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
cognizance of the civil Magistrate by his Laws and in his State are deservedly punished so As if a Church-member be drunk the Magistrate may take him up in the street and set him by the heels but if the Pastor of the Church see him so he hath no such power as to punish his outward man but to administer Admonition or Excommunication as the matter requires till the person offending is brought to true godly Remorse and Reformation but the Church hath nothing to do to imprison him put him in the Stocks c. or deliver him to the Magistrate by their Sentence so to be dealt with § 6. Arg. 3. If the Church can and ought to use the Sword of the Magistrate it 's surely to correct for the most gross and criminal Transgressions as for Drunkenness Swearing Lying-Theft Fornication c. for all just Laws inflict the most Exemplary Punishments on the most hainous and scandalous Offenders But it 's most evident the Church cannot use the Sword of the Magistrate in case of the most criminal and hainous Transgression because 1. Christ nowhere empowers a Church or so much as allows it as such to fine imprison hang c. for offences deserving the same at the hands of the civil Magistrate 2. He nowhere requires the Churches to become Informers unto civil Magistrates it belongs to the Magistrate to look after the observation of his own Laws the Church is not to be his Constable to seize Offenders for him neither is the State to be the Churches Hangman to execute for her each State is to look after the execution of their own Laws in their own way and manuer 3. Where Paul is distinct in each particular of the censure to be denounced upon the incestuous person 1 Cor. 5.4 requiring them to execute it in a strict and sharp manner in the Name and Power of the Lord Jesus and although Incest is a crime to be punished by the Judge and with death by the Law of God he writes not to the Church to inflict any corporal punishment on him neither doth he certifie the civil Magistrate against him or command the Corinthians to inform What Peter did in the case of Ananias was extraordinary and miraculous and not presidential in the least to any succeeding Church-Officers neither did he assume any civil Authority in so doing § 7. Neither doth the National Church notwithstanding all her severity used towards Non-conformists execute any such punishments on the like sort of gross Offenders or by the highest censures turn them over to Civil Powers for that end though she saith that all men and women inhabiting within her Precincts at least all such as are christened are actually Church-members and although it 's a confessed Principle of all Protestants that all openly scandalous Church-members incorrigible ought by censure to be cut off from Communion and although her self affirms that the ultimate means to be used in cases of obstinacy persisted in which she calls Contempt after Church-censures is the application of the Magistrates Coercive power Now how well she doth apply these Church-Remedies to the scandalous Church-members let the impartial judge Is it not requisite that she should wait upon all her Tyburn and Goal-bird Sons and Daughters a little more than she doth and endeavour first by Admonition to bring them to Remorse and in case of obstinacy to excommunicate them and not suffer obstinate Felons and Traitors to be hang'd within the Pale of the Church Indeed there needs no certifying to the Magistrate and taking them by a Writ de Excom cap. because the Magistrate hath secured them already but I will tell you where there is need viz. for the picking up of obstinate contumacious Drunkards Swearers and fornicating Church-members which the Land swarms with And what a blessed Reformation would there be if Mother-Church did do her duty in this kinde so strictly as she deals with Non-conformists viz. in admonishing them and in case of contumacy to excommunicate them and upon their perseverance in the said sins to take them all up with Writs de Excom cap. and send them to Prison there to abide till they repent If the Church proceeded thus with the generality of scandalous and loose Parish-members the major part left at liberty would be Non-conformists and if they were secured too for Non-conformity the old Woman might know where to finde most of her children of both adventures But who is so blinde as not to see the unspeakable Partiality of the Church in this kind in crying out against the conscientious Dissenters and persecuting of them in so merciless and outrageous a manner and in letting all the rest of the ranting debauched Church-members go Scot-free yea and encouraging them to persecute the rest more serious and conscientious under the name of Separatists and Schismaticks Dat veniam corvis vexat censura columbas Juven § 8. The second part of the Question about the use of the Magistrates Sword