An Apology for the Nonconformists Ministry, Treatise · Part 1 · Objection 14
14 Obj. The Reason why you are against Bishops is, because you cannot be Bishops your selves: And why was it that you so long demurred on the matter, before you refused them, when some had such offers? Did it not shew that you had a mind of them?
Ans. The first half of this charge was given in the Pulpit to my face, when no Minister or Nonconformist else was present: The other is the Debate-makers (in sense). And seeing I am personally concerned in the matter, my answer must be historical accordingly.
Will not all sober by-standers think that we have very hard measure, and have to do with a strange generation? When they shall know that Bishopricks were offered us without seeking directly or indirectly, and refused with as much modesty as we could use; and after all are denied not only the place of the poorest Curates, but even all liberty to Preach for nothing, to the rudest, poorest Inhabitants of the Land; and yet after all this, to be told that we are against Bishops, because we could not be Bishops our selves? O happy Christians, that must be finally judged by a more righteous Judg!
If you say that you mean it of those that never had such offers, why should you not rather judg of them by us that were tryed, than boldly judg that of them which they were never tryed in, and of which it is impossible for you to have knowledge?
But the later objector telleth us whom he speaketh of. To whom I must say, There were but five or six Nonconformists of all England, that ever I heard of, that had any Church-Dignities offered them since his Majesties Restoration: And of these but three that had Bishopricks offered them, which were Dr. Edward Reignolds, Mr. Calamy, and my self: And of these three, I refused it the next day, or next save one, after the first offer of it by the Lord Chancellor (for private overtures by inferiors before, I answered with as much refusal as was fit to such uncertain offerers): Dr. Reignolds in a very short time accepted: Only Mr. Calamy delayed: And if Dr. Bates and Dr. Manton, who were offered Deanries (as they said, for I am certain of no offer but my own), did delay their refusal, it was on the same account. And the true Reason of Mr. Calamies delay (which few men knew better than my self), was because perhaps he would have accepted a Bishoprick as altered by the Kings Declaration about Ecclesiastical affairs, and to be used according to that Declaration, but not according to the ancient Laws and Customs of the Land and Church, though of this much he was unresolved. Therefore he being uncertain whether the Kings Declaration would stand, or pass into a Law, he delayed to see the certainty: And when he saw that the Declaration was dead, and Prelacy was what it was before, he refused it.
And Dr. Reignolds professed (to me) to accept it but on the terms of that Declaration.
Now I would put two questions to the Justice of the Debater: 1. Whether he do well to mention our refusing of Bishopricks at all, which we our selves so studiously silence? There is now no Refuser living but my self: And I must profess, that to this day I have been so careful to silence it, that I do not believe there are many men, if any alive, that ever heard me mention it, unless in answer to some one that askt me about it, or in confutation of some such aspersions as these. And my reason was, because I apprehend it to favour of Ingratitude, and disingenous carriage to my Rulers: If they shall offer me preferment, and I should boast how I refused it, it would seem a casting it in their faces with unthankfulness and contempt. And no man can say that ever I was so unworthy; and few have ever heard me mention it. And yet we cannot be quiet, for accusers; but if we say nothing, such men will.
Q. 2. Whether candor or justice would without any distinction perswade the world, that we had a mind of preferments, and therefore so long delayed; whereof only three men that had the offer of Bishops, one refused in a day or two, and the other presently accepted; And the one that delayed, with the two about Deaneries, were known to do it, that they might know first whether the Kings Declaration would pass into a Law, or be cast by?
And if you proceed to intimate, that we refused but for fear of losing our party. I know no mans heart but my own; and I will help you by some evidence to know it in this matter. 1. Upon the offers by inferior agents that first were made to me, my neighbour Ministers in Worcestershire having some knowledge of it, concurred in a Letter to me, neither perswading nor disswading me, but thinking me the fittest judg; assured me, that if I accepted it, they should be so far from censuring me for it, as rather to believe that it would be for good, &c. 2. When I refused it, being wary what men might after say, I did it in writing, in a Letter to the Lord Chanceller, giving him those Reasons that did content him, viz. If the Kings Declaration were established; though I wisht a perfecter frame of Discipline than it reciteth, yet I was so glad of that much, that I took it to be my duty to promote our Concord with all my power, upon that foundation: And I knew that if I were no Bishop my self, I could far more effectually perswade men to Conformity, than if I were. And this was the reason I gave of my refusal. But if the Kings Declaration should not be ratified (as I verily did believe it would not), I knew if I took a Bishoprick, I must quickly leave it. And then it was better refuse it at the first. And this being our case, methinks I might refer the judgment of it even to the Censurer himself (whose civility to my self through the rest of his Debate, I do acknowledge).