the merits of the Cause he had often affirmed in his Answers That the Command of a most lawful Act was sinful if that Act commanded might prove to any one a sin per accidens This Assertion I did then and there presently and openly lay to his charge and when he denied it as it was most frequent with him immediately to deny what he had before affirmed the answers which he had delivered written with his own hand were produced and upon the reading of them the Justice of my charge was most apparent whereupon I urged him farther that this Assertion of his was not only false but destructive of all Authority Humane and Divine as not only denying all power to the Church of making Canons Ecclesiastical for the better ordering and governing of the Church but also taking away all Legislative Power from the King and Parliament and even from God himself I delivered at the same time my reason for what I said which was briefly this because there can be no Act so good of it self but may prove per Accidens or by Accident a sin And therefore if to Command an Act which may prove per accidens a sin be a sin then every Command must be a sin And if to command be a sin then certainly God can command nothing because God cannot sin and by the same reason Kings Parliaments and Churches ought not to command any thing because they ought not to sin Thus far I then charged Mr. Baxter and to this Charge he gave then no satisfaction Neither can I yet conceive it possible to give any satisfaction but by one of these two wayes either by proving that the Assertion with which I charged him was never his or by shewing that the consequence I urged is not good neither of which was he then able to do and by what he hath now been pleased to publish it is more then probable that he can never perform either of them For in his bold but weak Apology he doth not so much as pretend to shew any Invalidity in my Inference and for the Assertion with which I charged him he denies it so poorly and goes about to prove another instead of it so manifestly that he may without any injury be interpreted to yield it He saith indeed now That he told us that his Assertion made not every Evil Accident to be such as made an Imposition unlawfull But whether he ever said so before this time or no it was then clearly proved that he did assert That an Act for nothing else but because it might be per accidens a sin could not be commanded without sin And now in his publick appeal he hath taken a strange way to wipe off all this for he makes a very brief Narration and most notoriously imperfect and then sayes You know my Crime as if that were all that had been or could be objected against him Besides in the relating of this short Narrative he relies wholly upon his own memory not so much as endeavouring to satisfie himself before he presumed to satisfie others How his memory may be in other things I know not in this if it hath been faithfull to him he hath been very unfaithful to others He relates an Answer in what terms he pleaseth and brings one Proposition as made by his Opponents in what terms he thinks fit and the Application of this answer to that Proposition he propoundeth as all his Crime whereas his answer was far more largely given and that to several Propositions in several Syllogisms of which the Proposition which he relateth was but one or rather none so that he hath most shamefully abused his Disciples at Kidderminster with a short and partial Narrative of his fact As for his Concurring with Learned Reverend Brethren which he would pretend to be part of his Crime and his invidious insinuation That they are not forbidden to Preach for it though he be the reason is clear He had often delivered this Assertion before the company his Brethren had not the words of the Answer were written with his hand not with his Brethrens His Brethren had several times declared themselves not to be of his Opinion as particularly when he affirmed That a man might live without any actual sin And therefore we were so just as not to charge them with this Assertion especially considering they did shew themselves unwilling to enter upon this dispute and seemed to like much better another way tending to an amicable and fair compliance which was wholly frustrated by Mr. Baxters furious eagerness to engage in a Disputation All his discourse which followeth after his imperfect Narrative in justification of himself is grounded first upon a misreporting of his own Assertion Secondly upon the dissembling of the several Propositions to which his answer was so often applied Thirdly upon his pretending That he sayes more now than that which had offended formerly which is most palpably false and in all probability if he have any memory against his own Conscience And this will presently appear by the vanity and impertinency of all those specious instances which he brings to mollifie his Assertion To Command a Navy to Sea he sayes is lawfull but if it were foreseen that they would fall into the Enemies hand or were like to perish by any accident it were a sin to send them Is this more then he said before or is it any defence of his Assertion at all It is not certainly because the Opponents had put it expresly in the Proposition That the Act in it self lawful was to be supposed to have nothing consequent which the Commander of it ought to provide against and yet being so stated Mr. Baxter affirmed That if the Act might be per accidens sinful the Commanding of it was sin Now certainly the falling of a Navy into the