I Have received that Letter of yours, where­by you inform me that Mr. Baxter hath late­ly written and printed something with such a reflection upon me, that I am obliged to take notice of it.

I thank you for your care of my Reputation, which next to Conscience ought to be the dear­est of all things to all men, especially to men of my Profession and Order, who the more they are vi­lified (whether justly or unjustly) the less good they will be able to do, especially amongst those that have industriously been prepossessed with pre­judice either against their Persons or their Fun­ctions This was St. Pauls Case, when there were some that did what they could to make the Co­rinthians to undervalue his person, that thereby they might discredit his Doctrine, and weaken his Authority, whom therefore he thinks he may [Page 2] without breach of Charity call False Apostles and Deceitful Workers. Nay this was our Saviours own Case, who, whilest he lived here upon the Earth, was ever and anon traduced and slandred by the Scribes and Pharisees, those proud Hypocrites, who were the greatest pretenders to holiness, and yet the greatest seducers of the people, and the grossest falsifyers of Gods Word, that ever were in the world, until these our times, which have brought forth a generation of men (St. Johnaptist would have called them a Generation of Vipers) who in the Art of holy jugling and malicious slandring have out-done the Pharisees themselves▪ and all that went before them; witness their so often wresting and perverting the Scripture in their Ser­mons to stir up the people to Sedition, and their as often Libelling the King in their Prayers, in or­der to the making of his Subjects first to hate him, then to fight against him, and at last to take away his Crown, and his Life from him. And is it any wonder that those that are such Enemies to Kings, should not be friends to Bishops? or that one (who hath done what he could to make the late King odious unto his People) should do what he can likewise to make the Pastor odious unto his Flock? to his Flock I say; For it is the Bi­shop of Worcester, and not Mr. Baxter that is Pa­stor of Kidderminster, as well as of all other Paro­chial Churches in that Diocess; neither did I or [Page 3] any other Bishop of Worcester, ever commit the Care of Souls in that, or any other Parish of that Dio­cess to Mr Baxter, though by that Preface of his to those of Kidderminster, he would make the world believe, that they were his Flock, and not mine, and that therefore he hath the more reason to complain of my defamation of him (as he calls it) in that place and before that people: whereas the truth is that Mr. Baxter was never either Parson, Vicar, or Curate there or any where else in my Dio­cess; for he never came in by the Door, that is, by any legal right or lawful admission into that Sheep­fold, but climbed up some other way, namely, by violence and intrusion, and therefore by Christs own inference he was a Thief and a Robber; and indeed he did Rob him that was then, and is now again the lawful Vicar of that Church; he Robbed him I say, first of his Reputation amongst his Flock, and then of his means and maintenance, by taking away the Fleece as well as the Flock from him; though (as Mr. Baxter himself hath confessed to me) He be a man of an unblamable life and conversation, though not of such parts (said Mr. Baxter) as are fit to qualifie him for the Cure of so great a Congre­gation; which whether it were so or no, I am sure Mr. Baxter was not to be the Judge; but in that Case the Bishop that was then living should and would have provided him a Coadjutor, as I have done since, and such an one, as I hope will feed [Page 4] that flock with much more wholsome Doctrine then Mr. Baxter did, when he sowed the seed of Schism and Sedition, and blew the Trumpet of Rebellion amongst them. For which cause I thought it my Duty (as being their Pastor in Chief) not onely to forbid Mr. Baxter to Preach there any more, which, by the way, he had done without my License; but likewise to Preach there my self, and to do what I could to undeceive that poor seduced and miserably deluded people; which was not to be done, as long as they had the person of their Seducer in so great admiration; and therefore by the example of St. Paul, who in order to the same end did take the same course with Alexander the Copper-smith, with Demas, Philetus, and Hymeneus; as likewise by the example of Christ himself, who in order to the same end, did take the same course with the Scribes and Pharisees, I thought it necessary to let them know that one that was of great authority amongst them (meaning in­deed, though not naming Mr. Baxter) was not the man they took him for; that he had not dealt faithfully with them, nor preached the word of God sincerely to them, when he made them believe it was lawful for them to take up Arms against the King, nor in suffer­ing (if not making) them to scruple at these things as unlawful, which he himself confesses to be lawfull; and afterwards making use of those scruples of theirs (which he himself had infused into them, or [Page 5] not endeavoured to take from them) as the only argument why those things they did so scruple at should not be enjoyn'd by lawful Authority, though lawful in themselves, because, forsooth, the enjoyning of things lawful by lawful Authority, if they may by Accident be the occasion of sin, is sinful; which assertion of his (as I then said, and must still maintain) is destructive of humane society in ta­king away the Authority of Commanding and the obligation of obeying, together with the whole Legislative power, Civil as well as Ecclesiastical, and Divine as well as Humane. And thus much (as Mr. Baxter himself saith) I told him before in mine own house, neither did he then deny the as­sertion, or endeavour to disprove what I inferr'd from it, by any of those distinctions or instances he now useth. And that this is true the Reverend Dr. VVarmstry now Dean of Worcester will witness for me, whom I desired to be by whilest I conferr'd with Mr. Baxter, foreseeing what misreport a man of Mr. Baxters principles and temper was like e­nough to make of what should pass betwixt us. And it was very well I did so; for I find that the Presbyter aswell as the Papist will serve themselves, as often as they are put to it, of their piae frandes, or holy artifices, of speaking more or less then the truth, as it makes more or less for their purpose or advantage; as likewise of putting