Authority of Magistrates About Religion, Section 2
Sect. 2.
That which I take notice of, and make not my task is this, the reſolution he offers to a certain queſtion he is pleaſed to raiſe, what danger there is of the return of Popery in this Nation. The queſtion is certainly a male-pert queſtion, and he does as briskly reſolve the buſineſs. That the Fanaticks and Athiſts are like indeed to bring it in, but elſe there is no danger at all of it. There are, he ſays, a ſort of Athiſts among us, not like thoſe of old that expecting no life to come laboured onelyonly to live merry, and free themſelves from care, but theſe of our age ſays he are a ſort of Deviliſh and malicious wretches, whoſe proud and arrogant minds make them love miſchief for miſchief ſake. I doubt there are ſome perſons of note, greater parts, quality and ſpirit, that do ſlight this proud young man, and that that is the Engliſh of theſe words. It is hard for thoſe that come near of a trade, to like one another. The Athiſts of this age (which Mr. Hobs and he, while they put conſcience under humane Authority, are like to make as faſt as they can get any to believe them) are of the ſame kind, no doubt with thoſe that have been formerly, though the age generally, is more wicked, and I ſee no reaſon why the Athiſt, more then the Adulterer, Drunkard, or Sweater, ſhould be willing to change the Government of our d…ar Church, which is indeed ſo mild and gentle to them (as he ſpeaks) to being in Popery, that might perhaps put them into the Inquiſitions or any other Eccleſiaſtick diſcipline elſe, that would puniſh them, twenty to one elſe, more for their Vices and Debaucheries, then others for the enjoyment only of Liberty of Conſcience. On the other hand for the Fanaticks, I muſt profeſs I never perceived yet that they are ſenſible of any ſuch plot of theirs in hand, and it is huge like if they had any ſuch, they themſelves might come to the knowledge of it. The truth is, it is not the Fanaticks ſo much as the Epiſcopal party that raiſe theſe jealouſies of Popery. The Fanaticks have no Dignities of Pluralities to looſe, and it is the looſe…s, and thoſe that fear to looſe, that ſpeak. No, let me ſpeak more freely, if Popery ſhould indeed prevail upon the Nation, it is theſe Epiſcopal Bigots that we muſt be beholding to for it. For the God of theſe men, that is Ʋniformity, that ſo blinded their eyes and infatuated their judgments, that they will ventore the ruine of all, rather then abate any thing for an accommodation with their Brethren that ſhould joyn their ſhoulders againſt it. That Popery and Fanaticiſm are to be reſiſted by comprehenſion, is day light: But theſe High Conformiſts are blind, obſtinate, perverſe. And all muſt ſay at the laſt, it is they may thank themſelves for this.
There are two parts of that Parliamentary Grace, which is neceſſary to this Kingdoms better eſtabliſhment. The one lies indeed in Indulgence or Forbearance towards all, which is the Nations intereſt, and this the King ſeeing hath granted: The other lies in an Accommodation or Comprehenſion, which is of thoſe only (that is ſome) that are capable, and this is the Biſhops intereſt, but their party will not ſee it. There are accordingly two ſorts of diſſenters. One that own the National Miniſtery and our Parochial Congregations, and are in that capacity of coming in upon that account, and deſire it heartily upon condeſcention to them in ſome matters: The other that own not our Churches, and ſo are uncapable to come in, and cannot deſire it or ſeek it.
For the one then that which we propoſe, is only a farther latitude in the eſtabliſhed order of the Nation, that ſuch may be received. Let us ſuppoſe nothing elſe required of a man to be a Miniſter of a Pariſh, then there is to the Pariſhoner to be a Member of a Pariſh Church, as part of the National. If a perſon Baptized will come to Church and hear Common Prayer, and receive the Sacrament and does nothing to be excommunicated for it, he is, he may, and muſt be received as a Parochial member: In like manner if a Miniſter firſt ordained (and ſo approved in his abilities for that function) will but read the Book of the Liturgy, and adminiſter the Sacraments according to it, and does nothing deſerving ſuſpenſion, why ſhould not this ſuffice for his enjoying a Living, and exerciſing the Office to which he is called. Let theſe Declarations onelyonly which are impoſed (whether to be made, ſubſcribed or ſworn) be laid aſide, or left at leaſt to our own words, and every Miniſter (out of the Cathedrals) be left to their choice about the Croſs, Surplice, Kneeling at the Sacrament, and that is the ſum of this buſineſs.
