The Grand Debate Between Bishops and Presbyterian Divines, Document 2 · Reply 4 – Section 5
Reply. Prayer and Humility are indeed the neceſſarie means of Peace: But if you will let us pray for peace in no words but what are in the Common-Prayer-book, their brevitie and unaptneſs, and the cuſtomarineſs, that will take off the edge of fervour, with humane nature, will not give leave (or help ſufficient) to our ſouls to work towards God, upon this Subject, with that enlargedneſs, copiouſneſs, and freedom, as is neceſſary to due fervour. A brief tranſient touch, and away, is not enough to warm the heart arigne; and cold Prayers are like to have a cold return, and therefore, even for Peace ſake, let us pray more copiouſly and heartily than the Common-Prayer-book will help us to do. And whether this be that cauſe, or whether it be that the Common-Prayer-book hath never a Prayer for it ſelf, we find that its Prayers prevail not to reconcile many ſober, ſerious perſons to it that live in faithfull fervent Prayer. 2. And for Humility, we humbly conceive it would moſt effectually heal us, and by cauſing the Paſtors of the Church to know that they are not to rule the flocks as Lords, but as enſamples, not by conſtraint, but willingly, 1 Pet. 5. 2, 3. and it would cauſe them not to think ſo highly of themſelves, and ſo meanly of their Brethren, as to judge no words fit to be uſed to God in the publick Worſhip, but what they preſcribe, and put into our mouths, and that other men are generally unable to ſpeak ſenſibly, or ſuitably, unleſs they tell us what to ſay; or, that all others are unfit to be truſted with the expreſſing of their own deſires: Humilitie would perſwade the Paſtors of the Church at leaſt to undertake no more than the Apoſtles did, and no more to obtrude or impoſe their own words upon all others in the publick Worſhip: If they found any unfit to be truſted with the expreſſion of their mindes in publick Prayer, they would do what they could to get meeter men in their places, and till then they would reſtrain and help ſuch as need it, and not upon that pretence as much reſtrain all the ableſt Miniſters, as if the whole Church were to be nominated, meaſured, or uſed, according to the quality of the moſt unworthy. And it is alſo true, that humility in private perſons and inferiors, would do much to our peace, by keeping them in due ſubmiſſion, and obedience, and keeping them from all contentions and diviſions, which proceed from ſelf-conceitedneſs and pride. But yet, 1. The humbleſt, ſureſt Subjects may ſtumble upon the ſcruple, whether Biſhops differ not from Presbyters only in degree, and not in order or office, (it being a Controverſie, and no reſolved point of faith even amongſt the Papiſts, whoſe faith is too extenſive, and favour too Eccleſiaſtical, ambition too great) and conſequently they may doubt whether men in the ſame order, do, by divine appointment, owe obedience unto thoſe that gradually go before them. 2. And they may ſcruple whether ſuch making themſelves the Governours of their Brethren, make not themſelves indeed of a different order or office, and ſo incroach not on the authority of Chriſt, who only maketh Officers purely Eccleſiaſtical; and whether it be no diſloyalty to Chriſt to own ſuch Officers. 3. And among thoſe Divines that are for a threefold Epiſcopacy, (beſides that of Presbyters, who are Epiſcopi Gregis) viz. General unfixed Biſhops, like the Evangeliſts or Apoſtles, (in their meaſure) and the fixed Biſhops of Parochial Churches, that have Presbyters to aſſiſt them, to whom they do preſide, and alſo the Preſidents of larger Synods) yet is it a matter of very great doubt, whether a fixed Dioceſan being the Paſtor of many hundred Churches, having none under him, that hath the power of Juriſdiction or Ordination, be indeed a Governour of Chriſts appointment or approbation, and whether Chriſt will give us any more thanks for owning them as ſuch, than the King will give us for owning an Uſurper. Humility alone will not ſeem to ſubject theſe men to ſuch a Government. 4. And though their coercive Magiſtratical power be eaſily ſubmitted to, as being from the King, (how unfit Subjects ſoever Church men are of ſuch a power) yet he that knoweth his Superiours beſt, doth honour God more, and ſuppoſeth God more infallible than man, and will feel himſelf moſt indiſpenſibly bound by Gods commands, and bound not to obey man againſt the Lord. And whereas there is much ſayd againſt the peoples taking on them to judge of the lawfulneſs of things commanded them by Superiors; we add, 5. That humble men may believe that their Superiors are fallible; that it is no impoſſibility to command things that God forbids, that in ſuch Caſes, if we have ſufficient means to diſcern the ſinfulneſs of ſuch Commands, we muſt make uſe of them, and muſt obey God rather than men; that when the Apoſtles acted according to ſuch a Reſolution, Acts 4. 19. and Daniel and the three Witneſſes, Dan. 6. and 3. they all exerciſed a judgement of Diſcerning upon the matter of their Superiors commands; that not to do ſo at all, is to make Subjects Bruits, and ſo no Subjects, becauſe not rational free Agents, or to make all Governors to be gods. And laſtly, That it will not ſave us from Hell, nor juſtifie us at Judgement for ſinning againſt God, to ſay, that Superiors commanded us, nor will it prove all the Martyrs to be ſinners and condemned, becauſe they judged of their Superiors commands, and diſobeyed them. All which we ſay to ſhew the inſufficiency of the Remedy, hereby you propounded, (the humility of Inferiors) unleſs you will alſo add your help, without obedience there is no order or laſting concord to be expected: And by abaſing the eternal God, ſo far as to ſet him and his Laws below a Creature, under pretence of obedience to the Creature, no good can be expected, becauſe no peace with Heaven, without which, peace with men is but a Confederacy haſtning each party to Deſtruction: And therefore abſolute obedience muſt be given only to God the abſolute Sovereign. In all this we ſuppoſe that we are all agreed: And therefore, 6. and laſtly, We muſt ſay, that the way to make us think the Biſhops to be ſo wiſe, and careful Guides and Fathers to us, is not for them to ſeem wiſer than the Apoſtles, and make thoſe things of ſtanding neceſſity to the Churches unity, which the Apoſtles never made ſo, nor to forbid all to preach the Goſpel, or to hold Communion with the Church, that dare not conform to things unneceſſary. Love and tenderneſs are not uſed to expreſs themſelves by hurting and deſtroying men for nothing; And to ſilence and reject from Church Communion for a Ceremony, and in the mean time to perſwade men that they love them, is but to ſtab or famiſh all the ſick perſons in the Hoſpital or Family, whoſe ſtomachs cannot take down the Diſh we offer them, or whoſe throats are too narrow to ſwallow ſo big a morſel as we ſend them; And when we have done, to tell them, the only remedy is for them to believe we love them, and are tender of them. And who knows not that a man may think well of his Superiors, that yet may queſtion whether all that he teacheth or commandeth him, be lawful.
