their Subjects from their Vows tho' some pretend a parity of reason But these things are certain 1. That even the Parents make not the Vow null at its first making but only relax it after and stop the Confirmation of it vers 4 5 7 8 9 11 12. 2. That this Power is about vows to God as good or hurtful to the inferiours and that some Vows are so certainly necessary to the inferiours good that the Father or Husband whose Power is only for their good and not their hurt cannot dispense with it As Dr. Sanderson saith Praelect 4. § 5. p. 104 105. it belongeth only to that matter in which one is under another Government which hath § 6. a double limitation One in the person of the Swearer viz. There is scarce any one that hath the use of reason that is so fully under anothers Power but that in some things he is fui Juris And there every man may do as pleases himself without consulting his Superiour so at that by his own Act without his Superiours Licence he may bind himself 2. As to the consent of a Superior a tacit consent antecedent or consequent suffices Quasi diceret si dissensum suum vel uno die dissimulet votum in perpetuum stabilivit And it is certain that to oppose Prophaneness Schism and Popery and to Repent of Sin are things so necessary and so much for every persons good that no Parent or Husband can either forbid or nullify such a Vow No man can hinder any from Vowing in Baptism to be a Christian and to forbear Murder Adultery Theft Idolatry c. nor can disoblige them after It is certain that if a superiour dissent and after consent or he die and the next superior e.g. a Husband do consent when a Woman makes the same Vow it remaineth obligatory And it is certain that if a Parent or Husband make the same Vow himself he cannot disoblige himself And if once he consent he can never after nullify it And as to our case de Facto it is agreed 1. That Parliament-Men took and imposed this Oath when they were neither constrained nor acknowledged the Kings Power to dissolve it 2. That thousands in the Nation knew not of the Kings published Profession against it 3. That thousands yea the far greatest number in England took it after the death of the King. 4. That they thought the present King took it himself and owned it by a Declarantion In which tho' for my part I doubt not but the Scots sinfully abused Him and the Kingdom yet that alters not the case of the Subjects obligation by that Vow 5. That multitudes of Lords Knights and others took it that had adhered to the King in his Wars All which undoubtedly puts it out of the case of dissolution in Levit. 30. Besides the common Protestant Doctrine is that neither Popes Princes or Prelates can dispense with Vows made in re necessaria Could Kings disoblige all their Subjects from their Oaths and Vows it would make a great change in the Religion Morality and Commerce of the World So that hitherto we have no satisfaction L. But this was a League and Covenant between man and man who are dead or changed and not a Vow to God as you pretend on which you lay the stress of the Obligation M. I have nothing to do with it as a League of Men to do any action towards each other but only as a Vow to God and Covenant of Duty to God And tho' the name of a Vow be not in it I think him not worth the disputing with that on deliberation denieth it to be a Vow to God. Whom think you else do men make these promises to of Repentance and Reformation and opposing Prophaneness c. The words signifie as solemn a Vowing as can well be made by words L. You would make all the Corporations of England constituted by the grossest Perjury that men can be guilty of even by disobliging or justifying themselves and all others in three Kingdoms whom they never saw in the violating of a Vow against Heresy Schism Popery and Prophaneness and Impenitence When as you know that our Clergy cry down Schism every day M. I leave all Men to answer for their own actions I only tell you why the Dissenters dare not take these Oaths I meddle not with other Men. And you know a man that saith This Vow binds not may yet hold that something else binds us against the same thing But if I were for Schism and should argue from this topick of the non-obligation of the Vow I know not how you could answer me L. Let us try What is your Argument M. That which is no sin is not to be avoided as sin Schism is no sin Ergo Schism is not to be avoided as sin Remember that I do but plead their principles L. I deny the Minor. M. That which a man Vowing to avoid it is not by that Vow bound to avoid is no sin But Schism and so Prophaneness and Popery is that which a man vowing to avoid it is not bound by that Vow to avoid Ergo Schism is no sin L. I deny both Major and Minor and first the Major M. A Vow to avoid sin alwaies bindeth Ergo that is no sin which a man vowing to avoid is not thereby bound to avoid est non est are contradictory Terms L. I deny the Major and distinguish a lawful Vow to avoid sin ever bindeth an unlawful one doth not M. Vnlawfulness is 1. In the Act of Swearing 2. In the Act of Imposing 3. In the Matter Sworn An Oath unlawfully Imposed and Taken bindeth to a Lawful Matter But for an Oath against sin to be Materially unlawful is a contradiction For to be Sin and to be Vnlawful is all one L. I deny that a Vow against Schism binds not M. The Vow called the Covenant bindeth no man. The Vow called the Covenant is a Vow against Schism Propaneness and Popery Ergo a Vow against Schism Prophaneness and Popery binds not L. You argue à particulari Tho' this Vow do not another may M. I argue ab essentia particularis ad communem essentiam If this Vow have all that is essential to a Vow and yet binds not then no Vow as such essentially doth bind If the anima hujus bovis vel ovis be not anima rationalis and yet have all that is essential to the anima brutorum then it is not essential to any anima bruti to be rational And it cannot be accidentally so here If the Vow against Schism and Prophaneness have all essential to a Vow and yet bind not then no Vow bindeth qua talis as a Vow And if Vows bind only by accident or by something else that 's an adjunct that 's nothing for their own essential obligation And so much of the Corporation-Declaration CHAP. LVI Of many agreed Tremendous Circumstances and Principles which affright many from Conformity M. THere are
