compar'd our Saviour to a Lyon, would you fay I had call'd him a Beast of Prey? Or had I compar'd him to a Thief, had I therein call'd him a Deceiver? Who is it then that hath put the Horfes Head to the Man's Neck? And here I cannot but obferve one of your more notable Distortions of my words, which makes me think that your own Wits were a little Convulft, in expounding my word Monopoliz'd, for Eating and Drinking, and Gormandizing, as if Monopolizing were the fame with Monopbagizing, which if you had but feasonably thought on, might have fav'd you one whole Page of your Scribble. Again, whether it be to foften the Text, or to make my Similitude look a little awry, you have found out fome Interpreters, that have thought the Samaritans bought the Doves Dung for Fewel, or for the Manuring of their Ground, or for the Salt that is in it ; or else it only fignifies fome vile fort of Meat or Pulfe; any thing, you think, would do better than the Literal Senfe. As for the Affes bead then, there is not like to be any Queftion; but if the Doves Dung were bought for Fewel, which would be but a dull kind of Fire, I doubt it would have been more chargeable than the Meat that was dress'd by it, the fourth part of a Kab being but half a Pint, and that at fix fhillings and three-pence price Nor could it be much more probable that it was for the Manuring of the Ground, efpecially while they had no Ground, but that within the Walls, to Manure; Wherefore it must certainly be for Food, as the Affes bead was, and which was the only thing the Famine requir'd. But what part of the Dung it was, is not certain, whether that in the Crop, which was not yet digefted, or whether it comprehended all the Entrails, which were wont to be caft away with the Dung; or rather, whether the word may not fignifie, according to the Arabick, a kind of Cicer, which was esteem'd a very courfe fort of Food; and if fo, E 2

thep

then I hope the Similitude will not be altogether fo foul, nor offenfive, as you have endeavour'd to reprefent it, nor had you need to have held your

Note at it. And now, Sir, after all, this pother

about an Affe's Head and a little Doves Dung, I dare appeal to the Learned Gentleman you have mention'd to me, whether my Familiar Similitude taken out of a Scripture Hiftory, or your Allegorizing on it, doth most deserve his abhorrence.

.Page 59.

II. We are now come to your Second Enquiry, Whether we have not added to our Sin of Separation, by setting up oppofité Churches, and Officers, or joyning with them? Which (you fay) may admit of no great Difpute, becaufe I had told you, that if you prove our Separation to be Caufelefs, as you think (and do but think) you have done, I will fay as you do. Ay, Sir, and I promife you again to be as good as my word: But indeed you must prove it after a better fashion before I can believe our Separation to be Causeless: And I am fully of your mind too, that if our Separating from the External Communion of the Church of England be our Sin, the setting up Oppofite Churches and Officers, and joyning with them, is an adding to the Sin. But ftill it lies on you to prove the Caufelefness of our fo doing; which you have hitherto done by Prefumption, and not by any Argument that gives us the leaft fatisfaction. You tell us,that it is the Erecting Altar against Altar, which both by the Ancient and Modern Writers,is call'd a Formal Schism; and which, you fay, is opposite to the Welfare and very Being of the Chriftian Community, and tends to the Destruction of it. To which I anfwer,

11. That the Erecting Altar against Altar is not always Schifmatical. How ever the Fathers in their days condemn'd it, and as far as it was done without juft caufe,condemn'd it justly too. But if this be always, and in it felf a Formal Schifm, then muß

you

you damn all the Reformers of the Church that have ever been neceffitated fo to do, for a Company of Schifmaticks.

2. The fetting up, or forming by mutual agreement, of Diftin& Ecclefiaftical Bodies, independent on any others, as to their different Forms of Outward Worship and Communion, as far as there is a Reason and Neceffity for their fo doing, is no Schifmatical Oppofition, nor Destructive of the Welfare, much lefs of the Being of the Chriftian Community, whether by it you mean the Catholick, or any Particular National, or Diocefan Church, or Chriftian Community; unless you can prove that a Uniformity in the External Modes and Forms of Worship, or Government,be of the Effence and Being of a Chriftian Church, or abfolutely Neceffary to its Welfare. Indeed if fome Men will raise Contentions and Perfecutions on the account of thefe things, which hath been the Practice of many in the Church of England, ever fince the Proteftant Reformation was first establish'd, they may disturb the Peace, tho' not deftroy the Being of the Church. If Men could but Mafter their own Paffions, and fuffer their Honeft Neighbours to live peaceably and fafely by them, I cannot imagine what it is that fhould threaten the Ruin you feem to be fo afraid of. 'Tis not the Difference of External Rites and Ceremonies, but the Division of Affections and Interefts, that Kingdoms, Cities, Houses, and Churches, are brought to Defolation by.

