The True History of Councils, Part 3 · Chapter 24
CHAP. XXIV. His 7th Chapter conſidered.
§ 1. THE Man had not the courage to defend the ſurgent Prelacy in its Manhood and Maturity, but only in its Infant and Juvenile State; nor to defend the many hundred Councils which I mentioned after the Council of Calcedon, in which either his Modeſty or Cautelouſneſs comes ſhort of his Rd. Fathers, who ſome of them own the ſix firſt General Councils, and ſome of them eight, and ſome would unite with the Church of Rome, if they will abate but the laſt 400 Years additions.
§ 2. In his Gleanings in this 7th Chap. he over, and over, and over perſuadeth his Reader, that I make or affirm that [the Bps. were the cauſe of all the Hereſies in the world, and of all the Hereſies, Schiſms, and Evils that have afflicted the Church. And hath this Hiſtorian any proof of this? Or is it the melancholy fiction of his Brain? Yes, this is his proof contrary to my manifold Inſtances, becauſe I ſay in one age, [We have a ſtrange thing, a Hereſie raiſed by one that was no Biſhop: which I have anſwered before. To be then ſtrange, and never to be at all; are not words of the ſame ſenſe? But his Anſwers throughout do mind me of Seneca's Words, that a man that is ſore complains (or cries Oh) when he doth but think you touch him.
§ 3. He thus himſelf accuſeth the Biſhops, p. 276 [There have been wicked men and wicked Biſhops in all times.] And p. 277. [That ſome Biſhops have abuſed their Authority and Office, and been the cauſe of Hereſie and Schiſm cannot be denied.] But yet [He hath ſhewed ſufficiently, that moſt of my particular Accuſations are void of all truth and Ingenuity.] Anſ. Or elſe thoſe words are ſo.
§ 4. He ſaith All Eccleſiaſtical Writers agree, that Simon Magus was Author of the firſt Hereſie in Chriſtian Religion.] Anſ. All confeſs that Judas was before him: And if it be a Hereſie to buy the Spirit for Money, it is a Hereſie to ſell Chriſt for Money. But I confeſs ſome tell us of his after pranks at Rome, and imitating Icarus, at Peters Prayers: If you would ſee why Dr. More takes this for a toyiſh Legend, ſee his Myſtery of Iniquity, Lib. 2. C. 19. § 6, 7. p. 447, 448.
§ 5. P. 286, 287. Baronius firſt, and Philaſtrius after, are made guilty of Forgery and diſregardable Hiſtory, ſo that I may well bear ſome of his Cenſures.
§ 6. P. 290. To confute me effectually he ſaith much what the ſame which is much of the ſum of all my Book: And yet it's falſe and malicious in me, and true and charitable in him: viz. [Praiſing the firſt 300 years, (when the Biſhops were ſuch as we offer to ſubmit to:) he adds [The following Ages were not ſo happy; but as Chriſtians generally degenerated ſo did the Biſhops too.]
Anſ. What! Before the Council of Nice! That's a ſad Confeſſion. I was ready to ſay as a Roman Emperour ſaid to a flatterer, that ſtill ſaid all that he ſaid, [Dic aliud aliquid ut duo ſimus,] But his next words allay it, [But yet not ſo much as our Author would make it appear.] As the Dominicans and Oratorians muſt ſay ſome falſhood of Calvine, leſt they be thought Calviniſts.
And yet he addeth, [The beginning of the 4th Century was very unhappy to the Church, for Perſecution without, and Hereſie and Schiſm within. Meletius an Egyytian began a Schiſm, forſook the Communion of the Church, &c. Next the Donatiſts, Arians, &c.]
Anſ. It ſeems that the Emperours Conſtantius and Valens were without the Church, and yet the Arian Prieſts and Biſhops were within it. When he defineth the Church we may underſtand this. But is it not this 4th Century that is made the Churches more flouriſhing ſtate by others?
§ 7. Even the great Hiſtorian of Hereſies, Epiphanius, is ſaid p. 292. to be [unaccountably miſtaken in ſeveral things relating to that Hiſtory.] And 293. hath [a ſtrange unaccountable miſtake in diverſe other things relating to that matter.] If I had at any time erred with ſuch a Biſhop and Father, I might have been excuſable for reciting his Hiſtory.
§ 8. Pag. 295. He opens the very Heart of his Parties Principles, and ſaith, [The Church is never diſtracted more by any thing than Projects of Moderation.]
Anſ. Experience proveth that you ſpeak your Heart. The words are no wilful Lye which agree with a mans Mind, be they never ſo falſe as diſagreeable to the matter. No man was more of that Opinion than Hildebrand, that would not yield the Emperours the Inveſtiture, nor as I before ſaid, abate the Prince of Calaris the ſhaving of his Biſhops Beard to ſave his Kingdom. Victor began with that Opinion too ſoon, but his Succeſſors have theſe Thouſand Years been as much for it as you can wiſh.
2. But to whom is it that you intend this? Sure not to all: Was Biſhop Laud of that mind toward the Papiſts if Dr. Heylin ſay true? Was Grotius of that mind toward them? Was Arch-Biſhop Bromhall, Forbes, Beziar, Thorndike (and many more ſuch) of that mind? No: I'le excuſe you, that you meant not them and their Projects of Moderation: Nor I believe neither Caſſander's, Eraſmus's, Wicelius's, Sancta Clara's, Leander's, &c.
But towards ſuch as I am, you have been as firm to that Principle as any one of our Enemies could wiſh. In 1660, 1661. it was moſt effectually improved; and you have attained much of the fruits then foretold: and ever ſince have been unmoveably and prevailingly true to it.
3. But this maketh ſome men the Diſtracters of the Church, if not the greateſt, which truly I have better thoughts of: Such as Junius, Paraeus, Amyraldus, Le Blanke, Davenant, Ward, Uſher, Holdſworth, Morton, Hall, &c. And lately when we were preparing for the Kings Return, Bp. Brownrig, and after his death Dr. Gawden, Dr. Gulſton, Dr. Allen, Dr. Bernard, and diverſe ſuch did offer themſelves to a Treaty for Moderation: And ſince then Dr. Wilkins, Dr. Burton, Dr. Tillotſon, and in diebus illis Dr. Stilling fleet have been guilty of this crime, of diſtracting the Church by projects of Moderation: But I can name the Bps. that were not guilty of it.
To abate or forſake the neceſſary points of Faith and Practice on pretence of Moderation, is to deſtroy Chriſtianity on pretence of Humanity or Peace. But to make Laws that men ſhall preach with Horns on their Heads, to ſignifie the Victory of Truth, and to ruine all that will not keep theſe Laws (much more if men ſhould command worſe) and to ſay a Project for Moderation would diſtract the Church, would be as far from Wiſdom as it is from Moderation: And ſome Prelates have done as bad as this.
§ 9. He confeſſeth p. 296. that by force and Fraud [the whole World in a manner was turned Arian.] And did I ever ſay worſe of the Biſhops than this?
§ 10. He maketh Aerius to ſpeak againſt Biſhops becauſe he could not be a Biſhop, ſo that he was of a Prelatical Judgment and Spirit, and calleth him [The Cartwright of the times,] by which if he mean that Cartwright would have been a Biſhop, it doth but tell us that he deſerveth little belief in his Hiſtory.
§ 11. He is a moſt ſingular Hiſtorian, p. 303. in telling us, that after the Monothelites in following Ages of the Church the Devil ſtarted up but few Hereſies till theſe Ages,—Swenk feldians, Anabaptiſts, &c.
By this I perceive he believeth neither Papiſts nor Proteſtants: For the Papiſts name many Hereſies ſince, and the Proteſtants ſay that Popery is but a Compoſition of many Hereſies, and name us many that concur'd thereto.