serious manner for transition into the State of Adult Communicants it would be the greatest means of a true Reformation and of Union with the parties that now differ about Church order that can be used Divers of the highest Episcopal Divines write as earnestly for this as any of us Especially Mr. Elderfield and Dr. Hammond and yet were it to prevent our continued division and our ruin there is no hope of obtaining it L. Why what hinders if all sides desire it M. It is desired as Holiness is desired seriously by the serious reservedly and by halves by the half Christian and only the Name Image and Ceremony by the gross Hypocrite who hateth it at the Heart because it is above him and against his carnal mind and interest And indeed it is here made impossible to be done any otherwise ordinarily than as a Ceremony For 1. The Diocesses are so vast that the Bishop cannot do this and other his Offices for the hundredth part of his undertaken Flock Suppose this Diocess have but five or six hundred thousand Souls for when an hundred thousand died the last Plague I hope it was not above the â—ixth part Do you think that the Bishop is able did he work as hard as any Nonconformist to confirm six hundred thousand Persons or the twentieth part of them or the hundredth in that serious manner as belongs to the binding of a Soul to Christ in so solemn a Covenant It becometh me not to inquire whether Bishops be men that are for so much seriousness in Christianity themselves and so much labour to attain it Some are far better than others You know them as well as I. But I must say 1. That as far as I can learn there is not one of an hundred confirmed at all 2. All the thousands that are unconfirmed live in the Parishes as reputed Christians and may come to the Sacrament when they will. 3. I never knew one Minister of all that Covenanted it to keep one man from the Sacrament for not being Confirmed or not being desirous of it nor one Neighbour that ever was examined on this Point whether he were Confirmed or were ready and desired it 4. Some few elder Votaries to the Bishops perhaps may be serious in it but what a mere running Ceremony it is usually made I need not tell you I have formerly said that I was at 15 years of Age Confirmed my self by Bishop Morton one of the Learned'st and best Bishops that ever I knew and we ran thither from School without the Minister's knowledge or one word from our Master to tell us what Confirmation is and in a Church yard in the Path-Way as the Bishop past by we kneeled down and laying his Hands on every Boys Head he said a few words I knew not what nor did any one of my School-fellows as far as I could perceive know what he said nor know what Confirmation is any more than to have the Bishop's Blessing nor were we ask'd by him or any whether we stood to our Baptismal Covenant save only by saying by rote the Catechism to our Master nor did I see any one make any more than a Ceremony of it When the Bishops were down I saw it made a serious Work by divers Ministers who instructed Young Men till they found them seriously resolved for Christ and then taking the best of Confirmation and Penitence caused them publickly before the Congregation to profess their Faith and Repentance and to renew the Covenant they made in Baptism to Christ. And were it made the work of Godly Ministers to do it or to prepare Men personally for it and not make it a Game for Boys much good might be done by it L. Well What have you against it besides Abuse which no body desireth you to subscribe to M. Were I a publick Minister I should be glad of that Rubrick to enable me to keep away the grosly Ignorant which I know no other Clause that enableth me to do But I durst not use it to turn from Communion all Godly Persons whom it excludeth nor can I consent so to do L. What can make Godly Persons scruple it as sinful M. Many things 1. The words make it seem to some to be yet made a Sacrament which are Vpon whom after the example of thy holy Apostles we have now laid our hands to certifie them by this sign of thy favour and gracious goodness toward them Here is an outward visible sign of an inward and spiritual Grace given to them said to be done in imitation of Christ's Apostles as a means whereby they receive the same and a â— ledge to assure them thereof as the Collects with it shew which is the Catechisms Definition of a Sacrament 2. They that are against our Diocesan sort of Prelacy dare not seem to own it by coming to them for Confirmation appropriated to them 3. Those that think that a great and holy Duty is made a mere Mockery to delude Souls and corrupt the Church while every one in England that will but take this Ceremony is pronounced to God in Prayer to be Regenerate by the Holy Ghost and all their Sins forgiven them these dare not joyn themselves with the Prophaners in their delusory way Be these Scruples just or unjust while the same Persons are willing to own their own Baptismal Covenant understandingly and seriously before the Church and their own Pastors and to know those that labour among them and are over them in the Lord and esteem them in Love for their Works sake and to be at Peace among themselves I dare not for scrupling this Diocesan Ceremony cast them from the Communion of the Church of Christ. And therefore I dare not Approve of the Order that requireth it nor Assent and Consent to it nor Subscribe that it is not contrary to the Word of God. Chap. XX. Point XVII Of Consenting to all the Ornaments of Church and Ministers that were in use in the Second year of King Edw. 6. L. VVHat have you against this M. The words are That such Ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof at all times of their Ministration shall be retained in use as were in this Church of England by the Authority of Parliament in the Second year of King Edw. 6. Against this we have these Exceptions 1. We know not what was then in use and therefore cannot consent to we know not what 2. We are told that the Albe and many other Ornaments were then in use that are since put down and we must not consent to restore them without more reason than we hear And the Canon enumerating the Ornaments now we suppose the addition of all those will Contradict it 3. We meet with few Conformists that know what was then in use And we see that all those that Subscribe or Consent to this yet use them not And we will not run for Company into a solemn Covenant-Consent to the use of those things that we see
Licensed as is aforesaid presume to appoint or hold any Meetings for Sermons c. nor attempt by Fasting and Prayer to cast out any Devil c. L. All this was done to prevent Abuses M. It fell out well that they did not forbid Christianity or reading Scripture in a known Tongue to prevent abusing it And next that they forbad not Law and the use of Reason which is most of all abused But do not you thâ—â—k that they make very unworthy Men Ministers or that they change or maim the Pastoral Office when no Minister no not the wisest may be trusted to fast and pray with his Neighbours Should a Master of a Family be forbidden this in his House the Iews forbad it not to Cornelius What jealousies have such a Clergy of one another And of Preaching Fasting and Praying What if some Neighbours have some great Temptations some great Guilt some great Danger by a Plague or the like or some great Affliction some Friends near Deathâ— or some important Business of great moment as Marriage Travel Navigation c. Must the Bishop know all their secrets that their Pastor at home must know Or is he a capable Judge for many Hundred Parishes when they must Fast or Pray Or did you ever know any go to him for such a License Are not those unworthy Ministers that be not fit to be trusted to Fast and Pray with their People while the Law is open to punish all abuses of it And are not those over-subject to Prelacy that will Swear Obedience in this any more than against Preaching the Gospel Dan. 6. 