The English Nonconformity Under King Charles II and James II — Richard Baxter

The English Nonconformity Under King Charles II and James II · Richard Baxter

CHAP. LX. The Reasons of these ten Articles.

YOV must give me leave to tell you what objections are like to be raised against your proposed Articles of Reconciliation. And first your own party will be unsatisfied in them, and so they will do no good, because here is not a word against Arch-bishops, Bishops, Deans, Arch-deacons, and the rest that bear office in their Courts, which yet is the thing that you your self seem most to dissent from, and which the Covenant did renounce.

1. We have so much swearing and unswearing and forswearing, that I will meddle as little as I can in things that look like Perjury. You know that as the last Generation was sworn against Prelacy, this new Generation is sworn to it: Yea in a manner the whole Land is sworn or covenanted never to endeavour any alteration of it: And how much soever I am against that Oath, yet I will meddle as little as I can in urging men to that which they take for Perjury.

And I have elsewhere told you that the Covenant renounced not all Episcopacy; many of the Assembly of Divines declared their dissent from any such renunciation, and had entred their protestation against it (as Dr. Cornel. Burges told me) had not the Explication been added, which confineth the Renunciation to the English frame. And that the present Non-Conformists would have thankfully received the Primitive Episcopacy, they shewed by their motion, 1660.

2. We offer this form on supposition that we may not have what we think best, but what we can joyfully submit to, for our Concord and the Churches safety.

3. I have inserted those restraints of the hurt and abuse of the Diocesan form and their Courts, as may do much to secure Religion: And if they be kept from doing harm, we have most of our end. Their faults are not ours who cannot remedy them.

4. And you are mistaken in thinking that this form of Reconciliation will cause no Concord: Less was accepted with published thanks to the King for his Declaration, 1660. And I believe that the Dissenters would be so few, as that the Concord of Consenters would render them inconsiderable, or uncapable of being dangerous to our peace.

But, 1. what makes you put in so much that no body denieth? Do you not seem hereby to intimate unjustly that all this is denied you?

1. I have no hope of Concord, but by disputing ex concessis, and improving mens own principles: Do you think I am so foolish as to expect that Adversaries so fierce should change their judgments by any thing that I can say, if their own interest or their own principles by inference change them not?

2. We want nothing more in reality and practice than that which is most granted us in shadow and general words; who grant not that we must obey God before man? And must love God above all, our neighbours as our selves, and must do as we would be done by? And must bear with the receive the weak, and persecute none, &c. And if this were done, we were all agreed. O happy England if all were granted practically and indeed, which men in general words approve! But if they grant this, and yet will not grant it, but seek to ruine them that seek it, are they not unexcuseable?

Why begin you with the qualifications requisite to Baptism, as if you spake to Infidels?

Because I cannot build without a foundation: This is the chief thing necessary to our Reformation, that the Church may consist of capable persons.

Why name you Parents and Pro-parents instead of God-fathers and God-mothers?

Because it belongs to him to covenant in the Childs name or behalf, whose will may justly go as for the Childs will; and that is they whose▪ he is, and who have the power of him, and whom God hath commanded and authorized to this office, and who are obliged to educate him and seek his well-fare: By Proparents, I mean such as by Adoption or otherwise justly take the child for theirs; which when Parents leave them Orphans is usual. I say nothing against God-fathers as seconds, presupposing this much.

But I pray you who shall be judge whether the profession be Understanding which must be made by the Adult, or by the Parent? By this trick you will make the Priest the chief Governour of the Church; and he shall keep out whom he pleases, as for want of understanding the words of the Covenant.

1. I confess that this is the first and most momentous part of the power of the Keys. But it tells us that it is not only Bishops that have that power: But either some-body or no body must have this power or trust.

1. If No-body; Turks, Heathens, Sadducees, any may be baptized tho' in scorn; and may be members of the Church at pleasure, and the Church shall indeed be no Church, being confounded with the World. A Parrot may be taught to say those words. A man of about 80 Years of age in the Parish where I taught, being ask'd who Iesus Christ was, pointed to the Sun and said, That was he; and ask'd, Wh was the Holy Ghost? Said, he thought the Moon. What wiseman will be the Pastor of such a Church?

