Apology for Non-Conformists, Text (3 of 3)

Apology for Non-Conformists · Text (3 of 3)

p. 97As for Stage-Playes, if they were reformd and regulated, ſo as to have no curſing or ſwearing, nothing of laſciviouſneſs and wantonneſs, nothing of impiety or prophaneſs, no putting on of Apparel not belonging to be ſex by the Actors, I ſhould look on them as one of the beſt Recreations; only I would not have ſeeing of Playes be made a mans work or buſineſs, and that which ſhould be but a divertiſment be a man's whole imployment: But as they are frequently made and acted (if we may believe reports) the muſt have ſtronger Champions than I to throw down the Gantlet, or take it up in their defence. p. 98'Tis well known the Ancient Fathers of the Church, and ſome reverend and learned men, Sons of the Church of England, have condemned them. Dr. Reynolds, Doctor of the Chair at Oxford, (and we are told a Conformiſt too) wrote againſt them; Dr. Andrew Rivet (Profeſſor of Divinity, and Tutor to the Prince of Orange, and one that remembred the condition of our Sovereign, when in Exile, in his laſt hours and Prayers) is no friend to them; And Dr.Fern, afterward Biſhop of Cheſter, offered to joyn with ſome Presbyterian Miniſters, in declaring for the ſanctification of the Lord's day, and againſt Stage-playes in the late times. Yet as for thoſe that go to ſee them, I do not, I dare nor therefore judge them no Chriſtians, or no good Chriſtians, becauſe ſometimes they are ſeen in the Theatre, though oftener in the Church: I muſt confeſs that that inference [I may ſee a Picture, therefore a Play] is but weak and dark, and but the ſhadow of an Argument: For thoſe who condemn ſuch Repreſentations on the Stage, do the like in a Picture; that is, they damn laſcivious & wanton Pictures, Books, & Songs as well as Playes. Again, the ſeeing of a Picture good or bad, hath not (I conceive) ſuch a powerful influence on us, as the acting or perſonating on the Stage hath; We are not uſually ſo affected by reading of a Book as by heating a Speech; the voice and action ſpeak louder, and are oftner p. 99heard, than a dumb ſhadow or a ſilent picture. However, to conclude this matter, I think the Author of the Friendly Debate had much better have ſpent his time in hearing or ſeeing of Plays, than in writing of that Treatiſe; yea that he might as well, and to as good purpoſe have gone about to find out the wandring Jew (he ſpeaks of) as to find Evidence to prove the generality of Nonconformiſt-Miniſters neither good Subjects, nor good Chriſtians.

Queſt. What then, do you think that the Author of the F. Debate was not well imployed in writing theſe Books, and in diſcovering the vanity and childiſhneſs of Mr. T. W's Writings, or the falſeneſs and dangerouſneſs of Mr. W. B. his Books to the World?

Anſw. As for Mr. T. W. I have heard that he hath written divers uſeful Books; and I ſuppoſe in that Book or Books criticiſed upon, might have been found matter as well as phraſes, and ſome great as well as little things: and if a man had a mind to carp and cavil at other mens works, as the Author of the Debate doth, he might pull ſome of the Fathers by the Beards, and tell them alſo they have written very childiſhly. All men write not in the ſame (We and phraſe, or in the like method; as all Cooks dreſs not the ſame joynt of meat with the ſame ſauce, and garniſh not the diſh in the ſame manner when they ſend it up. And ſome Readers p. 100and Auditors like one way of writing or ſpeaking; ſome another; (elſe what need ſuch variety of Gifts?) but all tend to the Edification of the Church. The Scholar is taken with one way of preaching or writing, the Citizen with another, the Countryman with another. Mr. Calvin, Mr. Farrel, Mr. Viret, all three, had their Excellencies, one in this way and manner, and another in that: If the Doctrine which is preached or printed, be ſound and wholſome, what though the ſtile and phraſe be not compleat and polite? If thy meat be good and ſavory, what though not ſerved up in a Lordly Diſh? I had rather have wholſome Food in an Earthen Platter, than Poyſon in a Golden Charger. I ſuppoſe all Conformiſts have not the ſame low opinion of Mr. T. W. if it be true which I heard, that one of them preached one of his Printed Sermons, and that a Citizen his Auditor, after Sermon went to him with a Thank you Mr. Watſon for your pains.

Queſt. Doth not Mr. W. preach and print dangerous and poiſonous Doctrines, ſuch as tend towards Commotion, and diſturbance of the publick Peace?

Anſw. If he do, I leave him to apologize for himſelf, I will be no Advocate in ſuch matters; And if he doth, he is condemned by thoſe of his own way, I mean our Brethren of the Congregational Church; Twenty nine Miniſters of that p. 101Judgement, as to Church-Goverment, being in and about the City, publiſhed a Renunciation and Declaration againſt the horrid Inſurrection and Rebellion acted by Venner and his Confederates, to which they ſubſcribed their Names: In concluſion of which, they declare as followeth, We ceaſe not to pour out our hearty prayers for all ſorts of Bleſſings, ſpiritual and temporal, upon the Perſon and Government of his Majesty, both in our Congregations, Families, and Retirements; and through Gods grace, according to our Duties, ſhall continue ſo to do our ſelves, and to perſwade others thereunto; and to live quietly and peaceably, in all Godlineſs and honeſty. And as to the Actings and Reſolutions of Venner and his party, they ſay, The Instruments of Cruelty are in their Habitations. Curſed be their Anger, for it was fierce; and their Wrath, for it wat cruel. And we each one ſay, O my Soul, come not thou into their Secrets; unto their Aſſemblies, mine Honour, be not thou united: But let God divide them in Jacob, and ſcatter them in Iſrael. Mr. Bridge was not in Town then, which may be ſuppoſed the Reaſon we find not his Name amongſt the Subſcribers.

As for W. B. whether his Writings be ſo faulty as they are charged to be in the Debates, I cannot tell, having not read them; but a Conformable Doctor told me, that he had ſearched them, and that the Author of the Debate had dealt diſingeniouſly in his quotations of him, &c.

p. 102Quest. May not every whit as much be ſaid for the Papiſts, why they ſhould be tolerated, as to the publick exerciſe of their Religion, as for Nonconformiſts? Do not they profeſs all Loyalty to his Majeſty, and declare againſt all Rebellion?

Anſw. The Papiſts depend upon a forraign Power in Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, ſuperiour (as they think) to his Majeſty. And it was ſubſcribed by twelve Biſhops in Ireland, as follows: Their Religion is ſuperſtitious and idolatrous, their Faith and Doctrine erronious and heretical, their Church in reſpect of both, Apoſtatical. Whereas the Nonconformiſts, whether Presbyters or Congregationiſts, agree with the Church of England in the Doctrine of Faith and Sacraments, differ not in any ſubſtantial part of Religion from her. What the Papiſts practice hath been, how dangerous to the Civil Peace, the Hiſtory of England in Q. Elizabeth's days, can tell us. That 'tis impoſſible for any Nation to be free from Troubles or Treaſon, ſo long as they ſuffer Jeſuites amongſt them, ſaith Watſon in his Quodlibets. And that he and his Order were not ſo good and loyal as they pretended, may be gueſſed from hence, that he himſelf was afrerwards executed for Treaſon.

Moreover Papiſts cannot, when they have power, long live without perſecuting Proteſtants, ſaith a Reverend Doctor: Hence may appear that we ſee K. H. III. of France, ſtabb'd and p. 103lamn'd, becauſe he would not perſecute them enough. So the Anſwer to the Papiſts Apology, p. 21.

As for Quakers, they may ſeem to be the very Spawn of the Romiſh Emiſſaries, proſelyted by them, but made more dangerous to Magiſtrates, and all Civil Society, by this one Principle that they hold, viz. That they ought to be guided and to act, not by the Scripture, nor according to the command of the Civil Magiſtrate, or Spiritual Guides and Paſtors; but by and ſudden Flaſh or Light within them. I am not ſatisfied to have a hand in the Execution of the Sanguinary Laws againſt Papiſts, yet ſhould be loth to try how Sanguine or good natur'd they would be, if they had power in their hands to execute the Writ De Haeretico comburendo. If we may ſay of them, (as they uſe to ſay of Fire and Water) They are good Servants; I am ſure 'tis as true, That they are but bad Maſters.

