The True History of Councils, Part 3 · Chapter 14
CHAP. XIV. Some mens Credit about ancient Church Hiſtory, may be conjectured at by their Reports of the Hiſtory of the time and place that we live in.
§ 1. BY their Hiſtory of late and preſent things we may conjecture at the Credit of not Mr. M's. but others of the Clergy-accuſers and Proſecutors of their Brethren. Almoſt all that I remember that write againſt me, agree in ſuch miſreporting matters of fact, yea the moſt publick, of the perſons, place and time, which our ſenſes have given us notice of, that we muſt believe them with as great difficulty as we muſt believe Tranſubſtantiation, even in oppoſition to all our ſenſes and experience. And whether thoſe men be fit Vindicaters of the Biſhops and Councils above a Thouſand years ago (which are blamed by the Hiſtorians of their own Age, and by their own Confeſſions, and by their moſt ſervent Defenders) who notoriouſly miſreport the perſons, and actions of their own Place and Age, I think it is not hard to judge.
I will inſtance in Twenty particulars of publick notice; for thoſe againſt particular perſons, even my ſelf, are not to be numbred.
I. It is now commonly taken for true, that the preſent Nonconformiſts, who gave in their Deſires for Concord 1660. are of the ſame Judgment as thoſe called Nonconformiſts heretofore, and whatever can be raked up out of Chriſt. Goodman, Knox, Kilby, or is reported by Bancroft, is partly chargeable on them, when as their propoſed Deſires yet ſhew the world that they never made any motion againſt many things by thoſe aforeſaid ſcrupled, in Doctrine, Worſhip, and Ceremony.
And it is commonly ſuppoſed by them, that the preſent Conformity is but the ſame as the Old, and the Caſe no harder to us: And this notwithſtanding all the ſtill viſible Acts and Alterations, and Additions, which atteſt the contrary to all the world.
II. In moſt of their Invectives the preſent Nonconformiſts are argued againſt, as if they had been in the Civil War againſt the King; or had been guilty of it more than the Conformiſts. And that War is made a Reaſon of their Silencing; whereas ſo few of them had any hand in it, that I have many times told them, that if they will Silence none but thoſe that they can prove guilty of any War, or Rebellion, or Sedition, the reſt of us will give them a thouſand Thanks, though we ſuffer our ſelves. Few of the preſent Nonconformiſts were then in the Miniſtry, and of thoſe few that were, few now living meddled with War.
III. They are ſo confident that the Parliament and Army that began the War in England, were Nonconformiſts, yea Presbyterians, and not of the Church of England, that Mr. Hinkley, & here Mr. Morrice, make a renouncing of their Senſes or Underſtandings neceſſary to the believing of it. And yet they might as well tell us, that they were all Turks or Papiſts. Are not a Parliament and an Army things publick enough to be known in the ſame Age? When we name to them the Chief Lords and Commons, and Chief Commanders, yet (and lately) living, who are known ſtill to live in their own Communion; and when we challenge them to name Three Presbyterians that were then in the Houſe of Lords, or the Houſe of Commons; or many that were at firſt Commanders in the Army; and we name them the Men that then Commanded, who were commonly known to be Conformiſts of the Church of England. And if they will not believe their preſent practice and profeſſion they may yet go to them and be ſatisfied from their own mouths what were their former Principles. I have told them of a moſt credible Member of that Parliament yet living, who hath oſt profeſt to me that he knew but one Presbyterian in the Houſe of Commons when the war began, and I have named that one man to them, to try if they can name another. I expect not that they ſhould believe me, or ſuch other concerning thoſe whom we knew: But they may believe the men themſelves yet living, & their moſt familiar Friends.
Yea the Records of many foregoing Parliaments, with Laua's Life written by Dr. Heylin fully ſheweth them that the difference aroſe 1. About the fear of Popery, (and Arminianiſm as they thought tending towards it) 2. About Property, Loanmony, Knight-mony and after Ship-mony, &c. 3. About Impriſonment of members and other Gentlemen. And theſe were ſtill the quarrel.
