A Case of Conscience of a Non-Conformist, Text 2
The Animadverſions.
HAving written out the foregoing ſheet, and left it at the Preſs, there is that Book newly come forth, entituled, A Diſcourſe of Eccleſiaſtical Polity; wherein the Authority of the Civil Magiſtrate over the Conſcience of Subjects in matters of Religion is aſſerted, containing eight Chapters, which require this freſh labour.
The firſt is, Of the neceſſity of an Eccleſiaſtical Power or Soveraignty over Conſcience; wherein he ſuppoſing a competition between the Power of Princes and the Conſciences of the Subject, gives a ſuperiority to the Power of the Prince above Conſcience. The very Title of this Book, as the flouriſhing ſtile, does ſhew him a young man that writ it. The Conſcience of man is a judgment on his actions in relation to God, that is a judging whether that which he is about to do, is agreeable, or not, to his will: and it is impoſſible that any mortal can have an authority over that judgment, that the ſubject ſhould do any thing againſt it. That the Commands of the Magiſtrate for the peoples good, do by vertue of the general Inſtitution and fifth Commandment, bind the Conſcience, ſo that if they are bound to the King by the Law of Nature, or Word of God before, this adds a new Obligation; and if they be not, this brings one on them, will be confeſt I think by the moſt judicious and ſober in this point: but that the Authority of the Magiſtrate muſt take place of the Authority of Conſcience, when they ſtand in competition, is a determination I ſuppoſe that is ſtrange and unheard-of in the Orthodox VVorld. Every ſingle perſon (ſayes the Author) is ſubject to two ſupream powers, the Laws of his Prince, and the Dictates of his Conſcience; and therefore if the ſupream power of the Prince muſt give place to that of the Conſcience, it ceaſes upon that ſcore to be ſupream, becauſe there is a ſuperiour authority that can countermand all its laws and conſtitutions. And who is there that underſtands himſelf, that does not know the ſenſe of this, ſpoken in modeſt and right terms as it ought, is what is moſt true, and what all are to aſſert? The Supremacy of the King, I hope, is over the Subject, as to their Perſons and their Cauſes, not over their Conſciences. If we were to conceive indeed of men that they might chuſe what Conſciences themſelves pleaſed, and then plead them againſt the Magiſtrate, as the face of his words do carry it, that which he ſayes here would have reaſon, and of all Villains, the ill-meaning, not the well-meaning Zealot, as he ſpeaks, would be the moſt dangerous. But when the Conſcience that man hath, is no other then what God hath placed in him, and he hath no power himſelf over it, which is, and muſt, and will be, whether he will or no, concluſive with him according to the Light of Nature, and the Word of God; there is no danger to the Migiſtrate, though ſome of his Commands ſometimes may not actively be obeyed, in yielding that authority which is due, unto Conſcience. And how indeed ſhall a man be ſubject to the Magiſtrate for Conſcience ſake, if the command of Conſcience had not in it a ſuperiour and more prevalent Power than his? It would be for his own ſake, and not for Conſcience ſake, if his authority were greater than it. I remember, being diſcourſing with ſome about the Title of this Book, preſently after I had it, a little Boy, about ten years of age, being carried belike to a Play that week, which being never at one before, had made ſome impreſſions in his mind, Why Mother, ſayes he, to her ſtanding by, Lacy hath confuted this Book; for he acting the Tyrant, ſaid in the Play, That Conſcience was a greater King than he. I will take this note from hence; It is pity that Religion ſhould be brought as it were on the Stage, and made Comical in the Friendly Debate; and that the Stage ſhould ſpeak more truly and tenderly of Conſcience, than this Book of Eccleſiaſtical Polity.