Queſt. How can we agree to live quietly with theſe Nonconformiſts? Are they not ſo much divided from us in their Judgement, that they divide from us in their Language alſo; and in fine would bring all things into a Babel of Confuſion? Cont. p. 1.

Anſw. The greater number of them, I preſume, ſpeak as others do; and conform to that ordinary phraſe, Well, I thank God. If any when enquired of about their Health, ſay, I am well, through Mercy; they do but as the French Proteſtants p. 104do; they are ſurely few in compariſon that ſay ſo commonly; and I do not remember one Miniſter that uſeth to ſay ſo; they that do, poſſibly have recovered from ſome ſickneſs, or eſcaped ſome danger, which occaſions them to uſe this expreſſion: But if you will be critical, ſome think it a ſign of a greater humility to ſay, I am well through mercy, than the other, I am well I thank God; However it is not ſo liable to exception as to ſay, I am well y' faith, as I have heard that ſome Conformiſts do, although Biſhop Saunderſon doth not approve of that language in common diſcourſe. We do not hold it unlawful to uſe the name of God in our Salutations as Boaz did; and can ſay and pray, God ſave the King as heartily as your ſelves. I know …o Nonconforming-Miniſters that hold it unlawful to teach Children their Catechiſm & Prayers leſt they ſhould take God's Name in vain. And yet I muſt have leave to ſay, that a reverend Biſhop doth reckon that we ſin againſt the third Commandment, by an irreverend and cuſtomary mention of God's great and glorious Name upon trivial occaſions; and a learned Doctor in his Expoſition of the third Commandment, makes it a duty not to uſe the Name of God but with great reverence. See Dr. Pat. Catech.

Queſt. Are Nonconformiſts moſt guilty of breaking the third Commandment in the main ſenſe? See Cont: p. 4.

p. 105Anſw. Mr. Caſe, Mr. Edwards, and the London Miniſters (cited by the Author of the Debate in his Continuation) all prove they were very tender of the breach of an Oath, deſirous to keep far from it themſelves; and to ſave others, with fear plucking them out of the fire; and the preſent ejected and dejected eſtate of the Nonconformiſts may teſtifie, that they are ſuch as fear an Oath. The Presbyterians are bold to ſay in one of their Papers to his Majeſty, That the Obligation of the Covenant upon the Conſciences of the Nation, was not the weakeſt Inſtrument of his Return. As to your citations out of Mr. John Goodwyn and Mr. John Lilborne, I ſay there lyeth an Exception againſt the Witneſſes in the Caſe; as I ſuppoſe you might ſay, if their Teſtimonies were produced againſt the Hierarchy, Liturgy, and Ceremonies.

Queſt. What may be the cauſe the Author of the Debate is ſo fierce againſt the Proteſtation taken by the Parliament before the War, and which his late Majeſty excepted not againſt when taken, although he was then at Whitehall?

Anſw. The true Reaſon may be this; becauſe the Houſe of Commons put out an Interpretation, that by the Doctrine of the Church of England, which they promiſed to maintain, they meant onelyonly the Doctrine in oppoſition to Popery and Popiſh Innovations, and did not thereby oblige themſelves or others to the maintenance of the Diſcipline and Government. p. 106If that had been in, 'tis to be thought it would have gone down as eaſily with men of his way, as the Et-caetera Oath did, concerning which the Hiſtorian gives us this account; That ſome Biſhops preſſed it on Miniſters before the day required to take it by the Canon, and enjoyned them to take it kneeling; a Ceremony not exacted or obſerved in taking the Oath of Alleagiance and Supremacy Full. Hiſt. 6.11. p. 17.

Queſt. What is to be thought of the Continuation of the Friendly Debate?

Anſw. It ſeems to be an unfriendly Continuation of Debate and Strife, contrary to the Act of Indempnity, and to be a continued breach of that Law in the very deſign of it; Elſe, why, contrary to the Act of Oblivion, doth he rake up the memory of what was written and preached before and in the Wars, and that ſometimes by perſons very little conſiderable for their parts, learning, or place amongſt their own party? and why doth he charge thoſe things upon the Nonconformiſts of this Generation?

Queſt. Were not Nonconformiſts even from the beginning of Nonconformity generally very peeviſh, impudent, cenſorious, and diſobedient to Authority?

Anſw. The Old Puritans (if we believe the Hiſtorian, and he was a Conformiſt and a Dignitary) were humble, meek, patient, hoſpitable, charitable, as in his Cenſures of, ſo in his Alms to, p. 107others. Dr. Full. H. 6.11.220. And if we be…ieve the Author of the Debate, the Ancient Nonconformiſts were (many of them) men of …ober and peaceful principles, and did ſubmit to Authority, and were enemies to Separation; ſuch were Mr. Ball, Mr. Geere, and all thoſe who were the Authors of that grave and modeſt Confutation of the Error and Sect of the Brownists, or Separatiſts, publiſhed by Mr. Rathband.

Quest. Have not ſome of the High Sons of the Church changed their Principles in relation to King and Parliament?

Anſw. Time was when they pleaded ſtrongly, Where the Word of a King is there is power: But lately when his Majeſty publiſhed a Declaration about Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, &c. then their note was changed; That was no Law (they ſaid) and the King could not do it without the Parliament. And yet then the Houſe of Commons gave his Majeſty thanks for doing it. Time was when a Long Parliament was accounted by them a grievous Diſeaſe, and now it is the great Remedy. Time was when they cryed down all Parliaments; now they cry up this. Whence comes this change? I anſwer, The caſe is alter'd, quoth Ployden.

Queſt. Is this good Logick, or ſolid reaſoning; Mr. Lewes Hughes, Mr. Vicars, Mr. Bridges did write thus and thus in the War-time; Ergo, or therefore the Nonconformiſts at preſent are all thus and thus?

p. 108Anſw. I deny the Conſequence, as the Author of the Debate would, and well might. If a man ſhould argue thus: Mr. VVhite ſet out a Book of a hundred (which he called) Scandalous Miniſters that were ejected by the Parliament: If we grant ſome of thoſe hundred were ſcandalous, therefore all that were ejected in thoſe dayes, were ſcandalous. Or thus: They ſay one Wallis of Glouceſter publiſhed a Book of ſcandalous words and deeds of perhaps twenty or thirty now Conformable-Miniſters; therefore if ſome of them were guilty, all that conform are faulty in like manner.

Queſt. Is it an argument or evidence of eminent Godlineſs, and of extraordinary Charity, to charge thouſands with Errors or miſcarriages of half a dozen or half a ſcore?

Anſw. No. God, who is Love it ſelf, would have ſpared Sodom for the ſake of ten righteous perſons. And ſurely our enemies when they are ſerious and ſober, and their paſſions not predominant, both of old and of late, might find (if they would look about) more than ten righteous perſons, godly, meek, modeſt, charitable and peaceable among the Nonconformiſts. In the beginning of the Reformation, there were a ſort of Anabaptists roſe up in Germany, and did horrid things at Munſter and elſewhere; was the fault therefore in the Reformation? Although the Papiſts uſe to charge it upon the Proteſtant Religion, p. 109that it is the Spring and Fountain of Sedition and Rebellion where it is received; Yet both We, and our Brethren Conformists, are able to wipe off that foul aſperſion; and ſo are the Nonconformists of theſe dayes, the dirt that is thrown in their faces by the aforeſaid Author. If any have called Conformiſts Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, Antichriſtians, or the like, let it not be charged on thoſe that diſapprove and condemn their ſayings. If any ſpeak in the Clouds, and you fancy they challenge to themſelves a power by Prayer to rain down Blood upon us, let it not be charged upon them that live quietly and peaceably in the Land, & teach men ſo to do by their life and doctrine, if they preach at all, If there be any man that deſigns by preaching or otherwiſe, to throw the Nation into War and Blood again, I wiſh he may propheſie in Sackcloth; And when he pretends to pour out Vials of Wrath, his threatnings may be like water ſpilt upon the ground.

Queſt. Do Nonconformiſts look ſhortly to ſhut Heaven, and turn Waters into Bloud? C.

