Chapter 10: Protestant Pleas

Protestant Pleas.

His Sect. 13. p. 155. entituled Independent and Presbyterians Pleas, is a merry one. The whole design of it seems to be, to make himself and others sport with the miscarriages of men in and about Religion. Whether it be a good work or no, that day that is coming will discover. The Independents he divides into two parts, Quakers and Anabaptists. Quakers he begins withal, and longest insists upon, being, as he says, well read in their Books, and acquainted with their persons; some commendation he gives them, so farr as it may serve to the disparagement of others, and then falls into a fit of Quaking, so expresly imitating them in their Discourses, that I fear he will confirm some in their surmises, that such as he, both set them on work, and afterwards assisted them in it. For my part, having undertaken only the defence of Protestancy and Protestants, I am altogether inconcerned in the entertainment he has provided for his Readers, in this personating of a Quaker, which he has better done, and kept a better decorum in, than in his personating of a Protestant; a thing in the beginning of his Discourse he pretended to. The Anabaptists, as farr as I can perceive, he had not medled with, unless it had been to get an advantage of venting his pretty Answer to an Argument against Infant-Baptism; but the truth is, if the Anabaptists had no other Objections against Infant-Baptism, nor Protestants no better Answers to their Objections then what are mentioned here by our Author, it were no great matter what become of the Controversie: but it is Merriment, not Disputation, that he is designing; and I shall leave him to the solace of his own fancies.

No otherwise, in the next place, does he deal with the Presbyterians: in personating of whom, he pours out a long senseless rapsody of words, many insignificant expressions, vehement exclamations, and uncouth terms, such, as to do them right, I never heard uttered by them in preaching, though I have heard many of them; nor read written by them, though, I suppose, I have perused, at least as many of their Books as our Author has done of the Quakers. Any one with half an Eye, may see what it is which galls the man, and his Party; which, whether he has done wisely to discover, his [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] will inform him, that is, the Preaching of all sorts of Protestants, that he declares himself to be most perplexed with, and therefore most labours to expose it to reproach and obloquy. And herein he deals with us, as in many of their Stories, their Demoniacks do with their Exorcists; discover which Relick, or which Saints name, or other Engine in that bufle most afflicts them; that so they may be paid more to the purpose. Somewhat we may learn from hence; Fas est & ab hoste doceri. But he will make the Presbyterians amends for all the scorn he endeavours to expose them to, by affirming, when he has assigned a senseless Harangue of words to them, that the Protestants are not able to answer their Objections. Certainly, if the Presbyterians are such pitiful souls, as not to be able any beter to defend their cause, than they are represented by him here to do; those Protestants are beneath all consideration, who are not able to deal and grapple with them: And this is as it should be; Roman-Catholicks are wise, learned, holy, angelical, seraphical persons; all others, ignorant dolts, that can scarse say Boe to a Goose. These things considered in themselves are unserious trifles — but seria ducunt. We shall see, presently, whither all this lurry tends; for the sting of this whole Discourse is fixed in the Scripture.