2. Christ hath instituted an Office for this judgment, and given them the Keys: Therefore there must be some such judge▪

2. If Some-body, who must it be? 1. If it be every expectant for himself, it will be as before; and there will be no Church. Any Heathen may come in. 2. If it must be the Magistrate, you call him to attend this Service, and to teach and try all that are baptized at age, and all Parents for their Children: And if you lay on him the Pastors Office, you make him Pastor. 3. If it must be the Bishop, it is impossible, and no Bishop will do it; when he doth not so much as know or see one of an hundred in his Diocess: It must then be the Parish-Minister, or No-body.

3. Those must be trusted with it whom Christ hath appointed for such trust: But that is the Ministers: To them he hath commited the Keys of his Church or Kingdom.

4. Those must be trusted with it, that must Execute it: It is the Minister that must Baptize: And therefore he must judge whom to baptize, or else he is but an Executioner, like one that washeth any one that's foul; and not a judge of what he doth, nor must answer for it.

5. The Universal Church ever since Christ's days hath agreed in this: And shall we now overthrow it?

And as to the exception against the Power of the Pastor. 1. All power may be abused; shall we have no King, no Judge, or Justice, or Bishops, because they may abuse their power?

2. It is so natural to men to consult their own carnal Interest, which will here most lie in pleasing the people, and sloathfully to omit so costly and troublesome a duty, that it's enough to foretell that a hundred will sin in making the door too wide, for one that maketh it too narrow; and doleful experience tells us this: We are confounded by the contrary extream.

2. He that is refused wrongfully by one Minister, may find enough that will receive him.

3. We grant appeals to Rulers in case of Male-administration.

4. The setting open the Church-doors without an examiner, will be an hundred fold worse: And you must be like the Woman that would never have her house swept, lest her servant should chance to sweep out a pin.

What think you of all the ancient Churches that taught the Adult long as Catechumens before they would baptize even them that begg'd it?

2. In your second Article again you give the Minister a power to judge of mens Understanding: But I need no further answer to that.

But do you not thus make Examination by Ministers necessary to the Sacrament?

I make it needful to Confirmation or Adult-Communion; but that is but once in a Man's life.

But is it not enough that Children own their baptismal Covenant by coming to Church, and not denying it, without any Confirmation or other Profession?

Many come to hear that are no Christians; Children are born in Nescience, and when they come to age must be made knowing Christians, and believe and obey for themselves if they will be saved; and they cannot consent to their baptismal Covenant if they understand it not: This is the thing that hath corrupted the Church: Those that were Infant-Christians, and at age were no Christians, have filled many Congregations. Yet I confess that where Confirmation and Personal Trial is by the sin of Pastors omitted, the peoples ordinary attendance at Church and desiring the Sacrament, is an obscure profession, and may serve to the being of a Church, tho' not to the well-being.

But some of your Non-conformists will as much blame you for requiring too little to Communion, in that you demand not an account of Mens Conversation.

1. He that truly consenteth to the Covenant of Baptism, is Converted or Sanctified; and he oweth the Church no account of that consent but his own Profession, not nulled by word or deed. And if you forsake this rule, you will never know what terms to take up with.

2. And as to the time or circumstances, whether God Sanctified him in Infancy and he grew up in grace, or when, or how God wrought upon him, he oweth no account to others.

3. In your third Article again the chief exception will be against this trying men by the Minister for Communion.

I have proved to you the necessity of it, ad bene esse. And may I not hope that the Bishops will be for it? When, 1. They order that the Minister catechize and send to the Bishop such as are to be confirmed. 2. That he give the Sacrament to none but those that are Confirmed, or are ready and willing to be Confirmed: And how can they know this without trial? 3. When they know that the Bishops are not able to do it for all, or the hundredth part themselves. Why then should they be against it?

If all the Bishops in England be for it, the Parish-Priests will some be unfit for it, and few will be at so much labour and self-denial as it will cost them.

If the Bishops put or take in bad untrusty men, I cannot help that: Let them be encouraged to do well that will.

But why must they make their profession before others?

