THE Non-Conformists PLEA FOR PEACE IMPLEADED: In Answer to several late Writings of Mr. BAXTER and others, pretending to show Reasons for the sinfulness of Conformity.  
It is the Nature of Sin, especially Pride, to be unreasonable, unpeaceable, and a troubler of the Soul, the Church, and the World. Mr. Baxters only Way of Concord, p. 152.  
LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishop's Head in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1680.   

THE INTRODUCTION.  
I Shall not be so troublesome to my Reader, as to lead him through all that dark and dirty Labyrinth, wherein Mr. Baxter hath lost himself; but pass directly to that part of his Late Writings, wherein he pretends (to do what he had long threatened) to give Reasons for the sinfulness of Conformity. In the Epistle to the Plea, he says, many Impositions were laid on them which they durst not do, because they fear God, and that nothing less than Sin should hinder their Conformity: and p. 135. That they gave in Eight particulars to the Commissioners at the Savoy, which they took to be flat Sins, but had not time fully to discourse one of them, by which I guess, that kneeling at the Sacrament (for that was then discoursed of) was one and the chief of those many heinous Sins in Conformity; what the other Seven were, I cannot find; but I believe he hath mentioned them in this Plea, though he be ashamed to call them Reasons, and says, he will not urge the case, but barely mention matters of Fact, and tell us what it is they dare not do. And if we be so hardy as to bear this, we may (when he can get leave) have more, P. 119. of the Plea; we do not here tell men, unless by the by, in stating some few questions, what it is that we account Good or Evil, much less do we here give the Reasons of our Cause; he dares not be so bold yet as to venture by it to displease us. But this Hypocrisy is so thin that the weakest Eye may look through it; for, whereas the Right Reverend and Learned Bishop of Ely, had told Mr. Baxter (as he confesseth in his Preface to the Late Book of Concord) that he would petition Authority that they (the Non-Conformists) might be compelled to give their Reasons; He there says, To answer the earnest demand of our Reasons, by you the Lord Bishop of Ely, I have published an Historical Narrative of our Case and Judgement in a Book called the Non-Conformists Plea for Peace. And if he may be believed, they are not only Mr. baxter's Reasons, but of many others; for p. 3. it is said, We that publish this here, give an account of our own Judgement, and those that we are best acquainted with; how far we hold it lawful or unlawful, to gather or to separate from Churches, or to differ from what is established by Authority. So that plainly that Book was published to answer the Bishop of Ely's demand of their Reasons for the Sinfulness of Conformity: But where is that allowance from Authority which he pretends to have so long waited for, and begged on his Knees? And where is that care not to displease, or provoke the Conformists by showing the many heinous Sins in their Conformity, when without leave of God or Man, he not only endeavours to displease, but to ruin us? If any thing may be, this is worse than his Hypocrisy; it is mere distraction and rage, when our common adversaries the Papists are undermining our Foundations, and there wants but a blow to throw down the whose Fabric of the best of Protestant Churches, for any one that bears the name of Protestant, thus to help on their Design, and justify it too; by declaring many heinous Sins in the Constitution of it, and to cry, down with it, down with it, even to the ground. But (God be thanked) his Malice is as Impotent as his Words; for after Eighteen years swelling and labouring, parturiunt montes, and there appears not so much as a Mouse to affright us: all vanisheth like the noise of Armies under ground, wherewith his Predecessors amused the Nation; their long confinement hath made them so weak, or rather their weakness hath caused their so long confinement, that Mr. Baxter dares not call them Reasons, and I hope the Nation are sufficiently instructed how unreasonable it is to be affrighted, and run into confusion upon such empty noises as these. I have here considered only the Arguments which concern Ministerial Conformity, that of Lay-people being consequent to it. And when the most Learned Nonconforming Ministers, have in former and latter times yielded Conformity to our public Ordinances themselves, and by Example and Arguments too (for Mr. Baxter says, they wrote more against Separation than the Conformists themselves) wherein Mr. Baxter also hath done his part. And when I have reason to think the greatest part of the Nonconforming Clergy are of the same mind; because I know how great an influence they have on the Consciences of their people, with whom they familiarly converse, and who especially advise them in what concerns their common Cause; yet no person of any Note that I have heard of in all that party, who were in places of Trust, and public Employment, did on the late Test refuse to Communicate with the Church of England. And lastly, when all our United strength is too little to withstand the attempts of our common Adversaries: It is a wonder to me, with what Confidence, and with what Design (these circumstances considered) he should not only Proclaim Conformity on the Ministers part to be impossible; but endeavour also with all his might, to withdraw the Laity from our Communion, unless it be to expose us all to Confusion again. But I hope the Nation have been sufficiently taught by experience, not to intrust the Conduct of their precious Souls, as well as the Safety of their Lives and Estates to such Giddy and Unstable Men. Especially when they shall consider on what frivolous pretences they still seek to perpetuate the distractions of Church and State, and now when we are in greatest danger, exert their utmost Art and Strength to divide and destroy us. 
— Pudet haec opprobria vobis  
Et dici potuisse, & non potuisse refelli.  The Controversy concerning the sinfulness of Conformity will be reduced to a narrow compass, if there be an agreement in these particulars. First, what are the parts of the Book of Common-Prayer, to which we are to declare our Assent and Consent. Mr. Baxter contends that all things named as the Contents of the Book, are parts of that Book, to the use whereof we declare our Assent, etc. p. 159. of the Plea. There is not a word in the Book that was not intended for some use; the Preface, the Calendar, and Rubric have their uses: And p. 203. we have reason to doubt whether the Act for Conformity itself, be not a part of the Book which we must Subscribe, Assent and Consent to; because this Act is named among the Contents of the Book. Either (saith he) it is a part of the Contents or not. If not, we must not consent to that falsehood that it is. If it is, O far be it from us that believe a God, a Judgement, a Life to come, and the sacred Scriptures, to Assent and Consent to that Act with all its penalties, silencing and ruining such as Conform not. Answ. The Act for Uniformity, naming the Book of Common-Prayer, always names that Book as distinct from itself, and as a thing annexed to it; and if the Parliament had enjoined the Use of some New Translation of the Bible, and prefixed their Act to that Translation, and required our Use of the same under penalties, our Assent to such an Act could not suppose the Act itself to be a part of the Canonical Books.  
Secondly, The design of the Act, in these words, To the intent that every person may certainly know the Rule to which he is to Conform in Public Worship, and Administration of Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, etc. be it Enacted, etc. Plainly shows what are the parts to the use of which we are to declare our Assent, which particulars are Enumerated more than once; but not a word of the Act for Uniformity, or the Act 1. Eliz. which in the Contents is mentioned with it, whereof Mr. Baxter ought to be minded; for under the Contents of the Book, the First thing mentioned is, The Acts (in the Plural) for Uniformity of Common-Prayer; whence I argue: If the Parliament intended that this last Act should be taken as a part of the Common-Prayer Book, because it is in the Contents; for the same Reason it may be thought they intended that other Act 1. Eliz. to be a part also, which were very unreasonable. For than we must subscribe our Assent to the use of Two Common-Prayer Books, viz the Old and the New. 3. That Act of Queen Elizabeth explains what is meant by Open (or Common) Prayer. By Open Prayer, in and throughout this Act is meant that Prayer, which, is for others to come unto, or hear, either in common Churches or Chapels, or Oratories, commonly called the Service of the Church; and the intent of that Act was, that no Minister should refuse to Use the said Common-Prayers, and Administer the Sacraments in such Order and Form as they are mentioned in the said Book; or wilfully or obstinately standing in the same, Use any other Rite, Ceremony, Order, Form, or manner of Celebrating the Lords Supper, etc. than is mentioned in the said Book. This Act was Printed probably to give Light to the other, and to show that the same thing was formerly required of Ministers. And if the Conformists heretofore did not take that Act to be part of the Common-Prayer Book, than there is no reason why they should take the New Act to be a part of the New Book. 4. The Book of Common-Prayer was complete before the Act was made; it was first presented to the King, who approving it offered it to the Parliament, who approved of it, and afterwards made their Act for Uniformity in the Use thereof. And whoever gathered the Contents of the Book, did no more intent to have all things named therein to be parts of the Book, than they that set forth the Bible with Contents to the Chapters and Psalms, intended that we should take those Contents for Canonical Scripture. The Contents of Ps. 149. says, the Prophet exhorteth to praise God for that Power which he hath given to the Church over the Consciences of Men. But that is no part of the Text, neither the Acts, Prefaces, Rubrics, etc. which come not into Use in the Administration of Prayer, Sacraments, etc. any part of that Book to the Use whereof we give our Assent and Consent. This Act doth exclude the Use of any other Forms (when it enjoins those prescribed in the Book for public Worship) but it doth not include those previous Acts, Prefaces and Instructions, which only tend to justify and enforce the Use of the Common-Prayer. But Mr. Baxters' Dilemma, may be answered to the advantage of Conformity, thus; Either the Acts for Uniformity, and the Prefaces, are parts of the Book, to which our Assent is required, or not: if not, than our Assent to them is not required; if they be, than our Assent will be more facile upon this account. First, because in that Preface concerning the Service of the Church, it is thus said; for as much as nothing can be so plainly set forth, but doubts may arise in the Use and Practise of the same, to appease all such diversity (if any arise) and for the resolution of all doubts concerning the manner how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in this Book, the Parties that so doubt or diversely take any thing, shall always resort to the Bishop of the Diocese; who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same, so that the same order be not contrary to any thing contained in this Book. And if the Bishop of the Diocese be in doubt, than he may send for Resolution thereof to the Archbishop. Here is a way opened to such as think that the Acts, and Prefaces are to be Assented to, to clear their doubts to their satisfaction; the several Bishops within their Diocese have a Power by Law, to explain any doubts that may arise concerning the Use and Practise of Uniformity, and their determinations are declared to be as Valid as the Law itself: Now doubtless if sober Dissenters did consult their Diocesans, in such Cases as concern their Practice in the public Worship, they might easily obtain satisfaction. Again, it is said in the Preface before the Liturgy; We are fully persuaded in our Judgements, and we here profess it to the World, that the Book as it stood before established by Law, doth not contain in it any thing contrary to the Word of God, or to sound Doctrine, or which a Godly Man may not with a good Conscience use and submit unto, or which is not fairly defensible against any that shall oppose the same; if it be allowed such just and favourable Construction as in common equity ought to be allowed to all humane Writings, especially such as are set forth by authority, and even to the best Translations of the Holy Scripture itself. If these Mitigations be admitted, a great many of the Objections made by Mr. Baxter and others would vanish. And if they be not admitted, Mr. Baxter himself will grant that they cannot safely subscribe this Assent, and Consent to all things contained in the Bible according to any Translation. But (says he) if they might but say, we Assent to all things contained, that are not by humane frailty mistaken, they would soon conform herein. See the Plea, p. 166. Now the Church of England declares here, and in the Preface to the Articles, 1564. that they prescribe not these Rules as Laws equivalent with the Word of God, and as of necessity to bind the Consciences of the Subjects in the Nature of them considered in themselves, but as Temporal Orders merely Ecclesiastical, without any vain Superstition, and as Rules in some part of Discipline concerning Decency, Distinction and Order for the time. So that the Law leaving it to the Bishops to remove doubts, and explain difficulties; and the Preface desiring that things may be candidly and favourably interpreted; they are greatly to be blamed, who will take that with the Left which their Superiors offer with the Right-hand, and seek how to make that a Snare and a Net to entangle and ruin themselves, which was intended only as a means to keep the Unity of the Spirit, in the Bond of Peace.  
Secondly, It is granted by the Non-Conformists, That the Common-Prayer Book as it is now amended, and abstracted from the Declarations and Subscriptions required by the Act for Uniformity, is better to be Assented to, than as it stood formerly. Yet evident it is that in the days of Edward the 6. when it was much more liable to exceptions, there being in it Prayer for the dead, Chrism in Baptism, extreme Unction &c. (which it is supposed Mr. Calvin called tolerabiles ineptias) many Learned Men and Godly Martyrs did readily Conform to it: And in the days of Queen Elizabeth, King James, and King Charles, the Body of the Clergy (as Learned and Pious as any in the World) to which the few Non-Conformists in each Age were no way comparable for Parts, Piety or Number, and at the beginning of the Wars, there were not in the Assembly, as Mr. Baxter observes, above Five or Six Non-Conformists. Now ever since the Confirmation of the Canons by King James, the 36 Canon enjoined Subscription to the 39 Articles, and the Book of Common-Prayer; as containing nothing contrary to the Word of God, (which is one of the greatest Objections now) and this the Subscriber was to do, lubens & ex animo, which in English may be rendered with unfeigned Assent and Consent, and that he would use the same and no other. Who can think but that Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Davenant, Jewel, Whitgift, the two Abbots, Usher, Hall, Prideaux, Brownrigg, Doctor Jo. Reynolds, Preston, Moreton, Sibs, Fenner, Whately, and many more named by Mr. Baxter himself, were both Pious and Learned Men, and subscribed according to judgement and Conscience. And if the Liturgy had not been accompanied by the Acts for Subscriptions, etc. it is Mr. Baxters' opinion, that multitudes would have Conformed to it (though it were an ill sign of the readiness of those Men to Conform to the whole, who when they were as Probationers on their good Behaviour, did not at His Majesty's desire in his Declaration yield to the use of any part of it) so that it seems there is no such sinfulness in the Use of the Forms, etc. prescribed; the great quarrel is against the Parliament, for requiring such Subscriptions as they cannot consent to, because they fear God, p. 191. of the Plea. It is not the sense of the Liturgy, but of a Statute of Parliament which we doubt of, saith Mr. Baxter.  
3. Non-Conformists grant, that it is better to submit to the practice of a doubtful small evil, than to forbear a necessary and great duty: especially when greater good than evil may be procured to ourselves and others by such submission; there is no command against the Cross, Kneeling, Surplice, etc. nor is there any  Turpitude in them, and therefore the practice of them may be submitted to, rather than to break the known Commandments of God for Obedience, Peace and Charity, and to suffer Deprivation when they conceive there is so great necessity, and there may be so much benefit to the Souls of the people, as well as to the peace of the Nation, by the exercise of their Ministry.  
Thirdly, let that Rule be observed which Mr. Baxter quoteth from Bishop Sanderson, p. 329. of the Plea: We must take heed that the strict Interpretation (of words or things) turn not into a rigid one. Many Men by mistake and wresting of other men's words, do draw Blood from that which would have naturally yielded Milk or Food; we own Candour to all men's Writings, especially to those which are set forth by Authority, and most of all to public Laws. In that particular of Promissory Oaths, these exceptions and conditions are ever of common right to be understood. 1. If God Permit. 2. Saving the right of others, and as far as is Lawful. 3. Things standing as they do, or in the same state. 4. As far as I am able, etc. See the Plea, p. 329.  
It is excellently said by Bishop Sanderson, that if our Lawful Superiors command us any thing whereof we have just cause to doubt, we may and aught to inquire into the Lawfulness thereof; yet not with such anxious curiosity, as if we desired a Loophole whereby to evade; but with such modest Ingenuity as may witness to God and the World; the unfeigned sincerity of our desires, both to fear God, and to honour them that are set over us. And if having used ordinary Moral diligence, bonâ fide, to inform ourselves there appear nothing unlawful in it; We are then to submit and obey without more ado, Bishop sanderson's judgement in one view, p. 145. But evident it is that the Non-Conformists, who strain at every Gnat which they fancy to be in the commands of their Lawful Superiors, did glibly swallow down Camels in the impositions of Usurpers; the Covenant, the Negative Oath, the Engagement, and many other unlawful Impositions were generally taken without any Scruple.  
A Fourth thing to be premised is, That Practice is the best expositor of the Law: many Laws are worded so strictly, and enjoined under such rigorous penalties, as may serve for greater terror to evil minded Men; they do (iniquum petere ut quod aequum est ferant) command and threaten what is very severe, that they may obtain what is just and equal. And the practice of our Superiors in the case of Conformity shows; that they intended the weightier matters of the Law, Obedience, Uniformity and Decency in the public Worship. If there be no contempt of Authority, no neglect of the established Liturgy, by bringing in other Prayers in the room of those that are prescribed, Lex non curat minima, neither the Law of God or Man is solicitous about circumstances and the lesser punctilios. There are in most Laws, some doubtful words and expressions which the practice of Law, and the Judges do interpret; some Casus omissi, which the practice doth admit, as in the present Law: it admits the Forms of Prayer and Praise on extraordinary occasions for Fasting and Thanksgiving. It admits of Singing the Psalms, as translated in Metre, and of other Forms of Prayers before and after Sermons. If the Law should be strictly executed according to the rigour of it, there are but few Men would go unpunished; God himself doth dispense with many things expressly enjoined for the performance of some more necessary duties: I will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice; and St. Paul did Circumcise Timothy to avoid greater inconveniencies, when doubtless he had rather not have done it. And as we may do some things, so we may omit some other which are enjoined by Law, according to the exigency of circumstances; so it be done without bewraying contempt of Authority, or giving just occasion of scandal to others, Bishop Sanderson p. 19 of Submission to Superiors.  
The last thing that I shall premise is, that the Non-Conformists are not yet agreed, what that is in our Conformity which they think to be sinful: For what some think unlawful, others condemn only as inconvenient. One sticks at the Sign of the Cross, another at Kneeling at the Sacrament, a third at the Surplice, a fourth can submit to all these, but sticks at Re●ordination, which different judgement of dissenters gives just cause to believe that there is no real sinfulness in either; because what some think to be sinful, others grant to be lawful: These things being premised, I come to the business of Ministerial Conformity.  
Mr. Baxter tells us, §. 7. that the root of the difference is this. That the Non-Conformists thought that they should stick to the mere Scripture rules and simplicity, and go far from all additions which were found invented or abused by the Papists, in Doctrine, Worship and Government, (against which Opinion Mr. Baxter disputes part. 3. ch. 2. of his Directory.) And the Conformists thought that they should show more reverence to the Customs of the Ancient Church, and retain that which was not forbidden in Scripture, which was introduced before the ripeness of the Papacy, or before the year 660. and common to them with the Greek; which doubtless was the sounder Opinion. So that the Foundation of Nonconformity was laid on a false principle; and they that built thereon, frequently raised Sedition, and would have as certainly destroyed the Nation as they did one another, had they not been prevented. For Mr. Baxter observes, that some of them were so hot at home, that they were put to death (not for their Nonconformity, but for Murder, Treason or Blasphemy, as the Histories of those times show) Others as Ainsworth, Robinson, Johnson, etc. fled beyond Sea, and there gathered Churches, and broke by Division among themselves. And whereas Mr. Baxter says, that the difference among the Exiles at Frankford, was, that Dr. Cox, and Mr. Horn, and their party strove for the English Liturgy, and the other party for the freer way of praying from the present sense and habit of the speaker: It will appear to him that reads the Troubles of Frankford, that the Question was not between the English Liturgy, and such free Prayers which were not then publicly used: For Calvin himself used a Liturgy at Geneva, and a short Form before his Sermons, and sometimes that which we call Bidding of Prayers, as may be seen after his Sermons on Job, Printed in English. And Mr. Calvin thus relates the matter, p. 33. of his Opuscula. When the Exiles could not agree about the English Liturgy, they did by my Advice and Approbation, draw up another, Printed in the English Tongue 1556. wherein was a Confession taken out of Daniel the 9th. a Prayer for the whole Church, the Lords Prayer, the Creed, etc. the rest of this Section carrieth its Confutation with it. The 8. §. concerns the conformity of Laymen, which falls under that of Ministerial Conformity, §. 9  
Where first of Assent, Consent and Subscription, nothing is contrary to God's word, etc. This as Mr. Baxter observes is required by the 36. Canon, not by the Act or the Book itself. Now if we consider by what Men this hath been subscribed to ever since those Canons were Confirmed, and what Latitude the Church seems to allow us in making this Subscription, viz. If we shall allow it such just and favourable construction as in common equity ought to be allowed to all humane Writings; especially such as are set forth by authority, and even to the best Translation of the Holy Scripture itself (which as you have seen Mr. Baxter himself doth grant) they that Scruple at this, may also refuse to subscribe any Articles, Confession of Faith, yea even the Apostles Creed. This therefore is already answered; and so is the next Objection, that the Subscriber will use that Form in public Prayer, etc. and none other: For other occasional Forms for Prayer and Thanksgiving commended to us by authority, may be used without violating this Subscription, it being Casus omissus, the constant practice of the Church showing that this exception was intended though not expressed, and that conceived Prayers before Sermons are not hereby forbidden, the general practice doth evince.  
All Lawgivers do leave to the Judges and Magistrates, a Power to interpret the doubtful Letter of the Law, and to mitigate the rigour of its Execution, in order to the public good, and dispenseth with the Subjects (so be it they observe the chief end of the Law) in the omission of some circumstances on reasonable occasions, and unavoidable accidents, without which Justice would be turned into Wormwood. He therefore that presumeth of the Magistrates consent to dispense with the Observation of the lesser parts of the Law, on just occasions, and in needful cases, presumeth no more than he hath reason to do: And this Bishop Sanderson groundeth on that Maxim, Salus Populi Suprema Lex: All that is required by the Act, is unfeignedly to Assent and Consent, that there is such a measure of Truth and Goodness in the Book of Common-Prayer, as qualifies it for the public Worship of God; which even they that pretend disorders and defects in it may do, in Obedience to Authority for the sake of Peace, Order and Charity, as well as for the continuing of themselves in the Ministry. And doubtless they may approve of the present Liturgy with all its defects, (which was compiled by the Holy and Learned Martyrs, and hath been reviewed and approved by many stout Confessors, as well as of their (so he calls his new Liturgy) more correct Nepenthes, which being done in haste, hath many Imperfections, or the Directory that had, nor Creed, nor Decalogue (both which leave Men to their own extemporary Conceptions:) And in a short time justled out the Lords Prayer too.  
