Friendly Debate with Non-Conformist — Simon Patrick

Friendly Debate with Non-Conformist · Simon Patrick

N. C.

But I have heard ſome ſay, that things are not holy now, ſo as they were then; becauſe they were ſeparated by a particular direction and expreſs command of God, which was the thing that made them holy.

This is one of the moſt notable things you have ſaid yet, however you came by it. But it will not do your Buſineſs. For what will you ſay, if I ſhew you that even in their Notes upon the Law of Moſes, and other places of the Old Teſtament, they ſay not a word of this Sin, of turning that to another uſe which God hath ſeparated by his ſpecial command unto his own? no, though there be the faireſt invitation, and ſometimes great reaſon, to do it?

N. C.

I believe you undertake more than you can do.

Thus much I can aſſure you upon my own knowledge, that conſulting upon a time (as any man may have occaſion to do) their Notes upon Levit. 25.34. where the Fields belonging to the Levites are forbidden to be ſold; I found that they were perfectly mute, and ſaid not a word of the nature of this Sin amongſt the Jews for fear, one would think, that any Chriſtian ſhould thence conclude, that it was unlawful to ſell the Biſhops Lands, which then their Maſters were about.

N. C.

The Text is plain enough, if any one had a mind to make that Inference.

I, but ſome Annotations on a plain place make it more obſerved: and I am ſure they are large enough in their Deſcants upon as plain words as thoſe. And therefore why they ſhould forbear to ſay any thing there I cannot imagine, unleſs it were a fear of diſpleaſing the Parliament and many of their partakers. For as for themſelves, I believe many of them would not have had the Lands ſold, but imployed to their uſe and benefit.

N. C.

Well, is this all?

No, there is another remarkable place in the Book of Joſhua, Chap. 6.19. where God commands all the Gold and Silver, &c. which ſhould be taken in Jericho, to be conſecrated to him, and put into the Treaſury. Notwithſtanding which we read that Achan purloined 200 ſhekels of Silver and a wedge of Gold to his own private uſe, and was therefore ſeverely puniſhed, nay all the Congregation troubled for his offence, till he ſuffered for it, Joſh. 7.21. And yet theſe men ſay not a ſyllable of this Sin in their Notes on either of thoſe verſes; though all other Divines are wont from thence to ſhew how dangerous it was then to rob God, and take a way what was ſeparated to his uſes. In other places I am ſure they oft make large Declamations againſt ſome Sins, and in a manner preach againſt them: and therfore why they ſhould not have a ſyllable to ſay here about this matter, is a great Myſtery, unleſs I have diſcovered the cauſe of it. As for that place, Gen. 47.22. I know you will ſay they were Idolatrous Prieſts whoſe Land Joſeph ſold not. But methinks they needed not have made an excuſe (as they there do) for Joſeph's not ſelling them as if it had been an act of greater Virtue, if he had. And methinks they ſhould have told the world pretty ſmartly that if Pharaoh had ſuch a reſpect to the Aegyptian Prieſthood as not to ſell their Land; Chriſtian Princes & Governours ſhould not be more unkind (if not unjuſt) in theſe days, nor expoſe to ſale thoſe Lands which have been ſertled upon the Prieſts of the moſt High God. But above all, I wonder at their profound ſilence in their Notes upon Ezek. 48.14. where one would think at laſt they would have broken it; eſpecially ſince they might have done it pretty ſecurely in ſuch an obſcure place, which few read. There the Lands of the Levites are again forbidden to be ſold: And by Levites according to their own Principles we are to underſtand the Miniſters of the Goſpel, whoſe Lands therefore ought not to be ſold. I prove it clearly. thus, In the beginning of their Explication of this Viſion, they lay down this for a Foundation of their Expoſition (Chap. 40.2.) that herein was repreſented the ample and flouriſhing eſtate of Chriſt's Church, under the Types of the Re-building of the Temple, Reſtauration of the Levitical Worſhip and Service, nad the Repoſſeſſion and Inhabitation of the whole Land. Which they repeat again Chap. 43.1. and in ſundry other places. If this be true, (as they believed it to be) then, according to their own Rules, the aſſigning of Land for the Levites muſt ſignifie the care that ought to be taken to ſettle a Maintenance for the ſupport of the Goſpel-Miniſtery and Service; and the prohibition againſt ſelling the Levites Lands muſt denote the pleaſure of God, that the portion of Land or other things ſettled upon the Evangelical Prieſthood, or Miniſtery, ſhould never be alienated from them. Now I pray you tell me, why would they not open their mouths at laſt in ſo plain a caſe as this? What ſhould be the cauſe, that they do not ſo much as name this Sin, much leſs bid the World beware of it, and ſtill much leſs paſs any ſentence upon it? Do you think they did not know what is wont to be ſaid on theſe places? Did they not underſtand well enough, that if they would write conſequently to their own principles before laid down, they muſt either tax that Sin in this place of Ezekiel, or elſe ſay juſt nothing? Why did they chuſe the later, and paſs it over with a word; but only referring us to two or three places of Scripture nothing to the purpoſe?

N. C.

Truly I know not what to ſay.

I'll tell you then. The moſt probable conjecture is that which I have made already, That they were afraid in the leaſt to diſpleaſe their maſters who ſet them on work. The Parliament would have taken it very ill, and all the good people too, who, to ſave their own purſes, were content the Churches Lands ſhould be ſold to carry on the War which they had illegally begun.

N. C.

I hope better, and that you will not now take occaſion from the mention you make of the War, to fall into a Declamation againſt the other Sin of Rebellion.

Since you love not to hear any thing of it, I am content to be as ſilent as your Minſters were wont to be: only let me tell you, I have obſerved ſeveral other things which they forbear, not becauſe they think it is their Duty, but for fear of diſpleaſing a party.

N. C.

What do you mean?

I mean, it was for this reaſon that they ſeldom or never (ſome of them) uſed the Lora's Prayer, becauſe the people had been taught on a ſudden to abhorr Forms, without remembring them that the Lord's prayer was a Form. It was not fit to tell them that, for fear they ſhould have continued to like other Forms of prayer for its ſake. I obſerve alſo, that ſtill they will by no means give the title of Saint to one of the Apoſtles or Evangeliſts of our Lord, (though I think they will call them Holy, which is the ſame) no not when they reade a Text out of their Writings. For which I can conceive no other reaſon, but their good Dames and Maſters do not like it. They are afraid that it is Popiſh. And rather than theſe Men-ſervers will be at the pains of convincing them of their errour, or, to ſpeak more properly, rather than venture the danger of loſing them, (for many might in a paſſion fly off, if they heard the name of Saint given to any but themſelves) they will not offend their tender ears by naming that abominable word. And were it not that I am loath to try you, I could inſtance in a great many other things wherein they are meer Slaves to the humours of the people, and ſerve the time; not daring to ſay thoſe things, or to uſe thoſe words, which they know are fit to be ſaid and to be uſed, meerly becauſe many people will run away from them.

N. C.

There is no danger of that. Whither ſhould they run?

To our Miniſters; whom perhaps they forſook upon ſuch little accounts, and ſo may return to them when they ſee others do like them.

N. C.

Hold you content, Neighbour. They will never return to one that is an Apoſtate, and hath forſaken his Principles. And that I am ſure you will grant your Miniſter hath done; though you will not have him call'd a Time-ſerver.

You have a company of the moſt frivolous exceptions againſt our Miniſtry that ever I heard of. None of which (as I might have ſhewn you all along) are ſufficient to juſtifie your ſeparation from us, were they true. But being as they are, either falſe Imputations, or elſe ſuch things as no man need be aſham'd of, you can the leſs be excuſed for your forſaking our Aſſemblies. As for this that you charge our Miniſter withall, I have reaſon to think it is a Forgery, and that he never had any other Principles than he hath now. Or if he had, what do you ſay to thoſe who ſtuck ſo faſt to their Principles, that it coſt them all they were worth? Are there no… a great number of theſe among our Clergymen? And do you not hate theſe as much as any elſe? nay look upon them as your old Enemie… becauſe you remember what Enemies you we… to them?

N C.

There are a great many, I am certain… that were once ours, and now are fa…n away …wore… you. Thoſe I abhor a great deal more th… your old Clergy, and cannot endure to he… them

Suppoſe there be many ſuch; yet there no reaſon for this ſtrong Antipathy againſt the… For it is like they were very young when the followed you; and may ſay, as S. Paul, When was a Child, I ſpake as a Child, I underſtood a… Child, I thought (or reaſoned) as a Child: … when I became a man, I put away childiſh things.

N. C.

Belike you think ours a Childiſh Religion.

Perhaps I do, and, for any thing you know, can prove it to be ſo in great part. But that's not our buſineſs now; which is onelyonly to ſhew, that it's no ſhame for any body to think and ſpeak otherwiſe than he did, provided his Judgment be grown more ripe and manly. What? Do you think Youth muſt never examine the Principles they receive with their Education, nor judge for themſelves when they are able? If you would not have them follow their Maſters or Parents, as Horſes and Aſſes do thoſe that lead them in a ſtring, why do you blame any of them that conſider who it is that leads him, and whither he is carrying him? nay, that forſakes the track in which he hath always walked, when he finds it to be wrong?