in execution of Ecclesiastical Justice is built upon a supposition that the Church might make Laws besides what Christ hath made i. e. supposing she might change Indifferencies into Necessities by positive Laws The Question is Whether it be agreeable to her Justice and Wisdom to annex to her Laws the said corporal or pecuniary Punishments or cause the Magistrate so to do We answer in the Negative for these reasons 1. Because to annex or cause to be annexed the severest punishments or at least most smarting to Offenders of Laws of least concernment to the Publick weal of Church and State and of the least necessity in respect of the Observers is neither Justice nor Wisdom but for the Church to annex Excommunication or cause to be annexed corporal Punishments or pecuniary Mulcts to Laws of her own making in matters of Indifferency is to put the severest Penalties to Laws of least concernment The Major is most evident because Wisdom and Justice always requires that there be a due proportion between the weight of Obedience required and the Punishment of the Disobedience forbidden The Minor is granted by the Imposers and Composers of Ecclesiastical Laws of this kind and as they think a plausible defence of themselves in so doing viz. that they exercise this Legislation onely in matters of smaller concern not necessary to salvation left by Christ indifferent and what necessary goodness they pretend to be in them is the shewing our obedience to our Superiours and satisfying the Will of man and some little external Decency and superficial Uniformity And for offending in this kind her children mâ—st be stript of Priviledges and laid open to all injuries of Church and State Doth this consist of Christian Prudence and Justice Is it not to tythe Mint and Annice with the greatest zeal and not onely to neglect the weighty Laws but to encourage the violation of them by taking into her bosome and dandling on her knee the most audacious Transgressors and the greatest and most professed Enemies
or over the Catholick Church as the Pope and if there be no such Monarchical Substitute of Jesus Christ here on Earth it will appear that all the rest will fall to the ground Therefore as to them I shall not actum agere my principal part will be with the Protestants that do assert such Officers in the Church and yet deny the Popes Supremacy To whom I say in the second place and anon shall prove that there cannot be any such Officers as above-mentioned in the Church without a Supreme Pastor those Pastors being Subordinate Pastors of Subordinate Churches And that this Question may be cleared to every rational Protestant that is not fanatically blinded with Pride Ignorance and Interest I shall crave leave of my Reader in a short Digression to handle this Question Whether a Subordination of Pastors in the Church doth not necessarily infer a Supreme Pastor CHAP. XIV A Digression concerning the Subordination of Pastors § 1. AMong the many Difficulties and inevitable Rocks that the Protestant Prelacy is necessitated upon by casting off the Headship of the Oecumenical Pastor not only in asserting but exerting their Episcopal Jurisdiction or Pastoral Power in the Legislation and Execution Ecclesiastical pretended unto I thought it not amiss to debate one main Question wherein some part of the greatest stress of difficulty in that kinde doth consist and that is this Whether the asserting the Subordination of Pastors in the Church doth not by all good consequence infer the Supremacy of an Oecumenical or Vniversal Pastor We understand the word Church here as before explained i. e. when we say The Church by way of eminency we understand not or should not at least any Individual Parochial Diocesan Provincial National Congregational or Classical Church but the Vniversal Church comprehensive of all these and enfolding them as the outmost skin of an Onion involves all the other subordinately one within another By an Oecumenical Pastor is meant a Pastor of the highest degree here on Earth related in his Pastoral charge to the whole visible Church by whatsoever Names Titles or Dignities he is known and is a Bishop in the highest preheminence of Ecclesiastical Rule and Jurisdiction here on Earth from whom there can be no Appeal to any Earthly Bishop or Governour and this is the Militant Pastor of the Church-Catholick Militant to which according to their supposition of Subordinated Pastors all the other Degrees and Orders must be subjected By Subordination is meant the substituting or subjecting one under another the terms of which is the Supreme Highest and most Vniversal on one side and the most particular Priest or Pastor on the other The Question being stated and the Terms explained the Truth will by necessary Consequence appear on the Affirmative part that Subordination of Pastors in the Church doth necessarily infer◠the Supremacy of an Oecumenical