The Anatomist Anatomized

THere are two too usual errors in handling Controversies. One to make the difference voluminous and many-headed, that so it may appear more horrid, monstrous and irreconcilable: the other to make the Opposites odious, by charging their real or supposed faults upon their Tenants; for every man is glad to hear something against those they hate, and ready to believe it without any or on very slight examination.

How foul things were reported of Christ and Paul? How boldly were the Primitive Christians calumniated, that if all things were not believed by all, yet something might be believed by some. Austin complains of Petilian, that he fell from the Cause to his Person, from Arguments to Reproaches. So have the Papists dealt with Luther, Calvin, Beza, Perkins, Whitaker and others: so dealt Martin Mar-prelate (as he called himself) for the Presbyterial government against Episcopacy. But as that course was not blessed by God to reformation, or to mitigation of the Bishops wrath; so neither was it liked or approved by the grave and wise ones of his own opinion.

Both these errors are committed in the present controversies of Church Government, against the Apologists.

Some write large Books, and lay together all that's writ by any, or reported to be any man's, as though it were maintained by them all, whereas God knows, the difference lies but in a very few particulars. And if those particulars with their proper and pinching arguments were once put forth together, there would be more peace and truth, and that which now is not, would then be very tolerable.

Others fall foul upon their person.

First, to brand them with the name of Independents. A name which formerly was proper unto those who stood for Presbyterial government. Under that very Name, they chose to argue against Bishops, above any other, and the Bishops called them by it. But since it came to be a Reproach, they have put it upon those who count it proud, and insolent, Apol. pag. 23. And lest this Brand should be worn out, and their opinion not hurt their names, an ill report is given of them, by their conversation to discredit their Opinion. When the Apologet. Narration came first out, many rejoiced in it, and gave us thanks for it; but presently the Authors were reported to be cunning, proud, boasters of themselves, and what not. Blush, and forever be ashamed O ye Primative Christians, who so oft apologiz'd for yourselves unto the Magistrate, and with such expressions of yourselves as we have done; you therein showed your pride and arrogance; you sought not favor from the State to serve God freely, but you sought the praise of men. For ever let the name and use of Apologies cease from the world; their main end is to show forth the Authors Integrity, to do which now is judged Guile, Self-love, boasting, and Partiality.

But besides that report, there is an Antapology in Press, or a Collection of such faults as either men's mistakes and malice, or perhaps men's own infirmities have made, either beyond the Seas or here. This Anatomist is a forerunner to that, as some few great drops before a shower. Though of all the men against whom it is directed. I count myself the most unworthy and unable: though in whatsoever I am guilty before men, I will confess ingeniously.

Others may see more by me then I do myself. I may get more by knowledge of my sin, then I can loose by having it made known: yet being innocent in what by name is charged so often on me, I durst not but make it known, not for my own sake so much, as least the truth and way of God should suffer.

I shall endeavor to show these three things.

1. That it's not a way of God thus to divulge men's personal faults.

2. Nor rational or conducing to decide any or this Controversy.

3. That things are not as they are reported.

First, suppose all that is said were true and more, yet this way of bruiting of it is not Christian. No man should suddenly receive or take up a report against another, Pro. 25.23. much less against those who desire to be godly and are at least so accounted, and least of all against such as are Elders, 1 Tim. 5.19.

Either the fault reported is repented of or not. If it be, shall we lay open what the Lord hath covered? If it be not, before a Church may declare the sin of any Member, the fact must first be proved, and then the party labored with to come unto Repentance: This is the Law of Christ himself, Matth. 18.16, 17. much less then may a private person tell it and not take that course.

Without two or three Witnesses produced, the fault must not be told to a particular Church; much less may it be told to all the Churches in the world, as Printing doth.

God's way is not only to heal the wound, but to prevent a scar. He doth as well consult his people's Name as Holiness. And therefore the Casuists do well resolve, That he who tells abroad a Fault he knows and can sufficiently prove, before he have proved it, and the offender do refuse to hear the Church, is as well to be punished as a scandal to Religion, as he, is that did commit the Fact.

But not only to divulge unproved Acts, but upon hearsayes, and for this end to bring an odium upon the parties, and on what they hold or do in matters of Religion; and yet the Author or Reporters name must not be known (perhaps his very Name would infirm his Testimony) what is it, but the highest breach of Love and Justice?

