Friendly Debate with Non-Conformist Part 2, Text (5 of 5)

Friendly Debate with Non-Conformist Part 2 · Text (5 of 5)

p. 196N.C.

They had no ſuch thought of them.

C.

Why then did they joyn them with the Holy Scriptures in Gods Service? How durſt they yoke together things ſo different, as thoſe made by God and thoſe made by Man? Or if that were lawful; why are we blamed for uſing the Song of St. Ambroſe in Divine Service? Nay, why did he call our Liturgy upon this account, a medley **He adds a heap of other words as his manner is, when theſe would have been ſufficient.of things, Canonicals and Apocryphals, no more fit to be molded together in Evangelical worſhip, than thoſe creatures I mentioned to be coupled in the ſame Plough?

N.C.

I know no reaſon for it.

p. 197C.

Nor will you ever find a Reaſon why another famous Book**Vox Populi, Second part p. 3. of yours, in the late times ſaid; that the ſolemn ſalutes and demy-adorations of St. John Baptiſt, and the Fleſſed Virgin were left ſtill in the Common-Prayer Book by our Reformers. There is no occaſion at all for this Calumny, unleſs he thought Magnificat and Benedictus were two Popiſh Hymns, whereby we honoured thoſe Saints: as it were eaſie, I think, to perſwade many of their ignorant and credulous Followers. Nay, they who can be content to hear us compared to a knot of Ale-inſpired Companions, when we ſing thoſe words of the Holy Ghoſt; may, for any thing I know, be taught to raile upon Magnificat and Benedictus, if as they were but certain Drunken Catches.

N.C.

You are too ſevere.

C.

I abhor ſeverity where gentleneſs is the proper cure. But Saint Paul tells Titus, that unruly and vain talkers, and deceivers, muſt be rebuked ſharply, Tit. 1.13. And there needs no other witneſs that there are ſuch among them (whoſe mouths muſt be ſtopt) than the Prefacer to the Book we are ſpeaking of: a confident Ignoramus, who ſtruts as if he were ſome great man, and makes a ratling with his big words as if he had ſome mighty matter to tell us; but in effect hath juſt nothing, except two or three groſs and palpable falſhoods, of which I will make him aſham'd if he have not a very brazen forehead.

N C.

Do you think he would lye for Chriſt?

C.

I think he is a bold and vain talker of things he underſtands not: what more, do you judge when you have heard what I have to ſay. If the p. 198Book was writ by the perſon before nam'd, as his Diſciples affirm, then he tells us one Notorious Tale when he ſaith, The Author ended his days in a kind of Exile, for adhering to this truth, defended in his Book. viz. That nothing ought to be impoſed in the worſhip of God. For it's well known by all that underſtand any thing of our affairs, that Mr. John Goodwin ſuffered no baniſhment of any kind; but was diſabled from his office (though there had been no Common-Prayer) for intermedling ſo much in the late Civil quarrels, and writing a Book to juſtifie the horrid murder of our late Soveraign. But to let that paſs. He asks us, you remember, Where were more learned, more godly men in the World, than Cartwright, Parker, Reynolds, Greenham, Ames? And who knoweth not that theſe and many more of the ſame heavenly ſtamp, ſuffered extream Perſecution, Deprivations and Baniſhments, rather than they would touch with the graven Images, the work of the Craftſmen, that then were, and now are, the ſnares and nets upon Miſpeh and Tabor?

N C.

I remember them very well.

C.

And is he not an abominable reviler in reproaching us with Idolatry, and the worſhipping of Graven Images?

N.C.

But where are the Falſhoods?

C.

Is that none think you? But thoſe I now intend are, that he makes thoſe men againſt a ſtinted form of worſhip who were for it; and to ſuffer extream perſecution on that account who ſuffered none at all, much leſs Baniſhment. Other untruths there are, but theſe are ſufficient to make him bluſh, if he have any of that vertuous colour left.

p. 199N.C.

Was not Cartwright of his mind?

C.

No. For he declared his meaning was not to diſallow of a preſcript form of Prayer, and an Ʋniform Order in the Church. His quarrel was onelyonly with ſome things in our Service-Book. But yet he profeſſed he did not oppoſe the Ceremonies as ſimply unlawful, but only as inconvenient. And therefore perſwaded the Pretchers rather to wear the Surpliſs than ceaſe their Miniſtry, and the people to receive the Sacrament kneeling, if they could not have it otherways: becauſe though that geſture was, as he conceived, incommodious, yet not ſimply unlawful. All which and a great deal more I will prove out of his own works and other good Authors, if it be contradicted; as alſo that he loſt his Profeſſors-place at Cambridge upon other accounts, and after all went to Warwick where he was born, and dyed in the diſcharge of his Office as their Miniſter. And Mr. Edwards I remember tells us that he citing a paſſage out of Mr. Cartwright's Comments on the Proverbs, in a Sermon he preached a little before the Wars to perſwade the people to take heed of the White Devil, viz. the ſeparation upon greater pretence of Purity; Mr. John Goodwin came to him when he had done, and gave him great thanks for it. As for Mr. Parker, he indeed went further and ſaid, the Ceremonies were unlawful either to be impoſed, or uſed. But he was far from being ſo great a Schollar as this man fancies; at leaſt his learning was not well digeſted. For taking upon him to maintain, that Popiſh Idolatry is every whit as bad as Pagan, he brings a paſſage out of Saint Auguſtine to juſtifie this, that a Heretick is worſe than a Pagan. Which are the Words of another man, whom Saint Auguſtine in p. 200that place confutes, and asks him by what rule he concluded this, ſeeing our Lord ſaid, If he hear not the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen, not worſe than an Heathen; By which you may ſee how how forward men of this ſpirit are; to catch at any thing that may ſeem to favour their Opinions, and to make a ſhew of learning when they think it will ſerve them, though they ſlight and undervalue it as a carnal weapon, when it is in their Adverſaries hands. And if I thought this man underſtood him, I ſhould imagin he had learnt of Mr. Parker to magnifie thoſe of his own party beyond their deſerts: For he extolls the refuſing of conformity as ſuch a ſingular piece of ſervice done to God, that he compares ſuch perſons as were therefore deprived, to David, Worthies, and the three hundred men that followed Gideon. Moſt brave flouriſhes! How can you chuſe but yield your felf captive to ſuch Champions; believing this Preface upon his word, that thoſe he Muſters up were in the number of the Worthies. But he belies Mr. Greenham too; as I am able to prove from good Teſtimony, even from himſelf. But for brevities ſake I ſhall only let you know that Doctor John Burges aſſures us, that on his own knowledge and in his hearing, Mr. Greenham denied to perſwade any man againſt the uſe of the Ceremonies; and profeſſed he would be loth to be put to the ſolution of this Objection (as he called it) wear the Surpliſs, or Preach not. Which is an argument that though he did not like them, yet he did not hold them unlawful, much leſs Idolatrous, as this Ignorant Writer would perſwade us. I can prove alſo that he abuſes Doctor Ames, but that I make haſte to tell you; the moſt palpable forgery of all, is p. 201the putting Doctor Reynolds into the Catalogue of his Mighty Men. And ſince he pretends to underſtand Latine, I will ſend him for his more full conviction to an Author no leſs learned than that excellent Doctor, and a far better Schollar than any of the reſt; and that is Doctor Richard Crackanthorp, who tells the Arch-biſhop of Spalato that the Doctor was no Puritan (as he called him) but he himſelf a Calumniator. Defenſ. Ecclſiae Anglicanae, &c. cap: 69: pag. 419. An. 1529.For firſt, he profeſſed that he appeared unvillingly in the cauſe at Hampton Court, and meerly in obedience to the Kings command. And then, he ſpake againſt not one word there againſt the Hierarchy. Nay, he acknowledged it to be conſonant to the word of God, in his conference with Hart. And in an Anſwer to Sanders his Book, of the Schiſm of England (which is in the Arch-biſhops Library) he profeſſes that he approves of the Book of Conſecrating and ordering Biſhops, Prieſts and Deacons. He was a ſtrict obſerver alſo of all the Orders of the Church and Univerſity, both in publick and his own Colledg: wearing the Square Cap and Surpliſs, Kneeling at the Sacrament, and he himſelf commemorating their Benefactors at the times their Statutes appointed, and reading that Chapter out of Eccleſiaſticus, which is on ſuch occaſions uſed. In a Letter alſo of his to Arch-biſhop Bancroft (then in Doctor Crackanthorps hands) he profeſſes himſelf conformable to the Church of England, willingly and from his heart, his Conſcience admoniſhing him ſo to be. And thus he remained perſwaded to his laſt breath; deſiring to receive Abſolution according p. 202to the manner preſcribed in our Liturgy, when he lay on his Death-bed. Which he did from Doctor Holland the King's Profeſſor in Oxford; kiſſing his hand in token of his Love and Joy, and within a few hours after reſigned up his Soul to God. What think you now; was Doctor Reynolds one of thoſe that abominated our Worſhip, ſuffered extream perſecution, deprivation and baniſhment too? Or muſt he that lately ſtood among the moſt learned and godly men in the World, be now blotted out, and put in the black liſt of Idolaters, and touchers with Graven Images? What ſay you? Will you never ſee how theſe men deceive you? Muſt the moſt knowing men on our ſide, that report things to us from ſolid teſtimony, be thought lyars; and theſe impudent ſots be believed on their bare word?

N.C.

I am convinced he underſtood nothing of theſe matters.

C.

And yet he writes like a Teacher; though I believe he never ſtudied their own Writers about theſe points. If he had; the ſilenced Miniſters in thoſe dayes would have taught him a great part of what I have ſaid. For they have told us in Print,**Chriſtian Modeſt Offer (as they call it), of the ſilenced Miniſters, in which they call for another diſputation. Anno 1606. that Moſt of thoſe Miniſters appointed to ſpeak for them at Hampton Court were not of their chuſing, or Nomination, or Judgment in the matters then in queſtion; p. 203but of a clean contrary. For being intreated at that time to diſpute againſt thoſe things as ſimply evil and ſuch as could not be yielded to without ſin, they profeſſed to them, they were not ſo perſwaded, and therefore could not do ſo. And being then requeſted to let his Majeſty underſtand, that ſome of their Brethren were further perſwaded touching the unlawfulneſs of thoſe things than themſelves, they refuſed that alſo. Now I would fain know of this Epiſtler, whether he do not think Doctor Reynolds was one of thoſe Moſt? and whether he do not ſee that ſuch men as he were aſhamed the King ſhould know; that any of the Nonconformiſts (to whom they wiſht well) were ſo weak as to call the things in difference ſimply evil?

