Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times

If all this may consist with rejecting from all Communion in the Eucharist, and afterwards Excommunicating, Suspending, Silencing, Imprisoning, &c. we understand not English.

2. In like manner Grotius in loc. cap. 14. 1. [Contra vocati à Gentibus, conscii datae per Christum libertatis, Iudaeos Iudaice viventes à sua Communione volebant excludere 11, 18, 21. unde secuturum erat Schisma—Huic malo ut occurrat Paulus, mediam institit viam, & Iudaeos qui in Christum crediderant, monet ita suam sequantur opinionem, ut à damnandis crimine impietatis qui aliter sentiebant, abstineant: Ex gentibus vere vocatos, we illorum quamvis Iudaice viventium communionem defugiant, & ut imperitos spernant—[ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] Societate Ecclesiae, sicut qui hospitio aliquem excipiunt, dicuntur cum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Acts 18. 26. & 28. 2. Ecclesia enim Domini comparatur supra 11. 25. sumitur baec admonitio ex iis quae de Christo quae dicta Matth. 12. 20. — 2—Tolerandi sunt ii qui ab omnibus animatis abstinendum putant, quod quidam faciebant Religion quâdam— Cap. 15. 6, 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 id est, ut cum Deum laudatis, eique preces funditis, faciatis id nen tantum eodem verborum sono—sed & animo pleno mutuae delectionis, sine contemptu, sine odio. Habes hanc vocem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Act. 11. 46. ubi forma est Ecclesiae perfectissimae. Add adejus vocis explicationem id quod est Act. 4. 32. (all which includeth Communion in the Eucharist) — V. 7. Nolite ob res tales, alii alios à fraternitate abseindere—

§ 225. This Paper was given in the very last day of our Commission and Dispute: And Dr. Gunning read another which he had prepared for an Insultation at out Dismission, which Paper had some Mistakes in it, and the Citation of many Witnesses, who (as he would have persuaded us) took the word [ Receiving ] Rom. 14. & 15. as not meaning or including, Receiving to the Holy Communion in the Sacrament.

§ 226. In the beginning he affirmed that we had refused to Dispute, till they had promised to take their turn, and prove the lawfulness of their Impositions. To this I answered, That it was contrary to our open and frequent Profession, that we would do our part whether they would do theirs or not: only I said, that if they refused it, we should take it for a deserting of their Cause. This he a while denied: I appealed to the Auditors of his Party; and they gave no Answer: Dr. Bates witnessed it, Dr. Iacomb offered his Oath of it. He told them that they were Parties. By this time I saw mine Error, in giving way for their Doctors to crowd in to applaud them and witness for them, when we had none (or next to none) of ours there, supposing by the Agreement three only must have stayed.

§ 227. When Dr. Gunning had read his insulting Answer the day before, and made a great matter of my telling the Respondent of [ begging the Question ] they put Dr. Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln, into the Chair, that his Learning and Gravity might put a Reputation upon his Sentence (he being a very worthy Man, but for that great Pievishness, which Injuries, Partiality, Temperature and Age had caused in him): The Bishop in a few angry Words pronounced that Dr. Gunning had the better, and that the Respondent could not beg the Question, and that I was a Man of Contention if I offered to Reply.] I told him, that though we reverenced much his Lordship's Age and Learning, yet he was but a Party, and no Judge: which yet if he were, it was so strange to us that a Man should be prohibited to reply, and a Censure antidated passed on that Reply before it was heard, and on the Repliers for it, that we craved his Lordship's Pardon if we disobeyed him, and gave in our Reply, which might have more in it than he could forefee. And the next Day when I gave in the Reply (before inserted) there was no such Insulting as before.

§ 228. When Dr. Gunning had read his Citations of Testimonies of the Sense of Rom. 14, and 15. Bishop Cosins called to all the Bishops and Doctors in the Room for their Votes, [ All you that think that Dr. Gunning hath proved that Rom. 14. speaketh, not of receiving to the Sacrament, say, I. ] And so they all cried, I. I told him that we knew their Opinion before; and if this were the use that he made of our Concession, that they should be all present while ours were all absent (save two or three Scholars, and two or three Gentlemen that stood behind to hear) it shown that their Cause was very needy of Defense, when their own Voices must go instead of Argument: But if they would go on upon such lamentable Reasoning as they had used, to cast out the faithful Pastors and the People, and divide the Church, and afflict their Brethren, the Day was comig when their own Votes should not absolve them.

§ 229. Hereupon we fell again upon the point of Charity and Compassion to the Church, and their frustrating the King's Commission, and the Kingdoms Hopes. And when they professed their Desires of the Churches Peace, I told them they would not abate the smallest Thing, nor correct their grossest Errors for it: And hereupon I read over to them the Preface (drawn up by Mr. Calamy ) before our Reply to their Answer to our Exceptions against the Liturgy, which reciting their Corruptions, and shown their Unpeaceableness, offended but filenced them.

§ 230. By this time the Evening of our Last Day was far gone; and I desired to know of them, whether we should continue our Dispute any further, as Private Men Voluntarily among ourselves; for I had many more Arguments, which I desired before to have read all at once, but could not be permitted: Or whether they would receive my Arguments, and the Reply which I last read. Dr. Pierson resolved that he would meddle no more after that Night. Bishop Morley said, he thought it unfit when the King's Commission was expired that we should meddle in it any farther. But Dr. Gunning and I had so much mind to it, (for I knew that almost all my Arguments were yet behind, and it was a Cause that might easily be made very plain) that I told him, I would venture on the Danger for the Love of Charity and Peace, and he agreed that I should send him in all my Arguments, with the last Reply (which he had not answered) the next Day.

§ 231. Lastly, I desired Bishop Morley to resolve us what Account we were jointly to give his Majesty of our Proceedings, that we might not wrong each other: And by his and their Consent it was agreed on, that we give nothing in our Account to the King as charged on one another, but what is delivered in by the party in Writing: And that all our account was to be this, That we were all agreed on the Ends, for the Churches Welfare, Unity, and Peace, and his Majesty's Happiness and Contentment, but after all our Debates, were disagreed of the means. And this was the End of that Assembly and Commission.

§ 232. As soon as we were gone, I delivered my Papers to a Scribe to be transcrib • d: And about Eight a Clock or Nine, just as I was entering the Door of my Lodging, Dr. Gunning 's Messenger comes to me, to tell me, that upon further Consideration, he should receive no more Papers from me after that Day, and so our farther trouble was prevented.

§ 233. In the last place, it's time that I give you a Copy of their Disputation; and this which followeth is exact, and all.

[ Oppon. (Dr. Pierson, Dr. Gunning, Dr. Sparrow and Dr. Pierce )

Resp. Negatur Major.

Resp. Negantur Major, & Minor.

Resp. We deny the Major, and (for brevity) give a double Reason of our Denial. One is, because that may be a Sin per accidens, which is not so in itself, and may be unlawfully commanded, though that Accident be not in the Command.

Another is, That it may be commanded under an unjust Penalty.

2. We deny the Minor for both the same Reasons.

Resp. We distinguish of [delivering to Persons kneeling] it signifieth either exclusively [to those and no other]; or not exclusively as to others: In the first Sense we deny the Major; in the second Sense we deny the Minor.

Resp. 1. The Proposition denied is not in the Conclusion.

2. The Major is denied; because the first Act commanded may be per Accidens unlawful, and be commanded by an unjust Penalty, though no other Act or Circumstance be such.

Resp. The Minor is denied upon the same Reasons; which you do nothing to remove: Such a Command hath not in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of a Command; because though no other Act be commanded whereby an unjust Penalty is enjoined, yet still the first Act may be commanded sub Poenâ injustâ: And though no other Act or Circumstance be commanded that is a Sin per accidens, yet the first itself commanded, may be a Sin per accidens.

Resp 1. Neg. Major. Because 1. The Subject is changed: You were to have spoken of the first Act commanded, and you speak of the first Act commanding, in the first Member. You should have said, (Else the first Act may be commanded sub Poenâ injustâ, and yet be in itself lawful] which is true.

2. Because in the second Member where you should have spoken only of the commanded Circumstances of the Act, you now speak of all its Circumstances whether commanded or not.

3. We undertook not to give you all our Reasons: The Minor may be false upon many other Reasons.

And were your Major reduced in the Points excepted against, we should deny the Minor, as to both Members. And we should add our Reasons.

1. That Command which commandeth an Act in itself lawful, and only such, may yet be sinful privatively, by omission of something necessary, some Mode or Circumstance.

2. It may sinfully restrain, though it sinfully command not.

3. It may be sinful in Modis commanding that universally, or indefenitely, or particularly, or singularly, that should be otherwise; though in the Circumstances (properly so called) of the Act, nothing were Commanded that is sinful.

4. It may through culpable Ignorance be applied to undue Subjects who are not Circumstances; as if a People that have the Plague be commanded to keep Assemblies for Worship; the Lawgiver being culpably ignorant that they had the Plague. Many more Reason may be given.

§ 234. Thus, Reader, thou hast every Word that was brought by them in this Disputation, to prove the justness of all those Impositions on pain of Excommunication (which infers Imprisonment, &c. ) which have divided this miserable bleeding Church, and will admit of no Remedy, nor patiently endure him that shall propose it, or beg for Peace and Charity at their Hands.

§ 235. The other Arguments which I offered (and they were not accepted or read) were these following. In which you must note that all these Arguments were but proposed thus briefly, and not followed up, because it was expected that they should have called us to that. And that this Writing was but begun, and many more Scripture Texts and Arguments omitted, for want of time, and by the Interruption of our Disputation. And concerning the foregoing Reply to Dr. Gunning about the Sense of Rom. 14. Note, that as I was purposing to have added a multitude of Testimonies more, to those of Dr. Hammond and Grotius, the ending of our Disputation did prevent me, and ever since then I cast by all such Thoughts as these, foreseeing that now (when they would not endure the means of Peace) my Duty would henceforth lie on the other side, to plead other Men into true and moderate Thoughts of things indifferent, and Obedience, so far as the Unity and Peace of the Church required it, and the matters imposed were not sinful to the Doers, though they might be sinful to the Imposers. I knew that henceforth I should be as much exercised in moderating those for whom I had now pleaded, and must bear some censure also from many of them.

Quest. Whether it be just (or lawful) to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament on the Lord's Days? Neg.

Because you will needs cast all the Opponent's Work on us, by arguing that we have brought no sufficient Reasons for the contrary (appealing to all Men acquainted with the just Method of Disputation, whether you that have the affirmative, do not hereby fly all just and equal Dispute, and show a Diffidence, of your Cause) we that have the negative shall more justly by the same method, cast back your proper Work upon you.

If it be just (or lawful) to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament on the Lord's Days, then some cogent Argument may be drawn from the Nature of the thing, or supernatural Revelation, to justify it.

But no Argument can be drawn (for ought that ever was yet by the Right Reverend Fathers, or Reverend Brethren produced or manifested to us, or we can tell where to find, or how to invent) from the Nature of the thing, or from supernatural Revelation, to justify it.

Ergo, it is not just, &c.

If any such Argument can be produced, let it be produced, or you forsake your Cause. (Note that this was written before they yielded to be Opponents.)

I. Our first Argument drawn from general Councils, and the Practice of the Universal Church, we handled already: and are ready to bring in fuller Proof.

II. And our second Argument from Rom. 14, and 15. where the Case is purposely and largely decided, that things of such Moment must not be made the matter of Censures, Rejections, or Contempt.

III. To impose on the Church things antecedently unnecessary upon so great a Penalty as Exclusion froth Communion, is a sinful thing.

But to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament (for Fear of Idolatry or Scandal) is to impose on the Church things antecedently unnecessary, upon so great a Penalty as Exclusion froth the Communion.

Ergo to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament is a sinful thing.

The Major is proved thus: That which is contrary to the express Determination of the Holy Ghost, Acts 15. is a sinful thing.

But to Impose on the Church Things antecedently unnecessary, upon so great a Penalty as Exclusion from Communion, is contrary to the express Determination of the Holy Ghost, Acts, 15. 28. [For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things ]: Ergo it is a sinful thing.

IV. To cross that great Rule of Charity [ I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice ] is a Sin.

But to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to cross that great Rule of Charity, &c. Ergo it is a Sin.

The Major is certain, Christ himself urging it twice upon the Ceremonious hypocritical Pharisess, Matth. 9. 13. & 12. 7.

The Minor is thus proved. To prefer Sacrifice before Mercy (yea, an unnecessary Ceremony before Sacrifice and Mercy) is a crossing of that Rule.

But to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament is to prefer Sacrifice before Mercy, (yea, an unnecessary Ceremony before Sacrifice and Mercy:) Ergo it is a crossing of that Rule.

The Major I suppose will not be denied: The Minor is thus proved—

1. To prefer this genuflexion in the Reception of the Sacrament, before our Brethren's Communion with Christ and his Church in the Sacrament, and before their corroboration and consolation thereby, and before the preaching of the Gospel by all those Ministers that will be hereupon laid by, even when many Thousands among us are in gross ignorance for want of means, and consequently before the Salvation of very many, and the Worship of God by the Excluded, is to prefer Sacrifice before Mercy, yea, an unnecessary Ceremony before Sacrifice and Mercy.

But to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to prefer this Genuflexion before all these things: Ergo it is to prefer Sacrifice before Mercy; yea, an unnecessary Ceremony before Sacrifice and Mercy.

2. If the forbidding of David and his Company to eat the Shew-bread, and the Priests in the Temple to break the Sabbath, and the Disciples to rub out the Corn, would have been the preferring of Sacrifice before Mercy, (as here prohibited), then enjoining all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to prefer Sacrifice before Mercy (in the forbidden sense).

But the Antecedent is true; Matth. 12. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Ergo so is the Consequent.

V. To use the Power to Destruction which is given to be used to Edification, is unjust.

But to enjoin all Ministers to deny the Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to use the Power to Destruction which is given to be used to Edification.

Ergo. To enjoin all Ministers to deny the Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is unjust.

The major is proved 2 Cor. 10. 8. & 13. 10 Rom. 15. 2. I Cor. 14. 26. Rom. 14. 15, 20.

For the Minor I shall prove it, I. As of the Destruction of the Person; 2. Of many others; 3. Of the Church itself.

1. To use this Power to deprive many Thousands of their Communion with Christ and his Church in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, and Consequently of all the Benefits thereof, is to use it to the Destruction of those Men's Souls.

But to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to use this Power to deprive many Thousands of their Communion with Christ and his Church, in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, and consequently of all the Benefits thereof: Ergo to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to use this Power to the Destruction of those Souls.

2. To the Destruction of many others.

II. To use this Power to deprive many Thousand ignorant, ungodly People of the Labors of able faithful Ministers, when those People are like to have no competent Preachers of the Gospel in their stead, is to use this Power to the Destruction of those many thousand Souls.

But to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all those that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to use this Power to deprive many Thousand, &c. — Ergo it is to use this Power to their Destruction.

It being supposed that it is not any Injunction in genere, but the English Injunction in specie that is spoken of. The Minor is proved thus:

If such an Injunction will Silence a great number of able and faithful Ministers, while there are not competent Preachers of the Gospel to supply very many of their Places, then to enjoin all, &c. is to use the Power to Deprive, &c. —

But the Antecedent is certain: Ergo, &c.

Two notorious Evidences in Matter of Fact do fully prove the Antecedent:

1. That there are a great number of able, faithful Ministers, whole Consciences do forbid them to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, though they suffer Silencing for it: and that the Injunction doth Silence (and Imprison them) if they do not deny it them. 2. That there are very many Congregations in Wales and divers parts of England, where are Thousands of ignorant ungodly People, that even now have no competent Preachers, much less will there be enow when all there Ministers are turned out.

3. To the Destruciton of the Church.

III. 1. To use this Power to deprive the Church of a great number of her pious and exemplary Members, that are meet for her Communion, is to use it to the Churches Destruction.

But to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel at the Reception of the Sacrament, is to use this Power to Deprive the Church of a great number of her Pious and Exemplary Members, that are meet for her Communion.

Ergo, To enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to use this Power to Destruction.

2. To use this Power to the certain and lamentable Division of the Church, is to use it to the Destruction of the Church.

But to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Lord's Supper, is to use this Power, to the certain and lamentable Division of the Church:

Ergo, To enjoin all, &c. is to use this Power to the Destruciton of the Church: The Major is undeniable: The Minor I prove thus—

1. To divide by force (or constraint) so many Thousands as dare not kneel in Receiving the Lord's Supper, from the rest, is to use this Power to the actual and lamentable Division of the Church.

But to enjoin all Ministers to deny them Communion, is to divide them by constraint from the rest:

Ergo, To enjoin all, &c. is to use this power to the certain and lamentable Division of the Church.

2. To maintain and exercise by this Power a Principle of Church Division, is to use this Power to the certain and lamentable Division of the Church.

