The Defense of the Nonconformists Plea for Grace, Part · Chapter 28 – Chapter 29
CHAP. XXVIII.
§ 1. YOur 27th Section is of the Non-obligation of the Covenant (or Vow.) And here you tell us first how much you can declare, and then you give us just twenty Reasons against the making and taking of the Covenant, which you knew were impertinent to any thing that I said: And yet many of them are as impertinent to the end which you seem to intend; and a Covenanter would soon shame. A bad Argument wrongeth the best Cause.
1. You say, There was never such an Oath taken by any Person fearing God. Ans. How prove you that? Oh! very easily: You bid us prove the Affirmative. Pitiful! So you may affirm that never Man in the World said or did that, which we cannot prove that some said or did: or affirm an universal Negation, because we prove not the contrary. 2. Might not an Arrian at Nice (Conc. 1.) say, Never such a Creed was drawn and imposed before. 3. May not the Pope say to the first Protestants, Never such a Protestation was made before? 4. But I pray you read better the Scottish History, and see whether no such Covenant was made in Scotland before.
Your 5th is more pitiful, being a Game at Equivocation. 1. Did you think that the word [Prelacy] in the Common, or the Imposers sense, did mean Pastors that excel in Gifts and Grace. You may next say, it meant Kings, or School-Masters; when yet they adjoined an expository Description. And I have told you, 1. That Doctor Burges, Mr. Gataker, and many more openly declared that they would not Covenant against the Primitive Episcopacy, and were ready to enter their Protestation; and the Assembly to satisfie them, added the Description, as meaning only the English concatenated frame. 2. And the House of Lords took it upon Mr. Coleman's making the same Exposition.
2. But the Bishops will give you little thanks for subjecting them to all Pastors that have better Gifts and Grace: And they will laugh at you for talking, as if this were the Prelacy in question.
In your 6th you tell us, That Bishops Name and Thing are Scriptural: And yet pag. 6. you say [A Bishop and a Presbyter in the Sense and Language of the Scripture, are the same.] The Reader may think that when you affirm, and when you deny, it is the same. And you ask how they would take an Oath to extirpate Presbyters, and were told, They mean not to extirpate them as Bishops, but as Presbyters.
Ans. Did you think you spake to the Case?
1. If they thought a Presbyter as such, as bad as a Bishop as such, no doubt they would have taken that Oath.
2. But do you take a Bishop here for the same as a Presbyter, or as a species of Presbyters, or as a superiour to Presbyters? Which ever it is, it's nothing to the Case in hand: He that saith, We renounce Diocesan Prelacy, but not Preeminence of Gifts, nor Parochial Episcopacy, doth but say plainly, I renounce not another thing by renouncing Prelacy in the known and explained Sense: But he that saith, renounce Presbyters but not Bishops, as they signifie the same thing, or as Presbyters signifieth the whole Genus; or yet as Bishops are the Governours of Presbyters, speaketh gross Contradictions.
And when after you Argue sometimes from the worth of the Persons to the goodness of the Office, and sometime from the old Episcopacy, to the English Diocesan Prelacy; you do but lose your words as to us.
And I could wish you would have left out your medium of multitudes of Protestants that would turn Papists, if the Papists could prove as much for them of Antiquity and Universality, as the English Diocesan Prelacy can: When I consider how in the same Empire they grew up together, I would not have you be the Man that should Dispute with a Papist, who undertaketh to prove the Roman Primacy as ancient as our Species of Diocesan Prelacy described in the Covenant, and to be acknowledged then by as many. I say not that they can prove it: But I had rather you laid not so much upon it.
You equivocate when you say, All sides are for Bishops: You will have few assenters when you say, That Episcopacy, Presbytery, and Independancy, are not three forms of Church-Government, as three is contrary to Unity (viz. of such Form: And when you say, Extirpate one and extirpate all (the Forms) because Godliness is the same in all. Are not Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, three Forms, contrary to unity of Form; though Humanity, Piety, and Regiment, be the same in all? Do they that extirpate Presbytery, or Democracy, extirpate all? But why should I trouble the Reader, or you, by any further opening of your mistakes in a Case that I am not concerned in, and is none of our Controversy?
When you say that [The generality of the Non-conformists are for a well tempered Prelacy,] you infer an odious guilt on those Prelatists, who write vehemently for our Ruine; as intolerable because we are against Episcopacy: I could name you many such besides Dr. Saywel.
