Mr. BAXTER'S First Letter, Directed thus.
To the AUTHOR of the Perswasive to Conformity.

THE vehemency and importunity of your Call for an Account to the World of the Reasons of my Judg­ment and Practise, have sufficiently made me willing of the Work; and put me upon craving your assistance in it, and to an­swer me these few Questions. 1. Whether you know of any one that will License it, if I should write it? or can procure me so great a favour, and who it is? 2. Or whether you think it lawful to print it unlicensed, contrary to the Law of the Land? 3. Whether you [Page 2] think it lawful by my Reasons, which you call for, to write that which the Civil and Ecclesia­stical Laws forbid, under the Name of depra­ving the Liturgy, and appugning the Church-Government? 4. Whether you know how I may be kept out of Goale when I have done: (I hear you are now Minister of the Place, whence a Letter was sent, which occasioned my last imprisonment, where I am virtually still, being adjudged to go to New-gate, when I am apprehended?) 5. Or if a Pri­son, and (in probability) thereby Death, be that you desire, whether you think it law­ful to suffer so much and die, to satisfie your desire, and do that Work? 6. Whether you know of any Printer and Bookseller, who would Print and Publish such a Book, and who they are? The Savoy Papers which you talk of, were written by the Warrant of the Kings Commission, and published (some of them; for others were never published) by poor Scriveners that had the Copies, to get Money, (without my knowledge, and to our injury, in a Time when the Act against Print­ing was not made.) 7. Whether you think if I should write such a Book, that the Dio­cesane Party would not be much more offend­ed and angry, than if I had said nothing? 8. Whether I should be called so earnestly to do that which will give so great offence against the New Conformity, when that which you [Page 3] mention, which was done by Commission a­gainst the Old Conformity, could never have an Answer? And is it not as easie with you to contemn another in stead of answering it, as that? I crave your Answer, especially to the first Questions, because your Importunity would force me into a hope, that at last I have met with the Man (though unknown) that will procure me the liberty of writing and publishing an Account of my Non-conformi­ty: For Charity forbiddeth me, till constrain­ed, to charge you with such vile Inhumanity and Impudency, as publickly to call to a Man for that which you take both for Sin and Im­possibility, and to reproach him for not print­ing, when you know the Press is shut up from him; and know, that it were like to be his death, or ruine; especially when you appeal in defense of the Reasonableness and Equity of your Demand, and when you are a Prea­cher of the Gospel, and as much wiser and better than the Non-conformists, as your Book importeth. Craving your Answer, I rest, your greatly obliged Servant, if you procure what you seem to promise me,

Mr. BAXTER'S Second Letter.

WHen I had wrote an Answer to so much of your Book as concern­ed my self, I cast it by, perceiving that it contained a just detection and denomi­nation of such things, as none of my Reproa­chers hitherto have had patience to endure to be told of, who had not the patience or so­briety to forbear committing them. For your Book confirm'd me in the Opinion which late experience of the World had brought me to, that it is one of Satans impudent designs, to make sin pass uncontroll'd in the World, and to render all that oppose it more criminal than them that commit it, to tempt Men to sin in such kinds and degrees, as that he shall seem an uncivil Railer that presumeth to charge them with it. I purposed therefore to leave you in the Fruition of your self-pleasing-crimes, lest the naming of them should transfer [Page 12] the imputed Guilt from you to me. There­fore I only tryed you with a few gentle Que­stions, in order to the fuller understanding of your sense. I answer to which, and in this second also, you express so great tenderness, and count your softest signification of a dislike, to be Censures so harsh and passionate, as if you were injured, if your Crimes were not applauded: And withall take it ill, to be sup­posed impatient of hearing the Truth, and call for my Proofs in the very Lines which vehe­mently express your impatience. Your two Letters so abound with words, which serve on­ly to tell me your conceits and confidence, and what you would have us do, to be pleasing to you, and so much pass over all that it concern'd you in Reason and Justice to have spoke to, that it is with reluctancy that I trouble you with any Return. For what benefit can be expected by it? You importune me to break the Kings Laws by printing without Licence; and in the same Volume represent us as hainous breakers of his Law, for—you know what. You can suppose me, without any proof, to have formerly printed without Li­cense; and when you thought I had sin'd once, importune me to do it again: You can intimate to the World how unreasonably I deal, if I write not and publish not that which you judge it a sin to publish, as being forbid­den, and so cunningly bring me under one of [Page 13] the imputations unavoidably, either of sin­ning by my unreasonable silence, or by break­ing many Laws. You lay this Charge on me, before the World in print, and so importune me to that Act, which the Law of the Land will heavily punish; and yet wipe your mouth, and take it ill to be noted, as one that would draw me into suffering. And yet you want not words, when you can give no reasonable Answer concerning any of this. You cannot pretend, that such Laws, if I break them, will not be excuted, when I lie almost these two years under penalty (adjudged to Newgate it self for six Months, by Sentence and Warrant) for a far smaller breach of the Law (which my best understanding perswadeth me is none at all.) You think the silencing of about 1800 Ministers, while many hundred thousand Souls are perishing through ignorance and ungodli­ness, to be a Load not heavy enouh to the People and them, (to say nothing of the great indigence of many of their Families) unless it be increased by your wordy bitter O­ratorical Reproach; when we would take it for rare clemency, if we might but have leave to preach Christs Gospel without a farthing of their maintenance, (yea, and to be confined to preach only on the Catechism Points, to some of the poorest ignorant Congregations, such as many in Wales, &c. as I offered, when I was silenced first; yea, and under sharp Pe­nalties, [Page 14] if ever we speak against Bishops, Li­turgy, or Ceremonies;) yet after nine years silencing we must be scorned by you, as such as abjure their Calling, and make themselves Mili­tes emeritos: When you know that God will not be served by deliberate avowed sin; and that he that so entereth on, and exerciseth his Ministry, (and will sin by Covenant, that he may preach against sin) can scarce expect a Blessing, if a Pardon: And when you cannot but know, (for you dwell in England, and write against the Non-conformists) that the sins which the Non-conformists fear they should be guilty of, if they conformed, (not accusing any others) are so inhumane and hainous, that we dare scarce name them, lest you startle, and think we charge them upon you, (whom we leave to your own Master.) Yet do you make a hainous matter of it, that we thus by fearing sin our selves, do seem to think, that Confor­mity is any sin at all, and say we weaken your Hands, prejudice your Ministry, and make the People cold in joyning with you: What then should we do, if we published the Rea­sons of our Non-conformity, and opened all that sin which we fear, which yet you so ve­hemently call for? Yea you say, [Who would unmuzzle a fierce Panther, that would worry him that set his Chops at liberty] even then, when I ask you but to get me a License for that which you so openly call for: which is all one as to say, [Page 15] [Do it if thou dare: and if thou do it not, thou abjurest thy Calling, and refusest to give the World a reason of it:] You can tell the World, that in my Book of Rest I seem to go their way, that hold, (That they may fight against the King, if it were for the cause of Religion to purge the Church of Idolatry and Superstition, and cite P. 123. (in which Edi­tion of 12, I know not,) when I never wrote so never thought so; but have proved the contrary at large in several Writings! Yet this is done deliberately in print. You fetch your Charge from the old Editions of that Book, eleven years after I had retracted, and ex­pung'd, and left out of that same Book, not only that which you pervert, but all the rest from end to end, which seemed in the least to favour the late Wars. Either you knew this, or you did not. If you did, was that done like a peaceable Minister, to aggravate with such gross and odious untruth things retracted, and utterly expunged, even long before the Act of Oblivion; and that so as directly tend­eth to the temporal ruine of him you charge them on? If you knew it not, did it beseem you to meddle in Print, where you know no better what you do oppose? What good will Austins Retractations do him, if he shall ten or eleven years after be freshly charged with all that he retracted, and much more? (yea, I gave Mr. Hampden Pie one of the Books of [Page 16] One of the latter Editions so altered, but a lit­tle before he came to your House (to his utter undoing.) If you did not see it, you might have done, before you had written against it. Yea, (as not regarding your self-contradi­ction) at the same time you call me to retract my Political Aphorisms, and tell me how ex­cellent a Work it would be, when I had done it before, and had so long before retracted what you aggravate: Though the one was done so lately, that you could scarce know of it, the o­ther that was done eleven years before might have been known: And if so long time ex­cuse not the Book, or Author yet, from your bloody Charge, why do you desire him to retract another? What good will retracting it do, if you will nevertheless so many years after make such use of it, (from what Princi­ples, and to what Ends I leave to you?) The Aphorisms, which you would have retracted, you say, [are those especially which are gathered by an Eminent Hand:] Who can think but here you condemn all those which that E­minent hand hath gathered? And the first of all is [Governours are some limited, some de facto unlimited: The unlimited are Tyrants, and have no right to that unlimited Govern­ment.] The next words are, [For they are all Subjects themselves, and under the Sovereignty and Laws of God.] Because it is your highest Preferments, as you say, to preach the Gospel, [Page 17] I beseech you give me some such light here as is necessary to a Retractation. If any Go­vernours are not limited by God, tell me whe­ther it be any sin in them, if they make Laws, commanding Men to deny God, and blaspheme him, to worship themselves as Gods, as Caligula did, to worship Mahomet or Idols, to kill all the Innocent People of the Land? (I talk not of the absolute Power of all Mens E­states and Lives.) Nay, whether there be any thing imaginable which they may not com­mand? or whether it be possible for that Man at all to sin, that is not limited by God? And tell me if this be the Doctrine which you count it your chief preferment to preach? And whether you can think that any wise Go­vernours in the World will take those for friendly Promoters of their Interest, who would so calumniate them, as to make their Subjects believe, that they lay any such claim? You can gather, that I approve of Mens terms of Ministration, because I joyn with the Church which they teach. As if no more were required of a Curate, than of a Communi­cant. And as if the same Reasons which war­rant my Worship as a private Man, would warrant all my Subscriptions, Declarations, Oaths, and all the rest of Ministerial Confor­mity. You can blame me for not Actively sub­mitting to the Laws, when you can name no Law which commandeth me what you mean. [Page 18] You can Magisterially say [Not that loose para­litick Discourse given to the Kings Commissioners at the Savoy, written rather Rhetorically, ad Captandum Populum, to insinuate into vulgar Capacities, than Logically to evince the Hypo­thesis contended for, strip'd of its multifarious Fallacies, ungrounded Surmises, and erroneous Suppositions, &c.] 1. As if you knew what was given in at the Savoy, when a considerable part of the Papers were never published: Yea I have reason enough to believe, that no Man living can give an account of them to you but my self; because no Copies were taken, and some Papers only read. 2. There are many Papers printed which were given in upon that occasion; and who knows by this Character which of them it is that is called the Loose pa­ralitick Discourse? 3. You talk of a Hypo­thesis contended for, as if you had a mind to be thought to say somewhat, though you un­derstand not about what: For no Hypothesis is named by you, and no wonder. If you mean the first, second or third Paper given in at the beginning of the Business to the Lord Chancellor, the Hypothesis was, that union is desirable; the means whereto we offered as we were commanded. If you mean our ex­ceptions against the Liturgy, the Hypothesis was, that the Liturgy was corrigible, and to be altered in some things. And do you oppose that Hypothesis which the King had expresly [Page 19] put into the words of his Commission, so far as to appoint Men to alter it? and which the Convocation by their actual alterations own­ed? If you mean our Reply to the Answer of the Exceptions, the Hypothesis general is the same. And what made all those Learned Persons who wanted neither Time nor Will, forbear ever to give an Answer to that Reply, if it were so loose and contemptible as you make it? Was it because contempt was fitter than a Confuta­tion? that could not be; because smaller mat­ters not written by Men commissioned by the King for such a Treaty, nor offered by their own importunity, have found some of them at leisure for a more particular Consideration. If it be our Liturgy offered them that you mean, the Hypothesis there is, That those forms there offered were fit to be taken into consideration, as the Addenda mentioned in the Commission. If this be false, what can you imagine to be the reason that we could by no importunity ever procure any by word or writing to open to us the faults of that Liturgy; and that L'Estrange himself had no more to say against it? Though being drawn up in eight days only, we desired we might have had leisure to have made it more perfect, (which might easily be done.) If it be the Petition for Peace that you mean, the Hypothesis was, That our Concord was so desi­rable, as that they should make the abatements there mentioned to attain it; but especially, ra­ther [Page 20] than silence so many Ministers, and choose the other ill Consequents that would follow. If this be, it you mean, and you are ambitious of ac­quainting your Rulers, that you will stand at Gods Judgment as an approver of—all that —enjoy the pleasure and fruit of your de­sire. If the silence of so many hundred Mi­nisters, and the Consequents to so many thou­sand ignorant Souls, be a Blessing to be rejoy­ced in, put not your Sickle into other Mens Harvest, but let the Labourer, who is worthy, have the hire. If it be otherwise, what need any Man say, Their—be on us, and on our Children? 4. And when you talk of Vulgar Capacities, do you not reproach the Reverend Bishops as Vulgar Capacities, in print? To whom were they given, but to them? And I never heard of any that they shewed them to. If you say, That they were printed afterward, I answer, 1. Some were, and some were not. 2. How could we then foretel that, when we gave them in? 3. They were done, as far as I can learn, by a poor reading Curate, that gave the Printer Copies through meer poverty to get a little Money, without our knowledge. For he was th [...] Scribe that we were forced to use for Copies, and I hear he kept some for him­self. 4. I sent to the Kings Secretary, Sir IV. Morrice, when I heard they were in the Press, to desire him to search the Press, and appre­hend them. 5. The printing of them by of­fending [Page 21] our Antagonists, and by the intollera­ble falseness of the impression, was a very great injury to us. Moreover you dare publish to the world, [Had Men kept close to the Church of England, they needed not have stumbled at swearing, That it is not lawful to take up Arms against the King. I must tell the whole Chorus of my dissenting Brethren, that this very Fly is enough to spoil the Box of pretended Oyntment: who can choose but nauseate that way of Disci­pline, which startles at renouncing War against the King?] Do you think you were able to bear it patiently, if I should tell you how much of the Diabolical Spirit is in these Lines, and how unfit such a Spirit is for the Sacred Ministry? 1. You know that it is a time in which our Rulers are justly exasperated for the horrid Murder of the King, and for the Trea­sons and Rebellions that have been committed: And you know, that no design could more gratifie the Prince of Darkness, than to bring the Odium of all this upon the Ministry, or upon any part of the Ministry whose labours are needful to the Church. 2. I suppose you know, that it is not one of a Multitude of the Non-conformable Ministers that ever took up Arms against the King. I suppose in all Wor­cester-shire there is not now two, for I remem­ber not one, (though there are some Con­formists that were in Arms against him.) 3. I suppose you cannot be ignorant (because you [Page 22] dwell in England) that they were Episcopal Parliaments that were long quarreling with the King, and that still cried out of the dan­ger of Popery, Arminianism, Monopolies, &c. of which Rushworths Collections sufficiently inform you: And that Dr. Heylin, in the Life of Arch bishop Laud, hath fully acquainted the World, that it was one Party of Episcopal Men, (of whom he would make Arch-bishop Abbot the head) that contended against the other, and put in the difference about the Sub­jects Propriety into the Quarrel; and that be­sides, Neile, Laud, Buckridge, Howson, Cor­bet, and Mountague, the Bishops went all the other way: So that by Andrew's advice it was thought unsafe to let a Convocation meddle in their Cause. 4. I suppose you cannot easily be ignorant, that the War in England against the King was begun by an Episcopal Parlia­ment; where (as some of the Members aver to me) there was but one known Presbyterian in both Houses, and there or four Indepen­dants, and two or three Sectaries, and about four hundred Episcopal Men and Erastians: And also by an Episcopal Army, for such was the Earl of Essex, and almost all his Chief Of­ficers; and by almost all Episcopal Lord-Lieu­tenants, who were first put into possession of the Militia against the Kings Commissioners of Array: In so much that even the Propositions sent to the King at Nottingham were but for [Page 23] the Regulation of Episcopacy, and not the Extirpation: And among all the Westminster Assembly there were not called ten Non-con­formists (nor I think eight.) Nor indeed was Presbytery then well known in England, till the notice of it came in long after with the Scots and Covenant. So that it is past doubt with any but the desperately impudent, that it was Episcopal Men in England on both sides that raised War against each other; though one Party of them afterward fell in with the Presbyterians of Scotland, and the Secta­ries, for fear of wanting help, and of being overthrown. 5. You cannot but know that it is not the whole Chorus of your dissenting Brethren, that scrupled swearing, that it is not lawful to take up Arms against the King. That twenty in London took the whole Oxford Oath at once, and more after: That the chief Nonconformable Ministers took it in Northamptonshire, Somerset-shire, Devon-shire, and some other Places: That many Non-conformists were against the War; as Mr. Geery, Mr. Capel, and almost all the Gloucester-shire Ministers, and many others. Poor Mr. Martin of Weedon, lately in Goal near you for preaching in private, lost an Arm in the Kings Service in his Ox­ford Army; when the only Arch-bishop left in England (Williams) was a General in Wales in the Parliaments Army. 6. You have [Page 24] not given the World any Proof of any Pres­byterian Minister in England, (much less the whole Chorus) that ever scrupled swearing what you mention. I should know their minds as well as you, and I know not one, that I remember, that is not ready to swear, that [It is not lawful to take up Arms against the King.] I say again, I know not one. And shall a Levite stand up and intimate, (though it be not so spoken out) To the King, and to Papists, and to Posterity, that it is the whole Chorus of Dissenters about Discipline? Put out your other Clauses, and let us have no more Oaths of Allegiance or Fidelity to Dio­cesanes or Lay-Chancellors put upon us, than were imposed on Christs Churches for 600 or 800 years, and then try who will refuse to swear a Renunciation of War against the King. 7. But I admire how you came to such an obdurateness, as to talk of nauseating [that way of Discipline, which startles at renouncing War against the King.] Is it Episcopal Disci­pline that you mean? If not, what way of Discipline is it that startles at it, unless you mean Military Discipline? Read over the Con­fessions of the French, Belgick, and all other Presbyterian Churches, and see whether there be any thing in their Discipline that startles at it. What if it had been the Presbyterians, and not the Episcopal, that in England raised the War? Doth it follow that their way of [Page 25] Discipline was for it: Name us that Form of Discipline, and tell us where to find it, which you mean that is guilty of what you charge on it. Doth he that saith [Every Church should have a Bishop, and not only a thousand or 600 in a Diocess] hereby say [we may not re­nounce War against the King?] Do not so wrong God as to think him so unjust, as al­ways to suffer such as you thus to abuse the In­nocent. 8. And you that talk so malepertly of the Savoy Papers, it's like know, that it was not Presbytery, nor any other than Arch-Bishop Usher's Form of Episcopacy in terminis, in his own printed Paper, which we offered the King and Bishops as the Medium of our Concord in 1660. And when that would not be received, see in the Kings Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs, whether it was not the down-right Prelacy that was submitted to, with only the additions of some Pastoral Power in a Rural Deanery: And I never heard Presbytery pleaded for by Word, or saw it by Writing in all that Treaty, but only Vshers Episcopacy. Why then do you talk of the Discipline of the Chorus, unless you mean the Episcopal Discipline. And do you not know, (that write about the Cause) that the War was not founded in Theological Differences, but in Law Differences? and that it was States­men and Lawyers that made the difference by their Political and Law-Controversies? Not [Page 26] but that Divines on both sides were too guilty, if not the forwardest. But my dull Brains could never find out any one Point of diffe­rence in Theology, about the Power of Kings, and the Duty of Obedience in the People be­tween the Divines called Presbyterians and E­piscopal: If you know any, name them me, and tell me your Proof; I know that they med­led too much with the Political and Law-Con­troversies of Lawyers and States-men, (for there lay the difference) as I did my self in my Pol. Aphor. of which I unfeignedly repent, (though I thought then, that Oceana forced me to do it.) 10. It's not probable, that so Learned a Man is ignorant what Bishop Jewel, Bishop Bilson, Bishop Andrews in Tortura Torti, and many more such have said, to prove, that Calvin, and the Presbyterians, and the English Puritans, differ not in these things from the Theology of the Church of England, taking the same Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, &c. And how come you to be wiser than they, and to prove the Discipline Interest in the disa­greement? And when you have taught the Papists to say that Andrews, &c. spake falsly, how will you prove it? I know that there were many Sectaries, and some individual Per­sons of the Episcopal and Presbyterian Judg­ment, that erred in Law and Politicks, and perhaps in Theologicals too. But what's that to a difference between the Parties in their [Page 27] Religious Principles? 11. For can you be ig­norant that it is the grand Champions for Pre­lacy that have written for the Principles of the Long Parliament, by which they pleaded for their War? Do you not know, (to pass by Bishop Jewel) what Bishop Bilson of Sub­jection hath said, and what Rich. Hooker in his Eccles. Pol. L. 1. &. 8. hath said higher than those Parliament Soldiers that I was most ac­quainted with? I have now written a Book, (Licensed) which containeth a Defence of Monarchy against R. Hookers Popular Errors. Why then do you not call the Episcopal Party to repentance? or why do you insinuate such suspitions into Mens Minds, that the Discipline is it that startles at renouncing War against the King? You know, I suppose, what Grotius de Jure Belli, also hath said in his Enumeration, (out of Barclay) of Cases in which it is law­ful to take Arms against Kings: Even that Gro­tius who was the Master of the late Game, and boasteth of the approbation of the English Prelates. Was Arch-bishop Abbot a Presby­terian, (who saith he was suspended for refu­sing to License Dr. Sybthorpes Book; see his Narrative in Rushworth?) Did he and all the Clergy, and Parliaments, that went his way, forsake the Church of England? Who then were the Church? Yet you can add [P. 125. And since the Lines of our Peace and Happiness, as to Church and State, do meet and concenter [Page 28] in him, as our common Father, is it unreasona­ble for Subjects to swear they will not endeavour the alteration of Government in the Church and State? who would think, that any Natives of a Land, professing themselves the Followers of Christ,—and expecting protection from a lawful Prince, should once demur, whether they should make this Declaration, or take this Oath?] (O easie happy Swearer!) Qui deliberant de­sciverunt: Such as doubt of this, have even shak'd off the Yoke of Subjection, (unhappy Doubters!) 1. Here [They will not endeavour the alteration of Government] is put in stead of [will not at any time endeavour any alteration of Government.] [2. In Church and State] is put instead of [in Church or State.] 3. Not one Man of my acquaintance of them you question, refuseth to swear, that he will never endeavour any alteration of the Church Go­vernment, as it is in the King according to the Oath of Supremacy. 4. They that offered Bishop Vshers Form of Episcopacy, are not for altering Episcopacy as such. 5. The Oath of the Canons 1640. put [we will not consent] in stead of endeavour. And a Parliament condemned that Oath; and no Parliament since thought meet to justifie or restore it. 6. We know that Lay-Chancellors exercise the Power of the Keys, by decreeing Excommunications and Absolutions: And we believe, that exerci­sing the Power of the Keys so, is Church-Go­vernment. [Page 29] And we are all agreed, that yet no reforming alteration is to be attempted by Se­dition, Rebellion, or unlawful means; but only by Subjects petitioning, Parliament-mens speak­ing, &c. And if you think to come to Heaven by swearing, that we may not petition against Lay-Chancellors use of the Keys, cannot you go quietly your own way, and let others a­lone that trust not to such means? 7. We be­lieve, that Ignatius his Episcopacy (every Churches unity being known by one Altar and one Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons) is as lawful at least as one Bishop only to a thou­sand or 500 Churches: And I believe, that it is in the Power of the King and Parliament to reduce our Episcopacy to that ancient Form: And if they do it, I will not swear to disobey them, if they command my Service under them: I was once commissioned among others under the Broad Seal to endeavour such an al­teration of the Liturgy, &c. And before what was done about Episcopacy, the Kings Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs shew­eth; and I will not swear to disobey the King, if he command me the like again; nor I will not swear universally, and mean particularly, till the Law-givers so expound themselves. 8. I know by what Oaths the Roman Clergy got their Supremacy, and mastered Kings and Emperors. 9. I know that till Roman Ty­ranny invaded the Church, the Clergy was [Page 30] not put to swear to the Bishops. 10. I love but one King in a Kingdom, nor any thing that is injurious to him; and I am willing to swear Allegiance to my lawful King, as I have done, and to take his Office as a Constitutive part of the Kingdom.