His Second Chapter is a more particular account of the Magiſtrates Power in the Affairs of Religion; the extent whereof he endeavours to ſhew to be the ſame with his power over the Conſcience in matters of Morality. But this Perſon hath received no long information into his underſtanding, I believe, of theſe matters; for he may be pleaſed to know that ſome perhaps of the beſt that have wrote on this ſubject, will grant him freely that the Magiſtrate hath the ſame Power in matters that are Religious as in thoſe that are Moral, when there is none will ſay that that power is over the Conſcience in either. This very daring, as accompliſhed young perſon, too preſuming on his own parts, muſt be acquainted therefore, That it is one thing to grant the King his Authority in matters Eccleſiaſtical, as well as Civil: and another, to grant him any Authority over the Conſcience in the leaſt thing in the world. If the Magiſtrate command any matter of Morality, or of Religion, or of Civil Affairs which are good for the People, that which is commanded does oblige as well in the one, as in the other: But if it be evil which he commands, that is, if it be againſt the Word of God in Religion, againſt vertue and honeſty in Morals, againſt the common good in Civils, ſuch things are to be forborn though Commanded; and what, or who can be judge, if it be ſo, but a man's own Conſcience? And how irrational conſequently, as well as preſumptuous, are ſuch kind of ſpeeches, That Princes may with leſs hazard give liberty to mens Vices and Debaucheries, than to their Conſciences, unleſs the acts of men were to be bruitiſh, and performed without judgment?
His Third Chapter is of the ſubject-matter of the Magiſtrates Power, that is not the inward acts of the mind, but the outward actions; from whence he would ſtate the Liberty of the Conſcience to lye altogether in the freedom of a man's thoughts, judgment, or opinion; and that Religious worſhip which is internal, when as for his outward actions or practiſes, in the Service of God, as of all things elſe, he would have men not ſo ſhy of granting the Magiſtrate power (to uſe ſtill his own language) over their Conſciences. But this really is ſhort of what here is to be ſaid, that is a few firſt thoughts taken into the Pen and written away glibly. For though this diſtinction of the inward and outward acts of men is one thing requiſite to the determining the Point in hand, as you will read in the intended Diſſertation following; yet is not that enough alone to ſtate this buſineſs, ſeeing it is about thoſe acts altogether which the Laws and Penalties of the Magiſtrate do reach, we are to make our inquiſition. If this Perſon then (let me ſay) were but able by the ready Tongue and Wit he hath, to prove, That is the outward acts of man only, are ſubject to the Magiſtrate; ſo a man's inward acts only, and heart-worſhip, were ſubject to Conſcience (which he fain methinks would be nibling at) then had he decided the buſineſs very dexterouſly at this one ſtroke, yet not thanks to himſelf for it: But when there is no man, but in his outward acts, and all duty, as in his inward both, is bound, and muſt be (ſay all he can) to follow the dictates of his Conſcience, and that alwayes, ſo far at leaſt as upon no terms whatſoever to go againſt it, the main difficulty of this Determination is quite left untouched by him, and humbly to be aſſayed in that which is to follow.
His Fourth Chapter is, Of the Nature of all actions intrinſecally evil, and their exemption from the Authority of humane Laws againſt Mr. Hobs. When any thing (ſayes he) that is apparently and intrinſecally evil, is the matter of an humane Law, whether it be of a Civil or Eccleſiaſtical Concern, here God is to be obeyed rather than man. And in all ſuch actions diſobedience is ſo far from being a ſin, that it becomes an in diſpenſable duty. Thus much is ſaid well, and as others ſay. But when he adds in his Contents, The reaſon hereof is not becauſe men are in any thing free from the Supream Authority in Earth, but becauſe they are ſubject to a Superiour in Heaven: This is ſpoken like a Child, that hath look'd on what he delivers but once, before he delivers it. For the very immediate principal true Reaſon is indeed, becauſe the