Enemies hand or the perishing of it any other way if foreseen ought to be provided against by the Commander whereas Mr. Baxters answer did import That if any Prince did Command a Fleet to Sea though he did not foresee the Fleet would fall into the Enemies hand or perish any other way yet if by Accident it miscarried that or any other way which he could not foresee or were not bound to provide against the very Command at first was sin The same reason nullifies his instances of the poyson and the knife because the sin in selling them supposeth the murder of the buyer to be foreseen and consequently that the seller ought to prevent it but if he will speak in correspondence to his former Answer he must shew that though the seller do not foresee that the buyer will use the poyson or the knife to his own or any other mans destruction yet if by any Accident or mistake either the buyer or any other perish by the poyson or the knife the Seller is guilty of his death His instance of setting a City on fire or putting Gunpowder under the Parliament House when the King
more reason to do so then St. Augustine had And this Sir is all I have to say upon this occasion and more a great deal then I thought to have said or then perhaps was needful to be said to one that knows Mr. Baxter and me as well as you do which if it satisfie you as I hope it will you may do what you please with it in order to the satisfying of others for this is the first and last trouble I mean to put my self to of this kinde whatsoever provocation I may have from him hereafter Your very affectionate Friend and Servant G. Worcester The Attestation of Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pearson Concerning a Command of Lawful Superiours what was sufficient to its being a lawful Command THis Proposition being brought by us viz. That Command which commands an Act in it self lawful and no other act or circumstance unlawful is not sinful Mr. Baxter denied it for two reasons which he gave in with his own hand in writing thus One is Because that may be a sin per accidens which is not so in it self and may be unlawfully commanded though that accident be not in the command Another is That it may be commanded under an unjust penalty Again this Proposition being brought by us That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawful and no other Act whereby any unjust penalty is injoyned nor any circumstance whence per accidens any sin is consequent which the Commander ought to provide against is not sinful Mr. Baxter denied it for this reason given in with his own hand in writing thus Because the first Act commanded may be per accidens unlawful and be commanded by an unjust penalty though no other Act or circumstance commanded be such Again this Proposition being brought by us That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawful and no other Act whereby any unjust penalty is injoyned nor any circumstance whence directly or per accidens any sin is consequent which the Commander ought to provide against hath in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of a Command and particularly cannot be guilty of commanding an Act per accidens unlawful nor of commanding an Act under an unjust penalty Mr. Baxter denied it upon the same Reasons Peter Gunning John Pearson The Postscript LEast Mr. Baxter should say I have defamed him once more by charging him with devising and publishing Maxims of Treason Sedition and Rebellion which till he should as publickly recant I thought it unfit to restore him to the exercise of any Act of the Ministry in my Diocess I think my self obliged to set down some few of his Political Theses or Aphorisms in his own words as they are extant though it be strange such a Book should still be extant in his Holy Common-wealth most falsly and profanely so called Mr. Baxter's Theses of Government and Governours in General I. GOvernours are some limited some de facto unlimited The unlimited are Tyrants and have no right to that unlimited Government P. 106. Thes. 101. II. The 3. qualifications of necessity to the being of Soveraign Power are 1. So much understanding 2. So much will or goodness in himself 3. So much strength or executive power by his interest in the People or others as are necessary to the said ends of Government P. 130. Thes. 133. III. From whence he deduceth 3. Corollaries viz. 1. When Providence depriveth a man of his understanding and intellectual Capacity and that statedly or to his ordinary temper it maketh him materiam indispositam and uncapable of Government though not of the name Thes. 135. 2. If God permit Princes to turn so wicked as to be uncapable of governing so as is consistent with the ends of Government he permits them to depose themselves Thes. 136. 