But to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not receive kneeling, is to maintain and exercise a Principle of Church Division, (that is, such as is of its own nature fitted to divide it, and will effect it).

Ergo, To enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not Receive kneeling, is to use this Power to the certain and lamentable Division of the Church.

The Minor (which only needs proof) I prove thus:

To maintain and exercise this Principle; That [Things as unnecessary, small and doubtful, as kneeling in the Reception of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, are to be made necessary to the Communion of the Church] is to maintain and exercise a Principle of Church Division.

But to enjoin all Ministers to deny Communion to all that dare not Receive kneeling, is to maintain and exercise this Principle, that [Things as unnecessary, small and doubtful, as kneeling in the Reception of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, are to be made necessary to the Communion of the Church].

Ergo, To enjoin all, &c. is to maintain and exercise a Principle of Church-Division.

The Major (which only needs proof) is thus proved.

To maintain and exercise such a Principle as, 1. Never yet was exercised, but it did divide the Church; 2. and by which its Divisions have been caused or cherished ever since the Roman Usurpation begun; 3. and which cannot possibly consist with Unity whilst Christians are of such different. 1. Educations, 2. and degrees of Natural Understanding. 3. and degrees of Grace, is to maintain and exercise a Principle of Church Division.

But to maintain and exercise this Principle [That Things as unnecessary, small and doubtful as kneeling in the Reception of the Sacrament, are to be made necessary to the Communion of the Church] is to maintain and exercise such a Principle, as 1. never yet was exercised but it did divide, &c. — Ergo —

And thus our Dispute at the Savoy ended, and with it our Endeavors for Reconciliation upon the Warrant of the King's Commission.

§ 236. Were it not a thing in which an Historian so much concerned in the business is apt to be suspected of partiality, I would here annex a Character of each one that managed this business as they shown themselves. But because it hath that inconvenience, I will omit it, only telling you what part each one of them acted in all this Work.

The Bishop of London (since Archbishop of Canterbury ) only appeared the first day of each Conference (which, besides that before the King, was but twice in all as I remember) and meddled not at all in any Disputations: But all Men supposed that he and Bishop Morley (and next Bishop Hinchman ) were the doers and disposers of all such Affairs. The Archbishop of York, spake no more than I have told you, and came but once or twice in all. Bishop Morley was oft there, but not constantly, and with free and fluent words, with much earnestness, was the chief Speaker of all the Bishops, and the greatest Interrupter of us; vehemently going on with what he thought serviceable to his end, and bearing down Answers by the said fervor and interruptions. Bishop Cosins was there constantly, and had a great deal of talk with so little Logic, Natural or Artificial, that I perceived no one much moved by anything he said. But two Virtues he shown (though none took him for a Magician): One was, that he was excellently well versed in Canons, Councils, and Fathers, which he remembered, when by citing of any Passages wotried him. The other was, that as he was of a Rustic Wit and Carriage, so he would endure more freedom of our Discourse with him, and was more affable and familiar than the rest. Bishop Hinchman (since Bishop of London ) was of the most grave, comely, reverend Aspect, of any of them; and of a good insight in the Fathers and Councils, Cosins and he and Dr. Gunning being all that shown any of that skill among us considerable: in which they are all three of very laudable understandings, and better than any other of either of the Parties that I met with: And Bishop Hinchman spake calmly and slowly, and not very oft: But was as high in his Principles and Resolutions as any of them.

Bishop Sanderson of Lincoln was some time there, but never spake that I know of but what I have told you before: But his great Learning and Worth are known by his Labors , and his aged Peevishness not unknown.

Bishop Gauden was our most constant helper; He and Bishop Cosins seldom were absent. And how bitter soever his Pen be, he was the only Moderator of all the Bishops (except our Bishop Reynolds ): He shown no Logic, nor meddled in any Dispute, or Point of Learning; but a calm, fluent, Rhetorical Tongue: And if all had been of his mind, we had been reconciled: But when by many days Conference in the beginning, we had got some moderating Concessions from him (and from Bishop cosins by his means) the rest came in the end and brake them all.

Bishop Lucie of St. David 's, spake once or twice a few words calmly, and so did Bishop Nicholson of Gloucester, and Bishop Griffiths of Asaph (though no Commissioners); and did no more.

Bishop King of Chicbester I never saw there: Bishop Warner of Rocbester was there once or twice, but meddled not that I heard. Bishop Lany of Peterborough was twice or thrice there, and talked as is before recited; for I remember no more.

Bishop Walton of Chester was there once or twice, and spake but what is before recited, that I know of.

Bishop Sterne of Carlisle, since Archbishop of York, was of a most sober, honest, mortified Aspect, but spake nothing that I know of, but that weak uncharitable word before mentioned: so that I was never more deceived by a Man's Face.

Bishop Reynolds spake much the first day for bringing them to Abatements and Moderation: And afterwards he fate with them, and spake now and then a word for Moderation. He was a solid honest Man, but through mildness and excess of timorous reverence to great Men, altogether unfit to contend with them.

Mr. Thorndike spake once a few impertinent passionate words, confusing the Opinion which we had received of him from his first Writings, and confirming that which his second and last Writings had given us of him.

Dr. Earl, Dr. Heylin, and Dr. Barwick never came. Dr. Hacket (since Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield ) said nothing to make us know anything of him Dr. Sparrow said but little; but that little was with a Spirit enough for the imposing dividing Cause.

Dr. Pierson and Dr. Gunning did all their Work (beside Bishop Morley 's Discourses but with great difference in the manner. Dr. Pierson was their true Logician and Disputant, without whom, as far as I could discern, we should have had nothing from them, but Dr. Gunning 's passionate Invectives mixed with some Argumentations: He disputed acurately, soberly and calmly (being but once in any passion) breeding in us a great respect for him, and a persuasion that if he had been independent, he would have been for Peace, and that if all were in his power, it would have gone well: He was the strength and honor of that Cause which we doubted whether he heartily maintained.

Dr. Gunning was their forwardest and greatest Speaker; understanding well what belonged to a Disputant; a Man of greater Study and Industry than any of them, well read in Fathers and Councils; and of a ready Tongue; (and I hear and believe of a very temperate Life, as to all Carnal Excesses whatsoever): but so vehement for his high imposing Principles, and so over-zealous for Arminianism and Formality and Church Pomp, and so very eager and servant in his Discourse, that I conceive his Prejudice and Passion much perverted his Judgment, and I am sure they made him lamentably over-run himself in his Discources.

Of Dr. Pierce I will say no more, because he hath said so much of me.

On our part, Dr. Bates spake very solidly, judiciously and pertinently when he spake: And for myself, the reason why I spake so much, was because it was the desire of my Brethren, and I was loath to expose them to the hatred of the Bishops, but was willinger to take it all upon myself, they themselves having so much wit as to be therein more sparing and cautelous than I; and I thought that the Day and Cause commanded me those two things, which then were objected against me as my Crimes, viz. speaking too boldly, and too long. And I thought it a Cause that I could comfortably suffer for; and should as willingly be a Martyr for Charity as for Faith.

§ 237. When this Work was over, the rest of our Brethren met again, and resolved to draw up an Account of our Endeavors, and present it to his Majesty, with our Petition for his promised help yet for those Alterations and Abatements which we could not procure of the Bishops: And that first we should acquaint the Lord Chancellor withal, and consult with him about it. Which we did; and as soon as we came to him, according to my expectation, I found him most offended at me, and that I had taken off the distaste and blame from all the rest. At our first entrance he merrily told us, [ That if I were but as fat as Dr. Manton, we should all do well ]. I told him, if his Lordship could teach me the Art of growing fat, he should find me not unwilling to learn, by any good means. He grew more serious, and said, That I was severe and strict, like a Melancholy Man, and made those things Sin which others did not: And I perceived he had been possessed with displeasure towards me upon that account, that I charged the Church and Liturgy with Sin; and had not supposed that the worlt was but inexpendiency. I told him that I had spoken nothing but what I thought, and had given my Reasons for— After other such Discourse, we craved his Favor to procure the King's Declaration yet to be past into an Act, and his Advice what we had further to do. He consented that we should draw up an Address to his Majesty, rendering him an account of all; but desired that we would first show it him: which we promised.

§ 238. When we shown our Paper to the Lord Chancellor (which the Brethren had desired me to draw up, and had consented to without any alteration) he was not pleased with some Passages in it, which he thought too pungent or pressing: but would not bid us put them out. So we went with it to the Lord Chamberlain (who had heard from the Lord Chancellor about it), and I read it to him also, and he was earnest with us to bloe out some Passages as too vehement, and such as would not well be born. I was very loath to leave them out, but Sir Gilbirt Gerrard (an ancient godly Man) being with him, and of the same mind, I yielded (having no remedy, and being unmeer to oppose their Wisdoms any further): And so what they Scored under we left out, and presented the rest to his Majesty afterwards. But when we came to present it, the Earl of Manchester secretly told the rest, that if Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Bates, and Dr. Manton would deliver it, it would be the more acceptable (intimating that I was grown unacceptable at Court): But they would not go without me, and he professed he desired not my Exclusion: But when they told me of it, I took my leave of him, and was going away: But he and they came after me to the Stairs, and importuned me to return, and I went with them to take my Farewell of this Service. But I resolved that I would not be the Deliverer of any of our Papers (though I had got them transcribed and brought them thither): So we desired Dr. Manton to deliver our Petition, and with it the fair Copies of all our Papers to the Bishops (which was required of us for the King). And when Bishop Reynolds had spoken a few words, Dr. Manton delivered them to the King; who received them and the Petition, but did not bid us read it at all. At last, in his Speeches, something fell in which Dr. Monton told him that the Petition gave him a full account of, if his Majesty pleased to give him leave to read it; whereupon he had leave to read it out. The occassion was, a short Speech which I made to inform his Majesty how far we were agreed with the Bishops, and wherein the difference did not lie, as in the Points of Loyalty, Obedience, Church, Order, &c. This Dr. Monton also spake: And the King but the Question, [ But who shall be Judge? ] And I answered him, That Judgment is either public or private: Private Judgment called Discretionis, which is but the use of my Reason to conduct my Actions, belongeth to every private rational Man: Public Judgment is Ecclesiastical or Civil, and belongeth accordingly to the Ecclesiastical Governors (or Pastors) and the Civil; and not to any private Man. And this was the end of these Affairs.

§ 239. I will give you the Copy of the Petition just as I drew it up, because 1. Here you may see what those words were which could not be tolerated; 2. Because it is but supposing the under-scored Lines to be blotted out, and you have it as it was presented without any Alteration. For those under scored Lines were all the words that were left out.

§ 240. And in the Conclusion of this Business, seeing we could prevail with these Prelates and Prelatical Men, (after so many Calamities by Divisions, and when they pretended Desires of Unity), to make no considerable Alterations at all; the Reason of it seeming unsearchable to some, was by others confidently conjectured to be these:

1. They extremely prejudiced the Persons that sought this Peace, and therefore were glad of means to cast them out and ruin them.

2. The Effects of the Parliament's Conquest had exasperated them to the height.

3. They would not have any Reformation or Change to occasion Men to think that ever they were in an Error, or that their Adversaries had reasonably desired, or had procured a Reformation.

4. Some confidently thought that a secret Resolution to unite with the Papists (at least as high as the old Design which Heylin owneth in Laud 's Life) was the greatest cause of all: And that they would never have lost so great a Party, as they did but to gain a greater (at home and abroad together.)

§ 241. And here, because they would abate us nothing at all considerable, but made things far harder and heavier than before, I will annex the Concessions of Archbishop Usher, Archbishop Williams, Bishop Morton, Bishop Holdsworth, and many others in a Committee at Westminster (before mentioned) 1641.

§ 242. And now our Calamities began to be much greater than before: We were called all by the Name of Presbytorians (the odious Name): though we never put up one Petition for Presbytery, but pleaded for Primitive Episcopacy. We were represented in the common talk of those who thought it their Interest to be our Adversaries, as the most Seditious People, unworthy to be used like Men, or to enjoy our common Liberty among them. We could not go abroad but we met with daily Reproaches and false Stories of us: Either we were feigned to be Plotting, or to be Disaffecting the People, &c. And no Sermon that I preached, scarce escaped the Censure of being Seditious, though I preached only for Repentance and Faith, and Morality and Common Virtue, yea, if it were against Disobedience and Sedition, all was one as to my Estimation with those Men. And the great Increaser of all this was, that there were a multitude of Students that studied for Preferment, and many Gentlemen that aimed at their Rising in the World, who found our quickly what was most pleasing to those whose Favor they must rise by, and so set themselves industriously to Reviling, Calumniating and Cruelty, against all those whom they perceived to be odious! And he that can but convince a worldly Generation of anything that's the ready way to their Preserment, shall be sure to have it closely followed, and thoroughly done with all their might.

§ 243. Before and about this time many Books (if so they may be called) were written against me. One by Mr. Naufen (forementioned) a Justice of Peace in Worcestershire, who being a great Friend of the Papists, had spoken against me on the Bench at the Sessions behind my back, as the Author of a Petition against Popery heretofore: and was angry with me for evincing to him his mistake, temerity and injustice: And when he saw his time, he had nothing else to be the fuel of his Revenge, but that very Book which I wrote against the Papists: and therein against the killing of the King, which I aggravated against the Army and the Popish Instigators and Actors: But because in Answer to the Papists, I made their Doctrine and Practice of King killing to be worse than these Sectaries were guilty of, and thereupon recited what the Sectaries said for themselves, which the Jesuits have not to say; he took up all these Reasons of the Sectaries, and answered them as if they had been my own, and I had pleaded for that, which I condemned by writing in a time when it might have cost me my Life, when the Gendeman that thus would have proved me a Traitor, did himself act under the Usurpers, and took their Impositions, which we abhorred and refused.

§ 244. And here I shall insert a Passage not contemptible concerning the Papists, because I am fall's into the mention of them. In Cromwells days, when I was writing that very Book, and my Holy Commonwealth, and was charging their Treasons and Rebellions on the Army, one Mr. James Stansfield, a Reverend Minister of Glocestershire, called on me, and tod me a Story; which afterwards he sent me under his Hand, and warranted me to publish it; which was this.

One Mr. Atkins of Glocestershire, Brother to Judge Atkins, being beyond Sea, with others that had served the late King, fell into intimate acquaintance with a Priest, that had been (or then was) Governor of one of their Colleges in Flanders: They agreed, not to meddle with each other about Religion, and so continued their Friendship long. A little after the King was beheaded, Mr. Atkins met this Priest in London, and going into a Tavern with him, said to him in his familiar way, [What business have you here? I warrant you come about some Roguery or other]. Whereupon the Priest told it him as a great secret, [That there were Thirty of them here in London, who by Instructions from Cardinal Mazarine, did take care of such Affairs, and had sat in Council, and debated the Question, Whether the King should be put to death or not? and that it was carried in the Affirmative, and there were but two Voice; for the Negative, which was his own and another's: And that for his part he could not concur with them, as foreseeing what misery this would bring upon his Country]. That Mr. Atkins stood to the Truth of this, but thought it a Violation of the Laws of Friendship, to name the Man.

I would not print it without fuller Attestation, left it should be a wrong to the Papists. But when the King was restored and settled in Peace, I told it occasionly to Privy Counselor, who not advising me to meddle any further in it, because the King knew enough of Mazarine 's Designs already, I let it alone. But about this time I met with Dr. Thomas Gnad, and occasionally mentioning such a thing, he told me that he was familiarly acquainted with Mr. Atkins, and would know the certainty of him, whether it were true: And not long after meeting him again, he told me that he spoke with Mr. Atkins, and that he assured him that it was true: but he was loath to meddle in the publication of it. Nor did I think it prudence my self to do it, as knowing the Malice and Power of the Papists.

Since this, Dr. Peter Moulin hath in his Answer to Philanax Anglicus, declared that he is ready to prove, when Authority will call him to it, that the King's Death and the Change of the Government, was first proposed both to the Sorborne, and to the Pope with his Conclave, and consented to and concluded for by both.

§ 245. Another Book wrote against me was (as was thought) by one Tompkins, a young Man of All-Souls, Son to Mr. Tompkins of Worcester, and a School-boy there when I lived in that County : He called it The Rebel's Plea; being a Confutation of such Passages in my Holy Commonwealth, as he least understood and could make most odious. All these Men made me think, what one advised the Papists to do for the effectual Confutation of the Protestants; viz. Not to dispute or talk with them at all, but to preach every day against them in the Pulpits; for there they may speak without any Contradiction, and need not fear an Answer.

