Sedition in the late War and ought to be destroyed The contest now saith the Prefacer as it relates to the real concernments of the Nation is which shall prevail Loyalty or Faction whether such Preachers should be permitted the liberty of making Proselytes when all that are seduced into their Communion are at the same time alienated from the Government and listed into a combination against it How miserably this tart Gentleman is out he will see himself in good time for we do all own Loyalty when we do not yet obey their impositions But who hath given license to the man if himself were not the Licenser to make any such saucy reflexion in print as this upon that which his Majesty with great wisdom hath thought fit to be done Let him produce any of those who come in and accept the Kings Grace that can be accused of the least disaffection to and much less of combination against his Government If he mean the Episcopal Church why are not these men as sagacious to combine us with them Would he have the King no wiser for his own and the Nations interest than they are for theirs It is pity this so necessary as well as Royal and kind act of the Kings to this Nation should so nettle the high flowen of these Conformists It is pity indeed but they should be offended because so many honest innocent persons who never did them any hurt in their lives and yet they prosecuted with such hate have escaped their talons For my part I bless God in my inward Chamber that he hath put in into the heart of his Majesty to shew this kindness to his people And that it may fret his and our Malignants the more I will tell them how much the rather I am pleased with it in regard of the Kings free constant universal recognizing of it especially to those that come to him with their humble thanks and submission I will record this one expression of his to the Ministers of Wilts Go thank them says he and I will assure you there shall never be any more persecution for conscience sake while I live These are words of an open honest candid clear single hearted Gentleman that we may trust as having nothing of the counterfeit in them in the Earth These are words that I think may serve us so long as by our prayers we can keep him and make those that envy us look black I do therefore set this up for my stone of remembrance and I will engrave my short inscription on it Hitherto For it is true there is something moreover that some of us would have but not of the King To let in any into the publick Vineyard and to make it signifie must be by an Act against pluralities with it His Majesty does see that Comprehension does draw deeper than his single will And who shall come come after the King that hath once talkt with him for knowledg in this matter Seeing therefore that by thee we enjoy much quietness and that very worthy deeds are done unto this Nation by thy providence we accept it always and in all places most noble Felix with all thankfulness But what does not the King assume an Authority in this Declaration more than he hath when he himself dispenses with an Act and Acts of Parliament and what say you to that I answer I will not take upon me to decide such a case as this is which belongs to the Lawyers but as a Divine so far as conscience is concerned and it is but a mans own conscience he goes by I will speak my opinion The King himself does tell us that the Law does give him such a supremacy as this in Ecclesiastical matters and that it is asserted in several Statutes Now what reason there is for any of us to believe contrary to his assertion unless we our selves were better lawyers than his Council He I know not I will take the hint from this man Elias dicat quando venerit We all know that the King hath power to dispense with some Laws for any Lawyer to undertake to lay down the precise critical note of difference between those Laws which he may suspend those he may not I believe will be hard whereas we that go only by Politicks in general think this most easie The Supream Law must over-rule all under it and in all human Laws salus Reipublicae is suprema lex It is certain when any Laws prove disadvantageous to the Community they themselves grow into disuse and when we have power to suspend our duty why the King as Executor of the Law may not suspend the penalty or may not proceed so far as this Declaration Elias dicat quando venerit The King I suppose may call the Clergy to make Ecclesiastical Constitutions and by his Authority alone without a Parliament ratifie or put a sanction on them whether then he may not do as much as he hath done for us in this gracious Indulgence Elias dicat quando venerit I have observed in reading the Statute-Book wherein the King's Supremacy is concern'd against the Pope That the Crown of England is called Imperial whether that be any thing or no to signifie his Authority to be absolute without his Parliament in matters Ecclesiastical though not in Civil I cannot tell but if it be Elias dicet quando venerit When in Henry the Eighth's time they took away the Supremacy from the Pope they gave the same to the King and if the Popes Authority in Ecclesiasticals was undoubtedly over the Parliament whether the Kings may not be so also Elias dicat quando venerit We know that the sole power of the Militia which is one Right of