THE NON-CONFORMIST'S PLEA FOR UNIFORMITY. Being the judgement of Fourscore and Four Ministers of the County Palatine of Lancaster. Of a whole Provincial Assembly of Ministers and Elders, in and about London. And of several other eminent Preachers, English, Scottish and New-English, concerning Toleration and Uniformity in matters of Religion. Together with a Resolution of this difficult Question; Whether the Penalty of the Law ought to be inflicted on those, who pretend and pled Conscience, in opposition to what the Law commands? Video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor. Mr. Case Farewel-Serm. on Rev. 2.5. Time was, when the name of a Toleration would have made Christians to have trembled. LONDON, Printed for Henry broom, at the Gun in St. Pauls Church-yard. 1674 THE NON-CONFORMIST'S PLEA FOR UNIFORMITY. IN the Book called The Harmonious consent of the Ministers of the Province, within the County Pa●atine of Lancaster, with their Reverend Brethren, the Ministers of the Province of London in their late Testimony to the Truth of Jesus Christ, printed in the Year 1648, and subscribed by 84 Ministers, whose names are printed with the said book; we have these expressions among several others to the like purpose. pag. 11, 12, 13. pag. 11. For our own parts, as we can never sufficiently admire and wonder, that any, that have taken the solemn League and Covenant, could either have so quickly forgotten it, or else imagine that the establishing a Toleration of Heresy and Schism by a Law, should be the way to extirpate them; so also here we shall take occasion to declare, what our apprehensions are concerning such a Toleration. We have preached the Scriptures, looked as impartially as we could into those authentic Records, and yet we cannot find, that ever such a thing was practised with approbation from God, from the time that Adam was created upon the Earth, unto the sealing up of the sacred Volume: but on the contrary, that those were blamed, reprehended and checked, that did but continue and wink at the practise of those things that were displeasing unto God; that the not taking away the high places is mentioned as a defect in their Reformation, Rev. 2.14, 15, 20. 1 King. 15.14. 2 Chron. 33.17. 2 Chron. 17.6.31.1.34.3, 4. of whom yet God gives testimony, that their hearts were upright, and that those that quiter took all away that was distasteful to him, were by God himself highly honoured, and much commended. And therefore we cannot see how such a kind of Toleration as is endeavoured after in these times, can any way consist with a through Reformation according to the Word of God; there being nothing more contrary to Reformation th●n Toleration. p●g. 12. A Toleration would be the putting of a Sword into a Mad-man's hand, a cup of poison into the hand of a child; a letting loose of Mad men with Fire-brands in their hands; an appointing a City of Refuge in mens Consciences for the Devil to fly to; a laying of the stumbling block before the blind; a proclaiming liberty to the Wolves to come into Christ's fold to prey upon the Lambs; A Toleration of Soul-murder( the greatest murder of all) and for the establishing whereof damned Souls in Hell would accurse men on Earth. Neither would it be to provide for tender Consciences, but to take away all Conscience. If evil be suffered, it will not suffer good; if error be not forcibly kept under, it will be superior. The establishing of a Toleration would make us become the abhorring and loathing of all nations; pag. 13. and being so palpable a breach of our Covenant, would be the high road-way to lay Englands glory in the dust, and awaken against us the Lord of Hosts to bring a Sword upon us, Qu. 26.25. to avenge the Quarrel of his Covenant. A Toleration added to our other sins would make us to God an intolerable burden; He would doubtless think of easing himself, he would be weary of Repeating. In the Book called A Vindication of the Presbiterial Government and Ministry; Published by the Ministers and Elders met together in a Provincial Assembly, Novemb. 2. 1649. licenced, entred and printed according to order, in the year 1650, We have these expressions among several of the like nature. pag. 124, 140. That Doctrine that crieth up Purity to the ruin of Unity is contra●y to the Doctrine of the Gospel; pag. 124. 