Not but that the Pastors word may satisfy the Church, but it is much fitter that he that is to have Communion with all, should be known to some besides the Minister to be a professed Christian. I should have desired that it might be done as Baptism in the Congregation, as best, but that of these men we must ask as little as may be.

But many ignorant people have not words to express their own belief or thoughts.

It is not ornamental unnecessary knowledge that must be demanded of them: They that want other words, may by Yea, and Nay make known their mind, when the Minister expresseth the matter in his question. And the Church requireth that they can answer as catechized.

Some other will say that you are too lax in admitting all confirmed formerly by Bishops, or by other Pastors.

If we crave that each Minister may try his Flocks, we cannot in modesty refuse those tried and received by the Bishop or other Pastors. All Churches should live in such Communion with each other, as to receive each others Members on just occasion, without trying them all again. And if Bishops or any do it superficially, that's their own fault.

Why do you impose the Registring of Communicants?

I impose it not, but only commend it as a help to memory. He that hath no more Communicants than he can remember, needs it not. But Bishop Ier. Taylor in his Pref. to Treatise of Repentance, saith, That a Man cannot take a Pastoral charge, or give an account of them that he knoweth not.

4. Your fourth Article sets Ministers on such work as few can well do, and few will ever faithfully do. And yet for every young, raw Priest to have such power will never be granted by the Bishops or the Laity.

You may as well speak out and say, that Christ hath appointed such a Ministerial office as the World will never endure. Why then do they call themselves Christians? This is the proper work of a Pastor, as it is of a Physician, to look particularly to the sick, and not only to read a Physick Lecture to them. If Bishops will put in ignorant lads or unfit men, I say again we cannot help it; nor must we for that deny the Ministerial office, any more than we must put down Preaching and Praying because some are unfit. The weight of this work should rather make all careful to get only fit men into the Ministry.

But shall every Priest have power to put men from the Sacrament?

If every Priest must administer it, he must judge to whom: It is not a common food for all, but the Childrens Bread. If every Priest must judge whom to baptize, so he must whom to give this Sacrament to. 2. The Canons allow this as to the scandalous, so we do but present them to the Bishop or Chancellour; and it's less offensive to suspend them without such prosecution. If he wrong any, they have their remedy.

But why do you mention no more solemn Excommunication, but this Declarative one and Suspension?

Because I would ask no more than needs of men that will not grant so much. And I know no just Excommunication but a Ministerial declaring according to God's word, that a man hath made himself uncapable of Church-Communion and of the benefits of Gods Covenant, and binding him over to answer his Impenitence at the barr of God, and requiring the Church accordingly to avoid him.

5. The main charge will be against your fifth Article, that cuts off so many Oaths, Subscriptions and Professions.

It's pity that these will not serve the turn, whenas they are more than Christ, or his Apostles, or the Church for 300 years imposed.See the Lord Bacon about Subscription in his foresaid Considerations Dedicated to King Iames. And yet must we have more, even as necessary to Ministry? Will not the experience of 1300 years yet teach us to forbear tearing the Church by unnecessary snares? Yet I deny not but the Ordainers may try the ability of Ministers, in more than the words that they must subscribe to: And if any will draw up such Articles as none shall Preach against, I oppose them not: The greater Concord the better: But we must not cause perpetual discord, by unskilful, and impossible terms of Concord.

But for ought I see you will let in Papists if they will but take the Oath of Supremacy, and renounce all in general that is contrary to the Scripture and their Profession.

And all Churches will let in Heart-Papists that renounce Popery: Who knows the heart? But, 1. The Oath of Supremacy is a most express abjuring of the Essence of Popery; especially as extended against the Ecclesiastical as well as Civil Power of the Pope. 2. And is not God's Word a sufficient Rule of Religion? Deny this and you will turn Papists to keep out Papists. 3. If it be, if Popery be against Scripture, it's here renounced: If not, why should we be against it?

But should they not distinctly renounce Transubstantiation, P…rgatory, Image-Worship, Merit, and the rest of their Errours?

There is no end of enumerating Errours: They are numerous like Maggots in a Carcase. A thousand will be unnamed when you have done your best at it. But the Rule must not name every Errour against it: The contrariety will be discernable. It is enough that men profess a perfect Rule, and renounce all contrary, and be responsible to the Church and their Rulers when they corrupt Religion contrary to the Rule and their own Profession. An Errour not manifested hurts not others, and none is punishable till proved. If Heresy be kept secret, the Church must not make new Laws and Tests to make men confess it; but punish it when it is vented.