N. C.

Nay, a great many Old men have forſaken their Principles, who, one would think, ſhould have had more wit or more honeſty.

They have never the leſs for that: For I hope you are not too old to learn. And this is all you can make of it, that once they thought it unlawfull to do according to their preſent practice; but days have taught them wiſdom, and given ſatisfaction to their Scruples. Beſide, the extravagant Freaks and the mad fantaſtick Tricsk which were plaid in Religion, when you reigned, opened many mens eyes (whom you had deluded by fair ſpeeches and goodly pretences) to ſee their folly in condemning and caſhiering Biſhops and Common Prayer.

N. C.

You have an art of Apologizing for any thing.

Let's ſee your skill in that art; for I would fain try it a little. What will you ſay if none be found ſo guilty of this which you charge us withall as your own dear ſelves?

N. C.

I will ſay, that you can prove any thing.

No: you ſhall onelyonly ſay, that they have the leaſt reaſon of all other men to talk againſt forſaking Principles, who have done it ſo notoriouſly.

N. C.

I cannot but wonder at your confidence. Are not your very Senſes convinced of the contrary? Do you not ſee how they ſuffer for their Conſciences; how they are deprived of their Liberty, and have loſt good Benefices. If they would have forſaken their Principles, what needed they have been thus deprived?—

You need ſay no more, for I know it all beforehand. But pray be not you too confident, no… take it ill that I ſtop you thus in your carier; ſince I think you will ſpend your breath to little purpoſe. Anſwer me ſoberly a few queſtions, and then perhaps you will thank me for ſaving you the pains you were about to take. Do you not remember a time when the Covenant was m…gnified as the moſt Sacred thing in the world, next the Holy Scriptures? Did you never meet with ſuch a paſſage as this in Commendation of it? This Oath is ſuch, and in the matter and conſequence of it of ſuch concernment, as I can truly ſay, it is worthy of us, yea of all theſe Kingdoms, yea of all the Kingdoms of the World? If you have not, it is to be found in Mr. Nye's Exhortation at the taking of the Covenant, Septemb. 25. 1643. pag. 2.

N. C.

What of all this? is there any thing we more ſuffer for than that holy Covenant?

Surely, that Gentleman and a great number beſide (who now are followed and eſteemed above our Changelings, as you are pleaſed to call them) have long ſince altered their minds, and reprobated that Covenant; or, to ſpeak in his own words, they have been found to purpoſe, nay more, to vow and to ſwear, and all this according to the fleſh; ſo that with them there is, notwithſtanding thoſe Obligations, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay; pag. 5. A thing which he there accuſes of great falſneſſe and inconſtancy, ſuch as is not to be ſhewn amongſt us.

N. C.

What do you tell mee of Independents? We have nothing to do with them.

Yes, but you have. For it appears by your diſcourſe, that your Opinions now are a mixture of the Fancies of more Sects than theirs. And as for your Miniſters, it's plain that they are in part turn'd Independents, (which is a groſſe Apoſtacy from their Principles) having Congregations in ſeveral places that have no Dependency one upon another.

N. C.

They are forced to it.

If that be a good excuſe, no body will want an Apology for his faults, which he will find there was ſome neceſſity or other for. But (I pray) do you not remember ſuch a creature ſome years ago, as the people called a Lay Elder, but by your Miniſters was named a Ruling Elder?

N. C.

Yes.

And you remember it was diſputed very hotly, whether he were one of God's creatures, or of Man's.

N. C.

Very well.

And the Miniſters whom you adhere to, confidently affirm'd that their Ruling Elders were by Divine right, and ought to be admitted not onelyonly upon the account of prudence, but as ſeated by God in the Church as Church-officers. If you doubt of it, read the Vindication of Presbyterial Government, ſet forth 1649, from pag. 34. to pag. 55.

N. C.

I know their Opinion well enough.

But can you tell me what is become of theſe creatures? doth not the whole species ſeem to be loſt among you? what is the reaſon that we bear never a word of them?

N. C.

They are ſtill in their firſt Principles.

You grow witty. But it will not ſerve your turn; for I ſhould think the principles are loſt as well as they. Elſe what's the cauſe you have none of them in your private Congregations, where you may do what you liſt? Either you have deſerted thoſe Principles, or elſe your Covenant, which I am ſure you thought bound you to maintain theſe. Chuſe which part you will; for either of them will ſerve my turn.

N. C.

I never troubled my head much about thoſe Seniors, and therefore do not much care what is become of them.

But you ſhould think what is become of your Miniſters Principles, who, I believe, are content now to let the Lay Elders die; they being but the creatures of men, and ſo of a mortal nature.

N. C.

It is no great matter if they do, and never riſe again.

Good. But I have another Queſtion to ask you. Was not there a time when this was a Principle among your Miniſters, that they ſhould obey the Orders of the Magiſtrate under whom they lived, if they were not ſinfull?

N. C.

I am not much acquainted with their Opinions in thoſe matters.

You may know them then by their Practiſes, (which I ſuppoſe you will by all means have to be conſiſtent with their Principles.)

N. C.

What Practices?

Not transcribed in the source: a duplicate page, 1 page.

I think there were Orders in the late Times that no man ſhould pray publickly for King CHARLES; and they obey'd them. They were required alſo to keep a thankſgiving for the Victories at Dunbarr and Worceſter; with which I believe the moſt, if not all, complied. Nay, that Thankſgiving was repeated every year at Whitehall; and I believe Cromwell found ſome among you that would not deny to carry on the Work of that day.

N. C.

What do you inferr from hence?

That they have forſaken their Principles. For now they will not obey the King's Orders. Mark what I ſay: They would obey Uſurpers, becauſe they had a Power for the time being; and now they diſobey their Sovereign, whole Power they acknowledge to be juſt, and who commands things that are not unlawfull. As for example, they will not hear Common-Prayer, (at leaſt many of them do not) which they can if they liſt: nor will they obſerve an Holy-day, which is no more unlawfull to be kept, one would think, than one of thoſe thankſgivings. Give me a reaſon, for inſtance, why the Nine and twentieth of September may not as well be obſerved as the Third ſometime was.

N. C.

That day is obſerved for ſuperſtitious purpoſes; to remember the Victory of Michael over the Dragon.

Suppoſe it were Is not that a great deal better than to re…ember the Victory of Cromwell over the King?

N. C.

That was but once, and away.

But once all over the City and Kingdome; yet every year at White-hall. But why is not that lawfull to be done alway which we may do once, the reaſon continuing ſtill the ſame?

N. C.

You love to rip up old things, which had better be forgotten.

Not I. But you force me to it, by reflecting upon the old Principles of ſome of our men. And how can one chuſe (upon ſuch an occaſion) but take notice of the Fantaſticalneſs of your mens Conſciences, (at leaſt ſome of them) that are ſo nice and ſqueamiſh in ſome Fits, and at another time can ſwallow any thing?

N. C.

I do not ſee but they are the ſame.

That's ſtrange; when they are ſo ſcrupulous now, and were ſo little ſcrupulous then: or at leaſt could do things with a Reluctance and Regret, and perhaps ſome Fears and doubts in their minds in thoſe days; and now nothing will ſerve them but perfect Satisfaction. If you would have me ſpeak plain, and ſhew you the difference between things they did then and thoſe they will not do now, I will take the pains.

N. C.

Save your ſelf the labour, I have no mind to hear more of it.

That is, you have no mind to ſee how they have left their Principles, or at leaſt do not act according to them.

N. C.

They know their own Principles better than you.

Would they would let us know ſomething of them, that ſo we might have a reaſon for ſome other alterations we ſee in them.

N. C.

What are they?

Did you never hear them cry out againſt Separation, and forſaking of publick Ordinances? Were there not many books writ to this purpoſe, when they poſſeſſed the Pulpit?

N. C.

I perceive whither you are going.

And you ſhall not ſtir, but go along with me. Couſider, I beſeech you, what are become of thoſe Principles; or how much are their preſent practiſes condemned by them? Do they not keep Private Meetings every week, and that in the time of the Publick Service, as I told you before? Are they not thereby kept from Church themſelves, and do they not thereby keep away a great many others? Tell me (good Neighbour) what is this but a down right Separation from us?

N. C.

They are not for a Separation from Chriſt's Ordinances, but from yours.

