The True History of Councils, Part 4
An Account to Edward Lord Biſhop of Cork and Roſſe in Ireland, of the ſucceſs of his Cenſure of Richard Baxter in England: Detecting his manifold Untruths in matter of Fact.
§ 1. TO give my Character of you whom I know not, as you do of me, is none of my work: But 1. Your Stile alloweth me to ſay, that by it you ſeem to me to be a man of Conſcience, fearing God. 2. And yet your Matter aſſureth me, that you ſpeak abundance of Untruths confidently; I ſuppoſe, partly by not knowing the perſons and things of which you ſpeak, and partly by thinking that you ought to believe the falſe Reporters, with whom you are better acquainted.
§ 2. The ſtrait which you caſt us into is unavoidable: Either we muſt ſeem to own all the falſe Accuſations brought againſt us, which will hurt others far more than us; or elſe we muſt deny and contradict them, and that will paſs for an intolerable addition to our guilt, and we ſhall be ſuppoſed ſuch intemperate, fierce abuſive Perſons as you deſcribe me, while you think we give you the Lye, or make you Slanderers. But we cannot cure your Miſreſentments, but muſt be content to bear your Cenſures, while we call you not Lyars, but only acquaint you with the truth.
§ 3. For my own part my final Judgment is ſo near, and I am conſcious of ſo much evil in my ſelf, that I have no reaſon to be haſty in my own Vindication, but much reaſon to take all hints and helps for deeper ſearch, and will not juſtifie my Stile. And God knows I am afraid leſt ſelfiſhneſs or partiality ſhould hinder me from finding out my ſin: and I dayly and earneſtly beg of God to make it known to me, that I may not be impenitent: But either Prejudice, Converſe, or ſomwhat elſe, maketh a very great difference between your Judgment and mine, of Good and Evil: And I cannot help it: If I err it is not for want of willingneſs to ſee my Errour, and openly retract it; nor for want of an ordinary Diligence to know the Truth.
The Sum of our difference, as far as I can underſtand you, is in theſe particulars.
I. Whether there be no ſin impoſed by the Laws or Canons on Miniſters and People here?
II. Whether it was well done by the Biſhops and other Clergy-Men to do what they did to cauſe thoſe Laws, which ſilenced the whole Miniſtry of England, unleſs they would conform to all things ſo impoſed in the Act of Uniformity; and actually ſilenced about 2000, and made thoſe other Laws againſt their Preaching to more than Four, and againſt coming within Five Miles of Corporations, and ſuch others, as adjudge Nonconformiſts to Gaols and Ruine; and whether the Clergy do well ſtill to urge the Execution of thoſe Laws, and are guiltleſs of the doleful Diviſions of this Land, and danger of its Relapſe to Popery?
III. Whether it be unpeaceable for a Nonconformiſt after 17 years ſilent ſuffering, to tell his Superiors why he dare not conform, when he is by them importuned to it? And to write a Confutation of a multitude of Volumns of falſe Accuſations brought to juſtifie the Executions?
§ 4. If you think you have proved all thoſe Impoſitions ſinleſs which I have mentioned in my firſt Plea for Peace, I think you might as well have ſhortly ſaid, [We Biſhops are of ſo much Wiſdom and Authority, that you muſt hold them lawful, becauſe we ſay ſo.] And muſt all be ruined that would not be ſo convinced? But if any of thoſe Impoſitions prove to be ſin, and ſo great ſin as we cannot chuſe but think they are, is it a greater fault to name them (when importuned) than to impoſe them? And a greater fault to feel, and ſay we feel, than to ſtrike or wound men?
If we had taken it to be our Duty to have called thoſe Clergy-Men to Repentance, which we think are ignorantly undoing themſelves and the Land, how ſhould we do it without naming their Sin? Yea, and the greatneſs of it? And if we think it our Duty to deprecate our Deſtruction, and beg of you to ſpare our Lives or Conſciences, how can we do it without telling what we ſuffer? If it be well done of you, and be no perſecution, but your Duty for the Churches good, (as no doubt the Executioners think) the Hiſtory is your praiſe, and you need not extenuate the Fact: Valiant Souldiers glory in the multitudes they kill: Had you ſilenced the other 7000 that conformed, when you ſilenced but 2000, your Victory had been the more famous. Some think thoſe that are here againſt your ways, are not half the Land; were it murdering of one man, that another is judged for, it were not unpeaceableneſs to ſay, that he deſerveth to be hanged: But the judge deſerveth praiſe if he condemn an hundred ſuch. But when thoſe men who ſhould be the tendereſt Peace-makers, and skilfulleſt therein, ſhall be the men that bring ſuch a Land as this into the Caſe that we are in, and will not be intreated, nor by any Experience be perſuaded to conſent to its Relief, I know not how to ſhew mercy to the Land or them, but by perſuading them to repent. And if all ſin were made a matter of Controverſie, and many learned men were for it, this would not alter the Caſe with me. If I may compare great things with ſmall, who ſinned more? The Iriſh for murdering 200000, or Sir John Temple, Dr. Henry Jones, the E. of Orery, for recording and reporting what they did? Was it the ſin of the Savoyards and others to kill and ruine the Proteſtants in Piedmont? Or of Perrin, and Sir Sam. Mooreland to write the ſtory? Did Thuanus, Davilah, &c. ſin in recording the French Maſſacre? Or the French in doing it? Is it the French Proteſtants now that are criminal for deſcribing and complaining of their Sufferings? Was John Foxe the Malefactor for writing the Sufferings of the Proteſtants under a lawful Queen? This day came out (Mar. 10.) a Narrative from Briſtol how they are crowded in the Gaol on the cold ground, &c. Is the Report the Crime? Do you find a Juſtification in humane nature of ſuch terms as theſe, [You ſhall ſuffer whatever we will inflict on you, but ſhall not tell any that you are hurt, or who did it, or why?]