Majesty is declared to lye in the King in some late Acts when Legislation and the Purse belongs not to him without his Parliament and why he may not have such a Supremacy in Ecclesiasticals which he hath not in Civils as well as one of the Rights of Majesty and not others according to the temperature of our mixt State Elias dicat quando venerit Above all could we suppose the whole Nation convened and were to give their vote whether the King should have this power he hath exerted or whether it should lye in the power of this present Parliament and not in Him alone I believe the major vote would be for the King And when in the erecting of Commonwealths it is the consent of the people is that which is the conditio regnandi or causa sine qua non the Authority of self flows immediately from God upon that condition being put whether that Prince who is perswaded in his conscience he does nothing but that for which he hath the hearts good-wills of the generality as in this good deed of his Majesty in this Declaration he may not have a good conscience toward God however he be judged by men or the Sages of the Law I must leave that also till
Elias come Elias dicet quando venerit as the Jews speak I will conclude with that saying however of Bracton Si ab co peccatur locus erit supplicationi quod factum suum corrigat emendet quod quidem si non fecerit satis erit ei ad paenam quod Dominum expectet ultorem Nemo enim de factis suis praesumat disquirere multo minus contra factum venire Brac. l. 1. c. 8. But again in point of Divinity Fanaticism and Popery is sin Idolatry and may sin any sin be tolerated I distinguish there is a Private and Publick Toleration and publick Toleration is either in the Church or in the State No sin is to be privately tolerated but every soul is bound to renounce every sin and to live in no evil course of life with will and knowledge unto death upon pain of damnation Again no sin may be tolerated publickly by the Minister but he is to reprove all and spare none that he may deliver his own soul Besides if any sin be lived in contumaciously to the scandal of others such sinners are not to be tolerated in the Church but to be cast out till they repent But to think that no sin therefore must be tolerated by the Magistrate in the World or in the State without considering whether it be consistent or no with the publick peace or welfare which is external is a thought that must be unthought again For the world are Idolators the World lyes in wickedness and if the wicked be cast out of the Church it is into the World they are cast Nay surely if God had appointed every sin to have its punishment in this World what need were there of a general Assizes in the next I wrot to you not to company with Fornicators yet not altogether with the Fornicators of this World or with the Covetous or Extortioners or with Idolaters for then must ye needs go out of the World This is certain God does suffer sin to be when he might hinder it and that by a course of Justice if he would immediately strike men dead for example I cannot but judge therefore that though no sin may be done by the Magistrate himself nor may he be partakers of it with others that good may come of it yet may he tolerate the sinner in his sin which he concurs no ways in as God permits it in the World viz. when a greater good does accrue to his subjects by that Toleration then by the Punishment Distinguish say Divines between cogere ad fidem and interdicere exercitio in heterodoxia Posterius ad euitandum corruptionem scandala competit Magistratui Distinguish again say they of a Common-wealth or Kingdom free and not free from diverse Religions Ibi cavendae hic tolerandae sed cum conditione ne publica Religionis exercitia facile concedantur One would think his Majesty no small casuistica Divine by the carriage of this Declaration I will close this up with that pertinent passage and Comment of Augustine Cum Apostolus precipit nolite iungi cum infidelibus exite de medio corum non intelligunt neminem coniungi cum insidelibus nisi qui facit peccata Paganorum vel talia facientibus favet nec quunquam fieri participem iniquitatis nisi iniquam vel agat vel approbat Contra Epistolam Parmeniani l. 2. c. 18. After this I must confess as to Popery I do hope that there is indeed no Foundation of those surmises which this Prefacers question must buzze amongst us for all his saying also that there is none For to go to bring in a Religion upon a people which is no more prepared for it then we are for Popery in this Nation were but the committing of a rape or ravishment upon the publick conscience and possession being got without getting our good wills could not likely be long retained nor could be lost again neither but with an exceedingly encreased disadvantage to that party Nevertheless seeing our Prefacer hath offered the supposition I do both declare the effectual means to prevent it and who they are must be the cause of it if the event comes upon us But the Kings Majesties Declaration I know sticks still in their stomacks The penal Laws are taken off from the Papists and from the Fanaticks And what then I do believe we shall have never the more Papists nor Fanaticks for that No they have one Argument Difficulty and Suffering the less for their Church The penal Laws