An Apology for the Nonconformists Ministry, Treatise · Part 1 · Objection 17 – Objection 20
17 Obj. The only reason (say most of them) why they forsook their Ministry was, that they durst not abjure the Covenant: Dispense with them for this, and they are Conformists. But if that be the only thing they scruple, then why are they not Conformists in all other particulars, against which they pretended no such exceptions? And what doeth renouncing the Covenant concern the people, &c? Thus the Ecclesiastical Polititian, Pag. 242, 243.
Ans. 1. Is this flaming-hot Disputer so much better acquainted with us, than we are with our selves and one another? Hath he talkt with the most of us? or have the most ever said or written, that it is only the Covenant that we stick at? I must profess, of all the Nonconformists that ever I knew or spake with, I never knew any one of this mind, which he saith [the most of them say] they are of. Nay I never heard of any one Nonconformist of that mind. And if the world and posterity must be told so confidently, that most say and hold that, which I that am supposed so much on their side, did never know nor hear of any one man that said or held, you may judge what a history posterity is like to have of this age; and also with whom we have to do, and upon what terms. I confess I know one that hath suffered the loss of all these many years, and been denied so much as leave to teach School, that is for Episcopacy, Liturgy and Ceremonies as lawful, and never took the Covenant, nor was ever for it, nor for the Parliaments War, but against both, that yet cannot disoblige every one that ever did take the Covenant, so far as is required to Conformity, nor cannot subscribe or declare Assent and Consent to every word in the three Books so to be consented to. But such a one as sticks at the Covenant only, I never knew nor heard of.
3. But if the accusers of the Brethren do believe themselves, they tell the world the little charity that is among them; who had rather so many Ministers were silenced, (to say nothing of their bodily sufferings), and so many thousand souls want their Ministry, than abjuring the Covenant should be dispensed with, when a fuller security for loyalty and peace is offered.
4. It is either the Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Independent Nonconformists (for all these sorts there be at least) that he meaneth, by most of them, or most as mixt: 1. The Episcopal Nonconformists are not for the Covenant, but stick most at consenting and swearing to the English Hierarchy and Discipline, and Church-state, as it differeth from the old Episcopacy described in Archbishop Ushers Reduction. 2. The Presbyterians surely have told the world by Books enow, that they are Nonconformists in more things than abjuring the Covenant. And in good sadness, doth not England know that (call them what you will) the Divines commissioned by the King did give their reasons against more? 3 And the Independents are so far from being to be numbered with his [most of them] that I know not if you would free them from the rest of Conformity, whether the leaders would not yield in this. For when Scotland was invaded, and Mr. Love Beheaded, it was pleaded that the Covenant was as an Almanack out of date. And Mr. Eaton hath written a Book to prove, that the Covenant, and the Oath of Allegiance bind not.
5. But as for [abjuring] I never heard that it was required of the Ministers; and how can that possibly be their only Nonconformity, which never was imposed on them.
6. But what he and others mean to pretend that the Laity are unconcerned in the renouncing of the Covenant, when it is known by Printed Laws, and by practice, that all the Cities and Corporations in England, as to the Governing or trusted part, are constituted by the Renunciation of the Covenant, and also all the Vestries; as the Corporation Act, and the Vestry Act declare, is but more matter of wonder to men, that have not been used to such things! So many new Printed Laws, and the visible state of all the Cities and Corporations in England are not evidence enough on a Nonconformists part, to decide a controversie of fact. But if they shall say that they meant that the Laity are not on such terms forbidden to come to Church: I answer, if we also had learned the trick of speaking, writing, and swearing in universal terms (or equipollent), and meaning not universally, but particularly, as many do, we could say, or subscribe, or swear as far as you desire us.
18 Obj. If you be tollerated, why not all others as well as you? And so the Quakers and the Papists may come in. And it's well if the Presbyterians do not thus let in Popery.
