VINDICIAE REVINDICATAE: BEING AN ANSWER TO Mr. Baxters Book, INTITULED, Catholick Communion doubly Defended, by Dr. Owen's Vindicator, and Richard Baxter.

AND Mr. Baxter's Notions OF THE Saints Repentance AND Displeasure in Heaven, Considered.

By a Lover of Truth and Peace, in Sincerity.

Sicut noxium est, si unitas desit bonis; ita Perniciosum est, si sit in malis. Greg. mor. Lib. 33.
Non tam Authoritas in Disputando, quam rationis momenta queren­da sunt. Cicero.

LONDON: Printed by George Larkin at the lower End of Broad-street, next to London-Wall. 1684.



IT is none of the business of this Epistle, to beg thy fa­vourable and indulgent Respects for the Author and his Work; which is almost as beggarly as beg­ing the Question: But least of all to crave that thou wouldest not be so suspicious and severe, as not to take all Citations by which I represent my Author upon my own word, without giving thy self the Trouble, and me the sad Apprehensions of a diligent Scrutineer that will see with his own Eyes

I am not much in love with Apologies in Epistles to the Reader: But if I must in civility treat thee a little that way, it shall be only to tell thee, that if I could have found any particular faults in the following Tract deserving thy Censure before their Printing off; thou shouldest not have found them there. And that I suppose thou wilt read me as a man liable to Mistakes and Passions, of which thy [Page] self art not altogether uncapable; and yet neither nthee nor me to be justified.

As to the Reverend and Learned Author with whom I have here to do, and for whom I have a Veneration for his real worth, and many of his Works sake: I doubt not but he knows how to put a difference betwixt the Liberty of the Pulpit and the Press; and the Countenance of a Comple­ment, and a Controversy. If this have somewhat in the manner that is almost necessary to ease my weariness in writing, and thine in reading it, and I do a little indul­gere genio, pardon me this wrong.

I intended to have joyned with this Tract, my thoughts of Mr. Baxters Notions of a Parochial Assembly, being a particular Church organical of Divine Institution, inde­pendant on the Diocesan; and as such to be Communicated with. But this I have reserved for a Tract by it self, and 'til I have seen Mr. Baxters Answer (which I hear is in the Press) to a Book intituled, Mr. Baxters Judg­ment and Reasons, &c. which hath matter in it worthy perusal, relating to the same Argument.

ERRATA. Page 9. l. 25. read in the Pew. p. 9. l. 36. read may go to. p. 17. l. 8. read may not be said. p. 31 & 32. for 5th dispute, read 5 Disputations.

AN ANSVVER TO Mr. Baxters Book, INTITULED, Catholick Communion doubly Defended, by Dr. Owens Vindicator, and Richard Baxter.

SECT. I. No Consent of Dr. Owens Vindicator to the Catholick Communion defended by Mr. Baxter.

Reverend Sir,

I Having read your answer to a Book, Intituled, A VINDI­CATION of the late Dr. Owen, &c. though I am not over strongly addicted to the Scribling Humour; yet (Con­sidering all Circumstances according to my small Prudentials) I was determined (after some Hesitations) to a publick reply. And some Passages in your Answer, look as if you expected it.

The Title of your book in the Frontispiece, Scil. CATHO­LICK [Page 2]COMMƲNION DOƲBLY DEFENDED, BY DR. OWENS VINDICATOR, AND RICHARD BAXTER: has so much of Riddle in it, that, I confess, I am not the Oedipus who can reconcile it: Nor did that manner of [...]ign at the door, direct me to look for an Answer (much less a [...]ontroversial Answer) to my Vindication, as the Entertainment [...]thin. But however Singular you have been in mis-matching the [...]le, and the Book; Mr. Baxter, and Dr. Owens Vindicator as [...]o-authors: I shall digest them as they come to hand, as well as I can. And in the mean time, You might hold me excused, if I should in my Title have followed so great an Example; only that it be with somewhat more of Congruity. But I am not dis­posed to make my Reader gaze at such an unusual Spectacle.

I have Sir, no light Quibling Design in this Reply, nor to put Tricks upon a Person I so much Reverence, and in a cause so serious. Nor did I expect from the Gravity, and Sincerity of Mr. Baxter, such a stumble at the Threshold.

CATHOLICK COMMƲNION are two great words, and in pl [...]in downright Construction, are the epitomy of two Ar­ticles of our Christian Creed, the Holy Catholick Church, and the Communion of Saints. And were you as plainly to be understood, I must acknowledge that, in Intituling me to the defence of it, you put an honour upon me, which I am more ambitious, than capa­ble of deserving.

But 'tis a hard Case, that while we agree herein, and applaud the terms Catholick Communion; when you explain your sence (I think at least that) it goes beyond Catholick Communion: tho' that seem a contradiction in adjecto by excess, as Roman Catholick by defect.

For the genuine sence of Communion, I leave to you, and Dr. Sherlock to beat out, after such a dust raised, wherein 'tis vanished out of sight. I wish you had treated him more calmly, it would have been never the less Christian, or promotive of Catholick Com­munion; But the Catholicism of our Communion, you will needs have extending to an actual pressential joyning with the Parochial Assemblies, in their Worship by the Lyturgy; the Office of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper included: yet, not according to [Page 3]the National, Diocesan Constitution, established by Law, but as with a particular, divnely instituted, and compleat Church, independant on the Diocesan. I am sure Sir, that the defence of such a Catholick Communion, was none of my intention; and I am as sure, that you find no such sence in my expressions. But if I must be for a while a fel [...] de se, and represented as one, who under the pretence of vindicating Dr. Owen, have betrayed the cause I pretended to defend, by siding with his opposite in the very Case Controverted; a little patience will discover another scene, wherein Mr. Baxter and the Vindicator will appear as if Mr. Baxter had forgotten his Ti­tle, and had a priviledge to dispose of me according to his present fancy.

Having gotten over your general Title, I have the prospect of another, which seems to be restrained to your first section. And it is, The Consent of Dr. Owens Vindicator to the Catholick Communi­on defended by Richard Baxter.

Here Sir you make a very hopeful abatement of what you stood upon in your general Title, there you will have me defend, here you come down to Consent. This is at least half a retractation at the next word; yet when I have examined what you have to shew for the latter, it will appear to be a meer ungrounded Chimaera.

You are pleased to distribute the matter of my Book under four heads. I shall pass by the first at present, and consider the second as most proper for me to do in this place; and that you word thus.

II. Your Consent to the main of the Cause which I defend, and your dissent from the persons whose words I confute: of this I shall thank­fully take notice. Here is not Assent and Consent, but Consent and Dissent. The last was certainly not Argumentandi, but ornandi gratia; for if I consent to what you defend, I must needs dissent so far from what you Confute; but in fine, it will be neither the one, nor the other in what you express. Yet I must observe how the Market falls from defend, to Consent to the Catholick Communion, defended by Richard Baxter. And now 'tis come to Consent to the main of the Cause which you defend. Yet Sir, though I take no pleasure in difference, and contradiction; I fear 'tis not yet an agreement.

Of this Consent you say you shall thankfully take notice, and accordingly in a few words following, you thank me again and a­gain, [Page 4]for the particulars of my aforesaid Concession, or Consent. But worthy Sir, considering how courtly and friendly you have committed a rape upon my sence and words; and then come off so handsome, and smoothly with thanks for my Consent: I call to mind a much parallel Case, in the History of the Council of Trent, by Fryar Paul the Venetian (mihi) page 322. Lib. 4.

Christopher Strassen one of the Ambassadours from the Elector of Branderburg, a Protestant Prince, to the Council of Trent; made a long Oration, shewing the good affection and reverence of his Prince toward the Fathers: without declaring what his opinion was in point of Religion. The Synod answered, (that is the Speaker in its name) That it heard with great Content, the Embassadours discourse, espe­cially in that part, where that Prince doth submit himself to the Council, and promiseth to observe the Decrees.—

The answer which the Council gave was much marvelled at, in re­gard of the fair and advantagious manner of Contracting, pretending ten thousand by vertue of the promise, when the bargain was but of ten; for there was no more proportion than between these two numbers, in the reverence promised by the Elector, and the obedience pretended by the Synod to be given. It was replyed for defence, That the Council did not regard what was, but what should have been said. And that this is an usual and pious allurement of the Holy Church of Rome; which yielding to the infirmity of her Children, maketh shew to believe that they have performed their duty.

Now to your proofs page 1. you say, That you thank me that I say page 3. I do not pretend (in what follows) to maintain against you, that it is unlawful to use a Form of Prayer, or comply with an imposed Lyturgy, or under some Circumstances, to joyn in the use of ou [...] [...]. Neither shall I undertake to justify altogether the Twelve Arguments you have Printed as Dr. Owens, in order to refu­ting them.

I pray Sir compare your premises, with your Conclusion. I do not in such a Book maintain such and such things against you; Ergo I Consent to them, I defend them. I can tell you where you have resented such a gross fallacy against your self very highly. And unless you winked hard, and very opportunely; you could not but see in my Book such other reasons given for my not maintain­ing those things against you in that Book, as would have more then sufficiently have prevented, or cured you of such a mistake. [Page 5]And you cannot but know that they were in the midst between those words you cite. For you left out seven lines containing those reasons, and then patched together what went before, and what fol­lowed after the said reasons, immediately as if it had been my continued discourse. But whatever my Sentiments be of the above-said; I shall hardly declare my assent, and consent to all of them, or the rest of their fellows; 'till it be to better purpose, or by the temptation of a Benesice.

You say also in the same page, that you are pleased with my exposition of the Doctors words, and that upon the account of my restrictions of their sence. I have no reason to be displeased with this: yet I think it very sit for me to say that they will not bear the improvement you make of them, scil. I only here desire the men and women that have been with me, and profest that they thought the Doctors Arguments unanswerable against the lawfulness of joyning in the use of the Liturgy, to take notice of what his worthy Vindicator saith.

Sir I must desire those persons to take notice also, of what I have said, that you think not fit to repeat; and they will find my sence of another Countenance. Some People will take the meer Title Page of some answers for a sufficient determination, others will look only into the Answerer, and it may be no further than a few pages or passages. If such be mistaken, let them thank themselves; I see 'tis necessary to look into what both Parties say, let them be who they will: if a Baxter, and some other men of fame so far mistake.

But so far as your last passage cited, is grounded upon the re­striction; I put on the sense of the said Doctors Position; It is so far from warranted thereby, that it is greatly weakned. For if that Position, and the Arguments be taken with those restrictions I said may be put upon them, they are much the more unanswera­ble for that.

