The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed and Mr. Cotton's Letter Examined and Answered
Whole book · 181 sections
Terms of Subscription.
The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of
Conscience Discussed and Mr. Cotton's Letter Examined and Answered, by
Roger Williams, Edited by Edward Bean Underhill
Note:
Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive. See
https://archive.org/details/bloudytenentofpe00will_1
THE HANSERD KNOLLYS SOCIETY, FOR THE
PUBLICATION OF THE WORKS OF EARLY ENGLISH
AND OTHER BAPTIST WRITERS.
Treasurer.
CHARLES JONES, Esq.
Honorary Secretaries.
EDWARD B. UNDERHILL, Esq.
Rev. WILLIAM JONES.
Secretary.
Mr. GEORGE OFFOR, Jun.
Council.
Rev. J. ACWORTH, LL.D.
— JOSEPH ANGUS, M.A.
— C. M. BIRRELL.
— CALEB EVANS BIRT, M.A.
— WILLIAM HENRY BLACK.
— WILLIAM BROCK.
— THOMAS BURDITT.
— JABEZ BURNS, D.D.
— F. A. COX, D.D., LL.D.
— T. S. CRISP.
— B. DAVIES, Ph. D.
— B. EVANS.
— B. GODWIN, D.D.
— F. W. GOTCH, M.A.
— W. GROSER.
— J. H. HINTON, M.A.
— J. HOBY, D.D.
CHARLES THEODORE JONES, Esq.
G. F. KEMP, Esq.
GEORGE LOWE, Esq. F.R.S.
Rev. W. H. MURCH, D.D.
— J. P. MURSELL.
— THOMAS FOX NEWMAN.
GEORGE OFFOR, Esq.
Rev. G. H. ORCHARD.
— J. J. OWEN.
— T. POTTENGER.
— THOMAS PRICE, D.D.
J. READ, Esq.
Rev. ROBERT ROFF
— JOSHUA RUSSELL.
— J. SPRIGG, M.A.
— EDWARD STEANE, D.D.
— CHARLES STOVEL.
— THOMAS THOMAS.
— FREDERICK TRESTRAIL.
It has been a matter of regret with many, that the writings of the early members
and ministers of the Baptist churches of this country should be comparatively so
little known. The present appears to be a favourable time to reprint such of them
as may be deemed worthy of perpetuation, from their historical or theological
importance.
These writings are confined to no peculiarity of sentiment, but embrace every topic
of divine truth, which the word of God presents for the salvation of the believer, as
well as for the regulation of the church of Christ.
To the Baptists, belongs the honour of first asserting in this land, and of establishing
on the immutable basis of just argument and scripture rule, the right of every
man to worship God as conscience dictates, in submission only to divine command.
Rejecting the authority of men in matters of faith, they wrote with great simplicity
and directness of purpose. Scripture alone was their authority, and excepting
some of their polemical works, their productions are remarkably free from that parade
of learning which was the fault of their age.
They were not, however, destitute of learning. Most of the early Baptists had
had an university education: and if this privilege was not enjoyed by their successors,
it was because the national seats of learning denied it to them. The names of
Bampfield, Canne, Cornwell, Danvers, Delaune, Du Veil, Denne, Grantham,
Jessey, Knollys, Smyth, and Tombes, are sufficient to prove that the Baptist churches
were not destitute of able and learned expounders of their sentiments, eminent for
their attainments in both classical and divine knowledge.
The historical value of the works which it is proposed to reproduce, is very great.
Their authors exercised no mean influence on the course of national affairs during the
period of Cromwell’s protectorate, and they became in subsequent reigns, as they had
been in times preceding the Commonwealth, the especial objects of ecclesiastical and
political persecution. Some of the works which it is desired to publish will also
embrace the period of the Reformation, and illustrate the sufferings endured, by the
baptists of that eventful period, for conscience sake.
As theological writers they are characterized by fervour of spirit; deep study of the
word of God; great facility of application of divine truths to passing events; a holy
attachment to “the truth as it is in Jesus;” clear and pungent exhibitions of the
word of life; an uncompromising adherence to the scriptures as the rule of doctrine,
practice, and ecclesiastical organization and discipline; and finally, a fearless following
of their convictions, derived from the divine oracles.
Works of this kind are also wanting for our congregational and family libraries.
It is to be feared that too many of us are ignorant of our own history, and of the
great and good men who lost all in the maintenance of our principles.
The series of proposed volumes will include the works of both General and Particular
Baptists; Records and Manuscripts relating to the rise and progress of Baptist
churches; Translations of such works as may illustrate the sufferings of the Baptists
and the extension of their principles, together with such Documents as are to be
found only in large historical collections, or may not yet have appeared in an accessible
form. On the Baptismal controversy only those treatises will be given, which are
of acknowledged worth or historic value. The whole will be accompanied with
biographical notices of the authors, and with such notes and illustrations as may
be essential to their completeness.
The publications will consist of works produced before the close of the seventeenth
century. The following list comprises the names of some of the authors whose works
are intended to form part of the series;—Bampfield, Blackwood, Bunyan, Canne,
Collier, Collins, Cornwall, Danvers, Delaune, Denne, Du Veil, Drapes, Grantham,
Griffith, Helwys, How, Jeffrey, Jessey, Keach, Kiffin, King, Knollys, Lawrence,
Palmer, Powell, Pendarves, Smyth, Stennett, Tombes, Roger Williams, &c.
1. Every subscriber of ten shillings and sixpence annually will be entitled to one copy of
every work issued during the year of his subscription. Two volumes at least will be
published for the 10s. 6d.
2. Subscriptions will be considered due, in advance on the first of January of every year.
3. Ministers and Sunday Schools obtaining each ten subscribers annually, will be entitled
to one copy of every work published in the year for which such subscriptions are paid.
4. Books will be delivered, free of expense, in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, from
which places they will be sent at the cost of the subscriber by any channel he
may appoint.
Subscriptions will be received by the Treasurer, at Vassall Road, Kennington; by the
Honorary Secretaries, Mr. Underhill, of Newmarket House, Nailsworth; Rev. W.
Jones, at Stepney College; or by any member of the Council; also by Mr. G. Offor,
jun., Secretary, Baptist Mission House, Moorgate Street, London, to whom all communications
for the Society should be addressed, or at the Depository, B. L. Green’s, 68,
Paternoster Row.
THE BLOUDY TENENT OF PERSECUTION.
THE
BLOUDY TENENT OF PERSECUTION FOR
CAUSE OF CONSCIENCE DISCUSSED: AND
MR. COTTON’S LETTER
EXAMINED AND ANSWERED.
BY ROGER WILLIAMS.
EDITED FOR The Hanserd Knollys Society, BY
EDWARD BEAN UNDERHILL.
LONDON: PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY,
BY J. HADDON, CASTLE STREET, FINSBURY.
1848.
A BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION.
It was on the 1st day of December, in the year 1630, that
Mr. Roger Williams, with his wife, embarked at Bristol for
America, in the ship Lyon, Captain William Pierce.
Two years and a half before, a number of eminent and
enthusiastic men had gone forth, animated by religious principles
and purposes, to seek a home and a refuge from persecution
on the wild and untenanted shores of Massachusetts
Bay. Charles I. had announced his design of ruling the
English people by arbitrary power, only a few days before
a patent for the Company of Massachusetts Bay passed the
seals.[1] No provision was made in this document for the
exercise of religious liberty. The emigrants were puritans,
and although they had suffered long for conscience’ sake,
on this subject their views were as contracted as those of
their brethren who in Elizabeth’s reign sought the overthrow
of England’s hierarchy.[2] The patent secured to them, however,
to a great extent, a legislative independence of the
mother country; but they soon employed that power to
persecute differing consciences.
The emigrants landed at Salem at the end of June, 1629.
A few mud hovels alone marked the place of their future
abode. On their passage they arranged the order of their
government, and bound themselves by solemn covenant to
each other and the Lord. As religion was the cause of their
abandonment of their native land, so was its establishment
their first care. At their request a few of the settlers at
Plymouth, where in 1620 a colony had been established by
the members of Mr. John Robinson’s church, came over to
assist and advise on the arrangement of their church polity.
After several conferences, the order determined on was the
congregational, and measures were immediately taken for
the choice of elders and deacons. A day of fasting and
prayer was appointed, and thirty persons covenanted together
to walk in the ways of God. Mr. Skelton was chosen pastor,
Mr. Higginson teacher, both puritan clergymen of celebrity,
and Mr. Houghton ruling elder. They agreed with the
church at Plymouth, “That the children of the faithful are
church members with their parents, and that their baptism is
a seal of their being so.”[3]
The church was thus self-constituted. It owned no allegiance
to bishop, priest, or king. It recognized but one
authority—the King of saints: but one rule—the word of
God. The new system did not, however, meet with the
approbation of all this little company. Some still fondly
clung to the episcopacy of their native land, and to the more
imposing rites of their mother church. The main body of
the emigrants did not altogether refuse to have communion
with the church which had so unnaturally driven them away;
but, as they said, they separated from her corruptions,
and rejected the human inventions in worship which they
discovered in her fold. Not so all. Liberty of worship they
desired indeed, but not a new form of polity. Two brothers,
John and Samuel Browne, the one a lawyer, the other a
merchant, were the leaders of this little band. They wished
the continuance of the Common Prayer, of the ceremonies
usually observed in the administration of baptism and the
Lord’s Supper, and a wider door for the entrance of members
into a church state. Dissatisfied with the new order of
things, they set up a separate assembly. This was a mutiny
against the state, as well as against the church; and proving
incorrigible, the brothers were sent home in “the Lyon’s
Whelp.”[4]
In the year 1630, a large addition was made to the pilgrim
band, on the arrival of Governor Winthrop. Not less than
1500 persons accompanied him, to escape the bigotry and
persecuting spirit of Laud. Several new settlements were
formed, and the seat of the colonial government was fixed at
Boston. Though sincere in their attachment to true religion,
and desirous of practising its duties unmolested by episcopal
tyranny, they thought not of toleration for others. No such
idea had dawned upon them. They were prepared to practise
over other consciences the like tyranny to that from
which they had fled.
With nobler views than these did Mr. Williams disembark
at Boston, after a very tempestuous voyage, on the 5th of
February in the year 1631. The infant colony had suffered
very much during the winter from the severity of the
weather, and the scarcity of provisions. The arrival of the
Lyon was welcomed with gratitude, as the friendly interposition
of the hand of God.[5]
Roger Williams was at this time little more than thirty
years of age—“a young minister, godly and zealous, having
precious gifts.”[6] Tradition tells us, that he was born in
Wales: that he was in some way related to Cromwell: that
his parents were in humble life: and that he owed his education
to Sir Edward Coke, who, accidentally observing his
attention at public worship, and ascertaining the accuracy of
the notes he took of the sermon, sent him to the University
of Oxford. All this may or may not be true; but it is
evident that his education was liberal, and that he had a
good acquaintance with the classics and the original languages
of the scriptures.
He himself informs us, that in his early years his heart was
imbued with spiritual life. “From my childhood, the Father
of lights and mercies touched my soul with a love to himself,
to his only begotten, the true Lord Jesus, to his holy scriptures.”[7]
At this time he must have been about twelve years
old. His first studies were directed to the law, probably at
the suggestion of his patron. He became early attached to
those democratic principles which are so ably stated in the
“Bloudy Tenent,” and to those rights of liberty which
found so able a defender in the aged Coke. Subsequently,
however, he turned his attention to theology, and assumed
the charge of a parish. It was during this period that he
became acquainted with the leading emigrants to America;
and he appears to have been the most decided amongst them
in their opposition to the liturgy, ceremonies, and hierarchy
of the English church.[8] It is probable that it was upon the
subject of the grievances they endured, he had the interview
with King James of which he speaks in a letter written late
in life.[9]
It was a notable year, both in Old and in New England,
in which Williams sought a refuge for conscience amid the
wilds of America. Autocratic rule was decided upon by the
infatuated Charles, and the utterance of the most arbitrary
principles from the pulpits of the court clergy was encouraged.
Doctrines subversive of popular rights were taught,
and the sermons containing them published at the king’s
special command. Laud assumed a similar authority in
ecclesiastical affairs. With unscrupulous zeal and severity
he sought to extirpate puritanism from the church. The
Calvinistic interpretation of the articles was condemned, and
Bishop Davenant was rebuked for a sermon which he preached
upon the 17th. The puritans were to a man Calvinists, the
Laudean party were Arminians. And as if to give the
former practical proof of the lengths to which Laud was
prepared to go, and to shut them up either to silence or to
voluntary banishment, Leighton, for his “Plea against Prelacy,”
was this year committed to prison for life, fined
£10,000, degraded from his ministry, whipped, pilloried, his
ears cut off, his nose slit, and his face branded with a hot
iron. From this tyranny over thought and conscience Williams
fled, only to bear his testimony against similar outrages
upon conscience and human rights in the New World—to
find the same principles in active operation among the very
men who like him had suffered, and who like him sought
relief on that distant shore.
No sooner had Mr. Williams landed at Boston, than we
find him declaring his opinion, that “the magistrate might
not punish a breach of the sabbath, nor any other offence, as
it was a breach of the first table.”[10] Moreover, so impure
did he deem the communion of the church of England, that
he hesitated to hold communion with any church that continued
in any manner favourable to it. This was, however,
the case with the church at Boston. It refused to regard
the hierarchy and parishional assemblies of the English church
as portions of the abominations of anti-christ. It permitted its
members, when in England, to commune with it, in hearing
the word and in the private administration of the sacraments.[11]
Thus while separating from its corruptions, the emigrants
clave to it with a fond pertinacity. This was displeasing to the
free soul of Williams. He refused to join the congregation
at Boston. It would have been a weak and sinful compliance
with evil. He could not regard the cruelties and
severities, and oppression, exercised by the church of England,
with any feelings but those of indignation. That could not
be the true church of Christ on whose skirts was found
sprinkled the blood of saints and martyrs. He therefore
gladly accepted the invitation of the church at Salem, and a
few weeks after his arrival he left Boston to enter upon the
pastorate there.
But on the very same day on which he commenced his
ministry at Salem (April 12), the General Court of the
Colony expressed its disapprobation of the step, and required
the church to forbear any further proceeding. This was an
arbitrary and unjust interference with the rights of the
Salem church. As a congregational and independent community,
it had a perfect right to select Mr. Williams for
its pastor. The choice of its ministry is one of the church’s
most sacred privileges, to be exercised only in subordination
to the laws and to the will of its great Head. This right
the General Court most flagrantly violated, and thus laid the
foundation for that course of resistance which eventually
led to the banishment of Mr. Williams.[12]
To the civil government of the colony Mr. Williams was
prepared to give all due submission. Very soon after his
arrival, he entered his name upon the list of those who
desired to be made freemen, and on the 12th of May took the
customary oaths. Yet as if to bring into conflict at the
earliest moment, and to excite the expression of those
generous sentiments on religious and civil liberty which
animated the soul of Mr. Williams, on that very day the
court “ordered and agreed, that for the time to come, no
man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic,
but such as are members of some of the churches within the
limits of the same.” Thus a theocracy was established.
The government belonged to the saints. They alone could
rule in the commonwealth, or be capable of the exercise of
civil rights. “Not only was the door of calling to magistracy
shut against natural and unregenerate men, though
excellently fitted for civil offices, but also against the best
and ablest servants of God, except they be entered into
church estate.”[13] This was to follow, according to Williams’
idea, “Moses’ church constitution,” “to pluck up the roots
and foundations of all common society in the world, to turn
the garden and paradise of the church and saints into the
field of the civil state of the world, and to reduce the world
to the first chaos or confusion.” Our readers will find his
reasons at large, against this perilous course, in the subsequent
pages of this volume.[14]
As peace could not be enjoyed at Salem, before the end of
the summer Mr. Williams withdrew to Plymouth; “where,”
says Governor Bradford, “he was freely entertained, according
to our poor ability, and exercised his gifts among us;
and after some time was admitted a member of the church,
and his teaching well approved.”[15] Two years he laboured
in the ministry of the word among the pilgrim fathers; but
it would seem not without proclaiming those principles of
freedom which had already made him an object of jealousy.
For on requesting his dismissal thence to Salem, in the
autumn of 1635, we find the elder, Mr. Brewster, persuading
the church at Plymouth to relinquish communion with him,
lest he should “run the same course of rigid separation and
anabaptistry which Mr. John Smith, the se-baptist, at Amsterdam,
had done.”[16] It was during his residence at Plymouth
that he acquired that knowledge of the Indian
language, and that acquaintance with the chiefs of the Narragansetts,
which became so serviceable to him in his banishment.
His acceptance of their invitation afforded sincere and
great pleasure to the church at Salem. His former ministry
amongst them had resulted in a warm attachment, and not a
few left Plymouth to place themselves under his spiritual
care. Two or three weeks only could have passed after his
return, when, on the 3rd of September, Mr. Cotton, his
destined antagonist in the strife on liberty of conscience,
landed at Boston, in company with Mr. Hooker and Mr.
Stone; which “glorious triumvirate coming together, made
the poor people in the wilderness to say, That the God of
heaven had supplied them with what would in some sort
answer their three great necessities: Cotton for their clothing,
Hooker for their fishing, and Stone for their building.”[17]
John Cotton was the son of a puritan lawyer. Educated
at Cambridge, he had acquired a large amount of learning;
and by his study of the schoolmen sharpened the natural
acuteness and subtilty of his mind. In theology he was a
thorough Calvinist, and adopted in all their extent the
theocratic principles of the great Genevan reformer. On his
arrival in New England, he was immediately called upon to
advise and arrange the civil and ecclesiastical affairs of the
colony. By his personal influence the churches were settled
in a regular and permanent form, and their laws of discipline
were finally determined by the platform adopted at Cambridge
in 1648. The civil laws were adjusted to the polity
of the church, and while nominally distinct, they supported
and assisted each other.[18]
Matter for complaint was soon discovered against Mr.
Williams. At Plymouth he had already urged objections
relative to the royal patent, under which the colonists held
their lands. A manuscript treatise concerning it now
became the subject of consideration by the General Court.
In this work, Mr. Williams appears to have questioned the
King’s right to grant the possession of lands which did not
belong to him, but to the natives who hunted over them.
Equity required that they should be fairly purchased of the
Indian possessors. Mr. Williams was “convented” before
the Court. Subsequently, he gave satisfaction to his judges
of his “intentions and loyalty,” and the matter was passed
by. It will be seen, however, that this accusation was
revived, and declared to be one of the causes of his banishment.[19]
For a few months, during the sickness of Mr. Skelton,
Mr. Williams continued his ministry without interruption,
and with great acceptance. On the 2nd of August, 1634,
Mr. Skelton died, and the Salem church shortly thereafter
chose him to be their settled teacher. To this the magistrates
and ministers objected. His principles were obnoxious to
them. They sent a request to the church, that they would
not ordain him. But in the exercise of their undoubted
right the church persisted, and Mr. Williams was regularly
inducted to the office of teacher.[20]
Occasion was soon found to punish the church and its refractory
minister. On November the 17th, he was summoned
to appear before the Court, for again teaching publicly “against
the king’s patent, and our great sin in claiming right thereby
to this country: and for terming the churches of England
anti-christian.” A new accusation was made on the 30th of
the following April, 1635. He had taught publicly, it was
said, “that a magistrate ought not to tender an oath to an
unregenerate man, for that we thereby have communion with
a wicked man in the worship of God, and cause him to take
the name of God in vain. He was heard before all the
ministers, and very clearly confuted.”[21] In the month of July
he was again summoned to Boston, and some other dangerous
opinions were now laid to his charge. He was accused of
maintaining:—That the magistrate ought not to punish
the breach of the first table, otherwise than in such cases as
did disturb the civil peace:—That a man ought not to pray
with the unregenerate, though wife or child—That a man
ought not to give thanks after the sacrament, nor after meat.
But the aggravation of his offences was that, notwithstanding
these crimes were charged upon him, the church at Salem,
in spite of the magisterial admonitions, and the exhortations
of the pastors, had called him to the office of teacher. To
mark their sense of this recusancy, the Salem people were
refused, three days after, the possession of a piece of land
for which they had applied, and to which they had a just
claim.[22]
This flagrant wrong induced Mr. Williams and his church
to write admonitory letters to the churches of which these
magistrates were members, requesting them to admonish the
magistrates of the criminality of their conduct, it being a
“breach of the rule of justice.” The letters were thus
addressed because the members of the churches were the
only freemen, and the only parties interested in the civil
government of the colony. They were without effect.
His own people began to waver under the pressure of ministerial
power and influence. Mr. Williams’s health too gave
way, “by his excessive labours, preaching thrice a week, by
labours night and day in the field; and by travels night and
day to go and come from the Court.” Even his wife added
to his affliction by her reproaches, “till at length he drew
her to partake with him in the error of his way.”[23] He now
declared his intention to withdraw communion from all the
churches in the Bay, and from Salem also if they would not
separate with him. His friend Endicot was imprisoned for
justifying the letter of admonition, and Mr. Sharpe was
summoned to appear to answer for the same. In October he
was called before the Court for the last time. All the
ministers were present. They had already decided “that
any one was worthy of banishment who should obstinately
assert, that the civil magistrate might not intermeddle even
to stop a church from apostacy and heresy.”[24] His letters
were read, which he justified; he maintained all his opinions.
After a disputation with Mr. Hooker, who could not “reduce
him from any of his errors,” he was sentenced to banishment
in six weeks, all the ministers, save one, approving of the
deed.[25]
Before proceeding to detail the subsequent events of his
history, it will be necessary to make a few remarks on the
topics of accusation brought against Mr. Williams, and
especially since they are often referred to in the pages of
the works now in the reader’s hands.
The causes of his banishment are given by Mr. Williams
in p. 375 of this volume, with which agrees Governor
Winthrop’s testimony cited above. Mr. Cotton, however,
does not concur in this statement: the two last causes he
denies, giving as his reason, “that many are known to hold
both those opinions, and are yet tolerated not only to live in
the commonwealth, but also in the fellowship of the
churches.” The other two points, he likewise asserts, were
held by some, who yet were permitted to enjoy both civil
and church liberties.[26] What then were the grounds of this
harsh proceeding according to Mr. Cotton? They were as
follows:—“Two things there were, which to my best
observation, and remembrance, caused the sentence of his
banishment: and two other fell in, that hastened it. 1. His
violent and tumultuous carriage against the patent.... 2. The
magistrates, and other members of the general Court upon
intelligence of some episcopal and malignant practices against
the country, they made an order of Court to take trial of the
fidelity of the people, not by imposing upon them, but by
offering to them, an oath of fidelity. This oath when it came
abroad, he vehemently withstood it, and dissuaded sundry
from it, partly because it was, as he said, Christ’s prerogative
to have his office established by oath: partly because an oath
was a part of God’s worship, and God’s worship was not to
be put upon carnal persons, as he conceived many of the
people to be.” The two concurring causes were:—1. That
notwithstanding his “heady and turbulent spirit,” which
induced the magistrates to advise the church at Salem not to
call him to the office of teacher, yet the major part of the
church made choice of him. And when for this the Court
refused Salem the parcel of land, Mr. Williams stirred up
the church to unite with him in letters of admonition to the
churches “whereof those magistrates were members, to
admonish them of their open transgression of the rule of
justice.” 2. That when by letters from the ministers the
Salem church was inclined to abandon their teacher, Mr.
Williams renounced communion with Salem and all the
churches in the Bay, refused to resort to public worship, and
preached to “sundry who began to resort to his family,” on
the Lord’s day.[27]
On examination, it is evident that the two statements do not
materially differ. Mr. Williams held the patents to be
sinful “wherein Christian kings, so called, are invested with
right by virtue of their Christianity, to take and give away
the lands and countries of other men.”[28] It were easy to
represent opposition to the patent of New England as overthrowing
the foundation on which colonial laws were framed,
and as a denial of the power claimed by the ministers and
the General Court “to erect such a government of the
church as is most agreeable to the word.” Such was Mr.
Cotton’s view, and which he succeeded in impressing on the
minds of the magistrates. Mr. Williams may perhaps have
acquired somewhat of his jealousy concerning these patents
from the instructions of Sir Edward Coke, who so nobly
withstood the indiscriminate granting of monopolies in the
parliament of his native land.[29] There can be no question
that Williams was substantially right. His own practice,
when subsequently laying the basis for the state of Rhode
Island, evinces the equity, uprightness, and generosity of his
motives. Perhaps too his views upon the origin of all
governmental power may have had some influence in producing
his opposition. He held that the sovereignty lay in
the hands of the people. No patent or royal rights could
therefore be alleged as against the popular will. That must
make rulers, confirm the laws, and control the acts of the
executive. Before it patents, privileges, and monopolies,
the exclusive rights of a few, must sink away.
Moreover, it is clear, from Cotton’s own statement, that
this question of the patent involved that of religious liberty.
The colony claimed under it the right of erecting a church,
of framing an ecclesiastical polity: and it exercised it. Ecclesiastical
laws were made every whit as stringent as the canons
of the establishment of the mother country. Already we have
seen that church members alone could be freemen. Every adult
person was compelled to be present at public congregational
worship, and to support both ministry and church with payment
of dues enforced by magisterial power.[30] “Three
months was, by the law, the time of patience to the excommunicate,
before the secular power was to deal with him:”
then the obstinate person might be fined, imprisoned, or
banished. Several persons were banished for noncompliance
with the state religion.[31] In 1644, a law was promulgated
against the baptists, by which “it is ordered and agreed,
that if any person or persons, within this jurisdiction, shall
either openly condemn or oppose the baptizing of infants,”
or seduce others, or leave the congregation during the administration
of the rite, they “shall be sentenced to banishment.”
The same year we accordingly find that a poor man
was tied up and whipped for refusing to have his child
sprinkled.[32] Heresy, blasphemy, and some other the like
crimes, exposed the culprit to expatriation. It was against
this course that Mr. Williams afterwards wrote his “Bloudy
Tenent;” and through the “sad evil” “of the civil magistrates
dealing in matters of conscience and religion, as also
of persecuting and hunting any for any matter merely spiritual
and religious,” which he opposed, was he banished.[33]
The question of the patent could not therefore be discussed
in the General Court without involving a discussion upon
religious liberty. Mr. Cotton has chosen to make most prominent,
in his articles of accusation, the question of the
origin of the patent; the magistrate, whose statement is
adduced by Mr. Williams, places in the forefront that of the
magistrate’s power over conscience. As the matter stood,
these two subjects were allied. To doubt the one was to
doubt the other. But Mr. Williams was decided as to the
iniquity of both.
On the subject of the denial of the oath of fidelity, it is
evident, from Mr. Cotton’s statement, that the oath owed its
origin to intolerance. Episcopacy should have no place
under congregational rule, no more than independency could
be suffered to exist under the domination of the English
hierarchy. But Mr. Williams appears to have objected to
the oath chiefly on other grounds: it was allowed by all
parties that oath-taking was a religious act. If so, it was
concluded by Mr. Williams, in entire consistency with his
other views, that, 1, It ought not to be forced on any, so far
as it was religious; nor, 2, could an unregenerate man take
part in what was thought to be an act of religious worship.
Whether an oath be a religious act, we shall not discuss;
but on the admitted principles of the parties engaged in this
strife, Mr. Williams’s argument seems to us irrefragable.
On the concurring causes referred to by Mr. Cotton, it
will be unnecessary to make extended comment. The first
of these is treated of at length in the second piece of this
volume. Mr. Cotton and Mr. Williams were representatives
of the two great bodies of dissentients from the law-established
church of England. One party deemed it to be an
anti-christian church, its rites to be avoided, its ministry
forsaken, its communion abjured: these were the Separatists,
or true Nonconformists, to whom Mr. Williams belonged.[34]
The other party, although declaiming against the supposed
corruptions of the church, loved its stately service, its governmental
patronage, its common prayer, and its parishional
assemblies:[35] these were the puritans who, in New England,
became Independents, or Congregationalists[36]—in Old England,
during the Commonwealth, chiefly Presbyterians, and
some Independents: to these Mr. Cotton belonged.
Mr. Williams thought it his duty to renounce all connection
with the oppressor of the Lord’s people, and also with
those who still held communion with her.[37] Let us not deem
him too rigid in these principles of separation. There can
be no fellowship between Christ and Belial. And if, as was
indeed the case, the Anglican church too largely exhibited
those principles which were subversive of man’s inalienable
rights, exercised a tyrannous and intolerable sway over the
bodies and consciences of the people, and drove from her fold,
as outcasts, many of her best and holiest children,—it is no
wonder that they should in return regard her touch as polluting,
her ecclesiastical frame as the work of anti-christ.
The Congregationalists introduced her spirit and practice
into the legislation of the New World, and it behoved every
lover of true liberty to stand aloof and separate from the
evil. This did Mr. Williams. He was right in regarding
the relation of the Congregational polity to the civil state in
New England as implicitly a national church state, although
that relation was denied to be explicitly national by Mr.
Cotton and his brethren. “I affirm,” said Williams, “that
that church estate, that religion and worship which is commanded,
or permitted to be but one in a country, nation, or
province, that church is not in the nature of the particular
churches of Christ, but in the nature of a national or state
church.”[38]
It is, however, to this controversy that we are indebted
for the second of the pieces reprinted in this volume. While
wandering among the uncivilized tribes of Indians, Mr.
Cotton’s letter came into Mr. Williams’s hands.[39] It seems
to have been a part of a somewhat extended correspondence
between them, and to have originated in Mr. Cotton’s twofold
desire to correct the aberrations, as he deemed them, of
his old friend, and to shield himself from the charge of being
not only an accessory, but to some degree the instigator of
the sentence of banishment decreed against him. His defence
of himself is unworthy of his candour, and betrays, by
its subtle distinctions and passionate language, by his cruel
insinuations and ready seizure of the most trifling inaccuracies,
a mind ill at ease and painfully conscious that he had
dealt both unjustly and unkindly with his former companion
in tribulation. By some means, but without his knowledge,
Mr. Cotton’s letter got into print, to him most “unwelcome;”
and while in England, in 1644, Mr. Williams printed his
reply. It will be seen that Mr. Williams has given the
whole of it: and with scrupulous fidelity, adding thereto his
remarks and reasonings. Mr. Cotton, however, did not
hesitate to aver the righteousness of the persecution and
banishment which Williams endured.[40]
In the Colonial Records, the date of Mr. Williams’s sentence
is November 3, (1635). He immediately withdrew
from all church communion with the authors of his sufferings.
A few attached friends assembled around him, and
preparations were made for departure.[41] It would seem that
he had, for some time, contemplated the formation of a
settlement where liberty, both civil and religious, should be
enjoyed. This reached the ears of his adversaries. His
Lord’s day addresses were attractive to many, and withdrew
them from the congregations of the dominant sect. Provoked
at “the increase of concourse of people to him on the
Lord’s days in private,” and fearing the further extension of
principles so subversive of their state-church proceedings,
they resolved on Mr. Williams’s immediate deportation. Two
or three months had to elapse, of the additional time granted
for his departure, before their sentence could take effect.
Delay was dangerous: therefore the Court met at Boston
on the 11th of January, 1636, and resolved that he should
immediately be shipped for England, in a vessel then riding
at anchor in the bay. A warrant was despatched summoning
him to Boston. He returned answer that his life was in
hazard; and came not. A pinnace was sent to fetch him;
“but when they came at his house, they found he had been
gone three days before; but whither they could not learn.”[42]
His wife and two children, the youngest less than three
months old, were left behind. By a mortgage on his property
at Salem he had raised money to supply his wants.
He then plunged into the untrodden wilds; being “denied
the common air to breathe in, and a civil cohabitation upon
the same common earth; yea, and also without mercy and
human compassion, exposed to winter miseries in a howling
wilderness.”[43]
After fourteen weeks’ exposure to frost and snow, “not
knowing what bread or bed did mean,” he arrived at Seekonk,[44]
on the east bank of Pawtucket river. Here he began
to build and plant. In the following expressive lines he seems
to refer to the kind support afforded him by the Indians:—
Their hospitality he requited throughout his long life by
acts of benevolence, and by unceasing efforts to benefit and
befriend them. He taught them Christianity; and was the
first of the American pilgrims to convey to these savage
tribes the message of salvation.
Before his crops were ripe for harvest, he received intimation
from the governor of Plymouth, that he had “fallen into
the edge of their bounds,” and as they were loath to offend
the people of the Bay, he was requested to remove beyond
their jurisdiction. With five companions he embarked in his
canoe, descending the river, till arriving at a little cove on
the opposite side, they were hailed by the Indians with the
cry of “What cheer?”[46] Cheered with this friendly salutation
they went ashore. Again embarking, and descending the
stream, they reached a spot at the mouth of the Mohassuck
river, where they landed, near to a spring—remaining to this
day as an emblem of those vital blessings which flow to
society from true liberty. That spot is “holy ground,” where
sprung up the first civil polity in the world permitting freedom
to the human soul in things of God. There Roger Williams
founded the town of Providence. It was, and has ever been,
the “refuge of distressed consciences.” Persecution has
never sullied its annals. Freedom to worship God was the
desire of its founder—for himself and for all, and he nobly
endured till it was accomplished.
It has been generally held that the fourteen weeks above
referred to were spent by Mr. Williams in traversing the
wilderness, and in penetrating the vast forests which
separated Salem from Seekonk by land. Some doubts have
of late, however, been thrown upon this view.
It can scarcely be supposed that so long a time could have
been occupied in the land journey from Salem to Seekonk.
The distance is about fifty miles. Even if we allow a considerable
addition to this, occasioned by the detour rendered
necessary to avoid the settlements on the Bay, the time consumed
cannot be accounted for. He himself has given us no
details of this eventful journey. Only passing references to
it occur in his various works. Yet these are of such a kind
as to render it more probable that his journey was made by
sea, coasting from place to place, holding intercourse with the
native tribes, whose language he had previously acquired.[47]
His route by sea would be not less than 200 miles, to
accomplish which by his own unaided arm, together with the
interviews he undoubtedly held with the aborigines, and the
time necessarily allotted for repose, or spent in waiting for
favourable weather, might well fill the fourteen weeks he
tells us his journey lasted. His language supports this view,
“Mr. Winthrop, he says, privately wrote me to steer my
course to the Narraganset Bay. I took his prudent motion,
and waiving all other thoughts and emotions I steered my
course from Salem, though in winter snow, into these parts.”
Again, “It pleased the Most High to direct my steps into
this bay;” which words would seem only applicable to a
voyage by water. “I was sorely tossed for one fourteen
weeks.” This language is evidently such as would be most
natural in referring to a passage by sea.[48] But there is one
paragraph in the present volume which would seem to decide
the question. It is found at page 386. “Had his soul
[Cotton’s] been in my soul’s case, exposed to the miseries,
poverties, necessities, wants, debts, hardships of sea and land,
in a banished condition, he would, I presume, reach forth a
more merciful cordial to the afflicted.” Here distinct reference
is made to the sea as the scene of some of those hardships he
endured. It is moreover known that travelling at that time
was chiefly by water, that Williams was a skilful boatman,
and that he possessed a boat of his own soon after his settlement
at Providence. In the view of these particulars, we
are constrained to the conclusion that Mr. Williams journeyed
by sea, often landing to seek for food, and to hold intercourse
with the natives as to his final settlement.[49]
On reaching Providence, the first object of Mr. Williams
would be to obtain possession of some land. This he acquired
from the Narragansett Indians, the owners of the soil surrounding
the bay into which he had steered his course. By
a deed dated the 24th March, 1638, certain lands and meadows
were made over to him by the Indian chiefs which he had
purchased of them two years before, that is, at the time
of his settlement amongst them. He shortly after reconveyed
these lands, to his companions. In a deed dated 1661, he
says, “I desired it might be for a shelter for persons distressed
for conscience. I then considering the condition of divers of
my distressed countrymen, I communicated my said purchase
unto my loving friends [whom he names], who then desired to
take shelter here with me.”[50] This worthy conception of his
noble mind was realized, and he lived to see a settled community
formed wherein liberty of conscience was a primary
and fundamental law. Thirty-five years afterward he could
say, “Here, all over this colony, a great number of weak
and distressed souls, scattered, are flying hither from Old and
New England, the Most High and Only Wise hath, in his
infinite wisdom, provided this country and this corner as a
shelter for the poor and persecuted, according to their several
persuasions.”[51]
The year 1638 witnessed the settlement of Rhode Island,
from which the state subsequently took its name, by some
other parties, driven from Massachusetts by the persecution
of the ruling clerical power. So great was the hatred or the
envy felt towards the new colony, that Massachusetts framed
a law prohibiting the inhabitants of Providence from coming
within its bounds.[52] This was a cruel law, for thus trading
was hindered with the English vessels frequenting Boston,
from whence came the chief supplies of foreign goods. So
great was the scarcity of paper from this cause among the
Rhode Islanders, that “the first of their writings that are to
be found, appear on small scraps of paper, wrote as thick,
and crowded as close as possible.” “God knows,” says Williams,
“that many thousand pounds cannot repay the very
temporary losses I have sustained,” by being debarred from
Boston.[53]
In March 1639, Mr. Williams became a baptist, together
with several more of his companions in exile. As none in
the colony had been baptized, a Mr. Holliman was selected
to baptize Mr. Williams, who then baptized Mr. Holliman
and ten others. Thus was founded the first baptist church
in America.[54] On the 1st of the following July, Mr. Williams
and his wife, with eight others, were excommunicated
by the church at Salem, then under the pastoral care of the
celebrated Hugh Peters. Thus was destroyed the last link
which bound these exiles to the congregational churches of
New England, where infant baptism and persecution abode,
as in other churches, in sisterly embrace together.[55]
Mr. Williams appears to have remained pastor of the
newly formed church but a few months. For, while retaining
all his original sentiments upon the doctrines of God’s
word, and the ordinances of the church, he conceived a true
ministry must derive its authority from direct apostolic
succession or endowment: that, therefore, without such a
commission he had no authority to assume the office of pastor,
or be a teacher in the house of God, or proclaim to the
impenitent the saving mercies of redemption. It is, however,
by no means clear that he regarded the latter as wrong, for
we find him in after days desiring to print several discourses
which he had delivered amongst the Indians.[56] He seems
rather to have conceived that the church of Christ had so
fallen into apostacy, as to have lost both its right form and
the due administration of the ordinances, which could only be
restored by some new apostolic, or specially commissioned
messenger from above. Various passages in the present
volume will be met with which favour this view:[57] the following
is from his “Hireling Ministry:” “In the poor small
span of my life, I desired to have been a diligent and constant
observer, and have been myself many ways engaged, in city,
in country, in court, in schools, in universities, in churches,
in Old and New England, and yet cannot, in the holy presence
of God, bring in the result of a satisfying discovery,
that either the begetting ministry of the apostles or messengers
to the nations, or the feeding and nourishing ministry of
pastors and teachers, according to the first institution of the
Lord Jesus, are yet restored and extant.”[58] From this
passage it would seem that his objections were rather owing
to the imperfection of the church in its revived condition,
than to the want of a right succession in the ministry.
These imperfections could be removed by a new apostolic
ministry alone. He therefore was opposed to “the office of
any ministry, but such as the Lord Jesus appointeth.” Perhaps
in the following assertion of Mr. Cotton we have the
true expression of Mr. Williams’s views. He conceived
“that the apostacy of anti-christ hath so far corrupted all,
that there can be no recovery out of that apostacy till Christ
shall send forth new apostles to plant churches anew.”[59]
The constantly increasing number of settlers in the new
colony rendered a form of civil government necessary. A
model was drawn up, of which the essential principles were
democratic. The power was invested in the freemen, orderly
assembled, or a major part of them. None were to be accounted
delinquents for doctrine, “provided it be not directly
repugnant to the government or laws established.” And a
few months later this was further confirmed by a special act,
“that that law concerning liberty of conscience in point of
doctrine, be perpetuated.” Thus liberty of conscience was
the basis of the legislation of the colony of Rhode Island,
and its annals have remained to this day unsullied by the
blot of persecution.[60] But many were the examples of an
opposite course occurring in the neighbouring colony of
Boston. Not satisfied with having driven Williams and
many more from their borders by their oppressive measures
against conscience, the General Court laid claim to jurisdiction
over the young and rapidly increasing settlements of
the sons of liberty. This, concurring with other causes, led
the inhabitants of Rhode Island and Providence to request
Mr. Williams to take passage to England; and there, if possible,
obtain a charter defining their rights, and giving them
independent authority, freed from the intrusive interference
of the Massachusetts Bay.
In the month of June 1643, Mr. Williams set sail from
New York for England, for he was not permitted to enter
the territories of Massachusetts, and to ship from the more
convenient port of Boston, although his services in allaying
Indian ferocity, and preventing by his influence the attacks
of the native tribes upon their settlements, were of the
highest value and of the most important kind.[61]
At the time of his arrival in England, the country was
involved in the horrors of civil war. By an ordinance dated
Nov. 3, 1643, the affairs of the colonies were intrusted to a
board of commissioners, of which Lord Warwick was the
head. Aided by the influence of his friend, Sir Henry
Vane, Mr. Williams quickly obtained the charter he sought,
dated March 14, 1644, giving to the “Providence Plantations
in the Narragansett Bay,” full power to rule themselves, by
any form of government they preferred.[62]
With this charter Mr. Williams, in the summer of the
same year, returned to New England, and landed at Boston,
Sept. 17th, emboldened to tread this forbidden ground by a
commendatory letter to the Governor and Assistants of the
Bay, from several noblemen and members of parliament.
The first elections under this charter were held at Portsmouth
in May 1641, when the General Assembly then
constituted, proceeded to frame a code of laws, and to commence
the structure of their civil government. It was
declared in the act then passed, “that the form of government
established in Providence Plantations is democratical,
that is to say, a government held by the free and
voluntary consent of all, or the greater part of the free
inhabitants.” The conclusion of this Magna Charta of Rhode
Island is in these memorable words: “These are the laws that
concern all men, and these are the penalties for the transgression
thereof, which, by common consent, are ratified and
established throughout the whole colony. And otherwise
than thus, what is herein forbidden, all men may walk as
their consciences persuade them, every one in the name of
his God. And let the saints of the Most High
walk in this colony without molestation, in the
name of Jehovah their God, for ever and ever.”[63]
Mr. Roger Williams was chosen assistant, and in subsequent
years governor. Thus under the auspices of this noble-minded
man was sown the germ of modern democratic institutions,
combining therewith the yet more precious seed of
religious liberty.
We here trace no further the history of Roger Williams in
relation to the state of which he was the honoured founder.
To the period at which we have arrived, their story is indissolubly
allied together. Others, imbued with his principles,
henceforth took part in working out the great and then
unsolved problem—how liberty, civil and religious, could
exist in harmony with dutiful obedience to rightful laws.
Posterity is witness to the result. The great communities
of the Old World are daily approximating to that example,
and recognizing the truth and power of those principles
which throw around the name of Roger Williams a halo
of imperishable glory and renown.
The work of this eminent man, reprinted in the following
pages, owes its origin to the events we have detailed, and to
some other very interesting circumstances. In the first
volume of the publications of the Hanserd Knollys Society,
will be found a piece, entitled “An Humble Supplication
to the King’s Majesty, as it was presented, 1620.” This
was a baptist production. It is a well arranged, clear, and
concise argument against persecution, and for liberty of
conscience. Mr. Williams informs us that this treatise was
written by a prisoner in Newgate for conscience’ sake. So
rigid was his confinement that paper, pens, and ink were
denied him. He had recourse to sheets of paper sent, by a
friend in London, as stoppers to the bottle containing his
daily allowance of milk. He wrote his thoughts in milk on
the paper thus provided, and returned them to his friend in
the same way. “In such paper, written with milk, nothing
will appear; but the way of reading it by fire being known
to this friend who received the papers, he transcribed and
kept together the papers, although the author himself could
not correct, nor view what himself had written.”[64]
From this treatise was taken those arguments against
persecution,[65] which being replied to by Mr. Cotton, gave
rise to the work of Mr. Williams, and which he has so
significantly called “The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution
Discussed.” Mr. Cotton tells us that this excerpt was
sent to him about the year 1635, by Mr. Williams, and that
Mr. Williams, against the “royal law of the love of the
gospel, and without his knowledge, published it, with his
reply, adding thereto a refutation.”[66] A contradictory and
more particular account is, however, given of the affair by
Mr. Williams. No such letter or intercourse, he tells us,
passed between him and Mr. Cotton on this subject. The
prisoner’s arguments against persecution were presented to
Mr. Cotton by Mr. Hall, a congregational minister at Roxbury,
to whom also Mr. Cotton’s answer was addressed.
Mr. Hall not being satisfied, sent the papers to Mr. Williams
already printed, who, therefore, conceiving that being printed
they were no longer private papers, felt at liberty to publish
his discussion of Mr. Cotton’s principles.[67] At the time when
Mr. Cotton wrote the letter to Mr. Hall, he tells us that
Mr. Williams “did keep communion with all his brethren,
and held loving acquaintance with myself.” It must therefore
have been written some time before the banishment of
Mr. Williams, and soon after the arrival of Mr. Cotton in
New England.
At the close of Mr. Cotton’s letter is found a reference to
“a treatise sent to some of the brethren late of Salem, who
doubted as you do.” This treatise is the “Model of Church
and Civil Power,” the examination of which forms the second
part of the “Bloudy Tenent.”[68] The authorship of it is
attributed to Mr. Cotton by Mr. Williams. This Mr. Cotton
denies. He charges Mr. Williams with a “double falsehood:”
First, in saying that he wrote it; second, that the
ministers who did write it sent it to Salem.[69] This “blustering
charge” Mr. Williams repudiates. He refers to the
closing paragraph of Cotton’s own letter, and avers, “to my
knowledge it was reported, according to this hint of Mr.
Cotton’s, that from the ministers of the churches such a
model composed by them was sent to Salem.” He then
adds, that hearing of it he wrote to “his worthy friend Mr.
Sharp, elder of the church at Salem, for the sight of it, who
accordingly sent it to him.” Moreover, Mr. Cotton approved
of it, promoted it, and directed others to repair to it for
satisfactory information:[70] it was therefore unworthy of him
to pass so “deep censures for none or innocent mistakes.”
The real author of it was probably Mr. Richard Mather, of
whom we are told that “when the platform of Church Discipline
was agreed—in the year 1647, Mr. Mather’s model was
that out of which it was chiefly taken.”[71] Or perhaps it may
preferably be regarded as the result of an act passed by the
General Court in the year 1634, wherein the elders of every
church were entreated to “consult and advise of one uniform
order of discipline in the churches ... and to consider how
far the magistrates are bound to interpose for the preservation
of that uniformity and peace of the churches.”[72] Certain
it is, that the principles of this document pervade all the
subsequent legislation of the colony, and many of its conclusions
were embodied in the ecclesiastical and civil laws.
Mr. Williams did well in selecting these two pieces for
discussion. They broadly state those views which are antagonist
to intellectual and religious freedom. Other treatises
were published to defend New England practices against the
observations of friends in Old England, which are occasionally
referred to by Mr. Williams; but in none of them were
developed to the same extent, that persecuting spirit and
theocratic legislation which Mr. Williams so ably, so patiently,
and so thoroughly confronts and confutes in the following
pages.
The “Bloudy Tenent” was published in England in the
year 1644, and without the name either of the author or
publisher. It was written while he was occupied in obtaining
the charter for Rhode Island. In many parts it bears
evident tokens of haste, and occasional obscurities show that
he had found no time to amend his work. Indeed he tells
us, “that when these discussions were prepared for public in
London, his time was eaten up in attendance upon the
service of the parliament and city, for the supply of the poor
of the city with wood, during the stop of coal from Newcastle,
and the mutinies of the poor for firing.”[73] Nevertheless,
his style is generally animated, the discussion acutely
managed, and frequent images of great beauty adorn his page.
Although not the first in England among the baptist
advocates for the great principle of liberty of conscience,
Roger Williams holds a preeminent place. Previous to the
Bloudy Tenent, several pieces had been published, of great
interest and value. Some of these have been reprinted;[74]
and we have already seen how one of them gave rise to the
present work of Williams. In 1642 we find a baptist asserting
as one of the results of infant baptism, that “hence also
collaterally have been brought the power of the civil magistrate
into the church ... being willingly ignorant that the
state and church of the Jews is to be considered in a twofold
respect, one as it was a civil state and commonwealth and
kingdom, in respect whereof it was common to other civil
states and kingdoms in the world; the other as it was the
church of God, and in relation thereto had worship, commandments,
a kingly office, and government, which no other
state and kingdom had or ought to have: for herein it was
altogether typical. This state (the church) being spiritual
admits of none but Him, their spiritual Head, Lawgiver,
James iv. 12.”[75]
In 1643 another most able piece appeared, entitled,
“Liberty of Conscience; or the sole means to obtain peace
and truth.” The author expresses his opinion that the distractions
and troubles of the nation were owing in great
measure to the general obstinacy and averseness of most men
of all ranks and qualities to tolerate and bear with tender
consciences, and different opinions of their brethren.
The same year in which the “Bloudy Tenent” was published,
there issued from the press “The Compassionate
Samaritan, Unbinding the Conscience, and pouring oil into
the wounds which have been made upon the separation.”
This piece likewise asserts the rights of conscience with great
clearness and power.
Until now the baptists stood alone in this conflict, they
were the only known advocates for perfect liberty; but in
this year Mr. John Goodwin also came forth to aid them,[76]
and by his powerful writings did much to disseminate right
views on this great subject.
The activity of Mr. Williams, and his deep interest in
whatever concerned the well-being of his fellow countrymen,
are still more illustrated by the publications which he put
forth while in England. For he not only published his “Key
into the Language of America,” composed while on his
voyage to this country, and the two treatises reprinted in
this volume; but also an anonymous piece, entitled “Queries
of Highest Consideration proposed to Mr. Thomas Goodwin—presented
to the High Court of Parliament,”[77] containing
clear and accurate observations on the respective provinces
of civil and ecclesiastical authority.
The publication of the “Bloudy Tenent” was most
offensive to the various parties into which the ruling powers
of the State were divided. The presbyterians exclaimed
against it as full of heresy and blasphemy. If we may believe
Mr. Richardson, they even proceeded so far as to burn it.[78] To
this we are inclined to attach some confidence, as thereby we
may account for the extreme rarity of the book, and for what
is in fact a second edition, published in the same year. The
existing copies of the work do not quite agree. While they
are page for page and line for line the same, they differ in
the fact of a table of errata being found in some, which
errata are corrected in others. There is also a slight difference
in the type and orthography of the title page.[79]
Baillie informs us that Williams’s work did not meet with
the approbation of the English Independents. Its toleration
was too unlimited for their taste. They were willing to
grant liberty only to those sound in fundamentals—the
identical views of their brother Congregationalists of
America.[80] Yet we are informed in a subsequent work by
Mr. Williams, that it operated most beneficially on the public
mind. “These images and clouts it hath pleased God to make
use of to stop no small leaks of persecution, that lately began
to flow in upon dissenting consciences, and to Master Cotton’s
own, and to the peace and quietness of the Independents,
which they have so long and so wonderfully enjoyed.”[81]
In the year 1647, Mr. Cotton attempted a reply to Mr.
Williams. He entitled his work, “The Bloudy Tenent
washed, and made white in the bloud of the Lambe: being
discussed and discharged of blood-guiltinesse by just Defence,
&c. Whereunto is added a Reply to Mr. Williams’s Answer
to Mr. Cotton’s Letter. By John Cotton, Batchelor in
Divinity, and Teacher of the Church of Christ at Boston in
New England. London. 1647.” 4to. pp. 195 and 144. In
the notes of the present volume,[82] various examples are given
of the character of this reply, and of the tortuous constructions
adopted to escape the home thrusts of Mr.
Williams. As compared with Williams’s work it displays
great unfairness, and a most lamentable want of Christian
temper and spirit—it is “wormwood and gall,” to use Mr.
Williams’s own words.
A rejoinder appeared in the year 1652. It is entitled “The
Bloody Tenent yet more Bloody by Mr. Cotton’s endevour
to wash it white in the blood of the Lambe, &c. By R.
Williams, of Providence in New-England. London, 1652.”
4to. pp. 373. It is characterized by the kindest tone, the
most affectionate spirit, and a considerate treatment of Mr.
Cotton’s perversions, errors, and mistakes, which he did not
deserve. It is proposed to reprint this volume as necessary
to the completeness of the present.
The work it is now the editor’s great pleasure and satisfaction
to place in the hands of the subscribers is of great
rarity. But six copies are at present known to exist of the
original editions. Three of these are in America; two in
the Library of Brown University, Rhode Island, and one in
the library of Harvard College. Three are in this country;
one in the library of the present American Consul, Colonel
Aspinall; one in the British Museum; and one in the
Bodleian Library. From the latter the present reprint is
made by the kind permission of the Librarian. It is a volume
of two hundred and forty-seven pages, in small quarto.
The original table of Contents is given with the pagination
only altered. Mr. Williams’s Reply to Mr. Cotton’s Letter,
is of still greater rarity. Two copies are in America; one
in Yale College which is much mutilated, and one in the
possession of the family of the late Moses Brown, Esq., of
Providence. Two are in this country; one in the British
Museum, and one in the Bodleian Library, which is also
somewhat mutilated. This reprint is from the latter. The
proof sheets have been compared with the very fine copy in
the British Museum, by my kind friend George Offor, Esq.
A MODEL OF CHURCH AND CIVIL POWER, composed by Mr. Cotton and the ministers of New England, and sent to Salem, (as a further confirmation of the bloody doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience) examined and answered
Persecutors dispute with heretics, as a tyrannical cat with the poor mouse: and with a true witness, as a roaring lion with an innocent lamb in his paw
THE BLOVDY TENENT
of Persecution, for cause of Conscience, discussed, in
A Conference betweene TRVTH and PEACE.
Who,
In all tender Affection, present to the High
Court of Parliament, (as the result of
their Discourse) these, (amongst other Passages) of highest consideration.
London
Printed in the Year 1644.
First. That the blood of so many hundred thousand
souls of protestants and papists, spilt in the wars of
present and former ages, for their respective consciences,
is not required nor accepted by Jesus Christ the Prince
of Peace.
Secondly. Pregnant scriptures and arguments are
throughout the work proposed against the doctrine of
persecution for cause of conscience.
Thirdly. Satisfactory answers are given to scriptures
and objections produced by Mr. Calvin, Beza, Mr. Cotton,
and the ministers of the New English churches, and others
former and later, tending to prove the doctrine of persecution
for cause of conscience.
Fourthly. The doctrine of persecution for cause of
conscience, is proved guilty of all the blood of the souls
crying for vengeance under the altar.
Fifthly. All civil states, with their officers of justice,
in their respective constitutions and administrations, are
proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors,
or defenders of the spiritual, or Christian, state and
worship.
Sixthly. It is the will and command of God that, since
the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus, a permission of the
most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or anti-christian consciences
and worships be granted to all men in all nations
and countries: and they are only to be fought against
with that sword which is only, in soul matters, able to
conquer: to wit, the sword of God’s Spirit, the word of
God.
Seventhly. The state of the land of Israel, the kings
and people thereof, in peace and war, is proved figurative
and ceremonial, and no pattern nor precedent for any
kingdom or civil state in the world to follow.
Eighthly. God requireth not an uniformity of religion
to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced
uniformity, sooner or later, is the greatest occasion
of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ
Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction
of millions of souls.
Ninthly. In holding an enforced uniformity of religion
in a civil state, we must necessarily disclaim our desires
and hopes of the Jews’ conversion to Christ.
Tenthly. An enforced uniformity of religion throughout
a nation or civil state, confounds the civil and religious,
denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
Eleventhly. The permission of other consciences and
worships than a state professeth, only can, according to
God, procure a firm and lasting peace; good assurance
being taken, according to the wisdom of the civil state,
for uniformity of civil obedience from all sorts.
Twelfthly. Lastly, true civility and Christianity may
both flourish in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the
permission of divers and contrary consciences, either of
Jew or Gentile.
TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE BOTH HOUSES OF THE HIGH COURT OF PARLIAMENT.
Right honourable and renowned Patriots,
Next to the saving of your own souls in the lamentable
shipwreck of mankind, your task as Christians is to save
the souls, but as magistrates the bodies and goods, of
others.
Many excellent discourses have been presented to your
fathers’ hands and yours, in former and present parliaments.
I shall be humbly bold to say, that, in what
concerns your duties as magistrates towards others, a
more necessary and seasonable debate was never yet
presented.
Two things your honours here may please to view, in
this controversy of persecution for cause of conscience,
beyond what is extant.
First. The whole body of this controversy formed and
pitched in true battalia.
Secondly. Although in respect of myself it be impar
congressus, yet, in the power of that God who is Maximus
in Minimis, your Honours shall see the controversy is
discussed with men as able as most, eminent for ability
and piety—Mr. Cotton, and the New English ministers.
When the prophets in scripture have given their coats
of arms and escutcheons to great men, your Honours
know the Babylonian monarch hath the lion, the Persian
the bear, the Grecian the leopard, the Roman a compound
of the former three, most strange and dreadful, Dan. vii.
Their oppressing, plundering, ravishing, murdering, not
only the bodies, but the souls of men, are large explaining
commentaries of such similitudes.
Your Honours have been famous to the end of the world
for your unparalleled wisdom, courage, justice, mercy,
in the vindicating your civil laws, liberties, &c. Yet let
it not be grievous to your Honours’ thoughts to ponder
a little, why all the prayers, and tears, and fastings, in
this nation, have not pierced the heavens, and quenched
these flames; which yet who knows how far they will
spread, and when they will out!
Your Honours have broke the jaws of the oppressor,
and taken the prey out of his teeth, Job xxix. 17. For
which act, I believe, it hath pleased the Most High God
to set a guard, not only of trained men, but of mighty
angels, to secure your sitting, and the city.
I fear we are not pardoned, though reprieved. Oh!
that there may be a lengthening of London’s tranquillity,
of the parliament’s safety, by [shewing] mercy to the poor!
Dan. iv. [27.]
Right Honourable, soul yoke, soul oppressions, plunderings,
ravishings, &c., are of a crimson and deepest dye,
and I believe the chief of England’s sins—unstopping the
vials of England’s present sorrows.
This glass presents your Honours with arguments from
religion, reason, experience: all proving that the greatest
yokes yet lying upon English necks, the people’s and
your own, are of a spiritual and foul nature.
All former parliaments have changed these yokes
according to their consciences, popish or protestant. It
is now your Honour’s turn at helm, and as [is] your task
so I hope [is] your resolution—not to change: for that is
but to turn the wheel, which another parliament, and the
very next, may turn again; but to ease the subjects and
yourselves from a yoke (as was once spoke in a case not
unlike, Acts xv. [10]) which neither you nor your fathers
were ever able to bear.
Most noble senators; your fathers, whose seats you fill,
are mouldered, and mouldering their brains, their tongues,
&c., to ashes in the pit of rottenness: they and you must
shortly, together with two worlds of men, appear at the
great bar. It shall then be no grief of heart that you
have now attended to the cries of souls, thousands oppressed,
millions ravished, by the acts and statutes concerning
souls not yet repealed—of bodies impoverished,
imprisoned, &c., for their souls’ belief: yea, slaughtered on
heaps for religious controversies, in the wars of present
and former ages.
The famous saying of a late king of Bohemia.
“Notwithstanding the success of later times, wherein
sundry opinions have been hatched about the subject of
religion, a man may clearly discern with his eye, and as it
were touch with his finger, that according to the verity of
holy scripture, &c., men’s consciences ought in no sort to
be violated, urged, or constrained. And whensoever men
have attempted any thing by this violent course, whether
openly or by secret means, the issue hath been pernicious,
and the cause of great and wonderful innovations in the
principallest and mightiest kingdoms and countries,” &c.[83]
It cannot be denied to be a pious and prudential act for
your Honours, according to your conscience, to call for
the advice of faithful counsellors in the high debates concerning
your own, and the souls of others.
Yet, let it not be imputed as a crime for any suppliant
to the God of heaven for you, if, the humble sense of what
their souls believe, they pour forth, amongst others, these
three requests at the throne of grace:
First. That neither your Honours, nor those excellent
and worthy persons whose advice you seek, limit the Holy
One of Israel to their apprehensions, debates, conclusions,
rejecting or neglecting the humble and faithful suggestions
of any, though as base as spittle and clay, with
which sometimes Christ Jesus opens the eyes of them
that are born blind.
Secondly. That the present and future generations of
the sons of men may never have cause to say that such a
parliament, as England never enjoyed the like, should
model the worship of the living, eternal, and invisible God,
after the bias of any earthly interest, though of the
highest concernment under the sun. And yet saith the
learned Sir Francis Bacon[84] (however otherwise persuaded,
yet thus he confesseth), “Such as hold pressure of conscience,
are guided therein by some private interests of
their own.”
Thirdly. [That] whatever way of worshipping God
your own consciences are persuaded to walk in, yet, from
any bloody act of violence to the consciences of others, it
may never be told at Rome nor Oxford, that the parliament
of England hath committed a greater rape than if
they had forced or ravished the bodies of all the women in
the world.
And that England’s parliament, so famous throughout
all Europe and the world, should at last turn papists,
prelatists, Presbyterians, Independents, Socinians, Familists,
Antinomians, &c., by confirming all these sorts of
consciences by civil force and violence to their consciences.[85]
TO EVERY COURTEOUS READER.
While I plead the cause of truth and innocency
against the bloody doctrine of persecution for cause of
conscience, I judge it not unfit to give alarm to myself,
and to [all] men, to prepare to be persecuted or hunted
for cause of conscience.
Whether thou standest charged with ten or but two
talents, if thou huntest any for cause of conscience, how
canst thou say thou followest the Lamb of God, who so
abhorred that practice?
If Paul, if Jesus Christ, were present here at London,
and the question were proposed, what religion would they
approve of—the papists, prelatists, Presbyterians, Independents,
&c., would each say, Of mine, Of mine?
But put the second question: if one of the several
sorts should by major vote attain the sword of steel, what
weapons doth Christ Jesus authorize them to fight with
in his cause? Do not all men hate the persecutor, and
every conscience, true or false, complain of cruelty,
tyranny, &c.?
Two mountains of crying guilt lie heavy upon the backs
of all men that name the name of Christ, in the eyes of
Jews, Turks, and Pagans.
First. The blasphemies of their idolatrous inventions,
superstitions, and most unchristian conversations.
Secondly. The bloody, irreligious, and inhuman oppressions
and destructions under the mask or veil of the name
of Christ, &c.
Oh! how likely is the jealous Jehovah, the consuming
fire, to end these present slaughters of the holy witnesses
in a greater slaughter! Rev. v.
Six years preaching of so much truth of Christ as that
time afforded in K. Edward’s days, kindles the flames of
Q. Mary’s bloody persecutions.
Who can now but expect that after so many scores of
years preaching and professing of more truth, and amongst
so many great contentions amongst the very best of protestants,
a fiery furnace should be heat, and who sees not
now the fires kindling?
I confess I have little hopes, till those flames are over,
that this discourse against the doctrine of persecution for
cause of conscience should pass current, I say not amongst
the wolves and lions, but even amongst the sheep of
Christ themselves. Yet, liberavi animam meam, I have
not hid within my breast my soul’s belief. And, although
sleeping on the bed either of the pleasures or profits of
sin, thinkest thou thy conscience bound to smite at him
that dares to waken thee? Yet in the midst of all these
civil and spiritual wars, I hope we shall agree in these
particulars,
First. However the proud (upon the advantage of a
higher earth or ground) overlook the poor, and cry out
schismatics, heretics, &c., shall blasphemers and seducers
escape unpunished? Yet there is a sorer punishment in
the gospel for despising of Christ than Moses, even when
the despiser of Moses was put to death without mercy,
Heb. x. 28, 29. He that believeth shall not be damned,
Mark xvi. 16.
Secondly. Whatever worship, ministry, ministration,
the best and purest, are practised without faith and true
persuasion that they are the true institutions of God,
they are sin, sinful worships, ministries, &c. And however
in civil things we may be servants unto men, yet
in divine and spiritual things the poorest peasant must
disdain the service of the highest prince. Be ye not
the servants of men, 1 Cor. vii. [23].
Thirdly. Without search and trial no man attains this
faith and right persuasion. 1 Thes. v. [21], Try all things.
In vain have English parliaments permitted English
bibles in the poorest English houses, and the simplest
man or woman to search the scriptures, if yet against
their souls persuasion from the scripture, they should be
forced, as if they lived in Spain or Rome itself without
the sight of a bible, to believe as the church believes.
Fourthly. Having tried, we must hold fast, 1 Thes. v.
[21], upon the loss of a crown, Rev. iii. [11]; we must
not let go for all the fleabitings of the present afflictions,
&c. Having bought truth dear, we must not sell it cheap,
not the least grain of it for the whole world; no, not for
the saving of souls, though our own most precious; least
of all for the bitter sweetening of a little vanishing pleasure:—For
a little puff of credit and reputation from the
changeable breath of uncertain sons of men: for the
broken bags of riches on eagles’ wings: for a dream of
these—any or all of these, which on our death-bed vanish
and leave tormenting stings behind them. Oh! how
much better is it from the love of truth, from the love of
the Father of lights from whence it comes, from the love
of the Son of God, who is the way and the truth, to say
as he, John xviii. 37: For this end was I born, and for
this end came I into the world, that I might bear witness to
the truth.
SCRIPTURES AND REASONS, WRITTEN LONG SINCE BY A WITNESS OF JESUS CHRIST, CLOSE PRISONER IN NEWGATE, AGAINST PERSECUTION IN CAUSE OF CONSCIENCE; AND SENT SOME WHILE SINCE TO MR. COTTON, BY A FRIEND, WHO THUS WROTE: — TO ANSWER SOME MAIN OBJECTIONS.
“In the multitude of counsellours there is safety;” it is
therefore humbly desired to be instructed in this
point, viz.:—
Whether persecution for cause of conscience be not against
the doctrine of Jesus Christ, the King of kings. The
scriptures and reasons are these.[86]
1. Because Christ commandeth, that the tares and
wheat, which some understand are those that walk in the
truth, and those that walk in lies, should be let alone in
the world, and not plucked up until the harvest, which is
the end of the world. Matt. xiii. 30, 38, &c.
2. The same commandeth, Matt. xv. 14, that they that
are blind (as some interpret, led on in false religion, and
are offended with him for teaching true religion) should
be let alone, referring their punishment unto their falling
into the ditch.
3. Again, Luke ix. 54, 55, he reproved his disciples
who would have had fire come down from heaven and
devour those Samaritans who would not receive Him, in
these words: “Ye know not of what Spirit ye are; the
Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save
them.”
4. Paul, the apostle of our Lord, teacheth, 2 Tim. ii.
24, that the servant of the Lord must not strive, but must be
gentle toward all men; suffering the evil men, instructing
them with meekness that are contrary minded, proving if God
at any time will give them repentance, that they may acknowledge
the truth, and come to amendment out of that snare
of the devil, &c.
5. According to these blessed commandments, the holy
prophets foretold, that when the law of Moses concerning
worship should cease, and Christ’s kingdom be established,
Isa. ii. 4; Mic. iv. 3, 4, They shall break their swords into
mattocks, and their spears into scythes. And Isa. xi. 9,
Then shall none hurt nor destroy in all the mountain of my
holiness, &c. And when he came, the same he taught and
practised, as before. So did his disciples after him, for
the weapons of his warfare are not carnal (saith the apostle),
2 Cor. x. 4.
But he chargeth straitly, that his disciples should be so
far from persecuting those that would not be of their
religion, that when they were persecuted they should
pray, Matt. v. 44; when they were cursed, they should
bless, &c.
And the reason seems to be, because they who now are
tares, may hereafter become wheat; they who are now
blind, may hereafter see; they that now resist him,
may hereafter receive him; they that are now in the
devil’s snare, in adverseness to the truth, may hereafter
come to repentance; they that are now blasphemers and
persecutors, as Paul was, may in time become faithful as
he; they that are now idolaters, as the Corinthians once
were, 1 Cor. vi. 9, may hereafter become true worshippers
as they; they that are now no people of God, nor under
mercy, as the saints sometimes were, 1 Pet. ii. 10, may
hereafter become the people of God, and obtain mercy, as
they.
Some come not till the eleventh hour, Matt. xx. 6: if
those that come not till the last hour should be destroyed,
because they come not at the first, then should they never
come, but be prevented.
All which promises are in all humility referred to your
godly wise consideration.
II. Because this persecution for cause of conscience is
against the profession and practice of famous princes.
First, you may please to consider the speech of King
James, in his majesty’s speech in parliament, 1609. He
saith, “It is a sure rule in divinity, that God never loves
to plant his church by violence and bloodshed.”
And in his highness’ Apology, p. 4, speaking of such
papists that took the oath, thus:
“I gave good proof that I intended no persecution
against them for conscience’ cause, but only desired to be
secured for civil obedience, which for conscience’ cause
they are bound to perform.”
And, p. 60, speaking of Blackwell, the archpriest, his
majesty saith, “It was never my intention to lay any thing
to the said archpriest’s charge, as I have never done to
any, for cause of conscience.”
And in his highness’ exposition on Rev. xx. printed
1588, and after in 1603, his majesty writeth thus:
“Sixthly, the compassing of the saints, and the besieging
of the beloved city, declareth unto us a certain note of a
false church to be persecution; for they come to seek
the faithful, the faithful are them that are sought:
the wicked are the besiegers, the faithful are the besieged.”
Secondly, the saying of Stephen, king of Poland: “I
am a king of men, not of consciences; a commander of
bodies, not of souls.”
Thirdly, the king of Bohemia hath thus written:
“And, notwithstanding, the success of the later times,
wherein sundry opinions have been hatched about the
subject of religion, may make one clearly discern with
his eye, and (as it were) to touch with his finger, that
according to the verity of holy scriptures, and a maxim
heretofore told and maintained by the ancient doctors of
the church; that men’s consciences ought in no sort to be
violated, urged, or constrained; and whensoever men
have attempted any thing by this violent course, whether
openly or by secret means, the issue hath been pernicious,
and the cause of great and wonderful innovations in the
principallest and mightiest kingdoms and countries of all
Christendom.”
And further, his majesty saith: “So that once more we
do profess, before God and the whole world, that from
this time forward we are firmly resolved not to persecute,
or molest, or suffer to be persecuted or molested, any
person whosoever for matter of religion; no, not they
that profess themselves to be of the Romish church,
neither to trouble or disturb them in the exercise of their
religion, so they live conformable to the laws of the
states,” &c.
And for the practice of this, where is persecution for
cause of conscience, except in England and where popery
reigns? and there neither in all places, as appeareth by
France, Poland, and other places.
Nay, it is not practised amongst the heathen, that acknowledge
not the true God, as the Turk, Persian, and others.
3. Reas.
Thirdly, because persecution for cause of conscience is
condemned by ancient and later writers; yea, and the
papists themselves.
Hilary against Auxentius, saith thus: “The Christian
church doth not persecute, but is persecuted. And lamentable
it is to see the great folly of these times, and
to sigh at the foolish opinion of this world, in that men
think by human aid to help God, and with worldly pomp
and power to undertake to defend the Christian church.
I ask of you bishops, what help used the apostles in the
publishing of the gospel? With the aid of what power
did they preach Christ, and converted the heathen from
their idolatry to God? When they were in prisons, and
lay in chains, did they praise and give thanks to God for
any dignities, graces, and favours received from the court?
Or do you think that Paul went about with regal mandates,
or kingly authority, to gather and establish the
church of Christ? Sought he protection from Nero,
Vespasian? The apostles wrought with their hands for
their own maintenance, travelling by land and water,
from town to city, to preach Christ; yea, the more they
were forbidden, the more they taught and preached Christ.
But now, alas! human help must assist and protect the
faith, and give the same countenance. To and by vain
and worldly honours do men seek to defend the church of
Christ, as if he by his power were unable to perform it.”
The same, against the Arians:
“The church now, which formerly by enduring misery
and imprisonment, was known to be a true church, doth
now terrify others by imprisonment, banishment, and
misery, and boasteth that she is highly esteemed of the
world; when as the true church cannot but be hated of
the same.”
Tertull. ad Scapulam: “It agreeth both with human
reason, and natural equity, that every man worship God
uncompelled, and believe what he will; for another man’s
religion and belief neither hurteth nor profiteth any one:
neither beseemeth it any religion to compel another to be
of their religion, which willingly and freely should be
embraced, and not by constraint: forasmuch as the offerings
were required of those that freely and with good will
offered, and not from the contrary.”
Jerome in Proem. lib. 4. in Jeremiam. “Heresy must
be cut off with the sword of the Spirit; let us strike
through with the arrows of the Spirit all sons and disciples
of misled heretics, that is, with testimonies of holy
scriptures. The slaughter of heretics is by the word of
God.”
Brentius upon 1 Cor. iii. “No man hath power to make
or give laws to Christians, whereby to bind their consciences;
for willingly, freely, and uncompelled, with a
ready desire and cheerful mind, must those that come,
run unto Christ.”
Luther, in his book of the civil magistrate, saith: “The
laws of the civil magistrate’s government extend no
further than over the body or goods, and to that which is
external: for over the soul God will not suffer any man
to rule; only he himself will rule there. Wherefore,
whosoever doth undertake to give laws unto the souls
and consciences of men, he usurpeth that government
himself which appertaineth unto God,” &c.
Therefore, upon 1 Kings vi. “In the building of the
temple there was no sound of iron heard, to signify that
Christ will have in his church a free and a willing people,
not compelled and constrained by laws and statutes.”
Again, he saith upon Luke xxii. “It is not the true
catholic church which is defended by the secular arm or
human power, but the false and feigned church; which
although it carries the name of a church, yet it denies the
power thereof.”
And upon Psalm xvii. he saith: “For the true church
of Christ knoweth not brachium seculare, which the bishops
now-a-days chiefly use.”
Again, in Postil. Dom. 1. post. Epiphan., he saith: “Let
not Christians be commanded, but exhorted; for he that
willingly will not do that whereunto he is friendly exhorted,
he is no Christian: whereof they that do compel
those that are not willing, show thereby that they are not
Christian preachers, but worldly beadles.”
Again, upon 1 Pet. iii. he saith: “If the civil magistrate
shall command me to believe thus and thus, I should
answer him after this manner: Lord, or sir, look you to
your civil or worldly government, your power extends not
so far as to command any thing in God’s kingdom; therefore
herein I may not hear you. For if you cannot bear
it, that any should usurp authority where you have to
command, how do you think that God should suffer you
to thrust him from his seat, and to seat yourself therein?”
Lastly, the papists, the inventors of persecution, in a
wicked book of theirs, set forth in King James’s reign,
thus:
“Moreover, the means which Almighty God appointed
his officers to use in the conversion of kingdoms, and
nations, and people, was humility, patience, charity: saying,
Behold, I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves, Matt.
x. 16. He did not say, ‘Behold, I send you as wolves
among sheep, to kill, imprison, spoil, and devour those
unto whom they were sent.’”
“Again, ver. 17, he saith: They to whom I send you
will deliver you up into councils, and in their synagogues they
will scourge you; and to presidents and to kings shall you be
led for my sake. He doth not say, ‘You, whom I send, shall
deliver the people, whom you ought to convert, unto
councils, and put them in prisons, and lead them to Presidents,
and tribunal seats, and make their religion felony
and treason.’
“Again he saith, ver. 32: When ye enter into an house,
salute it, saying, Peace be unto this house. He doth not
say, ‘You shall send pursuivants to ransack or spoil the
house.’
“Again he saith, John x. The good pastor giveth his life
for his sheep; the thief cometh not but to steal, kill, and
destroy. He doth not say, ‘The thief giveth his life for
his sheep, and the good pastor cometh not but to steal,
kill, and destroy.’”
So that we holding our peace, our adversaries themselves
speak for us, or rather for the truth.
And first, that it is no prejudice to the commonwealth
if liberty of conscience were suffered to such as do fear
God indeed, as is or will be manifest in such men’s lives
and conversations.
Abraham abode among the Canaanites a long time, yet
contrary to them in religion, Gen. xiii. 7, and xvi. 13.
Again: he sojourned in Gerar, and king Abimelech gave
him leave to abide in his land, Gen. xx. 21, 23, 24.
Isaac also dwelt in the same land, yet contrary in religion,
Gen. xxvi.
Jacob lived twenty years in one house with his uncle
Laban, yet differed in religion, Gen. xxxi.
The people of Israel were about 430 years in that
infamous land of Egypt, and afterwards seventy years in
Babylon, all which time they differed in religion from those
States, Exod. xii. and 2 Chron. xxxvi.
Come to the time of Christ, where Israel was under the
Romans, where lived divers sects of religions, as Herodians,
Scribes and Pharisees, Sadducees and Libertines,
Theudæans and Samaritans, beside the common religion of
the Jews, Christ, and his apostles. All which differed
from the common religion of the state, which is like the
worship of Diana, which almost the whole world then
worshipped, Acts xix. 20.
All these lived under the government of Cæsar, being
nothing hurtful unto the commonwealth, giving unto
Cæsar that which was his. And for their religion and
consciences towards God he left them to themselves, as
having no dominion over their souls and consciences.
And when the enemies of the truth raised up any
tumults, the wisdom of the magistrate most widely appeased
them, Acts xviii. 14, and xix. 35.
THE ANSWER OF MR. JOHN COTTON, OF BOSTON, IN NEW ENGLAND, TO THE AFORESAID ARGUMENTS AGAINST PERSECUTION FOR CAUSE OF CONSCIENCE, PROFESSEDLY MAINTAINING PERSECUTION FOR CAUSE OF CONSCIENCE.
The question which you put is, whether persecution
for cause of conscience be not against the doctrine of
Jesus Christ, the King of kings?
Now, by persecution for cause of conscience, I conceive
you mean, either for professing some point of doctrine
which you believe in conscience to be the truth, or for
practising some work which in conscience you believe to
be a religious duty.
Now in points of doctrine some are fundamental, without
right belief whereof a man cannot be saved; others are
circumstantial, or less principal, wherein men may differ
in judgment without prejudice of salvation on either part.
In like sort, in points of practice, some concern the
weightier duties of the law, as, what God we worship,
and with what kind of worship; whether such as, if it be
right, fellowship with God is held; if corrupt, fellowship
with him is lost.
Again, in points of doctrine and worship less principal,
either they are held forth in a meek and peaceable way,
though the things be erroneous or unlawful: or they are
held forth with such arrogance and impetuousness, as
tendeth and reacheth (even of itself) to the disturbance
of civil peace.
Finally, let me add this one distinction more: when we
are persecuted for conscience’ sake, it is either for conscience
rightly informed, or for erroneous and blind conscience.
These things premised, I would lay down mine answer
to the question in certain conclusions.
1.
First, it is not lawful to persecute any for conscience’
sake rightly informed; for in persecuting such, Christ
himself is persecuted in them, Acts ix. 4.
2.
Secondly, for an erroneous and blind conscience, (even
in fundamental and weighty points) it is not lawful to
persecute any, till after admonition once or twice; and so
the apostle directeth, Tit. iii. 10, and giveth the reason,
that in fundamental and principal points of doctrine or
worship, the word of God in such things is so clear, that
he cannot but be convinced in conscience of the dangerous
error of his way after once or twice admonition, wisely
and faithfully dispensed. And then, if any one persist, it
is not out of conscience, but against his conscience, as the
apostle saith, ver. 11, He is subverted, and sinneth, being
condemned of himself; that is, of his own conscience. So
that if such a man, after such admonition, shall still persist
in the error of his way, and be therefore punished, he is
not persecuted for cause of conscience, but for sinning
against his own conscience.
3.
Thirdly. In things of lesser moment, whether points of
doctrine or worship, if a man hold them forth in a spirit of
Christian meekness and love, though with zeal and constancy,
he is not to be persecuted, but tolerated, till God
may be pleased to manifest his truth to him, Phil. iii. 17;
Rom. xiv. 1-4.
4.
But if a man hold forth, or profess, any error or false
way, with a boisterous and arrogant spirit, to the disturbance
of civil peace, he may justly be punished according
to the quality and measure of the disturbance caused by
him.
Now let us consider of your reasons or objections to
the contrary.
Your first head of objections is taken from the scripture.
Object. 1. Because Christ commandeth to let alone the
tares and wheat to grow together unto the harvest, Matt.
xiii. 30, 38.
Answ. Tares are not briars and thorns, but partly
hypocrites, like unto the godly, but indeed carnal, as the
tares are like to wheat, but are not wheat; or partly such
corrupt doctrines or practices as are indeed unsound, but
yet such as come very near the truth (as tares do to the
wheat), and so near, that good men may be taken with
them; and so the persons in whom they grow cannot be
rooted out but good will be rooted up with them. And
in such a case Christ calleth for toleration, not for penal
prosecution, according to the third conclusion.
Object. 2. In Matt. xv. 14, Christ commandeth his disciples
to let the blind alone till they fall into the ditch;
therefore he would have their punishment deferred till
their final destruction.
Answ. He there speaketh not to public officers, whether
in church or commonweal, but to his private disciples,
concerning the Pharisees, over whom they had no power.
And the command he giveth to let them alone, is spoken
in regard of troubling themselves, or regarding the offence
which they took at the wholesome doctrine of the gospel.
As who should say, Though they be offended at this
saying of mine, yet do not you fear their fear, nor be
troubled at their offence, which they take at my doctrine,
not out of sound judgment, but out of their blindness.
But this maketh nothing to the cause in hand.
Object. 3. In Luke ix. 54, 55, Christ reproveth his disciples,
who would have had fire come down from heaven
to consume the Samaritans, who refused to receive Him.
Object. 4. And Paul teacheth Timothy, not to strive, but
to be gentle towards all men, suffering evil patiently.
Answ. Both these are directions to ministers of the
gospel, how to deal, not with obstinate offenders in the
church that sin against conscience, but either with men
without, as the Samaritans were, and many unconverted
Christians in Crete, whom Titus, as an evangelist, was to
seek to convert: or at best with some Jews or Gentiles in
the church, who, though carnal, yet were not convinced of
the error of their way. And it is true, it became not the
spirit of the gospel to convert aliens to the faith of Christ,
such as the Samaritans were, by fire and brimstone; nor
to deal harshly in public ministry, or private conference,
with all such contrary-minded men, as either had not yet
entered into church-fellowship, or if they had, yet did
hitherto sin of ignorance, not against conscience.
But neither of both these texts do hinder the ministers
of the gospel to proceed in a church-way against church-members,
when they become scandalous offenders either in
life or doctrine; much less do they speak at all to civil
magistrates.
Object. 5. From the prediction of the prophets, who
foretold that carnal weapons should cease in the days of
the gospel, Isa. ii. 4, and xi. 9; Mic. iv. 3, 4. And the
apostle professeth, The weapons of our warfare are not
carnal, 2 Cor. x. 4. And Christ is so far from persecuting
those that would not be of his religion, that he
chargeth them, when they are persecuted themselves they
should pray, and when they are cursed they should bless.
The reason whereof seemeth to be, that they who are now
persecutors and wicked persons, may become true disciples
and converts.
1.
Answ. Those predictions in the prophets do only show,
first, with what kind of weapons he will subdue the nations
to the obedience of the faith of the gospel, not by fire and
sword, and weapons of war, but by the power of his word
and Spirit, which no man doubteth of.
2.
Secondly. Those predictions of the prophets show what
the meek and peaceable temper will be of all the true
converts to Christianity, not lions or leopards, &c., not
cruel oppressors, nor malignant opposers, nor biters of one
another. But [they] do not forbid them to drive ravenous
wolves from the sheepfold, and to restrain them from
devouring the sheep of Christ.
And when Paul saith, The weapons of our warfare are
not carnal but spiritual, he denieth not civil weapons of
justice to the civil magistrate, Rom. xiii., but only to
church officers. And yet the weapons of such officers he
acknowledgeth to be such, as though they be spiritual,
yet are ready to take vengeance of all disobedience, 2 Cor.
x. 6; which hath reference, amongst other ordinances, to
the censure of the church against scandalous offenders.
3.
When Christ commandeth his disciples to bless them
that curse them and persecute them, he giveth not therein a
rule to public officers, whether in church or commonweal,
to suffer notorious sinners, either in life or doctrine,
to pass away with a blessing; but to private Christians to
suffer persecution patiently, yea, and to pray for their
persecutors.
Again, it is true Christ would have his disciples to be
far from persecuting, for that is a sinful oppression of
men, for righteousness’ sake; but that hindereth not but
that he would have them execute upon all disobedience
the judgment and vengeance required in the word, 2 Cor.
x. 6; Rom. xiii. 4.
4.
Though it be true that wicked persons now may by the
grace of God become true disciples and converts, yet we
may not do evil that good may come thereof. And evil it
would be to tolerate notorious evil doers, whether seducing
teachers, or scandalous livers. Christ had something
against the angel of the church of Pergamos for tolerating
them that held the doctrine of Balaam, and against the
church of Thyatira for tolerating Jezebel to teach and
seduce, Rev. ii. 14, 20.
Your second head of reasons is taken from the profession
and practice of famous princes, king James, Stephen
of Poland, king of Bohemia.
Whereunto a treble answer may briefly be returned.
First, we willingly acknowledge that none is to be
persecuted at all, no more than they may be oppressed
for righteousness’ sake.
Again, we acknowledge that none is to be punished for
his conscience, though misinformed, as hath been said,
unless his error be fundamental, or seditiously and turbulently
promoted, and that after due conviction of his conscience,
that it may appear he is not punished for his
conscience, but for sinning against his conscience.
Furthermore, we acknowledge, none is to be constrained
to believe or profess the true religion till he be
convinced in judgment of the truth of it; but yet restrained
he may [be] from blaspheming the truth, and
from seducing any unto pernicious errors.
2. We answer, what princes profess or practise, is not
a rule of conscience. They many times tolerate that in
point of state policy, which cannot justly be tolerated in
point of true Christianity.
Again, princes many times tolerate offenders out of
very necessity, when the offenders are either too many,
or too mighty for them to punish; in which respect David
tolerated Joab and his murders: but against his will.
3. We answer further, that for those three princes
named by you, who tolerated religion, we can name you
more and greater who have not tolerated heretics and
schismatics, notwithstanding their pretence of conscience,
and arrogating the crown of martyrdom to their sufferings.
Constantine the Great, at the request of the General
Council of Nice, banished Arius, with some of his fellows.[87]
The same Constantine made a severe law against the
Donatists. And the like proceedings against them were
used by Valentinian, Gratian, and Theodosius, as Augustine
reporteth.[88] Only Julian the Apostate granted liberty
to heretics as well as to pagans, that he might, by tolerating
all weeds to grow, choke the vitals of Christianity;
which was also the practice and sin of Valens the Arian.
Queen Elizabeth, as famous for her government as any
of the former, it is well known what laws she made and
executed against papists. Yea, and king James, one of
your own witnesses, though he was slow in proceeding
against papists, as you say, for conscience’ sake, yet you
are not ignorant how sharply and severely he punished
those whom the malignant world calleth Puritans, men of
more conscience and better faith than he tolerated.
I come now to your third and last argument, taken
from the judgment of ancient and later writers, yea, even
of papists themselves, who have condemned persecution
for conscience’ sake.
You begin with Hilary, whose testimony we might
admit without any prejudice to the truth; for it is true,
the Christian church doth not persecute, but is persecuted.
But to excommunicate an heretic, is not to persecute;
that is, it is not to punish an innocent, but a culpable and
damnable person, and that not for conscience, but for persisting
in error against light of conscience, whereof it hath
been convinced.
It is true also what he saith, that neither the apostles
did, nor may we, propagate [the] Christian religion by
the sword; but if pagans cannot be won by the word,
they are not to be compelled by the sword. Nevertheless,
this hindereth not but if they or any others should
blaspheme the true God, and his true religion, they
ought to be severely punished; and no less do they deserve,
if they seduce from the truth to damnable heresy or
idolatry.
Your next writer, which is Tertullian, speaketh to the
same purpose in the place alleged by you. His intent is
only to restrain Scapula, the Roman governor of Africa,
from the persecution of Christians, for not offering sacrifice
to their gods: and for that end fetcheth an argument from
the law of natural equity, not to compel any to any
religion, but to permit them either to believe willingly,
or not to believe at all. Which we acknowledge, and
accordingly permit the Indians to continue in their unbelief.
Nevertheless, it will not therefore be lawful
openly to tolerate the worship of devils, or idols, or the
seduction of any from the truth.
When Tertullian saith, “Another man’s religion neither
hurteth nor profiteth any,” it must be understood of private
worship, and religion professed in private: otherwise
a false religion professed by the members of a church, or
by such as have given their names to Christ, will be the
ruin and desolation of the church, as appeareth by the
threats of Christ to the churches of Asia, Rev. ii.
Your next author, Hierom, crosseth not the truth, nor
advantageth your cause; for we grant what he saith, that
heresy must be cut off with the sword of the Spirit. But
this hindereth not, but that being so cut down, if the
heretic still persist in his heresy to the seduction of
others, he may be cut off by the civil sword to prevent
the perdition of others. And that to be Hierom’s meaning,
appeareth by his note upon that of the apostle, A
little leaven leaveneth the whole lump; “therefore,” saith he,
“a spark, as soon as it appeareth, is to be extinguished,
and the leaven to be removed from the rest of the dough,
rotten pieces of flesh are to be cut off, and a scabbed
beast is to be driven from the sheepfold, lest the whole
house, mass of dough, body, and flock, be set on fire with
the spark, be soured with the leaven, be putrified with the
rotten flesh, perish by the scabbed beast.”[89]
Brentius, whom you next quote, speaketh not to your
cause. We willingly grant him and you, that man hath
no power to make laws to bind conscience. But this
hindereth not, but that men may see the laws of God
observed which do bind conscience.
The like answer may be returned to Luther, whom
you next allege. First, that the government of the civil
magistrate extendeth no further than over the bodies and
goods of their subjects, not over their souls; and therefore
they may not undertake to give laws to the souls and
consciences of men.
Secondly, that the church of Christ doth not use the
arm of secular power to compel men to the faith or profession
of the truth, for this is to be done by spiritual
weapons, whereby Christians are to be exhorted, not
compelled.
But this hindereth not that Christians sinning against
light of faith and conscience, may justly be censured by
the church with excommunication, and by the civil sword
also, in case they shall corrupt others to the perdition of
their souls.
As for the testimony of the popish book, we weigh it
not, as knowing whatsoever they speak for toleration of
religion where themselves are under hatches, when they
come to sit at stern, they judge and practise quite contrary:
as both their writings and judicial proceedings have
testified to the world these many years.
To shut up this argument from testimony of writers.
It is well known Augustine retracted this opinion of
yours, which in his younger times he had held, but in
after riper age reversed and refuted, as appeareth in the
second book of his Retractations, chap. 5, and in his
Epistles, 48, 50. And in his first book against Parmenianus,
chap. 7, he showeth, that if the Donatists were
punished with death, they were justly punished. And in
his eleventh Tractate upon John, “They murder,” saith
he, “souls, and themselves are afflicted in body: they
put men to everlasting death, and yet they complain
when themselves are put to suffer temporal death.”[90]
Optatus, in his third book,[91] justifieth Macarius, who
had put some heretics to death; that he had done no more
herein than what Moses, Phineas, and Elias had done
before him.
Bernard, in his sixty-sixth Sermon in Cantica:[92] “Out of
doubt,” saith he, “it is better that they should be restrained
by the sword of him, who beareth not the sword in vain,
than that they should be suffered to draw many others
into their error. For he is the minister of God for
wrath to every evil doer.”
Calvin’s judgment is well known, who procured the
death of Michael Servetus for pertinacity in heresy, and
defended his fact by a book written of that argument.[93]
Beza also wrote a book, De Hæreticis Morte Plectendis,
that heretics are to be punished with death.[94] Aretius
likewise took the like course about the death of Valentinus
Gentilis; and justified the magistrate’s proceeding
against him, in a history written of that argument.[95]
Finally, you come to answer some main objections, as
you call them, which yet are but one, and that one objecteth
nothing against what we hold. It is, say you, no
prejudice to the commonwealth, if liberty of conscience
were suffered to such as fear God indeed, which you
prove by the examples of the patriarchs and others.
But we readily grant you, liberty of conscience is to be
granted to men that fear God indeed, as knowing they
will not persist in heresy, or turbulent schism, when they
are convinced in conscience of the sinfulness thereof.
But the question, is, whether an heretic, after once or
twice admonition, and so after conviction, or any other
scandalous and heinous offender, may be tolerated, either
in the church without excommunication, or in the commonwealth
without such punishment as may preserve
others from dangerous and damnable infection.
Thus much I thought needful to be spoken, for avoiding
the grounds of your error.
I forbear adding reasons to justify the truth, because
you may find that done to your hand, in a treatise sent to
some of the brethren late of Salem, who doubted as you
do.
The Lord Jesus lead you by a Spirit of truth into
all truth, through Jesus Christ.
A REPLY TO THE AFORESAID ANSWER OF MR. COTTON, IN A CONFERENCE BETWEEN TRUTH AND PEACE.
CHAP. I.
Truth. In what dark corner of the world, sweet Peace,
are we two met? How hath this present evil world
banished me from all the coasts and quarters of it? And
how hath the righteous God in judgment taken thee from
the earth? Rev. vi. 4.
Truth and Peace rarely and seldom meet.
Peace. It is lamentably true, blessed Truth, the foundations
of the world have long been out of course: the gates
of earth and hell have conspired together to intercept our
joyful meeting and our holy kisses. With what a wearied,
tired wing have I flown over nations, kingdoms, cities,
towns, to find out precious Truth!
Truth. The like inquiries in my flights and travels have
I made for Peace, and still am told she hath left the earth,
and fled to heaven.