But shall Ministers make no profession but what a Papist or a Heretick will make?

No, if a Papist or Heretick will profess all that is necessary, else we must make more. Must we make new Creeds or new Scriptures as oft as dissemblers will falsely profess that already made? This was the temptation to those multitudes of Creeds, by which Councils distracted the Churches, which Hilary decryeth.

But the Bishops will never take down the Oath of Canonical Obedience, and all the other Oaths and Subscriptions that are formed to their Interest.

I cannot help that: Over-doing is un-doing: If ever Episcopacy be cast out, it will be by such over-doing, which will not let men live in Peace that would not molest them.

6. Why do you seem to grant the Bishops and Patrons votes in the choice of Pastors, when before you seem to have much against them?

I have nothing against the Ordainers judging of the fitness of the Ordained, nor of Magistrate or Patrons disposal of Temples and Tithes: And because nothing but necessity will weigh down the great inconvenience of maintaining distinct Pastors, while … setled Lecturer hath the Temple and Tithes, therefore I suppose that the Bishop and Patron will have their Votes: And I suppose you know that it is vain to motion to Patrons to resign this power, were it worse than it is; else Advowsons would not be sold at such rates as they are by many Patrons: And my silence where speaking will do no good, is no sign of my approbation.

But do you think that the Communicants shall have a negative Vote in choosing Pastors.

I think they will not, till God raise up better men, than many Patrons are. But I am past doubt that God's Law of Nature and Scripture, and the whole consent of ancient Churches, Fathers and Councils, are for it: And methinks were not carnal Interest stronger with them than Religion, men that are professedly for God's Law, and Church-Canons and Customs, should not obstinately oppose them all: Yea, the highest Episcopal Men are in this against them. Mr. Thorndike saith, that till the Clergy and People again choose their own Bishops, there needs no other reason be given of the contempt of Episcopacy. Yea, I have proved past denial oft, that no Non-consenter can be a member of any Pastoral Church, nor any man be a mans Pastor that doth not consent. It's reason then to speak for the Flocks Consenting Vote.

But they may be forced to consent.

I shall give you a reason against that anon.

Do you think the ignorant vulgar are fit to choose themselves a Pastor? The most are usually the worst.

If the Church-men will make the uncapable rabble Communicants, and then deny them Church-privileges, because they are uncapable, they condemn themselves for taking (yea forcing) in such uncapable men: Even as the Bishops that Ordain Ministers that cannot Preach, and then by their Canon forbid them to Preach.

2. And yet I will say, That never knew any places, in City or Country, that have oft had better Pastors, for Learning and all Worth, than where the Communicants were the choosers: Yea, even the ignorant usually have a gust, that discerneth and valueth good and able men.

3. And yet, I speak not so high as for their Power of first Choice, but only of Consent; nor yet to choose who shall be a Minister, but who shall be their Pastor. The Bishop asketh not their consent at Ordination.

But you know that if there must three Consents go to it; The Ordainers, the Patrons, and the Communicants, they may never agree▪ and frustrate all.

Humane faultiness puts inconveniences into all actions: But we must not cure it with a worse: If you would take no Physick till three Physicians agree, it's a less mischief than to give any man that can buy that Power, a right to impose what ignorant fellow or enemy he will, to be your sole Physician. Three Locks and Keys in three hands, to so great a Trust, may be better than one in an untrusty hand. Shall every Papist or Atheist choose me a Physician as fitter than I?

2. But if they should never agree, it is but every one stopping at his own part. The Ordainers have done their part; and the Patron hath chosen a Teacher for Auditors, and a Pastor for such as will accept him; and the People that trust him not may go to one that they can trust; and this is better than worse.

But the Patron will prevail against them, as long as he must nominate, though the Bishop and People had a Negative Vote: for if they refuse one, he will still name another of his own complexion.

Uncurable evils I cannot help. I can but wish that no Patron had ever built Churches, or given Glebes at so dear a rate, as thereby to buy from the Church its Privileges.