You say, page 3 But I think ten to one of the people commonly account­ed Dissenters throughout England are of my mind, and are for Parish-Worship rather than either none, or worse. But by Dissenters I sup­pose you mean those of the Doctors mind, or your own. I believe Sir, notwithstanding your thanks for my Charity and Reconciliation, you give in the next words, your Censure is too hard, and uncha­ritable, of those of the Doctors mind, and mine. I cannot ima­gine [Page 6]they should be so atheistieally or maliciously disposed as to chuse no worship or worse (all circumstances considered) rather than that of the Parish. If any adhere to a worse rather than that by mistake: I cannot call that their Choice. Dear Sir, I wish also you would either use more Accuracy your self (especially in the case of Censures) or sorbear exacting it from others, under the penal­ty of I know not how many distinctions, to discover their confu­sion; though they are well enough understood by the willing. I beseech you Sir, who can tell what you mean by Parish-Worship? If all Parish Worship, I believe you are not for it your self rather than none pro hic & nunc, Scil. the faults (you say) are in the Lyturgy, and more especially in the Offices of Baptism and Burial, the bowing at the pronouncing the word Jesus, and toward the Al­tar, or the East. If of some part of the Parish Worship, I am sure they are not of my mind, or the Doctors either, that will ra­ther have none than that, Scil. reading the Scriptures Preaching, Prayer, Singing Psalms. And the Doctor was for Church Wor­ship too (you know) though not for ringing a Bell to proclaim where) whatever it cost. And you do not say rather than none more publick or private not Parochial locally, but simply none; which excludes not only family with four added, but single solita­ry worship; and all these ad semper ex parte post. Yet thus roughly am I and the Dissenters of my mind represented, as contradistin­guished from those of yours, if I take you at the worst your expres­sions will bear, which I am far from, though they insinuate a great deal too much.

But now we are come to what I told you near the beginning of this Reply; What is become of my Consent to, and Defence of the Catholick Communion defended by Richard Baxter in the Titles? Why, this Consent, and united Defence is come to this, in the very same Case, and in the main of it, Mr. Baxter and ten to one, &c. are of one mind, and the Doctor and I of another.

Page 3. you repeat a passage of min [...] thus, and you add page 30. And if (as you allow) the practical determination depends on the Circumstances of the persons. you reduce the controversy to a far nar­rower room than was by most supposed: And every one being best capa­ble of understanding his own Circumstances, it will not bear great heat and importunity from another.

From hence you interrogate, But whence cometh those wrong sup­positions [Page 7]of the most) if after twenty years Communion with the Parish-Churches, I venture on the Censorious so far, as to give my reasons for my own practice, and defend those reasons, and that practice against contrary writings? And such wise men as you are so reconcileable, and see how narrow the Controversy is; Whence comes it that most think it to be what it is not, against such frequent plain expressions? You and I may conjecture at the cause.

I must acknowledge, and I do it freely, which is more than you had in the Vindication, That I do not hold that worshiping God by a form of Prayer is simply unlawful, for the Reasons I menti­oned, pag. 25. so that you and I differ not here in Thesi. And I also declare it my Judgment that those who differ from one ano­ther (in the cases controverted) ought not to deal out bitter Censures and Reflections for that cause: but to maintain brotherly Love, and Evangelical Peace; yea, and Church Communion too, so far as it may be without sinful Terms, or notorious Scandal, or what is rationally suspected to be such. And I am so far from these heats and importunities, that (whatever my sence of your pra­ctice may be) I have been thought, and said to be a kind of an in­different Luke-warm Person (if not of your mind) for Contra­dicting, and endeavouring to cure a bitter, and over-hot Censori­ousness. But Dear Sir, I beg your Excuse if I answer your Que­stion as well as I can, I am not dainty to affirm, that all sides are too guilty of Partiality, and over-doing. And you have less reason to blame those who think the differences very wide and weighty, and much greater then you sometimes render it, (For there is a great deal of difference between your High-water, and low-wa­ter-mark) when they see you so much concerned not only to de­fend your own practice, but to reduce others to it; and condemn those who dissent from you as no mean Malefactors, stigmatize them as Separates, such as unchurch all but themselves, proud Igno­rants, and very bitter Contemptuous Language; as if with Hanni­bal your passage must be made, though with Fire and Vinegar. Indeed Sir, your Style is too hard, and heavy for fine work. Love, Reconciliation, and Peace, must be fished for with a Calm, not a Storm. What you say, page 32. Humility and Love would conquer: all the World, is what I have said often, and thought a Thousand times. It were happy if such Notions were practiced by all that seriously profess Godliness, whether they are high or low in outward Tranquility: this would Represent Christianity in its [Page 8]proper Colours, and turn the Churches shame, into the true Glo­ry of Grace, and Peaceableness.

SECT. II. Mr. Baxter hath not proved the Charge of Errors on Dr. Owen, alias the Manuscript, sufficiently.

I Shall next Consider what you say, to render my Confutation of your Charge of certain Errors on the Doctor, insufficient sup­posing the Manuscript to be his, as you Printed it.

My Construction, and Sense of the Position you dispute not, but are well satisfied with Expresly.

Page 2. You repeat the first Error Charged on the Doctor, but (I thank you) you have here reduc'd the said Error to the words and sence of the Mistake, though not the Order, and 'tis, It is not in our Power to make use of any part of it, [the Lyturgy you mean] as we shall think fit. You add, and I maintain that, though man hath not put that in our Power, God hath put it in our power to joyn in the good part of tollerable Worship, without owning the Faults, (or else we must joyn with none) you deny not this, page 27. but say, that he meant it of mans mans giving us Power, (which I never denyed) but it is God that we serve.

Answ. But if he meant and said it too of the Power or Liber­ty given by man; and I proved it, and consequently, that the first Error you charged him withal was without ground, and your far­ther discourse not to the question, as I told you, page 27. I had what I pretended to.

But now you insist on what you say you maintained, and say I denyed not that. But Sir, this is another Province. And Reader, if the Reverend Author mistakes as to what he now saith he there maintained, and in saying I denyed not the sense he gives here, I beg his and your pardon, if I transcribe more then I am other­wise willing: and I shall do it fully Word for Word.

I cannot think he bears himself upon saying I denyed it not [Page 9]page 27. It is all one if I denyed it page 28. which I did, if there where any thing like the sence he intimates; as for the words they are not in the Book I answered.

He saith Page 7. in his Answer to the Manuscript, Though man gives us no such pòwer, God doth; as it is in my power to believe all that one speaketh truly and well, and not that which he speaketh amiss. I am not bound to own all that any Preacher or Priest shall say in the Church; God put it into the Disciples power, to beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees, and yet to hear them. Proving all things, is not ap­proving all things.

What is in all this of joyning in the good part of publick tollerable Worship by a Lyturgy? And how he maintained it by these Argu­ments, which are nihil ad Rombum, I cannot imagine, and think my Reader as little.

The first instance, As it is in my power to believe all that one saith truly and well, and not the contrary. I am sure it is not very sound as expressed, for our power is far short of this; we have not such comprehensive understandings, but our belief may be impo­sed on inevitably by falsehoods, in the appearances of truth; else our errors were much more culpable then sometimes they are. And I thought we had been disputing of actual joyning in Worship, and not of hearing any assertory Discourse.

The second instance, of what a Preacher or Priest shall say in the Church, we are not bound to own all that. Do you mean Sir, in Preaching or Praying in the Pulpit, or the Reading Pew? 'Tis all in the Church, and 'tis all saying. I am herein of your mind Sir; but if you intend it of the Liturgy read there, 'tis but idem per idem; it is in your power or liberty not to joyn in all, because you are not bound to joyn in all. You will not take such Logick for good Coin from an Antagonist.

Third Instance, God put it in the Disciples power to beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees, and yet to hear them. This the Text tells you plainly to be mean of their false Doctrine they Preached, not of their Liturgy for Prayer and Praise; and you say, Christ bid hear them; would you have us go to the Liturgy only to hear it, or only as we should go to a Sermon? and not worship by it? And if we may take your own opinion in the matter, 'tis doubt­ful whether they had any Liturgy; or if they had, it was a Scrip­ture one; certainly here was no bad leaven in that. But of this more hereafter.

[Page 10]Your 4th Argument or Instance, Proving all things, is not approving all things, is ejusdem sarinae, and deviates from the question toto Caelo. Though proving of pretended truth, brought into the Church, be a duty; and holding fish that which is good, is to be the conse­quent practice: Yet Sir, this concerns primarily the Credenda. But suppose it reach also to the facienda; it is as little to the pur­pose. For a stinted Printed Published Liturgy, may and ought to be proved before it be used in Worship, and not like Sauls Armour clapt on Davids back to sight in before he had proved it. Cer­tainly Sir, you would not have people attend to the Worship by the Liturgy, in the Parish Assembly, and instead of having their af­fections and devotions stirred up, and carried on to God by the Liturgy, to be putting the scruple to their Consciences, whether they are Praying or Sinning. This proof should be made before they come there, which they may do at home when they have no­thing else to do, and not remain a matter of doubt when it might before hand have been put out of doubt. I hope, nay I am sure, that you approve not the practice of many Ministers, who gave their assent and consent to the Liturgy on black Barth. (a day to be remembred) before ever they had seen so much as the first leaf of it; nor could, because it came not out time enough. This pro­ving before using in Worship, you commended once as an advan­tage of a stinted form, which Ministerial, conceived, extempore Prayer hath not, but that's forgotten here.

‘In the same page, and next words you add; You say, when men pray, they bid us pray—In extempore Prayer, both are requi­red to what is good;’ and then reply, True: And I may joyn with the good of an extempore Prayer, without owning any evil in it.

Answ. This is Alexander-like; cut the knot you cannot, or will not untie. Rather than allow me to speak argument or sence; you will mangle a sentence so, as I never met with any do the like before, I mean a good man and a good Schollar. When men pray, they bid us pray, what then? in extempore Prayer, both are requir­ed to what is good; both what? I assure you Reader, my Author will not help you to make it sence, if you rifle over his whole answer for it. But seeing my whole sentence is but short, take it intire to a letter as my Author had it in my Book. ‘When men Preach, they bid us hear, and the ear tri [...]s words: but when they pray, they bid us pray. And by the Liturgy our Amen is required, and [Page 11]not our Opinion or Scrutiny: In extempore Prayer both are re­quired to what is good;’ Now I will trust my Reader to find out the sence and the reason too. And though I can forgive my Au­thor a thousand such wrongs, I must not excuse them. As to my Authors reply, 'tis by Concession True; and by repetition of what was to be proved, which is instar nihilli. Now to my Author again.

In the next lines you say, indeed you say page 28. [‘The Mass is not more twisted in all the parts of it by Law, than the Litur­gy; nor left less to our power to pick and chuse. If this union do render the far greater pollutions, the Heresy and Idolatry of the Mass infections to the whole Worship: who can prove that the pollutions of other worship, when we are likewise commanded not to distinguish, or divide; doth not in their degree and kind, diffuse the taint alike.]