For the other, it is not I count righteous or charitable, that any who were able to come in upon any ſuch relaxed terms, ſhould be willing to have perſecution reached forth on their Brethren that cannot. Beſides that Perſecution as well as Preferment are both alike animaters to engagement. If the Presbyterian be comprehended, he will be ſatisfied to act in his Miniſtry without endeavouring any alteration otherwiſe of Epiſcopacy: If the Congregationaliſt be Indulged, he will be ſatisfied though he be not Comprehended. for that he cannot ſubmit unto: and ſo ſhall there be no diſobligation put on any, but all be pleaſed, and the Churches work, if the Parliament will, be ſoon done.
And who is there among you that feareth the Lord, and obeyeth the voice of his Servants, his God be with him, and let him go up to Jeruſalem, and build the Houſe of the Lord. We have indeed his Majeſties late Declaration, Thus ſaith Cyrus: but where are our Jeſhuahs with his Brethren the Prieſts, & our Zerubbabels? Where are thoſe heads of our Tribes, whom like the children of Iſſachar, God hath made wiſe hearted to know what to do at ſuch a time as this? Alas, that inſtead of thoſe words, Let us ariſe and build, we ſhould hear the ſpeeches and read the writing of Rehun the Chancellor, and this Shimſhai his Scribe. Be it known to the King that if the City be built, It is a rebellious City and hurtful to Kings, that they have moved Sedition, in the late War, and ought to be deſtroyed. The conteſt now (ſaith the Prefacer) as it relates to the real concernments of the Nation is, which ſhall prevail Loyalty or Faction? whether ſuch Preachers ſhould be permitted the liberty of making Proſelytes, when all that are ſeduced into their Communion, are at the ſame time alienated from the Government, and liſted into a combination againſt it. How miſerably this tart Gentleman is out, he will ſee himſelf in good time, for we do all own Loyalty, when we do not yet obey their impoſitions. But who hath given licenſe to the man (if himſelf were not the Licenſer) to make any ſuch ſaucy reflexion in print as this, upon that which his Majeſty with great wiſdom hath thought fit to be done? Let him produce any of thoſe who come in and accept the Kings Grace, that can be accuſed of the leaſt diſaffection to, and much leſs of combination againſt his Government. If he mean the Epiſcopal Church, why are not theſe men as ſagacious to combine us with them? Would he have the King no wiſer for his own and the Nations intereſt, than they are for theirs? It is pity this ſo neceſſary, as well as Royal and kind act of the Kings to this Nation, ſhould ſo nettle the high flowen of theſe Conformiſts. It is pity indeed, but they ſhould be offended, becauſe ſo many honeſt innocent perſons, who never did them any hurt in their lives, and yet they proſecuted with ſuch hate, have eſcaped their talons. For my part I bleſs God in my inward Chamber, that he hath put in into the heart of his Majeſty, to ſhew this kindneſs to his people. And that it may fret his and our Malignants the more, I will tell them how much the rather I am pleaſed with it, in regard of the Kings free, conſtant, univerſal recognizing of it, eſpecially to thoſe that come to him with their humble thanks and ſubmiſſion. I will record this one expreſſion of his to the Miniſters of Wilts. Go thank them (ſays he), and I will aſſure you, there ſhall never be any more perſecution for conſcience ſake, while I live. Theſe are words of an open, honeſt, candid, clear, ſingle hearted Gentleman that we may truſt, as having nothing of the counterfeit in them in the Earth. Theſe are words that I think may ſerve us, ſo long as by our prayers we can keep him, and make thoſe that envy us look black. I do therefore ſet this up for my ſtone of remembrance, and I will engrave my ſhort inſcription on it. Hitherto. For it is true there is ſomething moreover that ſome of us would have, but not of the King. To let in any into the publick Vineyard, and to make it ſignifie, muſt be by an Act againſt pluralities with it. His Majeſty does ſee that Comprehenſion does draw deeper than his ſingle will. And who ſhall come come after the King, that hath once talkt with him, for knowledg in this matter? Seeing therefore, that by thee we enjoy much quietneſs, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this Nation by thy providence, we accept it always, and in all places moſt noble Felix with all thankfulneſs.
