An Apology for the Nonconformists Ministry, Treatise
AN APOLOGY FOR THE SILENCED MINISTERS, Especially for their not ceasing to Preach Christs Gospel.
Being the Third Part of their Plea for Peace.
Humbly directed to those of the Lord Bishops, and to the rest of the Conformable Clergy, of their mind, who have procured our Silence and Sufferings, or the continuance thereof.
Most Reverend, and Right Reverend Lords and Fathers, and Reverend Brethren,
HAVING once tryed in vain (though by the favour of His Majesties Gracious Encouragement and Commission) what speaking might do; and since that tryed, as much in vain, what silence in this kind will do; I have resolved once more, before the expiring of my gasping hopes, to resist despair, and to try whether so many years experience hath opened your ears and hearts, to the Reasons and humble Requests of those, who not so much for their Sufferings, as for the Souls of men, do daily eat the bread of sorrow; At least, before I resign this Skeleton to the dust, to leave one more testimony of my zeal for Unity and Peace, and make one more attempt for the Gospel and the Church of Christ, that I may not appear before my Judg, in the guilt of negligence, cowardize or unprofitableness: Not to be your Accuser, nor a Justifier of any of the weaknesses or miscarriages of the present Nonconformists, nor yet of those of former times; but humbly to re-mind you of the things that concern the interest of Christ, the people, and your selves.
When it pleased the most Gracious Soveraign of the World, to restore his Majesty, by the concurrence of the desires of his Subjects, and the wonderful dissolution of that Army and Government which resisted his returns; as we knew that our divisions had been our sin and ruine, and our enemies strength, and that our Concord now would be our duty and our hope, and our enemies terrour; so we thought that the season had happily favoured our just desires. We had all one undoubted Soveraign to unite in: We had all seen and felt the folly and calamity of Dissentions: We had found that principles and practises of jealousie, violence and division had let out our blood, and made havock of our wealth, and separated us from our King, and one another, and brought us all into confusions: We had newly found, that our sudden unanimity and concord had restored the King▪ and those that suffered for and with him: We knew that almost all the people of the Land were so weary of contention and its effects, that they were melted into an aptness for the mould of unity, and never were more inclined to Concord, even upon any tolerable terms. We knew also that we had a King, who was newly restored by the very first recovery of his peoples unity; and who was even then famous for a loving and a gracious nature, enclined to moderation, quietness and peace: And we had newly seen the many published Declarations of the Nobility and Gentry of the Land, who had suffered most in His Majesties cause, protesting against all future animosities and revenge.
The attempts which we made for the Churches healing upon these encouragements, did quickly meet with gracious acceptance, and yet greater encouragement from the King: And we had no reason to think, that among all the rest, the Clergy should be averse to such a work, or yet should spoil it at such a season for want of skill; because we had on both sides been deep in those experiences that should instruct us, and many not the least and last, either in the former sin, or present interest; and our calling and understanding in such things, were supposed such, as should make us Leaders to all the people, in any just attempts for Concord.
When we had humbly craved of his Majesty, that such persons of both sides as he should appoint, might bring in Proposals, containing such Approaches, and Abatements, and Accommodations, as each part could yield unto, without sin against God, and against their consciences; and his Majesty had more than granted our requests, even expressing his Gracious resolution to draw you on to such Concessions; we did accordingly give notice to the London-Ministers, that our Concord might be the more extensive, to meet at Sion-Colledge, and give in their sense of the necessary means to so good an end. Bishop Reynolds and Bishop Worth, and some others that Conform, concurred with us in our Proposals: We never spake a word against a Liturgy, nor set-forms of Prayer, nor against the festival Commemorations of the Saints, nor many other things, which many had formerly excepted against; but only desired some emendations of the Liturgy, and that some other forms of Prayer might be added to the several offices, with a Liberty of using this or that. And for the Government of the Church (which was accounted the matter of greatest difference), we never made one offer for Presbytery (That is, the Government of the Church by Classes and Presbyteries constituted of Lay and Clergy-Elders), nor did we ever speak a word for Lay-Elders: Not that we presumed to Censure those Churches that used them: but as many, or most of our selves were never for them; so we knew that no forms in which the Churches were known so much to differ, could be the proper terms of Concord: We never made any Proposals against Episcopacy, no not against the Lordships of the Bishops, nor against the greatness of their Revenues, nor their places in Parliament; nor made we any offer of any other way of Discipline, but the frame which by Archbishop Usher had been presented to the late King, called, The Reduction of Episcopacy, &c. In which he thought that he had hit upon the ancient Primitive Government, by Bishops, with their Clergy-Presbyters as their Colledge. Not that we approved all the forementioned things which we passed by, but that we knew we must yield for the Churches peace, as far as we could do without committing sin our selves.
