bilson, on the other side; and as Dr. Mainwaring, Sibthorp, &c. on one side, and Mr. Ri. Hooker and such on the other side differed. And if my proof be confutable I will not hereafter undertake to prove that English is the language of England.

But my Bargain must be thus limited. 1. I will not under­take that from the beginning there was no one Papist on the Kings side, or no one Presbyterian on the Parliaments: I could never yet learn of more than one in the House of Commons, and a very few Independents, but I cannot prove that there was no more.

2. You must not put me upon searching mens hearts: I un­dertake not to prove what any mans heart in England was; but what their Profession was, and what Church they joined with in Communion.

3. And you must not equivocate in the use of the name [Pres­byterian,] or [Nonconformist,] and tell me that you take some A. Bps. and Bps. and such Divines as Ri. Hooker, and Bilson, and Bp. Downame, the Pillars of Episcopacy and Conformity, for Presbyterians.

And if it may be I would beg that of you, that you will not take the long Parliament for Presbyterians and Nonconformists, who made the Acts of Uniformity, the Corporation Act, the [Page 216] Militia Act, and those against conventicles, and for banishment from Corporations, &c. Notwithstanding their high Votes about the Succession and Jealousies of Popery, and that which they said and did hereupon: For I confess if it be such Nonconform­ists or Presbyterians as those that you mean, I'le give you the better. And I must also desire that you call not the next Parlia­ment, which consisted most of the same Men, Presbyterians or Nonconformists; nor the other since them? Or at least that hereafter before we dispute we may better agree of the mean­ing of our terms.

And I declare to the Reader, that nothing in all this Book is intended against the Primitive Church-Government or Episcopa­cy, nor against the good Bishops, Clergy, Councils, or Canons, which were many; nor against King, Parliament, Magistracy, the Laws, or Liturgy, or Church Communion; nor against our peaceable and patient submission where we dare not practically obey: But only against the diseases and degeneracy of Bishops, Clergy, Councils, and Canons, and those dividing practices, by which they have for 1200 Years and more been tearing the Christian World into the Sects of which it now consisteth; and against the whole ascendent Change from the Primitive Episco­pacy to Papal maturity: and against our swearing. Subscribing, declaring, covenanting, professing, and practising, where we understand not the Imposers sense, and are unwilling by our pri­vate Interpretations to deceive them, and where we are per­suaded that it would be heinous sin to us, not meddling with the case of Lawmakers or Conformists, who have no such fears, but think all good.

Chrysostome (before cited) in Act. 1. Hom. 3. p. (mihi) 472. speaketh harder than I ever did: [ [...] &c. which Eras­mus translateth, Non temere a [...]co, sed ut affectus sum & sentio; Non arbitrer inter Sac [...]rdotes multos esse qui salvi fiant, sed multo [...]l [...]es qui p [...]reant. His reason is the same which some give why they think most Physicians kill more than they cure, because there is so much Wisdom, Goodness, Watchfulness, and Dili­gence required to their Calling, which few of them have.

Luther is much sharper than I ever was, when he saith, [Hi­eronymus & alii Patres vixerant in temporali Successione Ecclesiae, expertes Cr [...]s & persecutionis. Episcopi enim jam tum coeperant cr [...]s [...]re & [...] [...]pib [...]s, existimatione & gloria in mundo: Et ple­rique [Page 217] etiam tyrannidem exercebant in populum cui praeerant, ut te­statur historia Ecclesiastica: Pauci faciebant sua Officia, &c. Loc. Com. 4. Class. p. 79, 80.

Et Cap. 27. p. 48. de Synodis. In posterioribus Conciliis nunquam de fide, sed semper de opinionibus & quaestionibus disputatum (after the first) ut mihi Conciliorum nomen pene tam suspectum & invi­sum sit, quam nomen Liberi arbitrii.

What Melancthon thought of the Papal design of magnifying Councils, and pleading the necessity of uninterrupted Successi­on of Episcopal Ordination, see in his Epistles, especially of the Conference at Ratisbone.

Dr. Henry Moore in his Mystery of Iniquity saith, p. 1 [...]2. [‘That Principle tends to the ruining of Faith, which sup­poseth that without right Succession of Bishops and Priests, there is no true Church, and therefore no true Faith: and that this Succession may be interrupted by the Misordination or Misconsecration of a Priest or Bishop, the Persons thus or­dained being Atheists or Jews, or ordained by them that are so—As if a man could not feel in his own Conscience whe­ther he believed or not the truths of holy Scripture, without he were first assured that he was a Member of that Church, that had an uninterrupted lawful Succession of the Priesthood from the Apostles times till now.’

Perhaps Episcopius and Curcellaeus will be more regarded. Read that notable Preface of Curcellaeus to Episcopius Works, p. 12, 13. [Resp. Experientiam docere nullas unquam Controver­sias de Religione inter Christianos exortas auctoritate synodali fae­liciter terminatas fuisse—& certiorem multo pacis viam esse—Next he shews how little good even the Nicene Council did, and how much worse things were after: Hierome saying, that the whole World was Arian, And Constantius reproaching Libe­rius for being with one man against all the World: The Vulgar Dicterium being, Omne Concilium parit Bellum. Whence he ga­thers that Councils, such as the World hath hitherto had, non esse idoneum componendis Religionis dissidiis Remedium: Et quam­diu illud usur pabitur perpetuas in Ecclesia & Republica turbas fo­re.

Episcopii & praecipuorum emiouit fides & animi magnitudo, quod ne promisso quidem solutionis ejusdem quo antea fruebantur sti­pendii, induci potuerint ut se ad silentium quod imperabatur servan­dum [Page 218] obstringerent, etiamsi nonnulli in magna rei familiaris augusti [...] versarentur.

So copious and sharp is Episcopius, Qu. 52. p. 56. b. in main­taining that the Magistrate hath no Authority to forbid sacred Assemblies to tolerable Dissenters, and that Ministers and Peo­ple forbidden them must hold on to the death, that I will not recite the words, but desire his Admirers to read them.

An Account to Edward Lord Bishop of Cork and Rosse in Ireland, of the success of his Censure of Richard Baxter in England: Detecting his manifold Un­truths in matter of Fact.