The title of the Act, which is the Key that opens the sense and intention of the Lawgivers, is an Act for Uniformity of public Prayers, and Administration of Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies; so that if Uniformity be unfeignedly observed, the Act is satisfied, though the Conformist may wish that some things in the said Book had been amended. But some Men are so unhappy as to contrive Nets and Snares to involve themselves and others, and raise nice distinctions where the Law distinguisheth not. As do they, who say Assent implies the Truth, and Consent the goodness of the things; 2. And whereas the Act says to all things, they say it means all words and expressions. 3. Whereas it says to the Use of all things, they pretend it to be meant of those things that come not into Use; and 4. whereas it says, in sensu composito, all things contained and prescribed in, and by the Book, etc. they say it is extended to all things that are contained, as well as prescribed. Now to the First, the Phrase of Assent and Consent, being used by our Legislators, we must satisfy ourselves of the meaning of it, in the use of our Laws, where it signifies no more than an agreement between parties in grants and contracts, and is used where the parties agreeing, in some cases might wish that it had been otherwise; yet upon considerations may unfeignedly Assent and Consent to them, as is showed at large by Mr. Faukner, p. 91. etc. 2ly. Whereas they extend it to every Phrase and Expression; the Act mentions only the things which it particularly enumerates, viz. all the Prayers, Rites, Ceremonies, Forms and Orders.  
3. Whereas it says, to the Use of all things, they pretend it requires our Assent and Consent to such things as come not into Use, but are only occasionally mentioned; as when it is said in the Preface, That this Book as it stood before established by Law, did not contain in it any thing which a godly man may not with a good Conscience use and submit to; which clause cannot be included in the Declaration, for then the things which were thought fit to be altered, must be still in some sort Assented to.  
4. The Act mentioneth the things, to the Use whereof we are to Assent and Consent (viz.) the things contained and prescribed, in and by the Book, etc. It is not said contained in, or prescribed by; but three several times it is carefully expressed, as well before and after, as in the Declaration; so that it seems to require no more than is expressed in the second Declaration; I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by Law established. Nor can it be reasonably thought, that our Lawmakers require more in our Conformity to the present Liturgy, than they themselves declared concerning the Old; in these words, We are persuaded in our judgements, and we profess it to the World, that the Book as it stood before established by Law, doth not contain in it any thing contrary to the Word of God, or to sound Doctrine, or which a godly man may not with a good Conscience use and submit unto, or which is not fairly defensible against any that shall oppose the same, if it shall be allowed such just and favourable Construction, as in common equity ought to be allowed to all humane Writings; especially such as are set forth by authority, and even to the very best Translations of the Holy Scripture itself. Now if Dissenters would use this Candour, in judging of those things prescribed to be used for Uniformity sake, they might no doubt declare their unfeigned Assent and Consent unto them. But Mr. Baxter puts all out of doubt, that the Act requires more than a bare Assent to the Use of the Common-Prayers, etc. Because the House of Lords added to another Bill, which was brought into their House, a Proviso, that the Declaration should be understood but as obliging men to the use of it; and the House of Commons refusing at a conference about it, they gave in such reasons against that Sense and Proviso to the Lords, upon which they did acquiesce and cast it out. If so, the Bishops in the House of Lords were more your friends than the Commons. 2. It is fit we should unfeignedly approve of those Services which we offer to Almighty God, and not barely submit to them as to burdens. 3. Much less, if our judgements tell us they are sinful; or, 4. To use them as the Pharises did their Prayers for mischievous designs. 5. The Papists are not the only men that have their Emissaries, who serve themselves into such Assemblies as they approve not of; that they may have better opportunities to prepare the Minds of men for, and to serve the occasions of doing mischief.  
These, and some other such might be the weighty Considerations which Mr. Calamy said, 
Apol. against Burton.  prevailed with him and many of his Brethren, for their so late laying down the Common-Prayer; and for these reasons, many would still yield a feigned and partial submission to the use of some parts of it, that they might have advantages to destroy the whole: And certain it is, that such Conformists draw more prejudices on the Church, than the Non-Conformists can do. There was therefore great reason for all this Caution, that men might not mock God, nor delude their Superiors in things that concerned his public Worship, and his Church's peace. And I fear that they who cannot serve God unfeignedly in the Communion of our Church, will do it but hypocritically any where else.  
And lastly, I have heard concerning the pretended Proviso that the Commons answered, that they had expressed the Obligation, to be only to the use of things prescribed so plainly, that it needed no further explanation, with which the Lords were satisfied.  
I conclude this with a Direction of Mr. Baxter, §. 27. of his Directory. If any impose an ambiguous Oath, and refuse to explain it, and require you only to take it in those words, and leave you to your own sense. If a lawful Magistrate command it, or the interest of the Church or State require it; I see not but he may take it on Condition, that in the plain and proper sense of the words, the Oath be lawful, and that he openly profess to take it in that sense. And Q. 152. he determines, that it is lawful to profess or subscribe our Assent and Consent to humane Writings, which we judge to be true and good, according to its measure of Truth and Goodness; as if Church-confessions that are sound, be offered for our consent; we may say or subscribe, I hold all the Doctrine in this Book to be true and good. And this he cannot deny of the things prescribed to be used by the Liturgy. And if as Mr. Baxter says, the presence of Godfathers, who hear the Charge concerning the Education of Children, implies their consent: So doth the presence of such as come to our Congregations to Worship God according to the Liturgy, imply their Assent and Consent to the same. This is a real, and that which is required, is but a verbal Declaration of our Assent; So much of Assent, etc. in general.  
P. 160. Mr. Baxter insists upon some particulars, unto which the Non-Conformists cannot give their Assent: The first is, the Rules given (in the Rubric) to know when the movable Feasts, and holidays begin. Where it is said, that Easter-day on which the rest depend, is always the first Sunday after the first Full Moon, which happens next after the 21. of March. To which I answer, that this being a general Rule, it may be allowed to have some exception. 2. The Rubric doth not say, a Rule, but Rules, in the Plural. Now, though this Rule be defective, yet Mr. Baxter grants there is another subjoined, which is more perfect, and the practice of the Church guides us in following that Rule which is perfect. So that where the first Rule fails, the defect is to be supplied by the second: And then the defect never coming into practice, our Assent to it is not required, being limited to the Use of things only. And Mr. Baxter might have as well objected against the Almanac, which says, February hath 28. days, when as it is afterward intimated, it hath sometimes 29. days. So that this Objection is frivolous, and serves only to show that the Non-Conformists find great want of more substantial reasons against Conformity, while they catch at such Shadows as this.  
P. 162. We Assent to approve of, and Consent to these words in the Preface; We are fully persuaded in our Judgements, and we here profess it to the World, that the Book as it stood before established by Law, doth not contain in it any thing contrary to the Word of God, etc. Where Mr Baxter omits those Provisoes, which in his own Judgement (as hath been showed) would make such a Profession lawful, viz. If it be allowed such just and favourable Construction, as in common equity ought to be allowed to all humane Writings; especially such as are set forth by authority, and even to the very best Translation of the Holy Scripture itself. This is not candidly done.  
But Mr. Baxter is guilty of another wilful mistake in this particular, greater than the former, when he says, we Assent and Consent, and approve of these words in the Preface; whereas he well knows our Assent to the words there mentioned is not required nor could be intended; for it is only a profession of our Superiors that were then in Being, what their Judgement and Belief was concerning the Old Common-Prayer Book, and if we think charitably of them as we ought to do, (that they meant as they spoke) this is all that is required of the Subscribers to Assent unto, if the Preface come under the Act for Conformity. And therefore to say no worse, Mr. Baxter very inconsiderately says, p. 164. These things we must approve in the foresaid approbation of all things in the Old Common-Prayer Book.  
3. Mr. Baxter doth very ill to recount those mistranslations in the Old Book, which are amended in the New Book of Common-Prayer, whereby our Assent to it is much more facile, though (under the Provisoes before mentioned) as our Superiors thought them defensible. So many pious men (in the account of all the Non-Conformists) did subscribe unto the Old Book, as containing nothing contrary to the word of God. And when our Assent, etc. is required only to the New Book; as it stands amended, there is no fear of our being required to Assent to the Old Book and its Imperfections; which yet Mr. Baxter insinuates as if it were included under this Declaration in the Preface, and did concern the present Conformists, which Mr. Baxter knows to be false, and contrary to the end of such alterations, as well as to the meaning of that profession in the Preface. As to that Translation of Ps. 105.28. which in our present Liturgy is, They were not obedient to his Word; and in the New Translation, They rebelled not against his Word; which Mr. Baxter says are clear contrary: It will not appear to be so, if it be considered that in the Translation used in the Liturgy, which is according to the Septuagint, the Arabic, Syriack, Ethiopick, and many Latin Copies; the Psalmist is understood to speak of the Egyptians, who, notwithstanding the wonders done upon them, were not obedient to the Word of God, whereas others understanding the Verb to refer to Moses and Aaron, or as Junius and Tremelius understand it, to the Signs and Wonders which God commanded against the Egyptians, Translate it, they rebelled not against his Word; both which Interpretations are true and agreeable to the History, and therefore (if Mr. Baxter could have given them a favourable construction, as was desired by his Superiors) he would not have said they were clearly contrary. The same answers may serve to the exception against the Collects of the Old Book, which for several days together used the words this day, which is now altered in the New Book into this time, which is the same with day in a large sense. But little reason have they to object against any Words or Phrases used in our Liturgy; who are still fond of Singing Psalms according to the Translation of Sternhold and Hopkins, far more defective than any in the Liturgy.  
The next Objection is concerning the reading of some part of the Apocrypha, concerning which, I answer in general; that the Church hath sufficiently distinguished in her Articles and Homilies, as well as in the Liturgy itself, between the Canonical and Apocryphal Books. 2. The times when the Apocrypha Lessons are to be read, are known by the Calendar to be between Sept. 28. to Novemb. 24.3. This is to be read only on the Week days, not on Sundays. 4. It is granted by Mr. Baxter that the sounder Books may be read. 5. The 5 Chap. of Tobit, and that part of the 46 Chap. of Eccles. which speaks of samuel's Prophesying after his death are omitted. 6. The Non-Conformists think there is Liberty granted in the Preface, to the Second Book of Homilies to change some Lessons. But it is still Objected, that by reading of these, the Scripture is for that time excluded. Answ. This is ill urged by those Non-Conformists, who for many years together, omitted the Reading either of Psalms or other Scriptures in their public, as well as private meetings, contenting themselves with a Singing Psalm, and an Harangue of Extemporary Prayer and Preaching. 2. Many ancient Fathers have taken pains to Translate and Expound them, and commend them as containing many useful Moral Instructions. Ireneus, Tertullian and others cite Bel and the Dragon as an Example for Martyrdom. Origen defended the History of Susanna. So did St. Herom, who also propounded the History of Judith, as an instance of Love and Courage on behalf of our Country, which may serve as an Answer to that other Objection, that many of our Divines account them fabulous, and to contain many untruths. And so we say still, if we take in all the Apocrypha Writings, but deny it of those that are retained by our Church; against which Mr. Baxter excepts. 1. That the entrails of a Fish are said to drive away Devils, and keep them from returning, whereas Christ saith, this kind goeth not out but by Fasting and Prayer. Answ. This saying of our Saviour concerning one kind, doth not exclude the use of other means joined with Prayer and Fasting, as for aught we know was here done; for the ejecting of such evil Spirits, as affected the parties possessed with Bodily Diseases and Infirmities, of which many instances may be given.  
And why should we so limit the goodness and Power of God, as to think that if he sent an Holy Angel for the Preservation of a good Man, (which he often did before the coming of Christ) he could not bless any means for the effecting of a good end. The next passage excepted against by Mr. Baxter, is that, where the Angel says, that he was the Son of Ananias of the Tribe of Nephthali: Whereas the Scripture frequently calls Angels by the name of such Men as they represent, Gen. 19.12. The Angels sent down to Sodom are called Men; the Angels that appeared at the Ascension are called Men in white Apparel; besides, these names were assumed as significative of the end wherefore the Angel was sent: Azarias signifying the help of God, and Ananias the Grace and Favour of God. But it is farther Objected, that it is not appointed that the Priest shall tell the People that those Lessons are Apocryphal, or what that word signifieth. Answ. Neither is it denied them to inform the People, as oft as such Lessons are to be read. And lastly, Mr. Baxter thinks that the chief doubt is, whether the Calendar appointing those Lessons may be consented to; which upon supposition that those Lessons contain nothing contrary to God's Word or sound Doctrine, may undoubtedly be done, especially in case of Deprivation. Mr. Baxter resolves the case thus: p. 191. That the Apocrypha is no part of the Book to which we must Profess, Assent, Approbation and Consent, nor to which by the Canon we must, ex animo subscribe, that there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God.  
P. 167. Mr. Baxter resumes the business of Godfathers against which he multiplieth words rather than objections; as 1. That no Parent is permitted to be Godfather to his own Child, or to speak at his Baptism, or Dedicate him, or promise in his name, or to undertake any part of his Education. All which is frivolous, for the Godfathers are to be Sureties, for the credibility of the Parent as well as for the Child, and so the word Surety implies that the Parent is the principal; and who ever thought the Church intended to exclude the Parent's Duty, to which the Law of God and Nature bind him, and from which nothing but death can excuse him? Nor did ever any good Man think that his procuring of Godfathers, did supersede his duty towards his Child, but that it was his duty more especially to do what they promised in behalf of the Parents. And though it be not expressed, that the Godfather is the Parents Representative; yet the contrary is not employed, as Mr. Baxter says, because (as he there says) the Parents are to procure the Godfathers, and how can Mr. Baxter tell whether he bespeaks him to be his Representative or not? Calvin advised the Parent to bring his Sureties with him, Epist. 302. And that they should answer to the Interrogatories which was the practice at Geneva, and by Beza approved in the Church of England, Quis damnare ausit? Epist. the 8. to Grindal.  
As to his demand, whether it be not enough that the Baptised Infant be the Child of a Believing Parent? I answer, the Church thinks it sufficient in the case of private Baptism, where no more is required; yet the Church may require witnesses, that the Parent is such a one, under which notion they do represent him; and for the better Assurance, the Church requires that the Godfathers themselves be such as have received the Holy Communion, i. e. in the Language of the Primitive Church, that they be fideles.  
But he makes another Query, whether the Godfathers Act be truly the Childs in God's account? Answ. That Infants may be engaged in a Covenant with God, cannot be denied. They were entered into a Covenant by Circumcision, under the Law, Deut. 29.11.12. And for this reason, our Children may be called Holy, as entered to a Covenant with God, and receiving the Privileges of Baptism, and fit it is they should be early obliged to the Duties of the Covenant. And being not capable to do this of themselves, it is requisite that some others should do it on their behalf, with that solemnity which becomes so great an Ordinance, Buxtorf. mentions a Susceptor at the Circumcision of Infants under the Law. And many Divines think that Custom was practised from, Isa. 8.2.3. of which see the Notes of Junius and Tremelius, in Locum.  
Mr. Calvin to Knox, Epist. 285. I confess that Stipulation is necessary, for nothing is more preposterous than that those should be engrafted into Christ's Body, whom we may not hope to be his Disciples; wherefore if none of the Kindred appear, that may give his Faith to the Church, and take charge of Teaching the Child; it is but a Lusorious Action, and the Baptism is defiled.  
Tertullian among the Ancients, speaks of Sureties for Children at Baptism, and of the Three Interrogatories concerning their Belief of the Creed, Renouncing the Devil, and the Christian-Warfare, and some think there is an Intimation of the same, in the 1 Pet. 3.21. St. Cyprian, St. August. and many others mention the same. The Reformed Churches have owned this Practice: The Bohemian, Geneva, Dutch, French, and many able Divines have defended it. And it is resolved by them that the words, I Believe, I Reneounce, etc. being a Form of words to express the contract, do oblige the Infant, which was anciently done, alio protestante, and therefore the question being asked of the Godfather in the Child's behalf; dost thou Believe and Renounce, and wilt thou be Baptised? It is plain that the answer also is in the Child's name, and the Catechism says, Infants are Baptised, because they Promise Faith and Repentance by their Sureties. Now if Children may be engaged, and there be no way of doing it, but by some others on their behalf, seeing this way of Godfathers hath been used by the Churches of God; who can doubt but that their Act may truly be accepted of God as the Act of the Child? and when we grant that the Parent joins in the same Act with the Godfathers, whom he procures, and may bring with him and signify his Consent, and receive the Charge, which though it bind the Godfathers to do their honest endeavour, yet it is more especially incumbent on the Parent; I see no reason but we may Assent to this.  
And thus, the 9 Object. that Ministers must Assent to all this Exclusion of the Parents, and Presentation, Profession, Promise, and undertaking of the Godfathers is answered. All this Exclusion is none at all, the Liturgy says nothing of it; the Canon says only he shall not be urged to be present, and the Reason is supposed; because in time the ancient Use of Godfathers would be laid aside, which all Protestant Churches have carefully continued.  
P. 169. Mr. Baxter excepts against the Rubric which says, It is certain by God's Word, that Children which are Baptised, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved. Answ. 1. This being a Rubric, and never coming to Use in the public Worship; it cannot reasonably be thought to be imposed as an Article of Faith on others; but only as the Judgement of our Superiors, with whom, for aught I perceive, Mr. Baxter is more offended than with that Doctrine: For p. 172. N. 12. When young unstudied Men (as he calls those of the Convocation, who declare this Opinion, p. 172. N. 12.) have in this point attained to an undoubted certainty, which their wiser Seniors cannot attain, it behoveth them to convince us of the Truth of their Inspiration or special Endowments, either by a proportionable excellency above us in other things; or by some Miracles or Testimonies from Heaven. Thus did such wiser Seniors in our Saviour's time require a Sign from Heaven, for Confirmation of his Doctrine, though he taught nothing but what was Consonant to the Law and the Prophets. He is angry with them for not Citing one word of God in the Rubric to show this certainty: Whereas had Mr. Baxter been employed in such a work, he could have quoted an Hundred at least, viz. all those places which speak of Baptism for remission of Sins, of Engrafting and Burying with Christ, of being Baptised into one Body, by one Spirit and the like, Acts 2.37. Acts 22.16. Rom. 4.11. 1 Cor. 1.15. 1 Cor. 12.13. Gal. 3.27. Eph. 5.26. Col. 2.12. Titus 3.5. Rom. 6.3. 1 Pet. 3.21. All and each of which are as plain Scripture-Proofs of the Salvation of Baptised Infants, as any that he produceth for their Baptism; yet he calls it clear Scripture Proof.  
Mr. Baxter is the first that hath accused the Church of England of Instituting a second Covenant of Grace. But, how impertinently, will appear from the distinction (which he mentioneth) of a Sacrament out of the Church Catechism, viz. An outward and visible Sign, of an inward and Spiritual Grace, given to us, Ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. But First, here is no intimation of any inward or Spiritual Grace, given to us by this outward Sign. Nor Secondly, is it pretended that the Cross is Ordained by Christ himself; much less that it is a means whereby we receive that Grace. Or, 4. A Pledge to Assure us thereof. And therefore Mr. Baxter doth not well to question, whether the Cross be not made a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace, or so very near it as to have the greatest part of that Sacramental Nature, when no one part of the definition agreeth with it. And it is confessed by Mr. Baxter, that the Liturgy useth not the Cross as a part of Baptism, but as a thing added after it; and therefore not as Mr. Baxter says, even in our Covenanting with God; for that Stipulation on the Child's part is passed before: All that is mentioned in the Office of Baptism is, that the Child is Signed with the Sign of the Cross, in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed, etc. So that it puts such as have been formerly Baptised, in mind of that Duty which is incumbent on them, and to be a witness to every one of the Engagements that lay on him. And that the Cross may be thus used, will follow from Mr. Baxters' Concession, in the Third part of his Christian Directory. Q. 113. Where he allows of the Use of the Cross before Heathen, as a signification that we are not ashamed of a Crucified Saviour: Now, if this Use of the Cross be forbidden by the second Commandment as a Transient Image; or if it be a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace, it is so when used at other times as well as after the Sacrament of Baptism. The time or the place wherein it is used doth not alter the nature of the thing. If therefore he grants such a Use of the Cross, as St. August. de Civitate Dei, and other Ancients mention, as in open Indication to Heathens, that we are not ashamed of a Crucified Christ; and in civil Uses also, it may be as innocently used after Baptism, to the same end. And it may be observed, that in Administering the Sacrament of Baptism, it is said by the Priest, I Baptise thee, etc. where he acts as God's Minister, but in the Admission of the Child, as a Member of the Congregation it is said, We receive this Child, which cannot be thought any part of that Sacrament. But let us hear how Mr. Baxter resolves the Question, 49. p. 123. of Direct. May one Offer his Child to be Baptised with the Sign of the Cross, or the Use of Chrism, the white Garment, Milk and Honey, or Exorcism (as among the Lutherans) who taketh these to be unlawful things? Answ. When he cannot lawfully have better, he may and must Offer his Child to them that will so Baptise him, rather than to worse, or not at all; because Baptism is God's Ordinance, and the Child's privilege, and the Sin is the Ministers and not his. Another Man's sinful Mode, will not justify the neglect of our Duty; else we might not join in Prayer or Sacraments, in which the Minister modally singneth, that is with none.— The Parent may make known in such Cases, that it is Baptism he desireth, and that he disalloweth the manner, which he accounteth sinful, and then he is no consenter to it. But where the Law, or Scandal, or greater Inconveniencies forbidden him, he is not to make his Profession openly in the Congregation; but in that prudent manner which beseemeth a sober peaceable Person, whether the Minister in private, or to his neighbours in Converse. Now when Mr. Baxter grants a Man may thus Offer his Child to Baptism, where he supposeth many unlawful things are Administered; he doth very ill to amuse the Laity with the bare Sign of the Cross.  