But can you think that the Bishops will ever abate Reordination of thsoe ordained by Presbyters?

I think not; and therefore I have no hope of concord by their Concession: But I know that former Bishops would have done it, and the Church of England still owned such since the Reformation; and God may send England such again; and for such an age I write, and not for this with any great hope.

And if you would not have the Land confounded with doubts, whether they be Baptized, or whether they had any valid Sacraments,This was written 1683. and whether the Papists or Protestants be the true Church, &c. it concerns you all to regard the decision of this Case.

But you speak only against Re-Ordaining those that are already Ordained, and nothing for the time to come.

1. You know it is hopeless to move for that. 2. And it's meet that Ordination should be well regulated. 3. And when all the unjust impositions are removed, as is here desired, few moderate men will scruple Ordination.

VII. Your 7th. hath so much reason that I can say nothing against it, but that I doubt the Bishops will never abate… their Ceremonies, or any part of their Liturgy, so far, to endure any to disuse it, though they meddle not against it.

I know what's necessary and just, but I know not what men will grant; I am of your mind of those in possession, except some few: But if any man will make and keep up any instruments of division and hurt, on pretence of concord or decency in God's service, we can but wish and speak for better.

But they say if nothing unlawful be imposed, it is disobedience to refuse it: And if disobedience be endured no Government can stand.

1. Judge by what is said whether no Sin be imposed.

2. Obedience to God being more necessary than to man, all just Rulers should encourage a due fear of sin, and do nothing that tempts men from obeying God.

3. God himself doth not silence, eject, or condemn men for all disobedience, else none could be saved: All sin is disobedience to God. There is disobedience in small things as well as in great; and of ignorance and infirmity, as well as of malicious wilfulness: And what smaller matter can there be than Humane Forms and Ceremonies? and where is ignorance more excuseable than in things so minute, and so uncertain and hard, that they must all be wiser than you and I that know them to be lawful? and what Unity will be in that Church and Kingdom, that will endure none but such as are wiser than you and I?

8. Your 8th. Article preventeth all the objections against Ministers power and liberty, while all are under Law responsible; But what if the Rulers be Bishops or men that distaste your desired discipline?

We are not choosing Rulers (by the sword) but only Pastors to guide us by God's word; and if we shall have bad ones, we must patiently suffer; we cannot remedy such infelicities.

But both Papists and many others say, That the Iudgment of Ministers Doctrine and Ministry, belongeth not to the Magistrate, but to the Church.

Iudgment is as various as Execution, e. g. If one be a Heretick or turbulent in Schism; 1. The Magistrate is judge whether and how he shall be Corporally Punished. 2. The neighbour Churches are Judges whether they will owne his Communion as approved. 3. His own Flock are discerning Iudges, whether he be fit to be trusted and owned as their Pastor, or to be forsaken by them.

We must not imitate Papists in exempting Ministers from the Magistrates Government.

9. I confess your Reasons against Constraining Infidels to Profess Christianity are undeniable, and agree with the sence of the Antient Church and Fathers; But the Papists, and many Protestants hold that when once men are Baptized, they may be forced to Communion and all other Christian Duty.

What if they openly apostatize and turn Infidels, Iews, or Mahometans; will they yet force them to Communicate in the Lord's Supper?

No, but they will put them to Death as they Burn Hereticks.

That's their way, but not Christ's way. Why should they put Apostates or Hereticks to death, any more than Infidels that never believed?

Because they break their Covenant; and because they sin against the Laws which they consented to.

And doth not sinning against God's Law, In neither Consenting to nor Obeying it, deserve as bad? If God, by many years Preaching, call one man to Christianity, and he derides it to the last; and another took it up but by Education and the Law of the Land, and never heard and understood the Reasons of it, and turneth from it, being taken prisoner by the Turks, which of these is the greater sinner? God binds them to Believe and Consent that do not; and they sin against God's Law, which is more than to break their own Covenant as such: But both these deserve death and worse from God: But if it were Christ's way, to have men put one of them to death, I see not but why they should do so by the other. Torment or Death is no fitter way to make an Apostate believe than other Infidels.