§ 5. I have told the World ſo often over and over, that it is not all the Conformiſts, no nor all the Biſhops that I impute our Sufferings to, that I muſt ſuppoſe you to underſtand it, ſpecially when the Prefatory Epiſtle of the Book which you fall upon tells it you of many Biſhops by name. Therefore when p. 68. you ſay, [I apply to you more than once, 1 Theſ. 2. 15. They pleaſe not God, &c.] and add, [I believe in my Conſcience he is miſtaken.] Either by [to us] you mean, all the Conformiſts or Biſhops, and that is not true, as the words tell you: Or you mean, [Us that procured or own, and execute the aforeſaid ſilencing, afflicting Acts:] which your words ſeem to mean. And then I do but ſay, Oh! What may temptation bring even good mens Judgment to? Is the ſilencing of 2000, the afflicting of many times more of the Laity, the Jealouſies, Diſtractions, and Dangers of this Land, ſo ſmall a matter, or ſo good, that God is not diſpleaſed with it? And can you in your Conſcience own what the Biſhops did towards it? No wonder then if Ceremonies be called things Indifferent. Certainly this cannot be Indifferent? It is a moſt meritorious or excellent work, or elſe a heinous Crime: It is either ſuch a Cure as the cutting off a Cancerous Breaſt, or elſe if it be a ſin, it muſt be as great as contributing to the endangering of as many ſcore Thouſand Souls as 2000 Miniſters were likely to have helpt to ſave, and to the corrupting of the Church, and the Introduction of Popery. And few Chriſtians think that Nathan ſinned by unpeaceableneſs more than David by Murder and Adultery, though but once; or Samuel more than Saul; or the Prophet that reproved him more than Jeroboam; or Chriſt Matth. 23. more than the Phariſees; yea, or than Peter, Mat. 16. when he ſaid, Get behind me Satan, thou ſavoureſt not the things that be of God; or Paul more than Peter, Gal 2. or than the Jewiſh Teachers, whom he called the Conciſion & Dogs; or John than Diotrephes, &c.
Guilt is tender, and they that think God is of their Mind when he is ſilent, Pſal. 50. 21. will think men ſhould be ſo too. And man dare not bid defiance to God, and openly proclaim a War againſt him, and therefore hath no way to ſin in peace, but by a conceited bringing the Mind and Law of God to his. What ſin is there that Learned Men father not on God: And then they muſt be praiſed and not reproved, and then it's worſe than unpeaceable to aggravate that which they ſay God owneth; ſuch men as I, would think it ſcarce credible that the Spaniſh Inquiſition, the French Maſſacre, the Powder-Plot, the Murder of 200000 in Ireland, the Perjuring of a Nation, the ſilencing of Thouſands of faithful Miniſters, ſhould have one word of Juſtification ever ſpoken for it. But we are miſtaken: No doubt men can write learned Volumes to defend any of theſe; and if one do but ſay, They pleaſe not God, men may be found that can ſay, [I believe in my Conſcience that you are miſtaken, and ſpeak unpeaceably: God is pleaſed with it all.] Sure the day of Judgment will be much to juſtifie God himſelf, who is thus ſlandered as the Friend of every mans Sin. What wonder is it if there be numerous Religions in the World, when every ſelfiſh man maketh a God and a Religion of his own, fitted to his Intereſt and Mind? But when all men center onelyonly in one God, and bring their Minds to his, and not conceitedly his to theirs, we may yet be One.
And if we could make men know, that God is not for them, and accepteth not of a Sacrifice of Innocent Blood, however men think that they do him good Service, yet they would not have this known: It's long ſince unhumbled Sinners turned Church-Confeſſion into Auricular; If Saul do ſay at laſt, I have ſinned, he would yet be honoured before the People. But the time is near when thoſe that honour God he will honour, and thoſe that deſpiſe him ſhall be lightly eſteemed.
Few men living can eaſier bear with others for different forms and Ceremonies than I; but I take not the ſilencing and ruining of 2000 Miniſters for Ceremonies (were that the worſt of it) to be a Ceremony.
§ 6. Pag. 69. You ſay, We are not all of one mind yet: A ſad word from a Biſhop. Do you think that any two Men on Earth are of one mind in all things? Were thoſe agreed whom Paul perſuadeth, Rom. 14. to receive each other, but not to doubtful Diſputations, and not to judge or deſpiſe each other, (much leſs to ſilence, impriſon, and deſtroy.) We are agreed in all that is conſtitutive of Chriſtianity, and agreed that all Chriſtians ſhould love others as themſelves, and do as they would be done by. I confeſs if you have ſuch eminent Self-denial, as to be willing, if ever you differ from the publick Impoſitions, about the lawfulneſs of any one thing, to be not only caſt out of your Lordſhip and Biſhoprick, but to be ſilenced, impriſoned and deſtroyed, I cannot accuſe you of Partiality but of Errour. I have known too many Conformiſts who needed no Biſhop to ſilence them, (they never preached.) But that will not juſtifie their deſires that others be ſilenced.
I have oft enough told you in how many things the Conformiſts are diſagreed: I now ſay the Biſhops themſelves are not agreed of the very Species of the Church of England: To ſay nothing of their diſagreement of the Conſtitutive, national Head or Governour; they are not agreed, whether it be only a part of an univerſal, humane, political Church, ſubject to an univerſal humane ſupream Power, who hath the right of Legiſlation and judgment over them, or whether it be a compleat national Church of it ſelf, a part only of the univerſal as Headed by Chriſt, but not as by Man, or as humane Politie, having no foreign Governour, Monarchical or Ariſtocratical, (Pope or Council.)
Overdoing is illdoing and undoing. He that would make ſuch a Law of Concord, as that none ſhall live out of Priſon who are not of the ſame Age, Complexion, Appetite, and Opinion, would depoſe the King, by leaving him no Subjects. The Inquiſition is ſet up in Love of Unity: But we know that we ſhall differ while we know but in part: Only the perfect World hath perfect Concord. I greatly rejoice in that Concord which is among all that truly love God. They love one another, and agree in all that is neceſſary to Salvation: The Church of the Conformiſts is all agreed for Croſſing and the Surplice, and for the Impoſed Oaths, Profeſſions and Covenants: Oh that all our Pariſhioners who plead for the Church were agreed that the Goſpel is true, and that Chriſt is not a Deceiver, and that Man dyeth not as Dogs, but hath a Life of future Retribution.
§ 7. P. 69. Asking, [Were not almoſt all the Weſtminſter Aſſembly Epiſcopal Conformable men when they came thither?] He can ſay, [No, not in their hearts, as appeared by their fruits.] And he cites ſome words of the ſenſe of the Parliament, Jun. 12. 1643.
Anſ. 1. See here a Biſhop that knew the hearts of hundreds of men, whom he never ſaw, to be contrary to their Profeſſion and conſtant Practice.