But what, does not the King aſſume an Authority in this Declaration more than he hath, when he himſelf diſpenſes with an Act and Acts of Parliament? and what ſay you to that? I anſwer, I will not take upon me to decide ſuch a caſe as this is, which belongs to the Lawyers: but as a Divine, ſo far as conſcience is concerned, (and it is but a mans own conſcience he goes by) I will ſpeak my opinion. The King himſelf does tell us that the Law does give him ſuch a ſupremacy as this in Eccleſiaſtical matters, and that it is aſſerted in ſeveral Statutes. Now what reaſon there is for any of us to believe contrary to his aſſertion, unleſs we our ſelves were better lawyers than his Council & He, I know not. I will take the hint from this man, Elias dicat quando venerit. We all know that the King hath power to diſpenſe with ſome Laws, & for any Lawyer to undertake to lay down the preciſe critical note of difference between thoſe Laws which he may ſuſpend, & thoſe he may not, I believe will be hard: whereas we that go only by Politicks in general think this moſt eaſie. The Supream Law muſt over-rule all under it; and in all human Laws ſalus Reipublicae is ſuprema lex. It is certain, when any Laws prove diſadvantageous to the Community, they themſelves grow into diſuſe; and when we have power to ſuſpend our duty, why the King as Executor of the Law, may not ſuſpend the penalty, or may not proceed ſo far as this Declaration, Elias dicat quando venerit. The King I ſuppoſe may call the Clergy to make Eccleſiaſtical Conſtitutions, and by his Authority alone, without a Parliament, ratifie or put a ſanction on them: & whether then he may not do as much as he hath done for us in this gracious Indulgence, Elias dicat quando venerit. I have obſerved in reading the Statute-Book wherein the King's Supremacy is concern'd againſt the Pope. That the Crown of England is called Imperial: whether that be any thing or no, to ſignifie his Authority to be abſolute without his Parliament in matters Eccleſiaſtical though not in Civil) I cannot tell; but if it be, Elias dicet quando venerit. When in Henry the Eighth's time they took away the Supremacy from the Pope, they gave the ſame to the King: and if the Popes Authority in Eccleſiaſticals was undoubtedly over the Parliament, whether the Kings may not be ſo alſo, Elias dicat quando venerit. We know that the ſole power of the Militia, which is one Right of Majeſty, is declared to lye in the King, in ſome late Acts, when Legiſlation and the Purſe belongs not to him without his Parliament: and why he may not have ſuch a Supremacy in Eccleſiaſticals which he hath not in Civils, as well as one of the Rights of Majeſty and not others, according to the temperature of our mixt State, Elias dicat quando venerit. Above all, could we ſuppoſe the whole Nation convened, and were to give their vote, whether the King ſhould have this power he hath exerted, or whether it ſhould lye in the power of this preſent Parliament, and not in Him alone, I believe the major vote would be for the King. And when in the erecting of Commonwealths it is the conſent of the people, is that which is the conditio regnandi, or cauſa ſine qua non, & the Authority of ſelf flows immediately from God upon that condition being put: whether that Prince who is perſwaded in his conſcience, he does nothing but that for which he hath the hearts & good-wills of the generality, as in this good deed of his Majeſty in this Declaration, he may not have a good conſcience toward God, however he be judged by men, or the Sages of the Law, I muſt leave that alſo till Elias come: Elias dicet quando venerit, as the Jews ſpeak. I will conclude with that ſaying however of Bracton. Si ab co peccatur, locus erit ſupplicationi quod factum ſuum corrigat & emendet, quod quidem ſi non fecerit ſatis erit ei ad paenam quod Dominum expectet ultorem. Nemo enim de factis ſuis praeſumat diſquirere, multo minus contra factum venire, Brac. l. 1. c. 8.