Ours are Chriſt's Ordinances as much as any you frequent: for we pray and give thanks to God in his Name. And we do this according to his appointment; praying onelyonly for ſuch things as he would have us, and no other. As for words, I hope you g…ant that neither yours nor ours know any ordained by him but the Lord's Pray…, which we uſe, and you perhaps do not, And as for Cere…ies, I know thoſe very men now ſeparate from us, who heretofore approved thoſe books which were writ againſt Separation upon the account of Ceremonies. And whatſoever you imagine, they do not think our publick Ordinances (as they now ſtand) are Antichriſtian, or that it is unlawful to be preſent at them. Therefore I muſt have a better reaſon for their Separation from our Aſſemblies; or elſe you muſt confeſs that they (not we) have chang'd their Principles.

N. C.

I doubt not but they have a Reaſon.

No more do I. They have, without queſtion, a great many: but they are carnal reaſons.

N. C.

Why are you ſo cenſorious?

I am content they ſhould have other reaſons: but I ſpeak according to your conceptions of them.

N. C.

You are very Myſterious on a ſudden.

Methinks the matter is plain. If they have ſound reaſons to alter their Principles, then we have done. If they have not, what reaſons can they be but carnal ones, which alter their practice?

N. C.

I do not love to hear you talk thus.

Nor do I love to hear my ſelf talk thus: but you conſtrain me to it. And (I pray you) whether you love it or no, do ſo much as hear me one word more.

N. C.

You may ſpeak your mind.

Was there not a time when your Miniſters would by no means hear of Liberty of Conſcience? Did they not cry out upon it in their Pulpits and their books, and call it Curſed Toleration? Read but a Book called A Teſtimony to the truth of Jeſus Chriſt, and to our ſolemn League and Covenant, &c. ſubſcribed by the Miniſters of the Province of London, Decemb. 14. 1647. There you will find that among other abominable Errors and damnable Hereſies, (as they are called, pag. 4.) this is condemn'd for one, pag. 22. That little can be done, unleſs Liberty of Conſcience be allowed for every man and ſort of men to worſhip God in that way, and perform the Ordinances of Chriſt in that manner, as ſhall appear to them moſt agreeable to God's Word, &c. This, among others, they call a horrid and prodigious Opinion; and tell us (pag. 32. and 33.) that it will lay the glory of the moſt high God in the duſt, if it take place, and raze the Truth of Chriſt to the ground, and overthrow all Chriſt's Ordinances, and together therewith Magiſtrates and Miniſters, and all Religious and comely Order, &c. In ſhort, they ſay we ſhall be diſown'd by all Reformed Churches, who will cry out, Is this England, who covenanted to extirpate Popery, Prelacy, Superſtition, Schiſm, &c? and after ſo long travel hath ſhe nom b…ought forth an hidious Monster of Toleration?

N. C.

I know all this as well as you can tell me: and they are of the ſame mind ſtill; for this was writ onelyonly againſt an Ʋniverſal Toleration of all Sects, which they abhorr.

I can tell you another ſtory. They would not ſo much as tolerate five poor men, who profeſſed to agree with them in all matters of Doctrine. Judge then what their Opinions were about Liberty, when they would not allow it to ſo few diſſenting Brethren.

N. C.

That was a great while ago, and moſt of thoſe ſtreight-lac'd men are dead.

No ſuch matter. But if they were, their Principles did not die with them, but ſurvived in their followers. And yet now all on a ſudden they are vaniſh'd. Now they are for Liberty of Conſcience. By which if they mean onelyonly a Liberty for themſelves let them ſpeak out, that all their Brethren of the Separation may hear them. And withal let them acquaint us by what Title they claim this Favour more than the reſt of the Sects that are ſprung from them, who might take the liberty to ſeparate from them, as well as they take the Liberty to ſeperate from us. And before they prove that it is due to them, let them firſt anſwer their own Argument againſt the Independents, (which I can ſhew them in a Letter of the London Miniſters to the Aſſembly of Divine,) which was this; That to grant a Toleration to them, and not to other Sectaries, will be counted Injuſtices

N. C.

I perceive you are of a perſecuting spirit.

You rather diſcover your ſelf of a turbulent spirit, which cannot forbear to trouble and confound even our diſcourſe. For that is not the buſineſs, whether all Reſtraint of mens liberty be Perſecution; nor whether I am for it or no: but to ſhew you that once your Miniſters were of ſuch a spirit as you call perſecuting, and now are not.

N. C.

Then they are changed for the better.

You ſhould have ſaid, Then they are chang'd, (which was the thing we were ſpeaking of;) whether for the better or no, that's another queſtion: And let them, if you pleaſe, reſolve it. I believe they will not confeſs they were of a perſecuting ſpirit, when they were againſt the Liberty which they now claim.

N. C.

What, do you make them of no Principles at all?

Do not miſtake me ſo. They are conſtant to ſome Principles, particularly this, That all is well done that they do, though quite contrary to what they did before.

N. C.

You are bitter.

Do you like this Principle better, (which they will not forſake, I warrant you) That they are in God's way, and therefore ought to be tolerated; whereas all others are our of his way, and therefore ought not to be tolerated?

N. C.

You much offend me by theſe Reflections.

I'll tell you another then, that's more moderate, and will pleaſe you better: That they muſt by all means keep you from coming to Church, for fear you ſhould ſee that you may be as well taught elſewhere as in their private Meetings.

N. C.

I told you before, there is no danger of that.

But you told me no Reaſon, as I have ſhewn you, that's worth any thing.

N. C.

We have one that will never ſuffer us to come to Church more, as long as your Miniſters are there.

What terrible Scare-crow ſhould that that be?

N. C.

To tell you the truth, many of us do not think that they are Miniſters.

Now you have revealed the Bottom of your heart.—Pardon me that ſudden concluſion; you may have more yet lurking behind, which you have not told me. I ſhould rather have ſaid, Now you have revealed your Unskilfulneſs more than ever. For what have any of yours to qualifie them for the Miniſtry which ours have not as well as they? If you require the inward motions of the Spirit of God inclining a man to devote himſelf to this work; (which ſome of you think is enough) this ours profeſs to have felt, as you may ſee in the Form of ordering Prieſts. If it be further neceſſary to be approved by Presbyters, and to have their hands laid on them; this is not wanting to ours, as you may there alſo be ſatisfied.

N. C.

But the Biſhop layes on his hands alſo.

And can this unhallow them, when they are ſo dedicated to God?

N. C.

Yes ſo I am told.

Then you would ſooner believe what one of your own Party ſays without any reaſon, than what we ſay with all the reaſon in the world: which is plainly partial affection.

N. C.

Why ſo?

Is it not apparent that a Biſhop is a Presbyter too? though we think him more.

N. C.

You acknowledge a diſtinction of perſons in the Church, which is Antichriſtian.

Nay, then I have done with you. You condemn all the ancient Church of Antichriſtianiſm; and more than that, the very Apoſtles themſelves and the Evangeliſts, who it is manifeſt had ſome Superiority over their brethren. But obſerve whither you are run, having once left your way. You mix the very dregs of all other Sects with your own; and believe any thing that makes againſt us, even ſuch things as the Miniſter you commonly hear would be aſham'd to ſay. Firſt, you onelyonly diſliked the Common Prayer; then you did not love the man that read it; next you would not come to hear him; and now you will not allow him to be a Miniſter: nay rather than ſuffer him to enjoy that name, you will venture to deprive Apoſtolical men of their Office, who exerciſed an Authority over their brethren.

N. C.

Suppoſe they did; yet they were not Lords.

No, nor do we ordain any Lords when we make Biſhops. That's an Honour which the King doth them, to qualifie them to ſit in Parliament and adviſe about the Affairs of the Realm, in which they are as much concern'd as other men.

N. C.

If their Lordſhips would preach more, perhaps we might like them better.

I doubt not. For thoſe that do, you will not come to hear.

N. C.

Their Lawn-ſleeves offend us.

And why ſhould you not as well take offence at the White Cap and the Lace which I have often ſeen under the Black upon your Miniſters heads?

N. C.

Any thing becomes a Godly man.

I thought thither would be your retreat. But why are not the Biſhops Godly too?

N. C.

They do not love and encourage good men.

You ſtill ſuppoſe none are good but your ſelves; which is no great token of that Modeſty and Humility which we think neceſſary to make a Godly man. But ſuppoſe any of them ſhould be ſo bad as not to countenance the very beſt among us, but rather the worſt; yet this would be onelyonly the fault of the Men, not of the Office.

N. C.

I have often heard that Diſtinction; but I could never love your Logick.

Yes ſometimes. For you once liked a more ſubtil Diſtinction than this, and that was between the King's perſonal and politick capacity—

N. C.

Pray forbear to ſcratch thoſe old ſores. But why do your Biſhops oppoſe all Praying by the Spirit?

I thought you might come to that at laſt, & I fanſie it is the great quarrel you have with the.

N. C.

Verily it is.

Then let me aſſure you, the Biſhops are the fartheſt of any men in the world from oppoſing Praying by the Spirit.

N. C.

You tell me a thing incredible. I ſhould come ſometimes to hear your Miniſters but that they have not the Spirit of Prayer; which the Biſhops (I ſuppoſe) ſuppreſs and keep down all they can.