2. And he can prove by their reporting the Parliaments words what was theſe Miniſters own Judgment.
3. And he can prove by thoſe words in Jun. 1643. what was their Judgment a Year or two before, and is ſure that the Scots Arguments did not change them.
4. And he can prove that thoſe are no Epiſcopal Conformiſts who are for the ancient Epiſcopacy only (deſcribed by Biſhop Uſher,) and take the Engliſh frame to be only lawful, but not unalterable, or beſt. And if really he do take him to be no Epiſcopal Conformiſt, who is for enduring any way but their own, it is he and not I that gave them ſo bad a Character: It is he and not I that intimateth, that thoſe moderate Conformiſts who had rather Church-Government were reformed, than ſuch Confuſion made by ſilencing and hunting Chriſtians, are at the Heart no Epiſcopal Conformiſts: Their Hearts I confeſs much differ from the Silencers and Hunters.
§ 8. He maketh me a falſe Hiſtorian for fixing the War on the Eraſtian Party in Parliament. Anſ. Did I lay it only on the Eraſtians? Have I not undeniably proved that the War here began between two Epiſcopal Parties? Of which one part were of A. Bp. Abbots, Mr. Hookers, and the generality of the Biſhops and Parliaments mind, and the other of Bp. Lauds, Sibthorps, Maynwarings, Heylins, A. Bp. Bromhalls, &c. mind: And the firſt ſort ſome of them thought Epiſcopacy Jure Divino; but the Engliſh Frame not unreformable: And the other ſort thought it was but Jure humano, and theſe were called by ſome Eraſtians. Let him give me leave to produce my Hiſtorical proofs, even to ſingle men by name, that the Engliſh War began between theſe two Parties, and I defie all his falſe Contradiction: Only ſuppoſing, 1. That I ſpeak not of the King, nor of the War in Ireland or Scotland. 2. That I grant that the Nonconformiſts were moſt for the Parliament, and the Papiſts moſt againſt them.
But when I have ſaid ſo much to Mr. Hinkley already to prove this, did this Lord Biſhop think to be believed without confuting it?
§ 9. But it tranſcendeth all bounds of Hiſtorical credibility, that he anſwereth this by ſaying, [He and all his Abettors muſt know the Catalogues of that Parliament, and that Aſſembly are ſtill in our hands, the Copies of their Speeches, and Journals of their Votes, &c.] Anſ. They are ſo to the Shame of ſuch Hiſtorians. You have many of them in Whitlocks Memorials; I knew ſo great a number my ſelf of the Parliament, Aſſembly, and Army, as makes me pitty the Ignorant World, which is abuſed by ſuch Hiſtorians as you and yours.
§ 10. As for your aſſuring me that you look one day to anſwer for all you ſay, it minds me of the words of your Dr. Aſh…ton, Chaplain to the Duke of Ormond, who (as going to the Bar of God) undertakes to prove, that it is through Pride and Covetouſneſs that we conform not. The Inquiſitors alſo believe a day of Judgment. And what is it that ſome men do not confidently aſcribe to the moſt holy God?
§ 11. Your praiſes of me are above my deſert: I am worſe than you are aware of: But mens ſins againſt Chriſts Church and Servants in England, Scotland, and Ireland are never the leſs for that.
§ 12. You ſhew us that you are deceived before you deceive: You do but lead others into the way of falſhood which you were led into your ſelf, when you ſay, I am [ſaid to have aſſerted, that a man might live without any actual Sin.] A Lord Biſhop (Morley p. 13.) told it you, and you a Lord Biſhop tell it others, and thus the poor World hath been long uſed; ſo that of ſuch Hiſtorians men at laſt may grow to take it for a valid Conſequence, [It is written by them: Ergo it is incredible.] I tell you firſt in general, that I have ſeen few Books in all my Life, which in ſo few Sheets have ſo many Falſhoods in matters of Fact done before many, as that Letter of Biſhop Morley's; which upon your Provocation I would manifeſt, by Printing my Anſwer to him, were it not for the charges of the Preſs.
2. And as to your Inſtance, the caſe was this: Dr. Lany impertinently talkt of our being juſtified only by the Act of Faith, and not the Habit: I askt him whether we are unjuſtified in our ſleep? which led us further, and occaſioned me to ſay to ſome Objection of his, that men were not always doing moral Acts good or evil: and thence, [that a man is not always actually ſinning, viz. In a mans ſleep, he may live ſometimes and not actually ſin; as alſo in an Apoplexy and other loſs of Reaſon.] Hence the credible Biſhop Morley printed that I ſaid, A man may live without any actual Sin: Yea, and ſuch other Reaſons are given for his forbidding me to preach the Goſpel. And now another pious L. Bp. going to anſwer it at Judgment, publiſheth it as from him. O what a World is this, and by what hands are we caſt down? Is my Aſſertion falſe or doubtful? Dr. Bates and Dr. Jacombe who were preſent are yet both living. By ſuch men and means is the Church as it is: Ariſe O Lord and ſave it from them.
§ 13. You tell me, as Bp. Morley, of being the top of a faction of my own making, neither Epiſcopal, Presbyterian, Independent, or Eraſtian. Anſ. So, to be againſt all Faction is to be the top of a Faction: I am neither an Arian, nor a Sabellian, nor an Apollinarian, nor a Macedonian, nor a Neſtorian, or Eutychian, or Monothelite, or a Papiſt, &c. Conclude ergo I am the top of a new Hereſie, and ſilence and impriſon me for it, and your Dioceſane Conformity will be paſt all ſuſpicion (even at the heart.) But you will one day know, that to be againſt all Faction, and yet to bear with the Infirmities of the weak, and love all Chriſtians as ſuch, is a way that had a better Author.
§ 14. P. 73, 74. As to your extolled Friend a Nonconformiſt, who you ſay, told you that [I am not able to bear being gainſaid in any thing, for want of Academick Diſputes, &c.
Anſ. 1. Was your great Friend ſo excellent a man, and was it a good work to ſilence him, with which in your Conſcience you think God is pleaſed?
2. Now you name him not, he cannot contradict you: Mr. Bagſhaw ſaid ſomthing like it of Mr. Herle, Prolocutor of the Aſſemblie, which his Acquaintance contradict.