I thank you Sir, for quoting thus much fairly, which yet seems to come not very freely; yet a good part of the Argument is left behind, and I shall take leave to add a snip of it more, which fol­lows in the very next words [‘Mental dividing or culling by secret disapprobation, and not joyning in our hearts, is all you pretend to; unless you did allow (which you do not determine) Mr. Humphrey Fens manner to say a loud Amen to every Prayer of the Liturgy, except the Prayer for the Bishops, and to that to dis­sent by a singular silence.’] Now Sir, instead of answering my ar­guments, you fall to making a Profession what you will do in seve­ral cases; but at last you venture to say, It is not the Conjunction, but the kind of the thing that maketh it unlawful.

Do you not here roul Sis [...]phus's stone? The Argument returns upon you again [‘There are good things in the Mass, yea, good Prayers directed to God only by Jesus Christ’] shall we therefore go to Mass, and fall a picking and culling in our minds, and all is well?

You tell us not what kind of things in Conjunction make it un­lawful, although I put you upon it page 29. of my Vindication in these words (but I did but surdo narrare) ‘Nor have you pro­ved that no other sin but Idolatry and Heresy may justifie refu­sing to worship by the Mass; nor that far less sins than they may not do it: Nor that the Liturgy hath not (some way or other) such sin cleaving to it,’ as is like the Leprosy, that could not be scraped, washed, or fired ou [...].

[Page 12]Now Sir, I pray speak out; and give us leave to go to Mass, (if that be required, and the Church of England should comply with it (which God forbid) with your mental distinctions; or tell us what sins twisted and mingled with a Worship may render joyning therewith unlawful.

But to be more faithful to your reasonings, than you have been to mine; I shall recite, and examine them without picking and culling at all; much less to your disadvantage; only I shall tell my Reader by the way, that amongst all your superabundart di­stinctions, you give us not one that will include the kinds of the things joyned in a mode of worship, that make it unlawful to be u­sed, exclusive of those which do not, or that look like it; and so you leave us as you found us. Let us examine what you have done; 'tis in page 2.

Answ. God is the master of his Worship; very right! And 'twere well if there were no more. I do what he bids me, though man contradict it. This is much better, because practical. But shall we take it for an answer to my argument? (as you call it) your answer is of doing what God bids you, tho man contradict it: the question is, of doing what man commands, mixed inseparably with what God contradicts. Take it at the best as to the question, it is but this: I will go to Liturgy, to Mass (for that is the question) and joyn in that part which God requires (let it be mixed with what it will) whatever men say to the contrary. This is the plain sence of your answer. But I believe far better things of you; you explain your self thus.

If God bid me hear, and believe the Scriptures, and man say hear also, and believe the Apocrypha. I will openly profess I obey God, and you no further than you contradict not God. All this is good, but not in this place, because impertinent. What are we the wiser for it? What is that to the question? What you will profess in such a case? Tell us what you will do, in the case before us, and give us a reason for't too. What man that would but be thought to fear God, would not profess such a general dangerless Profession in high Change, in a Popish Countrey? Yet he will hardly merit the Chair in this debate, for such a resolution.

You proceed, Rather than not hear the Scriptures, I will hear also the Apocripha, but not believe it to be Gods Word. But if they bid me hear the Alcoram also, I will withdraw.

[Page 13] Answ. What this is to the Purpose, I cannot tell. If you will do this, and much more; the Question stands just where it did, excepting only the Authority of your inclination or Example. But if the Rectitude of what you say you will, and will not, may be exa­mined, I may ask you,

  • 1. What necessity there is, that you should hear the Apocrypha, or not hear the Scripture?
  • 2. Whether you mean that you will rather hear the Apocrypha read, as a part of Gods Worship, rather than forbear to hear the Scripture read, with other Concommitants in the Lyturgy, at the same time, and place?
  • 3. Though in the mean time, you believe not the Apocrypha to be Gods Word: Do you believe that 'tis not intended it should be believed to be Gods Word? or insinuated to be so?
  • 4. If any other writing, no more Gods word than the Apochry­pha, and containing matter as lyable to Exception, and standing as Candidates for the honour of Gods word; should be joyned to the Scripture, and read just in the manner as they are, bearing their part in Gods Worship. (for Instance, The works of Seneca History of the Nine Worthies, Popish Legenda, of their Saints Miracles, Aesops Fables,) Would you rather joyn in this Wor­ship, with your mental Reservations and Distinctions, then forbear or with-draw?
  • Lastly, If there be not some, yea many things in the Alcoran, as true, and as good as many things in the Apocrypha? And not many things more false and worse in the Alcoran, than some things in the Apochrypha?

And if the Books fore-mentioned, may not claim a Parity? Ju­dith, Bet and the Dragon, Tobit, with the History, Legends, and Fables? When all these Queries are resolved, which stand as fair for your Embraces as what you assent unto, we may the better understand you, but not the Question.

Next you say somewhat in room of a Proof, That it is not the Conjunction, but the kind of the thing that maketh it [the Worship] unlawful, viz. An honest weak man, an Antinomian, an Anabaptist, a Presbyterian, or whoever you dissent from in tollerable cases, may mix his opinion, and faulty Expressions and Methods with his Prayer and Scrmen; as intimately as evil is mixt in the Moss; and yet you will not refuse Communion with him.

[Page 14] Answ. All you aim at by this, is but argumentum ad hominem, and such a one too, as is but a facto ad jus: but here is neither. The Case with that in Question is, impar & Congressus. 'Tis true, if what yo [...] say of me here be true; that I do not reject Commu­nion for such kind of Faults in the Administrator of the Worship and his Administration: and I will allow you that as easily, as that a man must not put away his Wife for every fault: But yet I must add, that you put the Case ill, and strain it off the Tenters, to make it reach yours. For, there may be such faults mixed, doth not reach to there is, there must be, there shall be such faults; which you know is said of the Lyturgy, by them you oppose. A­gain, the faults in a Sermon are not ad rem, much less ad idem.

Nor are they that concern the more direct Worship, as Prayer and Praises, as intimately mixt as in the Mass; which you please to instance in to make the worst on't, or our Lyturgy either, as to what faults are in the matter; for they are not imposed on us to hear and worship by, either by Law, nor as necessary terms of Communion, nor are they all justified as no faults, nor are they bound to commit them by Law, nor are they known to us before we joyn, that such faults will be; (except what common infirmities may infer) nor are they perpetuated by a Law, nor is it a Crime, much less a Penal, a capital one, to Reform them, to advise of, yea reprove them for such faults. (Except the Errors of Opinion) they are confessed to be faults particularly, be wailed as their Sin and Burden. And they pray and endeavour to do their work for matter and man­ner of Expression with greater Perfection: This may be said of the honest that yet are E [...]on [...]ous and weak. But tell me of one of our Ministers of the Lyturgy that doth, or dare make publick Confession, of one fault in matter or form in the Lyturgy; and pray to God to Reform it, and help them to do it better? or where doth the Lyturgy direct o [...] such a Confession and Prayer? And yet [...] the whole of necessary legal Ministry, with one of the Homilies added once in a long while.

But Sir, you might have remembred what I said, ‘Page 29. (but it was not for your turn) There is no Pari [...]y in a Word or Sentence, exceptionable in a Conceived Prayer extempore, with the Lyturgy in its intire form, with all known or doubtful Circumstances. Many may be sound who in Conceived extem­pore Prayer, do not pollute them with failings in the matter; [Page 15]and others that have Errors in their minds, do not put them into the Words of their Prayers.’ So that Communion with these more able Orthodox men, is nothing so dangerous, nor lyable to your Re­crimination.

There remains one thing more, in which you sum up your sence of you Argumentations in this Paragraph, and it is by a Similitude which proves nothing. But if it may help us to understand your meaning, I will not Envy my Reader the sight of it. It is lawful (say you) to drink beer that hath bad water mixt, rather than none: But not to drink that which hath Poyson equally mixt.

Answ. Here is a Ratherism, and a down-right Negative. The first (if I can understand you) is meant of our Lyturgy, the latter of the Popish Mass. But to follow your Similitude, must one of these be our Election? must we take this bad mixture, or not drink at all, and consequently die of a sullen Humour, or a Pal­late more nice than wise? You can tell a better way than either; and that is, to drink that which is more pure, wholsom, and relishable, if it may be had for Love or Money. And you believe Sir, they may have better that will but go to the Cost on't, though sometimes you express Peters pity, Be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee, Mat. 16.23. And you know what thanks he had for it from his Master.

For the latter, you are more out, or more short, or both. It is not lawful to drink that which hath Poyson equally mixt: you are more out, because 'tis less to the Purpose. Remember Sir, you are pro­ving that 'tis the the kind that's in Conjunction, which makes the Worship unlawful; and now you are come from the quale to the quantum; and in truth to both: Poyson, the quale, equally mixt, the quantum.

If I said also that 'tis more short, 'tis proveable enough; for should we take no better heed, than to your Direction, we were in the Eyes of all Men (and your own too, when you look on this Passage again) utterly undone. May we drink Poyson, so there be not full as much Poyson as better Liquor in the Draught; or any Poyson at all? I know Sir, though you have [...]o [...]ded it thus unhap­pily, your meaning is still; we may go to the Lyturgy, rather then to the Mass. And I am so far of your mind, but as to what you have yet said, res [...]at Probandum.

You proceed and say, To page 29. of my Vindication, I think if [Page 16]a Turk pray against Idolatry, Murder, &c. that Prayer is materially good; But as to goodness from a holy Principle, no Hypocrites is good. You had said in your Answer to the Manuscript, page 7. Heathens and Turks have good Prayers, but may we joyn with them? you have not told us why not; but only in Case of their being twisted with such Heresie and Idolatry. ‘But I had denyed Heathens and Turks having good Prayers, because without Faith in Christ, though they may be Prayers for some good thing.’ This Doct­rine you cannot bear, it being in Contradiction to what had past the Warranty of your Pen; but you will bring it over to another Tryal, and you will say they may be materially good; I said so be­fore, but that does not so well like you; but being for the matter good, they must be good Prayers.

I will put you a few Cases, to see how your Rule looks. Suppose a man utter the matter of a good Petition in Sport, or Derision of Religion, as has been sometimes in Playes; are they good Prayers? Conjuring shall have good Prayers too, by this Rule; for sometimes it contains some matter of Petition for good. The Heathen prayed to Bacchus for a good Vintage, to Ceres for a good Harvest; The matter of their Prayers were good, though directed to Idols; but by your Rule these are to be justified as good Prayers. How dear is self defence! that will not permit an Eminent Christian Divine, to allow that there can be no good Prayers with­out Faith in Christ, but it must be distinguished out of doors, to save the Turks and Heathens good Prayers; because he had unad­visedly said, they had good Prayers.