N.C.

I think you had beſt diſmiſs this man. What ſay you to the Arguments in the Book it ſelf?

C.

Where ſhall we find them? There are ſtrains of railing Rhetorick, ill applied ſimilitudes (which are the common way of deceiving) abuſed Scriptures; looſe inconſequent-reaſonings; in a word, no arguments, that do not prove a great deal too much.

N.C.

Methinks there is ſomething in that, p. 4. That it is impoſſible for a man to keep up his heart ſo much as in a tollerable poſture of Devotion, reverence and attention to ſuch Prayers, as having been fram'd by men, and thoſe no more excellent than their neighbours, are grown familiar to us, and can be ſaid by roat beforehand, we having heard them a thouſand times already.

p. 204C.

Nothing at all. For by whom are their Prayers framed? Are they Angels or glorified Saints in the Church Triumphant, that muſt not have the name of Men? Or dare they ſay, the Spirit frames them? And do they not repeat for ever the ſame phraſes, only not put together always in the ſame Order? How many thouſand times have you heard them beg, that they might prize Chriſt more, and Ordinances more, and Sabbaths more and a number of ſuch like things as theſe? And beſides all this, what ſay you to the Pſalms of David? Could no man anciently joyn devoutly in ſinging them, becauſe they were ſo often repeated, and ſo well known that the Jews had them by heart?

N.C.

I cannot tell; But God himſelf, he ſaith, judges it neceſſary to conſult his glory (I mean a Religious awe, reverence and eſteem to his counſels and works from men) by concealing the one and the other, till the time of their bringing forth, that ſo they may come freſh and new to them. VVhat ſay you to that?

C.

I ſay he doth not write ſenſe, for it is as if he had told us, that God doth not reveal his Counſels, till he reveal them.

N.C.

But you may gueſs at his meaning; that God keeps ſecret what he intends to do, till he bring it to paſs.

C.

That's falſe. For he foretold many things by the Prophets. But were it altogether true; it's nothing to the purpoſe. For though he ſurprizes us ſometimes with events we never thought of, and could not foreſee; and will not always p. 205ways let us know what be intends to do: yet he doth not judg it neceſſary to conceal his will, concerning that which we are to do. No; quite contrary. He judges it neceſſary to declare it, and hath made no new Declaration ſince the Apoſtles times. And yet we may have a Religious reverence, ſure, to his Counſels revealed in his Word, though they come not freſh and new to us. If we cannot; all that I have to ſay is, that then the ſame Exception lyes againſt them, which you bring againſt the Common-Prayer. Nor are your own Prayers ſo freſh and new as he pretends; but we know beforehand the moſt you have to ſay; only you have ſome new invented Words and Phraſes which ſometimes give us juſt diſguſt.

N.C.

Doth not our Saviour ſay, Mat. 13.52. that every Scribe, every Teacher, inſtructed to the Kingdom of Heaven, i.e. meetly qualified for the work of the Miniſtry of the Goſpel, is like to a man that brings forth out of his Treaſures, things new and old?

C.

What of all that?

N.C.

Doubtleſs our Saviour ſpoke it upon this Account, as he tells you.

C.

Doubtleſs he was full of fancy (as well as the reſt of his Brethren) which laid hold of every thing without any reaſon, if it would but make a ſhew, and ſerve to countenance their wild opinions. Elſe he would have eaſily ſeen that our Lord ſpeaks of his Apoſtles and Evangeliſts, who were furniſh'd with abilities to propagate the Goſpel, both by their knowledg in the Old Revelations in the ancient Scriptures, and in the new, which he made unto them.

p. 206N. C.

But the Liturgy ſmells rank of the Popiſh Maſs-Book which alone is ſufficient to make it the abhorring of their ſouls that underſtand any thing of the ſeverity of the Divine jealouſie, &c. pag. 5.

C.

The old N. C. were not affrighted with ſuch terrible Nothings as theſe. But told our Engliſh Donatiſts (the Browniſts) who objected this: That it was more proper to ſay the Maſs-Book was added to our Common-Prayer, than that our Common-Prayer was taken out of the Maſs-Book. For moſt things in our Common-Prayer were to be found in the Liturgies of the Church, long before this Maſs-Book, you talk of, was heard of in the world. The Maſs was patched up by degrees and added to the Liturgies of the Church; now one piece, then another. And if a true man may challenge his goods whereſoever he finds them, which the thief hath drawn into his Den; then the Church of God may lawfully lay claim to thoſe holy things which the Church of Rome hath uſurped, and ſnatch them away from among the traſh wherewith they are mingled. A great deal more to the ſame purpoſe you may find in Mr. John Ball **Anſwer to two Treatiſes of Mr. John Can. 1642. part. 2. pag. 9., which I cannot now ſtand to tell you. The ſum is this; That Popery is a Scab or Leproſie that cleaves to the Church. It moſtly ſtands in erroneous, faulty, groſs and abominable ſuperſtructures upon the true Foundation, whereby they poyſon, or overthrow the foundation it ſelf. But take away the ſuperſtructures and the foundation remains: Remove the Leproſie and the man is ſound.

p. 207N. C.

You talk of Liturgies in the ancient Church: We read of none in the Apoſtles time.

C.

True: But as the ſame perſon ingenuouſly confeſſes,****Ib. part. 2. p. 17. they might be, though we read nothing of them. For the Apoſtles have not ſet down a Catalogue of all and every particular Order that was in the Church. However, a ſet form of Prayer to be uſed in publick meetings is not unlawful, becauſe it is of the number of things which God hath not determined in his Word, &c. And as to call that Holy which God hath not commanded is Superſtitious, ſo it is erroneous to condemn that as unholy or prophane which God allows, or is conſonant to his Word, though not preciſely commanded.

N. C.

It is a common opinion that the Liturgy is a novel Invention in the dayes of blindneſs and lazineſs, in favour of Idle and debauched Prieſts.

C.

You are all as learned as the Prefacer to your Book. But you might be more truly learned if you would read the Author now mention'd; who tells you that though it's hard to determine the preciſe antiquity of ſtinted Liturgies; yet that they have been in uſe in the Chriſtian Church for the ſpace of 1400. years if not above, no man can deny. And that they could not be invented for ſuch ends as you imagine; becauſe the chief promoters of ſtinted Liturgies were renowned for their conſtant and unwearied preaching every day in the week and ſometimes twice **Ib. pag. 18.. The New England Miniſters would have taught you more; for all they p. 208dare ſay againſt the Antiquity of Liturgies is, that for about an hundred years there were none aaLetter of Reply and Anſwer about 9. poſitions, pag. 2.: Then your Dialogue-makerbbMr. Hughes, p. 42. tells you they came in; but hath the impudence to add, that Miniſters then grew idle and weary of taking pains.

N. C. It is a ſad thing there ſhould be ſuch endleſs diſputes: Surely if they that compoſed the Common-Prayer bad dreamt that it would create ſo many diviſions, diſtractions, tumults, confuſions, &c. they would never have found either heart or hand to lift up toward the promoting of it. pag. 8.

C.

An admirable Argument! As if he had ſaid, The Pen-men of Holy Scripture would never have writ as they have done; if they had but fore-ſeen what ill uſe would be made of their words, what Wranglings and Diſputes they would raiſe, and how they would be wreſted and tortured to a ſenſe which they never thought of. Muſt the poſſibility of an inconvenience that may grow, hinder us from doing good things?

N. C.

No. But there is no good comes of this. For they who like this kind of Worſhip are generally Ignorant, Prophane, Superſtiti us, Time-Servers, Fearful, Ʋnbelievers, Haters of thoſe that are good, Drunkards, Adulterers, &c

C.

I know he ſaith ſo: And repeats it a little after, that they are generally if not univerſally perſons much eſtranged from the life of God, affectionate lovers of this preſent World. But we know withal that there is a vaſt number of Ignorant revilers, railers, lyars, falſe-accuſers, covenant Breakers, proud p. 209cenſurers of their Brethren, uncharitable, contentious, implacable, ſelf-conceited, greedy ſcrapers of wealth, &c. Who love the other kind of Worſhip, and like no Prayers but thoſe of their own conceiving. Doth not this Argument war ſtrongly (as his phraſe is) againſt ſuch a worſhip; and is it not a great preſumption of the carnality of it, that it comports with the humours, fancies and Conſciences of men of ſuch an evil Spirit? If you like not ſuch Reaſonings againſt the Prayers of your invention, let them alone when you diſpute againſt ours. But I muſt tell you however that this man, let him be who he will, hath committed a moſt hainous ſin, and is preſumptuouſly uncharitable in judging the Generality, if not all, of us to be ungodly. We know the contrary, and are aſſured that there are more than one of a City, or two of a Tribe (as he loves to ſpeak) that are truly conſcientious, and ſerve God in this way which he ſo ſcorns, with much ſatisfaction and joy of heart. And all ſober men I think, will look upon it as an intollerable piece of Pride in him to ſay, that it is hardly credible any man fearing God (if there be any ſuch among us) ſhould partake at any time in this worſhip with any great contentment. This is to meaſure other mens Corn by your own Buſhel. A piece of the old leven of the Scribes and Phariſees, or if you will, the Separatiſts here in England before he was born: To whom Mr. Gyfford anſwered then as we do now **Anſwer to Mr. Greenwood, pag. 72. &c. 1590.. It cannot be denied but that many pray fervently with ſighs, and groans, and tears, who read the Prayer upon the Book, or have it as we uſe to ſay, by heart.

N. C.

But if your prayer Book were as free from blemiſh as Abſolom, nay, if it had been compoſed by a General Council of Elect Angels; the impoſing of it p. 210would be imperious Blaſphemy, and the uſe of it as impoſed, baſe and wretched Idolatry.

C.

Go and find ſome child to fright with your bluſtring Language.

N. C.

It is more than noiſe. For he tells you (pag. 11.) that it is as well or as much the incommunicable priviledge or prerogative of God to preſcribe, appoint and command his own worſhip, as it is to be worſhipped. And therefore whoſoever ſhall authoritatively under any penalties command any Form, Model, Method or Manner of Divine Worſhip makes himſelf God; and whoſoever ſubmits to ſuch Worſhip is an Idolater, becauſe he gives that honour to a creature which is due to God alone. What have you to ſay againſt this Argument?