Anſw. Mr. Parker of New-England printed a Book on Daniel's Viſions and Propheſies, Anno 1646. and according to him there will be no ſhutting of Heaven, no turning of Waters into Blood, at leaſt no putting off of the VVitneſſes Sackcloth (which ſaith our Author (Contin. of Fr. Deb. p. 142.) Mr. W. B. now expects) till the p. 110year 1856. when we ſhall be all, Conformiſts and Nonconformiſts, at peace in our Graves. If Mr. W. B. diſcourſe of ſuch Prophecies in his Sermons, I aſſure you he and one more are all that I can hear of, that meddle to preach on ſuch ſubjects. I am told, Thoſe that preach in private, preach Faith and Repentance, and meddle not with matters relating to the Government either of Church or State. And I was lately asking a prime Nonconformiſt, and an able Preacher, what he ſaid to that Objection in the Debate, that the Nonconformiſts did not preach up Obedience to Magiſtrates? He very zealouſly and confidently replied, They did it, and that more than the Conformists themſelves.

Quest. Do not the Conformiſts, ſome of them medule ſometimes with the interpreting and applying phraſes and notions they meet with in the Revelations?

Anſw. Biſhop Williams, Biſhop of Oſſory, wrote a Book to prove the Long Parliament Antichriſt; and he or another made Oliver Cromwel Antichriſt; and Dr. Fuller in his Church-History, writes of one that obſerved that the Covenant had in it the Number of the Beaſt, One hundred ſixty ſix; conſiſting, as he ſaid, of juſt ſo many words.

Queſt. Were not the old Nonconformiſt… much better then thoſe in our days? C.

Anſw. Their Nonconformity did not coſ… p. 111them ſo much as it doth us; and in the times they lived, they were likely accuſed as we are now: When we are as they now, really (as well as Legally) dead, it may be we may have a good word alſo.

In Queen Elizabeth's days the Nonconformists were not more pliant or complying, than they are now. There were not the Tythe of the Miniſters then ejected, to what ſince. There were more bitter Books put out then againſt the Hierarchy, than are now. If I miſ-remember not, the Nonconformiſts gave the firſt Charge then, but now-a-days we are alarum'd and aſſaulted once and again, and no man appeared publickly to defend our Principles or Practices. We are loaded with Reproaches, and many grievous and heavy things laid to our charge, and no man for a long time in our name in print ſo much as pleaded Not Guilty, and offered to Traverſe the Indictment, or put himſelf upon the Tryal of his Country. Say not therefore that the Nonconformists of former times were better, more peaceable, more modeſt then theſe.

If any man, though in the heat of his paſſion, and in the heat of the War, have called the Conformiſts Gentiles, Uncircumciſed, Philiſtines, Egyptians, Babylonians, the Brood of the Serpent, and have denied pardon of ſin and Heaven to them becauſe of their Conformity, I think he ought to repent of ſuch hard ſayings, and uncharitable p. 112Cenſures of his Brethren and Fellow-ſervants, and to bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance for the time to come, viz. To lay a Law of Love and Kindneſs upon his Tongue and Pen, as long as he lives. 'Tis to be hoped the number of thoſe that had ſuch unbridled Tongues and Pens, was very ſmall; the inſtances you bring of ſuch intemperate heats, and irregular zeal, are taken out of the Furnace of the late War; and that too, after the fire had been raked up in Aſhes by many years peace, and fully quenched by the Act of Oblivion and Indempnity. If we had a mind to recriminate and retaliate, we could repeat much foul Language, and bitter reviling ſpeeches, by ſome of your way againſt us alſo. But theſe are not the methods of Peace. I deſire therefore that all ſuch matters may be forgiven and forgotten on both ſides, and remembred onelyonly or chiefly by the Anthors and Abettors of them, that they may, if they have not already, repent of them more than in Duſt and Aſhes.

Queſt. Did not the Scots in Ireland write to their Brethren in Scotland to ſend over Miniſters to them, in ſuch language, as if they thought there had been but little of Religion amongſt them in that Countrey, during the Reign of the Biſhops? C.

Anſw. There might be many dark Corners in Ireland for want of Oyl to maintain Lamps, preaching p. 113Miniſters I mean, ſuch as ſhould be like John Baptist, burning and ſhining Lights amongſt them. The Scotiſh Presbyterians, if they be like their Brethren in England, had a Reverend eſteem of Archbiſhop Uſher, and the Biſhops of Ireland, for the Iriſh Articles of Religion, and their zeal againſt the toleration of Popery there. Who or what was the cauſe of the ſcarcity of able Miniſters, except want of Maintenance, and fear of the Iriſh Papiſts, I know not; but confident I am, the Biſhops of Armagh and Ardagh were not, if any other Biſhops.

Queſt. Have not the Nonconformiſts a high conceit of themſelves, and thoſe of their own way, and a low eſteem of all others for Religion and Godlineſs? Doth not Mr. Baynes ſay, There is more of God and his Religion in ſome one Congregation of a ſilenced Minister, than in all the Biſhops Families in England? And doth not Dr. Ames approve that of Mr. Baynes?

Anſw. I have heard that Dr. Ames had ſo much charity for Corvinus, that he ſaid, He did not doubt but to meet him in Heaven: Why then Mr. Baynes paſſeth, and Dr. Ames approveth ſuch a ſmart Cenſure on the Biſhops Families, I cannot tell. Yet 'tis not to be imagined that Mr. P. Baynes meant that the Biſhops had no Religion in their Families; If ſo, I cannot commend his Charity. I think this is a ſure and clear truth, That neither Biſhops not ſilenced Miniſters can p. 114be ſaid to have all Religion or no Religion amongſt them and their Followers. I hold a Monopoly in Religion as unlawful, as ſome have thought thoſe in the State illegal. Never the-leſs it muſt be confeſſed, That the Articles of Viſitation, or the Injunctions of the Great Apoſtle St. Paul, are Canonical: A Biſhop must rule his own Houſe well; for if a man know not how to rule his own Houſe, how ſhall he take care of the Church of God? 1 Tim. 3.4, 5. He that writes the Life of Archbiſhop Uſher, tells us, That he had four times a day Prayer in his Houſe; that there was an hour ſpent in Catechiſing once a Week, viz. every Fryday; that he had on the Lords day in the Evening the Sermon which he preached in the Morning, repeated in his Chappel by one of his Chaplains. This was the way to have a Church in his Houſe. All Biſhops do not write after this Canon, nor this Copy. I know a Miniſter, a learned, ſober, and zealous Conformiſt, that after he had been with his Dioceſan, at his Houſe or Palace, to ſubſcribe; came home with a ſad heart, and profeſſed it was not for any thing he had done, but for the prophaneſs and diſorder he obſerved in the Biſhops Family amongſt his Servants. 'Tis to the great commendation of the preſent Archbiſhop of Canterbury, that which is reported of him, That he keeps a good Houſe; that is, in Biſhop Goodman's Dialect, he ſpends Church-Means in a Churchly manner: And that p. 115he keeps a well-govern'd Houſe, allows not Debauchery; if a Servant be drunk once, there's no place for a ſecond Error. If ſo, it muſt be acknowledged that there is Diſcipline in that School, where nothing ſaves but a primum tempus.

Queſt. Doth his Majeſties Coronation-Oath to protect the Biſhops and their Priviledges to his power, (as every good King in his Kingdoms in right ought to protect and defend the Biſhops and Churches under their Government) hinder his Majeſty, that he may not regulate the Juriſdiction of Biſhops, or remove the controverted Ceremonies out of the Church?

Anſw. Hear Mr. Geree, one whom the Author of the Friendly Debate calls a diſcreet Presbyterian: The King, ſaith he, is ſworn to maintain the Laws of the Land in force at his Coronation; and yet 'tis not unlawful after to abrogate any, upon the motion, or with the conſent of his Parliament. The King is bound to maintain the Rights of the Clergy, whilſt they continue ſuch; but if any if their Rights be abrogated by juſt Power, he stands no longer engaged in that particular. If any Priviledges of the Clergy, prove prejudicial or contrariant to the Laws and Liberties and Priviledges of the People, which the King is bound to maintain, the King may lawfully relieve his other Subjects, by paſſing ſuch Bills as may take away ſuch Priviledges. His Majeſties Oath firſt made to his p. 116Subjects in general, being lawful, cannot be voided or ſuperſeded by his after-Oath to the Clergy. And as for the Laws about Ceremonies, they are not like thoſe of the Medes and Perſians, unchangable; but may be changed, and the Rites and Ceremonies now in uſe, may be aboliſhed by the ſame power by which they were here eſtabliſhed.

