any authority granted by Christ challenge to himself a Legistative power in religious matters touching Faith or Worship he cannot null or dispense with one of the Laws of Jesus Christ neither may he make any new Laws to binde us to believe any thing more concerning God than is manifestly by his Word revealed or binde us to practice any alteration or addition in the Worship of God more than what Christ himself hath enacted This we have sufficiently proved in handling the Doctrine of Indifferency § 8. Fourthly No civil Magistrate can by any deputation from Christ claim an Executive power of the Political Laws of Christ in his Church for as Christ hath his own proper Laws in his Church his militant Kingdom distinct from other Laws for the right and exact Gospel-management of all his Political affairs therein and is more faithful than Moses in that very respect so he hath set in his Church his own Ministers and Officers distinct from all other sorts of Officers and Ministers in the world As Christ's Ministers are no civil Magistrates as such so no civil Magistrate is a Church-Minister as such Hence as a civil Magistrate hath no power to execute Christ's Political Laws or Institutions in his Church so he hath no power to execute any moral Laws in the Church i. e. he cannot punish a criminal offence by Ecclesiastical censures The moral Law runs through all Societies as the natural fundamental Rule to discern Good and Evil and Political Laws of all sorts should mainly respect it as the Standard and Magna Charta of all Laws and Justice which in respect of it are derivative though every particular Polity hath its own proper way and manner of distribution of moral Justice The civil State by a civil political Administration and Magistracy Families Oeconomically by the Heads thereof the Churches Ecclesiastically by its Pastors and other Officers all endeavouring by their distinct way and manner of Administration to secure the honour and justice of the Moral Law but none of these are to intermix their governments and political way of distribution seeing the God of Order hath fixed each one to his proper station and limit of jurisdiction Hence the civil State can no more punish the breach of moral Laws Ecclesiastically than the Church can punish them civilly and the Church can no more use the Magistrates Sword than the Magistrate can the Churches and vice versa neither can the Church or civil State punish the breaches of the moral Law Oeconomically any more than a Master of a Family as such can punish them Ecclesiastically or Civilly and upon that account may take upon him to be Magistrate or Pastor And though there was a mixture or rather conjunction of these Authorities in the same person in the infancy of Polities yet they have been separated in distinct persons by God himself for many Ages neither do any persons bearing distinct Offices make the Offices the same or necessarily mingle them in the performance of their several Functions § 9. Fifthly It is not in the power of the civil Magistrate or any humane Laws to binde or loose Conscience As Magistrates cannot reach it directly to charge it with either duty or guilt so it 's the greatest piece of Tyranny to attempt it by Penal Laws whereby Christians may be drawn in to ensnare their Consciences in guilt by sinning against God for fear of Man and a Christian is to obey the just Laws of man for Conscience sake i. e. for the Lords sake It is extrinsick to the Laws of men to binde Conscience it 's God that by his authority gives them a mediate Sanction and binds them on Conscience but where God lends not to humane Laws his binding power they are of no more force unto Conscience than Wit hs to binde Sampson It 's not the wit or strength of all Men and Angels that can binde one Conscience under guilt without a Law of God or divine authority to give force to humane their Penal Laws i.e. corporal Punishments or pecuniary Mulcts are very indirect and vain Mediums to enforce Conscience and very sinfully applied by Magistrates or others for that end in matters of Faith or Worship § 10. Sixthly That the supream Magistrate hath not the determination of Causes meenly Ecelesiastical and these are of two sorts either controverted Doctrinals or Causes disciplinary controverted for by Causes are to be understood here things under dispute and they controverted Doctrinals or under debate and they controverted Causes disciplinary and those Ecclesiastical things which are of this nature fall under one of these heads Doctrinal or Disciplinary First In doctrinal Causes controverted the Magistrate is not appointed by Christ as Judge neither is he a competent Judge 1. If he be quatenus a Magistrate then every Magistrate is a competent Judge and then a Heathen Mahometan or Heretical Magistrate and then you 'll say the determination must needs be very sound and good 2. Again how few Christian Magistrates are studied enough in Polemical Divinity being not bred to that learning or having so many recreations and secular concerns to divert them from it so as to be fit to have the ultimate determination of the most difficult and weighty points that learned Scholars in Divinity yea such as are studious and conscientious Christians after long study scrutiny and prayer cannot attain to a right understanding of so as to demonstrate the truth to the full and clear satisfaction of themselves or others Is it fit to make an Assembly of Divines Judges of a great and difficult case in Law There is the same reason for one as for the other 3. What determination a Magistrate makes dogmatically it 's simpliciter but his private Judgment and Opinion though he be a publick person And why should any mans private opinion be he what he will in the world be a binding Rule to the Faith of another in matters of Religion 4. It 's impossible that it should be so for man cannot