The Bloody Tenant Washed and Made White in the Blood of the Lamb, Part 1 · Chapter 59 – Chapter 60
CHAP. 59. A Reply to his Chap. 62.
Diſcuſſer.
Secondly, I obſerve, how inconſiderately (I hope not willingly) the Anſwerer paſſeth by the reaſons and grounds, urged by theſe three Princes.
In King James his ſpeech, he paſſeth by that golden Maxime, that God never loved to plant his Church by bloud.
Defender.
The Diſcuſſer is miſtaken, when he ſaith I paſſed over their reaſons and grounds inconſiderately, though he hopeth, not willingly: for indeed I paſſed them over willingly, but not inconſiderately. For I well conſidered, either the reaſons wanted weight, or elſe did not impugne the cauſe in hand. For inſtance, this ſpeech of King James (That God never loved to plant his Church by bloud) though it be a Truth of weight: yet it doth not touch this cauſe. It is farre from us, to defend the planting of Churches by bloud: that is, to compell men to yeeld themſelves to the fellowſhip of the Church by bloudy Lawes, or poenalties: the Church of Chriſt admitteth no members, but a willing people, Pſal. 110.3. Nevertheleſſe that hindereth not, but as the Church was purchaſed and planted by the bloud of Chriſt: ſo he that ſhall goe about to ſupplant, and deſtroy the Church of Chriſt, his bloud may juſtly fall upon his owne head.
Diſcuſſer.
Secondly, That civill obedience may be performed by Papiſts: this was another reaſon of King James paſſed over by the Anſwerer.
Defender.
No marvell, that I paſſed it over: for I did not finde it in the Letter. For though the King ſay (as the Letter reporteth him, I onelyonly declared, to be ſecured for civill obedience: which for Conſcience cauſe, they were bound to performe:) yet the King doeth not ſay, That civill obedience may be performed, by Papiſts, ſtanding ſtedfaſt to the rules of their owne Religion. For if the Biſhop of Rome, upon pretence of hereticall pravity, ſhall excommunicate a Proteſtant Prince, diſſolve the Subjects Oath of Allegiance to him, depoſe him, diſpoſe of his Kingdome: In this caſe (which often falleth out) how can civill obedience be performed by the Papiſts?
Diſcuſſer.
Thirdly, The Kings third ground is his obſervation in Revel. 20. That perſecution is a true & certaine note of a falſe Church: The wicked are Beſeigers, the faithfull Beſeiged.
Defender.
I ſubſcribe to the King that perſecution (properly ſo called, that is, the oppreſſion of any for righteouſneſſe ſake) is a note of a falſe Church: but nor a certaine note. For againe, I ſay, that perſecution properly ſo called, may be ſometime found, in the true Church. For which of all the Prophets did not the Church of the old Teſtament perſecute? Acts 7.52.
And yet that perſecution was not the true and certaine note of a falſe Church: For then God had left no true Church upon the face of the earth. But this I graunt, That ſuch perſecution, where ever it is found, It is a degree of falſhood and A poſtacy in that Church. But what a vaſt diſtance is there between the juſt cenſure of Apoſtaſticall, and Hereticall ſeducers, and diſturbers of the Churches peace and truth, and between perſecution?
As for the other ſpeech [The wicked are beſeigers, the faithfull are beſeiged] It may well be ſaid of the ſeige ſpoken of in that 20. of the Revelation: But if it ſhould be put for a univerſall Maxime, Royall Authority cannot make it good Divinity. When the ten Chriſtian Kings ſhall hate the Whore of Rome, and eate her fleſh, and burne her with fire. (Rev. 17.16.) I ſuppoſe the Diſcuſſer will not ſay, the wicked are Beſeigers, the faithfull are beſeiged.
Diſcuſſer.
In King Stephens ſpeech of Poland, he paſſeth by the true difference, between a civill, and a ſpirituall Government. I am (ſaid Stephen) a civill Magiſtrate over the bodyes of men, not a ſpirituall over their ſoules.
Defender.
King Stephens ſpeech may well ſtand, and the cauſe ſtill untouched. The Magiſtrate is a Ruler over the Bodies of men, not over their ſoules: He cannot command their ſoules, nor binde their Conſciences, nor puniſh their ſpirits. It is the Lord alone can reach them. That which the King or Magiſtrate can doe, or doeth in this caſe, is to puniſh the bodyes of men for deſtroying, or diſturbing Religion.
Diſcuſſer.
To confound theſe, is Babel: and Jewiſh to ſeeke for Moſes and bring him from his Grave, &c.
Defender.
It is Babel indeed, for civill Magiſtrates, to make Lawes to binde Conſcience, and to excommunicate tranſgreſſors of thoſe Lawes: But to puniſh falſe Prophets, and Seducers of Gods people to Idolatry, was never the practiſe of Babel: but it was, and is their practiſe, not onelyonly to Tolerate them, but to advance, and encourage them.
If it were a Jewiſh ſeeking of Moſes, and a bringing him from his Grave, to puniſh Seducers for Idolatry, then after Moſes was buried, that Law (Deut. 13.) was abrogated. But his buryall, and Gods hiding of the place thereof, was rather a confirmation, and eſtabliſhment of it, then any Abrogation, or Impeachment of it. For may it not juſtly be conceived. That the Lord therefore hid the place of his buriall, leaſt the Children of Iſrael knowing it, might goe a whoring after his Sepulchre, and it may be offer ſweet incenſe upon it: and ſo ſuch falſe worſhip againſt the law of Moſes might come to be Tolerated, for honor to the body of Moſes?
