conscience, “I conceive you mean either for professing some point
of doctrine which you believe in conscience to be the truth, or for
practising some work which you believe in conscience to be a religious
duty.”
[Sidenote: Definition of persecution discussed.]
_Truth._ I acknowledge that to molest any person, Jew or Gentile, for
either professing doctrine, or practising worship merely religious
or spiritual, it is to persecute him; and such a person, whatever his
doctrine or practice be, true or false, suffereth persecution for
conscience.
[Sidenote: Conscience will not be restrained from its own worship, nor
constrained to another.]
But withal I desire it may be well observed, that this distinction is
not full and complete. For beside this, that a man may be persecuted
because he holdeth or practiseth what he believes in conscience to be a
truth, as Daniel did, for which he was cast into the lions’ den, Dan.
vi. 16, and many thousands of Christians, because they durst not cease
to preach and practise what they believed was by God commanded, as the
apostles answered, Acts iv. and v., I say, besides this, a man may also
be persecuted because he dares not be constrained to yield obedience to
such doctrines and worships as are by men invented and appointed. So the
three famous Jews, who were cast into the fiery furnace for refusing to
fall down, in a nonconformity to the whole conforming world, before the
golden image, Dan. iii. 21.[96] So thousands of Christ’s witnesses, and
of late in those bloody Marian days, have rather chosen to yield their
bodies to all sorts of torments, than to subscribe to doctrines, or
practise worships, unto which the states and times (as Nebuchadnezzar to
his golden image) have compelled and urged them.
[Sidenote: A chaste soul in God’s worship, like a chaste wife.]
A chaste wife will not only abhor to be restrained from her husband’s
bed as adulterous and polluted, but also abhor (if not much more) to be
constrained to the bed of a stranger. And what is abominable in corporal,
is much more loathsome in spiritual whoredom and defilement.
The spouse of Christ Jesus, who could not find her soul’s beloved in
the ways of his worship and ministry, Cant. i., iii., and v. chapters,
abhorred to turn aside to other flocks, worships, &c., and to embrace the
bosom of a false Christ, Cant. i. 8.
CHAP. IV.
_Peace._ The second distinction is this:—
[Sidenote: The second distinction discussed.]
“In points of doctrine some are fundamental, without right belief whereof
a man cannot be saved; others are circumstantial and less principal,
wherein a man may differ in judgment without prejudice of salvation on
either part.”
[Sidenote: God’s people may err from the very fundamentals of visible
worship.]
_Truth._ To this distinction I dare not subscribe, for then I should
everlastingly condemn thousands, and ten thousands, yea, the whole
generation of the righteous, who since the falling away from the first
primitive Christian state or worship, have and do err fundamentally
concerning the true matter, constitution, gathering, and governing of the
church. And yet, far be it from any pious breast to imagine that they are
not saved, and that their souls are not bound up in the bundle of eternal
life.[97]
We read of four sorts of spiritual, or Christian, foundations in the New
Testament.
[Sidenote: Four sorts of spiritual foundations.]
First, the foundation of all foundations, the corner-stone itself, the
Lord Jesus, on whom all depend—persons, doctrines, practices, 1 Cor. iii.
[11.]
2. Ministerial foundations. The church is _built upon the foundation of
the apostles and prophets_, Ephes. ii. 20.
3. The foundation of future rejoicing in the fruits of obedience, 1 Tim.
vi. [19.]
[Sidenote: Στοιχεῖα, θεμὲιοὶ. The six foundations of the Christian
religion or worship.]
4. The foundation of doctrines, without the knowledge of which there can
be no true profession of Christ, according to the first institution,
Heb. vi. [1, 2,]—the foundation, or principles, _of repentance from dead
works, faith towards God, the doctrine of baptisms, laying on of hands,
the resurrection, and eternal judgment_. In some of these, to wit, those
concerning baptisms and laying on of hands, God’s people will be found to
be ignorant for many hundred years; and I yet cannot see it proved that
light is risen, I mean the light of the first institution, in practice.
God’s people in their persons, heart-waking (Cant. v. 2), in the life
of personal grace, will yet be found fast asleep in respect of public
Christian worship.