Belike then you think that to pray by the Spirie, and to have a Spirit of Prayer, are all one.

N. C.

Why not? I know no difference.

Becauſe I am ſure ours have a Spirit of Prayer; but neither ours nor yours can pray by the Spirit. If they could, the Biſhops would rather ſuffer Martyrdom than oppoſe it.

N. C.

I apprehend you not.

Very likely: for I ſee you have been nouriſhed with phraſes, but underſtand very little.

N. C.

Pray try if you can make me underſtand more, ſince it ſeems you are ſo skilful.

Hear me quietly then, and I will tell you what I have learn'd. For my skill is onelyonly borrow'd from ſuch good men as our Pariſh Prieſt; whom you (I doubt) ſometime deride, and ſcornfully call by that name.

N. C.

I am in no paſſion: ſpeak your mind.

Tell me then; when a man reverently addreſſes himſelf to God, ſeriouſly acknowledges his Authority over all, his Power, Wiſdom, and Goodneſs, profeſſes to depend upon him intirely, dreads his Diſpleaſure, waits upon him for his grace and favour, hungers and thirſts after Righteouſneſs, and devoutly renders his Thanks to the Poſſeſſor of Heaven and Earth for all his benefits; hath he the Spirit of Prayer, or no?

N. C.

I cannot ſay but he hath, if his heart go along with his lips.

Then our Miniſters have the Spirit of Prayer; for in all appearance, and as far as we can judge, they have an inward ſenſe of theſe things when they pray. And as for their words and geſtures, they are generally more reverent and becoming than yours.

N. C.

Methinks you ſhould not be of that mind.

Truly I have heard ſuch bold, and ſometimes rude, things ſpoken by ſome of yours in Prayer, that I could not think they had any ſenſe and feeling of God at all at that time. Their Geſtures alſo were ridiculous. Nay, I have ſeen ſome of them look about upon the people, (to ſee, I ſuppoſe, how they were affected) when they ſhould have turn'd their eyes toward Heaven. Which was an argument to me they had ſomething elſe in their mind then, more than God.

N. C.

Then it ſeems you hear them ſometimes.

Not now. But I have heard them heretofore, when they preached in our Churches.

N. C.

O! but if you could hear them now, you would ſay they are full of the Spirit.

Becauſe they pour out ſuch abundance of words.

N. C.

No, but they are more earneſt than ever; and they plead with God after a more effectual manner.

You call Loudneſs of ſpeech Earneſtneſs, which I always took to be the ardent deſire of our Souls after that good which we humbly beg of God. And as for their pleading with God, I think it is rather ſaucineſs.

N. C.

Now you are bitter.

If I thought ſo, I ſhould condemn my ſelf as much as you can do; for I have learn'd, that we ought to put away all wrath, bitterneſs, clamour, and evil ſpeaking. Nay, if I thought I had done amiſs, I would ask forgiveneſs, not onelyonly from God, but from you too.

N. C.

That is a good mind. But why d…d you uſe ſuch an harſh expreſſion? Is it not one of Jobs words? Job 16.21.

Yes, but not in your ſenſe. For he would willingly have maintained his innocency, and have had his Caſe argued, that he might make it appear he was not ſo guilty as his friends made him: Which is nothing to your purpoſe; who, I ſuppoſe, do not intend (though you call Jeſus Chriſt, a Days-man between God and us) to ſtand upon your defence, and juſtifie your ſelves before him. This you think too great a boldneſs, do you not?

N. C.

Yes.

Why then may I not call it a Saucineſs in you to do a great deal more; I mean, to queſtion God ſo much as you are wont, and to ask him over and over again what's the reaſon he doth not this or that, and why he ſuffers you to be ſo and ſo, and how he can deny you this or the other thing?

N. C.

Doth not David ſometimes ask queſtions?

Yes, in a great agony of ſpirit, and upon ſome great occaſion: which will not warrant you to take this unheard of boldneſs. So I call it; becauſe things done in imitation of others, when we are not in that condition, and have not that occaſion, and that ſpirit alſo which they had, are very fulſome; no better than the motions of a Monkey when he imitates a man. To do thoſe things alſo commonly which thoſe great men did now and then, is monſtrouſly unbeſeeming. Beſides, his Pſalms are pieces of Divine Poetry, in which Paſſions are wont to be expreſſed much otherwiſe than they ought to do in plain and familiar ſpeech. And yet you not onelyonly venture to uſe their Figures of ſpeech, but you go beyond them. Like a man that having light upon a good Figure in Rhetorick, will never have done with it but is always touching upon it. Then which nothing can be more abſurd, eſpecially if he heap a great many of theſe Figures together, as your manner is, asking God over and over again, (as I ſaid) why he doth not this or that, and when he will do it. Beſides, that which in a great agony (as I ſaid) is very decent to be ſpoken, doth not befit a man's mouth at another time; but they that go about to imitate it, do a thing unnatural. And the truth is, you ſeem to me to endeavour by theſe queſtions to put your ſelves and the people into a great paſſion, and a kind of agony; but they do not ſpring (I perſuade my ſelf) nor ariſe of themſelves from any ardency of Devotion. But there is another thing that offends me more than all this; that having ſtirr'd up ſome confuſed paſſions in your ſelves by this and other ſuch like means, you proceed to ſuch an high degree of confidence in this bold way of Arguing with God, that you quite forget who you are ſpeaking to. For ſome have told him that he little knew how his enemies inſulted, (or ſome ſuch thing;) and that if he did but know how deſirous they were of ſuch a thing, or how much they would prize it, he would not deny them.

N. C.

Pray, Sir, hold your peace, or I will ſtop my cars. You abuſe good men.

I tell you only what is credibly reported: and if it be not ſo, I ſhall be very glad. But I muſt adde, that they take ſuch a liberty of ſaying any thing to God, which they would ſay to one another, that I conceive it not unlikely that ſome might fall into thoſe unſeemly (others perhaps will call them blaſphemous) expreſſions. Are not you of the ſame mind?

N. C.

I cannot deny but that they uſe great familiarity with God.

Familiarity do you call it? would the world had never known it: For it is ſuch a one as hath bred in mens minds a contempt of God and Religion. It hath taught every body to let that Member looſe which ought to be always bridled, eſpecially in God's preſence. They vent all their fooliſh Opinions to him; they tell him News, and inform him how things go abroad; which they have received many times upon a falſe report: which hath brought ſuch a ſcandal upon Religion, that it cannot but grieve any good man's heart to think on't.

N. C.

It is ſuch as you that have brought Religion into contempt, and not we.

How ſo, I pray you?

N. C.

By deſpiſing the Spirit.

It is falſe We reverence that Spirit which was in the Apoſtles; and if we could ſee ſuch an one again, none would entertain it with greater gladneſs. We acknowledge alſo the power of the Spirit of God ſtill in the hearts of men, eſpecially of thoſe who are good; and we bleſs God continually for it. But that which we deny is this, That either you or we are able (as I told you) to pray by the Spirit.

N. C.

Do you not then deſpiſe the Spirit?

No; we ſuppoſe there is no ſuch thing as Prayer by the Spirit: if there were, we ſhould reverence it.

N. C.

Would you would tell me your meaning.

I mean a prayer immediately dictated by the Holy Ghoſt, as ſome were in the Apoſtles day.

N. C.

I underſtand you not.

Such a prayer, in which by the Inſpiration of the Holy Ghoſt a man conceives thoſe things which he ſpeaks to God. Or (in plainer terms) I mean, that the Spirit of God doth not now ſuggeſt to any of us (when we pray) the very matter and words which we utter. If you pretend to this then thoſe prayers are as much the Word of God as any of David's Pſalms, or as any part of the Bible; and (being written from your mouths) may become Canonical Scripture.

N. C.

But we do not pretend to this.

I wiſh then you would not talk as if you did. I am ſure, your diſcourſes of Prayer are commonly ſuch, that one would think you took your ſelves to be full of the Holy Ghoſt. And this I muſt tell you hath made a great many ſcorn Religion, when they ſaw the Spirit of God intitled to ſuch pitiful ſtuff as they heard many vent with the greateſt confidence.

N. C.

This is their own fault.

And yours too.

N. C.

I cannot believe that our Prayers ever had any ſuch effect.

But I can; and I will tell you how. You conſtantly tell us that the Biſhops by preſcribing a Form limit and ſtint the Spirit. By which Spirit you mean the Spirit of God, not your own. From whence it follows, that you think (or would have the world think) that the Spirit of God ſpeaks in you when you pray, and that you utter its mind and words. Now many men hearing you pray ſo inconſiderately and wildly, uttering moſt abſurd (if not impious) things, yet with a mighty zeal and confidence, have been tempted to think that whatſoever is ſaid of the Spirit, even in the Apoſtles days, might poſſibly be no more than ſuch an Extravagance and Fury as this.

N. C.

A moſt ſenſleſs conceit.