But again in point of Divinity. Fanaticiſm, and Popery, is ſin, Idolatry; and may ſin, any ſin be tolerated? I diſtinguiſh, there is a Private, and Publick Toleration: and publick Toleration is either in the Church, or in the State. No ſin is to be privately tolerated, but every ſoul is bound to renounce every ſin, and to live in no evil courſe of life with will and knowledge unto death, upon pain of damnation. Again, no ſin may be tolerated publickly by the Miniſter, but he is to reprove all, and ſpare none, that he may deliver his own ſoul: Beſides, if any ſin be lived in contumaciouſly to the ſcandal of others, ſuch ſinners are not to be tolerated in the Church, but to be caſt out till they repent. But to think that no ſin therefore muſt be tolerated by the Magiſtrate in the World, or in the State, without conſidering whether it be conſiſtent or no with the publick peace or welfare which is external, is a thought that muſt be unthought again. For the world are Idolators, the World lyes in wickedneſs, and if the wicked be caſt out of the Church, it is into the World they are caſt. Nay ſurely, if God had appointed every ſin to have its puniſhment in this World, what need were there of a general Aſſizes in the next? I wrot to you, not to company with Fornicators: yet not altogether with the Fornicators of this World, or with the Covetous, or Extortioners, or with Idolaters, for then muſt ye needs go out of the World. This is certain, God does ſuffer ſin to be, when he might hinder it, and that by a courſe of Juſtice, if he would immediately ſtrike men dead, for example. I cannot but judge therefore, that though no ſin may be done by the Magiſtrate himſelf, nor may he be partakers of it with others, that good may come of it: yet may he tolerate the ſinner in his ſin which he concurs no ways in, as God permits it in the World, viz. when a greater good does accrue to his ſubjects by that Toleration, then by the Puniſhment. Diſtinguiſh (ſay Divines) between cogere ad fidem, and interdicere exercitio in heterodoxia. Poſterius ad euitandum corruptionem & ſcandala competit Magiſtratui. Diſtinguiſh again (ſay they) of a Common-wealth or Kingdom free, and not free from diverſe Religions. Ibi cavendae, hic tolerandae, ſed cum conditione ne publica Religionis exercitia facile concedantur. One would think his Majeſty no ſmall caſuiſtica Divine, by the carriage of this Declaration. I will cloſe this up with that pertinent paſſage and Comment of Auguſtine. Cum Apoſtolus precipit nolite iungi cum infidelibus, exite de medio corum, non intelligunt neminem coniungi cum inſidelibus niſi qui facit peccata Paganorum, vel talia facientibus favet: nec quunquam fieri participem iniquitatis, niſi iniquam vel agat, vel approbat. Contra Epiſtolam Parmeniani, l. 2. c. 18.
After this, I muſt confeſs as to Popery, I do hope that there is indeed no Foundation of thoſe ſurmiſes which this Prefacers queſtion muſt buzze amongſt us, for all his ſaying alſo, that there is none. For to go to bring in a Religion upon a people which is no more prepared for it, then we are for Popery in this Nation, were but the committing of a rape or raviſhment upon the publick conſcience; and poſſeſſion being got without getting our good wills, could not likely be long retained, nor could be loſt again neither, but with an exceedingly encreaſed diſadvantage to that party. Nevertheleſs ſeeing our Prefacer hath offered the ſuppoſition, I do both declare the effectual means to prevent it, and who they are muſt be the cauſe of it, if the event comes upon us.
But the Kings Majeſties Declaration I know ſticks ſtill in their ſtomacks. The penal Laws are taken off from the Papiſts, and from the Fanaticks. And what then? I do believe we ſhall have never the more Papiſts nor Fanaticks for that. No, they have one Argument, Difficulty and Suffering the leſs, for their Church. The penal Laws did but whet their appetite, their own fulneſs will ſerve to cloy them, and give them enough. But the Church is divided, diviſion countenanced, and is not Schiſm and Separation forbidden? It hath been declared to me of you, that there are contentions among you. I anſwer, the Kings Declaration found theſe Diviſions in the Nation, it does not make them. Diviſion and Separation ſimply conſidered, are neither good nor evil. There may be reaſon to divide or ſeparate ſome perſons from others out of prudence, as the Catechumens from the fully inſtructed of old, for their greater edification. It is not all diviſion or ſeparation is Schiſm, but ſinful diviſion. Such Diviſions as the Apoſtle here