3. I juſtifie not my Patience; it is too little: But verily if you had ſilenced me alone, and Gods Church and Thouſands of Souls had been ſpared, I think you had never heard me twice complain. Judge you whether I can endure to be gainſaid, when I think there are Forty Books written againſt me by Infidels, Socinians, Papiſts, Prelatiſts, Quakers, Seekers, Antinomians, Anabaptiſts, Sabbatarians, Separatiſts, and ſome Presbyterians, Independents, Eraſtians, Politicians, &c. which for the far greateſt part I never anſwered, though ſome of them written by Prelatiſts and Papiſts have ſpoken fire and Sword: Nor to my Remembrance did any or all theſe Books by troubling me ever break one hour of my ſleep, nor ever grieve me ſo much as my own ſin and pain (which yet was never extream) have grieved me one day. Alas Sir! How light a thing is the contradiction or reproach of man who is ſpeaking and dying almoſt at once?
§ 15. P. 75. As to my Political Aphoriſms I have oft told you I wiſh they had never been written: But all in them is not wrong which Biſhops are againſt. The firſt paſſage challenged by your Biſhop Morley is, My calling a pretence to unlimited Monarchy by the name of Tyranny, adding my reaſon, becauſe they are limited by God who is over all. Miniſters were never under Turks thought worthy of puniſhment for ſuch an Aſſertion: But Biſhop Morley is no Turk. If Monarchs be not limited by God, they may command all their Subjects to deny God, or blaſpheme him, to take Perjury, Murder, and Adultery, for Duties: and they are unwiſe if ever they will be ſick, die, or come to Judgment.
§ 16. You ſay, [I was told by a Reverend Prelate, that at the Conference at the Savoy, Mr. Baxter being demanded what would ſatisfie him, replied, All or Nothing: On this I reflected on what that gave Divine told me.]
Anſ. Alas good man! if for all other your hiſtorical notices you are faln into ſuch hands, what a maſs of Untruths is in your Brain? But why will you diſhonour Reverend Prelates ſo much as to father them on ſuch? I never heard the queſtion put [What will ſatisfie you?] nor any ſuch anſwer as All or Nothing: When the King commiſſioned us to treat of ſuch Alterations as were neceſſary to tender Conſciences, the Biſhops, 1. Would not treat till we would give them in writing all that we blamed in the Liturgy, and all the Alterations we would have, and all the additional Forms we deſired. 2. When thus conſtrained, we offered theſe on ſuppoſition, that on Debate much of it would be denied us, or altered; but they would not vouchſafe us any Debate on what we offered, nor a word againſt our additional Forms, Reply, or Petition for Peace. 3. To the laſt hour they maintained, that No alteration at all was neceſſary to tender Conſciences.] And ſo they ended, and the Convocation doubled and trebled our Burden, and the Biſhops in Parliament together.
Once Biſhop Couſins deſired us to lay by Inconveniences, and name only what we took for downright Sin. I gave him a Paper deſcribing Eight ſuch: We did but begin to debate one of them, (Caſting ſuch from the Communion of Chriſts Church that dare not take the Sacrament kneeling, though they be miſtaken) and our time ended.
Dr. Pierce undertook to prove it a Mercy to them to deny them the Sacrament; and he made a motion to me, that he and I might go about the Land to preach men into ſatisfaction and Conformity: I asked him how I could do that when they intended to ſilence me? For though I ſcrupled not kneeling at the Sacrament, if they made any one Sin the condition of my Miniſtry, I ſhould be ſilenced, though they abated all the reſt. It may be this went for [All or Nothing.] And I am ſorry that the Biſhops be not of the ſame mind: St. James was, that ſaid; He that breaketh one is guilty of all: And Chriſt was, who ſaid, He that breaketh one of the leaſt of theſe commands, and teacheth men ſo, ſhall be called leaſt in the Kingdom of God.
So that it was not All Inconveniences, but All flat Sins that we craved in vain to have been exempted from: Much leſs was it the Eſtabliſhment of all that we propoſed to have been treated of, openly profeſſing our ſelves ready to alter any thing amiſs or needleſs upon treaty, and ſuppoſing there would be many ſuch words: But they would not touch our offered additions, nor entertain any treaty about them.
And now pitty your ſelf who have been drawn to believe ſuch Reverend Prelates as you ſay, and pitty ſuch as your Writings will deceive.
§ 17. That you take it to be contrary to a Chriſtian temper to be ſenſible of the Sufferings of the Church, and to name and deſcribe the ſin that cauſeth them, and that but in a neceſſitated Apology for the Sufferers, is no wonder, the Reaſons and your Anſwer I gave you before § 4. and 5. I think it no breach of Peace with Perſecutors or Silencers, to tell them what they do, eſpecially when the Sufferers are feigned to deſerve it all; and not to ſin and that deliberately, is made a ſin deſerving all that we ſuffer and the Nation by it.
§ 18. But p. 77. tells us yet more whence your Errours come, even by believing falſe Reports, and then reporting what you believe. You ſay, [Some People have talked of a Combination or Pact amongſt themſelves, that except they might have their own Will throughout, they would make the World know what a breach they could make, and how conſiderable they were.]
Anſ. 1. Do you not think that Rogers, Bradford, Philpot, and the reſt, did ſo in Qu. Maries days, and that it was they that made the Breach by being burnt? What is it that ſuch Hiſtorians may not ſay? So Luther was taught by the Devil, Bucer was killed by the Devil, ſo was Oeclampadius, Calvin was a ſtigmatized Sodomite, and what not: And even the moſt publick things are yet: uncertain before our Eyes: Godfrey killed himſelf: The Papiſts had no Plot: The Presbyterians have a Plot againſt the King: The Nonconformiſts ſilenced themſelves: And did not the Citizens of London burn their own Houſes? When you that are a Biſhop cite other great Biſhops for ſuch things as you do, may it not come in time to be the Faith of the Church, and thence to be neceſſary to all.
2. But how do you think all theſe that were ſcattered all over England, and knew not one another by name or Dwelling, ſhould ſo confederate?