I think ſo too. But you have given occaſion to ſuch conceits in thoſe that are inclined to Infidelity.

N. C.

I hope not. For we onelyonly mean, when we ſay we pray by the Spirit, that the Holy Ghoſt aſſiſts us

With what? Doth it furniſh you with words?

N. C.

No, with devout and ardent affections.

This indeed you ſhould mean; but your brags of the Spirit import more.

N. C.

Pray, Sir, uſe no ſuch reproachful words: we boaſt of nothing.

Well, pardon me that word. But if you do not brag, yet you ſay that you can pray by the Spirit, and we cannot, at leaſt do not. In which you aſcribe ſomething more to your ſelves than is to be found among us.

N. C.

Yes.

Then you mean more by praying by the Spirit than being inſpir'd with devout Affections. For thoſe you cannot deny we may have as well as you; and unleſs you will take upon you to ſearch the heart, you muſt grant we feel them, ſince we proteſt that we do. From whence I conclude, whatſoever you ſay, that your men would have you believe that it is the Spirit which ſpeaks in them and by them when they pray. Which is a thing that reproaches not only them, but the very Spirit of God, and (as I ſaid before) hath at leaſt confirm'd men in their Atheiſtical or unbelieving inclinations.

N. C.

Well, I will not diſpute this with you any longer. But tell me ſeriouſly, do you think that men could pray with that readineſs and elocution, and lenght, if they were not mightily aſſiſted by the Spirit of God?

Yes indeed do I. Their own ſpirits will ſerve them for this purpoſe; if they be but indued with good phanſies, and a ſufficient meaſure of boldneſs. For it is a great vertue (I aſſure you) in this caſe not to be modeſt; though we reckon it a ſingular vertue to be ſo.

N. C.

I cannot think it poſſible.

Why? Neighbour, you may take my word for this. There are many of our men could outdo you in this Gift (as you call it) of Prayer, if they would give themſelves the liberty; and yet you would not think them inſpir'd, I am ſure. I mean, they are able to ſpeak ſo readily and fluently ſo earneſtly and paſſionately of all manner of things, and to continue this ſtrain ſo long, and that without humming or hawing; that if you did not know them, perhaps you would admire them above moſt of your own.

N. C.

Then I ſhould conclude they had the Gift of Prayer but ſuppreſs it.

So they have; but it is both in you and us onelyonly a Natural gift, or acquir'd by Exerciſe, and Practiſe, and Imitation—

N. C.

Now you ſpeak prophanely.

I ſpeak the ſenſe of the ſobereſt of your own Party, (as I verily believe) who would ſay the ſame, if they durſt but deal plainly with you. And (as ſimple as I am) I dare undertake to juſtifie the truth of what I ſay againſt any of them, if they have the face to contradict it.

N. C.

I ſee you leave the Spirit of God nothing to do in our Prayers.

Would you would ſee how you forget your ſelf. Did I not tell you what the Spirit of Prayer was? how that God beſtows it upon us, when he gives us a ſenſe of himſelf and of our needs, and ſtirs up in us holy deſires, and paſſionate longings after his Righteouſneſs; which we ſhould expreſs in ſuch words as are becoming that Majeſty with whom we have to do? And this is the reaſon that we take care to chuſe our words, and not leave them to extemporary invention, eſpecially in the publick Service of God.

N. C.

Do you think they will ever want Words whoſe hearts are full of Deſires? or can great Affections ever fail to furniſh us with plenty of Language?

Yes, that they may. For all experience tells us, that very great and high Affections are too big for Words, and make a man at a ſtand for want of Expreſſions; which no man ſure will think a ſeemly thing in a publick Congregation. And the paſſions of Admiration and Reverence of God reſtrain a mans forwardneſs of ſpeaking to him, and make him like a few words beſt, which he is not then in a fit caſe to invent. A… for leſſer Affections and ſuperficial Heats; I grant they ſeldom let a man want words (if he have tolerable Parts) and make him ſpeak more readily than he would do at another time: yet they are not able ever to furniſh him with thoſe that are fit, proper, and decent. Which methinks ſhould make you not quarrel with a ſober form of words, at leaſt in our publick Devotions.

N. C.

Would you could perſwade me that a Form of words is lawful to be uſed; it would go a great way to perſwade me to come to your Church.

Strange that you ſhould be ſo inapprehenſive! It is ſo lawful to uſe a Form of words, that I have ſhewn you it is in a ſort neceſſary: that is, we can have no ſecurity that the Service of God will always be performed well without one.

N.C.

I confeſs I do not yet apprehend you.

Obſerve then. I ſay, the beſt of men, though their hearts be full of good deſires, may, from ſome cauſe or other, want ſuch words as are fit and proper to expreſs their meaning. In this caſe they muſt hack in an unſeemly manner, or make a ſtop, or uſe ſuch words as are too rude and ſlovenly, or ſpeak broken and imperfect language, or at the beſt ſuch as is too hard and obſcure, and unintelligible by the Vulgar. None of which things are to be permitted in the publick Worſhip, which ought to be performed with the greateſt ſolemnity and gravity. And therefore to prevent that Undecency, and ſecure the Service of God from all that is unhandſome; you muſt conſent to a preſcribed Form of words, wherein men ſhall addreſs their humble and hearty Deſires to him. For though ſome men, at ſome times, may pray well enough; yet other men, and the ſame men at other times, may be very confuſed, and full of Tautologies; and it's well if they endeavour not to ſupply theſe defects with rude Clamours, brutiſh Noiſes, and a deal of the Holy Scriptures wofully miſapplied. Beſide; how can you perſuade any ſtrangers to be of our Church, or to hold any Communion with us, if they do not know how we worſhip God? And how ſhould they know that, unleſs you can produce ſomething which by a general conſent is own'd for his Service? This no doubt is one reaſon why all Churches in the world have had their publick Forms of Prayer, that they may let every body know how God is ſerved by them; and why the beſt men in Reformed Churches have wiſhed thoſe happy days might come of amity and friendſhip, that they might by a Common Counſel and Conſent form a certain Liturgy, which might be as a Symbol and Bond of Concord among them all. And truly I cannot adviſe how your Miniſters can juſtifie themſelves in ſeparating now from all the Reformed Churches, (as well as ours) with whom they covenanted to maintain an Uniformity, not onelyonly in Doctrine and Diſcipline, but Worſhip alſo. To me they ſeem to live in an open breach of one branch of that Covenant, of which they are ſo tender. For they do not endeavour in their place and calling to reform according to the example of thoſe Churches.

N. C.

What ſhould they reform now they have no power?

Themſelves and their Congregations, which they take the boldneſs to gather; who ought to ſerve God (according to the Covenant) after the example of the beſt Reformed Churches; all of which have an Order and Form of Prayer, and never imagin'd that thoſe written Forms did bind up and ſtint the Spirit. This is a peculiar phanſie of your own, who have no Form at all in any of your Conventicles or Meetings; though it is in the power of your Miniſters to have one, as well as to hold ſuch Meetings; and though they be bound by their League and Covenant to do their endeavor to imitate thoſe that have. Nay, I much queſtion whether they uſe the Lord's Prayer. They that do (I believe) have the leaſt company; ſuch is the prejudice which they (contrary to their Covenant) have ſowen in peoples minds againſt Forms of Prayer, even that of the Lord's. Which thing conſidered, it makes me aſtoniſh'd at your impudence in pretending ſuch niceneſs of Conſcience, and fear to break your Covenant; when you break it every time you meet together without ſome Form of Divine Service.

N. C.

They onelyonly covenanted to reform this Church of England according to the example of the beſt Reformed Churches: which they cannot do.

OnelyOnly, do you ſay? Is that a leſs thing then to reform a particular Congregation? Methinks they ſhould think themſelves obliged to do what they can, when they cannot do what they would; and to do that in a part, which they cannot do in the whole; that is, bring in ſome Form of Prayer into your Churches, for ſo no doubt you eſteem them.

N. C.

I do not think they can if they would.

Why?

N.C.

Becauſe moſt of us think Forms unlawfull.

That's their fault, who either taught you to believe ſo heretofore, or do not inſtruct you now to believe otherwiſe. Though it were a very caſie thing for them to do it, and convince you of your errour, even from your own Practice.

N. C.

My Practice? I never uſe any, and I think never ſhall.

It is a wonderful thing that you ſhould be ſo blind. Do you never ſing the Pſalms of David, and that as they are tranſlated into Engliſh Metre?

N.C.

Yes.

Thoſe are Prayers and Petitions as well as Thankſgivings, are they not? And let me tell you, the words are ſo mean and ſometime uncouth, nay, the ſenſe of the Prophet ſo often miſtaken in that Tranſlation which is commonly uſed; that if you had ſo much to except againſt the Common Prayer, as may reaſonably be excepted againſt many things there, there would be no end of your Complaints; you would be ten times louder in your Clamours than you are.

N. C.

Indeed I did not think of this.

