Cain and Abel Malignity, Chapter 4
Chap. IV. Objections and false Accusations answered.
BUT I know that as Christ and his Apostles were not hated, nor killed without pretended cause and reason, nor the Martyrs murdered without accusation; so none will now justifie the scorning or persecuting an innocent person, or a Saint as such, but they will first make them odious, and seem worthy of all that is done against them. They will say, It is not godly men, but wicked Hypocrites that we hate and prosecute; a false and odious sort of persons, who are unruly, and set up their own wit and will against the Laws and Governours of the several Kingdoms where they live: They are the very worst of men.
Ans. If they are so indeed, they are none of the men that I am pleading for, nor you the men that I reprove. But before we come to particular Accusations, it is your wisdom to answer these few Questions.
1. Have you particular matter against them to make good this charge? Or is it only a general malicious Accusation?
2. Is it individual persons that you mean, by whom it's proved? or do you thus accuse whole companies of men? What if one said of Papists, Jews or Turks, They are Murderers, Adulterers, Perjured, &c. Do you think he were not an odious slanderer, to speak that of all or most, or the whole Party, which he can prove but by some few?
3. Do you know all the persons whom you accuse? And have you heard it proved? Or do you not say this of whole Congregations assembled to worship God, of whom you know not one of many? If this be so, it's inhumane calumny.
4. Have the particular persons been heard speak for themselves, and give the reason of their actions? and were they proved insufficient? Or were they condemned unheard? Or was Gods Word derided and taken for no reason?
5. Do you not know that the Devil is the great Accuser of the Brethren? and that he hath malice and craft enough to say as bad as you can say, by the best of men? and must he be believed?
6. Are you sure you can make God believe you, that these men are as bad as you affirm? If not, and if he find a man in prison for obeying his word, and ask who laid him there, will you undertake to prove that he was laid there for some crime? If God own him, and say, he is my Servant, will you confute him, and say, No, but he is a Schismatick, God knoweth a Saint from a Schismatick better than you do. Sheep-steelers use to sheer the sheep and cut out the mark: But they have to do with men: Gods mark is where man cannot take it away; And the foundation of God standeth sure. The Lord knoweth who are his.
7. Know you not that Christ, and his Apostles and all the Martyrs were as deeply charged, and put to death as Malefactors? We must then have better proof than accusation.
8. If they prove faithful Christians whom you thus accuse, Christ hath undertaken their Justification: It is his office. And do you think to baffle him? Can he not answer you? Rom. 8. 32, 33, 35. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? It is God that justifieth: Who is he that will condemn them?
9. Have you not greater sins your selves than those whom you accuse? If so, you condemn your selves. Would you have God judge of them as you do? If so, do you not tell him how to judge of you, and even crave him to condemn you?
10. Doubtless you know that you are sinners: And how think you to be justified at the Bar of God? Is there any but Christ to judge and justify you? And do you think he will justifie his Enemies, that hated, accused and condemned his Servants?
11. Those that dwell near godly Christians and should know them, are more unexcusable for their malice and slanders than forreigners and strangers are. Men of another land or age may be deceived by lying fame or history. But you that are their Neighbours are without excuse. I speak for none but persons fearing and obeying God: And you might easily have known that they are neither Fornicators, Drunkards, Perjur'd, swearers, Liars, Oppressors, Thieves, nor suffer for any such crimes as these.
12. And if they are as wicked as you say, why do you not prosecute them for such wickedness? What are the French Protestants now prosecuted and ruin'd for? Have any Judicatures proved them guilty of any such crimes against God or Man? Or is it not only for worshiping God contrary to the Kings and Prelates Laws? And how is that? As Christs Apostles did: They refuse nothing in Gods worship which God commanded, or any of Christs Apostles used, or any Churches in their days or long after. And did the Apostles offer God so odious a worship as deserved hatred and destruction? When Daniels Enemies designed his ruine, they said, Dan. 6. We shall find no matter against this Daniel except it be concerning the Law of his God; And so they got a Law made against praying to any God but the King for a certain time. Daniel must be cast to the Lions for breaking the Kings Law: The poor flies deserve death for coming into the Spiders Web: But did not the venomous Worm Spin it of purpose out of her own Bowels, or condensate air, to take and kill the flies by craft? In England there are many that worship God as the French Protestants do, and no better than Christs Apostles did: If this be their horrid wickedness that makes them unworthy to live out of Prison, say so, and pretend no other. But if it be Heresie, false Doctrine, Perjury, Fornication, Robbing, Treason, Sedition or any other crime, why are they not accused of these before the Judges? And why are those charged with them that never were so accused and proved guilty? Will not all wise men take those persons for malicious Liars, who by their published accusations thus odiously charge multitudes, and never offer to prove it against them at the Judicatures? Their accusation shews they want not will, therefore their not prosecuting them for any such sort of crimes, shews that it is truth that is wanting.
