A Defense of the Principles of Love, Part 2 · Exception 4 – Exception 8
EXCEPT. IV. p. 2. He doth very often and needlesly insist on many things that may tend to advance his own reputation.▪ The instances are added.
Answ. 1. I Confess, Brother, I am a greatOf my Pride. sinner, and have more faults than you have yet found out. But I pray you note, that all this still is nothing to our Controversie, whether we should advise men against Church divisions as contrary to Love.
2. If a humble Physitian may put a probatum to his Receipt, and say I have much experience of this or that; I pray you why may not a humble Minister tell England, that I (and you) have had experience of the hurt of divisions, and of the healing uniting power of Love? Did all the Independent Churchmembers whose Experiences are printed in a book, take Experience to be a word of pride.
3. And is it pride to thank the World for their Civilities to me, in mixing comm…ndations, which I disown, with their censures? What! to confess the remnants of their moderation (notorious in matter of fact, the truth of which you durst not deny) in the midst of their many false censures and calumnies.
4. Or to tell you how unable I have …ound back-biters, to prove their accusations in doctrinals to my face? 5. Or to tell you, that some (even Independents) perswaded me, when I was silenced to write sermons for some of the weaker Conformists (such as are too many youths from the University) to preach? Where lieth the pride of these expressions? Is it in supposing that there are any Conformists weaker than my self? Whether, think you, this brother or I, think meanlier of them? Or set our selves at the greater distance from them? 6. When I plead against charging forms with [Idolatry] I say, that for my self [it is twenty times harder to me to remember a form of words, than to express what is in my mind without them.] If this be not true, why did you not question the truth of it? If it be, why is it pride to utter it, as a proof that I plead for Love, and not for my own interest? Is it pride to confess so openly the weakness of my memory? I never learnt a Sermon without book in my life: I think I could not learn an hours speech, sufficiently to utter the very words by memory in a fortnights time. And is it pride for a man to say that he can easier speak what is in his mind? Truly brother, I was so far from intending it as a boast, that I meant it as a dimin…tion of the over-valued honour of present extemporary expression, and to tell you, that I take it to be so far from proving that your prayers only are accepted of God, before a form, as signifying more grace,Whether it be easier to pray extempore, or by memory of words. that I take it to be an easier thing for an accustomed man that hath not a diseased hesitancy to speak extempore what is in his mind, than to learn a form without book; And that they tha… do this, do serve God with as much labour and cost as you do? Do I boast, or do I not speak the common case of most Ministers, when I truly say, That when I take most pains for a Sermon, I write every word: when I take a little pains I write the heads; but when business hindereth me from taking any pains, I do neither, but speak what is in my mind; which I suppose others as well as I, could do all the day and week together, if weariness did not interrupt them. I seek by these words but to abate their pride that think themselves spiritual, because they can pray or preach without book; Like some now neer me, that account it formality and a sign that a Preacher speaketh not by the Spirit, if he use notes, or preach upon a text of Scripture; but admire one neer them that cries d…wn such, and useth neither.
7. Is it pride to say that [th…se darker persons whom I have been …ain to rebuke for their over-valuing me and my understanding, would yet as stiffly defend their most groundless opinions against me when I crost them, as if they thought I had no understanding.] If you do think that you cannot be over-valued, or are not, so do not I. And I thought my rebuking men for it, had been no sign of pride. And, brother, I am confident, if you your self did not believe that my understanding, and consequently my Writings are over-valued, you would never have written this book, especially in such a stile against me: yea, in the end you profess this to be your design, to undeceive those that had a good opinion of me. If those on the other side had not thought the same, my late Auditors at Kederminster had never had so many Sermons, and that by persons so high, nor would so many books have been written to the same end even to cure the people of this dangerous vice, of overvaluing me. The matter of fact being so publick, invalidateth your exception.