Your Miniſters do; but are not ſo ſmcere as to give you notice of it? leſt you ſhould be diſabuſed, and they ſhould loſe your Cuſtom. But pray think of it your ſelf hereafter; and tell me why it is not as lawful to uſe a Form of Prayer in Proſe, as to uſe one in Verſe. You will be a marvellous man, if you can ſhew a Reaſon of the Difference.

N. C.

But this Form is not taken out of the Maſs book as the Common Prayer is.

Then you lay down your quarrel at a Form of Prayer; and onelyonly ſcruple this Form now in uſe; and that becauſe it hath been uſed in the Roman Church.

N. C.

Very right.

Then pray lay aſide your Bible too; at leaſt cut the Pſalter out of your book, for that's much in uſe in their Service.

N. C.

You go too faſt; that is the Word of God, and therefore to be uſed; but any thing elſe uſed in the Church of Rome I think we ſhould have nothing to do with.

This is a fooliſh exception. For the Reaſon you gave me concludes againſt the uſe of the Pſalms too, or elſe it concludes nothing: which I thus demonſtrate. You lay down this Propoſition, Whatſoever is uſed in the Service of the Roman Church muſt not be uſed by us. To this I adde another; The Pſalms and other Scriptures are uſed in the Service of the Roman Church. Now do you draw any other Concluſion if you can from theſe two, but this, That thoſe Scriptures muſt not be uſed by us. If you like not this Concluſion, then you muſt mend the firſt propoſition, (which is your own, and you may do what you will with it;) as for mine, it cannot be mended, for it is certainly true. Now how will you mend it, but by allowing us the uſe of whatſoever is good in their Service? And then you muſt admit of more than the Scripture to be uſed by us, even all that is according to the Scripture: As our Prayers certainly are; though ſome of them are but Tranſlations of the Latine Prayers uſed in that Church.

N. C.

I will mend it in this manner: Whatſoever they uſe (except it be the Word of God) we are not to uſe it.

It is meer Humour that makes you limit it in this manner. For there is ſomething good beſides the Scripture. viz. that which is writ, ſaid, or done according to it. And why they ſhould make any thing of this nature unuſeful to us by their uſing it, ſince you confeſs the Holy Scripture, notwithſtanding their uſe, nay abuſes of it, is not prophaned thereby, is paſt my capacity to underſtand. But perhaps you will be more ſenſible of what I ſay, if I tell you, that upon theſe principles you muſt reject the uſe of the Creed, commonly called the Apoſtles Creed, becauſe it is Profeſſed there in Divine Service as well as here.

N. C.

I would not willingly go ſo far from them.

Not go? you muſt whether you will or no, if you will follow your Principles, which will carry you ſo far, and a great deal farther. For this is the very bottom on which your Diſcourſe ſtands; that whatſoever hath been in uſe by a bad company of men, muſt by no means be uſed by us in God's Worſhip; except onelyonly ſuch portions of Holy Scripture as ſhall be thought fit to be read in our Aſſemblies. From whence it follows, that you may not lift up your Eyes to Heaven, nor Kneel when you pray, nor—

N. C.

Now methinks you rave.

Pray hear me a little, and you ſhall ſee it's you that are wild, and not I: ſo wild, as to practiſe that which you condemn. If we muſt not do what the Church of Rome doth in the Worſhip of God, then much leſs what Heathens have done and ſtill do; for they are worſe than the Roman Church.

N. C.

I think your Propoſition is good enough; but who doth that which the Heathen Idolaters were wont to do?

That did the Jewiſh Church, and that do you.

N. C.

Prove that.

So I will; and you ſhall have Scripture for it. ☜The Jews and you alſo Bow your Knees or Bodies to God, and the Heatheus bowed their Knees to Baal, and Bodies to Rimmon, 2 Kings 5.18. 1 Kings 19.18. You all liſt up your Eyes to Heaven when you worſhip; and the Heathen lifted up their eyes to their Idols, as appears by the practice in Iſrael, who imitated their Cuſtoms, Ezek. 18.12. and 33.25. You ſtretch out your hand to God, and ſo the Cuſtom was to do to a ſtrange God, Pſalm. 44.20. The Heathens ſate down at their Feaſts, when they eat of the Sacrifices in the Temples of their Gods, 1 Corinth. 8.1…. Exod. 32.6. which is the very poſture which you are ſo fond of when you come to ſeaſt with Chriſt, in the holy Sacrament of his Body and Bloud ſacrificed for us. I would adde more, but that it would be tedious. And the truth of it is, good men uſe that every day well which bad men uſe ill: And therefore I ſee not but we may do ſo with many things practiſed in the Roman Church. Do not good men uſe the Name of God with Reverence, which wicked men continually blaſpheme? Do we not refreſh our ſelves with Meat and Drink, of which many Debauched perſons take a Surfeit? Thoſe fine Cloaths which ſome wear for pride, do not others wear becauſe they befit their Quality? And, to come nearer our buſineſs, Thoſe Prayers which ſome men mumble over, others read devoutly: and thoſe Garments which ſome may uſe as holy, others uſe as decent. What ſhould ail us then, I ask you once again, that we cannot rightly uſe thoſe things which the Church of Rome abuſes? ſay thoſe good Prayers, for inſtarce in Engliſh, which they ſay in Latine? wear a white Garment without any Ceremony to conſecrate it, which they hallow with many Prayers, and Croſſing, and Holy water? Nay, uſe the Sign of the Croſs it ſelf upon one occaſion onelyonly once, after the Sacrament of Baptiſm, and merely as a token the Child is already become a Servant of the Crucified Jeſus; which they uſe upon all occaſions, before and in Baptiſm, a great many times, and that alſo to drive away the Devil, and to make the Sacrament more efficacious? There are an hundred things more, preſent themſelves to my thoughts about theſe matters; but I am aſhamed to diſcourſe any longer againſt ſo abſurd a Principle as yours. For in my judgment you may as well do ſome things which the Church of Rome doth, as believe ſome things which ſhe believes; as I hope you do. Nay, you believe even what the Devil believes. And as it would be a very dangerous rule, if any one ſhould ſay, Believe quite contrary to what the Devil believes; ſo it is no leſs (but rather more) dangerous to ſay, Do quite contrary to what the Church of Rome doth.

N. C.

I have not much to ſay againſt your diſcourſe; but we have a perſuaſion among us, that Nothing is lawful to be done by you or any body elſe in the Worſhip of God, but what is enjoyned by himſelf in his Word. And then what becomes of your Croſſing and Chaunting and Kneeling, with all the reſt of your Inventions? are they not all Idolatrous?

This is the wildeſt phanſie that we have yet heard, as many of our Miniſters have ſhewn by unanſwerable Arguments. For it makes that unlawful which the Scripture allows; in which we find many Holy men doing thoſe things (without any cenſure) in God's Worſhip which he had no where commanded. Nay, it makes the Worſhip of God impoſſible; the Time, the Place, the Veſture in which it ſhall be performed being no where appointed. It condemns alſo the beſt Chriſtians in all Ages till of late, who without any ſcruple uſed Forms of Prayer, and ſuch Rites as thoſe about which there is all this ſtir. And, which perhaps will moſt move you, I have heard our Miniſters ſhew that this Principle doth condemn your ſelves, who (when you take an Oath) do not reſuſe to lay your Hand upon the Book, and kiſ… the Goſpel, according as the cuſtom is. ☞Now all agree that an Oath is a ſolemn act of Divine Worſhip, it being an acknowledgment of all God's Attributes, and he being invocated and call'd upon to be a Witneſs and a Judge in the caſe. And if that be an act of Worſhip, I am ſure, Kiſſing the Book and Laying on the Hand are as much Ceremonies as Signing with the Croſs; outward ſigns (I mean) accompanying the action of Swearing, though they belong not to the Eſſence of it. And I am as ſure that you can no where ſhew me that God hath commanded this Religious action to be attended with this Ceremony. Behold then, into what perplexities theſe men caſt you! What Snares they intangle you and themſelves in! Out of which they cannot ſet you free, but by acknowledging (as we do) that men may appoint this Ceremony in taking an oath, though God hath not appointed it; according as in this very caſe, Abraham made his Servant put his Hand under his Thigh when he ſware, though it were a thing no where commanded. But then conſider again, that they and we may take the like liberty in other parts of Divine Worſhip, and ſubmit to ſuch Uſages as are appointed by our Governours, provided they be no where forbidden. Or if, rather than condemn themſelves, they will condemn good old Abraham, and ſay he followed the cuſtom of the world too much: there is no way for you but to turn Quakers, and to condemn Clean cloaths when we come to worſhip God; to find ſault with the Miniſter for ſtanding in a Pulpit, for Preaching by a Glaſs, for wearing a Gown, yea, a Cloak or a Cap, eſpecially with Ears: for none of theſe things are by any Divine Command.

N. C.

I ſee you have ſomething to ſay to every thing. If I did not know you, I ſhould ſuſpect you for a Jeſuit.

