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. LXI. Whether the Extirpation of the Non-Conformists, be not rather to be attempted, than an Vnion with them by these means.

IT's long since our former Conference; and now there is discovered a Treasonable Plot against the King and his Brother;This was …ritten when …he Duke of Monmouth's Treason was most noised, and the Dissenters cryed down. and a multitude of Addresses tell us, that it was the Plot of the Dissenters, and the Product of Conventicles, and therefore …ave the extripation of them all; and that they may no more be trusted, as having Principles were concileable to Monarchy and Subjection; and the loudest cry now runs that way.

What is the Treasonable Plot?

To Kill the King and Duke, and raise an Army, and to Change the Government, or Governours at least.

Who do they mean by Dissenters or Conventiclers?

All that Conform not to the Church of England as it is now setled by the Law.

The Law setleth the Essentials, Integrals, and Accidents of the Church: Do you mean every one that disliketh any one Office, (as Lay-Chancellors use of the Keys) or any Ceremony or Form? If so, I do doubt most that come to Church and Communicate with it, dissent from some such Circumstances.

Well, suppose it be those that separate from it.

There are now these following sorts of known Dissenters, called by many, Conventiclers.

I. Those that like the way of Episcopacy and Liturgy best, as here setled; but yet will also, occasionally join with other Churches, as the French, Dutch, Lutheran, or some Non-Conformists.

II. The Pacifick Non-conformists, who at the King's Return, Petitioned for Arch-Bishop Vsher's Model of the Primitive Episcopal Government, and thankfully accepted the King's Declaration.

III. The Presbyterians, who are for Government only by Synods of equal Presbyters Teaching joined with meer Ruling ones.

IV. The Independants and Separatists.

V. The Anabaptists (who are half Arminians, and half not).

VI. The Fifth-Monarchy Party (most of which are Anabaptists also).

VII. The Quakers.

VIII. The Papists.

IX. The Infidels, Iews, Hobbists, and Atheists.

Is the meaning, that all these are the guilty Rebels to be destroyed, or which of them is it?

If all, I doubt the King would lose no small part of his Subjects: But you know the Papists are not numbred with the Dissenters or Conventiclers.

Say you so? Do those that differ but about a Ceremony, or Lay-mans use of the Keys, or the largeness and paucity of Bishops Churches, dissent more from you than the Papists, that would bring King and Kingdom under a foreign Jurisdiction, and introduce all the Mass and doctrinal corruptions of their Church. Read Bishop Downham's Catalogue of Popish Errours de Anti-Christo, or Dr. Willet's, Chamier's, Iewell's, or any such, and judge.

And do you think that the Mass is no Conventicle, or more lawful than the forbidden assemblies of Protestants?

Well, But it's Protestant-Dissenters that. I mean.

So then; You would have Protestant-Dissenters rooted out, and not Papists or Infidels?

We would have those rooted out that were in the Plot, which the Papists were not.

No doubt but such a Plot as you describe deserveth the extirpation of those that were guilty of it: But I pray you compare not the innocency of Papists in their Principles, with the Protestants: Or read Bishop Barlow's and Hen. Fowlis's Books, and Prin's History of Bishops Treasons, and judge as you see cause. But it's none of my business now to accuse the Papists. Do but grant that the innocent should not suffer for the crimes of the guilty, and we are agreed.

But is it not justly supposed that the whole Party is guilty of those Principles which have caused particular mens rebellions; and that it is their Preachers and Conventiclers that have caused all?

You that are a Lawyer should know somewhat of the Rules of Iustice, or Humanity at least. Come on, and let you and I consider soberly of the case.

And first, to your face I challenge you to name and prove any the least difference between the Non-conformists who sought for Concord at the King's Restoration, or the party of meer Non-Conformists, and the Protestants of the Church of England, in their Principles about the Power of Princes, and the Subjection and Patience of the People. Name any difference if you can?

You would make one believe that great Numbers are inhumanely impudent, that charge them with such heinous difference, if there be none.

Why do you not name the difference, if there be any? Contrarily, 1. We all take the same Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy.

2. We Subscribe all the same Articles of Religion about the Power of Magistrates.

3. We have often professed our consent to all that is written for Magistracy and Subjection in all the Scripture, in any General Council (save what is for the Papal Tyranny over Princes and People) or in any Confession of any Christian Church, Greek, Papist, or Protestant, that ever we saw; and for all that (for the Power of Kings, but not all against it) which the generality of Fathers, Historians, Philosophers, Politick-writers, Lawyers, Canonists, or Divines, are for. And is not all this yet enough?

4. I have oft told you where; e.g. Bishop Andrews in Tortura Torti, Sir Fran. Bacon, Lord St. Albans, and many others, have vindicated the principles of the English Non-conformists, as the same with the Church's in point of Loyalty against the Papists accusations.

But do not you know who wrote the Political Aphorisms, or Holy Common-wealth, condemned lately by the Oxford Convocation?

And do not you know, 1. That the Author had never leave to confute his accusers about it?

2. Do you not know that he hath divers years ago written a large Book called his Second Plea for Peace, fully opening the Principles which he and his Consenters hold; and no man hath writte… one word against any of them, that I hear of, to this day? Is this fair dealing then to silence what at large he owneth, and name only a writing 29 years ago, which he never was heard about?

3. Do you not know that the Famously Learned Tho. White a Papist, wrote at the same time the like Doctrine, and will you charge that on the Party of Papist… ▪

4. The Historians Rule is Distingue de temporibus, Do you know in what times that was written? And know you not that few men then living wrote and spake more plainly against the Usurpation than he did?

5. And you see that the Oxford Convocation condemn the writings and principles of the Doctors of the Church of England as well as others? And as for Knox and Buchanan we are no more guilty of their words than of Iewell's, Bilson's, Hooker's, Laud's, or any such.

But if you differ not from the Church of England in Principles of Loyalty, why do you not take the Oxford-Oath in the Act of Confinement, and the Subscription in the Act of Vniformity?

