Proposition and at last gave divers Reasons of our denial amongst which one was that It may be unlawfull by Accident and therefore sinfull 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 onely 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 unlawfull 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 than 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 sinfull 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 unlawfull 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 unlawfull 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 unlawfull and I think the Law would make him believe it that were guilty It is not of it self unlawfull to light a Candle or set fire on a straw but if it may be foreknown that by another's negligence or wilfulness it is like to set fire on the City or give fire to a train or store of Gunpowder that is under the Parliament House when the King and Parliament are there I crave the Bishop's pardon for believing that it were sinfull to doe it or command it yea or not to hinder it in any such case when Quinon vetat peccare cum potest jubet yea though going to God's 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 prohibit it I think Paul spake not any thing inconsistent with the Government of God or man when he bid both the Rulers and the People of the Church not to destroy him with their meat for whom Christ died 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 unlawfull But what need I use any other instances than that which was the matter of our dispute Suppose it never so lawfull 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 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 Councils and many hundred years practice of the Church to kneel in the Act of Receiving on the Lord's 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 die rather than obey would any man deny his command to be unlawfull 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 unlawfull which were then in Question is a Case that I had then a clearer call to speak to than I have now onely I may say That the Ejecting of the Servants of Christ from the Communion of his Church and of his faithfull 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 than this hurt and all the rest amounts to Having given you to whom I owe it this account of the cause for which I am forbidden the exercise of my Ministry in that Countrey I now direct these Sermons to your hands that seeing I cannot teach you as I would I may teach you as I can And if I much longer enjoy such Liberty as this it will be much above my expectation The Bishop of Worcester 's Letter to a Friend for Vindication of himself from Mr. Baxter 's Calumny SIR I Have received that Letter of yours whereby you inform me that Mr. Baxter hath lately written and printed something with such a reflexion upon me that I am obliged to take notice of it I thank you for your care of my Reputation which next to Conscience ought to be the dearest of all things to all men especially to
of all men living Mr. Baxter should reproach us so frequently so loudly and so groundlesly as he does with what he knows himself and his party may most justly and undeniably be reproached with unless he thinks the calling of an honest Woman Whore first will make her that calls her so to be thought an honest Woman And indeed men are apt to believe that one would not for shame accuse another of what he knows himself to be more guilty but experience proves the contrary And I hope I have proved it too partly by confirming my Charge against Mr. Baxter and partly by confuting his Calumny against me But the truth is when Mr. Baxter is in his fit of raving against Bishops and the Episcopal party he cares not whether what he saith be true or false pertinent or impertinent so it be virulent and scandalous enough having amongst many other of their speculative and practical Maxims learned of the Popish Puritans the Jesuits calumniari audacter to charge boldly as hoping that aliquid hoerebit something will stick though it be never so improbable or incredible at least that those of their own Party will believe any thing of or against us which is perhaps all they care for of which practice that Mr. Baxter is often and very much guilty in his treating of me I have given some Instances already and shall give more hereafter CHAP. XIII The Charge of the forementioned Assertion renewed and made good against Mr. B. notwithstanding that late Treatise of his which he pretends was purposely written in answer to it IF it be objected that I have said nothing yet in answer to the Creatise which Mr. Baxter saith he writ on purpose to prove my Charge against him to be a gross mistake I confess I have not because in truth I do not see how I am concerned in it or how any thing I charge Mr. Baxter withall is disproved or so much as offered to be disproved by it Insomuch that as I said before if Mr. Baxter had set out that Treatise by it self and had not in the Preface to another of his Treatises told me himself it was purposely written against me I should not have taken any notice of it at all neither do I yet after the reading of it over and over again and again see any reason why I should put my self to the trouble of writing or any body else to the trouble of reading any thing in reply to it because if all and every one of his sixty three Metaphysical Propositions of which that Treatise of his doth consist were all of them so many Mathematical Demonstrations as perhaps he thinks they are yet my Charge of Mr. Baxter would still stand in full force against him being not so much as touched much less overthrown by any of those Propositions For what was that I charged Mr. Baxter withall was it not this That he at the Conference in the Savoy denyed the command of a thing lawfull in it self and commanded by lawfull authority to be a lawfull command if by accident it might be the cause or occasion of Sin Yes will Mr. Baxter say but then by accident I meant not every accident but such an accident as the Commander might and ought to prevent as for example the commanding it under an