§ 246. Shortly after our Disputation at the Savoy, I went to Rickmersworth in Hartfordshire, and preached there but once, upon Matth. 22. 12. [And he was speechless]: where I spake not a word that was any nearer kin to Sedition, or that had any greater tendency to provoke them, than by showing [that wicked men, and the refusers of grace, however they may now have many things to say to excuse their sin, will at last be speechless, and dare not stand to their wickedness before God.] Yet did the Bishop of Worcester tell me, when he silenced me, that the Bishop of London had shown him Letters from one of the Hearers, assuring him that I preached seditiously: so little Security was any Man's Innocency (that displeased the Bishops) to his Reputation with that Party, who had but one Auditor that desired to get favor by accusing him. So that a multitude of such Experiences made me perceive, when I was silenced, that there was some Mercy in it, in the midst of Judgment: for I should scarce have preached a Sermon, nor put up a Prayer to God, which one or other (through Malice, or hope of Favor) would not have been tempted to accuse as guilty of some heinous Crime: And as Seneca saith, He that hath an Ulcer crieth Oh, if he do but think you touched him.

§ 247. Shortly after my return to London, I went into Worcestershire, to try whether it were possible to have any honest Terms from the Reading Vicar there, that I might preach to my former Flock: But when I had preached twice or thrice, he denied me liberty to preach anymore: I offered him to take my Lecture, which he was bound to allow me (under a Bond of 500 l); but he refused it: I next offered him to be his Curate, and he refused it: I next offered him to preach for nothing, and he refused it: And lastly, I desired leave but once to Administer the Sacrament to the People, and preach my Farewell Sermon to them; but he would not consent. At last I understood that he was directed by his Superiors to do what he did: But Mr. Baldwin (an able Preacher whom I left there) was yet permitted.

§ 248. At that time, my aged Father lying in great pain of the Stone and Strangury, I went to visit him (Twenty miles further): And while I was there, Mr. Baldwin came to me, and told me that he also was forbidden to preach. We returned both to Kidderminster, and having a Lecture at Sheffnel in the way, I preached there, and stayed not to hear the Evening Sermon, because I would make haste to the Bishop. It fell out that my turn at another Lecture was on the same day with that at Sheffnal (viz. at Cleibury in Shropshire also): And many were there met in expectation to hear me: But a Company of Soldiers were there (as the Country thought, to have apprehended me); who shut the Doors against the Ministers that would have preached in my stead (bringing a Command to the Churchwarden to hinder any one that had not a License from the Bishop); and the poor People that had come from far were fain to go home with grieved hearts.

§ 249. The next day it was confidently reported that a certain Knight offered the Bishop his Troop to apprehend me, if I offered to preach: And the People dissuaded me from going to the Bishop, supposing my Liberty in danger. But I went that Morning with Mr. Baldwin, and in the hearing of him and Dr. Warmstry, then Dean of Worcester, I remembered the Bishop of his Promise to grant me his Licence, &c. but he refused me liberty to preach in his Diocese, though I offered him to preach only on the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer and Ten Commandments, Catechistical Principles, and only to such as had no preaching. But the Discourse between him and me at that time, I have had occasion since particularly to recite in my Answer to him, according as I noted it down when I came home; and therefore I shall here pass it by. And since then I never preached in his Diocese.

§ 250. When he Silenced me, he told me that he marvelled that I should think my own preaching so necessary, as to offer to preach for nothing, as if other Men could not do as much good as I? I told him, That when they and I had all done our best, there would be many Places unsupplyed; and asked him, Whether he thought that such an one as I were not better than none! He told me, That he thought no meanly of my Abilities; but till I was better affected, he thought they were better that had none. I urged him to tell me what he thought was the Error of my Mind or Affections, and what he would have me do towards the Cure? My Errors he would not tell me (save the ridiculous recital of that Sentence at the Savoy, of Sin per accidens, which I have spoken of in my Answer to him at large); but for my Cure (of I know not what) he would have me read Bilson and Hooker. I told him that was not now to do: But when, at his persuasion, I revised them, I admired at their Infatuation, that ever they suffered such Books as Hooker 's Eighth Book, and Bishop Bilson of Obedience, to see the Light: When Hooker goeth so much further than the Long Parliament went, as to affirm that the Legislative Power is so naturally belonging to the whose Body; that it is Tyranny for a single Person to exercise it, (Lib. 1.) And that the King is singulis Major, sed Universis Minor, and receiveth his Power from the People, with many more Antimonarchical Principles, which I have confuted in the Fourth Part of my Christian Directory particularly, as judging them unsound. And Bilson, in that excellent Book of Christian Obedience, hath this passage, which methinks should make them burn it, and not commend it to us for our Cure, [Pag. 520. If a Prince should go about to subject his Kingdom to a Foreign Realm, or change the Form of the Commonwealth, or neglect the Laws established by common Consent of Prince and People, to execute his own pleasure: In these, and other Cases which might be named, if the Nobles and the Commons join together to defend their ancient and accustomed Liberty, Regiment and Laws, they may not well be counted Rebels]—[I never denied that the People might preserve the Foundation, Freedom and Form of their Commonwealth, which they fore-prized when they first consented to have a King—I say, the Law of God giveth no Man leave to resist his Prince: but I never said, that Kingdom; and Commonwealths might not proportion their States as they thought best, by their public Laws; which afterwards the Princes themselves may not violate. By [Superior Powers ordained of God] we understand, not only Princes, but all Politick States and Regiments: somewhere the People, somewhere the Nobles, having the same Interest to the Sword that Princes have in their Kingdoms. And in Kingdoms where Princes bear rule, by [the Sword], we do not mean the Princes private Will, against his Laws; but his Precept derived from his Laws, and agreeing with his Laws: which though it be wicked, yet may it not be resisted by any Subject with armed violence. Marry, when Princes offer their Subjects, not Justice, but Force, and despise all Laws to practice their Lusts, not every nor any private Man, may take the Sword and redress the Prince; but if the Laws of the Land appoint the Nobles, as next the King, to assist him in doing right, and withhold him from doing wrong, then be they licensed by Man's Law, and so not prohibited by God's to interpose themselves for the safety of Equity and Innocency, and by all lawful and needful means, to procure the Prince to be reformed, but in no case deprived, where the Scepter is inherited ]. So far Bishop Bilson to whom I was sent.

§ 251. To return to Bishop Monley; He told me when he Silenced me, that he would take care that the People should be no losers, but should be taught as well as they were by me. And when I was gone, he got awhile a few scandalous Men, with some that were more civil, to keep up the Lecture, till the paucity of their Auditors gave them a pretence to put it down. And he came himself one day and preached to them, a long Invective against them and me, as Presbyterians, and I know not what; so that the People wondered that ever a Man would venture to come up into a Pulpit, and speak so confidently to a People, that he knew not, the things which they commonly knew to be untrue. And this Sermon was so far from winning any of them to the estimation of their New Bishop, or curing that which he called the Admiration of my Person, (which was his great endeavor) that they were much confirmed in their former Judgments. But still the Bishop looked at Kidderminster as a Factious, Schismatical, Presbyterian People, that must be cured of their over-valuing of me, and then they would be cured of all the rest: Whereas if he had lived with them the twentieth part so long as I had done, he would have known that they were neither Presbyterians, nor Factious nor Shismatical, nor Seditious; but a People that quietly followed their hard Labor, and learned the Holy Scriptures, and lived a holy, blameless Life, in Humility and Peace with all Men, and never had any Sect or separated Party among them, but abhorred all Faction and Sidings in Religion, and lived in Love and Christian Unity. Yet when the Bishop was gone, the Dean came and preached about three hours or near, to cure them of the Admiration of my Person; and a month after came again and preached over the same, persuading the People that they were Presbyterians and Schismatical, and were led to it by their over-valuing of me. The People admired at the temerity of these Men, and really thought that they were scarce well in their Wits, that would go on to speak things so far from truth of Men whom they never knew, and that to their own faces. Many have gone about by backbiting to make People believe a false report of others: but few will think to persuade any to believe it of themselves, who know themselves much better than the Reprover doth. Yet besides all this, their Lecturers were to go on in the same strain, and one Mr. Pitt (who lived in Sir John Packington 's House, with Dr. Hammond ) was often at this work (being of the Judgment and Spirit of Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pierce ) calling them Presbyterians, Rebellious, Serpents, and Generation of Vipers, unlikely to scape the Damnation of Hell, yet knowing not his Accusation to be true of one Man of them (For there was but one, if one Presbyterian in the Town, but plain honest People, that minded nothing but Piety, Unity, Charity, and their Callings). This dealing (instead of winning them to the Preacher) drove them from the Lecture, and then (as I said) they accused the People as deserting it, and put it down.

§ 252. For this ordinary Preacher they set up one of the best parts they could get ( was far from what his Patrons spake him to be) who was quickly a weary and went away. And next they set up a poor dry Man, that had been a School-master near us, and after a little time he died: And since they have taken another Course, and set up a young Man (the best they can get) who taketh the contrary way to the first, and over-applaudeth me in the Pulpit to them, and speaketh well of them, and useth them kindly: And they are glad of one that hath some Charity. And thus the Bishop hath used that Flock, who say that till then they never knew so well what a Bishop was, nor were before so guilty of that dislike of Episcopacy, of which they were so frequently and vehemently accused. I hear not of one person among them, who is won to the Love of Prelacy or Formality since my removal.

§ 253. Having parted with my dear Flock (I need not say, with mutual sense and tears) I left Mr. Baldwin to live privately among them, and oversee them in my stead, and visit them from House to House; advising them, notwithstanding all the Injuries they had received, and all the Failings of the Ministers that preached to them, and the Defects of the present Way of Worship, that yet they should keep to the Public Assemblies, and make use of such Helps as might be had in Public, together with their private Helps: Only in three Cases to absent themselves; 1. When the Minister was one that was utterly insufficient, as not being able to teach them the Articles of the Faith and Essentials of true Religion (such as alas, they had known to their sorrow). 2. When the Minister preached any Heresy, or Doctrine which was directly contrary to any Article of the Faith, or necessary part of Godliness. 3. When in the Application he set himself gainst the Ends of his Office, to make a holy Life seem odious, and to keep Men from it, and to promote the Interest of Satan: Yet not to take every bitter Reflection upon themselves or others, occasioned by difference of Opinion or Interest, to be a sufficient Cause to say that the Minister preacheth against Godliness, or to withdraw themselves.

§ 254. When I was gone from them, I wrote not a Letter to them past onec in a year, left it should bring Suffering upon them (the Cause also why I removed my Dwelling from them was, because they apprehended themselves that my presence would have been their ruin, as to Liberty and Estates): For had they but received a Letter from me, any displeasing thing that they had done, would have been imputed to that. As for instance, not long after, there came out the Act that all that had any Place of Trust in Cities, Corporations or Countries, should be put out, unless they declared that they held [That there is no Obligation lying upon them, or any other person, from the Oath called The Solemn League and Covenant]: Hereupon all the Thirteen Capital Burgesses, Bailiff, Justice, and all, save one that had been an Officer in the King's Army, were turned out (though I suppose never anymore than two or three of them took the Oath and Covenant themselves); and almost all the 25 inferior Burgesses were turned out with them. Whereupon it was charged upon them that I had persuaded them to refuse this Declaration; till it was manifest that I had never once spoke a word to them about it, nor written one Line to them about that or anything else, of a long time: At such a distance were we forced to remain.

§ 255. After a short time the Lord Windsor, who was Lord Lieutenant of the County (and Governor of Iamaica), bought a House in the Town, and lived among them; (as most thought, to watch over them as a dangerous People) which turned to their great Relief: For before his coming, they were many of them imprisoned, and hardly used; but when he lived among them, and saw their honesty and innocence, they have had Three years of as great quietness and liberty, as any place I know in the Land. When he first came thither I was there, and went to wait upon him, and told him (truly) that I was glad of his coming for my Neighbor's sakes: for an innocent People are never so safe as under their Governor's Eye; seeing Slanders have their power most on strangers that are unacquainted with the persons or the things.

§ 256. Just at the time that the Bishop was Silencing me, it was famed at London that I was in the North, in the Head of a Rebellion! And at Kidderminster I was accused, because there was a Meeting of many Ministers at my House; which was no more than they knew had been their constant Custom many a year, to visit me, or dine with me. And while we were at Dinner, it fell out that by public Order, the Covenant was to be burnt in the Market-place, and it was done under my Window: and the Attendance was so small, that we knew not of it till afterwards: Yet because I had preached the Morning before (which as I remember was my last Sermon there) upon Christ's words on the Cross [Father forgive them; for they know not what they do] I was accused of it as a heinous Crime, as having preached against the burning of the Covenant: which I never meddled with, nor was it done till after the Sermon, nor did I know when it was done, no: mind it; nor did I apply the Text to any Matters of those present Times; but only in general to persuade the Hearers to the forgiving of Injuries, and maintaining Charity, in the midst of the greatest Temptations to the contrary: and to remember that it was the Tempter's Design, by every wrong which they received, to get advantage for the weakening of their Love to those that did it; which therefore they should with double care maintain. This was the true scope of that Sermon which deserved Death or Banishment, as all my Pacificatory Endeavors had done.

§ 257. When I came back to London, my Book called [The Mischiefs of Self-ignorance and Benefits of Self-acquaintance] was coming out of the Press: And my affection to my People of Kidderminster caused me, by a short Epistle to direct it to them, and because I could never after tell them publicly (being Silenced) I told them here the occasion of my removal from them, and my silencing; for brevity summing up the principal things in my Charge. And because I said [This was the Cause] the Bishop took advantage, as if I had said, This was the whole Cause] when the Conference between him and me was half an hour long, and not fit to be wholly inserted in a short Epistle, where I intended nothing but the sum. But the Bishop took occasion hereupon to gather up all that ever he could say to make me odious, and especially out of my Holy Commonwealth, and our Conference at the Savoy; where he gathered up a scrap of an Assertion which he did not duly understand, and made it little less than Heresy; and this he published in a Book called A Letter; which I truly profess, is the fullest of palpable Untruths in Matter of Fact, that ever I saw Paper, to my remembrance in all my Life. The words which he would render me so abhorred for, are our denial of Dr. Pierson 's and Dr. Gunning 's, &c. Propositions, about the innocence of Laws which command Things evil by Accident only: where the Bishop never discerned (unless he dissemble it) the Reasons of our Denial, nor the Proposition denied: The very words of the Dispute being printed before, and I having fully opened the Bishops Mistakes, in an Answer to him, I shall not here stope the Reader with it again.

§ 258. But this vehement Invective of the Bishop's presently taught all that desired his Favor, and the improvement of his very great Interest for their Ends, to talk in all Companies at the same rates as he had done, and to speak of me as he had spoken, and those that thought more was necessary to their hopes, presented the Service of their Pens. Dr. Boreman of Trinity College wrote a Book, without his Name, and had no other design in it than to make me odious; nor any better occasion for his writing than this: There had many years before past divers Papers between Dr. Thomas Hill, then Master of Trinity College in Cambridge, and me, about the Point of [Physical efficient Predetermination as necessary to every Action natural and free]: I had written largely and earnestly against Predetermination, and he a little for it: In the end of it, the Calamities of the Sectarian times, and some Sicknesses among my Friends, had occasioned me to vent my moan to him as my Friend; and therein to speak of the doubtfulness of the Cause of the former War, and what reason there was to be diligent in search and prayer about it. When Dr. Hill was dead. Dr. Boreman came to see these Papers: Both the Subjects he must needs know were such, as tended rather to my Esteem, than to my Disparagement with the Men of these Times. Certainly the Arminians will be angry with no Man for being against Predetermination; and I think they will pardon him for questioning the Parliaments Wars: Yet did this disingenious Dr. make a Book on this occasion, to seek Preferment by reproaching me, for he knew not what: But to make up the matter, he writeth that it is reported, That I killed a Man in 〈…〉 with my own hands in the Wars: Whereas God knoweth, that I never hurt 〈◊〉 in my Life, no never gave a Man a stroke (save one Man, when I was a Boy, whose Legg I broke with wrestling in jest; which almost broke my heart with • reif, though he was quickly cured). But the Dr. knowing that this might be soon disproved, cautiously gave me some Lenitives to persuade me to bear it patiently, telling me that if it be not true, I am not the first that have been thus abused: but for ought I know, he is the first that thus abused me. I began to write an Answer to this Book; but when I saw that Men did but laugh at it, and those that knew the Man despised it, and dissuaded me from answering such a one, I laid it by.

§ 259. When the Bishop's Invective was read, many Men were of many minds, about the answering of it: Those at a distance all cried out upon me to answer it: Those at hand did all dissuade me, and told me that it would be Imprisonment at least to me, if I did it with the greatest truth and mildness possible. Both Gentlemen and all the City Ministers told me, that it would not do half so much good, as my Suffering would do hurt: and that none believed it but the engaged Party, and that to others an Answer was not necessary, and to them it was unprofitable, for they would never read it. And I thought that the Judgment of Men that were upon the place, and knew how things went, was most to be regarded. But yet I wrote a full Answer to his Book, (except about the words in my Holy Commonwealth, which were not to be spoke to) and kept it by me, that I might use it as there was occasion. At that time Mr. Joseph Glanvile sent me the offer of his Service to write in my Defense, (He that wrote the Vanity of Dogmatizing, and a Treatise for the Praexistence of Souls, being a Platonist, of free Judgment, and of admired Parts, and now one of the Royal Society of Philosophers, and one that had a too excessive estimation of me, as far above my desert, as the malicious Party erred on the other side): But I dissuaded him from bringing himself into Suffering, and making himself unserviceable for so low an end: Only I gave him (and no Man else) my own Answer to peruse, which he returned with his Approbation of it.