5. We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel except we find it concerning the Law of his God. Chap. XXXVI Point XXXIII Of the Excommunication of the three last Canons M. THe quality of the rest of the Canons resolve me that it is unlawful for me if commanded to publish an Excommunication against any upon the three last L. What â—e the three last M. The 139th is Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the Sacred Synod of this Nation in the Name of Christ and by the King's Authority assembled is not the true Church of England by Representation let him be Excommunicate and not restored till he repent and publickly revoke this his wicked Error L. What fault can you find with this M. 1. No Man can tell what is the Church representative till they know which is the Church real And this they tell us not either as to Matter or Form. 1. Whether the Church real be only the Clergy or also the Laity Whether the King and Parliament Nobles Gentry and Commons be all Represented in the Convocation If yea by what Law or Power And may we say that King and Parliament do what these do What need they then after to confirm their Canons And they that hold the Church Laws bind in Conscience as such before King and Parliament confirm them will bring King and Parliament under their Obedience if not Excommunication But if they pretend not to represent the King and Laity they falsly exclude them from being part of the Church 2. They are utterly disagreed de Forma what the Church of England is either it hath an Ecclesiastical constitutive Soveraign Power or not If not it is not an Ecclesiastick Body Politick And of late their disputing Doctors plainly confess that it hath no such specifying Summa Potestas and so is formally no Political governed Church The King's Government of it by the Sword which none deny they say is but an Accident of it and not Essential to the Church And so in sum it is but a meer Community or a voluntary Confederacy of many Churches that make no unifying Politie And that is to be a Church only in a loose and not proper sence as the Assembly at Nimegen was a Kingdom 3. I doubt not but Thousands of Lâ—y-Men and many Dissenting Ministers are true Parts of the Church of England And therefore that the Convocation represented our part only of that Church 4. If they be but a Community they can make no Laws but only Contracts Laws are only the Acts and Instruments of Rulers Therefore we owe no Obedience to them as being no Commands of Rulers till the Civil Power make them Laws save as particular Pastors may make them Laws to their several Flocks 5. If they make them obligatory Church-Laws as the Acts of the Convocation then it seems the Representative Church governeth the Real and the Presbyters in Convocation exercise a Legislative Power which is the highest that Bishops can pretend to 6. These being left thus in uncertainty in the dark how comes that Man to deserve Excommunication or be wickedly erroneous that herein declareth his dissent I dare not publish such an Excommunication if commanded L. What is the 140th Canon M. Whosoever shall affirm that no manner of Person either of the Clergy or Laity not being then particularly assembled in the said sacred Synod are to be subject to tâ—e Decrees thereof in Causes Ecclesiastical made and ratifyed by the King's Majesty's Supream Authority as not having given their Voice to them Let him be Excommunicated and not restored c. Here craftily in a Parenthesis they put in the King's Authority and if they mean only his Obligation on us no one of us denieth it But because their disputing Doctors take that but as an Accident we may say that the Papists themselves are oft put to say that General Councils bind not the absent till they receive them And the French long received not the Council of Trent nor many Churches other Councils L. What is the last Canon M. The 141st for so many Church-Commandments we have God's Ten being but a little part of our Religion is Whoever shall affirm that the Sacred Synod assembled as aforesaid was a Company of such Persons as did conspire together against Godly and Religious Professors of the Gospel and that therefore both they and their Proceedings in making Canons and Constitutions in Causes Ecclesiastical by the King's Authority Let them be Excommunicated and not restored c. Here again we doubt not of the King 's obligatory Power But what the Persons and their Works were I think a Point that Christians may differ about and not deserve Excommunication It seems they could foresee what Men would judge of them and no wonder tho' they had not the Gift of Prophecy I am none of their Judge but leave God's Work to himself But I must say that this Book of Canons doth no whit increase my esteem of Council of Prelacy of Humane Canons or Clergies Laws nor of the particular Bishops and Clergy that made them And that I will neither publish such Excommunications nor promise or swear to do it Tho' I know that stretching pretences satisfie some Men like theirs that own the name of Sacred to that Synod because Sacrum quod sanctum simul execrabile signat A professed and relative Sanctity may be granted them Chap.
a case that he understandeth not himself L How doth this make you a Voucher for their Souls M. 1. The case is of exceeding weight If I should publickly declare that no man is thus bound by a Vow and I should prove mistaken 1. Then I become guilty of all these mens sin by justifying it as no sin 2. And I am guilty of cruelty to their Souls in open telling them that they need not perform their Vows nor repent of non-performance 3. And Perjury is one of the heinousest sins on Earth 4. And the Perjury of Millions or Nations is yet one of the grievousest degrees of guilt 5. And I do my worst to make God destroy or forsake such a Land. And what yet can I do worse I say if in justifying them I should be mistaken what a guilt should I incur And doth Nature or Scripture bind me to run so great a hazard for so many thousand others Besides he that will be a Casuist must know all the case there are hundreds and thousands put upon these decisions that being then Children knew not who made the Covenant nor how it was imposed or taken and many that know not what it is and never saw it And there are thousands if not millions that took it whose Faces I never saw and know not what moved them nor in what sence they took it and Casuists say that if a man mistake the Imposers sence he is bound to keep it in the sence that he understood it when he took it if a lawful one especially if the Imposers had no Authority or their sence was doubtful And it is not uncharitable for me to think â—hat none of the Kings Compounding Lords or Clergy that after took it did take it in a sence which they thought found And must I tell them all that none of them is bound to keep it in that sound sence I will not run the danger of having thousands in judgment to suffer for Perjury and saying This man declared that it was no sin If they are all Innocent what need they my justification when they stand or fall by the judgment of God. If they prove guilty my declaring it no sin will not acquit them but condemn my own Soul by tempting them to impenitence I do not say that they are obliged by this Vow herein nor I will not say they are not There are many matters first to be known if we agree in point of Doctrine and I know that it 's an easie thing for confident men to multiply words to prove all lawful in this Oath and to Swear that it is rebellious Hearts that cause our doubtings and so say the Papists of the Protestants But whatever they say or threat I will not by their confidence and talk be drawn to cast my Soul into so great a hazard All men are not so bold in such things as some Chap. XXXVIII Point XXXV Of the Oxford