Queſt. Did the Nonconformists generally make Addreſſes formerly to Oliver Cromwel and Richard Cromwel?

Anſw. For my own part, I never made any Addreſs to O. C. or R. C. And the onelyonly Addreſs that the Presbyterian-Ministers of the City of London, made to O. C. was for the ſaving the Life of Dr. Hewit. As for Addreſſes to R. C. divers Now-Conformiſts at well as Nonconformiſts, did joyn in them, as they did alſo generally to General Monk. for a Free Parliament in Order to his Majeſties Reſtauration.

Queſt. Are not all Laws once made, rigorouſly to be put in execution neceſſarily, and eſpecially Laws concerning Eccleſiaſtical Affairs?

Anſw. Laws that are lawful and neceſſary to the Eſſe or Being of the Church or State, are doubtleſs to be put in execution; not ſo thoſe always, that tend to Order and Decency. Supreme Governours may, upon juſt occaſion, forbear inflicting the Penalties upon Offenders againſt penal Statutes. Yea Excommunication, p. 117that Great Church-Cenſure, may be ſuſpended, when the major part of a Church are infected with ſome Errour, or are guilty of ſome ſcandalous offence, the end of Laws Eccleſiaſtical and Civil, being the peace of Church and State; where the execution of Laws may occaſion more harm than good, more diſquet than peace, there the ſupreme Power may for a time wave the exact and rigorous execution of them. His Majeſty in his Declaration to all his loving Subjects, Decemb. 26.1662. publiſhed by the Advice of his Privy Council, conceives the power of diſpenſing with the Penalty (upon thoſe who living peaceably do not Conform) to be inherent in him. Some Laws are made in terrorem, like Rods in a School. 'Tis not intended that every Offender and every Offence ſhould be preſently puniſhed, according to the utmoſt ſeverity of them. The Common Law in ſome Caſes ſeems to need a Chancery, to moderate the rigor of it, leſt that ſummum jus, prove ſumma injuria. He who will not allow his Majeſty to ſave ſome by his Prerogative, who are caſt by the Law, robs him of a principal Flower of his Crown, his very Crown and Glory, and that is, His CLEMENCY.

Quest. Were not the Old Puritans, as they uſed to call the Nonconformiſts, Enemies to the Kings Supremacy?

Anſw. In a Treatiſe of Learned Mr. Bradſhaw, p. 118who wrote of Juſtification, there is a Proteſtation by them made of the Kings Supremacy, in theſe words: We hold and maintain the ſame Authority and Supremacy in all Cauſes, and over all Perſons, Civil and Eccleſiaſtical, granted to Queen Elizabeth, to be due in full and ample manner, (without any limitation or qualification) to the King, and his Heirs and Succeſſors for ever. Neither is there, to our knowledge, any one of us but hath been moſt willing to ſubſcribe and ſwear unto the ſame, according to form of Statute. And we deſire that thoſe that ſhall refuſe the ſame, may bear their own Iniquity.

Queſt. Were not the Nonconformiſts in former times diſobedient to the Laws? And did they not refuſe to conform out of humour and ſtubbornneſs, and not our of Conſcience?

Anſw. The ſame Mr. Bradſhaw in the ſame Treatiſe, proteſts in their Name, as followeth: We never refuſed Obedience to any haves or Commandments of the King or State whatſoever, but onelyonly to ſuch as we have proved, or are ready to prove, if we might be heard, to be contrary to the Word of God. And we are ready to take our ſolemn Oaths before the Throne of Juſtice, That the onelyonly Cauſe of our refuſal of Obedience to thoſe Canons of the Prelates, for which roe are at preſent ſo extremely afflicted, is meer Conſcience, and a fear to ſin againſt God. And if by due form of Reaſoning, we may be convinced in our Conſciences of the cannery, we p. 119are as willing at any Subjects in the Realm to obey and conform.

Quest. But is it at all material what the Nonconformiſts ſwear? are not our preſent Nonconformists guilty of taking God's Name into their mouths backward and forward, and never bluſh? Vide Contin. p. 18.

Anſw. It was the conſcience of an Oath, and a care to prevent the great guilt of Perjury, that made Dr. Hill, one of the late Aſſembly, when Vice-Chancelor of Cambridge, and the Univerſity in thoſe dayes, to inſert thoſe explanatory clauſes in the Oaths of thoſe who took degrees,

Viz. Jurabis te haec omnia & reliqua Academae Statuta (quatenus ipſa ad te ſpectant) vel fideliter obſervaſſe & obſervaturum, vel monitiones, correctiones & paenas dictorum Statutorum tranſgreſſoribus incumbentes, ſine contradictione quacunque, humiliter ſubiiſſe aut ſubiturum, ni ſialiter per gratiam per Acaedemiam conceſſam diſpenſatum tecum fuerit, ſicut Te Deus adjuvet, &c. and again, Senatus Cantabrigienſis decrevit & declaravit eos omnes qui monitionibus, correctionibus & paenus Statutorum, Legum Decretorum, Ordinationum, Injunctionum & Laudabilium Conſuetudinum hujus Academiae trangreſſoribus, quovis modo Incumbentibus humiliter ſe ſubmiſerint, nec eſſe, nec habendos eſſe perjurii reos. By which clauſes 'tis manifeſt, that either active or paſſive obedience to the Statutes, Orders and Cuſtoms of the Univerſities p. 120did ſave from the guilt of Perjury. And confident I am that 'tis the fear of an Oath that is the chief cauſe why many ſuffer the loſs of their Livings at this day.

Quest. Is there not a good riddance of ſo many Mr. Scruples out of the Church? And is there any want of able Preachers up and down in the Country now they are ejected?

Anſw. My Lord Bacon in his dayes, thought there was a ſcarcity of able Preachers, and yet there were not the tythe perhaps of Miniſters ſilenced then, to what are now. And be thought then that the ſilencing of the Miniſters for their Nonconformity was a puniſhment of the People rather than of the Miniſter. He conceived then alſo that ſuch Subſcriptions might have been forborn as occaſioned the ſilencing of divers of thoſe Miniſters. Conſ. ab Eccl. Aff.

Queſt. What if there were many places made void by the ejectment of Nonconformists, may not thoſe places be well filled by Conforming-Pluraliſts?

Anſw. My Lord Bacon ſaith, In caſe the number of able Miniſters were ſufficient, and the value of the Benefices were ſufficient, then Pluralities were in no ſort tolerable. And as for Nonreſidents, except it be juſt of neceſſary abſence, he ſaith, it ſeemeth to be an abuſe drawn out of covetouſneſs and ſloth; for that men ſhould live of the Flock they do not feed, or at the Altar whereat they do not ſerve, p. 121is a thing that can hardly receive juſt defence. And to exerciſe the Office of a Paſtor in matter of Word and Doctrine by deputation is a thing not warranted. So he in his Treatiſe dedicated to King James about Eccleſiaſt. Affairs. For my own part, I think the Poligamy of the Fathers or the Patriarchs of old, as excuſable as the Spiritual Polygamy of many of the Sons of our Church. And to ſerve Cures of Souls meerly by Proxies and Deputies (beſides that it may ſeem to ſtrengthen the Pope's plea for Univerſal Paſtors) whilſt ſo many ſtand idle in the Market-place, able and willing to take care of thoſe Souls, is a thing I ſhall not take upon me to juſtifie.

Let me add this alſo, that 'tis one Objection which hath been formerly made againſt the Liturgy, That it occaſions an ignorant, dumb, and a lazy Miniſtry, but were it not for Pluralities and Non-reſidency and inſufficient Livings, there might be no place for ſuch objection.