13. And if they be such wicked persons, whence is it, that they are charged meerly with Hypocrisy, by such as say, that they live soberly and justly and demurely, but they are at the heart as bad as others. Their accusers commonly confess that they are most free from all immoralities, and have an outward shew of righteousness, but these heart-searchers see that their hearts are bad. And do they not by this confute their own accusations?
14. And why is it that they that know them best can see none of the wickedness which you accuse them of, (beyond those humane infirmities of which they most accuse themselves). As I have oft done, I again solemnly profess, as one that cannot be far from my account before the judge of all the the World, that having now lived to the 68th year of my age, and been most familiar since the age of sixteen or seventeen, with that sort of men whom the Vulgar then called Puritans (described by Mr. Bolton and such other Conformists) though I have met with many that had their mistakes and frailties, and troublesome differences in lesser things, and some Hypocrites intruded among them, yet I never knew any other sort of men comparable to them in Christian Knowledge, Faith, Obedience to God, Hatred of sin, Care of their duty to God and man, Sobriety, Temperance, Chastity, Truth, Heavenly desires, endeavours and hopes: And that they so far excelled the rest of my acquaintance, as made their grace amiable to me, and confirmed my belief of the Sacred Scripture: Yea more, if I had not had the happiness of knowing such a sort of men that in holiness, Justice and Love excelled the rest of my acquaintance, or at least credibly heard of such, I could not have believed in Christ, as a Saviour of men whom he made no better than Turks and Infidels; Nor could I have believed a Heaven for men no better prepared for it. And that now near my end, I see so great a difference in Holiness, Justice and Charity, between those commonly reviled for worshiping God but as the Apostles did, and those that hate and persecute them, as greatly helps me in believing that there is a Saviour and Sanctifier, and Heaven for the faithful, and a Devil that deceives the rest, and a hell that will receive them; which is even visibly begun on Earth.
Accus. But (say they) it is not for their Godliness or Sobriety that we accuse them, but for their sin, and wickedness.
Ans. Still this is but General, and signifieth nothing. But, 1. What is that odious sin? 2. It's Gods merciful Providence that keeps sin in general under such shame, as that the actors of it speak against it, even in their slanders. 3. But if this be the true cause why do you cull out those that have least sin to fasten your accusations of sin upon? If there be a conformable Minister that is more Holy, Charitable, and Zealous against sin than the rest, he is one of those that is called a Puritan and accused of sin? Why do we hear none of your furious charges against the common Drunkards Revellers, Gamesters, Whoremongers, Persecutors, Profane Blasphemers, Lyars, and the Families that call not upon God, shew no serious regard of any Religion at all? You can live among these, and Swear and Drink, and Play with them, and never cry out against them as bad men.
Accus. But religion, being the best thing, the Corrupters of that are worse than Drunkards, and Swearers, and Adulterers.
Ans. Such corrupters there may be as are worse indeed: But what is it that they corrupt Religion in? They subscribe to all the Bible, and the ancient Creeds? And if need be to the English Articles of Religion. Is not all that enough? Their many large published writings tell the world their Judgment in Religion; Such as Mr. Arthur Hildershams, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Greenhams, Dods, Anthony Burges, Richard Alleins, and abundance such: What errors are in these?
2. Why are they not these twenty years accused of Preaching false Doctrine, and proved guilty and punisht for it, if they are such?
3. If it be not in Doctrine what is it?
Accus. They worship God contrary to the Law; in not using the Common-Prayer book.
Ans. 1. Those that constantly joyn in the Parish Churches in the Common-Prayer are as much hated, Reviled and Prosecuted as the rest. Therefore this charge is but hypocrisy.
2. What do they that for matter or manner is positively contrary to Law in Gods worship: They read Scripture, Pray, Preach, Praise God with Psalms, Communicate in the Lords Supper: Doth the Law forbid any of this?
3. Not using the rest of the Liturgy is a Negation, and no Act at all, and therefore no act of worship, and therefore no unlawful act, no more than silence is: He that is silent, and he that omits the rest of the Liturgy, worships not God by using it; but he doth nothing contrary to it, or forbidden by it.