3. If Providence statedly disable him that was the Soveraign from the executing of the Law protecting the just and other ends of Government it makes him an uncapable subject of the power and so deposeth him Thes. 137. IV. Whereunto he subjoyns that though it is possible and likely that the guilt is or may be theirs who have disabled their Ruler by deserting him yet he is dismissed and disobliged from the charge of Government and particular innocent members are disobliged from being Governed by him V. If the person viz. the Soveraign be justly dispossest as by a lawful War in which he loseth his right especially if he violate the Constitution and enter into a Military state against the People themselves and by them be conquered they are not obliged to restore him unless there be some special obligation upon them besides their Allegiance Thes. 145. VI. If the person dispossess'd though it were unjustly do afterwards become uncapable of Government it is not the Duty of his Subjects to seek his restitution Thes. 146. No not although saith he the incapacity be but accidental as if he cannot be restored but by the Armes of the Enemies of God or of the Commonwealth VII If an Army of Neighbours Inhabitants or whoever do though injuriously expel the Soveraign and resolve to ruine the Commonwealth rather then he shall be restored and if the Commonwealth may prosper without his restauration it is the Duty of such an injured Prince for the Common good to resign his Government and if he will not the people ought to judge him as made uncapable by Providence and not to seek his restitution to the apparent ruine of the Commonwealth Thes. 147. Where by the way we are to note he makes the people judge of this and all other incapacities of the Prince and consequently when or for what he is to be Depos'd or not Restored by them VIII If therefore the rightful Governour be so long dispossess'd that the Commonwealth can be no longer without but to the apparent hazard of its ruine we that is we the people or we the Rebels that dispossess'd him are to judge that Providence hath dispossess'd the former and presently to consent to another Thes. 149. IX When the People are without a Governour it may be the duty or such as have most strength ex charitate to protect the rest from injury Thes. 150. and consequently they are to submit themselves to the Parliament or to that Army which deposed or dispossess'd or murdered the rightful Governour X. Providence by Conquest or other means doth use so to qualifie some persons above others for the Government when the place is void that no other persons shall be capable competitors and the persons doth not he mean the Cromwells shall be as good as named by Providence whom the people are bound by God to choose or consent to so that they are usually brought under a divine obligation to submit to such or such and take them for their Governours before those persons have an actual right to Govern Thes. 151. XI Any thing that is a sufficient sign of the will of God that this is the person by whom we must be Governed is
otherwise in point of gesture then perhaps it was received at the first institution so Christ and his Apostles conforming themselves to the order and practise of the Church of their times did celebrate the Passeover otherwise then according to the first Institution it was to be celebrated in point of gesture also thereby perhaps intending to teach us that as long as the Essentials of Doctrine and worship which are unalterable are preserved we are not to separate from the Church or quarrel with our Superiours if those things that are in their own nature alterable be not alwayes and in all places just the same that they were at first because there may be very just cause for the alteration of them and whether there be such a cause or no in this and the like particulars it is the Church that is to be the Judge So that there is nothing that can be collected either from the Canons of the Councels or from the practise of the Primitive Church no nor from Christs own example that can prove kneeling at the Sacrament to be a sin neither doth Mr. Baxter himself believe it to be sinful for if he did he would not say as he does Pag. 411. of his five Disputations that he himself would kneel rather then disturb the peace of the Church or be deprived of its Communion In which words he confesseth First that Kneeling at the Sacrament is not sinful or unlawful Secondly that not to Kneel when it is imposed is to disturb the Peace of the Church and Thirdly that the imposing of it upon penalty of being deprived of the Communin is an effectual means to make those that otherwise would not kneel to conform to it and consequently that the imposing of it upon such a penalty is prudent and rational and whatsoever is prudent and rational cannot be unlawful so that not onely the Act of Kneeling it self but the imposition of it by lawful Authority must needs be lawful Neither indeed would the People scruple at the imposition if they had not been taught that the thing it self were unlawful or if Mr Baxter would yet teach them to believe what he himself believes namely that it is lawful which with what conscience he can refuse to do I know not for sure he is obliged to teach them obedienâ—e not to Divine Authority only but to humane authority also in all lawful things and not to let them go on in such an erroneous opinion as will disturb the Peace and deprive them of the Communion of the Church and consequently make them sin against God and man and their own Souls Of which sin of theirs he must needs be a partaker in a great measure if he do not perswade them from it seeing as he himself saith Qui non vetat peccare cum potest jubet And what Power he hath to lead or mislead those kind of men their venturing to kill and be killed in a most unrighteous quarrel upon his perswasion hath more then enough demonstrated during the time of the late troubles unlesse he will say that he hath conjured up a Spirit that he cannot lay Howsoever by how much the more fault he hath been in misleading them heretofore by so much the more zealous he should be to reduce them into the right way hereafter which if he and the rest of his Brethren can do as I am confident they can if they will they will make