When we presented to His Majesty these our Proposals and Requests, and expected to meet with the like Concessions and Approaches of our Brethren (not yet made Bishops), we met with his Majesties Gracious acceptance, but our expectations failed of all the rest; having never received any such thing from that day unto this. But we shortly after received a sharp Answer to our Proposals; to which when a Reply was drawn up, we purposely cast it by, lest turning the work of Pacification into a dispute, should frustrate it by exasperating altercations.
But when we that should have been the forwardest to Peace, could do no more to an Agreement among our selves, his Majesty was pleased to do more, and published his Gracious Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs; In which, though he granted us not Archbishop Ushers Model of Episcopacy, nor all that we desired, yet granted he so much as made us thankfully rejoyce, in hope to have seen the Churches unity and peace: Because we thought the terms were such, as to which we could without any guilt of sin, or check of conscience, have laid out our selves, in perswading all our Brethren to conform. And accordingly the London-Ministers did presently draw a Thanksgiving to his Majesty (yea, the Commons House of Parliament themselves did thank him). There was nothing now remaining for the confirmation of our hopes, but the intended Alterations of the Liturgy, and the Confirmation of his Majesties Gracious Concessions. When we had a Commission from his Majesty to attempt the first, we hoped to do it by mutual compliances in gentle and amicable Conference: But it was resolved to us, that we being the Plaintiffs, must bring in a draught of all the Alterations of the Liturgy which we desired, and also of those Additional forms which we had proposed as an expedient for Concord. Upon this some of our Brethren would have insisted on a refusal, believing that it would but spin out time, and end in nothing which would attain that Concord which was our end: But others perswading them rather to do as was imposed on us, than to go no further; because at the worst, our case would in writing be less lyable to mis-reports, than if we had only spoken for our selves, perhaps under checks, in temptations and restraints (For we had heard many wish, that the Conference at Hampton-Court, in King James his time, had been by writing). Hereupon we ventured on the imposed task: We brought in writing some exceptions against some passages in the Liturgy. To this we afterward received an Answer. To which we offered to you a Reply, and with it the Additions to the Liturgy which we desired. And foreseeing the danger of the confusions and sins, which since have followed our Divisions, we did so far supererogate, as to present to you a long and earnest Petition for Unity and Peace: And we agreed with you (as foreseeing the inconveniences of mens uncertain and venturous reports) that nothing should be charged on either part as their assertions, which was not by them given in in writing. After this we received not one line of Answer from you, either to our Reply, or to our Additions; wondering above all, that (when it had been said so usually by others, that we could agree to find fault with the old, but could never agree of any other in its stead) we should never hear (from men, supposed not unwilling) one charge against the Matter, Phrase or Method, to this day! Our last three days being spent in hopeless disputation, I have nothing to say to (because of our forementioned agreement) but this; That when it had fallen to my lot to speak much, and consequently to displease much, I was since charged in Print with the unsoundness of some what there delivered, about commanding things evil by accident; which I never publickly answered to this day, lest I should seem to blow the fire, which all good men desire should be quenched: But the very words of the Dispute it self were printed, (being not half a sheet of Paper) than which I thought there needed no more, to satisfie any living man of the truth, that would but use sound eyes and reason. And since that case is opened in a Discourse of Scandal in the second Plea for Peace.
