The Bloody Tenant Washed and Made White in the Blood of the Lamb, Part 2 · Chapter 22
TO CHAP. XXII.
THe ſecond offence which the Examiner tooke at our neglect of the Churches of the ſeparation, Was the reproach of himſelfe and others at Salem, for their ſeparation.
To which I anſwered in my Letter, That I knew no man who reproached Salem for their ſeparation, nor did I beleeve, that they did ſeparate. Howſoever, if any did reproach them for it, I did thinke it a ſinne meete to be Cenſured, but not with ſo deepe a Cenſure, as to excommunicate all the Churches, or to ſeparate from them, before it doth appeare, that they doe tolerate their members in ſuch their cauſleſſe reproachings. The errors of men are to be contended againſt, not with reproaches, but with the ſword of the Spirit. But on the other ſide, the failings of the Churches are not forthwith to be healed by ſeparation. It is not Chirurgery, but Butchery, to heale every ſore in a member, with no other but Abſciſſion from the body.
Whereto the Examiner anſwereth, That the Church of Salem was knowne to profeſſe ſeparation, and publickly reproached (yea he could mention a Caſe wherein ſhee was puniſhed) for it, implicitely.
Reply. This anſwer is ſo implicit, that I cannot make an explicite anſwer to it. That which I ſaid, was, I knew no man that reproached Salem for their ſeparation: nor did I beleeve, that they did ſeparate. His anſwer is, That the Church of Salem was knowne to profeſſe ſeparation: which croſſeth not what I ſaid; for it might be ſo, and yet I knew not of it, unleſſe the profeſſion had been more publick. Nor did I ever perceive, that they refuſed communion with us, when any of them came over to us. If they were publickly reproached for ſeparation, it was more then I heard of, till I read it in his Booke. And for any publick puniſhment that Salem ſuffered for it, I may well ſay, it was implicitly, if at all; for ſurely there is no Law of the Countrey, that puniſheth ſuch an offence, it her explicitly, or implicitly. But ſince he is pleaſed to conceale it, I ſee no cauſe of giving account of it.
Nextly, He takes up from me a Confeſſion of two things, which he leaveth to me to reconcile: 1. That I ſay, if any reproach them for Seperation, it is a ſinne meete to be Cenſured. 2. That Churches themſelves may be ſeparated from, who tolerate their members in ſuch cauſeleſſe reproachings.
Reply. It is true, that I doe not account reproaches, (which are a worke of the fleſh) a meete remedy to heale an error: And therefore the reproacher meete to be delt withall, either by private admonition, if it were publick. But the latter of the two things which he ſaith I confeſſe, I am farre from either confeſſing it, or beleeving it; to wit, That the Churches themſelves may be ſeparated from, who tolerate their members in ſuch cauſeleſſe reproachings.
I ſaid indeed, that a cauſeleſſe reproach is a ſinne meete to be cenſured: But I ſaid withall, it is not to be cenſured with ſo deepe a Cenſure, as excommunication, eſpecially of all the Churches, and that too, before that it doe appeare, that they doe tolerate their members in ſuch their cauſeleſſe reproachings.
But it may be, he will ſay, doth it not imply, that if it doth appeare, that they doe tolerate their members in ſuch cauſeleſſe reproaches, that then I thinke they are to be ſeparated from?
Anſw. No verily: Put it in a like caſe: Suppoſe a childe ſhould miſcall and revile his Mothers Siſter, I might ſay, it is a fault meete to be corrected, yet not with ſo deepe a correction, as to be diſinherited: or that his Mother ſhould be diſpoſſeſſed of her inheritance, before it doe appeare, that ſhe doe tolerate her childe in ſuch revilings. Would ſuch a ſpeech inferre, that in caſe it did appeare, his Mother did tolerate him, that then his Mother were to be diſpoſſeſſed of her inheritance? The true meaning of my ſpeech, was to expreſſe, that ſuch a ſinne, as reproaching of a Church for a ſin, might deſerve a Cenſure: yet not forthwith excommunication: much leſſe the Church to be excommunicated, whereof ſuch an one is a member, and leaſt of all, before it did appeare, that the Church knew of it, or did tolerate it: The ſcope of my ſpeech was, not to hold forth the grievous deſert of a reproach, but the groundleſſe proceeding unto ſeparation for a reproach, both againſt a member, and againſt the Church that tolerated him, without any further conviction, or obſtinacy, which was the caſe in hand of Mr. Williams. Some body, he ſaith, reproached the Church of Salem for ſeparation, ſome member of ſome Church. But what member of what Church, he ſaith not? And yet this is one of the ſtumbling blocks that turned him out of the way of communion with all the Churches in the Countrey, who (for ought I know) never heard of it unto this day. Let him now ſay, that mine owne confeſſions are ſufficient Anſwers to my ſelfe, as if I granted, that in caſe the member had been knowne, who ſo reproached Salem, and the Church knowne whereof he was a member, That then there were a lawfull ſeparation from the Church that doth but tolerate her member in a cauſeleſſe reproach, yea and from all other Churches too, that hold Communion with that Church.