Yet I think if we take in the Doctrine and Practice of the Church, I may declare that it is certain by God's Word, that Children ought to be Baptised: And it is observable that the Salvation of Baptised Infants dying, etc. was as generally Believed, as their right to Baptism. The Council of Milevis, which was Confirmed by the Sixth general Council, delivers this not only as their own Opinion, but as a Rule of the Catholic Church, C. 2. And St. August. De Peccat. & Mer. l. 3. c. 5. says, That of Old, the whole Church did firmly hold that Children do obtain Remission of Original Sin by the Baptism of Christ; it would be tedious to quote the authority of the Fathers, who generally hold that the guilt contracted by the First Adam, is done away in Baptism, which Ingrafts us into the Second Adam. This was the Doctrine of our Church ever since the Reformation, agreeing with the Augustan, Saxon, Helvetick, Palatine, French and Scottish Confessions. So that generally all that Assent to the Protestant Doctrine, do Assent to the Truth of this Rubric, and seeing it is certain by the Word of God, that Baptism was Instituted for the Remission of Sins, and to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace; seeing it is certain by the Word of God, as Mr. Baxter Asserts, that Infants have a right to Baptism; I see no cause why Mr. Baxter may not Assent to this Rubric.  
Our Wiser Seniors ought to deal so candidly with young and unstudied Divines, as to Interpret a Rubric occasionally delivered by them agreeably greeably to those other places, wherein this Doctrine of the Church to which they had formerly subscribed, is purposely handled and explained; now, Article 25. concerning the Sacraments, the Church holds, That in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome Effect and Operation. And Article 27. Those who receive Baptism rightly, are thereby, as by an Instrument, Grafted into the Church, and obtain Remission of Sins. Now as this may probably be the meaning of the Rubric; so it is the sense of all sober Protestants, that all such Infants as are duly Baptised, are admitted into the Covenant of Grace, and are in a State of Salvation. And this the Church of God hath always taught, that none shall perish for the Imputation of the Sin of the First Adam, that are Baptised into the second Adam; and unless Infants that die shortly after their Baptism have this benefit by it, we may turn Anabaptists, and deny it to them without any Injury.  
But it is objected that neither Rubric, nor Canon, except from Baptism and certainty of Salvation, any Children of Turks, Infidels, etc. Answ. Mr. Baxter grants that as under the Old Testament, Abraham might cause the Children born in his House, or bought with his Money to be Circumcised; so Christian Proprietors may by themselves, or other Godfathers, Offer such Children to Baptism, and the benefits thereof. And Fulgentius de Vera praed. l. 1. c. 12. says, that if such Infants die soon after Baptism, they are heirs of God, and Coheirs with Christ. Favores sunt ampliandi.  
P. 174. It is Objected, that the Ministers subscribing to use no other Form in the Administration of the Sacraments, than what is enjoined by the Book of Common-Prayer, the Non-Conformists cannot Assent to it, lest they should refuse from Baptism the Children of true Christians, who will not procure Godfathers, nor submit to the Sign of the Cross; for the Priest consenteth, saith Mr. Baxter, p. 177. Not to Baptise them, who dare not receive it with the Use of the Cross and Godfathers. Answ. That as the Practice of our Church in one case of necessity, when Children are like to die, shows that they approve of Baptism, without either Godfathers or the Sign of the Cross; so it argues that they do approve of it in other cases, where no contempt or scandal doth appear, (as where Godfathers may not be had, and it may be dangerous to use the Cross as in the late times of confusion) and those persons have a very low esteem of the necessity and benefit of the Sacraments, as do withdraw themselves and their Children from them, merely on a Ceremony used in the Administration.  
But the great fear of the Non-Conformists is, lest this Use of the Cross be a second Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace made by Man, added to Baptism,— and the rather because it is the Use of an Image, though transient in God's Worship, and to such high ends, p. 180. n. 5. and the question here, is whether the Cross be not here made (not only a Sacrament in a larger Sense, as Ordination and Matrimony may be called Sacraments, but even) a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace. Answ. I perceive Mr. Baxter is none of the young unstudied Divines in raising Scruples and Controversy, which he hath as well multiplied in number, as aggravated in the nature of them.  
It is yet a vainer Cavil which Mr. Baxter hath against those Words in the Exhortation before the Communion; That no Man should come to the Holy Communion without a full Trust in God's Mercy, and with a quiet Conscience: Any Man that shall read the whole Period, will find this to be the sense of it; that because it is the duty of every one to come to that Holy Sacrament with a full Trust in God's Mercy, and a quiet Conscience; Therefore such whose fears are great, and their Faith but weak, whereby they might be hindered from not Communicating at all, or not with comfort; should consult their own, or some other able Pastor for satisfying their doubts, removing their fears, and strengthening their Faith in such a measure, as that they may receive it for the better, and not for the worse. If a serious Christian should complain to Mr. Baxter of the weakness of his Faith, and some troubles of Mind, I doubt not but that after Ghostly Counsel and Instruction, he would advise the same method, viz. to frequent the Holy Communion for the increase of his comfort, and strengthening of his Faith. Suppose the case stood thus, That one who is afraid of Communicating with such as he thinks to be wicked Persons, or to receive the Sacrament kneeling, should consult with Mr. Baxter, whether he may Communicate according to the Order prescribed in the Liturgy: I am much deceived if Mr. Baxter could not give him sufficient reason to lay aside those doubts, and rather than to neglect that Ordinance, to submit to the Orders of the Church, and receive that Sacrament kneeling, and if it be no Sin to receive it, it is none to give it to one that knelt; nor is it any way inconvenient for scrupulous persons to seek Resolution and Consolation from some able Minister of the Church.  
P. 184. N. 15. Mr. Baxter observes, that by the Liturgy every Parishioner is to Communicate twice a year; the Rubric says three times in the year, whereof Easter is to be one. As for the compelling Men so to do, that is, as he observes, by Statute, and therefore it concerns not the Conforming Ministers; so that this will not amount to what Mr. Baxter reports, as if it were the Voice of the Minister.— Receive the Sacrament, or lie in Goal. But Mr. Baxter ought to have understood this Rubric, cum grano Salis, if he had so much left; for it could not be strictly understood of every Parishioner, but only of such as should be judged fit and duly qualifyed; not to every Child, or ignorant Person, seeing it directs that such as are admitted to that Sacrament, should be able to give an account of the Catechism, and be actually Confirmed, or desirous of Confirmation.  
And the Curate is to have notice at least the day before who intent to Communicate, and if any of them be a notorious evil-liver, or have done any wrong to his Neighbour by Word or Deed, whereby the Congregation is offended, or if the Curate perceive any to live in malice and hatred, he may not only admonish them to forbear the Lords Table, but not suffer them to be partakers thereof, till he know them to be reconciled.  
But into what deplorable times are we fallen, that our highest Privilege should be accounted a great Grievance, and when all things are prepared and we are Invited in the Name of Christ to come to his Supper, we do rather choose Imprisonment and Goals, rather than the Table of the Lord? The First Christians made this Sacrament their Daily-Bread, which Devout Practice was continued for many years, till as Devotion waxed colder, they Communicated only once a Week, or on Sundays and Holydays at most; at last they came to once a Year, until it was Decreed by some Councils, that they should receive at least three times. By the Liturgy of Edward the VI the Clergy in Collegiate Churches and Cathedrals were to receive Daily; and by the present Liturgy every Sunday. But that Heavenly Ordinance, which the Primitive Christians begged on their Knees, and which is a most excellent means to Unite us to Christ, and to one another, is despised and made a ground of Strife and Division. And when, notwithstanding the pious Provision made by the Church to qualify its Members for a due and frequent Participation of that Blessing; and the Penalties provided by Law for such as neglect this duty, there is so miserable a neglect of it; we may justly fear, that if these methods be disused, we shall return to the practice of the late times of Reformation, where that Sacred Ordinance was in very many Parishes wholly neglected for some years together.  
P. 187. Mr. Baxter excepts against those words in the Office for Burial. Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God, to take to himself the Soul of our Dear Brother here departed. Which he takes in a strict sense, as implying the Salvation of the Deceased, when it may be understood only in a larger sense; that as the Body returns to the Earth, so doth the Soul return to God that gave it to be by him disposed of. And therefore the Church says only of the Soul, that it is here departed, that is, gone from the Body unto God the Judge of all Men; and when at the Interring of the Body, it is said, In hope of the Resurrection to Eternal Life, it is not said particularly of his Resurrection, but more generally that there shall be a Resurrection of our Bodies to Eternal Life in the sense as it is taken by Expositors of the Creed, that there shall be a Resurrection of our Bodies to Eternal Life; when they that have done well come forth to the Resurrection of the Just, and they that have done evil to Condemnation.  
Of this as we express a sure and certain hope for ourselves, and all that do departed in the true Faith; so, when we apply it particularly to the party Deceased, we say only our hope is that he resteth in Christ. And Christian Charity teacheth us to hope the best of all that die in the Communion of the Church. For as those that die Excommunicate, the Office of Burial is denied to them; And seeing Mr. Baxter pleads, that some upright Christians in Frenzies, Melancholies and Distractions make away themselves, of whom he would have us to entertain this hope: It would puzzle a more charitable Man than he, to resolve of any particular Man that dyeth in the Communion of the Church, that there is no hope of his Salvation; and it is better to err on the right hand in Judging Charitably, than through Pride or Malice to condemn a Brother; our Saviour forbidding us to Judge that we be not Judged.  
His next Exception is against these Words, We give thee hearty thanks for that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our Brother, out of the miseries of this sinful World. Now it being certain to us, that Death doth put an end to a State of Sin and Misery, to which all are subject in this Life; we ought doubtless to give God thanks for that which we know to be a Mercy, and to leave the Final Determination of his Soul, (which is a secret unto us) to God. There was no Sin in Jobs blessing the Name of the Lord; when by a severe Providence he took away his Children amidst their Mirth, not in another passage which is used also in this Office, and spoken by the Apostle concerning the Corinthians: Thanks be to God who hath given us the Victory through our Lord Jesus Christ; and when we see our Friends and Relations peaceably departed; we may bless God for his Mercy, in delivering them from the evils which they suffered, and hope that he hath given them rest in Christ; and we do but our duty to God, and show our Charity to our Brother in so doing.  
P. 190. The Surplice is accounted by some Non-Conformists to be unlawful, and therefore they cannot Assent to the Use of it: For which no reason is given, only Mr. Baxter says, If a Man mistakingly should take the Use of the Surplice to be sinful, he should not therefore be silenced. Answ. If he do mistake, he ought to do it modestly, suspecting his own Judgement which he will find to be contrary to that liberty which Christ hath purchased for us, that to the pure all things are pure, and contrary to the Practice of Primitive times, wherein the White Garment was in Use, by the Testimonies of St. Hierom, chrysostom and Augustine, contrary to the Judgement of the most Learned Protestants, and of Mr. Baxter himself. In his Five Disputations, p. 409. Some decent habit is necessary, the Magistrate, Ministers, or Associated Pastors, must determine what— if they tie all to one Habit (and suppose it were an indecent habit) yet this is but an imprudent Use of Power, it is a thing within the Magistrates reach, he doth not an Alien Work, but his own Work amiss. And therefore the thing in itself being lawful, I would Obey him, and use that Garment if I could not be dispensed with. Yea, though secundarily the whiteness be to signify purity, and so it be made a Teaching Sign, yet would I obey. Now if any Man against all this Authority and Arguments of Mr. Baxter and others, should still think the Surplice unlawful, it is better that he should be silenced, than the Church's Peace and Order be disturbed, or Ancient Laws abrogated, as oft as some (mistaking) think them unlawful; it is disobedience which the Church doth censure, and the Law punish. The Surplice is but a Ceremony, which ought not to weigh down the Duty of Obedience.  
P. 191. Mr. Baxter grants, that if the Athanasian Creed be referred to the Doctrine of the Trinity, it would not be excepted against. For he takes it to be the best Explication of the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity, which in so short a Sum is extant in the Church: So that by requiring Assent and Consent thereunto, the Church of England hath secured herself against any suspicion of Socinian or Anti-Trinitarian Doctrine, whereof Mr. Baxter and others frequently and falsely accuse the Conformists. That which cannot be Assented to, is the Damnatory Sentences in that Creed; as,  
First, Where it is said in the beginning, Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.— And the Catholic Faith is this, etc. And in the end, This is the Catholic Faith, which except a Man believe faithfully he cannot be saved. Answer, if our Assent be required only to the Use of this Creed, and not to a belief of the Truth of every part of it, the controversy will be at an end.  
Secondly, The Belief of things as necessary to Salvation, is granted by Non-conformists to be not an Assent to the several Phrases and obscure Words; but to the general sense contained in them. Now the sense of our Church in proposing this Creed, may be judged by the Use which she makes of the Apostles Creed, not only in the daily Profession of it, but in the Office of Baptism, as containing all the necessary points of Faith, into which we are Baptised: And in the Catechism as containing all the Articles of the Christian Faith, which doth show that no more is required as necessary to Salvation, than what is contained in the Apostles Creed.  
Thirdly, In this Creed some things are propounded as necessary points of Faith, which Men of weak judgements may apprehend, as that we Worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. Other things are for a clearer explication of that Doctrine, and vindication of it from the errors that were then risen in the Church, as the Arrians and Nestorians who erred concerning the Divinity of Christ and his two Natures; which begin thus: For there is one Person of the Father, etc. After which followeth the necessary Doctrine again: So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity is to be Worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. So that the Doctrine of the Trinity is that Faith which is proposed as necessary to Salvation. I know the exception of many against this Creed is in relation to the Heathen, who seem by it to be excluded from Salvation. In which respect, I suppose it is that Mr. Baxter says, p. 191. That some R. Reverend Conformists do profess that those Sentences are untrue, and not to be approved; and he instanceth somewhere in Mr. Chillingworths' refusal to subscribe it. But if this be the ground of the Exception, I conceive that the generality of the Non-conformists who maintain the same Opinion, which is consonant to the Scriptures, and to the Assemblies Confession of Faith; to which Mr. Baxter also hath declared his Assent in this particular, will not oppose. For in the Assemblies Confession, C. 10. Article 4. concerning effectual calling, they say, That Men not professing the Christian Religion, cannot be saved in any way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their Lives according to the Light of Nature, and the Law of that Religion they do profess, and to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested. And I know some Non-conformists have lately blamed some Conformists for seeming to incline to the contrary Opinion. Which, if this be sense of the Creed our Church doth explode; yet some Non-conformists think that by holding the Doctrine of the Athanasian Creed, they do not judge the Heathen World, and that they dobut not, but in every nation he that feareth God and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him; so that this obloquy is silenced. But it is most probable, that Athanasius intended the Explanatory part of the Creed against the Arrians and other Heretics in the Church, who if they denied the Divinity of Christ, and died in that error; who can think they can be saved? seeing they make Christ a mere Creature, and overthrow the Doctrine of our Redemption by him: But that he should condemn all that have a true, though but a weak Faith in the Holy Trinity, and cannot comprehend the manner of the Eternal Generation of the Son, the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and the Co-equality of the Trinity, cannot be thought to have been the Mind of Athanasius.  
P. 192. N. 20. The Liturgy saith, All Priests and Deacons are to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer privately or openly, not being  by sickness or some other urgent cause etc. Answ. That the Primitive Christians did meet daily, not only for public Prayers, but to receive the Sacrament is believed; and that it is our duty to Pray Morning and Evening cannot be denied, and what should hinder, but that such as are specially devoted to the Service of God, should Pray openly with the people, if not reasonably hindered, or at least pray privately for them? there are many that do their duty herein, and if all did, it would be better with us; because all Men do not perform their Baptismal Vows, is it fit that none such should be made? we see this duty is performed in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, and in many other places, where there is a liberal maintenance provided for the Priests and Deacons, where though one only do Officiate, yet all those that are present may say the daily Prayers as the Liturgy requires, which is another frivolous Objection of Mr. Baxters, p. 192. n. 3.  
The next is a Calumny against the whole Liturgy, viz. that the Prayers are disorderly and defective, not Form according to the Order of Matter, nor of the Lords Prayer; but like an immethodical Sermon which is unsuitable to the High Subjects, and Honourable Work of Holy Worship, and that the Non-conformists have Offered (when it shall be well accepted) to give in a Catalogue of the disorders and defects of the Liturgy. But all this notwithstanding, they think it lawful to Use the Liturgy in Obedience or for Unity, or when no better may be Used: It is something to go thus far, but if they would impartially consider the defects and confusions which were in the Directory, as it hath been considered by Doctor Hammond, or in Mr. Baxters' Eight days exploit for a more correct Nepenthes, and shall on the other side read that account which Mr. Comber, and others have given of the Methodical order and dependence of the several Prayers and Offices, the Grave and Scriptural Phrases and Expressions in the Liturgy; he may perceive that this is fit to guide the Devotion of the Universal Church, than those other are for Country Conventicles.  
P. 194. He excepts against the Preface to the Book of Ordination, where it is said, that— It is evident to all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture, and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, as several Offices. Answ. I shall not trouble my Readers with the Arguments of Learned Men, for the Order of Bishops in the Church ever since the Apostles days as distinct from Presbyters; much less shall I repeat those uncomely Reflections, which Mr. Baxter hath made on Diocesan Bishops in both his late Books. It may suffice in Answer to this Objection, that Mr. Baxter hath been formerly of a contrary persuasion, I do not mean only when he was Ordained by a Bishop, and did, or aught to swear Canonical Obedience to him, as his Lawful Governor; but in his more mature and serious Age, when he had studied the controversy; I mean in his Christian Directory, p. 127. part 7. Where having proved the particular Orders of Presbyters, and Deacons: He gives his reasons for a larger Episcopacy, as the Margin tells you. And N. 4. Thus he says,— Besides this, in the Apostles days, there were under Christ in the Universal Church, many general Officers that had the care of Governing, and Overseeing Churches up and down, and were fixed by stated relation unto none. Such were the Apostles, Evangelists, and many of their helpers in their days. And most Christian Churches think that though the Apostolical, extraordinary Gifts, Privileges and Offices cease, yet Government being an ordinary part of their work, the same Forms of Government, which Christ and the Holy Ghost did settle in the first Age, were settled for all following Ages, though not with the same extraordinary gifts and adjuncts: Because, 1. We read of the settling of that Form, viz. General Officers as well as Particular, but we never read of any Abolition, Discharge, or Cessation of the Institution. 2. Because if we affirm a Cessation without proof, we seem to accuse God of Mutability, as settling one Form of Government for one Age only, and no longer. 3. And we leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel-Institutions, as Pastors, Sacraments, etc. and to say that they were but for an Age. 4. It was General Officers that Christ promised to be with to the end of the World. Matth. 28.20. Now this will hold true or not (says Mr. Baxter) If not, than this general Ministry is to be numbered with humane Additions to be next treated of. If it do, then there is another part of the Form of Government proved to be of Divine Institution: I say not another Church, but another part of the Government of both Churches, Universal and Particular; because such General Officers are so in the Universal, as to have a general Oversight of the particular: As an Army is Headed only by the General himself, and a Regiment by the Colonel, and a Troop by the Captain, but the General Officers of the Army, as the Lieutenant's General, the Major's General, etc. are under the Lord General, in and over the Army, and have a general oversight of the particular Bodies, (Regiments and Troops) Now if this be the Instituted Form of Christ's Church-Government, that he himself rule absolutely as General, and that he have some General Officers under him, (not any one having the charge of the whole, but in the whole unfixedly, or as they voluntarily part their Provinces) and that each particular Church have their own proper Pastor, one or more; then who can say, that no Form of Church Government is of Divine appointment or command? So far Mr. Baxter, with whom I find other Non-conformists to agree in the Notion of Diocesan Bishops; which is enough not only to confute this Objection against the Order of Bishops, but all that Mr. Baxter hath said in his late Writing, against the Constitution of National Churches, and the Government of Diocesans, with so much partiality and passion. And though Mr. Baxter deny it here, that having diligently read the Holy Scriptures, and Ancient Authors, yet Three Orders and Offices are not evident to him; yet it is evident, he hath proved it solidly enough, even from the Scripture alone, to which whoever shall join the Practice and Testimony of the Primitive Church, as a help to explain the sense of the Scripture, must needs be persuaded of the Truth of these Three Orders in the Church of Christ; and therefore this Objection, from the Preface to the Book of Ordination, is of no weight.  
In all the fardel of Mr. Baxters' impertinencies, there is not a more trifling Objection than that which follows against the Bishops inviting the people in the Name of God to come forth, and show what Crime or Impediment they know in the Persons to be Ordained, p. 196. For seeing no Person is to be Ordained without a Title to some Cure; seeing there are solemn days set apart for Ordination, and Prayers ordered to be Used the preceding Weekdays, for God's Blessing on that Ordinance; seeing every Person is to produce Testimonials under the hands of Three Persons, to whom he is known, of his Life and Conversation; seeing any person may, if he please, be present at the Ordination, and the Bishop may personally inquire into his Ministerial abilities: I know not what further caution is necessary than to pronounce a Liberty to the people, who generally meet on that occasion in the greatest Congregations, and in public Places, to come forth and show if they know any impediment in the Person to be Ordained; upon which, I myself have known several Persons to be repulsed in the Face of the Congregation; and when the Ordained Person is to continue a Deacon, for a year before he is admitted a Presbyter, the people have a competent time to inform the Bishop of any Crime that they know by him, which may render him an unfit Person, without such a call from the Bishop; which is but Abundans Cautela.  