Pastor or Bishop And I prove it thus § 2. There is the same Political Reason for an Vniversal Pastor or Supreme Head on Earth over all other Pastors and Churches that there is for any Subordinate Pastor that hath other Pastors subjected unto him Instance in a Diocesan Bishop ruling his Parish-priests or Parochial Pastors if they may be allowed any higher title than the Bishops Curates the chief end of the said Bishop being Jurisdiction Determination of Ecclesiastical Causes Regulation and Ordination of his Clergy Unity Order Uniformity c. By the same political Reason though in a higher Sphere of Government is an Archbishop or Provincial Pastor required for regulation of Bishops of Diocesses committed to his charge maintaining the Unity of the Provincial Church Order and Vniformity therein that every weak giddy-headed Bishop may not govern after the Fancies of his own brain but that every one should be notwithstanding all their Lord-like Grandeur accountable to the Archbishop for any male-administration of Government or neglect of charge committed to their care The reason holds good in like sort for a National Pastor the Metropolitan Primate or Patriarch that the whole National Church consisting of Provinces divided into Diocesses and they into Parishes be maintained Vniform in Worship and Vnited under one National Ecclesiastical Head and Governour to whom the supreme Administration of Pastoral Function in the Church National should belong as to oversee nextly and more immediately the Provincial Pastors and Churches and more remotely all other Pastors and Churches in the Nation that there be no Divisions Schisms Heresies Contempts disorderly Conversation irregular proceedings among Pastors and People but an harmonious concatenation from the highest to the lowest to whom and his Commission-courts all Appeals from Inferiour Provincials and Diocesans may be made The Subordination of Pastors thus far allowed and granted an Universal Pastor must be inferred by unavoidable consequence For as yet there is the like necessity of uniting National Churches in one Universal Church under one Catholick Pastor as was for uniting Provincial Churches in a Nation and subjecting them to a National Pastor or Primate or subjecting Diocesses and their respective Bishops to an Archbishop or Provincial Pastor sic deineeps For by how much the more universal the Church is by so much the more universal the Pastoral Charge and Jurisdiction must be And as the National is to the Vniversal Visible Church so the National Pastor to the Catholick Pastor by a Mathematical Proportion And the like ground of relation as is betwixt a National Pastor and a National Church consisting nextly of Provinces is also betwixt an Oecumenical Pastor and an Oecumenical Church consisting nextly of Nations And if Unity Uniformity and regular Administration of Church-Government be indispensably necessary in a National Church and the care of these things to be committed primarily and principally to a National Pastor how much more is it necessary in the Catholick Church constituted and made up of National Churches nextly the care of which to be committed to an Oecumenical Pastor And if the Schisme of a Province or Diocess be of so dangerous consequence to a National Church of how much more dangerous will the Schisme of a National from the Catholick Church be § 3. Secondly I prove that they that maintain the Government of the Church by Bishops Archbishops and Primates must also own an Universal Visible Pastor from the nature of the Catholick Visible Church 1. It must be either an organized or unorganized Body and made up of partes similares only the latter will not be owned by such Assertors by reason of the gross Absurdities tending to Separation and Phanaticisme that must necessarily be inferred on such a concession If they say it is an Organized Body which is most suitable to the Grandeur and Splendour of Mother Church that she should be made up of the most curious texture and the most proportionate adaptation of parts it is by no means to be supposed that a visible Body eminent in all other parts should be Corpus vivum animatum and yet want a Visible