4. If Peter and Paul were unknown in England, and worshipt God but as they did on Earth, would you therefore call them Rogues or Rebels, or lay them in the jail? Did they worship God in an odious, intolerable manner? Did the Holy-Ghost by them write an infallible Rule for all things necessary in Religion? and yet are they unsufferable rogues that worship God but according to that rule?
5. Are they wiser men than they that have made us another rule or worship? or have they more of Gods Spirit, and more authority in religion?
6. Do not the Imposers say that all which they add is no part of Religion, but things indifferent? And are they odious corrupters of Religion, who omit no part of Religion, but only humane indifferent things?
7. Do you not reverence the Church for some hundred years after Christ, which imposed no Liturgies, but left every Pastor to use his own Prayers?
8. Do you not harden the Papists that call our Religion new, and ask where it was two hundred years ago, if you make the Liturgy as now formed and imposed, our Religion, when it is not two hundred years old.
9. The Godly Bishops of England have ever owned the other Protestant Churches, and their Communion, who have none of our Liturgies, nor any like it.
10. If this be the odious crime, why do you never Revile or Prosecute the Atheists, Infidels, Sadduces, Hobbists, and those many thousands that seldom if ever go to any Church, or worship God publickly at all? Is the worship that Peter and Paul used worse than irreligiousness and infidelity?
11. Who can believe that you are sincerely zealous against misworshiping God, when you can ordinarily your selves be in a drinking house or playing house, at the time of publick worship? And when so few of you ever so much as worship God in your Families, by Prayer, or read the Scripture, or Catechise your families?
12. Is it not a strange thing to hear men accuse others for not using the Liturgy in Gods worship, and at the same time would have them that refuse it, to be forbidden all publick worshiping of God at all? Doth this signify any dislike of their omitting Gods worship? Which is the more ungodly omission? to omit all worship of God and live like Atheists, or to omit only so much of the Liturgy as the Apostles used not? I have known many that could not eat cheese, as is said before (nor scarce smell it without danger of Death:) If you would have a Law made that such shall eat no other meat, few wisemen will believe that it is their health and life that you desire. If a man fail in paying his Landlord some odd act of Service, will you make a Law that he shall pay nothing at all? If a Subject neglect paying some excise, or using Bow and Arrows, will you forbid him paying any thing, or serving the King at all? Sure they that forbid men all publick worship, be offended at somewhat else than that men do not rightly worship God, unless they think that not to worship him at all is better than doing it without their Book.
Obj. But he shall be Compelled to better worship.
Ans. How? when he lieth in jail he cannot publickly worship God at all. Is that better worship? I know it is banishment which some would have executed. And will men worship God any better among Heathens or Infidels, or others? Or why should other Countries endure them, if they be not to be endured in their own?
Are not English-men that worship God only by their own Book, as much Nonconformists when they are in other Lands, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Holland, &c. as those are here that do not use it: And are they there intolerable and worthy of ruine?
Did the Apostles or first Churches banish any on such accounts? Will Christ banish them from his Kingdom? Hath he made any such Laws? And is not he the absolute Soveraign? Hath he left his Servants to the will of man, to use them how they will, or cast out of his Church whom they will? Are you sure these are none of the number of whom Christ saith, I was hungry and ye fed me not, &c. In as much as ye did it not to one of the least of these my Brethren, you did it not to me, Mat. 25.
Accus. But they are Schismaticks, and Separate from the Church; and is not that a damnable sin?
Ans. 1. Being speaking only to malignant enemies of serious Godliness, I say; It is not only Separatists that you hate, but Godly Conformists yea perhaps most of all, because you are more restrained from hurting them. How oft hear we Curses and Revilings against Conforming Puritanes, or as some call them [Church Whigs.] If they are not haters of their brethren, but Friends to Love and Peace, you nickname them [Trimmers.] And cursing those whom Christ blesseth, when he saith, [Blessed be the Peace-makers, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven] You say, [Cursed be the Trimmers, and would the Kingdom were rid of them.] It is any that are for a holy life, and obedience to God, that you abhor.
2. As I said before, you spare those that come to the Parish Churches no more than others: The old Nonconformists wrote more against Separation than any else in England did. And yet were hated as intolerable. The reconcilers who are since made Nonconformists, did publickly offer to be Subject to Arch-Bishops and Bishops, to use the Liturgy themselves if reformed, and if it were not, yet never pleaded for separation: And yet are never the more endured.
