contrary to the truth of the Word of God 6. The Magistrate cannot be conteded to be such a Judge nor is useful as such unless he may be acknowledged to be infallible A supream Judge in our sence and that which must be here understood is one into whose judgment our Faith hath its last and utmost resolution but we cannot acquiesce in a humane fallible determination And besides what Prerogative hath the Magistrates judgment above another mans and what ease and advantage is it to us if our minds lie open to doubt as much after as before the determination No Christians minde can rest satisfied in a humane fallible opinion of divine things the authority causing Belief must have the same original that the Revelation hath therefore Faith built upon a Testimony must be onely on his own fidelity as one infallible as we believe that Truth also which carries its own Evidence with it axiomatically delivered or evinceth it self from the light of another Truth dianoetically § 11. The second Case consists in Causes disciplinarily debated being Differences arising within one particular Church or between Church and Church or between Pastors and Churches c. All Causes usually handled and determined in Ecclesiastical Courts The Question is Whether the civil Magistrate be the supream Judge or Head and Governour By Causes Ecclesiastick are without doubt meant in the Oath of Supremacy all disciplinary Causes handled in Spiritual Courts the supream Head and Governor whereof was the Pope in whose name and authority those Courts were called and managed and to whom it was lawful for any grieved party to appeal before the reign of King Henry the 8th who by the Oath of Supremacy cut off the Popes Supremacy and established his own Now I thus resolve as followeth § 12. If Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Courts be not jure divino nor held jure divino Episcopacy as it 's setled in the Hierarchy and all its Offices and Appurtenances being onely a humane politick device as hath been abundantly by the Opposers thereof proved and by many of the Asserter and Defenders confessed then I say it 's fitter that man should be supream Head there and if any man the supream civil Magistrate within whose Realm or Dominion their Courts and Causes Ecclesiastical be The nature of this Supremacy is or should be that 1. That all Ecclesiastical Courts be called and kept in the Kings Magisties name 2. That the Sentence denounced should be also grounded on some penal Law of the King for all the Kings Courts should judge by his Laws 3. That any party grieved may appeal to a superiour Court of the Kings or to himself from whom there is no Appeal 4. That the King hath power by himself or Judges to prohibit or supersede the proceedings of the said Court at his pleasure This is the true sence of the Oath of Supremacy which the Bishops notwithstanding all the noise they make against Dissenters from their Church will least subscribe unto whereas most others of the Kings Subjects that refuse to own the divine right of Episcopal government will willingly swear the Kings Supremacy in their Ecclesiastical Courts and Causes in the largest extent And though that sort of ruling men use all endeavours to suggest the disloyalty of the said Dissenters yet I doubt not but most Puritans in England would rather refer themselves to the Kings judgment and stand or fall at his Tribunal than at the Churches and have generally found more relief from under the severities of Excommunication in the Kings Courts than in the Ecclesiastical Supposing that all Ecclesiastical proceedings in Spiritual Courts of Judicature and the whole Fabrick of Church-government as now it stands is a humane Polity as is not denied by the most ingenious I know not why any Puritan or Papist should refuse for to take the Oath of Supremacy for it is no more than to acknowledge the King to be supream Head and Governour in his own Courts which is but Reason Justice and Religion that he should be § 13. But if Ecclesiastical Causes be understood of disciplinary Controversies such as follow upon the execution of Laws and administration of the Institutions of the Lord Jesus in the visible Gospel-churches of such Ecclesiastical Causes it is not the Magistrates part to be the determinating Judge of for 1. To judge and determine a Cause in the Church of Christ is to judge Ecclesiastically and such an act of Judicature is a Church-act which is always preceded by a Church-Officer and no other in foro Ecclesiae and if the agrieved party appeal it must be to an Officer of the same kind it 's not to an Officer of another State 2. He that is supream Judge of a Church-cause on Earth must be an Officer substituted by Christ for none can hold any Place or Office in the Church but by Subrogation from Christ much less the highest Authority but none can shew that Christ hath substituted the Magistrate his Church-Vicar on Earth 3. If the civil Magistrate be supream Head to the Church Ecclesiastically then because he was always so since Christ was on Earth then there was times when Heathen