The Way of Congregational Churches Cleared, Treatise 1 · Chapter 3 · Section 6
SECT. 6. Of Cottons pretended miſleading
Mr. Davenport
Mr. Goodwin.
If it be true which the Diſſwader relateth from Mr. Edwards, Page 56.that before my departure from England, I had by conference in London brought off Mr. Davenport, and Mr. Goodwin, from ſome of the Engliſh Ceremonies.
Why doth he note me in his margent to be a Miſleader of Mr. Goodwin and others? Is it a miſleading to lead men away from the Engliſh Ceremonies? Were they Miſleaders, who led the Honorable Houſes of Ptrliament to fall off from the Ceremonies? Or did the Parliament miſlead the people of England to the diſuſe of them?
But Mr. Baylie knoweth not Mr. Davenport, nor Mr. Goodwin, if hee thinke the ableſt Divines in Chriſtendome, much leſſe ſuch a poore weake thing as my ſelfe could bring them off to forſake their publike Miniſtery, wherein they were notable inſtruments of good ſervice to God and man, unleſſe they ſaw the light of the Word and Spirit of Grace to goe before them in ſuch wayes. Virgin-ſoules are wont to follow the Lambe, whereſoever hee goeth (Rev. 14.4.) And the Sonnes of God are led by the Spirit of God, (Rom. 8.14.) And therefore let Mr. Baylie be intreated not ſo much to undervalue his holy Brethren, as to think they were rather miſled by me, then led by the Spirit and Word of Grace in their own judgments and conſciences. It is true, Mr. Davenport, Mr. Goodwin, with ſome other godly Brethren had ſome conference with me at London, about the cauſe of my ſufferings, and of my purpoſe to leave the Land; which they ſaid, they deſired the rather, becauſe they did not look at mee as a paſſionate man, though the Diſſwader (who knoweth me not) be pleaſed ſo to repreſent me to the world in this Paragraph. And upon their motion two Points were chiefely debated: 1. Touching the limitation of Church-power, to matters of commandement, not of indifferency, (which I touched before.) The 2. touching the office of Biſhops, whether the Scripture Biſhops bee appointed to rule a Dioceſſe, or a particular Congregation. Now both theſe being agreed upon amongſt us, Mr. Edwards is much miſtaken, and Mr. Baylie too, when they ſay, that neither Mr. Davenport, nor Mr. Goodwin, nor my ſelfe did mind any further then the leaving of ſome few ceremonies. For grant the former principle, of the limitation of Church-Power to matters of Commandement, and all the Ceremonies muſt bee left off at once. And grant the latter, touching the limitation of Biſhops to a particular Congregation; and it will neceſſarily inferre an unavoydable Separation from under the ſhadow of Dioceſan-Epiſcopall-Government.
Beſides, preſently after, I received Letters from Mr. Goodwin, (and as I take it, before I left England) ſignifying, that as in our former conferences, wee had debated much of the negative part of the 2. Commandement, ſo hee had ſince meditated much, and ſeriouſly of the affirmative part of it, the poſitive inſtitutions of Gods Divine Worſhip in oppoſition to humane inventions. Whereby I plainely diſcerned, (England as the State of it ſtood then) could not hold him long. It is an uſuall thing with God, in times of Reformation to enlighten his Servants, though farre diſtant one from another, with the ſame beams of light of Divine Truth, which the world interpreteth, they have learned one from another: but indeed all from the ſame Spirit, who diſtributeth to every one, even as he will. But whether Mr. Davenport, and Mr. Goodwin received ought from me, I doe not know, ſure I am, I have received much from them. The members of the Body of Chriſt, are wont to miniſter ſupply one to another, according to the effectuall working of the Spirit of Grace in every part, to the mutuall edifying of themſelves, and of the whole Body in Love, Epheſ. 4.16. And why ſhould mutuall edification be made a matter of exprobration?