I have told you fully before: Not because we differ in Doctrine, but in expounding the words of that Oath and Subscription.

2. Were neither Arch-bishop Abbot, nor his Clergy, nor the Parliaments of those times of the Church of England, as well as S…bthorp and Mainwaring? Were not the Laws made by those Parliaments, made by the Members, if not Representatives of the Church of England? You know that our late great Defenders of the Church, describe the Church of England to be those that Worship God according to the Law: And were the Parliaments that made those Laws none of the Church themselves?

Chillingworth would not Subscribe without a limitting Profession: Was he therefore none of the Church?

Was Bishop Bilson none of the Church? Was R. Hooker none of the Church? The first dedicated his Book to Queen Elizabeth, and the latter is Dedicated to our King Charles the second, and Praised by his Father. And yet the Author of the Holy Common-wealth hath larglier than any man confuted Hooker's Popular Principles.

When William Barclay a Lawyer defended the King of France his Temporal Power, against the Popes Usurpation of a Power to depose and restrain him, he is fain to profess that the contrary opinion was so common that he was taken to speak some strange and singular thing. And yet none doubts but he was of the same Church of Rome.

I again challenge you to name that point in which we differ in this Doctrine from the true Church of England.

You hold that Kings may be resisted by Arms.

Not so much as the aforesaid Bishop and Doctors of the Church of England did, or the Parliaments that made Church-Laws. Again, See our second Plea for Peace; how far we disclaim it. I profess that I am acquainted with no meer Non-Conformist Ministers, that hold it at all lawful for Subjects to resist the King, or any Supream Power by a War; except in case that he notoriously declareth that he will if he can destroy the Common-wealth, or deliver it up to a foreigner or destroyer that hath no right.

Sure the cry would never be for Extirpating the Dissenters, for this Plot and their disloyalty, if they were not guilty?

Nay, if that be your argument [Strangers to them say they are disloyal and guilty; ergo they are so] I leave you to God's answer, for I will not undertake to answer you.

But will you use Sobriety a little further?

1. It is now twenty seven years since they were ejected and cast out of maintenance and countenance, and left to beg or crave their bread: Long have they been laid in Gaols, and fined deeply, the Law laying on them twenty and forty pound a Sermon: Their Goods, Beds, Books taken from them and they left destitute: How many in all these years have ever been accused and proved guilty of one disloyal or seditious Sermon or Word? I know of none: Certainly it was not for want of will in the Accusers. Those that by Oaths have brought them under Convictions and Warrants for distress of five, ten, and much more forfeitures, even divers hundred pounds at once, before they were ever summoned to speak for themselves; would sure have sworn some disloyal Words against them, had they been able. And can many hundred Ministers have a fuller proof of their innocency, than that they had no such prosecution twenty seven years from such a sort of Adversaries, in so great Sufferings?

2. And now this Plot is detected, It is divers Months since, and many Countries and Corporations have accused the Dissenters of it, and cry them down to Extirpation: And to this day I cannot hear of any one English Minister (or at most not of two) that is either an Episcopal or Presbyterian Non-Conformist, so much as accused, or named as guilty.

The French and Dutch Churches in London are Dissenting Presbyterians. Yet no man accuseth any of them for being in Plots; and yet must they also be destroyed?

But, Sir, if any one or more of the Episcopal or Presbyterian Non-Conformists, Ministers or People, had been found guilty, would you condemn thousands (or any) of the guiltless for their sakes? On what account: Is it for their Relation to them? They are mostly strangers to one another. Come, and let us try your rule of Justice.

I. Is there any Relation nearer than that of Father and Son? And can any Minister be supposed to have more interest in, or influence on his Hearers, than a Father hath on his Son? And you know that the chief man accused is the Kings eldest Son: I hope you will not for this, charge the King, as if he principled him for Treason against himself: Nor as if he were to suffer for his Sons faults.

II. The Judges have oft declared that many Iesuits and Papists were Plotters and Traitors, and they died for it. I hope you will not make all Papists guilty of their crime, nor extirpate them for it. And yet the Papists are Conventicling Dissenters too.

III. The Lords and great Men accused of this Plot and Treason (how justly God knoweth) were of the Church of England; and shall all the Church of England be destroyed for their sakes?

Dr. Whitby, and others now blamed by the Oxford-Convocation; and Bishop Bilson, Mr. Hocker, &c. were of the Church of England; and shall all the English Clergy be accused of their words?

IV. Many of the accused were Hobbists and Infidels, and some common ill-living Protestants: Shall all the Hobbists, and Infidels, and ill-living Protestants be extirpated for their faults?

V. Many Gentlemen of some late Parliaments are accused (not yet tried, and proved guilty): Shall all the Parliament-men therefore be extirpated as guilty?

VI. Some Lawyers and Students at Law are accused: Shall all Lawyers and Students therefore be extirpated?

VII. Divers of the Nobility are accused: Must all Noble-men be therefore reproached?

VIII. Some that have been of the Kings Privy Council were accused▪ Is his Council therefore to be disgraced or destroyed?

IX. Formerly many Judges have been guilty: Are Judges therefore to be dishonoured?

X. By this justice you may next conclude, They were Englishmen that were accused, therefore let all English-men be rooted out: Or they were Protestants and Christians; therefore away with all Protestants and Christians: Whereas I think it an unjust conclusion, that because they were Irish-men and Papists that murdered two hundred thousand in Ireland, therefore root out all Irish-men and Papists; unless you will inferr, They are men that commit all sin; therefore root out mankind.

If it had been men that hate serious Godliness, and are the seed of the Serpent and of Cain, that are at deadly enmity to the true fear of God, and thirst for the blood of the innocent, that are accused of this Plot; and if People had petitioned to have all this sort of men rooted out for it, it would have fallen on more than you and I are willing to name, or to have destroyed.

But can you bear with me if I tell you truly and plainly what this Extirpating motion of all called Dissenters and Conventiclers signifieth, and what it tendeth to?

I have had so much reason from you, as obligeth me to hear what you can further say.