did but whet their appetite their own fulness will serve to cloy them and give them enough But the Church is divided division countenanced and is not Schism and Separation forbidden It hath been declared to me of you that there are contentions among you I answer the Kings Declaration found these Divisions in the Nation it does not make them Division and Separation simply considered are neither good nor evil There may be reason to divide or separate some persons from others out of prudence as the Catechumens from the fully instructed of old for their greater edification It is not all division or separation is Schism but sinful division Such Divisions as the Apostle here also calls Contention I must confess I have been a man professed still against Separation but this Declaration does seem to me to take away the very sore it self which was in our separate Meetings till now It is by Gods providence a Medicinal Declaration And I will tell you my thoughts freely as I use to do when I write I look upon the call of a Nation to the Christian Religion and and the Nations answering that call to make a Church National The King is head over his people as a Nation and that in Ecclesiasticals as well as Civils As National head he hath appointed the Parochial Churches and required that all his Subjects should frequent these Assemblies for the acknowledging glorifying or National serving and worshipping the true God and Jesus Christ whom we have received This worship and service in the nature of it being intrinsecally good and the external order such as that of place and the like circumstances being properly under his jurisdiction it hath seemed hitherto to me that unless there was something in that order or way by him prescribed which is sinful and that required too as a condition of that Communion there is no man might refuse his attendance on those Parochial Assemblies without the sin of disobedience and consequently his separation thereby becomming sinful it was Schism Now Sirs It having pleased the Almighty to put it into the heart of the King not onely to forbear and connive at the Non-Conformist in their Preaching but to allow appoint and design by his solemn Declaration stated places for their Assemblies according to the good hand of our God upon him it does appear to me that these particular Assemblies having the Authority of the Supreame Head of the Church equally with the Parish Churches they are manifestly
constituted thereby parts of the Church National whereof he is Head no less then the Parish assemblies The matter is all one as if a Parish onely which was too big should be divided into two where I say there is Separation no Schism I will undertake to make it good that the Bishops Consecration of a Church is not necessary to the making the Society that Assembles therein to be a particular Church or part of the National but that the Kings Authority alone is enough for that Relation Nay I know not but the King upon the same account might constitute unmaintenanced Bishops over those particular Congregate Churches if he pleased as well as he hath maintained Bishops over those that have Livings if it were to any purpose at all and for his peoples edification Well now then if any Licensed person shall gather their Congregations in a way of opposition to the Parish Churches which he hath also establisht by denial of them to be true Churches I do account still that all such partaking thereby with the Novatian and the Donatist of old must come under the condemnation of the Fathers and Councels passed upon their error and that is that which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we call Separation If any again shall gather a people in a way of strife pride vain-glory envy contention which are breaches of Christianity when the end of the Commandment is Charity I will account this also being sinfull it does make those conventions Schismatical But if a man shall come honestly and peaceably in the fear of God with prudence and innocency as becomes a Christian to set up one of these Meetings by vertue of the same Authority as the Parish Priest hath his I will desire any that can to shew me now where the sin is to be found If he can shew it me I will consent to him that he shall call all these Meetings Schismatical still upon condition that if he cannot he will pardon them henceforth who do go to these particular Churches by the Kings appointment now parts of the National with the same veneration and regard as to the Parish Congregations We will thank the late ingenuous Author who advised us to take heed that Toleration be not abused and we do shew wherein that care is to be taken that we may not abuse it but when he would have had the Non-Conformist under pretence of not abusing his liberty to take such a course only as not to use it at all though the generality of us do judge they should most glorifie God this way he deserved to be blamed who upon the conviction will perhaps as soon as any be ready to thank God with us if a door so effectual be opened then we may without offence and without Schism joyn our strength in a mutual love and concord for the carrying on the great work of mans Salvation throughout the Nation But are not these Presbyterians very Knaves who stood before on Christs Authority for their