1 Cor. 1.10. Phil. 2.1, 2. Eph. 4.3, 4, 5, 6. Joh. 17.21, 22. Jer. 32.29. Zeph. 3.9. for the Gospel calleth for Unity as well as Purity: and Christ prayed for the Unity of the Church as well as the Holiness. And it is prophesied of the times of the Gospel, That in those days God will give his people one way to serve him with one consent. This Rule will teach you what to judge of the Congregational way; for certainly that Religion that carrieth in the front of it a Toleration of different Religions, and is not sufficient to keep the Body of Christ in Unity and Purity. is not the Government of Christ. p●g. 142. To make Ruptures in the body of Christ, and to divide Church from Church, and to set up Church against Church, and to gather Churches out of true Churches; and because we differ in some things, therefore to hold Church-communion in nothing; this we think hath no warrant from the word of God, and will introduce all manner of Confusion into Churches and Families; and not only disturb, but in a little time destroy the power of Godliness, purity of Religion, peace of Christians, and set open a wide gap to bring in Atheism, Popery, Heresy, and all manner of Wickedness. Mr. Thomas Edwards in the first part of his Gangraena, printed in the year 1646; whose judgement in this particular has not only the Approbation and Recommendation of Mr. James Cranford, printed with the said Book; but of a huge number of Ministers from all parts of the Nation very largely expressed in their several Letters, sent to him the said Mr. Edwards, and still remaining upon Record in the second and third Parts of his Gangraena: So that what He has written in this particular is not to be looked upon as his own single judgement, but as the judgement of very many others, signified by his pen. He writes his judgement in these words. pag, 58, 59, 85. pag. 58. A Toleration is the grand design of the Devil, his master-piece and chief engine he works by at this time to uphold his tottering Kingdom; it is the most Compendious ready sure way to destroy all Religion, lay all waste and bring in all Evil. It is a most transcendent, catholic, fundamental evil, for this Kingdom of any that can be imagined. As original sin is the most fundamental sin, all sin, having the seed and spawn of all in it: So a Toleration hath all Errors in it, and all evils; it is against the whole stream and current of Scripture both in the old and new Testament both in Matters of Faith, and Manners, both general and particular commands; it overthrows all Relations both Political, Ecclesiastical and economical; pag. 59. and whereas other evils, whether errors of judgement or practise, are but against some one or few places of Scripture or Relation, this is against All; this is the Abaddon, Apollyon the destroyer of all Religion, the Abomination of desolation and astonishment; the liberty of perdition( as St. Austin calls it) and therefore the Devil follows it night and day, working mightily in many by writing books for it, and otherways, all the Devils in Hell and their Instruments being at work to promote a Toleration. A Toleration will undo All. First, pag. 85. bring in Sceptiscism in doctrine and Looseness of Life, and afterwards all Atheism. O let the Ministers therefore oppose Toleration, as being that by which the Devil would at once lay a foundation for his Kingdom to all generations, witness against it in all places, possess the Magistrates of the evil of it, yea and the people too, showing them how if a Toleration were granted, they would never have Peace in their Familys more, or ever after have command of Wives Children, Servants; but they and their posterities after them are like to live in discontent and unquietness of mind all their dayes. The same Mr. Edwards in the year 1641 printed a Book, entitled, Reasons against a Toleration, in which Book he gives ten Reasons against it, and answer all those Reasons that were brought for it. In the year 1644 the said Mr. Edwards printed another Book, called Antapologia; towards the close of which Book, viz. from p. 280. to p. 307. he does give eight other Reasons against a Toleration. And in the year 1647 He printed a book consisting of 218 pages concerning the Unlawfulness and Mischiefs both of an universal Toleration of all Religions and Consciences, and of a limited and bounded, of some Sects only; called, The casting down of the last and strongest hold of Satan, or a treatise against Toleration, and pretended Liberty of Conscience. Mr. Daniel Cawdry a member of the late Assembly of Divines, in his book called Independency a great Schism, printed in the year 1657, useth these expressions, pag. 13, 14, 15, 17. pag. 13. The Commonwealth of Israel never prospered better then when it enforced Uniformity in the way of Religion prescribed. To the objection that Uniformity enforced is the readiest means in the world to root out all Religion from the hearts of men; He returns these several answers. pag. 14 1. That it was by God thought the best way to plant and preserve Religion in the hearts of the Jews. Those great Reformers so famous among them, Josiah, &c. are recommended for compelling of people, and binding them by Oath to serve the Lord. 2. The Parable of compelling men to come into the wedding seems( in the judgement of no mean Divines) to allow a power to bring men to the public ordinances of worship. 