2. But who is it that they separate from? Do they not profess Union and Communion with the whole Catholick Church on Earth? What separation do you mean? Is it their Local absence? And are not you such Separatists from all the world, saving the Assembly where you meet? One cannot be in two places at once.
Or is it that they dislike somewhat in your Forms of Worship? so they may in others Forms, with whom yet they profess Communion: And in what is it that they shew dislike or separation? They hold Communion with you as Christians, and as reformed from Popery: They separate not from Papists as Christians: And from you it is only for that which you say is no part of your Worship or Religion, but things indifferent; which they think to be sin. And are those Separatists from your Church, who only separate from that which is no part of your Church or Worship?
3. Are the French and Dutch Churches in London Schismaticks or Separatists, who profess Communion with our Churches, though they use not our Oaths, Subscriptions or Liturgy? Liking their own mode better, and preferring it, is no Separation. If I like your Liturgy better than any in the Bibliotheca Patrum, is that separating from all Churches that use the rest?
4. Who are the Schismaticks in France, Italy, Poland, &c. Those that are called so, and persecuted as such; or those that impose on them the things which they judge sinful?
What if you were in a Presbyterian Land, where the Liturgy and Prelacy are forbidden, and another Form set up by Law; and you should contrary to that Law use the Liturgy and Ceremonies; or at least refuse subscribing against Prelacy, and for Lay Elders? If they excommunicated or ruined you for this, who do you think were guilty of the Schism?
5. Do they forsake the Assemblies before they are excommunicated? Or is it not an odd thing for to excommunicate men first, and then accuse them for not coming to Church? I have known Ministers stop in the midst of Publick Worship, and refuse to go on, till an excommunicate person went out. The whole representative Church of England do in their 5, 6, 7, and 8 Canons ipso facto, without tryal or sentence, excommunicate all in England, who affirm any thing to be sinful or repugnant to Gods Word, in the Church Governing Offices whatsoever, in the Liturgy, Ceremonies or Articles. And shall they after this be called Separatists for not coming in? Doth not the Canon shew that the Church would not have them come in, when they cast them out?
Obj. But the Church and Canon bid them repent of that their wicked errour, and publickly confess it, and so come in.
Ans. 1. Is a mans Judgment absolutely in his power? Can a man believe a thing to be a wicked errour meerly because the Canon saith so? He that can believe what his list, believeth nothing truly. If this Belief be necessary to Church Communion, and to escape damning Schism, it is necessary to Salvation: Why then is it not in the Creed, Ten Commandments or Bible? Do you call them the things Indifferent, and then call it a wicked errour to hold them sinful? Is not this to make it necessary to Salvation or Communion, to have so much Learning or Knowledge, as to-know all Indifferent words and things in the world to be indifferent, which men will impose? I would all Church-Members with your and others knew all necessary things. Do you believe in your heart that all, or half the Parishioners do know these things to be lawful, or understand any more of them than those that think otherwise? when thousands cannot answer a necessary question of the Creed or Catechism; nor know who Christ is, and how he saveth us?
Why is there not a Catechism made containing the sound proof that Lay-Chancellors power of the Keys, and Diocesan Bishops that have no Bishops under them, and our present Court-Church discipline, and all the Rubrick, Ceremonies and Forms are lawful, if all must be excommunicate that think and say otherwise?
Obj. If they are so ignorant that they cannot know Church Orders to be lawful, they are not fit to communicate with the Church.
Ans. Make no Church Orders necessary to Communion, but what Christ and his Apostles have made necessary to it; and then cast out and spare not all as ignorant that refuse them.
2. But again, do you believe that most, or all that you keep in, are wiser and more knowing than those that you cast out? How shall such as I believe you, who know that in all the Parishes which my cohabitation allowed me to know, it is the most knowing and religious part that most dissent, and the generality of the grosly ignorant that understand few Articles of the Creed, do conform. As ignorant as I am, and hundreds of my calling and mind, I would I were not only silenced and imprisoned, but put to death, on condition that all that you now receive as Members of the Church, had no more ignorance than we have. But it's our lot, to tire our selves with teaching poor people to understand their Baptism, Christianity, Creed, Lords Prayer, and Ten Commandments, and leave most ignorant when all's done, and yet our selves after our hardest and longest study, to be judged so ignorant about some Indifferent things, as to be unfit for Ministry or Communion.
Accus. If men will not obey Church Governours and Laws, they are Rebels, and unfit for Christian Society. If every man shall follow his own fancy, what Order will there be? Do not all Churches require obedience to their Orders?