1. The motion is so apparently from Satan, that it will tempt those that are Christians indeed, and know the devil's will and works, to take you for no other than his listed souldiers against Christ, if you set your selves to do this work. Truth, Love, and doing Good, are the Christian State and Life. Lying, Hatred, and Hurtfulness, are Diabolism, or Satans work and image. All the Art of prating and deceit of Clergy or Laity in the World, will never so far blind true Christians, but that by your Fruits they will know you. The pricks of Thorns and Thistles will be known from Grapes and Figs, in despight of all the craft of Diabolists. And if Children know not a Wolf in Sheeps-cloathing, they will know him that see him tear the Flock; yea, or that see his bloody jaws.

And are you willing to renounce Justice, Humanity and Christianity, and openly to profess Diabolism?

Men will see how malignity greedily picks quarrels with honest innocent men, while it beareth or cherisheth the debauched, ungodly, unconscionable rabble, whose God is their belly, or the world.

And methinks men, so proud that they cannot bear with any that differ from their ignorant dictates, should scarce be willing that History should list them among the Cainites or Diabolists. any more than among man-eating Cannibals.

II. You cannot extirpate or destroy all Dissenters, if you do your worst. 1. So great a number will be true to their Consciences, and suffer what ever you inflict on them, as will take you up much time and trouble, and render you more odious to the rest.

2. The common People that were indifferent, will enquire what these men have done, and will be turned from those that afflict so many of the innocent; especially their neighbours, who know them better by experience, than by your reports.

3. Those that fill not Prisons, or die not as Martyrs, will but Conceal their minds, and not change them. And they will then be out of the reach of your hurting power: When they communicate with you, and give you no outward matter of accusation, what can you do to them? Or what pretence can you find to extirpate them? The heart you know not: Their actions they will keep out of the reach of the Law: If you try them by Oaths or unjust Professions, by increasing the number of Sufferers, you will increase your infamy and odium: And they that for fear do swear against their Judgments, will hate you the more when they feel their wounded Conscience smart.

4. And if you force them into secrecy, they will there speak more freely, and will Educate their Children into a hatred of your ways. And if you could destroy them, two for one will spring up as their successours.

Who would have thought that the great French Massacre should have rather increased than diminished the Protestants? Or that Queen Mary's bone-fire should have extinguished Popery? Or that the two hundred thousand murdered by the Irish should but have hastned the overthrow and ruine of the murderers? In short, you cannot extirpate them.

III. The more you attempt it, and the more you succeed, the more you will do against your selves.

1. Is not the King more safe, and strong, and honourable, and easy when he hath the Hearts of all his Subjects, than if he rule a People by divisions and persecutions shattered like a broken Glass, or living in prosecution or fear, and hatred of one another, as if they were still in a state of hostility, and lived among their dangerous enemies? If either Christ or Satan be to be believed, a divided Kingdom in enmity cannot stand.

Methinks you argue against your self: For therefore it is that we would have all Dissenters rooted out, because of the danger of division by tolerated Dissenters.

Had you read a Book called, The Samaritan, and another called, The True and only Terms of Church-Concord, you would need no further answer to that objection. If you would have all of one mind and way, it must be in that which it is necessary and possible for all men to agree in, and to make things unnecessary or impossible your terms, is the certain way of pernicious division. Will you extirpate all that dissent in Controversies of Law, of Philosophy, Astronomy, Physick, Grammar; or that differ in Reason, Constitution, Statute? &c. Do you think that all will consent in all the Mysteries of Divinity, while knowledge is so low and rare? Yea, do you think that even in circumstances and things doubtful, all good Christians will ever be so much of one measure of knowledge as to agree? How happy are we if we all agree in great, plain, necessary things? But to understand also all little circumstances, and humane Orders and Phrases; which be lawful, and which not, supposeth all Plow-men, Trades-men and Work-men, to be far more perfect in the knowledge of Divinity, than the most learned Philosophers are in Physicks, who agree in little but a few principles, and things within the reach of sense: When yet alas, we can scarce teach half the vulgar, the meaning of the Creed, or Baptismal Covenant.

If the King would extirpate all Lawyers, Physicians, or Philosophers, who in a multitude of little and controverted points, cannot tell which side is in the right; he may have so much the more success in it, by how much the more men will be bold to dissemble their opinions in matters of such a nature. But about the matters of God and Salvation, Consciences will be more afraid to stretch and dissemble. It's far less wise to take this way, than for School-masters and Tutors to destroy or cast out all Scholars and Pupils, that have not just the same degree of knowledge.

And at what age must this perfect knowledge begin, which must extend to the most minute things that men will command? At sixteen years of age you compel them, volentes, nolentes, to receive the Lords Supper; and do you think then that all at sixteen years old, in England, should be presumed to know more of the Lawfulness of all your impositions on them, than I can reach to know at 68 (now near 74) after the long and hard Study of my life? If you compel no more Men, Lads or Women to Communicate, but such as really understand the Lawfulness of all such Impositions, which I judge unlawful, sure it will make a great change in your Communion and Courts.

By this talk you seem to intimate, that the people must not be constrained to obey in Circumstantials or Little things, because they may to them be doubtful; and what worship of God can you perform without such little Circumstances?

Little or Great, God in mercy hath made all Necessary things intelligible and plain: It is the Vnnecessary things that are most controvertible and doubtful. There are many Circumstances that are so Necessary to actions, that they cannot without them be performed; e. g. He that will Preach, must open his mouth; he must speak audibly, he must use a Language understood, he must have some capable Place, and convenient Time; Psalms must be sung in some Tune, &c. some Clothing, some posture of Body must be used; and all men know that to choose these according to the general Rules of Charity, Edification, Order, and Decency, belongs to the Guides of the Assemblies. And where do you see any great division about any such things as these; except in cases of accidental scandal?