For he is not ignorant, more goeth to a ſeparation then ſo, unleſſe he hath forgotten the principles and rudiments of Church-Government.
He confeſſeth that to be true which I ſaid, That it is not Chirurgery but Butchery, to heale every ſore with no other medicine, but with Abſciſſion from the body: But yet as if he could make mine own expreſſions, confutations of my ſelfe, he ſaith that I have confeſſed (that which indeed is not my confeſſion, but my collection of his Argugument;) That Churches of godly perſons muſt be ſeparated from, for inordinate worldlineſſe.
If this be a Contradiction, it is his, and not mine, as I ſhewed above; neither doe I own any ſuch confeſſion, as mine, which he ſubjoyneth; That Churches may be ſeparated from, when they tolerate their members in their cauſeleſſe reproaches.
It ſeemeth, he thinketh, I neither remember mine own words, nor know any Church-Cenſure, but Excommunication.
He proceedeth to tell us his judgement in ſo waighty a caſe as excommunication or ſeparation is: It is not (ſaith he) every ſore of infirmitie, or ignorance, but an Ʋlcer or Gangreene of obſtinacy, for which I maintained, that a perſon ought to be cut off, or a Church ſeparated from.
I know not how this judgement of his may ſatisfie his neighbours; but a good Conſcience willing to walke by rule, would ſtill inquire, (where it was meete) Firſt, whether every obſtinacy, even before conviction, and that in a ſinne leſſe hainous, be ſuch an ulcer, or Gangrene, for which either a perſon ought to be cut off, or a Church ſeparated from? For there is an obſtinacy againſt a good way, as there is a ſcorning of a good way, which is before conviction, even of ignorance: and to theſe Wiſdome communicateth good Counſell, Prov. 1.20.22. But there is a ſcorning, and ſo an obſtinacy, after conviction, and to ſuch, Wiſdome refuſeth to communicate any wholeſome words, Prov. 9.8, 9.
If he meane the former, why did he refuſe communion with us upon ſuch an obſtinacy of ignorance? By what rule did he proceede?
If he meane the latter, let him produce his cauſe, and bring forth all his ſtrong reaſons, whereby he did ſo much as offer to convince us of our obſtinacy in any crime, and we will acknowledge his ſeparation to be juſt, and our ſinne to be great in not hearkening to him.
If he tell us againe, (as he doth in the next words, as indeed the mouth is moſt full of the aboundance of the heart) if he tell us againe of our guiltineſſe of cruelty, both againſt conſciences and bodies, in perſecuting of them, wee muſt needs tell him againe, that neither himſelfe, nor any others, (that I can heare off) did ever ſuffer any Cenſure, (which he calleth cruelty to conſciences and bodies) till after his ſeparation from all the Churches in the Countrey. And though he ſaith in the next words, He ſeparated Conſcientiouſly and peaceably: Yet did ever peaceable Conſcience (before him) ſeparate from Churches for an offence before it was committed?