Supreme Magiſtrate and Subordinate, hath no power in ſuch things. Their Authority they have is from God, and that is not to command what he hath forbid, but to be his Miniſters, that is, to rule only for his Glory, and the Peoples Good. This appears by what is ſaid in the firſt ſheet already, and what alſo will follow. And the want of the knowledge of this, hath been a Foundation-ſtone of ſtumbling to many in their deciſions about theſe matters. It follows in the Chapter, that the taking off all obligations from mens Conſciences antecedent to humane Laws, does open the way to the ruine of all Religion, and conſequently all Government. This he makes out clearly, and hath well confuted (as I judge) Mr Hobbs's Hypotheſis of Government. But in the mean while, I wonder this Author ſhould not ſee, that what he ſayes in the main, does return upon himſelf. For if nothing which is apparently, or intrinſecally evil can be commanded by man, becauſe of the Authority of God; then nothing for the ſame reaſon, whatſoever it be which is ſin, or is forbidden at all by Him, can be commanded, ſeeing elſe that reaſon were not good. As Divines from that ſaying, We must not do evil that good may come of it, do unanimouſly agree, that the leaſt evil hereupon muſt not be committed for the obtaining the greateſt good: So will they from the ſaying, That we muſt obey God rather than man, conclude as largely, That whereſoever the Will of God and the Magiſtrates ſtands in competition, let the matter be external or internal, intrinſecally or poſitively evil, apparently, or an appearance only of evil, while a man himſelf is convinced in his Conſcience it is evil, it muſt not be done. And what becomes then of the ſubſtance of this Diſcourſe about the Power of the Magiſtrate over mens Conſciences? And what a weak Argument, of any in the world, hath he choſen to bottom his main Work upon, which is the ſame Mr Hobbs, whom he confutes, I ſuppoſe does bottom his; to wit, an Argument only from Convenience. The magiſtrate muſt have a Power over his Subjects Conſciences, becauſe they will elſe be ungovernable, while they obey their own Conſciences rather than him. By which reaſon he might ſay, That therefore his Power in External things, and which concern Goverment, ſhould be above Gods, and the Scriptures; becauſe otherwiſe the Subject will not obey him when the Word, or God, requires contrary to his Edicts. Certainly, to argue that the People muſt give the King power over their Conſciences in all things now in difference about Religion, becauſe elſe they cannot be governed by him, is all one as to argue, That when the Prince is wicked, an Atheiſt, an Idolator, an Heathen, the People muſt have no Conſciences at all. That perſon that goes about to looſen the authority of Conſcience with the people, and ſet up a power in any Mortal above that, to rule them by, does but do the ſame thing in a lower degree, as Mr. Hobbs does, and muſt be liable proportionably to the ſame Conſequences. And is it not pity when a man is ſo ſtoutly confuting Mr. Hobbs, that he in the mean while ſhould become a young Leviathan himſelf, who gives the world occaſion too, to fear what he may grow to? But whatſoever dimenſions he may have as to his parts, his ſtrength hitherto is but little. Thoſe Subjects that will but heartily obey their Prince ſo much as they can, that is, ſo far as their Conſciences will let them, they obey him enough; and are as governable as God Almighty would have them. If this man would have more, he does but find fault with his Maker, and with humane Nature, as if he did not know how beſt to make man fit for Government; which is for none but one of the light young men, and fooliſh of Iſrael, to do. As incommodum non ſoluit, I aſſume, Ex commodo, non valet Argumentum.