unjust penalty for that he will have to be an accident or the commanding of it though the Commander knows or foresees it will by accident be the cause or occasion of some such evil or mischief as he can and ought to provide against And in the one or the other of these two notions of an accident would Mr. Baxter have his Assertion of the unlawfulness of a Command of a lawfull thing by lawfull Authority if by accident it may be the occasion of Sin to be understood and I cannot blame him for Secundoe cogitationes sunt meliores Second thoughts are likely wiser and better than the first But that he did not then by such an accident as made a lawfull command unlawfull mean an accident in either of those notions is evident by his frequently and finally denying the command of a thing lawfull in it self to be lawfull if by accident it may be the cause of Sin though it be not injoyned under an unjust penalty and though the accidental evil or mischief it may be cause or occasion of be such as the Commander either cannot or ought not to provide against Now he that denies such a command as this to be lawfull or which is all one asserts such a command as this to be unlawfull because by accident it may be the cause of Sin cannot either Grammatically or Logically be understood to mean such an accident or accidental Sin as the Commander ought to provide against and consequently if he mean any thing he must needs mean such an accident or accidental evil as not the Commanding but the Commanded party is to answer for And therefore as I said then so I say now That to assert the lawfull command of a lawfull thing to be unlawfull upon such an account or because it may by such an accident as Mr. Baxter must needs be understood to mean be the cause or occasion of Sin is destructive of all Legislative power Divine as well as Humane And therefore Bishop Morley was not grosly mistaken either in charging Mr. Baxter with such an assertion or in charging such an assertion with such impious and pernicious consequences as he affirms and I confess I did But Mr. Baxter doth grosly abuse me and his Reader too by substituting a true Assertion instead of a false one for himself and a false one instead of a true one for the Bishop and his party As if that which he asserted was The unlawfulness of the command of a lawfull thing if either it were commanded under an unjust penalty or the Commander of it did foresee it would be the cause of some such great evil or sin as he was obliged to prevent and that which we had asserted was The lawfulness of a Command of a thing lawfull in it self though it were commanded under never so unjust a penalty or though the Commander of it foresaw it would be the cause of such an evil or mischief as he might and ought to prevent And as to make the latter of these two Assertions to be believed to be ours he brings in the aforesaid Suppositions and fraudulent instances of selling of poyson c. So to make the former to be believed to have been his Assertion then he asserts that and none but that now hoping his friendly or unwary Readers will believe it was the very same which he asserted then And this indeed he might have reason to hope for from his Friends at Kidderminster who he knew would believe whatsoever he told them to be as he said it was especially telling it them in print and before there was any thing in print to the contrary but
People that were then under an obligation of obedience to a lawfull Sovereign and consequently had no power to dispose of themselves or to become Subjects to another no more than he had a right to become their King untill he that promised him he should be so had made him so which he could and infallibly would have done in his own good time without any thing done on Jeroboam's part but the relying upon the promise of God onely which he distrusting or being too impatiently ambitious to stay for the performance of it took his own seditious and rebellious way for the hastening as he did afterwards for the keeping of himself to be a King For as he caused the ten Tribes to revolt from Rehoboam in order to the making himself their King so he caused them to revolt from God also by setting up other Gods and other Priests and other places of worship thereby making a formal Schism in the Church to prevent a possibility of re-union in the State So that as he sinned and made Israel to sin for the getting so he sinned and made Israel to sin much more for the holding and keeping of the Kingdom which he might have had and kept much longer than he did if he had stayed God's leisure for the having and done nothing to displease God for the holding of it Whereas if he would have done as David did he should have had the success that David had without sinning himself or making so many Thousands to sin with him and for him as hedid David was not onely told by the Propet Samuel that he should be King as Jeroboam was by the Prophet Ahijah but he was anointed too which Jeroboam was not And yet when it was twice in his power to have stept up into the Throne by destroying Saul whom the men of these times would have said as Abishai did that God had delivered into his hand to be destroyed by him he would not doe it nor suffer it to be done but said God forbid that I should lay my hand on the Lord's anointed as the Lord liveth the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to die or he shall descend into battel and perish howsoever the Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord's anointed This was David's resolution and this should have been Jeroboam's resolution also to have expected God's performance of his promise in his own time and in his own way and not have snatched the Crown out of God's hand and put it himself upon his own head before God had anointed his head for it Moreover it is observable that is was not that for which Ahijah the Prophet told Jeroboam God was so angry with Solomon that he would rend away ten Tribes of the twelve from his Son which was Idolatry it was not that I say which Jeroboam pretended to be the cause of his rising and rebelling and his stirring up the ten