8. The last expression of my pride is, that I give this testimony even to Christians inclined to divisions, that if they think a man speaketh not to the depressing of true and serious religion, they can bear that from him, which they cannot bear from one that they think hath a malignant end: and that on this account in my sharpest reproofs my own auditors have still been patient with me. Enquire whether this be true or not? Whether I have not preached twenty times more against Divisions, to a people that never once quarrelled with it, than I have written against it in the book with which you so much quarrel. And is this probatum given against malignity a word of pride too?
You proceed in your Charge that [I have great thoughts of my self, and have learned little of Christian or moral ingenuity, and am unfit to be a Teacher of it to others. Answ. 1. Do you not yet perceive that you also have a silencing spirit? when you and those that you separate from are agreed, that we are unfit to be Teachers, because we gainsay you, why do you pretend so great a distance, even in the point of imperious severity. 2. O how hard is it still to know our selves, and what manner of spirit we are of. Is it pride in me to think that I am righter than you or to express it? Why, brother, do not you think as confidently that you are righter than I? and do you not as Confidently utter it? I differ no further from you, than you do from me: And why is it not as much sign of pride in you, to think you know more than I, as in me to think that I know more (in this) than you? The truth is, Pride is not a true valuing, but an over-valuing our selves, and our Who is to be judged Proud.own understandings. If either you or I be in the right, and both think our selves confidently to be so, he is the Proud person which ever he be, that is in the wrong; For it is he that over-valueth his own understanding. Here therefore the Evidence must decide the Case.
EXCEPT. V. p. 3. Answered. Your 5th▪ Exception implieth more Untruths: TheMore mistakes. first is, that I did not consider that fault of the Imposers, which I have written in that very book so much against, and elsewhere; and before, said more against than any man that I know in England, This was not considerately spoken. The second is, that all or most of those that you separate from, made tearing engines and dividing impositions. If this be not implied you speak not to the point. But you may easily know that in all the Parish-Churches of England, there is not one man or woman, no not one Minister of very many that ever made or imposed such Engines.
The third implied untruth is, that I plead either for subscribing Assent, or for such Communion as cannot be had, without subscribing Assent, to what you know is sinful; when you may joyn as far as I desire you, without subscribing any Assent at all.
EXCEPT. VI. Answered. 1. As to the sense of 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16. and Rev. Whom we must come out from.18. 6. You confess that the Texts do directly and properly concern only Infidels and Idolaters there mentioned. 2. You say It belongs to others that are guilty of the same Crimes, under the name of Christians, proportionally.
Answ. Very true; If it be not a contradiction! If any called Christians be notorious Infidels and Idolaters, they are not Christians, and so not fit for Christian Communion. But from the Societies of such we must flie our selves: But not from the societies of Christians, alwaies, when some such shall intrude.
3. You say [We are commanded strictly to separate from every one that is called a brother, if he be covetous, or a railer, &c. Answ. The Church, and not a private man, must exclude such a one from Church-Communion. And you your self must exclude him from your private familiarity; But you are not commanded to separate from the Church, if they exclude him not. I am not bound to separate from the Church where you are, for this Book which you have written, though I could prove it railing. How few separated Churches know you on earth, that have no Covetous person or railer? Or at least, where the people hold it their dutie to separate from their own Church, if any Covetous person or railer be there?
4. You add [that if notwithstanding all admonition any Church will still retain them, we are not to own such a Church as a Spouse of Christ, and therefore must come out of it, &c. Whom we must disown as no Church.Answ. 1. I have in that Book proved the contrarie by abundant Scripture instances; And in the next exception you your self confess the primitive corruptions, and lay the stress of your Separation only on Imposed Conditions of Communion. 2. You give us no proof of this naked assertion. If a Scolding woman or a Covetous Professor be reteined in a Church otherwise pure, you are not therefore bound to separate, much less to take it for no Church: For that is a true Church which hath the true essentials of a Church: But so may one that reteineth a Covetous man or a Scold. Ergo—By your rule, you must Separate not only from Parish Churches, but from most of the Separated Churches that ever I was acquainted with.
I find no particular Church called A Spouse of Christ, but the universal only: As a Corporation is not a Kingdome, but a part of a Kingdome.