His fifth Chapter is concerning Toleration, as it ariſes from Atheiſtical Principles. Thoſe that are indifferent in their Religion, or have no Religion, cannot be concerned much with what others hold. It is againſt reaſon, and a kind of madneſs, that ſuch ſhould be vehement for perſecution. There are Arguments therefore which are uſed by this ſort of men, from Policy for Liberty of all Opinions, which this perſon endeavours to prevent or remove, and does offer ſome of his own againſt Toleration. But this Subject hath been lately ſo much canvaſed, and there are arguments drawn up ſo fully and clearly, with ſo much weight and prudence, from the Intereſt of Religion, and from the Intereſt of our State, in thoſe two Books or two parts, entituled, Liberty of Conſcience, and the laſt eſpecially, that it will ſcarcely admit of any thing more to be ſaid of it: If it will, it is the fixing a right ſtate hereof onelyonly in the Mind, that will be, I think, both the beſt way to confirm it, and to preponderate the Arguments againſt it. It pleaſed his Majeſty in one of his Speeches to commend a Union of his Proteſtant Subjects to the conſideration of the Parliament: A Deſign full of all Princely Wiſdom, Honeſty, and Goodneſs: In this Atchievment, there is a double Intereſt (I apprehend) to be diſtinguiſhed and conſidered; That of Religion it ſelf, and that of the Nation. The advance of Religion does conſiſt much in the Unity of its Profeſſors, both in Opinion and Practice, to be of one Mind, and one Heart, and one way (in Diſcipline and Worſhip, if it might be) according to the the Scripture. The advance of the Nation does lie in the freedom and flouriſhing of Trade, and uniting the whole Body in the Common benefit and dependance on the Government. The one of theſe beſpeaks an Eſtabliſhed Order or Accommodation, the other beſpeaks Indulgence, Liberty of Conſcience, or Toleration. For while People are in danger about Religion, we dare not launch out into Trade (ſay they) but muſt keep our Money, ſeeing we know not what we ſhall ſuffer, nor where we ſhall be driven. And when in reference to their Party or Parties, they are held under ſeverity, it is eaſie for thoſe who are deſigning Heads, to mould them into Wrath and Faction; which without that Rigor ſhall melt and reſolve into bare Diſſent onelyonly in Opinion, peaceably rejoycing under the enjoyment of Protection. The King we know is concerned as the Supreme Governour, and as a Chriſtian Proteſtant Governour. As he is King, he is to ſeek the welfare of the Nation; as he is Chriſtian, the flouriſhing of Religion: And the Proteſtant Religion particularly is his Intereſt, as this Kingdom does lie in balance (He being the chief Party) with its Neighbour Nanations. The Judgement now of ſome is for a Comprehending Act, which may take in thoſe who will own the National Church, that ſeverity then might be uſed for reclaiming all whoſoever ſeparate from it. The Judgement of ſome others is, For a free and equal Act of Grace to all indifferently, (the Papiſts with ſome, excepted) whether Separatiſts or others; abhorring Comprehenſion as more dangerous to them upon the Account mentioned, than all the Acts that yet have paſſed. Neither of theſe judge up to the full Intereſt of the King and Kingdom, as is propoſed. It becomes not the Presbyterian, if his Principles will admit him to own our Pariſh Churches, and enjoy a Living, to be willing to have his Brethren the Independent given up to perſecution: And it becomes not the Separatiſt if he may but enjoy his Conſcience, to repine or envy at the Presbyterian for reaping any farther Emolument, ſeeing both of them (ſuppoſing the latter may do ſo) have as much at the bottom as can be, in their Capacities, deſired of either. It is an Act therefore of a mixt complexion, providing both Comprehenſion, and Indulgence for the different Parties, muſt ſerve our purpoſe. Let but the Grounds for Comprehenſion be laid wide enough, to take in all who can own, and come to the publick Church and Miniſtry, which we ſuppoſe as yet the far greater weight of the Nation, and when the Countenance of the King, or State-Emoluments are all caſt into one Scale, and others let alone to come of it, without perſecuting any to inflame them, or Preferment to encourage them, (eſpecially if one expedient were added, that is, if the Deans and Chapters Lands, and all Pluralities impartially, the one whereof are held unprofitably, the other ſinfully, were caſt into the Labouring Miniſtry, that thoſe that come in, may find it really better to be a Prieſt to a Tribe, than a Levite onelyonly to a Family) we need not doubt but Time, the Miſtreſs of the Wiſe and the Unwiſe, would diſcover the peaceable iſſue of ſuch Counſels.