Tribes to rebell against Rehoboam but it was a more popular pretence and such a one as the generality of the People is usually most concerned in and concerned for namely the publick grievance by Taxes and Tributes which how necessary soever for their own defence and safety do always seem an insupportable burthen to the Subjects And therefore the ambitious Aspirers of all times have always made use of this Topick first to discontent the People with their present condition though it be never so tolerable nay never so good a one and then to promise them a relief of all their imaginary grievances if they will be ruled by them which the foolish People believing first call them their Patriots and afterwards if they can make them their Princes who commonly prove the greatest of Tyrants and then the People that raised them find and feel the fruits of their own folly and when it is too late to help it repent of it And yet such is the incorrigible madness as well as folly of the multitude that though it hath been never so often entrapp'd it always hath been and still is and ever will be apt to be taken with the same bait how dear soever it hath cost them formerly It was not long before this that Absalom by the counsel of Achitophel made use of the same artifice to stir up the people and to make them to rebell against their King and his Father by making them believe first that they were oppressed by David and had not justice done them and secondly if he were in power every man should have right done him and no man should have cause to complain amongst them This they were so foolish as to believe though their condition then was better than ever it had been before or ever it was afterwards for it was David a man after God's own heart that was then their King and who as himself or rather God's Spirit by his mouth tells us fed them with a faithfull and true heart and ruled them prudently with all his power and if prudently then justly no doubt also and yet it was his not doing of justice that was made the pretence of the rebellion against him and by whom by Absalom one whom the People knew to have been a murtherer of his own brother and therefore not to be a very likely man to govern them either more justly or more mercifully than his Father did so that as the pretence of their rising up against David was groundless so their setting up of Absalom in his stead was folly and madness And now one would have thought the ill success they had in that action would have made them more wary than to be tempted and prevailed with again so soon at least as afterwards they were to another rebellion against the Grandchild of David upon another and that perhaps upon as groundless a pretence as the former I mean this of Jeroboam which we are now speaking of For the pretence of Jeroboam and the ten Tribes rebellion against Rehoboam was because he would not ease them of the heavy yoke which they pretended Solomon his Father had laid upon them which had it been true to never so great a degree would have been no just cause of the Rebellion of Subjects against their Sovereign as is already shewn But I do not find in the History of Solomon's Reign from the beginning to the end of it as it is very particularly recorded in the first book of Kings and in the second of Chronicles any mention of so heavy a yoke or indeed of any yoke at all that was laid upon any of the Complainants I mean upon any of the ten Tribes of Israel I reade indeed in the fourth Chapter of the first book of Kings Verses 20 21. That there was a great Tribute or Levy made by Solomon for the building of that glorious Temple of God in Jerusalem which was the wonder of the World and for other his many and magnificent
it to be unlawfull and consequently the endeavouring to make the People believe it to be lawfull by writing or preaching in defence of it is dangerous and seditious and such a thing as ought not to be endured in a well-governed State of any kind whatsoever Now that this doctrine That it is lawfull for Subjects in any case to resist or rise up in arms against their Sovereign is inconsistent with the Well-being of all Bodies Politick or Commonwealths of what kind or denomination soever and consequently inconsistent with the welfare or well-being of all Mankind here in this World methinks should need no other Argument to make it to be believed but this one onely that it undeniably makes all Humane Societies to be always and unavoidably liable to the worst of evils that can befall any State or humane Society and that is a Civil War which besides the horrible mischiefs it brings with it it commonly ends in a more insupportable Tyranny and bondage of the whole body of the People than what was pretended to have been the cause of it For proof whereof I might appeal not onely to the Testimony of all Histories of all Ages and of all Nations as well as of our own but to the personal Experience of many thousands yet living who have all of them seen and many of them felt what I have said of a Civil War to be true namely that it is the greatest of Evils a State is subject unto and consequently ought not to be engaged in for the preventing avoiding or remedying of any that are less Nor are they will Mr. Baxter say the Peccadillo's of the Prince or the petite Grievances of Subjects by their Sovereigns that can excuse their resisting or rising up in Arms against them but they must be such as are of Publick Concernment and such as against which by the Laws of Nature for Self-preservation men are not onely permitted but obliged to defend themselves I know that Grotius who is often but not always pertinently cited by Mr. Baxter in his answer to this question An Lex de non resistendo nos obligat in gravissimo certissimo discrimine that is Whether the Law of non-resistance doth oblige us in a most grievous and most certain hazard seems to grant that in such a case it may be lawfull for Subjects to resist their Sovereigns But then it is observable first that it is a contradiction to his own general Rule viz. Summum imperium tenentibus resisti jure non posse That those who have the Supreme