Sacrilegious Desertion of the Holy Ministry Rebuked, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Of the inconvenience from our Brethrens ſence of Toleration.
Sect. 1. HIs next Section, pag. 21, &c. is as meer deluſion as any of the reſt.
Firſt, he argueth from the Presbyterians being always againſt a Toleration. Reader, all ſober Divines that ever I met with, uſe here to diſtinguiſh between Tolerable and Intolerable things and perſons, and to conclude that the Tolerable muſt be Tolerated, and the other not, though they all agree not how much is Tolerable. Now what doth this man but talk confuſedly, as if they had been againſt all Toleration. Look up man without bluſhing, and tell the World, Whether ever the Presbyterians maintained it a ſin to Tolerate Presbyterians. Alas, for thoſe poor people, that cannot try ſence from nonſence! with what ſtuff will ſuch men carry them away? If you talk of the Toleration of any that are Intolerable, what have we to do with it any more than you?
Sect. 2. Any more than you, did I ſay? Sir, vilifie not the wits of thoſe Clergy men that chiefly contributed to our—ſo as to imagine that they did not know what they did, and foreſee this day. Honour their underſtandings more, than to take them for ſo ignorant, (eſpecially being lowdly foretold it,) as not to foreknow,
1. What number and ſort of men would be laid by.
2. How the people would judge of them and their Cauſe.
3. How both they and the people would go through their ſufferings.
4. How wiſe, ſenſible, and merciful His Majeſty would be, when he ſaw all this ſtir, and diſſatisfaction of his people.
5. And that the preaching of ſilenced Miniſters in private, would encourage all other Sects.
6. And when ever the door was opened for their Liberty, all others would endeavour to thruſt in with them. Who then I pray you hath done more for Toleration, you or we?
Sect. 3. But his next hath no bounds, and grieveth me to read it (O poſterity, how will you know what to believe?) viz. p. 22. [Have not you lately refuſed the comprehenſion, and denied ſo great an advantage to your ſelves, becauſe you could not have it without a general Toleration.]
Anſw. No, Sir, we have not; nor ſhould you have by a queſtion vented ſuch a falſhood. Name the men that offered us a comprehenſion, and the men that refuſed it? If you tell us that you, or ſuch another offered it to one of your neighbours, you may poſſibly make your words ridiculouſly true: But if you mean that either the King or Parliament offered it, tell us when, and and who were the refuſers. If you mean any Parliament Speeches, it is not fit for us to talk about them. But you will not I ſuppoſe preſume to ſay that the Parliament ever offered either Toleration or acceptable comprehenſion (that is, to take in Nonconformiſts;) much leſs both.
There was a Rumor of one Mans Speech, called a Presbyterian, as if it had ſounded like a refuſal of ſome abatement, but if you will talk with him as I have done, he will ſoon ſhew you the falſhood of that Rumor.
If you could have proved that any ſecret perſon ever refuſed ſuch an offer, can you thence ſay to the Presbyterians that they refuſed it?
If you mean an offer that by a great Miniſter of State was made, be better informed of it your ſelf.
1. That it was not refuſed, but very thankfully accepted.
2. That for the Toleration of other men, beſides themſelves, thoſe two or three that meddled in it, anſwered.
1. That it was their deſire that all Tolerable Diſſenters might be tolerated.
2. That it was His Majeſties work and not theirs.
3. That therefore thoſe that were to be Tolerated, were accordingly to be ſpoken to of the Terms, for we were capable of treating of the Caſe and Terms of none but our ſelves. And after this the endeavour for our Comprehenſion went on to our content, till the Parliament ſate, and preſently ſhut the door againſt it.
I know of no other offer but this, which thoſe few that dealt in it well know was far from being refuſed; ſo that a greater ſlander could ſcarce have been laid on men that have ſtil ſo greatly deſired A COMPREHENSION OF ALL SOBER PROTESTANTS IN THE PUBLICK MINISTRY, and A TOLERATION ALSO OF ALL TOLERABLE DISSENTERS, under Laws of peace and ſafety: This was ſtill the thing which we begged for in vain: But who ſhould be accounted Tolerable, we were never called to give our publick Opinion or Adviſe, that I know of. Repent of ſuch Calumnies, and ſtudy not to aggravate your Fault by Excuſes.