§ 1. TO give my Character of you whom I know not, as you do of me, is none of my work: But 1. Your Stile alloweth me to say, that by it you seem to me to be a man of Conscience, fearing God. 2. And yet your Matter assureth me, that you speak abundance of Un­truths confidently; I suppose, partly by not knowing the per­sons and things of which you speak, and partly by thinking that you ought to believe the false Reporters, with whom you are better acquainted.

§ 2. The strait which you cast us into is unavoidable: Either we must seem to own all the false Accusations brought against us, which will hurt others far more than us; or else we must de­ny and contradict them, and that will pass for an intolerable ad­dition to our guilt, and we shall be supposed such intemperate, fierce abusive Persons as you describe me, while you think we give you the Lye, or make you Slanderers. But we cannot cure your Misresentments, but must be content to bear your Cen­sures, while we call you not Lyars, but only acquaint you with the truth.

§ 3. For my own part my final Judgment is so near, and I am conscious of so much evil in my self, that I have no reason to be hasty in my own Vindication, but much reason to take all hints and helps for deeper search, and will not justifie my Stile. And God knows I am afraid lest selfishness or partiality should hinder [Page 220] me from finding out my sin: and I dayly and earnestly beg of God to make it known to me, that I may not be impenitent: But either Prejudice, Converse, or somwhat else, maketh a ve­ry great difference between your Judgment and mine, of Good and Evil: And I cannot help it: If I err it is not for want of willingness to see my Errour, and openly retract it; nor for want of an ordinary Diligence to know the Truth.

The Sum of our difference, as far as I can understand you, is in these particulars.

I. Whether there be no sin imposed by the Laws or Canons on Ministers and People here?

II. Whether it was well done by the Bishops and other Cler­gy-Men to do what they did to cause those Laws, which silenced the whole Ministry of England, unless they would conform to all things so imposed in the Act of Uniformity; and actually si­lenced about 2000, and made those other Laws against their Preaching to more than Four, and against coming within Five Miles of Corporations, and such others, as adjudge Nonconfor­mists to Gaols and Ruine; and whether the Clergy do well still to urge the Execution of those Laws, and are guiltless of the doleful Divisions of this Land, and danger of its Relapse to Po­pery?

III. Whether it be unpeaceable for a Nonconformist after 17 years silent suffering, to tell his Superiors why he dare not con­form, when he is by them importuned to it? And to write a Confutation of a multitude of Volumns of false Accusations brought to justifie the Executions?

§ 4. If you think you have proved all those Impositions sin­less which I have mentioned in my first Plea for Peace, I think you might as well have shortly said, [We Bishops are of so much Wisdom and Authority, that you must hold them lawful, because we say so.] And must all be ruined that would not be so convinced? But if any of those Impositions prove to be sin, and so great sin as we cannot chuse but think they are, is it a greater fault to name them (when importuned) than to impose them? And a greater fault to feel, and say we feel, than to strike or wound men?

If we had taken it to be our Duty to have called those Cler­gy-Men to Repentance, which we think are ignorantly undo­ing themselves and the Land, how should we do it without [Page 221] naming their Sin? Yea, and the greatness of it? And if we think it our Duty to deprecate our Destruction, and beg of you to spare our Lives or Consciences, how can we do it without telling what we suffer? If it be well done of you, and be no per­secution, but your Duty for the Churches good, (as no doubt the Executioners think) the History is your praise, and you need not extenuate the Fact: Valiant Souldiers glory in the multi­tudes they kill: Had you silenced the other 7000 that conform­ed, when you silenced but 2000, your Victory had been the more famous. Some think those that are here against your ways, are not half the Land; were it murdering of one man, that ano­ther is judged for, it were not unpeaceableness to say, that he deserveth to be hanged: But the judge deserveth praise if he condemn an hundred such. But when those men who should be the tenderest Peace-makers, and skilfullest therein, shall be the men that bring such a Land as this into the Case that we are in, and will not be intreated, nor by any Experience be persuaded to consent to its Relief, I know not how to shew mercy to the Land or them, but by persuading them to repent. And if all sin were made a matter of Controversie, and many learned men were for it, this would not alter the Case with me. If I may compare great things with small, who sinned more? The Irish for murdering 200000, or Sir John Temple, Dr. Henry Jones, the E. of Orery, for recording and reporting what they did? Was it the sin of the Savoyards and others to kill and ruine the Protestants in Piedmont? Or of Perrin, and Sir Sam. Mooreland to write the sto­ry? Did Thuanus, Davilah, &c. sin in recording the French Massacre? Or the French in doing it? Is it the French Prote­stants now that are criminal for describing and complaining of their Sufferings? Was John Foxe the Malefactor for writing the Sufferings of the Protestants under a lawful Queen? This day came out (Mar. 10.) a Narrative from Bristol how they are crowded in the Gaol on the cold ground, &c. Is the Report the Crime? Do you find a Justification in humane nature of such terms as these, [You shall suffer whatever we will inflict on you, but shall not tell any that you are hurt, or who did it, or why?]

§ 5. I have told the World so often over and over, that it is not all the Conformists, no nor all the Bishops that I impute our Sufferings to, that I must suppose you to understand it, specially when the Prefatory Epistle of the Book which you fall upon [Page 222] tells it you of many Bishops by name. Therefore when p. 68. you say, [I apply to you more than once, 1 Thes. 2. 15. They please not God, &c.] and add, [I believe in my Conscience he is mistaken.] Either by [to us] you mean, all the Conformists or Bishops, and that is not true, as the words tell you: Or you mean, [Us that procured or own, and execute the aforesaid silencing, afflicting Acts:] which your words seem to mean. And then I do but say, Oh! What may temptation bring even good mens Judgment to? Is the silencing of 2000, the afflicting of many times more of the Laity, the Jealousies, Distractions, and Dan­gers of this Land, so small a matter, or so good, that God is not displeased with it? And can you in your Conscience own what the Bishops did towards it? No wonder then if Ceremonies be cal­led things Indifferent. Certainly this cannot be Indifferent? It is a most meritorious or excellent work, or else a heinous Crime: It is either such a Cure as the cutting off a Cancerous Breast, or else if it be a sin, it must be as great as contributing to the endanger­ing of as many score Thousand Souls as 2000 Ministers were likely to have helpt to save, and to the corrupting of the Church, and the Introduction of Popery. And few Christians think that Nathan sinned by unpeaceableness more than David by Murder and Adultery, though but once; or Samuel more than Saul; or the Prophet that reproved him more than Jeroboam; or Christ Matth. 23. more than the Pharisees; yea, or than Peter, Mat. 16. when he said, Get behind me Satan, thou savourest not the things that be of God; or Paul more than Peter, Gal 2. or than the Jewish Teachers, whom he called the Concision & Dogs; or John than Diotrephes, &c.