non causam pro causa, or a part and a less principal part of the [Page 6] cause for the whole cause. For who would not think that knows not Mr. Baxter, that when he tels his Disciples of Kidderminster, You now know my Crime, with reference to the aforesaid assertion, and to that only, who would not think, I say, that either there was nothing else objected against him, or at least nothing of moment, or that could be any just and reasonable cause of my forbidding him to Preach in my Diocess? especially when he adds that the Right Reverend Bishop gave him this as a reason for his forbidding him to Preach; where if he means that the Bishop gave him this as the only, or the principal reason, he speaks without truth, and against his Conscience; for the first and prin­cipal reason the Bishop gave him for his forbidding him to preach, was (as he well knows, and as the Dean of Worcester will witness against him) His Preaching before without License, having no Cure of his own to Preach to; whereunto when he replyed, I had promised to give him such a License as the Bishop of London had given him, viz. Quàm diu se bene gereret, & durante beneplacito, I rejoyn'd, That it was true indeed, I had once promised to give him such a License, but withal, that it was as true, that first I had never promised to give him a License, if he took it before I gave it him; and that for this pre­sumption of his, I had now forbidden him to Preach any more. Secondly, That I knew more of him since then I did at that time; for, first, I had been cre­dibly [Page 7] informed, that he had abused the Bishop of Lon­don 's favour by preaching factiously, though not in the City, yet in the Diocess of London, and I named the place to him: Secondly, that since that promise of mine (which cannot be supposed to be other then Con­ditional) I my self had heard him at a Conference in the Savoy, maintaining such a Position as was destru­ctive to Legislative Power both in God and Man (meaning the Assertion before spoken of, viz. That the enjoyning of things lawful by lawful Autho­rity, if they might by Accident be the cause of sin, was sinful) which Assertion of his with the horrible con­sequences of it I told him then at Worcester, I had for­merly told him of at the Savoy openly, and before all the company that was at the Conference; whereunto all that he replyed at my second telling him at Worcester, was, that he had used some distinctions to salve that Assertion from those consequences; but what those distinctions were he did not then men­tion, (as Dr. Warmstry can witness) though in this printed address of his to his friends of Kidder­minster, he saith, he did tell the Bishop in what a li­mited and restrained sense he and his brethren under­stood that Assertion; which whether they did or no, will appear by and by, when we shall more nearly examine his printed Narrative as to that particular. In the mean time, though I said indeed that one that held and was likely to teach such Doctrines, was not to be suffered to Preach unto the People, [Page 8] yet this was not then alledged by me as the cause or crime for which I had forbidden him to Preach, (for that, as I said before, was His presuming to Preach without a License) but only as a reason why I should have thought my self not obliged by the promise I had formerly made him, to give him a License, though he had not otherwise forfeited his Claim to that promise by Preaching without, or before he had it. Lastly, He might have re­membred another reason I gave him why I could not have made good that promise, namely, those principles of Treason and Rebellion publickly extant in his Books, which I had not taken notice of till af­ter the making of that promise, and which till he should recant in as publick a manner, I thought my self ob­liged in Conscience not to suffer him to Preach in my Diocess; whereunto his Answer was, That what­soever he had said or done in that kind, was pardoned by the Act of Indempnity: True, said I, so far as the King can pardon it, that is, in regard of its corporal punishment here in this world, but it is God that must pardon the guilt or obligation to punishment in the world to come, which he will not without Repentance, and it is the Church that must pardon the scandal, which she cannot do neither without an honourable a­mends made her by publick Confession and Recantation. I could tell Mr. Baxter in his ear likewise, that in excuse of his Rebellious Principles formerly pub­lished, he said, That now the Parliament had De­clared [Page 9] where the Soveraign Power was, he should ac­knowledge it and submit to it, as if the King owed his Soveraignty to the declaration of a Parliament, which is as false as Rebellious, and as dangerous a principle as any of his former, however by what hath been said, it appears that Mr. Baxter meant to impose upon his credulous friends at Kidderminster, and upon his unwary Readers, by making them believe that was the only cause for which the Bishop forbad him to Preach, which was neither the only, nor the principal cause, why the Bishop did so, nor indeed, to speak properly, any cause of it at all; for the only proper cause for which the Bishop forbad him to Preach, was His Preaching before without the Bishops License; the other which he pretends, together with the third which he conceals, were properly and profes­sedly the Causes why the Bishop would not take off that prohibition, or why he would not give him a License to Preach for the future, either at Kidderminster, or in any other place of his Dio­cess, until he should publickly retract that Posi­tion which he had openly asserted at the Confe­rence, and should publickly renounce likewise those seditious and rebellious principles which are published in his Books. And this is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of what passed betwixt me and Mr. Baxter at Worcester, be­fore I preached at Kidderminster, where whether I [Page 10] defamed him, or he, by saying so, hath not grosly defamed me, will appear by that which follows; wherein that I might neither be deceived my self, nor deceive others, I have not trusted to my own memory only, as Mr. Baxter saith he doth to his, but I have consulted with Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pear­son, two of the three that managed that Confe­rence with Mr. Baxter and his Assistants, and have seen that Assertion in the same sense that I ob­ject it, and Mr. Baxter disclaimes it, affirmed by Mr. Baxter himself under his own hand.

