An Apology for the Nonconformists Ministry, Treatise · Part 1 · Accusation 29
Accus. 29. Another to save the Nation from the labours of a Concordant Ministry, and from the blessings of Unity, Peace and Innocence, hath written a book lately, called The Modern Pleas for Comprehension, Toleration, &c. considered; who at his enterance saith, I would fain have any of our dissenting brethren to answer directly, Whether there be any one thing sinful in her Communion (the Churches as by Law established), or only some things (as they conceive) inexpedient. And p. 11. he saith, Suppose that the terms of the Communion of the Church, are not only inexpedient, but really sinful; if so, then I shall readily grant that the Church ought not to be communicated with, while the terms of her Communion are such. But—I shall presume to say with some confidence, that it is not easie to find a considerable man among them, who will not be ashamed to own it publickly, or who doth himself really believe it. And p. 12. I have been credibly informed (not to say that I am able to make it good) that Mr. Calamy did before his Majesty, and divers Lords of the Council profess, that there was not any thing in the constitution of the Church, to which he could not conform, were it not for the scandalizing of others; so that in his esteem the Constitutions of the Church were in themselves innocent, and the whole objection against them lay in the mistakes of other men. Yet saith he p. 11. That the separation from the Church is so avowed and pressed upon the people, as if that it were highly necessary, and that communion with the Church was highly criminal, at least in the opinion of the teachers.
Ans. And now, Reader, what a shake doth this instance give to the credit of History, at least such as is written by interessed factious men? yea what a reproach to humane nature? For what untruth can be imagined so gross! and what thing so nakedly evil, as may not be expected to be found in Man, yea in professed Christians, yea in Divines (of such a character)! Either this man and such others believe what they say themselves, or not! If not, what Preachers, what Christians, what Men are these? If they do, what matter of fact can ever be so notorious, as that we can hope that such men can know it? What History of such Writers can deserve any credit? What regard can the people be encouraged to give to the Words and Writings of such Doctors, that no better know such publick notorious matters of fact, and so confidently and boldly deceive the world, in cases where so many thousands, yea the Churches Peace and Concord is so much concerned? Reader, judge by these notorious evidences of fact, of these mens credibility and usage.
1. The judgment of the ancient Nonconformists is declared to the world by abundance of Writings, in which they thought that they proved much in the English Constitutions to be sinful, and such as men must suffer deprivation and death, rather than consent to. And are all these Writings no evidence of their judgments? nor their sufferings neither?
2. Since his Majesties Restoration, the present Nonconformists still distinguished, 1. Between Diocesan or National Churches, and Parish-Churches. 2. Between the Communion and Conformity of private men, and of Ministers: And 3. Between Approbation of the Church-Constitutions, Practising all imposed and peaceable behaviour and submission: And though some exasperated persons have by the late sufferings of conscionable men, been tempted to separate from the Prelates and their party, as far as St. Martin did from the Bishops about him, and their Synods; yet the main body of the Nonconforming Ministers, as far as ever we could learn, did judge as followeth. 1. That those Parish-Churches which had true Ministers (not utterly uncapable persons) were true Churches of Christ. 2 That the ordinary Liturgy, appointed for the publick worship, was such as a good Christian may lawfully joyn in (not speaking of Baptizings, Burials, &c. in which some things they thought more dubious). 3. That though combined Churches, whether you call them Diocesan or National, are not any otherwise a Divine Institution, than as Concord is commanded us in general, and may not be set up to the detriment of the particular Churches, which are of Divine Institution; yet a good Christian may and must live peaceably and submissively, where some such combined Churches are guilty of Usurpation and sinful abuse. 4. That Conformity to all the Subscriptions, Declarations, Oaths, Covenants and Practices now imposed on Ministers, would be to us a very great and heinous sin, (modesty forbidding us to meddle uncalled with the Consciences of the Conformists).