3. Do but think of it as a man. There were Nine or Ten Thouſand Miniſters that had conformed to the Parliaments way in poſſeſſion: They were all to conform or be caſt out. The Book and Act of Uniformity came not out of the Preſs till about that very day Aug. 24 Neither Conformiſts, nor (after) Nonconformiſts could ſee it, but thoſe in or near London: What time was there to tell them all over England in one day? How knew we who would conform and who would not, when Nine Thouſand were equally in Poſſeſſion? If we had written to them all, would not One Thouſand of our Letters have detected it? Or at leaſt ſome of thoſe that conformed, with whom we prevailed not?
4. What was it that moved them all to this Confederacy? To ſuffer Ruine in the World? To make themſelves conſiderable you ſay, and ſhew what a Breach they could make? And for what? Unleſs they might have all their own Wills? And what was their Will? Was it to be Lord Biſhops? Or domineer over any? Or to get great Benefices? I think no high-way Robbers do any Villanies meerly to ſhew what miſchief they can do, much leſs ruine themſelves to ſhew that they can do Miſchief by Suffering. Some ſuch thing is ſaid of ſome odd Circumcellians that they killed themſelves to make others thought their Perſecutors: But Perſecution was more hated then than now. Did the former Life and Doctrine of theſe Two Thouſand men ſignifie a Spirit ſo much worſe than the reſt?
5. And do you think that the other Seven Thouſand or Eight Thouſand that conformed did confederate beforehand to conform? How could they do it who declared Aſſent and Conſent to every thing contained and preſcribed in and by the Book which they never ſaw, unleſs they confederated at a venture, to do whatever was impoſed? And if Seven Thouſand could agree without confederating, why not Two Thouſand? I could not then have my Poſt Letters paſs without Interception: And it's a wonder that no Letter of this Confederacy was taken.
And I'le tell (not you, but thoſe that believe me) how far we were from it. When we were all caſt out and ſome new motion was made for our ſervice, one weak man moved here, that we might draw up a conſenting Judgment to how much we could yield, that we might not differ. I anſwered that it was not our buſineſs to make a Faction, or to ſtrengthen a Party; nor were we all of one judgment about every Ceremony, and therefore no man muſt go againſt his judgment for a Combination with the reſt: If they would abate but ſo much as any one mans Conſcience would be ſatisfied in, that one man muſt ſerve the Church accordingly. And if any were taken in, the reſt would rejoyce.] This Anſwer ſilenced that motion, and I never heard any move it more: And I am fully aſſured there was never ſuch a Combination.
But with this exception: How far any thought the Covenant bound them againſt our Prelacy I cannot tell. Thoſe that I convers'd with ſaid, it bound them to no more than they were bound to before. But I confeſs we did all confederate in our Baptiſm, againſt willful ſin: And I know of no other Confederacies but theſe: which indeed was enough to make all men forbear what they judged to be ſinful.
§ 19. You add, [But yet it is not fair to over-reckon knowingly, and in ordinary courſe Two Hundred in the ſum, as Mr. Baxter and others do, p. 155, 210. thereby to ſwell the account to the greater odium, by complaining roundly Two Thouſand: This I muſt conclude to be done knowingly, for ſomtimes he only mentions One Thouſand Eight Hundred, p. 151, &c. ]
Anſ. I am perſuaded that it is not knowingly that you ſpeak ſo much beſides the truth; but for want of knowing what and whom you talk of. I never medled with gathering the number, Mr. Calamy did, and ſhewed us a Liſt of 1800, upon which I long mentioned no more, and ſeldom ſaw him afterward: But Mr. Ennis who was more with him, aſſuring me that they had after an account of at leaſt 200 more, who were omitted; I ſometime to ſpeak the leaſt mention the 1800, and ſometime ſay about 2000, and by his laſt account that was the leaſt. Yet with a Lord Biſhop that knoweth nothing of all this, I knowingly over reckon: But if God be pleaſed with their ſilencing, why do you take this ill?
§ 20. The next and great Accuſation is my extenuating the Biſhops Clemency, and aggravating our Sufferings, and that againſt my Conſcience I impute to the Biſhops that bloodineſs which they never intended but abhor. And he will not believe what I ſay of the death of any by Impriſonment or want.
Anſ. The good Lady that pittied the Beggars when ſhe came in out of the Froſt and Snow, when ſhe had warmed her ſelf, chid them away, and ſaid, it was warm enough. I could name you thoſe in London, that travelled out of the North in great want, and took up with ſuch cold Lodgings here in great want of all things, that they were paſt cure before their miſery was known. How many poor Quakers have dyed in Priſon many know: It's like you never heard of the death of Mr. Field, a worthy Miniſter, in the Gate-houſe; nor of Mr. Thompſon in the noiſome Priſon at Briſtol, nor of Reverend Mr. Hughes of Plimouth's Death, cauſed by his Priſon ſickneſs; perhaps you never read the Life, Sufferings, and Death of excellent Joſeph Allen of Taunton: I will not be the gatherer of a larger Catalogue, But I believe ſome others will. But theſe you know not of.
§ 21. The words in my Book which I ſpeak argumentatively, ſhewing clearly whither their cauſe will lead them, if they truſt to bring us to Unity by force, you unworthily feign that I ſpeak as accuſing the Biſhops Inclinations. My Argument was, If you think by violence to effect your ends, it muſt be either by changing mens judgments, or by forcing them as Hypocrites to go againſt their judgments, or elſe by utter deſtroying them till there are no Diſſenters: But none of theſe three ways will do it: Ergo Violence will not do it. 1. I prove that force will not change their Judgments. 2. I prove they are ſuch men as will rather ſuffer death than ſin againſt their Conſciences; and ſo leſs Sufferings which cure not do but exaſperate the Diſeaſe. 3. I prove that if, when leſs doth no good, you would deſtroy them, that would not do your work but croſs it. And doth this ſignifie that I charge the Biſhops with bloody purpoſes? They openly tell us that it's puniſhing us that muſt bring us to Concord. I tell them, Leſſer will not do it, and greater will but hurt themſelves. A man would think that I hereby rather infer that Biſhops will not be bloody, than that they will, when I argue ab incommodo. Truly Sir, I ſee nothing in your Book which tempted me to lament, that I miſt the happineſs of your Academical Education or Diſputes: Nor do I envy thoſe that now enjoy it. God ſave his Church from the worſer part of them.
§ 21. You ſay, P. 79. You muſt needs look on my aggravating my own and the Diſſenters Sufferings beyond Truth, you are ſure beyond Probability, to have proceeded from want of temper. As for ſaying that ſome have lived on brown Bread and Water.