Guilt is tender, and they that think God is of their Mind when he is silent, Psal. 50. 21. will think men should be so too. And man dare not bid defiance to God, and openly proclaim a War against him, and therefore hath no way to sin in peace, but by a conceited bringing the Mind and Law of God to his. What sin is there that Learned Men father not on God: And then they must be praised and not reproved, and then it's worse than un­peaceable to aggravate that which they say God owneth; such men as I, would think it scarce credible that the Spanish Inquisi­tion, the French Massacre, the Powder-Plot, the Murder of 200000 in Ireland, the Perjuring of a Nation, the silencing of Thousands of faithful Ministers, should have one word of Justi­fication [Page 223] ever spoken for it. But we are mistaken: No doubt men can write learned Volumes to defend any of these; and if one do but say, They please not God, men may be found that can say, [I believe in my Conscience that you are mistaken, and speak un­peaceably: God is pleased with it all.] Sure the day of Judgment will be much to justifie God himself, who is thus slandered as the Friend of every mans Sin. What wonder is it if there be nume­rous Religions in the World, when every selfish man maketh a God and a Religion of his own, fitted to his Interest and Mind? But when all men center onely in one God, and bring their Minds to his, and not conceitedly his to theirs, we may yet be One.

And if we could make men know, that God is not for them, and accepteth not of a Sacrifice of Innocent Blood, however men think that they do him good Service, yet they would not have this known: It's long since unhumbled Sinners turned Church-Confession into Auricular; If Saul do say at last, I have sinned, he would yet be honoured before the People. But the time is near when those that honour God he will honour, and those that de­spise him shall be lightly esteemed.

Few men living can easier bear with others for different forms and Ceremonies than I; but I take not the silencing and ruining of 2000 Ministers for Ceremonies (were that the worst of it) to be a Ceremony.

§ 6. Pag. 69. You say, We are not all of one mind yet: A sad word from a Bishop. Do you think that any two Men on Earth are of one mind in all things? Were those agreed whom Paul persuadeth, Rom. 14. to receive each other, but not to doubtful Disputations, and not to judge or despise each other, (much less to silence, imprison, and destroy.) We are agreed in all that is constitutive of Christianity, and agreed that all Christians should love others as themselves, and do as they would be done by. I confess if you have such eminent Self-denial, as to be wil­ling, if ever you differ from the publick Impositions, about the lawfulness of any one thing, to be not only cast out of your Lord­ship and Bishoprick, but to be silenced, imprisoned and destroy­ed, I cannot accuse you of Partiality but of Errour. I have known too many Conformists who needed no Bishop to silence them, (they never preached.) But that will not justifie their desires that others be silenced.

[Page 224]I have oft enough told you in how many things the Con­formists are disagreed: I now say the Bishops themselves are not agreed of the very Species of the Church of England: To say nothing of their disagreement of the Constitutive, national Head or Governour; they are not agreed, whether it be only a part of an universal, humane, political Church, subject to an universal hu­mane supream Power, who hath the right of Legislation and judg­ment over them, or whether it be a compleat national Church of it self, a part only of the universal as Headed by Christ, but not as by Man, or as humane Politie, having no foreign Governour, Monarchical or Aristocratical, (Pope or Council.)

Overdoing is illdoing and undoing. He that would make such a Law of Concord, as that none shall live out of Prison who are not of the same Age, Complexion, Appetite, and Opinion, would depose the King, by leaving him no Subjects. The Inquisition is set up in Love of Unity: But we know that we shall differ while we know but in part: Only the perfect World hath per­fect Concord. I greatly rejoice in that Concord which is a­mong all that truly love God. They love one another, and agree in all that is necessary to Salvation: The Church of the Con­formists is all agreed for Crossing and the Surplice, and for the Imposed Oaths, Professions and Covenants: Oh that all our Parishi­oners who plead for the Church were agreed that the Gospel is true, and that Christ is not a Deceiver, and that Man dyeth not as Dogs, but hath a Life of future Retribution.

§ 7. P. 69. Asking, [Were not almost all the Westminster As­sembly Episcopal Conformable men when they came thither?] He can say, [No, not in their hearts, as appeared by their fruits.] And he cites some words of the sense of the Parliament, Jun. 12. 1643.

Ans. 1. See here a Bishop that knew the hearts of hundreds of men, whom he never saw, to be contrary to their Profession and constant Practice.

2. And he can prove by their reporting the Parliaments words what was these Ministers own Judgment.

3. And he can prove by those words in Jun. 1643. what was their Judgment a Year or two before, and is sure that the Scots Arguments did not change them.

4. And he can prove that those are no Episcopal Conformists who are for the ancient Episcopacy only (described by Bishop Usher,) [Page 225] and take the English frame to be only lawful, but not unalter­able, or best. And if really he do take him to be no Episcopal Conformist, who is for enduring any way but their own, it is he and not I that gave them so bad a Character: It is he and not I that intimateth, that those moderate Conformists who had ra­ther Church-Government were reformed, than such Confusion made by silencing and hunting Christians, are at the Heart no Episcopal Conformists: Their Hearts I confess much differ from the Silencers and Hunters.

§ 8. He maketh me a false Historian for fixing the War on the Erastian Party in Parliament. Ans. Did I lay it only on the Erastians? Have I not undeniably proved that the War here be­gan between two Episcopal Parties? Of which one part were of A. Bp. Abbots, Mr. Hookers, and the generality of the Bi­shops and Parliaments mind, and the other of Bp. Lauds, Sib­thorps, Maynwarings, Heylins, A. Bp. Bromhalls, &c. mind: And the first sort some of them thought Episcopacy Jure Divino; but the English Frame not unreformable: And the other sort thought it was but Jure humano, and these were called by some Erastians. Let him give me leave to produce my Historical proofs, even to single men by name, that the English War be­gan between these two Parties, and I defie all his false Contra­diction: Only supposing, 1. That I speak not of the King, nor of the War in Ireland or Scotland. 2. That I grant that the Nonconformists were most for the Parliament, and the Papists most against them.

But when I have said so much to Mr. Hinkley already to prove this, did this Lord Bishop think to be believed without confu­ting it?

