which is our duty in opposition to resistance or rebellion and Obedience which lyes in the doing what he commands It is apparent in the last passage how he confounds these two things when the making conscience of subjection to Princes and obligation to the Law is belike all one with him in his present conception But that there is a difference to be put between these two it does appear undeniably from one consideration that we are always bound in conscience to the one that is subjection but we are not always so bound to the other to obedience The things that are commanded may be sometimes sinful or hurtful to the Common-wealth and then it will be our duty not to obey them or they may be idle vain frivolous which we may choose therefore to do out of prudence for fear of wrath and to avoid contempt and scandal when we are not otherwise to hold our selves bound in conscience Sect. 4. To begin with the former By me Kings Reign says Wisdom and if they rule by God it is fit they should also rule for him He is the Minister of God for our good says the Apostle The Minister is to look to his Lords will and the good of the Subject is not only their Temporal but Spiritual good And if he be Gods Minister for our good there can be no exemption of Sacred things any more then Civils from his Authority under God for the good of his People And hence are we taught to pray for Magistrates that we may lead peaceable lives under them in all Godliness as well as Honesty Kings and Emperors says Grotius from some other are equally to take care of Sacred and Secular things but onely when we come to particulars it must be confessed that the jus imperii is more narrow in matters of Religion then in other matters upon this one account that the Divine Law does appoint or determine more things concerning Religion and so takes them out of the Magistrates liberty then it does concerning other matters In hoc Reges sicut cis Divinitus praecipitur Deo serviunt in quantum Reges sunt si in suo regno bona jubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam sicietatem verum etiam quae ad Divinam Religionem says Augustine Contra Cresco nium l. 3. c 51. The affairs of Religion I must say again are of the greatest concernment and it is not fit Gods Minister should neglect his greater affairs to take care only of the less Besides there are no matters in the Earth which have so great an influence on Mens spirits to put them in agitation as the matters of Religion and if they were exemted wholy from the authority of the Supreme Governour it would be a very hard thing for any mortal to govern at all The Non-Conformists therefore deny not the authority of the King in matters Ecclesiastical No they may perhaps be rather accused shortly for acknowledging it too much as hath been intimated seeing they do accept of his Declaration nor do they scruple his Title of Supreame Head We distinguish indeed between a Civil head of the Church and the Constitutive head The King we acknowledge the civil Head or Governour of the Church of England as well as the State that is in whom the only Supream Coercive authority does lye over all persons in Ecclesiastical as well as other matters But as to the constitutive head of our Church as an Ecclesiastical organical body it will be hard for those who own not be Bishops jure Divino to assign The National Church hitherto I took to be the Integrum of our Parochial Congregations and the Pastors of all the Parish Churches in England virtually associated for they are not actually are I think the constitutive head of the Church of England under Christ in that external formal Government of it he hath committed to them There is the internal Government of the Church which belongs only to Christ and his Spirit who alone can rule mens hearts or the external Government of it This external regiment is either formal which belongs to the Ministers or Objective which belongs to the Magistrate The Magistrate cannot therefore by vertue of his Office enter into the function of the Priest to do his work though he can make the Minister himself do it and punish him if he neglect his duty He can give a call to the Pastoral Rulers to meet and frame Ecclesiastical constitutions and when himself cannot make them they shall not yet be obligatory to the subject unless they have his Sanction This external authority over the Church which is Objective that is which is conversant about Ecclesiastical affairs but does not exercise them which is Circa Sacra not in Sacris according to Constantine of old Episcopus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does differ from the formal which is from Christ to us as his Stewards and Embassadors and so to be put in execution no otherwise then as it is prescribed by him in the word in this mainly that the one is Declarative that can direct what is Gods will and perswade to it and threaten only with reference to another world but the other is a power to make that our duty which it requires and enforce it to be done by present punishments that is a power which is juris Constitutinum and Coercive There are two sorts then of things which are subject to the Magistrates Power or Government Things or actions determined by God himself in his word or things that are less undetermined by him as neither commanded nor forbidden For the former the Magistrates power does lye in his being made the Keeper of the Tables having no authority