3. Their judgment of the sinfulness of Ministerial Conformity, they declared to his Majesty and the Bishops in many Writings, when they had encouragement to attempt once the healing of the divisions: And when, because they agreed to leave out all harsh provoking words, in their accusations of the Church-Orders and Ceremonies, the Lord Chancellor had put into the first draught of a Declaration, That we do not in our judgments believe the practice of those particular Ceremonies, which we except against, to be in it self unlawful. In our next Address we desired that those words might be expunged, and so they were. Yet this extended not to Subscriptions, Oaths, &c. And afterward many particulars were mentioned which we thought sinful, and the supposition vindicated in a Reply; to which the Bishops never answered. And in a long Petition for Peace, p. 6. we make this Protestation following: Who can pretend to be better acquainted with their hearts than they are themselves? For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of a man which is in him? And they are ready to appeal to the dreadful God, the searcher of hearts, and the hater of hypocrisie, that if it were not for fear of sinning against him, and wounding their consciences, and hazarding and hindering their salvations, they would readily obey you in all these things; That it is their fear of sin and damnation that is their impediment, they are ready to give you all the assurance that man can give, by the solemnest professions, or by Oath, if justly called to it. And one would think that a little charity might suffice to enable you to believe them, when their non-compliance brings them under suffering, and their compliance is the visible way to favour, safety and prosperity in the world: And if men that thus appeal to God, concerning the intention of their own hearts, cannot be believed, even when the state of their worldly interest bears witness to their professions, but another shall step into the throne of the heart-searching God, and say, It is not as they say, or swear: It is not conscience, but obstinacy or singularity: All humane converse upon these terms will be overthrown: And what remedy have they but prtiently to wait, till God whom they have appealed to, shall decide the doubt, and shew who were the assertors of truth or falshood. And p. 19. They are not Indifferent in the judgment of dissenters, though they be so in yours. And p. 13. And if it be said that men do willingly keep out the Light; we must say, that few men are obstinate against the opinions which tend to their ease and advancement in the world, and to save them from being vilified as Schismaticks, and undone: And when they profess before the Lord, that they do impartially study and pray for knowledge, and would gladly know the will of God at the dearest rate: we must again say, that those men must prove that they know the dissenters hearts better than they are known to themselves, that expect to be believed by charitable Christians, when they charge them with wilful ignorance, or obstinate resisting of the truth.
This was then the profession which the Nonconformists consented to, no man of them once contradicting it: and Mr. Calamy (here accused) among the first.
4. After this in their debates with the Bishops at the Savoy, they undertook to prove the sinfulness of several things then imposed: And when Bishop Cousins, then in the Chair, gave them in a writing, desiring them to distinguish sins from inconveniences, and to debate only that which they accounted flat sin; they gave him in eight particulars, reserving liberty to add the rest; and one of them was, That it is sinful for a Minister of Christ to exclude or reject from the Churches Communion in the Sacrament, persons Godly, and otherwise duly qualified, meerly because that (fearing it, though causelesly to be a sin) they dare not receive the Sacrament kneeling. This they earnestly desired to have begun with, and dispute at large, and offered to have then given in their arguments, and then to have proceeded to the other seven particulars.
5. The Kings Declaration about Ecclesiastical affairs, had a little before given them a relaxation or indulgence as to those things which they accounted the greatest sins; such as in the Declaration may yet be seen; especially the Subscription, that there is nothing in all the books there mentioned contrary to the word of God, &c. And it did not concern us, or become us, to talk at the the Savoy against the sinfulness of those particulars which his Majesty had in Clemency, and as a healer, so lately freed us from: But why were they in the Declaration suspended (as for our Concord), if they had not been judged to be unlawful by the dissenters, when we ever professed that in all lawful things we would obey?
6. But yet the part of our Answer is, that at that time the new Subscription and Declaration since imposed, and the alterations in the Liturgy, and the Corporation and Oxford Oath, &c. were not invented, or in being, and so we had never opportunity and leave to declare our judgment and reasons of the sinfulness of the new Conformity, which to us was the heaviest part.
7. But surely our Nonconformity on terms so hard, declared it sufficiently to all reasonable men. If 1800 Ministers (none of them cast out as accused of any other crime) should have ceased the work of their office, and occasioned divisions in the Land, and have cast themselves and families into so many years distress and poverty; and all this for to avoid that which they took to be no sin; they had not deserved the name of Christs Ministers, of Christians, or of men.