Power cannot lawfully or by right be resisted Secondly it is a Contradiction to the judgment and practice of the Primitive Christians and consequently to the doctrine of the Apostles and of Christ himself For as Grotius himself tells us in one place Consuetudo veterum Christianorum est optima legis Christianoe interpres that is The custom of the old Christians is the best Interpreter of the Christian Law in the general so in this very particular he tells us in another place namely in that before by me cited and which I desired to be observed Nempe Christianis veteribus qui recentes ab Apostolorum Apostolicorum virorum disciplinâ eorum proescripta intelligebant meliùs perfectiùs implebant summam fieri injuriam puto ab iis qui quo minùs ipsi se defenderent in certissimo mortis periculo vires putant illis non animum defuisse In which saying of his taking it for granted that the Primitive Christians which did best understand the Apostolical Precepts and did most perfectly conform their practice thereunto would not nor did not defend themselves no not in certissimo mortis periculo when they were sure to be killed if they did not and that not because they wanted either strength or courage but because they thought as they were taught that it was not lawfull for them to doe so And there cannot saith Grotius in that place a greater injury be done to those Primitive Christians than to think otherwise of them that is than to think that it was not for Conscience sake but for want of strength that they forbore to defend themselves in certissimo mortis periculo In the most certain peril of death which is I think all one with in gravissimo certissimo discrimine In the most grievous and most certain hazard so that if it be lawfull for Christians to doe that now ingravissimo certissimo discrimine In the most grievous and certain hazard which the Primitive Christians who best understood saith Grotius the Apostolical doctrine thought it not lawfull for them to doe then in certissimo mortis periculo In the most certain peril of death that is in the very same case it must be by virtue of some other Gospel or of some special dispensation that we have and they had not or that those Apostolical Precepts de non resistendo Supremam potestatem habentibus Of not resisting those who have the Supreme Power were to be no longer in force than untill the Christian Subjects should have power enough to resist their Sovereigns or at least to defend themselves against them Which opinion how derogatory it is to the simplicity sincerity and veracity of the Gospel and consequently how unworthy to be owned by any that owns himself to be a Christian I think I have sufficiently proved already nor can I suspect a man of so great Learning and Ingenuity as Grotius was ever to have been of this opinion though I cannot see how he can be defended from leaning towards it when he affirms or seems at least to affirm that may be done now by Christian Subjects which was never done nor never thought lawfull to be done in the very same case by the Primitive Christians though they had strength enough to doe it and though saith he they best understood the Apostolical Precepts and did most punctually comply with the meaning of them And therefore lastly it is observable and I am willing to observe it for that Great man's sake that such a resistance of Sovereigns by their Subjects even in such a case in gravissimo certissimo discrimine In the most grievous and most certain hazard is not to be allowed saith Grotius Nisi cum hoc fortè additamento si fieri possit absque maxima Reipublicoe perturbatione aut exitio plurimorum innocentium Unless it can be done without a very great perturbation or disturbance of the Commonwealth and without the destruction of very many innocent Persons which in effect is all one as if he had said it is never to be done at all For how there can be a forcible resistance of Sovereigns by their Subjects or how Subjects can rise up in Arms and make use of them either offensively or defensively against their Sovereigns Absque maxima Reipublicoe perturbatione exitio plurimorum innocentium Without a very great perturbation of the Commonwealth or
Neither indeed doth Grotius propose them to infer any such conclusion but rather to establish the contrary as appears plainly by the words immediately preceding which are these Diximus summum Imperium tenentibus resisti jure non posse nunc quoedam sunt quoe Lectorem monere debemus nè putet in hanc legem delinquere eos qui reverà non delinquunt that is We have said saith he that is we have positively affirmed or concluded that those that have the Supreme Power may not lawfully be resisted but now we are to give the Reader a Caveat that he may not think those to be transgressours of this Law who indeed are not or that to be a transgression of this Law which indeed is not And then he proposeth all the aforesaid Instances as seeming to be but not being indeed inconsistent with the Law as he calls it of not resisting the Supreme Power wheresoever it is placed or whosoever they be that are invested with it that Law of not resisting the Supreme Power being the very foundation upon which all Humane Societies of all kinds are built and superstructed and the Palladium The pledge of security whereby they are preserved in their several forms or constitutions so that from or against this Law there lies no exception nor any dispensation with it by any humane Authority upon any pretence either of Civil or Religious Interest or upon any either pretended or real Grievance of the Subject by their Sovereign in any kind or degree whatsoever CHAP. XVII Several other Reasons to prove the Vnlawfulness of resisting in any Case whatsoever The Holy League in France and our late Rebellion brought in by way of Parallel ANd the Reasons for this besides what hath been already produced out of Scripture are First Because the object of humane Prudence in the constitution of humane Societies and Kingdoms or Commonwealths is not to prevent all such Grievances as possibly may be no nor all such as considering the pravity and perversness of