2. And yet I must tell you, that it is the common practice of these scorners to fasten more upon the concrete, than the abstract, the person, than the bare doctrine, and to oppose godly persons as such, when yet they say that they oppose not godliness. The reasons of this are these: (1.) Because they dare be bolder with the person, than with the rule and doctrine of God himself. If they scorn at the Bible, or at godliness directly, as such, they should so openly scorn at God himself, that the world would cry shame on them, and conscience would worry them: but as godliness is in such a neighbour, or such a preacher, or such a man, so they think they may reverence it less, and that what they do is against the person and not the thing.
(2.) In men they have something else to pretend, to be the matter of their scorn. Godliness in men is latent, invisible, unprovable as to the sincerity of it, and obscure as to the exercise. If he that scorneth a godly man say, He is not godly, but a hypocrite; in this world there is no perfect justification to be had against such a calumny; but the probable evidence of profession and a godly life is all that can be brought. But godliness, as it is in the Scripture, lieth open to the view of all, and cannot be denied there, but by denying the Scriptures themselves.
(3.) Godliness as in the rule of holy Scripture is perfect, without any blemish that may give a scorner a pretence; but godliness in men is very imperfect, and mixed with sins, with faults which the world may oft discern, and the godly themselves are forwardest to confess; and therefore in them a scorner may find some plausible pretence. And when he derideth these professors of godliness as being all hypocrites, he will not instance in their virtues, but in their faults; as in Noah's drunkenness, and Lot's incest, and David's adultery and murder, and Peter's denying Christ; yet so as the dart shall be cast at piety itself; and the conclusion shall not be, to drive men from drunkenness, adultery, or any sin, but from serious godliness itself.
(4.) Godliness as in the rule, is to them a more unobserved dormant thing, and doth not so much annoy them; for they can shut their Bibles, or make nothing of it, but as a few good words; but godliness in the godly, existent in their teachers and neighbours, is more discernible to them, and more active, and more troublesome to them, and so more hated by them. In a dead letter, or dead saint, that troubleth them not, they can commend it; but in the living they are molested by it; and the nearer it is to them, the more they are exasperated against it. The word is the seed of godliness; which least offendeth them, till it spring up and bring forth the fruit which condemneth their wicked lives.
3. And as opposers and scorners do usually strike at godliness through the person and his faults, so they use to strike at the particular parts of God's worship, through some modes or circumstances, or imperfections of men in the performance. It is not preaching or praying that they scorn, if you believe them, but this or that manner or imperfection in preaching and praying. But the drift of all is, not to help any man to do it better, but to make them odious that are most serious in doing it at all, and thereby to persuade men that it is a needless thing.[549]
4. Note also, that it is not the image or dead part of religion that these men are most offended at and oppose; but it is the life, and zeal, and diligence of the godly. So that if they differ not from themselves in profession about any doctrine or ceremony, yet they hate and scorn them for doing seriously the same which themselves hypocritically profess.
5. Lastly, note also, that this is not a difference of one sect, or party, or church against another, upon differing opinions; but it is that which is among all parties within themselves, when there is any thing of serious religion to be found. Even among the papists there are some spiritual, serious, holy persons, who are derided and opposed by the profane that are of their own church. Yea, among the heathens, Seneca and others tell us, that strictness in moral virtue was made the scorn of the rude and sensual sort of men. But though the quarrel be but that which was taken up from the beginning between the woman's and the serpent's seed, yet in all countries where church differences cause contention, this serpentine enmity doth with serpentine subtilty creep in and make advantage of them, and take up the nick-names, or sharper weapons, which differing christians form against each other, to strike at the heart of Christianity itself.[550]
_Direct._ I. For the cure of those that are already infected with so heinous a sin, the chief direction is, to understand the greatness of it, and the miserable consequents: as followeth.