I have recited this much principally to mind you of these few things: 1. That we were not the last in seeking Reconciliation, Unity and Peace. 2. That we are the more excusable if we are not changed in our judgment, because you never Answered our three last Writings given in. (We have since indeed seen two Volumes, which are against two particular passages: The one by a nameless Author, who would have no Prayers in the Pulpit, but the Liturgy, or imposed forms: but most of the Conformists practise the contrary to this day, and therefore we need not write to confute him. The other, to prove that Lent should be kept, not only on a Civil, but Religious account, and the antiquity thereof; of which Dr. More in his Mystery of Iniquity, Bishop Taylor, and other Conformists, have spoken so well, that we need to say nothing, especially in a case which we take to be of no great moment to us, while each man hath the liberty of his secret thoughts, and may observe it on what account he please. But had it been of moment, we had told the Author that he lost his labour in proving the antiquity of one, or three, or few days fast, when the question was only of the antiquity of the forty days (of which Daille hath given a full account.)
3. That our displeasing-importunity to have prevented the silencing of so many Ministers, was not without cause; and that we spake not falsly when we so ost foretold you, on how many of the Clergy and Laity the storm would fall, and that it would not asswage, but much increase the divisions which all good men lamented.
4. That we never yet had opportunity to give you or the world our Reasons against the New Conformity, it being only the Old before the New was made, which we were then allowed to debate. So that as the Presbyterians on one side, may say that their cause was never yet publickly pleaded (by us); so may those on the other side, who could have yielded to the old Conformity, but cannot to the new.
Since that time instead of Abatements and Approaches for Accommodation and concord, Conformity is made very much more difficult to us than it was before; which we speak not to accuse you, much less the makers of the Law; but to lament the unhappiness of this distracted and distressed Land, and partly to excuse our selves. Several men have several interests and apprehensions of things; and the judgments which God will have executed upon a sinful people must come to pass, though he will not be the author of any of the sin of them that execute them.
The Conformity of the Laity is made an hundred-fold more difficult by the Corporation▪ Oath and Declaration, and by the Vestry Act, &c. (yet have we lately read the writings with pity and admiration, who blush not to tell the world that the Laity or People are not put upon the renouncing of the Covenant. But thus it will be where Love and Unity are oppugned and destroyed by those that praise them.
The Conformity of the Clergy is made much more difficult than before: 1. By the new Subscription. 2. By the new Declaration. 3. By Reordination. 4. By the new additions to the Liturgy, especially the Doctrine of the Salvation of Baptized Infants, without distinguishing of them that are Baptized, jure vel injuria, with right or without. And the old Conformity is yet too hard for us, in the Subscription, and in the Oath of obedience to the Diocesans, and in other points. All which again we speak not to reflect on our Superiors, whose Honour we desire to maintain; but to make known our case, and the reasons of our practice.
Now these seventeen years we have patiently waited on Gods Providence, in silence as to the pleading of our cause; so that I know not that ever there was so much as one Petition either for us, or by us, offered to the Parliament. And when a multitude of Books have been written against us, of such a nature and tendency as I will not denominate or describe (it is the policy of some to do things so bad, that no sufferer or dissenter can so much as name them without the imputation of railing or reviling, by the use of such abominable words. But the day is near that will set all strait) it hath moved me many time to pity, to read such Books as I have seen written for Conformity, to think how easie it was to answer them, and pro captu lectoris, what lamentable reasonings go for current with some men? We have been silent whilest Volume after Volume hath been published against us; some disputing, and some reproaching: and if any impatient Nonconformists have been moved to dispute the Cause, it hath been mostly such of the weaker sort, who have done it without their brethrens knowledg, and have done the Cause more wrong than right. (And who can expect that so many hundreds should be so many years silenced, accused, and writ against in such a manner, and that none of them should be so weak and impatient as to speak for himself according to his ability; and they that at such a time had not wisdom enough to hold their tongues, could not be expected to have wisdom enough to speak.)