§ 260. But Mr. Edward Bagshaw (Son to Mr. Bagshaw the Lawyer, that wrote Mr. Bolton 's Life), without my knowledge wrote a Book in Answer to the Bishops: I could have wisht he had let it alone: For the Man hath no great disputing Faculty, but only a florid Epistolary Style, and was wholly a Stranger to me, and to the Matters of Fact, and therefore could say nothing to them: But only being of a Bold and Roman Spirit, he thought that no Suffering should deter a Man from the smallest Duty, or cause him to silence any useful Truth. And I had formerly seen a Latin Discourse of his against Monarchy, which no whit pleased me, being a weak Argumentation for a bad Cause. So that I desired no such Champion: shortly after he went over with the E. of Anglesey, whose Household Chaplain he was, into Ireland, and having preached there sometimes, and returning back, was apprehended, and sent Prisoner to the Tower: where he continued long till his Means was all spent, and how he hath since procured Bread I know not. When he had been Prisoner about a year, it seems he was acquainted with Mr. Davis, who was also a Prisoner in the Tower: This Mr. Davis having been very serviceable in the Restoration of the King, and having laid out much of his Estate for his Service, though •• the might be the bolder with his Tongue and Pen, and being of a Spirit which some called undaunted, but others, furious, or indiscreet at best, did give an unmannerly liberty to his Tongue, to accuse the Court of such Crimes, with such Aggravations, as being a Subject, I think it not meet to name. At last, he talked so freely in the Tower also, that he was shipt away Prisoner to Tangier in Africa. Mr. Bagshaw being surprised by L'Estrange, and his Chamber searched, there was found with him a Paper called Mr. Davis 's Case: Whereupon he was brought out to speak with the King, who examined him of whom he had that Paper, and he denied to confess, and spake so boldly to the King as much offended him; whereupon he was sent back to the Tower, and laid in a deep, dark, dreadful Dungeon: When he had lain there three or four Days and Nights, without Candle, Fire, Bed or Straw; he fell into a terrible fit of the Haemorrboids which the Physicians thought did save his Life: for the pain was so vehement, that it kept him in a sweat, which cast out the Infection of the Damp. At last, by the solicitation of his Brother (who was a Conformist, and dearly loved him) he was taken up, and after that was sent away to Southsea-Castle, an unwholesome place in the Sea by Portsmouth, where (if he be alive) he remaineth close Prisoner to this day, with Vavasor Powel (a Preacher of North-Wales ) and others; speeding worse than Mr. Crofton, who was at last released.

§ 261. While I was in Shropshire and Worcestershire, it fell out that someone printed one of our Papers given into the Bishops: And though I was above an hundred miles off, yet was it all imputed to me, and Roger L'Estrange put it in the News Book, that it was supposed to be my doing. Indeed, when Dr. Gunning had asked me, Whether we would keep ours from the Press, if they would do the same by theirs, I would not promise him; but told him, though I supposed that none of us intended to be so presumptuous as to publish them without Authority, yet I could promise nothing for all them that were absent; nor could any one promise it, when so many Scriveners were entrusted to Transcribe them, that the King and Bishops might have Copies: and whether any of those Scriveners might keep a Copy for themselves I knew not. And after this most of the other Papers were printed, by I know not whom, to this day: But I conjectured that a poor Man that I paid for writing me a Copy (Dr. Reynolds 's Curate) was likeliest to do it, to get some what to supply his very great wants; but I am utterly uncertain: But I had intelligence that the second Papers were in the Press, and that Malice might impure it to me no more, I went to Secretary Morrice, and acquainted him with it, that he might send a Messenger to surprise them: But he told me, that if I could assure him that the Bishops had not given consent, I should have a warrant to search for them. I told him that I knew not what the Bishops had done, but he might easily conjecture: Nor would I search for them; but having told him, left him to do what he thought meet.

§ 262. And here I must give notice, That whereas there are then printed, [1. Our first Proposals for Concord in Discipline. 2. Our Papers upon the sight of the first Draught of the King's Declaration. 3. Our Petition and Reasons to the Bishops for Peace. 4. Our Reformed Liturgy. 5. Our Exceptions against the Faults of the Common Prayer Book. 6. Our Reply to the Bishops Answer to these Exceptions, with the Answer itself verbatim inserted. 7. Our last Account and Petition to the King. 8. A Copy of all their Disputation for the Liturgy, with our Answers]; all these being surreptitiously printed (save the first piece) by some poor Men for gain, without our Knowledge and Correction, are so falsely printed, that our wrong by it is very great: Whole Lines are left out; the most significant words are preverted by Alterations; and this so frequently, that some parts of the Papers (especially our large Reply, and our last Account to the King ) are made Nonsence; and not intelligible. But the last Paper (Dr. Pierson 's and Dr. Gunning 's Disputation) I confess was not printed without my knowledge: For Bishop Morley 's misreports with so great confidence uttered had made it of some necessity: But I added not one Syllable by way of Commentary, the words themselves being sufficient for his Confutation. If I remember, I will give you in the end of this Book the Errata of them all, that they that have the printed Copies may know how to correct them.

§ 263. The coming forth of these Papers had various effects: It increased the burning indignation which before was kindled against me on one side, and it somewhat mitigated the Censures that were taken up against me on the other side. For you must know that the Chief of the Congregational (or Independent) Party, took it ill that we took not them with us in our Treaty, and so did a few of the Presbyterian Divines; all whom we so far passed by as not to invite them to our Councils, (though they were as free as we to have done the like) because we knew that it would be but a hindrance to us, partly because their Persons were unacceptable, and partly because it might have delayed the Work: And most of the Independents, and some few Presbyterians, raised it as a common Censure against us, that if we had not been so forward to meet the Bishops with the offers of so much at first, and to enter a Treaty with them without just cause, we had all had better Terms, and standing off would have done more good: so that, though my Person and Intentions had a more favorable Censure from them than some others, yet for the Action, I was commonly censured by them, as one that had granted them too much, and wronged my Brethren by entering into this Treaty, o • t of too earnest a desire of Concord with them. Thus were Men on both extremes offended with me; and I found what Enmity, Charity and Peace are like to meet with in the 〈◊〉 . But when these Papers were printed, the Independents confess that we had dealt faithfully, and satisfactorily: And indifferent men said that Reason had once whelmed the Cause of the Dio • esans, and that we had offered them so much a test them utterly without Excuse: And the moderate Episcopal Men said the same: But the engaged Prelatist were vehemently displeased, that these Papers should 〈◊〉 c • me abroad. (Though many of them here published were never before printed, because none had Copies of them but myself).

§ 264. Bishop Morley told me when he Silenced me, that our Papers would be answered 〈◊〉 long: But no Man to this day (that ever we could hear of) hath answered them which were unanswered; Either our Reasons for Peace, or our Litugy, or our large Reply, or our Answers to Dr. Pierson 's Argument, &c. only Roger L'Estrange the writer of the News Book, hath raised out a great many words against some of them: And a nameless Author (thought to be Dr. Wommock ) hath answered one part of one Subject in our Reply, which is about excluding all Prayers from the Pulpit, besides Common Prayer; and in very plausible Language, he saith as much as can be said for so bad a Cause, viz. for the prohibiting all Extemporary Prayer in the Church. And when he cometh to the chief strength of our Reasons, he passeth it by, and faith, that in answering so much as he did, the Answer to the rest may be gathered. And to all the rest of the Subjects he faith nothing: much less to all our other Papers.

§ 265. Also another nameless Author (commonly said to be Sir Henry Yelverton ) wrote a Book for Bishop Morley against me: But neither he, nor Boreman, nor Womm •• k ever saw me, for ought I know; and I am sure he is as strange to the Cause as to me: For he taketh it out of Bishop Morley 's Book, and supposing what he hath written to be true, he findeth some words of Censorious Application, to make a Book of.

§ 266. And about the same time Sir Robert Holt a Knight of Warwickshire near Br •••• ch • m, spake in the Parliament House against Mr. Calamy and me by name, as preaching or praying seditiously; but not one syllable named that we said: And another time he named me for my Holy Commonwealth.

§ 267. And about that time, Bishop Morley having preferred a young Man, named Mr. S —(Orator of the University of Oxford, a fluent witty Satirist, and one that was sometime motioned to me to be my Curate at Kidderminster); this Man being Household Chaplain to the Lord Chancellor, was appointed to preach before the King; where the Crowd had high Expectations of some vehement Satyr: But when he had preached a quarter of an hour, he was utterly at a loss, and so unable to recollect himself, that he could go no further; but cried [The Lord be merciful to our Infirmities] and so came down. But about a Month after, they were resolved yet that Mr. S —should preach the same Sermon before the King, and not lose his expected Applause: And preach it he did (little more than half an hour, with no admiration at all of the Hearers): And for his Encouragement the Sermon was printed. And when it was printed, many desired to see what words they were that he was stopped at the first time: And they found in the printed Copy all that he had said first, and one of the next Passages which he was to have delivered, was against me for my Holy Commonwealth.

§ 268. And so vehement was the Endeavor in Court, City, and Country to make me contemptible and odious, as if the Authors had thought that the Safety either of Church or State did lie upon it, and all would have been safe if I were but vilified and hated. Insomuch that Durell the French Minister that turned to them, and wrote for them, had a senseless snatch at me in his Book; and Mr. Stoop the Pastor of the French Church was banished (or forbidden this Land) as Fame said, for carrying over our Debates into France. So that any Stranger that had but heard and seen all this, would have asked, What Monster of Villany is this Man? and what is the Wickedness that he is guilty of? Yet was I never questioned to this day before a Magistrate. Nor do my Adversaries charge me with any personal wrong to them; nor did they ever Accuse me of any Heresy, nor much contemn my Judgment, nor ever accuse my Life (but for preaching where another had been Sequestred that was an insufficient Reader, and for preaching to the Soldiers of the Parliament, though none of them knew my Business there, nor the Service that I did them): These are all the Crimes, besides my Writings, that I ever knew they charged my Life with. But Envy and Carnal Interest was so destitute of a Mask, that they everywhere openly confessed the Cause for which they endeavored my Defamation and Destruction; especially the Bishops that set all on work: 1. As one Cause was their own over-valuing of my Parts, which they made account I would employ against them. 2. Another was that they thought the Reputation of my blameless Life, would add to my ability to deserve them. 3. Another was, that they thought my Interest in the People to be far greater than indeed it was. 4. But the principal of all was, my Conference before the King and at the Savoy; in both which it fell out that Bishop Morley and I were the bassest Talkers (except Dr. Gunning), and that it was my lot to contradict him, who was not so able either to bear, or seem to bear it, as I thought at least his Honor would have instructed him to be. 5. And my refusing a Bishopric increased the indignation: And Colonel Birth that first came to offer it me, told me, that they would ruin us, if we refused it: Yet did I purposely forbear ever mentioning it, on all occasions. 6. And it was not the least Cause, that my being for Primitive Episcopacy, and not for Presbytery, and being not so far from them in some other Points of Doctrine and Worship, as many Nonconformists are, they thought I was the abler to undermine them. 7. And another Cause was, that they judged of the rest of my Talk and Life, by my Conference at the Savoy, not knowing that I took that to be my present Duty, which Fidelity to the King and Church commanded me, faithfully to do, whoever was displeased by it: and that when that time was over, I took it to be my Duty, to live as peaceably as any Subject in the Land, and not to use m • Tongue or Pen against the Government which the King was pleased to appoint, however I disallowed it. Thus have I found the old saying true, That Reconcilers use to be hated on both side, and to put their hand in the Clift, which closeth upon them and finished them.

§ 269. The next time I went to the Lord Chancellor (about the New-England Corporation) after the Bishop of Worcester 's Anger and Invective Book, he entertained me with his usual Condescension and Courtesie, but with some chiding Language, that I would meddle with Dr. Morley to provoke him: which when I had briefly spoke to, he followed on his Reprehension thus, [ Was it a handsome thing of Mr. Baxter, to speak so to so mild a Man as Dr. Earls, Clerk of the King's Closet, as when he offered you a Tippet when you preached before the King, to turn away in scorn, and say, Ple none of your Toyes? Would not a fairer Answer have been better? ] I replied to him, That I still perceived more and more the truth of what I told the Bishops, what Consequents would follow the Continuance of unhealed Factions: and what usage we must expect however we lived, and how little Innocency would do to our vindication! I told him that I never spake any such word as he mentioned, nor ever had such a thought in my heart, nor no more scrupled to wear a Tippet than to sit on a Cushion: But I thanked his Lordship, that by the benefit of his free Reprehension I came to understand how much I had been wronged by this Report to his Majesty, above a year before I heard of it; and might never have heard of it but by him; and told him that it was just thus in other Matters: And I truly told him, that I was unfeignedly thankful to his Lordship, that would reprove me for that to my face, which others only whispered behind my back, where I had opportunity to defend myself.

§ 270. Hereupon I wrote this following Letter to Dr. Earls (a mild and quiet Man) who was since Bishop of Worcester, and afterwards Bishop of Salisbury.

§ 271. Before this, in November, many worthy Ministers and others were imprisoned in many Counties; and among others, divers of my old Neighbors in Worcestershire: And that you may see what Crimes were the occasion, I will tell you the story of it. One Mr. Ambrose Sparry, (a sober, learned Minister, that had never owned the Parliament's Cause or Wars, and was in his Judgment for moderate Episcopacy) had a wicked Neighbor whom he reproved for Adultery, who bearing him a grudge, thought now he had found a time to show it: He (or his Confederates for him) framed a Letter as from I know not whom, directed to Mr. Sparry, [That he and Captain Yarrington, should be ready with Money and Arms at the time appointed, and that they should acquaint Mr. Oasland and Mr. Baxter with it]: This Letter he pretended that a Man left behind him under a Hedge, who fate down and pulled out many Letters, and put them all up again save this, and went his ways, (he knew not what he was, nor whether he went). This Letter he bringeth to Sir John P —(the Man that hotly followed such work;) who sent Mr. Sparry, Mr. Oasland, and Captain Yarrington to Prison! (This Mr. Oasland was Minister in Bewdley, a servant laborious Preacher, who had done abundance of good in converting ignorant ungodly People). And he had offended Sir Ralph Clare in being against his Election as Burgess in Parliament for that Town). But who that Mr. Baxter was that the Letter named, they could not resolve; there being another of the name nearer, and I being in London: But the Men, especially Mr. Sparry, lay long in Prison, and when the Forgery and Injury was detected, he had much ado to get out.

§ 272. Mr. Henry Jackson also our Physician at Kidderminster, and many of my Neighbors were imprisoned, and were never told for what to this day: But Mr. Jackson was so merry a Man, and they were all so cheerful there, that I think they were released the sooner, because it appeared so small a Suffering to them.

§ 273. Though no one accused me of anything, nor spake a word to me of it, (being they knew I had long been near a Hundred miles off) yet did they defame me all over the Land, as guilty of a Plot: and when Men were taken up and sent to Prison, in other Counties, it was said to be for Baxter 's Plot; so easy was it, and so necessary a thing it seemed then, to cast such filth upon my Name.

§ 274. And though through the great Mercy of God, I had long been learning not to overvalue the thoughts of Men, no not so much as the Reputation of Honesty or Innocency, yet I was somewhat wearied with this kind of Life, to be every day calumniated, and hear new Slanders raised of me, and Court and Country ring of that, which no Man ever mentioned to my face; and I was oft thinking to go beyond Sea, that I might find some place in retired privacy to live and end my days in quietness, out of the noise of a Peace-hating Generation: But my Acquaintance thought I might be more serviceable here, though there I might live more in quietness; and having not the Vulgar Language of any Country, to enable me to preach to them, or converse with them, and being so infirm as not to be like to hear the Voyage and change of Air: These, with other Impediments which God laid in my way, hindered me from putting my Thoughts in Execution.

§ 275. About this time also it was famed at the Court that I was married, which went as the matter of most heinous Crime, which I never heard charged by them on any Man but on me. Bishop Morley divulged it with all the Odium he could possibly put upon it: telling them that one in Conference with him, I said that Ministers marriage is [lawful, and but lawful] as if I were now contradicting my 〈◊〉 . And it everywhere rung about, partly as a Wonder, and partly as a Crime, whilst they cried, [This is the Man of Charity]: little knowing what they talked of. 〈◊〉 that at last the Lord Chancellor told me, He heard I was married, and wondered at it, when I told him it was not true: For they had affirmed it near a year before it came to pass. And I think the King's Marriage was scarce more talked of than mine.

