CHAP. V.
Project Gutenberg EPUB3 edition
Williams, Roger and Underhill, Edward Bean
Peace. With lamentation, I may add, how can their souls be clear in this foundation of the true Christian matter, who persecute and oppress their own acknowledged brethren, presenting light unto them about this point? But I shall now present you with Mr. Cotton’s third distinction. “In points of practice,” saith he, “some concern the weightier duties of the law, as what God we worship, and with what kind of worship; whether such, as if it be right, fellowship with God is held; if false, fellowship with God is lost.”
Truth. It is worth the inquiry, what kind of worship he intendeth: for worship is of various signification. Whether in general acceptation he mean the rightness or corruptness of the church, or the ministry of the church, or the ministrations of the word, prayer, seals, &c.
The true ministry a fundamental.
And because it pleaseth the Spirit of God to make the ministry one of the foundations of the Christian religion, Heb. vi. 1, 2, and also to make the ministry of the word and prayer in the church to be two special works, even of the apostles themselves, Acts vi. 2, I shall desire it may be well considered in the fear of God.[98]
The New English ministers examined.
First, concerning the ministry of the word. The New English ministers, when they were new elected and ordained ministers in New England, must undeniably grant, that at that time they were no ministers, notwithstanding their profession of standing so long in a true ministry in old England, whether received from the bishops, which some have maintained true, or from the people, which Mr. Cotton and others better liked, and which ministry was always accounted perpetual and indelible. I apply, and ask, will it not follow, that if their new ministry and ordination be true, the former was false? and if false, that in the exercise of it, notwithstanding abilities, graces, intentions, labours, and, by God’s gracious, unpromised, and extraordinary blessing, some success, I say, will it not according to this distinction follow, that according to visible rule, fellowship with God was lost?
Common prayer cast off, and written against by the New English.
Secondly, concerning prayer. The New English ministers have disclaimed and written against that worshipping of God by the common or set forms of prayer, which yet themselves practised in England, notwithstanding they knew that many servants of God, in great sufferings, witnessed against such a ministry of the word, and such a ministry of prayer.
Peace. I could name the persons, time, and place, when some of them were faithfully admonished for using of the Common Prayer, and the arguments presented to them, then seeming weak, but now acknowledged sound; yet, at that time, they satisfied their hearts with the practice of the author of the Council of Trent, who used to read only some of the choicest selected prayers in the mass-book, which I confess was also their own practice in their using of the Common Prayer.[99] But now, according to this distinction, I ask whether or no fellowship with God in such prayers was lost?
God’s people have worshipped God with false worships.
Truth. I could particularize other exercises of worship, which cannot be denied, according to this distinction, to be of the weightier points of the law: to wit, what God we worship, and with what kind of worship? wherein fellowship with God, in many of our unclean and abominable worships, hath been lost. Only upon these premises I shall observe: first, that God’s people, even the standard-bearers and leaders of them, according to this distinction, have worshipped God, in their sleepy ignorance, by such a kind of worship as wherein fellowship with God is lost; yea also, that it is possible for them to do, after much light is risen against such worship, and in particular, brought to the eyes of such holy and worthy persons.
Secondly, there may be inward and secret fellowship with God in false ministries of word and prayer, (for that to the eternal praise of infinite mercy, beyond a word or promise of God, I acknowledge[100]) when yet, as the distinction saith, in such worship, not being right, fellowship with God is lost, and such a service or ministration must be lamented and forsaken.
Fundamentals of Christian worship not so easy and clear.
Thirdly, I observe that God’s people may live and die in such kinds of worship, notwithstanding that light from God, publicly and privately, hath been presented to them, able to convince; yet, not reaching to their conviction, and forsaking of such ways, contrary to a conclusion afterward expressed; to wit, “that fundamentals are so clear, that a man cannot but be convinced in conscience, and therefore that such a person not being convinced, he is condemned of himself, and may be persecuted for sinning against his conscience.”
Fourthly, I observe, that in such a maintaining a clearness of fundamentals or weightier points, and upon that ground a persecuting of men because they sin against their consciences, Mr. Cotton measures that to others, which himself when he lived in such practices would not have had measured to himself. As first, that it might have been affirmed of him, that in such practices he did sin against his conscience, having sufficient light shining about him.
Secondly, that he should or might lawfully have been cut off by death or banishment, as an heretic, sinning against his own conscience.
A notable speech of king James to a great nonconformist, turned persecutor.
And in this respect the speech of king James was notable to a great nonconformitant, converted, as is said, by king James to conformity, and counselling the king afterward to persecute the nonconformists even unto death: “Thou beast,” quoth the king, “if I had dealt so with thee in thy nonconformity, where hadst thou been?”