C.

I ſay that as no body doubts but God, who is above all, hath a right to appoint his own Worſhip, ſo it is as certain that he hath not appointed any model of Worſhip or form of words to be uſed in Prayer and none elſe. Nor hath he told us that he will not be worſhipped by a ſet Form, or that we muſt vary our words and phraſes, and conceal what we have to ſay to him till we bring it forth. And therefore I ſay he hath left it to our ſober and Religious Reaſon to determine after what manner that worſhip which he requires may be beſt performed. And if not to every mans reaſon (which would be abſurd) then thoſe who govern the reſt are to conſider how chriſtian Societies when they meet together may moſt ſolemnly pray in the name of our Lord Jeſus for ſuch things as are according to Gods will; and give thanks alſo to God the Father through him. And conſequently it is no incommunicable prerogative to appoint a Form or Order of Divine Worſhip, ſince God hath not appointed one himſelf, and yet muſt not be worſhipped diſorderly. And if it may be appointed, then it may be appointed under p. 211penalties, to keep men from wanton contempt of the publick Reaſon. Mr. J. G. you remember compoſed a hymn to be ſung on a day of Thanksgiving in his Congregation. This was a form, and authoritatively impoſed; elſe every one there might have brought forth his hymn and put all into confuſion: which if they had done they might juſtly have been cenſured by him, if he had had any power. Now I would fain know why the Magiſtrate may not preſcribe the Song of St. Ambroſe, or any other godly Hymn to be ſung by all Congregations committed to his charge; as well as one Miniſter preſcribe an hymn to his particular Congregation? and why the Magiſtrate may not uſe all his power and puniſh as he ſees cauſe; as well as ſuch a Miniſter uſe all his (who could only reprove) in caſe of contempt? I would know alſo how this Author could excuſe the whole Chriſtian World from being Idolaters, you Presbyterians not excepted, if his Doctrine be true. For the Parliament preſcribed the Directory, and that not without penalties, as a model or manner of Divine Worſhip: and ſo they uſurped the place of God; and you who ſubmitted to their orders, Worſhipped the creature, and ſaid conſtructively and in effect (if he reaſon right) to the Parliament, Thou art my God, or I acknowledge and own thee for my God.

N. C.

I remember the words, pag. 12.

C.

And what would have become of you, if after this dreadful ſentence, he had not in an extraordinary fit of good nature revoked it; and allowed the uſe of a preſcribed form? For though he ſay that conceived prayer, for the nature and kind of it, is that very worſhip which God Commands. Yet as he doth not prove it, ſo he affirms it not confidently, without this reſtriction; at leaſt to thoſe that are, or by the uſe of means may be, capable of it, p. 30. Very kindly ſaid; I p. 212perceive this gift then of conceiving prayer is but natural, and no divine inſpiration: and where nature is not ready in its conceptions, it may be relieved by the help of Art: and ſome may be uncapable of it, whatſoever means they uſe to acquire this gift. And conſequently conceived prayer is not the Worſhip which for the nature and kind of it, God commands; becauſe he doth not command impoſſible things: but another manner of Worſhip by a conſtant form may be uſed; nay, impoſed too when a Magiſtrate judges it needful, and ſees that thoſe who are moſt zealous for conceived Prayers alone, have generally leaſt abilities to conceive aright. In ſhort he grants, p. 55. that ſtinted forms of Prayer in themſelves, unto ſome men, and under ſome circumſtances may be lawful: He might as well have ſaid needful, for I ſuppoſe-he thought them lawful, in caſe men could not conceive prayers themſelves, as they ought. And then why may not the circumſtances be ſuch that they may be needful to all; at leaſt at ſometimes, when men of the readieſt inventions are indiſpoſed? And mark I beſeech you how timerouſly he begins to ſpeak after all his vapouring, when he tells us, We ſhall hardly find in the Scripture, eſpecially in the New Teſtament, the ſame Prayer uſed by the ſame perſon the ſecond time. It ſeems we may find it, if we will but take the pains. But to ſave us a labour he preſently remembers, that Chriſt prayed the ſame words a ſecond and a third time: which he excuſes thus; by the ſame words we are to underſtand the ſame in ſenſe, matter and import, but not in ſound, letters or ſyllables. How he came to know this I cannot tell; for my part I believe our Saviour was not concern'd about new words when he had the ſame thing to ſay again. But the like peremptory concluſion he makes concerning all the exhortations p. 213to prayer delivered by Chriſt or his Apoſtles: which he ſaith were intended only of that kind of prayer which the Saints were to conceive and indite by the help of the Spirit, which they who believed did receive. To countenance this he cites a great many Scriptures, and tells us that thoſe places (at leaſt the moſt of them) cannot be underſtood of the Miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, &c. which is ſo notoriouſly falſe that I wonder he had the confidence to affirm it. The firſt is Joh. 7.39. the next, Act. 5.32. which no man I think before him ever underſtood otherwiſe than of the extraordinary gifts beſtow'd on the day of Pentecoſt. And of ſuch gifts the Apoſtle ſpeaks in the Rom. 5.5. 2. Cor. 5.5. Gal. 3.2. Epheſ. 1.13. In ſhort, there is but one place of all that he muſters up, that can with any colour be drawn to ſerve his purpoſe, viz. Rom. 8.14, 15. And yet to me there is no Senſe ſo plain of thoſe words as this; that all the gifts of the Holy Ghoſt being a great Evidence of the truth of Chriſtianity, they that lived accordingly, might be aſſured of the love of God; and whether they were Jewes or Gentiles might call God Father, though they obſerved not the Law of Moſes. But I moſt marvel that he ſhould alledge that place in 1 Joh. 2.27. which the Browniſts, I remember, were wont to cite (and with more ſhew of reaſon) to prove that every Saint had the Holy Spirit to open to them, and lead them into every truth. To which if you pleaſe you ſhall hear what the Old Non-conformiſt replyed.

N. C.

I had rather hear what you can reply to the Scriptures which he brings to prove, that therefore God abominates a worſhip or a form and manner of Worſhip, becauſe he hath not commanded it. Though the Worſhip were in its own nature abominable, yet he takes no notice of that; but only of its not being commanded, p. 214which is a ſign the provocation lyes there. Jer. 7.31. Jer. 19.5. &c. pag. 19.20.

C.

I remember the places very well; and remember withal that this is a miſerable old argument which hath been anſwered many a time before he ſet pen to Paper. And it hath been proved with plain Evidence, that the meaning of the words, which I commanded not, is as much as, which I forbad: as he had expreſly their offering their children to Molock of which he ſpeaks in that Jer. 7.31. So when it's ſaid that they offer'd ſtrange fire which the Lord commanded not, Lev. 10.1. all conclude that leſs is ſaid and more underſtood, viz. that the Lord hath forbidden it. Mr. Ainſworth himſelf cannot deny it, who yet makes the ſame uſe of this phraſe ſometimes that this Author doth. And indeed a man muſt flatly contradict all reaſon that oppoſes this. For when he ſpeaks of thoſe that ſhould worſhip other Gods. Sun and Moon which he had not commanded, Deut. 17.3. it is ſenceleſs to interpret it otherwiſe than this; which he had forbidden. For if this was the reaſon why a man ſinned in worſhipping the Moon, that he did it without Gods leave or Command; it would ſuppoſe that God might have commanded them to worſhip it and ſerve other Gods: which no body imagines. All thoſe places therefore, which he alledges to prove that Gods not commanding a thing is enough to make it unlawful, amount to no more but this; that his forbidding a thing makes it unlawful.

N. C.

But we ought to interpret the Scripture according to the very form of the words; and ſo, that is unlawful which is not commanded.

C.

Juſt now you were only for the ſenſe and the matter, not the words and ſyllables. But to let that paſs; I have ſhown you this is a faſhion of Speech in p. 215the Old Teſtament for a thing forbidden. And beſides, the abſurdity of your Interpretation is ſo great, that the wiſer ſort of that party who firſt uſed this argument were forced afterward to forſake it: as I can clearly demonſtrate out of Mr. Cartwright. And in deed where hath the Lord commanded a Miniſter to read a Text and gloſs upon it; or the Congregation to ſing the Pſalms of David in Metre? Mr. Smith can never be anſwered by theſe Diſputers, who ſaid that the Holy Scriptures were not to be retained as helps before the eyes in time of worſhip: and that it was unlawful to look upon a Book in ſinging Pſalms. Nor could they have told what to ſay to that poor Gentleman in Warwick-ſhire, who was ſo deeply poſſeſſed with theſe two fancies, that we muſt not communicate with ſinners: nor uſe any humane inventions in Gods Service; that to avoid the firſt he ſhut up himſelf and children in his houſe, having no meat but what was put in at the window; nor ſuffering any body to come near them when they all lay ſick in great miſery: and to avoid the laſt, he cut out the Contents and the Titles of every thing in the Bible, leaving nothing but the Text it ſelf**Mr. Ball Anſw. to Can. p. 138.

N. C.

Doth not God ſay thou ſhalt neither add thereto nor diminiſh from it? Deut. 12.32.

C.

What? not add Contents, or Notes for the better underſtanding of the Bible?

N. C.

Nothing to the worſhip of God, of which his own Word is to be the only rule, and not the leaſt title to be abuſed of our own.

C.

Why do you only ſay to his Worſhip? You learn't this of Mr. Ainſworth the old S'paratiſt, who moſt unjuſtly reſtrains thoſe words to God's Service: whereas Moſes ſpeaks of every thing he had received p. 216from him, whether they were Statutes or Judgments as you may ſee, v. 1. In one word, of the whole Law, which was to direct them not only in Religious but civil Affairs**Read the 4 Deut. 1.2. where he begins his exhortation to obſerve his Laws; requiring them not to add or diminiſh from any of them.Deut 1:2 And therefore this place is as effectual to prove that there may be no Law made to determine our civil controverſies, as that there may be none made to order God's Worſhip and Service. And then what hinders but thoſe men may obtain their deſires, who told you lately, it will never-be well till the Laws of the Lord Jeſus be received alone? That all our Counſellors and Pleaders bring their Books of Common Law and beſtow them as the Students of Curious Arts did theirs in the Apoſtles time? That the Godly ſend out their writs to ſuperſede all proceedings in Weſtminſter-Hall, and judg all things in their Churches?

N. C.

The State will never ſuffer that Folly.

C.