Oath that we will never endeavour any alteration of Church Government M. THE Oxford Act is not content that we say that we are not bound by the Covenant to endeavour any alteration of Church Government but we must say and Swear that we never will endeavour it as any other way obliged to it L. The meaning is that you will never endeavour it by Rebellion Sedition or unlawful means M. The Parliament knew how to speak their minds By such Expositions you may Swear almost any thing in the World and no Government shall have any security by your Oaths The words are contrivedly as universal against all endeavour as can be spoken 2. But I 'll presently confute you undeniably You know Church and State Government are conjoined in the Oath and the Church put first Will you say as to State Government that the meaning only is That I will not endeavour to depose the King or alter Monarchy by Rebellion or any unlawful means but only by lawful means if you do you 'l soon be told home that the Oath doth mean That no means is lawful to such an end but the work it self as well as the means is forsnorn L. But the meaning is only that you will not endeavour to alter Episcopacy and not all other Offices and Courts M. This is as palpable a falsification as the former For 1. The words are a most express abjuration of endeavouring any alteration of Government at all And if you take the word Alteration strictly it more commonly signifieth a change of Quality or Manner 〈◊〉 of Essence But if you take it largely it comprehendeth both 2. And I appeal to any mans Conscience whether that was or is the Bishops sence Go ask them My Lords If I endeavour but to reduce Diocesans to every Corporation to take down your Lordships and great Revenues and your Chancellors Courts and all the rest of your Humane Officers will you take it for no breach of my Oath and I warrant you they will soon resolve you 3. Yet I shall fullier convince you The Bishops and Parliament are of the mind of the Church of England And the Canons do most fully speak the Churches mind And the Seventh Canon before cited when it makes it ipso facto Excommunication to call the Church Government sinful tells you that they extend this to Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Arch-deacons and the rest that bear Office therein 4. And I believe if you should say that I take my Oath to bind me from endeavouring no change of the Government of the State but only of the Essence of Monarchy you would quickly feel the Error of your Exposition L. But I can assure you that many able Conforming Ministers take the Declaration in the Act of Vniformity in such sences as aforesaid M. Our King is King of Scotland as well as of England and he hath thus declared his sence in the case of the Earl of Argyle and the Reasons of it are considerable And do you think that it can be the true sence in England and deserve preferment as to Loyal and Obedient Ministers which deserveth Death it self in Scotland can you wish for a clearer Exposition L. And why will you not Swear never to endeavour any alteration if you be required so to do M. I have read Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenicon and many such Books in which I see how great a number of our greatest Divines as well Arch-bishop Cranmer took the Form of Church Government to be alterable and not fixed by Christ And if the Doctor have changed his judgment that changeth not the Authority of those that he citeth 2. I have in my full Treatise of Episcopacy told you why I cannot but wish more than one thing in our Ecclesiastical Courts and Government changed 3. I take it for a matter that deserveth consideration whether it be no change of the State Government to make all the Church Government unchangeable and so to disable the King to change it And how to reconcile the two parts of the Oath And whether if the whole
if they come not to their Parish-Churches They must be driven home from all Neighbour-Churches if it be one that never Preacheth that they go from and must be Excommunicate at last the Minister must be suspended that admits them L. But Bishop Gunning's Chaplain saith well that you may yet privately advise with other Ministers M. I take that from them for a great favour that they drive us not from all Christian converse But give us leave to speak privately with more than the Parish-Priest But even privately it must be no Nonconformist for they cannot be heard at five Miles distance But will you seriously tell me 1. Whether most Parish-Ministers have not so much Work at home that they have little time to spare for Strangers 2. Whether as Men provide first for their own Families before they relieve Neighbours and the Poor so Ministers will not think themselves bound to do by their own Parishes and scarce afford the scraps to others 3. Do you think in Conscience that all Souls and specially the most Ignorant have not need of a constant Pastor and the help of his Office as well as of an occasional Discourse with a Stranger If not what have we Parish-Priests for and why pay we Tythes to them L. But all Places cannòt have profound Casuists and extraordinary Learned holy Men Few Churches had an Augustine a Chrysostome a Basil or Nazianzen M. All Men cannot have excellent Physicians nor rich Trades nor pleasant Dwellings nor excellent Wives or Servants c. But I think it 's lawful to have the best they can get Or at least to refuse the intolerable I had rather trust Nature for my Physician than an ignorant Quack or a Knave L. But we have many sound and worthy Ministers M. And I perswade none to go from such if their faithful diligence shew their worth It is not these that we are speaking of Are there no other L. The meanest of them speak sound Doctrine Even those that the Canon forbids to Preach or Expound do read the Scriptures and sound Homilies M. So can a good Woman or a Child And an ignorant Man or Woman can read a good Physick or Law-Book Will you therefore take them for your Physicians or Lawyers Do you know the case of our Parishes or not Tell me what you would do your self in this case Suppose a poor Sinner is convinced of his great ignorance and dulness and sinful inclinations and strong temptations and finds great difference between a clear Judicious skilful serious Minister and others and yet that the best doth prove too little for his help This Man dwells in a Parish where in the Pulpit he heareth a young Fellow sometime read a Cento of impertinent shreds as School-boys make an ignorant Declamation And sometimes he heareth him tell them what damnable Hypocrites they are and Schismaticks that scruple any thing commanded by the Church and then make long Prayers and talk religiously to hide it And in Company he hath not a serious word for a Holy Life and to prepare Men for another World but sometimes reviles Puritans and at best talks of worldly things or Opinions or Factions in Religion and perhaps will be Drunk and Rant it with the most Prophane His Parishioner in Doubts and Trouble of Conscience comes to him for Satisfaction And the best Answer he can get is What Puritan put these Fears or Scruples in your head If you trouble your mind about such matters you will shortly turn Schismatick or go mad Trust God and follow your Business and be merry The Scripture is for Divines and not for such as you It is above your Capacity The Parishioner