Ans. 1. What if the Law imposed one word on you which you could not conform to, and you differed from the Church in nothing else? what answer would you give to such an Objection as this, which equally excludeth Chillingworth and Knot? Would you not say that a difference should be made? O how hardly can men understand that are unwilling to know! How easie a case were this to the willing!
Mr. John Rogers of Dedham, Mr. John Ball, and sometime Mr. Dod, and Mr. Hildersham, had liberty to preach without conforming; and did it infer the necessity of such a Toleration as you talk of?
2. I pray you take heed of bringing Conformity more into contempt than yet it is, by seeming to judg it such a thing as men will not yield to without constraint and punishment. Take off the penalty of subscribing, declaring, crossing, &c. and all that are willing will use them without force. And if most must be forced, it intimates that they do not like or love them. What good doth subscribing a sentence which he believeth not, do either to the soul of the lyar himself, or to the Church?
3. If so large a Toleration as you talk of be so dangerous, and the Presbyterians are like to occasion it for their liberty, why will you not prevent so great a danger at so cheap a rate, as it might be prevented at? Are you indeed against a Toleration of Heresie and Popery, and yet would you rather venture on the danger of it, than abate to Protestants a needless ceremony or subscription?
4. I cannot tell whether you are indeed such strangers to the thoughts and talk of the people of England concerning your selves as you seem to be. If you are, I will not now tell you what they say of you. But they rejoice that they have a King so far from Popery, that he hath by a Law made it a heinous crime for any to vent any suspicions of his constancy (which through so many temptations he hath approved.)
And indeed it were a crime that deserved no small punishment, as imputing that to our Sovereign which is scarce to be thought of a rational man; even to give up most of his power and Kingdom to a foreign Usurper after his power is shaken off, and that without any cause. Princes that ever got loose from the Roman yoke, do not use to come under it again; at least, except as King John resigned his Crown, constrained by meer necessity. But Godfrey Goodman a Papist was the last Bishop of Gloucester; and I must profess that if I were a Papist and studied to help them to a Toleration, I would by writings, and by all my interest, endeavour to bring as many more of you as I could into a necessity of seeking Liberty or Toleration, that when the party that needed and sought it were considerable, and the cry for it were great, we might look for our part among the rest, and say, why not we as well as others?
And yet I would have the Papists and all conscientious persons used like men, and not with any cruelty or inhumanity.
19 Obj. There was indeed a necessity of much Preaching, before the world was converted to Christianity: but there is no such necessity now when we are all Christians.
Ans. This is fully answered before. Do you think the bare name of a Christian and his Baptism, will save those thousands that know not what Christianity is? or those that live in enmity, contempt or neglect of the Laws of Christ? Is a wicked Christian that sinneth against the greatest means, and his own Covenant, vow, and profession, a happier man than the poor Infidels that never heard the Gospel? If not, these have need of teaching here at home, as well as men in foreign parts. But I will add no more to my former answer.
20 Obj. But why do you not go preach among the Indians, or in other lands where there is more need, if liberty of Preaching be all that you desire?
Ans. 1. Some are sickly and weak, and some aged, unable to travel. 2. Some have families which they are obliged to, and must not desert, and cannot carry with them. If you say, they should have kept themselves without: I answer, they were born in a land where good men were suffered to serve God quietly, and therefore they thought they might fix themselves therein. But if they could have foreseen that they should have been forbidden to Preach at home, I believe that many would not only have forborn Marriage, but also have set themselves to learn some foreign languages that they might have been able to Preach abroad. But, 3. our great impediment is, that we have not the vulgar tongue of any other Country, and therefore cannot preach to any of the vulgar there; and if we could in a long time learn the Tartarian or Indian tongue, &c. a half learnt broken tongue doth but make the speaker ridiculous to the vulgar. (To say nothing of our want of maintenance to sustain us thither, and there) For my own part, had I strength and any vulgar tongue, which I might use in Preaching in other lands, I think I should have left England long ago, and not been an eye-sore to you so long.