[Sidenote: Coming out of Babel, not local, but mystical.]
God’s people, in their persons, are His, most dear and precious: yet
in respect of the Christian worship they are mingled amongst the
Babylonians, from whence they are called to come out, not locally, as
some have said, for that belonged to a material and local Babel (and
literal Babel and Jerusalem have now no difference, John iv. 21), but
spiritually and mystically to come out from her sins and abominations.
[Sidenote: The great ignorance of God’s people concerning the nature of
the true church.]
If Mr. Cotton maintain the true church of Christ to consist of the
true matter of holy persons called out from the world (and the true
form of union in a church government), and that also neither national,
provincial, nor diocesan churches are of Christ’s institution: how many
thousands of God’s people of all sorts, clergy and laity, as they call
them, will they find, both in former and later times, captivated in such
national, provincial, and diocesan churches? yea, and so far from living
in, yea or knowing of any such churches, for matter and form, as they
conceive now only to be true, that until of late years, how few of God’s
people knew any other church than the parish church of dead stones or
timber? It being a late marvellous light, revealed by Christ Jesus, the
Sun of righteousness, that his people are a company or church of living
stones, 1 Pet. ii. 9.
[Sidenote: Mr. Cotton and all the half separatists, halting between true
and false churches, and consequently not yet clear in the fundamental
matter of a Christian church.]
And, however his own soul, and the souls of many others, precious to
God, are persuaded to separate from national, provincial, and diocesan
churches, and to assemble into particular churches, yet, since there are
no parish churches in England, but what are made up of the parish bounds
within such and such a compass of houses, and that such churches have
been and are in constant dependence on, and subordination to the national
church: how can the New English particular churches join with the old
English parish churches in so many ordinances of word, prayer, singing,
contribution, &c., but they must needs confess, that as yet their souls
are far from the knowledge of the foundation of a true Christian church,
whose matter must not only be living stones, but also separated from the
rubbish of anti-christian confusions and desolations.
CHAP. V.
_Peace._ With lamentation, I may add, how can their souls be clear in
this foundation of the true Christian matter, who persecute and oppress
their own acknowledged brethren, presenting light unto them about this
point? But I shall now present you with Mr. Cotton’s third distinction.
“In points of practice,” saith he, “some concern the weightier duties
of the law, as what God we worship, and with what kind of worship;
whether such, as if it be right, fellowship with God is held; if false,
fellowship with God is lost.”
_Truth._ It is worth the inquiry, what kind of worship he intendeth: for
worship is of various signification. Whether in general acceptation he
mean the rightness or corruptness of the church, or the ministry of the
church, or the ministrations of the word, prayer, seals, &c.
[Sidenote: The true ministry a fundamental.]
And because it pleaseth the Spirit of God to make the ministry one of
the foundations of the Christian religion, Heb. vi. 1, 2, and also to
make the ministry of the word and prayer in the church to be two special
works, even of the apostles themselves, Acts vi. 2, I shall desire it may
be well considered in the fear of God.[98]
[Sidenote: The New English ministers examined.]
First, concerning the ministry of the word. The New English ministers,
when they were new elected and ordained ministers in New England,
must undeniably grant, that at that time they were no ministers,
notwithstanding their profession of standing so long in a true ministry
in old England, whether received from the bishops, which some have
maintained true, or from the people, which Mr. Cotton and others better
liked, and which ministry was always accounted perpetual and indelible.
I apply, and ask, will it not follow, that if their new ministry and
ordination be true, the former was false? and if false, that in the
exercise of it, notwithstanding abilities, graces, intentions, labours,
and, by God’s gracious, unpromised, and extraordinary blessing, some
success, I say, will it not according to this distinction follow, that
according to visible rule, fellowship with God was lost?
[Sidenote: Common prayer cast off, and written against by the New
English.]
Secondly, concerning prayer. The New English ministers have disclaimed
and written against that worshipping of God by the common or set forms of
prayer, which yet themselves practised in England, notwithstanding they
knew that many servants of God, in great sufferings, witnessed against
such a ministry of the word, and such a ministry of prayer.