But not to twist any other with him by Oaths into the Constitution, nor any thing that looks like it, especially not to swear to the Church-Governours before the Kings State-Go­vernment. And now what is the connexion of your Premises and Conclusion? [The King is the Center of our Happiness, &c. ergo, none that are Natives and Christians, and expect protection, should once demur whether he may swear to Diocesanes and Lay-Chancellors, yea not to endeavour any alteration of their Go­vernment by Petition, or if the King command them; ergo, they that doubt of this, have e­ven shaken off the Yoke of Subjection; ergo, they all deserve, not only to be forbidden preaching Christ, but to be hanged, (as all do, no doubt, that have shak'd off the Yoke of Subjection;) ergo, not only the Non-confor­mists, but the Conformists, that swear doubt­ingly, should be all hanged. Thus differ the Priest and the Levite, that pass by the bleed­ing Church, from us wretched Samaritanes. Turba gravis paci, placidae (que) &c. As to the Popish malicious Slanders long since by them vented against Geneva, &c. Beza, the Scottish [Page 31] and English Encouragers of Bothwell, which you intimate on the by, the first are long ago refuted by King James, Bishop Jewel, Bishop Bilson, &c. And lately by Dr. Pet. Moulin Junior, in his Answer to Philanax Anglicus, where he will let you know, that Geneva, Holland, &c. shook off their Governours while they were Papists, before they turned Protestants. And of the later learn more truth from Buchanans History of the Queen of Scots, and of Bothwells Murder of the King. I am weary of following your Trea­tise so far, I will add but a little more as to your Letters: In the first Letter these words asto­nish me, [I hope there is not so much Gall and Acrimony in the whole Book.] Wonderful, that any Man should so little perceive what he saith and doth, and be so blinded by Self-love! as to think he speaketh Oyl and Sugar, when he speaketh Fire and Swords. You say you find me not so peremptory as to hold Conformity simply and absolutely sinful: I pray you, could you judge so hardly of me, as to think that I left my Ministerial Labours, to which I was vowed, to escape but that which I account no sin? You say, [Some of my own Books have not an Imprimatur] why would you say so, before you knew it? I know of none of them that want it, that were then printed since the Law required it; though the Imprimatur be not printed in them. But since you have so [Page 32] urged me to print without License, I cannot say that the last Book (the Defence of my Cure) is licensed, nor that it is not; but if it come without, you have taught it the way. You so far credit your Neighbour Lee's Re­port, as to give me the advice for restitution of his Horses. Charity is not so easie of belief. Why did he never make such a demand of me while I lived there in sixteen years space. This is like Dr. Boremans printing, that [it is said I killed a Man in cold Blood with my own Hand; but if that be not true, I am not the first that have been slandered.] Very true: Whereas I know not that ever I struck one Man in anger (except Boys at School) in my life, nor did I ever kill or wound any Man in War or Peace. Nor did I ever take any Mans Horses with my own Hand; nor was I ever, to my knowledge, in Northfield or Kings-norton Parish; nor ever with any that were employ­ed about taking up Horses in the War, to my knowledge, but once; which was, when the Kings Soldiers had taken up about a thousand in Warwick-shire, and 500 in Northampton­shire, the Earl of Essex gave a Commission to Colonel Mitton and others to take up some three hundred in the Kings Quarters in Wor­cester-shire: And about twenty Men went three or four times about it; of which times I went once with them to see that they com­mitted no abuse by taking from such as they [Page 33] were not warranted to do; and they brought away about twenty or less, and some were re­stored, and I touch'd not one of them, nor was their Guide; and I never heard that they that went the two other times (which was to­wards Northfield, where and when I had nothing to do with them, nor knew what they did) took about thirty more, which I heard were many of them restored; and if your Neigh­bour had come to me, and given me any pro­bability that he had lost by me injuriously, it's like I had repayed it; but his slander ob­ligeth me not to restitution: I will say no more about your Rule, with relation to all that were present on either side when any were wronged in that War. Your acquaintance with the Huxters that so readily print and sell unlicen­sed Books, is no direction to me that know them not: A few Sheets many will venture on; but I know not them that will venture on a large Book, lest they be undone by the sur­prizing of it. In your Letter you could find a Categorical Affirmation, that [...] is a Verb; whereas you may see in the Errata of ano­ther Book then at the Press, (because that Book had no Errata prin [...]ed) that [Verb] was misprinted for [Word [...]] And if I know not a Verb from a Participle, yet that little concerneth our Case in hand: And though my own opinion be, that the Parts of Speech should be reduced to three, &c. I will not [Page 34] trouble you with my Gramatical ignorance any further than to tell you, that I am con­tented that you take liberty to judge it as great as you please; but that Man should be more temperate in censuring the Errors of the Press, Scribe, and Author, who ci­teth Dr. Manton (then in Prison) upon Jude, who never wrote on Jude, but only on James; and that citeth Dr. John Burges of Regeneration, who never wrote of such a Subject; it's like the Subject drew you to think, that he that wrote so much for the Ceremonies (though once a Non-con­formist) was like to be the Author of such a Book, which indeed Dr. Cornelius Burges wrote, when he was a great Conformist, who was afterward Assessor in the West­minster Assembly, and (though a Protestor for moderate Episcopacy) wrote that Book for the necessity of Reformation, which so much offended the Episcopal Party. In your last you liken me to the Papists that take liberty more than enough, when you cannot name one Book since the Act, before your importunity, that I took more liberty in, than was given me, that I remember. And you in the same Paragraph invite me to comply with your sober request, and to di­rect it to the Common-wealth of the English Clergy; and yet talk against unmazzeling the mouth of the Panther, as aforesaid; but [Page 35] these no doubt you can reconcile better than I. As for my nonsense in putting Li­brum pro Authore, it is such as I am not seldom guilty of, as I am also of putting the Author for the Book. As to your par­ticular Exceptions. 1. Speaking slightly of Conformity, Do you expect that a Man that by not conforming loseth more than you have yet gotten by conforming, and that also loseth his Ministerial Liberty, more de­sirable than all the Bishopricks in England, should commend the Conformity which he so avoideth. As for Mr. Dod's words, I glad that you say [Doth God stand in need of our Lie, (O! no, nor of our Per­jury neither) should we speak wickedly for God, or talk deceitfully for him?] (No, I think we should not; nor deliberately co­venant, or do any wicked thing on pre­tence of securing the liberty of preaching against the sin of other Men.) But yet it is my opinion, that we may thank God for the effects that are brought to pass by Mens mis-doings; (though not for the sin it self) even for the death of Jesus Christ; which was all that Mr. Dod could mean. 2. If you had but seen the Colections of Instances given in by some body at the Savoy Treaty to the reforming part of the Commissioners of Defects and Disorders or Immethodicalness in the Liturgy, you would [Page 36] not wonder that I now take it not for Perfect. Especially when you compare it with the Liturgy which we offered them, and see there what difference we made, can you forbear a Censure of ours, (which hath hitherto strangely scaped their Censures who rejected it) and yet marvel not that we take not yours for perfect? As for your li­kening me to the Jews that hire Christian Servants to dress their meat. (There is but one cometh sometime to my House, and he will eat no meat there on any days but of his own dressing.) Remember that you said even now, God needeth not our Lie or deceitful wickedness, that we may have leave to preach or pray. 3. As to your third Exception: 1. When you have got me li­berty to write my Reasons, I will tell you more of my opinion about Diocesanes, if you cannot understand it by my Disputes of Church Government long ago printed; which if you have read, do you still ex­pect that I should approve of Diocesanes? or marvel that I think better of the Wal­denses Bohemian Episcopacy, and that which obtained in Ignatius, yea in Cyprians days? But what thought you of when you call me to obey old Establishments, and not in­vent now ones, and set the People on gadding after Innovations? Did you really think that our Establishment was elder than the [Page 37] days of the Apostles of Ignatius? and that theirs were Innovations to ours? And that Arch-Bishop Vsher reduced Episcopacy to No­velty, when he pretended to reduce it to the ancient Form? Doth not Dr. Hammond maintain, that there were no Bishops in Scripture times that had more than one Con­gregation, and that de facto there was then no such things as distinct Subject-Presbyters? Is 1650 years ago the time of Novelties to us, and our establishment the true Antiqui­ty? Well! let it be so.—2. But you un­truly report me to say, that we must not communicate with a Parish-Minister, who con­curreth with the Bishop, P. 77. If you had added [In consenting to our silencing;] For I only said, that I made that none of our Question: The reason was, because my work lay another way, and it would have hin­dered the edification of those I wrote for, to have pleaded that Cause with them: But do I deny all that cometh not into our Question? To deal openly with you, I fore-knew long ago what would stick most against our Concord, when I labour­ed in vain to have prevented it; and now the thing which I fore-saw is come: When I per­swade the People to Communion in the Parish Churches, they say [shall we have Communi­on with those that have silenced so many hun­dred such Ministers, and set up such and such in [Page 38] their stead?] And here I may as well drive them through a Stone Wall, as drive them on directly in that way. If you can do it, why have not you done it? I am sure I cannot: They will sooner renounce Com­munion with me, than hold Communion with those that they think have been the chief Promoters of all this, that are of the Clergy. And if I did not challenge them to prove if they can, that ever such and such Parish Ministers were the Silencers, I could get them to hold Communion with none of them all: If you will have your work done your own way, on your own terms, do it; I cannot so do it, for I am not of your judg­ment. And now, Sir, I am not so unac­quainted with what I do, as to tell you I have given you a lenifying Answer, or to expect that this should please you, who accounted a few gentle Questions so sharp: If my business had been to win your good opinion and re­port of me, I would have spoken you fairer. But though veritas odium parit, I am naturally addicted to speak plain truth, (without any ill will to you or any) though I foresee that impatient guilt will call it railing, and what not. If none deal plainly with offending Preachers, how much worse is their condition than the Peoples? But had it been for pub­lick view, and not for your own private ad­monition, I should have used a softer Stile on [Page 39] several accounts: As I take none of your plainness with me amiss, so far as it containeth truth; so the imitation of it ought not to seem injurious to you: Nothing hath more moved me to it, than to find by your Letter how greatly averse you are to Repentance; in the promoting whereof I should gladly be

A LETTER Written to Mr. Baxter, After his BOOK of Church Divisions came forth.