And if any should be so childish or ignorant, as to think it unlawful; e. g. to be Vncovered, or to Kneel at Prayer; due Instruction, and gentle Rebuke may easily cure such weakness, and is meeter than an extirpation. If any were so silly that they scrupled; e. g. singing our Metre or Tunes of David's Psalms, but are only for the Cathedral singing of the Prose; it's fitter to let them be silent, or let them go only to Cathedrals, than to Excommunicate or Destroy them; and if any be so weak, that they think a Lawful Form or Gesture unlawful, it's fitter, if they cannot be convinced, to let them be silent, or Worship God among themselves in another Form or Gesture, than to Excommunicate or Extirpate them.

But what are these easy intelligible Circumstances to all the Ceremonies unnecessary even in genere? What are they to the Vows of God-fathers without the Parents, or to the dedicating Symbol of the Cross, or to adhering to a bare Reader, when the next Parish hath an able Teacher whom the ignorant have great need to be instructed by; to say no more now of all the Oaths, Declarations, Subscriptions, Covenants, and Professions required of Ministers? I again say therefore, if you extirpate all Subjects that cannot unite with you in all things required by the Rubricks and Canons, you will wrong the King by weakning his Kingdom, and robbing him of more of his Subjects, than He or the Welfare of the Land can spare.

And you will keep the Kingdom in a state of division (and like Antioch, that was so oft and terribly shaken by Earthquakes, that it was in continual danger of ruine) and even honest …rajan lodging there, did hardly scape through a window, while the falling houses kill'd his Souldiers.

And the Dissenters are not all of one mind and temper. All that are wise and good, will suffer patiently and peaceably; for I incline to think, that the expositors mistake, who apply Soloman's words to Sufferers [Oppression maketh Wise men mad]; and that as some Criticks tell us, it rather meaneth Rulers [that an affectation of an oppressing power, and the exercise of it, maketh wise Rulers forget the very obvious Reasons of Morality and Interest, and to act as men distracted.] But there be Dissenters of dangerous Principles, which are fitter to be restrained, than by d…speration to be enraged; as hap is, the Behmenists and Quakers are against War, and the old Anabaptists were so reported; but some of them have shewed a contrary judgment; but it's known past doubt, that the Papists are a sort of Dissenting Conventiclers, who have so strong a back beyond Sea to encourage them, and are so instructed by multitudes of learned Clergy-men and Friars, and so taught by General Councils, which are their very Religion, that many of them will think it merits Heaven to kill such Kings as would extirpate them.

King Iames is deeply censured by some, for doing so much as he did towards a Toleration, and for what the French Bishop of Ambrun writes of him. But for my part I verily believe that he did it in fear to secure his life: when Queen Eliza…eth's death had been so oft attempted, and when two great Papist Kings of France, had been murdered, because they were not zealous enough for the Pope, and that so desperately by single men, that did it to merit Heaven; and when he had so narrowly escaped the horrid Gun-powd…r Plot, and when they still told him that he should not escape; what wonder if he were afraid?

And so great confidence have the Papal Clergy, in this terrifying of Kings as in constant danger of death, if they be against their Church, that the Pope and his close Adherents could never to this day be procured to disown the Decree of Lateran, and other Councils for Deposing Excommunicate Heretick Princes; no, nor to deny the lawfulness of killing such; yea, even in France, Perron himself, their Learned Cardinal, so defends the Pope's power of Deposing Kings that deserve it, that (in his Oration to the States) he professeth, That, if it be not true, the Pope is Anti-Christ, and the Church Anti-Christian that hath so long owned and practised it.

You seem to intimate in all this that you would have the Papists Tolerated, for fear least they should kill the King; and so the worse that Men and their Principles are, the more they must be Tolerated for fear of them: But who lived in greater safety than Queen Elizabeth who supprest them, even when the Pope had Excommunicated her?

I would have the King and Kingdom (Church and State) secured from a Foreign Iurisdiction, of Pope or Prelates; and to that end, I would have Papists kept out of Government, Civil, Military, or Ecclesiastick; and I would wish that the King. 1. By the Vnity of his Subjects; 2. By Navies and Military provision; 3. And by just Confederacies abroad, be still so strong as not to fear the force of Foreigners; and these things being secured, without fear of any mens censure, I say,

1. That I would have all Men used as Men, and all Peaceable-men as Peaceable, be they what they will.

2. I would have no hurt done to any Papist for his Religion, but Defensive; that is, such as is necessary to the forsaid Ends, viz. to save King and Kingdom from a foreign Jurisdiction, and from Invasion, and to save the Souls of the People, from subversion by unreasonable liberty of Seducers.

3. I would not have punishments excessive, that shall drive multitudes into desperation: Lest undone desperate men be carried to Revenge, or to think Treason lawful, when they can no otherwise be saved from death and ruine.

Man hath not a despotical power over all passion: And some passions do almost necessitate errour of Judgment, or else sudden Action against Judgment. Take the most meek conscientious man, that knoweth the evil of Revenge, and try his patience by buffetting him, and it's two to one, but passion will make him strike you again. Much more if you buffet him twenty year every day, patience may be overcome at last: There is scarce any Creature, Beast, Bird, or Venmin, but will use all the resistance it can in case of hurt and fear of death. The Devil could say, Skin for skin, and all that a Man hath will he give for his Life. And can you think that Prince or Kingdom is in safety, that shall destinate to destruction so great a number and of such quality, as are all the Papists, Infidels, Iews, Anabaptists, Separatists, Independants, Presbyterians, and Episcopal Non-conformists, as are in England? Though I think the latter sort would suffer death rather than be disloyal; I am sure Rulers and Adversaries think not so, who accuse them of intolerable disloyalty. And they that think so ill of them will expect ill at their hands.

It's true, that the worse men are and their principles, the more need there is of suppressing them. But destroying them is the chief means that I know to increase their principles of resistance. It's ordinary with men that never suffered, to detest resisting Governours; and to change their opinions when they think they are implacably h…mted to destruction without desert or any remedy. Draw your Sword upon them, even on a Quaker, and it's two to one you will change his judgment, and make him think that self-defence is lawful. Yea, if you could kill all that think resistance lawful, (if it be half the Kingdom) it's the likliest way to make all the rest that survive of the same mind, because of the inhumanity of the Execution. I have met with few that thought that resistance at the French Massacre on Bartholomew-day, or at the greater in Ireland, had been unlawful, whoever commanded them.