§ 9. But it transcendeth all bounds of Historical credibility, that he answereth this by saying, [He and all his Abettors must know the Catalogues of that Parliament, and that Assembly are still in our hands, the Copies of their Speeches, and Journals of their Votes, &c.] Ans. They are so to the Shame of such Historians. You have many of them in Whitlocks Memorials; I knew so great a number my self of the Parliament, Assembly, and Army, as makes me pitty the Ignorant World, which is abused by such Historians as you and yours.

§ 10. As for your assuring me that you look one day to answer for all you say, it minds me of the words of your Dr. Ash [...]ton, [Page 226] Chaplain to the Duke of Ormond, who (as going to the Bar of God) undertakes to prove, that it is through Pride and Covetousness that we conform not. The Inquisitors also believe a day of Judg­ment. And what is it that some men do not confidently ascribe to the most holy God?

§ 11. Your praises of me are above my desert: I am worse than you are aware of: But mens sins against Christs Church and Servants in England, Scotland, and Ireland are never the less for that.

§ 12. You shew us that you are deceived before you deceive: You do but lead others into the way of falshood which you were led into your self, when you say, I am [said to have asserted, that a man might live without any actual Sin.] A Lord Bishop (Morley p. 13.) told it you, and you a Lord Bishop tell it others, and thus the poor World hath been long used; so that of such Historians men at last may grow to take it for a valid Conse­quence, [It is written by them: Ergo it is incredible.] I tell you first in general, that I have seen few Books in all my Life, which in so few Sheets have so many Falshoods in matters of Fact done before many, as that Letter of Bishop Morley's; which upon your Provocation I would manifest, by Printing my Answer to him, were it not for the charges of the Press.

2. And as to your Instance, the case was this: Dr. Lany im­pertinently talkt of our being justified only by the Act of Faith, and not the Habit: I askt him whether we are unjustified in our sleep? which led us further, and occasioned me to say to some Objection of his, that men were not always doing moral Acts good or evil: and thence, [that a man is not always actually sinning, viz. In a mans sleep, he may live sometimes and not actually sin; as also in an Apoplexy and other loss of Reason.] Hence the cre­dible Bishop Morley printed that I said, A man may live without any actual Sin: Yea, and such other Reasons are given for his forbidding me to preach the Gospel. And now another pious L. Bp. going to answer it at Judgment, publisheth it as from him. O what a World is this, and by what hands are we cast down? Is my Assertion false or doubtful? Dr. Bates and Dr. Jacombe who were present are yet both living. By such men and means is the Church as it is: Arise O Lord and save it from them.

§ 13. You tell me, as Bp. Morley, of being the top of a facti­on of my own making, neither Episcopal, Presbyterian, Indepen­dent, [Page 227] or Erastian. Ans. So, to be against all Faction is to be the top of a Faction: I am neither an Arian, nor a Sabellian, nor an Apollinarian, nor a Macedonian, nor a Nestorian, or Eutychian, or Monothelite, or a Papist, &c. Conclude ergo I am the top of a new Heresie, and silence and imprison me for it, and your Di­ocesane Conformity will be past all suspicion (even at the heart.) But you will one day know, that to be against all Faction, and yet to bear with the Infirmities of the weak, and love all Christians as such, is a way that had a better Author.

§ 14. P. 73, 74. As to your extolled Friend a Nonconformist, who you say, told you that [I am not able to bear being gainsaid in any thing, for want of Academick Disputes, &c.

Ans. 1. Was your great Friend so excellent a man, and was it a good work to silence him, with which in your Conscience you think God is pleased?

2. Now you name him not, he cannot contradict you: Mr. Bagshaw said somthing like it of Mr. Herle, Prolocutor of the Assemblie, which his Acquaintance contradict.

3. I justifie not my Patience; it is too little: But verily if you had silenced me alone, and Gods Church and Thousands of Souls had been spared, I think you had never heard me twice com­plain. Judge you whether I can endure to be gainsaid, when I think there are Forty Books written against me by Infidels, So­cinians, Papists, Prelatists, Quakers, Seekers, Antinomians, Anabaptists, Sabbatarians, Separatists, and some Presbyterians, Independents, Erastians, Politicians, &c. which for the far great­est part I never answered, though some of them written by Pre­latists and Papists have spoken fire and Sword: Nor to my Re­membrance did any or all these Books by troubling me ever break one hour of my sleep, nor ever grieve me so much as my own sin and pain (which yet was never extream) have grieved me one day. Alas Sir! How light a thing is the contradiction or reproach of man who is speaking and dying almost at once?

§ 15. P. 75. As to my Political Aphorisms I have oft told you I wish they had never been written: But all in them is not wrong which Bishops are against. The first passage challenged by your Bishop Morley is, My calling a pretence to unlimited Mo­narchy by the name of Tyranny, adding my reason, because they are limited by God who is over all. Ministers were never under Turks thought worthy of punishment for such an Assertion: But Bi­shop [Page 228] Morley is no Turk. If Monarchs be not limited by God, they may command all their Subjects to deny God, or blaspheme him, to take Perjury, Murder, and Adultery, for Duties: and they are unwise if ever they will be sick, die, or come to Judgment.

§ 16. You say, [‘I was told by a Reverend Prelate, that at the Conference at the Savoy, Mr. Baxter being demanded what would satisfie him, replied, All or Nothing: On this I reflected on what that gave Divine told me.’]

Ans. Alas good man! if for all other your historical notices you are faln into such hands, what a mass of Untruths is in your Brain? But why will you dishonour Reverend Prelates so much as to father them on such? I never heard the question put [What will satisfie you?] nor any such answer as All or Nothing: When the King commissioned us to treat of such Alterations as were necessary to tender Consciences, the Bishops, 1. Would not treat till we would give them in writing all that we blamed in the Liturgy, and all the Alterations we would have, and all the addi­tional Forms we desired. 2. When thus constrained, we offered these on supposition, that on Debate much of it would be de­nied us, or altered; but they would not vouchsafe us any De­bate on what we offered, nor a word against our additional Forms, Reply, or Petition for Peace. 3. To the last hour they maintain­ed, that No alteration at all was necessary to tender Consciences.] And so they ended, and the Convocation doubled and trebled our Burden, and the Bishops in Parliament together.