The Author of the Debate tells us in his Continuation, p. 383. that at firſt the chief promoters of ſtinted Liturgies were renowned for their conſtant and unwearied preaching every day in the week, and ſomeeimes twice; and as probably this was one thing that advanced the credit and eſteem of Liturgies in former times: As I am perſwaded one great cauſe why many do not eſteem of the Liturgy ſo much now, is, that ſo many great Conformiſts and ſticklers for it are Pluraliſts and p. 122Nonreſidents; and divers of them either preach not at all, or very ſeldom; and then too, ſome of them preach againſt Preaching, and ſaw down the branch of that Tree upon which they ſtand ſo high above their Brethren. And on the other ſide, thoſe who ſcruple ſome things in the Liturgy and Ceremonies, are ſuch conſtant and zealous Preachers, and that when Bonds and Impriſonments abide them for their ſo doing.

Queſt. But is it not indeed the Bond of the Covenant, the Scottiſh Covenant, wherewith our Engliſh Presbyterians have bound their Souls, the great or onelyonly Cauſe that makes ſo many Nonconformists?

Anſw. The Covenant mentioned was not the cauſe of the War; the Battel at Edge-hill was fought before the Covenant came into England. And whereas the Covenant was enter'd into in Forty Two, and Forty Three, there have been Nonconformiſts ever ſince Biſhop Hooper, and the Reformation in King Edward the Sixth's days. There are ſome amongſt the Covenanters that can conform to the Liturgy, and ſubmit to Epiſcopal Government. And the greater part of Nonconformiſts Preachers at this day, never took the Covenant.

Quest. What is the reaſon that divers Nonconformiſts read Logick in private Houſes? Is not this contrary to their Oath takes in the Univerſity? Cont. p. 10. edit. 4.

p. 123Anſw. I have conſulted as able as any in the Univerſities (and by their Offices as likely to know as any) about the matter, and am told, That the Oath there prohibits the ſetting up of another Univerſity in Oppoſition to the Univerſities, and Reading in order to the taking Degrees elſewhere. The words are at Oxford, They ſhall not ſolennes Lectiones reſumere; which doth not make Dr. Busby perjured for initiating his Scholars ſome time in Logick before they go to the Univerſity. Nor the ſeveral Profeſſors at Greſham-Colledge, who read as ſolemn Lectures ſurely, as a Nonconformiſt doth in a private houſe. Beſides, I hear but of one Nonconformiſt that at preſent doth teach Youth in that manner privately.

Queſt. What ſecurity can his Majeſty and the Parliament have, that Nonconformiſts will not (under pretence of Conſcience or Covenant) ſeditiouſly endeavour an Alteration of Church-Government; but that they will live quietly and peaceably in their places.

Anſw. They are ready to give the ancient Legal-Security, the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy; and that is more than the Papiſts will do, and as much as is required of the generality of the reſt of the Nation, notwithſtanding their having taken the Engagement in the late times, which yet many Presbyterians, now Nonconformiſts and Ejected Miniſters, would never do, p. 124though ſome of them loſt their Places for their refuſal. Moreover many of them ſince have taken an Oath not to endeavour any Alteration of Government in Church and State, and yet are not truſted to preach publickly, much leſs to enjoy any Eccleſiaſtical Benefice. And the reſt that ſcruple ſome words or phraſes in that Oath, are yet ready, beſides the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, to ſwear that they will live quietly and peaceably in their places, and not under colour or pretence of the Covenant, or any pretence whatever, endeavour by force, or ſediciouſly and tumultuouſly, any Alteration of Government in Church and State.

Quest. Is the Act of Uniformity, and the Oxford Act, to be ſtrictly and rigorouſly preſſed upon, and executed on all tranſgreſſors?

Anſw. If it be, then what will become of many Conformiſts who uſe other Rites and Ceremonies than what are by Law required? and of them who uſe other Forms of Prayer then are there preſcribed; and of all thoſe Miniſters that do not reade the Common-Prayer either publickly or privately, morning and evening; and ſo thoſe Lecturers who do not monthly reade their Aſſent & Conſent? &c. And as for the Oxford Act & Oath, I have heard from a very learned perſon, a Conformiſt, that the Biſhops themſelves come within the compaſs of it, as many as have not aſſented and conſented, &c. as oft as p. 125they came within five miles of their Sees, or any ther Corporation. This I ſay, not to bring the Biſhops within, but to bring others out of the reach of that Act; or rather to encline, if it nay be, our Fathers and Brethren to uſe their intereſt with his Majeſty and Parliament to remove thoſe Laws which are a Partition-wall betwixt the Conformiſt & Nonconformiſt.

Quest. But are not the Nonconformiſts ſinners and tranſgreſſors of the Divine Law, as oft as they withdraw from actual communion with the Church of England, being (as many of them confeſs) a true Church?

Anſ. Many of our learned Doctors hold Rome to be a true Church; as a Woman is a true Woman, though an Harlot; and a Man a true Man, though overſpread with Leproſie. And yet being we cannot actually hold external communion with them, without either ſubſcribing to many falſe Tenets, or joyning in a corrupt and Idolatrous Service, we withdraw from them without ſin. Our withdrawing is not to be charged with ſin or ſchiſm, although too we were the minor part who withdrew, and againſt the determination of a pretended General Councel. And I believe it would be a hard matter to prove that many of thoſe Meetings, which are now commonly called Conventicles, want any of the eſſential requiſites to a true Church, and yet do not think themſelves Schiſmaticks for not holding p. 126actual communion with them, becauſe not countenanced by the Law. And if a Legal Eſtabliſhment be abſolutely neceſſary to the being of a true Chriſtian Church, then there was no true Church at Rome till Conſtantine's dayes; which I ſuppoſe you will judge very unreaſonable to aſſert.

Queſt. Is it poſſible there ſhould be Unity without Uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies, &c.

Anſw. Yes. There is Unity amongſt the Proteſtant Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, that follow Calvin, and yet divers forms of Prayer, and divers Rites. The Author of the Debate will not take it well, if a man ſhould not ſay, there is Unity at home amongſt Conformiſts, and yet the Cathedrals and Country-Pariſh-Churches differ in ſome Rites, and in their mode of Worſhip; and in the Pariſh-Churches there are diverſity of Ceremonies and Uſages in the Worſhip of God. In ſome Churches they ſtand up at the Hymns, in others not; In ſome they reade the Hymns and Pſalms Miniſter and People antiphonatim, in others not: In ſome, in moſt, they reade the Prayer for Chriſts Catholick Church, if at all, before Sermon, but I know where 'tis conſtantly read after. And it is well known that none boaſt more of Unity than the Romaniſts, and yet in ſeveral Countries they have ſeveral Rites, Cuſtoms, and Priviledges: and in p. 127England before the happy Reformation, the Service was ad modum Sarum, and ad modum Bangor, different in divers Churches.

Queſt. Is it not neceſſary to appoint the ſame Veſtures and Geſtures for the Worſhip of God, to avoid difference and confuſion?

Anſw. There is no Geſture or Ceremony preſcribed in the ſinging of Pſalms, and yet People generally are bare and reverend in that exerciſe.

The late Canons in 1640. leave Bowing towards the Eaſt of Altar indifferent; and would not have thoſe that do it, to judge thoſe that do it not; nor thoſe that do it not, to judge thoſe that do it. Now what greater inconvenience would follow, if the ſame moderation and liberty to practiſe differently, were uſed as to the Croſs, Surplice, and Kneeling at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper?

If there muſt be abſolute and univerſal Uniformity in the Worſhip of God amonſt the Worſhippers, then all muſt alike have their Faces one way, muſt wear all Garments of the ſame faſhion and colour. In the late Times, when the Liturgy and Ceremonies were diſuſed, there were not a quarter of thoſe private Meetings that have been ſince. The number of them that ſeparated from the Publick Worſhip, were very ſmall in compariſon; I ſuppoſe not ten to an hundred. The Author of the Debate, I gueſs, p. 128and hundreds, if not thouſands, of Conformiſts, did not hold themſelves bound, notwithſtanding the Laws for Liturgy and Ceremonies, to abſent themſelves from the then Publick Worſhip, and aſſemble privately, that they might uphold Uniformity in Forms of Prayer, Rites and Ceremonies: Whence we may reaſonably conclude, That they thought Gods Publick Worſhip might be carried on without Uniformity in theſe things: And again, That the omiſſion of things required by Law, is not judged ſo great a ſin as is by them pretended.

