A Second True Defense of the Nonconformists, Treatise · Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Some Animadverſions on his Preface.
§ 1. THE impartial ſearchers after truth, have hitherto thought that a ſtrict method (at leaſt agreeable to natural Logick) is more effectual than confuſion or wordy popular haranges: And that the controverſie ſhould be very cleerly ſtated before it can be profitably argued: And therefore that firſt all ambiguity of terms be by due explication removed, that men may not mean ſeveral things and not underſtand each other; and to Define and diſtinguiſh where it is needful, and then Affirm or deny, and then effectualy prove. But why this worthy perſon doth far otherwiſe with us, both before and now, it is more his part than mine to give the reaſon: I dare not ſay he cannot; Nor I dare not ſay, he can, but will not, but all that I can ſay is that he doth not, and I know not why.
§ 2. The Preface of his Book called Unreaſonableneſs, &c. Is ſo much anſwered already by Mr. Lob, that I will not loſe time by doing much to the ſame again: And there is a poſthumous book of Dr. Worſleys called, The third part of naked Truth, which hath ſtrenuouſly handled the ſame chief matter for Scripture Sufficiency againſt unneceſſary Impoſitions. It being ſuppoſed, though not there expreſſed. 1. That he ſpeaketh not againſt the guiding determination of undetermined accidents which muſt be determined one way or other: As Time, Place, Utenſils, Tranſlationwords, Metres tunes, &c. 2. And that a man that intollerably breakes Gods Laws (by Blaſphemy, Treaſon, Murder, Fornication, &c.) is not to be tollerated becauſe he erroniouſly thinks he keepeth them.
§ 3. His ſad ſaying [that there is no improbability that the Jeſuites ſhould be the firſt ſetters up of the way in England which he calls the Doctrine [of Spiritual Prayer] Mr. Lob hath opened, as it deſerveth, in part; but to ſay all that it deſerveth would ſeem ſo harſh, that I have reaſon to think that it would but more offend than profit him.
§ 4. For I find that he is grown too impatient with our Nameing what he patiently and confidently doth: The cauſe of his impatience I leave to himſelf. But that it is much within him I muſt conjecture, when in his defence of Biſhop Laud I read him ſaying to the Papiſts [To ſpeak mildly, it is a groſs untruth.] And yet wen I ſpeak not ſo plainly to him (and I think never more ſharply) he accounts it a continued Paſſion, Rage, Railing, Intollerable indiſcretion, &c. Do I give him harder words than theſe? Yet I profeſs I ſmart not by them: I take them for very tollerable words, in compariſon of his miſcarriges in the cauſe in hand.
Several ſorts of men I have found think other men ſpeak in paſſion: 1. Thoſe that hear and read with paſſion: They think that which angers them came from anger. 2. Thoſe that are too high to be dealt with on even terms, and think the plain ſpeech which agreeth to others is a contempt of ſuch as them. 3. Thoſe that commit miſcarriages ſo groſs and defend cauſes ſo bad, as have no names but what are diſgraceful, and then take all that is ſaid to anatomatize their cauſe and errours, to be ſaid againſt themſelves. With theſe and ſuch others, Truth, is not tollerable he raileth that confuteth them, and doth Auriculas molles mordaci radere vero. I profeſs I felt ſo little paſſion in writing that book which he ſaith was written in one continued Paſſion, that I think verily, I ſinned all the while, for want of a livelier ſenſe of the ſin and hurt which I was detecting by my confutation. But I confeſs it is my opinion that Falſhood of Speech may lie in deſcribing a thing ſhort of Truth, as well as in going beyond it: And that the Truth of words is their Agreeableneſs to the matter (and mind): And that verba rebus aptanda ſunt: And that he that writeth againſt ſin muſt call it ſin, and open the evil of it.