§ 276. All this while Mr. Calamy and some other Ministers had been endeavoring with those that they had Interest in, and to try if the Parliament would pass the King's Declaration into a Law; and sometimes they had some hope from the Lord Chancellor and others: but when it came to the trial, their hopes all failed them; and the Conformity imposed was made ten times more burdensome than it ever was before. For besides that, the Convocation had made the Common Prayer Book more grievous than before, the Parliament made a new Act of Uniformity, with a new Form of Subscription, and a new Declaration to be made against the Obligation of the Covenant; of which more anon. So that the King's Declaration did not only die before it came to Execution, and all Hopes and Treaties and Petitions were not only disappointed, but a weight more grievous than a Thousand Ceremonies was added to the old Conformity, with a grievous Penalty.

§ 277. By this means there was a great Unanimity in the Ministers, and the greater Number were cast out: And as far as I could perceive, it was by some designed that it might be so. Many a time did we beseech them that they would have so much regard to the Souls of Men, and to the Honor of England, and of the Protestant Religion, as that without any necessity at all, they would not impose feared Perjury upon them, nor that which Conscience, and Common Esteem, and P • pish Adversaries would all call Perjury; that Papists might not have this to cast in our Teeth, and call the Protestants a Perjured People, nor England or Scotland Perjured Lands. Oft have we proved to them that their Cause and Interest required no such thing: But all was but casting Oil upon the Flames, and forcing us to think of that Monster of Milan, that made his Enemy renounce God to save his Life, before he stabbed him, that he might murder Soul and Body at a stroke. It seemed to be accounted the one thing necessary, which no Reason must be heard against, that the Presbyterians must be forced to do that which they accounted Public Perjury, or to be cast out of Trust and Office, in Church and Commonwealth. And by this means a far greater Number were laid by, than otherwise would have been; and the few that yielded to Conformity they thought would be despicable and contemptible as long as they lived. A Noble Revenge, and worthy of the Actors.

§ 278. When the Act of Uniformity was passed, it gave all the Ministers that could not Conform, no longer time than till Bartholomew-day, August 24. 1662. and then they must be all cast out: (This fatal Day called to remembrance the French Massacre, when on the same Day 30000 or 40000 Protestants perished by Religious Roman Zeal and Charity). I had no place, but only that I preached twice a Week by Request in other Men's Congregations (at Milkstreet and Blackfriars), and the last Sermon that ever I preached in Public was on May 25. The Reasons why I gave over sooner than most others was, 1. Because Lawyers did interpret a doubtful Clause in the Act, as ending the Liberty of Lecturers at that time. 2. Because I would let Authority soon know, that I intended to obey them in all that was lawful. 3. Because I would let all Ministers in England understand in time, whether I intended to Conform or not: For had I stayed to the last day, some would have Conformed the sooner, upon a Supposition that I intended it. These, with other Reasons, moved me to cease three Months before Bartholomew-day, which many censured me for a while, but after, better saw the Reasons of it.

§ 279. When Bartholomew-day came, about One thousand eight hundred, or Two thousand Ministers were Silenced and Cast out: And the Affections of most Men thereupon were such as made me fear it was a Prognostick of our further Sufferings: For when Pastors and People should have been humbled for their Sins, and lamented their former Negligence and Unfruitfulness, most of them were filled with Disdain and Indignation against the Prelates, and were ready with Confidence to say, [God will not long suffer so wicked and cruel a Generation of Men: It will be but a little while till God will pull them down]: And thus Men were puffed up by other Men's sinfulness, and kept from a kindly humbling of themselves.

§ 280. And now came in the great Inundation of Calamities, which in many Streams overwhelmed Thousands of godly Christians, together with their Pastors. As for Example, 1. Hundreds of able Ministers, with their Wives and Children, had neither House nor Bread: For their former Maintenance served them but for the time, and few of them laid up anything for the future: For many of them had not past 30 or 40 l. per Annum apiece, and most but about 60 or 80 l. per Annum, and very few above 100 l. and few had any considerable Estates of their own. 2. The Peoples Poverty was so great, that they were not able much to relieve their Ministers. 3. The Jealousy of the State, and the Malice of their Enemies were so great, that People that were willing durst not be known to give to their ejected Pastors, least it should be said that they maintained Schism, or were making Collections for some Plot or Insurrection. 4. The Hearts of the People were grieved for the loss of their Pastors. 5. Many places had such set over them in their steads, as they could not with Conscience or Comfort commit the Conduct of their Souls to. And they were forced to own all these, and all others that were thrust upon them against their Wills, and to own also the undisciplined Churches, by receiving the Sacrament in their several Parishes whether they would or not. 6. Those that did not this were to be Excommunicated, and then to have a Writ sued out against them de Excommunicatio capiendo, to lay them in the Jail, and seize on their Estates. 7. The People were hereupon unavoidably divided among themselves: For some would have nothing to do with these imposed Pastors, but would in private attend their former Pastors only: Others would do both, and take all that they thought good of both: Some would only hear the Public Sermons: Others would also go to Common Prayer where the Minister was tolerable: Some would join in the Sacrament with them, where the Minister was honest, and others would not. And this Division they long foresaw, but could not possibly prevent. 8. And the Ministers themselves were thus also divided, who before seemed all one; for some would go to Church, to Common Prayer, to Sacraments, and others would not: Some of them thought that it was their Duty to preach publicly in the Streets or Fields while the People desired it, and not to cease their Work through fear of Men, till they lay in Jails, or were all banished: Others thought that a continued Endeavor to benefit their People privately, would be more serviceable to the Church, than one or two Sermons and a Jail, at such a time, when the Multitudes of Sufferers, and the odious Titles put upon them obscured and clogged the benefit of Sufferings. And some thought that the Covenant bound all to separate from Common Prayer, and Prelates, and Parish Communion: And others thought that it rather bound them to this Communion and Worship in case they could have no better: and that to teach from House to House in private, and bring the People to attend in public, was the most righteous and edifying way, where the imposed Minister was tolerable. 9. Hereupon those Ministers that would not cease preaching were thrust into Prisons, and Censured (some of them) the rest that did not do as they. 10. The rest that preached only secretly to a few, were looked on as discontented and disaffected to the Government, and on every rumour of a new Plot or Conspiracy, taken up, and many of them laid in Prison. 11. The Prelatists and they were hereby set at a further distance, and Charity more destroyed, and Reconciliation made more hopeless, and almost anything believed that was said against a Nonconformist. 12. The Conforming Part of the Old Ministry, was also divided from the rest, and Censures set them further at a distance: (But yet where serious Godliness appeared, it kept up some Charity and Respect, and united them in the main). All these Calamities brought another; 13. That the People were tempted to murmur at their Superiors, and call them cruel Persecutors, and secretly rejoice if any hurt befell them, and many forgot that they are to Honor their Governors, even when they suffer by them, and not only to forbear evil Thoughts and Words against them, but to endeavor to keep up their Honor with their Subjects. 14. By all these Sins, these Murmurings and these Violations of the Interest of the Church and Cause of Christ the Land was prepared for that f • rther Inundation of Calamities (by War and Plague and Scarcity) which hath since brought it near to Desolation.

§ 281. It fell out one day in Mr. Calamy 's Church at Aldermanbury, that the Preacher failed, and the People desired Mr. Calamy to preach: Which he did upon confidence, that the Act did not extend to such an Occasional Sermon (some Lawyers had told him so). But for this he was sent to Newgate Jail, where he continued in the Keeper's Lodgings, many daily flocking to visit him, till the Lord B •• dgman (as is said) had given it as his Judgment, That his Sermon was not within that Penalty of the Act. And O what insulting there was by that Party, in the Newsbook, and in their Discourses, That Calamy that would not • e a Bishop was in Iail! And when his Sermon was printed, an Invective against him came out, in Language like an Inquisitor, that shown a vehement thirst for Blood. But precious in the sight of the Lord, is the Blood of his holy Ones.

§ 282. Abundance more were laid in Jails in many Counties for preaching, and the vexation of the Peoples Souls was increased. At St. Albans, Mr. Partridge the ejected Minister, being desired to preach a Funeral Sermon, a Captain or Lieutenant came in with his Pistol charged, and shot one of the hearers dead, and the Preacher was sent to Prison.

§ 283. There were many Citizens of London, who had then a great Compassion on the Ministers, whose Families were utterly destitute of Maintenance, and fain they would have relieved them, and had such a Method, that the Citizens of each County should help the Ministers of that County: But they durst not do it, lest it were judged a Conspiracy: Wherefore I went for them to the Lord Chancellor, and told him plainly of it, that Compassion moved them, but the Suspicions of these Distempered Times deterred them, and I desired to have his Lordship's Judgment, Whether they might venture to be so charitable without misinterpretation or danger? And he answered, [Aye, God forbid but Men should give their own according as their Charity leads them]. And so having his preconsent, I gave it them for Encouragement. But they would not believe that it was Cordial, and would be any Security to them, and so they never durst venture upon such a Method which might have made their Charity effectual; but a few that were most willing, did much more than all the rest, and solicited some of their own Acquaintance, for their Counties Relief.

§ 284. And here I think it meet before I proceed, to open the true state of the Conformists and Nonconformists in England at this time.

I. The Conformists were of three sorts:

1. Some of the old Ministers called Presbyterians formerly, that Conformed at Bartholomew Tide, or after, who had been in possession before the King came in: These were also of several sorts: some of them were very able worthy Men, who Conformed and Subscribed upon this Inducement, that the Bishop bid them [Do it in their own sense]: And so they Subscribed to the Parliament's words, and put their own sense upon them only by word of mouth, or in some by-paper. Some of them read Mr. Fullwood 's and Stileman 's Books, and could not answer them, and therefore Conformed: For no Man ventured to put forth a full and satisfactory Answer to them for fear of ruin (Though somewhat was written before by Mr. Crofton, and after by Mr. Cawdry and others): Some were young raw Men that were never versed in such kind of Controversies: Some were persuaded of the sinfulness of the Parliaments War, and thence gathered that the Covenant, being in order to it, was a Rebellio • s Covenant, and therefore not obligatory: And other things they thought were small. Some had Wives and Children and Powerty, which were great Temptations to them: And most that I knew, when once they inclined to Conformity, did avoid the Company of their Brethren, and never asked them what their Reasons were against Conformity.

2. A second sort of Conformists were those called Latitudinarians, who were mostly Cambridge -men, Platonists or Cartesians, and many of them Arminians with some Additions, having more charitable Thoughts than others of the Salvation of Heathens and Infidels, and some of them holding the Opinions of Origen, about the Praexistence of Souls, &c. These were ingenious Men and Scholars, and of Universal Principles, and free; abhorring at first the Imposition of these little things, but thinking them not great enough to stick at when Imposed. Of these, some (with Dr. Moore their Leader) lived privately in Colleges, and sought not any Preferment in the World: and others set themselves to rise.

These two forementioned Parties were laudable Preachers, and were the honor of the Conformists, though not heartily theirs, and their profitable Preaching is used by God's Providence, to keep up the Public Interest of Religion, and refresh the discerning sort of Auditors.

3. The third sort of Conformists, was of those that were heartily such throughout: And these were also of three sorts; 1. Those that were zealous for the Diocesan Party and the Cause, and desirous to extirpate or destroy the Nonconformists: And these were supposed to be the high and swaying Party. 2. Those that were zealous for the Party and the Cause materially; but yet were more moderate (in their private wishes) to the Nonconformists, and did profess themselves that they could not Subscribe and Declare, if they did not put a more favorable sense on the words than that which the Nonconformists supposed to be the plain sense. 3. Those that were raw, or ignorant Readers, or unlearned Men, or sensual, scandalous Ones, who would be hot for anything by which they might rise or be maintained.

This Composition made up the Body of the Conformists in this Land, and all this Difference there was among them.

II. (§ 285.) The Nonconformists also were of divers sorts. 1. There were some few (of my Acquaintance) who were for the old Conformity; for Bishops, Common Prayer Book, Ceremonies, and the old Subscription, and against the imposing and taking of the Covenant, (which they never took) and against the Parliaments Wars: But they could not Subscribe that they Assent and Consent to all things now imposed; nor could they Absolve all others in the three Kingdoms from being obliged by the Vow and Covenant to endeavor Church Reformation, though they would not have had them take the Vow.

2. A greater Number of the Nonconformists, or Reconcilers, of no Sect or Party, but abhorring the very Name of Parties; who like Ignatius 's Episcopacy, but not the English Diocesan Frame: and like what is good in Episcopal, Presbyterians, or Independents; but reject somewhat as evil in them all: being of the Judgment which I have described myself to be in the beginning of this Book: that can endure a Liturgy, and like not the Imposition of the Covenant; but cannot Assent and Consent to all things required in the Act, nor Absolve three Kingdoms from all Obligation by their Vows, to endeavor in their Places the alteration of the English Diocesan Form of Government: Though they doubt not but Sedition and Rebellion should be abhorred of all, whether for Reformation or any other Pretence.

3. A third sort of Nonconformists are the Presbyterians, whose Judgment is fore-described, and manifested in their Writings to all the World. Of these two last sorts (if I be not taken for a partial Witness) are the soberest, and most judicious, unanimous, peaceable, faithful, able, constant Ministers in this Land, or that I have heard or read of, in the Christian World! Which I am able to say, I speak without respect of Persons, in Obedience to my Conscience, upon my long Experience.

4. The fourth sort are the Independents, who are for the most part a serious godly People, some of them moderate, going with Mr. Norton and the New-England Synod, and little differing from the moderate Presbyterians, and as well ordered as any Party that I know: But others of them, more raw, and self-conceited, and addicted to Separations and Divisions, their Zeal being greater than their Knowledge; who have opened the Door to Anabaptists first, and then to all the other Sects.

These Sects are numerous, some tolerable, and some intolerable, and being never incorporated with the rest, are not to be reckoned with them. Many of them (the Behm • nists, Fifth-Monarchy-men, Quakers, and some Anabaptists ) are proper Fanatics, looking too much to Revelations within, instead of the Holy Scriptures. And thus I have truly told you of all the Sorts among us, except the Papists, who are sufficiently known, and are no more of us than the other Sects are. The Atheists and Infidels I name not, because as such, they have no Pastors.

§ 286. Next it will not be amiss if I briefly give you the Sum of their several Causes, and the Reasons of their several Ways.

I. The Conformists go several W • ys, according to their forementioned Differences.

1. Those that are high Prelatists say, 1. For Episcopacy, it is of Divine Institution, and perpetual Usage in the Church, and necessary to Order among the Clergy and People, and of experienced Benefit to this Land, and most congruous to Civil Monarchy; and therefore not to be altered by any; no not by the King and Parliament, if they should swear it: Therefore the Oath called the Et caetera Oath was formed before the War, to Swear all Men to be true to this Prelacy, and not to Change it.

2. Those that are called Conforming Presbyterians, and Latitudinarians, both say that our Prelacy is lawful, though not necessary; and that Mr. Edward Stillingfleet 's Irenicon hath well proved, That no Form of Church Government is of Divine Institution. And therefore when the Magistrate commandeth any, he is to be obeyed. But since they grew up to Preferment, they grow to be hot for the Prelacy.

§ 287. And therefore as to the Covenant, they all say, 1. That the End of it was Evil, viz. To Change the Government of the Church, without Law, which was settled by Law. 2. That the Efficient Cause was Evil or Null, viz. That the Imposers had no Authority to do it. 3. That the Matter was Evil, viz. to extirpate, and change the Government of the Church by Rebellion and Combination against the King. 4. That the Swearers Act in taking it was sinful, for the foresaid Reasons. 5. That the King's Prohibition and disowning it did nullify all the Subjects Obligations, if any were upon them, by virtue of Numb. 30. 6. That the People being all Subjects, cannot endeavor the Change of Church Government without the King. 7. That King Charles took not that same Covenant, but another. 8. That he was forced to it. 9. That he was virtually pre-engaged to the contrary Matter, in that he was Heir of the Crown, and bound to take the Coronation Oath. 10. That to cast so many Men as the Bishops out of all their Honors and Possessions, is Injustice, which none can be obliged to do. 11. That if it were lawful before to endeavor an Alteration of the Government of the Church, yet now it is not, when King and Parliament have made a Law against it. These are Mr. Fulwood 's and Mr. Stileman 's Pleas, and the Sum of all that I have heard as to that Point.