Quest Did not Presbyterians decry all Separaration, and refuſe to tolerate Independents? See Cont. p. 224.

Anſw. The Presbyterians both old and modern, are againſt Separation: They deny that they ſeparate from you; for upon occaſion they joyn with you in Ordinances, and if you remove ſome things wherewith your Worſhip is clogg'd, they would joyfully communicate conſtantly with you. The preſent partial and temporary withdrawing, as to ſome Acts of Worſhip, is not to be charged with Schiſm. If you hold forth communion with your Church as in the Apoſtles days, with a Liturgy ſufficiently corrected without Symbolical Ceremonies, without ſuch Oaths, Declarations and Subſcriptions, they will come into your Boſom, though you not onelyonly caſt them out of your Lap, but thruſt them out of your p. 129Houſe, and ſhut the Doors upon them. As we juſtifie the Church of England from Schiſm, notwithſtanding our Separation from Rome; ſo the Nonconformiſts will endeavour to juſtifie their withdrawings in ſome Acts, and for a time only; by reaſon of the terms of Communion impoſed on them. That they are for Reformation, not Separation, may be hence concluded, That in a late project for Peace and Agreement, this was one Propoſition given in by the Presbyterians themſelves, That whoſoever ſhould be capable of any Employment, ſhould profeſs to hold Communion with the Church of England, and to the uttermoſt of his power to promote the Peace and Happineſs thereof. And when there was a difference betwixt Presbyterians and their Brethren, commonly called Independents, formerly, there was a Conference before a Committee of Parliament betwixt them, in which the Presbyterians (as I am credibly informed) offered either to give or take: that is to ſay, They would take the Eſtabliſhment, and allow their Brethren of the Congregational-way a well-regulated Toleration; or let their Brethren take the Eſtabliſhment, and allow the Presbyterians ſuch a Toleration. And one of the chief of them, when the London-Miniſters waited on his Majeſty at the Hague, when diſcourſe was about Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, earneſtly moved his Majeſty, that he would pleaſe to think of a way to indulge them a Liberty, p. 130though they ſhould not be comprehended in the Publick Eſtabliſhment, as it was then hoped the Presbyterian would have been.

In brief, the Presbyterians diſclaim Separation; they are willing to have Union and Communion with the Church of England, upon Chriſtian and friendly Terms: And they deſire the like Liberty and Toleration from the Biſhops, that they were willing and ready to have ſhewed to their Brethren of the Congregational Way: Yea, they would bleſs God and our Governours, if they might have the like Favours and Liberties that Dr. Gunning, Dr. Wild, Dr. Hide, and others the Now-Conformiſts had in former times.

Queſt. If the Presbyterians are willing to conform to a Liturgy, and to this Liturgy when ſufficiently corrected; yet what hopes is there that ever there ſhould be any Alteration or Reformation of it, which will ſatisfie or pleaſe them, ſo as to uſe it?

Anſw. Yes, there is ſuch a draught already made, to the great content of the chief of the Presbyterians; and this done by three Reverend perſons, all Conformiſts: And which I hope may be produced, when ever Authority ſhall pleaſe to command it.

Quest. Would it not be accounted a weak thing to yeild or condeſcend, though never ſo little, if this might be a means to cement and ſoder us together again.

p. 131Anſw. It was the prudence of the ancient Church to ſatisfie the Joannites, who had kept Conventicles apart from the Church for thirty years, being diſguſted at the diſhonour done to John Chryſoſtom their Biſhop or Paſtor; and this the Church did, by reſtoring his honour after he was dead. Socrat. Eccleſ. Hist.

Queſt. Why ſhould the Church of England remove the Ceremonies which ſhe hath retained ſince the Reformation? May ſhe not thereby diſguſt and offend the Romaniſts, to pleaſe the Nonconformiſts, which they call Puritans rather than Proteſtants?

Anſw. Theſe Ceremonies were at firſt retained and continued when others were caſt out of the Church in hopes to bring the Papiſts to a compliance with our Church: But Archbiſhop Uſher, as he that writes his Life informs us, upon occaſion declared his Judgement concerning them, That experience of many years hath ſhewed that this condeſcention hath rather hardned them in their Error, than brought them to a liking of our Religion; this being their uſual ſaying, If our Fleſh be not good, why do you drink of our Broth? If the Church ſtick cloſe to the Ceremonies, ſhe is not like to gain our Adverſaries the Romaniſts to our Communion; if ſhe lay aſide the Ceremonies, ſhe may gain thouſands and ten thouſands of our Brethren to our Church again. That they may do thus, God grant that p. 132the ſame mind might be in all our Biſhops, that was in Chriſt Jeſus, the chief Shepherd and Biſhop of our Souls; that they may love and feed their Sheep, and be ready to lay down their lives for their Sheep; and then their Yoak will be eaſie, and their Burden light. Or that was in the bleſſed Apoſtle Paul, on whom was the Care of all the Churches; who profeſſeth of himſelf, I became all things to all men, that by any means I might win ſome. Or elſe that was in this Godly Archbiſhop Uſher, of whom 'tis recorded in his Life, That though he conformed himſelf, yet he deſired that his Majeſty would not impoſe the Engliſh Ceremonies on the Iriſh Church; ſaying, If I had all mens Conſciences in my keeping, I could in theſe diſputable Caſes give Laws unto them as well as my ſelf: But 'tis one thing what I can do, and another thing what other men must do. Since the Ceremonies be things (ſaith our Church) in their own nature indifferent, and yet by ſome held ſuperſtitious and unlawful, it ſeemeth to fall within the Apoſtles Rule, which is, That the ſtrong do deſcend and yeild to the weaker; if we will hearken to the Counſel of the Lord Chancellor Bacon, in his Conſiderations touching the Church of England.

Quest. Doth the holy Scripture caution us againſt grieving our Brethren, as well as againſt offending of them, ſo as to occaſion them to ſtumble and fall into ſin?

p. 133Anſw. 'Tis our duty not onelyonly to prevent out Brothers fall, but his fears; and to keep his heart from ſinking, as well as his feet from falling. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means ſave ſome, 1 Cor. 9.22. 'Tis the part of a good Shepherd to carry the Lambs in his Arms, and gently to lead the Ewes that are great with young; and of Nurſing Fathers and Mothers, to be tender-hearted and tender-handed towards Babes, towards weak and young Children. If it be ſaid, We muſt not grieve or vex the Magiſtrate: I anſwer, 'Tis true, we muſt not; but if the Magiſtrate pleaſe to remove the Law; where there's no Law, there's no Diſobedience; and then the Offence ceaſeth: And where there's no Offence committed by the Inferiour, there ſhould be no Offence taken by the Superiour; or when there is none given, there ſhould be none taken. The things are alterable in themſelves. The Magiſtrate is a Miniſter of God for good; and if he ſhall pleaſe to remove every ſtumbling-ſtone and grieving-thorn out of the way to the Church, and out of the way of Obedience, How ſhall God and his people bleſs him? All the power that the Church hath, it is to edification, and not to deſtruction; and there's a far greater neceſſity of Unity, than of Uniformity: 'Tis a great deal better not to make Canons, than to make ſuch as we fore-ſee will be p. 134broken by thouſands, and that under a pretence of Conſcience, and who are ſerious, ſober, civil people in their Lives and Converſations.

Queſt. What may be thought the readieſt way to make the Biſhops work eaſie, and his perſon to be beloved?

