Title to it by Eating Flesh on Fasting-days 'T is the same thing as to the Place Command them to Church They will tell you There is no Inherent Holiness in the Walls The Hearts of the Saints are the Temples of the Lord Is not God to be found in a Parlour as well as in a Steeple-house Finally What have they to say for all This But that This is One Man's Judgment That Another's This or That may be indifferent to you but not to me To conclude What One Man urges All may and in All Cases as well as in Any Which has brought us once again to an indeterminable Liberty The last Resort of all the Champions of your Cause if they be followed home Now if you can assign any other Arbitrator of this Matter then the Civil Power do it If you cannot let us proceed N. C. Go forward then SECT IV. Thâ—… BOUNDS of Toleration And the Error of making Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals to be the Measure of it C. IN the Question of Toleration says a Learned Prelate the Foundation of Faith Good Life and Government is to be secured Wherein is comprised a Provision and Care that we may live as Christians toward God As Members of a Community toward one another and as Loyal Subjects toward our Sovereign If you 'l take This for the Standard of your Toleration we have no more to do but to apply Matters in Controversie to the Rules of Christianity Good Manners and Government and to entertein or reject all Pretensions thereafter as we find them Agreeable or Repugnant to Religion Morality and Society N. C. Uery well stated truly I think C. All the Danger is the falling to pieces again when we come to bring This and That to the Test. For if we differ at last upon the Application of Particular Points and Actions to the General Heads of Faith and Government already laid down and agreed upon We shall yet lose our selves in Uncertainty and Confusion N. C. There will be no fear of That if we tye up our selves to Fundamentals C. What do you mean by Fundamentals N. C. There are Fundamentals of Faith that bind Us as we are Christians And there are Fundamentals of Practice that oblige us as we are Members of a Community From These Fundamentals there lies no Appeal to Conscience In other Matters which we look upon as Non-Fundamental we think it reasonable to Desire a Toleration C. This Distinction has a fair Appearance but there is no trusting to it First it proposes a thing neither Practicable nor Reasonable which is The Uniting of all People under one Common Bond of Fundamentals What possibility is there of attaining such an Agreement among so many Insuperable Diversities of Judgment as reign in Mankind Insomuch that what is a Fundamental Truth to One is a Fundamental Error to Another and Every Man is ready to abide the Faggot for his own Opinion It is also very unreasonable to exact it God Almighty does not require the same Fundamentals from all Men alike But Much from Him to whom Much is given and Little from Him to whom Little And from All according to their differing Degrees and Measures of Grace and Knowledg You will likewise find your self under great Uncertainty about the Stating of your Fundamentals For divers Circumstances of Little or No value in Themselves become Fundamental in respect of their Consequences As for Instance That Christ died for Sinners I presume shall be one Article of your Faith But whether upon Mount Calvary or some other part of the Neighbourhood seems of no great Moment as to the Main of Our Salvation And yet he that denies that Our Saviour suffer'd upon Mount Calvary puts as great an Affront upon the Veracity of the Holy Ghost in the Gospel as He which denies that he suffer'd upon the Cross. N. C. I give it for Granted that from some more is required from others less In proportion to their Differing Gifts and Graces But then there are some Principles so Essential to Christianity and so clear in Themselves as to admit of no Dispute C. Saving That Grand Foundation of Our Faith that Iesus Christ is come in the Flesh and that Whosoever confesses that Iesus Christ is the Son of God God dwelleth in Him and He in God Saving I say That Radical Principle which if we disbelieve we are no longer Christians There is scarce One Point that has not been subjected to a Controversie If you reduce your Fundamentals to This Scantling Your Creed will lie in a very Narrow Compass But your Toleration will be Large Enough if you are at Liberty for the rest Touching the Clearness of them I do not comprehend it For Supernatural Truths hold no Proportion at all with the Ordinary Motions of Humane Reason If They be so clear Tell us What they are Where we shall look for them and How we shall know them when we have found them N C. Where should we look for the Foundation of our Faith but in the New-Testament of Jesus Christ C. But still we do not all read the Bible with the same Spectacles To draw to an Issue Generals conclude nothing so long as we are left at Freedom to wrangle about