01.02 Efforts to Purity and Cleanse the Evil Ways
Chapter II Efforts to Purity and Cleanse the Evil Ways
It follows in your book, That against the will of the Bishop of Excester, Doctor Hall, in his Diocesan, brought in innovations into his Parish Church. This is as true as the rest of your slanders. The things which I did in my Meeting House, which you call my Parish Church, which in likelihood the Bishop might not approve of, were these:
1. I constantly refused to read the Lessons appointed in the Service-Book, that were any part of the Apocrypha, and read only the Canonical Scripture and did ordinarily read the Scriptures in order, not taking here one Chapter, and there another, according to the direction of the Service Book.
2. I usually expounded, sometimes more largely, and sometimes more briefly the Chapters that I read, specially in my later time, wherein I seldom read any part of the Scripture without expounding it.
3. When I read the Psalms, and other parts of Scripture that were corruptly translated in the Service-Book, I used not that corrupt translation, but the best translation (as I conceived) that was extant.
4. I refused to use the corrupt Metaphase of the Psalms, that was annexed to the Service-Book, and not then seeing the unlawfulness of that way of singing, I used sometimes King James’s Metaphrase, yet not without some corrections, sometimes (in the use of some Psalms) a Metaphrase of mine own, and sometimes Mr. Rowse’s Metaphrase when it was come forth.
5. I preached weekly lecture in my Public Meeting-House, without asking any leave of the Bishop to do so.
6. I did sometimes there keep public Fasts without any leave either from the Bishop, or any other man.
7. I refused (as the last) to read or use the Fast-Books sent about by the Prelates and when a public Fast was appointed by the King’s Proclamation, I did not stay (as others did) for leave or order from the Bishop to observe it.
If I brought in any Innovations against the Bishop’s will, it must be some of these things, or some such like. But I suppose, neither you, nor your informers will now object unto me any such thing as an offensive Innovation. Though it be probable that Bishop Hall did not like some of these things, or would not have seemed to have liked them, if he had taken notice of them, yet (that I may do him no wrong) he never gave me any reproof for any of these things, nor for any thing else, so far as I remember, saving only for preaching, that Prelatical Episcopacy was a Human tradition, whereat indeed he was exceedingly displeased. How far he was from disliking me, as one bringing in Innovations against his will, he did manifest, partly by settling me in the Lecture at Tiverton, which act of his he never recalled, but I continued enjoying the liberty of preaching that Lecture, till I myself (finding it a burden to me) did voluntary give it over, partly also by appointing me to preach at the Assize in Excester, immediately upon his receiving a strict order from authority to be very circumspect in his choice of me for that service. Partly also by his ready and earnest applying himself to free me out of trouble, when I had been vehemently prosecuted by his Chancellor Doctor Parrie, and began to be used in the High Commission by one Mr. John Weeks, for excepting against the said Mr. Week as an unfit person to be Clerk of the Convocation, though Bishop Hall himself had commended him to our choice for that place. Yea, when in his haste he had exposed me to no small danger (as he afterwards apprehended) by sending my Sermon to the Archbishop, in which I had declared his Episcopacy to be a Human Ordinance, and I had taken my journey towards London to answer that matter, he, himself, sent after me, such letters of commendation, and of earnest request in my behalf, as he thought would be most prevalent for my peace. Although he can neither be ignorant nor insensible of my utter disliking, and earnest opposing of that way which he has both walked in, and pleased for, yet I am so far persuaded of his respect to his conscience, credit, and honor, as that I dare refer this matter to his testimony, viz., whether this assertion of yours: That I brought in innovations into my Perish-Church, against the will of Dr. Hall my Diocesan, be not (as I affirm it to be) a mere calumniation.
Mr. Edwards and His Reporters are Liars and Slanderers But you have (as you pretend) your informers, that must then take this off from you, and bear it upon their own shoulders. For this you have provided in this Parenthesis, (as some godly people that came out of those parts, have informed me.) But why, I pray you, are the names of these Godly Informers concealed? Is it because if you should name any Godly man as the givers of such information, they would clear themselves, and declare you to be a liar? Or is it because your Informers, by you falsely called Godly, being conscious to themselves of their false dealing, have given you order to conceal their names, least they should be discovered to have dealt dishonestly? Deal plainly, Mr. Edwards, and if they cannot reprove you as a false reporter, I shall prove them to be slanderers. No True and Just Charge Against Mr. Cox But now some reader may now enquire in his thoughts, was there not something from which some mighty possibly (though not justly) take occasion to raise some such report? My true answer is this, When the Jews cried out against Paul, that he had brought Greeks into the Temple, and had polluted that holy place, Acts 21:28, there was something from which they took occasion to raise that clamor, For they had been before with him in the City, Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into that Temple, Acts 21:29. So I suppose the case here stands with me in respect of two things.
Moved the So-Called Communion Table
First in respect of the Communion Table (as men commonly call it) placed North and South, not East and West. Touching which, this is the true state of the business.