to change a title of Gods Law so that his work in respect of such things consists in protecting those that observe them and encouraging such by removing what will hinder and promoting what will further them in their duty as also in his discouraging the Transgressour by withdrawing the occasions of their sin and punishing them for it For the latter the power of the Magistrate does lye in his liberty to determine all such things as being before not determined so as by that determination to make them our duty which were indifferent before to make it our duty I say to avoid or do such things according as he requires or prohibits them for the common edification Haes sive Sacra sive profana sint says Grotius determinare in alterum partem jus est summae potestatis Provided always that such commands as these do indeed answer that end For seeing power in the original is derived from God as Supreame Lord Thou couldst have no power says Christ to Pilate unless it were given thee of God and it is given of God to none but for the common good we are to conceive that the things that are commanded in Civils are for the good of the Common-wealth and in Ecclesiasticals for our Spiritual edification or else though
we should If he could have distinguished these two things he might have spared most of his labour There is a Book entituled The Obligation of human Laws discussed which I Printed a year since I must desire my Reader to get it and bind it together if he can with this for they are of two subjects that do enterfare very much The authority of the Magistrate in the matters of God discussed was the entended Title of this but I could not Print it till this Preface now hath given me the occasion I use the expression of Scripture in the matters of God because I would include all matters wherein the conscience is concerned as well as Ecclesiastical matters Now I have in that Book laid down this distinction with one more as the ground work of my determination of that point and I have need to say a little more to prevent some cavil which may be raised by this person upon my reproof which I must also give him for the next words he uses viz. 'T is conscience onely says he that is capable of the Obligation of human Laws so that if that be exempt the whole man is at liberty I wonder at the Man for this I do hate this pride methinks for being indocible and perverse no less then for being ugly Pride is an overweening conceit of ones self with the contempt of others There is nothing more visible than this filthy pride in this young man and that Author who wrote the Friendly Debate but only with this difference that I judg this the more ingenuous or open the other the more cankered and sly I pray God forgive them both with all my heart It is a base piece of immorality I am sure in either that when they have to do with any such person as Dr Owen of years so much elder than themselves and who are not without some reputation at least with other persons to use such contemptuous disdainful scorning language as they do altogether which arising so manifestly too from the conceit and confidence alone they have of themselves does declare them two such Sons of the morning such a couple of proud Despisers that until they do shew some repentance and acknowledgment for their fault they do deserve really to be excommunicated out of the good thoughts of all men that most deservedly otherwise do honor them never so much Well! This man cannot it seems understand how he should be obliged at all unless he be obliged in Conscience He cannot discern belike between an obligation simpliciter the obligation of conscience He cannot discern that the conscience which judges of our duty only in relation to God is bound only by a Divine obligation and that a Divine obligation may be distinguished from an Human obligation Is it not indeed strange that a man of such quick parts hath yet so little solid judgment Is it not one thing thinks he to be bound to an action because it is Gods will and for fear of Hell or Divine punishments and another to be bound to it out of fear only of the Law and to escape suffering Does not the Apostle when he tells us We must be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake imply this distinction that there is an obligation then only for wrath sake and an obligation out of conscience And cannot this exceeding fine witted man by any means discern this And will not he nor the Debater learn though it be never so ingenuous for them to come here to some acknowledgment that themselves as well as others may be able to live in this World under Laws with peace to their souls I do profess sincerely that of all the Books that ever yet I wrot I am most pleased in my heart with that Book I now mentioned as being a subject so needful for all persons though it be the worst printed I will supply some little I want in it in this place It is this If this Author were a man of as much judgment as wit he would not have laid down himself so rawly and excepted at the thing but at the terms of the distinction which I have used with other Divines For when Doctor Taylor speaks of the Bodies being bound and I have said the outward man in distinction to the Conscience it must be confessed that these terms are taken from custom and that it does fare with them as it does usually with other School-terms that they will not strictly hold the examination The Law of man