Ans. 1. The Church hath One Universal King, who hath made Universal Laws for all; which must be first obeyed, and against which no man hath power. And yet his own Laws have things necessary to all, in which they must unite, and Integrals and Accidents which all know not, in which they must bear with one another. No man understandeth all the Bible: And are many Laws and Books more necessary than Gods?
2. Whoever depraveth the necessary points of Religion by his own fancies, should be rejected. But all men living err in many lesser things.
3. In what Countreys is it that your Rule holds, that Rulers must be thus far obeyed in Religion? Is it in China, or Pegu, or Indostan, or Turky? Or is it in Italy, Spain, Poland, Silesia, Bavaria, or France? Or is it at Geneva, Holland, or the Presbyterian Countreys? Or is it only in England, Scotland and Ireland? And was it so here before Henry the 8th. or only since? And how shall any know where it is, unless he try and judge his Rulers Commands by the Laws of God? Will you follow this Rule in France or Spain? Or shall all Subjects judge of Kings capacities?
Accus. But, they hold unlawful Assemblies of their own, and worship God contrary to Law, and yield not so much as Passive Obedience.
Ans. 1. You know the Ministers are forbidden their Office, unless they will take those Oaths, Subscriptions, Professions and Practices, which they dare not take, for fear of sin and damnation: And they would be thankful if their reasons may be heard, and if any will instruct them better: And they are confirmed in their Opinion by the answers, or no answers rather, made to the reasons already given in. And they are devoted or vowed to the sacred Ministry in their Ordination: And if there be such a sin as Sacriledge in the world, they are confident it were Sacriledge in them to alienate themselves from the Office which they have undertaken. As it is Apostacy from Christianity to violate our Baptismal Vow, though men should command it, they doubt not but it is perfidious Apostacy from the sacred Ministry, to violate the Ordination Vow, though Bishops silence them: As it is Adultery to violate the Conjugal Contract, though a Bishop should require it; seeing he that married them hath no power to unmarry them, unless they do it first themselves, and prove Desertors or Adulterers.
2. And the people that are excommunicate, or forbidden to worship God publickly, unless they will do that which they think is sin, are still under Gods command to worship him, and not to forsake Church-assembling for his worship. What would you have these Ministers and People do? They study and pray to God to convince them, if they take these Oaths, Subscriptions, Professions and Practices to be sin, and they be no sin: They resolve to be ruled by Gods Word: They are willing to hear any thing that may better inform them: They wonder that men accuse them that have no more to say to change them. If they desert the Ministry, they fear Gods vengeance: If these poor people give over all Gods Publick Worship, and live like Atheists, Conscience living or dying will torment them. If they do that which they are perswaded is sin, when the Imposers call it but Indifferent, Paul hath antidated their Sentence; He that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14. Change their Judgment they cannot: sin they dare not: To give over worshiping God, is to renounce Salvation: Change the Law or Canon, men will not. It seems to me a strange penalty to forbid men to worship God at all, because they think some Subscriptions or Forms to be sin: More strange than to say, All that will not wear Crape shall go naked: Or, all that will not eat Anchovies shall eat nothing. If a man think the use of a Crucifix in Worship sinful, sure to give over all Worship is more sinful: But men have their ways.
3. What Worship is it that they offer God contrary to Law? They are willing to do all required in Scripture by Christ and his Apostles: And were they Rebels and Rogues? Or is their Worship intolerable?
4. What harm will it do their Neighbours, or any, if they only read the Scripture, and praise God with Psalms, and preach and pray as God prescribeth, without Subscriptions or Ceremonies? Are any hurt by this? Doth the same Liberty to the Dutch here hurt any body, or break Peace? Doth the difference of Cathedral and Parish Worship break Peace; or of those Churches that have Organs and Altars, and those that have none?
The Papists are the greatest pretenders to Unity, and most cry down Schism; and yet if all will but be Servants to the Pope, he will License multitudes of Orders that more differ from one another than we from you: Jesuits, Benedictines, Dominicans, Carthusians, and abundance more.
5. Dare any man of Self-knowledge and Conscience say, that all your Worship is not more faulty, than is the omission of a Form or Ceremony? Will not all the world be forbidden to worship God, if all as bad as this be forbidden? And how many worshippers of God, think you, will be left in England, if all must give over that have greater faults than the omission of a thing called but Indifferent?