It's known that all the ancient Churches abhorred this forcing and punishing way. I have wondered at the Impudence of Baronius, Binnius, and other Papists and justifie Martin for separating from the Communion of the Bishops that were for punishing the Priscillianists by the sword, and Canonize him as a Saint, and condemn these Bishops for it, and yet are for for more cruelties themselves, to far better men than the Priscillianists. But where Fleshly interest is a mans Religion, no wonder if it have neither consistency with Reason nor Modesty.

But if none but Volunteers be Christians or Communicants most will despise the Church and it will be empty.

All that are fit to be there will come in: And those few will give the Pastors more comfort and lesser trouble than the multitude of the uncapable. If your purse be not quite full of Gold, will you fill it up with dung or stones? The uncapable will do better for themselves, and the Church among the Audientes or Catechumens. It is their forcing in the uncapable, that hath corrupted the Church, and deprived the Flock of their due privileges (choosing their Pastors, &c.) because it's made up of men unworthy of them. And doubtless if you but countenance and preferr the Communicants before the rest, it will draw in more than are capable, without force.

If the Excommunicate be no further punished, nor forced to repent, the Church censures will be despised: How little will men care for an Excommunication?

This is commonly said, and much of it is true: But, 1. Can you force men to Repent, or rather Lye? You make him Repent that he brought himself into your hands and into suffering: But that is not to Repent of Sin. Will you tell a man before hand, If thou wilt but say thou repentest rather than lye in Gaol till death, we will pronounce thee absolved and forgiven in Christ's Name? Who can think ill enough of such an Absolution?

2. Do not they scorn Christ that say he hath advanced his Church to the Dignity of Government, by putting into their hands a Reed for a Scepter, and a Leaden Sword that will do nothing without the Magistrate's Sword of Steel? Hath he set up an useless mock-power in the Church?

3. Did the Primitive-Churches for 300 years use any Sword but Spiritual? Or did they find it so uneffectual and vain?

4. Yea for some hundred years after there were Christian Magistrates, did not the Church abhorr such a thing as forcing the Excommunicate to repent by imprisonment or the Sword?

5. No man is meet to be a just Member that careth not for a just Excommunication? And still this sheweth what a wickedness it is to force in the unmeet, that despise God's Ordinance and the Church that they are in: And then God's Ordinance must be debauched for their unfitness.

6. The Sword doth the Keys much more hindrance than help, when it is thus annexed to them; for then it cannot be discerned whether Excommunication do any Good or none; or whether it be only the Sword that doth the cure: And do not they that profess Excommunication to be vain without the Sword, teach men to call them as Church Governours Vain, and to despise them? And is it not all one, as to say, if any good be done by Church-Government, it is by the Magistrate's Sword, and not by ours by the Keys?

7. And is it not then ridiculous contradiction to dispute so hard about Church-Power, and against the Presbyters claim, when you confess that it is an useless shadow that you dispute for, and it's not it, but the Sword that doth the deed.

8. Is it not an odious defacing of Princes and Magistrates, to say, That they are bound to Imprison and Ruine a man as a meer Lictor or Executioner of the Judgment of the Clergy, or of a Chancellor, without ever hearing or trying his Cause; and to punish him again because they punisht him before, or because he hath not got their pardon?

9. If Excommunication be grosly unjust (as against Christs Members, for doing their duty, or for common humane infirmity) they do well that set by it no more than it deserveth, and pretend not to repent when they do not, nor cannot, nor ought to repent.

Though you call it no Punishment, to keep all the Non-Communicants from publick power and trust, I think it will pass for a notable Penalty.

I grant them as much as I can, as knowing how little they will yield to; and indeed it's my opinion that to deny all Non-Communicants Magistracy and publick Trust, would be to Reform the Common-Wealth in the Foundation, if the Keys were but justly exercised: But then by this I exclude none but the Intolerable, that Neither Communicate with the Approved or the Tolerated Churches.

But Rulers will turn this against you, and shut out the Tolerated with the Intolerable.

I cannot help that: Must I not tell men what is Right, because they will do Wrong?

But you are for having all the Subjects forced to be Catechised, and to be Auditors: And do you think that this will not force Non-Conformists to hear against their Consciences?