Magistrates in whose jurisdiction the Churches was were his Vicars and Christ himself when on Earth was subject Ecclesiastically though Head of his Church to Heathen Church-Officers for he was no civil Magistrate disclaim'd it nor could be appeal'd unto as such 4. If the civil Magistrate be supream Judge he is the supream Church-Officer for he cannot be denied to be an Officer of that state wherein he doth acts of Judicature as his right And if a Church-Officer then the civil State hath power to chuse and constitute a Church-Officer and that of the highest rank for if he become a Church-Officer his Calling and Constitution must needs be Civil and not Ecclesiastical So that the civil State hath the power of Peter's Keys both to dispose of them and give them to whom she will and the Church cannot be entrusted with them they must still be kept in the Magistrates pocket Hence it will follow that Christ hath not left power enough in the Church for the management of its own political affairs nor wisdom enough for the determining her own Controversies § 14. Seventhly No civil Magistrate can imposse Articles of Faith on any of his Subjects to be owned subscribed or sworn to by a Penal Law for quatenus a Magistrate he is not an universal competent Judge for it 's not necessary that he should be religious understanding found in his principles because he is a Magistrate 1. If he can do it as a Church-Officer we have shewed that Christ hath made no such Officers in his Church 2. If he were Christ never empowered any Church-Officer to use a Magistratical Sword he never put Temporal Crowns on their heads nor Scepters into their hands if any of them out of ambition have got Miters and Crosier Staffs they had them from Antichrist and not from Christ
But it 's not all kinde of Intelligence but some only in particular 1. Not a Theoretick Knowledge but a Practick and therefore always referring to some Action or Omission And 2. It is not referred to another mans affairs but his own whose it is And lastly it is not a mere apprehension or suspicion but a knowledge always at least of the fact and often determines by the Rule known of the Legality of the fact and so passeth Judgment and thence is called Judicium but sometimes Conscience is doubtful here and thence it is called a weak doubtful and scrupulous Conscience § 4. It may be therefore thus described Conscientia est modus Intellectus Judicialis practicus Conscience is the Vnderstandings Judicial manner of proceeding concerning our selves and actions A man in Conscience as God's Substitute or Deputy sits in Judgment upon himself first inquires as Jury of the matter of fact whereof according to Self-evidence he is found Guilty or Not-guilty and according to the Law manifested is acquitted or condemned This Judgment of Conscience may be considered in the power and act a man may have a Conscience-power which doth not exert and put forth act as a Man in Infancy or in Sleep Ergo it may be called Potestas intellectiva Intellectual Power reducible into act Again Intellectual Power is either Intuitiva vel ratiocinativa that is the intuitive which is the Vision or Understanding of a Truth Axiomatically or in the Abstract Ratiocinativa which is looking on several Truths compared together and one Truth being laid by another by way of Collation produceth a third Truth which we call a Conclusion or Inference The first and general truth that comes to the knowledge is the Law of God which is brought to us by the light of Nature or by the Word of God which way soever it comes it 's enough to give it a throne in Conscience that it be certainly known to be God's Law Nextly that our actions are laid by this Rule or brought before this Judgment-seat which two being solemnly brought together a third necessary Truth or Judgment according to truth doth result and is accordingly pronounced the certainty of which depends on the certainty of the Premises or at least the exact and just comparing them together The Understanding thus behaving it self puts on the nature of actual Conscience or Conscience in act bringing the habitual or potential Conscience into acts in this manner either concerning a mans state or actions Concerning a mans state The Soul that sins shall die I have sinned Ergo. Or concerning his particular actions He that committeth Idolatry or Adultery c. breaketh God's Law but I have committed such and such an act which is so Ergo § 5. Hence Conscience ruled by Christ's Prerogative is the practical reasoning Vnderstanding or Modus intellectus practicus in man whereby a judgment may be passed concerning a mans self by himself according to his apprehension of the revealed Judgment and Will of God its divine Authority that rules in mans Heart as to the approbation or condemnation of himself or actions The Conscience of the very blinde Heathens admit of no other power to acquit or condemn in this kind but either the convincing light of the moral Law written in them or some supposed false Divine light which by reason of the blindness of their Hearts seduceth them to false