and removals or else there will be no peace I am heartily sorry for it since even those whom they call the most moderate Prelates have declared the removal of that which is well settled to be so dangerous as that it is not safe to remove an inconvenience the remedy of which may open a gap to let in others that may prove greater and more grievous Not only Bishop Sanderson a Episcopacy not prejudicial c. p 99. 100. but Bishop Hall likewise is of the mind that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a sure Rule Let the antient customs stand Every novelty carries his Petition in the face of it b Bishop Hall's Sermonâ— 2 Sundâ—â— Lent 1641 p. 80. It was a good question of the Church in the Canticles Why should I be as one that turns aside to the flocks of the Companions It is the great and glorious stile of God that in him is no shadow of changing Surely those well setled Churches and States come nearest to his perfection that alter least But if with Lipsius you say what if for the better I must answer that in every change there is a kind of hazard It is a wise word therefore of our Hooker that a tolerable Sore is better than a dangerous Remedy And if any one say these words are not to be extended to Ceremonies let him consult a Letter of his to Mr. Struthers c One of the Ministers of Edinburgh whom he desires to consider how far it is safe for a particular Church to depart from the antient Universal Surely no Kingdom can think it a slight matter what the Church diffused through all times and places hath either done or taught For Doctrines or Manners there is no question and why should it be more safe to leave it in the Holy Institutions that concern the outward form of Gods Service Novelty is a thing full of envy and suspicion and why less in matters of Rite than Doctrine True it is every Nation hath her own Rites Gestures Customs and yet there are some wherein there hath been an Universal Agreement As every face hath its own favour it s own lines distinct from all others yet is there a certain common habitude of countenance and disposition of the forehead eyes cheeks lips common to all So as they that under pretence of difference shall go about to raise an immunity from such Ceremonies do no other than argue that because there is a diversity of proportion of faces we may well want a brow or a chin He instances in the antient custom of Solemn Festivities and of kneeling at the Holy Sacrament By all which it appears that one may be against a removal of the Ceremonies and yet be no Hector no more than He or Bishop Sanderson or Mr. Hooker d See â—â—e Preface to his fifth part of Eccles Pol. were And these men I must tell you have the least reason to complain or give such Characters as this Apologist hath done of those whom they call rigid or stiff Fathers or Sons of the Church of England they are his own words p. 34. who were so unyielding themselves in every thing which they had a mind to have established Nay some of whom heretofore were so fierce for their own inventions that every nicety seemed as if it were a Fundamental and if King James may be believed e Basilicon Doron cited in second Fair Warning cap. 1. p. 8. the smallest questions about their Ecclesiastical Discipline raised as great Disputes as if the Holy Trinity were called in question It would be only to tire you and my self to proceed any further to anatomise the rest of this vile Character the stench of which is already so offensive Nor is there any need to spend any more time about it for the bare reciting of it will proclaim it to be a Libel and an infamous one too unless you can believe that the chiefest Sons of the Church as they profess themselves dissent from its Doctrine transgress its Laws about Rites and Ceremonies look upon the Archbishops Grindal Whitgift and Abbot as Puritans and would unbishop some of the present Bishops for Presbyterians Who would think that a Book fraught with such language as this should be commended for a sober modest Reply by some of chief note among them Such men would have made excellent Parasites altogether as good as that Cynaethus who when he had spent all other waies of Flattery praised his Master for his Tissick and said he cought very musically Their Favourites may say and write what they please and still maintain the Reputation of godly men nay that which in us would be thought a Crime is commended in one of themselves as I have formerly shewn you That very Person who accuses another of writing Pasquils is not afraid to call several of the Bishops as this man in effect doth some of our Priests Amaziah-like Priests Tyrants rufling ceremonious and violent Ring-leaders f Anatome of Dr. G. 1660. He declaims also against the Cathedral Service reproaches the Dignified Clergy and that after he had confessed in other parts of his Book the Act of Indemnity had enjoyned him silence g Antidote against Antisobrius Oct 30. 1660. p. 15. 22 25. That which is bred in the bore as we say will not out of the flesh This sort of men have ever been wont to revile and so they cannot forbear it even when they know they should not and that it is their interest to give good words And if you will give me leave to speak my judgment freely I think there is also in this very Writer a great deal of that Hectorly swaggering quality which he unjustly charges others withal Witness that notable Vapour and High Rant page 28. where he tells you the chief Quarrel of the high Hierarchists against the Presbyterian Ministers should in reason have been nothing but this that they who would have thought it were the first in bringing the King back Which he joyns with a new cluster of calumnies against many of the Bishops and conforming Clergy affirming page 29. that their own interest it may be suspected had a considerable influence into their Loyalty and that they seem to express more and greater zeal against the Presbyterians than against the Regicides c. Who would not think that reads this that they were the men who but they who kept life and heat in the Kings Cause and that the Episcopal men many of them were cold and indifferent or that they were the sincere the well-affected to his Majesty and the others led by their own interest to follow the Presbyterian zeal for him Nay that they were the first movers towards the Kings Return even before those that were always in motion and never ceased their restless indeavours for it O most glorious Apologist He may tell us next as the men of Judah said The King is near of kin to us for that is as true as that they