I say not that they should be forced to hear in the Parish Church; but either in a Parish Approved, or a Tolerated Church: How have they a Toleration, that may not hear their Tolerated Pastors? And he that is not for hearing at all, is not to be Tolerated: And indeed, if those that are no Members in Communion of any Church, but meer Catechumens or Auditors, should be forced to hear in their own Parishes ordinarily, if there be meet Teaching; I oppose it not.

But is it no… as injurious, to force men against their Consciences to Hear as to Communicate?

No, the Case is greatly different. Nature bindeth all men to learn, that they may know what is good or evil to themselves. Learning and Knowledge is the common Duty and Interest of mankind; and though no man can be forced to Believe and Repent; he that is forced to Hear, may hear that which may make him Voluntarily Believe and Repent: You must force your Children to Learn, but not to Communicate. I told you that to give a man the Sacrament, is to give him a seal'd Pardon and Gift of Christ and Life, which no unwilling man is capable of, but he may be capable to Hear and Learn.

And this being only to those that are refusers of all Church-Communion, or are uncapable, and are in none, either Approved or Tolerated, what Conscience can such pretend against hearing, or against being restrained from crimes and profaning holy things, or reproaching Religion, though they be not constrained to what they are uncapable of?

I am fully satisfied, that your way of dividing all the Subjects into the Approved, the Tolerated and the Intolerable, is of absolute necessity. And to conclude, I am satisfied, that you Non-Conformists have a Cause so good, that you do well to suffer for it; but were I in your case, I know not what I should do my self. The Flesh and World are strong; and it's easier to be convinced that one should be a Martyr, than to submit to Martyrdom: God be merciful to our weakness.

He trusteth not Christ that thinks he shall be a loser by him; and he that will save his life from him by sin, shall lose it; and he that loseth it for him, shall save it.

X. Your 10th. for some Toleration, will never be endured, though the truth is, your Reasons for it are unanswerable, and your Limitations so strict, as prevent most of the Objections that might be made against it.

God's Law requireth forbearing and forgiving one another, and receiving the weak in Faith. And they that cannot Tolerate the Tolerable, methinks should fear the thoughts of death, lest then God will not Tolerate them, but cast them out as they cast out his Children.

I confess you convince me, that know what most Patrons in England are, that it is unfit that all the Peoples Souls should be so far at the mercy of those Patrons, that seem to care but little for their own, as that no man must have any other or better Pastor than they will choose for him; and that all mans duty, to care for his Salvation, and all the judgment of the Church of Christ, from the Apostles dayes, till a few hundred years agoe, should wholly give place to the pretended right of any fellow that can buy an Advowso… or Presentation: And it were to be wisht that it were wholly taken from them, and left to the Clergy and People alone; the Magistrate being Iudge whom he will Approve or Tolerate. But there is no hope that Patrons will let go their supposed right, if an Angel from Heaven should speak against it; but in all reason they should grant the Communicants that small consequent Vote of Consent or Dissent, that you pleaded for; but if they will not do that, they should give them leave to go to another Parish, or to choose a Tolerated Pastor whom they will maintain. But men are so set on their own ways, that they banish all sense of others case, and of what conduceth to the common good.

We can but bring the truth to light, and shew a self-wounding people the Balsam that must heal them, and stay till God will give them a heart to use it.

But you are so careful, not to offend them by …otioning … wide a Toleration, that I doubt it will do little good. For, 1. some will scruple some of the Subscriptions, or Oaths, which, you grant, shall be imposed on them. 2. If all the Tolerated must be responsible for their Doctrine and Ministration, it's two to one, but the Rulers to whom they must give account, will be so contrary to them, that they will have no peace or safety.

How would you have these dangers and inconveniences be avoided? An unlimitted Toleration of the Intolerable, is it self Intolerable; and you can devise no safer limitation. The engagements which they are to take, tell you the Terms of Toleration; and if men will-Preach against those Terms, that is, against the Christian Faith, or the Holy Scripture, or their Allegiance to the King; or if they use their Meetings, to destroy Love and Peace, 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.

The English Nonconformity Under King Charles II and James II, Chapter 60

p. 244CHAP. LX. The Reasons of these ten Articles.

CHAP. LX. The Reasons of these ten Articles.