Anſ. I find ſtill that our difference lieth in matter of Fact, done in the open ſight of the World: And if it were whether we are Engliſh-men, I have no hope of ending it! O what is Hiſtory! My own Sufferings by them are very ſmall, ſave the hindering of my Labour: Leave to work is all the Preferment that ever I deſired of them: What I have had hath been againſt their Wills, who have called out for my greater reſtraint. God hath enabled me by the Charity of others to ſend ſome ſmall relief to a few of thoſe whoſe Caſe he will not believe. Some of them have Seven or Eight Children, and nothing at all of their own to maintain them, and live in Countries where ſcarce two Gentlemen of Eſtates within their reach do befriend them; and the People are generally poor; and many of theſe have none to preach to, being not permitted, And when they attempted to meet with ſome few ſecretly, to faſt and pray in ſome caſe of need, have had their few Goods carryed away by Diſtreſs. Good Alderman Aſhhurſt, now with Chriſt, took care of many, and hath ſhewed me Letters and Certificates of undoubted credit, in the very words which I named. One is now near us, that was put to get his Living by Spinning. Mr. Chadwick was the laſt of whom I read thoſe words in a juſt certificate, that he and his Children had long lived on meer brown Rye Bread and Water. It is now above a dozen Years ſince Dr. Vermuxden told me that Mr. Matthew Hill was his Patient, with Hydropical ſwell'd Legs, with drinking Water and uſing anſwerable Food through meer Poverty: But God turned it to good; for neceſſity drove him (when a little ſtrengthened) to Mary-Land, where he hath been almoſt the only able Miniſter they have. We that know them our ſelves, and beg Money to relieve them, are ſuppoſed to be Lyars: for telling that which all their Neighbours know. Through Gods Mercy few in London ſuffer ſo much, (though divers are in great ſtreights.) But great numbers in the Countrys who live among the poor, had not ſome of them now and then a little Relief from London, were like to beg for Bread, or fall into mortal Diſeaſes by Food unfit for Nature. Even in London they that knew Mr. Farnworth, Mr. Spinage, and ſome others, and how they lived and dyed, underſtand me, I'le name Mr. Martin formerly of Weedon, *Diad ſince the writing of this.very poor in London, to tell you of your impartiality; though he loſt one Arm in the Kings Army, he had not a day abated him in Warwick Gaol for preaching.
§ 22. As to his repeating all my mention of their dealings, and my blaming the Biſhops at the Savoy for our preſent diviſions, and my aggravating the evils which Violence will produce if they truſt to that way, I judge it all neceſſary to be ſpoken: Unknown ſin will not be repented of nor forborn; nor unknown danger prevented; nor the unknown needs of the Peoples Souls relieved.
He asketh, Is this the way to be at Peace with us? I anſwer, There is no other way: What Peace can we have with them that think they are bound to ſilence us, and keep us ſix Months in Gaol for every Sermon, and ſo on for the next, and for the next? Or to pay 40 l. a Sermon, and to baniſh us five Miles from Corporations, and muſt not be told of any ſuch thing? He was not unpeaceable that ſaid, He that ſeeth his Brother have need and ſhutteth up the Bowels of Compaſſion from him, how dwelleth the Love of God in him? Nor for ſaying, He that hateth his Brother is a Murtherer: Nor Chriſt for telling us how he will judge them that did not relieve and viſit him in his little ones; and how he will uſe him that beat his Fellow-Servants. It is with you and not with your ſins that we would have peace. Not only Maſſonius and Platina, but even Genebrard, and Baronius ſpeak far ſharplier of the faults of many Popes themſelves, and all Hiſtorians of their Prelates, and yet are taken to be peaceable men. Either thoſe that I mentioned will repent here or hereafter, and then will ſay far worſe of themſelves than I do▪ And may I not foretel it them, when it is but in neceſſitated deprecation of the miſeries of the Land?
§ 23. One of their Champions wrote that he was not bound to deny his own Liberty, becauſe others would pieviſhly take ſcandal at it. I ſhewed the ſinfulneſs of that Concluſion, and that a mans Liberty often lay in as ſmall a matter as a game at Cheſs, a Pipe of Tobacco, or a Cup of Sack: and moſt ſcandal is taken by pieviſh perſons: and yet even a pieviſh mans Soul is not to be ſet as light by as ſuch things. Chriſt and Paul made more of Scandal: And this very arguing of mine is numbred with my unpeaceable diſtempered words.
§ 24. As to his talk about our Controverſies of paſſages in Conformity, he confeſſeth that he hath not read my Plea for Peace, in which I have partly opened them: And much leſs what I have ſaid ſince of them to divers others; and I conſeſs I have neither mind or leiſure to ſay all over again in Print, upon the occaſions of ſuch words as his, which have been oft anſwered.
§ 25. I named the Martyr-Biſhops Hooper, Ridley, &c. as Nonconformiſts to the Laws of their Perſecutors, to ſhew that ſuch Sufferers leave a ſweeter name than their Perſecutors; and he feigneth me to have made them Nonconformiſts to our Laws, and ſaith, [Ingenuity and Chriſtian Veracity would bluſh to own this Art.] Thus ſtill falſe Hiſtory is that which aſſaulteth us.
But I humbly ask his Lordſhip, 1. Whether he think that Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, were more for Conformity than Jewel, Bilſon, and Hooker, and Abbot? And 2. Whether he will ſo far reproach theſe men as to ſay, that Jewel, Bilſon, and Hooker would have conformed by approving that which they moſt expreſly wrote againſt? I have oft enough tranſcribed their words.
§ 26. To ſhew that ſince my expluſion I drew not the People of Kiderminſter from the Biſhops, I ſaid that I [never ſince came near them, nor except very rarely ſent them one Line; which he pretends I contradict, by ſaying, I ſent them all the Books I wrote. One might have found hiſtorical errours enough in his words without a Rack or Quibble. 1. Sure Books are ſomwhat rarelier written than Letters. 2. An ordinary Wit would have underſtood that I ſpoke of one Line of Manuſcript, or one Letter, and not of Printed Books, I delivered them to Mr Simmons, or their Neighbours to ſend them without Letters. And few of thoſe Books were written before this Apology.
§ 27. As a Self-contradicter he ſaith of me, ſomtime I am againſt all Subſcribing, as p. 60, 113. &c. and ſometimes not.