§ 12. He there giveth me this ſerious Admonition, [It is a much greater wonder that any man that makes Conſcience of what he ſaith, ſhould againſt all truth of Hiſtory, and againſt his own knowledge, charge the Biſhops with all the Hereſies in the World: that a perſon that ſeems ſo ſenſible of approaching Judgment, as frequently to put himſelf in mind of it—ſhould yet advance ſo malicious and groundleſs an Accuſation. There is no dallying with the allſeeing God—What Plea ſhall be made for whole Books full of Calumny and Detraction, &c.]
Anſ. This is not the leaſt acceptable paſſage to me in his Book; I love the man the better for ſeeming ſerious in the belief of Judgment; and I hope his Warning ſhall make me ſearch my Heart with ſome more jealouſie and care. He ſeems here to believe himſelf; but being my ſelf far more concerned than he is to know how far I am guilty of what I am accuſed, as far as I can know my Heart and Writings, I'le tell the Reader what to judge of his words and me.
1. That I charge the Biſhops with all the Hereſies in the World, never was in my mind, nor can I find it in any of my Writings: Yet this he very oft repeateth: And ſhould a man ſo often write a falſhood about a thing viſible, and never cite the place where I ſay it, and this while he is thus ſeriouſly mentioning Calumny and Judgment.
2. Can he make men believe at once that I do perſuade men that Biſhops or Dioceſanes came not up till about 150 years after Chriſt, and yet that I make them the Authors of the Hereſies that were in thoſe times? Non entis non eſt actio: Could Biſhops be Hereticks when there were no Biſhops?
3. If I had charged the Biſhops with all the Hereſies, it followeth not that I had charged no one elſe with them, and made the Biſhops the ſole Authors, and acquit People, Prieſts, and Princes; why then doth he name many Monks and Prieſts that were Hereticks? Or Emperours that promoted them, as if this croſſed what I ſay? Did he think that I excluded the Army if I blame the General, or the Prelatical Prieſts when I blame the Prelates? If I took the Biſhops of England to be the chief cauſe of our Church-Schiſms, and Calamities, doth it follow that I acquit ſuch as you, and all the Clergy like you?
4. That I have done this [againſt all Truth of Hiſtory] which I tranſcribed out of the Councils and Hiſtorians moſt partial for the higheſt Prelacie, is either a great untruth, and unproved by him, or I know not what I read or write.
5. That I do this againſt my own Knowledge I am certain is an untruth.
6. That my Accuſations are malicious I am certain is untruth, as being able to ſay that I ſpeak in pitty to the Church, and to ſave Souls from deceit, and malice no man; but pray with the Liturgy, that God will forgive our Enemies, Perſecutors, and Slanderers, and turn their Hearts.
7. That I have brought any Groundleſs Accuſation I muſt take for an untruth, till my Grounds produced are better confuted.
8. Much more that I write whole Books full of Calumny and Detraction.
All theſe and more untruths being heapt up with the mention of Death and Judgment, tells us whither Faction and Prepoſſeſſion may carry men.
2. But what is the truth I ſhall again briefly tell the Reader: 1. About 2000 of ſuch Miniſters as I confidently take for the moſt ſpiritual, and conſcionable and devoted to God and the good of Souls are ſilenced, and in Law impriſoned and ruined; and all the People of their mind are ipſo facto (if they confeſs it) excommunicated, beſides their other penalties. I accuſe not the Law but mention only the matter of Fact, which the K. once commiſſioned Bps. to have prevented.
2. The Kingdom is dolefully divided, and alas, the ſad conſequents are not to be named.
3. Beſides all our Penalties the Biſhops accuſe us as the cauſes of all, and as wilful Schiſmaticks, and call for the Execution of the Laws againſt us.
4. We ſay, we dare not do that, which when ever they will give us leave, we are ready to give our reaſons why we take it for heinous ſin againſt God, and tending to the ruine of the Church: nor dare we forſake our Miniſtry while the Churches neceſſities are to us paſt doubt.
5. We beg of them but to abate us ſome needleſs Oaths, and Covenants, and Profeſſions, and a few things called indifferent by the Impoſers, that we may all live in Chriſtian Love and Peace, and we offer them as unqueſtionable ſecurity for our Peaceableneſs, Loyalty, and Orthodoxneſs, as the ſaid Oaths, Promiſes, or Profeſſions can be.
6. They tell us, Nothing is to be abated us, and we muſt ceaſe preaching, the Rule muſt not be altered; we will do more harm in the Church than out; Projects for Moderation moſt diſtract the Church; There is no Concord or Liberty to be expected, but by our total obedience to the Biſhops; It is obeying the Church, yea the Univerſal Church of Biſhops, that is the only way to Concord.
7. To confute this Suppoſition, which is the root of our Calamities, I tranſcribe out of Hiſtory and the Acts of Councils, how great a hand in the Schiſms, and Hereſies, and Confuſions of Chriſtians, thoſe Biſhops have had, who have ſwelled up above the primitive ſpecies, by vaſt Dioceſſes, Wealth, and claim of Government over other Churches and Biſhops; and that it is notorious that this Grandeur and exorbitant power of Biſhops, ſingly or in Councils, hath been ſo far from keeping the Church from Schiſms, that it hath been one of the greateſt cauſes of the Schiſms of moſt Ages, ſince ſuch a ſort of Prelacy ſprung up, and that Popery came not up in a day, but roſe from that Juniority to its preſent Maturity. This was my work.
§ 13. He truly tells you, that the Original of all miſchiefs is the Luſts that war in our Members, and not this or that Order of Men.]
When the World had a good Pope, if God would bleſs that Order of men, ſome think he might do more good than any other man. But he hath toucht the Core of the Churches Malady. Verily, the grand Strife is between the Fleſh and Spirit, the ſeed of the Serpent and of the Woman: And if Patriarchs and Dioceſans were but as much ſet on the promoting of a holy and heavenly Life, as thoſe Miniſters are whom they ſilence and impriſon, they might do much good, though the largeneſs of their Dioceſs render them uncapable of performing the 40th part of a true Biſhops Work. No doubt but Biſhop Hall, and Potter, and Uſher, &c. did much good, by ſuch preaching, writing, and good living, as others uſe that are no Biſhops.
But will fire burn without fewel? And will it not burn if combuſtible fewel be contiguous? Do not the Luſts that war in our Members live upon that food which we are forbidden to provide? Do you think that the Luſt of the Fleſh doth not more deſire Riches than Poverty, Honour than a low Eſtate, Domination over others, to have our Will on all, than humble Subjection? Where the Carkaſs is there will the Eagles be gathered. Do not you your ſelf ſay, that the Biſhops and Church grew more corrupt after the third Century? Do you believe that when a Biſhops Power was made equal to a great Lords, or more, and all his Pomp and Riches anſwerable, that the Luſt of the Fleſh would not more greedily deſire it, than it would deſire a meer mediocrity? Or that a worldly proud man would not ſeek more for Lordſhip and Greatneſs, than a Syneſius, and ſuch others as you ſay fled from it? If the poor retired Monks were as bad as you make them, what wonder if great Lordly Biſhops were much worſe? Will not the fire of Luſt grow greater as the fewel is greater?
I am ſatisfied that Riches and Power well uſed, may greatly ſerve the Intereſt of Religion: But two things muſt be conſidered.
1. That the greateſt Power and Wealth being far more deſired by carnal Worldlings, (that is, by bad men) than by mortified heavenly minded men, the more men deſire them, the more eagerly they will ſeek them by Friends, Flattery, or any means: and therefore the liker they are to attain them, except when the chooſers are ſome reſolved godly men. And ſo which way can a Succeſſion of the worſt men be avoided? But a mediocrity that doth not to the Fleſh overweigh the labours and difficulties of the ſacred Office, will encourage the good, and not much tempt the bad: Or if good men will be never ſo bountiful to pious uſes, their bounty and Church-Lands may better maintain Labourers enough for the work, than be made a ſnare to one.