Bishop Now the Church of England hath presumed to alter this Title and Institution making it a Festival to St. Michael and all Angels which hath these gross Absurdities in it 1. That St. Michael is greatly detracted from in that all other Angels are introduced as sharers in the Solemnity of the day and all Angels may be understood of Bad as well as Good so that the Devils hereby become Canonized Saints Now whereas it may be alledged that there be some Saints-days not of Catholick Observation but only National as St. Denis for France St. George for England St. Taffy or Wales and St. Patrick for Ireland it bears no weight against us for the Canonization is Catholick and questionless the Observation ought to be so also though there is a more peculiar and more proper Remembrance and Honour due from those Nations to which the Saints are appropriate which peculiar Homage is enjoyn'd by the Church catholick Moreover it is meet that so solemn a matter should be ratified by Catholick Authority as the canonizing a Saint and instituting a Festival day to be sacred to his Remembrance because the Catholick Church as she will be most impartial and wise in such appointments so her Authority will make deeper impressions on the minds of men to oblige them to the consciencious observance whereas particular Nations are liable to Errour and Partiality each one being apt to be byassed by proper Interests and to prefer the products of their own Soyl. Besides the gross Schism that it causeth in the Catholick Church dividing the Churches in their Prayers at the same time when one Nation shall observe that day to one Saint and another to another and a third to none at all Whereas nothing is more honourable and necessary than Vniformity in this kinde That as all say the same Prayers they should do it at the same Hours canonically appointed use the same Ceremonies observe the same Holidays and such as are Anniversary should at least be of Catholick Appointment And though some Saint-days are more appropriate to one Nation than to another by reason of the relation of this or that Saint to this or that Nation in particular by Nativity by Heroick Actions or Meritorious Sufferings therein yet is it not meet that all Churches should rejoyce and keep Holy-day with one that rejoyceth If the Rule of rejoycing with them that rejoyce reach particular Christians then much more Churches And how can an Englishman but be mightily ravished with an holy Sympathy to see a Welshman zealously affected with the honour of St. Taffy strutting up and down with a green feather in his Cap can he forbear the plucking up all the Leeks in his Garden and calling all the Fidlers in the Town about him And is it not fit that St. Thomas à Becket's day should be honourably observed by all other Churches as well as England who engaged in and suffered for the common Catholick Cause opposed in this Church If the Devoted day be peculiar to a Nation as an Anniversary Memorial of some great Deliverance supposed it 's fit it should have its Sanction from the Catholick Church otherwise National Churches may run into absurd and Schismatical Observation of days under such pretences to the great Scandal and Injury of the Catholick Church as for instance the Fifth of November a day Annually observed by a National Church to the great Scandal and Blemish of the Catholick Church and Oecumenical Pastor in the sence of the Romanists § 16. But some I hear will be ready to say in order to these necessary establishments there will be no need of a Catholick Pastor they may be done well enough by Oecumenical Councils To which I reply That then the Church acteth not as a Body Politick subordinately knit together but as totum aggregatum or as an Assembly of Independent Pastors by way of Association whence many Absurdities will follow 1. That all the convened Pastors of what Order or Degree soever are co-ordinate at least in the power pleaded for and a Primate or Patriarch's Vote is no more than a Diocesan's 2. That the Church in the utmost resolution of its power is but Aristocratical which undermines Episcopal Principles 3. If because matters of greatest concern in the Catholick Church are managed by an Oecumenical Council therefore there needs no Oecumenical Pastor then by the same reason all matters of the greatest concern in a National Church being handled in a National Synod there should be no need or use of a Primate and sic deinceps to Provinces and Diocesses and so all Church-power would consequently become co-ordinate in the hands of particular Pastors 4. What course could be taken in the Intervals of Councils for the Churches Government in its Catholick state 5. Divisions and Schisms have and will follow hereupon in the Church for suppose the Council be equally divided in their voting about Scripture Interpretation Tradition Ceremonies or Decencies who shall determine in such case 6. Suppose the lesser part divide from and declare against the greater and its proceedings What Supreme Power is there Authoritatively to conclude them Ecclesiastically to admonish and reduce the Erring part 7. Oecumenical Councils cannot easily and presently be convened in case of emergent Church-difficulties as in the sudden Defection of a National Church or Pastor to Schism or Heresie in the starting up of new Sects Canonization of new Saints c. An Errour may spread itself soon over a whole Nation before such a Council can be called and any remedy applied 8. It is needful every Church do exercise its power in an unity and not in a multiplicity therefore there are National Provincial and Diocesan Pastors