I Perceive, that my Answer to your Letter was not satisfactory; since I find in your late Book, not only oblique Reflections, but direct and down-right Expressions; where­in (without any Ambages) you articulately signifie your discontent both with me and my Book. Who would have thought that a word or two of advice and seasonable counsel should [Page 67] have merited such harsh and Passionate Cen­sures? or should not escape branding with the black Theta of a Challenge, Ambuscade, and an intimation of Defamation and Blood? Here­in (me thinks) considering the Premises, you shew as great a defect of Logick, as of Cha­rity. To what purpose is your Tragical out­cry of provoking you to gape against an Oven? and making your Name a Stepping-stone to those Ends I aspire after? Alas! what advantage will it be to me to see you in the flames? or your Name sullied? That's barbarous; and this am­bitious. I am in the Zenith of my preferment, whilst I am a constant Preacher of the Gospel.

How are you sure that I am not able to en­dure the light of the Truth? If the Organs of my Eyes are indisposed at present, I will bor­row some Spectacles, or procure some Eye­salve to clear them, before you can prove those things to be truth, which you call so. When I see Scripture and reason for them, let me be accounted stabborn or stupid, if I either shut my Eyes, or cannot [...], hold them steddy enough to discern them in their genuine Co­lours. Before this be done, you cannot be as­sured, that you are a true Prophet, in judg­ing and condemning me afore-hand. Are you Secretary to him, who at one glance sees them, who have Eyes and see not, or else see but per­ceive not? You know who it was that boast­ed that his Eyes were open, Numb. 24. 3. I [Page 68] wish you knew me better, and then you might have abated these severities.

How can you hope to heal our Divisions, and to wooe our English World into mutual love? when your own Gall runs over with such large Effluviums, and your thoughts are so over-weening, as if you did comprehend all Knowledge, Truth, and Light; and we, poor Wretches! were groping in Cimmerian dark­ness, or grovelling in some narrow Ditch. But if you will not hold up your Taper and help us forth, reserving your Antidote against our sin and error, in your own Breast; take heed you meet not with the same doom, as he in Cardan, who knew how to cure the Stone, and dyed without revealing it.

It is well, that you are pleas'd to prolong your Answer, until I procure you a License; for so you may spare your own trouble, us (que) ad Cal. Graec. For who would unmuzzle a fierce Panther, that would worry him that sets his Chops at liberty? Although another Man would tell you; Herein you deal like the Pa­pists, who tell us, they can prove us all Here­ticks, if they might have liberty to dispute, and write without the hazard of the Law: Yet when it pleases them, they take liberty more than enough. Sir! if ever you comply with my sober Request, you need not direct it to me, but to the Common-wealth of the Eng­lish Clergy.

[Page 69] As for those four Lines 2. Part. Pag. 8. spend your second thoughts upon them, and see whe­ther you can make sense of them. There you serve in again the same Dish of Coleworts; but you leave out the Author, and name the Book; yet in your Grammar the Book is a Per­son. This is no Solacism with you, who can make one Disparatum to predicate of a­nother; for in the same Part Pag. 92. you ca­tegorically affirm, that [...] is a Verb. These are but trifles; yet if a Man be put to sencing, he will take all advantages.

As for the bulk and scope of your Book, concerning healing Church Divisions,—Cum sis mortalis, &c. The Scene is laid in Heaven, and the design is Generous, Noble, and Christian. It is great pity, that you should, Ausis excidere tam magnis. Yet consider whether the aim and level be both right. If you would have us joyn together with one Heart and Shoulder in the Worship of God, as now constituted, which you allow P. 38. me thinks you should not (I will use as much softness as I can) have spoken so sleightly—of Conformity. As, if you should conform, it would neither be a little or single sin, Pag. 26. This must needs weaken our Hands, preju­dice our Ministry, and make the People cold in joyning with us. Will those words of Mr. Dod hold weight in the Ballance of the San­ctuary? who thanked God for the Churches sake, [Page 70] that some Men conform'd; and for the Truth sake, that some conform'd not. Can that be for the advantage of the Church, which is not ac­cording to the Truth? Does God stand in need of our Lies? should we speak wickedly for God, or talk deceitfully for him? Job 13. 7.

2. Though in some places you speak honou­rably of our Liturgy, Pag. 38. 59. 88. yet you dash all again by complaining of its imperfect mode and fashion of words, Pag. 59. And that you joyn with us meerly by force, for want of a better; for were you in New-England, you would not joyn with our Prayers. 2. Part P. 176. Is this your Balm of Gilead for our Wounds? Are you like to prove a good Samaritan to our bleeding Church? What lowring and longing must there be, after another mode of Worship, if ours be so imper­fect, and that of other Churches so far beyond it? You do well: Go on! that you joyn with the Prayers of the Liturgy, and in the Cele­bration of the Sacrament, P. 34. 40. yet you will not touch either (as to an active Admini­stration of them) with the least of your Fingers. And herein you resemble the present Jews, who hire Christian Servants to kindle their Fires, and to dress their Meat on the Sabbath-day. They care not what is done, so they do it not themselves.

[Page 71] 3. Was it a right course to cement us, and cure our Divisions by alienating the Minds of Men from their Governours, and that Govern­ment which is established by Law amongst us? As if it were not lawful (by your Doctrine) to own Diocesan Bishops, and to hold Commu­nion with a Diocesan Church, P. 75. Nay, we must not communicate with a Parish Minister who concurreth with the Bishops, P. 77, The Go­vernment is such as God will not accept, Part 2. P. 3. And to take off the Stomachs of Sub­jects the more from their present Governours, you have found out a Forreign Government for them, (though not in Rome, yet in Bohe­mia, Pag. 46.) which in your Judgment does far surpass ours. Sir, I thought it had been far better for you and I, to obey old Establish­ments, than to invent or prescribe new ones. If we set the People a gadding after Innova­tions, we neither perform our own Duties, nor go the right way to cure the Peoples Di­visions.

Now Sir! I have given you these Strictures, not out of any desire to reciprocate the same with you, any farther than a private Letter; but only to prepare you for what you may expect from your Antagonist, and to shew you how dangerous it is to recede from the good old Paths, and allowed Principles, and to be­wilder our selves and others with new and rash contrivances of our own Heads. As [Page 72] for any thing, which upon just and proper Grounds shall have a tendency to the advan­cing of Love and Peace, I shall always be your Second, and your Fidus Achates, whilst I am,

Mr. BAXTER'S Third Letter.

THough you foretel me how little good my writing will do you, in which I presume not to contradict you; yet the vindication of Truth is an end sufficient to invite me to bestow a few more Lines, in de­tecting your unworthy opposition against that Object of the intellectual Nature. Truth and Repentance are the things which you vehe­mently militate against, (under pretence of skirmishing with my words) and that by no better Weapons than a wrangling Wit, Rhe­torical diversions, which you use like one un­willing to understand the truth, or to confess an Error or injurious Deed.

§. 1. You tell me I am a treacherous Watch­man if I suffer sin upon you; and at the same time open your offence, that I tell you of Crimes and Guilt, and name some of your faults: This is the Waters of Marah to you, [Page 74] Sarcasmes, Satyrs, &c. Are not you resolved then to be displeased by our Speech or Silence, and to make me unavoidably an Offender by the contrariety of your Laws; (and what a wonder of self-ignorance is it, that the Author of the Perswasive should draw up the Flood­gates of Sarcastical scorn upon so many and such Men, and yet be so sensible of a drop of just reproof that fell upon his own Head?)

§. 2. After such a Book you would not be said to traduce the Presbyterians, as if you wrote you knew not what, or had already for­gotten it.

§. 3. When I had opened your strange dealing in calling for those Reasons of our Non-conformity which you knew we must not publish, you neither can hide your disin­genuity, nor will confess it.

§. 4. In my last I briefly named divers of your palpable contradictions; and many of them you have no cloak for, and yet no con­fession of, but a silent preterition. And what you speak to is so managed, as if our Question had not been, whether you had spoken well and truly? but whether you could speak again, or had any Pen, Ink, and Paper left?

§. 5. As to the silenc'd Ministers, (that you may not seem guiltless) you first say, [How many of these have little more learning than your English Books have taught them, as great Stran­gers [Page 75] to the Writers of the first Centuries, as they have been to the Vniversities.] You did craftily to speak interrogatively: For a Que­stion cannot be false. There are many Non-conformists that live within a few Miles of your dwelling; which of them do you mean? Is it good old Mr. Sam. Hildersham, or Mr. Sam. Fisher, or Mr. Wilsby, or Mr. Bryan, or Mr. Reignolds, or Mr. Tho. Baldwin Senior, or Mr. Spilsbury, or which of all the rest do you mean? Sure it's I that am the Stranger to the Universities, that am therefore worthy to be silenced: I know but of two or three more in all the Country about you: But that two of those are so strange to the Fathers I do not be­lieve. But if they be, I had rather the Church had Men that will speak sound Doctrine in an apt and serious manner for the bringing of sin­ners to repentance in English, than such as can lace an insipid, empty, or senseless discourse with some Shreds of Chaldee, Syriack, and A­rabick: And though I could wish, that all the Ministers of Christ had all Accomplishments fit even for the adorning of their Sacred Work; yet I had rather hear a meer English Divine, than an Hebrew or a Syriack Sot. But as I am grown of late years to take it for no very great honour to our young Preachers, that they are acquainted with the Universities; so I think it so short a Work to read the few brief Writers of the three first Centuries, as maketh [Page 76] it more a dishonour to be ignorant of them, than any great honour to be acquainted with them.

§. 6. You next ask [How many of these were nested in other Mens Habitations, while the right owners were exposed to Wind, Wea­ther and Starving, double the number of 1800?] Answ. 1. But how many of those were never in any Sequestration; and must not they preach the Gospel for the sake of others? [Page 79] 2. I deny not the great Crime you charge up­on them: When the Judges of those times had cast out many Conformists, (most that ever I knew of, upon accusations of insuffici­ency, or gross scandal witnessed upon Oath) though too many (contrary to the requests of my self, and many other Ministers) were censured for their opposition to the Parliament) then did these Non-conformists (some of them) come upon the Peoples request into the vacant Churches, and chose rather to preach to the People, than they should have none, and Gods publick Worship should cease in the Land; and I confess, that they did eat Bread while they laboured, even that which was devoted to the maintenance of the La­bourers. I was one of these my self, and others before you have told me of it. And though I never put the Vicar out of his House, (nor set my foot within his doors, lest he should think I intended it) yet I confess he had but somewhat above 40 l. per Annum out of the Sequestration, and his old Curate Mr. Turner 10 l. But that amounted to abovt 500 l. a Sermon in fourteen years, (and I never for­bade him to preach) whereas before his Se­questration he had not past 30 l. or 40 l. a Sermon at most; (For he preach'd (as some called it) once a quarter.) His Curate Mr. Turner had his old stipend to his death, and almost all the time did publickly read the [Page 80] Common-Prayer at Mitton, though I told him indeed that I could wish he would give over the Ministry; seeing upon examination I could not find that he understood much of his Creed, nor what we expect from Catechized Children of twelve years old. But whether it had been my duty to have forborn my four­teen years labour there, because the Times cast out such Men; and whether it had been better have left many hundreds untaught, to perish for ever in their sin and ignorance, or whether sin and ignorance are really such dan­gerous matters as we Non-conformists have be­lieved, are Controversies which I will not now debate.

§. 7. You add, [The Retalliation may cause them to say, As I have done, so God hath re­quited me.] Answ. 1. Doth this savour of any sense at all of a love to Souls? Is it the Prea­chers or the People that suffer more? When we desire but that we may be suffered to in­struct sinners, and perswade them to Re­pentance, till the Churches be so well supplied as not to need us, in stead of nothing the misery of those that perish for lack of teaching, you tell us how justly we are requited: And must so many thousands go to Hell that we may be requited? Why should so many suffer for our faults? 2. But let us consider also your Justice to our selves. 1. The Ministers that were in Seque­strations were put out (where any could [Page 81] claim the Place) before the 1800 were silen­ced, and they were not I think a fourth part of the silenced ones that were of that number. 2. They succeeded those that were mostly cast out upon accusations of scandal, witnessed upon Oath, (as the two first Centuries print­ed unhappily shew:) If you say that the Wit­nesses swore falsely, and the Judges were un­just, I answer, That where I was acquainted the Witnesses were reputed as honest Men as any in the Place, and they got nothing by their Oaths; and if all were unjust, I an­swer, that was not the succeeding Ministers fault. 3. I my self succeeded one that prea­ched but once a quarter, and that so as I never heard the silliest Sectary preach in my life. 4. None of them that I know of had any hand in casting out these Ministers: Most of them came out of the Universities after the other were ejected. 5. If they had not come in, the Peoples Souls, and the publick Worship of God had been forsaken. 6. When we were in, we laboured with all our skill and power publickly, and from House to House, and might we have indulged the Flesh, had never taken such a Flesh-displeasing course. 7. The ejected Ministers had for their Wives a fifth part of the maintenance. 8. And the ejected Ministers were never silenced that I know of, but only forbidden to use the Com­mon-Prayer but a little before Cromwel dyed. [Page 82] 9. And against this both I and others wrote, and requested of the Usurper, that none that was of competent Parts, and an honest Life, might be hindered from the Ministry for ser­ving the King, or upon any such civil or disci­plinary differences. This was our Case; and were we requited as we had done? Did we silence any Man? Did we cast any out, (how bad soever;) some did perhaps, or had a hand in it? But what's that to the many hundred that did not? Have we the fifth part? Have we leave to preach when we are ejected out of the Places of Maintenance? I confess we had an opinion, which I will not now stand to de­fend, that the damnation of multitudes of Souls is too dear a price to purchase the Ease or fuller Maintenance of an ignorant and a drunken Priest above his fifth part: And though here and there such a Man as your self might be cast out, which I never liked or had a hand in, yet your pleading in this Cause doth urge me to tell you my own expe­rience: When I was a Child, I lived under five Teachers before I was ten years old, of which most were ignorant Readers, two Drun­kards, one an unlearned seldom Preacher; after that, before I was fifteen, I lived where was a Parson of eighty years old, that never preached, and a Vicar of near eighty that ne­ver preached, both in one Parish; and four Curates and Parsons, drunken Readers, most [Page 83] of them my School-masters: The last preach­ed but once, and then he was stark drunk, the dreadfullest Sermon that ever I heard, on Mat. 25. 40, &c. Besides all these, some years, when the old Parsons Eye-sight failed, he said the Common-prayer by rote, and a Taylor read the Scriptures for him one year, and a poor Day-labourer another. When I entred into the Ministry my self, I have told you whom I did succeed: But as the man is, so is his appetite and relish: I strive not to bring you to dislike such Priests, nor to win you from pleading for the silencing of Faithful Ministers; but while I am silenced, I will tell you what Truth and Innocence have to say.

§. 8. As to the Number which you will not believe, I can only tell you that about 1800 were silenced 1662. of whom I will suppose an hundred to have conformed, and an hun­dred to be dead: But doubt not but some spring up in their steads.

§. 9. As to your first Caution, I confess Ex­asperations have made some talk more sharply against the Bishops than I think meet: But I wonder and rejoyce that they are so few. Had it been about London an usual thing, they had heard more of it before now.

§. 10. And for your second Caution, it is not you nor I that make those Laws which de­nominate Duty and Sin: And if I would hold [Page 84] it to be no sin in me to lie deliberately, and say, that I assent and consent to all things in three Books, when I do not, or to absolve from an Oath many hundred thousands, when I never knew in what sense they took it, or other such like; if I incourage the Laity to conform to the Corporation Declaration, that no man is bound by any thing in the Vow, no not against Schism, Popery nor Prophaness, nor to repent of his sins, &c. Gods Law will never the more justifie any of this for my Con­formity to it: Nor will he accept of disobe­dience for a Sacrifice, nor needeth my lie or other sin to his Service or Glory. But it's a fine World, when fearing sin (and no less sin than aforesaid) is become the sin and danger of the Church.

§ 11. I will add one observation on this Subject, to make up your comparison what those whom I and others of my acquaintance succeeded were (not silenced but) sequestred for, is said before; but. I never yet heard of one Non-conformist silenced for Insufficiency or Scandal, but for Nonconformity alone. Let not your talk and mine, but the Laws, and Court-Records judge and tell Posterity the Truth. But I have known silly Anabaptists and Sectaries, whom we never approved, re­ceived into the Ministry of the Church of Eng­land upon their Conformity.

[Page 85] § 12. You say, [I am glad you own my quotation out of your Book of Rest, &c.] Answ. Alas Sir, is not repentance better than hiding slander by palpable untruth? I told you truly, [I never wrote so, I never thought so, but have proved the contrary at large, &c.] Why did not you cite the words where I say it.

§. 13. You add for a Cover another untruth, that I say [I have retracted and expunged it in a later Edition;] not a true word, I only said, [That I had retracted and expunged, not only that which you pervert, but all the rest from end to end, which seemed to savour the late Wars.] And is it all one to say, I expunged what you accuse me of, and to say I expung­ed that which you pervert: But you have more learning than we that are strangers to the Universities, and therefore can make good one untruth with another; and sport your self with the Image of a jumping Deer, and a playing Fish; so hard is it to convince you of visible sin.

§. 14. You add, [If you be so rash'in obtru­ding your immature Notions, &c.] Answ. I justifie none of my Juvenile Errors or Crudi­ties. But how suitably cometh this from the same Pen, that tells me how glorious it would be, P. 128. to retract with the great Bishop of Hippo, &c. And in the same Book not only urgeth, but falsifyeth what I did so many years [Page 86] before retract; and now again upbraideth me with that which I did retract. I know Inno­cency is best: But can any Man think it would please such Men? I confess had I never wrote at all, I had never wrote any word amiss: And had I never preached at all, I had never preached word amiss, which is the cure used on us now, and the innocency of Priests which I have heard some plead for.