Once Bishop Cousins desired us to lay by Inconveniences, and name only what we took for downright Sin. I gave him a Paper describing Eight such: We did but begin to debate one of them, (Casting such from the Communion of Christs Church that dare not take the Sacrament kneeling, though they be mistaken) and our time ended.

Dr. Pierce undertook to prove it a Mercy to them to deny them the Sacrament; and he made a motion to me, that he and I might go about the Land to preach men into satisfaction and Conformity: I asked him how I could do that when they intended to silence me? For though I scrupled not kneeling at the Sacrament, if they made any one Sin the condition of my Ministry, I should be silenced, though they abated all the rest. It may be this went for [All or Nothing.] And I am sorry that [Page 229] the Bishops be not of the same mind: St. James was, that said; He that breaketh one is guilty of all: And Christ was, who said, He that breaketh one of the least of these commands, and teacheth men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of God.

So that it was not All Inconveniences, but All flat Sins that we craved in vain to have been exempted from: Much less was it the Establishment of all that we proposed to have been treat­ed of, openly professing our selves ready to alter any thing amiss or needless upon treaty, and supposing there would be many such words: But they would not touch our offered additions, nor entertain any treaty about them.

And now pitty your self who have been drawn to believe such Reverend Prelates as you say, and pitty such as your Writings will deceive.

§ 17. That you take it to be contrary to a Christian temper to be sensible of the Sufferings of the Church, and to name and describe the sin that causeth them, and that but in a necessitated Apology for the Sufferers, is no wonder, the Reasons and your Answer I gave you before § 4. and 5. I think it no breach of Peace with Persecutors or Silencers, to tell them what they do, especially when the Sufferers are feigned to deserve it all; and not to sin and that deliberately, is made a sin deserving all that we suffer and the Nation by it.

§ 18. But p. 77. tells us yet more whence your Errours come, even by believing false Reports, and then reporting what you believe. You say, [Some People have talked of a Combina­tion or Pact amongst themselves, that except they might have their own Will throughout, they would make the World know what a breach they could make, and how considerable they were.]

Ans. 1. Do you not think that Rogers, Bradford, Philpot, and the rest, did so in Qu. Maries days, and that it was they that made the Breach by being burnt? What is it that such Hi­storians may not say? So Luther was taught by the Devil, Bucer was killed by the Devil, so was Oeclampadius, Calvin was a stig­matized Sodomite, and what not: And even the most publick things are yet: uncertain before our Eyes: Godfrey killed him­self: The Papists had no Plot: The Presbyterians have a Plot against the King: The Nonconformists silenced themselves: And did not the Citizens of London burn their own Houses? When you that are a Bishop cite other great Bishops for such things as [Page 230] you do, may it not come in time to be the Faith of the Church, and thence to be necessary to all.

2. But how do you think all these that were scattered all over England, and knew not one another by name or Dwelling, should so confederate?

3. Do but think of it as a man. There were Nine or Ten Thou­sand Ministers that had conformed to the Parliaments way in possession: They were all to conform or be cast out. The Book and Act of Uniformity came not out of the Press till about that very day Aug. 24 Neither Conformists, nor (after) Nonconformists could see it, but those in or near London: What time was there to tell them all over England in one day? How knew we who would conform and who would not, when Nine Thousand were equally in Possession? If we had written to them all, would not One Thousand of our Letters have detected it? Or at least some of those that conformed, with whom we prevailed not?

4. What was it that moved them all to this Confederacy? To suffer Ruine in the World? To make themselves considerable you say, and shew what a Breach they could make? And for what? Unless they might have all their own Wills? And what was their Will? Was it to be Lord Bishops? Or domineer over any? Or to get great Benefices? I think no high-way Robbers do any Villanies meerly to shew what mischief they can do, much less ruine themselves to shew that they can do Mischief by Suffering. Some such thing is said of some odd Circumcellians that they killed themselves to make others thought their Persecutors: But Persecution was more hated then than now. Did the former Life and Doctrine of these Two Thousand men signifie a Spirit so much worse than the rest?

5. And do you think that the other Seven Thousand or Eight Thousand that conformed did confederate beforehand to con­form? How could they do it who declared Assent and Consent to every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book which they never saw, unless they confederated at a venture, to do whatever was imposed? And if Seven Thousand could agree without confederating, why not Two Thousand? I could not then have my Post Letters pass without Interception: And it's a wonder that no Letter of this Confederacy was taken.

And I'le tell (not you, but those that believe me) how far we were from it. When we were all cast out and some new mo­tion [Page 231] was made for our service, one weak man moved here, that we might draw up a consenting Judgment to how much we could yield, that we might not differ. I answered that it was not our business to make a Faction, or to strengthen a Party; nor were we all of one judgment about every Ceremony, and therefore no man must go against his judgment for a Combination with the rest: If they would abate but so much as any one mans Con­science would be satisfied in, that one man must serve the Church accordingly. And if any were taken in, the rest would rejoyce.] This Answer silenced that motion, and I never heard any move it more: And I am fully assured there was never such a Com­bination.

But with this exception: How far any thought the Covenant bound them against our Prelacy I cannot tell. Those that I con­vers'd with said, it bound them to no more than they were bound to before. But I confess we did all confederate in our Baptism, against willful sin: And I know of no other Confedera­cies but these: which indeed was enough to make all men for­bear what they judged to be sinful.

§ 19. You add, [‘But yet it is not fair to over-reckon know­ingly, and in ordinary course Two Hundred in the sum, as Mr. Baxter and others do, p. 155, 210. thereby to swell the ac­count to the greater odium, by complaining roundly Two Thou­sand: This I must conclude to be done knowingly, for somtimes he only mentions One Thousand Eight Hundred, p. 151, &c.]

Ans. I am persuaded that it is not knowingly that you speak so much besides the truth; but for want of knowing what and whom you talk of. I never medled with gathering the number, Mr. Calamy did, and shewed us a List of 1800, upon which I long mentioned no more, and seldom saw him afterward: But Mr. Ennis who was more with him, assuring me that they had after an account of at least 200 more, who were omitted; I sometime to speak the least mention the 1800, and sometime say about 2000, and by his last account that was the least. Yet with a Lord Bishop that knoweth nothing of all this, I knowing­ly over reckon: But if God be pleased with their silencing, why do you take this ill?

§ 20. The next and great Accusation is my extenuating the Bi­shops Clemency, and aggravating our Sufferings, and that against my Conscience I impute to the Bishops that bloodiness which they ne­ver [Page 232] intended but abhor. And he will not believe what I say of the death of any by Imprisonment or want.