having no better Answer goeth no more And perhaps an hundred or a thousand in the Parish have more need of Pastoral help than this Man And in the Pulpit he Preacheth them asleep or into Laughter or into hatred of Puritans and out of the Pulpit doth drink and talk and live as they 2. Suppose these Men hear the Clergy tell why they Silence and Banish and render odious such Men as we are And they think with themselves we perceive by this that it is not indifferent what pastors we have And if these reviled Men be so bad is our Priest any better or wise or honester or more to be trusted 3. Suppose these poor people had a Teacher 20 or 10 years that is now cast out whose preaching they found to be clear and edifying and quickening that preacht all for Faith and Hope and Love and Holiness and Peace and Heaven and lived in exemplary Charity Piety and Righteously and Soberly and unweariedly taught them with tenderness publickly and from House to House And the sense and experience of their Souls tells them how great the change of their condition is 4. Suppose these Men hear the Teacher called Arminian deriding Infusions of the Spirit and Grace and proving that God worketh on Souls morally by the aptitude of means and teacheth and changeth Men as rational Creatures Can you blame this Man if he conclude My Soul is more to me than my Life my Necessity is unquestionable my Experience what edifieth me is not to be born down by the scorn of a derider I am dark and dull and too bad under the best helps but alas profit little by an insipid sleepy or deriding Speech As no man hath power to tie me to marry an ugly-Scold or to trust a Fool or Knave or Enemy for my Physician so no man hath power to deprive me of the needful helps to my Salvation when I can have them L. But they all Preach the same Word of God. M. Do you think the mysterious Invisible things of Faith and the multitude of hard Cases in Obedience and the many dangerous Distempers of a carnal worldly dead Heart have not need of as skilful a Helper as the Profession of Law and Physick hath How vast a difference is there between an ignorant Prater and a skilful Lawyer or Physician And as I have more care of my Soul than of my Body so mens Laws have less power over it L. I do not think the World hath a better Clergy than the Church of England M. I do challenge oft any to name that Nation under Heaven out of the Kings Dominions that hath two thousand worthier Ministers than those that were here silenced and reviled and hunted like Rogues But I pray you tell me 1. Do you know how many and what sort of men the Patrons in England are that chuse them The Conformists oft say that many of them are Simonists It 's well known that many of them are taken for the famousest Papists in the Countrey Tho' they have the wit and faculty to keep off Legal Conviction or else to manage their Advowsons by Trustees And O how well were it with England if none or few of them were Worldlings Gluttons Drunkards Whoremongers or Haters or Prosecutors of serious godly men Is there any Body doubts whether there
Oath L. The end is but to secure your Loyalty M. The End is one thing and the Means another We are ready to give better security of our Loyalty than this which I before intimated to you Do you think in your Conscience that all the Souldiers in England and all the Corporation-Officers and entrusted Persons and all the Vestry-men and all the Ministers are so well skill'd in Politicks and Law above Bishop Bilson Grotius Barclay and all the Tribes of Learned Lawyers Casuists Canonists Philosophers c. before named as that they can take such an Oath in Truth Iudgment and Righteousness Swearing Allegiance and renouncing Rebellion is easily known to be every Subjects Duty But to unty knotty Controversies in Law is sure above every vulgar Brain Why was not this way found out to prevent all the Civil Wars in the days of the two Williams of Stephen of Henry the 1st and 3d. of K. Iohn of Edward 2d of Richard 2d of Henry 4th and Edward 4th and Henry 6th and Richard 3d. and to prevent the Insurrections in the days of Q. Mary and Q. Elizabeth Why do they not this way decide all the Controversies at Liege Colen c. to make the People determine them by Oath All Politicks agree that the Difference between near Subjects and Slaves is that the former have propriety which none can take from them but by their Consent at least in their Wives Children and Lives and that Slaves have none such nor may resist a Commission to take them away though causlesly and Laws are there but the Will of the Lord who may cross them at his pleasure and that a Ruler of Subjects and an Owner of Slaves thus differ Now if it be a Controversy Whether the English be meer Subjects or Slaves the ignorant Vulgar are no fit Judges to decide it and that by Oath CHAP. LV. POINT XII Whether all Trusted in Corporations may declare That there is NO OBLIGATION on them or any other Person from the Oath called The League and Covenant M. I Spake to this before but a little on the by it being no XII part of the Ministerial Conformity Ministers are only to subscribe or swear that the said Oath bindeth no man to endeavour any Alteration of Government but the Corporations are to declare That there is no Obligation at all from that Oath on them or any other I have read much of the History of Heathens Mahometans and Christians and I confess I remember not that ever I read the like to this The likest to it that I remember was in the long Wars and Contentions between the Pope and the German Emperour when they sware and unsware and sware again as either Party got advantage And that Popes and Councils have Decreed the dissolving of Oaths of Fidelity to those Kings whom the Pope Excommunicates is commonly known but Protestants know no such power L. This Declaration is to be expounded by the many following Acts which only say there is no obligation to Change the Government M. That 's gratis dictum without proof that several Acts have the same meaning when the words so much differ is not to be presumed One of them is an Universal Negative without the least exception and the other a particular Negative only 2. And the Acts were made at several times to several men and the Parliament in the latter never pretended to limit or explain the former which sure they would have done if they repented of the Terms 3. And Parliament Men tell us That it was mentioned that the Non-Obligation of the Covenant should be limited and it was pleaded against it That if men believe that they are bound by it to any thing some will think that they are bound to all that is lawful and that it 's lawful to take Arms against the King and so there is no securing them from Rebellion as by that Covenant but by renouncing all its Obligation And this carried the Cause 4. It is not lawful for Subjects to put a particular Sence on Universal Words imposed unless the imposers first so expound the Terms which they have refused to do after twenty years complaint of the Dissenters and do justifie the universal sence to this day Therefore such forced Expositions of our Rulers words in so tremendous a matter are not to be feigned without good proof L. We say Bonum est ex Causis integris There is Evil in that Covenant therefore it is an Evil Covenant M. That 's none of the Question it may be Evil in that part that is Evil and the thing