You say, The Presbyterians and Independants, were as bitter against one another, as the Prelates were against them both, saving Violences, and Coercive Restraints.
Ans. I refer it to your second thoughts,
1. Whether this be sober Consistency.
2. Whether it be true.
1. To be [as bitter, except Violence, and Coercive Restraint,] is in English to be [as bitter, except being far more bitter,] q. d. [The differing Protestants in Ireland were as bitter against each other, as the Papists against both, saving Cruelties and Murders.] Bradford's School-master, was as hurtful to him as Bonner, except Imprisonment and Burning him. He that chides me is as hurtful to me as he that maimeth me, except hurting me more. When you have excepted Silencing, Imprisoning, and taking away all our Maintenance, you except much.
2. But yet is it true? Remember it was but Presbyterians and Independants that you speak of: Read the Book of their Assembly Debates: Read all their Writings against each other: I will not except Mr. Edward's Gangraena, and see whether they do not acknowledg more of God's Grace in one another, and own more of the duty of Loving and Forbearing own another, than the Prelatists do by either. Read the Canons that Excommunicate them ipso facto as for wicked Error; and read Doctor Heylin, Fowlis, the Book against Mr. Calamy's Farwel Sermon, the Counterminer, L'Estrange, the Friendly Debate, Mr. Parker; and a multitude more such; and of old Bishop Bancroft; and in a word, the Ordinary Visitation Articles, or Peter Studley, and a multitude such, that Preacht and Wrote against them as Hypocrites, Pharisees, Schismaticks, and such like, and then consider how far you have here swerved from known truth. I may say that I knew all those Times, and the sorts of Persons mentioned, much better than you: Many Sectaries were very bitter, and some too bitter against them. The Presbyterians and Independants contended with too much intemperance and unskilfulness. But sure if they had thought as ill of one another as the Prelates did of both, when they had power, they would as much have Silenced and Ejected one another; which they did not. I remember not ever to have known any meer Presbyterian or Independant, especially Ministers, but openly declared that they looked on both parties as the Servants of Christ, whom they should love and honour. But this is nothing to our Cause.
You say truly, [An Oath is a sacred thing, and it is dangerous to use Shifts and Stretches.] And if so, it is not without danger to persuade thousands so to do, or to justifie many hundred thousand if they will be down-right perjured.
You say, [If one may judge of those Times by these now present, a great many swore Pell-mell they knew not what, because they knew not what Presbytery, Independancy, and Episcopacy was.]
1. No doubt many did so.
2. But they partly knew what the English Prelacy was, by long Experience; and they swore not for Presbytery or Independancy, nor against all Episcopacy.
3. But if you think that they do so in these Times, you and I should lament it: For God will not hold them Guiltless, whether they be Pastors and Churches, or Cities and Corporations, that take his Name by Perjury in vain: It's better call them to Repentance, than justifie them in it. To contract the guilt of the Perjury of many thousands is an expeditious way to Misery, and doth a great deal in a little time.
§ 2. Having thus proved that which I denied not, you proceed to add Nineteen Propositions about the Case in question, in all which it is not easie to be sure which side you conclude for: You grant most of my premises, which make against Perjury. You confess, that If any one Person be bound by that Oath to endeavour an alteration of Church Government, no Man may with a safe Conscience subscribe this. And, If there be evil in the Government of the Church, which may well and conveniently be reformed, you do not see but that all that have taken that Oath, stand bound in their Places and Calling to endeavour it: There can be no just Reformation without some Alteration. A great deal more than this you grant, how Rulers are bound to yield in things confest indifferent, which others account Sin, were it but to heal our Breaches: And what a Sin it is to cast out of the Church multitudes of holy Conscientious Men for a small and tolerable Error, when all have some, &c. But yet instead of a Conclusion, if you are intelligible, you induce Men to subscribe, though that which they fear, be (not accusing any) lest they should be guilty of many hundred thousand Perjuries.
You say, 1. [We must in expounding Laws regard the meaning of our Governours.]