some amends for the mischief they have done and then there will be no fear or danger of Ministers being Ejected for their tenderness towards the People nor of the Ejecting of any of the People from the Communio of the Church for not conforming themselves to the Orders and Commands of it and consequently there will be no Schisms or Divisions amongst us when we shall all worship the same God the same way But if they will not do this which by all obligations humane and Divine they are bound to do for my part I know no better way for undeceiving and reducing of the People then by removing such Ministers and then we shall see when the blowing of those boisterous winds ceaseth whether the waves will not be still or no In the mean time I hope the removing of erroneous and seditious will not necessitate the introducing of ignorant and scaâ—dalous Ministers though Mr. Baxter ought to remember that as there is no sin more heinous then Rebellion so no teacher ought to be more scandalous I am sure there is none more dangerous then a teacher of Rebellion And now to use Mr. Baxters own words I think there is no man to be found on earth that hath the ordinary reason of a Man but will confess That it is indeed destructive of all Government and Legislative power to Assert as Mr. Baxter did Assert the command of a thing in it self lawful by lawful Authority under no unjust punishment with no evil circumstance which the Commander can foresee or ought to provide against for all these pre-cautions were expesly put in the proposition which Mr. Baxter denied is a sinful Command for no other reason but because the Act Commanded may be by Accident a sin Let Mr. Baxter then know and if he have ingenuity enough confess that the words I spoke as to this particular were words of truth and words of charity also as being intended and spoken to no other end but to undeceive that People who by having his person too much in admiration as if he could neither deceive nor be deceived had been so long and so dangerously mislâ—ad by him so that it was not I that defamed him then but it is he that hath defamed me now Neither could I expect less from the boldness of this man and that Party who have had the confidence publickly to own the obligation of the Covenant even since it hath been condemned to be burnt by the Parliament And truely I see no reason why all those Books and Sermons which have been Preach'd and Printed in defence of the Covenant or to maintain the same or worse principles of Sedition then are in the Covenant should not be burnt also Nay I dare be bold to say that if the Authors of such Books and Sermons were not still of the same opinions and if they be God deliver us from such Preachers if they were not still I say of the same opinions but did truely repent of them and were heartly sorry for the horrible mischief they have done by them they would with those converted Exorcists Act. 19.19 bring all those Conjuring Books of theirs together and to save the Hang-man a labour would publickly burn them all with their own hands that so though by the burning of their works they may perhaps suffer some loss in point of reputation with some of their Disciples yet they themselves may be saved but so as by fire 1 Cor. 3.15 At least they ought to be enjoyned to write Books of Retractation as St. Augustine did having much
THE Bishop of Worcester's LETTER To a Friend For VINDICATION of Himself FROM Mr. BAXTER'S Calumny Tenet insanabile multos Scribendi Cacoethes London Printed by R. Norton for Timothy Garthwait at the Little North-door of St. Pauls Church 1662. Mr. Baxter hath lately printed a Book called The Mischiefs of Self-Ignorance and the Benefits of Self-Acquaintance in the Address of which Book to his dearly beloved the Inhabitants of Kidderminster he hath this ensuing passage relating to the Bishop of Worcester IN a disputation by writing those of the other part formed an Argument whose Major Proposition was to this sense for I have no Copy Whatsoever Book enjoyneth nothing but what is of it self lawful and by lawful authority enjoyneth nothing that is sinful We denied this Proposition and at last gave divers Reasons of our denial amongst which one was that It may be unlawful by Accident and therefore sinful You now know my Crime it is my concurring with Learned Reverend Brethren to give this reason of our denial of a Proposition yet they are not forbidden to Preach for it and I hope shall not be but only I. You have publickly heard from a mouth that should speak nothing but the words of Charity Truth and Soberness especially there that this was a desperate shift that men at the last are forced to and inferring that then neither God nor man can enjoyn without sin In City and Countrey this soundeth forth to my reproach I should take it for an Act of Clemency to have been smitten professedly for nothing and that it might not have been thought necessary to afflict me by a defamation that so I might seem justly afflicted by a prohibition to Preach the Gospel But indeed is there in these words of ours so great a Crime though we doubted not but they knew that our Assertion made not Every Evil Accident to be such as made an Imposition unlawful yet we expressed this by word to them at that time for fear of being misreported and I told it to the Right Reverend Bishop when he forbad me to Preach and gave this as a reason And I must confess I am still guilty of so much weakness as to be confident that Some things not Evil of themselves may have Accidents so