alſo calls Contention. I muſt confeſs I have been a man profeſſed ſtill againſt Separation: but this Declaration does ſeem to me to take away the very ſore it ſelf which was in our ſeparate Meetings till now. It is by Gods providence a Medicinal Declaration. And I will tell you my thoughts freely, as I uſe to do when I write. I look upon the call of a Nation to the Chriſtian Religion, and and the Nations anſwering that call, to make a Church National. The King is head over his people as a Nation, and that in Eccleſiaſticals, as well as Civils. As National head he hath appointed the Parochial Churches, and required that all his Subjects ſhould frequent theſe Aſſemblies for the acknowledging, glorifying, or National ſerving and worſhipping the true God, and Jeſus Chriſt, whom we have received. This worſhip and ſervice in the nature of it being intrinſecally good, and the external order (ſuch as that of place and the like circumſtances) being properly under his juriſdiction, it hath ſeemed hitherto to me, that unleſs there was ſomething in that order or way by him preſcribed which is ſinful, and that required too as a condition of that Communion, there is no man might refuſe his attendance on thoſe Parochial Aſſemblies, without the ſin of diſobedience, and conſequently his ſeparation thereby becomming ſinful, it was Schiſm. Now Sirs! It having pleaſed the Almighty to put it into the heart of the King, not onelyonly to forbear and connive at the Non-Conformiſt in their Preaching, but to allow, appoint, and deſign by his ſolemn Declaration, ſtated places for their Aſſemblies (according to the good hand of our God upon him) it does appear to me that theſe particular Aſſemblies, having the Authority of the Supreame Head of the Church, equally with the Pariſh Churches, they are manifeſtly conſtituted thereby parts of the Church National, whereof he is Head, no leſs then the Pariſh aſſemblies. The matter is all one, as if a Pariſh onelyonly which was too big, ſhould be divided into two, where I ſay there is Separation, no Schiſm. I will undertake to make it good, that the Biſhops Conſecration of a Church is not neceſſary, to the making the Society that Aſſembles therein to be a particular Church, or part of the National: but that the Kings Authority alone is enough for that Relation. Nay I know not but the King upon the ſame account might conſtitute unmaintenanced Biſhops over thoſe particular Congregate Churches, if he pleaſed, as well as he hath maintained Biſhops over thoſe that have Livings, if it were to any purpoſe at all, and for his peoples edification. Well now then, if any Licenſed perſon ſhall gather their Congregations in a way of oppoſition to the Pariſh Churches, which he hath alſo eſtabliſht, by denial of them to be true Churches, I do account ſtill that all ſuch partaking thereby with the Novatian and the Donatiſt of old, muſt come under the condemnation of the Fathers and Councels paſſed upon their error, and that is that which foreign we call Separation. If any again ſhall gather a people in a way of ſtrife, pride, vain-glory, envy, contention, which are breaches of Chriſtianity, when the end of the Commandment is Charity, I will account this alſo being ſinfull, it does make thoſe conventions Schiſmatical. But if a man ſhall come honeſtly and peaceably in the fear of God with prudence and innocency, as becomes a Chriſtian, to ſet up one of theſe Meetings by vertue of the ſame Authority as the Pariſh Prieſt hath his: I will deſire any that can, to ſhew me now, where the ſin is to be found. If he can ſhew it me I will conſent to him, that he ſhall call all theſe Meetings Schiſmatical ſtill, upon condition that if he cannot, he will pardon them henceforth who do go to theſe particular Churches (by the Kings appointment now parts of the National) with the ſame veneration and regard as to the Pariſh Congregations. We will thank the late ingenuous Author, who adviſed us to take heed that Toleration be not abuſed, and we do ſhew wherein that care is to be taken, that we may not abuſe it: but when he would have had the Non-Conformiſt under pretence of not abuſing his liberty, to take ſuch a courſe only as not to uſe it at all (though the generality of us do judge they ſhould moſt glorifie God this way) he deſerved to be blamed; who upon the conviction, will perhaps as ſoon as any, be ready to thank God with us, if a door ſo effectual be opened, then we may without offence, and without Schiſm, joyn our ſtrength in a mutual love and concord for the carrying on the great work of mans Salvation throughout the Nation.