Indeed, if the offer had been made to them of a Comprehenſion on condition they themſelves would have APPROVED of an Vniverſal Toleration of all thoſe whom they account Intolerable. I doubt not but they would have ſaid, We thankfully accept Comprehenſion, but cannot approve of ſuch a Toleration, but leave your own work… to your own wiſdom; we cannot go againſt our Conſciences for any Liberty: But other mens actions, are not ours.
Sect. 4. And he addeth old ſpeeches againſt Toleration, Univerſal intolerable Toleration: Wherein we lament his want of common ſenſe or modeſty.
1. If he would inſinuate that we are for an Vniverſal Toleration, becauſe we preach when we have liberty and opportunity, What dealing is to be expected from ſuch men? When he confeſſeth that we have been ſtill againſt ſuch a toleration? When we have almoſt twelve years ago, cryed out, even to unmannerlineſs, that if poſſibly we might have been heard, to the Reverend Prelates, Cast not out ſo many in the neceſſities of the people? O drive not godly people from your Communion for nothing! If you can prove Croſſing, and your Sacrament-kneeling lawful, with Subſcriptions, Canonical-ſwearing to you, &c. yet all that think otherwiſe ſhould not be excommunicated, or forbidden to preach Chriſts Goſpel: We have Fornicators, and Drunkards, &c. enough to excommunicate: O drive not upright conſcionable Christians from your Churches! Force not Ministers to private preaching and ſufferings, which will certainly occaſion Sects, and open a door to you know what. And when we can no whit prevail, if theſe very men themſelves ſhall ſay, that it is we that are for Univerſal Toleration, with what Forehead—
What man that hath not lived in a dream theſe 12 years, hath made any doubt but that it hath been the interest and deſire of Infidels, Papiſts and Quakers, that our ejections and preſſures might be as great as might be, that ſo the Proteſtants might be weakned & broken by their own Diviſions, and the chief oppoſers of theſe men be either conſumed, or forced by miſery to petition for Toleration, or at leaſt that it might be granted as for our ſakes, and we might be ſaid to open to them the door, that they that confeſs we have been most againſt it, might be able (but quâ fronte) to ſay that it was our doing and not theirs. But when mens wits have thus play'd the game to the utmoſt, they are but abuſing themſelves: For they muſt dye, I tell you, they muſt dye, & be judged by that God that hateth Malignity, Cruelty, and Hypocriſie, and will detect all frauds before the World; when all that is now admired by the dreaming World, ſhall be levelled, obſcured, and appear contemptible, even to them that ſold their Souls to obtain it.
Sect. 5. Once more Reader, peruſe all the Citations of this Author, out of Mr. Edwards, Mr. Trap (a Conformiſt, yet numbred with us) or the Jus Divinum Presbyterii (ſaid to be written by Dr. Roberts, a Conformiſt;) only read them not with this Authors Spectacles or Eyes, and then tell me like a man of truth, whether thou doſt believe that their meaning was, [An Univerſal Toleration is unlawful: Ergo, Presbytery muſt not be Tolerated, if any others get the power] or whether ever the Nonconformiſts ſaid, [We are not to be Tolerated] or, Whether the Epiſcopal men told Cromwel in his Uſurpation, [It is unlawful to tolerate us?] It is ſtrange that any party who think themſelves only or chiefly fit for Legal poſſeſſion, ſhould yet think themſelves intolerable.
But if he talk of the Tolerating of others, that are indeed intolerable, let him talk to them that have to do with it; and let him firſt talk his friends into the tears of true Repentance (if they be not paſt learning) even from the greateſt EXPERIENCE it ſelf.
Sect. 6. But the man will ſeriouſly prove what he ſaith, p. 25. [Can you more ſignally own, recognize, or more expreſly give your unfeigned aſſent and conſent unto, and approbation of both Toleration and Schiſm, than not only deſ…ring to eſcape the penalty of the Laws, and to live quietly in a ſtate of ſeparation by vertue of it, but alſo by taking the utmoſt advantage of it, for the erecting diſtinct and ſeparate Congregations to your ſelves.]
Anſ. 1. If he mean that we approve of the Toleration of our ſelves, & all the Tolerable; ſure we never did deny it: Let the enemy of mankind glory in the contrary, as his proper vertue. But if he mean (as he plainly ſeemeth) that we approve of the Univerſality of Toleration; Come, weigh his proof.