§ 5. His Preface giveth us hopes that we are ſo farr agreed in our ends, as to be both for God, for truth, for unity and peace and Love, and againſt Popery, and one would think this much ſhould go far towards our Concord. But, alas, all agree not what Piety is, or what Popery is, nor of the way to our ends.
If he think that to be againſt Spiritual Prayer would help us againſt Popery, 1. I would he would tell us, which way. If by reducing the Nonconformiſts to think Formes lawful; ſo do the Jeſuites: And he told us that they at Franckford took a Forme from Geneva as uſeful: And the preſent Nonconformiſts put their judgment out of queſtion an. 1660, and 1661. In their witings, offers and Formes Printed. But all that are for Formes are not for all things in your Formes.
2. And I would he would have better told us what the Spiritual Prayer is, which the Jeſuits firſt brought in and helpes in Popery. For hitherto it is the Dead Ceremonious formality and Imagery of Popery, deſtroying Spirituality, (by words not underſtood, Mummeries, Beads, Canting Stage workes) which hath alienated moſt Religious Proteſtants from them. I will. 1. Tell you what I take Spiritual Prayer to be; and then. 2. Deſire his judgment of it.
1. It is my judgment (if he know it to be erroneous, I crave his reaſons) 1. That Mans Soul is by ſin ſo depraved that it is morally unable without Gods Spirit, effectually to know, feel and deſire deliverance from his own ſin and miſery, and to deſire Gods Grace and Glory, above all worldly ſinful pleaſures.
2. That therefore ſuch deſires in act and habit muſt be wrought in us by the Spirit of God. And the whole work of Regeneration and Sanctification is a giving to the Soul that new Divine nature, Love and delight, which worketh by ſuch holy deſires. And that as the carnal mind is enmity to God, and cannot be ſubject to his Law, and if any man have not the Spirit of Chriſt, the ſame is none of his; ſo to be Spiritually minded is life and peace, and God who is a Spirit will be worſhiped in Spirit and truth, and by this we know that we are the Children of God by the Spirit which he hath given us; For he promiſed to pour out the Spirit of Grace and ſupplication: And becauſe we are ſons, he hath given us the Spirit of his Son, by which we cry Abba Father: And this Spirit helpeth our Infirmities in Prayer: If theſe things be in the Papiſts Bible, I hope they are not therefore Popery. I ſuppoſe the Papiſts alſo own our God, our Saviour and our Creed.
3. The help in Prayer which we expect from the Spirit, is. 1. To illuminate us to know what we need and ſhould deſire and ask. 2. To kindle in us holy deſires ſincere and ſervent, of what we ſhould ask. 3. To give us a true belief of and truſt in the Love of God, the enterceſſion of Chriſt and the promiſes of the Goſpel, that we may pray in hope. 4. To give us thankful hearts for what we do receive, and fit with joy to praiſe the giver. 5. To ſtir up all theſe diſpoſitions to particular acts in the due ſeaſon: And to ſave us from the contrary. 6. And we believe that a mind ſo illuminated, and affections ſo ſanctified and kindled, have a great advantage above others coeteris paribus to expreſs themſelves in words: For. 1. A man that knoweth what to ſay can ſpeak it when the ignorant cannot? Doth not a ſtock of knowledge enable you to Preach without book? 2. Such a Soul will ſet it ſelf diligently to think what and how to ſpeak in ſo great a buſineſs, when the careleſs mind it not. 3. Love and delight are very ſpeedy Learners. 4. Fervent deſire ſets all the powers of the Soul awork, and is full and forward to expreſs it ſelf. Hunger can teach men eaſily to beg: Poor men ſpeak intreaties; Anger, Joy, every paſſion maketh and powreth out words, where there is prerequiſite ability.
4. We believe that he who by natural defectiveneſs or difuſe cannot find words fitly to utter his own mind, may have the help of Gods Spirit in uttering ſuch words as he readeth or learneth of others; and (eſpecially in the caſe of Pſalms which are not of ſudden invention) if for Concord the Churches agree to uſe the ſame meet words, Gods Spirit may actuate their deſires therein.
