The Bloody Tenant Washed and Made White in the Blood of the Lamb, Part 1 · Chapter 35 – Chapter 36
CHAP. 35. A Reply to his 35. Chap.
Diſcuſſer.
IF it were the Magiſtrates duty or office, to puniſh Hereticks, then is he both a Temporall and Eccleſiaſticall Officer.
Defender.
It followeth not: unleſſe the Magiſtrate were to puniſh them with Eccleſiaſticall cenſures, which he neither doth, nor may doe. The puniſhments which he inflicteth on them, are meerely Civill, whether impriſonment, baniſhment, or death.
Diſcuſſer.
That Doctrine and diſtinction, that a Magiſtrate may puniſh an Heretick civilly, will not here avayle. For what is Babell, if this be not? confuſedly to puniſh Corporall, or Civill offences, with ſpirituall, or Church-cenſures (the offender not being a member of it:) or to puniſh ſoule or ſpirituall offences, with Corporall or Temporall weapons proper to Delinquents againſt the Civill State.
Defender.
It is no Babell, or Babiloniſh confuſion to puniſh corporall, or civill offences, with Spirituall or Church-cenſures. What if a Brother be a ſtriker, an oppreſſour, a murderer, a fornicator, or Adulterer? all theſe are corporall, and civill offences. But ſhall not therefore the Church puniſh theſe with ſpirituall, and Church-cenſures? Then the Apoſtle was miſtaken, who directeth ſo to doe, 1 Cor 5.11. why the Diſcuſſer putteth in that parentheſis (the offender not being a member of it:) I cannot tell: ſure I am, it is nothing to the purpoſe. For as the Church cannot puniſh any offendor, unleſſe he be a member of the Church, ſo neither may the Civill Magiſtrate puniſh an Heretick or other ſpirituall offendor, unleſſe he be a member of his Common-wealth.
And if it be no confuſion to puniſh civill offences with Church-cenſures, it is no confuſion to puniſh ſpirituall offences with civill cenſures. And the reaſon of both theſe is the ſame, there be ſundry civill offences, which are alſo tranſgreſſions of the Rule of the word, and ſo offences to the Conſciences of the Church, and ſo juſtly ſubject to Church-cenſure. There be alſo offences to the Order and peace of the Church, which tend likewiſe to provoke wrath againſt a Civill State. As the King of Perſia ſaid, Whatſoever is commanded by the God of Heaven for the Houſe of God, let it bediligently done: for why ſhould there bewrath againſt the King and his Sonnes? Ezra 7.3. If offences to the Church doe provoke wrath againſt the Civill State, it is no confuſion in the Civill State to puniſh ſuch.
Diſcuſſer.
Woe were it with the Civill Magiſtrate, if together with the common care and charge of the Common-wealth, the bloud of every ſoule that periſheth, ſhould cry againſt him, unleſſe he ſhould ſay with Paul, Acts 20. I am cleare from the bloud of all men, &c.
Defender.
It is not the bloud of every ſoule that periſheth, that can cry againſt a Magiſtrate, unleſſe the ſoule periſh by ſome ſuch neglect of duty in the Magiſtrate, which God requireth of him for the good of the ſoules of his people. Of which Duties there be two ſorts.
1. To ſeeke out and procure meanes of Grace for them ſo farre as they are capable in Gods way.
2. To remove meanes of their corruption and pollution, ſuch as Idolls openly erected, and Idolatrous falſe Teachers perverting the people. If in both theſe, the Magiſtrate be faithfull, though thouſands of ſoules may periſh under his Government, yet he is innocent from the bloud of them all, and may ſo profeſſe with Paul.
Diſcuſſer.
I acknowledge the Magiſtrate ought to cheriſh (as a Foſter Father) the Lord Jeſus in his Truth, in his Saints, to cleave unto them himſelfe, to countenance them unto the Death, yea alſo to breake the Teeth of the Lyons, who offer civill violence and injurie unto them. But to ſee all his Subjects, Chriſtians, to keep ſuch a Church, or Chriſtians in the purity of worſhip, and ſee them doe their duty, this belongeth to the head of the body the Lord Jeſus, and ſuch ſpirituall Officers, as he hath to this purpoſe deputed.