it self may thence be denominated Faulty or Evil and yet not all that is in it be Evil nor it Evil simpliciter but scundum quid Do you think all is Evil that is there Vowed L. If it be Evil no one is bound to keep it M. No not in the Evil part But do you think that the conjunction of some Ill things in a Vow or Covenant doth disoblige a man from all that 's good in it If so mark what will follow 1. Man is so ignorant and imperfect and faulty that he doth nothing that 's good without a mixture of some evil how can sinless perfection come from sinful Imperfection And so we should be bound by no Vow or Oath or Contract at all 2. If Knaves once learn this Lesson they will be sure to foist in some ill clause into their Vows to GOD and their Covenants with Man that so they may be bound by none 3. The Oath of Allegiance or Fedelity to the King and the King 's own Oath at his Coronation in the time of Popery had ill clauses in it for the Papal interest doth it follow that neither of them did bind 4. If an Irish Tory should on the high-way meet an English Lord and take his Purse pretend that he is against the King and should force him at once to take an Oath to be true to the King and to give him his Estate and conceal his theft The latter is evil and yet even that Oath bindeth to be true to the King. 5. If the Clergy in their Ordination in time of Popery had divers sinful clauses and promises doth it follow that their Ordination was null and obliged them to no Ministerial Duty 6. If the Clergy in former ages or in France or Spain be sworn to the King and the Pope doth it follow that this binds them not to the King because it binds them not to the Pope 7. If men were Married in time of Popery with unlawful Words and Clauses or lately in England by Justices in new terms was such marriage null 8. If a Papist make to you a Testament or Deed of Sale of his Estate and put in some unlawful clauses appealing to Angels or wishing you to pray for the Souls in Purgatory I do not think you would take that Will or Deed for a nullity 9. If in Popery or here some Clauses at Baptism prove bad it doth not
the young Clergy that can talk thus shew us by any good evidence that in other things they are so much Wiser Learneder than the Dissenters Are they all of greater Learning than Iohn Reignolds or better Hebricians than Hugh Broughton or better Logicians than Sadeel or Ramus or Sohnius or of greater Reading than Blondel c. 3. Do they know us better than we our selves We offer our Oaths that we hold what we do by the Cogency of appearing Evidence and are willing to know the truth 4. Have I here and elsewhere given no Reasons for our Dissent Have they answered my Treatise of Episcopacy my First and Second Plea for Peace my Apology my Treatise of the Terms of Church-Concord or any one thing that I have written for our Cause save two or three by disputes which when I have vindicated they have let fall the Disceptation What front have these men then that say we Dissent without giving Reason for it But you know how long the Press was shut against our Writings and yet then they that would not endure us to Speak accused us for being Silent L. Obj. IV. They say you are Non-Conformists meerly to make good your former Errours because you will not confess that you did amiss but will make the People justify you M. 1. What are those Errours If it be our dislike of any of the things before described I confess it is because we will not renounce them If it be an errour to be against their Church-corruptions and cruel Excommunications and denying Christendom to the Seed of the Faithful and Communion to faithful Christians I confess we will not recant these errours till they have better proved them such The Papists that swarm with Errours as a Beggar doth with Lice yet burn the Protestants as for Errour 2. I pray you wish those infallible men that in the ditch of dirt are delivered from all the uncleanness of errour to send only those those that are without errour to cast the first stone at us or those that have no worse errour than ours to silence excommunicate and destroy us 3. Have we given them no reasons of our dissent 4. Do they not know that the argument that hath brought us all into the case that we are in was thus given us 1664. and oft since in Print If we abate them any thing they will say that our Church was faulty and needed that Reformation who then is it that hath divided us to avoid confession of any former faultiness Tho' good Bishop Hall pronounceth a heavy Sentence on them that will justify the miscarriages of the Prelates L. Obj. V. They say that you took part with the Parliament against the King and involved the Land in Blood and have still the same rebellious principles M. 1. I confess there were some among us that were of the mind of Hooker Bilson Grotius Barclay and the common sort of Casuists Politicks c. and that thought that as in a doubt about Physick the College of Physicians were most to be trusted so in a doubt about Law the Parliament had been most credible And when the Irish had murdered two hundred thousand Protestants falsly pretending that they had the Kings Commission and threatning to finish their works in England there were many formerly tempted to fly in fear to the Parliament for safety being ignorant that the Kings bare word notwithstanding the Papists strength and interest was more to be trusted with our Laws Lives and Religion than all the Lawyers Courts and Pariament and that if all the Protestants in England had been used as those in Ireland they ought to have died patiently unless the killers would have given them time to send to the King to know whether he would have them live or die They were ignorant that a Lord Proprietor may do with his own as he list Who accuseth the owner for killing his own Sheep But the times of this ignorance are past The Long Parliament that made the Act of Vniformity cured it And shall not the Act of Oblivion be permitted to reconcile us and continue our peace 2. But Sir Who be they that were thus deceived I told you 1. That of near ten thousand that had Churches under the Parliament and Cromwel there was but two thousand that refused to Conform And is not seven thousand Conformists more than two thousand Dissenters 2. Many that were in the Parliament's Army Conformed and some that were for the Kings Death when the generality of those called Presbyterians abhorred it and the Engagement and brought in the King on reasons of meer Conscience 3. I have told you that we will take it thankfully if only those were silenced that had any hand in that War believing that it will not now be twenty Ministers in England And why are the rest that were Boys at School accused for other Mens opinions or actions For the time to come you need not fear them I heard some tell the Members of the Long Parliament that called them Rebels for saying that a Parliament may use defensive Arms against the Kings Commissioned Souldiers that if that would serve they would promise that if the King would but send a dozen Irish-men to kill them all in the house they would never be guilty of taking Arms to defend them nor perswading any else to do it L. Obj. VI. But they say that these Non-Conformists tho' they had no hand in the late War yet have the same Principles that caused it and that is Non-Conformity M. This is an argument a baculo