Preaching and now take Licenses of the King While their plea was the same with the Apostles that they ought to obey God rather then Man we could bear with them but now we shall never abide them more I pray Sirs good words As Charity always thinketh the best I see this all will still thinketh nothing but evil If it were the duty of the Non-Conformist Minister to Preach before his Majesties Declaration it must be his duty still and if when we have obtained such grace as this is the Presbyterian should not accept it when there is no more doubt of prejudicing our Ministry thereby then the Apostles did theirs when they had leave of the Masters of the Synagogues to say on who would have fallen on the whole party so foully for refractory and perverse fellows as these men It is true we look on Christs Commission to be enough for our Preaching when we judge it for Gods Glory but to Preach in such a place and in such circumstances is we count in the dispose of the Magistrate The Magistrate hath the power of external order and may forbid a man to Preach I say in such a place when he cannot forbid him to Preach or else our Pulpits were our own still for all the Act of Uniformity The Presbyterians take Licenses of the King in reference to the place of their Assemblies Nay this authority of the King in slating these places and Meetings for them does incorporate them as integral parts or particular fellow congregations with those of the Parochial constitution into the Church National united under him as the Supreme Head which is a matter of that great weight and consequence as we have not yet looked about us to bless God enough for it Hereby can the Non-Conformist make his publick acknowledgement which he would have of the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiasticals no less then the Bishop and yet his conscience not be burdened with the Diocesan Truely I know not but his Majesty really hath discerned more for the hitting the business of coagulating his whole people into one Ecclesiastical National society or body under him hereby then any of us were a warre of who could not see before any reason for such proceedings as are taken in this Declaration which we shall approve henceforth with a great deal of satisfaction But did not these men in the late Wars take part with the Parliament and now they submit to the Kings Declaration against an Act of Parliament Be it so The Act of Parliament is against the command of God The King permits what God bids Who should the subject obey but God and the King As for the War I perceive it will still be ript up though against the Act of Oblivion It was not upon the account of Religion it must be first known that it will be owned In the cause of Religion if we be persecuted we may fly Christ allows us but we may not resist The case then I account a singular case It was upon the Militia they began the old King said The King and Parliament was divided that is certain and the question was where the Authority or the most of it did lye some thought in the one some in the other and so were engaged I will speak now once for all that the mouths of these men may be stopped with reason for nothing else will do it There are some have thought thus The Government of this Nation is mixt A mixt Government is where the supreme Authority is not placed purely in the People or the Nobles or the Monarch but mixtly in them all The supreame Legislative power in this Nation lies in the King and his two Houses joyntly not severally as one Corporation says Judge Jenkins or to speak surely as one Parliament The Parliament which is to be one in Law being divided the constitution is broken that being broken the Government is dissolved and the power returned at that season to the people The people being at liberty
many men of sober spirits thought themselves bound to go that way which would most tend to the advancement of Religion And this is the true state of their cause which though I my self in my judgement for my university Oaths sake was otherwise inclined I do humbly offer in Justice for their Apology Onely I must add this that the occasion which happened once that was the Kings own deposing his power of dissolving the Parliament at that time being like never to be again there is no hurt at all in it If after this these men will yet press us further I will return that the state of the case being quite altered the King brought in again and with universal consent into the old constitution here is a wonderful kind of thing fallen out that the Fanatick or Anti-Episcopial party of the Nation are really turning to be the Royalist who are for Prorogative Supremacy in Ecclesiasticals when the Bishops party who have made it hitherto a proverb that without them no King are the men bandy against it for the maintenance of these Acts of Parliament And thus much shall suffice as to the first thing offered by the Prefacer about Popery and the Kings Declaration Sect. 3. I come then now to the other thing that requires our notice which is a matter indeed of great moment and therefore intended by me for the main task of my present engagement and that is his asserting an authority in the Magistrate over the conscience of his Subjects in matters of Religion So he hath expressed it and made it the subject of two