Particulars and you will find much surer footing upon the Foundations of Establish'd Law then upon the Whimseys of Popular Speculation To my thinking the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England as it is settled by Acts of Parliament with other Legal Constitutions for the Peace and Order of the Government are every whit as competent a Provision for the Good of the Publique as your new Fundamentals N. C. The Point is not as you seem to understand it a Competition between Our Fundamentals of Notion and Yours of Law But an Inquiry concerning the Limits of a Iustistable Toleration C. Very Good And you refer us to your Distinction of Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals as to a Rule how far we are at Liberty and wherein we are Bounded But This will not do the work and I have spent the more words about it because I find This Distinction the Ordinary Retreat of Your Party The Truth of it is there 's not One of a Hundred of you but takes This Question by the wrong Handle You make it a Question of Conscience and Religion What may be Tolerated and what not Whereas the thing falls properly under a Consideration of State In Matters not to be Tolerated as in Articles of Religion The Magistrate is positively bound up In other Cases He may chuse whether he will Tolerate or Restrain That is to say with a perpetual Regard to the Qâ—…iet and Security of the Publique Where Particulars may be relieved without Inconvenience to Communities it is well But otherwise Private Consciences weigh little in the Scale against Political Societies And Toleration is only so far allowable as it complies with the Necessities and Ends of Government N. C. That is to say according to your first
to be tolerated as well as Christians For They have Consciences as well as We They are convinc'd that there is a God and that That God ought to be Worship't and may plead for the same Freedom in the way and manner of their Proceeding N. C. But Paganism is not within the Pale of the Question C. Why then no more is Conscience If you say They are in the Wrong and so debar them the Exercise of their Opinion because of the Error of it your Exception lies to the Error nâ—…t to the Conscience and may be turn'd upon your selves For They say as much of You and have as much right to condemn You as You Them Neither have you any more Right to be Judges in your own Case then they in theirs N. C. Well but we have a Law to Iudge our selves by C. And so have They too For They without a Law do by Nature the things contained in the Law and are a Law unto Themselves N. C. But how can that Law-have any Regard to the future Judgment of God when they deny the Immortality of the Soul C. There is a future Iudgment of God in This Life as well as in the next And the Conscience that hath no Light at all of another World is not yet without Apprehensions of Divine Vengeance in This. Raro Antecedentem Scelestum deseruit pede poena claudo You 'l be as much to seek now if you restrain your Argument to Christianity for you must either prove That there are no Erroneous Consciences among Christinas or That Error of Conscience is no Sin or else That Sin may be Tolerated N. C. There is no doubt but there are Erroneous Consciences and it is as clear that Sin is not to be Tolerated But I do not take every Error of Conscience to be a Sin understand me of Consciences labouring under an Invincible Ignorance C. It is very true That as to the Formality of Sin which is the Obliquity of the Will An Error of Conscience under an Invincible Ignorance is no Sin But Sin Materially considered is the Transgression of the Divine Law and Conscience it self becomes Sinful when it dictates against That Law N. C. Can there be any Sin without Assent or any Assent without Knowledge or any Knowledge in a Case of Invincible Ignorance The Transgression of the Law implies the Knowledg of it or at least the Possibility of Knowing it without which it has not the Nature of a Law as to me The Conditions requisite to a Rule are These It must be Certain and it must be Known If it be not Certain it is no Rule If it be not Known it is no Rule to Us. I had not known Sin but by the Law says the Text And in another Place Where there is no Law There is no Transgression From whence the Deduction is clear That Sin is not barely the Transgression of a Law but the Transgression of a Known Law the Inconformity of the Will to the Understanding C. The Perversness of the Will being a Sin does not hinder the Enormity of the Iudgment to be so too Until the Law Sin was in the World but Sin is not imputed when there is no Law In few words The Word of God is the Rule of Truth and all Disproportion to that Rule is Error God's Revealed Will is the Measure of Righteousness and all Disproportion to that Measure is Sin Now the Question is not Whether imputed or no but Whether a Sin or No And you cannot make Error of Conscience to be No Sin without making the Word