Yea, the Lord Bacon, Chancellour of England, in his Discourses of a Holy War against the Turks, and of a War with Spain; thought that their barbarous Cruelties (though the Turks give Liberty of Conscience) allow other Princes to War upon them to vindicate mankind, the World being one Kingdom of God in which every man oweth charity and due help to others; which is honoured in Tamerlane, when he relieved the Greek Emperour of another Religion against Bajazet that was of his own, and this in meer Humanity and Charity.

I meddle not with the case of the lawfulness of such actions. But I say, All the World cannot devise a more effectual way, to make all men think that Self-defence is Lawful, than by great cruelty against multitudes to make it seem necessary.

And if you will cure it by forced Oaths, I heartily wish the King better security for his Life, and the Kingdom for its Peace, than mens conscientious keeping of those Oaths will be, unless conscience and patience were more universal and powerful than they are, and would make all sorts of Dissenters choose Martyrdom, rather than defensive resistance.

And as for Queen Elizabeth's Case, her Dangers were many, her Advantages were great, her Executions for Religion were so few, that the Lord Bacon and many other say, none suffered for any thing but Treasons or such crimes: And God did wonderfully preserve her.

But to say no more of the Papists whose case quite differs from all the rest, if you will make many Laws about doubtful words, and forms and ceremonies, and then extirpate all sober, godly, peaceable Subjects, that for fear of sinning against God dare not obey them, what do you but mince and pulverize the Nation, and dissolve its consisting and strength, and make it a Cock-pit, or a Prey to the cloven-footed deceiver and divider.

The Non-conformists in England lived quietly till the Canons were made for their prosecution. The great Counsellours of State, (Sir Nic. Bacon, Throgmorton, Sir Amias Paulet, the Earl of Leicester, Sir Francis Knowles, Sir Francis Walsingham, Secretary Beale, &c. except Hatton and Whitgift, were for lenity; yea for such abatements as might have caused Unity: And Sir William Cecil, Lord Burleigh (though for Episcopacy) almost fell out with Arch bishop Whitgift for his hard usage of the Non-conformists. And were all these fools, and you only the wise men? But when Bancroft, lest they should increase, would ruine them, and the Canons were made, which ipso facto Excommunicated all People in the Land, high or low, that did but affirm that any thing in their Liturgy, Articles, Ceremonies, Ordination, or Church offices (from the Arch-bishop to the Apparitor) was repugnant to the Word of God, the Church and Kingdom presently felt that solutionem continui which these tearing racks had made: And when all must be ejected and silenced that durst not subscribe that [There is nothing in the Liturgy contrary to the Word of God] (which I would not say of the Bible it self as in any one translation) then our over-zealous Uniters tore all to pieces, and the shreds could never to this day be well set together to make one piece.

Yea all the Parliaments of England have still been striving to restore the Concord of Protestants by laying bye some of these dividing, tearing Engines: But Whitgift (though too great an Anti-Arminian) and Hatton, &c. prevailed still with the Queen to prohibit them; and they were loth to displease her, having had so great a deliverance from Popery and Persecution by her Reign. The Lord Verulam (Bacon) tells us of a Reforming Act in which himself had a hand, prepared in the Parliament, but prohibited by the Queen.

And if any Kings (who should no more divide from their Kingdom Real or Representative, than the Husband from the Wife, that I say not, Than the Head from the Body) should so far misunderstand their own and Peoples interest, as to be jealous of Parliaments as their enemies; and if wise Kings desire to keep the Nobility from being (as Henry 4th. Richard Nevill and others have been) too strong for their Sovereigns, they cannot more cross their own ends, and serve the ambitious designs of these men, than by afflicting a great, a sober, and a religious part of the Kingdom, whom these seditious men will be still serving themselves upon, by pretending to head them for their deliverance; as many factious Nobles did in France. It's a great encouragement to rebellious great ones when they have always hope that a great body of distressed men, will be ready, as necessitated for self-defence, to accept of their offers for insurrections or at least to strengthen faction.

It is for all these very reasons that we would destroy or extirpate all Dissenters, that they may not be the serviceable instruments in such designs.

For all these reasons, you should unite on the terms that Christ and his Apostles instituted as sufficient for Christian Love, Communion and Concord, that there may be no distressed, exasperated Dissenters among us; or only so few and culpable by the grossness of their errours, as that their shame and paucity may reader them no way dangerous. You should not take such men of extraordinary wisdom, as Queen Elizabeth 's Councellours and Parliaments, the Lord Bacon, Judge Hale, and such pacificators as Davenant, Hall, Chillingworth, Abbot, Grindal, Amycald, and most of the French, Dutch, German Protestants, to be all fools, and you to be wise Men. A Council in Bedlam could scarce advise a madder way to root out faction, than to make Canons or Laws, that all the Kings Subjects shall be extirpated, that will not subscribe, There is not one word in all the Statute Book, or the most Learned Law-Books contrary to the Word of God; and that the London Dispensatory hath no errour in Medicine; and that no Licensed Book hath any errour in Divinity: Verily, if the Bishops and Clergy of England cannot give us better proofs of their infallibility, or that their publick imposed Books are as free from errours as Adam was before his fall, than by making all subscribe, or swear, or declare in the Church that it is so, cowards may say, your Lordships and Reverences have never an erroneous word, but few men will believe it ever the more; yea it will be the less believed, that needeth such a proof as this: Even as men would take him to be never the more an unerring Philosopher, Lawyer or Physician, who could force all the apprentice boys and women in the Town, to swear that he is such.

Try first to make all the Kings Subjects of one opinion in all points of Learning, Law or Trading, and of one degree of wit, and of stature and complexion, and then hope to make them all of one measure of understanding, not only in the substance of Religion, but in all the little things that Bishops call indifferent, and do or may impose.

