The Bloody Tenant Washed and Made White in the Blood of the Lamb, Part 1 · Chapter 67
CHAP. 67. A Reply to his Chap. 70. Diſcuſsing the Teſtimony of Tertullian.
Diſcuſſer
TO Tertullian, the Anſwerer giveth the like Anſwer. Tertullians Intent (ſaith he) is onelyonly to reſtraine Scapula, the Romane Governour of Africa) from perſecuting the Chriſtians, for not offering Sacrifice to their Heathen Gods: and for that end fetcheth an Argument from the Law of Naturall Equity, not to compell any to any Religion, but to permit them to beleive, or not to beleive at all.
Which we acknowledge: we judge, the Engliſh may permit the Indians to continue in their unbeliefe. Nevertheleſſe, it will not therefore be lawfull to tolerate the publick worſhip of Devils, or Idols, in a Chriſtian State, or the ſeduction of any from the Truth.
In this paſſage, he agreeth with Tertullian: but it is well known, that in New-England, they not onelyonly permit the Indians to continue in their unbeleife, (which they cannot help) but they alſo permit or tolerate them in their Paganiſh worſhip, which cannot be denyed to be a worſhipping of Devils.
And therefore conſequently according to the ſame practiſe, did they walke by Rule, and impartially, not on… the Indians, but their Countrymen, French, Dutch, Spaniſh, Per…, Turkes, Jewes, ſhould alſo be permitted in their Worſhips, if correſpondent in civill obedience.
Defender.
It is not true, that the New-Engliſh doe tolerate the Indians (who have ſubmitted to the Engliſh protection, and Government) in their worſhip of Devils openly. What the Indians doe, that are not under the Engliſh Government, the Engliſh have no warrant from God, or Law of Nations to reſtraine them; nor is it in the power of the Engliſh to reſtraine the private Worſhip, which ſome of the Indians under the Engliſh Government may poſſibly adhere unto the this day. What courſes have been uſed to bring them on to Civility, and to the knowledge of our Religion, by faire meanes, are not pertinent to the preſent controverſie to relate. It hath been an Article of the Covenant between ſuch Indians as have ſubmitted to our Government, that they ſhall ſubmit to the ten Commandements, which they thought reaſonable. Some of their Sachims young children are brought up with us, and trained up to knowledge. Such of them as come to our Houſes are fed with curteſie, and care taken often to inſtruct them, as farre, yea further then they are greatly willing to heare. Some of them of late, frequent our markets, to get mony, by ſelling Fiſh, Baskets, whortleberries, Cramberries, which taketh them off from ſome idleneſſe; Some Engliſh are ſtudious of the Indian Language, to deale with them in their owne Tongue. Of late ſome of our Miniſters have preached to a Congregation of them, whil'ſt others at firſt interpreted what was preached: but ſince one of our Miniſters preacheth to them in their owne Language. The other day, whil'ſt I was at the Colledge with other Elders, an Indian from Plimmouth ſide, (an hopefull youth) was received into ſome employment in the Colledge, that he might be trained up to knowledge for the help of his Country-men. But no violent courſe taken with them at all, to conſtraine them to the Faith, or Profeſſion of Chriſtianity. The time is haſtning (we hope) when all the vials of Gods wrath will be poured out on the Antichriſtian State: and then we looke for the fulneſſe of the Gentiles to come in, and with the Jewes, multitudes of Pagans. But till the ſeven plagues of the ſeven Angels be fulfilled, wee cannot eaſily hope for the entrance of …. New multitudes of men into the Church according to the word of the Lord, Rev. 15.8. No man (that is, no man out of the Temple, no Pagan) was able to enter into the Temple, till the ſeven plagues of the ſeven Angels were fulfilled.
But to returne to our Diſcuſſer, he ſpeaketh at randome, when he intimateth, that we walke not by Rule but partially, as if we permitted not the like liberty of worſhip to our Country-men, nor to the French, Dutch, Spaniſh, Perſians, Turkes, Jewes, which wee doe to the Indians.