Of the same importance is the next Section, pag. 170, entitled Protestants Pro and Con, wherein the differences that are among many in these Nations are notably exagitated. I presume, in the intention of his mind upon his present design, he forgot that by a new change of name, the same things may be uttered, the same words used, of and concerning Christians in general, ever since, almost, that name was known in the world. Was there any thing more frequent among the Pagans of old, than to object to Christians their differences and endless disputes? I wish our Author would but consider, that which remains of the Discourse of Celsus on this subject: particularly, his charge on them, that at their beginnings, and while they were few, they agreed well enough; but after they encreased, and were dispersed into several Nations, they were every where at variance among themselves, whereas all sorts of men were at peace before their pretended Reformation of the Worship of God; and he will find in it the sum of this, and the four following Sections to the end of this Chapter. And, if he will but add so much to his pains, as to peruse the excellent answers of Origen in his third Book; he will, if not be perswaded to desist from urging the objections of Celsus, yet discern what is expected from him to reply to, if he persist in his way. But, if we may suppose, that he has not that respect for the honor of the first Christians; methinks, the intestine irreconcileable brauls of his own mother's children, should somewhat allay his heat and confidence, in charging endless differences upon Protestants, of whom only I speak. Yes, but you will say, They have a certain means of ending their controversies, Protestants have none. And have they so? The more shame for them to trouble themselves, and others, from one generation to another with disputes and controversies, that have such a ready way to end them when they please; and Protestants are the more to be pittied, who perhaps are ready, some of them, at least, as farr as they are able, to live at peace. But why have not Protestants a sure and safe way to issue all their differences? Why; because every one is judge himself, and they have no umpire in whose decision they are bound to acquiesce. I pray, who told you so? Is it not the fundamental principle of Protestantism, that the Scripture determines all things necessary to faith and obedience, and that in that determination ought all men to acquiesce? I know few Roman Catholics have the prudence, or the patience, to understand what Protestancy is. And certain it is, that those who take up their knowledge of it, from the discourses and writings of such gentlemen as our Author, know very little of it, if any thing at all: and those who do at any time get leave to read the books of Protestants, seem to be so filled with prejudices against them, and to be so byassed by corrupt affections, that they seldom come to a true apprehension of their meanings; for who so blind as he that will not see? Protestants tell them, that the Scripture contains all things necessary to be believed and practised in the worship of God; and those proposed with that perspicuity and clearness which became the wisdom of its Author, who intended to instruct men by it, in the knowledge of them; and in this Word and Rule, say they, are all men to rest and acquiesce. But, says our Author, why then do they not do so, why are they at such fewds and differences among themselves? Is this in truth his business? Is it Protestants he blames, and not Protestancy? Men's miscarriages, and not their rule's imperfection? If it be so, I crave his pardon for having troubled him thus farr. To defend Protestants for not answering the principles of their profession, is a task too hard for me to undertake, nor do I at all like the business; let him lay on blame still, until I say, Hold. It may be, we shall grow wiser, by his reviling, as Monica was cured of her intemperance, by the reproach of a servant. But I would fain prevail with these gentlemen, for their own sakes, not to cast that blame which is due to us, upon the holy and perfect Word of God. We do not say, nor ever did, that whoever acknowledgeth the Scripture to be a perfect rule, must upon necessity understand perfectly all that is contained in it; that he is presently freed from all darkness, prejudices, corrupt affections, and enabled to judge perfectly and infallibly of every truth contained in it, or deduced from it. These causes of our differences belong to individual persons, not to our common rule: and, if because no men are absolutely perfect, and some are very perverse and froward, we should throw away our rule, the blessed Word of God, and run to the Pope for rule and guidance; it is all one, as if at noonday, because some are blind and miss their way, and some are drunk and stagger out of it, and others are variously entised to leave it, we should all conspire to wish the Sun out of the firmament, that we might follow a Will with a Wisp.

I know not what, in general, needs to be added further to this Section. The mistake of it is palpable; some particular passages may be remarked in it before we proceed: pag. 173. he pronounceth an heavy doom on the Prelate Protestants; making them Prevaricators, Impostors, Reprobates; an hard sentence, but that it is hoped it will prove like the flying Bird, and Curse causeless! But what is the matter? Why, in dealing with the Presbyterians, they are forced to make use of those Popish Principles which themselves at first rejected, and so building them up again, by the Apostles rule deserve no better terms; But, what I pray are they? Why, the difference between Clergy and Laity, the efficacy of Episcopal Ordination, and the Authority of a visible Church, to which all men are to obey. There are but two things our Author needs to prove to make good his charge. First, that these are Popish Principles. Secondly, that as such they were at any time cast down and destroyed by Prelate-Protestants. I fear his mind was gone a little astray, or that he had been lately among the Quakers, when he hammered this charge against Prelate Protestants. For as these have been their constant Principles ever since the beginning of the Reformation, so they have as constantly maintained, that in their true and proper sense they are not Popish. Nor is the difference about these things, between any Protestants whatever, any more than verbal. For those terms of Clergy and Laity, because they had been abused in the Papacy, though antiently used, some have objected against them; but for the things signified by them, namely, that in the Church there are some Teachers, some to be taught, Bishops and Flocks, Pastors and People, no Protestant ever questioned. Our Author then does but cut out work for himself, without order from any Protestant; when he sets up an excuse for this change in them by a relinquishment of their first Principles, and re-assuming Popish ones for their defence against the Presbyterians. He that set him a work may pay him his wages. Protestants only tell him, that what was never done, needs never be excused.