5. We hold that this Holy Spirit, is as Tertullian ſpeaketh, Chriſts Vicar, Agent or Advocate, by preventing, operateing, Cooperating grace, thus to illuminate, Sanctifie and actuate believers, in all holy works, and eſpecially in prayer. And I could heartily wiſh that you would not be againſt ſo much, as Spiritual Preaching, Spiritual Writing and diſputing, and living, and not ſay that the Jeſuits brought them in.
6. I believe that we are Baptized into the name of the Holy Ghoſt as well as of the Father and the Son, believing that he is thus Chriſts Agent for all this work upon our Souls, and covenanting to obey him.
7. I believe that ſins againſt the Holy Ghoſt, eſpecially deriding or reproaching his great works, miraculous or Sanctifing, have a dangerous malignity.
8. I ſuppoſe that in all this, the faculties of mans own Soul are the natural recipients of the Spirits influx, and agent of the act which both cauſes effect: And that its as vain a queſtion, whether it be by the Spirit or by natural faculties that we pray aright, as whether it be God as fons naturae, or mans natural powers which cauſe our natural acts? Or whether the Act of ſeeing be from the ſun or the eye? As if the ſame effect might not, yea muſt not have a Suprior and Inferior Cauſe?
9. Therefore as Gods. Spirit witneſſing with ours that we are his Children, ſo Gods Spirit helping our infirmities in Prayer, ſuſpendeth not the exerciſe of our Spirits, or maketh our reaſon and conſideration needleſs, but actuateth them in their duty. Learning and ſtudying how to pray, is conſiſtent with the Spirits help in Prayer.
10 I never talkt of it with any Nonconformiſts who denyed that an hypocrite may without any ſpecial help of the Spirit, ſpeak all the ſame words in prayer without either book or form, wich another may ſpeak: The help of knowledge, hearing, uſe and paſſion may help him to words: Therefore they never take a man to be proved godly or ſinceer, by his bare words: but by the grace of Prayer, which is holy deſire &c. and not by the ſpeaking, gift, or habit.
11. But we think that it was not the Jeſuits that firſt ſaid, out of the aboundance of the heart the mouth ſpeaketh; and though the tongue may lie, it is made to expreſs the mind, and we muſt judge of other mens minds by their words, till ſomwhat elſe diſprove them. And its natural for the Heart to lead the Tongue. And men are more affected by words which come from affection than by thoſe that do not: and Reading words written by another when we ſpeak to God, is not ſo natural a ſignification of deſire or other affection, as ſpeaking them from the preſent dictate of the heart; For any Child that can read may do the one, and it is not the uſual ſignification of ſeriouſneſs in other actions. A beggar that ſhould only read his begging leſſon, or a Child or Servant that ſhould only read ſome words to his Father or Maſter, would be thought leſs ſenſible of his wants.
12. Miniſters ſhould be men better aquainted than the people, how to ſpeak to God and man: It is their office; and therefore it belongeth to them to chooſe the words which are fitteſt: and to ſet up a Miniſtry that can do neither, is to befriend the Prince of darkneſs againſt the Kingdom of Light, and to be a deadly enemy to the Church and Souls. And to ſet up a miniſtry that need not do it, but may chooſe, or is not obliged to it, is the way to ſet up a miniſtry that cannot do it. Let the Miniſters be bound to no more than to Read, and a few years will transform them to ſuch as can do no more than read. Moſcovy proveth that, and too many other Countries.
13. If it be praying freely from preſent knowledge and deſire, without a book or ſet form which you call Spiritual prayer, either you are for the uſe of it in the Pulpit or not. If you are, did the Jeſuits teach it you? or will you go on to follow them? If not, what a divided party are the Conformiſts, while ſo many uſe it and pray ſpiritually? And what a Caſe is the Church of England in, that hath ſtill ſo many Miniſters that pray as the Jeſuits Diſciples? Or why do you ſo reproach your Church and Miniſtry?