Ans. The good Lady that pittied the Beggars when she came in out of the Frost and Snow, when she had warmed her self, chid them away, and said, it was warm enough. I could name you those in London, that travelled out of the North in great want, and took up with such cold Lodgings here in great want of all things, that they were past cure before their misery was known. How many poor Quakers have dyed in Prison many know: It's like you never heard of the death of Mr. Field, a worthy Minister, in the Gate-house; nor of Mr. Thompson in the noisome Prison at Bristol, nor of Reverend Mr. Hughes of Pli­mouth's Death, caused by his Prison sickness; perhaps you ne­ver read the Life, Sufferings, and Death of excellent Joseph Al­len of Taunton: I will not be the gatherer of a larger Catalogue, But I believe some others will. But these you know not of.

§ 21. The words in my Book which I speak argumentatively, shewing clearly whither their cause will lead them, if they trust to bring us to Unity by force, you unworthily feign that I speak as accusing the Bishops Inclinations. My Argument was, If you think by violence to effect your ends, it must be either by changing mens judgments, or by forcing them as Hypocrites to go against their judgments, or else by utter destroying them till there are no Dissenters: But none of these three ways will do it: Ergo Violence will not do it. 1. I prove that force will not change their Judgments. 2. I prove they are such men as will rather suffer death than sin against their Consciences; and so less Sufferings which cure not do but exasperate the Disease. 3. I prove that if, when less doth no good, you would destroy them, that would not do your work but cross it. And doth this signifie that I charge the Bishops with bloody purposes? They openly tell us that it's pu­nishing us that must bring us to Concord. I tell them, Lesser will not do it, and greater will but hurt themselves. A man would think that I hereby rather infer that Bishops will not be bloody, than that they will, when I argue ab incommodo. Truly Sir, I see no­thing in your Book which tempted me to lament, that I mist the happiness of your Academical Education or Disputes: Nor do I envy those that now enjoy it. God save his Church from the worser part of them.

§ 21. You say, P. 79. You must needs look on my aggravating [Page 233] my own and the Dissenters Sufferings beyond Truth, you are sure be­yond Probability, to have proceeded from want of temper. As for saying that some have lived on brown Bread and Water.

Ans. I find still that our difference lieth in matter of Fact, done in the open sight of the World: And if it were whether we are English-men, I have no hope of ending it! O what is Hi­story! My own Sufferings by them are very small, save the hindering of my Labour: Leave to work is all the Preferment that ever I desired of them: What I have had hath been against their Wills, who have called out for my greater restraint. God hath enabled me by the Charity of others to send some small re­lief to a few of those whose Case he will not believe. Some of them have Seven or Eight Children, and nothing at all of their own to maintain them, and live in Countries where scarce two Gentlemen of Estates within their reach do befriend them; and the People are generally poor; and many of these have none to preach to, being not permitted, And when they attempted to meet with some few secretly, to fast and pray in some case of need, have had their few Goods carryed away by Distress. Good Alderman Ashhurst, now with Christ, took care of many, and hath shewed me Letters and Certificates of undoubted cre­dit, in the very words which I named. One is now near us, that was put to get his Living by Spinning. Mr. Chadwick was the last of whom I read those words in a just certificate, that he and his Children had long lived on meer brown Rye Bread and Wa­ter. It is now above a dozen Years since Dr. Vermuxden told me that Mr. Matthew Hill was his Patient, with Hydropical swell'd Legs, with drinking Water and using answerable Food through meer Poverty: But God turned it to good; for necessity drove him (when a little strengthened) to Mary-Land, where he hath been almost the only able Minister they have. We that know them our selves, and beg Money to relieve them, are supposed to be Lyars: for telling that which all their Neighbours know. Through Gods Mercy few in London suffer so much, (though di­vers are in great streights.) But great numbers in the Countrys who live among the poor, had not some of them now and then a little Relief from London, were like to beg for Bread, or fall in­to mortal Diseases by Food unfit for Nature. Even in London they that knew Mr. Farnworth, Mr. Spinage, and some others, and how they lived and dyed, understand me, I'le name Mr. Mar­tin [Page 234] formerly of Weedon, Diad since the writing of this. very poor in London, to tell you of your impartiality; though he lost one Arm in the Kings Army, he had not a day abated him in Warwick Gaol for preaching.

§ 22. As to his repeating all my mention of their dealings, and my blaming the Bishops at the Savoy for our present divisi­ons, and my aggravating the evils which Violence will produce if they trust to that way, I judge it all necessary to be spoken: Unknown sin will not be repented of nor forborn; nor unknown danger prevented; nor the unknown needs of the Peoples Souls relieved.

He asketh, Is this the way to be at Peace with us? I answer, There is no other way: What Peace can we have with them that think they are bound to silence us, and keep us six Months in Gaol for every Sermon, and so on for the next, and for the next? Or to pay 40 l. a Sermon, and to banish us five Miles from Corporations, and must not be told of any such thing? He was not unpeaceable that said, He that seeth his Brother have need and shutteth up the Bowels of Compassion from him, how dwel­leth the Love of God in him? Nor for saying, He that hateth his Brother is a Murtherer: Nor Christ for telling us how he will judge them that did not relieve and visit him in his little ones; and how he will use him that beat his Fellow-Servants. It is with you and not with your sins that we would have peace. Not only Massonius and Platina, but even Genebrard, and Baro­nius speak far sharplier of the faults of many Popes themselves, and all Historians of their Prelates, and yet are taken to be peaceable men. Either those that I mentioned will repent here or hereafter, and then will say far worse of themselves than I do▪ And may I not foretel it them, when it is but in necessitated deprecation of the miseries of the Land?

§ 23. One of their Champions wrote that he was not bound to deny his own Liberty, because others would pievishly take scandal at it. I shewed the sinfulness of that Conclusion, and that a mans Liberty often lay in as small a matter as a game at Chess, a Pipe of Tobacco, or a Cup of Sack: and most scandal is taken by pievish persons: and yet even a pievish mans Soul is not to be set as light by as such things. Christ and Paul made more of Scandal: And this very arguing of mine is numbred with my unpeaceable distempered words.

§ 24. As to his talk about our Controversies of passages in [Page 235] Conformity, he confesseth that he hath not read my Plea for Peace, in which I have partly opened them: And much less what I have said since of them to divers others; and I consess I have neither mind or leisure to say all over again in Print, up­on the occasions of such words as his, which have been oft an­swered.