6. As to what you talk of Passive Obedience, though the phrase be a contradiction, yet the thing meant is a meer cheat of one that hath devised that absurd phrase: And calls Omissive Obedience by the name of Passive; Omitting an Action is not suffering. Daniel was forbid to pray, and the Apostles to preach: They would not yield this Omissive Obedience, but they yielded that which is commonly called Passive. They patiently suffered.
7. Do you not know that about two hundred thousand in and near London cannot come within the doors of the Parish-Churches, (nor hundreds hear that can croud in;) shall all these be made Atheists, or taken for Rebels if they will not forbear to worship God?
8. I suppose you know that many thousands stay at home in their Houses, Shops, Taverns, in sin or idleness: Are these thought worthy of a Jail or Banishment? Or is their course better than to worship God as Peter and Paul did? O the difference between Gods Judgment and some mens! But Gods Judgment shall determine all.
9. Are there no unfaithful and unskilful Ministers? Will no Patrons chuse such? Is not the Ministers skill and faithfulness of great importance to mens Salvation? What if Bishops or Laws imposed an unskilful or untrusty Physician on you, and forbad you to chuse a better, would you die obediently, or rather say, no one hath power so to betray my life? No nor your Soul neither.
10. If you have the hearts of Christians consider this undeniable consequence: If you will have no union or concord among Christians till they agree in all things that are of no greater weight and evidence, than your forms and ceremonies are, you would have no concord in the world, no not between any two persons: And you may as well say, none shall be endured that are not just of the same visage and complexion: And then all the doubt will be, who is the man that will be the strongest and longest liver, to possess all England himself alone.
Accus. But they shew that they are Perjured, false, unconscionable Rogues, that took on them to scruple Oaths and our Church Communion till now, and now can do all rather than be out of places of trust.
Ans. 1. As to your Church communion, can you blind mens eyes, that they shall not read, what the old Nonconformists have written to perswade men to it? See Mr. Hildersham, Bradshaw, Gifford, Paget, Ball, and abundance more. And did not the present Nonconformists shew the same judgment 1660 and 1661 in their treaty? And do not many come to your assemblies? And would they not all that are Ministers Preach there if they could have leave? And have you not, as is afore proved, Excommunicated them by your Canons 5, 6, 7, 8. And is the Oxford Act (which imprisoneth them all six months if they be seen within five miles of a Corporation or any place where they have preached within 20 years) an invisible thing? Do you lay men in Jail by it, and yet think it must be unknown? And he that knows it knows that it Sentences all such to Jail if they be seen in your Churches? And is it the course of humane converse, to say, If you come into any Church within five miles &c. you shall lie in Iail six months; And if you do not, you are Rogues and shall lie in Iail for not coming? Just when the Ministers agreed to come more frequently than before, this act came out, and drove them back. You'll say, They can appear in their own assemblies.
Ans. 1. His Majesty encouraged them by granting them Liberty by his Declaration. 2. They have more hope there of escaping out of your hands, than they have in your own Churches.
And do you not see in Print what Mr. Tombes the Anabaptist wrote long ago to perswade his followers to your communion? And what Mr. Nye wrote to perswade the Independants to come to your Churches? what great change is here of their judgments?
Obj. But why did not the people do so all this while?
Ans. Because their own Teachers did, as they thought, more profit them. Many a man thinks it lawful to wear rags that yet had rather wear whole and comely cloaths; and lawful to eat brown bread, and drink water, that will fare better when they can, and yet take these when they cannot. The people that had good houses before the fire, did without any change of their judgments, get into any poor rooms or cottages after it.
2. But suppose they lately change their judgments, (as many no doubt have) you that think it is for the better are strange Christians that reproach men for repenting and amending. Do you call them to Church and reproach them for not coming, and seek to ruin them for it, and now accuse them for coming? Doth not this shew that some men desired the present Impositions, not for concord of all, but to drive some away, lest they should come in, and the land have concord? And doth not this shew what men we have to do with; and that it is somewhat else than non-conformity which such men hate? Your Justice is [Come to Church, or lie in Iail as Schismaticks: And if you come you are perfidious rogues.] Whether they do or do not, all's one to such judges: who have some other hateful matter in their Eye.
Obj. But their doing it just now to keep their Charter, and keep from suffering, proveth that they are perfidious Rogues.
Ans. 1. I pray tell men of brains and sense, for what it is that you would have men Excommunicated, and laid in Jail or Fined, if they Conform not? Do you do all this without any purpose or hope to drive them to conformity? And do you do it only to make them perfidious Rogues. If suffering may not alter them, why do you use it on them?