14. Do you think that there is more force in the name of a Jeſuit to diſgrace Spiritual prayer, or in the name of Spiritual prayer to honour the Jeſuits? And do you not ſeem to prevaricate and highly honour the Jeſuits, on pretence of diſhonoring Spiritual prayer? If you had ſaid that the Jeſuits firſt brought in Spiritual preaching, and diſcourſe and Spiritual living, would it not have more honoured them, than diſhonoured Spirituality? Will freedom from Spiritual▪prayer honour your Church? as Seneca thought Cato's name would do more to honour Drunkenneſs, than Drunkenneſs could do to diſhonour Cato?
I am not ſuch an Antipapiſt, as to fall out with Father Son or Holy-Ghoſt, becauſe the Jeſuits own them. You do but help to confirm my charity, who have long thought that among the Papiſts, there are many perſons truly godly, though their education, converſe, and proud, tyrannical wordly Clergy, have ſadly vitiated them.
15. All prayers written or unwritten are made by ſome body. Thoſe that the Biſhops write down for us in the Liturgy, and for our Faſts, were made by their invention: Either they had the help of the Spirit in making them or not: If yea, then why is it not as Jeſuitical to write a Spiritual prayer, as to ſpeak one? If not, excuſe them that ſay Gods Spirit made not your Liturgy, nor are they Spiritual prayers.
16. And were it not too like high and dangerous Pride, if ſuch a one as Biſhop Bancroft, Biſhop Laud, Biſhop Morley, Biſhop Gunning, in a Convocation, or before every publick Faſt, ſhould be appointed to write the words of Prayer, and ſhould in effect ſay to all the moſt Learned Divines in England [The Spirit cauſed us to write theſe prayers, and our meaſure is ſo ſure and great, that none of you may preſume to queſtion it, nor to think that you can pray Spiritually in any words of your own, but only in ours, at leaſt in the Aſſemby. The Spirit will help you if you ſay our words, but not your own. It now cometh into my mind what may be ſome of the meaning of Biſhop Gunning's Chaplain, Doctor Saywell, in his laſt Book, that none hath power to ordain Biſhops, but they that have power to give the Holy Ghoſt for the work of their Office. It may be it is, The Holy Ghoſt to write Doctrine Sermons and Prayers for all their Clergy to uſe. But do you not ſay alſo to the Presbyters Receive the Holy Ghoſt? If they have him, why cannot they ſpeak their own hearts in other words than yours? Is Spiritual prayer appropriated to your Liturgy, words or forms, any more than at the Council at Trent he was to the Popes inſtructions.
17. We all confeſs, that as all the actions of imperfect men, have their imperfections, ſo have all our prayers, and theſe are eaſily aggravated: Sudden free prayer, and book prayer, have both their conveniencies and inconveniencies: The queſtion is which hic & nunc hath the greateſt, and whether forbidding either be not worſt of all: I have named the conveniencies and inconveniencies of each in my Chriſtian Directory.
18. Experience telleth the world, that the daily ſaying over only the ſame words, and that read out of a paper impoſed by others, by one that no further ſheweth any ſenſe of what he doth, is not ſo apt as more free and well varied words in ſeaſon, to keep people from ſleepy ſenſeleſs prophanation, and praying as the Papiſts do with their Maſſes, Roſaries, and Beads: And the variety of Subjects preached on, and variety of occaſions, and all accidents require ſome diverſification of words and methods.
19. It is a work of reverence to ſpeak to the King; yet as it is lawful to write a Petition to him, ſo to ſpeak to him without Book. Judges have ſerious work to do, for eſtate and life, and yet they are truſted to ſpeak without preſcribed words; and ſo are Advocates, Lawyers, Ambaſſadors, Phyſicians, Philoſophers, and all men in their Profeſſions, except Miniſters and Chriſtians, as ſuch.