Ans. True: But is it their meaning de genere, or de specie, or individuo? Our Governour's meaning is not to approve Perjury. But suppose yet they had commanded me to swear that no man is bound by the Oath of Supremacy; is it no Perjury so to swear. Then we might swear any thing commanded while the Commander saith, He is not for Perjury. If Rulers command men to marry their own Sisters, and yet say, That they abhor Incest, may one justifie this because they are against Incest? If Rebels rise in Arms against their Rulers, but yet renounce Rebellion, how are they to be expounded?
But you say, [If there be any thing in the Government contrary to the Word of God, The Laws, Canons, Liturgy, Offices of Iudges and Ministers do bind all men against it, as null and void, though not abolished by Parliament.]
Ans. And what then? Do you infer [Therefore we may subscribe; or therefore we must interpret nothing in the Law to be against God's Word; or therefore we must not subscribe it? The last is the true Conclusion. If Socinians renounce all that is against God's Word, and yet command you to renounce Christ's Godhead, may you do it?
2. But I would fain see the words which you here suppose in the Law, Canons and Liturgy; and whether they leave us all to be Judges what is against God's Word? And,
3. I would have you expound to me, 1. The Canon that requireth us to subscribe, that There is nothing in the Liturgy against God's Word. 2. And that which excommunicateth all that say there is any thing against it. 3. And the Law that layeth us in Gaol, and ruineth us, if we so say and do forbear accordingly. Is it an Argument to say, [The Law renounceth all that is contrary to the Word of God; and Excommunicateth, and Silenceth, and ruineth you, if you say that there is in the Liturgy any thing against it: Ergo, You may subscribe though there be somewhat against it, because the Law disowneth it?] I would not think you mean this: Therefore I know not what you mean to infer, unless it be your next words: [Therefore what Faults be in the Government, are rather the Faults of the Governours.] Alas, this is it and worse. Thus you might infer, There is no fault in the Papal Government, if the Pope in general renounce all that is against God's Word, and then bids you swear that Popery is not against it. Turks and Heathens renounce in general all sinning against God, and yet I would not say that their Laws may be owned as sinless.
You say, [If all Governours in Church and State faithfully did their Duties according to the Canons, Liturgy, &c. it would be happy for all sides.]
Ans. No Man can tell by these words, whether you mean [If they did all that the Laws and Canons command them,] or [If they did the good part and left out the bad.] If the later be your sense, it is against you: If it have a bad part which we must not do, it hath a part which we must not consent, covenant, or promise to do. If the former, then you have part of your Happiness, and may soon enough see more. Your honest words elsewhere shew that you take it for no Happiness, to have all professed Non-conformists Excommunicated according to the Canon, and Silenced and Ruined according to the Law.
And yet I cannot tell how to agree you with your self: You say, [All good and peaceable Men would be protected, whether Conformists, or Non-conformists.
Ans. As Mr. Field, Mr. Thompson, and others that died in Gaol were; or as Mr. Hughs, Mr. Ioseph Allen, and others that died by their Prison-Diseases were; or as those that must be Silenced, or lie in Gaol six Months, and pay forty pound a Sermon; or as Men Excommunicated ipso facto are protected.
§ 3. You say, [The words of the Declaration do not say, No Man is bound to endeavour the alteration of the Governours but the Government, that is, Of the Laws, Rules, and Canons, by which they govern, and the several Offices which be in the Church.—These may be good.— The office may be Divine, or justly prudential, or tolerably lawful.—Suppose the Oath and Covenant doth not bind to endeavour the alteration of the Chancellor's Office.— Your Conclusion seems implied in your Challenge. [Now let any Nonconformist prove that there is any Office in the English way of Church Government simply unlawful, &c.]
Ans. 1. Have you answered the proof that I pretend to have brought in my Disput. of Church Government? If not, must I write it again as oft as you will bid me? Or would it be here meet to write a Treatise to answer this your Challenge? But get it tolerated, and it shall soon be done.
2. You say, The Government is the Laws, Rules, and Canons, by which they Govern: And if these need not be altered, why did you before disown the exercise of them, as a great Sin? And yet this implieth [The Law and Canon, which Excommunicate Non-conformists, and which deny the Lord's Supper to those that kneel not, and which silence Non-subscribers to the 36th Canon, and which deny Baptism to those that scruple the English use of the Cross and God-fathers, and which ruine all that preach when Silenced, need no alteration, as simply unlawful.]
But we must prove them unlawful: Come to me then in private, and let us debate the Case, and I will prove to you as much as I affirm. In the mean time, if it will go for any Proof with you, I crave your answer to these Arguments which some use, that doubt of the lawfulness which they dare not deny.