Therefore there should be a Catholick Pastor to the Church catholick for the avoiding the like Rocks and Precipices that other Churches would split upon if they had not their particular Heads and Pastors § 17. Sixthly We argue from the Necessity of calling and convening of Ecclesiastical Councils In whose power is it to call an Oecumenical Council if there be no Oecumenical Pastor in the Church For first the Assemblies of every Church are to be convened only by the Pastor of the said Church as in a Diocess Who can authoritatively convene the Clergy but the Bishop of the Diocess In a Province Who can convene the Diocesan Bishops but the Archbishop In a Nation Who hath power Ecclesiastically to convene a National Synod besides the Metropolitan or Patriarch so in the Catholick Church who hath power Ecclesiastically to convene an Oecumenicul Council but the Oecumenical Pastor It being a Pastoral charge to convene or dismiss Church-Assemblies and it is done by an Office-power Object Supreme Magistrates may call Oecumenical Councils Answ They cannot by any Ecclesiastical Right for considered as such they cannot exercise any Pastoral Office And an Oecumenical Council being the most eminent Church-Assembly it is not to be convened in a more irregular or exotick way than the inferiour Assemblies of
considered according to its internal and its external acting It s internal acting is its believing assenting concurring judging between fact and fact or disbelieving dissenting condemning c. and these are those that are Actus eliciti and they are not without doubt under any humane Law or Power in the world either to force them where they are not or to obstruct them where they are As men may not presume to do it by any external compulsion so there is an impossibility in the nature of the thing that it can never be accomplished 'T is onely God's Prerogative to charge us to believe under a penalty and the light of Truth carries demonstration with it to challenge our assent and call forth our understanding to a free acting unless we be inveloped in the darkness of corrupt nature or captivated in slavery to any Lusts Neither is it in the power of man to remove this vail it 's God onely by the light of Truth working by its prevailing evidence and the mighty operation of the divine Spirit which way it pleaseth that can effect this Hence he that makes a penal Law that this or that thing is a truth and to be believed by me to be assented and consented unto and doth endeavour to compel me to such a belief and assent by the threats and punishments of this Law doth usurp a power that was never given unto him by God neither was ever practicable to effect the end pretended to § 4. Secondly There are external acts Actus imperati of Conscience as professing subscribing declaring doing but these are not properly acts of Conscience but from Conscience as they ought to be under the Rule and Dominion and direction of Conscience and will come to be duely considered in this place whether any man may be thus compelled by any subordinate Power and doubtless there is none that can compel a man to act from Conscience no more than he can compel him to understand or will what he pleaseth for though the acts are external and may be compelled de facto and in some cases de jure the principle of good or evil actions viz. from Conscience cannot be compelled the relation it hath to Conscience is internal as if a man be brought and forc'd upon his Knees before an Idol c. it is no formal act of Conscience for that still resists and opposeth the action though it 's improperly called a forcing of Conscience when a man is thus forced to an action against his Conscience Indeed he is forcibly induced through fear or sense of some evil to do or omit something against his light and conviction and the choice is also free he being attended with such circumstances yet it is said to be compelled because the argument of a Penalty to be incurred upon refusal is very strong to reach flesh to prevent the suffering of which the Will is carried away to chuse that as a comparative good which the enlightned Understanding allows not as lawful nor the Will as absolutely good and this is that compulsion of Conscience which is most usually found in the world And here it will be enquired whether any Subordinate power can lawfully compel us to such imperate acts Ans 1. I say men may make and execute de jure such a Law as many cannot in conscience submit unto by way of active obedience so that it be really such as the great Law-giver hath allowed them to make and it be agreeable to the rules and limits of power committed to their charge and the reason of refusal be the weakness and ignorance or prejudice of the Subject or else no Laws could be made or executed in the world for one or other that should obey would be pretending Conscience against it and here the Subject is to submit