Sect 5.[If it be objected, That the Liturgy is in any way ſinful and unlawful for us to joyn with, it is but reaſon that this be firſt proved evidently, before any thing be altered: it is no Argument to ſay, that multitudes of ſober pious perſons ſcruple the uſe of it, unleſs it be made to appear by evident reaſons, that the Liturgy gave the just grounds to make ſuch ſcruples. For if the bare pretence of ſcruples be ſufficient to exempt us from Obedience, all Law and Order is gone.]
Reply. To this paſſage we humbly crave your conſideration of theſe Anſwers; 1. We have not only ſayd, (that ſober pious perſons ſcruple the Liturgy) but we have opened to you thoſe defects, and diſorders, and corruptions, which muſt needs make the impoſing of it unlawful, when God might be more fitly ſerved. 2. It is ſtrange, that you muſt ſee it firſt evidently proved unlawful for men to joyn with the Liturgy (you mean, we ſuppoſe, to joyn with you in the uſing of it, or when you uſe it,) before you will ſee reaſon to alter any thing in it: what if it be only proved unlawful for you to impoſe it, though not for others to joyn with you when you do impoſe it, is this no reaſon to alter it? ſhould you not have ſome care to avoid ſin your ſelves, as well as to preſerve others from it? An inconvenient mode of Worſhip is a ſin in the Impoſer, and in the Chooſer, and voluntary Uſer, that might offer God better, and will not, Mal. 1. 13, 14. And yet it may not be only lawful, but a duty to him that by violence is neceſſitated to offer up that or none. And yet we ſuppoſe the Impoſers ſhould ſee cauſe to make an alteration. If you lived where you muſt receive the Lords Supper ſitting, or not at all, it's like you would be of this minde your ſelves. 3. Why ſhould it be called a [bare pretence of ſcruples] as if you ſearch'd the Hearts, and knew (not only that they are upon miſtake, but) that they are not real, when the perſons not only profeſs them real, but are willing to uſe all juſt means that tend to their ſatisfaction, they ſtudy, read, pray, and will be glad of Conference with you, at any time, upon equal tearms, if they may be themſelves believed. 4. Even groundleſs ſcruples about the matter of an unneceſſary Law, which hath that which to the weak both is and will be an appearance of evil, may be ſufficient to make it the Duty of Rulers to reverſe their impoſitions, though they be not ſufficient to juſtifie the Scrupulous. 5. If a man ſhould think that he ought not to obey man, even when he thinketh it is againſt the Commands of God, though he be uncertain, (as in caſe of going on an unqueſtioned Warfare, or doing Doeg's execution, &c.) yet it followeth not, that [all Law and Order is gone] as long as all Laws and Orders ſtand that are viſibly ſubſervient to the Laws of God, and to his Sovereignty, or conſiſtent with them, and when the Subject ſubmitteth to ſuffering where he dare not obey.
[On the contrary we judge, that if the Liturgy ſhould be altered as is Sect. 6.there required, not only a multitude, but the generality of the Sobereſt and moſt loyal Children of the Church of England would juſtly be offended, ſince ſuch an alteration would be a virtual Confeſſion that this Liturgy were an intollerable burden to tender Conſciences, a direct cauſe of Schiſm a ſuperſtitious uſage (upon which pretences it is here deſired to be altered) which would at once both juſtifie all thoſe which have ſo obſtinately ſeparated from it, as the only pious, tender conſcienced men, and condemn all thoſe that have adhered to that, in conſcience of their duty and loyalty, with their loſs or hazard of eſtates, lives, and fortunes, as men ſuperſtitious, ſchiſmatical, and void of Religion and Conſcience. For this reaſon and thoſe that follow, we cannot conſent to ſuch an alteration as is deſired, till theſe pretences be proved, which we conceive in no wiſe to be done in theſe Papers, and ſhall give reaſons for this our Judgment.]