You Conclude this Argument saying, The Insufficiency of my An­swer you no way manifest, 'till you prove that I must joyn with all that is in publick Worship, or with none. If so, your Answer is unan­swerable; but though I attempt no such impossible things, I will be content to stand to the Readers Judgment (that doth not allow a name to weigh too much) if your Answer be not apparently insufficient.

Yet Sir, beside what I have already said to difference the faults of the Worship I have described; and that other Worship you will bring under the same difficulty; I will add, that where Worship is according to Divine Institution. (which doth not suppose them obliged by it to be Angels, but men, men subject to Infirmities) And these men do Profess so far as they have attained, to walk by [Page 17]the rule of Gods Word, and to reform, and rise to a nearer Confor­mity to the Divine Rule, as they shall be able to understand it: And their Worship contains nothing in it, either by excess or defect, which excludes the Essentials of Christian Worship, accept­able to God through Christ, when tendred in Sincerity. I believe these may be joyned with, without partaking with their Sins in Worship; while I am not immediately guilty of the same Sins. This may be said of the fore-described? And worthy Sir, I know not by what other medium to set up a Fence against the most polluted Worship in the World, that hath somewhat good in it, and pre­tending God the Object. When Temptation is at the door, meer mental Distinctions will undo all, and betray Religion Peice-meal. If you, or any other can instruct me better, I shall be thankful for it. In the mean time, I am well content with what I have said.

SECT. III. The Remains of what Mr. Baxter saith in his Defence, against my Discharge of Dr. Owens pretended Er­rors, Considered.

SIR, The Doctor, so far as concerned in the first Error by you charged on him, being after so large an Encounter Revindicated. You making me little to do, and next to nothing, about all the rest, you have spared me much farther travail in that Province. I hear no more of your Proof of the other seven or eight which I defended, to be the Doctors Errors, or any Bodies else, except in two Passa­ges, which I shall also Consider.

You say, page 27. Some other Practical Doctrines we differ about, as where you report me to say, Page 30. [I doubt not to affirm, that doing that which a Law requires, so far as the Intention is moved by the Law, is a justifying of it. And submitting to any Law, upon the Consideration of its Penalties, is so far a justify­ing [Page 18]its preceptive part, as not so great an Evil as its Penal.]’

These two Sentences, you charge with two faults. The first of a Defect in Limitation, the second of a Defect in Limitation and Distinction.

These Sir, (if just) are a great Abatement of that bad Counte­nance you put upon the supposed Error (which I defend) in your Answer to the Manuscript, Page 7. viz. That our Communion justi­fieth all the Laws that impose the Lyturgy; yea the Penal Severities: This is too gross an Error to be defended, with any shew of Proof.

Before you fall to the Proof of my foresaid Defects in the De­fence, you except against another Passage of mine in your Way; which I shall take out of the way, before I deal with the others: 'tis this, ['None that I know of say it, [Communion in the Ly­turgy] is a Duty simply, or without any Dependance on humane Sanction.] Your Design in this exception seems to me, to prevent or sence your self against such Objections as might be made against your own Practice, which was not to hold this Communion, when the Sanction of the Law lay (at least) asleep. But Reverend Sir, if that be it; I shall lay, that 'tis little my Business, or inclination to Censure, or judge my Brother in doubtful Controverted mat­ters. To his own Master he standeth or salleth.

Had you told me of any one Person, Author or other, that says 'tis a Duty simply, it had been somewhat like a Conviction of my saying to be culpable: But all you say, is what your self have said, and practiced, which no way Contradicts me neither. You say, I have largely told you, that I take it to to be a Duty to hold such Com­munion where no better at least is;—And that it is in Obedience to Gods Commands, more than mens, that I have gone to the Parish-Churches; And would have gone as much if the Law had not Commanded it, but only deprived me of better. But Sir, is that a Duty simply conside­red, that is obliged to, only by that great strait, no better is to be had; Worship God thus, or not at all? Or is that no Dependance on humane Sanction, which depends not only on the Laws (not forbidding) but depriving you of better? I think the Sanction of the Law goes a great way, where it not only commands, but actu­ally and effectually destroyes all other ways, but that which it pre­scribes. I wonder none of our modern wits and men of the times, in Press or Pulpit, have ever yet found in their hearts to say? that 'tis simply a Duty, and thereby we are obliged to it in. [Page 19]Conscience toward God, without the medium of the Magistrates Command or Compulsion. Little we hear from them but Law, Law, Jupiter & Fulmina. You might have spared me, and your self this Trouble, had you not been offended at your own Shadow.

Now for my defective Limitation, you say; But as to your un­doubted Affirmation, I am as much post doubt that it is not true, as you unlimitedly express it. The intention may be moved by a Law for the Effects or Consequents sake; and not justifie the Law, but on­ly justifie the Act of the Subject. Yea it may be moved by the formal Authority of the Lawgiver, exprest by the Law; and yet not justifie the Law.

Answ. How happily have I sped in this Argument! to have no­thing Objected but a little waist of Accuracy, which the best wri­ter may sometimes be charged with.

Truly Sir, when I wrote what you so confidently Contradict, un­less I had limited it: I did not think of a Lecture of Juris-prudence. I wrote that which concerned Common people to understand; and I doubt not st [...]ll to say, that I wrote Common Sence, and I was very well understood, though I did not trouble them with f [...]rther Limi­tations. But Sir, was not that a Limitation sufficient, [So far as the Intention is moved by the Law.] But you teach me that the Intent may be moved by a Law, for the Effects or Consequents sake, and not justifie the Law. I assure you Sir, I have rubbed my morn­ing Eyes, and cannot yet see the Defect.

I say, that if the intention he moved by the Effects or Conse­quents, as such, (simply as such) though the Law be the Occasi­on, the Intention is not moved by the Law at all. For such an In­tention would not be moved by a Law Considered without those Effects and Consequents; and it would be moved with those Ef­fects and Consequents, though they had no Relation to a Law at all. Therefore your arguing from the Intention moved by the Effects and Consequents, as not sufficient to justifie the Law, is but making an Argument of your own to confute instead of mine. But let us try if your instances will give more light.

Joseph and Mary were taxed with others, by August us Law; they were moved by that Law, and its Effects to pay the Tax: yet justified not the Law.

Answ. All you can prove is, that they paid the Tax, the mere matter of Fact: The Text speaks nothing (and therefore you can [Page 20] prove nothing) of their Intention, or by what it was moved. A­gain, The Israelites might they the Philistines that forbad them Smiths and Swords, &c. How prove you that? and if you prove it, what follows, but an All-significant, or an insignificant & Catera? A­gain, When Christ sent Peter to take a Fish, with Money in his mouth, and pay Tribute; the Law moved his Intention, because of the Offence that would follow the breaking of it: and yet his Answer intimateth that he justified not the Law. Indeed Sir, I wonder at your impo­sing, as if I and your Readers had not read the Scripture, nor were Masters of a grain of Sence. The Scripture saith plainly, that he did it to avoid the Offence; that moved this Intention, not a word of the Law here. And for his Answer, it imported plainly, that he would keep his Sence to himself, that he might neither of­fend Caesar, nor his Countrey men, nor ensnare himself. Truly Sir, I am constrained to speak plain; half a good Argument is worth all these, and an hundred more such. You have a heap be­hind, of mere unproved Dictates, very unworthy of your Pen; The intelligent wary Reader will easily see it: and yet you conclude this Argument, with Dear Brother I will not aggravate your Error, by its ill Consequences. I thank you for your Love, but I need not your Favour in this Case, unless for their cause, who will take a mans Arguments to be knockt dead beyond Redemption, if Mr. Baxter hold up but a Straw at them.

Somewhat must be said to my Defect in the latter Sentence; of which you say, And as to your second Information, it is not true without Limitation, that [‘Submitting to a Law, on Consideration of the Penalties, is so far a justifying its preceptive part, as not so great an evil as the Penal] You say, this is confused work, and why?’ The Preceptive part of the Law, is actus precipientis, the Comman­ders Act. Again, Forgive me for telling you, that you should have di­stinguished the preceptive part of the Law from the matter comman­ded by it, and the Evil of the Law and Law-maker, from the Evil of the Obeyer. And what then? And then have Concluded only, that he that obeyeth a Precept only to avoid the Penalty, professeth the Pe­nalty to be worse then his Act of Obedience: But he doth not make it worse then the Law, or the Lawmakers Sin.

Answ. Reverend Sir, I am not yet so Learned, or self-conceited, as not to be willing to learn of a far meaner Tutor: But still with this Proviso, that he inform, but not impose on my Understanding. [Page 21]I could (without great difficulty) have distinguished the pars le­gislativa, from the actus imperantis, and that from the actus impera­tus, and all from the Lex formata, and so on. But cui bono? my Reader would have been little the wiser. Could my Reader so mistake, as to imagine I meant that the evil of the Penalty was not so great as the Law-makers Sin? and is not the actus imperatus, included in the matter commanded in the Sence of the preceptive part? And I think, I was distinct enough, where my Reader might well understand, and could not by any fault of mine, miss my mean­ing. But Sir, whatever Pleasure you take in it, I take little, and (it may be) our Readers none at all, in this part of the Debate, wherein we do but res parvas magno Conatu agitare.

You give me no more occasion to contend against you, by An­swering what you oppose to my Defence of the Doctors pretended Errors. You remember me of one thing more in the Polemical part of my Book, but not by way of Contradiction, Scil. Page 32. I say, ['Doth he say a word of owning Parish-churches and Worship;] Thus much, and no more you repeat of that Section. And you An­swer, If you, or he say nothing against these, we shall leave the Dio­cesan to others. But if you be the man, I have lately privately writ­ten to; I doubt not but I have proved to you, that Parish Churches that have good Ministers, are true particular Churches, and those Mini­sters true Pasters: and that any Bishops holding the contrary, doth not disprove it.

This Snap of my Defence broken off from its Fellows, your Rea­der will understand little by, but I suppose, you only designed to bring in by that, what you say you wrote privately: but I perceive you know not to whom, at least whether it were to me, or to some­body else: However, this Notice is very welcome. As to what you say you have proved, I do very much doubt it. If I had had the happiness to have seen those Proofs, and they had proved con­vincing to me; you had saved me the Labour of agitating that que­stion in a following discourse. And I take it to be so much more worth determining, as it seems to be the very Basis of your Zeal for compleat Parochial Communion.

After your Notices of what I had done in Defence of the Manuscript (which was as much as my express design, viz. [Page 22]to prove that it was not such a feeble and gross thing as you Repre­sented it, (let it be whose it would) you observe some things page 4. I have not done. That is, that I have not defended the rest of the Manuscript. And page 5. you thank me for defending none of those you innumerate. I take not your thanks amiss, tho' I had other Reasons for not doing it, then such as it may be you Suppose; yet such as may be easily supposed, if you please.