But ſaith Mr. M. How then ſhall we believe our ſenſes. Anſ. See Reader, whether his moſt confident Errours about paſt things be any wonder. He is not ſo ſure of what he ſaith of the old Prelates, or the Neſtorians, Eutychians, &c. as he is that he muſt believe his Senſes: And his very ſenſes tell him that a Parliament, even Lords, Commons, and an Army, many of whom are yet living, were of another opinion in Religion than ever they were then acquainted with, and which was known to very few in England till afterward. And this contrary to their Profeſſion and practice and the ſenſes of their acquaintance. Lords are Perſons of ſo publick notice that they may eaſily yet be informed of the living and the dead: In the Army the Chief Commanders were the E. of Eſſex, the E. of Bedford (yet living) Sir John Merrick, the E. of Peterborough, Dolbiere, the E. of Stamford, the Lord Haſtings (E. of Huntington) the Lord Rochford (E. of Dover) the Lord Fielding (E. of Denbigh) the Lord Mandevile (E. of Mancheſter) the Lord Roberts (now Earl of Radnor and Preſident of his Majeſties Council) the Lord St. Johns, (killed at Keim…n Fight.) Only the Lord Say, and Lord Brook were known Independents; and whether the Lord Wharton (yet living) was then for Biſhops or againſt them I know not; but all the reſt were of the Church of England. And ſo were the other Collonels, Sir Henry Cholmley, the late Lord Hollis, Col. Will. Bampfield, Col. Tho. Grantham, Col. Tho. Ballard, C. Sir William Fair fax, Col. Charles Eſſex, Col. Lord Willoughby of Parham, Col. Sir Will. Waller, Col. Edwin Sandys, Cap. Lord Grey of Grooby; and I think then Sir Will. Conſtable and Col. Hampden. What mind Sir Will. Balfoore was of I know not: But I know his Country man Col. Brown was too far from a Puritane.
But ſaith Mr. M. [1. It's well the Biſhops had no ſhare in it] Anſ. Let Heylin tell you what hand the difference between A. Biſhop Abbats Church of England and Laud's then little Party had in the preparations. 2. And was the A. Biſhop of York no Biſhop, who afterward was a Commander for the Parliament.
But ſaith he, [I pray where were the Presbyterians when the Parliament took up Arms: Were they not then in being?] Anſ. An excellent Hiſtorian! that maintaineth Parliament and Army were ſuch, as he knows not whether they were then in being. Yes Sir, they were in Holland, and France and Geneva, and Scotland▪ and in England there was one John Ball, and one Mr. Langley, and a few more ſuch old Nonconformiſts that never were in Arms, and old John Dod, and one Mr. Geree that was againſt the war and dyed for grief of the Kings death: But among thoſe called Puritans, few knew what Presbytery was, till the Scots afterward brought it in. Much leſs did Lords, Commons, and Army know it. In your ſenſe Sir they were not then in being, and therefore could not fight.
It appears by Bancroft and others that there had been once Presbyterians in England: But they were dead, and few even of the few Nonconforming Miniſters ſucceeded them in the Study of that point.
But ſaith he, [Were they none of them in the houſe] Anſ. Yes, one [or did they proteſt againſt the proceedings of the Epiſcopal and Eraſtians? Anſ. That one went with them. And Non entis non ſunt accidentia.]
But ſaith he [Can Mr. B. believe (or think any one elſe ſo weak as to be impoſed on in a matter ſo notorious) that it was a Parliament of Epiſcopals, and Eraſtians and not Presbyterians that began the war?]
Anſ. Thus youngmen that know not whom they talk of can controle the moſt publick matter of fact by their conjectures. Go ask the worthy Maſter of the Rolls Sir Harbottle Grimſton, whoſe Speeches were then printed: Ask Sir Joh. Maynard His Majeſties Sergeant at Law who was one of them; or any other of them yet living. Ask them whether they knew themſelves and their companions better than you, who it ſeems knew them not.
But ſaith he [Were they Epiſcopals that voted down Epiſcopacy Root and Branch before the war begun] Anſ. 1. Have you proved that they did ſo? 2. Do you think that acontradiction? 1. They had got a belief that Biſhop Laud had got ſuch men into the Seats as were for a Syncretiſm with the Papiſts (deſcribed by Heylin) and againſt the Subjects Property and Liberty. And it was the Men and not the Office that offended them. 2. But becauſe they were willing of the favour of the Scots, and thoſe Londoners who were againſt the Biſhops, they pleaſed them by voting down the preſent frame, intending to ſet up a moderate Epiſcopacy in its ſtead; Yea long after this when many Learned Divines in the Aſſembly declared themſelves for Epiſcopacy, but not for Deans, Chancellors, &c. They altered the Covenant ſo as to deſcribe the preſent frame only: And when the Houſe of Lords took the Covenant, Mr. Coleman (an Eraſtian) gave it them openly, declaring, that it was not meer Epiſcopacy that this Covenant renounced, but only the Engliſh deſcribed Complicate form. And could they have had ſuch Biſhops as Abbot and the old Church of England, they had never gone thus far. 3. And they thought not Epiſcopacy itſelf ſo neceſſary, (though if moderate the beſt ſort of Governments) as to hazard all for it, which they thought had been in danger. Even in 1640 July 17. They Voted a Dioceſan in every County, with Twelve Divines to Govern.