I found Mr. Baxter at the Savoy engaged in a Dispute, and I perceived that to keep himself off from that part of the argument which would press near to the merits of the Cause, he had often affir­med in his Answers, That the Command of a most lawful Act was sinful; if that Act commanded might prove to any one a sin per accidens. This Assertion I did then and there presently and openly lay to his charge; and when he denied it (as it was most fre­quent with him immediately to deny what he had before affirmed) the answers which he had delivered written with his own hand were produced, and upon the reading of them, the Justice of my charge was most apparent; whereupon I urged him far­ther, that this Assertion of his was not only false, but destructive of all Authority Humane and Di­vine, as not only denying all power to the Church of making Canons Ecclesiastical for the better [Page 11] ordering and governing of the Church, but also taking away all Legislative Power from the King and Parliament, and even from God himself: I de­livered at the same time my reason for what I said, which was briefly this, because there can be no Act so good of it self, but may prove per Accidens, or by Accident, a sin; And therefore, if to Com­mand an Act which may prove per accidens a sin, be a sin, then every Command must be a sin. And if to command be a sin, then certainly God can com­mand nothing, because God cannot sin; and by the same reason, Kings, Parliaments and Churches ought not to command any thing, because they ought not to sin.

Thus far I then charged Mr. Baxter, and to this Charge he gave then no satisfaction. Neither can I yet conceive it possible to give any satisfaction, but by one of these two wayes, either by proving that the Assertion, with which I charged him, was never his, or by shewing that the consequence I urged, is not good; neither of which was he then able to do: and by what he hath now been pleased to publish, it is more then probable that he can never perform either of them.

For in his bold, but weak Apology, he doth not so much as pretend to shew any Invalidity in my Inference, and for the Assertion with which I charged him, he denies it so poorly, and goes about to prove another instead of it so ma­nifestly, [Page 12] that he may without any injury be inter­preted to yield it. He saith indeed now, That he told us that his Assertion made not every Evil Accident to be such as made an Imposition unlawfull. But whether he ever said so before this time or no, it was then clear­ly proved that he did assert, That an Act for nothing else, but because it might be per accidens a sin, could not be commanded without sin.

And now in his publick appeal, he hath taken a strange way to wipe off all this, for he makes a ve­ry brief Narration, and most notoriously imper­fect, and then sayes, You know my Crime, as if that were all that had been, or could be objected against him. Besides, in the relating of this short Narra­tive, he relies wholly upon his own memory; not so much as endeavouring to satisfie himself, before he presumed to satisfie others. How his memory may be in other things I know not, in this if it hath been faithfull to him, he hath been very unfaithful to others. He relates an Answer in what terms he pleaseth, and brings one Proposition, as made by his Opponents in what terms he thinks fit, and the Ap­plication of this answer to that Proposition he pro­poundeth as all his Crime; whereas his answer was far more largely given, and that to several Proposi­tions in several Syllogisms, of which the Proposition which he relateth was but one, or rather none; so that he hath most shamefully abused his Disciples at Kidderminster, with a short and partial Narrative of his fact.

[Page 13]As for his Concurring with Learned Reverend Brethren, (which he would pretend to be part of his Crime) and his invidious insinuation, That they are not for­bidden to Preach for it, though he be, the reason is clear. He had often delivered this Assertion before the company, his Brethren had not; the words of the Answer were written with his hand, not with his Brethrens. His Brethren had several times decla­red themselves not to be of his Opinion (as parti­cularly when he affirmed ( That a man might live with­out any actual sin) And therefore we were so just as not to charge them with this Assertion; especially considering they did shew themselves unwilling to enter upon this dispute, and seemed to like much better another way tending to an amicable and fair compliance, which was wholly frustrated by Mr. Baxters furious eagerness to engage in a Dispu­tation.