humane nature ordinarily will be and of necessity must be even in the best constituted and best managed State or humane Society whatsoever For as St. Paul saith Oportet esse Hoereses There must be Heresies in the Church not as if it were not better there were none but because as long as men are men that is such cross-grain'd creatures and of such different Morals and Intellectuals from one another as they are there cannot chuse but be some Heresies in the Church so and for the very same reason oportet esse gravamina there must be that is there cannot chuse but be Grievances in the Civil State or Common-wealth also And therefore the object of humane prudence seeing it cannot prevent or provide against all evils that may or will be in all States it is as much as may be to prevent or provide against those that are the greatest rather than the lesser and those that are likely to happen often rather than those that are not likely to happen at all or very seldome and those that are inconsistent with the being rather than those that are inconsistent with the well-being onely of a State or Body Politick For as in the body natural so in the body Politick no remedy is to be prescribed or applyed that is worse than the disease And therefore Secondly Any gravamina nay all the gravamina or grievances that Subjects can suffer under their Sovereign are to be endured rather than they are to rebell or to rise up in Arms against him because that will be the cause of more and greater evils than any of these are or can be against which it can be made use of for a remedy For no Tyranny can be so bad as Anarchy and any Government how Tyrannical soever is better than none And therefore it was the saying of one of the wisest Statesmen that ever was in the World Iniquissimam pacem justissimo bello antefero I prefer said he the most injurious Peace that is such a peace wherein men are obnoxious to the greatest injuries before the most just War he means the most just Civil War or such a Civil War as may seem to have the justest or most justifiable causes for it because indeed any Civil War upon what grounds or pretences soever it be undertaken puts the whole body of the Commonwealth into a much worse condition than it can be under any Government or any Governours whatsoever For whilst there is a Government though neverso unjust or injurious there is some authority and execution of Laws for the protection of the innocent if not of the Subjects against the Sovereign yet of the Subjects against one another but Silent leges inter arma When rebellion is up there is no safety for any man against any man not for Fathers against their Children nor for Brethren against Brethren Non hospes ab hospite tutus One friend is not safe from another To conclude Rebellion is the ingagement of the whole body of the Commonwealth against it self and will if it be not suppressed make it at length Felo de se A murtherer of it self and to end either in the desolation or dissolution of it self So that whereas all other evils are but prejudicial to the well-being This I mean Rebellion or a rebellious Civil War is always in its tendency though not always perhaps in the event destructive to the very Being of all States and Humane Societies whatsoever and consequently to the peace and welfare of Subjects as well as Sovereigns that is to all and every one of mankind And therefore this being the greatest of all Evils it is never to be made use of to prevent or redress any that are less and consequently never to be made use of at all because all other evils incident to a Body Politick are less than this and that not onely taken singly but jointly also And yet Thirdly there is one Reason more why in humane prudence and according to the dictates of right reason the Rebellion of Subjects against their Sovereign ought not to be allowed no not though possibly it might so happen that humanely speaking there could be no other way or means to preserve the very Being of the Body Politick as for example in one of the aforesaid Instances or Cases which is put by Grotius but put by him as hardly credible supposing there should be such a King as would profess so implacable a hatred to his Subjects that he would if he could destroy them all and that he will endeavour to doe so The question is whether because possibly there may be such a Case there ought not to be some exception from the aforesaid general Rule of the unlawfulness of Subjects taking up of Arms to resist their Sovereign in any case whatsoever I answer No and that not onely because St. Paul in his prohibition to resist the Supreme Power hath made no such exception though one of the Supreme Powers whom he
to justifie himself and those of his Nonconforming Brethren for preaching as they do though the Law have forbidden them to do so but the Popish Priests may pretend to also for their justification in the Execution of their Priestly Office in Conventicles of their own persuasion or for the gaining of Proselytes to their own Religion I. As first for example may not a Romish Priest say and say it truly as Mr. Baxter doth That he holds the sacred Office of the Ministry or Priesthood consisteth in an obligation to doe the work and an Authority to warrant him therein and that both these are essential to the Office as likewise That Kings and other Magistrates are not by Ordination to give this Office nor by Degradation to take it away But what then May not the King forbid a Popish Priest to exercise his Priestly Function here in England and punish him if he do though he cannot degrade him or make him to be no Priest And if this may be done to a Popish Priest without degrading him why may it not be done by the same Authority to a dissenting or Nonconforming Minister without degrading him also Yea and without taking away any thing that is essential to his Office For it is not the obligation to doe but to be qualified and willing to doe the work of a Minister that is essential to his Office neither doth his Ordination give him Authority to doe the work of a Minister any otherwise or any longer than he doeth it as it ought to