he hath propounded to finde out the several degrees of sin against Humane Laws and what Laws are of such moment that a man cannot be accounted a good Christian or a good Subject that lives in defiance of them For this end look back to what was said concerning the nature of a Law which will lead you to a right understanding in this matter It is a Declaration of the will of a Prince concerning those things which he judges needful to be done or avoided by his Subjects The more needful then he judges any thing to be done or avoided for the Publick good and safety c. and the more it appears his will is set upon it the more his Law is to be reverenced and the greater the offence is if it be broken especially openly and with an high hand Now you may know this partly by the matter it self as all wise men have determined if it be a matter of Justice Charity Piety Religion or Peace Partly by the manner and form of commanding and forbidding partly by the greatness of the penalty threatned in case of disobedience and lastly very much by the Preface to his Law in which if he be pleased to expound the reasons and the necessity of it and they appear to be great and weighty his minde and will is thereby without all doubt declared that a more then ordinary regard be had to that Law of his Apply now all this if you please to the Law which hath moved this dispute and you will finde that I had reason to say what I did and that they have no reason to equal the breach of other Laws which they mention with the breach of that An Act of the seventeenth of our present Soveraign made at Oxford required such persons as had not and should not perform some things therein named not to come within five Miles of any Corporation c. The breach of which Law I hold to be a grievous sin and when a man lives in it and in defiance of it keeps Conventicles I said his piety and honesty might justly be called in question My Reason is because it is plain to me by those indications now named that the Law-giver judges it to be a matter of great consequence and that he is much concerned it should be observed For first the Preface to it is solemn and lets us know that both Religion and the Civil Peace and tranquillity depends upon it and that they are removed from Corporations because if they were there they might take an opportunity the better to distil the Poysonous Principles of Schism and Rebellion into the hearts of his Majesties Subjects to the great danger of the Church and Kingdom This is the reason and ground of the Act which is as great as well can be and therefore the penalty is great forty pound for every offence and as I remember imprisonment for six months without Bail or Mainprize if two Justices of Peace please unless upon or before such commitment they shall swear and subscribe the Oath and Declaration mentioned in the Act. Compare now this with the other about burying in Linnen and about Waggons which they make such a talk of and you will finde neither the Penalties five pound in one Act and forty shillings in the other nor the Reasons given in the Prefaces any thing near so considerable as those now mentioned Which is a signe that the Law-giver doth not judge them of equal moment and necessity and consequently that the transgression of these Laws is not so heinous nor so much against his will as the transgression of the other The Penalties also for offences against these are ordered to be so imployed that they may do as much good to the Publick as the offences do hurt setting aside contempt of Authority which I cannot excuse But may not a Law-giver you will say be mistaken in his judgement as some think there was an error in that which was enacted about Waggons And if he be why should we observe such a Law I Answer I am not bound absolutely to be of the Law-giver's opinion that all such things are for the Publick good which he decrees I am onely to follow his will and do what he enjoyns when I can without sin And this I take my self bound to even when I conceive it were better for the Publick if it were otherwise ordained What will you say again when there is an intolerable inconvenience and a very grievous evil to the subjects by obeying That 's the thing I know you would be resolved in And truely the Moral Divines and Lawyers say no. It is to be supposed when that case happens that it not being the intention of a Prince to make his Subjects miserable he would not have made that Law if he could have foreseen such a mischief And therefore it ceases of it self to be a Law and looses its Obligation But then in the reducing this to practice they tell you there are these cautions to be observed First Obedience is never to be denyed but when the Law is against the Publick good If it be still consistent with the Publick interest though it be to the damage of some particular persons they may not break the Law Again it must be practised then onely when the Mischief to the Publick is not small but so great that in the judgement of the best and most prudent persons it be a sufficient cause of disannulling a Law and doth out-weigh the evil of material disobedience And thirdly this mischief likewise must be certain and notorious not onely in our fancy The security of which is when it is declared so by the voice of all men at least of all the wise and good and not onely by a party whose particular interest is concerned to vote it to be unsupportable And yet in case the truely wise and good on all sides think it so they ought not fourthly to disobey the Law with the scandal and offence of other men It must be done so modestly humbly and with fear that the rest of Mankind be not taught hereby to slight all Laws upon little pretences and trifling regards And lastly to secure all we must if we have time and opportunity ask leave of the Law-giver whose leave is to be presumed in such cases onely in time of a sudden danger And having done thus if we should be mistaken and judge that a publick mischief which is not yet the guilt of our disobedience will not be deadly but such as will easily finde pardon both with God and man To this purpose you may read more in that Doctor Bishop Taylor out of whom this Casuist quotes a line or two relating to this matter onely separated from all the rest of his discourse Which gives me occasion to note his disingenuity for besides all the Cautions which the Bishop r Rule of Conscience Book 3. R. 3. N. 10. c. there gives I observe since I writ all this that