Peace. Dear Truth, what is the earth but a dungeon of
darkness, where Truth is not?
Truth. And what is the Peace thereof but a fleeting
dream, thine ape and counterfeit?
Peace. Oh! where is the promise of the God of heaven,
that Righteousness and Peace shall kiss each other?
Truth. Patience, sweet Peace, these heavens and earth
are growing old, and shall be changed like a garment,
Psal. cii. [26.] They shall melt away, and be burnt up
with all the works that are therein; and the Most High
Eternal Creator shall gloriously create new heavens and
new earth, wherein dwells righteousness, 2 Pet. iii. [13.]
Our kisses then shall have their endless date of pure and
sweetest joys. Till then both thou and I must hope, and
wait, and bear the fury of the dragon’s wrath, whose
monstrous lies and furies shall with himself be cast into
the lake of fire, the second death, Rev. xx. [10, 14.]
Peace. Most precious Truth, thou knowest we are both
pursued and laid [in wait] for. Mine heart is full of
sighs, mine eyes with tears. Where can I better vent my
full, oppressed bosom than into thine, whose faithful lips
may for these few hours revive my drooping, wandering
spirits, and here begin to wipe tears from mine eyes, and
the eyes of my dearest children?
Truth. Sweet daughter of the God of peace, begin.
Pour out thy sorrows, vent thy complaints. How joyful
am I to improve these precious minutes to revive our
hearts, both thine and mine, and the hearts of all that
love the truth and peace, Zach. viii. [19.]
Peace. Dear Truth, I know thy birth, thy nature, thy
delight. They that know thee will prize thee far above
themselves and lives, and sell themselves to buy thee.
Well spake that famous Elizabeth to her famous attorney,
Sir Edward Coke; “Mr. Attorney, go on as thou hast
begun, and still plead, not pro Domina Regina, but pro
Domina Veritate.”
Truth. It is true, my crown is high; my sceptre is
strong to break down strongest holds, to throw down
highest crowns of all that plead, though but in thought,
against me. Some few there are, but oh! how few are
valiant for the truth, and dare to plead my cause, as my
witnesses in sackcloth, Rev. xi. [3]; while all men’s
tongues are bent like bows to shoot out lying words
against me!
Peace. Oh! how could I spend eternal days and endless
dates at thy holy feet, in listening to the precious oracles
of thy mouth! All the words of thy mouth are truth,
and there is no iniquity in them. Thy lips drop as the
honey-comb. But oh! since we must part anon, let us,
as thou saidst, improve our minutes, and, according as
thou promisedst, revive me with thy words, which are
sweeter than the honey and the honey-comb.
CHAP. II.
Peace. Dear Truth, I have two sad complaints.
Two great complaints of Peace.
First. The most sober of thy witnesses, that dare to
plead thy cause, how are they charged to be mine enemies—contentious,
turbulent, seditious!
Secondly. Thine enemies, though they speak and rail
against thee, though they outrageously pursue, imprison,
banish, kill thy faithful witnesses, yet how is all vermilioned
over for justice against the heretics! Yea, if they
kindle coals, and blow the flames of devouring wars, that
leave neither spiritual nor civil state, but burn up branch
and root, yet how do all pretend an holy war! He that
kills, and he that is killed, they both cry out, “It is for
God, and for their conscience.”
Persecutors seldom plead Christ, but Moses, for their author.
It is true, nor one nor other seldom dare to plead the
mighty Prince Christ Jesus for their author, yet both
(both protestant and papist) pretend they have spoke
with Moses and the prophets, who all, say they, before
Christ came, allowed such holy persecutions [and] holy
wars against the enemies of holy church.
[Prov. xvii. 14.]
Truth. Dear Peace, to ease thy first complaint, it is
true, thy dearest sons, most like their mother, peace-keeping,
peace-making sons of God, have borne and still
must bear the blurs of troublers of Israel, and turners
of the world upside down. And it is true again, what
Solomon once spake: The beginning of strife is as when
one letteth out water, therefore, saith he, leave off contention
before it be meddled with. This caveat should keep the
banks and sluices firm and strong, that strife, like a
breach of waters, break not in upon the sons of men.
Strife distinguished.
Yet strife must be distinguished: it is necessary, or
unnecessary, godly or ungodly, Christian or unchristian, &c.
1. Ungodly strife.
It is unnecessary, unlawful, dishonourable, ungodly,
unchristian, in most cases in the world: for there is a
possibility of keeping sweet Peace in most cases, and, if
it be possible, it is the express command of God that Peace
be kept, Rom. xii. [18.]
2. Godly strife.
Again, it is necessary, honourable, godly, &c., with
civil and earthly weapons to defend the innocent, and to
rescue the oppressed from the violent paws and jaws of
oppressing, persecuting Nimrods, Psal. lxxiii. Job xxix.
It is as necessary, yea, more honourable, godly, and
Christian, to fight the fight of faith, with religious and
spiritual artillery, and to contend earnestly for the faith of
Jesus, once delivered to the saints, against all opposers,
and the gates of earth and hell, men or devils, yea, against
Paul himself, or an angel from heaven, if he bring any
other faith or doctrine, Jude 4, 9; Gal. i. 8.
Peace. With a clashing of such arms am I never
wakened. Speak once again, dear Truth, to my second
complaint of bloody persecution, and devouring wars,
marching under the colours of upright justice and holy
zeal, &c.
A threefold doleful cry.
Truth. Mine ears have long been filled with a threefold
doleful outcry—
Christ’s worship is his bed, Cant. i. 16. False worship,
therefore, is a false bed.
First. Of one hundred forty-four thousand virgins, Rev.
xiv., forced and ravished by emperors, kings, governors,
to their beds of worship and religion; set up, like Absalom’s,
on high, in their several states and countries.
The cry of the souls under the altar.
Secondly. The cry of those precious souls under the
altar, Rev. vi. [9,] the souls of such as have been persecuted
and slain for the testimony and witness of Jesus,
whose blood hath been spilt like water upon the earth;
and that because they have held fast the truth and witness
of Jesus, against the worship of the states and times,
compelling to an uniformity of state religion.
These cries of murdered virgins, who can sit still and
hear? Who can but run, with zeal inflamed, to prevent
the deflowering of chaste souls, and spilling of the blood
of the innocent? Humanity stirs up and prompts the
sons of men to draw material swords for a virgin’s chastity
and life, against a ravishing murderer; and piety
and Christianity must needs awaken the sons of God to
draw the spiritual sword, the word of God, to preserve
the chastity and life of spiritual virgins, who abhor the
spiritual defilements of false worship, Rev. xiv.
A cry of the whole earth.
Thirdly. The cry of the whole earth, made drunk with
the blood of its inhabitants slaughtering each other in
their blinded zeal for conscience, for religion, against the
catholics, against the Lutherans, &c.
What fearful cries, within these twenty years, of
hundred thousands, men, women, children, fathers,
mothers, husbands, wives, brethren, sisters, old and young,
high and low, plundered, ravished, slaughtered, murdered,
famished! And hence these cries, that men fling away
the spiritual sword and spiritual artillery, in spiritual and
religious causes, and rather trust, for the suppressing of
each other’s gods, conscience, and religion, as they suppose,
to an arm of flesh and sword of steel.
Truth. Sweet Peace, what hast thou there?
Peace. Arguments against persecution for cause of conscience.
Truth. And what there?
Peace. An answer to such arguments, contrarily maintaining
such persecution for cause of conscience.
Truth. These arguments against such persecution, and
the answer pleading for it, [are] written, as Love hopes,
from godly intentions, hearts, and hands, yet in a marvellously
different style and manner—the arguments
against persecution in milk, the answer for it, as I may
say, in blood.
The wonderful providence of God in the writing of the
arguments against persecution in milk.
The author of these arguments against persecution, as
I have been informed, being committed by some then in
power close prisoner to Newgate, for the witness of some
truths of Jesus, and having not the use of pen and ink,
wrote these arguments in milk, in sheets of paper brought
to him by the woman, his keeper, from a friend in London
as the stopples of his milk bottle.
In such paper, written with milk, nothing will appear;
but the way of reading it by fire being known to this
friend who received the papers, he transcribed and kept
together the papers, although the author himself could
not correct, nor view what himself had written.
It was in milk, tending to soul nourishment, even for
babes and sucklings in Christ:—
It was in milk, spiritually white, pure and innocent,
like those white horses of the word of truth and meekness,
and the white linen or armour of righteousness, in the
army of Jesus, Rev. vi. and xix.:—
It was in milk, soft, meek, peaceable, and gentle,
tending both to the peace of souls, and the peace of states
and kingdoms.
The answer writ in blood.
Peace. The answer, though I hope out of milky pure
intentions, is returned in blood—bloody and slaughterous
conclusions—bloody to the souls of all men, forced to the
religion and worship which every civil state or commonweal
agrees on, and compels all subjects to, in a dissembled
uniformity:—
Bloody to the bodies, first of the holy witnesses of
Christ Jesus, who testify against such invented worships:—
Secondly, of the nations and peoples slaughtering each
other for their several respective religions and consciences.
CHAP. III.
Truth. In the answer, Mr. Cotton first lays down
several distinctions and conclusions of his own, tending
to prove persecution.
Secondly. Answers to the scriptures and arguments
proposed against persecution.
The first distinction discussed.
Peace. The first distinction is this: by persecution for
cause of conscience, “I conceive you mean either for professing
some point of doctrine which you believe in conscience
to be the truth, or for practising some work which
you believe in conscience to be a religious duty.”
Definition of persecution discussed.
Truth. I acknowledge that to molest any person, Jew
or Gentile, for either professing doctrine, or practising
worship merely religious or spiritual, it is to persecute
him; and such a person, whatever his doctrine or practice
be, true or false, suffereth persecution for conscience.
Conscience will not be restrained from its own worship, nor
constrained to another.
But withal I desire it may be well observed, that this
distinction is not full and complete. For beside this, that
a man may be persecuted because he holdeth or practiseth
what he believes in conscience to be a truth, as Daniel
did, for which he was cast into the lions’ den, Dan. vi. 16,
and many thousands of Christians, because they durst not
cease to preach and practise what they believed was by God
commanded, as the apostles answered, Acts iv. and v., I
say, besides this, a man may also be persecuted because he
dares not be constrained to yield obedience to such doctrines
and worships as are by men invented and appointed.
So the three famous Jews, who were cast into the fiery
furnace for refusing to fall down, in a nonconformity to
the whole conforming world, before the golden image,
Dan. iii. 21.[96] So thousands of Christ’s witnesses, and of
late in those bloody Marian days, have rather chosen to
yield their bodies to all sorts of torments, than to subscribe
to doctrines, or practise worships, unto which the states
and times (as Nebuchadnezzar to his golden image) have
compelled and urged them.
A chaste soul in God’s worship, like a chaste wife.
A chaste wife will not only abhor to be restrained from
her husband’s bed as adulterous and polluted, but also
abhor (if not much more) to be constrained to the bed of
a stranger. And what is abominable in corporal, is much
more loathsome in spiritual whoredom and defilement.
The spouse of Christ Jesus, who could not find her
soul’s beloved in the ways of his worship and ministry,
Cant. i., iii., and v. chapters, abhorred to turn aside to
other flocks, worships, &c., and to embrace the bosom of a
false Christ, Cant. i. 8.
CHAP. IV.
Peace. The second distinction is this:—
The second distinction discussed.
“In points of doctrine some are fundamental, without
right belief whereof a man cannot be saved; others are
circumstantial and less principal, wherein a man may
differ in judgment without prejudice of salvation on either
part.”
God’s people may err from the very fundamentals of visible
worship.
Truth. To this distinction I dare not subscribe, for
then I should everlastingly condemn thousands, and ten
thousands, yea, the whole generation of the righteous,
who since the falling away from the first primitive Christian
state or worship, have and do err fundamentally
concerning the true matter, constitution, gathering, and
governing of the church. And yet, far be it from any
pious breast to imagine that they are not saved, and that
their souls are not bound up in the bundle of eternal life.[97]
We read of four sorts of spiritual, or Christian, foundations
in the New Testament.
Four sorts of spiritual foundations.
First, the foundation of all foundations, the corner-stone
itself, the Lord Jesus, on whom all depend—persons, doctrines,
practices, 1 Cor. iii. [11.]
2. Ministerial foundations. The church is built upon
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Ephes. ii. 20.
3. The foundation of future rejoicing in the fruits of
obedience, 1 Tim. vi. [19.]
Στοιχεῖα, θεμὲιοὶ. The six foundations of the Christian
religion or worship.
4. The foundation of doctrines, without the knowledge
of which there can be no true profession of Christ, according
to the first institution, Heb. vi. [1, 2,]—the foundation,
or principles, of repentance from dead works, faith
towards God, the doctrine of baptisms, laying on of hands,
the resurrection, and eternal judgment. In some of these,
to wit, those concerning baptisms and laying on of hands,
God’s people will be found to be ignorant for many
hundred years; and I yet cannot see it proved that light
is risen, I mean the light of the first institution, in practice.
God’s people in their persons, heart-waking (Cant. v. 2),
in the life of personal grace, will yet be found fast asleep
in respect of public Christian worship.
Coming out of Babel, not local, but mystical.
God’s people, in their persons, are His, most dear and
precious: yet in respect of the Christian worship they are
mingled amongst the Babylonians, from whence they are
called to come out, not locally, as some have said, for that
belonged to a material and local Babel (and literal Babel
and Jerusalem have now no difference, John iv. 21), but
spiritually and mystically to come out from her sins and
abominations.
The great ignorance of God’s people concerning the nature of
the true church.
If Mr. Cotton maintain the true church of Christ to
consist of the true matter of holy persons called out from
the world (and the true form of union in a church government),
and that also neither national, provincial, nor
diocesan churches are of Christ’s institution: how many
thousands of God’s people of all sorts, clergy and laity, as
they call them, will they find, both in former and later
times, captivated in such national, provincial, and diocesan
churches? yea, and so far from living in, yea or knowing
of any such churches, for matter and form, as they conceive
now only to be true, that until of late years, how
few of God’s people knew any other church than the
parish church of dead stones or timber? It being a late
marvellous light, revealed by Christ Jesus, the Sun of
righteousness, that his people are a company or church of
living stones, 1 Pet. ii. 9.
Mr. Cotton and all the half separatists, halting between true
and false churches, and consequently not yet clear in the fundamental
matter of a Christian church.
And, however his own soul, and the souls of many
others, precious to God, are persuaded to separate from
national, provincial, and diocesan churches, and to assemble
into particular churches, yet, since there are no parish
churches in England, but what are made up of the parish
bounds within such and such a compass of houses, and
that such churches have been and are in constant dependence
on, and subordination to the national church:
how can the New English particular churches join with
the old English parish churches in so many ordinances
of word, prayer, singing, contribution, &c., but they
must needs confess, that as yet their souls are far from
the knowledge of the foundation of a true Christian
church, whose matter must not only be living stones,
but also separated from the rubbish of anti-christian
confusions and desolations.
CHAP. V.
Peace. With lamentation, I may add, how can their
souls be clear in this foundation of the true Christian
matter, who persecute and oppress their own acknowledged
brethren, presenting light unto them about this
point? But I shall now present you with Mr. Cotton’s
third distinction. “In points of practice,” saith he, “some
concern the weightier duties of the law, as what God we
worship, and with what kind of worship; whether such,
as if it be right, fellowship with God is held; if false,
fellowship with God is lost.”
Truth. It is worth the inquiry, what kind of worship
he intendeth: for worship is of various signification.
Whether in general acceptation he mean the rightness
or corruptness of the church, or the ministry of the
church, or the ministrations of the word, prayer, seals,
&c.
The true ministry a fundamental.
And because it pleaseth the Spirit of God to make the
ministry one of the foundations of the Christian religion,
Heb. vi. 1, 2, and also to make the ministry of the word
and prayer in the church to be two special works, even of
the apostles themselves, Acts vi. 2, I shall desire it may
be well considered in the fear of God.[98]
The New English ministers examined.
First, concerning the ministry of the word. The New
English ministers, when they were new elected and ordained
ministers in New England, must undeniably grant,
that at that time they were no ministers, notwithstanding
their profession of standing so long in a true ministry in
old England, whether received from the bishops, which
some have maintained true, or from the people, which
Mr. Cotton and others better liked, and which ministry
was always accounted perpetual and indelible. I apply,
and ask, will it not follow, that if their new ministry and
ordination be true, the former was false? and if false, that
in the exercise of it, notwithstanding abilities, graces,
intentions, labours, and, by God’s gracious, unpromised,
and extraordinary blessing, some success, I say, will it
not according to this distinction follow, that according to
visible rule, fellowship with God was lost?
Common prayer cast off, and written against by the New
English.
Secondly, concerning prayer. The New English ministers
have disclaimed and written against that worshipping
of God by the common or set forms of prayer, which yet
themselves practised in England, notwithstanding they
knew that many servants of God, in great sufferings,
witnessed against such a ministry of the word, and such a
ministry of prayer.
Peace. I could name the persons, time, and place, when
some of them were faithfully admonished for using of the
Common Prayer, and the arguments presented to them,
then seeming weak, but now acknowledged sound; yet,
at that time, they satisfied their hearts with the practice
of the author of the Council of Trent, who used to read
only some of the choicest selected prayers in the mass-book,
which I confess was also their own practice in their using
of the Common Prayer.[99] But now, according to this
distinction, I ask whether or no fellowship with God in
such prayers was lost?
God’s people have worshipped God with false worships.
Truth. I could particularize other exercises of worship,
which cannot be denied, according to this distinction, to
be of the weightier points of the law: to wit, what God
we worship, and with what kind of worship? wherein fellowship
with God, in many of our unclean and abominable
worships, hath been lost. Only upon these premises I
shall observe: first, that God’s people, even the standard-bearers
and leaders of them, according to this distinction,
have worshipped God, in their sleepy ignorance, by such
a kind of worship as wherein fellowship with God is lost;
yea also, that it is possible for them to do, after much
light is risen against such worship, and in particular,
brought to the eyes of such holy and worthy persons.
Secondly, there may be inward and secret fellowship
with God in false ministries of word and prayer, (for that
to the eternal praise of infinite mercy, beyond a word or
promise of God, I acknowledge[100]) when yet, as the distinction
saith, in such worship, not being right, fellowship
with God is lost, and such a service or ministration must
be lamented and forsaken.
Fundamentals of Christian worship not so easy and clear.
Thirdly, I observe that God’s people may live and die
in such kinds of worship, notwithstanding that light from
God, publicly and privately, hath been presented to them,
able to convince; yet, not reaching to their conviction,
and forsaking of such ways, contrary to a conclusion afterward
expressed; to wit, “that fundamentals are so clear,
that a man cannot but be convinced in conscience, and
therefore that such a person not being convinced, he is
condemned of himself, and may be persecuted for sinning
against his conscience.”
Fourthly, I observe, that in such a maintaining a clearness
of fundamentals or weightier points, and upon that
ground a persecuting of men because they sin against
their consciences, Mr. Cotton measures that to others,
which himself when he lived in such practices would not
have had measured to himself. As first, that it might
have been affirmed of him, that in such practices he did
sin against his conscience, having sufficient light shining
about him.
Secondly, that he should or might lawfully have been
cut off by death or banishment, as an heretic, sinning
against his own conscience.
A notable speech of king James to a great nonconformist,
turned persecutor.
And in this respect the speech of king James was
notable to a great nonconformitant, converted, as is said,
by king James to conformity, and counselling the king
afterward to persecute the nonconformists even unto
death: “Thou beast,” quoth the king, “if I had dealt so
with thee in thy nonconformity, where hadst thou been?”
CHAP. VI.
The four distinctions discussed.
Peace. The next distinction concerneth the manner of
persons holding forth the aforesaid practices, not only the
weightier duties of the law, but points of doctrine and
worship less principal:—
“Some,” saith he, “hold them forth in a meek and
peaceable way; some with such arrogance and impetuousness,
as of itself tendeth to the disturbance of civil peace.”
Truth. In the examination of this distinction we shall
discuss,
First, what is civil peace (wherein we shall vindicate
thy name the better),
Secondly, what it is to hold forth a doctrine, or practice,
in this impetuousness or arrogancy.
What civil peace is.
First, for civil peace, what is it but pax civitatis, the
peace of the city, whether an English city, Scotch, or
Irish city, or further abroad, French, Spanish, Turkish
city, &c.
God’s people must be nonconformitants to evil.
Thus it pleased the Father of lights to define it, Jer.
xxix. 7, Pray for the peace of the city; which peace of
the city, or citizens, so compacted in a civil way of union,
may be entire, unbroken, safe, &c., notwithstanding so
many thousands of God’s people, the Jews, were there in
bondage, and would neither be constrained to the worship
of the city Babel, nor restrained from so much of the
worship of the true God as they then could practice, as
is plain in the practice of the three worthies, Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego, as also of Daniel, Dan. iii. and
Dan. vi.—the peace of the city or kingdom being a far
different peace from the peace of the religion, or spiritual
worship, maintained and professed of the citizens. This
peace of their (worship which worship also in some cities being
various) being a false peace, God’s people were and ought
to be nonconformitants, not daring either to be restrained
from the true, or constrained to false worship; and yet
without breach of the civil or city peace, properly so called.
The difference between spiritual and civil peace.
Peace. Hence it is that so many glorious and flourishing
cities of the world maintain their civil peace; yea, the
very Americans and wildest pagans keep the peace of
their towns or cities, though neither in one nor the other
can any man prove a true church of God in those places,
and consequently no spiritual and heavenly peace. The
peace spiritual, whether true or false, being of a higher
and far different nature from the peace of the place or
people, being merely and essentially civil and human.
The difference between the spiritual and civil state. The
civil state, the spiritual estate, and the church of Christ distinct in
Ephesus.
Truth. Oh! how lost are the sons of men in this point!
To illustrate this:—the church, or company of worshippers,
whether true or false, is like unto a body or college
of physicians in a city—like unto a corporation, society, or
company of East India or Turkey merchants, or any other
society or company in London; which companies may
hold their courts, keep their records, hold disputations,
and in matters concerning their society may dissent,
divide, break into schisms and factions, sue and implead
each other at the law, yea, wholly break up and dissolve into
pieces and nothing, and yet the peace of the city not be
in the least measure impaired or disturbed; because the
essence or being of the city, and so the well being and
peace thereof, is essentially distinct from those particular
societies; the city courts, city laws, city punishments
distinct from theirs. The city was before them, and
stands absolute and entire when such a corporation or
society is taken down. For instance further, the city or
civil state of Ephesus was essentially distinct from the
worship of Diana in the city, or of the whole city. Again,
the church of Christ in Ephesus, which were God’s people,
converted and called out from the worship of that city
unto Christianity, or worship of God in Christ, was distinct
from both.
Now suppose that God remove the candlestick from
Ephesus, yea, though the whole worship of the city of
Ephesus should be altered, yet, if men be true and
honestly ingenuous to city covenants, combinations, and
principles, all this might be without the least impeachment
or infringement of the peace of the city of Ephesus.
Thus in the city of Smyrna was the city itself or civil
estate one thing, the spiritual or religious state of Smyrna
another: the church of Christ in Smyrna distinct
from them both. And the synagogue of the Jews,
whether literally Jews, as some think, or mystically false
Christians, as others, called the synagogue of Satan, Rev. ii.,
[was] distinct from all these. And notwithstanding these
spiritual oppositions in point of worship and religion, yet
hear we not the least noise—nor need we, if men keep but
the bond of civility, of any civil breach, or breach of civil
peace amongst them; and to persecute God’s people there
for religion, that only was a breach of civility itself.
CHAP. VII.
Peace. Now to the second query, what it is to hold forth
doctrine or practice in an arrogant or impetuous way?
The answerer too obscure in generals. God’s meekest servants
use to be counted arrogant and impetuous.
Truth. Although it hath not pleased Mr. Cotton to
declare what is this arrogant or impetuous holding forth of
doctrine or practice tending to disturbance of civil peace,
I cannot but express my sad and sorrowful observation,
how it pleaseth God to leave him as to take up the common
reproachful accusation of the accuser of God’s children:
to wit, that they are arrogant and impetuous. Which
charge, together with that of obstinacy, pertinacity, pride,
troublers of the city, &c., Satan commonly loads the meekest
of the saints and witnesses of Jesus with.
Six cases wherein God’s people have been bold and zealous, yet
not arrogant.
To wipe off, therefore, these foul blurs and aspersions
from the fair and beautiful face of the spouse of Jesus, I
shall select and propose five or six cases, for which God’s
witnesses, in all ages and generations of men, have been
charged with arrogance, impetuousness, &c., and yet the
God of heaven, and Judge of all men, hath graciously
discharged them from such crimes, and maintained and
avowed them for his faithful and peaceable servants.
Christ Jesus and his disciples teach publicly a new doctrine,
fundamentally different from the religion professed.
First, God’s people have proclaimed, taught, disputed,
for divers months together, a new religion and worship,
contrary to the worship projected in the town, city, or
state where they have lived, or where they have travelled,
as did the Lord Jesus himself over all Galilee, and the
apostles after Him in all places, both in the synagogues
and market-places, as appears Acts xvii. 2, 17; Acts xviii.
4, 8. Yet this is no arrogance nor impetuousness.
God’s servants zealous and bold to the faces of the highest. 1
Kings xviii. 18. Luke xiii. 32. Acts xxiii. 3.
Secondly, God’s servants have been zealous for their
Lord and Master, even to the very faces of the highest,
and concerning the persons of the highest, so far as they
have opposed the truth of God: so Elijah to the face of
Ahab, “It is not I, but thou, and thy father’s house, that
troublest Israel.” So the Lord Jesus concerning Herod,
Go, tell that fox. So Paul, God delivered me from the
mouth of the lion; and to Ananias, Thou whited wall; and
yet in all this no arrogance, nor impetuousness.
God’s people constantly immoveable to death.
Thirdly, God’s people have been immoveable, constant,
and resolved to the death, in refusing to submit to false
worships, and in preaching and professing the true worship,
contrary to the express command of public authority. So
the three famous worthies against the command of Nebuchadnezzar,
and the uniform conformity of all nations
agreeing upon a false worship, Dan. iii. So the apostles,
Acts iv. and v., and so the witnesses of Jesus in all ages,
who loved not their lives to the death, Rev. xii., not regarding
sweet life nor bitter death, and yet not arrogant,
nor impetuous.
God’s people ever maintained Christ Jesus the only Lord and
King to the conscience.
Fourthly, God’s people, since the coming of the King
of Israel, the Lord Jesus, have openly and constantly
professed, that no civil magistrate, no king, nor Cæsar,
have any power over the souls or consciences of their
subjects, in the matters of God and the crown of Jesus;
but the civil magistrates themselves, yea, kings and Cæsars,
are bound to subject their own souls to the ministry and
church, the power and government of this Lord Jesus,
the King of kings. Hence was the charge against the
apostles (false in civil, but true in spirituals) that they
affirmed that there was another King, one Jesus, Acts xvii.
7. And, indeed, this was the great charge against the
Lord Jesus himself, which the Jews laid against him,
and for which he suffered death, as appears by the accusation
written over his head upon the gallows, John xix. 19,
Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.
That Christ is King alone over conscience is the sum of all
true preaching.
This was and is the sum of all true preaching of the
gospel, or glad news, viz., that God anointed Jesus to be
the sole King and Governor of all the Israel of God in
spiritual and soul causes, Ps. ii. 9; Acts ii. 36. Yet this
kingly power of His, he resolved not to manage in His
own person, but ministerially in the hands of such messengers
which he sent forth to preach and baptize, and to
such as believed that word they preached, John xvii.
And yet here no arrogance, nor impetuousness.
God’s people have seemed the disturbers of civil state.
5. God’s people, in delivering the mind and will of
God concerning the kingdoms and civil states where they
have lived, have seemed in all show of common sense and
rational policy, if men look not higher with the eye of
faith, to endanger and overthrow the very civil state, as
appeareth by all Jeremiah’s preaching and counsel to king
Zedekiah, his princes and people, insomuch that the charge
of the princes against Jeremiah was, that he discouraged
the army from fighting against the Babylonians, and
weakened the land from its own defence; and this charge
in the eye of reason, seemed not to be unreasonable, or
unrighteous, Jer. xxxvii. and xxxviii.; and yet in Jeremiah
no arrogance, nor impetuousness.
God’s word and people the occasion of tumults.
6. Lastly, God’s people, by their preaching, disputing,
&c., have been, though not the cause, yet accidentally
the occasion of great contentions and divisions, yea,
tumults and uproars, in towns and cities where they have
lived and come; and yet neither their doctrine nor themselves
arrogant nor impetuous, however so charged: for
thus the Lord Jesus discovereth men’s false and secure
suppositions, Luke xii. 51, Suppose ye that I am come to
give peace on the earth? I tell you, nay; but rather division;
for from henceforth shall there be five in one house divided,
three against two, and two against three, the father shall be
divided against the son and the son against the father, &c.
And thus upon the occasion of the apostles’ preaching the
kingdom and worship of God in Christ, were most commonly
uproars and tumults wherever they came. For
instance, those strange and monstrous uproars at Iconium,
at Ephesus, at Jerusalem, Acts xiv. 4; Acts xix. 29, 40;
Acts xxi. 30, 31.
CHAP. VIII.
[1 Obj.]
Peace. It will be said, dear Truth, what the Lord Jesus
and his messengers taught was truth; but the question is
about error.
Truth. I answer, This distinction now in discussion
concerns not truth or error, but the manner of holding
forth or divulging.
I acknowledge that such may be the way and manner
of holding forth, either with railing or reviling, daring or
challenging speeches, or with force of arms, swords, guns,
prisons, &c., that it may not only tend to break, but may
actually break the civil peace, or peace of the city.
The instances proposed carry a great show of impetuousness,
yet all are pure and peaceable.
Yet these instances propounded are cases of great opposition
and spiritual hostility, and occasions of breach of
civil peace; and yet as the borders, or matter, were of
gold, so the specks, or manner, (Cantic. i. [11,]) were of
silver: both matter and manner pure, holy, peaceable, and
inoffensive.
Moreover, I answer, That it is possible and common for
persons of soft and gentle nature and spirits, to hold out
falsehood with more seeming meekness and peaceableness,
than the Lord Jesus or his servants did or do hold forth
the true and everlasting gospel. So that the answerer
would be requested to explain what he means by this
arrogant and impetuous holding forth of any doctrine,
which very manner of holding forth tends to break civil
peace, and comes under the cognizance and correction of
the civil magistrate, lest he build the sepulchre of the
prophets, and say, If we had been in the Pharisees’ days, the
Roman emperor’s days, or the bloody Marian days, we would
not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets,
Matt. xxiii. 30, who were charged with arrogance and
impetuousness.
CHAP. IX.
[2 Obj.]
Peace. It will here be said, whence then ariseth civil
dissensions and uproars about matters of religion?
The true cause of tumults at the preaching of the word.
Truth. I answer: When a kingdom or state, town or
family, lies and lives in the guilt of a false god, false
Christ, false worship, no wonder if sore eyes be troubled
at the appearance of the light, be it never so sweet. No
wonder if a body full of corrupt humours be troubled at
strong, though wholesome, physic—if persons sleepy and
loving to sleep be troubled at the noise of shrill, though
silver, alarums. No wonder if Adonijah and all his company
be amazed and troubled at the sound of the right
heir, king Solomon, 1 Kings i. [41, 49,]—if the husbandmen
were troubled when the Lord of the vineyard sent
servant after servant, and at last his only son, and they
beat, and wounded, and killed even the son himself, because
they meant themselves to seize upon the inheritance,
unto which they had no right, Matt. xxi. 38. Hence all
those tumults about the apostles in the Acts, &c. Whereas,
good eyes are not so troubled at light; vigilant and
watchful persons, loyal and faithful, are not so troubled at
the true, no, nor at a false religion of Jew or Gentile.
A preposterous way of suppressing errors.
Secondly. Breach of civil peace may arise when false
and idolatrous practices are held forth, and yet no breach of
civil peace from the doctrine or practice, or the manner of
holding forth, but from that wrong and preposterous way
of suppressing, preventing, and extinguishing such doctrines
or practices by weapons of wrath and blood, whips,
stocks, imprisonment, banishment, death, &c.; by which
men commonly are persuaded to convert heretics, and to
cast out unclean spirits, which only the finger of God can
do, that is, the mighty power of the Spirit in the word.
Light only can expel fogs and darkness.
Hence the town is in an uproar, and the country takes
the alarum to expel that fog or mist of error, heresy, blasphemy,
as is supposed, with swords and guns. Whereas
it is light alone, even light from the bright shining Sun
of Righteousness, which is able, in the souls and consciences
of men, to dispel and scatter such fogs and darkness.
Hence the sons of men, as David speaks in another case,
Ps. xxxix. [6,] disquiet themselves in vain, and unmercifully
disquiet others, as, by the help of the Lord, in the
sequel of this discourse shall more appear.
CHAP. X.
Peace. Now the last distinction is this: “Persecution
for conscience is either for a rightly informed conscience,
or a blind and erroneous conscience.”
Answ. Persecutors oppress both true and erroneous consciences.
Truth. Indeed, both these consciences are persecuted;
but lamentably blind and erroneous will those consciences
shortly appear to be, which out of zeal for God, as is pretended,
have persecuted either. And heavy is the doom
of those blind guides and idol shepherds, whose right eye
God’s finger of jealousy hath put out, who flattering the
ten horns, or worldly powers, persuade them what excellent
and faithful service they perform to God, in persecuting
both these consciences; either hanging up a rightly
informed conscience, and therein the Lord Jesus himself,
between two malefactors, or else killing the erroneous and
the blind, like Saul, out of zeal to the Israel of God, the
poor Gibeonites, whom it pleased God to permit to live;
and yet that hostility and cruelty used against them, as
the repeated judgment year after year upon the whole
land after told them, could not be pardoned until the death
of the persecutor, Saul [and] his sons, had appeased the
Lord’s displeasure, 2 Sam. xxi.
CHAP. XI.
Peace. After explication in these distinctions, it pleaseth
the answerer to give his resolution to the question in four
particulars.
First, that he holds it “not lawful to persecute any for
conscience’ sake rightly informed, for in persecuting such,”
saith he, “Christ himself is persecuted.” For which
reason, truly rendered, he quotes, Acts ix. 4, Saul, Saul,
why persecutest thou me?
Truth. He that shall read this conclusion over a thousand
times, shall as soon find darkness in the bright beams
of the sun, as in this so clear and shining a beam of Truth;
viz., that Christ Jesus, in his truth, must not be persecuted.
Yet, this I must ask, for it will be admired by all sober
men, what should be the cause or inducement to the
answerer’s mind to lay down such a position or thesis as
this is, It is not lawful to persecute the Lord Jesus?
All persecutors of Christ profess not to persecute him.
Search all scriptures, histories, records, monuments;
consult with all experiences; did ever Pharaoh, Saul,
Ahab, Jezebel, Scribes and Pharisees, the Jews, Herod,
the bloody Neros, Gardiners, Bonners, pope, or devil
himself, profess to persecute the Son of God, Jesus as
Jesus, Christ as Christ, without a mask or covering?
No, saith Pharaoh, the Israelites are idle, and therefore
speak they of sacrificing. David is risen up in a conspiracy
against Saul, therefore persecute him. Naboth
hath blasphemed God and the king, therefore stone him.
Christ is a seducer of the people, a blasphemer against
God, and traitor against Cæsar, therefore hang him.
Christians are schismatical, factious, heretical, therefore
persecute them. The devil hath deluded John Huss,
therefore crown him with a paper of devils, and burn
him, &c.
Peace. One thing I see apparently in the Lord’s overruling
the pen of this worthy answerer, viz., a secret
whispering from heaven to him, that although his soul
aim at Christ, and hath wrought much for Christ in many
sincere intentions, and God’s merciful and patient acceptance,
yet he hath never left the tents of such who think
they do God good service in killing the Lord Jesus in his
servants. And yet they say, if we had been in the days
of our fathers, in queen Mary’s days, &c., we would never
have consented to such persecution. And therefore, when
they persecute Christ Jesus in his truths or servants, they
say, “Do not say you are persecuted for the word, for
Christ’s sake: for we hold it not lawful to persecute Jesus
Christ.”
Let me also add a second: So far as he hath been a
guide, by preaching for persecution, I say, wherein he
hath been a guide and leader, by misinterpreting and
applying the writings of truth, so far, I say, his own
mouth and hands shall judge (I hope not his person, but)
his actions; for the Lord Jesus hath suffered by him,
Acts ix. 5. And if the Lord Jesus himself were present,
Himself should suffer that in his own person, which his
servants witnessing his truth do suffer for his sake.
CHAP. XII.
Peace. Their second conclusion is this: “It is not
lawful to persecute an erroneous and blind conscience,
even in fundamental and weighty points, till after admonition
once or twice, Tit. iii. 11, and then such consciences
may be persecuted; because the word of God is so clear in
fundamental and weighty points, that such a person cannot
but sin against his conscience, and so being condemned of
himself, that is, of his conscience, he may be persecuted
for sinning against his own conscience.”[101]
Truth. I answer, In that great battle between the Lord
Jesus and the devil, it is observable that Satan takes up
the weapons of scripture, and such scripture which in show
and colour was excellent for his purpose; but in this third
of Titus, as Solomon speaks of the birds of heaven, Prov. i.
[17,] a man may evidently see the snare: and I know the
time is coming wherein it shall be said, Surely in vain the
net is laid in the sight of the saints (heavenly birds).
So palpably gross and thick is the mist and fog which
Satan hath raised about this scripture, that he that can but
see men as trees in matters of God’s worship, may easily
discern what a wonderful deep sleep God’s people are fallen
into concerning the visible kingdom of Christ; insomuch
that this third of Titus, which through fearful profanations
hath so many hundred years been the pretended bulwark
and defence of all the bloody wolves, dens of lions, and
mountains of leopards, hunting and devouring the witnesses
of Jesus, should now be the refuge and defence
of (as I hope) the lambs and little ones of Jesus: yet, in
this point, so preaching and practising so unlike to themselves,
to the Lord Jesus, and lamentably too like to His
and their persecutors.
CHAP. XIII.
Peace. Bright Truth, since this place of Titus is such a
pretended bulwark for persecuting of heretics, and under
that pretence of persecuting all thy followers, I beseech
you by the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness,
scatter these mists, and unfold these particulars out of the
text:—
First. What this man is that is an heretic.
Secondly. How this heretic is condemned of himself.
Thirdly. What is this first and second admonition, and
by whom it is supposed to be given.
Fourthly. What is this rejecting of Him, and by whom
it is supposed this rejection was to be made.
What is meant by heretic in Titus.
Truth. First, what is this heretic? I find him commonly
defined to be such an one as is obstinate in fundamentals,
and so also I conceive the answerer seems to
resent him, saying, that the apostle renders this reason
why after once and twice admonition he ought to be persecuted;
because in fundamental and principal points of
doctrine and worship, the word of God is so clear, that the
heretic cannot but be convinced in his own conscience.
But of this reason, I find not one tittle mentioned in
this scripture. For although he saith such an one is condemned
of himself, yet he saith not, nor will it follow, that
fundamentals are so clear, that after first and second
admonition, a person that submits not to them is condemned
of himself, any more than in lesser points. This
eleventh verse hath reference to the former verses. Titus,
an evangelist, a preacher of glad news, abiding here with
the church of Christ at Crete, is required by Paul to
avoid, to reject, and to teach the church to reject, genealogies,
disputes, and unprofitable questions about the law.
Such a like charge it is as he gave to Timothy, left also
an evangelist at Ephesus, 1 Tim. i. 4.
If it should be objected, what is to be done to such
contentious, vain strivers about genealogies and questions
unprofitable?—The apostle seems plainly to answer, Let
him be once and twice admonished.
Obj. Yea, but what if once and twice admonition prevail
not?
The apostle seems to answer, αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον; and
that is, the man that is wilfully obstinate after such once
and twice admonition, reject him.
With this scripture agrees that of 1 Tim. vi. 4, 5, where
Timothy is commanded to withdraw himself from such
who dote about questions and strifes of words.
All which are points of a lower and inferior nature, not
properly falling within the terms or notions of those
(στοιχεῖα) first principles and (θεμελίους) foundations of
the Christian profession, to wit, repentance from dead
works, faith towards God, the doctrine of baptisms, and
of laying on of hands, the resurrection, and eternal judgment,
Heb. vi. 2, &c.
Concerning these fundamentals (although nothing is so
little in the Christian worship, but may be referred to one
of these six, yet) doth not Paul to Timothy or Titus
speak in those places by me alleged, or of any of these,
as may evidently appear by the context and scope.
The beloved spouse of Christ is no receptacle for any
filthy person, obstinate in any filthiness against the purity
of the Lord Jesus, who hath commanded his people to
purge out the old leaven, not only greater portions, but
a little leaven which will leaven the whole lump; and
therefore this heretic, or obstinate person in these vain
and unprofitable questions, was to be rejected, as well as
if his obstinacy had been in greater matters.
Again, if there were a door or window left open to vain
and unprofitable questions, and sins of smaller nature,
how apt are persons to cover [them] with a silken covering,
and to say, Why, I am no heretic in fundamentals,
spare me in this or that little one, this or that opinion or
practice, these are of an inferior, circumstantial nature, &c.
The word heretic generally mistaken.
So the coherence with the former verses, and the scope
of the Spirit of God in this and other like scriptures being
carefully observed, this Greek word heretic is no more in
true English, and in truth, than an obstinate and wilful
person in the church of Crete, striving and contending
about those unprofitable questions and genealogies, &c.;
and [it] is not such a monster intended in this place, as
most interpreters run upon, to wit, one obstinate in fundamentals,
and, as the answerer makes the apostle to write,
in such fundamentals and principal points, wherein the
word of God is so clear that a man cannot but be convinced
in conscience, and therefore is not persecuted for
matter of conscience, but for sinning against his conscience.
CHAP. XIV.
Peace. Now, in the second place, what is this self-condemnation?
Truth. The apostle seemeth to make this a ground of
the rejecting of such a person—because he is subverted
and sinneth, being condemned of himself. It will appear
upon due search, that this self-condemning is not here
intended to be in heretics (as men say) in fundamentals
only; but, as it is meant here, in men obstinate in the
lesser questions, &c.
First, he is subverted, or turned crooked, ἐξέστραπται, a
word opposite to straightness, or rightness. So that the
scope is, as I conceive—upon true and faithful admonition
once or twice, the pride of heart, or heat of wrath, draws
a veil over the eyes and heart, so that the soul is turned
off or loosed from the checks of truth.
Secondly, he sinneth, ἁμαρτάνει; that is, being subverted,
or turned aside, he sinneth, or wanders from the
path of truth, and is condemned by himself, αὐτοκάτακριτος;
that is, by the secret checks and whisperings of
his own conscience, which will take God’s part against a
man’s self, in smiting, accusing, &c.
Checks of conscience.
Which checks of conscience we find even in God’s own
dear people, as is most admirably opened in the fifth of
Canticles, in those sad, drowsy, and unkind passages of
the spouse, in her answer to the knocks and calls of the
Lord Jesus; which God’s people, in all their awakenings,
acknowledge how slightly they have listened to the checks
of their own consciences. This the answerer pleaseth to
call sinning against his conscience, for which he may lawfully
be persecuted: to wit, for sinning against his conscience.
Which conclusion—though painted over with the vermilion
of mistaken scripture, and that old dream of Jew
and Gentile that the crown of Jesus will consist of outward
material gold, and his sword be made of iron or
steel, executing judgment in his church and kingdom by
corporal punishment—I hope, by the assistance of the
Lord Jesus, to manifest it to be the overturning and
rooting up the very foundations and roots of all true
Christianity, and absolutely denying the Lord Jesus, the
great anointed, to be yet come in the flesh.
CHAP. XV.
This will appear, if we examine the two last queries of
this place of Titus; to wit,
First. What this admonition is?
Secondly. What is the rejection here intended? Reject
him.
First, then, Titus, unto whom this epistle and these
directions were written, and in him to all that succeed him
in the like work of the gospel to the world’s end, was no
minister of the civil state, armed with the majesty and
terror of a material sword, who might for offences against
the civil state inflict punishments upon the bodies of men
by imprisonments, whippings, fines, banishment, death.
Titus was a minister of the gospel, or glad tidings, armed
only with the spiritual sword of the word of God, and
[with] such spiritual weapons as (yet) through God were
mighty to the casting down of strongholds, yea, every
high thought of the highest head and heart in the world,
2 Cor. x. 4.
What is the first and second admonition. What the rejecting
of the heretic was. Corporal killing in the law, typing out spiritual
killing, by excommunication, in the gospel.
Therefore, these first and second admonitions were not
civil or corporal punishments on men’s persons or purses,
which courts of men may lawfully inflict upon malefactors;
but they were the reprehensions, convictions, exhortations,
and persuasions of the word of the eternal God, charged
home to the conscience in the name and presence of the
Lord Jesus, in the midst of the church. Which being
despised and not hearkened to, in the last place follows
rejection; which is not a cutting off by heading, hanging,
burning, &c., or an expelling of the country and coasts;
neither [of] which (no, nor any lesser civil punishment)
Titus, nor the church at Crete, had any power to exercise.
But it was that dreadful cutting off from that visible head
and body, Christ Jesus and his church; that purging out
of the old leaven from the lump of the saints; the putting
away of the evil and wicked person from the holy land
and commonwealth of God’s Israel, 1 Cor. v. [6, 7.][102]
Where it is observable, that the same word used by
Moses for putting a malefactor to death, in typical Israel,
by sword, stoning, &c., Deut. xiii. 5, is here used by Paul
for the spiritual killing, or cutting off by excommunication,
1 Cor. v. 13, Put away that evil person, &c.
Now, I desire the answerer, and any, in the holy awe
and fear of God, to consider, that—
From whom the first and second admonition was to
proceed, from them also was the rejecting or casting out
to proceed, as before. But not from the civil magistrate,
to whom Paul writes not this epistle, and who also is not
bound once and twice to admonish, but may speedily
punish, as he sees cause, the persons or purses of delinquents
against his civil state; but from Titus, the minister
or angel of the church, and from the church with him,
were these first and second admonitions to proceed.
And, therefore, at last also, this rejecting: which can be
no other but a casting out, or excommunicating of him
from their church society.
Indeed, this rejecting is no other than that avoiding
which Paul writes of to the church of Christ at Rome,
Rom. xvi. 17; which avoiding, however wofully perverted
by some to prove persecution, belonged to the governors
of Christ’s church and kingdom in Rome, and not to the
Roman emperor, for him to rid and avoid the world of
them by bloody and cruel persecution.
CHAP. XVI.
The third conclusion discussed.
Peace. The third conclusion is—in points of lesser
moment there ought to be a toleration.
Satan’s policy.
Which though I acknowledge to be the truth of God,
yet three things are very observable in the manner of
laying it down: for Satan useth excellent arrows to bad
marks, and sometimes beyond the intent, and hidden from
the eye of the archer.
The answerer granteth a toleration.
First, saith he, such a person is to be tolerated till God
may be pleased to reveal his truth to him.
Patience to be used toward the opposite.
Truth. This is well observed by you: for indeed this is
the very ground why the apostle calls for meekness and
gentleness toward all men, and toward such as oppose
themselves, 2 Tim. ii. [25]; because there is a peradventure,
or it may be; “It may be, God may give them
repentance.” That God that hath shown mercy to one,
may show mercy to another. It may be, that eye-salve
that anointed one man’s eye who was blind and opposite,
may another as blind and opposite. He that hath given
repentance to the husband, may give it to his wife, &c.
The carriage of a soul, sensible of mercy, toward other
sinners in their blindness and opposition.
Hence the soul that is lively and sensible of mercy
received to itself in former blindness, opposition, and
enmity against God, cannot but be patient and gentle
toward the Jews, who yet deny the Lord Jesus to be
come, and justify their forefathers in murdering of him:
toward the Turks, who acknowledge Christ a great prophet,
yet less than Mahomet: yea, to all the several sorts
of anti-christians, who set up many a false Christ instead
of him: and, lastly, to the pagans, and wildest sorts of the
sons of men, who have not yet heard of the Father, nor
the Son: and to all these sorts, Jews, Turks, anti-christians,
pagans, when they oppose the light presented
to them, in the sense of its own former opposition, and
that God peradventure may at last give repentance. I
add, such a soul will not only be patient, but earnestly
and constantly pray for all sorts of men, that out of them
God’s elect may be called to the fellowship of Christ
Jesus; and, lastly, not only pray, but endeavour, to its
utmost ability, their participation of the same grace and
mercy.[103]
That great rock upon which so many gallant ships miscarry,
viz., that such persons, false prophets, heretics, &c.,
were to be put to death in Israel, I shall, with God’s
assistance, remove. As also that fine silken covering of
the image, viz., that such persons ought to be put to
death, or banished, to prevent the infecting and seducing
of others, I shall, with God’s assistance, in the following
discourse pluck off.
The answerer confounds the churches in Philippi and Rome, with
the cities Philippi and Rome.
Secondly, I observe from the scriptures he quoteth for
this toleration, Phil. iii. [17], and Rom. xiv. [1-4], how
closely, yet I hope unadvisedly, he makes the churches of
Christ at Philippi and Rome all one with the cities
Philippi and Rome, in which the churches were, and to
whom only Paul wrote. As if what these churches in
Philippi and Rome must tolerate amongst themselves,
that the cities Philippi and Rome must tolerate in their
citizens: and what these churches must not tolerate, that
these cities, Philippi and Rome, must not tolerate within
the compass of the city, state, and jurisdiction.
Truth. Upon that ground, by undeniable consequence,
these cities, Philippi and Rome, were bound not to tolerate
themselves, that is, the cities and citizens of Philippi and
Rome, in their own civil life and being; but must kill or
expel themselves from their own cities, as being idolatrous
worshippers of other gods than the true God in Jesus
Christ.
Difference between the church and the world.
But as the lily is amongst the thorns, so is Christ’s
love among the daughters; and as the apple-tree among
the trees of the forest, so is her beloved among the sons;
so great a difference is there between the church in a
city or country, and the civil state, city, or country in
which it is.
No less then (as David in another case, Ps. ciii. [11],
as far as the heavens are from the earth) are they that are
truly Christ’s (that is, anointed truly with the Spirit of
Christ) [different] from many thousands who love not the
Lord Jesus Christ, and yet are and must be permitted in
the world, or civil state, although they [i. e., the world,
&c.] have no right to enter into the gates of Jerusalem,
the church of God.
The church and civil state confusedly made all one.
And this is the more carefully to be minded, because
whenever a toleration of others’ religion and conscience is
pleaded for, such as are (I hope in truth) zealous for God,
readily produce plenty of scriptures written to the church,
both before and since Christ’s coming, all commanding
and pressing the putting forth of the unclean, the cutting
off the obstinate, the purging out the leaven, rejecting of
heretics. As if because briars, thorns, and thistles may
not be in the garden of the church, therefore they must
all be plucked up out of the wilderness. Whereas he
that is a briar, that is, a Jew, a Turk, a pagan, an anti-christian,
to-day, may be, when the word of the Lord
runs freely, a member of Jesus Christ to-morrow, cut out
of the wild olive and planted into the true.
Persecutors have forgotten the blessedness promised to the
merciful, Matt. v. [7.]
Peace. Thirdly, from this toleration of persons but
holding lesser errors, I observe the unmercifulness of
such doctrines and hearts, as if they had forgotten the
blessedness; Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain
mercy, Matt. v. [7.] He that is slightly and but a little
hurt, shall be suffered, and means vouchsafed for his cure.
But the deep wounded sinners, and leprous, ulcerous, and
those of bloody issues twelve years together, and those
which have been bowed down thirty-eight years of their
life, they must not be suffered, until peradventure God
may give them repentance. But either it is not lawful
for a godly magistrate to rule and govern such a people,
as some have said, or else if they be under government,
and reform not to the state religion after the first and
second admonition, the civil magistrate is bound to persecute,
&c.
Truth. Such persons have need, as Paul to the Romans,
chap. xii. 1, to be besought by the mercy of God to put on
bowels of mercy toward such as have neither wronged
them in body nor goods, and therefore justly should not be
punished in their goods or persons.
CHAP. XVII.
Peace. I shall now trouble you, dear Truth, but with
one conclusion more, which is this, viz., that if a man hold
forth error with a boisterous and arrogant spirit, to the disturbance
of the civil peace, he ought to be punished, &c.
Truth. To this I have spoken to, confessing that if any
man commit aught of those things which Paul was accused
of, Acts xxv. 11, he ought not to be spared, yea, he ought
not, as Paul saith, in such cases to refuse to die.
What persons are guilty of breach of civil peace.
But if the matter be of another nature, a spiritual and
divine nature, I have written before in many cases, and
might in many more, that the worship which a state professeth
may be contradicted and preached against, and yet
no breach of civil peace. And if a breach follow, it is not
made by such doctrines, but by the boisterous and violent
opposers of them.
The most peaceable wrongfully accused of peace-breaking.
Such persons only break the city’s or kingdom’s peace,
who cry out for prison and swords against such who cross
their judgment or practice in religion. For as Joseph’s
mistress accused Joseph of uncleanness, and calls out for
civil violence against him, when Joseph was chaste and
herself guilty, so, commonly, the meek and peaceable of
the earth are traduced as rebels, factious, peace-breakers,
although they deal not with the state or state matters, but
matters of divine and spiritual nature, when their traducers
are the only unpeaceable, and guilty of breach of civil
peace.[104]
Peace. We are now come to the second part of the
answer, which is a particular examination of such grounds
as are brought against such persecution.
The first sort of grounds are from the scriptures.
CHAP. XVIII.
The examination of what is meant by the tares and the command
of the Lord Jesus to let them alone.
First, Matt. xiii. 30, 38, “Because Christ commandeth
to let alone the tares to grow up together with the wheat,
until the harvest.”
Unto which he answereth: “That tares are not briars
and thorns, but partly hypocrites, like unto the godly, but
indeed carnal, as the tares are like to wheat, but are not
wheat; or partly such corrupt doctrines or practices as
are indeed unsound, but yet such as come very near the
truth (as tares do to the wheat), and so near, that good
men may be taken with them; and so the persons in
whom they grow cannot be rooted out but good wheat
will be rooted out with them. In such a case,” saith he,
“Christ calleth for peaceable toleration, and not for penal
prosecution, according to the third conclusion.”
The answerer’s fallacious exposition, that tares signify
either persons, doctrines, or practices.
Truth. The substance of this answer I conceive to be,
first, negative; that by tares are not meant persons of
another religion and worship, that is, saith he, “they are
not briars and thorns.”
Secondly, affirmative; by tares are meant either persons
or doctrines, or practices; persons, as hypocrites,
like the godly; doctrines or practices corrupt, yet like
the truth.
For answer hereunto, I confess that not only those
worthy witnesses, whose memories are sweet with all that
fear God, Calvin, Beza, &c., but of later times many
conjoin with this worthy answerer, to satisfy themselves
and others with such an interpretation.
The answerer barely affirming a most strange interpretation.
But, alas! how dark is the soul left that desires to walk
with God in holy fear and trembling, when in such a
weighty and mighty point as this is, that in matters of
conscience concerneth the spilling of the blood of thousands,
and the civil peace of the world in the taking up
arms to suppress all false religions!—when, I say, no
evidence, or demonstration of the Spirit, is brought to
prove such an interpretation, nor arguments from the
place itself or the scriptures of truth to confirm it; but a
bare affirmation that these tares must signify persons, or
doctrines and practices.
Satan’s subtlety about the opening of scripture.
I will not imagine any deceitful purpose in the answerer’s
thoughts in the proposal of these three—persons,
doctrines, or practices; yet dare I confidently avouch,
that the old serpent hath deceived his precious soul, and
by tongue and pen would deceive the souls of others by
such a method of dividing the word of truth. A threefold
cord, and so a threefold snare, is strong; and too like it is
that one of the three, either persons, doctrines, or practices,
may catch some feet.[105]
CHAP. XIX.
Peace. The place then being of such importance as
concerning the truth of God, the blood of thousands,
yea, the blood of saints, and of the Lord Jesus in them,
I shall request your more diligent search, by the Lord’s
holy assistance, into this scripture.
[Truth.] I shall make it evident, that by these tares in
this parable are meant persons in respect of their religion
and way of worship, open and visible professors, as bad
as briars and thorns; not only suspected foxes, but as bad
as those greedy wolves which Paul speaks of, Acts xx.
[29], who with perverse and evil doctrines labour spiritually
to devour the flock, and to draw away disciples after
them, whose mouths must be stopped, and yet no carnal
force and weapon to be used against them; but their
mischief to be resisted with those mighty weapons of the
holy armoury of the Lord Jesus, wherein there hangs a
thousand shields, Cant. iv. [4.]
That the Lord Jesus intendeth not doctrines, or practices,
by the tares in this parable, is clear; for,
First, the Lord Jesus expressly interpreteth the good
seed to be persons, and those the children of the kingdom;
and the tares also to signify men, and those the children
of the wicked one, ver. 38.[106]
Toleration in Rom. xiv. considered. Toleration of Jewish
ceremonies, for a time, upon some grounds in the Jewish church, proves
not toleration of popish and anti-christian ceremonies in the Christian
church, although in the state.
Secondly, such corrupt doctrines or practices are not to
be tolerated now, as those Jewish observations, the Lord’s
own ordinances, were for a while to be permitted, Rom.
xiv. Nor so long as till the angels, the reapers, come to
reap the harvest in the end of the world. For can we
think, that because the tender consciences of the Jews
were to be tendered in their differences of meats, that
therefore persons must now be tolerated in the church
(for I speak not of the civil state), and that to the world’s
end, in superstitious forbearing and forbidding of flesh in
popish Lents, and superstitious Fridays, &c.; and that
because they were to be tendered in their observation of
Jewish holidays, that therefore until the harvest, or
world’s end, persons must now be tolerated (I mean in
the church) in the observation of popish Christmas,
Easter, Whitsuntide, and other superstitious popish festivals?
I willingly acknowledge, that if the members of a
church of Christ shall upon some delusion of Satan kneel
at the Lord’s supper, keep Christmas, or any other popish
observation, great tenderness ought to be used in winning
his soul from the error of his way; and yet I see not that
persons so practising were fit to be received into the
churches of Christ now, as the Jews, weak in the faith, that
is, in the liberties of Christ, were to be received, Rom. xiv. 1.
And least of all (as before) that the toleration or permission
of such ought to continue till doomsday, or the end
of the world, as this parable urgeth the toleration: Let
them alone until the harvest.
CHAP. XX.
Again, hypocrites were not intended by the Lord Jesus
in this famous parable.
Tares proved not to signify hypocrites.
First, the original word ζιζάνια, signifying all those
weeds which spring up with the corn, as cockle, darnel,
tares, &c., seems to imply such a kind of people as commonly
and generally are known to be manifestly different
from, and opposite to, the true worshippers of God, here
called the children of the kingdom: as these weeds, tares,
cockle, darnel, &c., are commonly and presently known
by every husbandman to differ from the wheat, and to be
opposite, and contrary, and hurtful unto it.[107]
Now whereas it is pleaded that these tares are like the
wheat, and so like that this consimilitude, or likeness, is
made the ground of this interpretation, viz., that tares
must needs signify hypocrites, or doctrines, or practices,
who are like God’s children, truth, &c.:—
I answer, first, the parable holds forth no such thing,
that the likeness of the tares should deceive the servants
to cause them to suppose for a time that they were good
wheat; but that as soon as ever the tares appeared, ver.
26, the servants came to the householder about them, ver.
27. The scripture holds forth no such time wherein they
doubted or suspected what they were.
Peace. It may be said they did not appear to be tares
until the corn was in the blade, and put forth its fruit.
The false and counterfeit Christians appear as soon as the
true and faithful.
Truth. I answer, the one appeared as soon as the other;
for so the word clearly carries it, that seed of both
having been sown, when the wheat appeared and put
forth its blade and fruit, the tares also were as early,
and put forth themselves, or appeared also.
Secondly, there is such a dissimilitude, or unlikeness, I
say such a dissimilitude, that as soon as the tares, and
wheat are sprung up to blade and fruit, every husbandman
can tell which is wheat, and which are tares and
cockle, &c.
Peace. It may be said, True: so when the hypocrite is
manifested, then all may know him, &c.; but before
hypocrites be manifested by fruits they are unknown.
I answer: search into the parable, and ask when was
it that the servants first complained of the tares to the
householder, but when they appeared or came in sight,
there being no interim, wherein the servants could not
tell what to make of them, but doubted whether they
were wheat or tares, as the answerer implies.
Hypocritical Christians.
Secondly, when was it that the householder gave charge
to let them alone, but after that they appeared, and were
known to be tares; which should imply by this interpretation
of the answerer, that when men are discovered and
known to be hypocrites, yet, still such a generation of
hypocrites in the church must be let alone and tolerated
until the harvest, or end of the world; which is contrary
to all order, piety, and safety, in the church of the Lord
Jesus, as doubtless the answerer will grant. So that these
tares being notoriously known to be different from the
corn, I conclude that they cannot here be intended by the
Lord Jesus to signify secret hypocrites, but more open
and apparent sinners.[108]
CHAP. XXI.
The tares cannot signify hypocrites.
The second reason why these tares cannot signify hypocrites
in the church, I take from the Lord Jesus’s own
interpretation of the field, in which both wheat and tares
are sown, which, saith he, is the world, out of which God
chooseth and calleth his church.
Two sorts of hypocrites, 1. In the church, as Judas, Simon
Magus; and these must be tolerated until discovered, and no longer. 2.
Hypocrites in the world, which are false Christians, false churches; and
these the Lord Jesus will have let alone unto harvest.
The world lies in wickedness, is like a wilderness, or a
sea of wild beasts innumerable, fornicators, covetous, idolaters,
&c.; with whom God’s people may lawfully converse
and cohabit in cities, towns, &c., else must they not live
in the world, but go out of it. In which world, as soon
as ever the Lord Jesus had sown the good seed, the
children of the kingdom, true Christianity, or the true
church, the enemy, Satan, presently, in the night of
security, ignorance, and error, whilst men slept, sowed also
these tares, which are anti-christians, or false Christians.
These strange professors of the name of Jesus the ministers
and prophets of God beholding, they are ready to run
to heaven to fetch fiery judgments from thence to consume
these strange Christians, and to pluck them by the roots
out of the world. But the Son of man, the meek Lamb
of God—for the elect’s sake which must be gathered out
of Jew and Gentile, pagan, anti-christian—commands a
permission of them in the world, until the time of the end
of the world, when the goats and sheep, the tares and
wheat, shall be eternally separated each from other.
The field by most, generally, but falsely, interpreted the
church.
Peace. You know some excellent worthies, dead and
living, have laboured to turn this field of the world into
the garden of the church.[109]
The Lord Jesus the great teacher by parables, and the only
expounder of them.
Truth. But who can imagine that the wisdom of the
Father, the Lord Jesus Christ,[110] would so open this
parable, as he professedly doth, as that it should be closer
shut up, and that one difficulty or lock should be opened
by a greater and harder, in calling the world the church?
Contrary also to the way of the light and love that is in
Jesus, when he would purposely teach and instruct his
scholars; contrary to the nature of parables and similitudes;
and lastly, to the nature of the church or garden of Christ.
CHAP. XXII.
The scope of the parable. Four sorts of ground, or hearers
of the word, in the world, and but one properly in the church; the rest
seldom come, or accidentally, to hear the word in the church, which word
ought to be fitted for the feeding of the church or flock: preaching for
conversion, is properly out of the church.
In the former parable, the Lord Jesus compared the
kingdom of heaven to the sowing of seed. The true
messengers of Christ are the sowers, who cast the seed of
the word of the kingdom upon four sorts of ground.
Which four sorts of ground, or hearts of men, cannot be
supposed to be of the church, nor will it ever be proved
that the church consisteth of any more sorts or natures of
ground properly but one, to wit, the honest and good ground.
And the proper work of the church concerns the flourishing
and prosperity of this sort of ground, and not the
other unconverted three sorts; who, it may be, seldom or
never come near the church, unless they be forced by the
civil sword, which the pattern or first sower never used;
and being forced, they are put into a way of religion by
such a course—if not so, they are forced to live without a
religion: for one of the two must necessarily follow, as I
shall prove afterward.
In the field of the world, then, are all those sorts of
ground: highway hearers, stony and thorny ground hearers,
as well as the honest and good ground; and I suppose
it will not now be said by the answerer, that those three
sorts of bad grounds were hypocrites, or tares, in the
church.[111]
The scope of the parable of the tares.
Now after the Lord Jesus had propounded that great
leading parable of the sower and the seed, he is pleased to
propound this parable of the tares, with admirable coherence
and sweet consolation to the honest and good
ground; who, with glad and honest hearts, having received
the word of the kingdom, may yet seem to be
discouraged and troubled with so many anti-christians and
false professors of the name of Christ.
The Lord Jesus, therefore, gives direction concerning
these tares, that unto the end of the world, successively in
all the sorts and generations of them, they must be (not
approved or countenanced, but) let alone, or permitted in
the world.
The Lord Jesus in this parable of the tares, gives direction
and consolation to his servants.
Secondly, he gives to his own good seed this consolation:
that those heavenly reapers, the angels, in the harvest, or
end of the world, will take an order and course with them,
to wit, they shall bind them into bundles, and cast them
into the everlasting burnings; and to make the cup of
their consolation run over, he adds, ver. 43, Then, then at
that time, shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the
kingdom of their Father.
The tares proved properly to signify anti-christians.
These tares, then, neither being erroneous doctrines,
nor corrupt practices, nor hypocrites, in the true church,
intended by the Lord Jesus in this parable, I shall, in the
third place, by the help of the same Lord Jesus, evidently
prove that these tares can be no other sort of sinners but
false worshippers, idolaters, and in particular [and] properly,
anti-christians.
CHAP. XXIII.
Matt. viii. 12. Matt. xxi. 43. God’s kingdom on earth the
visible church.
First, then, these tares are such sinners as are opposite
and contrary to the children of the kingdom, visibly so
declared and manifest, ver. 38.[112] Now the kingdom of
God below is the visible church of Christ Jesus, according
to Matt. viii. 12. The children of the kingdom, which
are threatened to be cast out, seem to be the Jews, which
were then the only visible church in covenant with the
Lord, when all other nations followed other gods and
worships. And more plain is that fearful threatening,
Matt. xxi. 43, The kingdom of God shall be taken from
you, and given to a nation that will bring forth the fruits
thereof.
The distinction between the wheat and the tares, as also
between these tares and all other.
Such, then, are the good seed, good wheat, children
of the kingdom, as are the disciples, members, and subjects
of the Lord Jesus Christ, his church and kingdom:
and therefore, consequently, such are the tares, as are
opposite to these, idolaters, will-worshippers, not truly
but falsely submitting to Jesus: and in especial, the
children of the wicked one, visibly so appearing. Which
wicked one I take not to be the devil; for the Lord
Jesus seems to make them distinct: He that sows the good
seed, saith he, is the Son of man; the field is the world; the
good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are
the children of the wicked, or wickedness; the enemy that
soweth them is the devil.
The original here τοῦ πονηροῦ, agrees with that, Luke
xi. 4, Deliver us ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, from evil, or wickedness;
opposite to the children of the kingdom and the righteousness
thereof.
CHAP. XXIV.
Peace. It is true, that all drunkards, thieves, unclean
persons, &c., are opposite to God’s children.
Truth. Answ. Their opposition here against the children
of the kingdom, is such an opposition as properly
fights against the religious state, or worship, of the Lord
Jesus Christ.
Secondly, it is manifest that the Lord Jesus in this
parable intends no other sort of sinners: unto whom he
saith, Let them alone, in church or state; for then he
should contradict other holy and blessed ordinances for
the punishment of offenders, both in Christian and civil
state.
Civil magistracy from the beginning of the world. Offenders
against the civil laws not to be perpetually tolerated.
First, in civil state. From the beginning of the world,
God hath armed fathers, masters, magistrates, to punish
evil doers; that is, such, of whose actions fathers, masters,
magistrates are to judge, and accordingly to punish such
sinners as transgress against the good and peace of their
civil state, families, towns, cities, kingdoms—their states,
governments, governors, laws, punishments, and weapons
being all of a civil nature; and therefore neither disobedience
to parents or magistrates, nor murder, nor
quarrelling, uncleanness, nor lasciviousness, stealing nor
extortion, neither aught of that kind ought to be let alone,
either in lesser or greater families, towns, cities, kingdoms,
Rom. xiii.; but seasonably to be suppressed, as may best
conduce to the public safety.
Nor offenders in the church of Christ Jesus to be suffered.
Again, secondly, in the kingdom of Christ Jesus, whose
kingdom, officers, laws, punishments, weapons, are spiritual
and of a soul nature, he will not have anti-christian
idolaters, extortioners, covetous, &c., to be let alone; but
the unclean and lepers to be thrust forth, the old leaven
purged out, the obstinate in sin spiritually stoned to death,
and put away from Israel; and this by many degrees of
gentle admonition in private and public, as the case
requires.
Therefore, if neither offenders against the civil laws,
state, and peace ought to be let alone; nor the spiritual
estate, the church of Jesus Christ, ought to bear with
them that are evil, Rev. ii. 2, I conclude that these are
sinners of another nature—idolaters, false worshippers,
anti-christians, who without discouragement to true Christians
must be let alone, and permitted in the world to
grow and fill up the measure of their sins, after the image
of him that hath sown them, until the great harvest shall
make the difference.[113]
CHAP. XXV.
The great reapers are the angels.
Thirdly, in that the officers, unto whom these tares
are referred, are the angels, the heavenly reapers at the
last day, it is clear as the light that, as before, these tares
cannot signify hypocrites in the church; who, when they
are discovered and seen to be tares, opposite to the good
fruit of the good seed, are not to be let alone to the angels
at harvest, or end of the world, but purged out by the
governors of the church, and the whole church of Christ.[114]
Again, they cannot be offenders against the civil state and
common welfare, whose dealing with is not suspended
unto the coming of the angels, but [permitted] unto men,
who, although they know not the Lord Jesus Christ, yet
are lawful governors and rulers in civil things.
Accordingly, in the fourth and last place, in that the
plucking up of these tares out of this field must be let
alone unto the very harvest or end of the world, it is
apparent from thence, that, as before, they could not
signify hypocrites in the church, who, when they are
discovered to be so, as these tares were discovered to be
tares, are not to be suffered, after the first and second
admonition, but to be rejected, and every brother that
walketh disorderly to be withdrawn or separated from.[115]
So likewise no offender against the civil state, by robbery,
murder, adultery, oppression, sedition, mutiny, is for ever
to be connived at, and to enjoy a perpetual toleration
unto the world’s end, as these tares must.
The tares to be tolerated the longest of any sinners.
Moses for a while held his peace against the sedition
of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. David for a season
tolerated Shimei, Joab, Adonijah. But till the harvest,
or end of the world, the Lord never intended that any but
these spiritual and mystical tares should be so permitted.
CHAP. XXVI.
The danger of infection by these tares assoiled.
Truth. Now if any imagine that the time or date is
long, that in the mean season they may do a world of
mischief before the world’s end, as by infection, &c.
Lamentable experience hath proved this true of late in Europe,
and lamentably true in the slaughter of some hundred thousands of the
English.
First, I answer, that as the civil state keeps itself with
a civil guard, in case these tares shall attempt aught
against the peace and welfare of it let such civil offences
be punished; and yet, as tares opposite to Christ’s kingdom,
let their worship and consciences be tolerated.[116]
Secondly, the church, or spiritual state, city, or kingdom,
hath laws, and orders, and armories, whereon there
hang a thousand bucklers, Cant. iv. 4, weapons and ammunition,
able to break down the strongest holds, 2 Cor. x.
4, and so to defend itself against the very gates of earth
or hell.[117]
Thirdly, the Lord himself knows who are his, and his
foundation remaineth sure; his elect or chosen cannot
perish nor be finally deceived.[118]
Lastly, the Lord Jesus here, in this parable, lays down
two reasons, able to content and satisfy our hearts to bear
patiently this their contradiction and anti-christianity, and
to permit or let them alone.
First, lest the good wheat be plucked up and rooted up
also out of this field of the world. If such combustions
and fightings were as to pluck up all the false professors
of the name of Christ, the good wheat also would enjoy
little peace, but be in danger to be plucked up and torn
out of this world by such bloody storms and tempests.[119]
And, therefore, as God’s people are commanded, Jer.
xxix. 7, to pray for the peace of material Babel, wherein
they were captivated, and 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, to pray for all men,
and specially [for] kings and governors, that in the peace
of the civil state they may have peace: so, contrary to the
opinion and practice of most, drunk with the cup of the
whore’s fornication, yea, and of God’s own people, fast
asleep in anti-christian Delilah’s lap, obedience to the
command of Christ to let the tares alone will prove the
only means to preserve their civil peace, and that without
obedience to this command of Christ, it is impossible
(without great transgression against the Lord in carnal
policy, which will not long hold out) to preserve the civil
peace.
Beside, God’s people, the good wheat, are generally
plucked up and persecuted, as well as the vilest idolaters,
whether Jews or anti-christians: which the Lord Jesus
seems in this parable to foretell.
The great and dreadful harvest.
The second reason noted in the parable, which may
satisfy any man from wondering at the patience of God, is
this: when the world is ripe in sin, in the sins of anti-christianism
(as the Lord spake of the sins of the Amorites,
Gen. xv. 16), then those holy and mighty officers and
executioners, the angels, with their sharp and cutting
sickles of eternal vengeance, shall down with them, and
bundle them up for the everlasting burnings.[120]
Then shall that man of sin, 2 Thess. ii. [8], be consumed
by the breath of the mouth of the Lord Jesus;
and all that worship the beast and his picture, and receive
his mark into their forehead or their hands, shall drink of
the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without
mixture into the cup of his indignation, and he shall be tormented
with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and
in the presence of the Lamb, and the smoke of their torment
shall ascend up for ever and ever, Rev. xiv. 10, 11.
CHAP. XXVII.
Peace. You have been larger in vindicating this scripture
from the violence offered unto it, because, as I said
before, it is of such great consequence; as also, because so
many excellent hands have not rightly divided it, to the
great misguiding of many precious feet, which otherwise
might have been turned into the paths of more peaceableness
in themselves and towards others.
Truth. I shall be briefer in the scriptures following.
The charge of Christ Jesus, Let alone the tares, was
not spoken to magistrates, ministers of the civil state, but to ministers
of the gospel.
Peace. Yet before you depart from this, I must crave
your patience to satisfy one objection, and that is: These
servants to whom the householder answereth, seem to be
the ministers or messengers of the gospel, not the magistrates
of the civil state, and therefore this charge of the
Lord Jesus is not given to magistrates, to let alone false
worshippers and idolaters.
Again, being spoken by the Lord Jesus to his messengers,
it seems to concern hypocrites in the church, as
before was spoken, and not false worshippers in the state,
or world.
Truth. I answer, first, I believe I have sufficiently and
abundantly proved, that these tares are not offenders in
the civil state. Nor, secondly, hypocrites in the church,
when once discovered so to be; and that therefore the
Lord Jesus intends a grosser kind of hypocrites, professing
the name of churches and Christians in the field of the
world, or commonwealth.
The civil magistrate not so particularly spoken to as fathers
and masters, in the New Testament, and why, Eph. v. 6; Col. iii. 4, &c.
Secondly, I acknowledge this command, Let them alone,
was expressly spoken to the messengers or ministers of
the gospel, who have no civil power or authority in their
hand, and therefore not to the civil magistrate, king, or
governor, to whom it pleased not the Lord Jesus, by himself
or by his apostles, to give particular rules or directions
concerning their behaviour and carriage in civil magistracy,
as they have done expressly concerning the duty of fathers,
mothers, children, masters, servants, yea, and of subjects
towards magistrates, Ephes. v. and vi.; Colos. iii. and iv.
&c.
A twofold state of Christianity the persecuted under the Roman
emperors, and the apostate ever since.
I conceive not the reason of this to be, as some weakly
have done, because the Lord Jesus would not have any
followers of his to hold the place of civil magistracy, but
rather that he foresaw, and the Holy Spirit in the apostles
foresaw, how few magistrates, either in the first persecuted
or apostated state of Christianity, would embrace his yoke.
In the persecuted state, magistrates hated the very name
of Christ, or Christianity. In the state apostate, some few
magistrates, in their persons holy and precious, yet as
concerning their places, as they have professed to have
been governors or heads of the church, have been so many
false heads, and have constituted so many false visible
Christs.
Thirdly, I conceive this charge of the Lord Jesus to
his messengers, the preachers and proclaimers of his mind,
is a sufficient declaration of the mind of the Lord Jesus,
if any civil magistrate should make question what were
his duty concerning spiritual things.
Christ’s messengers receive a threefold charge in that
prohibition of Christ, Let them alone.
The apostles, and in them all that succeed them, being
commanded not to pluck up the tares, but let them alone,
received from the Lord Jesus a threefold charge.
First, to let them alone, and not to pluck them up by
prayer to God for their present temporal destruction.[121]
God’s people not to pray for the present ruin and destruction
of idolaters, although their persecutors, but for their peace and
salvation.
Jeremy had a commission to plant and build, to pluck
up and destroy kingdoms, Jer. i. 10; therefore he is commanded
not to pray for that people whom God had a
purpose to pluck up, Jer. xiv. 11, and he plucks up the
whole nation by prayer, Lament, iii. 66. Thus Elijah
brought fire from heaven to consume the captains and the
fifties, 2 Kings i. And the apostles desired also so to
practise against the Samaritans, Luke ix. 54, but were
reproved by the Lord Jesus. For, contrarily, the saints,
and servants, and churches of Christ, are to pray for all
men, especially for all magistrates, of what sort or religions
soever, and to seek the peace of the city, whatever city it
be, because in the peace of the place God’s people have
peace also, Jer. xxix. 7; 2 Tim. ii., &c.
Secondly, God’s messengers are herein commanded not
to prophecy, or denounce, a present destruction or extirpation
of all false professors of the name of Christ, which
are whole towns, cities, and kingdoms full.[122]
The word of God rightly denounced plucks up kingdoms.
Jeremy did thus pluck up kingdoms, in those fearful
prophecies he poured forth against all the nations of the
world, throughout his chaps. xxiv., xxv., xxvi., &c.; as
did also the other prophets in a measure, though none
comparably to Jeremy and Ezekiel.
Such denunciations of present temporal judgments, are
not the messengers of the Lord Jesus to pour forth. It is
true, many sore and fearful plagues are poured forth upon
the Roman emperors and Roman popes in the Revelation,
yet not to their utter extirpation or plucking up until the
harvest.
God’s ministers are not to provoke magistrates to persecute
anti-christians. 1 Pet. ii. 9. 1 Cor. v.
Thirdly, I conceive God’s messengers are charged to let
them alone, and not pluck them up, by exciting and
stirring up civil magistrates, kings, emperors, governors,
parliaments, or general courts, or assemblies, to punish and
persecute all such persons out of their dominions and
territories as worship not the true God, according to the
revealed will of God in Christ Jesus. It is true, Elijah
thus stirred up Ahab to kill all the priests and prophets of
Baal; but that was in that figurative state of the land of
Canaan, as I have already and shall further manifest, not
to be matched or paralleled by any other state, but the
spiritual state or church of Christ in all the world, putting
the false prophets and idolaters spiritually to death by the
two-edged sword and power of the Lord Jesus, as that
church of Israel did corporally.[123]
Companying with idolaters, 1 Cor. v., discussed.
And therefore saith Paul expressly, 1 Cor. v. 10, we
must go out of the world, in case we may not company in
civil converse with idolaters, &c.
Peace. It may be said, some sorts of sinners are there
mentioned, as drunkards, railers, extortioners, who are to
be punished by the civil sword—why not idolaters also?
for although the subject may lawfully converse, buy and
sell, and live with such, yet the civil magistrates shall
nevertheless be justly blamed in suffering of them.
Lawful converse with idolaters in civil, but not in spiritual
things.
Truth. I answer, the apostle, in this scripture, speaks
not of permission of either, but expressly shows the difference
between the church and the world, and the lawfulness
of conversation with such persons in civil things, with
whom it is not lawful to have converse in spirituals:
secretly withal foretelling, that magistrates and people,
whole states and kingdoms, should be idolatrous and anti-christian,
yet with whom, notwithstanding, the saints and
churches of God might lawfully cohabit, and hold civil
converse and conversation.
Concerning their permission of what they judge idolatrous,
I have and shall speak at large.
Dangerous and ungrounded zeal.
Peace. Oh! how contrary unto this command of the
Lord Jesus have such, as have conceived themselves the
true messengers of the Lord Jesus, in all ages, not let
such professors and prophets alone, whom they have
judged tares; but have provoked kings and kingdoms (and
some out of good intentions and zeal to God) to prosecute
and persecute such even unto death! Amongst whom
God’s people, the good wheat, hath also been plucked up,
as all ages and histories testify, and too, too oft the world
laid upon bloody heaps in civil and intestine desolations
on this occasion. All which would be prevented, and the
greatest breaches made up in the peace of our own or
other countries, were this command of the Lord Jesus
obeyed, to wit, to let them alone until the harvest.
CHAP. XXVIII.
[Truth.] I shall conclude this controversy about this
parable, in this brief sum and recapitulation of what hath
been said. I hope, by the evident demonstration of God’s
Spirit to the conscience, I have proved, negatively,
First. That the tares in this parable cannot signify
doctrines or practices, as was affirmed, but persons.
Secondly. The tares cannot signify hypocrites in the
church, either undiscovered or discovered.
Thirdly. The tares here cannot signify scandalous
offenders in the church.
Fourthly. Nor scandalous offenders, in life and conversation,
against the civil state.
Fifthly. The field in which these tares are sown, is not
the church.
Again, affirmatively: First. The field is properly the
world, the civil state, or commonwealth.
Secondly. The tares here intended by the Lord Jesus,
are anti-christian idolaters, opposite to the good seed of
the kingdom, true Christians.
Thirdly. The ministers or messengers of the Lord
Jesus ought to let them alone to live in the world, and
neither seek by prayer, or prophecy, to pluck them up
before the harvest.
Fourthly. This permission or suffering of them in the
field of the world, is not for hurt, but for common good,
even for the good of the good wheat, the people of
God.
Lastly. The patience of God is, that the patience of
man ought to be exercised toward them; and yet notwithstanding,
their doom is fearful at the harvest, even gathering,
bundling, and everlasting burnings, by the mighty
hand of the angels in the end of the world.
CHAP. XXIX.
Matt. xv. 14, the second scripture controverted in this cause.
Peace. The second scripture brought against such persecution
for cause of conscience, is Matt. xv. 14; where
the disciples being troubled at the Pharisees’ carriage
toward the Lord Jesus and his doctrines, and relating
how they were offended at him, the Lord Jesus commanded
his disciples to let them alone, and gives this
reason—that the blind lead the blind, and both should fall
into the ditch.
Unto which, answer is made, “That it makes nothing
to the cause, because it was spoken to his private disciples,
and not to public officers in church or state: and also,
because it was spoken in regard of troubling themselves,
or regarding the offence which the Pharisees took.”
Christ Jesus never directed his disciples to the civil
magistrate for help in his cause.
Truth. I answer,—to pass by his assertion of the privacy
of the apostles, in that the Lord Jesus commanding to let
them alone, that is, not only not to be offended themselves,
but not to meddle with them—it appears it was no ordinance
of God, nor Christ, for the disciples to have gone
further, and have complained to, and excited, the civil
magistrate to his duty: which if it had been an ordinance
of God and Christ, either for the vindicating of Christ’s
doctrine, or the recovering of the Pharisees, or the
preserving of others from infection, the Lord Jesus would
never have commanded them to omit that which should
have tended to these holy ends.[124]
CHAP. XXX.
Peace. It may be said, that neither the Roman Cæsar,
nor Herod, nor Pilate, knew aught of the true God, or of
Christ; and it had been in vain to have made complaint
to them who were not fit and competent, but ignorant
and opposite judges.
Paul’s appealing to Cæsar.
Truth. I answer, first, this removes, by the way, that
stumbling-block which many fall at, to wit, Paul’s appealing
to Cæsar; which since he could not in common sense
do unto Cæsar as a competent judge in such cases, and
wherein he should have also denied his own apostleship or
office, in which regard, to wit, in matters of Christ, he
was higher than Cæsar himself—it must needs follow, that
his appeal was merely in respect of his civil wrongs, and
false accusations of sedition, &c.[125]
Civil magistrates never appointed by God defenders of the
faith of Jesus. Every one is bound to put forth himself to his utmost
power in God’s business, and where it stops, the guilt will lie.
Secondly, if it had been an ordinance of God, that all
civil magistrates were bound to judge in causes spiritual
or Christian, as to suppress heresies, defend the faith of
Jesus, although that Cæsar, Herod, Pilate were wicked,
ignorant, and opposite, yet the disciples, and the Lord
Christ himself, had been bound to have performed the
duty of faithful subjects, for the preventing of further
evil, and the clearing of themselves, and so to have left
the matter upon the magistrates’ care and conscience, by
complaining unto the magistrate against such evils. For
every person is bound to go as far as lies in his power for
the preventing and the redressing of evil; and where it
stops in any, and runs not clear, there the guilt, like filth
or mud, will lie.
Christ could easily have been furnished with godly
magistrates, if he had so appointed.
Thirdly, had it been the holy purpose of God to have
established the doctrine and kingdom of his Son this way,
since his coming he would have furnished commonweals,
kingdoms, cities, &c., then and since, with such temporal
powers and magistrates as should have been excellently
fit and competent: for he that could have had legions of
angels, if he so pleased, could as easily have been, and
still be furnished with legions of good and gracious magistrates
to this end and purpose.[126]
CHAP. XXXI.
It is generally said, that God hath in former times, and
doth still, and will hereafter stir up kings and queens, &c.
I answer, that place of Isa. xlix. 23, will appear to be
far from proving such kings and queens judges of ecclesiastical
causes: and if not judges, they may not punish.
In spiritual things, themselves are subject to the
church and censures of it, although in civil respects
superior. How shall those kings and queens be supreme
governors of the church, and yet lick the dust of the
church’s feet? as it is there expressed.[127]
God’s Israel earnest with God for an arm of flesh, which God
gives in his anger, and takes away in his wrath.
Thirdly, God’s Israel of old were earnest with God for
a king, for an arm of flesh, for a king to protect them, as
other nations had: God’s Israel still have ever been restless
with God for an arm of flesh.
God gave them Saul in his anger, and took him away
in his wrath: and God hath given many a Saul in his
anger, that is, an arm of flesh in the way of his providence:
though I judge not all persons whom Saul in his calling
typed out, to be of Saul’s spirit, for I speak of a state
and outward visible power only.
I add, God will take away such stays, on whom God’s
people rest, in his wrath: that king David, that is, Christ
Jesus the antitype, in his own spiritual power in the
hands of the saints, may spiritually and for ever be
advanced.
And therefore I conclude, it was in one respect that the
Lord Jesus said, Let them alone; because it was no ordinance
for any disciple of Jesus to prosecute the Pharisees
at Cæsar’s bar.
The punishment of blind Pharisees, though let alone, yet is
greater than any corporal punishment in the world, in four respects.
Beside, let it be seriously considered by such as plead
for present corporal punishments, as conceiving that such
sinners, though they break not civil peace, should not
escape unpunished—I say, let it be considered, though
for the present their punishment is deferred, yet the
punishment inflicted on them will be found to amount to
a higher pitch than any corporal punishment in the
world beside, and that in these four respects:—
CHAP. XXXII.
The eye of the soul struck out, is worse than for both right
and left eye of the body to be struck out ten thousand times.
First, by just judgment from God, false teachers are
stark blind. God’s sword hath struck out the right eye
of their mind and spiritual understanding, ten thousand
times a greater punishment than if the magistrate should
command both the right and left eye of their bodies to be
bored or plucked out; and that in so many fearful
respects if the blindness of the soul and of the body were
a little compared together—whether we look at that want
of guidance, or the want of joy and pleasure, which the
light of the eye affordeth; or whether we look at the
damage, shame, deformity, and danger, which blindness
brings to the outward man; and much more true in the
want of the former, and misery of the latter, in spiritual
and soul blindness to all eternity.
Some souls incurable, whom not only corporal, but spiritual
physic can nothing avail.
Secondly, how fearful is that wound that no balm in
Gilead can cure! How dreadful is that blindness which
for ever to all eye-salve is incurable! For if persons be
wilfully and desperately obstinate, after light shining
forth, Let them alone, saith the Lord. So spake the Lord
once of Ephraim: Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone,
Hos. iv. 17. What more lamentable condition, than when
the Lord hath given a poor sinner over as a hopeless
patient, incurable, which we are wont to account a sorer
affliction, than if a man were torn and racked, &c.
And this I speak, not that I conceive that all whom the
Lord Jesus commands his servants to pass from and let
alone, to permit and tolerate, when it is in their power
corporally to molest them, I say, that all are thus incurable;
yet that sometimes that word is spoken by Christ
Jesus to his servants to be patient, for neither can corporal
or spiritual balm or physic ever heal or cure them.
The bottomless pit, or ditch, into which the spiritually blind
fall.
Thirdly, their end is the ditch, that bottomless pit of
everlasting separation from the holy and sweet presence
of the Father of lights, goodness, and mercy itself—endless,
easeless, in extremity, universality, and eternity of
torments; which most direful and lamentable downfall,
should strike a holy fear and trembling into all that see
the pit whither these blind Pharisees are tumbling, and
cause us to strive, so far as hope may be, by the spiritual
eye-salve of the word of God, to heal and cure them of
this their soul-destroying blindness.
Fourthly, of those that fall into this dreadful ditch,
both leader and followers, how deplorable in more especial
manner is the leader’s case, upon whose neck the
followers tumble—the ruin, not only of his own soul,
being horrible, but also the ruin of the followers’ souls
eternally galling and tormenting.
Peace. Some will say, these things are indeed full of
horror; yet such is the state of all sinners, and of many
malefactors, whom yet the state is bound to punish, and
sometimes by death itself.
Truth. I answer, the civil magistrate beareth not the
sword in vain, but to cut off civil offences, yea, and the
offenders too in case. But what is this to a blind Pharisee,
resisting the doctrine of Christ, who haply may be
as good a subject, and as peaceable and profitable to the
civil state as any: and for his spiritual offence against the
Lord Jesus, in denying him to be the true Christ, he
suffereth the vengeance of a dreadful judgment, both
present and eternal, as before.[128]
CHAP. XXXIII.
Peace. Yea: but it is said that the blind Pharisees,
misguiding the subjects of a civil state, greatly sin against
a civil state, and therefore justly suffer civil punishments;
for shall the civil magistrate take care of outsides only,
to wit, of the bodies of men, and not of souls, in labouring
to procure their everlasting welfare?
Soul-killing the chiefest murder. No magistrate can execute
true justice in killing soul for soul but Christ Jesus, who by typical
death in the law typed out spiritual in the gospel.
Truth. I answer, It is a truth: the mischief of a blind
Pharisee’s blind guidance is greater than if he acted
treasons, murders, &c.; and the loss of one soul by his
seduction, is a greater mischief than if he blew up parliaments,
and cut the throats of kings or emperors, so precious
is that invaluable jewel of a soul above all the
present lives and bodies of all the men in the world!
And therefore I affirm, that justice, calling for eye for
eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, calls also soul for soul;
which the blind-guiding, seducing Pharisee, shall truly
pay in that dreadful ditch, which the Lord Jesus speaks
of. But this sentence against him, the Lord Jesus only
pronounceth in his church, his spiritual judicature, and
executes this sentence in part at present, and hereafter to
all eternity. Such a sentence no civil judge can pass,
such a death no civil sword can inflict.[129]
A great mistake in most to conceive that dead men, that is,
souls dead in sin, may be infected by false doctrine.
I answer, secondly, Dead men cannot be infected. The
civil state, the world, being in a natural state, dead in sin,
whatever be the state-religion unto which persons are
forced, it is impossible it should be infected. Indeed the
living, the believing, the church and spiritual state, that
and that only is capable of infection; for whose help we
shall presently see what preservatives and remedies the
Lord Jesus hath appointed.
All natural men being dead in sin, yet none die everlastingly
but such as are thereunto ordained.
Moreover, as we see in a common plague or infection
the names are taken how many are to die, and not one
more shall be struck than the destroying angel hath the
names of:[130] so here, whatever be the soul-infection
breathed out from the lying lips of a plague-sick Pharisee,
yet the names are taken, not one elect or chosen of God
shall perish. God’s sheep are safe in his eternal hand and
counsel, and he that knows his material, knows also his
mystical stars, their numbers, and calls them every one by
name. None fall into the ditch on the blind Pharisee’s
back but such as were ordained to that condemnation,
both guide and followers, 1 Pet. ii. 8; Jude 4. The
vessels of wrath shall break and split, and only they, to
the praise of God’s eternal justice, Rom. ix. 22.
CHAP. XXXIV.
Peace. But it is said, be it granted that in a common
plague or infection none are smitten and die but such as
are appointed, yet it is not only every man’s duty, but the
common duty of the magistrate to prevent infection, and
to preserve the common health of the place; likewise,
though the number of the elect be sure, and God knows
who are his, yet hath he appointed means for their preservation
from perdition, and from infection, and therefore
the angel is blamed for suffering Balaam’s doctrine, and
Jezebel, to seduce Christ Jesus’ servants, Rev. ii. [14,
20]; Tit. iii. 10; Rom. xvi. 17.
The Lord Jesus hath not left his church without spiritual
antidotes and remedies against infection.