For my own part I must profess, that the principal reason that caused my silence, as to such disputes was the fear of injuring the Church. For as I have heard that old Mr. Dod was wont to thank God that no more conformed for the sake of truth; and to thank God that so many conformed for the sake of the Gospel which they preached: So it was my judgment, that it was not my duty without a special call, to perswade any man to Nonconformity, when it was but in the issue to perswade him to be silenced, and to deprive the Church of his publick labours. Therefore did I never (to my remembrance) endeavour to make any one man a Nonconformist that did not come or send to me for resolution in the case. And some such also I put off, as far as conscionably I could. Though I may never perswade a man to that which I judg to be sin, yet I am not always bound to disswade him from it. If I saw a man about to tell a lye, or take a false oath, to save the life of the King from an enemy or traytor, I do not think that it is my duty to hinder him. Affirmatives bind not ad semper. I thank God, not that so many laudable Ministers conform, but that they preach the Gospel, and keep up so much of the interest of the Church and Religion in the Land. I have met with some women and hot-brain'd lads, of another mind, that said, Let them put upon us the veriest ignorant sots and drunkards, we shall be the more easily justified for not going to their Churches. But I ever reproved this, as the language of the Serpent, who insinuating into the injudicious, would increase the sin and misery of the world. For my own part I heard all Ministers where I lived, who were but tollerable in the Sacred Office. I came to the beginning of the Churches Prayers, when I could, and staid to the end. I took not my self for a constrained unwilling hearer of them; but the more any external imperfection made my devotion difficult, the more I thought it my duty to labour, to stir up my affections, lest I should as the hypocrite, draw near to God with my lips without my heart. I remember what was said of Old Mr. Fenne, the famous Coventry▪ Nonconformist, that he would say, Amen, loudly to every one of the Common-Prayers, except that for the Bishops, by which he thought he sufficiently expressed his dissent. I know how unable the old Separatists were to answer the many Arguments of the famous Arthur Hildersham, John Paget, William Bradshaw, Brightman, John Ball, and other old Nonconformists, for the lawfulness of Communicating with our Parish-Churches in the Sacraments, and the Liturgy. I was exceedingly moved against Separation (truly so called) by considering, 1. How contrary it is to the principle of Christian love. 2. And how directly and certainly pernicious to the interest and cause of Christ, and of his Church, and of the souls of men, and how powerful a means it is to kill that little love that is left in the world. 3. And how plainly it proceedeth from the same spirit that persecution doth. For though their expressions be various, their minds and principles are much the same; which is to vilifie our Brethren, and represent them as odious and intollerable, and overlook that of Christ which is amiable in them. In which when they have agreed, as Children of the same Father, they differ in their way of serving him. One saith, He is such and such, therefore away with him, silence him, imprison him, banish him: The other saith, He is such and such a one, therefore away with him, have no communion with him. He that eateth not, Rom. 14. will say, Away with him because he eateth: And he that eateth will say, Away with him because he eateth not. Both agree in murdering love, and accounting their brother unlovely and intollerable. 4. And I was greatly moved in thinking of the state of most of the Churches in the world; if I travelled in Abassia, Armenia, Russia, or among the Greek Churches, I durst not deny to hold communion with them. When I go to God in prayer, I dare not go in a separate capacity, but as a member of the Universal Church, nor would I part with my share in the Commonprayers of all the Churches, for all the world; but am joined with them in spirit, while I am corporally absent, owning all their holy prayers, though none of their faults or failings in them, (having many in all my own prayers to God, which I must be further from justifying than other mens.) And having perused all the foreign and ancient Liturgies extant in the Bibliotheva Patrum, I doubt not but our own is incomparably better than any that is there.
But I will not conceal it from you, that I am not such a Separatist neither, as to communicate with Parish-Churches only. If only the Law have turned any Pastors out of the Parishes, and the people and they still hold their relation and communion (not to say now whether they do well or ill), I will no more separate from them than from you. I communicate with you in Liturgy and Sacrament, but neither as with a Sect or Faction, nor as the whole Church; but only as a part of the Church Universal, and so are they. I will hear you, and I will hear them when I have a just occasion. I will communicate with you, and I will communicate with them, as I perceive a call. If each side run away from the other, I will run from neither, though I will sin with neither, and must go from them that drive me away.
But I tell all that ask my mind, that I am not so indifferent as to the Ministers whom I must join with, as I am to the forms and modes of Worship: Not that I call their actions Nullities, or say that the Sacraments are invalid which they administer. (For their usurpation cannot rob the innocent of their right.) But yet I will not be guilty of countenancing and encouraging any soul-murderer in so great a sin.
Three sorts of Teachers I renounce Communion with (as Ministers.) 1. Those that through intollerable ignorance and insufficiency, do want those abilities which are necessary to the essence of the Ministry. 2. Those Hereticks who preach against any essential article of Religion. 3. Those wicked ones who openly bend their application (not against different Sects and adversaries, for that is common to all the factious and peevish, but) against the serious practise of Godliness, Temperance, Love or Justice; and that labour to make these odious to their hearers, though their Doctrine be sound, from which they raise these malignant applications. These are the men that I will not communicate with.