_Peace._ I could name the persons, time, and place, when some of them
were faithfully admonished for using of the Common Prayer, and the
arguments presented to them, then seeming weak, but now acknowledged
sound; yet, at that time, they satisfied their hearts with the practice
of the author of the Council of Trent, who used to read only some of the
choicest selected prayers in the mass-book, which I confess was also
their own practice in their using of the Common Prayer.[99] But now,
according to this distinction, I ask whether or no fellowship with God in
such prayers was lost?
[Sidenote: God’s people have worshipped God with false worships.]
_Truth._ I could particularize other exercises of worship, which cannot
be denied, according to this distinction, to be of the weightier points
of the law: to wit, what God we worship, and with what kind of worship?
wherein fellowship with God, in many of our unclean and abominable
worships, hath been lost. Only upon these premises I shall observe:
first, that God’s people, even the standard-bearers and leaders of them,
according to this distinction, have worshipped God, in their sleepy
ignorance, by such a kind of worship as wherein fellowship with God is
lost; yea also, that it is possible for them to do, after much light is
risen against such worship, and in particular, brought to the eyes of
such holy and worthy persons.
Secondly, there may be inward and secret fellowship with God in false
ministries of word and prayer, (for that to the eternal praise of
infinite mercy, beyond a word or promise of God, I acknowledge[100])
when yet, as the distinction saith, in such worship, not being right,
fellowship with God is lost, and such a service or ministration must be
lamented and forsaken.
[Sidenote: Fundamentals of Christian worship not so easy and clear.]
Thirdly, I observe that God’s people may live and die in such kinds of
worship, notwithstanding that light from God, publicly and privately,
hath been presented to them, able to convince; yet, not reaching to
their conviction, and forsaking of such ways, contrary to a conclusion
afterward expressed; to wit, “that fundamentals are so clear, that a man
cannot but be convinced in conscience, and therefore that such a person
not being convinced, he is condemned of himself, and may be persecuted
for sinning against his conscience.”
Fourthly, I observe, that in such a maintaining a clearness of
fundamentals or weightier points, and upon that ground a persecuting of
men because they sin against their consciences, Mr. Cotton measures that
to others, which himself when he lived in such practices would not have
had measured to himself. As first, that it might have been affirmed of
him, that in such practices he did sin against his conscience, having
sufficient light shining about him.
Secondly, that he should or might lawfully have been cut off by death or
banishment, as an heretic, sinning against his own conscience.
[Sidenote: A notable speech of king James to a great nonconformist,
turned persecutor.]
And in this respect the speech of king James was notable to a great
nonconformitant, converted, as is said, by king James to conformity, and
counselling the king afterward to persecute the nonconformists even unto
death: “Thou beast,” quoth the king, “if I had dealt so with thee in thy
nonconformity, where hadst thou been?”
CHAP. VI.
[Sidenote: The four distinctions discussed.]
_Peace._ The next distinction concerneth the manner of persons holding
forth the aforesaid practices, not only the weightier duties of the law,
but points of doctrine and worship less principal:—
“Some,” saith he, “hold them forth in a meek and peaceable way; some with
such arrogance and impetuousness, as of itself tendeth to the disturbance
of civil peace.”
_Truth._ In the examination of this distinction we shall discuss,
First, what is civil peace (wherein we shall vindicate thy name the
better),
Secondly, what it is to hold forth a doctrine, or practice, in this
impetuousness or arrogancy.
[Sidenote: What civil peace is.]
First, for civil peace, what is it but _pax civitatis_, the peace of the
city, whether an English city, Scotch, or Irish city, or further abroad,
French, Spanish, Turkish city, &c.
[Sidenote: God’s people must be nonconformitants to evil.]