very Second Page of his Book gives you a proof of it where he tells you He humbly conceives that every transgression of an humane Law though but Penal is not so culpable or criminous as is pretended Truly I conceive so too that all Offences are not of equal guilt but I must let him know that as I did not pretend every transgression of a Law to be so culpable as the transgression of that I spoke of so I humbly conceive he pretends to skill in the nature of Laws but Penal which he is utterly ignorant of For both that Law which I mentioned and all those that he instances in are more than Penal as is manifest to every one that hath made the least search into these matters A Law that is but Penal as every ordinary Casuist might have taught him * Instead of all let him consult Dr. Sanderson de oblig conscientiae Prael 82. commands nothing but only exacts a Penalty in case a man think fit to do or not to do some things therein expressed As if a man be chosen Alderman of the City of London and refuse to hold the Place he is by a Law among them to pay a Fine to â—â—em Which is called a Law but Penal because it doth not require or bind a man to serve this Office he is at liberty whether he will or no it requires only the payment of such a Sum of Money if he think good not to serve So that here indeed to pay the Money doth ordinarily satisfie the Law because a Law-maker binds us only by declaring his will to Oblige us and he declares nothing as his will to oblige a man in this case but the payment of a Fine Which is called a Penalty in a large sense as it is something which a man would not willingly undergo if it were left to his own choise and is imposed on him in stead of another burden which he refuses viz. that of Government But what is this to the Law which I had occasion to mention Which is not of this sort but a Law Mandatory as I may call it requiring them not to inhabite in such and such places Upon which account it is a Moral Law to regulate mens manners and for that cause it is a vertue to obey it and a vice to disobey it Nor doth the addition of a Penalty to it alter its nature For such Laws are a Rule of life given with an intention to oblige men to obedience there being few that know of themselves what is best and most profitable for common life And the Penalty is not to be undergone in stead of the obedience but is added to contain Subjects in their duty by the fear of it because even they who may know what is best will not otherwise do it So that in conclusion such a Law with a Penalty layes a double obligation upon us both ad poenam and ad culpam as they speak to suffer the punishment and to be sinners if we disobey it There is no doubt of the former and it is as unreasonable to question the latter because the Law contains a Command and Sin is nothing but the transgression of a Command which transgression is greater or less according as the will of the Law-maker is more or less to oblige us and that is to be known very much by the greatness or smalness of the Penalty whereby it is enacted to move us to obedience This he might have learnt of Bishop Taylor whom he quotes directly against his meaning For that Question which this man resolves Affirmatively Is it not enough to satisfie the Law to pay the Mulct or Penalty in such Cases p. 3. he answers Negatively And that within a few lines of that very place which this Apologist alledges to a quite contrary sense You may find it in his Holy Living Chap. 3. Sect. 1. Rule 7. which begins thus Do not believe thou hast kept the Law when thou hast suffered the punishment c. Read the rest at your leisure and do not believe this man who abuses the Bishop and wrests his words as their manner is from their meaning The Rule that he mentions being directed to another purpose and expressed in terms flatly against him As long saith the Bishop as the Law is obligatory so long our obedience is due m Ib. Rule the 4. quoted by this Apol. p. 4. c. If obedience be due then I hope it is not sufficient to suffer the Penalty and then this Writer shamefully perverts the sense of that Rule or else doth not understand it which is no more but this that a fixed Custome abrogates a Law and makes our obedience no longer due to it While the Law is in force we sin if we do not obey it but a fixed Custom makes it not to be in force and then we are free from it This is the sense of the Bishop to which nothing need be added but that whilst the Law-giver constantly declares his will that it should oblige no Custom can be pleaded nor excuse be made for doing contrary to it But you think perhaps that he may find some relief in Mr. Perkins whom he also alledges You may try if you please but if you consult the place you will see he had some reason not to tell you where to find it For first he recites his words imperfectly and doth not let you know that Mr. Perkins declares where the Law-maker intends obedience simply the Statutes are necessary to be kept And again that he doth not excuse men from all blame who break some of the lesser local Statutes but only saith Students may in some sort excuse themselves from the sin of Perjury though not from all fault in breaking some of the lesser local Statutes They are his very words in his Second Book of Cases of Conscience Chap. 13. in the latter end But to pass by this That part of his words which he cites are so far from reaching his purpose that they are against him For first the Law-maker intends obedience simply to the Laws that they break as is manifest to all For secondly they are not Laws meerly for Decency and Order which Mr. Perkins speaks of but for the preservation of the being of Christian Society which is destroyed by separation and division And therefore thirdly the Penalty is not as beneficial to the state of the Society as actual Obedience As for that which follows in the end of his Answer to this Question which he repeats again p. 128. it is altogether impertinent For we do not charge them with a bare omission of what our Governours command but with a direct opposition to it and that to the great scandal of the People and contempt of the Royal Authority All which things considered I think in stead of making an Apology for the Non-Conformists he had better have followed the counsel of Alcibiades to his Uncle when he found him busie about his Accounts which was