P. 197. He objects against these words, in the Form of Consecration. Receive the Holy Ghost, for the Office and Work of a Priest, etc. The doubt is, saith Mr. Baxter, whether this be not an abuse of the words which Christ himself, or his Apostles used, and so not to be Assented to. Now Mr. Baxter grants that Christ or his Apostles used these words; that our Saviour used them, and when is very observable. It was after his Resurrection, and before his Ascension, that our Saviour endowed his Apostles with this Ministerial Power, saying unto them, Receive the Holy Ghost, which could not be meant of any extraordinary Power of Tongues and Miracles, which were not given till Christ was first glorified, when the Day of Pentecost was fully come. The Power therefore conveyed by these words, was an Authorising of them to the ordinary work of the Ministry, as the following words do enforce; whose Sins ye remit, they are remitted; and this Power Mr. Baxter grants to belong to every Minister: That the Apostles of our Lord did use the same words, is probable from that expression of St. Paul, Acts, 20.28. Take heed to yourselves, and to all the Flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you over seers. And Mr. Baxter complains, that too little notice is taken of the Holy Ghosts setting Pastors over the Flocks, which the Scripture mentioneth, p. 310. Which is a conveying of that Authority, which Christ at his Ascension left to his Church; he gave some Apostles, some Prophets, etc. for the work of the Ministry, Eph. 4.11, 12. v. 13. Till we all come in the Unity of the Faith, etc.  
P. 198. He excepts against the Oath of the Bishops to their Metropolitan, and p. 199. the Oath of the Priests and Deacons for Canonical Obedience to their Diocesan; against which he gives no reason, but argues negatively, that it was not Instituted by Christ or his Apostles. But Mr. Baxter having granted a like Sub-ordination of Offices in the Church, as in an Army; I see no Reason, but that when authority enjoins it: as a Captain may swear Obedience to his Colonel, and he to his Lieutenant General, or Major Generals; so may the Presbyter to his Diocesan, and the Diocesan to his Metropolitan. But Mr. Baxter hath more plainly resolved this doubt, in answer to Q. 152. in his Directory, part the 3d. p. 181. the Question is,— May we lawfully swear Obedience in all lawful things to Usurpers, or to our lawful Pastors? To which under N. 3. he thus answers, The old Non-conformists, who thought the English Prelacy an unlawful Office; yet maintained that it is lawful to take the Oath of Canonical Obedience, because they thought it was imposed by the King and Laws; and that we swore to them not as Officers, claiming a Divine Right in the Spiritual Government, but as Ordinaries or Officers made by the King, N. B. to exercise so much of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction under him as he can delegate.— And if Prelacy were proved never so unlawful, no doubt but by the Kings command we may swear, or perform formal Obedience to a Prelate, as he is the King's Officer. Of the Non-conformists Judgement in this, read Bradshaw against Can. This concession of Mr. Baxter will overthrow that, wherein he placeth the force of the Objection, viz. That the Ordinary is not only the Bishop, but also the Chancellor, Officials, etc. because they are the King's Officers. And, if the Chancellor do invade the Office of the Ministry in Excommunications and Absolutions; Mr. Baxter well observes, p. 202. It is not justified by the Bishops themselves. I wonder how any right Presbyterian can except against one Lay-Chancellour in a Diocese, who would set up one or more Un-ordained Ruling Elders in every Parish; and though Mr. Baxter be not thorough Paced in this point, yet in his Tract of Ordination, he would have the Magistrate to authorise a Lay-Officer, well like to our Chancellors, p. 299. He directs the Magistrate to appoint an able Godly moderate Minister in each County, or half, or quarter, to see the Pastors do their duty, not having Episcopal Power to suspend or excommunicate them; but let every Visitor have an Agent of the Magistrates joined with him, Armed with Authority to convent the Ministers, and examine Witnesses, and to do what more the Chief Magistrate shall see meet, so that still these two Visitors go together, and let the Civil Visitor have all the Coercive Power. This comes home to our Lay-Chancellours, who being the King's Officer, we may by Mr. Baxters' permission swear Obedience to him. And other Non-Conformists (as wise as Mr. Baxter) think that the Apostles Wise Man spoken of in 1 Cor. 6. to be a Precedent for our Chancellors. And it is strange that they who would set two Lay-Ruling Elders in every Parish, should not admit one in a Diocese.  
Mr. baxter's last quarrel against the Rubric is, that it obligeth the Minister, who repelleth any from the Sacrament to give an account of the same, to the Ordinary within fourteen days after. Answ. He that hath no notorious scandalous persons in his Parish, is free from this trouble; and so is he that hath such, if they do not press themselves on that Holy Communion. If any such do, the Minister having timely notice of his intention, as is required, may send for him, and privately admonish him, that the Congregation are much offended by his disorderly Conversation; especially by such or such a Crime, whereof by common Fame he is reported guilty, and therefore desire him to forbear that Sacrament, till such time as he have given Testimony of his Repentance and Reformation, to the satisfaction of the Congregation. In this case the party forbearing on a private Admonition, there is no need of informing the Ordinary. But if such a person still press on, the Minister ought to refuse him, and it will much abate his trouble, and the Odium which otherwise might lie on him, to refer the Case to the Ordinary to be determined by him.  
These are the great number of Sins, hindering Conformity, so heinous as that Mr. Baxter was afraid to name them, lest he should displease and provoke the Conformists; which even in the judgement of Mr. Baxter himself, and other serious Non-conformists, will scarce amount to an appearance of evil. As for the Objections against the Declarations, and Oaths required by Act of Parliament; seeing he acknowledgeth that it is not the sense of the Liturgy, but of a Statute of Parliament which the Non-conformists doubt of, and that it would be impertinent for us to tell them what is the sense of the Church; the doubt being, what is the sense of the Parliament, p. 191. I shall not add much more to what I have spoken on those Subjects, but refer them to those, to whom the Execution of those Laws are committed for their better Instruction. And I shall only observe, that the complaint against the Lawgivers, p. 204. n. 3. is, that they will not otherwise expound their own words, after seventeen years waiting for it under compulsive executions. By (otherwise) he means against the sense of the plain words, as appears, n. 2. in which the Non-conformists there profess to understand them, but cannot Assent to them, and therefore they think they may be excused, if by mistake they think some of those passages to be unlawful, that are not, or to have a worse sense than indeed they have. This mistake will appear to the Judicious Reader to be wilful, and an Act of pure malice and revenge. For the plain English of it is this, That because the Parliament will not, in favour to the Non-conformists, altar their Laws, and dispense with the Oaths of Obedience, and renouncing of the Covenant, and reforming every thing in the Liturgy which they have fancied to be sinful, and thereby justify the Non-conformists, and confess themselves to be the cause of our present Divisions: They are still resolved to pronounce the Liturgy to be sinful, the Laws Tyrannical, and such as would force them to perjury. And though they want power for the present to help themselves, yet if you will not hear, those will, whom God will use to the healing of his Churches (as he says in his Preface) the meaning whereof is too plain: By this time the Reader may discern how vainglorious his boast is, that he hath shown us a righter way of Concord, more Divine, Sure, Harmless, Comprehensive, fitted by Christ himself, to the interest of all good Men; yea, of the Church, and all the World. Would you know, what that grand discovery is he tells you, p. 36. of his Plea, which is the Sum of his five first Sections; and this is the result of all. If every Pastor might be a Bishop in his Parish, Independent and free from any Superior to control him; if he may have an arbitrary power, if they may be arbitrary in exercise of the power of the Keys without appeal, such as he says, p. 265. the Jews had, where there was a Village of Ten Persons, there was a Presbyter that had power of Judging Offenders: Then we should be so far (says he) from using the controversy about the Divine Right of Episcopacy, as a distinct Order from Presbyters, to any Schism or injury to the Church, (as hitherto they have done) that we should thankfully contribute our best endeavours to the Concord, Peace, Safety, and Prosperity thereof (i. e.) they would give the Bishops leave to exercise their Authority in Utopia, having provided that they shall have nothing to do in England: But the Magistrates must yield to them also.— Might we be freed from Swearing, Subscribing, Declaring and Covenanting unnecessary things, which we take not to be true, and from some few unnecessary practices which we cannot justify: And if they might have power of Ordaining such as they please, and of Confirming the Adult not according to the Order of the Church of England (for that comes too near to Popery;) but according to Mr. Baxters, or Mr. Hanmers' Model, that is, May the power of altering the Laws in Church and State, then, (and not till then, when these necessary terms are granted) they will serve the Church (so modelled) in poverty and rags. But of so great a mercy (says he) experience hath made our hopes from Men to be very small; and the Reason of the thing makes our hopes as small, of the happiness of the Church of England, till God Unite us on these necessary terms. To what great straits do some Men reduce themselves, that they cannot live unless they Rob and ruin their neighbours, subvert whole Churches, and Kingdoms, and grasp all Power and Authority, over the Bodies and Consciences of their Brethren into their own hands?  
Did ever any Bishop aspire to such Tyranny as this? (the Pope only excepted) is not the King and whole Nation greatly Culpable, not to trust themselves with the Ingenuity of this people, of whose Loyalty and Charity they have had such experience? and is it not pity that they should be constrained to attempt these things against Law, when they so humbly desire to have them established by Law? and when the reason of the thing, (i. e.) their resolution to have it so, (it being their great concern as he calls it) makes the hopes of the happiness of the Church of England to be very small, which Men so resolved as they are may foretell, as Mr. Baxter doth without a Spirit of Prophecy.  
Sect. 2. p. 207. Mr. Baxter proceeds to the second part of Conformity, which he calls Re-ordination, and says, it was either intended as a second Ordination, or not; If yea, it is a thing condemned by the ancient Churches, by the Canons called the Apostles, etc. If not, than they take such men's former Ordination to be Null, and consequently all such Churches to be no Churches, their Baptizing and Consecration of the Lords Supper, etc. to be Null. Answ. Although the Ordination by Presbyters alone, especially when it hath been done in opposition to, 
* P. 237. of the five Disputations. We Ordain not present, but Spreto Episcopo.  and Contempt of Bishops, hath been ever condemned in the Church, and the validity thereof is still questioned; yet granting it to be valid, a Submission to Episcopal Ordination, is no renouncing of that which was performed by Presbyters, no more than the submission of the Disciples of John, who had been Baptised by him with the Baptism of Repentance, to the Baptism of Christ. Nor doth the Law any where require them to declare that their former Ordination was Null; because than it would have pronounced their Baptizing, and other Ministerial Offices to be Null; if therefore we did juge as charitably of our Legislators as we ought, and Interpret the Laws by the practice, we cannot find any such thing as Re-ordination intended. For first, the word is not where mentioned, but the Ordination required is to qualify them for the exercise of their Ministry in the Church of England, and to capacitate them for it. Thus in the Preface to the Book of Ordination, it is said, None shall be taken as Ministers of the Church of England, but who are so Ordained.  
It denyeth not, but they may be Ministers elsewhere, and the Act for Uniformity renders them uncapable of any Parsonage, Vicarage, etc. in the Church of England. But the same Act allows of the Ministers Presbyterially Ordained in other Reformed Churches, to exercise their Ministry here by His Majesty's Authority. Yea, the same Parliament permits them to meet, and exercise many Ministerial duties; so that the number above that of their own Families do not exceed Five, and Mr. Baxter knows, that the most eminent Divines of our Church, ever held the Ordination by Presbyters in foreign Churches to be lawful.  
2. It is Mr. Baxters' Opinion, that the outward part of Ordination may be repeated. Directory l. 3. Q. 21.  
And that the Ordainer doth but Ministerially invest the person with Power, whom the Spirit of God hath qualified for it by the Inward Call; now the Inward Call being the Essential part (as he accounts) and the Ministerial Investiture of the person with power, being the outward part. P. 311. of the Plea; I see no reason why one Ordained by Presbyters, may not submit to Episcopal Ordination by his own Argument. Yea, Mr. Baxter there affirms, That the mutual consent of the people, and themselves may suffice to the orderly admittance into the Office; especially if the Magistrate consent, and the Ordainers should refuse: For which see more in his Dispute of Ordination, from whence I propose this case; suppose a person fitly qualified for Parts and Piety, Chosen and Ordained a Minister by an Independent, or Anabaptistical people, should afterward submit himself to Presbyterial Ordination: I doubt not but the Presbyters would think it lawful to Ordain him, and I believe they would not admit him into their Churches without such Ordination, which may justify our Superiors in requiring that they who will be admitted Ministers of the Church of England, should be Episcopally Ordained. For here is nothing repeated but the outward part, or Ceremony of Investiture, which by Mr. Baxters' Confession may be repeated, and is no more than the Marriage of such by a Minister, who had been Married before by a Justice of Peace: Or as he makes another Comparison, it is no more than if a person very expert in Physic, should practise without a Licence. Upon which he tells you a story of his great success in Physic, which he practised many years gratis, and saved the Lives of multitudes, p. 78. of the Third part of the way of Concord; and yet he there grants, that it is meet for the safety of men's Health, that none practise Physic, but a Licenced Physician. And until there be a greater want of Divines or Physicians than now there is, it is pity that such as are not Licenced should be permitted.  
The Third part of Conformity gins p. 208. concerning the Renunciation of the Covenant, whereof he treats, §. 11. and 12. Ministers (saith he) must only subscribe, that there is no Obligation on me, or any other person from the Oath, etc. to endeavour any change or alteration of Government in the Church, to which he adds the Oxford Oath, That we will never endeavour any alteration. And the Articles for Prelacy, the Ordination promise, and Oath of Canonical Obedience. Against all which he Objects, that even those Non-conformists that are for the lawfulness; yea, the need and desireableness of Bishops and Archbishops are unsatisfied in these things: That some Hundred of Parishes are without any particular appropriate Bishops, and consequently are without the Discipline of such Bishops, and so are no Churches but only parts of a Diocesan Church, that the Bishops have more work than they can do, and the Keys are to be exercised by Laymen. Answ. I have already shown Mr. Baxters' judgement of Bishops and Lay-Chancellours, and shall only add, that the Laws which Empower the Ministry with the Exercise of Discipline are so full, and exact, that if each Minister did faithfully perform his duty, there would be no need to complain for want of work, or of authority to do it effectually. Every Minister is to admonish his Parishioners not to delay the Baptism of their Children, whereby they are entered into a Covenant with God, and by their Sureties engaged to Faith, Repentance, and new Obedience; as soon as they come to years of Discretion, they are to be instructed out of the Church Catechism every Sunday, which Catechism Mr. Baxter himself commends to be better for its Method than most others: Then upon their knowledge of the Principles of Religion, and owning their Baptismal Vows, whereof the Minister is to take cognizance, and certify to the Bishop they are to be Confirmed; and none but such are to be admitted Communicants, and none but Communicants to be admitted as Godfathers, etc. The Minister ought both publicly and privately to admonish such as are scandalous, and to deny them the Communion, until they manifest their Repentance, which is a kind of Excommunication. He is constantly to Celebrate public Worship, to Preach the Word of God, and Administer the Holy Sacraments frequently; to visit his Parishioners, that he may know the State of his Flock, to instruct the Ignorant, rebuke the Wicked, encourage the Good, to visit the Sick, absolve the Penitent, and to strengthen them by the Word of God, and the Comforts of the Holy Sacrament against the fear of death. If these things were duly done as they might and ought to be; there would be no cause to complain, either that the Bishop hath too much, or the Pastor too little work, the fault is not in the Laws or Constitution of Government, but in the want of due Execution.  
To omit the many impertinencies in the 12. §. there are Three things only, on which he grounds his Plea for the Covenant: The First is, p. 214. Whether when Charles the II. had (though injuriously) been drawn to take the Covenant, it doth not oblige those that took it afterward, and whether the King having taken it, no one person be bound by it? p. 143. Answ. Mr. Baxter leads me by this Question to consider, how His Majesty was dealt with by the Scots in this matter; how they tortured him with various temptations of hopes and fears, and so affronted him with many horrible Reproaches of his own Sins, as well as of the Sins of His Father and Grandfather, that he often attempted to leave them; what Provocations he met with in private, may be guessed at by their public Actions. The Thursday before the Coronation was set apart as a Solemn day of Humiliation throughout the Land, for the Sins of the Royal Family. Robert Douglas in the Coronation Sermon, told the King, That His Grandfather King James remembered not the kindness of them, who had held the Crown upon his Head; yea, he persecuted faithful Ministers; he never rested till he had undone Presbyterial Government, and Kirk Assemblies, setting up Bishops, and bringing in Ceremonies. In a word, he laid the foundation whereupon his Son, our late King did build much mischief in Religion all the days of his Life. 73.  
P. 52. He tells the King to his Face, That a King abusing his Power, to the overthrow of Religion, Laws, and Liberties (which are the fundamentals of that Covenant) may be controlled and opposed. And if he set himself to overthrow all these by Arms, they who have power, as the Estates of the Land, may and ought (I suppose by obligation of the Covenant) to resist by Arms; because he doth by that opposition break the very Bonds, and overthrow the Essentials of this Contract and Covenant. This may serve (says he) to justify the proceed of this Kingdom, against the late King, who in a Hostile way set himself to overthrow Religion, Parliaments, Laws and Liberties. Thus was the King's Crown lined with Thorns, and he had Gall and Vinegar given him to drink, instead of the Royal Unction which that profane Scot thus derides; p. 34. The Bishops behoved to perform this Rite, and the King behoved to be Sworn to them. But now, by the Blessing of God, Popery and Prelacy are removed, let the anointing of Kings with Oil, go to the door with them, and let them never come in again. If the King ought by the Laws of the Kingdom to have been Sworn to the Bishops, this may make void the Obligation of the Covenant; for the Coronation Oath is a right of the Subject, and concerns their interest and security, and the King as Heir to the Crown is obliged to that Oath, and if any subsequent Oath may violate that in one particular, it may also in others, and then farewell to Magna Charta, the privileges of Parliament, and Liberty of the Subject. See more in the Review of the grand Case, p. 139. 140. P. 92. He tells the King, That God in his Righteous judgements, suffereth Subjects to conspire and rebel against their Princes, because they rebel against the Covenant made with God, (and adds) I may say freely, that a chief cause of the Judgement upon the King's House, hath been the Grandfather's breach of Covenant with God, and the Father's following steps in opposing the work of God and his Kirk within these Kingdoms; and probably too many do still think they may rebel again in Defence of the Covenant.  
But I argue from the manner of the Kings taking the Covenant, (as it is related p. 75. etc.) that the King is not obliged by it to make any alteration in the Government of our Church, for thus it is related: That the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant being read, the King Swore, that for himself and successors, he should consent and agree to all Acts of Parliament, enjoining the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant, etc. in the Kingdom of Scotland, as they are approved by the general Assembly of that Kirk, and Parliament of that Kingdom. And that he should give his Royal Assent to Acts and Ordinances of Parliament, passed or to be passed, enjoining the same in his other Dominions. And in the Declaration set forth at Edinborough in His Majesty's name, 1650. (But penned as it seems by the Covenanters,) He declares, That if the Houses of Parliament of England, sitting in freedom, shall think fit to present unto him the propositions of peace agreed upon by both Kingdoms, he will not only accord to them, and such Alterations there anent as the Houses of Parliament, in regard of the Constitution of Affairs. and the good of his Majesty, and his Kingdoms shall judge necessary; but do what is further necessary for the Prosecuting the ends of the Solemn League and Covenant. Especially in those things which concern the Reformation of the Church of England in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government. And p. 107. He doth also declare his firm resolution to manage the Government of the Kingdom of England, by the Advice of his Parliament, consisting of an House of Lords, and an House of Commons there. All which His Majesty hath punctually performed, and the Parliaments of both Kingdoms, having rescinded the Covenant, and condemned it as an unlawful Oath, and settled the ancient Government of the Catholic Church: I speak with all humble submission; His Majesty is not at all obliged by that Covenant thus taken, much less to make any alteration in the Government of the Church of England; unless he would act not only contrary to the established Laws, but contrary to that very Oath and Declaration by which the Non-conformists suppose him to be obliged; which oblige him to agree to such alterations, as the Houses of Parliament, in regard to the Constitution of Affairs, and the good of His Majesty and his Kingdoms should judge necessary, and to manage the Government of the Kingdom of England, by advice of his Two Houses of Parliament. And this will answer the first Question in the Negative, that neither the King (who was injuriously and unlawfully, as is acknowledged) drawn to declare for it, and consequently no other person that took it afterward, are bound by it to make any alteration, etc. If any alteration be found necessary, there are lawful means to be used for that end. But there is no obligation from this Covenant, being so repealed to use even lawful means, much less such unlawful ones as the Covenant implies, (i. e.) for Subjects to reform without, and against the Magistrate and his Laws. By this also a second question is resolved, p. 215. which Mr. Baxter calls the main question: Whether every Minister must or may become the Judge of all other men's Consciences and Oligations in three Kingdoms? For let it be remembered that the case is only, whether they are obliged by the Covenant to endeavour any alteration, etc. Any lawful endeavours are not denied, but the Covenant being Condemned as an unlawful thing, cannot lay an obligation on any to act against the Laws, whereby the Church Government is established.  
Against this, a third question is urged, whether this League and Covenant were a Vow to God, and not only a League and Covenant with Men, which cessante occasione, and by consent of Parliaments doth cease. Mr. Baxter affirms, that it was a Vow to God, and a League and Covenant of Men with one another that they will perform it; and instead of Proof he says it is notorious to any Man that readeth it with common understanding.  
Answ. 1. The Title of it is a Solemn League and Covenant; there is no mention of a Vow to God: And in the Preface, a mutual League and Covenant.  
