Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times, Appendix · Section 4
Number V.
SIR,
I Find that in a Book of yours, defending Schism against Mr. Halis, on pretence of opposing it, you were pleased to think many Passages in my Writings worthy of your Recital to your ends: I thank you that you chose any Words for Peace, which some may make a better use of than your self: But I think if you had referred Men to my own Books to read them with what goeth before and after, they would have been more easily understood. I understand by your Book that you think that you are in the Right; which is the most that I have yet learned out of it, unless it be also that you think the Nonconformists be not yet hated and afflicted enough; or that he that sweareth, must ascend by treading upon him that feareth an Oath. I am in some doubt least you have wronged our Prelacy by so openly proclaiming the Enmity of so great a Man as Hales against them, and by enticing Men by your Noise to read his Book which you contradict; which if they do, I doubt your Confutation will not save them from the Light. But the Reason of my troubling you with these Lines, is only to crave some Satisfaction about two or three Matters of Fact in your Book, which would seem strange to me, did I not find such things too common in Invectives against the silenced Ministers, and did I not know that is part of Satan's Work to persuade the World that no History hath any certainty of Truth, that so sacred History may be disadvantaged.
I. One is in these Words, p. 101. When they had in the gand Debate given in their Objections to the Liturgy, some of the Brotherhood had prepared another Form, but a great part of their Brethren objected many things against that; and never as yet did (as I hear of) agree upon any other, nor I think ever will. I crave the Justice of you to tell us, which was that you call the Grand Debate, and who those were that dissented: or what Proof you have of any such thing: Either you knew what you say, or not: If not, and publish it in such a manner, while you are accusing others of Sin? What is this to be called if you did, it is yet far worse; either you speak of the Westminster Assembly, which made the Directory, or of the Commissioners in 1660. Not the first sure, for none, I think, was yet ever vain enough to pretend that they thus drew up another Liturgy. It must needs then be the latter: Of which this is past denyal by any but the—
1. That the King's Commission under the Broad-Seal authorizing to make some [Additional Forms].
2. The late Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Sheldon, when we came according to appointment, to try by Friendly Conference, what Alterations each Party might yield to for our desired Concord, without any injury to their Consciences, began with a Declaration, that we being the Plaintiffs, they would no farther proceed or treat with us, till we had given them in entirely in Writing, 1. What we blamed in the Liturgy, and our Reasons of it. 2. And what we desired as better. Mr. Calamy and others said, [This was plainly to deny the Conference which we were commissioned for] and they would there have broke off, had it not been for me who requested them rather to yield and undertake it, than give them occasion to charge us with Tergiversation and Refusal of any lawful thing; though I easily saw that the Motioner thought thereby to break us as disagreeing when we came to perform the Undertaking: While others drew up their Exceptions against the Liturgy, they appointed me to draw up the Additional Forms: But remembring the Bishops Words [What we desired instead] I drew up a Liturgy. It must needs be very imperfect, being done (in necessary haste) in Eight Days: Dr. Reignolds only thought that we should be blamed for offering a whole Liturgy instead of Additional Forms.] I told him, 1. It was but to be added to the old if reformed. 2. And they might cut off all that they thought superfluous upon debates, even all that the Bishops should except justly against; for we did but offer it to them, professing we were ready to alter any thing upon their Reasons: Hereupon Dr. Reignolds yielded, and it was oft read over among us, only the Prayer for the King being thought too long, Dr. Wallis was appointed to draw up a shorter; which he did, all the rest standing as I wrote it: It was agreed to without one dissenting Vote; nor had we one Objection sent us in by any other. I was appointed at a meeting with the Bishops at the Savoy, at once to deliver them them this Liturgy, A Reply to their Answer to our Exceptions, and A Petition for Peace and Concord, all which they had appointed me to draw up, and had examined and consented to. We waited for an Answer to all, and never had an Answer to any one of them; but they kept them and said nothing of them: I was especially desirous to have heard their Exceptions against our Liturgy (when they thought we would have disagreed among our selves) and urged some of them to it, and could never get a Word of Answer, or Exception, which made me wonder, as well knowing 1. How very willing some were to have found it faulty. 2. And how hard it is in necessitated haste to write such a thing that shall not be liable to many Exceptions: Yea, when Roger L'Strange after wrote against us, he saith little at all against the Liturgy, save that we left Men at too much Liberty; to which we then said, That imposing and restraining was not our work, but the Bishops, who we supposed upon Debate, would have too much done it. Now if this full Concord, and no Answer or Exceptions from them that extorted this Work from us, be agreeable to the Report you make, or if you have dealt here like a Minister of Truth, I pray you help me to discern it. The Book with the rest was printed long ago, most of them by some poor Scriviners, that being used in transcribing, had got a Copy, and did it for Gain.