either actively if after sufficient illumination he findes the goodness and justness of the Law-giver If he doth not he is to refuse to act if he is perswaded it 's utterly unlawful but if it be doubtfully so he is to suspend his acts till he is better informed and patiently submit to the Magistrates will and pleasure in the Penalty-execution but if any Power endeavour to enforce obedience that no Power enacting may lawfully do and require us and force us with penalties it 's questionless very great Usurpation We must also consider the matter about which this compulsion may be conceived to be No Magistrate may compel to any thing against Conscience quatenus such Scil. under the formality and notion of being against Conscience that were the greatest Tyranny in the world Or we may understand it of compelling under the notion of Truth and so a Faith must be enforced which no man is capable of accomplishing this way Or Thirdly under the notion of Duty not respecting how the Consciences of persons stand affected in relation to it on whom it is urged And thus the Magistrate may compel to the doing of good or avoiding of evil by penal Edicts though accidentally it may be against the Consciences of some on whom it is imposed for the Magistrate being not a competent Judge of mens Consciences he cannot make other mens Consciences the rule of his Laws and Executions but the will of the Lord whose Ministers he is and the good of the Commonweal that is committed to his trust The Magistrate is not to command or forbid any thing under the formality of being with or against Conscience but he supposing that the Consciences of his Subjects are convinced being sufficiently pre-informed may command any thing to be done or forborn according to that latitude of Rule and Government which he hath received from the Lord whose Minister he is for the right knowledge whereof he ought sincerely and impartially to consult the Word of God and his own Conscience and so to take the measures of his own Duty and Actions Neither is his Conscience the Standard to his Subjects for every one must give an account of himself to God the Magistrate for himself as a Magistrate and the Subject for himself as such and therefore the Conscience of the Magistrate doth not binde the Subject to active obedience though his relation to him as such bindes him to Subjection which is abundantly shewed in his quiet and peaceable submitting himself to the Law-penalty if he cannot satisfie himself that the Magistrate acts in his place according to the revealed Minde and Will of God in such cases provided which cases also are always to be of a civil and politick nature for here he hath power compulsory of the outward man mandatory or prohibitory though the Conscience of the Subject is or may be pretended to be against it § 5. And now that all cause of exception may be removed on all hands it will be requisite more explicitely to shew how far a Christians Conscience hath to do with humane Authority and we grant that humane Authority in civil and politick affairs is an Ordinance of God 2. That
if the Law be just and equitable a Christian is bound in Conscience to yield positive active obedience not onely for wrath i. e. fear of threat and punishment but for Conscience sake because the Law of God obligeth us to obedience to all the just Laws of men civil Government being his appointment as much as Oeconomical but it 's not mans Law that nextly and immediately bindes Conscience to obedience but Gods and mans Law bindes onely by vertue of and for the sake of Gods Hence a man that breaks the just Laws of man sins against God and eo nomine wrongs his Conscience As on the other hand he that obeys an unjust Law of man i. e. a Law no way warrantable by the revealed will of God breaks Gods Law and if his Conscience tell him so he sins against his Conscience which always aggravates any sin against God Hence if at any time he hath to do with any such Law he ought rather to run the hazard of mans displeasure than Gods God is to be obeyed rather than man if one must be disobeyed and obeying God indemnifies Conscience from the guilt of sin in our disobeying of man in the same act So if a Law of man lies before us which we doubt concerning the lawfulness of we are here at least to suspend active obedience while we seek for further information for whether the thing in it self be sin or no it 's not so much to us at present as whether we are satisfied of the nature of it and know what it is by the light of Truth shining in our Hearts it will amount to sin in us to do a doubtful action if the Apostles Doctrine be true But if the Precepts of men be found upon the best examination to be contrary to God's a Christian's Conscience is the most certainly disobliged his duty lies plain before him God's Law is to be observed and hence it is that some can joyfully suffer all wrongs from the