Reply. 1. What is ſaid of Spirituall Officers deputed by Chriſt to ſee the Church to doe her Duty, is but a pretence, when he acknowledgeth no Church, nor ſpirituall Officers in the Church deputed by Chriſt, extant upon the face of the Earth.
Reply. 2. What Reaſon can the Diſcuſſer give why the Magiſtrate ſhould breake the teeth of the Lyons, who offer civill violence to the Church and Saints, and not breake the teeth of the ravenous wolves (falſe Prophets) who offer violence to their ſoules? Doubtleſſe thoſe ravenous wolves, that make havock of their ſoules, are farre more miſchievous then the Lyons be, that offer violence to their bodies. The Romane pagan Emperours (who like Lions perſecuted the Church, 2 Tim. 4.17.) they by perſecution increaſed it, though againſt their wills. But the Romane Popiſh Biſhops, that like ravenous wolves devoured their ſoules, left the Church of Chriſt ſcarce viſible, (though viſible) and them, a very ſmall remnant, though a remnant. It may be matter of juſt wonderment, why Antichriſt ſhould find more favours in the Diſcuſſers eyes, then an ignorant Pagan, when the one hateth Chriſt more bitterly, and maketh farre more waſte of the Church, and Saints of Chriſt, then doth the other. Is it becauſe his owne Spirit doth more ſymbolize with Antichriſt then with Caeſar? Rather in ſecret ſupplanting, then in open perſecuting the Churches and Ordinances of Chriſt?
Beply. 3. We doe not ſay that it is a part of the Magiſtrates duty, to ſee all his Subjects to become Chriſtians, if they were Pagans before: though wee ſay, it is his Duty to neglect no good meanes to help them onward to the knowledge and faith of Chriſt Jeſus. But why doth the Diſcuſſer ſhake this duty out of the Magiſtrates, to ſee that the Church, and the Chriſtians under his Government, ſhould walke in purity of worſhip, at leaſt not ſo farre to degenerate and apoſtate as to provoke Chriſt to depart from them? Can he hope that ſuch Chriſtians will be faithfull and loyall to their Prince, whom he ſeeth to grow falſe and diſloyall to their God? Surely the Land of Iſmael though it had ſome peculiar and and typicall Holineſſe belonging to it, yet no other then what did prefigure the Holineſſe of the Church, which is as holy to Chriſt, and ought to be as holy to us, as the Land of Iſrael was to them. If therefore it was the duty of Jehoſaphat, Hezekiah, and Iſaiah, to reduce the people of Iſrael from their backſlidings, becauſe they were an holy people, (2 Chron. 19.4.) Surely the like Duty lyeth upon all Godly Chriſtian Princes, to reduce their backſliding Churches to their Primitive Purity.
Let no man ſay, that as the Holy Land of Iſrael, was a Type of Holy Church: So theſe Princes were Types of the Lord Jeſus, to whom alone it belongeth to ſee Churches and Chriſtians to doe their duty in Purity of worſhip.
For though David and Solomon were Types of Chriſt, (and ſo the Scripture holdeth them forth:) yet the Scripture giveth no hint, that the other Kings either of Iſrael, or Judah were Types. Not of Iſrael, for they were all Apoſtates: nor of Judah, for if the Kings of Judah (as Kings of Judah, to wit, in reſpect of their Regall Eſtate over the Church) if they were all of them Types of Chriſt, then Apoſtates from Chriſt, were Types of Chriſt. For many of the Kings of Judah were Apoſtates from Chriſt as well as the Kings of Iſrael.
Yea, if they were all Types of Chriſt, then Chriſt is the Antitype, and by accompliſhing ſuch types, hath aboliſhed them all: ſo that now it were ſacrilegious and Antichriſtian uſurpation for any Kings to be ſet over Chriſtians, or the people of God. For the Body being come, Types and ſhadowes vaniſh.
But what if they were all types of Chriſt in reſpect of their Kingly office over the Church alone? were they therefore types of Chriſt in all the Kingly Offices which they performed? Then it was typicall in Solomon to put Joab a Murderer to death, and Adonijab a Traytor. And then it will be unlawfull for Chriſtian Princes to put Murderers or Traitors to death.