§. 15. I neither had nor have any mind to pour Vinegar into the Wound which you la­ment only, when in your Book you tell me of the inconformity of some that grew up under my Shadow, Pag. 129. you forgot that you would not be responsible for one Man in your own Family, and yet I am chargeable with that which you suppose the fault of I know not who.

§. 16. If your Neighbour and his Wife will swear what you say, wonder not that so much scandal was charged by Oath on your seque­stred Ministers; I tell you again, that I was never to my knowledge in your Parish in my life; that I never took Horse in my life; that I medled not my self with any one at that time that I told you I went out; that I never kept or possessed one of them: Therefore no Committee could order me to restore them. But a Week after, another Company, as I told you, did fetch some from that Parish, and were ordered by the Committee to restore [Page 87] some of them; which must needs prove your Neighbours mistake. No Man, to my best remembrance, ever came to me with any Or­der from the Committee; for they knew that I was no Officer, and kept not a Horse. And if he followed me to London, it must be at least sixteen years after. For I was never at Mr. Foley's House in London till 1660. and the time he speaketh of was 1644.

§. 17. You say, [In your late Book you say, you medled not with the War till after Naseby Fight.] Answ. Not a true word: What should move you to do thus? I see Mr. Bagshaw is not the only temerarious Writer. I tell you the clean contrary in that Book, and only say, [That I never entered into the Army till after Naseby Fight.] And is that all one as to say, I never medled with the War?

§. 18. The Aphorisms which you called me to retract, you thus noted, [Those especi­ally which are gathered by an Eminent Hand.] I instanced but in the first which that Eminent Hand had gathered: And now, this is not one of those that you meant.

§. 19. You say, [That since Arch-bishop Ab­bot refused to License Dr. Sybthorpes Book, I must suppose him a Presbyterian.] Answ. Yet not a word true! I only said, [Was Arch-bishop Abbot a Presbyterian?] imply­ing that he was none: and so that the pre­latists were they that began to offend the [Page 88] King by striving against his Will, as I further told you.

§. 20. The inconsequence which you bring in with [I must say] should have been turned into [I did say,] Did I not recite your own words? Doth he not swear to Diocesanes and Lay-Chancellors, who sweareth, That he will not at any time endeavour any alteration of the Government of the Church, which is in their Hands? And doth not he endeavour an alte­ration, who Petitioneth the King or Parliament for it? Shall we swear universally, and say we meant it but particularly?

§. 21: In your description of Presbyterians you talk of [pulling down Episcopacy, and set­ting up Presbyterian Government in the Church against the consent of the Supream Magistrate,] when you were told that it was Episcopacy that the present Non-conformists moved to obtain: And I know none of them that take it not for Rebellion to pull down or set up forcibly or by the Sword, any thing against the Supream Ru­ler, or without him, (except only what a Pa­rent or Master may do in his Family on Chil­dren with the Rod.)

§. 22. Seeing you cannot deny but that you printed about the Savoy Business that which you understood not, and cannot justifie; why do you not rather retract it, than wish things had been managed worse? Do you not know how much, yea very much more we [Page 89] yielded to, than ever Hildersham, whom you praise, or the other old Non-conformist would have done? See but the Kings Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs, and read Dr. John Reignolds Papers to Sir Francis Knowles a­gainst Episcopacy, and judge whether he himself would have gone any further. Indeed I know not that I differ in any Point of Wor­ship, Ceremonies or Discipline, from that learn­ed Doctor whom you praise.

§. 23. You make me wonder to read what you urge us with about Popery, when we so long together spake aloud, (when we were allowed) and told them, ‘[Our union is our strength, and all the faithful Ministers of England are too few to cast and keep out Ig­norance, Popery, and Sensuality; and if we were all never so conformable our selves, we do know the Land so well, that we are sure if such and such things be made necessary to Ministration and Communion, many hun­dred worthy Ministers will be silenced, and many thousand religious People will become Separatists, and more be offended; and our Divisions will involve us in discontents and murmurings on one side, and severities on the other, and Popery and Prophaness will prosper under our Divisions: And you will be necessitated to fill up our Places with ma­ny such Ministers as will increase all this mise­ry; and all this may now be prevented by [Page 90] that which will do you no harm at all.]’ And when after all our endeavours the Flood-gates are pluck'd up, which we would have kept down, it is now pretended, that if we can­not nimbly and deeply swear, and subscribe, and do all that is imposed on us, Popery for­sooth will come in, and it's long of us, that would fain have prevented it, and stop'd the gap.

§. 24. When I had beyond all sober contra­diction proved to you, that it was Episcopal Men in England that raised the War against the King, that I might move you to impartiality, and to call them to Repentance, you do the poorliest put off that which you cannot con­fute, and yet will not acknowledge, as if no­thing were criminal in them that are of the Church of England: Who knoweth not that many Episcopal Parliaments before had begun the same Quarrels against the King, which the Long Parliament prosecuted, and cryed out still of Monopolies, loss of Liberties and Pro­priety, Arminianism and Innovations in Reli­gion, toleration and increase of Popery? Read but Rushworths Collections, and Heylins Life of Arch-bishop Laud, and deny it if you can. You cannot deny but that the Long Par­liament began in the same temper as the former ended, having the irritation of that which they accounted Lauds Innovations to go higher: You cannot I think name two in all [Page 91] the House of Commons that were Presbyteri­ans when the War began: I provoke you to read over the List of the Lord-Lieutenants of the Parliaments first Militia throughout all England, and prove but one of them to be then a Presbyterian, or any of them that sur­vive yet to this day: I provoke you to name me one General, Officer, yea or three Collo­nels in all the Earl of Essex his first Army that were Presbyterians. I might have gone fur­ther, and wish'd you to peruse the Names of all the Parliaments old Major-Generals or Chief Commanders in the several Counties, (the Earl of Stamford, Sir William Waller, M. G. Massey, the Earl of Denbeigh, Sir John Gell, Ferdinando Lord Fairfaix, Dointz, Mit­ton, Sir Tho. Middleton, Morgan, the Earl of Manchester, &c.) and tell me how many you can find that were Presbyterians. I can wit­ness, that many greatlyest famed of late for Presbyterians, have earnestly pleaded with me for the present Episcopacy. I asked you whe­ther it was not only the taking down that which they took to be the Innovations and Ex­orbitances, and civil Power of the Bishops, which the Parliament asked when the War be­gan? You can give me no answer to any of this that savoureth of sense and modesty, but what must grant, that it is notoriously certain that it was not a Presbyterian, but an Episco­pal and Erastian Parliament in England which [Page 92] began the Wars: And yet you will rather hide their fact and fault, while you aggravate the same in others, than you will call the Episcopal Party to repentance. What credit shall we ever give to History, when a thing so publick and notorious, as a Parliament, an Army, the Lord-Lieuteants, the Major-Generals, yea and the Synod, shall all be represented to be Men of another Party, and that had another Cause, than indeed they were and had? If in the same Age, the same Land, even where and when a great part of them are yet living, and the rest lately were our Neighbours and Fa­miliars, there shall yet be found such Men, yea Preachers, as have the face to tell the World, that these at the raising of the War were Pres­byterians; we may next expect, that History may make Posterity believe, that they were not English-men: I my self knew many of the Parliament, many Lord-Lieutenants, many of Essex his Army, many of the Major-Generals, and I scarce remember one Presbyterian a­mong them all at the beginning of the War, except two or three Scottish Soldiers that were in Essex's Army; and I do not know that they were such, but only that they were Scots. And for the Westminster Assembly, except only the six or seven Independents that were there, I provoke you still to name me three English Divines, that were Presbyterians, or that were not Conformists?

[Page 93] Now what do you say to all this? Do you deny? Do you confute any of it? Do you name a Man as an instance of my mistake, or can you do it?

§. 25. First you tell me, I am at much pains to clear the Non-conformists of the guilt of the late War. Answ. No such matter,—I only tell you that it was not a Presbyterian Par­liament, or Army, that began the English War. 1. The beginning of the War is one thing, and the progress is another; the Presbyterians (or, saith Dr. Heylin, the Scots Lords for their Church-Lands and Tyths sake) began it in Scotland, the Papists began it in Ireland, one part of the Episcopal against another began it in England. 2. All Non-conformists were not Presbyterians. 3. Cannot I say that the Epis­copal began it without clearing those that did second them; or the Sectaries that carried it on to the end?

You feign me to say, that [A very few Non-conformists of a multitude were engaged in it;] whereas my words were, [It is not one of a multitude of the Nonconformable Ministers that ever took up Arms against the King.] I speak there of Ministers only, and those that are now Non-conformists; of whom the far greatest number were then Children, and many unborn, and many of the elder (yea most) never medled with Arms: But as for the beginning of the War, I cannot say, of a multitude a few [Page 94] only were ingaged, for there was then no mul­titude in England of Nonconformable Mini­sters. Little did I think to have ever been put to dispute such a Cause about open matter of Fact. I know not your age, but (being a Preacher near four years before the Wars) I was old enough to know, that in all the Coun­ties that I was acquainted in, there was not a­bove one poor obscure Nonconformable Mini­ster in a County, taking one with another, nor I think past one for two Counties: Poor old Mr. Barnet in Shrop-shire, Mr. Langley in Cheshire, none in Worchester-shire, Mr. Atkins in Stafford-shire, Mr. Angier in Lancashire, and how few more in all England, and which of these medled with the Wars?

§. 26. And here you say, [I had thought, currente rota, while your Hand was in you would have said, that the Regicides were Epis­copal too, &c. Sir, I now perceive Cateline was a Fool, &c.] Answ. And is there any sense or strength in such an Answer? Do such words satisfie your Conscience, for the falsifying of such notorious matters of Fact? Is there any room for a doubt in the Business, except to Strangers, or those that were unborn, or Chil­dren? Would you make me believe, that I saw not what I saw, and heard not what I heard?

You say, [If Episcopal Men began and car­ried on the War, and Presbyterians were free, [Page 95] &c.] Answ. Did I say that they were free? or that they joyned not in the Progress? How could a non-ens be free or guilty? There were very few Presbyterian Ministers then in Eng­land; the Scots did bring in Presbytery after­ward. You add,

§. 27. You were too credulous, &c. were they Episcopal Men that cryed, To your Tents O Is­rael? that preached Curse ye Meroz, first vo­ted, and then fought against the King? Answ. Is there one Man named here as an Instance to Confute me? Is this Evidence fit for such a Contradictor of notoriety it self? When you have named me the Men that used those words, I will answer you whether they were Episco­pal? I think Dr. Burges was one of the most accused Preachers, being Assessor in the Assembly, and Chaplain to the Earl of Essex's own Regiment: And he was one that protested for a Salvo for Episcopacy, when the Covenant was taken in the Assembly, as he hath told me with his own Mouth, and wrote to me with his own Hand, and none deny: And Dr. Downing of Hackney was one of the next, Chaplain to the Lord Roberts's Regiment, who (being Dr. of the Civil Law) hath Writings yet visible in print for Prelacy and Conformity. Mr. Marshal and Mr. Obadia Sedgwick were two of the next, (one Chaplain to Essex, the other to the Lord Hollis's Regiment) both old Conformists: Of all the Chaplains of Essex's [Page 96] Army, I knew not a Non-conformist and Pres­byterian but Mr. Ash; and I think I knew them almost all. And for the Parliament I said e­nough before: The Members yet living say, that Mr. Tate of Northampton-shire was the only Presbyterian then in the House of Com­mons, and I never yet knew one among the Lords.

§. 28. You say, [If they were, they were de­generous from the English Episcopacy, they did not keep close to our Church, (which were my words) to our Articles, our Canons, our Ly­turgy, our Homilies.] 1. Answ., Your words were also, [Who can choose but nauseate that way of Discipline, &c.] 2. Speak out then, and confess that they were degenerous Epis­copal Men, and call them to repentance as the Raisers of the War, and deceive not Posterity by telling them the contrary. 3. But Sir, what mean you by your Church, which they kept not close to? Doth not the Canon Ana­thematize them that deny the Convocation to be the Representative Church? And must not the main Body of the Clergy then be your Church? And doth not Dr. Heylin largely shew you, that there were but five Bishops joyned at first with Bishop Laud? and that Abbot had the rest with him, in so much that they durst not commit their Cause to a Convocation? And that Arminianism, new Ceremonies, with Matters of Propriety and Prerogative, were [Page 97] the Matters then of the Contention, which made Heylin say, That he knew not whether the Church could have a greater plague than a Popu­lar Prelate, (because of Abbots Interest in the Nobility, Gentry, and People.) How should one then have known which of the Parties was the Church, and who shall be Judge which Party it is that keeps close to the Articles, Ca­nons Lyturgy and Homilies: Whitgift with Dr. Whitaker thought that the Anti-Arminian Lambeth Articles were the sense of the Church and Articles.

George Abbot Arch bishop, and Robert Ab­bot Bishop of Salisbury, with Davenant, Hall, &c. thought the middle Augustinian way was the true sense of the Articles, Lyturgy, &c. (which is the plain truth.) Bishop Laud, with his four Partners, (Neile, Buckeridge, How­son, and Corbet) thought (as Heylin saith) that the way called Arminian was the true sense of the Articles and Church. Overal and Mountague kept with them of the middle way in the main, yet were more averse to the Cal­vinist Prelates than the rest. These fall out a­mong themselves: The Arminians being few, are born down by the rest in Parliaments, and Convocations. The Duke of Buckingham (and, as Heylin saith, the King) favoured the five dissenting Bishops! When favour strengtheneth their Party, they call themselves the Church; accordingly one part of them [Page 98] pleadeth for His Majesties Prerogative, &c. and the other are for Parliaments, and cry up Propriety and Liberty: At last the Scotch and Irish Bussles prepare all for a War, and these two Episcopal Parties sight; one Party cryeth down Arminianism, Innovations, Altars, fa­vour to Papists, Ship-money, &c. the other Party cryeth out against absolute Reprobati­on, Calvinism, Puritanism, &c. the one Party cryeth down the Papists, and calleth the Scots Presbyterians to their help; the other Party cryeth down the Presbyterians, and cal­leth the Papists to their help: Which of these is the Church, which keepeth close to the Ar­ticles, Canons? &c. for my part I am none of the Judge between them in that Point. And I think if you call one side the Church, it will be never the more the Church for that; unless the King doth make it so: but surely they were both Episcopal, though one Party after fell in with the Presbyterians, (and the Presbyte­rians were conquered or cast out by the Secta­ries) and the other Party kept with the King.

§. 29. You say, [Would Episcopal Men con­spire to root out Episcopacy?] Answ. At first they conspired but to restrain and regulate those that they thought Innovators and Armi­nians, &c. (I speak only of Church Matters) but after they were too weak to defend themselves without the Scots and Sectaries, and [Page 99] were content to take down Episcopacy to please their Helpers, rather than to be overcome themselves.

§. 30. Whether Williams or Laud was the better Arch-bishop, or whether they did well that cut off Laud, is none of the Question: All that I say was, that Williams was an Arch-bishop, and a Commander for the Parliament in Arms.

§. 31. When you turn me from Heylins Life of Laud, to Heylins History of Presbytery you do but trifle and seek a Subterfuge. I ju­stifie not the Presbyterians in that he chargeth on them, (though you may know what Peter Moulin, Prebend of Canterbury, in his An­swer to Philanax Anglicus, hath said about the Forreign Churches.) But what's that to the Question, whether it was an Episcopal Parlia­ment or a Presbyterian that began the Eng­lish War, will the fault of one excuse the o­ther?

§. 32. As to what you say of the Change of the Puritans, since Jewel, Andrews, &c. wrote for them, and that they are not such as Ball, &c. I Answer 1. Is the Discipline changed which you speak of, or the whole Chorus which you speak to? Was there no Martin-Marpre­lates then? Have we retracted our Doctrine or Consent to the Church Articles, or to the Oaths of Allegiance or Supremacy? Have we not in 1660. yielded to more than ever Ball, [Page 100] or any of the old Non-conformists yielded to? Deny it if you can. 2. As for personal Char­ges, others will be as ready to requite you with the like: But neither you nor they should charge any more, than you can prove guil­ty.

§. 33. You tell me, [If Hooker were alive, he would make such as me to quake, so strong should we find his Breath in his deep, close, and strenuous Arguments: I have read him over a­gain and again, yet I never observed him to be an Enemy to Monarchy;—You can find out, if not New Worlds, yet new Inhabitants, and make strange Discoveries.] Answ. A learned Confutator, I say not that Hooker or Bilson were Enemies to Monarchy. But I say that it was theirs, and such Prelatists Principles that led me to what I did and wrote in the Book which I have retracted. And must I be put to defend the King against such Men and Princi­ples, at the same time when we are charged with that which we oppose? And will you in­deed cry out of the Discipline of the whole Chorus of Dissenters, as not Loyal, and at the same time defend such Principles in the Prela­tists?