20. We know not why men may not be intruſted to ſpeak to God in the name of imperfect man without impoſed books and words, as well as to ſpeak to man from the moſt perfect God and in his name; in preaching. Mans actions will be like man. Nothing that is not divine and ſpiritual ſhould be ſpoken as from God and in his name. And as after our fruſtrated Treaty for Concord 1661. one of them (nameleſs) wrote a Book againſt free praying without an impoſed form in the Pulpit, and yet they never durſt forbid it to this day; ſo I know who ſhewed his deſire of a new Book of Homilies (of his own making its like) to have been impoſed inſtead of preaching, and of the old ones, on thoſe that had not ſpecial licenſe to preach. But intereſt ruleth the world: They durſt not ſo far diſgrace their Clergy, as to make them meer Readers, nor loſe the advantage of talking out of the Pulpit for their Cauſe, where none muſt contradict them.
Mr. Lob hath ask'd you already; whether our Spiritual Prayer, as you call it, or your Liturgy (and Biſhop Couſins, and Dr Taylors Prayer-books, &c.) be liker to the Popiſh Maſs book, and many other Offices and Devotions? Indeed Mr. Auſtins hath ſo much gravity, as excepting his excurſions to Saints, &c. it may compare with many of yours.
And for that ſort of ſpiritual Devotion, in which they flie too high, I have found more of it in the Friers, Franciſcans, Benedictines, &c. ſuch as Barbanſon, Benedictus de Benedictis, &c. than in the Jeſuits: And the Oratoriana, Phil. Nerius Baronius, and the reſt; and of their ſober or Religious men, as Sales, Mr. Ro…ti, &c. and of old. John Gerſon, Kempis, &c. have more of ſpirituality than the Jeſuits. But enough of this.
§ 6. As to the reſt of his Prefatory diſcourſe of the Advantages of Popery. 1. We doubt not but the Papiſts play their game among all Parties, as far as they are able, and put on divers ſorts of Vizors. But doth he (that is a Hiſtorian) not know, that all over the world their cheif deſign is upon the Rulers and Leaders, and they Cry, Fight neither againſt great or ſmall, but to win one Court Card ſignifieth more than many others?
2. Doth he think the Papiſts take the Conformiſts or the Nonconformiſts to be nearer to them and leſs againſt them?
3. Did the Papiſts think Biſhop Lauds reconciling deſign deſcribed by Doctor Heylin, (entertained by Sancta Clara, Leander, &c.) or the Parliaments fears of his introducing Popery in thoſe times, to be more againſt them?
4. Are they liker to help in Popery, that are ſo apt to be over-averſe to any thing that favours of it, in Doctrine, Diſcipline, and Worſhip, and account the Pope Antichriſt? Or they that hold as followeth. 1. (As Grotius) That a Papiſt is but one that flatters the Popes, as if all were juſt that they ſay and do (and ſo there are few Papiſts I hope in the World.) 2. That the Church of Rome is ſound in Faith. 3. And ſo are all the General Councils, even Trent. 4. That Rome is the Miſtreſs of all Churches; or as Biſhop Bromhal, that for Concord we muſt all obey the Pope, as Patriarch of the Weſt, and Principium Unitatis Catholicae, ruling according to the old Canons, (a Foreign Juriſdiction) and all thoſe paſs for Schiſmaticks, that refuſe it (of which more after.) 5. That the validity of our Miniſtry muſt be proved by the derivation of it from the uninterrupted ſucceſſion of the Roman Ordainers and Church. 6. That the Church of Rome by that ſucceſſion is a true, though faulty Church of Chriſt, but ſo are none of the Reformed Churches which have not Biſhops, or have them not by ſuch uninterrupted ſucceſſion. 