The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated and argued by Richard Baxter ; who earnestly beseecheth rulers and clergy not to divide and destroy the land and cast their own souls on the dreadful guilt and punishment of national perjury ...

CHAP. II. The things presupposed as agreed on.

L.

WHat are the Agreements which you presuppose?

M.

These following.

1. That God is the Absolute Soveraign Ruler, and hath made in Nature, and in the Sacred Scripture, Universal Laws for the whole Church and World: And that Kings are His Subjects and Officers, and have no Power but what He giveth them directly or indirectly, and therefore none against Him; no more than a Constable against the Sovereign Power; and that he and all men are bound to obey Gods Lawes, whoever are against it or for∣bid it.

L.

I cannot deny this, without denying God to be God, and the Law of Nature and Scripture to be His Law and Word.

M.

II. That next to his Government, God in order of Nature and Time made Self-Government and Family-Government before the Government of Republicks, Kingdoms or Cities: And that publick Polity hath no Authority to abrogate Self-Government or Family-Government, but only to over rule and use them for the common good and safety.

L.

This is undenyable, if you state the Governments presupposed 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

M.

III. That it belongs to Self-Government to discern by rea∣son, whether the Commands of Men be against the Commands of God or not, which we call Iudicium discretionis, by which all men must guide their actions.

L.

Shall every man be a judge of the Law, whether it be just and good? How unfit are the vulgar to judge of Lawes.

M.

They are no publick judges to decide the case for other men, nor doth their judgment restrain or bind the Magistrate; nor if they judge amiss will it justifie themselves, or suspend the execution of the Law against them. But if they must not have the foresaid discerning judgment to guide their actions, it will follow; 1. That they are not governed, nor must obey as Men by Reason and Free-will, but as Brutes. 2. That Kings have Absolute Power against God, and must be obeyed in all that they command, e. g. if it be to curse or blaspheme, or renouce God or Christ, to command the Subject to live in Murder, Adultery, Perjury, &c. and so to abrogate the Law of Nature. 3. It fol∣loweth, that there is no God (that is, a Supream Ruler) but the King. 4. And I pray you tell me what you will have the Sub∣jects do in case of Usurpation or Competition for the Govern∣ment, as between the Houses of York and Lancaster, Iane and Queen Mary, &c. when one saith fight for me, and the other fight for me. If the Subject have not a judgment of discretion to know which is his rightful Sovereign, the King must be forsaken? He that will stand to the command of another, must judge who his Commander is.

L.

And will you have Infants and Idiots judge of their Parents commands? Or Children in their minority.

M.

1. Infants and Idiots have not the use of Reason, and so far are to be ruled by force as Brutes: And Children in that mea∣sure as they are short of reason. But 2. If they come to reason, and the King command them one thing, (e. g. what Church to go to.) and their Parents the contrary, would you not have them judge which they must obey. 3. Much more if Parents should command them to sin against God, to Steal, Lye, Murder, Blas∣pheme, and Curse the King, &c. surely they must judge as far as they are able.

L.

I cannot deny it, proceed in your presuppositions.

M.

IV. That no men have power to command us to damn our Souls, or to do any thing that tendeth to it.

L.

None will deny you that; but perhaps some things may cease to be sin, and dangerous if commanded.

M.

None can dispense with the Laws of God, but we grant that some things that are unlawful by some accident or circum∣stance may become a duty when commanded, when the good of Obedience, Order and Concord therein, weighs down against the accident: It may be a sin to go on Warfare before one is com∣manded, and a duty when he is commanded. It is a fault in a Servant to go before he is sent, and a duty after.

V. We presuppose that deliberate Lying is a sin.

L.

Is there any one doubts of that?

M.

If they do not, our Case will soon be decided. But in∣deed many deny it. The Iansenists name you many Jesuit Ca∣suists: And Groti•••• de Iure Belli, and Bishop Ier. Taylor, deny that Lying is any sin when it is profitable, and wrongeth none; as in a Physician to fice down a Medicine.

L.

And what have you to say to the contrary?

M.