5. Above twenty Arguments in my book for Infant Baptism, shew that you did not truly say, that [the best argument that all learned men have ever defended it by, is the proportion it hath to Circumcision.
EXCEPT. VII. Answered. You say that I impertinently recite the Corruptions of the Scripture Churches, to prove that we are not to separate, &c. your reason is [Because many Errors in Doctrine and life were formerly admitted, yet none of them were imposed as conditions of Communion.The Corruption of the Scripture Churches.
Answ. Do you not see that here you seem to deny what you said so confidently in the last Exception? There you say, We must come out, if they will receive such for members after all admonition, and retein them. Here you seem plainlie to yield that up, and to lay all on imposed Conditions of Communion, as if else you could communicate with Churches so corrupt. You can bear your own contradiction better than mine.
2. What is imposed on you as a condition to your Communion in the Doctrine and Prayers of the Parish Churches, but your actual Communion it self? If you will say, that their bad Minister, and their imperfect form, is imposed as a Condition, because you must be present; so they may say, that you also impose your imperfect manner and expressions on them, as Conditions of their Communion in your Churches: And thus you are all Imposers.
EXCEPT. VIII. Answered. First5 Untruth. you say I said that I [met with many Conscientious Professors, &c. That's your fifth untruth: I said no such thing, but only [many Censorious professors.]
2. You say, It is hardly possible to believe it. But that is possible to men that use to be more careful of speaking truth themselves, and that are acquainted with the people of England, by such means as Conference, which is hardly possible to others.
3. You ask [Ought not such things to be Of concealing the faults of Dividers.concealed.] And you abuse Scripture to confirm it. But, 1. Are you not here partial? Is it your judgement that we should conceal the faults or ignorance, or errors of the Bishops, Conformists, and Parish members?Of concealing the faults of Dividers. Or be they not commonly multiplied and aggravated? And yet, must the Separatists ignorance and error be concealed.
2. Do you desire their Repentance and humiliation whose faults you would have concealed? And do you imitate Nehemiah and others of Gods Servants, that use to Confess the sins of all ranks and sorts of men?
3. Do you use in publick humiliations to confess this ignorance of Professors or not? If not, what a kind of humiliation do you make? If you do, do not you publickly reveal this secret.
4. How grosly are you unacquainted with England that take this for a secret, or for hardly to be believed, when we have Congregations and multitudes of such, and the land *Read but Hornius his description of the English Sects, Eccles. Hist. and see what strangers think of us.and world ringeth of them.
5. Do you not thus harden them that charge us with factiousness, when you shew your self so solicitous for the Concealment of the ignorance of your party, while you have no such care for others?
4. But it is your sixth Untruth in point of fact, when you say (with scorn) [Are not we Commanded not to reveal the secret of another, which pious and prudent Mr. Baxter hath not scrupled to sin against, &c. Prov. 25. 9.]
As you abuse the text, which speaketh ofOf my revealing Secrets. an individual person, who is supposed to be hereby injured, because known, so you speak untruly in saying I revealed anothers secrets; For to pass by, that I reveal not the persons, who are still unknown, it is not true that they were secrets! When I disputed almost all day with such (both Souldiers and others) in the publick Church at Amersham above 20 years ago, was that a secret, which they so fiercely proclaimed? When I disputed daily almost with such in Cromwell's Army, was that a secret? When I disputed with Mr. Brown (an Army Chaplain) and his adherents for the Godhead of Christ, in a publick Church at Worcester, was that a secret? When I disputed in the publick Church at Kiderminster with the Quakers, was that a secret? When the said Quakers, and many other Sects, have come to my house, and have oft assaulted me in many other places openly, and vented their ignorance with fierce revilings and raging confidence, was that a secret? When I have openly Catechized men, was that a secret? Do not all sound Protestants believe that they are fundamentals which our Quakers commonly contradict, and are ignorant of, especially Foxes party, whom Smith and Major Cobbet accuse to deny Christ and the Resurrection, &c. And are there not Assemblies of such in London? And do not many turn to them of late? And is that a secret which their books and their assemblies tell the World? Who is it now that is put to shame?