But, ſaith he, [Were they Epiſcopals that Petitioned the King at York for Reformation in Diſcipline and Worſhip then? i. e. for aboliſhing Epiſcopacy and Common-Prayer?] Anſw. 1. Reforming is not Aboliſhing. 2. I anſwered that as to the laſt. When they feared that the Old Houſe would fall on their heads, they were for pulling of it down, and building a New one, after ſuch a Model as Biſhop Uſher after gave, and the Germane, Swediſh, and Daniſh Churches have; which they called the Primitive Epiſcopacy: But before they could do it, they needed the Scots help, who brought in the Covenant, which they choſe rather than to fall into the hands of thoſe of whom they had ſuch thoughts and fears, as I need not now deſcribe, Prin's Hiſtory of Laud's Tryal deſcribeth them.
I would ask this confident Hiſtorian (whoſe ſenſes tell him what Religion men were of contrary to their daily practice of communicating in the Pariſh-Churches conformably) whether the Longeſt Parliament of all, which made the Acts of Uniformity, the Corporation and Veſtry Acts, the Two Act… againſt Conventicles, the Militia Act, &c. were Presbyterian or Epiſcopal? Verily, if theſe were Presbyterians, I am none, nor ever will be: We ſhall then have a ſtrange definition of a Presbyterian, ſuch as will take in Biſhop Sheldon, Biſhop Morley, Biſhop Gunning, and ſuch others. If not, did not the fear of Popery make that very Parliament begin to look ſo ſowrely on the Clergy, as produced that which I need not tell you of? And did not moſt of the ſame men meet in the next Parliament after, and look yet more ſuſpiciouſly on the Clergy? And the next yet more? And doth it follow that they were not Epiſcopal but Presbyterian? But ſome men are confident againſt the Sun-light, and the moſt notorious Publick Evidence. But I muſt confeſs that ſuch have ſhaken my belief of the meer Moral Evidence of moſt Hiſtory, and left me only certain of that which hath Evidence, which is truly Natural, in the Natural Impoſſibility of Conſpiracy in a Lie.
There were men heretofore that would ſwear that man was a Puritane, who would not ſwear and drink with them, and would pray in their Families, and read the Scriptures on the Lord's Day, while others were dancing. And the word [Puritane] is now vulgarly changed into [Presbyterian] (by the Clergies Conduct.) And there are ſome Clergy-men that will ſay, a man is a Presbyterian, who reproves them for Drunkenneſs and Swearing, and other Crimes, ſpecially if he would not have Nonconformiſts ruined and laid in Gaol with Rogues. In this ſenſe I deny not but Lords, Commons and Army, had many Puritanes or Presbyterians among them, who yet never knew what Presbytery was.
But, ſaith Mr. M. [Were they Epiſcopal who pray the King at Oxford to aboliſh A. Biſhops and Biſhops, &c. that entred into a Solemn League and Covenant againſt Epiſcopacy, and for Reforming the Church after the Presbyterian Platform, and ſet up Presbytery by ſo many Ordinances?]
Anſw. Diſtingue tempora is none of this Hiſtorians Principles. How long after the War begun was this Petition at Oxford, this Covenant, and theſe Ordinances? He proveth them Preſbyterians at firſt when they knew not what it was, becauſe they were for Presbytery a year or two after: Negatur Sequela. The Scots taught afterwards the Aſſembly, and them that which they never knew before, 2. And all theſe Petitions & Ordinances ſhewed not what they preferred as beſt, but what they preferred before expected ruine. The Iſſue proved this, and Heylin confeſſeth it, and ſaith, They never ſet up Presbytery in any one place (which yet is not true, though they did not force it.)
3. Do you not know now living, thoſe Epiſcopal Conformiſts, who refuſe no part of your Conformity, and are much againſt Presbytery, who ſince the Diſcovery of the Papiſts Plot, are ſo much afraid of Popery, and ſo confident that too many of the Clergy are prepared for it, that a little more would turn them from you, though they love Presbytery as little as they love your ſelves.
In a word, The Old Clergy and the Parliament Men agreed. The New Clergy in Biſhop Laud's time diſtaſted them; & the Scots Presbyterians helping them in their ſtraits, partly turned ſome of them, and partly impoſed on them unpleaſing conditions.
But ſaith he, [The Eraſtians and Independents were at firſt inconſiderable, and acted joyntly with the Presbyterians, &c.]
Anſw. Thus is Hiſtory delivered to the deluded World! Neither Independency nor Presbytery were underſtood by many till the War was begun. The Scots Commiſſioners by degrees acquainted them with Presbytery, and Mr. Burton's Proteſtation Proteſted, and the five Diſſenters with Independency: Two or three Independents were in the Houſe of Lords, and ſome few in the Houſe of Commons: It was Epiſcopal-men that made up the main Body: Theſe were of two ſorts: The one ſort thought Epiſcopacy of Divine Inſtitution, but not Chancellors, Deans and Chapters, Arch-Deacons, Officials, &c. The other ſort thought that Epiſcopacy, not rampant, was the beſt Government Jure humano; But that the Magiſtrate being Chief, might ſet it up, or take it down, as he ſee moſt for the common good. Theſe were called by ſome Eraſtians: And that theſe at firſt were inconſiderable, is Hiſtory written in deſpight of Evidence. Let any man 1. Read what Parliaments formerly ſaid; 2. And what many Engliſh Divines wrote for the Jus humanum againſt the Jus Divinum; and what Teſtimony Prin hath given of it; 3. And what Dr. Stillingfleet hath produced for it in his Irenicon; 4. And how commonly it was owned by Conformiſts then in Conſerence; 5. And how commonly the Lawyers were for the Humane Right; 6. Yea and the Civilians themſelves; and then let him take this Hiſtorian's word, if he tell Poſterity that the Parliament and Army were not Engliſh men.