Anſ. Still untruth! p. 60. The words are [If men were not driven ſo much to ſubſcribe and ſwear as they are at this day.] Reader, is it true that this is againſt All Subſcribing?
Pag. 113. The words are, [If we had learned the trick of ſpeaking, writing, and ſwearing in univerſal terms, and meaning not univerſally but particularly, as many do, we could ſay, or ſubſcribe, orſwear as far as you deſire us.] And [Take off the penalty of ſubſcribing, declaring, croſſing, &c. what good doth ſubſcribing a Sentence which he believeth not?] Is this againſt All Subſcribing?
§ 28. Whether to profeſs our tenderneſs of other mens Reputation, and yet to name the nature and aggravations of the ſin which we fear our ſelves, when we are importuned to it, be contradictory, let the impartial judge.
§ 29. P. 92. He ſaith, as my judgment, [To ſubſcribe and declare, that it is not lawful on any pretence whatſoever to take Arms againſt the King, or that an unlawful Oath cannot bind men to unlawful Actions, is Perjury, ſome of the greateſt that Hell ſuggeſteth.] Anſ. Not one true word? I believe all this to be as he ſaith: Both in my firſt and ſecond Plea for Peace, I have largly told him what it is, and what it is not which I own; but he hath ſeen neither. and yet feigneth me to ſay or hold what I have ſo oft renounced.
§ 30. P. 94. He might have known how oft in Print I have retracted the Book called, The Holy Common-Wealth, wiſhing the Reader to take it as Non-ſcriptum: Yet he ſaith, [as far as is generally known I have not done it.] And how ſhould I make it generally known more than by oft Printing it?
§ 31. P. 95. He pittieth me for calling the Author of the friendly Debate, the Debate maker: And I pitty England for ſuch pittiers.
§ 32. P. 96. Whereas the Convocation hath impoſed on all Miniſters a Profeſſion of undoubted certainty of the Salvation of dying baptized Infants, without excepting thoſe of Atheiſts or Infidels, I ask whether all the young, unſtudied ſort of Miniſters have arrived at this certainty any more than I, and how they came by it? and crave their Communication of the aſcertaining Evidence. And what doth his Lordſhip but pretend that I call the Convocation theſe young, unſtudied men, as if they had made this Rubrick for none but themſelves?
§ 33. And he hath found another fault which exceedeth all, and that is, the Title and Dedication of my Methodus Theologiae, where I ſay, that I dedicate it not to the ſlothful, haſty, tired Sectaries, &c. but to ſtudious, ingenious, humble, &c. young men, as being the perſons that are above all others born, diſpoſed, conſecrated to Truth, Holineſs, and the Churches Peace, &c.] Exceeding bad!
Will you hear the proof that this is exceſſive Pride? 1. The Book in the frront indirectly and ſlily calls the Reader, ſlothful, raſh, fooliſh, &c. Anſ. Is this true? 1. It is only thoſe that I would not have to be the Readers. Yea, 2. Only thoſe that I ſay it is not dedicated to.
And do you think there are none ſuch in the world? Will not his foreſaid Debater, and Dr. Parker, and Dr. Sherlock, and abundance more, tell you that the Nonconformiſts are many of them ſuch, and will you now deny it? If not, am I bound to dedicate my Book to ſuch? By what Obligation?
But he ſaith ſo voluminous and emboſt a Title will deter the Readers. But do you not know the Dedication from the Title, only becauſe it is printed on the Title Page? Is that unuſual?
But the odious Arrogance followeth, [Could any thing eaſily be ſaid with more (appearance of) Arrogance; in the very Title Page too, than that his Book is above all others of the ſame Subject, (I know not how otherwiſe to interpret his ſupra omnes, viz. Methodus Theologiae Chriſtianae,] &c. framed, diſpoſed and hallowed to the propagation and growth of Holineſs, to the Peace and Honour of the Church.] I will now for ever acquit him of hypocritical Modeſty.
Anſ. I deſire Mr. Morrice to compare this Ld. Bp's Tranſlation with that overſight of Theodoret's words which he faſteneth on in me. What if I had ſaid that this Biſhop knoweth not how to interpret a plain Latine Sentence, as he ſaith it of himſelf? That which I moſt expreſly ſay of pious, ingenious Youth, he feigneth me to ſay of my Book. Reader, look on the Book and judge whether Methodus, the Nominative Caſe ſingular, agree with natae, diſpoſitae, conſecratae, the Dative Caſe, when Juventutis Parti ſtudioſae, ſedulae, with many other Datives, went before it: There are no leſs than Twelve Adjectives joined to Parti in the Dative Caſe, and yet he conſtrueth the three laſt a agreeing with the very firſt Title-name in the Nominative Caſe. And is this the way to make me lament my want of his Academical Education? Is it any wonder if theſe men prove us Liars and proud, and if they ſentence us for leſſer Crimes?
Yea, here he concludeth that I write [ſo pieviſhly, ſo variouſly and unconſtantly to my ſelf, ſo blindly, as if willfully blind and not penitent of my own guilt, and ſo arrogantly, and diſdainfully, &c.] You have heard the proof.
§ 34. Pag. 99. He proveth my unpeaceableneſs from the Petition for Peace, and Additions to the Liturgy: The Crime here is, [There's not one Office, no not one Prayer of the old Liturgy, and is ſtiled A Reformation of the Liturgy, and little more than a Directory.
Anſ. O miſerable World! What cure is there for thy Deceits? This good man talks as he hath heard, and ſo all goes on.
But 1. he knoweth not it ſeems what Title our Copy had, but judgeth by that which ſome body printed.
2. It ſeems he knoweth not that this Draught was only offered to debate, expecting abundance of Alterations: We openly declared that it was done on ſuppoſition of obliterating and altering all that they had any juſt exception againſt, were it but as needleſs. And for the clauſes, [Theſe or the like words] we profeſt, that we expected an Obliteration of them, but had rather the Biſhops did the impoſing part, if it muſt be done, than we.
3. He knew not it ſeems that ours were offered but as additional Forms, that ſuch of them as both ſides agreed on, might be mixt as Alias's with the old Liturgy. And doth his Lordſhip then exclaim with reaſon, that [Not one Office, not one Prayer of the old was in, when all (after correction) was to be in, and none left out. Oh what is Hiſtory! and what men are its corrupters?