Anſw. 'Tis I think to uſe Moderation, to rule with Love, and not with Rigor; and that notwithſtanding ſome young Counſellors, ſome Hotſpurs, may adviſe them, as of old the young men did Rehoboam; when their Brethren come to them, and ſay, Your Fore-fathers (or your Predeceſſors divers of them) made our Yoke grievous: Now therefore make ye, we pray you, the grievous Service of your Fore-fathers, and their heavy Yoke which they put upon us, lighter, and we will ſerve you: To ſay to them, Our little Finger ſhall be heavier than our Fore-fathers Loyns; and now whereas they did lade you with a heavy Yoke, we will adde to your Yoke: Our Fore-fathers chaſtiſed you with Whips, but we will chaſtiſe you with Scorpions. The deeper you lay the Foundation in Humility, and the broader in Charity, the higher you may probably build your Houſe, and it may likewiſe ſtand the longer. A well-grounded Jus Humanum, may ſtand longer than a high-built pretended Jus Divinum. And Reaſon ſhews, ſaith one, that Epiſcopacy will stand more firm in conjunction with Presbytery, than by it ſelf alone. There be two circumstances; ſaith my Lord Chancellor p. 135Bacon, wherein I could never be ſatisfied; the one, the ſole exerciſe of their Authority; the other, the deputation of their Authority. For the firſt, he ſaith, ſurely I do ſuppoſe (and I think upon good ground) that ab initio non fuit ita. And that the Deans and Chapters were Counſels about the Seas and Chairs of Biſhops at the firſt, and were unto them a Presbytery or Conſiſtory. And again, we ſee that the Biſhop of Rome (Fas eſt & ab hoſte doceri, and no queſtion in that Church the firſt Inſtitutions were excellent) performeth all Eccleſiaſtical Juriſdiction, in Conſiſtory, with advice, that is, of the Cardinals or Pariſh-Priests of Rome. And hereof again (ſaith he) we ſee divers ſhadows yet remaining: as that the Dean and Chapter proformâ chooſeth the Biſhop, which is the higheſt point of Juriſdiction.

Again, The ſame Author tells us, that the Biſhop is a Judge, and of a high nature; Whence cometh it that he ſhould depute, conſidering that all truſt and confidence is perſonal and inherent, and cannot or ought not to be tranſpoſed? ſurely in this again ab initio non fuitita: But it is probable that Biſhops when they gave themſelves too much to the glory of the World, and became Grandees in Kingdoms, and great Counſellors to Princes, then did they leave their proper Juriſdiction, as things of too inferior a nature for their greatneſs; And then after the ſimilitude and immitation of Kings and Counts-Palatine, they would have their Chancellors and Judges.

p. 136Queſt. Is the Author of the Fr. Debate ſo extraordinary zealous, as he pretends, for the honour of our Governours and Government in the State?

Anſw. See pag. 50, 51. of the Continuation, where he doth inſinuate, or more plainly inform the Nation, that not only Nonconformiſts keep Conventicles, but that Maſs is ſaid, and that the Papists take the ſame liberty in the exerciſe of their Religion as the Nonconformiſts do in theirs. And that little or no notice is taken of any Drunkards, Sweaters, or Blaſphemers. If he had pleaſed, 'tis to be thought he might have found great ſins amongſt the Clergy, little taken notice of, and not much puniſhed in Eccleſiaſtical Courts. If he had done like Shem and Japhet, to have rather endeavoured to cover his nakedneſs, he might have been bleſſed by them; or elſe, if he will needs have his jerks at Nonconformiſts, though it light partly on his and our Superiors in the State, to have gone on, and have whipped the Buyers and Sellers in, out of the Temple alſo.

Queſt. Do the Nonconformiſts teach the people railing language, particularly to call all they like not, Antichriſtian and Babyloniſh? Vid. Contin, p. 155, & 266, &c.

Anſw. Time was when Reverend and Renowned Mr. Vines (that loſt the Maſterſhip of Pembroke-Hall in Cambridge, becauſe he would p. 137not ſubſcribe the Engagement; as did alſo Dr. Spurſtow the Maſter of Katherine-Hall, and Mr. Young of Jeſus-Colledge for the ſame cauſe preaching before the Parliament, ſaid, Henceforward he ſhould take Antichrist for a better man than ever he thought him to be, there were ſo many good things charged upon him. And another Preſbyterian, now a Nonconformiſt, preaching to the ſame Auditors, preached that Antichriſtian and Babylonian, were terms ſooner imputed or charged, than proved.

But if the Nonconforming-Miniſters or People were yet ignorant, and to ſeek for ſcoffing and reviling language, they might have a Dictionary of ſuch hard words out of the Friendly Debate. If there be in Private-meetings that uſe railing and reviling ſpeeches (as too many too often have is publick Congregations) I would rather adviſe people to ſit quietly at home, if they will not go to Church, than to go or ſtep out of doors to learn their language. I do not love a biting tongue; and I take a black mouth to be as venemous in a man, as 'tis accounted wholſom in a dog. And if there be any printed Book wi…h ſuch railing ſpeeches or phraſes in them, (I will promiſe you) it ſhall never have my Imprimatur, without an Index expurgatorius in the next Edition.

Queſt. Is the Divinity of the Nonconformiſts a Phraſe-Divinity? and in caſe their Books and p. 138Sermons are not fill'd with foul language, is there any thing beſides fine words, and new phraſes in them?

Anſw. There was ſomething beſides words in the Old Nonconformiſts, witneſs the writings of Mr. Dod, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hilderſham, Mr. Bradſhaw, &c. And doubtleſs there is matter, and that good matter and ſound ſpeech, that need not to be aſhamed, in the Writings of Nonconformiſts of this Generation, witneſs the Books written by Mr. Baxter, Dr. Manton, Mr. Caryll, Mr. Allen, Dr. Owen, Mr. Pool, &c. they hold to Scripture-expreſſions, and to the terms of ſound words, which they have received from the moſt ſerious ſolid pious Biſhops and Doctors of the Chair, Profeſſors at home and abroad in former times; yea, the Nonconforming-Presbyterians and Congregational Miniſters profeſs to agree with our Articles of Religion of the Church of England, in all things concerning the Doctrine of Faith and Ceremonies: And is all this but Phraſe-Divinity!

The Author of the Debate, and divers other of the preſent Conformiſts may as juſtly be charged for new Divinity, new minted words in Divinity, new phraſes and modes of expreſſing themſelves in Sermons and Writings, and theſe too leſs conform to the language of the holy Scripture, our own Articles and Homilies, the Harmony of Confeſſions of the Reformed Churches, p. 139and our ancient Biſhops and Doctors. The Author of the Debate, though he ſeems to be the Biſhops Advocate, yet his Writings ſhew him more an Epiſcopian than an Epiſcopalian; and 'tis eaſie to ſee from what forge they have their new Divinity and new Theological Dictionary.

Quest. Were not the Nonconformiſts the cauſe of the ſtrange and new Doctrines and Opinions, and of phantaſtical words and phraſes in preaching and writing?

Anſ. I grant the taking down the old Mound or Hedge, and not ſetting a new one in the room, was an occaſion that many erronious perſons, like wild beaſts, did get into the Vineyard, and that ſome ſtrange Doctrines, Phancies, Phraſes and Whimſes were vented in the Times of War and late Confuſions; but I ſay, that theſe things are not to be charged upon the Presbyterians: for if they had had power to their principles and purpoſes, they would doubtleſs have raiſed up a Mound or Fence againſt ſuch Errors, Fancies and Follies, as ſtrong as that the Parliament removed. I have heard it obſerved, that of all Churches, no Church hath had fewer Hereſies and Heterodoxies ſpring up, or at leaſt proſper in it, than the Church of Scotland, and that this was acknowledged by King James.

Queſt. Were all that took the Covenant bound thereby to endeavour to introduce the Government of the Church of Scotland into England, p. 140becauſe they obliged themſelves to maintain and defend Religion in the Church of Scotland, and to reform Religion in the Church of England! Vid. Contin. p. 168.