a power as he ascribes to them and as the Suffragans I shall now shew you were invested withal who were of the Order of Bishops as much as any other Some have called them Titular Bishops ordained to assist and aid the Bishop of the Diocess in his Spiritual Function and think they had their name from this that by their Suffrages Ecclesiastical Causes were judged But the better to understand what they were you must know that all the Bishops of any Province were antiently called by the Metropolitan his Suffragans being to advise and assist him in the common Affairs of the Church So the word is often used in the Canon Law and in latter times in the Provincial Council of Salisburg b An. 1420 Cap de Officio Ordinarii The Archbishop Everard speaks to all the Bishops as his Suffragans being called together with him in partem solicitudinis into part of the care of the people under his charge Which are the words of our Linwood also who saith the Bishops are called Suffragans because they are bound to help and assist the Archbishop c Archiepiscopo suffragari assistere tenentur Annor in cap. de Constitutionibus But since those times they only have been called Suffragans who were indeed ordained Bishops but not possessed as yet of any See and thence called Titular Bishops which kind of Bishops are no stranger than those Ministers at Geneva whom they call Apostoli who preach in the Country Churches and administer the Sacraments but have no certain charge Yet in England I must tell you it was otherwise as appears by the Statute of 26 Hen. VIII chap. 14. where provision is made for Suffragans which had been accustomed to be had within this Realm as it tells us both in the beginning and the middle of it And it is enacted that the Towns of Thetford Ipswich Colchester Dover Guilford Southampton and twenty places more besides them should be taken and accepted for Sees of Bishops Suffragans to be made in this Realm c. For this end every Archbishop or Bishop being disposed to have them for the more speedy administration of Holy things had the liberty given them to name and elect two fit persons and present them to the King who thereupon had full power by the Act to give to which of those two he pleased the Stile Title and Name of Bishop of such of the Sees aforesaid as he thought most expedient and he was to be called Bishop Suffragan of the same See After which the King was to present him by his Letters Patents under the great Seal to the Archbishop of Canterbury or of York signifying his Name his Stile Title and Dignity of Bishoprick requiring him to Consecrate the said person so nominated and presented to the same Name Title Stile and Dignity of Bishop For which purpose either the Bishop that nominated him or the Suffragan himself was to provide two Bishops or Suffragans to consecrate him with the Archbishop and to bear their reasonable costs This Statute though repealed in the first and second of Philip and Mary d Chap. 8. yet was revived among sundry other in the first of Queen Elizabeth e See ch 1. And it is sufficiently manifest from thence that these persons had Episcopal Ordination being Consecrated by the Archbishop and two Bishops more as much as any other And therefore secondly had Episcocal Power and Authority as much as the Bishop of the Diocess though being dependent on him the Suffragan could not use or execute any Jurisdiction Power or Authority but by his Commission under his Seal as the Statute likewise provides Upon which score Mr. Mason calls them Secondary f De Minist Angl. l. 1. c. 3. Bishops and further observes truly that though in compare with others they may seem to have nothing but a Title because they had not their proper Diocesses to themselves yet if we speak absolutely they had both the Title and the thing signified by it For they had for their Episcopal Seat some great Town g Oppidum illustre lege Parliamentaria illis designatum appointed to them by the Act of Parliament in which and some certain adjacent places to which the Bishop of the Diocess limited them they exercised their Episcopal Function From whence also they borrowed the name of Suffragan of Bedford Suffragan of Colchester c. So that none of those who were Consecrated Bishops among us in England whether Primary or Secondary as his words are were meerly Titular but destinated all of them to the administration of a certain place according to the sixth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon Accordingly we find that such Suffragans being made acted like other Bishops in all things For the Register of the Consecration of Archbishop Parker tells us that at the time of it four Chairs were set for four Bishops one of which was John Hodgskin Suffragan Bishop of Bedford who assisted also in the Consecration of the Bishops of London Ely Lincoln and divers others which he could not have done had he not had Episcopal Power and consequently the Power of Ordaining Presbyters as well as of Consecrating Bishops And so much this Apologist might have learnt from him whom he calls a Learned Prelate if he had read his Books with care I mean Bishop Bramhall who writes thus of the Power of Suffragans h Romphaea Printed 1659. p. 93 The Office and the Benefice of a Bishop are two distinct things Ordination is an Act of the Key of Order and a Bishop uninthroned may Ordain as well as a Bishop inthroned The Ordination of Suffragan Bishops who had no peculiar Bishopricks was always admitted and reputed as good in the Catholick Church if the Suffragans had Episcopal Ordination as the Ordination of the greatest Bishops in the world Nay if he had but read their own Authors he would not have doubted that Suffragans were altogether to speak in their stile as bad as Bishops For the Admonition to the Parliament puts them among the Titles and Offices devised by Antichrist and declares that though they take upon them which is most horrible to rule Gods Church yet they are plainly by Christ forbidden and utterly with speed to be removed You may read more to the same purpose in the Preface as I find it cited in the Censure of the Pamphlet called Humble Motives for Association An. 1601. p. 23 25. In which year I find this a part of the Secular Priests complaint against the Jesuites that they would not be subordinate in any manner to the Ordinary Prelates of England as Bishops and Suffragans and that they withstood their endeavours to have Bishops or Suffragans i Dialogue between a Secular Priest and a Lay Gentleman p. 73. 87 90. By which you may see they were numbred among the Prelates to whom all Priests were to be subject which made those fiery Dissenters from our Church to declaim so