But are not theſe Presbyterians very Knaves, who ſtood before on Chriſts Authority for their Preaching, and now take Licenſes of the King? While their plea was the ſame with the Apoſtles, that they ought to obey God rather then Man, we could bear with them; but now we ſhall never abide them more. I pray Sirs, good words! As Charity always thinketh the beſt, I ſee this all will ſtill thinketh nothing but evil. If it were the duty of the Non-Conformiſt Miniſter to Preach before his Majeſties Declaration, it muſt be his duty ſtill: and if when we have obtained ſuch grace as this is, the Presbyterian ſhould not accept it, (when there is no more doubt of prejudicing our Miniſtry thereby, then the Apoſtles did theirs, when they had leave of the Maſters of the Synagogues to ſay on), who would have fallen on the whole party ſo foully for refractory and perverſe fellows, as theſe men? It is true, we look on Chriſts Commiſſion to be enough for our Preaching when we judge it for Gods Glory; but to Preach in ſuch a place, and in ſuch circumſtances, is, we count in the diſpoſe of the Magiſtrate. The Magiſtrate hath the power of external order, and may forbid a man to Preach, I ſay in ſuch a place, when he cannot forbid him to Preach; or elſe our Pulpits were our own ſtill, for all the Act of Uniformity. The Presbyterians take Licenſes of the King in reference to the place of their Aſſemblies. Nay this authority of the King in ſlating theſe places and Meetings for them, does incorporate them as integral parts, or particular fellow congregations with thoſe of the Parochial conſtitution, into the Church National, united under him as the Supreme Head: which is a matter of that great weight and conſequence, as we have not yet looked about us, to bleſs God enough for it. Hereby can the Non-Conformiſt make his publick acknowledgement (which he would have) of the Kings Supremacy in Eccleſiasticals no leſs then the Biſhop, and yet his conſcience not be burdened with the Dioceſan. Truely I know not but his Majeſty really hath diſcerned more for the hitting the buſineſs of coagulating his whole people into one Eccleſiaſtical National ſociety or body under him hereby, then any of us were a warre of, who could not ſee before any reaſon for ſuch proceedings as are taken in this Declaration, which we ſhall approve henceforth with a great deal of ſatisfaction. But did not theſe men in the late Wars take part with the Parliament, and now they ſubmit to the Kings Declaration againſt an Act of Parliament? Be it ſo. The Act of Parliament is againſt the command of God: The King permits what God bids. Who ſhould the ſubject obey, but God and the King? As for the War, I perceive it will ſtill be ript up though againſt the Act of Oblivion. It was not upon the account of Religion (it muſt be firſt known) that it will be owned. In the cauſe of Religion if we be perſecuted, we may fly, Chriſt allows us, but we may not reſiſt. The caſe then I account a ſingular caſe. It was upon the Militia they began, the old King ſaid. The King and Parliament was divided that is certain, and the queſtion was, where the Authority (or the moſt of it) did lye? ſome thought in the one, ſome in the other, and ſo were engaged. I will ſpeak now once for all, that the mouths of theſe men may be ſtopped with reaſon, for nothing elſe will do it. There are ſome have thought thus. The Government of this Nation is mixt. A mixt Government is where the ſupreme Authority is not placed purely in the People, or the Nobles, or the Monarch, but mixtly in them all. The ſupreame Legiſlative power in this Nation lies in the King and his two Houſes joyntly, not ſeverally, as one Corporation (ſays Judge Jenkins) or to ſpeak ſurely, as one Parliament. The Parliament which is to be one in Law being divided, the conſtitution is broken, that being broken, the Government is diſſolved, and the power returned at that ſeaſon to the people. The people being at liberty, many men of ſober ſpirits thought themſelves bound to go that way, which would moſt tend to the advancement of Religion. And this is the true ſtate of their cauſe, which, though I my ſelf in my judgement for my univerſity Oaths ſake was otherwiſe inclined, I do humbly offer, in Juſtice, for their Apology. OnelyOnly I muſt add this, that the occaſion which happened once, that was the Kings own depoſing his power of diſſolving the Parliament at that time, being like never to be again, there is no hurt at all in it. If after this, theſe men will yet preſs us further; I will return that the ſtate of the caſe being quite altered, the King brought in again, and with univerſal conſent, into the old conſtitution, here is a wonderful kind of thing fallen out, that the Fanatick, or Anti-Epiſcopial party of the Nation, are really turning to be the Royaliſt, who are for Prorogative, & Supremacy in Eccleſiaſticals, when the Biſhops party who have made it hitherto a proverb that without them no King, are the men bandy againſt it, for the maintenance of theſe Acts of Parliament. And thus much ſhall ſuffice as to the firſt thing offered by the Prefacer about Popery and the Kings Declaration.