Truth. I answer, Let the scripture, that of Titus,
Reject an heretic, and Rom. xvi. 17, Avoid them that are
contentious, &c., let them, and all of like nature, be examined,
and it will appear that the great and good Physician,
Christ Jesus, the Head of the body, and King of
the church, hath not been unfaithful in providing spiritual
antidotes and preservatives against the spiritual sickness,
sores, weaknesses, dangers, of his church and people. But
he never appointed the civil sword for either antidote or
remedy, as an addition to those spirituals which he hath
left with his wife, his church or people.[131]
The miserable bondage God’s people live in.
Hence how great is the bondage, the captivity of God’s
own people to Babylonish or confused mixtures in worship,
and unto worldly and earthly policies to uphold state-religions
or worships: since that which is written to the
angel and church at Pergamos shall be interpreted as
sent to the governor and city of Pergamos, and that
which is sent to Titus and the church of Christ at Crete
must be delivered to the civil officers and city thereof.
But as the civil magistrate hath his charge of the
bodies and goods of the subject: so have the spiritual
officers, governors, and overseers of Christ’s city or kingdom,
the charge of their souls, and soul-safety.[132] Hence
that charge of Paul to Timothy, 1 Tim. v. 20, Them that
sin rebuke before all, that others may learn to fear. This
is, in the church of Christ, a spiritual means for the
healing of a soul that hath sinned, or taken infection, and
for the preventing of the infecting of others, that others
may learn to fear, &c.
CHAP. XXXV.
Peace. It is said true, that Titus and Timothy, and so
the officers of the church of Christ, are bound to prevent
soul-infection: but what hinders that the magistrate
should not be charged also with this duty?
The kings and queens of England governors of the church.
Truth. I answer, many things I have answered, and
more shall, at present I shall only say this: If it be the
magistrate’s duty or office, then is he both a temporal and
ecclesiastical officer: [the] contrary to which most men
will affirm. And yet we know, the policy of our own
land and country hath established to the kings and queens
thereof the supreme heads or governors of the church of
England.
Strange confusion in punishments.
That doctrine and distinction, that a magistrate may
punish a heretic civilly, will not here avail; for what is
Babel, if this be not, confusedly to punish corporal or civil
offences with spiritual or church censures (the offender not
being a member of it), or to punish soul or spiritual
offences with corporal or temporal weapons, proper to
delinquents against the temporal or civil state.
Woe were it with the civil magistrate if the blood of souls
(beside the ordinary care of the bodies and goods of the subjects) should
cry against him.
Lastly, woe were it with the civil magistrate—and most
intolerable burdens do they lay upon their backs that
teach this doctrine—if together with the common care and
charge of the commonwealth, the peace and safety of the
town, city, state, or kingdom, the blood of every soul
that perisheth should cry against him; unless he could
say with Paul, Acts xx. [26,] (in spiritual regards), I am
clear from the blood of all men, that is, the blood of souls,
which was his charge to look after, so far as his preaching
went, not the blood of bodies which belongeth to the civil
magistrate.
The magistrates’ duties toward the church, the spouse of
Christ.
I acknowledge he ought to cherish, as a foster-father,
the Lord Jesus, in his truth, in his saints, to cleave unto
them himself, and to countenance them even to the death,
yea, also, to break the teeth of the lions, who offer civil
violence and injury unto them.
Usurpers and true heirs of the spiritual crown of Jesus.
But, to see all his subjects Christians, to keep such
church or Christians in the purity of worship, and see
them do their duty, this belongs to the head of the body,
Christ Jesus, and [to] such spiritual officers as he hath to this
purpose deputed, whose right it is, according to the true
pattern. Abimelech, Saul, Adonijah, Athalia, were but
usurpers: David, Solomon, Joash, &c., they were the true
heirs and types of Christ Jesus, in his true power and
authority in his kingdom.
CHAP. XXXVI.
Luke ix. 54, 55, discussed.
Peace. The next scripture brought against such persecution
is Luke ix. 54, 55: where the Lord Jesus
reproved his disciples, who would have had fire come
down from heaven, and devour those Samaritans that
would not receive him, in these words: You know not of
what spirit you are, the Son of man is not come to destroy
men’s lives, but to save them.
With this scripture Mr. Cotton joins the fourth, and
answers both in one, which is this, 2 Tim. ii. 24, The
servant of the Lord must not strive, but must be gentle toward
all men, suffering the evil men, instructing them with meekness
that are contrary-minded and oppose themselves; proving
if God peradventure will give them repentance that they may
acknowledge the truth, and that they may recover themselves
out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at
his will.
An excellent saying of persecutors themselves.
Unto both these scriptures it pleased him thus to
answer: “Both these are directions to ministers of the
gospel how to deal, not with obstinate offenders in the
church who sin against conscience, but either with men
without, as the Samaritans were, and many unconverted
Christians in Crete, whom Titus, as an evangelist, was to
seek to convert: or at best with some Jews or Gentiles
in the church, who, though carnal, yet were not convinced
of the error 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
deal harshly in public ministry, or private conference, with
all such several minded men, as either had not yet entered
into church fellowship, or if they had, did hitherto sin of
ignorance, not against conscience. But neither of both
these texts do hinder the minister of the gospel to proceed
in a church way against church members, when they
become scandalous offenders, either in life or doctrine,
much less do they speak at all to the civil magistrate.”[133]
CHAP. XXXVII.
Truth. This perplexed and ravelled answer, wherein so
many things and so doubtful are wrapt up and entangled
together, I shall take in pieces.
The answerer when he should speak to toleration in the state,
runs to punishments in the church, which none can deny.
First, concerning that of the Lord Jesus rebuking his
disciples for their rash and ignorant bloody zeal (Luke ix.),
desiring corporal destruction upon the Samaritans for
refusing the Lord Jesus, &c., the answerer affirmeth, that
hindereth not the ministers of the gospel to proceed in a
church way against scandalous offenders; which is not
here questioned, but maintained to be the holy will of the
Lord, and a sufficient censure and punishment, if no civil
offence against the civil state be committed.
Secondly, saith he, “Much less doth this speak at all to
the civil magistrate.”
Where I observe, that he implies that beside the censure
of the Lord Jesus, in the hands of his spiritual governors,
for any spiritual evil in life or doctrine, the civil magistrate
is also to inflict corporal punishment upon the contrary-minded:[134]
whereas,
If the civil magistrate be a Christian, he is bound to be like
Christ in saving, not destroying men’s bodies.
First, if the civil magistrate be a Christian, a disciple,
or follower of the meek Lamb of God, he is bound to be
far from destroying the bodies of men for refusing to
receive the Lord Jesus Christ: for otherwise he should
not know, according to this speech of the Lord Jesus,
what spirit he was of, yea, and to be ignorant of the
sweet end of the coming of the Son of man, which was not
to destroy the bodies of men, but to save both bodies and
souls, vers. 55, 56.
The civil magistrate bound not to inflict, nor to suffer any
other to inflict, violence, stripes, or any other corporal punishment,
for evil against Christ.
Secondly, if the civil magistrate being a Christian,
gifted, prophesy in the church, 1 Cor. xiv. 1—although
the Lord Jesus Christ, whom they in their own persons
hold forth, shall be refused—yet they are here forbidden to
call for fire from heaven, that is, to procure or inflict any
corporal judgment, upon such offenders, remembering the
end of the Lord Jesus’ coming [was] not to destroy
men’s lives, but to save them.
Lastly, this also concerns the conscience of the civil
magistrate. As he is bound to preserve the civil peace
and quiet of the place and people under him, he is bound
to suffer no man to break the civil peace, by laying hands
of violence upon any, though as vile as the Samaritans,
for not receiving of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Rev. xiii. 13. Fire from heaven. What the fire from heaven is
which the false prophet bringeth down.
It is indeed the ignorance and blind zeal of the second
beast, the false prophet, Rev. xiii. 13, to persuade the
civil powers of the earth to persecute the saints, that is,
to bring fiery judgments upon men in a judicial way, and
to pronounce that such judgments of imprisonment,
banishment, death, proceed from God’s righteous vengeance
upon such heretics. So dealt divers bishops in
France, and England too in Queen Mary’s days, with the
saints of God at their putting to death, declaiming against
them in their sermons to the people, and proclaiming that
these persecutions, even unto death, were God’s just
judgments from heaven upon these heretics.
CHAP. XXXVIII.
2 Tim. ii. 25, 26, examined.
Peace. Doubtless such fiery spirits, as the Lord Jesus
said, are not of God. I pray, speak to the second place
out of Timothy, 2 Epist. ii. 25, 26.
Truth. I acknowledge this instruction, to be meek and
patient, &c., is properly an instruction to the ministers of
the gospel. Yet divers arguments from hence will truly
and fairly be collected, to manifest and evince how far the
civil magistrate ought to be from dealing with the civil
sword in spiritual cases.
And first, by the way I desire to ask, what were these
unconverted Christians in Crete, which the answerer
compareth with the Samaritans, whom Titus, saith he,
as an evangelist, was to seek to convert; and whether the
Lord Jesus have any such disciples and followers, who
yet are visibly in an unconverted state? Oh! that it
may please the Father of mercies, the Father of lights, to
awaken and open the eyes of all that fear before him,
that they may see whether this be the language of
Canaan, or the language of Ashdod.
A quære what the answerer means by his unconverted Christian
in Crete.
What is an unconverted Christian, but in truth an
unconverted convert? that is in English, one unturned
turned; unholy holy; disciples, or followers of Jesus, not
following of him: in a word, that is, Christians, or anointed
by Christ, anti-christians, not anointed with the Spirit of
Jesus Christ.[135]
The original of Christians.
Certain it is, such they were not unto whom the Spirit
of God gives that name, Acts ii. [26.] And, indeed,
whither can this tend but to uphold the blasphemy of so
many as say they are Jews, that is, Christians, but are
not? Rev. ii. 2. But as they are not Christians from
Christ, but from the beast and his picture, so their proper
name from anti-christ, is anti-christians.[136]
The answerer yet in the unconverted churches and worships.
How sad yet and how true an evidence is this, that the
soul of the answerer (I speak not of his outward soul and
person, but of his worship), hath never yet heard the call
of the Lord Jesus to come out from those unconverted
churches, from that unconverted, anti-christian Christian
world, and so from anti-christ, Belial, to seek fellowship
with Christ Jesus and his converted Christians, disciples
after the first pattern.
God’s people sleepy in the matters of Christ’s kingdom, Cant.
v. 2.
Again, I observe the haste and light attention of the
answerer to these scriptures, as commonly the spirits of
God’s children in matters of Christ’s kingdom are very
sleepy: for these persons here spoken of were not, as he
speaks, unconverted Christians in Crete, whom Titus as
an evangelist was to convert, but they were such opposites
as Timothy, to whom Paul writes this letter at Ephesus,
should not meet withal.
CHAP. XXXIX.
Peace. But what is there in this scripture of Timothy
alleged concerning the civil magistracy?
Truth. I argue from this place of Timothy in particular,
thus:—
1 Cor. xiv. Patience and meekness required in all that open
Christ’s mysteries.
First. If the civil magistrates be Christians, or members
of the church, able to prophesy in the church of Christ,
then, I say as before, they are bound by this command of
Christ to suffer opposition to their doctrine, with meekness
and gentleness, and to be so far from striving to subdue
their opposites with the civil sword, that they are bound
with patience and meekness to wait, if God peradventure
will please to grant repentance unto their opposites.
So also it pleaseth the answerer to acknowledge in these
words:—
“It becomes not the spirit of the gospel to convert
aliens to the faith (such as the Samaritans, and the unconverted
Christians in Crete) with fire and brimstone.”
The civil sword may make a nation of hypocrites and
anti-christians, but not one Christian.
Secondly. Be they oppositions within, and church
members, as the answerer speaks, become scandalous in
doctrine, (I speak not of scandals against the civil state,
which the civil magistrate ought to punish), it is the Lord
only, as this scripture to Timothy implies, who is able to
give them repentance, and recover them out of Satan’s
snare. To which end also, he hath appointed those holy
and dreadful censures in his church or kingdom. True it
is, the sword may make, as once the Lord complained,
Isa. x., a whole nation of hypocrites; but to recover a
soul from Satan by repentance, and to bring them from
anti-christian doctrine or worship to the doctrine or worship
Christian in the least true internal or external submission,
that only works the all-powerful God, by the
sword of his Spirit in the hand of his spiritual officers.[137]
Wonderful changes of religion in England. England’s changes in
point of religion.
What a most woeful proof hereof have the nations of
the earth given in all ages? And to seek no further
than our native soil, within a few scores of years, how
many wonderful changes in religion hath the whole kingdom
made, according to the change of the governors thereof,
in the several religions which they themselves embraced!
Henry the Seventh finds and leaves the kingdom absolutely
popish. Henry the Eighth casts it into a mould
half popish, half protestant. Edward the Sixth brings
forth an edition all protestant. Queen Mary within few
years defaceth Edward’s work, and renders the kingdom,
after her grandfather Henry the Seventh’s pattern, all
popish. Mary’s short life and religion end together; and
Elizabeth reviveth her brother Edward’s model, all protestant.
And some eminent witnesses of God’s truth
against anti-christ have inclined to believe, that before
the downfall of that beast, England must once again bow
down her fair neck to his proud usurping yoke and foot.
Peace. It hath been England’s sinful shame, to fashion
and change their garments and religions with wondrous
ease and lightness, as a higher power, a stronger sword
hath prevailed; after the ancient pattern of Nebuchadnezzar’s
bowing the whole world in one most solemn
uniformity of worship to his golden image, Dan. iii.[138]
CHAP. XL.
But it hath been thought, or said, Shall oppositions
against the truth escape unpunished? will they not prove
mischievous? &c.
The misery of opposites against the truth.
Truth. I answer, as before, concerning the blind guides,
in case there be no civil offence committed, the magistrates,
and all men that by the mercy of God to themselves
discern the misery of such opposites, have cause to lament
and bewail that fearful condition wherein such are entangled:
to wit, in the snares and chains of Satan, with
which they are so invincibly caught and held, that no
power in heaven or earth but the right hand of the Lord,
in the meek and gentle dispensing of the word of truth,
can release and quit them.
A difference between the true and false Christ and Christians.
Those many false Christs, of whom the Lord Jesus
forewarns, Matt. xxiv. 5, 11, have suitably their false
bodies, faith, spirit, baptism, as the Lord Jesus hath his
true body, faith, spirit, &c., Ephes. iv. 5; correspondent
also are their weapons, and the success, issue, or operation
of them. A carnal weapon or sword of steel may produce
a carnal repentance, a show, an outside, a uniformity,
through a state or kingdom; but it hath pleased the
Father to exalt the Lord Jesus only to be a Prince, armed
with power and means sufficient to give repentance to Israel,
Acts v. 31.
The worship of unbelieving, unregenerate persons.
Accordingly, an unbelieving soul being dead in sin,
although he be changed from one worship to another, like
a dead man shifted into several changes of apparel, cannot
please God, Heb. xi. 6. And consequently, whatever
such an unbelieving and unregenerate person acts in worship
or religion, it is but sin, Rom. xiv. [23.] Preaching
[is] sin, praying, though without beads or book, sin;
breaking of bread, or Lord’s supper, sin; yea, as odious
as the oblation of swine’s blood, a dog’s neck, or killing of
a man, Isa. lxvi. [3.]
But faith is that gift which proceeds alone from the
Father of lights, Phil. i. 29, and till he please to make his
light arise and open the eyes of blind sinners, their souls
shall lie fast asleep—and the faster, in that a sword of
steel compels them to a worship in hypocrisy—in the
dungeons of spiritual darkness and Satan’s slavery.
The danger and mischief of a civil sword in soul matters,
which makes the civil magistrates deeply guilty of all those evils which
he aims to suppress. That cannot be a true religion which needs carnal
weapons to uphold it. Persecutors beget a persuasion of their cruelty in
the hearts of the persecuted. Antoninus Pius’s golden act.
Peace. I add, that a civil sword, as woeful experience in
all ages hath proved, is so far from bringing, or helping
forward an opposite in religion to repentance, that magistrates
sin grievously against the work of God, and blood
of souls, by such proceedings. Because as commonly the
sufferings of false and anti-christian teachers harden their
followers, who being blind are by this means occasioned to
tumble into the ditch of hell after their blind leaders, with
more inflamed zeal of lying confidence: so, secondly,
violence and a sword of steel, beget such an impression
in the sufferers, that certainly they conclude, that indeed
that religion cannot be true which needs such instruments
of violence to uphold it; so that persecutors are far from
[a] soft and gentle commiseration of the blindness of others.[139]
To this purpose it pleased the Father of spirits, of old, to
constrain the emperor of Rome, Antoninus Pius, to write
to all the governors of his provinces to forbear to persecute
the Christians; because such dealing must needs be so far
from converting the Christians from their way, that it
rather begat in their minds an opinion of their cruelties,
&c.[140]
CHAP. XLI.
Isa. ii. 4; Mic. iv. 3; Isa. xi. 9; concerning Christ’s
peaceable kingdom, discussed.
Peace. The next scripture against such persecution, is
that of the prophet Isa. ii. 4, together with Mic. iv. 3,
They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their
spears into pruning-hooks. Isa. xi. 9, There shall none hurt
or destroy in all the mountain of my holiness.
Mr. Cotton’s excellent interpretation of those prophecies.
Unto which it pleased Mr. Cotton to say, “That these
predictions do only show, first, with what kind of weapons
he should subdue the nations to the obedience of the faith
of the gospel, not by fire and sword, and weapons of war,
but by the power of the word and Spirit of God, which,”
saith he, “no man doubts of.”
“Secondly, those predictions of the prophets show
what the meek and peaceable temper will be of all true
converts to Christianity; not lions nor leopards, not cruel
oppressors nor malignant opposers, nor biters one of
another: but do not forbid them to drive ravenous wolves
from the sheepfold, and to restrain them from devouring
the sheep of Christ.”
His doctrine and practice condemned by that interpretation.
Truth. In this first excellent and truly Christian answer,
methinks the answerer may hear a voice from
heaven, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee. For
what can be said more heavenly, by the tongues of men
and angels, to show the heavenly, meek temper of all the
soldiers of the Lamb of God, as also to set forth what are
the spiritual weapons and ammunition of the holy war and
battle of the gospel and kingdom of Jesus Christ, for the
subduing of the nations of the world unto him?
Peace. And yet out of the same mouth, which should
not be, saith James, proceeds good and evil, sweet and
sour; for he adds, “But this doth not forbid them to
drive ravenous wolves from the sheepfold, and to restrain
them from devouring the sheep of Christ.”
Spiritual and mystical wolves.
Truth. In these words, according to the judgment here
maintained by him, he fights against the former truth, to
wit, that by spiritual weapons Christ Jesus will subdue
the nations of the earth to the obedience of the gospel:
for by driving away these wolves, he intends not only the
resistance and violence which the shepherds of Christ
ought spiritually to make, but the civil resistance of the
material swords, staves, guns, &c. Whence I argue, that
same power that forceth the evil, or wolves, out, forceth
the good, the sheep, in; for of the same or like things is
the same or like reason: as the same arm of flesh that
with a staff beats off a wolf, with a rod and hook brings in
the sheep: the same dog that assaulteth and teareth the
wolf, frighteth and forceth in the straggling sheep.[141]
CHAP. XLII.
Acts xx. 29, opened.
Peace. But for the clearer opening of this mystery, I
pray explicate that scripture where the Spirit of God is
pleased to use this similitude of wolves, Acts xx. 29, out
of which, keeping to the allegory, I shall propose these
queries.
First, what wolves were these Paul warns of?
Truth. Answer. Wolves literally he will not say. Nor,
secondly, persecutors of the flock, such as the Roman
emperors were, [or] magistrates under him.
What those wolves were, Acts xx. 29.
Therefore, thirdly, such as brought in other religions
and worships, as the Spirit of God opens it, ver. 30.
Such as amongst themselves should speak perverse things,
as many anti-christs did, and especially the anti-christ.
And I ask, whether or no such as may hold forth other
worships or religions, Jews, Turks, or anti-christians,
may not be peaceable and quiet subjects, loving and
helpful neighbours, fair and just dealers, true and loyal
to the civil government? It is clear they may, from all
reason and experience in many flourishing cities and kingdoms
of the world, and so offend not against the civil state
and peace, nor incur the punishment of the civil sword,
notwithstanding that in spiritual and mystical account
they are ravenous and greedy wolves.[142]
Peace. 2. I query, to whom Paul gave this charge to
watch against them, ver. 31?
Truth. They were not the magistrates of the city of
Ephesus, but the elders or ministers of the church of
Christ, his mystical flock of sheep, at Ephesus. Unto
them was this charge of watching given, and so consequently
of driving away these wolves.
Charges directed to ministers of the spiritual kingdom,
falsely applied to the magistrates of the civil.
And, however that many of these charges and exhortations,
given by that one Shepherd, Christ Jesus, to the
shepherds or ministers of churches, be commonly attributed
and directed, by the answerer in this discourse, to
the civil magistrate; yet I desire, in the fear and holy
presence of God, it may be inquired into, whether in all
the will or testament of Christ there be any such word of
Christ, by way of command, promise, or example, countenancing
the governors of the civil state to meddle with
these wolves, if in civil things peaceable and obedient.
No word of Christ to the civil magistrate to feed his flock,
but to his ministers; who (if true) have spiritual power sufficient
against spiritual wolves.
Peace. Truly, if this charge were given to the magistrates
at Ephesus, or any magistrates in the world,
doubtless they must be able to discern and determine,
out of their own official abilities in these spiritual law
questions, who are spiritual sheep, what is their food,
what their poison, what their properties, who their
keepers, &c. So, on the contrary, who are wolves, what
their properties, their haunts, their assaults, the manner
of taking, &c., spiritually:—and this beside the care and
study of the civil laws, and the discerning of his own
proper civil sheep, obedient sheep, &c.: as also wolfish
oppressors, &c., whom he is bound to punish and suppress.
Magistrates decline the name of head of the church, and yet
practise the headship or government.
Truth. I know that civil magistrates, in some places,
have declined the name of head of the church, and ecclesiastical
judge; yet can they not with good conscience
decline the name if they do the work, and perform the
office of determining and punishing a merely spiritual
wolf.
They must be sufficiently also able to judge in all
spiritual causes, and that with their own, and not with
other men’s eyes, no more than they do in civil causes,
contrary to the common practice of the governors and
rulers of civil states, who often set up that for a religion
or worship to God, which the clergy, or churchmen, as
men speak, shall in their consciences agree upon.
And if this be not so, to wit, that magistrates must not
be spiritual judges, as some decline it in the title supreme
head and governor, why is Gallio wont to be exclaimed
against for refusing to be a judge in such matters as concerned
the Jewish worship and religion? How is he
censured for a profane person, without conscience, &c., in
that he would be no judge or head? for that is all one in
point of government.[143]
The elect shall not be devoured.
Peace. In the third place, I query, whether the Father
who gave, and the Son who keeps the sheep, be not
greater than all? Who can pluck these sheep, the elect,
out of his hand? which answers that common objection of
that danger of devouring, although there were no other
weapons in the world appointed by the Lord Jesus. But,
CHAP. XLIII.
Christ Jesus furnisheth his shepherds with power sufficient to
drive away wolves. Tit. i. 9. 10, opened.
Fourthly, I ask, were not these elders or ministers of
the church of Ephesus sufficiently furnished, from the
Lord Jesus, to drive away these mystical and spiritual
wolves?[144]
Truth. True it is, against the inhuman and uncivil
violence of persecutors, they were not, nor are God’s
children, able and provided; but to resist, drive away,
expel, and kill spiritual and mystical wolves by the word
of the Lord, none are fit to be Christ’s shepherds who are
not able, Tit. i. 9-11. The bishop, or overseer, must be
able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the
gainsayers: which gainsayers to be by him convinced,
that is, overcome or subdued, though it may be in themselves
ever obstinate, they were, I say, as greedy wolves
in Crete, as any could be at Ephesus. For so saith Paul,
ver. 10: they were unruly and vain talkers, deceivers,
whose mouths must be stopped, who subverted whole houses;
and yet Titus, and every ordinary shepherd of a flock of
Christ, had ability sufficient to defend the flock from
spiritual and mystical wolves, without the help of the civil
magistrate.
Job xxvi. 2, 3.
Peace. In this respect, therefore, methinks we may fitly
allude to that excellent answer of Job to Bildad, the
Shuhite, Job xxvi., How hast thou helped him that is
without power? How savest thou the arm that hath no
strength? How hast thou counselled him that hath no wisdom?
How hast thou plentifully declared the thing as it is?
5.
Lastly, I ask, whether, as men deal with wolves, these
wolves at Ephesus were intended by Paul to be killed,
their brains dashed out with stones, staves, halberts, guns,
&c., in the hands of the elders of Ephesus, &c.?[145]
Truth. Doubtless, comparing spiritual things with spiritual,
all such mystical wolves must spiritually and mystically
so be slain. And the witnesses of truth, Rev. xi.
5, speak fire, and kill all that hurt them, by that fiery
word of God, and that two-edged sword in their hand, Ps.
cxlix. 6.
Unmerciful and bloody doctrine. John vi. 15.
But oh! what streams of the blood of saints have been
and must be shed, until the Lamb have obtained the
victory, Rev. xvii. 14, by this unmerciful—and in the
state of the New Testament, when the church is spread
all the world over—most bloody doctrine, viz., the wolves
(heretics) are to be driven away, their brains knocked out,
and killed—the poor sheep to be preserved, for whom
Christ died, &c.
Is not this to take Christ Jesus, and make him a
temporal king by force? John vi. 15. Is not this to
make his kingdom of this world, to set up a civil and
temporal Israel, to bound out new earthly, holy lands of
Canaan, yea, and to set up a Spanish inquisition in all
parts of the world, to the speedy destruction of thousands,
yea, of millions of souls, and the frustrating of the sweet
end of the coming of the Lord Jesus, to wit, to save men’s
souls (and to that end not to destroy their bodies) by his
own blood?[146]
CHAP. XLIV.
2 Cor. x. 4, discussed.
Peace. The next scripture produced against such persecution
is 2 Cor. x. 4, The weapons of our warfare are not
carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds;
casting down imaginations, and every high thing that
exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing
into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; and
having in a readiness to avenge all disobedience, &c.
Unto which it is answered, “When Paul saith, The
weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual, he
denieth not civil weapons of justice to the civil magistrate,
Rom. xiii., but only to church officers. And yet the
weapons of church officers he acknowledgeth to be such,
as though they be spiritual, yet are ready to take vengeance
on all disobedience, 2 Cor. x. 6: which hath reference,
amongst other ordinances, to the censures of the
church against scandalous offenders.”
Truth. I acknowledge that herein the Spirit of God
denieth not civil weapons of justice to the civil magistrate,
which the scripture he quotes, Rom. xiii., abundantly
testifies.
Yet withal, I must ask, why he here affirmeth the
apostle denies not civil weapons of justice to the civil
magistrate? of which there is no question, unless that,
according to his scope of proving persecution for conscience,
he intends withal that the apostle denies not civil
weapons of justice to the civil magistrate in spiritual and
religious causes: the contrary whereunto, the Lord assisting,
I shall evince, both from this very scripture and his
own observation, and lastly by that thirteenth of the
Romans, by himself quoted.
First, then, from this scripture and his own observation.
The weapons of church officers, saith he, are such, which
though they be spiritual, are ready to take vengeance on
all disobedience; which hath reference, saith he, amongst
other ordinances, to the censures of the church against
scandalous offenders.
The difference of the civil and spiritual estate. Civil
weapons most improper in spiritual causes: fitly exemplified by that
similitude, 2 Cor. x. 4.
I hence observe, that there being in this scripture held
forth a twofold state, a civil state and a spiritual, civil
officers and spiritual, civil weapons and spiritual weapons,
civil vengeance and punishment and a spiritual vengeance
and punishment: although the Spirit speaks not here
expressly of civil magistrates and their civil weapons, yet,
these states being of different natures and considerations,
as far differing as spirit from flesh, I first observe, that
civil weapons are most improper and unfitting in matters
of the spiritual state and kingdom, though in the civil
state most proper and suitable.[147]
CHAP. XLV.
For—to keep to the similitude which the Spirit useth,
for instance—to batter down a stronghold, high wall, fort,
tower, or castle, men bring not a first and second admonition,
and, after obstinacy, excommunication, which are
spiritual weapons, concerning them that be in the church:
nor exhortations to repent and be baptized, to believe in
the Lord Jesus, &c., which are proper weapons to them
that be without, &c.; but to take a stronghold, men bring
cannons, culverins, saker,[148] bullets, powder, muskets,
swords, pikes, &c., and these to this end are weapons
effectual and proportionable.[149]
Spiritual weapons only effectual in spiritual and soul causes.
On the other side, to batter down idolatry, false worship,
heresy, schism, blindness, hardness, out of the soul
and spirit, it is vain, improper, and unsuitable to bring
those weapons which are used by persecutors, stocks,
whips, prisons, swords, gibbets, stakes, &c., (where these
seem to prevail with some cities or kingdoms, a stronger
force sets up again, what a weaker pulled down); but
against these spiritual strongholds in the souls of men,
spiritual artillery and weapons are proper, which are
mighty through God to subdue and bring under the very
thought to obedience, or else to bind fast the soul with
chains of darkness, and lock it up in the prison of unbelief
and hardness to eternity.
Civil weapons not only improper, but unnecessary in spiritual
causes.
2. I observe that as civil weapons are improper in this
business, and never able to effect aught in the soul: so
although they were proper, yet they are unnecessary; for
if, as the Spirit here saith, and the answerer grants,
spiritual weapons in the hand of church officers are able
and ready to take vengeance on all disobedience, that is,
able and mighty, sufficient and ready for the Lord’s work,
either to save the soul, or to kill the soul of whomsoever
be the party or parties opposite; in which respect I may
again remember that speech of Job, How hast thou helped
him that hath no power? Job xxvi. 2.
No earthly kings or governors will be so served, as we pretend
to serve the King of kings.
Peace. Offer this, as Malachi once spake, to the governors,
the kings of the earth, when they besiege, beleaguer,
and assault great cities, castles, forts, &c., should any
subject pretending his service bring store of pins, sticks,
straws, bulrushes, to beat and batter down stone walls,
mighty bulwarks, what might his expectation and reward
be, but at least the censure of a man distract, beside
himself? &c.
Ps. xlv. 4. The white troopers.
Truth. What shall we then conceive of His displeasure,
who is the Chief or Prince of the kings of the earth, and
rides upon the word of truth and meekness, which is the
white horse, Rev. vi. and Rev. xix., with his holy witnesses,
the white troopers upon white horses, when to his
help and aid men bring and add such unnecessary, improper,
and weak munition?
Spiritual ammunition, Eph. vi. 6, applied; material and
spiritual artillery unfitly joined together. An alarm to civil or earthly
rulers.
Will the Lord Jesus (did He ever in his own person
practise, or did he appoint to) join to his breastplate of
righteousness, the breastplate of iron and steel? to the
helmet of righteousness and salvation in Christ, a helmet
and crest of iron, brass, or steel? a target of wood to His
shield of faith? [to] His two-edged sword, coming forth of
the mouth of Jesus, the material sword, the work of
smiths and cutlers? or a girdle of shoe-leather to the
girdle of truth? &c. Excellently fit and proper is that
alarm and item, Ps. ii. 10, Be wise, therefore, O ye kings—especially
those ten horns, Rev. xvii., who, under pretence
of fighting for Christ Jesus, give their power to the beast
against Him—and be warned, ye judges of the earth: kiss the
Son, that is, with subjection and affection, acknowledge
Him only the King and Judge of souls, in that power
bequeathed to His ministers and churches, lest his wrath be
kindled, yea, but a little; then, blessed are they that trust
in Him.
CHAP. XLVI.
Concerning the civil ruler’s power in spiritual causes
discussed.
Peace. Now, in the second place, concerning that scripture,
Rom. xiii., which it pleased the answerer to quote,
and himself, and so many excellent servants of God have
insisted upon to prove such persecution for conscience:—how
have both he and they wrested this scripture, not as
Peter writes of the wicked, to their eternal, yet to their
own and other’s temporal destruction, by civil wars and
combustions in the world?
My humble request, therefore, is to the Father of lights,
to send out the bright beams of the Sun of righteousness,
and to scatter the mist which that old serpent, the great
juggler, Satan, hath raised about this holy scripture, and
my request to you, divine Truth, is for your care and
pains to enlighten and clear this scripture.
Rom. xiii. speaks not at all of spiritual but civil affairs.
Truth. First, then, upon the serious examination of this
whole scripture, it will appear, that from the 9th verse of
the 12th chapter to the end of this whole 13th chapter,
the Spirit handles the duties of the saints in the careful
observation of the second table in their civil conversation,
or walking towards men, and speaks not at all of any
point or matter of the first table concerning the kingdom
of the Lord Jesus.[150]
For, having in the whole epistle handled that great
point of free justification by the free grace of God in
Christ, in the beginning of the 12th chapter he exhorts
the believers to give and dedicate themselves unto the
Lord, both in soul and body; and unto the 9th verse of
the 12th chapter he expressly mentioneth their conversation
in the kingdom, or body, of Christ Jesus, together
with the several officers thereof.
The scope of Rom. xiii.
And from the 9th verse to the end of the 13th [chapter],
he plainly discourseth of their civil conversation and
walking one toward another, and with all men, from
whence he hath fair occasion to speak largely concerning
their subjection to magistrates in the 13th chapter.
Love to man the duty of the whole second table.
Hence it is, that [at] ver. 7 of this 13th chapter, Paul
exhorts to performance of love to all men, magistrates and
subjects, vers. 7, 8, Render, therefore, to all their dues;
tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear
to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe nothing to any
man, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath
fulfilled the law.
How love fulfilleth the law.
If any man doubt, as the papists speak, whether a man
may perfectly fulfil the law, every man of sound judgment
is ready to answer him, that these words, He that loveth
hath fulfilled the law, concerneth not the whole law in the
first table, that is, the worship and kingdom of God in
Christ.
Secondly, That the apostle speaks not here of perfect
observation of the second table, without failing in word or
act toward men, but lays open the sum and substance of
the law, which is love; and that he that walks by the rule
of love toward all men, magistrates and subjects, he hath
rightly attained unto what the law aims at, and so in
evangelical obedience fulfils and keeps the law.
Hence, therefore, again in the 9th verse, having discoursed
of the fifth command in this point of superiors,
he makes all the rest of the commandments of the second
table, which concern our walking with man,—viz., Thou
shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not
steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt not covet:
and if there be any other commandment—to be briefly comprehended
in this saying, namely, thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself.
And verse 10, Love worketh no ill to his neighbour, therefore,
love is the fulfilling of the law, that is, as before, the
law concerning our civil conversation toward all men,
magistrates or governors, and fellow subjects of all
conditions.
CHAP. XLVII.
Rom. xiii. so interpreted even by them that held persecution
for conscience.
Peace. Although the scripture is sufficient to make the
man of God perfect, and the fool wise to salvation, and
our faith in God must be only founded upon the rock
Christ, and not upon the sand of men’s judgments and
opinions: yet, as Paul allegeth the judgment and sayings
of unbelievers for their conviction, out of their own
tenents and grants, “So I pray you to set down the words
of one or two, not unbelievers in their persons, but excellent
and precious servants and witnesses of God in their
times, whose names are sweet and precious to all that fear
God,—who, although their judgment ran in the common
stream, viz., ‘That magistrates were keepers of the two
tables, defenders of the faith against heretics,’ and,
notwithstanding whatever they have written for defence
of their judgments, yet the light of truth so evidently
shined upon their souls in this scripture, that they absolutely
denied the 13th of the Romans to concern any
matter of the first table.”
Calvin’s judgment of Rom. xiii.
Truth. First, I shall produce that excellent servant of
God, Calvin, who, upon this 13th to the Romans, writes,[151]
Tota autem hæc disputatio est de civilibus præfecturis;
itaque frustra inde sacrilegam suam tyrannidem stabilire
moliuntur, qui dominatum in conscientias exerceant:—“But,”
saith he, “this whole discourse concerneth civil
magistrates, and, therefore, in vain do they who exercise
power over consciences, go about from this place to establish
their sacrilegious tyranny.”[152]
God’s people loth to be found, yet proved persecutors.
Peace. I know how far most men, and especially the
sheep of Jesus, will fly from the thought of exercising
tyranny over conscience, that happily they will disclaim
the dealing of all with men’s consciences: yet, if the acts
and statutes which are made by them concerning the worship
of God be attended to, their profession—and that out
of zeal according to the pattern of that ceremonial and
figurative state of Israel—to suffer no other religion nor
worship in their territories, but one—their profession and
practice to defend their faith from reproach and blasphemy
of heretics by civil weapons, and all that from this very
13th of the Romans—I say, if these particulars and others,
be with fear and trembling, in the presence of the Most
High, examined, the wonderful deceit of their own hearts
shall appear unto them, and how guilty they will appear
to be of wresting this scripture before the tribunal of the
Most High.
Truth. Again, Calvin, speaking concerning fulfilling of
the law by love, writes thus on the same place: Sed
Paulus in totam legem non respicit; tantum de officiis
loquitur, quæ nobis erga proximum demandantur a lege:—That
is, “Paul hath not respect unto the whole law, he
speaks only of those duties which the law commands towards
our neighbours.” And it is manifest, that in this
place by our neighbours he means high and low, magistrates
and subjects, unto whom we ought to walk by the
rule of love, paying unto every one their due.
Again, Cæterum Paulus hic tantum meminet secundæ
tabulæ, quia de ea tantum erat quæstio:—“But Paul here
only mentioneth the second table, because the question
was only concerning that.”
Calvin confesseth that the first table, concerning God’s
worship, is not here, in Rom. xiii. touched.
And again, Quod autem repetit, complementum legis
esse dilectionem, intellige (ut prius) de ea legis parte, quod
hominum societatem spectat? Prior enim legis tabula
quæ est de cultu Dei minime hic attingitur:—“But in
that he repeateth, that love is the fulfilling of the law,
understand as before, that he speaks of that part of the
law which respects human society; for the first table of
the law, which concerneth the worship of God, is not in
the least manner here touched.”[153]
Beza upon Rom. xiii.
After Calvin, his successor in Geneva, that holy and
learned Beza, upon the word ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται, if there be
any other commandment it is summed up in this, thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself, writes thus:[154]—Tota lex nihil
aliud quam amorem Dei et proximi præcipet; sed tamen
cum apostolus hoc loco de mutuis hominum officiis disserat,
legis vocabulum ad secundum tabulam restringendam
puto. “The whole law,” saith he, “commands nothing else
but the love of God, and yet, nevertheless, since the
apostle in this place discourseth of the duties of men one
toward another, I think this term law ought to be
restrained to the second table.”[155]
CHAP. XLVIII.
Peace. I pray now proceed to the second argument from
this scripture, against the use of civil weapons in matters
of religions, and spiritual worship.
Truth. The Spirit of God here commands subjection
and obedience to higher powers, even to the Roman
emperors and all subordinate magistrates; and yet the
emperors and governors under them were strangers from
the life of God in Christ, yea, most averse and opposite,
yea, cruel and bloody persecutors of the name and
followers of Jesus: and yet unto these, is this subjection
and obedience commanded. Now true it is, that as the
civil magistrate is apt not to content himself with the
majesty of an earthly throne, crown, sword, sceptre, but
to seat himself in the throne of David in the church: so
God’s people, and it may be in Paul’s time, considering
their high and glorious preferment and privileges by Jesus
Christ, were apt to be much tempted to despise civil
governors, especially such as were ignorant of the Son of
God, and persecuted him in his servants.
Paul writes not to the Roman governors to defend the truth,
and to punish heretics.
Now then I argue, if the apostle should have commanded
this subjection unto the Roman emperors and Roman
magistrates in spiritual causes, as to defend the truth
which they were no way able to discern, but persecuted—and
upon trust from others no magistrate, not persuaded
in his own conscience, is to take it:—
Or else to punish heretics, whom then also they must
discern and judge, or else condemn them, as the Jews
would have Pilate condemn the Lord Jesus, upon the
sentence of others—I say, if Paul should have, in this
scripture, put this work upon these Roman governors, and
commanded the churches of Christ to have yielded subjection
in any such matters, he must, in the judgment of
all men, have put out the eye of faith, and reason, and
sense, at once.[156]
CHAP. XLIX.
Paul’s appeal to Cæsar discussed.
Peace. It is said by some, why then did Paul himself,
Acts xxv. 11, appeal to Cæsar, unless that Cæsar, (though
he was not, yet) he ought to have been a fit judge in such
matters?
If Paul had appealed to Cæsar in spiritual things, he had
committed five evils.
Truth. I answer, if Paul, in this appeal to Cæsar, had
referred and submitted simply and properly the cause of
Christ, his ministry and ministration, to the Roman
emperor’s tribunal, knowing him to be an idolatrous
stranger from the true God, and a lion-like, bloody persecutor
of the Lord Jesus, the Lamb of God,—I say, let it
be considered, whether or no he had committed these five
evils:—
The first, against the dimmest light of reason, in appealing
to darkness to judge light, to unrighteousness to
judge righteousness, [to] the spiritually blind to judge and
end the controversy concerning heavenly colours.
Secondly, against the cause of religion, which, if condemned
by every inferior idolater, must needs be condemned
by the Cæsars themselves, who, Nebuchadnezzar-like,
set up their state images or religions, commanding
the world’s uniformity of worship to them.
Thirdly, against the holy state and calling of the
Christians themselves, who, by virtue of their subjection
to Christ, even the least of them, are in spiritual things
above the highest potentates or emperors in the world
who continue in enmity against, or in an ignorant, natural
state without Christ Jesus. This honour, or high exaltation
have all his holy ones, to bind, not literally but
spiritually, their kings in chains, and their nobles in links
of iron. Ps. cxlix. 8.
Fourthly, against his own calling, apostleship, or office
of ministry, unto which Cæsar himself and all potentates,
in spiritual and soul-matters, ought to have submitted;
and unto which, in controversies of Christ’s church and
kingdom, Cæsar himself ought to have appealed, the
church of God being built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets. Eph. ii. 20.
Emperors themselves, if Christians, subject to the apostles
and churches in spiritual things.
And, therefore, in case that any of the Roman
governors, or the emperor himself, had been humbled and
converted to Christianity by the preaching of Christ, were
not they themselves bound to subject themselves unto the
power of the Lord Jesus in the hands of the apostles and
churches, and might not the apostles and churches have
refused to have baptized, or washed them into the profession
of Christ Jesus, upon the apprehension of their
unworthiness?
Or, if received into Christian fellowship, were they not
to stand at the bar of the Lord Jesus in the church, concerning
either their opinions or practices? were they not
to be cast out and delivered unto Satan by the power of
the Lord Jesus, if, after once and twice admonition, they
persist obstinately, as faithfully and impartially as if they
were the meanest in the empire? Yea, although the
apostles, the churches, the elders, or governors thereof,
were poor and mean, despised persons in civil respects,
and were themselves bound to yield all faithful and loyal
obedience to such emperors and governors in civil things.
Were they not, if Christians, bound themselves to have
submitted to those spiritual decrees of the apostles and
elders, as well as the lowest and meanest members of
Christ? Acts xvi. And if so, how should Paul appeal in
spiritual things to Cæsar, or write to the churches of Jesus
to submit to them [in] Christian or spiritual matters?
Fifthly, if Paul had appealed to Cæsar in spiritual
respects, he had greatly profaned the holy name of God in
holy things, in so improper and vain a prostitution of
spiritual things to carnal and natural judgments, which
are not able to comprehend spiritual matters, which are
alone spiritually discerned. 1 Cor. ii. 14.
Lawful appeals in civil things to civil magistrates.
And yet Cæsar, as a civil, supreme magistrate, ought
to defend Paul from civil violence, and slanderous accusations
about sedition, mutiny, civil disobedience, &c. And
in that sense, who doubts but God’s people may appeal to
the Roman Cæsar, an Egyptian Pharaoh, a Philistian
Abimelech, an Assyrian Nebuchadnezzar, the great Mogul,
Prester John, the great Turk, or an Indian Sachem?[157]
CHAP. L.
Peace. Which is the third argument against the civil
magistrates’ power in spiritual and soul-matters out of this
scripture, Rom. xiii.?
Truth. I dispute from the nature of the magistrates’
weapons, ver. 4. He hath a sword, which he bears not
in vain, delivered to him, as I acknowledge from God’s
appointment in the free consent and choice of the subjects
for common good.
We must distinguish of swords.
Four sorts of swords mentioned in the New Testament.
We find four sorts of swords mentioned in the New
Testament.
First, the sword of persecution, which Herod stretched
forth against James, Acts xii. 1, 2.
Secondly, the sword of God’s Spirit, expressly said to
be the word of God, Ephes. vi. [17]. A sword of two
edges, carried in the mouth of Christ, Rev. i. [16], which
is of strong and mighty operation, piercing between the
bones and the marrow, between the soul and the spirit,
Heb. iv. [12].
Thirdly, the great sword of war and destruction, given
to him that rides that terrible red horse of war, so that he
takes peace from the earth, and men kill one another, as is
most lamentably true in the slaughter of so many hundred
thousand souls within these few years in several parts of
Europe, our own and others.
None of these three swords are intended in this
scripture.
The civil sword.
Therefore, fourthly, there is a civil sword, called the
sword of civil justice, which being of a material, civil
nature, for the defence of persons, estates, families, liberties
of a city or civil state, and the suppressing of uncivil or
injurious persons or actions, by such civil punishment, it
cannot, according to its utmost reach and capacity, now
under Christ, when all nations are merely civil, without
any such typical, holy respect upon them, as was upon
Israel, a national church—I say, cannot extend to spiritual
and soul-causes, spiritual and soul-punishment, which belongs
to that spiritual sword with two edges, the soul-piercing,—in
soul-saving, or soul-killing,—the word of
God.[158]
CHAP. LI.
Tribute, custom, &c., merely civil recompences for civil work.
Truth. A fourth argument from this scripture, I take
in the sixth verse, from tribute, custom, &c.: which is a
merely civil reward, or recompence, for the magistrates’
work. Now as the wages are, such is the work; but the
wages are merely civil—custom, tribute, &c.: not the
contributions of the saints or churches of Christ, proper
to the spiritual and Christian state. And such work only
must the magistrate attend upon, as may properly deserve
such civil wages, reward, or recompence.
Magistrates called by God, God’s ministers.
Lastly, that the Spirit of God never intended to direct,
or warrant, the magistrate to use his power in spiritual
affairs and religious worship, I argue from the term or
title it pleaseth the wisdom of God to give such civil
officers, to wit, ver. 6, God’s ministers.
Now at the very first blush, no man denies a double
ministry.
The spiritual ministry.
The one appointed by Christ Jesus in his church, to
gather, to govern, receive in, cast out, and order all the
affairs of the church, the house, city, or kingdom of God,
Eph. iv.; 1 Cor. xii.
The civil ministry or service.
Secondly, a civil ministry, or office, merely human and
civil, which men agree to constitute, called therefore a
human creation, 1 Pet. ii. [13], and is as true and lawful
in those nations, cities, kingdoms, &c., which never heard
of the true God, nor his holy Son Jesus, as in any part of
the world beside, where the name of Jesus is most taken
up.
From all which premises, viz., that the scope of the
Spirit of God in this chapter is to handle the matters of
the second table—having handled the matters of the first,
in the twelfth:—since the magistrates of whom Paul
wrote, were natural, ungodly, persecuting, and yet lawful
magistrates, and to be obeyed in all lawful civil things:
since all magistrates are God’s ministers, essentially civil,
bounded to a civil work, with civil weapons, or instruments,
and paid or rewarded with civil rewards:—from all
which, I say, I undeniably collect, that this scripture is
generally mistaken, and wrested from the scope of God’s
Spirit, and the nature of the place, and cannot truly be
alleged by any for the power of the civil magistrate to be
exercised in spiritual and soul-matters.
CHAP. LII.
What is to be understood by evil, Rom. xiii. 4.
Peace. Against this I know many object, out of the
fourth verse of this chapter, that the magistrate is to
avenge, or punish, evil: from whence is gathered that
heresy, false Christs, false churches, false ministries, false
seals, being evil, ought to be punished civilly, &c.
Truth. I answer, that the word κακὸν is generally
opposed to civil goodness, or virtue, in a commonwealth,
and not to spiritual good, or religion, in the church.
Secondly, I have proved from the scope of the place,
that here is not intended evil against the spiritual, or
Christian estate handled in the twelfth chapter, but evil
against the civil state in this thirteenth, properly falling
under the cognizance of the civil minister of God, the
magistrate, and punishable by that civil sword of his as an
incivility, disorder, or breach of that civil order, peace,
and civility, unto which all the inhabitants of a city, town,
or kingdom, oblige themselves.
Peace. I have heard, that the elders of the New England
churches—who yet out of this thirteenth of Romans maintain
persecution—grant[159] that the magistrate is to preserve the
peace and welfare of the state, and therefore that he ought
not to punish such sins as hurt not his peace. In particular,
they say, the magistrate may not punish secret
sins in the soul: nor such sins as are yet handling in the
church, in a private way: nor such sins which are private
in families—and therefore, they say, the magistrate transgresseth
to prosecute complaints of children against their
parents, servants against masters, wives against husbands,
(and yet this proper to the civil state). Nor such sins as
are between the members and churches themselves.
And they confess, that if the magistrate punish, and
the church punish, there will be a greater rent in their
peace.
Truth. From thence, sweet Peace, may we well observe,
First, the magistrate is not to punish all evil, according
to this their confession.
The distinction of private and public evil will not here
avail; because such as urge that term evil, viz., that the
magistrate is to punish evil, urge it strictly, eo nomine;
because heresy, blasphemy, false church, false ministry, is
evil, as well as disorder in a civil state.
Some give to the magistrate what is not his, and take from him
that which is proper to him.
Secondly, I observe, how they take away from the
magistrate that which is proper to his cognizance, as the
complaints of servants, children, wives, against their
parents, masters, husbands, &c. Families as families,
being as stones which make up the common building, and
are properly the object of the magistrates’ care, in respect
of civil government, civil order, and obedience.[160]
CHAP. LIII.
Peace. I pray now, lastly, proceed to the author’s reason[161]
why Christ’s disciples should be so far from persecuting:—that
they ought to bless them that curse them, and pray
for them that persecute them, because of the freeness of
God’s grace, and the deepness of his counsels, calling them
that are enemies, persecutors, no people, to become meek
lambs, the sheep and people of God, according to 1 Pet. ii.
10, You which were not a people, are now a people, &c.; and
Matt. xx. 6, some come at the last hour, which if they
were cut off because they came not sooner, would be prevented,
and so should never come.
Unto this reason, the answerer is pleased thus to reply.[162]
First, in general; we must not do evil that good may
come thereof.
Secondly, in particular, he affirmeth, “that it is evil to
tolerate seditious evil doers, seducing teachers, scandalous
livers;” and for proof of this, he quotes Christ’s reproof to
the angel of the church at Pergamos, for tolerating them
that hold the doctrine of Balaam; and against the church
of Thyatira, for tolerating Jezebel to teach and seduce,
Rev. ii. 14, 20.
Truth. I answer, first, by assenting to the general
proposition, that it is most true, like unto Christ Jesus
himself, a sure foundation, 1 Cor. iii. 11. Yet what is
built upon it, I hope by God’s assistance to make it
appear, is but hay and stubble, dead and withered, not
suiting that golden foundation, nor pleasing to the Father
of mercies, nor comfortable to the souls of men.
It is evil, saith he, to tolerate notorious evil doers,
seducing teachers, scandalous livers.
In which speech I observe two evils:
First, that this proposition is too large and general,
because the rule admits of exception, and that according
to the will of God.
Evil is always evil, yet permission of it may in case be good.
1. It is true, that evil cannot alter its nature, but it is
alway evil, as darkness is alway darkness, yet,
2. It must be remembered, that it is one thing to command,
to conceal, to counsel, to approve evil, and another
thing to permit and suffer evil with protestation against it,
or dislike of it, at least without approbation of it.
Lastly, this sufferance, or permission, of evil, is not for
its own sake, but for the sake of good, which puts a respect
of goodness upon such permission.
God’s wonderful toleration.
Hence it is, that for God’s own glory’s sake, which is the
highest good, he endures, that is, permits, or suffers, the
vessels of wrath, Rom. ix. 22. And therefore, although he
be of pure eyes and can behold no iniquity, yet his pure
eye patiently and quietly beholds and permits all the
idolatries and profanations, all the thefts and rapines, all the
whoredoms and abominations, all the murders and poisonings;
and yet, I say, for his glory’s sake, he is patient, and
long permits.
Hence for his people’s sake (which is the next good, in
his Son), he is oftentimes pleased to permit and suffer the
wicked to enjoy a longer reprieve. Therefore he gave
Paul all the lives that were in the ship, Acts xxvii. 24.
Therefore, he would not so soon have destroyed Sodom,
but granted a longer permission, had there been but ten
righteous, Gen. xviii. 32. Therefore, Jer. v. 1, had he
found some to have stood in the gap, he would have
spared others. Therefore gave he Jezebel a time, or
space, Rev. ii. 21.
Therefore, for his glory’s sake, hath he permitted longer
great sinners, who afterward have perished in their
season, as we see in the case of Ahab, the Ninevites,
and Amorites, &c.
Deut xxiv.
Hence it pleased the Lord, not only to permit the
many evils against his own honourable ordinance of marriage
in the world, but was pleased, after a wonderful
manner, to suffer that sin of many wives in Abraham,
Jacob, David, Solomon, yea, with some expressions which
seem to give approbation, as 2 Sam. xii. 8, 24.[164]
Peace. It may be said, this is no pattern for us, because
God is above law, and an absolute sovereign.
Truth. I answer, although we find him sometimes dispensing
with his law, yet we never find him deny himself,
or utter a falsehood: and therefore when it crosseth not
an absolute rule to permit and tolerate—as in the case of
the permission of the souls and consciences of all men in
the world—I have shown, and shall show further, it doth
not, it will not, hinder our being holy as he is holy, in all
manner of conversation.
CHAP. LIV.
Peace. It will yet be said, it pleaseth God to permit
adulteries, murders, poisons: God suffers men, like fishes,
to devour each other, Hab. i. 14; the wicked to flourish,
Jer. xii. 1; yea, sends the tyrants of the world to destroy
the nations, and plunder them of their riches, Isa. x. [5,
6.] Should men do so, the world would be a wilderness;
and beside we have command for zealous execution of
justice, impartially, speedily.
Two sorts of commands, both by Moses and Christ.
Truth. I answer, we find two sorts of commands, both
from Moses and from Christ, the two great prophets and
messengers from the living God, the one the type or
figure of the later. Moses gave positive rules, both
spiritual and civil; yet also, he gave some not positive
but permissive, for the common good. So the Lord Jesus
expoundeth it.
Matt. xix. 7, 8.
For whereas, the Pharisees urged it, that Moses commanded
to give a bill of divorcement and to put away, the
Lord Jesus expoundeth it, Moses for the hardness of your
hearts suffered, or permitted, Matt. xix. 7, 8.
The permission of divorce in Israel.
This was a permissive command, universal to all Israel,
for a general good, in preventing the continual fires of
dissensions and combustions in families: yea, it may be
murders, poisons, adulteries, which that people, as the
wisdom of God foresaw, was apt, out of the hardness of
their heart, to break out into, were it not for this preventing
permission.
Hence it was, that for a further public good sake, and
the public safety, David permitted Joab, a notorious
malefactor, and Shimei and Adonijah, &c. And civil
states and governors, in like cases, have and do permit
and suffer what neither David nor any civil governors
ought to do or have done, were it not to prevent the
hazard of the whole, in the shedding of much innocent
blood, together with the nocent, in civil combustions.
Peace. It may be said, Joab, Shimei, Adonijah, &c.,
were only, as it were, reprieved for a time, and proves
only that a season ought to be attended for their punishment.
Truth. Answ. I answer, I produce not these instances
to prove a permission of tares—anti-christians, heretics—which
other scriptures abundantly prove, but to make it
clear, against the answerer’s allegation, that even in the
civil state permission of notorious evil doers, even against
the civil state, is not disapproved by God himself and the
wisest of his servants in its season.
CHAP. LV.
Usury in a commonweal, or civil state, lawfully permitted.
Truth. I proceed. Hence it is that some generals of
armies, and governors of cities, towns, &c., do, and, as
those former instances prove, lawfully permit some evil
persons and practices. As for instance, in the civil state,
usury: for the preventing of a greater evil in the civil
body, as stealing, robbing, murdering, perishing of the
poor, and the hindrance, or stop, of commerce and dealing
in the commonwealth. Just like physicians, wisely permitting
noisome humours, and sometimes diseases, when
the cure or purging would prove more dangerous to the
destruction of the whole, a weak or crazy body, and
specially at such a time.
Thus, in many other instances, it pleased the Father of
lights, the God of Israel, to permit that people, especially
in the matter of their demand of a king, wherein he pleaded
that himself as well as Samuel was rejected.
Permission of the tares in the field of the world for a
twofold good. 1. Of the good wheat. 2. Of the whole world, the field
itself.
This ground, to wit, for a common good of the whole, is
the same with that of the Lord Jesus commanding the
tares to be permitted in the world; because, otherwise,
the good wheat should be endangered to be rooted up out
of the field or world also, as well as the tares. And
therefore, for the good sake, the tares, which are indeed
evil, were to be permitted: yea, and for the general good
of the whole world, the field itself, which, for want of this
obedience to that command of Christ, hath been and is
laid waste and desolate with the fury and rage of civil
war, professedly raised and maintained, as all states profess,
for the maintenance of one true religion—after the
pattern of that typical land of Canaan—and to suppress
and pluck up these tares of false prophets and false professors,
anti-christians, heretics, &c., out of the world.
Hence illæ lachrymæ: hence Germany’s, Ireland’s, and
now England’s, tears and dreadful desolations, which ought
to have been, and may be for the future,—by obedience to
the command of the Lord Jesus, concerning the permission
of tares to live in the world, though not in the
church—I say, ought to have been, and may be mercifully
prevented.
CHAP. LVI.
Peace. I pray descend now to the second evil which you
observe in the answerer’s position, viz., that it would be
evil to tolerate notorious evil doers, seducing teachers, &c.
Truth. I say, the evil is, that he most improperly and
confusedly joins and couples seducing teachers with
scandalous livers.
Peace. But is it not true, that the world is full of
seducing teachers? and is it not true, that seducing teachers
are notorious evil doers?
Truth. I answer: far be it from me to deny either.
And yet, in two things, I shall discover the great evil of
this joining and coupling seducing teachers and scandalous
livers, as one adequate or proper object of the magistrates’
care and work to suppress and punish.
First, it is not an homogeneal (as we speak), but an
heterogeneal commixture of joining together of things
most different in kinds and natures, as if they were both
of one consideration.
Seducing teachers, either pagan, Jewish, or anti-christian,
may yet be obedient subjects to the civil laws.
For who knows not but that many seducing teachers,
either of the paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or anti-christian
religion, may be clear and free from scandalous offences in
their life, as also from disobedience to the civil laws of a
state? Yea, the answerer himself hath elsewhere granted,
that if the laws of a civil state be not broken, the peace
is not broken.[165]
Again, who knows not that a seducing teacher properly
sins against a church or spiritual estate and laws of it, and,
therefore, ought most properly and only to be dealt withal
in such a way, and by such weapons, as the Lord Jesus
himself hath appointed; gainsayers, opposites, and disobedients—either
within his church or without—to be convinced,
repelled, resisted, and slain withal?
Scandalous livers against the civil state, who they are.
Whereas, scandalous offenders against parents, against
magistrates in the fifth command, and so against the life,
chastity, goods, or good name in the rest, is properly
transgression against the civil state and common weal, or
the worldly state of men: and, therefore, consequently,
if the world, or civil state, ought to be preserved by civil
government or governors, such scandalous offenders ought
not to be tolerated, but suppressed, according to the
wisdom and prudence of the said government.
Mr. Cotton’s tenet justifies all the cruel proceedings against
Christ and Christians.
Secondly, as there is a fallacious conjoining and confounding
together persons of several kinds and natures,
differing as much as spirit and flesh, heaven and earth, each
from other: so is there a silent and implicit justification of
all the unrighteous and cruel proceedings of Jews and
Gentiles against all the prophets of God, the Lord Jesus
himself, and all his messengers and witnesses, whom their
accusers have ever so coupled and mixed with notorious
evil doers and scandalous livers.
Elijah was a troubler of the state; Jeremy weakened
the hand of the people; yea, Moses made the people
neglect their work; the Jews built the rebellious and bad
city; the three worthies regarded not the command of
the king; Christ Jesus deceived the people, was a conjuror
and a traitor against Cæsar in being king of the
Jews—indeed He was so spiritually over the true Jew,
the Christian—therefore, he was numbered with notorious
evil doers, and nailed to the gallows between two
malefactors.
Hence Paul and all true messengers of Jesus Christ,
are esteemed seducing and seditious teachers and turners
of the world upside down: yea, and to my knowledge—I
speak with honourable respect to the answerer, so far as
he hath laboured for many truths of Christ—the answerer
himself hath drunk of this cup, to be esteemed a seducing
teacher.
CHAP. LVII.
Peace. Yea, but he produceth scriptures against such
toleration, and for persecuting men for the cause of conscience:
“Christ,” saith he, “had something against the
angel of the church of Pergamos, for tolerating them that
held the doctrine of Balaam, and against the church of
Thyatira, for tolerating Jezebel to teach and seduce,”
Rev. ii. 14, 20.
Truth. I may answer, with some admiration and astonishment,
how it pleased the Father of lights and most
jealous God to darken and veil the eye of so precious a
man, as not to seek out and propose some scriptures, in
the proof of so weighty an assertion, as at least might
have some colour for an influence of the civil magistrate
in such cases: for—
Toleration. Rev. ii. 14, 20, examined.
First, he saith not that Christ had aught against the
city Pergamos, where Satan had his throne, Rev. ii. 14,
but against the church at Pergamos, in which was set up
the throne of Christ.
Secondly, Christ’s charge is not against the civil magistrate
of Pergamos, but the messenger, or ministry, of the
church in Pergamos.
Thirdly, I confess, so far as Balaam’s or Jezebel’s doctrine
maintained a liberty of corporal fornication, it
concerned the cities of Pergamos and Thyatira, and the
angel or officers of those cities, to suppress not only such
practices, but such doctrines also: as the Roman emperor
justly punished Ovid the poet, for teaching the wanton
art of love, leading to and ushering on lasciviousness and
uncleanness.
Fourthly. Yet so far as Balaam’s teachers, or Jezebel,
did seduce the members of the church in Pergamos or
Thyatira, to the worship of the idolaters in Pergamos or
Thyatira, which will appear to be the case—I say, so far I
may well and properly answer, as himself answered before
those scriptures, brought from Luke ix. and 2 Tim. ii., to
prove patience and permission to men opposite, viz., “these
scriptures,” saith he, “are directions to ministers of the
gospel;” and in the end of that passage he adds, “Much
less do they speak at all to civil magistrates.”[166]
Christ’s ministers and churches, have power sufficient from
Christ to suppress Balaam and Jezebel seducing to false worship.
Fifthly. Either these churches and the angels thereof
had power to suppress these doctrines of Balaam, and to
suppress Jezebel from teaching, or they had not:—
That they had not cannot be affirmed, for Christ’s
authority is in the hands of his ministers and churches,
Matt. xvi. and xviii., and 1 Cor. v.
If they had power, as must be granted, then, I conclude,
sufficient power to suppress such persons, whoever they
were, that maintained Balaam’s doctrine in the church at
Pergamos—although the very magistrates themselves of
the city of Pergamos (if Christians): and to have suppressed
Jezebel from teaching and seducing in the church,
had she been lady, queen, or empress, if there were no
more but teaching without hostility. And if so, all power
and authority of magistrates and governors of Pergamos
and Thyatira, and all submitting or appealing to them
in such cases, must needs fall, as none of Christ’s
appointment.
The Christian world hath swallowed up Christianity.
Lastly. From this perverse wresting of what is writ to
the church and the officers thereof, as if it were written to
the civil state and officers thereof, all may see how, since
the apostasy of anti-christ, the Christian world (so called)
hath swallowed up Christianity; how the church and civil
state, that is, the church and the world, are now become
one flock of Jesus Christ; Christ’s sheep, and the pastors
or shepherds of them, all one with the several unconverted,
wild, or tame beasts and cattle of the world, and the civil
and earthly governors of them: the Christian church, or
kingdom of the saints, that stone cut out of the mountain
without hands, Dan. ii. 45, now made all one with the
mountain, or civil state, the Roman empire, from whence
it is cut or taken: Christ’s lilies, garden, and love, all one
with the thorns, the daughters, and wilderness of the
world, out of which the spouse or church of Christ is
called; and amongst whom, in civil things, for a while
here below, she must necessarily be mingled and have
converse, unless she will go out of the world, before Christ
Jesus, her Lord and husband, send for her home into the
heavens, 1 Cor. v. 10.[167]
CHAP. LVIII.
The second head of reasons against such persecution, viz., the
profession of famous princes, King James, Stephen of Poland, and King of
Bohemia.
Peace. Having thus, by the help of Christ, examined
those scriptures, or writings of truth, brought by the
author against persecution, and cleared them from such
veils and mists, wherewith Mr. Cotton hath endeavoured
to obscure and darken their lights: I pray you, now, by
the same gracious assistance, proceed to his answer to the
second head of reasons, from the profession of famous
princes against persecution for conscience, King James,
Stephen of Poland, King of Bohemia, unto whom the
answerer returneth a treble answer.[168]
“First,” saith he, “we willingly acknowledge that none
is to be persecuted at all, no more than they may be
oppressed for righteousness’ sake.
“Again, we acknowledge that none is to be punished
for his conscience, though misinformed, as hath been said,
unless his error be fundamental, or seditiously and turbulently
promoted, and that after due conviction of his conscience,
that it may appear he is not punished for his conscience,
but for sinning against his conscience.
“Furthermore, we acknowledge, none is to be constrained
to believe or profess the true religion, till he be
convinced in judgment of the truth of it; but yet
restrained he may be from blaspheming the truth, and
from seducing any unto pernicious errors.”
Isa. xl. 6; 2 Pet. ii.
Truth. This first answer consists of a repetition and
enumeration of such grounds or conclusions, as Mr.
Cotton in the entrance of this discourse laid down; and I
believe that, through the help of God, in such replies as I
have made unto them, I have made it evident what weak
foundations they have in the scriptures of truth, as also
that, when such conclusions, excepting the first, as grass
and the flower of the grass shall fade, that holy word of
the Lord, which the author against such persecution produces,
and I have cleared, shall stand for ever, even when
these heavens and earth are burnt.
Peace. His second answer is this:—“What princes
profess and practise, is not a rule of conscience. They
many times tolerate that in point of state-policy, which
cannot justly be tolerated in point of true Christianity.
“Again, Princes many times tolerate offenders out of
very necessity, when the offenders are either too many or
too mighty for them to punish; in which respect David
tolerated Joab and his murders, but against his will.”
CHAP. LIX.
Truth. Unto those excellent and famous speeches of
those princes, worthy to be written in golden letters, or
rows of diamonds, upon all the gates of all the cities and
palaces in the world, the answerer, without any particular
reply, returns two things.
Mr. Cotton’s unequal dealing with princes.
First, that princes’ profession and practice is no rule of
conscience: unto this, as all men will subscribe, so may
they also observe how the answerer deals with princes.
One while they are the nursing fathers of the church,
not only to feed, but also to correct, and, therefore, consequently
bound to judge what is true feeding and correcting:
and, consequently, all men are bound to submit
to their feeding and correcting.
Another while, when princes cross Mr. Cotton’s judgment
and practice, then it matters not what the profession
or practice of princes is: for, saith he, their profession and
practice is no rule to conscience.
I ask then, unto what magistrates or princes will themselves,
or any so persuaded, submit, as unto keepers of
both tables, as unto the antitypes of the kings of Israel
and Judah, and nursing fathers and mothers of the
church?
First. Will it not evidently follow, that by these tenents
they ought not to submit to any magistrates in the world
in these cases, but to magistrates just of their own conscience?
and—
Secondly. That all other consciences in the world,
except their own, must be persecuted by such their
magistrates?[169]
And lastly. Is not this to make magistrates but steps
and stirrups, to ascend and mount up into their rich and
honourable seats and saddles; I mean great and settled
maintenances, which neither the Lord Jesus, nor any of
his first messengers, the true patterns, did ever know?
CHAP. LX.
Truth. In the second place, he saith, that princes out of
state-policy tolerate what suits not with Christianity, and
out of state-necessity tolerate (as David did Joab) against
their wills.
To which I answer,—
The answerer acknowledgeth a necessity of some toleration.
First. That although with him, in the first, I confess
that princes may tolerate that out of state-policy which
will not stand with Christianity, yet, in the second, he
must acknowledge with me, that there is a necessity sometimes
of state-toleration, as in the case of Joab, and so his
former affirmation, generally laid down (viz., that it is evil
to tolerate seducing teachers or scandalous livers), was not
duly weighed in the balance of the sanctuary, and is too
light.
Christ Jesus the deepest politician that ever was, and yet he
commands a toleration of anti-christians.
Secondly. I affirm that the state-policy and state-necessity,
which, for the peace of the state and preventing of
rivers of civil blood, permit the consciences of men, will
be found to agree most punctually with the rules of the
best politician that ever the world saw, the King of kings,
and Lord of lords, in comparison of whom Solomon himself
had but a drop of wisdom compared to Christ’s ocean,
and was but a farthing candle compared with the all and
ever glorious Sun of righteousness.
That absolute rule of this great politician for the peace
of the field which is the world, and for the good and peace
of the saints who must have a civil being in the world, I
have discoursed of in his command of permitting the tares,
that is, anti-christians, or false Christians, to be in the
field of the world, growing up together with the true
wheat, true Christians.
“For those three princes named by you, who tolerated
religion, we can name you more and greater who have not
tolerated heretics and schismatics, notwithstanding their
pretence of conscience, and their arrogating the crown of
martyrdom to their sufferings.”
“Constantine the Great at the request of the general
council at Nice, banished Arius, with some of his fellows,
Sozom. lib. i. Eccles. Hist. cap. 19, 20.
“The same Constantine made a severe law against the
Donatists: and the like proceedings against them were
used by Valentinian, Gratian, and Theodosius, as Augustine
reports in Ep. 166. Only Julian the Apostate granted
liberty to heretics as well as to pagans, that he might, by
tolerating all weeds to grow, choke the vitals of Christianity:
which was also the practice and sin of Valens the
Arian.
“Queen Elizabeth, as famous for her government as
most of the former, it is well known what laws she made
and executed against papists. Yea, and King James, one
of your own witnesses, though he was slow in proceeding
against papists, as you say, for conscience’ sake, yet you
are not ignorant how sharply and severely he punished
those whom the malignant world calls puritans, men of
more conscience and better faith than the papists whom he
tolerated.”
The princes of the world seldom take part with Christ.
Truth. Unto this, I answer: First, that for mine own
part I would not use an argument from the number of
princes, witnessing in profession of practice against persecution
for cause of conscience; for the truth and faith of
the Lord Jesus must not be received with respect of faces,
be they never so high, princely and glorious.
Precious pearls and jewels, and far more precious truth,
are found in muddy shells and places. The rich mines of
golden truth lie hid under barren hills, and in obscure
holes and corners.
Princes not persecuting are very rare.
The most high and glorious God hath chosen the poor
of the world, and the witnesses of truth (Rev. xi.) are
clothed in sackcloth, not in silk or satin, cloth of gold or
tissue: and, therefore, I acknowledge, if the number of
princes professing persecution be considered, it is rare to
find a king, prince, or governor like Christ Jesus, the
King of kings, and Prince of the princes of the earth, and
who tread not in the steps of Herod the fox, or Nero the
lion, openly or secretly persecuting the name of the Lord
Jesus; such were Saul, Jeroboam, Ahab, though under a
mask or pretence of the name of the God of Israel.[171]
Buchanan’s item to King James.
To that purpose was it a noble speech of Buchanan,
who, lying on his death-bed, sent this item to King
James:—“Remember my humble service to his majesty,
and tell him that Buchanan is going to a place where few
kings come.”
CHAP. LXII.
Truth. Secondly. I observe how inconsiderately—I
hope not willingly—he passeth by the reasons and grounds
urged by those three princes for their practices; for, as for
the bare examples of kings or princes, they are but like
shining sands, or gilded rocks, giving no solace to such as
make woful shipwreck on them.
King James’s sayings against persecution.
In King James’s speech, he passeth by that golden
maxim in divinity, “that God never loves to plant his
church by blood.”
Secondly. That civil obedience may be performed from
the papists.
Thirdly. In his observation on Rev. xx., that true and
certain note of a false church, to wit, persecution: “The
wicked are besiegers, the faithful are besieged.”
King Stephen’s, of Poland, speech against persecution.
In King Stephen’s, of Poland, speech, he passeth by
the true difference between a civil and a spiritual government:
“I am,” said Stephen, “a civil magistrate over the
bodies of men, not a spiritual over their souls.”
Now to confound these is Babel; and Jewish it is to
seek for Moses, and bring him from his grave (which no
man shall find, for God buried him) in setting up a
national state or church, in a land of Canaan, which the
great Messiah abolished at his coming.
Forcing of conscience is a soul-rape. Persecution for
conscience, the lancet that letteth blood of kings and kingdoms.
Thirdly. He passeth by, in the speech of the King of
Bohemia, that foundation in grace and nature, to wit,
“That conscience ought not to be violated or forced:”
and indeed it is most true, that a soul or spiritual rape is
more abominable in God’s eye, than to force and ravish
the bodies of all the women in the world. Secondly.
That most lamentably true experience of all ages, which
that king observeth, viz., “That persecution for cause of
conscience hath ever proved pernicious, being the causes
of all those wonderful innovations of, or changes in, the
principallest and mightiest kingdoms of Christendom.”
He that reads the records of truth and time with an impartial
eye, shall find this to be the lancet that hath pierced
the veins of kings and kingdoms, of saints and sinners,
and filled the streams and rivers with their blood.
All spiritual whores are bloody.
Lastly. That king’s observation of his own time,[172] viz.,
“That persecution for cause of conscience was practised
most in England, and such places where popery reigned:”
implying, as I conceive, that such practices commonly proceed
from that great whore the church of Rome, whose
daughters are like their mother, and all of a bloody
nature, as most commonly all whores be.
CHAP. LXIII.
Now thirdly. In that the answerer observeth, “That
amongst the Roman emperors, they that did not persecute
were Julian the Apostate, and Valens the Arian; whereas
the good emperors, Constantine, Gratian, Valentinian,
and Theodosius, they did persecute the Arians, Donatists,”
&c:—
The godly sometimes evil actors, and the ungodly good actors.
Answ. It is no new thing for godly, and eminently
godly men to perform ungodly actions: nor for ungodly
persons, for wicked ends, to act what in itself is good and
righteous.
Polygamy, or the many wives of the fathers.
Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, &c. (as well as Lamech,
Saul, &c.) lived in constant transgression against
the institution of so holy and so ratified a law of marriage,
&c.; and this not against the light and checks of conscience
(as other sins are wont to be recorded of them),
but according to the dictate and persuasion of a resolved
soul and conscience.
David’s advancing of God’s worship against God’s order.
David, out of zeal to God, with thirty thousand of
Israel, and [with] majestical solemnity, carries up the ark
contrary to the order God was pleased to appoint: the
issue was both God’s and David’s great offence, 2 Sam. vi.
David in his zeal would build a house to entertain his
God! What more pious? and what more (in show)
seriously consulted, when the prophet Nathan is admitted
counsellor? 2 Sam. vii.
And probable it is, that his slaughter of Uriah was not
without a good end, to wit, to prevent the dishonour of
God’s name in the discovery of his adultery with Bathsheba.
Yet David was holy and precious to God still,
though like a jewel fallen into the dirt. Whereas King
Ahab, though acting his fasting and humiliation, was but
Ahab still, though his act, in itself, was a duty, and found
success with God.
CHAP. LXIV.
Peace. I have often heard that history reports, and I
have heard that Mr. Cotton himself hath affirmed it, that
Christianity fell asleep in Constantine’s bosom, and [in]
the laps and bosoms of those emperors professing the name
of Christ.
Constantine and the good emperors, are confessed to have done
more hurt to the name and crown of the Lord Jesus, than the persecuting
Neros, &c. The garden of the church, and field of the world, made all one
by anti-christianism.
Truth. The unknowing zeal of Constantine and other
emperors, did more hurt to Christ Jesus’s crown and
kingdom, than the raging fury of the most bloody Neros.[173]
In the persecutions of the latter, Christians were sweet
and fragrant, like spice pounded and beaten in mortars.
But these good emperors, persecuting some erroneous persons,
Arius, &c., and advancing the professors of some
truths of Christ—for there was no small number of truths
lost in those times—and maintaining their religion by the
material sword—I say, by this means Christianity was
eclipsed, and the professors of it fell asleep, Cant. v. 2.
Babel, or confusion, was ushered in, and by degrees the
gardens of the churches of saints were turned into the
wilderness of whole nations, until the whole world became
Christian, or Christendom, Rev. xii. and xiii.
Doubtless those holy men, emperors and bishops, intended
and aimed right to exalt Christ; but not attending
to the command of Christ Jesus, to permit the tares to
grow in the field of the world, they make the garden of
the church and field of the world to be all one; and might
not only sometimes, in their zealous mistakes, persecute
good wheat instead of tares, but also pluck up thousands
of those precious stalks by commotions and combustions
about religion, as hath been since practised in the great
and wonderful changes wrought by such wars in many
great and mighty states and kingdoms, as we heard even
now in the observation of the King of Bohemia.
CHAP. LXV.
Peace. Dear Truth, before you leave this passage concerning
the emperors, I shall desire you to glance your
eye on this not unworthy observation, to wit, how fully
this worthy answerer hath learned to speak the roaring
language of lion-like persecution, far from the purity and
peaceableness of the lamb, which he was wont to express
in England. For thus he writes:—
“More and greater princes than these you mention,”
saith he, “have not tolerated heretics and schismatics,
notwithstanding their pretence of conscience, and their
arrogating the crown of martyrdom to their sufferings.”
The language of persecutors—the wolves and hunters of the
world.
Truth. Thy tender ear and heart, sweet Peace, endure
not such language. It is true, that these terms, heretics
(or wilfully obstinate) and schismatics (or renders) are
used in holy writ. It is true also, that such pretend
conscience, and challenge the crown of martyrdom to
their suffering. Yet since, as King James spake in his
mark of a false church on Rev. xx., the wicked persecute
and besiege, and the godly are persecuted and besieged,
this is the common clamour of persecutors against the
messengers and witnesses of Jesus in all ages, viz., you
are heretics, schismatics, factious, seditious, rebellious.
Have not all truth’s witnesses heard such reproaches?
You pretend conscience: you say you are persecuted for
religion: you will say you are martyrs?
Oh! it is hard for God’s children to fall to opinion and
practice of persecution, without the ready learning the
language thereof. And doubtless, that soul that can so
readily speak Babel’s language, hath cause to fear that he
hath not yet in point of worship left the gates or suburbs
of it.
Peace. Again, in blaming Julian and Valens the Arian,
for tolerating “all weeds to grow, he notes their sinful
end, that thereby they might choke the vitals of Christianity;”
and seems to consent, in this and other passages
foregoing and following on a speech of Jerome, that the
weeds of false religion tolerated in the world, have a
power to choke and kill true Christianity in the church.
Christ’s lilies may flourish in his church, notwithstanding
the abundance of weeds (in the world) permitted.
Truth. I shall more fully answer to this on Jerome’s
speech, and show that if the weeds be kept out of the
garden of the church, the roses and lilies therein will
flourish, notwithstanding that weeds abound in the field of
the civil state. When Christianity began to be choked,
it was not when Christians lodged in cold prisons, but
down-beds of ease, and persecuted others, &c.
CHAP. LXVI.
Peace. He ends this passage with approbation of Queen
Elizabeth for persecuting the papists, and a reproof to
King James for his persecuting the puritans, &c.
The persecutions of Queen Elizabeth and King James compared
together.
Truth. I answer, if Queen Elizabeth, according to the
answerer’s tenent and conscience, did well to persecute
according to her conscience, King James did not ill in
persecuting according to his.[174] For Mr. Cotton must
grant, that either King James was not fit to be a king,
had not the essential qualifications of a king, in not being
able rightly to judge who ought to be persecuted, and who
not: or else he must confess that King James, and all
magistrates, must persecute such whom in their conscience
they judge worthy to be persecuted.
I say it again, though I neither approve Queen Elizabeth
or King James in such their persecutions, yet such
as hold this tenent of persecuting for conscience, must
also hold that civil magistrates are not essentially fitted
and qualified for their function and office, except they can
discern clearly the difference between such as are to be
punished and persecuted, and such as are not.
Or else, if they be essentially qualified, without such a
religious spirit of discerning, and yet must persecute the
heretic, the schismatic, &c., must they not persecute
according to their consciences and persuasion? And then
doubtless, though he be excellent for civil government,
may he easily, as Paul did ignorantly, persecute the Son of
God instead of the son of perdition.
Therefore, lastly, according to Christ Jesus’ command,
magistrates are bound not to persecute, and to see that
none of their subjects be persecuted and oppressed for
their conscience and worship, being otherwise subject and
peaceable in civil obedience.
CHAP. LXVII.
In the second place, I answer and ask, what glory to
God, what good to the souls or bodies of their subjects,
shall princes, or did these princes bring in persecuting?
&c.
In his opening of the seven vials, in print, Mr. Cotton
confesseth that Queen Elizabeth’s persecuting the papists had almost
ruined the English nation.
Peace. Mr. Cotton tells us, in his discourse upon the
third vial,[175] that Queen Elizabeth had almost fired the
world in civil combustions by such her persecuting: for
though he bring it in to another end, yet he confesseth
that it “raised all Christendom in combustion; raised
the wars of 1588 and the Spanish Invasion;” and
he adds, both concerning the English nation and the
Dutch, “that if God had not borne witness to his people
and their laws, in defeating the intendments of their
enemies, against both the nations, it might have been the
ruin of them both.”
The wars between the papists and the protestants.
Truth. That those laws and practices of Queen Elizabeth
raised those combustions in Christendom, I deny not:
that they might likely have cost the ruin of English and
Dutch, I grant.
That it was God’s gracious work in defeating the intendments
of their enemies, I thankfully acknowledge.
But that God bore witness to such persecutions and laws
for such persecutions, I deny: for,
First, event and success come alike to all, and are no
argument of love, or hatred, &c.
Secondly, the papists in their wars have ever yet had,
both in peace and war, victory and dominion; and therefore,
if success be the measure, God hath borne witness
unto them.
It is most true, what Daniel in his eighth, and eleventh,
and twelfth chapters, and John in his Revelation, eleventh,
twelfth, and thirteenth chapters, write of the great success
of anti-christ against Christ Jesus for a time appointed.
Eventus omnis belli incertus.
Success was various between Charles V. and some
German princes: Philip of Spain and the Low Countries;
the French king and his protestant subjects: sometimes
losing, sometimes winning, interchangeably.
The wars and success of the Waldensian witnesses against three
popes and their popish armies.
But most memorable is the famous history of the Waldenses
and Albigenses, those famous witnesses of Jesus
Christ, who rising from Waldo, at Lyons in France
(1160), spread over France, Italy, Germany, and almost
all countries, into thousands and ten thousands, making
separation from the pope and church of Rome. These
fought many battles with various success, and had the
assistance and protection of divers great princes against
three succeeding popes and their armies; but after mutual
slaughters and miseries to both sides, the final success of
victory fell to the popedom and Romish church, in the
utter extirpation of those famous Waldensian witnesses.
God’s people victorious overcomers, and with what weapons.
God’s servants are all overcomers when they war with
God’s weapons, in God’s cause and worship: and in Rev.
second and third chapters, seven times it is recorded—To
him that overcometh, in Ephesus; to him that overcometh,
in Sardis, &c.; and Rev. twelfth, God’s servants overcame
the dragon, or devil, in the Roman emperors by three
weapons—the blood of the Lamb, the word of their testimony,
and the not loving of their lives unto the death.
CHAP. LXVIII.
The third head of arguments from ancient and later writers.
Peace. The answerer, in the next place, descends to the
third and last head of arguments produced by the author,
taken from the judgment of ancient and later writers, yea,
even of the papists themselves, who have condemned persecution
for conscience’ sake: some of which the answerer
pleaseth to answer, and thus writeth:—[176]
The Christian church doth not persecute but is persecuted.
“You begin with Hilary, whose testimony without
prejudice to the truth we may admit: for it is true, the
Christian church doth not persecute, but is persecuted.
But to excommunicate a heretic, is not to persecute, that
is, it is not to punish an innocent but a culpable and
damnable person, and that not for conscience, but for persisting
in error against light of conscience, whereof he
hath been convinced.”
Truth. In this answer there are two things:—
First. His confession of the same truth affirmed by
Hilarius, to wit, that the Christian church doth not persecute,
but is persecuted: suiting with that foregoing observation
of King James from Rev. xx.
Peace. Yet to this he adds a colour thus: “which,”
saith he, “we may admit without prejudice to the truth.”
Persecuting churches cannot be Christ’s churches.
Truth. I answer, If it be a mark of the Christian
church to be persecuted, and of the anti-christian, or false
church, to persecute, then those churches cannot be truly
Christian, according to the first institution, which either
actually themselves, or by the civil power of kings and
princes given to them, or procured by them to fight for
them, do persecute such as dissent from them, or be opposite
against them.
Peace. Yea; but in the second place he addeth, “that
to excommunicate a heretic is not to persecute, but to
punish him for sinning against the light of his own
conscience,” &c.
Truth. I answer, If this worthy answerer were
thoroughly awaked from the spouse’s spiritual slumber
(Cant. v. 3), and had recovered from the drunkenness of
the great whore who intoxicateth the nations, Rev. xvii. 2,
it is impossible that he should so answer: for—
The nature of excommunication.
First. Who questioneth whether to excommunicate a
heretic, that is, an obstinate gainsayer, as we have opened
the word upon Tit. iii.,—I say, who questioneth whether
that be to persecute?—excommunication being of a
spiritual nature, a sentence denounced by the word of
Christ Jesus, the spiritual King of his church; and a
spiritual killing by the most sharp two-edged sword of the
Spirit, in delivering up the person excommunicate to Satan.
Therefore, who sees not that his answer comes not near
our question?[177]
Peace. In the answerer’s second conclusion, in the
entrance of this discourse, he proves persecution against
a heretic for sinning against his conscience, and quotes
Tit. iii. 10, which only proves, as I have there made it
evident, a spiritual rejecting or excommunicating from the
church of God, and so comes not near the question.
What persecution, or hunting, is.
Here, again, he would prove churches charged to be
false, because they persecute; I say, he would prove them
not to be false, because they persecute not: for, saith he,
excommunication is not persecution. Whereas the question
is, as the whole discourse, and Hilary’s own amplification
of the matter in this speech, and the practice of
all ages testify, whether it be not a false church that doth
persecute other churches or members, opposing her in
spiritual and church matters, not by excommunications,
but by imprisonments, stocking, whipping, fining, banishing,
hanging, burning, &c., notwithstanding that such
persons in civil obedience and subjection are unreprovable.
Christ’s spouse no scratcher or fighter.
Truth. I conclude this passage with Hilarius and the
answerer, that the Christian church doth not persecute;
no more than a lily doth scratch the thorns, or a lamb
pursue and tear the wolves, or a turtle-dove hunt the
hawks and eagles, or a chaste and modest virgin fight and
scratch like whores and harlots.[178]
And for punishing the heretic for sinning against his
conscience after conviction—which is the second conclusion
he affirmeth—to be by a civil sword, I have at large
there answered.
CHAP. LXIX.
Peace. In the next place, he selecteth one passage out
of Hilary—although there are many golden passages
there expressed against the use of civil, earthly powers
in the affairs of Christ. The passage is this:—
Who cannot be won by the word, must not be compelled by the
sword.
“It is true also what he saith, that neither the apostles
nor we may propagate Christian religion by the sword;
but if pagans cannot be won by the word, they are not to
be compelled by the sword. Nevertheless, this hindereth
not,” saith he, “but if they or any other should blaspheme
the true God and his true religion, they ought to
be severely punished; and no less do they deserve, if they
seduce from the truth to damnable heresy or idolatry.”
Truth. In which answer I observe, first, his agreement
with Hilary, that the Christian religion may not be propagated
by the civil sword.
Unto which I reply and ask, then what means this
passage in his first answer to the former speeches of the
king,[179] viz., “We acknowledge that none is to be constrained
to believe or profess the true religion, till he be
convinced in judgment of the truth of it?”[180] implying two
things.
First. That the civil magistrate, who is to constrain
with the civil sword, must judge all the consciences of
their subjects, whether they be convinced or no.
Secondly. When the civil magistrate discerns that his
subjects’ consciences are convinced, then he may constrain
them vi et armis, hostilely.
Constraint upon consciences in Old and New England.
And accordingly, the civil state and magistracy judging
in spiritual things, who knows not what constraint lies
upon all consciences, in old and New England, to come to
church, and pay church duties,[181] which is upon the point—though
with a sword of a finer gilt and trim in New
England—nothing else but that which he confesseth
Hilary saith true should not be done, to wit, a propagation
of religion by the sword.[182]
Again, although he confesseth that propagation of religion
ought not to be by the sword, yet he maintaineth the
use of the sword, when persons, in the judgment of the
civil state, for that is implied, blaspheme the true God,
and the true religion, and also seduce others to damnable
heresy and idolatry. Which, because he barely affirmeth
in this place, I shall defer my answer unto the after
reasons of Mr. Cotton and the elders of New English
churches; where scriptures are alleged, and in that place,
by God’s assistance, they shall be examined and answered.
CHAP. LXX.
Tertullian’s speech discussed.
Peace. The answerer thus proceeds:[183] “Your next
writer is Tertullian, who speaketh to the same purpose in
the place alleged by you. His intent is only to restrain
Scapula, the Roman governor of Africa, from persecuting
the Christians, for not offering sacrifice to their gods: and
for that end, fetched an argument from the law of natural
equity, not to compel any to any religion, but permit
them to believe [willingly], or not to believe at all.
Which we acknowledge; and accordingly we judge, the
English may permit the Indians to continue in their unbelief.
Nevertheless, it will not therefore be lawful [openly]
to tolerate the worship of devils or idols, to the seduction
of any from the truth.”
Truth. Answ. In this passage he agreeth with Tertullian,
and gives instance in America of the English permitting
the Indians to continue in their unbelief: yet
withal he affirmeth it not lawful to tolerate worshipping
of devils, or seduction from the truth.
The Indians of New England permitted by the English not only
to continue in their unbelief (which they cannot cure) but also in their
false worship which they might by the civil sword restrain.
I answer, that in New England it is well known that
they not only permit the Indians to continue in their
unbelief, which neither they nor all the ministers of
Christ on earth, nor angels in heaven, can help, not being
able to work belief: but they also permit or tolerate them
in their paganish worship, which cannot be denied to be a
worshipping of devils, as all false worship is.[184]
And therefore, consequently, according to the same
practice, did they walk by rule and impartially, not only
the Indians, but their countrymen, French, Dutch,
Spanish, Persians, Turks, Jews, &c., should also be
permitted in their worships, if correspondent in civil
obedience.
Peace. He adds further, “When Tertullian saith, ‘That
another man’s religion neither hurteth nor profiteth any;’
it must be understood of private worship and religion
professed in private: otherwise a false religion professed
by the members of the church, or by such as have given
their names to Christ, will be the ruin and desolation of
the church, as appeareth by the threats of Christ to the
churches, Rev. ii.”
Truth. I answer: passing by that unsound distinction
of members of the church, or those that have given their
names to Christ, which in point of visible profession and
worship will appear to be all one, it is plain—
First. That Tertullian doth not there speak of private,
but of public worship and religion.
In two cases a false religion will not hurt the true church or
the state.
Secondly. Although it be true in a church of Christ,
that a false religion or worship permitted, will hurt,
according to those threats of Christ, Rev. ii., yet in two
cases I believe a false religion will not hurt,—which is
most like to have been Tertullian’s meaning.
First. A false religion out of the church will not hurt
the church, no more than weeds in the wilderness hurt the
enclosed garden, or poison hurt the body when it is not
touched or taken, yea, and antidotes are received against it.
Secondly. A false religion and worship will not hurt
the civil state, in case the worshippers break no civil law:
and the answerer elsewhere acknowledgeth, that the civil
laws not being broken, civil peace is not broken: and this
only is the point in question.[185]
CHAP. LXXI.
The seducing or infecting of others, discussed.
Peace. “Your next author,” saith he,[186] “Jerome, crosseth
not the truth, nor advantageth your cause; for we grant
what he saith, that heresy must be cut off with the sword
of the Spirit: but this hinders not, but that being so cut
down, if the heretic will persist in his heresy to the seduction
of others, he may be cut off also by the civil sword,
to prevent the perdition of others. And that to be
Jerome’s meaning, appeareth by his note upon that of the
apostle, A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Therefore,”
saith he, “a spark as soon as it appeareth, is to be extinguished,
and the leaven to be removed from the rest of
the dough; rotten pieces of flesh are to be cut off, and a
scabbed beast is to be driven from the sheepfold; lest the
whole house, body, mass of dough, and flock, be set on
fire with the spark, be putrefied with the rotten flesh,
soured with the leaven, perish by the scabbed beast.”
The answerer trusteth not to the sword of the Spirit only, in
spiritual causes.