3. Toleration( which is our present condition) hath done much more towards the rooting of Religion out of the hearts of many men in seven years, then the enforcing of Uniformity did in seventy years. 4. pag. 15. To compel Uniformity( in a true or false way) may by the corruptions of mens hearts breed hypocrisy, Formality, Atheism and anxiety of Conscience in some; but good and gracious Souls have been discovered and purified by it, as the three Children and Martyrs have manifested. 5. Many, at least some that were enforced to conformity in the Worship of God, in Families or Congregations, have blessed God for that compulsion, who before were Atheists or Profane, while they had a cursed intolerable toleration to be of any or no Religion. Lastly, the will indeed cannot be forced to believe; but that professed Christians should be compelled to that external profession of that only way of worship, which Christ has instituted, seems as equal and reasonable, as it is unreasonable that men be left to their own choice, to worship God either not at all, or after their own fancies. And he that denys this seems to men to be, if not an Atheist, a sceptic in Religion. I would know why the enforcing Uniformity is called by the name of bloody persecution. pag. 17. Surely to enforce conformity to the way of God is not persecution much less bloody; but it is a just persecution of evil and refractory rebels to the Kingdom of Christ. 〈◇〉. Will●am Ashton in his book called Toleration disap●●r●●●●d co●d●mn●d printed the second time in the 〈◇〉 1670 gives an acc●u●t of 20 eminent Di●●● 〈…〉 not all of them members of the late assembly) d claring and by convincing arguments 〈…〉 gr●at evil of a Toleration in their S●rmon● before the Parliament on Solemn occasio●●. Mr. Samuel Rutherford, Professor of Divinity in the U●iversity of S. Andrews, in his Book called A Free Di●putation against pretended Liberty of Conscience, 〈◇〉. 9●. u●eth these exp●●ssions, p. 98, 99. Such opinions and practices as make an evident Schism in a Church, and set up two distinct Churches of different forms of Government, and pretending to different institutions of Christ, of which the one must by the nature of their principles labour the destruction of the other, cannot be tol●rated. For each pretending th●ir fellow Churches to be of man, and so of the Devil, though they should both make one true invisible Church, agreeing in all Fundamentals and many other Truths, yet sure the whole would be a kingdom divided against itself, p●g. 99. and that destroyeth peace and unity. And if Paul could not endure the divisions of one and the same Church of Corinth, though they pretended not to be different Churches, for those that said they were of Paul, professed they could not be Disciples of Peter, but he sharply rebuked them as carnal, and such as divided Christ, and by consequence must say that Paul was crucified for them, and was their Redeemer, and so if obstinately they had proceeded in that separation, Paul would have gone on to higher censures of the Church; far more could he not endure the gathering of true Churches out of true Churches, which is the professed practise of the Independents. From p. 145. to p. 236. of the same Book, the said Author does produce sixteen several arguments against Toleration or pretended liberty of Conscience, and does answer such Objections as might be raised against them. Mr. Thomas shepherd, Pastor of the Church of Christ at Cambridge in New-England, in his Book called Theses Sabbaticae, or The Doctrine of the Sabbath, printed in the year 1655, thus declares his judgement, p. 311, 312. It's a thousand times better to suffer persecution for righteousness sake and for a good conscience, pag. 111. pag. 112. then to desire and pled for Toleration of all Consciences, that so by this cowardly device and lukewarm principle our own may be untouched. It was never heard of till now of late, that any of Gods Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, faithful Witnesses, &c. that they ever pleaded for liberty in error, but only for the truth, which they preached and prayed for, and suffered for unto the death, and their sufferings for the Truth with zeal and patience, faith and const●ncy, have done more good then the way of universal Toleration is like to do, which is purpos●ly invented to avoid trouble. Truth hath ●ver spread by opposition, but error, being a child of Satan, hath fled by a zealous resisting it. Edwards Reaso●s against T●l●ra●●●. 