2. And in the Renunciation, it is to be declared, that there lies no Obligation from the Oath, commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant. If any part of it be a Vow to God, that is not mentioned to be disclaimed; for,  
3. The particular Case wherein its Obligation is to be disclaimed, is to endeavour any alteration, etc. Now, how can it consist with the nature of a Vow to God, to make unnecessary alterations against the Laws of the Land? Would not this cause the Christian Religion in a short time to be exploded out of all Kingdoms?  
4. It is notoriously known, that the few things that make the Contract, (as Mr. Douglas calls it) or Covenant between the Rebel Scots and English, to seem as a Vow to God, were used only as a pretence to draw on that part of the Covenant which is acknowledged to be unlawful, and which is the greatest part of the Covenant, the intent whereof was to strengthen the Rebellion against the King, as (by the negative Oath and the general actings of both Nations which followed) doth evidently appear: And what Rebellion or Heresy may not be Covenanted for, under pretence of such Vows? If therefore there had been any thing of a Vow to God in the Covenant, it was a horrid Profanation of God's name, to make it subservient to such unlawful ends. And it is rightly observed, that it binds to the Extirpation of Bishops, out of other Churches, as well as out of ours alone.  
5. The most part of those who took the Covenant when it was first imposed, had declared their approbation of the established Government, and sworn Obedience to the Bishops; so had generally all the Assembly, and fixed Ministers, and as I presume Mr. Baxter himself; and whatever contrary Oaths they took afterward, are rightly esteemed to be as Null, the pretence of a Vow notwithstanding.  
6. It is inconsistent with the nature of a Vow to be forced, as the Covenant generally was, as hath been observed from Mr. Baxter, That the Scots taking advantage of the straits to which the King had reduced the English Parliament, brought in the Covenant as the condition of their help; and that the House of Lords complained of the Parliament (as Mr. Baxter calls the House of Commons) which tied them to meddle with nothing, but what they offered to them. And though the Covenanters pretended for this Vow the Example of God's people in other Nations, and the commendable practice of these Kingdoms in former times, yet there never was the like Oath for matter and manner, taken by any people, fearing God in any Age of the World.  
I conclude with a Concession of Mr. Baxters, p. 213. of the Plea: It is not in the Subjects power by Vows to withdraw themselves from Obedience to Authority; which is proved from Numb. 30. And the Reason of it is, because Obligatio prior praejudicat posteriori, God hath first enjoined Obedience to our Superiors. They therefore lawfully requiring our submission to the established Government, there can lie no obligation on me, or any other person to endeavour alteration of the Government. If any fault be found in subordinate Governors, we may in our places and callings endeavour a Reformation of them, but the Government is a noli me tangere, we may not undermine foundations. But Mr. Baxter proposeth another question; whether the Covenant as a Vow to God bind to things necessary? Answ. To all necessary things we are preingaged by the Command of God, and extraordinary means must not be used when ordinary may serve. Mr. Baxter §. 43. of his Directory, says, A Vow is as Null when the matter is morally or civilly out of our power, as if a Child or Servant Vow a thing which he cannot do lawfully without the consent of his Parent or Master, though the thing in itself be lawful; for God having bound me to obey my Superiors in all lawful things, I cannot oblige myself by my own Vows. §. 79. of his Directory. Make not a Law and Religion to yourselves, which God never made by his Authority, nor bind yourselves for futurity to all that is a duty at present, where it is possible the changes of things may change your duty. And §. 3. p. 19 The true nature and use of Vows, is but for a more certain and effectual performance of our duties, not to make new Laws and Religions to ourselves. From which concessions it will follow, that the power of Reforming, etc. being in the King, the Vow was Null: And it is morally impossible for them to do that in their places and callings, which they cannot do without Invading the Place and Office of their Superiors. And therefore notwithstanding the pretence of a Vow; yea though it were for things lawful (which the alteration of the established Government is not) we may declare that there lies no Obligation, etc.  
P. 216. §. 13. Mr. Baxter insists on the Declaration, concerning taking Arms against the King, etc. Where he says, the question is not of the first clause, of taking Arms, etc. For he grants that a Popish King is to be obeyed in lawful things, p. 77. but of the 2 d. viz. I abhor that Traitorous position of taking Arms by his Authority against his person, or against those that are commissioned by him. This as the Law of the Land hath declared to be Traitorous, so hath the Law of God. 2 Pet. 2.13. requiring submission to the King, as Supreme, and unto Governors sent (or Commissioned) by him. The ground of this Declaration, was for the security of the King's Person, against such as distinguishing between his public and private capacity, under pretence of his Authority detained his Towns, and fought those Armies where the King was in person; but when they had Conquered him, they declared the Supreme Authority to be in themselves. But Mr. Baxter pleads, that Ministers are mostly ignorant of the Law, not knowing what is called a Commission, and what Seal makes it such, and they dare not think that a Lord Chancellor or Keeper, hath Power at his pleasure to depose the King by Sealing Commissions to any to seize on his Forts, & c. Nor yet to destroy the Kingdoms, Cities, Laws and Judgements, and seize at pleasure on all men's Estates or Lives. This had been good Doctrine if Mr. Baxter had taught it when the King's broad Seal was broken, and by Virtue of a counterfeit one, the Lives and Estates of the best Subjects were destroyed, the Act of Parliament hath declared the Supreme Authority to be inseparable in the King's Person, so that we cannot doubt of the Legality of Commissions granted by him, and his pretended ignorance against the known Laws, being that Block on which the best of Kings fell; I hope no good English-Man will stumble at it again. But Mr. Baxter complains that these words [against those that are Commissioned by him] are unexpounded, and have no limitations or exceptions. It is not fit for private men to distinguish where the Law doth not, or that an Usurper, or Protector pretending Reformation and Liberty, and that abused Maxim of Salus populi Suprema Lex, should rather be obeyed than such as Act regularly by the King's Commission, and according to the known Laws. Wherefore to seek evasions, and to suppose extraordinary Cases, that may never happen against plain and necessary duties, ought not to be a Bar against this Declaration. That which followeth §. 14. Of deserting their Flocks, and keeping Conventicles; and §. 15. of not residing within Five Miles of Cities and Corporations, are not conditions of Conformity, but consequences of their Nonconformity. And I leave— them to be read and considered by others, who will perceive how well Mr. Baxter deserves the Character which the Reverend Bishop Sanderson gave of him: That he never knew a Man of more pertinacious confidence, and less abilities in all his Conversation; A double minded Man is unstable in all his Ways.   

An Answer to some passages in the Second Part of the Non-conformists Plea for Peace.  
HAving reflected on as much of the First Part of the Non-conformists Plea, as concerned the Ministerial Conformity; I thought it not material to answer the many Impertinencies Printed in that Book: But finding a Second Part extant published as (the Authors say) to save their Lives, and the Kingdom's Peace, from the false and Bloody Plotters; who would first persuade the King and People that the Protestants, and particularly the Non-conformists are Presbyterians and fanatics; And next, that it was such Presbyterians that killed his Father; and next, that our Principles are Rebellious; and next, that we are Plotting Rebellion and his Death, etc. On which particulars he enlargeth in the Preface, where I find him thus to justify his party. I desire those that seek our Blood and Ruin by the false accusation of Rebellious Principles, to tell me if they can, what Body or Party of Men on Earth, have more sound and Loyal Principles of Government and Obedience: and p. 109. of that Book, We are far from designing any abasement of the Clergy, nor do we deny or draw others to deny any due reverence or obedience to them.  
I considered that very many of Mr. Baxters' Readers, are apt to believe him, and therefore must needs be greatly incensed against those whom he accuseth to be the Persecutors of such a pious and peaceable party, viz. the Bishops, whom he calls Thorns and Thistles, and the Military Instruments of the Devil, p. 122. of the Book of Concord, and p. 247. of the first part of the Plea, and complains, 
Popish Clergymen.  (as if he were in Egyptian Bondage, or the Popish Inquisition) of tearing Engines, Goals, Starving, and Bloody Persecution, Ruin and Death. Every good Man is sensible what Indignation, such Cruelties practised upon innocent persons, may raise in the hearts of our English Nation; who are noted for their compassion to their Brethren, in misery against the Authors of it; and I suspect these suggestions are published to enrage them, against their present Governors in Church and State, to prevent the mischievous consequences, whereof I have made the ensuing inquiries.  
And First, their respect to the Conforming Clergy, will appear in the Epistle, before the first part of the Plea inscribed to the Conforming Clergy, where he thus reproacheth them to their Faces. It is now seventeen years since near 2000 Ministers of Christ, were by Law forbidden the exercise of their Office, unless they did Conform to Subscriptions, Covenants, Declarations and Practices which we durst not do; because we feared God.— The reason of which Impositions, it is God and not we must have an account of, from the Convocation, etc. (by which, etc.) I suppose he means the Parliament that made those Laws. He tells them of rendering odious them whom they never heard; and urging Rulers to execute the Laws against them. (i. e.) to Excommunicate silence, confine, imprison, and undo them. He says, he is not so uncharitable, as to impute all their false reports to Malignity and Diabolism, but that it was strangeness, (i. e. ignorance of) their case, which wrath and cross interest kept them from hearing: He says he had read the Books of Bishop Morley, Mr. Stileman, Mr. Faukner, Mr. Fulwood, Mr. Durel, Mr. Fowlis, Mr. Nanfen, Dr. Boreman, Parker, Tomkins, the Friendly Debate, Dr. Ashton, Mr. Hollingworth, Dr. Good, Mr. Hinckly, the Countermine, Mr. Lestrange, Mr. Long, etc. And I think (says he) Mr. Tombs hath said more like truth for Anabaptistry, the late Hungarian for Polygamy; Many for drunkeness, stealing and lying in cases of necessity, than ever he yet read for the lawfulness of all that is there described, (viz. the terms of conformity.) He tells them if they will not hear, those will whom God will use to the healing of his Churches. He means such Reformers as were in 42. and 43. to whom this Patriarch gives the Blessing of Peacemakers, and says, they shall be called the Children of God, as sure as the Incendiaries in the late War, viz. Brook, Pym, etc. are by him called glorious Saints in Heaven, p. 83. of his Saint's rest. And thus reminding them of his pastoral Admonition; if any of you be an hinderer or slanderer of God's word, etc. he hath sufficiently evidenced what reverence he hath for the Conforming Clergy.  
But how he hath discharged that which he professeth to be his duty, p. 246. of his Plea, part. 1. Most of our acquaintance take it for their duty to do their best to keep up the Reputation of the public conformable Ministry: Let the Reader judge by bis deeds, rather than his words, seeing he continueth Conventicles himself, and defends others in the same Practice. And for his Admonition to us, 
By their fruits ye shall know them.  I shall commend to him one Lesson from our Catechism; to keep his Tongue from evil speaking, lying and slandering.  
The Second thing I observe in his Plea for the innocency of his party, is, That no Men on Earth have more sound and Loyal Principles of Government and Obedience. Answ. While they were Governors none exacted Obedience more severely, or Ruled more imperiously; but take them in the capacity of Subjects, and their practices show what their principles are. But let us hear his Plea to the Accusations: The first is, that they are Presbyterians and fanatics. 2. That they began the War in 42. and 43. 3. That they destroyed the King. 4. That their principles are disloyal. 5. That they are Plotting a Rebellion. To the first, he tells us what a Presbyterian is, viz. such as hold Church Government, not only without Bishops, but also by Presbyteries, consisting of two sorts of Elders, Preaching and Ruling, and over these Classes, and over these a National Assembly, consisting of the same two sorts. That such a Government was intended by the Long Parliament, appears by their Ordinances, Anno 1643. for imposing the Covenant, rooting out Episcopacy, bringing all to an Uniformity (with the Church of Scotland) and January 44. For taking away the Book of Common-Prayer, and establishing the Directory. And June 5. 46. for settling without farther delay of Presbyterial Government in the Church of England. And August 28. for Ordination of Ministers by Classical Presbyteries, within their respective bounds; which Form of Government to be used in the Church of England and Ireland, was agreed by the Lords and Commons in Parliament, after advice had with the Assembly of Divines: 
The Assembly drew up an Exhortation for the taking of the Covenant; where they declare that the Government by Bishops is evil, justly offensive and burdensome to the Kingdom.  This Assembly was called by the Parliament, 12 June 43. consisting of Lords, Knights, Esquires, and some Divines, who assented to the Ordinances above mentioned, and therefore it will be very hard for Mr. Baxter to persuade us that they were Conformists (of which more hereafter) I shall account them Presbyterians. And if ever a Child was like his Father, our present Nonconformist is like the Presbyterian in 43. Sic oculos, sic ille manus, sic ora gerebat. And what if as Mr. Baxter says, they do not now exercise their beloved Discipline; are those Lions no Lions which the King keeps within the Tower? Have they not the same appetite to the Church and Crown Lands, the same antipathy to Prelacy, the same zeal for the Covenant and Directory? Were they not generally Ordained by these Presbyterians, non tantum absente sed spreto Episcopo, as Mr. Baxter says? these than I conclude to be Presbyterians, and if Mr. Baxter will add the term fanatics, I cannot help it; they who plead aliquid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, some impulses on their spirits, moving them from ingulphing with this generation, by reason whereof they cannot go back from that more spiritual, plain and simple zealous Service of Almighty God, in the way they are in, and reformation they seek, against the (established) Worship and Discipline. (See p. 9 of the Answer to Doctor Stilling fleets Sermon) I say they, who for want of reasons to defend their cause, do plead impressions on their spirits, do prove themselves to be Fanatic, and I have proved them to be Presbyterians.  
The Second Accusation is, that we began the War in 41. and 42. To this he pleads. 1. The King hath said so much for the Act of Oblivion, that it is no sign of Loyalty and Peace to violate it. Answ. An Act of Pardon implies guilt, though it exempt from punishment. And Secondly, God himself will pardon none but the penitent, whatever the King may do. 2. You plead that false reporters say, that the Papists were the King's party, and the Presbyterians the Parliaments, in the beginning of the English War. Answ. They are false reporters indeed, that say the Papists were the King's Party, which were not an hundred part of his party; and I wonder not that Mr. Baxter calls it a false report, because it shows the Papists to have been more Loyal Subjects than the Presbyterians. Yet wanted not a number of Papists, some openly, and others under hoods, to Act for the Parliament, and they wanted not invitation and temptations to have been all of that side, as the Royal Martyr declared.  
2. Mr. Baxter says, the contrary is so well known to Men yet living, that the reporters can hope to seduce none but young men and strangers. Doth Mr. Baxter mean by the contrary, That the Papists were not the King's party, and the Presbyterians were not the Parliaments party, or that the Papists were the Parliaments party, and the Presbyterians were the King's party at the beginning of our War; this I take to be contrary, and I think no Man living can affirm it. But he tells us that the controversy was begun between Archbishop Abbot, and his adherents, and Bishop Laud, and those that adhered to him. Answ. There was no War begun in Archbishop Abbot's time, nor long after; but the controversy which made way for the War was of another kind, and a more ancient date, as Mr. Baxter relates it, §. 7. of his Plea, part 1. To which I suppose he refers the Reader; and there he says, the root of the difference between the old Non-conformists and the Conformists was this, That one sort thought they should stick to the mere Scripture rule and simplicity, and go far from all Additions which were found invented or abused by Papists. The other side thought they should show more reverence to the Customs of the Ancient Church, and retain that which was not forbidden in Scripture, which was introduced before the ripeness of Popery, or before the year 600. at least, and which was found lawful in the Roman Church, and common to them with the Greek. And herein I have reason to believe Mr. Baxter was of the same mind with the Conformists against the Non-conformists. See Directory, part 3. ch. 2. This difference was begun among the Exiles at Franckfort (says Mr. Baxter,) some striving for the English Liturgy, and others for a freer way of praying, (i. e.) from the present sense and habit of the Speaker, (which by Mr. Baxters' favour was not any where publicly practised at that time, no not by Calvin himself at Geneva.) But farther, Queen Elizabeth, and King James (saith Mr. Baxter,) discountenancing and suppressing Non-conformists. They attempted in Northamptonshire and Warwickshire, to set and keep up private Churches, and governed them in a Presbyterian way, but the attempt was broken by the industry of Archbishop Whitgift and Bancroft: Some Conformed, and some were Connived at, which kept them from gathering secret Churches; yet some Preached secretly in Houses, and some publicly for a day and away; some were further Alienated from the English Prelacy, and separated from their Churches, and some of them called Brownists were so hot at home, that they were put to death. Mr. Ainsworth, Johnson, Robinson, and others fled beyond Sea, and there gathered Churches, and broke by divisions among themselves, as their Successors did in our memory. It will not be impertinent to show from Mr. Cambden, how troublesome this sort of Men were under Queen Elizabeth, p. 420. of the English Translation of Cambden, They chose that season when the Spaniards amused the whole Nation from abroad, by their Invincible Armado, as they called it to disturb her at home. And never did contumacious impudence against Ecclesiastical Magistrates, show itself more bold and insolent; for when the Queen would not give Ear to Innovators in Religion, who designed to cut in sunder the very sinews of Ecclesiastical Government, and her Royal Prerogative at once; some of those Men who were great admirers of the Discipline of Geneva, thought there was no better way to be taken for establishing it in England, than by inveighing and railing against the English Hierarchy, and stirring up the people to a dislike of Bishops. They therefore set forth scandalous Books against the Government of the Church and Prelates, as Martin Mar Prelate, Minerals, Diotrephes, A Demonstration of Discipline, etc. in which Libels they belched forth most virulent Calumnies, and opprobrious taunts and reproaches, in such a manner that the Authors seemed rather scullions out of the Kitchen, than pious and godly Men; yet the Authors were Penry and Vdal, Ministers of the word, and George Throckmorton a Learned Man: their favourers were Richard Knightly and Wigston Knights. Others exercised their Discipline in corners in despite of Authority, and the Laws, holding Classes in several places, and forming Presbyteries; for which Thomas Cartwright, Edmund Snape, Andrew King, Proudlow, pain, and other Ministers were called in question, whom some of the zealots conspired to deliver out of the Magistrates hands, p. 451. He tells us how one Hacket insinuated himself into certain Divines, which with a burning zeal laboured to bring the Presbyterial Discipline of Geneva into England; among whom was one Wiggington a silly Brainsick Minister, a despiser and enemy of the Magistrates; by Wiggintons' means, he was acquainted with Coppinger a Gentleman, who persuaded Arthington an admirer of that Discipline: First that himself, and then that Arthington was extraordinarily called of God for the good of the Church, and that way was revealed from Heaven to draw the Queen and Council to a better mind, meaning to admit of the Discipline of Geneva; Coppinger imparted this to Hacket, who by his counterfeit holiness, and fervent praying ex tempore, his fasting on the Lords days, and boasting that he had been buffeted by Satan, and had Revelations from God.— He Prophesied that there should be no more Popes, and that England should be lamentably afflicted that year, with Pestilence and Famine, except the Discipline of the Lord, and Reformation were admitted in the Realm. They conspired as was proved by their Letters to accuse the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Lord Chancellor of Treason, (and one of the party stabbed one Hawkins, a famous Sea-Captain, supposing him to be the Lord Chancellor) Hacket had such an implacable malice to the Queen, that he said often she had forfeited her right to the Crown; he defaced her Arms and Picture, striking his Dagger through the Breast of it (to omit many things) Hacket being Indicted for Treason Confessed it, and was Executed; dying, he lift up his Eyes to Heaven, and grinning said, Dost thou thus repay me? instead of a Kingdom, I come to revenge it Coppinger shortly after starved himself in Prison, Arthington repent seriously, and set forth a Book of it. Yet many others opposed the Discipline of the Church, reproaching the Prelates, and drawing some common Lawyers to their party, but the Queen knowing that her authority was struck at through the Bishop's sides, broke the force of the adversaries without noise, and maintained the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, inviolate against all Opposers, (Presbyterians and fanatics.) Nor were these Men less troublesome under King James, having conceived great hopes from his Education in Scotland, but he knew them so well, that he never shown them any favour: In his first year they frame a Petition in the names of a Thousand Ministers for Reformation, which I find answered by the University of Oxford, and seconded by the University of Cambridge.  
The King told his Parliament, March 19 1603. The third which I call a Sect rather than Religion, is the Puritan and Novelist, who do not differ so far from us in points of Religion, as in their confused forms of Polity and Parity, being ever discontented with the present Government, and impatient to suffer any superiority, which makes their Sect unable to be suffered in any well governed Commonwealth. And it is one reason why Grotius was so condemned for a Papist among this people; because in his Book de Antichristo, he hath left this Character of them, Circumferamus oculos per omnem historiam, quod unquam seculum vidit tot subditorum in principes bella sub religionis titulo? & horum concitatores ubique reperiuntur Ministri Evangelici (ut quidam se vocant) quod genus hominum in quae pericula etiam nunc opti mos Civitatis Amstelodamensis magistratus conjicerit? videat si cui libet de Presbyterorum in Reges audacia librum Jacobi Britanniarum Regis, cui nomen Donum Regium videbit eum, ut erat magni judicii ea praedixisse, quae nunc cum dolore & horrore conspicimus. I will give it you presently in that Kings English.  