All his discourse which followeth (after his im­perfect Narrative) in justification of himself, is grounded first upon a misreporting of his own Assertion; Secondly, upon the dissembling of the several Propositions, to which his answer was so often applied; Thirdly, upon his pretending That he sayes more now, than that which had offended formerly; which is most palpably false, and in all probability (if he have any memory) against his own Conscience. And this will presently ap­pear by the vanity and impertinency of all those [Page 14] specious instances which he brings to mollifie his Assertion.

To Command a Navy to Sea (he sayes) is lawfull but if it were foreseen that they would fall into the E­nemies hand, or were like to perish by any accident, it were a sin to send them. Is this more then he said before, or is it any defence of his Assertion at all? It is not certainly, because the Opponents had put it expresly in the Proposition; That the Act in it self lawful, was to be supposed to have nothing consequent, which the Commander of it ought to pro­vide against; and yet being so stated, Mr. Baxter affirmed, That if the Act might be per accidens sin­ful, the Commanding of it was sin. Now certainly the falling of a Navy into the Enemies hand, or the perishing of it any other way, if foreseen, ought to be provided against by the Commander; where­as Mr. Baxters answer did import, That if any Prince did Command a Fleet to Sea, though he did not foresee the Fleet would fall into the Ene­mies hand, or perish any other way, yet if by Ac­cident it miscarried that or any other way, which he could not foresee, or were not bound to pro­vide against, the very Command at first was sin.

The same reason nullifies his instances of the poyson, and the knife, because the sin in selling them supposeth the murder of the buyer to be foreseen, and consequently that the seller ought [Page 15] to prevent it; but if he will speak in correspon­dence to his former Answer, he must shew, that though the seller do not foresee that the buyer will use the poyson or the knife, to his own, or any other mans destruction, yet if by any Accident or mistake, either the buyer, or any other perish by the poyson or the knife, the Seller is guilty of his death.

His instance of setting a City on fire, or putting Gun­powder under the Parliament House when the King and Parliament are there, is of the same nature, and needs no addition of answer but onely this, that Mr. Bax­ter, in a sense too true, hath been very instrumental in setting the City on fire, and in adding powder to the Parliament.

The rest which follows betrayes the same weak­ness, because the inconveniences are urged upon a Duty to prohibit them, and his answer did charge the Command with sin in respect of such Accidents, as it was no part of the Commanders Duty to provide against. It is therefore most certain, that no one of those instances singly, nor all of them joyntly have any force in any measure to justifie that Asser­tion which Mr. Baxter did maintain, and whereof he is accused.