And (that his work may be homogeneal) p. 100, 101. having recited my Commendation of their Liturgy as better than any in the Biblioth. Patrum, he addeth as an Accuſation, [Yet p. 219. he complains of ſuch failings in it, that IT IS A WORSHIP which we cannot in faith be aſſured God accepteth.]
Reader, This is one of the leſſer ſort of deceiving Accuſations. I ſaid that (among greater ſins which we fear in our Conformity) we fear leaſt by Aſſent and Conſent to all things contained and preſcribed. &c. we ſhould be guilty of juſtifying all the failings in that worſhip, and alſo of offering to God a Worſhip that we cannot in faith be aſſured that he accepteth. This Lord ſo wordeth it, that the Reader who peruſeth not my words would verily think that I had ſaid this of the Liturgy in the ſubſtance of Worſhip there preſcribed, which I ſaid only as to the things which we dare not conform to: And I explained it by ſaying, [We dare not juſtifie the beſt Prayer we put up to God in all things.] E. g. To dedicate Infants to God without their Parents expreſt Dedication, or conſent, or their promiſe to educate them as Chriſtians, and this upon the falſe covenanting of Godfathers that never owned them, nor ever mean to educate them as promiſed, (as is known by conſtant experience, neither they nor the Parents intending any ſuch truſt in the undertakers) and to dedicate them by the ſacramental Sign of the Croſs, or a badge of Chriſtianity, and to refuſe all that will not be thus baptiſed. This we fear is a worſhip that God will not accept. But is this therefore ſaid of the ſubſtance of the Liturgy?
And if the Lord Bp. be wiſer or bolder than we, and be beyond all ſuch fears, ſhould he not ſuffer Fools gladly, ſeeing he himſelf is wiſe? And if he like not our fearing an Oath, Subſcription, Declaration, Covenant, or Practice, which he thinks to be true and good, and we think to be falſe and evil, why may he not endure our timorouſneſs while he may ruſh on himſelf and venture; ſhould he not rather pitty us, while St. Paul ſaith, He that doubteth is damned if he eat, becauſe he eateth not in Faith.
§ 35. P. 108. He queſtions whether their communion be my practice: and p. 110. giveth me two friendly Councils. 1. To peruſe my Books, and retract what's amiſs. 2. To tell the World now my ſober Thoughts, what I could and would do were I to begin the World again.
I heartily thank him for his Counſel, for it is good and honeſt. But alas, what a thing is it to write of things which men know not! 1. He knoweth not that I have retracted much already; partly by diſowning, and partly by large Obliterations: Of the firſt ſort are my Aphor. of Juſtification, and my Polit. Aphoriſms (though not all that's in them.) Of the 2d he may ſee many and large Obliterations in my Saints Reſt, my Key for Catholicks, &c.
2. He ſeemeth not to know what bloody Books, to prove me one of the worſt men living, their Church Advocates have written againſt me, fetcht mainly from theſe retracted Books and Words. Nor how they that commend Auguſtine, reproach me as mutable for thoſe Retractations.
3. It ſeemeth he knoweth not that I have already performed his ſecond Advice, in my Cure for Church-Diviſions, my Second Plea for Peace, (about Government) Yea, Biſhop Morley before the King, Lords, and Biſhops at Worceſter-houſe, ſpeaking of Ceremonies and Forms, cauſed my Diſputations of Church-Government, produced and ſaid, No man hath written better than Mr. Baxter, (as if it were againſt my ſelf.) And in Doctrinals, my Cathol. Theol. and Methodus Theol. and Chriſtian Directory have expreſſed my matureſt, calmeſt thoughts. But he that counſels me to it knows not that it is already done. And more for Reviſing and Retractation I would do, if neceſſity did not divert me, even the want of time and ſtrength.
§ 36. P. 115. You ſay. [That Reverend and great man Bp. Morley tells us [The generality of Nonconforming Divines ſhewed themſelves unwilling to enter on Diſpute, and ſeemed to like much better another way, tending to an amicable and fair compliance, which was wholly fruſtrated by—a certain perſons furious eagerneſs to engage in a Diſputation.] This was it ſeems the ſenſe of both ſides at that time.]
Anſ. How far from Truth? It was the ſenſe and Reſolution of the reconciling Party, called by them Presbyterians: We all deſired nothing but an amicable Treaty—We were promiſed by—they ſhould meet us half way. When we met, Biſhop Sheldon declared the Agreement of his Party, that till we had brought in all our Exceptions againſt the Liturgies, and our additional Forms, they would not treat with us. Mr. Calamy, Mr. Clark, and others, would have taken that as a final Refuſal, and meddled no more, leſt Diſpute ſhould do more harm than good: I was againſt ſuch an untimely end, and ſaid, They will report that we had nothing to ſay: It's better let the caſe be ſeen in writing, than ſo break off. The reſt wrote the Exceptions about the Liturgies: ſome Agent of the Biſhops anſwered them without the leaſt conceſſion for alteration at all. I wrote a Reply, and the Additional Forms, and a Petition to the Biſhops, and they would treat of never a one of them: But at the end, put us to diſpute to prove any Alteration neceſſary, they maintaining that none at all was neceſſary to the eaſe of tender Conſciences. (Of which before.)
§ 37. I had thought to have proceeded, but truly the work which the Biſhop maketh me is ſo unpleaſant, almoſt all about the truth or Falſhood of notorious matter of Fact, that I have more Patience to bear his Accuſations (whatever his learned Friend ſaid of my impatience) than to follow him any further at this rate. But whereas he ſaith, that [ſome will think that many things in his Book want truth.] I am one of thoſe, and leave it to the Readers Judgment whether they judge not truly: And whereas he lays ſo much ſtreſs on Bp. Morley's words, if any Printer ſhall be at the charge of Printing it, I purpoſe while he and the Witneeſſs are yet alive, to publiſh the Anſwer to his Letter, which I caſt by to avoid Diſpleaſure. And if they will ſtill be deceived, let them be deceived. I cannot help it.
It is no wonder that he that is deſcribed, Joh. 8. 44. ſhould carry on his Kingdom accordingly in the World: But muſt his Dial be ſet on the Steeple of Chriſts Church, and have a conſecrated Finger for its Index? O lamentable Caſe!
FINIS.
End of the text · Richard Baxter, The True History of Councils (1682)