The Apologists are called Proud, &c. because they did protest their own Integrity, when there was need: what will men think of them, who labor to make all men black and foul besides themselves?

To do thus, is a helpless, remediless Oppression: what course shall men take to save or gain their Names? what satisfaction can men have if they be wronged? private acknowledgement they cannot have, because the Author is not known: and if he were, and would acknowledge it, that cannot satisfy, because the wrong is public. Shall they clear themselves by Writing? Truth hardly will overtake a Lye that is set out, four or five days before it. Will the Reporter, or the Imprimatur write themselves Deceived, Misinformed, Abused, Accusers of their Brethren? That will hardly be: where shall the wronged be relieved, or the Truth made known?

If it be lawful for one Part to take this course, it's lawful for the other; and then, who shall be innocent? who can escape? who cannot find enough, even in the best, to darken and ecclypse their Glory? And if that should be, Religion will be made a mock and scorn between them both. What will that Religion be esteemed, in whose professors there's so little love to one another, and so many faults?

Injuries affect men more then Favors. It's a harder matter to endure ill words then ill deeds, a contumely to ones Name, then a damage in Estate. And if any be by this course tempted to recriminate, though Religion suffer, he that tempted to it, is most guilty, and must bear the blame.

Lastly, the very Law of Nature hath condemned this. Plato calls such, Mad-men, and thinks no commonwealth should suffer them: And lege Remmia, they were to be branded with a K in the forehead, that all men might know them. But I will say no more of this, some may perhaps conceive it as a sign of guilt, to speak so much.

II. Suppose Reports were true, yet to report them, no ways helps to end the Controversy: It may provoke, but not confute. There is no reasoning from the quality of the person to his cause; as thus, Such a one is an unclean person; Therefore his cause in Law is bad. Or thus, Such a one is lewd; Therefore that Religion is not true he doth profess. Is not Christ the Savior, because Judas who acknowledged him was treacherous? The more spiritual and Divine any ways are, the more corruptions do break forth in those that walk not with a strait foot in them, as the most healing Playsters draw out the most filthy putrid matter.

Either Opinions are the cause of such vile acts or not; if they be not, why are they blamed for them; if they be, unless the holders of them took them up because they were so; they are not to be Reviled, but Instructed; their opinion must be blamed, and not they.

What consequence is there between anything it's said I did, and this main Assertion of the Apology [That one Church may Non-Communion, but not Excommunicate another?] Did this silence me from confessing sin, or preaching the Law, &c? Did this make me make a Covenant with the Separation, or dislike Ruling-Elders, or principle me to Anabaptism?

What advantage can the Cause or Authors have by these Reports? Think they to get more into people's hearts with their opinions? God takes the wise in their own craftiness, and will destroy such wisdom. Needs truth such ways? Either yourselves are free from faults or not. If not, you must no more be believed, then you would have them whose faults you tell; suppose you be, truth grows not on the heaps and ruins of men's names; nor is to be received for men's testimony: but not for theirs of all men, who do calumniate. All men do suspect the cause, when as the persons of the witnesses against it, are traduced. Good men will mourn, and try more narrowly: Others will laugh, and scoff, and grow more careless what opinion is set up. This will be all they'll get.

Is this your aim, to make us be despised of the people; The best way to that, were to have proved things orderly and fully: and that all our faults come from our Cause, as well as from ourselves.

Or is this your aim, by Oppression to provoke us to write more of you, then you have done of us: That so, if we cannot be punished for any foulness in opinion, yet we may be for unpeaceablenesse: For so the Jesuit reports it was in the Palatinate; The Calvinists preached against the Lutherans, and then the Lutherans preached against them: But the Prince being a Calvinist, turned out the Lutherans, yet not for their Religion (he said) but for their unquietness.

III. Things were not as they are reported.

The truth is,

1. That none that ever were of that Church did join to the erecting of that Church where I was. They were all such as had not joined themselves to any Congregation before.

2. A great part of that Church never did at any time join to them. They were a very few.

3. We took this course in taking them who were. They having a long time discontinued their Communion there, and for ten months were denied admission by us, though they earnestly requested it; we sent some chosen men together with those persons unto the Officers of that Church, to know whither they esteemed them their Members, or had anything against them: and we had this answer, that they had nothing against them, and accounted them not as belonging to them: so that we might receive them if we would.