Come on then, I will cite you some of their words; send me your defence of them in your next, and you shall, if I be able, have my Re­ply; and I begin with Bishop Bilson, because he was the more Learned Man: Difference of [Page 101] Christ. Subject. &c. Pag. 520. he saith, ‘[Ex­cept the Laws of those Realms do permit the People to stand on their right, if the Prince would offer that wrong, I dare not allow their Arms:—I busie not my self in other Mens Common-wealths as you do, neither will I rashly pronounce all that resist to be Rebels. Cases may fall out even in Christian Kingdoms, where the People may plead their Right against the Prince, and not be charged with Rebellion.—If a Prince should go about to subject his Kingdoms to a Forreign Realm, or change the form of the Common-wealth from Imperie to Tyranny, or neglect the Laws established by common con­sent of Prince and People, to execute his own pleasure; in these and other Cases which might be named, if the Nobles and Com­mons joyn together to defend their ancient and accustomed Liberty, Regiment and Laws, they may not well be counted Rebels,—I never denyed that the People might preserve the Foundation, Freedom and Form of their Common-wealth, which they forepri­zed when they first consented to have a King. I never said that Kingdoms and Common-wealths might not proportion their States, as they thought best by their publick Laws, which afterward the Princes themselves may not violate.—And in Kingdoms where Princes bear Rule by the Sword, we do not [Page 102] mean the Princes private Will against his Laws, but his Precept derived from his Laws, and agreeing with his Laws, which though it be wicked, yet may it not be resisted by any Subject with armed violence. Marry when Princes offer their Subjects not Justice but Force, and despise all Laws, and practise their Lusts, not every or any private Man may take the Sword to redress the Prince: but if the Laws of the Land appoint the No­bles, as next the King, to assist him in doing right, and with-hold him from doing wrong, then be they licensed by Mans Law, and so not prohibited by Gods, to interpose them­selves for the safety of Equity and Innocen­cy.—It is easie for a running and railing Head to sit at home in his Chamber and call Men Rebels, himself being the rankest.]’

Hooker Eccles. Polit. lib. 1. §. 10. Pag. Ed. ult. 21. ‘That which we speak of the Power of Government, must here be applied to the Power of making Laws whereby to govern, which Power God hath over all, and by the natural Law, whereto he hath made all sub­ject, the lawful Power of making Laws to command whole politick Societies of Men, belongeth so properly to the same entire So­cieties, that for any Prince or Potentate, of what kind soever, upon Earth, to exercise the same himself, and not either by express Commission immediately and personally re­ceiv'd [Page 103] from God, or else by Authority de­riv'd at first from their consent, upon whose person they impose Laws, it is no better than meer Tyranny: Laws they are not therefore which publick approbation hath not made so.’

And lib. 8. Pag. 192. ‘Unto me it seemeth almost out of doubt and controversie, that every Independent Multitude, before any certain Form of Regiment established, hath under God Supream Authority, full Domi­nion over it self.—’

And Pag. 193. ‘[In Kingdoms of this qua­lity the highest Governour hath indeed uni­versal Dominion, but with dependency up­on the whole entire Body, over the several Parts whereof he hath Dominion; so that it standeth for an Axiom in this Case, The King is Singulis Major, Vniversis Minor.’

And Pag. 194. ‘Neither can any Man with reason think but that the first Institution of Kings, (a sufficient Consideration wherefore their Power should always depend on that from which it did always flow, by original influence of Power from the Body into the King) is the cause of Kings dependency in Power upon the Body; by dependency we mean sub-ordination and subjection. ☜A manifest Token of which dependency may be this. As there is no more certain Argu­ment that Lands are held under any as Lords, [Page 104] than if we see that such Lands in defect of Heirs fall unto them by Escheat; in like manner it doth follow rightly, that seeing Dominion, when there is none to inherit it, returneth unto the Body; therefore they which before were Inheritors of it, did hold it in dependence on the Body: So that by comparing the Body with the Head, as touch­ing Power, it seemeth always to reside in both; fundamentally and radically in one; in the other derivatively: In one the Habit, in the other the Act of Power.] And [—The Axiomes of our Royal Govern­ment are these, Lex facit Regem; The Kings Grant of any favour made contrary to Law is void, Rex nihil potest, nisi quid jure potest.’

And Pag. 210. ‘When all which the Wis­dom of all sorts can do is done for the de­vising Laws in the Church, it is the general consent of all, that giveth them the Form and Vigour of Laws, without which they could be no more to us than the Counsels of Physitians to the Sick; well might they seem as wholesom admonitions and instructions, but Laws could they never be, without the consent of the whole Church to be guided by them: Whereunto both Nature and the Practise of the Church of God set down in Scripture, is found every way so fully conso­nant, that God himself would not impose, [Page 105] no not his own Laws upon his People, by the Hand of Moses, without their free and o­pen consent] (O fearful Passage!)’

And P. 220. ‘It is a thing even undoubt­edly natural, that all free and independent Societies should themselves make their own Laws, and that this Power should belong to the whole, not to any certain part of a Po­litick Body.’

And P. 221. ‘[For of this thing no Man doubteth, namely, that in all Societies, Com­panies, Corporations, what severally each shall be bound unto, it must be with all their assents ratified. Against all equity it were, that a Man should suffer detriment at the Hands of Men, for not observing, that which he never did either by himself or by others mediately or immediately agree to.’

And P. 205. ‘[If Magistrates be Heads of Church, they are of necessity Christians,] (as if no Magistrates but Christians were Chief Governours of the Church, which is meant by Heads.)’

And P. 218, 223, 224. ‘What Power the King hath, he hath it by Law. The Bounds and Limits of it are known: The entire com­munity giveth order, &c. P. 223. As for them that exercise Power altogether against Order, although the kind of Power which they have may be of God, yet is their exer­cise thereof against God, and therefore not [Page 106] God, otherwise than by permission, as all injustice is.—P. 224. Usurpers of Power (whereby we do not mean them that by vio­lence have aspired unto Places of highest Au­thority, but that use more Authority than ever they did receive in form and manner afore-mentioned,—) such Usurpers thereof as in the exercise of their Power do more than they have been authorized to do, cannot in Conscience bind any Man to obedience.’ ☜

And Pag. 194. ‘May a Body-politick then at all times withdraw in whole or in part the Influence of Dominion which passeth from it, if inconveniences do grow thereby? It must be presumed, that Supream Governours will not in such case oppose themselves, and be stiff in detaining that, the use whereof is with publick detriment, &c.’

Sir, I do not by reciting it dissent from every word that I cite, but I am against Mr. Hookers Popular Fundamentals themselves, and desire you to let me know whether these be the Pre­lates Principles which you defend: And for an Exposition of Mr. Hooker, remember that Sir Edwin Sandys was his Pupil and chief Bosom-friend.

But you say you have read his Book over and over, and therefore it is not from ignorance of what he wrote, that you become a defen­der of him. I suppose you are not ignorant that these are the very Principles, which (I [Page 107] will not say the Long Parliament, but) the very Rump and Regicides went upon, that Power is originally in the People, and eschea­teth to them, and that the King is Singulis Ma­jor, but Vniversis Minor, &c. See Parkers Ob­servations 1642.

If I were writing to such as Mr. Walton, who would tempt Men to question whether the 8th Book be not corrupted, I would tell them; 1. That the Passage in the first Book is the Sum of all the rest, and sheweth that they came from the same Author. 2. Dr. Spencer was not a Person so to be suspected, as one that would befriend a corrupted Copy. 3. I can yet give you the Testimony of one of the famousest Men in England for Learning in the Laws and Integrity, who had long ago a Copy in M. S. agreeing with the printed Copy. 4. Bishop Guuden dedicated it to the King, and saith, That even the eighth Book is interlined in many places with Mr. Hookers own Chara­cters, as owned by him, and he proveth it by other Reasons. And the same Bishop Gauden saith, P. 18. He admirably expresseth the ori­ginal of all Laws.

And yet Bishop Carlton Treat. of Jurisdicti­on, Pag. 12. saith, ‘[This I observe the ra­ther, because some of the Popes Flatterers of late, as others also, to open a wide gap to Rebellions, have written, That the Power of Government by the Law of Nature is [Page 108] in the Multitude.]’ I conjecture that Mr. Hooker was the chief Man whom he meant by [others:] And his foresaid Pupil and Friend was far from being a Presbyterian, as his Eu­ropae Speculum sheweth; and yet it's well known how close he stuck to Abbot's Party, and how great a Man he was in Parliaments for the Subjects Liberty, and the restraint of Monarchy. And even Bishop Gauden his last Publisher saith, Pag. 4. of his Life. ‘[This is certain, that the strength of the Church of England was much decayed and undermined, before it was openly battered, partly by some superfluous illegals and unauthorized Innovations in Point of Ceremony, which some Men affected to use in publick, and im­pose upon others, which provoked People to jealousie and fury, even against things law­ful, every Man judging truly, that the mea­sure of all publick Obedience ought to be the publick Laws.☜ Partly by a supine neglect in others, of the main Matters in which the Kingdom of God, the peace of Conscience, and the Churches Happiness, do chiefly consist; while they were immoderate­ly intent upon meer Formalities, and more zealous for an outward conformity to those Shadows, than for that inward, or outward conformity with Christ in Holy Hearts and unblamable Lives, which must adorn true Re­ligion.]’ To which he adds the Testimony of Dr. Holsworth!

[Page 109] So that it is a thing notorious and past con­tradiction, that the Arminianism, Innovations, and supposed excesses and exorbitances of one part of the Prelatists, gave occasion to the o­ther part (then accounted the Church and the more Protestant) to vent their displea­sure and fear in many Parliaments, and at last to take up Arms, and when they found them­selves too weak, to invite the Scottish Presby­terians to their Aid, who fell at last into the Hands of the Sectaries. And therefore I ex­cuse or justifie none of the Parties; but those that say that the beginners of the War against the King are guilty of his death, as well as they that kill'd him, must confess that it was the Prelatists, or they must be impudent: And therefore I again advise you to forbear the de­fence of Hooker and such Conformists, and call them first to repentance, who were first (of the English) in taking up Arms against the King.

§. 34. It's well you disclaim the Politicks of Grotius: But what abundance more Authors of Politicks could I name you that make the Majestas Realis to be in the People, yea and the Power of judging Kings. Such as Willius (he whom Bishop Hall wrote his Epistle to in his Remains) Alstedius, &c. Besides the Pa­pists; and if you agree with me in disliking those, do not own the same in Hooker, or o­ther Prelatists.

[Page 110] §. 35. Because you said, [Who can choose but nauseate that way of Discipline, which star­tles at renouncing War against the King:] I de­sire you ro tell me what Discipline you mean? You will not say Prelatical Discipline; If you mean Presbyterian, 1. I told you it was E­piscopacy which the present Non-conformists offered to the King and Bishops. 2. I desired you to peruse the Confessions and Descripti­ons of the Discipline of the Forreign Chur­ches, and to tell me which words do deny re­nouncing such War. And what say you to this? why! first you deride the motion, as a thing not to be required of you, and say their Actions are quite contrary to their Confessions? Will not your Conscience mark here; 1. How your own Pen doth acquit their Confessions, and yet you nauseate the way of Discipline that startles, &c. And where is the way of Disci­pline to be found but in those Confessions, which even the Accuser now absolveth? 2. And now you lay it on Practice, and what's that, 1. to the way of Discipline; 2. or to the whole Cho­rus which you speak to, or any one Man whose Practice you have not proved such as you accuse? And is your printed Clamour come to this?

§. 36. And what say you of the Practice now? 1. You tell me of Davila. I pray next go to Parsons Image of both Churches, and to Philanax Anglicus, where you shall find [Page 111] the Prelatists as deeply charged. And must Davila a Papist be credited against Bishop Jewel, Bishop Bilson, King James, and many other on the other side? And is not Davila a false Historian? For instance, he falsely saith, That Carpenter was kill'd in the Massacre, (who dyed of the fright) and that Peter Ramus (the Father of the Independents) was a Pa­pist, &c. And is a false Forreigner and a Pa­pist to be believed against the French Prote­stants? I again refer you to the late notable Vindication of the Forreign Presbyterians in France, Holland, Embden, Geneva, &c. by Pet. Moulin Jun. in his Answer to Philanax Anglicus: And yet his Father might well blame them for some Instances as you cite him; For as to the last Business at Saumurs and Rochel, he was a noted and suffering Dissenter from that Party, and so were other Protestants, as well as he.

But one would think by your Progress, that I had justified all the Wars or Actions of the Presbyterians, because I told you that the Pre­latists begun the English War; which if you would insinuate, (or else you speak not sense) you want either that understanding or that sincerity which beseemeth a Historian and a Divine.

But if really you will stand to it, that their way of Discipline is to be nauseated, who are guilty in practice of resisting Kings, who do [Page 112] you not speak out then, that the Prelatical Discipline is to be nauseated, when you have not spoken a word of sense to disprove the aforesaid Charge against the Prelatists? As to your Margin; 1. I have no more to do with Martyn than you have. 2. If you had any thing to have justifyed your Calumny out of T. C. or Travers, you should have cited it; for it's but a silly shift to set down their bare Names. 3. And I will no further believe Ban­croft or Sir Th. Aston, than they prove what they say, no more than your self. And I have reason for so saying.

§. 37. Next you feign me to say, That [the Divines, Presbyterian or Episcopal, medled lit­tle with it;] whereas I had no such word, but on the contrary told you, [That the Divines on both sides were too guilty, if not the forwardest.] And are you a fit Man to state these matters in print for Posterity, and pour out such Inve­ctives against other Men, that have not so much patience or care as to heed what you read in a Letter, or what you write in answer to it? What use can such Writings as these be of, but to abuse the simple? I only told you the differences were Political and Legal, and not Theological; but I said not that Divines medled not in them.

§. 38. I did, as you say, desire you to name the Theological Differences, if you know any, for I never did: And what say you to this? [Page 113] would not any Reader here expect that you should have named some one difference? But instead of that, you exclaim, [This is strange] and you ask me, [Did I never hear of Dr. Ferne, Mr. Dudley Digs?] yes, and of Mr. Weldon, and Michael Hudson, and Sir Francis Nethersole, and more, and have long ago read them all. And what of that? And I have read Jo. Goodwin, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Calamy, &c. And what of all that? Why did you not name the Theological Difference?—You say, That it was called the Cause of God, Re­ligion, &c. Did you think that you spake to the purpose, when you said this? It was Gra­tia materiae, finis & effect us that they account­ed it the Cause of Religion: They thought it had been the liberation of their Church and Country, and the defence of Religion against Innovators. But what's that to the lawfulness of taking up Arms? Is any Man so mad (e­specially an Episcopal Parliament) as to think all War lawful against the King, which is for Religion? Will a good end justifie ill means? Your own Instance of Mr. Vines and Mr. Mar­shal, to prove, that in Rom. 13. by the higher Powers was meant the Parliament-houses, &c. if you had been a Man of consideration, would have clearly shewed you how it confu­teth your self: That, and many Texts of Scri­pture were agitated by Dr. Ferne, Mr. Digs, and those that answered them: Upon all which [Page 114] it was agreed, as far as I know, that the Higher Powers were not by Arms to be resisted. And this is all the Theological part. But did you think that they thought that Rom. 13. or other Scriptures, did tell the World whether Caesar or the Senate was the higher Power? or which is the higher Power in Venice, Germany, Po­land, Hungary, France, England, or any Country in the World? Will you put the King to prove all his Power from Scripture? What ever you take it, I and all that ever I met with, that were above the Rank of those you describe by Jobs Wife, did take this to be a Point of Policy and Law, and not of Theo­logy, and that Scriptures tell us not who is the Supream in every Republick, but supposing that known, commands us not to resist them. And then comes in Bishop Bilson, and saith what is before cited for Lords and Commons vindicating their Librerties; and then comes in Hooker and tells us, That by the Law of Na­ture Legislation belongeth to the Body, and that the King is dependent and subject to the Body, and such like. And many Divines took up those Opinions; and Dr. Ferne and others were against them. But what of all this? Are not these Controversies in Law and Politicks, though handled by Divines?

§. 39. Your next say, That Dr. Manton wrote on Jude, and note my in-advertency that take no more notice of his Labours: And [Page 115] I marvel more than you can do, that I never heard of that Book before: Nor could hear of it from any one, till he told me himself, that he had long ago published some Sermons, which he preached very young, &c. on Jude. And that I was hereof ignorant I confess.

§. 40. You say of your Citation of Dr. Burges, That the Book is in the Hand of a Friend; and you add, [Are you such a Hel­luo Liborum, and yet had you no acquain­tance with these?] Answ. I have read I think all Dr. John Burges's Writings, except those a­gainst Conformity before he turned. And I read Dr. Cornelius Burges Book of Baptismal Regeneration about 36 years ago; and I after wrote somewhat against it, and Dr. Ward and Mr. Bedford on that Subject; and since I was familiar with the Author till near his death, therefore I believe not that it was John Burges that wrote that Book, but suppose you to be much liker to be mistaken than I. And unless Dr. John Burges wrote another Book of the same Subject (which I shall also wonder that I never heard of) I am as sure you are mista­ken as my Eyes and Acquaintance can make me.

§. 41. I told you I knew not one of the Mi­nisters that was not ready to swear that which you feign the Discipline of the Chorus to re­fuse. And you ask me, Why then did they flit their Habitations?