His Sixth Chapter is, Of indifferent things, and the Magistrates power in determining them; wherein that Tenet, That nothing ought to be eſtaſtabliſhed in the Worſhip of God, either in matter or manner, but what is commanded in Gods Word, is exagitated and burdened with ſeveral evil Conſequences. But this Author is not to go away with this wrong, to lay that for a Principle of Nonconformity, which the moſt ſober of the Nonconformiſts will diſclaim. This Poſition therefore, That nothing is lawful in Gods Worſhip, but what he hath enjoyned, muſt be underſtood of the Worſhip of God as to the Subſtance of it; wherein it is true, That what is not commanded is co nomine forbidden. But as for the Circumſtances of it, it muſt admit of ſome diſtinction, upon neceſſity, and if we go to frame any, as of natural Circumſtances and inſtitute, or the like, unleſs the diſtinction be derived from Scripture, that which we aſſume of the one branch, will go near by a parity of Reaſon, to be ſtretched alſo to the other. The determination then of my thoughts, is this. There is the Worſhip of God, and the Circumſtances of it. The Worſhip of God muſt be what he hath preſcribed; if it be not commanded by him, it is not our Duty, and ſo cannot be his Worſhip. The Circumſtances of his Worſhip I account are either neceſſary, or not: By neceſſary, I will underſtand neceſſary to be determined: If they be neceſſary, and he hath not preſcribed them, our Superiours may enjoyn them, and we are to obey them. If they be not neceſſary, I queſtion whether the Church hath authority to enjoyn them; or if it hath, a need-not, is a reaſon why ſhe ſhould not; and it is beſt however to me beyond doubt, ſhe ſhould rather let them alone: It ſeemeth good to us and the holy Ghoſt, to lay upon you no greater burden than theſe neceſſary things. If yet nevertheleſs the Church for her part (or our Superiours) will impoſe things that are unneceſſary, and they do but ill in it, I do apprehend that we for our part notwithſtanding have that advantage by our Liberty as Chriſtians, that ſo long as the thing is not againſt our Conſciences, nor will cauſe our Brother to ſin, we may and ſhall do well to obey them for quietneſs, and the Magiſtrates ſake. I will yet proceed. When ſome underſtanding perſons have ſaid, That things which were indifferent before, may become unlawful being enjoyned: We muſt carefully diſtinguiſh between a thing being commanded as neceſſary, and being neceſſary as commanded. It is true, that when a thing indifferent is commanded as neceſſary, (as a part of Worſhip, or as if God requir'd the ſame of us) it becomes unlawful, or rather it is to be refuſed and not done, becauſe commanded as ſuch. Jeſus Chriſt would not obſerve the Traditions of the Elders (I humbly conceive) upon this account, becauſe they held them neceſſary, uſing them as if there were ſome holineſs in them, and indeed as equal with the Precept of God, if not above it, when they made it become void thereby; or elſe he might have done is they did, in many of them. And hence Paul withſtood Peter, as I judge: The Jews by his Fact were like to think the obſervation of Moſes Law indiſpenſible; when otherwiſe he made nothing of circumciſing Timothy, and doing himſelf according to it. To this purpoſe are we to ſtand faſt in our Liberty, and not to be the Servants of Men. But if a thing be held neceſſary onelyonly as commanded, we are to diſtinguiſh of that neceſſity, and of thoſe things. Things that are commanded (we ſuppoſe them to concern Religion) are either for Edification, or not: And this neceſſity is either in regard of Conſcience, or the outward Man. If things commanded be for Edification (or if we are convinced they are ſo) then is there truly a neceſſity in regard of Conſcience, or an obligation on the Conſcience to obey them, as authorized from God. If they are not tending to edifie, (or we in our Conſciences ſo judge in ſincerity) then are they to be look'd on as not neceſſary in point of Conſcience; becauſe the authority that the Superiour hath in ſuch things, is onelyonly for Edification; According to the Power given us of God for Edification: And conſequently, they being not (I ſay) edifiing things, thoſe particular Commands have none of Gods Authority (as I have ſaid in my firſt ſheet, on another occaſion before; where what is wanting here, may be ſupplied) and cannot be obligatory in Conſcience, ſo as to be ſaid, upon that account, neceſſary to be done. Nevertheleſs there is a neceſſity in regard of the Outward Man, that remains, which is, that rather than reſiſt the Magiſtrate, we muſt ſuffer; and rather than ſuffer, we are forced to chuſe to do the thing. And herein then are we I account beholding to that Liberty that the Lord Jeſus Chriſt hath purchaſed, that we may obey in indifferent things, and are not put upon the neceſſity of ſuffering altogether.