But you run upon the Errour that all must have so great knowledge according to our rules, as to know the Lawfulness of all Lawful things: We know no Church-men reach so high: But the way to Concord must be by obeying the Church in all cases that are doubtful to the Subjects.

1. It's well that you limit it to doubtful cases: But what if I am past all doubt (e. g.) that it is a sin to make our sort of God-fathers the vowing Covenanters in Baptism, excluding the Parents, to cast out all from Christian Communion that scruple kneeling in the reception, to deny Christendom to all that refuse our God-fathers and Crossings, to pronounce all in England at Burial saved, except the unbaptized, excommunicate and self-murderers, to profess that [It is certain by the word of God that Infants (excepting none) baptized and dying before actual sin, are undoubtedly saved; To assent to a false rule to know Easterday] with many such: What must I do in such undoubted cases?

2. Tell us plainly, Is it all doubted cases or some only, in which you say we must obey? If not all, till you tell us which, and how to know them, you talk in vain. If all, what if men doubt whether Polygamy, Lying, Fornication, &c. be lawful? Or what if a Papist doubt whether King-killing be lawful, and the Clergy command it, must it therefore needs be done?

3. And I pray you tell us where and when it is that men must obey this rule? Was it a duty in England in the days of Thomas Becket, Anselm, Dunstan, &c. or in the Reign of all the Kings that were Papists? Is it a duty now in France, Spain, Italy, Bavaria, Austria, &c. or in the Dominion of the Turks, Persians, Tartarians, China, &c? Must all Subjects every where do all commanded them? If they have but ignorance enough to be in doubt themselves, sure they are bound to receive God's Light to overcome those doubts, and in errour it is not obedience in Evil, but seeking truth till they find it, that is their duty.

But If you limit this Rule to Christians, is it to all Christians? If to Orthodox Rulers, are the Subjects any fitter to judge whether their Kings and Bishops are Orthodox or not, than whether the things imposed be good or bad? If you dare say, That all Subjects are bound to be of the Religion which their Kings or Bishops say is right, speak out and you will need no confutation.

It's granted by all sober men, that as Rulers have the judgment of publick decision, so every reasonable man must judge by private discerning whether his Actions be agreeable to God's Commands or not. It is not Brutes and Infants, but Men that have the use of reason, that Kings and Bishops rule.

4. But if you are stiff in the contrary opinion, that all men must implicitely believe the King and Prelates, in all that ignorance can but make them doubtful of, I hope you have more brains than once to dream, that ever you shall bring all the Kingdom to unite in this opinion, and to lay by their reason, and confess themselves Ideots or Brutes, that must not labour to know whether they keep or break God's Supream Law; or if you must rule men on these terms, you must keep them in fetters, and not at liberty.

And I pray you dishonour not the King so much, as to make him a King of Beasts and Ideots, and not of Men or Christians; or at least expose him not so much to the Power of Usurpers, as to say that his Subjects are not the Discerning Iudges, who is their True and Lawful Soveraign, and who not; and if they must judge whether all their actions be agreeable to the Kings Laws or not, lest they be hang'd or punished; allow them also to judge whether or no they be agreeable to God's Law, lest they be damned.

If men once believe that God is not their Supream Governour, no wonder if they believe that Kings have no Governing right, nor any are bound in conscience to obey them; for who can give Governing Authority, or who can bind Conscience to obey it, but the absolute Soveraign, the Almighty God?

Experience confuteth all that you have said; what Countries live in greater Vnity, than those that have procured and kept it by violence, and do endure no Dissenters; as Spain and Italy?

It seems you know not what you say. 1. The Pope, and Spaniards, and Italians allow greater differences, by many degrees than those that you condemn Dissenters for; their Iesuits, and Dominicans, Thomists, Scotists, Nominals, Durandists, &c. differ so much from each others in Doctrinals, about God, and Grace, and Free-will, and Providence, and the Cause of Sin, and many other Points, that the Volumes they have written for their several Opinions, make up huge Libraries, which employ the hard studies of the most Learned men in the World, and are as far as ever from being ended.

2. The Iansenists and Iesuits differ, not only in such Doctrines, about Predestination, Redemption, Grace, Free-will, Perseverance, &c. but also about abundance of Doctrines, commonly called Moral; as about Murder, Perjury, Fornication, Stealing, &c. as you may see in the Books lately published by the Iansenists against the Iesuits.

And though approved general Councils, have made the doctrine of Deposing Excommunicated Princes, and Absolving their Subjects from their Allegiance, and giving their Dominions to others, to be a very part of their Religion, yet are not the Papists agreed in it; but the Germans in the days of the Emperours, Frederick, Otho, Henry 4th, and 5th, &c. and the French to this day are much against it. And what Learned men wrote against it, read but Mich. Goldastus his many Volumes of Collections, and you may see.

Yea, the Papists are not agreed of the very essential Form and Constitution of their Church, and therefore are indeed of several Churches: One Party thinks that the supremacy is in the Pope, another that it is in a General-Council, and a third that it is in the Pope and General-Council agreeing; and yet all these so far bear with one another, as to cover over the difference with the Name of one Church, and to repute each other as True Roman Catholicks.

Yea more, it is, by an Allowance of Dissenters, or different ways of Worship, that the Pope doth chiefly keep up … Kingdom. When any Religious people have fallen into a dissatisfaction with the loose Discipline and Conversation of the Bishops and their Churches, the Pope alloweth them to set up by themselves, and exercise a stricter Discipline, Worship, and Conversation of their own devising, which he alloweth, and no Bishop shall have power to impeach. And thus he keepeth them in dependance on himself, as the only Defender of their humours, inventions and liberties of different ways.

On such accounts, there are multitudes of Sects among them under the name of Friars, and Fathers, and Sisters, &c. The Benedictines, Augustinians, Dominicans, Franciscans, Iesuits, Carthusians, &c. And all have their several ways of Discipline; but it sufficeth, that all depend upon one Pope.