Nor will they give him any more thanks for the plea he interposes in the behalf of Episcopacy, against Presbyterians and Independents; being interwoven with a plea for the Papacy, and managed by such arguments as end in the exaltation of the Roman See. And that partly, because they know that their adversaries will be easily able to disprove the feigned monarchical government of the church under one Pope. And to prove that that fancy really overturns the true and only monarchical state of the church in reference to Christ; knowing that monarchy does not signify two heads, but one. And partly, because they have better arguments of their own to plead for Episcopacy than those that he suggests here to them; or than any man in the world can supply them with, who thinks there is no communication of authority from Christ to any on the earth, but by the hands of the Pope. So that upon the whole matter, they desire him that he would attend his own business, and not mix their cause in the least with his, which tends so much to their weakening and disadvantage. If this may be granted, which is but reasonable, they will not much be troubled about his commendation of the Pope (page 178) as the substitute of Christ, our only visible pastor, the chief bishop of the Catholic Church, presiding, ruling, and directing, in the place of Christ, and the like eulogies: being resolved, when he goes about to prove any thing that he says, that they will consider of it. But he must be better known to them than he is, before they will believe him on his bare word, in things of such importance; and some suppose, that the more he is known, the less he will be believed. But that he may not for the present think himself neglected, we will run over the heads of his plea, pretended for Episcopacy, really to assert the papal sovereignty. First, he pleads that the Christian Church was first monarchical under one sovereign bishop, when Christ who founded it was upon the earth. True; and so it is still. There is one sheepfold, one shepherd and bishop of our souls; he that was then bodily present, having promised that presence of himself with his church to the end of the world, wherein he continues its one sovereign bishop. And, although the Apostles after him had an equality of power in the church among themselves, as bishops after them have also; yet this does not denominate the government of the church as aristocratical; no more than the equality of the lords in parliament, can denominate the government of this kingdom to be so. The denomination of any rule is from him, or them, in whom the sovereignty does reside, not from any subordinate rulers. So is the rule of the church monarchical. The subversion of this Episcopacy, we acknowledge, subverts the whole polity of the church, and so all her laws and rule, with the guilt whereof Protestants charge the Romanists. He adds, it will not suffice, to say, that the church is still under its head Christ, who being in heaven, has his spiritual influences over it. It will not indeed; but yet we suppose, that his presence with it by his Spirit and laws will suffice; why should it not? Because the true church of Christ, must have the very same head she had at first, or else she cannot be the same body: very good; and so she has; the very same Christ that was crucified for her, and not another. But that head was the God-Man personally present in both his natures here on earth. But is he not, I pray, the same God-Man, still? The same Christ, though the manner of his presence be altered? This is strange, that being the same as he was, and being present still, one circumstance of the manner of his presence, should hinder him from being the same head. I cannot understand the logic, reason, nor policy of this inference. Suppose we should on these trifling instances, exclude Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, from being the same head of his church as he was; will the Pope supply his room? Is he the same head that Christ was? Is he the God-Man, bodily present? Or what would you have us to conclude? A visible head or bishop, if the church has not now over her as at first she had, she is not the same she was, and consequently in the way to ruin. This too much alters the question: at first it was, that she must have the same head she had at first, or she is not the same; now, that she must have another head that is not the same; or she is not the same. For the Pope is not Jesus Christ. These arguings hang together like a rope of sand; and what is built on this foundation (which indeed is so weak, that I am ashamed further to contend with it) will of its own accord fall to the ground.