which binds the subject for wrath sake only does so bind him to the external act as the will to that act must be included for to bind him in the Body without the Will were to put him in Fetters but it is no human obligation This I have said in my Book and I add here when I say we distinguish not the Will from the outward Man in the Obligation of human Laws it must be conceived that the will is guided still by the understanding and is supposed by some to be nothing else but the last practical act of it I distinguish not then the outward man from the inward so far as the inward acts are necessary to that which is external when I distinguish both from the conscience There is the understanding N.B. that I shall suffer if I do not such a thing and therefore I will do it is one thing and the understanding that I sin if I do it not and therefore I will do it is another The one is that our Divines mean by this term of the outward man still and the other is the conscience You may ask how comes it to pass that when there goes all this to an act the Magistrate commands so that the subject in his will and understanding so far as to do the thing is obliged we do yet call it but the outward man or forum exterius and can distinguish it with all that from the conscience I answer we call this the outward man upon this account because it is the external acts only that are subject to the Magistrates Government or can be required for themselves and the acts of the will and understanding are not required but indirectly in relation only to these external acts therefore I say do we well call all this still but the outward Man and this is distinguished plainly from the conscience because a man may know that such a thing is not required of God and that God will not punish him though he does not do it when yet he does know that it is prudent for him rather then suffer and therefore wills it In the one there is the external act with the will and understanding so far as that act is concerned but so long as my understanding is that it is not Gods will but mans will that I perform such a thing may be said to be done out of understanding and will as well as by the outward man but not out of conscience It is
not my knowledge of a thing and that I am to do it but my knowledge that it is God will or my knowledge of his judgement of the thing to be the same with mine that makes it Conscience I think I am full enough now You may then object that I sometimes seem in that Book to make the obligation of the outward man to be negative not to rebell and another time to be positive also to some act I answer 't is true that from the beginning I do make the obligation of the outward man to lye in both these a necessity never to resist and upon that necessity to act rather then suffer But interest of fear or self preservation binds the reason as well as the sense I say true and that there is the reason then of the outward man which is one and the reason of the conscience which is another When my reason is the fear of suffering because I may not resist and therefore I will it is my outward man is bound but when my reason is that the thing hath Gods Authority and it will offend him if I do it not and therefore I will then am I bound in conscience A human Law which is for the common good binds me from reason of conscience a Law which is unprofitable or against it binds me only from the outward mans reason There is Candour indeed to be allowed to this distinction which I have intimated as to most terms of Art but they are not therefore to be left both because of their constant use and also for their profit in the shorter cut which we get to what we would have by the use of them Onely they are verily to be at once first throughly understood and then shall all that which we signifie by them be as compleatly represented with a word as if it were drawn out in the full expression That which I have to offer upon this against the Prefacer and Debater who are companions in this cause is this that whereas they see no more but to think that the stability of Crowns and Scepters and so of all Government does lye in the Ministers especially the Episcopal Divines preaching such Doctrine as theirs which is to lay an obligation upon the conscience of the subject to obey them in all things indefinitely unless they be apparently forbidden in the Word of God they are exceedingly mistaken for if there were nothing else to support Soveraignity but that the Kings Crown might perhaps stick no longer on his Head then till the Parliament sits again seeing we may then very likely have more Laws that we shall make no conscience to obey and yet we shall make conscience God willing of our Loyalty to his Majesty and must do while we live by the command of the Aâ—mighty It is not the point of Obedience then it must be inculcated upon which the Government of Kings is established but upon the point of Subjection Let me say it over again It is not on the point of obedience out of Conscience but on the point that we must obey because the Magistrate beareth the Sword and that not in vain that the whole World is kept in Order And also upon this point of Conscience that whether we have cause to obey or not obey we must however never resist upon pain of damnation Let the Book before mentioned be herein further consulted And after this there will be little reason for our Prefacer to talk any more of exceptions