Truth. I answer, first, he granteth to Jerome,[187] that
heresy must be cut off with the sword of the Spirit; yet,
withal, he maintaineth a cutting off by a second sword,
the sword of the magistrate; and conceiveth that Jerome
so means, because he quoteth that of the apostle, A little
leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Answ. It is no argument to prove that Jerome meant a
civil sword, by alleging 1 Cor. v. 6, or Gal. v. 9, which
properly and only approve a cutting off by the sword of
the Spirit in the church, and the purging out of the leaven
in the church, in the cities of Corinth and Galatia.
The absolute sufficiency of the sword of the Spirit.
And if Jerome should so mean as himself doth, yet,
first, that grant of his, that heresy must be cut off with
the sword of the Spirit, implies an absolute sufficiency in
the sword of the Spirit to cut it down, according to that
mighty operation of scriptural weapons, 2 Cor. x. 4,
powerfully sufficient, either to convert the heretic to God,
and subdue his very thoughts into subjection to Christ, or
else spiritually to slay and execute him.
The church of Christ to be kept pure.
Secondly. It is clear to be the meaning of the apostle,
and of the Spirit of God, not there to speak to the church
in Corinth, or Galatia, or any other church, concerning
any other dough, or house, or body, or flock, but the
dough, the body, the house, the flock of Christ, his church:
out of which such sparks, such leaven, such rotten flesh,
and scabbed sheep, are to be avoided.
A national church not instituted by Christ Jesus.
Nor could the eye of this worthy answerer ever be so
obscured, as to run to a smith’s shop for a sword of iron
and steel to help the sword of the Spirit, if the Sun of
righteousness had once been pleased to show him, that a
national church, which elsewhere he professeth against, a
state-church, whether explicit, as in old England, or
implicit, as in New, is not the institution of the Lord
Jesus Christ.[188]
The national church of the Jews. 1 Sam. xiii.
The national, typical state-church of the Jews, necessarily
called for such weapons; but the particular churches
of Christ in all parts of the world, consisting of Jews or
Gentiles, are powerfully able, by the sword of the Spirit
to defend themselves, and offend men or devils, although
the state or kingdom, wherein such a church or churches
of Christ are gathered, have neither carnal spear nor
sword, &c.; as once it was in the national church of the
land of Canaan.
CHAP. LXXII.
Man hath no power to make laws to bind conscience.
Peace. “Brentius, whom you next quote,” saith he,[189]
“speaketh not to your cause. We willingly grant you,
that man hath no power to make laws to bind conscience;
but this hinders not, but men may see the laws of God
observed which do bind conscience.”
Truth. I answer, In granting with Brentius that man
hath not power to make laws to bind conscience, he overthrows
such his tenent and practice as restrain men from
their worship according to their conscience and belief,
and constrain them to such worships, though it be out of
a pretence that they are convinced, which their own souls
tell them they have no satisfaction nor faith in.[190]
Secondly. Whereas he affirmeth that men may make
laws to see the laws of God observed:—
I answer, as God needeth not the help of a material
sword of steel to assist the sword of the Spirit in the
affairs of conscience, so those men, those magistrates, yea,
that commonwealth which makes such magistrates, must
needs have power and authority from Christ Jesus to sit
as judge, and to determine in all the great controversies
concerning doctrine, discipline, government, &c.
Desperate consequences unavoidable.
And then I ask, whether upon this ground it must not
evidently follow, that—
Either there is no lawful commonwealth, nor civil state
of men in the world, which is not qualified with this
spiritual discerning: and then also, that the very commonweal
hath more light concerning the church of Christ,
than the church itself.
Or, that the commonweal and magistrates thereof,
must judge and punish as they are persuaded in their own
belief and conscience, be their conscience paganish,
Turkish, or anti-christian. What is this but to confound
heaven and earth together, and not only to take away
the being of Christianity out of the world, but to take
away all civility, and the world out of the world, and to
lay all upon heaps of confusion?
CHAP. LXXIII.
Luther’s testimony in this case discussed.
Peace. “The like answer,” saith he,[191] “may be returned
to Luther, whom you next allege.
“First. That the government of the civil magistrate
extendeth no further than over the bodies and goods of
their subjects, not over their souls; and, therefore, they
may not undertake to give laws unto the souls and consciences
of men.
“Secondly. That the church of Christ doth not use the
arm of secular power to compel men to the true profession
of the truth, for this is to be done with spiritual weapons,
whereby Christians are to be exhorted, not compelled.
But this,” saith he, “hindereth not that Christians sinning
against light of faith and conscience, may justly be censured
by the church with excommunication, and by the
civil sword also, in case they shall corrupt others to the
perdition of their souls.”
Truth. I answer, in this joint confession of the answerer
with Luther, to wit, that the government of the civil
magistrate extendeth no further than over the bodies and
goods of their subjects, not over their souls: who sees not
what a clear testimony from his own mouth and pen is
given, to wit, that either the spiritual and church estate,
the preaching of the word, and the gathering of the
church, the baptism of it, the ministry, government, and
administrations thereof, belong to the civil body of the
commonweal, that is, to the bodies and goods of men,
which seems monstrous to imagine? Or else that the
civil magistrate cannot, without exceeding the bounds of
his office, meddle with those spiritual affairs?[192]
Mr. Cotton’s positions evidently proved contradictory to
themselves.
Again, necessarily must it follow, that these two are
contradictory to themselves, to wit,—
The magistrates’ power extends no further than the
bodies and goods of the subject, and yet—
The magistrate must punish Christians for sinning
against the light of faith and conscience, and for corrupting
the souls of men. The Father of lights make this
worthy answerer, and all that fear him, to see their
wandering in this case: not only from his fear, but also
from the light of reason itself, their own convictions and
confessions.
Secondly. In his joint confession with Luther, that the
church doth not use the secular power to compel men to
the faith and profession of the truth, he condemneth, as
before I have observed,—
First. His former implication, viz., that they may be
compelled when they are convinced of the truth of it.
Secondly. Their own practice who suffer no man of
any different conscience and worship to live in their jurisdiction,
except that he depart from his own exercise of
religion and worship, differing from the worship allowed
of in the civil state, yea, and also actually submit to come
to their church.
Hearing of the word of God in a church estate a part of God’s
worship.
Which, however it is coloured over with this varnish,
viz., that men are compelled no further than unto the
hearing of the word, unto which all men are bound, yet it
will appear, that teaching and being taught in a church
estate is a church worship, as true and proper a church
worship as the supper of the Lord, Acts ii. 46.
Secondly. All persons, papist and protestant, that are
conscientious, have always suffered upon this ground
especially, that they have refused to come to each other’s
church or meeting.
CHAP. LXXIV.
Papists’ plea for toleration of conscience.
Peace. The next passage in the author which the
answerer descends unto, is the testimony of the papists
themselves, a lively and shining testimony, from scriptures
alleged both against themselves and all that associate with
them (as power is in their hand) in such unchristian and
bloody both tenents and practices.
“As for the testimony of the popish book,” saith he,[193]
“we weigh it not, as knowing whatever they speak for
toleration of religion where themselves are under hatches,
when they come to sit at stern they judge and practise
quite contrary, as both their writings and judicial proceedings
have testified to the world these many years.”
Truth. I answer, although both writings and practices
have been such, yet the scriptures and expressions of
truth alleged and uttered by them, speak loud and fully
for them when they are under the hatches, that for their
conscience and religion they should not there be choked
and smothered, but suffered to breathe and walk upon the
decks, in the air of civil liberty and conversation, in the
ship of the commonwealth, upon good assurance given of
civil obedience to the civil state.
The protestants partial in the case of persecution.
Again, if this practice be so abominable in his eyes
from the papists, viz., that they are so partial as to persecute
when they sit at helm, and yet cry out against
persecution when they are under the hatches, I shall
beseech the righteous Judge of the whole world to present,
as in a water or glass where face answereth to face,
the faces of the papist to the protestant, answering to each
other in the sameness of partiality, both of this doctrine
and practice.
When Mr. Cotton and others have formerly been under
hatches, what sad and true complaints have they abundantly
poured forth against persecution! How have they
opened that heavenly scripture, Cant. iv. 8, where Christ
Jesus calls his tender wife and spouse from the fellowship
with persecutors in their dens of lions and mountains of
leopards?
But coming to the helm, as he speaks of the papists,
how, both by preaching, writing, printing, practice, do
they themselves—I hope in their persons lambs—unnaturally
and partially express towards others the cruel
nature of such lions and leopards?
A false balance in God’s matters abominable to God.
Oh! that the God of heaven might please to tell them
how abominable in his eyes are a weight and a weight, a
stone and a stone, in the bag of weights!—one weight for
themselves when they are under hatches, and another for
others when they come to helm.
Nor shall their confidence of their being in the truth,
which they judge the papists and others are not in, no,
nor the truth itself, privilege them to persecute others,
and to exempt themselves from persecution, because (as
formerly)—
Sheep cannot hunt, no, not the wolves.
First, it is against the nature of true sheep to persecute,
or hunt the beasts of the forest: no, not the same wolves
who formerly have persecuted themselves.[194]
Secondly, if it be a duty and charge upon all magistrates,
in all parts of the world, to judge and persecute in
and for spiritual causes, then either they are no magistrates
who are not able to judge in such cases, or else they
must judge according to their consciences, whether pagan,
Turkish, or anti-christian.
Pills to purge out the spirit of persecution.
Lastly, notwithstanding their confidence of the truth of
their own way, yet the experience of our fathers’ errors,
our own mistakes and ignorance, the sense of our own
weaknesses and blindness in the depths of the prophecies
and mysteries of the kingdom of Christ, and the great
professed expectation of light to come which we are not now
able to comprehend, may abate the edge, yea, sheath up
the sword of persecution toward any, especially [toward]
such as differ not from them in doctrines of repentance, or
faith, or holiness of heart and life, and hope of glorious
and eternal union to come, but only in the way and
manner of the administrations of Jesus Christ.
CHAP. LXXV.
Peace. To close this head of the testimony of writers, it
pleaseth the answerer to produce a contrary testimony of
Austin, Optatus, &c.[195]
Superstition and persecution have had many votes from God’s
own people.
Truth. I readily acknowledge, as formerly I did concerning
the testimony of princes, that anti-christ is too
hard for Christ at votes and numbers; yea, and believe
that in many points, wherein the servants of God these
many hundred years have been fast asleep, superstition
and persecution have had more suffrages and votes from
God’s own people, than hath either been honourable to
the Lord, or peaceable to their own or the souls of others:
therefore, not to derogate from the precious memory of
any of them, let us briefly consider what they have in this
point affirmed.
To begin with Austin: “They murder,” saith he,
“souls, and themselves are afflicted in body, and they put
men to everlasting death, and yet they complain when
themselves are put to temporal death.”[196]
Austin’s saying for persecution examined.
I answer, this rhetorical persuasion of human wisdom
seems very reasonable in the eye of flesh and blood; but
one scripture more prevails with faithful and obedient
souls than thousands of plausible and eloquent speeches:
in particular,
Soul-killing.
First, the scripture useth soul-killing in a large sense,
not only for the teaching of false prophets and seducers,
but even for the offensive walking of Christians: in which
respect, 1 Cor. viii. 9, a true Christian may be guilty of
destroying a soul for whom Christ died, and therefore by
this rule ought to be hanged, burned, &c.
Secondly, that plausible similitude will not prove that
every false teaching or false practice actually kills the
soul, as the body is slain, and slain but once; for souls
infected or bewitched may again recover, 1 Cor. v.; Gal. v.;
2 Tim. ii., &c.[197]
Punishments provided by Christ Jesus against soul-killers and
soul-wounders.
Thirdly, for soul-killings, yea, also for soul-woundings
and grievings, Christ Jesus hath appointed remedies sufficient
in his church. There comes forth a two-edged
sword out of his mouth (Rev. i. and Rev. ii.), able to cut
down heresy, as is confessed: yea, and to kill the heretic:
yea, and to punish his soul everlastingly, which no sword
of steel can reach unto in any punishment comparable or
imaginable. And therefore, in this case, we may say of
this spiritual soul-killing by the sword of Christ’s mouth,
as Paul concerning the incestuous person, 2 Cor. ii. [6,]
Sufficient is this punishment, &c.
Fourthly, although no soul-killers, nor soul-grievers,
may be suffered in the spiritual state, or kingdom of
Christ, the church; yet he hath commanded that such
should be suffered and permitted to be and live in the
world, as I have proved on Matt. xiii.: otherwise thousands
and millions, of souls and bodies both, must be murdered
and cut off by civil combustions and bloody wars about
religion.
Men dead in sin cannot be soul-killed. A national enforced
religion, or a civil war for religion, the two great preventers of
soul-conversion and life.
Fifthly, I argue thus: the souls of all men in the world
are either naturally dead in sin, or alive in Christ. If
dead in sin, no man can kill them, no more than he can
kill a dead man: nor is it a false teacher, or false religion,
that can so much prevent the means of spiritual life, as
one of these two:—either the force of a material sword,
imprisoning the souls of men in a state or national religion,
ministry, or worship: or, secondly, civil wars and combustions
for religion’s sake, whereby men are immediately
cut off without any longer means of repentance.
Now again, for the souls that are alive in Christ, he
hath graciously appointed ordinances powerfully sufficient
to maintain and cherish that life—armour of proof able to
defend them against men and devils.
Secondly, the soul once alive in Christ, is like Christ
himself, Rev. i. 18, alive for ever, Rom. vi. 8; and cannot
die a spiritual death.
Soul-killers prove, by the grace of Christ, soul-savers.
Lastly, grant a man to be a false teacher, a heretic, a
Balaam, a spiritual witch, a wolf, a persecutor, breathing
out blasphemies against Christ and slaughters against his
followers, as Paul did, Acts ix. 1, I say, these who appear
soul-killers to-day, by the grace of Christ may prove, as
Paul, soul-savers to-morrow: and saith Paul to Timothy,
1 Tim. iv. [16,] Thou shalt save thyself and them that hear
thee: which all must necessarily be prevented, if all that
comes within the sense of these soul-killers must, as guilty
of blood, be corporally killed and put to death.[198]
CHAP. LXXVI.
Optatus examined.
Peace. Dear Truth, your answers are so satisfactory to
Austin’s speech, that if Austin himself were now living,
methinks he should be of your mind. I pray descend to
Optatus, “who,” saith the answerer, “justifies Macarius
for putting some heretics to death, affirming that he had
done no more herein than what Moses, Phineas, and Elias
had done before him.”
Persecutors leave Christ, and fly to Moses for their practice.
Truth. These are shafts usually drawn from the quiver
of the ceremonial and typical state of the national church
of the Jews, whose shadowish and figurative state vanished
at the appearing of the body and substance, the Sun of
righteousness, who set up another kingdom, or church,
Heb. xii. [27,] ministry and worship: in which we find
no such ordinance, precept, or precedent of killing men by
material swords for religion’s sake.
More particularly concerning Moses, I query what
commandment, or practice of Moses, either Optatus, or
the answerer here intend? Probably that passage of
Deut. xiii. [15,] wherein Moses appointed a slaughter,
either of a person or a city, that should depart from the
God of Israel, with whom that national church was in
covenant. And if so, I shall particularly reply to that
place in my answer to the reasons hereunder mentioned.[199]
Concerning Phineas’s zealous act:
Phineas’s act discussed.
First, his slaying of the Israelitish man, and woman of
Midian, was not for spiritual but corporal filthiness.
Secondly, no man will produce his fact as precedential
to any minister of the gospel so to act, in any civil state
or commonwealth; although I believe in the church of
God it is precedential, for either minister or people, to kill
and slay with the two-edged sword of the Spirit of God, any
such bold and open presumptuous sinners as these were.
Lastly, concerning Elijah: there were two famous acts
of Elijah of a killing nature:
First, that of slaying 850 of Baal’s prophets, 1 Kings
xviii. [40.][200]
Secondly, of the two captains and their fifties, by fire,
&c.
Elijah’s slaughters examined.
For the first of these, it cannot figure, or type out, any
material slaughter of the many thousands of false prophets
in the world by any material sword of iron or steel: for
as that passage was miraculous,[201] so find we not any such
commission given by the Lord Jesus to the ministers of
the Lord. And lastly, such a slaughter must not only
extend to all the false prophets in the world, but, according
to the answerer’s grounds, to the many thousands of
thousands of idolaters and false worshippers in the kingdoms
and nations of the world.
Elijah’s consuming the two captains and their companions by
fire, discussed.
For the second act of Elijah, as it was also of a miraculous
nature, so, secondly, when the followers of the Lord
Jesus, Luke ix. [54,] proposed such a practice to the Lord
Jesus, for injury offered to his own person, he disclaimed
it with a mild check to their angry spirits, telling them
plainly they knew not what spirits they were of: and
addeth that gentle and merciful conclusion, that he came
not to destroy the bodies of men, as contrarily anti-christ
doth—alleging these instances from the Old Testament, as
also Peter’s killing Ananias, Acts v. 5, and Peter’s vision
and voice, Arise, Peter, kill and eat, Acts x. 13.
CHAP. LXXVII.
Peace. You have so satisfied these instances brought by
Optatus, that methinks Optatus and the answerer himself
might rest satisfied.
I will not trouble you with Bernard’s argument from
Rom. xiii., which you have already on that scripture so
largely answered. But what think you, lastly, of Calvin,
Beza, and Aretius?
Truth. Ans. Since matters of fact and opinion are
barely related by the answerer without their grounds,
whose grounds, notwithstanding, in this discourse are
answered—I answer, if Paul himself were joined with
them, yea, or an angel from heaven bringing any other
rule than what the Lord Jesus hath once delivered, we
have Paul’s conclusion and resolution, peremptory and
dreadful, Gal. i. 8.
Peace. This passage finished, let me finish the whole by
proposing one conclusion of the author of the arguments,[202]
viz., “It is no prejudice to the commonwealth, if liberty of
conscience were suffered to such as fear God indeed:
Abraham abode a long time amongst the Canaanites, yet
contrary to them in religion, Gen. xiii. 7, and xvi. 13.
Again, he sojourned in Gerar, and King Abimelech gave
him leave to abide in his land, Gen. xx., xxi., xxiii., xxiv.
“Isaac also dwelt in the same land, yet contrary in religion,
Gen. xxvi.
“Jacob lived twenty years in one house with his uncle
Laban, yet different in religion, Gen. xxxi.
“The people of Israel were about four hundred and
thirty years in that infamous land of Egypt, and afterwards
seventy years in Babylon: all which times they
differed in religion from the states, Exod. xii., and
2 Chron. xxxvi.
“Come to the time of Christ, where Israel was under
the Romans, where lived divers sects of religion, as
Herodians, Scribes, and Pharisees, Sadducees and Libertines,
Theudæans and Samaritans, beside the common
religion of the Jews, and Christ and his apostles. All
which differed from the common religion of the state,
which was like the worship of Diana, which almost the
whole world then worshipped, Acts xix., xx.
“All these lived under the government of Cæsar, being
nothing hurtful unto the commonwealth, giving unto Cæsar
that which was his. And for their religion and consciences
towards God, he left them to themselves, as having no
dominion over their souls and consciences: and when the
enemies of the truth raised up any tumults, the wisdom of
the magistrate most wisely appeased them, Acts xviii. 14,
and xix. 35.”
“It is true, that without prejudice to the commonwealth,
liberty of conscience may be suffered to such as fear God
indeed, as knowing they will not persist in heresy or turbulent
schism, when they are convinced in conscience of
the sinfulness thereof. But the question is, whether a
heretic, after once or twice admonition, and so after conviction,
and any other scandalous and heinous offender,
may be tolerated either in the church without excommunication,
or in the commonweal without such punishment
as may preserve others from dangerous and damnable
infection.”
CHAP. LXXVIII.
Truth. I here observe the answerer’s partiality, that
none but such as truly fear God should enjoy liberty of
conscience; whence the inhabitants of the world must
either come into the estate of men fearing God, or else
dissemble a religion in hypocrisy, or else be driven out of
the world. One must follow. The first is only the gift
of God; the second and third are too commonly practised
upon this ground.
Again. Since there is so much controversy in the world
where the name of Christ is taken up, concerning the true
church, the ministry, and worship, and who are those that
truly fear God; I ask, who shall judge in this case, who be
they that fear God?
Dangerous consequences flowing from the civil magistrates
judging in spiritual causes. The world turned upside down.
It must needs be granted, that such as have the power
of suffering, or not suffering such consciences, must judge:
and then must it follow, as before I intimated, that the
civil state must judge of the truth of the spiritual; and
then magistrates fearing or not fearing God, must judge of
the fear of God; also, that their judgment or sentence
must be according to their conscience, of what religion
soever: or that there is no lawful magistrate, who is not
able to judge in such cases. And lastly, that since the
sovereign power of all civil authority is founded in the
consent of the people, that every common weal hath
radically and fundamentally in it a power of true discerning
the true fear of God, which they transfer to their
magistrates and officers: or else, that there are no lawful
kingdoms, cities, or towns in the world, in which a man
may live, and unto whose civil government he may submit:
and then, as I said before, there must be no world,
nor is it lawful to live in it, because it hath not a true
discerning spirit to judge them that fear or not fear God.
The wonder-answer of the ministers of the church of New
England to the ministers of the church of Old England.
Lastly. Although this worthy answerer so readily
grants, that liberty of conscience should be suffered to
them that fear God indeed: yet we know what the ministers
of the churches of New England wrote in answer to
the thirty-two questions sent to them by some ministers of
Old England,[204] viz., that although they confessed them to
be such persons whom they approved of far above themselves,
yea, who were in their hearts to live and die together;
yet if they, and other godly people with them,
coming over to them, should differ in church constitution,
they then could not approve their civil cohabitation with
them, and, consequently, could not advise the magistrates
to suffer them to enjoy a civil being within their
jurisdiction.
Hear, O heavens! and give ear, O earth! yea, let the
heavens be astonished, and the earth tremble, at such an
answer as this from such excellent men to such whom
they esteem for godliness above themselves!
CHAP. LXXIX.
Peace. Yea, but they say, they doubt not if they were
there but they should agree; for, say they, either you
will come to us, or you may show us light to come to you,
for we are but weak men, and dream not of perfection in
this life.
Lamentable differences even amongst them that fear
God. Between the presbyterians and independents, covenanters and
non-covenanters, of both which many are truly godly in their persons.
Truth. Alas, who knows not what lamentable differences
have been between the same ministers of the church
of England, some conforming, others leaving their livings,
friends, country, life, rather than conform; when others
again, of whose personal godliness it is not questioned,
have succeeded by conformity unto such forsaken (so
called) livings? How great the present differences, even
amongst them that fear God, concerning faith, justification,
and the evidence of it? concerning repentance and godly
sorrow, as also and mainly concerning the church, the
matter, form, administrations, and government of it?
Let none now think that the passage to New England
by sea, or the nature of the country, can do what only the
key of David can do, to wit, open and shut the consciences
of men.
Beside, how can this be a faithful and upright acknowledgment
of their weakness and imperfection, when they
preach, print, and practise such violence to the souls and
bodies of others, and by their rules and grounds ought to
proceed even to the killing of those whom they judge so
dear unto them, and in respect of godliness far above
themselves?
CHAP. LXXX.
Peace. Yea; but, say they, the godly will not persist in
heresy, or turbulent schism, when they are convinced in
conscience, &c.
The doctrine of persecution necessarily, and most commonly,
falls heaviest upon the most godly persons.
Truth. Sweet Peace, if the civil court and magistracy
must judge, as before I have written, and those civil courts
are as lawful, consisting of natural men as of godly persons,
then what consequences necessarily will follow I
have before mentioned. And I add, according to this
conclusion it must follow, that, if the most godly persons
yield not to once or twice admonition, as is maintained by
the answerer, they must necessarily be esteemed obstinate
persons; for if they were godly, saith he, they would
yield. Must it not then be said, as it was by one passing
sentence of banishment upon some whose godliness was
acknowledged, that he that commanded the judge not to
respect the poor in the cause of judgment, commands him
not to respect the holy or the godly person?
The doctrine of persecution drives the most godly persons out
of the world.
Hence I could name the place and time when a godly
man, a most desirable person for his trade, &c., yet something
different in conscience, propounded his willingness
and desire to come to dwell in a certain town in New
England; it was answered by a chief of the place, This
man differs from us, and we desire not to be troubled.
So that in conclusion, for no other reason in the world,
the poor man, though godly, useful, and peaceable, could
not be admitted to a civil being and habitation on the
common earth, in that wilderness, amongst them.
The latter part of the answer, concerning the heretic,
or obstinate person, to be excommunicated, and the
scandalous offender to be punished in the commonweal,
which neither of both come near our question: I have
spoken [of] I fear too largely already.
Peace. Mr. Cotton concludes with a confident persuasion
of having removed the grounds of that great error,
viz., that persons are not to be persecuted for cause of
conscience.
The Bloody Tenent.
Truth. And I believe, dear Peace, it shall appear to
them that, with fear and trembling at the word of the
Lord, examine these passages, that the charge of error
reboundeth back, even such an error as may well be
called, The Bloody Tenent—so directly contradicting the
spirit, and mind, and practice of the Prince of peace; so
deeply guilty of the blood of souls, compelled and forced
to hypocrisy in a spiritual and soul-rape; so deeply guilty
of the blood of the souls under the altar, persecuted in
all ages for the cause of conscience, and so destructive
to the civil peace and welfare of all kingdoms, countries,
and commonwealths.
CHAP. LXXXI.
Peace. To this conclusion, dear Truth, I heartily subscribe,
and know [that] the God, the Spirit, the Prince,
the angels, and all the true awaked sons of peace, will call
thee blessed.
Truth. How sweet and precious are these contemplations,
but oh! how sweet the actions and fruitions?
Peace.Thy lips drop as the honey-comb, honey and milk
are under thy tongue; oh! that these drops, these streams,
might flow without a stop or interruption!
Truth. The glorious white troopers (Rev. xix.) shall
in time be mounted, and he that is the most high Prince
of princes, and Lord General of generals mounted upon
the word of truth and meekness, Psalm xlv., shall triumph
gloriously, and renew our meetings. But hark, what
noise is this?
Wars for conscience.
Peace. These are the doleful drums, and shrill-sounding
trumpets, the roaring, murdering cannons, the shouts of
conquerors, the groans of wounded, dying, slaughtered
righteous with the wicked. Dear Truth, how long? how
long these dreadful sounds and direful sights? how long
before my glad return and restitution?
Truth. Sweet Peace, who will believe my true report?
yet true it is, if I were once believed, blessed Truth and
Peace should not so soon be parted.
Peace. Dear Truth, what welcome hast thou found of
late beyond thy former times, or present expectations?
The blessed Magna Charta.
Truth. Alas! my welcome changes as the times, and
strongest swords and arms prevail: were I believed in
this, that Christ is not delighted with the blood of men,
but shed his own for his bloodiest enemies—that by the
word of Christ no man for gainsaying Christ, or joining
with the enemy anti-christ, should be molested with the
civil sword. Were this foundation laid as the Magna
Charta of highest liberties, and good security given on all
hands for the preservation of it, how soon should every
brow and house be stuck with olive branches?
Peace. This heavenly invitation makes me bold once
more to crave thy patient ear and holy tongue. Error’s
impatient and soon tired, but thou art light, and like the
Father of lights, unwearied in thy shinings. Lo here!
what once again I present to thy impartial censure.
A MODEL OF CHURCH AND CIVIL POWER; COMPOSED BY MR. COTTON AND THE MINISTERS OF NEW ENGLAND, AND SENT TO THE CHURCH AT SALEM, AS A FURTHER CONFIRMATION OF THE BLOODY DOCTRINE OF PERSECUTION FOR CAUSE OF CONSCIENCE, EXAMINED AND ANSWERED.
CHAP. LXXXII.
Truth. What hast thou there?
A strange model of a church and commonweal, after the Mosaical
and Jewish pattern.
Peace. Here is a combination of thine own children
against thy very life and mine: here is a model, framed
by many able, learned, and godly hands, of such a church
and commonweal as wakens Moses from his unknown
grave, and denies Jesus yet to have seen the earth.
Truth. Begin, sweet Peace, read and propound. My
hand shall not be tired with holding the balances of the
sanctuary: do thou put in, and I shall weigh as in the
presence of Him whose pure eyes cannot behold iniquity.
Matt. xvi. 19, with John xx. 23, Rom. xiii. 1, Matt. x. 18,
Tit. iii. 1, Acts xv. 20, Isa. xlix. 23, Gal. iii. 28.
Peace. Thus, then, speaks the preface or entrance:
“Seeing God hath given a distinct power to church and
commonweal, the one spiritual (called the power of the
keys), the other civil (called the power of the sword),
and hath made the members of both societies subject to
both authorities, so that every soul in the church is subject
to the higher powers in the commonweal, and every member
of the commonweal, being a member of the church, is
subject to the laws of Christ’s kingdom, and in him to the
censures of the church:—the question is, how the civil
state and the church may dispense their several governments
without infringement and impeachment of the power and
honour of the one or of the other, and what bounds and
limits the Lord hath set between both the administrations.”
Christ’s power in his church confessed to be above all
magistrates’ in spiritual things.
Truth. From that conclusion, dear Peace, that “every
member of the commonweal, being a member of the
church, is subject to the laws of Christ’s kingdom, and in
Him to the censures of the church:”—I observe, that
they grant the church of Christ in spiritual causes to be
superior and over the highest magistrates in the world, if
members of the church.
Hence therefore I infer, may she refuse to receive, and
may also cast forth any, yea, even the highest, if obstinate
in sin, out of her spiritual society.
Hence, in this spiritual society, that soul who hath most
of Christ, most of his Spirit, is most (spiritually) honourable,
according to the scriptures quoted, Acts xv. 20; Isa.
xlix. 23; Gal. iii. 28.
And if so, how can this stand with their common tenent
that the civil magistrate must keep the first table: set up,
reform the church: and be judge and governor in all
ecclesiastical as well as civil causes?[205]
Isa. xlix. 23, lamentably wrested.
Secondly, I observe the lamentable wresting of this one
scripture, Isa. xlix. 23. Sometimes this scripture must
prove the power of the civil magistrates, kings, and
governors over the church in spiritual causes, &c. Yet
here this scripture is produced to prove kings and magistrates
(in spiritual causes) to be censured and corrected
by the same church. It is true in several respects, he
that is a governor may be a subject; but in one and the
same spiritual respect to judge and to be judged, to sit on
the bench and stand at the bar of Christ Jesus, is as
impossible as to reconcile the east and west together.
CHAP. LXXXIII.
The first head, that both jurisdictions may stand together.
The first head examined. John xvii. 36. Jer. xxix. 7. Ezra
vii. 23, Rom. i. 2, 3, 1 Tim. ii. 2.
Peace. “Whereas divers affecting transcending power
to themselves over the church, have persuaded the princes
of the world that the kingdom of Christ in his church
cannot rise or stand without the falls of those commonweals
wherein it is set up, we do believe and profess the
contrary to this suggestion; the government of the one
being of this world, the other not; the church helping
forward the prosperity of the commonweal by means only
ecclesiastical and spiritual; the commonweal helping forward
her own and the church’s felicity by means political
or temporal:—the falls of commonweals being known to
arise from their scattering and diminishing the power of
the church, and the flourishing of commonweals with the
well ordering of the people, even in moral and civil
virtues, being observed to arise from the vigilant administration
of the holy discipline of the church: as Bodin, a
man not partial to church discipline, plainly testifieth.
The vices in the free estate of Geneva, que legibus nusquam
vindicantur, by means of church discipline, sine vi et
tumultu coercentur; the Christian liberty not freeing us
from subjection to authority, but from enthralment and
bondage unto sin.”[206]
The civil commonweal and the spiritual commonweal, the church,
not inconsistent, though independent the one on the other.
Truth.Ans. From this conclusion, that the church, or
kingdom of Christ, may be set up without prejudice of the
commonweal, according to John xviii. 36, My kingdom is
not of this world, &c., I observe, that although the kingdom
of Christ, the church, and the civil kingdom or government
be not inconsistent, but that both may stand together;
yet that they are independent according to that
scripture, and that therefore there may be, as formerly I
have proved, flourishing commonweals and societies of men,
where no church of Christ abideth. And, secondly, the
commonweal may be in perfect peace and quiet, notwithstanding
the church, the commonweal of Christ, be in
distractions and spiritual oppositions, both against their
religions and sometimes amongst themselves, as the church
of Christ in Corinth troubled with divisions, contentions,
&c.
Secondly, I observe, it is true the church helpeth forward
the prosperity of the commonweal by spiritual
means, Jer. xxix. 7. The prayers of God’s people procure
the peace of the city where they abide; yet, that Christ’s
ordinances and administrations of worship are appointed
and given by Christ to any civil state, town, or city, as is
implied by the instance of Geneva, that I confidently
deny.
Christ’s ordinances put upon a whole city or nation, may more
civilize, and moralize, but never Christianize them.
The ordinances and discipline of Christ Jesus, though
wrongfully and profanely applied to natural and unregenerate
men, may cast a blush of civility and morality
upon them, as in Geneva and other places—for the shining
brightness of the very shadow of Christ’s ordinances casts
a shame upon barbarism and incivility—yet withal, I
affirm, that the misapplication of ordinances to unregenerate
and unrepentant persons hardens up their souls
in a dreadful sleep and dream of their own blessed estate,
and sends millions of souls to hell in a secure expectation
of a false salvation.
CHAP. LXXXIV.
The second head, concerning superiority of each power.
The second head, concerning superiority of each power,
Rom. xiii. 1-3; Isa. xlix. 23. Luke xii. 14, John viii. 11. And that
judicium of the church in lawsuits, 1 Cor. vi. 2, is only
arbitrarium, not coactivum.
Peace. “Because contention may arise in future times
which of these powers under Christ is the greatest, as it
hath been under anti-christ, we conceive, first, that the
power of the civil magistrate is superior to the church
policy in place, honours, dignity, earthly power, in the
world; and the church superior to him, being a member
of the church, ecclesiastically; that is, in a church way,
ruling and ordering him by spiritual ordinances according
to God’s [word], for his soul’s health, as any other member.
So that all the power the magistrate hath over the
church is temporal, not spiritual; and all the power the
church hath over the magistrate is spiritual, not temporal.
And as the church hath no temporal power over the
magistrate, in ordine ad bonum spirituale; so the magistrate
hath no spiritual power over the church in ordine ad bonum
temporale.
“Secondly, the delinquency of either party calleth for
the exercise of the power of terror from the other part;
for no rulers ordained of God are a terror to good works,
but to evil, Rom. xiii. 3. So that if the church offend,
the offence of the church calleth upon the civil magistrate,
either to seek the healing thereof as a nursing father, by
his own grave advice and the advice of other churches; or
else, if he cannot so prevail, to put forth and exercise the
superiority of his power in redressing what is amiss,
according to the quality of the offence, by the course of
civil justice.
“On the other side, if the magistrate being a member
of the church shall offend, the offence calleth upon the
church either to seek the healing thereof in a brotherly
way, by conviction of his sin; or else, if they cannot
prevail, then to exercise the superiority of their power in
removing of the offence, and recovering of the offender,
by church censures.”
Answer. A contradiction, to make the magistrate supreme judge
in spiritual causes, and yet to have no spiritual power.
Truth. If the end of spiritual or church power is bonum
spirituale, a spiritual good: and the end of civil or state
power is bonum temporale, a temporal good; and secondly,
if the magistrate have no spiritual power to attain to his
temporal end, no more than a church hath any temporal
power to attain to her spiritual end, as is confessed:—I
demand, if this be not a contradiction against their own
disputes, tenets, and practices, touching that question of
persecution for cause of conscience. For if the magistrate
be supreme judge, and so, consequently, give supreme
judgment, sentence, and determination, in matters of the
first table and of the church, and be custos utriusque tabulæ,
[the] keeper of both tables (as they speak), and yet have
no spiritual power as is affirmed—how can he determine
what the true church and ordinances are, and then set
them up with the power of the sword? How can he give
judgment of a false church, a false ministry, a false doctrine,
false ordinances, and with a civil sword pull them
down, if he have no spiritual power, authority, or commission
from Christ Jesus for these ends and purposes?
Further, I argue thus: If the civil officer of state must
determine, judge, and punish in spiritual causes, his power,
authority, and commission must be either spiritual or civil,
or else he hath none at all: and so acts without a commission
and warrant from the Lord Jesus; and so,
consequently, [he] stands guilty at the bar of Christ
Jesus, to answer for such his practice as a transcendent
delinquent.
The civil magistrate confessed to have no civil power over the
souls of men: nor spiritual.
Now for civil power, these worthy authors confess that
the government of the civil magistrate extendeth no further
than over the bodies and goods of the subject, and
therefore hath no civil power over the soul, and therefore,
say I, not in soul-causes.
Secondly. It is here confessed, in this passage, that to
attain his civil end, or bonum temporale, he hath no spiritual
power; and therefore, of necessity, out of their own
mouths must they be judged for provoking the magistrate,
without either civil or spiritual power, to judge, punish,
and persecute in spiritual causes; and to fear and tremble,
lest they come near those frogs which proceed out of the
mouth of the dragon, and beast, and false prophet, who,
by the same arguments which the authors here use, stir
up the kings of the earth to make war against the Lamb,
Christ Jesus, and his followers, Rev. xvii. 14.
CHAP. LXXXV.
In the next place, I observe upon the point of delinquency,
such a conclusion as heaven and earth may stand
amazed at. If the church offend, say they, after advice
refused, in conclusion the magistrate must redress, that is
punish the church, that is in church offences and cases, by
a course of civil justice.
On the other side, if the civil magistrate offend after
admonition used, and not prevailing, in conclusion the
church proceeds to censure, that is to excommunication,
as is afterward more largely proved by them.
The magistrate and the church, by the author’s grounds, at
one and the same time, in one and the same cause, made the judges on the
bench and delinquents at the bar.
Now I demand, if the church be a delinquent, who
shall judge? It is answered, the magistrate. Again, if
the magistrate be a delinquent, I ask who shall judge?
It is answered, the church. Whence I observe—which is
monstrous in all cases in the world—that one person, to
wit, the church or magistrate, shall be at one time the
delinquent at the bar and the judge upon the bench.
This is clear thus: The church must judge when the
magistrate offends; and yet the magistrate must judge
when the church offends. And so, consequently, in this
case [the magistrate] must judge, whether she contemn
civil authority in the second table, for thus dealing with
him: or whether she have broken the rules of the first
table, of which (say they) God hath made him keeper and
conserver. And therefore, though the church make him a
delinquent at the bar, yet by their confession God hath
made him a judge on the bench. What blood, what tumults,
have been and must be spilt upon these grounds?
Peace. Dear Truth, no question but the church may
punish the magistrate spiritually, in spiritual cases; and
the magistrate may punish the church civilly, in civil
cases; but that for one and the same cause the church
must punish the magistrate, and the magistrate the church,
this seems monstrous, and needs explication.
An illustration, demonstrating that the civil magistrate
cannot have power over the church in spiritual or church causes.
Truth. Sweet Peace, I illustrate with this instance: A
true church of Christ, of which, according to the authors’
supposition, the magistrate is a member, chooseth and calls
one of her members to office. The magistrate opposeth.
The church, persuaded that the magistrates’ exceptions are
insufficient—according to her privilege, which these authors
maintain against the magistrates’ prohibition—proceeds
to ordain her officer. The magistrate chargeth the
church to have made an unfit and unworthy choice, and,
therefore, according to his place and power, and according
to his conscience and judgment, he suppresseth such an
officer, and makes void the church’s choice. Upon this
the church complains against the magistrate’s violation of
her privileges given her by Christ Jesus, and cries out
that the magistrate is turned persecutor, and, not prevailing
with admonition, she proceeds to excommunication
against him. The magistrate, according to his conscience,
endures not such profanation of ordinances as he conceives;
and therefore, if no advice and admonition prevail,
he proceeds against such obstinate abusers of Christ’s holy
ordinances (as the authors grant he may) in civil court of
justice, yea, and—I add according to the pattern of Israel—cuts
them off by the sword, as obstinate usurpers and
profaners of the holy things of Christ.
The punishments civil which the magistrate inflicts upon the
church for civil crimes, lawful and necessary.
I demand, what help hath any poor church of Christ in
this case, by maintaining this power of the magistrate to
punish the church of Christ, I mean in spiritual and soul-cases?
for otherwise I question not but he may put all the
members of the church to death justly, if they commit
crimes worthy thereof, as Paul spake, Acts xxv. 11.
Shall the church here fly to the pope’s sanctuary against
emperors and princes excommunicate, to wit, give away
their crowns, kingdoms, or dominions, and invite foreign
princes to make war upon them and their territories?
The authors surely will disclaim this; and yet I shall
prove their tenets tend directly unto such a practice.
Or secondly, shall she say the magistrate is not a true
magistrate, because not able to judge and determine in
such cases? This their confession will not give them
leave to say, because they cannot deny unbelievers to be
lawful magistrates: and yet it shall appear, notwithstanding
their confession to the contrary, their tenets imply
that none but a magistrate after their own conscience is a
lawful magistrate.
Therefore, thirdly, they must ingenuously and honestly
confess, that if it be the duty of the magistrate to punish
the church in spiritual cases, he must then judge according
to his conscience and persuasion, whatever his conscience
be: and then let all men judge into what a woful state
they bring both the civil magistrate and church of Christ,
by such a church-destroying and state-destroying doctrine.
Peace. Some will here say, in such a case either the
magistrate or the church must judge; either the spiritual
or civil state must be supreme.
[Truth.] I answer, if the magistrate be of another
religion,—
The true way of the God of peace in differences between the
church and the magistrate.
First. What hath the church to judge him being without?
1 Cor. v. [12, 13.]
Secondly. If he be a member of the church, doubtless
the church hath power to judge, in spiritual and soul-cases,
with spiritual and church censures, all that are within,
1 Cor. v. 1-11.
Thirdly. If the church offend against the civil peace of
the state, by wronging the bodies or goods of any, the
magistrate bears not the sword in vain, Rom. xiii. 4, to
correct any or all the members of the church. And this
I conceive to be the only way of the God of peace.
CHAP. LXXXVI.
The third head concerns the end of both these powers.
[Peace.] “First, the common and last end of both is
God’s glory, and man’s eternal felicity.
“Secondly. The proper ends—
“First, of commonwealth, is the procuring, preserving,
increasing of external and temporal peace and felicity of
the state, in all godliness and honesty, 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.
“Secondly, of the church, a begetting, preserving,
increasing of internal and spiritual peace and felicity of
the church, in all godliness and honesty, Esay. ii. 3, 4,
and ix. 7. So that magistrates have power given them
from Christ in matters of religion, because they are bound
to see that outward peace be preserved, not in all ungodliness
and dishonesty, for such peace is Satanical; but in
all godliness and honesty, for such peace God aims at.
And hence the magistrate is custos of both the tables of
godliness, in the first of honesty, in the second for peace’s
sake. He must see that honesty be preserved within his
jurisdiction, or else the subject will not be bonus cives.
He must see that godliness as well as honesty be preserved,
else the subject will not be bonus vir, who is the
best bonus cives. He must see that godliness and honesty
be preserved, or else himself will not be bonu magistratus.”[207]
Truth. In this passage here are divers particulars
affirmed, marvellously destructive both to godliness and
honesty, though under a fair mask and colour of both.
The garden of the church and the wilderness of the world made
all one.
First, it will appear that in spiritual things they make
the garden and the wilderness, as often I have intimated—I
say the garden and the wilderness, the church and the
world, are all one: for thus,
If the powers of the world, or civil state, are bound to
propose external peace in all godliness for their end, and
the end of the church be to preserve internal peace in all
godliness, I demand, if their end (godliness) be the same,
is not their power and state the same also? unless they
make the church subordinate to the commonwealth’s end,
or the commonweal subordinate to the church’s end,
which—being the governor and setter up of it, and so
consequently the judge of it—it cannot be.
The commonweal more charged by these authors with the worship
and ordinances, than the church.
Now if godliness be the worshipping and walking with
God in Christ, is not the magistrate and commonweal
charged more by this tenet with the worship and ordinances
of God, than the church? for the magistrate they
charge with the external peace in godliness, and the
church but with the internal.
I ask further, what is this internal peace in all godliness?
whether intend they internal, within the soul, which
only the eye of God can see, opposed to external, or visible,
which man also can discern? or else, whether they mean
internal, that is spiritual, soul-matters, matters of God’s
worship? and then I say, that peace, to wit, of godliness
or God’s worship, they had before granted to the civil
state.
The authors of these positions never yet saw a true difference
between the church of Christ and the world, in point of worship.
Peace. The truth is, as I now perceive, the best and
most godly of that judgment declare themselves never to
have seen a true difference between the church and the
world, and the spiritual and civil state; and howsoever
these worthy authors seem to make a kind of separation
from the world, and profess that the church must consist
of spiritual and living stones, saints, regenerate persons,
and so make some peculiar enclosed ordinances, as the
supper of the Lord, which none, say they, but godly
persons must taste of; yet, by compelling all within their
jurisdiction to an outward conformity of the church worship,
of the word and prayer, and maintenance of the
ministry thereof, they evidently declare that they still
lodge and dwell in the confused mixtures of the unclean
and clean, of the flock of Christ and herds of the world
together—I mean, in spiritual and religious worship.
Truth. For a more full and clear discussion of this
scripture, 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, on which is weakly built such a
mighty building, I shall propose and resolve these four
queries.
CHAP. LXXXVII.
1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, discussed.
First, what is meant by godliness and honesty in this
place?
Secondly, what may the scope of the Holy Spirit of
God be in this place?
Thirdly, whether the civil magistrate was then custos
utriusque tabulæ, keeper of both tables? &c.
Fourthly, whether a church, or congregation of Christians,
may not live in godliness and honesty, although the
civil magistrate be of another conscience and worship, and
the whole state and country with him?
To the first, what is here meant by godliness and
honesty?
Answ. I find not that the Spirit of God here intendeth
the first and second table.
The word honesty, in this place of Timothy, cannot
signify here the honesty or righteousness of the second table.
For, however the word εὐσεβεία signify godliness, or the
worship of God, yet the second word, σεμνότης, I find not
that it signifies such an honesty as compriseth the duties of
the second table, but such an honesty as signifies solemnity,
gravity; and so it is turned by the translator, Tit. ii. 7, ἐν
τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀδιαφθορίαν, σεμνότητα, that is, in doctrine
[showing] incorruptness, gravity: which doctrine cannot
there be taken for the doctrine of the civil state, or second
table, but the gravity, majesty, and solemnity of the spiritual
doctrine of Christianity. So that, according to the
translators’ own rendering of that word in Titus, this
place of Timothy should be thus rendered, in all godliness,
or worshipping of God, and gravity; that is, a solemn or
grave profession of the worship of God. And yet this
mistaken and misinterpreted scripture, is that great castle
and stronghold which so many fly unto concerning the
magistrates’ charge over the two tables.
Secondly, what is the scope of the Spirit of God in this
place?
The scope of God’s Spirit in this place of Timothy.
I answer, first, negatively; the scope is not to speak
of the duties of the first and second table.
Nor, secondly, is the scope to charge the magistrate
with forcing the people, who have chosen him, to godliness,
or God’s worship, according to his conscience—the
magistrate keeping the peace of external godliness, and
the church of internal, as is affirmed; but,
Secondly, positively; I say the Spirit of God by Paul
in this place provokes Timothy and the church at Ephesus,
and so consequently all the ministers of Christ’s churches,
and Christians, to pray for two things:—
God’s people must pray for and endeavour the peace of the
state they live in: although pagan or popish.
First, for the peaceable and quiet state of the countries
and places of their abode; that is implied in their praying,
as Paul directs them, for a quiet and peaceable condition,
and suits sweetly with the command of the Lord to his
people, even in Babel, Jer. xxix. 7, pray for the peace of
the city, and seek the good of it; for in the peace thereof it
shall go well with you. Which rule will hold in any
pagan or popish city, and therefore consequently are
God’s people to pray against wars, famines, pestilences,
and especially to be far from kindling coals of war, and
endeavour the bringing in and advancing their conscience
by the sword.
Forcing of men to godliness or God’s worship, the greatest
cause of breach of civil peace.
Secondly, they are here commanded to pray for the
salvation of all men; that all men, and especially kings
and magistrates, might be saved, and come to the knowledge
of the truth; implying that the grave—or solemn
and shining—profession of godliness, or God’s worship,
according to Christ Jesus, is a blessed means to cause all
sorts of men to be affected with the Christian profession,
and to come to the same knowledge of that one God and
one Mediator, Christ Jesus. All which tends directly
against what it is brought for, to wit, the magistrates’
forcing all men to godliness, or the worshipping of God.
Which in truth causeth the greatest breach of peace, and
the greatest distractions in the world, and the setting up
that for godliness or worship which is no more than
Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image, a state-worship, and in
some places the worship of the beast and his image, Dan.
iii., Rev. xiii.
CHAP. LXXXVIII.
Thirdly, I query, whether the civil magistrate, which
was then the Roman emperor, was keeper or guardian of
both tables, as is affirmed?
The Roman Cæsars described.
Scripture and all history tell us, that those Cæsars were
not only ignorant, without God, without Christ, &c.; but
professed worshippers, or maintainers, of the Roman gods
or devils; as also notorious for all sorts of wickedness;
and, lastly, cruel and bloody lions and tigers toward the
Christians for many hundred years.
Not appointed by Christ Jesus keepers and guardians of his
church.
Hence, I argue from the wisdom, love, and faithfulness
of the Lord Jesus in his house, it was impossible that he
should appoint such ignorant, such idolatrous, such
wicked, and such cruel persons to be his chief officers
and deputy lieutenants under himself to keep the worship
of God, to guard his church, his wife. No wise and
loving father was ever known to put his child, no not
his beasts, dogs, or swine, but unto fitting keepers.
Men judge it matter of high complaint, that the records
of parliament, the king’s children, the Tower of London,
the great seal, should be committed to unworthy keepers!
And can it be, without high blasphemy, conceived that
the Lord Jesus should commit his sheep, his children,
yea, his spouse, his thousand shields and bucklers in the
tower of his church, and lastly, his great and glorious
broad seals of baptism and his supper, to be preserved
pure in their administrations—I say, that the Lord Jesus,
who is wisdom and faithfulness itself, should deliver these
to such keepers?
Peace. Some will say, it is one thing what persons are
in fact and practice; another what they ought to be by
right and office.
Truth. In such cases as I have mentioned, no man doth
in the common eye of reason deliver such matters of
charge and trust to such as declare themselves and sins
(like Sodom) at the very time of this great charge and
trust to be committed to them.
Peace. It will further be said, that many of the kings
of Judah, who had the charge of establishing, reforming—and
so, consequently, of keeping the first table—the
church, God’s worship, &c., were notoriously wicked,
idolatrous, &c.
Truth. I must then say, the case is not alike; for when
the Lord appointed the government of Israel after the
rejection of Saul, to establish a covenant of succession in
the type unto Christ, let it be minded what pattern and
precedent it pleased the Lord to set for the after kings of
Israel and Judah, in David, the man after his own heart.
It pleased not the Lord Jesus, in the first institution of his
church, to furnish himself with any such civil governors, as unto whom he
might commit the care of his worship.
But now the Lord Jesus being come himself, and
having fulfilled the former types, and dissolved the
national state of the church, and established a more
spiritual way of worship all the world over, and appointed
a spiritual government and governors, it is well known
what the Roman Cæsars were, under whom both Christ
Jesus himself, and his servants after him, lived and
suffered; so that if the Lord Jesus had appointed any
such deputies—as we find not a tittle to that purpose, nor
have a shadow of true reason so to think—he must, I say,
in the very first institution, have pitched upon such persons
for these custodes utriusque tabulæ, keepers of both
tables, as no man wise, or faithful, or loving, would have
chosen in any of the former instances, or cases of a more
inferior nature.
Beside, to that great pretence of Israel, I have largely
spoken to.
Secondly. I ask, how could the Roman Cæsars, or any
civil magistrates, be custodes, keepers of the church and
worship of God, when, as the authors of these positions
acknowledge, that their civil power extends but to bodies
and goods?
And for spiritual power they say they have none, ad
bonum temporale (to a temporal good), which is their
proper end; and then, having neither civil nor spiritual
power from the Lord Jesus to this purpose, how come
they to be such keepers as is pretended?
The true keepers which Christ Jesus appointed of his
ordinances and worship.
Thirdly. If the Roman emperors were keepers, what
keepers were the apostles, unto whom the Lord Jesus
gave the care and charge of the churches, and by whom
the Lord Jesus charged Timothy, 1 Tim. vi. 14, to keep
those commands of the Lord Jesus without spot until his
coming?
These keepers were called the foundation of the church,
Eph. ii. 20, and made up the crown of twelve stars about
the head of the woman, Rev. xii. 1; whose names were
also written in the twelve foundations of [the] New
Jerusalem, Rev. xxi. 14.
Yea, what keepers then are the ordinary officers of the
church, appointed to be the shepherds or keepers of the
flock of Christ; appointed to be the porters or doorkeepers,
and to watch in the absence of Christ? Mark xiii.
34; Acts xx. [28-31.]
Yea, what charge hath the whole church itself, which is
the pillar and ground of the truth, 1 Tim. i. 15, in the
midst of which Christ is present with his power, 1 Cor. v.
4, to keep out or cast out the impenitent and obstinate,
even kings and emperors themselves, from their spiritual
society? 1 Cor. v.; James iii. 1; Gal. iii. 28.
The kings of the Assyrians, &c., not charged with God’s
worship as the kings of Judah, in that national and typical church.
Fourthly. I ask, whether in the time of the kings of
Israel and Judah—whom I confess in the typical and
national state to be charged with both tables—I ask, whether
the kings of the Assyrians, the kings of the Ammonites,
Moabites, Philistines, were also constituted and
ordained keepers of the worship of God as the kings of
Judah were, for they were also lawful magistrates in their
dominions? or, whether the Roman emperors were custodes,
or keepers, more than they? or more than the king of
Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, under whose civil government
God’s people lived, and in his own land and city? Jer. xxix.
CHAP. LXXXIX.
Constantine, Theodosius, &c., misinformed.
Peace. You remember, dear Truth, that Constantine,
Theodosius, and others, were made to believe that they
were the antitypes of the kings of Judah, the church of
God; and Henry VIII. was told that that title, Defensor
fidei, defender of the faith, though sent him by the pope
for writing against Luther, was his own diadem, due unto
him from Heaven. So likewise since, the kings and queens
of England have been instructed.
Truth. But it was not so from the beginning, as that
very difference between the national state of the church
of God then, and other kings and magistrates of the world,
not so charged, doth clearly evince, and leadeth us to the
spiritual king of the church, Christ Jesus, the king of
Israel, and his spiritual government and governors therein.
Masters of families under the gospel, not charged to force all
under him from their own consciences to his.
Fifthly. I ask, whether had the Roman Cæsars more
charge to see all their subjects observe and submit to the
worship of God in their dominion of the world, than a
master, father, or husband now, under the gospel, in his
family?
Families are the foundations of government; for what
is a commonweal but a commonweal of families, agreeing
to live together for common good?
Now in families, suppose a believing Christian husband
hath an unbelieving, anti-christian wife, what other charge
in this respect is given to a husband, 1 Cor. vii. [12-15],
but to dwell with her as a husband, if she be pleased to
dwell with him? but, to be so far from forcing her from
her conscience unto his, as that if for his conscience’ sake
she would depart, he was not to force her to tarry with him,
1 Cor. vii. Consequently, the father or husband of the
state differing from the commonweal in religion, ought not
to force the commonweal nor to be forced by it, yet is he to
continue a civil husband’s care, if the commonweal will
live with him, and abide in civil covenant.
Now as a husband by his love to the truth, and holy
conversation in it, and seasonable exhortations, ought to
endeavour to save his wife, yet abhorring to use corporal
punishment, yea, in this case to child or servant: so ought
the father, husband, governor of the commonweal, endeavour
to win and save whom possibly he may, yet far from
the appearance of civil violence.
If the charge of God’s worship was left with the Roman
emperor, then was he bound to turn the whole world into the garden,
flock, and spouse of Christ.
Sixthly. If the Roman emperors were charged by
Christ with his worship in their dominion, and their dominion
was over the world, as was the dominion of the
Grecian, Persian, and Babylonian monarchy before them,
who sees not, if the whole world be forced to turn Christian—as
afterward and since it hath pretended to do—who
sees not then, that the world, for whom Christ Jesus would
not pray, and the god of it, are reconciled to Jesus Christ,
and the whole field of the world become his enclosed
garden?
Millions put to death.
Seventhly. If the Roman emperors ought to have been
by Christ’s appointment keepers of both tables, antitypes
of Israel and Judah’s kings; how many millions of
idolaters and blasphemers against Christ Jesus and his
worship, ought they to have put to death, according to
Israel’s pattern!
Christ never sent any of his ministers or servants to the
civil magistrate, for help in spiritual matters.
Lastly. I ask, if the Lord Jesus had delivered his
sheep and children to these wolves, his wife and spouse to
such adulterers, his precious jewels to such great thieves
and robbers of the world, as the Roman emperors were,
what is the reason that he was never pleased to send any
of his servants to their gates to crave their help and
assistance in this his work, to put them in mind of their
office, to challenge and claim such a service from them,
according to their office, as it pleased God always to send
to the kings of Israel and Judah, in the like case?
Peace. Some will here object Paul’s appealing to
Cæsar.
Truth. And I must refer them to what I formerly
answered to that objection. Paul never appealed to
Cæsar as a judge appointed by Christ Jesus to give
definitive sentence in any spiritual or church controversy;
but against the civil violence and murder which the Jews
intended against him, Paul justly appealed. For otherwise,
if in a spiritual cause he should have appealed, he
should have overthrown his own apostleship and power
given him by Christ Jesus in spiritual things, above the
highest kings or emperors of the world beside.
CHAP. XC.
Peace. Blessed Truth, I shall now remember you of
the fourth query upon this place of Timothy; to wit,
whether a church of Christ Jesus may not live in God’s
worship and comeliness, notwithstanding that the civil
magistrate profess not the same but a contrary religion
and worship, in his own person and the country with
him?
Truth. I answer; the churches of Christ under the
Roman emperors did live in all godliness and Christian
gravity, as appears by all their holy and glorious practices,
which the scripture abundantly testifies.
Christ Jesus hath left power in his church to preserve herself
pure, though in an idolatrous country.
Secondly. This flows from an institution or appointment
of such a power and authority, left by the Lord
Jesus to his apostles and churches, that no ungodliness or
dishonesty, in the first appearance of it, was to be
suffered, but suppressed and cast out from the churches of
Christ, even the little leaven of doctrine or practice,
1 Cor. v.; Gal. v.
God’s people have used to shine in brightest godliness when
they have enjoyed least quietness.
Lastly, I add, that although sometimes it pleaseth the
Lord to vouchsafe his servants peace and quietness, and to
command them [as] here in Timothy to pray for it, for
those good ends and purposes for which God hath appointed
civil magistracy in the world, to keep the world
in peace and quietness: yet God’s people have used most
to abound with godliness and honesty, when they have
enjoyed least peace and quietness. Then, like those spices,
Cant. iv. 14, myrrh, frankincense, saffron, calamus, &c.,
they have yielded the sweetest savour to God and man,
when they were pounded and burnt in cruel persecution of
the Roman censors. Then are they, as God’s venison,
most sweet when most hunted: God’s stars shining brightest
in the darkest night: more heavenly in conversation,
more mortified, more abounding in love each to other,
more longing to be with God, when the inhospitable and
savage world hath used them like strangers, and forced
them to hasten home to another country which they profess
to seek.
CHAP. XCI.
Peace. Dear Truth, it seems not to be unreasonable to
close up this passage with a short descant upon the assertion,
viz., “A subject without godliness will not be bonus
vir, a good man, and a magistrate, except he see godliness
preserved, will not be bonus magistratus.”
Few magistrates, few men spiritually and Christianly good. Yet
divers sorts of goodness, natural, artificial, civil, &c.
Truth. I confess that without godliness, or a true worshipping
of God with an upright heart, according to God’s
ordinances, neither subjects nor magistrates can please
God in Christ Jesus, and so be spiritually or Christianly
good; which few magistrates and few men either come to,
or are ordained unto: God having chosen a little flock
out of the world, and those generally poor and mean,
1 Cor. i. 26; James ii. 5, yet this I must remember you
of, that when the most high God created all things of
nothing, he saw and acknowledged divers sorts of goodness,
which must still be acknowledged in their distinct
kinds: a good air, a good ground, a good tree, a good
sheep, &c.
I say the same in artificials, a good garment, a good
house, a good sword, a good ship.
I also add, a good city, a good company or corporation,
a good husband, father, master.
Hence also we say, a good physician, a good lawyer, a
good seaman, a good merchant, a good pilot for such or
such a shore or harbour: that is, morally, civilly good, in
their several civil respects and employments.
Hence (Ps. cxxii.) the church, or city of God, is compared
to a city compact within itself; which compactness
may be found in many towns and cities of the world,
where yet hath not shined any spiritual or supernatural
goodness. Hence the Lord Jesus, Matt. xii. [25,]
describes an ill state of a house or kingdom, viz., to be
divided against itself, which cannot stand.
The civil goodness of cities, kingdoms, subjects, magistrates,
must be owned, although spiritual goodness, proper to the Christian state
or church, be wanting.
These I observe to prove, that a subject, a magistrate,
may be a good subject, a good magistrate, in respect of
civil or moral goodness, which thousands want; and where
it is, it is commendable and beautiful, though godliness,
which is infinitely more beautiful, be wanting, and which
is only proper to the Christian state, the commonweal of
Israel, the true church, the holy nation, Ephes. ii.;
1 Pet. ii.
Lastly, however the authors deny that there can be
bonus magistratus, a good magistrate, except he see all
godliness preserved; yet themselves confess that civil
honesty is sufficient to make a good subject, in these
words, viz., “He must see that honesty be preserved
within his jurisdiction, else the subject will not be bonus
cives, a good citizen;” and doubtless, if the law of relations
hold true, that civil honesty which makes a good citizen,
must also, together with qualifications fit for a commander,
make also a good magistrate.
CHAP. XCII.
Peace. The fourth head is, The proper means of both
these powers to attain their ends.
“First, the proper means whereby the civil power may
and should attain its end, are only political, and principally
these five.
“First, the erecting and establishing what form of civil
government may seem in wisdom most meet, according to
general rules of the word, and state of the people.
“Secondly, the making, publishing, and establishing of
wholesome civil laws, not only such as concern civil justice,
but also the free passage of true religion: for outward
civil peace ariseth and is maintained from them both, from
the latter as well as from the former.
“Civil peace cannot stand entire where religion is corrupted,
2 Chron. xv. 3, 5, 6; Judges viii. And yet such
laws, though conversant about religion, may still be
counted civil laws: as on the contrary, an oath doth still
remain religious, though conversant about civil matters.
“Thirdly, election and appointment of civil officers, to
see execution of those laws.
“Fourthly, civil punishments and rewards of transgressors
and observers of these laws.
“Fifthly, taking up arms against the enemies of civil
peace.
“Secondly, the means whereby the church may and
should attain her ends, are only ecclesiastical, which are
chiefly five.
“First, setting up that form of church government
only of which Christ hath given them a pattern in his
word.
“Secondly, acknowledging and admitting of no lawgiver
in the church but Christ, and the publishing of his
laws.
“Thirdly, electing and ordaining of such officers only
as Christ hath appointed in his word.
“Fourthly, to receive into their fellowship them that
are approved, and inflicting spiritual censures against them
that offend.
“Fifthly, prayer and patience in suffering any evil from
them that be without, who disturb their peace.
“So that magistrates, as magistrates, have no power of
setting up the form of church government, electing church
officers, punishing with church censures; but to see that
the church doth her duty herein. And on the other side, the
churches, as churches, have no power, though as members
of the commonweal they may have power, of erecting or
altering forms of civil government, electing of civil officers,
inflicting civil punishments—no, not on persons excommunicated—as
by deposing magistrates from their civil
authority, or withdrawing the hearts of the people against
them, to their laws, no more than to discharge wives, or
children, or servants, from due obedience to their husbands,
parents, or masters: or by taking up arms against their
magistrates, though they persecute them for conscience:
for though members of churches, who are public officers,
also of the civil state, may suppress by force the violence
of usurpers, as Jehoiada did Athaliah, yet this they do
not as members of the church, but as officers of the civil
state.”
Truth. Here are divers considerable passages, which I
shall briefly examine so far as concerns our controversy.
First, whereas they say, that the civil power may erect
and establish what form of civil government may seem in
wisdom most meet: I acknowledge the proposition to be
most true, both in itself, and also considered with the end
of it, that a civil government is an ordinance of God, to
conserve the civil peace of people so far as concerns their
bodies and goods, as formerly hath been said.
Civil power originally and fundamentally in the people.
But from this grant I infer, as before hath been touched,
that the sovereign, original, and foundation of civil power,
lies in the people—whom they must needs mean by the
civil power distinct from the government set up: and if
so, that a people may erect and establish what form of
government seems to them most meet for their civil condition.
It is evident that such governments as are by
them erected and established, have no more power, nor for
no longer time, than the civil power, or people consenting
and agreeing, shall betrust them with. This is clear not
only in reason, but in the experience of all commonweals,
where the people are not deprived of their natural freedom
by the power of tyrants.
Mr. Cotton and the New English ministers, give the government
of Christ’s church, or spouse, into the hands of the people, or
commonweal.
And if so—that the magistrates receive their power of
governing the church from the people—undeniably it
follows, that a people, as a people, naturally considered,
of what nature or nation soever in Europe, Asia, Africa,
or America, have fundamentally and originally, as men, a
power to govern the church, to see her do her duty, to
correct her, to redress, reform, establish, &c. And if this
be not to pull God, and Christ, and Spirit out of heaven,
and subject them unto natural, sinful, inconstant men, and
so consequently to Satan himself, by whom all peoples
naturally are guided, let heaven and earth judge.
The very Indian Americans made governors of the church by the
authors of these positions.
Peace. It cannot, by their own grant, be denied, but
that the wildest Indians in America ought (and in their
kind and several degrees do) to agree upon some forms of
government, some more civil compact in towns, &c., some
less. As also, that their civil and earthly governments be
as lawful and true as any governments in the world, and
therefore consequently their governors are keepers of the
church, of both tables, if any church of Christ should arise
or be amongst them: and therefore, lastly, if Christ have
betrusted and charged the civil power with his church,
they must judge according to their Indian or American
consciences, for other consciences it cannot be supposed
they should have.
CHAP. XCIII.
Truth. Again, whereas they say that outward civil
peace cannot stand where religion is corrupted; and quote
for it 2 Chron. xv. 3, 5, 6, and Judges viii.—
Many civil states in flourishing peace and quiet where the
Lord Jesus is not sounded.
I answer, with admiration, how such excellent spirits,
as these authors are furnished with, not only in heavenly
but earthly affairs, should so forget, and be so fast asleep
in things so palpably evident, as to say that outward civil
peace cannot stand where religion is corrupt. When so
many stately kingdoms and governments in the world
have long and long enjoyed civil peace and quiet, notwithstanding
their religion is so corrupt, as that there is
not the very name of Jesus Christ amongst them. And
this every historian, merchant, traveller, in Europe, Asia,
Africa, America, can testify: for so spake the Lord Jesus
himself, John xvi. [20,] The world shall sing and rejoice.
Secondly, for that scripture, 2 Chron. xv. 3, &c., relating
the miseries of Israel and Judah, and God’s plagues
upon that people for corruption of their religion, it must
still have reference to that peculiar state unto which God
called the seed of one man, Abraham, in a figure, dealing
so with them as he dealt not with any nation in the world,
Ps. cxlvii., Rom. ix.
The antitype to this state I have proved to be the
Christian church, which consequently hath been and is
afflicted with spiritual plagues, desolations, and captivities,
for corrupting of that religion which hath been revealed
unto them. This appears by the seven churches; and the
people of God, now so many hundred years in woful
bondage and slavery to the mystical Babel, until the time
of their joyful deliverance.
Peace. Yea; but they say that “such laws as are conversant
about religion may still be accounted civil laws,
as on the contrary an oath doth still remain religious,
though conversant about civil matters.”
Truth. Laws respecting religion are twofold.
Laws concerning religion, either religious or civil.
First, such as concern the acts of worship and the worship
itself, the ministers of it, their fitness or unfitness, to
be suppressed or established: and for such laws we find
no footing in the New Testament of Jesus Christ.
The very Indians abhor to disturb any conscience at worship.
Secondly, laws respecting religion may be such as
merely concern the civil state, bodies, and goods of such
and such persons, professing these and these religions;
viz., that such and such persons, notorious for mutinies,
treasons, rebellions, massacres, be disarmed: again, that
no persons, papists, Jews, Turks, or Indians, be disturbed
at their worship, a thing which the very Indians abhor to
practise toward any. Also, that immunity and freedom
from tax and toll may be granted unto the people of such
or such a religion, as the magistrate pleaseth, Ezra vii. 24.
These and such as are of this nature, concerning only
the bodies and goods of such and such religious persons, I
confess are merely civil.
Canons and constitutions pretended civil but indeed
ecclesiastical.
But now, on the other hand, that laws restraining
persons from such and such a worship, because the civil
state judgeth it to be false:—
That laws constraining to such and such a worship,
because the civil state judgeth this to be the only true
way of worshipping God:—
That such and such a reformation of worship be submitted
unto by all subjects in such a jurisdiction:—
That such and such churches, ministers, ministries, be
pulled down, and such and such churches, ministries, and
ministrations, set up:—
That such laws properly concerning religion, God, the
souls of men, should be civil laws and constitutions, is as
far from reason as that the commandments of Paul, which
he gave the churches concerning Christ’s worship (1 Cor.
xi. and 1 Cor. xiv.), were civil and earthly constitutions:
or that the canons and constitutions of either œcumenical
or national synods, concerning religion, should be civil and
state conclusions and arguments.
Laws merely concerning spiritual things must needs be
spiritual.
To that instance of an oath remaining religious, though
conversant about civil things; I answer and acknowledge,
an oath may be spiritual, though taken about earthly
business; and accordingly it will prove, and only prove,
what before I have said, that a law may be civil though it
concern persons of this and of that religion, that is, as the
persons professing it are concerned in civil respects of
bodies or goods, as I have opened; whereas if it concern
the souls and religions of men, simply so considered in
reference to God, it must of necessity put on the nature
of religious or spiritual ordinance or constitution.
Beside, it is a most improper and fallacious instance;
for an oath, being an invocation of a true or false God to
judge in a case, is an action of a spiritual and religious
nature, whatever the subject matter be about which it is
taken, whether civil or religious: but a law or constitution
may be civil or religious, as the subject about which it is
conversant is either civil, merely concerning bodies or
goods; or religious, concerning soul and worship.
CHAP. XCIV.
Peace. Their fifth head is concerning the magistrates’
power in making of laws.
“First, they have power to publish and apply such civil
laws in a state, as either are expressed in the word of God
in Moses’s judicials—to wit, so far as they are of general
and moral equity, and so binding all nations in all ages—to
be deducted by way of general consequence and proportion
from the word of God.
“For in a free state no magistrate hath power over the
bodies, goods, lands, liberties of a free people, but by their
free consents. And because free men are not free lords of
their own estates, but are only stewards unto God, therefore
they may not give their free consents to any magistrate
to dispose of their bodies, goods, lands, liberties, at
large as themselves please, but as God, the sovereign
Lord of all, alone. And because the word is a perfect
rule, as well of righteousness as of holiness, it will be
therefore necessary that neither the people give consent,
nor that the magistrate take power to dispose of the
bodies, goods, lands, liberties of the people, but according
to the laws and rules of the word of God.
“Secondly, in making laws about civil and indifferent
things about the commonweal,
“First, he hath no power given him of God to make
what laws he please, either in restraining from or constraining
to the use of indifferent things; because that
which is indifferent in its nature, may sometimes be inexpedient
in its use, and consequently unlawful, 1 Cor. ii. 5,
it having been long since defended upon good ground,
Quicquid non expedit, quatenus non expedit, non licet.
“Secondly, he hath no power to make any such laws
about indifferent things, wherein nothing good or evil is
shown to the people, but only on principally the mere
authority or will of the imposer, for the observance of them,
Col. ii. 21, 22; 1 Cor. vii. 23, compared with Eph. vi. 6.
“It is a prerogative proper to God to require obedience
of the sons of men, because of his authority and will.
“The will of no man is regula recti, unless first it be
regula recta.
“It is an evil speech of some, that in some things the
will of the law, not the ratio of it, must be the rule of
conscience to walk by; and that princes may forbid men
to seek any other reason but their authority, yea, when
they command frivola et dura. And therefore it is the
duty of the magistrate, in all laws about indifferent things,
to show the reasons, not only the will: to show the expediency,
as well as the indifferency of things of that
nature.
“For we conceive in laws of this nature, it is not the
will of the lawgiver only, but the reason of the law which
binds. Ratio est rex legis, et lex est rex regis.
“Thirdly, because the judgment of expedient and inexpedient
things is often difficult and diverse, it is meet that
such laws should not proceed without due consideration of
the rules of expediency set down in the word, which are
these three:
“First, the rule of piety, that they may make for the
glory of God, 1 Cor. x. 31.
“Secondly, the rule of charity, that no scandal come
hereby to any weak brother, 1 Cor. viii. 13.
“Thirdly, the rule of charity, that no man be forced to
submit against his conscience, Rom. xiv. 14, 23, nor be
judged of contempt of lawful authority, because he is not
suddenly persuaded of the expediency of indifferent things;
for if the people be bound by God to receive such laws
about such things, without any trial or satisfaction to the
conscience, but must judge them expedient because the
magistrate thinks them so, then the one cannot be punished
in following the other, in case he shall sin in calling
inexpedient expedient; but Christ saith the contrary, If
the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall.”
The authors’ large confession of the liberty of conscience,
from the laws of civil authority in spiritual cases.
Truth. In this passage these worthy men lay down such
a ground as the gates of hell are not able to shake, concerning
the magistrates’ walking in indifferent things: and
upon which ground that tower of Lebanon may be raised,
whereon there hang a thousand shields and bucklers,
Cant. iv. 4, to wit, that invincible truth, that no man is to
be persecuted for cause of conscience. The ground is
this, “The magistrate hath not power to make what laws
he please, either in restraining or constraining to the use
of indifferent things.” And further they confess, that the
reason of the law, not the will of it, must be the rule of
conscience. And they add this impregnable reason, viz.
“If the people be bound to receive such laws without
satisfaction to conscience, then one cannot be punished
for following the other, in case he shall sin contrary to
Christ Jesus, who saith, If the blind lead the blind, they shall
both fall.”
Civil magistrates confessed not to have power to urge the
conscience in indifferent things.
Hence I argue, if the civil magistrate have no power to
restrain or constrain their subjects in things in their own
nature indifferent, as in eating of meats, wearing this or
that garment, using this or that gesture; but that they
are bound to try and examine his commands, and satisfy
their own reason, conscience, and judgment before the
Lord, and that they shall sin, if they follow the magistrate’s
command, not being persuaded in their own soul
and conscience that his commands are according to God:
it will be much more unlawful and heinous in the magistrate
to compel the subjects unto that which, according to
their consciences’ persuasion, is simply unlawful, as unto a
falsely constituted church, ministry, worship, administration,
and they shall not escape the ditch, by being led
blindfold by the magistrate; but though he fall in first,
yet they shall [fall] in after him and upon him, to his
greater and more dreadful judgment.
In particular thus, if the magistrate may restrain me
from that gesture in the supper of the Lord which I am
persuaded I ought to practise, he may also restrain me by
his commands from that supper of the Lord itself in such
or such a church, according to my conscience.
If he cannot, as they grant, constrain me to such or
such a garment in the worship of God, can he constrain
me to worship God by such a ministry, and with such
worship, which my soul and conscience cannot be persuaded
is of God?
If he cannot command me in that circumstance of time
to worship God, this or that day, can he command me to
the worship itself?
A threefold guilt lying upon civil powers commanding the
subject’s soul in worship.
Peace. Methinks I discern a threefold guilt to lie upon
such civil powers as impose upon and enforce the conscience,
though not unto the ministration and participation of the
seals,[208] yet either to depart from that worship which it is
persuaded of, or to any exercise or worship which it hath
not faith in.
First. Of an appearance of that Arminian, popish doctrine
of free-will, as if it lay in their own power and ability to
believe upon the magistrate’s command, since it is confessed
that what is submitted to by any without faith it is sin, be
it never so true and holy, Rom. xiv. 23.
Secondly. Since God only openeth the heart and worketh
the will, Phil. ii. [13,] it seems to be a high presumption
to suppose, that together with a command
restraining from or constraining to worship, that God is
also to be forced or commanded to give faith, to open the
heart, to incline the will, &c.
Thirdly. A guilt of the hypocrisy of their subjects and
people, in forcing them to act and practise in matters of
religion and worship against the doubts and checks of
their consciences, causing their bodies to worship when
their souls are far off, to draw near with their lips, their
hearts being far off, &c.
Persons may with less sin be forced to marry whom they cannot
love, than to worship where they cannot believe.
With less sin ten thousand-fold may a natural father
force his daughter, or the father of the commonweal force
all the maidens in a country to the marriage-beds of such
and such men whom they cannot love, than the souls of
these and other subjects to such worship or ministry,
which is either a true or false bed, Cant. i. 16.
Truth. Sweet Peace, your conclusions are undeniable,
and oh! that they might sink deep into those noble and
honourable bosoms it so deeply concerns! But proceed.
CHAP. XCV.
Peace. In that fifth head they further say thus:—
“Thirdly. In matters ecclesiastical we believe, first,
that civil magistrates have no power to make or constitute
laws about church affairs, which the Lord Jesus hath not
ordained in his word for the well-ordering of the church;
for the apostle solemnly chargeth Timothy, and in him all
governors of the church, before God and the Lord Jesus
Christ, who is the only Potentate, the King of kings and
Lord of lords, that the commandment given by him for
the ordering of the church be kept without spot, unrebukeable,
to the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Tim. vi. 14,
15. And this commandment given in the word, the
apostle saith, is able to make the man of God perfect in all
righteousness, 2 Tim. iii. 17. And, indeed, the administration
of all Christ’s affairs, doth immediately aim at spiritual
and divine ends, as the worship of God, and the
salvation of men’s souls: and, therefore, no law nor means
can be devised by the wisdom or wit of man that can be
fit or able to reach such ends; but use must be made of
such only as the divine wisdom and holy will of God hath
ordained.
“Secondly. We believe the magistrate’s power in
making laws about church affairs, is not only thus limited
and restrained by Christ to matters which concern the
substance of God’s worship and of church government,
but also such as concern outward order: as in rites and
ceremonies for uniformity’s sake. For we find not in the
gospel, that Christ hath anywhere provided for the uniformity
of churches, but only for their unity.
“Paul, in matters of Christian liberty, commendeth the
unity of their faith in the Holy Spirit, giving order that
we should not judge nor condemn one another, in difference
of judgment and practice of such things where men
live to God on both sides, even though there were some
error on one side, Rom. xiv. 1-6. How much less in
things indifferent, where there may be no error on either
side.
“When the apostle directeth the church of Corinth,
that all things be done decently and in order, he meant not
to give power to church officers or to civil magistrates, to
order whatever they should think meet for decency and
order; but only to provide that all the ordinances of God
be administered in the church decently, without unnatural
or uncivil uncomeliness, as that of long hair, or women’s
prophesying, or the like; and orderly, without confusion
or disturbance of edification, as the speaking of many at
once in the church.
“Thirdly. We do nevertheless willingly grant, that
magistrates, upon due and diligent search what is the
counsel and will of God in his word concerning the right
ordering of the church, may and ought to publish and declare,
establish and ratify, such laws and ordinances as
Christ hath appointed in his word for the well ordering of
church affairs: both for the gathering of the church, and
the right administration of all the ordinances of God
amongst them, in such a manner as the Lord hath appointed
to edification. The law of Artaxerxes, Ezra vii.
23, was not usurpation over the church’s liberty; but a
royal and just confirmation of them: Whatsoever is commanded
by the God of heaven:—for why should there be
wrath against [the realm of] the king and his sons?”
Truth. Dear Peace, methinks I see before mine eyes a
wall daubed up, of which Ezekiel speaks, with untempered
mortar. Here they restrain the magistrate from making
laws, either concerning the substance or ceremony of religion,
but such only as Christ hath commanded; and those,
say they, they must publish and declare after the example
of Artaxerxes.
I shall herein perform two things: first, examine this
magistrate’s duty to publish, declare, &c., such laws and
ordinances as Christ hath appointed.
Secondly, I shall examine that proof from Artaxerxes,
Ezra vii. 23.
God’s Israel desirous of Saul’s arm of flesh.
In the first, methinks I hear the voice of the people of
Israel, 1 Sam. viii. 5, Make us a king, that may rule over us
after the manner of the nations: rejecting the Lord ruling
over them by his holy word, in the mouth of his prophets,
and sheltering themselves under an arm of flesh; which
arm of flesh God gave them in his anger, and cut off again
in his wrath, after he had persecuted David, the figure of
Christ Jesus, who hath given his people the sceptre and
sword of his word and Spirit, and refused a temporal
crown or weapons in the dispensation of his kingdom.
Where did the Lord Jesus or his messengers charge the
civil magistrate, or direct Christians to petition him, to
publish, declare, or establish by his arm of flesh and earthly
weapons, the religion and worship of Christ Jesus?
I find the beast and false prophet, whose rise and doctrine
is not from heaven, but from the sea and earth,
dreadful and terrible, by a civil sword and dignity,
Rev. xiii. 2.
I find the beast hath gotten the power and might of the
kings of the earth, Rev. xvii. 13.
The seven-headed beast and the Lamb differ in their weapons.
But the Lamb’s weapons are spiritually mighty, 2 Cor.
x. [4.] &c., his sword is two-edged, coming out of his
mouth, Rev. i. [16.] His preparations for war are white
horses and white harness, which are confessed by all to be
of a spiritual nature, Rev. xix.
Naboth’s case typical.
When that whore Jezebel stabbed Naboth with her pen,
in stirring up the people to stone him as a blasphemer of
God and the king, what a glorious mask or veil of holiness
she put on? Proclaim a fast, set a day apart for humiliation;
and for confirmation, let all be ratified by the king’s
authority, name, and seal, 1 Kings xxi. 8, 9.
Was not this recorded for all God’s Naboths, standing
for their spiritual interests in heavenly things—typed out
by the typical earth and ground of Canaan’s land—that
they through patience and comfort of the scriptures might
have hope? Rom. xv. 4.
Again, I demand, who shall here sit [to] judge, whether
the magistrate command any other substance or ceremony
but what is Christ’s?
By their former conclusions, every soul must judge
what the magistrate commandeth, and is not bound, even
in indifferent things, to the magistrates’ law, further than
his own soul, conscience, and judgment ascends to the
reason of it. Here, the magistrate must make laws for
that substance and ceremony which Christ appointed.
But yet he must not do this with his eyes open, but blindfold
and hoodwinked; for if he judge that to be the religion
of Christ, and such to be the order therein, which
their consciences judge otherwise, and assent not to, they
profess they must submit only to Christ’s laws, and therefore
they are not bound to obey him.
Civil powers abused as a guard about the bed of spiritual
whoredoms.
Oh! what is this but to make use of the civil powers
and governors of the world, as a guard about the spiritual
bed of soul-whoredoms, in which the kings of the earth
commit spiritual fornication with the great whore, Rev.
xvii. 2,—as a guard, while the inhabitants of the earth
are drinking themselves drunk with the wine of her
fornication?
But oh! what terrifyings, what allurings are in Jeremy’s
curse and blessing! Jer. xvii. [5.] Cursed is the man
that trusteth in man, that maketh flesh his arm,—too, too
common in spiritual matters—and whose heart departeth
from Jehovah: he shall be as a heath in the wilderness—even
in the spiritual and mystical wilderness—and shall not see
when comfort comes, but shall abide in drought in the wilderness,
in a barren land, &c.
CHAP. XCVI.
Peace. Oh! what mysteries are these to flesh and blood!
how hard for flesh to forsake the arm thereof! But pass
on, dear Truth, to their proof propounded, Ezra vii. 23,
wherein Artaxerxes confirmed by law whatever was commanded
by the God of heaven.
Ezra vii. 23, discussed.
Truth. In this scripture I mind, first, the people of God
captivated under the dominion and government of the
kings of Babel and Persia.
Secondly. Artaxerxes’s favour to these captives,
1. Of freedom to their consciences.
2. Of bounty towards them.
3. Of exempting of some of them from common
charges.
Thirdly. Punishments on offenders.
Fourthly. The ground that carries him on to all this.
Fifthly. Ezra praising of God for putting this into the
heart of the king.
God’s people not subject to the kings of Babel or Persia in
spirituals.
Concerning the people of God the Jews, they were as
lambs and sheep in the jaws of the lion, the dearly beloved
of his soul under the devouring tyrants of the world,
both the Babylonian and the Persian, far from their own
nation and the government of their own anointed kings,
the figures of the true King of the Jews, the Lord Jesus
Christ.
In this respect it is clear, that the Jews were no more
subject to the kings of Babylon and Persia in spiritual
things, than the vessels of the sanctuary were subject to
the king of Babel’s use, Dan. v.
Concerning this king, I consider, first, his person: a
gentile idolater, an oppressing tyrant, one of those devouring
beasts, Dan. vii. and viii. A hand of bloody conquest
set the crown upon the head of these monarchs; and
although in civil things they might challenge subjection,
yet why should they now sit down in the throne of
Israel, and govern the people and church of God in spiritual
things?
Tyrants’ hearts sometimes wonderfully mollified towards God’s
people.
Secondly. Consider his acts of favour, and they will not
amount to a positive command that any of the Jews
should go up to build the temple, nor that any of them
should practise his own worship, which he kept and judged
the best for his own soul and people.
It is true, he freely permits them and exerciseth a
bounteous assistance to them. All which argues no more,
but that sometimes it pleaseth God to open the hearts of
tyrants greatly to favour and further his people. Such
favour found Nehemiah and Daniel, and others of God’s
people have and shall find, so often as it pleaseth him to
honour them that honour him before the sons of men.
Peace. Who sees not how little this scripture contributes
to their tenent? But why, say some, should this king
confirm all with such severe punishments? and why for all
this should Ezra give thanks to God, if it were not imitable
for after times?
Truth. The law of God, which he confirmed, he knew
not, and therefore neither was, nor could he be a judge in
the case.
Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and Artaxerxes, their decrees
examined.
And for his ground, what was it but the common
terrors and convictions of an affrighted conscience?
In such fits and pangs, what have not Pharaohs, Sauls,
Ahabs, Herods, Agrippas spoken? And what wonderful
decrees have Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes,
put forth concerning the God of Israel, Dan. iii. and vi.,
and Ezra i. and vii., &c.; and yet as far from being
charged with, as they were from being affected to, the spiritual
crown of governing the worship of God, and the
conscience of his people.
Ezra’s thanksgiving for the king’s decree examined.
It is true, Ezra most piously and justly gave thanks to
God for putting such a thing into the heart of the king;
but what makes this a pattern for the laws of civil governors
now under the gospel? It suited well with that
national state of God’s church, that the gentile king
should release them, permit them to return to their own
land, assist them with other favours, and enable them to
execute punishments upon offenders according to their
national state.
But did God put such a thing as this into the heart of
the king, viz., to restrain upon pain of death all the millions
of men under his dominion from the idolatries of
their several and respective countries? to constrain them
all, upon the like penalty, to conform to the worship of
the God of Israel, to build him a temple, erect an altar,
ordain priests, offer sacrifice, observe the fasts and feasts of
Israel? Yea, did God put it into the king’s heart to send
Levites into all the parts of his dominion, compelling them
to hear? which is but a natural thing, as some unsoundly
speak,[209] unto which all are bound to submit.
The duty of all civil states toward the consciences of their
subjects.
Well, however, Ezra gives thanks to God for the king;
and so should all that fear God in all countries, if he
would please to put it into the hearts of the kings, states,
and parliaments, to take off the yokes of violence, and
permit, at least, the consciences of their subjects, and especially
such as in truth make conscience of their worships
to the God of Israel: and yet, no cause for Ezra then, or
God’s Ezras and Israelites now, to acknowledge the care
and charge of God’s worship, church, and ordinances, to lie
upon the shoulders of Artaxerxes, or any other civil
prince or ruler.
Christ needs no human confirmations.
Lastly. For the confirmation or ratification which
they suppose magistrates are bound to give to the laws of
Christ, I answer, God’s cause, Christ’s truth, and the two-edged
sword of his word, never stood in need of a temporal
sword or a human witness to confirm and ratify them.
If we receive the witness of an honest man, the witness of
the most holy God is greater, 1 John v. 9.
The sum of the examples of gentile kings decreeing for God’s
worship in scripture.
The result and sum of the whole matter is this:—1.
It may please God sometimes to stir up the rulers of
the earth to permit and tolerate, to favour and countenance,
God’s people in their worships, though only out of some
strong conviction of conscience or fear of wrath, &c.: and
yet themselves neither understand God’s worship, nor
leave their own state, idolatry, or country’s worship.
For this God’s people ought to give thanks unto God;
yea, and all men from this example may learn, not to
charge upon the magistrates’ conscience—besides the care
of the civil peace, the bodies and goods of men—the
spiritual peace, in the worship of God and souls of
men; but hence are magistrates instructed favourably to
permit their subjects in their worships, although themselves
be not persuaded to submit to them, as Nebuchadnezzar,
Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes did.
CHAP. XCVII.
Peace. The sixth question is this:—How far the church
is subject to their laws?
“All those,” say they, “who are members of the
commonweal are bound to be subject to all the just and
righteous laws thereof, and therefore, membership in
churches not cutting men off from membership in commonweals,
they are bound to be subject, even every soul,
Rom. xiii. 1, as Christ himself and the apostles were in
their places wherein they lived. And therefore to exempt
the clergy, as the papists do, from civil subjection, and to
say that generatio clerici is corruptio subditi, is both sinful
and scandalous to the gospel of God; and though all are
equally subject, yet church members are more especially
bound to yield subjection, and the most eminent most
especially bound, not only because conscience doth more
strongly bind, but also because their ill examples are
more infectious to others, pernicious to the state, and provoke
God’s wrath to bring vengeance on the state.
“Hence, if the whole church, or officers of the church,
shall sin against the state, or any person, by sedition, contempt
of authority, heresy, blasphemy, oppression, slander,
or shall withdraw any of their members from the service
of the state without the consent thereof, their persons and
estates are liable to civil punishments of magistrates, according
to their righteous and wholesome laws, Exod.
xxii. 20; Levit. xxiv. 16; Deut. xiii. 5, and xviii. 10.”
Truth. What concerns this head in civil things, I gladly
subscribe unto: what concerns heresy, blasphemy, &c., I
have plentifully before spoken to, and shall here only say
two things.
First. Those scriptures produced concern only the people
of God in a church estate, and must have reference
only to the church of Christ Jesus, which, as Mr. Cotton confesseth,[210]
is not national but congregational, of so many as
may meet in one place, 1 Cor. xiv. [23.] and therefore no
civil state can be the antitype and parallel: to which purpose,
upon the eleventh question, I shall at large show the
difference between the national church and state of Israel,
and all other states and nations in the world.
The law of putting to death blasphemers of Christ, cuts off
all hopes from the Jews of partaking in his blood.
Secondly. If the rulers of the earth are bound to put
to death all that worship other gods than the true God, or
that blaspheme (that is, speak evil of in a lesser or higher
degree) that one true God: it must unavoidably follow,
that the beloved for the Father’s sake, the Jews, whose very
religion blasphemeth Christ in the highest degree—I say,
they are actually sons of death, and all to be immediately
executed according to those quoted scriptures. And—
The direful effects of fighting for conscience.
Secondly. The towns, cities, nations, and kingdoms of
the world, must generally be put to the sword, if they
speedily renounce not their gods and worships, and so cease
to blaspheme the true God by their idolatries. This
bloody consequence cannot be avoided by any scripture
rule, for if that rule be of force, Deut. xiii. and xviii., not
to spare or show mercy upon person or city falling to
idolatry, that bars out all favour or partiality; and then
what heaps upon heaps in the slaughter-houses and
shambles of civil laws must the world come to, as I have
formerly noted; and that unnecessarily, it being not
required by the Lord Jesus for his sake, and the magistrate’s
power and weapons being essentially civil, and so
not reaching to the impiety or ungodliness but the incivility
and unrighteousness of tongue or hand.
CHAP. XCVIII.
Peace. Dear Truth, these are the poisoned daggers
stabbing at my tender heart! Oh, when shall the Prince
of peace appear, and reconcile the bloody sons of men!
but let me now propose their seventh head: viz.,—
“In what order may the magistrate execute punishment
on a church or church member that offendeth his
laws?
“First. Gross and public, notorious sins, which are
against the light of conscience, as heresy, &c., there the
magistrate keeping him under safe ward should send the
offender first to the church to heal his conscience, still
provided that the church be both able and willing thereunto:
by which means the magistrate shall convince such
a one’s conscience that he seeketh his healing, rather than
his hurt.
“The censure also against him shall proceed with more
power and blessing, and none shall have cause to say that
the magistrate persecutes men for their consciences, but
that he justly punishes such a one for sinning rather
against his conscience, Tit. iii. 10.
“Secondly, in private offences how the magistrate may
proceed, see chap. xii. It is not material whether the
church or magistrate take it first in hand. Only with
this caution, that if the state take it first in hand, they are
not to proceed to death or banishment, until the church
hath taken their course with him, to bring him to repentance,
provided that the church be willing and ready
thereunto.
“Secondly, in such sins wherein men plead conscience, as
heresy,” &c.