make a Law to bound Faith in such things as are not founded on the light of Understanding and where they are so founded no man believes because of the Law of man but because of the evidence of Truth What Law can make any man believe that two and three make six but if it be that we must believe that three and three make six we do believe it but not because of the Penal Law but because of the evidence the Truth carries with it Non lex penalis sed veritas est ratio formalis fidei 5. The Faith of a Christian or the Understanding of a Rational man can no more rest in the opinion or determination of a Christian Magistrate without a sufficient light of Truth to convince him than in the opinion and determination of another man for he that tenders the honour of God and loves Truth cannot receive that which he is convinced of or at least suspects in his most serious judgment to be
Catholick unless it be in the visible universal Head and if it be said that a National Church may positively determine in this kind then why not a Provincial as well the one being a subordinate Church as well as the other But if the Decree be onely National as many various interpretations and sences may be put on a place of Scripture as there are Nations which will lay an ample foundation for variety of Sects Schisms Heresies c. Whereas if all National Churches were bound to one Catholick determination there must needs therehence ensue the admirable effect of Uniformity in Doctrine and Practice all Churches believing as the Vniversal Church believes and that as the Head doth Besides if it be of such dangerous consequence for Christians as private persons to put their interpretation on Scripture in laying the foundation of variety of Sects Schisms Heresies c. how much more dangerous for particular Churches because the determination of a Church reacheth further and is more attended unto and more become seduced and leavened with errour thereby if it be erroneous Hence to believe as the Catholick Church believes hath more concern in it than those imagine that endeavour to blast it with the ridicle of the Colliers Faith for it 's not as the National Church believes but as the Catholick Church believes Neither is it an implicit Faith in any things but controversal and dubious matters above ordinary scrutiny and vulgar capacity and therein we had better rest satisfied in Catholick Authority than run the risk of adhering to the Opinion of private persons and Churches which must be done also by an implicite Faith and who is likely to have the most unerring Spirit a Church or particular Person and if a Church the most Catholick is the most unerring § 13. Thirdly From the Necessity of a Catholick determination of Decency and Order That is decent which by the Universality is reputed and judged so for one Countrey doth usually call that decent which others repute undecent And there are no Protestant Prelates but have do and will say That Christ hath left it to the Church to determine all matters of Decency and Order and 't is absurd to say that this or that Church may do it when no such is the Church eminently When 't is said the Church determines Decencies What Church is that Is it a Parish-Church Nay then Parish-Churches should rule Diocesan by a Law Again if Diocesan Churches should have power to determine their Decencies either Provincials must be subject to some one Diocesan which might regulate all the rest or else Diocesan Churches would differ so much in their decencies that there would be no Uniformity in the Provincial Church And if Provincials might determine each one its Decencies and Order it must needs break Vniformity in National Churches But I know where the Protestant Prelate will be he will say presently it 's the National Church that he means when he speaks of the Churches determination of Decency and Order To which I reply that he may with as good ground say that he means a Parish-Church and that by giving this power to a National Church he gives a greater advantage to Schism and lays a greater bar against Vniformity For the more comprehensive the Church is in which the Schism is the greater it is and the more uniform the Schismatical Church is of the more dangerous consequence it is to the Catholick Church In vain do men plead for Vniformity in the Church who in asserting the principles of Vniformity in a National Church do thereby extirpate Vniformity in the Catholick for National Vniformity unless it be Catholick is but Vniformity in a Schism For if every National Church may determine of Decency and Order there will be as great a diversity if not contrariety in several Churches affairs as in the affairs of several States one Nation determining that Ceremony to be decent which another determines to be undecent absurd and disorderly and so Churches will be as divers in their Fashions as English Dutch Spaniard c. And there will be no end of Ceremonies and new-fangled Garbs in the Church if a Nation may of themselves and when they will constitute ordain and appoint them at their pleasure alter and null old Ceremonies and invent new and shall have as great difficulty intricacy and multiplicity of Church-Laws as State-Laws if at every Convocation Decency and Order may be determined § 14. From the necessity of a Catholick composure of Church-Prayers the more private and singular the conception of Church-prayers are the more Schismatical And divers Liturgies in one and the same National Church may not be allowed neither that every Province and Diocess compose their own Liturgy as being a matter of dangerous consequence to the National Church How then comes it to pass that our National Church may compose its own Liturgy distinct from another Is not this of as dangerous consequence to the Catholick Church And is' t not more conducing to the Peace Beauty Uniformity and Honour of the Church to