IV. Theſe Hiſtorians candidly tell the world, that the Nonconformiſts, who offered their Deſires for Concord 1660. were Presbyterians, and ſo are moſt of the Nonconformiſts now. Whereas they never made one motion for Presbytery, for Lay-Elders, for Ruling Claſſes or Aſſemblies, nor againſt Epiſcopacy; but only offered the Paper called A. Biſhop Uſher's Reduction of Epiſcopacy to the Primitive Form; wherein neither A. Biſhops, nor Biſhops, nor Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, were taken down, or any of their Revenues, Lordſhips, or Parliament-Power. This is Presbytery with theſe Hiſtorians.
V. They make the world believe that the main Body of the Conformiſts, are ſuch as ſuffered for the King, or complied not with the Directory and Times of Uſurpation: Whereas it's publickly notorious, that there are about 9000 Pariſh-Churches in England, beſides many hundred Chappels, & many Churches that had more than one Miniſter. And almoſt all theſe complied with the Times or Directory, as the Nonconformiſts did: And of all theſe, it was but about 2000 that Conformed not; ſo that 7000 or 8000 of them that had kept in, did on a ſudden turn Conformiſts. And divers that had been in Arms for the Parliament: Yea, ſome that had written for the Engagement when I wrote againſt it; yea ſome that had ſpoken or written tantum non a Juſtification of the Killing of the King. And of thoſe that joyned with us in our Propoſals for Concord, Dr. Worth, and Dr. Reignolds were made Biſhops, and divers others did Conform.
VI. Theſe Hiſtorians would make the world believe that the Preſent Church, and ſuch as they, did more than the Parliamentarians, and Presbyterians, and Nonconformiſts, to reſtore the King; when it is notoriouſly known, how oft their Attempts were defeated, and what the Scots Army under Hamilton underwent, to ſay nothing of the next; and of the Lord Delamore's Attempt, and what the Reſtored Parliament did: But ſure I am, that the Old Parliament Souldiers, and Presbyterian Commanders and Souldiers in General Monk's Army, with thoſe in England and Ireland that joyned with him, and Sir Thomas Allen Lord Mayor, with the Londoners, at the perſuaſion of the Preſbyterian Miniſters, drawing General Monk to joyn with them, did the main work, which the Council and Parliament after finiſhed. When moſt of theſe men that will not endure the oblivion of Diſcords, nor the Reconciling and Union of the King's Subjects, do but ſtart up to revile others, and blow the Coals again, and reap the fruit of other mens labours, that deſire but to live in Peace.
VII. That there are able worthy men that Conform, we are far from denying; and we earneſtly deſire their Concord, and the ſucceſs of their Labour, and I hope love them as our ſelves. But whereas the Hiſtory of this Party doth proclaim how much better and abler Miniſters than the Nonconformiſts are generally put into their Places, that are no Novices or Ignorant Youths, no Drunkards, nor ſcandalous, but more laborious, skilful Labourers, I will ſay nothing, but let the Countries judge.
VIII. And whether it be true that there is no need of the Nonconformiſts Miniſtry, but the Churches are ſufficiently ſupplied without them, both as to the number and quality of their Teachers, I have in my Apology enquired; and with godly men it's eaſily judged.
IX. And whether it be true, that it was only for the Kings or Biſhops cauſe that the Parliament put out all, or moſt of them that were heretofore removed, I leave to the Witneſſes and Articles againſt them. I am ſure I and my neighbour Miniſters petitioned that none that were tolerable pious Miniſters, might be put out for being for the King or Biſhops.
X. It is commonly now recorded and reported that the Preſbyterians and thoſe that now conform not put down Catechizing, and turned the Creed, Lords prayer and Decalogue out of the Church Service. Whereas (if ſome few Independents did any of this, it is more than I know, but) in all our Countrey, and where I came, I remember no Churches that did not uſe the Creed openly at their baptizing any, and the Decalogue frequently read out of Exod. 20. or Deut. 5. and the Lords prayer frequently; as we did conſtantly. But ſome thought that we were not bound to uſe it every time they prayed. And the Directory commendeth all theſe to them. And all our Countrey agreed not only to Catechize publickly, but to take larger time on the week daies to Catechize every family.