Evil as may make it a sin to him that shall Command them Is this opinion inconsistent with all Government yea I must confess my self guilty of so much greater weakness as that I thought I should never have found a man on Earth that had the ordinary reason of a Man that had made question of it yea I shall say more then that which hath offended viz. That whensoever the commanding or forbidding of a thing indifferent is like to occasion more hurt than good and this may be foreseen the commanding or forbidding it is a sin But yet this is not the Assertion that I am chargeable with but that Some Accidents there may be that may make the Imposition sinful If I may ask it without accusing of others how would my Crime have been denominated if I had said the contrary should I not have been judged unmeet to live in any governed Society It is not unlawful of it self to Command out a Navy to Sea but if it were foreseen that they would fall into the Enemies hands or were like to perish by any Accident and the necessity of sending them were small or none it were a sin to send them It is not unlawful of it self to sell poyson or give a knife to another or to bid another to do it but if it were foreseen that they will be used to poyson or kill the buyer it is unlawful and I think the Law would make him believe it that were guilty It is not of it self unlawful to light a candle or set fire on a straw but if it may be foreknown that by anothers negligence or wilfulness it is like to set fire on the City or give fire to a train or store of Gun-powder that is under the Parliament House when the King and Parliament are there I crave the Bishops pardon for believing that it were sinful to do it or command it yea or not to hinder it in any such case when Qui non vetat peccare cum potest jubet yea though going to Gods publick worship be of it self so far from being a sin that it is a Duty yet I think it is a sin to command it to all in time of a raging Pestilence or when they should be defending the City against the assault of an Enemy it may rather then be a duty to proâ—ibit it I think Paul spake not any thing inconsistent with the Government of God or Man when he bid both the Ruleâ—s and the People of the Church not to destroy him with their meaâ— for whom Christ dyed and when he saith he hath not his power to destruction but to edification yea there are evil Accidents of a thing not evil of it self that are caused by the Commander and it is my opinion that they may prove his command unlawful But what need I use any other Instances then that which was the matter of our dispute Suppose it never so lawful of it self to kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament if it be imposed by a penalty that is incomparably beyond the proportion of the offence that penalty is an Accident of the Command and maketh it by Accident sinful in the Commander If a Prince should have Subjects so weak as that all of them thought it a sin against the example of Christ and the Canons of the General Councels and many hundred years practice of the Church to kneel in the Act of Receiving on the Lords Day if he should make a Law that all should be put to death that would not kneel when he foreknew that their Consciences would command them all or most of them to dye rather then obey would any man deny his command to be unlawful by this Accident Whether the penalty of ejecting Ministers that dare not put away all that do not kneel and of casting out all the people that scruple it from the Church be too great for such a circumstance and so in the rest and whether this with the lamentable estate of many Congregations and the divisions that will follow being all foreseen do prove the impositions unlawful which were then in Question is a Case that I had then a clearer call to speak to then I have now only I may say That the Ejecting of the Servants of Christ from the Communion of his Church and of his faithful Ministers from their Sacred Work when too many Congregations have none but insufficient or scandalous Teachers or no Preaching Ministers at all will appear a matter of very great moment in the day of our accounts and such as should not be done upon any but a necessary cause where the benefit is greater then this hurt and all the rest amounts to Having given you to whom I owe it
and Parliament are there is of the same nature and needs no addition of answer but onely this that Mr. Baxter in a sense too true hath been very instrumental in setting the City on fire and in adding powder to the Parliament The rest which follows betrayes the same weakness because the inconveniences are urged upon a Duty to prohibit them and his answer did charge the Command with sin in respect of such Accidents as it was no part of the Commanders Duty to provide against It is therefore most certain that no one of those instances singly nor all of them joyntly have any force in any measure to justifie that Assertion which Mr. Baxter did maintain and whereof he is accused As for that last instance which was saith he the matter of the Dispute and which he urgeth in this manner Suppose it never so lawful of it self to Kneel in the reception of the Sacrament if it be imposed by a penalty that is incomparably beyond the proportion of the offence that penalty is an Accident of the Command and maketh it by Accident sinfull to the Commander he is manifestly guilty of a double falsification First in pretending the matter in dispute was the imposition of kneeling at the Communion when this