Thus this modest Apologist puts in their exception a Pag. 20. against our Church for committing the power of Excommunication to men that are not in holy Orders Which is notoriously false and the contrary I could shew him hath been acknowledged in their own Books But he needed have look'd no further than to a Book published not many years ago concerning the Practice in the Ecclesiastical Courts Where he might have been informed in express terms b Francisci Clark Praxis in Curiis Eccles Titul 20 an 1666. That the Judge of the Court having pronounced a man contumacious and decreed that he is to be excommunicated in punishment of his contumacy next proceeds to read the Excommunication if he be in holy Orders Otherwise he delivers it to be read by the Priest appointed by the Archbishop for this purpose Which Priest to this effect sits judicially with the Judge himself ☞ Of if he never heard of this Book yet he hath heard I am sure of the Third Part of the Friendly Debate Where if he had been pleased to read a Book before he had censured it he might have found this bold Error corrected in Philagathus and so avoided it himself But I see plainly and am heartily sorry for it there are more of that mans evil humour who love to talk of things upon Record out of their own drowsie imaginations The general cry against the continuation of the Friendly Debate was that it was a breach of the Act of Indemnity or Oblivion which was raised meerly out of their own brains that are stuft with words more than things without consulting the Act it self But this cry Philagathus followed with open mouth and now he hath got another to bear him company who deserves in like manner to be chastized for his bold folly Especially since he mentions this so often first in his Preface then at least five c Pag. 34 73 106. 112 150. times in his Book and in one place affirms my Book seems to be a continued breach of the Act of Indemnity in the very design of it And all this after I had evidently demonstrated in the further Continuation which he also mentions p. 150. that whatever it seems to him this is a gross and impudent Calumny But I shall spare him notwithstanding this boldness and have I assure him thrown away those apt illustrations of his Vanity which offered themselves because he hath more civility in him than the sober Answerer I shall only desire him to follow his own advice which he gives me on this occasion d Pref. p. 8. viz. To do justice upon himself and execute his own Book in the flames for committing such crimes For I must tell you there are a great many more of them He tells you confidently that the Notes commonly called the Assemblies came out before the Assembly convened p. 15. By which I see he is no better skill'd in Ordinances than in Laws For the Ordinance for their convention bears date June 12. 1643. requiring them to meet the next first of July And the Annotations came not out till two years after in 1645 e So it should be Printed in the Friendly Debate not 1646. But you may think perhaps they did not convene at the time appointed Know therefore that on June 24. 1643. all Ministers were required by an Order to pray on the next Fast for a blessing on the Assembly who were to meet on Saturday July 1. and that accordingly they did meet on that day as Mr. Fuller quoted sometimes by this man observes in his History And not long after f July 19. 1643. I find presented an humble Petition for an extraordinary Fast beseeching among other things that Justice might be executed on all delinquents and after this an Order * Aug. 10. 1643. that those of them who were Residents in the Associated Counties should be desired to go down and stir up the People to rise in their defence By which it appears they not only convened but began at least to be busie about that which did not concern them long before those Notes saw the light But let us pass by this And observe rather how he satisfies in the lame excuse he makes for their not calling the Apostles alwaies by the name of Saints In the judgment of our Church saith he it is not necessary as may hence be concluded That in all the Collects for the days set apart to commemorate the holy Apostles in there are but two wherein they are stiled Saints These are his words g Pag. 43. but if you love truth call to mind the Rule I gave you and remember not to trust Even they who call one another frequently by the name of Saints have not such a care as one would expect of common honesty nor of their own fame neither but will assert such manifest untruths as lie open to every eye Turn to the Prayers for particular days in the Service Book and you shall find that they who told him this for I charitably suppose he took it upon trust made no conscience of what they said For those glorious persons whose memories are celebrated in our Church and I hope always will be are called no less than nine times in the very body of the Collects by the names of Saints h St. Steven St. John St. Andrew St. Paul St. Mark St. Philip and St. James St. Peter and St. James Seven of which were Apostles and the other an Evangelist and the first Martyr And lest any one should imagine he made his observation by the old Common-Prayer Book and thence may justifie himself you may understand that there is no difference in this point but only in two of the Collects in one of which in stead of St. John the Evangelist as it is now the words were the blessed Apostle and Evangelist John and in the other instead of St. Philip and St. James it was St. Philip and other Apostles This may teach you to suspect the reasonings of these men which may very well be thought to be exceeding careless who are no more exact in reporting matters of Fact which lie before their eyes But as for their stories which they spread up and down and indeavour to propagate to posterity by stuffing their Books with them as this man doth there is the greatest cause to think that either they have no truth at all in them or are very much altered from their original You ought to let them pass for idle tales unless you have better authority for them than these mens Books who you see are so bold as to report notorious falshoods which every body can confute Their Traditions you should look upon as of no more credit than the Popish Legends It being so easie for men to forget the very words they heard and to place others in their room so common to add or leave out what is most material so hard and often impossible to know all