His Seventh Chapter is, of the nature and obligation of Scandal, and the abſurdity (as he ſpeaks) of pretending it againſt the Commands of Authority; wherein there are ſeveral things according to the fluent ability of the Author; among which, there is not wanting that perhaps which ſhould be ſaid; but there is wanting a ſenſible judgement of the Caſe it ſelf, unto which, what he ſayes ſhould be applied. For notwithſtanding all this he hath here about Scandal, I do not find that really he yet knows (or at leaſt but at adventure) what that Scandal is, or wherein the Point of it lyes that pierceth the Conſcientious in the buſineſs of Conformity, that when there are ſome things which ſome of them otherwiſe might do as lawful, according to their own Conſciences, they dare not but for bear them for the Conſcience ſake of others. Conſcience I ſay, not thy own, but of the others. I will deſire this Perſon to read, or to read better, that little Tract of Scandal writ by Dr. Hammond, who will ſhew him, wherein the Apoſtle to the Romans and to the Corinthians does place the matter of Scandal, and the reſult will come to this, That no man upon any terms may ever do that thing whereof he is ſatisfied himſelf of the lawfulneſs of it, ſo long as he hath reaſon to be perſwaded that by his example he ſhall induce others to do the ſame, who being unſatisfied in their Conſciences about it, ſhall ſin in the doing. And if he ſin againſt the Brethren, and wound their weak Conſciences, he ſins againſt Christ. This is the Caſe of Scandal with the Nonconformist. A man may not ſin againſt Chriſt for the Magiſtrates command. But for ſome men to Conform, will be to do thus: Ergo. By this little may appear the inſufficiency and impertinency of thoſe things which this man and others, do commoly offer for ſatisfaction in the caſe of Scandal. The matters wherein Scandal is concern'd (ſays he) are only indifferent things, but nothing that is not antecedently ſinful remains ſo, after the commands of Authority. This expreſſion ſure can hardly hold ſenſe; but as for the meaning, I Anſwer. The doing the leaſt indifferent matter in any particular whatſoever, which is Scandal in the Apoſtles ſenſe, is antecedently evil, and conſequently this great Anſwer comes to nothing. Again, We encounter Scandal with Scandal; (ſayes he) The complying with Authority, offends only the weak Brethren, or a few of them; but the refuſing offends the whole Church and Magiſtrate. I Anſwer, The refuſing, is not doing that which the Apoſtle means, when he gives us ſuch a charge about Scandal, according to Dr. Hammond's true interpretation thereof in that Tract; nor what Chriſt means when he ſpeaks ſo dreadfully of offending any of his little Ones in the Goſpel. Conſequently this Anſwer comes to nothing likewiſe. I will add, It is better that a man offend the whole world with that offence which conſiſts only in diſpleaſure, then to offend any one the leaſt Chriſtian in that ſenſe wherein the Apoſtle and Chriſt forbids Scandal. I know I have not framed my words here in ſuch a ſtyle as to make them pungent; but I have ſpoken to the matter, which I chuſe rather.
His Laſt Chapter is, of a tender, doubtful, and unſatisfied Conſcience; wherein he endeavours to prove by that one Topick ſtill, from convenience and inconvenience, and then to perſwade us hereupon, That in all doubtful and diſputable Caſes, we ſhould take the Commands of Authority for the Supreme Rule of Conſcience; and that to act against our own Scruples out of obedience thereunto, is godlineſs and vertue. A ſtrange Chapter! There is nothing hardly more manifeſt and uncontroulable in Practical Divinity, than that a Chriſtian may not do any thing with a Conſcience unſatisfied of the lawfulneſs of what he does, but that he is firſt to be perſwaded thereof in his mind before he does it. The Scripture is moſt expreſs for this. That in things indifferent, he that eſteems them unclean, to him they are unclean. He that acts not in Faith, that is with a perſwaſion, that the thing he does is lawful, and will not diſpleaſe God, does ſin. And he that eateth and doubteth, is damned if he eat. I wonder therefore with what heart this Perſon here can uſe his Parts and Oratory in this Argument, which is to prevail on People that by all means they would be contented, and not be ſo ſhy, or make any ſuch matter as they are apt to do of it, to be damned. To do any thing againſt a mans Conſcience how indifferent ſoever, is to do that, in the doing whereof a man is damned, that is, does commit a deadly ſin. But if I make the Command of Authority my ſupream Rule in indifferent things, when Authority commands any thing againſt my Conſcience, I muſt act againſt my Conſcience in that thing. Conſequently this Author hath beſtowed this Chapter to perſwade men to damnation. I muſt confeſs the Man hath ſuch a pretty glib and voluble expreſſion, that if he will ſpeak friendly of any known ſin, or ſmoothly of Hell, he may prevail no doubt with many to venture on both, who really believe them nothing: But if any indeed do believe his Religion true, and contained in theſe Scriptures, I muſt adviſe him for his life, not to hearken to this young man's counſel, but that fixing that old and good rule, Quod dubitas ne feceris, in his mind, he reſolve to look well to the virginity of his Conſcience, leſt in doing once what he fears to be unlawful, he comes afterwards to proſtitute it to any thing he knows to be ſo. The truth is, the ſum of this Chapter is very raſh and prophane, That whatſoever be our own judgments and apprehenſions, we must acquieſce in the determinations of our Governors. And every Conſcience that is not thus perſwaded, is to be reskoned as ſeditious and unpeaceable, and ſo to be treated accordingly.