That would be ridiculous. For if there be any of them in Lay-mens clothes, they do not perſuade you to our Church, but from it; knowing that is the ſureſt way to gain you, if they can once unſettle your minds, and fill you with Phanſies: of which they will at laſt perſuade you there is no end, till you reſt your ſelf in the boſom of that Harlot which you ſo much abhor.

N. C.

I ſee one cannot weary you. But ſuppoſe theſe things be lawful in themſelves; I am told they become unlawful when once they are enjoyn'd.

This is an Extravagance wilder than all that went before. They are ſo far from being unlawful by being commanded, that they become neceſſary; to be done, I mean.

N. C.

I thought you would ſay ſo. But that's the very thing makes me think them unlawful when commanded; for it takes away Chriſtian liberty by making them neceſſary to be done.

Goodly! what fine things do your Chriſtians make themſelves, that muſt be reſtrained in nothing, though for publick Orders ſake! Nay, muſt over-rule the Laws of Chriſtian Princes, and ſhew the power they have over their Commands? Do you think there ever were any Chriſtians in the world before you that held themſelves bound not to do a lawful thing, merely becauſe his Sovereign would have it done? If he did command a thing unlawful, there were good reaſon not to do it: but if he is like to be equally diſobeyed whether he command things lawful or unlawful; nay, and it be a duty to diſobey him in both alike; he is in miſerable circumſtances, and had better never meddle with the Worſhip of God, but leave it to be ordered as every body phanſies.

N. C.

That's the beſt way.

Nay, now I think on't, there's a way to make you do what he likes beſt; and you ſhall hold your ſelves bound to it.

N. C.

That's ſtrange.

Not ſo ſtrange as true. For when a Prince hath a mind you ſhould do a thing, if I were of his Council, I would adviſe him to make a Law that you ſhould not do it. For then you would either ſhew that you are people of a humourſom Conſcience, that is guided by no certain Principles; or elſe, according to your own Rules, you would do what he for bids you. For as when he commands a thing about the Service of God, it becomes unlawful to be done: So when he forbids any thing, it becomes unlawful to let it alone; your Liberty being invaded by him either way. If he would but require therefore that no body ſhould wear the Surplice, or uſe the Sign of the Croſs; we ſhould ſee all your Miniſters with Surplices on their Backs, and all your Children croſſed in the Fore-head: For elſe you would be reſtrained in your Liberty.

N.C.

I never knew any man fetch things about in this faſhion as you do. The truth it, you intangle me, but you do not perſwade me.

I have not much hope of it, If you feell not the force of theſe arguments: Yet I'll try what a familiar Reſemblance will do. We are agreed that the thing commanded by Authority, is not leſs indifferent in its own nature after it's commanded than it was before; but onelyonly our uſe of it is not ſo indifferent and at liberty. We muſt needs be therefore agreed alſo that this Reſtraint comes not upon us from the things themſelves, becauſe ſtill perfectly indifferent; but onelyonly from the Law, which ties us up: Now we ſay, that to this Law we are to be ſubject, not regarding our own Liberty ſo much as the Prince's Authority. You ſay, No. But as the Law cannot alter the Nature of the things, ſo it ought not to Reſtrain your Freedom in the uſe of them; but leave that as indifferent as the things themſelves. That is, that the King ought to make no ſuch Law about thoſe matters: If he do, then it is unlawfull to do what he commands to be always done; becauſe he ought to leave you at Liberty to let it alone if you pleaſe, and you ought to maintain your Liberty, and by no means to part with it. Put the caſe then that you (being Maſter of a Family) will have your Children and Servants to come at a certain time and place, &c. to worſhip God. It is indifferent indeed in it ſelf, and all one to God, whether it be at ten, eleven, or twelve a clock, or in what part of your Houſe they meet, or in what Cloaths they come, or what Poſtures they uſe: But you appoint the hour of meeting ſhall be twelve; and that they come into your Parlour, or Hall, or Chappel, if you have that conveniency: And beſide, you require your Servants that they ſhall not come into your Parlour (ſuppoſe) in thoſe Frocks wherein they juſt before rubb'd your Horſe's Heels, (which you think not handſom or decent) but in their Liveries, or ſome ſuch neater Apparel. And when they come there, you bid them ſtand ſome part of the time, and the reſt you bid them ſit, if they pleaſe, and at Prayers kneel, as you do your ſelf. Let me ask you now, Do you really think that this is any ſuch Reſtraint of their Liberty, as they have juſt cauſe to complain of it? Would you think you took too much upon you in making theſe Orders for your Family, of which you are Governour? Or would you judge that Servant to be without fault, and guiltleſs of any Contempt, who ſhould ſay, that he will come at ten of the clock, but not at twelve; becauſe it matters not which, ſo the thing be done; and he will not be tied to any Order, but to do the thing? And ſuppoſe another ſhould come and ſay, that he will pray, if you pleaſe to come into the Stable, but he will not come into the Parlour; for it is indifferent where it is; and he muſt not be confined to one place more than another. And a third ſhould come and tell you that he is ready to joyn in Prayer, but then it muſt be in his Frock, otherwiſe he will not; for God may be ſerved as well in that as any other Garment, and he muſt uſe his Chriſtian Liberty, and not be bound to your Faſhions. And the next ſhould tell you, that he will ſit in your preſence, or elſe you ſhall not have his company: His reaſon is, becauſe it is all one to God whether he ſit or ſtand; and he is not to let you be Maſter of his Freedom in thoſe matters. What would you ſay to theſe people? Nay, what would you do with them? Would you excuſe them, and acknowledge your own guilt in making ſuch Injunctions? Or would you not rather treat them as a company of ſaucy Clowns and ill-bred Fellows, not fit to be kept in any orderly family? If you ſhould not, all the world would hold you as ridiculous as they. For every Maſter of a family is veſted with ſufficient authority to ſee ſuch commands as thoſe obſerved. And when they that will not obſerve them, yet acknowledge them to be indifferent things; truly I think no body will think them harſhly uſed, if they be turned out of doors. If they be Fools and Blocks, that cannot underſtand common ſenſe; then (I confeſs) they are to be pitied; and his good nature may work ſo far as to bear with their ſimplicity, if they be otherways good Servants: But yet thoſe Knaves that abuſed their ſimplicity, and inſtilled theſe filthy Principles into them; deſerve to be puniſh'd, and put out of his Service, till they acknowledge their fault, and learn more manners. Juſt like this is the preſent caſe before us. The Church is but a larger Family, a wider Society, in which the King is the Father and Supreme Governour. If he make ſome Laws for the more convenient, orderly and decent Worſhip of God there, which in themſelves are Lawful, and declared not to be in their own nature neceſſary, but onelyonly prudent Conſtitutions; I cannot ſee but that thoſe who refuſe to obey them upon pretence of their Liberty, and that God may as well be worſhipp'd without thoſe things, do ſhew themſelves as unmannerly, rude, and refractory perſons, as the Children or Servants in that ſuppoſed Family, of which I bad you conceive your ſelf Maſter. And I leave you to apply this caſe to that; and to make the parallel complete in your thoughts at your leiſure. I hope it will be worth your labour, if you do it ſeriouſly.

N.C.

It gives me ſome light into the buſineſs already. But ſtill I wonder that all our Miniſters ſhould hold your Forms and Orders unlawful. Sure they have ſome better reaſon for it than I have.

Alas, good man! you are merely abuſed. For though they are willing you ſhould remain in the opinion of their Unlawfulneſs; they do not think ſo themſelves.

N.C.

What would you make of them? Do not I hear them conſtantly ſpeak againſt them?

Nay, do you make what Conſequences you think ſit from it. As for the thing it ſelf, I will maintain, that thoſe Miniſters you hear (ſome indeed think otherwiſe) are not of the mind, that it is unlawful to come to Common Prayer, or wear a Surplice, or kneel at the Sacrament.

N.C.

You cannot make good your confident Aſſertion.

Why, Man? I have ſeen them at the Prayers; and many of them have profeſſed they did not think the Ceremonies ſuch great Bugbears that one need to be afraid of them. And if this will not do, I have a more convincing Argument of their Opinion in theſe matters.

N.C.

And do theſe very men now ſeem to diſlike the publick Prayers?

Seem? you confeſs they ſpeak againſt Forms. And we ſee the open affronts they put upon our Service, by meeting at that very time when it is performed: the reaſon of which I expounded to you before.

N.C.

Therefore I always thought they accounted it unlawful.

No ſuch matter. You ſhould rather think ſomething elſe; and (to help you a little) conſider whether their Integrity be ſo great as you imagine.

N.C.

Your meaning, Sir?

I mean, they do not ſeem to me to deal ſincerely with you, in ſuffering you to live in this dangerous perſwaſion of the ſinfulneſs of Common Prayer and the Ceremonies; when they know in their Conſciences they are not ſinful. And then to hear you call it Bibble-babble, Porridge, or ſuch like vile names, without any reproof, is ſtill worſe. But if you hear themſelves ſpeak againſt the Common Prayer and the Ceremonies; there is the greater reaſon to have a vehement ſuſpicion of their Diſhoneſty; becauſe they decry that which in their Conſciences they allow.

