The Defense of the Nonconformists Plea for Grace, Part · Chapter 30 – Chapter 31
CHAP. XXX.
§ 1. YOur 29th Section containeth your unproved Opinions, and false Devices, for stretching Subscriptions, Covenants and Professions. And first you tell us of the difficulty of using any words that may not seem doubtful: But yet if there be not a satisfactory intelligibleness in words, Humane Converse is overthrown, and Oaths of Allegiance, and all Contracts are of little use unto their ends.
§ 2. You say, [Though there be in this Volume which we call the Common-prayer-Book, many Matters, Sentences, and Words bound all together, yet do we Assent and Consent to no more but that which goes under the name of the Service of the Church, and the Rules and Orders touching the same, and the Rites and Ceremonies thereof.
Ans. If you say [All things contained in it] means not [all things] indeed, tell us what difference there is between the Equivocations of the Jesuits, and this of yours. So one tells me, that [when we profess to Assent to all in the Bible,] the meaning is [To all the Precepts, Promises, and Words of God in it, but not that there is no Humane Errors in Numbers and Chronologie, Genealogie, History, or Citations.] And so you may say, [I will swear not to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the State, but I mean not to alter Monarchy.] And what may not one thus say and swear?
2. But yet I think it is no great number of [Matters, Sentences, and Words] which are neither (Service, Rules, Orders, or Rites.) Rubricks and Calendars, and some Prefaces belong to these. But it is a strange Interpretation which would exclude Doctrinals, such as the Article of Faith, of the certain Salvation of all Infants baptized, and dying before actual Sin. Your Citations signifie nothing for your purpose, but tell us what you would have them signifie.
§ 3. But now I come to Sampson's Hair, the very strength of all your Book, page 115. The Preface saith, [When Doubts arise in the Use and Practice of the same, to appease all such diversity (if any arise) and for the resolution of all Doubts concerning the manner how to understand, do and execute the things contained in this Book, the Parties that so doubt, or diversly take any thing, shall always resort to the Bishop of the Diocess, who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same, so that the same Order be not contrary to any thing contained in this Book.] Whence you gather, that the Law makes the Bishop the common Expositor; and if he gives a good Exposition, or by silence shew consent, all is safe, and you may Conform.
I confess this Reed is the strongest support of your Cause that I have met with: And I am not censuring others that lean upon it: I doubt not but they may be better Men than I: But I will tell you why I cannot.
1. It is a help to those that be in doubt: But I am out of doubt in many of the Reasons of my Non-conformity; and therefore it is no help to me.
2. The words expresly limit the Bishops Exposition, [so that his order be not contrary to any thing in the Book.] If it be not contrary to the Book, it will give me no satisfaction: If it be contrary, it is of no force.
3. It is only about (the things contained in the Book) that the Bishop must resolve us: Now either the Acts of Uniformity are part of those things, or not: If yea, then it is the Acts also that I must Assent and Consent to; which you as well as I are far from. And you maintain that the Act is no part of the Book: If not, then the Bishop hath no power to expound the Act: And the forms of Assent and Consent, and Subscription imposed, are parts of the Act.
4. The words make not the Bishop the publick or common Expositor of the Law, or Book, as Judge; but only as a Teacher, who bindeth but so far as he tells the truth: The Bishop must teach his ignorant or divided Clergy, how to understand what they understand not: And this is not about their Subscriptions, but matters of Use and Practice (as where the Table shall stand, and such like.) That it maketh not the Bishop the obliging Judge of the Law, appeareth,
1. Because here is no such word.
2. The foresaid limitation speaketh the contrary.
3. Else there might be as many Religions, Doctrines, or Practices as Bishops, or many at least: I will give you all the little Money in my Purse, if you will get me under the hand of Bishop Morley, Bishop Gunning, Bishop Sparrow, and Arch-Bishop Stern, their approbation of your Expositions of the parts of Conformity, written in your Book. And I suppose you know how zealously many write (as well as Doctor Saywel) against tolerating diversity of Forms and Rites, and Orders of Worship. And this would be to set up as many Sects, or Ways, as differing Bishops pleased. This Case was notably tried between Arch-Bishop Laud, and the Church that followed him, and Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, about the Table, or Altar.
4. Else Bishops would have the Legislative Power: For the sense of the Law is the Law: And if the Parliament form but the Letter or Body of it, and the Bishop may give it what Sense or Soul he pleaseth; it is he that will be the chief Law-maker.