2. And that Power which depopulateth and deſtroys its end, is unlawful in its very ſtate, as well as in its uſe. The Power of one man to be ſole Phyſician to the City, and to have none but Apothecaries under him; or of one man to be the only School-Maſter in the County, and have none but Uſhers under him, is rather to be called Deſtruction than Power. It is Biſhops caſting out Power that I am againſt, that is, the neceſſary Power of the Keys in the Pariſh Miniſters, or putting down neceſſary Biſhops; and alſo a Power to ſilence Chriſts faithful Miniſters, and deprive Souls of the neceſſary means, by impoſing things needleſs in themſelves, and ſinful in the receiver, that after his beſt ſearch believes them ſuch.
Seeing then that we are agreed, that it is the Luſt that warreth in men, that is the corrupter of the Church, let but the face of the whole Romane Clergy theſe 1000 Years at leaſt tell us, whether it be not the ſwelling of the Power and Wealth of Biſhops, that hath cauſed ſo long a Succeſſion of a worldly, luſtful, tyranical Clergy.
§ 14. And he truly ſaith, [p. 306. that the generality of men when they have gained Wealth and Honour, are commonly willing to ſecure the enjoyment of thoſe Poſſeſſions, by letting things run in their ordinary courſe.
(The Spaniſh Proverb is, The World is a Carryon, and they are Dogs that love it, and they will ſnarle at any that would take it from them, and if it lie in the Ditch, Dogs rather than Men will gather about it: and its pitty ſuch men ſhould by ſuch a Bait be tempted into the ſacred Chair.) And he truly adds, that Repulſe and Diſappointment will end ſuch mens Patience. For really as the man is, ſuch are his deſires: It is not only turgent Prelacy but a Prelatical Spirit that troublerh the Church: And If Novatianus or Arius would fain be a Prelate, it is in his heart; and no wonder if he be a Schiſmatick; Trahit ſua quemque voluptas. Appetite is the Spring of Action. All the Popes Clergy are much of his mind; for they participate of his worldly Intereſt, and depend on him, and therefore participate of the Papal Spirit. The Intereſt of the General and Army are conjunct.
§ 15. And its true that he ſaith, that the Biſhops Intereſt obligeth him to maintain Peace and Unity. And ſo no doubt from that ſenſe of Intereſt it is endeavoured, in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, &c. when a ſtrong man armed keeps his houſe, the things which he poſſeſſeth are in Peace. But whether therefore the People did ill that forſook the Biſhops and followed Luther, or are all bound to cleave to the Biſhops Unity, is the doubt.
§ 16. Whether it be true, p. 310 that very few if any one were Biſhops when they turned Hereticks, I have enquired in the Preface; though if they aſcended from Hereſie to Prelacy it's all one to me. But by this I conjecture that he taketh fewer for Hereticks than others do, and that he pretends acquaintance with their minds, in that antecedent part of their Lives which no Hiſtory mentioneth. I confeſs I think that for the moſt part men are Papiſts before they are Popes or Papiſt Biſhops: And yet I think that it is firſt the deſire of Papal and Prelatical Grandeur, and next the Exerciſe of it, which is the cauſe of Schiſm and Perſecution.
§ 17. I verily believe as he doth, that Platonick Philoſophy, and a willingneſs to win the Heathens by compliance, had a great hand in corrupting many Doctrines; and not only Monks but others of the moſt religious Chriſtians, had a great hand in many of the ancient Superſtitions, eſpecially thoſe that tended to the over-honouring of their Martyrs, and too much advancement of their Biſhops, when they came newly from under the Perſecution of the Heathens. But it came not to be univerſal, nor the Engine of great Corruption and cruelty, till the Biſhops turned all into a Law. Who could make any of all this neceſſary, but Pope, Prelates, or Princes, who pretended a Legiſlative Power hereto? Even Luther and Melancthon were indifferent to diverſe Ceremonies, ſo they were made to be indifferently uſed. But when they are made neceſſary by a Law (ſpecially more neceſſary to a Miniſter than his Miniſtry, and to a private Chriſtian, than his Church Communion, who doth more vehemently condemn them than they?
§ 18. That Paſchaſius Radbertus was the firſt that broached the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, is a doubtful expreſſion. Either he meaneth the Name or only the Thing under another Name. If the latter, he will do more than Edm. Albertinus, or Bp. Conſius have done, if he prove it: If it be the name that he meaneth, I think (by my Memory, for I will not for that go read him all over) that he will not find the name in Radbertus, nor any where before Stephanus Eduenſis, about 130 years after him: and that all that he can truly ſay, is but as Bellarmine doth, [Hic Author primus ſuit qui ſeriò & copiosè ſcripſit de veritate Corporis & Sanguinis Domini in Euchariſtia contra Bertramum Preſbyterum.
§ 19. That the Biſhops charged by me with theſe Corruptions, were the only Oppoſers of them that we find in antiquity, as we may ſee in the Canons of Africk and Spain,] is a ſaying very near kin to much of his Hiſtory: I confeſs that ſo few Presbyters in compariſon of Biſhops were publick Actors, whoſe Judgments were notified to the World, that it's no wonder (after Conſtantine's time) if there be more proofs of their words and deeds than of other mens: But there are a great number of excellent men here ſlandered againſt the credit of all Church-Hiſtory, and their own Writings yet in our hands. Would it be worth the Readers Price and Labour, I could ſwell my Book with the proof that what he ſpeaketh is untrue. Did he think that I could not prove that Juſtin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatianus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origene, Arnobius, Lactantius, Macarius, Maternus Firmicus, Ephrem Syrus, Fauſtinus, Hierome, Ruffinus, Prudentius, Sulpitius Severus, Sedulius, Mammertus, Caſſianus, Vincent. Lirinenſis, Socrates, Sozomen, Iſodore Peluſiota, &c. did ſomething in oppoſition to ſome Church-Corruptions? Though ſome of them promoted ſome others: Yea, Antonie and abundance of Monks that furthered ſome, oppoſed others no leſs dangerous: Though many of them may be accuſed as Bellarmine doth Sulpit. Severus, for ſaying, Eccleſiam auro non ſtrui ſed deſtrui.
Judge of time paſt by what we ſee; Is it only the Biſhops that are againſt the Popes Church-Corrupting Uſurpation in Italy, Spain, France, &c. Is it only the Biſhops that are againſt the Maſs Corruptions, and againſt all their corrupt Doctrines of Indulgences, Purgatory, Images, &c. and againſt all their Ceremonies, and prophane abuſe of holy things? Was it only the Biſhops at Conſtance and Baſil, that were againſt ſuppreſſing the Bohemian and Moravian Reformation? In the end of Lydius upon Prateolus you may read a Letter ſubſcribed by ſo great a number of Lords and great men, for John Hus, and Hierome, and the Reformation, which yet prevailed not with the Biſhops, as will tell you who was then the greateſt Oppoſers of Church-Corruption. And I think Princes and Drs. oppoſed it more than Bps. in Luther's time. Is it only the Biſhops that have oppoſed warping towards Rome for Church-Unity? Have none but Biſhops been againſt corrupting the Churches, by ſilencing good Miniſters and ordaining bad ones? The things that are, have been. I confeſs our difference is great on the caſe, what is to be accounted Church-Corruption. For that which in one Country goeth for Corruption, in another (yea the ſame) goeth for Church-Glory, Strength, and Beauty; Our main difference is about what's good, and what's bad; what's Virtue, and what's Vice.
§ 20. He next comes to Sedition, and asketh [What Reign have they diſturbed here with their Sedition?] And becauſe he knoweth that I can refer him to the large Volume of their Treaſons written by Prin, and abroad to the many Volumes in Goldaſtus, and the many Hiſtories of the Wars of Popes and Councils againſt Emperours,] he prevents all my Proof with a downright Untruth, that [If a man be not blind he may ſee that my Hiſtory is only deſigned againſt Proteſtant Biſhops under a general name.