§ 25. I named the Martyr-Bishops Hooper, Ridley, &c. as Nonconformists to the Laws of their Persecutors, to shew that such Sufferers leave a sweeter name than their Per­secutors; and he feigneth me to have made them Nonconfor­mists to our Laws, and saith, [Ingenuity and Christian Veracity would blush to own this Art.] Thus still false History is that which assaulteth us.

But I humbly ask his Lordship, 1. Whether he think that Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, were more for Conformity than Jewel, Bilson, and Hooker, and Abbot? And 2. Whether he will so far reproach these men as to say, that Jewel, Bilson, and Hooker would have conformed by approving that which they most expresly wrote against? I have oft enough transcribed their words.

§ 26. To shew that since my explusion I drew not the People of Kiderminster from the Bishops, I said that I [never since came near them, nor except very rarely sent them one Line; which he pretends I contradict, by saying, I sent them all the Books I wrote. One might have found historical errours enough in his words without a Rack or Quibble. 1. Sure Books are somwhat rare­lier written than Letters. 2. An ordinary Wit would have un­derstood that I spoke of one Line of Manuscript, or one Letter, and not of Printed Books, I delivered them to Mr Simmons, or their Neighbours to send them without Letters. And few of those Books were written before this Apology.

§ 27. As a Self-contradicter he saith of me, somtime I am against all Subscribing, as p. 60, 113. &c. and sometimes not.

Ans. Still untruth! p. 60. The words are [If men were not driven so much to subscribe and swear as they are at this day.] Reader, is it true that this is against All Subscribing?

Pag. 113. The words are, [If we had learned the trick of speaking, writing, and swearing in universal terms, and meaning not universally but particularly, as many do, we could say, or sub­scribe, orswear as far as you desire us.] And [Take off the penalty [Page 236] of subscribing, declaring, crossing, &c. what good doth subscribing a Sentence which he believeth not?] Is this against All Subscri­bing?

§ 28. Whether to profess our tenderness of other mens Re­putation, and yet to name the nature and aggravations of the sin which we fear our selves, when we are importuned to it, be contradictory, let the impartial judge.

§ 29. P. 92. He saith, as my judgment, [To subscribe and de­clare, that it is not lawful on any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King, or that an unlawful Oath cannot bind men to un­lawful Actions, is Perjury, some of the greatest that Hell suggesteth.] Ans. Not one true word? I believe all this to be as he saith: Both in my first and second Plea for Peace, I have largly told him what it is, and what it is not which I own; but he hath seen neither. and yet feigneth me to say or hold what I have so oft renounced.

§ 30. P. 94. He might have known how oft in Print I have retracted the Book called, The Holy Common-Wealth, wishing the Reader to take it as Non-scriptum: Yet he saith, [as far as is generally known I have not done it.] And how should I make it generally known more than by oft Printing it?

§ 31. P. 95. He pittieth me for calling the Author of the friendly Debate, the Debate maker: And I pitty England for such pittiers.

§ 32. P. 96. Whereas the Convocation hath imposed on all Ministers a Profession of undoubted certainty of the Salvation of dying baptized Infants, without excepting those of Atheists or Infidels, I ask whether all the young, unstudied sort of Ministers have arrived at this certainty any more than I, and how they came by it? and crave their Communication of the ascertain­ing Evidence. And what doth his Lordship but pretend that I call the Convocation these young, unstudied men, as if they had made this Rubrick for none but themselves?

§ 33. And he hath found another fault which exceedeth all, and that is, the Title and Dedication of my Methodus Theologiae, where I say, that I dedicate it not to the slothful, hasty, tired Sectaries, &c. but to studious, ingenious, humble, &c. young men, as being the persons that are above all others born, disposed, conse­crated to Truth, Holiness, and the Churches Peace, &c.] Exceed­ing bad!

[Page 237]Will you hear the proof that this is excessive Pride? 1. The Book in the frront indirectly and slily calls the Reader, slothful, rash, foolish, &c. Ans. Is this true? 1. It is only those that I would not have to be the Readers. Yea, 2. Only those that I say it is not dedicated to.

And do you think there are none such in the world? Will not his foresaid Debater, and Dr. Parker, and Dr. Sherlock, and abun­dance more, tell you that the Nonconformists are many of them such, and will you now deny it? If not, am I bound to de­dicate my Book to such? By what Obligation?

But he saith so voluminous and embost a Title will deter the Readers. But do you not know the Dedication from the Title, on­ly because it is printed on the Title Page? Is that unusual?

But the odious Arrogance followeth, [Could any thing easily be said with more (appearance of) Arrogance; in the very Title Page too, than that his Book is above all others of the same Subject, (I know not how otherwise to interpret his supra omnes, viz. Metho­dus Theologiae Christianae,] &c. framed, disposed and hallowed to the propagation and growth of Holiness, to the Peace and Ho­nour of the Church.] I will now for ever acquit him of hypocritical Modesty.

Ans. I desire Mr. Morrice to compare this Ld. Bp's Transla­tion with that oversight of Theodoret's words which he fasteneth on in me. What if I had said that this Bishop knoweth not how to interpret a plain Latine Sentence, as he saith it of himself? That which I most expresly say of pious, ingenious Youth, he feign­eth me to say of my Book. Reader, look on the Book and judge whether Methodus, the Nominative Case singular, agree with natae, dispositae, consecratae, the Dative Case, when Juventutis Parti studiosae, sedulae, with many other Datives, went before it: There are no less than Twelve Adjectives joined to Parti in the Dative Case, and yet he construeth the three last a agree­ing with the very first Title-name in the Nominative Case. And is this the way to make me lament my want of his Academical Education? Is it any wonder if these men prove us Liars and proud, and if they sentence us for lesser Crimes?

Yea, here he concludeth that I write [so pievishly, so vari­ously and unconstantly to my self, so blindly, as if willfully blind and not penitent of my own guilt, and so arrogantly, and disdainfully, &c.] You have heard the proof.

[Page 238]§ 34. Pag. 99. He proveth my unpeaceableness from the Pe­tition for Peace, and Additions to the Liturgy: The Crime here is, [There's not one Office, no not one Prayer of the old Liturgy, and is stiled A Reformation of the Liturgy, and little more than a Di­rectory.