But the King giving them a fair hearing in the conference at Hampton Court, partly by his Arguments, and partly by his Authority suppressed them for that time: Yet this restless people, so incensed him by their murmur and reproaches, that he frequently in his Writings and Speeches in Parliament, professed both his jealousy of them, and caution against them in his Preface to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These rash heady Preachers, says he, think it their honour to contend with Kings, and perturb whole Kingdoms; and p. 41. 42. Take heed my Son to such Puritans, very Pests in the Church and Common-weal, whom no Desert can oblige, neither Oaths nor Promises bind, breathing nothing but Sedition and Calumnies, aspiring without measure, railing without reason, and making their own Imaginations without any warrant of the word, the square of their Consciences. I protest before the great God, and since I am here as upon my Testament, it is no place for me to lie in; that ye shall never find with any Highland or border Thiefs greater ingratitude and more lies, and vile perjuries than with these Fanatick-spirits; and suffer not the principles of them to brook your Land, if ye like to sit at rest, except ye would keep them for trying your patience, as Socrates did an evil Wife. The good King Charles found this Prophecy to be true; for notwithstanding all the care that himself, and Archbishop Laud (who apprehended the approaching danger) to suppress them, in so much as that Mr. Baxter says, in that 7. §. That the old Non-conformists being most dead, and the latter gone most to America; we cannot learn that in 1640. there were many more Nonconformists Ministers in England than there be Counties, if so many; the Wolves be like had got on the Sheep's Clothing, and not being able to ruin the Church by open force, seek to undermine it by secret Arts, being got within the Pale. In 37. says Mr. Baxter, Archbishop Laud using more severity than formerly, and the Visitations enquiring more after private Fasts and Meetings, and going out of their Parishes to hear.— And in many Places Lectures, and Afternoon Sermons being put down (which was done only where Faction and Sedition were Sown, and there Catechising a much more useful exercise, was enjoined in its room) by these things (and some other which he there mentioneth) the minds of Men were made more jealous than before, (and fears and jealousies were made the grounds of the War, the King and Archbishop being reported to be Popishly affected, though they both, as well in their Life time, as at their Deaths, gave irrefragable Arguments for the contrary, sealing the truth of their Professions with their Blood.) And after the Imprisonment of some, the stigmatising of others, and the removal of many beyond the Seas, all which, both many, and some, amounted not to above Three or Four; whom though the Parliament received in Triumph, and plentifully rewarded, yet they found them to be turbulent Persons, viz. Prin, Burton and Bastwick, for I hear not of any removed beyond the Seas by authority) these were the causes of Alienating the people's Minds from the Bishops, and made them afraid of Popery more than before, (and so it is still, any restraint from Faction is Condemned for Popery) Mr. Baxter tells us there of another Intregue; Then was the New Liturgy imposed on the Scots, with other changes there attempted (which were the resuming of some Lands belonging to the Church and Crown, which had been Sacrilegiously withheld, during a great part of King James and King Charles' Reign; with the fear of losing the Tithes that some great Men there detained from the Clergy) whereupon the Scots Armed and Invaded England, and some English Lords (saith Mr. Baxter) took advantage to prevail with the King to call a Parliament once again. And here doubtless was the beginning of the War, the Scots and such English as were in confederacy, and had agreed upon a Covenant for Reformation, being the first Aggressors. But let Mr. Baxter proceed— The Irish (observing it is like how the Scots thrived in their Rebellion) on Oct. 23. 1641. rose and murdered 200000. Persons, and (Mr. Baxter is not ashamed to say) the News was here reported, that they said they had the King's Commission (just as much as the Parliament had to fight by his Authority against his Person,) whereupon the Parliaments Declarations, raised in multitudes of the people, a fear that they had partakers in England, and when they had done their work there they would come hither. And (mark the consequence) there was no way of safety, but to adhere to the Parliament for their own defence, (i. e. to strengthen the War against the King.) And in 42. says he the lamentable Civil War broke out; but between whom? did the Bishop's fight against the King? or against one another? or against the Parliament? no such matter. How began the War then? Mr. Baxter says, the Houses of Lords and Commons consisted of such as had been Conformists, except an inconsiderable number. Some number than were apparently Non-conformists, and it seems they had infected many others; for Mr. Baxter says, they were such as had been Conformists; they were not so when the War began: and (N.B.) their fear of being overpowered by the Loyal party, of whom they thought themselves in sudden danger, caused them to countenance such Petitioning and Clamours of the Londoners Apprentices, and others, as we think, disorders and Provocations of the King. This doubtless was a beginning of the War; of which, see the King's complaint in his Ch. of Tumults: Mr. Baxter says farther, the first open beginning was about the Militia, which by an Act of Parliament is thus determined: That the sole Command and disposition thereof is, and by the Laws of England, ever was the undoubted right of His Majesty, and that both, or either of the Houses of Parliament cannot, nor aught to pretend to the same, etc. How then did the controversy between the Bishops and Conformists begin the War, when the dispute of the Militia did it. In truth there were (as Wilson in his History of King James confesseth) Regians and Republicans, and the dispute in several Parliaments was between the Prerogative and Privileges, and as Mr. Baxter says, where other Parliaments ended, that of 40. begins. And is it not strange, that there should be so few Non-conformists in 41. and 42. and yet in 43. when the Covenant was brought in, all the Parliament and Assembly, and Officers in any Court, in the Army, and in the Navy, should generally take the Covenant? for that was made the Test of all such as should be entrusted: and we hear of very few that refused, and I think there is no great difference between a Covenanter and a Presbyterian, who still cry up the Scottish Discipline, as the very Sceptre and Kingdom of Jesus Christ, to which all Kings and Sceptres must bow or break.  
The Third Accusation is, the death of the King, of which Mr. Baxter says, that he proved in times of Usurpation, that the Presbyterians detested it, and that it was done by a Proud Conquering Army. Answ. Who risen that Army, and carried on that War wherein the King perished? it was not the last stroke given by the Independents, that felled that Royal Oak; there were many repeated blows at the very Root of Majesty given by others, which cut all the Ligaments of his Power and Authority in sunder, chopped off all the Branches, his two great Ministers (as Mr. Baxter calls them) the whole Order of Bishops, His power of the Militia, Forts, Garrisons and Navy, and exposed the declining trunk to the fury of a Rascal party, whom themselves had Armed to the King's ruin. I shall freely give you my thoughts of it, in an answer to another writing of Mr. Baxters, where he seeks more at large to excuse the Presbyterians from this horrid Crime. Mr. Baxter says, were it not for entering upon an unpleasing and unprofitable task: I would ask you, who that Juncto of Presbyterians was that dethroned the King. Answ. The question I confess is very unpleasing; for, Infandum renovare jubes Baxtere dolorem. Yet because it may be profitable to know the truth; I say, that the dethroning so good a King, was a fact of an unparalled nature, to which the Sins of the whole Nation contributed, as well as yours and mine, and whereof we ought still to repent and beg pardon notwithstanding the Act of Oblivion. Yet there was a Select Juncto, that had a more immediate influence into it, and you ask me who they were; though I believe you know them better than myself, I will tell you my thoughts freely.  
First, they were the Men whom Mr. Baxter Canonizeth for Saints, in his Everlasting Rest, p. 83. in my Edition, viz. Brook, and Prin, and Hambden, and White, etc. For I suppose you could have named many more of your own Coat, as precious Saints as they, of whom you say with an Asseveration, Surely they are now Members of a more knowing, unerring, well-ordered, right-aiming, selfdenying, unanimous, honourable, Triumphant Senate than this from whence they were taken, or ever Parliament will be: But what if they are gone to another place, than what your Everlasting Rest intended? have you not made a scurvy Reflection on your long beloved Parliament, and some Men do fear they were never admitted into God's everlasting rest; because you that fancied them there, were ashamed to continue them in yours, being left out in your latter Editions.  
Secondly, I say it was that Juncto, who procured great numbers of factious and tumultuous people, in a rude and illegal way to affright the Loyal and most considerable part of the Parliament from their duties, and trust reposed in them by God and Man; such were the King's Majesty, and the Prince, the Loyal Nobles, the Bishops and chosen Gentry, posting them up as Malignants, and exposing them to the fury of the Rabble; of which tumults one of your Saints, Mr. Pym by name, said God forbidden, that the House of Commons should dishearten their people, to obtain their just desires in such a way: Exact. Collect. p. 531. Mr. Baxter p. 474. of the Holy Commonwealth makes this Objection, The tumults at Westminster drove him away; to which he answereth: Only by displeasing him, not by endangering or meddling with him; and another eminent Man of Mr. Baxters' acquaintance in his Jehovah Jireth, p. 65. says, the Apprentices and Porters were stimulated and stirred up by God's Providence Thousands of them to Petition the Parliament for speedy redress. Whereas the Five Members and their favourers had enraged the multitude not so much to Petition the Parliament, as to affront the King.  
Thirdly, It was that Juncto, who against His Majesty's Crown and Dignity, against the known Laws, and his express Proclamation to the contrary, did contrive and impose, under heavy penalties the Solemn League and Covenant upon the Nation, whereby they did justify the Rebellion, and avow the maintenance of it, against the King and his Forces. And having first vowed with their Lives and Estates, to preserve the Rights and Privileges of Parliament; they add— and to preserve the King's Majesty's Person, and Authority, in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdom; Which experience showeth, they no more intended, though it be here put in, as it was in Essex's Commission, than it was in Fairfax's, where (as I am informed) they left it out, and if they meant as they speak, they had no great care of his person, having actually deprived him of his Authority. And besides that limitation, they preserve the King's Person in defence of the true Religion, Covenanted to introduce another Religion in Doctrine and Worship, in opposition to that which was established by Law, and resolutely defended by his Majesty, and to root out Episcopacy, which as he had sworn to support, so had it been a great prop to the Throne; and therefore his Majesty declared concerning the 19 Propositions, that he could not consent unto them without violating his Conscience, and a total extirpation of that Government, whose Rights they had a mind to invade, and which was necessary to the well being of His Majesty, as by many Arguments in the Chapter concerning Church Government it appears. This certainly was one of the keenest Instruments that hewed down the Throne. For the Speech without Doors (defending Mr. chaloners Speech within Doors) tells the Parliament, that they are bound by their Covenant (for bringing evil Instruments to Condign Punishment) to destroy the King and his Posterity, and that they cannot justify the taking away of Strafford's and Canterbury's Lives for Delinquency, while they suffered the chief Delinquent to go unpunished, Oxford Reasons, p. 22. And the Speeches within Doors spoke no less, for Sir H. Martin told them, the King's Office was forfeitable, and that the happiness of the Kingdom depended not on him, or any of the Royal Branches of that Stock, Exact. Collect. p. 552. and Sir H. Ludlow, that he was not worthy to be King of England. That this was the sense which their own Creatures had of the Covenant, appears by the Answer of the Army to the Scots Declaration 1648. Who pleading that they had Covenanted for preservation of the King, reply in a Paper Printed for Robert White before the King's death; That it was conceived, to be absurd and hypocritical, to swear the Preservation of the King's Person as a Man, and at the same time to be engaged in a War against him, and he in the Field. And Mr. Marshal had said long before, That if the King had been so slain, it had been none of the Parliaments fault; for he might have kept himself farther off if he pleased, p. 19 of his Letter. The same Man said in his Sermon, Jan. 8. 1647. The question is now, whether Christ or Antichrist shall be King. And in a Sermon to the Mayor and Aldermen 1644. These are miserable and accursed men, Factors for Hell, Satan's Boutefeus', and as true zealots are set on fire from Heaven; so these men's Fire is kindled from Hell, whither also it carrieth them. Mr. Arrowsmith in a Sermon 1643. It is not a Kingdom divided against itself, but one Kingdom against another; the Kingdom of Christ against Antichrist: So my Countryman John Bond told them they fought against Babylon, Dagon and Antichrist, and exhorted them to pull it down; though like Samson they died with it. In a Sermon 1644. Joseph Boden said, they were fight for the Lamb against the Beast, Anno 1644. And Mr. Marshal in his (Meroz) I pray look on me as one that comes to beat a Drum in your Ears, to see who will come out to follow the Lamb. This use the Covenanters made of that limitation, defending the King's Person in the preservation of Religion; and you know who says, p. 423. of the Holy Commonwealth, We are to believe that Men would kill them, whom they fight against. And doubtless if His Majesty had perished in the War, the guilt had lain not only on the Soldiers, but chief on those that gave them their Commission; The Author of Bounds and Bonds spoke home at that time, If by the Covenant you thought yourselves indispensably bound to preserve the Royal Person, how comes it to pass, that you thought yourselves obliged by the same Covenant, to wage War against him.  
I have heard of a distinction (saith he) between his Power and his Person, but never between his Person and himself. And if the Covenant would have dispensed with any Soldier of England or Scotland, to kill his Person by accident of War, (as his Life was oft in danger before he came to the Scaffold) his death had been violent, and the Obligation to preserve him had ended; and yet according to this argument, the Covenant had not been broken; why then should those Men think the World so dull, as not to understand plainly enough, that the Covenant provided for his death more ways than one.  
4. They that permitted such Pamphlets to be published without control, as declared the King to be a Tyrant, Oxford Reasons, p. 21. That judged his Actions to be illegal, and his Declarations false and scandalous, and his suggestions as false as the Father of lies could invent, Exact Collect. p. 494. That banished the Queen as a Traitor, Imprisoned the Bishops in the Tower; That held him to such unreasonable Articles and Propositions, at Newcastle, and Carisbrook, as His Majesty declared he could not consent unto, without divesting him of his Authority; That rejected all his offers for peace; And in January 17. 1647. Voted no more Addresses, and that they could repose no more trust and confidence in him (which was a year before they were secluded the House) which by the Army was understood of their intention to proceed in Justice against him. They who deprived him of all the Comforts of his Life, his Wife and Children, his Counselors and Chaplains, as if with an Italian hatred they would have destroyed his Soul as well as his Body. These were they, that did diminuere Caput Regis, as the Civil Law speaks, and they who afterward, finding him thus bound and fettered, defamed and condemned, did obtruncare Caput Regis, were but the others Executioners. What action was more barbarous than that of the Scots, selling their Native Prince, that cast himself upon them, to his declared and avowed Enemies? after which he was hurried up and down, from one Prison to another, and inhumanly treated, till he was forcibly taken from them. Whoever shall compare the Declaration of the Scots, when they Invaded England, upon their Covenant, with the actings of the High Court of Justice against His Majesty, may see, what Copy they wrote after, and whose Journeymen they were, in bringing him to the Block, whom they had pulled out of the Throne.  
They were Roman Soldiers that actually Crucified our Saviour; but we know who Sold him, and how long the Chief Priests and Elders took Counsel against him, Matth. 27.2. And St. Peter tells the Men of Israel, Acts 2.23. Him have ye taken, and with wicked hands Crucified, though the Roman Soldiers did it. There is this only difference between the Graves and the Prisons of Kings, that in the Prisons they die daily, or are buried alive, in the Grave they are at rest from all their fears and sorrows.  
But to this it may be replied, that these were not Presbyters, properly so called, though they were a Juncto of Presbyterians: I would therefore have it considered, whose Scholars these were, who taught and animated them to these practices, and upon whose principles they acted; I could set down such maxims of the Consistorian Brethren, as the Jesuits would blush to own; but I shall forbear to foul my Paper with such Collections, as I have among my Adversaria: The Reader may satisfy himself, usque ad nauseam, if he observe what is Authentically mentioned in His Majesty's large Declaration, in Bishop bancroft's dangerous positions, in Bishop Spotswood, and the Writings of the several Presbyteries of Scotland, in the result of false Principles, the Calvinists Cabinet, and which is, instar omnium, the Holy Commonwealth. What fruit could such bitter Roots produce, but Wormwood and Hemlock, as indeed they did in every Furrow of our Fields? It was said of Cato, that he did good, not that he might appear to be good, but because he could not do otherwise; and some Men do espouse such principles, that if they Act according to them, they cannot do any thing but what is notoriously evil. What shall we say of Mr. Andrew Ramsey, that Preached, That it was God's will that the Primitive Christians should confirm the Truth by suffering; but now the Truth being established, it is his will the Truth should be defended by Action in resisting Tyrants? and John Goodwin said as bad of the Doctrine of resistance: Mr. Robert Blaire told his Auditors.— Beloved, the Lord hath forsaken our King, and given him over to be led by the Bishops, the blind brood of Antichrist, who are hot Beagles hunting for the Blood of the Saints: Nor can I forget Mr. Douglas' Sermon at the Coronation, who turned the Pulpit into a Scaffold, and Acted the Martyrdom of the Father in the sight of the Son. After these Scottish Pipes did too many English Presbyters dance; whose Sermons were Satyrs, and invectives against the best of Kings, and his most Loyal Subjects. Take the active Covenanters from the greatest to the least; and as they thought it their duty, so they made it their business to do more than dethrone the King. I have said enough of Mr. Marshal already, let him that would know more read his Sermon on Curse ye Meroz, and not his only, but the most of those Sermons Preached to the Parliament, especially on their Solemn days of Thanksgiving. Mr. Case in a Sermon to the Court-Marshal, 1644. says, God would have no Mercy shown, where the quarrel is against Religion, and the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, p. 16. These Men that would bring in Idolatry and false Worship to depose Christ from his Throne, and set up Antichrist in his place; such a generation Christ hath doomed to destruction, Luke 19.27. As for these mine enemies, bring them forth and slay them before me; and p. 18. What severity will God expect from you, who are called to judge for God, between the Sons of Belial, bloody Rebels, and an whole Christian Church and State, now resisting unto blood for Reformation? Let me say to you, as God said to Moses concerning the Midianites, vex those Midianites and smite them, for they vex you with their Wiles, Numb. 25.17, 18. Mr. Th. Palmer said, that God saw it good to bring Christ into his Kingdom by a Bloody way, p. 13. Dr. Downing of Hackney, in a Sermon to the Artillery-men; It is lawful for defence of Religion and Reformation of the Church, to take up Arms against the King: And Mr. Calamy seconds him, it is commendable to fight for Peace, and Reformation against the King's command.  
Mr. Love, who was chosen as the fittest person to assist at the Treaty at Uxbridge, doth no doubt speak the Sense of the Juncto; he calls Episcopacy, and Liturgy, two Plague Soars, and tells the Commissioners, that while their enemies are going on in wicked practices, and they keep their principles; they may as soon make Fire and Water to agree, yea I had almost said (quoth he) Heaven and Hell: And again it is the Sword, not disputes that must end this controversy. Wherefore turn your Plowshares into Swords, and your Pruning-hooks into Spears, to fight the Lords Battles, to avenge the Blood of the Saints which hath been spilt, it must be avenged by us, or upon us: See p. 7. and 26. of England's distemper. I have sometime feared, always prayed that too much pity and mercy in our State Physicians, may not retard the healing of the Land, p. 32. There are many malignant humours to be purged out of many of the Nobles, and Gentry in this Kingdom, before we can be healed.— It was the Lord that troubled Achan, and cut him off; because he troubled Israel. O that in this, our State Physicians would resemble God to cut off those from the Land, who have distempered it, (would you know whom he means, he speaks plainly) melius pereat unus quam unitas, Men that lie under the guilty of much innocent Blood, are not fit persons to be at peace with, till all the guilt of Blood be expiated, and avenged either by the Sword of the Law, or by the Law of the Sword; else the peace can never be safe or just.  
Are these the principles of Love? or can they consist with holiness? it will amaze any Christian to consider, that though the hand of God might mind him of his sin by the nature of his punishment: yet instead of declaring his Repentance a little before his death, he professed his hatred to Malignants, his opposing the Tyranny of a King, saying, I did, it is true, in my place and calling oppose the forces of the late King, and were he alive again, and should I live longer, (the cause being as then it was) I should oppose him longer: In his Speech Sect. 14. Yet how horrid soever this final impenitence appears to be, too many that should know, and do better things, have little sense of it. And it is very remarkable, that Prideaux the Attorney General repeated most of these passages against Mr. Love at his Trial, as Arguments that he ought not to have any mercy shown him. See the Printed Trial. What a sad thing is it (saith Mr. Case) to see our King in the head of an Army of Babylonians, refusing as it were to be called the King of England, Scotland and Ireland, and choosing rather to be called the King of Babylon, on Isa. 43.4. p. 18.  
Those that made their peace with the King at Oxford, were the Judas 's of England, and it were just with God to give them their portion with Judas, saith Mr. Calamy in a Sermon Preached Decemb. 25. 1644. p. 18.  
Mr. Herle in a Sermon to the Commons, Novemb. 5.44. Do Justice to the greatest, saul's Sons are not spared; no, nor may Agag or Benhadad, though themselves Kings. Zimri and Cosbi, the Princes of the people must be pursued into their Tents; This is the way to Consecrate yourselves to God. Strickland at the same time to the same tune; You know the Story of God's message to Ahab, for letting Benhadad go upon Composition. Brooks to the Commons, Decemb. 26. 1648. Set some of those grand Malefactors a mourning (that have caused the Kingdom to mourn so many years in Garments Rolled in Blood) by the Execution of Justice. But though many of those Sons of Thunder had done wickedly, there is one exceeds them all, as you may read partly in a submissive Petition of Mr. Jenkins, and in a Sermon Preached Sept. 24. 1656. Who thus discovers his inward parts to be very wickedness. Before the present Parliament; Worthy Patriots, you that are our Rulers in Parliament, it is often said, we live in times wherein we may be as good (he might more truly have said as bad) as we please, wherein we enjoy purity, and plenty, praised for this be that God, who hath delivered us from the impositions of Prelatical Innovations, Altar-genuflections, and cringes with Crosses, and all that Popish Trash and Trumpery; and truly I speak no more than what I have often thought, and said, the removal of these insupportable burdens, contravailes for the Blood, and treasure shed, and spent in these late distractions; nor did I as yet ever hear of any godly man that desired (were it possible) to purchase their friends or money again at so dear a rate, as is the return of these, to have the Soul-burd'ning Anti-christian Yokes reimposed on us. And if any such there be, I am sure their desire is no part of their godliness. From this Man's principles one hath observed, That whoever are of this persuasion, do wish this King on the Scaffold too, provided that would free them from our Episcopacy, and think it lawful to Rebel again, and destroy as many Families more, to shake off that Yoke. Again Mr. Jenkins in his Conscientious questions concerning submission to the then present power, 1651. Asks whether the stupendious Providences of God, manifested in the destruction of the late King, and his adherents in so many pitched Battles, and in the Nations Universal forsaking of Charles Stuart, God hath not as plainly removed the Government from Charles Stuart, and bestowed it on others, as ever he removed and bestowed any Government by any Providence in any age? And whether a refusal to yield obedience and Subjection to this present Government, be not a refusal to acquiesce in the wise and righteous providence of God, and a flat breach of the Fifth Commandment? (See his Petition.) And now I cannot but wonder why Mr. Baxter should move this question, who that Juncto of Presbyters was, etc. Unless he took as much pleasure and glory, as others do shame and sorrow in the repetition. It is a sad Observation which some have made, That not one of the Regicides manifested his Repentance for that impious Act, for which they were Executed: The Lord give all guilty persons more Grace.  