Nor this fooliſh interpretation of Scripture, I hope. The Jews I am ſure (from whom Mr. Ainſworth borrows ſo many uſeful expoſitions) never thought that no particular Laws might be made agreeable to the General, and for the preſervation and better execution of them. For the Elders made many; and impoſed thoſe commandments on the people as a hedge and ſecurity to the Divine Laws: and in this they did well. All the fault was that in proceſs of time they grew too numerous, and they equalled the decrees of the Elders with the very word of God, nay, ſometimes made the Law void by them.

N. C.

Since you ſay you are in haſt to be gone, I'le trouble you no farther about this Book: though there are many things behind that deſerve conſideration.

p. 217C.

I am not of that mind. He hath but raked togather all the frivolous exceptions, with the filthy ſcoffs and jeers which were anſwered in the days of our Forefathers: and are as eaſie to confute as to tell to Twenty. But let me tell you this before we part with him, that Mr. J. Goodwin was not wont to allow reaſons drawn from the Jewiſh Law (though all the lofty Rhetorick in this Book be drawn from it) becauſe the ſtate of things now is not like what was then. He tells us for inſtance in his Hagiomaſtix, though blaſphemers, ſeducers to Idolatry, and falſe Prophets were put to death by that Law, yet we have not the ſame reaſon to do ſo now; becauſe they might immediately conſult with God in all difficult caſes that hapned about matters of Religion; but we have no ſuch infallible directions in all caſes, and cannot have diſputes ſo ended. If this Reaſoning be good, then this is I am ſure. God directed every thing about their Sacrifices in the Jewiſh Law, and therefore no Rite or Ceremony was to be added by them, becauſe if any more were needful they might ſtill repair to him: But he hath not done ſo under the Goſpel, nor do we know to what Prophet or Oracle to go for direction in every thing; and therefore we muſt repair to Religious Prudence and diſcretion.

N. C.

I marvel he ſhould ſpeak with ſo much confidence and triumph in a matter that is ſo diſputable.

C.

It was the manner and the cuſtom of the man (if Mr. J. G. were the Author) as you may be ſatisfied if you look into his Anticavaleriſme. Where he tells you, There is no occaſion **Pag. 6.for a man to make a ſtand in matter of conſcience, whether he ſhould ingage on the Parliaments ſide, or no: nothing to detain ones Conſcience in ſuſpenſe; the righteouſneſs of the Cauſe being as clear as the light, or p. 218as the Sun at noon day. And to grace the buſineſs with Scripture language, he tells you; the Cauſe is like the Law of God it ſelf in theſe excellent qualifications of it; that it is Holy, just and good.

N. C.

I never knew any man ſpeak with ſuch aſſurance in a thing which all wiſe men thought at leaſt doubtful.

C.

Well, I put you in mind of it then, that you may not either wonder or be ſtaggered when you hear men ſpeak with ſuch aſſurance. For he uſes as big and confident words in another caſe, in which I am ſure you are as confident of the contrary, viz. about the putting our Late Sovereign to death. This concluſion, ſaith he, ſtands like a great mountain immoveable; that the juſtice and honour of the ſentence againſt the late King are no way impairable by this ſuppoſition that this preſent Parliament is not a compleatly-legal Parliament. **Deferce of the ſentence paſſed on the King, p. 47.And in another place; Doubtleſs never was there any perſon under heaven ſentenced with death upon more equitable or juſt grounds, in reſpect of guilt and demerit (a)(a)Ib. p. 91. repeated again p. 95. without all controverſie, there never was in any age through the whole world, a ſentence more juſt, &c.. Thus he boaſts alſo, that he hath brought this Concluſion, That there was a neceſſity lying on the Army to ſeclude many Members, into as clear and perfect light as any the Sun ſhineth at Noon-day(b)(b)Reply to Mr. Geree's might overcoming Right. p. 130..

N. C.

At midnight he ſhould have ſaid.

C.

No; let him ſay at noon-day. They are but words of courſe; every thing, though never ſo dark, is to him as clear as the noon-day. And therefore no p. 219wonder it be ſo clear to him that we are all Idolaters; and that the King in impoſing the Common-Prayer hath equalled himſelf unto God, and obtruded himſelf as God, to be worſhipped by us as Nebuchadnezzars Golden Image was. For he told us you know in expreſs words, That whoſoever ſhall authoritatively and under a penalty command any model, method, or manner of Divine worſhip to be obſerved by men, makes himſelf God, &c. you may read it at large, p. 11. 12. For it is as clear as the Sun.

N. C.

That ſuch Books ought to be burnt.

C.

I muſt add that you are all guilty of too much confidence, and talk as if you were infallible in your concluſions. When you ſee therefore the folly of it in another, mend it in your ſelves. And do not talk here after as if all Godly men had ever been of your mind: No man of a tender Conſcience but held it unlawful to preſcribe any thing in Gods worſhip. Every Body knows Cartwright, Reynolds, Greenham were of this opinion as the Prefacer boldly told you; and it is a wonder he did not add Dr. Sibbs. For ſo ſome of your party took care the world ſhould believe; and choſe rather to corrupt his writings, then have it thought he was of another Perſwaſion.

N. C.

I ſhall never believe it.

C.

You may chuſe: But I ſhall prove that this good mans writings were abuſed preſently after his death in this very point. For in his Book called the Souls Conflict, he gave this direction among others to guide a Soul in doubtful Caſes. The Laws under which we live are particular determinations of the Law of God; and therefore ought to be a rule to us ſo far as they reach. Though it be too narrow a Rule to be good only ſo far as mans Law guides unto; yet Law being the joynt Reaſon and conſent of many men for publick Good, hath an uſe p. 220for the guiding of our Actions that are under the ſame. VVhere it daſhes not againſt Gods Law; what is agreeable to Law is agreeable to Conſcience. Thus the Rule ſtood when the Book firſt came out**Firſt Edition 1635. pag. 364.. But in a very ſhort time after, when he was newly laid in his grave, the firſt words were changed into theſe; The Laws under which we live, are particular determinations of the Law of God in ſome duties of the Second Table. In which they made two reſtrictions of that which he had ſaid in General words; Firſt, they reſtrain'd the Rule to the Second Table, and not to all things neither, but only ſome duties. And then they add a whole Sentence, by way of Example, which was not in the firſt Edition: which I make no doubt was done on purpoſe, leſt any man who read the Book ſhould think it was the Doctors opinion, that we ſhould conform to the Orders of our Governours about the worſhip of God, where the Law of God hath determined nothing in particular, and their Laws do not croſs his. But what is there done by the Jeſuites worſe than this! what greater injury to the dead than thus to play tricks with their Books, and change their words at your pleaſure?

N. C.

It is very ſtrange.

C.

I have ſomething more to tell you. As they have added here, ſo they have taken away in another place juſt before it. He is Anſwering I told you this Queſtion, what courſe muſt we take for guidance of our lives in particular actions wherein Doubts may ariſe, what is moſt agreeable to Gods will? And one Advice is this; we muſt look to our place wherein God hath ſet us. If we be in ſubjection to others, their Authority in doubtful things ought to ſway with us. A dangerous Rule ſome men thought; and therefore p. 221in the next Edition, they left out thoſe words in doubtful things. And alſo blotted out this whole ſentence which follows; It is certain we ought to obey (viz. in doubtful things of which he is ſpeaking) and if the things wherein we are to obey be certain to us; we ought to leave that which is uncertain, and ſtick to that which is certain: In this caſe we muſt obey thoſe that are under God.

N. C.

Are you ſure of this?

C.

As ſure as that I ſee you: though I muſt tell you there was a neat device to hide this fraud; for they reprinted the Book ſpeedily with the very ſame Title page that was before without giving notice, that it was a ſecond Edition: And by leaving out thoſe lines; and adding an example, as I told you; to illuſtrate the rule as they had reſtrain'd it, they made the pages exactly even as they were at the firſt.**There are two Editions of 1635. one of his own, another of ſome bodies elſe; but ſo ordered that they ſeem the ſame. At leaſt they reprinted that ſheet (wherein theſe things are contained) with theſe alterations, which I add leſt I ſhould not be rightly underſtood by all. Afterward the Book was divided into Chapters: and in all Editions ſince you will find theſe Rules (Chapt. 17.) with theſe alterations.

N. C.

By his own appointment, it is like.

C.

Why did they not tell us ſo?

N. C.

I know not.

C.

I'le tell you then: They were loth to tell a plain lye: For the Doctor dyed within three days after he had writ his Preface to the firſt Impreſſion; and therefore it's moſt likely made no Alterations. That Preface was dated July the firſt 1635. and he dyed July the fourch. So I gather from thoſe who put out his two laſt Sermons preached June 21. and 28. and he p. 222dyed, ſay they, the Lords day following. Immediately after which came out a new impreſſion of the ſame year 1635. but not called a ſecond Edition: which they would have us believe was not till 1636. A meer cheat as I confidently affirm, having ſeen and compared all.

N. C.

I ſee now you are of an impoſing Spirit: and have taken a great deal of pains to ſhew it.

C.

What? Am I for impoſing on men thoſe words they never ſaid?

N. C.

Be not ſo perverſe. All the Reformed Churches are againſt impoſing of Set Forms, as I have been told.

C.

As perverſe as I am, I'le follow you for once. So you have been told, I believe, that they are againſt all Set Forms though not impoſed: I am ſure I have.

N. C.

No, I remember in the beginning of the late Wars the Scotiſh Forms of Prayer were printed.

C.

And ſo were the French, and thoſe of Geneva, and Guernſea, and the Dutch, to name no more; all tranſlated into Engliſh. Therefore pray ſatisfie ſome of your Ignorant but yet confident Friend, in this matter. As for that of Impoſing; what think you of theſe words of Mr. Calvin in his letter to the Protector, Octob. 22. 1548. As for Forms of prayer and Rites Eccleſiaſtical, I do greatly approve that there be a certain one extant, from which it ſhall not be lawful for the Miniſters in their function to depart, &c. For which he there gives ſolid Reaſons. And whatſoever is pretended to the contrary, the Reformed Churches do follow this Counſel; and tye men to a Form in the publick duties of Gods worſhip, as I can evidently ſhew. But now let me only obſerve that heretofore your Miniſters thought it no light Argument againſt the Separatiſts, that all Reformed Churches acknowledged the p. 223Church of England as their ſiſter: and conſequently did not think her wicked for impoſing Forms of Prayer. So you may read in the Book I told you of before, publiſhed by Mr. Rathband, p. 6. though the truth is thoſe Miniſters have taken that Argument out of the Book of Mr. Bernards **Errors of Barrow and Greenwood confuted, 1608 pag. 178.; who ſpeaks diſcreetly when he ſaith, That though we do not make this our only or chief defence, whereby we ſeek to approve our ſelves to God, or the conſciences of his people; yet it is a thing that gives ſome reputation to us. For even Saint Paul who received not his calling either from or by men, alledges for the credit of his Miniſtry, that three chief Apoſtles approved him, and gave him the right hand of fellowſhip. And which is more, he ſeeks to win commendation and credit even to thoſe Orders which he by his Apoſtolical Authority might have eſtabliſhed, by the example and judgment of other Churches **For which he cites 1 Cor. 7.17.11.15.14.33.16.1.1 Cor 7:171 Cor 7:111 Cor 7:151 Cor 7:141 Cor 7:331 Cor 7:161 Cor 7:1.