have a Catholick Liturgy Whereas otherwise every Nation will be setting up the price of their own prayers above others whence ariseth heart-burning Divisions and Schisms National in the Catholick Church were it not much better that all Nations should bring their Liturgies and lay them down at the feet of Mother-Church and submit them to her Judgment in the Supreme Head from whose blessed hands she may receive one of such Catholick composure that might produce a perfect Harmony in the affections and petitions of all the Churches in the world in good assurance of a Catholick Amen attending the conclusion of all Besides if a National prayer be more available than a Provincial or Diocesan Why should not a Catholick Church-prayer be most of all available § 15. Fifthly The necessity of a Catholick Canonization of Saints For supposing the Necessity of the Observation of Saints days as the Protestant Prelates zealously assert it is requisite to enquire who or what Church Canonized the Saints which are already honoured with Saintship Titular and Days devoted to their remembrance and who dedicated and consecrated Churches on the same account was it not the Catholick Church by her Catholick Pastors If every Church suppose National should have the like liberty to canonize Saints at their pleasure all the days in the Year yea in an Age would be little enough for All Hollan-tide And if the observation must be Anniversary there would be a necessity of robbing Peter to pay Paul which would be doing evil that good may come of it it being as great a sin to rob Peter of his fishing-nets as to rob Paul of his cloak and parchments Besides this Absurdity would fall in that one Nation would canonize that for a Saint which another would anathematize to the Devil As for Example Michaelmas-day is devoted to St. Michael the Archangel which Feast was instituted by Felix the Third the 48th Oecumenical
from the Crisis or Conclusion and 't is either just or unjust Just when it denounceth Sentence according to the true intent of the Law and the true nature of the Fact whereby it proves to be justly peaceable or justly troublesome and tormenting to us and when it acquits is pacatè bona Or it is Vnjust when the Sentence is pronounced otherwise than the premises do require and when it thus acquits it 's pacatè mala And when it thus condemns leading many to the very brink of Despair it is Iniquè crudeliter mala The former is often a bribed Conscience captivated and carried away with the favour of some base beloved Lust and Affection and a brutish blind heathenish Conscience Jud. 10.2 Pet. 2.12 Joh. 8.44 Or a judicially seared Conscience such as is spoken of 1 Tim. 4.10 If it be iniquè mala injuriously and cruelly evil it will condemn where Christ hath acquitted and this usually from too much embondagement to the Law which may be for a time in Saints and true Believers and is called the Spirit of bondage Rom. 8. A just peaceable Conscience makes a happy man A just tormenting or condemning Conscience makes a miserable man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antiph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eurip. The greatest Pleasure he hath got That on his Conscience hath no spot What sore disease Orestes thee hath prest It 's wounded Conscience sure within thy brest CHAP. VI. Concerning the Dominion of Conscience THus far of the nature of Conscience next of the Dominion and Regiment who it is that hath the immediate Rule and Government of it I shall shew therefore that the Government of Conscience is the peculiar prerogative of God alone and that 't is Usurpation for any to enter into that Jurisdiction and the highest presumption to attempt it it belonging to none other by right nor possible for any other to attain There being none able effectually to enjoyn Conscience to do its duty in making judicial trials of our persons and actions but God alone If at any time Satan or humane Authority set Conscience on work it 's in nomine Dei sub praetextu divinae Authoritatis And all humane Laws conscientiously obeyed are obeyed for the Lords sake such obedience being commanded of God § 2. That it's Gods onely Prerogative to rule in Conscience doth appear by many reasons 1. God onely knows the Heart and Conscience and therefore is onely able to give a Law to it and rule in it if the one be his prerogative above men and Angels the other must be also 2. It 's in Gods power onely to inflict punishment on Conscience in case of transgression Men may punish the outward man but cannot touch the inward man Conscience is not within the reach of his stroak and they pretend in vain to a power of Law-making who cannot execute it on the Subject for whom it is made 3. The Conscience is accountable to none but God it being his immediate Substitute in man he is Creator of it and he never subjected it to any Law but for his sake all sin as such is against God and no trangression of humane Law becomes morally a sin but by its relation some way or other to Gods Law by vertue of some of his general or particular Precepts or Commissions 4. There is nothing but the most universal or chiefest good or evil can oblige Conscience to Obedience or deter from Disobedience which none can make us partakers of or sufferers under but God alone Mens Stipitulations are never more than temporal Rewards and Punishments these Conscience doth not will not it 's not in the nature of it to stoop to them The concerns of Conscience are principally fixed on the Spiritual and Eternal Estate which none but the God of Spirits can bereave it of Again as God onely can lay down the first Rules of Truth and Errour to the Understanding so he determines good and evil as a rule of the Will and limitation of man in his Election suitable to the nature of a free Agent having an arbitrary Power over the Arbitrium of mans will as well as