But Chriſt hath aboliſhed a Nationall State, or Church, which Moſes ſet up in Canaan
Though Chriſt aboliſhed a Nationall Church-State, and inſtead thereof ſet up a Congregationall Church: yet Chriſt never aboliſhed, a Nationall Civill State, nor the Judiciall Lawes of Moſes, which were of Morall equity, but eſtabliſhed them rather, in their place and order. He that ſhed his own bloud to plant his Church, did never aboliſh that Law, which enacted, that his bloud ſhould be upon him, who ſhould ſupplant his Church. If Chriſts bloud goe to plant it, let the falſe Chriſts bloud goe for ſupplanting it.
Diſcuſſer.
In the King of Bohemias ſpeech, the Anſwerer paſseth by that Foundation in grace and Nature, that Conſcienee ought not to be violated, and forced, it is a ſpirituall Rape.
Defender.
This was not paſſed by, but prevented in ſtating the Queſtion, where it was ſaid, it is not lawfull to cenſure any, no not for error in Fundamentall points of Doctrine or Worſhip, till the Conſcience of the offendor, be firſt convinced (out of the word of God) of the dangerous error of his way, and then if he ſtill perſiſt, It is not out of Conſcience, but againſt his Conſcience (as the Apoſtle ſaith Tit. 3.11.) & ſo he is not perſecuted for cauſe of Conſcience, but puniſhed for ſinning againſt his Conſcience.
Diſcuſſer.
The King obſerveth that moſt lamentably true experience of all ages, That perſecution for cauſe of Conſcience, hath ever proved pernicious, &c.
Defender.
No experience in any age did ever prove it pernicious, to puniſh ſeducing Apoſtates, after due conviction of the error of their way. Wherein did the burning of Servetus prove pernicious to Geneva? or the juſt execution of many popiſh Preiſts to Queene Elizabeth, or to the engliſh State?
But the Kings ſpeech may paſſe, if it be meant of perſecution properly ſo called, to wit, Oppreſſion of the faithfull, for the Truths ſake: yea if it be the puniſhment of any for error, If not Fundamentally pernicious either to Religion, or Church-order, and that after conviction of Conſcience, perſiſted in with obſtinacy.
Diſcuſſer.
Laſtly, the Kings obſervation of his owne time, that Perſecution for cauſe of Conſcience, was practiſed moſt in England, and ſuch places, where Popery reigned: Implying (as I conceive) ſuch practiſes commonly proceed from the great Whore, whoſe Daughters are like their Mother, all of a bloudy nature, as commonly all wolves be.
Defender.
It is no marvell, if I paſſed by this obſervation in the Kings ſpeech: For there is no ſuch obſervation there to be found. If the Diſcuſſer had well obſerved it himſelfe, he would have found, it was not the ſpeech of the King, but of the Priſoner.
And the perſecution, he ſpeaketh of, was not of Antichriſtians, or Hereticks, or Idolaters, but onelyonly of ſuch as the world nicknamed Puritans, or the like, and of them too, without conviction of the error of their way.
But in that the Diſcuſſer maketh England a Daughter of the great Whore, and of a bloudy nature, like her Mother: he ſpeaketh as ſome other of the rigid Seperation have done before him. But I could never yet ſee awarrant (from the rule either of Truth, or Love) for ſuch a ſpeech. Did ever the holy Scripture, call any Church an whore, that worſhipped the true God, onelyonly in the Name of Jeſus, and depended on him alone for righteouſneſſe and ſalvation? Is it not the part of a baſe childe, or at leaſt, a baſe pare of a childe, to call his Mother whore, who bred him, and bred him to know no other Father but her lawfull Husband, the Lord Jeſus Chriſt?
CHAP. 60. A Reply to his 63. Chap.
Diſcuſſer.
NOw Thirdly, In that the Anſwerer obſerveth, that amongſt the Romane Emperors, they that did not perſecute were Julian the Apoſtate, and Valens the Arian: Whereas the good Emperors, Conſtantine, Gratian, Valentian, and Theodoſius, they did perſecute the Arians, and Donatiſts.
Let it be for an Anſwer, It is no new thing for godly, and eminently godly men to performe ungodly actions: nor for ungodly perſons, for wicked ends, to act what in it ſelfe is good and righteous, &c.
Defender.
This may goe for a truth, but not for an Anſwer. The Letter would Juſtifie Toleration of Religion from the judgement and ſpeeches of three Kings. I Anſwered that was no Argument, for I could bring him Kings more in number, and greater in the ſight of God and man, who judged it meet not to tolerate Hereticks, nor turbulent Schiſmaticks,
To this the Diſcuſſer Anſwereth, ſometimes the Godly doe that which is evill, and the wicked, that which is good. This I ſay is a Truth, but doth not take away my Anſwer, but by a Petitio Principij, a begging of the Queſtion, That Kings alledged by him did that which was good, but the Kings alledged by me, though better perſons, did that which was evill.