II. Another Passage is P. 293. No sinful Act being required to make ministerial Conformity unlawful, [which if there had been, they or some others would and ought to have discovered it, and then, I doubt not, it would by Authority have been taken away, but that being not done].
Here I desire you to satisfy me in a few things: 1. When even our Publick Reply and foresaid Petition, against the old Conformity were never answered to this Day, is it ingenuous to take this for a Consutation, barely thus to say [it is not done] should I say [it was never yet discovered that Episcopacy is lawful] would you not have called me—as long as Saravia, Bilson, Hooker, &c. are unanswered?
2. Do you not know what abundance of old have thought they discovered the sinfulness of Conformity (Bradshaw, Nicolas, Ames, Parker, Iacob, Cartwright, &c.) and what Aloundel, Salmasius, Gersom, Bucer, Didoclave, &c. have written against Prelacy, and some of late against our Conformity, (Cawdry, Hickman, and others, yet unanswered): And is this your dry Denyal a rational Confutation?
3. Would not your Words make the ignorant believe that we have the Liberty of the Press, and may do it if we will? and do not the Act of Parliament, and the severe Searches of the Press, and the Printers Refusal shew how false such an Intimation is: It may be some small Pamphlet may with much a do creep out; but so cannot any thing that is full and satisfactory: Our Cause is a meer Stranger to our Accusers; (it seems even to such as you) because we cannot have leave to print it: A few have heretofore when the watch was less strict got somewhat out, to little purpose (Mr. Hickman's was beyond Sea): But nothing that may make us well understood. And is it fit work for a Minister to blame Men thus Publickly for not doing Impossibilities.
4. It must be supposed that you know these things, 1. That the Law forbids us to deprave or speak against the Liturgy upon grievous Penalties. 2. That the Canon excommunicateth us ipso facto, that is, sine Sententia Iudicis, if we do but say that there is any thing that a Man may not with a good Conscience conform to. 3. And that our present Governors are against it. 4. And that for doing it we are sure by Conformists to be called disobedient to Authority, and Seditious. 5. And that we are so accused by you commonly for Preaching when forbidden, which is as much our vowed Duty sure as Writing. And do you now tell us that we ought to discover it if there be any sinful Act Commanded: Will you warrant us against the Charge of Disobedience, or do you drive us on that, which if we do, you know we are already judged to excommunicated Jailes and Ruine. We have long beg'd of Parliament men that we might but once have leave to speak, for our selves (which we never yet had as to the new Conformity to this Day); and yet we might petition for such leave; and they tell us these Fifteen Years almost, there is no hope, it will but ruine you. I have offered two of the most eminent Bishops to beg it of them or any on my Knees, that we might but once publish the Case and Reasons of our dissent. And is it not enough to be Fifteen or Sixteen Years ejected, silenced, scorned, accused, as unworthy to be endured, and to be silently Patient, and never answer for our selves, nor have the common Justice of being heard, but we must have the additional Abuse, to be told that we ought to do it: Yea, many of the Conformists (O, with what a Face!) have published to the World, that we take not the things which we refuse for Sins, or da…e not say so of them; when even the far easyer Conformity 1660. We did by Word and Writing declare to be sinful, and in our Pet…ion for Peace (Printed) protested that did we not take it to be sinful, and hazarding our Souls, &c. We should never have stuck at Conformity to them. And it is no small Number of Sins so hei…ous which we suppose since imposed, that we dare not so much as name them, least we displease you, and make you say that we render the Conformists such heinous Sinners! But I will alledge your Authority when any of us are next blamed for discovering the …einous Sinfulness of Conformity, as we yet believe it would be to us.
If you say that the Licensers would licence our Writings, if we did it with Sobriety: 1. You know that the Canon and Law is against it. 2. I shall then in Justice challenge you to make it good, and here promise you an account of my Nonconformtiy whenever you will procure it licensed.