5. Else Bishops might corrupt and change our Religion and Church, under pretence of Exposition. Bishop Godfrey Goodman of Glocester, who was a Papist, might have set up Popery in his Diocess, by putting a Popish sense upon Subscription, Words, and Practices: And the Bishops by agreement might set up Popery in the Land, by the same means. Or a Bishop might set up Non-conformists, by gratifying them by his Expositions. The thing meant in those words is no such dangerous power, but only an Instructing and a Pacifying, informing of the Clergy, when they ignorantly differ about some dark Word, or Circumstance, or Practice; the Bishop must teach them the true sense of the Book, but do nothing against any thing therein.
6. Is it not called An Act for Uniformity, and imposeth all the heavy Penalties on purpose to procure Uniformity? Would they have Silenced and Ruined two thousand Ministers for Non-conformity, if Uniformity had not been thought of more worth than their Ministerial Labours? And can you think that after all this, they meant to leave it to the particular Bishops, whether there should be any Uniformity or not? You think one Bishop will say, [You are Parish Bishops, and may publickly admonish and reprove the Scandalous, and Excommunicate them Excommunicatione minore: You may give them the Sacrament, that conscienciously scruple Kneeling; you may Baptize them that conscienciously scruple the dedicating Cross, and the English sort of God-Fathers; you may refuse to say the words of Prayer, which imply his Salvation, over the Dead who were Excommunicable, though not Excommunicated: You may understand the Article which professeth the certainty of Baptized Infants salvation, of those only that are the Children of faithful Parents, or Pro-parents; you may say you Assent to all in the Book, and mean not all but some part, and that not as true, but as usable: You may profess Consent to use it all, and yet not mean to use the Calendar, or Rubricks, or to Administer the Sacraments otherwise than as aforesaid: You may Say, or Subscribe, or Swear, that it is, on any pretence whatsoever, unlawful to take Arms against any Commissioned by the King, and mean only such as are lawfully Commissioned. You may subscribe that no one in England that sware it, is bound by the solemn Vow and Oath, to endeavour any alteration of Government in Church or State, and mean only that he must not endeavour it by Sedition or Rebellion.] And so on to the end.
But other Bishops will say the clean contrary: viz. That the Bishop is the only Pastor, and the Parish Priest hath none of the power here named, and so of all the rest: And what Uniformity then will there be? Know you not how they write against such different Administrations, as destructive and intolerable?
7. And know you not that a Bishop hath no power against the Canons? The Canons are their own Laws and Judgment, and bind them: And when the Canon saith, e. g. He shall be suspended that giveth the Sacrament to one that kneeleth not; or that the Non-conformists are ipso facto Excommunicate, &c. Hath the Bishop authority to say the contrary?
8. And you know that I wrote not to accuse you, or any Man for Conforming, but to tell them that judge us worthy to be Silenced and Ruined, what our Non-conformity is: And what use then is your own Latitude to me, or such as I, though I went your own way? For I have askt and heard the Opinion of divers Bishops already, and they have said clean contrary to you. I have heard him that first forbad me Preaching in his Diocess, say, that [The Liturgy forbiddeth delivering the Sacrament to any that Kneel not.] I can shew it you under his Hand, that the Priest must not be Judge, when to omit the forementioned words at the burial of the Dead; nor tolerated in such Liberty as you presume on. I have been told by a Bishop, That seeing Christ died for all, the Children of any Parents in the World have right to Baptism, and any Man hath as good right to present to it an Infidel's Child, as to take in an exposed Infidel's Child to his House in Charity. I told you, that Bishop Sanderson, publickly before the Bishops, Nemine contradicente, told me, That I need not question Baptizing any Infidel's Child, if God-Fathers presented him according to the Order of the Church of England. Are we not then concluded against Conformity by the Bishop's judgment, by your own Rule? And must not you be a Non-conformist in the Diocess of any such Bishop as these?
9. And by your Rule, a Man must be a Conformist in one Bishop's Diocess, and a Non-conformist in another's; and change his mode of Religion as he Travelleth, or doth change his Dwelling. I imagine that by your Rule, I might partly Conform in the Diocess of London, or Lincoln, Hereford, or Carlisle; but I should be as Non-conformable as I am, in the Diocess of Winchester, Ely, York, Norwich, and any other as far as I yet know.
I conclude that your Catholicon may purge your self from all Non-conformity, but it is utterly unprofitable to me: Facile credimus quod volumus. I have had as much reason as you, to be willing to find Conformity lawful, if it be so: I have lost many thousand Pounds more by Non-conformity, than you have got by Conformity. But I have no such Byas on my Will, as should set all my Wit on work to find, or buy a Rope for my Conscience. And I find nothing better that you offer me herein.