As for that last instance, which was (saith he) the matter of the Dispute, and which he urgeth in this manner, ( Suppose it never so lawful of it self to Kneel in the reception of the Sacrament, if it be [Page 16] imposed by a penalty, that is incomparably beyond the proportion of the offence, that penalty is an Accident of the Command, and maketh it by Accident sinfull to the Commander) he is manifestly guilty of a double falsification: First, in pretending the matter in dispute, was the imposition of kneeling at the Commu­nion; when this very matter was expresly rejected in the very beginning of the dispute, as belonging to the Canons, not the Common-Prayer-Book, the lawfulness of which Canons the Commissio­ners had no authority to debate, and Mr. Baxter knows, that his Argument was denied upon that ground. The second falsification is yet greater, in urging the penalty to make the Command sin­ful, when his Answer did charge the Command with sin, without any relation to the punishment; and when the Proposition he replied to was so framed, that all unjust penalties were in terminis expresly excluded, even then I say he charged the Command of a lawful Act with sin, if it were otherwise by Accident sinful; though by the way I must not grant that the penalty imposed by the Law for not kneeling at the Receiving of the Sa­crament (namely the not admitting of such as will not kneel, at the receiving of it) is incomparably greater then the offence; for the greatness of the of­fence in such cases, and as it stands in relation to such or such a penalty appointed for it, is not to be measured by the Quality of the Act considered [Page 17] in it self, but by the more or less mischievous con­sequences it is likely to produce, if men be not re­strain'd from such an Act by such a penalty; for example▪ when a Souldier is hang'd for stealing of a Hen, or for taking away any thing of never so little a value, without paying for it, no wise man will blame the General for such a severity; be­cause if he did not do so, every one would take what he pleased, which would discourage the Countrey from bringing in provisions, and con­sequently the whole army would be ruin [...]d. And as the Martial, so the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws likewise in commanding or forbidding any thing under such or such a penalty, have an eye not so much to the merit of the Action it self, as to the more or less danger of the Publick in the conse­quences of it; whence it comes to pass, that a less evil may sometimes most justly be forbidden under a more severe penalty then a greater, because the former may be of much more dangerous con­sequence then the latter; so that he that will judge rightly, and impartially of the equity or iniquity of appointing or inflicting such or such a penalty, he must not so much consider the quality of the Transgression singly in it self, nor whether it be from weakness, or wilfulness in the party transgressing (as he is this or that individual person) but rather he must consider what the Consequence would be of the breach of such a command if it [Page 18] were not prevented by such a penalty, alwayes sup­posing the Command it self to be lawful, and that the transgressor of it is to be considered as he stands in relation to that whole Body, whether Ci­vil, or Ecclesiastical, whereof he is a part; and that the whole is not to be endangered out of ten­derness and indulgence to some particulars, as evi­dently it would be, if every man were left at li­berty to do what seem'd best in his own eyes, even in the Ceremonials and Circumstantials of Gods Worship; for considering the pride and self-love that is in humane nature, which makes men so overvalue their own practises and their own opi­nions, that they are alwayes apt to undervalue those that will not conform to them, as it alwayes hath been, so it alwayes will be; he that wor­shippeth God one way, will either judge or con­demn him that worshippeth God another way; he that Kneeleth at the Sacrament, will be thought to be Idolatrous or Superstitious by him that Kneel­eth not, and him that kneeleth not will be thought wilful, or weak, by him that kneeleth. And thus from diversity grows dislike, from dislike enmity, from enmity opposition, and from opposition, first Separation and Schism in the Church, and then Faction, Sedition and Rebellion in the State; which is a progress very natural, and I would we had not found it to be so by our own experience; for as the safety of a State depends upon the [Page 19] safety of the Church, so the safety of the Church depends upon Unity, and Unity it self depends upon Uniformity, and Uniformity there cannot be, as long as there is diversity or divers waies of worship in the same Church, which will be al­waies, unless it be lawful for publick Authority to oblige all particulars to one way of publick worship, and that under such penalties, as the Law-givers shall think necessary to prevent the disturbing of the publick Peace and safety; the preservation whereof being the main end of all Laws, and of all penalties appointed by Law, those practises that are either intentionally or con­sequentially destructive to this End, may be, and no doubt ought to be restrain'd by severe penal­ties. It is not therefore the not kneeling at the Sacrament, but the breaking of the Orders of the Church, and the endangering of the Peace and Safety of the whole, which our Laws punish by not admitting such unto the Sacrament, as will not, or perhaps dare not kneel at it; for as they will not endanger the Peace of their Consciences for the Churches sake; so it becomes the Law-givers not to endanger the Churches and the States Peace for their sakes: And surely when there is a necessity of the yielding of the one or of the other, it is much more reasonable that a part should yield unto the whole, then the whole un­to a part, especially when the whole cannot [Page 20] yield without endangering it self, and with it self even those themselves also, that, will they nill they, must be involved in the ruine of it; as the Pres­byterians have found by their own experience also, who by their groundless and needless sepa­ration from us, have given example and ground enough for others to separate from them, till by dividing and subdividing from one another, there was nothing of Uniformity, or unity, or order, or decency left in that Church, which was formerly (and I hope by the Prudence and Piety of Pub­lick Authority will be now again) the Glory and Pattern of all other Protestant and Reformed Churches in the world; of which, by the way, there is not one which doth not use as great se­verity for the preserving of Unity by Unifor­mity as we do, even in this particular; for do not the Protestant Churches in France enjoyn Standing, the Churches of Holland, Scotland, and the Churches of Germany that follow Calvin enjoyn Sitting, and the Churches that follow Luther there and elswhere enjoyn Kneeling as we do, and all of them upon the same penalty of not receiving it otherwise? And is it not as lawful for our Church, as for all other Protestant, and all other Christian Churches, to require of her Children the like conformity to her Laws under the like pe­nalty for the same end, and to prevent the same danger? Yes (replyed Mr. Baxter when this que­stion [Page 21] was asked him) just as lawful, that is, not law­ful at all, such an injunction upon such a penalty be­ing sinful, wheresoever and by whomsoever it is en­joyned. O happy England, that hath such an Ari­starchus as is worthy to censure all the Churches of the world, whose Catholick practise (if it cross Mr. Baxters opinion) must presently without more adoe be Condemn'd as sinful, and all the world must be Lyars rather then Mr. Baxter must not be justified in his sayings. You have before seen the ingenuity and veracity, you now see the hu­mility, and the modesty of the Man; and indeed in proportion, of the whole party, for crimine ab uno,—Disce omnes. But doth Mr. Baxter and the rest of his perswasion think