I confess when I read in Sulpitius Severus the History of St. Martins resolved Separation from Ithacius, Idacius, and the Synods of Bishops of those times, and the confirmation of him by Visions, and the antiquity and credibility of that History (if of almost any ancient Church History in the main), and the stupendious miracles which he is said to work, it a little stagger'd me, till I considered, 1. That Scripture only is our rule: And, 2. That it was not from the Episcopal Order that he separated (for he was one himself) nor from any particular Bishops that were innocent, nor yet from the Churches of the people in their Communion and Worship; but only from a prevailing company and Synod of the Bishops that were guilty of cruelty, and of bringing reproach upon the serious practisers of Godliness in those times.
And as for the many Volumes which have been written against my self, I thought it not necessary to confute them, nor seasonable to stand upon a Personal Vindication, when I knew it would exasperate the accusers (to be accounted injurious and false) and would increase the breach.
Yea, when it was judged against me, that my presence would be injurious to the people that I had long preached to, and that my absence would more conduce to their Conformity, and that they were none of my Charge, I so far denied my self and them, as that I never since came near them; nor, unless very rarely, sent them one line: Though I thought if I had been allowed so much, it might have better answered the ends of those that were most for my removal. Yet did I not take this for any perfidious forsaking them, when upon many accounts I believed it to be for their good, and I sent them all the Books which I wrote.
If any think that I should not say so much of my self, in an Apology for others, I answer, 1. It is because that men will needs have it so whether I will or not. I say not a word to them; and yet what a multitude of Volumes have these seven years and more been tossing my Name as a football of reproach about the land? And when the cause is pleaded, they presently let fly at the persons, and say what you can, it's there that they will stick; and till they are answered there, they think they are unanswered. 2. And because I am best acquainted with my self, and can speak with more certainty of my own case and reasons, than of any others. 3 But chiefly because as our late Tilenus hath stiled me, Purus putus Puritanus, so the late Episcopal Indignation published me the Antesignanus of the Presbyterians. I deserve not so much honour. But hence the world and posterity may know, that whereas but a few years ago, a Puritan was one that was against Bishops and Ceremonies, and Liturgy, and a Presbyterian was one that was for Lay-Elders, and the power of Classes composed partly of such, not only for concord, but as Governours of all the particular Churches; now in England, a Puritan is one that is no more against, and as much for Archbishops, Bishops, Liturgy and Ceremonies, as in my Books I have long published my self to be. And a Puritan as a Puritan is no worse a person than I am, (whose life and writings have had the happiness to have some share in their commendations▪) And a Presbyterian now is one that is against Lay-Elders, and in his judgment against the Regimental power of Classes and Synods as over the Pastors of the particular Churches, and only for their consultation and their use to concord; and one that is, as aforesaid, for Archbishops, Bishops, &c. as far as in my dispute for Church-Government I have declared my self to be. It is of some use to know the mutability of the world, and what a purus putus Puritanus, and a Presbyterian now is.
But having thus far related the History of our true endeavours for peace; it must be my next task to Apologize for our supposed unpeaceableness. And I cannot better know what is the matter of offence, than by knowing what is charged on my self. He that was one of the first restrained from Preaching, and hath been laid in the Goal as I have been, will be supposed to be one of the most guilty. And therefore I may hope that they that have escaped better, have deserved less; and that my own defence will be also theirs. And I owe the offended an account of the practise by which I have so much offended them.