ad angulum A man is against the Cross in Baptism or a Lay-Chancellor's excommunicating Men for a Ceremony c. ergo he is against the King and for Rebellion The other side say that the Irish Principles and the Popish were the cause and must we therefore conclude all Irish or Papists to be against the King They were Papists that raised the Wars on both sides in the aforesaid days of King William K. Stephen H. 1. and H. 3. and Ed. 2. and Rich. 2. and H. 6. and Rich. 3. and Ed. 4. c. Doth it follow that all rapists are rebels 2. But I have elsewhere fully proved that the Parliament when that War began were of the Church of England and Conformists and it 's strange that any should have the face to deny it while so many are yet living that know them Whitlocke tells us in his Memorials that they voted that every County should have a Bishop and his Presbytery And were those then against Episcopacy One would think that a County should be big enough to keep Episcopacy from dwindling to nothing every Bishop of old had but one City Many Counties have ten or near twenty Towns that were then called Cities But when Papists dare say that all are against Kings that are against the Pope who is the ruler and deposer of Kings it 's no wonder if every Bishop or Chancellor or Official c. will say If
they ought to be restrained and there are lower punishments than depriving them of their Toleration which are for lower faults 2. But if Rulers will oppress we cannot help that and must not therefore be ungoverned CHAP. LXI Whether the Extirpation of the Non-Conformists be not rather to be attempted than an Vnion with them by these means L. IT 's long since our former Conference and now there is discovered a Treasonable Plot against the King and his Brother and a multitude of Addresses tell us that it was the Plot of the Dissenters and the Product of Conventicles and therefore â—â—ave the extripation of them all and that they may no more be trusted as having Principles were concileable to Monarchy and Subjection and the loudest cry now runs that way M. What is the Treasonable Plot L. To Kill the King and Duke and raise an Army and to Change the Government or Governours at least M. Who do they mean by Dissenters or Conventiclers L. All that Conform not to the Church of England as it is now setled by the Law. M. The Law setleth the Essentials Integrals and Accidents of the Church Do you mean every one that disliketh any one Office as Lay-Chancellors use of the Keys or any Ceremony or Form If so I do doubt most that come to Church and Communicate with it dissent from some such Circumstances L. Well suppose it be those that separate from it M. There are now these following sorts of known Dissenters called by many Conventiclers I. Those that like the way of Episcopacy and Liturgy best as here setled but yet will also occasionally join with other Churches as the French Dutch Lutheran or some Non-Conformists II. The Pacifick Non-conformists who at the King's Return Petitioned for Arch-Bishop Vsher's Model of the Primitive Episcopal Government and thankfully accepted the King's Declaration III. The Presbyterians who are for Government only by Synods of equal Presbyters Teaching joined with meer Ruling ones IV. The Independants and Separatists V. The Anabaptists who are half Arminians and half not VI. The Fifth-Monarchy Party most of which are Anabaptists also VII The Quakers VIII The Papists IX The Infidels Iews Hobbists and Atheists Is the meaning that all these are the guilty Rebels to be destroyed or which of them is it L. If all I doubt the King would lose no small part of his Subjects But you know the Papists are not numbred with the Dissenters or Conventiclers M. Say you so Do those that differ but about a Ceremony or Lay-mans use of the Keys or the largeness and paucity of Bishops Churches dissent more from you than the Papists that would bring King and Kingdom under a foreign Jurisdiction and introduce all the Mass and doctrinal corruptions of their Church Read Bishop Downham's Catalogue of Popish Errours de Anti-Christo or Dr. Willet's Chamier's Iewell 's or any such and judge And do you think that the Mass is no Conventicle or more lawful than the forbidden assemblies of Protestants L. Well But it 's Protestant-Dissenters that I mean. M. So then You would have Protestant-Dissenters rooted out and not Papists or Infidels L. We would have those rooted out that were in the Plot which the Papists were not M. No doubt but such a Plot as you describe deserveth the extirpation of those that were guilty of it But I pray you compare not the innocency of Papists in their Principles with the Protestants Or read Bishop Barlow's and Hen. Fowlis's Books and Prin's History of Bishops Treasons and judge as you see cause But it 's none of my business now to accuse the Papists Do but grant that the innocent should not suffer for the crimes of the guilty and we are agreed L. But is it not justly supposed that the whole Party is guilty of those Principles which have caused particular mens rebellions and that it is their Preachers and Conventiclers that have caused all M. You that are a Lawyer should know somewhat of the Rules of Iustice or Humanity at least Come on and let you and I consider soberly of the case And first to your face I challenge you to name and prove any the least difference between the Non-conformists who sought for Concord at the King's Restoration or the party of meer Non-Conformists and the Protestants of the Church of England in their Principles about the Power of Princes and the Subjection and Patience of the People Name any difference if you can L. You would make one believe that great Numbers are inhumanely impudent that charge them with such heinous difference if there be none M. Why do you not name the difference if there be any Contrarily 1. We all take the same Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy 2. We Subscribe all the same Articles of Religion about the Power of Magistrates 3. We have often professed our consent to all that is written for Magistracy and Subjection in all the Scripture in any General Council save what is for the Papal Tyranny over Princes and People or in any Confession of any Christian Church Greek Papist or Protestant that ever we saw and for all that for the Power of Kings but not all against it which the generality of Fathers Historians Philosophers Politick-writers Lawyers Canonists or Divines are for And is not all this yet enough 4. I have oft told you where e.g. Bishop Andrews in Tortura Torti Sir Fran. Bacon Lord St. Albans and many others have vindicated the principles of the English Non-conformists as the same with the Church's in point of Loyalty against the Papists accusations L. But do not you know who wrote the Political Aphorisms or Holy Common-wealth condemned lately by the Oxford Convocation M. And do not you know 1. That the Author had never leave to confute his accusers about it 2. Do you not know that he hath divers years ago written a large Book called his Second Plea for Peace fully opening the Principles which he and his Consenters hold and no man hath writteâ— one word against any of them that I hear of to this day Is this fair dealing then to silence what at large he owneth and name only a writing 29 years ago which he never was heard about 3. Do you not know that the Famously Learned Tho. White a Papist wrote at the same time the like Doctrine and will you charge that on the Party of Papistâ— 4. The Historians Rule is Distingue de temporibus Do you know in what times that was written And know you not that few men then living wrote and spake more plainly against the Usurpation than he did 5. And you see that the Oxford Convocation condemn the writings and principles of the Doctors of the Church of England as well as others And as for Knox and Buchanan we are no more guilty of their words than of Iewell 's Bilson's Hooker's Laud's or any such L. But if you differ not from the Church of England in Principles of Loyalty why do you not take the