§ 4. When you have told us, [Where no God-Fathers can be had, we must Christen without;] and such like: You say, [And this is the common sense put upon the Law, by the Law-makers themselves, that is, by the Bishops.]
Ans. What reason did you think we have in such an Historical Assertion, to believe your bare word? In what Synod did they declare it? Why did you neither name the Bishops, nor the Time, or Place, or Witness, by which it might be proved the common sense? But could you think this should convince me, that know it to be false?
§ 5. You tell us, pag. 119. [If it were a part of Assent and Consent, that Ordination by good and substantial Presbyters were null, it would be a hard point indeed,—to Unchurch Churches, and Unbaptize the Baptized, and plead the cause of Satan, the Pope, and all Malignants of the Ministry, in the Name of Christ.
Ans. Excuse us then for not Conforming. I before gave you this Proof, that it is the sense of the Law-makers, or Bishops: They that abhor Reordination (or twice ordaining to the Priesthood) and yet require those to be ordained by Bishops, who were before ordained by Presbyters, must be judged to hold the said Ordination by Presbyters to be null.— But, &c. Ergo.
§ 6. 1. You say, No Man that I know of, takes the Silenced Ministers, and those ordained by Presbyters only, for no Ministers at all, unless one Mr. Dodwel, a high-flown Man, whom Conformists themselves do utterly dissent from in this.
Ans. Your ignorance is no good reason for my Conformity: If you know of no more, I do. Read Mr. Th…rndike, of Forbearance of Penalties: Ask Bishop Gunning his judgment, &c. If your acquaintance be so small, you should not write of that which you know not.
§ 7. 2. But you say, All, both Rulers and People, Conformists themselves do own them for Ministers; otherwise they would take some course for the Rebaptizing of all Baptized by them.
Ans. Did you ever read the Conference at Hampton Court? Did you dream that all these take Laymens Baptizing for null? Or do you conclude that all think what you think?
§ 8. 3. You prove it from the toleration of the Foreigners Churches in London.
Ans. How will you prove that they judge all true Ministers whom they Tolerate?
§ 9. 4. You say, the Acts against Conventicles, and the Five Mile Act prove it.
5. The King's Proclamation for Indulgence proveth it.
6. The Fines and Imprisonments for Conventicles prove it.
7. The allowing four Persons to meet in private proveth it.
8. The common sense of Bishops, Divines, and People of the Church of England, prove it.
Ans. You may next say, That any thing that you see or hear proveth it. It's liker these prove the contrary, than this. By this Men may see how little satisfaction we may expect from your arguing. You greatly wrong the King, Parliament, and Bishops, if you think they take all for Ministers, Men, Women, or Children, whose meeting they tolerate: You leave out the Argument from the Act of Uniformity, which punisheth all by a hundred Pound a time that Administer the Sacrament, being not ordained by a Bishop. Doth that prove them Ministers too?
§ 10. You say, [As to the Peoples Conformity, I know no one thing required of them to Conform to, but what they may do with a good Conscience.
Ans. Why then did you pass by the answering of my Book concerning their part? Particularly about the Corporation-Declaration? Should they be in the right that think all the Cities and Corporations in England to be under that—which I am loth to name; and that Plagues, Flames, and Poverty, are God's Revenge; Oh! what a thing would it be for a Servant of Christ, to say to them in Print, [O England repent not!]
CHAP. XXXI.
§ 1. YOur Conclusion is also a bundle of Mistakes, and Impertinencies.
1. It is more than three or four points that the new Conformity addeth to the old.
2. If the number or goodness of the old Conformists did prove their Cause good, many things would have a far stronger Proof of that kind, from the ancient Churches, which yet you judge to be unlawful; and in other Countries the same Argument will be turned against you.
3. Such Men as you call [The main Body of the best Divines,] were very few in comparison of the Ignorant bad Clergy.
4. It is not true that Mr. Knewstubs was a Conformist, nor Dr. Reynolds neither, unless I be one. The Petition of the Non-conformists to King Iames, was called Millenary; because it had a thousand Hands in a little compass.
5. That some then did, and now do scruple more than others, is impertinent to our Business, and it were a wonder if it were not so, till Men are arrived at scrupling nothing.
6. The 36th Canon was the chief point of the old Non-conformity, and will receive no justification by the worth of any Subscribers. I doubt not but Bernard, Gerson, &c. were holy Men, that subscribed far worse.
7. Sponsors of an ill sort are never the better, because there was a better sort of old; nor because these were before the new Liturgy.
8. Page 125. You could wish Ministers would make the Parents to be present chief Undertakers, that is, to be Non-conformists called Conformists. The rest needeth but the repetition of what is said before, which would rather tire than edifie the Reader.