hands of men in the case of refusal of active obedience unto their Laws because they are perswaded either from a truely-enlightned Conscience or from an erring which is binding as to present action for a man must walk by that light he hath or by none at all that such refusal of active Obedience and the sufferings of theirs is agreeable to the revealed minde of God and therefore most justifiable at God's and Man's Tribunal § 6. Here will fall in a great enquiry That although it be true that all Humane Power both Legislative and Executive be limited by a superiour Power yet there 's but few that have the felicity of keeping within prescribed bounds or having such Subjects that will not be excepting against the Laws of their Superiours as not agreable to God's Laws and this they will make the Plea for their disobedience Both Superiours and Inferiours will plead Conscience though never so unrighteously what should be done in this case Unto this Allegation many things may be said for it 's sufficiently known that though every Law primarily requires active Obedience yet upon a Transgression it is satisfied with the due execution of the Penalty but for the future expects active Obedience and a reiterated refusal of Obedience the Law looks upon as presumptuous and is really so if this continuation at enmity with the Law be voluntary and deliberate after sufficient Information and Conviction And if this refusal be conjoyn'd with resistance it is no better than Rebellion which we explode as unwarrantable for a Christian About Presumption we distinguish there is that which is really so and that which is onely called so by an unjust Law and mistaking Judge Persisting in refusal of obedience after conviction of our duty is presumption and a sin against God whoever the Law-maker is But if such persistance be justified by the light of God's Law in Conscience it is not a presumptuous sin or any sin at all against God however man may term it a presumptuous breach of his Law for a conscientious Christian can no more obey an unrighteous Law after suffering than before § 7. In all cases of voluntary deliberate refusal of active Obedience to a Law there is and must needs be a wrong done to the Law-giver or Subject To the Law-giver if his Power Law and Ends be good and they not answered for the first end of every Law is and ought to be active Obedience as beforesaid the Law of God first obliging us so to the just Laws of man and the end of the execution of punishment is for the reducing the sufferers to active Obedience and the exemplary restraint of others from Disobedience Hence it follows that a deliberate resolved and constant undergoing of Suffering in this way of refusal is a practical charging the Magistrate with the highest Usurpation and Tyranny in imposing Laws of that nature and therefore the greatest disparaging testimony born against his Law a great reputation in the judgement of the world to the Cause pleaded for let it be truth or errour and the most exemplary disappointment of the Magistrates Law-making ends whereby others are greatly emboldened to the same kind of refusal § 8. In all cases where Magistrates abuse their Power they do a wrong to the supream Judge in going beyond his Commission and intrenching on his Prerogative and do apparent injury to the Subject 1. In that an inferiour subordinate Law-giver hath bereaved him by a Law of those just Liberties and Priviledges granted to him by the Charter of his supream Law-giver 2. In afflicting and grieving his Subject by imposing an unjust Law and causing him to suffer by it when he pleads exemption by a Law in full force and a discharge from a higher Court and is praiseworthy for the said refusal not to be condemned no nor reproached as an evil doer or presumptuous for his permanency in non-obedience 3. In laying his Subject under a necessity of continued and reiterated sufferings he being obliged in Conscience or else to answer the default at a higher Tribunal constantly to persist in his refusal to yield such Obedience though he is to pass under renewed and reiterated penalties for a man to return to obedience after a deliberate suffering is a visible practical condemnation of himself for his former refusal which would greatly reflect on his honour both as a man or a Christian unless by the access of further light he findes his Conscience did erre and so be convinced of his duty then it becomes him both as a man and Christian to retract Humanum est errare beluinum in errore persistere § 9. Now seeing such inevitable wrong lights somewhere in cases of these deliberate refusals it will be enquired who or what must determine to the satisfaction of each party both standing highly on their Justification To which I answer An actual reconciliation is utterly impossible rebus sic stantibus because it will be as the greater overswaying earthly power will have it Deo