indeed, that it is so great and grievous a punishment to be kept from the Sacrament when men will not receive it in that way and upon those terms that the Church offers? if they do, why then do they deny it to so many that hunger and thirst after it, whensoever either by reason of Age, or Lameness, or sickness, or some other bodily infirmity they cannot come to Church for it? especially when the Catholick Church in the 12 ^th Canon of the first General Councel commands it be given even to those that are Excommunicate, if they desire it when they are in Extremis, or going out of the world. Se­condly, why have they suffered so many whole Pa­rishes in England under their charge to have been [Page 22] without a Communion so many years together, as I am credibly informed they have? Thirdly, why do they reject those from the Sacrament, that will not come before hand to them to be examined by them, there being neither precept nor practise in the Gospel, nor Canon in the Church, either to warrant them to require it, or to oblige the People to submit to it upon any such penalty? I am sure St. Paul when he chides those of the Church of Corinth for coming ignorantly to the Sacrament, and for behaving themselves profane­ly at the Sacrament, that which he prescribes for avoiding the same or the like faults for the fu­ture, is not that every man should come, and be examined by the Minister, but that every man should examine himself before he eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup; And yet I will not deny but that every man before he Communicates ought to be well Catechis'd and instructed by the Minister, and thereby enabled to examine himself the better; nor will I deny neither but that every man may and ought in Case of scruple of mind or trouble of conscience to advise with, and to be advised by him that hath the cure of his Soul; but that eve­ry man as often as he intends to receive the Sa­crament should be obliged under the penalty of being rejected from it, to come and to be exami­ned by the Minister, this is that which I utterly deny, and which I take to be the same thing in [Page 23] other words with that of Auricular Confession; so that they who exact the one, have no reason to condemn the other, unless it be because they would ingross it wholly unto themselves: Howso­ever, if refusing the Sacrament to those that will not kneel, when the Church enjoyns it, be a pe­nalty so far transcending the offence, how much more must the same penalty transcend the offence, when there is indeed no offence at all? for where there is no [...], there can be no [...], where there is no Law there can be no trans­gression, and consequently there being no Law of God nor Man that requires all Communi­cants to be pre-examined by the Minister, those that are refused the Sacrament because they will not be pre-examined, are punished with the same punishment which they complain of, for no of­fence at all. And therefore si maximè digna es­sem (may our Church say) ista contumelia, indigni vos, qui faceretis tamen; for, Who art thou O Man that judgest another? nay, that judgest thy Mother, when thou doest the same, or worse, thing, then those are for which thou condemnest her? And how can any man of reason be so scrupulous, as to quit his Calling, rather then deny the Sacrament to those that will not receive it kneeling, when the Church commands it should neither be taken nor given otherwise, and yet make no scruple at all of denying it to whole Parishes? of denying it [Page 24] to those that cannot come to Church for it, though desirous of it, and qualified for it, and such as have most need of it to strengthen their faith in their last Agony? and lastly, of denying it to such as refuse to be pre-examined by them, and all this without any command or warrant from Gods Word, and contrary to the Command and Custome of Gods Church? whereby it plain­ly appears, that either they do not think the re­ceiving of the Sacrament of so great importance, as indeed it is, nor the denying of it so great an in­jury or punishment as they pretend it to be; or else that they would have every Minister to be a Monarch or Soveraign Law-giver in his own Pa­rish, and this indeed is that they would fain be at, now they have lost their hopes of Govern­ing the whole Kingdome; for you see by what Mr. Baxter adds, that if they may not be suffered to give or deny the Sacrament to whom they please, and in effect to do what they list in their own Parishes, they threaten to quit their Stati­ons, which he calls being Ejected because they dare not put away all that will not kneel at the Sacra­ment: And this menace they often repeat upon all occasions, as if they were the only men that could carry on the work of the Lord; or as if the Church must needs sink and perish, if it want­ed such Pillars as they are to uphold it. But (thanks be to God for it) the Church of Eng­land [Page 25] is not yet (notwithstanding all their endea­vours to that purpose) reduced to so very ill a condition, that she cannot subsist without them; whereas the truth is, she cannot subsist with them, as long as they continue to be what they have been, the sowers and fomenters of Schism in the Church, and sedition in the State; and as long as they continue to do as they have done in humouring, and hardning, and confirming the people in their obstinate standing out against the lawful commands of their Superiours; which they would never have done at all, if these men had not at first infused into them these scruples. And therefore as God asked Adam and Eve, How came you to know that you are naked? so if I should ask those poor souls whom those sly and subtle Ser­pents have beguiled and seduced, How came you to know that you shall sin against God if you obey the Orders of the Church in general? or particularly how came you to know, That it is against the Canons of the General Councels, and ma­ny hundred years practise of the Church to Kneel in the Act of receiving? Did you or can you your selves read those General Councels? Did you or can you examine so many hundred years practise of the Church as Mr. Baxter speaks of? What an­swer can they make to these demands, but that which Eve made unto God? The Serpent be­guiled me, and I did eat; Mr. Baxter, or some [Page 26] such Godly and Learned men as Mr. Baxter is, did tell us so, and we believed them: But what if Mr. Baxter do not b [...]lieve that himself which he would have you believe? For first he would have you believe that there is great reverence and respect to be given (as indeed there is) to the Ca­nons of General Councels, and to the Catholick practise of the Primitive Church; but doth he himself believe this? if he do, why did he so fu­riously oppose that which all General Councels approve of and confirm? I mean the Government of the Church by Bishops in the sense wherein it is asserted and practised in our Church? Or why did he perswade Subjects to take Arms a­gainst their Soveraign? which he knows to be con­trary to the Doctrine and practise of the Primi­tive Christians for many hundred years more then he speaks of. Secondly, Mr. Baxter would have you believe, that Kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament is forbidden by General Councels, and contrary to the custome and practise of the Ancient Church, which I am affraid he doth not believe himself; I am sure there is no convincing reason to make him believe it; for it is not the An­cient Churches injunction to stand when they prayed betwixt Easter and Whitsontide, that will prove they were forbidden to Kneel when they received; especially if the Presbyterian opinion be true, that we are not to be in the Act of Praying, [Page 27] when we are in the Act of receiving; But if we may pray (as no doubt we may and ought to pray) in the Act of Receiving, then suppo­sing the Ancient Injunction of the Chuch to stand at Prayer upon Sundaies betwixt Easter and Whitsontide to be still in force, yet all the rest of the year we are to kneel when we Pray, and consequently when we