N.C.

I am not fully ſatisfied of that.

Why did many of them deliberate ſo long whether they ſhould accept of Dignities in the Church, if they did not believe it lawful to hear the Prayers, and to put even the Babyloniſh Garment (as you will needs call the Surplice) upon their backs; and more than that, to wear the very Rags of the Whore, the Lawn ſleeves? If it was ſo plain a buſineſs, that their Conſcience and their Covenant would not let them conform, one would think they ſhould have profeſſed it openly without any more ado. And therefore I conclude, that Pauſe and Deliberation was about ſomething elſe; not about matters of Conſcience, but of Intereſt and Policy. As, Whether the people would take it well, and not laught at them, as ſo many Magpies got upon a Perch: whether it would not be a ſcandalous thing, that is, not for their Credit and Reputation: whether they could not hold ſuch a Party with them in Non-conformity, as would balance the Epiſcopal, and ſo force them at leaſt to a Toleration. In ſhort, whether they ſhould not loſe the Affections of their own party, which they had already made; and win very little upon the Affections of others, whom they had ſo much diſobliged in the late Troubles. Theſe were their ſecret Debates in their Cabals, the weighty Points that were to be ſtated in thoſe Conſultations. You, Good man, think perhaps that they ſpent their time in Faſting and Seeking God to direct their Conſciences. No, no; it was not their Conſcience, but their Credit, which then lay at ſtake.—

N.C.

Why ſhould you think ſo?

Becauſe I have heard ſome of them acknowledge they did not ſcruple what we do, but thought it unhandſom for them to do it. Sometimes they put it in a more Religious phraſe, and ſaid, it would give a great ſcandal to the world, who would think the worſe of the Profeſſion of Chriſtianity. But the meaning was in plain Engliſh, that they were aſhamed to confeſs their Error, and to ſet up thoſe things again which they had raſhly pulled down.

N.C.

And would you not have men to conſult their Credit?

Yes, but not ſo much as the peace of the Church of God. We ought to deny our ſelves, and be content to be put to ſhame for God's ſake; (which is indeed true Glory) and there is little of God among them that ſeek not Peace, though on thoſe terms. Beſides, there can no account be given of their Behavior ſince in cheriſhing this Fancy among you, (or ſuffering it to grow) that Conformity is unlawful, unleſs it be this that they think it will make more for their Reputation among you, if you believe it was Conſcience, not care of their own Credit & Eſtimation, that kept them from Conforming

N.C.

You are the ſevereſt man that ever I knew, and love to ſearch too far into the reaſon of things.

Would you would do ſo too; for then you would ſoon be of my mind.

N.C.

No, not as long as one Scruple remains in my mind.

What's that?

N. C.

I have heard ſome of them call yours, Will-worſhip, which the Apoſtle condemns, (Col. 2. ult.)

Very likely they might, and not underſtand what they ſaid.

N.C.

Do you believe they would, like brute Beaſts, ſpeak evill of things they know not?

I will not cenſure them of that, but this I can tell you, that one of your Miniſters confeſſed to a ſober perſon of my acquaintance, that he had never ſo much as read over the Common-Prayer-book in all his life; and yet he was no Youngſter. Perhaps there may be more ſuch: and then if they ſpeak againſt it, judge of them as you ſee Cauſe.

N. C.

I believe ſuch men diſlike it without looking into it; becauſe, as I told you, it is Will-Worſhip, a meer invention of man.

That's a word of S. Paul, whom no doubt they have read; but I queſtion whether they underſtood him.

N. C.

Why ſhould you doubt it?

Becauſe, if we take the ſenſe of the Word, not from Fancy, but from the matter wherewith it is connected, it makes nothing for your purpoſe, but rather much againſt you.

N. C.

Can you tell better than they?

I do not ſay ſo; but I have heard one of our Miniſters give ſuch an Explication of the place as ſatisfied me, that you uſe a Weapon which wounds your ſelves.

N. C.

Let's hear it.

If you look a little back, you will find the Apoſtle forbids Worſhipping of Angels; (v. 18.) as a bold invention of men, for which there was no Revelation. And then he ſpeaks againſt ſuch ſuperſtitious people (whether Jews, or others, the miniſter could not tell us) as made it unlawful to Marry, to eat ſome kind of Meats, to touch or come near ſome things; none of which God hath made ſinful, but they were the meer Commandments of men, (v. 21.22.) Now thoſe that were of this Humour he immediately after (v. 23.) charges with Will-Worſhip. Which muſt conſiſt, therefore, one would think, in theſe two things.

Firſt, In giving the Worſhip due to God to ſome Creature or other. Secondly, in enjoyning that as a thing neceſſary, and commanded by God as a piece of his VVorſhip and Service, which he hath left indifferent; or, in other words, when any thing is ſo enjoyned to be done or not done, as if it were the Will & Command of God he ſhould be ſo ſerved, when it is a meer Conſtitution of the Will of Man, then a Will-Worſhip is erected. Now I am ſure you will not make us guilty of the Firſt fort of Will-Worſhip, becauſe none are more againſt it than we. As for the Second; our Church hath declared to all the World, that none of the things you boggle at are impoſed under the Notion of Neceſſary, or Religious, in themſelves, or as commanded by God; but are of an indifferent Nature, and only uſed as decent and comely in the judgment of the preſent Governors, who can alter theſe things, and conſtitute ſomething elſe in the room, if they ſee it fit; which they could not pretend to, did they think them neceſſary. But then, as our Church is not guilty of Will-Worſhip in the Apoſtles Senſe; ſo, on the other ſide, I know not how to excuſe thoſe from that very guilt, who oppoſe what is ordained among us as unlawful, and forbid us to uſe thoſe Rites and Orders, becauſe ſinful things. For they make that neceſſary to be forborn and left undone, which God hath not made ſo, but left indifferent; and ſo they in effect condemn thoſe as Sinners whom God acquits from all blame. As thoſe in the Apoſtle's Diſcourſe, ſaid, Touch not, Taſte not, Handle not, ſo you ſay, Kneel not, Pray not by a Form, We are not a Surplice, &c. Now ſince you think (as thoſe men did) to pleaſe God by not doing thoſe things which he hath no-where forbidden; I do not ſee but you commit the very fault which the Apoſtle reproves: That is, you make that neceſſary not to be done, (if we will be true Worſhippers of God) which he hath not made neceſſary not to be done, but left us at liberty to do it if we pleaſe. By which means you make a Religion of your own, and ſtudy to honour God by abſtaining from theſe things by which he never ſaid that he was diſhonoured. O that all tender Conſciences would ſeriouſly conſider this. For they would ſoon diſcern that your Miniſters by forbidding theſe things now in diſpute, lay greater burthens upon the Conſciences of their Brethren, and clog them with more Duties, than God hath laid upon them. Whereas we, who think thoſe things may be done, lay no other burthen upon the Conſcience than what God himſelf hath laid; which is, to obey our Governors in all things wherein he himſelf hath not bidden us to do the contrary.

N. C.

You will endeavor by and by to make me believe the Moon is made of green Cheeſe. All this diſcourſe tends to prove that we are Superſtitious, which you know in your Conſciences we abhor; and are therefore ſo averſe to your ways, becauſe we judg them Superſtitious.

You begin to be ſagacious and to ſmell things a far off. The very truth is, I think it is no eaſie matter to find more Superſtitious people in the World than your ſelves. And your Clamours againſt Superſtition prove nothing, but that a man may be guilty of ſome faults, and not know it.

N. C.

Phy for ſhame!

You muſt not think to put me off with words and wry Faces. I will prove you groſly Superſtitious, or elſe be converted to you.

N. C.

You will not make good your word.

Yes, but I will. Tell me, what is Superſtition?

N. C.

I am not well skill'd in Definitions.

No, if you were, you would have ſmelt the foul Beaſt among you before this time. But your buſineſs is, only to get ſome ugly Words by the end, and then to throw them at every body whom you do not fanſie, though they have leſs to do with them than your ſelves. We have been taught that Superſtition is a great Dread leſt God ſhould not be pleaſed, unleſs we do ſome things which we need not do, and leſt he ſhould be diſpleaſed when we do ſome things in which there is no harm. Which Dread ſprings (as you very well ſaw) out of an opinion that ſuch things are good or evil, (and ſo muſt be done or muſt not be done, elſe God will take it ill) which in truth are meerly indifferent. Or, in ſhorter, and perhaps plainer, terms, It is a needleſs Fear in Matters of Religion, which makes a man either not dare to do thoſe things which he hath a liberty to do, or think he muſt upon pain of Damnation do thoſe things which he may as well let alone.

Friendly Debate with Non-Conformist, Discourse (2 of 4)