Worship and Idolatry § 6. The method of Conscience his acting is thus first there is the general undoubted truth known or assented to as such and it 's either that which is really so or supposedly so only and not so really if it be the latter it 's the main foundation of an erring Conscience It is the prospect of some apprehended Divine Truth or other Moral Levitical or Evangelical which obligeth us to acts of Obedience and this Law-obligation laid by God on man is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Proposition of a practical Syllogisme made by Conscience 2. There is the Application of this Truth to our selves either as to our state or particular actions according to our own knowledge together with God's to judge of our Conformity or Non-conformity to the said Law-obligation and therefore concerning the goodness or evil of our Actions and here we take the Candle of the Lord in our hands to search out and examine our condition and actions in relation to good or evil and herein doth the chief nature of Conscience consist because it 's a submitting ourselves and actions to the judgment of God's Law and is therefore the Assumption of this practical Syllogisme and is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is an Index Record Testimony Witness 3. There is the Crisis Inference or Conclusion necessarily deduced from the Premises and this is called the Judgment passed upon our state or actions Thus we have the whole Syllogisme which the understanding makes in this way of acting The Proposition is de Jure the Assumption de Facto the Conclusion is either a justification of person or action or it 's a condemnation of any of them found guilty § 7. The Synteresis is the light of Truth contained in the Law Nâ—eticè recepta sive practicum Axioma cum assensu intellectivo perceptum A light received into the understanding with assent thereunto or acknowledgment thereof as such A Law may be understood as to the matter of it but not believed as a Truth it may be known as a Truth but not owned as a Law yea it may be acknowledged as a Law but not yielded to as divine and authoritative enough to binde to Obedience yea it may be owned as a Law of God binding some people and at some times but not ourselves or at all times But unless the Truth taken for a Law be thus circumstantiated and so received by us it hath not force enough upon Conscience as a Law binding to Obedience So that Synteresis differs but ratione from the Law itself for it is the Law of God understood and yielded to as obliging unto practice and it 's not only the Law in its Letter and first Principles in its Original positive nature but in its aptitude to particular Cases and in its just Inferences and Consequences deducible from generals thereof all practical Truths pleading Divine Authority justly obliging us to belief § 8. That which stirs up the Understanding to compare Conditions and Actions with the divine Law in the assumption by a practical enquiry is a certain obligation which this Law-light hath the Heart of man under that it doth by a kinde of natural instinct act in the manner above-rehearsed which obligation is a necessity laid on the Understanding of owning and assenting to every known Law of God and thereby to make a practical disquisition and judgment accordingly The reason of this obligation lieth much in the necessity of the object And first the natural inclination the Understanding hath to every known truth as such but this is not
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
in the matters of his Worship no others approbation being enough to justifie my actions and therefore to satisfie my Conscience is but Innovation and therefore vain Worship and Ergo rejected by Christ and sinful Mat. 15.9 Now that which a Christian is perswaded of to be thus in his own Conscience and yet doth he offers manifest violence to his Conscience in doing 9. If such Compulsions do by Rules of Expediency necessarily require a man to refuse active obedience then it 's a duty at least sometimes to refuse but Ergo. The Minor is proved beyond all controversie from Paul's Doctrine and practice concerning the use of Circumcision Gal. 2.5 Coloss 2.19 20 21 22. CHAP. XIX Of Humane Constitutions in the Worship of God besides the Word § 1. THe usual grand Evasion of what hath been said That although the Church cannot make Laws contrary to the Word yet she may make Laws besides the Word i.e. new Laws which Christ never made and if she make such Laws which are not contrary to the Word i.e. directly and materially she is to be obeyed by every conscientious Christian For Answer I premise these things 1. All Laws for divine Worship are enacted by Christ or not if enacted we question not the obeying of them if not let any one shew by virtue of what divine Authority we must obey them for we cannot obey them without 2. As Christ never deputed any humane Legislative Authority in his Church so he never allowed any to rectifie and correct his Laws by adding to their penalties and making them more severe and giving such express and