Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr Owen, Section 4
SECT. 4.
I Told you I have no leisure to write Books for my self now: Thus far I have written for Truth, and Love, and Unity. As to all your Charges against my self, I say again, I will not justify my self: My naming Dr. Owen, which is so heinously taken, I have told you the occasion of. To which I truly add, 1. I did it as a distinctive note, that the Readers might know what it was that I answered. 2. And I that use to put my Name to my Writing, never dreamt that it would have been taken any worse to name him, than to confute a Writing that by common, uncontrolled supposition bore his Name. Had I thought it would have been taken so ill (while the Super-Conformists bear far more) it's two to one but I had forborn it. And now it's done, I am yet but little wiser, when I think of the publick Cause fore-described, I am ready to think it should weigh down all your contrary reasons: When I feel in my self an inward averseness to strive with any by ungrateful words, and hear from you how ill it's taken, then I dislike it: And my own selfish lothness to be the object of the hard thoughts, and talk of so many of you, is some byass to my judgment. I wholly follow the Rule you mention, to choose that which doth most good, and least hurt: And truly the reverence of your own, and some others judgment, telling me that it doth more hurt than good, doth turn the Scales, and make me repent that I named the Doctor.
And I leave your Charges against me to their best advantage, to the Reader, though my inclination is much to open the mistakes.
I may give a brief touch to your self, for your information, which I expect not should affect the Reader, suppose your Book to lie open before you.
Pag. 1. 1. If you thought them not good enough to be his, nor intended for publick view, why did you wrong him so much, (and the people much more) as to divnlge them with his Name?
Pag. 2. Do good men take it for a priviledge to hurt the Church uncontradicted?
2. The more are displeased with Truth, the greater is the disease that needeth it.
3. To be zealous for Love, against Hatred, and its Causes, is not so bad as to need to be quenched. It is zeal for a Sect against Unity, which, corrupt nature is for.
4. I doubted not but guilt would be impatient
5. It was your Party that wronged, his Name, by divulging that which you now take for his disgrace.
Pag. 3. It's wisely done not to own the Cause I oppose, and yet not let men know whether it be for fear of the Law, or because you are against it.
O that I could have fore-known, that I might have confuted his Arguments without his Name, and displeased no body? I thought you had taken them for his Honour, and not his Disgrace, when so many value them.
Pag. 4. 1. If they are true, they are his Honour: If false, why should I suffer them to do mischief.
2. I named not Mr. Ralphson, till all said he openly owned his Books in Prison. Had you rather all that Worship God in Parish Churches, were persuaded that it is Idolatry, than Mr. Ralphson should be confuted by name? I hope you have better reasons for concealing your own Name; to do mischief un-named, is not worth pleading for.
Pag. 5. If the work be faulty, why do you not joyn with me to save men from it? And why did your private Letter own it his, conjunct with Fame? And not one Man yet that I hear of, denyeth it.
2. I offered you to stop it.
3. Is it disingenuity in me to tell you of twenty untruths in your private Letter (and many notorious,) and ingenuity in you to be offended for being told of them, rather than for writing them? This is to comply with the World, that taketh the detecter only for the sinner.
4. Is a defensive confutation of Errour, dealing severely?
5. Agreeing Copies confute you. To confute Errour is not worse then to own or defend it.
Pag. 6. If it be so heinous to confute it, why did you divulge it?
Pag. 7. My Reasons for Love and Concord were long before considered.
2. I had heard of them long in many hands, though till then I never saw them: And you say you saw it a year before.
2. It's strange so knowing a man should think that bad Arguments, with a valued Name, are not dangerous! Yes, even against common sense, as those for Transubstantiation. To confute your self, you add, that [on all sides peoples Opinions are mostly, and most strongly mastered by affections, and it's beyond all our power to cure the disorder.] And yet is there no danger from Names?
Pag. 8. [Must all appearance of Enmity, and bitterness, be laid aside, and Love used, &c.] And yet must we let Men Excommunicate one another, and call all to mutual avoidance, without contradiction? Let Churches and Christians be taught to damn each others Persons, and Worship causelesly, and take each other for Idolaters, for fear of breaking Love and Peace.
2. Do you believe that Dr. Owens Name was not known with them before?
3. Mr. Warners came out since, which I compared with Mr. Ralphsons.
4. Can you tell why I was to name Dr. O. in my Cure of Church Divisions, or his Books: I told you great reasons against it, what now you call a brave advantage, would have been otherwise called by yours. I was not inclined to note a little evil among much good: If you cannot see the Doctors Arguments there answered by me, I cannot help that: Must. I transcribe them to convince you. Pag. 177. D…r. 32. [Obj. Where hath God given any men power to prescribe & impost Forms for others, or commandea others to obey them?] Read the answer, pag. 178, 179, 180. At least not on Ministers, p. 181. Christ hath given gifts to all his Ministers, and commanded them to use them: They use them not, when they use imposed Forms. So pag. 190. p. 196. of approving of sin, and signifying Consent by joyning. More fully, p. 201. (And in my Christ. Direct.) If you never found these Arguments (there answered) in Dr. O. Book, I cannot help that, others have. Pag. 11. I thought you had known how usual it is to speak to the second person, in answering Books many hundred years old? If not, you have free leave to take it for my folly: I'le not contend with Quakers, whether we should say [You] or [Thou] nor with you, whether it be better to say [Him] or [You.] You say, It displeaseth him not.
Pag. 15. If numbring mens Errours, used to do hurt, be worse than committing, or defending them, I mistook.
Pag. 16. I consent that you do so by me, so you speak nothing but truth.
2. Repentance is a hard work, and the impenitent impatient; therefore we all suffer what we do.
Pag. 17. My Pleas for Peace have been all ill taken by the other side: And which of you therefore were so offended at them.