Anſ. Was it not enough ſo groſly to write this Untruth of me, but he muſt alſo reproach all the Readers as blind that will not judge falſly of what they read? Doth he know my meaning better than my ſelf? He knoweth that I plead for the Primitive Epiſcopacy, and that I profeſs to intend this Hiſtory moſt to diſcover the Riſe, Growth, and Maturity of the Popiſh deſtructive ſort of Prelacy. Readers, can you believe this man, that I wrote the caſe of the Biſhops before and under Popery, and of the Popes, and of above Five hundred Councils, and all theſe before the name of a Proteſtant Biſhop was known in the World, and as he ſaith, gathered their faults, and all this only againſt the Proteſtant Biſhops, and not againſt Popes or Prelates, or any of the Councils that I named?
Perhaps he would tempt me to refer him to the Hiſtory of Biſhop Laua's Trial, or to what Biſhop Abbot, George and Robert, Biſhop Hall and others ſaid againſt him: Or to tell him of A. Bp. Williams Arms for the Parliament. But theſe are not Subjects fit for our Debates.
§ 21. P. 318. When I ſay, that where Prelacy with the Papiſts is at the higheſt, Princes are at the loweſt. He asketh, Is it the Biſhop or the Papiſt that is here to blame? Is this the effect of their Order?
Anſ. 1. I thought the Pope of Rome and the Biſhop of Rome had been the ſame. 2. But this Corrector of Hiſtory taking Untruths not only▪ into the Completion, but the Stamina and Scope of his Book, among all the reſt ſuppoſeth me to ſpeak againſt a Biſhop as a Biſhop, when I have troubled him with my repeating ſo often that I am for Biſhops, and that it is not the Office but the tumor, and that tumor that maketh another ſpecies which I oppoſe. Doth he not think that the Popes Biſhoprick is faulty (yea, as a corrupt ſpecies?) And as it is more tumid than the Patriarchs, is not the Patriarchs more tumid than the Metropolitanes, and that than the Dioceſanes? And if Dr. Hammond were not deceived, who thought that there were no ſtated worſhipping Aſſemblies in Scripture times without a preſent Biſhop, is not the ſole Biſhop of a Thouſand or a Hundred ſuch Aſſemblies different from a Biſhop of One only? And if many Canons ſpeak truly, that ſay a Biſhop ſhould be in every City that hath a Church, and every great Town like our Corporations and Market Towns was called a City, doth not a Biſhop of one City, and a Biſhop of 50, or 40, or 10, differ ſo far, that a man may be againſt one without being againſt the other? Doth he ſpeak againſt Patriarchs that ſpeaks againſt the Pope? Or againſt Dioceſanes that ſpeaks againſt Patriarchs? Or againſt the Primitive Biſhops that ſpeaks only againſt ſuch Dioceſanes as put them all down, and all their Churches, and almoſt all true Diſcipline of ſuch Churches, like Eraſtians.
§ 22. P. 319. 322. His Charge on Socrates and Sozomene (ſhaking the credit of Church Hiſtory) as writing that [which no reaſonable man can believe as it is related by them, without loving a malicious Lye.] I ſpake to before: If ſuch Hiſtorians believed not what they write or loved a malicious Lye; alas, whom ſhall we believe? Is he better than they?
And his note that Valeſius judged Euſebius Nicomed no Heretick, I before noted.
But I will follow that caſe no further, leſt he ſhould draw me to ſeem to charge the ancient Biſhops with ſedition, whom I never intended ſo to charge; but only to deſire thoſe that can excuſe the Language e. g. of Gregory the great to Ph…cas, of Ambroſe to Eugenius, of the Biſhops to Maximus, and many ſuch like, not implacably to reproach and hunt thoſe that did no more or not ſo much.
§ 23. His full Stomach diſchargeth itſelf againſt me three times over with one charge, P. 314, 320, 352. [Oliver Cromwell and his Son, the David and Abſalom of Mr. B.] And [He compares the moſt barbarous villain in the World to King David, in his Epiſtle to his Son.
Anſ. Reader if there be no ſuch word in any of my Writings, after all theſe Accuſations of this man and many ſuch other, I muſt leave it to thy ſelf how thou wilt name theſe men, their Hiſtory, and their dealings; for if I name them they will ſay I rail.
Yea, what if this very man (it's eaſie to know why and whence) doth even here, p. 352. &c. reprint the very Epiſtle which he thus accuſeth, and cite no ſuch word, to tell us that he knew there was no ſuch word there, and yet thus affirmeth it, what will you call this?
The words cited by himſelf are theſe, [Many obſerve that you have been ſtrangly kept from participating in any of our late bloody Contentions, that God might make you a Healer of ourHad I ſaid what is this Week publiſhed, as one of their chief Dr's Elegy upon Oliver Cromwell, (with two others) what ſhould I have heard? What abundance of Conformiſts flattered Oliver, while I openly diſow…nd him as a Uſurper; but now their malice hath got the handle. Breaches, and employ you in that Temple Work, which David himſelf might not be honoured with, though it was in his mind, becauſe he had ſhed blood abundantly, and made great Wars. 1 Chr. 22. 7, 8.]
Is here ever a word of Oliver? Is he here called David? Did I not purpoſely ſay, [David himſelf] and cite the Text, leſt any ſhould feign the ſame that he doth? Any man may ſee that he hath nothing to ſay, but to accuſe my Thoughts, and ſuſpect that I had ſuch a meaning. And who made him acquainted with Thoughts that were never uttered? Or made him a Judge of them? If his and other mens thoughts may be thus by conjecture accuſed, no Enemy need to want matter of Accuſation.
It's like he will appeal to my Conſcience whether it were not my thought? And 1. By what authority will he ſo do? 2. But I will ſhrive my ſelf to him this once. It is ſo long ſince, that truly I remember not what was in my Thoughts, any further than my words expreſs: But I well remember my former Actions, and what was then my judgment of Oliver and his Actions, and I uſe not to ſpeak againſt my judgment. Many knew that he being acquainted the firſt day that I went into the Army, (which was after Naſeby Fight) that I was ſent by an Aſſembly of Divines, to try whether I could turn the Soldiers againſt his ſubverting Deſigns, (then firſt diſcovered to me,) he would never once ſpeak to me while I was in the Army; and that ever after I was driven away, I openly in Pulpit, Preſs and Conference diſowned, and warned men to diſown his Actions againſt King and Parliament, and his Uſurpation; and that I wrote againſt the Engagement: And therefore I do not think that ever I meant to call him David, and I am ſure I never did it. But they ſay old Men can ſee better afar off than near at hand; and ſo all theſe notorious Untruths about viſible preſent things, may yet conſiſt with ſuch mens credibility about things ſaid and done 1300 Years ago.
§ 24. And now I am here, I muſt not paſs by his friendly Admonition, p. 357. after his reciting my Epiſtles, [If I were as worthy to adviſe Mr. B. as he was to adviſe Cromwell, I would ſay, It were much more adviſeable for a Chriſtian, ſpecially for one that thinks he is ſo near his eternal State, to repent and cry peccavimas, than to ſtand on Juſtification of the fact, &c. ]
Anſ. 1. Is was uſual for men to chooſe their own Confeſſours: But it being the Cuſtom of the times for Paſtors and Confeſſors to be forced on Diſſenters, I will ſubmit now to your way, though my former Confeſſions and my Communion with you have been turned to Reproach and Scorn.
1. I do daily beg earneſtly of God, to let none of my ſins be unknown to me, and taken for no ſin, and be unrepented of; and that he would forgive that which I would fain know, and do not.
2. I do not repent of owning Oliver's Actions againſt King and Parliament, or his Uſurpation; for I never owned them, nor the Actions of them that ſet up his Son.
3. I do not repent that I loved the Peace of the Church, and that I deſired the Governour, though a Uſurper, ſhould do good and not evil.