Anſw. No. They engaged only in their places and callings, and ſo far as lawfully they might to preſerve Religion in the Church of Scotland againſt the Common Enemy, notwithſtanding which the Scots might reform ought that was amiſs or defective, with his Majeſties leave and conſent, in a legal manner. And the Engliſh Covenanters were not bound to model the Church-Government in England according to the pattern of the Kirk of Scotland, but according to the Word of God and the beſt Reformed Churches. Whether Scotland, or Holland, or Geneva, &c. was the beſt Reformed Church, was not determined. And the Engliſh were not engaged in their places and callings, and ſo far as lawfully they might, by the Covenant, to follow the Model of any one of theſe, or all the Reformed Churches, in any thing diſagreeing from the Word of God; and in caſe a primitive Epiſcopacy (that is, Church-Government by a Biſhop, with a Preſbytery as his Counſellors and Aſſiſtants) prove moſt agreeable to the Word of God, they were bound to ſet up, (onelyonly in their places and callings, and ſo far as lawfully they might) that Government in the Church of England: Notwithſtanding what the Earl of Briſtol, when Lord p. 141Digby, hath written in his Letters to Sir Kenelm Digby, viz. He that would reduce the Church now, to the Form of Government in the most primitive times, ſhould not take, in my Opinion, the beſt nor the wiſeſt courſe, I am ſure not the ſafeſt; for he would be found pecking towards the Presbytery of Scotland, which for my part I believe, in point of Government, hath a greater reſemblance than yours or ours, to the firſt Age of Chriſts Church. But whatever was the meaning of the Impoſers or Takers of the Covenant in thoſe days, I have heard an eminent Perſon, a Doctor that had taken it, though a Nonconformiſt, declare, That he was not bound by it to endeavour any other Reformation than what he had been obliged unto, if he never had taken the Covenant; that he is not bound to uſe any unlawful or ſeditious means, or endeavours, to bring about a Reformation. That the Law of the Land is the Rule to judge by, what means or endeavours are unlawful and ſeditious.

Queſt. Do not the Presbyterians play faſt and looſe, and turn with the wind? Was not the time once when they held Ruling Elders to be Jure Divino, but now they hold no ſuch matter?

Anſw. I believe the Scottiſh Presbyterians were and ſtill are of that Judgement, that Ruling Elders are Jure Divino; but I knew few Engliſh, if any, that held that Office ſo, ſave onelyonly in a large ſence; as many Epiſcopalians now hold p. 142Biſhops to be Jure Divino, that is, a lawful Government, not repugnant to the Word of God. However, 'tis ſaid, and that by no mean Scholar, That Geneva did not firſt inſtitute thoſe Officers, but only reſtored them. And I have read that it was acknowledged by a great Prelate, That the Church had in every Church certain Seniors, to whom the Government of the Church was committed. Surely they are as tolerable in a Church, where the Supreme Power thinks good to eſtabliſh that Order, as are Chancellors, Commiſſaries, &c. But in caſe that ſome Presbyterians of old, held them of uſe in the Apoſtles days, this alone (without an Inſtitution and an Injunction to perpetuate them) doth not make them, or any other Eccleſiaſtical Officers, unalterable; for we ſee that the Office of Widdows is laid aſide in the Church, notwithſtanding.

Queſt. Did not the Presbyterians wholly lay aſide the uſe of the Lords Supper? And was it not for want of Ruling Elders?

Anſw. They celebrated the Lords Supper in London, and that too in ſome Churches, once a Month; and frequently at Oxford; and I ſuppoſe in many other places: Poſſibly the expectation of a ſettlement might hinder the Adminiſtration of that Ordinance for a time in many places. Bur I knew a Pariſh where it was a long time diſuſed, though deſired, becauſe the Pariſhoners did not provide (though oft urged unto p. 143it by the Miniſter) decent and neceſſary Utenſils for the Celebration of it.

Queſt. Do the Nonconformiſts decry all uſe of Reaſon in Theology?

Anſw. They uſe frequently Reaſons in their Sermons. Indeed they allow Reaſon but the ſecond place in Divinity; to Revelation they give the firſt. Reaſon and Philoſophy they make to be the Handmaids, but Divinity they honour as their Soveraign Lady and Queen. Reaſon is the Counſellor, but Revelation is the Law-giver. We ſay the Light of Reaſon is as the Light of a Glow-Worm, or of a Candle, or (if you will needs have it) as the Light of the Moon; but the Light of Divine Revelation, is as the Light of the Sun, when it ſhineth in its full ſtrength.Dr. T. And with a reverend and learned Doctor, we allow the uſe of a Candle, although we would have it ſnuffed; and when it is ſet up in the houſe, we would not have the Window ſhut, either to keep our, or at leaſt to darken the Light of the Sun. We prefer feeding on Manna, before feeding on Acorns and Husks; the Commands of St. Paul, before the Precepts of Plato; the Maſs of Gold in the Mine, before a few pieces of Silver ſcattered here and there in the Studies of Philoſophers.

Queſt. Do the Congregations of thoſe that diſſent from the eſtabliſhed Worſhip, conſiſt moſtly of Army Saints?

p. 144Anſw. I have heard one that hath reaſon to know upon many Accounts better than the Author of the Debate, ſay, That there is ſcarce a fifth perſon of thoſe that meet privately that was engaged in the late Differences. And that the greateſt part of the late Army are at this day Members of Parochial Churches, is an even Wager.

Queſt. Do the Arminians or Calviniſts come neareſt to the Doctrine of the Church of England?

Anſw. The profound pious and learned Doctor Samuel Ward, that was the La. Margaret's Profeſſor of Divinity in Cambridge, (whoſe Determinations are ſet out by the great pains and care of the Right Reverend Seth Lord Biſhop of Sarisbury) in a Sermon of his Ad Clerum, and dedicated by himſelf to the Univerſity of Cambridge, teſtifies, That as the whole Church of God ever ſince St. Auſtine, ſo in particular the National Church of England, and the Univerſity of Cambridge from the Reformation, and all the Profeſſors, except onelyonly one Baro, were againſt Arminius his Tenets. And this Baro within two years was forced to leave the Chair, by the Power and Authority of Archbiſhop Whitgift.

Illud etiam verè adjicere poſſum plus uni Auguſtino jam veterano & in iſta cauſa verſatiſſimo tribuendum eſſe quàm centùm Corvinis, Grotiis, Vorſtiis, Bertiis, Tilenis & id genus, recentioribus Dogmatiſtis. p. 145Accedat & illud coronidis loco, Auguſtino ſemper ad baeſiſſe, hac ex-parte, Eccleſiam Univerſalem ab ejus temporibus Eccleſiam item Anglicanam, ab initio Reformationis, &c.

Queſt. Is the caſe of the Donatiſts and the caſe of the Non-conformiſts alike?

Anſw. The Donatists, as they had no cauſe in regard of the Faith (by reaſon of any dangerous Doctrines or Practices impoſed on them) to ceaſe from communicating with any part of the Catholick Church; ſo they divided from the whole Church, with the breach of Charity, condemning it for no Church, and drawing the Communion wholly to themſelves. The Nonconformists do not condemn the Church of England as no Church; they do not confine the Communion to themſelves; they humbly pray a Reformation of ſome things which they conceive amiſs, and are willing to have Communion with them as Parts of the Catholick Church (ſaving the Practices wherein they differ) they leave them to their Liberty, and deſire a Liberty for themſelves to ſerve God according to their Conſciences. The Presbyterians ſhewed their Charity in their earneſt endeavours to ſave the life of Dr. Hewit an Epiſcopal Dr; for which purpoſe, they joyned in an Addreſs to O. C. the only Addreſs they ever made unto him; Neither Presbyterians, nor Congregationiſts, charge the Epiſcopalians for being Schiſmaticks, becauſe p. 146they do not communicate with their Congregations, and yet they look upon themſelves as true Churches of Chriſt, and both for Doctrine and Diſcipline, to come as near the Scripture-Patern as themſelves. They offered to Unite and Reconcile with the Epiſcopal-Clergy upon Chriſtian terms, before His Majeſties Return, and ſince. As for out Brethren of New England, they are of Age, let them anſwer for themſelves. As for our Congreational Brethren at home, I lately heard that Dr. Goodwin ſhould profeſs to hold Communion even with the Lutheran Churches. And Dr. Owen profeſſeth againſt all Impoſitions; and that 'tis his Judgment, That the Epiſcopals and Presbyterians be left to worſhip God as they judge in their Conſciences beſt; That for his part, he judgeth no man for his Conformity, provided he be not a Perſecuter of thoſe that cannot.

Finally, The Presbyterians for themſelves deſire much rather a Reformation, or well ſtated Comprehenſion, than a Toleration; and are againſt Schiſm and Separation, truly ſo called, as much as any; which they have ſufficiently evidenced by their conſtantly declared Opinions and Practice: They would be glad to ſee the day, when being eaſed of burdenſome Impoſitions, they might have opportunity to manifeſt this their ſincere deſire of Union and Coalition with the Church of England.