For we Neither conſtraine them to worſhip God with us, nor reſtraine them from worſhipping God in their owne way. Perſians, Turkes and Jewes, come not amongſt us: thoſe of other Nations of Europe, when they doe come amongſt us, their manner of Worſhip is not taken notice of amongſt us. Our Country-men worſhip God with us for the moſt part, if ſome of them come not to our Aſſemblies by reaſon of the diſtance of their dwellings from us, they have Liberty of publick prayer and preaching of the word a-amongſt themſelves, by ſuch as themſelves chooſe, without diſturbance.
Diſcuſſer.
The Anſwerer addeth a further Anſwer to Tertullian, for whereas Tertullian had ſaid, that one mans Religion doth neither hurt, nor profit another: the Anſwerer ſaith, it muſt be underſtood of private Worſhip, or of Religion profeſſed in private. Otherwiſe a falſe Religion profeſſed in publick, by the Members of the Church, or by ſuch as have given their Names to Chriſt, will be the ruine and Deſolation of the Churches, Rev. 2.
Whereto I Anſwer, 1. Thoſe that are Members of the Church, and thoſe that have given their names to Chriſt, are all one: the diſtinction therefore is unſound.
Defender.
The Diſcuſſer muſt excuſe me, though I doe not take them for all one. For men of yeares muſt give up their names to Chriſt, before they can be received Members into the Church, as is evident, Iſaiah 56.6, 7. Therefore they are not all one: the one precedeth the other.
Diſcuſſer.
I anſwer ſecondly, that Tertullian doth not there ſpeake of private, but of publick worſhip, and Religion,
Defender.
Tertullians ſpeech may poſſibly be meant of either publick or private But as I ſaid, to make the ſpeech true, it muſt either be underſtood of private, or if of publick profeſſion of Religion, it muſt be underſtood not of Chriſtian, but of Pagan: and of Pagan during the time of Gods Patience, and their ignorance. But after God revealed the Truth of the Goſpel-Religion to them, it was not ſafe to continue a publick Profeſſion of Pagan-Religion: for after the White-Horſe hath revealed the Goſpel, a Red, and Black, and pale-horſe follow, to avenge the rejection of it upon the Romane-Pagan-Empire, Revel. 6.2. to 8.
Diſcuſſer.
I anſwer thirdly; although it be true in a Church of Chriſt, that a falſe Religion, or Worſhip permitted will doe hurt according to thoſe Threats of Chriſt, Rev. 2. yet in two caſes, I beleive a falſe Religion will not hurt (which is moſt like to have been Tertullians meaning.)
1. A falſe Religion out of the Church will not hurt the Church: no more then weeds in the Wilderneſſe will hurt the incloſed Gardens: nor poyſon hurt the body, when it is not touched, or taken, yea and Antidotes are received againſt it.
2. A falſe Religion and worſhip will not hurt a Civill State, in caſe the worſhippers breake no civill Law. And the Anſwerer elſewhere acknowledgeth, that the civill Peace is not broken, where the civill Lawes are not broken. And this onelyonly is the point in Queſtion.
Defender.
If this onelyonly be the point in Queſtion, where then lyeth the controverſie? for if I ſay (as the Diſcuſſer ſaith I doe) that the Civill Peace is not broken, when the Civill Law is not broken; and if a falſe Religion or worſhip doe not hurt the civill State, unleſſe the Worſhippers breake ſome civill Law, then where lyeth the pinch of the controverſie?