And not to suffer you to be grateful alone, I thank you also, that you said so little to defend your charge of the first Error you charged on the Doctor, or Manuscript, and that you said less to the second, and nothing at all to all the rest (six or seven in num­ber) which I discharged from that imputation. And I thank you so much the more, as you were much more obliged (by Temptation) to defend your own, than I was to defend another mans.

SECT. IV. Mr. Baxters Concessions to the Doctors personal Worth, and Sence of his ill-treating the Doctors Name, thank­fully acknowledged.

AS to what concerns your Intituling Dr. Owen to the twelve Arguments, according to your Printed Edition, and some ill resented mixtures in your Contradictions of them; your Chri­stian and ingenuous Expressions are such, as well deserve to be a Winding-sheet to all Offences, which took life from your Reflecti­ons on the Doctor. And first you say, that as to my Vindication of Dr. Owens Personal worth, you and I are agreed, and you have nothing in that to say against me.

This I thankfully acknowledge, and I shall not be the only Per­son sensible of i [...]. Caesar was said to confirm his own Statues, by securing those of Pompey.

[Page 23]Beside divers other Passages of the import abovesaid, you have one in page 8. which I shall transfer hither for Reasons I shall give by and by. I do but tell my Reasons for naming the Doctor, but I undertake not to justifie either that, or the manner of my writings, from Mistake, Imprudence, or other Faultiness. I suppose you to be a man whom I take from my heart to be far better, and wiser than my self: And therefore as I thank you for your gentle, friendly Reprehen­sions; so I profess that my very esteem and Reverence of your Judg­ment makes me suspect that I have done amiss; when I see it not in the cause it self. That I could have difended the cause of Love, and Com­munion against those Arguments; without taking notice of the Author, and without wronging the Nonconformists, who will be charged by his Name, I did, and do wish; Bue I thought it could not well be done: If in this I mistook, I ask pardon of God, and man; for so I must do for my Sins known and unknown.

More to this purpose the Reader may find in this page, and page 29. Thus far I have repeated your words, because they are powerful Perswasions to Heart-Reconciliation, and allaying of A­nimosities; where Principles of Christianity, or humanity prevail, and are attended to: And more likely to do good that way with most, than many strong Reasons of another Countenance, if they were to be had.

And indeed Sir, you have in this Passage expressed so much of Humility, and Self-denyal; as few of those who shall yet remain unsatisfied, would imitate under less difficult Circunistances. And I expect some may read them here, whose Prejudice will not per­mit them to seek it elsewhere. The Value you are pleased to put upon the supposed Author, is (I confess) so great, that I should not for Modesty sake have mentioned (much less assumed) but that (whoever you apprehend him to be) I have reason enough to transfer it upon some far more worthy Person then my self.

There is one thing pertaining to this head which I shall willingly dispacth in this place; and it concerns a Request of yours, an ear­nest Request, Scil. pag [...] 7. All that I yet desire, is to be able to deny it to be his, that the next man that hi [...]s the Nonconformists in the Teeth with it as the Doctors, may [...] be told it is not his: If you can and will but tell me that you believe it not to b [...] [...]is, that I may have but so much to say; I will thank you, and make it publickly known.

[Page 24]Dear Sir, a far less earnest Request, yea less than a Request, would have drawn from me a greater matter than this to gratifie you. I therefore say, that I cannot affirm, or deny it to be his, of mine own knowledge: for I never received it from his hand, nor ever heard him own or deny it to be his, more or less. As to what I believe of it, I shall be open, and ingenuous with you. I do believe that much of the Substance of it was written by the Doctor, and by him read to some few Persons (probably to have their Opinion of it, and of what use it might be to some persons concerned in the then present difficulties, (and not yet past) and that somebody having gotten the Copy, took Liberty to disperse it to some others, whose Case or Curiosity moved them to desire it: But I do not be­lieve, that the Doctor intended it for the Press, or to be exposed as it was, or that he ever wrote it, or owned it, or would have owned it his; as it is in your Edition, without very Considerable Alterations.

And I having had since I wrote the Vindication, the like Opinion from some, who were most likely to know the whole truth of this matter: I am farther Confirmed in the belief of what I say now, and said before in the Vindication, page 1. yet in my poor Judge­ment, 'tis enough for you that you cannot affirm it to be his: Nor any other who shall pretend it for whatever ends. And be it his, or not his, (seeing he did not think meet to avow it publickly) 'tis becoming wise men, to let it stand, or fall, according to its own proper merit.

SECT. V. Mr. Baxters fourth Section Considered, being a Mis­cellaneous Collection of various matters Contained in the Vindicator, and his Animadversions on them.

THe Close of the first Paragraph of your fourth Sect. page 29. gives a full Discharge to the Doctors Name, (so far as you concerned it in your Answer to the Manuscript) in these words; I wholly follow the Rule you mention, to chuse that which doth most good, and least hurt. And truly, the Reverence of your own, and some other Judgment telling me, that it doth more hurt than good, doth turn the Scales, and make me repent, that I named the Doctor.

Reverend Sir, I thank you for thus much, whoever or whatever was your Motive. And I shall the more patiently bear the load you discharge on me; though I shall take leave to poize it, and in­quire Quo Warranto.

A Warfare, a Voyage must not be undertaken, but with expect­ance of some blowes, or foul Weather. After a Calm, comes a Storm, which was brewing all the while, I now perceive; and it begins thus, page 29. I leave your charges against me to their best Advantage to the Reader, though my Inclination as much to open Mi­stakes. I may give a brief touch to your self, for your Information; which I expect not should affect the Reader, suppose your book to lie open before you.

Answ. It is of rare example for any, much more Mr. Baxter, toto pectore, telum recipere; and not to expose mistakes that are to his disadvantage. But Sir, your brief touch for my Information, I expect it to be neither brief, nor a gentle touch, nor much to my information; except that in the best of men nature will work. And whereas you say, you expect not that it should affect the Reader, &c. I know not what to think of it, unless that your Readers have so littie [Page 26]cern for me, that if you should clap a Cupping Glass to me, I shall have none of their pity. But I am not Doctor Owen.

You begin to inform me by examining me, and go on mostly in that form of information; which seems to aim rather at your own: But to be brought to the Rack, and dicere causam is a hard Chapter said A. B. Laud, If (say you) you thought them not good enough to be his, nor intended for publick view; Why do you wrong bim so much, and the people much more, as to divulge them with his name?

I see Sir, you need to be better informed your self of this mat­ter, before you turn Informer to me. Who told you that I ever divulged them to any one person? And I tell you, that though I had seen them about a year before; I never read them, nor heard them read, except some part of them Cursorily once: And I never was Master of any one Copy of them, true or false; 'til I had your Printed Edition. I must therefore send this Quere home a­gain to your self, to whom it much more belongs than to me, and as the Divulger with his name, more I think than to all the world beside.

Again, Do good men take it for a priviledge, to hurt the Church, un­contradicted?

Answ. Why ask you me this question, rather than of any other? You might have answered it your self. Certainly none but the worst of men take it for a priviledge under that name; but many good men do hurt the Church, and take it to be good (by mistake­ing either the Church, or the hurt) Who these good men are is, lis sub judice, all are said by one or other to do it, all justifie them­selves from it. Yet they may be most guilty of this ignorant zeal, (which is the best can be said of it) that least suspect themselves, and most hotly charge others: I will say for mine own part, that I need scarce any thing more to set my judgment right of my self or others than impartial self-reflection. By the question you seem to say I am the man, and I will put it fairly to my self. You may do as you please.

You say, It is zeal for a Sect against Ʋnity, which corrupt nature is for.

Answ. And there is a zeal too for Ʋnity and Ʋniformity, which corrupt nature is for, and you are against. 'Tis too common a Cant to brand those for Sects, that are not just of our own scant­ling [Page 27]A very easie and impertinent way of abusing. A Cothurnus, that serves every ones turn.

Again, I doubted not but guilt would be impatient. Answ. What then? Is impatience a proof of guilt? or every defence against wrongs, impatience? You should not have cast this stone. You proceed:

It was your Party that wronged his name, by divulging that which you take for his disgrace.

Answ. My Party! Is not that Mr. Baxter for one? I found Mr. Baxter, and the Doctors Vindicator of one Party in your Titles, without doors, and within; Who parted us since, and made me of another Party? Not I, I am sure; I am the same I was; and that is, of no Party at all. But if you will disagree with your self, and make Parties in one single individual, look you to that. Who of the Party do you mean who take the Manuscript for the Doctors disgrace? O! they were offended that it was printed under his name. And if you or any of your friends should express offence, at your Manuscripts being Printed under your name, which you never intended for the Press, nor Consented should be so Pub­lished; would you allow this inference, that they were taken for your disgrace? Beside, whatever some may think of themselves, I do not think, that the ablest men spit such perfections, as without Correction, or more ado, may without wrong to their names (and somewhat else too) be exposed to the worst that an adversary can make of them.

Page 30. you say, It's strange so knowing a man should think that bad Arguments with avalued name, are not dangerous! Yes even a­gainst common sence, as those for Transubstantiation. To confute your self, you add [Add to what?] that on all sides peoples opinions are mostly, and most STRONGLY mastered by Affections, and it's be­yond all our power to Cure the disorder. And yet is there no danger from Names?

Answ. You may cross Shins, and fight against your self when you please. I delight in no such Combats: But its more strange, that so pious a man should take such Courses to wrong his very Friend, and render him Cross to Truth, and himself at once, by a half-faced Representation.

Reader, all that the Reverend Author preteds to ground these two charge upon, is contained in a few Lines, of which by giving a­part, [Page 28]he (I will not say cunningly) spoils, and perverts the sence of the whole; they are in page 7. [‘Dear Sir, I fear that those People, who have not the skill to answer the twelve Arguments, will be found to want skill enough, to discover the Strength of yours. And I confess 'tis matter of Lamentation, that on all sides Peoples Opinions are mostly, and most strongly master'd by their Affections; and 'tis beyond all our power to cure the Disor­der.]’

Now Reader, if acknowledging, and lamenting the danger also, be saying there is no danger in valued Names, Mr. B. is right, and I am not wronged.

Truly Sir, I am sorry that you cannot yet (after all you have said) get over your naming the Doctor, but must be looking back to a Vindication of what you have so often, and so pathetically con­fest, to be faulty. So hard a thing it is for good men, to digest a Self (but half Constrained) Condemnation.

And I take leave to add, that the danger of deceiving by valued names, should deeply oblige those, whose names are much valued by one sort or another, not to speak or write hand over head, but with such wariness and Caution, that they may be indeed guides, and not Snares to their valuers. And to others, that they would have a care of over-valuing names, and learn to judge of things by their proper Evidence.