I purpoſe not to enter further into Examination of the particulars of theſe Chapters, which may be done more eaſily in good time, by me or others. There are three or four things remarkable to me upon the whole Diſcourſe. The first is the Magnificence of the Author's Pen and trouling Expreſſion, and indeed excellent Parts. The next is the very fine Paper and Print of the Book. This I ſet down becauſe as to the matter it ſelf, theſe two things, the fine Expreſſion and the fine Paper, are but indeed regardable alike. The third is the Scorn, Preſumption, and Pride (wherein the man muſt be acknowledg'd unparallel'd) with which it is writ. And the last is, the ſhortneſs and unſatisfactorineſs in the iſſue. For when he tells us at the end, that he hath been ſollicitous not to baulk any thing material, but hath encountred all the Nonconformiſts moſt weighty and conſiderable Objections, he hath not truly once touched thoſe things in good earneſt, which are the preſent certain grounds of Nonconformity and Separation.
There are two ſorts we know of Diſſenters from the Church of England. Thoſe that are of the Presbyterian judgment, and are for accommodation with her: And thoſe that are of the Congregational judgment, who ſeparate from her, and cannot own any but their gathered Churches.
For the Congregationalists, they ſtand here: The Church of Chriſt is a number of the truly faithful, and regenerate Perſons. The viſible Church is defined by a profeſſion of true Regenerate Faith, and of no leſs than that, according to the general opinion of the Proteſtant Divines. In our Pariſh Churches now they alleage, there is no Profeſſion made of true Grace by any unto Memberſhip, at leaſt not ſuch as is credible, and no watching over one another after, as Brethren in fellowſhip. And conſequently there is no viſible Church amongſt us. As for Profeſſion of Infants at their Baptiſm, that is as good as nothing to them, ſeeing Profeſſion is a thing not to be required for it ſelf; but for the ſignifying to the Church or Miniſter, what the Perſon is who makes the Profeſſion, that accordingly he may admit or not admit them to Church-Communion. And as for Confirmation, we know it is not ſo uſed, nor can any prove it to be inſtituted to that uſe in the Goſpel. It follows, that our National or Pariſh Churches being not companies of Profeſſors, they muſt gather their Churches that are ſuch; and here lies the true ground of Separation. And does this Perſon yet know this? Or hath he ſpoken a word of it? Or dare he take this file into his mouth, but it will wear out his teeth? Let me ſee what he, and his whole Party, laying their wits together, will be able to ſay in this Point to purpoſe. But let not any one do it rawly, without conſidering the weight which is here included. For if there is nothing to be ſaid by him, but that all the Members of our Pariſhes are indeed ſuch Profeſſors, that is, a number as have, or do ſo credibly profeſs their Faith, Repentance, Regeneration, and the ſaving Grace of God, that the Miniſter hath, or doth thereupon receive them as a People endowed all with this Grace, ſuppoſed to be profeſſed; and that the viſible Church muſt be granted indeed according to our Proteſtants, and the Book of our Liturgy, to be a number of ſuch, and no leſs Profeſſors than ſuch, I doubt me they will prevail little more with the Nonconformist of this make, than to root them in their Practiſe; and to judge that Separation is indeed from this Principle a moſt apparent reſult, and undeniably concluded. What man is there alive of ſuch parts, as dares revive Mr. Blake's Cauſe, and defend it againſt Mr. Baxter's Right to Sacraments?