N. C.

Then you are for impoſing.

C.

I am for that which all men of any diſcretion think neceſſary, viz. that every body ſhould not be left to do according to their preſent humour and fancy, when they come to worſhip God in the publick Aſſemblies. Even the famous Smectymnuus allowed impoſitions in ſome caſes. For they propound this as an expedient, that, if it ſhall appear any Miniſter proves inſufficient to diſcharge the duty of prayer in a conceived way, it may be impoſed on him as a puniſhment to uſe a ſet form and no other ††Anſwer to the Humble Remonſtrance p. 14.. This was indeed a contrivance to diſgrace the Liturgy as if it were fit for no bodies uſe, but the duller and heavier ſort of People: but yet it ſhews their judgment above impoſing, p. 224which you now complain of. And I would fain know what they would have done with ſuch inſufficient perſons as had a good opinion of their gifts; and thinking themſelves wrong'd in being condemned to the forenamed Pennance, would not obey them: Would they have forced them to obedience or no? If not; their expedient ſignified nothing: If they would; then why ſhould not the Magiſtrate do it now, who knows that moſt of thoſe who love liberty, have a better opinion of their own abilities than they ought?

N. C.

We wiſh the Common Prayer was left at liberty to be uſed or not, as men found themſelves inclined.

C.

Do you ſo? That's becauſe you deſpiſe it, and think it good for little or nothing. But were there one of your own Inventions to be eſtabliſhed, you would never leave us at Liberty, if you had power, to make uſe of it or let it alone. Nothing ſhould ſtand in competition with it: but every thing elſe, as well as Common-Prayer, fall before it, as Dagon before the Ark. Did not the Independents incur your diſpleaſure for craving an allowance to order a few Churches after their own faſhion? Mr. Dury himſelf, I remember, a man of peace and compoſer of differences reſolved their way was not to be tollerated. For it would lay, ſaid he,††Epiſtolary Diſcourſe, p. 21. Licenſed by Mr. Cranford, July 27. 1644. the foundation of ſtrife and Diviſion in the Kingdom to have two wayes of Church Government: which may agree with ſome Matchiavilian, but no Chriſtian Policy. And therefore it will be no wiſdom in the State to yield to the Suit of the five Brethren, except it be induced thereunto by the Neceſſity of avoiding ſome greater inconvenience, than is the admitting of a ſeed of perpetual Diviſion within it ſelf, which is in my apprehenſion the greateſt of p. 225all other, and moſt oppoſite to the Kingdom of Chriſt. Now the leſs the cauſe of ſeparation is; the greater is the fault in thoſe that make it, and the leſs cauſe the State hath to give way to the making of it. You remember therefore what Ordinances were made for the electing of Elders: and that all Pariſhes and places whatſoever, as well priviledged and exempt jurisdictions as others, ſhould be brought under the Government of Congregational, Claſſical, Provincial, and National AſſembliesaaOrdin. of 19. Au. 1645.. And this was according to their ſolemn promiſe of ſetling Uniformity; which part of the Covenant, they ſaid (if you will believe them) was alwayes before their eyes bbOrdin. 14 Mar. 1645.. In purſuance of which alſo the City deſiredccHumble Remonſtrance and Petition, May 26. 1646.. that ſome ſtrict and ſpeedy courſe might be taken for the ſuppreſſing of all private and ſeparated Congregations: And the Houſe of Lords ordered the Printing of their Petition: which was grounded upon a Remonſtrance ††Decemb. 15. 1642.of the Houſe of Commons, wherein they declared that it was far from their purpoſe or deſire to let looſe the golden rains of Diſcipline and Government in the Church; or to leave private perſons or particular Congregations to take up what form of Divine Service they pleaſe. As for the ſacred Covenant, that Holy Ordinance (as Mr. Caſe calls it) and choice piece of Divine Service; you know no man could be a Miniſter, or an Elder, no nor practice as an Attorney or Solicitor at the Law, unleſs he took it: and the refuſal of it was generally made a Mark of ungodlineſs; as I will prove when you pleaſe.

N. C.

I know not what reaſons they went by then.

p. 226C.

The ſame whereby they would proceed now; if they had the ſame power and the ſame hopes. And ſo I believe would the Independents too: who are for impoſing their own things as much as they are able. For they have invented, you muſt know, a Model and form of their own heads which is not appointed in Holy Scriptures. As firſt, that the Members muſt be examined and give an account of the manner of their converſion (which is in a certain Method and Form too in New-England) and that before the Church.Narration of ſome Church Courſes in N. England by W. R. collected out of their own reports, &c. chap. 4. pag. 16. Then, it is required that they enter into a Church-Covenant, which is not the Covenant of grace, but diſtinct from it: (For they acknowledge a man may be within the Covenant of Grace, who is not in this, and one may be in this, who is not in that.) And yet it is a Sacred not a Civil thing: which muſt be made publick before all the Church, vocal and expreſs; ſo binding that none can be looſed from it without the conſent of the Church. And then it is held (at leaſt by many) that the Members muſt propheſy, i. e. exerciſe their gifts in and before the whole Congregation, by preaching, expounding, applying the Scripture: by inſtruction, confutation, Reprehenſion with all Authority††Which they ſay is an Ordinance perpetual in the Church as we read in Mr. Cottons Catechiſm. Now having deviſed theſe things, to name no more, I obſerve that the Covenant in the ſame Church is in one and the ſame Form of words, as well as matter; and therefore put into writing; and muſt be read by the party to be admitted, or he muſt hear it read by ſome other and give his Aſſent to it. Here is not only a Form of Holy Covenant (a principal point of worſhip as p. 227W. R. notes) invented by one or more men; but impoſed upon others, even as many as enter into the Church; and more than that, to be read upon a Book. What is this better, or how is it more lawful, than a ſet form of prayer? eſpecially ſince this Covenant is impoſed as an Ordinance of God, and abſolutely neceſsary; ſo as no Book-Prayer, I think, is? I find alſo that by this Covenant, the Members in ſome places††Church of Salem in New-Engl. were reſtrained and tyed up from ſhewing their gifts in ſpeaking or ſcrupling; till they were called thereto; that is, they being allowed to propheſie publickly, and ſo to propound queſtions and make objections (which they call Scrupling) they bound them up in this Covenant, which had the force of Law, from doing it uncall'd. I would fain know whether this be not to limit the Spirit (as you ſpeak) and to ſtint it to times, as you ſay we do it to words? For if a man be never ſo full, he muſt have no vent without a call from the Church. And how I pray you doth this differ from an Eccleſiaſtical Canon, as to it's force and obligation; but only that it hath another name; and all old Canons muſt be lay'd aſide, to make way for this new Covenant. They tell us alſo expreſly that the Magiſtrate may compel men to keep their Covenant; though not to enter into it††Ib. Narration of Church Courſes, cap. 15.. And for ſpreading of infectious Doctrines, Mr. Wheelwright a Miniſter, and Mrs. Hutchinſon a pretended Propheteſs, were baniſhed the Countrey. Several of their followers alſo were ſome impriſoned, ſome fined, ſome disfranchiſed, ſome baniſhed, and all diſarmed, for petitioning the Court in behalf of Mr. Wheelwright, and remonſtrating with due ſubmiſſion (ſo their words were) that they conceived he deſerved no ſuch p. 228cenſureaaProceedings of the General Court holden at New-Town, Oct. 2. 1637. and the Apology in defence of the proceedings holden at Boſton, 1636.. And great many more remarkable things there are in that ſtory, which I cannot ſtand to recite. But muſt proceed to tell you, that as for others who are not of their way, there is juſt no liberty at all. For as they will not grant communion to members of other Churches not conſtituted as they are: ſo if a company of approved godly people ſhould ſit down near them (where their power reaches) differing from them only in ſome points of Church Government; ſome of them tell us, not only that they ſhall not be owned as a ſiſter Church, but alſo be in danger of ſevere puniſhment by the Civil Magiſtrate bbNarration &c. cap. 10..

N. C.

What is all this to our Independents?

C.

They extol both the Men and the wayes of New-England to the Skyes: and therefore approve of them I ſuppoſe, not only as good, but as excelling all other. The Men, they ſay; have teſtified their ſincerity to all generations future by the greateſt undertaking, except that of our Father Abraham, viz. leaving this Countrey to go thither, meerly to worſhip God more purely ccApologetical Narration, 1643. pag. 5.. And as for their wayes and practices, they are improved to a better Edition and greater refinement, than thoſe of other Reformed ChurchesddIb. which makes it reaſonable to believe, that when they Covenanted to reform according to the example of the beſt Reformed Churches, they had New-England in their eyes, as their pattern: For thoſe General words, as Mr. Feak p. 229eeBeam of Light, p. 25.rightly obſerves, left it under ſuſpence and undetermined which of the Reformed Churches had obtained the highest degree of Reformation. The Scots and their Friends judged the Kirk of Scotland the beſt Reformed; the Diſſenting Brethren, approved the Reformation of New-England to be moſt excellent. But be this as it will, we have learn't thus much from what hath been related; that the Churches of a better Edition and greater refinement, do not think it unlawful to uſe forms in Gods holy Ordinances; unto which they bind thoſe who come under their Power; reſtraining them alſo from opening their mouths, when perhaps they think themſelves full of the Spirit: and denying leave to others to ſet up a different way from theirs, in their Neighbourhood. As for our Independents I can ſhew from their Books, that they think it neceſſary to be as ſevere in a great many Caſes … and I remember as heavy complaints of them, as ever they made of the Presbyterians: and have been told that they daily ſpet their renom privately and publickly, againſt thoſe that ſeparated from them aaVanity of the preſent Churches, p. 3. and 11., &c.