Page 31. If numbring mens Errors, used to do hurt; be worse than committing them, or defending them, I mistook. I Consent that you do so by me, so you speak nothing but the Truth.

Answ. And did you not mistake, if it was not worse? I have thought hitherto, that to do ill was a mistake (at least) though not so bad, as that which is worse. I thought also, that this was one manner of treating the Doctor, wherein you acknowledged your self Faulty: But if you retract this, as you (seem also to) have done your other acknowledgments; I am at Liberty to recall my thanks. But for your Consent that I should give you the same measure, upon the Condition limiting, scil. of Truth: I shall not take you at your word; because, I take Volenti non fit injuria, to be but a crooked Rule. Nor shall I (though with your leave) doubly condemn my self, by doing that which I condemned in o­thers.

[Page 29]In the same page you say, I am sorry that you feign the healing Parliament to have disowned our Repentance. They forbad Re­proaching and troubling one another; but not remembring our Sin, nor feeling when we suffer, nor asking what caused it; to stop the like a­gain, if not for a Cure.

Answ. Sir, you teach here a Notion very new (at least to me) scil. To affirm that which is not true in Argumentation, (which may be thro' mistake) is to feign. Much joy Sir, of this invention, I wish you. But if you be never sorry, 'till I feign or affirm that great Absurdity, I hope that from henceforth you shall be a joyful man. If that Parlia­ment by the Act of Oblivion did not bar such Criminations by any Per­sons, much more by private Persons. (whatever pretence they might make of causing the Criminals to repent of it, by so doing) I spake not their Sence, nor to my purpose: But if they did, I needed not (according to your notion) to feign, when I had such Realities on my side.

You say also in the same page, You would put such terms upon me in dispute, as Veron devised to put on the Protestants. I must oppose his Doctrine, only as in the Syllables written, Accidents in Worship signifie you think at least an integral part.

Answ. I wish the Papists would never put harder Terms upon the Protestants, than not to corrupt their Arguments, by choping and changing Words at their Pleasure; which you have often done in the Tract I examined: I told you of many such faults; you deny not the Fact in one, but here you justifie it; and you justifie it here as an insignificant Alteration. But you know that the Doctor thought not so, for he insisted on the sence of that insignificant Syllable, (as you take it) And I insist on it in my Examination of your Answer, which the Reader may understand (if he will look into my Book) to be of another Countenance than your bro­ken-glass Represents. What work may men make with Argu­ments, if they take this Liberty, when they pretend to give the Authors own words; by all the Tokens usual: if they shall chop and change Words, Syllables, or some one Letter! May they not put yea, in the room of nay; and nay in the room of yea; and make their Author speak what, and no more then they list. 'Tis one thing to Commend exactness, and another to use it. But if you justifie this Liberty, we may expect you will take it for the future, and then there will be no dealing with you.

[Page 30]Page 30. Its wisely done not to own the Cause I oppose, and yet not let men know whether it be for fear of the Law, or because you are a­gainst it.

Answ. I suppose Sir you mean cunningly, a sort of Wisdom I am little acquainted with. I am too open and fair for such Poli­ticks. I told you the cause, page 3, page 23. and page 39. You might have given your self sufficient reasons for it, without asking them of others, much more being told them. If you could not see them there, it may be to as little purpose to repeat them here.

I hope you do not think that Laws, Penal Laws, are not to be feared. What were they else made for? You have indeed writ­ten concerning the Diocesan established Constitution, and the man­ner of imposing, as a man that feared not the Laws. But you have made such a Compensation for that, by your Zeal expressed for the Lyturgy, and Lay-Conformity, as may plead your pardon for that wrong. I believe, and not I alone, that by your Writings, Ex­amples, and valued name, serving flesh and blood with a Wind, (which is no friend to Losses and Crosses) you have served the in­terest of the present Constitution, beyond all that hath been said for it by those, whose Station may promise the service of their ut­most Abilities.

But for the Cause you oppose, and oppose with so much heat, I have not found you always of the same mind. Change of Wea­ther hath great influence on some (and not only the most infirm) Constitions. I beg your pardon if I make a little Retrospect to your Sentiments by-past, and sometime since.

I might begin with your Savoy-Dispute or Conference, wherein 'tis offered against a Lyturgy, that Cold Prayers are like to have a cold Return. But that being viva voce, in transient breath, I shall not so much insist on it; but remember you of what you said elsewhere, for Example.

But we think it was not the Jesuites that first said, Out of the A­bundance of the Heart, the Mouth speaketh. 'Tis natural for the Heart to lead the Tongue. And men are more affected by words which come from Affection, than by those that do not. And reading words written by another, when we speak to God, is not so natural a Signification of Desire, or other Affection; as speaking them from the [Page 31]present Dictate of the Heart; for any Child can do the one, and it is not the usual Signification of Seriousness in other Actions.

Ministers should be better acquainted than the People, how to speak to God and man. It is their Office, and therefore, it belongeth to them to chuse the Words, which are fittest: and to set up a Ministry that can do neither, is to befriend the Prince of Darkness against the Kingdom of Light, and to be a deadly Enemy to the Church and Souls; and to sit up a Ministry that need not do it, is the way to set up a Mi­nistry that cannot. Let the Ministers be bound to no more than to read, and a few years will transform them to such as can do no more than read. Baxters second Defence of the meer Nonconformists, page 15.

I doubt not, but there are some pious Persons among you, I Censure not farther than Experience constraineth me. But I know that the Common Sence of most that are serious in practical Christianity, is a­gainst your formal wayes of Worship; and against the Course that you have taken in this Land. And the Spirit of Prophaness Comply­eth with you, and doteth on you, in all places that ever I was acquain­ted in. Bear with plain Truth: It is in a Cause of Everlasting Con­sequence. There is somewhat in a graciou Soul, like Health in the Body, that disposeth it to Relish wholsom food, and perceive more difference between it, and meer Air, or toyish Kick-shaws, than it can easily express. Baxters fifth Dispute of Church-Government Pref. page 17.

Compare this with Mr. Baxters Answer to Dr. Owens twelve Arguments, Page 42.

And if it be the disuse of your Common-prayer, that you separate from us for, I would know of you, Whether you would have denyed Communion with all that lived before it had a Being? If this be your Religion, I may ask you, Where was your Religion before Luther, before King Edwards day? If you say in the Mass-book, (And what else can you say) I ask you then, where was it before the Mass-book had a Being? Baxters fifth Dispute, &c. Pref. page 30.

Could men have been content to have made Gods Laws the Centre, and Touch-stone of the Churches Unity, all had been well. But when they must make Cannons for this Vesture, and that Gesture, and the other Ceremony; and determine in what Words all men shall pray, [Page 32]and how many words he shall say, or how long he shall be; and so make standing Laws upon mutable Circumstances; and this without any Necessity at all, but only to Domineer, &c. Baxters fifth Dis­pute, page 9.

They [the Pharisees] used long Prayers, as a Cloak for their Oppression. Query, Whether they were a Lyturgy or not? If yea, so let it pass in their Character. If not, Then it is scarce like that there was any other Lyturgy than the Scripture in those times; else it is most likely that the Pharisees would have used it. Apology for Nonconformists, page 95.

But to set up a new sort of Jurisdiction in the Church, by Legisla­tion to make Forms and Ceremonies Obligatory; and by Executions to punish Pastors that will not practice them is,

Lastly, By this means you will harden the Papists, that by their in­ventions and impositions have divided the Church, and been guilty of so much imposition and Tyranny. For, how can we condemn that in them that is practiced by our selves? And though in number of in­ventions they exceed; yet it is not well to concur with them in the kind of unnecessary Impositions, and so far to justifie them in their injury to the Church.

If none of these or other reasons, will allay the imperious Distem­per of the proud; but they must needs (by an usurped Legislation) be making indifferent things become necessary to others, and domineer over mens Consciences, and the Church of God: We must leave them to him, that being Lord and Lawgiver of the Church, is jealous of His Prerogative, and abhorreth IDOLS, and will not give His Glory to another, and that delighteth to pull down the proud, and hum­ble them that Exalt themselves. Baxters 5th Dispute of Church-Government, page 378.

That to that very Question [Whether they know of any thing in the Lyturgy, with which they could not comply without Sin] we after gave in a Paper of eight particulars in the Lyturgy, which we under­took to prove flat sin. Apology for meer Nonconformists, page 155.

Moreover, the same reasons that prevail with us, will prevail with others when we are dead. They will be as fearful of Lying, and Per­jury, and of swearing Allegiance to Church-Ʋsurpers, as we have been. There will still be a People seriously Religious, that are Christians in good sadness, and really believe a Life to come. There is no hin­dering it; God will have it so, and who can gainsay Him? And these [Page 33]men will be as loath in point of Order and Decency, to have Religion dwindled into a lifeless form of Words and Ceremonies; and to take the Chaff and straw for the Corn; as ever we have been before them: And the History of our Sufferings, will but animate them, id. ibidem, page 19 [...].

These are not all I have to alledge of yours, of the same Colour. Whether you will count your Writings of this Nature, or those which contradict them for your Disgrace, I cannot tell. I am sure both cannot (if considered together) much raise the value of your Authority in this Controversy. And I think, if I had been minded to have vindicated all the twelve Arguments you brand as so faulty, I could have produced, to justifie most of what you say is most unjustifiable, not only by your Authority, but your Reasons also, made ready to my hand: but that was not my undertaking in that Tract. If any doubt of my fidelity in these Citations, I give them the books, and pages, wherein they may find them to a Word. My Credit is impaired, if not forfeited, by a wilful or negligent Failure. But if it should be demanded, how Mr. Bax­ters Judgment and Zeal could thus vary and oppose to such a De­gree? I can give them no farther light than this. That these Ci­ted Passages were Printed in the years 1659, 61, or 62, & 81. But that against the twelve Arguments in 84.

I am heartily averse to writing any thing in reply to you, that savours of wrangling; especially in Personal Concerns: But if you will necessitate me by such Reflecting Queries, to answer so as is unpleasing to us both; I cannot help that. There is one behind, which I must not omit, which contains a Charge that (if true) renders me so great a fool, and so foul an Offender, as to be utterly unfit to be concerned in any thing that requires either Judgment, or Common Honesty: But if it be false (as indeed it is) I leave you, and the Reader to make the right Construction.

You say, Page 30. If the work [the Manuscript] be faulty, why do you not joyn with me to save men from it? and why did your private Letter own it his Conjunct with Fame? I offered you to stop it. Is it disingenuity in me, to tell you of twenty untruths in your Letter; and many notorious: [you say in your Printed answer to the unknown Author, they are Untruths in matter of Fact, which aggravates their Faultiness] and ingenuity in you to be offended for being told of them, rather than for writing them? This is to comply with the World [Page 34]that taketh the Detecter for the only Sinner.