be done So that this Argument drawn from the Obligation of a Minister to doe the work of a Minister after he is ordained if it prove any thing it proves either more or less than Mr. Baxter would have it namely that either Popish Priests may and ought to exercise their Priestly Office here in England though by Law they are forbidden or else that the Nonconforming Ministers may not nor ought not to exercise their Ministerial Office being forbidden to doe so by the same Authority and especially for the same Reasons also namely for being Disturbers of the publick Peace and holding such Principles as are destructive to Monarchy the one teaching the Division of the Sovereignty betwixt the King and another Foreign Prince that is betwixt the King and the Pope and the other teaching the Division of the Sovereignty betwixt the King and the Parliament that is betwixt the King and his Subjects II. Neither is Mr. Baxter's second Argument for the Nonconforming Ministers being obliged to exercise their Ministry though they are by Law forbidden to doe it so peculiar to them but that if it had any force in it any man that hath been ordained and thereby been consecrated and devoted to the Ministerial Function may lay claim to it and make use of it though he have done or may doe never so much hurt by the exercise of it because he will be guilty of Sacrilege saith Mr. Baxter if he do not and of the highest degree of Sacrilege that can be it being much more sacrilegious saith he to alienate consecrated Persons than consecrated Things from the Service of God And for proof thereof he tells us That our Canons enquire after all such as alienate themselves from the Ministry to which they were ordained and turn to other Callings adding We dislike not that Canon but we wish our observance of it might be thought but a pardonable fault As if this Canon which forbids men to quit their Ministerial Calling and to betake themselves to any other Lay Profession did oblige all those that are Ministers or have been ordained to be Ministers to continue in the exercise of their Ministerial Function though by lawfull Authority and for never so just cause they are forbidden to doe so because forsooth he will be guilty of Sacrilege if he do not so that he that is once ordained and thereby consecrated to serve God in the Ministry though he be never so heretical or schismatical or fanatical in point of Opinion or never so factious or seditious or rebellious or lewd or debauched in point of Practice he must not be forbidden to doe the work he was ordained to doe or if he be forbidden he must not forbear to doe it notwithstanding because it will be the highest degree of Sacrilege except Apostasie it self if he do So that this Argument proves nothing neither or as much for the worst as it doth for the best that ever were ordained III. The like may be said of Mr. Baxter's third Argument also which is a deduction from several Texts of Scripture obliging those that have taken upon them the Ministry of the Gospel to be diligent and faithfull and constant in the preaching of it All which places must be understood with this exception unless they be lawfully and by their lawfull Superiours forbidden to doe it Otherwise there will a Floodgate be opened for the bringing in all manner of Heresies and Schisms into the Church and of Faction and Sedition and Rebellion into the State as we have found by our own experience it hath done lately into our own Church and State and will doe so again if such Arguments as these can prevail with us to repeal our Laws and to grant a Licence or rather a licentiousness of Preaching to Men so principled and so affected as Mr. Baxter himself and those he pleads for have shewed themselves to be and will not yet give us any security that they will not preach and doe hereafter as they have done formerly IV. But his fourth main Reason as he calls it why those he pleads for must preach though they be forbidden is a main one indeed if it were a true one namely That they should sin against the Law of Nature it self nay even the great radical Law of Nature so far as to be guilty of the murthering of mens Souls if they did not preach though they be forbidden by what Authority or for what cause soever for so he must mean or else he saith nothing to the purpose and if he means so he condemns the King and Parliament for forbidding so many hundreds or thousands as Mr. Baxter saith are silenced because they will not conform and consequently for doing what they can to make so many hundreds and thousands to sin against the radical Law of Nature and to be guilty of murthering God knows how many Mens Souls But Kings and Parliaments Mr. Baxter may say are but Men and Men that may err in commanding what God hath forbidden and in forbidding what God hath commanded as they do saith he in this particular and are not therefore to be obeyed as the Apostles did not and professed they would not obey the High Priest and the Sanhedrim when they did forbid them to preach any more in the name of Christ the like saith he the Primitive and Orthodox Christians did though the Pagan and Arian Emperours forbad them to doe so
own being an Intruder into the Headship of a College I remember too when the Churches in divers great Towns which had a great number of Souls and but little maintenance belonging to them were wholly neglected and the neighbouring little Villages where the Cures were small but the Tithes were great were seized on by the Grandees of the Faction which was an evident proof that they valued the Fleece more than the Flock and that they would not then as Mr. Baxter saith they will now serve God for nought But would not the Papists doe so also Yes perhaps they would will Mr. Baxter say but it would be in order to the destroying and not the edifying of the Church and have we not reason to fear that their offering to preach gratis is with such a meaning and Intention also We are sure they have done so and we are not nor cannot be sure they will not doe so again as long as they continue at that distance as they do from us In the mean time the Popish Priests