Ans. O miserable World! What cure is there for thy De­ceits? This good man talks as he hath heard, and so all goes on.

But 1. he knoweth not it seems what Title our Copy had, but judgeth by that which some body printed.

2. It seems he knoweth not that this Draught was only offer­ed to debate, expecting abundance of Alterations: We openly declared that it was done on supposition of obliterating and al­tering all that they had any just exception against, were it but as needless. And for the clauses, [These or the like words] we pro­fest, that we expected an Obliteration of them, but had rather the Bishops did the imposing part, if it must be done, than we.

3. He knew not it seems that ours were offered but as additional Forms, that such of them as both sides agreed on, might be mixt as Alias's with the old Liturgy. And doth his Lordship then exclaim with reason, that [Not one Office, not one Prayer of the old was in, when all (after correction) was to be in, and none left out. Oh what is History! and what men are its corrupters?

And (that his work may be homogeneal) p. 100, 101. having recited my Commendation of their Liturgy as better than any in the Biblioth. Patrum, he addeth as an Accusation, [Yet p. 219. he complains of such failings in it, that IT IS A WORSHIP which we cannot in faith be assured God accepteth.]

Reader, This is one of the lesser sort of deceiving Accusations. I said that (among greater sins which we fear in our Conformi­ty) we fear least by Assent and Consent to all things contained and prescribed. &c. we should be guilty of justifying all the failings in that worship, and also of offering to God a Worship that we cannot in faith be assured that he accepteth. This Lord so word­eth it, that the Reader who peruseth not my words would ve­rily think that I had said this of the Liturgy in the substance of Worship there prescribed, which I said only as to the things which we dare not conform to: And I explained it by saying, [We dare not justifie the best Prayer we put up to God in all things.] E. g. To dedicate Infants to God without their Parents exprest Dedication, or consent, or their promise to educate them as [Page 239] Christians, and this upon the false covenanting of Godfathers that never owned them, nor ever mean to educate them as promised, (as is known by constant experience, neither they nor the Parents intending any such trust in the undertakers) and to dedicate them by the sacramental Sign of the Cross, or a badge of Christianity, and to refuse all that will not be thus baptised. This we fear is a worship that God will not accept. But is this therefore said of the substance of the Liturgy?

And if the Lord Bp. be wiser or bolder than we, and be be­yond all such fears, should he not suffer Fools gladly, seeing he himself is wise? And if he like not our fearing an Oath, Subscrip­tion, Declaration, Covenant, or Practice, which he thinks to be true and good, and we think to be false and evil, why may he not endure our timorousness while he may rush on himself and venture; should he not rather pitty us, while St. Paul saith, He that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not in Faith.

§ 35. P. 108. He questions whether their communion be my practice: and p. 110. giveth me two friendly Councils. 1. To peruse my Books, and retract what's amiss. 2. To tell the World now my sober Thoughts, what I could and would do were I to begin the World again.

I heartily thank him for his Counsel, for it is good and honest. But alas, what a thing is it to write of things which men know not! 1. He knoweth not that I have retracted much already; partly by disowning, and partly by large Obliterations: Of the first sort are my Aphor. of Justification, and my Polit. Aphorisms (though not all that's in them.) Of the 2d he may see many and large Obliterations in my Saints Rest, my Key for Catholicks, &c.

2. He seemeth not to know what bloody Books, to prove me one of the worst men living, their Church Advocates have writ­ten against me, fetcht mainly from these retracted Books and Words. Nor how they that commend Augustine, reproach me as mutable for those Retractations.

3. It seemeth he knoweth not that I have already performed his second Advice, in my Cure for Church-Divisions, my Second Plea for Peace, (about Government) Yea, Bishop Morley before the King, Lords, and Bishops at Worcester-house, speaking of Ceremonies and Forms, caused my Disputations of Church-Go­vernment, produced and said, No man hath written better than Mr. Baxter, (as if it were against my self.) And in Doctrinals, [Page 240] my Cathol. Theol. and Methodus Theol. and Christian Directory have expres­sed my maturest, calmest thoughts. But he that counsels me to it knows not that it is already done. And more for Revising and Retractation I would do, if necessity did not divert me, even the want of time and strength.

§ 36. P. 115. You say. [That Reverend and great man Bp. Morley tells us [The generality of Nonconforming Divines shewed themselves unwilling to en­ter on Dispute, and seemed to like much better another way, tending to an amicable and fair compliance, which was wholly frustrated by—a cer­tain persons furious eagerness to engage in a Disputation.] This was it seems the sense of both sides at that time.]

Ans. How far from Truth? It was the sense and Resolution of the reconciling Party, called by them Presbyterians: We all desired no­thing but an amicable Treaty—We were promised by—they should meet us half way. When we met, Bishop Sheldon declared the Agree­ment of his Party, that till we had brought in all our Exceptions against the Liturgies, and our additional Forms, they would not treat with us. Mr. Calamy, Mr. Clark, and others, would have taken that as a final Refu­sal, and meddled no more, lest Dispute should do more harm than good: I was against such an untimely end, and said, They will report that we had nothing to say: It's better let the case be seen in writing, than so break off. The rest wrote the Exceptions about the Liturgies: some Agent of the Bishops answered them without the least concession for alteration at all. I wrote a Reply, and the Additional Forms, and a Petition to the Bishops, and they would treat of never a one of them: But at the end, put us to dis­pute to prove any Alteration necessary, they maintaining that none at all was necessary to the ease of tender Consciences. (Of which before.)

§ 37. I had thought to have proceeded, but truly the work which the Bishop maketh me is so unpleasant, almost all about the truth or Falshood of notorious matter of Fact, that I have more Patience to bear his Accusations (whatever his learned Friend said of my impatience) than to follow him any further at this rate. But whereas he saith, that [some will think that many things in his Book want truth.] I am one of those, and leave it to the Readers Judgment whether they judge not tru­ly: And whereas he lays so much stress on Bp. Morley's words, if any Printer shall be at the charge of Printing it, I purpose while he and the Witneesss are yet alive, to publish the Answer to his Letter, which I cast by to avoid Displeasure. And if they will still be deceived, let them be deceived. I cannot help it.

It is no wonder that he that is described, Joh. 8. 44. should carry on his Kingdom accordingly in the World: But must his Dial be set on the Steeple of Christs Church, and have a consecrated Finger for its Index? O lamentable Case!


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