To the first I say, fair and softly. Let your own Act. In oppo­sing the Manuscript be first excused, or excusable (at least in my Opinion) before I am perswaded to joyn with you in it. I may add, what needed this, if you believed the Title you give to the Book I now answer? or had not forgot it before you writ Page 30?

To the second, you lay to my charge things that I know not. You say it to and of the Author of the Vindication. In your Post­script of your Answer to the 12 Arguments, he was to you the un­known Author, but in your Answer to my Vindication, you are so well, or so ill informed of the Author of that so faulty Letter, that without any doubting you fix it on me. I gave you no reason for it; nor could any other. And that Opinion you express frequent­ly of the Author of the Vindication, doth not well agree with the great imprudence you charge on the private Letter. But in short Sir, I affirm (who have the best means to know it) that I wrote not that, nor any other Letter to you these many years last past; neither had I any knowledge of the Agitations you speak of. And should I have said in a Letter to you, that the Manuscript was the Doctors, & afterward in Print said I did not believe it, (as you print it) & have blamed you for imputing it to him; I had played a very disingenuous and inexcusable part; Trepan'd you into a Mistake, and then exposed it. But as the Case stands, I shall only say, that your charging me therewith was but an inexcusable Slander, or the indifferent thing (supposing the Letter as bad as you represent it) of laying the Punishment of one mans guilt, on the next that stood in your Way. Yet Sir, I believe this was no wilful wrong done by you, but a Mistake for want of due Consideration. But this it is to be a Nameless Author; instead of no Name, to get a bad one.

SECT. VI. Of Repentance in Heaven, and the Displeasure of Glory­fied Saints there, at their Mistakes defended on Earth, asserted by Mr. Baxter.

SOmewhat, Reverend Sir, I must say to your third Section, page 15. but as little as the thing will bear, it being but accidental to the present business, though you spend eleven pages upon in. I had asserted, that if Dr. Owen were undoubtedly displeased at his mistakes, being defended by any one on Earth, now he in a glorifi­ed Soul in Heaven, he must undoubtedly have the knowledge of such a Defence. And that affirming such a knowledge, would de­prive us of our best Weapon against the Idolatry and Superstiti­on of the Papists, in their invocation of Saints.

In Answer to this page, 16. (beside some sportive Passages) you extend the Knowledge of the I Saints in Heaven, an far as remi­niscence, and rational Conclusions from what [...] that supplies them with will go. And I think Sir, you have therein said, all that can be said with Reason, (as for what God in mediately, or by Angels may reveal to them, is no ground to us; unless we under­stood it better) but seeing you go no farther than strong Proba­bilities, as to the present instance: your undoubtedly is not without doubt, and I am safe enough yet.

But Sir, I think you venture too hard, to argue from those To­picks of the Saints judging the World, and the Extention of a Sun­beam. The first may be done Congruously enough, by their ac­companying Christ in that Action, and applauding his Justice in its Execution; which they may know to be such, by the ability and intogrity of such a Judge; beside the Book of Evidence, that shall then be opened.

[Page 36]But if this be any thing to your purpose, you must suppose them to know all that is done in the World in all the parts of it. Now to make this feasible, your other Notion falls in as pat as can be. Nor that they live as unconcerned Strangers to Earth, when a Sun­beam can reach so far, page 16. You seem here to fancy that the Souls in Heaven ought rationally to be concluded, to have a Pro­spect of terrene things, as extensive, and penetrating as the Sun­beams at least. But yet considering, that the dense Body of the Earth doth so interpose, that it must be beholding to its Circular motion, to visit with its direct beams all the inhabitants of this earthly Globe; that will not serve your turn, unless you fancy also their station and motion equally (at least) Corespondent. But by this, and what follows, you seem your self a little affected with the Vertigo. For, you provide these, with other Antidotes, least I faign them to have News-books, Gazets, and Post-letters hence.

But Sir, this Caution belongs rather to those, who will needs have them so exactly knowing of our Concerns here below; and you seem to be in some danger of in, since you have already begun the Correspondence, by a thing in the form of an Epistle from Dr. Owen in Heaven, in your Postscript to your Answer to the twelve Arguments.

Of much the same humour, is your sorrow and desperation of my change of my Opinion of the uncertainty of the Saints know­ing what, and when we pray; [for so I expressed my Opinion] to be my best Weapon against the Popish Superstition of praying to Saints. Yet for all this, you will hope, that I do not pray to Dr. Owen for so much as I believe he knoweth.

Answ. No, nor to Mr. Baxter neither, if he were in Heavon, and as knowing as he. For, though I shall still retain this Weapon as our best, we have store of others good enough against that Foppery. I presume you will hold me excused for answering you in your kind: Hanc veniam — petimus (que) vicissim.

That the Saints in Heaven have displeasure, which you affirm in Contradiction to me; I am now to consider. You begin very warily, page 16. and confine it to Displicence, the contrary to that Com­placence which is in the will: saying, As pleasedness and dis-pleased­ness are in the Passions, and signifie joy and trouble, you have here no­thing to do with them (having expresly excluded sorrow) but in the Will. So that it seems we are agreed that there is no displeasure [Page 37]as in the Passions, which is the same sence with the vulgar Word Affections. But here you first suppose that I must not imagine you should Contradict your self. For this, I crave you pardon! 'tis more than possible.

To make sure work, you fetch your arm about and will prove that in God himself there is displeasure, (which is the word you must allow, or you contradict not me) and then the Consequence is undeniable, that gloryfied Souls are not less, but more capable of it. While you bring Scripture to prove this, who dare contra­dict it? and in this you are not sparing; for you fill up your nine­teenth page with Scripture Quotations, to Convince me that the Scripture saith God is displeased. A Child in his Psalter knows this; your Concordance would (without much pains-taking) have furnished you with five times as many.

But what earnings do you make of all these Scripture Quotati­ons? Do any of them say that this displeasure is Confin'd to his Will, and hath nothing to do with sorrow, the Affections or Passi­ons? Doth not the Scripture say, that God was grieved, pained at the very Heart, angry, yea, in fury? do not these express dis­pleasure or displicence, as in the Passions; contrary to joy and Peace? The Scripture also speaks of Gods Eyes, Arm, Hand; you cannot make these flourishes of Scripture, but only to make a shew to the most ignorant: You know Sir, that 'tis not to be taken in proprio sensu. God speaks to men, therefore speaks after the man­ner of men; make your inference now, and what will you get by it. God speaks of himself to men after the manner of men; Ergo we may speak of men after the manner of God. To as much pur­pose, you tell us of all the forreign Reformers, and of Hildersham, Dod, Greenham, Bolton, Rogers, Sibbs, Preston, page 20. All these said God was displeased in the Scripture Sence; not one of them (that you prove) said it in your sence: nor can you (I be­lieve) produce one of them, that ever said that the Saints are dis­pleased in Heaven.

As to these Expressions of Gods Displeasure, Grief, Anger, &c. they relate to the Acts of Gods Providence, which are ad extra, which in men are the Signs and Effects of such Affections or Passi­ons: But it follows not, that they are indications of the same things in God; which if they are in him, must be infinitely and es­sentially so.

[Page 38]As for School mens Disputes, and the Notions of Metaphysical Authors of this matter, if I were better acquainted with them than I am, I should not here concern my self much with them, who too often do insanire cum ratione about little things, much more a­bout God whose Perfections are so above humane Comprehension. But to reduce this dispute to a narrow Compass; I agree with you, that as in the Divine Understanding all Sin is evil, and disap­proved or disliked; so there is in the Will of God somewhat an­swerable to it; But by what Name to call it, I am not resolved by all the Conduct I have yet met with. Nor am I satisfied to call it milling, which you make univocal (or near it) with Displicerve as many of the School-men do; because it sounds too harshly, as if that might be, the being of which God doth will; and so Gods Vo­lition or Will by Consequence be Crossed or Contradicted. And if you Construe your displeased by displicence, and that by Nolition, (except as Nolition may be in the Understanding) I can see no reason (pardon my dulness) to receive it.

And whereas you say, page 19. The. Hebrew Phrase which we tran­state by displeasing to God or man, is oft [it was Evil in his Eyes.] which speakoth a Positive Act of the Ʋnderstanding de malo: And that there was no answerable Act of the Will, let him say that dares: I am not so daring as to say by what name it must, or may be called; yet seeing I have said in the Book, and place you here oppose, tho' in Heaven there is dislike and dis-approbation; (which you your self agree to be much of your sence of displeasure) you might have abated very many of your Reflections. And I now say, that God willing the Punishments of Sin, is an Act of his Will; and the Punishments Executed the Effects of that willing, or Act of his Will. And I hope you will not deny, but this is very answerable to the Act of Gods Understanding de malo; and I may be excused saying more as to the Act of Gods will de malo. Thus far we shall not much fall out.

All your discourse here of displeasure in God, hath been to make way for this Consequence, that a glorisied Soul in Heaven may be displeased, exempli gratia, Dr. Owen's. But what if it appear, that you have mistaken, yea expresly excluded the Question (you ought to have put) hither to? And you your self mistook in your Ex­pression, and not I in my Exposition? I think this will appear by your Comparative. You say, I doubt not but by defending it, [the Doctors Mistake] you far more displease him than me.

[Page 39]Here is only term without Explication, by which the Apprehen­sions of an evil by Dr. Owen in Meaven, and Mr. Baxter on Earth, is expressed; and that is [displeased] and all the difference of this displeasedness eexpressed, is but Secundum magis & minus, Dr. Owen more displeased than Mr. Baxter; but the displeasure is of the same identical Species, (excepting sorrow) but if sorrow be excepted, all the rest that is included in the Displeasure is Con­firmed; Exceptio firmat do non exceptis. And that includes (as it is or may be in Mr. Baxter at the said mistake) Anger, Wrath, Bitterness, Perturbation; and if you can excuse your self totally of Sinful Hatred of the Persons that displease you, it is more than many a very good man can do in the like Case. None of these are excepted by excluding Sorrow: yea such is the Vitiousness of cor­rupt Nature, that the best of men do (while prevailed on by these Passions) take too much pleasure in them. I hope now you will not say, that the Saints in Heaven may be affected with such dis­pleasure.

If you will needs speak Mysteries, in a case where no such things are necessary, or to the Purpose; and limit your sence of your Expressions no better, you may excuse your Readers mistaking you, while they construe your meaning by your words, which you seem to frame with exact Consideration.

And now Sir, give me leave to look back on that very harsh Conclusion, you make by all the links (good or bad) of the Chain of your Consequences, from my saying, that the Saints have no dis­pleasure in Heaven, in Contradiction to Mr. Baxter: for that is all that is mine, the rest is your own, and you must answer for them. I look (say you, page 22.) to hear ere long, from Press and Pulpits, that the Nonconformists teach, that no Rebellion, Treason, Perjury, or Wickedness, is at all displeasing to God, to Christ, to An­gels, or to any Saint in Heaven. Though they call Adulterers, Mur­derers, and such others to Repentance, and mouring for Sin; and sepa­rate from others as too bad for their Communion. Indeed at the same time, they tell all the Wicked, neither God, nor any in Heaven is dis­pleased with them.