2. I am sorry that you seign the healing Parliament to have disowned our Repentance: I preacht to the Parliament but once, and it was for Repentance: I have oft publickly accused my self; and I hope I break not the Act of Oblivion by it: They forbad reproaching, and troubling one another, but not remembring our sin, nor seeling when we suffer, nor asking what caused it, to stop the like again, if not for a cu…e. But, dear Brother, do you not know that it was your divulged Writing that rubb'd upon the sort, and broke the Act of Oblivion, if this be breaking it? Did it not tell what work the imposing the Lyturgy had made, against [Reformation▪ for Ignorance, Rtviling, and Reproaching the Spirit sit up ungifted Ministers, made great disolations in the Church, silencing painful Ministers, ruining Families, destroying Souls &c.] Do you think this broke the Act of Oblivion, or is condemned by the healing Parliament, or doth nothing break it but on one side. Look on both sides, and tell me how such Arguments misused, should be answered, but by shewing that there was danger, and ill effects also on the contrary extream. Did the Parliament forbid one side only this Commemoration? I pray you if but one side may be called to Repent, let it be us, that we may be forgiven.
Pag. 18. If you know not that the Principles of Separation were the great cause (in Armies, and elsewhere) of the subversions, and confusions, which brought us to what we have felt, I do: And you would not at once live under the fruit of it as we now do, and I yet make so light of it, as to take it for a noli me tangere, if it had cost you as many painful days and nights, as many ungrateful disputes, as many groans and tears, and as much blood as it hath done me: And how little is my part to that which England, cotland, and Ireland hath suffered, even by that cause conjunct with Pride, and Ambition, these sourty years? If I may not have leave to say as Bradford, Repent O England, you should give me leave to Repent my self, that ever I preacht one Sermon with any byass of overmuch desire to please Persons of the accusing separating humour.
Pag. 19. I said of our late overturnings in England, that all this is publickly known: Many late Volumes on both sides record it: were it but Whitlocks Memorials, it were enough: The Nations ring of it (and I have ost lamented it heretofore) and you mistaking all this, seign me to say, that the passages debated in Dr. Owens Papers, and his words, were all known before; and so bestow many reproofs upon a fiction of your own.
Pag. 20. You would put such terms upon me in dispute, a Veron devised to put on the Protestants. I must oppose his Doctrine only as in the Syllables written▪ Accidentals in Worship, signify you think at least an Integral Part. Doth [in] turn Accidents into parts? Are Accidents parts, because Inherent?] Are not your Quality, Quantities, Immanent Acts, Passions, &c. inherent? Is not Kneeting, putting off the Hat, Methods, Translations, Meeter, Tunes, &c. in the Worship of God? And is it unlawful, because in it? If it be therefore a part of Worship, you must conclude that either all these are unlawful, or that it's lawful for men to make parts of Gods Worship.
2. Are all things duly belonging to it, parts of it? I believe you own none of this your self.
Pag. 21. The Doctors 7th Argument was, that this [practice condemneth the suffering Saints of the present age, rendring them false Witnesses of God.] I answered; [Let us not stand to any dividing Principle, or Cause, lest the Saints be blamed, that have fathered it in God.] I used the word [Saints] but as repeating his own phrase: And this you make to have better become the Observator. Is not this partiality? May the Argument use a term which the answerer may not repeat? And, dear Brother, is it not a sad case, if among the many ill causes fathered on God, any, or all of them should say, [We must not repent, …or amend, lest we be blamed as false Witnesses of God.
Pag. 22. Sir, if telling me of any sin that ensnareth Souls, be using me more scornfully then the most virulent adversaries, spare me not, but use me so: wo to me, if Repentance become odious and intolerable.
But I must stop, lest I cross my purpose of not writing for my self, but you.
The conclusion of all is, dear Brethren, the longer I study the Gospel, and the longer I live in the world, the more fully I am Convinced that Love is the great work of the Spirit, and the Men that Love most, are the best Men, and those the worst, that have least love: And I would write in golden Letters as my Motto, GOD IS LOVE, and he that dwelleth in Love, dwelleth in God, and God in him: And if Christians loved no more than others, they would be no better than they: And that Love desireth union and familiarity; and that censoriousness, contempt, and flying from each other, both signify, and breed hatred. Could we but so live as to make all our Enemies believe that we heartily love them, it would conquer their enmity, and tie their Hands, and Tongues, by reconciling their Hearts. I know many at this time, to whom God marvellously performeth that promise, Blessed are the Meek, for they shall▪ inherit the Earth. No winds root up the grass, which overthrow the Oaks. Humility and Love would Conquer all the world. These overcame Philosophy, and Empire at first. Power may overcome Bodies, and Argument stop Mens Mouths, and yet more enrage them unto Enmity: But Love Conquereth Hearts: Love the Conformists, if you would do them good, or preserve your self from evil: Not that all men must be loved alike, nor sin loved for the Persons sake; but every one according to the measure of his amiableness. Young Christians are usually like young fruit, harsher, and sourer than the mellow fruits of holy ripeness, and experienced age. Who would think, that did read the Epistles of Iohn, whom Jesus loved, breathing out Love, Love, Love, that this very man had three times offended Christ, by sinning against Love. First, by ambitious desiring to be above his fellows: Secondly, by offering to call for fire from Heaven against the refusers of Christ: Thirdly, by forbidding one to cast out Devils, (and do good) in Christs name, because he followed not with them, (like those that now would have some faulty men forbidden to Preach.) Love groweth as Grace groweth. If my confuting the Principles and Practices that are fitted to destroy Love, by Censures, Contempt, and unjust alienation be interpreted as contrary to Love, let but the Censurers love so much the more, so it be Christians as such, and not a dividing Party only, and I have my end.