§ 288. But further, as to the Interpretation of the Words of the Declaration hereabouts, the Latitudinarians, and Conforming Presbyterians, and some of the Prelatists say as followeth: 1. That the Declaration includeth not the King, when it saith, [There is no obligation on me or any other person]: which they prove, because that Laws are made only for Subjects, and therefore are to be interpreted as speaking only of Subjects. 2. Because the King is meant in the Counterpart, or Object, viz the Government of the State, which is not to be altered. 2. They say that it is only Rebellions, or other unlawful Endeavors, that are meant by the words [ to Endeavor ]. 3. They say that by [ any Alteration ] is meant only [any Essential Alteration] and not [any Integral or Accidental Alteration] of the Government. 4. And the leading Independents have taught them also to say, that this Covenant was essentially a League, between two Nations upon a certain occasion, which therefore (if ever it did bind) is now like an Almanac out of date, Et cessat obligatio cessantibus personis, materiâ & fine. 5. They principally argue that all Men's words are to be taken charitative, in the most honest and favorable sense that they will bear: much more the King's and Parliaments: Therefore Charity permitteth us not to judge them so inhuman, irrational, irreligious, and cruel, as to command Men to be perjured, and to change the constituted Government, by prohibiting King, Parliament, or People, to do anything which belonged to them in their places. These are the Reasons for the lawfulness of declaring against the Obligation of the Covenant.

§ 289. 3. In the same Declaration it is professed, That [it is not lawful, on any pictente whatsoever, to take up Arms against the King, or any Commissionated by him] &c. Concerning this, they are also divided among themselves. One Party say, That this is true universally in the proper sense of the words. The other say, That it is to be understood of such as are legally Commissioned by him only; and that if he should Commission two or three Men, or more, to kill the Parliament, or burn the City, or to dispossess Men of their Freeholds, it were lawful forcibly to resist. Or if the Sheriff be to raise the Posse Comitatus in obedience to a Decree of a Court of Justice, to put a Man into possession of his House, he may do it forcibly, though the Defendant be Commissioned by the King to keep it. Because they say that the Law is to be taken sano sensu, and not as may lay the Law-givers under so heavy an Accusation, as the literal unlimited sense would do.

§ 290. 4. The fourth Matter of Difference, being the Oath of Canonical Obedience, they here also differ among themselves. 1. Some of them think that as the Necessity of Monarchy and our Relation to the King, doth make the Oath of Allegiance necessary, or very meet, so the Necessity of Prelacy and our Relation to the Prelates, doth make the Oath of Obedience to them justifiable and meet: For that which must be done, may be promised and sworn. 2. Others of them say, That it is only to the Bishops as Magistrates, or Officers of the King, that we swear to them. 3. And others say, That as we may be subject to any Man, in humility, so we may promise or swear it to any Man. And it being but in licit 〈◊〉 & honestis, that what we may lawfully do, we may swear to do.

§ 291. 5. The fifth Controversy is about Re-ordination of such as were not Ordained by Diocesans, but by the Presbyteries which then were (at home or abroad) And here they are also of two minds among themselves. The one sort say, That Ordination without Diocesans is a Nullity, and those that are so Ordained, are no Ministers but Laymen; and therefore their Churches, no true Churches (in sensu politico): And therefore that such must needs be Re-ordained. The other sort say, That their Ordination was valid before in foro spirituali; but not in foro cioili; and that the repeating of it, is but an afoertaining or a confirming Act, as public Marrying again would be, after one is privately married, in case the Law would bastardize or disinherit his Children else.

§ 292. 6. The sixth Controversy is about the lawfulness of the Assent and Consent to be declared, which is to all contained in the Book of Articles, the Book of Ordination, and the Book of Common Prayer. These comprehend abundance of Particulars; some Doctrinal, some about the Offices and Discipline of the Church, and some about the Matter, the Order and Manner, and Ceremonies of Worship. Here they are also divided among themselves: some few of them take the words plainly and properly, ( viz. the willing Conformists) and think that indeed there is nothing in these Books which is not to be assented and consented to: And indeed all the Convocation must needs be of that mind (or the Major part) and also the Parliament); because they had the Books before them to be perused, and did examine the Liturgy and Book of Ordination, and make great Alterations in them, and therefore if they had thought there had been anything not to be assented and consented to, they would have altered it by correction, before they had imposed it on the Church. But for all that, the other Party is now so numerous, that I could yet never speak with any of them, but went that way, viz. with the Latitudinarians to expound the words [all things contained in the Books] which they assent and consent to [All things which they are to use]: and their [Assent and Consent] they limit only to the use: q. d. [I do dissent, that there is nothing in these Books which may not lawfully be used, and I do consent to the use of so much as belongeth to me]: Though yet they think (or will not deny but) that there may be something that may be ill framed and ill imposed: The reason of this Exposition they fetch from the word [use] which is found after in the Act of Uniformity, though it be not in the words of the Delaration. And for the Books, they say, It is lawful to use the Common-Prayer, and the Ceremonies, Cross, Surplice, Copes, and Kneeling at the Sacrament, and all that is in that or the other Books to be used, and therefore to declared so much.

§ 293. More particularly, 1. Concerning the Kalendar imposing the use of so many Apocryphal Lessons, they say that they are read but upon Week-days, and that not as Scripture, but as edifying Lessons, as the Homilies are; and as many Churches have long used them. And that the Church sufficiently avoideth the Scandal by calling them Apocryph •• .

§ 294. And 2. for the parcelling and ordering of the Prayers and Responses as they are, some of them say that it is the best Form and Order, and it's only Fancy and 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 them: Others say that they are disorderly indeed, but that is not the Sin of the Users (when they are imposed) but of the Framers and 〈◊〉 .

§ 295. And 3. as for the Doctrine of the Salvation of Baptized Infants in the Rubric of Baptism, and all the rest in that Book, and in the Nine and thirty Ar ••••• , some of them say that they are all found ( viz. the willing Conformists) but the unwilling Conformists say that these are not things to be used by them • and therefore not within the Compass of the declared Assent or Consent in the Act.

§ 296. And 4. as to the Charitable Applications excepted against in Baptism, Confirmation, the Lord's Supper, Absolution of the Sick and Burial, they say they are but such as according to the Judgment of Charity we may use: And if there be any fault, it is not in the Common Prayer Book, which useth but such words as are fit to be used by the Members of the Church: but it is in the Canons and Discipline of the Church, which suffereth unfit Persons to be Church-Members.

§ 297. And 5. as for the Ceremonies, they say, 1. That Kneeling is freed from all suspicion of Idolatry, by the annexing of the Rubric out of King Edward the Sixth's Common Prayer Book: which though the Convocation refused, yet the Parliament annexed; and they are the Imposers, and it is their sense that we must stand to. And as it is lawful to Kneel in accepting a sealed Pardon from the King, by his Messenger, so is it in accepting a sealed Pardon from God, with the Investiture of our Privileges.

§ 298. And 2. they say that the Surplice is as lawful as a Gown, it being not imposed primarily because significant, but because decent, and secondarily as significant (say some): Or as others say, It is the better and fitter to be imposed, because it is significant: and that God hath nowhere forbidden such Ceremonies.

§ 299. And 3. for the Cross in Baptism, they say that it is no part of the Sacrament of Baptism, but an appendant Ceremony: that it is the better for being significant: that it is but a transient Image, and not a fixed, much less a graven Image; and is not adored: that it is but a professing sign, as words are, or as standing up, or holding up the hand; and not any Seal of God's part of the Covenant; and though it be called in the Canons a Dedicating Sign, it is but as it signifieth the Action of the Person or the Church, and not as it signifieth the Action of God receiving the dedicated Person: And some say, That it cannot be de denied but that according to the old and common use of the word [Sacrament] as a Military Engagement, it is a Sacrament; yet it is not pretended to be a Divine, but a Human Sacrament, and such are lawful: it being in our definition of a Church Sacrament that it is [Ordained by Christ himself]: And though Man may not invent New Sacraments, as God's sealing or investing Signs and so pretend that to be Divine which is not; yet man may invent New Human Sacraments, which go no further than the signifying of their own Minds and Actions. And they say, That if such mystical Signs as these had been unlawful, it is a thing incredible that the Universal Church should use such, as far as can be found, from the Apostles days; even the Milk and Honey and Chrism and White Garment at Baptism, and the Station on the Lord's Days, and the oft use of the Cross; and that Christ should have no one Witness that would ever scruple or contradict them, either among the Orthodox, or the Heretics, as far as any Records of Antiquity do make known.

§ 300. 7. The seventh Controversy is about their own practice in Administrations and Church Discipline. And 1. that they must Ministerially deny the Sacrament of Baptism to all Children, whose Parents will not have them use the Cross, they say that it is the Church that refuseth them by Law, and not they, who are by the Law disabled from receiving them. 2. The same they say of their refusing to give the Lord's Supper to any that will not kneel in the Reception of it. They say that it is better to Administer the Sacraments to some, than to none at all: which they must do if they refuse not them that kneel not. 3. And for the giving of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper to the unworthy (for all are forced to use them) they say, that the Infants of all in the Church have right to Baptism, at least for their Ancestor's sake, and for the Godfathers and Godmothers, or the Churches sake: And for the Lord's Supper, they have power to put away all that are proved impenitent in notorious Scandal.

§ 301. Having told you what the Conformists say for themselves (as faithfully as will stand with brevity) before I proceed, I think it best to set down here the words, 1. Of the Covenant; 2. Of the Subscription and Declaration; 3. Of the Oath of Canonical Obedience, before your Eyes; that while the Subject of the Controversy is before you, the Controversy itself may be the better understood. And I suppose the Reader to have all the Books before him to which we are required to Assen • 〈…〉 .

§ 302. II. The Nonconformists, who take not this Declaration, Oath, Subscription, &c. are of divers sorts, some being further distant from Conformity than others; some thinking that some of the forementioned things are lawful, and some that none of them are lawful: and all have not the same Reasons for their dissent. But all are agreed that it is not lawful to do all that is required, and therefore they are all cast out of the Exercise of the Sacred Ministry, and forbidden to preach the Word of God.

§ 303. The Reasons commonly given by them are either, 1. Against the Imposing of the things forementioned; or, 2. Against the Using of them being imposed. Those of the former sort were given into the King and Bishops before the Passing of the Act of Uniformity, and are laid down in the beginning of this Book; and the Opportunity being now past, the Nonconformists now meddle not with that part of the Cause, it having seemed good to their Superiors to go against their Reasons. But this is worthy the noting by the way, that all that I can speak with of the Conforming Party, do now justify only the Using and Obeying, and not the Imposing of these things with the Penalty by which they are Imposed: From whence it is evident, that most of their own Party do now justify our Cause which we maintained at the Savoy, which was against this Imposition (whilst it might have been prevented), and for which such an intemperate Fury hath pursued me to this very day. 2. But it is the Reasons against our full Obedience to the Imposition of this Conformity, which I am now to rehearse: but I must desire the Reader to remember, that my bare Recital is no sign of my Approbation of all that I recite, though I be one of those that dare not Conform.

§ 304. And first there are divers general Reasons which keep some of them more than others from Conformity, and drive them further, even from joining with them in Liturgy or Sacrament.

1. Some of them look upon the Principles and Lives of many of those who fall in with the established Church, as furnishing them with a sufficient Plea against Conformity: For, say they, it's easy to observe how the Profane and Vitious and Debaucht and Scandalous (which makes up but too great a part of the Nation), fall in with that Party in the Church that are for Prelacy and Liturgy, &c. and for oppressing those who differ in their Sentiments from them about these Matters. Now how say they, can we safely join in with that Body of Men, that harbours so many open Enemies to all Religion, as the profane part of the Nation comprehends? But some who are more considerate, reply, That this is no other than what is the usual Attendant of a National Establishment; it being a common thing for all those in a State, who are really of no Religion, in appearance to fall in with that Mode of Religion that is favor'd by the Law, and most encouraged by the Prince.

§ 305. 2. The same Persons say, That by Conforming they shall own and strengthen Usurpers; who have made a New Office which Christ never made, and to the great wrong of Christ, and the peril of the Church, have made themselves Lord's of God's Heritage: And as he that obeyeth the Pope's Law, is guilty of his Usurpation, so is he that obeyeth the Prelates Laws, though the Matter commanded were lawful in itself.

But the moderater Nonconformists are not for this Reason; because, say they, it is but Counsel as it cometh from the Convocation; and it is the King and Parliament that make a Law of it, whom we must obey in lawful things. And they say further, That we must not forbear a Duty, for fear of Encouraging Men's Usurpations.

§ 306. They say also, 3. That these Impositions are done by the Prelates in mere design to root out godly Ministers and Christians: And that when they feared that the old Conformity would not serve turn, they have added such new Materials of set purpose, which keep out a Thousand at least that would have yielded to the Old Conformity: And what they aim at further, when they have thus driven out all the able, faithful Ministers, God knoweth. But if we set in with them, and use the very means which they have •• bricated for this very end, to destroy the Interest of Godliness, though the Act commanded were indifferent, we are made guilty of their Sin.

But the moderate Nonconformists say, That such Reasons as these are good Seconds where the Matter is first proved evil: but 1. That Men's Designs are late • t in their hearts, and the strongest Conjectures will not serve instead of Proof. 2. If that it were known to any one of us, not by the Evidence of the thing, but by some other Discovery, that a lawful thing is Commanded with a pernicious design, that will not excuse us from our Obedience, unless it be probable that the Church, is like to be saved from ruin, by our forbearance to obey: And we may do the thing commanded without any participation of the Guilt of Men's private malicious Intentions.

§ 307. 4. Also they say, That we have Covenanted to endeavor a Reformation, and had begun it, and therefore shall be Covenant-breakers and Backsliders, if we yield to anything which was to be reformed.

But here the more moderate have many Distinctions, between things unlawful and things only inconvenient, and between those that have opportunity to do better, and those that have not, and between seldom Communion, and most ordinary. And they say that things unlawful must not be done, whether we have covenanted against them, or not: But for things only inexpedient or evil by a superable Accident, they become our Duties, and no Covenant disobligeth us from our Duty: and that the Covenant never was intended to oblige us to prefer no Worship before that which is defective, but only to prefer that which is better before it: And that it may be a duty to Communicate sometime with a very faulty Church, in order to our Catholic Communion with the whole, so be it our ordinary particular Communion be in the purest Church and Order (caeteris paribus) that we can have.

§ 308. 5. And another Reason given is, That the Aggravation of the Sin of these Imposers is very great, that they have been Persecutors heretofore, and seen and felt God's Judgments for it, and have been convinced and entreated to return to Charity, and yet they have, with renewed Malice, set themselves to the debauching of the Consciences of the Kingdom, and to the extirpation of Natural Honesty, and have branded all their Party with the Mark of Perjury, Perfidiousness, and Persecution, while they brand the Consciencious with the Name of Puritans; And therefore they are a Generation ready for perdition, and certainly near some heavy Curse: And for us to join with them that are in the way to Wrath, is the way to be partakers of their Plagues.

But the moderate say to this, 1. That the Extenuation as well as the Aggravation of their Sin must be considered: And that it must be remembered, that among the Nonconformists there is a Party of Sectaries, that Rebelled against all the Governors that were over them, and cut off the King's Head, when they had conquered those that are now against them, in the Field, and sequestered their Estates: And that such great Provocation may not only sublimate Malice where it findeth it, but greatly exasperate even temperate Men. 2. That it's true that we must partake with no Men in their Sin, as ever we would escape their Plagues: but when that which is the Imposers Sin, is become the Subjects Duty, God will not plague us with them for doing our Duties. 3. That it is dangerous to presume to forete • on whom God will bring his Judgments in this Life, and to pre • ume that we are safe, and they are near perdition; while all things come alike to all, and the differencing Day of Judgment is not yet come. Therefore it is dangerous on such Prophesies, or Presumptions, or Fears to go out of the way of any Duty, or to avoid any lawful Communion with the Church.

§ 309. 6. Again it is said, That these Impositions being the Engines of Division in the Church (as Mr. Hales himself affirmeth), we shall be partakers of the Schisms if we use them.

But the moderate say, That indeed if we partake in the Imposition, we partake in the Guilt of the Division caused by it: But when they are Imposed, we may do that which in itself is lawful, without any consent to the Imposition at all: Yea, and that which as imposed tendeth to Division, may, upon supposition that it will be, and is imposed, be practiced sometimes as the way to Unity, and to avoid Division.

§ 310. 7. Lastly it is said, That the Necessity which is pretended for this Conformity, is none at all: For, 1. As to a Necessity of Communion with the Church Catholic, it requireth not Personal, Local Communion with each particular Congregation; but that at a distance we own them so far as they are to be owned. 2. And for the Escaping of Punishment from Men, there is no necessity of it, nor yet of our Personal Liberty to preach the Gospel, when we cannot do it upon lawful Terms.

But to this the moderate Nonconformists say, That 1. our Catholic Communion requireth that we in Judgment or Practice separate from no Church of Christ which forceth us not to sin, but hold Communion with them as we have a Call and Opportunity. And that we must not separate from one, upon a Cause that is common to almost all. 2. That though there be no Necessity of our escaping Persecution, nor any absolute Necessity of our Personal Preaching, yet there is of this last an ordinate Hypothetical Necessity laid upon us by God himself; and woe to us if we preach not when we may. So that you see that these general Reasons which some Nonconformists extend to all, the moderate allow only as Seconds against those things which first are proved unlawful.