Receive, though there were no particular command of our own Church for it. Besides Mr. Baxter knows that the afore­said Injunction of the Church was but Temporary, till the people were sufficiently confirmed in the Doctrine and Belief of the Resurrection; for if it had been of perpetual obligation, and were still in force, Mr. Baxter must needs condemn the whole present Church of God for kneeling when they pray betwixt Easter and Whisontide, and par­ticularly he must most of all condemn himself and the Presbyterians of England, for not standing when they receive, if at least that Injunction be to be understood of Receiving, as well as Pray­ing; which if it be not, then is it urged by Mr. Baxter against us to no purpose, as indeed it is; And therefore no doubt Mr. Baxter doth not believe himself what he would have others be­lieve, when he presseth that occasional tempo­rary injunction of the Church for standing against kneeling; which if it be of force, must needs con­demn his own practise of sitting, as well as ours of kneeling. The like may be said of Christs exam­ple [Page 28] alleadged by him also; for would he, or would he not have his Disciples believe that they are obliged to do as Christ did? if he would not have them believe so, why doth he press them with Christ example? if he would have them believe so, I demand again whether he doth believe it himself or no? if he do not, it is plain he is a seducer of the People; but if he do believe it, he must needs condemn the French Presbyterians for standing, as well as the English Protestants for kneel­ing; nay he must needs condemn himself and all other Christians in the world for not doing as Christ did in point of time, I mean, for not gi­ving and receiving the Sacrament in the Evening as Christ did, as well as he condemns us for not doing as Christ did in point of gesture; unless he can prove (which I think he cannot) that we are of necessity to follow Christs example in one cir­cumstance of the same action, and not in another, and in that circumstance which is lesse, but not in that which is more material; for certainly that circumstance which denominates the action (as the circumstance of time doth the Lords Supper) is most material; and yet that circumstance by the consent of all Christendome is altered from the Evening to the Morning, and so was the gesture or posture of receiving also, and that upon most just and weighty reasons, till those that delight in change would needs have it otherwise, and that perhaps for no other reason but because they [Page 29] found it setled in the Church▪ This is not to fol­low Christs example, who in things indifferent in their own nature conformed his practise to that of the Church in which he lived, though varying in some circumstances from the primitive Institution; and particularly in this very action, from which they press us with Christs example. For it is cer­tain that Christ and his Disciples sate at the Passe­over, (though it be uncertain whether he or they sate at the giving and receiving the Sacrament o [...] no, for it was [...], after he had supped, saith the Text, Luk 22.20.) Howsoever it is certain, I say, that Christ and his Disciples sat when they eat the Passover, and this no doubt was according to the custome of the Jewish Church at that time; but it is as certain that this was not the manner according to the first institution of it, which was to eat it standing, as you may read Exod 12.11. So that to urge Christs example against us, is to urge Christs example against himself; for as we conform our selves to the Churches order and custome of our times in receiving the Communion otherwise in point of gesture, then perhaps it was received at the first institution; so Christ and his Apostles conforming themselves to the order and practise of the Church of their times, did celebrate the Passe­over otherwise then according to the first Institu­tion it was to be celebrated in point of gesture al­so; thereby perhaps intending to teach us, that [Page 30] as long as the Essentials of Doctrine and worship (which are unalterable) are preserved, we are not to separate from the Church, or quarrel with our Superiours, if those things that are in their own na­ture alterable, be not alwayes and in all places just the same that they were at first, because there may be very just cause for the alteration of them; and whether there be such a cause or no in this and the like particulars, it is the Church that is to be the Judge. So that there is nothing that can be colle­cted either from the Canons of the Councels, or from the practise of the Primitive Church, no nor from Christs own example, that can prove kneeling at the Sacrament to be a sin; neither doth Mr. Bax­ter himself believe it to be sinful, for if he did, he would not say (as he does. Pag. 411. of his five Dis­putations) that he himself would kneel rather then disturb the peace of the Church, or be deprived of its Communion. In which words he confesseth, First, that Kneeling at the Sacrament is not sinful or un­lawful, Secondly, that not to Kneel when it is impo­sed, is to disturb the Peace of the Church, and Thirdly, that the imposing of it upon penalty of be­ing deprived of the Communin, is an effectual means to make those that otherwise would not kneel, to conform to it; and consequently, that the imposing of it upon such a penalty is prudent and rational, and whatsoever is prudent and rational cannot be unlawful; so that not onely the Act of [Page 31] Kneeling it self, but the imposition of it by lawful Authority must needs be lawful. Neither indeed would the People scruple at the imposition, if they had not been taught that the thing it self were un­lawful, or if Mr Baxter would yet teach them to believe what he himself believes, namely, that it is lawful; which with what conscience he can refuse to do I know not; for sure he is obliged to teach them obedien [...]e not to Divine Authority only, but to humane authority also in all lawful things; and not to let them go on in such an erroneous opinion, as will disturb the Peace, and deprive them of the Com­munion of the Church, and consequently make them sin against God and man and their own Souls. Of which sin of theirs he must needs be a partaker in a great measure, if he do not perswade them from it; seeing (as he himself saith) Qui non vetat peccare cum potest, jubet. And what Power he hath to lead or mislead those kind of men, their venturing to kill and be killed in a most unrighteous quarrel (up­on his perswasion) hath more then enough de­monstrated during the time of the late troubles; unlesse he will say that he hath conjured up a Spirit that he cannot lay. Howsoever by how much the more fault he hath been in misleading them here­tofore, by so much the more zealous he should be to reduce them into the right way hereafter; which if he and the rest of his Brethren can do (as I am confident they can if they will) they will [Page 32] make some amends for the mischief they have done and then there will be no fear or danger of Mini­sters being Ejected for their tenderness towards the Peo­ple, nor of the Ejecting of any of the People from the Com­munio of the Church for not conforming themselves to the Orders and Commands of it, and consequently, there will be no Schisms or Divisions amongst us, when we shall all worship the same God the same way. But if they will not do this (which by all ob­ligations humane and Divine they are bound to do) for my part I know no better way for undecei­ving and reducing of the People, then by removing such Ministers, and then we shall see when the blowing of those boisterous winds ceaseth, whether the waves will not be still or no: In the mean time, I hope the removing of erroneous and seditious, will not necessitate the introducing of ignorant and sca [...] ­dalous Ministers, though Mr. Baxter ought to re­member, that as there is no sin more heinous then Rebellion, so no teacher ought to be more scanda­lous (I am sure there is none more dangerous) then a teacher of Rebellion.

