An Apology for the Nonconformists Ministry, Treatise · Part 1 · Objection 21 – Objection 22
21 Object. Have not the Friendly Debate, and the Politician fully and unanswerably opened the folly and villany of your Religion? and can you yet for shame desire leave to preach and propagate such a Religion as that?
Ans. Because so great prejudice is taken against us from those Books, I intended in the end to have given a full answer to all that concerneth us; not in their mode, but in my own, that is in certain Propositions containing our judgment and our reasons about those matters, which I leave out now to avoid length, having written Books enow to declare what my Religion is, and so have others. And therefore now only say this in general concerning the Authors, and their dealing with us.
1. As to the men, I judg them to be of more than ordinary parts, as to Ratiocination and expression; and had they with humility, patience and impartiality taken but a dozen or twenty years more time to have furnished their minds according to their capacity, before they had permitted themselves with so great considence to say what they have said, I believe they would have been as excellent persons as most ages have produced. But they have put off the habit of little children too soon.
2. I imagin by their writings, that they have been unhappy in their converse and acquaintance; and that they have had more to do with Sectaries, and weak women and boys, and the weaker sort of serious Christians among those called Puritans, than with the sober understanding sort; and so judg of the party by such as they have been acquainted with. For most of the weak expressions and passages which they fill their Books with, I have heard from some Sectaries, or true Fanaticks, and from some weak women and ignorant persons, but never from the grave and sober sort of Nonconformists. Nor have I used to converse with many of the Laity, that talk at so low a rate, as they feigned them to talk.
3. I doubt also that their converse hath been more at the Universities, and with Scholars, and with the richer and well-bred sort of persons, besides those Sectaries, than with Plowmen and other of the lower rank; and therefore that they are strangers to the condition of the vulgar, which faithful Country Ministers know, whose work hath been to Catechise them, and personally instruct them.
4. They cannot but know that most of those things which they blame in the people, which are real weaknesses and faults, we tell them of as loud as they do, and as plainly as they, though not so wrathfully or flamingly as they. Mr. Pool's Vox calmentis hath told the si'enced Ministers even in Latin in the hearing of the world, of more of their faults, then both these Authors could remember; and not only in my Directions for weak Christians, but in divers other Books, I have dealt as plainly with the people.
5. Saving therefore the Debaters civility to my self; I must ask him, whether it savoured of common equity and justice, to make the Nonconformist in the general, the author or owner of all those weaknesses, follies, impudences; falshoods, &c. which he could fasten only on Sectaries, or on the ignoranter sort. And especially when scarcely ever Books were written by any man as against Nonconformists that so little touch upon Nonconformity it self, or any of the points in difference? Is Gersom Bucer, or Altare Damascenum, or Amesius Fresh Suit, or any other of the Nonconformists writings answered there, except a late Nehushtan, that few men own, and he thought he could more easily say somewhat to?
6. If he say that he told us that he spake it not of all: I answer, what if he had put the word [Christians] instead of the word [Nonconformist] and said that Christians hold all those sottish and impudent opinions, but yet said, It is not all Christians, had this been justice to Christianity? and yet it is true; for if Nonconformists be Christians, then Christians hold what they hold. He that heareth such a word [Christians, or Protestants, or Nonconformists have a foolish Religion], doth suppose it to be locutio formalis, and that the meaning is, [As Christians, or as Protestants, or as Nonconformists, their Religion is foolish.] And for the Author to say when he hath done, [I meant not, All Christians, All Protestants, All Nonconformists] is to say, I speak not of them as such▪ What then? Why, as Antinomians, or as ignorant unlearned people. But why then did you not charge your fooleries only on Antinomians, Sectaries, and ignorant people, and make them as such only the actors in your scene? and not as Christians, Protestants, &c. I know the name Christians is more venerable than Protestant, or Nonconformist. But the injustice is as palpable in the one as in the other. And the cause or the principle is bad that can engage men in such unrighteousness, and make them so strange to themselves as not to see it, yea to proceed impenitently in it, even when Righteousness is one of the things which they write for, as neglected by them whom they endeavour to disgrace. It is an ill cause that produceth such effects, though a quick and hasty wit can write another Volume to defend it; till love it self shall sit in judgment, and condemn all the issues of uncharitable wrath.