§ 311. I. For the particular Controversy about Diocesans: 1. Some of the Nonconformists are against all Bishops, as distinct from Presbyters, by any other than a Temporary Presidency or Moderatorship. But the most of them of my Acquaintance are for the lawfulness of some stated Episcopacy; that is, that there be fixed Presidents or Bishops in every particular Church they take to be lawful, as of Human Constitution and Ecclesiastical Custom, contrary to no Law of God. 2. That there be more general Overseers of many of these Bishops and Churches, as the Apostles were (though without their extraordinary Call and Privileges) they think also lawful, if not in some fort of Divine Institution: 1. Because Church-Government being an ordinary standing work, in that the Apostles were to have Successors. 2. Because they think it incredible if the Apostles had been against particular Primitive Episcopacy, that no Church or Person would have been found on Record to have born witness against it, till it had been so universally received by all the Churches.

But they are all agreed that the English Diocesan Frame of Government, and so the Popish Prelacy, is unlawful, and of dangerous tendency in the Churches. And that this Controversy may be understood, the English Frame must here be opened.

§ 312. There are in England two Archbishops, and under one of them four Bishops, and under the other One and twenty Bishops: In all Five and twenty Bishops, with Two Archbishops. Every Bishop hath a Cathedral Church which is no Parish Church, nor hath any People appropriated to it as Parishioners: But a Dean with a Chapter of Prebends or Canons, are the Preachers to it, and Governors of—I know not whom. In some Bishoprics are Three hundred, some Four hundred, some Five hundred, some One thousand, some Twelve hundred Parishes, and some more. In the greatest Parishes of London are about Threescore thousand Souls (as Martyns, Stepney, Giles Cripplegate): in others about Thirty thousand (as Giles 's in the Fields, Sepulchers): in others about Twenty thousand; and in the lesser Parishes fewer. Usually the greater Country Parishes in Market Towns have about Four thousand, or Three thousand, or Two thousand Souls: and the ordinary Rural Parishes about One thousand in the bigger sort, and Two hundred or Three hundred in the lesser; some more, and some less. In these Parishes the Ministers who have watched over them, (and of late times instructed and catechised every Family and Person, young and old, apart in many places) do find that the number of those that are ignorant of the Person and Office of Christ, and the Essentials of Christianity, and of all Religion, and of those that are ordinary Drunkards, Whoremongers, Profane Swearers, Cursers, Railers, or otherwise notoriously Scandalous or Ungodly, is not small. For the Government of these (besides preaching to them, and exhorting them, and giving them the Sacraments), the Parish Minister hath no power: He hath no power of judging whole Children he shall baptize; but must refuse none, though the Parents be professed Heathens or Infidels, if Godfathers and Godmothers bring them to be baptized (who yet never adopt them, nor meddle more as Owners of them with their Education, and perhaps know not what Baptism or Christianity is themselves). They have no power to judge what Persons of their Parish shall be confirmed, or admitted into the number of Adult Communicants: so that all their Flocks are imposed on them. They have no more power than any private Man, to admonish the Scandalous before Witness or to admonish them before the Church, or pray for their Repentance by Name, or to judge who is to be cast out of the Communion of the Church, or to be Absolved, nor to deny the Sacrament to any, unless for a particular time, when he is just going to Administer it, he see any there that are notoriously guilty, and he take them then aside, and they will not so much as say, We will do better: And it is uncertain whether he may. Suspend any of these, but the Malicious that will not be reconciled: So that the Ministers may read Prayers and Preach, and may read an Excommunication or Absolution when it is sent them, and may, if they please, join with the Churchwarden as Informers, to present some Men to the Bishops Court, but Church-Government is denied them.

The Government then of all these Churches, and Exercise of Holy Discipline, belongeth to the Bishops in Title; but the Bishops do and must Exercise it in their Courts or Consistories. In every Diocese there is one of these Courts, where the Ordinary Judge is the Bishop's Chancellor, a Lay-man, and a Civil Lawyer (though in many Cases the Bishop may fit himself if he please): The Court hath also a Register, and Proctors to plead Men's Causes, as Counsellers in Civil Courts: And they have some Fellows called Apparators, who are their Messengers for Citation, besides the Churchwardens Presentments, who bring them in Custom. This Court is to hear all considerable Causes, and determine them by Excommunications or Absolutions, and to send their Excommunications or Absolutions written to the Parish Priest, who is to read them. But pro forma when the Lay-Chancellor hath resolved who shall be Excommunicated, they have a Clergy-Presbyter present to speak the Sentence in the Court, who yet hath no power, but of mere Pronunciation, but is a Ceremony to put off the Odium from the Lay-Judge. And if he have power as a Presbyter, why do the Bishop appropriate it to themselves? If one that is no Bishop may exercise it when a Bishop bids him, then is it not a thing appropriate to the Bishop's Office. Besides these there are Arch-Deacons, who by themselves, or their Officials, hold some kind of Inferior Court, which dealeth in lesser Matters: Some Dioceses have one Arch-Deacon, some two, some few three or four. The Bishops should go visit once a year, and the Arch-Deacon oftener: When they visit they go to some chief Town in the County, and call all the Ministers to meet them, where they hear a Sermon, and Dine together usually. They yearly compile a Book of Articles which Churchwardens are sworn to inquire after, and to present the Names of the Offenders accordingly to the Bishop's Court. In brief, this is the Frame of our Diocesan Government. To which I only add, That Fees and Money for Commutation of Penance are much of their Officers Maintenance; and that such as they Excommunicate in most Cases, are by a Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo to be laid in the Jail, till upon their Repentance they have made their Peace, and are absolved.

§ 313. Having told you what our Government is, let me tell you what the Execution of it is. The Books of Articles are fitted somewhat to the Canon, by those Bishops that are most moderate and cau • elous, and therefore by the English Canons: they may be known: some of them usually are against Drunkards and Fornicators; but the main bent of them is against those that wear not the Surplice, that Baptize without the Cross, that omit the Common Prayer, that refuse to Baptize any Infant; or that deliver the Lord's Supper to any that kneel not in receiving it; or that so receive it without kneeling; that stand no • up at the Gospel, that bow not at the Name Jesus, (though they may sit when the same words are read in the Chapter, and are not required to how at the Name [Christ, God] &c.) Also about the Repair of the Church, the Surplice, the Books; that none piss up to the Church-wall, &c. with many such things. It is a rare thing for the Churchwardens to present any, except Nonconformists, that use not Ceremonies, &c. Swearers, Drunkards, and Whoremongers are seldom presented, lest Neighbors be displeased: but Puritans have someone or other that is more eager in looking after them. When any Scandalous Person is presented, he hath no other Spiritual Conviction or Exhoration to Repentance, tending to Convert his Soul, than at any Civil Court; But telling them that he is Sorry, and paying his Fees or Commutation Money, he comes home: But when Conscientious Nonconformists are before them, whose Consciences will not let them say that they are Sorry (viz • for praying or exhorting others in their Houses, for giving the Sacrament to them that stand or sit, &c. ) they are usually Excommunicated. I have been in most parts of England, and in Fifty years time I never saw one do Penance, or confess his Sin in public, for any Scandalous Crime; nor ever heard but of two in the Country where I lived (that stood in a White sheet for Adultery) (except in the space when Bishops were down, and then I have heard many that have penitently confessed their Sin, and begged the Prayers of the Congregation, and been prayed for): In a word, their Courts are merely as Civil Courts, for Terror, but not at all to convince Men of Sin, and bring them to Repentance and Salvation, further than such Terror is • it to do it. And note here, That the Discipline of the Church is not to be judged of by the King's Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs, which was never executed before it was void, in these respects: Nor yet by some of our Reformers or Chroniclers, who tell you how it was exercised quickly after the Reformation in King Edward 's or Queen Elizabeth 's days: As Hollingshead, e. g. who telleth you of many Suffragans, and of the Piety and Diligence of their Courts, and of Exercises called Prophesying held up at the Arch-Deacons Visitations (against the Subverters of which he thundereth): But as it is in England at this day, and hath been this Sixty or Seventy years by-past.

§ 314. Now concerning this Diocesan Frame of Government, the Non-Subscribers (called Puritans by many) do judge that it is sinful and contrary to the Word of God, both in the Constitution and in the Administration of it. And they lay upon it these heavy Charges, the least of which if proved, is of intolerable weight.

§ 315. 1. They say, That quantum in se it destroyeth the Pastoral Office, which is of Divine Institution, and was known in the Primitive Church: for it doth deprive the Presbyters of the third essential part of their Office: for it is clear in Scripture, that Christ appointed no Presbyters, that were not subservient to him in all the three parts of his Office, as Prophet, Priest and King, to stand between the People and him in Teaching, Worshipping and Governing: And though the Actual Exercise of any one part, may be Suspended without the Destruction of the Office, yet to the Office itself (which is nothing but Power and Obiligation to exercise) one part is as essential as the other: so then they say, that [That which destroyeth an essential part of the Pastors or Presbyters Office, destroyeth the Office as instituted by Christ]. But the Diocesan state of Government destroyeth, &c.—Ergo —.

The Major will not be denied: The Minor hath two parts; 1. That governing Power and Obligation (over the Flock) is essential to the Office of a Pastor or Presbyter as instituted by Christ. Which they prove thus; 1. The very Name of Presbyter and Pastor denoteth the Governing Power, and was then used in that sense (as Dr. H • mmond hath well proved) 2. There is no such thing found in all the New Testament as a Presbyter that had not the Power of Governing his Flock as well as Teaching it. He that can find it, let him: Dr. Hammond hath gone over all the Texts in proving it. 3. The Church long after knew no such Presbyters as had not the Spiritual Government of the Flock. 4. The Papists confess that they have the Power of the Keys in foro interiori to this day; which is the Spiritual Government.

2. The second part of the Minor, That the Diocesan Form denieth this Governing Power to the Presbyters, appeareth 1. By their own Confessions • 2. By the Actual Constitution, disabling them, and placing the Power elsewhere. 3. By the instance of the • orementioned Particulars, and many more: They have not the power of judging who shall be taken into their Churhes as Members by Baptism, or Confirmed, or who shall Communicate, or who is to be publicly Admonished, Censured, Excommunicated, Absolved; buried as a Brother dying in Christ, &c. no nor what Chapter to read in the Church, nor what Garment to wear, nor what words of Prayer to put up to God: in all which they are mere Executioners of other Men's Judgments, as a Cryer or such other Messenger.

§ 316. 2. The second Charge against this Diocesan Prelacy is, That it introduceth a New Human Species or Presbyters or Spiritual Officers, instead of Christ's, which it destroyeth: that is, a sort of mere Subject Presbyters, that have no power of Government but merely to Teach and Worship. That this is a distinct Species, is proved in that 1. It wanteth an essential part which the other Species hath. 2. From the Bishop's own profession, who in the beginning of the Book of Ordination (Subscribed to) do declare it plainly determined in Scripture, viz. That Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are three distinct Order • which word Orders is the common term to signify a Species of Church Officers distinct from a mere degree in the same Order or Species.

That this Office is New, is proved 1. In that Scripture or Antiquity never knew it. 2. Dr. Hammond Annot. in Act. 11. and in his Latin Book against Blondell (Dissertat. ) professeth that it cannot be proved that the word Bishop, Presbyter, or Pastor, signifieth in all the Scripture any other than a proper Bishop; or that there was any such as we now all Presbyters in Scripture times. And in his Answer to the London Ministers, he saith, That for ought he knoweth, all his Brethren of the Church of England are of his mind: So that Presbyters that had no Governing Power, were not in Scripture times. And though he says that the other sort came in before Ignatiu 's time, yet 1. He saith not that this sort had no Government of the Flock, but that they were under the Bishop in Government; so that yet they are not the sort that we are speaking of. 2. And he doth not prove any more.

§ 317. 3. A third Charge which they bring against our Prelacy is, That it destroyeth the Species or Form of particular Churches instituted by Christ: The Churches which Christ instituted are [Holy Societies associated for Personal holy Communion under their particular Pastors]: But all such Societies are destroyed by the Diocesan Frame— Ergo it is destructive of the Form of particular Churches instituted by Christ.

The distinguish between [Personal Local Communion of Saints, by Pastors and their Flocks] and Communion of hearts only; and Communion by Delegation or Deputies: 1. We have Heart-Communion with all the Catholic Church through the World. 2. Particular Churches have Communion for Concord and mutual Strength, in Synods by their Pastors or Deputies. 3. But [a holy Communion of Souls or individual Persons, as Members of the same particular Church, for public Worship and a holy Life] is specifically distinct from both the former, as is apparent, 1. By the distinct end; 2. The distinct manner of Communion, yea and the matter of it.

And that this Form of Churches (or Species ) is overthrown by this Prelacy, they prove: [The Churches of Christ's institution were constituted of Governing Pastors, and a Flock governed by them in Personal holy Communion, every Church having its proper Pastor, or Pastors]. But such Churches as are thus constituted are destroyed by our Frame of Prelacy: Ergo —

The Major is confessed de facto by Dr. Hammond (ubi supra ) as to Scripture times, and sufficiently cleared in my Treatise of Episcopacy. Ignatius his Testimony alone might suffice, who saith, That [ to every Church there was one Altar, and one Bishop, with the Presbyters and Deacons his Fellow Servants ]. A Church of one Altar, and of a thousand Altars; A Church that is for Personal Communion, and a Church that hath no Personal Communion with her Pastor or Bishop, or with one of a hundred of her Fellow-Members, a Church which is a Church indeed, and that which is no Church, but only a part of a Church, are more than specifically distinct; for indeed the Name is but equivoeally applied to them as distinct Natures or Societies. Every Church (univocally so called in sensu politico, as a governed Society) hath its pars guberna • s and pars gubernata to constitute it: But so have not our Parish Churches as such: indeed, as Oratories and Schools (as instructed and worshipping Societies) they have their Parochial Heads; but as governed Societies they have no Heads proper to themselves, nor any at all as Churches, but as parts of a Church: For the Diocesan is Head of the Diocesan Church as such, and not of a Parochial Church as such, but only as a part of the Diocesan Church. And as it is no Kingdom which hath no King, so it is no Political Church which hath no Governor or Pastor. So that Diocesans destroy particular Churches, as much as in them lieth. Unless any will say, that as one King as he is persona naturalis, may be three, or twenty Kings, as persona civilis, as related to several Kingdoms; and so one Bishop, as persona naturalis, may yet be a thousand Ecclesiastical Persons, as Pastor of so many Churches: But this being ridiculous, and yet said by none that I have heard of, I shall not stand to confute it.

But were it so, yet a Pastor that never seeth or speaketh to his People, nor hath any personal Communion in Worship with them, and this according to the Constitution itself, is not of the same sort with a Scripture Pastor, 1 Thess. 5. 12, 13. Hebr. 13. 17, &c. which labor among them, and preach to them the Word of God, and watch for their Souls, &c. And consequently the Churches constituted by them are not of the same Species, It is one Office personally to Teach, Oversee, Rule and Worship with them; and another to do none of these to one of a thousand, but to send the Churchwardens a Book of Articles.

§ 318. 4. A fourth Charge is, That it setteth up a New Church-Form which is unlawful, instead of that of Christ's institution; that is, a Diocesan Church consisting of many hundred Parishes (which none of them are Churches according to the Diocesan Frame, but parts of one Church): It hath been shown that this Diocesan Church is of another Species than the Parochial, one being for personal Communion, which the other is uncapable of; the far greatest part of the Members never seeing their Pastor, nor knowing one another anymore than if they lived in several parts of the World. And that this Church Form is new, is proved already; that is, that there was no Diocesan Church having many stated Congregations and Altars, (much less many hundreds) and all under one only Bishop or Governor, either in Scripture time, or two hundred years after, excepting only that in Alexandria and Rome, some show of more Assemblies than one under one Bishop, appeared a little sooner.)

Here note, That it is not an Archbishop 's Church that we are speaking of, who is but the General Pastor or Bishop, having other Bishops and Churches under him; but it is a Church infimae Speciei, commonly called a particular Church, which hath no other Churches or Bishops under it. And that none such was in Scripture times, Dr. Hammond hath manifested (there being then no Presbyters distinct from Bishops, as he faith on Act. 11.) And that there was none such of long time after, is abundantly proved in my Treatise of Episcopacy.

§ 319. 5. The fifth Charge against the Diocesan Form is, That it extirpateth the ancient Episcopacy: which they prove, by what is said already: The ancient Bishops were the Heads of the Presbyters and People of one single Church only: To every Church, saith Ignatius, there is one Altar and one Bishop with the Presbyters, and the Deacons my Fellow Servants. There was then no Bishop infimae Speciei as distinct from an Archbishop, that had more than one Altar and Church: But now all these Bishops of particular Churches are put down, and no Church of one Altar hath a Bishop of its own, but only a Church consisting of many hundred Worshipping Churches. In the ancient times every City that had a Congregation of Christians had a Bishop: But now every Bishop hath many Cities under him, which have all but one Bishop. For all our Corporations, called Oppida, Towns, or Burroughs, were then such as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signified, though we have appropriated the English word [City] to some few, that have that Title as honorary in favor from the Prince.