Truth. Here I have many just exceptions and considerations
to present.
First, they propose a distinction of some sins: some
are against the light of conscience, &c., and they instance
in heresy.
Error is confident as well as truth.
Ans. I have before discussed this point of a heretic
sinning against light of conscience. And I shall add, that
however they lay this down as an infallible conclusion,
that all heresy is against light of conscience, yet—to pass
by the discussion of the nature of heresy, in which respect
it may so be that even themselves may be found heretical,
yea, and that in fundamentals—how do all idolaters after
light presented, and exhortations powerfully pressed,
either Turks or pagans, Jews or anti-christians, strongly
even to the death hold fast, or rather are held fast by,
their delusions.
God’s people as well as others will be found obstinate in
fundamental errors, in which sufferings and persecution doth harden.
Yea, God’s people themselves, being deluded and captivated,
are strongly confident even against some fundamentals,
especially of worship: and yet not against the
light, but according to the light or eye of a deceived
conscience.
Now all these consciences walk on confidently and constantly,
even to the suffering of death and torments; and
are more strongly confirmed in their belief and conscience,
because such bloody and cruel courses of persecution are
used toward them.
Secondly, speaks not the scripture expressly of the
Jew, Isa. vi., Matt. xiii., Acts xxviii., that God hath given
them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see,
&c.? all which must be spoken of the very conscience,
which He that hath the golden key of David can only shut
and open, and all the picklocks or swords in all the
smiths’ shops in the world can neither by force or fraud
prevent his time.
Strong delusions.
Is it not said of anti-christians, 2 Thess. ii., that God
hath sent them strong delusions? so strong and efficacious
that they believe a lie, and that so confidently, and some
so conscientiously, that death itself cannot part between
the delusion and their conscience.
“Again, the magistrate, say they, keeping him in safe
ward: that is, the heretic, the blasphemer, idolater,” &c.
Peace. I here ask all men that love even the civil peace,
where the Lord Jesus hath spoken a tittle of a prison or
safe ward to this purpose?
Truth. We find indeed a prison threatened by God to
his irreconciled enemies, neglecting to account with him,
Matt. v. 25.
We find a prison into which persecutors cast the saints.
So John, so Paul, and the apostles, Matt. xiv. 10, &c.,
were cast; and the great commander of, and caster into
prison, is the devil, Rev. ii. 10.
Spiritual prisons.
We find a spiritual prison, indeed, a prison for spirits,
1 Pet. iii. 19, the spirits formerly rebellious against Christ
Jesus, speaking by Noah unto them, now kept in safe
ward against the judgment of the great day.
In excommunication, a soul obstinate in sin is delivered
to Satan his jailor, and he keeps him in safe ward, until it
pleaseth God to release him.
There is a prison for the devil himself a thousand years,
Rev. xx. [2, 3.] And a lake of eternal fire and brimstone,
into which the beast and false prophet, and all not written
in the Lamb’s book, and the devil that deceived them,
shall eternally be there secured and tormented.
Christ Jesus appointed no material prisons for blasphemers of
him, &c.
But neither amongst these, nor in any other passage of
the New Testament, do we find a prison appointed by
Christ Jesus for the heretic, blasphemer, idolater, &c.
being not otherwise guilty against the civil state.
The bishops’ prisons.
It is true, anti-christ, by the help of civil powers, hath
his prisons to keep Christ Jesus and his members fast:
such prisons may well be called the bishops’ prisons, the
pope’s, the devil’s prisons. These inquisition-houses have
ever been more terrible than the magistrate’s.
At first, persecuting bishops borrowed prisons of the
civil magistrate, as now their successors do still in the
world; but afterward they wrung the keys out of the
magistrates’ hands, and hung them at their own girdles,
and would have prisons of their own: as doubtless will
that generation still do, if God prevent them not.
CHAP. XCIX.
Peace. Again, say they, the magistrate should send him
first to the church to heal his conscience.
Like mother like daughter.
Truth. Is not this as the prophet speaks [Ezek. xvi. 44,]
like mother like daughter? So the mother of whoredoms,
the church of Rome, teacheth and practiseth with all her
heretics: first let the holy church convince them, and then
deliver them to the secular power to receive the punishment
of heretics.
Conscience not so easily healed and cured.
Peace. Methinks also they approach near that popish
tenent, ex opere operato: for their exhortations and admonitions
must necessarily be so operative and prevalent,
that if the heretic repent not, he now sins against his conscience:
not remembering that peradventure, 2 Tim. ii.
[25,] If peradventure, God will give them repentance; and
how strong delusions are, and believing of lies, and how
hard it is to be undeceived, especially in spirituals!
Truth. And as it may so prove, when a heretic indeed
is brought to this college of physicians to have his conscience
healed, and one heretic is to cure another. So
also when any of Christ’s witnesses, supposed heretics, are
brought before them, how doth the Lord Jesus suffer
whippings and stabs, when his name, and truths, and
witnesses, and ordinances, are all profaned and blasphemed.
Wounding instead of healing of consciences.
Besides, suppose a man to be a heretic, and yet suppose
him brought as the magistrate’s prisoner, though to a true
church, to heal his conscience: what promise of presence
and blessing hath the Lord Jesus made to his church and
spouse in such a way? and how common is it for heretics
either to be desperately hardened by such cruel courses
(yet pretending soul-healing), or else through fear and
terror to practise gross hypocrisy, even against their consciences.
So that these chirurgeons and physicians pretending
to heal consciences by such a course, wound them
deeper, and declare themselves chirurgeons and physicians
of no value.
Peace. But what think you of the proviso added to
their proposition, viz., “Provided the church be able and
willing?”
Christ’s spouse able and willing to heal wounded consciences.
Truth. Doubtless this proviso derogates not a little from
the nature of the spouse of Christ. For she, like that
gracious woman, Prov. xxxi. 26, openeth her mouth with
wisdom, and in her tongue is the law of grace: she is the
pillar and ground of truth, 1 Tim. iii. 15, the golden candlestick
from whence true light shineth: the angels or
ministers thereof able to try false apostles, Rev. ii. 2, and
convince the gainsayers, Tit. i. 9.
Again, according to their principles of suppressing persons
and churches falsely worshipping, how can they
permit such a blind and dead church not able and willing
to heal a wounded conscience?
Peace. What should be the reason of this their expression?
Truth. Doubtless their consciences tell them how few
of those churches which they yet acknowledge churches,
are able and willing to hold forth Christ Jesus the Sun of
righteousness, healing with his wings the doubting and
afflicted conscience.
Lastly, their conscience tells them, that a servant of
Christ Jesus may possibly be sent as a heretic to be
healed by a false church, which church will never be
willing to deal with him, or never be able to convince him.
Peace. Yea, but they say, “by such a course the
magistrate shall convince such a one’s conscience that he
seeks his good,” &c.
Truth. If a man thus bound be sent to a church to be
healed in his conscience, either he is a heretic or he is
not.
A persecuting church disputes with a heretic as a cat with the
mouse; and with a true witness as a lion with a lamb in his paw.
Admit he be: yet he disputes in fear, as the poor thief;
[or as] the mouse disputes with a terrible persecuting cat,
who while she seems to play and gently toss, yet the conclusion
is a proud, insulting, and devouring cruelty.
If no heretic, but an innocent and faithful witness of
any truth of Jesus, disputes he not as a lamb in the lion’s
paw, being sure in the end to be torn in pieces?
Peace. They add, “The censure, this way, proceeds
with more power and blessing.”
Truth. All power and blessing is from the blessed Son
of God, unto whom all power is given from the Father, in
heaven and earth. He hath promised his presence with
his messengers, preaching and baptizing, to the world’s
end, ratifying in heaven what they bind or loose on earth.
But let any man show me such a commission, instruction,
and promise, given by the Son of God to civil
powers in these spiritual affairs of his Christian kingdom
and worship?
Peace. Lastly, they conclude, “This course of first
sending the heretic to be healed by the church, takes
away all excuse; for none can say that he is persecuted
for his conscience, but for sinning against his conscience.”
Persecutors endure not so to be called.
Truth. Jezebel, placing poor Naboth before the elders
as a blasphemer of God and the king, and sanctifying the
plotted and intended murder with a day of humiliation,
may seem to take away all excuse, and to conclude the
blasphemer worthy to be stoned. But Jehovah, the God
of recompences (Jer. li. 56), when he makes inquisition
for blood, will find both Jezebel and Ahab guilty, and
make the dogs a feast with the flesh of Jezebel, and leave
not to Ahab a man to piss against the wall; for (as Paul
in his own plea) there was nothing committed worthy of
death: and against thee, O king, saith Daniel, I have not
sinned (Dan. vi. 22) in any civil fact against the state.
CHAP. C.
Peace. Their eighth question is this, viz., what power
magistrates have about the gathering of churches?
“First, the magistrate hath power, and it is his duty to
encourage and countenance such persons as voluntarily
join themselves in holy covenant, both by his presence (if
it may be) and promise of protection, they accepting the
right hand of fellowship from other neighbour churches.
“Secondly, he hath power to forbid all idolatrous and
corrupt assemblies, who offer to put themselves under
their patronage, and shall attempt to join themselves into
a church-estate, and if they shall not hearken, to force
them therefrom by the power of the sword, Ps. ci. 8.
For our tolerating many religions in a state in several
churches, besides the provoking of God, may in time not
only corrupt, leaven, divide, and so destroy the peace of
the churches, but also dissolve the continuity of the state,
especially ours, whose walls are made of the stones of the
churches, it being also contrary to the end of our planting
in this part of the world, which was not only to enjoy the
pure ordinances, but to enjoy them all in purity.
“Thirdly, he hath power to compel all men within his
grant to hear the word: for hearing the word of God is a
duty, which the light of nature leadeth even heathens to.
The Ninevites heard Jonah, though a stranger, and unknown
unto them to be an extraordinary prophet, Jonah iii.
And Eglon, the king of Moab, hearing that Ehud had a
message from God, he rose out of his seat for more
reverent attention, Judg. iii. 20.
“Yet he hath no power to compel all men to become
members of churches, because he hath not power to make
them fit members for the church, which is not wrought by
the power of the sword, but by the power of the word;
nor may we force the churches to accept of any for members
but those whom the churches themselves can freely
approve of.”
Truth. To the first branch of this head I answer, that
the magistrate should encourage and countenance the
church, yea, and protect the persons of the church from
violence, disturbance, &c., it being truly noble and glorious,
by how much the spouse and queen of the Lord
Jesus transcends the ladies, queens, and empresses of the
world in glory, beauty, chastity, and innocency.
It is true, all magistrates in the world do this: viz.,
encourage and protect the church or assembly of worshippers
which they judge to be true and approve of;
but not permitting other consciences than their own, it
hath come to pass in all ages, and yet doubtless will, that
the Lord Jesus and his queen are driven and persecuted
out of the world.
To the second, that the magistrate ought to suppress all
churches which he judgeth false, he quoteth Ps. ci. 8, Betimes
I will cut off the wicked of the land; that I may cut off
all evil doers from the city of Jehovah: unto which he
addeth four reasons.
Peace. Dear Truth, first, a word to that scripture, so
often quoted, and so much boasted of.
Ps. ci. 8, concerning the cutting off the wicked, examined.
Truth. Concerning that holy land of Canaan, concerning
the city of Jehovah, Jerusalem, out of which king
David here resolves to cut off all the wicked and evil
doers, I shall speak more largely on the eleventh head or
question, in the differences between that and all other
lands.
No land of Canaan, nor holy city, now.
At present I answer, there is no holy land or city of the
Lord, no king of Sion, &c., but the church of Jesus
Christ, and the King thereof, according to 1 Pet. ii. 9,
Ye are a holy nation; and Jerusalem is the holy people of
God in the true profession of Christianity, Heb. xii., Gal.
iv., and Rev. xxi., out of which the Lord Jesus by his
holy ordinances, in such a government, and by such
governors as he hath appointed, he cuts off every wicked
person and evil doer.
No difference of lands and cities since the coming, as was
before the coming, of the Lord Jesus.
If Christ Jesus had intended any difference of place,
cities, or countries, doubtless Jerusalem and Samaria had
been thought of, or the cities of Asia, wherein the Christian
religion was so gloriously planted.
But the Lord Jesus disclaims Jerusalem and Samaria
from having any respect of holiness more than other cities,
John iv. 21.
And the Spirit of God evidently testifieth that the
churches were in the cities and countries, not that the
whole cities or countries were God’s holy land and cities,
out of which all false worshippers and wicked persons
were to be cut, Rev. ii. and iii.
The devil’s throne was in the city of Pergamos in
respect of the state and persecution of it, and yet there
was also the throne of the Lord Jesus set up in his
church or worshippers in Pergamos, out of which the
Balaamites, and Nicolaitanes, and every false worshipper,
were to be cast, though not out of the city of Pergamos:
for then Pergamos must have been thrown out of Pergamos,
and the world out of the world.
CHAP. CI.
Peace. Oh! that my head were a fountain, and mine
eyes rivers of tears, to lament my children, the children of
peace and light, thus darkening that and other lightsome
scriptures with such dark and direful clouds of blood.
The bloody interpretation of Ps. ci.
Truth. Sweet Peace, thy tears are seasonable and precious,
and bottled up in the heavens; but let me add a second
consideration from that scripture. If that scripture may
now literally be applied to nations and cities, in a parallel
to Canaan and Jerusalem, since the gospel, and this Ps. ci.
be literally to be applied to cities, towns, and countries in
Europe and America, not only such as essay to join themselves
(as they here speak) in a corrupt church estate, but
such as know no church estate, nor God, nor Christ, yea,
every wicked person and evil doer, must be hanged or
stoned, &c., as it was in Israel; and if so, how many
thousands and millions of men and women in the several
kingdoms and governments of the world, must be cut off
from their lands, and destroyed from their cities, as this
scripture speaks!
Thirdly, since those persons in the New English plantations
accounted unfit for church estate, yet remain all
members of the church of England, from which New
England dares not separate, no not in their sacraments (as
some of the independents have published), what riddle or
mystery, or rather fallacy of Satan is this![211]
The New English separate in America, but not in Europe.
Peace. It will not be offence to charity to make conjecture:
first, herein New England churches secretly call
their mother whore, not daring in America to join with
their own mother’s children, though unexcommunicate:
no, nor permit them to worship God after their consciences,
and as their mother hath taught them this
secretly and silently, they have a mind to do, which publicly
they would seem to disclaim, and profess against.
The New English permit not their brethren of Old England
to enjoy their consciences, lest their own numbers might exceed their
own, or at least the greatness of their own assemblies and maintenances
decrease.
Secondly, if such members of Old England should be
suffered to enjoy their consciences in New England—however
it is pretended they would profane ordinances for
which they are unfit (as true it is in that natural persons
are not fit for spiritual worship), yet this appears not to
be the bottom, for in Old England the New English join
with Old in the ministration of the word, prayer, singing,
contribution, maintenance of the ministry, &c.—if, I say,
they should set up churches after their conscience, the
greatness and multitudes of their own assemblies would
decay, and with all the contributions and maintenance of
their ministers, unto which all or most have been forced.
Truth. Dear Peace, these are more than conjectures,
thousands now espy; and all that love the purity of the
worship of the living God should lament such halting. I
shall add this, not only do they partially neglect to cut off
the wicked of the land, but such as themselves esteemed
beloved and godly have they driven forth, and keep out
others which would come unto them, eminently godly by
their own confession; because differing in conscience and
worship from them, and consequently not to be suffered in
their holy land of Canaan.[212]
But having examined that scripture alleged, let us now
weigh their reasons.
First, say they, the not cutting off by the sword, but
tolerating many religions in a state would provoke God:
unto which—
Christ Jesus never appointed all religions but his own to be
cut off by the civil sword.
I answer, first (and here being no scripture produced to
these reasons, shall the sooner answer), that no proof can
be made from the institutions of the Lord Jesus that all
religions but one are to be cut off by the civil sword;
that national church in that typical land of Canaan being
abolished and the Christian commonweal or church instituted.
A bloody mother.
Secondly. I affirm that the cutting off by the sword
other consciences and religions, is (contrarily) most provoking
unto God, expressly against his will concerning
the tares, Matt. xiii., as I have before proved; as also the
bloody mother of all those monstrous mischiefs, where
such cutting off is used, both to the souls and bodies of
men.
Thirdly. Let conscience and experience speak how in
the not cutting off of their many religions, it hath pleased
God not only not to be provoked, but to prosper the state
of the United Provinces, our next neighbours, and that to
admiration.
Peace. The second reason is, such tolerating would
leaven, divide, and destroy the peace of the churches.
Christ’s spiritual power most powerful.
Truth. This must also be denied upon so many former
scriptures and reasons produced, proving the power of the
Lord Jesus, and the sufficiency of his spiritual power in
his church, for the purging forth and conquering of the
least evil: yea, and for the bringing every thought in
subjection unto Christ Jesus, 2 Cor. x.
Christ forbidding his followers to permit leaven in the
church, doth not forbid to permit leaven in the world.
I add, they have not produced one scripture, nor can, to
prove that the permitting of leaven of false doctrine in
the world or civil state, will leaven the churches: only we
find that the permission of leaven in persons, doctrines, or
practices in the church, that indeed will corrupt and
spread, 1 Cor. v., and Gal. v.; but this reason should
never have been alleged, were not the particular churches
in New England but as so many implicit parish churches
in one implicit national church.
Peace. Their third reason is, it will dissolve the continuity
of the state, especially theirs, where the walls are
made of the stones of the churches.
The wall, Cant. viii. 9, discussed.
Truth. I answer briefly to this bare affirmation thus:
that the true church is a wall spiritual and mystical,
Cant. viii. 9.
That consequently a false church or company is a false
or pretended wall, and none of Christ’s.
The civil state, power, and government is a civil wall,
&c., and—
Lastly. The walls of earth or stone about a city, are the
natural or artificial wall or defence of it.
Now, in consideration of these four walls, I desire it
may be proved from the scriptures of truth, how the false
spiritual wall, or company of false worshippers suffered in
a city, can be able to destroy the true Christian wall, or
company of believers.
A spiritual wall cannot properly impair the civil.
Again, how this false spiritual wall, or false church permitted,
can destroy the civil wall, the state and government
of the city and citizens, any more than it can
destroy the natural or artificial wall of earth or stone.
Spiritual may destroy spiritual, if a stronger and
victorious; but spiritual cannot reach to artificial or civil.
Peace. Yea; but they fear the false spiritual wall may
destroy their civil, because it is made of the stones of
churches.
Truth. If this have reference to that practice amongst
them, viz., that none but members of churches enjoy civil
freedom amongst them, ordinarily,[213] in imitation of that
national church or state of the Jews, then I answer, they
that follow Moses’s church constitution, which the New
English by such a practice implicitly do, must cease to
pretend to the Lord Jesus Christ and his institutions.
Many flourishing civil states where true churches are not
found.
Secondly. We shall find lawful civil states, both before
and since Christ Jesus, in which we find not any tidings
of the true God or Christ.
Lastly. Their civil New English state, framed out of
their churches, may yet stand, subsist, and flourish,
although they did—as by the word of the Lord they
ought—permit either Jews, or Turks, or anti-christians
to live amongst them subject unto their civil government.
CHAP. CII.
Peace. One branch more, viz., the third, remains of
this head, and it concerns the hearing of the word;
“Unto which,” say they, “all men are to be compelled;
because hearing of the word is a duty which even nature
leadeth heathens to.” For this they quote the practice
of the Ninevites hearing Jonah, and Eglon, king of
Moab’s rising up to Ehud’s pretended message from God,
Judg. iii.
Hearing discussed. Every religion prefers its own priests and
ministers before all other.
Truth. I must deny that position: for light of nature
leadeth men to hear that only which nature conceiveth to
be good for it, and therefore not to hear a messenger,
minister, or preacher, whom conscience persuades is a
false messenger or deceiver, and comes to deceive my
soul: as millions of men and women in their several respective
religions and consciences are so persuaded, conceiving
their own to be true.
Jonah’s preaching to the Ninevites, and their hearing of his
message, examined.
Secondly. As concerning the instances. Jonah did not
compel the Ninevites to hear that message which he
brought unto them.
Besides, the matter of compulsion to a constant worship
of the word in church estate, which is the question, comes
not near Jonah’s case.
Nor did Christ Jesus, or any of his ambassadors, so
practise; but if persons refused to hear, the command of
the Lord Jesus to his messengers was only to depart from
them, shaking off the dust of their feet with a denunciation
of God’s wrath against them, Matt. x.; Acts xiv.
Eglon’s rising up to Ehud’s message, examined.
Concerning Eglon’s rising up: first, Ehud compelled
not that king either to hear or reverence, and all that can
be imitable in Eglon is a voluntary and willing reverence,
which persons ought to express to what they are persuaded
comes from God.
But how do both these instances mightily convince and
condemn themselves, who not only profess to turn away
from, but also persecute or hurt, all such as shall dare to
profess a ministry or church estate differing from their
own, though for personal godliness and excellency of gifts
reverenced by themselves.
A twofold ministry of Christ, converting and feeding.
Thirdly. To the point of compulsion: it hath pleased
the Lord Jesus to appoint a twofold ministry of his word.
First. For unbelievers and their conversion, according to
Matt. xxviii. 19, Mark xvi. 15, 16, and the constant
practice of the apostles in the first preaching of the
gospel.
Secondly. A ministry of feeding and nourishing up
such as are converted and brought into church estate,
according to Ephes. iv. &c. Now to neither of these do
we find any compulsion appointed by the Lord Jesus, or
practised by any of his.
The compulsion preached and practised in New England,
is not to the hearing of that ministry sent forth to convert
unbelievers, and to constitute churches, for such a ministry
they practise not; but to the hearing of the word of edification,
exhortation, consolation, dispensed only in the
churches of worshippers. I apply,—
When Paul came first to Corinth to preach Jesus
Christ, by their rule the magistrates of Corinth ought by
the sword to have compelled all the people of Corinth to
hear Paul.
Paul never used any civil compulsion.
Secondly. After a church of Christ was gathered, by
their rule, the magistrates of Corinth ought to have compelled
the people still, even those who had refused his
doctrine (for the few only of the church embraced it) to
have heard the word still, and to have kept one day in
seven to the Christian’s God, and to have come to the
Christian’s church all their days. And what is this but a
settled formality of religion and worship, unto which a
people are brought by the power of the sword?
The New English forcing their subjects to church all their
days, and yet forcing them not to any religion (as they say), they force
the people then to be of no religion all their days.
And however they affirm that persons are not to be
compelled to be members of churches, nor the church
compelled to receive any: yet if persons be compelled to
forsake their religion which their hearts cleave to, and to
come to church, to the worship of the word, prayers,
psalms, and contributions, and this all their days, I ask,
whether this be not this people’s religion, unto which submitting,
they shall be quiet all their days, without the
enforcing them to the practice of any other religion? And
if this be not so, then I ask, will it not inevitably follow,
that they not only permit but enforce people to be of no
religion at all, all their days?
This toleration of religion, or rather irreligious compulsion,
is above all tolerations monstrous, to wit, to compel
men to be of no religion all their days. I desire all
men, and these worthy authors of this model, to lay their
hands upon their heart, and to consider whether this compulsion
of men to hear the word, as they say, whether it
carries men, to wit, to be of no religion all their days:—worse
than the very Indians, who dare not live without
religion according as they are persuaded.
The civil state can no more lawfully compel the consciences of
men to church to hear the word, than to receive the sacraments.
Lastly, I add—From the ordinance of the Lord Jesus,
and practice of the apostles (Acts ii. 42), where the word
and prayer is joined with the exercise of their fellowship
and breaking of bread, in which exercises the church
continued constantly—that it is apparent that a civil state
may as lawfully compel men by the civil sword to the
breaking of bread, or Lord’s supper, as to the word, or
prayer, or fellowship.
For, first, they are all of the same nature, ordinances
in the church (I speak of the feeding ministry in the
church, unto which persons are compelled) and church
worship. Secondly, every conscience in the world is
fearful, at least shy of the priests and ministers of other
gods and worships, and of holding spiritual fellowship in
any of their services; which is the case of many a soul,
viz. to question the ministers themselves, as well as the
supper itself.
CHAP. CIII.
Peace. Dear Truth, this pressing of men to the spiritual
battles of Christ Jesus, is the cause why (as it is
commonly with pressed soldiers) that so many thousands fly
in the day of battle. But I present you with the ninth
question, viz.
What power the magistrate hath in providing of church
officers?
“First, say they, the election of church officers being
the proper act of the church, therefore the magistrate hath
no power, either as prince or patron, to assume such power
unto himself. Whom Christ sends to preach by his
supreme power, the magistrate may send forth by his
power subordinate, to gather churches, and may force
people to hear them, but not invest them with office
amongst them.
“Secondly, the maintenance of church-officers being to
arise from all those who are ordinarily taught thereby,
Gal. vi. 6, hence it is the duty of the civil magistrate to
contend with the people, as Nehemiah did, chap. xiii.
10, 11, who do neglect and forsake the due maintenance
of the church of God, and to command them to give such
portion for the maintenance of church officers, as the
gospel commandeth to be offered to them, freely and
bountifully, 2 Cor. ix. 5, 6, 7. According as Hezekiah
commanded the people to give to the priests and Levites
the portions appointed by the law, that they might be
encouraged in the law of the Lord, 2 Chron. xxxi. 4.
“Thirdly, the furnishing the church with set officers,
depending much upon erecting and maintenance of schools,
and good education of youth, and it lying chiefly in the
hand of the magistrate to provide for the furthering
thereof, they may therefore and should so far provide for
the churches as to erect schools, take care for fit governors
and tutors: and commend it to all the churches, if they
see it meet, that in all the churches within the jurisdiction,
once in a year, and if it may be, the sabbath before the
general court of election, there be a free-will offering of
all people for the maintenance of such schools: and the
monies of every town so given, to be brought on the day
of election to the treasury of the college, and the monies
to be disposed by such who are so chosen for the disposing
thereof.”
Truth. In the choice of officers, it is very obscure what
they mean by this supreme power of Christ Jesus sending
to preach.
We know the commission of the Lord Jesus to his first
messengers to go into all nations to preach and gather
churches, and they were immediately sent forth by him.
But Mr. Cotton elsewhere holdeth, that there is now
extant no immediate ministry from Christ, but mediate,
that is, from the church.
Let us first see how they agree with themselves, and
secondly how they agree with the magistrate in this
business.
In the first pattern there is a converting ministry to gather
the church or flock of Christ.
First, if they hold a sending forth to preach by Christ’s
supreme power, according to Matt. xxviii., Mark xvi.,
Rom. x., they must necessarily grant a time when the
church is not, but is to be constituted out of the nations
and peoples now converted by this preaching: whence,
according to the course of scripture, the nature of the
work, and their own grant in this place, it is apparent that
there is a ministry before the church, gathering and
espousing the church to Christ: and therefore their own
tenent must needs be too light, viz. that there is no
ministry but that which is mediate from the
church.
Peace. Blessed Truth, this doctrine of a ministry before
the church, is harsh and deep, yet most true, most sweet.
Yet you know their ground, that two or three godly
persons may join themselves together, become a church,
make officers, send them forth to preach, to convert, to
baptize, and gather new churches.
No precedent of any people in the gospel converting and
gathering themselves without some messenger sent from the Lord to effect
those ends.
Truth. I answer, first, we find not in the first institution
and pattern, that ever any such two, or three, or
more, did gather and constitute themselves a church of
Christ, without a ministry sent from God to invite and
call them by the word, and to receive them unto fellowship
with God upon the receiving of that word and
message. And therefore it may very well be queried,
how, without such a ministry, two or three become a
church? and how the power of Christ is conveyed unto
them? who espoused this people unto Jesus Christ, as
the church at Corinth was espoused by Paul? 2 Cor. xi.
2. If it be said, themselves: or if it be said, the scriptures:
let one instance be produced in the first patterns
and practices of such a practice.
It hath been generally confessed, that there is no coming
to the marriage-feast without a messenger inviting, sent
from God to the souls of men, Matt. xxii., Luke xiv.,
Rom. x.
We find when the Thessalonians turned to God from
their idols, to serve the living and true God, 1 Thess. i. 9,
it pleased God to bring a word of power unto them by the
mouth of Paul, in the same place.
Peace. You know, dear Truth, it is a common plea, that
God’s people now are converted already, and therefore may
congregate themselves, &c.
Truth. Two things must here be cleared.
Professed public conversion is not only from sins against the
second table in personal repentance, but from false worship also.
First, doth their conversion amount to external turning
from idols, 1 Thess. i. 9, beside their internal repentance,
faith, love? &c. Secondly, who wrought this conversion,
who begot these children? for though the Corinthians
might have ten thousand teachers, yet Paul had begotten
them by the word.
It is true, as Mr. Cotton himself elsewhere acknowledgeth,
God sendeth many preachers in the way of his
providence, even in Babel mystical, though not according
to his ordinance and institution. So even in the wilderness
God provideth for the sustentation of the woman,
Rev. xii.; by which provision, even in the most popish
times and places, yea, and by most false and popish
callings (now in this lightsome age confessed so to be), God
hath done great things to the personal conversion, consolation,
and salvation of his people.
A true ministry necessary before conversion, and therefore
before the church, in the first pattern.
But as there seems yet to be desired such constitution
of the Christian church, as the first institution and pattern
calls for: so also such a calling and converting of God’s
people from anti-christian idols to the Christian worship:
and therefore such a ministry, according to the first
pattern, sent from Christ Jesus to renew and restore the
worship and ordinances of God in Christ.
The true way of the ministry sent with that commission, Matt.
xxviii. discussed.
Lastly, if it should be granted that without a ministry
sent from Christ to gather churches, that God’s people in
this country may be called, converted from anti-christian
idols, to the true worship of God in the true church
estate and ordinances, will it not follow that in all other
countries of the world God’s elect must or may be so converted
from their several respective false worships and
idolatries, and brought into the true Christian church
estate without such a ministry sent unto them? Or are
there two ways appointed by the Lord Jesus, one for this
country, and another for the rest of the world? Or lastly,
if two or three more, without a ministry, shall arise up,
become a church, make ministers, &c., I ask, whether
those two or three, or more, must not be accounted
immediately and extraordinarily stirred up by God? and
whether this be that supreme power of Christ Jesus,
which they speak of, sending forth two or three private
persons to make a church and ministers, without a true
ministry of Christ Jesus first sent unto themselves? Is
this that commission, which all ministers pretend unto,
Matt. xxviii. 19, &c. first, in the hands of two or three
private persons becoming a church, without a mediate call
from which church, say they, there can be no true
ministry, and yet also confess that Christ sendeth forth to
preach by his supreme power, and the magistrate by his
power subordinate to gather churches?
CHAP. CIV.
Peace. You have taken great pains to show the irreconcilableness
of those their two assertions, viz., First, there
is now no ministry, as they say, but what is mediate from
the church; and yet, secondly, Christ Jesus sends
preachers forth by his supreme power to gather the church.
I now wait to hear, how, as they say, “the magistrate
may send forth by his power subordinate to gather
churches, enforcing the people to hear,” &c.
The civil magistrate not betrusted with gathering of churches.
Truth. If there be a ministry sent forth by Christ’s
supreme power, and a ministry sent forth by the magistrate’s
subordinate power, to gather churches—I ask, what
is the difference between these two? Is there any gathering
of churches but by that commission, Matt. xxviii.
Teach and baptize? And is the civil magistrate entrusted
with a power from Christ, as his deputy, to give this
commission, and so to send out ministers to preach and
baptize?
If the magistrate, then much more the people of the world,
from whom the magistrates receive their power.
As there is nothing in the Testament of Christ concerning
such a delegation or assignment of such power of
Christ to the civil magistrate: so I also ask, since in every
free state civil magistrates have no power but what the
peoples of those states, lands, and countries betrust them
with, whether or no, by this means, it must not follow,
that Christ Jesus hath left with the peoples and nations of
the world his spiritual kingly power to grant commissions,
and send out ministers to themselves, to preach, convert,
and baptize themselves? How inevitably this follows
upon their conclusion of power in magistrates to send, &c.,
and what unchristian and unreasonable consequences must
flow from hence, let all consider in the fear of God.
Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. xvii.) a figure of Christ Jesus in his
church, not of the civil magistrate in the state.
Jehoshaphat’s sending forth the Levites to teach in
Judah, &c., as they allege it not, so elsewhere it shall
more fully appear to be a type and figure of Christ Jesus,
the only king of his church, providing for the feeding of
his church and people by his true Christian priests and
Levites, viz., the ministry which in the gospel he hath
appointed.
CHAP. CV.
Peace. We have examined the ministry, be pleased,
dear Truth, to speak to the second branch of this head:
viz., the maintenance of it. They affirm that the magistrate
may force out the minister’s maintenance from all
that are taught by them, and that after the pattern of
Israel; and the argument from 1 Cor. ix., Gal. vi. 6.
Truth. This theme, viz., concerning the maintenance of
the priests and ministers of worship, is indeed the apple of
the eye, the Diana of the [Ephesians,[214]] &c.; yet all that love
Christ Jesus in sincerity, and souls in and from him, will
readily profess to abhor filthy lucre, Tit. i. 7, and the
wages of Balaam, both more common and frequent than
easily is discernible.
Gal. vi. 6, concerning the maintenance of the ministry,
examined.
To that scripture, Gal. vi. 6, Let him that is taught in
the word make him that teacheth partaker of all his goods: I
answer, that teaching was of persons converted, believers
entered into the school and family of Christ, the church;
which church being rightly gathered, is also rightly invested
with the power of the Lord Jesus, to force every soul
therein by spiritual weapons and penalties to do its duty.
But this forcing of the magistrate is intended and
practised to all sorts of persons, without as well as within
the church, unconverted, natural and dead in sin, as well
as those that live and, feeding, enjoy the benefits of
spiritual food.
Christ Jesus never appointed a maintenance of ministers from
the unconverted, and unbelieving.
Now for those sorts of persons to whom Christ Jesus
sends his word out of church estate, Jews or Gentiles,
according to the parable of Matt. xiii. highway hearers,
stony ground, and thorny ground hearers, we never find
tittle of any maintenance to be expected, least of all to be
forced and exacted, from them. By civil power they
cannot be forced, for it is no civil payment or business, no
matter of Cæsar, but concerning God: nor by spiritual
power, which hath nothing to do with those which are
without, 1 Cor. v.
It is reasonable to expect and demand of such as live
within the state a civil maintenance of their civil officers,
and to force it where it is denied. It is reasonable for a
schoolmaster to demand his recompence for his labour in
his school; but it is not reasonable to expect or force it
from strangers, enemies, rebels to that city, from such as
come not within, or else would not be received into the
school. What is the church of Christ Jesus, but the city,
the school, and family of Christ? the officers of this city,
school, family, may reasonably expect maintenance from
such they minister unto, but not from strangers, enemies,
&c.
They that compel men to hear, compel men also to pay for their
hearing and conversion.
Peace. It is most true that sin goes in a link; for that
tenent, that all the men of the world may be compelled to
hear Christ preached, and enjoy the labours of the teacher
as well as the church itself, forceth on another also as evil,
viz., that they should also be compelled to pay, as being
most equal and reasonable to pay for their conversion.
Luke xiv. Compel them, examined.
Truth. Some use to urge that text of Luke xiv. 23,
Compel them to come in. Compel them to mass, say the
papists; compel them to church and common prayer, say
the protestants; compel them to the meeting, say the New
English.[215] In all these compulsions they disagree amongst
themselves; but in this, viz., Compel them to pay, in this
they all agree.
Two sorts of compulsion.
There is a double violence, which both error and falsehood
use to the souls of men.
Moral and civil compulsion.
First, moral and persuasive; such was the persuasion
first used to Joseph by his mistress: such was the persuasions
of Tamar from Ammon; such was the compelling
of the young man by the harlot, Prov. vii., she caught him
by her much fair speech and kisses. And thus is the
whole world compelled to the worship of the golden
image, Dan. iii.
The second compulsion is civil; such as Joseph’s
mistress began to practise upon Joseph, to attain her
whorish desires: such as Ammon practised on Tamar, to
satisfy his brutish lust; and such was Nebuchadnezzar’s
second compulsion, his fiery furnace, Dan. iii.; and mystical
Nebuchadnezzar’s killing all that receive not his mark,
Rev. xiii.
The ministers of Christ Jesus compel with no other sword than
that of Christ’s mouth, the sword of the Spirit with two edges.
The first sort of these violences, to wit, by powerful
argument and persuasion, the ministers of the gospel also
use. Hence all those powerful persuasions of wisdom’s
maidens, Prov. ix. Hence, saith Paul, knowing the terror
of the Lord, we persuade men, 2 Cor. v.; and pull some out
of the fire, saith Jude; such must that compulsion be,
Luke xiv. 23, viz., the powerful persuasions of the word,
being that two-edged sword coming out of the mouth of
Christ Jesus in his true ministers, sent forth to invite poor
sinners to partake of the feast of the Lamb of God. The
civil ministers of the commonweal cannot be sent upon
this business with their civil weapons and compulsions,
but the spiritual minister of the gospel, with his spiritual
sword of Christ’s mouth, a sword with two edges.
The maintenance of the ministry spiritual.
But more particularly, the contributions of Christ’s
kingdom are all holy and spiritual, though consisting of
material earthly substance, (as is water in baptism, bread
and wine in the supper,) and joined with prayer and the
Lord’s supper, Acts ii. 42.
Hence as prayer is called God’s sacrifice, so are the contributions
and mutual supplies of the saints, sacrifices,
Phil. iv. [18.]
Natural men can neither truly worship nor maintain it.
Hence, also, as it is impossible for natural men to be
capable of God’s worship, and to feed, be nourished, and
edified by any spiritual ordinance, no more than a dead
child can suck the breast, or a dead man feast; so also is
it as impossible for a dead man, yet lodged in the grave of
nature, to contribute spiritually, I mean according to
scripture’s rule, as for a dead man to pay a reckoning.
I question not but natural men may for the outward act
preach, pray, contribute, &c.; but neither are they
worshippers suitable to him who is a Spirit, John iv. 24;
nor can they, least of all, be forced to worship, or the
maintenance of it, without a guilt of their hypocrisy.
Peace. They will say, what is to be done for their
souls?
Truth. The apostles, whom we profess to imitate,
preached the word of the Lord to unbelievers without
mingling in worship with them, and such preachers and
preaching such as pretend to be the true ministry of Christ
ought to be and practise: not forcing them all their days
to come to church and pay their duties, either so confessing
that this is their religion unto which they are
forced; or else that, as before, they are forced to be of no
religion all their days.
Rebels not subdued by compliance, but resistance.
The way to subdue rebels is not by correspondence and
communion with them, by forcing them to keep the city
watches, and pay assessments, &c., which all may be
practised, upon compulsion, treacherously; the first work
with such is powerfully to subdue their judgments and
wills, to lay down their weapons, and yield willing subjection,
then come they orderly into the city, and so to
city privileges.
CHAP. CVI.
Peace. Please you now, dear Truth, to discuss the
scriptures from the Old Testament, Neh. xiii., and
2 Chron. xxxi.
The national church of the Jews might well be forced to a
settled maintenance of their priests, but not so the Christian church.
Truth. God gave unto that national church of the
Jews that excellent land of Canaan, and therein houses
furnished, orchards, gardens, vineyards, olive-yards, fields,
wells, &c.; they might well, in this settled abundance, and
the promised continuation and increase of it, afford a large
temporal supply to their priests and Levites, even to the
tenth of all they did possess.
God’s people are now, in the gospel, brought into a
spiritual land of Canaan, flowing with spiritual milk and
honey, and they abound with spiritual and heavenly
comforts, though in a poor and persecuted condition;
therefore an enforced settled maintenance is not suitable
to the gospel, as it was to the ministry of priests and
Levites in the law.
Secondly, in the change of the church estate, there was
also a change of the priesthood and of the law, Heb. vii.
[12.] Nor did the Lord Jesus appoint that in his church,
and for the maintenance of his ministry, the civil sword
of the magistrate; but that the spiritual sword of the
ministry should alone compel.
The civil sword of the national church of the Jews, could not
type out a civil but a spiritual sword of the Christian church.
3. Therefore the compulsion used under Hezekiah and
Nehemiah, was by the civil and corporal sword, a type (in
that typical state) not of another material and corporal,
but of a heavenly and spiritual, even the sword of the
Spirit, with which Christ fighteth, Rev. ii. [12.] which is
exceeding sharp, entering in between the soul and spirit,
Heb. iv. [12.] and bringing every thought into captivity
to the obedience of Christ Jesus. He that submits not at
the shaking of this sword, is cut off by it; and he that
despiseth this sword, all the power in the world cannot
make him a true worshipper, or by his purse a maintainer
of God’s worship.
No man should be bound to worship, nor maintain a worship,
against his own consent.
Lastly, if any man professing to be a minister of Christ
Jesus, shall bring men before the magistrate, as the practice
hath been, both in Old and New England,[216] for not
paying him his wages or his due: I ask, if the voluntary
consent of the party hath not obliged him, how can either
the officers of the parish, church, or of the civil state,
compel this or that man to pay so much, more or less, to
maintain such a worship or ministry? I ask further, if
the determining what is each man’s due to pay, why may
they not determine the tenth and more, as some desired
(others opposing) in New England, and force men not
only to maintenance, but to a Jewish maintenance?
Peace. Yea; but, say they, is not the labourer worthy
of his hire?
Christ’s labourers worthy of their hire, but from them that
hire them.
Truth. Yes, from them that hire him, from the church,
to whom he laboureth or ministereth, not from the civil
state: no more than the minister of the civil state is
worthy of his hire from the church, but from the civil
state: in which I grant the persons in the church ought
to be assistant in their civil respects.
Peace. What maintenance, say they, shall the ministry
of the gospel have?
What maintenance Christ hath appointed his ministers in the
gospel.
Truth. We find two ways of maintenance for the ministry
of the gospel proposed for our direction in the New
Testament.
First, the free and willing contribution of the saints,
according to 1 Cor. xvi., Luke viii. 3, &c., upon which
both the Lord Jesus, and his ministers lived.
Secondly, the diligent work and labour of their own
hands, as Paul tells the Thessalonians, and that in two
cases:
1. Either in the inabilities and necessities of the church.
2. Or for the greater advantage of Christ’s truth. As
when Paul saw it would more advantage the name of
Christ, he denies himself, and falls to work amongst the
Corinthians and Thessalonians.
Let none call these cases extraordinary: for if persecution
be the portion of Christ’s sheep, and the business or
work of Christ must be dearer to us than our right eye or
lives, such as will follow Paul, and follow the Lord Jesus,
must not think much at, but rejoice in, poverties, necessities,
hunger, cold, nakedness, &c. The stewards of Christ
Jesus must be like their Lord, and abhor to steal as the
evil steward, pretending that he shamed to beg, but
peremptorily dig he could not.
CHAP. CVII.
Peace. One and the last branch, dear Truth, remains
concerning schools.
“The churches,” say they, “much depend upon the
schools, and the schools upon the magistrates.”
Universities of Europe a cause of universal sins and plagues;
yet schools honourable for tongues and arts.
Truth. I honour schools for tongues and arts; but the
institution of Europe’s universities, devoting persons (as is
said) for scholars in a monastical way, forbidding marriage,
and labour too, I hold as far from the mind of Jesus Christ
as it is from propagating his name and worship.
We count the universities the fountains, the seminaries,
or seed-plots of all piety; but have not those fountains
ever sent what streams the times have liked? and ever
changed their taste and colour to the prince’s eye and
palate?
For any depending of the church of Christ upon such
schools, I find not a tittle in the Testament of Christ
Jesus.
Christ’s church his school, and all believers scholars.
I find the church of Christ frequently compared to a
school. All believers are his disciples or scholars, yea,
women also, Acts ix. 36, There was a certain disciple, or
scholar, called Dorcas.
Have not the universities sacrilegiously stolen this
blessed name of Christ’s scholars from his people? Is not
the very scripture language itself become absurd, to wit,
to call God’s people, especially women, as Dorcas, scholars?
Peace. Some will object, how shall the scriptures be
brought to light from out of popish darkness, except these
schools of prophets convey them to us?
Truth. I know no schools of prophets in the New
Testament, but the particular congregation of Christ
Jesus, 1 Cor. xiv. And I question whether any thing
but sin stopped and dried up the current of the Spirit in
those rare gifts of tongues to God’s sons and daughters,
serving so admirably both for the understanding of the
original scriptures, and also for the propagating of the
name of Christ.
Who knows but God may again pour forth the gifts of tongues?
Who knows but that it may please the Lord again to
clothe his people with a spirit of zeal and courage for the
name of Christ; yea, and pour forth those fiery streams
again of tongues and prophecy in the restoration of Zion?
Tongues attainable out of Oxford or Cambridge.
If it be not his holy pleasure so to do, but that his
people with daily study and labour must dig to come at the
original fountains, God’s people have many ways, besides
the university, lazy and monkish, to attain to an excellent
measure of the knowledge of those tongues.
Mr. Ainsworth.
That most despised while living, and now much
honoured Mr. Ainsworth,[217] had scarce his peer amongst
a thousand academians for the scripture originals, and yet
he scarce set foot within a college-walls.
CHAP. CVIII.
Peace. I shall now present you with their tenth head,
viz., concerning the magistrates’ power in matters of
doctrine.
“That which is unjustly ascribed to the pope, is as
unjustly ascribed to the magistrates, viz., to have power of
making new articles of faith, or rules of life, or of pressing
upon the churches to give such public honour to the
apocrypha writings, or homilies of men, as to read them
to the people in the room of the oracles of God.”
Truth. This position, simply considered, I acknowledge
a most holy truth of God, both against the pope, and the
civil magistrates’ challenge, both pretending to be the
vicars of Christ Jesus upon the earth. Yet two things
here I shall propose to consideration:—
King Henry the Eighth set down in the pope’s chair in England.
First, since the parliament of England thrust the pope
out of his chair in England, and set down King Henry the
Eighth and his successors in the pope’s room, establishing
them supreme governors of the church of England: since
such an absolute government is given by all men to them
to be guardians of the first table and worship of God, to
set up the true worship, to suppress all false, and that by
the power of the sword; and therefore consequently they
must judge and determine what the true is, and what the
false:—
If the magistrate must punish in spiritual cases, he must of
necessity be judge in spiritual causes also.
And since the magistrate is bound, by these authors’
principles, to see the church, the church officers, and
members do their duty, he must therefore judge what is
the church’s duty, and when she performs or not performs
it, or when she exceeds; so likewise when the ministers
perform their duty, or when they exceed it:—
And if the magistrate must judge, then certainly by his
own eye, and not by the eyes of others, though assembled
in a national or general council:—
Then also, upon his judgment must the people rest, as
upon the mind and judgment of Christ, or else it must be
confessed that he hath no such power left him by Christ
to compel the souls of men in matters of God’s worship.
Apocrypha, Common-prayer, and homilies, precious to our
forefathers.
Secondly, concerning the apocrypha writings and homilies
to be urged by the magistrate to be read unto the
people as the oracles of God: I ask, if the homilies of
England contain not in them much precious and heavenly
matter? Secondly, if they were not penned, at least
many of them, by excellent men for learning, holiness,
and witness of Christ’s truth incomparable? Thirdly,
were they not authorized by that most rare and pious
prince, Edward VI., then head of the church of England?[218]
With what great solemnity and rejoicing were they received
of thousands!
Yet now, behold their children after them sharply censure
them for apocrypha writings, and homilies thrust into
the room of the word of God, and so falling into the consideration
of a false and counterfeit scripture.
A case.
I demand of these worthy men, whether a servant of
God might then lawfully have refused to read or hear
such a false scripture?
Secondly, if so, whether King Edward might have lawfully
compelled such a man to yield and submit, or else
have persecuted him; yea, according to the authors’ principles,
whether he ought to have spared him; because
after the admonitions of such pious and learned men, this
man shall now prove a heretic, and as an obstinate person
sinning against the light of his own conscience?
In this case what shall the consciences of the subject do,
awed by the dread of the Most High? What shall the
magistrate do, zealous for his glorious reformation, being
constantly persuaded by his clergy of his lieutenantship
received from Christ?
Reformations are fallible. Bloody conclusions.
Again, what privilege have those worthy servants of
God, either in Old or New England, to be exempted from
the mistakes into which those glorious worthies in King
Edward’s time did fall? and if so, what bloody conclusions
are presented to the world, persuading men to pluck up
by the roots from the land of the living, all such as seem
in their eyes heretical or obstinate!
CHAP. CIX.
Peace. Dear Truth, what dark and dismal bloody paths
do we walk in? How is thy name and mine in all ages
cried up, yet as an English flag in a Spanish bottom, not
in truth, but dangerous treachery and abuse both of truth
and peace!
Eleventh head.
We are now come to the eleventh head, which concerns
the magistrates’ power in worship?
“First, they have power,” say they, “to reform things
in the worship of God in a church corrupted, and to
establish the pure worship of God, defending the same by
the power of the sword against all those who shall attempt
to corrupt it.
“For first, the reigning of idolatry and corruption in
religion is imputed to the want of a king, Judges xvii.
5, 6.
“Secondly, remissness in reforming religion is a fault
imputed to them who suffered the high places in Israel,
and in Gallio who cared not for such things, Acts xviii. 17.
“Thirdly, forwardness this way is a duty not only for
kings in the Old Testament, but for princes under the
New, 1 Tim. ii. 2; Rom. xiii. 4; Esay. xlix. 23. Neither
did the kings of Israel reform things amiss as types of
Christ, but as civil magistrates, and so exemplary to all
Christians. And here reformation in religion is commendable
in a Persian king, Ezra vii. 23. And it is well
known that remissness in princes of Christendom in matters
of religion and worship, devolving the care thereof
only to the clergy, and so setting the horns thereof upon
the church’s head, hath been the cause of anti-christian
inventions, usurpations, and corruptions, in the worship
and temple of God.
“Secondly, they have not power to press upon the
churches stinted prayers, or set liturgies, whether new or
old, popish or others, under colour of uniformity of worship,
or moral goodness of them both for matter and form,
conceiving our arguments sent to our brethren in England
concerning this question to evince this truth.[219]
“Thirdly, they have no power to press upon the
churches, neither by law, as hath been said before, nor by
proclamation and command, any sacred significant ceremonies,
whether more or less popish or Jewish rite, or
any other device of man, be it never so little in the worship
of God, under what colour soever of indifferency,
civility, using them without opinion of sanctity, public
peace, or obedience to righteous authority, as surplice,
cross, kneeling at sacrament, salt and spittle in baptism,
holy days; they having been so accursed of God, so
abused by man, the imposing of some ever making way
for the urging of more, the receiving of some making the
conscience bow to the burden of all.
“Fourthly, they have not power to govern and rule the
acts of worship in the church of God.
“It is with a magistrate in a state in respect of the
acts of those who worship in a church, as it is with a
prince in a ship, wherein, though he be governor of their
persons, else he should not be their prince, yet is not
governor of the actions of the mariners, then he should be
pilot: indeed if the pilot shall manifestly err in his action,
he may reprove him, and so any other passenger may: or
if he offend against the life and goods of any, he may in
due time and place civilly punish him, which no other
passenger can do; for, it is proper to Christ, the head of
the church, as to prescribe so to rule the actions of his
own worship in the ways of his servants, Esay. ix. 6, 7.
The government of the church is upon his shoulder, which
no civil officer ought to attempt. And therefore magistrates
have no power to limit a minister, either to what he
shall preach or pray, or in what manner they shall worship
God, lest hereby they shall advance themselves above
Christ, and limit his Spirit.”[220]
Truth. In this general head are proposed two things.
First, what the magistrate ought to do positively, concerning
the worship of God.
Secondly. What he may do in the worship of God.
What he ought to do is comprised in these particulars:—
First. He ought to reform the worship of God when it
is corrupted.
Secondly. He ought to establish a pure worship of
God.
Thirdly. He ought to defend it by the sword: he ought
to restrain idolatry by the sword, and to cut off offenders,
as former passages have opened.
For the proof of this positive part of his duty, are propounded
three sorts of scriptures.
First. From the practice of the kings of Israel and
Judah.
Secondly. Some from the New Testament.
Thirdly. From the practice of kings of other nations.
Unto which I answer,—
The argument from the Babylonian and Persian kings reminded.
First. Concerning this latter, the Babylonian and Persian
kings—Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes—I
conceive I have sufficiently before proved, that these
idolatrous princes making such acts concerning the God of
Israel, whom they did not worship nor know, nor meant
so to do, did only permit, and tolerate, and countenance
the Jewish worship; and out of strong convictions that
this God of Israel was able to do them good, as well as
their own gods, to bring wrath upon them and their kingdoms,
as they believed their own also did, in which
respect all the kings of the world may be easily brought to
the like; but [they] are no precedent or pattern for all princes
and civil magistrates in the world, to challenge or assume
the power of ruling or governing the church of Christ,
and of wearing the spiritual crown of the Lord, which he
alone weareth in a spiritual way by his officers and governors
after his own holy appointment.
Secondly. For those of the New Testament I have, as
I believe, fully and sufficiently answered.
So also that prophecy of Isa. xlix. [23.]
The precedent of the kings and governors of Israel and Judah,
examined. The state of Israel relating to spiritual matters proved
typical.
Lastly. However I have often touched those scriptures
produced from the practice of the kings of Israel and
Judah, yet, because so great a weight of this controversy
lies upon this precedent of the Old Testament, from the
duties of this nature enjoined to those kings and governors
and their practices, obeying or disobeying, accordingly
commended or reproved, I shall, with the help of Christ
Jesus, the true King of Israel, declare and demonstrate
how weak and brittle this supposed pillar of marble is, to
bear up and sustain such a mighty burden and weight of
so many high concernments as are laid upon it. In which
I shall evidently prove, that the state of Israel as a
national state, made up of spiritual and civil power, so far
as it attended upon the spiritual, was merely figurative,
and typing out the Christian churches consisting of both
Jews and Gentiles, enjoying the true power of the Lord
Jesus, establishing, reforming, correcting, defending in all
cases concerning the kingdom and government.
CHAP. CX.
Peace. Blessed be the God of truth, the God of peace,
who hath so long preserved us in this our retired conference
without interruptions. His mercy still shields us
while you express and I listen to that so much imitated,
yet most inimitable state of Israel.
Yet, before you descend to particulars, dear Truth, let
me cast one mite into your great treasury, concerning
that instance, just now mentioned, of the Persian kings.
The Persian kings make evidently against such as produce them
for maintenance of the doctrine of persecution.
Methinks those precedents of Cyrus, Darius, and
Artaxerxes, are strong against New England’s tenent and
practice. Those princes professedly gave free permission
and bountiful encouragement to the consciences of the
Jews to use and practise their religion, which religion
was most eminently contrary to their own religion and
their country’s worship.
Truth. I shall, sweet Peace, with more delight pass on
these rough ways, from your kind acceptance and unwearied
patience in attention.
In this discovery of that vast and mighty difference between
that state of Israel and all other states, only to be
matched and paralleled by the Christian church or Israel,
I shall select some main and principal considerations concerning
that state, wherein the irreconcilable differences
and disproportion may appear.
First. I shall consider the very land and country of
Canaan itself, and present some considerations proving it
to be a non-such.
The land of Canaan chosen by God to be the seat of the church;
but under the New Testament all nations alike.
First. This land was espied out, and chosen by the Lord,
out of all the countries of the world, to be the seat of his
church and people, Ezek. xx. 6.
But now there is no respect of earth, of places, or
countries with the Lord. So testified the Lord Jesus
Christ himself to the woman of Samaria, John iv. [21,]
professing that neither at that mountain, nor at Jerusalem,
should men worship the Father.
While that national state of the church of the Jews
remained, the tribes were bound to go up to Jerusalem to
worship, Ps. cxxii. But now, in every nation, not the
whole land or country as it was with Canaan, he that feareth
God and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him,
Acts x. 35. This then appeared in that large commission
of the Lord Jesus to his first ministers: Go into all
nations, and not only into Canaan, to carry tidings of
mercy, &c.
Secondly. The former inhabitants thereof, seven great
and mighty nations, Deut. vii. 1, were all devoted to destruction
by the Lord’s own mouth, which was to be
performed by the impartial hand of the children of Israel,
without any sparing or showing mercy.
The inhabitants of Canaan’s land, every soul, to be put to
death, that the Israelites might enjoy their possessions: not so now.
But so now it hath not pleased the Lord to devote
any people to present destruction, commanding his people
to kill and slay without covenant or compassion, Deut.
vii. 2.
Where have emperors, kings, or generals an immediate
call from God to destroy whole cities, city after city, men,
women, children, old and young, as Joshua practised?
Josh. vi. and x., &c.
This did Israel to these seven nations, that they themselves
might succeed them in their cities, habitations, and
possessions.
This only is true in a spiritual antitype, when God’s
people by the sword, the two-edged sword of God’s
Spirit, slay the ungodly and become heirs, yea, fellow heirs
with Christ Jesus, Rom. viii. 17. God’s meek people inherit
the earth, Matt. v. [5.] They mystically, like Noah,
Heb. xi. 7, condemn the whole unbelieving world, both by
present and future sentence, 1 Cor. vi. 2.
CHAP. CXI.
The very material, gold and silver, of Canaan’s images,
typically to be abhorred.
Thirdly. The very materials, the gold and silver of the
idols of this land, were odious and abominable, and dangerous
to the people of Israel, that they might not desire
it, nor take it to themselves, Deut. vii. 25, 26, lest themselves
also become a curse, and like unto those cursed,
abominable things. Whereas we find not any such accursed
nature in the materials of idols or images now; but that,
the idolatrous forms being changed, the silver and gold
may be cast and coined, and other materials lawfully employed
and used.
Yet this we find in the antitype, that gold, silver: yea,
house, land: yea, wives, children: yea, life itself, as they
allure and draw us from God in Christ, are to be abominated
and hated by us, without which hatred and indignation,
against the most plausible and pleasing enticings,
from Christ Jesus, it is impossible for any man to be a
true Christian, Luke xiv. 26.
The land of Canaan ceremonially holy.
Fourthly. This land, this earth, was a holy land, Zech.
ii. 12. Ceremonially and typically holy, fields, gardens,
orchards, houses, &c., which holiness the world knows not
now in one land or country, house, field, garden, &c., one
above another.
Greater holiness in the antitype under the gospel, than in the
types under the law.
Yet in the spiritual land of Canaan, the Christian
church, all things are made holy and pure, in all lands, to
the pure, Tit. i. [15;] meats and drinks are sanctified, that
is, dedicated to the holy use of the thankful believers, 1
Tim. iv. 5; yea, and the unbelieving husband, wife, and
their children, are sanctified and made holy to believers,
insomuch that that golden inscription, peculiar to the forehead
of the high priest, Holiness to Jehovah, shall be written
upon the very bridles of the horses, as all are dedicated to
the service of Christ Jesus in the gospel’s peace and
holiness.
The land of Canaan Jehovah’s land.
Fifthly. The Lord expressly calls it his own land, Lev.
xxv. 23; Hos. ix. 3, Jehovah’s land, a term proper unto
spiritual Canaan, the church of God, which must needs be
in respect of his choice of that land to be the seat and
residence of his church and ordinances.
But now the partition-wall is broken down, and in respect
of the Lord’s special propriety to one country more
than another, what difference between Asia and Africa,
between Europe and America, between England and Turkey,
London and Constantinople?
Emanuel’s land: so no land or country more than another.
This land, among many other glorious titles given to it,
was called Emanuel’s land, that is, God with us, Christ’s
land, or Christian land, Isa. viii. 8.
But now, Jerusalem from above is not material and
earthly, but spiritual, Gal. iv. [25;] Heb. xii. [22.]
Material Jerusalem is no more the Lord’s city than Jericho,
Nineveh, or Babel, in respect of place or country:
for even at Babel literal, was a church of Jesus Christ,
1 Pet. v. [13.]
It is true, that anti-christ hath christened all those
countries whereon the whore sitteth, Rev. xvii., with the
title of Christ’s land, or Christian land.
The blasphemous titles of the christened and Christian world.
And Hundius, in his map of the Christian world,
makes this land to extend to all Asia, a great part of
Africa, all Europe, and a vast part of America, even so
far as his unchristian christening hath gone. But as every
false Christ hath false teachers, false Christians, false faith,
hope, love, &c., and in the end false salvation, so doth he
also counterfeit the false name of Christ, Christians,
Christian land or country.
The material land of Canaan was to keep her sabbaths, so no
material land or country now.
Sixthly. This land was to keep her sabbaths unto God.
Six years they were to sow their fields, and prune their
vines, but in the seventh year they were not to sow their
fields, nor prune their vineyards, but to eat that which
grew of itself or own accord.
But such observations doth not God now lay upon any
fields, vineyards, &c., under the gospel.
God feedeth his sometimes immediately.
Yet, in the spiritual land of Canaan, the true church,
there is a spiritual soul-rest or sabbath, a quiet depending
upon God, a living by faith in him, a making him our
portion, and casting all care upon him who careth for us:
yea, sometimes he feedeth his by immediate, gracious
works of providence, when comforts arise out of the earth,
without secondary means or causes, as here, or as elsewhere,
manna descended from heaven.
Seventhly. Such portions and possessions of lands,
fields, houses, vineyards, were sold with caution or proviso
of returning again in the year of jubilee to the right
owners, Lev. xxv. 23.
Such cautions, such provisos, are not now enjoined by
God in the sale of lands, fields, inheritances, nor no such
jubilee or redemption to be expected.
The jubilee of Canaan a type of restitution and redemption in
the gospel.
Yea, this also finds a fulfilling in the spiritual Canaan,
or church of God, unto which the silver trumpet of
jubilee, the gospel, hath sounded a spiritual restitution of
all their spiritual rights and inheritances, which either they
have lost in the fall of the first man Adam, or in their
particular falls, when they are captive, and sold unto sin,
Rom. vii. [14,] or, lastly, in the spiritual captivity of
Babel’s bondage. How sweet then is the name of a Saviour,
in whom is the joyful sound of a deliverance and
redemption!
Canaan’s land a type of the kingdom of God on earth and in
heaven. Why Naboth refused to part with a garden plot to his king, upon
hazard of his life.
Eighthly. This land or country was a figure or type of
the kingdom of heaven above, begun here below in the
church and kingdom of God, Heb. iv. 8; Heb. xi. 9, 10.
Hence was a birthright so precious in Canaan’s land:
hence Naboth so inexorable and resolute in refusing to
part with his inheritance to King Ahab, counting all
Ahab’s seeming reasonable offers most unreasonable, as
soliciting him to part with a garden plot of Canaan’s land,
though his refusal cost him his very life.
What land, what country now is Israel’s parallel and
antitype, but that holy mystical nation, the church of
God, peculiar and called out to him out of every nation
and country, 1 Pet. ii. 9. In which every true spiritual
Naboth hath his spiritual inheritance, which he dares not
part with, though it be to his king or sovereign, and though
such his refusal cost him this present life.
CHAP. CXII.
Peace. Doubtless that Canaan land was not a pattern
for all lands: it was a non-such, unparallelled, and unmatchable.
The difference of the people of Israel and all other peoples.
Truth. Many other considerations of the same nature I
might annex, but I pick here and there a flower, and pass
on to a second head concerning the people themselves,
wherein the state of the people shall appear unmatchable:
but only by the true church and Israel of God.
The people of Israel the seed of one man.
First. The people of Israel were all the seed or offspring
of one man, Abraham, Psalm cv. 6, and so downward
the seed of Isaac and Jacob, hence called the Israel
of God, that is, wrestlers and prevailers with God, distinguished
into twelve tribes, all sprung out of Israel’s
loins.
But now, few nations of the world but are a mixed seed;
the people of England especially: the Britons, Picts,
Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans, by a wonderful
providence of God, being become one English people.
Only made good in the spiritual seed, the regenerate, or
new-born.
Only the spiritual Israel and seed of God, the new born,
are but one. Christ is the seed, Gal. iii. [16,] and they
only that are Christ’s are only Abraham’s seed, and heirs
according to the promise.
This spiritual seed is the only antitype of the former
figurative and typical. A seed which all Christians ought
to propagate, yea, even the unmarried men and women
who are not capable of natural offspring, for thus is this
called the seed of Christ (who lived and died unmarried),
Isa. lix. 21.
Secondly. This people was selected and separated to the
Lord, his covenant and worship, from all the people and
nations of the world beside, to be his peculiar and only
people, Lev. xx. 26, &c.
The people of Israel separate from all nations in spiritual,
and in some civil things.
Therefore, such as returned from Babylon to Jerusalem,
they separated themselves to eat the passover, Ezra vi.
[21.] And in that solemn humiliation and confession before
the Lord, Neh. ix. [2,] the children of Israel separated
themselves from all strangers.
This separation of theirs was so famous, that it extended
not only to circumcision, the passover, and matters of
God’s worship, but even to temporal and civil things:
thus (Ezra ix.) they separated or put away their very
wives, which they had taken of the strange nations, contrary
to the commandment of the Lord.
No nation so separated to God in the gospel, but only the
new-born Israel that fear God in every nation.
But where hath the God of heaven, in the gospel, separated
whole nations or kingdoms, English, Scotch, Irish,
French, Dutch, &c., as a peculiar people and antitype of
the people of Israel? Yea, where the least footing in all
the scripture for a national church after Christ’s coming?
Can any people in the world pattern this sampler but
the new-born Israel, such as fear God in every nation,
Acts x. 35, commanded to come forth, and separate from
all unclean things or persons? 2 Cor. vi. [17,] and though
not bound to put away strange wives as Israel did, because
of that peculiar respect upon them in civil things, yet to
be holy or set apart to the Lord in all manner of civil
conversation, 1 Pet. i. 15: only to marry in the Lord,
yea, and to marry as if they married not, 1 Cor. vii. [29:]
yea, to hate wife and children, father, mother, house, and
land, yea, and life itself for the Lord Jesus, Luke xiv. 26.
The whole people of Israel miraculously brought forth of
Egypt.
Thirdly. This seed of Abraham thus separate from all
people unto the Lord, was wonderfully redeemed and
brought from Egypt bondage, through the Red Sea, and
the wilderness, unto the land of Canaan, by many strange
signs and wonderful miracles, wrought by the out-stretched
hand of the Lord, famous and dreadful, and to be admired
by all succeeding peoples and generations, Deut. iv. 32-34,
Ask now from one side of the heaven unto the other, whether
there hath been such a thing as this? &c.
Not so any whole nation now.
And we may ask again from one side of the heaven
unto the other, whether the Lord hath now so miraculously
redeemed and brought unto himself any nation or people,
as he did this people of Israel.
Peace. The English, Scotch, Dutch, &c., are apt to
make themselves the parallels, as wonderfully come forth
of popery, &c.
Truth. 1. But first, whole nations are no churches
under the gospel.
Popery not so easily turned from as is conceived.
2. Secondly, bring the nations of Europe professing
protestantism to the balance of the sanctuary, and ponder
well whether the body, bulk, the general, or one hundredth
part of such peoples, be truly turned to God from popery:—
Who knows not how easy it is to turn, and turn, and
turn again, whole nations from one religion to another?
Wonderful turnings in religion in twelve years’ compass in
England.
Who knows not that within the compass of one poor
span of twelve years’ revolution, all England hath become
from half papist, half protestant, to be absolute protestants;
from absolute protestants, to absolute papists;
from absolute papists, changing as fashions, to absolute
protestants?
The pope not unlike to recover his monarchy over Europe before
his downfall.
I will not say, as some worthy witnesses of Christ have
uttered, that all England and Europe must again submit
their fair necks to the pope’s yoke; but this I say, many
scriptures concerning the destruction of the beast and the
whore look that way. And I add, they that feel the pulse
of the people seriously, must confess that a victorious
sword and a Spanish inquisition will soon make millions
face about as they were in the forefathers’ time.
CHAP. CXIII.
Peace. Oh! that the steersmen of the nations might remember
this, be wise and kiss the Son, lest he go on in
this his dreadful anger, and dash them in pieces here and
eternally.
Who are now the true seed of Abraham.
Truth. I therefore, thirdly, add, that only such as are
Abraham’s seed, circumcised in heart, new-born, Israel (or
wrestlers with God), are the antitype of the former Israel;
these are only the holy nation, 1 Pet. ii. 9; wonderfully
redeemed from the Egypt of this world, Tit. ii. 14;
brought through the Red Sea of baptism, 1 Cor. x. 2;
through the wilderness of afflictions, and of the peoples,
Deut. viii., Ezek. xx., into the kingdom of heaven begun
below, even that Christian land of promise where flow the
everlasting streams and rivers of spiritual milk and honey.
The people of Israel all holy in a typical holiness.
Fourthly, all this people universally, in typical and
ceremonial respect, were holy and clean in this their separation
and sequestration unto God, Exod. xix. 5. Hence,
even in respect of their natural birth in that land, they
were a holy seed, and Ezra makes it the matter of his
great complaint, Ezra ix. 1, 2,—The holy seed have mingled
themselves.
But where is now that nation, or country, upon the
face of the earth, thus clean and holy unto God, and
bound to so many ceremonial cleansings and purgings?
All nations now alike since the coming of the Lord Jesus.
Are not all the nations of the earth alike clean unto
God? or rather, alike unclean, until it pleaseth the Father
of mercies to call some out to the knowledge and grace of
his Son, making them to see their filthiness, and strangeness
from the commonweal of Israel, and to wash in the
blood of the Lamb of God?
This taking away the difference between nation and
nation, country and country, is most fully and admirably
declared in that great vision of all sorts of living creatures
presented unto Peter, Acts x.; whereby it pleased the
Lord to inform Peter of the abolishing of the difference
between Jew and Gentile in any holy or unholy, clean or
unclean respect.
The children of Israel a figure of the Israel, or people, of
God only under the gospel.
Fifthly—not only to speak of all, but to select one or
two more—this people of Israel in that national state
were a type of all the children of God in all ages under
the profession of the gospel, who are therefore called the
children of Abraham, and the Israel of God, Gal. iii. and
Gal. vi. [16.] A kingly priesthood and holy nation, 1 Pet.
ii. 9, in a clear and manifest antitype to the former Israel,
Exod. xix. 6.
Hence Christians now are figuratively, in this respect,
called Jews, Rev. iii. [9.] where lies a clear distinction of
the true and false Christian under the consideration of the
true and false Jew: Behold I will make them of the synagogue
of Satan that say they are Jews and are not, but do lie,
Rev. iii. [9.] But such a typical respect we find not now
upon any people, nation, or country of the whole world;
but out of all nations, tongues, and languages is God
pleased to call some, and redeem them to himself, Rev. v.
9; and hath made no difference between the Jews and
Gentiles, Greeks and Scythians, Gal. iii. [28.] who by
regeneration, or second birth, become the Israel of God,
Gal. vi. [16.] the temple of God, 1 Cor. iii. [17.] and
the true Jerusalem, Heb. xii. [22.]
The people of Israel different from all the world in their
figurative and ceremonial worships.
Lastly, all this whole nation, or people, as they were of
one typical seed of Abraham, and sealed with a shameful
and painful ordinance of cutting off the foreskin, which
differenced them from all the world beside: so also were
they bound to such and such solemnities of figurative
worships. Amongst many others I shall end this passage
concerning the people with a famous observation out of
Num. ix. 13, viz., all that whole nation was bound to
celebrate and keep the feast of the passover in his season,
or else they were to be put to death. But doth God
require a whole nation, country, or kingdom now thus to
celebrate the spiritual passover, the supper and feast of the
Lamb Christ Jesus, at such a time once a year, and that
whosoever shall not so do shall be put to death? What
horrible profanations, what gross hypocrisies, yea, what
wonderful desolations, sooner or later, must needs follow
upon such a course!
Israel, God’s only church, might well renew that national
covenant and ceremonial worship, which other nations cannot imitate.
It is true, the people of Israel, brought into covenant
with God in Abraham, and so successively born in covenant
with God, might, in that state of a national church,
solemnly covenant and swear that whosoever would not
seek Jehovah, the God of Israel, should be put to death,
2 Chron. xv. [12, 13.] whether small or great, whether
man or woman.
But may whole nations or kingdoms now, according to
any one tittle expressed by Christ Jesus to that purpose,
follow that pattern of Israel, and put to death all, both
men and women, great and small, that according to the
rules of the gospel are not born again, penitent, humble,
heavenly, patient? &c. What a world of hypocrisy from
hence is practised by thousands, that for fear will stoop to
give that God their bodies in a form, whom yet in truth
their hearts affect not!
The hypocrisy, profanations, and slaughters which such
imitations now in the gospel produce.
Yea, also what a world of profanation of the holy name
and holy ordinances of the Lord, in prostituting the holy
things of God, like the vessels of the sanctuary, Dan. v.,
to profane, impenitent, and unregenerate persons!
Lastly, what slaughters, both of men and women, must
this necessarily bring into the world, by the insurrections
and civil wars about religion and conscience! Yea, what
slaughters of the innocent and faithful witnesses of Christ
Jesus, who choose to be slain all the day long for Christ’s
sake, and to fight for their Lord and Master Christ, only
with spiritual and Christian weapons!
CHAP. CXIV.
Peace. It seems, dear Truth, a mighty gulf between
that people and nation, and the nations of the world then
extant and ever since.
Truth. As sure as the blessed substance to all those
shadows, Christ Jesus, is come, so unmatchable and never
to be parallelled by any national state was that Israel in
the figure, or shadow.
And yet the Israel of God now, the regenerate or new
born, the circumcised in heart by repentance and mortification,
who willingly submit unto the Lord Jesus as their
only King and Head, may fitly parallel and answer that
Israel in the type, without such danger of hypocrisy, of
such horrible profanations, and of firing the civil state in
such bloody combustions, as all ages have brought forth
upon this compelling a whole nation or kingdom to be the
antitype of Israel.
The difference of the kings and governors of Israel from all
kings and governors of the world. First, they were all members of the
church.
Peace. Were this light entertained, some hopes would
shine forth for my return and restoration.
Truth. I have yet to add a third consideration, concerning
the kings and governors of that land and people.
They were to be, unless in their captivities, of their
brethren, members of the true church of God: as appears
in the history of Moses, the elders of Israel, and the
judges and kings of Israel afterward.
But first, who can deny but that there may be now
many lawful governors, magistrates, and kings, in the
nations of the world, where is no true church of Jesus
Christ?
Excellent talents vouchsafed by God to unregenerate persons.
Secondly, we know the many excellent gifts wherewith
it hath pleased God to furnish many, enabling them for
public service to their countries both in peace and war, as
all ages and experience testify, on whose souls he hath not
yet pleased to shine in the face of Jesus Christ: which
gifts and talents must all lie buried in the earth, unless
such persons may lawfully be called and chosen to, and
improved in public service, notwithstanding their different
or contrary conscience or worship.
A doctrine contrary to all true piety and humanity itself.
Thirdly, if none but true Christians, members of Christ
Jesus, might be civil magistrates, and publicly entrusted
with civil affairs, then none but members of churches,
Christians, should be husbands of wives, fathers of children,
masters of servants. But against this doctrine the
whole creation, the whole world, may justly rise up in
arms, as not only contrary to true piety, but common
humanity itself. For if a commonweal be lawful amongst
men that have not heard of God nor Christ, certainly
their officers, ministers, and governors must be lawful also.
The papists’ doctrine of deposing magistrates, confessed in
effect to be true by the protestants.
Fourthly, it is notoriously known to be the dangerous
doctrine professed by some papists, that princes degenerating
from their religion, and turning heretics, are to be
deposed, and their subjects actually discharged from their
obedience. Which doctrine all such must necessarily
hold, however most loath to own it, that hold the magistrate
guardian of both tables; and consequently such a
one as is enabled to judge, yea, and to demonstrate to all
men the worship of God: yea, and being thus governor
and head of the church, he must necessarily be a part of it
himself; which when by heresy he falls from—though it
may be by truth, miscalled heresy—he falls from his
calling of magistracy, and is utterly disabled from his
(pretended) guardianship and government of the church.
No civil magistrate Christian in Christ’s time.
Lastly, we may remember the practice of the Lord
Jesus and his followers, commanding and practising
obedience to the higher powers, though we find not one
civil magistrate a Christian in all the first churches. But
contrarily, the civil magistrate at that time was the bloody
beast, made up (as Daniel seems to imply concerning the
Roman state, Dan. vii. 7) of the lion, the bear, and the
leopard, Rev. xiii. 2.
CHAP. CXV.
Peace. By these weights we may try the weight of that
commonly received and not questioned opinion, viz., that
the civil state and the spiritual, the church and the commonweal,
they are like Hippocrates’ twins, they are born
together, grow up together, laugh together, weep together,
sicken and die together.
Five demonstrative arguments proving the unsoundness of that
maxim: the church and the commonwealth are like Hippocrates’ twins.
Truth. A witty, yet a most dangerous fiction of the
father of lies, who, hardened in rebellion against God,
persuades God’s people to drink down such deadly poison,
though he knows the truth of these five particulars, which
I shall remind you of:—
Many flourishing states without a true church.
First, many flourishing states in the world have been
and are at this day, which hear not of Jesus Christ, and
therefore have not the presence and concurrence of a
church of Christ with them.
Many of God’s people far off from a true church state, yet fit
for civil services.
Secondly, there have been many thousands of God’s
people, who in their personal estate and life of grace were
awake to God; but in respect of church estate, they knew
no other than a church of dead stones, the parish church;
or though some light be of late come in through some
cranny, yet they seek not after, or least of all are joined
to any true church of God, consisting of living and believing
stones.
So that by these New English ministers’ principles, not
only is the door of calling to magistracy shut against
natural and unregenerate men, though excellently fitted
for civil offices, but also against the best and ablest servants
of God, except they be entered into church estate:
so that thousands of God’s own people, excellently qualified,
not knowing or not entering into such a church
estate, shall not be accounted fit for civil services.
God’s people permitted and favoured by idolaters.
Thirdly, admit that a civil magistrate be neither a
member of a true church of Christ, if any be in his
dominions, nor in his person fear God, yet may he (possibly)
give free permission without molestation, yea, and
sometimes encouragement and assistance, to the service
and church of God. Thus we find Abraham permitted to
build and set up an altar to his God wheresoever he came,
amongst the idolatrous nations in the land of Canaan.
Thus Cyrus proclaims liberty to all the people of God in
his dominions, freely to go up and build the temple of
God at Jerusalem, and Artaxerxes after him confirmed it.
Thus the Roman emperors, and governors under them,
permitted the church of God, the Jews, in the Lord
Christ’s time, their temple and worship, although in civil
things they were subject to the Romans.
Christ’s church gathered and governed without the help of an
arm of flesh.
Fourthly, the scriptures of truth and the records of
time concur in this, that the first churches of Christ
Jesus, the lights, patterns, and precedents to all succeeding
ages, were gathered and governed without the aid,
assistance, or countenance of any civil authority, from
which they suffered great persecutions for the name of the
Lord Jesus professed amongst them.
The nations, rulers, and kings of the earth, tumultuously
rage against the Lord and his anointed, Ps. ii. 1, 2. Yet,
ver. 6, it hath pleased the Father to set the Lord Jesus
King upon his holy hill of Zion.
Christ Jesus would not be pleased to make use of the
civil magistrate to assist him in his spiritual kingdom, nor
would he yet be daunted or discouraged in his servants by
all their threats and terrors: for love is strong as death,
and the coals thereof give a most vehement flame, and are
not quenched by all the waters and floods of mightiest
opposition, Cant. viii. [6, 7.]
Christ’s true spouse, chaste and faithful to Christ Jesus, in
the midst of fears or favours from the world.
Christ’s church is like a chaste and loving wife, in whose
heart is fixed her husband’s love, who hath found the
tenderness of his love towards her, and hath been made
fruitful by him, and therefore seeks she not the smiles,
nor fears the frowns, of all the emperors in the world to
bring her Christ unto her, or keep him from her.
The ten horns, Rev. xiii. and xvii.
Lastly, we find in the tyrannical usurpations of the
Romish anti-christ, the ten horns—which some of good
note conceive to be the ten kingdoms into which the
Roman empire was quartered and divided—are expressly
said, Rev. xvii. 13, to have one mind to give their power
and strength unto the beast; yea, ver. 17, their kingdom
unto the beast, until the works of God shall be fulfilled.
Whence it follows, that all those nations that are gilded
over with the name of Christ, have under that mask or
vizard (as some executioners and tormenters in the inquisition
use to torment) persecuted the Lord Jesus Christ,
either with a more open, gross, and bloody, or with a
more subtle, secret, and gentle violence.
The great mystery of persecution unfolded. Christian Naboths
slaughtered.
Let us cast our eyes about, turn over the records, and
examine the experience of past and present generations,
and see if all particular observations amount not to this
sum, viz., that the great whore hath committed fornication
with the kings of the earth, and made drunk thereof
nations with the cup of the wine of her fornications: in
which drunkenness and whoredom (as whores use to practise)
she hath robbed the kings and nations of their power
and strength, and, Jezebel like, having procured the kings’
names and seals, she drinks [herself] drunk, Rev. xvii. [6,]
with the blood of Naboth, who, because he dares not part
with his rightful inheritance in the land of Canaan, the
blessed land of promise and salvation in Christ, as a traitor
to the civil state and blasphemer against God, she, under
the colour of a day of humiliation in prayer and fasting,
stones to death.
CHAP. CXVI.
Peace. Dear Truth, how art thou hidden from the eyes
of men in these mysteries! how should men weep abundantly
with John, that the Lamb may please to open these
blessed seals unto them!
Truth. Oh that men more prized their Maker’s fear!
then should they be more acquainted with their Maker’s
councils, for his secret is with them that fear him, Ps.
xxv. 14.
I pass on to a second difference.
Second difference. The mystery of the anointing the kings of
Israel and Judah.
The kings of Israel and Judah were all solemnly
anointed with oil, Ps. lxxxix. 20, I have found David
my servant, with my oil have I anointed him. Whence the
kings of Israel and Judah were honoured with that
mystical and glorious title of the anointed, or Christ of
the Lord, Lam. iv. 20, The breath of our nostrils, the
anointed of Jehovah, was taken in their pits, &c.
Which anointing and title however, the man of sin,
together with the crown and diadem of spiritual Israel,
the church of God, he hath given to some of the kings of
the earth, that so he may in lieu thereof dispose of their
civil crowns the easier: yet shall we find it an incommunicable
privilege and prerogative of the saints and
people of God.
For as the Lord Jesus himself in the antitype was not
anointed with material but spiritual oil, Ps. xlv. 7, with the
oil of gladness; and Luke iv. 18, from Isaiah lxi. 1, with
the Spirit of God, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, the
Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings, &c.; so also
all his members are anointed with the Holy Spirit of God,
2 Cor. i. 21, and 1 John ii. 20.
The name Christian, or anointed.
Hence is it that Christians rejoice in that name, as
carrying the very express title of the anointed of the
Lord; which most superstitiously and sacrilegiously hath
been applied only unto kings.
A sacrilegious monopoly of the name Christian.
Peace. O dear Truth, how doth the great Searcher of
all hearts find out the thefts of the anti-christian world!
how are men carried in the dark they know not whither!
How is that heavenly charge, Touch not mine anointed, &c.,
Ps. cv. 15, common to all Christians, or anointed [ones]
with Christ their head, by way of monopoly or privilege
appropriated to kings and princes!
The crown of Christ’s kingly power.
Truth. It will not be here unseasonable to call to mind
that admirable prophecy, Ezek. xxi. 26, 27, Thus saith
Jehovah God, remove the diadem, take away the crown; this
shall not be the same; exalt him that is low, and abase him
that is high; I will overturn, overturn, overturn, until he
come whose right it is; and I will give it him. The matter
is a crown and diadem to be taken from a usurper’s head,
and set upon the head of the right owner.
Peace. Doubtless this mystically intends the spiritual
crown of the Lord Jesus, for these many hundred years
set upon the heads of the competitors and co-rivals of the
Lord Jesus, upon whose glorious head, in his messengers
and churches, the crown shall be established. The anointing,
the title, and the crown and power, must return to the
Lord Jesus in his saints, unto whom alone belongs his
power and authority in ecclesiastical or spiritual cases.
CHAP. CXVII.
Third. The kings of Israel and Judah invested with a spiritual
power.
Truth. I therefore proceed to a third difference between
those kings and governors of Israel and Judah, and all
other kings and rulers of the earth. Look upon the
administrations of the kings of Israel and Judah, and well
weigh the power and authority which those kings of Israel
and Judah exercised in ecclesiastical and spiritual causes;
and upon a due search we shall not find the same sceptre
of spiritual power in the hand of civil authority, which
was settled in the hands of the kings of Israel and Judah.
David appointed the orders of the priests and singers,
he brought the ark to Jerusalem, he prepared for the
building of the Temple, the pattern whereof he delivered
to Solomon: yet David herein could not be a type of the
kings and rulers of the earth, but of the king of heaven,
Christ Jesus: for,
First, David, as he was a king, so was he also a prophet,
Acts ii. 30; and therefore a type, as Moses also was, of that
great prophet, the Son of God. And they that plead for
David’s kingly power, must also by the same rule plead
for his prophetical, by which he swayed the sceptre of
Israel in church affairs.
David immediately inspired by the Spirit of God, in his
ordering of church matters.
Secondly, it is expressly said, 1 Chron. xxviii. 11, 12,
13, that the pattern which David gave to Solomon,
concerning the matter of the temple and worship of God,
he had it by the Spirit, which was no other but a figure of
the immediate inspiration of the Spirit of God unto the
Lord Jesus, the true spiritual king of Israel, John i. 49,
Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; Rabbi, thou art the King of
Israel.
Solomon’s deposing Abiathar (1 Kings ii. 26, 27,) discussed.
Again, what civil magistrate may now act as Solomon,
a type of Christ, doth act, 1 Kings ii. 26, 27? Solomon
thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto Jehovah.
Peace. Some object that Abiathar was a man of death,
ver. 26, worthy to die, as having followed Adonijah; and
therefore Solomon executed no more than civil justice
upon him.
Solomon’s putting Abiathar from the priesthood, examined.
Truth. Solomon remits the civil punishment, and inflicts
upon him a spiritual; but by what right, but as he was king
of the church, a figure of Christ?
Abiathar’s life is spared with respect to his former
good service in following after David; but yet he is
turned out from the priesthood.
A case put upon occasion of Abiathar’s case.
But now put the case: suppose that any of the officers
of the New England churches should prove false to the
state, and be discovered joining with a French Monsieur,
or Spanish Don, thirsting after conquest and dominion, to
further their invasions of that country; yet for some
former faithful service to the state, he should not be
adjudged to civil punishment:—I ask now, might their
governors, or their general court (their parliament), depose
such a man, a pastor, teacher, or elder, from his holy
calling or office in God’s house?
Another case.
Or suppose, in a partial and corrupt state, a member or
officer of a church should escape with his life upon the
commission of murder, ought not a church of Christ upon
repentance to receive him? I suppose it will not be said,
that he ought to execute himself; or that the church may
use a civil sword against him. In these cases may such
persons, spared in civil punishments for some reason of or
by partiality of state, be punished spiritually by the civil
magistrate, as Abiathar was. Let the very enemies of
Zion be judges.
Secondly, if Solomon in thrusting out of Abiathar was a
pattern and precedent unto all civil magistrates, why not
also in putting Zadok in his room, ver. 35? But against
this the pope, the bishops, the presbyterians, and the independents,
will all cry out against such a practice, in their
several respective claims and challenges for their
ministries.
The liberties of Christ’s churches in the choice of their
officers.
We find the liberty of the subjects of Christ in the
choice of an apostle, Acts i.; of a deacon, Acts vi.; of
elders, Acts xiv.; and guided by the assistance either of
the apostles or evangelists, 1 Tim. i., Tit. i., without the
least influence of any civil magistrate: which shows the
beauty of their liberty.
A civil influence dangerous to the saints’ liberties.
The parliaments of England have by right free choice
of their speaker: yet some princes have thus far been
gratified as to nominate, yea, and implicitly to commend a
speaker to them. Wise men have seen the evil consequences
of those influences, though but in civil things:
how much far greater and stronger are those snares,
when the golden keys of the Son of God are delivered
into the hands of civil authority!
Peace. You know the noise raised concerning those
famous acts of Asa, Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, Josiah.
What think you of the fast proclaimed by Jehoshaphat?
2 Chron. xx. 3.
Truth. I find it to be the duty of kings and all in
authority, to encourage Christ’s messengers of truth
proclaiming repentance, &c.
But under the gospel, to enforce all natural and unregenerate
people to acts of worship, what precedent hath
Christ Jesus given us?
Jehoshaphat’s fast examined.
First, it is true Jehoshaphat proclaimed a fast, &c.; but
was he not in matters spiritual a type of Christ, the true
king of Israel?
Secondly, Jehoshaphat calls the members of the true
church to church service and worship of God.
If civil powers may enjoin the time of the church’s worship,
they may also forbid her times.
But consider, if civil powers now may judge of and
determine the actions of worship proper to the saints: if
they may appoint the time of the church’s worship,
fasting, and prayer, &c., why may they not as well forbid
those times which a church of Christ shall make choice of,
seeing it is a branch of the same root to forbid what liketh
not, as well as to enjoin what pleaseth?
And if in those most solemn duties and exercises, why
not also in other ordinary meetings and worships? And
if so, where is the power of the Lord Jesus, bequeathed
to his ministers and churches, of which the power of those
kings was but a shadow?
CHAP. CXVIII.
Peace. The liberty of the subject sounds most sweet
London and Oxford both profess to fight for: how much
infinitely more sweet is that true soul liberty according to
Christ Jesus!
God will not wrong Cæsar, and Cæsar should not wrong God.
I know you would not take from Cæsar aught, although
it were to give to God; and what is God’s and his
people’s I wish that Cæsar may not take. Yet, for the
satisfaction of some, be pleased to glance upon Josiah, his
famous acts in the church of God, concerning the worship
of God, the priests, Levites, and their services, compelling
the people to keep the passover, making himself a covenant
before the Lord, and compelling all that were found in
Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it.
Truth. To these famous practices of Josiah, I shall
parallel the practices of England’s kings; and first, de jure,
a word or two of their right: then, de facto, discuss what
hath been done.
The famous acts of Josiah, examined.
First, de jure; Josiah was a precious branch of that
royal root king David, who was immediately designed by
God: and when the golden links of the royal chain broke
in the usurpations of the Roman conqueror, it pleased the
most wise God to send a son of David, a Son of God, to
begin again that royal line, to sit upon the throne of his
father David, Luke i. 32; Acts ii. 30.
Magistracy in general from God, the particular forms from the
people.
It is not so with the Gentile princes, rulers, and magistrates,
whether monarchical, aristocratical, or democratical;
who, though government in general be from God, yet,
receive their callings, power, and authority, both kings and
parliaments, mediately from the people.
Secondly. Josiah and those kings, were kings and
governors over the then true and only church of God
national, brought into the covenant of God in Abraham,
and so downward: and they might well be forced to stand
to that covenant into which, with such immediate signs and
miracles, they had been brought.
Israel confirmed in a national covenant by relations, signs,
and miracles, but so not England.
But what commission from Christ Jesus had Henry
VIII., Edward VI., or any, Josiah like, to force the many
hundred thousands of English men and women, without
such immediate signs and miracles that Israel had, to
enter into a holy and spiritual covenant with the invisible
God, the Father of spirits, or upon pain of death, as in
Josiah’s time, to stand to that which they never made, nor
before evangelical repentance are possibly capable of?
Henry VIII. the first head and governor of the church of
England.
Now secondly, de facto: let it be well remembered
concerning the kings of England professing reformation.
The foundation of all was laid in Henry VIII. The pope
challengeth to be the vicar of Christ Jesus here upon
earth, to have power of reforming the church, redressing
abuses, &c.: Henry VIII. falls out with the pope, and
challengeth that very power to himself of which he had
despoiled the pope, as appears by that act of parliament
establishing Henry VIII. the supreme head and governor
in all cases ecclesiastical, &c.[221] It pleased the most high
God to plague the pope by Henry VIII.’s means: but
neither pope nor king can ever prove such power from
Christ derived to either of them.
The wonderful formings and reformings of religion by England’s
kings. Kings and states often plant, and often pluck up religions.
Secondly, as before intimated, let us view the works and
acts of England’s imitation of Josiah’s practice. Henry
VII. leaves England under the slavish bondage of the
pope’s yoke. Henry VIII. reforms all England to a new
fashion, half papist, half protestant. King Edward VI.
turns about the wheels of the state, and works the whole
land to absolute protestantism. Queen Mary, succeeding
to the helm, steers a direct contrary course, breaks in
pieces all that Edward wrought, and brings forth an old
edition of England’s reformation all popish. Mary not
living out half her days, as the prophet speaks of bloody
persons, Elizabeth, like Joseph, advanced from the prison
to the palace, and from the irons to the crown, she plucks
up all her sister Mary’s plants, and sounds a trumpet all
protestant.
What sober man stands not amazed at these revolutions?
and yet, like mother like daughter: and how zealous are
we, their offspring, for another impression, and better edition
of a national Canaan, in imitation of Judah and
Josiah! which, if attained, who knows how soon succeeding
kings or parliaments will quite pull down and abrogate?[222]
A national church ever subject to turn and return, &c.
Thirdly, in all these formings and reformings, a national
church of natural, unregenerate men, was (like wax) the
subject matter of all these forms and changes, whether
popish or protestant: concerning which national state, the
time is yet to come whenever the Lord Jesus hath given a
word of institution and appointment.
CHAP. CXIX.
A woman, papissa, or head of the church.