by Autority 1644. p. 17. Nay it was not the kindness of the Presbyterian Ministers that the Independent Brethren were suffered but they sadly complain of it as you may read in the Petition of the London Ministers to the House of Commons t Septemb. 18 1644. grounded upon the first Remonstrance of the Houses wherein they declared it was far from their purpose or desire to let loose the golden Reins of Discipline and Government in the Church to leave private persons or particular Congregations to take up what Form of Service they please and upon the Covenant wherein they ingaged themselves to be not only for a full Reformation but an Vniformity in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government This was received with great Acceptation and the next year u Decemb. 18 1645 the same Ministers agreed upon a Letter to the Assembly against Toleration in the body of which they expresly call them Reasons against the Toleration of Independency in this Church The Common Prayer then you may be sure could not be tolerated by their good will whatever this man sayes nor were Dr. Gunning and the rest suffered at London and Oxford till their Power was out of Doors Whilst the Covenant was in Credit it was severely forbid and the King himself had it been in their power should not have had the priviledge to use it This Covenant also though he would have us believe the contrary was prest with great Rigour Look into our Church saith Bishop Bramhall x Replication to Bishop of Chalcedon p. 40. and see how many of our principal Divines have lost their Dignities and Benefices only because they would not take a Schismatical Covenant without any other relation to the Wars I have read of a thousand imprisoned and sequestred upon this score and near an hundred Fellows of Colledges in one Week banished Cambridge for refusing it Nay the Houses were so impartial they are the express words of Mr. Pryn y Fresh Discovery c. 1646. Sect. 3. in the prescription of it that such Members of the Lords or Commons that did but scruple the taking of it were suspended the Houses till they did conform Upon which ground he shews how unequal it was that any man should be priviledg'd and exempted from it And therefore I do not believe that many of the Episcopal Perswasion were suffered to enjoy places in the Churches Colledges and Schools without ever taking the Covenant as this Apologist affirms p. 23. unless he means after it was laid aside and the Sectaries as they then spoke not only obstinately refused it but openly oppugned and derided it nay framed an Anticovenant against it in their private Congregations z Mr. Pryn. ib. But it is no wonder he should write thus confidently when Mr. R. Baily had the face to write notwithstanding all this that the Covenant was so far from being urged by fear of unjust suffering that to this day it could never be obtain'd from the Parliament of England to enjoyn that Covenant upon any by the penalty of a two-pence a Review of the Fair Warning p. 80. No indeed what need that when the terms were take it or lose your Benefice Just such another vapour he made for these men are much given to it in another place affirming in a Sermon at the Hague that not any thing had hitherto been objected against the Covenant What could be more impudently spoken when the Reasons of the University of Oxford had been published against it several years before and testified the bold falshood of what he saith also in his Epistle before the Review where he would qualifie the business a little that to this day no man has shewed any error in the matter of that Covenant And indeed shew what we will it is all one they will not regard it They still retain I see by this man a wonderful affection for the Covenant and cannot endure it should bear any blame It was not saith he the Cause of the War Why so the Battel at Edgehil being fought before the Covenant came into England p. 22. what of all that The Covenant might notwithstanding be a great cause of the War and I will prove it had a great hand in it All the stirs in Scotland were by the means of it they entring into it without the Kings consent obtruding b Large Declaration p. 75 199. it with threatning beating tearing of Cloaths turning men out of their Livings Excommunicating Processing those that would not subscribe it and binding themselves to a mutual assistance against all persons whatsoever Upon which the Kings Commissioner desired that they would add Except the King and his Successors but they refused it and in their explication of the Covenant which came out afterward would add no such thing but only that they would defend his Person and Authority in the Preservation and Defence of true Religion c Ib. p. 108 109. In that form it marched into England d What use the Arâ—â—y made of the clause the Remonstrance about the Titary at the Isle of Wight will tell you whither the Spirit of it was come before and had raised those Arms which might have been soon laid aside again had it not been for the Covenant For without the assistance of the Scots the Parliament of England knew not how to carry on the War and without the Covenant came along with them or march'd before them they would not jog or stir a foot As appears by this Relation which I find in the Second Fair Warning e By Rich. Watson 1651. p. 178 179. sent from one well acquainted with the Affairs of his own Country When the Commissioners saith he came down into Scotland from the Parliament of England and a Letter they brought was read in the Assembly there they received no other Answer but this Gentlemen we are sorry for your case but whereas your Letter saith you fight for Defence of the Reformed Religion you must not think us blind that we see not your fighting to be for civil disputes of the Law which we are not acquainted withal Go home and reconcile with the King He is a gracious Prince and will receive you to his Favour ☞ You cannot say it is for the Reformed Religion since you have not begun to reform your Church You had thriven better if you had done as we did begun at the Church A few days after this new Addresses being made their Friends in the Assembly made this proposition Will you joyn in Covenant with us to reform Doctrine and Discipline conform to this of Scotland and ye shall have a better answer The Reply was thanks and that they would represent their desires to the Parliament from whom they had no instructions for such an agreement Nay said the Assembly again this will be loss of time and the danger is great the Parliament nor being able with all their forces to stand two months before the King