Oxford-Oath in the Act of Confinement and the Subscription in the Act of Vniformity M. I have told you fully before Not because we differ in Doctrine but in expounding the words of that Oath and Subscription 2. Were neither Arch-bishop Abbot nor his Clergy nor the Parliaments of those times of the Church of England as well as Sâ—bthorp and Mainwaring Were not the Laws made by those Parliaments made by the Members if not Representatives of the Church of England You know that our late great Defenders of the Church describe the Church of England to be those that Worship God according to the Law And were the Parliaments that made those Laws none of the Church themselves Chillingworth would not Subscribe without a limitting Profession Was he therefore none of the Church Was Bishop Bilson none of the Church Was R. Hooker none of the Church The first dedicated his Book to Queen Elizabeth and the latter is Dedicated to our King Charles the second and Praised by his Father And yet the Author of the Holy Common-wealth hath larglier than any man confuted Hooker's Popular Principles When William Barclay a Lawyer defended the King of France his Temporal Power against the Popes Usurpation of a Power to depose and restrain him he is fain to profess that the contrary opinion was so common that he was taken to speak some strange and singular thing And yet none doubts but he was of the same Church of Rome I again challenge you to name that point in which we differ in this Doctrine from the true Church of England L. You hold that Kings may be resisted by Arms. M. Not so much as the aforesaid Bishop and Doctors of the Church of England did or the Parliaments that made Church-Laws Again See our second Plea for Peace how far we disclaim it I profess that I am acquainted with no meer Non-Conformist Ministers that hold it at all lawful for Subjects to resist the King or any Supream Power by a War except in case that he notoriously declareth that he will if he can destroy the Common-wealth or deliver it up to a foreigner or destroyer that hath no right L. Sure the cry would never be for Extirpating the Dissenters for this Plot and their disloyalty if they were not guilty M. Nay if that be your argument Strangers to them say they are disloyal and guilty ergo they are so I leave you to God's answer for I will not undertake to answer you But will you use Sobriety a little further 1. It is now twenty seven years since they were ejected and cast out of maintenance and countenance and left to beg or crave their bread Long have they been laid in Gaols and fined deeply the Law laying on them twenty and forty pound a Sermon Their Goods Beds Books taken from them and they left destitute How many in all these years have ever been accused and proved guilty of one disloyal or seditious Sermon or Word I know of none Certainly it was not for want of will in the Accusers Those that by Oaths have brought them under Convictions and Warrants for distress of five ten and much more forfeitures even divers hundred pounds at once before they were ever summoned to speak for themselves would sure have sworn some disloyal Words against them had they been able And can many hundred Ministers have a fuller proof of their innocency than that they had no such prosecution twenty seven years from such a sort of Adversaries in so great Sufferings 2. And now this Plot is detected It is divers Months since and many Countries and Corporations have accused the Dissenters of it and cry them down to Extirpation And to this day I cannot hear of any one English Minister or at most not of two that is either an Episcopal or Presbyterian Non-Conformist so much as accused or named as guilty The French and Dutch Churches in London are Dissenting Presbyterians Yet no man accuseth any of them for being in Plots and yet must they also be destroyed But Sir if any one or more of the Episcopal or Presbyterian Non-Conformists Ministers or People had been found guilty would you condemn thousands or any of the guiltless for their sakes On what account Is it for their Relation to them They are mostly strangers to one another Come and let us try your rule of Justice I. Is there any Relation nearer than that of Father and Son And can any Minister be supposed to have more interest in or influence on his Hearers than a Father hath on his Son And you know that the chief man accused is the Kings eldest Son I hope you will not for this charge the King as if he principled him for Treason against himself Nor as if he were to suffer for his Sons faults II. The Judges have oft declared that many Iesuits and Papists were Plotters and Traitors and they died for it I hope you will not make all Papists guilty of their crime nor extirpate them for it And yet the Papists are Conventicling Dissenters too III. The Lords and great Men accused of this Plot and Treason how justly God knoweth were of the Church of England and shall all the Church of England be destroyed for their sakes Dr. Whitby and others now blamed by the Oxford-Convocation and Bishop Bilson Mr. Hocker c. were of the Church of England and shall all the English Clergy be accused of their words IV. Many of the accused were Hobbists and Infidels and some common ill-living Protestants Shall all the Hobbists and Infidels and ill-living Protestants be extirpated for their faults V. Many Gentlemen of some late Parliaments are accused not yet tried and proved guilty Shall all the Parliament-men therefore be extirpated as guilty VI. Some Lawyers and Students at Law are accused Shall all Lawyers and Students therefore be extirpated VII Divers of the Nobility are accused Must all Noble-men be therefore reproached VIII Some that have been of the Kings Privy Council were accused Is his Council therefore to be disgraced or destroyed IX Formerly many Judges have been guilty Are Judges therefore to be dishonoured X. By this justice you may next conclude They were Englishmen that were accused therefore let all English-men be rooted out Or they were Protestants and Christians therefore away with all Protestants and Christians Whereas I think it an unjust conclusion that because they were Irish-men and Papists that murdered two hundred thousand in Ireland therefore root out all Irish-men and Papists unless you will inferr They are men that commit all sin therefore root out mankind If it had been men that hate serious Godliness and are the seed of the Serpent and of Cain that are at deadly enmity to the true fear of God and thirst for the blood of the innocent that are accused of this Plot and if People had petitioned to have all this sort of men rooted out for it it would have fallen on more than you and I are willing to name or