8. Lastly, Those Writings which any of the Nonconformists have since ventured to publish for their cause, have all of them downright endeavoured to prove that Conformity is a sin; Let Mr. Cawdrey's, Mr. Hickman's, Dr. Collins's, or any of all the rest be perused; and this will be found the scope of the books. Yea he that they judged moderate in these matters, in his book called, Sacrilegious Desertion of the holy Ministry rebuked, saith, O be not too angry with those that censure you as sinners—God hateth sin, and so must all that truly love him: And they are our best friends that do most to preserve us from it; and they are our greatest enemies that would flatter us into it. To preach against sin is your Ministerial office: And if any man think that you make a solemn Covenant to sin, that you may have leave to preach against it, yea that you deliberately commit a greater one, that you may have leave to preach against a lesser in other men; this man deserveth to be heard, though he mistake. If we say nothing to you, yet it is easie to gather by the costly terms on which we avoid it, that we take Conformity to be a sin.—I must tell you, that we cannot but think that you need repentance, great repentance, for sinning more (and that by publick, deliberate, chosen, convenanted, ministerial sin, protesting against repentance) in the day when judgments called us all to renew our repentance for our former sins.—We beseech you be not too angry with us for differencing between good and evil, between him that sweareth, and him that feareth an Oath, as long as we do it to the loss and suffering of our own flesh, which disputeth in us more cunningly and strongly for Conformity, than all the Durells, the Fullwoods, the Stilemans, &c. in England. We have naturally no more love to poverty, to scorn, to a prison, than you have.—It is not pleasure, profit or worldly preferment that we contend for: we would do no man hurt or wrong: If our lovers of Churchpower do think us intollerable, because we obey them not as fully as they desire; we profess before God and Man, that it is not because we would not be subject and obedient to any, as far as will stand with our obedience to God; but only because we dare not; we will not do that which we believe that God forbiddeth us: And if we err, it is not for want of studying, perhaps as hard and impartially as they, to know the truth.—It is sin, and no small or tolerable sin, which our consciences fear, in our forbearing Subscriptions and Conformity.—Ch. 12.
And now, Reader, Pity, pity, pity, the Ministry, the Church the World, that have such men, such usage, such historical informers as these, that can, that dare thus publickly and confidently face down the ignorant, that we take not Ministerial Conformity and Communion with them to be sin: And never wonder at it if the same men should as confidently print, that we are all profest Mahometans.
And as to his report of Mr. Calamy's words before the King, we must testifie some of us, that we were from first to last in his company at such meetings, where those matters were transfacted, and at all the meetings before his Majesty that we heard he was present at, and we over and over have heard him profess that he took several things in Conformity to be intollerable sins, but never heard a word from him to the contrary: And he may be judged of by the Preface to our Reply, which he wrote; and by his not only refusing a Bishoprick, but by his Sufferings, and constant profession to his death.
This Writer, to save the Church from Concord, by restoring the silenced Ministers, feigneth Comprehension to be a late device, a thing unknown, or that amounts to no more than a pretty artifice of saving the reputation of about a dozen persons, who are sick of their separation, and stand in need of a plausible pretence, under which to return unto it. Their credit will not suffer them to renounce their old principles, and they are weary of sticking longer to them. Now if the pride of these men should be thus far gratified, &c.
Ans. 1. See how boldly this man pretendeth to search the hearts of others. 2. How he feigneth that to be New, which they so laboured for 1660, and ever since: Read but their Petition for Peace and Judg. 3. Doth he not take it to be more for our Reputation to conform, and to be dignified and preferred, than to live under the scorn and sufferings that we do? Do not Bishop Reignolds, and many others that conform, live in more reputation in the world, than we that are thus reviled by so many Doctors of the Church, and sometimes lie in the common Jayls, and are fain to stoop to be beholden for our bread or necessary maintenance? 4. Who are those dozen men? and why doth he not name them, and prove his charge? Are they not men of strange facinating power, that could make 1800 such Ministers (distant in all Counties) to deny Conformity? And are they not strange persons that will (all over the Land) give over preaching, or live in poverty and suffering (some have dyed through the effects of want), and all to gratifie a dozen men (no one knoweth who)? (And it's like some that he meaneth in his dozen, have done more to displease many of the rest than others). 5. What Nonconformist hath not groaned for our divisions, and been indeed aweary of them from the first day, and longed for our common Concord? but that is not to be weary of their principles. O that he would procure us but liberty to preach the Gospel, for all the rest that earnestly desire agreement, and shut out the dozen that he meaneth, whoever they be. But pardon me for saying, that these men do satisfie us, that Sadduces are blind, who believe that there is no Devil, when so much of him appeareth actively in the World.