But I would not have the Diſcuſſer miſtake himſelfe; I doe not remember, that I have any where ſaid, that the civill Peace is not broken, where the civill Law is not broken. He ſaith, I ſay ſo elſewhere: If he meane, that I ſay ſo in the Modell drawn up by my Brethren (the Elders of thoſe Churches) he wrongeth and polluteth himſelfe much (Crimine falſi) when he ſaith that Mr. Cotton with the reſt of the Miniſters of New-England compoſed that Modell of Church and civill power. It is no new thing with him, to ſay I did that, which I did not: that Modell was drawen up by ſome other fellow-Brethren, but not by me. There is a Truth in the ſpeech which they ſpeak, rightly underſtood, but not as the Diſcuſſer here taketh it.
For firſt, what if no civill Law be made for the eſtabliſhment of Religion, nor againſt the violation of the Fundamentalls of it? this very defect of ſo needfull a Law, may bring the wrath of God upon the civill State: as did the defect of a King in Iſrael, Judg. 21.25.
Againe ſecondly, there may be a Law made for the eſtabliſhing of true Religion: and it though it be violated, yet the Diſcuſſer will ſay, no civill Law is violated, becauſe no Law concerning the ſecond Table is violated. But that is his miſtake, to thinke the civill Lawes concerne onelyonly the outward Eſtate of the People, and not their Religion.
That is a civill Law whatſoever concerneth the good of the City, and the propulſing of the contrary. Now Religion is the beſt good of the City: and therefore Lawes about Religion are truly called civill Lawes, enacted by civill Authority, about the beſt good of the City, for the promoting, and preſerving of that good of the City. But having thus ſpoken to his ſecond caſe firſt (wherein he ſaith, a falſe Religion will not hurt a civill State.)
I come now to his firſt: which was, that a falſe Religion will not hurt, if it be out of the Church, no more then weeds in the wilderneſſe will hurt the incloſed Garden.
But what if the Garden be incloſed in the midſt of a wilderneſſe? what if the weeds grow ſo neere the incloſure (or hedge) round about the Garden, that they eaſily creep into the Garden? what if every blaſt of wind blow the ſeeds of the weeds into the Garden, which are ready to overſpread the Garden, and to choak the good herbes? The Diſcuſſer will ſay, they that keep and dreſſe the Garden ſhould weed them out.
True, ſo they ought, to their beſt endeavour. But were it not alſo needfull, that the Lord of the ſoyle, who hath his Officers both to dreſſe his Garden & to keep his wildernes, ſhould provide, that the keepers of his wilderneſſe ſhould ſuffer no venomous weeds to grow neere his garden, hedge, or pale, leaſt the ſeeds thereof ſhould annoy his Garden, and poyſon thoſe within the Garden that feed on them?
It is true, which the Diſcuſſer ſaith, poyſon will not hurt the body, unleſſe it be taken, or touched, yea and Antidotes taken againſt it.
But who ſhall prevent the Members of the Church from touching or taking poyſon? or who ſhall provide, that all the Members ſhall take the Antidotes which are prepared for them? Here will be needfull the faithfull vigilancy of the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, to aſſiſt the Officers of the Church in the Lords worke: the one to lay in Antidotes to prevent infection: the other to weed out infectious noyſome weedes, which the ſheep of Chriſt will be touching and taking, when they will ſometime neglect their Antidotes. It is a very unlikely thing which the Diſcuſſer ſaith (is moſt likely) that Tertullian meant one of theſe two caſes.
For doubtleſſe his meaning was, to plead for the Innocency and impunity of his owne Religion, which was indeed the Truth of God. And he might ſafely plead, that if the Pagan Religion did not hurt their civill Government, (as the Romane Governours doubted not of that) he biddeth them to be ſecure of the Chriſtian Religion, it will never hurt them at all. When therefore he ſpeakes of Religion indefinitely, that one mans Religion will not hurt another, it is Argumentum ad hominem, let not Scapula ſuſpect hurt from Chriſtian Religion to the Romane State. If the Romane Religion be the preſervation of the Romane Empire (as Scapula thought) Chriſtian Religion (though tolerated, yea though received, and advanced) will never be their deſtruction, nor diſturbance.