XI. Theſe Hiſtorians ſay that I and ſuch others take the things which we conform not to, to be but inconveniences and not ſins; And that we keep the Nation in Schiſme while we confeſs the things to be but Indifferent And our writings are viſible in which we profeſt the contrary, and laboured by many arguments to prove it and proteſted that we would conform if we took them not to be ſins. And we gave in a Catalogue of what we judged to be ſins: And this before the New Conformity was impoſed: And ſince the fierceſt diſpleaſure is againſt us for telling them what we account Sin, and how great: When many years together our Rulers and the People were told that we confeſſed them indifferent and refuſed them but to avoid offending our followers.
XII. We frequently hear from them that we oppoſe Epiſcopacy becauſe we cannot be Biſhops our ſelves: When its known that nothing could more put men out of all ſuch hopes than the Presbyterians Endeavours that both their power and wealth ſhould be taken down: And he that hath any deſires of a Biſhoprick ſhould ſure be for the keeping of them up. And the ſame men reprove us for refuſing Biſhopricks and Deanries, and ſay we did it to pleaſe the People.
XIV. The new Hiſtorians would make us believe that the Reformed Church of England before Biſhop Lauds time were of their mind that now call themſelves Biſhops and Doctors of the Church of England, in holding as they do, that there is an Univerſal humane Soveraignty with Legiſlative and Judicial power over all the Churches on earth: and that this is in Councils, or an Univerſal Colledge of Biſhops; of which the Pope may be allowed to be preſident, and Principium Unitatis &c. and that he muſt be obeyed as Patriarch of the Weſt; and ſo we muſt be under a forreign Juriſdiction. Whereas it is notoriouſy known that before Biſhop Lauds time the doctrine of this Church was quite Contrary, as may be ſeen at large in the Apology, the Articles of Religion, the writings of the Biſhops and Doctors; Yea they writ copiouſly to prove that the Pope is Antichriſt, and put it into their Liturgy. And Dr. Heylin tells us that the Reaſon why Biſhop Laud got it out was, that it might not offend the Papiſts and hinder our reconciliation with them; And the Oath of Supremacy ſweareth us againſt all forreign Juriſdiction.
XV. The ſame Hiſtorians would make us believe that theſe mens doctrine is now the doctrine of the Church of England or agreeable to it. Whereas the Oath of Allegiance is ſtill in force, and ſo are the Homilies, and the Articles of Religion and the Laws and Canons for the Kings Supremacy againſt all forreign Juriſdiction. And there is no change made which alloweth of their doctrine: And the Church doctrine muſt be known by its publick writings, and not by the opinions of new riſen men.
XVI. The new Hiſtorians make the Nonconforming Miniſters to be men groſly ignorant, preachingfalſe doctrine, of wicked principles and lives, and not fit to be ſuffered out of Gaols. And yet theſe 19. or 20. years how few of them have been convict of any falſe doctrine? And I have not heard of four in England that have ever been convict ſince they were caſt out, of being once drunk, or fornicating, cheating, ſwearing, or any immorality, unleſs preaching and not ſwearing, Subſcribing, &c. be ſuch, nor for falſe doctrine.
XVII. The new Hiſtorians have made thouſands believe that the doctrine or opinions of the Nonconformiſts is for ſedition and rebellion; And that it is for this that they refuſe to renounce the obligation of the Covenant as to all men beſides themſelves and that they refuſe to ſubſcribe that it is not lawful on any pretence whatſoever to take Arms againſt any Commiſſioned by the King. Whereas we have at large in a ſecond Plea for peace opened our judgments about Loyalty and obedience, and none of them will tell us what they would have more, nor where our profeſſion is too ſhort or faulty. Nor have they convict any of my acquaintance of preaching any diſloyal doctrine.
XVIII. Yea they have by writing, preaching and talking made multitudes believe that the Nonconformiſts or Presbyterians have been long hatching a rebellion againſt the King, and have a Plot to take down Monarchy under pretence of oppoſing Poperty. And how far theſe Hiſtorians are to be believed, true Proteſtants by this time partly underſtand.
XIX. Yea theſe Hiſtorians have made multitudes believe that the Parliaments that have been diſolved here of late years have been deſigning to change the Government of Church and ſtate, under pretence of oppoſing Popery. As if that Parliament that did that for them and againſt us which is done, and made all the Acts which are for the Renunciation of the Covenant, and for all the Declarations, Subſcriptions and Practices Impoſed, and for Fining us 20 l. and 40 l. a Sermon, and laying us in Gaols, had been for Nonconformiſts, and againſt Epiſcopacy; and they that made the Militia Act, and ſuch other had been againſt the King or his Prerogative: Or the other following had not been of the ſame Religion.