Mr. Bagshaw says, that Mr. Baxter was guilty of stirring up and fomenting the War, as any one whatsoever, p. 1. And my Lord of Worcester says, that he had done what he could to make this King odious to his people, p. 2. Of his Answer, and that he Sowed the Seeds of Schism and Sedition, and blew the Trumpet of Rebellion among them at Kidderminster, p. 4. And adds, I myself have heard him at a conference in the Savoy, maintaining such a position, as was destructive to the Legislative power, both in God and Man, and produced the Assertion under his hand; and when Mr. Baxter reported that the Bishop had defamed him; to prevent that report, the Bishop collected some of his Political Theses or Maxims of Government, the repetition of a few whereof will be too many. He tells us the War was begun in their streets, before the King and Parliament had any Armies, p. 457. of H. Commonwealth. He confesseth that he was one that blew the Coals of our unhappy Divisions; and that if he had been for the King, he had incurred the danger of condemnation. H. Commonwealth, p. 485. And should I do otherwise, I should be guilty of Treason, or disloyalty against the Sovereign Power of the Land. He holds that the Sovereignty is divided between King and Parliament, and that the King invading the other part, they may lawfully defend their own by War, and the Subject lawfully assist them; yea though the Power of the Militia be expressly given to the King; The Law supposing that the Militia is given the King against enemies, not against the Commonwealth: Thes. 358. he saith (its true) that now that the Parliament hath declared, where the Sovereign Power is, he should acknowledge it, and submit to it, where he supposeth that the King oweth his Sovereignty to the Parliament; and if they should again challenge it to themselves, he would rather obey them than the King; Bishop of Worcester's Letter, p. 8. 9 And this appears clearly by what followeth, p. 486. That having often searched into his heart, whether he did lawfully engage in the War or not, and lawfully encourage so many Thousands to it (the Issue was) he could not see that he was mistaken in the main cause, nor dares he repent of it, nor forbear doing the same if it were to do again in the same state of things, (though the Power of the Militia be given to the King.) He tells us indeed (says the Bishop) that if he could be convinced that he had sinned in this matter, that he would as gladly make a public Recantation, as he would eat or drink; which seeing he hath not yet done, it is evident he is still of the same mind, and consequently would upon the same occasion do the same things, viz. fight and encourage as many Thousands as he could to fight against the King, for any thing that calls itself, or which he is pleased to call a full and free Parliament: As likewise that he would own and submit to any Usurper of the Sovereignty, as set up by God, although he came to it by the Murder of his Master, and by trampling upon the Parliament. Lastly, that he would hinder as much as possibly he could the restoring of the rightful Heir to the Crown: And now whether a Man of this Judgement, and of these affections, aught to be permitted to Preach or no; let any Man but himself Judge. And may we not reasonably think, that those Men did approve of that Hellish Fact, who did post factum, tell the World of his Tyranny, and Maladministration of Government, and inclination to Popery: And applauded the grand Regicide, as one that did piously, prudently, and faithfully to his immortal honour exercise the Government.  
I conclude this with the words of a worthy Person, who Printed a view of the Life and Reign of King Charles the First, even when the Faction was in Power, p. 94. The Presbyterians carried on the Tragedy from the beginning to the end; from the bringing in the Scots, to the beginning of the War; from thence till they brought him Prisoner to Holmby House, and then quarrelled with the Independents for taking the work out of their hands, and Robbing them of the long expected fruit of their Plots and Practices.— The Independents confessed they had put Charles Stuart to death, but that the King had been murdered long before by the Presbyterians, who had deprived him of his Crown, Sword, and Sceptre; of his Sword by wresting from him the Militia; of his Sceptre, divesting him of his power of calling Parliaments; they deprived him of his natural Liberty, as a Man of the Society of his Wife and Children, and attendance of Servants, and of all those comforts which might make his Life valuable; so that there was nothing left for the Independents to do, but to put an end to those Calamities, into which this miserable Man had been so accursedly plunged by the Presbyterians. And so much for the Juncto of Presbyters, that dethroned the King.  
The main Battalia being thus discomfited, the little reserves will be more easily defeated.  
Mr. Baxt. Was it they that Petitioned and protested against it?  
Answ. Who ever Petitioned or protested against the proceed against the King, until the Army took him out of the Parliaments power? and was he not dethroned before that time? afterward perhaps some of them did as the Hyena, that hath destroyed a Man and gorged himself, weep and howl over the Carcase, because he could not devour him wholly.  
Mr. Baxt. Whether it was not an Episcopal Parliament (forty to one, if not an hundred) that began the War against the King?  
Answ. With what face can one that pretends to Truth say this? when it is so notoriously known, that till by a prevailing Faction in that Parliament, the Bishops, and the Loyal and Episcopal party were forced away, nothing could be done against the King.  
Mr. Baxt. Whether the General and Commanders of the Army, Twenty to one, were not Conformists?  
Answ. They had been such indeed, but, when they began the War, they neither feared God, nor honoured the King, but made the Reformation of Religion, the pretence of the War; which as the Covenant shows, was the abolishing of Bishops, Liturgy, etc.  
Mr. Baxt. Whether the Major Generals in the Countries were not almost all Episcopal Conformists? 
The Earl of Stamford was over your Country.   
Answ. Stamford I knew, and one Baxter his Engineer; but that he was either a Major General, or a Conformist I never heard. The first Major General that I knew in these parts was Desborough, after that the Kingdom was Cantonized; and I believe the Turkish Bashaws, were as much Conformists as any of them.  
Mr. Baxt. Whether the Admiral and Sea-Captains were not almost all Episcopal Conformists (as Heylen distinguisheth them of Archbishop Abbot's mind, disliking Arminianism, Monoplies, etc.  
Answ. I suppose the Admiral and his Officers had well studied the points of Arminianism; when, as Mr. Baxter that fought against them, wrote for them in the judgement of his Brethren, and as I have heard that Dr. Hammond said of him, he was an Arminian too, though he did not know it.  
Mr. Baxt. Whether the Episcopal Gentry did not more of them take the Engagement (and many Episcopal Ministers) more than the Presbyterians?  
Answ. The King was dethroned before the engagement was imposed, and if you drove any of the Episcopal party into that Snare; I hope that as Peter for denying his Master, they have repent of it, and so are pardoned, I wish I could say so much of the Covenanters.  
Mr. Baxt. Whether the Archbishop of York, were not the Parliaments Major-General?  
Answ. That he was a Traitor if he took any such Commission is no doubt, and when among the Twelve, there was one that sold his Master, 'tis not strange, if there were one of Twenty four Bishops that betrayed his Liege Prince; it was pity that any Apostate Clergyman should have an higher Office in that Army than Mr. Baxter, but I think you did them more service, as an Adjutant General, than he as a Major General.  
Mr. Baxt. Whether if this Parliament, which made the Act for Uniformity and Conventicles, should quarrel with the King, it would prove them to be Presbyterians and Non-conformists?  
Answ. This is that which I know too many did expect, and I hope they will never live to see it; but if it should have happened, I would say, they had as much contradicted their principles, and falsified their engagements, as Mr. Baxter had done, almost.  
Mr. Baxt. Whether the Presbyterian Ministers of London, and Lancashire, did not write more against the Regicides and Usurpers, and declare against them, than all the Conformists? or as much?  
Answ. What they did against the Regicides, was long after the King was dethroned, and so is not pertinent to the question; yet I have somewhere read, that the London Ministers, about 59 in number, as I remember, in an endeavour to vindicate themselves from the Blood of the Royal Martyr, Printed 1678. did say thus; The woeful miscarriages of the King himself, which we cannot but acknowledge to be very many, and great in his Government; have cost the Three Kingdoms so dear, and cast him down from his excellency, into a horrid pit of misery beyond example. This was a Repentance somewhat like that of Judas, when he had irrecoverably ruined his Lord and Master, but he could not wash his hands from that innocent Blood.  
Mr. Baxt. And the Long Parliament was forced and most of them cast out before the King could be destroyed.  
Answ. But not before the King was Actually dethroned, and it was about Twelve Months before they were forced off by the Army, that they Voted their Non-addresses.  
Mr. Baxt. And when they were restored, it made way for his Restoration.  
Answ. Surely they could not do it on your principles, which assert that the King may be deposed; nor are the Subjects afterward to trouble themselves for his Restoration; nor is the injured Prince himself to seek his resettlement, if the Commonwealth may prosper without him, and so he is obliged to resign his Government; and thus the people being free from any Obedience to him, may choose another King, or if not, a Commonwealth may be pitched on. And had it been left to the Presbyterians to bring in the King on their Articles, he had not been admitted to this day.  
Mr. Baxt. And Sir Thomas Allen Lord Mayor, and the City of London inviting General Monk from the Rump into the City, and joining with him, was the very day that turned the Scales for the King. Not forgetting that Mr. Baxter Preached to the Parliament, as he often tells us the day before the King was Voted home.  
Answ. Sir Thomas Allen, and the City did their duty Nobly and Worthily; but what turned the Scales against the Rump, that you reflect so upon, that Rump which while it had a better name, and a little more power, though then its nakedness appeared sufficiently, you prayed for it in these words, May the Parliament be holy, and this ascertained from Generation to Generation, by such a necessary regulation of Elections, as I have hereafter described, and that all those that by wickedness have forfeited their Liberties, may neither choose nor be chosen, p. 14. 15. And again, That they were sworn, and sworn, and sworn again to be faithful to, and to defend them; and that they were the best Governors in all the World, and such as it is forbidden Subjects to oppose upon pain of Damnation. So that I conclude, whoever restored this King (for which let God have all the praise) I still affirm, it was a Juncto of Presbyters that dethroned his Royal Father.  
This may suffice concerning the third and fourth part of the Accusation of destroying the King and disloyal principles.  
The Fifth, That they are plotting a Rebellion, to which Mr. Baxter forgot to make any defence. Only he thought it his duty to give this account of their principles, as far as they are known to him. Where First, he seems rather to defend than disclaim his Political Aphorisms, though he desires the Book may be taken as Non scriptus: This will not satisfy; If he be of another Judgement now, he ought to have undeceived his party by confuting those dangerous principles, whereas he rather continueth to practise them still. But what I Judge undeniable, saith Mr. Baxter, I here declare. Now let the Reader go on from these words, until he come to the period, where he says, As I have here described the Judgement of such Non-conformists as I have Conversed with, I do desire those that seek our blood and ruin by the false accusation of Rebellious principles to tell me if they can; what body or party of Men on Earth, have more sound and Loyal principles of Government and Obedience? And if any person can extract any such principles within all that period, I will say, he hath turned Mr. Baxter's Whetstone into the Philosopher's Stone. He says, indeed we are all bound, if it be possible, and as much as in us lieth to live peaceably, and follow peace with all men. But how have they followed this principle? We have, he saith, many years begged for peace of those that should have been the Preachers, and wifest promoters of peace, and cannot yet obtain it, nor quiet them, that call for fire and sword, not knowing what spirit they are of. This is the Presbyterian way of Petitioning for Peace, to rail against their Superiors, charging them with persecution, fire and sword; and asserting that there can be no peace, until the Laws for Conformity be all reversed, the Bishop's Authority and the Kings too, in Ecclesiastical affairs taken away, the Liturgy exchanged for Mr. baxter's new Directory, as he hath at large declared in the first part; and such a desolation as this they call peace, solitudinem volunt & pacem vocant. He says, the Declaration about Ecclesiastical affairs telleth us, that the King would have given the people peace. Answ. And there were a sort of men, whom the King for peace sake, desired to read only so much of the Liturgy as was beyond exception, and they would not; did not these tell the World they would have no peace but victory? So true it is as Mr. Baxter says, with unpeaceble Clergymen, no Plea, no Petition (no not of the King himself) could prevail, but the things that have been are, and the Confusions of our age come from the same causes and sorts of men, as the Confusions in former ages did; for which we need not go to Mr. Baxters' Church History, the Men and methods of 41. and 42. are well nigh revived. They told His Majesty in their second Paper for Peace, That if he would grant their desires, it would revive their Hearts to daily and earnest Prayers for his Prosperity. But what if he deny them? Then p. 12. it astonisheth us to foresee what doleful effects our Divisions would produce, which we will not so much as mention in particular, lest our words should be misunderstood. And it is obvious enough to whom they would apply that passage, p. 117. of their reply to the Exceptions: As Basil said to Valens the Emperor, that would have him pray for the Life of his Son: If thou wilt receive the true Faith, thy Son shall live; which when the Emperor refused, he said, the Will of the Lord be done: So we say to you, if you will put on Charity, and promote peace, God will honour you; but if you will do contrary, the Will of the Lord be done with your honours. Amen say I: Let them fall into the hands of God, who is still exceeding gracious to them, and not into the hands of such cruel men, who have War in their Hearts while they Petition for Peace. And will Mr. Baxter still demand what party of Men on Earth have more Loyal Principles. Our English Papists, who as Mr. Baxter grants adhered to the King, would be offended if I should say, they that fought against the King, were more Loyal than they, who with Lives and Fortunes fought for him; dares he compare with the Church of England, who lived and died, and risen again with their King, to the great regret and envy of those Men? I will not say only that the Primitive Christians, but even the Old Greeks and Romans had better Principles than any you practise by, and will rise up in Judgement against such a Generation. How vainly do you inquire what Hottoman or Bodin have written? Consider the Precepts of our great Lord, and the Practice of the Primitive Christians for the first 600. years, and how night the true Members of the Church of England followed those Principles and Examples for Twenty years together, and how far the Presbyterians Acted contrary to them, and then convince the World whether the party you Boast of, or these were most Loyal. But Mr. Baxter demands; Must this Age answer for their Father's deeds; what is all this to the present Non-conformists? Answ. If they follow the deeds of their Fathers, we cannot deny them the reputation of being their Children, who (without controversy) begat and Nurtured them.  
And though I have not the opportunity to ask those Noble Lords and Gentlemen, whom Mr. Baxter names concerning the Conformity of their Fathers; yet I can give you their Sense, and the Opinion of the whole Nation, concerning the behaviour of their Children; who have as great a mind to begin a second War. And take it in the best English Dialect, (i. e.) in the Acts of Parliament; And first in the Act against Conventicles, 16. Car. 2di N. 2. For providing of further and more speedy remedies against the growing and dangerous practice of Seditious Sectaries, and other disloyal persons; who under pretence of tender Consciences, do at their meetings contrive insurrections, as late experience hath shown, etc. And in the Oxford Act, they say of those that Preach in unlawful Assemblies, Conventicles or Meetings, under colour or pretence of the Exercise of Religion, contrary to the Laws and Statutes of this Kingdom, have settled themselves in divers Corporations of this Kingdom, three or more in a place, thereby taking opportunity to distil the poisonous principles of Schisms and Rebellion into the hearts of His Majesty's Subjects, to the great danger of the Church and Kingdom, etc. Now how little difference there is between such Seditious tumults and meetings, the late Rebellion in Scotland doth demonstrate, where the chief Masters of those Assemblies Preached an Evangelium Armatum, and having in cold Blood barbarously murdered the most Reverend Archbishop, drew many Thousands into the Field, and would have done the like by the King himself, had he been in their power, as by their Declarations we may guests. I do not accuse their Brethren of England of Rebellion; the Parliament says, their actions tend to it, and that is, Tantamount to a Plot. Sedition and tumults, open and professed disobedience to the Laws, adhering to a Rebellious Covenant, refusing the Tests of Obedience, which require only the disclaiming of Rebellious Principles and Practices, Preaching and Printing what is actually Seditious, and tends directly to Rebellion; and all this when our Parliament hath declared that there is an horrid Plot on foot, for the destroying of the King and established Religion; to the latter whereof you are avowed Enemies: this may draw at least a suspicion on you, that you are in the Plot, whether you know it or no; for as I suppose, in the beginning of the First War, very few of them that were engaged, intended a Plot against the King and the Church, yet were acted to the ruin of them both. So now a great many that call themselves Protestant's, may be overacted by the Papists; who if they can once destroy the Church of England, by means of our divisions, which is the most likely means, may cry Victoria, and boast that we have destroyed ourselves. And then you may say truly, p. 123. of the second part of your Plea, The blood will be on you, and your Children.  
Mr. Baxter professeth in his Preface, a detestation of the lying Malignity, and bloody Cruelty of the Papists, but p. 235. of his first part, he concludes it to be but reasonable, if on such necessity, (i. e. the penalties for Nonconformity) they should accept of favour from any Papists that would save them. And that if one party, (viz. the authority of the Nation) would bring them to such a pass, that they must be hanged, imprisoned, ruined or worse, unless the favour of the Papists deliver them; And the other party, viz. the Non-conformists had rather be saved by the Papists, than be hanged or ruined by Protestants, they ought not to be suspected of Popery; this shows that he hath a better Opinion of the Papists than of the Conformists. Some blush not, saith Mr. Baxter, to accuse the Non-conformists, as the bringers in of Popery by desiring Liberty, p. 245. that is, that there is a door opened to them by our Divisions. Answ. None hath more reason to blush at this than Mr. Baxter; for in his defence of the principles of Love, As to Popery (says he) the interest of the Protestant Religion must be much kept up, by means of the Parish Ministers, and by the Doctrine and Worship there performed (not by Conventicles then) for they that think and endeavour contrary to this, of which side soever, shall have the hearty thanks and concurrence of the Papists (who then are in the Plot.) Nor am I causelessly afraid, saith Mr. Baxter, that if we suffer the Principles and practices which I writ against, (i. e. the dividers and destroyers of peace and love) to proceed without our contradiction, Popery will get by it so great advantage, as may hazard us all, and we may lose that which the several parties do contend about.  
Three ways, especially Popery will grow out of our divisions.  
1. By the Odium and scorn of our divisions, inconsistency and multiplied Sects.— Thousands have been drawn into Popery, or Confirmed in it already, and I am persuaded, saith he, that all the Arguments in Bellarmine, and all other Books that ever were written, have not done so much to make Papists in England, as the multitude of Sects among ourselves.  
2. Who knows not how fair a game the Papists have to play by our Divisions? methinks I hear them hissing on both parties, saying to one side, lay more upon them, and abate them nothing; And to the other stand it out and yield to nothing, hoping that our divisions will carry us to such practices, as will make us accounted Seditious, Rebellious and dangerous to public peace, and so they may pass for better Subjects than we, or else they may get a Toleration with us. And shall they use our hands to do their work? we have already served them unspeakably, both in this, and in abating the Odium of the Gunpowder Plot, and other Treasons.  
3. It is not the least of our dangers, lest by our follies, extremities and rigours we so exasperate the Common People, as to make them readier to join with the Papists than with us, in case of Competitions, Invasions or Insurrections against the King and Kingdom's peace. And in the Key for Catholics, The Papists (saith he) account that if the Puritans get the Day, they shall make great advantage of it; for they will be unsettled, and all in pieces; factions and distractions, (say they) give us footing for continual attempts; to make all sure we will have our party secretly among Puritans also, that we may be sure to maintain our interest. And in his Holy Commonwealth, Let the Magistrate cherish the Disputations of the Teachers, and let him procure them often to debate together, and reprove one another, for so when all Men see that there is nothing certain among them, they will easily yield saith Contzen the Jesuit.  Pudet haec opprobria, etc.— 
You conclude your second part of the Plea, with some Petitions out of the Liturgy, which I have reason to think you do with an ill design; praying, that he, whose Service is perfect freedom, would defend you his Humbled Servants (non satis humiliati quia nondum humiles,) in all assaults of your Enemies, etc. Whom you mean by your Enemies all parties will guests. But I shall commend to you the same advice which Bishop Prideaux gave the Assembly, when they consulted him what they should do; his direction was, that they would consider their ways, and return to their Obedience, and say, in the Confession of the Church.— Almighty and most Merciful Father, we have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost Sheep, We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts, we have offended against thy Holy Laws, we have left undone those things which we ought to have done, and we have done those things which we ought not to have done, and there is no health in us, etc. And the God of Heaven give us all Grace, so to confess and forsake our Sins, that we may find Mercy.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
SInce my dispatch of the former Papers, I met with a Prognostication written by Richard Baxter, which though it were Calculated chief for England; yet it presumes, First to foretell, what shall befall the Churches on Earth, until their Concord; and Secondly, what from thence to the end. But the first part (though it be a Contradiction in terms) may be called more agreeably to the matter, A Prognostication of what is past; for it hath been twice Acted over in this Nation. And the Second part is a Prognostication of what never shall be. For by Mr. Baxters' method, it is impossible we should ever see such a Golden Age of Love. There are but two things worthy of the Readers notice; The First is, the time when it was written, viz. When by the King's Commission we (in vain) treated for Concord, 1661. This circumstance he doth with so much concern and diligence labour to convince the Reader of, that (as if his Reputation of being a Prophet depended on it) he tells you again in the first words of the Epistle; It is many years since this Prognostication was written, 1661. Except the sixteen last Lines; and in the end of the Epistle, he cautioneth the Reader, not to mistake it for Historical Narratives. And again at the end of the Book, he tells us of several Books of his, viz. The true and only Terms of Concord, Catholic Theology, and The Cure of Church Divisions, which were all written long since the Prognostication. This extraordinary diligence about so inconsiderable a Circumstance, made me suspect that it was a Soar place upon which he rubbed so frequently, and that it was an itch of vain glory that occasioned it. And I believe, when I have imparted my second thoughts to the Reader, he will be much of the same mind with me.  