4. I do not repent that ſeeing the Armies Rebellions and Confuſions, I ſtirred up Rulers and People to take heed of favouring ſo great Sin.
5. But I do now by experience of other ways perceive that I was ſometimes too eager in aggravating mens Errours, and repent that I uſed not more forbearance of ſome of my Accuſations of ſome of them.
6. I did think that Richard Cromwell was an Uſurper: But when we had been twelve Years at leaſt without a rightful Governour, I then thought as Thomas White, alias Blacklow, the moderate Papiſt, wrote, that the Land could not ſubſiſt in Society without ſome Government, and that No-Government is worſe to the People than a Uſurped one: And that it is ſomtime lawful to ſubmit and uſe an Uſurper, when it is not lawful to approve his Entrance. And wherein I was deceived I am willing to be better informed.
7. But I do unfeignedly repent that I wrote thoſe two Epiſtles, though it was to put a man on to do good, whom I never ſaw, …or … had the leaſt to do with.
8. And I do more repent of the cauſe of all, viz. that I appointed God a time, and limited his Providence; and thought that becauſe ſo many Armies and Endeavours had failed Twelve or Fourteen Years, that had attempted the reſtoring of the King, therefore there was no probability of accompliſhing it: I do not repent that I was not a Prophet, to know before what God would do; for it was not in my power; nor do I repent that I preached Chriſts Goſpel under Uſurpers; but I repent that I waited not Gods time, and did not better conſider that want of humane Power is no hinderance to Omnipotency, and nothing is difficult to him.
9. I was drawn too far by Mr. Harringtons Scorn, and the diſlike of Sir Henry Vane's Attempts for a Common-Wealth, to meddle with matters of Government, and to write my Political Aphoriſms, called, A Holy Common-Wealth: And I do unfeignedly repent that ever I wrote and publiſhed it, and had not more confined my ſelf to the matters proper to my Calling, and let thoſe meddle with forms of Government who were fitter for it.
All theſe, beſides what's formerly ſaid to Mr. Bagſhaw, I declare my unfeigned Repentance of. And though it pleaſeth you to feign me a Schiſmatick, and hater of Repentance, (for ſpeaking againſt the fault… that needed it) I ſhall thank you to be a real helper of me in ſo neceſſary a work as Repentance is.
And that I may do the like by you, I ſhall now only requite you with this Advice, that before you write next, you will ſet before your Eyes the Ninth Commandment, Thou ſhalt not bear falſe Witneſs againſt thy Neighbour: And that when you ſay your Prayers, you would be ſerious when you ſay, Lord have Mercy upon us, and encline our hearts to keep this Law.
§ 25. A Roman Zeal tells us, that Faction and Schiſm, when animated by worldly Intereſt, and grown up to a malignant hatred of the things and perſons that are averſe to it, is hardly bounded, but is thriving up towards deſtructive Perſecution, as ſwelling Prelacy did towards the Papacy and the Inquiſition. It is not one or two Fiſhes that will ſatisfie the ſtomach of a Pike: Nor is it the ſlandering or ruining of one or two men, or ſilencing of one or two of the Miniſters of Chriſt, that will ſatisfie a malignant Spirit. One Meal will not make a lean Man fat. Whether there be a Legion in thoſe that would deſtroy a Legion of Chriſts Servants, or one have ſo much Power I know not; but the effects tell us what manner of Spirit they are of. But let the Papiſts paſs.
§ 26. When I read p. 337, and 358, 359. and ſuch paſſages, it makes me think of them that cried, [His Blood be on us, and our Children,] together with our Judge's words, [In as much as you did it or did it not to one of the leaſt of theſe my Brethren, you did it or did it not to me.] P. 337. he ſaith, [There is great reaſon to value the peaceable Reſignation of the Nonconformiſts, when we conſider by what Uſurpation and Violence they were brought in, and what a number of worthy learned Miniſters were turned out to make vacancies for theſe men, who were to inſtruct the People in new Myſteries of Religion, which their old Paſtors had not the Conſcience or Ability to teach them, that is, of the lawfulneſs of Rebellion.—And p. 358, &c. There were many of thoſe Miniſters Uſurpers, and had intruded into the Churches of other men, who had been ſilenced and caſt out.—There were many others that were intruders into the Miniſtry, and ſuch not a few of them as Mr. B. himſelf would not have thought fit to have continued. All the reſt were ſuch as would not ſubmit to the Rule that was then eſtabliſhed in the Church, but choſe rather to leave their Livings, and the Biſhops could not help it, any otherwiſe than as they were Members of Parliament; for it was the Law that tied them to their choice, and not the Biſhops. If Mr. B. means what happened before the laſt Civil Wars, as it's likely he may, then theſe ancient Teachers were the inſtruments of an Antimonarchical, Antiepiſcopal Faction: They would preach but they would not conform to the Eſtabliſhed Religion: Nay many of them would preach againſt it, and againſt their Governours too. Theſe were ſuch Incend…ries as no Government would endure, &c. ]
Anſ. When you have noted this part of his Hiſtory, it will not be hard to judge of his credibility.
I. The things that he defendeth is the ſilencing and proſecuting of three ſorts of Miniſters. 1. Many Hundreds of Nonconformiſts in the days of Qu. Eliz. K. James, and ſome few in the time of K. Charles 1. 2. Many Conformiſts in the time of K. Charles 1. under Biſhop Laud. 3. About 2000 that conform not to the New Laws of Uniformity in the time of K. Ch. 2. What theſe Miniſters were or are, and what the fruits of their ſilencing have been, and what it hath done to the Church of England, and to many Thouſands of Godly Chriſtians, I will not be …udge: Nor will I diſpute that which all England ſees or feels. But it ſeems ſo well done to our Hiſtorian, as that he is willing deliberately to juſtifie or defend it, which as I underſtand is to make it his own, and to undertake to be one of thoſe that ſhall anſwer for it. What if another had done as much againſt him, as he hath done againſt himſelf? And for how ſmall a prize?
II. As he before would inſinuate, that what is ſaid of the great number of Drunkards, and ignorant men turned out, was falſe, though ſo judged upon the Oaths of men accounted the greateſt lovers of Religion in their Pariſhes; ſo he ſeemeth here to intimate that it was only or chiefly into the places of learned worthy men, that the ſilenced Miniſters ſucceeded; whereas it was not one of many that came into any ſuch mens places of them that were ſilenced at the fatal Bartholomew day.
III. He ſeemeth to intimate, that when the Parliament (ſuppoſe by wrong) put out either ſuch as he or I deſcribe, the Land muſt be under an Interdict till the Biſhops and King were reſtored, and that Chriſts Goſpel was no more to be preached in England, till Dioceſanes returned, but all Souls be given up to Damnation, unleſs Chriſt would ſave them without the preaching of his Goſpel, and the Land was to be left to the Devil and Paganiſm. And who can deny now but the Dioceſane Species is eſſential to the Church?
IV. When I ſpake only of the ſilencing and ejecting Act, of Aug. 24. 1662. he would make the Reader believe, that this Change was to reſtore the Churches to their ejected Paſtors, or caſt out Uſurpers; whereas unleſs Ignorance or worſe hinder him, he knoweth that all that were caſt out and were alive, laid claim to their Benefices, and were reſtored before that, and their Livings reſigned quietly to them, to ſay nothing of the reſt that were ſuppoſed to be at the Lord Chancellors diſpoſal. Thoſe that were put out that the ſequeſtred might re-enter, were none of them ſilenced, nor made uncapable of other Livings till Auguſt 24. 1662.
V. He would inſinuate that it was only the Nonconformiſts that were caſt out of ſuch ſequeſtrations: Whereas in the Countries that I either lived in or heard of, it was as many or more of the Conformiſts, that had ſequeſtred Livings and were caſt out, and took new preſentations.