the Altar of Damascus affirms that there were either silenced or deprived upon the account of not conforming three hundred preaching Ministers Dr. Heylyn indeed informs me that it doth not appear upon the Rolls that theâ—e were above nine and forty deprived upon all occasions till the death of Archbishop Bancroft and so the whole Number of the silenced and deprived might not be so great as they pretended You must conclude one of these two things either that they loved then when occasion served to make a Mountain of a Mole-hill or now they are desirous to do the just contrary and depress their Number to little or nothing And in like manner now he tells us the people dissatisfied with the Liturgy or Ceremonies are ten if not an hundred to one to what they were formerly and yet then they talkt of many thousands z Humble Supplication p. 36. of the most loyal and best affected Subjects that joyned with them in their Affection to the desired Reformation That is they talk boldly and at random out of their own imaginations as if they wrote to simple Ideots that believe every word without chewing Otherwise this Apologist would not have told us that Mr. Hildersham was silenced but in some Dioceses c. p. 7. whereas Mr. Clark tells us expresly that he was not onely silenced but deprived for refusing of Subscription 1605. and was not allowed to preach till 1608. and within less then a year silenced again and continued so a long time Nay was judicially admonished in the High Commission 22 April 1613 and enjoyned that saving the Catechising of his own family he should not at any time hereafter preach catechise or use any part of the Office or Function of a Minister either privately or publikely until he was restored c. And that it was not till 1625 that he was licensed to preach in some Dioceses How it was with others I have not had occasion to observe and now have not leisure to examine but have cause from this to suspect that he doth not report these matters clearly and with sincerity And indeed overweening of mens selves is apt to blinde them and make them imagine any thing will pass for truth and for sound reason which comes out of their mouthes One would wonder what he thinks our brains are made of who puts us off with such slender stuff as this for an excuse of their holding Meetings separate from us It is no schism nor a breach of the unity of the Church because they take occasion to meet for a time onely till a door be opened for them in the Church by the removal of some supposed or real corruption in the publike Worship As if there were no breach in a garment when it is rent because it may be sowed together again But yet this the Apologist thinks makes the Separation of the Non conformists from the Church of England not total and perpetual p. 11. which he repeats again p. 128. and calls it a temporary and partial withdrawing A very sorry employment this is for a Divine as I take him to be to spend his time in sowing a few fig-leaves together to cover the shame of a sinful disobedience to their Governours and the great breach they have made in the unity of the Church For it may be demonstrated from his own words that this is a meer shift and frivolous excuse He confesses a Separation onely he addes that it is but temporary The cause of this temporary Separation is a supposed or real corruption in the publike Worship I ask now Is this corruption such whether real or supposed that it is a just cause for a Separation If it be not they ought not to withdraw themselves for a time If it be they may withdraw themselves from us alway And so they will according to these Principles for if this corruption be not removed they must alway continue separated or else it is no sufficient reason for separating now Do what they can they are not like the old Nonconformists for they did not withdraw themselves into separate bodies no not for a time If they had upon his Principles they must have died Separatists there being no removal of what they wished taken out of the way as these men are like to do unless they repent and alter their practices in stead of desiring an alteration in the Publick Worship Besides he is very ignorant of the state of our affairs who doth not know it hath been the manner of this Sect to proceed from evil to worse since the very beginning of it which makes me think it past doubt that they will settle in a down-right Separation At the first they onely disliked some Ceremonies See the Visitation speech at Lisnegarvy p. 5. and could pretty well digest conformity in the rest In a little time they manifested a dislike of Episcopal Government being better affected to the device of Mr. Calvin and together with that they distasted also our Common prayer From a dislike Some proceeded to think them unlawful and then fell into a contempt of Bishops and the Prayers bitterly rayling against them From hence they advanced to open disobedience to all the Orders of the Church and at last renounced it and rent themselves from it esteeming themselves the onely Brethren and Congregation of the Faithful Some there were indeed that did not go thus far and being silenced or deprived for not conforming to the Ceremonies would not separate from the Church nor refused to joyn with our Assemblies This Apologist would have us think that he and his Brethren are the followers of those and yet confesses they are gone a large step beyond them having separated for a time And the same reason which hath carried them thus far will advance them further and make that time so long that it will prove alway They will teach next that Gods people must be Separatists a Protestation protested 1641. In order to which we must be that part of the kingdom which is the world and not the Church of Christ b Groans for Liberty 1646 And still they will have a further journey to go and never rest till they be uppermost and have set Jesus Christ that is themselves upon his throne What ground any man can have to hope any better I cannot imagine they being so bent to defend their present unwarrantable practices that they will flie to any refuge though never so dangerous nay take sanctuary in shadows and think they are safe rather then yield the cause An instance of which you have in this Writer who immediately after that which was now noted alledges the words of a Romish Doctor mentioned by Bishop Bramhal to excuse them from Schism p. 12. But let any man consult the place and he will finde presently they are nothing to the business For the Bishop is there speaking c Vindic. of the Church of Engl. p. 7. onely concerning clashings between Bishops and