1. By deſiring to eſcape the penalty of the Laws.
Anſw. Now you ſpeak ſenſe, we feel your meaning. It is a crime worthy the name of Schiſm, to deſire to be unpuniſhed, when you deſire our puniſhment: We do not toto pectore telum recipere: What if you were for hanging and burning us? were it Tolerationiſm & Schiſm to be unwilling to be hang'd or burnt? While we have ſuch Ithacian Maſters in our own Coats, blame us not to deſire Toleration, and to thank the King for ſaving us from our Brethren.
The penalty of poverty, and loſing all Miniſterial maintenance, we never eſcaped ſince you ſucceeded us: Yet God that bids us ask for our daily bread, would not have charged our deſiring it, on us as our ſin, if the Law had forbit it us. Poor Joſeph Alleine and many another are gone, and did not eſcape the penalty: I never heard that Bradford or Hooper, or Latimer were accuſed for deſiring to eſcape penalty. Was it Joſephs ſin that the Iſhmaelites and Egyptians were more merciful to him than his Brethren?
But, Brother, what good will our ſufferings do you? What harm wil it do you if we eſcape? Do you feel your ſelf ever the more at liberty when we are in the Common-Jayls? Are you the fuller, becauſe ſome Nonconformiſts wants Bread? We have been heinouſly accuſed by others, for coming within five miles of any City, Corporation, and place where we lately preached (when Chriſt ſaid, If they perſecute you in one City, flee to another:) As if it were lawful to deſert all the Souls in Cities and Corporations, or to take you alone for ſufficient, where the very number of Souls proves you leaſt ſufficient. But would you be at more hearts-eaſe, to think that none of us are within five miles of you, nor teach any of the people the Goſpel of Chriſt? You have with leſs noiſe endured Infidels and Papiſts enough within five miles of you? Alas, when the Stone is ſet on rolling down the Hill, where will it ſtop?
Sect. 7. But this is ſpoken conjunctively with what followeth: And what's that?
2. [To live quietly in a ſtate of ſeparation—] that is, Not to be your ſubject hearers: But,
1. Have not many of us, ſome conſtantly, ſome at times, ſat at your feet as your Diſciples.
2. If Miniſters be judged by you unworthy to preach the Goſpel, have they not reaſon to think you judge them unworthy to receive the Sacrament?
3. Are you Separatiſts for not hearing them? If not, why are they ſuch for not hearing you? But of this before.
Sect. 8. But the utmoſt is [Erecting ſeparate Congregations to your ſelves.]
Anſw. 1. You mean, it is ſin in us to exerciſe the Miniſtry which we are vowed to, and not to be Sacrilegious and cruel to Souls: For can we Preach without Auditors? And can thoſe Auditors be no Congregation? And can that Congregation be out of your hearing, and not be locally ſeparate, as every Pariſh-Church and Chappel is? Muſt two Congregations be one, or elſe be Separatiſts?
I know two Churches ſo near that the people may hear each other, and yet they are two, and therefore one is ſeparate: And I pray, which of them is it? It may be all in England ſave Canterbury, or rather Glastenbury, are Separatiſts, for ſeparating from the firſt Church: As if Pythagoras juſtly curſed the number of two, becauſe it was the firſt that durſt depart from unity; and all Churches in the World were Separatiſts except Jeruſalem.
I pray you Sir, tell me, What if a Tolerated Presbyterian ſhould read the Common-prayer in his Church, and uſe all your Ceremonies (though he fear Perjury, and Lying, and Violating his Baptiſmal Vow): were this a Schiſmatick or not? If yea; Then ſo is every neighbour Pariſh-Miniſter, or Chappel Curat. If not; than it is not a diſtinct Congregation that maketh Separatiſts. And then what if he do not uſe the Liturgie; doth that make a Separatiſt? Were you all Separatiſts that uſed it not fifteen years ago?
I ſhall next expect to hear that he is a Separatiſt that readeth in his own Common-Prayer-Book, and not in yours.
But I doubt the Separation is in this, that the Tolerated Miniſter will not be your Curat, and ruled by you: But remember that ſome are Presbyterians, and therefore for Parity of Miniſters; and I and many others are ſo much for Epiſcopacy, as that we would not have Prelatical Juriſdiction given to thoſe Pariſh Prieſts, who themſelves are againſt Presbyters, and for Prelacy.