N. C.

It will be too long to relate all thoſe things. But I would fain know how this will ſtand with Chriſtian Liberty?

C.

Do you think that it conſiſts in being tyed to no Law at all?

N. C.

None but Gods.

C.

Take heed what you ſay.

N. C.

In matters of worſhip, I mean.

C.

That's abſurd, as I have ſhewn you. Gods Law hath only given us the general rules whereby things to be ordered in the Church: according to which our Governors are to make particular Laws, and we are to obey them; or elſe there will be nothing but confuſion. p. 230Yet ſtill our Chriſtian Liberty remains; becauſe, Firſt, we are not tyed to this or that pattern or Model, but our Governors have liberty to eſtabliſh whatſoever (being in it ſelf indifferent) ſhall ſeem to them moſt expedient for maintaining comlineſs and Order. And ſecondly, when any orders are eſtabliſhed, this is our Liberty (as our Divines teach you) that we do not uſe them as any part of Divine Worſhip (as ſome of you do) nor as meritorious and ſatisfactory, nor as neceſſary to juſtification or ſalvation, but only for diſcipline and good Orders ſake. And laſtly, by conſequence the ſame Authority may alter them, and hath not ſo tyed up it ſelf to them, but that it is at liberty to aboliſh thoſe, in caſe of inconvenience ariſing, and eſtabliſh others in the room. But ſuch a Liberty as leaves men looſe from all Laws and Orders, ſave thoſe that they ſhall chuſe themſelves, is a wild fancy which your Miniſters condemn as well as ours. Mr. Dury for inſtance, (a very moderate Presbyterian) tells the Independent Brethren, We muſt expect no ſuch Liberty as ſhall break the Bond of Spiritual Unity, which by the allowance of a publick tolleration of a different Church Government, may be occaſioned. To keep therefore Unity intire, a few muſt yield unto many, except they can fairly perſwade thoſe many to yield to them aaEpiſtolary Diſcourſe pag. 22..

N. C.

But what if they cannot agree?

C.

I was going to tell you. If they cannot agree, it is just they ſhould forfeit their Spiritual right and liberty which Chriſt hath conferred upon them, and fall under the Arbitriment of the Secular Power, which ought to look unto its own ſafety, leſt thoſe that make Diviſions and multiply Breaches in the Church about ſmall matters, diſturb alſo by that means the publick peace of the State bbIb. p. 24.. p. 231Of this mind alſo was Mr. John Cotton (a mild Independent) Good Kings, ſaith heccUpon the 1 Canticles v. 10. pag. 44. Uſe. 2.Song 5:10, ought to put upon their people wholſome Laws and ſtraight binding to the purity of Religion, and the Worſhip of God. It is no impeachment to their Chriſtian Liberty, as the Anabaptiſts dote, but an ornament to their beauty, making their necks comely as with chains of Gold. And a little afterddIb. Uſe 3., It is no impeachment of Chriſtian Liberty to bow to Christian Laws: Yea, it is the beauty of a Christian Church to wear thoſe chains, thoſe Laws, which were made for the good of the Church; and it ☜ was their prophaneſs and rebellion that ſaid; Let us break their bands aſunder, and cast away their cords from us.

N. C.

He ſpeaks of thoſe purer Laws which they found out, not ſuch as yours.

C.

It's as much to my purpoſe if he did; for it proves he would have the people ſtrictly tyed to Laws, and wear theſe chains alwayes about their necks; and our Governors think theirs as good as any, and ſo may as innocently bind men faſt to them, as you tye them to yours. And let me tell you, both Presbyterians and Independents would have their Orders ſo ſtrict, that their people ſhould not be allowed the liberty of going to hear where they pleaſe. Mr. Edwards aaGangraena 1 part. p. 30. Error 125., I remember, in his Catalogue of Errors, Hereſies and Blaſphemies, puts down this for one, That it is part of mens Christian Liberty, not to hear their own Miniſters, but to go and hear where they will, and whom they think they may profit moſt by. And the New-England Churches condemned thoſe that p. 232ſaidbbCatalogue of the Opinions condemned by an Aſſembly of the Churches, Aug. 30. 1637. Error, 80., if a man think he may edify better in another Congregation than in his own, that is ground enough to depart ordinarily, from Word, Seals, &c. notwithstanding the offence of the Church, often manifeſted to him for ſo doing.

N. C.

But why ſhould there be any penalties?

C.

You may as well ask me over again, why any Laws? which will be ridiculous without them. But I wonder you are not aſhamed to ſpeak againſt penalties and force, who preſſed the Covenant with more ſeverity, than ever any body did Conformity. What croſneſs is this (as the Biſhop of Down ſaidccViſitation Speech at Liſ…egarvy, 26. Auguſt. 1638.) that when we preſs men to conform to the Orders of our Church, they alledg it is contrary to Chriſtian Liberty to inforce men to the doing of any thing againſt their Conſcience, and that a man ſhould be fully reſolved in his own mind of the Lawfulneſs of that which he doth; and yet we urge that only under pain of ſuſpenſion and excommunication, and that after much patience and forbearance, uſing all fair means to perſwade them: But they compel men to ſubſcribe the Covenant againſt their Conſcience by Pike and Pistol: threatning no leſs than loſs of life, or goods and Lands in caſe of refuſal? By this we may judge of ſincerity, and what they would do in other things, had they Power in their hands. The truth is one could ſcarce live among you when you had power; for all that would not take the Covenant were held to be Malignants, and if you know not what was to be done with them, an eminent perſon will tell you.

N. C.

Who do you mean?

C.

Do you not remember who it was that complemented p. 233the Parliament as the keepers of our Vineyard, and commended them for being wanting in nothing to their duty —

N. C.

What then?

C.

You ſhall hear. He ſaith they had endeavoured to fence the Vineyard with a ſetled Militia, and then to gather out the Malignants as ſtones, and to make a Wine-preſs therein for the ſqueezing of Delinquents aaEpiſtle before the Sermon to the Commons, 25. Jan. 1643..

N. C.

I know not who this was.

C.

I'le be ſo civil to his Memory as to let this paſs without naming him. But he was one of thoſe you call a moderate Presbyterian, by which we may know what mind the Zealots are of. And as for the Independents, they were for an exact and thorough Reformation too (for that which they were about had coſt God dear, they ſaid, and he would not lay out ſo much for an imperfect, poor and low reformation) and therefore exhorted the Parliament not to ſpare the laſh to effect it: but do as Jeſus Chriſt did when he came to purge the Temple; not only chide the money changers, but whip them away, and overthrow the very Tables, leſt they ſhould recover their Trade again bbSee Mr. Bridge Sermon before the Commons, Nov. 29. 1643. p. 24, 25.. Which others delivered in this phraſe, Dagon is begun to fall befor the Ark; his head is off; but let not ſo much as the ſtump remain; i. e. give no Liberty to theſe Church of England men; let them not enjoy the leaſt relick of their worſhip. And accordingly you know, I ſhew'd you the laſt time, there was an Ordinance prohibiting the uſe of Common-prayer under great penalties in any private family, not excepting the Kings ccPage 218. Of Friendly debate, 3 Edit..

p. 234N. C.

I remember it; and ſome ſay it was an unworthy Conſtruction you make of the words; there was no ſuch intention.

C.

They had better have held their tongues, for I ſhall prove it to purpoſe. When Commiſſioners were ſent down to treat with his Majeſty at the Iſle of Wight, he was content, as he had expreſſed himſelf before, May 12. that the worſhip of God ſhould be performed according to the Directory for three years: provided only that his Majeſty, and thoſe of his judgment who could not in Conſcience ſubmit thereunto, might not be obliged to it, but left free to their own wayaaThis was Septemb. 29. 1648.. But this would not be granted; for you muſt know that though the Parliament had OrdainedbbOrdin. of March 1.4 1645.; the Chappels or places in the Houſes of the King and his Children ſhould continue free for the exerciſe of divine duties without any Elders; yet this was no more than they allowed to every Peer. in the Realm, and thoſe Duties, alſo were to be performed according to the Directory, and not otherwiſe. And therefore I find his Majeſty was fain for the ſatisfaction of the two Houſes (ſo his words are) to make a further conceſſion, and to profeſs he would not inſiſt upon any proviſion for continuance of the uſe of the Book of Common-prayer in his Majeſties Chappel for himſelf and his houſhold: nevertheleſs he declared he intended to uſe ſome other ſet Form of Divine Service ccThis was 4. Novemb. 1648.. But nothing would ſatisfie, unleſs he would do according to the Directory; they would not allow a Set Form in his own Houſe: no, though he declared, in a further explication of his mind, that he could not p. 235with a good Conſcience communicate in a publick Form of Divine Service and Adminiſtration of Sacraments, where it is wholly uncertain what the Miniſter will ſay to God: and told them he hoped they would not think it reaſonable to offer any violence to the conſcience of their Sovereign. For in their anſwerddNovemb. 20.; they tell him twice, though they would not force his conſcience, yet deſire it may be informed and rectifyed, that ſo it might agree with theirs, who were his great Council: that is, they would not call it by that name; but he muſt either agree to them, or be as he was: And ſo in fine he was content to wave even a Set FormeeReply. Nov. 21.. Do you not ſee now, how we were deceived by this word Liberty; and that the King himſelf could have no benefit of it? Had you not a great care of tender Conſciences, and were exceeding nice in preſſing men to that wherein they were not fully ſatisfied? Certainly his Majeſty had reaſon to ſayffDeclar. of Jan. 18. after votes of no addreſſes., If it be Liberty of conſcience they deſire, he who wants it, is moſt ready to give it. And what do you think of his Majeſties earneſt deſire to have ſome of his Chaplains attend himaaWhich he made February 17. 1646.? Was it not barbarous to deliberate one moment whether it ſhould be allowed or no; eſpecially by thoſe who cryed up Liberty ſo much? And yet he was fain to renew his Meſſage to them the next monthbbMarch 6., and to repreſent the neceſſity of it, for the guidance of his Conſcience. But ſtill they ſtop their ears to his deſires; for in his Anſwers to their PropoſitionsccMay 12. 1647., he reſpites p. 236his anſwer to what concerned the Covenant, becauſe he could not give a reſolution in a matter of Conſcience, till he might be aſſiſted with the advice of ſome of his own Chaplains, which had hitherto been denyed him. Nay, when he was at Carisbrook ddMeſſage of Aug. 10. 1648., I find him complaining that he had none about him (except a Barbar which came down with the Commiſſioners) that ever he named to wait upon him. A piece of rigor and barbariſm greater than is ever uſed by Chriſtians to the meaneſt priſoners and greatest Malefactors eeIcon Baſil.&c.