But our difference is not in Government and Ceremony only, but in Doctrines of Grand importance in Morality: For he saith, pag. 66. For unless it▪ (the Covenant) be lawful in every particular respect, no body can be obliged by it. O dreadful Doctrine, to come from a Doctor of a Christian Church! That a Covenant and Vow to God can oblige no body, unless it be lawful in every respect: If so, Protestants that hold that imperfect man hath no sinless work, and so no Vow or Covenant is in all respects lawful, must hold that they are bound by no vow or covenant. If this be so, every erroneous man, or every knave, that hath the ignorance or craft to drop in any one unlawful thing into his Covenants and Vows, is obliged by none of them at all. How easily then may a Papist, or an Atheist shake off all Oaths of Allegiance or Supremacy, by adding one unlawful Particle? It's true, that if some one clause in a Vow were so essential to all the rest as to be their sense; if that were unlawful to be kept, all were so: And as to the denomination of the frame, duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page as consisting of several parts, it may be called a bad or unlawful Oath, if part were so▪ because bonum est ex causis integris, and the sense is; but that it is unlawful quoad hoc, or secundum quid. But as to obligation (though the Actus imponentis, and the Actus jurantis be unlawful; yet if the materia juramenti have ten parts, and one only be sin, that doth not nullifie the obligation to the rest: No nor though nine parts of it were sin, their neighbourhood nullifieth not the obligation to the tenth.
But what wonder if Conformity by Oaths, Subscriptions, Declarations and Covenants seem lawful to Doctors of such principles as these? What if a Popish Prince or People, put an unlawful clause into their Covenants? Are they therefore wholly disobliged as to each other? The same I say of Covenants of Peace between several Princes? And of Covenants between husband and wife; and so of other Contracts; but especially of Vows to God. But what if Perjury prove a greater sin, than not conforming to it? yea a sin meet for none but utterly debauched Consciences, and such as threatneth dreadful ruine? And what if such principles and practices would make us guilty of the Perjury and impenitence of many hundred thousand persons? Should we be drawn into such a guilt by such words as these, and that in a time when God by his Judgments is searching after, and finding out the Nations sins? God forbid.
Another since called, A Reproof to the Rehearsal Transposed, p. 457, 458. saith, Do you at all know what were the abatements they demanded to bring them off with Conscience? To let you see your confidence, I tell you they demanded none at all; but the question being solemnly put to them (and that as I am told) in his Majesties presence, Whether they knew of any thing in the Liturgy with which they could not comply without sin? they all declared their own satisfaction, but only desired some abatements for the ease of weak brethren; or rather as you tell us bluntly, to bring themselves off with some little reputation.
Ans. O patient God! Alas for strangers, and the Generations to come that must read such history! Alas for the Souls and Churches that have such Guides! Alas that he whose Character is to be the old Lyer and Murderer, can do so much in the Churches at once to destroy Love and Souls, to make odious Gods Ministers, and to render it so difficult to believe Church-History! If this man had thus published, that we were not English▪men, or that we did at that same time the horrid'st Villanies that he could devise, what other answer could we make than that which these words must have? It is a forgery against such notorious evidence, that I will not undertake for the man that dare print this, but that he may say any thing that can be devised, how false soever.
I have told you, 1. That we gave them in writing an account of what we thought sinful. 2. That we in dispute maintained it. 3. That to that very question we after gave in a paper of eight particulars in the Liturgy, which we undertook to prove flat sin. 4. That we published that profession in our Petition for Peace. 5. That this was before the worse new Conformity. 6. And had it been otherwise, what were our thoughts to 2000 men that were absent?
I must profess I (that was still with them) cannot imagine whence this inhumane fiction could arise, unless it were from these words of my own, which others seconded. When we spake for common Concord, we told them, that [the question now was not what would satisfie us few men, but what was necessary to the common union? And I added, That I never scrupled E. g. kneeling at the receiving of the Lords Supper; but better men than I did scruple it, and I undertook to prove it a great sin to cast them out of Christian, Sacramental Communion for that cause.] I verily believe that the horrid forgery had no better colour of proof than these words.