Thus it pleased the Father of lights to define it, Jer. xxix. 7, _Pray
for the peace of the city_; which peace of the city, or citizens, so
compacted in a civil way of union, may be entire, unbroken, safe, &c.,
notwithstanding so many thousands of God’s people, the Jews, were there
in bondage, and would neither be constrained to the worship of the city
Babel, nor restrained from so much of the worship of the true God as they
then could practice, as is plain in the practice of the three worthies,
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, as also of Daniel, Dan. iii. and Dan.
vi.—the peace of the city or kingdom being a far different peace from the
peace of the religion, or spiritual worship, maintained and professed of
the citizens. This peace of their (worship which worship also in some
cities being various) being a false peace, God’s people were and ought to
be nonconformitants, not daring either to be restrained from the true, or
constrained to false worship; and yet without breach of the civil or city
peace, properly so called.
[Sidenote: The difference between spiritual and civil peace.]
_Peace._ Hence it is that so many glorious and flourishing cities of the
world maintain their civil peace; yea, the very Americans and wildest
pagans keep the peace of their towns or cities, though neither in one
nor the other can any man prove a true church of God in those places,
and consequently no spiritual and heavenly peace. The peace spiritual,
whether true or false, being of a higher and far different nature from
the peace of the place or people, being merely and essentially civil and
human.
[Sidenote: The difference between the spiritual and civil state. The
civil state, the spiritual estate, and the church of Christ distinct in
Ephesus.]
_Truth._ Oh! how lost are the sons of men in this point! To illustrate
this:—the church, or company of worshippers, whether true or false,
is like unto a body or college of physicians in a city—like unto a
corporation, society, or company of East India or Turkey merchants, or
any other society or company in London; which companies may hold their
courts, keep their records, hold disputations, and in matters concerning
their society may dissent, divide, break into schisms and factions, sue
and implead each other at the law, yea, wholly break up and dissolve into
pieces and nothing, and yet the peace of the city not be in the least
measure impaired or disturbed; because the essence or being of the city,
and so the well being and peace thereof, is essentially distinct from
those particular societies; the city courts, city laws, city punishments
distinct from theirs. The city was before them, and stands absolute and
entire when such a corporation or society is taken down. For instance
further, the city or civil state of Ephesus was essentially distinct from
the worship of Diana in the city, or of the whole city. Again, the church
of Christ in Ephesus, which were God’s people, converted and called out
from the worship of that city unto Christianity, or worship of God in
Christ, was distinct from both.
Now suppose that God remove the candlestick from Ephesus, yea, though
the whole worship of the city of Ephesus should be altered, yet, if
men be true and honestly ingenuous to city covenants, combinations,
and principles, all this might be without the least impeachment or
infringement of the peace of the city of Ephesus.
Thus in the city of Smyrna was the city itself or civil estate one thing,
the spiritual or religious state of Smyrna another: the church of Christ
in Smyrna distinct from them both. And the synagogue of the Jews, whether
literally Jews, as some think, or mystically false Christians, as others,
called the synagogue of Satan, Rev. ii., [was] distinct from all these.
And notwithstanding these spiritual oppositions in point of worship and
religion, yet hear we not the least noise—nor need we, if men keep but
the bond of civility, of any civil breach, or breach of civil peace
amongst them; and to persecute God’s people there for religion, that only
was a breach of civility itself.
CHAP. VII.
_Peace._ Now to the second query, what it is to hold forth doctrine or
practice in an arrogant or impetuous way?
[Sidenote: The answerer too obscure in generals. God’s meekest servants
use to be counted arrogant and impetuous.]
_Truth._ Although it hath not pleased Mr. Cotton to declare what is this
arrogant or impetuous holding forth of doctrine or practice tending to
disturbance of civil peace, I cannot but express my sad and sorrowful
observation, how it pleaseth God to leave him as to take up the common
reproachful accusation of the accuser of God’s children: to wit, that
they are arrogant and impetuous. Which charge, together with that of
obstinacy, pertinacity, pride, troublers of the city, &c., Satan commonly
loads the meekest of the saints and witnesses of Jesus with.
[Sidenote: Six cases wherein God’s people have been bold and zealous, yet
not arrogant.]
To wipe off, therefore, these foul blurs and aspersions from the fair and
beautiful face of the spouse of Jesus, I shall select and propose five or
six cases, for which God’s witnesses, in all ages and generations of men,
have been charged with arrogance, impetuousness, &c., and yet the God of
heaven, and Judge of all men, hath graciously discharged them from such
crimes, and maintained and avowed them for his faithful and peaceable
servants.