over other things For as he hath created the Will so he hath determinated the Object that is most adequate to it and not onely in genere boni but in specie moralis boni Ergo God is the proper and immediate Ruler of the Understanding and Will of man in genere morali Likewise no trangression of the Laws of man brings any truely-enlightned Conscience under guilt without consulting the Minde and Will of God A Childes not doing a Parents command is not a sin as such neither will it lay the Conscience under guilt any farther than it is a transgression of Gods Law i. e. disobedience to them in those things that God hath enjoyned obedience in Childrens obedience to Parents is in the Lord so Subjects to Magistates for both Parents and Magistrates do sometimes command such things that it 's a virtue and not a vice in Children or Subjects not to obey so that their refusal be accompanied with all submission reverence and modesty towards their Superiours No man hath a moral Legislative power over another but all men in respect of moral Laws at least fundamentally understood are liable and subject to the same King and Governour and to his Tribunal will every Conscience appeal before it will lie under true guilt whatever the judgement of man is And though men may torment or kill the outward man and vex the Spirits because of temporal Sufferings yet the Conscience will stand or fall onely by the Judgement of God I may adde also upon what authority we receive a truth of a Spiritual nature so as to believe it by the same authority onely shall we suffer if we disobey it but Conscience believes no spiritual truth but upon Gods authority Ergo it's by his authority onely that we shall suffer in Conscience and this is the reason that when men would impose their usurpations they still bring a blinde along with them viz. a pretence to God's Authority Thus the Pope and his imitators in spiritual things as also Secular Powers will endeavour by casting a noose upon Conscience as it stands in relation unto God to make it serve their politick and carnal ends by tying men up by Oaths indefinite to all their lawless Laws and Constitutions in Church and State Lastly by the same authority and no other by which men shall be judged at last by the same is Conscience ruled now Those that shall be judged by the Light of Nature have God ruling and judging in them by the Light of Nature onely so those that shall be judged by the written Law and by the Gospel of Jesus Christ § 3. Now lest there should be any mistake of our true meaning about this Dominion of Conscience let us take notice of a few distinctions concerning Conscience Conscience is to be
so therefore is to make a double reflexion on Christ First that his Laws are defective for the accomplishment of those ends for which they were established and that the liberty granted by Christ unto his Members in indifferent things hath too great a latitude to be consistent with that exact Gospel-worship which we should honour him by And if it be said that which Christ hath left Evangelically indifferent may be unlawful in respect of other Laws we say that all the true jus of other Laws must be founded on Christ's and his is precedaneous to them and therefore as in authority or practice it must take place before them Moreover we say that Christ hath not so ill establish'd Christian Liberty as that thereby we are licensed to violate any natural or civil bonds § 4. Argum. 3. That which by Christ's Authority hath left a Character impressed on Conscience cannot by any authority be abrogated without removal of the said Character but as the Laws so the Liberty by Gospel-Charter granted by Christ hath left such a Character impressed indelibly on Conscience as cannot be removed by any other Authority therefore Christian Liberty cannot be abrogated c. Ergo a religious Gospel-indifferency cannot be taken away or cease by the determination of mere humane Laws i. e. humane Laws that Christ never allowed man to make The Major is evident in that the revealed will of Christ when it shines into the Heart fixeth an indelible Character upon Conscience for positive obedience and also as to indifferent things for he that knows not one by the Law knows not the other nor can never tell when he sins and when he doth not and if any other could interpose and make a Law to binde Conscience sub reatu by new Laws or release it by new Liberties either to make additional Characters or delete Christ's Christian Religion would thereby become no other than an undigested heap of uncertainties and confusions It 's true Characters are sometimes removed from Conscience as in case of Justification of a sinner by Faith Rom. 8. So in case of an erring Conscience that supposeth this to be his duty which is not and that to be indifferent which is necessary all errour when entertained lays hold on Conscience Sub pretextu authoritatis Christi under pretence of Christ's Authority and so do all humane usurping Laws when they insinuate themselves into Conscience and when by a farther informing light the Errour is expell'd from the Judgement and Conscience the Authority of Christ still remains expelling the Errour which no humane Authority could do and confirming the Conscience in the truth maugre all the opposition of any humane power so that where Christ's Laws hath once prevailed so far as to fix his Authority there it was never known that whatever mens external practices or conformities were that ever any humane Power could blot out the Characters of Christ's Prerogative and fix another Supremacy there for that is but a vain Law in religious things that cannot binde the Conscience under guilt in case of transgression I shall never conscienciously observe that for my duty the omission of which doth not make me conscious of a Transgression As to the Minor that the liberty granted by Christ leaves a