being so persuaded as they are namely that all Protestants are in a State of damnation have a more rational pretence for the necessity of their preaching to us than our silenced Ministers have or can have even upon this account that unless they doe what they can to make us Roman Catholicks they are guilty of our perishing everlastingly But I hope our silenced Ministers do not think us in such a state of Damnation as we cannot be delivered out of but by their preaching as the Popish Priests may and do think us to be But whatsoever either of them may think of the need we have of their preaching and consequently of their own obligation to preach though they be forbidden we that do believe they would doe more hurt than good by their preaching do believe likewise that we are obliged in Conscience to restrain them from preaching though there were a greater want of Preachers and preaching than there is among us For sure there was never more need of preaching and scarcity of Preachers than when the Gospel began first to be planted when the Harvest was so great and the Labourers so few that Christ bad them pray the Lord of the Harvest to send more labourers into his Harvest and yet even then Christ would not have all to be hearkned unto that took upon them to preach but bad his Disciples beware of them and of their Doctrine though they came in Sheep's cloathing that is though they made a shew of nothing but harmlesness and meekness and simplicity because they might be ravening Wolves for all that And not long after that when there was still need of a great many more labourers than there were to carry on the great work of the conversion of the Gentiles yet even then St. Paul commands Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to silence some of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of those that were Preachers and why because they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unruly such as would not be governed or be brought under any rule or order but did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subvert whole houses And if such Preachers as did but subvert whole houses were to be silenced or not suffered to preach then when there was so much more need of Preachers and of preaching than there is now how much more reasonable and necessary is it for us to silence those whose Principles tend to the subverting of whole Kingdoms especially when we have more Preachers of our own than we can tell how to provide for Again as in the first plantation of the Church when there was incomparably most need of Preachers the Apostles would not suffer such as were ungovernable or unruly themselves especially if they taught others to be so also so in the beginning of the Reformation of our Church from Popish Idolatry Superstition and Corruption both in Doctrine and Practice though there was a very great want of able and orthodox Preachers not onely in Edward the sixth's time but in Queen Elizabeth's time also for divers years together yet none of the Popish Priests were suffered to continue in their stations but very many Cures were supplied with men of very mean abilities till they could be better provided for rather than hazard a relapse into Popery by employing any that were Popishly affected in the work of the Ministry And Mr. Baxter may remember when we of the Church of England as it was established by Law were deprived and silenced for no other reason but because we could not in Conscience conform to the illegal Government that was by an usurped power set up in the Church and State I know there were other pretences against some as disability immorality and scandal but the main reason why we were generally turn'd out of our Free-holds and forbidden to exercise our Ministerial function was our Non-conformity to the then present Government in the State and to the then present way of serving God in the Church though both of them were illegal and though there was then as much or more need of their being assisted by us than there is now of our being assisted by them CHAP. X. According to Mr. Baxter 's own opinion the Ministers he pleads for ought to be silenced The Act against Conventicles why made and what is meant by Seditious Conventicles and Preachers Mr. Baxter by his own confession an incourager of the late Rebellion BUt supposing the want of Preachers and of Preaching to be much greater than it is may there not be a just cause to keep some from preaching and that without Sacrilege or robbing of God though they have been consecrated to God by Ordination if afterwards they prove such as are much more likely to doe harm than good by their preaching And such are not onely those that are utterly unable to teach or are notoriously scandalous in their lives and conversations but such as are heretical or schismatical in their opinions such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unruly and ungovernable and apt to stir up strife and Sedition either in Church or State Certainly such men as these ought to be silenced and punished too if they will not forbear preaching what need soever they may pretend there is for it otherwise St. Paul would not have given so strict a charge for the silencing of such as he did to Titus And truly that there are some such as ought to be silenced notwithstanding their consecration to God Mr. Baxter himself cannot deny For whom else doth he mean by those he calls intolerabiles that is such as are not to be tolerated or suffered to Preach Doth he mean none but those who were never ordained or none but those that are heretical in their opinions or debaucht in their manners or insufficient for the discharge of their duties No he confesseth that in the general all or any whose preaching is likely to doe more hurt than good