In Rome it self, Philip Nerius being a Serious Religious man, was unsatisfied with the dead formal way of the Bishops and Mass-priests; and to bring men to knowledge and seriousness in Religion he borrowed a Church, and set up a Lecture or Course of Serious Extemporate Worship, almost like the exercise called Prophecying, that Arch-Bishop Grindal was for, and the Lord St. Albans (Bacon) writes for. Four Zealous men spent the whole day, one in Extemporate praying, and one in Preaching and Expounding Scripture, and one in telling the people the History of the Church, and the Lives and Miracles of Saints, and one in Praying again, just like those here hated as extemporate Puritans. The Bishops said they were proud hypocrites that drew crowds of people after them for reputation of sanctity; and they persecuted Nerius, and accused them to the Pope, and silenced him: The silencing Bishop was presently struck with death, and Nerius went on, Baronius being his second. The crafty Pope, instead of calling them Fanatick Rognes and Rebels, thinks it policy to turn this stream of Pious Zeal into his own channel, to drive his own Mill; and he rescueth them from the Prelates, and alloweth their Exercises, and calleth them by the name of the Oratorians, and honoureth the leaders, so that he drew them to depend on him, and Baronius to write those many great Volumes of Ecclesiastical History, which have done Rome greater service than any one Writer that I know of in the world; and to this day the Oratorians are the most sober Puritan Papists.

Thus did he make use of the Sectarian singularity of Ignatius Loyola, a Souldier turned to Superstition, allowing them (as others) to set up by themselves from under the power of the Bishops, in dependance on the Pope alone, whereby he hath mastered Emperours, and Kings, and Kingdoms, and made great attempts on Abbassines, Greeks, yea on Congo, Iapan, China, and the Heathen World.

And I have credibly heard that Dr. Tho. Goodwin, Philip Nye, and Dr. Owen the Leaders of our Independants, did tell the King, that as the Pope allowed these orders of Religious parties in meer dependance on himself, without subjection to the Bishops, all that they desired was (not to be the masters of others,) but to hold their own liberty of Worship and Discipline, in sole dependance on the King, as the Dutch and French Churches do, so they may be saved from the Bishops and Ecclesiastical Courts.

2. But further, Do you forget that the Spaniards by their sacred Cruelty and Inquisition have lost the Low, Countries, and had almost lost the seventeen Provinces?

3. And do you not know that ever since the days that the Arrian Gothes possessed Spain, they have been like Ireland, a blind superstitious People, whose Ignorance most fitteth them for such a kind of Concord? And is there not a Concord in their way among the enslaved ignorant Muscovites, and among the Turks, and many Heathens? Satan himself is against the dividing of his Kingdom.

4. And do you think that the effect of Spanish and Italian Tyranny and Concord, doth answer the cost? The Cruelty of their Inquisition hath made their names as odious as of Cannibals or Wolves, insomuch that the Lord Bacon thought that an Invasive War against them as the enemies of mankind, that violate the Laws of Nature and Nations, was just.

And the many millions that they most cruelly murdered, and tormented in Mexico, Peru, Hispaniola, &c. (among whom were divers Kings) do tell the World what are the fruits of their Catholick fury, and Arbitrary Government: Their Arch-bishop Barth. de Casa and their Jesuit Ioseph. Acosta, eye witnesses of undoubted credit, report that which renders them liker devils than men. And Gage that lived there among them, seconds it.

And it was no small infamy to their King Philip that he put to death his Son and Heir Charles. Are these the patterns that you would have us imitate?

And as for Italy, 1. Read of all their Histories, and then name that Country on earth, if you can, that for many Generations, hath been infested with so much Civil War and Blood, as Italy hath been, yea Rome it self. 2. And since policy hath setled it of late in Peace, what a Peace is it, and of what effect? It is said by travellers that no Country more aboundeth with Atheists and Infidels, that are indeed of no Religion. And truly, if it be God and Conscience that you would have banished out of England, and Infidelity, Sadduceism, Hobbists, Malignity, Drunkenness, Whoredom, Perjury, that you would have take the place, I dare say that the Devil will not fight against such Concord, but will promote it withal his policy and power, by himself and all his agents Ecclesiastical, Civil, and Military.

4. Yet further, Why look you not on all the rest of the World, as well as Spain and Italy? Indeed Iapan restored Concord, but it was by so devilish and cruel Torments of Christians and those that would not accuse them, as rendreth their names odious to mankind (of which Varenius will satisfy you.)

But what France, what Ireland and others have got by cruelty, I have told you before.

And though I am far from justifying the Hungarians (men that I know not or their case) for flying to the Turks for help, do you think that the Countries now ruined by War, and the many thousands in Austria, Silesia, Moravia, and Hungary, killed and taken Captives, and the thousands killed in Fight, and the Famine that the next year is like to come on the ruined Countries, where Corn and Hay are all destroyed, and the bloody War that is yet like to follow before the end; I say, do you think that all these are not a dear price to be paid, for hindering men to Worship God only according to the Scripture? Would leave to serve God only as Christ and his Apostles appointed and did themselves, have cost the Emperour and People, dearer than all this amounteth to?

5. And the World knoweth that (as Cromwel got his strength and usurpation in England by his Liberty of Conscience, so) the Turks won Constantinople and the Eastern Empire, much by this. For when their Emperours were become dissolute or cruel, killing and deposing one another, putting out their eyes, and thrusting them into Monasteries (forced Saints); and when ambitious ungodly Bishops were still striving for superiority, and persecuting Dissenters as not Orthodox, and mutinous Souldiers pulling down Emperours, and setting up others, the poor Christians thought that to defend such a Government against the Turks that gave all men the Liberty of their own Religion, would cost them dearer than it was worth; and so were the more remiss in their resistance, and the easilier yielded to the Conquerours: Whereas had the Turks done as the Papists, who make our extermination by our own Rulers, a very part of their Religion, the Greeks would have more resolutely resisted them, in necessary self-defence.

