Apology for Non-Conformists, Postscript
A Poſtſcript to the Author of the Friendly Debate.
SIR,
YOu have dealt with us, as the Jewes did with our Bleſſed Saviour; blindfolded us, & ſmitten us, & in effect bid us Propheſie who it is that ſmote us. Some gheſſes have been who you are by the roughneſs of your hand, and the ſmartneſs of the blow; I have not taken upon me thus to ſhoot in the dark, and yet pretend to hit the Mark. Nor will I go about to pull off the Vizor you put upon your own face, but to wipe off the dirt which you have caſt on ours. To this purpoſe I pray you, after theſe premiſed Reflections by me on ſome Paſſages in your Friendly Debate, &c. you would be pleaſed to reflect upon your ſelf, and to ask your ſelf theſe few Queſtions.
Queſt. 1. Whether or no you might not with as much reaſon, and more charity, have produced Teſtimonies out of the Large Annotations, Printed in the year 1651. to clear Nonconformiſts from temporizing, and conniving at Sacriledge, as you have done the Omiſſions you charge them withal in the Edition of 1646, to prove them guilty. And ſure I am, if you had pleaſed to ſearch, you might have found in the Last Edition, their diſlike of Sacriledge in their Notes on Prov. 20.25. It is a ſnare to the man who devoureth that which is holy. That is, ſay the Annotations, to apply it, or take it to his own uſe, which was appointed to Gods: yea, to go about to do it by inquiring how the Vow might be made void. As alſo on Acts 5.1. in the caſe of Ananias and Sapphira, they declare plainly and fully againſt Sacriledge as followeth. The ſcope of this Hiſtory is to ſhew how odious to God that perfidiouſneſs is, which counterfeiting Sanctity, would impoſe upon God, as if He ſaw not what men do; for otherwiſe (Ananias giving a part, had been commendable) ſo great a miſchief is Hypocriſie, ſo dangerous the perverſion of an Holy purpoſe, and the with-drawing of things Conſecrated to the Churches uſe (though by himſelf who gave) that the Sacriligious periſhed by detaining a part of that whole which he would ſeem to give. — If he that taketh from the Church but a little of that which was his own, be Sacriligious & ſtruck dead for the ſame, what puniſhment will the ſame Divine Juſtice lay on him, who by fraud or violence taketh away the Poſſeſſions wherewith other men endowed the Church?
And upon Rom. 2.22. to that Queſtion which ſome make, why the Apoſtle doth vary the crime, ſaying, Thou that abhorreſt Idols, dost thou commit Sacrilege, and not rather dost thou commit Idolatry? They give this Anſwer for one, That the Apoſtle uſeth an aggravation, as if he ſhould ſay, Thou that abhorreſt Idols, doſt thou commit a worſe ſin, to wit, Sacrilege?
Quest. 2. Whether Dr. Sherlock in his Viſitation Sermon (pag. 7, 8, 9.) Preached at Warrington May 11.) and Printed at London with an Imprimatur, June 9. 1669. charging all Conformiſts, who pray before and after Sermon, any Prayers beſides thoſe of the Publick Liturgy, as guilty of ſacrilegiouſly breaking their Vows and Promiſes, may not as juſtly be urged againſt Conformiſts, as Mr. Caſe his Complaint againſt Covenant-breaking, be urged againſt Nonconformiſts, to prove them tranſgreſſors of the 3d Commandment, in the main ſence and meaning of it.
Q. 3. Whether it may not as reaſonably be deſired, that the Conformiſts ſhould be agreed about the Rule and Standard of Conformity, before others be preſſed to come up to it; as to require that the Nonconformiſts ſhould be all agreed what will ſatisfie them before any condeſcentions may be deſired for, or granted to them. Are the Old Canons Law, or are they not? Are the Canons made in the Synod 1640, Law or not? Muſt we read Second Service at the Communion Table, or muſt we not? Muſt we pray before Sermon, or muſt we only bid or exhort the People to Pray?