7. That the only way of the Concord of Churches and all Chriſtians is (ſaith Biſhop Gunning) to obey the governing part of the Church Univerſal, which … Collegium Paſtorum, all the Biſhops of the univerſal Church, in one Regent Colledge, governing all the Chriſtian World per literas formatas. 8. That its ſafer and better for the Proteſtants in France to be of the French Church of Papiſts than to continue without Biſhops as they are. 9. That we ſhould come as near the Papiſts as the Greek Church doth, or as both Greek and Latin did at the rupture of the two Churches, or as in Greg. 1ſt. daies ſay others, or as in Char. Mag. daies, ſay others; receiving ſay ſome the firſt ſix General Councils, ſay others the firſt 8. 10. That we muſt amend the Oath of Supremacy for the Papiſts, as Thorndick ſaith, and ſo many Doctrines as he intimateth. 11. That its deſireable that the Papiſts had continued in our Churches as in the begining of Queen Eliz. And if they come (as Church Papiſts do) ſhould be received in our Communion. 12. That if the Pope have not (as ſome hold) a right of ſuch Primacy as belongs to Saint Peters ſucceſſour, at leaſt, His Primacy is a very prudent humane conſtitution. 1. That there may be a Common Father to care for all the Church. 2. And one to be a Head of Unity and order. 3. And one to call General Councils. 4. And one to rule between when there are no ſuch Councils (which are rare). 5. And one to give power to Patriarcks and Arch-Biſhops who elſe will have none over them to authorize, or Govern them. 6. And one to decide controverſies, when Countries, Churches and Arch-Biſhops diſagree. 7. And one to ſend out Preachers among Heathens, Infidels and Hereticks, all over the world. 8. And one boldly to reprove, admoniſh and, if need be, excommunicate Kings, which their own ſubjects dare not do.
I do not mean that all theſe things or any of them are the Doctrine of the Church of England, or held by all or moſt that conforme. But if ſome of it have been publiſhed by the Chief Prelates, and ſome by their chief defenders, and ſome in conference with us by Clergy men, I only ask whether all this pleaſe not and advantage not the Papiſts, more than Nonconformiſts any way do? And whether Arch-Biſhop Uſher and his Succeſſor Arch-Biſhop Bromhal, Biſhop Downam and his Succeſſour Biſhop Taylor differed not as much as you and I do? And whether the multitude of Pariſh Prieſt that were Papiſts in Queen Elizabeths daies, and Biſhop Godfrey Goodman a Papiſts Biſhop of Glouceſter, with all the reſt mentioned by Prin, Ruſhworth, Burnet, &c. tell us not that the Papiſts had a hopeful game to play among the Biſhops and Clergy of the Church?
§ 7. As to his note out of Mr. Jo. Humpheries book, diſclaiming Cruelty to Papiſts, its known Mr. Humphery is a man of latitude and univerſal Charity, and tyeth himſelf to no party or any mens opinions: He openly profeſſeth his hope of the Salvation of many Heathens, and I ſo little fear the noiſe of the cenſorious, that even now while the Plot doth render them moſt odious, I freely ſay. 1. That I would have Papiſts uſed like men, and no worſe than our own defence requireth: 2, That I would have no man pat to death for being a Prieſt: 3. That I would have no writ de excommunicato capiendo, or any Law compel them to our Communion and Sacraments. For I would not give it them (if I knew them) if they came.
§ 8. As to his Accuſation of my firſt Plea for Peace, he hath it after, and it is after anſwered. And as to his Accuſation of my book for Concord, I anſwer. 1. Is it no Miniſters work, in a contending world, to tell and prove what are Chriſts ordained termes of Chriſtian Concord, but his that is [Chriſts plenipotentiary on Earth, and were to ſet the termes of Peace and War] Is this ſpoken like a peace maker and a Divine? Doth not he pretend alſo in his way to declare the terms of Concord?
