Friendly Debate with Non-Conformist Part 3 Appendix, Title page – Errata
AN APPENDIX TO THE THIRD PART OF THE Friendly Debate, BEING A LETTER OF THE CONFORMIST TO THE NON-CONFORMIST: Together with a POSTSCRIPT.
By the ſame Author.
LONDON, Printed for H. Everſden, under the Crown in Weſt Smithfield. 1670
The PREFACE.
IF I was not ſwayed more by the love of Truth, than of my own Credit, I ſhould, for many reaſons, have ſuppreſſed this following Letter. Which diſcovers ſo many groſs falſhoods in the reflections which have been made on the Friendly Debate, that, whatſoever Cenſures may be paſſed on me, the Reader may receive ſome profit from it. Which that I might not hinder by putting too big a Book into his hands, I have caſt away a great deal of what I had writ about other untruths and abſurd reaſonings: hoping that this will be ſufficient to make thoſe that peruſe it wary and obſervant; and then they may detect the reſt themſelves without my aſsiſtance. And truly the greateſt difficulty I met withal in this work, was to reſolve what things I ſhould ſingle out as Inſtances of the impertinencies, falſifyings, and miſunderſtandings, &c. of my New Adverſary. Which proved, I confeſs, a buſineſs ſo tedious, in ſuch a great number as lay before me; that to eaſe my ſelf of too great a labour, I was conſtrained at laſt to take them juſt as they came next to my thoughts. If it chance by this means that I have left any thing untouched, which ſome deſired moſt of all ſhould have been handled, there is no remedy: And it is better that they ſhould want compleat ſatisfaction, than that all ſhould be tired with the length of my Diſcourſe. Beſides, I find that I my ſelf have ſuffered by it; for I have paſſed by ſundry reflections wherein my private perſon was more particularly concerned; which came not to mind till my Letter, I thought, was ſwell'd to too large a Bulk. This is ſome ſign that I am not ſo melancholy as my Adverſary muſes (for ſuch men uſe to be more reſentive than to forget the injuries that are done them) and that I have no liſt to write a Book merely to clear my ſelf from falſe imputations. And indeed I found other matter to make this Treatiſe larger than I intended: which was a Caſe that came to my hand after I had conſidered the Apology. Whatſoever belonged to me in thoſe Sheets, I have alſo ſpent a few thoughts upon: But took not my ſelf to be concerned in his bold challenge to anſwer a Book, which I have not the leaſt knowledge of, and which another perſon, he tells me, is more particularly bound (I am ſure is better able) to reply unto, if he think it worthy his pains. I cannot tell neither whether that perſon be ingaged in honour to accept the challenge; no, though he proclaim him a Coward, if he do not: For to anſwer ſome men (as one well ſpeaks) is but to comment upon their Gibberiſh for thoſe that underſtand it not, and thereby to bring their folly into more credit and requeſt. I apply not this to that Book, which, as I ſaid, I am perfectly ignorant of; and may deſerve conſideration: But to ſuch vainglorious Challenges as I have ſeen from mere Barbarians and Savages, who imagine roaring and being furious is far more noble than ſpeaking and reaſoning. Mr. Vavaſor Powel I remember made a challenge*June 11. 1652. to any Miniſter or Scholar of ours to diſpute Publickly, or Privately on this Queſtion (and another) Whether our mixed way, or their way of Separation was neareſt to the Word of God? But it was drawn up in ſuch rude and Kitchin Latine as never, I think, ſaw the light ſince the Goths ſack'd Rome; and as evidently demonſtrated that he thought his ſufficiency to be greater than it was, and that men take themſelves ſometimes to be true owners of things, of which they are but mere Ʋſurpers.
As for the Eccleſiaſtical Policy (which he alſo carps at) a work of equal ſtrength and beauty; it hath an Author who needs no aſsiſtant to defend it againſt the ableſt Champion they can bring into the Field. Time will ſhew the truth of this; and therefore I ſhall ſay no more of it, leſt thoſe commendations which that Author hath in kindneſs beſtowed on my poor endeavours, ſhould look in the eyes of our Enemies, like bartering with praiſes for the return of others.
I have but one thing more to add, which was omitted in its proper place, but fit to have been inſerted, Page 118. of the following Book. There you will find Mr. Baily affirms, That both Houſes abjured Epiſcopacy (whatſoever ſome pretended to the contrary) by the Oath and Covenant; which may be confirmed, I muſt add, by their Declaration of the Fifth of Auguſt, 1645. ſent to the Lords States General of the United Provinces; who by their Embaſſadours had, among other things, propounded and offered from the King the calling of a National Synod to correct and redreſs the Government of the Church by Biſhops. One of the Anſwers there given, why they could not admit of that Mediation, was, That not only the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Members of both Houſes of Parliament, but alſo many thouſands of others of his Majeſties Subjects of England and Ireland ſtand bound by their late National Covenant to endeavour the extirpation of the Church Government by Biſhops in England and Ireland, and to hinder the ſetting of it up again in the Kingdom of Scotland. This paſſage I find the Commiſſioners of Scotland remember the Houſes of, both in their Papers of the 20. and 24. of October, 1646. about the diſpoſing of the Kings Perſon; and in their Anſwer upon the new Propoſitions of Peace, and the Four Bills, ſigned 17. December, 1647. which I thought good here to mention, as a further confutation of the Apologiſt; whoſe pretenſes I now leave you to conſider.
ERRATA.
PAge 44. line 18. read they preſented. p. 45. l. 5. r. falſifies. p. 59. l. 9. for of r. over. p. 77. l. 7. r. leaning. p. 80, l. 9. r. of it. p. 87. l. ult. for his Petition, r. ſuſpition. p. 100. l. 12. r. in Ireland. p. 115. l. 13. r. Land. But. p. 145. l. 10. for ſetling r. ſelling. p. 151. l. 15. dele ſame. p. 154. l. 22. r. charge King Edward 6.