2. But who knows not that some things are lawful to avoid suffering which else would not be lawful. It is lawful to cast your goods into the Sea to save the Ship and mens lives; Which else were a sin: It's lawful to give a Thief your purse to save your life, which else were unlawful: It's lawful to blow up neighbours houses to stop a fire; Christ proved it lawful to break the Sabbath in cases of necessity; he withdrew into the Wilderness and far from Ierusalem, to avoid the pharisees persecution. And Paul was let down by the Wall in a basket; Which without danger of suffering, had not been lawful: Though no sin must be done to avoid suffering, yet that may and must be done, which self-preservation makes no sin, but a duty; To kill a man that assaults you in your own defence is not the same crime as unnecessarily to kill him.
But as to the other case of taking the Corporation Oath and Declaration, if you know the case (as you should do before you accuse men) you know that it is the true sence of them that is all the controversy: No body scruples swearing Loyalty, and renouncing Rebellion and Sedition, and all unlawful means of reformation: That which makes it difficult is that on one side, the proper universal sence of the words seems to them unlawful, and Oaths must be taken in the usual sence, unless our Rulers give another, yet on the other side, learned, sober Conformists profess that they take such words in the limited sence, or else they would not take them; And they argue subtilly to prove that to be the true sence; And our Law-makers to whom it belongs will not end the controversy by an exposition. And can you wonder here if men fluctuate in uncertainty? And a late writer having given subtiler arguments for the limited sence than were published before, did perswade many: And in that limited sence twenty Nonconformist Ministers took the oath long ago in London at one time.
But I justify none that mistake in so great a matter. And doubtless if they sinned God will not bless it to their good; It will prove their snare: And I am glad that we are agreed that Perjury is a heinous sin: I beseech you then to consider, 1. Whether those men are fit to accuse them who drive them to it, and say to Ministers, Swear or lye in Iail: 2. Or those who are of the mind of Grotius, Bishop Taylor and such others, that Lying is Lawful when it saves our selves, and wrongs no other: And of those Divines that say, It's as lawful to defend my self from pernicious Imposers with my tongue as with my hands.
3. Let us all with fear (who believe there is a God) avoid the dreadful crime of perjuring the whole land. This whole Kingdom is sworn against all Forreign Iurisdiction in the Oath of Supremacy; and against all endeavours to alter the Government of Church or State, by 1. the Corporation Act, 2. The Vestry Act, 3. The Militia Act, 4. The Oxford of Confinement. 5. And obliged by the Act of Uniformity. Is it not perjury than to endeavour any alteration of it? 1. What shall we then think of them that would bring in Popery? would they not perjure the Kingdom? 2. What shall we say of them that write for a Forreign Church Jurisdiction, under the name of General Councils, or a Colledge of Bishops, or of Forreign Patriarchs, of whom the Pope is chief, and the Principium unitatis, to the universal Church. Is it no change of our Church Government to bring us under a forreign Jurisdiction? Is it no change of State Government to make the King and Kingdom, Subject to that forreign Jurisdiction, who may excommunicate him, and so bring on him all the evil which Excommunication inferreth? And what man in his wits knoweth not that Prelates and Priests are much at the will and power of the Princes under whom they live? Doth not our King expect that his Bishops obey him? And those that must have this Universal Jurisdiction over our King and us, are the Subjects of other Princes, of which the far greatest part are Papists, Mahometans, Infidels, Heathens, or such as are called Hereticks; And if our King and we be made Subject to the Subjects of the Turk, the Pope, the Kings of Spain, France, Poland, the Emperor, the Moscovite, the Dukes of Bavaria, Tuscany, and such like, is he not made a Subject to their Lords and Masters, and much worse? Will not this project perjure England?
3. Whether it be any alteration of Government by them that would change the Power and use of Parliaments, I leave to Lawyers.
4. But I would fain be satisfied of another case. These Kingdoms of England and Scotland took a Covenant and Vow, some Voluntarily, some at their Compositions, who had been sequestred for the King: This Vow contained divers matters, of which some are notorious duties, as to repent of their sins, to oppose Popery, Schism, and Prophaneness, to defend the King, &c. It's not denied by most that I meet with, that this Oath or Vow was unlawfully imposed, and unlawfully taken, and many think some of the matter was unlawful, viz. to oppose Prelacy, &c. But seeing Casuists are agreed, that an Oath unlawfully both imposed and taken, bindeth to that part of the matter which is lawful and necessary, notwithstanding the Conjunction of the rest. And the Corporations of England are all formed by a Declaration taken by all in power and trust, that [There is no Obligation, (without the least exception) on me or any other person from the Oath called the Solemn League and Covenant; The doubt is whether every man may declare that, of all the thousands of three Kingdoms (whom he never knew,) no one is bound by that Oath, or Vow, to repent of his sins, or in his place and calling to oppose Schism, Popery, or Prophaneness, or to defend the King? and whether all may declare that the Londoners and Ministers, and the restored old Parliament, and General Monks Army who restored the King, as supposing they were bound to it by that Oath, were all deceived, and were under no such obligation thence? And whether I am not bound in charity to think that the sequestred Royalists put a good sence on it, when they took it? And so whether all the Corporations of England are free from—And for what it is that God hath singled them out for Judgment?