I. A Church-governing Office for the exercise of that power of the Church Keys by Lay-men, which Christ hath appropriated to the Clergy is sinful: But such is the Office of our Lay-Chancellors: Ergo, &c.
II. A species of Prelacy which is destructive of, or inconsistent with the form of particular Churches, and of Bishops and Presbyters, and the exercise of that Church-Discipline which Christ and his Spirit in the Apostles did institute is sinful. But (they fear) such is the English Diocesan species of Prelacy: Ergo, &c.
III. The Government which is to be the execution of the foresaid Canons, and Act of Uniformity, &c. for Expelling, Excommunicating, Silencing, Imprisoning, Ruining Non-conformists, you said before was unlawful—But—Ergo.
But here I would, as your real Friend, advise you to two things more; as well as not needlesly to contract the guilt of that which you call grievous Sin in others.
1. That you will publish your Retractation of those words [The words of the Declaration do not say, No Man is bound to endeavour the alteration of the Governours, but only of the Government.]
Do you consider what you say?
1. You know that it is the Government of the State as well as Church, that is here expressed: And do you think that the King and Parliament never intended to keep Men from deposing the King? Or the Lords, and Commons, and Judges, though they changed not the Species, but set up others in their steads? Or will the Bishops so expound it to you, as that it meaneth not that you are not obliged by the Covenant, to pull down all the present Bishops if you set up others in their stead?
2. That you avoid the commoner answer of others, who say, That it is only the Essentials of Government that are here meant, and not any Integrals, or Accidents. For,
1. The King and State-Government is here touched. And dare you say that [If any Man think that the Covenant bindeth him to destroy all the King's Civil Government, except the bare essentials of Monarchy, that the Parliament intended not here to contradict him?]
2. And I doubt the Bishops will be angry with you and call you Schismaticks, if you say that the Parliament here meant not to contradict them that say, they are bound by the Covenant to turn our Diocesan Bishops into Parochial ones, or into one in every Corporation, and to take down their Court Officers, and their Lordships, Parliament, Power and Wealth. That which serveth Men best in Arguing, will not best please the Men that they plead for.
You say, [We grant that there is no one thing in the Episcopal Government, but what we may well bear with, and submit to.]
Ans. 1. We well may and must bear with that which we cannot help. In Moscovy we may fear that all Preaching is put down, saving reading Homilies; and a Man may there live Godly: But do not you therefore tell all Men, that if the same were done here, we may enter into a solemn Covenant, never to endeavour to reform it: No, were it but the high places in Iudaea.
2. Submitting is either by Obedience, or meer Patience. Under Papists and Turks Men must submit by Patience: But if you say, We hold that we must obey all that they command, our practice tells you, It is not true. But the question is, Whether there be no one thing, but what we may covenant never to endeavour to alter, and subscribe that no Parliament Man, or any other in England, is bound by that Oath, which they took, to endeavour it? The Law forbids me to say, They are, and therefore I say it not: But if you say, They are not, Dare you undertake to answer for them?
You say, Their Office binds them to no evil. That is, None of the things fore-mentioned are evil: Which you said were so.
Again you say, All the while Excommunications and Church Censures are soundly done, it's the the less matter by whom they are done.
Ans. 1. Do not say so to the King about Kingly Government: Nor to the Judges if an intruder invade the Tribunal.
2. Make the Bishops believe this if you can, of any that should usurp their Office.
3. Make the Parish Priests believe it if you can, who are so angry with us for helping them at a distance, though we invade not Places.
4. Make any sober Ministers believe if you can, that if the Word be well Preacht, and Sacraments soundly Administred, it is no matter who doth it.
5. Make any Master of a Family, or Husband, believe it as to their Offices, that it's no matter who doth it, so it be soundly done. If the Wife do believe, it's two to one the Husband will not.
§ 4. Again you say, [By the Government of Church and State, whatsoever is absolutely sinful is forbidden,—the Laws declare it Null, &c. ]
Ans. This is before answered. You say, Silencing and Excommunicating the Non-conformists here, are sinful. Instead of this impertinent talk, go try your Oratory on the Judges and Bishops; if you can persuade them that the Law forbids them all to fine, Imprison, or Silence us, or Excommunicate us: Why did you not use this pretty Argument for your self?