For the Presbyterian, or thoſe Nonconformiſts, who are for Agreement, and go under that Name, there are many for ought I ſee, not concern'd in any objection throughout this Book, unleſs, it be in that of Scandal, and ſome are not concern'd in that; for it is not thoſe that are peeviſh, as this man thinks, or will be angry at one, and endure him no more if he conform, that a man need trouble himſelf about ſcandalizing, The obeying the Magiſtrate is more than that: but it is thoſe tender conſcienced and humble good natured Perſons, that love a man and eſteem him, and ſo are like to do as he does only for his example (and thereby may wound their Conſciences as the matter is ſhewn before) that a man is to be ſo cautious of in the caſe of Scandal. I ſay, there are many who refuſe not happily to Conform to the Liturgy, nor any of their things indifferent (which they wiſh yet rather chang'd or forborn) but they refuſe to conform to Lying and Perjury; That is, they refuſe to Declare and Subſcribe according to the Act of Uniformity, and to take the Oxford Oath. And who does not know what Act that was that made ſuch Nonconformiſts? What is the reaſon then that this Undertaker hath ſaid nothing in defence of theſe new Impoſitions, and the Subſcription in the Canons? If he can Anſwer what is objected againſt them, and the Oxford Oath, in the Book mentioned in the firſt Sheet, we ſhall thank him: if he cannot, To what purpoſe does he beat the air about Conformity, till there be ſome condeſcention in ſuch things, as the truly conſcientious may be preſſed to obey, with the face of ingenuity and righteouſneſs? As for this Book we have here already, we ſee it carried on againſt theſe men, as if they were ſo many villains, that in all their Arguments ſought pretences only for their Nonconformity: and when the great advantage they get by it, is only to be Ejected from their Livings and loſe what they had, and out of real conviction of the unlawfulneſs of theſe Declarations and Subſcriptions that are impoſed upon them, they forbear them and are quiet; This man comes with his other things, and concludes upon them, And what inſtance have we in any Nation of the World, of any Schiſm and Faction ſo unreaſonably begun and continued! The Rebellion of Corah indeed may reſemble, but nothing can equal it. By which, and ſuch-like Expreſſions as theſe, the Author, I doubt me, will hardly prove himſelf, a Perſon of ſuch a tame and ſoftly humour as he aſſures us: Nor may he, perhaps, when he hath reflected well on the deſign and ſubſtance of what he hath wrote, which is really but an open tendring that Scandal to his Brethren (in his ſort) which Chriſt and his Apoſtle St. Paul hath ſo forewarned us to take heed of (which is the inducing the Tender and Conſcientious to do thoſe things whereof they are unſatisfied, and ſo to ſin in the doing) have ſo much confidence as he now ſeems to have, in what he has done. For if the black Ox ſhall come to tread once on this young man's foot, and he grow graver; or if it ſhall pleaſe the Lord to touch his preſumptuous ſoul with the ſenſe and horror of that one text, or ſome other, That it were better that a Milſtone were hung about his neck and he thrown into the Sea, then that one of Chriſt's little ones, who are now tender of their Conſciences, ſhould do what he hath adviſed; it may be, I ſay, the poor man may have reaſon to change his Concluſion, to pray to Gods above all men, that his Book take no effect; and taking little joy what Pilate did, to with-draw the breath of his Defiance, and to wiſh, that What he hath written, were unwritten.
Reader, there is an Anſwer come freſh out to the Friendly Debate, which is yet wholly unſeen to me. There is alſo a little Book of a ſubject very rarely before offered to the Publick, entituled, The Childrens-Petition and Remonſtrance to the Parliament, preſented belike to both Houſes on Wedneſday laſt; which appears to me of ſuch concern to poſterity, that I cannot but take this ſpare place between theſe Papers to give notice of it, as fit to be furthered upon that account by all who are lovers of Purity and ingenuous Virtue.