If you be agreed with us (and with manking) against so great a sin as Perjury, especially national, let us help one another with Love and Patience to resolve such doubts.
Accus. But they have been guilty of Rebellion in a Civil War, and therefore are justly suspected to Preach or hold Rebellious Doctrine.
Ans. 1 Are those men lovers of Love and Concord who purposely make use of pardoned acts to keep the Kingdoms wounds still open? Did not the King tell you in his Declarations and Act of Oblivion, that the putting up of all (save to the excepted persons) and closing for the future in mutual love, was the only way to the Nations peace? You would tempt men to think that you desire to see such days again, by trying whether destroying men will tempt nature to a self-defence.
2. But you have oft had it proved (by Henry Fowlis, Bishop Barlow and abundance more) that no Protestants come near the Principles and Practices of the Papists, as to King-killing and Rebellion. And if yet you know not that the War began between two parties of Episcopal conformists, here among the English, you are unfit to judge of that which you know not: And by reading Rushworth, Whitlock or any true Histories of such times and matters, you may be better informed: As you may of their different principles if you read Iewel, Bishop Bilson, and Richard Hooker on one side, and Mainwarning and Sibthorp on the other.
3. But how few men are alive that had any hand in those miserable Wars? You have oft been offered a thousand thanks if you will silence and hunt no other that are as innocent as you, and more than many of of their accusers. And shall thousands suffer for other mens deeds? 3. What will wise men think of such a sort of men, as charge multitudes in general with Rebellious and Seditious Doctrine, and have accused so few of any such these twenty years, that I know not of one publickly Accused, Tryed and Proved guilty, of all called Presbyterians in all this Land? If they are guilty prove it, and let the guilty suffer, and not the innocent: Only had I my wish I would Bar Perjury, and Condemning men unheard.
Accus. They are an unpeaceable sort of people.
Ans. That's soon said. Who hath these 22 two years manifested most desires of Peace? They that have beg'd for it again and again: Pleaded and written for it: Offered their Oaths that they would obey any lawful Commands for it, and do any thing which they did not believe that God forbids? Or those Bishops that would not have one Form or Ceremony, or needless Subscription forborn, to save thousands of Ministers from being silenced and laid in Common jails, nor to save many thousand of the people from suffering, and to heal the divisions of the Church. One would think this should be as easie a Controversy, as when Soldiers are plundering the Country, and the people on their knees intreating for their goods and lives, to determine which of them is most against War.
Accus. But what need they make such a stir with their Religion: What need they any more than go to Church and live obediently and be quiet? Why will they be righteous over much; will not less ado bring men to Heaven? Why do they differ from their Neighbours, and judge all carnal that be not as Scrupulous as they? God is merciful; and will he save none but Puritans, or precise zealots?
Ans. Now you come to the real matter of your distast: I did not meddle with the case of Nonconformity as it is a Controversy between Godly men, but only as you make a pretence of it, to exercise your enmity against serious Godliness, and a handle to lay hold on many whom Christ will justify and save. To all before said I add,
1. If you think they do too much, search the Scriptures, and see whether it be not less than God commandeth? And if so, is it not God whom you accuse and reproach?
2. If they do too much in obeying God, why do Canon-makers impose such abundance on them, as if God had not imposed enough?
3. Why do you never find fault with men for being too strong, too healthful, too rich, too great, but only for being too obedient to God? When Christ saith; If we did all that God commandeth we must say, we are unprofitable Servants, we have done no more than was our duty, and the best on Earth come short of duty. But this which is the Core I answered before. And conclude, that all that be in their right wits can easilier bear all your accusations and persecutions of us, as if we did too much in obedience to God, than the accusation of Conscience and the displeasure of God for doing too little: Which alas when we have done our best would sink us into despair, had we not the merits of Christs suffering and perfect righteousness to trust to.