32. and A●●p●●. p. 289. In the Answer from New-England to the 32 Questions, sent by some Lancashire Ministers, who disliking the C●remonies of the Church, and having some thoughts of leaving their country, did propose it to th●se of New-England, whether they might have liberty according to their consciences to go into a Church way, something different from theirs, and not a●●ogether after the Independent popular Government: 'tis replied, That they could not grant any other form of Government but one, seeing there is but one way of Church-Government laid down in the Word, and that unchangeable, and therefore they cannot yield to it. Now as concerning this Question, Whether the penalty of the Law ought to be i●fl●cted on those who pretend conscience, in opposition to what the Law commands? Mr. John Humphrey in his Book called The Authority of the Magistrate about Religion discussed, printed in the year 1672, has resolved it thus, p. 113, 114. pag. 113. When men pretend they make a conscience of a thing, and indeed do not, I would have the Magistrate above all men to execute the Law upon such,( supposing they judge the Law righteous) and make them an example. If you will say, But how shall the Magistrate know this, seeing no man c●n judge of anothers heart? I aclowledge readily that this is a difficulty, and the chief thing which requires the Magistrates prudence and faithfulness: Y●t this I say, that every man for all that, being judge of his own acts, and the punishing or forbearing a person, being what the Magistrate does, pag. 114. he must and can but go according to his judgement. He uses the mediums as a wise man does, and lawfully may take his conjecture,( the three is known by his fruit) and it is not necessary that it should be certain, but only that it be certain that he so judges, and if he be convinced in his soul, and indeed judges the mans profession only to be pretence, it is his own judgement, and nothing else can determine him. Although where the person is serious in what he declares, and not under any public note of perfidiousness, the rule of Charity, which hopeth all things and thinketh no evil, must incline him to the best construction. Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs had given the same Resolution in effect long before, in his Book called Irenicum, printed in the year 1646. p. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36. The Devil must not be let alone, though he be got into mens Consciences. God hath appointed no City of R suge for him; if he flies to mens Consciences as Joab did to the Horns of the Altar, he must be fetched from thence, or fallen upon there. S●mething may be done to keep them from evil, and to reduce them, notwithstanding the plea of their Consciences. This said, he does proceed to sh●w what may be done to a man in such a case. These things, he says, may be done. 1. Any man that pleads his conscience, pag. 30. may be required to give an account of his Conscience. It is not enough for him to say his Conscience puts him upon such a thing, or keeps him from such a thing, he must give an account of the grounds on which Conscience goes. It is against the light of nature that men in society should do things of which they need give no account to any whatsoever. 2. Due enquiry is to be made whether the Devil be indeed in the Conscience. It may be you will find him in some other room of the soul, only he pretends to that as his Sanctuary, hoping to escape b●tter there then any where else. If he should be found in a mans Will, he thinks he should be hunted out with violence, he could not escape there, but he hopes men will deal more tenderly with Conscience; therefore either thither he will get, or at least he will give it out that he is got in there, hoping you will inquire after him no further, when it is given out he has taken Refuge there. As a Malefactor preached after, it may be he is lurking in some house not far from you, but that you may either not search, or cease searching, he causes it to be given out that he is got into some strong Castle, or some other country, where there is little hope to come at him. Hereupon he puts the Question, by what signs it may be known whether the Devil be got into a mans Conscience? It may be known he tells us by these signs. 1. If a mans private Interest is much engaged in what he pretends Conscience for, this may be enough to raise suspicion, though it be no determining Rule, &c. 2. If in the Course of a mans life, pag 3●. he appears not to be much under the command of his Conscience, but can take Liberty as he pleases, &c. 3. When the account a man gives, cannot in any rational way be judged such, giving allowance to all his weaknesses, as should probably misl●ad him so grossly, as is apparent he is misled, &c. 4. If a man be proud and turbulent in his carriage; by that you may know the Devil is rather in the Will, then in the Conscience, &c. 5. pag. 32. When a man is not willing to make use of means to inform his Conscience, &c. 6. pag. 33. When a man by reason of Scripture is so put to it, as he must either renounce his Error, or