§ 320. 6. The sixth Charge is, That instead of the ancient Bishops, a later sort of Bishops is introduced, of a distinct Species from all the ancient Bishops: for then there were none but mere Bishops of particular Churches, and the Archbishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs that had the general oversight of these. But ours are of neither of these sorts: They are not Bishops of particular worshipping Churches that have one Altar; but have hundreds of such: Nor are they Archbishops; for they have no Bishops under them: But they are just such as the Archbishops or Metropolitans in those days would have been, if they had put down all the Bishops that were under them, and taken all the Charge of Government on themselves, leaving only Teaching Priests with the People: Even as the Papists feign Gregory to have meant, when he so vehemently denied the Title of Universal Bishop, as putting down the Inferior Bishops: Now any Man that thinketh the Species of Episcopacy described by Ignatius, and used in the Primitive times, to be of Divine, or Apostolical Institution, must needs think that a Species which having deposed them all, doth stand up in their stead, is utterly unlawful. And therefore this Argument against Diocesans is not managed by the Presbyterians as such, but by those that are for the Primitive Episcopacy.

§ 321. 7. The seventh Charge against the Diocesan Form, (and that which sticketh more than all the rest) is, That it maketh the Church Goverment or Discipline which Christ hath commanded, and all the ancient Churches practiced, to be a thing impossible to be done, and so excludeth it; and therefore is unlawful: For to dispute Who shall be the Governors of the Church, when the meaning is, Whether there shall be any Government at all (of that sort which Christ commandeth) is the present practice. For the clearing of this, these Questions are to be debated.

Quest 1. Whether Christ hath instituted any Church-Discipline?

2. What that Discipline is which he hath instituted?

3. How many Parishes there be in a Diocese, and Persons in a Parish, who are to be the Objects of this Discipline?

4. Who they be that in England are to exercise this Discipline?

§ 322. 1. And for the first Question, It is agreed on by all Protestants that I know of, except some of those that are called Erastians; I say, some of them: for I think there are very few even of the Erastians that deny it. Dr. Hammond hath written a Treatise for it, Entitled, Of the Power of the Keys: yea the Papists differ not from the Protestants in this point. It will therefore be labor in vain to prove it.

§ 323. 2. And as to the second Question, [What this Discipline is?] It is considerable, 1. As to the Matter; 2. As to the Persons; 3. As to the Place; 4. As to the Manner; and 5. As to the End.

1. As to the Matter; We are agreed that it consisteth in receiving Persons into the Church; in preserving and healing those that are in the Church, and in casting out those from the Communion of the Church which are unfit for it, and in Absolving and Restoring the Excommunicate when they are penitent. And therefore it is called, The Power and Exercise of the Keys: By these Keys, the Door is first opened to Believers and their Seed, and the Bishops judge who are fit to be let in by Baptism. When any are lapsed into scandalous sin, they are to be proceeded with as Christ hath directed, Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. We must first tell men privately of their private Faults, and if they hear us not, we must take with us two or three; if they hear not them, we must tell the Church; and finally, if they hear not the Church, they must be to us as Heathens and Publicans. And whatsoever is thus bound on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever is loosed on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven, verse. 18. The Church is the Body of Christ, his Spouse, his Family, his Garden; It is a Communion of Saints which is to be held in it: It is commanded to put away wicked Persons from among them, and not to keep company, if any that is called a Brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one no not to eat, 1. Cor. 5. 11, 13. And we are to withdraw our selves from every Brother that walketh disorderly, and to note them, and to have no company with them, that they may be ashamed; 2. Thess. 3. 6, 14. If any come to us, and bring not sound Doctrine, we must not receive him into our houses, nor bid him good speed, lest we be partakers of his evil deeds, 2 John 10. 11. A Man that is an Heretic, must, after the first and second Admonition, be avoided, as Self-condemned, Tit. 3. 10, 11. And the penitent must be restored and re-admitted. All this is agreed on.

§ 324. 2. And as to the Persons who are Parties in this Transaction, we are agreed 1. That it is such Persons as desire Communion with us, that are to be admitted, (being fit), and such as having Communion with us, become unmeet for it that are to be cast out, &c. so that it is to be exercised on Persons, so far as they are to have Communion with us, and not on those that are uncapable of that Communion. 2. That sententially it must be done by the Pastor or Governor of that particular Church, which the Person is to be admitted into, or cast out of: And by the judgment of the Pastors of other neighbor Churches, when they also, as Neighbors, are to refuse Communion with him. 3. That executively it is to be done by everyone in their places, the Pastors giving or denying the Sacraments, &c. and the People holding or refusing Communion or Company with Men according as they are judged by the Church. I think there is no Controversy among us about these.

§ 325. 3. And therefore the Work will resolve us of the place; viz. That the Execution must be in that place where he had or desired Communion, or was capable of it: And therefore that the Judgment should be by those that being upon the place, have fullest opportunity to know the Persons and the Case: Even by those Pastors who labor amongst the People that are over them in the Lord, 1 Thess. 5. 12, 13. who have the rule over them, and preach to them the Word of God, Hebr. 13. 7, 17, 24. and not by those that are strangers to them.

§ 326. 4. And as to the Manner, all Divines are agreed, That it is not to be like the proceedings of a Civil Court, where there is no more to be done, but examine the Cause and pass the Sentence, and execute it by Corporal Penalties and Mulcts: But, 1. That it is to be managed by grave Divines, the Physicians of Souls, for the saving of the Sinner, if it may be, with great seriousness, and light, and weight of Scripture Argument, convincing the Erroneous, terrifying the Secure with the terrors of the Lord, reproving and admonishing and persuading the penitent Offender, and all this with Love and Compassion and due Patience; and restoring the Penitent with Tenderness and Consolation and necessary Caution. From all which it is evident, That one single Person thus dealt with in case of Heresy, may hold the Pastor or Bishop many days time, and one gross Sinner may hold him many hours time, before this Work can be done as the Nature and Ends of it do require. 2. And it is to be done by the mere Keys of the Kingdom of Christ, by managing God's Word by particular Application to the Case and Conscience of the Sinner, and not by outward Force of Penalties.

§ 327. 5. And all this is apparent in the Ends of it; which is, 1. That Church • Communion may be a Communion of Saints, 2. That the Sinner may be saved, and converted to that end; 3. Or however, that others may be warned by his sad Example. 4. And that the unbelieving and ungodly World, may see the Excellency of Christian Religion, and not be hardened in their Infidelity and Impiety • 5. And so that Christ, and the Father by him, may be honored in his holiness among the Sons of Men: These are the Ends of Church-Discipline.

§ 328. 3. And as you see what the Discipline is that is to be Exercised, so the Number of Persons on whom it is to be exercised, may be gathered from what is said in the beginning: where is shown, 1. How many hundred Parishes are in a Diocese. 2. How many hundred or thousand Souls in a Parish: (unless the very smallest). 3. And how many Heretics, Atheists, Papists, Infidels, or Swearers, Cursers, Railers, Drunkards, Fornicators, and other scandalous Sinners there are proportionably in most Parishes, I leave to the judgment of every faithful Pastor that ever tried it by a particular knowledge of his Flock.

§ 329. 4. And lastly, who they be that are to Exercise all this Discipline, I have shown before; even one Court or Consistory in a whole Diocese, with the inconsiderable subserviency of the Arch-Deacon's Court: (For the Rural Deans do nothing in it, and are themselves scarce known: and the Pastor and Churchwardens do nothing but present Men to the Courts, and execute part of their Sentences.)

§ 330. All this being laid together, the impossibility of Christ's Discipline in our Churches is undeniable: 1. Because by this Computation there must stand at once before the Court many thousand Persons to be at once examined, convinced, reproved, exhorted, or a great Multitude at least: whenas they can speak but to one at once. 2. Because the second Admonition which should be before two or three, is there before an open Judicature; which is not suited to the appointed End: so that really our Controversy with the Diocesans is the same in effect, as if it were controverted, whether a thousand or six hundred Schools shall have as many governing School-masters; or whether one only shall govern all these Schools, and the rest of the School-masters have only power to • each, and not to govern? (were it only whether one should have a general Inspection over the rest, that they may be punished for Malc-administration, we should not be so far disagreed: for though we might question whether Christ ever made or allowed any such Officer, besides the Magistrate, yet if the Work were but done by any, we should judge it more tolerable.) Or the Controversy is as if it were questioned, whether all the Diocese should have anymore than one Physician, that should have any power to prescribe any Government to the Patients, and all the rest should only read general Lectures of Physic to them, and be his Apothecaries, to carry them his Prescripts and Medicines; which were to question, whether most shall have any Physician or none? and whether the People shall have their Lives sacrificed to the mad Ambition of someone Man that would be their only Physician. Shifting may deceive the inexperienced, but let any Minister in England be but so faithful as to know all his Flock, and regard their Souls, and he can never deny that this is the true Case. For my own part, the Lord knoweth that I did with too much remissness exercise some Discipline a few years (when I had liberty) in one Country Parish, upon one of the most Reformed People in the Land, and that with the help of many Fellow-Ministers, and of many of the People in their places, and the countenance and presence of three Justices of the Peace; and yet I found the burden too great for me, and that one half of that Parish would have been enough. It is in this, as in Military Discipline, or Navigation, The Judgment of that Man that never tried it, is of very little value in the Case. Do but try the Government of one Parish, in the Scripture way, and we shall not differ.

§ 331. And the Nonconformists further prove, that our Prelacy maketh this Discipline morally impossible, thus: Were it not morally impossible, someone godly Bishop in England would have executed it, as Christ appointeth: But no one godly Bishop in England doth, or ever did, so execute it: Ergo —

The Major will not be denied, of a Moral Impossibility, or at least of a difficulty next it: That which no one Man, no not the wisest or the best ever did, may well be called morally impossible, or near it. And that England hath had some such Bishops, we are not so uncharitable as to question, when we remember Hooper, Farrar, Latimer, Cranmer, Ridley, Jewel, Grindall, Hall, and many more. And I never met with the Man that would assert, or did believe, that the fore described Discipline was ever exercised by any Man of them throughout his Diocese, no nor in any three Parishes in it, if in one: Bishop Edward Reynolds of Norwich was one that went along with us to the last in our Desire, and Treaties for Discipline and Reformation: And who heareth of any such Discipline exercised by him? who doubtless would do it if he could. Nay, I am confident that he will say himself, that he hath not exercised it on a tenth part that are the due Objects of it, in any two Parishes in his Diocese: Nay, in his Diocese there are as many hundreds of godly People Excommunicated or troubled (by Sentence at least) for Nonconformity, as in any Diocese that I hear of in England; and the poor Bishop looks on, and cannot hinder it. Could it be done, someone would do it: But none doth it. Ergo —

§ 332. 8. The eighth Charge against our Prelacy is, That having cast out Christ's Church-Discipline, prescribed in the Gospel, it setteth up, instead of it, an unlawful kind of Church-Discipline: And the unlawfulness they show in these Particulars.

§ 333. 1. In that the Judges of the Courts, as well as the rest, are mere Lay-me • (the Bishops Chancellors) who ordinarily Admonish, Excommunicate and Absolve: For though the King's Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs; did speak against this, yet that was dead before it took place, and the old Course is now taken in all their Courts: And what the Tongue of Man can rationally say, for Lay-men's exercising the Power of the Keys, most essential to the Sacred Pastoral Office, it is beyond my reach to know. The common Answer is, that Lay-Elders are as bad: As if one Man's sin would justify another's, and warrant all Men to Subscribe to it. But yet they know, 1. That Church-Elders are not accounted Lay-men, but Sacred Officers, by those that are for them. 2. That they meddle but with one Parish, and that but as Assistants to the Pastors; whereas the Chancellors meddle with many hundred Parishes, and that as the sole Judges in the Court (when the Bishop is not there, which is the ordinary Case). Indeed, I hear that pro forma they use to get some Priest or other, to pass the Sentence in Court, when the Lay-Chancellor hath determined it. But this a mere juggling mockery: And if they were serious, it would confute themselves; who say, That a Presbyter hath not the power of Excommunication: And they justify the Cause of the Presbyterians who claim it (as is aforesaid).

§ 334. 2. As to the Matter of the English Discipline, it consisteth not in the foredescribed Convictions, Reproofs, Exhortations to Repentance, praying for the Sinner's Repentance, telling him before two or three, or telling the Church; but in a Citation, and such a Course of Process as is in Civil Secular Courts.

§ 335. 3. And for the Manner; it is not with holy Seriousness and Patience as may tend to the melting of a Sinner's heart into true Contrition, nor as may tend to awake him from his Security with the Terrors of the Lord, nor is it at all fitted to work upon the Conscience: (who can expect that Lay-men, and such Men, in a Public Court, and such a Court, should do it): Nor do I believe that any Subscribing conscionable Minister will say that he ever heard a Chancellor convert a Sinner, or say that which was like or apt to bring him to true Repentance. But on the contrary, they work on them by Terror of Corporal Penalties and Mul • ts, and harden them into a hatred of those that thus vex them: so that a Pastor that ever hopeth to do good on his Parishioners, will take heed how he presenteth them to one of these Courts, left by so much he seem to be their Enemy, and they never regard his Doctrine more: whereas Christ's Discipline is Paternal, by Love and convincing Reason, and to the very last extremity, is to be done with so much Fatherly Kindness and Compassion, as tendeth to melt and win the Sinner.

§ 336. 4. And for the Adjuncts; your Discipline of Excommunication is all enforced with Imprisonment and the utter ruin of the Excommunicate, upon a Writ de Excommunicato capiendo: If you say that it is the Magistrate's Action, and not ours, I answer, 1. You are the Judges, and make the Magistrate your Executioners. 2. You take the very Life of your Discipline to lie in it! How ordinarily do you say, That were it not for the Sword and Corporal Penalty, who would care for Excommunication? And your Confession hath in it much of Truth, as to your Excommunications: But hereby you corrupt the Discipline of the Church, and lamentably corrupt the Church itself. It is a great Truth which the Churches welfare lieth on, That no Man is fit for the Communion of the Church, that so far despiseth it, as not to be moved by a mere Excommunication. Shall he have the Communion of the Church, who will rather be cast out of it than repent? when, of old, Penitents long beg'd the Churches Communion prostrate, or at the Church Door, before they were re-admitted: And now if Ten thousand Men scorn the Churches Communion, and will stand out a bare Excomunication, you will drive them into the Church, and to a feigned Repentance by the fear of a Jail: And so all Men shall be Members of your Churches, that do but so far love their Skins, as rather to endure the Church than the Prison: (of this also the Scots Presbytery hath been guilty in part): And what Churches these are, it is easy to judge. And you cannot say that this is only Male-administration; for it is the very Constitution of your Government.

§ 337. 5. And your Discipline is exercised by Strangers upon Strangers, at many Miles distance, where the Church that the Sinner is to hold Communion with, heareth not the Process, nor knoweth of the Matter, nor perhaps the Minister that should be his Governor, but only they receive a Paper from the Court, containing the Sentence; which the Parson must read, and then in despite of him must admit the vilest to the Churches Communion, and read his Absolution if the Court require it, let him never so well know the Sinner to be impenitent.

§ 338. 6. Lastly, Let any Man of Charity, free from Faction, judge by the Canons, Whether the Discipline of Excommunication be not exercised upon many godly upright Persons (for fasting, and praying together, and such like) who are unfit for such Severity. And let him that readeth both Liturgy and Canons, judge, Whether the Communion of the Sacrament be not denied to holy Persons, if they do but fear Idolatry in kneeling before the Bread; who are not worthy of so great a Penalty. So that in a word, a kind of Secular Courts are set up instead of the Discipline of Christ, and the edge of their Severity is turned against those conscientious People, that be not of their Opinions in Ceremonies, or such things. If it be said that the Magistrate may set up Civil Courts who may judge Circa Sacra: I answer, but 1. These judge de Sacris, and Excommunicate and Absolve. 2. They do it under the Name of Church-Discipline, and the Power of the Keys. 3. And instead of Christ's deposed Discipline.

§ 339. 9. The ninth Charge against our Prelacy is consequential, That it bringeth on us a multitude of grievous Calamities, and ill Consequences, by this abolition of true Discipline, and the aforesaid Corruptions. As for instance—

1. That it giveth up our Cause to the Brownists, quantum in se, who say that our Churches are no true Churches, and our Ministry is no true Ministry: For if we have true Churches and Ministers, it is either the Parochial, the Diocesan, or the National. But 1. for the Parochial, they say that they are no true Churches or Ministers: for a true Church,