N. C.

I know the words. But what is this to penalties?

C.

You led me out of the way; and yet not altogether, for you may ſee by this that Chriſtian Liberty is but a Phraſe and ſignifies nothing, when any but your ſelve challenges the benefit of it. But if you would hear any more of the other. I muſt tell you the Independents were for ſome puniſhments though more mild than yours. For which I muſt refer you to Mr. Burroughs ffIrenicum pag. 36. & 37.(and not ſtay to recite his words at length) who tells you men may be reſtrained by Violence from publiſhing groſs Errors, notwitſtanding their plea of Conſcience: and that ſome trouble may be laid in their way who hold Errors of leſs moment, ſo far as to take off the wantonneſs of their ſpirits and neglect of means. Nay, where men by their weakneſs render themſelves leſs ſerviceable to the Commonwealth or Church, he ſaith, they may be denyed ſome priviledges granted to others: of which he gives you inſtances.

N. C.

What? No reſpect to tender Conſciences?

p. 237C.

Yes. But if a man be proud and turbulent in his carriage and diſpiſe his betters, the ſame Perſon tells you, you may be ſure the Devil is in his will, rather than in his Conſcience. For though an erroneous conſcience may cauſe one to hold faſt an Error, it doth not put him upon proud, ſcornful and turbulent behaviour. When a man by reaſon of his Conſcience (it may be the weakneſs of it) differs from his Brethren, he had need carry himſelf with all humility and meekneſs, and ſelf-denial in all things.☞ Conſider how well you follow this Rule, who are ſo peremptory and proud, &c. He ſhould be willing to be a ſervant to every man in what lawfully he may: that thereby he may ſhew to all, that it is not from any wilfulneſs, but meerly tenderneſs of his Conſcience, that he cannot come off to that, which his Brethren can do; whom yet he reverences, and in his carriage towards them ſhews, that he eſteems them his betters. But if a man that is weak, very much beneath others in Parts and Graces (he might have ſaid any one that diſſents from the Generality of Chriſtians, and his Governours where he lives) ſhall carry himſelf high, imperious, contemning and vilifying thoſe who differ from him, and be contentious with them, there is great reaſon to think the corruption is in the will, rather than any where elſe. And if there ſhould be ſome conſcience yet in thoſe men, their heart diſtempers may juſtly forfeit their right of pleading their conſcience. Thoſe who oppoſe them, if they do it in a Chriſtian way, nay, juſtifie what they do before God, and ſay to him, when he calls them to an account for their dealing ſo with thoſe that profeſſed Conſcience; Lord, we were willing to have dealt with them in p. 238all tenderneſs, if we could have ſeen conſcientiouſneſs in their carriage; But we ſaw nothing but ſcornfulneſs, pride, imperiouſneſs, turbulency, conceitedneſs, we could ſee nothing of the Spirit of Jeſus Chriſt acting them in their way **You may read this in Mr. Burroughs. Ib. p. 32., &c. Thus he alſo reſolves this queſtion, How ſhall we know a man to be obſtinate, when he oppoſes the judgment of many more godly and learned than himſelf? 1. If he oppoſe the common principles of Chriſtianity. 2. If in other matters his carriage be turbulent and altogether unbeſeeming a Chriſtian, differing from his Brethren. 3. Where there is neglect of thoſe means of Information, which he hath nothing to ſay againſt. Laſtly, If he ſo croſs his own principles, that he appear to be ſelf-condemned ††Ib. pag. 92.Think, ☞ I beſeech you, whether this be not your caſe.

N. C.

I have a number of things to ſay, but I ſee you are in haſt, and therefore will let them alone.

C.

You may propound them ſome other time, if upon conſideration of theſe things you be not ſatisfied. And to ſave you and my ſelf any further labour, I ſhall commend a few Directions to you for the guiding of your conſcience, and ſo conclude.

N. C.

Let's hear them.

C.

I cannot expect you ſhould bear any reſpect to my Advice; therefore I will ſpeak to you in another mans words; which are ſo good, that it's pitty they ſhould be forgot. They were writ above threeſcore years ago by Mr. Rich. Bernard, in a Book of his, where he teaches you how to carry your ſelf in a Church or State ſo as that you may ſeek the publick quiet of it††Chriſtian Advertiſements and Counſels of peace, 1608..

p. 239N. C.

How I pray you? I'le ſtudy his counſels.

C.

Firſt, maintain and uphold all that is manifeſtly good in it. 2. If there be any manifeſt evils, labour in your place by the beſt means to have them amended peaceably. 3. Bear with lighter faults for a time till a fit occaſion be offered to have them amended. 4. As for likelihoods of evil make them not apparent evil by ill interpretation; where neither the State intends it, nor ſo maintains it. 5. Take doubtful things ever in the better part. 6. Judiciouſly diſcern between the abuſe of a thing and that which may be well uſed: leſt in abhorring the abuſe, thou alſo do utterly condemn the thing it ſelf and the uſe thereof. 7. Let not the flouriſhing condition (as thou fancieſt it) of any Forain Church or State, make thee unthankful for the preſent good thou enjoyeſt at home, and loath thine own happineſs. 8. Mark and hold the difference between theſe things; the Equity of Law and the Execution; the truth Generally eſtabliſhed and profeſſed, and the perſonal Errors of ſome. Between ſoundneſs of Doctrine and bad Application; between ſubſtance and circumſtance; between the very being of a thing, and the well being of it; between what is neceſſary and what is only convenient and deſirable; between a Commandment and a Commandment to thee; between what is lawful and what is expedient. 9. Never preſume to reform others, before thou haſt well ordered thy ſelf. 10. Do not diſobey the evident commandment of God: and when there is nothing but probability of ſinning in obeying the precept of thy Governors, do not ſet opinion before judgment. Set aſide fancy, and do not refuſe to obey Authority, where it is not plain thou ſhalt ſin againſt God. p. 240Be more loth to offend a lawful Magiſtrate ☞ than many private perſons. Where thou canſt not yield, there humbly crave pardon. Where thou canſt not be tollerated, be contented with Correction for ſafety of Conſcience: and bear what thou canſt not avoid, with a patient mind. Remember that to ſtand more upon avoiding diſlike in private perſons, than in offending the publick authority, ☞ is no better than an humouring of men to increaſe diſcontentedneſs, rather than to preſerve the publick peace and welfare. Nay, it is better to croſs ſome mens affections without ſin to God, than to neglect moſt certain Duty, let people periſh, open a gap to the enemy, loſe thy liberty, and no whit better the Church of God.

N. C.

O but in this we muſt be very tender, and diſobey men rather than God.

C.

You ſhould be very tender and careful leſt you diſobey both: by breaking the commands of your Governors, when in ſo doing you follow no command of God. For which end he gives you this Rule. As thou mayſt not out of policy for fear of trouble, furniſh thy ſelf with diſtinctions and evade thy duty, where the word is plain: ſo thou oughteſt not out of ſcrupuloſity to imagine ſin where there is none, and trouble thy Conſcience with fear of tranſgreſſing, where there is no Law. The one breeds Atheiſm, the other is the mother of Superſtition. Therefore in indifferent things make no queſtion for conſcience ſake: ſo it be that neither holineſs, merit, nor neceſſity be put therein, nor uſed for any part of Gods worſhip, but for Decency, Order and Edification.

N. C.

But what if I am in doubt; and afraid p. 241to uſe theſe things you call indifferent?

C.

In this caſe he hath given you ſuch good Directions that I need ſeek for no other. The ſubſtance of them is this. You would do well to examine your ſelf whence your Doubt ariſes, whether from ſerious conſideration and a judgment convinced; or that it be only a niceneſs of diſlike, coming from a deſire not to be troubled with them, or for that thou haſt not been uſed to them, or becauſe ſome cannot away with them, or from Ignorance and want of knowledge, or perhaps from a godly jealouſie and fear of doing amiſs (I may add from a natural timorouſneſs and uncertainty of mind which can reſolve nothing.) If the ground be not a judgment inlightned and convinced, it is not trouble of conſcience, but a diſlike that works diſcontentedneſs upon ſome of the former grounds; which muſt be removed by conſideration and ſetling your judgment upon the Word of God and ſound Reaſon. Nay, it will be fit to conſider, whether this doubting do not ariſe through your own default, by looking out Reaſons to increaſe your diſlike, and neglecting to ſearch for Arguments ☜ to give you ſatisfaction. If this be your Caſe, as it is certain it is of too many, take as great pains to reſolve your ſelf as you have done to bring your ſelf into doubting; elſe you deal but partially. And have a care you be not too highly conceited of your ſelf, and look upon your own reaſons through the vapour of affection.

N. C.

My ſcruples are grounded upon this reaſon; that to make a thing lawful in Gods worſhip, it is not enough that it is not forbidden but it muſt be commanded.

C.

Examine well without prejudice what our Divines have replyed an hundred times to this, and you will find it an abſurd Principle. Or for the preſent onelyonly weigh what he ſaith, Why ſhould a man be more ſcrupulous p. 242to ſeek to have a plain command for every thing he doth in Eccleſiaſtical matters, even about things in themſelves indifferent, than about matters politick in Civil affairs? Men in theſe matters knwo not the ground nor end of many things which they yield unto, upon a General command to obey Authority; and knowing them not to be directly againſt God's will. And yet our obedience in all Civil matters muſt be firſt of Conſcience, and, ſecondly, as ſerving the Lord; which cannot be without knowledge and perſwaſion that we do well even in that particular in which we obey: which men uſually for conſcience ſake inquire not into, but reſt themſelves with a General commandment of obeying lawful Authority, ſo it be not againſt a plain commandment of God. What therefore doth let, but that a man may ſo ſatisfie himſelf in matters Eccleſiaſtical? I muſt tell you ("ſaith ☞ he) that the curious ſearching ſo particularly into every thing to have full ſatisfaction, hath ſo wrought in theſe days upon mens wits to bring diſtinctions; that the more men ſeek in doubt for reſolution, the further they are from it.

N. C.

What ſhall a man do then?

C.