[Sidenote: Christ Jesus and his disciples teach publicly a new doctrine,
fundamentally different from the religion professed.]
First, God’s people have proclaimed, taught, disputed, for divers
months together, a new religion and worship, contrary to the worship
projected in the town, city, or state where they have lived, or where
they have travelled, as did the Lord Jesus himself over all Galilee,
and the apostles after Him in all places, both in the synagogues and
market-places, as appears Acts xvii. 2, 17; Acts xviii. 4, 8. Yet this is
no arrogance nor impetuousness.
[Sidenote: God’s servants zealous and bold to the faces of the highest. 1
Kings xviii. 18. Luke xiii. 32. Acts xxiii. 3.]
Secondly, God’s servants have been zealous for their Lord and Master,
even to the very faces of the highest, and concerning the persons of
the highest, so far as they have opposed the truth of God: so Elijah
to the face of Ahab, “It is not I, _but thou, and thy father’s house_,
that troublest Israel.” So the Lord Jesus concerning Herod, _Go, tell
that fox_. So Paul, _God delivered me from the mouth of the lion_; and
to Ananias, _Thou whited wall_; and yet in all this no arrogance, nor
impetuousness.
[Sidenote: God’s people constantly immoveable to death.]
Thirdly, God’s people have been immoveable, constant, and resolved to
the death, in refusing to submit to false worships, and in preaching
and professing the true worship, contrary to the express command of
public authority. So the three famous worthies against the command of
Nebuchadnezzar, and the uniform conformity of all nations agreeing upon
a false worship, Dan. iii. So the apostles, Acts iv. and v., and so
the witnesses of Jesus in all ages, who loved not their lives to the
death, Rev. xii., not regarding sweet life nor bitter death, and yet not
arrogant, nor impetuous.
[Sidenote: God’s people ever maintained Christ Jesus the only Lord and
King to the conscience.]
Fourthly, God’s people, since the coming of the King of Israel, the Lord
Jesus, have openly and constantly professed, that no civil magistrate, no
king, nor Cæsar, have any power over the souls or consciences of their
subjects, in the matters of God and the crown of Jesus; but the civil
magistrates themselves, yea, kings and Cæsars, are bound to subject their
own souls to the ministry and church, the power and government of this
Lord Jesus, the King of kings. Hence was the charge against the apostles
(false in civil, but true in spirituals) that they affirmed that there
was another King, one Jesus, Acts xvii. 7. And, indeed, this was the
great charge against the Lord Jesus himself, which the Jews laid against
him, and for which he suffered death, as appears by the accusation
written over his head upon the gallows, John xix. 19, _Jesus of Nazareth,
King of the Jews_.
[Sidenote: That Christ is King alone over conscience is the sum of all
true preaching.]
This was and is the sum of all true preaching of the gospel, or glad
news, viz., that God anointed Jesus to be the sole King and Governor
of all the Israel of God in spiritual and soul causes, Ps. ii. 9; Acts
ii. 36. Yet this kingly power of His, he resolved not to manage in His
own person, but ministerially in the hands of such messengers which he
sent forth to preach and baptize, and to such as believed that word they
preached, John xvii. And yet here no arrogance, nor impetuousness.
[Sidenote: God’s people have seemed the disturbers of civil state.]
5. God’s people, in delivering the mind and will of God concerning the
kingdoms and civil states where they have lived, have seemed in all show
of common sense and rational policy, if men look not higher with the eye
of faith, to endanger and overthrow the very civil state, as appeareth by
all Jeremiah’s preaching and counsel to king Zedekiah, his princes and
people, insomuch that the charge of the princes against Jeremiah was,
that he discouraged the army from fighting against the Babylonians, and
weakened the land from its own defence; and this charge in the eye of
reason, seemed not to be unreasonable, or unrighteous, Jer. xxxvii. and
xxxviii.; and yet in Jeremiah no arrogance, nor impetuousness.
[Sidenote: God’s word and people the occasion of tumults.]