When the Act of Uniformity was not yet made or talkt of, IAll this was written 1669. went to the now Archbishop of Canterbury, then Bishop of London, (even whilest the Kings Declaration gave us liberty), and I desired his License to preach in his Diocess, which he was pleased to grant me, upon my Voluntary subscription to the Doctrine of the Church, and those terms of peaceableness which he accepted. When the said Act of Uniformity was in fieri, I ceased that seeming Lecture which I had, before 1st of May 1662. When that Act came out, it forbad all to hold any Benefice, Cure, Lecture, &c. who had possession of any Ecclesiastical▪ Promotion the 1st of May 1662, and did not subscribe and declare as required of them in that Act, and also forbad the reception of any into such Promotion or Cure for the future▪ that should not so subscribe and declare. Neither of these being my case, (for I was out of all before May 1st 1662, and I sought no new Cure or Benefice), the Law did no more require me to subscribe and declare, than it did the Bishops, or any conformable man that for so long had Cure, Promotion, or stated employment. So that I was no Nonconformist in the sense of the Law, because I conformed as far as the Act required me to conform. And that Act not forbidding occasional Sermons to any but those that were not Licensed, my License enabled me to Preach occasionally (as many that had no places did), yet because I knew that the Bishop might revoke my License at his pleasure, and that if I so far used it, being reputed a Nonconformist, it would give offence to my superiors, I never since made use of it to this day, nor ever Preached a publick Sermon. And though the Act forbad▪ me not publick Catechising, or the Administration of the Sacraments, I never did either, to avoid offence. And when about three years after, the Oxford Act came forth for the restraining Nonconformists from coming within five miles of a Corporation, or of any place where they had been Teachers, or kept a Conventicle, I found that I was not concerned in that Act, because by Law I was no Nonconformist, to whom the Act by the very title and matter was limited. So that being neither a Nonconformist by Law, nor my License to preach occasionally ever nulled, nor yet concerned in this Oxford Act, which imposeth the new Oath, I supposed my peace not endangered by the Law▪ (which the Lawyers whom I consulted also did conclude) Yet did I forbear to come within five miles of a Corporation, except on the rode, to avoid offence. All this while I lived in a place where sew desired me to preach; they being poor and worldly people, that minded most their labours and necessities. So that I contented my self to instruct my family, with three or four more that sometimes desired to be present. But the chief reason why I did no more was, because (as none called me to it, so) I was engaged in certain writings, (A Body of Practical Divinity, the Reasons of the Christian Religion, and others), which I thought of greater use to the Church than Preaching to any there would be, and therefore would do nothing which might hinder or interrupt them. But when first the lamentable Plague had awakened those that were left alive to look more seriously towards Eternity, and then the lamentable Fire had consumed so much of the Wealth and Glory of the Land (of which we were the sad spectators); and when these awakenings, and the consequent necessities of the City, had caused many Ministers to resolve to preach the Gospel to the survivers, what ever they underwent; the poor people of the Parish (of Acton) where I lived, came crowding into my House while I taught my Family; and since once they began, they would not cease. And verily I had neither a heart to shut the doors against them, nor wit enough to justifie it, if I had done it. I never invited one; and when they came I knew no reason to forbid them. They were not Sectaries, nor Seditious, but poor people that needed to be taught the Principles of Religion. There was not two or three in all the Parish that I knew of that did separate from the publick Assembly, yea or the Liturgy. They went with me into the Church, which was before my door. I Preached not at the time of publick Exercise. I thought this course did tend to union, and not to division. I freely taught them the evil of Separation and Sedition. And whereas the multitude of hearers was an offence, I was glad that such a multitude did relish, or could bear such Doctrine. The last Sermon I preached to them was on Mat. 5. Blessed are the meek, &c. whence (after Dr. Hammond) I shewed them how much meekness and patience conduceth even to peace on earth, and what sedition, rebellion, passion and intemperance doth against it. They say, there were some witnesses present that after did accuse me, that I know not; but that week by a Warrant I was brought before two of his Majesties Justices of the Peace, and offered the Oxford Oath, and sent to the Goal, as by the Mittimus was expressed, for Preaching in my House, which they called a Conventicle, and for not taking the Oath. The persons, manner, circumstances, nor my deliverance by the Honourable and Righteous Judges (the Glory of his Majesties Government, subordinate to himself), I have no mind nor cause now to meddle with; having said as much as is needful to open the true nature of our supposed crimes.
And now you see that it is Preaching that is so much of our offence, (and coming within five miles of a Corporation, &c.) I shall here fix, and tell you, 1. What is really our judgment in the case, whether such prohibited Ministers may preach. 2. What are our Reasons. 3. What Reasons you have to be for our Preaching rather than against it. 4. How vain the common arguments against it are. And, 5. I shall venture to shut up the Premises, with an humble Petition to you, once more for the Church and the souls of men, and for the interest of unity, love and peace.