VI. And this is evident by his Intimation, as if it were a very great number of the Church Livings that were ſo poſſeſt: Whereas of Nine Thouſand or Ten Thouſand Miniſters then in Poſſeſſion, Seven or Eight Thouſand Conformed: Therefore it's likely that the Conformiſts had moſt of the Sequeſtrations.
VII. He tells you that the Ejected Miniſters were brought in to inſtruct the People in the Lawfulneſs of Rebellion: Doth not this intimate that this was the caſe only or chiefly of the ſilenced Nonconformiſts? But I have oft cited Jewel defending the French Proteſtants; Was not he a Biſhop? I have oft cited Bilſon, affirming it no Rebellion if the Nobles and People defend their Legal Conſtitution againſt one that will—(I will not recite the reſt.)—I have oft cited Ri. Hooker whoſe popular Principles I have con…ured, and goeth higher againſt abſolute Monarchy, than I or any of my Correſpendency did in all the Wars. Heylin is for Conciliation with the Papiſts: He knoweth not their Writings who knoweth not that the Papiſts are more for popular Election, and Power towards Princes, far than ever ſuch as I were. And had he not put his Head and Eyes into a Bag, he could hardly have denied but that they were Epiſcopal Conformiſts on both ſides that began the War: But being got into the dark he loudly denieth it.
VIII. He ſaith, There were many others that himſelf would not have thought fit to have continued. Anſ. I thought I was more likely to know them than he. I remember not one ſuch of an hundred that did not conform. I confeſs that when the Prelatical party intreated me no longer to refuſe the Weſtminſter Commiſſioners Letters, deputing me with others to try and judge of ſome Epiſcopal Conformiſts that ſtood then for Livings, to avoid all ſeeming oppoſition to that way I did ſtretch as far as I durſt, to approve and keep in ſome Conformiſts, of very low parts who knew not a quarter ſo much as ſome Lay People did: But none of theſe were Nonconformiſts.
IX. He ſaith, [All the reſt were ſuch as would not ſubmit to the Rule then eſtabliſhed in the Church. This is true: And what was that Rule? Did Peter or Paul make it, or ſubmit to it? Did they refuſe any thing that God commanded in Nature or Scripture? Or any Circumſtantials neceſſary in genere left in ſpecie to the Magiſtrates determination? They were guilty of believing that God is above man, and that there is no Power but of God, and none againſt him; and that we muſt pleaſe him whoever be diſpleaſed. They were guilty of ſo much Self-love as to be unwilling to be damned for a Benefice, or for a Biſhops Will. They did not conſent to profeſs Aſſent and Conſent to all things contained in and preſcribed by three Books, written by ſuch as declare themſelves to be fallible; and ſuch as not one of Fourty ever ſaw before they declared the ſaid Aſſent and Conſent to them. They did not conſent to caſt out all Infants from Chriſtendom, whoſe Parents durſt not offer them to Baptiſm, under the Sacramental Symbol of the Croſs; nor unleſs they might have themſelves been Covenanters, Undertakers, or Promiſers for them, as well as the Godfathers: Or that ſcrupled getting Strangers to undertake that perfidiouſly for their Children which they never intended to perform. They durſt not read Excommunications againſt Chriſts true Servants, nor repel thoſe from Chriſtian Communion, who ſcruple kneeling in the reception of the Sacrament: They durſt not ſwear that many Thouſands whom they never knew are not obliged by the Covenant, when they know not in what ſence they took it: For they are not willing to believe that the compounding Lords and Knights did not put a good ſence on it before they took it. They durſt not ſay that all is ſo well in our Church Government by Dioceſanes, Lay-Chancellours Power of the Keys, Archdeacons, Officials, Commiſſaries, &c. that we may ſwear againſt all endeavours to amend it by any alteration; They do believe that the Law of Nature is Gods Law, and that as it alloweth a ſingle Perſon only private deſence, ſo it alloweth every Nation publick defence againſt Enemies notorious deſtroying aſſaults: And they dare not ſwear or covenant, that if any ſhould from the Lord Chancellour, &c. get a Commiſſion to ſeize on the Kings Navy, Treaſures, Forts, Guards, Perſon, and to ſeize on the Lives and Eſtates of all his Innocent Subjects, that it is unlawful to reſiſt any that execute ſuch a Commiſſion. They find it ſo hard a Controverſie, what God doth with the dying Infants of Atheiſts, Infidels, Mahometanes, and Perſecutors, that they dare not declare, that if any of their Children be baptized and die, it is certain by the word of God that they are undoubtedly ſaved. We ſay not that the Law binds us to any of the evil which we fear: But we dare not take Oaths and Promiſes which we underſtand not.
Abundance I pre…erm…t.
He is extreamly cenſorious if he think that Mr. R. Hooker▪ Bp. Bilſon, Bp. Grindal, A. Bp. Abbot, Bp. Rob. Abbot, Bp. Jewel, &c. would have been Conformiſts had they been now alive.
X. He ſaith, [They choſe rather to leave their Livings.] Anſ. They choſe not to conform, but ſubmitted only to leave their Livings; Eligere eſt agere. They were paſſive in this, they refuſed to conform as ſuppoſed by them a heinous Sin, but they choſe not to be ſilenced or caſt out; but they choſe to endure it when the Biſhops choſe it for them.
XI. He ſaith, that [the Biſhops could not help it any otherwiſe than as they were Members of Parliament.
Anſ. 1. I confeſs Scripture uſeth the like Phraſe, Can the Leopard change his Spots, &c. or they that are accuſtomed to do evil learn to do well? And Rom. 8. 6, 7. The carnal mind is enmity againſt God, for it is not ſubject to his Law, nor can be.] I will not here too much contradict him, 2. But is it nothing that they could have done in Parliament, had they been willing? 3. Is it unlawful for us to know if he know it not, or deny it, how much the Biſhops and Clergy did with the Parliament-Men? 4. He ſhould at leaſt have ſtayed till Dr. Bates, Dr. Jacomb, and I are dead, who wrote and diſputed with the Biſhops by the Kings Commiſſion, before he had talkt at this rate to the World. Did not the King make his Declaration about Eccleſiaſtical Affairs? And did he not under the broad Seal commiſſion thoſe Biſhops and Doctors to treat with us for the making ſuch alterations as were neceſſary to tender Conſciences? Did they not maintain that no alterations were thereto neceſſary, and ſo end the treaty. 5. Did they not in their next Convocation lay aſide the Kings Indulgent Declaration, and make the Additions to the Liturgy? And yet could they not help it? Nor was it none of their doings? 6. Doth not England know that Parliaments ſince have by experience perceived their Miſtake, and would have ſuſpended our Proſecution, and reſtored us to Unity, and the Biſhops and Clergy will not conſent but rage againſt it, and preach and write to have us executed according to the Laws, and no abatement to be made, and as this man, think that the Churches Diſtraction is from Projects of Moderation. What name ſhould one give to ſuch Hiſtories as theſe? The guilty cannot bear their names.
XII. He ſaith, [It was the Law that tied them to their choice and not the Biſhops.
Anſ. 1. Suppoſe the word choice were proper here, [Is it any juſtification of the Executioners?] It was the Emperour Charles the 5th's Edict that tied all the Proteſtant Miniſters to conform to the Interim, or be gone: It was the Law that tied the Martyrs in Qu. Maries days to profeſs what they believed not, or to be burnt. Alas! How could Bonner and Gardiner help it? 2. But how many Biſhops were againſt the paſſing of that Bill? And who perſuaded the Lay-Men to it? Muſt we not know when it's night if you deny it?
XIII. He tells you, that [the ancient ſilenced Teachers before the Civil Wars, were the Inſtruments of Antimonarchical and Antiepiſcopal Faction.