1. This some, that professed so, is but one of all that ever I have heard.

2. My principles whereon he hath professed (as he himself hath testified before many) are not principles in Church Government, but in Doctrine, and they are none of mine, but all reformed Churches: and therefore render us no apter to be made a prey then they do them.

Some have professed the Nonconformists principles lead unto separation, as Morton, Def. Inno. Cer. sect. 41. Can. &c.

Some of late too, have charged their turning Anabapt. upon the principles of Presbyterial men; It's nothing what men do profess but what doth directly lead unto such errors. Those who have Apostatiz'd from Protestants to Popery, have ever laid the grounds upon Protestants. Let it be shown that my principles do necessarily bring forth such opinions: or that he must needs be an Anabaptist, who holds one Church cannot excommunicate another, and you have said something.

4. What slaming sword is there in the hand of a Classical Presbytery to keep men out of errors which may not be in a Congregation? In one Congregation there may be as many Presbyters as from many Congregations make a Classis; and why then may they not do the self same acts? their Officers and Office is the same, and therefore the promise of assistance is the same. And if the Counsel and advise of other neighbor Churches be required, a congregation may have that as well, and perhaps sooner then a Classis can, which must stay for a Provincial Synod.

5. There have been as great defections both of Ministers and people unto errors, under Presbyterial government as under any other: as is clear in the Low Countries where so many Ministers & people turned Arminians, Papists, Socinians. (Greater errors then the denial of Paedobaptism) and in other Countries too.

Six Moneths at least before the Church was gathered, we had a public act to do it, by the state of Rotterdam. We were ofttimes bidden by the Magistrate to find out a place or ground, fit to meet in or to build upon, and it should be granted to us.

The place wherein we met, was in an open street, a noted place, near the Exchange, where all that would might come, frequented by the Dutch, of that and several cities who understood our Language. Nor can it be more publicly allowed since, for the public Act runs thus;

To have such Ministers as they shall choose from time to time, and such Discipline as they conceive to be according to the Word of God, and to be protected in this with the same care and love our own Natives are.

This was not in my time, nor have I heard it hitherto.

How near soever they are joined, yet this I am sure is not to any Separation from the Churches of Christ, though they be not of their judgments for Church-Government.

1. Its neither the ordinary Opinion, nor of any one that ever I heard of, but the contrary, much less was I bound unto it.

I preached for the use of the Law, on Luke 1.74, 75. and of Repentance, on another Text. What ever Text I preached on, this ordinarily was one use, to show the misery of men in their natural condition, and without Jesus Christ. In all my prayers I confessed both the sins of the Church and others, and prayed for grace and pardon to them both; though for the Church especially. I exalted grace, to give sinners hope, to make sin more vile, & believers more thankful; and if that be an error, its my duty to be more erroneous. And as we sought the conversio of all, so God was pleased to convert some by us.

Is this a crime, to be more in exalting grace, then in threatening judgments? To show there is more grace in Christ, then sin in men? Will men be converted more by hearing of Hell, then Christ?

Its true de facto we had none, but were resolved to have them. Their Office and duty hath been opened by me, and the Church informed of their necessary use. I know not that ever any word was spoken, or anything insinuated against that Office by me.

But if I were, I should not be alone. All that allow the Presbyterial Government, allow not them: and some that do, yet think there is no lus divinum for them: So that what ever evil follows my supposed Tenent, follows from yourselves as well.

1. There was no such thing at that or any other time put to a Question, much less voted.

2. Nor was it complaining to the Magistrate that was their crime, but such other faults as no reformed Church would bear.

But because these do not aim at me by name I will let them pass a while, with many others. As Anatomists dissect one part one day, and then another I have begun first with the head and tongue. The Tongue that's sweld and black, argues ill blood and spleen, overflowing of the Gall, and too much inward heat.

Let me set this seal to all, that what I have related, there are not a few (on this side and beyond the Seas) men of untouched credit and known faithfulness who will avow it.

If I may but obtain this, that the Reader will not believe those or any other Reports of this kind, which are either in that book, or in what is coming forth, until the Authors of them will appear and bring their Witnesses to a fair hearing in any lawful though the strictest Judicature, where we may suffer if we have done what's reported, or else the Reporters may: (a small and just request) I have the scope and end I aim at.