fly from some of his own Principles, he will rather deny his Principles then yield himself convinced of his error; The man that does thus, is the man spoken of Tit. 3.11. that is {αβγδ} condemned of himself. A heretic after the first and second admonition reject, because he is self condemned. By this Scripture it is clear that a mans Conscience may be so far seen into, as there may be a judgement passed upon a man, that he is a self condemned man, &c. Having enlarged upon these signs he declares yet further what may be done to such a man. Notwithstanding his Conscience he is to be cast out of the Society of the Saints; and not only so, but if his error with the profession of it be destructive to the State, and he cannot be reclaimed, he may likewise be cut off from it; or at least deprived of the privileges of it, and benefits by it, notwithstanding his Plea of Conscience. And least it should be thought that he herein sp●ke only of the restraint of men from d●ngerous gross evils and not from evils o f less moment; He does add concerning such; That, A man may be put to some trouble in those ways of evil, that his Conscience puts him upon, so far as to take off the wantonness of his spirit and the neglect of means: In times of liberty there is very great wantonness in mens Spirits; they stand as in an equal balance to receive truth or error; every little thing casts the balance in many mens Spirits: as interest in a friend; esteem from such men of repute in some; in others the credit they conceive there is in being able to speak further in a business then other men, to have a further insight into it than others; and a thousand the like: Now to help against such temptations, if there be some trouble laid in the way, of that which is apparently evil, so as men shall see there is something to be suffered in that way; if there be no more grains of trouble then may help against the wantonness and neglect of means, I see no reason why any should be offended at this. Mr. James Noyes, that judicious and faithful Minister of Christ; for so the Publisher of his book has been pleased to style him; colleague to Mr. Thomas Parker, Pastor of the Church of Newbury in New-England, has in like sort declared his judgement for the punishing of offenders, notwithstanding their Plea of Conscience, in his book called Moses and Aaron; recommended by the said Mr. Thomas Parker, and here published in the year 1661. by Mr. Benjamin Woodbridg, who at that time thought fit to style himself Rector of Newbury in the County of Berks. The said Mr. James Noyes, pag. 69 and 70, discoursing of the power of Magistrates over the Church, under Christ the Head, does affirm, That Magistrates have a supreme power under Christ to see the whole Law of God kept without exception: pag. 69. Deut. 17.19. Numb. 27.21. Es. 1.25, 26. 2 Chron. 15.30.24.4.29.25. Neh. 13.13. Joh. 3.11. Hos. 9.30.10.3. Ez. 6.8, 11. Dan. 6.23. Deut. 17.10, 11. Rom. 13.4. 2 Tim. 2.2. That it is the Magistrates duty to reform all abuses without exception: That it is the Magistrates end to punish and to put away all evil; to maintain all godliness and peace among all persons: That Magistrates receive power from Christ as Mediator: All power is given to him, and therefore comes from him, and is given by him to others: And Magistrates receive power from Christ without exception in a politic way, therefore their power is correspondent to Christs Mediatorial power in a politic way; else the Church would be desolated with Heresies, Idolatry, profaneness. It is needful that Magistrates should have power to preserve the Church from desolation by taking away Foxes and Wolves, &c. and their power is no where limited in this respect, and therefore they have such power, as to take away Foxes and Wolves, &c. pag. 72. And in p. 72. to the Objection, That Magistrate● may not punish sins of conscience, he returns this Answer, That they may; which he there proves at large by fourteen several Arguments, p. 72, 73, 74, 75. viz. thus: Sins committed by the misunderstanding of Gods Word may be punished, therefore sins of conscience may be punished. A plea from Gods Word is greater then a plea of conscience. The Jews might have been punished for their killing of Christ, though they pleaded from Gods Word that he had deserved it by blasphemy. 2. Men may be punished when they sin in Reliigious zeal; so Saul murdered the Gibeonites, and the Jews Christ. Zeal argues a love of duty, and an apprehension of conscience, in reference to Gods command. Mat. 26.52. Peter was threatened with death by the sword, for using the sword unlawfully, though conscientiously, in a way of Religious zeal. Paul's mad zeal was conscientions. Act. 26.6. A mad conscience had need be restrained. 