Or if you ſay theſe were civill crimes: But Idolatry and Hereſie, which Aſa, Joaſh, and Joſiah puniſhed with death, were ſpirituall crimes, and therefore the Kings of Judah in puniſhing theſe latter, were types of Chriſt, not ſo in the former: this is ſpoken gratis. For whatſoever the Kings of Judah did, as types of Chriſt, Chriſt, being the Antitype, might more full, and lively performe it in his owne perſon. But certaine it is, he put no man to death in his owne perſon, all the dayes of his fleſh. Why therefore may it not rather be ſaid, that whatſoever the Kings of Judah lawfully did, whether againſt the Tranſgreſſours of the firſt or ſecond Table, they did it not as types of Chriſt, but as ſervants of Chriſt, betruſted with the care of the welfare both of Church and Common-wealth, and therefore as patternes and examples to Chriſtian Magiſtrates?
And indeed many of the Kings of Iſrael, as they were Kings over a Common-wealth, which was alſo a Church, ſo they were Kings alſo over ſundry Pagan Nations round about them, as were David and Solomon, Aſa and Jehoſaphat, Joaſh and Joſiah. And though none of them compelled the Pagan Nations, to become Proſelites to the Church of Iſrael (no more then Chriſtian Kings may compell Pagans to become Chriſtians, or men without to become Church-members) yet Ahab, though King over an Apoſtate Church, having gotten Pagan Benhadad by conqueſt under his Dominion, becauſe he put him not to death for his blaſphemy, forfeited his owne life for his, 1 Kings 20.23. with 42.
CHAP. 36 A Reply to his Chapter 36. Diſcuſsing the Text in Luke 9.54, 55.
Diſcuſſer.
THe next Scripture brought by the Letter againſt ſuch Perſecution, is Luke, 9.54, 55. where the Lord Jeſus reproved his Diſciples, who would have fire come downe from Heaven, to have devoured thoſe Samaritans, that would not receive him, in theſe words, You know not of what ſpirit you are, the Sonne of man is not come to deſtroy mens lives but to ſave them.
With this Scripture Mr. Cotton joyneth the next, and anſwereth both in one, which is this, 2 Tim. 2.24. The ſervant of the Lord muſt not ſtrive, but muſt be gentle towards all men, proving if at any time, God will give them Repentance, &c. unto both theſe Scriptures, he giveth this Anſwer.
Both theſe are directions to Miniſters of the Goſpel, how to deale, (not with obſtinate offenders in the Church, but) either with men without, as the Samaritans were, and many unconverted Chriſtians in Creete, whom Titus (as an Evangeliſt) was to ſeeke to convert.
Or at beſt, with ſome Jewes or Gentiles in the Church, who though carnall, yet were not convinced of the Errours of their way. And it is true, it became not the Spirit of the Goſpel, to convert Aliens to the Faith, (Such as the Samaritans were) by Fire and Brimſtone, nor to deale harſhly in publick Miniſtry, or private conference, with all ſuch ſeverall-minded men, as either had not yet entred into Church-fellowſhip, or if they had, did hitherto ſinne of Ignorance, not againſt Conſcience. But neither of both theſe Texts, doe hinder a Miniſter of the Goſpel to proceed in a Church way againſt Church-members, when they become ſcandalous, either in life, or Doctrine: much leſſe doe they ſpeake at all to the Civill Magiſtrate.
Defender.
The matter of this Anſwer, it is likely enough was given by me: for it ſuiteth with mine owne apprehenſions, both then and now. But ſome expreſſions in laying it downe, I doe not owne, nor can I finde any Copie under my owne hand-writing, that might teſtifie, how I did expreſſe my ſelfe, eſpecially in a word or two, wherein the Diſcuſſer obſerveth (in chap. 38.) ſome haſte, and light, and ſleepy attention. But if the Diſcuſſer can ſhew the ſame under mine owne hand, (as it is not impoſſible) I ſhall be willing (by Gods help) both to acknowledge it, and my haſte in it.