other Books and insists upon it still in this Preface I am willing therefore to enter into a dissertation with him about the point for it will be worthy not only of our two labours but of another learned pious studious and worthy Knight who was the Author of the Papers entituled Liberty of Conscience and whom I shall purposely engage with the Prefacer that if it be possible we may all three together will we nill we beat out the right determination of the business As for the Prefacer I must needs say that I take him to be a man of fewer years and quicker parts and of a more flourishing Pen than to be fit at least of himself for the undertaking any such point as this is For either a man must be of a patient complexion that can read over all that is written by others about the subject and then give us the Compendium according to his judgment or he must be able by fixing long upon one thing and inculcating the thoughts of it upon the mind to frame his own notion in such a fore-casting of it through the whole train of its consequences to the end as to make it hold together which is not the work unius Diei or unius liturae to use the expression of the Bishop offer'd to my hand I know that the happiness of the first conceit does much but it is not the nimbleness of the Pen and a torrent of words does the rest Nay rather it is this volubility of the tongue which is Truth 's great Harlot while the handsomness of the expression will be ready still to allure away the judgment from that closer attendance to the dry notion that Controversal points or Cases of Conscience do require which should not therefore be writ in the style of this age For the language particularly of this person I cannot but compare methinks to a like present fashion in the Garments of Women the superfluity of whose dimensions may perhaps make their bodies look more stately but it will trip their heels up besides the cumbersomness if they take not heed to themselves or some other come after to keep them from falling Well! the business this notable eloquent Gentleman hath to do in this Preface is for ought I see really only to abuse the Non-Conformists and so fasten upon them some charge if he could tell what against whom in reference to their loyalty or duty to the Government But the charge being founded at the bottom only upon his first Book or the cause he hath there managed the best way to answer all his partiâ—ulars wil be to let them quite alone without raking the Dunghill up and to touch only in general upon the foundation There are two passages then I will cite out of this Preface for there are no more I count of that nature which I make my concern All their exceptions relate either to the Power in it self or to the matters of the Command The first are directly levell'd against the very being of Authority and Magistrates of what kind soever according to their general pretences must not dare to put any restraint upon their subjects consciences lest they invade the Divine Prerogative overthrow the fundamental liberties of human nature and undo honest men for their loyalty to God and their Religion Now if this right be claimed without limitation then the consequence is unavoidable That subjects may when ever they please cross with the authority of their Governours upon any pretence that can wear the name of Religion But this being grosly absurd the necessity of a Soveraign power in matters of Religion is granted and all Arguments that prove it in general necessary to Peace and Government are allowed or at least are not contradicted for what ever admits an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction howsoever bounded and limited admits it and that is enough to the first assertion of a supream Authority over the Conscience in matters of Religion Again after eighteen pages farther And they are exhorted above all things to keep their Consciences i.e. themselves free from the usurpation of all human Laws that is in effect they are forbidden to make any conscience of subjection to Princes for it is only Conscience that is capable of the obligation of Laws so that if they be exempt the whole man is at liberty By these two passages it does appear to me that this Ecclesiastical Politician from the beginning of his setting out to the end does run all along in that confusion as it will be hard to bring him to sorts But it shall suffice me to offer two distinctions which alone as I hope may serve to do this work both of drawing him out of his darkness and convincing others thereby of the injury of his accusations Distinguish we then first between the Authority of the Magistrate over his Subjects in matters of Religion and an Authority over the Conscience in any matters whatsoever It is manifest in the very expression of his Title and the customary language of his first Book and of this Preface That he does confound Conscience with the Matters of Religion whereas there are matters of Religion wherein the Conscience may not be concerned and matters wherein the Conscience may be concerned they be no Ecclesiastical matters The second distinction then is between Subjection which refers to the Authority residing in the Magistrate himself and
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
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