And now (to use Mr. Baxters own words) I think there is no man to be found on earth, that hath the ordinary reason of a Man, but will confess, That it is indeed destructive of all Government and Legisla­tive power, to Assert (as Mr. Baxter did Assert) the command of a thing in it self lawful by lawful Authority, under no unjust punishment, with no evil circumstance, [Page 33] which the Commander can foresee or ought to provide a­gainst (for all these pre-cautions were expesly put in the proposition which Mr. Baxter denied) is a sinful Command, for no other reason, but because the Act Commanded may be by Accident a sin.

Let Mr. Baxter then know, and (if he have inge­nuity enough) confess, that the words I spoke (as to this particular) were words of truth, and words of charity also, as being intended and spoken to no o­ther end, but to undeceive that People, who by ha­ving his person too much in admiration (as if he could neither deceive nor be deceived) had been so long and so dangerously misl [...]ad by him; so that it was not I that defamed him then, but it is he that hath defamed me now. Neither could I expect less from the boldness of this man and that Party, who have had the confidence publickly to own the ob­ligation of the Covenant, even since it hath been condemned to be burnt by the Parliament. And truely I see no reason why all those Books and Ser­mons which have been Preach'd and Printed in de­fence of the Covenant, or to maintain the same or worse principles of Sedition then are in the Cove­nant, should not be burnt also. Nay I dare be bold to say, that if the Authors of such Books and Ser­mons were not still of the same opinions (and if they be, God deliver us from such Preachers) if they were not still, I say, of the same opinions, but did truely repent of them, and were heartly sorry [Page 34] for the horrible mischief they have done by them, they would with those converted Exorcists, Act. 19.19. bring all those Conjuring Books of theirs together, and to save the Hang-man a labour, would publickly burn them all with their own hands, that so, though by the burning of their works they may perhaps suffer some loss in point of reputa­tion with some of their Disciples, yet they them­selves may be saved, but so as by fire, 1 Cor. 3.15. At least they ought to be enjoyned to write Books of Retractation, as St. Augustine did, having much more reason to do so then St. Augustine had.

And this Sir is all I have to say upon this occa­sion, and more a great deal then I thought to have said, or then perhaps was needful to be said to one that knows Mr. Baxter and me as well as you do; which if it satisfie you, as I hope it will, you may do what you please with it, in order to the satisfy­ing of others; for this is the first and last trou­ble I mean to put my self to of this kinde, what­soever provocation I may have from him here­after.