levelled at the Power it self by any Pretences of the Non-Conformist against the Soveraign right of the King in the matters of the Church any more then of the State for we own no such no more then he though the way of his expressing himself by putting a restraint upon his Subjects consciences is so feat and grating till it be digested and withal so wayward that I cannot but point it to the Readers correction by what will hereafter follow If he hath any thing then to charge us with it must be in regard to the matters of the command unto which therefore he proceeds But then they say there are some particular things exempted from all humane cognizance which if the Civil Magistrate presume to impose upon the consciences of his Subjects He should say upon his Subjects not upon the consciences of his Subjects for the Magistrate imposes nothing but upon the outward man requiring the external act and the inward acts follow onely so far as they are necessary to the external as he ventures beyond the Warrant of his Commission so he can tye no Obligation of Obedience upon them seeing they can be under no subjection in those things where they are under no Authority Now this pretence resolves it self thus that they do not quarrel his Majesties Ecclesiastical Supremacy but they acknowledge it to be the undoubted right of all Soveraign Princes as long as its exercise is kept within due bounds of modesty and moderation Which being granted all their general exceptions Very fine when we have indeed none at all against the sufficiency of the Authority it self are quitted and they have now nothing to except against but the excess of its Jurisdiction So that having gained this ground Mighty to gain what never was with held the next thing to be assigned and determined is the just and lawful bounds of this Power which may be summed up in this general rule That Governours take care not to impose things apparently evil and that Subjects be not allowed to plead Conscience in any other case This is the safest and most easie Rule to secure the Quiet of all that are upright and peaceable and all that refuse subjection to such a gentle and moderate Government make themselves uncapable of all the benefits of society It is well we are come now at last where the water â—…cks The Non-Conformist differs not from the Conformist in the main point that secures all Government that is Subjection but it is in the point of Obedience only we differ And here are two questions The one is about the matters of our obedience in general what is the rule or the bounds that must be set to the Magistrates commands that we exceed not our duty to God while we are obedient to our Governours The other is about the particular matters of it whether the present impositions of Conformity do keep within that compass and consequently are lawful or unlawful The latter of these is the pitcht Field between the Conformist and Non-Conformist and neither of us have a mind to enter into it Only I will offer thus much by the way The Conformists generally do hold that the things we differ about are indifferent and consequently thae they may be removed out of the Church by Authority without sin The Non-Conformists say generally they shall sin if they obey them What then is to be done in the case but if my friend be weak and cannot indeed come to me I must go to my
command and oblige the Conscience as human law does bind it which how and how far it does is stated in my other book he cannot justly punish the man for not doing that which he was not bound to do So that we see here where the Magistrate must not use his Sword even while he is using it and acts not as a Magistrate but by it He acts by his authority or sword in seeing the means used helps administred obstacles removed He can and may force others whose duty it is not to be wanting in this when he cannot then enforce the end to which he causes these means to be used He cannot I mean he ought not punish any man only because his Conscience is not wrought upon by the means which he has used and so does not what he would have him In this case it is not he or the man either can help it and he may as well beat his Dog for not whistling Upon this account there is very good reason that regard be had so much the more to things that are not attainable without supernatural help that they be not enforced as other things So that we are to understand well after this that the distinctions between the Religious and Secullar things in reference to the Magistrates Authority or using his Sword is for all what is before said to be held so far as it will reach but that is only to a majus minus of his Care not to the specification of the state of our business My meaning is that in things not Religious but Moral only or Civil the Magistrate is more free as to his commands and using his Sword than in matters of Religion or he is to take more care of what he imposes in the one than he need to do in the other but that will not advance to the stating the point hereupon that he hath Authority and may use his Sword in Civil and not in Sacred concerments The King under the Law was to have the Book of God by him to this end that he might govern the people according to it and consequently use his Authority in the things of Religion And so Jehoshaphat to name no other appoints his Officers for the doing justice in the matters of God as in the Kings matters This Proposition