for the Publick good as to the MAKING of the Law and we must judge as to our OBEDIENCE to it Then which it is hard to write any thing more inconsiderate or dangerous and it declares to me that he did not understand or minde the meaning of the words which he wrote For what do we mean by a Law Doth not the very form or essence of it as the Casuists speak consist in the Precept or the Command of the Law-giver If so then that which we call a Law is not meerly the signification of his minde and judgement that he thinks such a thing to be good or bad for us but a declaration of his will and pleasure that we should do that good or avoid that evil which he commands us to do or avoid And God having given him this authority to command us this declaration carries with it an obligatory vertue to bind us to the execution of his will under the pain of sin Nor is it of any moment as to the obligation whether there be a punishment threatned or not by him to the disobedient For the punishment is necessary onely by consequence and upon supposition that the people may be negligent and refractory to the will of the Law-giver unless they be moved to comply with that which he thinks necessary to be observed by fear of punishment To make a Law then is to declare to us his will to lay such an obligation upon us When this is done we are no longer free whether we will do accordingly or no. If we be the very nature of a Law is taken away and every man is left to his own will That which we call a Law is but onely the Princes opinion concerning that which he judges to be for the Publike good and so he is turned into a private person and made like one of his subjects for they obey not his judgement and pleasure but their own And if he punish them for disobeying his that is onely a signe that he is stronger then they who suffer unjustly for doing well not for doing ill But let us hear his reason for this wonderful decision which he hath as ready as he had his Answer Because saith he God hath made every man judge of his own actions What then That you must seek by looking back if perchance you may finde some Consequent of which this is the cause The Question you remember was Who shall judge what Laws are for the Peoples Weal i. e. the Common Good of them all Why the Magistrate may judge thus far as to make Laws but the People themselves must judge as to their obedience i. e. they are not bound to do any thing he bids them unless they think it is for their welfare Why so Because saith he every man is made by God the Judge of his own Actions I cannot for my life see how that follows from this though I have put his reasoning into the plainest form that ever I could Which is this God hath made every man judge of his own Actions therefore he hath made him judge what Laws are for the Peoples Weal before he obey them If he can shew me the necessary connexion of these two and that the former infers the latter I shall acknowledge that he is a deep man and much beyond my reach But they seem to me so widely distant that one can never pass from the one to the other by the longest train of Consequences That you may think indeed is the fault of the shortness of my Discourse which will not bring me within view of this Truth For he reckons me to be such a pitiful Gamester that I am not reflective as he speaks i Pag. 3. upon more removes than one of those many I ought to see It may be so and I am not unsensible of my own weakness yet I have done my endeavour to comprehend him and to fathom the bottom of his deep Discourse which seems to me shorter and more imperfect than he thinks mine For he doth not reflect on that which is just next to what he hath said and lies close to it whilst he rambles to that which lies so far off that no removes will bring him to it Let him try if he please And begin with this Principle God hath made every man judge of his own Actions which may be put into these more intelligible words God hath made every man to determine whether that which he doth be conformable to his Rule which is the Law or Will of his Creator Now what is next to this Therefore according to this Casuist He hath made every man to determine what Laws are for the Publick Good before he obey them Doth this follow the other No such matter The immediate Consequent of that Principle is this therefore he hath made him to determine whether that which Humane Laws enjoyn be not cross to his Rule the Law of God Now whither will this carry us or what lies next to it This I take it That if what Humane Laws enjoyn be not controlled by that higher Law he is determined by his very Rule of life to be obedient in that Point Whether it be for the Publick Good or no that he should do it is another thing out of the compass of his Judgment God having made another Judge of that viz. his Prince the Governour and Ruler of all Who by the vety making a Law determines what is for the Publick Good and obliges us as hath been said already to comply with it by virtue of Gods Law which requires our subjection to him This is implied in the very term of making a Law And therefore it is not sense to say He shall judge what is good as to the making a Law and we as to obedience for he doth not only judge but enjoyn when he makes a Law Which leaves us no liberty but that which he cannot take away because given us by him that gave him his Authority to judge whether his Will and Gods do not clash together When this is known and determined we have no more to do unless we will place our selves in the Throne and become Sovereigns by determining otherwise concerning the Publick Welfare than the Proper Judge of it doth Which in this Nation would be the more insolent and unsufferable Because there is nothing determined here to be for the Peoples good and passes into a Law for them but by the advice desire and consent of those whom the People themselves chuse to represent them and to consider and judge what is most conducing to their Welfare This is plain reason and whatsoever inconveniences may ensue from hence they shall be considered afterward And should there be no way found to avoid them they will appear not to be so great as to resolve in general terms as this man doth that they who are to obey and to follow Publick Orders and Decrees are to judge themselves what is for the Publick Good Mark I