Peace. You bring to mind, dear Truth, a plea of some
wiser papists for the pope’s supremacy, viz., that it was no
such exorbitant or unheard of power and jurisdiction
which the pope challenged, but the very same which a
woman, Queen Elizabeth herself, challenged, styling her
papissa or she-pope: withal pleading, that in point of reason
it was far more suitable that the Lord Jesus would
delegate his power rather to a clergyman than a layman,
as Henry VIII.; or a woman, as his daughter Elizabeth.
The papists nearer to the truth, concerning the government of
the church, than most protestants.
Truth. I believe that neither one or the other hit the
white;[223] yet I believe the papists’ arrows fall the nearest to
it in this particular, viz., that the government of the
church of Christ should rather belong to such as profess a
ministry or office spiritual, than to such as are merely
temporal and civil.
So that in conclusion, the whole controversy concerning
the government of Christ’s kingdom or church, will be
found to lie between the true and false ministry, both
challenging the true commission, power, and keys from
Christ.
The kingly power of the Lord Jesus troubles all the kings and
rulers of the world.
Peace. This all glorious diadem of the kingly power of
the Lord Jesus hath been the eye-sore of the world, and
that which the kings and rulers of the world have always
lift up their hands unto.
The first report of a new king of the Jews puts Herod
and all Jerusalem into frights; and the power of this
most glorious King of kings over the souls and consciences
of men, or over their lives and worships, is still the white
that all the princes of this world shoot at, and are enraged
at the tidings of the true heir, the Lord Jesus, in his
servants.
A twofold exaltation of Christ.
Truth. You well mind, dear Peace, a twofold exaltation
of the Lord Jesus; one in the souls and spirits of men,
and so he is exalted by all that truly love him, though yet
remaining in Babel’s captivity, and before they hearken
to the voice of the Lord, “Come forth of Babel, my
people.”
A second exaltation of Christ Jesus, upon the throne of
David his father, in his church and congregation, which is
his spiritual kingdom here below.
The world stormeth at both.
I confess there is a tumultuous rage at his entrance
into his throne in the soul and consciences of any of his
chosen; but against his second exaltation in his true kingly
power and government, either monarchical in himself, or
ministerial in the hands of his ministers and churches, are
mustered up, and shall be in the battles of Christ yet to be
fought, all the powers of the gates of earth and hell.
A fourth difference.
But I shall mention one difference more between the
kings of Israel and Judah, and all other kings and rulers
of the Gentiles.
Kings of Israel types.
Those kings as kings of Israel were all invested with a
typical and figurative respect, with which now no civil
power in the world can be invested.
They wore a double crown.
They wore a double crown: first, civil; secondly, spiritual:
in which respect they typed out the spiritual king
of Israel, Christ Jesus.
When I say they were types, I make them not in all
respects so to be; but as kings and governors over the
church and kingdom of God, therein types.
The saviours of the Jews, figures of the Saviour of the world.
Hence all those saviours and deliverers, which it pleased
God to stir up extraordinarily to his people, Gideon,
Baruc, Sampson, &c.; in that respect of their being
saviours, judges, and deliverers of God’s people, so were
they types of Jesus Christ, either monarchically ruling
by himself immediately, or ministerially by such whom he
pleaseth to send to vindicate the liberties and inheritances
of his people.
CHAP. CXX.
Peace. It must needs be confessed, that since the kings
of Israel were ceremonially anointed with oil: and—
Secondly, in that they sat upon the throne of David,
which is expressly applied to Christ Jesus, Luke i. 32;
Acts ii. 30; John i. 49, their crowns were figurative and
ceremonial; but some here question, whether or no they
were not types of civil powers and rulers now, when
kings and queens shall be nursing fathers and nursing
mothers, &c.
The monarchical and ministerial power of Christ.
Truth. For answer unto such, let them first remember
that the dispute lies not concerning the monarchical power
of the Lord Jesus, the power of making laws, and making
ordinances to his saints and subjects; but concerning a
deputed and ministerial power, and this distinction the
very pope himself acknowledgeth.
Three great competitors for the ministerial power of Christ.
The popes great pretenders for the ministerial power of Christ.
There are three great competitors for this deputed or
ministerial power of the Lord Jesus.
First. The arch-vicar of Satan, the pretended vicar of
Christ on earth, who sits as God over the temple of God,
exalting himself not only above all that is called God, but
over the souls and consciences of all his vassals, yea, over
the Spirit of Christ, over the holy scriptures, yea, and
God himself, Dan. viii. and xi., and Rev. xv., together
with 2 Thess. ii.
They also upon the point challenge the monarchical also.
This pretender, although he professeth to claim but the
ministerial power of Christ, to declare his ordinances, to
preach, baptize, ordain ministers, and yet doth he upon
the point challenge the monarchical or absolute power also,
being full of self-exalting and blaspheming, Dan. vii. 25,
and xi. 36; Rev. xiii. 6, speaking blasphemies against the
God of heaven, thinking to change times and laws; but
he is the son of perdition arising out of the bottomless
pit, and comes to destruction, Rev. xvii., for so hath the
Lord Jesus decreed to consume him by the breath of his
mouth, 2 Thess. ii.
The second great pretender, the civil magistrate.
The second great competitor to this crown of the Lord
Jesus is the civil magistrate, whether emperors, kings, or
other inferior officers of state, who are made to believe, by
the false prophets of the world, that they are the antitypes
of the kings of Israel and Judah, and wear the crown of
Christ.
Three great factions challenging an arm of flesh.
Under the wing of the civil magistrate do three great
factions shelter themselves, and mutually oppose each
other, striving as for life who shall sit down under the
shadow of that arm of flesh.
1. The prelacy.
First, the prelacy: who, though some extravagants of
late have inclined to waive the king, and to creep under
the wings of the pope, yet so far depends upon the king,
that it is justly said they are the king’s bishops.
2. The presbytery. The pope and presbytery make use of the
civil magistrate but as of an executioner.
Secondly, the presbytery: who, though in truth they
ascribe not so much to the civil magistrate as some too
grossly do, yet they give so much to the civil magistrate
as to make him absolutely the head of the church: for, if
they make him the reformer of the church, the suppressor
of schismatics and heretics, the protector and defender of
the church, &c., what is this, in true, plain English, but to
make him the judge of the true and false church, judge of
what is truth and what error, who is schismatical, who
heretical? unless they make him only an executioner, as
the pope doth in his punishing of heretics.
I doubt not but the aristocratical government of presbyterians
may well subsist in a monarchy, not only regulated
but also tyrannical; yet doth it more naturally
delight in the element of an aristocratical government of
state, and so may properly be said to be—as the prelates
the king’s, so these—the state-bishop’s.
3. Independents. The independents: who come nearest to the
bishops.
The third, though not so great, yet growing faction is
that (so called) independent: I prejudice not the personal
worth of any of the three sorts: this latter, as I believe
this discourse hath manifested, jumps with the prelates,
and, though not more fully, yet more explicitly than the
presbyterians, cast down the crown of the Lord Jesus at
the feet of the civil magistrate. And although they pretend
to receive their ministry from the choice of two or
three private persons in church covenant, yet would they
fain persuade the mother of Old England to imitate her
daughter New England’s practice, viz., to keep out the
presbyterians, and only to embrace themselves, both as the
state’s and the people’s bishops.
The third competition, of those that separate.
The third competition for this crown and power of the
Lord Jesus is of those that separate both from one and
the other, yet divided also amongst themselves into many
several professions.
Of these, they that go furthest profess they must yet
come nearer to the ways of the Son of God: and doubtless,
so far as they have gone, they bid the most, and
make the fairest plea for the purity and power of Christ
Jesus,—let the rest of the inhabitants of the world be
judges.
Their nearer conformity to Christ. The churches of the
separation ought in humanity and subjects’ liberty not to be oppressed,
but (at least) permitted.
Let all the former well be viewed in their external
state, pomp, riches, conformity to the world, &c. And on
the other side, let the latter be considered, in their more
thorough departure from sin and sinful worship, their
condescending (generally) to the lowest and meanest contentments
of this life, their exposing of themselves for
Christ to greater sufferings, and their desiring no civil
sword nor arm of flesh, but the two-edged sword of God’s
Spirit to try out the matter by: and then let the inhabitants
of the world judge which come nearest to the doctrine,
holiness, poverty, patience, and practice of the Lord
Jesus Christ; and whether or no these latter deserve not
so much of humanity and subjects’ liberty, as (not offending
the civil state) in the freedom of their souls, to enjoy
the common air to breathe in.
CHAP. CXX. [224]
Peace. Dear Truth, you have shown me a little draught
of Zion’s sorrows, her children tearing out their mother’s
bowels. Oh! when will He that stablisheth, comforteth,
and builds up Zion, look down from heaven, and have
mercy on her? &c.
Truth. The vision yet doth tarry, saith Habakkuk, but
will most surely come; and therefore the patient and believing
must wait for it.
Seven reasons, proving that the kings of Israel and Judah
cannot have any other but a spiritual antitype. Civil types and figures
must needs be answered by spiritual antitypes.
But to your last proposition, whether the kings of Israel
and Judah were not types of civil magistrates? Now, I
suppose, by what hath been already spoken, these things
will be evident:—
First. That those former types of the land, of the people,
of their worships, were types and figures of a spiritual
land, spiritual people, and spiritual worship under Christ.
Therefore, consequently, their saviours, redeemers, deliverers,
judges, kings, must also have their spiritual antitypes,
and so consequently not civil but spiritual governors
and rulers, lest the very essential nature of types, figures,
and shadows be overthrown.
Civil compulsion was proper in the national church of the
Jews, but most improper in the Christian, which is not national.
Secondly. Although the magistrate by a civil sword
might well compel that national church to the external
exercise of their national worship: yet it is not possible,
according to the rule of the New Testament, to compel
whole nations to true repentance and regeneration, without
which (so far as may be discerned true) the worship
and holy name of God is profaned and blasphemed.
An arm of flesh and sword of steel cannot reach to cut
the darkness of the mind, the hardness and unbelief of the
heart, and kindly operate upon the soul’s affections to forsake
a long-continued father’s worship, and to embrace a
new, though the best and truest. This work performs
alone that sword out of the mouth of Christ, with two
edges, Rev. i. and iii.
Neither Christ Jesus nor his messengers have made the civil
magistrate Israel’s antitype, but the contrary.
Thirdly. We have not one tittle, in the New Testament
of Christ Jesus, concerning such a parallel, neither from
himself nor from his ministers, with whom he conversed
forty days after his resurrection, instructing them in the
matters of his kingdom, Acts i. 3.
Neither find we any such commission or direction given
to the civil magistrate to this purpose, nor to the saints
for their submission in matters spiritual, but the contrary,
Acts iv. and v.; 1 Cor. vii. 23; Col. ii. 18.
Civil magistracy essentially civil, and the same in all parts
of the world.
Fourthly. We have formerly viewed the very matter
and essence of a civil magistrate, and find it the same in
all parts of the world, wherever people live upon the face
of the earth, agreeing together in towns, cities, provinces,
kingdoms:—I say the same essentially civil, both from,
1. The rise and fountain whence it springs, to wit, the
people’s choice and free consent. 2. The object of it, viz.,
the commonweal, or safety of such a people in their bodies
and goods, as the authors of this model have themselves
confessed.
Christianity adds not to the nature of a civil commonweal, nor
doth want of Christianity diminish it.
This civil nature of the magistrate we have proved to
receive no addition of power from the magistrate being a
Christian, no more than it receives diminution from his
not being a Christian, even as the commonweal is a
true commonweal, although it have not heard of Christianity;
and Christianity professed in it, as in Pergamos,
Ephesus, &c., makes it never no more a commonweal; and
Christianity taken away, and the candlestick removed,
makes it nevertheless a commonweal.
Rom. xiii. evidently proves the civil work and wages of the
civil magistrate.
Fifthly. The Spirit of God expressly relates the work
of the civil magistrate under the gospel, Rom. xiii.,
expressly mentioning, as the magistrates’ object, the duties
of the second table, concerning the bodies and goods of
the subject.
2. The reward or wages which people owe for such a
work, to wit, not the contribution of the church for any
spiritual work, but tribute, toll, custom, which are wages
payable by all sorts of men, natives and foreigners, who
enjoy the same benefit of public peace and commerce in
the nation.
Most strange, yet most true consequences from the civil
magistrates now being the antitype of the kings of Israel and Judah.
Sixthly. Since civil magistrates, whether kings or parliaments,
states, and governors, can receive no more in
justice than what the people give: and are, therefore, but
the eyes, and hands, and instruments of the people,
simply considered, without respect to this or that religion;
it must inevitably follow, as formerly I have touched, that
if magistrates have received their power from the people,
then the greatest number of the people of every land has
received from Christ Jesus a power to establish, correct,
reform his saints and servants, his wife and spouse, the
church: and she that by the express word of the Lord,
Ps. cxlix. 8, binds kings in chains, and nobles in links of
iron, must herself be subject to the changeable pleasures
of the people of the world, which lies in wickedness,
1 John v. 19, even in matters of heavenly and spiritual
nature.
Hence, therefore, in all controversies concerning the
church, ministry and worship, the last appeal must come to
the bar of the people or commonweal, where all may
personally meet, as in some commonweals of small number,
or in greater by their representatives.
If no religion but that which the commonweal approves, then no
Christ, no God, but at the pleasure of this world, 2 John 9.
Hence, then, no person esteemed a believer, and added
to the church:—
No officer chosen and ordained:—
No person cast forth and excommunicated, but as the
commonweal and people please; and in conclusion, no
church of Christ in this land or world, and consequently
no visible Christ the head of it. Yea, yet higher, consequently
no God in the world worshipped according to
the institutions of Christ Jesus—except the several peoples
of the nations of the world shall give allowance.
Peace. Dear Truth, oh! whither have our forefathers
and teachers led us? Higher than to God himself, by these
doctrines driven out of the world, you cannot rise: and
yet so high must the inevitable and undeniable consequences
of these their doctrines reach, if men walk by
their own common principles.
The true antitype of the kings of Israel and Judah.
Truth. I may therefore here seasonably add a seventh,
which is a necessary consequence of all the former arguments,
and an argument itself: viz., we find expressly a
spiritual power of Christ Jesus in the hands of his saints,
ministers, and churches, to be the true antitype of those
former figures in all the prophecies concerning Christ’s
spiritual power, Isa. ix., Dan. vii., Mich. iv., &c., compared
with Luke i. 32, Acts ii. 30, 1 Cor. v., Matt. xviii.,
Mark xiii. 34, &c.
CHAP. CXXI.
Peace. Glorious and conquering Truth, methinks I see
most evidently thy glorious conquests: how mighty are
thy spiritual weapons, 2 Cor. x. 4, to break down those
mighty and strong holds and castles, which men have
fortified themselves withal against thee? Oh! that even
the thoughts of men may submit and bow down to the
captivity of Jesus Christ!
A fourth difference of laws and statutes from all others.
Truth. Your kind encouragement makes me proceed
more cheerfully to a fourth difference from the laws and
statutes of this land, different from all the laws and statutes
of the world, and paralleled only by the laws and ordinances
of spiritual Israel.
Moses a type of Christ.
First, then, consider we the law-maker, or rather the
law-publisher, or prophet, as Moses calls himself, Deut.
xviii. [15,] and Acts iii. [22,] he is expressly called that
prophet who figured out Christ Jesus who was to come
like unto Moses, greater than Moses, as the son is greater
than the servant.
Such lawgivers, or law-publishers, never had any state
or people as Moses the type, or Christ Jesus, miraculously
stirred up and sent as the mouth of God between God and
his people.
The laws of Israel unparalleled.
Secondly, concerning the laws themselves: it is true,
the second table contains the law of nature, the law moral
and civil, yet such a law was also given to this people as
never to any people in the world: such was the law of
worship, Ps. cxlvii., peculiarly given to Jacob, and God
did not deal so with other nations: which laws for the
matter of the worship in all those wonderful significant
sacrifices, and for the manner by such a priesthood, such a
place of tabernacle, and afterward of temple, such times
and solemnities of festivals, were never to be paralleled by
any other nation, but only by the true Christian Israel
established by Jesus Christ amongst Jews and Gentiles
throughout the world.
God’s own finger penned laws for Israel.
Thirdly, the law of the ten words, Deut. x., the epitome
of all the rest, it pleased the most high God to frame and
pen twice, with his own most holy and dreadful finger,
upon Mount Sinai, which he never did to any other nation
before or since, but only to that spiritual Israel, the people
and the church of God, in whose hearts of flesh he writes
his laws, according to Jer. xxxi., Heb. viii. and x.
Peace. Such promulgation of such laws, by such a prophet,
must needs be matchless and unparalleled.
Fifth difference.
Truth. In the fifth place, consider we the punishments
and rewards annexed to the breach or observation of these
laws.
Temporal prosperity most proper to the temporal national state
of the Jews.
First, those which were of a temporal and present consideration
of this life: blessings and curses of all sorts
opened at large, Lev. xxvi. and Deut. xxviii., which cannot
possibly be made good in any state, country, or kingdom,
but in a spiritual sense in the church and kingdom of
Christ.
The spiritual prosperity of God’s people now, the antitype.
The reason is this: such a temporal prosperity of outward
peace and plenty of all things, of increase of children,
of cattle, of honour, of health, of success, of victory, suits
not temporally with the afflicted and persecuted estate of
God’s people now: and therefore spiritual and soul-blessedness
must be the antitype, viz., in the midst of revilings,
and all manner of evil speeches for Christ’s sake,
soul-blessedness. In the midst of afflictions and persecutions,
soul-blessedness, Matt. v. and Luke vi. And yet
herein the Israel of God should enjoy their spiritual peace,
Gal. vi. 16.
What Israel’s excommunication was.
Out of that blessed temporal estate to be cast, or carried
captive, was their excommunication or casting out of
God’s sight, 2 Kings xvii. 23. Therefore was the blasphemer,
the false prophet, the idolater, to be cast out or
cut off from this holy land: which punishment cannot be
paralleled by the punishment of any state or kingdom in
the world, but only by the excommunicating or out-casting
of person or church from the fellowship of the saints and
churches of Christ Jesus in the gospel.
The corporal stoning in the law, typed out spiritual stoning
in the gospel.
And therefore, as before I have noted, the putting away
of the false prophet, by stoning him to death, Deut. xiii.,
is fitly answered, and that in the very same words, in the
antitype: when, by the general consent or stoning of the
whole assembly, any wicked person is put away from
amongst them, that is, spiritually cut off out of the land
of the spiritually living, the people or church of God,
1 Cor. v., Gal. v.
The rewards or punishments of the laws of Israel not to be
paralleled.
Lastly, the great and high reward or punishment of the
keeping or breach of these laws to Israel, was such as
cannot suit with any state or kingdom in the world beside.
The reward of the observation was life, eternal life. The
breach of any one of these laws was death, eternal death,
or damnation from the presence of the Lord. So Rom. x.,
James ii. Such a covenant God made not before nor
since with any state or people in the world. For, Christ
is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth, Rom. x. 4. And, he that believeth in that Son of
God, hath eternal life; he that believeth not hath not life, but
is condemned already, John iii. and 1 John v.
CHAP. CXXII.
The wars of Israel typical.
Peace. Dear Truth, you have most lively set forth the
unparalleled state of that typical land and people of the
Jews in their peace and quiet government: let me now
request you, in the last place, to glance at the difference of
the wars of this people from the wars of other nations,
and of their having no antitype but the churches of Christ
Jesus.
Israel’s enemies round about.
[Truth.] First, all nations round about Israel, more or
less, some time or other, had indignation against this people—Egyptians,
Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Midians,
Philistines, Assyrians, and Babylonians, &c., as appears
in the history of Moses, Samuel, Judges, and Kings, and
in all the prophets: you have an express catalogue of
them, Ps. lxxxiii., sometimes many hundred thousand
enemies in pitched field against them: of Ethiopians ten
hundred thousand at once in the days of Asa, 2 Chron.
xiv. [9,] and at other times as the sand upon the sea
shore.
The enemies of mystical Israel.
Such enemies the Lord Jesus foretold his Israel, The
world shall hate you, John xv. [18, 19.] You shall be
hated of all men for my name’s sake, Matt. xxiv. [9.] All
that will live godly in Christ Jesus must be persecuted, or
hunted, 2 Tim. iii. [12.] And not only by flesh and
blood, but also by principalities, powers, spiritual wickedness
in high places, Eph. vi. [12,] by the whole pagan
world under the Roman emperors, and the whole anti-christian
world under the Roman popes, Rev. xii. and xiii.,
by the kings of the earth, Rev. xvii. And Gog and
Magog, like the sand upon the shore, (Rev. xx.)
Peace. Such enemies, such armies, no history, no experience
proves ever to have come against one poor nation
as against Israel in the type; and never was nor shall be
known to come against any state or country now, but the
Israel of God, the spiritual Jews, Christ’s true followers
in all parts and quarters of the world.
Enemies against Israel in her own bowels.
[Truth.] Beside all these without, Israel is betrayed
within her own bowels: bloody Sauls, Absaloms, Shebas,
Adonijahs, Jeroboams, Athaliahs, raising insurrections,
conspiracies, tumults, in the antitype and parallel, the
spiritual state of the Christian church.
Secondly, consider we the famous and wonderful battles,
victories, captivities, deliverances, which it pleased the
God of Israel to dispense to that people and nation, and let
us search if they can be paralleled by any state or people,
but mystically and spiritually the true Christian Israel of
God, Gal. vi. 16.
The famous typical captivities of the Jews.
How famous was the bondage and slavery of that people
and nation 430 years in the land of Egypt, and as famous,
glorious, and miraculous was their return through the
Red Sea, a figure of baptism, 1 Cor. x. [2,] and Egypt a
figure of an Egypt now, Rev. xi. 8.
How famous was the seventy years’ captivity of the
Jews in Babel, transported from the land of Canaan, and
at the full period returned again to Jerusalem, a type of
the captivity of God’s people now, spiritually captivated in
spiritual Babel, Rev. xviii. 4.
Their wonderful victories.
Time would fail me to speak of Joshua’s conquest of
literal Canaan, the slaughter of thirty-one kings, of the
miraculous taking of Jericho and other cities: Gideon’s
miraculous battle against the Midianites: Jonathan and
his armour-bearer against the Philistines: David, by his
five smooth stones against Goliah: Asa, Jehoshaphat,
Hezekiah, their mighty and miraculous victories against
so many hundred thousand enemies, and that sometimes
without a blow given.
What state, what kingdom, what wars and combats,
victories and deliverances, can parallel this people, but the
spiritual and mystical Israel of God in every nation and
country of the world, typed out by that small typical
handful, in that little spot of ground, the land of Canaan?
The mystical battles of God’s Israel now.
The Israel of God now, men and women, fight under
the great Lord General, the Lord Jesus Christ: their
weapons, armour, and artillery, are like themselves, spiritual,
set forth from top to toe, Eph. vi.; so mighty
and so potent that they break down the strongest holds
and castles, yea, in the very souls of men, and carry into
captivity the very thoughts of men, subjecting them to
Christ Jesus. They are spiritual conquerors, as in all the
seven churches of Asia, He that overcometh: He that overcometh,
Rev. ii. and iii.
Their victories and conquests in this country are contrary
to those of this world, for when they are slain and
slaughtered, yet then they conquer. So overcame they
the devil in the Roman emperors, Rev. xii. [11,] By the
blood of the Lamb: 2. By the word of their testimony:
3. The cheerful spilling of their own blood for Christ;
for they loved not their lives unto the death: and in all this
they are more than conquerors through him that loved them,
Rom. viii. 37.
The mystical army of white troopers, Rev. xix.
This glorious army of white troopers, horses and harness—Christ
Jesus and his true Israel, Rev. xix.—gloriously
conquer and overcome the beast, the false
prophet, and the kings of the earth, up in arms against
them, Rev. xix.; and, lastly, reigning with Christ a
thousand years, they conquer the devil himself, and the
numberless armies, like the sand on the sea shore, of Gog
and Magog: and yet not a tittle of mention of any sword,
helmet, breastplate, shield, or horse, but what is spiritual
and of a heavenly nature. All which wars of Israel have
been, may be, and shall be fulfilled mystically and spiritually.
I could further insist on other particulars of Israel’s
unparalleled state, and might display those excellent
passages which it pleaseth God to mention, Neh. ix.
CHAP. CXXIII.
Peace. You have, dear Truth, as in a glass, presented
the face of old and new Israel, and as in water face
answereth to face, so doth the face of typical Israel to the
face of the antitype, between whom, and not between
Canaan and the civil nations and countries of the world
now, there is an admirable consent and harmony. But I
have heard some say, was not the civil state and judicials
of that people precedential?
Whether the civil state of Israel was precedential.
Truth. I have in part, and might farther discover, that
from the king and his throne to the very beasts, yea, [to] the
excrements of their bodies (as we see in their going to
war, Deut. xxiii. 12,) their civils, morals, and naturals were
carried on in types; and however I acknowledge that
what was simply moral, civil, and natural in Israel’s state,
in their constitutions, laws, punishments, may be imitated
and followed by the states, countries, cities, and kingdoms
of the world: yet who can question the lawfulness of
other forms of government, laws, and punishments which
differ, since civil constitutions are men’s ordinances (or
creation, 2 Pet. ii. 13), unto which God’s people are commanded
even for the Lord’s sake to submit themselves,
which if they were unlawful they ought not to do?
Peace. Having thus far proceeded in examining whether
God hath charged the civil state with the establishing of
the spiritual and religious, what conceive you of that next
assertion, viz., “It is well known that the remissness of
princes in Christendom in matters of religion and worship,
devolving the care thereof only to the clergy, and so setting
their horns upon the church’s head, hath been the cause of
anti-christian invention, usurpation, and corruption in the
worship and temple of God.”
The true Christendom.
Truth. It is lamentably come to pass by God’s just
permission, Satan’s policy, the people’s sin, the malice of
the wicked against Christ, and the corruption of princes
and magistrates, that so many inventions, usurpations, and
corruptions are risen in the worship and temple of God,
throughout that part of the world which is called Christian,
and may most properly be called the pope’s Christendom
in opposition to Christ Jesus’s true Christian commonweal,
or church, the true Christendom; but that this
hath arisen from princes’ remissness in not keeping their
watch to establish the purity of religion, doctrine, and
worship, and to punish, according to Israel’s pattern, all
false ministers, by rooting them and their worships out of
the world, that, I say, can never be evinced; and the
many thousands of glorious souls under the altar whose
blood hath been spilt by this position, and the many
hundred thousand souls, driven out of their bodies by civil
wars, and the many millions of souls forced to hypocrisy
and ruin eternal, by enforced uniformities in worship, will
to all eternity proclaim the contrary.
Great unfaithfulness in ministers to cast the chiefest burden
of judging and establishing true Christianity upon the commonweal or
world itself.
Indeed, it shows a most injurious idleness and unfaithfulness
in such as profess to be messengers of Christ Jesus,
to cast the heaviest weight of their care upon the kings
and rulers of the earth, yea, upon the very commonweals,
bodies of people, that is, the world itself, who have fundamentally
in themselves the root of power, to set up what
government and governors they shall agree upon.
Secondly, it shows abundance of carnal diffidence and
distrust of the glorious power and gracious presence of the
Lord Jesus, who hath given his promise and word to be
with such his messengers to the end of the world, Matt.
xxviii. 20.
That dog that fears to meet a man in the path, runs on
with boldness at his master’s coming and presence at his
back.
To govern and judge in civil affairs load enough on the civil
magistrate. Magistrates can have no more power than the common consent of
the people shall betrust them with.
Thirdly, what imprudence and indiscretion is it in the
most common affairs of life, to conceive that emperors,
kings, and rulers of the earth, must not only be qualified
with political and state abilities to make and execute such
civil laws which may concern the common rights, peace,
and safety, which is work and business, load and burden
enough for the ablest shoulders in the commonweal; but
also furnished with such spiritual and heavenly abilities to
govern the spiritual and Christian commonweal, the flock
and church of Christ, to pull down, and set up religion, to
judge, determine, and punish in spiritual controversies,
even to death or banishment. And, beside, that not only
the several sorts of civil officers, which the people shall
choose and set up, must be so authorized, but that all respective
commonweals or bodies of people are charged
(much more) by God with this work and business,
radically and fundamentally, because all true civil magistrates,
have not the least inch of civil power, but what is
measured out to them from the free consent of the whole:
even as a committee of parliament cannot further act than
the power of the house shall arm and enable them.
Thousands of lawful magistrates, who never hear of the true
church of God.
Concerning that objection which may arise from the
kings of Israel and Judah, who were born members of
God’s church, and trained up therein all their days, which
thousands of lawful magistrates in the world, possibly born
and bred in false worships, pagan or anti-christian, never
heard of, and were therein types of the great anointed, the
King of Israel, I have spoken sufficiently to such as have
an ear to hear: and therefore,
The spiritual and civil sword cannot be managed by one and the
same person. The Lord Jesus refused to manage both.
Lastly, so unsuitable is the commixing and entangling
of the civil with the spiritual charge and government, that
(except it was for subsistence, as we see in Paul and
Barnabas working with their own hands) the Lord Jesus,
and his apostles, kept themselves to one. If ever any in
this world was able to manage both the spiritual and civil,
church and commonweal, it was the Lord Jesus, wisdom
itself: yea, he was the true heir to the crown of Israel,
being the son of David: yet being sought for by the
people to be made a king, John vi. [15,] he refused, and
would not give a precedent to any king, prince, or ruler,
to manage both swords, and to assume the charge of both
tables.
Now concerning princes, I desire it may be remembered,
who were most injurious and dangerous to Christianity,
whether Nero, Domitian, Julian, &c., persecutors: or
Constantine, Theodosius, &c., who assumed this power and
authority in and over the church in spiritual things. It
is confessed by the answerer and others of note, that under
these latter, the church, the Christian state, religion, and
worship, were most corrupted: under Constantine, Christians
fell asleep on the beds of carnal ease and liberty;
insomuch that some apply to his times that sleep of the
church, Cant. v. 2, I sleep, though mine heart waketh.[225]
CHAP. CXXIV.
Peace. Yea; but some will say, this was not through
their assuming of this power, but the ill-managing of it.
Truth. Yet are they commonly brought as the great
precedents for all succeeding princes and rulers in after
ages: and in this very controversy, their practices are
brought as precedential to establish persecution for conscience.
Who force the consciences of others, yet are not willing to be
forced themselves.
Secondly, those emperors and other princes and magistrates
acted in religion according to their consciences’ persuasion,
and beyond the light and persuasion of conscience
can no man living walk in any fear of God. Hence have
they forced their subjects to uniformity and conformity
unto their own consciences, whatever they were, though
not willing to have been forced themselves in the matters
of God and conscience.
Constantine and others wanted not so much affection as
information of conscience.
Thirdly, had not the light of their eye of conscience,
and the consciences also of their teachers, been darkened,
they could not have been condemned for want of heavenly
affection, rare devotion, wonderful care and diligence, propounding
to themselves the best patterns of the kings of
Judah, David, Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Josiah, Hezekiah.
But here they lost the path, and themselves, in
persuading themselves to be the parallels and antitypes to
those figurative and typical princes: whence they conceived
themselves bound to make their cities, kingdoms,
empires, new holy lands of Canaan, and themselves
governors and judges in spiritual causes, compelling all
consciences to Christ, and persecuting the contrary with
fire and sword.
Sad consequences of charging the civil powers with the care of
spirituals.
Upon these roots, how was, how is it possible, but that
such bitter fruits should grow of corruption of Christianity,
persecution of such godly who happily see more
of Christ than such rulers themselves: their dominions
and jurisdictions being overwhelmed with enforced dissimulation
and hypocrisy, and (where power of resistance)
with flames of civil combustion: as at this very day, he
that runs may read and tremble at?
Peace. They add further, that the princes of Christendom
setting their horns upon the church’s head, have
been the cause of anti-christian inventions, &c.
Civil rulers giving and lending their horns or authority to
bishops, both dangerous to the truth of Christ. The spiritual power of
the Lord Jesus compared in scripture to the incomparable horn of the
rhinoceros.
Truth. If they mean that the princes of Europe, giving
their power and authority to the seven-headed and ten-horned
beast of Rome, have been the cause, &c., I confess
it to be one concurring cause: yet withal it must be remembered,
that even before such princes set their horns,
or authority, upon the beast’s head, even when they did,
as I may say, but lend their horns to the bishops, even
then rose up many anti-christian abominations. And
though I confess there is but small difference, in some
respects, between the setting their horns upon the priests’
heads, whereby they are enabled immediately to push and
gore whoever cross their doctrine and practice, and the
lending of their horns, that is, pushing and goring such
themselves, as are declared by their bishops and priests to
be heretical, as was and is practised in some countries
before and since the pope rose: yet I confidently affirm,
that neither the Lord Jesus nor his first ordained ministers
and churches (gathered by such ministers), did ever wear,
or crave the help of such horns in spiritual and Christian
affairs. The spiritual power of the Lord Jesus in the
hands of his true ministers and churches, according to
Balaam’s prophecy, Num. xxiii., is the horn of that
unicorn, or rhinoceros, Ps. xcii. [10,] which is the
strongest horn in the world: in comparison of which the
strongest horns of the bulls of Bashan break as sticks and
reeds. History tells us how that unicorn, or one-horned
beast the rhinoceros, took up a bull like a tennis ball, in
the theatre at Rome, before the emperor, according to that
record of the poet:[226]
Quantus erat cornu cui pila taurus erat!
Unto this spiritual power of the Lord Jesus, the souls
and thoughts of the highest kings and emperors must
[be] subject, Matt. xvi. and xviii., 1 Cor. v. and x.
CHAP. CXXV.
Peace. Dear Truth, you know the noise is made from
those prophecies, Isaiah xlix. 23, kings and queens shall be
nursing fathers, &c., and Rev. xxi. 24, the kings of the
earth shall bring their glory and honour to the new
Jerusalem, &c.
A time when God’s people are wholly at a loss for God’s
worship.
Truth. I answer with that mournful prophet, Ps. lxxiv.,
I see not that man, that prophet, that can tell us how
long. How many excellent penmen fight each against
other with their pens (like swords) in the application of
those prophecies of David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Daniel, Zechariah, John, when and how those prophecies
shall be fulfilled!
Nursing fathers and mothers.
Secondly, whenever those prophecies are fulfilled, yet
shall those kings not be heads, governors, and judges in
ecclesiastical or spiritual causes; but be themselves judged
and ruled, if within the church, by the power of the Lord
Jesus therein. Hence saith Isaiah, those kings and queens
shall lick the dust of thy feet, &c.
Peace. Some will here ask, What may the magistrate
then lawfully do with his civil horn, or power, in matters
of religion?
The civil horn or power being of a human constitution cannot
but be of a human operation.
Truth. His horn not being the horn of that unicorn, or
rhinoceros, the power of the Lord Jesus in spiritual
cases: his sword not the two-edged sword of the Spirit,
the word of God, hanging not about the loins or side, but
at the lips, and proceeding out of the mouth of his
ministers, but of a human and civil nature and constitution;
it must consequently be of a human and civil operation:
for who knows not that operation follows constitution?
and therefore I shall end this passage with this consideration:
The civil power owes three things to the true church of
Christ.
The civil magistrate either respecteth that religion and
worship which his conscience is persuaded is true, and
upon which he ventures his soul: or else that and those
which he is persuaded are false.
Concerning the first; if that which the magistrate
believeth to be true, be true, I say he owes a threefold
duty unto it:
1. Approbation.
First, Approbation and countenance, a reverent esteem
and honourable testimony, according to Isaiah xlix., Rev.
xxi., with a tender respect of truth, and the professors of
it.
2. Submission.
Secondly, Personal submission of his own soul to the
power of the Lord Jesus in that spiritual government and
kingdom, according to Matt. xviii., 1 Cor. v.
3. Protection.
Thirdly, Protection of such true professors of Christ,
whether apart, or met together, as also of their estates
from violence and injury, according to Rom. xiii.
The civil magistrate owes to false worshippers.
Now secondly, if it be a false religion, unto which the
civil magistrate dare not adjoin: yet, he owes,
1. Permission.
First, Permission, for approbation he owes not to what
is evil, and this according to Matt. xiii. 30, for public
peace and quiet’s sake.
2. Protection.
Secondly, he owes protection to the persons of his
subjects, though of a false worship, that no injury be
offered either to the persons or goods of any, Rom. xiii.
Peace. Dear Truth, in this eleventh head concerning
the magistrates’ power in worship, you have examined
what is affirmed the magistrate may do in point of worship;
there remains a second, to wit, that which they say the
magistrate may not do in worship.
They say, “The magistrate may not bring in set forms
of prayer: nor secondly, bring in significant ceremonies:
nor thirdly, not govern and rule the acts of worship in
the church of God;” for which they bring an excellent
similitude of a prince or magistrate in a ship, where he
hath no governing power over the actions of the mariners:
and secondly, that excellent prophecy concerning Christ
Jesus, that his government should be upon his shoulders,
Isa. ix. 6, 7.
The civil magistrate’s conscience torn and distracted between
the divers and contrary affirmations, even of the most godly reformers.
Truth. Unto all this I willingly subscribe: yet can I not
pass by a most injurious and unequal practice toward the
civil magistrate: ceremonies, holy days, common prayer,
and whatever else dislikes their consciences, that the
magistrate must not bring in. Others again, as learned, as
godly, as wise, have conceived the magistrate may approve
or permit these in the church, and all men are bound in
obedience to obey him. How shall the magistrate’s conscience
be herein (between both) torn and distracted, if
indeed the power either of establishing or abolishing in
church matters be committed to him!
The authors of these positions deal with the civil magistrate
as the soldiers dealt with the Lord Jesus.
Secondly, methinks in this case they deal with the civil
magistrate as the soldiers dealt with the Lord Jesus:
First, they take off his own clothes, and put upon him a
purple robe, plat a crown of thorns on his head, bow
the knee, and salute him by the name of King of the
Jews.
They tell him that he is the keeper of both tables, he
must see the church do her duty, he must establish the
true church, true ministry, true ordinances, he must keep
her in this purity. Again, he must abolish superstition,
and punish false churches, false ministers, even to banishment
and death.
The rise of high commissions.
Thus indeed do they make the blood run down the head
of the civil magistrate, from the thorny vexation of that
power which sometimes they crown him with; whence in
great states, kingdoms, or monarchies, necessarily arise
delegations of that spiritual power, high commissions, &c.
Pious magistrates and ministers’ consciences are persuaded for
that which other magistrates’ consciences condemn.
Anon again they take off this purple robe, put him into
his own clothes, and tell him that he hath no power to
command what is against their conscience. They cannot
conform to a set form of prayer, nor to ceremonies, nor
holy days, &c., although the civil magistrate (that most
pious prince, Edw. VI., and his famous bishops, afterwards
burnt for Christ) were of another conscience. Which of
these two consciences shall stand? if either, [the] magistrate
must put forth his civil power in these cases: the
strongest arm of flesh, and most conquering, bloody sword
of steel can alone decide the question.
To profess the magistrate must force the church to her duty,
and yet must not judge what that is, what is it but to play in spiritual
things?
I confess it is most true, that no magistrate, as no other
superior, is to be obeyed in any matter displeasing to God:
yet, when in matters of worship we ascribe the absolute
headship and government to the magistrate, as to keep
the church pure, and force her to her duty, ministers and
people, and yet take unto ourselves power to judge what
is right in our own eyes, and to judge the magistrate in
and for those very things wherein we confess he hath
power to see us do our duty, and therefore consequently
must judge what our duty is: what is this but to play
with magistrates, with the souls of men, with heaven, with
God, with Christ Jesus? &c.
CHAP. CXXVI.
An apt similitude discussed, concerning the civil magistrate.
Peace. Pass on, holy Truth, to that similitude whereby
they illustrate that negative assertion: “The prince in
the ship,” say they, “is governor over the bodies of all in
the ship; but he hath no power to govern the ship or the
mariners in the actions of it. If the pilot manifestly err
in his action, the prince may reprove him,” and so, say
they, may any passenger; “if he offend against the life or
goods of any, the prince may in due time and place punish
him, which no private person may.”
Truth. Although, dear Peace, we both agree that civil
powers may not enjoin such devices, no nor enforce on
any God’s institutions, since Christ Jesus’s coming: yet,
for further illustration, I shall propose some queries concerning
the civil magistrate’s passing in the ship of the
church, wherein Christ Jesus hath appointed his ministers
and officers as governors and pilots, &c.
First query: what if the prince command the master or pilot
to steer such a course, which they know will never bring them to the
harbour?
If in a ship at sea, wherein the governor or pilot of a
ship undertakes to carry the ship to such a port, the civil
magistrate (suppose a king or emperor) shall command the
master such and such a course, to steer upon such or
such a point, which the master knows is not their course,
and which if they steer he shall never bring the ship to
that port or harbour: what shall the master do? Surely
all men will say, the master of the ship or pilot is to present
reasons and arguments from his mariner’s art, if the
prince be capable of them, or else in humble and submissive
manner to persuade the prince not to interrupt them
in their course and duty properly belonging to them, to
wit, governing of the ship, steering of the course, &c.
2. Query, If the master of the ship command the mariners thus,
and the prince command the contrary, who is to be obeyed?
If the master of the ship command the mariners thus
and thus, in cunning the ship, managing the helm, trimming
the sail, and the prince command the mariners a
different or contrary course, who is to be obeyed?
It is confessed that the mariners may lawfully disobey
the prince, and obey the governor of the ship in the
actions of the ship.
3. If the prince have as much skill as the master or pilot,
&c.
Thirdly, what if the prince have as much skill, which is
rare, as the pilot himself? I conceive it will be answered,
that the master of the ship and pilot, in what concerns the
ship, are chief and above, in respect of their office, the
prince himself, and their commands ought to be attended
by all the mariners: unless it be in manifest error, wherein
it is granted any passenger may reprove the pilot.
4. Query, Whether the meanest sailor (in respect of his skill
and service) be not to be preferred before the prince himself?
Fourthly, I ask, if the prince and his attendants be
unskilful in the ship’s affairs, whether every sailor and
mariner, the youngest and lowest, be not, so far as concerns
the ship, to be preferred before the prince’s followers,
and the prince himself? and their counsel and advice
more to be attended to, and their service more to be
desired and respected, and the prince to be requested to
stand by and let the business alone in their hands?
5. Query.
Fifthly, in case a wilful king and his attendants, out of
opinion of their skill, or wilfulness of passion, would so
steer the course, trim sail, &c., as that in the judgment of
the master and seamen the ship and lives shall be endangered:
whether, in case humble persuasions prevail not,
ought not the ship’s company to refuse to act in such a
course, yea, and, in case power be in their hands, resist
and suppress these dangerous practices of the prince and
his followers, and so save the ship?
6. Query, Whether, if the master of the ship gratify the
prince to the casting away of the ship and prince, &c., he be not guilty,
and liable to answer?
Lastly, suppose the master, out of base fear and cowardice,
or covetous desire of reward, shall yield to gratify
the mind of the prince, contrary to the rules of art and
experience, &c., and the ship come in danger, and perish,
and the prince with it: if the master get to shore, whether
may he not be justly questioned, yea, and suffer as guilty
of the prince’s death, and those that perished with him?
These cases are clear, wherein, according to this similitude,
the prince ought not to govern and rule the actions of the
ship, but such whose office, and charge, and skill it is.
The application in general of the ship to the church, &c.
The result of all is this: the church of Christ is the
ship, wherein the prince—if a member, for otherwise the
case is altered—is a passenger. In this ship the officers
and governors, such as are appointed by the Lord Jesus,
they are the chief, and in those respects above the prince
himself, and are to be obeyed and submitted to in their
works and administrations, even before the prince himself.
The meanest Christian according to his knowledge and grace to
be preferred before the highest, who have received none or less grace of
Christ.
In this respect every Christian in the church, man or
woman, if of more knowledge and grace of Christ, ought
to be of higher esteem, concerning religion and Christianity,
than all the princes in the world who have either none
or less grace or knowledge of Christ: although in civil
things all civil reverence, honour, and obedience ought to
be yielded by all men.
A true minister of Christ ought to walk by another rule than
the command of civil authority in spiritual causes.
Therefore, if in matters of religion the king command
what is contrary to Christ’s rule, though according to his
persuasion and conscience, who sees not that, according to
the similitude, he ought not to be obeyed? Yea, and (in
case) boldly, with spiritual force and power, he ought to
be resisted. And if any officer of the church of Christ
shall out of baseness yield to the command of the prince,
to the danger of the church and souls committed to his
charge, the souls that perish, notwithstanding the prince’s
command, shall be laid to his charge.
Former positions compared with this similitude, and found to
contradict each other.
If so, then I rejoin thus: how agree these truths of this
similitude with those former positions, viz., that the civil
magistrate is keeper of both tables, that he is to see the
church do her duty, that he ought to establish the true
religion, suppress and punish the false, and so consequently
must discern, judge, and determine what the true gathering
and governing of the church is, what the duty of every
minister of Christ is, what the true ordinances are, and
what the true administrations of them; and where men
fail, correct, punish, and reform by the civil sword? I
desire it may be answered, in the fear and presence of Him
whose eyes are as a flame of fire, if this be not—according
to the similitude, though contrary to their scope in proposing
of it—to be governor of the ship of the church, to
see the master, pilot, and mariners do their duty, in setting
the course, steering the ship, trimming the sails, keeping
the watch, &c., and where they fail, to punish them; and
therefore, by undeniable consequence, to judge and determine
what their duties are, when they do right, and when
they do wrong: and this not only to manifest error, (for
then they say every passenger may reprove) but in their
ordinary course and practice.
The similitude of the magistrate prescribing to the physician
in civil things, but the physician to the magistrate concerning his body.
The similitude of a physician obeying the prince in the
body politic, but prescribing to the prince concerning the
prince’s body, wherein the prince, unless the physician
manifestly err, is to be obedient to the physician, and not
to be judge of the physician in his art, but to be ruled and
judged as touching the state of his body by the physician:—I
say this similitude and many others suiting with the
former of a ship, might be alleged to prove the distinction
of the civil and spiritual estate, and that according to the
rule of the Lord Jesus in the gospel, the civil magistrate
is only to attend the calling of the civil magistracy concerning
the bodies and goods of the subjects, and is himself,
if a member of the church and within, subject to the power
of the Lord Jesus therein, as any member of the church is,
1 Cor. v.
CHAP. CXXVII.
Peace. Dear Truth, you have uprightly and aptly untied
the knots of that eleventh head; let me present you with
the twelfth head, which is,
Concerning the magistrates’ power in the censures of
the church.
The twelfth head examined.
“First,” say they, “he hath no power to execute, or to
substitute any civil officer to execute, any church censure,
under the notion of civil or ecclesiastical men.
“Secondly, though a magistrate may immediately civilly
censure such an offender, whose secret sins are made manifest
by their casting out to be injurious to the good of the
state, yet such offences of excommunicate persons, which
manifestly hurt not the good of the state, he ought not to
proceed against them, sooner or later, until the church
hath made her complaint to him, and given in their just
reasons for help from them. For to give liberty to magistrates,
without exception, to punish all excommunicate
persons within so many months, may prove injurious to
the person who needs, to the church who may desire, and
to God who calls for longer indulgence from the hands of
them.
“Thirdly, for persons not excommunicate, the magistrate
hath no power immediately to censure such offences
of the church members by the power of the sword, but
only for such as do immediately hurt the peace of the
state: because the proper end of civil government being
the preservation of the peace and welfare of the state,
they ought not to break down those bounds, and so to
censure immediately for such sins which hurt not their
peace.
“Hence, first, magistrates have no power to censure for
secret sins, as deadness [or] unbelief, because they are
secret, and not yet come forth immediately to hurt the
peace of the state; we say immediately, for every sin,
even original sin, remotely hurts the civil state.
“Secondly, hence they have no power to censure for
such private sins in church members, which being not
heinous may be best healed in a private way by the
churches themselves. For that which may be best healed
by the church, and yet is prosecuted by the state, may
make a deeper wound and greater rent in the peace both of
church and state: the magistrates also being members of
the church, are bound to the rule of Christ, viz., not to
produce any thing in public against a brother, which may
be best healed in a private way.
“Now we call that private,
“First, which is only remaining in families, not known
of others: and therefore a magistrate to hear and prosecute
the complaint of children against their parents, servants
against masters, wives against their husbands, without acquainting
the church first, transgresseth the rule of Christ.
“Secondly, that which is between members of the same
church, or of divers churches: for it was a double fault of
the Corinthians, 1 Cor. vi., first to go to law, secondly, to
do it before an infidel, seeing the church was able to judge
of such kind of differences by some arbitrators among
themselves. So that the magistrates should refer the
differences of church members to private healing, and try
that way first: by means whereof the churches should be
free from much scandal, and the state from much trouble,
and the hearts of the godly from much grief in beholding
such breaches.
“Thirdly, such offences which the conscience of a
brother dealing with another privately, dares not as yet
publish openly, coming to the notice of the magistrate
accidentally, he ought not to make public as yet, nor to
require the grand jury to present the same, no more than
the other private brother, who is dealing with him, until
he see some issue of the private way.
“Thirdly, hence they have no power to put any to an
oath, ex officio, to accuse themselves, or the brethren, in
case either criminis suspecti, or prætensi, because this preserves
not, but hurts many ways the peace of the state,
and abuseth the ordinance of an oath, which is ordained to
end controversies, not to begin them, Heb. vi. 16.
“Fourthly, hence they have no power to censure any
for such offences as break either no civil law of God, or
law of the state published according to it: for the peace of
the state being preserved by wholesome laws, when they
are not hurt, the peace is not hurt.”
Truth. In this passage, as I said before, I observe how
weakly and partially they deal with the souls of magistrates,
in telling them they are the guardians of both
tables, must see the church do her duty, punish, &c.; and
yet in this passage the elders or ministers of the churches
not only sit judges over the magistrates’ actions in church
affairs, but in civil also, straitening and enlarging his commission
according to the particular interests of their own
ends, or at the best their consciences.
To give the government of the church to the civil magistrate
(as before), and yet to abridge his conscience, what is it but to sport
with holy things? &c.
I grant the word of the Lord is the only rule, light, and
lantern in all cases concerning God or man, and that the
ministers of the gospel are to teach this way, hold out this
lantern unto the feet of all men; but to give such an
absolute power in spiritual things to the civil magistrate,
and yet after their own ends or consciences to abridge it,
is but the former sporting with holy things, and to walk
in contradictions, as before I noted.
Many of the particulars I acknowledge true, where the
magistrate is a member of the church; yet some passages
call for explication, and some for observation.
First, in that they say the civil magistrate ought not to
proceed against the offences of an excommunicate person,
which manifestly hurt not the good of the state, until the
church hath made her complaint for help from them, I
observe two things:—
An evident contradiction. An excellent confession of the
proper end of civil government. When civil laws are not broken, it is
confessed that civil peace is not hurt.
First, a clear grant that when the church complaineth
for help, then the magistrate may punish such offences as
hurt not the good of the state: and yet in a few lines after
they say, the magistrates have no power to censure such
offences of church members by the power of the civil
sword, but only such as do immediately hurt the peace of
the civil state; and they add the reason, because the
proper end of the civil government being the preservation
of the peace and welfare of the state, they ought not to
break down those bounds, and so to censure immediately
for such sins which hurt not their peace. And in the last
place, they acknowledge the magistrate hath no power to
punish any for any such offences as break no civil law of
God, or law of the state published according to it: “for
the peace of the state,” say they, “being preserved by
wholesome laws, when they are not hurt, the peace is not
hurt.”
CHAP. CXXVIII.
Peace. Dear Truth, here are excellent confessions, unto
which both truth and grace may gladly assent; but what
is your second observation from hence?
A grievous charge against the Christian church, and the King
of it.
Truth. I observe secondly, what a deep charge of weakness
is laid upon the church of Christ, the laws, government,
and officers thereof, and consequently upon the
Lord Jesus himself: to wit, that the church is not enabled
with all the power of Christ to censure sufficiently an
offender—on whom yet they have executed the deepest
censure in the world, to wit, cutting off from Christ,
shutting out of heaven, casting to the devil—which
offender’s crime reacheth not to hurt the good of the civil
state; but that she is forced to make complaint to the
civil state, and the officers thereof, for their help.
Oh! let not this be told in Gath, nor heard in Askelon!
and oh! how dim must needs that eye be, which is bloodshot
with that bloody and cruel tenent of persecution for
cause of conscience!
Peace. But what should be meant by this passage, viz.,
“That they cannot give liberty to the magistrate to
punish without exception all excommunicate persons,
within so many months?”
A strange law in New England formerly, against excommunicate
persons.
Truth. It may be this hath reference to a law made
formerly in New England, that if an excommunicate person
repented not within, as I have heard, three months
after sentence of excommunication, then the civil magistrate
might proceed with him.
A dangerous doctrine against all civil magistrates.
These worthy men see cause to question this law upon
good reasons rendered, though it appears not by their
words that they wholly condemn it, only they desire a
longer time, implying that after some longer time the
magistrate may proceed: and indeed I see not, but according
to such principles, if the magistrate himself should be
cast out, he ought to be proceeded against by the civil
state, and consequently deposed and punished, as the pope
teacheth: yea, though happily [haply?] he had not offended
against either bodies or goods of any subject.
Many sins prohibited to be punished by the magistrate, and yet
they also charge him to punish all sin, Rom. xiii.
Thirdly, from this confession, that the magistrate ought
not to punish for many sins above-mentioned, I observe
how they cross the plea which commonly they bring for
the magistrates punishing of false doctrines, heretics, &c.,
(viz., Rom. xiii., The magistrate is to punish them that do
evil); and when it is answered, True, evil against the second
table, which is there only spoken of, and against the
bodies and goods of the subject, which are the proper object
of the civil magistrate, as they confess: it is replied,
Why? is not idolatry sin? heresy, sin? schism and false
worship, sin? Yet here in this passage many evils, many
sins, even of parents against their children, masters against
their servants, husbands against their wives, the magistrate
ought not to meddle with.
Original sin charged to hurt remotely (but falsely) the civil
state.
Fourthly. I dare not assent to that assertion, “That
even original [sin] remotely hurts the civil state.” It is
true some do, as inclinations to murder, theft, whoredom,
slander, disobedience to parents, and magistrates; but
blindness of mind, hardness of heart, inclination to choose
or worship this or that God, this or that Christ, beside
the true, these hurt not remotely the civil state, as not
concerning it, but the spiritual.
Magistrates strangely forbidden to hear civil complaints.
Peace. Let me, in the last place, remind you of their
charge against the magistrate, and which will necessarily
turn to my wrong and prejudice: they say, the magistrate,
in hearing and prosecuting the complaints of children
against their parents, of servants against their masters, of
wives against their husbands, without acquainting the
church first, transgresseth the rule of Christ.
Truth. Sweet Peace, they that pretend to be thy dearest
friends, will prove thy bitter enemies.
First, I ask for one rule out of the Testament of the
Lord Jesus, to prove this deep charge and accusation
against the civil magistrate?
Thousands of commonweals where no true church of Christ.
Secondly, this is built upon a supposition of what rarely
falls out in the world, to wit, that there must necessarily
be a true church of Christ in every lawful state, unto
whom these complaints must go: whereas, how many
thousand commonweals have been and are, where the
name of Christ hath not (or not truly) been founded!
The complaints of families properly fall into the cognizance
of the civil magistrate.
Thirdly, the magistrates’ office, according to their own
grant, properly respecting the bodies and goods of their
subjects, and the whole body of the commonweal being
made up of families, as the members constituting that body,
I see not how, according to the rule of Christ, Rom. xiii.,
the magistrate may refuse to hear and help the just complaints
of any such petitioners—children, wives, and
servants—against oppression, &c.
They who give to magistrates more than is due, are most apt to
disrobe them of what is theirs.
Peace. I have long observed, that such as have been
ready to ascribe to the civil magistrate and his sword more
than God hath ascribed, have also been most ready to cut
off the skirts, and, in case of his inclining to another conscience
than their own, to spoil him of the robe of that
due authority with which it hath pleased God and the
people to invest and clothe him.
But I shall now present you with the thirteenth head,
whose title is,—
CHAP. CXXIX.
13th head.
What power magistrates have in public assemblies of churches.
“First,” say they, “the churches have power to assemble
and continue such assemblies for the performance of all
God’s ordinances, without or against the consent of the
magistrate, renuente magistratu, because—
“Christians are commanded so to do, Matt. xxviii.
18-20.
“Also, because an angel from God commanded the
apostles so to do, Acts v. 20.
“Likewise from the practice of the apostles, who were
not rebellious or seditious, yet they did so, Acts iv. 18-20,
Acts v. 27, 28.
“Further, from the practice of the primitive church at
Jerusalem, who did meet, preach, pray, minister sacraments,
censures, Acts iv. 23, renuente magistratu.
“Moreover, from the exhortation to the Hebrews, [chap.]
x. 25, not to forsake their assemblies, though it were in
dangerous times; and if they might do this under professed
enemies, then we may much more under Christian
magistrates, else we were worse under Christian magistrates
than heathen: therefore magistrates may not hinder
them herein, as Pharaoh did the people from sacrificing,
for wrath will be upon the realm, and the king and his sons,
Ezra vii. 23.
“Secondly, it hath been a usurpation of foreign countries
and magistrates to take upon them to determine times
and places of worship; rather let the churches be left
herein to their inoffensive liberty.
“Thirdly, concerning the power of synod assemblies:—
“First, in corrupt times, the magistrate, desirous to make
reformation of religion, may and should call those who are
most fit in several churches to assemble together in a
synod, to discuss and declare from the word of God
matters of doctrine and worship, and to help forward the
reformation of the churches of God: this did Josiah.
“Secondly, in the reformed times, he ought to give
liberty to the elders of several churches to assemble themselves
by their own manual and voluntary agreement, at
convenient times, as the means appointed by God whereby
he may mediately reform matters amiss in churches, which
immediately he cannot nor ought not to do.
“Thirdly, those meetings for this end we conceive may
be of two sorts.
“1. Monthly, of some of the elders and messengers of
the churches.
“2. Annual, of all the messengers and elders of the
churches.
“First. Monthly, of some: first, those members of
churches which are nearest together, and so may most
conveniently assemble together, may, by mutual agreement,
once in a month, consult of such things as make for
the good of the churches.
“Secondly. The time of this meeting may be sometimes
at one place, sometimes at another, upon the lecture
day of every church where lectures are: and let the lecture
that day be ended by eleven of the clock.
“Thirdly. Let the end of this assembly be to do nothing
by way of authority, but by way of counsel, as the need
of churches shall require.
“Secondly, annual, of all the elders within our jurisdiction
or others, whereto the churches may send once in the
year to consult together for the public welfare of all the
churches.
“First. Let the place be sometimes at one church,
sometimes at another, as reasons for the present may
require.
“Secondly. Let all the churches send their weighty
questions and cases, six weeks or a month before the set
time, to the church where the assembly is to be held, and
the officers thereof disperse them speedily to all the
churches, that so they may have time to come prepared to
the discussing of them.
“Thirdly. Let this assembly do nothing by authority,
but only by counsel, in all cases which fall out, leaving
the determination of all things to particular churches
within themselves, who are to judge and so to receive all
doctrines and directions agreeing only with the word of
God.”
The grounds of these assemblies.
“First. Need of each other’s help, in regard of daily
emergent troubles, doubts, and controversies.
“Secondly, Love of each other’s fellowship.
“Thirdly. Of God’s glory, out of a public spirit to
seek the welfare of the churches, as well as their own, 1
Cor. x. 33, 2 Cor. xi. 28.
“Fourthly. The great blessing and special presence of
God upon such assemblies hitherto.
“Fifthly. The good report the elders and brethren of
churches shall have hereby, by whose communion of love
others shall know they are the disciples of Christ.”
CHAP. CXXX.
A strange double picture.
Truth. I may well compare this passage to a double
picture; on the first part or side of it a most fair and
beautiful countenance of the pure and holy word of God:
on the latter side or part, a most sour and uncomely, deformed
look of a mere human invention.
The great privileges of the true spouse, or church of Christ.
Concerning the former, they prove the true and unquestionable
power and privilege of the churches of
Christ to assemble and practise all the holy ordinances of
God, without or against the consent of the magistrate.
Their arguments from Christ’s and the angels’ voice,
from the apostles’ and churches’ practice, I desire may
take deep impression, written by the point of a diamond,
the finger of God’s Spirit, in all hearts whom it may
concern.
This liberty of the churches of Christ, he enlargeth
and amplifieth so far, that he calls it a usurpation of
some magistrates to determine the time and place of worship:
and says, that rather the churches should be left to
their inoffensive liberty.
To hold with light and walk in darkness.
Upon which grant I must renew my former query,
whether this be not to walk in contradictions, to hold with
light yet walk in darkness? for,—
The magistrate lift up to be the chief governor of the church,
and yet cast down not to have power to appoint the place or time of
meeting.
How can they say the magistrate is appointed by God
and Christ the guardian of the Christian church and worship,
bound to set up the true church, ministry, and ordinances,
to see the church do her duty, that is, to force her
to it by the civil sword: bound to suppress the false
church, ministry, and ordinances, and therefore, consequently,
to judge and determine which is the true church,
which is the false, and what is the duty of the church
officers and members of it, and what not: and yet, say
they, the churches must assemble, and practise all ordinances,
without his consent, yea, against it. Yea, and he hath
not so much power as to judge what is a convenient time
and place for the churches to assemble in; which if he
should do, he should be a usurper, and should abridge the
church of her inoffensive liberty.
Two similitudes, illustrating the magistrate cannot be both
governor of the church, and yet usurper in commanding.
As if the master or governor of a ship had power to
judge who were true and fit officers, mariners, &c., for the
managing of the ship, and were bound to see them each
perform his duty, and to force them thereunto, and yet he
should be a usurper if he should abridge them of meeting
and managing the vessel at their pleasure, when they
please, and how they please, without and against his consent.
Certainly, if a physician have power to judge the
disease of his patient, and what course of physic he must
use, can he be counted a usurper unless the patient might
take what physic himself pleased, day or night, summer or
winter, at home in his chamber or abroad in the air?
If a church may assemble without and against the magistrate’s
consent (as is affirmed), then much more constitute and become a church,
&c.
Secondly, by their grant in this passage, that God’s
people may thus assemble and practise ordinances without
and against the consent of the magistrate, I infer, then
also may they become a church, constitute and gather
without or against the consent of the magistrate. Therefore
may the messengers of Christ preach and baptize, that
is, make disciples and wash them into the true profession
of Christianity, according to the commission, though the
magistrate determine and publicly declare such ministers,
such baptisms, such churches to be heretical.
Thirdly, it may here be questioned, what power is now
given to the civil magistrate in church matters and spiritual
affairs?
If it be answered, that although God’s people may do
this against the magistrates’ consent, yet others may not:
Gross partiality.
I answer, as before, who sees not herein partiality to
themselves? God’s people must enjoy their liberty of
conscience, and not be forced; but all the subjects in a
kingdom or monarchy, or the whole world beside, must be
compelled by the power of the civil sword to assemble
thus and thus.
Secondly, I demand, who shall judge whether they are
God’s people or no? for they say, whether the magistrate
consent or consent not, that is, judge so or not, they ought
to go on in the ordinances, renuente magistratu.
If the civil magistrate be to build the spiritual or Christian
house, he must judge in the matter.
How agrees this with their former and general assertion,
that the civil magistrate must set up the Christian church
and worship? Therefore, by their own grant, he must
judge the godly themselves, he must discern who are fit
matter for the house of God, living stones, and what unfit
matter, trash and rubbish.
A close and faithful interrogatory to the consciences of the
authors of these positions.
Those worthy men, the authors of these positions, and
others of their judgment, have cause to examine their souls
with fear and trembling in the presence of God upon this
interrogatory, viz., whether or no this be not the bottom
and root of the matter: if they could have the same
supply of maintenance without the help of the civil sword,
or were persuaded to live upon the voluntary contribution
of poor saints, or their own labour, as the Lord Jesus and
his first messengers did:—I say, if this lay not in the
bottom, whether or no they could not be willingly shut of
the civil power, and left only to their inoffensive liberties?
A sad query to some concerning their practice.
I could also put a sad query to the consciences of some,
viz., what should be the reason why in their native country,
where the magistrate consenteth not, they forebore to
practise such ordinances as now they do, and intended to
do so soon as they got into another place where they
might set up magistrates of their own, and a civil sword?
&c. How much is it to be feared, that in case their
magistrate should alter, or their persons be cast under a
magistracy prohibiting their practice, whether they would
then maintain their separate meetings without and against
the consent of the magistrate, renuente magistratu.
A marvellous challenge of more liberty to Christians under a
Christian magistrate than under the heathen.
Lastly, it may be questioned, how it comes to pass that
in pleading for the church’s liberty more now under the
Christian magistrate, since the Christians took that liberty
in dangerous times under the heathen, why he quotes to
prove such liberty, Pharaoh’s hindering the Israelites
from worship, and, Ezra vii. 23, Artaxerxes’s fear of wrath
upon the realm?
Are not all their hopes and arguments built upon the
Christian magistrate, whom, say they, the first Christians
wanted? and yet do they scare the Christian magistrate,
whom they account the governor of the church, with
Pharaoh and Artaxerxes, that knew not God, expecting
that the Christian magistrate should act and command no
more in God’s worship than they.
But what can those instances of Pharaoh’s evil in hindering
the Israelites worshipping of God, and Artaxerxes
giving liberty to Israel to worship God and build the
temple, what can they prove but a duty in all princes and
civil magistrates to take off the yoke of bondage, which
commonly they lay on the necks of the souls of their
subjects in matters of conscience and religion?
CHAP. CXXXI.
If the magistrates were appointed by Christ Jesus governors of
his kingdom, it were not reasonable that Christians should more freely
break the commands of the Christian than of the heathen magistrate.
Peace. It is plausible, but not reasonable, that God’s
people should (considering the drift of these positions)
expect more liberty under a Christian than under a
heathen magistrate. Have God’s people more liberty to
break the command of a Christian than a heathen governor?
and so to set up Christ’s church and ordinances after
their own conscience against his consent, more than against
the consent of a heathen or unbelieving magistrate?
What is become of all the great expectation what a
Christian magistrate may and ought to do in establishing
the church, in reforming the church, and in punishing the
contrary? It is true, say they, in Christ’s time, and in
the time of the first ministers and churches, there were no
Christian magistrates, and therefore in that case, it was in
vain for Christians to seek unto the heathen magistrates to
govern the church, suppress heretics, &c.; but now we
enjoy Christian magistrates, &c.
Truth. All reason and religion would now expect more
submission thereof, in matters concerning Christ, to a
Christian magistrate, than to a pagan or anti-christian
ruler! But, dear Peace, the day will discover, the fire
will try, 1 Cor. iii. [13,] what is but wood, hay, and
stubble, though built, in men’s upright intention, on that
foundation, Jesus Christ.
The necessity of civil government in general of God, but the
special kinds of men, 1 Pet. ii. 13.
But, to wind up all, as it is most true that magistracy in
general is of God, Rom. xiii., for the preservation of mankind
in civil order and peace—the world otherwise would
be like the sea, wherein men, like fishes, would hunt and
devour each other, and the greater devour the less:—so
also it is true, that magistracy in special for the several
kinds of it is of man, 1 Pet. ii. 13. Now what kind of
magistrate soever the people shall agree to set up, whether
he receive Christianity before he be set in office, or
whether he receive Christianity after, he receives no more
power of magistracy than a magistrate that hath received
no Christianity. For neither of them both can receive
more than the commonweal, the body of people and civil
state, as men, communicate unto them, and betrust them
with.
Civil magistrates are derivatives from the fountains or bodies
of people.
All lawful magistrates in the world, both before the
coming of Christ Jesus and since, (excepting those unparalleled
typical magistrates of the church of Israel) are
but derivatives and agents immediately derived and employed
as eyes and hands, serving for the good of the
whole: hence they have and can have no more power
than fundamentally lies in the bodies or fountains themselves,
which power, might, or authority is not religious,
Christian, &c., but natural, human, and civil.
A believing magistrate no more a magistrate than an
unbelieving.
And hence it is true, that a Christian captain, Christian
merchant, physician, lawyer, pilot, father, master, and so
consequently magistrate, &c., is no more a captain, merchant,
physician, lawyer, pilot, father, master, magistrate,
&c., than a captain, merchant, &c., of any other conscience
or religion.
The excellency of Christianity in all callings.
It is true, Christianity teaches all these to act in their
several callings to a higher ultimate end, from higher
principles, in a more heavenly and spiritual manner, &c.
CHAP. CXXXII.
Peace. Oh! that thy light and brightness, dear Truth,
might shine to the dark world in this particular: let it not
therefore be grievous, if I request a little further illustration
of it.
The magistrate like a pilot in the ship of the commonweal.
Christianity steers a Christian pilot’s course. The Christian pilot hath
no more power over the souls of his mariners or passengers, than the
unchristian or pagan pilot.
Truth. In his season, God will glorify himself in all his
truths. But to gratify thy desire, thus: A pagan or anti-christian
pilot may be as skilful to carry the ship to its
desired port, as any Christian mariner or pilot in the world,
and may perform that work with as much safety and speed:
yet have they not command over the souls and consciences
of their passengers, or mariners under them, although they
may justly see to the labour of the one, and the civil behaviour
of all in the ship. A Christian pilot, he performs
the same work, as likewise doth the metaphorical pilot in
the ship of the commonweal, from a principle of knowledge
and experience; but more than this, he acts from a root of
the fear of God and love to mankind in his whole course.
Secondly, his aim is more to glorify God, than to gain his
pay, or make his voyage. Thirdly, he walks heavenly with
men and God, in a constant observation of God’s hand in
storms, calms, &c. So that the thread of navigation being
equally spun by a believing or unbelieving pilot, yet is it
drawn over with the gold of godliness and Christianity by
a Christian pilot, while he is holy in all manner of Christianity,
1 Pet. i. 15. But lastly, the Christian pilot’s
power over the souls and consciences of his sailors and
passengers is not greater than that of the anti-christian,
otherwise than he can subdue the souls of any by the two-edged
sword of the Spirit, the word of God, and by his
holy demeanour in his place, &c.
Peace. I shall present you with no other consideration
in this first part of the picture, but this only.
The terms heathen and Christian magistrate.
Although the term heathen is most commonly appropriated
to the wild naked Americans, &c., yet these worthy
men justly apply it even to the civilized Romans, &c.; and
consequently must it be applied to the most civilized anti-christians,
who are not the church and people of God in
Christ.
Truth. The word גּוֹיִם in the Hebrew, and ἔθνη in the
Greek, signifies no more than the Gentiles, or nations of
the earth, which were without and not within the true
typical national church of the Jews before Christ; and
since his coming, the Gentiles, or nations of the world,
who are without that one holy nation of the Christian
Israel, the church gathered unto Christ Jesus, in particular
and distinct congregations all the world over.
All out of Christ are heathens, that is of the nations, or
Gentiles.
Translators promiscuously render the words, Gentiles,
heathens, nations: whence it is evident that even such as
profess the name of Christ in an unregenerate and impenitent
estate, whether papist, or protestant, are yet
without: that is, heathen, Gentile, or of the nations.
CHAP. CXXXIII.
Peace. Dear Truth, it is now time to cast your eye on
the second part of this head or picture, uncomely and
deformed.
Truth. It contains two sorts of religious meetings or
assemblies.
First, more extraordinary and occasional, for which he
quotes the practice of Josiah.
Josiah a type of Christ Jesus, the king of the church.
An. Josiah was in the type: so are not now the several
governors of commonweals, kings or governors of the
church or Israel; whose state I have proved to be a non-such,
and not to be paralleled but in the antitype, the particular
church of Christ, where Christ Jesus alone sits
King in his own most holy government.
Secondly, they propound meetings or assemblings ordinary,
stated, and constant, yearly and monthly, unto
which the civil magistrate should give liberty. For these
meetings they propound plausible arguments from the
necessity of them, from Christian fellowship, from God’s
glory, from the experience of the benefit of them, and
from the good report of them, as also those two scriptures,
1 Cor. x. 33, 2 Cor. xi. 28.
An unjust and partial desire of liberty to some consciences,
and bondage unto all others.
To these I answer, If they intend that the civil magistrate
should permit liberty to the free and voluntary
spiritual meetings of their subjects, I shall subscribe unto
them; but if they intend that the magistrate should give
liberty only unto themselves, and not to the rest of their
subjects, that is to desire their own souls only to be free,
and all other souls of their subjects to be kept in bondage:
Secondly, if they intend that the magistrate should
enforce all the elders of such churches under their jurisdiction
to keep correspondency with them in such meetings,
then I say, as before, it is to cause him to give liberty with
a partial hand, and unequal balance; for thus I argue:—If
the civil state and civil officers be of their religion and
conscience, it is not proper for them to give liberty or
freedom, but to give honourable testimony and approbation,
and their own personal submission to the churches.
But if the civil state and officers be of another conscience
and worship, and shall be bound to grant permission and
liberty to them, their consciences, and meetings, and not
to those of his own religion and conscience also, how will
this appear to be equal in the very eye of common peace
and righteousness?
For those yearly and monthly meetings, as we find not
any such in the first churches, so neither will those general
arguments from the plausible pretence of Christian fellowship,
God’s glory, &c., prove such particular ways of
glorifying God, without some precept or precedent of such
a kind.
The commission, Matt. xxviii. of preaching and baptizing, not
properly directed to the church, or fixed teachers of it, least of all to
the commonwealth.
For those scriptures, 1 Cor. x. 33, and 2 Cor. xi. 28,
expressing the apostle Paul’s zeal for glorifying God,
and his care for all the churches, it is clear they concern
such as are indeed Paul’s successors, sent forth by Christ
Jesus to preach and gather churches; but those scriptures
concern not the churches themselves, nor the pastors of
the churches properly, least of all the civil state and
commonwealth, neither of which, the churches, the pastors,
or commonwealth, do go forth personally with that commission,
Matt. xxviii. [19,] to preach and baptize, that is,
to gather churches unto Christ.
For as for the first, the churches are not ministers of
the gospel; the angels or messengers of the churches,
and the churches themselves, were distinct, Rev. ii. and
iii.
As for the second, the pastors and elders of the church,
their work is not to gather churches, but to govern and
feed them, Acts xx., and 1 Pet. v.
As for the civil magistrate, it is a ministry indeed,
magistrates are God’s ministers, Rom. xiii. 4; but it is of
another nature. And therefore none of these—the
churches of Christ, the shepherds of those churches, nor
the civil magistrate, succeeding the apostles or first
messengers, these scriptures alleged concern not any of
these to have care of all the churches.
A query who have now the care of all the churches?
Peace. Dear Truth, who can hear this word, but will
presently cry out, Who then may rightly challenge that
commission, and that promise? Matt. xxviii., &c.
A ministry before the church.
Truth. Sweet Peace, in due place and season that
question may be resolved; but doubtless the true
successors must precede or go before the church, making
disciples, and baptizing as the apostles did, who were
neither the churches, nor the pastors and fixed teachers of
them, but as they gathered, so had the care of the
churches.
CHAP. CXXXIV.
Peace. I cease to urge this further; and, in the last
place, marvel what should be the reason of that conclusion,
viz., “There is no power of determination in any of these
meetings, but that all must be left to the particular determination
of the churches.”
Acts xv., commonly misapplied.
Truth. At the meeting at Jerusalem, when Paul and
Barnabas and others were sent thither from the church of
Christ at Antioch, the apostles and elders did not only
consult and advise, but particularly determined the
question which the church of Antioch sent to them about,
Acts xv., and send their particular determinations or
decrees to the churches afterward.
So that if these assemblies were of the nature of that
pattern or precedent, as is generally pretended, and had
such a promise of the assistance and concurrence of the
Spirit as that assembly had, they might then say as that
assembly did, Acts xv., It seemeth good to the Holy Spirit
and to us; and should not leave particular determinations
to the particular churches, in which sometimes are very
few able guides and leaders.
Peace. But what should be the reason to persuade these
worthy men to conceive the particular congregations, or
churches, to be more fit and competent judges in such
high points, than an assembly of so excellent and choice
persons, who must only consult and advise? &c.
Christ’s promise and presence only makes an assembly blessed.
Truth. Doubtless there is a strong conviction in their
souls of a professed promised presence of the Lord Jesus
in the midst of his church, gathered after his mind and
will, more than unto such kind of assemblies, though consisting
of far more able persons, even the flower and
cream of all the churches.
Peace. It is generally conceived, that the promise of
Christ’s presence to the end of the world, Matt. xxviii.
[20,] is made to the church.
The promise of Christ’s presence, Matt. xviii., distinct from
that, Matt. xxviii.
Truth. There is doubtless a promise of Christ’s
presence in the midst of his church and congregation,
Matt. xviii. [20;] but the promise of Christ’s presence,
Matt. xxviii. [20,] cannot properly and immediately belong
to the church constituted and gathered, but to such
ministers or messengers of Christ Jesus whom he is
pleased to employ to gather and constitute the church by
converting and baptizing: unto which messengers, if
Christ Jesus will be pleased to send such forth, that
passage, Acts xv., will be precedential.
14th position examined.
Peace. The fourteenth general head is this, viz., What
power particular churches have particularly over magistrates.
“First,” say they, “they may censure any member,
though a magistrate, if by sin he deserve it.
“First, because magistrates must be subject to Christ;
but Christ censures all offenders, 1 Cor. v. 4, 5.
“Secondly, every brother must be subject to Christ’s
censure, Matt. xviii. 15, 16, 17. But magistrates are
brethren, Deut. xvii. 15.
“Thirdly, They may censure all within the church,
1 Cor. v. 11.
“But the magistrates are within the church, for they
are either without, or within, or above the church: not
the first, nor the last, for so Christ is only above it.
“Fourthly, the church hath a charge of all the souls of
the members, and must give account thereof, Heb. xiii.
17.
“Fifthly, Christ’s censures are for the good of souls, 1
Cor. v. 6; but magistrates must not be denied any privilege
for their souls, for then they must lose a privilege of
Christ by being magistrates.
“Sixthly, In church privileges Christians are all one,
Gal. iii. 28, Col. iii. 11.
“2. Magistrates may be censured for apparent and
manifest sin against any moral law of God in their judicial
proceedings, or in the execution of their office. Courts
are not sanctuaries for sin; and if for no sin, then not for
such especially.
“First, because sins of magistrates in court are as
hateful to God. 2. And as much spoken against, Isa. x.
1, Micah iii. 1. Thirdly, God hath nowhere granted such
immunity to them. Fourthly, what a brother may do
privately in case of private offence, that the church may
do publicly in case of public scandal. But a private
brother may admonish and reprove privately in case of any
private offence, Matt. xviii. 15, Luke xvii. 3, Psalm
cxli. 5.
“Lastly, Civil magistracy doth not exempt any church
from faithful watchfulness over any member, nor deprive a
church of her due power, nor a church member of his
due privilege, which is to partake of every ordinance of
God, needful and requisite to their winning and salvation,
ergo,—”
CHAP. CXXXV.
Truth. These arguments to prove the magistrate subject,
even for sin committed in judicial proceeding, I judge,
like Mount Zion, immoveable, and every true Christian
that is a magistrate will judge so with me: yet a query or
two will not be unseasonable.
Christ’s administrations are charged firstly upon the
ministers thereof.
First, where they name the church in this whole passage,
whether they mean the church without the ministry
or governors of it, or with the elders and governors
jointly? and if the latter, why name they not the
governors at all, since that in all administrations of the
church the duty lies not upon the body of the church, but
firstly and properly upon the elders?
The ministers or governors of Christ’s church to be
acknowledged in their dispensations.
It is true in case of the elder’s obstinacy in apparent sin,
the church hath power over him, having as much power
to take down as to set up, Col. iv. [17,] Say to Archippus,
&c.; yet in the ordinary dispensations and administrations
of the ordinances, the ministers or elders thereof are first
charged with duty, &c.
Hence first for the apostles, who converted, gathered,
and espoused the churches to Christ, I question whether
their power to edification was not a power over the
churches, as many scriptures seem to imply.
A paradox; magistrates made the judges of the churches, and
governors of them, yet censurable by them.
Secondly, for the ordinary officers ordained for the
ordinary and constant guiding, feeding, and governing the
church, they were rulers, shepherds, bishops, or overseers,
and to them was every letter and charge, commendation or
reproof, directed, Rev. ii. 3, Acts xx. And that place by
them quoted for the submission of the magistrates to the
church, it mentions only submission to the rulers thereof,
Heb. xiii. 17. Those excellent men concealed not this out
of ignorance, and therefore most certainly in a silent way
confess, that their doctrine concerning the magistrates’
power in church causes would seem too gross, if they
should not have named the whole church, and but silently
implied the governors of it. And is it not wonderful in
any sober eye, how the same persons, magistrates, can be
exalted over the ministers and members, as being bound to
establish, reform, suppress by the civil sword in punishing
the body or goods, and yet for the same actions, if the
church and governors thereof so conceive, be liable to a
punishment ten thousand times more transcendent, to wit,
excommunication, a punishment reaching to their souls,
and consciences, and eternal estate; and this not only for
common sins, but for those actions which immediately
concern the execution of their civil office, in judicial proceeding?
Queen Elizabeth’s bishops truer to their principles, than many
of a better spirit and profession.
Peace. The prelates in Queen Elizabeth’s days, kept
with more plainness to their principles: for, acknowledging
the queen to be supreme in all church causes, according to
the title and power of Henry VIII. her father, taken
from the pope, and given to him by the parliament, they
professed that the queen was not a sheep, but under Christ
the chief shepherd, and that the church had not power to
excommunicate the queen.
Mr. Barrowe’s profession concerning Queen Elizabeth.
Truth. Therefore, sweet Peace, it was esteemed capital,
in that faithful witness of so much truth as he saw, even
unto death, Mr. Barrowe, to maintain before the lords of
the council, that the queen herself was subject to the
power of Christ Jesus in the church: which truth overthrew
that other tenent, that the queen should be head and
supreme in all church causes.[227]
Peace. Those bishops according to their principles,
though bad and false, dealt plainly, though cruelly, with
Mr. Barrowe: but these authors, whose principles are the
same with the bishops’, concerning the power of the magistrate
in church affairs, though they waive the title, and
will not call them heads or governors, which now in lighter
times seems too gross, yet give they as much spiritual
power and authority to the civil magistrates to the full, as
ever the bishops gave unto them; although they yet also
with the same breath lay all their honour in the dust, and
make them to lick the dust of the feet of the churches, as
it is prophesied the kings and the queens of the earth shall
do, when Christ makes them nursing fathers and nursing
mothers, Isa. xlix.[228] The truth is, Christ Jesus is honoured
when the civil magistrate, a member of the church,
punisheth any member or elder of the church with the
civil sword, even to the death, for any crime against the
civil state, so deserving it; for he bears not the sword in
vain.
And Christ Jesus is again most highly honoured, when
for apparent sin in the magistrate, being a member of the
church, for otherwise they have not to meddle with him,
the elders with the church admonish him, and recover his
soul: or if obstinate in sin, cast him forth of their spiritual
and Christian fellowship; which doubtless they could
not do, were the magistrate supreme governor under
Christ in ecclesiastical or church causes, and so consequently
the true heir and successor of the apostles.
CHAP. CXXXVI.
15th head, examined.
Peace. The fifteenth head runs thus: viz., In what cases
must churches proceed with magistrates in case of offence.
“We like it well, that churches be slower in proceeding
to excommunication, as of all other, so of civil
magistrates, especially in point of their judicial proceedings,
unless it be in scandalous breach of a manifest law of God,
and that after notorious evidence of the fact, and that
after due seeking and waiting for satisfaction in a previous
advertisement. And though each particular church in respect
of the government of Christ be independent and
absolute within itself, yet where the commonweal consists
of church members, it may be a point of Christian wisdom
to consider and consult with the court also, so far as any
thing may seem doubtful to them in the magistrate’s case,
which may be further cleared by intelligence given from
them; but otherwise we dare not leave it in the power of
any church to forbear to proceed and agree upon that on
earth, which they plainly see Christ hath resolved in his
word, and will ratify in heaven.”
The inventions of men in swerving from the true essentials of
civil and spiritual commonweals.
Truth. If the scope of this head be to qualify and adorn
Christian impartiality and faithfulness with Christian wisdom
and tenderness, I honour and applaud such a
Christian motion; but whereas that case is put which is
nowhere found in the pattern of the first churches, nor
suiting with the rule of Christianity, to wit, that “the
commonweal should consist of church members,” which
must be taken privately, to wit, that none should be admitted
members of the commonweal but such as are first
members of the church—which must necessarily run the
church upon that temptation to feel the pulse of the court
concerning a delinquent magistrate, before they dare proceed—I
say, let such practices be brought to the touchstone
of the true frame of a civil commonweal, and the true
frame of the spiritual or Christian commonweal, the church
of Christ, and it will be seen what wood, hay, and stubble
of carnal policy and human inventions in Christ’s matters
are put in place of the precious stones, gold, and silver of
the ordinances of the most high and only wise God.
CHAP. CXXXVII.
16th and last head examined.
Peace. Dear Truth, we are now arrived at their last
head: the title is this, viz.,—
Their power in the liberties and privileges of these churches.
“First, all magistrates ought to be chosen out of church
members, Exod. xviii. 21; Deut. xvii. 15; Prov. xxix. 2.
When the righteous rule, the people rejoice.
“Secondly, that all free men elected, be only church
members;—
“1. Because if none but church members should rule,
then others should not choose, because they may elect
others beside church members.
2. From the pattern of Israel, where none had power
to choose but only Israel, or such as were joined to the
people of God.
3. If it shall fall out that, in the court consisting of
magistrates and deputies, there be a dissent between them
which may hinder the common good, that they now return
for ending the same to their first principles, which are the
free men, and let them be consulted with.”
A great question, viz., whether only church members, that is,
as is intended, godly persons, in a particular church estate, be only
eligible or to be chosen for magistrates.
Truth. In this head are two branches:—first, concerning
the choice of magistrates, that such ought to be chosen
as are church members: for which is quoted, Exod. xviii.
21; Deut. xvii. 15; Prov. xxix. 2.
Unto which I answer: It were to be wished, that since
the point is so weighty, as concerning the pilots and
steersmen of kingdoms and nations, &c., on whose abilities,
care, and faithfulness depends most commonly the peace
and safety of the commonweals they sail in: I say, it were
to be wished that they had more fully explained what they
intend by this affirmative, viz., “Magistrates ought to be
chosen out of church members.”
For if they intend by this ought to be chosen, a necessity
of convenience, viz., that for the greater advancement of
common utility and rejoicing of the people, according to
the place quoted, Prov. xxix. 2, it were to be desired,
prayed for, and peaceably endeavoured, then I readily assent
unto them.
But if by this ought they intend such a necessity as
those scriptures quoted imply, viz., that people shall sin
by choosing such for magistrates as are not members of
churches: as the Israelites should have sinned, if they had
not, according to Jethro’s counsel, Exod. xviii., and according
to the command of God, Deut. xvii., chosen their
judges and kings within themselves in Israel: then I propose
these necessary queries;—
Lawful civil states, where churches of Christ are not. The
world being divided into thirty parts, twenty-five never heard of Christ.
First. Whether those are not lawful civil combinations,
societies, and communions of men, in towns, cities, states,
or kingdoms, where no church of Christ is resident, yea,
where his name was never yet heard of? I add to this,
that men of no small note, skilful in the state of the world,
acknowledge, that the world divided into thirty parts,
twenty-five of that thirty have never yet heard of the
name of Christ: if [therefore] their civil politics and
combinations be not lawful, because they are not churches
and their magistrates church members, then disorder, confusion,
and all unrighteousness is lawful, and pleasing to
God.
Lawful heirs of crowns and civil government, although not
Christian and godly.
Secondly. Whether in such states or commonweals
where a church or churches of Christ are resident, such
persons may not lawfully succeed to the crown or government
in whom the fear of God, according to Jethro’s
counsel, cannot be discerned, nor are brethren of the
church, according to Deut. xvii. 15, but only are fitted
with civil and moral abilities to manage the civil affairs of
the civil estate.
Few Christians wise and noble, and qualified for affairs of
state.
Thirdly. Since not many wise and noble are called, but
the poor receive the gospel, as God hath chosen the poor
of the world to be rich in faith, 1 Cor. i. 26, James ii. 5:
whether it may not ordinarily come to pass, that there
may not be found in a true church of Christ, which sometimes
consisteth but of few persons, persons fit to be
either kings or governors, &c., whose civil office is no less
difficult than the office of a doctor of physic, a master or
pilot of a ship, or a captain or commander of a band or
army of men: for which services the children of God may
be no ways qualified, though otherwise excellent for the
fear of God, and the knowledge and grace of the Lord
Jesus.
Some papists and some protestants agree in deposing of
magistrates.
Fourthly. If magistrates ought, that is, ought only, to
be chosen out of the church, I demand, if they ought not
also to be dethroned and deposed when they cease to be of
the church, either by voluntary departure from it, or by
excommunication out of it, according to the bloody tenents
and practice of some papists, with whom the protestants,
according to their principles, although they seem to abhor
it, do absolutely agree?
Fifthly. Therefore, lastly, I ask, if this be not to turn
the world upside down, to turn the world out of the
world, to pluck up the roots and foundations of all common
society in the world, to turn the garden and paradise of
the church and saints into the field of the civil state of
the world, and to reduce the world to the first chaos or
confusion?
CHAP. CXXXVIII.
Peace. Dear Truth, thou conquerest, and shalt triumph
in season, but some will say, how answer you those scriptures
alleged?
Those scriptures, Exod. xviii., Deut. xvii. and xviii., &c.,
paralleled in the true spiritual Israel, by 1 Tim. iii., and Tit. i.
Truth. I have fully and at large declared the vast
differences between that holy nation of typical Israel and
all other lands and countries, how unmatchable then and
now, and never to be paralleled, but by the true Israel
and particular churches of Christ residing in all parts, and
under the several civil governments of the world. In
which churches, the Israel of God and kingdom of Christ
Jesus, such only are to be chosen spiritual officers and
governors, to manage his kingly power and authority in
the church, as are, according to the scriptures quoted, not
pope, bishops, or civil powers, but from amongst themselves,
brethren, fearing God, hating covetousness or filthy
lucre, according to those golden rules given by the Lord
Jesus, 1 Tim. iii., and Tit. i.
The want of discerning this true parallel between Israel
in the type then, and Israel the antitype now, is that rock
whereon, through the Lord’s righteous jealousy, punishing
the world and chastising his people, thousands dash, and
make woful shipwreck.
The second branch, viz., that all freemen elected be
only church members, I have before shown to be built on
that sandy and dangerous ground of Israel’s pattern.
Oh! that it may please the Father of lights to discover
this to all that fear his name! Then would they not sin
to save a kingdom, nor run into the lamentable breach of
civil peace and order in the world, nor be guilty of forcing
thousands to hypocrisy in a state-worship, nor of profaning
the holy name of God and Christ by putting their names
and ordinances upon unclean and unholy persons, nor of
shedding the blood of such heretics, &c., whom Christ
would have enjoy longer patience and permission until the
harvest, nor of the blood of the Lord Jesus himself in
his faithful witnesses of truth, nor lastly, of the blood of
so many hundred thousands slaughtered men, women, and
children, by such uncivil and unchristian wars and combustions
about the Christian faith and religion.
Peace. Dear Truth, before we part, I ask your faithful
help once more, to two or three scriptures which many
allege, and yet we have not spoken of.
Truth. Speak on. Here is some sand left in this our
hour-glass of merciful opportunity. One grain of time’s
inestimable sand is worth a golden mountain; let us not
lose it.
The Ninevites’ fast examined.
Peace. The first is that of the Ninevites’ fast, commanded
by the king of Nineveh and his nobles upon the preaching
of Jonah: succeeded by God’s merciful answer in sparing
of the city; and quoted with honourable approbation by
the Lord Jesus Christ, Jonah iii., and Matt. xii. 41.
Truth. I have before proved, that even Jehoshaphat’s
fast, he being king of the national church and people of
Israel, could not possibly be a type or warrant for every
king or magistrate in the world, whose nations, countries,
or cities cannot be churches of God now in the gospel,
according to Christ Jesus.
Much less can this pattern of the king of Nineveh and
his nobles, be a ground for kings and magistrates now to
force all their subjects under them in the matters of
worship.
Peace. It will be said, why did God thus answer them?
Truth. God’s mercy in hearing doth not prove an action
right and according to rule.
It pleased God to hear the Israelites cry for flesh, and
afterward for a king, giving both in anger to them.
It pleased God to hear Ahab’s prayer, yea, and the
prayer of the devils, Luke viii. [32,] although their persons
and prayers in themselves abominable.
Object.
If it be said, why did Christ approve this example?
Answer.
I answer, the Lord Jesus Christ did not approve the
king of Nineveh’s compelling all to worship, but the men
of Nineveh’s repentance at the preaching of Jonah.
Peace. It will be said, what shall kings and magistrates
now do in the plagues of sword, famine, pestilence?
Truth. Kings and magistrates must be considered, as
formerly, invested with no more power than the people betrust
them with.
But no people can betrust them with any spiritual power
in matters of worship; but with a civil power belonging
to their goods and bodies.
2. Kings and magistrates must be considered as either
godly or ungodly.
If ungodly, his own and people’s duty is repentance,
and reconciling of their persons unto God, before their
sacrifice can be accepted. Without repentance what
have any to do with the covenant or promise of God?
Psalm l. 16.
Again, if godly, they are to humble themselves, and beg
mercies for themselves and people.
Secondly. Upon this advantage and occasion, they are
to stir up their people, as possibly they may, to repentance;
but not to force the consciences of people to
worship.
Object.
If it be said, what must be attended to in this example?
Answer.
Two things are most eminent in this example.