Anſ. 1. Which of them all ſaid ſo much as Mr. Hooker, Bp. Bilſon, Bp. Jewel, &c. have done? 2. If you make any Conſcience of the 9th Commandment, prove the Truth of what you ſay of thoſe that were ſuſpended and driven out of the Kingdom in the times of A. Bp. Laud, Bp. Wren, Bp. Piercy, &c. for not reading the Book for Lords-days Dancing and Sports, and that were proſecuted for Preaching twice on the Lords-day, and for not turning the Table Altar-wiſe, and railing it in, which even Bp. Montague as well as Williams was againſt. Was Biſhop Miles Smyth of Glouceſter, were A. Bp. Abbot or Grindall Antimonarchical or Antiepifcopal? 3. Prove if you are able any Antimonarchical Principles, Words, or Deeds by Mr. Hilderſham, Mr. Brinſley, Mr. Paul Baine, Mr. Dod, Mr. Knewſtubs, and hundreds of ſuch I might name. The moſt malicious are fain to talk of one Knox, or one Goodman, or one Junius Brutus, (that is, Hubertus Languetus Melancthous friend) or ſomewhat in Buchanan, not the tenth part ſo much as is commonly ſaid by the Papiſts, with whom our A. Bp. Bromhall and his Companions ſo much plead for Concord. 4. Doth not Al. Cope, and Sanders, and Pateſon in the Image of both Churches, and lately the nominal Bellamy in his Philanax Anglicus, and many more ſuch, ſay all the ſame of the Biſhops and Church of England, and all that they deride as [Proteſtants of Sincerity] as guilty of far more rebellious Principles and Practices, th…n ever you can prove by the meer Nonconformiſts old or new? And is it enough to accuſe?
XIV. He ſaith, They would preach but they would not conform to the eſtabliſhed Religion.
Anſ. 1. But why ſhould they be forbidden to preach (which was good and they were devoted to?) If a man will not do all that you would have him to do, ſhall he do nothing?
2. What was that which he calleth the Eſtabliſhed Religion? It was the Ceremonies and Subſcription, that there is nothing in the Liturgy contrary to the Word of God.] And was this a Crime worthy the forbidding men to preach the Goſpel? Or why ſhould the Souls of Thouſands of the Innocent People be ſo heavily puniſhed for another mans omiſſion, even becauſe the Teachers fear Conformity.
3. But ſtill we ſee what theſe mens Religion is: Had their Religion been the Scripture, or any Doctrine or Worſhip common to the Chriſtian or Proteſtant Churches, the old Nonconformiſts willingly conſented to it. But here they ſhew that their Ceremonies and proper Liturgy forms are their Religion. But then 1. Why do Dr. Burges and all that plead for your Ceremonies and Invention, build all on this, that you make them not any parts of Worſhip or Religion, (which they confeſs man may not invent) but meer accidents? 2. How old then is your Religion? Your Liturgy was made ſince Luther began his Reformation. 3. It ſeems then that you are not of the ſame Religion with the Proteſtants that have none of your Ceremonies, Liturgy or Subſcriptions. 4. Is not then your Church of a ſingular Religion from all the World, and conſequently a ſingular Church? And is it the whole Catholick Church then, or a Schiſmatical Church?
I confeſs that you ſhew more evidently than by ſuch words, that your ſelf made Rules and Circumſtances are your Religion: For 1. You make Conformity to them to be de facto more neceſſary than our Preaching the Goſpel, or our Church Communion, or any publick Church Worſhip of God. 2. And you excommunicate by your Rule or Canon every Member of Chriſt in England, that doth but think and ſay, that any thing of your Impoſition, Liturgy, Ceremonies, or Government are ſinful. 3. And yet when you have done you call all your Impoſitions things indifferent. 4. And thereby you declare that your Religion in part is a thing indifferent. 5. And no Man or Woman ſhall be of your Church that cannot know all the indifferent things in the World which may be impoſed on them, to be Indifferent and not Unlawful; when you know (or you know not whom you dwell among) that we have much adoe to get one half your Church to know things neceſſary. 6. The Papiſts that put a greater neceſſity on their Inventions will deride you for an Indifferent Religion.
There was a poor Puritane Nonconformiſt that feared Lying, that went about the Streets with Ink to fell, and was wont truly to cry, [Very good Ink, very good Ink;] but once his Ink a little miſcarried, and he durſt not call it [Very good,] but cried, Pretty good Ink, Pretty good Ink,] and no body would buy of him, and he loſt his Ink. And if you cry up [An indifferent Religion,] whatever you have for numbers, you will have for quality but an Indifferent Church, (ſave our Rulers.)
XV. But he adds, [Many of them would preach againſt it and their Governours too.]
Anſ. 1. You tempt them towards it. If I ask the Butcher [Is your Meat ſweet?] and he ſay it is indifferent, I am excuſable if I think it ſtinks. 2. They judge by the effects: They thought that when an indifferent thing caſteth out a neceſſary thing, it becomes naught. 3. But yet your Accuſation is unfaithful: Why did you not ſay then, that it was not for Nonconformity that men were caſt out, but for preaching againſt your Religion? Who were thoſe? Was it proved? If ſo, what was that to the reſt? Do you puniſh many learned moderate men for the fault of a few others that they were not concerned with? You now alledge Mr. Hilderſham, Ball, Bradſhaw, Baine, Knewſtubs, and abundance ſuch, for being againſt Separation, and perſuading men to come to the Common Prayer, (and many of them to kneel at the Sacrament,) and yet when you plead for their Silencing, even other mens words may ſerve againſt them.
XVI. To conclude, in all he layeth the cauſe of their ſilence on themſelves for not conforming, and yet will not tell us what we ſhould do to help it. Would they have us Conform while we judge it as ſinful as I have mentioned in my firſt Plea for Peace? No; they profeſs the contrary. Would they have us believe all to be lawful? We cannot: Our Judgments are not at our Command: What would they have us do to change? Worldly Intereſt maks us too willing! We ſtudy as hard as they! We earneſtly beg Gods Illumination to ſave us from Er rour We read all that they write to convince us: And the more we read, ſtudy, and pray, the more heinous the Sin of Conformity ſeems to ſome. I askt Bp. Morley the ſame queſtion when he forbad my preaching, before the ejecting Act; and he bid me read Bilſon and Hooker: I told him that was not now to do: and in both of them I found the Principles which are made the cauſe of my Silencing, my greateſt Crimes, and in one of them worſe. He then told me, If God would not give me his Grace he could not help it: And yet moſt of theſe men are againſt fatal, reprobating, neceſſitating Decrees.
The impoſing Papiſts uſe men worſe: Of whom will you pardon a Fable.
A Bee and a Flie were catcht together in a Spiders Web: The Spider when they were tired with ſtriving, claimed them both for her Food, as a puniſhment for breaking into and troubling her Web: And againſt the Bee ſhe pleaded that ſhe was a hurtful Militant Animal, that had a Sting; and againſt the Flie that ſhe was noiſome and good for nothing. The Bee anſwered that her mellifying Nature and work was profitable, and Nature had armed her with a Sting to defend it. And the Flie ſaid, as ſhe did little good ſo ſhe did little harm, and could make her ſelf no better than Nature had made her. And as to the Crime alledged againſt them, they both ſaid, that the Net was made by a venomous Animal, ſpun out of the Air and the Venom of her own Bowels, made for no uſe but to catch and deſtroy the Innocent, and they came not into it by malice, but by ignorance and miſtake, and that it was more againſt their Will than againſt the Spiders, for they contrived not to fall into it; but ſhe contrived to catch them; and that it was not to break the Net that they ſtrove, but to ſave their Lives. The Maſter of the Houſe overheard the Debate, but reſolved to ſee how the Spider would judge, which was quickly done without more words; the took them for Malefactors, and killed them both. The Maſter of the Houſe ſo diſliked the Judgment, that he ordered that for the time to come, 1. The Bees ſhould be ſafely hived and cheriſhed. 2. And the Flies, if not very noiſome, ſhould be tolerated. 3. And all Spiders Webs ſwept down.