Character on Conscience as well as the Laws of Christ is manifest 1. Because Laws are the bounds of Liberty and one must be known and acted as well as the other as hath been said before 2. Because their liberty is not the will of Christ permissive onely but in some measure positive i. e. so far as that Christians should walk in it he having but two paths to walk in either of positively directed obedience or of Liberty under the judgement of discretion regulated by the rules of Expediency for either in matters of instituted Worship Christ hath by a manifestation of his will limited our Actions or hath left Churches and Christians in the Equilibrio of indifferency to poise themselves according to Conscience-Light as to respective differencies by discretion and where there is an equality to chuse pro arbitrio Again our assurance is not onely negative but positive that it is Christ's will that we should maintain our liberty in Religious things stand fast in that liberty c. Neither can any take it away without intruding on Conscience and entrenching on his Prerogative which for us to yield to were to betray his Crown and Scepter § 5. Argum. 4. Hence if such a Law be made it ought not to be made and ergo the thing retains its pristine nature That Law which directly puts a Christian on a necessity of sinning in obeying it ought not to be made but a Law that changeth Evangelical indifferencies into necessities doth directly put a Christian on a necessity of sinning if he obeys Ergo it ought not to be made That the Major may be universal I adde directly because many good Laws are occasions of sinning indirectly but when the Law requires such obedience which in the very substance of it is sin because the obedience directly aimed at is the formal reason of the Law such a Law must needs be sinful The Minor doth thus appear because such a Law bindes a man up in obedience to it in one part of the indifferency whereas that part of the indifferency according to Christ's rules of expediency may be unlawful to be done and then the humane Law and the said Gospel-rules contradict one another Expediencies altering daily as to attending circumstances at some times it 's lawful to do that thing which at another is more agreeable to the honour of Christ and the good of others to avoid As for Example the Apostle reckons eating this or that sort of meat sold in the Shambles as an indifferent thing if I make no question whether it be Jewishly unclean or Heathenishly sacrificed to Idols 1 Cor. 10.25 27. but if I am enforced by Law to eat this or that sort of meat in the Shambles which is sacrificed to Idols I am necessitated to sin 1. I offend my Brother that makes this Law confirming him in sin for the sake of whose Conscience I ought by the Apostles rule to forbear this act and therefore sin against all such as idolatrously eat this sacrificed meat For what can tell me more plainly than the Law that this or that meat by its attending circumstances is sacrificed to Idols Again to hear the Word of God in this or that publick place is an indifferency to hear it to my edification as near as possible is the Precept of Christ but if I am bound by a humane Law to hear always in my own Parish-church and thereby debarred of my liberty of hearing there where I can most profit and whereas the Parish-minister is ignorant prophane or erroneous whom to hear constantly must needs be sin to me I am certainly by this Law put upon a necessity of sinning in yielding active obedience unto it § 6. Argum. 5. That Indifferencies
of a Gospel-nature cannot be alter'd from their nature by any subsequent Law of man thus appears To change religious Indifferencies into Necessities is to make a Law for Christs Worship that Christ never made nor gave any man power to make but none may make a Law for the Worship of Christ which he never made nor impowred any to make Ergo the Major is without doubt if the indifferency confessed be in the worship of God then when it 's by any Law made necessary it 's still in the worship of God and being appointed so by a Law becomes instituted Worship by a Law which Christ never made The Minor appears in that none may do so i. e. institute Worship or circumstances of Worship by a Law that is not Christ's 1. It 's his Prerogative to exercise a Legislative power in his Church 2. Christ knows onely how he will be worshipped and it must be founded on his revealed will which is our Law 3. None might adde to his Laws under the Old Testament Deut. 4.1 2. much less under the New where there is less of Ceremony and Circumstances Rev. CHAP. XIII Of the power of the Church in matters indifferent § 1. WHen we come to discuss the power of the Church it 's very requisite to unfold the meaning of the word Church there being no word under which lieth more Amphibology Many understand a Church a material building or place of meeting for the worship of God being consecrated and set apart for that use and for the Propriety and Antiquity of this usage and acceptation of Ecclesia learned Mr. Mead very much contends We shall not stay upon this sence because none that will oppose us in the present controversie will insist upon this sence so far as to say that the Legislative Power is to be found here A Church is also in other sences spoken of Some say every Nation where Christian Religion is owned by ruling Authority and by the generality of the people professed is a Church Some call a Province a Church a Diocess a Church a Parish a Church so that it 's more or less extended and comprehensive and it 's usually the sence of Protestants that assert a Churches Legislative Authority in matters indifferent Others say there is no national Churches under the Gospel though there be Churches in every Nation and that properly there are no particular Churches but such who freely and voluntarily combine together in bonds