If he tell us, he ſeparated, for our communion with the Churches of England, in hearing the word in the Pariſhes there, let all that feare God (whoſe hearts are not foreſtalled with prejudice or partiality) judge whether his reaſons alledged to convince us of ſuch a ſinne, (the ſtrongeſt whereof were anſwered in my Letter to him, and have been againe refuted in this Reply) have been of ſuch convincing power, as that wee for not hearkening to him muſt needs lie under the guilt of an ulcer, or Gangrene of obſtinacy, and that after conviction. I may therefore well call it, not Chirurgery but Butchery, to cut off not onelyonly ſo many members of Chriſt, but alſo ſo many Churches of Chriſt from fellowſhip with Chriſt, before any ulcer or Gangrene of obſtinacy was diſcovered to us; Nay, I feare I might ſpeake a further word, (and yet I would be loath to ſpeake any doubtfull thing;) but ſurely (my memory much faileth me or elſe) he broke forth into this ſeparation, before he gave us any grounds of his ſeparation at all, or of our conviction of any ſuch ſinne, as might deſerve ſuch a Cenſure. And whether that be Butchery or Chirurgery, let the upright judge.
But, ſaith he, if it be Butchery to ſeparate conſcientiouſly and peaceably from the ſpirituall communion of a Church, or Saints, what ſhall it be called by the Lord Jeſus, to cut off perſons, them, and theirs, branch, and roote, from any Civill being in their Territories, &c. Becauſe their Conſciences dare not how domne to any worſhip, but what the Lord Jeſus hath appointed, and being alſo otherwiſe ſubject to the Civill eſtate, and Lawes thereof?
Here be many extenuations, and mincings of his own carriage, and as many falſe aggravations of Guilt upon his ſentence of Baniſhment, and the Authors of it.
As, 1. In that he was cut off, he and his, branch and roote, from any Civill being in theſe Territories, becauſe their Conſciences durſt not bow downe to any worſhip, but what they beleeve the Lord had appointed: Whereas the truth is, his Baniſhment proceeded not againſt him, or his, for his own refuſall of any worſhip, but for ſeditious oppoſition againſt the Patent, and againſt the Oath of fidelitie offered to the people.
2. That he was ſubject to the Civill eſtate, and Lawes thereof, when yet he vehemently oppoſed the Civill foundation of the Civill eſtate, which was the Patent: And earneſtly alſo oppoſed the Law of the generall Court, by which the tender of that Oath was enjoyned: and alſo wrote Letters of Admonition to all the Churches, whereof the Magiſtrates were members, for deferring to give preſent Anſwer to a Petition of Salem, who had refuſed to hearken to a lawfull motion of theirs.
3. That he did but ſeparate from the ſpirituall ſociety of a Church, or Saints: whereas he both drew away many others alſo, and as much as in him lay, ſeparated all the Churches from Chriſt.
4. In that he maketh the cutting off of perſons, them and theirs, branch and ruſh, from civill Territories, a farre more hainous and odious offence in the eyes of the Lord Jeſus, then himſelfe to cut off, not onelyonly himſelfe and his, branch and ruſh, but many of his neighbours (by ſedition) from ſpirituall Communion with the Churches, and all the Churches from Communion with Chriſt. As if the cutting off perſons, them and theirs, branch and ruſh, from the Covenant, and ſpirituall Ordinances in the Church. were a matter of no account in reſpect of cutting off from Civill Liberties in the Territories of the Common-wealth.
5. In that, what himſelfe did, he predicateth as done conſcientiouſly and peaceably, as if what the Court had done againſt him, they had not done conſcientiouſly alſo, and with regard to publick peace, which they ſaw he diſturbed, and ſtood ſtiffly in his own courſe, though he was openly convinced in open Court (as I ſhewed before) that he could not maintaine his way, but by ſinning againſt the light of his own Conſcience. As for his Marginall note, wherein he chargeth Mr. Cotton to be deeply guilty of Cruelty, both againſt Conſciences and bodies, in perſecuting of them.
I will onelyonly Anſwer thus much, (partly from David, partly from Job,) If the Lord have ſtirred him up thus to reproach me, (as Shimei did him) I hope the Lord will looke upon mine affliction, and requite me good for all his ſlander, this day, or this yeare, 2 Sam. 16 12. But if he himſelfe (who without cauſe is mine adverſary) hath whet his tongue like a ſword, and his bow to ſhoot out his arrowes, even bitter words, (Pſal. 64.3. as he frequently doth in his Booke) ſurely I ſhall take his booke upon my ſhoulder, and bind it as a Crowne to me, Job 31.36.