6. And which way got you so strong a Faith as to be past doubt that did we discover any sinfulness, it would by Authority have been taken away.] Make this true yet (after neer Two Thousand Ministers have been neer Sixteen Years ejected and silenced, and many killed by Imprisonment, and the People of the Land divided and distracted by the training Engines) and you shall have the Honour of being the greatest healer of our Breaches, that ever rose in the Days of my Remembrance: But if it be not true—
III. The Third Passage is p. 69, 70. throughout; These are great things to be spoken so boldly: 1. Do you suppose your Reader one that never read Church-History? What Work the Bishops made for Arrianism, for Nestorianism, for the Eutychians, and A…phalites, against Nazianzen, Chrysostom, &c. for the Monothelites, about the tria Capitula for Images. against Emperors and Kings, setting up the Pope, and decreed the Deposition of all Princes that obey him not, and making Loyalty to be Heresis Henriciana: How the River Oronte at Antioch hath been coloured with the Blood, and the Graves of the Monks and People that fought it out in the Streets for the several Bishops, what work they made at the first Council at Constance, the first and the second of Ephesus, the Council at Calcedon, and many another? How many Ages they were, and yet are the Army of the Pope, to subdue Princes and Nations, Truth and Justice, and set up the Evil that now reigneth in the Christian World. How even against the Popes Will, they made the best King and Emperor, Ludovicus Pius, as a Pennance, resign his Crown and Scepter on the Altar, to a Rebel Son, and sent him to Prison. He that ever read but Baronius, Binnius, or other Episcopal History will pity you, can you name one Presbyter for very many Bishops that have been the Heads or Fomenters of Heresie, Schism, or Rebellion? and yet Presbyters were more in Number than Bishops? Innumerable Bishops saith Binnius, were in the Monothelite Council under …hilipicu…. Of all things that ever befel the Christian Church, I scarce know any thing comparable in Shame and Mischievous Effects, to the horrid perfideousness, Contention, Schism and Pride of Bishops; Cursing one Year by Hundreds all that were of one Opinion, and another Year all that were of the contrary, as the times and Interest, and Emperor changed. And if Arius or Novatus, Aerius and Donatus (which are all you name were the Beginners of any Schism, how many hundred Bishops were the Promoters of them all, save that of Aerius against themselves. And is it any honour to Episcopacy that Arius, and Aerius (an Arian) were not Bishops when they were said to be Seekers of Bishopricks, and to divide because they could not obtain them. Sure they were Prelatical Presbyters: what honour were it to Episcopacy that you are no Bishop, if all these, and such things, were vended by you in hope of a Bishoprick or some Preferment. I will never whilst I breathe trust a Presbyter that sets himself to get Preferment, no more than I will trust a— But did you know, or did you not, that as for Novatus and Novatian, one of them was an ill-chosen Bishop of Rome, and the other a Promoter of his Prelacy? and that as for Donatus there were two of them, one of them a Bishop; and that the Donatists Schism was meerly and basely Prelatical, even whether their Bishop or Cecilianus should carry it? and that their Re-baptizing and Re-ordaining and Schism was because they took none to have power that had it not from their Bishop, as being their right, (like our Re-ordainers). And are these Instances to prove what you assert?
Were it not for entring upon an unpleasing and unprofitable Task, I would ask you, 1. Who that Iuncto of Presbyters was that dethroned the King? was it they that petitioned and protested against it? 2. Whether it was not an Episcopal Parliament (forty to one, if not an hundred) that began the War against the King? 3. Whether the General and Commanders of the Army, twenty to one, were not Conformists? 4. Whether the Major Generals in the Countries were not almost all Episcopal Conformists? (The Earl of Stamford was over your Country). 5. Whether the Admiral and Sea-Captains were not almost all Episcopal Conformists? (As Heylin distinguisheth them of Archbishop Abbots mind, disliking Arminianism, Monopolies, &c.) 6. Whether the Archbishop of York were not the Parliaments Major General? 7. Whether the Episcopal Gentry did not more of them take the Engagement (and many Episcopal Ministers) than the Presbyterians? 8. Whether if this Parliament, which made the Acts of Uniformity and Conventicles, should quarrel with the King, it would prove them to be Presbyterians and Nonconformists? 9. Whether the Presbyterian Ministers of London and Lancashire did not write more against the Regicides and Usurpers, and declare against them, than all the Conformists, or as much? And the Long Parliament was forced, and most of them cast out before the King could be destroyed: And when they were restored, it made way for his Restoration. And Sir Thomas Allen, Lord Mayor, and the City of Londons inviting General Monk from the Rump into the City, and joyning with him, was the very Day that turned the Scales for the King. But all these are Matters fitter for your better Consideration than our Debate. I rest
Your Servant Rich. Baxter. Iuly 26. 1678. To Mr. Long of Exeter.