2. But no man more heartily agreeth with him in lamenting the ſtate of the Church on earth, that when ſuch men as Biſhop Gunning, Dean Stillingfleet, Dr. Saywel, &c. on one ſide, and ſuch as I and many better men on the other ſide, have ſo many years ſtudied hard to know Gods will, I am certain for my ſelf, and I hope it of them, with an unſeigned deſire to find out the truth what ever it coſt, (and I profeſs as going to God, that would he but make me know that Popery, ſilencing Prelacy, impriſoning, Baniſhing, or ruining all Nonconformiſts, Anabaptiſts, Antinomians, Quakers, or any that ever I wrote againſt, are in the right, I would with greater joy and thankfulneſs recant and turne to them, than I would receive the greateſt preferment in the land) I ſay, that yet after all this we ſhould ſo far differ, as for one ſide to be confident that the others way of Concord is the ready way to ruin, wickedneſs and confuſion, and to come to that boldneſs to proclaim this to the world, alas how doleful a caſe is this?
What hope of Chriſtian peace and concord when ſuch excellent ſober well ſtudyed men as they, quite above the common ſort, not byaſſed by honour, or preferments or power, by Biſhopricks, Deaneries, Maſterſhips, plurality, or love of any worldly wealth, and ſuch as we that ſtudy and pray as hard as they to know the truth, are yet confident to the height that each others termes of Love and peace, are but Sathans way to to deſtroy them both, and introduce (as Dr. Saywel ſaith Conventicles do) Hereſie, Popery, Ignorance, Prophaneneſs and Confuſion: And what we are paſt doubt that their way will do, experience ſaith more than we may do.
Oh what ſhall the poor people do in ſo great a temptation!
§ 9. But I muſt paſs from his Preface, where I have noted. 1. That he is yet ſo peaceable as to propoſe ſome ſort of abatements for our Concord; that the benifit may be ſibi & ſuis, not reaching our neceſſeries, but much better than nothing.
2. That they are ſo ill agreed, that Biſhop Gunnings Chaplain writeth, againſt it, making the only way of Peace to be by the ſword to force all men to full obedience to their Lordſhips in every thing injoyned, not abating an Oath, a Subſcription, a Covenant, a Word, a Ceremony, without Comprehenſion or limited Toleration.
3 And I could wiſh the Doctor would conſent, at leaſt that Lords and Parliament men may have the liberty themſelves of educating their own Sons, ſo it be in the Chriſtian Reformed Religion, and to chooſe their Tutors, and not confine them to Conformiſts only: The Papiſts are tollerated in chooſing Tutors for their Children: The King of France hath not yet taken away this liberty from the Proteſtants: Nor the Turks from the Greeks: And muſt you needs take it away from all the Lords, Knights, Gentlemen, Citizens, and Free-holders of England. Perhaps Beggars will conſent, if you will keep their Children, or do what the Godfathers vow. Moſt Gentlemen, that keep Chaplains, expect that they teach their Sons at home, ſometime at leaſt; what if a Lord or Knight have ſuch a Chaplain as Hugh Broughton, or Ainſworth, or as Ameſius, Blondel, Salmatius, as Gataker, Vines, Burges, &c. muſt the Law forbid them to read Hebrew, Philoſophy, or Divinity to their Sons? I doubt you will ſcarce get the Parliament hereafter to make ſuch a Law to fetter themſelves, leſt next you would extend your dominion alſo to their Wives as well as Sons, and forbid▪ them marrying any but Conformiſts.
Is it not enough to turn us all out of the publick Miniſtry? Methinks you might allow ſome the Office of a School-maſter, or Houſhold Tutor, or Chaplain under the Laws of Peace; unleſs the Sword be all that you truſt too: If it be, it is an uncertain thing: The minds of Princes are changable, and all things in this World are on the Wheel: when Peter flieth to the Sword, Chriſt bids him put it up, for they that ſo uſe it periſh by it: Hurting many, forceth many to hurt you, or to deſire their own deliverance, though by your hurt.