XX. But the boldeſt part of their Hiſtory, is their deſcription of the two ſorts of the People in England, thoſe that are for the preſent Nonconformiſts, and thoſe that are againſt them. Thoſe that are againſt them, they account the moſt Religious, Temperate, Chaſt, Loyal, Credible, and in a word, the beſt people through the Land (for of our Rulers I am not ſpeaking.) And thoſe that are for the Nonconforming Miniſters, they defame as the moſt proud, hypocritical, treacherous, diſloyal, covetous, falſe, and in a word, the worſt people in the Land; or as Fowlis ſaith, the worſt of all mankind, and unfit to live in humane Society. How long will it be ere the ſober people of this Land believe this Character? One would think that the quality of the common Inhabitants of the Land ſhould not be a Controverſie, or unknown thing. All that I will ſay to this Hiſtory, is, to tell the Reader the utmoſt of my obſervation and experience from my Youth up, concerning theſe two ſorts of men.
Where I was bred before 1640. (which was in divers places) I knew not one Presbyterian Clergy man, nor Lay, and but three or four Nonconforming Miniſters. Nay till Mr. Ball wrote for the Liturgy and againſt Can, and Allen, &c. and till Mr. Burton Publiſhed his Proteſtation proteſted, I never thought what Presbytery or Independency were, nor ever ſpake with a man that ſeemed to know it: And that was in 1641. when the War was brewing. In the place where I firſt lived, and the Country about, the People were of two ſorts: The generality ſeemed to mind nothing ſeriouſly but the body and the world: They went to Church and would anſwer the Parſon in Reſponds and thence go to dinner, and then to play: They never prayed in their families, but ſome of them going to bed, would ſay over the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer, & ſome of them the Hail Mary: All the year long, not a ſerious word of holy things, or the Life to come, that I could hear of, proceeded from them. They read not the Scripture, nor any good Book or Catechiſm. Few of them could read, or had a Bible: They were of two ranks; the greater part were good Husbands as they called them, and ſavoured of nothing but their buſineſs or Intereſt in the World; the reſt were Drunkards: Moſt were Swearers, but not equally: Both ſorts ſeemed utter ſtrangers to any more of Religion than I have named; and loved not to hear any ſerious talk of God, or Duty, or Sin, or the Goſpel, or Judgment, or the Life to come: But ſome more hated it than others: The other ſort were ſuch as had their Conſciences awakened to ſome regard of God and their Everlaſting State; and according to the various meaſures of their underſtanding, did ſpeak and live as ſerious in the Chriſtian Faith, and would much enquire what was Duty, and what was Sin, and how to pleaſe God, and to make ſure of Salvation; and made this their Buſineſs and Intereſt, as the reſt did the world. They read the Scripture, and ſuch Books as The Practice of Piety; and Deut's Plain Man's Path Way; and Dod on the Commandments, &c. They uſed to pray in their Families, and alone; ſome on the Book, and ſome without: They would not Swear, nor Curſe, nor take God's Name lightly: They feared all known ſin: They would go to the next Pariſh-Church to hear a Sermon when they had none at their own; would read the Scripture on the Lord's Day, when others were playing:▪ Theſe were, where I lived, about the number of two or three Families in twenty; and theſe by the reſt were called Puritanes, and derided as Hypocrites and Preciſians, that would take on them to be Holy: And eſpecially if they told any one of his Swearing, Drunkenneſs, or Ungodlineſs, they were made the common ſcorn. Yet not one of many of them ever ſcrupled Conformity to Biſhops Liturgy or Ceremonies, and it was godly Conformable Miniſters that they went from home to hear: And theſe Miniſters being the ableſt Preachers, and of more ſerious Piety, were alſo the Objects of the Vulgar Obloquy as Puritanes and Preciſians themſelves; and accordingly ſpoke againſt by many of their Tribe, and envyed for being preferred by godly men.
This being the Condition of the Vulgar where I was, when I came into the acquaintance of many Perſons of Honour and Power, and reputed Learning, I found the ſame ſeriouſneſs in Religion in ſome few before deſcribed, and the ſame daily ſcorn of that ſort of men in others, but differently cloathed: For theſe would talk more bitterly, but yet with a greater ſhew of reaſon againſt the other, than the ignorant Country People did: And they would ſometime talk of ſome Opinions in Religion, and ſome of them would uſe ſome of the Common-Prayer in their Houſes, and ſome of them would ſwear, but ſeldom, and ſmall Oaths, and lived ſoberly and civilly; but ſerious talk of God or Godlineſs, or that which tended to ſearch and reform the Heart and Life, and ſeriouſly prepare for the Life to come, or to awaken Souls to a care of their State and Salvation, they would at leaſt be very weary to hear, if not deride as Puritanical. Mr. Robert Bolton a Conformiſt, hath fully opened all this of both ſorts in his Diſcourſe of True Happineſs, and Directions for walking with God: And how the name Puritane was then uſed.