I must not stay to dispute all such matters with you: I have fully answered it in my Catechisme on the Ninth Command∣ment. Briefly this may satisfie you: No ones private good must be sought by a means that would destroy all Humane Trust and Converse: But if you give men leave to lye when they think it needful or harmless, it will destroy all Humane Trust and Con∣verse: For almost all will think their lyes are profitable. And we have had Learned, Moderate Conformists that have trusted to this Argument, and openly defended it: If Knaves would take my Purse, I may defend my self with my Hands: Ergo, If they would deprive me of my Maintenance and Ministry, I may defend my self with my Tongue.

L.

And how do you answer them?

M.

That no man must defend himself by means which will do more hurt than his Ministry or Life is worth: But to let men loose so to lying is such; and more forbidden of God than ••and∣defence: And sin ever doth more hurt than good.

VI. We may suppose also that Perjury is unlawful, and would much more destroy all Mutual Trust, and consequently Humane Converse.

VII. And we may suppose that he that either commandeth or perswadeth others to be prejured, or that openly justifieth their perjury, by telling them that it is no perjury, or no sin, is guilty of their perjury.

VIII. And we suppose that to draw whole Churches and King∣doms into perjury, by force, perswasion, example or justifica∣tion of it, and telling them that they need not repent of it, is one of the hainousest sins that man can commit, except making it the very Mark or Stigma without which none may be Magistrates, Ministers or Freemen.

L.

No one I hope will deny any of this.

M.

IX. We presuppose that all Vows, Oaths, Covenants, Professions, imposed by Superiours, must be taken in that sence in which they any way expound them, without forcing them ei∣ther by a laxe or an over-rigid interpretation: But if they do not otherwise expound them, they must be taken in the sence as those words are commonly used and understood, by such as treat of the subject which they belong to.

L.

You have so cautelously exprest it, that I cannot contradict you.

M.

I must not be tedious in writing the same things oft. If any doubt whether our expositions of Oaths and Subscriptions be not over-strict or rigid, I pray read the words of Dr. Sanderson, cited by me in the end of my first Plea for Peace, and know that we stand to his rules of exposition.

X. We may suppose that, seeing repenting and amending is the condition of forgiveness, to make a Covenant in any sin that we will never repent and amend, is so heinous a crime, as is next to the renouncing of Pardon and Salvation: And in National guilt and danger deliberately to Covenant that we will never endeavour any amendment of the Nations sin, is next to begging Gods Curse on the Land; e. g. If a man were a Fornicator and Perjured, and the Land commonly guilty of the same, he that would make a Bargain or Covenant, and that deliberately, that he will never amend, nor ever endeavour to amend the Land or any other— What would you think of that mans case?

L.

What should I think but that he is a Monster and miserable Wretch? But what's that to us? I hope there are none such in

England, that worse than Witches, would sell themselves and the Nation to the Devil.

M.

I pray over-run me not in the application: I do but tell you what I suppose we are agreed in: I shall tell you after why I speak it.

XI. I also suppose that bare Possession proveth not a Bishop or Pastors right to the place and power which he claimeth: Nor is any disseized of his right by being disseized of separable accidents.

L.

That's true: But what use you'l make of it I know not.

M.

XII. Lastly, I must desire you to remember, that as we profess to stick at nothing but sin against God (and not things in∣different as we are slandered), so if but one of all the imposed Acts of Conformity be certainly sinful, and if but one of all the Arguments which I shall use do prove it so, not only the two thou∣sand that were ejected were bound to be Nonconformists, but also all the English Ministry, and the Act of Uniformity (if Con∣formity be sin) did vertually, though not actually, turn out all the Clergy at once, because all were bound rather to resign than sin.

L.

The truer and more dreadful the consequence is, the hardlyer will I believe the antecedent, till I needs must.

M.

You cannot expect that we affirm it: For 1. We know how cautelous we must be in meddling with the case of other men: Let them judge themselves who are called to it. 2. And I told you before what the Law threatens, and the Canons, against them that affirm any of the impositions to be sinful; much more that shall so deeply accuse the Laws. 3. But sure no Law or Rea∣son forbiddeth men to fear sinning against God themselves, nor to tell the World what it is that they fear, and why they dare not do it, without accusing any other.