[Page 116] Answ. Did I not expresly tell you why? and was your disingenuity at leisure to fill your Paper with the recital of an answered Question, that you might have opportunity to vent your Latet aliquid? And here you be­gin to dispute the Case (Platonically.) But I cannot perswade my self to dispute it with one that no better understandeth it, or careth what he saith; only I answer your Questions. Q. 1. What was the sum of that Oath, was it not plainly and directly against taking up Arms? Answ. 1. And is that all the Oath; or is there not a Clause for our Church-Government? 2. If so, why is the first Clause the Sum of the whole? 3. Or need my Conscience stick at nothing in an Oath, but what you will call the Sum? O happy quieter of Consciences that fear an Oath! Q. 2. Did it any way hinder Par­liament Mens speaking, or others peaceably pe­titioning for such reformation as is necessary? Answ. 1. You shall not draw me to say, that an alteration of Diocesanes or Lay-Chancel­lors is necessary, no not ad bene esse Ecclesiae; for I know the Law is against it. But if I thought so, is Petitioning no Endeavouring? Say so, and shew that you care not what you say, to draw down an Oath: And must not I swear, That I [will not any time endeavour any alte­ration?] And shall I swear universally against all endeavour, and mentally reserve [excepting petitioning, speaking, &c.] Are Oaths things to [Page 117] be swallowed thus in sport? And will wiping my Mouth thus make me innocent? Q. 3. [Were not those who were commissioned to administer it, ready to declare the sense of it?] Answ. 1. Where did the King and Parliament give them power to declare the sense? 2. Is it not all the Justices in England that are authorized (two at once) to administer it? And do you know what all the Justices in England are ready to do? 3. Are you sure they will all agree in the sense? or must we take it in several senses, if several Men severally expound it? 4. What Law or Divinity teacheth you to take an Oath in the sense of an inferior Magistrate that of­fereth it you, who is not by the Law impow­ered to interpret it; nor is so much as made a Judge of the sense, but of my Fact of taking or refusing it? If this way be lawful, what if a Papist could find a Justice that would ex­pound the Oath of Supremacy for the Pope? May he therefore take it? Is not the Law-ma­ker the universal Expositor of his own Law; except for the Judicial decision of a particular Case which he committeth to his Judges? or can a Justice dispense with equivocation in Oaths, and not a Pope? 5. I was but once yet sent to Goal for refusing that Oath, and then I told them that I refused it not, but desired the Justices to tell me the sense of it, which they refused, and said I must take it according to the plain words, or importance of the [Page 118] Phrase, (which is the truth.) And yet you say, Are they not ready, &c. What wonder if Oaths go smoothly down, where there are such Resolvers? and it Books revile them that will not swear?

But here ensueth as confident a Rhetorical Invective against those that scruple this kind of swearing, as if Logick first had done its part, or at least one word of sense had been spoken to satisfie the Conscience of a Man that would not be stigmatized with PER. And we must swear without any smoother Oyl to get it down, than such talk as this, or else we must go with you for Men of hot and feavou­rish Brains. But Swearers we find have a Heat of their own kind, transcending others: Such as your Book and other Mens Actions have de­clared.

§. 42. I told you, [If you would put out the other Clauses of the Oath, &c. you should see how few would stick at that of taking Arms against the King.] Here you say, [Why do I lay this on you, &c.] Answ. But Sir, you might have understood my Inference: Why then do you pretend a false Reason of our re­fusal, when we tell you the true Reason? If you cannot put out the Clause which we re­fuse, you could forbear to Calumniate us of Traiterous Meanings, as if we stuck at another Clause.

[Page 119] §. 43. When I desired the imposing of no other Oaths on us to Prelates or Chancellors, than were imposed or used for many hundred years in the Church, you tell us, That [it may be schismatical to stand up too stifly for im­mediate Dispensations as to the Modes of Exter­nal Policy, &c.] Answ. 1. As some things not commanded in Modes of Church Policy are lawful, so some things are unlawful; or else you may swear to the Pope as well as to Diocesanes. And is it lawful to swear to the unlawful part think you? what that is I will not dispute with you. 2. All that is lawful to be done, is not to be sworn to, and made so necessary, as that a Church or Nation shall swear never to endea­vour any alteration of it, when a Change of Divine Providence can turn many lawful things into unlawful. 3. But are we the grea [...] admi­rers of Antiquity, and yet must we have Oaths, even publick Oaths in the Church it self, and Matters so necessary, as that Ministers must be sworn to them, which the Church never knew for 800 years. Well! plead for Antiquity when it serves your turn, and when it makes against you cry it down. 4. If you will (a­mong many others that have written, how the Pope got Princes under his feet, by imposing Oaths upon the Clergy) read but what Bishop Carlton saith of Jurisdiction, Chap. 7. and you will see one Reason why we are loth to swear to the Church Govern­ment [Page 120] as totally unalterable, and that before the States.

§. 44. About Lay-Chancellors exercising the Spiritual Power of the Keys, and our swearing never to endeavour any alteration of it, you say, [Me thinks a Person of your inge­nuity should rest satisfied with that modest De­claration of our Rubrick, concerning the Cen­sures of the Church, in the Preface to the Com­munion.]

Answ. Is there one Syllable in that Preface for justifying Lay-Chancellors use of the Keys? What need is there of Ingenuity to swallow an Oath upon such satisfaction as this?

But you add, [Do they do this of themselves as Lay-men, or do they not? You see it is easie to push with the Horns, and to evince that you are either ignorant or absurd: But I shall only remember you, that Lay-Chancellors excommu­nicate not as Lay-men; but by vertue of those Surrogates who are Delegates for this purpose, originally by the Bishop himself. This abstracti­on is not too hard for you to conceive.]

Answ. We have feaverish and skittish Brains indeed, if all this Oyl will not get down Oaths. But come Sir, Horns against Horns is an ordinary way of combating. These Lay-Chancellors either are Clergy-men, or they are not: If they are not, (as they are not) then they that excommunicate not as Lay-men, do it as Clergy-men, or not; if not as Lay-men, [Page 121] nor as Clergy-men, as what then? If as Clergy-men, then they that are no Clergy-men may excommunicate as Clergy-men, or not: If not, all the Fat is in the Fire still: If yea, then either they may act as in a Person which they have not, or not: If not, yet we cannot swear: If yea, then you are push'd up to a Stone Wall, and must deny two Principles: 1. That operari sequitur esse: 2. That a nega­tione est secundi adjecti, ad negationem est ter­tii adjecti, valet argumentum: Qui non est Cle­ricus, non operatur qua Clericus. 3. To which I may add a Moral Principle; Non est men­tiendum.

But I have heard before now of Preaching, and other officiating per se aut per alium. But let us horn it with you a little further: Either the exercise of the Keys by excommunication is an Act proper to the Sacred Pastoral Office, or it is not: If it be not, then Preaching, Praying, Sacraments, or some other Actions, are proper to it, or not: If none be proper to it, we are at the Wall of a Contradiction, for then it is no Sacred Office; but if something be proper to it, that something is more Sacred than the Power of Excommunication, or not: If not, then we are again at the Wall of a Contradiction: If they be equally Sacred, they are equally proper to the Sacred Pastoral Of­fice: If yea, then Argumentum valet ab opere ad Officium, the Office of a Bishop as such is [Page 122] less Sacred than the Office of a Presbyter: And either it is one half a Bishops Work that may be done by a Lay-man, or all! If all, (Ordina­tion and Jurisdiction or Censure) then a Lay-man may be a Bishop, and a Bishop a Lay-man; and so Episcopacy no Sacred Office. If half, 1. Either that half is included in the Keys of the Kingdom, given to Pastors, or not: If not, then we are at a Wall; for, 1. It will prove no part of their Office or Power (as Bishops or Pastors.) 2. The word Keys will never be intelligible, if it include not the Power of Binding and Loosing; but if that half be included in the Power of the Keys, then either Christ, when he committed the Keys to the Clergy, did distinguish in that one word, and make one Act of the Keys proper to the Clergy, and not another, or he did not di­stinguish, but make the said Keys wholly pro­per to them: If the former, what is the proof? where is the distinction found? there is none in the Words: If the latter, then habetur quae­situm; Excommunication is not to be done by a Lay-man; or else he made all the Keys com­municable to the Laity; and then Baptism (which is the first Exercise of them Politically) is communicable, and then there is no Sacred Office.

Again, a Bishop can excommunicate by a Presbyter, as well as by a Lay-man, or not: If not, we are at a Wall: If yea, then a Pres­byter [Page 123] may do the Work of a Bishop, if a Bi­shop please; and if so, then he may ordain also, if a Bishop please; for why may not one Key be exercised per alium, as well as ano­ther? and if a Bishop please, Presbyters Or­dination is valid.

Moreover, either the Bishop may commit this Power to a Lay-Chancellor only pro hac vice, or statedly as an Office. If the first, farewell Chancellors who have an Office of it. If the latter, then either to make a Man a Chan­cellor is to make him a Bishop, or not: If yea, then speak out, and call him not a Lay-man, but let him be ordained and consecrated; if not, we are at a Wall again, and we must de­ny a Principle, viz. That they are the same things that have the same true definitions. For, (do but suppose the other half the Pre­latical Work (Ordination) also to be done per alium in a stated way of Office, and he that doth it will have the same definition; that is, one in stated Office, authorized to ordain and exercise the Keys of Jurisdiction, or Ab­solution and Excommunication: For the Office is nothing else but Authority and Obligation to do the proper Acts. In a word, Circum­stantials, circa Sacra, or Accidentals, may be done per alium, (as to call the People to Church, &c.) Acts proper to the Sacred Of­fice (of Bishop or Presbyter) may not! O­therwise 1. Ordination or Consecration cannot [Page 124] be proved to be an entering into a Sacred Of­fice; because it tyeth us but to that which ano­ther may be tyed to without it; 2. or the Of­fice which may be exercised per alium by a Lay-man, is not Sacred; and Episcopacy may be translated into the Hands of the Laity, or rather is a Lay-Office already.

But what mean you by saying, That they excommunicate by vertue of those Surrogates, &c. Do you mean that Surrogates give the Chancellor his Power? I knew not so much before, nor believe it now; or doth the Chan­cellor represent the Surrogate, and do it in his name? I am content to be still so ignorant and absurd, as to wish you had more consulted the Honour of your Knowledge, than to talk at these rates. In my opinion, of the two you had taken a more plausible way, if with your Brethren you had pretended, that taking down Chancellors (who are the stated Governours) is no alteration in the Church Government; or else that the ordinary Priest, who sometime pro forma pronounceth the Sentence which the Chancellor decreeth, is the Excommunica­tor and Absolver; and so say that a Presbyter exerciseth the Episcopal Office, rather than a Lay-man, (if we were not more jealous of the Presbyters claim of right to it, than of the Lay-mans.) I pray take some of these ways the next time; or else do not rant too hotly a­gainst those skittish hot-brained Men, that [Page 125] make a question of swearing as boldly, and as deeply as you expect them. And teach them better than by Rhetorical Flourishes, how to confute the Seperatists, that say, [A Perjured Clergy is not to be communicated with: But, &c.] If I had no better answer for them than what you afford me, I would leave them to some that are more able to confute them: For with your Weapons I am unable.

And your saying they do it by vertue of the Surrogates, makes me question by how many descents a Bishops Power may be committed to others. Doth the Bishop commit it to the Surrogate, and the Surrogate to the Chancel­lors, and the Chancellors to the Official? And what if it come down yet ten degrees more? Is it a Lay-work, or a-Sacred Clergy-work at last, when it is per alium, qui per alium, qui per alium, &c.

If you shall say, that by the Surrogate you did mean either any Priest that doth pro­nounce the Sentence, or the Parish Priest that proclaimeth it in the Church; remember that it is neither Ministerial pronouncing, nor Mi­nisterial proclaiming or reading it that we speak of, but Judicial authoritative decreeing it; and that the Chancellor doth not excommuni­cate decretively by any vertue of the Priests pronuntiation or reading, which both follow after, and are done ministerially in obedience to him: And that the Cryer that readeth the [Page 126] Kings Proclamations is no Magistrate, much less one by vertue of whom the King doth make them.

§. 45. You add, [I'le warrant, you have more kindness for Lay-Elders, if they were joyned with you in things Sacred: As Catechi­zing, Admissions to the Sacrament, and Cen­sures of the Church.]

Answ. Your Warrants are so ready and rash, that I know not well what it is that you may not warrant at these rates; or else you would not have warranted this to one that hath wrote so much against Lay-Elders, and never had any thing to do with them, (as Men that med­led with any part of the Sacred Office, though Lay-Magistrates and Aged Men I honour.) I will not trouble the Churches Peace either a­gainst Lay-Elders or Lay-Chancellors; but I will be sworn to neither of them as Vsers of the Keys.

But you think this is but a Gnat in my way; so wide is your Swearing-swallow, and so ter­rible to us Men of feaverish Heads, are your things indifferent.]

§. 46. You say, [The Camel or Belzebub is Diocesan Bishops: The Episcopacy of Bishop Vsher you are for.]

Answ. 1. Quer. Whether the Arch-bishops and Bishops in Ushers Model be Diocesanes or not? or whether the Game you play at be not self-contradiction. 2. If ever I be a Bishop, [Page 127] I shall bless my self from such a Defender as you, if you can defend no better than you do swearing to Church-Government by Lay-Chancellors.

§. 47. You say, [You are kinder to Bishops, for where there is one, I suppose you wish there were many hundreds; and if this were allowa­ble, we that are Minorum Gentium (as to our own Interest) have no cause to oppose it: For then it may be, you and I might in some time of our Ages commence Bishops.]

Answ. O for one Grain of ingenuity and modesty in this kind of Men! The Debater reproacheth us in print for blowing so long upon our Ecclesiastical Dignities before we refused them; When I delayed my Answer but one day; and there were but three of us that had the offer of Bishopricks, and two of Deanaries, that ever I heard of: And one did almost as soon accept it, as I refused it: And the third (Mr. Calamy) and the two other, only delayed till they saw whether the Kings Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs would be established by an Act; and refused when they saw it at end. And I was so afraid of the odious Crime of In­gratitude, that I was fain to give the Reasons of my refusal, as easily as I could, in writing to the Lord-Chancellor, lest it should favour of undervaluing the favour offered. And I scarce ever talk'd of it to any to this day, unless in answer to a question, lest I should seem to be [Page 128] unthankful; yet can we not have rest in si­lence for this sort of Men! while all my fear was, lest my refusal would be too displeasing, and cast me under more discountenance than before; sometime I hear out of the Pulpit, (from a grave Doctor known to you) when no Non-conformist but my self is present, that the reason why we dislike Bishops is, because we cannot be Bishops our selves, (and yet I ceased not hearing the Accuser:) And here you Sar­castically insinuate some such thing; which al­loweth me again to wish for one Grain of in­genuity in you.

§. 48. You add, [Magis & Minus non va­riant speciem.] Answ. That is only in Substan­ces, where the different quantities are all con­sistent with the Form: But not in Relative Beings, where difference of Quantity may change the Subject, and so the Relation, as Keckerman might have taught you, Log. de Relat. in the Instance of a Ship. Doth your Logick teach us, that the People of a whole Nation may be but a Family, (a vicus vel pagus! or that a single person may be a Kingdom or a Family) because Magis & minus non variant speciem? Would your Spoon be a Spoon if it were as big as a Church, or your Church be a Church if it were no bigger than a Spoon? Is a Troop, a Regiment, and one Army of the same Species? or if all the Captains and Collonels were put dowu, [Page 129] and the General would be the sole Ruler of the Army, were there no change of the Species of any of the Government? If all the School-masters in the Diocess were put down, or turned only into Monitors, except one gene­ral Diocesane School-master, would it not va­ry the Species of School and School-masters? Is a Christian Society united for Personal Com­munion in Gods Worship of the same Species with a thousand such Societies, united in one Diocesan Head, which can have no personal present Communion as never seeing one ano­ther? Enjoy your Logick: I am contented with the dishonour of being no Graduate in the University, that teacheth thus, and so ap­plyeth it.

§. 49. You say, [If Bishop Usher were now alive, he would give you but small thanks for pressing his Model of Episcopacy, (if his) now the King and Laws are restored, which he only calculated, as that which could be born by the iniquity of the later times.]

Answ. 1. That the Model was his, he told me with his own Tongue. 2. That he thought better of it than of that which you set against it, and did not offer it as a less desirable thing, appeareth by the Reasons which he giveth for it, from Antiquity, and from the nature of the Pastoral Office, to which he saith, a part in the Keys or Discipline belongeth: And he took this to be the true ancient frame of Go­vernment [Page 130] used for many hundred year after Christ, and to be the true means of our union: And he told me, that he offered it his Majesty before the War, and it was not accepted, and after the War, and then it might have passed. And in conference with me he came lower than that Model, as the Minimum that might serve for our agreement, which I mentioned pub­lickly to the Parliament, in my Sermon the day before the Kings Restoration was voted by them, (printed by their Order.) And he told me, That moderate Men would unite on those terms, but he had tryed that others would not. 2. But what is there in that Model that is so in­tolerable now? Is one tittle taken from the Bi­shops or Arch-bishops Honour? Is one farthing taken by it from their Estates? Is any of their Power or Negative Voice taken away? or is not the stated Ministry only made their Pres­bytery instead of a few uncertain Presbyters, that must be present when they ordain, and instead of the present Form of some Courts, &c. O humble Clergy-men, that take this for more intolerable than all the contrary evils that we undergo! Dishonour not our Church so as to tell Forreigners, That to be reduced to such an Episcopal Government by Bishops with their Presbyters, as was commonly in use for six hundred years at least, as that which could be born by the iniquity of the latter times, but can­not be born by the Clergy now, if it pleased His [Page 131] Majesty so to order it: But mistake me not; I only speak of Ushers Model: I do not now speak against the Government, nor plead for a Change; for the Law forbiddeth me.

As to what you say concerning Vshers Notes on Ignatius concerning the division of Asia, I suppose you should have said, His Notes on Ignatius, and his Discourse of the Proconsular Asia, which are two Books, (if you knew the Books you talk of:) But I know very well that he supposed Episcopacy to have been before the second Century; but the question is, what sort of Episcopacy? and that Question his Mo­del doth resolve.