of God to be No Rule N. C. I do not deny but it is a Sin as to the Law but it is none as to the Person It is none Constructively with him that accepts the Will for the Deed. C. Can you imagine that any Condition in the Delinquent can operate upon the Force and Equity of the Law Because God spares the Offender shall Man therefore tolerate the Offence David was pronounced a Man after God's own Heart shall Authority therefore grant a License to Murder and Adultery N. C. What is David's Case to ours You instance in Sins of Presumptâ—…on and the Question is touching Sins of Ignorance C. I was a Blasphemer a Persecutor and Injurious says St. Paul but I obtain'd Mercy he does not say APPROBATION because I did it in Ignorance and Unbeleif Again The Magistrate has a Conscience as well as the Subject It may be Ignorance in him that Commits the Sin and yet Presumption in him that Suffers it Briefly in pleading for all Opinions you plead for all Heresies and for the Establishment of Wickedness by a Law What Swarms of Anabaptists Brownists Familists Antinomians Anti-Scripturists Anti-Trinitarians Enthusiasts and what Not have started up even in our days under the Protection of Liberty of Conscience What Blasphemous and Desperate Opinions to the Subversion both of Faith and Government Where 's the Authority of the Scriptures and the Reverence of Religion when every Man shall make a Bible of his Conscience divide the Holy Ghost against it self and dash one Text upon another He that has a mind to rake further in this Puddle let him read Edwards his Gangraena Bayly's Disswasive Paget's Haeresiography c. To pass now from Opinions to Practices The Liberty you challenge opens a door to all sorts of Villany and Outrage imaginable to Rapine Murder Rebellion King-killing N. C. As if any Man that has a Conscience of his own or knows what Conscience is could give Entertainment to so fond an Imagination as to suppose that God at the last day will approve of Murders Seditions and the like Evils Since what is Evil in it self and against the Light of Nature there is no direction unto it no approbation of it from Conscience in the least C. But what will this amount to when first Every Man's Word shall be taken for his own Conscience And secondly That Conscience pleaded in defence of his Actions That which you stile Murther and Sedition He 'll tell you is only a Gospel-Reformation The Destroying of the Hittites and the Amorites c. So that you are never the better for tying a Man up to the Light of Nature in his Actions if you leave him at Liberty in his Creed For there is not that Impiety in the World but he 'll give you a Text for it The Adversaries of God that refuse to enter into a holy Covenant with the Lord and submit themselves to Christ's Scepter may be Sequestred and Plundered without the Imputation of Rapine for it is written The Meek shall inherit the Earth And it is no more then God's People the Israelites did to the Egyptians Nay if they be Refractary they may be put to Death too without Murder Those mine Enemies which would not that I should Reign over them bring hither and slay them before me If any Man has a spight at the Church it is but
16. 1646. tells us That there would be a Ioynt Course taken by Both Kingdoms concerning the Disposal of His Majesties Person With Respect had to the Safety and Preservation of his Royal Person IN THE PRESERVATION AND DEFENCE OF THE TRUE RELIGION AND LIBERTIES OF THE KINGDOMS According to the COVENANT And According to the COVENANT His Majesties Person was Disposed of Presb. And do you believe that the Two Houses would have used the King any better if he had gone to Them They made it Treason Immediately and Death without Mercy for any Man to Harbour and Conceal the Kings Person upon a Supposition that his Majesty was then in London This was the fourth of May and on the sixth The Commons Uoted him to Warwick Castle which was Unvoted again upon the ninth In â—…une the Kings going to the Scots was Uoted A Design to Prolong the War And this was as much the Action of the Independents as the Other was of the Presbyterians Indep Pardon me there I beseech ye You see by the Voting Back and Forward that the House of Commons was upon a hard Tug but the Scottish Party was totally Presbyterian But will you hear the Kirk speak for it self after the putting of the King into English Hands They Exhort their COVENANTED BRETHREN the Assembly at Westminster to hold fast their Solemn League and Covenant to entertein a Brotherhood and Unity between the Nations Feb. 12. 1646. but not a Syllable of the King Again Iune 18. 