explicite Authority which he hath left implicite and consequentially onely and those things more necessary which he hath left less Christ blamed the Pharisees for so doing and not allowed any Churches or Christians so to do 3. It would be grosly impudent if the Church should pretend to a power of making Laws contrary to the Word of God though they should be so therefore they cannot pretend to this Law-making power in any thing but what she saith is in it self indifferent therefore she can pretend onely to the making a new additional Law for Christ such as he never made and for and in such things which he thought best in his wisdom to leave indifferent But the Church finds a mistake in that first Constitution and thinks best to make such things necessary thinks that Christ left too few ceremonies and significant signes and therefore enacts more Laws besides the Word not contrary to what he hath enacted and established already § 2. But I shall now prove that all humane Laws and Constitutions in matters of divine Worship besides the Word are contrary to the Word 1. That which is not the revealed Will of God for his Worship in his Word is contrary to the Word of God but humane Constitutions and Laws for divine Worship are not the revealed Will of God in his Word Ergo. The Major is true because the Word is the revealed Will of God and that Rule of Worship which is not the revealed Will of God is contrary to the revealed Will of God for his Worship for Revealed and not Revealed are contradicentia as justus non justus honestum non honestum and contradicentia will never be denied by any good Logicians to be contraria therefore the revealed Will of God in his Word and not the revealed Will of God in his Word are contraries or there is no contraries in the world The Minor carries its evidence from the very terms for what is beside the Word is beside the Will of God in the Word and not to be found there for whatever is found to be the Will of God in the Word positively or consequentially so obligeth as a Law of God to obedience according to the true intent and meaning thereof 2. Whatever be humane Laws for the Worship of God besides the Word are at the best but the Will of man that those things should be necessary in the Worship of God which Christ hath willed indifferent and revealed in his Word so to be but for man to will those things to be necessary in the Worship of God which Christ hath willed and revealed in his Word to be indifferent is to will or make a Law contrary to the revealed Will of Christ in his Word i. e. for the matter of the Law for necessary and indifferent are adversa and therefore also contraria if the opposites be necessary and not necessary they are contradicentia and they are contraria as before 3. Whatever is not according to the Will of God in the Word is contrary to the Will of God in his Word but all such humane Laws besides the Word are not according to the Word Ergo. The Major is true because all actions are agreeable to the Word by being according to the Word and disagreeing by not being according to the Word and so are contrary to the Word and are really contradicentia for according to and not according to referring to the same subject are contradicentia every action being according or not according and so contrary or not contrary to the Word of God Minor I prove such Laws besides the Word are not according to the Word the meaning of besides the Word is that there is no ground for it in the Word and therefore that cannot be according to the Rule laid down in the Word for that were to be built upon and to be justified by it a man cannot sit upon a seat and sit besides it at the same time the same water poured cannot fall in the Cup and besides it too whatever Law cannot claim a Sanction from the Word is not according to it therefore besides it or against it as Christ saith Whoever is not for me is against me The Word doth either justifie or condemn all actions and those Laws that are not justified at least by Christ's approbation are condemned by the Word of God § 3. 4. Whatever is contrary to the Legislative Prerogative of Christ maintained in his Word is contrary to the Word but such humane Laws and Constitutions besides the Word are contrary to the Legislative Prerogative of Christ Ergo. The Major is clear because every truth maintained and defended by the Word is the Word and whatever is contrary to that truth is contrary to the truth of the Word And what truth is more clearly attested and firmly ratified than this Prerogative of Christ The Minor is clear because nothing can detract more than a Vsurpation in this kind What can detract more from the Legislative power of King and Parliament than for a Corporation or any inferiour combination of men to assume this power to themselves 5. To adde any thing to the revealed Will of Christ in matters of spiritual concern is contrary to the Word of the Old and New Testaments Deut. 4.1 2. Rev. 22.18 but to make such Laws is to adde c. because such Laws by our supposition
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