of Society for the worshipping of God according to his revealed will and walk accordingly Various are the Sentiments and Disputes about a Church and the nature of it the consideration of which will not be so much our concern at this time But there is another way of the usage of Church wherein there is greater ambiguity which is very much to the matter in hand that we rightly understand it viz the emphatical use of the word The Church so many mens Writings and Argumentations being filled and confounded with it now a days that who can tell what they mean by The Church The Romanists say the Church hath determined this or that and when we enquire what that Church is they say the Catholick Church which being rightly understood is the true meaning of the Church according to that rule Aequivocum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato the Emphasis putting the word upon the highest and largest signification but when we come to a farther disquision of their meaning they tell us the Church of Rome is the Church and all others that dissent or separate from the Church of Rome are not the Church or of the true Catholick Church Many Protestants also that speak of the Church do not understand the Church of Rome or the Catholick Church but some particular National Church viz. of France England Spain c. but when we enquire what this Church is they will tell us it 's the body of the Clergy met together in a Convocation by a few Representatives to make Laws and Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions the executive power whereof is in the Bishops and their Courts so that when these few men have made Laws or exercise Ecclesiastical power compose Forms of Prayer or establish Ceremonies at their pleasure they say the Church did it These two sorts of men make use of this great commanding Word the Church and by this equivocal term sounding so loud of an uncontroulable Prerogative they suggest unto poor well-meaning people on the one side that all that the Pope and the Church of Rome doth on the other hand that all that the Bishops and their Courts do is done by the Church as if it were the whole Vniversal visible Church It is not my present task here to enquire what is the true meaning of the Church according to the Scripture-acceptation or the most true Logical notion thereof whether it be a Genus or an Integrum or totum Aggregativum I shall onely in the ensuing Discourse apply my self to the most rectified sence of those that do defend the Legislative Authority of the Church and if they will not start from all right Reason and Rules of Logick their sence must be That the Catholick Militant Church is The Church whether it may be Organical according to Scripture-constitution we argue not now constituted of Subordinate parts first National or if you please Patriarchal before that of National made up of Provincial Provincial of Diocesan Diocesan of Parochial and this ought to be the sincere meaning of The Church without prevarication in the sence of those beforementioned § 2. Now the main thing in Debate between the Assertors of the Churches Authority and the Dissentors from it is Whether the Church may exercise such a Power as may change Indifferencies in the Worship of God into Necessities Which we hold in the Negative and say That Christ hath never granted such Power unto the Church he hath granted an Executive Power unto his Church but never a Legislative Power for all lawful power that any Church hath it must have it from the Lord Jesus Christ who hath all power given unto him in Heaven and Earth and is the peculiar King of his Church and hath taken care for the right Ordering and Governance of it in all things necessary as to Salvation so to Order and Discipline And therefore what is not derived from the Lord Jesus Christ cannot be allowed to be lawfully exercised 'T is true if it could be shewed where Christ ever granted it by his Charter to his Church that in some particular concerns she might exert a Legislative Power the dispute would soon be ended but no such Charter could ever be shewn § 3. If any such Power be granted by Christ it must be granted to the Catholick Church Militant or to particular subordinate Churches but 't is not granted to either of them Ergo. Not to the Vniversal Church because it is not organized with Officers capable of a Catholick Rule unless we
are as liable to the Judicial proceedings of Magistrates as any others be but in these Evangelical parts of Worship annexed by Christ in substance or ceremony which distinguisheth the Oeconomy of the Church from that of the Commonweal here the Magistrate cannot execute by himself or depute another to administer the Executive part of Christ's Laws The reason is because all such Laws changing Indifferencies into Necessities in the Worship of God are of a Spiritual nature and Ecclesiastical and therefore must be executed spiritually in foro conscientiae or Ecclesiastically in foro Ecclesiae but he cannot do either of these for the first he cannot because Christ hath absolutely reserved Conscience to himself nor the latter because Execution in the Church is peculiar to the Officers of Christ as his Deputies and Officers of his own appointment § 6. Arg. 4. They that are not to make Laws for the terrour of them that do well are not to make such Laws as change Evangelical Indifferencies into Necessities at Ergo. The Minor is undeniable The Major appears thus to be true because to make such Laws is to terrifie Christians in the use not onely of their lawful liberty but also to shake them from their standing in that liberty that Christ hath purchased and commanded them to stand fast in besides the abridging them the free use of Christian discretion which is good from which they should not be terrified § 7. Arg. 5. The Magistrate cannot take away the Rights and Priviledges granted to the