I need to give you no more of the Expoſition of it, than by the Spider I mean the Papal noxious Canon-makers, and that by the Net I mean their unneceſſary and enſnaring Laws and Canons, which are made to catch and deſtroy good men, and are the way to the Inquiſition, or Bonner's Coal-houſe, or Smithfield Bonefires. But I muſt deſire you not to imagine that I ſpeak againſt the Laws of the Land.
§ 27. As to the Concluſion of his laſt Chapter, I ſhall now add no more but this: If what I ſaid before and to Mr. Hinkley ſatisfie him not, of what Religion and Party both ſides were that began the War, and Mr. Ruſhworths Collections, and other Hiſtories of former Parliaments be not herein uſeful to him, let him but ſecure me from burning my Fingers with Subjects ſo red hot, by mens miſinterpreting and impatience, and I will (God willing) give him ſo full proof, that (to ſay nothing of latent Inſtigators and conſequent auxiliaries on either ſide, nor of the King himſelf, whoſe Religion is beyond diſpute,) the parties elſe that begun the War in England did differ in Religion; but as A. Bps. Laud, and Neal, and Bromhal, and ſuch others, and A. Bps. Abbot and Williams, and Bp. Bilſon, on the other ſide; and as Dr. Mainwaring, Sibthorp, &c. on one ſide, and Mr. Ri. Hooker and ſuch on the other ſide differed. And if my proof be confutable I will not hereafter undertake to prove that Engliſh is the language of England.
But my Bargain muſt be thus limited. 1. I will not undertake that from the beginning there was no one Papiſt on the Kings ſide, or no one Presbyterian on the Parliaments: I could never yet learn of more than one in the Houſe of Commons, and a very few Independents, but I cannot prove that there was no more.
2. You muſt not put me upon ſearching mens hearts: I undertake not to prove what any mans heart in England was; but what their Profeſſion was, and what Church they joined with in Communion.
3. And you muſt not equivocate in the uſe of the name [Presbyterian,] or [Nonconformiſt,] and tell me that you take ſome A. Bps. and Bps. and ſuch Divines as Ri. Hooker, and Bilſon, and Bp. Downame, the Pillars of Epiſcopacy and Conformity, for Presbyterians.
And if it may be I would beg that of you, that you will not take the long Parliament for Presbyterians and Nonconformiſts, who made the Acts of Uniformity, the Corporation Act, the Militia Act, and thoſe againſt conventicles, and for baniſhment from Corporations, &c. Notwithſtanding their high Votes about the Succeſſion and Jealouſies of Popery, and that which they ſaid and did hereupon: For I confeſs if it be ſuch Nonconformiſts or Presbyterians as thoſe that you mean, I'le give you the better. And I muſt alſo deſire that you call not the next Parliament, which conſiſted moſt of the ſame Men, Presbyterians or Nonconformiſts; nor the other ſince them? Or at leaſt that hereafter before we diſpute we may better agree of the meaning of our terms.
And I declare to the Reader, that nothing in all this Book is intended againſt the Primitive Church-Government or Epiſcopacy, nor againſt the good Biſhops, Clergy, Councils, or Canons, which were many; nor againſt King, Parliament, Magiſtracy, the Laws, or Liturgy, or Church Communion; nor againſt our peaceable and patient ſubmiſſion where we dare not practically obey: But only againſt the diſeaſes and degeneracy of Biſhops, Clergy, Councils, and Canons, and thoſe dividing practices, by which they have for 1200 Years and more been tearing the Chriſtian World into the Sects of which it now conſiſteth; and againſt the whole aſcendent Change from the Primitive Epiſcopacy to Papal maturity: and againſt our ſwearing. Subſcribing, declaring, covenanting, profeſſing, and practiſing, where we underſtand not the Impoſers ſenſe, and are unwilling by our private Interpretations to deceive them, and where we are perſuaded that it would be heinous ſin to us, not meddling with the caſe of Lawmakers or Conformiſts, who have no ſuch fears, but think all good.
Chryſoſtome (before cited) in Act. 1. Hom. 3. p. (mihi) 472. ſpeaketh harder than I ever did: [foreign &c. which Eraſmus tranſlateth, Non temere a…co, ſed ut affectus ſum & ſentio; Non arbitrer inter Sac…rdotes multos eſſe qui ſalvi fiant, ſed multo …l…es qui p…reant. His reaſon is the ſame which ſome give why they think moſt Phyſicians kill more than they cure, becauſe there is ſo much Wiſdom, Goodneſs, Watchfulneſs, and Diligence required to their Calling, which few of them have.
Luther is much ſharper than I ever was, when he ſaith, [Hieronymus & alii Patres vixerant in temporali Succeſſione Eccleſiae, expertes Cr…s & perſecutionis. Epiſcopi enim jam tum coeperant cr…ſ…re & … …pib…s, exiſtimatione & gloria in mundo: Et plerique etiam tyrannidem exercebant in populum cui praeerant, ut teſtatur hiſtoria Eccleſiaſtica: Pauci faciebant ſua Officia, &c. Loc. Com. 4. Claſſ. p. 79, 80.
Et Cap. 27. p. 48. de Synodis. In poſterioribus Conciliis nunquam de fide, ſed ſemper de opinionibus & quaeſtionibus diſputatum (after the firſt) ut mihi Conciliorum nomen pene tam ſuſpectum & inviſum ſit, quam nomen Liberi arbitrii.
What Melancthon thought of the Papal deſign of magnifying Councils, and pleading the neceſſity of uninterrupted Succeſſion of Epiſcopal Ordination, ſee in his Epiſtles, eſpecially of the Conference at Ratisbone.
Dr. Henry Moore in his Myſtery of Iniquity ſaith, p. 1…2. [That Principle tends to the ruining of Faith, which ſuppoſeth that without right Succeſſion of Biſhops and Prieſts, there is no true Church, and therefore no true Faith: and that this Succeſſion may be interrupted by the Miſordination or Miſconſecration of a Prieſt or Biſhop, the Perſons thus ordained being Atheiſts or Jews, or ordained by them that are ſo—As if a man could not feel in his own Conſcience whether he believed or not the truths of holy Scripture, without he were firſt aſſured that he was a Member of that Church, that had an uninterrupted lawful Succeſſion of the Prieſthood from the Apoſtles times till now.
Perhaps Epiſcopius and Curcellaeus will be more regarded. Read that notable Preface of Curcellaeus to Epiſcopius Works, p. 12, 13. [Reſp. Experientiam docere nullas unquam Controverſias de Religione inter Chriſtianos exortas auctoritate ſynodali faeliciter terminatas fuiſſe—& certiorem multo pacis viam eſſe—Next he ſhews how little good even the Nicene Council did, and how much worſe things were after: Hierome ſaying, that the whole World was Arian, And Conſtantius reproaching Liberius for being with one man againſt all the World: The Vulgar Dicterium being, Omne Concilium parit Bellum. Whence he gathers that Councils, ſuch as the World hath hitherto had, non eſſe idoneum componendis Religionis diſſidiis Remedium: Et quamdiu illud uſur pabitur perpetuas in Eccleſia & Republica turbas fore.
Epiſcopii & praecipuorum emiouit fides & animi magnitudo, quod ne promiſſo quidem ſolutionis ejuſdem quo antea fruebantur ſtipendii, induci potuerint ut ſe ad ſilentium quod imperabatur ſervandum obſtringerent, etiamſi nonnulli in magna rei familiaris auguſti… verſarentur.
So copious and ſharp is Epiſcopius, Qu. 52. p. 56. b. in maintaining that the Magiſtrate hath no Authority to forbid ſacred Aſſemblies to tolerable Diſſenters, and that Miniſters and People forbidden them muſt hold on to the death, that I will not recite the words, but deſire his Admirers to read them.