1. The Table was so placed on before there was any word spoken (that I heard of) of turning Tables into Altars, otherwise I should have given no consent to the placing of it in that manner. It stood so a long time before there was any offence taken by any (that I did ever hear of) at the standing of it in that sort.
2. It was so placed merely for convenience, the Chancel being very short, yea, shorter (as I remember) then the Table it self, and yet of a sufficient breadth.
3. The Table was not placed Altar-Wise, in as much as there was a fear between it and the East end of the Chancel, where people did ordinarily sit, and at the time of the Communion, that seat was made use of by the Communicants.
4. While the Table stood in that manner, I was so far in the favor of the Bishop, and had such frequent and familiar access unto him, as that if I had therein done any thing against his mind, that he had known and taken notice of, he would lovingly have told me of it. But he never so much as intimated the least dislike of ought that I did in this thing.
5. All this time there was no Altar-Worship, or bowing towards the Table there used. For as I always showed a detestation of that thing, so the people there did not use it, not in the last measure.
6. When I understood that some at last took offence at that standing of the Table, and put an ill construction upon it, though they were only strangers that did so, yet to remove the occasion of the offence, I caused that Table to be taken away, and a square Table to be set in the room of it.
Secondly Reading From The Table
Secondly, in respect of my reading some part of the Service sometime at that Table, touching this, my true Apology is as follows:
1. This thing also was done without any Altar-Worship, and without any looking upon one place as more holy than another, either by me, or by the people.
2. The meeting-house was so square, and the Chancel so short, that the whole congregation could hear me there, as well as in any other place.
3. Even this also was a part of the Old Conformity, as you call it, the Service-Book then Authorized by Parliament (as was then conceived) requiring this as well as any other Conformity.
4. The occasion of my so doing, was the trouble and censure in the High-Commission Court, of one Doctor Down, for his Non-Conformity, this being a part of his Non-Conformity that he was so troubled for, viz. his not reading the second Service (as they called it) at the Communion-Table. This wrought upon me, I being then in expectation of a High-Commission Suit, and knowing my self to be extremely maligned by the malignant crew.
5. I was so far from doing this against the Bishop’s will, that I first advised with him before I did it, and he understanding the fashion of my Meeting-House, did advise me to do it for my safety. Yet do I now not justify myself in this action, for though I then discerned no evil in it, yet is it one of those things of which I am now ashamed. But suppose I had formerly been such a Time-Server and Innovator, as you accuse me to have been, yea, suppose I had been a persecutor of the people of God (as you by your writing now appear to be)? Suppose I had persecuted men for not coming to Divine-Service, falsely co called, for not kneeling at the Communion? Suppose I had been an Altar-Worshipper, a setter up of Images, (which abominations and abominable persecutions through the grace of God I abhorred and shunned) suppose I say, I had then walked in those evil paths. Should this be not urged to the disgrace of my present practice most manifestly and directly contrary to such evils? Should it not rather be applied to the disgrace of that false way in which I then walked with you and others? Does not my present practice really manifest my abhorring of Time serving, and of having any fellowship with Popish Innovations? If I could apply myself to Temporizing, and to a shadowing of false ways, or but to a conniving at the same, I might (in all probability) as easily rise, and rustle in silks, as any of you. But I choose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, then to enjoy the pleasure of sin for a season, and esteem the reproach of Christ far greater riches then the fattest Benefice, or largest Stipend.
Now tell me, Mr. Edwards, whether Paul when he was a baptized believer, and a Servant of Jesus Christ, hating all Blasphemy, Persecution, and Injuriousness, might yet have been justly reproached by some, because he had sometimes been a Blasphemer, and a Persecutor, and Injurious. And if any of the false Apostles had in that respect dealt with him, as you now deal (and that falsely too) with me, tell me whether they had not herein showed themselves the servants of the Devil, rather then the servants of God?
I may not omit yet further to examine this passage in your slander, Against the will of the Bishop. Do you conceive that they which swallowed the use of the Service-Book communicated with Fornicators, or Covetous Persons, or Idolaters, or Railers, or Drunkards, or Extortioners, and did many other acts of that nature, now known to be hateful unto GOD, may yet hold themselves to be excused, because though they did these things against the will of God, yet they did them not against the will of the Bishop? Will this serve their turn at the great day? Surely at that day neither the will of the Bishop heretofore, nor yet the will of any Assembly or Presbytery now, will be found sufficient to bear men out in the things not according to the will of God.
Edwards Now a Presbyterian but Could Just As Well Be an Anglican
I cannot but take notice also of the titles which you give to Dr. Hall, in that your aggravation of the offense unjustly laid to my charge, viz., The Bishop of Excester’s Diocesan. This seems to intimate that I was then bound to conform to the will of Dr. Hall, because he was then the Bishop of Excester, my Diocesan. Do not you yet acknowledge this to be a truth, that their Prelatical Episcopacy was from man, not from God? If you do acknowledge it, tell me by what Law of God, or by what Just Authority of man, I was then bound to conform to the Bishop’s will? By these titles thus given and made use of by you, you signify how well you could brook that Episcopacy again. Only I suppose, you had rather exercise that tyrannical power, then be under it.