§. 50. To all that you talk after on this Sub­ject, I cannot find in my heart to trouble my self with any other Answer, than to tell you, that all you say is utterly impertinent to those you write of, and sheweth that you do not at all understand the Case of the present Non-Conformists, nor the state of the Controversie.

§. 51. But about swearing Obedience to the Bishops, you say; 1. It is but in Licitis & Ho­nestis: 2. That of old Presbyters have been obe­dient to their Bishops under the Penalty of an Anathema.

Answ. 1. The Question is not only of Swear­ing to obey them, but swearing never to endea­vour any alteration of Church-Government. 2. The King himself is to be obeyed but in licitis & honestis: And must we be sworn as [Page 132] much to the Clergy as to the King? 3. Those that think the English Species of Diocesanes to be unlawful, take them to be quoad jus divi­num Usurpers: And they say, they would not swear to obey the Pope in licitis & honest is, nor Cromwel if he were alive, lest it prove Treason against the true Sovereign, to swear Obedience to an Usurper, even in licitis & ho­nestis. And how impertinently do you speak of Presbyters Obedience, sub poena Anathematis, when I only spake of antecedent swearing to them. (Nay not to them, but to Men of ano­ther Office, though of the same name.) Are we not now under Anathema's enough in the Canons if we obey not? Yet how little have you heard the Non-Conformists say against those Canons these eleven years? (I mean such as have ever publickly agitated their Cause.) If you Anathematize me unjustly, it is none of my sin: But if I swear unjustly, it is my sin, I can obey many a Man that I cannot swear obe­dience to: He that taketh away my Coat, may have my Cloak also; and if you bid me go a Mile for you, I may rather go two, than do worse: And we must submit our selves to one another; but yet I will not swear Obedience to all that I may thus obey. And I may obey a Justice or Constable as my duty; and yet not swear to the perpetuity of their Office, and that before the Kings: But if Obedience under pain of Anathema served above a thousand years, with­out [Page 133] swearing it, why may it not serve turn now? Are new Oaths necessary to be sworn by us to the Clergy, which never were necessary till of late? You mean not I perceive, that Antiquity or Universality shall be the Chara­cter of your Church or Impositions: Nor to stand to Lerinensis Test, (quod ab omnibus, ubi (que) semper, &c.)

If we may neither have Ignatius his Episco­pacy in specie, nor be under such Bonds only as Ignatius speaks for, without such Oaths as he never mentioned, it is self-condemnation for you to cite the words of Ignatius.

§. 52. You say, [Mr. Cartwright wrangled himself at last into Conformity.] Answ. It is not well done of you to write Historical un­truths so boldly: You have no way to come off, but either to say some body told you so, or that by Conformity you mean that he sepa­rated not from the Parish Churches, which he never did, or that he was favourable to kneel­ing at Sacrament, and not peremptory against the Surplice, into none of which he wrangled but studyed himself: And, saith Amesius, re­tracted his moderation about the Surplice: But did he conform to Diocesanes, to Subscri­ption, to the Oath of Canonical Obedience, to the Cross, &c. How is the World abused by false Historians? Thus one of my Antagonists chargeth him (after Suttliffe) with acquain­tance with Hackets Villany, and other such [Page 134] things, from which he so fully vindicateth him­self in a Manuscript of his own, which I have by me, (given me by old Mr. Simeon Ash) as may make the Reader wonder at the harden­ed front of Calumny?

§. 53. When you say, [you will secure me] about the Oath, I have no confidence in your security, till I see it to be better back'd, than your bare word with a fallacious unlike suppo­sed Simile. when I must subscribe and swear, That [I will not at any time endeavour any al­teration of Government in this Army, Colledge, Vniversity or Corporation, nor of the State,] putting them conjunct with the State, and be­fore it, and not excepting, [unless the King command me to endeavour it,] then I shall bet­ter consider of your security. Till then you do but suppose me to see no difference between things most different.

§. 54. Who is it that hath done most to drive People from the Parish Churches, I am satisfied by experience. And whether all such Dissen­ters are such Children of Hell as you describe, I shall leave to a more wise and righteous Judge.

§. 55. To write a full and just defence of that Non-conformity, which I own according to the importunity of your Book, would take up much time, and the Volume would be great, and I have not so much time to spare, unless I saw a probability of some better effect [Page 135] than is like to arise from my putting it into your Hands, as now you motion.

If my Stile suited to your Matter be displea­sing, review your Book, and retract the cul­pable part which is the cause, and you will have less cause to repent of your Repentance, than of your Impenitency. If as you say you are under affliction, I hope it will help you to do as my long afflictions have partly done by me, even to judge of Persons, Things and Causes, as one that daily waiteth for the time, when he and all shall be judged of God.

Mr. BAXTER'S Fourth Letter.

WHen I had written an Answer to your last, the Transcriber moved slow in his Work, and it being somewhat long, (fourteen Sheets) before he had finish­ed it, I heard from a double report of your own acquaintance, that you purposed to print what you got from me! At the first hearing I was not sorry for it: But upon second thoughts these four Reasons put a stop to the mission of the Papers to you. 1. I have written more plainly and smartly than I would have done if it had been for any ones use besides your own: A secret conviction and reproof may be sharper than an open one. 2. I am confi­dent that you cannot get the whole licensed, (and I cannot easily think that you are wil­ling.) Upon your encouragement a few sheets against Bagshaw (since dead) were printed without License, and were surprized in the [Page 198] Press; and if you should print mine by scraps, and not entirely, I should take it for a great injury and dishonesty. 3. And I doubt it would be offensive to some, and so might tend to my own disquiet; for to make it so plain, as that nothing but a high degree of Ig­norance or Impudence can contradict it, that the Parliament that raised Arms against the King were by profession Episcopal, (such as Heylin describes Abbot to be) as against those whom they accused of Innovation, and rais'd suspitions that they were reconciling us to Po­pery, at the price of our loss of Propriety and Liberty. I have been fain to name so many Men, of whom some are yet living, that I know not how they will take it, to have their Military Acts recited after the Act of Oblivi­on; and I believe those Clergy-men that have used this false Visor to put on the Non-confor­mists to make them odious, that it was they only, and not the Episcopal that began the English War, will be very angry to have their fraud detected. 4. But all these are small matters in comparison of the last; Though God hath given us a King, who is so firm to the Protestant Religion, as to make a severe Law against all that shall cast out suspitions of his being inclin'd to Popery; yet all Men are mortal, and God knoweth into what Ru­lers Hands my Papers may be put by the Papists for their advantage when they see them: And [Page 199] they may say, You see, Sir, that it was not only the Non-conformists, but the Episcopal Protestants also that raised War against the King; therefore no Party of them are to be trusted by you, as Philanax Anglicus attempt­ed; and Arguments from Interest take much in the World. And I had rather the Non-con­formists alone were distated and cast out, than the Conformists also, lest worse succeed them. On all which Considerations I shall suspend my sending you these Papers, till you give me suf­ficient Reasons to believe that they shall not be used to more hurt than good; and then you shall have them by the next Messenger. But I doubt whether it will not offend you to see it so undeniably proved, that your Papers con­tain so great a number of gross mistakes. Among which one of the most excusable-wil­ling one, is your mistake of my Apology (in tantum) for one or two Non-conformists near you, (I know of no more) that had not Academical Education, or might be su­spected to be half as low in Learning as you defined them to be, when I told you how much I preferred Matter before strange Words, and an English Divine before a Syriack Sot, or a few Shreds, &c. For though I had no thought of accusing the Conformists more than others, of being guilty of acquaintance with the Oriental or other Languages; yet I confess I had mentioned the Conformists some­where [Page 200] in the same Sheet, and you were like e­nough in the contradicting humour to think that all that was mentioned to you was spoken by way of opposition to your Party, when you found some crums of credit in it: But to disabuse you, I assure you; 1. That I thought not in those words of comparing Conformists with Non-conformists at all, but only Pedan­tick smattering in strange words, with real so­lid understanding, and preaching of Theolo­gy, in what Parties soever they were found. 2. That I never yet heard any of your Youths in our Pulpits that shewed any higher Matters of that poor kind of ostentation than a few words of Hebrew. 3. That really it was a Lad in my own House at my Elbow, the re­membrance of whom suggested to me the mat­ter of my Comparison, who is yet no Confor­mist, and I assure you no judicious Divine, (what ever he may be hereafter) and yet (seeing you seem to differ from me in this Point also, and so prefer such Shreds before true Knowledge in Divinity) is able to grati­fie you with somewhat more than Shreds of Welch, English, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chal­de, Syriack, Arabick, Persian, Samaritan, Aethiopick; and if these be not enough for you, we can make shift between us to send you some Shreds of Armenian, French, Italian, Spanish, yea and of the Indian Language of our Americans, in which Mr. Eliot hath print­ed [Page 201] the Bible. And if you signifie your desire or willingness to accept them, he shall send you some Shreds of these by the next, in stead of solid Divinity, that you may have that which you prefer. And I further assure you, that he never had these from any University, nor from any Tutor that is fond of Conformity; which I say because you tell me how we would boast of such if they were among us. And would you have me send out such a Lad (of nine­teen or twenty years of age) to be a Prea­cher or a Pastor, because he can talk nonsense (or at least but little profound Divinity) in so many Tongues? Had I set as light by Languages as you dreamed, I had not taken care to help him to this much: But because I set more by real Science, than you seem to do by your contradiction of my preference of it, I count him that is without it, and without the Holy Love and Life which it tendeth to, to be but as sounding Brass, or a tinkling Cymbal.

ΛΟΓΟΣ ΠΡΟΤΡΕΠΤΙΚΟΣ

JAm tandem mihi gratulor (viri magnates) quod excusso stuporis veterno, lacertos rursus movere gestiam; & vos ultrò al­loqui ausim intrepidus, qui me [...], saevas nuper pronuntiastis ad bestias; vos, inquam, qui telorum grandine, parum abfuit, quin obruissetis; & Gigantes cùm sitis (quan­tum in vobis) in Coetum Gigantum, hoc est ad inferos usque, vestro Anathematis fulmine, diram (proh dolor!) miseritis victimam; sed nullos tam puros manes admittit infernus: tam charum lucis filiolum, respuunt tenebra­rum regna: sic nitentem vestibus, si aspexis­sent Cacodaemones; perstringantur oculi, & subterranea perhorrescant examina; nec non ipse Minos, aequiori perpendens trutinâ, acu­men vestrum, simul & justitiam, frendens incuset, & iratus; quasi, ab auro scoriam, à [Page 2] tritico paleam, à medullâ corticem, à spuriis verè genuinas aquilas haud dijudicare poteri­tis. Apagè igitur cum sententiâ vestrâ! se­ram cantate palinodiam; & quod temerario exarâstis calamo, ex vestris subitò deleatur Annalibus: ut Herodes olim suos expunxit natales; hic, ne parentum ignominiam; vos, ne vestram suboleant, nasuti nepotes. Quan­tùm ad me attinet, tota cervice divinioribus studiis pergam incumbere, & (exanimatus li­cèt) sacris paginis adhuc pallescere; ut ex rupe istâ (Scripturae scilicet) fontes salvificos: ex thesauro isto, gemmas: ex alveari, favos; & ex promptuario isto, cibaria, & succos sa­lutares possim eruere; animae meae, gregique populari confestim traditurus; ut nec Deo, nec bonis (quanquam vobis) audiam [...].

Postquam vos, quasi tot immaniores Le­vitae, Galliones, & Homunciones [...] me vestris consossum vulneribus, gemibundum, & tantum non expirantem, vix intuebamini: ecce melior Samaritanus (conscientia scilicet subridens, intemerata, & [...]) parato occurrit gremio: utrisque ulnis, ruit in am­plexus, dulcique susurro in aurem blanditur: me molli sovet cataplasmate: pedibus vestris conculcatum sublevat; oleumque suum, in ipsa cordis penetralia effundit.

Utinam de Cathedrâ vestrâ & sellâ Curu­li, paululum descendatis in arenam: non lu­ctam [Page 3] subituri, sed velitationem, eamque ami­cabilem, & sine odio. Siccine indignus ego? nulla eruditionis rimula? nulla pietatis scm­tillula? dicite mihi sodes! triobolaris ego, & nullius pretii Theologaster? de ponte mit­tendus, sicut [...]? Heu! perii infelix: contremiscunt viscera: labas­cunt crura: suffusus rubore vultus; nec non singuli artus solvuntur in [...]: sub tam infausto natus sidere, [...], tot preciunculas quotidè ejaculatus fuerim: tot lachrymis genas humectârim? toties jeju­naverim? tot labores exantlârim? tot libro­rum volumina (absit invidia! absit jactantia!) evolverim, ut muneri huic Evangelico, & animarum aucupiis invigilarem? & incassùm cesserunt singula? Sed vestras revolvite me­morias: judicia explorate propria, utrùm nul­lis praejudicii nebulis offusa: nam ipsi aliquan­do oculi sic humoribus intumescunt, sic glan­comate laborant, ut circa ipsos colores omni­modò hallucinentur: sic Senatus quondam Ro­manus, vero aut pretium, aut gratium antefe­rebat. Interrogate fideliter animas vestras: non audio quid interrogata corda responde­ant: sed nisi callo prorsus obducti, nisi [...], quin [...] sitis, nullus dubi­to, quòd Lesbia etiam evaseritis regula, qui lapi­des Lydios, & paenè infallibiles esse gloriami­ni, compertum habeo. Ah! quoties nigro carbone notabitis immeritos, cùm meliorem [Page 4] calculum apposuisse debeatis? vol is igitur in posterùm consulo, ut Cryptam aliquam Ca­liginosam intretis judicatur [...]; aut judicum in­star Atheniensium, altâ nocte censuras vestras proferatis, si infamem exuatis [...]. Et cùm suggesta vestra ascendisse videar, vo­bisque in subsellio sedentibus perorâsse, bonâ adhuc cum veniâ, perrexisse liceat. Non mi­hi cordi est, ut quaestionum involucris vos irretirem, aut spinosis argumentorum aculeis excruciem: non ut [...] essem, gla­dios loquuturus, aut fulgura. Absit, absit, inquam, vindictae tam impotens Cupido! [...]. Exultate adhuc, per me, singuli; meae quanquam ruinae, quo jure, quâve injuriâ, sabri simul, & artifices. Non commodi oestro percitus, non famae disten­dor aucupio; sed aliorum, sed ecclesiae gratiâ dicturus; & quare dixisse poeniteat, cùm vos tam horrenda fecisse non pigeat? Quid vetat anseres ipsos, clamorem in coelum tollere, cùm tem­pli arces, ipsumque Capi­tolium sitis prodituri? [...]; Basil. p. 318. prodituri inquam; quid enim à proditione distat, tot satellites, tot veteranos inhibuisse, quos in castra sua miserat Dominus Exercituum? intraque ecclesiae muros, contra hostium insultus, & molimina, excubare jusserat, sicut Domini [Page 5] vineam vastâsse videamini, qui tot fidos prae­clusistis operarios, quos Dei misericordia, pio­rumque preces in medium emiserant; quodque dolendum magis, à vobis etiam dilaceratur Christi Sponsa; à vobis inquam, totum vul­nus fit & Cicatrix, quibus eam propulsare, & custodire incubuit; adeò ut non possum (ad ravim usque) non ingemiscere—Quis cu­stodiet ipsos—Custodes? sed nondum ani­mam meam omnimodò liberavi: nam ut De­us Angelo Pergamensi, sic ego ulteriùs [...].

Quis non videt capita vestra coelo ipsi minantia?Primò. & altas veluti Cu­pressus, singulos prae vobis, tanquam vibur­na, & vilia arbusta fastidientes? Cristas hasce, & caudas verè pavonias, tandem deponite: supercilia remittite, & posthac in majorem eru­diamini mansuetudinem. Quorsum caperatis frontem, & superbienti supercilio sic supplices torquetis miseros? Non mancipia sumus, sed fratres? nisi Donatistrarum instar, fratres etiam vocari dedignamini, aut cum Eunomianis fraternè non estis affecti; adeò [...] (ut Basilius olim) [...] vi­demur in oculis eorum esse ut cicadae. En! vos adimus,Numero cap. 13. 33. aequali, ac aras ipsas sacrificuli, reverentiâ: nudato capite: curvato corpore: vultu submisso, & flexis genibus vestra lambimus & osculamur vestigia: at quasi statuae sitis am­bulatoriae, [Page 6] sine ullis fibrarum flexuris, vix (ne vix quidem) nutum possumus extorquere: nutum dixi? ô nos felices! si non torvos vi­bretis aspectus, & verba acuminata, ipsâ morte acerbiora. O quantâ clientes vestros (Carnificinâ quâdam) occiditis morâ quàm pedibus nostris, heu! trita vestibula! dum luna ipsa saepius suos peragit cursus; quasi vobis dulces ipsi morientium gemitus: nihil vestrâ refert, populos nobis charos, uxores, pignora, longa pati divortia, & noster— fundo suspiret nummus in imo: sed cavete quaeso, ne sicut Papae ambitio peperit Anti­christum, sic iisdem eum armis expellere ven­ditaretis, quibus introductus, quibus sua de­bet incunabula. Si olim erga ministellos, sic sese gessissent Antistites, quanto boatu tota remugiret regio! imò ipsa resonaret Europa! Alia quaerenda terra: alii lares: nam intole­rabilis (vestras querelas repeto) Episcopalis majestas: ipsa constupra­tur aura, spiritu isto plus­quam Sunt quos in conspectu hominum superbia tanquam suos demonstrat hostes, & intrinsecus nequissimos habet milites. Fulg. p. 691. Luciferiano. Quid tandem restat? nisi ut cer­vicibus publicis depulsi ja­ceant, & caedantur victimae, non tam aliorum ambitioni, quam suae? nisi ut magna illa, & erudita nomina, tot essent trophaea; tot for­tunae ludibria, currus vestros ornatura trium­phales. Sed cavete rursum, ne digitos vestros experiamur, illorum lumbis graviores: cavete [Page 7] inquam, ne fastum illorum conculcaretis, sed fastu majori; ut Romani olim, regios Tarqui­nii fastus, aliâ superbiâ, non ferebant—sic etiam sapientibus, Cupido gloriae, novissima exuitur.