Do you indeed look for this! I am verily perswaded not any of the most angry Adversaries of the Nonconformists, with all their Wit, would from that Passage have thought of such a horrible Charge, as having the least shadow of rational dependance there­on. [Page 40]But now you have taught it them, and they have Mr. Baxters. Authority to do that, which I believe they will be ashamed to do notwithstanding. O Sir, to what Extremities, and beyond Ex­tremities do you run things! I believe in this fit of Displeasure you had little Sorrow. What will become of the Saints Rest, if such Displeasure be found amongst the Saints in Heaven? Doth this speak you to be a meet man to Reconcile, make peace, and heal the Churches Wounds; who know not how to breathe in a Con­troversy, but it must come to a Hurricane? The Lord be merciful to his Church, & every part of it, & deliver them from such Products of impatience of Contradiction, & from so over-valuing any Person, as to dote on his Conduct, without trying, and especially Considering what Spirit he is of.

You seem to heal all again in the next Paragraph, by mollifying my Error (as you call it) as meerly Verbal. Thus you blast, overthrow, wound, arm Adversaries with venemous Weapons; add to the griefs of the already afflicted; and then cure all in a Trice, with a breath: as if these things were at your beck, and must move exactly to the Tune of your present fancies or Passions.

I shall now consider, what you say of Repentance in Heaven. You begin thus: My third supposed Error is much like the former; saying, that though Heaven have no Sorrow, it hath great Repentance: In this all Protestants are falsly said to be against me.

Answ. You have in these words a double Mistake in matter of Fact. I neither said it was an Error, nor that I supposed it to be an Error. (though it may be such notwithstanding) Nor did I say, that in this all Protestants are against you. So that what you make the ground of this part of the Controversy, is all Mistake. Yet you go on, and tell your Reader that I am puzled at it as a dangerous Doctrine: though your next line acknowledges, that I attempt not in one Syllable to blame any thing but the Word. And had I not reason for so doing, and to say as I did, that it doth and will sound very offensively; & most by far, will either not understand you, or misunderstand you? Do you think that School Subtilties, and those Reconciling Notions which you are so stored with, are the Talents of most that may happen to read your Book? And that they can tell what to make of Repentance in Heaven & with­out Sorrow? you have said somewhat to inform or exercise their intellects in this, but not one Word in that Book.

[Page 41]And now Sir, I take my self to be as little obliged to Answer, or Consider what you say farther, (as Contradicting any thing said by me) as you had to write it; and that is none at all. But because (much like the former) you contrive from these mistakes of your own, a very black (I had almost said a Malevolent) Conclusion; I shall observe now you setch it about. Your Conclusion is this, page 25. I doubt not but those aforesaid, [Vide page 22.] that are disposed to Obloquy, will take occasion from your Words, (yea the Pa­pists from your intituling all Protestants to it) to say the Nonconfor­mists (or the Protestants) hold that Murder, Rebellion, Persecution, and all Sin is so small a matter to their Saints in Heaven, that they do not so much as repent of it, or will, or wish they had never done it: there­fore, they either justifie it, or are Neuters to it.

Do you think the men you speak of have such a high Opinion of your Logical Concluding Faculty, as to charge men with holding all that you say are the Consequences of their Opinion? They are wi­ser than so for their own sakes. Or may they not as well conclude much of the like nature, from our (or your) Saints in Heaven, not being sorry for any of these Crimes? You said you lookt for such Reflections, page 22. here you doubt not of them. But pardon me if I say, that I expect the men you speak of are masters of so much Reason, Truth and Candor, that they will rather say, That in these Conclusions, Mr. Baxter consulted not the Premises nor himself.

Now Sir, I shall Consider how you came by your dismal Conclu­sions, (supposing I had charged you with Error in that Expression; and had also said, that herein all Protestants are against you; both which you said of me untruly) And I fear, that your hammering to mend one hole, hath made more than two; the usual issue of over­doing.

First, you tell me of Gods being said to repent in Scripture. Now least I should not believe it, or take one Scripture Authority for no sufficient Conviction; you direct me by Quotations to fifteen. I thank you for this great Charity and necessary pains. But what is all this to the Purpose? Dare you say that proprie dictum God re­pents, or deny that spoken of him it is a denomination from the Changes he makes ad extra; as the Effects of his eternal and im­mutable Will, without any change in himself? You tell me at next word, that 'tis not spoken of God, as if he had any Mutability as man hath. And yet you add, as mighty unwilling to acknowledge your Scripture instances impertinent here: But God being infinitely more [Page 42] perfect, the Phrase is farther fetched, and less proper of God than of man: Therefore it is not the name that he blameth, seeing he owneth the word of God.

Reverend Sir, I observe you go here all by Comparatives: Muta­bility as man hath; infinitely more perfect than man, further fetch'd: All which I should have taken no notice of; but because of the follow­ing words, that the phrase of God repenting, is less proper of God than of Man. This plainly renders it your opinion, that Repentance is proper to God (as contradistinguisht from figurative) though in a less degree, and farther fetcht, than when spoken of man: which opinion whether it be not utterly untrue, and unspeakably dangerous, I refer to the Judicious Reader. I would you had told us how much less proper, and how much farther fetcht, when spoken of God. To what you conclude, It is not therefore the name, &c. I say I blame not the word repentance 'tis true; but your (at least) indiscreet, if not impertinent use and misapplication of it.

You acknowledg, that I had prevented your labour in transcrib­ing other Authors, that use [...] and [...] usually for a meer change of the mind, purpose and practice, without any significati­on of sorrow. And I also told you, that if you had said the Saints in heaven were grown wiser, had a better understanding, and did disapprove of what they in this life thought good and true; This might (if nothing else) have stopped your torrent of dismal consequences, for they who do so, are far from justifying or being Neuters as (you express it) as to Murder, Rebellion, Persecution and all sin as a small matter, &c.

But yet you say page 23. But let us willingly take the Scripture use, which speaketh of Repentance in heaven, and on Earth. Answ. We have nothing to do in this Controversy, with repentance of any on earth: but of the Saints in heaven. And you tell us at the bottom of the same page, that we find no talk in Scripture of any in heaven repent­ing but God. Can I wish a fairer adversary? That shall more wil­lingly and expresly yield the Cause? But by the next Paragraph you repent all this again, and say; All those acts of Repentance Souls have in heaven: which rise to the number of five. So that you can talk of what Souls do in Heaven, that by your own confession within five lines before, the Scripture is utterly silent in. Have you any Revelation peculiar to your self of those things?

I must also Reverend Sir, enter my dissent to some other passages upon the subject of Repentance in this life, to which you are plea­sed [Page 43]to direct me page 24. in that you say, But usually we have cause of sorrow, as well as of Repentance; and must joyn them together: But where the Gospel frequently promiseth Repentance, Pardon and Life to­gether; and Preacheth both Repenting and Believing in order to present joy; there is little mention of sorrow in the Converts, save for the mur­dering of Christ, or some great [...] Answ. Is this a safe limitation to say usually, which excludes sorrow from our Repentance even in this life very often, if not mostly, [...]s no duty? Your after-instances re­strain it to the murdering of Christ, or some great sin. Then it seems we ought to repent, (That is, Change our mind and will, and wish we had not done what we did (which you call the prime and com­mon sence of Repentance within a few lines) of all sin; but be sorry (in repenting) only for some great sin. But how great you tell us not, except the murdering of Christ must be taken for its measure.

Yet here you argue from the negative, a non dicto ad non factum. There might be great sorrow, where we have it not expressed; and where we find the Gospel Preached, affecting with present joy, there might be room enough for sorrow afterward.

But you go on to fortifie this notion from 2 Cor. 7. 9, & 10. I rejoyce not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to Repentance; for godly sorrow worketh Repentance to Salvation, not to be repented of; You then demand, Is the sence godly sorrow worketh, godly sorrow? I answer no: and yet you are never the nearer your end; for one part of Repentance may very well contribute to another. And this other part, Emendation, being the more excellent part, may very well take the denomination of the whole. Conviction is not Conversi­on, yet Conversion includes Conviction; not only as an insepara­ble adjunct, but also as an essential part. And if it should be said, Conviction worketh Conversion to life; this would not conclude, that Conversion doth not include Conviction. This is spoken of Repentance in this life, to which you have led me by going out of the way.

But to tell you my thoughts of Repentance of Souls in heaven, I am of opinion, that there is none there: I take Repentance, and so do you, to consist in its primary principal parts, in the change of the Understanding and Will; and this differs so little from the sence of the word Conversion, as is hardly if at all distinguishable. It may be said of the Saints in heaven, that they are Converted, but not that there is any Conversion there: The like of Repentance. Because the acts of Conversion and Repentance are in via, and may properly [Page 44]be called the transitus or passage of the Soul, from all the corrupti­ons of nature, to Consummate grace, which is not attained in this life. But when Grace is Consummate; the work of Repentance and Conversion is over, because there is no more sin to Convert or Re­pent from. And you allow all that [...], to fortifie this sence; in your saying p. 24. to prove, that [...] for sin is not alway a necess­ary adjunct of Repentance, Heb. 6 & 1. It is not called Repentance for dead works, but from dead works; if this will serve your turn, to shut out sorrow from Repentance here, it will serve mine much more to shut Repentance out of heaven; for there can be no repenting from dead works, so as to make any change after they are lodged in that perfect state, and have no dead works to repent from.

I conclude with a few passages of your own, which makes you seem so generous, as to give freely; though you will hardly yield to have the same things forced from you. But we find no talk in Scripture of any in heaven repenting but God: No wonder; how little hath God told us of the particular state and action of separated Souls, before the Resurrection; When it pleaseth God so sparingly to mention their pre­sent state, (yea, and their Immortality in the Old Testament) shall we feign that he must tell us of all their thoughts? Page 25. But your last and best words on this argument are, I only hence conclude, that we must not take on us to know more than we do of separate Souls, nor to make a measure, or manner of blessedness for them of our own heads, nor to apply every Text to them that is spoken of the state after the Resurre­ction. There is enough besides to feast our joyful hopes. Answ.

Cur in Theatrum Cato severe yenisti?
An ideo tantum veneras ut exires?

You seem to have faln out, that we might shake hands at Recon­ciliation. You have here (if we may take your sence by your words) repented of your undoubted repentance and displeasure to the Saints in heaven; for to say there is such things there, is to feign to our selves, and of our own heads; for of these the Scripture no where speaks. I thought we should meet at Hedge or Style. It's better parting in san Weather then in a Storm. And therefore


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.