1647. The General Assembly of the Kirk presses the Two Houses to a speedy Establishment of the Presbytery but not a Word again of his Majesty And in truth their Silence is a Favour considering how they order him when they speak of him As you may observe in a Resolve of theirs upon a Question Debated at Edinburgh If the King be Excluded from Government in England for not Granting the Propositions concerning Religion and the Covenant and for not giving a Satisfactory Answer to the Remanent Propositions Whether in That Case it be Lawful for this Kingdom to assist him for the Recovery of the Government or whether it be not Lawful Being put to it We cannot but Answer in regard of the Engagement of This Kingdom by Covenant and Treaty NEGATIVE Resolved upon the Question 1. That the Kingdom of Scotland shall be Governed as it hath been these last Five Years All Means being used that the King might take the Covenant and Pass the Propositions 2. That the taking of the Scots Covenant and Passing some of the Propositions doth not give Warrant to assist him against England 3. That upon bare taking the National Covenant we may not receive him 4. That the Clause in the Covenant for Defence of the Kings Person is to be understood in Defence and Safety of the Kingdoms 5. That the King shall not Execute any Power in the Kingdom of Scotland until such time that he hath Granted the Propositions concerning Religion and the Covenant and given a Satisfactory Answer to Both Kingdoms in the rest of the Propositions presented to him by both Kingdoms at Newcastle 6. That if his Majesty refuse to Pass the Propositions he shall be disposed of according to the COVENANT and Treaty 7. That the Union be firmly kept between the Kingdoms according to the Covenant and the Treaties Here 's PRESBYTERIAN LOYALTY If the King would have consented to give up his Crown Blast his Conscience Betray his Trust and Sacrifice his Friends he might perchance have been allow'd the Pageantry of a Court and some Mock-Properties of Royalty but upon other Terms the Kirk you see gives him no Quarter The King is now under the Care of his new Governours Holdenby is his Prison The Question is Matter of Church-Government and his Majesty is prest to an Alteration Some Two Months are spent in the fruitless Desires and Expectations of his Chaplains for his Advice and Comfort and any Two of Twelve in Nomination would satisfie his Majesty But That could not be they said No not a Common-Prayer-Book for his own Private Use. These were the Presbyterians still Upon the fourth of Iune 1647. Coâ—…not Ioyce with a Party of Horse took the King from Holdenby under colour of preventing other Secret Designs upon the Person of his Majesty The next day at a Rendezvouz near Newmarket was Read and Signed The Armies ENGAGEMENT compleining of the Two Houses and in particular of a Vote they had Past for Disbanding the Army Where Note that the Houses were still Presbyterian The Sum of their ENGAGEMENT was That they would Disband upon full Satisfaction received and not without it This Liberty was menag'd all this while with much Formality of Duty and Respect The Houses at every Turn advertis'd concerning the King's Motions and Iune the 9th consulted how further to Dispose of his Majesty Some Three days after the Army drew toward London and Alarm'd the City contrary to an Express Order of the Houses the very day before A Months Pay was their Errand and to save Carriage they made a step from Royston to St. Albans to receive it On Iune the 15 out comes a Terrible Representation with Desires from the Army Against all Arbitrary Powers and Interests whatsoever Pleading the Presbyterian Presidents and the Principles of the Two Houses in their Iustification The Parliament say they hath Declar'd it no Resisting of Magistracy to side with the Iust Principles and Law of Nature and Nations being That Law upon which we have assisted you and that the Souldiery may Lawfully hold the Hands of the General who will turn his Cannon upon his Army on purpose to destroy them They Demanded The Purging of the Houses and Retrenching the Power of Committees An Accompt for Publique Moneys A Period of the Present Session and Limits for the Future c. It could not chuse but Gall the Two Houses to see their Throats cut with their own Weapons but still they kept up their Greatness of Pretense and Stile and by an Order as Imperative as ever they commanded the Placing of his Majesty at Richmond in Order to a Treaty forsooth for a Safe and Well-grounded Peace But the Army had another Game to Play However what the Presbyterians would have done upon that Occasion may be seen in what they did afterward at the Isle of Wight in his Majesties last Distress and Extremity Presb. You are willing I find to pass over the Barbarism of the Independents toward his Majesty while they had him at Hâ—…mpton-Court but there is enough yet behind to make That Faction Odious to all Eternity Indep Truly no but I would not spin out a Debate to the length of a History As to the Barbarisms you speak of let his Majesty Himself be heard Colonel Whaley I have been so civilly used by You and Major Huntington that I cannot but by this parting Farewell acknowledge it under my Hand Nov. 11. 1647. And again from Carisbrook Castle to the General Nov. 27. 1647. The