2. And do not Papists, and Turks say, that No Law against God is in force? And doth their Government therefore contain no evil? Or will you tell them that swear to amend it, that it's well enough already?
You tell us what to say to the Bishops and Judges for our selves: But if by this Medium, I would prove that I am conformable to the Law, and they are the Non-conformists that punish me, because they break the Law of God; I doubt they would Laugh at me first, and send me to Gaol next.
§ 5. But in answer to, Where read we in Scripture of the Chancellor's Office? You repeat again, [If soundly done, no Man may reprove them.] I will not repeat my Answer: But I add; If so, No Man may reprove the Boys if they soundly Whip their Master when he deserveth it; nor a Cobler that will send Offenders to Prison as the Lord Mayor doth: Nor a Justice, yea, or a Tinker, that will step up in the Chancery, or King's-Bench, to do Justice.
§ 6. But though I will not Laugh at your Writing; I should hardly forbear if I heard you do what page 95, you say you would do, viz. [If a Bishop, or Arch-Bishop, or Chancellor, live where you are Pastor, and be a Member of your Congregation, you must needs look on your self as obliged by the Laws and Canons of the Church and State, by the Word of God, and by the Rules of the Common-prayer-Book, publickly to admonish him, if he grosly misdemean himself, and do a scandalous crime; and if he shall not by open confession give satisfaction to the Church, bar him from the Sacrament, and declare him Disorderly and Contumacious, and that if he do not repent he shall perish; and warn the People to beware of such evil Courses, and to have no more to do with him than they needs must: And this I maintain to be part of the Discipline and Government of the Church of England. ]
Ans. I would I could see this bout. I doubt he will have something to do with you Your Chancellor had the wit to begin with you first. I pray you forget not this Case when you go to the Bishop for his sense of the Liturgy, and tell us his answer when you come Home.
I must profess this is an edifying Passage: As when I read in Saltmarsh, that Christ repented and believed for us, it let in more Light against Libertinism, than I had before: So doth this Passage raise up some useful doubts in me about our Churches, which I thought not on till now.
Q. 1. Whether are the Bishops that dwell in the London Parishes (or others) Members of the Parish Church where they dwell?
Q. 2. If they are not, Whether dwelling in the Parish make a Christian a Member of the Parish Church?
Q. 3. If not, what is it that makes a Member, and how are the Pastors special Flock truly known to him from others?
Q. 4. If they be Members, to whom shall we present the Bishop for not coming to Church, or for his Crimes? Is it to himself?
Q. 5. Whether is the Bishop, or the Parish Priest there the higher Power, or Governor? and which must obey?
Q. 6. Doth the Canon that forbids Men to go from their own Parish Churches, extend to the Bishop?
Q. 7. How is the Bishop one of the Parson's Flock, and the Parson one of the Bishop's Flock, both at once?
Q. 8. Whether the Bishop that is Excommunicated by the Parson out of the Parish Church, be cast out of the Universal? or other Churches, may have Communion with him, or not?
Q. 9. What if the Parson Excommunicate the Bishop, and the Bishop the Parson both at once, what a Case are they in? And which shall stand, one or both, and how far?
Q. 10. How will the Parson practice his Conformity, who consenteth when he putteth any one from the Sacrament, to certifie the Ordinary within fourteen Days? will he prosecute the Bishop to himself, or to his Chancellor?
Q. 11. Doth not this Instance prove Mr. Cheyney, to be a mistaking Expositor of the Church-Government, the Bishops themselves being Judges? and would not one days practice of any such thing convince him by Experience, that the Church of England now take not Parish Parsons for Parish Bishops?
Q. 12. Is he in the right, page 96. that this Course would make Bishops, and Arch-Bishops, and Chancellors, stand in awe of the Priests? why then did you not thus awe your Bishop and Chancellor?
CHAP. XXIX.
YOur 28th Section hath nothing in it that requireth many words for Answer: That Oaths and Laws must be charitably expounded no one denieth, so they be truly expounded. In this we stand to Bishop Sanderson's Rules, which are far better stated than any thing here said by you.
And your citing my limited and conditional approbation of the Assemblies Catechisms, and the Synod of Dort's, is certainly no Reason for my absolute and unlimited professing to Assent and Consent to all things, in Books which have so much more which I dissent from.