The cause of Nonconformity as of old, and as owned now by us, was punctually expressed to you in our many Papers given in when we vainly attempted unity; and the new Conformity is known by the Acts which are lately made. And what is the matter of the Debaters Dialogues to any of this? Doth any Act of Parliament forbid men to say, I am well through mercy. Or is there any Nonconformity in that speech (or any unfitness either.) And so of abundance of such other passages.
6. And is it for the interest of Justice, honesty, and charity, to perswade the world that the Nonconformists Religion is foolish, senseless and unpeaceable, when they profess to own no Religion at all, but naked Christianity? Is Christianity so vile a thing? And indeed is not your Religion the same with ours? I thought we had not been of different Religions, but only of different opinions about Discipline and modes of worship in the same Religion. But you know your selves better than we do. But if really you are of another Religion from us, why were there never any attempts to reconcile us in Doctrinals, when the work of reconciliation was (vainly) on foot? Why did you never charge us with errors in Doctrine? Nay why did Dr. Cornelius Burgess his Reasons for Reformation in Doctrine, Discipline, &c. so much offend, as you may see even in the Kings Declaration about Ecclesiastical Affairs, where he takes it ill that some pretend that we differ in Doctrinals. But now the Religion of one must be wise, and the other foolish. The King there declareth our unity in Religion, after his trial of both sides. And this Author maketh our Religions as different as light and darkness, that is, as wisdom and folly.
Our Religion as to its containing Rule, is the holy Canonical Scripture. Is that foolish and seditious? we profess to have no more. The Explication of the Nonconformists sense of it, you have much in the Assemblies Catechisms and Confession? Why wrote you not to prove them to be another Religion? Our Books also are abroad, Mr. Hildershams, Greenhams, Hierons, Dods, Amesius, Bains, Bradshaws, Cartwrights, Mr. Gataker, Mr. Vines, Mr. Anth. Burgess, Mr. Shaws, Mr. Hows, Mr. Allens, and an hundred more. What false Religion do they contain? I have told you my Religion oft enough, especially in my Reasons for the Christian Religion, and in my Confession. And if it be not false and foolish, then it is not the Nonconformists as such, that is so; for a quatenus ad omne you may justly argue.
Yea the Author is pleased to favour me with some Vindication, and to blame others for opposing me; and is not that enough to prove that such opinions as he disliketh, are no part of Nonconformity, as now in Controversie.
But he will give me occasion to tell him, how much I differ from his mind and ways; when as there are near thirty or forty Books written against me, in whole or in part (by men of several Sects and parties) and yet I fall out with none of them all; nor charge them with such foolish Religions, unless they be downright Apostates or Hereticks. Nor would I silence any one of them that is a sincere Preacher of the Christian Faith. My provocations its like have been more than this Authors ever were. But must I forgive enemies, and not friends? Do we contend for our selves, or for Truth, and love, and unity, and peace? It is some honour from those adversaries both to me, and to my brethren, that I am called their Antisignanus, who have written such abundance of Books against me? For it seems that we forgive and love each other. If you say that it is because we now agree in Nonconformity: I answer, 1. It was so before. 2. And you suppose us as little agreed in that; and indeed many censure me more for differing from them there, than in all the rest.
7. And is it not as valid arguing, to say, Mr. Hildersham, Dr. Reignolds, Amesius, Bradshaw, Burgess, &c. have written soundly and learnedly; Ergo, the Religion of the Nonconformists is wise and sound; as to say, Mr. Bridge one of the five Dissenters from the Presbyterians hath some harsh expressions, and Mr. T. W. hath some little sententious jingles (such as Conformists most abound with), Ergo, the Nonconformists Religion is foolish.