First. The great work of repentance, which God calls
all men unto, upon the true preaching of his word.
How England and London may yet be spared.
Secondly. The nature of that true repentance, whether
legal or evangelical. The people of Nineveh turned from
the violence that was in their hands: and confident I am,
if this nation shall turn, though but with a legal repentance,
from that violent persecuting or hunting each of
other for religion’s sake,—the greatest violence and hunting
in the wilderness of the whole world—even as Sodom and
Gomorrah upon a legal repentance had continued until
Christ’s day: so consequently might England, London,
&c., continue free from a general destruction, upon such a
turning from their violence, until the heavens and the
whole world be with fire consumed.
Peace. The second scripture is that speech of the Lord
Christ, Luke xxii. 36, He that hath not a sword, let him sell
his coat and buy one.
Luke xxii., the selling of the coat to buy a sword, discussed.
Truth. For the clearing of this scripture, I must propose
and reconcile that seeming contrary command of the
Lord Jesus to Peter, Matt. xxvi. [52,] Put up thy sword
into its place, for all that take the sword shall perish by it.
In the former scripture, Luke xxii. 36, it pleased the
Lord Jesus, speaking of his present trouble, to compare
his former sending forth of his disciples without scrip, &c.,
with that present condition and trial coming upon them,
wherein they should provide both scrip and sword, &c.
Yet now, first, when they tell him of two swords, he
answers, It is enough: which shows his former meaning
was not literal, but figurative, foreshowing his present
danger above his former.
Secondly, in the same sense at the same time, Matt.
xxvi. 52, commanding Peter to put up his sword, he gives
a threefold reason thereof.
1. (ver. 52,) From the event of it: for all that take the
sword shall perish by it.
2. The needlessness of it: for with a word to his
Father, he could have twelve legions of angels.
3. The counsel of God to be fulfilled in the scripture:
thus it ought to be.
Peace. It is much questioned by some, what should be
the meaning of Christ Jesus in that speech, All that take
the sword shall perish by the sword.
A threefold taking of the sword.
Truth. There is a threefold taking of the sword: first,
by murderous cruelty, either of private persons; or
secondly, public states or societies, in wrath or revenge
each against other.
Secondly, a just and righteous taking of the sword in
punishing offenders against the civil peace, either more
personal, private, and ordinary; or more public, oppressors,
tyrants, ships, navies, &c. Neither of these can
it be imagined that Christ Jesus intended to Peter.
Thirdly, there is therefore a third taking of the sword,
forbidden to Peter, that is, for Christ and the gospel’s
cause when Christ is in danger: which made Peter strike,
&c.
Peace. It seems to some most contrary to all true reason,
that Christ Jesus, innocency itself, should not be
defended.
Truth. The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom
of man.
It is not the purpose of God, that the spiritual battles
of his Son shall be fought by carnal weapons and persons.
It is not his pleasure that the world shall flame on
fire with civil combustions for his Son’s sake. It is
directly contrary to the nature of Christ Jesus, his
saints and truths, that throats of men, which is the highest
contrariety to civil converse, should be torn out for
his sake who most delighted to converse with the greatest
sinners.
It is the counsel of God, that his servants shall overcome
by three weapons of a spiritual nature, Rev. xii. 11;
and that all that take the sword of steel shall perish.
Lastly, it is the counsel of God, that Christ Jesus shall
shortly appear a most glorious judge and revenger against
all his enemies, when the heavens and the earth shall flee
before his most glorious presence.
Rev. xvii. 16, the kings’ hating of the whore, discussed.
Peace. I shall propose the last scripture much insisted
on by many for carnal weapons in spiritual cases, Rev.
xvii. 16, The ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast,
these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and
naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with
fire.
Truth. Not to controvert with some, whether or no the
beast be yet risen and extant:—
Nor secondly, whether either the beast, or the horns,
or the whore, may be taken literally for any corporal beast
or whore:—
Or thirdly, whether these ten horns be punctually and
exactly ten kings:—
Or fourthly, whether those ten horns signify those many
kings, kingdoms, and governments, who have bowed down
to the pope’s yoke, and have committed fornication with
that great whore the church of Rome:—
Let this last be admitted, (which yet will cost some
work to clear against all opposites): yet,—
First, can the time be now clearly demonstrated to be
come? &c.
Secondly, how will it be proved, that this hatred of this
whore, shall be a true, chaste, Christian hatred against
anti-christian, whorish practices? &c.
Thirdly, or rather that this hating, and desolating, and
making naked, and burning shall arise, not by way of an
ordinance warranted by the institution of Christ Jesus,
but by way of providence, when, as it useth to be with
all whores and their lovers, the church of Rome and her
great lovers shall fall out, and by the righteous vengeance
of God upon her, drunk with the blood of saints or holy
ones, these mighty fornicators shall turn their love into
hatred, which hatred shall make her a poor, desolate, naked
whore, torn and consumed, &c.
Peace. You know it is a great controversy, how the
kings of the earth shall thus deal with the whore in
the seventeenth chapter, and yet so bewail her in the
eighteenth chapter.
Truth. If we take it that these kings of the earth
shall first hate, and plunder, and tear, and burn this
whore, and yet afterward shall relent and bewail their
cruel dealing toward her: or else, that as some kings deal
so terribly with her, yet others of those kings shall bewail
her:—
If either of these two answers stand, or a better be
given, yet none of them can prove it lawful for people to
give power to their kings and magistrates thus to deal
with them, their subjects, for their conscience; nor for
magistrates to assume a tittle more than the people
betrust them with; nor for one people out of conscience
to God, and for Christ’s sake, thus to kill and slaughter
and burn each other. However, it may please the
righteous judge, according to the famous types of Gideon’s
and Jehoshaphat’s battles, to permit in justice, and to
order in wisdom, these mighty and mutual slaughters each
of other.
Peace. We have now, dear Truth, through the gracious
hand of God, clambered up to the top of this our tedious
discourse.
Truth. Oh! it is mercy inexpressible that either thou
or I have had so long a breathing time, and that together!
Peace. If English ground must yet be drunk with
English blood, oh! where shall Peace repose her wearied
head and heavy heart?
Truth. Dear Peace, if thou find welcome, and the God
of peace miraculously please to quench these all-devouring
flames, yet where shall Truth find rest from cruel persecutions?
Peace. Oh! will not the authority of holy scriptures,
the commands and declarations of the Son of God, therein
produced by thee, together with all the lamentable experiences
of former and present slaughters, prevail with
the sons of men, especially with the sons of peace, to depart
from the dens of lions, and mountains of leopards,
and to put on the bowels, if not of Christianity, yet of
humanity each to other?
Truth. Dear Peace, Habakkuk’s fishes keep their constant
bloody game of persecutions in the world’s mighty
ocean; the greater taking, plundering, swallowing up
the lesser. Oh! happy he whose portion is the God
of Jacob! who hath nothing to lose under the sun; but
hath a state, a house, an inheritance, a name, a crown, a
life, past all the plunderers’, ravishers’, murderers’ reach
and fury!
Peace. But lo! Who’s there?
Truth. Our sister Patience, whose desired company is
as needful as delightful. It is like the wolf will send the
scattered sheep in one: the common pirate gather up the
loose and scattered navy: the slaughter of the witnesses
by that bloody beast unite the independents and presbyterians.
The God of peace, the God of truth, will shortly seal
this truth, and confirm this witness, and make it evident
to the whole world,—
That the doctrine of persecution for cause
of conscience, is most evidently and lamentably
contrary to the doctrine of Christ Jesus, the
Prince of peace. Amen.
FINIS.
MR. COTTON’S LETTER,
LATELY PRINTED,
EXAMINED AND ANSWERED.
BY
ROGER WILLIAMS, OF PROVIDENCE, IN NEW ENGLAND.
LONDON:
IMPRINTED IN THE YEAR 1644.
TO THE IMPARTIAL READER. [229]
This Letter I acknowledge to have received from Mr.
Cotton, whom for his personal excellencies I truly
honour and love: yet at such a time of my distressed
wanderings amongst the barbarians, that being destitute of
food, of clothes, of time, I reserved it, though hardly,
amidst so many barbarous distractions, and afterward prepared
an answer to be returned.
Mr. Cotton’s reluctancy in himself concerning the way of
persecution.
In the interim, some friends being much grieved, that
one, publicly acknowledged to be godly, and dearly
beloved, should yet be so exposed to the mercy of a
howling wilderness in frost and snow, &c.: Mr. Cotton, to
take off the edge of censure from himself, professed both
in speech and writing, that he was no procurer of my
sorrows.
Some letters then passed between us, in which I proved
and expressed, that if I had perished in that sorrowful
winter’s flight, only the blood of Jesus Christ could have
washed him from the guilt of mine.
An unmerciful speech from a merciful man.
His final answer was, “Had you perished, your blood
had been on your own head; it was your sin to procure
it, and your sorrow to suffer it.”
Here I confess I stopped, and ever since suppressed
mine answer; waiting, if it might please the Father of
mercies, more to mollify and soften, and render more
humane and merciful, the ear and heart of that otherwise
excellent and worthy man.
God’s wisdom in the season of publishing this letter.
It cannot now be justly offensive, that finding this
letter public (by whose procurement I know not) I also
present to the same public view, my formerly intended
answer.
Times of inquiry after Christ.
I rejoice in the goodness and wisdom of him who is the
Father of lights and mercies, in ordering the season both
of mine own present opportunity of answer: as also and
especially of such protestations and resolutions of so many
fearing God, to seek what worship and worshippers are
acceptable to him in Jesus Christ.
A golden speech of a parliament man.
Mine own ears were glad and late witnesses of a
heavenly speech of one of the most eminent of that high
assembly of parliament; viz., “Why should the labours of
any be suppressed, if sober, though never so different?
We now profess to seek God, we desire to see light,” &c.
Times when seeking of God comes too late.
I know there is a time when God will not be found,
though men seek him early, Prov. i. [28.]
There is a time when prayer and fasting come too late,
Jer. xiv. [10.]
There is a seeking of the God of Israel with a
stumbling-block, according to which God giveth his Israel
an answer, Ezek. xiv. [4.]
Lastly, there is a proud refusal of the mind of God returned
in answer by the prophet, Jer. xlii. [13.]
Wholehearted seekers the only seekers of Christ Jesus.
Love bids me hope for better things. God’s promise
assures us, that his people returning from captivity, shall
seek him, and pray, and find him, when they seek him with
their whole heart, Jer. xxix. [13.] And God’s angel
comforts those against all fears that seek Jesus that was
crucified, Mark xvi. [6].
Christ Jesus, whom he saveth he teacheth.
Thy soul so prosper, whoever thou art, worthy reader,
as with thy whole heart thou seekest that true Lord Jesus,
who is holiness itself, and requires a spiritual and holy
bride like to himself, the pure and spotless lamb. He
alone, as he is able to save thee to the utmost from thy sins
and sorrows by his blood, so hath he brought his Father’s
counsel from his bosom, and every soul is bound, on pain
of eternal pains, to attend alone [to] his laws and ordinances,
commands and statutes, Heb. vii., Acts iii. [23].
The true Lord Jesus studied humility and self-denial.
That Lord Jesus, who purposely chose to descend of
mean and inferior parents, a carpenter, &c.:—
Who disdained not to enter this world in a stable,
amongst beasts, as unworthy the society of men: who
passed through this world with the esteem of a madman,
a deceiver, a conjuror, a traitor against Cæsar, and destitute
of an house wherein to rest his head: who made choice of
his first and greatest ambassadors out of fishermen, tent-makers,
&c.: and at last chose to depart on the stage of a
painful, shameful gibbet:—
Seekers of Christ are sure of a gracious answer, 2 Thess. v.
If Him thou seekest in these searching times, makest
him alone thy white [robe] and soul’s beloved, willing to
follow, and be like him in doing [and] in suffering;
although thou findest him not in the restoration of his
ordinances, according to his first pattern:—
Yet shalt thou see him, reign with him, eternally admire
him, and enjoy him, when he shortly comes in flaming fire
to burn up millions of ignorant and disobedient.
Your most unworthy country-man,
ROGER WILLIAMS.
MR. COTTON’S LETTER EXAMINED AND ANSWERED.
CHAP. I.
Mr. Cotton. “Beloved in Christ.”
Answer. Though I humbly desire to acknowledge myself
unworthy to be beloved, and most of all unworthy of the
name of Christ, and to be beloved for his sake: yet since
Mr. Cotton is pleased to use such an affectionate compellation
and testimonial expression, to one so afflicted and
persecuted by himself and others, whom for their personal
worth and godliness I also honour and love, I desire it
may be seriously reviewed by himself and them, and all
men, whether the Lord Jesus be well pleased that one,
beloved in him, should, for no other cause than shall
presently appear, be denied the common air to breathe in,
and a civil cohabitation upon the same common earth;
yea, and also without mercy and human compassion, be
exposed to winter miseries in a howling wilderness?[230]
Mr. Cotton expecting more light, must, according to his way of
persecution, persecute Christ Jesus if he bring it.
And I ask further, Whether, since Mr. Cotton elsewhere
professeth to expect far greater light than yet
shines, upon the same grounds and practice, if Christ
Jesus in any of his servants shall be pleased to hold forth
a further light, Christ Jesus himself shall find the mercy
and humanity of a civil and temporal life and being with
them?
Mr. Cotton. “Though I have little hope, when I consider
the uncircumcision of mine own lips, that you will
hearken to my voice, who have not hearkened to the body
of the whole church of Christ with you, and the testimony
and judgment of so many elders and brethren of other
churches: yet I trust my labour will be accepted of the
Lord; and who can tell but that he may bless it to you
also, if, by his help, I endeavour to show you the sandiness
of those grounds, out of which you have banished yourself
from the fellowship of all the churches in these
countries?”
Will-worship varnished over with the glittering show of
humility. Spiritual pride may swell, out of the sense of a man’s
humility. Humility most unseasonable in setting up will-worship, or
persecuting others.
Answer. First, I acknowledge it a holy character of a
heavenly spirit, to make ingenuous true acknowledgment
of an uncircumcised lip: yet that discerning spirit, which
God graciously vouchsafeth to them that tremble at his
word, shall not only find, that not only the will-worships of
men may be painted and varnished over with the glittering
show of humility, Col. ii., but also God’s dearest servants,
eminent for humility and meekness, may yet be troubled
with a swelling of spiritual pride out of the very sense of
their humility. It pleased God to give Paul himself preventing
physic against this distemper, in the midst of
God’s gracious revelation to him. And what an humble argument
doth David use, when himself, advised by Nathan,
went about an evil work out of a holy intention, to wit,
a work of will-worship, in building the temple unbidden?
Behold, I dwell in a house of Cedar, but the ark of God in
a tent, 2 Sam. vii. 2. Humility is never in season to set
up superstition, or to persecute God’s children.
CHAP. II.
Secondly, I observe his charge against me for not
hearkening to a twofold voice of Christ: first, of the
whole church of Christ with me.[232]
Public sins the cause of public calamities; must be faithfully
discovered by spiritual watchmen.
Unto which I answer, according to my conscience and
persuasion, I was then charged by office with the feeding
of that flock: and when in the apprehension of some
public evils, the whole country professed to humble itself
and seek God, I endeavoured, as a faithful watchman on
the walls, to sound the trumpet and give the alarm: and
upon a fast day, in faithfulness and uprightness, as then
and still I am persuaded, I discovered eleven public sins,
for which I believed (and do) it pleased God to inflict, and
further to threaten public calamities. Most of which
eleven (in not all) that church then seemed to assent unto:
until afterward in my troubles the greater part of that
church was swayed and bowed, whether for fear of persecution
or otherwise, to say and practise what, to my knowledge,
with sighs and groans, many of them mourned
under.
Col. iv. [16.] Faithfulness to God and man (though for present
censured) will give rejoicing in day of death and judgment.
I know the church of Colosse must say to Archippus,
Take heed to thy ministry, &c., which he may negligently
and proudly refuse to hearken to; but let my case be considered,
and the word of the Lord examined, and the
difference of my case will shine forth, and my faithfulness
and uprightness to God and the souls of that people will
witness for me, when my soul comes to Hezekiah’s case on
his death-bed, and in that great day approaching.
The popish argument from multitudes. David and the princes
and thirty thousand of Israel, a type of God’s best servants reforming,
yet not after the due order. An excellent confession of the papists
concerning scripture.
For my not hearkening to the second voice, the testimony
of so many elders and brethren of other churches:
because I truly esteem and honour the persons of which
the New English churches are constituted, I will not
answer the argument of numbers and multitudes against
one, as we use to answer the popish universality, that God
sometimes stirs up one Elijah against eight hundred of
Baal’s priests,[233] one Micaiah against four hundred of Ahab’s
prophets, one Athanasius against many hundreds of Arian
bishops, one John Huss against the whole council of
Constance, Luther and the two witnesses against many
thousands, &c. Let this I may truly say, that David
himself, and the princes of Israel, and thirty thousand
Israel, carrying up the ark, were not to be hearkened to
nor followed in their (as I may say) holy rejoicings and
triumphings, the due order of the Lord yet being wanting
to their holy intentions and affections, and the Lord at last
sending in a sad stop and breach of Uzzah amongst them
(Perez Uzzah), as he hath ever yet done, and will do in
all the reformations that have been hitherto made by his
Davids which are not after the due order. To which
purpose, it is maintained by the papists themselves, and by
their councils, that scripture only must be heard: yea, one
scripture in the mouth of one simple mechanic before the
whole council. By that only do I desire to stand or fall
in trial or judgment; for all flesh is grass, and the beauty
of flesh, the most wisest, holiest, learnedest, is but the
flower or beauty of grass: only the word of Jehovah
standeth fast for ever.
CHAP. III.
Thirdly, Mr. Cotton endeavoureth to discover the sandiness
of those grounds out of which, as he saith, I have
banished myself, &c.
Good intentions and affections in God’s people, accepted with
God, when their endeavours perish and burn like stubble, &c. Many grounds
seemed sandy to Mr. Cotton in Old England, which now he confesseth to be
rocky.
I answer, I question not his holy and loving intentions
and affections, and that my grounds seem sandy to himself
and others. Those intentions and affections may be
accepted, as his person, with the Lord, as David of his
desires to build the Lord a temple, though on sandy
grounds. Yet Mr. Cotton’s endeavours to prove the firm
rock of the truth of Jesus to be the weak and uncertain
sand of man’s invention, those shall perish and burn like
hay or stubble. The rocky strength of those grounds shall
more appear in the Lord’s season, and himself may yet
confess so much, as since he came into New England he
hath confessed the sandiness of the grounds of many of
his practices in which he walked in Old England, and the
rockiness of their grounds that witnessed against them
and himself in those practices, though for that time their
grounds seemed sandy to him.
Mr. Cotton formerly persuaded to practise Common Prayer; but
since hath written against it.
When myself heretofore, through the mercy of the
Most High, discovered to himself and other eminent
servants of God my grounds against their using of the
Common Prayer, my grounds seemed sandy to them,
which since in New England Mr. Cotton hath acknowledged
rocky, and hath seen cause so to publish to the
world, in his discourse to Mr. Ball against set forms of
prayer.[234]
But because the reader may ask, both Mr. Cotton and
me, what were the grounds of such a sentence of banishment
against me, which are here called sandy, I shall
relate in brief what those grounds were, some whereof he
is pleased to discuss in this letter, and others of them not
to mention.[235]
After my public trial and answers at the general court,
one of the most eminent magistrates, whose name and
speech may by others be remembered, stood up and
spake:
The four particular grounds of my sentence of banishment.
“Mr. Williams,” said he, “holds forth these four particulars;
“First, That we have not our land by patent from the
king, but that the natives are the true owners of it, and
that we ought to repent of such a receiving it by patent.
“Secondly, That it is not lawful to call a wicked
person to swear, [or] to pray, as being actions of God’s
worship.
“Thirdly, That it is not lawful to hear any of the
ministers of the parish assemblies in England.
“Fourthly, that the civil magistrate’s power extends
only to the bodies, and goods, and outward state of men,”
&c.
I acknowledge the particulars were rightly summed up,
and I also hope, that, as I then maintained the rocky
strength of them to my own and other consciences’ satisfaction,
so, through the Lord’s assistance, I shall be ready
for the same grounds not only to be bound and banished,
but to die also in New England, as for most holy truths of
God in Christ Jesus.
Yea; but, saith he, upon those grounds you banished
yourself from the society of the churches in these countries.
Christ Jesus speaketh and suffereth in his witnesses. The
dragon’s language in a lamb’s lip. God’s children persecuted are charged
by their enemies to be the authors of their own persecution.
I answer, if Mr. Cotton mean my own voluntary withdrawing
from those churches resolved to continue in those
evils, and persecuting the witnesses of the Lord presenting
light unto them, I confess it was mine own voluntary
act; yea, I hope the act of the Lord Jesus sounding forth
in me, a poor despised ram’s horn, the blast which shall in
his own holy season cast down the strength and confidence
of those inventions of men in the worshipping of the true
and living God:—And lastly, His act in enabling me to
be faithful, in any measure, to suffer such great and mighty
trials for his name’s sake. But if by banishing myself he
intend the act of civil banishment from their common
earth and air, I then observe with grief the language of
the dragon in a lamb’s lip. Among other expressions of
the dragon, are not these common to the witnesses of the
Lord Jesus, rent and torn by his persecutions?—“Go now:—say,
you are persecuted, you are persecuted for Christ,
suffer for your conscience: no, it is your schism, heresy,
obstinacy, the devil hath deceived thee, thou hast justly
brought this upon thee, thou hast banished thyself,” &c.
Instances are abundant in so many books of martyrs, and
the experience of all men, and therefore I spare to recite
in so short a treatise.
A national church, the silent commonweal or world, silently
confessed by Mr. Cotton to be all one.
Secondly, if he mean this civil act of banishing, why
should he call a civil sentence from the civil state, within
a few weeks’ execution, in so sharp a time of New England’s
cold—Why should he call this a banishment from
the churches? except he silently confess, that the frame
or constitution of their churches is but implicitly national,
which yet they profess against: for otherwise why was I
not yet permitted to live in the world, or commonweal,
except for this reason, that the commonweal and church is
yet but one, and he that is banished from the one must
necessarily be banished from the other also.
CHAP. IV.
Mr. Cotton. “Let not any prejudice against my person,
I beseech you, forestal either your affection or judgment,
as if I had hasted forward the sentence of your civil
banishment; for what was done by the magistrates in that
kind was neither done by my counsel nor consent.”
Persecutors of men’s bodies seldom or never do those men’s
souls good. An excellent observation of a worthy parliament man.
Answ. Although I desire to hear the voice of God from
a stranger, an equal, an inferior, yea, an enemy; yet I
observe how this excellent man cannot but confess how
hard it is for any man to do good, to speak effectually to
the soul or conscience of any whose body he afflicts and
persecutes, and that only for their soul and conscience’
sake. Hence, excellent was the observation of a worthy
gentleman in the parliament against the bishops, viz., That
the bishops were far from the practice of the Lord Jesus,
who, together with his word preached to the souls of men,
showed their bodies so much mercy and loving-kindness;
whereas the bishops on the contrary persecute, &c.
God’s children are not so free in persecuting God’s children,
as persecutors whose professed nature and trade it is.
Now to the ground from whence my prejudice might
arise, he professeth my banishment proceeded not with his
counsel or consent. I answer, I doubt not but that what
Mr. Cotton and others did in procuring my sorrows, was
not without some regret and reluctancy of conscience and
affection—as like it is that David could not procure
Uriah’s death, nor Asa imprison the prophet, with a quiet
and free conscience. Yet to the particular, that Mr. Cotton
consented not, what need he, being not one of the
civil court? But that he counselled it, and so consented,
beside what other proof I might produce, and what himself
hereunder expresseth, I shall produce a double and unanswerable
testimony.
Mr. Cotton by teaching persecution cannot but consent to it,
&c.
First, he publicly taught, and teacheth, except lately
Christ Jesus hath taught him better, that body-killing,
soul-killing, and state-killing doctrine of not permitting
but persecuting all other consciences and ways of worship
but his own in the civil state, and so consequently in the
whole world, if the power or empire thereof were in his
hand.
Mr. Cotton privately satisfied the consciences of some that
questioned, whether persecution for conscience was lawful.
Secondly, as at that sentence divers worthy gentlemen
durst not concur with the rest in such a course, so some
that did consent have solemnly testified, and with tears
since to myself confessed, that they could not in their
souls have been brought to have consented to the sentence,
had not Mr. Cotton in private given them advice and
counsel, proving it just and warrantable to their consciences.
I desire to be as charitable as charity would have me,
and therefore would hope that either his memory failed
him, or that else he meant, that in the very time of
sentence passing he neither counselled nor consented—as
he hath since said, that he withdrew himself and went out
from the rest—probably out of that reluctation which
before I mentioned; and yet if so, I cannot reconcile his
own expression: for thus he goes on:—
CHAP. V.
Mr. Cotton. “Although I dare not deny the sentence
passed to be righteous in the eyes of God, who hath said,
that he that withholdeth the corn, which is the staff of life,
from the people, the multitude shall curse him, Prov. xi. 26,
how much more shall they separate such from them as do
withhold and separate them from the ordinances, or the
ordinances from them, which are in Christ the bread of
life.”
Prov. xi. 26. The scripture produced by Mr. Cotton to prove my
banishment lawful, discussed.
Answ. I desire to inform the reader why it pleaseth
Mr. Cotton to produce this scripture. One of our disputes
was concerning the true ministry appointed by the Lord
Jesus. Another was concerning the fitness and qualification
of such persons as have right, according to the rules
of the gospel, to choose and enjoy such a true ministry of
the Lord Jesus. Hence because I professed, and do,
against the office of any ministry but such as the Lord
Jesus appointeth, this scripture is produced against me.
Mr. Cotton satisfies all men concerning the chief cause of
my banishment. The word of the Lord is the soul’s corn; yet must it be
dispensed according to the word of the Lord.
Secondly, let this be observed for satisfaction to many
who inquire into the cause of my sufferings, that it pleaseth
Mr. Cotton only to produce this scripture for justifying
the sentence as righteous in the eyes of God, implying
what our chief difference was, and consequently what it
was for which I chiefly suffered, to wit, concerning the
true ministry of Christ Jesus. But to the scripture, let
the people curse such as hoard up corporal or spiritual
corn, and let those be blessed that sell it: will it therefore
follow, that either the one or the other may lawfully be
sold or bought but with the good will, consent, and
authority of the true owner?[236]
To some parts the apostles were forbidden to preach, and from
others to depart, shaking off the dust, &c. All the Lord’s corn must be
sold according to the Lord’s ordinance.
Doth not even the common, civil market abhor and
curse that man, who carries to market and throws about
good corn against the owner’s mind and express command?—who
yet is willing and desirous it should be sold plenteously,
if with his consent, according to his order, and to
his honest and reasonable advantage? This is the case
of the true and false ministry. Far be it from my soul’s
thought to stop the sweet streams of the water of life from
flowing to refresh the thirsty, or the bread of life from
feeding hungry souls: and yet I would not, and the Lord
Jesus would not, that one drop, or one crumb or grain,
should be unlawfully, disorderly, or prodigally disposed
of; for, from the scorners, contradicters, despisers, persecutors,
&c., the apostles, messengers of the Lord Jesus,
were to turn and to shake off the dust of their feet: yea,
it pleased the Spirit of the Lord to forbid the apostles to
preach at all to some places, at some times: so that the
whole dispose of this spiritual corn, for the persons selling,
their qualifications, commissions, or callings, the quantities
and qualities of the corn, the price for which, the persons
to whom, the place where, and time when, the great Lord
of the harvest must express his holy will and pleasure,
which must humbly and faithfully be attended on.
Mr. Cotton himself choosing rather to sell no spiritual corn,
than to yield to some ceremonies.
In which regard Mr. Cotton deals most partially: for
would Mr. Cotton himself have preached in Old, or will
he in New England, with submission but to some few
ceremonies, as the selling of this spiritual corn in a white
coat, a surplice? Did he not rather choose, which I mention
to the Lord’s and Mr. Cotton’s honour, to have shut
up his sack’s mouth, to have been silenced (as they call it)
and imprisoned, than to sell that heavenly corn otherwise
than as he was persuaded the Lord appointed? Yea, hath
he not in New England refused to admit the children of
godly parents to baptism, or the parents themselves unto
the fellowship of the supper, until they came into that
order which he conceived was the order of the Lord’s
appointing?
In civil things nothing lawful but what is according to law
and order. In England now, not persons fit, but also truly authorized,
are true officers.
Again, to descend to human courses, do not all civil men
throughout the world, forbid all building, planting, merchandizing,
marrying, execution of justice, yea, all actions of
peace or war, but by a true and right commission and in a
right order? Is it not, in this present storm of England’s
sorrows, one of the greatest queries in all the kingdom, who
are the true officers, true commanders, true justices, true
commissioners, which is the true seal? And doubtless as
truth is but one, so but the one sort is true, and ought to
be submitted to, and the contrary resisted; although it
should be granted that the officers questioned and their
actions were noble, excellent, and beyond exception.
The curse of death in Israel of old, is spiritual death, and
spiritual cutting off, in the church of Christ and Christian Israel now.
I judge it not here seasonable to entertain the dispute
of the true power and call of Christ’s ministry: I shall
only add a word to this scripture, as it is brought to prove
a righteous sentence of banishment on myself or any that
plead against a false office of ministry. It is true in the
national church of Israel, the then only church and nation
of God, he that did aught presumptuously was to be
accursed and to be put to death, Deut. xvii. [12,] a figure
of the spiritual putting to death an obstinate sinner in the
church of Christ, who refusing to hear the voice of Christ
is to be cut off from Christ and Christians, and to be
esteemed as a heathen, that is, a Gentile, or publican,
Matt. xviii. [17.] Hence, consequently, the not selling,
or the withholding of corn presumptuously, was death in
Israel. But Mr. Cotton cannot prove that every wilful
withholding of corn, in all or any state in the world, and
that in time of plenty, is death; for as for banishment,
we never hear of any such course in Israel.
Such as are excellently fitted to sell the spiritual corn of
the word of the Lord, and yet find not their call to the ministry, are
not to be put to death or banished.
And secondly, least of all can he prove, that in all civil
states of the world, that man that pleadeth against a false
ministry, or that being able to preach Christ and doubting
of the true way of the ministry since the apostacy of anti-christ,
dares not practise a ministry. Or that many excellent
and worthy gentlemen, lawyers, physicians, and
others, as well gifted in the knowledge of the scripture,
and furnished with the gifts of tongues and utterance, as
most that profess the ministry, and yet are not persuaded
to sell spiritual corn, as questioning their true calling and
commission—I say, Mr. Cotton doth not, nor will he ever
prove that these, or any of these, ought to be put to death
or banishment in every land or country.[237]
Spiritual offences are only liable to a spiritual censure.
Paul not to be banished or killed by Nero, for not preaching the gospel.
The selling or withholding of spiritual corn, are both of
a spiritual nature, and therefore must necessarily in a true
parallel bear relation to a spiritual curse.[238] Paul wishing
himself accursed from Christ for his countrymen’s sake,
Rom. ix. [3,] he spake not of any temporal death or banishment.
Yet nearer, being fitly qualified and truly called by
Christ to the ministry, he cries out, 1 Cor. ix. [16,] Woe to
me if I preach not the gospel! yet did not Paul intend,
that therefore the Roman Nero, or any subordinate power
under him in Corinth, should have either banished or put
Paul to death, having committed nothing against the civil
state worthy of such a civil punishment: yea, and Mr.
Cotton himself seemeth to question the sandiness of such
a ground to warrant such proceedings, for thus he goes
on:—
CHAP. VI.
Mr. Cotton. “And yet it may be they passed that sentence
against you, not upon that ground: but for aught I
know, for your other corrupt doctrines, which tend to the
disturbance both of civil and holy peace, as may appear by
that answer which was sent to the brethren of the church
of Salem and yourself.”
Mr. Cotton himself ignorant of the cause of my sufferings.
[Answer.] I answer, it is no wonder that so many having
been demanded the cause of my sufferings have answered,
that they could not tell for what, since Mr. Cotton himself
knows not distinctly what cause to assign; but saith,
it may be they passed not that sentence on that ground,
&c. Oh! where was the waking care of so excellent and
worthy a man, to see his brother and beloved in Christ so
afflicted, he knows not distinctly for what![239]
He allegeth a scripture to prove the sentence righteous,
and yet concludeth it may be it was not for that, but for
other corrupt doctrines which he nameth not, nor any
scripture to prove them corrupt, or the sentence righteous
for that cause. Oh! that it may please the Father of
lights to awaken both himself and other of my honoured
countrymen, to see how though their hearts wake, in respect
of personal grace and life of Jesus, yet they sleep,
insensible of much concerning the purity of the Lord’s
worship, or the sorrows of such, whom they style brethren
and beloved in Christ, afflicted by them.
Civil peace and civil magistracy blessed ordinances of God.
But though he name not these corrupt doctrines, a little
before I have, as they were publicly summed up and
charged upon me, and yet none of them tending to the
breach of holy or civil peace, of which I have ever desired
to be unfeignedly tender, acknowledging the ordinance
of magistracy to be properly and adequately fitted by God
to preserve the civil state in civil peace and order, as he
hath also appointed a spiritual government and governors
in matters pertaining to his worship and the consciences of
men; both which governments, governors, laws, offences,
punishments, are essentially distinct, and the confounding
of them brings all the world into combustion. He adds:
CHAP. VII.
Mr. Cotton. “And to speak freely what I think, were
my soul in your soul’s stead, I should think it a work of
mercy of God to banish me from the civil society of such
a commonweal, where I could not enjoy holy fellowship
with any church of God amongst them without sin. What
should the daughter of Sion do in Babel, why should she
not hasten to flee from thence?”
Answer. Love bids me hope, that Mr. Cotton here intended
me a cordial to revive me in my sorrows:[240] yet, if
the ingredients be examined, there will appear no less than
dishonour to the name of God, danger to every civil state,
a miserable comfort to myself, and contradiction within
itself.
A land cannot be Babel, yet a church of Christ.
For the last first. If he call the land Babel, mystically,
which he must needs do or else speak not to the point,
how can it be Babel, and yet the church of Christ also?
Famous civil states where yet no sound of Jesus Christ.
Secondly, it is a dangerous doctrine to affirm it a misery
to live in that state, where a Christian cannot enjoy the
fellowship of the public churches of God without sin.
Do we not know many famous states wherein is known no
church of Jesus Christ? Did not God command his people
to pray for the peace of the material city of Babel,
Jer. xxix. [7,] and to seek the peace of it, though no
church of God in Babel, in the form and order of it? Or
did Sodom, Egypt, Babel, signify material Sodom, Egypt,
Babel? Rev. xi. 8, and xviii. 2.
A true church of Jesus Christ in material Babylon.
There was a true church of Jesus Christ in material
Babel, 1 Pet. v. 13. Was it then a mercy for all the inhabitants
of Babel to have been banished, whom the church
of Jesus Christ durst not to have received to holy fellowship?
Or was it a mercy for any person to have been
banished the city, and driven to the miseries of a barbarous
wilderness, him and his, if some bar had lain upon his
conscience that he could not have enjoyed fellowship with
the true church of Christ?
The mercy of a civil state distinct from mercies of a
spiritual nature.
Thirdly, for myself, I acknowledge it a blessed gift of
God to be enabled to suffer, and so to be banished for his
name’s sake: and yet I doubt not to affirm, that Mr.
Cotton himself would have counted it a mercy if he
might have practised in Old England what now he doth in
New, with the enjoyment of the civil peace, safety, and
protection of the state.[241]
Old and New England, for the countries and civil government
incomparable.
Or should he dissent from the New English churches,
and join in worship with some other, as some few years
since he was upon the point to do in a separation from the
churches there as legal,[242] would he count it a mercy to be
plucked up by the roots, him and his, and to endure the
losses, distractions, miseries that do attend such a condition?
The truth is, both the mother and the daughter,
Old and New England—for the countries and governments
are lands and governments incomparable: and might it
please God to persuade the mother to permit the inhabitants
of New England, her daughter, to enjoy their conscience
to God, after a particular congregational way, and
to persuade the daughter to permit the inhabitants of the
mother, Old England, to walk there after their conscience
of a parishional way (which yet neither mother nor
daughter is persuaded to permit), I conceive Mr. Cotton
himself, were he seated in Old England again, would not
count it a mercy to be banished from the civil state.
Mr. Cotton not having felt the miseries of others can be no
equal judge of them.
And therefore, lastly, as he casts dishonour upon the
name of God, to make Him the author of such cruel mercy,
so had his soul been in my soul’s case, exposed to the
miseries, poverties, necessities, wants, debts, hardships of
sea and land, in a banished condition, he would, I presume,
reach forth a more merciful cordial to the afflicted. But
he that is despised and afflicted, is like a lamp despised in
the eyes of him that is at ease, Job xii. 5.
CHAP. VIII.
Mr. Cotton. Yea; but he speaks not these things to
add affliction to the afflicted, but if it were the holy will
of God to move me to a serious sight of my sin, and of
the justice of God’s hand against it. “Against your corrupt
doctrines it pleased the Lord Jesus to fight against you,
with the sword of his mouth, as himself speaketh, Rev. ii.,
in the mouths and testimonies of the churches and brethren,
against whom, when you overheat yourself in reasoning
and disputing against the light of his truth, it pleased him
to stop your mouth by a sudden disease, and to threaten
to take breath from you: but you, instead of recoiling,
as even Balaam offered to do in the like case, chose rather
to persist in the way, and protest against all the churches
and brethren that stood in your way: and thus the good
hand of Christ that should have humbled you to see and
turn from the error of your way, hath rather hardened you
therein, and quickened you only to see failings, yea, intolerable
errors, in all the churches and brethren rather
than in yourself.”
Answer. In these lines, an humble and discerning spirit
may espy:—first, a glorious justification and boasting of
himself and others concurring with him. Secondly, an
unrighteous and uncharitable censure of the afflicted.
The lantern of God’s word must alone try who fights with
the sword of God’s mouth, the same word of God. Whether Mr. Cotton
persecuting, or the answerer persecuted, be likest to Balaam.
To the first I say no more, but let the light of the holy
lantern of the word of God discover and try with whom
the sword of God’s mouth, that is, the testimony of the
holy scripture for Christ against anti-christ, abideth.
And whether myself and such poor witnesses of Jesus
Christ in Old and New England, Low Countries, &c., desiring
in meekness and patience to testify the truth of
Jesus against all false callings of ministers, &c., or Mr.
Cotton, however in his person holy and beloved, swimming
with the stream of outward credit and profit, and smiting
with the fist and sword of persecution such as dare not
join in worship with him:—I say, whether of either be the
witnesses of Christ Jesus, in whose mouth is the sword of
his mouth, the sword of the Spirit, the holy word of God,
and whether is most like to Balaam?
The answerer’s profession concerning his sickness, which Mr.
Cotton upbraids to him. Scripture, history, experience can witness the
censures upon God’s servants in their afflictions.
To the second: his censure. It is true, it pleased God
by excessive labours on the Lord’s days, and thrice a week
at Salem: by labours day and night in my field with my
own hands, for the maintenance of my charge: by travels
also by day and night to go and return from their court,
and not by overheating in dispute, divers of themselves
confessing publicly my moderation, it pleased God to bring
me near unto death; in which time, notwithstanding the
mediating testimony of two skilful in physic, I was unmercifully
driven from my chamber to a winter’s flight.[243]
During my sickness, I humbly appeal unto the Father of
spirits for witness of the upright and constant, diligent
search my spirit made after him, in the examination of all
passages, both my private disquisitions with all the chief
of their ministers, and public agitations of points controverted;
and what gracious fruit I reaped from that sickness,
I hope my soul shall never forget. However, I
mind not to number up a catalogue of the many censures
upon God’s servants in the time of God’s chastisements
and visitations on them, both in scripture, history, and
experience. Nor retort the many evils which it pleased
God to bring upon some chief procurers of my sorrows,
nor upon the whole state immediately after them, which
many of their own have observed and reported to me;
but I commit my cause to him that judgeth righteously,
and yet resolve to pray against their evils, Ps. cxli.
CHAP. IX.
Mr. Cotton. “In which course, though you say you do
not remember an hour wherein the countenance of the
Lord was darkened to you: yet be not deceived, it is no
new thing with Satan to transform himself into an angel
of light, and to cheer the soul with false peace, and with
flashes of counterfeit consolation. Sad and woeful is the
memory of Mr. Smith’s strong consolation on his death-bed,
which is set as a seal to his gross and damnable
Arminianism and enthusiasm delivered in the confession
of his faith,[244] prefixed to the story of his life and death.
The countenance of God is upon his people when they fear
him, not when they presume of their own strength, and
his consolations are not found in the way of precedence
and error, but in the ways of humility and truth.”
Answer. To that part which concerns myself, the speech
hath reference either to the matter of justification, or else
matter of my affliction for Christ, of both which I
remember I have had discourse.
A soul at peace with God may yet endure great combats
concerning sanctification.
For the first, I have expressed in some conference, as
Mr. Cotton himself hath also related concerning some
with whom I am not worthy to be named, that after first
manifestations of the countenance of God, reconciled in
the blood of his Son unto my soul, my questions and
trouble have not been concerning my reconciliation and
peace with God, but concerning sanctification, and fellowship
with the holiness of God, in which respect I desire to
cry, with Paul, in the bitterness of my spirit, O wretched
man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?
Affliction for Christ sweet. Two cautions for any in
persecution for conscience.
Secondly, it may have reference to some conference concerning
affliction for his name’s sake, in which respect I
desire to acknowledge the faithfulness of his word and
promise, to be with his in six troubles and in seven,
through fire and water, making good a hundred-fold with
persecution to such of his servants as suffer aught for his
names’-sake: and I have said and must say, and all God’s
witnesses that have borne any pain or loss for Jesus must
say, that fellowship with the Lord Jesus in his sufferings
is sweeter than all the fellowship with sinners in all the
profits, honours, and pleasures of this present evil world.
And yet two things I desire to speak to all men and
myself, Let every man prove his work, Gal. vi. 4., and then
shall he have rejoicing in himself, and not in another.
Secondly, if any man love God, that soul knows God, or
rather is known of God, 1 Cor. viii. 3. Self-love may
burn the body; but happy only he whose love alone to
Christ constrains him to be like unto him, and suffer with
him.
Mr. Smith godly, and a light to Mr. Cotton and others, though
left to himself in some things. God’s infinite compassions toward those
whose hearts are upright with him. The opinion of putting Uriah to death,
the vilest of all opinions. As the weights of the sanctuary were double,
so must there be double pondering in all the affairs of God’s worship.
To that which concerneth Mr. Smith, although I knew
him not, and have heard of many points in which my conscience
tells me it pleased the Lord to leave him to himself:
yet I have also heard by some, whose testimony Mr.
Cotton will not easily refuse, that he was a man fearing
God.[245] And I am sure Mr. Cotton hath made some use of
those principles and arguments on which Mr. Smith and
others went, concerning the constitution of the Christian
church.[246] The infinite compassions of God, which lay no
sin to David’s charge but the sin of Uriah, 1 Kings xv. 5,
have graciously comforted the souls of his on their death-bed,
accepting and crowning their uprightness and faithfulness,
and passing by what otherwise is grievous and
offensive to him. And indeed from the due consideration
of that instance, it appears that no sin is comparably so
grievous in God’s David as a treacherous slaughter of the
faithful, whom we are forced to call beloved in Christ.
That opinion in Mr. Cotton, or any, is the most grievous
to God or man, and not comparable to any that ever Mr.
Smith could be charged with. It is true, the countenance
and consolations of God are found in the ways of humility
and truth, and Satan transformeth him like to an angel of
light in a counterfeit of both: in which respect I desire
to work out salvation with fear and trembling, and to do
nothing in the affairs of God and his worship but (like
the weights of the sanctuary) with double care, diligence,
and consideration, above all the affairs of this vanishing
life. And yet Christ’s consolations are so sweet, that the
soul that tasteth them in truth, in suffering for any truth
of his, will not easily part with them, though thousands
are deceived and deluded with counterfeits.
CHAP. X.
Mr. Cotton. “Two stumbling blocks, I perceive, have
turned you off from fellowship with us. First, the want
of fit matter of our church. Secondly, disrespect of the
separate churches in England under affliction, ourselves
practising separation in peace.”
“For the first, you acknowledge, as you say with joy,
that godly persons are the visible members of these
churches; but yet you see not that godly persons are
matter fitted to constitute a church, no more than trees or
quarries are fit matter proportioned to the building. This
exception seemeth to me to imply a contradiction to itself,
for if the matter of the churches be as you say godly
persons, they are not then as trees unfelled, and stones
unhewn: godliness cutteth men down from the former
root, and heweth them out of the pit of corrupt nature,
and fitteth them for fellowship with Christ and with his
people.”
“You object, first, a necessity lying upon godly men
before they can be fit matter for church fellowship, to see,
bewail, repent, and come out of the false churches,
worship, ministry, government, according to scriptures,
Isa. lxii. 11, 2 Cor. vi. 17; and this is to be done not by a
local removal or contrary practice, but by a deliverance of
the soul, understanding, will, judgment and affection.”
“Answer. First, we grant that it is not local removal
from former pollution, nor contrary practice, that fitteth
us for fellowship with Christ and his church; but that it
is necessary also that we repent of such former pollutions
wherewith we have been defiled and enthralled.”
“We grant further, that it is likewise necessary to
church fellowship we should see and discern all such
pollutions as do so far enthral us to anti-christ as to separate
us from Christ. But this we profess unto you, that
wherein we have reformed our practice, therein have we
endeavoured unfeignedly to humble our souls for our
former contrary walking. If any through hypocrisy are
wanting herein, the hidden hypocrisy of some will not
prejudice the sincerity and faithfulness of others, nor the
church estate of all.”
Answer. That which requireth answer in this passage,
is a charge of a seeming contradiction, to wit, That
persons may be godly, and yet not fitted for church
estate, but remain as trees and quarries, unfelled, &c.:
Contrary to which it is affirmed, that godly persons cannot
be so enthralled to anti-christ, as to separate them from
Christ.
For the clearing of which let the word of truth be
rightly divided, and a right distinction of things applied,
there will appear nothing contradictory, but clear and
satisfactory to each man’s conscience.
The state of godly persons in gross sins. Godly persons
falling into gross sins, are to express repentance before they can be
admitted to the church.
First, then, I distinguish of a godly person thus: In
some acts of sin which a godly person may fall into,
during those acts, although before the all-searching and
tender eye of God, and also in the eyes of such as are
godly, such a person remaineth still godly, yet to the eye
of the world externally such a person seemeth ungodly,
and a sinner. Thus Noah in his drunkenness; thus
Abraham, Lot, Samson, Job, David, Peter, in their lying,
whoredoms, cursings, murder, denying and foreswearing
of Christ Jesus, although they lost not their inward sap
and root of life, yet suffered they a decay and fall of leaf,
and the show of bad and evil trees. In such a case Mr.
Cotton will not deny, that a godly person falling into
drunkenness, whoredom, deliberate murder, denying and
forswearing of Christ, the church of Christ cannot
receive such persons into church fellowship, before their
sight of humble bewailing and confessing of such evils,
notwithstanding that love may conceive there is a root of
godliness within.
God’s children long asleep in respect of God’s worship, though
alive in the grace of Christ.
Secondly, God’s children, Cant. v. 2, notwithstanding a
principle of spiritual life in their souls, yet are lulled into
a long continued sleep in the matters of God’s worship: I
sleep, though my heart waketh. The heart is awake in
spiritual life and grace, as concerning personal union to
the Lord Jesus, and conscionable endeavours to please
him in what the heart is convinced: yet asleep in respect
of abundant ignorance and negligence, and consequently
gross abominations and pollutions of worship; in which
the choicest servants of God, and most faithful witnesses
of many truths have lived in more or less, yea, in main
and fundamental points, ever since the apostacy.
Mr. Cotton now professes to practise what thousands of God’s
people for many ages have not seen.
Not to instance in all, but in some particulars which
Mr. Cotton hath in New England reformed: I earnestly
beseech himself and all well to ponder how far he himself
now professeth to see and practise, that which so many
thousands of godly persons of high note, in all ages, since
the apostacy, saw not: as,
First, concerning the nature of a particular church, to
consist only of holy and godly persons.
Secondly, of a true ministry called by that church.
Thirdly, a true worship free from ceremonies, common-prayer,
&c.
Fourthly, a true government in the hands only of such
governors and elders as are appointed by the Lord Jesus.
Hence God’s people not seeing their captivity in these
points, must first necessarily be enlightened and called out
from such captivity before they can be nextly fitted and
prepared for the true church, worship, ministry, &c.
CHAP. XI.
The Jews of old in the type could not build the altar and
temple in Babel, but first they must come forth and then build at
Jerusalem. God’s mystical Israel in the antitype must also come forth of
Babel before they can build the temple at Jerusalem.
Secondly, this will be more clear, if we consider God’s
people and church of old, the Jews, captivated in material
Babel, they could not possibly build God’s altar and
temple at Jerusalem, until the yoke and bonds of their
captivity were broken, and they set free to return with
the vessels of the Lord’s house, to set up his worship in
Jerusalem: as we see in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah,
Daniel, Haggai, &c. Hence in the antitype, God’s people,
the spiritual and mystical Jews, cannot possibly erect the
altar of the Lord’s true worship, and build the temple of
his true church, without a true sight of their spiritual
bondage in respect of God’s worship, and a power and
strength from Jesus Christ to bring them out, and carry
them through all difficulties in so mighty a work. And
as the being of God’s people in material Babel, and a
necessity of their coming forth before they could build the
temple, did not in the least deny them to be God’s people:
no more now doth God’s people being in mystical Babel,
(Rev. xviii.) nor the necessity of their coming forth, hinder
or deny the godliness of their persons, or spiritual life
within them.
Luther and other famous witnesses very gross concerning God’s
worship, though eminent for personal grace.
Thirdly, how many famous servants of God and witnesses
of Jesus, lived and died and were burnt for other
truths of Jesus, not seeing the evil of their anti-christian
calling of bishops, &c.! How did famous Luther himself
continue a monk, set forth the German mass, acknowledge
the pope, and held other gross abominations concerning
God’s worship, notwithstanding the life of Christ Jesus in
him, and wrought in thousands by his means.
Mr. Cotton refuseth godly persons except they be convinced of
their church covenant.
Fourthly, Mr. Cotton must be requested to remember
his own practice, as before; how doth he refuse to receive
persons eminent for personal grace and godliness to the
Lord’s supper, and other privileges of Christians, according
to the profession of their church estate, until they be
convinced of the necessity of making and entering into a
church covenant with them, with a confession of faith, &c.;
and if any cannot be persuaded of such a covenant and
confession, notwithstanding their godliness, yet are they
not admitted.[247]
Mr. Cotton and the English elders refuse to permit
eminent ministers and people of Old England to live in New England
(notwithstanding he confessed their godliness above his own) if they
join not in his church fellowship. Godly persons living trees and living
stones, yet need much hewing and cutting to bring them from false to true
worship. The coming forth of false worship a second kind (as it were) of
regeneration to God’s people. Return from the land of the north.
Lastly, how famous is that passage of that solemn question
put to Mr. Cotton and the rest of the New English
elders, by divers of the ministers of Old England, eminent
for personal godliness, as Mr. Cotton acknowledgeth, viz.,
whether they might be permitted in New England to
enjoy their consciences in a church estate different from
the New English; unto which Mr. Cotton and the New
English elders return a plain negative, in effect thus much,
with the acknowledgment of their worth and godliness
above their own, and their hopes of agreement; yet in
conclusion, if they agree not, which they are not like to
do, and submit to that way of church-fellowship and worship
which in New England is set up, they cannot only
not enjoy church-fellowship together, but not permit them
to live and breathe in the same air and commonweal together;[248]
which was my case, although it pleased Mr.
Cotton and others most incensed to give myself a testimony
of godliness, &c.[249] And this is the reason why,
although I confess with joy the care of the New English
churches that no person be received to fellowship with
them, in whom they cannot first discern true regeneration
and the life of Jesus, yet I said, and still affirm, that godly
and regenerate persons, according to all the former instances
and reasons, are not fitted to constitute the true
Christian church, until it hath pleased God to convince
their souls of the evil of the false church, ministry, worship,
&c. And although I confess that godly persons are
not dead but living trees, not dead but living stones, and
need no new regeneration (and so in that respect need no
felling nor digging out), yet need they a mighty work of
God’s Spirit to humble and ashame them, and to cause
them to loathe themselves for their abominations or stinks
in God’s nostrils, as it pleaseth God’s Spirit to speak of
false worships. Hence, Ezek. xliii. 11: God’s people are
not fit for God’s house until holy shame be wrought in
them for what they have done. Hence God promiseth to
cause them to loathe themselves, because they have broken
him with their whorish hearts, Ezek. vi. 9. And hence it
is that I have known some precious godly hearts confess,
that the plucking of their souls out from the abominations
of false worship, hath been a second kind of regeneration.
Hence was it, that it pleased God to say concerning his
people’s return from their material captivity, a figure of our
spiritual and mystical, that they should not say, Jehovah
liveth who brought them from the land of Egypt—a type
of first conversion as is conceived; but, Jehovah liveth who
brings them from the land of the north—a type of God’s
people’s return from spiritual bondage to confused and
invented worships.
CHAP. XII.
Now whereas Mr. Cotton addeth, that godly persons are
not so enthralled to anti-christ as to separate them from
Christ, else they could not be godly persons:—
Christ considered two ways, first, personally, and so God’s
people can never be separated from him.
I answer, this comes not near our question, which is not
concerning personal godliness or grace of Christ, but the
godliness or Christianity of worship. Hence the scripture
holds forth Christ Jesus first personally, as that God-man,
that one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ
Jesus, whom all God’s people by faith receive, and in
receiving become the sons of God, John i. 12, although
they yet see not the particular ways of his worship. Thus
was it with the centurion, the woman of Canaan, Cornelius,
and most, at their first conversion.
Secondly, as head of his church, and so he is often lost and
absent from his spouse.
Secondly, the scripture holdeth forth Christ as head of
his church, formed into a body of worshippers, in which
respect the church is called Christ, 1 Cor. xii. 12: and the
description of Christ is admirably set forth in ten several
parts of a man’s body, fitting and suiting to the visible
profession of Christ in the church, Cant. v.
God’s people cannot serve a false Christ and the true
together.
Now in the former respect, anti-christ can never so
enthral God’s people as to separate them from Christ, that
is, from the life and grace of Christ, although he enthral
them into never so gross abominations concerning worship:
for God will not lose his in Egypt, Sodom, Babel. His
jewels are most precious to him though in a Babylonish
dunghill, and his lily sweet and lovely in the wilderness
commixed with briars. Yet in the second respect, as
Christ is taken for the church, I conceive that anti-christ
may separate God’s people from Christ, that is, from
Christ’s true visible church and worship.[250] This Mr. Cotton
himself will not deny, if he remember how little a
while it is since the falsehood of a national, provincial,
diocesan, and parishional church, &c., and the truth of a
particular congregation, consisting only of holy persons,
appeared unto him.
The church before Luther. Rev. xiii.
The papists’ question to the protestant, viz., where was
your church before Luther? is thus well answered, to wit,
that since the apostacy, truth and the holy city, according
to the prophecy, Rev. xi. and xiii., have been trodden
under foot, and the whole earth hath wondered after the
beast: yet God hath stirred up witnesses to prophesy in
sackcloth against the beast, during his forty-two months’
reign: yet those witnesses have in their times, more or
less submitted to anti-christ and his church, worship,
ministry, &c.,[251] and so consequently have been ignorant of
the true Christ, that is, Christ taken for the church in the
true profession of that holy way of worship, which he
himself at first appointed.
CHAP. XIII.
Mr. Cotton. “Secondly, we deny that it is necessary to
church fellowship, that is, so necessary that without it a
church cannot be, that the members admitted thereunto
should all of them see and expressly bewail all the pollutions
which they have been defiled with in the former
church fellowship, ministry, worship, government, &c., if
they see and bewail so much of their former pollutions, as
did enthral them to anti-christ so as to separate them
from Christ, and be ready in preparation of heart, as they
shall see more light, so to hate more and more every false
way; we conceive it is as much as is necessarily required
to separate them from anti-christ, and to fellowship with
Christ and his churches. The church of Christ admitted
many thousand Jews that believed on the name of Christ,
although they were still zealous of the law, and saw not
the beggarly emptiness of Moses’s ceremonies, Acts xxi.
20; and the apostle Paul directeth the Romans to receive
such unto them as are weak in the faith, and see not their
liberty from the servile difference of meats and days, but
still lie under the bondage of the law; yea, he wisheth
them to receive such upon this ground, because Christ
hath received them, Rom. xiv. 1 to the 6th.”
“Say not, there is not the like danger of lying under
bondage to Moses as to anti-christ: for even the bondage
under Moses was such, as if continued in after instruction
and conviction, would separate them from Christ, Gal. v. 2,
and bondage under anti-christ could do no more.”
Answ. Here I desire three things may be observed:—
Mr. Cotton confessing the true and false constitution of the
church.
First, Mr. Cotton’s own confession of that twofold
church estate, worship, &c., the former false, or else why
to be so bewailed and forsaken? the second true, to be
embraced and submitted to.
Mr. Cotton confessing to hold what he censureth in the
answerer.
Secondly, his own confession of that which a little
before he would make so odious in me to hold, viz., that
God’s people may be so far enthralled to anti-christ, as to
separate them from Christ: for, saith he, “If they see
and bewail so much of their former pollutions, as did
enthral them to anti-christ, so as to separate them from
Christ.”[252]
Fallacy in Mr. Cotton’s generals. A godly person remaining a
member of a false church, is therein a member of a false Christ.
Thirdly, I observe how easily a soul may wander in his
generals, for thus he writes: “Though they see not all the
pollutions wherewith they have been defiled in the former
church fellowship.” Again, “if they see so much as did
enthral them to anti-christ, and separate them from
Christ.” And yet he expresseth nothing of that, “all the
pollutions,” nor what so much is as will separate them from
Christ. Hence upon that former distinction that Christ
in visible worship is Christ, I demand, whether if a godly
person remain a member of a falsely constituted church,
and so consequently, in that respect, of a false Christ,
whether in visible worship he be not separate from the
true Christ?
Separation from false Christ absolutely necessary before there
can be union to the true. A sequestration or separation of the soul from
the world in the idolatrous and invented worships of it, before it can be
presented to Christ Jesus, as a chaste virgin into the chaste bed of his
own most holy institutions.
Secondly, I ask, whether it be not absolutely necessary
to his uniting with the true church, that is, with Christ in
true Christian worship, that he see and bewail, and absolutely
come out from that former false church or Christ,
and his ministry, worship, &c., before he can be united to
the true Israel—must come forth of Egypt before they
can sacrifice to God in the wilderness. The Jews come
out of Babel before they build the temple in Jerusalem.
The husband of a woman [must] die, or she be legally
divorced, before she can lawfully be married to another;
the graft cut off from one before it can be ingrafted into
another stock. The kingdom of Christ, that is, the kingdom
of the saints, Dan. ii. and vii., is cut out of the
mountain of the Roman monarchy. Thus the Corinthians,
1 Cor. vi. 9-11, uniting with Christ Jesus, they were
washed from their idolatry, as well as other sins. Thus
the Thessalonians turned from their idols before they
could serve the living and true God, 1 Thess. i. 9; and as
in paganism, so in anti-christianism, which separates as
certainly, though more subtilly, from Christ Jesu.
CHAP. XIV.
Yea; but it is said, that Jews, weak in Christian liberties,
and zealous for Moses’s law, they were to be received.
I answer, two things must here carefully be minded:—
Difference between God’s own holy institutions to the Jews,
and Satan’s paganish, or anti-christian institution to the Gentiles, as
concerning the manner of coming forth of them.
First, although bondage to Moses would separate from
Christ, yet the difference must be observed between those
ordinances of Moses which it pleased God himself to
ordain and appoint, as his then only worship in the world,
though now in the coming of his Son he was pleased to
take away, yet with solemnity; and on the other side, the
institutions and ordinances of anti-christ, which the devil
himself invented, were from first to last never to be
received and submitted to one moment, nor with such
solemnity to be laid down, but to be abhorred and
abominated for ever.
A comparison between the Jewish and Christian ordinances.
The national church of the Jews, with all the shadowish,
typical ordinances of kings, priests, prophets, temple,
sacrifices, were as a silver candlestick, on which the light
of the knowledge of God and the Lord Jesus, in the type
and shadow, was set up and shined. That silver candlestick
it pleased the Most Holy and Only Wise to take
away, and instead thereof to set up the golden candlesticks
of particular churches (Rev. i.) by the hand of the
Son of God himself. Now the first was silver,—the pure
will and mind of God, but intended only for a season; the
second of a more precious, lasting nature, a kingdom not
to be shaken, that is, abolished as the former, Heb. xii.
28.
Moses’s ordinances at one time precious and holy, at another
time beggarly and deadly. The first Christians communicated in the Jewish
synagogues until the Jews contradicted and spoke evil, &c., then they
separated.
Therefore, secondly, observe the difference of time,
which Mr. Cotton himself confesseth: “after instruction and
conviction,” saith he, “Moses’s law was deadly, and would
separate from Christ;” therefore, there was a time when
they were not deadly, and did not separate from Christ,
to wit, until Moses was honourably fallen asleep, and
lamented for—as I conceive—in the type and figure thirty
days, Deut. xxxiv. [8.] Therefore, at one season, not for
Timothy’s weak conscience, but for the Jews’ sake, Paul
circumcised Timothy: at another time, when the Jews
had sufficient instruction, and obstinately would be circumcised,
and that necessarily to salvation, Paul seasonably
cries out, that if they were circumcised Christ should
profit them nothing, Gal. v. [2.] Hence, the Christians at
Ephesus conversed with the Jewish synagogue until the
Jews contradicted and blasphemed, and then were speedily
separated by Paul, Acts xix. [9.] But to apply, Paul
observed a vow, and the ceremonies of it, circumcised
Timothy, &c.; may therefore a messenger of Christ now,
as Paul, go to mass, pray to saints, perform penance, keep
Christmas and other popish feasts and fasts? &c.
A member of a true church falling into any idolatrous
practice, not presently to be excommunicated.
Again, is there such a time allowed to any man, uniting
or adding himself to the true church now, to observe the
unholy holy days of feasting and fasting invented by anti-christ?
Yea, and, as Paul did circumcision, to practise
the popish sacraments? I doubt not; but if any member
of a true church or assembly of worshippers, shall fall to
any paganish or popish practice, he must be instructed and
convinced before excommunication: but the question is,
whether still observing and so practising, a person may be
received to the true Christian church, as the Jews were,
although they yet practised Moses’s ceremonies?
These things duly pondered, in the fear and presence of
God, it will appear how vain the allegation is, from that
tender and honourable respect to God’s ordinances now
vanishing from the Jews, and their weak consciences
about the same, to prove the same tenderness to Satan’s
inventions, and [to] the consciences of men in the renouncing
of paganical, Turkish, anti-christian, yea, and I
add Judaical worships now, when once the time of their
full vanishing was come.
Not one degree of sight of, or sorrow for anti-christian
abominations; yet a necessity of cutting off from the false before union
to the true church, ministry, worship, &c.
To conclude, although I prescribe not such a measure
of sight of, or sorrow for anti-christian abominations—I
speak in respect of degrees, which it pleaseth the Father
of lights to dispense variously, to one more, to another
less—yet, I believe it absolutely necessary to see and
bewail so much as may amount to cut off the soul from
the false church, whether national, parishional, or any
other falsely constituted church, ministry, worship, and
government of it.[253]
CHAP. XV.
Mr. Cotton. “Ans. 3. To places of scripture which you
object, Isa. lii. 11; 2 Cor. vi. 17; Rev. xviii. 4, we answer,
two of them make nothing to your purpose: for that of
Isaiah and the other of the Revelation, speak of local
separation, which yourself know we have made, and yet
you say, you do not apprehend that to be sufficient. As
for that place of the Corinthians, it only requireth coming
out from idolaters in the fellowship of their idolatry. No
marriages were they to make with them, no feasts were
they to hold with them in the idol’s temple: no intimate
familiarity were they to maintain with them, nor any
fellowship were they to keep with them in the unfruitful
works of darkness; and this is all which that place requireth.
But what makes all this to prove, that we may
not receive such persons to church fellowship as yourself
confess to be godly, and who do professedly renounce and
bewail all known sin, and would renounce more if they
knew more, although it may be they do not see the utmost
skirts of all that pollution they have sometimes been
defiled with: as the patriarchs saw not the pollution of
their polygamy. But that you may plainly see this place
is wrested beside the apostle’s scope when you argue from
it, that such persons are not fit matter for church fellowship
as are defiled with any remnants of anti-christian
pollution, nor such churches any more to be accounted
churches as do receive such amongst them: consider, I
pray you, were there not at that time in the church of
Corinth such as partook with the idolaters in the idol’s
temple? And was not this the touching of an unclean
thing? And did this sin reject these members from
church fellowship before conviction? Or did it evacuate
their church estate for not casting out such members?”
Answ. The scriptures, or writings of truth, are those
heavenly righteous scales wherein all our controversies
must be tried, and that blessed star that leads all those
souls to Jesus that seek him. But, saith Mr. Cotton, two
of those scriptures alleged by me, Isa. lii. 11, Rev. xviii. 4,
which I brought to prove a necessity of leaving the false
before a joining to the true church, they speak of local
separation, which, saith he, yourself know we have made.[254]
Mr. Cotton cannot make both comings forth of Babel, both in
the type and antitype, to be local.
For that local and typical separation from Babylon, Isa.
lii. [11,] I could not well have believed that Mr. Cotton
or any would make that coming forth of Babel in the
antitype, Rev. xviii. 4, to be local and material also.
What civil state, nation, or country in the world, in the
antitype, must now be called Babel? Certainly, if any,
then Babel itself properly so called; but there we find, as
before, a true church of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. v. [13.]
If a local Babel, then also now a local Judea and temple, &c.,
come out of Babel, not material, but mystical.
Secondly, if Babel be local now whence God’s people
are called, then must there be a local Judea, a land of
Canaan also, into which they are called; and where shall
both that Babel and Canaan be found in all the comings
forth that have been made from the church of Rome in
these last times? But Mr. Cotton having made a local
departure from Old England in Europe to New England
in America, can he satisfy his own soul, or the souls of
other men, that he hath obeyed that voice, “Come out of
Babel, my people, partake not of her sins,” &c? Doth he
count the very land of England literally Babel, and so
consequently Egypt and Sodom, Rev. xi. 8, and the land
of New England Judea, Canaan? &c.
The Lord Jesus hath broken down the difference of places and
persons. Two chiefest causes of God’s indignation against England. These
two particulars I should be humbly ready to make proof of.
The Lord Jesus, John iv., clearly breaks down all
difference of places, and, Acts x., all difference of persons;
and for myself, I acknowledge the land of England, the
civil laws, government, and people of England, not to be
inferior to any under heaven. Only two things I shall
humbly suggest unto my dear countrymen, whether more
high and honourable at the helm of government, or more
inferior, who labour and sail in this famous ship of England’s
commonwealth, as the greatest causes, fountains,
and top roots of all the indignation of the Most High
against the state and country; first, that the whole nation
and generations of men have been forced, though unregenerate
and unrepentant, to pretend and assume the
name of Christ Jesus, which only belongs, according to
the institution of the Lord Jesus, to truly regenerate and
repenting souls. Secondly, that all others dissenting from
them, whether Jews or Gentiles, their countrymen especially,
for strangers have a liberty, have not been permitted
civil cohabitation in this world with them, but have
been distressed and persecuted by them.[255]
The soul’s captivity to false worship is not local, but a
guilt, and not only so, but a habit or disposition of spiritual sleep,
whoredom, drunkenness, &c.
But to return; the sum of my controversy with Mr.
Cotton is, whether or no that false worshipping of the
true God be not only a spiritual guilt liable to God’s
sentence and plagues, but also an habit, frequently compared
in the prophets, and Rev. xvii., to a spirit and
disposition of spiritual drunkenness and whoredom, a soul-sleep
and a soul-sickness: so that as by the change of a
chair, chamber, or bed, a sick or sleepy man, whore or
drunkard, are not changed, but they remain the same still,
until that disposition of sickness, sleepiness, drunkenness,
whoredom be put off, and a new habit of spiritual health,
watchfulness, sobriety, chastity be put on.
CHAP. XVI.
Now concerning that scripture, 2 Cor. vi., Mr. Cotton
here confesseth it holdeth forth five things that the
repenting Corinthians were called out in, from the unrepenting:
First, in the fellowship of their idolatry.
2. From making marriages with them.
3. From feasting in their idols’ temples.
4. From intimate familiarity with them.
5. From all fellowship in the unfruitful works of darkness.
The benefits of the repenting English, their coming forth from
the impenitent English in those former five particulars mentioned by Mr.
Cotton.
Answ. If regenerate and truly repenting English thus
come forth from the unregenerate and unrepenting, how
would the name of the Lord Jesus be sanctified, the
jealousy of the Lord pacified, their own souls cleansed,
judgments prevented, yea, and one good means practised
toward the convincing and saving of the souls of such
from whom in these particulars they depart, and dare not
have fellowship with: especially when in all civil things
they walk unblameably, in quiet and helpful cohabitation,
righteous and faithful dealing, and cheerful submission to
civil laws, orders, levies, customs, &c.
Yea; but Mr. Cotton demands, what makes all this to
prove that godly persons, who professedly renounce all
known sin, may not be received to church fellowship,
although they see not the utmost skirts of their pollution,
as the patriarchs saw not the pollution of their polygamy?
The sins of God’s people are sometimes reputed to be of
ignorance, when they are of negligence, and yet ignorance excuseth not
wholly.
Answ. I repeat the former distinction of godly persons,
who possibly may live in ungodly practices, especially of
false worship, and then, according to Mr. Cotton’s own
interpretation of this place to the Corinthians, they came
not forth. And I add, if there be any voice of Christ in
the mouths of his witnesses against these sins, they are
not then of ignorance, but of negligence, and spiritual
hardness, against the ways of God’s fear, against Isa. lxiii.
[17,] &c.
A case put to Mr. Cotton. No cause of more shame for whoredom
against an husband’s bed, than against the bed of God’s worship. The case
of polygamy, or many wives of the fathers.
Moreover, our question is not of the utmost skirts of
pollution, but the substance of a true or false bed of worship,
Cant. i. 16, in respect of coming out of the false,
before the entrance into the true. And yet I believe that
Mr. Cotton being to receive a person to church fellowship,
who formerly hath been infamous for corporal whoredom,
he would not give his consent to receive such an one
without sound repentance for the filthiness of her skirts,
Lam. i. [9,] not only in actual whoredoms, but also in
whorish speeches, gestures, appearances, provocation.
And why should there be a greater strictness for the
skirts of common whoredom than of spiritual and soul
whoredom, against the chastity of God’s worship? And
therefore to that instance of the fathers’ polygamy, I
answer: first, by observing what great sins godly persons
may possibly live and long continue in, notwithstanding
godliness in the root. Secondly, I ask if any person, of
whose godliness Mr. Cotton hath had long persuasion,
should believe and maintain, as questionless the fathers’
had grounds satisfying their consciences for what they
did, that he ought to have many wives, and accordingly
so practised:—I say, I ask, whether Mr. Cotton would
receive such a godly person to church fellowship? yea, I
ask, whether the church of the Jews, had they seen this
evil, would have received such a proselyte from the Gentiles?
and when it was seen, whether any persons so
practising would have been suffered amongst them? But,
lastly, what was this personal sin of these godly persons?
Was it any matter of God’s worship, any joining with a
false church, ministry, worship, government, from whence
they were to come, before they could constitute his true
church, and enjoy his worship, ministry, government?
&c.
Mr. Cotton concludeth this passage thus: “The church
of Corinth had such as partook with idolaters in their
idols’ temple, and was not this,” saith he, “touching of an
unclean thing, and did this reject these members from
church fellowship before conviction? and did it evacuate
their church estate for not casting out such members?”
Answ. This was an unclean thing indeed, from which
God calls his people in this place, with glorious promises
of receiving them: and Mr. Cotton confesseth that after
conviction any member, obstinate in these unclean touches,
ought to be rejected; for, said he, did this sin reject these
members from church fellowship before conviction?
It lesseneth not a rebellion that it is in a multitude: hence
a city in Israel idolatrous was to be destroyed.
And upon the same ground, that one obstinate person
ought to be rejected out of church estate, upon the same
ground, if a greater company or church were obstinate in
such unclean touches, and so consequently in a rebellion
against Christ, ought every sound Christian church to
reject them, and every sound member to withdraw from
them.
Obstinacy that casteth out, will keep out from communion with
the Lord Jesus in his church.
And hence further it is clear, that if such unclean
touches obstinately maintained, as Mr. Cotton confesseth
and practiseth, be a ground of rejection of a person in the
church, questionless it is a ground of rejection when such
persons are to join unto the church. And if obstinacy in
the whole church after conviction be a ground for such a
church’s rejection, questionless such a church or number of
persons obstinate in such evils cannot congregate, nor
become a true constituted church of Jesus Christ.
The church of Corinth, and every true church, separate from
idols as a chaste virgin to Christ.
The greatest question here would be, whether the
Corinthians in their first constitution were separate or no
from such idol temples? and this Mr. Cotton neither doth
nor can deny, a church estate being a state of marriage
unto Jesus Christ; and so Paul professedly saith, he had
espoused them as a chaste virgin to Christ Jesus, 2 Cor.
xi. [2.]
CHAP. XVII.
Mr. Cotton proceeds to answer some other allegations
which I produced from the confession of sin made by
John’s disciples, and the proselyte Gentiles before they
were admitted into church fellowship, Matt. iii. 6; Acts
xix. 18, unto which he returneth a threefold answer:
“The first is grounded upon his apparent mistake of my
words in a grant of mine, viz., such a confession and
renunciation is not absolutely necessary, if the substance
of true repentance be discerned. Whence,” saith he,
“according to your own confession, such persons as have
the substance of true repentance may be a true church.”
The substance of true general repentance in all God’s
children, though living in many gross abominations of false worship,
ministry, &c. Not the same measure and degrees of repentance in all.
I answer, it is clear in the progress of the whole controversy,
that I ever intend by the substance of true
repentance, not that general grace of repentance which all
God’s people have, as Luther, a monk, and going to, yea,
publishing the German mass, and those famous bishops
burnt for Christ in Queen Mary’s days; but that
substance of repentance for those false ways of worship,
church, ministry, &c., in which God’s people have lived,
although the confessing and renouncing of them be not so
particularly expressed, and with such godly sorrow and
indignation as some express, and may well become: And
indeed the whole scope of that caution was for Christian
moderation and gentleness toward the several sorts of
God’s people, professing particular repentance for their
spiritual captivity and bondage; during which captivity
also, I readily acknowledge the substance of repentance,
and of all the graces of Christ in general.
Mr. Cotton.
In his second answer, Mr. Cotton saith, I “grant with
the one hand, and take away with the other; for he denies
it necessary to the admission of members, that every one
should be convinced of the sinfulness of every sipping of
the whore’s cup, ‘for,’ saith he, ‘every sipping of a
drunkard’s cup is not sinful.’”
Some have drunk deep of the whore’s cup, and some but sipped
yet intoxicated.
Answer. First he doth not rightly allege my words; for
a little before he confesseth my words to be, that anti-christian
drunkenness and whoredom is to be confessed of
all such as have drunk of the whore’s cup, or but sipped of
it. In which words I plainly distinguished between such
as have drunk deeper of her cup, as papists, popish priests,
&c., and such, as in comparison have but sipped, as God’s
own people; who yet by such sipping have been so intoxicated,
as to practice spiritual whoredom against Christ,
in submitting to false churches, ministry, worship, &c.
Secondly, whereas he saith every sipping of a drunkard’s
cup is not sinful:—
I answer: neither the least sipping, nor constant
drinking out of the cup which a drunkard useth to drink
in, is sinful; but every drunken sip, which is our question,
is questionless sinful, and so consequently to be avoided
by the sober, whether the cup of corporal or spiritual
drunkenness.
CHAP. XVIII.
Mr. Cotton.
Mr. Cotton. “Yea; but,” saith he, “the three thousand
Jews were admitted when they repented of their murdering
of Christ, although they never saw all the superstitious
leavenings wherewith the Pharisees had bewitched them:
and so no doubt may godly persons now, although they be
not yet convinced of every passage of anti-christian superstition,
&c.; and that upon this ground, that spiritual
whoredom and drunkenness is not so soon discerned as
corporal.”
[Answer.] I answer, it is not indeed so easily discerned,
and yet not the less sinful, but infinitely transcendent, as
much as spiritual sobriety exceeds corporal, and the bed of
the most high God, exceeds the beds of men, who are but
dust and ashes.
The first Christians the best pattern for all Christians now.
The power of true repentance for killing of Christ.
Secondly, I answer, the converted Jews, although they
saw not all the leavenings of the Pharisees, yet they
mourned for killing of Christ, and embraced him in his
worship, ministry, government, and were added to his
church: and oh! that the least beams of light and sparkles
of heat were in mine own, and others’ souls, which were
kindled by the Holy Spirit of God in those famous converts
at the preaching of Peter, Acts ii. The true Christ now
in his worship, ministry, &c. being discerned, and repentance
for persecuting and killing of him being expressed,
there necessarily follows a withdrawing from the church,
ministry, and worship of the false Christ, and submission
unto the true: and this is the sum and substance of our
controversy.
Mr. Cotton.
Concerning the confession of sins unto John, he grants
the disciples of John confessed their sins, the publicans
theirs, the soldiers theirs, the people theirs; but, saith he,
“it appears not that they confessed their pharisaical
pollution.”
And concerning the confession Acts xix. 18, [19,] he
saith, it is not expressed “that they confessed all their
deeds.”
Answer. If both these confessed their notorious sins, as
Mr. Cotton expresseth, why not as well their notorious
sins against God, their idolatries, superstitious worships,
&c? Surely throughout the whole scripture, the matters
of God and his worship are first and most tenderly handled;
his people are ever described by the title of his worshippers,
and his enemies by the title of worshippers of
false gods, and worshipping the true after a false manner;
and to prove this were to bring forth a candle to the
bright shining of the sun at noon day.
CHAP. XIX.
Mr. Cotton. His third answer is; “But to satisfy you
more fully, and the Lord make you willing in true meekness
of spirit to receive satisfaction, the body of the
members do in general profess, that the reason of their
coming over to us was that they might be freed from the
bondage of human inventions and ordinances, as their souls
groaned under, for which also they profess their hearty
sorrow, so far as through ignorance or infirmity they have
been defiled. Beside, in our daily meetings, and specially
in the times of our solemn humiliations, we generally all
of us bewail all our former pollutions wherewith we have
defiled ourselves and the holy things of God, in our former
administrations and communions; but we rather choose to
do it than talk of it. And we can but wonder how you
can so boldly and resolutely renounce all the churches of
God, for neglect of that which you know not whether they
have neglected or no, and before you have admonished us
of our sinfulness in such neglect, if it be found amongst
us.”
How can a soul truly oppose anti-christ, that endures not to
have his name questioned.
Answer. I answer, with humble desires to the Father of
lights for the true meekness and wisdom of his Spirit,
here is mention of human inventions and ordinances, and
defiling themselves and holy things of God in former
administrations and communions, and yet no mention
what such inventions and ordinances, what such administrations
and communions were. “We rather
choose to do it,” saith he, “than to talk of it;” which
makes me call to mind an expression of an eminent and
worthy person amongst them in a solemn conference, viz.,
What need we speak of anti-christ, can we not enjoy our
liberties without inveighing against anti-christ? &c.
Mr. Cotton witnessing against a national church, and yet
holding fellowship with it.
The truth is, I acknowledge their witness against
ceremonies and bishops; but that yet they see not the
evil of a national church, notwithstanding they constitute
only particular and independent [congregations,] let their
constant practice speak, in still joining with such churches
and ministers in the ordinances of the word and prayer,
and their persecuting of myself for my humble, and
faithful, and constant admonishing of them, of such
unclean walking between a particular church, which they
only profess to be Christ’s, and a national [one], which
Mr. Cotton professeth to separate from.[256]
Impossible for the answerer to be ignorant of their church
estate, as Mr. Cotton pretendeth.
But how could I possibly be ignorant, as he seemeth to
charge me, of their state, when being from first to last in
fellowship with them, an officer amongst them, had private
and public agitations concerning their state and condition
with all or most of their ministers, and at last suffered for
such admonitions to them, the misery of a winter’s banishment
amongst the barbarians? and yet, saith he, “You
know not what we have done, neither have you admonished
us of our sinfulness.”
CHAP. XX.
Mr. Cotton.
A third scripture which I produced was Haggai ii. 13,
14, 15, desiring that the place might be thoroughly
weighed, and that the Lord might please to hold the scales
himself, the prophet there telling the church of the Jews,
that if a person unclean by a dead body touch holy things,
those holy things become unclean unto them: and so,
saith he, in this nation, and so is every work of their
hands and that which they offer is unclean; whence I
inferred, that even church covenants made, and ordinances
practised, by persons polluted through spiritual deadness,
and filthiness of communion, such covenants and ordinances
become unclean unto them, and are profaned by
them.
Mr. Cotton. Mr. Cotton answers, “your purpose was to
prove that churches cannot be constituted by such persons
as are unclean by anti-christian pollutions; or if they be so
constituted they are not to be communicated with, but
separated from. But the prophet acknowledgeth the whole
church of the Jews to be unclean, and yet neither denies
them to be a church truly constituted, nor stirs up himself
or others to separate from them.”
The church of the Jews a national church truly constituted,
therefore not to be separated from.
Answer. I acknowledge the true constitution of the
church of the Jews, and affirm that this their true constitution
was the reason why they were not to be separated
from: for being a national church, ceremonial and typical,
their excommunication was either putting to death in, or
captivity out of that ceremonial Canaan. Hence Shalmaneser’s
carrying the ten tribes captive out of this land,
is said to be the casting of them out of God’s sight, 2 Kings
xvii. [18,] which was their excommunication.
Death and captivity in the national church, typed out
spiritual death and captivity in the particular.
Accordingly in the particular Christian churches, Christ
Jesus cuts off by spiritual death, which is excommunication:
or for want of due execution of justice by that
ordinance in his kingdom, he sells the church into spiritual
captivity, to confused, Babylonish lords and worships, and
so drives them out of his sight.
Ceremonial uncleanness in the national church, typed out moral
uncleanness in the particular.
Now from the consequent of this place in Haggai mine
argument stands good; and Mr. Cotton here acknowledgeth
it, that holy things may be all unclean to God’s
people, when they lie in their uncleanness, as this people
did. Those scriptures, Lev. xvi. and Num. xix., which
discourse of typical and ceremonial uncleanness, he acknowledgeth
to type out in the gospel the moral uncleanness
either of dead works, Eph. v. 11, or dead persons,
2 Cor. vi. 14, or dead world, Gal. vi. 14. And in this
place of Haggai, he acknowledgeth that God’s people,
prince and people, were defiled by worldliness, in which
condition, saith he, their oblations, their bodily labours,
were all unclean, and found neither acceptance nor blessing
from the Lord.
Therefore saith he afterward: “In the church godly
Christians themselves, while they attend to the world
more than to the things of God, are unclean in the sight
of God; therefore the church cannot be constituted of
such; or if it be constitute of such, the people of God
must separate from them.” And, lastly, he saith, “the
church of Christ and members thereof must separate
themselves from their hypocrisy, and worldliness, else
they and their duties will [still] be unclean in the sight
of God, notwithstanding their church estate.”
Answ. What have I more spoken than Mr. Cotton himself
hath uttered in this his explication and application of
this scripture? As,
First, that godly persons may become defiled and unclean
by hypocrisy and worldliness.
Mr. Cotton’s own confession concerning unclean worships, even
of godly persons.
Secondly, while they lie in such a condition of uncleanness
all their offerings, persons, labours, are unclean in
the sight of God, and have neither acceptance nor blessing
from him; but they and their duties are unclean in his
sight, notwithstanding their church estate.
Thirdly, the church of Christ cannot be constituted of
such godly persons, when defiled with such worldliness.
Fourthly, the church consisting of such worldly persons,
though otherwise godly and Christian, the people of God
must separate from them.
Inferences from Master Cotton’s grant.
These are Mr. Cotton’s own express words which
justify:[257]
First, my former distinction of godly persons in their
personal respect, between God and themselves; and yet
becoming ungodly in their outward defilements.
Secondly, they justify my assertion of a necessity of
cleansing from anti-christian filthiness, and communions
with dead works, dead worships, dead persons in God’s
worship, if the touches of the dead world, or immoderate
love of it, do so defile, as Mr. Cotton here affirmeth.
Thirdly, if, as he saith, the church cannot be constituted
of such godly persons as are defiled by immoderate love of
the world, much less can it be constituted of godly persons
defiled with the dead inventions, worships, communions of
unregenerate and ungodly persons.
Fourthly, he justifies a separation from such churches,
if so constituted, or so constituting; because though
worldliness be adultery against God, James iv. [4,] yet
not comparable to spiritual adultery of a false bed of
worship, ministry, &c.
CHAP. XXI.
Mr. Cotton proceedeth: “The second stumbling block
or offence which you have taken at the way of these
churches, is that you conceive us to walk between Christ
and anti-christ. First, in practising separation here, and
not repenting of our preaching and printing against it in
our own country. Secondly, in reproaching yourself at
Salem, and others for separation. Thirdly, in particular,
that myself have conceived and spoken, that separation is
a way that God hath not prospered; yet, say you, the
truth of the church’s way depends not upon the countenance
of men, or upon outward peace and liberty.”
Unto this he answers, “that they halt not; but walk in
the midst of two extremes, the one of being defiled with
the pollution of other churches, the other of renouncing
the churches for the remnant of pollutions.”
This moderation he, with ingenuous moderation, professeth
he sees no cause to repent of, &c.
Answ. With the Lord’s gracious assistance, we shall
prove this middle walking to be no less than halting; for
which we shall show cause of repentance, beseeching Him
that is a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance unto
his Israel, Acts v. 31.
First, Mr. Cotton himself confesseth, that no national,
provincial, diocesan, or parish church, wherein some truly
godly are not, are true churches. Secondly, he practiseth
no church estate, but such as is constituted only of godly
persons, nor admitteth any unregenerate or ungodly person.[258]
Thirdly, he confesseth a church of Christ cannot
be constituted of such godly persons who are in bondage
to the inordinate love of the world. Fourthly, if a church
consist of such, God’s people ought to separate from them.[259]
Mr. Cotton extenuates and minceth the root, mass, and
substance of the matter of national churches, which he acknowledgeth
to be unregenerate, not yet born again, by naming only a remnant of
pollutions. The estate of the godly mingled with the ungodly in worships.
The state of men must be faithfully discovered unto them.
Upon these his own confessions, I earnestly beseech
Mr. Cotton, and all that fear God, to ponder how he can
say he walks with an even foot between two extremes,
when, according to his own confession, national churches,
parish churches, yea, a church constituted of godly persons
given to inordinate love of the world, are false and to
be separated from: and yet he will not have the parish
church to be separated from for the remnant of pollution,
I conceive he meaneth ceremonies and bishops, notwithstanding
that he also acknowledged that the generality of
every parish in England consisteth of unregenerate persons,
and of thousands inbondaged, not only to worldliness,
but also ignorance, superstition, scoffing, swearing,
cursing, whoredom, drunkenness, theft, lying. What are
two or three or more of regenerate and godly persons in
such communions, but as two or three roses or lilies in a
wilderness? a few grains of good corn in a heap of chaff?
a few sheep among herds of wolves or swine, or (if more
civil) flocks of goats? a little good dough swallowed up
with a whole bushel of leaven? or a little precious gold
confounded and mingled with a whole heap of dross?
The Searcher of all hearts knows I write not this to
reproach any, knowing that myself am by nature a child
of wrath, and that the Father of mercies shows mercy to
whom and when he will; but for the name of Christ Jesus,
in loving faithfulness to my countrymen’s souls, and [in]
defence of truth, I remember my worthy adversary of that
state and condition from which his confessions say he must
separate, his practice in gathering of churches seems to
say he doth separate; and yet he professeth there are but
some remnants of pollution amongst them, for which he
dares not separate.[260]
CHAP. XXII.
Mr. Cotton. “Secondly,” saith he, “I know no man
that reproacheth Salem for their separation, nor do I
believe that they do separate; howsoever, if any do reproach
them for it, I think it a sin meet to be censured, but not
with so deep a censure as to excommunicate all the
churches, or to separate from them before it do appear
that they do tolerate their members in such their causeless
reproachings. We confess the errors of men are to
be contended against, not with reproaches, but 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 heal every sore in a
member with no other but abscission from the body.”
Answ. The church of Salem was known to profess
separation, and was generally and publicly reproached,
and I could mention a case wherein she was punished for
it implicitly.[261]
Mr. Cotton seems to be both for and yet against separation.
Mr. Cotton here confesseth these two things, which I
leave to himself to reconcile with his former profession
here and elsewhere against separation. First, saith he, if
any reproach them for separation it is a sin meet to be
censured. Secondly, the churches themselves may be
separated from, who tolerate their members in such
causeless reproachings. In these latter passages he seems,
as in other his confessions and practices mentioned to be
for it, sensible of shame, disgrace, or reproach to be cast
on it.
Mr. Cotton’s own confessions are sufficient answers to
himself.
I grant with him the failings of churches are not forthwith
to be healed by separation; yet himself, within a
few lines, confesseth there is a lawful separation from
churches that do but tolerate their members in causeless
reproaches.
Not for a sore of infirmity, but a leprosy or gangrene of
obstinacy, ought a person to be cut off. Mr. Cotton deeply guilty of
cruelty both against consciences and bodies in persecuting of them, yet
cries out against the appearance of due severity in the church of Christ.
I confess also that it is not chirurgery but butchery, to
heal every sore with no other medicine but with abscission
from the body: yet himself confesseth before, that even
churches of godly persons must be separated from, for
immoderate worldliness: and again here he confesseth
they may be separated from, when they tolerate their
members in such their causeless reproachings. Beside, it
is not every sore of infirmity or ignorance, but an ulcer or
gangrene of obstinacy, for which I maintained that a person
ought to be cut off, or a church separated from. But
if he call that butchery, conscientiously and peaceably to
separate from a spiritual communion of a church or society,
what shall it be called by the second Adam, the Lord
Jesus, who gives names to all creatures and all actions, to
cut off persons, them and theirs, branch and root, from
any civil being in their territories; and consequently from
the whole world, were their territories so large, because
their consciences dare not bow down to any worship but
what they believe the Lord Jesus appointed, and being
also otherwise subject to the civil state and laws thereof.[262]
CHAP. XXIII.
Thirdly, whereas I urged a speech of his own, viz. that
God had not prospered the way of separation, and conceives
that I understood him of outward prosperity: he
affirms the puritans to have been worse used in England
than the separatist, and thus writes: “The meeting of
the separatists may be known to the officers in court and
winked at, when the conventicles of the puritans, as they
call them, shall be hunted out with all diligence, and
pursued with more violence than any law can justify.”
God’s controversy for persecution.
Answer. Doubtless the controversy of God hath been
great with this land, that either of both have been so
violently pursued and persecuted. I believe they are
both the witnesses of several truths of Jesus Christ,
against an impenitent and unchristian profession of the
name of the Lord Jesus.
The sufferings of the separatists and puritans in England
compared. Mr. Udall, Mr. Penry, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Greenwood.
Now for their sufferings: as the puritans have not
comparably suffered, as but seldom congregating in
separate assemblies from the common,[263] so have not any
of them suffered unto death for the way of nonconformity
to ceremonies, &c. Indeed the worthy witness Mr. Udall,[264]
was near unto death for his witness against bishops and
ceremonies;[265] but Mr. Penry,[266] Mr. Barrow, Mr. Greenwood
followed the Lord Jesus with their gibbets on their
shoulders, and were hanged with him and for him, in the
way of separation:[267] many more have been condemned to
die, banished and choaked in prisons, I could produce
upon occasion.
Few conscientious separatists, but first were puritans. The
nonconformist’s grounds enforce separation.
Again, I believe that there hardly hath ever been a
conscientious separatist, who was not first a puritan: for,
as Mr. Canne hath unanswerably proved,[268] the grounds and
principles of the puritans against bishops and ceremonies,
and profaneness of people professing Christ, and the
necessity of Christ’s flock and discipline, must necessarily,
if truly followed, lead on to and enforce a separation from
such ways, worships, and worshippers, to seek out the true
way of God’s worship according to Christ Jesus.
But what should be the reason, since the separatist
witnesseth against the root of the church constitution
itself, that yet he should find, as Mr. Cotton saith, more
favour than the puritan or nonconformist?
Most of the separation of the lower sort of people.
Doubtless the reasons are evident: first, most of God’s
servants who, out of sight of the ignorance, unbelief, and
profaneness of the body of the national church, have
separated and durst not have longer fellowship with it:—I
say, most of them have been poor and low, and not such
gainful customers to the bishops, their courts and officers.
The poverty of Mr. Ainsworth. The nonconformists have been a
fair booty for bishops.
That worthy instrument of Christ’s praise, Mr. Ainsworth,
during some time, and some time of his great
labours in Holland, lived upon ninepence per week, with
roots boiled, &c.[269] Whereas on the other side, such of
God’s servants as have been nonconformists have had fair
estates, been great persons, have had rich livings and
benefices, of which the bishops and theirs, like greedy
wolves, have made the more desirable prey.
The separatists have been professed enemies; but the puritans
in many things professed friends and subjects to the bishops.