Bishop of Worcester and coming to me to know the cause of it I told him it was because he had Preached in my Diocese without asking my leave or having any licence from me for it and that now I could not give him such a Licence partly in regard of what he had asserted and maintained at the Conference in the Savoy but principally in regard of many of those Positions or as he calls them Aphorisms of his in his Book of the Holy-Commonwealth which were inconsistent with Kingly Government and this I told him in the presence of the then Dean of Worcester Dr. Warmestry and of Mr. Isaack Walton then my Steward which he taking no notice of in his Narrative of the cause why I continued his suspension and would not suffer him to Preach any more in my Diocese but making his friends at Kidderminster to believe it was only for what he had asserted at the Conference in the Savoy whereof he made a false relation also I thought it neither improper nor unnecessary to annex to that Letter of mine which I had written in answer to that Narrative of his that Collection of Aphorisms out of the aforesaid Book of his that the World might be judg whether the Author of such Maxims as those were fit to be a Preacher in such a Kingdom as this or no and this I say was the cause why I Printed them at first 2. The reason why I have reprinted those Aphorisms as well as that Letter with an Addition of some others to them and aggravations of them was to justifie my exceptions against them and to shew that I am not a Defier of Deity and humanity nor an Enemy to God to Kings and to all mankind as Mr. Baxter would have me thought to be because I do not think all unlimited Governours to be Tyrants because they are unlimited or that lawful and rightful Kings if they be Tyrants or govern tyrannically may therefore be lawfully resisted or deposed by their Subjects 3. And lastly if I have indeavoured to shew the falseness and dangerousness of this and other of his Aphorisms subservient to the same end it is not to make him but those Maxims of his odious not unto others only that may be hurt by them but to himself also that he may repent of them which if he have done and done it as he should do and as himself professed he would do if he were convinced there were cause for it I am sure he will not he cannot be offended with the aggravating the hainousness and dangerousness of any of those opinions or practises which he himself hates and detests more than any body else can if he have truly repented of them which if I should take for granted that he hath done since yet if he had not done it before those Aphorisms of his which I excepted against were first Printed it was neither uncharitably nor impertinently no nor unnecessarily done of me neither to let the World know upon what false grounds and by what fallacious and seditious Maxims and Principles Mr. Baxter had undertaken to justifie the late horrid Rebellion and to justifie himself and those Thousands whom as he confesseth he had perswaded to do as He did viz. to Rebell and Fight against the King which he was so far from having repented of when I first Printed those Aphorisms that he tells the World in Print not above a year or two before that he durst not repent of it nor forbear the doing of the same if it were to be done again in the same state of things Neither did the World or I hear any thing from him to the contrary till many years after and whether what he published then or hath published since be a sufficient proof that He is not still of the same mind he was when he published those Aphorisms may well be doubted In the mean time those Aphorisms of his being of so dangerous consequence to the publick and having upon that account been the main cause why I would not suffer the Author of them to Preach in my Diocese until he had as publickly recanted as he had asserted them I thought my self obliged to publish them when I did publish them first to let the World see I had reason to do what I did to Mr. Baxter when I did it how well soever he might behave himself afterwards And as this was the reason why I Printed them at first so the reason why I have Reprinted them now was partly to justifie my former exceptions against them and the dangerous consequences of them and partly to vindicate my self from being a Defier of Deity and Humanity and an Enemy to God to Kings and to all mankind for excepting against but one of them only as Mr. Baxter saith I am and partly likewise to show that there is still just cause to doubt that Mr. Baxter may still be of the same judgment as to the holding of the same Seditious and Rebellious Principles as He did formerly notwithstanding any thing He hath written as yet to the contrary The two former would have been reason enough for my Reprinting of those Aphorisms though it were never so certain or so evident that Mr. Baxter had really and sincerely recanted them all The third I add ex abundanti over and above and wish with all my heart there were no cause to doubt but that he had really and sincerely recanted them all or at least those that are most dangerous and prejudicial to the safety peace and welfare of our own King and Kingdom which I am afraid he hath not done either by what he hath said in that Paper which he would have taken for a Recantation of some of those Aphorisms in his Holy Commonwealth or by the professions he hath made of his Loyalty in the second Part of his Plea for the Non-Conformists And first As to the Paper which he calls a Recantation We are to observe the time when it was Printed which was in the year 70 just 10 years after the Kings coming home How long may we think it would have been if the King had not come home at all or if Richard the Son could have held by force what Oliver his Father whom Mr. Baxter magnifies so much had gotten for him by murthering of his Master And truly if this Recantation had been the effect of a true and hearty repentance I cannot imagine what should be the cause of its coming forth no sooner unless he was so long before he was convinced that he had done amiss in writing what he had written or in doing what he had done during the time of the Rebellion so that his heart indured as long a Siege as that of Troy before it would give him leave to make any acknowledgment at all that he had writ or done any thing to be recanted or repented But what if the King should have suspended his Pardon as long as Mr. Baxter did his Confession What might have