very matter was expresly rejected in the very beginning of the dispute as belonging to the Canons not the Common-Prayer-Book the lawfulness of which Canons the Commissioners had no authority to debate and Mr. Baxter knows that his Argument was denied upon that ground The second falsification is yet greater in urging the penalty to make the Command sinful when his Answer did charge the Command with sin without any relation to the punishment and when the Proposition he replied to was so framed that all unjust penalties were in terminis expresly excluded even then I say he charged the Command of a lawful Act with sin if it were otherwise by Accident sinful though by the way I must not grant that the penalty imposed by the Law for not kneeling at the Receiving of the Sacrament namely the not admitting of such as will not kneel at the receiving of it is incomparably greater then the offence for the greatness of the offence in such cases and as it stands in relation to such or such a penalty appointed for it is not to be measured by the Quality of the Act considered in it self but by the more or less mischievous consequences it is likely to produce if men be not restrain'd from such an Act by such a penalty for example when a Souldier is hang'd for stealing of a Hen or for taking away any thing of never so little a value without paying for it no wise man will blame the General for such a severity because if he did not do so every one would take what he pleased which would discourage the Countrey from bringing in provisions and consequently the whole army would be ruinâ—d And as the Martial so the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws likewise in commanding or forbidding any thing under such or such a penalty have an eye not so much to the merit of the Action it self as to the more or less danger of the Publick in the consequences of it whence it comes to pass that a less evil may sometimes most justly be forbidden under a more severe penalty then a greater because the former may be of much more dangerous consequence then the latter so that he that will judge rightly and impartially of the equity or iniquity of appointing or inflicting such or such a penalty he must not so much consider the quality of the Transgression singly in it self nor whether it be from weakness or wilfulness in the party transgressing as he is this or that individual person but rather he must consider what the Consequence would be of the breach of such a command if it were not prevented by such a penalty alwayes supposing the Command it self to be lawful and that the transgressor of it is to be considered as he stands in relation to that whole Body whether Civil or Ecclesiastical whereof he is a part and that the whole is not to be endangered out of tenderness and indulgence to some particulars as evidently it would be if every man were left at liberty to do what seem'd best in his own eyes even in the Ceremonials and Circumstantials of Gods Worship for considering the pride and self-love that is in humane nature which makes men so overvalue their own practises and their own opinions that they are alwayes apt to undervalue those that will not conform to them as it alwayes hath been so it alwayes will be he that worshippeth God one way will either judge or condemn him that worshippeth God another way he that Kneeleth at the Sacrament will be thought to be Idolatrous or Superstitious by him that Kneeleth not and him that kneeleth not will be thought wilful or weak by him that kneeleth And thus from diversity grows dislike from dislike enmity from enmity opposition and from opposition first Separation and Schism in the Church and then Faction Sedition and Rebellion in the State which is a progress very natural and I would we had not found it to be so by our own experience for as the safety of a State depends upon the safety of the Church so the safety of the Church depends upon Unity and Unity it self depends upon Uniformity and Uniformity there cannot be as long as there is diversity or divers waies of worship in the same Church which will be alwaies unless it be lawful for publick Authority to oblige all particulars to one way of publick worship and that under such penalties as the Law-givers shall think necessary to prevent the disturbing of the publick Peace and safety the preservation whereof being the main end of all Laws and of all penalties appointed by Law those practises that are either intentionally or consequentially destructive to this End may be and no doubt ought to be restrain'd by severe penalties It is not therefore the not kneeling at the Sacrament but the breaking of the Orders of the Church and the endangering of the Peace and Safety of the whole which our Laws punish by not admitting such unto the Sacrament as will not or perhaps dare not kneel at it for as they will not endanger the Peace of their Consciences for the Churches sake so it becomes the Law-givers not to endanger the Churches and the States Peace for their sakes And surely when there is a necessity of the yielding of the one or of the other it is much more reasonable that a part should yield unto the whole then the whole unto a part especially when the whole cannot yield without endangering it self and with it self even those themselves also that will they nill they must be involved in the ruine of it as the Presbyterians have found by their own experience also who by their groundless and needless separation from us have given example and ground enough for