And did not the Turks still give Liberty to Christians (only restraining them from speaking against Mahometism) do you think that the Greeks in all their Dominions would no more strive for their deliverance? And that Transilvania, Hungary, Walachia, Maldavia, Croates, and Cossacks, Armenians, Georgians, Circassians, Mengrelians, Nestorians, and Iacobites, in so vast numbers, would live so long quietly and patiently under them as they do?

All the great Conquerours of the World that are famous in History, ever observed that sober policy, to let Conquered Provinces enjoy their own Religion, and mostly their own ancient Laws and inferiour Magistrates: And then the People find the change so tolerable in the Supremacy, as they the more easily yield, with less resistance, and continue their subjection with the greater quietness and peace.

The Iews in Christ's time, (and till they rebelled afterwards under Vespasian, Titus and Adrian) had so much of their own Religion and Law allowed them, as was no small cause of their Crucifying Christ, lest the name of a King sent from God (such as they expected the Messiah to be) should draw the People to such Insurrections, as should provoke the Romans to deprive them of their Temples, Religion and Laws, and to destroy their place and nation.

And I hear by travellers that where the Turks yet allow their Provinces (as in Transilvania) their own Magistrates and Laws, Religion prospereth almost as well as under Christian Sovereigns, and far better than under the extirpating zeal, or rather fury of persecuting Papist Princes. I desire you therefore before you plead experience for your desolating way of Concord, to study History better, and be better informed of the case of the World.

When I think but what men Bishop Wilkins and Judge Hale were, that on my knowledge drew up an Act for the total cure of our English Church differences, (to which those called to it by the Lord Keeper Bridgman, did on both sides consent) I have thought it some defect of humility in some Clergy-men, that took themselves to be so much wiser than these rare and excellent men, as to judge that all our distractions, sufferings, and dangers by divisions, are not so bad as the effect of these mens counsil would have been.

But I do with greater confidence ask you, Whether those men seem to be serious and understanding Christians, who think all the bloody Wars, and tormenting Inquisition, and the destruction of Love and Justice, and good Works, which are caused by Church-divisions in the World, to be a less Mischief than it would be to ENDVRE CHRISTIANS TO SERVE GOD IVST AS CHRIST PRESCRIBED BY HIMSELF AND HIS APOSTLES, AND TO VNITE ON THE TERMS ONLY WHICH HE AND THEY DID ORDAIN AND PRACTISE? Shall we tell Turks and Heathens that it is no Wiser a Saviour that we trust in, and no Wiser a Heavenly King that we obey? And no Wiser Law and Gospel that He hath left us? And is it any wonder then if they scorn both Him and us?

You are too hard for me, I will talk with you no more.

It is Truth and Light that is too hard for you; and woe to the foolish Enemies that are too hard for it, and overcome themselves, and their own happiness and hopes in overcoming it. And woe to the World, to Churches and Nations where such prevail.

But I advise you, that you never think that all your Truth and Reason will do any great good on those that are against you: For you cannot have while to say all this to many that you have said to me; and if you should Print all this, the contrary minded will scarcely Read the Title page or Contents, but scorn it before they know what you have said; and if they read it, it will be all the way, with a militant spirit of prejudice and hatred, and only study what to say against it; and Ignorance, Passion, Interest and Prejudice, will answer all with Rage and confidence, and only conclude that the Author is a Fool, or Rogue, or Rebel; and, it's like enough, answer you with an Excommunication, or Iail, where among Malefactors you shall lie and die. If you speak for, and not against their pr…conceived Opinion and Interest, they will h…ar you; but if you speak agai…st any of their worldly Wealth, or Honour, or Grande…r, you may almost as hopefully dispute an hungry Dog from his Carrion; and you must not wonder if they snarl, or fly upon you and tear you. And though I confess, that all your Proposals seem very consistent with your A…tagonists wealth and greatness, yet remember the truth of Seneca's words, That Men that have a sore, do not only start and complain when they are toucht, but even when they think that they are toucht, though it be not so. There is no expectation of justice from suspicious Jealousie; much less if it be animated by Interest and Malice.

My expectations are not much higher than your description. But when my own life is so constantly a painful burden, and I am so near the Grave, I am utterly unexcusable, if I think so short and painful a life too good to sacrifice by way of Obedience to the will of God, who hath long and wonderfully preserved it; and if I do not live and die with St. Paul's resolution, Acts 20. 23, 24. Bonds and Afflictions abide me, but none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto my self, so that I might finish my Course with Ioy, a…d the Ministry which I have received of the Lord Iesus, to testifie the Gospel of the Grace of God.

And indeed, if all our bad Laws and Ceremonies were reformed, and all granted therein which I have proposed, alas there is so much to be done for the Reformation of the Persons that must execute good Laws, (Lords, Bishops, Patrons, Priests, &c.) without whom Laws are but a dead letter, and against whose enmity and oppositions, they are unlikely to prevail, that I die the more willingly, because I see no appearance of any such Golden Age, or amiable Reformation, and general Concord, as might tempt me to desire to live much longer on Earth. The Reformation of our Universities, Clergy, Nobility, Gentry, and licencious Youth, and malignant Haters of Serious Godliness, is a work for Omnipotency, and would afford me matter for a Volume, were I to write on such a Text as Ezek 37. 3. Son of man! can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord God, thou knowest. In the mean time it giveth me matter for Groans, Tears and Prayer, but no belief of that good man's Prophecy, who confidently foretelleth us of that Blessed Age, about eight years hence. If the Second Part of my Moral Prognostication (written with more doubt than hope) should prove as true as the First Part did (of this Progress of Malice and Divisions) I doubt it is but some small Rudiments or Preparations for such a Blessed Change, that the men of the present times must see▪ I should rejoice if They (I mean God by them) confute my fears.

The English Nonconformity Under King Charles II and James II, Chapter 61

p. 260CHAP. LXI. Whether the Extirpation of the Non-Conformists, be not rather to be attempted, than an Vnion with them by these means.

CHAP. LXI. Whether the Extirpation of the Non-Conformists, be not rather to be attempted, than an Vnion with them by these means.