Church by Jesus Christ which he purchased for it c. by last Will and Testament bestowed and is his peoples right of Inheritance But the liberty of the use of the judgment of Discretion in matters of Indifferency is a great and valuable priviledge so granted and bestowed on his Church and People Now the Magistrate should be so far from bereaving the Church of these that 1. He is to maintain and defend the Church in the free use of its Liberties and to be as a Nursing Father to her therein 2. The Magistrate should be ready to punish the bereaving of the Church of her just Rights as Sacriledge which is robbing a Church a Sacred Body politick under the Civil Magistrates jurisdiction The Magistrate should be far from doing that action which he is to punish in another as Sacriledge and if a Christian's Liberty be a Sacred thing the taking of it away is Sacriledge That it is Sacred I prove thus That which is of sacred use and peculiarly related to the Worship of God and to the Members and Church of Christ as their Priviledge allotted to them by Christ's special procurement and appointment is Sacred and the taking it away is no better than Sacriledge As for other lawful Liberties common to them with others in Morals and Civils others may use them that are not related to the Gospel but a Christian Liberty is in things pertaining unto Christ and his ways of Worship and Service § 8. Arg. 6. He that can make those things necessary to the Worship of Christ which Christ hath onely made indifferent can make the Kingdom of Christ to consist in those things that he never did the Kingdom of God stands not in meats c. and the Kingdom of God stands in that which is necessary to it and if the Magistrate will make things necessary which Christ never did he goes about to make the Kingdom of God stand in that which Christ never did And this is a great usurpation of a power not belonging unto him for Christ never empowered the Magistrate to determine what his Kingdom should consist in and make it to consist in that which he never did § 9. Arg. 7. A Magistrate is not capable of exercising such a Coercive power as will make me believe in my conscience that to be necessary for the Worship of Christ which I am convinced that he hath left indifferent onely that Law for the Worship of Christ that lays no obligation on Conscience is of no concern therein Now Christ having bound Conscience by his Law as far as is necessary there is no room left for Man to come in with his Laws Whatever is Evangelically necessary to the Conscience of a Christian is so because he is convinced it is the Will of Christ that it should be necessary Now can the mere Coercive power of any one on Earth make a man believe that is not necessary which Christ hath made Conscience to submit to as necessary If so then may the same authority make a man believe that to be necessary which Christ hath made us believe not to be necessary but onely indifferent for as no Law of man can absolve a Christian from the conscientious observation of any one Law of Christ so no Law of Man can binde a Christian in Conscience to the practice of that in religious matters which Christ never bound him to but he will be still perswaded that Christ hath left it to him as an indifferency and it 's his duty to walk in it by discretion and that must be a Churches or Christian's own as the matter requires relating to a Community or private Person Obj. But the Magistrates Judgment can best determine of Expediency being greatest and wisest Ans In matters of that nature men may advise and the greater and wiser men are its likely the more forcible Arguments they may produce but there is no force to be in the case men are not to be forced by a Law to do that which is most expedient in the Worship of God For 1. the Magistrate may be mistaken and that which is expedient to him may not be to another 2. That which is expedient one time may not be another therefore in the doing Expediencies we are not to be determined to act always one way by a Law Object But the Magistrate may punish for not practising Answ None is to be punished for not practising what they believe unlawful CHAP. XVI Of the Vse of the Magistrates Sword in the Execution of Ecclestastical Justice § 1. THe Second Enquiry propounded about the Magistrates power is this Whether in the Execution of Ecclesiastical Justice the Sword of the Civil Magistrate may or ought to be used i. e. Whether for the punishing and reforming Offendors against Church-Laws the Magistrate may inflict such penalties on the outward Man as he and the Church shall agree upon as Pecuniary Mulcts Scourgings Imprisonments Confiscations yea death it self in some cases as in matters of Heresie and Seduction And to prevent mistakes we shall premise these things 1. That Church-Members offending Civil Laws may and ought to suffer the penalties thereof from the hands of Magistrates as such as stand subjected to them in a civil capacity equal with other Subjects 2. That a Church-Member as of the Church of England or any other may justly suffer for the same Offence from the Church and Civil Magistrate as for Drunkenness Swearing Fornication c. Moral