The Magistrate may use his Sword in Civil but not in Religious affairs is not a true Proposition and therefore can determine nothing And this Proposition The Magistrate is to take more heed how he uses his Sword in supernatural than in natural or civil concerns is a true Proposition but not a sufficient determination The main Question still remains What are those things wherein the Magistrate indeed hath no power or may not use his Sword Upon the knowledg of this must the stating the business depend for when we know in what things he may and in what he may not use his Authority the matter is at an end Here are we now therefore to think upon it what are those reasons why the Magistrate is to be more careful in the use of his power in Religious than in other matters and if it be any where it is like to be there that we shall find a bottom to determine the main issue To know these reasons look whatsoever difference there are to be made between Religious and Civil matters in respect to the Magistrates using his Sword about them and they must be these reasons The first difference then between Religious and Civil things that may be offerred as a reason why the Magistrate is to take more care of using his Sword in the one than the other is That Religious things are supposed to be of supernatural Revelation which cannot therefore be known and done without Gods grace and it is not fit the Magistrate should punish a man for the want of that which God does not give him When in Moral and Civil things he hath the knowledg of them only by Nature and the practise of the Realm Now then if this will serve to determine the Question the Proposition drawn from it must be this That in all matters that are of supernatural Revelation the Magistrate may not use his Sword but in all other he may use it But this Proposition is alike false with the first That in all Religious he may not and in all Civil he may The Law given by Moses was by Revelation but the Magistrates might punish the breakers of that Law The Gospel is by Revelation but the Magistrate may punish those that keep from Church out of Irreligion The example of the man that was put to death for gathering Sticks on the Sabbath is a president uncontroulable that a man may be punished for his Presumption when he may not for his Conscience in the matters of Religion The second difference between Sacred and Civil affairs which may be another reason why the Magistrate is to take more heed as to the one than to the other is That the World cannot be governed without the exercise of his Authority in Civils when if the world were without all that which is of supernatural Revelation and consequently if he meddles not at all with those things it might It appears then reasonable that in what the government of the World can be without the Magistrate should not be so pressing when in that which it cannot subsist without he must Let us then again draw out what is here and try if it will do In matters which the world may be governed without the Magistrate must not use his Sword but in matters without which it cannot be governed he may This Proposition labours with the same failing for the Magistrate may use his Authority in things which the world may be governed if it were without because he can use it in religious matters as hath been instanced already from Scripture A third difference between Sacred and Civil things and which is a reason why the Magistrate is to be more careful of his injunctions and using his Sword in the one above the other is Because it is more like that the things he imposes in Religious concerns should be against mens consciences than in Civil or Moral matters and the Magistrate hath no Authority over the Conscience of any It is the commandment of the most High that no man should ever do any thing against his Conscience and the Magistrate cannot use his Authority but for God Now let us see if this at last will serve for the determining the question and if it will then must this proposition be true That in all matters that are against mens Consciences the Magistrate hath no authority and cannot use his Sword but in all matters that are not against their Consciences or that are according to them he may use it And this proposition I count is true and certain and to be maintained even in Religious and Civil matters and so is the foundation concluded upon by me to establish our Determination SECT
to it If our prosecuting the Law upon you will make you do it rather than suffer we dare not prosecute you to destroy your Soul but if you will for the sake of the general commodity or good example bear the punishment rather than do the thing and we be assured of it then can we do our office without hazard either of yours or our own damnation SECT 13. After this I begin to think what does hinder but that this worthy Knight my friend and I should reconcile As for the main business we hold together against any that shall oppose us That in all matters of Religion the Magistrate may not use his Sword to force any against their Consciences and so long as we agree in the main we may have leave to abound each in his own sense otherwise The difference then we have under this agreement does I suppose lie in two things The one is That in things Religious this Gentleman seems to deny the Magistrate the use of his Sword altogether and I deny it him not but meerly when such things are against mens Consciences