This being the Fundamental Diviſion where I came, ſome of theſe that were called Puritanes and Hypocrites, for not being Hypocrites, but ſerious in the Religion they profeſſed, would ſometimes get together, and as Drunkards and Sporters would meet to drink and play, they would (in ſome very few places, where there were many of them) meet after Sermon on the Lord's Daies to Repeat the Conforming Miniſters Sermon, and ſing a Pſalm, and Pray. For this, and for going from their own Pariſh-Churches, they were firſt envied by the Readers, and dry Teachers, whom they ſometime went from, and next proſecuted by Apparitors, Officials, Archdeacons, Commiſſaries, Chancellors, and other Epiſcopal Inſtruments: For in former times there had been divers Presbyterian Nonconformiſts, who earneſtly pleaded for Pariſh-Diſcipline (as Bucer alſo did in Oper. Anglic.) And to ſubdue theſe, divers Canons were made; which ſerved the turn againſt theſe Meetings of the Conformable Puritanes, and going from their own Pariſh-Churches; though the Old Presbyterians were dead, and very few ſucceeded them. About as many Nonconformiſts as Counties were left; and thoſe few moſt ſtuck at Subſcription and Ceremonies, which were the hinderance of their Miniſtry; and but few of them ſtudied or underſtood the Presbyterian or Independent Diſciplinary Cauſes.
But when theſe Conformable Puritanes were thus proſecuted, it bred in them hard thoughts of the Biſhops and their Courts, as Enemies to ſerious Piety, and Perſecutors of that which they ſhould promote: Suffering bred this Opinion and Averſation. And the ungodly Rabble rejoyced at their troubles, and applauded the Biſhops for it, and were every where ready to ſet the Apparitors on them, or to ask them, Are you holier or wiſer th… … Biſhops? And their Accuſations were readily entertained: This much inclined them to hearken to them that were averſe to Conformity, when ſuch roſe up, and to ſuch as were more againſt the Biſhops, than there was cauſe; ſo that by this time, the Puritanes took the Biſhops to be Captains and the Chancellors, Archdeacons, Commiſſaries, Officials and Paritors, their Officers, and the Enemies of ſerious Godlineſs, and the vicious Rabble to be as their Army, to ſuppreſs true conſciencious Obedience to God, and care of mens Salvation. And the cenſured Clergy and Officers took the Cenſurers to be Schiſmaticks, and Enemies to the Church, unfit to be endured, and fit to be proſecuted with reproach and puniſhment; ſo that the ſaid Puritanes took it to be but the common Enmity that ſince Cain's daies hath been in the world, between the Serpent's and the Woman's Seed: And when the perſons of Biſhops, Chancellors, Officials, Apparitors, &c. were come under ſuch a repute, it was eaſie to believe what ſhould be ſail againſt their Office. And the more the Biſhops thought to cure this by puniſhment, the more they increaſed the Opinion, that they were perſecuting Enemies of Godlineſs, and the Captains of the Prophane.
And when ſuch ſinful Beginnings had prepared men, the Civil Contentions ariſing, thoſe called Puritanes, moſtly were againſt that ſide which they ſaw the Biſhops and their Neighbour Enemies for: And they were for the Parliament the rather, becauſe they ſeemed deſirous to Reform the Biſhops, and Reſtore the Liberty of thoſe whom they proſecuted for the manner of their ſerving God. Yet they deſired, where-ever I was, to have lived peaceably at home: But the Drunkards and Rabble that formerly hated them, when they ſaw the War beginning, grew inraged; and if a man did but Pray, and Sing a Pſalm in his houſe, they would cry [Down with the Roundheads] (a word then new made for them,) and put them in fear of ſudden violence, and afterwards brought the King's Souldiers to plunder them of their goods, and they were fain to run into holes to hide their perſons (Martin Cruſius in his Turco-Gracia deſcribeth much the like Caſe of his Father.) And when their Goods were gone, and their Lives in continual danger, they were forced to fly for Food and Shelter: To go among thoſe that hated them, they durſt not, when they could not dwell among ſuch at home. And thus thouſands run into the Parliaments Garriſons, and having nothing there to live upon, became Souldiers.
We had an honeſt very Old Arminian (Mr. Nayler) in Coventry, that was againſt the Parliaments Cauſe; and he would ſay, [The King hath the beſt Cauſe, and the Parliament the beſt Men.] And that he wondred how it came to paſs, that the generality of ſober Religious men, ſhould be all in the wrong, and the moſt Irreligious and Prophane, and Debauched be in the right.] But he knew but the Vulgar, and not the Grandees, who no doubt were many of them men of very laudable accompliſhments.
