justify the dissenters in their separation; neither will they justify the church in so unnecessarily insisting on themThese things, said to be indifferent in themselves, by being the occasions of divisions, cease to be indifferent, and become unlawful-The dissenters are verily persuaded the things for which they dissent, are not so indifferent as is pretendedThe Church's power of making laws for its own government, of no service to Mr. Wall-Things in themselves lawful may be so circumstantiated, as to become unlawful-As the case stands at present, the dissenters are obliged to dissent from the national church-The uncharitable obstinacy of our adversaries-The separation of the antipædobaptists particularly defended-Mr. Wall pretends, that though they are right, they have no ground to separate-The antipædobaptist notion stated-The time and manner of receiving baptism, so far as it relates to our present dispute, are fundamentals-That cannot be true baptism, which differs from true baptismOur separation justified by the definition of a church, in the nineteenth article of the Church of England-We ought not to unite with persons unbaptized-True baptism necessary to Church-membership-The words of the institution the best rule by which to judge what is true baptism-We refuse to communicate with the Church of England, for the same reason for which she refuses to communicate with persons she esteems unbaptized-Mr. Wall's terms of union very partial and unreasonable-We are obliged to the Toleration for the general forbearance Mr. Wall boasts of-And desire to remain in the hands of her Majesty and parliaments under God, who have hitherto so kindly secured us-A fair proposal, in order to establish unity among us— -Mr. Wall a friend to persecutions for religion-The conclusion.

SIR,

WHAT I have already said in my former, instead of more, may serve for a specimen of Mr. Wall's moderation and ingenuity. What can be more unfair, than to represent and judge of a whole body by the odd, singular opinions of a few particular men

in it? Mr. Wall, and all men, would justly esteem him an abusive historian, who, reciting the doctrines of the Church of England, should charge her with the miserable absurdity of the Church of Rome, transubstantiation, only because bishop Bramhall says, No genuine son of the Church of England did ever deny the true real presence;' or the gainful article of purgatory, because Mr. Dodwell has unaccountably asserted-and cited the Liturgies published by primate Ussher to prove that the dead, not excepting the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, and even the blessed Virgin herself, are now in slavery to the Devil;' and adding in the next page, that by this slavery he does not mean they are liable to any punishments, but only certain molestations and disquietudes, from which they

6

may be relieved by the prayers of the living. Had Bellarmine been to argue this notion of a purgatory with Mr. Dodwell, he would have desired no greater concessions.

That man would be justly blamed, who should pretend the Church of England teaches Christ's sacrifice of himself was not expiatory for sin, or that the martyrs are capable of making the like expiation; because Mr. Dodwell in another placed ventures at the

b Epistolary Discourse, p. 258.

C

c Epistolary Discourse, p. 259. [Mr. Dodwell, however, does not assert that the persons spoken of may be relieved, as if such were his own opinion. His words are, some disquietudes, wherein they might be relieved by the prayers of the living according to the opinion of S. Justin Martyr.' Surely this is an imperfect and unfair quotation.]

d Dissertat. Cyprianic. xiii. §. 36. Et vero nominis ratio suadet potius ut sit virtus hæc CHRISTO cum ejusdem mystico corpore

communis.

extravagant assertion, that this power and virtue is common to Christ and his mystical body;' speaking more particularly of the primitive martyrs making their blood almost equally effectual with Christ's, to the purging away sin; and accounting them so many expiatory sacrifices for sin; directly contrary to the determination of the holy penman, that Christ, (Heb. ix. 26.) once in the end of the world hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Cap. x. 10.) Which was offered once for all. (Ver. 12.) One sacrifice for sins for ever. (Ver. 14.) For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (Ver. 18.) And, There is no more offering for sin.

It would be shameful injustice to make the church answerable for all the strange, nay sometimes blasphemous and atheistical fancies, and bad actions of her pretended sons. Too great a part of the clergy, it is notorious, are either open non-juring jacobites, or secret, and therefore more mischievous, highflyers; entirely in the Pretender's interest, and as hearty friends to popish tyranny and superstition, as ever was the Laudean faction. What a number is there of them, who glory in being called highchurch-men, and carefully keep up the distinction, notwithstanding the queen and parliament have often declared such to be dangerous enemies to church and state! But to ascribe the disloyalties, corruptions, and pernicious doctrines of these men to the church, though they have had the fortune to worm themselves into some share of her dignities, would be disingenuous, and every honest man would abhor it.

Of the twelve our Lord had chosen, one was a

devil; and I shall never pretend no such have crept in among us, who, whether designedly or no, prejudice those they shelter with, and the Christian religion in general. Undoubtedly there are privately among us, as well as others, weak and ignorant, and perhaps too, some ill-meaning people, who are fond of peculiar conceits, and idle extravagant notions of their own framing. But this can be no fair objection to the whole body; for let any one shew me the community whose individuals are all correct and sound, and not some of them singular and faulty; which however are but as the wens and unnatural excrescences in the human body, which enter not into the description of the body, but at most are only counted accidental irregularities it is liable to.

When Mr. Wall, therefore, in order to make us look the more monstrous, shuffles into his impartial account, as he calls it, of our present opinions, the freaks and persuasions he has heard a single man, or a very few persons that have been in our party, maintain; it looks very pitiful in him, and can impose only on such readers who are as willing to be deceived as he desired. And indeed such readers only can bear his many mischievous insinuations; a sort of ornament he seems fond of. I cannot comprehend what could possibly be his design in his silly excuse for Mr. Baxter, who continued to charge us with a notorious falsehood, even after all proper care was taken to let him know it; nor what occasion he had for his innuendo, when he briefly mentions our liberality to our poor; adding in an invidious parenthesis, that we attract the multitude by this artifice, and gain proselytes to strengthen our party. I wonder in my heart what he thinks it is

that attracts the rich; for unless there are such, the poor are not like to be provided for: is it that they seek opportunities to dispense of their good things to the necessitous and wretched? I am afraid this would be too great a commendation of them; and Mr. Wall would not willingly be guilty of such a supposition; he rather seems desirous to have it supposed they are acted only by an unquiet, factious spirit; for what else can be his meaning in saying, They, either out of peevishness, or else being overpersuaded by their leaders, who find their account in continuing separate bodies, whereof they may be 'heads, do refuse to join even in those things wherein they agree in opinion with use?'

6

6

Why also does he so often upbraid us with having had Jesuits found among us, and take the pains so industriouslyf to aggravate the thing, unless to make us thought a troublesome, factious party, and the tools of disaffected men to divide and weaken the protestant interest? But such clamours only shew passion and distaste in our opposers, and are no demonstration they have either truth or justice on their side, and that we are in the error. If these zealous men would effectually ruin our cause, they should leave railing, and use their strength to convince us from Revelation, or the principles of reason, or the history of the primitive church, that we are the vile, novel, and humourous sect they abusively pretend. We invite them to the trial, and are not apprehensive of being worsted in the issue; for we bottom our cause on the stable foundation of Scripture, reason, and primitive practice. Does it not look as if they were e Part i. p. 96. [203.] f Part ii. p. 282. [371]