Q. 4. Whether they are not to be reputed Nonconformiſts, who go beyond the law, & do more then is required? who uſe other Rites & Ceremonies, then the Act of Uniformity injoyns, as well as thoſe that fall ſhort of doing ſome things by law required?
Q. 5. Whether it may not well become our Spiritual Fathers and Brethren of the Church, to yield a little in things indifferent to the weakneſs of thoſe (ſuppoſe they be in an error) who really ſcruple the lawfulneſs of them, and who are ready to take a ſolemn Oath that they would Conform, if they could but be once convinced, that by their Obedience to mans Ordinances, they ſhould not diſobey the Laws of God.
Q. 6. Whether what was ſaid, done, or Printed in times of War, ought to be remembered and produced in Evidence in times of Peace, after a moſt ſolemn Act of Oblivion and Indempnity?
Q. 7. Whether it was ſeaſonable, when His moſt Excellent Majeſty, and the Parliament, at the laſt Seſſion, had under Conſideration ſome Expedient for Union and Reconciliation, for a Miniſter of the Goſpel of Peace & of a profeſſed large Charity to Print and publiſh ſuch Books as might rationally be thought might prove to be Obſtructions in the way of Accommodation?
Q. 8. Whether there be not as much evidence of Charity, Modeſty, Meekneſs and Moderation in Mr. Corbet his Two Pieces, as in the Three Parts of the Friendly Debate?
Q. 9. Why you are pleaſed to charge the Nonconformiſts with ſo much rigor & ſeverity againſt Diſſenters formerly, without remembring that the Archbiſhop of Armagh, and Biſhop Brownrig were Publick Preachers in the Inns of Court in thoſe times; or that the preſent Biſhop of Worceſter, then Biſhop of Oxford, enjoyed a good Parſonage; and that the greateſt part of the now Conformiſts in England, had publick Imployment in thoſe times?
Q. 10. Whether you think that the late Aſſembly of Divines at Weſtminſter, whereof Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Twiſſe, Mr. Gattaker, Dr. Tuckney, Dr. Arrowſmith, Mr. Herle, Mr. Vines, Mr. Anthony Burgeſs and others were members, conſiſted of Perſons of ſo inconſiderable and contemptible Parts, Piety or Learning, as is repreſented now a-dayes? And, whether the preſent Nonconformiſts, ſuch as Dr. Owen, Mr. Baxter, Dr. Manton, Dr. Conant, Dr. Bates, Dr. Goodwin, Dr. Dillingham, &c. are really ſuch Ignoramuſſes as ſome of your Zelots would have the world imagine them to be?
Q. 11. Whether Dr. Heylins Hiſtory of Presbytery doth not wound the Reformation through the ſides of the Presbyterians?
Q. 12. Whether if the Nonconformists Confeſſions in their Prayers, may be produced in Evidence againſt them, How the Sons and Daughters of the Church will appear Innocent, who are taught after every Commandment read by the Miſter, to ſay and pray, Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law?
Q. 13. Whether if His Majeſty and the Parliament, would be graciouſly pleaſed to leave the uſe of the Three Ceremonies of our Church as indifferent, as the Canons in 1640 do the Ceremony of Bowing towards the East, or Altar; That Rule of Charity might not be ſtill obſerved, namely, That thoſe which uſe theſe Ceremonies ſhould not deſpiſe them that uſe them not; and that thoſe who uſe them not, condemn not thoſe that uſe them?
Q. 14. Who hath thriven moſt and proſpered beſt, the Spaniard with his Inquiſition, or the Hollander with his Toleration?
And now having deſired you to ask your ſelf theſe Questions, Give me leave to reflect upon my ſelf too, and to conſider what I have done. I ſay not, What I have written, I have written; but rather, if I have written any thing which ſhall he truly interpreted Seditious or Schiſmatical, or which is juſtly offenſive to any of my Superiors, Inferiors, or Equals in Church or State, I humbly beg Pardon, and Conclude; deſiring you and all my Brethren, Conformists and Non-conformists, to joyn in that good Prayer, Give Peace in our time, O Lord.
FINIS.
End of the text · John Norton, Apology for Non-Conformists (1669)