For, First, I considered that there needed no spirit of Prophecy, to foretell what effects Nonconformity had produced many years before 1661. when he pretends this Prognostication was written; nor yet to foretell what the Non-conformists were resolved (as much as in them lay) to attempt with all their might. Wherewith I find they were not afraid to threaten the King, and the Bishops, as I have elsewhere observed.  
But secondly, He tells us, P. 28. N. 105. That where Papists or Heretics are shut out by Laws, they will secretly contribute the utmost of their endeavours to make the sufferings of Dissenting Protestants as grievous as possibly they can; that in despite of them, their own necessities may compel them to cry out for liberty: Till they procured a common Toleration for all, and oped the Door for Papists and Heretics, as well as for themselves. Where (N. B.) Mr. Baxter speaks of a Toleration, which had been procured, and a Door opened for Papists and Heretics, which must needs look back to the time past; and in all probability he intended that indulgence, which upon the Non-conformists Cries for liberty, was granted by His Majesty about Seven years since; and if so, than this Prognostication was written some time after that common Toleration, which was of a much later date than 1661. And so, some Words and Phrases seem to be, as new Impositions, Subscriptions and Oaths, and serving the Bishops in Jails; but I lay no stress on these.  
3. Mr. Baxter tells the Reader, the Prognostication was written 1661. Except the Sixteen last Lines, which Lines P. 66. begin thus. I say all this is, etc. Now it is obvious to every Reader, that there is a necessary connection and dependence between these Sixteen Lines, and that which precedes; for in the preceding Paragraph which he calls a Consectary, you have these Nominative Cases, which have no Verb to answer them, until you take in part of these Sixteen Lines, viz. All the Romish Dreams, and all the Plots, etc. I say all this is; whereby it appeared to me that the Sixteen last Lines were of the same contexture, and written at the same time, as the rest was, which could not be in 1661. For those Three Books of his, mentioned in the Sixteen Lines, were not then extant. So that I doubt not, but he that Reads the whole Consectary, will be of my mind, that it was written at the same time, as the last Sixteen Lines were. And if so, the Prognostication was written since the Book called the True and only Terms of Concord, Printed 1689. I perceive by Mr. Baxters' Contextures, that he hath not well learned the Art of Weaving Spiritualised.  
4. I suspected also the Reason which Mr. Baxter gives why though it were written in 1661. yet it was cast by, viz. Lest it should offend the guilty. Now it is notorious, whom Mr. Baxter condemns as guilty, throughout the whole Prognostication; namely the Bishops, whom he accounts Enemies to the Non-conformists. And it is as notorious, what little care he had of not offending them, which I have observed from the Petition for Peace, the Reply to the Bishop's exceptions, and other Printed Papers, wherein Mr. Baxter had a chief hand. Besides in 1661. Mr. Baxter was on more equal terms with the Bishops, with whom he was joined in Commission by the King, and the Bishops were not warm in their Chairs, nor did the Act for Uniformity take effect, until Bartholomew day 1662. And the Sectarian Spirit (which then prevailed among the people, was as Mr. Baxter observes, p. 40. of his Prognostication) like Gunpowder, 
Errat. p. 32. it should be n. 120.  ready to take fire upon such injuries, as he there mentioneth. So that certainly that was a fit season for the publishing of this Prognostication, had it been then Penned, than this present juncture of Affairs in 1680. when the Bishops and Conformity are enjoined and Confirmed by Law; and so the offence is much greater, and less like to have its desired success. But if all these Conjectures should be groundless; yet the very publishing of a Prognostication of things to come, after they are come to pass, carrieth with it the Suspicion of a Cheat, the pretence that it was written long before notwithstanding. But (whether it were written in 1661. or which I rather think in 1680.) the second thing which the Reader may observe is, that Mr. Baxter by publishing this Prognostication, hath rendered himself obnoxious to those Laws, which are still in force against the spreaders of false News, under which the Authors of pretended Prophecies are included. And it will be hard to find any Pamphlet that offends more against those Laws, being directly intended to infuse into, and encourage in His Majesty's Subjects a Seditious, Factious and Implacable Spirit, as well against the known Laws of the Land, as against the established Constitutions of the Church, by suggesting groundless fears, and jealousies of things that are not, and false and slanderous representation of things that are, as in P. 32. He intimates the Clergy to be Worldly, 
Vbi suprd N. 120.  Proud, Covetous, Domineering, Malignant and Lazy; The Plague of the World, the Troublers of Princes, and Dividers of the Churches. And P. 9 That they will please the great Men of the World, for Lordships, Wealth and Honour, to be Rulers of their Brethren, and to have their Wills. And P. 12. Being Hypocrites as to Christianity and Godliness (like Judas that loved the Bag better than Christ) they will make themselves a Religion consisting of the mere Corpse and dead Image of true Religion. And P. 13. The powerful Worldly Clergy, will think it their interest to devise some new Impositions, which they know the other cannot yield to, to work them out. Whether they be Oaths, Subscriptions, Words or Actions, which they believe to be against God's Word. (Here I suspect that Mr. Baxter had respect to the Oaths, and Subscriptions required by the Act of Conformity, and by Words, those of Assent and Consent, which were not enjoined until 1662. and therefore probably, this Prognostication was written afterward.) And P. 14. Their Sufferings will make many otherwise sober Ministers too impatient, and to give their Tongues leave to take down the Honour of the Clergy. And this will stir up in the people an inordinate, unwarrantable, passionate zeal, which will corrupt their Prayers, and make them speak unseemly things, and pray for the downfall of that Clergy, which they take to be the Enemies of God and godliness and that, to speak easily or charitably of such Men, is but to be lukewarm, and indifferent between God and the Devil. P. 20. Some (of the Nonconforming Ministers) will think these passions of the people needful to check the fierceness of the Afflicters (though it do but exasperate,) and therefore will let them alone. Some of the Younger or more injudicious hot-brained sort (of the Nonconforming Ministers) will put them on, and make them believe that all Communion with any Conforming Ministers, or their Parish Churches is unlawful, and their Forms of Worship, are sinful and Antichristian, and that they are all temporizers, and betrayers of truth and purity, that Communicate or Assemble with them And P. 22, 23. They will carry about among themselves, viz. (the Heretical patty) false reports and slanders,— partly, because they think that humane converse bindeth them to believe the reports which those that are accounted good Men utter. And partly because that they will think that the upholding of their cause, which they think is Gods, doth need the suppression of these men's Credits and Reputation that are against it. P. 25, 26. The Godly and Peaceable Conformists, will get the Love of the Sober by their Holy Doctrine and Lives; but will be despised by the Sectaries, because they Conform: And will be suspected by the Proud and persecuting Clergy, as leaning to the dissenters, and thereupon will be under continual jealousies and rebukes. And perhaps new points of Conformity shall be devised to be imposed on them, which it is known their consciences are against, that so they also may be forced to be Non-conformists, because secret Enemies are more dangerous than open Foes; And so part of them will turn downright Non-conformists, and the other part will live in displeasure, till they see an opportunity to show it. And these are the likeliest to cross and weaken the Worldly persecuting Clergy of any Men. Certainly this was no Prognostication in 1661. but an History of what was done betwixt that and 1680.  
Concerning Princes, he says, he will give no other Prognostics but Christ's, (which yet Christ never applied to Princes.) That it will be as hard for a rich Man (i. e. for a Prince in his sense) to enter into Heaven, as for a Camel to go through a Needle's Eye. P. 34. The Magistrates may guests by this, what Charity Mr. Baxter hath for them.  
That this was no Prognostication, but a Plot of Mr. baxter's to imbroil the Nation, may farther appear by what he writes, P. 122, 123. Of his Way of Concord, where he thus carries on the design; He supposeth a Decree that none shall Preach the Gospel, but those that subscribe, swear, promise or profess, or do somewhat accounted sinful; that strict Laws are made to punish such as disobey, lest their Commands be contemned; then that the Preachers will be cast out and silenced; yet they still believe, that God Commands what Man forbids, and that it is a damnable Sin, no less than Sacrilege and Cruelty to Souls to forsake their calling and duty: The Preachers than must be fined, imprisoned or banished for Preaching, and the people for public Worshipping; but when fined, they will go on still; nothing can remedy it, but either perpetual Imprisonment, Banishment, or Death. When this is done, more will arise of the same mind, and continue the work: And the Prelates that cause this, will be taken by the suffering people for Thorns and Thistles, and grievous Wolves, and the Military Ministers of the Devil. The indifferent common people will look on the persecutors, as the Enemies of good Men, and of public peace, that do all this by Pride and Domination. The ungodly rabble of Drunkards, Swearers, Adulterers, and such like hating godliness and strict living, will cry up the Prelates, and Triumph over the sufferers. Thus the Land will be divided, the Prelates and other Persecutors with the dirty malignant rabble of the licentious will make one party, these will call themselves the Orthodox, and the Church the sufferers, and those that pity them will be the other. The conjunction of the debauched and malignant rabble with the Prelates will increase sober men's disaffection to them, and make Men take them for Patrons of impiety; and how sad a Condition must such Churches be in? This Prophecy is the same for substance, and I cannot think it much different in the circumstance of time; the design of this is the same, which in the Title Page of his Prognostic, he says, is to instruct the Sons of Love and Peace in their duties. But how ill doth such Raillery become a dying Man, or a mortified Christian? to defame the present Governors, and teach others to do the same. If St. James speaks truth, This Man's Religion is vain, Ch. 1.26. And under this Artifice of pretended Prophecies, Mr. Baxter strikes at the Root of all Authority. For if Men may be excused from Obeying the Laws by pretending something sinful in them (which yet they know not) when they know certainly that disobedience is a sin: Then on the same grounds that the Presbyterians disobey their Rulers, the Independents may disobey them, and the Anabaptists both, and Children and Servants their Parents and Masters. And then any Man as well as Mr. Baxter might Prognosticate that there can be no peace where such Principles and Practices are encouraged.  
And now I appeal to the Christian Reader, whether these suggestions were fit Legacies for a dying Man to bequeath to a divided and dying people, of which he tells the Reader, he was taking his farewell in 1661. but lived to publish them in 1680. that is near Twenty years after, when the age was almost ruined by the practice of such unchristian intimations; and both sides were preparing for the increase of their fury and extremities, and at last for Repentance or ruinous Calamity, if they do (saith Mr. Baxter, p. 31.) as I have described. And he could not but think, that with a great many his Descriptions would go for Prescriptions, and be as a Rule and Law for too many to walk by. For in the Title Page, he says, it was published to instruct the Sons of Love and Peace in their duties and expectations. These things considered, I can have no better esteem of Mr. Baxter's than I had of Lilies Prognostications, which were designs to revive and support The good old Cause. Having considered the first part of the Prognostication, which concerns things that are past, there need no reflections on the second part, because it concerns things that never shall be. I only observe that the evils which he speaks of are generally effected, but the good things are Calculated for the golden Age of Love; and when that revolution will be, if ever it be, his Prophetic Spirit cannot discern. If ever it be, it will be when all Men are of one mind, that is, of Mr. Baxters' mind, who is seldom of the same mind with himself, and so it is like never to be. And therefore I advise the Printer, though not for his own profit, yet for Mr. baxter's Credit, and the public Welfare, to lay up this Prognostication, and some other of Mr. Baxters' Books among the Almanacs, for 1661.  
In perpetuam Rei oblivionem.   

A FAREWEL TO Mr. Baxter.  
IN the Preface to your late Book of Concord, you desire, That if you err, they (to whom you writ) would faithfully detect your error, that you may repent before you die, and may leave behind you a Recantation of all your mistakes and miscarriages, as you say you intent to do, upon Conviction. You confess that by our differences, Satan hath got great advantage in England against that Christian Love, which is the Life and Character of Christ's Disciples, and to cause Wrath, Envy, Hatred and Strife, that the honour and success of the Ministry is thereby hindered; The Wicked and Infidels are hardened, the weak scandalised, the Papists encouraged to despise us all; and many turn to them scandalised by our discord: Sects are advantaged, the Church and Kingdom by Division weakened, and the King denied the comfort which he might have in a loving, united, and Concordant people. Now I beseech you lay your hand upon your heart, and consider whether your actions and writings have not notoriously contributed to these mischiefs. You confess that you were one that blew up the Coals of our unhappy Divisions; and that if you had been for the King, you had incurred the danger of Condemnation; you gave several intimations that the King was Popishly affected, (as Bishop Bramhal affirms,) you encouraged great numbers to that War, many of which perished in it: You applauded the grand Regicide, as one that prudently, piously and faithfully to his immortal honour did exercise the Government, you have since the establishment encouraged and defended separation (notwithstanding you did sometime seem to oppose it.) And now at last you proclaim the terms of our Communion, to be such as have increased an impossibility of Conforming. And why may I not now expostulate with you, as you do with those whom you thought guilty of the like evil, p. 14. of your answer to Bagshaw. Is it possible for any sober Christian in the World to take them to be blameless, or those to be little sins? what? both the violating the person, and the Life of (so good) a King? and the change of the fundamental Government or Constitution, and the Army's force upon the Parliament, which they promised Obedience to,— the making their General, Protector; The making an instrument of Government themselves without the people; The setting up their second Protector,— The setting up the remnant of the Commons again, the pulling them presently down again, (of whom he said) that they had sworn, and sworn, and sworn again to be faithful to, and to defend them, and that they were the best Governors in all the World; and such as 'tis forbidden Subjects to oppose upon pain of damnation; Was all this lawful? and to do all this with dreadful appeals to God, and as for God? If all this was not Rebellion, or Treason, or Murder; is there any such crime (think you) possible to be committed? are Papists insulting over us in our shame? are thousands hardened by these and such like deal into a scorn of Religion? are our Rulers exasperated by all this into the severities which we feel? are Ministers silenced by the occasion of it? are we made by it the byword and hissing of the Nations, and the shame and pity of all our friends? and yet is all this to be justified or silenced, and none of it at all to be openly repent of? I openly profess to you, that till this be done, we are never like to be healed, and restored, and that it is heinous, gross impenitence, that keepeth Ministers and people under their distress. And I take it for the sad Prognostic of our future Woe, and at best our lengthened affliction to read such writings against Repentance, and to hear so little open profession of Repentance, even for unquestionable heinous crimes, for the saving of those that are undone by these scandals, and for the Reparation of the honour of Religion which is most notoriously injured, to see Men still think that their Repentance is the dishonour of their party, and cause, whose honour can no other way be repaired, to see Men so blind as to think that the silencing of these things will hid them, as if they were not known to the world; That man or party that will justify all those heinous crimes, and still plead Conscience or Religion for them, doth grievous injury to Conscience and Religion. I have told you truly that God's way of vindicating the honour of Religion, is for us by open free Confession, to take all the shame to ourselves, that it be not injuriously cast upon Religion; And the Devil's way of preserving the honour of the godly, is by justifying their Sins, and pleading Religion for them, that so religiousness itself may be taken for Hypocrisy and wickedness, as maintaining and befriending wickedness.— And p. 12. Is Repentance an unbecoming thing? I hope the Act of Oblivion was not made to frustrate God's Act of Oblivion? which giveth pardon to the penitent, doth it forbidden us to repent of sin, or to persuade our Brethren to repent? where sin is hated, Repentance will not be hated, and if sin were as bitter as it must be, Repentance would not be bitter; if I was guilty of such sins as you affirm, I do openly confess, that if I lay in Sackcloth and in Tears, and did lament my sins before the world, and beg pardon both of God and Man, and entreat all Men not to impute it to Religion but to me, and to take warning by my fall, which had done such unspeakable wrong both to Christ and Men, I should do no more than the plain light of nature assureth me, to be my great and needful duty, p. 17. Now all that Bagshaw accused Mr. Baxter of, was p. 1. That he was as guilty of stirring up and fomenting that War, as any one whatever, concerning which if we take his own Confession, and consider his circumstances being an Episcopal Ordained Minister, whose Office was to Preach Obedience and Peace, his applauding the first Boutefeus', as glorious Saints in Heaven, his vindicating the Authority and War of the Parliament against the King, his pertinacious adhering to the Covenant, crying down the Royal Martyr as a Papist, after he had sealed the sincerity of his heart to the Reformed Religion by his blood, and the crying up of his Murderer for a prudent, pious and faithful Governor; His principles in his Holy Commonwealth, and his present practices in defending Schism, and so sowing Sedition, and reproaching the established Laws and Government, in Church and State; if these do not prove him guilty of what Mr. Bagshaw accused him, yet I am sure they cry aloud for his Repentance, and Retractations which he once promised the world (p. 26, 27. of his Defence of the Principles of Love) but never (that I hear of) hath been so ingenious to perform as he ought. It is an ill diversion for such a person to banish the thoughts of repenting for his own sins, by enquiring into the heinous sinfulness of Conformists. I wish hearty he could prove his innocency in the one, as easily as they can in the other; and if he cannot clear his innocence, that he would manifest his penitence, then would I as readily give him the right hand of fellowship, as he now denyeth it to others, and he might be as great an instrument of peace on earth among the Saints, as of joy in Heaven among the Angels of God. I shall only beseech Mr. Baxter to say that Prayer hearty, which he hath penned in the 251, and 252. pages of his Cure of Divisions, and then let him reply as he thinks fit.  
Lord hid not my own miscarriages from my sight, and suffer me not to take any sin that I have committed, to have been my innocency, or duty, lest I should dare to Father sin on God, and lest I should live and die without repentance, and lest I should be one, that continueth judgements and danger to the Land; stir up some faithful friend to tell me with convincing evidence, where it is that I have miscarried, that contrition may prepare me for the peace of remission. O save me from the plague of an impenitent heart that cannot endure to be told of sin, and from that ungodly folly, which taketh the shame which Repentance casteth upon sin, to be cast upon God and Religion, which bind us to Repentance and Confession. Amen.  
Now when you have humbly and sincerely renewed this Prayer to Almighty God, I beseech you to consider seriously with yourself, that it may be God hath in answer to your prayers, raised up so vile an instrument as I am to be your Monitor, that what you thought your duty is your sin, and that you are one that still continueth judgements and danger to the Land. For first, you seemed doubtful of it, when you prayed against it. 2. When after long and mature deliberation, you entered into Communion with our Church in all its Ordinances that concern Lay-Communion, and resolved together with other of your Brethren to continue in it, and by that practice of yours, as well as your Arguments, did influence many others to a like pious and peaceable behaviour; how can it be less than a sin against God, and a grieving and gravelling the Consciences of such well-disposed Christians, not only to withdraw your avowed Communion, but to practise that which directly tends to Division and Confusion? 3. That in the judgement of such as were very pious and learned men (in your own Opinion) that practice of yours, which continueth and encourageth separation from our Communion, is sinful; such were Cranmer, Ridly, Peter Martyr, and others that compiled the Liturgy in King Edward the VI days, and Parker, Grindal, Horn, Jewel, who reviewed and recommended it in Queen Elizabeth's days. Such were Usher, Davenant, Potter, Hall, Carleton, and others in the days of King James and King Charles of Blessed Memory. What think you of all these sober and moderate Conformists, such as Bolton, Whately, Fenner, Dent, Crook, Dike, Stock, Smith, Preston, Sibbs, Stoughton, Taylor, etc. These you confess were no ignorant nor temporising persons. What think you of Jacob and Johnson, who were Independents, yet wrote against separation? And what think you of the most learned and pious of the Non-conformists, such as Cartwright, Egerton, Hildersham, Dod, Ames, Parker, Baines, Brightman, Ball, Bradshaw, Paget, Langly, Nichols, Hearing who wrote more against separation than any of the Conformists themselves? 
Principles of Love, p. 57  (as you affirm.) What think you of the Assembly of Divines, Twiss, Gataker, etc. Among whom you say you never heard but of Five Non-conformists? what think you of such as have Conformed since 1660. such as Reynolds, Conant, Wallis? and lastly what think you of the Father of all the Non-conformists Mr. T. Cartwright, who after he had written as much as he could against Conformity, saw so much of the weakness of his arguments, as that he repent and Conformed at last? If all these have judged a bare withdrawing of the people from our Communion to be unlawful, and against their duty; I wonder how you can still think your more positive opposing and hindering of it to be your duty. I considered again, that to live in the contempt of the Laws and lawful Authority both of Church and State, in a well established Kingdom, is a sin of no mean nature in itself, and by its effects may prove exceeding sinful; for Schism and Division, Spiritual Pride & Censoriousness, are as certainly sins, and perhaps greater than Whoredom and Drunkenness; and Rebellion is as the sin of Witchcraft. I considered also that you have had long experience of the evil of Schism, how great a matter a little fire kindleth, and did meditate and foretell (with what design I know not) in the second paper to the King, p. 12. That if you should lose the opportunity of your desired Reconciliation, i. e. if you could not obtain what you would, it astonished you to foresee what doleful effects your divisions would produce; These and such other motives prevailed with me to become your Monitor, that what you now take to be your duty is your sin, and that your present practice tends to the continuing of judgements and danger to the Land; and if my charitable admonition to you, and peaceable endeavours for unity and establishment in the Church and State be still despised; I can only continue my prayer to God, as well for myself as you in the Petitions above mentioned: Lord, hid not our own miscarriages from our sight, etc.  Cujus Aures clausae sunt ut ab Amico verum audire nequeat, hujus salus desperanda est. Cicero de Amicitia. 
FINIS.