3. Magistrates as well as Masters and Fathers of Families may make, and therefore execute Laws against an erroneous conscience. They may confirm Gods judicial Laws, Deut. 13.13. which punished Idolatry, and therefore an erroneous conscience. 4. Negligence is punishable without exception, and conscience is negligent when a man sins. Adam his conscience was negligent in the act, though not in the habit, when he first sinned, and accordingly punished. A negligent and corrupt Judge is punished, though ignorant. A corrupt conscience is a corrupt Judge. Conscientia est testis, judex& vindex. 5. Deut. 17.19. 2 Chron. 19.6. God does punish Sins of Conscience and Magistrates are Gods Vicegerents and not restrained in this respect. 6. Ex. 32 4. Deut. 13.13. Magistrates under the Law did punish sins of Conscience; and Law is not changed in this respect. 7. Men may commit murders, Joh. 16.2. Act. 26.9. Rom. 10.2. persecute and desolate the Church in a way of conscience, therefore they may be punished for Sins of conscience. Men may be punished in reference to sins of the mind, and why not in reference to sins of conscience also? Mad men having not the use of a rational mind are not punishable. A conscience is a power of the mind, whereby we discern the rule and judge of our actions and conformity thereunto. The Soul, mind and conscience are punished immediately by God, the body immediately by man. Conscience is formally punished, though mediately, as well as formally; the subjects of heat from fire, though mediately by the air. A murderous heretical conscience had need be corrected, not directed only. Meliores ducit amor, plures tamen corrigit timor. 9. If Direction be not sufficient, 2 Tim. 3.16. then correction is to be applied to Conscience to the whole man. 1 Pet. 3.10, 11. 1 Tim. 1.9. 10. All Disobedience is to be corrected without exception. Heb. 10.22. Tit. 1.15, 16. 11. Conscience is but a natural power of the Soul, and therefore corrigible, as other natural powers offending as well as the affections and the will and the mind, &c. Men may conscientiously neglect to hear the Church, yea persecute the Church conscientiously, which is worse. Men may be punished as contemptuous and wilful, affecting ignorance, morally mad. A master of a Family corrupted had need be corrected rather then others, because so many do depend on his integrity. A Drunkard that is wont to be mischievous, and yet follows the cups, deserves Pythacus his Law, a double punishment. Act. 23.14. If the sworn Jews had killed Paul, they had murdered him in Conscience. A rod is for the fools back, and conscience is naturally foolish. A conscience that serveth lusts, Tit. 3.3. 2 Pet. 2.3.5. Tit. 3.2, 3. is contemptuous, wilfully ignorant, affecting ignorance, and naturally conscience does serve lusts. The Thief and the Adulterer may have such a conscience as to think that God is like to them. Psal. 5●. 29, Heathens have worshipped God by adulterous prostitutions. Men are in a sense conscientiously criminal, when conscience permitteth the perpetration of crimes, not only when it commands. If a corrupt conscience maketh Gods House a den of thieves, it is meet it should be whipped out. If conscience be a den for thieves and a shelter for murderers, it must not be tolerated. Gods own Temple must not secure such. 13. Ministers are to punish conscience. 2 Cor. 10.5, 6. 14. If conscience is not to be corrected, it is because it is ignorant, or because there is some goodness in it, or for some other reason; But no such consideration does excuse it; Not the first, for there is greatest ignorance in the greatest sins, yet they are the greatest Sins. There is more ignorance of some high principles in sins against known principles, then in sins that are called sins of ignorance. The more knowledge the less sin, therefore the more ignorance the more sin. It appears that the will follows the intellect in mad-men. The Will doth not act like the Appetite of a brute. All lusts are lusts of ignorance. True knowledge doth hinder Sin, because it doth forbid Sin, and the Will cannot but follow the ultimate dictate of the intellect. Omnis malus est stultus omnis peccans est ignarus. Ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance deserves pity, yet it doth not excuse from punishment. Not the second, there is some goodness in a heathens conscience. Godliness in truth according to the Gospel doth not exempt from punishment. Conscience so far as it argues a good man, renders one the more worthy of regard, but not free from punishment, Qui parit culpis praesentibus, vitia transmittit ad posteros. Luk. 19.22. Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked Servant. Rom. 2.1. Therefore thou art inexcusable, oh Man whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest dost the same things. Jer. Burroughs iron. p. 215. l. 28. The Lord may justly judge us out of our own mouths. FINIS.