He muſt obſerve theſe Rules of that Good man. 1. Keep all main Truths, which are moſt plainly ſet down in the Word, or by the Law of Nature ingraven on every mans heart. 2. Believe every thing truly and neceſſarily gathered, by an immediate conſequence from the Text. 3. Follow evident examples fit for him either as a Chriſtian, or his ſpecial calling requires. 4. Avoid that which is plainly forbidden, or follows neceſſarily by an immediate conſequence. 5. Follow true Antiquity and the General practice of the Church of God in all ages, where they have not erred from the evident Truth of God. 6. If thou p. 243ſuffereſt (ſaith he) let it be for known Truth and againſt known wickedneſs; for which thou haſt example in Gods word, or of the holy Martyrs in Church ſtory: But beware of far fetcht conſequences, or of ſuffering for new devices, and for things formerly unto all Ages unknown, ſeem they never ſo holy and juſt unto man.

N. C.

But what if the thing commanded ſeem to me a ſin?

C.

He anſwers, ſome things ſinfully commanded may be obeyed without ſin, as Joab obeyed David in numbring the People. Secondly, Conſider, how doſt thou conceive it to be ſin? Is it ſimply ſo? Shew me the prohibition: elſe where no Law is there is no Tranſgreſſion. Or is it ſo accidentally? that is, in the abuſe, which may be removed; or in reſpect of the Ignorance of the Lawfulneſs, making thee to doubt and fear to offend? Uſe all diligence for reſolution. And if it be not a known ſin to thee certainly but only by probability; conſider, whether probability of ſinning may give thee a ſufficient diſcharge for not obeying a plain Precept, and to neglect neceſſary Duties otherwiſe, both to God and man.

N. C.

Would you have me do things while I am full of ſcruples whether I may or no? Doth not the Scripture ſay whatſoever is not of Faith is ſin? Rom. 14.23.

C.

He takes no notice of that place; But ſince you mention it I'le give you an Anſwer, not from my ſelf, Mr. John Geree Reſolution of 10. Caſes Licenſed by Mr. Cranford, 1644.whoſe judgment you value not much, but from a Divine, who, we are told, ſuffered much under the Biſhops. Things wherein doubts ariſe, ſaith he, are of a double Nature. Firſt, Such as are meerly arbritary and at mine own diſpoſe. Theſe may be left undone without ſcruple, but not p. 244done with it; becauſe the inconvenience of Omiſſion is but a little ſelf-ſuffering. Such are the things the Apoſtle ſpeaks off; forbearing the uſe of our Liberty in eating fleſh, or the like caſe. If a man doubt whether he may do that, or whether he may play at Tables or Cards; the omiſſion here being no more but only denying our ſelves a little content, the doubt ſhould make a man forbear. But then there are other things that are not arbitrary but under a command, as coming to the Sacrament, obedience to the higher powers in things lawful. Now if ſcruples ariſe about theſe, and a man doubts he ſins if he act, and he alſo doubts he ſins if he forbear; it is neither clear that the thing to be done is ſinful, and ſo to be forborn, nor perfectly clear that it is a duty and ſo to be done: In this caſe he muſt weigh the Scales; and where the Soul apprehends moſt weight of reaſon, that way he muſt incline; though the other ſcale be not altogether empty. And this done after humble and diligent ſearch, with bewailing our infirmity that we are no more diſcerning, will be accepted of God. God puts not his people on neceſſity of ſinning; nor can our ſcruples diſpenſe with his commands.

N. C.

Sometime I think this is clear and ſolid Reaſon; but many Friends think otherwiſe, and I am loth to offend them by doing theſe things which our Governors require.

C.

But conſider, Firſt, they may take offence when none is given,Bern. Counſels of Peace. and then the fault is their own, and you not chargeable therewith. Secondly, the Queſtion is whether they be offended in reſpect of what themſelves know, or but led by affection, diſliking of other mens diſlike. Intreat the former to let thee abound, for ſuch things, in thy own ſenſe; and ſhew them that herein you may Brotherly diſagree: for the p. 245latter, inform their judgment, if they will yield to reaſon: If not, then conſider. Thirdly, whether thou art bound to nouriſh up ſuch men in their folly, and to reſpect their partial affection; being more carried away with an overweening of ſome mens perſons, than any thing at all with the right underſtanding of the cauſe. And then, Fourthly, conſider the power of the Magiſtrate, and whether his Authority commanding do not take away the offence which might otherwiſe be given by a voluntary Act. And, Laſtly, that a man ſhould not ſtand more upon avoiding diſlike in private perſons, than offence to publick Authority; as I ſaid before.

But alas! as he ſaith at the end of his Book††Separatis Schiſm adjoyn'd to the other p. 161., Charity and ſuch like graces are ▪ far to ſeek now adaies. Men on all hands judge of things perverſly. This they will allow, and that again humourouſly they will not like. That which maybe juſtly done well without offence, thereat will others be unjuſtly offended. Things doubtful, men take ſiniſterly; yea they dare cenſure what they never ſaw: condemn as ill, what they knew not: ſuſpect where they have no cauſe: gain-ſay, where there ought to be no contradiction, partial to themſelves and rigorous towards others. Authority will rule thus and ſo, Subjects will obey with Exceptions. Judgment from the word is not ſo much a Guide, as will and affection in too many are made Maſters. Theſe be ill dayes and contentious: unhappy times, in which men either will do, that they will do of themſelves; or elſe fall to humour parties (not ſimply receiving a love of the truth for the truths ſake) and ſo come to pertakings, which doth but increaſe contention, till all come to confuſion: except the Lord in his great mercy prevent the ſame.

p. 246N. C.

And turn us all to a more moderate courſe, and there keep us.

C.

You have read the Book: for thoſe are the words that follow.

N.C.

No. But I think there is much of truth in what he ſayes: and it had been well if his Counſels had been then followed.

C.

Alas! they who were chiefly concern'd in them, were ſo far from following them, that they took no farther notice of them than only to revile him that wrote them.

N. C.

Methinks none ſhould be ſo brutiſh.

C.

It is as I tell you. Mr. Ainſworth making an anſwer to this Book, wholly omitted theſe Counſels of Peace, ſave only that he once mention'd them, with this haughty cenſure, that perhaps the Author knew no more than Caiphas what he ſaid. Such men will not grant us able to ſay any good thing —

N. C.

But his was an acknowledgment the things were obſervable.

C.

True, but you ſee the men of that Spirit will not regard excellent things, if they be ſaid by thoſe whom they do not love. Mr. Bernard in his reply I think hath given a true deſcription: of them. Schiſmaticks are headſtrong, they will not ſee evident conviction. Preface to plain Evidences and Anſwer to the Fore-ſpeech as Mr. Ainſworth terms it. Publiſhed by Authority. 1610.Self-love makes them judge the beſt of themſelves, but their want of Charity, very badly of others. They beguile themſelves with ſhews of Piety, heat of affection, and with a ſtrong apprehenſion of things greatly amiſs in others. Theſe they can ſee with both eyes, themſelves with neither. Our arguments againſt them are Paper ſhot: but their weakeſt reaſons againſt us (if themſelves may judg) are ſhot of Cannon. They deſpiſe every mans endeavour againſt them, and are in admiration of their own works. Let p. 247any man confer with them, and he ſhall hear it: I my ſelf have ſufficient experience of it. All oppoſing their way, are men, in their judgment, that have no grace, rebellious againſt the Light. They are preſumptuous in cenſuring; and may give ſentence againſt all men and all Churches in the World; but none may give judgment of them. I heartily wiſh you all leſs pride and more humility; leſs diſlike of others, and more charity, with greater diſlike of your ſelves: the want whereof is the preſent enemy to lovely Unity, that ever accompanies true Piety; which many pretend, but few truly enjoy. And ſo farewel.

N. C.

Do you hear? pray come back.

C.

Will you never have done? what's the matter now?

N. C.

I have but one word more. You muſt not paſs too hard a cenſure upon ſome Miniſters who come not to Church. You know they cannot appear openly becauſe of the Act which forbids them to be in Cities, Market-Towns, &c.

C.

And yet they are there notwithſtanding that Act, and kept meetings againſt another Act which was lately in force. Why may they not appear any where in thoſe places as well as in one? In God's houſe as well as their own or yours? In the face of all the people, as well as before a party ſeparated from the reſt? You are a fine Advocate indeed: who now have confeſſed they are more afraid of the puniſhment (whatſoever they ſay) than of the Sin of diſobedience. For they break the Law whereſoever they are in thoſe prohibited Cities or Towns, and they would but break it, if they were at Church: only it would be leſs —

N. C.

I will ſtay you no longer. I did not think of this, when the other came into my mind.

C.

I believe it. You are not wont to lay thing together, and then ſearch them to the bottom. But you think as you talk; ſuddenly, in a rambling manner, without p. 248any coherence: which would never trouble me at all (you may think and ſpeak as you pleaſe) if you were not ſo conceited of your ſelves, as if you were the moſt knowing people, that muſt give Law and Religion to all others.

N. C.

There are thoſe can talk as well as you.

C.

No doubt of it. Let them therefore endeavour to mend the reſt. And remember them of ſuch paſſages as theſe in your Books, which once they allowed of. No man endowed with right Reaſon, An Alarm by way of Anſwer to the laſt warning piece, p. 15. Licenſed by Mr. John Downam, with this ſentence praefixed. Ye ſhall have one Ordinance, both for the ſtranger, and for him that is born in the Land.but will ſay there is a neceſſity of a Government: if of a Government, then of an Uniformity, elſe it will be confuſed. Therefore there is a neoeſſity to ſuppreſs all CONVENTICLES; and that all men ſhould obſerve ſuch Order, Time, Place, and publick Geſture, as the Parliament (by the Advice of the Aſſembly) ſhall appoint. And no man that hath any uſe of Conſcience in any thing but will acknowledge he is bound in Conſcience to obey the Laws of the Land in which he lives, in all indifferent things: Or he is turbulent and deſerves cenſure, even for matters concerning Worſhip. He that hath the uſe of Conſcience, will make Conſcience of the duties of both Tables, as well as one. There is doubtleſs a Conſcience towards God, and a Conſcience towards man: This was the Apoſtles practice, and muſt be our Rule. Act. 24.16. I exerciſe my ſelf to have alwayes a Conſcience void of offence, toward God and toward men. Once more Farewel.

N. C.

I thank you.

THE END.

End of the text · Simon Patrick, Friendly Debate with Non-Conformist Part 2 (1669)