Secondly, it is a principle in nature to prefer a professed
enemy, before a pretended friend. Such as have separated
have been looked at by the bishops and theirs, as known
and professed enemies: whereas the puritans professed
subjection, and have submitted to the bishops, their courts,
their officers, their common prayer and worships: and yet,
as the bishops have well known, with no greater affection
than the Israelites bore their Egyptian cruel taskmasters.
Mr. Cotton.
He saith, “God hath not prospered the way of separation
with peace amongst themselves, and growth of grace.”
A false church may enforce a present peace greater (though
false) grace than the true spouse of Christ Jesus. God’s people have
found infinite sweetness and peace in some times of their holy communion.
Breaches have been and must be among all God’s people, to make them
celebrate the Lord’s holy ordinances according to due order.
Answer. The want of peace may befal the truest
churches of the Lord Jesus [as] at Antioch, Corinth, Galatia,
who were exercised with great distractions. Secondly,
it is a common character of a false church, maintained by
the smith’s and cutler’s shop, to enjoy a quiet calm and
peaceable tranquillity, none daring, for fear of civil punishment,
to question, object, or differ from the common road
and custom. Thus sings that great whore, the anti-christian
church, Rev. xviii. [7,] I sit as a queen, am no widow, see no
sorrow: while Christ’s dearest complains she is forsaken,
sits weeping as a widow, Lam. i. [1.] Thirdly, God’s
people in that way, have sometimes long enjoyed sweet
peace and soul contentment in England, Holland, New
England, and other places, and would not have exchanged
a day of such an holy and peaceable harmony for
thousands in the courts of princes, seeing no other, and
in sincerity seeking after the Lord Jesus. And yet, I
humbly conceive, that as David with the princes, and
thirty thousand Israelites, carrying the ark on the
shoulders of the oxen, leaped and danced with great
rejoicing, until God smote Uzzah for his error and disorder,
and made a breach, and a teaching monument
of Perez Uzzah, the breach of Uzzah: so in like manner
all those celebrations of the spiritual ark or ordinances,
which yet I have known, although for the present accompanied
with great rejoicing and triumphing, yet as
they have not been after the due order, so have they all
met with, and still must, a Perez Uzzah, breaches and
divisions, until the Lord Jesus discover, direct, and encourage
his servants in his own due holy order and
appointment.
Many graceless Judases amongst God’s people. Multitudes of
gracious and holy persons that have professed separation.
And for growth in grace, notwithstanding that amongst
all sorts of God’s witnesses some false brethren creep in
as cheaters, and spies, and Judases, dishonouring the
name of Christ Jesus, and betraying his witnesses: yet
Satan himself, the accuser of the saints, cannot but confess
that multitudes of God’s witnesses, reproached with the
names of Brownists, and anabaptists, have kept themselves
from the error of the wicked, and grow in grace
and knowledge of the Lord Jesus, endeavouring to
cleanse themselves from all filthiness both of flesh and
spirit, and to finish holiness in the fear of God. I will
not make odious and envious comparisons, but desire
that all that name the name of the Lord Jesus may
depart wholly and for ever from iniquity.
CHAP. XXIV.
Mr. Cotton.
Lastly he addeth, “That such as erring through simplicity
and tenderness, have grown in grace, have grown
also to discern their lawful liberty in the hearing of the
word from English preachers.”[270]
Four sorts of backsliders from separation far from growth in
grace.
Answer. I will not question the uprightness of some
who have gone back from many truths of God which they
have professed: yet mine own experience of four sorts
who have backslidden I shall report, for a warning to all
into whose hands these may come, to be like Antipas, Rev.
ii. [13,] a faithful witness to the death, to any of the
truths of the Lord Jesus, which he shall please to betrust
them with:
Some backsliding turn to familism.
First, I have known no small number of such turn to
absolute Familism, and under their pretences of great
raptures of love deny all obedience to, or seeking after the
pure ordinances and appointments of the Lord Jesus.
Some to profaneness.
Secondly, others have laid the reins upon the necks of
their consciences, and like the dog licked up their vomit of
former looseness and profaneness of lip and life; and have
been so far from growing in grace, that they have turned
the grace of God into wantonness.
Some to persecuting of others.
Thirdly, others backsliding have lost the beauty and
shining of a tender conscience toward God, and of a
merciful compassion toward men, becoming most fierce
persecutors of their own formerly fellow-witnesses, and of
any other who have differed in conscience from them.
Some to languishing in sorrow and sadness, &c.
Lastly, others although preserved from familism, profaneness,
and persecuting of others, yet the leaf of their
Christian course hath withered, the latter beauty and
savour of their holiness hath not been like their former;
and they have confessed and do, their sin, their weakness,
their bondage, and wish they were at liberty in their
former freedom; and some have gone with little peace,
but sorrow to their graves, confessing to myself and
others, that God never prospered them, in soul or body,
since they sold away his truth, which once they had bought
and made profession of it never to sell it.
CHAP. XXV.
Mr. Cotton.
Yea; but, saith he, “they have grown to discern their
lawful liberty, to return to the hearing of the word from
English preachers.”
Mr. Canne’s answer to Mr. Robinson’s liberty of hearing.
Answer. Here I might engage myself in a controversy,
which neither this treatise will permit, nor is there need,
since it hath pleased the Father of lights to stir up the
spirit of a faithful witness of his truth in this particular,
Mr. Canne, to make a large and faithful reply to a book,
printed in Mr. Robinson’s name, tending to prove such a
lawful liberty.[271]
Mr. Cotton’s confession concerning the ministry.
For such excellent and worthy persons whom Mr.
Cotton here intends by the name of English preachers, I
acknowledge myself unworthy to hold the candle to them:
yet I shall humbly present what Mr. Cotton himself professeth
in three particulars:
First, concerning this title, English preachers.
Secondly, hearing the word from such English
preachers.
Thirdly, the lawful calling of such to the ministry or
service, according to Christ Jesus.
ποίμενες διδασκαλοὶ ἐπισκοποὶ πρεσβυτεροὶ Matt. xxviii.
μαθητέυειν. Preachers and pastors far different.
For the first, he acknowledgeth, that the ordinary
ministers of the gospel are pastors, teachers, bishops,
overseers, elders, and that their proper work is to feed and
govern a truly converted, holy, and godly people, gathered
into a flock or church estate; and not properly preachers
to convert, beget, make disciples, which the apostles and
evangelists professedly were. Now then, that man that
professeth himself a minister, and professeth to feed a
flock or church with the ordinances of word and prayer,
he must needs acknowledge that his proper work is not to
preach for conversion, which is most preposterous amongst
a converted Christian people, fed up with ordinances in
church estate. So that, according to Mr. Cotton’s confession,
English preachers are not pastors, teachers, bishops,
elders, but preachers of glad news, evangelists, men sent
to convert, and gather churches, apostles, ambassadors,
trumpeters, with proclamation from the King of kings, to
convert, subdue, bring in rebellious, unconverted, unbelieving,
unchristian souls to the obedience and subjection
of the Lord Jesus.
Conversion in a church accidental.
I readily confess that at the pastor’s, or shepherd’s
feeding of his flock, and the prophet’s prophecying in the
church, an unbeliever coming in is convinced, falls on his
face and acknowledgeth God to be there: yet this is accidental
that any unbeliever should come in; and the
pastor’s work is to feed his flock, Acts xx. [28,] and
prophecy is not for unbelievers, but for them that believe,
to edify, exhort, and comfort the church, 1 Cor. xiv.
3, 22.
Personal repentance wrought in thousands by godly
persons in popish ministries.
I also readily acknowledge, that it hath pleased God to
work a personal repentance in the hearts of thousands in
Germany, England, Low Countries, France, Scotland,
Ireland, &c., yea, and who knows but in Italy, Spain,
Rome, not only by such men who decline the name of
bishops, priests, deacons, the constituted ministry of
England hitherto; but also by such as have owned them,
as Luther remaining a monk, and famous holy men remaining
and burning Lord Bishops. For all this hath
been under the notion of ministers feeding their flocks,
not of preachers sent to convert the unconverted and unbelieving.
To preach mainly for conversion of that people to whom a
man stands shepherd, as to a converted people and flock of Christ, a
dangerous disorder. God’s people must seek after a ministry sent by
Christ to convert.
This passage I present for two reasons; First because
so many excellent and worthy persons mainly preach for
conversion, as conceiving, and that truly, the body of the
people of England to be in a natural and unregenerate
estate; and yet account they themselves fixed and
constant officers and ministers to particular parishes or
congregations, unto whom they also administer the holy
things of God, though sometimes few, and sometimes
none regenerate or new born have been found amongst
them; which is a matter of high concernment touching
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the souls of men.
Secondly, that in these great earthquakes, wherein it
pleaseth God to shake foundations civil and spiritual, such
a ministry of Christ Jesus may be sought after whose
proper work is preaching, for converting and gathering of
true penitents to the fellowship of the Son of God.
CHAP. XXVI.
Mr. Cotton.
The second thing which Mr. Cotton himself hath professed
concerning English preachers is, that “although the
word, yet not the seals may be received from them:
because,” saith he, “there is no communion in hearing,
and the word is to be preached to all, but the seals,” he
conceives, and that rightly, “are profaned in being dispensed
to the ungodly, &c.”
The communion or fellowship of the word taught in a church
estate.
Answer. Mr. Cotton himself maintaineth, that “the
dispensing of the word in a church estate, is Christ’s
feeding of his flock, Cant. i. 8: Christ’s kissing of his
spouse, or wife, Cant. i. 2: Christ’s embracing of his
spouse in the marriage bed, Cant. i. 16: Christ’s nursing
of his children at his wife’s breast, Cant. iv.:” and is
there no communion between the shepherd and his sheep?
the husband and his wife in chaste kisses and embraces?
and the mother and her child at the breast?
Besides, he confesseth, that that fellowship in the
gospel, Phil. i. 5, is a fellowship or communion in the
apostles’ doctrine, community, breaking of bread, and
prayer, in which the first church continued, Acts ii. 46.
All which overthrows that doctrine of a lawful participation
of the word and prayer in a church estate, where it
is not lawful to communicate in the breaking of bread or
seals.[272]
CHAP. XXVII.
Eminent ministers, so accounted in Old England, profess
themselves private Christians in New England.
Thirdly, concerning the lawful commission or calling
of English preachers. Mr. Cotton himself, and others
most eminent in New England, have freely confest, that
notwithstanding their former profession of ministry in
Old England, yea, in New England, until they received
a calling from a particular church, that they were but
private Christians.[273]
Secondly, that Christ Jesus hath appointed no other
calling to the ministry, but such as they practise in New
England; and therefore consequently, that all other which
is not from a particular congregation of godly persons, is
none of Christ’s.[274]
False callings or commissions for the ministry.
As first, a calling or commission received from the
bishops.
Secondly, from a parish of natural and unregenerate
persons.
Thirdly, from some few godly persons, yet remaining in
church fellowship after the parish way.
Lastly, that eminent gifts and abilities are but
qualifications fitting and preparing for a call or office,
according to 1 Tim. iii. Tit. i. All which premises duly
considered, I humbly desire of the Father of lights, that
Mr. Cotton, and all that fear God, may try what will
abide the fiery trial in this particular, when the Lord
Jesus shall be revealed in flaming fire, &c.
CHAP. XXVIII.
Mr. Cotton.
The close of his letter is an answer to a passage
of mine, which he repeateth in an objection thus: “But
this you fear is to condemn the witnesses of Jesus, the
separate churches in London and elsewhere, and our
jealous God will visit us for such arrearages: yea, the
curse of the angel to Meroz will fall upon us, because we
come not forth to help Jehovah against the mighty: we
pray not for them, we come not at them, (but at parishes
frequently); yea, we reproach and censure them.”
To which he answereth, “that neither Christ nor his
apostles after him, nor prophets before him, ever delivered
that way. That they fear not the angel’s curse, because
it is not to help Jehovah but Satan, to withdraw people
from the parishes where they have found more presence
of Christ, and evidence of his Spirit, than in separated
churches: that they pray not for them, because they
cannot pray in faith for a blessing upon their separation:
and that it is little comfort to hear of separated churches,
as being the inventions of men; and blames them, that
being desirous of reformation, they stumble not only at
the inventions of men, but for their sakes at the ordinances
of the Lord: because they separate not only from the
parishes, but from the church at Plymouth, and of that
whereof Mr. Lathrop was pastor,[275] who, as he saith, not
only refuse all the inventions of men, but choose to serve
the Lord in his own ordinances. Only, lastly, he professeth
his inward sorrow that myself help erring, though
zealous souls, against the mighty ordinances of the Lord,
which whosoever stumble at shall be broken, because
whosoever will not kiss the Son, that is, will not hear
and embrace the words of his mouth, shall perish in
their way.”
Answer. However Mr. Cotton believes and writes of
this point, yet hath he not duly considered these following
particulars.
The garden of the churches of both Old and New Testament,
planted with an hedge or wall of separation from the world. When God’s
people neglect to maintain that hedge or wall, God hath turned his garden
into a wilderness.
First, the faithful labours of many witnesses of Jesus
Christ, extant to the world, abundantly proving, that the
church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type,
and the church of the Christians under the New Testament
in the antitype, were both separate from the world;
and that when they have opened a gap in the hedge, or
wall of separation, between the garden of the church and
the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down
the wall itself, removed the candlestick, &c. and made his
garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore
if he will ever please to restore his garden and paradise
again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto
himself from the world, and that all that shall be saved
out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness
of the world, and added unto his church or garden.[276]
The nonconformist’s grounds necessarily enforce a separation
of the church from the unclean, in clean and holy things.
Secondly, that all the grounds and principles leading to
oppose bishops, ceremonies, common prayer, prostitution
of the ordinances of Christ to the ungodly, and to the
true practice of Christ’s own ordinances, do necessarily,
as before I intimated, and Mr. Canne hath fully proved,
conclude a separation of holy from unholy, penitent from
impenitent, godly from ungodly, &c; and that to frame
any other building upon such grounds and foundations,
is no other than to raise the form of a square house upon
the keel of a ship, which will never prove a soul saving
true ark or church of Jesus Christ, according to the
pattern.
The great suffering for this cause.
Thirdly, the multitudes of holy and faithful men and
women, who since Queen Mary’s days have witnessed this
truth by writing, disputing, and in suffering loss of goods and
friends, in imprisonments, banishments, death, &c.—I confess
the nonconformists have suffered also; but they that
have suffered for this cause, have far exceeded, in not only
witnessing to those grounds of the nonconformists, but to
those truths also, the unavoidable conclusions of the nonconformists’
principles.
Mr. Cotton’s and others’ zealous practice of separation in New
England. Mr. Cotton allowing liberty to frequent those parishes in Old
England: which parishes he himself persecutes in New England.
Fourthly, what is that which Mr. Cotton and so many
hundreds fearing God in New England walk in, but a way
of separation? Of what matter do they profess to constitute
their churches, but of true godly persons? In what
form do they cast this matter, but by a voluntary uniting,
or adding of such godly persons, whom they carefully
examine, and cause to make a public confession of sin, and
profession of their knowledge and grace in Christ?[277] Nay;
when other English have attempted to set up a congregation
after the parishional way, have they not been suppressed?
Yea; have they not professedly and lately
answered many worthy persons, whom they account godly
ministers and people, that they could not permit them to
live in the same commonwealth together with them, if
they set up any other church and worship than what
themselves practise?[278] Let their own souls, and the souls
of others seriously ponder in the fear of God, what should
be the reason why themselves so practising, should persecute
others for not leaving open a gap of liberty to escape
persecution and the cross of Christ, by frequenting the
parishes in Old England, which parishes themselves persecute
in New England, and will not permit them to
breathe in the common air amongst them.
A great mystery in the escaping of the cross of Christ.
Fifthly, in the parishes, which Mr. Cotton holds but
the inventions of men,[279] however they would have liberty
to frequent the worship of the word, yet they separate
from the sacraments; and yet, according to Mr. Cotton’s
own principles, as before, there is as true communion in
the ministration of the word in a church estate as in the
seals: what mystery should be in this, but that here also
the cross or gibbet of Christ may be avoided in a great
measure, if persons come to church, &c.
The New English churches pretended by some to be purer than
the first established by the apostles.
Lastly, however, he saith, he hath not found such
presence of Christ, and evidence of his Spirit in such
churches, as in the parishes: what should be the reason of
their great rejoicings and boastings of their own separations
in New England, insomuch that some of the most
eminent amongst them have affirmed that even the apostles’
churches were not so pure? Surely if the same New
English churches were in Old England, they could not
meet without persecution, which therefore in Old England
they avoid by frequenting the way of church worship,
which in New England they persecute—the parishes.
The reformation desired now had been accounted heresy in
Edward the Sixth’s days.
Upon these considerations, how can Mr. Cotton be
offended that I should help (as he calls them) any zealous
souls, not against the mighty ordinances of the Lord
Jesus, but to seek after the Lord Jesus without halting?
Yea; why should Mr. Cotton, or any desirous to practise
reformation, kindle a fire of persecution against such zealous
souls, especially considering that themselves, had they
so inveighed against bishops, common prayer, &c., in Edward
the Sixth’s days, had been accounted as great heretics,
in those reforming times, as any now can be in these?
yet would it have been then, and since hath it been, great
oppression and tyranny to persecute their consciences, and
still will it be for them to persecute the consciences of
others in Old or New England.
Persecution is unjust oppression wheresoever.
How can I better end than Mr. Cotton doth, by warning,
that all that will not kiss the Son, that is, hear and
embrace the words of his mouth, shall perish in their way,
Ps. ii. 12. And I desire Mr. Cotton, and every soul to
whom these lines may come, seriously to consider in this
controversy, if the Lord Jesus were himself in person in
Old or New England, what church, what ministry, what
worship, what government he would set up, and what
persecution he would practise toward them that would not
receive Him?[280]
FOOTNOTES
[1] Bancroft’s Hist. of U. S. i. 342. Knowles’ Life of R. Williams, p. 31.
[8] “Master Cotton may call to mind
that the discusser [Williams], riding
with himself and one other of precious
memory, Master Hooker, to and from
Sempringham, presented his arguments
from scripture, why he durst not join
with them in their use of Common
Prayer.” Bloody Tenent more Bloody,
p. 12. See also pp. 43 and 374 of the
present volume. Baillie’s Dissuasive,
p. 55.
[9] In his letter to Major Mason, he
refers to “King James, whom I have
spoke with.” Knowles, p. 31.
[10] Such is Governor Winthrop’s testimony. Knowles, p. 46.
[13] See pp. 287, 247, 353. Knowles,
pp. 45, 49. Backus, i. 49. Bancroft,
i. 360. At Taunton, the minister, Mr.
Streete, “publicly and earnestly persuaded
his church members to give
land to none but such as might be fit
for church members: yea, not to receive
such English into the town.” Bloody
Tenent more Bloody, p. 283. By a
subsequent law no church could be
constituted without the sanction of the
magistrates: and the members of any
church formed without it, were deprived
of the franchise. Backus, i. 77.
[14] See pp. 247, 287, 353, &c. “Mr.
Cotton effectually recommended, that
none should be elected nor electors
therein, except such as were visible
subjects of our Lord Jesus Christ, personally
confederated in our churches.”
Mather’s Magnalia, b. iii. p. 21.
[16] Knowles, p. 53. Mr. Cotton, in his
Answer to Roger Williams, tells us that
“elder Brewster warned the whole
church of the danger of his spirit, which
moved the better part of the church to
be glad of his removal from them into
the Bay.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 4.
[17] Mather’s Magnalia, iii. 20. Cotton’s
Way of Cong. Churches, pp. 16, 30.
[18] Knowles, pp. 42, 43. “It was
requested of Mr. Cotton,” says his
descendant Cotton Mather, “that he
would from the laws wherewith God
governed his ancient people, form an
abstract of such as were of a moral and
lasting equity; which he performed as
acceptably as judiciously.... He
propounded unto them, an endeavour
after a theocracy, as near as might be
to that which was the glory of Israel,
the peculiar people.” Magnalia, iii. 20.
Backus, i. 79.
[19] Knowles, p. 57, 61. Master John
Cotton’s Answer to Master Roger
Williams, p. 4. This is usually bound
up with the “Bloudy Tenent Washed,”
and cited as part II.: it is, however, a
separate piece, and separately paged,
and is Cotton’s Answer to the second
treatise in this volume.
[20] Cotton’s Answer, p. 4. Knowles,
p. 61. Mather, vii. 7. Backus, i. 57.
[25] Knowles, pp. 71, 72. The sentence
was as follows:—“Whereas Mr.
Roger Williams, one of the elders of
the church of Salem, hath broached
and divulged divers new and dangerous
opinions, against the authority of magistrates;
as also writ letters of defamation,
both of the magistrates and churches
here, and that before any conviction,
and yet maintaineth the same without
any retractation; it is therefore ordered
that the said Mr. Williams shall depart
out of this jurisdiction within six
weeks, now next ensuing, which, if he
neglect to perform, it shall be lawful
for the governor and two of the magistrates
to send him to some place out of
this jurisdiction, not to return any more
without licence from the Court.” Backus,
i. 69, 70.
[30] See pp. 249, 257, 262. Mr. Cotton
pleads that anabaptists and others
were not compelled against conscience;
nor were they punished for conscience’
sake; but for sinning against conscience.
Tenent Washed, pp. 165, 189; Backus,
i. 98.
[31] See pp. 186, 331; Bloody Tenent
more Bloody, p. 122. By the law of
September 6, 1638, the time was extended
to six months. Backus, i. 45,
98; Bancroft, i. 349.
[32] “The Lady Moody, a wise and
amiable religious woman, being taken
with the error of denying baptism to
infants, was dealt withal by many of
the elders and others, and admonished
by the church at Salem.” To avoid
more trouble, she went amongst the
Dutch; but was excommunicated. In
1651, the Rev. J. Clarke and Mr. O.
Holmes, of Rhode Island, for visiting
a sick baptist brother in Massachusetts,
were arrested, fined, imprisoned, and
whipped. At an earlier period, they
had been compelled to leave Plymouth
for their opinions. Mr. Cotton approved
of this. Backus, i. 146, 207,
225.
[33] Williams’s Letter to Endicot. Bloody
Tenent more Bloody, p. 305. See p.
245.
[34] “Whilst he lived at Salem, he neither
admitted, nor permitted any church
members but such as rejected all communion
with the parish assemblies, so
much as in hearing the word amongst
them.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 64. See
p. 397 of this volume.
[35] “The substance of the true estate
of churches abideth in their congregational
assemblies.” Cotton’s Answer,
p. 109. Cotton refers here to the parish
congregations.
[36] See pp. 243, 244, 392. Mather’s
Magnalia, i. 21.
[37] Cotton charges Williams with attempting
to draw away the Salem church
from holding communion with all the
churches of the Bay, “because we tolerated
our members to hear the word
in the parishes of England.” Tenent
Washed, p. 166.
[38] See p. 246. Bloody Tenent more
Bloody, p. 230.
[39] It must have reached Williams after
his settlement at Providence. Cotton,
in 1647, says he wrote it about “half a
score years ago,” which would give the
date of 1637.
[40] See p. 377. Cotton’s Answer, p.
8, 9, 13, 36-39. “I did never intend
to say that I did not consent to the
justice of the sentence when it was
passed.”
[41] Cotton says, “Some of his friends
went to the place appointed by himself
beforehand, to make provision of housing
and other necessaries against his
coming.” Answer p. 8. This, however,
is very doubtful.
[42] See p. 388. Knowles, p. 73. Backus,
i. 70. Governor Winthrop had privately
advised him to leave the colony.
The friendship of this eminent man
was of frequent service to our exile.
Cotton declares that the officer who
served the warrant saw “no sign of
sickness upon him.” Answer, p. 57.
This he might not choose to see.
[45] Quoted from his “Key,” &c., by
Knowles, p. 101.
[46] The land at this spot still bears the designation of “What Cheer.”
[47] The vivid and dramatic poem of
Judge Durfee, entitled “What Cheer?”
is founded on the supposed events
of his journey through this howling
wilderness, and amid its savage inhabitants.
[48] Letter to Major Mason. Knowles
p. 394, Benedict, p. 449.
[49] This view has been ably advocated
by General Fessenden, from whose
manuscript some of the above particulars
are taken by Benedict, in the
new edition of his Hist. of the Baptists,
p. 449.
[57] As p. 40. Cotton says, he fell
“from all ordinances of Christ dispensed
in any church way, till God
shall stir up himself, or some new
apostles, to recover and restore all ordinances,
and churches of Christ out of
the ruins of anti-christian apostacy.”
Cotton’s Answer, p. 2. The insinuation
in this passage is both unjust and untrue.
[58] Pp. 4, 379. Knowles, p. 172.
Callender’s Historical Discourse, by
Dr. R. Elton, p. 101.
[60] Knowles, p. 181. Callender, p.
159. Backus, i. 112. Bancroft, i. 380.
The attachment of the Rhode Islanders
to this great principle receives a curious
illustration in the case of one Joshua
Verin, who was deprived for a time of
his franchise for refusing to his wife
liberty of conscience, in not permitting
her to go to Mr. Williams’s meeting as
often as requisite. Backus, i. 95.
[67] Bloody Tenent yet more Bloody,
pp. 4, 290. The only edition known
to us of the prisoner’s arguments with
Mr. Cotton’s reply, is of the date 1646,
with the following title: “The Controversie
concerning Liberty of Conscience
in Matters of Religion, truly stated, and
distinctly and plainly handled by Mr.
John Cotton of Boston in New England.
By way of answer to some
arguments to the contrary sent unto
him, wherein you have, against all
cavils of turbulent spirits, clearly manifested
wherein liberty of conscience in
matters of religion ought to be permitted,
and in what cases it ought not,
by the said Mr. Cotton. London.
Printed for Thomas Banks. 1646.” It
is a quarto pamphlet of fourteen pages,
and signed John Cotton, and agrees
with Williams’s copy of it in the “Bloudy
Tenent.”
[74] Tracts on Liberty of Conscience
and Persecution, 1614-1661. Hanserd
Knollys Society, 1846.
[75] The Second Part of the Vanity
and Childishness of Infants’ Baptism.
By A. R. p. 27. London, 1642.
[76] In “M. S. to A. S. with a Plea for
Liberty of Conscience in a Church
Way, &c.” London, 1644. 4to. pp.
110. Also in “Θεομαχία; or, the grand
imprudence of fighting against God,”
&c., 4to. 1644.
[77] London, 4to. 1644, p. 13. Cotton’s
Answer, p. 2. Orme’s Life of Owen,
p. 100.
[79] These differences are stated by Mr.
Gammell in his Life of Williams, p.
215, to exist in the two copies he has
seen in America. The only copies we
have seen in this country, are those in
the Bodleian Library, and the British
Museum; both of which have the table
of errata.
[80] Baillie’s Dissuasive. Epist. Introd.
ed. 1645. Hanbury’s Memorials, ii.
403; iii. 110, 127.
[82] The two parts of this work are
quoted in the notes to this volume, as
“Cotton’s Reply,” and “Cotton’s
Answer.”
[83] [See Tracts on Liberty of Conscience and Persecution, p. 217. Hanserd
Knollys Society, 1846.]
[84] Essay of Religion. [Eos qui
conscientias premi, iisque vim inferri
suadent, sub illo dogmate, cupiditates
suas subtexere, illamque rem sua interesse,
putare. De Unitate Ecclesiæ.]
[85] It is rarely seen that ever persons
were persecuted for their conscience,
but by such persecution they were
confirmed and hardened in their conscience.
[86] [See Tracts on Liberty of Conscience, pp. 214-224.]
[87] Sozom. lib. 1. Eccles. Hist. chap.
19, 20. [Fleury, Eccles. Hist. Liv. xi.
c. 23. “The impious Arius was banished
into one of the remote provinces
of Illyricum.... The emperor had now
imbibed the spirit of controversy, and
the angry, sarcastic style of his edicts
was designed to inspire his subjects
with the hatred which he had conceived
against the enemies of Christ.”
Gibbon, Decline and Fall, p. 317. 8vo.
edit.]
[88] In Epist. 166. [Tunc Constantinus
prior contrá partem Donati
severissimam legem. Hunc imitati
filii ejus talia præceperunt. Quibus
succedens Julianus deserto Christi et
inimicus, supplicantibus vestris Rogatiano
et Pontio libertatem perditioni
partis Donati permisit—Huic successit
Jovianus—Deinde Valentinianus,
legite quam contra vos jusserit. Inde
Gratianus et Theodosius—Veri Christiani
non pro heretico errore pœnas
justissimas sicut vos, sed pro catholica
veritate passiones gloriosissimas pertulerunt.
S. Aug. Opera, Tom. ii. fol.
156. Ed. Venetiis, 1552.]
[89] [Igitur et scintilla statim ut apparuerit,
extinguenda est, et fermentum
a massæ vicinia se movendum,
secandæ putridæ carnes, et scabiosum
animalia caulis ovium repellendum,
ne tota domus, massa, corpus, et
pecora ardeat, corrumpatur, putrescat,
intereant. Arius in Alexandria una
scintilla fuit, sed quia non statim oppressa
est, totum orbem ejus flamma
populata est. S. Hieronymi Opera.
Tom. iii, p. 927. Parisiis, 1609. ed.]
[90] [Sunt duo libri mei, quorum
titulos est contra partem Donati. In
quorum primo libro dixi non mihi
placere ullius seculari potestatis impetu
schismaticos ad communionem
violenter arctari. Quod (et) vere
mihi non placebat, qua nondum expertus
eram, vel quantum mali eorum
auderet impunitas, vel quantum eis in
melius mutandis conferre posset diligentia
disciplinæ. Retract. ii. Opera, tom.
i. fol. 10. To the same effect in Epist.
48, 50, tom. ii. fol. 35, 45. Quid enim
non isti juste patiuntur, cum ex altissimo
dei presidentis, et ad cavendum
ignem æternum flagellis talibus admonentis
judicio patiuntur, et merito
criminum, et ordine potestatum?
Contra Epist. Parmen. tom. vii. fol.
4. Tract xi. in Evang. Joann. tom.
ix.]
[91] [Vindicavit (diximus) Moyses,
vindicavit Helias, vindicavit Phinees.
Vindicavit Macarius. Si nihil offenderant,
qui occisi esse dicuntur, fit
Macarius reus, in eo quod solus nobis
nescientibus, et vobis provocantibus
fecit. S. Optati Opera, p. 75. Parisiis,
1679.]
[92] [Melius proculdubio gladio coercentur,
illius videlicet qui non sine
causa gladium portat, quam in suum
errorem multos trajicere permittantur.
Dei enim minister ille est, vindex in
iram ei qui male agit. Opera, tom.
iii. p. 369. edit. Parisiis, 1836.]
[93] [Fidelis expositio errorum Mich.
Serveti et brevis eorundem refutatio,
ubi docetur, jure gladii coercendos
esse hæreticos. Calvini Tract. Theol.
p. 686. edit. 1597.]
[94] [Beza Tract. Theol. tom. i. p. 85.
edit. 1582.]
[95] [Aretius. Hist. Val. Gentilis. Geneva, 1567.]
[96] [“Thus a man may find a knot
in a bulrush, yea, thus a man that
were disposed might find fault with
the comforts of God for not being full
and complete.” Reply of Cotton in
The Bloudy Tenent Wash’d and
made White in the Bloud of the
Lambe, p. 4, edit. 1647.]
[97] [“Fundamental doctrines are of
two sorts: some hold forth the foundation
of Christian religion—others concern
the foundation of the church.
I speak of the former sort of these
only—the other sort I look at as less
principal, in comparison of these.”
Cotton’s Reply, p. 5.]
[98] [“It is not truly said, that the
Spirit of God maketh the ministry
one of the foundations of Christian
religion, for it is only a foundation of
church order, not of faith, or religion.”
Cotton’s Reply, p. 8.]
[99] [In his Reply, Mr. Cotton affects
to have forgotten these admonitions
and arguments; but Mr. Williams, in
his rejoinder, reminds him that once,
when riding together in company with
Mr. Hooker to and from Sempringham,
Mr. Williams did thus address Mr.
Cotton, whose reply was to the effect,
“that he selected the good and best
prayers in his use of that book, as
the author of the Council of Trent
used to do.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 8;
Williams’ Bloudy Tenent made yet
more Bloudy, p. 12.]
[100] It pleaseth God sometimes, beyond his promise, to convey blessings and
comfort to His, in false worships.
[101] [“Though I say, that it is not
lawful to persecute any, though erring
in fundamental and weighty points,
till after once or twice admonition, I
do not therefore say, that after once
or twice admonition, then such consciences
may be persecuted. But
that if such a man, after such admonition,
shall still persist in the error
of his way, and be therefore punished,
he is not persecuted for cause of conscience,
but for sinning against his
conscience.... It was no part of
my words or meaning, to say, that
every heretic, though erring in some
fundamental and weighty points, and
for the same excommunicated, shall
forthwith be punished by the civil
magistrate; unless it do afterwards
appear that he break forth further,
either into blasphemy, or idolatry, or
seducement of others to his heretical
pernicious ways.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 27.]
[102] [“In alleging that place, I intended
no other persecution, but the
church’s against such an heretic by
excommunication.... Verily excommunication
is a persecution, and
a lawful persecution, if the cause be
just offence; as the angel of the Lord
is said to persecute the wicked, Psal.
xxxv. 6.... Sure it is the Lord
Jesus accounteth it a persecution to
his disciples, to be delivered up into
the synagogues, and to be cast forth
out of the synagogues, Luke xxi. 12,
with John xvi. 2.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 32.]
[103] [“And for the civil state, we
know no ground they have to persecute
Jews, or Turks, or other pagans,
for cause of religion, though they all
err in fundamentals. No, nor would
I exempt anti-christians neither from
toleration, notwithstanding their fundamental
errors, unless after conviction
they still continue to seduce simple
souls into their damnable and pernicious
heresies: as into the worship
of false gods, into confidence of their
own merits for justification, into seditious
conspiracies against the lives
and states of such princes as will not
submit their consciences to the bishop
of Rome.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 33.]
[104] [“This is too vast an hyperbole:
as if murderers, seditious persons,
rebels, traitors, were none of them
such as did break the city’s or kingdom’s
peace at all; but they only
who are too sharp against corruptions
in religion.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 36.]
[105] [“What hurt do they get by
being caught? Hypocrites, and corrupt
doctrines and practices, if they
be found like unto good Christians,
or sound truths, what hurt do they
catch when I say such are to be
tolerated to the end of the world?
But—I acknowledge—that by tares
are meant such kind of evil persons
as are like unto the good.” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 37.]
[106] [“If the Discusser had cast his
eye a little lower, he might have
found that Christ interpreteth the
tares not only to be persons, but
things, πάντα τὰ σκάνδαλα, all
things that offend, as well as those
that do iniquity. But I shall not
stick upon that at all. Let the tares
be persons, whether hypocrites, like
unto true Christians, or holders forth
of scandalous and corrupt doctrines
and practices like unto sound.” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 38.]
[107] Hence were the witnesses of
Christ, Wickliff and others, in Henry
the Fourth’s reign, called Lollards, as
some say, from Lolia, weeds known
well enough, hence taken for sign of
barrenness: Infelix lolium et steriles
dominantur avenæ. Others conceive
they were so called from one Lollard,
&c.; but all papists accounted them
as tares because of their profession.
[108] [“It is not true that ζιζάνια
signifieth all those weeds that grow
up with the corn. For they be a
special weed, growing up chiefly
amongst the wheat, more like to
barley.... Neither is it true, that
tares are commonly and generally
known as soon as they appear....
Yea, the servants of the husbandman
did not discern the tares from the
wheat, till the blade was sprung up,
and brought forth fruit. It is like
enough, they did not suspect them at
all by reason of the great likeness
that was between them whilst they
were both in the blade.” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 40.]
[109] [“1. It is true, Christ expoundeth
the field to be the world; but he
meant not the wide world, but, by an
usual trope, the church scattered
throughout the world.... 2. If
the field should be the world, and
the tares anti-christians and false
Christians: it is true, Satan sowed
them in God’s field, but he sowed
them in the church.... 3. It is
not the will of Christ, that anti-christ
and anti-christians, and anti-christianity,
should be tolerated in the world,
until the end of the world. For God
will put it into the hearts of faithful
princes, in fulness of time, to hate the
whore, to leave her desolate and
naked, &c. Rev. xvii. 16, 17.” Cotton’s
Reply, pp. 41, 42.]
[110] [“It is no impeachment to the
wisdom of Christ to call his elect
churches and saints throughout the
world, by the name of the world....
It is no more an improper speech, to
call the church the world, than to
speak of Christ as dying for the world,
when he died for his church.” Ib.
p. 43.]
[111] [“1. Did not Christ preach and
sow the seed of the word to all those
four sorts of hearers? And yet he
was the minister of the circumcision,
and preached seldom to any, but to
church members, members of the
church of Israel.... 2. If the
children of church members be in the
church, and of the church, till they
give occasion of rejection, then they
growing up to years become some of
them like the highway side, others
like the stony, &c.... 3. It is
the work of the church to seek the
changing of the bad into the good
ground. For is it not the proper
work of the church, to bring on the
children to become the sincere people
of God?... 4. There is not such
resemblance between highway-side
ground and good ground, as is between
tares and wheat. Nor would
the servants ever ask the question,
whether they should pluck up weeds
out of the highway-side, &c.” Cotton’s
Reply, pp. 44, 45.]
[112] [“1. These tares are not such
sinners as are contrary to the children
of the kingdom; for then none
should be opposite to them but they.
2. The tares were not discerned at
first till the blade was sprung up, and
brought forth fruit.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 45.]
[113] [“Neither is it true that anti-christians
are to be let alone by the ordinance
of Christ, till the end of the
world. For what if the members of
a Christian church shall some of them
apostate to anti-christian superstition
and idolatry, doth the ordinance of
Christ bind the hands of the church to
let them alone? Besides, what if any
anti-christian persons, out of zeal to
the catholic cause, and out of conscience
to the command of their superiors,
should seek to destroy the
king and parliament, should such an
one by any ordinance of Christ be let
alone in the civil state?” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 47.]
[114] [“Let it be again denied, that
hypocrites, when they appear to be
hypocrites, are to be purged out by
the government of the church. Otherwise
they may soon root out, sometime
or other, the best wheat in God’s
field, and the sweetest flowers in the
garden, who sometimes lose their fatness
and sweetness for a season.”
Cotton’s Reply, p. 48.]
[115] [“Not every hypocrite, but only
such, who either walk inordinately
without a calling, or idly and negligently
in his calling.” Ib. p. 49.]
[116] [“But what if their worship and
consciences incite them to civil offences?
How shall then the civil
state keep itself safe with a civil
sword?” Cotton’s Reply, p. 50.]
[117] [“But if their members be leavened
with anti-christian idolatry and
superstition, and yet must be tolerated—will
not a little leaven, so tolerated,
leaven the whole lump? How then
is the safety of the church guarded?”
Ib. p. 50.]
[118] [“The elect of God shall be
saved: but yet if idolaters and seducers
be tolerated—the church will
stand guilty before God of the seduction
and corruption of the people of
God.” Ib. p. 50.]
[119] [“There is no fear of plucking
up the wheat, by rooting out idolaters
and seducers—the censures inflicted
(upon God’s people), would be blessed
of God to their recovery and healing.”
Cotton’s Reply, p. 51.]
[120] [“It would as well plead for the
toleration of murderers, robbers,
adulterers, extortioners, &c., for all
these will the mighty angels gather
into bundles, &c.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 51.]
[121] [“Certain it is from the word of
truth, that the anti-christian kingdom
shall be destroyed and rooted up by
Christian princes and states long before
the great harvest of the end of
the world.... And either such
princes must perform this great work
without prayer, and then it were not
sanctified to God, or if it be a sacrifice
sanctified to God, they must pray for
their desolation before they inflict it.”
Cotton’s Reply, p. 53.]
[122] [“It might as truly be said the
ministers of Christ are forbidden to
denounce present or speedy destruction
to any murderers, &c.” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 54.]
[123] [“It is moral equity, that blasphemers,
and apostate idolaters seducing
others to idolatry, should be
put to death, Levit. xxiv. 16.... The
external equity of that judicial law of
Moses was of moral force, and bindeth
all princes to express that zeal
and indignation, both, against blasphemy
in such as fall under their
just power, which Ahab neglected;
and against seduction to idolatry,
which Ahab executed, or else Elijah,
or some others, by his consent.”
Cotton’s Reply, p. 55.]
[124] [“It was no just cause for the
civil magistrate to punish the Pharisees,
for that they took unjust offence
against Christ’s wholesome doctrine.
For neither was the doctrine itself a
fundamental truth; nor was their
offence against it a fundamental error,
though it was dangerous. Besides,
the civil magistrates had no law established
about doctrines, or offences of
that nature. And therefore, they
could take no judicial cognizance of
any complaint presented to them
about the same.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 57.]
[125] [“Paul’s appeal to Cæsar, was
about the wrongs done unto the Jews.
The wrongs to them were not only
civil, but church offences, which Paul
denied.... A man may be such
an offender in matters of religion,
against the law of God, against the
church, as well as in civil matters
against Cæsar, as to be worthy of
death.... Paul, or any such like
servant of Christ, if he should commit
any such offence, he would not
refuse judgment unto death.” Ib. p.
59.]
[126] [“We do not say, It is the holy
will and purpose of God to establish
the doctrine and kingdom of his Son
only this way, to wit, by the help of
civil authority. For it is his will also
to magnify his power in establishing
the same ... by the sufferings of
his saints, and by the bloody swords
of persecuting magistrates: ... but
it is the duty of magistrates to know
the Son, acknowledge his kingdom,
and submit their thrones and crowns
to it, &c.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 61.]
[127] [“We do not allege that place in
Isaiah, to prove kings and queens to
be judges of ecclesiastical causes; but
to be providers for the church’s well-being,
and protectors of it.” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 61.]
[128] [“We do not hold it lawful for a
Christian magistrate to compel by
civil sword either Pharisee, or any
Jew, or pagan, to profess the religion,
or doctrine, of the Lord Jesus, much
less do we think it meet for a private
Christian to provoke either Jewish or
pagan magistrates to compel Pharisees
to submit to the doctrine or
religion of Christ Jesus.” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 64. On this Mr. Williams
observes, that Mr. Cotton believes “it
is no compulsion to make laws with
penalties for all to come to church
and to public worship.” Bloudy Tenent
yet more Bloudy, p. 87.]
[129] [“When the corruption, or destruction
of souls, is a destruction also
of lives, liberties, estates of men, lex
talionis calleth for, not only soul for
soul, but life for life.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 64.]
[130] [“Yet it is not only every man’s
duty, but the common duty of the magistrates
to prevent infection, and to
preserve the common health of the
place, by removing infectious persons
into solitary tabernacles.” Ib. p. 65.]
[131] [“That hindereth not the lawful
and necessary use of a civil sword for
the punishment of some such offences,
as are subject to church censure....
It is evident that the civil sword was
appointed for a remedy in this case,
Deut. xiii.... For he (the angel of
God’s presence) did expressly appoint
it in the Old Testament: nor did he
ever abrogate it in the New.... The
reason is of moral, i. e., of universal
and perpetual equity to put to death
any apostate seducing idolater, or
heretic ... the magistrate beareth
not the sword in vain, to execute
vengeance on such an evil doer.”
Cotton’s Reply, pp. 66, 67.]
[132] [“It is a carnal and worldly,
and indeed an ungodly imagination,
to confine the magistrates’ charge to
the bodies and goods of the subject,
and to exclude them from the care of
their souls.... They may and
ought to procure spiritual help to
their souls, and to prevent such spiritual
evils, as that the prosperity of
religion amongst them might advance
the prosperity of the civil state.”
Cotton’s Reply, p. 68.]
[133] [“The matter of this answer, it
is likely enough, was given by me;
for it suiteth with my own apprehension,
both then and now. But some
expressions in laying it down, I do
not own, nor can I find any copy
under my own handwriting, that
might testify how I did express myself,
especially in a word or two,
wherein the discusser observeth, in cap.
38, some haste, and light, sleepy
attention.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 74.
Mr. Williams replies, “It is at hand
for Master Cotton or any to see that
copy which he gave forth and corrected
in some places with his own
hand, and every word verbatim here
published.” Bloody Tenent yet more
Bloody, p. 114. See ante, p. 22.]
[134] [“It is far from me to say, that
it is lawful for civil magistrates to
inflict corporal punishments upon
men contrary-minded, standing in
the same state the Samaritans did.
No such thought arose in my heart,
nor fell from my pen—that it is lawful
for a civil magistrate to inflict
corporal punishments upon such as
are contrary-minded in matters of
religion.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 76.
To this Mr. Williams expresses his
surprise as to the meaning Mr. Cotton
puts upon the words contrary-minded,
seeing the whole argument of his
book is to show that heretics may be
lawfully punished by the civil magistrate.
P. 115.]
[135] [“Let it not seem strange to
hear tell of unconverted Christians or
unconverted converts. There is no
contradiction at all in the words.
When the Lord saith, that Judah
turned unto him, not with all her
heart, but feignedly, was she not then
an unconverted convert? converted
in show and profession, but unconverted
in heart and truth?” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 78.]
[136] [“I have not yet learned that
the children of believing parents born
in the church, are all of them pagans,
and no members of the church: or
that being members of the church,
and so holy, that they are all of them
truly converted. And if they be not
always truly converted, then let him
not wonder, nor stumble at the phrase
of unconverted Christians.” Ib. p.
78.]
[137] [“If opposition rise from within,
from the members of the church, I
do not believe it to be lawful for the
magistrate to seek to subdue and
convert them to be of his mind by
the civil sword; but rather to use all
spiritual means for their conviction
and conversion. But if the opposition
still continue in doctrine and
worship, and that against the vitals
and fundamentals of religion, whether
by heresy of doctrine or idolatry in
worship, and shall proceed to seek
the seduction of others, I do believe
the magistrate is not to tolerate such
opposition against the truth in church
members, or in any professors of the
truth after due conviction from the
word of truth.” Cotton’s Reply, p.
81.]
[138] [“Yet it is not more than befell
the church of Judah, in the days
of Ahaz and Hezekiah, Manasseh and
Josiah; yet the prophets never upbraided
them with the civil magistrate’s
power in causes of religion, as
the cause of it.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 82.]
[139] [“A civil magistrate ought not
to draw out his civil sword against
any seducers till he have used all
good means for their conviction, and
thereby clearly manifested the bowels
of tender commiseration and compassion
towards them. But if after
their continuance in obstinate rebellion
against the light, he shall still
walk towards them in soft and gentle
commiseration, his softness and gentleness
is excessive large to foxes and
wolves; but his bowels are miserably
straitened and hardened against the
poor sheep and lambs of Christ.”
Cotton’s Reply, p. 83.]
[140] [Eusebii Eccles. Hist. lib. iv. c.
xiii. The rescript is also found appended
to the second apology of
Justin Martyr, Opera, tom. i. p. 100,
edit. Coloniæ, 1686. By modern
writers it is deemed spurious, although
in spirit consonant with the well
known temper of the emperor. Neander
Ch. Hist. i. p. 141. Gieseler,
i. 130. Clark’s For. and Theol. Lib.]
[141] [“Though the same arm may
with a staff beat a wolf, yet it will
not with the same staff beat a sheep.
The same voice from heaven that
calleth the sheep by name into the
sheepfold, and leadeth them by still
waters, the same voice hath said, that
anti-christian wolves and seducers
shall drink of blood, for they are
worthy.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 86. To
this Mr. Williams replies, that if civil
power may force out of the church, it
may also force in. “If civil power,
to wit, by swords, whips, prisons, &c.,
drives out the spiritual or mystical
wolf, the same undeniably must drive
in the sheep.” The Bloody Tenent
yet more Bloody, p. 128.]
[142] [“If those be peaceable and
quiet subjects, that withdraw subjects
from subjection to Christ: if they be
loving and helpful neighbours, that
help men on to perdition: if they be
fair and just dealers, that wound the
souls of the best, and kill and destroy
the souls of many, if such be true
and loyal to civil government, that
subject it to the tyranny of a foreign
prelate, then it will be no advantage
to civil states, when the kingdoms of
the earth shall become the kingdoms
of our Lord; and they may do as
good service to the civil state, who
bring the wrath of God upon them
by their apostasy, as they that bring
down blessings from heaven by the
profession and practice of the true
religion in purity.” Cotton’s Reply,
pp. 87, 88.]
[143] [“Magistrates ought to be so
well acquainted with matters of religion,
as to discern the fundamental
principles thereof, and the evil of
those heresies and blasphemies as do
subvert the same. Their ignorance
thereof is no discharge of their duty
before the Lord. Such wolfish
oppressors, and doctrines, and practices
as they cannot discern with
their own eyes, it will be their sin to
suppress them, because they cannot
do it of faith: or to tolerate them,
because they are destructive to the
souls of the people.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 89.]
[144] [“It is no dishonour to Christ,
nor impeachment of the sufficiency
of the ordinances left by Christ, that
in such a case his ministers of justice
in the civil state, should assist his
ministers of the gospel in the church
state.” Ib. p. 91.]
[145] [“Elders must keep within the
bounds of their calling; but killing,
and dashing out of brains, which is
all one with stoning, was expressly
commanded in such a case to the
people of God, by order from the
judges. Deut. xiii. 10.” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 91.]
[146] [“Nor is it a frustrating of the
sweet end of Christ’s coming, which
was to save souls, but rather a direct
advancing of it, to destroy (if need
be) the bodies of those wolves, who
seek to destroy the souls of those for
whom Christ died.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 93.]
[147] [“This is not unfitting nor improper,
that a magistrate should draw
his sword, though not in matters
spiritual, yet about matters spiritual,
to protect them in peace, and to stave
off the disturbers and destroyers of
them.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 94.]
[148] [Saker is the peregrine hawk;
but was applied to a piece of ordnance
of three inches and a half bore, carrying
a ball of five pounds and a half
weight.]
[149] [“It is far from me to allow the
civil magistrate to make use of his
civil weapons to batter down idolatry
and heresy in the souls of men, ...
but if the idolater or heretic grow
obstinate ... now the magistrate
maketh use, not of stocks and whips,
but of death and banishment....
Heretics and idolaters may be restrained
from the open practice and
profession of their wickedness by the
sword of justice, and such weapons of
righteousness.” Cotton’s Reply, p.
95.]
[150] [“This inference will not here
follow: That, therefore, magistrates
have nothing to do to punish any
violation, no, not of the weightiest
duties of the first table.” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 96.]
[151] [Comment. in Rom. xiii. 5, tom.
v. p. 200, ed. Tholuck.]
[152] [“But how far off Calvin’s judgment
was to restrain civil magistrates
from meddling in matters of religion,
let him interpret himself in his own
words, in his answer to Servetus, who
was put to death for his heresies at
Geneva by his procurement:—Hoc
uno, saith he, contentus sum, Christi
adventu; nec mutatum esse ordinem
politicum, nec de magistratuum officio
quicquam detractum.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 98.]
[153] [Comment. in vers. 8, 10, tom. v. pp. 201, 202.]
[154] [Bezæ Nov. Test. in loc. edit.
Londini, 1585.]
[155] [“Though idolatry, and blasphemy,
and heresy, be sins against
the first table: yet to punish these
with civil penalties is a duty of the
second table.... It was neither the
word nor judgment of Calvin or
Beza, so to interpret Rom. xiii. as to
exempt magistrates from power of
punishing heresy and idolatry.”
Cotton’s Reply, p. 99.]
[156] [“In giving them a power and
charge to execute vengeance on evil
doers, it behoved them to inquire and
listen after true religion, to hear and
try all, and upon serious, deliberate,
and just scrutiny, to hold fast that
which is good, and so prevent the
disturbance thereof by the contrary....
The cases of religion, wherein
we allow civil magistrates to be judges
are so fundamental and palpable,
that no magistrate, studious of religion,—but,
if he have any spiritual
discerning, he cannot but judge of
such gross corruptions as are insufferable
in religion.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 101.]
[157] [“Paul did submit to Cæsar’s
judgment-seat the trial of his innocency,
as well in matters of religion
as in civil conversation. For he
pleadeth his innocency, that he was
guilty of none of those things whereof
they did accuse him, and for trial
hereof he appealeth to Cæsar. Now
the things whereof they did accuse
him, were offences against the law of
the Jews, and against the temple, as
well as against Cæsar. And offences
against the law of the Jews, and
against the temple, were matters of
religion.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 103.]
[158] [“What though the sword be of
a material and civil nature?... It
can reach to punish not only the
offenders in bodily life and civil liberties,
but also the offenders against
spiritual life and soul-liberties....
If the sword of the judge or magistrate
be the sword of the Lord,
why may it not be drawn forth, as
well to defend his subjects in true religion,
as in civil peace?... What
holy care of religion lay upon the
kings of Israel in the Old Testament,
the same lieth now upon Christian
kings in the New Testament, to protect
the same in their churches.”
Cotton’s Reply, pp. 104, 105.]
[159] [In “A Model of Church and
Civil Power—sent to the Church at
Salem,” examined at length by Mr.
Williams, in some subsequent chapters
of this volume.]
[160] [“When we say, the magistrate
is an avenger of evil, we mean of all
sorts or kinds of evil: not every
particular of each kind. Secret evils,
in thought, or affection, yea, in action
too, but neither confessed, nor proved
by due witnesses, the magistrate cannot
punish.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 110.]
[163] Upon this point hath Mr. John
Goodwin excellently of late discoursed.
[In “M. S. to A. S., with a Plea for
Libertie of Conscience in a Church
Way,” &c. Lond. 1644. 4to. pp. 110.
See Introduction to this volume.]
[164] [“I willingly grant, it may be
lawful for a civil magistrate to tolerate
notorious evil doers in two cases,
under which all the examples will
fall, which the discusser allegeth; ...
when the magistrates’ hand is too
weak and feeble, and the offenders’
adherents too great and strong ...
and an evil may be tolerated to prevent
other greater evils.... In
ordinary cases it is not lawful to
tolerate a seducing false teacher.
The commandment of God is clear
and strong, Deut. xiii. 8, 9....
Capitalia Mosis politica sunt æterna.”
Cotton’s Reply, p. 113.]
[165] [“It will be hard for the discusser
to find anti-christian seducers
clear and free from disobedience to
the civil laws of a state, in case that
anti-christ, to whom they are sworn,
shall excommunicate the civil magistrate,
and prescribe the civil state to
the invasion of foreigners.” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 115.]
[166] [See before, p. 22. “The letter
denieth the lawfulness of all persecution
in cause of conscience, that is, in
matter of religion: I seek to evince
the falsehood of it, by an instance of
lawful church-prosecution in case of
false teachers.” Cotton’s Reply, p.
117.]
[167] [“I intended to apply the scriptures
written to the churches, and to
the officers thereof, no further than to
other churches and their officers. The
scriptures upon which we call in the
magistrate to the punishment of seducers,
are such as are directed to
civil states and magistrates, of which
divers have been mentioned and applied
before.” Cotton’s Reply, p.
118.]
[169] [“This will no ways follow, unless
all men’s consciences in the world
did err fundamentally and obstinately
after just conviction, against the very
principles of Christian religion, or
unless they held forth other errors ...
and that in a turbulent and factious
manner. For in these cases
only, we allow magistrates to punish
in matters of religion.” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 120.]
[171] [“The answer which I gave to his
argument is not taken from the like
number of princes, but from the
greater piety and presence of God
with those princes who have professed
and practised against toleration. It
is truly said, suffragia non sunt numeranda,
sed ponderanda.” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 123.]
[172] [“If the discusser had well observed,
he would have found, it was
not the speech of the king, but of the
prisoner.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 129.]
[173] [“Though the unknowing zeal of
the one was sinful, yet it was the fruit
of human frailty,—error amoris; but
the rage of the others was devilish
fury,—amor erroris. Besides the unknowing
zeal of the good emperors,
lay not in punishing notorious heretical
seducers ... it was toleration that
made the world anti-christian.” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 132.]
[174] [“It followeth not. For Queen
Elizabeth might do well in persecuting
seditious or seducing papists, according
to conscience rightly informed,
and King James do ill according to
conscience misinformed.” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 136.]
[175] [The Third Vial, pp. 6, 7. The
object of Mr. Cotton in this work was
to justify the persecution of the
papists by Queen Elizabeth, and the
imitation of that conduct in the Low
Countries. He says, “This phrase,
out of the altar, holds forth some
under persecution.... Duke D’Alva
boasts that 36,000 protestants were
put to death by him, and in 1586 the
Jesuits were banished the country....
They [the protestants] justly say
Amen, to the queen’s law—that as
she gave the popish emissaries blood
to drink—the angel says, Even so,
Amen. They acknowledge God’s
almighty power, that had given them
power to make that law against them—‘all
states rang of these laws, and
it raised all Christendom,’” &c., &c.
The Pouring out of the Seven Vials:
or an Exposition of Rev. xvi. By
the learned and reverend John Cotton,
B.D. London, 1642. 4to.]
[177] [“If it be unlawful to banish any
from the commonwealth for cause of
conscience, it is unlawful to banish
any from the church for cause of
conscience.... If the censure of a
man for cause of conscience by the
civil sword be persecution, it is a far
greater persecution to censure a man
for cause of conscience by the spiritual
sword.... Sure I am, Christ Jesus
reckoneth excommunication for persecution,
Luke xxi. 12.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 143.]
[178] [“I see no reason why the chaste
and modest eye of a Christian church
should any more spare and pity a
spiritual adulterer that seeketh to
withdraw her from her spouse to a
false Christ, than the eye of a holy
Israelite was to spare and pity the
like tempters in days of old, Deut.
xiii. 8.” Ib. p. 144.]
[180] [“Thus far he may be constrained,
by withholding such countenance
and favour from him, such encouragement
and employment from him,
as a wise and discerning prince would
otherwise grant to such as believe the
truth and profess it.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 145.]
[181] [By the 35th of Elizabeth, all
subjects of the realm above sixteen
years of age, were compelled to attend
church under the penalties of
fine and imprisonment. Collier’s
Eccles. Hist. vii. 163. The pilgrim
fathers of New England adopted a
similar obnoxious and persecuting
law. In the year 1631, it was enacted
by their general court, “that no
one should enjoy the privileges of a
freeman, unless he was a member of
some church in the colony.” “Every
inhabitant was compelled to contribute
to the support of religion, and
the magistrates insisted on the presence
of every man at public worship.”
Knowles’s Memoir of Roger
Williams, p. 44. Bancroft’s Hist. of
U. States, i. 369.]
[182] [“I know of no constraint at all
that lieth upon the consciences of
any in New England, to come to
church.... Least of all do I know
that any are constrained to pay church
duties in New England. Sure I am,
none in our own town are constrained
to pay any church duties at all.
What they pay they give voluntarily,
each one with his own hand, without
any constraint at all, but their own
will, as the Lord directs them.”
Cotton’s Reply, p. 146. Mr. Williams
thus rejoins, “If Mr. Cotton be
forgetful, sure he can hardly be ignorant
of the laws and penalties extant
in New England that are, or if repealed
have been, against such as absent
themselves from church morning and
evening, and for non-payment of
church duties, although no members.
For a freedom of not paying in his
town (Boston) it is to their commendation
and God’s praise. Yet
who can be ignorant of the assessments
upon all in other towns, of the
many suits and sentences in courts.”
&c. Bloody Tenent yet more Bloody,
p. 216.]
[184] [“It is not true that the New
English do tolerate the Indians, who
have submitted to the English protection
and government, in their worship
of devils openly.... It hath been
an article of the covenant between
such Indians as have submitted to
our government, that they shall submit
to the ten commandments.”
Cotton’s Reply, p. 148. On the
contrary Mr. Williams re-asserts, that
certain tribes of the Indians “who
profess to submit to the English, continue
in the public paganish worship
of devils—I say openly, and constantly,”
and that their practices are
in utter opposition to the ten commandments
they had professed to
receive. Bloody Tenet, &c. p. 218.]
[185] [But “that is a civil 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, laws about religion
are truly called civil laws, enacted
by civil authority, about the best
good of the city.... Here will be
needful the faithful vigilancy of the
Christian magistrate, to assist the
officers of the church in the Lord’s
work: the one to lay in antidotes to
prevent infection, the other to weed
out infectious, noisome weeds, which
the sheep of Christ will be touching
and taking.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 151.]
[186] [See before, p. 27. Also, Tracts
on Lib. of Conscience, p. 220.]
[187] [In this paragraph Mr. Williams
refers the above quotation to Tertullian,
but by an evident mistake or
slip of the pen; we have, therefore,
inserted in the text “Jerome,” instead
of “Tertullian,” as in the copy.]
[188] [“The Lord, through his grace,
hath opened mine eye many a year
ago to discern that a national church
is not the institution of the Lord
Jesus.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 156.]
[190] [“It is an untruth, that either we
restrain men from worship according
to conscience, or constrain them to
worship against conscience; or that
such is my tenet and practice.”
Cotton’s Reply, p. 157. “I earnestly
beseech,” says Mr. Williams, “every
reader seriously to ponder the whole
stream and series of Mr. Cotton’s
discourse, propositions, affirmations,
&c., through the whole book, and he
shall then be able to judge whether
it be untrue that his doctrine tends
not to constrain nor restrain conscience....
And a cruel law is yet
extant [in New England] against
Christ Jesus, muffled up under the
hood or veil of a law against anabaptistry.”
Bloody Tenet yet, &c.,
p. 233.]
[192] [“Though the government of the
civil magistrate do extend no further
than over the bodies and goods of his
subjects, yet he may and ought to
improve that power ... to the good
of their souls; yea, he may much
advance the good of their outward
man also.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 162.]
[194] [“When the wolf runneth ravenously
upon the sheep, is it against
the nature of the true sheep to run
to their shepherd? And is it then
against the nature of the true shepherd
to send forth his dogs to worry
such a wolf, without incurring the
reproach of a persecutor.” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 171.]
[196] [“The murder of the soul is not
the only proper cause of a heretic’s
capital crime, but chiefly his bitter
root of apostasy from God: not only
falling off himself from God, but
seducing others.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 175.]
[197] [“Yet the very murderous
attempt of killing a soul, in abusing
an ordinance of God, in corrupting a
religion, is a capital crime, whether
the soul die of that wound or no.”
Cotton’s Reply, p. 175.]
[198] [“As for such as apostate from
the known truth of religion, and
seek to subvert the foundation of it,
and to draw away others from it, to
plead for their toleration, in hope of
their conversion, is as much as to
proclaim a general pardon for all
malefactors; for he that is a wilful
murderer and adulterer now, may
come to be converted and die a
martyr hereafter.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 176.]
[199] [“It appeareth he meant not
that passage of Deut. xiii., but of
Exod. xxxii., where he put to death
idolaters; and that of Levit. xxiv.,
where he put the blasphemers to
death.” Cotton’s Reply, p. 178.]
[200] [“The text numbereth them 450
and he numbereth them 850.” Cotton’s
Reply, p. 179.]
[201] [“Is it a miracle for Elijah, with
the aid of so many thousand people
of Israel, to put to death 450 men,
whose spirits were discouraged, being
convinced of their forgery and idolatry?”
Ib. p. 179.]
[204] [An answer to thirty-two questions
by the elders of the churches in
New England. Published by Mr.
Peters; Lond., 1643.]
[205] [“If princes be nursing fathers
to the church, then they are to provide
that the children of the church
be not nursed with poison instead of
milk. And in so doing they keep
the first table.... Princes sit on
the bench over the church in the
offensive government of the church:
and yet may themselves, being members
of the church, be subject to
church censure in the offensive government
of themselves against the
rules of the gospel.” Cotton’s Reply,
p. 194.]
[206] [Under the influence of Calvin
the legislation of Geneva was entirely
theocratic. Idolatry, adultery, cursing
and striking parents, were punishable
with death. Imprisonment was
inflicted for every immorality at the
instance of the church courts. Women
were forbidden to wear golden ornaments,
and not more than two rings
on their fingers. Even their feasts
were regulated: but three courses
were allowed, and each course to
consist of only four dishes. Great
efforts were also made, which gave
rise to many civil commotions, to
remove from office under the state
persons excommunicated by the
church. Henry’s Das Leben Calvins,
p. 173, edit. 1843.]
[207] Chamier. De Eccles. p. 376. Parker, part. polit. lib. i. cap. 1.
[209] [See Broadmead Records, Introd. pp. xli., lxxxvii.]
[210] [“If a prince should, by covenant
and oath, make his whole kingdom a
national church, he should do more
than he hath any word of Christ to
warrant his work.” A Survey of the
Sum of Ch. Discipline, &c., part 2,
Argument 12.]
[211] [Among the early settlers were
two brothers of the name of Brown,
who, still attached to the rites of the
church of England, set up a separate
assembly, and when summoned before
the governor, accused the ministers of
departing from the usages of that
church, adding that they were separatists,
and would soon become anabaptists.
To this the ministers made
reply, “That they were neither separatists
nor anabaptists, that they did
not separate from the church of
England, nor from the ordinances of
God there, but only from the corruptions
and disorders of that church;
they came away from the Common
Prayer and ceremonies ... because
they judged the imposition of these
things to be sinful corruptions of the
word of God.” Neal’s Hist. of New
England, i. p. 144. The two brothers
were sent back to England in the
same ship that brought them over.]
[212] [The law concerning heresy stood
thus in New England: “Whoever
denies the immortality of the soul,
the resurrection of the body, or the
evil done by the outward man is sin,
or that Christ gave himself a ransom
for sins, or that we are justified by his
righteousness, or the morality of the
fourth command, or the baptizing of
infants, or the ordinance of magistracy,
or their authority to make war,
or punish offenders against the first
table; whoever denies any of these,
or seduces others to do so, must be
banished the jurisdiction.” Neal’s
Hist. of New England, ii. p. 344.]
[215] [“I do not disapprove of the use
frequently made of it by St. Augustine
against the Donatists, to prove
that godly princes may lawfully issue
edicts to compel obstinate and rebellious
persons to worship the true
God, and to maintain the unity of the
faith; for although faith is a voluntary
thing, yet we see that such means
are useful to subdue the obstinacy of
those who will not until compelled
obey.” Calvin in loc. tom. ii. 43.
edit. Tholuck.]
[216] [In the Platform of Church Discipline,
agreed upon at Cambridge in
New England in 1648, it is provided
that not only members of churches,
but hearers of the word also, shall
contribute to the maintenance of
the ministry: if the deacons failed to
obtain it, recourse was then to be had
to the magistrate, whose duty it was
held to be to see that the ministry be
duly provided for. C. Mather’s Magnalia,
book v. p. 31. Neal’s Hist. of
New England, ii. p. 301.]
[217] [Mr. Henry Ainsworth, the most
eminent of the Brownists, was the
author of a very learned commentary
on the Pentateuch and Canticles, as
also of several other minor works.
“He was,” says Mr. Cotton, “diligently
studious of the Hebrew text,
hath not been unuseful to the church
in his exposition of the Pentateuch,
especially of Moses’s rituals.” Way
of Cong. Churches, p. 6. Stuart’s edit.
of his Two Treatises, p. 55.]
[218] [The composition of the first
book of Homilies is generally attributed
to Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer,
Hopkins, and Becon. Jewel is said
to have had the largest share in the
second, although Archbishop Parker
speaks of them as “revised and
finished, with a second part, by him
and other bishops.” The first edition
of the first book appeared in July,
1547, 1 Edward VI. The use of the
Apocrypha in the church service was
an early complaint of the Puritans.
The apocryphal books were commanded
to be bound up with the
other books of scripture by Archbishop
Whitgift. Short’s Hist. of
Church of England, p. 239. Strype’s
Whitgift, i. 590. Neal, i. 427.]
[219] [A Letter of many Ministers in
Old England requesting the judgment
of their reverend brethren in
New England concerning nine positions:
written A.D. 1637. Together
with their answer thereto returned,
anno 1639, &c. Published 1643,
4to. pp. 90. For a condensed view
of it, see Hanbury’s Hist. Memorials,
ii. pp. 18-39.]
[220] [Sentiments precisely similar to
the above were embodied in the
seventeenth chapter of the Cambridge
Platform, and continued to be for
many years the ruling principles of
the congregational churches of New
England. See C. Mather’s Magnalia,
book v. p. 37.]
[221] [See Tracts on Lib. of Conscience, Introd. p. xxxii.]
[222] [The Assembly of Divines was at
this time engaged in forming a directory
of worship for the entire nation.]
[223] [The central part of a target,
which anciently was painted white.]
[224] [There are two chapters numbered CXX. in the original copy.]
[225] Nero and the persecuting emperors
were not so injurious to Christianity,
as Constantine and others who
assumed a power in spiritual things.
Under Constantine Christianity fell
into corruption, and Christians fell
asleep.
[227] [See Neal’s Hist. of Puritans, i. 353, edit. 1837.]
[228] Is not this too like the pope’s
profession of servus servorum Dei,
yet holding out his slipper to the lips
of princes, kings, and emperors?
[229] [For elucidations of the references
made by Mr. Williams in this
preface to his sufferings, and for Mr.
Cotton’s reply, see the Biographical
Introduction.]
[230] [It is] a monstrous paradox,
that God’s children should persecute
God’s children, and that they that
hope to live eternally together with
Christ Jesus in the heavens, should
not suffer each other to live in this
common air together, &c. I am informed
it was the speech of an
honourable knight of the parliament:
“What! Christ persecute Christ in
New England?”[231]
[231] [“Though God’s children may
not persecute God’s children, nor
wicked men either, for well-doing:
yet if they be found to walk in the
way of the wicked—their brethren
may justly deprive them in some
cases not only of the common air of
the country, by banishment, but even
of the common air of the world by
death, and yet hope to live eternally
with them in the heavens.” Master
John Cotton’s Answer to Master Roger
Williams, p. 14.]
[232] [That is, of the church at Salem, of which Mr. Williams was then the
pastor.]
[233] [This should be four hundred and fifty. See 1 Kings xviii. 19-22:—or
including the “prophets of the groves,” 850.]
[234] [“The truth is, I did not publish
that discourse to the world—A brief
discourse in defence of set forms of
prayer was penned by Mr. Ball—that a
religious knight sent over with desire
to hear our judgment of it. At his
request I drew up a short answer, and
sent one copy to the knight and
another to Mr. Ball divers years ago.
How it came to be published I do
not know.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 23.
See Hanbury’s Hist. Mem. ii. 157,
for an abstract of it.]
[236] [“The scope of my letter was,
not to confirm the equity of his
banishment, but to convince the
iniquity of his separation.” Cotton’s
Answer, p. 41.]
[237] [“He that shall withdraw or
separate the corn from the people, or
the people from the corn; the people
have just cause to separate either him
from themselves, or themselves from
him. And this proportion will hold
as well in spiritual corn as bodily.”
Cotton’s Answer, p. 44.]
[238] [“If men hinder the enjoyment
of spiritual good things, may they not
be hindered from the enjoyment of
that which is less, carnal good things?”
Ib. p. 46.]
[239] [“I spent a great part of the
summer in seeking by word and writing
to satisfy his scruples, until he rejected
both our callings, and our
churches. And even then I ceased
not to follow him still, ... whereof
this very letter is a pregnant and evident
demonstration.” Cotton’s Answer,
p. 47.]
[240] [“I intended not a cordial of
consolation to him, ... but only a
conviction, to abate the rigour of his
indignation against the dispensation of
divine justice.” Cotton’s Answer, p.
48.]
[241] [“I bless the Lord from my soul
for his abundant mercy in forcing me
out thence, in so fit a season.” Cotton’s
Answer, p. 49.]
[242] [Mr. Cotton was at one time
much inclined to Antinomianism,
which, in the hands of Mrs. Hutchinson,
led to no small disturbance in
New England. He however denied
that he wished to separate on the
ground of the legal teaching of the
churches with whom he held communion,
but thought of removing to
New Haven, “as being better known
to the pastor and some others there,
than to such as were at that time
jealous” of him in Boston. A timely
perception of Mrs. Hutchinson’s
errors led him to renounce her fellowship,
and he remained at Boston.
Neal’s Hist. of N. E., i. 183; Mather’s
Magnalia, iii. 21; Knowles’s
Life of R. Williams, p. 140.]
[243] [“I have been given to understand,
that the increase of concourse
of people to him on the Lord’s days
in private, to the neglect or deserting
of public ordinances, and to the
spreading of the leaven of his corrupt
imaginations, provoked the magistrates,
rather than to breed a winter’s
spiritual plague in the country, to put
him a winter’s journey out of the
country.” Notwithstanding, Mr.
Cotton asserts that Mr. Williams was
treated most tenderly by the officer,
James Boone, “who dare not allow
that liberty to his tongue, which the
examiner often useth in this discourse.”
Cotton’s Answer, p. 57.]
[244] [“This Confession may be found
in Crosby, but without the ‘story of
his life and death,’ which we have
never yet been able to find.” Hist.
of Eng. Baptists, ii. App. No. 1.]
[245] [“As for Mr. Smith he standeth
and falleth to his own master.
Whilst he was preacher to the city of
Lincoln, he wrought with God then:
what temptations befel him after, by
the evil workings of evil men, and
some good men too, I choose rather
to tremble at, than discourse of.” The
fault of this “man fearing God,”
appears to have been first his becoming
a baptist, and then his acceptance
of the opinions of certain Dutch
baptists, with whom he held communion
in Amsterdam. The early
baptists held generally opinions which
became known after the Synod of
Dort as Arminian. In addition to
these Mr. Smith held peculiar views
on the nature of spiritual worship,
which brought him into great disrepute
with his fellow exiles, the
Brownists and Independents. Cotton’s
Answer p. 58, Smith’s Differences of
the Ch. of the Separation, part i.
edit. 1608.]
[246] [See Smith’s Parallels and Censures,
p. 9, &c. edit. 1609.]
[247] [“It is not because I think such
persons are not fit matter for church-estate;
but because they yet want a
fit form, requisite to church estate.”
Cotton’s Answer, p. 63.]
[248] [“The answer to that question
and to all the other thirty-two questions,
were drawn up by Mr. Mader—however,
the substance of that
answer doth generally suit with all
our minds, as I conceive. I have
read it, and did readily approve it to
be judicious and solid. But his
answer ... is notoriously slandered
and abused by the examiner.” Cotton’s
Answer, p. 63. Lechford, in his
“Plain Dealing,” &c., however tells
us of a minister, who “standing upon
his ministry as of the church of England,
and arguing against their covenant,
and being elected at Weymouth,
was compelled to recant some words.”
One of his friends for being active in
his election was fined £10, and uttering
some cross words, £5 more, “and
payed it down.” P. 22.]
[249] [“It was his doctrines and practices
which tended to the civil disturbance
of the commonwealth, together
with his heady and busy pursuit
of the same, even to the rejection of
all churches here; these they were
that made him unfit for enjoying
communion in the one state or in the
other.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 64.]
[250] [“His distinction, in the general
I do approve it, and do willingly
acknowledge that a godly person may
be, through ignorance or negligence,
so far enthralled to anti-christ, as to
be separate from Christ, taking Christ
as head of the visible church.”
Cotton’s Answer, p. 66.]
[251] [“What if ecclesiastical stories
be deficient in telling us the times
and places of their church assemblies?
Is therefore the word of God deficient,
or the church deficient, because
human stories are deficient?... Yet
sometimes their own inquisitors confess,
that the churches of the Waldenses,
or men of that way, have
been extant a tempore apostolorum.”
Cotton’s Answer, p. 69.]
[252] [“My words are misreported:
and the contradiction ariseth from his
misreport. For God’s people and
godly persons are not all one. Any
church members may be called God’s
people, as being in external covenant
with him, and yet they are not always
godly persons. God’s people may be
so enthralled to anti-christ, as to separate
them utterly from Christ, both
as head of the visible and invisible
church; but godly persons cannot be
so enthralled.” Cotton’s Answer,
p. 71.]
[253] [“He requireth that we should
cut off ourselves from hearing the
ministry of the parishes in England,
as being the ministry of a national,
or parishional church, whereof both
the church estate is falsely constituted,
and all the ministry, worship,
and government thereof false also.
If he speak of the national church
government, we must confess the
truth, there indeed is truth fallen and
falsehood hath prevailed much.—All
of them are forsaken of Truth, and can
challenge no warrant of truth but
falsely.” Cotton’s Answer, pp. 77,
84.]
[254] [“If the examiner had been
pleased to have read Mr. Brightman
on Rev. xviii. 4, he might find I was
not the first that interpreted either
that place in Isaiah, or this in Revelation,
of a local separation.” Cotton’s
Answer, p. 87.]
[255] [“The two causes of God’s indignation
against England—I would
rather say Amen to them, than
weaken the weight of them. Only
I should so assent to the latter, as
not to move for a toleration of all
dissenters, dissenters in fundamentals.”
Cotton’s Answer, p. 89.]
[256] [“Our joining with the ministers
of England in hearing of the word
and prayer, doth not argue our
church-communion with the parish
churches in England, much less with
the national church.” Mr. Cotton
then proceeds to deny that Mr. Williams
was persecuted, or that he admonished
them humbly and faithfully.
His banishment was no persecution;
his statement of his opinions no admonition.
Cotton’s Answer, p. 101.]
[257] [“Who seeth not, that in these
words I express not mine own reasoning
or meaning, but his; and that I
expressly say, the true meaning of
the text will nothing more reach to
his purpose; and so bring in his
reason in form of an enthymeme,
which he draws from it?” Cotton’s
Answer, p. 105.]
[258] [“Sure I am, we look at infants
as members of our church, as being
federally holy, but I am slow to believe
that all of them are regenerate,
or truly godly.” Cotton’s Answer,
p. 108.]
[259] [“These are palpable mistakes
of those words of mine, which I expressed
as the sum of his words,
which he through haste conceived to
be mine.” Ib. p. 108.]
[260] [“We wholly avoid national,
provincial, and diocesan government
of the churches by episcopal authority;
we avoid their prescript liturgies,
and communion with open scandalous
persons in any church order; ... it
is a continual sorrow of heart, and
mourning of our souls that there is
yet so much of those notorious evils
which he nameth ... suffered to
thrust themselves into the fellowship
of the churches, and to sit down with
the saints at the Lord’s table. But
yet I count all these but remnants of
pollution, when as the substance of
the true estate of churches abideth in
their congregational assemblies.”
Cotton’s Answer, p. 108.]
[261] [“Mr. Williams probably refers
to the refusal by the General Court
to listen to a petition from Salem relative
to a piece of land which was
claimed as belonging to that town.
But according to Winthrop, ‘because
they had chosen Mr. Williams their
teacher, while he stood under question
of authority, and so offered contempt
to the magistrates, their petition was
refused,” &c. Knowles, p. 70.]
[262] [“His banishment proceeded not
against him or his for his own refusal
of any worship, but for seditious
opposition against the patent, and
against the oath of fidelity offered to
the people; ... he 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 lawful
motion of theirs.” Cotton’s Answer,
p. 113.]
[263] [“It seemeth he never read the
story of the classes in Northamptonshire,
Suffolk, Essex, London, Cambridge,
discovered by a false brother to
Doctor Bancroft.” Cotton’s Answer,
p. 116, Neal’s Puritans, i. 226, 319.]
[264] [Udall had been a tutor to Queen
Elizabeth in the learned languages,
yet for writing a little book against
Diocesan Church Government and
Ceremonies he was condemned to die,
and would have been executed but
for the queen’s feelings of respect to
her aged tutor. A copy of this exceedingly
rare book is in Mr. Offor’s
library.]
[265] [“He died by the annoyance of
the prison: when the coroner’s jury
came to survey the dead body of Mr.
Udall in prison, he bled freshly,
though cold before, as a testimony
against the murderous illegal proceedings
of the state against him.” Cotton’s
Answer, p. 116, Neal, i. 339.]
[266] [Mr. Cotton says, that Penry
confessed that he deserved death for
having seduced many to separation
from hearing the word in the parish
churches, so that their souls were
justly required at his hand. Ibid. p.
117. This can scarcely be correct
if we judge from the general tenor
of Penry’s character. See Hanbury’s
Hist. Memorials, i. 79, note e.]
[267] [See Broadmead Records, Intro.
p. xxxviii. Hanbury, i. 35, 62. Mr.
Cotton endeavours to throw no little
obloquy and discredit on these two
witnesses to the truth; but most
unjustly. Answer p. 117.]
[268] [In “A Necessitie of Separation
from the Church of England proved
by Nonconformist Principles, &c.”
By John Canne, pastor of the Ancient
English Church at Amsterdam, 1634,
4to. pp. 264.]
[269] [“Mr. Ainsworth’s name is of
best esteem, without all exception, in
that way who refused communion
with hearing in England. And if his
people suffered him to live on ninepence
a week, with roots boiled,
surely either the people were grown to
a very extreme low estate, or else the
growth of their godliness was grown
to a very low ebb.” Cotton’s Answer,
p. 122. The remarks of Mr. Hanbury,
with the quotation he produces
from the preface, by a friend of
Ainsworth, to his Annotations on
Solomon’s Song, do not appear in
the least to invalidate the statement
of Williams. In the earlier part
of his exile, in common with Johnson
and the other separatists, he was
exposed to great straits and difficulties,
and it may be to that period that
Mr. Williams refers. See Hanbury,
i. 433.]
[270] [“This I speak with respect to
Mr. Robinson and to his church, who
grew to acknowledge, and in a judicious
and godly discourse to approve and
defend, the lawful liberty of hearing
the word from the godly preachers of
the parishes in England.” Cotton’s
Answer, p. 123.]
[271] [Mr. Robinson’s book was
published nine years after his death.
It was entitled, “Of the Lawfulness
of Hearing of the Ministers in the
Church of England: penned by that
Learned and Reverend Divine, Mr.
John Robinson, late pastor to the
English Church of God in Leyden,
and Printed Anno 1634.” Mr.
Canne’s work in reply was entitled
“A Stay against Straying,” 4to. 1639.]
[272] [“If this be all the conclusion
he striveth for, I shall never contend
with him about it. But this is that
I deny, a man to participate in a
church-estate, where he partaketh
only in hearing and prayer, before
and after sermon; and joineth not
with them, neither in their covenant,
nor in the seals of the covenant.”
Cotton’s Answer, p. 129.]
[273] [That is, as Mr. Cotton explains
it, because “being cast out by the
usurping power of the prelacy, and
dismissed, though against their wills,
by our congregations, we looked at
ourselves as private members, and
not officers to any church here, until
one or other church might call us
unto office.” Any other sense is either
a mistake, or a “fraudulent expression
of our minds.” Answer p. 131.]
[274] [“We are not so masterly and
peremptory in our apprehensions; and
yet the more plainly and exactly
all church-actions are carried on
according to the letter of the rule,
the more glory shall we give unto
the Lord Jesus, and procure the
more peace to our consciences and
to our churches, and reserve more
purity and power to all our administrations.”
Cotton’s Answer, p. 132.]
[276] [“The world is taken in scripture
more ways than one, and so is separation;
as when the apostle exhorteth
the Romans, not to conform their
church-bodies according to the platform
of the Roman monarchy, into
œcumenical, national, provincial, diocesan
bodies, Rom. xii. 2. From the
world, as taken for civil government
of it, we are to separate our church-bodies,
and the government thereof in
frame and constitution.” Cotton’s
Answer, pp. 135, 136.]
[277] [“Our not receiving all comers
unto the communion of the Lord’s
table, and other parts of church fellowship,
saving only unto the public
hearing of the word and presence at
other duties, it argueth indeed that
such persons either think themselves
unfit materials for church fellowship,
or else that we conceive them to be
as stones standing in need of a little
more hewing and squaring before they
be laid as living stones in the walls of
the Lord’s house.” Cotton’s Answer,
p. 139.]
[278] [“Our practice in suppressing
such as have attempted to set up a
parishional way, I never heard of
such a thing here to this day. And
if any such thing were done before
my coming into the country, I do not
think it was done by forcible compulsion,
but by rational conviction.”
Cotton’s Answer, p. 139. It is difficult
to reconcile this disclaimer with
facts, unless we attribute ignorance to
Mr. Cotton. See before, p. 233,
note 8.]
[279] [Mr. Cotton calls this an untruth,
yet he adds, “I hold that the receiving
all the inhabitants in the parish
into the full fellowship of the church,
and the admitting of them all unto
the liberty of all the ordinances, is an
human corruption, and so if he will,
an human invention.” Answer, p.
140.]
[280] [“The answer is near at hand....
Those mine enemies which would not
that I should reign over them, bring
them hither, and slay them before my
face, Luke xix. 27. And yet I would
not be so understood as if Christ did
allow his vicegerents to practise all
that himself would practise in his own
person. For not all the practices or
acts of Christ, but the laws of Christ,
are the rules of man’s administrations.”
Cotton’s Answer, p. 144.]
FINIS.
J. HADDON, PRINTER, CASTLE STREET, FINSBURY.
ERRATA. — THE SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HANSERD KNOLLYS SOCIETY, FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE WORKS OF EARLY ENGLISH AND OTHER BAPTIST WRITERS. — SECOND GENERAL MEETING. APRIL 28th, 1848. — REPORT. — FINANCIAL ACCOUNT. — HANSERD KNOLLYS SOCIETY. ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS FROM 1st APRIL, 1847, to 31st MARCH, 1848.
for “He that believeth shall not be damned,” read
“He that believeth not shall be damned.”
1847-8.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY JOHN HADDON, CASTLE STREET, FINSBURY.
1848.
Mr. Charles Jones in the Chair. Prayer by Mr. Rothery.
E. B. Underhill, Esq., read the Annual Report, and George
Offor, Esq., presented the Cash Accounts and Financial Statement.
It was moved by Dr. Cox, seconded by Rev. W. Jones, of
Stepney, and resolved unanimously:—
“That the gratifying Report now read be approved, printed,
and circulated among the Subscribers under the direction of the
Council.”
It was moved by George Offor, Esq., seconded by Rev. R.
Morris, of Manchester, and resolved unanimously:—
“That the Gentlemen whose names follow be the Officers and
Council for the year ensuing.”
Treasurer.
CHARLES JONES, Esq.
Honorary Secretaries.
E. B. UNDERHILL, Esq.
Rev. W. JONES.
Council.
Rev. J. Acworth.
Rev. J. Angus, M.A.
Rev. C. M. Birrell.
Rev. Caleb Evans Birt, M.A.
Rev. W. H. Black.
Rev. W. Brock.
Rev. Thomas Burditt.
Rev. Jabez Burns, D.D.
Rev. F. A. Cox, D.D. LL.D.
Rev. T. S. Crisp.
Rev. B. Davies, Ph. D.
Rev. B. Evans.
Rev. B. Godwin, D.D.
Rev. F. W. Gotch, M.A.
Rev. W. Groser.
Rev. J. H. Hinton, M.A.
Rev. J. Hoby, D.D.
Charles T. Jones, Esq.
G. F. Kemp, Esq.
George Lowe, Esq., F.R.S.
Rev. W. H. Murch, D.D.
Rev. J. P. Mursell.
Rev. Thomas Fox Newman.
George Offor, Esq.
Rev. G. H. Orchard.
Rev. T. Pottenger.
Rev. J. J. Owen.
Rev. Thomas Price, D.D.
James Read, Esq.
Rev. Robert Roff.
Rev. Joshua Russell.
Rev. J. Sprigg, M.A.
Rev. E. Steane, D.D.
Rev. C. Stovel.
Rev. Thomas Thomas.
Rev. F. Trestrail.
The Meeting was closed with prayer by Rev. Mr. Smith, of
Park Street.
It is not in the power of a literary Society such as
this to lay before the Subscribers matters of exciting
interest. It is enough if its object be accomplished
satisfactorily to the Subscribers, and the condition of
their funds allow the progressive fulfilment of the
purposes of its formation.
At the last Annual Meeting the number of Subscribers
to the first year’s publications registered, was
1044; that has been increased during the year to 1259.
The number up to the present moment for the volumes
for 1847, is 1007; but there remains a very considerable
amount of subscriptions unpaid. The list will of course
be variable, and deficiencies must continually occur from
the various incidents of life.
For the year 1847, the reprint of Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s
Progress from the original editions, has been placed in
the hands of the Subscribers. This very unique volume
has met with the entire approbation of the Society, and
supplies a desideratum in the literary world at large—a
critical and authentic edition of the great Dreamer’s
immortal work. The labour involved in this undertaking,
the useful and interesting introduction accompanying it,
and the passage of the work through the press, have been
gratuitously afforded to the Society by its very able
editor, George Offor, Esq. It was the wish of the Council
to complete the year’s issue with a reprint of Henry
Danver’s Treatise of Baptism. The very great labour,
however, involved in its preparation for the press, has
not permitted the editor, the Rev. W. H. Black, to have
it in a sufficient state of forwardness for immediate publication.
The Council have therefore substituted for it,
“The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution Discussed,” by Roger
Williams, the first sheets of which are in the press, and
they hope to place it in the hands of the Subscribers by
the end of July. The controversy which forms the
subject of this most valuable work, is of no less interest
at the present time than when the author of it became
an outcast, an exile, and a wanderer in the wilds of
America to escape from the persecuting spirit of the
Pilgrim Fathers. Mr. Williams was the honoured founder
of Rhode Island State, the first of the United States in
which entire and perfect liberty of conscience was permitted
and enjoyed. The work now preparing is of
extreme rarity, three copies only being known to exist in
this country, and two in America. It is being reprinted
from the copy in the Bodleian library at Oxford.
The Council have in preparation for the year 1848,
the first volume of the Dutch Martyrology, and a volume
of John Canne’s works. The Book of Martyrs has been
undertaken at the earnest request of many of the Subscribers,
and is in course of translation by a gentleman
who has for some years resided in Holland. He has
already made considerable progress in the work, so that
the Council confidently anticipate the pleasure of laying
open to the English public during the present year this
treasury of examples of Christian patience and endurance
under persecution. The portion of the work in hand
will probably form three volumes.
The name of Mr. Canne is mostly known by his
biblical labours; but he was also remarkable for his clear
insight into the nature of the constitution of Christ’s
church, which he developed in a series of works both
noble in sentiment, and powerful in argumentation. The
first volume of his works will appear under the editorial
supervision of the Rev. Charles Stovel.
Other works are also in hand, and being matured for
publication in future years. Such are the writings of
William Dell, Christopher Blackwood, William Kiffin,
Benjamin Keach, and others, with various collections of
documents relating to the history and faith of the early
English Baptists.
Resolutions commendatory of the Society, were passed
in the early part of the year at the Western and
Gloucestershire Associations of Baptist Churches, and
also by the General Assembly of General Baptist
Churches.
The Council has had to regret the loss sustained by
the departure from this country of the Rev. Dr. Davies,
whose advice and judgment were of the most valuable
kind. His successor at Stepney College, the Rev. W.
Jones, M.A., has favoured the Society by undertaking the
office thus vacated.
A resolution has been passed to grant the same
privileges to the Sunday School Library of any congregation,
which has hitherto been confined to the minister.
A second list of ten subscribers will entitle the library
to a free copy, the first ten being regarded as entitling
the minister.
The Council have it in purpose to extend the usefulness
of the Society by additional lectures, so soon as
arrangements can be made. They feel assured of the
co-operation of their brethren in this matter.
Although so far great encouragement and success have
attended their labours, it is of importance that the Subscribers
should not only maintain their subscriptions, but
by personal recommendation endeavour to supply the
places of those who fail by death, removals, or other
causes. The efficiency of the Society depends on its
numbers, and the larger its subscription list the more
will it accomplish in the reproduction of these best
memorials of the men who have preceded us in the strife
for the establishment of a kingdom which is not of this
world, and which when established shall never pass
away.
In respect to the Subscriptions for the First and Second years, received
in the year ended 31st March, 1848.
£
s.
d.
Further Subscriptions for First Year
124
8
6
Subscriptions for Second Year
383
15
6
508
4
0
ASSETS.
Value of Stock in hand at Cost Price, Volumes I. II. and III.
195
1
8
Unpaid Subscriptions, 3.
1
11
6
£704
17
2
£
s.
d.
Disbursements as per Cash Account
414
13
4
LIABILITIES.
Use of Fire and Light at Mission House
3
3
0
Printing Report, &c.
7
0
0
Warehouse Report, Agency on Stock Remaining, and Contingencies
25
0
0
Probable Cost of the Fourth Volume now in hand
230
0
0
265
3
0
Balance in favour of Receipts and Assets
25
0
10
£704
17
2
E. E.
Charles Jones, April 24, 1848.
Examined and Approved, April 28, 1848
George Offor, Joseph H. Allen.
£
s.
d.
RECEIPTS.
On Account of the First Year’s Subscriptions, 1845-6
124
8
6
Ditto Second Ditto 1847
383
15
6
Ditto Third Ditto 1848
24
3
0
Drawback on Exportation, repayable to Agent
1
6
0
Balance of Account from Mr. Girdwood, agent in Canada
0
6
0
£533
19
0
PAYMENTS.
Balance against the Society on 31st March, 1847
10
2
3
Printing Reports, Prospectus, Circulars, &c.
24
9
6
Hire of Room for last Annual Meeting
3
3
0
Stationery and Books
4
3
11
Postage, Carriage, and Porterage
8
12
2
Travelling Expenses of Honorary Secretary
19
2
2
Advertising
9
9
6
Balance of Cost of the Second Volume
31
3
0
Cost of the Third Volume, Bunyan’s Pilgrim
269
15
3
Insurance of Stock
1
9
0
Agency at 10 per cent
8
7
7
Pay of the Secretary, Mr. George Offor, jun., from 18th
March, 1847 to 17th March, 1848
21
0
0
Reimbursed to the Baptist Mission the Expense of Tea provided
for the Council at their Monthly Meetings