8. But it may be you will say, that the Nonconformists must be judged of, not by an odd person as your self is, but by the major part? Ans. 1. It never goeth right among Divines, when they judge Causes by persons, contrary to signed avowed professions. Do they print and publish their professed Religion to the World? and will you measure and denominate the Religion of the Nonconformists▪ by two or three mens Writings (against which also you have no more to say)? 2. And why did you not prove that it is the major part (or one of an hundred) that are guilty of the real weaknesses which you mention (for all that you find fault with, are not weaknesses)? Are the two or three that you named, the major part of Eighteen hundred? What of all this have you to charge on those forenamed? or on Mr. John Ball, Mr. John Paget, Mr. Langley, &c. or on Dr. Twisse, Dr. Arrowsmith, and the rest of that Assembly? or on Dr. Tuckney, Dr. Langley, Dr. Staunton, Dr. Seaman, Dr. Manton, Dr. Bates, Mr. Bull, Mr. Wadsworth, Dr. Annesly, and abundance more about the City, or on the generality of the silenced Ministers in all the Counties of the Land?
9. But do you consider how heinously you dishonour the Conformists, by the disparity of the charge which you lay on the Nonconformists, and which they have laid on you? I am not justifying either of your accusations: But if I were a stranger in England, and had seen the Chair-man of the Committee of Parliament publish his Century of Conformists accused on witness, of so many Crimes (especially drunkenness, and negligence, and insufficiency in so many), and had seen the like charges before the Committees of the several Counties attested on Oath, and had heard both your Icabods Groans, and the Gloucester Coblers History of the present Ministry: And then had read the most learned and sharp of the Nonconformists adversaries, charging them with heart-hypocrisie, with disobedience to those Laws for Oaths and Ceremonies which they think are contrary to the Laws of God, and with cutting faces, and prating phrases, and incongruous expressions in praying and preaching to the vulgar, &c. I should suspect that their cases were not alike.
10. Is it a thing possible that a Divine in England should not know, that there are in all Countries such Readers, and young, raw, ignorant Conformable Preachers (O that they were but here and there one), that in understanding, in method, in phrase, and all Ministerial abilities, may learn seven years and seven, before they are like to reach the measure of W. B. and T. W. whom he reproveth? And could he forget that it is as just and solid reasoning to say, This multitude of Conformists frequently speak nonsense confusedly, &c. Ergo, the Conformists have such a Religion: as to say, W. B. and T▪ W. did not express this or that congruously: Ergo, the Nonconformists Religion is such.
22 Obj. You overthrow all principles of Government, while you say that the Magistrate may not command things evil by accident; And while you allow doubting or scrupling persons to disobey authority, as oft as they are but pleased to question their Commands; whereas if you are uncertain whether the matter be lawful, you are bound to obey; because you are certain that Governours must be obeyed, and being uncertain that the thing is evil, the certain part must prevail against the uncertain.
Ans. We have long been silent at such accusations, supposing by this time they would have been ashamed of themselves: Had we read such Moral Divinity, as some would teach us, in Father Banny, Escobar, or other such Jesuits, we had been like to have found it in the Collection of their Morals, which the Jansenists published.
1. I never read or heard man yet say, that the Magistrate may not command any thing evil by accident: But I have said my self, that His Commands of things evil by accident may be sinful; that is, that it is not all things that are evil by accident that he may command. But because some men will not understand till they are constrained against their wills; I shall elsewhere open the truth about this so plainly, as that they shall hardly avoid the understanding of it, but by refusing to read it: And I will shew them what it is to maintain, that men may command any thing that is evil by accident only.
2. And the other accusation is the forgery of passionate enmity also; we believe that a man is not to obey authority at all times, whenever he doubteth of the matter commanded, or in every case of doubting: But we never thought that all doubtings will excuse his obedience. We use to speak more distinctly, and leave them to confusion, that either cannot distinguish, or must have troubled waters to fish in, for matter of calumniation. Of this also I shall elsewhere give you a satisfactory account of our judgment▪ Done since in my 2d Plea for Peace.