And as the feud of the Biſhops and their Officers and Curates againſt the aforeſaid exerciſes of Religion occaſioned this ſad Diviſion, ſo did the ſenſe of this in the minds of thoſe called Puritanes continue too long. Many a time have I ſeen abundance in great Perplexity, ſaying [We believed them that profeſſed that they took not Arms againſt the King, but to execute the Law on Delinquents and defend themſelves and the Kingdom from them: We abhor the Regicides and Uſurpers: We would reſtore the King, if we were ſtronger than the Army. And yet we are in doubt how far we ſhould actively contribute to our own calamity: For though the King deſerve more than we can do, we doubt not but the Biſhops will increaſe our Burdens and make greater havock in the Church than heretofore] And many ſate ſtill on this account, and as far as ever I could diſcern, next the Power of the Army, the fear of the Biſhops was the chief delay of the Kings return.
I knew not all England; but according to the Extent of my acquaintance, I have truly told you the quality of thoſe then called Puritans and of their Common adverſaries.
And on which ſide now proportionably are moſt of the moſt underſtanding, ſober, charitable, conſcionable, and ſeriouſly religious Perſons, and on which moſt of the contrary (not ſpeaking of any Magiſtrates) I think it neither my work, nor our New Hiſtorians to tell: For people that live among their neighbours, will believe their ſenſes and experience, what ever either he or I ſhall ſay. And I am well aſſured that this argument (which I think was not found) [We cannot believe that God will ſuffer the Generality of the Religious to be deceived in ſo great a caſe, and the moſt of the debauched ignorant haters of ſerious Godlineſs to be in the right,] did prevail with very many that could not try the Cauſe by the Laws and conſtitution of the Kingdom.
§ 2. If I ſhould recite the particular unjuſt reports of multitudes of theſe Writers it would be tireſome and loathſome: Yea all the miſtakes of this Eminent Hiſtorian are too many to be named: But I will here name one which ſeems at once to ſmite and ſmile.
Pag. 2…7. [There is a temper which Mr. B. is acquainted with that, is not to be prevailed on, either by threats or promiſes from the Magiſtrate; and ſeems to hate nothing ſo much as compliance with Superiors: There are ſome that ſcorn to preach by the Licence of the Government, and place the Kingdom of Chriſt purely in oppoſition to Law and Magiſtrates.]
Answ. Note the credibility of this Hiſtorian. 1. Doth their accuſation of my flattering the Uſurpers (whom I more openly diſowned than moſt of his Fraternity) agree with this?
2. Did my long and earneſt Petitioning to be accepted but in a poor Curates place, though I Preacht for nothing, yea if it were but in ſome ignorant obſcure Village, and only to preach over the Catechiſm, agree with this?
3. Doth my large profeſſion of Subjection in my Second Plea for Peace not yet blamed by them herein agree with this?
4. I willingly took the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and an Oath to be true to the King as his Chaplain in ordinary, and had this any ſuch ſignification?
5. Did my begging in vain a Licenſe from Biſhop Morley, and craving and obtaining one of Biſhop Sheldon, ſignifie this?
6. But the ſmile is that one would think by theſe words, I might have preached by the Governours Licenſe and would not. And is that true? Did I not preach by the Kings Licenſe, and the Clergy blame me for it? And as for the Biſhops Licenſe I do profeſs that it's yet in force, and I do preach by it. If I miſtake it is not my refuſing it. If he intimate as he ſeems, that by the Biſhops Licenſe I might have had leave to preach in the Pariſh Churches, it's now too late: But I would I had known how to get it. I confeſs one Summer in the Countrey about 25 miles off, I did venture upon the Credit of my Licenſe (at Amerſham, Cheſham, Rickmerſworth, &c.) But it was too pleaſing work to me to be continued: One Church in Southwark I was once let into, but no more in or near London. I once craved leave of the moderate Biſhop that now is, that without putting down the meeting where I was in that great Pariſh of St. Martin's, I might preach ſometime there and once a day at the Chappel which I built, which the Pariſh Incumbent uſeth, and that he would quiet the Juſtices to that end, and thought I had had his conſent: But the Conſtables and other Officers ſtood from that day about a quarter of a year together every Lord's Day at the door of the former place of Aſſembly, to have apprehended me by the Juſtices warrant if I had gone. And never could I hear of a man in London that was willing I ſhould come into his Pulpit; but the beſt have refuſed it. Nor did I much deſire it here: For it is not to preach to them that have no need that is my requeſt; but to ſuch as cannot come into the Pariſh Church or otherwiſe truely need our help. Once I did try to have got leave two miles out of the City to have preacht a Kinſwomans Funerall Sermon on the right of my Licenſe: But the Miniſter ſaid, He muſt firſt ask the Biſhop, and then denyed me.
Reader, theſe are the Hiſtorians that Charge me with miſreport of ancient Hiſtory, viſible in the moſt partial Authors on the other ſide: Judge of them by their Report of the Hiſtory of our Place and Age.