And herein methinks he should come over to me for seeing Liberty of Conscience is the thing mainly he is engaged for in the denial of the Magistrate the use of his Sword in these things there is no need he should deny it at all when Conscience is not concern'd in them The other is that in Civil things he grants the Magistrate the use of his Sword as over liberally as he takes it away in Religious whereas I suppose that as long as there is still the same reason that is so long as the thing is against a man's conscience the Magistrate may not force any one to it whether it be Civil or Religious And herein indeed should I be as ready to come over to him who knows how prudent it must seem in standing for Liberty to confine it to things of Supernatural Revelation lest the Magistrate be offended if we touch on Civils but that if I did so I must really forsake the Patronage of Conscience which I am not willing my self nor that this Gentleman should do For if we grant once that Conscience may be forc'd in any one thing there may be the same or the like reason urged to force it in another and so in all and then here liberty is gone If we will not stand by her in all distresses we cannot defend her in any The ground of all 's is Conscience is a thing which can be ruled by none but the Almighty And for as much as all Authority or power resolved into its original is the will of God that such a one should command it seems not a thing consonant to reason to suppose it the will of God that a Superiour should require that of a person which it is his will that person should not do Things then which are Civil may be so in themselves and yet come under some consideration which is religious or may have Religion incidental to them If this worthy Gentleman be content to hold that in things Civil under every consideration that is but civil the Magistrate may use his Sword without scruple I yeild to him but if a thing secular does come under a consideration which is religious and in that consideration is against a mans Conscience I cannot conceive but that the case is the same here as if the matter were it self Religious For whatsoever the thing be in that respect as he makes a Conscience of it I have said before it is a point of Religion to him The Fifth-Monarchy-man thinks in his Conscience he may not pay Taxes A strange opinion Against Scripture Sense and Righteousness Yet if you ask the man his reason he will bring you a Text perhaps out of Daniel or the Revelations and the sum of all will come to this that if he does he thinks verily he shall receive the mark of the Beast and be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone and rather than venture that he will chose to suffer though it were death I count this man now as one in a Feaver that is touched in his head and who can help such a conceit his opinion is grounded on the Revelation and we agree that in matters of supernatural Revelation the Magistrate may not force any against their Consciences What then shall he do I answer In this case and the like as this is it is the management only of the Laws with prudence will decide such difficulties It is against the mans Conscience voluntarily to pay his Tax it will wound his Soul if he does but it is not against his Conscience nor will it wound him that he is assessed and that the Officer comes and distrains and pays himself So long as he bears his testimony by a non-payment he is willing to have the money taken by force And thus does the Officer do right for the Law is he shall pay or be distrained and the man keeps his Conscience and no hurt is done But if a Magistrate would not be content here unless the man payes his money in specie and by way of acknowledging his Authority from God or else he will hang him or burn him I have not a heart so hard to justifie any such rigor which appears more than needs Unto this instance no doubt but we may suppose many more wherein there may be required of persons some things which are apparently their duty as this rendring to Caesar the things which are Caesars is by the Law of God as well as man and yet in regard of some principles some have received or some circumstances they are in they are against their Consciences You may ask therefore in general Does not the Magistrate well to use his Sword and execute the Law upon offenders in such cases I answer no doubt but he does because he acts upon supposition that such things are according to their Consciences and he is not to suppose otherwise Nevertheless if it come within his cognizance that the thing indeed is a matter of Conscience to him I do humbly apprehend and say that the great duty of Charity which he owes to his brothers Soul and is above any Law of man ought to prevail with him for some such middle course in the execution of the Law that neither may the man be hurt in his Religion nor the publick suffer by his ill example but that both his Conscience be regarded and righteousness also take place You may say perhaps You would indeed have the magistrate have a care and not force a man to any thing against his Conscience but you think notwithstanding he may very comfortably punish him if he do not what was enjoyned I will ask then For what could you comfortably punish him for being true only to his Conscience which is to be faithful to God I do not find if I were a Magistrate that I could have any great comfort in that Indeed if a man were