Hoc tamen dato; quòd vobis in clerum Do­mini, sic dominari, cervicesque nostras pre­mere, jure quodam contigisset; quis affin [...]s vestros, famulosque vobis ministrantes, domi­nos nostros constituit? nam sicut Ancillas suas habuit Penelope, quarum auxilio, & lenocinio adjuti, suam proci—adibant Corinthum; sic vos famelica comitatur mancipiorum tur­ba, quibus inhiantibus, si offam aliquam, seu victimam, non obtulerimus; qui ad Altitu­dines vestras, nos introduceret, nemo placatus fuerit; erit forsan, qui praedae avidus, ad de­vorandum fauces aperiat, calumnias commi­niscatur indignas, & precibus nostris aures ob­seret vestras, quae clavibus nullis recludendae fuerint, nisi auratis: sed priusquam demulce­antur, & cicurentur, istiusmodi ferae, in quàm varias Humilitatis figuras, nostra torquenda sunt corpora? At at Ganymedem quendam habetis delicatulum, de prosapiâ suâ, & stem­mate gloriantem; quasi neutiquam patrissare potuisset, nisi nos ruricolas, & in vervecum patriâ natos, despicatui haberet. Hic omnes supereminet, & erecto vertice, ipsa paenè pulsat sydera. Nos—viles pulli; Hic—Gallinae filius albae: Hunc nisi summo demereamur obsequio, nisi titulis insigniamus Honorificis; nisi genua [Page 8] nostra, ad terram usque flectentia, suum illi tribuant vectigal, Jovisque nimbo prolapsi, in gremium ejus involemus, de nobis actum erit, & re prorsus infectâ, erit redeundum.

Alteram vobis dicam non possum non im­pingere,Secundò. quòd cùm animalcula sitis humi reptantia, vespertilionum instar, & noctuarum, ad naturae lumen caligantia: coruscantes tamen divini solis radios, en! au­dacter intuimini; & quasi è secretioribus con­siliis, ipsi Deo famulantes, arcana ejus perscru­tari, & [...], haud detrectatis; Cujus judicia sunt incomprehensibilia, & investi­gabiles viae ejus.

Frustrà in aere quaerimus aquilae volantis vestigia: frustrà in mari, ratis tractus, & se­mitas indagamur; imò, mare ipsum Aspicien­tes nos totum latet—Quaenam—moveat —tam crebros causa meatus. Thales sydera contemplaturus, incidit in foveam, cui anus inclamavit: qua ratione ò Thales! quae in Coe­lis sunt comprehendes, qui ea quae ante pedes videre nequeas? Quorsum igitur, vos Dei gressus, & Circuitus, in ipso cordis sanctua­rio, ad amussim callere jactatis? Quorsum in ipsius spiritus scrinium, claves vestras demit­titis? animarum pulsus, non minori fidu­ciâ [Page 9] tractantes, quàm corporis temperiem, per symptomata, & Crises, Hariolantur medico­rum filii? Adeo vobis patent Coelorum abys­sus. Quae nobis intùs, episcamini facilè, & cor­dium tabulis insculpta (quanquam spiritus sul­cantur stylo) aeque vobis legibilia, ac in ipso frontis meditullio, solisque radió fulgescant singula: Imò gratia non est gratia, nisi vestra mutuaretur suffragia, & authoritatem. Quis conversionem, & [...] sibi ausit ven­dicare? nisi ipsissimum Quando & Quomodo vobis innotescat? vae nobis, si censura vestra esset futuri judicii praejudicium. Tot larvae insernales: tot umbrae: tot fumus Cadavera, si sic staret sententia vestra; sroculos magis propitios, non vobis dederit melior Deus. Si vivisicus ille, & coelestis spiritus, clam vobis irrepserit, vel pectoris angulo delitescens, nos secretiori obumbraret spiramine; eheu! Athei, & Ethnici (Cur non asini caput adorâssè? cur ìn­fantulos etiam devorâsse, non sortiter nos calum­niamini?) non sine convitiorum plaustris à vobis appellamur; sed quis conscientiarum ju­dices, quis [...] vosmet constituit? cum diplomate vestro accincti prodeatis: ve­stros ostentate fasces; sic censuris vestris non assurgemus inviti: sic ne (que) suspecta erit vestra authoritas, nedum contempta: interim pro­prias explorate [...], favete alienis: suam Deo (reticenda scilicet religionis mysteria) permit­tite provinciam. Num vobis solummodò erex­isse [Page 10] scalas, & tot quasi Acesios, in caelum ascen­disse contigit? Paulinum istud paulò attentiùs evolvite, Quis hominum scit quae sunt hominis nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est? & quae Dei sunt, nemo cognovit, nisi spiritus Dei. No­vus ille homo, in cordis utero formatus, quasi Gygis annulo praemunitus, invisibilis ambu­lat: Hunc licet intùs soveamus, sicut & ani­mam; licet motum ejus vitalem persentimus, aliis tamen ostentare,—& dicere hic est— Hic labor, hoc opus est. Quid ni de gratiâ dicendum? quod ille de tempore; si nemo ex me quaerat, scio; si quaerenti explicare velim, nescio.

Miror sanè, & indignabundus stupeo, de vestro literarum contemptu; praeser­tim cum vosmet ipsi,Tertio. scientiarum apices attigisse videamini: satis, heu satis va­pulat, & ubique vilescit artium scientia, nisi malarum: vicatim clamitant nebulones; Ad furcas docti! in cineres redigantur, & favillas, librorum volumina! nil nisi Haeresi [...] sentina, ex Philosophiae lernâ: uberrimae errorum se­getes, ex Musarum fonte ebulliunt: sophistae audiunt, & Circulatores, quotquot patrum monumentis invigilant, & scholasticorum le­ctioni horas impendunt, quanquam succisivas. Quò se ferat lacerata haec, & procellis agitata cohors? ubi reclinabunt capita, ignorantium consputa opprobriis; quibus adhuc cordi sunt, morientes, & steriles literae? en ad vos cater­vatim [Page 11] confugiunt doctrinae alumni: vos Mae­cenates esse, eorum (que) columnas, abundè sibi pro­mittentes: sed hinc etiam oboriuntur lacry­mae, etiam à vobis. Novercatis nimium, & dedecori inter vos cedunt literae: nec emer­gunt facilè, qui dehonestantur artibus; sed si turpe est apud vos, bonas literas colere, prae­stat agnoscere culpam, quàm deprecari: nunc totam eruditionis [...] intra vos oc­clusam velitis, sicut & religionem: nunc ipsi diabolo damnantur affines, qui eruditione in­signes evaserint. Audite Anglicolae! audite ex­teri! sed lugete utrique. Non quidlibet audeo: Hunc ipse appello, & verba sua agnoscat opor­tet, quisquis fuerit, ‘—Inter Socraticos—’

Murus estis; sed qualis est apud prophetam, cui accumbentibus paratus est serpens: sic pessi­mi hominis inimici, sunt ejus domestici. O qua­li tripudio exultet Romana proles, cùm nu­dos nos, & inermes viderit; hisceque orbatos spiculis, quibuscum eorum turmas saepiùs pro­fligavimus; quibus tot edidimus strages; tot reportavimus victorias, & confertissimas eo­rum Aquilas fugantes, veritatem paenè trium­phatam, quasi postliminii jure, liberavimus: Hoc igitur—Ithacus velit, & magni mer­centur Atridae; ut pessùm eant, & opprimantur maximè, qui Quinto illorum lateri gladios suos intorquere essent peritissimi; clypeosque [Page 12] suos eorum ictibus fortissimè opponerent. Pes­simà de Christianâ religione meruit Nero, qui junioribus disciplinam interdixit & literas; ut ignorantiae tenebris & fuligine obvoluti, in bar­bariem remensa vestigia citiùs praecipitarent: sic Mytilenses olim, sociis qui defecerant, ut suppliciorum gravissimum, imposuerunt, in in­scitiâ artium liberalium vitam transigere. O quàm fluctuat Ecclesia! quàm vacillat respub­lica! sine literarum fulcro, & stabilimento. In quantam errorum voraginem immerguntur, quibus doctrinae fundamina desiderantur? Ipsa sacra pagina,Gen. 29. 2, 3. fons est; sed (c) fons Haran, grandi scilicet lapide clau­sus, qui nisi devolvatur, non adaquabit greges. Liber est quidem Scriptura, imò [...], sed obsignatus, sine linguarum, artium, antiqui­tatum peritiâ. Philosophiam perstringit Apo­stolus, Colos. 2. 8. sed vanam, sed Epicuream; quae tollit providentiam, & in deorum nume­rum refert voluptatem; aliter, ad Christum [...]. Efflat scientia, sed non vera (ut idem Cle. Alex.) [...], quae videtur tantùm: quae cerebro solùm su­pernatans, ut illa Gnosticorum, ad cor corri­gendum nunquam descenderit. Procul à me absit, sic in Theologo eruditionem extollere, quasi eodem conatu pietatem deprimere libe­at, sine quâ in doctrinâ, frustrà quaerimus do­ctrinam: nam timor Domini est principium sci­entiae; & ubi vera, & superna sapientia exar­serit, [Page 13] haud aliter à cultu Coelesti, & sanctitate divelli queat, quàm à se invicem Hippocratis Gemelli. Neque religio ulla sine sapientiâ susci­pienda; nec ulla sine religione probanda sapientia. Cum doctis igitur revertimini in gratiam; & quanquam mihi indigno quasi fraterculo, non sine magno meo damno, infensi fueritis, nul­lam vobis intendo litem: nullam peto vindi­ctam: imò, vos valere jubeo; si candore vestro, humilitate & charitate freti, gaudeant alii: si ecclesiae jam Anhelanti sitis Refrigerio; si la­boranti succurratis, & tot veluti Junones Lu­cinae, obstetricantes, feratis opem: nam de Arcâ nutante actum erit: de legitimis Evange­lii ministris conclamatum; si eo, quo coepi­stis, pergatis pede; si pro furfure, & faece Ro­muli habeantur; si pro quisquiliis, & sale in­sulso projiciantur foras, qui sunt in agro do­minico puriores segetes; in domo Dei Colum­nae, stellae (que) in dextrâ ejus fulgentes: praesertim, si blatterones, tyrunculi, [...], & quilibet praecoces adolescentuli sub si­gillo vestro & insignibus tam audacter mili­tent, qui ecclesiae gubernacula tractare mini­mè noverint. Haec enim que sequuntur, tot sunt veluti elementa Theologos vestros con­stituentia: Habiles & idonci concionatores facilè per vos renuntiantur: modò sint inordinati: imberbes juvenes: mediocriter docti: optimè vestiti.

1. Inordinati: ordinum Ecclesiasticorum [Page 14] expertes: sacerdotes sine sacerdotio: dispensa­tores sine clavibus: ne (que) [...]; ne (que) [...] quos ne (que) Timotheus aliquis initiavit, nec [...] aliquod consecravit. His in­quam libentissimè manus apponitis suffragan­tes, & approbatorias; qui manuum impositio­nem nunquam subiêre; in eorumque gremi­um, album adjicitis calculum, qui in mystarum Albo nunquam fuere adscripti. Hinc rauco picarum murmure, hoc est, mechanicorum concionibus inconcin [...]is, ubique crepant Tem­pla; strident rostra: conculcantur Sacramenta, & Altaria fumant contra Altaria. O belli judi­ces! Haeccine in publicum benevolentia? sic Coelum terrâ miscere gestitis? sic contentiosi pulveris nubem pedibus vestris excitare? sic Haereticorum (tot veluti serpentum) spumam: tot errorum zizania in Areâ dominicâ disper­sisse libuit? Haec enim fecistis omnia; dum talia sacientes in sinu fovetis: dum in deliciis habetis maximè, & in ipso Templi pinnaculo collocatis, quos horum omnium canales fuisse & scaturiginem, experti lugemus. Non vos latet, hand malè conjectari aliquos. Originem illum Alexandrinum, tot portentosis scatuisse erroribus, & quia juvenis docuit, & abs (que) pa­trum [...]. Malè igitur per vos respu­untur: malè à tabernaculo, arcentur, quos pa­tres nostri, hoc est, praesules venerandi semel retigere; quasi leprâ nos affecissent, dum manus imponcrent; aut carmine quodam fascinassent, [Page 15] cùm more suo vere paterno, nobis benedice­rent.

2. Imberbes juvenes; qui implumes adhuc, è nido suo, & nutricum brachiis nuper elapsi sunt; qui perdicum instar, ovorum tegumen­tis circumvestiti, vobis accurrunt; & mento­rum primitias, hoc est, lanuginem suam vobis offerunt. His aures utras (que) & ulnas expanditis, qui ex Ephebis nedum excesserunt: qui genas molles & delicatulas vobis ostentant. Adeo [...] estis; balbutientes, & dimidiata ver­ba tentantes, amplexuri. Barba sanè nunquam fecit Theologum; sed jam nocet plurimùm. Reveranda Canities, cui assurgunt Gentes, vo­bis opprobrio: in ea prolapsi sumus tempora, de quibus conquestus est propheta: rationem sacerdotum non habent, senibus non faciunt gra­tiam; Hoc olim grande nefas, & morte pian­dum. Quomodò canales esse poterint, qui con­chae ne unquam fuerint? Sed subtilitatem ve­stram, & mysterium, ad quod collimatis, (adeò diaphanum est) facilè perspexerim: nam Eccle­siam novam estis fundaturi; abjiciendae igitur trabes antiquae, & putridae; seniores scilicet, & qui prioris Templi gloriam intuebantur. Vimi­na. & surculi aedificio vestro optimè inservient, hoc est, adolescentes qui ut rasa tabula, ad dicta­ta vestra suscipienda, & in verba vestra jurare, erunt paratiores; lubrica enim eorum ingenia: Olim igitur Catalina in partes suas juniores pertraxit: plaudite igitur, vos felices fungi, [Page 16] [...]! heri prosani, hodiè sacrorum antistites; nam tales habendi sunt concionato­res, quales habuit Rehoboam consiliarios.

3. Mediocriter docti: Doctores sine doctri­nâ: Theologi sine libris; nisi quos in lucem vosmet edidistis: lectores modesti; qui abeun­tes retrorsum, operuerunt facies suas, ne orientis, vel occidentis ecclesiae patres, pudibundi aspi­cerent:—frange leves calamos, & scinde Tha­lia libellos. Hoc modo, testae recentes erunt, side catholicâ (sanctis semel traditâ) nondum imbuti; nec quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, cognoscentes: eò magis odorum, quos immissuri estis, tenaciores: & in dogmata ve­stra, manibus, pedibus (que) festinabunt velociùs. Sic pictor Praxiteles loco Veneris, adulterae suae imaginem adorandam proposuit. Sic saetus max­imè viriles, in partu ipso, ab obstetricibus Pha­raonicis strangulari jubentur.

4. Optimè vestiti: exuviis undi (que) conductis fulgentes, [...], Calamistris & cin­cinnis ornati: pulvere nescio quo exotico, & sussitibus delibuti—ut matutino sudans Cri­spinus amomo: histrionum instar Attico­rum holobyssini: Hi pallio vestro inauguran­tur: & sine morâ salutantur belli curatores omnium animarum: quasi sancti esse nequeamus, nisi sericati: nec Theologi in Ecclesiâ serendi, nisi ut causidicos, sic nos etiam—purpura ven­dat, &—sulserit annulus ingens. Ignoscite quaeso, si vos imitari hâc ex parte nequeamus: [Page 17] nec despectui habeatis, quibus non licuit esse tam divitibus: nec intumescatis nimium, tur­gidè incedentes, ut oculos nostros perstringa­tis: Hezekiae (boni quidem regis, sed circa vestiaria sua miserè labentis) recordamini. Hoc ipso, ab Ambrosio, in clerum quidam non erat receptus, quod gestus ejus plurimum dedece­ret. Miranda quo (que) Lacedaemoniorum civitas, [...].

Sic penecillo satis obtuso, coloribus tamen suis, Theologum vestrum delineaverim: Gor­gona hanc in quam adeo deperitis, iterum aspicite: umbra est, & praeterea nihil. Sed jam intumescere videmini; jam circa corda vestra sanguis ebullire occipit, quasi ipse scandali Magnatum reus peragar: At inter minas ve­stras, & stigmata, solo conscientiae satellitio stipatus, mihimet erectus plaudo: nam sicut à [...]. Nerone; sic à vo­bis condemnari, non est infame: Adhuc igitur Deo, Ecclesiae, imò vobis ad aras usque—dum spiritus hos regit artus, seipsum animitùs consecrat, & de­vovet