3. Neither have I forgotten what you fay I granted you, That our Separate Churches were not fet up in Oppofition to yours; but by a Neceffity, which you have brought upon us. 'Tis true, Our Churches are Oppofite to yours in a Logical fenfe, but not in a Moral fenfe. They were not fet up on a Principle of Oppofition, which were Morally Evil, but of fuch neceffity as made it our Duty; and

E 3

whatever

whatever the Effects of it be, as to your felves, and of which you complain, you must thank your felves for.

4. You would take it very heinously to hear your Church of England call'd Egypt and Babylon, out of which the true Church is call'd on to depart. But pray bear you Witnefs for me, that I do not call it fo. But yet I must tell you too, that that Call that warrants and commands our coming out of Babylon, gives no allowance of an Accommodation with it, or to come out of it at halves; but makes it our Duty to depart from whatsoever of Babylon is yet found in the Church of England, And if we cannot obtain your leave to depart from it, without departing from you, which to our Sorrow we find to be our cafe, we must depart, at leaft fo far from both. And this hath been the Bone of Contention between us for now more than thefe Sixfcore years.

5. 'Tis wearifome to hear you always harping on one and the fame String, while you fo upbraidingly ask us, When you did communicate Page 61. with us, did you thereby Sin against your own Souls, and hazzard your Eternal All? No, you did only as you fay, difcharge your Duty. Hath any New thing then been fince impos'd? Hath any new Law been enacted, requiring you to damn your felves, &c. Nothing of this is pretended. Is it now become Unlawful for you to communicate with us upon Occafion, efpecially when it is to gain an Office in the State? No, that is by no means to be granted: Doth an Office then furnish you with an Indulgence for the Commiffion of Sin? Doth it give you a Licenfe to work wickedness? No, no, but an Office, we must know, is of that Vertue, that it turns Idolatry into acts of Piety, Defilements into Purity, and Dung into wholefome and delightful Food; it transforms Babylon into Jerufalem, and makes breaking the Commandments to be keeping

keeping of them; Thefe are wonderful feats, you say," and hardly exceeded by the Miracles of Tranfubftantiation. This indeed is a fort of Language that would found very fharply in the Mouth of a foolish Scolding Woman, but how little doth it favour of an Academical Education, the Argument whereof is nothing else than Banter and Fallacy? Is there no other Circumftance, do you think, but that of a New Law, that will alter the Cafe, and make that which was once Lawful to become Unlawful,& vice verfa? Was it because of a new Law, or any new Impofition, that Paul refus'd to conform to the Jewish Ceremonies and Traditions when he became a Chriftian, as he did when a Pharifee? Or at Antioch, and elsewhere, as he did at Jerufalem? Was that old Diftinction of Abfolutè & Secundum quid never heard of, or never allow'd in the University in which you were bred? Did we indeed profefs to believe, that to conform to the Church of England, as we have once done, were abfolutely Sinful, then may you justly play at this rate upon us, if ever we Communicate any more with you: For that which is abfolutely and in it felf Sinful, will be always and under all Circumstances fo. But after the fame rate may I not Enquire of you, Was the Doctrine of Paffive Obedience and Non-refiftance a found and wholefome, yea a Neceffary Doctrine, with which your Pulpits rang every where, while you had the Liberty to perfecute us under King Charles II. How then became it fo dangerous a Tenet under his Brother James II. and now fince the danger you were in is over, that it should begin to recover its Orthodoxy again. This it feems was a Doctrine calculated for us, and not for your felves. Was it not once damn'd as an Act of the highest and most unnatural Rebellion, for Subjects to take up Arms against their King, to call in a Forreign Aid, and to Dethrone him, as in the Days of your