in words and syllables 7. If Christ had bound us to this Form then we were to use no other neither might the Church prescribe any other neither might particular Christians use their gifts in Prayer nor various Forms of their own or others prescription which would be too grosly absurd for any to assert § 5. But fifthly to infer that Christ by prescribing this Form as imitable by us or by propounding and commending this to us as a Rule or Form did thereby tye us up to other Forms or gave power to the Church to binde us to Forms or that we might binde our selves to other Forms is as great an inconsequence as any in the world for we have shewed there 's more reason to judge that he left it as a Rule than Form If he left it as a Form it 's no ground for other men to make Forms but rather a ground to the contrary it being his Prerogative as our Lord and Master And besides if he hath given us a Form and we are thereby bound to words and sentences we ought not to take up other Forms and multiply thousands of mens prescriptions for the sence of Christ must needs be one of these two when you pray say i. e. use this as the onely Form of Prayer and stick to it for words and sentences and never trouble your selves about any other for if it be taken in the other sence it 's universal Take this as a standing general rule of Prayer to which all sorts of Petitions Deprecations Confessions Thanksgivings are referrable If he had authorized any to compose other teaching Forms he would have said You Apostles and your Successors thou Catholick Church or National Church or particular Congregation do you compose a Form of divine Service and I will set my hand to it § 6. The second part of the Question is Whether a Christian may suffer himself to be bound to a Form of Prayer by humane Authority pretending thereunto The Answer to this Enquiry will be double 1. That whatever Authority Ecclesiastical or Civil doth pretend to such an imposing power a Christian is not to subject himself by active submission 2. That no powers beneath Christ can pretend justly to such Authority The reasons of the first hath been largely enough insisted on before therefore I shall here but touch upon them 1. Because Christ hath not left it indifferent to a Christian to be bound in matters of his Worship where he hath left him at liberty for thereby the use of discretion in conveniencies is lost 2. All those reasons why he may not binde himself to a Form of Prayer do formally prove that he is not to permit himself to be imposed upon in this kind by another 3. None but Christ may prescribe Set-forms of his own Worship and we are not allowed obedientially to submit to any Legislative power in this kind as hath been shewed 4. If a Christian suffer himself in this to be imposed upon he parts with one of the most eminent priviledges that he is capable of viz. that of speaking his minde to God in Prayer and not to be bound to the Dictates and Suggestions of another Who can know our own case in respect of Sins Wants Temptations Mercies c. better than our selves What is more unreasonable than that a Childe though he cannot speak plainly should not be suffered to speak his mind to his Parents as well as he can but must be always prescribed to it in the Servants or elder Brothers words and expressions To deal thus with God's Children is to go about to abandon the Spirit of Adoption which God's Children are led by Rom. 8.2.14 15. which Spirit they have for this end that they cry Abba Father that they may speak the language of the Spirit in Prayer though their utterance be in broken and abrupt Sentences even in sighs and groans which God knows the meaning of Wherefore to put our selves under humane set Forms is to put ourselves into the greatest spiritual Bondage of this nature § 7. Secondly No Power Ecclesiastical or Civil can pretend justly to Authority from Christ to impose on Minister or Christian a set Form of Prayer Argum. 1. If any can pretend to such Authority it must be to impose a set Form of Christs composing or of humane composition But they cannot pretend justly to impose any Prayer of Christs composing because Christ hath neither required nor allowed the imposing the use of that which is called the Lord's Prayer by penal Laws What corporal or pecuniary Mulcts are to be inflicted on a man that doth not use the very words of that Prayer by virtue of any Law of Christ Is he to be Whipped or Fined for it by the Magistrate or Excommunicated by the Church Again they cannot pretend to impose a Form of humane composition for if there be no ground to impose a Form of Prayer of Christ's composition by a penal Law much less to impose one of Mans And for any to undertake either Church or State to prescribe the worship of Christ and to enforce it by punishments where Christ never deputed or allowed such Authority is the greatest presumption and insolency in the world § 8. Argum. 2. He or they that impose a Form of Prayer must do it because it is necessarily or indifferently requisite so to do according to the revealed Will of Christ But none can impose a Form of Prayer for any of these reasons Ergo. 1. None can because a Form of Prayer is necessarity requisite 1. Because Christ hath no where required the Church or Magistrate to impose 2. If a Set-form of Prayer were absolutely necessary it could not be to any person or season dispensed with 3. If the necessity be pleaded for publick Prayers that there should be a set Form there is as little necessity of that can be proved from the Word of God as of private Set-Forms 4. If there be need of a Form for help in some cases in respect of present weakness of Ministers or Christians it 's no reason therefore it should be imposed as necessary to all it 's pleaded for upon the account of Uniformity but if some of his Majesties Subjects wear Spectacles because of the weakness of their Eyes must all do so too for Uniformity sake though their Eyes be never so good We are to strive after perfection and conformity to Christ therein but are not to endeavour to conform to the weaknesses and imperfections of his Members and take our measures thereby though we are to bear with and condescend to them as much as may be without sin § 9. Secondly A Form of Prayer cannot be imposed as indifferently requisite to the worship of Christ because 1. If any thing be indifferently i. e. conveniently requisite to the worship of Christ it is because Christ hath willed it indifferently requisite for all matters of his Worship take their first reason from his Will 2. There is no reason from the